enemies of reform-but his attitude with respect to English interests abroad had always been approved by the lovers of constitutional liberty.1

Canning received the seals of the Foreign Office from the King on September 16, 1822. In inaugurating his policy he was determined not to lend the prestige of his new office either to the Congress in Vienna or to the subsequent gathering in Verona. It is, indeed, probable that Canning would have avoided, if possible, sending any English representative whatsoever to the latter gathering.2

The Duke of Wellington, the envoy chosen by Castlereagh, had been delayed on his journey to Vienna, so that his arrival almost coincided with the departure of the Allied sovereigns for Verona. It, therefore, appeared advisable that this great man, who embodied England's prestige both at home and abroad, should be permitted to accompany the leaders of Europe. Wellington's instructions, moreover, were precise and complete, and his character gave every guarantee to Canning that they would be loyally carried out. He was to decline in the name of his government all participation, either direct or indirect, in the military operations in Spain, for which the Tsar Alexander now sought a mandate, and to forbid all access to Portugal to the armies of the "Holy Alliance" in the name of the ancient treaties which had so long united that country to Great Britain.

The matters to be considered at the Congress of Verona (October-November, 1822) were arranged by Metternich according to a well-considered agenda. The question of Greek independence (involving the quarrel-so dangerous for Europe's peace

1 It was not without some hesitation that Canning had accepted the Foreign Secretaryship. In the Cabinet he was about to join, certain members held principles far different from his own, nor was he supported by the personal views of his Sovereign. The Duke of Wellington had been one of Castlereagh's supporters and was, therefore, believed to be strongly "predisposed towards the policy of the Continental School." In Lord Liverpool, however, the head of the Cabinet, Canning had a warm personal friend and admirer, and a "cordial approver of his system of foreign policy." Stapleton, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 125–129. 2 Ibid., p. 143.

Pasquier, op. cit., vol. v, p. 446.

This agenda included:

1. The slave trade.

2. The piratries exercised in American waters, and the question of Spanish colonies.

3. The Grecian question.

4. The Italian question.

5. The Spanish question.

See Chateaubriand, Congrès de Vérone, vol. 1, p. 74.

-between the Governments of Russia, Austria and the Sublime Porte) was the first discussed.

The differences between Turkey and Russia continued in the hands of Austria and England, as mediating Powers. The Greeks were, however, sternly denied the assistance-or even the moral support of the new Congress. The Tsar in his distrust of all revolutionary movements declared them wholly unworthy of sympathy, and even refused to allow the delegates (waiting the pleasure of the Powers at Ancona) a hearing before that body. In spite of an eloquent appeal which Andrew Mataxis addressed to the Pope, their delegates were finally ordered to return to their distracted country.

In respect to Italian affairs, the decisions of the Congress of Verona were also in accord with the policy of the Holy Alliance. The mandate of Europe seemed permanently accorded to Austria to carry out the anti-revolutionary campaign proposed by Metternich, although the Pope still courageously protested against this tyranny.2 Alexander, however, was careful to intimate to Austria (with the support of the French delegation) that the exercise of this mandate in no way involved the permanent recognition of Austria's rights to the hegemony of Italy.

With the exception of the above definite successes for the policy of the "Triple Alliance,"-events which were in the main unopposed by England or France—the course of the debates at the Congress of Verona now tended undeniably toward a disintegration of the "European system." 3

1 Debidour, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 187.

2 The astute diplomacy of the Vatican had distrusted from the beginning the "quietist" language of the Act of September, 1815. The King of Naples, lost to every sense of patriotism or personal dignity, begged that the Austrian Army of Occupation be allowed to remain in his dominions.

Nevertheless, the Tsar's optimism remained insensible to every reproof. In a conversation with Chateaubriand, Alexander triumphantly declared himself as follows: "Can you now believe, as our enemies declare, that the Alliance is a vain word which only serves to cover private ambitions? This was perhaps true in the beginning of our system, but now that the civilized world is in peril, particularistic interests must be forgotten. There can no longer be any question of English, French, Russian, Prussian or Austrian policy; there only remains a general political system, which should, in the interest of all, be followed in common by all peoples and their rulers. I must be the first to exhibit my belief in these principles convictions on which I had founded the Alliance. An occasion to prove this presented itself in connection with the Grecian revolt. Nothing was less in accord with public opinion in my country than my acts at that time. I saw, however, in the troubles of the Peloponnesus the signs of a revolutionary plot, and I immediately desisted from further action on their behalf." Quoted in Chateaubriand, Congrès de Vérone, vol. 1, pp. 221-222.

Wellington maintained that Great Britain regarded as wholly pernicious and dangerous the policy-approved by the Congressof addressing common notes of protest to the Spanish Constitutional Cabinet. His government, he declared, had adopted as a basic principle of foreign policy the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states. The English representative would be ordered to remain in Madrid, whether or not the representatives of the other Powers were ordered to withdraw.1

In view of the imminent intervention of France in Spanish affairs, Wellington, moreover, now saw fit officially to bring to the attention of the Congress Great Britain's intention of recognizing the Spanish-American Colonies. This action, so important to the common policy which the two Anglo-Saxon Powers were about to develop, had long been pending:

The relations which existed between His Majesty's subjects and certain other parts of the world for a long time have placed His Majesty in a position where it will be necessary to recognize the de facto existence of governments formed by the different Spanish provinces in order to enter into relations with the latter. The relaxation of Spanish authority has given rise to an increase of piratry and filibustering. It is impossible for England to put a stop to this intolerable affliction without the cooperation of the local authorities along these coasts. The necessity of cooperation in this respect, therefore, can hardly help but lead to new acts recognizing the de facto existence of one or another of these selfconstituted governments.2

By basing this action on commercial rather than political grounds, the British Cabinet sought through a policy of expediency to avoid raising the time-worn issue of "legitimacy" in connection with the Spanish colonies. But, as Wellington was well aware, in addition to the commercial aspects of the case, a large party in the English Parliament supported the constitutional pretensions of the South American republics in the spirit of liberal sympathy long upheld by the Congress of the United States.3

CHAPTER VI

EUROPE AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE

"It ought to be the aim of American statesmanship to prevent and frustrate for all time European interference with the development of the states, and even with the destinies of the whole Northern Continent." Hamilton's policy in 1781, as outlined in Oliver's Alexander Hamilton: An Essay on American Union.

While the closing debates of the Congress of Verona were taking place, and the language of the platitudinous manifesto, which was to crown its labors, was in course of elaboration by the delegates of the "Holy Alliance," negotiations were being carried on in Paris with respect to the proposed French intervention in Spain. Chateaubriand had a final long interview with Alexander, whose personal influence and charm were never exerted to better purpose than in his negotiations with the two principal French envoys at Verona. Montmorency, who was almost as visionary and mystical as the Tsar himself, fell a ready victim to his persuasions respecting an intervention in the interests of Ferdinand. Chateaubriand, who had been chosen by Villéle to counteract his colleague's legitimist enthusiasm, fell a victim to his own childish vanity. The Tsar's flattery and a little personal attention from the Autocrat seem to have convinced him that the Spanish campaign was the surest way of restoring French prestige. Although no Russian interests were directly served, the Tsar found satisfaction in giving actuality to the anti-revolutionary program of international administration laid down at Troppau and Laybach.

Chateaubriand now accepted the plan of an intervention in Spain with all the enthusiasm of an author compiling a historical scene. In the situation he was contriving he already saw himself the central figure. Only the monumental conceit of the creator of "Atala" could have penned the dispatches he has assembled in two volumes dealing with this episode-so closely connected with the history of Spain in South America and the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine.1

It was in vain that public opinion in France protested against an enterprise to a great extent imposed upon the French envoys at Verona by the Tsar's conception of international duty. In 1 Chateaubriand, Congrès de Vérone.