Imágenes de páginas


Liberals of Spain that the great opposition ago we foiled you the other day. Why rewas made to Napoleon's invasion, or that in- vive these irritating topics? domitable and indefatigable spirit shown, But further, you told us that


invaded which so materially assisted the Duke of Spain because you apprehended danger to Wellington in recovering the country. France from the triumph of the Revolution

In the midst of the discussions between the there; you now tell us that you interfere two ministers, Louis XVIII, thus addressed because the king is one of your own royal the chambers: I

family; and moreover, that whatever may

be the wishes of the people, nothing but " One hundred thousand Frenchmen, commanded by a prince of my family, by him what he shall grant shall be suffered io re. whom my heart delights to call my son, are main to them. This appears to England ready to march, invoking the God of St. Lou- as an interference, for the sake, not of Spain is, for the sake of preserving the throne of but of France; which allers the character Spain to a descendant of Henry IV.-of pre- of the measure, and prevents us from de. serving that fine kingdom from its ruin, and claring at once her neutrality. of reconciling it with Europe. Let Ferdinand VII. be free to give to his peo " Still less," wrote Mr. Canning, "could ple institutions which they cannot hold but England admit a peculiar right in France to from him, and which, by securing them tran- force her example (of institutions emanating quillity, would dissipate the just inquietudes from the will of the sovereign) specifically of France. Hostilities shall cease from that upon Spain; in virtue of the consanguinily of moment,"

the reigning dynasties of those two kingdoms.

- This latter reason would, on the contrary, This language was thought so portentous, suggest recollections and considerationswhich that a paragraph strongly indicative of neu: must obviously make it impossible for Great trality, was consequently left out of our Britain to be the advocate of pretensions king's speech. Mr. Canning invoked bis. founded upon it.”. tory in his correspondence with the French One further letter, after a considerable minister; * and addressed to him an expo.interval, from Chateaubriand, who left all sition, perhaps somewhat exaggerated, of these topics unnoticed, closed the corres. the universal feeling of indignation against pondence between the two poet ministers, of France, which, according to Mr. Canning, which Mr. Canning, and probably Chateau. prevailed among Jacobins, Whigs, and briand also, had no:y discovered the utter Tories.

inutility Perhaps in endeavouring to impress upon It may possibly be thought that Mr. CanM. Chateaubriand's mind the arguments ning made distinctions more accurate than which the language of France might sug. important. If France were to invade Spain, gest to Spain, our accoinplished statesman in the cause of monarchical power, it matimagined a regard for general principles, iered little to England whether she appealed which never occurred to the ministers of to the consanguinity of the two kings, or to Spain, and which the minister of France the common interests of princes. If Mr. laughed to scorn.

Canning's remonstrance could have been But that which most excited the jealousy made before-hand, and the French king's of Mr. Canning was the language of the speech worded accordingly, the danger to king of France himself. Ferdinand, as it arise from a union of France and Spain appeared to our sensitive minister, was to would have been neither more nor less. be restored to power, because he was a Bour. If Mr. Canning laid too much stress upon bon, and inherited the claims of Philip V. the language of France, France entirely “ You remind us," said Mr. Canning, in misinterpreted the language, and misconsubstance, "of the time when we rainly re-ceived the principles of England. The sisted France in establishing this succes. Duke of Wellington had said, at Verona, sion, but

you teach us also to remember our that England would not interfere with Spain more recent and successful efforts to restore unless her own essential interests were af. a Bourbon to Spain in spite of France.-fected. The French minister pretended to There is, on your part, a triumph and a think, and perhaps did think, that commer. threat, a "boast of what you did formerly cial interesis were intended, and that interagainst England in Spain, and a defiance ofference in the internal affairs of a state England now that it is to be done again.— would be justified, if thereby a better mar. We English cannot hear this without re- ket could be obtained for the goods of Eny. membering, that if you foiled us a century land. And he conceived that what he

• Jan. 28, 1823, Ann. Reg. p. 149.

* Letter to Sir W. A'Court, in Parl. Deb. viii, # See Canning's Speech in Parl, Deb. viii, 1506. 948.

deems the interference of England between answer; not only because its reasoning was Spain and her colonies, for the sake of colo- just, but because he desired, on the part of nial trade, was analogous to the march of France, some portion of the trade which Eng. the French army into Spain, to prevent ap- land was seeking for herself. It was thereprehended dangers to the French govern. fore necessary for him to recognize the ment.

principles of the English note, at the same Not to mention minor circumstances, this time that, on the alleged ground of the paradifference is entirely overlooked; that in mount importance of maintaining the legi. one case force was used, in the other none. mate authority of the mother country, he Had France, for her own reasons, good or suggested an attempt on the part of the Eubad, declined to acknowledge the govern- ropean poivers to settle, in concert with ment of Spain, or had she recognized only Spain, the question between her and her the regency of Urgel, there would have been colonies. some analogy to the conduct of England. Obviously this would not suit England, Had England assisted the South Americans, whose relations towards the question were by her fleets and armies, to throw off the totally different from those of the continsupremacy of the mother-country, there ental powers; but we canuot go further would have been some analogy in England here into the question of recognition.* Our to the conduct of France.

point is, that not only did England not interThe Duke of Wellington's note did not fere by force in South America, with a view assert, nor has England anywhere asserted, to her commercial interests: but she did not a right to extend its commerce by force of avail herself of her early connection with arms. She only claims a right to protect the new states, 10 obtain for herself any exher subjects and commerce: and if the exist-clusive privileges. ence of any particular government, or the Her stipulation has always been that absence of government in any country of the which is technically known as that of the world, occasions piracies or other unlawful “ most favoured nation ;'' that is, she claimed interruptions to her commerce, she holds her a right to be treated with the same favour self at liberty to put down that government, with any other foreign state ; she was quite and not to confine herself to the capture or willing to compete, in the newly opened punishment of such of the individual offend markets, with France or the United States, ers as her ships may happen to catch. She upon equal terms. would be justified, in the case supposed, in In reasoning upon the right of interventaking possession of the country itsell. To tion, Chateaubriand quotes, as a precedent, assist one party against another, so as to the assistance given to our American Colobring about the establishment of a govern- nies by France, notwithstanding that, as he ment capable of causing her rights to be owns, she could not allege that her interests respected, is a mitigated exercise of the ex. were affected.f It would be difficult to find treme right of self-redress.

an instance of more reckless profligacy " The existing relations,” said the Duke of than the interference of France in our dis. Wellington, between the subjects of Great pute with America! Britain and other parts of the world, have, for Nothing is more apparent in these exa long time, placed his Britannic Majsty under tracts than the inveterate hostility of the the necessity of recognizing de facto the gov- writer towards England. $ But his hostility ernments that have been formed in the differ- was accompanied by a very respectful jeaent provinces, so far as it was necessary in or. der to treat with thein: the relaxation of the lousy: In one letter he advises the Empeauthority of Spain in the whole of this part of ror of Russia not to assemble 100 large an the world has occasioned the rise of a host of army in Poland, lesi England, feeling satispirates and buccaneers; it is impossible for England to extirpate this insupportable evil * See Stapleton, ii. c. 8, noticing Mr. Canwithout the co-operation of the local autho- ning's masterly letter of 25th March, 1825.rities who occupy the coast ; the necessity of State Papers of 1824-5, p. 909.

† Ch. 46. this co-operation cannot fail to lead to some

# We have not time to follow Chateaubriand new act of recognition in respect of one or through all his misrepresentations of England more of these self-created governments."* and Englishmen ; but we must find room for an

indignant protest against such expressions as this, Not one of the continental poivers ven- borrowed from the most vulgar of English raditured to controvert the Duke of Welling. cal journals :-" Le Marquis de Londonderry et ton's positions, and Chateaubriand himsell le Duc de Wellington, ennemis des frarchises de seemned much inclined to occupy the same. be found even in the worst of English journals

leur pays ;” and another, too notoriously false to He owns that he found the note difficult to " M. Canning et tous ces Torys adverses pendant

trente ans à la motion de Wilberforce ;" on the * Chat, i. 62, ch, xvi.

Slave Trade.--ch. xiv. p. 34.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

fied that Russia intended to interfere, should ed the inquieludes of his latter days! And
interfere on the other side. This advice, this he says with singular infelicity of ar-
however, had partly another origin in the rangement, just before informing us what
tortuous policy of Chateaubriand. He was, those projects were.
though upon other grounds, as anxious as To such a pitch of patriotic, we ought
Mr. Canding that Russia should obtain no perhaps to say poetical exaltation did the
share of the glory to be acquired in Spain; victories in Spain carry M. Chateaubriand,
and he was a little alarmed ivhen Mr. Can- that although he thought himself worthy
ning's publication of his communications of a riband for preserving the peace of Eu.
with England showed the pains that he had rope by his own single act, he contemplated
taken to disclaim the alliance, and to treat nothing less than a war for the recovery of
the question as entirely French. "I was the French frontiers; and the Emperor
obliged,” he says to Russia, "10 pretend Alexander, as he says, listened to his pro-
that you had nothing to do with the matter,* jects, probably without the slightest inten.
in order to avoid a war with England.” In tion of assisting him to realise them. How.
another letter he is assured that the Em- ever, he himself thought so much of them,
peror Alexander must rejoice at the French that when disappointed of a riband, he re-
triumphs of Spain, that France might again tained on their account his post in the gov.
become “the natural bulwark of Europe ernment, though he might have retired, (in
against the power of England.; 't

all this we speak his own words,) in the
Chateaubriand attached the most exag- most brilliant manner after the war in Spain.
gerated importance to the successes of the Nous pouvions braver l'Angleterre; une
French army in Spain. They were, un guerre avec celle-ci ne nous eut point
questionably, more rapid than Mr. Canning effrayés; nous aurions voulu faner les Jau.
had thought probable, but to speak of them riers de Waterloo. Telles furent les cau-
as a glorious triumph is ridiculous Our ses qui nous déterminèrent à rester."
author ascribes to them the resurrection So! the latter days of Mr. Canning were
militaire of France, such as to give uneasi. to have been made comfortable by the re-
ness to the court of Vienna. This opinion flection, that he had contributed to blight the
he imparted to M. de Serre, confidently, laurels of Waterloo !
because notre métier, he said, est un peu Surely, if the disclosures (are they such ?)
contraire à la franchise.* Russia had no of the French ex-minister prove any thing,
such jealousy; but of England he says, in they prove that Canning was right in dis-
terms which can excite, in an Englishman, claiming all participation with France.
nothing but a smile,

If they would justify a deviation from neu.

trality, it would be a deviation the other " L'Angleterre a joué une triste role; elle a été à la fin injurieuse et faible, mais comme he said that “Chateaubriand had : good

!vay. Charles X was not far wrong

when cette puissance a des forces à part, et d'amirables institutions, elle reprendrait toute sa

heart and a hot head." poussance, si au lieu de s'opposer par de pe In one remark only of M. Chatcaubriand tits moyens à la délivrance du roi d'Espange, can we in any way concur“ Premier minis. elle se joignait à nous pour mettre ce prince tre," he says, alluding to Mr. Canning, en liberté, et terminer de concert avec nous la grande affaire des Colonies Espagnoles.” des vaux publics contre un autre état

, si

, en

d'un grand royaume, je n'aurais pas fait England did nothing of this, yet we re. Our neutrality, perhaps, would have been

même temps, je n'avais pas tiré l'épée.'t cognise no diminution of strength or pow

more admirable, if it had been, in Mr. Yet this self-complacent man fed himsell Canning's phrase, more imperturbable, and with the idea, that if Mr. Canning bad but had not been disturbed by words or gesture. joined in his projects he might have avoid

But this is of little importance, it was

only in Chateaubriand's ideas that England * Chateaubriand to M. Ferronnais, at Peters- was fort amoindrie” by the

part burgh, 21st April, 1823.—ch. ii. p. 4.

What interest of England has been affect+ May 27.- p. 25. # Ch. ii. p. 93. There are other passages events of 1823?

ed, or put in jeopardy, by ihe measures or which we could have placed in our article upon diplomacy, in vol. xiii. “Que ces conférences

We have no space for tracing Spanish alsoient toujours, ou presque toujours, des conver- fairs from 1823 10 1834, when the Whig sations dans lesquelles vous montrerez toujours government–if such ive may call one le plus grand désir d'agir avec les alliés, mais which entrusts ils

foreign affairs to the ld concluez très peu; c'est là, votre métier mien : bonhommé sans étre dupe, voilà l'affaire en deux mots."-Letter to M. Taluru, July 16. 1823. * Ch. vii. p. 176.

+ Leiterto M. Ferroonais, Nir. 1, 1823.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]


Dar true

[ocr errors]

she took.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]


P. 68,

[ocr errors]

Tory, Lord Palmerston-laid aside the sys- solicitude the progress of events which may tem of non-interference.

affect the stability of a government, the And ve may now reverse the question peaceable seulement of which is of the first which we asked before. What interests of importance to this country, as well as to England have been benefitted by the mea- the general tranquility of Europe."* sures of 1834 and later years ?

Ncw, re take our stand at this early In observing upon the policy and measures stage of the proceeding. We say nothing of Lord Palmerston, in respect to Spain, we of the recognition of Isabella; perhaps it may throw aside mueh of that which has was baslly done, but it is unquestionably been said about it, on both sides, with great convenient to have an acknowledged soverability. We shall pursue no critical Enqui- eign every where, and although the queen's ry into the stipulations of the Quadruple possession was neither undisputed nor undis. Treaty, as compared with the employment turbed, it might be enough to justify ac. of marines or guns.

If that treaty was knowledgment. founded in good policy, not only ought it to Neither do we inquire here, whether we be carried into effect according to iis spirit, ought to have acknowledged Don Miguel liberally construed, but all further measures as king of Portugal; though we have the ought to be taken to give effect to the same authority of the Duke of Wellington for good policy. It does not follow that all the saying, that as this de facto king performmeasures adopted, such as the suspension of led his part of the treaties between the two the Foreign Enlistment Act, have been countries, we ought to have performed our wise; but it is no sufficient objection to them part also; and that, " the civil war in Spain that they are not within the terms of the grew out of the civil war in Portugal, treaty, provided that they tend to that end which was fomented in this country:" which the treaty was intended to accom- fomented it certainly was, as indeed has been plish.

acknowledged by the ministers themselves, We are sure that it will be found that if who, in this instance, took their first depar. in any part of his elaborate speeches Lord ture from the "great principle." Palmerston has, after close argument, ap. But we venture to call in question the peared to be successful, his triumph bas very great importance-to those English been always over some minute or technical interests, which alone, again and again, we objection to the construction of his treaty, or say, it is England's duty to maintain of the mode of his operations; and that he has the undisturbed tranquillity of Spain. These entirely failed in justifying his interference. phrases run off so glibly, they have been

li will not, we trust, be denied that we put into king's speeches by so many states. have a right to throw the burden of the proof men of all parties, that nobody inquires what of necessity or expediency upon him who they mean. That question we now venture contracts any stipulation with another stale, to ask. or who meddles in the affairs of another Take, first political dangers. It is doubt. country; still more upon one who, in what. less true, that civil war may generate foreign ever mode, employs ivarlike force. Least war, and that war between any two other of all will this be denied by a person who powers may involve England in hostilities; undertook the conduct of foreign affairs, for and hostilities we admit with Lord Grey in the first time, under a minister who inau. opposition to Lord Palmerston, ought, if pos. gurated himself in a speech, of which this sible, 10 be avoided. is an important passage.

Is this probability so great, as to require "Our true policy is, to maintain universal us to enter into stipulations which bind us peace; and therefore NON INTERFERENCE is to an indefinite expenditure, which require ihe principle, the great principle which ought the employment of our naval and marine to be, and will be, heartily adopted by the forces, and which involve us, as auxiliaries present administration."*

at least, immediately in war? Our question then is, whether our inter.

But imagine Spain peaceably settledference in Spain forms a justifiable excepo strong in forces, military and naval. Is

flourishing in commerce and navigation, tion?

there no danger then? What is it that our King Ferdinand died in September, 1833. Our king soon afterwards announced to his ancestors for now more than a century have parliament that he had not hesitated 10 apprehended? What is it that has, in our

own time, we will not say put our fleets in acknowledge the young Queen Isabella, and that he should watch with the greatest jeopardy, but opposed to them a formidable

Speech of Earl Grey, Nov. 22, 1830. Parl. * King's Speech, Feb. 4, 1834. Deb. 3d Ser. ch. i. p. 610.

[ocr errors]

+ Par. Deb. xxi. 12.

enemy?—The union of France and Spain, ] (for he spoke of what occurred when he was in a state of internal peace. Has Spain, Secretary for Foreign Affairs,)* to a ques. tranquil at home, been to us at any time an tion arising in the very year 1834, as to the efficient ally? No. Has she been hurtful more or less extensive purvieu of the treaty. as the ally of our enemies? Yes.

But the Duke condemned the whole ;-as It was the opinion of Sir William Tem- uniting, contrary 10 our ancient policy, the ple, that England's interest lay in the quar- iwo kingdoms of the peninsula, and connect. rels of all other nations; let them fighting both with France; and as leading to a among themselves, was his doctrine; let perpetual interference in the affairs of Spain us be neutral and trade with them all. This and Portugal, and embarking us in a series doctrine of the older Temple we repudiate, of operations of which no man would see because we fear that is not practicable; il the end.It is at least clear that the treaty we could really preserve our neutrality, it in its new form went far beyond the original would, in a political view only, be perfectly intention of the prime minister, as avowed sound. Our security, the great object of by himself. But it appears that Lord Pal. policy, would be increased; our trade would nerston, master of the cabinet in foreign af. not necessarily be diminished. Neverthe fairs, had always a more extensive scheme. less for the sake of humanity, and with our His first exposition of the treaty claimed it principles of commerce, we would gladly as the alliance between the four powers of see Spain in peace;-but it is clear that the the West, England, France, Constitutional passage in the speech meant much more Spain, and Constitutional Portugal. Spain than a general aspiration for tranquillity under Carlos would not be as efficient an Indeed it was followed at no long interval by ally for England“ in the spirit of the Quad. the famous Quadruple Treaty.

ruple Alliance” as under the queen. This treaty has two parts, concluded at: The maintenance of peace, not only two different times. Great pains have been in the peninsula, was the great object which taken to show that the additional articles of that Quadruple Alliance was intended to ef. the 18th of August, 1834, grew necessarily fect. I out of the original treaty of the 22d of Upon this Sir Robert Peel asked,-April preceding; and Lord Palmerston has argued this point with great plausibility in

“What nation might not find in such a the House of Commons, where it so hap- principle a pretext for interfering in the dopened that ministers were not called upon a vague ground that British interests would

mestic concerns of another? To interfere on for an explanation between April and Au. be promoted by intervention, on the plea gust.

that it would be for our advantage to see esBut Lord Melbourne did give an expla. tablished a particular form of government nation in the House of Lords, in which he in a country circumstanced as Spain was, is distinctly stated that the main ground of to destroy altogether the general principle of the treaty, on the part of England, was to non-intervention, and to place the indepentake care that the inarch of Spanish troops formidable neighbour.”

dence of every such power at the mercy of a into Portugal (for the purpose of expelling Don Carlos and Don Miguel) should take Nothing, surely, could be more vague place under a treaty which would limit the than Lord Palmerston's exposition. If, aid. parties from doing more than was necessary ed by subsequen: explanations, we underto accomplish the object. *

stand him at all, he means that a constitu. The additional articles went considerably tional government in Spain was more likely further, inasmuch as they bound England to than a despotic government to preserve furnish arms and stores, to assist the Queen peace. Is not this a gratuitous assumption ; of Spain with a naval force, without any par- bui, peace with whom? Does he mean that ticular reference to Portugal; and France either Isabella or Carlos were likely to attack was to prevent supplies from being sent to England, or in any way to injure us? Does the Carlists in Spain.

he mean ihat Carlos would attack Portugal? And this cxtension of the effect of the Admitling (at least for the present) that it treaty, from Portugal, the object of our pe. is our policy and our duty to defend Portu. culiar protection, to the whole peninsula, gal, should we not serve her more effectually constitutes the great difference between the two editions of the treaty. We have the

* Debate of 21st April, 1837. official testimony of the Duke of Wellington † August 5th, 1834, xxv. 955.

I June 24th, 1835, Parl. Deb xxviii, 1148.

§ See in Foreign Quarteily Review, vol. viii. * See Parl. Deb. 5th August, 1834, xxv.953, and 404, Mr. Canning's opinion of the comparative see the reference to this in the debate of 21st tendency to war in governments of a monarchical April, 1837, xxxviij. 158.

and a republican character.

« AnteriorContinuar »