spirit of hostility to free institutions, the motive lies beyond the ordinary sphere of this science. But a part of the European powers have attempted to establish a right of interference to put down revolutionary principles in that continent, whether their aid be called for or not. This principle has been avowed, if we mistake not, only since the French revolution; for only since then has absolutism become conscious of its dangers, and of the hatred felt towards it by multitudes of persons scattered through the nations. The plea is, as in the case of the balance of power, one of self-preservation. The stability of all governments, it is alleged, and of all institutions sustained by governments, is threatened by the propagandists of liberty, and even the dread of revolution so greatly paralyzes the energies of states, that everything must be done to make it as remote as possible. It is admitted that no interference undertaken for the direct purpose of spreading absolute principles or absolutism itself, or even for that of crushing free principles, or of overturning settled governments or constitutions set up in an illegitimate way, is to be justified; but it is claimed that revolutions in modern times have been sources of incredible evils, and that the so-called right of a people to alter its government by force is calculated to bring upon Europe eternal commotion and insecurity.

against revolu

tions.

$ 46.

While the French revolution was in progress 1 some of the Instances of in- leading powers of Europe had shown a disposition terference for or to interfere in the affairs of France, partly on the ground that former treaties had been violated, and partly because the king and royal family of France were restrained of their liberty and treated with dishonour. A circular of the Emperor of Germany, of July 6, 1791, invited the principal powers of Europe to declare to the French nation, among other things, that the sovereigns' would unite to avenge any further offences against the liberty, the honour and safety of the king and his family; that they would consider as constitutional laws only those to which the king should have given his free assent; and that they would employ every means of terminating the scandal of a usurpation founded on rebellion, and of which the example was dangerous to every government.' On August 27, in the same year, the same sovereign, with the King of Prussia, signed a declaration to the same effect, in which they invited the monarchs of Europe to unite with them in using

1 Compare Wheaton's Hist. p. 347, et seq., and his El. ii. 1, 102-109, which I have freely used.

'the most efficacious means to put the King of France in a state to enable him with perfect freedom to lay the foundation of a monarchical government, equally consistent with the rights of sovereigns and the welfare of the French nation; in which case they were resolved to act promptly and with necessary forces to obtain the proposed common object. In the meantime they would give the necessary orders to hold their troops in readiness to take the field.' 1

Louis having accepted the new constitution on September 13, 1791, and announced to foreign powers his intention of supporting it, there was no pretext of a restraint upon the king's liberty for an armed intervention in the affairs of France. But unsettled questions in dispute continued, and at length on April 7, 1792, the Austrian ultimatum demanded, together with the restoration of the Venaissin to the Pope, and of their possessions and privileges in Alsace to the princes of the empire, the reestablishment of the French monarchy on the basis of the French king's declaration of June 23, 1789. This necessarily led to the decree in the national assembly that France was in a state of war with Austria. The King of Prussia, on June 26 of the same year, 1792, announced to the world the reasons which induced him, in conjunction with Austria, to take up arms against France. Among them we mention 'the propagation of principles subversive of social order, which had thrown France into a state of confusion;' and 'the encouragement and even official publication of writings the most offensive against the sacred persons and lawful authority of sovereigns. To suppress anarchy in France; to re-establish for this purpose a lawful power on the essential basis of a monarchical form; and by these means to secure other governments against the criminal and incendiary efforts of madmen-such the king declared to be the great objects of himself and his ally.'

The declaration of Austria drew forth at once a counter-statement from the national assembly, drawn up by Condorcet, which, among other things, claimed for every nation the exclusive right of making and changing its laws; denied that France had threatened the general tranquillity, seeing she had renounced al designs of conquest; declared that the avowal of the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, which the nation had made, could not be regarded as disturbing the peace of other states; and rebutted the charge that Frenchmen had excited other nations to insurrection; whilst, on the other hand, emigrants from France had received aid and encouragement from those who brought these complaints, and attempts had been made to excite civil war

1 Wheaton's Hist. p. 346, seq. The passages in quotations are borrowed from that work through this paragraph.

in France. Such complaints were unreasonable 'unless it were lawful to extend servitude and unlawful to propagate liberty; unless everything be permitted against the people, and kings alone have rights.'

England could not, in consistency with the historical development of its own institutions by means of a revolution, adopt the principles on which the continental powers declared war against France. An attitude, however, far from friendly was observed towards that country, and, among the causes of complaint, one was the encouragenent given to revolt in other countries, not only by emissaries sent to England, but by a decree of the convention, which was said to express the design of extending French principles and of promoting revolutions in all countries, even those which were neutral. At length, on the death of Louis, in the beginning of 1793, the French ambassador was ordered to leave the kingdom. A state of war ensued, during which Mr. Pitt declared that there had been no intention, if the country had not been attacked, to interfere in the internal affairs of France. But, no doubt, the atrocities in the summer of 1793, and the closing tragedy of the king's execution, were motives, if not pretexts of hostility. Nor can there be much doubt that the interference of the European powers, above spoken of, produced, or at least intensified, those atrocities, by arousing the national feeling of the French by exciting distrust of the king's good faith, and by making it apparent that no terms could be kept with the sovereigns.

Holy Alliance,

The revolution had its course. The interference was avenged, and the parties to it were humbled. But at length Sept. 26, 1815. France, which destroyed the independence of half of Europe, lost its own, the empire fell, and the old Bourbon dynasty was restored. During the occupation of Paris, consequent on the battle of Waterloo, the three rulers of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, joined afterwards by the French king, formed the Holy Alliance, which has been regarded as a league of absolutism against the rights and the freedom of the nations.

1

This famous league, however, at its inception, appears to have had no definite object in view. It was a measure into which the other sovereigns entered, in order to gratify the Emperor Alexander, whose romantic mind, then under the influence of Madame Krudener, contemplated a golden age, in which the intercourse of nations should be controlled by Christian principles. The parties to the Holy Alliance bound themselves, appealing to the Holy Trinity, to exercise their power according to the principles of religion, justice, and humanity; to afford one another on all occasions aid and help; to treat their subjects and soldiers with 1 The whole compact is given by Mr. Manning in an English version, pp. 82-84.

paternal feeling, and to regard their people as members of a great Christian family, whose guidance was entrusted to them by God.

The congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, at which the five great powers were represented, and which removed the Congress of Aixarmy of occupation from the French fortresses, la-Chapelle, Sept. effected an alliance almost as vague as the Holy Al- 28, 1817. liance, which, according to some of the parties to it, was intended to exercise a supervisory power over European affairs, interfering to prevent all dangerous revolutions, especially when they should proceed from popular movements. They declared, however, their intention to observe scrupulously the law of nations. The sovereigns have regarded,' say they, as the fundamental basis, their invariable resolution never to depart, either among themselves or in their relations with other states, from the strictest observance of the law of nations-principles which, in their application to a state of permanent peace, are alone able to give an effectual guaranty to the independence of each government, and to the stability of their general association.'

Oct. 28, 1820,

The unmeaning nature of such declarations was shown not long afterwards by acts of interference, undertaken Congress of Tropagainst the consent of one European power, and cer- pau-Laybach, tainly not accordant with a rigorous view of the law and onwards. of nations. A feeling of discontent with the anti-liberal movements of most of the continental powers had been growing in intensity in many parts of Europe, when in 1820 and 1821, revolutions broke out in rapid succession in Spain, Naples, and Sardinia, and the constitution of Cadiz, of the year 1812, was proclaimed in all the three kingdoms. The alarm excited by the revolutionary spirit was the occasion of convoking a congress at Troppau in Silesia, in October 1820, which was removed near the end of the same year to Laybach in Styria, and at which not only the five great powers were represented by their sovereigns or by ambassadors, but the King of Naples and deputations from small powers appeared. Against the proposed intervention in the affairs of Italy the British government protested in strong terms, although the existing ministry were not averse to the suppression of revolutionary liberalism; while, on the other hand, the French government approved openly of the intervention, in order to gratify the ultra-royalist party at home, but secretly dreaded the Austrian influence which such a measure would increase. Austria, thus supported, sent an army into the Peninsula, overthrew the revolution almost without a blow in the spring of 1821, and brought back the old absolutism in all its rigour.

The circular despatch of the sovereigns of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, justified these measures by alleging that there existed a vast conspiracy against all established power, and against

all the rights consecrated by that social order under which Europe had enjoyed so many centuries of glory and happiness; that they regarded as disavowed by the principles which constitute the public right of Europe all pretended reform operated by revolt and open hostility; ' that they opposed‘a fanaticism for innovation, which would spread the horror of universal anarchy over the civilised world; that they were far from wishing to prolong this interference beyond the limits of strict necessity, and would ever prescribe to themselves the preservation of the independence and of the rights of each state.' On the other hand, the British government, while it acknowledged the right to interfere, where the 'immediate security or essential interests' of one state are seriously endangered by another, denied that 'this right could receive a general and indiscriminate application to all revolutionary governments.' Such interference was an exception, and could not, without the utmost danger, be incorporated into the ordinary diplomacy of states, or into the institutes of the law of nations.'1

Soon after this, in the middle of 1821, a royalist insurrection

Congress of Verona, October 1822.

occurred in Northern Spain, to which France so far extended aid as to allow the insurgents to gather along the borders, to retreat in case of need across the line, and to make open preparation of arms and money on French soil. A congress had been arranged to meet at Verona when that of Laybach broke up. The principal measure here agitated was armed interference in the affairs of Spain, which, if undertaken, would naturally be the work of France. The British envoy, the Duke of Wellington, not only declared the refusal of his government to participate in any such proceeding, but also that England would not even attempt to persuade Spain to conform to the views of the congress. The French envoys, Montmorency and Chateaubriand, against express instruction of their court, urged forward the intervention, which was supported by the other powers, and energetically by Russia, which power at Laybach had hung back from decisive movements by force of arms. The envoys acted herein in the interest of the ultra-royalist party, which was thus able to carry its measures through. For a French army occupied Spain, penetrated as far as Cadiz, overthrew the constitution of Cadiz, to which the king had given his assent, and left him 'free,' but the country enslaved. No stretch of interference had gone so far as this, for Spain would have had a settled constitutional government, and probably settled peace, less the agitators had looked for aid to foreign power.

un

1 Circular despatch of the sovereigns, &c., Laybach, May 1821, and Lord Castlereagh's circular despatch of January 19, 1821.