of October 1822. The emperor Alexander I. of Russia was present in person. There were also present Count Nesselrode, the Russian minister of foreign affairs; Prince Metternich, representing Austria; Prince Hardenberg and Count Bernstorff, representing Prussia; MM. de Montmorency and Chateaubriand, representing France; and the duke of Wellington, representing Great Britain in place of Lord Londonderry (Castlereagh), whose tragic death occurred on the eve of his setting out to the congress.
In the instructions drawn up by Londonderry for his own guidance, which had been handed to Wellington by Canning without alteration, was clearly defined the attitude of Great Britain towards the three questions which it was supposed would be discussed, viz. the Turkish Question (Greek insurrection), the question of intervention in favour of the royal power in Spain, together with that of the revolted Spanish colonies, and the Italian Question. As regards the latter it was laid down that Great Britain could not charge herself with any superintendence of a system in which she had merely acquiesced, and the duty of the British minister would be merely to keep himself informed, and to see that nothing was done “inconsistent with the European system and the treaties.” To make this attitude quite clear, Wellington was further instructed not to hand in his credentials until this question had been disposed of, his place being meanwhile taken by Lord Londonderry (Stewart), Castlereagh’s half-brother and successor in the title, who had fulfilled the same function at Troppau and Laibach. In the Spanish Question Wellington was to give voice to the uncompromising opposition of Great Britain to the whole principle of intervention. In the Turkish Question, the probable raising of which "had alone induced the British governmentto send a plenipotentiary to the congress, he was to suggest the eventual necessity for recognizing the belligerent rights of the Greeks, and, in the event of concerted interven- tion, to be careful not to commit Great Britain beyond the limits of good offices.
The immediate problems arising out of the Turkish Question had, however, been settled between the emperor Alexander and Metternich, to their mutual satisfaction, at the preliminary conferences held at Vienna in September, and at Verona the only question raised was that of the proposed French interven- tion in Spain. The discussion was opened by three questions formally propounded by Montmorency: (1) Would the Allies withdraw their ministers from Madrid in the event of France being compelled to do so? (2) In case of war, under what form and by what acts would the powers give France their moral support, so as to give to her action the force of the Alliance, and inspire a salutary fear in the revolutionaries of all countries ? (3) What material aid would the powers give, if asked by France to intervene, under restrictions which she would declare and they would recognize?
The reply of Alexander, who expressed his surprise at the desire of France to keep the question " wholly French, " was to offer to march 150,000 Russians through Germany to Pied- mont, where they could be held ready to act against the Jacobins whether in Spain or France. This solution appealed to Metternich and Montmorency as little as to Wellington; but though united in opposing it, four days of "confidential communications" revealed a fundamental difference of opinion between the representative of Great Britain and those of the continental powers on the main point at issue. Wellington, firmly based on the principle of non-intervention, refused to have anything to do with the suggestion, made by Metternich, that the powers should address a common note to the Spanish government in support of the action of France. Finally, Metternich proposed that the Allies should "hold a common language, but in separate notes, though uniform in their principles and objects." This solution was adopted by the continental powers; and Wellington, in accordance with his instructions not to countenanceany intervention in Spanish affairs, took no part in the conferences that followed. On the 30th of October the powers handed in their formal replies to the French memorandum. Russia, Austria and Prussia would act as France should in respect of their ministers in Spain, and would give to France every countenance and assistance she might require, the details “being reserved to be specified in a treaty.” Wellington, on the other hand, replied on behalf of Great Britain that “having no knowledge of the cause of dispute, and not being able to form a judgment upon a hypothetical case, he could give no answer to any of the questions.”
Thus was proclaimed the open breach of Great Britain with the principles and policy of the Great Alliance, which is what gives to the congress its main historical interest.
See Cambridge Modern Hist., chap. i. "The Congresses," by W. Alison Phillips, and for authorities, ibid. p. 787.
(W. A. P.)
VERONAL, in medicine, diethylmalonyl urea or diethyl-barbituric acid (C2H2)2C[CO NH]2CO, extensively used as a hypnotic. It is prepared by condensing diethylmalonic ester with urea in the presence of sodium ethylate, or by acting with ethyl iodide on the silver salt of malonyl urea; it forms a white crystalline powder, which is odourless, and has a slightly bitter taste. Its introduction followed the investigations of Emil Fischer and J. v. Merling on the pharmacological properties of certain open and closed ureides. Led thereto by the impression that hypnotic action appears to be largely dependent on the presence of ethyl groups, they prepared diethylacetyl urea, diethylmalonyl urea, and dipropylmalonyl urea. All three were found to be hypnotics: the first was about equal in power to sulphonal, whilst the third was four times as powerful, but its use was attended by prolonged after-effects. Veronal was found to be midway. It is best given in cachets (10 to 15 grains). As it does not affect the circulatory or respiratory systems, or temperature, it can be employed in many diseased conditions of the heart and lungs as well as in mental disturbances, acute alcoholism, morphinomania and kidney disease. If taken during a prolonged period it seems to lose its effect. A soluble salt of veronal has been introduced under the name of medinal. Although the toxicity of veronal is low, 13 s grains having been taken in a single dose without serious results, the unreasonable consumption by persons suffering from insomnia has led to many deaths, and it has been suggested that the sale should be restricted by the Pharmacy Acts.
VERONICA, ST. According to the most recent version of
the legend, Veronica was a pious woman of Jerusalem, who,
moved with pity by the spectacle of Jesus carrying His cross to Golgotha, gave Him her kerchief in order that He might wipe the drops of agony from His brow. The Lord accepted the offering, and after using the napkin handed it back to her with the image of His face miraculously impressed upon it. This, however, is not the primitive form of the legend, which a close examination shows to be derived from the following story related by Eusebius in his Historia Ecclesiastica (vii. 18). At Caesarea Philippi dwelt the woman whom the Lord healed of an is^ue of blood (Matt. ix. 20), and at the door of her house stood, on one side a statue of a woman in an attitude of supplication, and on the other side that of a man stretching forth his hand to the woman. It was said that the male figure represented Christ, and that the group had been set up in recognition of the miraculous cure. Legend was not long in providing the woman of the Gospel with a name. In the West she was identified with Martha of Bethany; in the East she was called Berenike, or Beronike, the name appearing in as early a work as the Acta Pilati, the most ancient form of which goes back to the 4th century. Towards the 6th century the legend of the woman with the issue of blood became merged in the legend of Pilate, as is shown in the writings known in the middle ages as Cura sanitatis Tiberii and Vindicta Salvaloris. According to the former of these accounts Veronica, in memory of her cure, caused a portrait of the Saviour to be painted. The emperor Tiberius, when afflicted with a grievous sickness, commanded the woman to bring the portrait to him, worshipped Christ before her eyes, and was cured. The legend continued to gather accretions, and a miraculous origin came to be assigned to the image. It
