Alexander I, came under the influence of Metternich and was frightened by revolutionary movements in Italy and within his own dominions.  Thus the instrument originally intended to preserve nationalities and secure the constitutional rights of people was converted into a weapon for the use of autocrats only anxious to preserve their own thrones.  Nevertheless, though it may have been a failure, the Holy Alliance did not leave itself without witness in the modern world.  It tried to regulate ordinary diplomacy in accordance with ethical and spiritual principles; and the dreaming mind of its first founder was reproduced in that later descendant of his who initiated the Hague propaganda of peace.

FAILURE

“These things were written for our ensamples,” and we should be foolish indeed if we did not take stock of them with an anxious eye to the future.  The main and startling fact is that with every apparent desire for the re-establishment of Europe on better lines, Europe, as a matter of fact, drifted back into the old welter of conflicting nationalities, while the very instrument of peace—­the Holy Alliance—­was used by autocratic governments for the subjection of smaller nationalities and the destruction of popular freedom.  It is accordingly very necessary that we should study the conditions under which so startling a transformation took place.  Even in England herself it cannot be said that the people were in any sense benefited by the conclusions of the war.  They had borne its burdens, but at its end found themselves hampered as before in the free development of a democracy.  Meanwhile, Europe at large presented a spectacle of despotism tempered by occasional popular outbreaks, while in the majority of cases the old fetters were riveted anew by cunning and by no means disinterested hands.

A DECEPTIVE PARALLEL

What we have to ask ourselves is whether the conditions a hundred years ago have any real similarity with those likely to obtain when Europe begins anew to set its house in order.  To this, fortunately, we can return a decided negative.  We have already shown that the general outlines present a certain similarity, but the parallelism is at most superficial, and in many respects deceptive.  A despot has to be overthrown, an end has to be put to a particular form of autocratic regime, and smaller states have to be protected against the exactions of their stronger neighbours—­that is the extent of the analogy.  But it is to be hoped that we shall commence our labours under much better auspices.  The personal forces involved, for instance, are wholly different.  Amongst those who took upon themselves to solve the problems of the time is to be found the widest possible divergence in character and aims.  On the one side we have a sheer mystic and idealist in the person of Alexander I, with all kinds of visionary characters