Europe -- Politics and government -- 1815-1848; France -- Foreign relations -- Great Britain
The sympathies of Metternich and of all the absolute Courts were
necessarily on the side of the _Sonderbund_.[919] The continental
Cabinets were agreed that it would be highly dangerous, in the
unsettled state of Europe, to allow the league of the Catholic and
Conservative Cantons to be dissolved by their Radical neighbours.
Federal unity, Metternich maintained, was clearly the object for
which the democrats were striving, and it was on that account that
they desired to undermine cantonal independence. But any revision of
the _Federal Pact_ would, he argued, release from their engagements
the Powers which had guaranteed the neutrality and independence of
Switzerland, and would justify them in intervening. Louis Philippe and
M. Guizot, although fully disposed to endorse his views, dared not
venture to employ French troops to fight the battle of the Jesuits.
They, accordingly, insinuated that, if Austria were to take the first
step, public opinion in France might be reconciled to the notion of a
French intervention. This ingenuous proposal was promptly declined.
Metternich had no idea of incurring the odium of invading Switzerland
and of allowing France to declare that similar action on her part had
been rendered necessary by the aggressiveness of Austria.[920] Thus
in Swiss, as in Italian affairs, M. Guizot and Prince Metternich,
notwithstanding the harmony of their sentiments, found it impossible
to devise any practical plan for concerted action.
England, as a party to the settlement of 1815, had an unquestionable
right to be consulted in any arrangement tending to alter the
political position of Switzerland in the European system. But, owing
to her geographical situation, she was less directly concerned
than France, Austria or Prussia in the internal condition of the
Confederation. The British government was, consequently, in a
position to regard the question from a more detached and impartial
standpoint. Moreover, the letters of Mr. Grote,[921] the historian
of Greece, to the _Spectator_, supplied the English public with far
better information about Swiss politics than was to be obtained in the
official press of continental States. Palmerston had no intention of
discussing the questions as to whether the alliance of the Catholic
Cantons should be looked upon as an infraction of the _Federal Pact_,
and as to whether the action of the Radical majority in the Diet, in
decreeing the expulsion of the Jesuits, constituted a violation of
cantonal sovereignty and independence. It is clear that, from an early
date, he adopted the view, propounded by Mr. Grote, that, whereas the
so-called Radical Cantons represented the wealth, the intelligence,
the industry, the population and the progressive elements of
Switzerland, the Cantons of the _Sonderbund_ were, in every respect,
the stationary and backward portions of the Republic. From these
premises it followed logically that, although it might be possible
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account