Part 70

It was in presence of these disturbances that the true principles of the Holy Alliance began to show themselves. The three Eastern powers seemed to consider themselves authorized to introduce into Europe a new form of international law. Regarding themselves as the only legitimate and divinely appointed powers, and holding themselves pledged to mutual support against their enemies, and having declared their intention to act as a brotherhood in international questions, they appear to have believed that the enemies against whom their mutual assistance was required were all those who resisted established authority, and that any disturbances thus arising ought to be regulated by European congresses. In other words, they arrogated to themselves, for the sake of suppressing what they considered revolutionary movements, the right of federative action in the cause of legitimacy and absolutism. Already, at Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle, they had acted more or less on this principle, and now they summoned a similar Congress at Troppau (1820). It was impossible for an English minister to accede to this new doctrine, however much he may have had at heart the cause which the allied sovereigns were supporting, and Lord Castlereagh, as early as April, declared that the alliance to which England was a party existed for particular cases only, and was not to be generalized as the Eastern sovereigns appeared to wish to generalize it. It shows how the position of England had sunk under Castlereagh's management, that the monarchs determined to act without England, and it shows the weakness of Castlereagh's mode of action that he allowed, under these circumstances, an English minister to be present at the meeting, not to take part in the discussions, but merely to report their progress to his Government. The Holy Alliance proceeded to act upon its own principles. In November the English minister learnt that the three powers intended to join and to act in common for the restoration of Ferdinand of Naples, whom they had invited to meet them at Laibach, whither the Congress was adjourned. Early in December 1820 a circular to that effect was issued in the name of the three sovereigns, which, in spite of what Castlereagh had said, proceeded to declare that, as what they were now doing was in accordance with the late treaties, they felt no doubt of the adhesion of France and England. On the 19th of that month, without knowledge of this circular, Castlereagh wrote an explicit declaration that England would not join in any united action. Had he openly declared this intention and withdrawn the English ambassador he would not have acted otherwise than as became an English minister. But on the 19th of January 1821 a letter of Castlereagh's, purporting to be an answer to the circular of December 8th, which had been published by some indiscretion in the public prints, while reasserting the position he had taken up in his previous declaration, went on to confess that the Government had looked with the strongest disapproval on the insurrection in Naples. This weak document, coming as it did just before the meeting of Parliament, after the popular temper had been roused by the knowledge of the arrogant circular of December, and taken in connection with the facts that diplomatic relations had not been renewed with the constitutional Government of Naples, and that an English fleet was cruising off the coast, seemed to show that the minister's heart was really with the sovereigns, and that his letter was only written to suit party purposes in England. At the opening of Parliament (Jan. 23, 1821) the Government had to withstand the most bitter assaults from the Opposition, headed by Lords Grey and Holland in the Lords, by Mackintosh, Brougham, and Tierney in the Lower House, and although a public vote of censure, considering the constitution of the House, was out of the question, it was plain that the feeling of all parties was strong against the action of the Holy Alliance. The attacks on the minister were still continuing when the uselessness of English interference was demonstrated by the entrance of an Austrian army into Italy, by which the revolution was summarily suppressed.

[Sidenote: Insurrection in Greece. March 1821.]

It was not only in the West of Europe that difficulties arose. The Christian populations under the power of the Ottoman Porte rose in insurrection. They naturally looked, as they have always looked, to the Czar for protection. Their method of proceeding was closely analogous to that of the revolutionists in the rest of Europe; and in Greece, as in Italy, secret societies were organized against the existing powers. It has always been a part of Russian policy to secure as much influence in Turkey as possible. On the other hand, it was impossible for the English, at that time in constant diplomatic rivalry with Russia, to wish to see that power in possession of Constantinople or the Black Sea. In the affairs of Greece therefore a complete inversion of the principles which had been predominant at the Congress of Troppau was visible. The interests of Russia demanded that she should assist a revolutionary movement backed up by secret societies and directed against a legitimate sovereign, while England felt itself compelled to allege the doctrines of legitimacy and to call to its aid old alliances in order to shelter Turkey. The difficulty was so great that it was determined that this question also should be referred to a Congress, which was held first at Vienna, and subsequently moved to Verona.

[Sidenote: Complications between France and Spain. 1821.]

[Sidenote: Congress at Verona. Sept. 1822.]

But meanwhile fresh complications had arisen in the West. A terrible visitation of the yellow fever had come upon Spain. Under pretext of excluding the infection from their own country, the French had massed troops along the borders; but it soon became evident that something beyond sanitary precautions had inspired this movement. When the illness disappeared there was still an army of 100,000 men lying within reach of the Pyrenees. In fact, the Legitimists of France had seen with extreme dislike the revolution in Spain; it was political infection they were chiefly anxious to avoid, and the more advanced members of that party, which had a large majority in the French Houses, were thinking of the invasion of Spain, and the re-establishment by force of arms of the absolutist rule of Ferdinand. Lord Londonderry was preparing to attend the Congress at Verona when his health and reason gave way and he committed suicide. In his place the Duke of Wellington attended the Congress, and was somewhat surprised to find that, instead of the Greek question, the real point at issue was the demand of France for a joint action on the part of the Legitimist Courts of Europe to suppress the revolution in Spain.

[Sidenote: Object of Canning's policy.]

It was to the management of this difficult affair that Canning was called. It cannot be said that he introduced a new system into our diplomacy. He had been a party to some of the declarations of his predecessor, and had accepted the responsibility of them. In fact, as has been seen in his public despatches, Castlereagh had already declared the impossibility of English co-operation in any general scheme of repressive action on the Continent, and his dislike to the government of Europe by congresses. It is the way in which Canning acted up to and rendered practical those declarations which makes it possible to say that his accession to office was an era in English politics. His instructions to Wellington were clear and precise. If a declaration of any such determination--that is, of joint action--should be made at Verona, come what might the Duke was to refuse the King's consent to become a party to it, even though the dissolution of the alliance should be the consequence of his refusal. Canning's object was to secure European peace and to allow nations freedom of choice as to their own government--to re-establish, in fact, in England and throughout Europe a policy based upon national grounds, as distinguished from that system of united and general policy by means of European congresses under which Europe since the peace had been labouring.

[Sidenote: Partial success of Canning's diplomacy in Spain.]

In the first of his objects Canning was partially successful. The distinct refusal of Wellington to join in united action, and his subsequent withdrawal from the Congress, prevented a general European attack upon Spain. He could not entirely prevent the war, but he succeeded in reducing it to the dimensions of a national war. He used his best endeavours to persuade France not to attack Spain. He declared that the free institutions of the Spanish people could not, as the French King had asserted, be only held legitimately from the spontaneous gift of the sovereign; the Spanish nation could not be expected to subscribe to that principle, nor could any British statesman uphold or defend it; it was in fact a principle that struck at the root of the British Constitution. In his eagerness to avert hostilities he even entreated the Spaniards to make changes in their constitution. His efforts on both sides were vain. The French invaded Spain; on the 2nd of May 1823 they entered Madrid; on the 1st of October Cadiz was surrendered, and Ferdinand and his absolute government were re-established. But in the matter of English interests Canning declared himself plainly. Portugal might be involved, and an effort might be made by Spain, with the assistance of France, to reconquer her colonies. Should Portugal join with Spain voluntarily, England would take no notice; but if that country were invaded, England would of necessity come to the assistance of her old ally. With regard to the colonies he took a similar ground. They were virtually independent; during the contest, true to his principle of neutrality, he had abetted Government in preventing Englishmen from joining the insurgents; but the trade with the colonies being now open, the interests of England were so involved with their independence that he would not allow any foreign nation to join in reconquering them; if Spain was itself unable to subdue them, no foreign country, he declared, should subdue them for her. He followed up this policy by declaring that he would send English consuls to protect British trade, and their appointment was in fact the recognition of the independence of the colonies.

The new minister's conduct at the negotiations at Verona was subjected to warm discussion at the beginning of the year 1823. The firm attitude of neutrality which he had taken up did not satisfy the aspirations of those who looked upon his accession to office as the triumph of the Whig party. But his vindication was so complete that, upon the division, the opinion of the House appeared to be quite unanimous. The Opposition was only twenty in a House of 372, and of those twenty some were professed ministerialists, who had been shut out from voting by the crowd of their own adherents.

[Sidenote: Change in commercial policy effected by Huskisson.]

But it was not only in our foreign policy that a change of spirit now became obvious. In the winter of 1823, a few months after the accession of Canning to office, further changes took place in the ministry. Mr. Vansittart resigned the place of Chancellor of the Exchequer, for which he was very unfit, and went into the Upper House as Lord Bexley. Mr. Robinson (afterwards Lord Goderich) succeeded him, and, much more important, Mr. Huskisson was in January made President of the Board of Trade, and with him a complete alteration came over our commercial policy, and the reign of restriction began to give way and yield place to free trade. The questions at issue had not yet become party tests, as they subsequently were, and Huskisson, as member of a Tory ministry, was able by his comprehension of the true principles of trade to set on foot a new system without separating from his colleagues.

[Sidenote: Financial condition of England.]

The expenses of the war had been enormous, perhaps inevitably so, and the taxes were proportionately heavy. During the last year of the war in taxes and loans upwards of £170,000,000 had been raised. The National Debt amounted to nearly £800,000,000, and to meet the necessities of the moment this had been raised by very expensive methods, so that the nominal sum on which interest was paid was considerably higher than the actual money which had passed into Government hands. Mr. Vansittart, who had had the management of the finances, had no real knowledge of financial principles, and had acted on the simple plan of increasing taxes when more money was necessary, and supplying the deficit by loans contracted in an extravagant fashion, or taken from the sinking fund. He did not see that doubling a tax by no means doubled the returns from it, as it inevitably compelled some people, and those the most numerous and poorest, to surrender the taxed article; and in common with many people at the time, he believed in the magical effect of the sinking fund, although the sum yearly paid to it was derived from loans contracted at considerably higher interest than the fund itself bore. The sinking fund indeed had, in the hands of the present Government, almost lost its original object, and was openly declared both by Vansittart and Castlereagh to be chiefly useful for supplying the ministry with an easy means of getting money to meet emergencies, instead of a sacred deposit to be used only for the extinction of debt. The ease with which all money demands of Government were granted during the war had also engendered a spirit of extravagance, and economy had been one of the earliest cries of the Opposition on the resumption of peace. At first the support of the large standing army which still remained on foot, and other expenses which were regarded as necessary, had apparently prevented any relaxation of taxes, but by degrees the universal discontent excited by their pressure had compelled Government to grant some relief, and a certain number of taxes had been taken off or reduced.

[Sidenote: The resources of the country restricted by protective laws.]

But all this time the real resources of England, the development of which would have largely increased the revenue, and at the same time have admitted of large decrease of taxation, had been restricted by unwise commercial legislation, having its origin in distant times and in a different state of society. The interests of the landowners and agriculturists were so closely connected with the predominance of the Tory party, and they had played so large a part in the conduct of England of late years, that the agriculturists had succeeded in making good the advantages of their class to the detriment of all others. They claimed nothing less than the exclusive right of supplying the whole nation with food, and by their clamour and influence in the House of Commons had succeeded in procuring corn laws which went far to secure them that monopoly. But meanwhile, within the last fifty years, the manufacturing interest, principally through the introduction of machinery, had relatively enormously increased. In the twenty years between 1811 and 1831, while the agricultural population increased but 2½ per cent., the manufacturing population had increased 31½ per cent. The time was rapidly approaching when the growing and increasing manufacturing and commercial element would of necessity claim its due position in opposition to the landed aristocracy. But at present the manufacturers themselves, ignorant of the true principles of political economy, were constantly seeking the benefit of their own class as distinguished from that of the general public, and restrictive, or, as they were called, protective, laws were extended over nearly every branch of industry.

[Sidenote: Changes effected by Robinson and Huskisson.]

Robinson, an exceedingly well-meaning man, had succeeded Vansittart as Chancellor of the Exchequer. But his plans and resources extended but little beyond those of his predecessor. He accepted and kept in operation some of his most unwise financial measures, and, without any change of general view, continued, what was no doubt a good thing in its way, to remit occasionally various small taxes. But he had beside him Huskisson as President of the Board of Trade, who acted in a very different spirit. Like his friend Canning, who gave him his full support, he was a self-made man, and belonging to none of the prominent ruling classes, was able to look at matters in a broader and more national light. And though, like his friend, he was constantly spoken of as an adventurer, and in consequence had to undergo much opposition, he was able by the reasonableness of his views, and by the success which attended their execution, to launch England upon a new course of commercial policy, as Canning had been able to do with regard to foreign affairs. As yet free trade as a whole was not to be thought of, but Huskisson took every advantage of the demands of various classes of industrialists to introduce small reforms. In his first year of office, though he indicated the tendency of his policy, he was not able to affect much except with regard to the navigation laws. The three great industries of England were wool, silk, and cotton. Of these cotton alone had been left unrestricted, and there alone had a very remarkable increase been seen. In the wool trade considerable depression having been felt, numerous petitions from manufacturers were presented begging for the free importation of foreign wool, but at the same time asking that the export of British wool should be forbidden; in other words, claiming to buy the raw material of their manufacture at a price artificially lowered. Government replied that the import tax was a valuable source of revenue, but that it should be willingly foregone if free export was allowed also. As the manufacturers declined this, the movement for the present dropped. In the same way an attempt was made to free the Spitalfields silk manufacture from restrictions, such as the settlement of their wages by the magistrates. It was plain that as long as wages were not allowed to change with the varying requirements of the trade, the manufacturers were under disadvantages as compared with their rivals elsewhere. But 11,000 of the journeymen petitioned against this change, and although the Bill passed the Lower House by small majorities, it was so altered by amendments in the Upper House that Huskisson thought fit to drop it.

[Sidenote: Change of the Navigation Act. June 1823.]

In dealing with the Navigation Act he was more successful. This law, passed in Cromwell's time, and completed in the 12th of Charles II., allowed the produce of Asia, Africa, and America to be brought to England in English ships only, and European goods only in English ships or in ships of the country producing the goods. The close of the American War had given the first blow to this system. American shipping, now become the shipping of a foreign country, was subject to the restrictions of the Act. The Americans retaliated, and the ships of both countries had to perform one half of the voyage empty; the consumers therefore paid double freight. This absurdity continued till the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, when the Governments agreed to drop their restrictions. The course which had been successful with America was subsequently adopted by the mercantile states of Europe. Portugal, the Netherlands, and Prussia, all raised the dues on British vessels, and Huskisson, on the 6th of June 1823, took the opportunity of introducing the Bill known by the name of the Reciprocity of Duties Bill, by which the ships of British and foreign powers were put upon an equal footing, the right being retained to keep up restrictive duties upon the ships of nations who rejected the reciprocal equality of trade thus offered. The outcry against this change was very great, especially among the shipowners, whose business was trammelled by the heavy duty on Baltic timber. Huskisson expressed a hope that this duty might shortly be remitted, and meanwhile offered to return to shipbuilders all the duties paid on their materials. The offer was declined, and the grumbling continued, nevertheless the increase of British ships was enormous; in the last nineteen years of the restrictive duties the tonnage had increased ten per cent.; in twenty-one years after their abolition it increased forty-five per cent.

[Sidenote: Improvement in the silk trade. March 1824.]

The first failure of his plans did not dishearten Huskisson, and the prosperity of the year 1824 enabled him to carry Bills for the relief both of the wool and silk trades. The silk trade had been principally established in England by the persecuted Protestants in 1685, and to support it laws had been passed excluding from England foreign silks, which had previously been admitted free. Early in the eighteenth century the spinning of silk in the Italian method had been introduced by two brothers of the name of Lombe; to protect them heavy duties were laid upon foreign-spun silk. The material for the manufacture of silk goods was thus raised in price, and the manufacture had languished for many years, especially after the introduction of cotton. The production of spun silk in India, whence it was very plentifully supplied, had lately improved this state of things; it was believed that at this time 400,000 people were employed in the manufacture of silk goods. But there was a distinct preference for silks of French manufacture, and the smuggling of such goods into England was a serious damage both to the trade and to the revenue. The silk manufacturers, especially those about London, had immediately, upon Huskisson's accession to office, petitioned for the removal of duties on spun silk, but at the same time, with true class feeling, were eager to exclude foreign manufactured silks. In the same way the silk spinners were eager for the removal of duties upon raw silk, but bitterly opposed to the introduction of spun silk, while the journeymen believed that ruin stared them in the face if foreign manufactured silks were introduced. Between these varying interests Huskisson had to steer his course. The duty on raw silk was immediately reduced to threepence from five and sevenpence halfpenny the pound. The clamour was too great to allow of a similar reduction in the duties on spun silk, which were lowered about half, from fourteen and eightpence to seven and sixpence; and similarly, though Mr. Huskisson wished for an immediate change, the admission of foreign manufactured silks was postponed for two years, when they were to be admitted at an _ad valorem_ duty of thirty per cent. The outcry against the change was great; the workmen thanked the House for the temporary postponement of the day of their destruction; the manufacturers expressed a hope that they should get out of the trade before the fatal day arrived. But the event thoroughly proved the wisdom of Huskisson's plans, and the truth of his prophecy that competition only was wanted to enable English manufacturers to rival the French; ten years after the passing of the Bill England exported to France £60,000 worth of manufactured silk.

[Sidenote: Improvement in the wool trade.]