England and the Orléans Monarchy

by John Hall

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 for the allied Catholic Cantons to break up the Confederation, it was not in their power to guide it or to hold it together.[922] He, therefore, proposed both to Prince Metternich and M. Guizot, that they should endeavour to persuade the Catholic leaders to dissolve their alliance.[923] This solution of the difficulty, as may be supposed, was not adopted by either of the statesmen to whom it was made. On the contrary, Metternich at this time was arranging to furnish the Sonderbund with arms, and was seriously considering whether he should place the services of an Austrian general at its disposal, while M. Guizot was giving secret instructions for the despatch of warlike stores to Lucerne from the arsenal at Besançon.[924]

Lord Minto, in his conversations with M. Ochsenbein, the President of the Federal Diet, was charged to counsel forbearance and moderation. “Her Majesty’s government,” wrote Palmerston, “as the sincere and disinterested friend of Switzerland, could not but exhort all parties to abate pretensions, however just they may be thought, and to yield somewhat of rights, however valid they may be considered, rather than begin an appeal to arms, the consequences of which it would be easier to lament than to foresee.” He was not prepared to deny that the Federal Pact might stand in need of revision. It was alleged, however, that the Diet proposed “to sweep away the separate sovereignty of the several Cantons in order to blend the whole of Switzerland into one single Republic.” He must, therefore, remind the Swiss government that “the fundamental principle upon which the arrangements of the Treaty of Vienna, in regard to Switzerland, repose, is the separate sovereignty of the several Cantons.” Any attempt to alter the basis of the political organization of the Republic would inevitably entail civil war and foreign intervention.[925]

Yet, notwithstanding the pacific spirit in which Lord Minto’s instructions were drawn up, Palmerston has been freely accused of inciting the Radical Cantons to begin hostilities. Animosity to Louis Philippe and his principal minister, assert his detractors, was at this period the mainspring of his policy. Thus, when the French government evinced a disposition to favour the cause of the Sonderbund, Palmerston, having satisfied himself of the military superiority of the Radical Cantons, secretly urged them to attack their weaker neighbours, in the hope that the forcible dissolution of the Catholic alliance would entail the downfall of M. Guizot. This charge has been reiterated in the recently published letters of Sir Robert Morier. Mr. David Morier, Sir Robert’s father, had been for many years British minister in Switzerland. In the summer of 1847, however, being in England on leave, he was not allowed to return to his post, because, says his son, he was instinctively a peacemaker and, therefore, no longer a suitable instrument to execute the policy upon which Lord Palmerston had decided to embark.[926] But a perusal of Mr. Morier’s despatches suggests another, and an infinitely more probable, explanation of his recall. When affairs in Switzerland were beginning to assume a dangerous aspect, he is to be found expressing views with which Lord Palmerston would have heartily agreed. Writing to Lord Aberdeen, in June, 1844, on the subject of the Jesuits, Mr. Morier points out that this intrusion of a powerful foreign agency into all the concerns of the Confederation raises the question whether, “self-preservation being the first law of States, the claim of cantonal sovereignty should not be made to yield to the exigencies of the general welfare.” Again, some months later, speaking of the introduction of the Jesuits into Lucerne, he warns his chief that Lucerne “must be inscribed upon the list of Cantons with Fribourg, Schwyz and the Valais, subjected, henceforward, through their Jesuit institutions, to the influence of a foreign and anti-national power of the most dangerous tendency to the peace of the Confederation.”[927] But, during the winter of 1846, an unprovoked assault was committed upon one of his sons, Burnet Morier, by an excited Radical of Berne. The young man with commendable promptitude felled his assailant to the ground,[928] and, under these circumstances, Palmerston probably considered that the affair need not be made the subject of an official demand for reparation. Mr. Morier, however, thought otherwise, and his indignation appears to have transformed him into a strong supporter of the Sonderbund. The contrast between the sentiments, contained in his memorandum on Swiss affairs, submitted to the Foreign Office in February, 1847,[929] and those expressed in his earlier despatches, must have given Lord Palmerston food for serious reflection. Without doubt, he must have come to the conclusion that a man burning with resentment against the Radical leaders was hardly as qualified, as his son seems to have supposed, to exercise a moderating influence upon the passions of contending parties.

Lord Minto, having arrived in Switzerland, lost no time in placing himself in communication with M. Ochsenbein. The election of this person, who two years before had commanded the corps francs in their raid upon Lucerne, to the post of President of the Federal Diet, had greatly exasperated the Catholics. Lord Minto, however, reported that he found him most reasonable, and, to all appearances, sincerely desirous of discovering some means of averting an outbreak of hostilities. The Jesuits, he assured the English minister, constituted the chief obstacle to a peaceful settlement, and, could they be removed, all danger of war would disappear. Palmerston, on receiving this information, at once instructed Minto, who by that time had passed on to Italy, to use every endeavour, while at Rome, to persuade His Holiness to intervene.[930] But, meanwhile, in Switzerland the chances of maintaining the peace were hourly diminishing. Both sides were now openly preparing for war, and, on October 29, the deputies of the Catholic Cantons formally quitted the Federal Diet. On that same day Lord Palmerston made a last effort to avert a rupture. He enjoined the British chargé d’affaires at Berne to seek out M. Ochsenbein and to endeavour to prevail upon him to postpone the execution of any irrevocable measure, until the result of Lord Minto’s mission to Rome should be known. M. Ochsenbein’s only reply to this communication was hastily to convene the Diet, which forthwith decreed the dissolution of the Sonderbund by the armed forces of the Federal executive.[931]

Two days later, on November 6, the Duc de Broglie, who had recently succeeded Sainte-Aulaire, as ambassador in London, submitted a project of intervention to Lord Palmerston. Let the Powers, proposed M. Guizot, offer to mediate on the basis that the question of the Jesuits should be settled by the Pope, and that the other points in dispute should form the subject of a conference, at which each of the Cantons should be represented. In the meantime, the contending parties would be invited to suspend hostilities—a refusal to comply releasing the Powers from their engagements to the Confederation and entitling them to enforce their demands by whatever measures they might subsequently agree to adopt.[932] Palmerston’s official answer was not sent off to Paris until November 16. It was in the form of a counter-proposition. The British government, he declared, “could not go the length of thinking” that the outbreak of civil war could release the Powers from those pledges into which they had entered to maintain the neutrality of Switzerland. Furthermore, it considered that the presence of the Jesuits upon the territory of the Confederation, in opposition to the wishes of the majority of the Cantons, constituted a real grievance. Her Majesty’s government, under the circumstances, before consenting to join with France and the other Power in offering to mediate, must make two conditions. In the first place, the removal of the Jesuits, whether by a decision to be obtained from the Pope, or by an act of sovereign authority on the part of the Cantons in which the Order was established, must be the basis of any arrangement proposed by the Powers to the contending parties. Secondly, it was to be distinctly understood that a refusal by either side to accept mediation must not be made the ground for armed interference in the internal affairs of Switzerland.[933]

In Paris, at Berlin, and at Vienna, it had been intended to hold very different language to M. Ochsenbein and his colleagues. Nevertheless, M. Guizot, although stipulating for certain trifling modifications, accepted the British proposal. The assent of Prussia and of Austria was obtained, but it was given with the utmost reluctance.[934] Palmerston was, in point of fact, completely master of the situation. The condition of Germany was so unsettled, the appearance of affairs in Italy was so alarming, that Metternich could not attack the Radicals of Berne except in combination with France and, in the Swiss question, Louis Philippe and M. Guizot dared not act with the absolute Courts in opposition to the constitutional government of England.[935] Nicholas, having no direct interest in the matter, was content to adopt whatever course might commend itself to the Cabinet of Vienna. The five governments being thus agreed, an identic note was, on November 26, drawn up in London for presentation to the President of the Diet, and to the official organ of the Sonderbund by the representatives of the Powers in Switzerland. But, while ministers and diplomatists had been talking and writing, the Federal executive had acted. No sooner had the Diet, on November 4, decreed the forcible suppression of the Sonderbund than the Genevese general, Dufour, who had at his disposal an army of 100,000 men and 260 guns, was ordered to begin operations. The isolated canton of Fribourg having been easily overwhelmed, the Federal commander advanced with his whole force against Lucerne. Salis-Soglio, a Protestant of the Grisons, whose army amounted to some 80,000 troops with 74 guns, awaited him in a selected position between the Reuss and the Lake of Zug. The decisive battle was fought on November 23, Dufour’s victory was complete. On the following day, the Jesuits and the executive council having fled, Lucerne surrendered. The Valais, the last of the seven Cantons to abandon the struggle, capitulated on the 29th. Twenty-five days after the Diet had formally resolved upon its suppression, the Sonderbund ceased to exist.

In almost all accounts of these events Palmerston’s proceedings have been misrepresented. According to his detractors, he cunningly inveigled the Powers into an exchange of views with the pretended object of averting civil war in Switzerland, while in reality he was secretly urging the Federal executive to open the campaign against the Sonderbund.[936] Even Liberals, in sympathy with his policy, describe him as having deliberately protracted the negotiations in London, in order that the Radicals should be able to crush the Catholic Cantons without fear of foreign interference.[937] Palmerston, it is perfectly clear, was strongly opposed to direct intervention and, moreover, was disposed to think that an unsolicited offer on the part of the Powers to assist the Swiss to settle their internal disputes would inflame their national pride, and rather tend to aggravate, than to diminish, the gravity of the situation. It is possible, therefore, that he may to some extent have delayed the negotiations. But the alleged waste of time cannot at the most have exceeded a very few days, seeing that the French note was only submitted to him on November 9, and that his counter-proposal had been agreed to by the Powers and was ready for transmission to Switzerland on the 26th. To contend that Palmerston supposed that, by delaying the negotiations for two or three days, he would enable the Radicals to achieve their purpose, is to credit him with a knowledge of the military weakness of the Sonderbund which he most certainly did not possess. If he in any way retarded the final drafting of the proposed offer of mediation, it is infinitely more probable that he so acted in the hope that Minto’s efforts at Rome to induce the Pope to recall the Jesuits from Lucerne might prove successful and that, in consequence, the two parties might be able to settle their quarrel without an appeal to arms and without foreign interference.

Sir Robert Morier, however, asserts most positively that Palmerston “instigated Peel to perform his celebrated feat of precipitating the war of the Sonderbund.”[938] In his Mémoires M. Guizot has reproduced a letter from M. de Bois-le-Comte, the French ambassador to the Confederation, in which it is stated that, upon receipt of the news from London that the Powers intended to propose mediation, Mr. Peel sent the chaplain of the British legation to the headquarters of General Dufour to apprise him of the state of affairs and to urge him immediately to march upon Lucerne and try conclusions with the army of the Sonderbund.[939] It is evident that, if there be any foundation of truth in these stories, neither the instructions with which Lord Minto, a member of the government, was supplied, nor the official despatch of October 29, which was to be communicated to M. Ochsenbein, can have been the expression of Lord Palmerston’s real policy. His veritable intentions must have been conveyed in private letters[940] to the British chargé d’affaires at Berne, it never having been suggested that he employed any secret agent in the affair. The question as to who acted as British minister to the Confederation, at this period, is, therefore, of extreme importance. It is inconceivable that Palmerston, if he really were engaged in prosecuting the Machiavellian designs imputed to him, should not have replaced Mr. Morier by an Arthur Aston, a Henry Bulwer, or some other tried and trusted agent. But in point of fact the business of the legation, during the whole of this critical time, was left in charge of a young secretary, Mr. Peel. Now Peel was the eldest son of Sir Robert, who, to the day of his death, never forgave Palmerston for his desertion of the Tory party in 1828.[941] Is it credible that Palmerston can have entrusted the conduct of an affair of the kind, suggested by M. Guizot and Sir Robert Morier, to a comparative stranger, a young man of twenty-five, the son of his political opponent and personal enemy?

Nevertheless, it is highly probable that Palmerston’s despatch of October 29, although written with a very different object, did, in effect, precipitate the conflict between the Radical Cantons and the Sonderbund. As Mr. Peel, without doubt, rightly divined, M. Ochsenbein, notwithstanding the pacific language which he had held to Lord Minto, had no real desire to see the dispute amicably settled.[942] Federal unity was the end which he and his friends had set themselves to attain, and they were convinced that nothing but physical force would induce the Catholic and Conservative Cantons to renounce their sovereign rights. By “blood and iron” alone could the success of their policy be achieved. Hence the prospect that England intended to exert herself at Rome, in favour of Papal intervention, may have driven the Radicals of Berne to immediate action. They may have argued that, should His Holiness consent to recall the Jesuits and should the Sonderbund, in consequence, be peacefully dissolved, an excellent opportunity would be lost of reducing the Conservative Cantons to submission.