MILITARY SYSTEM IN EUROPE.—During this period, in Europe there has been a wide diffusion of popular education. But a serious hinderance in the way of physical comfort and general improvement in the principal European states has long existed, in the immense standing armies and costly military system which their mutual jealousies and apprehensions have caused them to keep up.

SCIENCE AND INVENTION.—This period outstrips all previous eras as regards the progress of the natural and physical sciences, and of invention and discovery in the practical applications of science. An almost miraculous advance has taken place in the means of travel and of transmitting thought. There has been an equally marvelous advance in devising machinery for use in agriculture and manufactures, and in connection with labor of almost every sort.

PEACE AND PHILANTHROPY.—The vast extension of commerce, with its interchange of products, and the intercourse which is incidental to it, has proved favorable to international peace. The better understanding of economical science, by bringing to view the mischiefs of war and the bad policy of selfishness, has tended in the same direction. Philanthropy has manifested itself with new energy and in new forms of activity. A quickened and more enlightened zeal has been shown in providing for the infirm and helpless, and for mitigating the sufferings of the soldier. Missionary undertakings, for the conversion and civilizing of heathen nations, have been a marked feature of the age.

SOCIALISM.—The "industrial age" had its own perils to confront. The progress of manufactures and trade, the accumulation of wealth unequally distributed, brought forward new questions pertaining to the rights and reciprocal aggressions of laborer and capitalist. Socialism, with novel and startling doctrines as to the right of property, and to the proper function of the state, inaugurated movements of grave concern to the order and well-being of society.



CHAPTER I. EUROPE, FROM THE CONGRESS OP VIENNA (1815) TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1830.

GERMANY: THE HOLY ALLIANCE.—The years of peace which followed the War of Liberation produced a signal increase of thrift and of culture in Germany. But they brought also a grievous disappointment of ardent political hopes. There was a feeling of national brotherhood, which that struggle had engendered,—such a feeling as Germans had not experienced for centuries before. Constitutional government and German unity were objects of earnest desire. Frederick William III., the king of Prussia (1797-1840), had promised his people a constitution. But the two emperors, Francis I. of Austria and Alexander of Russia, together with Frederick William, had, at the instigation of Alexander,—whose mind was tinged with religious mysticism,—formed at Paris (Sept. 26, 1815) "the Holy Alliance," a covenant in which they pledged themselves, in dealing with their subjects and in their international relations, to be governed by the rules of Christian justice and charity. They invited all the potentates of Europe, except the Sultan and the Pope, to become parties to this sacred compact. With the exception of George IV., the Prince Regent of England, the sovereigns complied with the request. This alliance, which was sincerely meant by Alexander, was popularly confused with the alliance of Austria, Russia, Prussia, England, and France, the aim of which was to prevent further revolutions. Francis I., who lived until 1835, was stubbornly averse to every movement that in the least favored popular freedom and constitutional government. Supreme in his counsels for a whole generation was Metternich, not a profound statesman, but an expert diplomatist, who labored, generally with success, to stifle every effort for an increase of freedom in Germany, and elsewhere on the Continent. In the smaller German states, especially those which had belonged to the Confederacy of the Rhine, there was a disposition to found a constitutional system; but the Prussian government followed in the wake of Austria, and Austria stood in the way of every such innovation.

AGITATION AND REACTION.—The agitation for liberty was specially rife among the students in the German universities. A demonstration by them at the Wartburg (1817), in commemoration of Luther and of the victory over Napoleon at Leipsic,—in which there were songs and speeches, and a burning of anti-liberal books,—was noticed by the Prussian and Austrian ministers; and the alleged revolutionary movements of students were denounced by the Emperor Alexander. This reactionary zeal was whetted by the murder of Kotzebue, a German poet, who was hated as a tool of Russia and a foe of liberty, and was assassinated by Karl Sand, a fanatical Prussian student (March 23, 1819). Young Sand was executed for the deed, but his fate drew out many expressions of pity and sympathy. The Diet of the confederacy (Sept. 20, 1819) adopted what were called the Carlsbad Resolutions, which provided for a more rigid censorship of the press, committees of investigation to suppress revolutionary agitation, and a strict supervision of the universities by the governments. All the states were required to enforce these regulations. The liberal party, the party of freedom and unity, still subsisted, especially in the smaller states, where some of the princes, as William I. of Wuertemberg (1819-1864) and Louis I. of Bavaria (1825-1848), entertained comparatively liberal views.

FRANCE UNDER LOUIS XVIII.—The Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818) withdrew the army of occupation left by the allies in France. The Pentarchy, or Five Great Powers, pledged themselves to the continued maintenance of peace by means of conferences and congresses. Louis XVIII. (1814-1824), although inactive, was not void of good sense, and was disposed to accommodate himself to the times. But the court party, with his brother the Count d'Artois at its head, were unyielding in their despotic ideas. They were for restoring the system of the old monarchy. The increase in the liberal members of the Chamber, or legislative assembly, impelled Richelieu, the head of the ministry, to resign (Dec., 1818). A more liberal man, Decazes, succeeded him. He was supported by a party which arose at this time, called Doctrinaires on account of a certain pedantic spirit, and a disposition to shape political action by preconceived theories or ideas, which was imputed to them. In their ranks were Royer-Collard, Guizot, Villemain, Barante, and others. They advocated a constitutional monarchy. Among the liberals not affiliated with them was La Fayette, who encouraged the Charbonniers, a secret society for promoting liberty, that had its origin in Italy.

TYRANNY IN SPAIN.—In 1820 revolts broke out against the Bourbon governments in Spain and Italy. Ferdinand VII. had been restored to liberty by Napoleon in 1814, and had returned to the Spanish throne. In 1812 the Cortes had established a constitution with a system of parliamentary government, limited prerogatives being left to the king. In favor of the new system were the educated and enlightened class generally. But—as was not the case in Germany—the uprising against Napoleon in Spain had owed its strength very much to the ignorant and superstitious peasantry, who, while they hated the foreign yoke, clung to the feudal and ecclesiastical abuses which the French rulers in Spain, as far as time and opportunity permitted, swept away. Ferdinand thus had a strong support in his movement to bring back the former bigoted and exclusive system. He wrested the national property from the holders to whom it had been sold. He restored the Inquisition: not less than fifty thousand individuals were imprisoned for their opinions. From his tyranny ten thousand Spaniards escaped into France.

SOUTH AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE.—The French usurpation in Spain cost that country its American colonies. They would not submit to the French sovereignty, and after its fall maintained their independence. Buenos Ayres broke loose from Spain in 1810, and in 1816 joined the Plate states in a confederation. Paraguay declined a union with Buenos Ayres, and continued under the patriarchal absolutism introduced by the Jesuits, Dr. Francia being its ruler until his death (1840). Uruguay became a republic distinct from Buenos Ayres in 1828. In the northern colonies, the principal hero of the struggle for independence was Simon Bolivar, who sprang from a noble Creole family. He first fought for the independence of Venezuela (1810), but was made by New Granada its general in 1812, and became president of the two countries, which were united under the name of Colombia (1819). Quito was now taken, and Peru was set free from the Spanish rule. Upper Peru, in 1825, was named, in honor of the "Liberator," Bolivia. He found it impracticable to connect the different states in one confederacy, and closed his eventful life in 1830. Colombia divided itself into the three states, Venezuela, New Granada, and Ecuador (1831).

MEXICAN INDEPENDENCE.—After the year 1808, there were various attempts at revolution in Mexico. In 1821 its independence was achieved by an insurrection under Iturbide, a native Mexican. He failed in the effort to make himself emperor (1822); and the Republic of Mexico was organized in 1824, and was recognized by the United States in 1829.

MILITARY REVOLT IN SPAIN.—The loss of her American colonies, and the efforts to restore them, reduced Spain to extreme poverty. In 1820 a successful military insurrection, led by Quiroga, Riego, and Mina, proclaimed anew the constitution of 1812. Ferdinand, who was capable of any amount of hypocrisy as well as cruelty, swore to uphold it. The revolution was supported by the intelligent class of people, but the defenders of it were split into different parties. The clergy and the peasantry were arrayed on the other side. Guerilla bands were organized under the name of the "Army of the Faith."

CONGRESS OF VERONA.—The military revolt in Spain alarmed the Great Powers. The three sovereigns were now leagued for the defense of "the throne and the altar;" for Alexander, who had shown liberal inclinations on the subject of the emancipation of the serfs, and even towards Greece in its aspiration for independence, now recoiled from every thing that savored of freedom. At the Congress of Verona (Oct., 1822), the sovereigns resolved to interfere in Spain. The Duke of Wellington declined to concur with them, and, on his return from the congress, advised Louis XVIII. to take the same course.

ENGLAND: CANNING.—George IV. (1820-1830) had been regent since 1810. Already unpopular, he became still more so in consequence of his abortive effort (1820) to procure a divorce from Queen Caroline, whom he had married at the demand of his father (1795). She was not allowed to be present at his coronation. On account of the profligacy of her husband, there was a strong sympathy with her, although she was a coarse-minded woman. For a number of years after the Peace of 1815, the English government resisted movements towards reform at home; and in its foreign policy, under the guidance of Castlereagh, it sustained the reactionary cause abroad. Disaffection towards the ministers gave rise to a plot, contrived by some desperate men, to destroy them in a body. It was detected; and Thistlewood, with some of his confederates, was executed (1820). On the death of Lord Castlereagh in 1822, Canning, a disciple of Pitt, became foreign secretary. He adopted a more liberal policy, and worked against the schemes of Metternich for interference in the affairs of foreign states. He transferred England, says Guizot, "from the camp of resistance and of European order into the camp of liberty."

THE REBELLION CRUSHED IN SPAIN.—The French unwisely rejected England's advice. Louis XVIII. sent an army into Spain, under the Duke of Angouleme, released Ferdinand at Cadiz, and gave him the power to revoke all that he had done in favor of liberty. The brave Riego was hung on a gibbet of enormous height. The Spanish army was disbanded, and the "Army of the Faith" took its place. Many thousands of constitutionalists were thrown into prison. Canning recognized the republics of South America, lest they, too, should fall under French control. It was his boast, that he "called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old."

PORTUGAL: BRAZIL.—The royal family of Portugal were residing in Brazil when the Spanish revolution occurred. Portugal, in the absence of King John VI., framed a liberal constitution. The Brazilians were eager for independence from Portugal. John decided to withdraw. Arrived in Portugal, he accepted the new constitution; but the anti-revolutionary party rallied about his son Dom Miguel, who was supported by his mother, a sister of Ferdinand VII, of Spain. Dom Miguel was at length driven into exile, and went to Vienna. Meantime Dom Pedro, a son of John VI., had made himself emperor in Brazil by allying himself with the constitutional party; and John was prevailed on by the British, in 1825, to recognize the new South American empire.

NAPLES AND SICILY.—In all the eight principalities of Italy, except in Tuscany, the misrule of the restored governments was galling to the people, whose hope of freedom had been raised only to be cast down. Everywhere the tyrannical influence of Austria was dominant. The rulers in Italy were slavishly submissive to her will; and any rising of the people, if not put down by them, was crushed by Austrian forces sent down from Lombardy. Secret societies sprung up; the chief of which, the Carbonari, aimed at national independence, but beyond that cherished no definite, united purpose. The Spanish revolution served as the occasion for a similar rebellion of the soldiery of Naples. A new liberal constitution was established, which Ferdinand IV. (July 13, 1820) solemnly swore to maintain. The insurrection in Sicily aimed at independence, but Palermo was surrendered to the revolutionary government of Naples. The Neapolitan rebellion led to the Congress of Troppau (Oct., 1820), which was transferred to Laybach (Jan., 1821). There Austria, Prussia, and Russia formed a league, the fruit of which was, that an Austrian army of sixty thousand men marched into the South of Italy, and the revolution was crushed. Ferdinand reestablished his despotism, disbanded the greater part of his army, and punished with exile, imprisonment, and death the leading supporters of the constitution which he had taken an oath to defend.

SARDINIA.—In Piedmont, the demand for a constitution and a rising at Alessandria impelled Victor Emmanuel I. to abdicate in favor of his brother, Charles Felix, who was favorable to Austria and her policy. Prince Charles Albert,—a distant cousin,—who had liberal views, held the regency for a few months; but Charles Felix, on his return from Modena (Oct., 1821), governed according to despotic principles. The contest in Italy between "despots and conspirators" went on until the renewed outbreakings of revolt in 1830.

THE GREEK INSURRECTION.—The weakness of Turkey emboldened the Greeks to attempt to throw off the hated Ottoman yoke. The sultans had become the puppets of their guards, the janizaries. One after another of them had been dethroned by their soldiers. The pashas were insubordinate: in Egypt, Mehemet Ali had almost made himself independent. Russia, by the Peace of Bucharest in 1812, had possessed herself of Bessarabia and of Eastern Moldavia as far as the Pruth. Among the Greeks, who were not more than a million in number, and were only one among the various peoples subject to Turkey, there were formed Hetaireiai, or secret societies, for the purpose of organizing an insurrection. The people were first summoned to rise by Alexander Ypsilanti (1821). A "national congress" promulgated a new constitution for Greece (1822). Great enthusiasm in behalf of the Greek cause was awakened in most of the civilized countries; but the Congress of Verona (1822), inspired by Metternich, decided to give no help to the "insurgents." In the war of the Greeks with the Turks, there were atrocities committed on both sides. Scio was taken by the latter in 1822. Not far from twenty thousand of the inhabitants were massacred, and twice that number were enslaved. In 1824 the Greeks began to receive foreign help. Among those who volunteered with a chivalrous sympathy to aid them in their combat was Lord Byron, who died at Missolonghi (1824). Nicholas I. of Russia, who in 1825 succeeded Alexander I., was more inclined to take an active part in the Greek contest, as he considered himself the head of all Christians of the Greek faith. The Sultan Mahmoud II., by crushing the janizaries, strengthened himself at home, but weakened his means of attack and defense abroad. In 1826 he made important concessions to Russia; among other things, allowing her to occupy the east coast of the Black Sea, and giving to her vessels a free admission to Turkish waters.

GREEK INDEPENDENCE.—Mehemet Ali hoped to succeed Mahmoud. His son Ibrahim had defeated the Greeks at Navarino (1825). The next year, in conjunction with the Turks, he captured Missolonghi. The apprehension that Nicholas might seek to divide Turkey with Mehemet Ali caused the Treaty of London to be concluded by the Great Powers which founded the kingdom of Greece (July 6, 1827). England, Russia, and France joined in executing the treaty. They destroyed the Turkish-Egyptian fleet at Navarino (Oct. 20). Later, Nicholas waged a separate war with the Porte, which was terminated by the Peace of Adrianople (1829), when the latter recognized the independence of Greece. The crown of Greece was accepted in 1832 by Otho, son of Louis of Bavaria.



CHAPTER II. EUROPE FROM THE REVOLUTION OF 1830 TO THE REVOLUTIONARY EPOCH OF 1848.

CHARLES X.—Louis XVIII. died in 1824. His brother, Charles X. (1824-30), dealt generously with the collateral branch of the Bourbons, the house of Orleans. He restored to Louis Philippe, the son of that Philip Egalite whose base career was ended by the guillotine (p. 512), the vast estates of the Orleans family, and gave him the title of "Royal Highness." But he failed to secure the cordial support of this ambitious relative. The Duke of Orleans stood well with the king, but was on good terms with the liberal leaders. The king sought to reinstate the ideas and ways of the old regime. He was specially zealous in behalf of ecclesiastics, and ceremonies of devotion. But liberal views in politics gained ground in the second Chamber, as well as in the army and among the people. A liberal ministry under Martignac was in power for a while; but in 1829 it was succeeded by a ministry the head of which was the unpopular Prince Polignac, and the other principal members of which were hardly less obnoxious. They represented the extreme reactionary and royalist party. Their active opponents—Guizot, Thiers, and Benjamin Constant among them—found that their assaults on the government were generally applauded. All of these were brilliant political writers. Constant (from 1825) had been the leader of the opposition. Thiers was a journalist of wide influence. Guizot had held office under the liberal ministers, and as lecturer on modern history, and by his writings, had laid the foundation of the great distinction which he deservedly gained, as one of the foremost students and expounders of history in recent times. Thiers and Guizot were at this time united in the advocacy of a constitutional system, as opposed to the reactionary policy and the personal government to which the king and his ministers were committed. Later we shall see that the paths of these two statesmen diverged. In 1830 Guizot was the opposition leader in the Chamber of Deputies. In the Chamber of Peers, the ministry was attacked by Chateaubriand, who had been a valuable supporter of the Bourbon cause, and by others. The Chambers were dissolved by the king. The capture of Algiers, in a war against the piratical power of which it was the seat, did not avail to lessen the growing hostility to his government. It found expression through the press and in speeches at a great banquet.

ORDINANCES OF ST. CLOUD.—Taking advantage of the provision in the charter which gave extraordinary powers to the king for special emergencies (p. 537), the ministry took the fatal step (July 25, 1830) of issuing the "ordinances of St. Cloud," dissolving the Chamber of Deputies, further restricting the suffrage so that many merchants and manufacturers lost this privilege, and reestablishing the censorship of the press in a peculiarly burdensome form.

THE JULY REVOLUTION.—The ordinances were published on July 26. That evening Prince Polignac's windows were broken by a mob. The whole city of Paris was in a tumult. The liberal journals protested. There were collisions between the mob and the king's troops. A protest of the liberal deputies, who met at the house of Casimir Perier, was issued. In the night the people armed themselves. La Fayette arrived in Paris. On the 28th students, workmen, and all classes of citizens, armed themselves with whatever weapons they could lay hold of. The revolutionists took possession of the Hotel de Ville. The cry was that the charter was violated. All efforts to induce the king to make concessions failed. Many of the soldiers in Paris fraternized with the people, who on the 29th had control of the whole city, except the vicinity of the Tuileries, which they gained possession of that evening. La Fayette, at the call of the deputies, assumed command of the National Guard. Finally, when it was too late, the king decided to withdraw the ordinances, and to change the ministry. Thiers and Mignet caused anonymous placards to be posted, proposing that the Duke of Orleans should take the crown from the people. On the 30th Louis Philippe entered Paris on foot: he had passed the summer at his country place at Neuilly. Talleyrand,—whose influence was great with foreign courts,—Lafitte, and Thiers were active in the effort to advance him to the throne. The deputies decided that he must be made lieutenant-general of the kingdom. Charles X., who still blindly confided in him, on the 31st appointed him to this office. What the intentions of Louis Philippe were, is not clear. He probably meant to be governed by circumstances. On the 29th a municipal commission was installed at the Hotel de Ville, consisting of La Fayette and six other leading men. They selected several persons as officials whose authority was generally acknowledged. Louis Philippe, at the head of the deputies, went to the Hotel de Ville. He was cordially received by La Fayette and his associates. It was agreed that there should be "a popular throne, with free institutions." On the balcony, under the tri-color flag, the Duke of Orleans was introduced as "the man of the people." La Fayette felt that a republic would be contrary to the national wish. Thiers was of the same mind. They feared complications and contests abroad, and what might be the results of general suffrage, in the existing state of the country, at home.

FLIGHT OF CHARLES X.—The desertion of Charles X. by his troops would have rendered an armed contest on his part impracticable. The dexterous management of Louis Philippe was made effectual by the favoring circumstances. On Aug. 2 the king abdicated in favor of his grandson, the Duke of Bordeaux, and was compelled to fly from the kingdom. The volunteer army had been stirred up to go out to Rambouillet to drive him away. The angry old king did not wait for their coming.

LOUIS PHILIPPE MADE KING.—The Chamber of Deputies declared the throne vacant. They altered the charter,—putting all religious bodies on a level, giving freedom to the press, limiting the powers of the king, and giving to the Chambers, as well as to him, the initiative in framing laws. They chose Louis Philippe "King of the French." He owed his elevation to the middle classes, and claimed to be the "citizen king."

SEPARATION OF BELGIUM.—The effect of the new revolution was to set in motion the elements of discontent in the other European countries. Belgium was the first to feel the shock. The Belgians were restless under the rule of William I., whose treatment of them aggravated the disaffection which their political relation to Holland constantly occasioned. A revolt broke out at Brussels. The offer of a legislative and administrative separation of Belgium from Holland, with one king over both, might have been accepted if it had been made earlier; but it followed unsuccessful efforts to quell the insurrection by force. A provisional government was created at Brussels, which proclaimed the independence of Belgium (Oct. 4), and convoked a national congress. France confined itself to preventing the interference of foreign powers. A conference of ministers at London (Jan., 1831) recognized the new state, which adopted a liberal constitution. Leopold I. of Saxe-Coburg was chosen king. He was aided by the forces of the French; but the war with Holland lasted until 1833, and it was not until 1839 that Holland definitely accepted the action of the London congress.

POLAND.—Poland was harshly ruled for the Czar by the Grand Duke Constantine. The revolution in France was the signal for a Polish rising, that began in an unsuccessful attempt of students and others to seize the person of the grand duke. The insurrection spread: men of talents and distinction, as well as Polish soldiers, joined the cause of the people. The Czar, Nicholas, would make no terms with the insurgents, and the Diet (Jan. 25, 1831) declared him to have forfeited the Polish crown. The Poles fought with desperate valor in a series of bloody battles, only to be overwhelmed by superiority of numbers. They were defeated at Ostrolenka by Diebitsch (May 26). After his death, Warsaw surrendered to Paskievitch (Sept. 8), and another Russian general entered Cracow. Poland was now reduced, as far as it could be, to a Russian province. The army was merged in the Russian forces; the university was suppressed; the Roman Catholic religion, the prevailing faith, was persecuted; and it was computed that in one year (1832) eighty thousand Poles were sent to Siberia.

GERMANY: HUNGARY.—In Saxony and in the minor states of Germany, disturbances were consequent on the tidings of the revolution at Paris. Prussia and Austria were little affected by it; but the demands of the Diet in Hungary, when Ferdinand, the son of Francis I. was crowned king of that country, were an augury of a far greater commotion to arise at a later day. In the Diet of 1832 Louis Kossuth first appeared as a member. Between the years 1828 and 1834, the German states (not including Austria), under the guidance of Prussia and Bavaria, formed a Zollverein, or customs-union, which was an important step in the direction of German unity, and one which Austria looked on with disfavor.

ITALY.—In 1831, there were signs of revolt in different states of Italy. At Modena, a provisional government was erected. The same thing was done at Bologna. Maria Louisa was driven out of Parma. Among those who joined the insurgents in the Papal Kingdom were Napoleon and his younger brother Louis Bonaparte, sons of Louis Bonaparte king of Holland. The elder of the sons died soon after at Forli. The Italians relied on the help of Louis Philippe, but the citizen king had no disposition to engage in war with Austria. The uprisings were put down with the assistance of Austrian troops. Charles Albert, after April, 1831, king of Sardinia, did a good work in the discipline of his army. Without any esteem for Austria, he refused to further the plans of the revolutionary party, and thus incurred the hostility of Mazzini, who was organizing the movement of "Young Italy" for independence and unity. Mazzini, a man of elevated spirit and disinterested aims, was long to be known as the head of the republican patriots and plotters.

ENGLAND.—In England, reform went forward peacefully. The middle class gradually obtained its demands. The national debt, at the close of the wars with Napoleon, amounted to nearly eight hundred millions of pounds. In 1823, with the accession of Mr. Huskisson to office, began the movement for a more free commercial policy, which led in the end to the repeal of the corn-laws. The question of "Catholic disabilities" was agitated from time to time, and something had been done to lighten them. Yet in 1828 Catholics were still shut out by law from almost every office of trust and distinction. They could not sit in either house of Parliament. The endeavors of liberal statesmen for their relief were defeated by the Tory majorities. The agitation was increased by the "Catholic Association" formed in Ireland by the Irish leader and orator, Daniel O'Connell. A Tory ministry was formed by the Duke of Wellington, with Mr. (afterwards Sir) Robert Peel for its chief supporter in the House of Commons (1829). Yet, to avert the danger of civil war, the ministry introduced, and with aid of the Whigs carried, the "Catholic Emancipation Bill."

THE REFORM BILL.—On the death of George IV., William IV., his brother (1830-1837), succeeded to the throne. He was favorable to parliamentary reform. The ferment on this subject caused the resignation of the Wellington ministry, which was succeeded by the ministry of Earl Grey. A bill for reform was presented to Parliament, depriving eighty-eight "rotten or decayed" boroughs, where there were very few inhabitants, of a hundred and forty-three members of the House of Commons, who were given to counties or to large towns, such as Birmingham and Manchester, which had no representation. At the same time the franchise was greatly extended. The bill was strenuously resisted by the Tories, who now began to be called Conservatives. Its repeated rejection by the House of Lords caused a violent agitation. Finally, in 1832, when it was understood that the king would create new peers enough to pass the measure, it was carried in the upper house, and became a law.

SLAVERY ABOLISHED.—In 1833 the system of slavery in the British colonies was abolished, twenty million pounds being paid as a compensation to the slave-owners. This measure was the result of an agitation in which Wilberforce, Clarkson, and Buxton had been foremost.

In the latter part of the eighteenth century, a strong feeling arose against the slave-trade. Granville Sharp (1734-1813) was one of the earliest promoters of its abolition. By his agency, in the case of a negro,—Somerset,—claimed as a slave, the decision was obtained from Lord Mansfield, that a slave could not be held in England, or carried out of it. The Quakers were early in the field in opposition to the traffic in slaves. In the House of Commons, Wilberforce, a man of earnest religious convictions and one of the most eloquent orators of his time, contended against it for years. His friend Pitt, and Fox, joined him in 1790. The measure of abolition was carried in 1807. Then followed the agitation for the abolition of slavery itself. The slave-trade was made illegal by France in 1819. It had been condemned by the Congress of Vienna. In the French colonies, slavery continued until 1848.

LEGAL REFORMS.—In the same year the monopoly of the East-India Company was abolished, and trade with the East was made free to all merchants. A new Poor Law (1834) checked the growth of pauperism. In 1835, by the Municipal Corporations Act, the ancient rights of self-government by the towns, which had been lost since the fourteenth century, were restored to them. Civil marriage was made legal, in compliance with a demand of the Dissenters, who were likewise relieved of other grounds of complaint (1836). Increased attention began to be paid to popular education.

CHARTISM.—Notwithstanding the constitutional changes in England, the distress and discontent of the poorer classes occasioned the riotous "Chartist" movement in 1839, when universal suffrage, annual parliaments, and other radical changes were in vain demanded. Mass meetings were held, and outbreakings of violence were feared; but order was preserved.

CHINA: AFGHANISTAN.—A war with China (1839) had no better ground than the refusal of the Chinese government to allow the importation of opium. The occupation of Kabul in 1839 caused a general revolt of the Afghans. A British army was destroyed in the Khyber Pass. The British then conquered, but did not care to retain, Afghanistan.

REPEAL OF THE CORN LAWS.—Victoria, the only child of the Duke of Kent, the brother of William IV., succeeded the latter in 1837. She married her cousin, Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1840). In 1846 the party which had long advocated free trade gained a triumph in the repeal of the Corn Laws, which had existed since 1815, imposing duties on imported grain. In the agitation which preceded the repeal, Richard Cobden was the leader: he was effectively aided by John Bright. But the measure was carried by Sir Robert Peel, who on this question abandoned his former views and those of the Conservatives, by whom he had been raised to power. He was bitterly assailed, especially by D'Israeli, who was rising to the position of a leader among them.

LOUIS PHILIPPE.—Louis Philippe made up his first ministry from the party which had raised him to the throne. Among its members were Broglie, Guizot, and Casimir Perier. The king aimed by shrewd management to maintain his popularity at home, and to keep the peace with foreign powers, by taking care to encourage liberal movements abroad, yet without taking any step in that direction which would bring on war. He did nothing for the Poles in their mortal struggle, and nothing really effectual for the Italians. Several abortive attempts upon his life were made by secret societies; one of a dangerous character, by Fieschi (1835), who fired "an infernal machine" from his window when the king was passing. This was followed by the "Laws of September," to curb the license of the press. They reminded the public of the royalist laws of 1820. They were opposed by the more liberal men: Royer-Collard and Villemain spoke against them. They went by the name of the "Fieschi laws." An effort to raise an insurrection among the French troops in Strasburg was made by Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (1836), who, after his flight from Italy, had resided in Switzerland, where he had busied himself in study, and had written several books. The enterprise proved a ridiculous failure: its author was allowed to go to America.

FRENCH POLICY IN THE EAST.—Various causes conspired to undermine Louis Philippe's government. One of these was its connection with the war of Mehemet Ali with the Sultan. In the former war with his over-lord, the Sultan, the viceroy of Egypt had been invested with Syria as a fief. He now sent an army into Syria, under his son Ibrahim, who overran that country, advanced victoriously into Asia Minor, and threatened Constantinople (1832). The European powers intervened, and obliged Mehemet Ali to content himself with Syria, together with the district of Adana in Asia Minor, and the island of Candia, which the Sultan had ceded to him before. In 1839 the Sultan tried to recover Syria, but encountered an overwhelming defeat, and lost the entire Turkish fleet. England now combined with Austria, Prussia, and Russia, and the Western powers once more saved the Turkish Empire; although France, under the ministry of Thiers, had strongly favored the cause of Mehemet Ali (1840). Contrary to the wish of the French, he had to give up Syria. He secured for himself and his descendants the pashalic of Egypt (1841). The failure of the French policy in the East, by this action of the Quadruple Alliance, caused indignation and chagrin in France. Even Thiers, who was in sympathy with the cause of Mehemet Ali, was loudly blamed. There was danger of a rupture with England. Thiers was a principal author of the plan for fortifying Paris by encircling the city with forts. The king judged that they might prove to be of use in putting down insurrections. Louis Napoleon thought the occasion favorable for another attempt to seize the crown. He landed from England at Boulogne with a few followers, and proclaimed himself emperor. He was captured, tried, and imprisoned in the fortress of Ham, where he spent six years. His time there was mostly given to study and writing. A few months before this attempt of Louis Napoleon, the French government had arranged for the bringing of the body of the first Napoleon from St. Helena to Paris. It was one of various impolitic measures, in which Thiers was actively concerned, for doing honor to the emperor and his military achievements. But at that time Louis Napoleon, who was known to be a man of slow mind, but whose capacity for intrigue was not understood, was regarded with contempt, and the Bonapartists excited no alarm. In 1841, in the presence of the royal family and of a vast concourse, the remains of Napoleon were deposited with great pomp in a magnificent tomb under the dome of the Church of the Invalides. Marshal Soult superseded Thiers at the head of the ministry (1840); but Guizot was the ruling spirit in the cabinet, and was associated with the king until his dethronement. The death of the Duke of Orleans, the eldest son of Louis Philippe, by a fall from his carriage (July 13, 1842), endangered the new dynasty. The duke's eldest son, the Count of Paris, was then only four years of age.

GUIZOT'S ADMINISTRATION.—From 1840 Guizot was the principal minister of Louis Philippe, and Thiers was in the opposition. They differed both as regards foreign and domestic policy. Thiers, who in his convictions was a decided liberal, and in full sympathy with the spirit of the French Revolution, was for the extension of suffrage, and for making the influence of France felt and respected in matters of European concern, even at the risk of war. Guizot, on the contrary, clung to the English alliance, and he considered that a foreign war—for example, in defense of Mehemet Ali,—would be to France a great and needless calamity. Claiming to be a fast friend of representative government, Guizot nevertheless inflexibly resisted movements for the extension of popular rights,—movements which he believed would lead, if they were not withstood, to revolution and anarchy. On the one hand were the legitimists, aiming at the restoration of the elder branch of the Bourbons; on the other hand there were the republicans, who wished to be rid of monarchy altogether. The government of Louis Philippe satisfied neither. It served as a transition, or temporary halting-place, in the progress of France towards the goal of rational and stable republicanism, to which the great Revolution tended. It was an "attempt to put new wine in old bottles." This inherent weakness of the Orleans rule, it would have been difficult by any means to neutralize in such a way as to avert, sooner or later, a catastrophe. The unbending conservatism of Guizot—as seen, for instance, in his refusal to extend suffrage—hastened this result. A government over which less than half a million of voters of the middle class alone had an influence, could not stand against the progressive feeling of the country. The middle class, on which the throne depended, became separated from the advanced party, to which the youth of France more and more rallied. Guizot was personally upright; but official corruption was suffered to spread in the last years of his administration, and bribery was used in the elections. These circumstances, added to the mortification of national pride from the little heed paid to France by the other powers, weakened the throne. The failure of the government to support the cause of liberty in Poland and Italy was another important source of its growing unpopularity.

Guizot, in the personal Memoirs written by him after the fall of Louis Philippe, has defended himself against the charge of a want of loyal support of Thiers, the head of the ministry, while he (Guizot) was ambassador to England (1840). There was a private understanding that he should go no farther than his sympathy with the views of Thiers extended. Guizot has undertaken, also, to show that a war in behalf of Mehemet Ali would have been most unwise; and that it was for the interest of France to regain its weight in European affairs, not by the renewal of the bloody and fruitless contests of the past, but by methods of peace. He deemed it his duty not to give way to the "warlike tastes and inclinations" of the French people. The effort, however, to tie down so spirited a nation to so tame a policy, proved to be futile. The recollections of the empire, which the government itself did so much to arouse, moved the people to compare the achievements of the past with the humiliating position of their country under the Orleans rule.

Guizot has left this interesting exposition of his principles and policy: "In the diplomatic complication which agitated Europe, I saw a brilliant opportunity of exercising and loudly proclaiming a foreign policy, extremely new and bold in fact, though moderate in appearance, the only foreign policy which in 1840 suited the peculiar position of France and her government, as also the only course in harmony with the guiding principles and permanent wants of the great scheme of civilization to which the world of to-day aspires and tends.

"The spirit of conquest, of propagandism, and of system, has hitherto been the moving cause and master of the foreign policy of states. The ambition of princes or peoples has sought its gratification in territorial aggrandizement. Religious or political faith has endeavored to expand by imposing itself. Great heads of government have attempted to regulate the destinies of nations according to profound combinations, the offspring rather of their own thought than the natural result of facts. Let us cast a glance over the history of international European relations. We shall see the spirit of conquest, or of armed propagandism, or of some systematic design upon the territorial organization of Europe, inspire and determine the foreign policy of governments. Let one or other of these impulses prevail, and governments have disposed arbitrarily of the fate of nations. War has ever been their indispensable mode of action.

"I know that this course of things has been the fatal result of men's passions; and that, in spite of those passions and the evils they have inflicted on nations, European civilization has continued to increase and prosper, and may increase and prosper still more. It is to the honor of the Christian world, that evil does not stifle good. I know that the progress of civilization and public reason will not abolish human passions, and that, under their impulse, the spirit of conquest, of armed propagandism, and of system, will ever maintain, in the foreign policy of states, their place and portion. But, at the same time, I hold for certain that these various incentives are no longer in harmony with the existing state of manners, ideas, interests, and social instincts; and that it is quite possible to-day to combat and restrain materially their empire. The extent and activity of industry and commerce; the necessity of consulting the general good; the habit of frequent, easy, prompt, and regular intercourse between peoples; the invincible bias for free association, inquiry, discussion, and publicity,—these characteristic features of great modern society already exercise, and will continue to exercise more and more, against the warlike or diplomatic fancies of foreign policy, a preponderating influence. People smile, not without reason, at the language and puerile confidence of the Friends of Peace, and of the Peace Societies. All the leading tendencies, all the most elevated hopes of humanity, have their dreams, and their idle, gaping advocates, as they have also their days of decline and defeat; but they no less pursue their course; and through all the chimeras of some, the doubts and mockeries of others, society becomes transformed, and policy, foreign and domestic, is compelled to transform itself with society. We have witnessed the most dazzling exploits of the spirit of conquest, the most impassioned efforts of the spirit of armed propagandism; we have seen territories and states molded and re-molded, unmade, re-made, and unmade again, at the pleasure of combinations more or less specious. What survives of all these violent and arbitrary works? They have fallen, like plants without roots, or edifices without foundation. And now, when analogous enterprises are attempted, scarcely have they made a few steps in advance when they pause and hesitate, as if embarrassed by, and doubtful of, themselves; so little are they in accord with the real wants, the profound instincts, of existing society, and with the persevering, though frequently disputed, tendencies of modern civilization.... I repeat, our history since 1789, our endless succession of shocks, revolutions, and wars, have left us in a state of leverish agitation which renders peace insipid, and teaches us to find a blind gratification in the unexpected strokes of a hazardous policy. We are a prey to two opposing currents,—one deep and regular, which carries towards the definite goal of our social state; the other superficial and disturbed, which throws us here and there in search of new adventures and unknown lands. Thus we float and alternate between these two opposing directions,—called towards the one by our sound sense and moral conviction, and enticed towards the other by our habits of routine and freaks of imagination." (Memoirs of a Minister of State, from the year 1840 pp. 7-9, 10.)

THE KING'S AVARICE.—The imputation of avarice to Louis Philippe was one source of his increasing unpopularity. On his accession he had handed over to his children the estates of the house of Orleans, in order that, as private property, they might not be forfeited with the loss of the crown. He was not content with increasing his wealth by adding to it all the possessions of Charles X. and of the Duke of Bourbon, but it was discovered that he was engaged in business ventures. In providing for ample marriage settlements for his children, he resorted to devices which gave offense to the Chamber of Deputies and to the public. Yet writers like Martin, who are strongly averse to his method of rule, clear him of blame in these particulars, if he is to be judged by what is usual in a monarchical system.

THE SPANISH MARRIAGES.—An event of consequence in relation to the fall of Louis Philippe from power was the affair of the Spanish marriages, which took place under the ministry of Guizot. The Duke de Montpensier, the youngest son of the king, was married to the sister of Isabella II. of Spain. The design, it was believed, was, in the anticipated childlessness of the queen, to secure for his heirs the Spanish crown.

Ferdinand VII. of Spain was an absolutist; but the extreme monarchical party there wished for a king of more energy, and desired to raise to the throne his brother Don Carlos. In 1830 Ferdinand, being then childless, was induced by his wife, the daughter of Ferdinand IV. of Naples, to abrogate the Salic law excluding females from the succession. Her daughter Isabella was born a few months later. After the death of the king (1833), the Carlists resisted the exclusion of their favorite from the throne. Don Carlos was proclaimed in the Basque provinces, and a civil war arose. The queen, Maria Christina, as regent, was supported by the moderados (moderates) and the liberals, and was allowed to recruit for her army in England and France. The leading constitutionalist general, Espartero, was successful; and Don Carlos fled into France (1839). The queen regent allied herself with the conservative wing of the progressive party (the moderados); but insurrections at Barcelona and Madrid, in the interest of the radical wing, obliged her to make Espartero, the head of the movement, prime minister (1840). His administration greatly promoted the prosperity of the country. But the conservatives and absolutists were against him; and, as the result of a counter-insurrection, Gen. Narvaez, the leader of the conservatives, became chief of the cabinet (1844); but he was dismissed two years later. The constitution was divested of some of its liberal features. The queen, Isabella II., had been declared of age by the Cortes, and placed on the throne (Nov. 10, 1843). Christina, her dissolute mother, returned from France, whither she had fled. In the hope of securing the Spanish throne to the Orleans family, Louis Philippe arranged with Christina to effect a marriage between Isabella and a weakling in body and mind, Francis de Assis; and, at the same time, a marriage of his son, the Duke de Montpensier, with her sister Maria Louisa (Oct. 10, 1846). An Orleans prince would not have acquired the crown, even if Louis Philippe had remained on the French throne, since a daughter was born to Isabella in 1851.

There was loud complaint in England against the king and Guizot, for the alleged violation of a promise in this affair. Their defense was that Lord Palmerston, who succeeded Aberdeen, took a very different position from that of this minister, which had been the condition of the engagement. It was from Palmerston's action previously in the affair of Egypt, that the French were embittered, the English alliance was weakened, and the policy of Guizot, who was sincerely desirous to maintain this friendly relation, was discredited at home.

FALL OF LOUIS PHILIPPE.—The scarcity of provisions in 1846 and 1847 provoked much discontent in France. "Bread riots" broke out in various places. The liberal party, composed of diverse elements, organized committees as one of their instruments of agitation in behalf of political reform. The democratic and socialistic journals published inflammatory discussions and appeals. The complaint of corruption among officials grew louder. Communism had numerous votaries; and M. Louis Blanc was an apostle of socialism,—the theory that the government should furnish work and maintenance to all of its subjects. Great reform banquets were held, where the spirit was inimical to Guizot,—who would yield nothing to the popular clamor,—and hostile to the reactionary policy of the Orleans monarchy. The spark that kindled the flames of revolution was the prohibition by Guizot of a great reform banquet appointed to be held on the 22d of February, 1848, in the Champs Elysees, in which a hundred thousand persons were expected to participate. On that day barricades were thrown up in the streets, and there were some conflicts with the municipal guard. These disturbances continued on the next day. The king, who did not lack physical courage, evinced no firmness or boldness in this crisis, dismissed Guizot as a peace-offering, and called upon Count Mole to form a cabinet. Mole declined; the riotous disturbances increased; and Thiers, on the promise of the king to consent to the reforms demanded, undertook, when it was too late, to take office, and try to pacify the people. Soldiers began to fraternize with the mob. The king showed no spirit, but abdicated in favor of his grandson, the Count of Paris. The Duchess of Orleans presented her two sons, the count and his brother, before the Chamber of Deputies. But the motion for a provisional government prevailed (Feb. 24). It consisted of Dupont de l'Eure, Lamartine the poet, Arago, Ledru-Rollin, and six associates. It established itself in the Hotel de Ville. This act, and the firmness and eloquence of Lamartine, prevented the establishment of an ultra-republican, socialistic Directory. The middle classes, alarmed on account of the displays of mob violence, rallied to the support of Lamartine and the party of order. Louis Philippe and his family were allowed to escape to England. There Guizot temporarily took up his abode. After a year, this "last of the Huguenots" returned to France, where he died in 1874.

CONTEST WITH SOCIALISTS.—A concession was made to the socialists in the establishment of government workshops, which turned out to be not workshops at all, but mere excavations. A mob of the Red Republicans was checked (April 16) by the National Guards. The National Assembly voted for a republic. Another mob of socialists and communists was suppressed (May 15). But the great contest came (June 23-26) when the government dismissed a part of those given employment on public works. The battle was severe; but the government troops under the command of a patriotic general, Cavaignac, who was made dictator during the struggle, subdued the insurgents. He was now appointed president of the council, or chief of the executive commission.

THE REPUBLIC: LOUIS NAPOLEON.—Fear of communism and of mob violence gave a new impetus to the conservative tendency. A republican constitution, however, with a president holding for a term of four years, was adopted. Louis Napoleon was elected a member of the assembly. He was chosen president of the republic, mainly by the votes of the peasantry and common soldiers, and with the help of Thiers and others who thought him incapable, and desired to bring about a restoration of the Orleans rule.

Thiers was a personal enemy of Cavaignac. "Thiers" says Martin, "did not feel the same repulsion for the consulate and the empire as does the present generation: he took Louis Napoleon for an inexperienced and somewhat narrow-minded man, whom he could easily restrain and direct, not guessing the determined obstinacy and prejudice hidden beneath his heavy and commonplace exterior." (Popular History of France [from 1789], iii. 200.)



CHAPTER III. EUROPE, FROM THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1848 TO THE AUSTRO-PRUSSIAN WAR (1866).

DISTURBANCES IN GERMANY.—The effect of the revolution which dethroned Louis Philippe was felt like an electric shock through all Europe. It was experienced immediately in the smaller states of Germany. New ministries were installed, which were pledged to a liberal policy. Louis of Bavaria resigned the crown to his son Maximilian. The Grand Duke of Baden agreed to the demands of a popular convention at Mannheim, and he placed a liberal ministry in control of the government. Prussia and Austria were thoroughly disturbed by the movement for freedom and national unity. A rising in Vienna (March 13-15), headed by the students, compelled Metternich to depart for safety to England, the asylum of political exiles of every creed. The emperor summoned a Diet to be chosen by popular suffrage, and went for safety to Innsbruck among his faithful Tyrolese. In Berlin, at the same time, there were excited meetings, and conflicts in the streets between the people and the soldiers. The Prussian king yielded to the demand of the crowd which gathered before his palace on the 18th of March, that the troops should be sent out of Berlin; but he did not send them away until the next day, and after an attack had been made on them from behind barricades. The ministry was dismissed, and a call was issued for a National Assembly to be chosen by ballot.

THE FRANKFORT CONVENTION.—There was a gathering at Frankfort, of about five hundred Germans, who organized themselves as a provisional parliament under the presidency of Mittermaier (March 31). They resolved to call a National Assembly, to be elected by the German people. The Confederate Diet recognized the authority of the provisional parliament.

THE FRANKFORT PARLIAMENT.—The National Assembly met on May 18, and created a new provisional central government, with the Archduke John of Austria as its head. The Confederate Diet ceased to exist. But the division of parties in the assembly, with respect to the system of government for united Germany, gave rise to long and profitless discussions. Differences of opinion as to the steps to be taken in a war which had sprung up with Denmark, respecting the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, made the strife of factions in the parliament still more bitter.

NEW PRUSSIAN CONSTITUTION.—The Prussian National Assembly met on May 22. A hot contention arose between the moderate and the radical parties. At length the king adjourned the assembly to meet in Brandenburg; but the party of the "Left" (the radical party) protested, and was soon dispersed by force. In Brandenburg a quorum failed to meet. The government framed a constitution with two chambers,—the second to be chosen by universal suffrage,—and called a new parliament to consider it. The new parliament failed to agree with the government, but another parliament met (Aug. 7, 1849). Mutual concessions were made, and the king swore to maintain the new constitution (Feb. 6, 1850).

AUSTRIA: END OF THE FRANKFORT ASSEMBLY.—The Diet of the Austrian Empire was a confused assembly representing different nationalities. Kossuth, an eloquent Hungarian deputy in the lower house, demanded independence for his country. The Slavonic tribes resisted the supremacy of the Magyars. When the emperor took active measures against these (Oct. 6), there was an uprising in Vienna. The city was held by the revolutionists until the 30th, when it was captured by the emperor after much bloodshed. Ferdinand I abdicated in favor of his young nephew, Francis Joseph. The Frankfort Assembly debated the question, what relation Austria should have to united Germany. A majority decided (March 27, 1849) that a president should be appointed, whose office should descend in his family, and that he should be styled "Emperor of the Germans." The station was offered to Frederick William of Prussia, but he declined it. The new constitution was not accepted by the more important states. The assembly dwindled away through the withdrawal or resignation of members, and, having adjourned to Stuttgart, was finally dispersed by the Wuertemberg government (June 18). Its history was a grievous disappointment of ardent hopes. The Prussians helped the Saxon, Bavarian, and Baden governments, to put down formidable and partially successful popular insurrections in their states.

THE HUNGARIAN REVOLT.—Austria reduced her German provinces to subjection, and early in 1849 the Italian provinces also. But a great contest was to be waged with the Hungarians, who gathered an army of one hundred thousand men, and gained decided advantages over incompetent Austrian generals. But in the end Austria brought together overwhelming forces and was aided by the intervention of Russia, which sent an army into Hungary. The Hungarian general, Gorgey, whom Kossuth and the ministers had made dictator, surrendered at Vilagos (Aug. 13, 1849). Kossuth and other Hungarian patriots fled into Turkey. Hungary was dealt with as conquered territory. The Austrian commander, Haynau, treated the vanquished people with brutal severity. The Hungarian constitution was abolished. The general constitution of Austria was abrogated on Dec. 31, 1851.

CONDITION OF ITALY.—Charles Albert, the king of Piedmont, or Sardinia, disliked the preponderance of the Austrians, and desired to give his people good government, but was disinclined to enter into the schemes of "Young Italy," composed of the ardent republicans of whom Mazzini was the chief. On this account they were exasperated with him. On the contrary, a great part of the "moderates" placed their hope for Italy in the Sardinian king and his house. To one of these, D'Azeglio, a nobleman of high character, who reported to him, in 1845, the danger that revolutionary risings against misrule in Italy would occur, and set forth the necessity for a speedy remedy, the king said, "Make known to these gentlemen, that they must be quiet and not move, for at present nothing can be done; but let them be certain, that, if the occasion presents itself, my life, the life of my sons, my arms, my treasure, my army, all shall be devoted to the cause of Italy." In Tuscany, there was much less oppression than elsewhere, but even there the government was despotic.

LIBERAL POLICY OF PIUS IX.—On the death of Gregory XVI. (1846), Cardinal Mastai Feretti was made Pope, and took the name of Pius IX. He adopted a new and liberal policy. Prisoners for political offenses were set free, an amnesty was proclaimed, and improvements—including railroads—were promised. The "Gregoriani," who were devoted to the old administrative system and to Austrian predominance, were offended. The Roman people generally were full of joy and hope. The extreme republicans were dissatisfied and suspicious. On the occasion of disturbances, the Pope consented to the formation of a National Guard, as the liberal party wished. The consequence was, that Austrian troops were marched into his territory. This movement roused Charles Albert to espouse more actively the Italian cause. In Tuscany the Liberals, with Ricasoli for a leader, drove the Grand Duke to measures of reform. Austrian aggressions were more severely felt in Parma and Modena. In Palermo, there was a rising (Jan. 12) against the unbearable tyranny of Ferdinand II. This was followed by an insurrection in Naples itself. The king was obliged to grant to his people a constitution. The same boon was granted by Pius IX., by the king of Sardinia, and by the Tuscan Grand Duke. Italy, it should be observed, was already on fire with these revolutionary movements prior to the overthrow of the government of Louis Philippe. The earliest popular demonstrations at Milan were on Sept. 5 and 8, 1847.

EVENTS IN ITALY.—The revolt in Vienna and in Hungary in 1848 furnished the long-coveted occasion for the Italians to attack the hated Austrian rule. Lombardy flew to arms, and expelled the Austrian troops. The Venetians set up a provisional government under Daniele Manin, their leader in the insurrection. The king of Sardinia declared war against Austria. A multitude of Italian volunteers rushed to his standard. But there was no national league; his military management lacked skill; and after some successes he was defeated by Radetzky, the Austrian general, at Custozza (July 25). Garibaldi, who had been a sailor, but was now a gallant and adventurous champion of the Italian movement, kept up the contest in the mountains on the north. The Austrians were once more in power. The refusal of the Pope to take part in hostilities against them alienated the liberals. His best minister Rossi, who stood midway between the extreme parties, was assassinated (Nov. 15). From the disorder that reigned at Rome, Pius IX. escaped in the dress of a common priest to Gaeta. The extreme democrats in Tuscany got the upper hand, and set up a provisional government. In Piedmont, Gioberti, the minister, gave way to Ratazzi, who was of the democratic school. But the dream of an Italian confederation was dissipated by the great defeat of Charles Albert by Radetzky at Novara (March 23). The broken-hearted king resigned his crown to his son, Victor Emmanuel. In Rome, the government, after the flight of the Pope, was lodged in an assembly elected by popular suffrage, with triumvirs, of whom Mazzini was the first. The French were not disposed to allow the Austrians to dominate in the peninsula, and sent an army under Oudinot, who captured Rome from the republicans, after a stubborn defense by Garibaldi. A French garrison now occupied the city. The Pope, who had abandoned the idea of political changes in the direction of Italian freedom and unity, was brought back to the Vatican (April, 1850). By the close of the summer of 1849, the Austrian authority was restored, and was exercised with redoubled severity in Venice and Milan. The rulers of Tuscany, Modena, and Parma had before returned to their capitals. They were kept in power by means of Austrian garrisons. The will of Austria was law in the greater part of Italy. Ferdinand II. (called Bomba) maintained his tyranny by the help of Swiss mercenaries and loathsome dungeons. Piedmont was the only spot where constitutional freedom survived. In its youthful monarch and in Garibaldi, the hope of Italy rested. The course of events ultimately proved that both the fire of the republicans and the prudence of more moderate statesmen were requisite for its emancipation.

COUP D'ETAT OF LOUIS NAPOLEON.—The Legislative Assembly in France, consisting of one chamber, had in it many monarchists. As the first Napoleon was sustained by the dread of Jacobin rule, so the third Napoleon profited by the dread of the ultra-republicans. It was felt by the trading-class, that the safety of society depended on him. When the French troops were sent to Rome in 1849, the opposition of Ledru-Rollin and his radical party became more furious. But Changarnier and his troops dispersed their procession (June 13), and broke down their barricades. The Paris insurrection was put down, and Ledru-Rollin fled the country. Thiers, Broglie, Mole, Montalembert, and other adherents of the Bourbons, either of the old or of the Orleans branch, now professed to yield to Louis Napoleon their adhesion. His measures for the restraint of the press, the punishment of political offenses, etc., were popular, especially in the provinces. The clergy were favorable to him. The soldiers, in the autumn of 1850, began to shout "Vive I'Empereur!" Changarnier was removed from the command of the troops (Jan., 1851) when it was learned that his regiments did not join in the cry. Movements of this kind, together with petitions for a revision of the constitution, provoked hostility in the Assembly. The struggle between the president and that body culminated in the "Coup d'Etat" of December 2, 1851. St. Arnaud had been appointed minister of war, the fidelity of the troops in Paris rendered sure, and all needful preparations made with profound secrecy. The president gave a great party on the night of the first. During the night, the republican and Orleanist leaders—Cavaignac, Changarnier, Lamoriciere, Thiers, Victor Hugo, and many others—were surprised in their beds, and imprisoned. They were sent away in custody to different places. Placards were posted, dissolving the Assembly, and declaring Paris in a state of siege; also, an address submitting to the people the question whether there should be a responsible chief of state for ten years. The soldiers fired on gatherings of the people in the streets, killing many innocent persons, for the purpose of forestalling any attempt at resistance. The deputies, as they persisted in their purpose to meet, were surrounded, and placed under arrest. Within a few weeks many thousands of persons suspected of disaffection were exiled or imprisoned. Nearly seven and a half million votes were cast for Napoleon, and only 647,292 against him. The political prisoners were released. Thiers was allowed to return to Paris.

NEW FRENCH EMPIRE.—A new constitution was promulgated (Jan. 14, 1852), resembling that which existed under the consulate. The Legislative Assembly was virtually stripped of power.

One year later, the restoration of the Empire was decreed, and sanctioned by popular vote. The change was at first viewed with alarm by Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Francis Joseph made a visit to Berlin, and was received with great honor. The two principal German sovereigns reviewed the troops of Berlin, in front of the bronze statue of Bluecher. But Napoleon declared that the Empire meant peace, and the other great powers followed the example of England in recognizing his imperial government.

THE CRIMEAN WAR.—The administration of the French emperor was acceptable to the commercial classes, who prized tranquillity. He erected new edifices in Paris, and made many other improvements, which, however, had an eye to defense against popular insurrection, and involved much hardship for the poor. He married (Jan. 30, 1853) a young Spanish countess, Eugenie Montijo. What did most to give stability to his power, and to raise his repute in Europe, was the union of France with England in the prosecution of the Crimean war. The Emperor Nicholas thought the time propitious for the aggressive ambition of Russia with regard to Turkey. His plan of attack embraced a "provisional" occupation of Constantinople by Russian troops. He had intimated to England that the situation of "the sick man"—meaning the decaying government of Turkey—opened the way for a division of the Turkish Empire between the two powers. Lord Aberdeen was then prime minister in England, and Mr. Gladstone was chancellor of the exchequer. The dispute of Russia with Turkey, which was the ostensible occasion of the war, related to the holy places in Jerusalem, the resort of worshipers of different creeds, and to the privileges accorded by the Sultan to the Greek and Latin Christians respectively. The claim of Nicholas resolved itself into a demand to exercise a sole protectorate over the Christians of the Greek faith in the Turkish Empire. Without formally declaring war his forces crossed the Pruth. Alarm was awakened in Austria, in consequence of the Russian movements in that region. Nicholas had only been able to secure neutrality from Prussia and Austria. Louis Napoleon was anxious for war. Lord Aberdeen was averse to it; but the pressure of Lord Palmerston and his supporters was too strong, and war was declared (March 27, 1854) by England and France in alliance with Turkey. At first the Turks had unexpectedly gained advantages over the Russians, but the Turkish fleet was destroyed at Sinope (Nov. 30, 1853). Approaches of Russia which portend the acquisition of the mouths of the Danube, or of any of the Slavonic districts of European Turkey, can only excite jealousy and apprehension on the side of Austria. Nicholas, on the demand of Francis Joseph, which was seconded by Prussia, evacuated the Danubian principalities, which were provisionally held by Austrian forces. The English and French fleets that were sent into the Baltic did not produce the effect that was anticipated by the allies. The shores of the Black Sea were the main theater of the conflict. The troops of the English and French landed at Eupatoria in the Crimea in September, 1854, and defeated the Russians in the battle of the Alma. There was a second engagement at Balaklava (Oct. 25); and in the battle of Inkermann (Nov. 5) the attempt of the Russians to surprise the British forces met with a defeat. The effort of the allies was directed to the capture of the strong fortress of Sebastopol. St. Arnaud, the French general, had died, and been succeeded by Canrobert. Later, Lord Raglan, the English commander, died. The siege was prolonged. Once the batteries of Malakoff and Redan were attacked by the allies unsuccessfully; but, after a month's bombardment, both were taken by storm (Sept. 8, 1855), and Malakoff, which the French took, was held. The Russians blew up their forts at Sebastopol, and withdrew to the northern part of the fortress. Meantime Nicholas had died (March 2, 1855), and been succeeded by Alexander II.; and Lord Aberdeen had been superseded by Palmerston as head of the English ministry.

PEACE OF PARIS (MARCH 30, 1856)—In the Peace of Paris, Russia was obliged to cede the mouths of the Danube and a small portion of Bessarabia to Moldavia, to limit the number of her ships in the Black Sea, and to engage to establish no arsenals on its coast. The Black Sea was to be open to commerce, but interdicted to vessels of war. Russia gave up the claim to an exclusive protectorate over Christians in Turkey. She surrendered also the fortress of Kars in Turkish Armenia, which she had captured. Wallachia and Moldavia were confirmed in important privileges of self-government, under the Porte. Austria, France, and Great Britain, in a distinct treaty, guaranteed the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire.

NEUTRALITY DECLARATIONS.—The parties to the Treaty of Paris (including Austria and Prussia) united in four declarations on the subject of neutrality, by which privateering was abolished, the neutral flag was made to protect enemy's goods except contraband of war, these goods under an enemy's flag were exempted from capture, and it was ordained that blockades in order to be binding must be effective. The United States declined to concur in this agreement unless the private property of subjects or citizens of a belligerent power (unless it be contraband of war) should be also exempted from seizure by armed vessels of the enemy. This rule, were it adopted, would put private property on the sea on a level with private property on the land, in case of war.

WAR OF FRANCE AND SARDINIA WITH AUSTRIA.—After the contests of 1848-49, Victor Emmanuel II. was looked on by all except the ardent republicans of the school of Mazzini as the champion of Italian independence. He made Azeglio his chief minister, and Cavour his minister of commerce. Various reforms were adopted, especially for the reduction of the power and wealth of ecclesiastics. The rapid progress of administrative changes led Azeglio to withdraw from office. Cavour, his successor, a statesman of broad views and consummate ability, began to plan not only for the Sardinian kingdom, but likewise for all Italy. By his advice, Sardinia joined England and France in the Crimean war. At the Congress of Paris (1856), he spread before the European powers the deplorable misgovernment at Naples and in the other states of Southern Italy. He denounced a plot against the life of Louis Napoleon, which Orsini, a Roman, and a member of a secret society, tried to carry out, but failed (Jan. 14, 1858). Communications and a personal interview between Napoleon and Cavour followed. An alliance was formed, one of the objects of which was the expulsion of the Austrians from Italy. Prince Napoleon, the son of Louis Napoleon's uncle Jerome, was married to Clotilde, the daughter of Victor Emmanuel. Napoleon's ministers were opposed to a war with Austria, and he himself affected to have no intention of that kind. Russia proposed a congress; but Austria refused to admit Sardinia, or to join it herself, unless that power should immediately disarm. Russia was at that moment unfriendly to Austria, which had refused to help the Czar in the Crimean war. Prussia, also, showed a disinclination to interfere. France and Sardinia declared war against Austria, and Napoleon proclaimed that he would free Italy, from the Alps to the Adriatic (May, 1859). As the war began, a revolt broke out in Tuscany. The Tuscan Duke, the Duchess regent of Parma, and the Duke of Modena, had to fly from their capitals. Cavour accepted help from all Italian patriots except the adherents of Mazzini, to whom were imputed schemes of assassination. Garibaldi led the "Riflemen of the Alps." Louis Napoleon commanded the French army in person. The French were victorious at Magenta (June 4), where MacMahon was made a marshal. At the battle of Solferino (June 24), all of the three contending sovereigns were present. The Austrians were vanquished with very heavy losses. At this time Napoleon, unexpectedly to his Italian ally, in a personal interview with Francis Joseph at Villafranca, arranged preliminaries of peace, which provided, to be sure, for the cession of Lombardy to Sardinia, but left Venice and the "Quadrilateral,"—as the district, with its fortifications, east of the Mincio, was called,—under the Austrian rule. It was proposed that an Italian confederation should be formed, with the Pope for its honorary president,—a plan not destined to be realized. The Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Duke of Modena were to be restored, could it be done without a resort to arms. Napoleon was afraid of a long war. Russia was not disposed to suffer him to stir up a revolution in Hungary. Prussia might soon intervene; and this, Austria, too, did not anticipate without anxiety, since Prussia would thereby become predominant in Germany. Cavour, in disgust and indignation at this premature close of the struggle, laid down his office.

FURTHER EXTENSION OF THE SARDINIAN KINGDOM.—Tuscany, Modena, and Parma, and Romagna which belonged to the Pope, by deputies implored Victor Emmanuel to annex them to his kingdom. Plus IX. made the most strenuous opposition. Napoleon refused to use coercion, or to suffer it to be used by others, to carry out the Villafranca arrangements in the duchies. Cavour was recalled to office in 1860; and at his suggestion, made to Napoleon, the communities just named were allowed to dispose of themselves by popular vote. The result was their incorporation in the Sardinian kingdom. By way of compensation to Napoleon, Savoy and Nice were ceded by the Sardinian government to France. The Pope excommunicated all invaders and usurpers of the Papal States, without the mention of names.

ANNEXING OF NAPLES AND SICILY.—The next great event in Italy was the expulsion of Francis II., the tyrant who reigned in Naples and Sicily after the death of Ferdinand II. (1859). Garibaldi, without the consent of the Sardinian government, raised the standard of revolt in Sicily (1860), and conquered the island. The king and Cavour feared that his movement would give control to the republicans, and also bring Sardinia into war with other powers. But, despite this opposition, Garibaldi entered Naples as a victor, and was joined by Mazzini. The Sardinian troops entered the Papal States, which the king had threatened to do unless the guerilla attacks of pontifical troops in the south were suppressed. The French general, Lamoriciere, in the service of the pontiff, was defeated at Castelfidardo. Garibaldi, triumphant in the Neapolitan kingdom, met Victor Emmanuel in the Abruzzi, and hailed him as "King of Italy." Naples and Sicily voted to join the kingdom of Sardinia. With the exception of Venice and the Roman Campagna, the whole of Italy was now united under the house of Savoy. On Feb. 18, 1861, the first parliament of united Italy was opened by Cavour. Shortly after, there was a public reconciliation between him and Garibaldi, between whom there had been an estrangement.

In addition to Garibaldi's general and constant dissent from the moderate policy of Cavour, the former was displeased that his soldiers had not been rewarded with higher positions in the Sardinian army than it was practicable or safe to grant to them. Cavour believed that society was on the march towards democracy, but that no republic, at the present, in Italy could be stable. Cavour had his heart set on gaining Rome for the capital of the kingdom, and on establishing "a free church in a free state." He did not live to see the realization of his hopes. His death occurred (May 30, 1861), shortly after the amicable interview with the republican patriot, to which reference has just been made.

"THE SEPTEMBER CONVENTION."—The hope of the national party in Italy was now directed towards the gaining of Venice and Rome. But, as regards Austria, the European powers would not have suffered a breach of the Peace of Villafranca. Louis Napoleon had assumed the part of protector of the Holy See, and a French garrison was stationed at Rome. After Cavour's death, Ricasoli, the head of the ministry, led the constitutional party; and Ratazzi, who succeeded him and had been more in sympathy with the Garibaldians, did not deviate from his predecessor's cautious policy. The relations of the Italian government to France, even obliged the king to interfere to put down a rising, set on foot by Garibaldi, for driving the French out of Rome. Garibaldi was defeated by the Sardinian troops at Aspromonte (Aug. 27, 1862), and taken to Spezzia. Thence he went to Caprera. The liberal party in Europe were incensed with Louis Napoleon. This was one inducement that moved him to enter into an agreement with Victor Emmanuel, by which France engaged to withdraw her troops gradually from Rome, leaving the Pope to form an army of his own; while, on the other hand, the king engaged (Sept. 1864) to prevent any attack on the papal territory. The French minister of foreign affairs said to the Italian minister at Paris, "Naturally the result of all this will be that you will end by going to Rome;" but matters were to be so managed that France should not be held responsible. This was the September Convention. Florence was made the capital of Italy; but it was acknowledged that this was a temporary arrangement, and that, as soon as the progress of events should open the way, the seat of government would be transferred to Rome. After the withdrawal of the French troops in 1866, Garibaldi, with the connivance of the Italian government,—in which Ratazzi, who had been obliged to leave his office, was again the ruling spirit,—once more gathered a force for the capture of Rome (1867); but France interfered, and the advance of Garibaldi was checked at Mentana by French troops. Afterwards Napoleon again placed a French garrison in Rome. Ratazzi, whose scheme of capturing Rome by non-interference was balked, had to lay down his office. The next step towards Italian unity was to be a result of the Austro-Prussian war.



CHAPTER IV. EUROPE, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE AUSTRO-PRUSSIAN WAR TO THE END OF THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR (1866-1871).

RIVALSHIP OF PRUSSIA AND AUSTRIA.—The brief but mighty struggle which secured for Prussia the preponderance in Germany grew immediately out of complications respecting Schleswig-Holstein. It was, however, the fruit of a rivalship which had been gaining in intensity since the times of Frederick the Great. It was the grand triumph of Prussia, after a long succession of defeats and humiliations in the field of diplomacy.

SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN.—The two duchies of Holstein and Schleswig had long been annexed to the crown of Denmark, whose king, as Duke of Holstein, was a member of the German Confederation. The two duchies, as regards their government, did not stand on the same footing; but the people of Holstein and the German portion of the Schleswig people held that by a treaty in 1460 the two duchies could not be separated. Moreover, the law of succession in the duchies excluded the female line, and when there was a prospect that the male line of the Danish dynasty would die out the Germans wished the duchies to become independent under an Augustenburg prince while the Danes wished to absorb the duchies in Denmark. In 1848 the Germans of Schleswig-Holstein revolted against Frederick VII. The troops of the German confederation assisted them; but the attitude of England and Russia, which favored the Danes, moved Prussia to conclude the armistice of Malmoe,—an act that excited the anger of the German National Assembly at Frankfort. After the expiration of the truce, the war, with intermissions, went on, waged by Schleswig-Holstein, alone or with aid from Germany; later in a protocol—an agreement signed in London in 1852 by the Great Powers, in which Austria and Prussia concurred,—the king of Denmark and his heirs were guaranteed in the possession of the duchies. This act, however, was not accepted by the duchies themselves, or by the Diet of the German Confederation; so that the seeds of strife still remained.

PREPONDERANCE OF AUSTRIA.—After the suppression of the revolts of 1848, Austria, whose counsels were guided by the astute minister Schwarzenberg, labored to dwarf and supplant the influence of Prussia. Frederick William IV. of Prussia aimed to bring about a closer union of German states, and called a national parliament to meet at Erfurt. Austria withstood these attempts. The disposition of Prussia to support the resistance in Hesse to the tyranny of its elector, threatened to bring on an armed contest with Austria and its German allies; but the attitude of Russia caused Prussia to desist from its movement. At the conference at Olmuetz (1850), Manteuffel, the Prussian minister, yielded every thing to Austria; and subsequently, under the influence of Russia, the German Confederation of 1815 was restored. Prussia took no part with the Western powers in the Crimean war, with which it had no direct concern, and thus did not, like Austria, make herself obnoxious to the Czar.

WILLIAM I: BISMARCK.—On the accession of William I. as regent (Oct. 1857), the Prussian government initiated a more spirited and independent policy in its relations to Austria. It refused to lend active aid to that country in the war with France and Sardinia (1859). The efficient measures of King William for the reorganization and increase of the army encountered constant opposition, year after year, in the assembly, from the liberal party, which did not divine his motives, and saw in them nothing but the usurping of an unconstitutional authority. In 1862 the king made Bismarck minister of foreign affairs, and the virtual head of the administration. This able man had widened his knowledge of European politics by serving as ambassador first at St. Petersburg and then at Paris. Previously he had been allied with the absolutist party of Manteuffel: he was always for "strong government." After 1851, when he was delegate of Prussia at the Federal Diet at Frankfort, he made up his mind to deliver Prussia from the domineering influence of Austria. But he was held in distrust by the Prussian liberals, who saw in him only an energetic supporter of the king in his reform of the army by acts of arbitrary power not warranted by the constitution. In 1863 Francis Joseph summoned a congress of German princes to Frankfort to frame a new German constitution; but as Prussia stood aloof, nothing was accomplished. There was much bitterness between the two states. For the moment, however, attention was diverted by the aspect of affairs in Schleswig-Holstein.

EVENTS LEADING TO WAR.—On March 30, 1863, Frederick VII. of Denmark issued a decree for the separation of Schleswig, and its incorporation in Denmark. The troops of the German Confederacy were sent by the Diet into Holstein. Prussia and Austria, who held that the Danes had broken the Treaty of 1852, announced their agreement to prosecute the war with Denmark as independent powers, apart from the confederation. They persisted in this purpose, and their victories over the Danes compelled Christian IX. to sign a treaty (Oct. 30, 1864) by which he resigned his rights in the duchies in favor of the emperor of Austria and the king of Prussia. How should the duchies be disposed of? It was Bismarck's aim to annex them to Prussia, which was sorely in need of seaports. He professed that the war had abrogated the London Treaty of 1852. The prime object of Austria was to prevent Prussia from making this gain. The dispute was hot and threatening; but in the Gastein Convention (Aug. 14, 1865), Lauenburg (which the Danes had also ceded) was sold to Prussia, and the disposition of the duchies was left to be determined later. Meantime the Prussians were to hold Schleswig, and the Austrians Holstein. The Prussians were, moreover, to hold provisionally the port of Kiel. The scheme of Austria was to hand over the debated question to the Diet of the Confederation, where it could command a majority. To this Prussia would not consent, but demanded that the Confederacy should be reconstituted in such a that Prussia, as well as Germany, might have strength in the event of a European war. Bismarck made a secret treaty with Sardinia, which provided that Prussia and Sardinia should act together in case of war with Austria, and that peace should not be made until Venetia had been given up to the kingdom of Italy. When Austria convoked the estates of Holstein Prussia retorted by sending twenty thousand troops into Holstein. The Austrian force, which was inferior, retired. When the Confederation (June 14) passed a motion made by Austria to put the confederate troops, not Austrian or Prussian, on a war footing, the Prussian plenipotentiary protested, and declared the Diet dissolved. He also presented a new constitution as the basis of a new league of states, from which Austria was to be excluded. Prussia issued a proclamation, to the effect that the purpose of the war that was now to begin was the union of Germany, and the establishment of a free parliament of the German nation.

THE AUSTRO-PRUSSIAN WAR.—The Prussian military plans were the work of Von Moltke, chief of the general staff, who was without a superior in military science. They were carried out with astonishing precision and celerity. On June 15 Prussia required Saxony, Hanover, and Hesse to disarm, to remain neutral, and to send delegates to a German parliament. A few hours were given them to decide. They refused the demand, and on the 16th the Prussian forces marched into their lands. On that day they seized the capital of Hesse, and took the elector prisoner. On the 29th they had surrounded King George of Hanover, and he was compelled to surrender with his whole army. The main Austrian army, under Benedek, made up of contingents from the various nations subject to the emperor, with the troops of Saxony, one of his German allies, were gathered in Bohemia. Thither three Prussian armies moved, on different lines, as they were directed by telegraph from Berlin. Several battles occurred. The armies approached one another, but were purposely kept apart. On June 30 King William and Von Moltke left Berlin. On the 2d of July it was determined to attack the Austrians the next day; and word was sent to the crown prince, whose division was not so far that he could not bring up his forces to take part in the combat. In the morning the battle of Sadowa, in which between two hundred thousand and three hundred thousand men were in each of the contending hosts, began. It raged until noon, with no decisive advantage on either side. At two o'clock the division of the crown prince, after a hard march, arrived; and their attack on the flank of the Austrians was the signal for a forward movement along the whole Prussian line. The battle in its course resembled that of Waterloo. The defeat of the Austrians virtually decided the whole contest. Francis Joseph asked France to mediate, but Prussia and Italy refused to consent to the proposal. The Austrian emperor ceded Venice by telegraph to Louis Napoleon. The Austrians had defeated the Italians at Custozza (June 24), and in a naval battle at Lissa. But a great part of the Austrian army it was necessary to transfer to the North.