FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51  
52   53   54   55   56   >>  
led by Byron's denunciation of Castlereagh, just as others have spoken lightly of the stubborn conservatism of Wellington, or the easy and half-cynical insouciance of the author of the _Anti-Jacobin_. As a matter of fact, Castlereagh was by no means an opponent of the principles of the Holy Alliance. He joined with Russia, Austria, and Prussia as a not unwilling member of the successive Congresses, but both he and Wellington, true to their national instincts, sought to subordinate all proposals to the interests of Great Britain, and to confine discussions to immediate objects, such as the limitation of French power and the suppression of dangerous revolutionary ideas. They were not, it is true, idealists in the sense in which Alexander I understood the term. And yet, on the whole, both Castlereagh and Canning did more for the principle of nationality than any of the other diplomatists of the time. The reason why Canning broke with the Holy Alliance, after Troppau, Laibach, and Verona, was because he discerned something more than a tendency on the part of Continental States to crush the free development of peoples, especially in reference to the Latin-American States of South America. It is true that in these matters he and his successor were guided by a shrewd notion of British interest, but it would be hardly just to blame them on this account. "You know my politics well enough," wrote Canning in 1822 to the British Ambassador in St. Petersburg, "to know what I mean when I say that for Europe I should be desirous now and then to read England." Castlereagh was, no doubt, more conciliatory than Canning, but he saw the fundamental difficulty of organising an international system and yet holding the balance between conflicting nations. And thus we get to a result such as seems to have rejoiced the heart of Canning, when he said in 1823 that "the issue of Verona has split the one and indivisible alliance into three parts as distinct as the constitutions of England, France, and Muscovy." "Things are getting back," he added, "to a wholesome state again. Every nation for itself and God for us all. Only bid your Emperor (Alexander I) be quiet, for the time for Areopagus and the like of that is gone by."[8] [8] _The Confederation of Europe_, by W.A. Phillips, p. 280. EARTHEN VESSELS If, then, the ardent hopes of a regenerated Europe in the early years of the nineteenth century failed, the result was due in large measure to
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51  
52   53   54   55   56   >>  



Top keywords:
Canning
 

Castlereagh

 

Europe

 

States

 

result

 

Alexander

 
Verona
 

England

 

British

 

Wellington


Alliance

 

Ambassador

 

nations

 

politics

 
rejoiced
 

account

 

fundamental

 

conciliatory

 

desirous

 

difficulty


organising
 

conflicting

 

balance

 
holding
 
international
 

system

 

Petersburg

 

Confederation

 

Phillips

 

Emperor


Areopagus

 

EARTHEN

 

VESSELS

 

failed

 

century

 

measure

 

nineteenth

 
ardent
 

regenerated

 

distinct


constitutions

 

alliance

 
indivisible
 
France
 

Muscovy

 

nation

 
wholesome
 

Things

 
peoples
 

Congresses