3970. Robert Southey to Neville White, 26 February 1823

 

MS: MS untraced; text is taken from John Wood Warter (ed.), Selections from the Letters of Robert Southey, 4 vols (London, 1856)
Previously published: John Wood Warter (ed.), Selections from the Letters of Robert Southey, 4 vols (London, 1856), III, pp. 379–382.

Keswick, Feb. 26. 1823.
My dear Neville,

The corrections, &c., will be in Longman’s hands before this reaches you. I have incorporated part of the preface to the third volume, added the rest of it after the “Life,” and inserted in the “Life” some things noted from the letters which were last in my possession.

(1)

Southey had added a new ‘Preface’ to the 9th edition of Southey’s The Remains of Henry Kirke White, 3 vols (London, 1822), III, pp. [iii]–xvi. The third volume of this 1822 edition was a ‘supplementary volume’ to the original edition of 1807, containing additional letters and poems by Kirke White. The 10th edition of the Remains, 2 vols (London, 1823), compressed the material into two volumes and required Southey to combine some of his ‘Preface’ with the ‘Life’ of Kirke White at pp. [v]–lxviii, adding the remainder at pp. [lxix]–lxxiii. He also added references to letters in the third volume o…

The proofs are to be sent me, that I may carefully revise the whole. One gap is left for you to fill up with the name of the college at which Almond was entered.

(2)

The Remains of Henry Kirke White, 2 vols (London, 1823), I, p. xlviii. Robert White Almond (1785–1853) was an old schoolfriend of Kirke White’s from Nottingham. He entered Trinity College, Cambridge, on 1 July 1803 (he is identified as a Trinity College student in the Remains), but migrated within a few months to Queen’s College, Cambridge (BA 1808, MA 1813). He was ordained in 1810 and was Rector of St Peter’s, Nottingham 1814–1853.

I am heartily glad that the supplementary volume has done its work so well. The “Remains” have yet one stage to reach; they must one day be printed in a smaller form for the pocket, and for popular sale.

You ask me concerning the affairs of Spain. Three years ago, I dined at Mr. Butler’s (the Catholic),

(3)

This dinner was on 18 May 1820, during Southey’s visit to London of that year.

when his son–in–law, Colonel Stonor,

(4)

Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Stonor (1781–1834) had married Mary Butler (1782–1829), daughter of Charles Butler, in 1809. He was a member of an old English Catholic family and had served in the Spanish Army.

who is a Spaniard, had just received the first packet of pamphlets, proclamations, and newspapers, after the Revolution had been effected by the army.

(5)

The absolutist regime in Spain was overthrown by an army revolt that began in January 1820.

They called upon me to rejoice with them, but I could not join in their exultation; – a bad government, indeed, had been overthrown, but a better had not been substituted for it. The Constitution which the Cortes had formed,

(6)

The army revolt restored the liberal Constitution of 1812, devised by the Cortes elected in 1810.

tended decidedly (and designedly, also, no doubt) to bring about a democracy. I had always seen this tendency, and my disapprobation was by no means diminished when I saw it restored through the instrumentality of soldiers who thought it better to stay at home and subvert the Government, than obey its order by embarking for America.

The Spanish Revolution has been occasioned not by any desire of change on the part of the people, but by the inability of the Government to pay its civil and military establishments. Ferdinand

(7)

Ferdinand VII (1784–1833; King of Spain 1808, 1813–1833).

returned to a ruined kingdom, that is, ruined as to its finances: the colonies from whence the main revenues had formerly been derived were lost, and the mother–country in no condition to support taxes, everything having been subverted. The same cause would have overthrown the present Government two years ago, if it had not been supported by the loans which it raised in England,

(8)

In 1820–1821, the Spanish government had raised two loans through the Paris firm of Ardouin, Hubbard & Co. and a further ‘National’ loan from Spanish citizens.

and which, in all likelihood, will ruin all who have engaged in them. Meantime, the manner in which they have robbed the nobility and the Church of their property has offended both these bodies:

(9)

The liberal government in Spain issued a stream of decrees in 1820–1822 ordering the confiscation and sale of the estates of municipal bodies, Spanish military orders, Crown lands and monasteries and convents.

the kingdom is overrun with banditti; the rabble in the large towns are become radicals, made so by the Government itself; the great majority of the nation detest the new order of things, but would be passive under any order if they could; and the braver spirits have taken arms against it.

The course which the Revolutionists have taken resembles that of their French exemplars so closely that no doubt can be entertained of their going through the same stages of regicide and massacre if left to themselves, unless the Royalists were strong enough to recover the ascendency. And here a difficult question arises. Is it expedient for France to interfere?

(10)

French forces had been massing on the Spanish border since late 1822 and finally invaded on 7 April 1823 to restore the absolutist regime.

To question the right of interference is absurd. If my next–door neighbours were fighting, endeavouring to kill one another, and likely, moreover, in their quarrel, to set fire to the house, it would be madness in me not to interfere, if I could do it to any good purpose.

Therefore, if France were a power which could be trusted, and would interfere as honourably as we did when we rescued Spain from Buonaparte,

(11)

Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; Emperor of the French 1804–1814, 1815) had ordered the occupation of Spain 1808–1813. Spanish resistance was greatly aided by British military intervention.

I should approve its interference, and heartily wish it success. But the French are a faithless nation: they have ever been so, and, upon the first favourable opportunity, they would gladly revive the wildest schemes of Louis XIV.

(12)

Louis XIV (1638–1714; King of France 1643–1714). His grandson inherited the Spanish throne in 1700, leading to the War of the Spanish Succession 1701–1713.

or Buonaparte. Even could we trust them, and their conduct were to be as unexceptionable as I verily think the grounds of their interference are, the question of expediency is a very difficult one. When they get to Madrid (which may be done without difficulty), the work is far from being over. They may make a new government, or restore the old despotism, but how is it to be supported? The old difficulty of the finances recurs; and thus government will require, not our auxiliary troops to keep the country quiet, but loans to maintain it, till credit and prosperity are restored. France may have some reason to apprehend discontent at home, and the explosion of her own combustibles, if the struggle be prolonged; or, to prevent this, it is not improbable that she may be willing to provoke a war with England, for which the Portuguese seem disposed to give her a pretext.

(13)

A liberal regime had been established in Portugal in 1820. It was feared that French forces might invade Portugal and, later in 1823, both a British naval squadron and 5,000 British troops were dispatched to Portugal to prevent this eventuality.

If they assist the Spaniards, and the French, in consequence, invade Portugal, we can no longer remain neutral.

Here, then, are two evils in prospect; that France may acquire such ascendency over Spain as Louis XIV. aimed at, and that we may be drawn into a war, in support of those very revolutionary opinions against which we have struggled so long. And this is what the Whigs desire. The very persons who would have had us desert Spain and the Portuguese when they resisted Buonaparte, are now endeavouring to force us into a war in their behalf. Undoubtedly they hope that it would end in a revolution at home by the embarrassments which it would produce. In this they are greatly deceived, for it would restore agricultural prosperity, and give a new spur to our manufactures. But this would be dearly purchased. Our policy is to preserve peace and order wherever our influence extends.

I have written hastily, and may very possibly have failed to make myself understood. The upshot is this; it is a struggle in Spain between two extremes which are both so bad that one can hardly form a wish on either side; and that the one thing to be desired is, that order should be restored there. If France were an upright power, her interference would be desirable; – being what she is, it is to be wished that the Peninsular were left to itself.

It will be some eight or ten weeks before I see you. All here are well, and all join in kind remembrances to your fireside and circle. God bless you.

Yours affectionately,
R.S.

Notes

1. Southey had added a new ‘Preface’ to the 9th edition of Southey’s The Remains of Henry Kirke White, 3 vols (London, 1822), III, pp. [iii]–xvi. The third volume of this 1822 edition was a ‘supplementary volume’ to the original edition of 1807, containing additional letters and poems by Kirke White. The 10th edition of the Remains, 2 vols (London, 1823), compressed the material into two volumes and required Southey to combine some of his ‘Preface’ with the ‘Life’ of Kirke White at pp. [v]–lxviii, adding the remainder at pp. [lxix]–lxxiii. He also added references to letters in the third volume of the 1822 edition to the 1823 version of the ‘Life’.[back]
2. The Remains of Henry Kirke White, 2 vols (London, 1823), I, p. xlviii. Robert White Almond (1785–1853) was an old schoolfriend of Kirke White’s from Nottingham. He entered Trinity College, Cambridge, on 1 July 1803 (he is identified as a Trinity College student in the Remains), but migrated within a few months to Queen’s College, Cambridge (BA 1808, MA 1813). He was ordained in 1810 and was Rector of St Peter’s, Nottingham 1814–1853.[back]
3. This dinner was on 18 May 1820, during Southey’s visit to London of that year.[back]
4. Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Stonor (1781–1834) had married Mary Butler (1782–1829), daughter of Charles Butler, in 1809. He was a member of an old English Catholic family and had served in the Spanish Army.[back]
5. The absolutist regime in Spain was overthrown by an army revolt that began in January 1820.[back]
6. The army revolt restored the liberal Constitution of 1812, devised by the Cortes elected in 1810.[back]
7. Ferdinand VII (1784–1833; King of Spain 1808, 1813–1833).[back]
8. In 1820–1821, the Spanish government had raised two loans through the Paris firm of Ardouin, Hubbard & Co. and a further ‘National’ loan from Spanish citizens.[back]
9. The liberal government in Spain issued a stream of decrees in 1820–1822 ordering the confiscation and sale of the estates of municipal bodies, Spanish military orders, Crown lands and monasteries and convents.[back]
10. French forces had been massing on the Spanish border since late 1822 and finally invaded on 7 April 1823 to restore the absolutist regime.[back]
11. Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; Emperor of the French 1804–1814, 1815) had ordered the occupation of Spain 1808–1813. Spanish resistance was greatly aided by British military intervention.[back]
12. Louis XIV (1638–1714; King of France 1643–1714). His grandson inherited the Spanish throne in 1700, leading to the War of the Spanish Succession 1701–1713.[back]
13. A liberal regime had been established in Portugal in 1820. It was feared that French forces might invade Portugal and, later in 1823, both a British naval squadron and 5,000 British troops were dispatched to Portugal to prevent this eventuality.[back]
TEI Link
TEI
Volume Editor(s)
Lynda Pratt
Ian Packer