tinue its exclusion against all foreign manufactures. Whilst all demand a free trade and open market, not one of them is willing to surrender to foreigners any restriction in favor of their own commodities. But is it to be expected for a moment, that foreign nations will accede to a treaty under unequal circumstances? Will Portugal, or what is of more importance, will the Brazils, continue a favored consumption of British cotton and woollen manufactures when we shall exclude her wines, or at least withdraw our preference of Portugal in favor of France? Will the landed interest consent to a more free admission of foreign spirits in competition with our own distilleries? Can we in fact lay our hand upon any existing restriction, in favor of British trade, which the manufacturers concerned in that trade would voluntarily concede, or which could be taken from them without such a violence to the actual employment of capital, and without so much suffering to large bodies employed in the manufacture, as to render it very doubtful whether the ultimate good would be worth the present cost? As regards our present subject, Holland, it is impossible not to acknowledge, that our foreign relations can exist in no other form than at present. All closer commercial connection is impossible. The people of Holland and the Netherlands are as jealous of our manufactures as we can possibly be of theirs. The agriculturists and manufacturers of those countries are making the same demands of their government for the exclusive support of their own growth and manufacture. The crown of Holland and the Netherlands is a new institution; it is necessary for the Dutch government to concede even to the popular prejudices. Our increased tax upon the Dutch provision trade, has removed still further any possibility of negociation for commercial advantages. In a word, under our foreign relations with Holland, we possess all that we can possess: the friendship and confidence of the government, and the same degree of trade to which we admit the Dutch and Netherlanders.

As regards Sardinia, Naples, and Italy in general, the spirit of our foreign relations has been directed towards the maintenance of general tranquillity. It was no part of our duty to interfere with the internal concerns of those governments, nor to take any part in such dissensions between them and their neighbours, as did not affect the due distribution of power in the system of Europe. We have no where contracted the obligation to defend these states in all their conflicts with their subjects, or each other. We have no where excluded ourselves from the question of prudence. Accordingly, when the late invasion of these states occurred, the first consideration of our own government was-is there any thing in the circumstances of these dissensions, which either affects the per

manence of the general settlement of Europe, or menaces any interest peculiarly British. The answer to these questions was in the negative. No interest was concerned but the internal state of the countries themselves. As respected England, our interference could be accompanied with no possible good, equivalent to its necessary cost. The cause itself afforded no appeal to our generosity. The Carbonari were but French reformers under another name. Under all these circumstances, and this character of the cause, our ministers had the forbearance to adhere to strict neutrality between the contending parties. But as the mere appearance of a good cause could not appeal in vain to British feelings, the English government, following the character and public opinion of the country, did not hesitate to express their own adherence to the principles of general freedom, and to guard their neutrality from any construction unfavorable to the cause of national independence. Whilst, in the exercise of a sound discretion, they adhered to a strict neutrality in fact, they fully asserted the law of nations in their diplomatic correspondence, and effectually published a declaration in recognition of the general principle. In this note, having to address themselves to friendly governments, and to states of dignity and power, they spoke with temper and moderation, but certainly not without dignity and firmness. They have yet to learn, that petulance is the due tone of official intercourse, and that other nations are not entitled to the same courtesy from us, which we are in the habit of exacting from them. They have yet to learn, that the personal indisposition of foreign sovereigns and states, not to say their actual hostility, is a matter of such utter indifference to the government and people of England, as to be needlessly incurred by the application of intemperate language and indecorous terms to kings and emperors. They have yet to learn, that the rules of prudence and decorum in common life are not to be carried into political intercourse; and that in discussing the ordinary differences of states and governments, the tone of mediation is not more effectual, as well as more courteous, than that of arrogance and menace.

Our relations next in order, are those with Austria and Russia. As regards Austria, it is unnecessary to go into any detail; the principal point of incidental contact between Austria and ourselves having been touched upon above-some points, however, may appear to deserve observation. One of these is, the erroneous estimate amongst our popular speakers and writers, of the character and alleged views of this government. No sovereign is perhaps more injuriously treated than the Emperor of Austria. He is not the despotic prince which our libellous writers represent. Considering the extent of his dominions, and their exposed condition, the defensive power of the Emperor of Austria is not equal to the VOL. XX. Pam. NO. XXXIX. D

dignity and station of his empire in the European commonwealth. His kingdom is composed of members too distinct, having little more union than in the circumstance of their being governed by a common sovereign: whilst each member is alike suspicious, lest the force of one part should be directed towards the subversion of the privileges of the other. The power of the sovereign, under the Hungarian constitution, amounts to little more than the feudal superiority of the supreme chief over his barons. In his German states, the power of the emperor is rather patrimonial than political. In Italy, he has to contend with an adverse public opinion, and with the natural hostility of a people subjected to a foreign ruler. The local character of his dominions, and their relative situation towards each other, are equally ill adapted to compose a compact power, or to constitute a force of ready application. The greater portion of his kingdom consists of a plain level country, intersected, indeed, by large rivers, but almost totally without any defensive strength upon its frontier. The political character of Austria is necessarily governed by these circumstances of its imperfect means of protection. If the re-construction of the Dutch barrier, by means of the kingdom of the Netherlands, have given additional security to Austria on the part of France, the growth of the Prussian monarchy, and the extension of that of Russia, have introduced other and larger objects, which, in the vicissitudes of time, and in the varying policy of cabinets, may more seriously affect the safety of the House of Austria. It is far, very far from the purpose of the present observations spargere voces ambiguas, or to give countenance to reports which, under present circumstances, have no shadow of foundation in truth. But the prudence of states, which we call policy, has necessarily a longer reach than the precautionary wisdom of private life. It is the duty of Austria to consider the future as well as the present. The generosity and moderation of her present neighbours are their personal virtues; their successors may be more open to temptation. Under such circumstances, the situation of Austria is one of much delicacy and difficulty, and her policy necessarily partakes of this character. She must vigilantly attend to the maintenance of her actual power; she must jealously guard that system of Europe, the continuance of which is her best security, and most effectual strength. In a word, it peculiarly belongs to her relations to encounter, in their first re-appearance, the return of those principles, to the progress of which she would necessarily become the first sacrifice.

The tone and conduct of the British government towards Austria, have been regulated by a knowledge of these circumstances, in her situation. Doubtless his Majesty's ministers well knew her difficulties, with regard to her Italian states, and as the due power

of Austria is necessary for the system of Europe, they must at once have known and lamented the reluctant obedience of her Italian subjects. They could not but be informed by their resident ministers in Italy, that a very dangerous faction was gaining a most alarming strength, and that it particularly menaced the Austrian dominions. Considering the local contact of the Alpine states with France, and with that part of France which, within a very short period, had been the chief scene upon which the troubles of Europe were renewed, the British cabinet could not but entertain some apprehension for the safety of the general system. The next house had caught fire, before the flames were well extinguished in its adjoining neighbourhood. It was under these circumstances, that his Majesty's ministers deemed that the situation of Austria justified some latitude in her defensive measures. If the Austrian government appeared to some persons, to assert too broadly the principle of this invasion, the British cabinet deemed it sufficient upon their part, to declare their own construction of the public law of Europe; at the same time rendering justice to the peculiar situation of Austria.

This danger, and assuredly not an inconsiderable danger, has now happily passed away. We are now instructed by events. But will it be denied in the face of these events, that experience has well justified the wisdom of the policy pursued by the British government? What might not have been the situation of Europe, if the King's ministers, following the rash but perhaps generous impulse of public opinion, and adopting the injudicious vehemence of the Opposition, had immediately involved the nation in this contest? Naples would still have been over-run, Sardinia would still have submitted; her revolutionary army would still have been dispersed. We could have intermeddled with no other effect than to excite an unfriendly feeling in our former allies, and to cherish the designs of the ill-disposed throughout Europe. We must have interposed, if at all, either by the exercise of our influence, or, more authoritatively, by a direct declaration that the rights of nations were invaded. If by our influence, the peril of Austria was possibly too immediate to induce her to surrender the interests of her own safety to our remonstrance and advice. If we had assumed a more authoritative tone, our naval armament, in support of our declaration, would scarcely have reached the Neapolitan sea before the submission of Naples and Piedmont would have rendered it nugatory. What must then have been the course suitable to the honor and dignity of England? Either we must have renewed the general war for such objects, or have withdrawn with a barren exertion of our authority; to say nothing of our internal situation at this period, and of the importance of not

suffering any remote and incidental object to impede us in the great work of national retrenchment.

The interests of the several European states are so involved with each other, that it is perhaps an imperfect method to enumerate, thus distinctly, our foreign relation with the several states individually. Our relations with Russia are but little different from the same relations with Asutria. Our leading object with both has been to confirm the full confidence established at the period of the treaties. His Majesty's ministers have felt none of that jealousy towards the Emperor of Russia, to which they have been strongly urged by the gentlemen of the Opposition. They have seen nothing in the conduct of Russia to justify such a jealousy. All the public measures of Russia since the peace, have been characterised with the sincerity and moderation of her emperor. The powers of Europe, whose dominions are in immediate contact with those of Russia, have expressed no jealousy of this kind; and his Majesty's ministers have deemed it absurd to admit apprehensions for Austria, Prussia, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, which none of those states feel for themselves. It is impossible but that much variety of opinion and feelings must exist in a court and cabinet composed like that of Russia; but it is equally notorious, that the personal moderation of the sovereign is seconded in its effect by his uncontrolled power under the Russian constitution. Ministers cannot forget, that when the vast spoil of the French conquest was in medio at the period of the general peace, the Emperor Alexander contended with England in a high-minded and generous abstinence from all claims for himself. They cannot forget, that having then the power to retain, and certainly not without the strongest claims to indemnity for his sufferings during the invasion of his empire, he concurred as fully as themselves in the restoration of kingdoms, provinces, cities, and towns, to their former possessors. Remembering this, they possibly think they do him only justice in inferring his moderation under less temptation, by his perienced magnanimity under greater.

One event indeed has arisen which has placed the Emperor Alexander in a situation of much difficulty, and which, in some of its circumstances, has apparently given countenance to assertions of popular writers. The insurrection of the Greeks against Turkey has necessarily involved a prince and people of the same religion with themselves. There is a strange injustice amongst our party-writers in considering the situation of the Emperor Alexander, as regards this unforeseen event. They entirely overlook circumstances obvious to all but themselves, and which stand forth upon the very face of his situation. They impute to his own seeking, and to his seeking for a selfish purpose, an