The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-11-06

throne, as an absolute despot.
Early In January, 1921, the Congress re-as-
sembled at Laibach, in Carniola. King Fer
dinand was present. The tone of dictatorial
authority assumed towards him by the sover-
eigns of the Holy Alliance is sufficiently appa-
rent from the following extract from the Frank
fort Gazette, of February Is, 1921:
"The sovereigns declared in effect, to his
Majesty, their firm determination not to allow
the continuance of a system which had been
forced upon the Kingdom of the Two Siciies by
a faction without name and without authority,
and by means the most criminals system
incompatible with the security of the neighbor-
ing States, and with the preservation of the
peace of Europe"
To this, we add the following extract from
the manifesto of the Holy Alliance, issued at
the breaking up of the Congress of Laibacb:
useful or necessary changes in legislation
and in the administration of States ought only
to emanate from the free will, the intelligent
and well-weighed conviction of those whom God
has rendered responsible for power. All that
deviates from this line, necessarily leads to dis
order, connections, and evils, far more insuffer-
able than those which they pretend to remedy.
Penetrated with this eternal truth, the Sover-
eigns have not hesitated to proclaim it with
frankness and vigor; they have declared, that
in respecting the rights and independence of
all legitimate power, they regard as legally null,
and as disavowed by the principles which con-
stitute the public right of Europe, all pretended
reforms operated by revolt and open hostility"
Thus the fundamental principles of Govern
ment and of International Law were expound-
cd by the three Sovereigns of the Holy ALI
ance-the three Sovereigns who, to use the
words of Sir James Mcintosh, "took upon
themselves the lordship paramount of the whole
of Europe-who treated monarchs as their vas
sails, and nations as their slaves" We see it
here asserted as an eternal truth, that not only
the authority to govern but the initiative in all
reforms, belongs exclusively to kings, by divine
right. To Austria was left the task of carrying
this doctrine into practice; and an army of
eighty thousand Austrians traversed the Papal
territories, subdued the Neapolitans, and re-
stored the despotism of the Bourbons.
Let us now pass over the interval of thirty five
years, from 1921 to 1856, and contrast the
principles and policy of the Holy Alliance, as
set forth in the above extracts, with the views
and motives by which the Western Powers are
prompted in their conduct towards Naples, and
which are set forth in the remarks made by the
Earl of Clarendon, at the conferences held at
Paris last spring. We extract the following
from the protocol, for the sitting of April 8.
Lord Clarendon, after abiding to the remarks
OF Count Walewski, continued as follows:
HE is of opinion that it must doubtless be
admitted in principle, that no Government has
the right to interfere in the internal affairs of
other States, but he considers there are cases in
which the exception to this rule becomes equal
ly right and duty. The Neapolitan Gov
eminent seems to him TO have conferred this
right, and to have imposed this duty upon Eu-
rope; and, as the Governments represented in
the Congress are all equally DESTROYS to support
the monarchical principle and to repel the revo-
luton, it is duty to lift up the voice against
system which keeps up revolutionary ferment
among the masses, instead of seeking to mod
crate 1T. We do not wish, he says, that peace
should be disturbed, and there is no peace with.
out Justice; we ought then to make known to
the King of Naples the wish of the Congress
for the amelioration of his system of govern.
ment-a wish which cannot remain without eff.
fect-and require of him an amnesty in favor
OF the persons who have been condemned or
who are imprisoned without trial for political
offences"
We observe here the same tone of authority
as that formerly assumed by the Holy Alliance.
The right of Intervention is insisted on by way
OF exception. In some respects, however, the
Western Powers have departed very materially
from the precedent before them. They take it
upon themselves to sit in judgment upon the
Sovereigns of foreign States, as well as their
subjects.
The parallel which we have drawn is equally
applicable to the conduct of those Powers who
refused to participate in the Intervention in the
affairs of Naples, to England and France in
1871, and Russia, Prussia, and perhaps we NAV
include Austria, in 1885,
The ambassadors of England and France
were present at the Congress of Troppau and
Laibach, but they took no part in the negotia-
lions. They were simply spectators. The Holy
Alliance had everything its own way. After
the Congress of Troppau, Lord Castlereagh,
the English Minister for Foreign Affairs, issued
a circular despatch to the British Missions.
bearing date January l9, 1921, in which he
stated that the British Government had de-
clined becoming party to the proposed meas.
ures of Intervention, and then continued as fol
lows:
The system of measures proposed, if to be
reciprocaily acted upon, would be in direct re.
pugnance to the fundamental laws of this coun.
try. But even if this decisive objection did not
exist, the British Government would, neverthe-
less, regard the principles on which these meas-
ures rest, to be such as could not be safely ad-
mitted as system of international law. They
are of opinion that their adoption would inevi
Donen-
cent monarchs, might hereafter lead to a much
more frequent and extensive interference In the
internal transactions of States, than they are
persuaded Is intended by the august parties
from whom they proceed, or can be reconciled
either with the general interest, or with the ef
hcient authority and dignity of Independent
soverelgns. They do not regard the alliance
as entitled, under existing treaties, to assume
In their character as allies any such general
powers, nor do they conceive that such extra
ordinary powers could be assumed, in virtue of
any fresh diplomatic transaction among the
allied Courts, without their either attributing to
themselves a supremacy incompatible with the
rights OF other States, or, if to be ACQUIRED
through the special accession of such States,
without introducing federative system in Eu
rope, not only unwieldy and Intellectual to its
object but leading to many most serious in.
All this, when stripped of the diplomatic YER.
page by which it is befogged, amounts simply
to protest against the Intervention in Naples
by the Holly Alliance. France in those DAYS
pursued the same policy that Austria does now.
She equivocated and temporized, and sought to
concillate. The part played by England in 1871
Is now played by Russia. In word she protests
though In deed there is no doubt that she will
passively acquiesce. Like England at that time,
she invokes the principle of nonintervention as
the ground of her remonstrance.
We present the following extract from the
circular despatch of Prince Gortschakoff (al-
ready quoted at the beginning of this article
as the extract counterpart, mutatis nsutandis,
OF the sentiments expressed In the extract from
the despatch of Lord Castlereagh:
1.-The King of Naples is the object of a pres
sure, not because his Majesty may have trans
crossed any one of the engagements imposed
on him by treaties with foreign Courts. but be-
cause In the exercise of hia ahIa r;nht.