The diplomacy of the period 1815 - 1848 was not governed by the ideas of nationalism and liberalism
Superficially, one could say that France and Britain were for nationalism and liberalism while Russia, Prussia and Austria were against the two principles. But the situation of the period was far more complicated than that. It would be untrue to say that the powers always operated to impose their belief (or disbelief) in nationalism and liberalism. Predictably, the powers always operated to further their own national self-interest. The powers also operated mainly to try to maintain the balance of power, the peace and overall the stability in Europe. In this essay I will look at each power in turn and decide how much the diplomacy of that particular country for the period 1815 - 1848 indicates that the country was opposed to or pro nationalism and liberalism.
First I will look at Britain. Out of the major powers, Britain was the most consistently supportive of the principles of nationalism and liberalism. Britain liked to take the moral high ground over the other four powers and therefore supported ideals like the banning of slavery and the freedom of oppressed countries. It must be said however, that Britain only acted when it stood to gain from the actions. By 1820 Spain, France and Portugal had all followed Britain's lead in abolishing slavery. Britain took the Liberal line on slavery for two reasons. Firstly, slavery had existed in Britain and it's colonies for a long time, much longer than it had elsewhere in the Great Powers and therefore Britain had already gained a great deal from the salve trade. One could say that Britain had, by 1820, exhausted it's use of slavery. In that case, Britain could push the moral high ground stance by saying that it should be abolished because Britain had nothing to lose by doing so. Other countries, which had just begun the use of slaves, stood to lose a great deal. The second reason Britain chose to push for the abolition of the slave trade was that it was the "popular" thing to do by the people. The public was becoming more humanitarian and therefore the Crown had to act accordingly if it were to stay in favour.
The next issue linked to nationalism and liberalism that Britain had to act upon was Spanish intention of using force to regain control of her colonies in South America. France was rumoured to have offered to help Spain do this with military assistance. Britain threatened France with war and declared (with the support of the Americans through the Monroe Doctrine.) that the American continents should be free and were not suitable for European colonisation. However, the actions of the British were not purely to support the liberal stance or to take the moral stance. Britain, and Canning in particular, knew that if they helped support the independence of the countries in South America, it would greatly improve trading relations with the country and therefore improve the trade and economic situation of Britain itself.
Next for Britain came the Belgium Revolt of 1830 against the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Britain supported the Belgium claim for independence, however, Britain wanted to ensure that the Port of Antwerp did not fall into Great Power hands, as it was a key strategic point for Britain. France also supported Belgium's claim for independence and together Britain and France agreed to assist the Belgians. The Eastern Powers were opposed to Belgian independence but were either too busy or did not have the resources to deal with the situation. The Netherlands, however, resisted the revolt and invaded Belgium. France sent in an Army to repel the Dutch. In doing so, the French took control of Belgium and were tempted to try to annex Belgium themselves. Britain took great exception to this and threatened France with war if they did not leave Belgium. However, this was not Britain taking the liberal line, it was Britain ensuring her own self-interest in making sure that Antwerp was not taken over by a Great Power.
The next issue Britain dealt with was the question of the throne of Portugal. In 1826 the King of Portugal died. The legitimate successor to the throne was Pedro, who was also Emperor of Brazil. Pedro wanted to give the throne to his daughter and turn Portugal into a constitution. But Pedro's brother, Miguel, wanted the country for himself and wished to keep the absolutist regime of Portugal. Spain and France supported Miguel and Britain decided that Portugal would not be run by Spain or France and therefore intervened by sending a fleet and 4,000 troops to Lisbon in a show of strength. The reasons for Britain's intervention are simple: Britain felt that if France were to have a dominant influence in France then Britain would have a dominant influence in Portugal. Britain acted to maintain a balance of power and to maintain trade relations between Britain and Portugal.
There was also Castlereagh's State Paper of 1820 that supported a stance of non-intervention unless the action threatened the balance of power or the stability of Europe. This sums up Britain attitude towards diplomacy during the period. Britain wanted to appear to be taking the moral high ground and did not want to get involved. But, if an issue arose from which Britain stood to gain from then they would intervene.
The last issue that Britain was involved in was that of Greece. Turkey and Egypt invaded Greece. Britain, along with France and Russia, joined forces and opposed and defeated the Turkish and Egyptian troops. Britain acted for several reasons: firstly, there was strong public opinion in support of Greece. Secondly, Britain stood to improve its relations with Greece by helping them, and subsequently its trade with the country would improve. Lastly, Britain wanted to make sure that Russia (who were keen to help the Greeks) were supervised in their help of Greece, that is, that Greece did not become too heavily influenced and in debt to Russia.
Overall, the British diplomacy of the period 1815 - 1848 does not really indicate at all that the major powers were opposed to liberalism and nationalism. The British diplomacy indicates that although nationalism and liberalism were not at the forefront of the power's minds, that to a certain extent they were deemed important and necessary in the maintenance of a balance of power. But, what we have to remember is that Britain always acted for her own self-interest and despite pushing the ideas of nationalism and liberalism Britain still held many colonies. Britain only intervened when it suited her. Britain did not intervene in Poland or support Liberal claims in Naples despite the liberal ideas because they had nothing to gain from intervening.
