Page images
PDF
EPUB

security ; and Lord Mornington, afterwards the Marquis of Wellesley, stated, in 1794, that, “while the present or any other Jacobin government exists in France, no proposition for peace can be made or received by us.”

The Congress of Vienna assumed avowedly the office of reconstructing the system of Europe, and the four great powers, Austria, Great Britain, Russia, and Prussia, asserted the right of disposing of all the territories of the French empire, which were not contained in the limits assigned to France, under her restored monarch ; though they subsequently admitted, as members of the directing committee, the plenipotentiaries of France, Spain, Sweden, and Portugal, who were the other parties to the treaty of Paris.

The intervention of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, the three powers that properly constituted the “ Holy Alliance, ” in the Neapolitan revolution of 1820 ; of Austria, in that of Piedmont, in 1821 ; and of France, in the Spanish revolution of 1822, were cases of direct interference in the internal affairs of other states, based upon the propriety of making a general crusade against all revolutionary movements, and all constitutional changes which did not proceed from the sovereign himself. But in none of these proceedings did Great Britain concur. Indeed, on the last occasion, England, as well as the United States, protested against the right of the allied powers to interfere between Spain and her American colonies; and the United States declared, that they would consider any attempt on the part of the allied powers to extend their peculiar political system to the American continent as dangerous to our peace and safety.

The intervention of Great Britain, in 1826, in the affairs of Portugal, was based upon the obligations of ancient treaties. It was not intended by her to enforce the establishment of the Portuguese constitution against the will of the people ; but to prevent any thing being done by others to hinder this constitution from being carried into effect. The convention of 1834, the quadruple treaty between France, Great Britain, Spain, and Portugal, was alleged to be founded not only on the preceding considerations, but on the disadvantages which the movements of Don Carlos of Spain, in conjunction with Don Miguel of Portugal, occasioned to both the governments of the Peninsula, and to compel these princes to withdraw from the Portuguese dominions.

Jurisdiction over the controversy between Belgium and Holland was assumed in consequence of the application of the king of the Netherlands to the British government, requesting that plenipotentiaries of the five powers might assemble in congress to effect a conciliation between the two portions of his kingdom. The armistice, which was at once proposed by the conference, was accepted by the king of the Netherlands and by the provisional government of Belgium. There was, however, great dissatisfaction on both sides, as to the subsequent proceedings of the congress, the king of the Netherlands denying their right to dismember his kingdom, while the Belgians insisted that they were not bound by treaties contracted by the Netherlands, to which they were not a party. A treaty was made, in 1831, between Belgium and the five powers, and France and Great Britain united to compel the king of the Netherlands to evacuate the territory, and by a treaty between Belgium and Holland, in 1837, the arrangements of the five powers were finally carried into effect. Mr. Wheaton closes with the following remarks his notice of the discussions at this conference of London : “ Thus was terminated this long and tedious negotiation, which, in the course of its progress, alternately assumed the character of a mediation, of a forcible arbitration, or of an armed interference, according to the varying events of the struggle, and the fluctuating views of the powers who were interested in terminating it."

Nor has the principle of intervention been confined to the relations between the different powers of Christendom.

In 1828, it was applied by France, Great Britain, and Russia to the Greek revolution, and was carried out by the battle of Navarino, and the occupation of the Morea by the French troops, when the independence of Greece was recognized by the Ottoman Porte, under the mediation of the three contracting powers. In 1833, the interposition of the Christian states of Europe in the affairs of Turkey assumed a new form, so that they became the guardians of the integrity of the Ottoman empire against one of its principal vassals. The Porte demanded the protection of Austria, Great Britain, and France against Mehemet Ali, and the forces of Russia were placed at the disposition of the sultan. A settlement was subsequently made with the pacha, under the mediation of England and France. This arrangement was followed by

the treaty of Unkiar Skellessi, which seemed to give to the relations of Russia with the Porte a new character, by introducing the armed intervention of the former into the internal affairs of Turkey. The casus fæderis having arisen from the attempts of the sultan to recover his lost provinces, and of the pacha to assert his independence, the Western powers of Europe determined to interfere to save the Ottoman empire from the aggressions of Mehemet Ali, on the one side, and from the exclusive protectorate of Russia, on the other. An arrangement was finally made, in 1840, between the Porte and all the great European powers, except France, for the pacification of the East.

Schemes have been at different times devised by philanthropists for the purpose of putting an end to all war, and in the work before us the plans of St. Pierre and Rousseau, of Bentham and Kant, for effecting this object, are given in detail. In some shape or other, they are all referable to the principle of arbitration, or of a general council of nations, which may serve as a great tribunal, whose jurisdiction all states are to acknowledge. This project cannot be deemed a wholly untried experiment. The limited history of the United States presents some cases of foreign arbitrament ; and assuredly the most important reference, that of the question respecting the Northeastern boundary to the king of the Netherlands, is not calculated to give us a favorable idea of the mode in which such friendly offices are performed. The Holy Alliance, when it parcelled out kingdoms at Vienna, sacrificing Poland to Russia, the greater part of Saxony to Prussia, and the ancient republics of Genoa and Venice to Sardinia and Austria ; and when it met at Troppau and Laybach, to sustain the rights of sovereigns against their subjects, was exercising, under the most solemn sanctions of religion, that general superintendence over the affairs of Europe, which the philanthropists propose to vest in a general council. If it be objected, that the declared views of these sovereigns, and the circumstances out of which the alliance grew, afford a peculiar explanation for their hostility to popular institutions, — what is to prevent, in any confederation of independent states, that result which we see in the Germanic confederation, where the great powers of Austria and Prussia not only possess a preponderance that virtually divests the other members of all participation

in the general business of the diet, but which has enabled them to interfere in the internal concerns of the several states for the maintenance of monarchical pretensions against popular rights, and to create and sustain, even by military force, a censorship of the press more severe than any individual sovereign has ever established within his own dominions ?

Nor are the annals of the present Germanic confederacy calculated to recommend to us another mode of settlement of national disputes, which has more than once been suggested to our government, a reference to foreign jurists. This course was proposed by Mr. Jay, while secretary of state under the old Confederation, for the settlement of our Eastern line and the determination of the St. Croix ; and was likewise adverted to in the negotiations about the Northeastern boundary, which both preceded and followed the arbitration of the king of the Netherlands. But when we recollect, that the same Mr. Gentz, who, in 1812 and 1813, made the most eloquent appeals in favor of German liberty, was the very individual who drew up the protocol of the diet of 1832, virtually annihilating those constitutional guaranties which even the Congress of Vienna had deemed it necessary to provide for the people against their local sovereigns, one may well doubt the independence and impartiality, however elevated the intelligence, of any tribunal thus constituted, especially when the influence of a sovereign or a powerful state is brought to bear upon the rights of subjects, or on the pretensions of weak neighbours.

Great as have been the calamities of war, it may well be doubted whether they ought not to be encountered, in preference to a system which would divest every small state of the perfect independence which belongs to all sovereignties. In the ameliorations of every kind which mark the present age, we see many circumstances that tend to lessen the extent and frequency of national hostilities. The discovery of gunpowder, by the very magnitude of the destruction which it causes, and by the calculations of which it is susceptible in practice, greatly lessened the frequency of war. Steam, which has produced such wonderful effects in augmenting the products of human labor, will be found not without correspondent influence in belligerent affairs. Who can tell what a revolution the action of steamers is to cause in future maritime contests? What influence is the power

of concentrating, by means of railroads, the whole population of a country on a given point, to have on future invasions ? Considerations of self-interest and the mutual dependence of nations have also taught them not rashly to interrupt that commerce which is equally important to all parties. In the universal dissemination of the principles of free intercourse we look for that abolition of war, which we should consider to be purchased at too great a sacrifice, if it were brought about by subjecting, through another Holy Alliance or European congress, all the minor states of the world to the arrogance of England or the despotism of Russia.

ART. III. -1. The Jewish Chronicle. Published under the

Direction of the American Society for meliorating the

Condition of the Jews. New York. 1843-44. 2. A Course of Lectures on the Jews. By Ministers of

the Established Church in Glasgow. Philadelphia : Presbyterian Board of Publication. 1840. 12mo.

pp. 499.

3. Narrative of a Mission of Inquiry to the Jews, from the

Church of Scotland, in 1839. Eighth Thousand. Ed

inburgh. 1843. 12mo. pp. 555. 4. Lecture on the Restoration of the Jews. By M. M.

Noah. Delivered October 28th, 1844, in the Tabernacle, New York City.

[ocr errors]

A new and rapidly increasing interest in the affairs of the Jewish people has of late years pervaded Protestant Christendom. Among the Jews themselves, too, our day reveals new elements of life, struggling to break the stupor of centuries. Some strange changes are taking place, also, in the external condition of this people. In one country, we behold revived against them a persecuting popish inquisition ; in another, an imperial edict is even now sending them, by hundreds of thousands, into exile ; in a third, - a Protestant country, too, — the long established policy of excluding them from political privileges altogether has withstood a bold onset from the liberal spirit of the age, and triumphed. VOL. LX. No. 127.

29

« PreviousContinue »