The Liberal Tradition

3. FOREIGN POLICY AND THE STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM ABROAD

10. EARL GREY: Speech in the House of Lords, 19 February 1821

[Grey was speaking in the debate on Naples. After the revolution in Naples in July 1820 the protocol which affirmed the right of the European Alliance to interfere to crush dangerous internal revolutions had been issued at the Congress of Troppau, October 1820.]

The claim set up was nothing less than the right of a general superintendence of the states of Europe, and of the suppression of all changes in their internal government, if those changes should be hostile to what the Holy Alliance called the legitimate principles of government. . . .

Every reform of abuses, every improvement in government, which did not originate with a sovereign, of his own free will, was to be prevented. Were this principle to be successfully maintained, the triumph of tyranny would be complete, and the chains of mankind would be riveted for ever. . . . Hopeless, indeed, was the condition of the human race, if they were to obtain no political rights except such as spring from the benevolence of sovereigns—of the monarchs who composed the Holy Alliance.

[After criticising the Government for breaking off relations with the constitutional government established in Naples, Earl Grey continued:]

Their lordships had seen free constitutions overthrown by armies in concert with kings, and yet no such consequence as the interruption of friendly relations had followed. . . . Their lordships well knew that the constitution of Spain was overthrown by an army under the direction of the king, and yet they had seen no such consequence as had occurred with respect to Naples. Amicable relations were without scruple continued with the court of Spain after Ferdinand had subverted that constitution which this country was bound to support. There was no accounting for this distinction but upon the supposition that ministers had one rule for revolutions in favour of liberty, and another for revolutions in favour of despotism. The latter were by every means to be encouraged, and the former discountenanced, and if possible punished. When what had passed was impartially looked at, the inference drawn must be this—that the objection to the Neapolitan revolution was the characteristics of freedom which belonged to it, and that, being a revolution the object of which was to limit, not to create arbitrary power, it was therefore to be severely condemned. . . .

We were told that there was a sect or party at Naples which had occasioned the revolution, and that this sect was called the Carbonari; but if the fact of the revolution being occasioned by a sect gave a right of interference, such a right might be claimed in every revolution. . . . He was one of those old-fashioned politicians who thought that every great political change might be traced to previous misgovernment. In such a situation, sects could be formed, and leaders would always be found, for effecting a revolution; and it would be very unjust to accuse those as being the causes of it who were only the instruments, and to punish them for taking the only means of effecting their objects. Let their lordships look to the revolution of 1688, and then he would ask them, if it could have been carried into effect without the combinations of those great men, who restored and secured our religion, our laws, and our liberties, and without such mutual communications among them as would bring them under the description of a sect or party? . . .

They were told, however, that the Neapolitan revolution had not only been the work of a sect, but that they had employed the army as the instrument in effecting their purpose. He did not see any more strength in this objection than in the former. If they were to have armies, they must reconcile themselves to the idea, that when a soldier enlisted into them he did not surrender the feelings of a man; that he remained a citizen when under arms, and must sympathise with his countrymen. In a revolution the army must always take one side or the other; it must support the sovereign against the people, or aid the people in demanding their rights of the sovereign. God forbid that it should always, and in all circumstances, take the side of arbitrary power! God forbid that tyranny, however monstrous or oppressive, should always be defended by the army! He rejoiced to consider that soldiers when enlisted did not cease to be men, and that sovereigns were sometimes taught by their taking an opposite side, that their best guards and protection were the confidence and love of the people. . . .

Divesting the principles promulgated in the circular, and the conduct of the allies, of all pretexts, what language did they hold but the following, to the people of Naples? ‘You shall have no liberty but what is agreeable to our will; we cannot permit it to be enjoyed in our states, nor will we allow it in you: as we are resolved not to give freedom ourselves, we will not have free neighbours; freedom at Naples might encourage the people of Germany, and the people in the north of Italy, to demand a similar boon. It might incite the inhabitants of Breslau, or of the banks of the Rhine, to seek for those constitutions which have been long promised and always delayed; nay, it might even penetrate into the frosts of Russia and elicit a new spark in the breasts of those who expelled Bonaparte from their inhospitable wilds. Expect not, therefore, that we can permit you to improve the system of your government. Overthrow the constitution you have established, or prepare for the full infliction of our wrath.’ Such was the language held by the assembled sovereigns to the people of Naples. . . .

When he looked around, and saw that no changes were to be permitted but those which were inconsistent with the independence of states and the rights of mankind; when he saw Austria, because she had dominions in Italy, declaring that no part of Italy should enjoy freedom, lest that freedom should become contagious, he could scarcely restrain his indignation. Of what nature was the government of Austria in Italy? It was the government of strangers in that country; it was founded on recent conquest, and had for its principle that everything was to be done there for the benefit of Austria, and not for that of Italy. If any new law was to be enacted, it was, to secure the interests of Austria; if any tax was to be levied, it was for Austria; if any conscription was to be raised, it was for defending the rights of Austria, and not of Italy. Agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, languished on account of the power exercised by Austria; even literature and the arts had felt the influence of foreign dominion. No improvement could be expected in a state so governed; and was Naples to be restrained from attaining her rights, or establishing her freedom, because the dominion of the Emperor of Austria might be rendered less secure in the north of Italy by an improvement in the south?

Parliamentary Debates, N.S. iv, pp. 744-59.

11. MARQUIS OF LANSDOWNE: Speech in the House of Lords, 2 March 1821

[Lansdowne was also speaking in the debate on Naples.]

Was it probable that a new order of things, never attempted to be established before, could now be reared and permanently established? If such a state of things in Europe had heretofore been attempted, would Holland have obtained what she had achieved? Would Switzerland? Would the United States? Would Spain or Portugal? They never could have changed their situations had the principles of this alliance of sovereigns been heretofore promulgated. . .. It was against such a system that England had repeatedly acted both in ancient and modern times, so late as at the breaking out of the war when Bonaparte was first consul. . . . At that time reasons were not wanting for France to have said of Switzerland as Austria now did of Naples, that her proceedings were calculated to inflame contiguous states. But no such plea was thought of by England; the act of France was justly complained of, because it was an act inconsistent with the independence of nations, and particularly in that most essential part, the right of a free people to choose their own form of government. In former times Great Britain had acquired deserved glory by the policy she adopted, as the fosterer of every nascent spark of liberty which was struck out of any of the nations in the world. The moment that spark arose, it was considered by England as an acquisition to be cherished, not extinguished. The greatest man who had ever written upon the policy of an empire, or who had enlightened any age by his wisdom, the great Lord Bacon, when justly praising the principles that governed the counsels of Queen Elizabeth in her intercourse with foreign states, after reviewing the various merits which he justly ascribed to that policy, fixed for the highest theme of his panegyric upon that part of Elizabeth’s conduct, where, to use his own words, ‘she cultivated and encouraged the liberties of other nations on the continent of Europe.’. . .

He knew it had been said, that all interference would be now useless; that the die was cast, and it was now too late to interfere in the hope of promoting any practical good. He was not of that opinion; he did not despair, even now, if England properly interposed. But even were he satisfied that the people of Naples were over-run by their assailants, and every foot of land there in the firm occupation of German soldiers, still he should say it was not too late for that House to disclaim the principle upon which the congress at Troppau were now acting, and to save Europe from the eventual calamities which such a principle was but too well calculated to produce.

Ibid. pp. 1047-9.

12. EARL BYRON: Sonnet on Chillon (1816)

Eternal Spirit of the chainless Mind!

Brightest in dungeons, Liberty! thou art:

For there thy habitation is the heart—

The heart which love of thee alone can bind;

And when thy sons to fetters are consigned—

To fetters, and the damp vault’s dayless gloom,

Their country conquers with their martyrdom,

And Freedom’s fame finds wings on every wind.

Chillon! thy prison is a holy place,

And thy sad floor an altar—for ’twas trod,

Until his very steps have left a trace

Worn, as if thy cold pavement were a sod,

By Bonivard!1—May none those marks efface!

For the appeal from tyranny to God.

BYRON.

13. EARL BYRON: Childe Harold (1817)

Yet, Freedom!,yet thy banner, torn, but flying,

Streams like the thunder-storm against the wind;

Thy trumpet voice, though broken now and dying,

The loudest still the Tempest leaves behind;

Thy tree hath lost its blossoms, and the rind,

Chopped by the axe, looks rough and little worth,

But the sap lasts,—and still the seed we find,

Sown deep, even in the bosom of the North;

So shall a better spring less bitter fruit bring forth.

Childe Harold, Canto IV, xcviii.

14. EARL BYRON: Marino Faliero (1821)

[From Act II, Scene ii, of Byron’s historical drama of 14th-century Venice, Marino Faliero. It was written in 1820 and produced at Drury Lane in 1821.]

ISRAEL BERTUCCIO:                They never fail who die

In a great cause: the block may soak their gore:

Their heads may sodden in the sun; their limbs

Be strung to city gates and castle walls—

But still their spirit walks abroad. Though years

Elapse, and others share as dark a doom.

They but augment the deep and sweeping thoughts

Which overpower all others, and conduct

The world at last to Freedom. What were we,

If Brutus had not lived? He died in giving

Rome liberty, but left a deathless lesson—

A name which is a virtue, and a soul

Which multiplies itself throughout all time,

When wicked men wax mighty, and a state

Turns servile. He and his high friends were styled

‘The last of Romans.’ Let us be the first

Of true Venetians, sprung from Roman sires.

François Bonivard, born in 1493, was one of the leaders of the Genevese in their attempt to throw off the yoke of the House of Savoy and convert their city into a republic. He was arrested and imprisoned by the Duke of Savoy, on the second occasion spending six years in the Chateau de Chillon. He was released by the Bernese in 1536. Byron and Shelley visited Chillon together in June 1816.