Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-nptnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-20T04:35:18.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metternich's League to Preserve Peace and the Conservative Elites’ Doubts about the Functionality of the Post-Napoleonic Order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2023

Miroslav Šedivý
Miroslav Šedivý*
Affiliation:
University of Pardubice, Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Pardubice 532 10, Czech Republic
*
Email: mireksedivy@seznam.cz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Before 1848 not merely democrats and liberals criticized the post-Napoleonic order for their growing mistrust of its ability to protect the sovereignty of smaller countries and preserve the general peace. The predominantly conservative ruling elite, namely rulers, statesmen, and diplomats, raised the same criticism when the law-breaking and abuse of power made them similarly mistrustful of the state of European politics during the 1830s and 1840s. This became true even for some of the order's authors like Austrian chancellor Metternich who serves as a prominent example of this mistrust with his project of a league to preserve peace in Europe in August 1840. Metternich, who helped to create this order in 1815, found it defective and in need of improvement only a quarter of a century later. He certainly did not want to create a completely new international order and law of nations as some liberals and democrats desired at that time, but his idea was still, in a certain sense, revolutionary since its realization would have fundamentally modified the pillars on which the order had been founded at the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

Keywords

MetternichpeaceEurope1840Rhine Crisispost-Napoleonic order
Type
Article
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , First View , pp. 1 - 16
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Regents of the University of Minnesota

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article has been updated since its original publication. A notice detailing this change can be found here: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0067237823000917

References

1 Pásztorová, Barbora, Metternich, the German Question and the Pursuit of Peace 1840–1848 (Oldenbourg, 2022)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Šedivý, Miroslav, Metternich, the Great Powers and the Eastern Question (Pilsen, 2013)Google Scholar; Šedivý, Miroslav, The Decline of the Congress System: Metternich, Italy and European Diplomacy (London, 2018)Google Scholar; Siemann, Wolfram, Metternich: Strategist and Visionary (Cambridge, MA, 2019)Google Scholar; Sked, Alan, Metternich and Austria: An Evaluation (Basingstoke, 2008)Google Scholar.

2 Billinger, Robert D. Jr., Metternich and the German Question: State's Rights and Federal Duties, 1820–1834 (Newark, 1991)Google Scholar; Kraehe, Enno E., Metternich's German Policy, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1963 and 1983)Google Scholar; Reinerman, Alan J., Austria and the Papacy in the Age of Metternich, 2 vols. (Washington, 1979 and 1989)Google Scholar.

3 Beatrice de Graaf, Ido de Haan, and Brian Vick, eds., Securing Europe after Napoleon: 1815 and the New European Security Culture (Cambridge, 2019); Gruner, Wolf D., Der Wiener Kongress 1814/1815 (Stuttgart, 2014)Google Scholar; Stauber, Reinhard, Der Wiener Kongress (Vienna, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vick, Brian, The Congress of Vienna: Power and Politics after Napoleon (Cambridge, MA, 2014)Google Scholar.

4 Siemann, Metternich: Strategist and Visionary, 44.

5 Schmitt, Carl, The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum (New York, 2006), 10Google Scholar.

6 Sofka, James R., “Metternich's Theory of European Order: A Political Agenda for ‘Perpetual Peace’,” The Review of Politics 60, no. 1 (1998): 115–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Karel Schelle, Miroslav Šedivý, Jaromír Tauchen, and Renata Veselá, eds., Staat und Recht in der Zeit Metternichs (ausgewählte Kapitel) (Munich, 2010).

7 Robert D. Billinger Jr., “Pásztorová, Barbora: Metternich, the German Question and the Pursuit of Peace, 1840–1848,” Austrian History Yearbook 54 (2023): 340–41.

8 For the most recent instance, see Šedivý, Miroslav, Si vis pacem, para bellum: The Italian Response to International Insecurity 1830–1848 (Vienna, 2021)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Cohrs, Patrick O., The New Atlantic Order: The Transformation of International Politics, 1860–1933 (Cambridge, 2022), 51–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haas, Mark L., The Ideological Origins of Great Power Politics, 1789–1989 (Ithaca, 2005), 73–104Google Scholar; Heydemann, Günther, Konstitution gegen Revolution: Die britische Deutschland- und Italienpolitik 1815–1848 (Göttingen, 1995), 275–325Google Scholar; Günther Heydemann, “The Vienna System between 1815 and 1848 and the Disputed Antirevolutionary Strategy: Repression, Reforms, or Constitutions?” in “The Transformation of European Politics, 1763–1848”: Episode or Model in Modern History?, eds. Peter Krüger and Paul W. Schroeder (Münster, 2002), 187–203; Müller, Harald, Im Widerstreit von Interventionsstrategie und Anpassungszwang: Die Außenpolitik Österreichs und Preußens zwischen dem Wiener Kongreß 1814/1815 und der Februarrevolution 1848 (Berlin, 1990), 621–47Google Scholar; Paul W. Schroeder, The Transformation of European Politics 1763–1848 (Oxford, 1994), 764–804; Schulz, Matthias, Normen und Praxis: Das Europäische Konzert der Großmächte als Sicherheitsrat, 1815–1860 (Munich, 2009), 622–40Google Scholar.

10 Rodkey, Frederick S., “Suggestions During the Crisis of 1840 for a ‘League’ to Preserve Peace,” The American Historical Review 35, no. 2 (1930): 308–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The article contains Lord Beauvale's report from Chateau Königswart on 29 August 1840 with the attached draft of the league and Count Ficquelmont's French memorandum. These sources can also be found in the National Archives, Kew (TNA), in the section Foreign Office (FO) 7/291A and 120/189.

11 Veit-Brause, Irmline, Die deutsch-französische Krise von 1840: Studien zur deutschen Einheitsbewebung (Cologne, 1967), 44–45Google Scholar.

12 Wolfram Siemann, “Österreich, Metternich und die Heilige Allianz,” in Die Heilige Allianz: Entstehung, Wirkung, Rezeption, eds. Anselm Schubert and Wolfram Pyta (Stuttgart, 2018), 33–43, 42.

13 Siemann, Metternich: Strategist and Visionary, 55–66.

14 Protocol préliminaire, Troppau, 19 November 1821, in Mächtekongresse 1818–1822: Digitale Edition, eds. Karin Schneider and Stephan Kurz (Vienna, 2018). https://maechtekongresse.acdh.oeaw.ac.at/pages/show.html?document=Troppau_Prot_4.xml&directory=editions [26 April 2023].

15 Supplément au Protocole du 19 November 1820, Ibid.

16 Schroeder, Paul W., Metternich's Diplomacy at Its Zenith 1820–1823 (New York, 1962), 81Google Scholar.

17 Traité entre l'Autriche, la Prusse et la Russie, daté de Berlin, le 15 octobre, contre la non-intervention, in Mémoires: Documents et écrits divers laissés par le Prince de Metternich Chancelier de cour et d’état, vol. 5, ed. Richard von Metternich (Paris, 1882), 543; Müller, Im Widerstreit von Interventionsstrategie und Anpassungszwang, 355.

18 Metternich to Hügel, Vienna, 22 October 1833, Metternich, Mémoires, 541.

19 Jolicoeur, Nicolas, “La politique étrangère de la France au début de la monarchie de juillet: De la non-intervention à la contre-intervention (1830–1832),” Revue d'histoire diplomatique 121, (2008): 11–29Google Scholar; Šedivý, Miroslav, “The Principle of Non-Intervention Reconsidered: The French July Monarchy, the Public Law of Europe and the Limited Sovereignty of Secondary Countries,” Nuova Rivista Storica 103, no. 1 (2019): 75–108Google Scholar.

20 See Metternich's long political-legal deliberation about France's non-intervention doctrine in his Le principe de la non-intervention, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Vienna (HHStA), Staatskanzlei (StK), Rom 43.

21 Falaschi, Francesca, “L'occupazione francese di Ancona del 1932,” Rassegna storica del Risorgimento 15 (1928): 118–42Google Scholar; Leti, Giuseppe, “La Monarchia del luglio e la spedizione francese del 1832 in Ancona,” Rassegna storica del Risorgimento 16 (1929): 55–78Google Scholar.

22 Metternich to Neumann, Vienna, 29 February 1832, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen (StA), England 199. See also Franz Wolfram, “Besetzung und Räumung Ankonas durch Frankreich 1832–1838” (Ph.D. diss., University of Vienna, 1930), 40.

23 Metternich to Apponyi, Vienna, 29 February 1832, HHStA, StA, Frankreich 284.

24 Ozavci, Ozan, “A Priceless Grace? The Congress of Vienna of 1815, the Ottoman Empire and Historicising the Eastern Question,” The English Historical Review 136, no. 583 (2021): 1450–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Maltzan to Frederick William III, Vienna, 10 June 1827, Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin (GStA PK), Hauptabteilung (HA) III, Ministerium des Auswärtigen (MdA) I, 6008.

26 Metternich's remarks to the Protocol of 4 April 1826, attached to Metternich to Esterházy, Vienna, 4 June 1826, HHStA, StA, England 175.

27 Ibid.

28 Prosper Duvergier de Hauranne, “De la Convention du 13 Juillet et de la Situation actuelle de la France,” Revue des Deux Mondes 27 (1841), 669–723, 711; Chancellor Metternich's Library, Chateau Königswart, book number 15-C-21.

29 Šedivý, Miroslav, “Metternich and the French Expedition to Algeria (1830),” Archiv orientální: Quarterly Journal of African and Asian Studies 76, no. 1 (2008): 15–37Google Scholar.

30 Metternich to Ficquelmont, Vienna, 13 July 1840, Státní oblastní archiv, Litoměřice, pobočka Děčín, Rodinný archiv Clary-Aldringenů 375.

31 O'Sullivan to Lebeau, Vienna, 28 April 1840, Archives diplomatiques et africaines, Brussels, Correspondance politique, Autriche 7; Lerchenfeld to Ludwig I of Bavaria, Vienna, 20 April and 11 May 1840, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Munich (BHStA), Ministerium des Äußern (MA), Österreich 2409; Gagliati to Scilla, Vienna, 20 April 1840, Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Ministero Affari Esteri, Questione per gli zolfi 4130.

32 Anton Prokesch von Osten, Mein Verhältniβ zum Herzog von Reichstadt: Zwei Sendungen nach Italien (Stuttgart, 1878), 187.

33 Wolfram, “Besetzung und Räumung Ankonas,” 40.

34 Ancillon to Maltzan, Berlin, 14 March 1832, GStA PK, HA III, MdA I, 6018.

35 Ficquelmont to Metternich, St Petersburg, 19 May 1840, HHStA, StA, Russland III, 119.

36 Metternich to Neumann, Vienna, 25 April 1840, HHStA, StA, England 230. See also Lerchenfeld to Ludwig I of Bavaria, Vienna, 11 May 1840, BHStA, MA, Österreich 2409.

37 Ficquelmont, Ludwig Karl, Lord Palmerston, England und der Continent (Vienna, 1852), 171Google Scholar; Ficquelmont, Ludwig Karl, Pensées et réflections morales et politiques (Paris, 1859), 313Google Scholar.

38 Nello Rosselli, Inghilterra e regno di Sardegna dal 1815 al 1847 (Turin, 1954), 743.

39 Sambuy to Solaro, Vienna, 18 May 1840, Archivio di Stato di Torino (AST), Lettere ministry (LM), Austria 137.

40 Sambuy to Solaro, Vienna, 21 May 1840, in La politica estera del Piemonte sotto Carlo Alberto Secondo il carteggio diplomatico del Conte Vittorio Amedeo Balbo Bertone di Sambuy ministro di Sardegna a Vienna (1835–1846), vol. 2, ed. Mario degli Alberti (Turin, 1915), 261.

41 Olry to Ludwig I of Bavaria, Turin, 21 April 1840, BHStA, MA, Sardinien 2884. For similar opinions of German diplomats, see also Fleischmann to William I of Württemberg, Paris, 8 April 1840, Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg, Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart (HStAS), E 70 a Bü 193c; Mandelsloh to William I of Württemberg, London, 21 April 1840, HStAS, E 50/13 Bü 71; Blomberg to William I of Württemberg, Vienna, 10 May 1840, HStAS, E 50/02 Bü 153.

42 Rodolico, Niccolò, “Un disegno di Lega italiana del 1833,” Archivio storico italiano 93 (1935): 232–43Google Scholar.

43 Bombelles to Metternich, Turin, 18 February 1832, in Le relazioni diplomatiche fra l'Austria e il Regno di Sardegna, II serie: 1830–1848, vol. 1, ed. Narciso Nada (Rome, 1972), 357.

44 Šedivý, Miroslav, “The Path to the Austro-Sardinian War: The Post-Napoleonic States System and the End of Peace in Europe in 1848,” European History Quarterly 49, no. 3 (2019): 367–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Broglia to Solaro, Rome, 15 August 1840, AST, LM, Roma 342; Broglia to Solaro, Rome, 3 November 1840, AST, LM, Roma 343; Ricci to Solaro, Naples, 15 November 1840, AST, LM, Due Sicilie 55.

46 Lemmi, Francesco, “Carlo Alberto e Francesco IV.: lettere inedite,” Il Risorgimento italiano 20, no. 4 (1927): 305–73, 315Google Scholar.

47 For the literature on the conflict in the Ottoman Empire in 1839–1841 and the resulting Rhine Crisis, see Caquet, P. E., “The Napoleonic Legend and the War Scare of 1840,” The International History Review 35, no. 4 (2013): 702–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eugéne de Guichen, La crise d'Orient de 1839 à 1841 et l'Europe (Paris, 1921); Adolf Hasenclever, Die Orientalische Frage in den Jahren 1838–1841: Ursprung des Meerengenvertrages vom 13. Juli 1841 (Leipzig, 1914); Letitia W. Ufford, The Pasha: How Mehemet Ali Defied the West, 1839–1841 (Jefferson, 2007); Veit-Brause, Die deutsch-französische Krise von 1840; Šedivý, Miroslav, Crisis among the Great Powers: The Concert of Europe and the Eastern Question (London, 2017)Google Scholar.

48 Björnstjerna to Stierneld, London, 8 September 1840, The Swedish National Archives (Riksarkivet), Stockholm, Beskickningsarkiv, Inkomna skrivelser, Kabinettet för utrikes brevväxlingen, London E2 D:426.

49 De la Cour to Thiers, Stockholm, 7 and 14 August 1840, Archives du Ministère des affaires étrangères, Paris (AMAE), Correspondance politique (CP), Suède 320; Engelhardt to Frederick William IV, Stockholm, 11 August 1840, GStA PK, HA III, MdA I, 6275.

50 De la Cour to Guizot, Stockholm, 6 Janurary 1842, AMAE, CP, Suède 321.

51 Ghenghea, Mircea-Cristian, “About Pan-Scandinavianism. Reference Points in the 19th Century (1815–1864),” The Romanian Journal for Baltic and Nordic Studies 6, no. 2 (2014): 127–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 136–37.

52 Dönhoff to Frederick William IV, Munich, 10 November 1840, GStA PK, HA III, MdA I, 2487.

53 Luxburg to Ludwig I of Bavaria, Paris, 2 September 1840, BHStA, MA, Paris 2102/1.

54 Fleischmann to Beroldingen, Paris, 16 December 1840, HStAS, E 70 a Bü 193c.

55 Friedrich Wilhelm von Bismarck to William I of Württemberg, Karlsruhe, 1 December 1840, HStAS, E 70 f Bü 17; Friedrich Wilhelm von Bismarck to William I of Württemberg, Karlsruhe, 9 January 1841, HStAS, E 70 f Bü 17.

56 Friedrich Wilhelm von Bismarck to William I of Württemberg, 7 January 1841, HStAS, E 70 f Bü 17.

57 Friedrich Wilhelm von Bismarck to William I of Württemberg, 13 December 1840, HStAS, E 70 f Bü 17.

58 Merrill Gray Berthrong, “Disarmament in European Diplomacy, 1816-1870” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1961), 23–58.

59 Pásztorová, Barbora, “Metternich's Peace Management, 1840–48: Anachronism or Vision?” Austrian History Yearbook 53 (2022): 75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 78–79.

60 Šedivý, Crisis among the Great Powers, 77–78.

61 Klindworth, Conversations particulières avec Mr. le Prince de Metternich, Paris, 28 April 1847, Archives nationales, Paris, François Guizot 68.

62 Beauvale to Palmerston, Königswart, 29 August 1840, TNA, FO 7/291A.

63 Ficquelmont's memorandum, August 1840, TNA, FO 7/291A.

64 Jarrett, Mark, The Congress of Vienna and its Legacy: War and Great Power Diplomacy after Napoleon (London, 2013), 146–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Ibid., 148.

66 The authors themselves stated that the project of the league would change international law. Beauvale labelled the project of league as the “First Project to Effect ‘A Change in the Public Law of Europe’,” TNA, FO 7/291A.

67 Ibid. See also Rodkey, “Suggestions during the Crisis of 1840 for a ‘League’ to Preserve Peace,” 311–13; Florian Lorenz, “Karl Ludwig Graf Ficquelmont als Diplomat und Staatsmann: (Ph.D. diss., University of Vienna, 1966), 118–22.

68 Guillaume de Bertier de Sauvigny, “Sainte Alliance et Alliance dans les conceptions de Metternich,” Revue Historique 223 (1960): 249–74.

69 Beauvale to Palmerston, Königswart, 29 August 1840, TNA, FO 7/291A.

70 Maltzan to Frederick William IV, Königswart, 11 September 1840, GStA PK, Rep. 81 Gesandschaften (Residenturen) u. (General-) Konsulate nach 1807, Gesandschaft Wien II, 201/3.

71 Beauvale to Palmerston, Vienna, 17 April 1841, TNA, FO 7/298.

72 Ibid.

73 Francis R. Bridge, “Allied Diplomacy in Peacetime: The Failure of the Congress ‘System’ 1815–23,” in Europe's Balance of Power, 1815-1848, ed. Alan Sked (London, 1979), 53.

74 Beauvale to Palmerston, Vienna, 29 February 1841, Hartley Library, University of Southampton, Palmerston Papers, General Correspondence PP/GC/BE/367-390; Palmerston to Beauvale, Carlton Terrace, 9 March 1841, Hartley Library, University of Southampton, Palmerston Papers, General Correspondence PP/GC/BE/555-568.

75 Palmerston to Beauvale, Carlton Terrace, 5 October 1840, Hartley Library, University of Southampton, Palmerston Papers, General Correspondence PP/GC/BE/544-554.

76 Sir Francis H. Hinsley, Power and the Pursuit of Peace: Theory and Practice in the History of Relations between States (Cambridge, 1963), 215.

77 Apponyi to Metternich, Paris, 18 November 1840, HHStA, StA, Frankreich 318.

78 Russell to Palmerston, Berlin, 21 October 1840, TNA, FO 64/229.

79 Beauvale to Palmerston, Vienna, 14 November 1840, Hartley Library, University of Southampton, Palmerston Papers, General Correspondence PP/GC/BE/351-66. The copy of this letter is also housed in the British Library, Western Manuscripts, Beauvale Papers, Add MS 60473: Vol. LXXV (ff. 160).

80 Neumann to Metternich, London, 7 November 1840, HHStA, StA, England 229.

81 Šedivý, Miroslav, “Metternich's Plan for a Viennese Conference in 1839,” Central European History 44, no. 3 (2011): 397–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Šedivý, Metternich, the Great Powers and the Eastern Question, 33–57.

82 Wolfram Siemann, Metternich: Staatsmann zwischen Restauration und Moderne (Munich, 2010).

83 For the full text of the North Atlantic Treaty, see https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm [26 April 2023].

84 It is good to remember that contrary to Metternich's league and NATO, the Holy Alliance as a declaration of Christian rulers inevitably excluded the Ottoman Empire.

85 Beauvale to Palmerston, Vienna, 17 April 1841, British Library, Western Manuscripts, Beauvale Papers, Add MS 60473: Vol. LXXV (ff. 160).

86 Ficquelmont, Ludwig, Deutschland, Oesterreich und Preuβen (Vienna, 1851), 12–14Google Scholar; Blasius, Dirk, Friedrich Wilhelm IV. 1795–1861: Psychopathologie und Geschichte (Göttingen, 1992), 96–99Google Scholar; Robert D. Billinger Jr., “They Sing the Best Songs Badly: Metternich, Frederick William IV, and the German Confederation during the War Scare of 1840–41,” in Deutscher Bund und deutsche Frage 1815–1866, ed. Helmut Rumpler (Munich, 1990), 94–113.

87 Josef von Radowitz, “Denkschrift über die vom deutschen Bunde zu ergreifenden Maβregeln, Berlin, 20 Nov. 1847,” in Vormärz und Revolution 1840–1849, ed. Hans Fenske (Darmstadt, 1976), 243–44; Canis, Konrad, Konstruktiv gegen die Revolution: Strategie und Politik der preußischen Regierung 1848 bis 1850/51 (Paderborn, 2022), 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Michael Gehler, “Otto von Bismarck und die Europa-Ideen im Zeichen des nationalstaatlichen Prinzips,” in Realpolitik für Europa: Bismarcks Weg, eds. Ulrich Lappenküper and Karina Urbach (Paderborn, 2016), 87–117; Haffer, Dominik, Europa in den Augen Bismarcks: Bismarcks Vorstellungen von der Politik der europäischen Mächte und vom europäischen Staatensystem (Paderborn, 2010), 644–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meinecke, Friedrich, Radowitz und die deutsche Revolution (Berlin, 1913)Google Scholar; Brendan Simms, “Nationalismus und Geopolitik in Deutschland vor 1847,” in Recht, Geschichte, Nation, eds. Vincenc Rajšp and Ernst Bruckmüller (Ljubljana, 1999), 397–403.