His previous attitude with respect to the United States and the "European" Alliance was suddenly changed. A proposal was now renewed that the United States should join the "Holy League.'

On June 17, 1819, he mentioned "inofficially and confidentially" the Emperor's desire that the United States should accede to the Pact of September 26, 1815; Adams stated that the same reasons which had caused Great Britain to withhold her signature to this pact governed the policy of the United States; that the agreement was a personal one between sovereigns and therefore not appropriate for the consideration of a constitutional state.1

Finally when Polética urged that "the treaty was nothing in specific engagement," and that the Holy Alliance was a "league of peace" and had hitherto preserved a universal peace in Europe," Adams-a sound constitutionalist-replied that before taking any further steps in the matter it would be "advisable to ascertain what were the dispositions of the members of the Senate."2

1 Adams, Memoirs, vol. IV, p. 394.

2 Ibid., pp. 394-395.

THE ERA OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS

"To a world gone mad must be opposed a new order, a new system inspired by wisdom, reason, justice and correction." (Unpublished letter from Metternich to Alexander, written at Troppau, December 15, 1820. From the Archives of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.)

In July, 1820, Adams, in instructions to Middleton, resumed the policy of the United States in their relation with the Powers of Europe; and their attitude towards the Tsar's League of Peace:

The political system of the United States is . . . essentially extraEuropean. To stand in firm and cautious independence of all entanglements in the European system has been a cardinal point of their policy from the peace of 1783 to this day . . .

Yet in proportion as the importance of the United States as one of the members of the general society of civilized nations increases in the eyes of the others, the difficulties of maintaining this system and the temptations to depart from it increase and multiply

1

Should renewed overtures on this subject 1 be made, Russia would be answered that the organization of our government is such as not to admit of our acceding formally to that compact. But it may be added that the President, while approving of its final principles and thoroughly convinced of the benevolent and virtuous motives which led to the conception and presided at the formation of this system, by the Emperor Alexander, believes that the United States will more effectually contribute to the great and sublime objects for which it was concluded by abstaining from formal participation in it. As a general declaration of principles, the United States not only give their hearty assent to the articles of the Holy Alliance, but they will be among the most earnest and conscientious in observing them.2

Even this qualified approval of Alexander's pact—a diplomatic evasion of Polética's renewed proposals-would hardly have been made a few months later. The Powers of the Holy Alliance were already entering upon a policy of reactionary repression which was to estrange them from all more liberal states. Taking as his excuse the necessity for prompt and decisive action against the forces of revolution, Metternich had undertaken a campaign of propaganda among all the principal courts of Europe, arguing the necessity of taking common measures to crush out the fastreviving spirit of "Jacobinism" and the pernicious doctrines of the "Sects." His artful diplomacy was ably seconded by the pen of Frederick Gentz. This living arsenal of gossip, epigram and satirical observations, was a political philosopher of no mean

1 Polética's overtures to induce the United States to join the Holy Alliance set forth in the preceding chapter.

* Secretary of State to Mr. Middleton, July 5, 1820. MS. Instructions, Russia.

attainments. He possessed an extraordinary talent for the technique of diplomacy, and, had he been able to win the respect of his fellow statesmen, might have filled a much more important place than history has accorded him. It is as Metternich's alter ego and familiar that he is best known.1

Metternich's first idea had been to allow the newly formed Federal Diet created at Vienna to take action against the "perils" which, he believed, confronted the German Federation. Gentz, however, realized the danger of allowing the voice of Liberalism an opportunity to be heard in public places. His own plan involved a diplomatic solution in line with the Tsar's international programs. Two private reunions of the interested Powers were to be held. In the first of these, the Conference of Carlsbad, only Austria and Prussia were to take part, together with the representatives of four or five minor German states, without influence or voice in the chapter. A second conference, he suggested, might then safely be held in Vienna, formed of chosen delegates from all the member states of the Confederation. This would in turn modify the fundamental laws sufficiently to enable the recommendations of the Carlsbad Conference to be carried out.

Gentz's program was carried out almost to the letter. Metternich's first step was to warn Frederick William that unless he adopted without reserve the plans of the Emperor Francis, the latter would retire from the German Confederation.

Events in Germany again helped to forward this policy. At Toeplitz, the King of Prussia heard that enthusiastic meetings were being held all over Prussia in favor of Liberal reforms, and as a protest against the rumored measures taken by the Prussian Government. In three days Metternich imposed upon the now terrified and repentant Hohenzollern not only the program he had drawn up, but even exacted a promise that he would permanently renounce all plans of granting constitutional representation to his people. The vacillating monarch promised his help to extend these principles of reaction to the whole of Germany. The celebrated "Decrees of Carlsbad" were the fruits of these interviews.2

While the Tsar (together with the Cabinets of Great Britain

1 De Clery, Un Diplomate d'il y a Cent Ans: Frédéric de Gentz, pp. 219 et seq.

2 In France, Metternich's reactionary program was forwarded by the political assassination of Kotzebue in Germany and that of the Duke of Berry, heir to the French throne (February 13, 1820).

and France) viewed with growing alarm the preponderating power exercised by Austria and Prussia over the newly "united" states of Germany, their concerted action was nevertheless inevitably forced to follow the reactionary lines laid down by Metternich and Gentz.1

Alexander still clung firmly to the illusion that he was the champion of international "rights." When his brother-in-law, the King of Württemberg, maintained his determination to grant a constitution in the face of the protests of Austria and Prussia, the Tsar found that his policy needed a new formula. Insurrection and revolution on the part of subjects against their Kings were inadmissible. On the other hand, the voluntary concession of liberal institutions by Kings to their subjects, he held, must be regarded as a sacred privilege. In this connection, it must be noted that the King of Württemberg had addressed his appeal to Alexander "in the name of Liberty and the free exercise of the monarchical principles guaranteed by the 'Holy Alliance.'" This was the last occasion when the principles of this mystical pact were to be invoked in the cause of liberal reform.2

Reactionary fears were justified by the series of revolutions which followed the popular uprising of January 1, 1820, led by Riego in Spain. This constitutional movement soon spread over the whole southern part of Europe, and its repression through "intervention" became the chief concern of the Powers confederated by the "System of 1815." 4

The King of Spain, after his unsuccessful attempt to obtain the intervention of the Powers assembled at Aix-la-Chapelle, had found himself almost powerless to stem the tide of victorious Liberalism in his American colonies. All the resources of his Kingdom had been expended in preparing a great military expedition, which during the year 1819 vainly awaited the necessary transports on the Island of Leon, near Cadiz. The

1 Alexander now asked the Court of London "what steps were to be taken regarding Germany" and that Cabinet replied there was no motive to interfere. Gentz, Dépêches inédités du Chevalier de Gentz aux Hospodars de Valachie, vol. II, p. 17.

"The Tsar declared "that it was unfortunate when a monarch did not know the proper time to give a constitution to his people." Mr. Campbell to the Secretary of State, April 10, 1820. MS. Dispatches, Russia.

The Constitution forced on Ferdinand was the same which Alexander had applauded in 1812! Pasquier, Mémoires, vol. Iv, p. 498.

* Metternich declared he "was able to inform the Princes of Germany" that no differences separated the sovereigns of Europe, whose inviolable intention was to keep the peace. Gentz, Dépêches inédités, vol. 11, p. 127.

revolution had its origin among these troops. The harsh conditions of military service was the fault alleged. But the misgovernment of Ferdinand throughout the peninsula and the liberal ideas left in the wake of Napoleon's armies caused disturbances to break out with startling rapidity all over Spain. Troops stationed at Coruna in the far north and Barcelona in the south joined the mutineers. Within two short months the revolutionaries obtained their ends. The army proclaimed the readoption of the Constitution of 1812, and the ignoble Ferdinand hastened to accept the situation-pretending to accede as graciously as possible to the popular wishes.

As Metternich had prophesied at Aix-la-Chapelle, Constitutional government now became the question of the day. A few months later, a revolution similar in its aims to that in Spain broke out in Sicily,2 where on the 6th of July the Spanish Constitution was accepted by the King. A third Constitutional revolution took place in Portugal, where the same document was again proclaimed (on August 23).

Any interference of the Powers in Portugal, however, was a direct challenge to England's traditional policy to act as sole protector with respect to that state.3

The Tsar now sought an opportunity to propose an intervention between the King of the two Sicilies and his subjects, thus making the Neapolitan revolution a matter of European rather than of exclusively Austrian concern. Metternich, from reasons of policy, at last agreed to Alexander's favorite plan-a European Congress. This solution once decided upon, the opening of the debates was set for October 20, 1820, at Troppau.5

But from the beginning the differences separating the Powers represented were even less likely to result in unity of action than at Aix-la-Chapelle. Castlereagh refused to join the Congress, as desired by the Tsar, and sent Lord Stewart instead. Troppau thus became little more than a reunion of the three monarchs

1 "The army, which was ill clothed, ill fed and worse paid, mutinied to prevent being embarked for Spanish America, on board a fleet composed of vessels that were esteemed not seaworthy for so long a voyage." Stapleton, The Political Life of George Canning, vol. I, p. 33.

2 Pasquier, Mémoires, vol. IV, pp. 515-516. 3 Ibid., p. 514.

Ibid., pp. 526 et seq.

Gentz, Dépêches inédités, vol. II, p. 81.

The invitation to Troppau came at an awkward moment for Castlereagh. "We know to what point the Tsar wishes to push the principle of Alliance,” he said. "The five powers would soon be a sort of European Government. It would be universal monarchy, the dream of the Abbé St. Pierre!" Pasquier, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 539.