DECLARATION OF THE ALLIED SOVEREIGNS AT LAYBACH. (Hansard, 21 June 1821)

§ Mr. Stuart Wortley
rose, to call the attention of the House to the circular despatch which had lately been issued from the Congress at Laybach. He thought the principles advanced in that paper were dangerous to the liberties of this country as well as the rest of Europe. He was of opinion that this country ought to take some means of letting Europe know that the doctrines advanced in that document were not consonant with those on which the government of this country acted. He believed the strongly expressed disapprobation of that House, with respect to the principles advanced in the despatch from Laybach, would not fail to produce an effect on the Continent. At the breaking up of the Congress of Laybach, a circular despatch was addressed to the different cabinets of Europe, by the ministers of the allied powers who composed the Congress. This despatch, after stating that the allies had assembled at Troppau and Laybach for the purpose of taking certain steps against the proceedings which had occurred at Naples, proceeded to declare the views of the allied sovereigns with respect to any future reforms that might be effected in the government of any state of Europe. He would beg the House to attend to the following passage in the despatch:—"Useful or necessary changes in legislation, and in the administration of states, ought only to emanate from the free will, the intelligent and well-weighed conviction of those whom God had ren- 1255 dered responsible for power. All that deviates from this line necessarily leads to disorder, commotions, and evils, far more insufferable than those which they pretend to remedy. Penetrated with this eternal truth, the sovereigns have not hesitated to proclaim it with frankness and vigour; they have declared, that in respecting the rights and independence of all legitimate power, they regard as legally null, and as disavowed by the principles which constitute the public right of Europe, all pretended reforms operated by revolt and open hostility." He would ask, whether if this principle had formerly been acted upon in this country, we should at this time have possessed any liberty whatever? for what liberty we did enjoy had frequently been obtained by force of arms, and always against the will of the sovereign. It was the business of this country to take care that the doctrine contained in the despatch was not made the law of Europe. If it were, all hopes of liberty would be put an end to. He considered that the revolution in Naples did not emanate from the people, but was the work of a faction. Austria, however, did not march against Naples on the ground that the Revolution was produced by the efforts of a particular sect, which might endanger the tranquillity, of her states; but in support of the principle advanced in the despatch from Laybach. Whether the revolution at Naples was right or wrong, it had obtained the sanction of the king, and affairs were going on quietly for several months before Austria interfered. With respect to Piedmont, the revolution there was also the work of a small party, and the people were not prepared for the change. He would allow these sovereigns to govern their own people as they thought fit; but the moment they stepped out of their own territories, to dictate to the rest of Europe, and to promulgate principles hostile to the existence of liberty, he thought it became necessary for the House to express its opinion with regard to their conduct. He would move, "That there be laid before this House, Copies of a Declaration made by the courts of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, dated at Laybach on the 12th May last; and also, of a Circular Despatch of the same date, accompanying the said Declaration, and addressed to the Ministers of those three powers at foreign courts, for the purpose of being communicated to the Ministers for foreign affairs 1256 of the courts to which those are respectively accredited."

The Marquis of Londonderry
, although he agreed with the general reasoning of the hon. gentleman did not think that the documents moved for could, consistently with the general practice of parliament, be produced. There was no principle more clearly founded in parliamentary wisdom than that it was inexpedient to call for a public document, unless it tended to some practical result. The present case was one of a less pressing nature than that which was under the consideration of the House at the beginning of the session. It was a document of a general character addressed to the whole of Europe, and less requiring parliamentary interposition than the declaration from Troppau, because the latter was immediately directed to this country, and assumed that the government concurred in the principles professed by the allied sovereigns. The House was less provoked to interfere in the present case, either from the nature of the document, or by the circumstances under which it was published. The declaration from Troppau was issued in connexion with a practical course of conduct then acted on with regard to different states. No principle could be more calculated to interrupt national tranquillity than to assume that a paper bearing on its face the evidence that it was nothing more than a general exposition of principles ought to provoke a counter-declaration on the part of this government. If we were to engage in a perpetual conflict of state paper against state paper, the councils of Europe would be resolved into a debating society, and all the links by which different countries were connected would be broken. Almost immediately after the publication of the despatch from Laybach, the government of this country took the opportunity of stating, in opposition to what the allied sovereigns pretended was the law of nations, what it considered the law of nations really to be. The laying of the documents called for upon the table of the House, would detract from the weight that would attend the former declaration of government. He did not scruple to declare his disapprobation of the principles advocated in the documents which had been brought under the notice of the House. He could not recognize the principle that one state was entitled to interfere with another, because 1257 changes might be effected in its government in a way which the former state disapproved. For certain states to erect themselves into a tribunal, to judge of the internal affairs of others, was to arrogate to themselves a power which could only be assumed in defiance of the law of nations and the principles of common sense. He thought that the illustrious monarchs had been ill-advised in adopting principles which were not consistent with sound policy; but he believed they had been guided by no other motive than a real desire to preserve the peace of Europe—that they had had no view to aggrandize themselves by the acquisition of territory. The sovereigns, after laying down principles which he must blame, stated the danger with which they believed themselves threatened from the existence of a revolutionary spirit. He, however, did not mean to confound a just and necessary revolution with that spirit of anarchy and total subversion of all order which might be said to have found sanction even in that House. We had had our revolutions; but we had never admired them as revolutions. A revolution had always been looked upon as the greatest evil that could afflict the country. We had never felt ourselves justified in appearing in the character of revolutionists, unless our liberties had been violated. The leaders in our revolutions had always been controlled, directed, and guided by the spirit of the system on which the government of the country had uniformly-proceeded. In the Revolution of 1688 it was the pride of our ancestors to show that they had done nothing which was not called for by the clear necessity of the case. There was now a conspiracy abroad which menaced the existence of every regular government. When that was the case, he was not prepared to say how far general principles like those contained in the declarations of the sovereigns might not be defended, as the means of preventing evils with which all governments were threatened. A system of universal subversion existed throughout Europe, and one revolution was made the means of giving birth to another. The sovereigns of Europe did not know how soon the blood of their own people might become the sacrifice of the revolutionary principles which were advocated throughout Europe. The policy of this country might rest on the principles contained in his majesty's declaration of the 19th of 1258 January. On that declaration the country had taken its stand, as on a rock. He thought there was no ground for regarding the proceedings of the sovereigns with jealousy. All the calumnies which had been heaped upon them, on account of their conduct with regard to Naples, had been proved to be without foundation. Nothing could be more clear from reproach than their conduct as respected Turkey. All the acts of massacre and bloodshed in that scene of calamity had originated in the secret societies of coldblooded philosophers. If this country ever interfered with foreign powers; it ought to be on some practical application of principles contained in the declarations of sovereigns, and not on account of the mere promulgation of those principles. He hoped that House would not call for the production of these papers.

§ Sir J. Mackintosh
observed, that the arguments of the noble lord would tend to contract the privileges of the House. The noble lord said, that it was contrary to the rule of their proceedings to ask for information, unless the member asking was prepared to found some proceeding upon the information when obtained. This reasoning was not only irreconcilable with the practice of parliament, but with common sense. There might be many cases in which it would be impossible to know what course it would be necessary to take until the information was before the House. He did not find fault, however, with the general tendency of the noble lord's observations. He rejoiced to hear the condemnation which the noble lord had passed upon the principles contained in the declarations of the sovereigns. He was no admirer of revolutions as such, but he was an admirer of those who created a system of order out of a system of abuse. He could not admit that a revolution was the greatest of all evils. The greatest of evils was to be a perpetual slave. The production of the papers was not desired, with a view to criminate ministers, but was called for on the ground that they contained principles materially affecting the security of Europe and of this country in particular. Austria, in acting on these principles was now in possession of a larger portion of territory than she could have acquired after a long war. What effect had the protest of this country against the principles of the allies had? The allies had published a paper in which all their former assumptions were 1259 maintained. The declarations of the sovereigns made no distinction between the most justifiable rebellion against a cruel and bloody tyranny, and a wanton mutiny against a mild and well-regulated government. Was it not true, by the description which the noble marquis applied to the principles on which the invasion of Italy was justified, that the allied is sovereigns had entered into a conspiracy against the laws of nations? Was it not true that the attack on Naples was an attack on all states that attempted a reformation of the abuses of government I Could there, in the whole range of history be found conspirators against the peace, the repose, and the rights of nations, if these military despots were not? And was not this a case in which the sentiments of the House ought to be expressed, where doctrines were advanced so novel, so extraordinary, and so dangerous. The noble marquis, in defending the allies, appealed from their professed principles and public acts to their personal character, for the justification of their intentions; but their personal character, was no security, and if brought forward to allay suspicion or to inspire confidence, must provoke inquiry, and justify criticism. He (sir J. M.) would proceed on the opposite principle, that the government of every state was as ambitious as it dared to be, and must be coerced into moderation. In order to show what little reliance was to be placed on the security which the noble lord held out, he need only allude to the conduct of Russia since 1807. In that year, Russia and Sweden were our faithful allies. By the peace of Tilsit, Russia became the ally of our implacable enemy, and received the spoils of Sweden, her former ally, for remaining faithful to engagements which she had broken. In four years afterwards Russia again became our ally, and Denmark, which had joined her, continued our enemy. For this constancy to his engagements, the king of Denmark was (deprived of a part of his dominions. Thus Russia punished her two neighbours with the loss of their favourite dominions, because they adhered too faithfully to engagements which, she had broken, and refused to join a her perfidy. She robbed the one to enrich herself, and having made peace with the first, robbed the second to compensate for the previous robbery. What then became of the personal ^character, oaf which so much had been 1260 said? These acts were either the acts of the sovereign, or they were not. If they were, what reliance could be placed in, his personal character? If, on the contrary, they were the acts of his ministers, they showed how little his personal character influenced the policy of his government. Extremes generally produced extremes. He thought the allied monarchs had not consulted their own interests in their late conduct. By denouncing all popular principles, they might provoke retaliation from those not well affected to their power. If kings hold out that liberty could not be established without destroying monarchy, the people might, in their turn, declare monarchy inconsistent with liberty. It was, then, the duty of England, which had so long experienced the union of freedom with monarchical institutions, to interfere on this occasion, and show to the world how much of national happiness and security would be lost by either extreme.