t:!^' 
 
3tl;ara, ^tta fork 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 HENRY W. SAGE 
 
 1891 
 
Cornell University Library 
 D 363.S45 1899 
 
 Political history of Europe, since 1814. 
 
 3 1924 027 804 537 
 
The original of tiiis book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924027804537 
 
A POLITICAL 
 
 HISTORY OF EUROPE 
 
 SINCE 1814 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES SEIGNOBOS 
 
 OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PARIS 
 
 TRANSLATION EDITED BY 
 
 S. M. MACVANE 
 
 Professor of History in Harvard Univirsity 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 
 '^ 1907 
 
Copyright, iSyg, 
 
 BY 
 
 HENRY HOLT & CO. 
 
EDITOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 The Histoire Folitique de l' Europe Coniemporaine by Professor 
 Seignobos seems tp me to merit larger use among people of English 
 speech than it is likely to receive in the original French. The 
 author's capacity for seizing on the decisive events of recent Euro- 
 pean history, his skill in using one event to explain another, his 
 steady interest in the welfare of the common mass of men, his 
 thorough freedom from national or other prejudice, and above all 
 his very suggestive generalizations on the later history of Europe, 
 give his work instructive qualities not always found in our general 
 histories. 
 
 In a few points this is not a simple translation. Here and there a 
 phrase or even a whole passage has been omitted — sometimes because 
 the matter seemed of little importance to students in this country, 
 sometimes because it would not have been intelligible to ordinary 
 readers without explanatory notes for which space could not easily 
 be afforded. In the chapters on England I have taken somewhat 
 larger liberties. In his treatment of recent English history Professor 
 Seignobos seems to me to have been less successful than in the rest of 
 his work. In trying to remedy imperfections I have not thought it ex- 
 pedient to distract the reader's attention with marks indicating my 
 departures from the original. Whatever of apology is due to the 
 author for this course is freely offered. 
 
 A full index has been added. Various new titles have been in- 
 serted in the bibliographies, chiefly of books in English. I had 
 wished to add a general bibliography for the whole period, but 
 time could not be found for the preparation of it. 
 
 While assuming full responsibility for the contents of this vol- 
 ume, justice to a most efficient coadjutor requires me to say that 
 most of the actual labour of translation has been done by another. 
 
 S. M. Macvane. 
 Harvard University, September, 1899. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 In publishing a contemporary history of Europe in a single 
 volume, I feel obliged to justify an enterprise so palpably rash. 
 
 I shall not stop to point out the advantage of presenting in 
 a sketch the history necessary to a better understanding of the 
 world in which we live. The question is, not whether this history 
 be worth reading, but whether it can be written. I shall, there- 
 fore, frankly set forth the difficulties of the task, the solutions or 
 expedients which I have adopted, and the sacrifices which I have 
 been obliged to make. I hope thus to show why this bold at- 
 tempt has seemed to me practicable, on condition that I yield to 
 practical necessities ; also to show how these necessities have con- 
 trolled the object, the method, and the plan of this work. 
 
 The greatest obstacle to the writing of the history of the 
 nineteenth century is the overwhelming supply of materials. 
 The rigorous historical method demands the direct study 
 of the sources. Now the life of one man would not 
 be long enough — I do not say to study or to criticise— but 
 to read the official documents of even a single country of 
 Europe. It is therefore, in the nature of things, impossible to 
 write a contemporary history of Europe that shall conform to 
 scientific principles. So the professional historians, judging 
 their method to be inapplicable to the study of the nineteenth 
 century, have abstained from dealing with this period. And 
 so the reading public is ignorant of contemporary history be- 
 cause the learned have too copious means of learning it. 
 
 It iias seemed to me possible to relax the rigour of critical 
 method, and to substitute for direct study of the documents a 
 procedure, less perfect logically, but more practicable and at the 
 same time sufficient for attaining a part at least of true history. 
 All the facts of the political history of our own times have been 
 set forth in monographs, special histories, and annual publica- 
 tions, all made at first hand. The extracts and analyses given in 
 these works suffice to exhibit the facts with sufficient clearness to 
 enable us to dispense ordinarily with a study of the original docu- 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 ment. The exactness and authenticity of contemporary docu- 
 ments lessen greatly the need of criticism. Finally the similar- 
 ity of the works written in different countries on the same ques- 
 tions, renders control easy — on condition of bringing to the 
 choice and study of these works the severe criticism that one 
 would apply to the sources. 
 
 The second difficulty for the historian is the impossibility of 
 citing his evidences. It is a very essential rule of the histori- 
 cal method that every statement be supported by reference to the 
 sources on which it rests. Now in contemporary history the 
 number of documents is such that the regular method of citation 
 has to be abandoned. But this sacrifice too is excusable. The 
 general facts emerge from the reading of the documents with so 
 great clearness and certainty, that it is sufficient to indicate the 
 works in which the proofs are given. I have therefore thought 
 myself justified in omitting references at the foot of each page 
 and in confining myself to a critical bibliography at the end of the 
 chapters. 
 
 In the bibliography also I have had to adopt a practical device 
 instead of the regular method. A bibliography of contemporary 
 history, made according to the rules of erudition, would fill a vol- 
 ume. I have had to confine myself to what is indispensable. My 
 rule has been to name only those bibliographies and general 
 histories which serve as guides to the detailed works, the great 
 collections of documents and the most trustworthy and con- 
 venient monographs on every question, so that the reader might 
 test my statements by recurring to the works on which I have 
 relied. 
 
 This summary method of reading and citation compelled me to 
 restrict my narrative to the general facts of political life, known 
 to all concerned and admitted without dispute. But it is just 
 these undisputed facts which constitute the matter of political 
 history. So I have not tried to establish any disputed fact, nor 
 to discover any unknown one. It is by bringing together the 
 general facts already known, but remaining scattered, that new 
 conclusions have, as I think, been reached. 
 
 By confining myself to setting forth results that nobody would 
 dream of disputing, I have had to deny myself all erudite research 
 and all discussion of particular facts subject to controversy, for I 
 should have had to advance statements whereof I could not find 
 space to give the proofs. I have had, then, to renounce not only 
 all argument and discussion of other works, but also all attempts 
 
PREFACE. VH 
 
 at full narrative, all descriptions, character-sketches, and anec- 
 dotes — such things being nearly always matters of dispute. 
 From this rule I have departed only in the case of certain trans- 
 actions which had great consequences. Even in these cases I 
 have told only the decisive episodes, as to which there is no con- 
 flict of testimony in the authorities. 
 
 Having thus cut myself off from all chance for literary dis- 
 play and the use of learned apparatus, I have avoided 
 the two kinds of histories to which the historians have ac- 
 customed the public — the narrative history and the erudite his- 
 tory. My aim has been to enable my readers to comprehend 
 the essential phenomena of the political life of Europe in the 
 nineteenth century by explaining the organization of the nations, 
 governments, and parties, the political questions which have 
 arisen in the course of the century, and the solutions they have 
 received. I have tried to write an explanatory history. 
 
 The date for beginning fixes itself readily; it is the year 
 1814 — the year of the general restoration of the old governments 
 of Europe. As to the date for closing, I have purposely avoided 
 the adoption of any, in order to reserve the right of following the 
 development of political life into the most recent events. 
 
 The task in hand, then, is to explain the political transforma- 
 tions of contemporary Europe during this period of eighty years. 
 Being unable to deal with the whole movement of European 
 civilization within the period, I have purposely confined myself 
 to the poRtical history. I have avoided all social phenomena 
 that have had no direct effect on political life : art, science, litera- 
 ture, religion, private manners, and customs. I have sought 
 chiefly to make clear the formation, composition, tactics, and 
 policies of the parties, as being the capital facts determining the 
 fate of institutions. But I have not thought it possible to limit 
 political history to an account of strictly political events and in- 
 stitutions. Aiming above all to explain the phenomena by show- 
 ing how they are connected with each other, I have reserved 
 room for some non-political facts : local administration, the army, 
 the church, the schools, the press, political theories, economic 
 systems — in all cases in which they have reacted on political life. 
 
 Having settled the choice of facts, it remained to classify them. 
 Here comes another difficulty of contemporary history. There 
 are three possible orders of proceeding: ist, the logical order, 
 which consists in analyzing the political organization of Euro- 
 pean states, studying it as a whole in all the states, taking sue- 
 
Viii PREFACE. 
 
 cessively each of the institutions (central government, army, 
 finances, justice, etc.); 2d, the chronological order which consists 
 in dividing the whole into periods, treating each period in suc- 
 cession; 3d, the geographical order, which takes up one country 
 at a time and finishes its history before passing to another. 
 
 The logical order is best for bringing out the features common 
 to all the nations and the features peculiar to each. The chrono- 
 logical order is most convenient for presenting transactions com- 
 mon to several countries and the reciprocal action of state on 
 state. The geographical order gives opportunity to explain 
 more clearly the political organization and special evolution of 
 each people; for in contemporary Europe each country coincides 
 with a society subject to the same political system and worked 
 upon by the same causes. 
 
 Thus each of the three methods has advantages for treating 
 one of the aspects of contemporary evolution: if I adopted one 
 of them, to the exclusion of the others, I should run a risk of 
 falling into confusion in parts of my undertaking. I have there- 
 fore used all three methods successively, grouping the facts of 
 contemporary history in three successive parts. 
 
 The first part is taken up with the domestic political history 
 of the European states; in this I follow the geographical order. 
 After a summary description of Europe in 1814, as fashioned by 
 the territorial restorations of the Congress of Vienna, I study 
 separately and successively the internal history of each state. I 
 have arranged the countries roughly in the order of seniority in 
 the development of public life. At the head I have placed Eng- 
 land, which furnished the model of political organization for all 
 Europe; then France and her most advanced neighbours, the 
 Netherlands and Switzerland; then the Iberian countries; follow- 
 ing these the states of central Europe, Italy, Germany, and Aus- 
 tria, and the Scandinavian countries ; finally the group of eastern 
 states, Ottoman and Russian, which have longest retained the 
 political forms of the eighteenth century. This part takes the 
 natural form of a series of national histories, placed side by side 
 but wholly independent of each other. 
 
 In the second part, constructed according to the logical order, 
 I have grouped certain political phenomena common to various 
 European communities; I have considered them apart from the 
 evolution of each people in order to bring out their universal 
 character. The matters treated in this part are the changes in 
 the material conditions of political life and the action of parties 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 that are not limited by national boundaries — the Catholics and 
 the revolutionary Socialists. 
 
 The third part is given up to the external relations between 
 the states. Here the facts are presented by periods, following the 
 chronological order. Each period is marked by the preponder- 
 ance of one of the great powers — Austria, England, Russia, 
 France, Germany. The aim has been, not to relate the diplo- 
 matic and military achievements the details of which are already 
 familiar, but to note for each period the chief features of the 
 foreign policy of the principal governments, and to explain the 
 changes in the relations between states and in the distribution of 
 territory and influence. 
 
 The question of style has been for me a matter of some con- 
 cern. The work being intended as a scientific manual, its lan- 
 guage needed to be brief, clear, and exact. Practical necessity 
 compelled me to aim above all at brevity, — sometimes, I fear, to 
 the point of obscurity, — but I have never sacrificed clearness to 
 elegance. Whenever a word already used appeared to me to 
 make the phrase clearer, I have never hesitated to- repeat it. As 
 between two terms I have always chosen the most familiar as 
 being the easiest to understand ; I have avoided metaphors which 
 dazzle without enlightening. Much time has been spent in seek- 
 ing the expression that seemed likely to call for least effort on the 
 part of the reader. 
 
 Precision has been harder to attain. History is still so rudi- 
 mentary a science — if a science it may be called — ^that it has no 
 vocabulary of technical terms. To designate political phe- 
 nomena, the historians have borrowed from the vocabulary of 
 jurists and philosophers abstract terms which have now become 
 part of the language of history. These terms have but vague 
 notions to rest on, owing to our ignorance of the real nature of 
 political phenomena; but they give the vagueness an appearance 
 of technical precision. It has seemed to me more straightforward 
 to give the popular name to popular notions. So I have avoided 
 abstract nouns — such as royalty, the Church, elements, tenden- 
 cies — which so easily come to seem mystic forces. When I have 
 had to describe the acts or ideas of groups of men, I have always 
 designated the group either by its national, party, or class name, 
 or by a collective noun, — such as government, ministry, clergy, — 
 so that the reader may be able to discover, behind this name, 
 the men who have acted or thought. 
 
 As regards impartiality in political and national questions, I 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 shall not do my readers and myself the wrong of claiming as a 
 merit that which is the duty of every historian. Having adopted 
 the tone of a scientific treatise, I have had no occasion for dis- 
 play of personal feelings toward any party or nation. I have in- 
 deed a preference for a liberal, unclerical, democratic, Western 
 government; but I have a conscience too, and it has saved me, 
 as I think, from the temptation to distort or ignore phenomena 
 that are personally distasteful to me. If I am deceived in this, 
 the reader is aware of the direction in which it is possible that I 
 have had a leaning. 
 
 It may perhaps be thought that I have given too large space 
 to the short periods of revolution, to the detriment of the long 
 periods of conservation. The justification is that I have tried 
 to write an expla7tatory history of political evolution. Now, con- 
 servative repose being the normal condition of humanity, it has 
 no need of explanation; and when a system goes on without 
 change, it is enough to describe it once for all. Revolution be- 
 ing exceptional, it cannot be understood without a somewhat full 
 account of the exceptional circumstances that gave rise to it; and 
 since it changes the organization of society, it makes a new de- 
 scription necessary. 
 
 There is no general bibliography of European history. The 
 student must look for the bibliographical notices in the universal 
 bibliographies, the national bibliographies, and the collections 
 of the bibliographies of periods, a list of which is given in chap. 
 v., Langlois, " Manuel de Bibliographie Historique," 1896. 
 
 The leading collection of the documents common to all Europe 
 is the " Staatsarchiv," published from time to time since 1861.' 
 According to its own sub-title " Collection of official acts for con- 
 temporary history," it contains official documents, especially for 
 diplomacy.* 
 
 The account of political events in Europe is given each year 
 in the form of annual publications, which also contain official 
 documents. The chief of these are: 
 
 In English, the " Annual Register," which has appeared since 
 the eighteenth century. 
 
 In French, the " Annuaire Historique Universel," from 1818 
 to 1861; "Annuaire des Deux-Mondes," from 1850 to 1870; 
 " L'Annee Politique," since 1874. 
 
 *The "Staatsarchiv" had been preceded by similar collections: 
 " Archives Diplomatiques," 1821 ; " Neueste Staatsakten," 1825. These 
 do not, however, form a continued series. 
 
PREFACE. xl 
 
 In German, Schulthess, " Europaeischer Geschichtskalender," 
 since i860, the most complete of all. 
 
 On the general contemporary history of Europe there are no 
 scientific works except in German. These are of two classes, 
 general histories and collections of special histories. 
 
 The general histories are: Gervinus, " Geschichte des XIX'^** 
 Jahrhunderts," 8 vols., 1855-56, a famous literary work in its day 
 but unreliable, stops before 1830 (translated into French, under 
 the title " Hist, du XIX« Siecle "). C. Bulle, " Geschichte der 
 Neuesten Zeit " (the 1886 edition in four volumes goes as far as 
 1885), the most exact of the contemporary histories, but with- 
 out references to authorities and without bibliographies and de- 
 voted chiefly to external history. Stern, " Geschichte Europas," 
 vol. i., 1894, promises to be the most scientific history, but the 
 first volume, the only one issued so far, stops at 1820. 
 
 There are two collections of contemporary histories. The 
 " Staatengeschichte der Neuesten Zeit " is a series of histories 
 of the different countries in several large volumes (I shall men- 
 tion each in the special bibliography of each country); this is 
 the most important collection for domestic history. 
 
 The Oncken collection of universal history, " Allgemeine Ge- 
 schichte in Einzeldarstellungen," contains a special series of mod- 
 ern histories since 1789, composed of histories of special periods 
 or events (Revolution, Restoration, Second Empire, Eastern 
 Question, Reign of William I.) ; it gives special attention to inter- 
 national affairs. In French the modern histories are nothing 
 but school-books.* The Alcan collection, " Bibliotheque d'His- 
 toire Contemporaine," includes several histories of separate coun- 
 tries, most of them general sketches for popular use; they do not 
 form a complete collection. 
 
 For political institutions the great Marquardsen collection, 
 ■" Handbuch des Oefifentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart," since 1883 
 is a series of monographs on the constitutional law of each of the 
 European states (unfortunately rather juridical than historical). 
 These will be mentioned in the bibliography of each country. 
 
 For economic history the " Handworterbuch der Staatswissen- 
 schaften " (six volumes and a supplement, vol. vii, 1890-95) 
 gives, in dictionary form, monographs and detailed biblio- 
 graphies. 
 
 * I have thought it unnecessary to mention the German school-books, 
 such as Jaeger. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 EUROPE IN 1814. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Fall of Napoleon. — The Congress of Vienna. — Territorial Settle- 
 ments. — Europe after the Settlements of 1 815 i 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 
 ENGLAND. 
 
 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1832. 
 
 The Central Government. — Local Government. — The Electoral Sys- 
 tem. — The Church. — Social Conditions. — The Condition of Ireland. — 
 The Reform Movement. — Radical Agitation and Repressive Laws 
 (1816-19). — Partial Reforms (1820-27). — Catholic Emancipation. — The 
 Electoral Reform of 1832 10 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS (1832-67). 
 New Conditions of Political Life. — Administrative Reforms (1833- 
 40). — The Labour Agitation of the Trade Unions (1832-34). — The 
 Chartist Agitation (1837-48). — The Irish Agitation. — The Free-Trade 
 Agitation. — Industrial Legislation. — The Irish Crisis (1845-48). — 
 Period of Inaction and Democratic Evolution (1849-65). — The Elec- 
 toral Reform of 1867 40 
 
 CHAPTER IV, 
 
 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 Conditions of Political Life. — Gladstone's Reforms (1868-74). — 
 Trade-union Legislation. — The Imperialist Policy of the Conservative 
 Ministry (1874-80). — Formation of the Irish Home Rule Party. — Strug- 
 gle between the Liberal Ministry and the Irish Party (1880-85).^ 
 
 xiii 
 
xiv CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Electoral Reform (1884-85).— Disruption of the Liberal Party (1885-86). 
 —The Government of the Unionist Coalition (1S86-92).— Salisbury's 
 Irish Policy.— General Legislation of the Unionist Coalition (1886-92). 
 —Formation of the Socialist Parties (1884-92).— The Fourth Gladstone 
 Ministry (1892-94).— The Unionists Return to Power (1895).— Political 
 Evolution of England in the Nineteenth Century 68 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 FRANCE. 
 
 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 The Bourbon Restoration. — Political Institutions under the Char- 
 ter.— Conditions of Political Life. — The Hundred Days and the Second 
 Restoration. — Results of the Hundred Days. — The Counter-Revolu- 
 tionary Crisis (1815-16). — Government of the Constitutional Party 
 (1816-20). — Government of the Right (1820-27). — Conflictjietween the- 
 King and the Chamber (1827-30). — Revolution of i839i'^The Political - 
 System of Louis Philippe. — Party Struggle in the Government (1830- " 
 31). — Struggle against Insurrections (iS3i-34).T-Suppression of the 
 Republican Party (1834-35). — Formation of the Communist-Socialist 
 Party. — Parliamentary Struggles (1836-40). — The Guizot Ministry 
 (1840-48). — The Catholic and Democratic Opposition Parties. — Work 
 • of the Monarchy of the Property Classes 103 
 
 CHAPTER VI. ' 
 
 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 The Revolution of 1848. — Struggles in the Provisional Government. 
 —The Government of the Constituent Assembly. — The Government 
 of the Monarchical Parties (1849-51). — The Conflict between the Presi- 
 dent and the Assembly. — Establishment of a Personal Power (1851-52). 
 — The Autocratic Empire (1852-60).— Decline of the Autocratic Re- 
 gime (1860-66).— The Liberal Concessions (1867-69). — The Liberal Em- 
 pire and the Radical Party (1S69-70) Ijj 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 Government of the National Defence. — Election of the Assembly 
 and the Commune. — Governnient of Thiers (1871-73). — The Govern- 
 ment of the Monarchical Parties (1873-75).— The Constitution of 1875. 
 
 Struggle between the President and the Chamber (1876-79), — Suprem- 
 acy and Changes of the Republican Party (1879-84). — Division of the 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Republican Party and Reconstitution of the Conservative Party (1884- 
 87).— The Boulanger Crisis (1887-89). — The Transformation of the 
 Extreme Parties. — New Division of Parties. — Political Evolution of 
 France in the Nineteenth Century 187' 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 Formation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. — Belgian Opposi- 
 tion. — Revolution of i83«— Founding of the Kingdom of Belgium. . . . 229: 
 
 THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS SINCE 1830. 
 The Constitution of 1848. — The Parties since 1848. — Luxemburg. . . 238- 
 
 THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM. 
 
 Formation of Parties. — Struggles between Catholics and Liberals. 
 
 — The School Law. — Establishment of Universal Suffrage 244, 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 SWITZERLAND. 
 
 The Switzerland of 1814. — Period of the Restoration (1814-30). — 
 The Regeneration (1829-37). — Local Conflicts (1837-45).— The Sonder- 
 bund and the Civil War (1845-47). — The Federal Constitution of 1848. 
 — Establishment of Direct Popular Legislation. — Initiative and Ref- 
 erendum in Changing the Constitution. — Initiative and Referendum 
 •in Ordinary Legislation. — Federal Constitutional Changes. — Trans- 
 formations of the Political Parties since 184S 257 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 SPAIN. 
 
 Spain at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. — Restoration of 1814. — 
 Revolution of 1820. — Restoration of 1823. — War of the Succession 
 (1830-33). — The Statute of 1834 and the Constitution of 1837. — The 
 Carlist War (1834-39). — The Military Dictatorship of Espartero and of 
 Narvaez (1840-51), — The Concordat of 1851 and the Breaking up of 
 Parties. — The Liberal Union and the Revolution of 1854. — The Revo- 
 lution of 1868. — The Constitution of 1869. — The Republic (1873-74). — 
 The Restoration of 1874. — The Constitutional Monarchy 286 
 
 PORTUGAL. 
 
 The Constitution of 1826. — Struggles between Chartists and Sep- 
 
 tembrists (1834-52). — The Regenerators and the Deficit 3191 
 
xvi CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 ITALY. 
 
 PAGIZ 
 
 The Restoration in Italy.— The Military Revolutions of 1820 and 
 1S21.— The Revolution of 183'f^— Mazzini and the Republican Party. — 
 The " Risorgimento."— The Revolutions of 1848.— Internal Discords.— 
 The Reaction. — The Constitutional Kingdom of Sardinia (1849-58). — 
 Cavour's Policy.— Formation of the Kingdom of Italy (1859-60). — The 
 Roman Question (1860-66). — Annexation of Venetia and Rome (1866- 
 70).— Formation of Parties and Internal DiiBculties (1861-70). — The 
 Consorteria (1861-76).— Accession of the Left (1876).— The Triple Alli- 
 ance and Personal Rivalries.— Crispi's Government (1887-96) 326 
 
 CHAPTER Xn. 
 / GERMANY. 
 
 GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION. 
 
 Germany in 1814. — Formation of the Germanic Con eueration 
 (1815). — The Individual Governments and Constitutions. — Parties in 
 Germany. — University Persecution. — The Opposition of the Constitu- 
 tional States of the South. — Movements of i830^The National Move- 
 ment since 1840. — The Revolution of 1848 in Germany. — The Frank- 
 fort Parliament. — The Prussian Union. — German Reaction 374 
 
 CHAPTER Xni. 
 
 THE AUSTRIAN EMPIRE UNDER THE ABSOLUTIST SYSTEM. 
 
 The Austrian Empire in 1814. — Metternich's System. — National 
 Opposition in Hungary.— National Opposition by the Slavs.— Liberal 
 German Opposition. — The Revolution of 1848. — The Revolution in 
 Hungary.— The Revolution in the Slav Countries. — The Civil War 
 and the Repression. — The Hungarian War. — TheAbsolutist Restora- 
 tion of 1849. — The Concordat of 1855 401 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 Prussian Reforms during the Wars of Napoleon.— Political Life in 
 Prussia. — The Absolutist Reforms (1814-23). — Creation of the Pro- 
 vincial Estates (1815-25).— End of Frederick William III.'s Reign.— 
 Opening Years of Frederick William IV. 's Reign (1840-47).— The 
 United Landtag of 1B47.— Revolution of 1848.— The National Assem- 
 bly.— The Constitution of 1850.- The Reaction (1850-59).— Prussia's 
 German Policy. — The ZoUverein .jj 
 
CONTENTS. XVH 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Reform of the Prussian Army (1859-62). — Formation of the Prog- 
 ress Party (1861-62). — The Conflict Regarding the Constitution (i86a 
 66). — The National-Liberal Agitation in Germany (1859-64). — Crisis of 
 the Duchies (1864-66). — Dissolution of the Confederation (1866). — An- 
 nexations by Prussia. — Formation of the North German Confedera- 
 tion (1866-67). — Transformation of the Parties (1866-70). — Southern 
 Germany. -^Foundation of the Empire (1870-71)'. 456 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. ^ 
 
 THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 Parties in the Empire. — Conditions of Political Life. — The Cul- 
 turkampf and the Organization of the Empire (1871-77). — Struggle 
 against the Socialists (1878). — Bismarck's Economic and Social Policy 
 (1878-86).— The Army Law and the " Cartel " (1886-88).— William II. 
 and Christian Socialism. — The " New Course." — Alsace-Lorraine. — 
 Political Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century 485 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 FORMATION OF AUSTRO-HUNGARY. 
 
 The Constitution of October i860. — The Constitution of 1861. — At- 
 tempt at a Unitary Government (1861-65). — Suspension of the Con- 
 stitution. — The Hungarian Compromise. — The Liberal Constitutions of 
 1867 518 
 
 AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 
 
 Conditions of Political Life in Austria. — Political and National 
 Parties. — The Liberal Ministry (1867-70). — Attempt at a Federalist 
 Constitution (1870-71). — Electoral Reform and Constitutionalist Minis- 
 tries .(1871-78). — Parties and Politics in Hungary (1867-78). — Crisis of 
 the Occupation of Bosnia (1878). — Federalist Policy of the Taaffe 
 Ministry (1879-93). — German-Polish Coalition and Electoral Reform of 
 l8g6. — Political Struggles in Hungary since 1878. — Political Evolution 
 o£ Austria-Hungary in the Nineteenth Century 529 
 
XViii CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Formation of the Scandinavian States . , 554 
 
 SWEDEN. 
 Transformation of the Swedish Constitution. — Swedish Parties.. . . 556 
 
 NORWAY. 
 
 The Democratic Party.— The Constitutional Conflict. — The Na- 
 tional Conflict 559 
 
 DENMARK AND THE DUCHIES. 
 
 The Danish Monarchy before the Separation of the Duchies. — The 
 Duchies of Schleswig-Holstein. — The Wars of the Duchies. — The 
 Cession of the Duchies. — The Constitution of 1866. — The Constitu- 
 tional Conflict (1873-94). — Iceland 566 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 The Russian Empire in 1814. — The Government of Alexander I. — 
 Finland and the Constitutional Kingdom of Poland. — The Insurrec- 
 tion of December, 1825. — The Polish Insurrection (1830-32). — The Em- 
 pire under Nicholas (1825-35). — Liberal Reaction against the " Nicho- 
 las System." — The Emancipation of the Serfs (1858-63). — Alexander 
 II. 's Liberal Reforms. — The Polish Insurrection of 1863. — Repression 
 of the Polish National Movement. — Return to Absolutism in Russia. — 
 The Opposition Parties. — Alexander III.'s Reign. — Russification. — 
 Tsar Nicholas II 578 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 The Ottoman Empire in 1814.— Crisis of the Greek Insurrection 
 (1820-27).— Mahmoud's Reforms (1826-38).— Crisis of Egyptian Con- 
 flicts (1833-40).— The Reforms of Reschid Pasha (1838-50) Period of 
 
 the Crimean War (1852-59). —Attempts at Reform, Fuad and AH (1859- 
 71).— Financial Crisis and Young Turkey (1871-76).— Russian Inva- 
 sion, Crisis and Dismemberment (1877-78).— Personal Government of 
 Abdul-Hamid ■ gj^ 
 
CONTENTS. XIX 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Christian Nations of the Ottoman Empire in 1814 638 
 
 ROUMANIA. 
 
 The Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia up to 1856. — Forma- 
 tion of the State of Roumania (1856-66). — The Constitutional Mon- 
 archy 640 
 
 GREECE. 
 
 The Greek Nation before 1820 — Formation of the Kingdom of 
 Greece (1820-29). — The Absolutist System (1829-43). — Greece under 
 the Constitutional System 648 
 
 SERVIA AND MONTENEGRO. 
 
 Formation of the Principality of Servia. — Servia under the Con- 
 stitutional System. — Montenegro 657 
 
 BULGARIA. 
 
 The Bulgarian People before the Union of 1885. — Bulgaria since 
 the Union of 1885 664 
 
 PART II. 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 TRANSFORMATION IN THE MATERIAL CONDITIONS OF 
 POLITICAL LIFE. 
 
 Industrial Inventions. — New Means of Destruction. — New Methods 
 of Communication. — Transformation in Population. — Increase in 
 Wealth. — Transformation in Economic Life 671 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 The Church before the Revolution. — The Revolution in the Church. 
 — The Restoration of the Church. — The Ultramontane Party. — The 
 Liberal Catholic Party. — The Catholic Democracy and the Revolution 
 of 1848. — Reaction in the Church. — The Encyclical "Quanta Cura " 
 and the Syllabus (1864). — The Vatican Council (1869-70).— Conflicts 
 between Church and State.— Policy of Leo XIII 684 
 
XX CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 FAGB 
 
 Free Masons and Carbonari.— The Republican "Young Europe." — 
 The Socialistic t lools. — The Communist Parties. — The Revolution- 
 ary Parties during the Revolution of 1848 and the Reaction. — The In- 
 ternational (1862-72).— Formation of the Socialist Platform in Germany 
 (1863-75).— The Anarchist Parties. — Formation of the National So- 
 cialist Parties. — Policy of the Revolutionary Parties. — The Interna- 
 tional Socialist Congresses 718 
 
 PART III. 
 
 CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 EUROPE UNDER THE METTERNICH SYSTEM (1815-30). 
 
 European Questions in 1815. — The Holy Alliance (1815). — Rivalry 
 between Alexander I. and Metternich (1815-18). — Congress of Aix-la- 
 Chapelle and Alexander's Conversion (1818). — Austrian Congresses ; 
 the Interventions (1820-23). — English Policy under Canning. — Inter- 
 vention in the East (1823-29). — Breaking up of the European Alli- 
 ance (1830) 747 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 RIVALRY BETWEEN RUSSIA. AND ENGLAND (1830-54). 
 
 Conditions of Foreign Policy after 1830.— Recognition of the July 
 Monarchy (1830). —Settlement of Belgium (1830-32).— The Polish 
 Question (1830-32).— Intervention of Austria and France in Italy 
 (1831-32).- Intervention in Spain and Portugal (i833-36).-*^he East- 
 ern Question (1832-33).— The Refugees and the Alliance of the Abso- 
 lutist Monarchies (1833)^— Rupture of the Alliance between France 
 and England (1836-40).— The Eastern Question and the Straits Con- 
 vention (1839-41).— The "State of Good Feeling" (1841-45).— The 
 Spanish Marriages (184&).— The Cracow Affair (1846).— The Portu- 
 guese and Italian Affairs (1847).— The Swiss Affair (1847-48).— Revo- 
 lutions of 1848.— The Restorations (1849).— Austria's Triumph over 
 Prussia (1850).— Recognition of the French Empire (i852).-!^The Tsar 
 and the Eastern Question (1852-53) _c . 
 
CONTENTS. XXI 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIl. 
 
 FRENCH PREPONDERANCE AND THE NATIONALIST WARS 
 
 (1854-70). 
 
 FACE 
 
 Transformations in European Policy. — The Crimean War (1853-56). 
 — The Congress of Paris (1856). — Napoleon's Predomiij jice (1856-59). 
 — Alliance between France and Sardinia (1858). — The Italian War 
 (1859). — Peace with Austria (1859). — Annexations and the Italian 
 Question (1860-62).— The Polish Affairs (1863).— The War of the 
 Duchies (1864). — Rupture between Prussia and Austria (1864-66). — The 
 War of 1866.— Peace of Prague (1866).— The Luxemburg Affair (1867). 
 — Latest Conflict between France and Prussia (1867-70). — Declaration 
 of War (1870) 787 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 GERMAN ASCENDENCY AND THE ARMED PEACE. 
 
 War with France (1870-71). — Treaties of London and Frankfort 
 (1871). — New Conditions of European Policy since 1871. — The Alliance 
 of the Three Emperors (1871-76).— Eastern Affairs (1875-76).— The-^ 
 Turkish War (1877-78). — Peace of San Stefano and Congress of Berlin - 
 (1878). — Formation of the Triple Alliance (1879-83).— Formation of the 
 Franco-Russian Understanding. — Armed Peace 813 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 POLITICAL EVOLUTION OF EUROPE 834 
 
 INDEX 849 
 
A POLITICAL HISTORY 
 
 OP 
 
 CONTEMPORARY EUROPE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 EUROPE IN 1814. 
 
 Fall of Napoleon. — ^The contemporary history of Europe be- 
 gins with a European event, the defeat of Napoleon I., who had 
 attacked all the states, overturning their internal organization or 
 transforming their external relations. 
 
 Directly or indirectly, every nation in Europe felt Napoleon's 
 influence. He reigned directly over the French Empire, which 
 comprised not only ancient France and the countries annexed 
 by the Republic (Belgium and the Rhine Provinces), but pieces 
 of Switzerland, one-third of Italy, the Netherlands, western Ger- 
 many, and the lUyrian Provinces. On all these countries he 
 imposed an absolute military government. He lorded it over the 
 neighbouring states; the kingdoms of Spain, Naples, Italy, and 
 Westphalia he gave to his relatives; on the German states, 
 united in the Confederation of the Rhine, on Switzerland, and on 
 Denmark he imposed treaties of ofifensive and defensive alliance. 
 He had even, in 1812, compelled the two independent German 
 monarchies, Austria and Prussia, to join him against Russia. 
 In the end there remained outside of his power only the extremi- 
 ties of Europe: England, Russia, Sweden, Sicily, Portugal, and 
 the Spanish insurgents. With all these he was at war. All 
 Europe was thus divided into two camps: Napoleon and his 
 enemies. 
 
 At the defeat of Napoleon, his whole territorial organization of 
 Europe fell to pieces. In 1813 Prussia and Austria deserted him 
 and joined his enemies. Thus was formed the union of the four 
 great powers, officially called the Allies (England, Russia, Aus- 
 
2 EUROPE IN 1814. 
 
 tria, and Prussia), which took the direction of the war, and at- 
 tached to the coalition the German states and dispossessed sov- 
 ereigns of Italy. The Allies concentrated their forces against 
 Napoleon's army in Saxony; the battle of Leipzig gave them all 
 Germany at one blow. They then offered Napoleon France with 
 its territory of 1800 (Frankfort, November, 1813). Subsequently 
 their three armies invaded France, and their next ofifer to Na- 
 poleon was the territory of 1790 (Chatillon, 1814). Finally they 
 took Paris and decided to dethrone Napoleon (March, 1814). 
 
 All the territories annexed to France since 1790, and all the 
 states organized by Napoleon, found themselves then without 
 sovereigns. The Allies, now masters of Europe, assumed the 
 right to dispose of them. Before quitting France they decided 
 to hold at Vienna a general congress of " all the powers which 
 had taken part in the war on either side," thus inviting all the 
 states of Europe. But by a secret article the Allies reserved to 
 themselves the right of settling the affairs of " the countries 
 abandoned by France, and the arrangements necessary for estab- 
 lishing a permanent equilibrium,'' and they outlined a plan of 
 territorial division. There remained for the congress only to 
 register the decisions of the Allies. 
 
 The Congress of Vienna. — All the states of Europe had taken 
 part in the war; all sent plenipotentiaries to Vienna. Ninety 
 sovereign princes and fifty-three mediatized princes were repre- 
 sented. Such a large gathering of diplomats after so many years 
 of war, and after the brilliant victory of the legitimate govern- 
 ments over revolutionary France, made an unusual stir in the 
 city of Vienna; the Austrian government had established a com- 
 mittee on entertainments; there was a continuous round of re- 
 ceptions, parties, and balls. 
 
 Business was to be done in peneral meeting. The Allies had 
 announced the congress to be held in June or July; later they 
 summoned it for October i ; finally they fixed on November i as 
 the date for the "formal opening of the congress." It was to 
 begin with the submission and examination of credentials. As 
 a matter of fact, the operation never took p'ace, the congress never 
 was opened. There was in truth no congress; there were only 
 committees of plenipotentiaries who signed treaties between par- 
 ticular states. These treaties were eventually brought together 
 in a single instrument called the final act of the Congress of 
 Vienna (July 9, 181 5). 
 
 The great powers settled the affairs of Europe and imposed 
 
THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA. 3 
 
 their will on the other states. The four Allies had agreed on 
 the main points as early as May 30. The territories to be dis- 
 posed of were the districts taken from France and from the vari- 
 ous states created by Napoleon : Belgium, Holland, the left bank 
 of the Rhine, Italy, Germany, and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. 
 On the 30th of May they settled the distribution of those about 
 which there was no dispute: namely, Italy, Belgium, and the left 
 bank of the Rhine. The rest, Germany and Poland, they left 
 over to the Congress of Vienna. At Vienna, the plenipotenti- 
 aries of the four great powers decided to come to an agreement 
 about the reserved questions first among themselves, but to ex- 
 tend to the ambassadors of France and Spain the compliment of 
 an invitation to take part in the conferences. As the English en- 
 voy said to Talleyrand, the French envoy, at the first conference, 
 September 30, " The object of this meeting is to let you know 
 what the four powers have been doing." They gave him the 
 official report of their proceedings, in which they gave themselves 
 the name of Allies. Talleyrand protested that this term shut out 
 France from any share in the concert. He asked reproachfully 
 whether they regarded themselves as still at war with France, 
 that they should thus agree apart on terms to be imposed on her, 
 as had been done in 1814. 
 
 Talleyrand thereupon demanded the opening, of the congress 
 according to the promise made by the Allies and the appointment 
 of a committee to prepare the questions which the congress alone 
 had the right to decide. His policy was to rally the little states 
 around France in order to oppose Jhe Allies. He succeeded in 
 bringing about a declaration that the congress should open on 
 the first of November, with the amendment "according to the 
 principles of public law " ; his plan being, by means of invoking 
 international law and legitimacy or the rights of legitimate sov- 
 ereigns, to prevent the Allies from making a new division of the 
 conquered territory. " The King," he said, " will not admit that 
 mere conquest can give sovereignty." He accordingly took 
 under his protection the legitimate King of Saxony and re- 
 fused to recognise Murat as King of Naples. He also succeeded 
 in getting the prepfiratory committee made up of representatives 
 of the four Allies and of the four other states which had signed 
 ' the treaty of Paris— France, Spain, Portugal, and Sweden. But 
 these formal concessions amounted practically to nothing; for the 
 congress never was opened, and the four Allies -alone made the 
 settlements. 
 
4 EUROPE IN 1814. 
 
 Territorial Settlements. — England kept, of her conquests, 
 Malta, the Ionian Islands, Heligoland, and, outside of Europe, 
 the Cape, Ceylon, and the He de France. Austria took the 
 Illyrian provinces and the districts ceded to Bavaria, indemnify- 
 ing Bavaria with the Palatinate on the left bank of the Rhine. 
 In this way England and Austria were satisfied without oppo- 
 sition. The settlement of the Netherlands and Italy was made 
 without discussion. Belgium was united to Holland to form the 
 kingdom of the Netherlands, which was given to the Prince of 
 Orange. In Italy, Austria added to the Milanese, Venetia and 
 the Valteline; the King of Sardinia received the former republic 
 of Genoa; the rest of the formerly existing states were re-estab- 
 lished. 
 
 Poland and Germany now remained to be disposed of, and as 
 to these the Allies were divided. The Tsar wished to keep the 
 whole Grand Duchy of Warsaw, that is to say, all Prussia's 
 share in the two partitions of Poland of 1793 and 1795. Prussia 
 did not insist on getting back her part of Poland, preferring to be 
 indemnified by the annexation of the Kingdom of Saxony. This 
 she alleged might be regarded as vacant territory, for it had been 
 conquered from Napoleon's ally, the King of Saxony, who had 
 not had time, like the other German princes, to secure his estates 
 by signing a treaty with the Allies. The Tsar, welcoming this 
 solution, accused the King of Saxony of "treason to the 
 European cause " in accepting the Grand Duchy from 
 Napoleon. Prussia and Russia, acting together, therefore 
 proposed to annex Saxony, compensating its King with 
 vacant territories in Germany. But to this scheme Eng- 
 land, and especially Austria, could not agree; it would 
 advance the Tsar too far into Europe and give Prussia 
 too great a power in Germany. Talleyrand, while pre- 
 tending to uphold the cause of the legitimate King of Sax- 
 ony against the "revolutionary" pretensions of Prussia, took 
 advantage of the disagreement between the Allies to secure a 
 defensive alliance between England, Austria, and France. He 
 wrote to the King: " Now the coalition is dissolved, and forever " 
 (January, 1815). In reality, his intervention served only to plant 
 a Prussian army on the French frontier. The Prussian repre- 
 sentatives would have preferred to avoid a direct contact between 
 France and Prussia; they therefore proposed to make the left 
 bank of the Rhitae into a state for the King of Saxony. This 
 would have been a Catholic state under a sovereign naturally 
 
TERRITORIAL SETTLEMENTS. 5 
 
 allied to France. The Tsar approved the scheme; the two other 
 Allies refused it, and Talleyrand helped them to defeat a com- 
 bination of such evident advantage to France. At last they ap- 
 pointed a Committee of Statistics which selected four pieces of 
 territory to make up the indemnity for Prussia; to make up the 
 3,400,000 souls which were owing her, they assigned her first a 
 province of Poland, Posen (810,000 souls); second, the left bank 
 of the Rhine (1,044,000); third, Westphalia (829,000); fourth, a 
 part of the Kingdom of Saxony (782,000). The Tsar kept the 
 rest of Poland and promised to make it into a kingdom with a 
 constitution. 
 
 The other territorial changes were made by special treaties; 
 Sweden ceded Pomerania to Prussia, which in turn ceded Lauen- 
 burg to Denmark in exchange for Norway joined tQ Sweden. 
 
 Before these arrangements were completed came the news of 
 Napoleon's return. The plenipotentiaries arranged to declare in 
 the name of Europe that " Napoleon Bonaparte had placed him- 
 self outside the pale of civil and social relations, and as an enemy 
 and disturber of the peace of the world, had made himself an out- 
 law "; they promised to protect the King of France or any other 
 government from his attacks (March 13, 1815). They then 
 hastened to prepare " the final act of the congress." It was 
 signed by the eight states which had composed the " preparatory 
 commission," and the others were " invited to give in their ad- 
 hesion." They inserted a provision for the free navigation of 
 rivers and a guarantee of the neutrality of the Netherlands and 
 Switzerland. 
 
 After Waterloo the Allies renewed their secret conferences to 
 decide what pledges they should take of France. They all agreed 
 to demand military occupation, a money indemnity, and some 
 cessions of territory. But on the extent of these cessions they 
 could not agree. The two German states Prussia and Austria, 
 being more directly threatened, demanded Alsace, and even Lor- 
 raine and French Flanders. England and the Tsar approved 
 only the restitution of Savoy to the King of Sardinia and some 
 rectifications of frontier that should deprive France of certain 
 fortresses. Austria agreed; the King of Prussia, left alone, 
 threatened, then yielded. Then the Allies came to an under- 
 standing on the ultimatum to be imposed on France (September 
 20). With some modifications obtained by France, this became 
 the treaty of Paris. 
 
 At the same time the Allies made a permanent league "for 
 
6 EUROPE IN 1814. 
 
 the safety of their states and the general tranquillity of Europe." 
 They agreed to take measures in common, if revolutionary prin- 
 ciples should again " rend France and threaten the quiet of other 
 states." 
 
 Europe after the Settlements of 1815. — ^The settlements of 
 Vienna had been made according to the diplomatic principles of 
 the eighteenth century, the balance of power and the system of 
 compensations. France, regarded as too powerful, was reduced to 
 her old territory, so as to restore the equilibrium. The other great 
 powers could receive only indemnities in exchange for territories 
 ceded to other states. But two great powers were made excep- 
 tions: England kept Malta and the Ionian Isles; Russia kept 
 Bessarabia, Finland, and Poland. Both gained by their wars 
 against France a net increase of territory at the expense either of 
 suppressed states (Venice and Malta) or of old allies of France 
 (Sweden, Turkey, and Poland). Austria and Prussia received 
 only compensations, but reckoned from their time of greatest ter- 
 ritorial extent, that is, after the last partition of Poland. Aus- 
 tria received the territory of Venice to make up for the loss of 
 her Netherlands and Salzburg to make up for the loss of her old 
 domains in Swabia. Prussia received in place of her Polish re- 
 gions, so difficult of assimilation, three purely German districts 
 — Westphalia, Saxony, and the Rhine province; in exchange for 
 Lauenburg she gained Swedish Pomerania. Both Austria and 
 Prussia, therefore, found themselves with a territory, if not 
 greater, at least more compact than in 1795. The German 
 princes retained the territories secularized or mediatized in the 
 time of Napoleon. The small states favoured by the Allies re- 
 ceived increase of territory. The Prince of Orange got Belgium, 
 and the King of Sardinia, Genoa; Switzerland, the Bernese Jura 
 and a fragment of Savoy. These increases were made at the ex- 
 pense of the small states that had no reigning families, the re- 
 publics of Genoa and Venice, the ecclesiastical states, the Ger- 
 man free cities and also at the expense of two of Napoleon's 
 allies, Saxony and Denmark. All the ecclesiastical states of 
 Europe disappeared except that of the Pope. The Holy See 
 protested against this decision of the lay diplomats of Vienna as 
 it had formerly condemned the original secularizations following 
 the Peace of Luneville in 1803. 
 
 Thus the work of the congress was not a simple restoration; 
 of the overturnings of the revolutionary period the Allies ac- 
 cepted those that pleased them, those that injured no lay prince; 
 
EUROPE AFTER THE SETTLEMENTS OF 1815. 7 
 
 and from the territories thus left vacant they carved out compen- 
 sations and extensions for themselves. All these changes were 
 made according to the practice of the eighteenth century, with- 
 out consulting the inhabitants and with no thought for their in- 
 terests. The diplomatists represented governme nts, but not 
 p eople s. 
 
 The system thus estabhshed rested, as in the eighteenth cen- 
 tury, on the balance of power between five great powers — two 
 western, France and England; three eastern, Russia, Austria, and 
 Prussia. Neither of these was strong enough to control Europe 
 nor even to make war against the rest. The balance of power 
 did indeed maintain itself for a half-century and the peace of 
 Europe for forty years. Between the two groups was a cen- 
 tral region divided into small states, those of Germany and of 
 Italy, the Netherlands and Switzerland, the two latter being de- 
 clared neutral by the guarantee of the great powers. The house 
 of Hapsburg controlled the two regions of small states — Italy 
 through the Austrian possessions, Germany through the influ- 
 ential position of the Emperor; and, not needing extension for 
 herself, she was interested in maintaining the small states. In the 
 east, Russia had absorbed the territory which formerly separated 
 her from Europe; of the old state of Poland there remained but 
 Cracow, set up as an aristocratic republic. Sweden, despoiled of 
 Finland and Pomerania, was confined to the Scandinavian re- 
 gion. The Ottoman Empire remained outside of the European 
 system. 
 
 The restoration of the balance of power in Europe brought 
 with it a restoration of the old governments. The states revo- 
 lutionized by the French armies were given back to their former 
 sovereigns to restore the old regime. Absolute monarchy became 
 the normal form of European government. The only states 
 where the sovereign was limited by a constitution were the con- 
 stitutional monarchies of England, France, and the Netherlands, 
 the aristocratic republics united in the Swiss Confederation, Nor- 
 way, and the new Kingdom of Poland. All these constitutions 
 still left the real power to a sovereign or a small aristocracy. But 
 the experience of the Revolution and revolutionary ideas had, all 
 over Europe, given to certain men a desire for a more liberal or 
 more democratic form of government, and these political mal- 
 contents formed themselves into liberal parties, opposing the po- 
 litical systems restored in 1814. The distribution of territory at 
 Vienna having been made regardless of the wishes of the popu- 
 
8 EUROPE IN 1814. 
 
 lations concerned, certain states did not correspond to nations. 
 Three nations, Germany, Italy, and Poland, were parcelled out 
 between several states. One single state, Austria, united several 
 uncongenial nations in an artificial relation. This system pro- 
 duced malcontents who tended to form national parties. The lib- 
 eral and national malcontents, united ordinarily into a single 
 opposition party, worked therefore to undo the work of the dip- 
 lomats ; ■ and, as governments arrange for mutual support, so 
 the oppositionists in each country felt themselves drawn toward 
 those in the other countries and sought co-operation with them. 
 More than all the rest, the Austrian government was inter- 
 ested in checking these national and liberal movements, which 
 threatened at once its interior organization and its influence in 
 Germany; the head of the Austrian government, Metternich, be- 
 came therefore naturally the leader of the resistance. He called 
 all his opponents revolutionists because they invoked the princi- 
 ples set forth during the French Revolution, sovereignty of the 
 people, liberty, and equahty. He sums up the situation thus: 
 " The object of these factions is one and the same, the over- 
 throw of every legally existing institution. . . The principle 
 which the monarchs must set against this ... is the preserva- 
 tion of every legally existing institution." Between the con- 
 servative governments, masters of power, and the opposition 
 parties, liberals, nationalists, and democrats, began in all coun- 
 tries the struggle which forms the political history of Europe in 
 the nineteenth century. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 For the history of the facts treated in this chapter a reliable bibliography 
 will be found in Dahlmann-'HCaitz, " Quellenkunde der Deutschen Ge- 
 schichte," 6th edit., revised by SteindorfE, 1894 ; pp. 544, 549-50 
 
 SOURCES.— The leading sources are : 
 
 On the Invasions.—" Correspondance de Napoleon I.," 1858-70.— 
 W. Oncken, " Oesterreich und Preussenim Befreiungskriege," 1876-79 (docu- 
 ments in the appendix).-Metteniioh-Winiiebiirg, " Oesterreichs Theilnahme 
 an den Befreiungskriegen," 1887, taken from Austrian documents 
 
 On the Congress of Vienna.— J. l. Kluber, " Akten des Wiener Kon- 
 gresses," 8 vols., 1815-35, collection of official acts.-G. Pallain, " Correspon- 
 dance In§d. de Talleyrand et du Roi," 1S81, accounts of the work of the- 
 congress from the French point of view.-" Memoirs and Correspondence 
 of Castlereagh," 12 vols, in 3 series, 1848-53.-" Despatches of ■WelUng- 
 ton," 8 vols., 1844-47.-" Supplementary Despatches and Memoranda " 15 
 vols., 1858-72. The Wellington despatches give a history of the congress 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 9 
 
 from the English point of view. — Pozzo di Borgo, " Corresp. Diplom. du 
 Comte Pozzo di Borgo," 1 890, from the Russian point of view. — The German 
 documents, Uiinster, Stein, Oagern (see Dahlmann-Waitz), are of less im- 
 portance. 
 
 "WORKS. — For a General Account. — W. Oncken, " Das Zeitalter der 
 Revolution, dep Kaiserreiches und der Befreiungskriege," vol. ii., 1887 
 (Oncken collection), is still the most reliable general history. In English, 
 ryffe, "Modern History," 3 vols., begins at 1792. 
 
 In French, Oervinus, " Hist, du XIX« Siecle," translated from the Ger- 
 man (in the original, vol. i.,1855), detailed, but ill provided with references. 
 
 On the Invasions. — ^H. Houssayei " 1814" and " 1815," 1888-93. 
 . On the Congress and the Treaties. — Angeberg, " Le Congres de Vienne 
 et les Trait6s de 181 5," 1864 ; Bemhavdi, " Gesch. Russlands und der Euro- 
 paeischen Politik," vol. i., 1863 (coll. of contemporary histories) ; these are 
 the two most detailed accounts of negotiations, but neither of them was 
 able to. make use of the documents with which we are acquainted to-day. — 
 A. Sorel, " Les Traitdsde 1815," 1873. — A. Debidour, " Hist. Diplom. de I'Eu- 
 rope," 1874-78, vol. i., 1891. — Seeley, "Life, of Stein." — Hertslet, " Map of 
 Europe by Treaty." 
 
ENGLAND. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1832.* 
 
 England in the nineteenth century has served as a political 
 model for Europe. The English people developed the political! 
 mechanism of modern Europe, constitutional monarchy, parlia^ 
 mentary government, and safeguards for personal liberty. The 
 other nations have only imitated them. The parties that distin- 
 guish the political life of the nineteenth century (conservative, : 
 liberal, radical, and socialist) were constituted in England before 
 appearing in other countries. It is therefore natural to begin 
 the political history with England. 
 
 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM BILL. 
 
 The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland emerged in 
 1814 from a long war, almost continuous since 1793, which had 
 enlarged its colonial empire and strengthened its internal organi- 
 zation. The " Old England " of the eighteenth century stood 
 firm; having had no revolution, it needed no restoration. In 
 order to understand this " Old England " it is necessary to know 
 the organization of the English government, the composition of 
 English society, and the special condition of Ireland. 
 
 The public life of Great Britain centred in three groups of old 
 institutions, so long united that they seemed inseparable : the cen- 
 tral government, the local authorities, and the Church. 
 
 The Central Government. — The central government of Eng- 
 land, extending since 1707 to Scotland and since 1800 to Ireland, 
 was made up officially of three parts, the King assisted by the 
 Privy Council, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. 
 These were ancient bodies, whose relations to each other had been 
 settled by custom and tradition. 
 
 The King, hereditary and inviolable, remained the legal ruler 
 
 * The chapters on England have been freely revised and in part re- 
 written.— S. M. M. 
 
 SO 
 
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. II 
 
 of the kingdom. As representative of the state he made peace, 
 war, and treaties. As fountain of justice he appointed the 
 judges, who decreed justice in his name. As head of the gov- 
 ernment he appointed all officers, summoned Parliament, and 
 dissolved it; his assent was necessary to the enactment of laws. 
 He had still in law the same rights as his predecessors in the 
 Middle Ages; and, like those, he had to assist him in governing 
 a council whose members he appointed. 
 
 The powers of the King, of the Council, and of the Parliament 
 had been settled by usage. The English people had neither a 
 written constitution nor had their laws been reduced to a code; 
 and of these facts they were proud.* Their political constitution 
 rested on precedent and tradition, and their common law on cus- 
 tom. In form the King was still the sole head of the government 
 and everything was done in his name. Parliament was only an 
 aid for him, and was unable even to meet without his order; the 
 ministers were only his advisers. But three customs established 
 in the eighteenth century had radically transformed his position. 
 
 1. The King, though invested with all the powers, exercised 
 none of them personally. Every political act ordered by the 
 King had to be ordered through a minister who assumed the re- 
 sponsibility for it. The King no longer governed; he let his min- 
 isters govern in his name. 
 
 2. The ministers did not act singly; they met in cabinet council 
 to decide on matters of state. This meeting had no legal recog- 
 nition; even to-day the term cabinet cannot be used in an official 
 act. But in fact the meeting of ministers charged with govern- 
 ing in the name of the King had become the principal organ of 
 the state. The Cabinet not being an official body, the number of 
 its members has never been fixed; it varies from twelve to nine- 
 teen. Since the eighteenth century the ministry has been re- 
 garded as a unit, made up of men of one mind regarding public 
 poHcy. One of the members acts as head and speaks for the min- 
 istry as a whole; he is called the prime minister, but this is only a 
 popular name. As late a§ 1806 it was said that " the English 
 constitution abhors the idea of a prime minister." 
 
 3. The King in appointing the ministry did not act on his own 
 judgment; personally he was not responsible. By a consti- 
 tutional fiction the King can do no wrong. If wrong be done 
 by his order, the act is that of his evil advisers, and they alone 
 
 * Arthur Young in 1789 ridiculed certain Frenchmen who imagined 
 there is " a receipt for making a constitution." 
 
12 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1832. 
 
 are responsible. The responsibility thus borne by the ministers 
 was held to be to Parliament. In practice a ministry could re- 
 main in office only so long as it had the confidence of a majority 
 in the House of Commons. If the House wished to end a minis- 
 try, it could do so without needing even to bring formal charges 
 against it. It was enough to refuse supplies or to pass a vote of 
 censure. The King was thus indirectly compelled to take for 
 ministers the leaders of the party having a majority in the House 
 of Commons. Not, however, in the sense that these leaders must 
 all be Commoners : it was customary still to take at least as many 
 ministers from the House of Lords as from the House of Com- 
 mons. Thus, the King having yielded the control to his min- 
 istry, and the ministry having become a delegation of the party 
 in control of the Commons, it was the House of Commons that 
 indirectly exercised the royal power. 
 
 If the power of the House of Commons had been confined to 
 voting the budget and passing bills, it would have remained a 
 subordinate authority like the representative chamber in conti- 
 nental monarchies (Prussia and Austria). Not by the exercise 
 of its legislative power, recognised by law, but by appropriating 
 to itself a customary right of controlling the royal administra- 
 tion, has it established Parliamentary government. That re- 
 gime consists in transferring the substance of the royal power 
 to the majority in Parliament, leaving the King only a pre- 
 eminence in dignity: "the King reigns, but does not govern." 
 
 Parliamentary government seems to-day so characteristic of 
 English ways that one easily forgets how recent a growth it is. 
 It existed under the first two Georges (1714-1760), but the prac- 
 tice was not definitely settled, and even the theory was not frankly 
 admitted by George III. The first two Georges had been pleased 
 to take their ministers from the majority in Parliament, and to 
 follow their advice. But the action of these two kings did not 
 alter the legal right of the Crown (the prerogative) ; it was open to 
 their successors to resume the legal right. George III. asserted 
 this position, and during the first hali of his long reign (1760- 
 1820) he strove to return to the older practice, which accorded 
 with the official theory of a balance between the three powers. 
 King, Lords, and Commons. He did not admit without quali- 
 fication any of the new usages. He wished to preside person- 
 ally at Cabinet meetings, and to be his own prime minister. He 
 refused his assent to measures that were personally distasteful 
 to him although urged by his ministers. He repeatedly asked 
 
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. 13 
 
 ministers to resign because he disapproved their policy. He 
 tried long to prevent the growth of unity in the Cabinet, by 
 systematically drawing ministers from different political groujis. 
 He did not think it necessary to take as ministers the leading 
 men of the Parliamentary majority. 
 
 In his struggle against Parliamentary government, George HI. 
 was helped by the Parliament itself. The old Royalist party, 
 now become the Tory party, continued to uphold the power of 
 the King. They had opposed the first two Georges, not as kings, 
 but as alien usurpers. Now that all thoughts of a restoration of 
 the Stuarts were at an end, and a genuinely English king was 
 on the throne, — a king, moreover, who had no fondness for the 
 Whigs, — the Tories speedily resumed their natural position as 
 supporters of the royal power. The new Parliamentary group 
 known as King's Friends was mainly recruited from their ranks. 
 The popular disgust at the selfish and corrupt manner in which 
 the Whig leaders, with the honourable exception of Lord Chat- 
 ham, had used their control of the government, did not escape 
 the notice of the new King and his friends. To the popular 
 apprehension Walpole, Pelham, and Newcastle seemed to have 
 used their power in the state to load their friends and supporters 
 with offices, pensions, and preferments. But there was another 
 phase of their conduct which interested the King much more 
 deeply than this. They had shown how easily, by means of the 
 r'patronage and other favours in the gift of the Crown, a majority 
 could be gained and kept in the House of Commons; and how, 
 by the use of this majority, the personal wishes of the King him- 
 self could be overborne, and subjected to the will of the Whig 
 chiefs. George IH. was quick to read the lesson the Whigs had' 
 set for him; but he was sagacious enough to read it in a sense 
 they had not intended. If the great Whig families, by the use of 
 patronage and favours, could control a majority in the House of 
 Commons to overbear the King, obviously the King might use 
 the same method to overbear the great Whig families, and thus, 
 regain the personal authority his grandfather and great grand- 
 father had allowed to slip from their hands. The first twenty- 
 five years of his reign bear witness to the persistent and some- 
 times unscrupulous skill with which he strove to realize this 
 design. Accepting, in form, the supremacy of the House of Com- 
 mons, he laboured steadily, using his patronage, his court influ- 
 ence, and even his money, to create and keep there a majority 
 favourable to his own views of public policy. Accepting, too, the 
 
14 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1833. 
 
 principle that the king must act by the advice of his ministers, he 
 sought to give the principle a new application, by getting min- 
 isters who should give only such advice as was agreeable to him. 
 
 Working on this plan he had, for about twenty years, at least 
 a moderate degree of success. The disastrous outcome of the 
 struggle with the American colonies, brought on and managed 
 by ministers chosen on the new principle, brought discredit and 
 collapse on his system. But the Whigs had neither the will nor 
 the capacity to turn the crisis to account for the nation by in- 
 sisting on national control of national affairs. The alternative 
 they offered for court influence was the influence of the great 
 Whig families; George III. should cease to dispense patronage, 
 pensions, and other means of corrupting the House of Com- 
 mons, and Charles James Fox should do those things in his 
 stead. On that issue there was little at stake to arouse public 
 interest; probably, considering the private character of Fox, the 
 balance of opinion favoured the King. At all events, when pres- 
 ently Fox allied himself with Lord North in order to coerce the 
 King, the nation met him with an emphatic repudiation. 
 
 The rout of the old-family Whigs at the general election of 
 1784 is a singular passage in English history. To the men of 
 the time it seemed that George III. had won a decisive victory 
 for his system. In reality, as the sequel showed, the result 
 was as fatal to George III.'s system as it was to the aims of the 
 aristocratic Whigs. The real victory belonged to the nation, and 
 to its newly found leader, the younger Pitt. That able and self- 
 reliant young man was beginning the remarkable career which 
 was to demonstrate, once for all, the overwhelming advantages, 
 ■both for King and people, of a Parliamentary ministry, resting 
 on the national will. His popularity enabled him to dispense 
 with the old corrupt methods of securing support. It also enabled 
 him to advise the King with an authority that even George III. 
 could not safely ignore. He was able to win the royal assent to 
 every project that he cared to press, until a question arose which 
 touched the warped and sensitive conscience of the King, and on 
 which the nation was not ready to support the enlightened policy 
 of the minister. When Pitt resigned on the Catholic question 
 in 1 80 1, the principle of Cabinet government was well estab- 
 lished. If George III. did not publicly avow the principle, he 
 at least found it convenient to act on it. 
 
 Local GoTernment. — Even the composition of the Parliament 
 was governed by tradition. The House of Commons was 
 
THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM. 15 
 
 elected, not by the nation, but by privileged local bodies. Thus 
 the central government was allied to local institutions. 
 
 In England, the local government was irregularly organized 
 and, contrary to the opinion now become classic, it was weak. 
 The self-government so boasted of by England was confined to 
 the old cities and privileged boroughs, each administered by an 
 old municipal corporation elected by hereditary burgesses. All 
 the rest of the country, all the villages and all the new cities, 
 were without elected local administration. In these, local affairs 
 were managed by the vestry or parish meeting and church ward- 
 ens, presided over by the rector and the squire. It was the 
 justices of the peace, appointed by the government from among 
 the gentry, who, without compensation, undertook the manage- 
 ment of the police, of the assessment of taxes, and even of jus- 
 tice, sometimes working singly, sometimes meeting in session to 
 deliberate together. Each was master in his own district, with- 
 out other check than the right of aggrieved persons to appeal to 
 the ordinary tribunals against his action. 
 
 There was still for each county a lord lieutenant, formerly com- 
 mander of the militia, also taken from among the great land- 
 owners of the county, but now reduced to mere ceremonial func- 
 tions. The original character of the English local administra- 
 tion was not to employ salaried officers; all the work was done 
 gratuitously by the prominent men of the county. The twelve 
 judges of the three Common Law Courts were the only judges 
 remunerated by the state. These were concentrated in the capi- 
 tal, going about the country only to hold jury trials and to hear 
 appeals from the local justices. There were no permanent local 
 courts except those of the justices of the peace in Petty and 
 Quarter Sessions. 
 
 This English self-government was not therefore the govern- 
 ment of the country by itself, but the government of the country 
 by the local aristocracy. 
 
 The Electoral System. — It was the local bodies that sent the 
 representatives to the House of Commons. There were three 
 classes of these constituencies: the counties, electing 186 mem- 
 bers; the boroughs, electing 467 members; and the universities, 
 electing 5 members. The boroughs were not ordinarily elec- 
 toral districts, but privileged bodies, very unequally distributed, 
 without regard either to population or to territory. Scotland had 
 only 45 members, Wales 24; Ireland, incorporated with Great 
 Britain in 1800, had 100 members. In England the privileged 
 
1 6 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1832. 
 
 boroughs were chiefly in the south; lo southern counties had 
 237 members, the other 30 counties had only 252. The poor 
 and backward county of Cornwall had 44, lacking only one of 
 having as many as all Scotland. 
 
 Till 1832 there had been no law designating the places to be 
 represented. The actual selection had been made by successive 
 kings down to Charles II., in whose reign the King lost the right 
 of creating new boroughs by the mere issue of his writ of elec- 
 tion. Neither had there been any law determining who, in each 
 borough, should have the right to elect the members. In many 
 boroughs the royal charter of incorporation had ordained that 
 the election should be made by the members of the corporation. 
 As the corporation, in these cases, was a " close " body and had 
 usually fallen under the control of a single family, the head of 
 that family was able to designate the two members for the bor- 
 ough. In another class of boroughs the corporation was able 
 to control the election though not itself entitled to elect; the right 
 of election belonged to the " freemen " of the place, and the 
 :orporation had the right of naming the freemen. It regularly 
 named only such as would be likely to obey its wishes. In a 
 :hird class of boroughs — some of them without inhabitants — the 
 right of election had become vested in the owners of cer- 
 tain plots of ground within the borough. Any rich man who 
 bought or inherited a majority of these plots could name the 
 ;wo members for the borough. In still another class of bor- 
 oughs the government of the day was able, through offices and 
 other influences, to secure the election of its chosen candidates. 
 
 It is stated by Dr. Oldfield in his " Representative History " 
 :hat, out of 658 representatives, 487 were chosen, in one way or 
 mother, by patrons. The election in these cases was a mere 
 'orm. 
 
 The English counties, and some of the large boroughs in which 
 he householders or the taxpayers had the right of voting, were 
 he only constituencies in which real elections were held. " Even 
 n some of these it was no uncommon thing to dispense with the 
 brmality of an election. On the day fixed for the nomination of 
 ;andidates there appeared only as many as there were seats to be 
 illed. The prominent men of the county having agreed on the 
 nen to be put in nomination, the sheriff had only to declare these 
 ilected. This was what was called an uncontested election, and 
 nany of the county elections were conducted in just this way. 
 
 Ordinarily at a general election there were not more than fifty 
 
THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM. 17 
 
 constituencies which were really contested. In 1818 the strug- 
 gle was considered very hot because there were 100 contested elec- 
 tions. In all the counties of Scotland there were not 3000 
 voters in all. In Bute County (14,000 inhabitants, 21 voters) 
 they tell the story of an election at which only one voter ap- 
 peared; he constituted the assembly, by electing himself as chair- 
 man, made a speech in favor of his own election, put his name to 
 the vote, and declared himself unanimously elected. 
 
 The contested election was held under old disorderly forms. 
 On nomination day, in presence of the crowd, gathered some- 
 times in the open air, the sherifif put the question on the candi- 
 dates one by one, and the crowd voted on each by shouting and 
 by raised hands in the midst of much confusion. The real elec- 
 tors were mixed in right and left with non-electors, who, of 
 course, also raised their hands. This was a mere farce. The de- 
 feated candidate had the right to demand a poll. Then the real 
 election began. A poll-book was opened in which each voter 
 had the right to have his vote inscribed; this operation could 
 go on for forty days (reduced in 1784 to fifteen). The inhabi- 
 tants of the place were interested in prolqnging the polling, for 
 in a hotly contested election the price of votes was sure to go up. 
 The vote being public and recorded in a book, the magnates 
 could effectively buy or threaten the voters. This was unlaw- 
 ful, but was don6 without much concealment. Some boroughs in 
 which the corporation elected the members put their seats on sale. 
 In others the proprietors of the land on which the borough stood 
 dictated their choice to the inhabitants, their tenants; in 1829, at 
 Newark, the Duke of Newcastle turned out 587 of his tenants 
 for having dared to vote for the other candidate. This was com- 
 plained of in the House, and the Duke replied : " Have I not the 
 right to do as I wish with my own?" 
 
 Pitt had proposed in 1785 a timid reform which consisted in 
 buying up the seats of 36 rotten boroughs, to be assigned tO' the 
 counties. He could not get it passed. The elections remained 
 corrupt, and the parvenus, bankers, manufacturers, and " na- 
 bobs," taking advantage of this to buy the position of member 
 of Parliament, gave another increase to the prices of seats. 
 
 In 1814 the greater number of seats were simply acquired by 
 inheritance, by purchase, or by family influence. The House was 
 representative only in name; it was an assemblage of landlords, 
 millionaires, and their nominees, independent of the mass of the 
 nation. The sovereignty belonged to the King and the aristoc- 
 
l8 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1832. 
 
 racy. The Parliamentary system was not a representative gov- 
 ernment, but an oligarchical government. 
 
 The Church. — The organization of the Church was very com- 
 plicated. Without counting the sects, the United Kingdom was 
 divided between three churches, each predominating in one 
 of the three countries: the Anglican Church in England, the 
 Presbyterian in Scotland, and the Roman Catholic in Ireland. 
 Of these only two were officially recognised, the Anglican as the 
 Church of England, and the Presbyterian as the Church of Scot- 
 land ; the Catholic Church was only tolerated in fact. 
 
 The Established Church was the only one officially protected 
 and endowed. The English government, nevertheless, granted 
 absolute freedom of worship. The only restriction laid upon 
 Dissenters was from holding public office, and this was in prac- 
 tice set aside by the Annual Indemnity Act, passed each year by 
 Parliament. 
 
 The Roman Catholics enjoyed substantially the same legal 
 toleration as the Protestant Dissenters. They were, however, 
 debarred from holding public office and from sitting in either 
 House of Parliament by the requirement of the oath of suprem- 
 acy and the declaration against transubs^'antiation. In- 1807 
 George III. dismissed the Grenville ministry for refusing to 
 promise never to renew the proposition they had made looking 
 to the admission of Roman Catholics to offices in the army and 
 navy. 
 
 The Anglican Church kept up its e cclesiastical courts , where 
 were t/ied not only matters of church discipline, but lay cases 
 of divorce, validity of marriage, and Administration of wills. It 
 also had the exclusive right to perform marriages, and it regis- 
 tered births and deaths. 
 
 The Church maintained its established position. Besides the 
 income from its own estates, it had an annual revenue from JjilxeSs, 
 and c hitfch rat ss- The tithe was a tenth part of the produce of all 
 lands, whether held by Churchmen or others; the church rate was 
 a tax imposed, by vote of the parish vestry, on all rate-payers, 
 whether Churchmen or not. The tithes went for the support of 
 the clergy; the rates were levied for the maintenance and care 
 of the buildings, grounds, etc., belonging to the Church. The 
 Church maintained its ancient hierarchy: the archbishops and 
 bishops, the chapters of cathedrals, the archdeacons, appointed 
 by the government, and the parsons, appointed by the patrons, 
 who were either the bishop, the Lord Chancellor, the chapter, or^ 
 
SOCIAL CONDITIONS. 19 
 
 as was usually the case, a layman who owned the advowson of the 
 living. In fact, the clergymen were usually the younger sons of 
 the great families, who, with the income from their parishes, con- 
 tinued to live like gentlemen, hunting and riding, exercising the 
 functions of justice of the peace, and bringing up a family. Many 
 did not even reside in their parish, but left it in charge of a curate, 
 an ecclesiastic taken from the ranks of the lower middle class, 
 whom they paid with a small portion of their own income. 
 
 The Church of Scotland held, and still holds to this day, its old 
 federative constitution recognised by the Act of Union in 1707. 
 Each parish forms a body governed by the pastor and the lay 
 elders. A group of parishes unites to form a presbytery, gov- 
 erned by the united body of pastors and an elder from each par- 
 ish. The meeting of the members of several presbyteries makes 
 what is called a Synod. Finally, at the head of this hierarchy, the 
 General Assembly, composed of delegates from each presbytery, 
 each royal borough, and each university, is the supreme power 
 of the Established Church of Scotland. All these assemblages 
 are_ courts of disdp line having power of censorship dvefTTieT aith 
 aniJhe..piivate life ofth e pastors and the faithful ; t he presbytery 
 is practically tTie"str6hgest power. ^ 
 
 The Church of Scotland, in the eighteenth century, had 
 assumed a tyrannical supervision ov.er the__2nvate life ^of .tb.ejia.- 
 .j-isbioners fbtltlhe' govCTnment and the lay. tribunals, by refusing 
 to recognise its right to discipline private individuals in matters ; 
 of conduct, had succeeded in restricting it to questions of religion 
 (to await the conflict with the state which, in 1843, was to bring 
 about the secession of the Free Church). 
 
 Its revenues consisted of the tithes, the church rate, and pri- 
 vate donations (the latter amounting to almost one-half). 
 
 The Church of Scotland, always -poor, paid its members little, 
 but it knew neither the enormous inequality between the incomes 
 of the various pastors, nor the undisguised sale of livings so 
 common in the Church of England; the Scotch clergy were 
 more independent and more active than the English. 
 
 Social Conditions. — English society was based on the distinc-| 
 tions between rich and poor: those who had p ossessions had- alll 
 the rights, private and political; tliose^wIionFiad nothing were 
 shTTt^urffonTaTl'pubncTiIerand even from some of the securities 
 for personal liberty. They were as two separate nations placed 
 one over the other, the one privileged, the other disinherited. 
 
 The authors who described English political life or who theo- 
 
120 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1833. 
 
 Tized about it, knew only the privileged nation; they believed the 
 English to be all equal before the law, all protected by the law. 
 And, indeed. Aeofficial political acts made no distjnaUosgz^Sg 
 jn~oner~countries, between nobles an3 conimonsjjthe Bill of 
 tegRts-sp»k-e--i0rT'h-g-^'"figTflT of'the'EnglisK^^^^ " without 
 class distinctions. But, in fact, custom and some special laws 
 little known to the public had finally formed under the legal na- 
 tion a lower class, shut out from political rights. 
 
 The constitution forbade compulsory military service; but in 
 reality the government, when there was need of sailors for the 
 royal navy, got them by force, seizing sailors, and even some 
 that were not sailors at all. This was called impressmen t. It 
 was practised only on the poor. 
 
 The constitution did not admit that manual labour entailed any 
 loss of the rights of an English subject. But Parliament, made 
 up of landowners and employers, had made laws which put the 
 labouring classes in the power of their employers. 
 
 LA series of laws from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century 
 ad created the legal cate gory of the poor, and the local ta x 
 called the poor-ra te. WTtbever hadno independent iheans ^ 
 I support was'Eept at the expense of the parish and came under 
 ithe authority of the overseers of the poor. These overseers had 
 \ the power to set them at any sort of _work.andj_if they refused it, 
 to^shut them up in the workhouse, and to put their children out 
 as apprentices wherever "tliey" pleased ; this meant, in practice, sell- 
 ing them to manufacturers to make them work in the factories. 
 J The poor man could not freely ch ange his dwelli ng-place, for 
 /every parish had the right of deriyTn'g~a~settlement to anyone 
 ' who was likely to become a public charge. Now, as ne arly all 
 the lands of England belonged to the gent ry, the English peas- 
 ants had ordinarily no means of self-support; so the greater 
 number of them fell into the class of assisted poor, numbering 
 1,340,000 in 1811, 2,500,000 in 1821, and 1,850,000 in 1827. 
 
 The constitution recognised the right of forming unions and 
 clubs. The city artisans had had their trade guilds protected by 
 regulations which fixed the maximum number of apprentices and 
 the minimum of wages. But when the factory system arose, and 
 crowds of labourers were gathered in new places, the employers 
 held themselves free from old regulations favouring the labour- 
 ers. Nor was this all. Parliament was induced to pass laws 
 (1799-1800) which forbade artisans, under penalty of several 
 months' imprisonment, to band themselves together for an in^ 
 
SOCIAL CONDITIONS. 21 
 
 crease o f pay. It became a misdemeanour for workmen to 
 club LdigtiLliw, Snd a justice of the peace had the power to send 
 them to jail for it. 
 
 Thus sailors, farm labourers, paupers, workmen, thrust outside 
 of common rights, at the mercy of press-gangs, overseers of the 
 poor, employers, and justices of the peace, ios^^^^j^^ssi^QT-vis^ 
 ■Hrtn, witj^nut p"l'<^'^aLDQwer, wi thout assured m eans of existence. 
 without-g-uarantpp rtf pp,csanaUJ:hprty. ^ 
 
 From this disinherited class came many criminals, notably rob- 
 bers. To suppress these Parliament had passed fierce laws pro- 
 nouncing the penalty of death for more than 200 acts declared to 
 be felonies; for example, poaching on game preserves and shop- 
 lifting were capital crimes. 
 
 The whole nation, in the contemplation of the law, was swayed 
 by two rival aristocracies: that of landed proprietors, allied 
 with the clergy, supreme in the country parts; and that of 
 capitalists and great manufacturers, supreme in the cities. 
 These were economic masters of the country. 
 
 There remained in 181 5 almost no independent peasants, small 
 landed proprietors, or tenants on lease ; all lands had finally been 
 absorbed into great estates, belonging to lords or squires. 
 These let out their lands to farmers, who had them cultivated by 
 hired labourers. A village was simply a group of cottages occu- 
 pied by these workmen, where the lord or squire acted as master. 
 Grain was still E ngland's chief ^product. In order to maintain 
 an' advantageous pnceT'BK e' proprietors had got the Corn Laws 
 passed, which excluded foreigngrain except in case of_ a scarcity 
 and~c6nseqijent high'j^icer~The price was fixed in 1791, at 50 
 'shillings a quarter (8 bushels); but during the wars with France 
 the price went up so far beyond this that they raised the figure 
 to 63 shillings. After the peace, to ofifset foreign competition, 
 they raised it again to 80 shillings. By these measures the in- 
 come of land was doubled, to the benefit of the owner. Rent s 
 were raised, but n ot the wages of the labourers. 
 ''A similar concentration haHTaKeff'place '" "''?""fartP""Pf- 
 since the end of the eighteenth century. The indu °t"ii] 'iy*-"'^ 
 had been revolutionized by two changes: ist, the new machines 
 driven by water or by steam, and the new mechanical arts, had 
 created the factory systeni ; 2d, small employers who pro- 
 duced directly for a single business house, were replaced by capi- 
 talist employers who produced on a large scale for the general 
 market and for exportation. So was formed the new class of 
 
22 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1832. 
 
 ^^SS^L.^£^'^!^^l^^^-.3i!^^^-^li^^~^^^^^^'^'^-^^^' ^'^° were added to 
 the aristocracy of capitalists. 
 
 The factory system was moving the centre of the population 
 of England. Until the eighteenth century all economic and po- 
 litical life had been in the south and east, near London; the north 
 and west remained thinly populated and backward in civilization. 
 But the factory system attracted population to the neighborhood 
 of mines and streams in the north and west, where dense masses 
 of workmen established themselves. England was divided into 
 two regions: the south and east, re maining agricultural and con- 
 trolled by the landowners, w ere the home of conservatism ; the 
 north and west, given over "to manuIactunngTwEre centres of 
 liflliticaL-agitatkiO- In Scotland, where manufacturing had be- 
 gun, especially along the Qyde, Glasgow became a seat of ac- 
 tivity rivalling Edinburgh, the capital. 
 
 The Condition of Ireland. — Ireland was inhabited by two na- 
 tions of different origin: the native Irish, who were Catholic, and 
 the settlers from England, and especially Scotland, most of whom 
 were Anglicans or Presbyterians. The latter occupied only a 
 part of the province of Ulster in the extreme north. The native 
 Irish formed the population of the other three provinces, except 
 the Pale in the neighbourhood of Dublin and a few other districts 
 where early settlernents of English had taken place. But since 
 the conquest of the seventeenth century the native Irish were no 
 longer masters even in their own region. Tlieir religion was 
 only tolerated by law; their clergy had neither ofificial position 
 nor right to tithes; they lived by the voluntary contributions of 
 their parishioners. The Anglican Church was the State Churgji, 
 recognised by law, supportedTDy the income from' its estates" and 
 tithes levied from' all cultivators of the soil whether Protestant 
 or Catholic. All political offices were closed to the Catholics; all 
 the authorities, even the local justices of the peace, town coun- 
 cils, and juries, were Protestant — that is, in the eyes of the native 
 Celts, foreign. The land belonged to English landlords who 
 ordinarily did not live on their domains, but had them managed 
 by agents or leased them to middlemen. The Irish peasant was 
 not a landowner; he occupied, often for generations in the same 
 family^, a small farm on which he had built his cabin and which 
 he cultivated subject to rent. But he had no vested right in the 
 land; he was a tenant-at-will or at best a lease-holder. The land- 
 lord could evict him at pleasure, or at the end of his lease, without 
 compensation. Population having greatly increased in the 
 
THE REFORM MOVEMENT. 23 
 
 eighteenth century, the land was subdivided tojU£h^.j>Qit}ii]iaL. 
 each tenant had hardy enou^"°^^n3]^3ise,the. necessary po- 
 'tatOTJ^ff^^m^fT'and^s fanuTy; the wretchedness of the Irish" 
 pea'santXaH become proverbial. 
 
 In Ulster, peopled by Scotch Presbyterians, the tenants had a 
 more stable tenure. Under the Ulster custom the landlords did 
 not evict their tenants except in special cases and on payment of 
 compensation for improvements. j 
 
 Politically Ireland had been, until 1782, a dependency of Great] 
 Britain, subject to the King and the British Pariiament, but with 
 a Parliament of its own in Dublin. After ^1782, the Irish Parlia- 
 ment had been allowed to legislate somewhat independently. It 
 had repealed a part of the exceptional laws against the Catholics, 
 and had allowed them to vote at elections. But Irish autonomy 
 was destroyed at a blow by the Act of Union in jSro, passed by 
 the Irish Parliament in spiTe of llro'ng"opposition on the part 
 of many in Ireland. The Jrish Parliament was suppress ^d^re- 
 land, swallowed up in Great Britain, had her represqaf fltiyes in 
 <-^^^JB ri tis^^ P-aj^li^TTipnt, keeping her own electoral system^ which 
 allowed Catholics to vote and conferred the franchise on all lease- 
 holders of land worth 40 shillings a year, that is to say, on almost 
 every peasant. The rei^ resentative s had_ to_ be Protestant, 
 .although the mass of Irish voters 'were"^amolicZ^Tr3'aii(l"pre-' 
 served her separate administration, the Lord Lieutenant and his 
 Secretary, assisted by the Irish Privy Council. 
 
 Between the lower nation of Irish peasants and the superior 
 nation of English or Scotch landlords the contrast was not shown 
 in speech: the Irish, except in the west, had given up the Celtic 
 language and adopted English. But difference of religion was 
 sufficient to remind the Irish peasants of the foreign origin of 
 -their landlords. Thus the social and religious_a^dBatlijt.-tQ-'Ae 
 3aitestantJLaniil«S°toolc' tKeTdfm'of ajiatiomal. sentiment JuaOBg. 
 thg,. Irish" Celts. 
 
 AGITATION FOR REFORM. 
 
 The Reform Movement. — The system above flps^ribprl was c&. 
 old origin Jm Lit had been further consolid ^*-"^ in ^^"^ y.B-3r.e-prp-' 
 ■ce ding 1814. The French Revolution, by alarming the ruling 
 ^ass, had lillecl them with a dread of every innovation and had 
 prevented, for thirty years, the adoption of any reform. The 
 wars against France had raised the national debt from £237,- 
 
24 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1833. 
 
 000,000 in 1791 to i8i6,ooo,ooo in 1815: this added greatly to 
 the political influence of the bankers and money lenders. The 
 new industrial system had created an influential class of great 
 manufacturers. The number of hired labourers was growing, and 
 the gap between rich and poor was widening. 
 
 While France was ridding herself of her old regime, England 
 was bracing herself to preserve hers. England was more thor- 
 oughly " old England " in 1814 than in 1789. This old England 
 showed itself with features more clear-cut than ever — features so 
 striking that one might easily take them for peculiarities of race 
 inborn in the English nature : ext reme contrast between rich an d 
 poor; a goverriment mpnarchlcal, and representative in appea r^ 
 "fecS7 but in reality controlled by an oligarchy of weaTtfiy lanti- 
 owners; an aristocratic church," and a religion prescribed"'ByTa'«?V 
 hence, in public life, venality and corruption; in privateT^eritlSv 
 U£yj„4aider-aQd formalism; hypocrisy on the "part of~l;he ricli^ 
 misery, depressioifi7 and' s er vi Kty~on-tfa'g part^'oTTlie' poor ;~eager^ 
 ness fortltlesand for~the money~ necessary to get into goOd 
 society — that state of mind which Thackeray described under 
 the new name of snoh. 
 
 This whole condition of things was sanctified WJts^anticLJiity. 
 In contrast to the Frenchman of the time, the Englishman of^e 
 early days of the century respected every established institution 
 because it was old; he despised every innovation because it was 
 !new. The theory of the sanctity of trad ition, fnrmnlated b] ^ 
 Burke, had become a dogma of the Anglican clergy, the gentry, 
 ancTtEe universities. The English nation in 1814 was devoted 
 to^ristpcracy and tradition. The Tory party, backed by the 
 King and" an " ehWmoQ?"majority in the House of Commons, 
 maintained its power without difficulty; the Liverpool Mi nistr y 
 lasted fourteen years (1812-27). ,. The war* over, the land- 
 holders, who made up the majority, put two measures through 
 Parliament. The first forbade the importation of wheat unless 
 the price went up to 10 shillings a bushel; a rule that ordinarily 
 shut out foreign wheat, as the price of wheat was going down in- 
 stead of going up. The second abolished the income-tax estab- 
 lished during the war. 
 
 However, the peace brought a movement for reform. This 
 showed itself in the large cities in the demonstrations of the 
 Radicals; in Parliament in the form of bills brought forward by 
 independent members. AEach of the more prominent Liberals 
 consecrated himself to some special reform: Wilberforce to the 
 
THE REFORM MOVEMENT. aj, 
 
 ^bolition of slavery, Romilly and Mackintosh to the am elioration 
 2tliS3i£SaEmd£^_rattan an d Burdett to Catholic em anci patioii , 
 Grey and RussdljoJ^E2aniEE£JE,"rB^Qu2amlo^^ 
 ji^lu<E ddZiefciMn . They knew that their motions had not the" 
 "slightest chance of being passed by Pariiament, but their plan 
 was to bring forward their reforms incessantly, so a&-to-r-€H*&e^ 
 public interest in them. They did not confine their efforts to 
 PafltamEffTfof" they set on foot outside agitation among the peo- 
 ple^ A public opinion among the masses~OU pullClCUl qUtiisCnns 
 began to manifest itself — a new thing for England. 
 
 In the eighteenth century, except in and about London, the 
 public never aroused itself except for religious disputes, for 
 „2^^^jQ!i:-aga«iat__taxes. The awakeniSg Tif"'piablTc~opinioir 
 was aided by a creation of the end of the eighteenth century:, 
 the great political newspapers had just been founded, the Morn- 
 ing Chronicle in 1769, the Post in 1772, the Times in 1785, the; 
 Courier in 1792. In their early stages these were a combination, 
 of advertisements and commercial news with some leading arti- 
 cles and Parliamentary reports. The government and Parlia- 
 ment viewed with dislike this new political power. Far from en- 
 couraging the press, they tried to hamper it by fiscal laws. The 
 stamp duty on each sheet was raised from 2.\ pence in 1789 to 4 
 pence in 181 5; an import duty was placed on paper, which lasted 
 until 1861. The press remained subject to old laws against 
 seditious libel, which punished with imprisonment and some- 
 times transportation any attack on the King, the government, or 
 religion; the opposition newspapers were always harassed with 
 prosecutions. In 1812 the Hunt brothers were condemned to 
 a year's imprisonment for saying that the Morning Post exag- 
 gerated in calling the Prince of Wales an Adonis. From 1808 
 to 1821, 94 journalists were condemned, 12 of them to transporta- 
 tion. 
 
 Journalists were held in contempt by the ruling class. As late 
 as 1828 they were still disqualified for admission to the bar. Men 
 in public life who wrote for the daily papers were unwilling to- 
 confess it. ^he press, however, was beginning to be a power. ^ 
 Certain Scots establishea^n1Con3on had revolutionized~th'e news"-'* 
 paper business by the rapidity with which they struck ofif copies. 
 Walter, of the Times, by using a steam press, succeeded in print- 
 ing 1500 copies an hour (1814). He had come to have 60 col- 
 umns of advertisements. He had organized a special news serv- 
 ice, and was thus able to defeat the government scheme of with- 
 
26 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1832. 
 
 holding letters sent to him by mail. Parliament, since 1770, had 
 found itself obliged to tolerate the reporting of its debates by the 
 newspapers. This was, and still is, the only means of publishing 
 them, the English Parliament having neither stenographers nor 
 official publication of its discussions. The press was thus be- 
 coming the intermediary between the Parliament and the pub- 
 lic. Newspapers, burdened with the heavy stamp duty, remained 
 a luxury; there were only six dailies in 181 5, and the chief of 
 them, the Times, sold only 8000 copies. But the sale was in- 
 creasing, the total number of all newspapers paying stamp duty 
 rose from 16,000,000 in 1801, to 25,000,000 in 1821, to say noth- 
 ing of papers that evaded the duty. The great political reviews 
 had just been founded, the Edinburgh Review (Whig) in 1808, the 
 Quarterly Review (Tory) in 1809. 
 
 Political activity, suspended by the war, reawoke in 1814 in 
 Parliament and the press. Then began a general attack on the 
 old system maintained by the government and the Tory majority. 
 With this was coupled a profound agitation in the world of labour- 
 ing men. English industry, still in its infancy, was contending 
 with limited capital and defective knowledge of the needs of the 
 market. The manufacturers, feeling their way, sometimes pro- 
 duced in excess of the demand, sometimes fell far short of it; 
 thus engaging at one time more workmen than they could em- 
 ploy regularly, and then later dismissing them. For thirty years 
 England lived in a state of periodic crises (1816, 1819, 1826-29, 
 1837, 1842, 1848). Each crisis threw inta idleness and mis- 
 ery a part of the workmen, especially the spinners and weavers 
 in wool and cotton, who produced for exportation. The attend- 
 ant-.sjiffering^.£aus£d lawless outbreaks. ~ 
 
 Radical Agitation and Repressive Laws (1816-19). — The peace 
 did not bring the business revival which was expected; it was, on 
 the contrary, followed by a crisis. The continental countries 
 tried to shut out English products, so exportation went down; 
 manufacturers, burdened with unsold goods, cut down wages, 
 while the price of bread was raised by a bad harvest and the 
 exclusion of foreign wheat. There was in i8i6 a crisis of idle- 
 ness and misery. The workmen thrown out of employment 
 attributed their idleness to the new machinery which drove out 
 hand labour; in some places they smashed the machines. This 
 was not a new departure; in i8ii there had been outbreaks 
 against machinery— the Luddite Riots, incited by a crazy man. 
 The novelty was the political character of the uprising. 
 
RADICAL AGITATION AND REPRESSIVE LAWS. 2? 
 
 There had been in England since the eighteenth century a! 
 party working for radical political reform through universal suf-| 
 frage, which now took the name, originated ih England, of Radi- \ 
 caL^ The party first appeared in i76q in^the Wilkes affair ; TFwST 
 •ei^nized in 1793, in sympathy with the French republicans, by 
 the " C orresponding Socie ty." The government persecuted it 
 and brolce it up, but its members clung secretly to their opinions. 
 This was simply a group of men almost all living in London; 
 but they made converts in the rising generation, and a new Radi- 
 cal party sprang up, of sufficient size to take part in political life. 
 Tl).e intellectu al centre was the group of disciples of Bentham . 
 tYie'Wtluarian schoo l, wnich contended against the o l d system in 
 the name" of right and the good of jhe greate s t^ number! The 
 most active member of the party was at jirst Cobbett , son of a- 
 peasant, editor of a popular newspaper, who wrote for the labour- 
 ing classes. He attacked " the unproductive classes," bond- 
 holders, and clergy, and demanded a less costly rehgion and 
 government. 
 
 All were agreed to consider Parliamen tar y reform t h e neces- 
 jary* prec urs or of all _other reforriis; before asking the House of 
 "T.ommons Tointerest itself in the fate of the poor classes, the 
 House itself must first be made representative — representing the 
 poor as well as the rich. The Radicals therefore claimed uni- 
 versal suffra ge. Cobbett led the campaign by reducing"tHe~priC5r 
 of his paper, the Weekly Register, from a shilling to 2 pence (1816), 
 and exhorting " all the artisans and workmen of England " to 
 rise in a demand for universal suffrage. The newly elected Lord 
 Mayor of London aided the reform movement by declaring, in an 
 address to the Regent, that the only remedy for the crisis was 
 reform. 
 
 To intimidate the government, the Radicals issued a call to 
 discontented workmen. They organized the agitation on a 
 grand scale; they got up monster outdoor meetings, public 
 speeches, huge processions carrying banners with devices — ■ 
 things now become so common in English political life that they 
 are readily taken for an old national custom. They had been 
 employed before, but simply as a means of celebration for newly 
 elected candidates. The Radicals used them as manifestations in 
 favour of an abstract cause. 
 
 As early as 1816 came the characteristic demonstration at 
 Sgafi£ld,-»ear London. Placards invited all workmen in dis- 
 tress to meet and send a petition to the Regent and to the House 
 
28 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1833. 
 
 of Commons imploring them to take action. The meeting took 
 place, and it was agreed to meet again to hear the answer. The 
 promoters of the scheme had a placard made which thus 
 summed up "the present state of Great Britain; four millions 
 of people on the point of starvation, four millions with a bare 
 subsistence, one and one-half millions in straitened circum- 
 stances, one-half million in dazzling luxury; our brothers in Ire- 
 land in a state even worse." At the second meeting (December, 
 1816) the speaker. Dr. Watson, mounted upon a carriage, waved 
 the French tri-colour flag; t his movemen t was therefore a^com- 
 bination of want and the French revolutionary spirit. The 
 go?eriiirrenirhad~Thtr-TnEetnig'dispersed by TdlTltefs. Then the 
 Regent answered the reform petition by expressing his " surprise 
 and grief," and, at the opening of Parliament, declared the Eng- 
 lish electoral system to be the most perfect the world had ever 
 known. On his return from the House his carriage was pelted 
 with stones. The government then formed a " committee of 
 secrecy " in the House, and, presenting to it a report on the 
 "practices, meetings, and combinaitions . . . evidently calculated to 
 endanger the public peace," denounced the " conspiracy to over- 
 turn all the political institutions of the Kingdom and undermine 
 the principle of private property." The House voted the suspen- 
 sion of the Habeus Corpus Act and gave to each justice of the 
 peace the right to arrest, and detain without trial, writers and 
 sellers of blasphemous or seditious publications. They aimed 
 above all at the press, which one of the ministers called " a very 
 dangerous enemy to the constitution." A law gave to the gov- 
 ernment the power to break up any meeting which incited hatred 
 or contempt of the government or of the constitution. Refu sal 
 to disband was mad e a capital crime (1817). ~~ 
 
 ■ As the destitution contmued', the turbulence continued also. 
 The workmen out of ^employment i n Manchester set out on foot 
 in a body for London, each man carrying'^ blanket. This 
 "_mar^ of the Blanketee**." was stopped by force. In the manu- 
 facturing regions of the north, secret meetings were held at which 
 there was talk of an armed rising. A mob partly armed 
 marched on Nottingham, another made a night attack on some 
 houses. There were some noisy state trials: that of Watson, 
 who was acquitted, and that of Brandreth, leader of the Notting- 
 ham outbreak, who was convicted. 
 
 The program of the Radical party was definitively formulated 
 in a bill laid before the House of Commons by Burdett, the sole 
 
RADICAL AGITATION AND REPRESSIVE LAWS. 29 
 
 Radical member of the time:* tmiaersal ^ suffrage, secret ballot , 
 equal electoral distrj£ ts^^_aiinual electiqnsT lliis bill would have 
 suddenly transf erredtHe"pofitical power to the mass of the nation. 
 Neither of the old political parties was willing even to discuss it. 
 With the gradual return of better times, the Radical agitation fell 
 off. At the elections of 1818 the Whig opposition increased from 
 140 to 170 members; but the Tory majority was still enormous. 
 In 1819 a return of hard times brought a renewal of agitation by 
 the Radicals, especially among the miners and weavers of the 
 northwest, who suffered most from low wages and lack of em- 
 ployment. The centre of disturbance was now no longer London, 
 but the neighbourhood of Manchester. As in 1816, the Radicals 
 organized an enormous meeting, and drew up a petition for elec- * 
 toral reform. It_ cove red five points _ £ universa l suffrage, 
 secret Jaa^te^ty annuaHPaifiaSe»t-Sy~pax^r"^^'^l 3^'"sT"aEoIinon^ < 
 the prjj nprtv nnalifira,tk>H-f-e'P-eEm4tda-t-es. " "" '" 
 
 At the meeting in St. Peter's Field (" Peterloo "), near Man-W 
 Chester, where were gathered 50,000 persons, they carried ban 
 ners with the Phrygian cap, and the inscriptions : " No duty onl 
 corn," " Liberty or death " (motto of the French Revolution), 
 " Equal representation or death." When " Orator Hunt " began' 
 to speak, the police tried to stop him, but the crowd defended 
 him. Then a regiment of cavalry charged into the mob, and 
 killed quite a number of persons (August, 1819). The Radicals 
 retaliated with meetings to protest against the massacre and to 
 make up subscriptions for its victims. The Common Council of 
 London expressed its indignation against the " unjust and impol- 
 itic action " of the governm ent and afcmed_tii£_llxigh.t-a£— the 
 English penple tn ^^9,('vn\^^~?:'^X^~^e^^rc^^_r!r}, puMir:-ja.hLLSfis.!L 
 Tfi"ey"accused the goverimen roriKaving.jy inlated " P*^ "^ the-.tx a.- 
 
 I'he ministers not only refused to make any investigation, but 
 instituted proceedings against Hunt, on the charge of " conspir- 
 ing to change the law by threats." They induced Parliament to 
 pass a set of exceptional measures, the Six Acts, nicknamed the 
 
 * He was one of the members from Westminster, a borough in which the 
 right of voting belonged to the " householders paying scot and lot." 
 Being a royal residence and the seat of government, it was formerly 
 counted a sure ministerial borough ; but it had latterly become a favourite 
 residence of city merchants and professional men, who, since 1780, were 
 usually able to elect at least one of the two members. Charles James Pox 
 represented the borough from 1780 till his death. — Tr. 
 
so ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1833. 
 
 "Gag Laws": ist, speedy trial of offenders; 2d, prohibition of 
 drilling; 3d, power given to justices of the peace to search houses 
 for arms; 4th, right to seize every seditious or blasphemous libel, 
 and to banish the author for a second offence (the government 
 would have made it transportation); 5th, prohibition against 
 holding public meetings " to examine into grievances in state and 
 Church matters, and with the object of preparing petidons "; also 
 against carrying at such a meeting arms, banner;, or inscriptions; 
 6th, every political publication of less than two sheets to be sub- 
 ject to the stamp duty. 
 
 Every peaceful manifestation being prevented, some violent 
 Radicals formed in London the Cato Street conspiracy to mas- 
 sacre the ministers; the government arrested them and hanged 
 five of them (1820). Then, owing to revival of trade, the Radical 
 -agitation subsided. 
 
 Partial Reforms (1820-27). — George IV. having become King 
 (January, 1820), the opposition turned upon him. His wife 
 Caroline, from whom he had parted, and to whom he denied the 
 title of queen, returned to England against his wish and was 
 received with enthusiasm by the people. The ministry did not 
 dare to insist upon obtaining from the House of Lords the 
 divorce demanded by the King. George IV., held in contempt by 
 reason of his extravagance, debts, and disorderly private rife,Tiad 
 not as much influence with the ministry as his father had had, a 
 fact favourable to Parliamentary government. 
 
 The Tory party retained an assured majority, but, now that 
 the pressure of foreign war was removed, there arose a division of 
 opinion within the party itself. Pitt's personal followers had 
 never been opposed to reform on principle. The best represen- 
 tatives of these were .George Canning, Pluskis^son^ and, to a less 
 degree. Sir Robert .EfisL^Jn 1821 Peel joined the ministry as 
 Home Secretary; in i822_Canning.jKasJa,kenJn as Foreign.Sgfc-. 
 retary, and in the same year Huskisson was made Chancellor of ~ 
 the Exchequer. From tFis date the policy of the ministry became^ 
 'more liberal. Canning detached England from the Holy Alli- 
 ance by supporting the liberal movement in Portugal and recog- 
 nising the new American republics in their revolt against Spain. 
 Peel consented to bring before the House some legal reforms. 
 Thus were made some partial reforms : 
 
 I. The reform of the criminal code, advocated by Ro milly 
 from' 1808 to his death, had been rejected by the House of Lords. 
 Peel carried the abolition of the death penalty for about a 
 
PARTIAL REFORMS. 31 
 
 hjindred o ffences, suc h a s shop-lifting. pickmg_pockets, and 
 poaching. 
 
 2. The economic system was modified by a series of 
 measures carried by Huskisson. England had retained the 
 Navigation Laws of 165 1, which restricted the carrying trade 
 between England and her colonies to English ships; and that 
 between England and every other country to English ships or 
 ships of that country. She was now threatened with retaliation 
 by other countries. An act was passed authorizing the govern- 
 ment to make treaties with foreign nations, putting their ships on 
 the same footing with EngHsh ships (1823). The revenue having 
 increased, the government was enabled to cut down the interest 
 on the national debt, and to simplify the customs tariff by abol- 
 ishing the duties on many articles and reducing the rates on 
 many others. 
 
 Without attempting to abolish the duties on corn, the govern- 
 ment secured the adoption of a sliding scale which allowed the 
 importation of foreign corn when the price was at 66 shillings 
 a quarter instead of 80 (1823). This was neither free trade nor 
 even free trade in corn, but it was a breach in the system of prohi- 
 bition. 
 
 3. The workmen, in order to better their condition, were 
 forming among men of the same trade societies for mutual assist- 
 ance, called Friendly Societies, or Trade Clubs, later Trade 
 Unions; but as these associations fell under the law of 1800 
 against combinations, they frequently transformed themselves 
 into secret societies, and even took the form of Masonic orders. 
 The London workingmen, better organized and more inclined 
 to political action, were in friendly relations with the Radicals, 
 and sought to obtain freedom of association. Mr. Place, a wealthy 
 tailor whose house was used as a place of meeting by the Radical 
 workingmen, conducted the campaign skilfully. Mr. Hume, a 
 Radical member of Parliament, prevailed on Peel and Huskisson 
 to institute an inquiry into the economic effects of the three pro- 
 hibitions pronounced by English laws against, ist, emigration of 
 workingmen; 2d, exportation of machinery; 3d, associations 
 of workingmen. The question of the workingmen was thus 
 slipped in under the shadow of the other two. The commis- 
 sion of inquiry heard evidence, skilfully presented, on the injury 
 done to industry by the laws against unions. The commission 
 was convinced and proposed to repeal these laws. Parliament 
 voted the repeal without preceiving the full bearing of its action 
 
32 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1833. 
 
 (1824). But as soon as the workingmeti used their liberty to join 
 in strikes and demand an increase of wages, the manufacturers 
 . and shipowners demanded a repeal of the new law. A new com- 
 mittee of inquiry proposed to repeal the law of 1824, and the 
 House, by way of compromise, adopted the law of 1825. This 
 allowed combinations of workmen as well as employers, but 
 solely " to determine the scale of wages or hours of labour " (not 
 to limit the number of apprentices or to prevent piecework), and it 
 imposed six months of hard labour on anyone who should resort 
 to violence, threats, molestation, or obstruction, in order to secure 
 a rise of wages. The judges interpreted this clause to extend to 
 workmen on strike who reproached fellow workmen for continu- 
 ing to labour. This was a half-liberty of association — a half-meas- 
 ure, like all the measures of this epoch. 
 
 At this time also began the great change in the means of com- 
 munication. Qay roads were replaced by macadamized roads. 
 The first railroad was built between Liverpool and Manchester 
 in the years between 1825 and 1829. 
 
 Catholic Emancipation. — Since the union with Ireland in 1800, 
 the laws regarding the Catholics had become contradictory. In 
 England the old laws still existed which excluded them from 
 every office and corporation, and accordingly prevented them 
 from voting at elections or being elected. In Ireland, as already 
 stated, they had been admitted to the right of voting in 1793: 
 Irish Catholics, therefore, were in a better position than their co- 
 religionists in England. The Irish patriots asked for the repeal 
 of the exceptional laws against Catholics. The campaign had 
 for a long time been conducted in Parliament in connection with 
 a bill for the " relief of Catholics." As early as 1813 Grattan 
 had it discussed in the House of Commons. But the party sup- 
 porting the privileged position of the Anglican Church had suc- 
 ceeded in forming a decided majority to maintain the exclusion of 
 the Catholics. Since then the project had been proposed every 
 year, and always rejected; in 1821 it passed the Commons, but 
 was rejected by the Lords. The royal family would not hear of 
 it. George IV., like George III., declared himself bound by his 
 coronation oath to maintain the Anglican Church; the Duke of 
 York presented to the Lords a petition against the reform. 
 
 The decisive action came from the Irish Catholics. They 
 founded the CathoHc Association (1823), directed by a powerful 
 orator, the lawyer O'Connell, who demanded in the name of 
 liberty the abolition of the Catholic disabilities. Parliament 
 
CATHOLIC emancipation: 33 
 
 passed an act declaring this association unlawful. The Catholic 
 Association dissolved itself, but came together again with a 
 change of name. 
 
 The Tories were divided on the Catholic question. In 1825 the 
 House of Commons passed a bill for removing the disabilities, 
 but the Lords rejected it. The ministry itself was divided on the 
 question. When Lord Liverpool retired on account of ill health, 
 the new ministry, under Canning, favoured Catholic emancipa- 
 tion (1827). The new prime minister, however, died at the end 
 of four months, and an attempt to carry on his ministry and 
 policy under Lord Goderich came to nothing. In 1828 Wellington 
 formed a ministry, divided among the old Tories, opposed to all 
 reform, and the Canningites, friends of emancipation; but the 
 Canningites soon withdrew. 
 
 In 1828, by way of substitute for the Annual Indemnity Act, 
 proposed by the Wellington ministry, the Whigs obtained a vote 
 of the Commons in favour of repealing the Test Act and the Cor- 
 poration Act. The ministry, changing its attitude, brought in 
 and carried a repealing bill in accordance with this vote (1828). 
 But the exclusion of Catholics from seats in Parliament by the 
 requirement of oaths depended, not on the Test Act, but on a 
 special act passed in 1679; this special act remained in force, so 
 that though Catholics could be appointed to office after 1828, 
 they could not take a seat in either house of Parliament. 
 It was, however, not illegal for Catholics to be- nominated and 
 elected. Taking advantage of this condition of things, O'Con- 
 nell presented himself at a by-election in County Clare, and was 
 triumphantly elected. The Irish peasantry had rebelled 
 against their landlords as well as against the Catholic 
 disabilities, and they had done so in a way that brought the gov- 
 ernment face to face with a most embarrassing and critical ques- 
 tion. 
 
 At the re-assembling of Parliament, the Wellington ministry 
 decided to propose the emancipation; the King had given his 
 consent to this, but later withdrew it. The ministry therefore 
 offered its resignation, and George IV. accepted it ; but finding it 
 impossible to form another ministry he was obliged to recall 
 Wellington and Peel. An act, passed by a vote of 348 to 160, 
 abolished the Catholic disabilities (1829). At the same time they 
 raised the property qualification for voting in the Irish counties 
 from £2 to iio in order to shut out the tenants of small 
 holdings. 
 
34 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1832. 
 
 The Electoral Eeform of 1832. — ^The electoral reform de- 
 manded by the Whigs since the eighteenth century had been de- 
 layed by the extravagant claims of the Radicals. When Lord 
 John Russell again took up the campaign in the name of the 
 Whigs, it was not to propose a sweeping democratic reform. His 
 scheme regarded the right of voting as a privilege. It merely 
 proposed to extend largely the number of persons enjoying the 
 privilege. It also proposed to take away the members from a 
 large number of " rotten boroughs" and give them to the new 
 cities. The Tory party was violently opposed. Little by little 
 the project became popular; the Whig party increased in 
 strength, while the Tories were weakened by internal dissensions 
 between the Canningites and the old Tories. 
 
 In the House elected after the death of George IV. (1830), the 
 Tories had but a slight majority, and the Canningite section of the 
 party could no longer be relied upon to oppose reforms. The 
 July Revolution in France greatly encouraged the advocates of 
 reform in England. The movement began in the manufacturing 
 regions of the north and west, now the most populous but least- 
 represented portion of England. The centre of the movement 
 was Birmingham, where the Political Union was formed for the 
 purpose of earring on the agitation. Wellington, the head of 
 the ministry, did not appreciate the change in public opinion. 
 Earl Grey, the leader of the Whigs in the House of Lords, made 
 a speech in favour of Parliamentary reform. Wellington, in the 
 course of his reply, said : " I have never read or heard of any 
 measure up to the present moment which could in any degree 
 satisfy my mind that the state of the representation could be im- 
 proved, or be rendered more satisfactory to the country at large 
 than at the present moment. . . I will go still further, and say that 
 if at the present moment I had imposed on me the duty of form- 
 ing a legislature for any country, and particularly for a country 
 like this, in possession of great property of various descriptions, 
 I do not mean to assert that I would form such a legislature as 
 we possess now — for the nature of man is incapable of reaching it 
 at once — but my great endeavour would be to form some descrip- 
 tion of legislature which would produce the same results " (No- 
 vember, 1830). 
 
 This declaration ruined the Tory ministry; on a question 
 regarding the Civil List it was left in a minority in the Commons 
 by a coalition of the Canningites with the Whigs. The new 
 King, William IV., then appointed a reform ministry under Earl 
 
THE ELECTORAL REFORM OF 1833. 35 
 
 Grey. The new ministry proposed a reform bill, providing, ist, 
 that 62 boroughs returning 119 members should lose the privi- 
 lege; that 47 other boroughs should each lose i of its 2 members; 
 Weymouth, returning 4 members, should lose 2. Of the 168 
 seats thus forfeited only no were redistributed; 5 were given to 
 Scotland, 5 to Ireland, i to Wales, and the rest to the most popu- 
 lous counties and to the great cities which had heretofore had no) 
 representation in Parliament. This was a compromise measure^ 
 as was customary with the Whigs; although very different from 
 the Radical scheme of reform, it was received with no less ridicule 
 in the Commons. The Tories, forgetting family quarrels, came 
 together again to oppose it, and the proposition for a second, 
 reading was passed by a majority of only one. 
 
 The ministry then dissolved the House of Commons, and at 
 the elections of 1831 the Whig party presented itself as the Re- 
 form party, with the motto " The Bill, the whole Bill, and noth- 
 ing but the Bill." For the first time since 1783 they carried a 
 majority of seats. The second reform bill was voted by 
 the House of Commons, but the House of Lords rejected it. 
 This produced in all the large cities a political agitation almost 
 revolutionary in spirit. Riots and incendiary fires were of daily 
 occurrence. 
 
 The \«orkingmen had adopted the policy of the Radicals in 
 1819, but they now allied themselves to the middle class Whigs 
 in order to obtain a partial reform; they hoped that this partial 
 reform would pave the way for Radical reform later. It was they 
 who furnished the Whigs with the crowds necessary for the 
 demonstrations, mass-meetings, and enormous processions _ in 
 London and Birmingham. This popular movement gave the 
 Whigs the force to overcome the resistance of the Lords, threat- 
 ening them with a general uprising if they did not yield. A 
 meeting at Birmingham decided even to refuse the payment of 
 taxes if the reform bill were not passed. 
 
 After a short prorogation Parliament was convened again in 
 December, 1831. The Commons then passed the third reform 
 bill (March, 1832); the Lords, not daring to reject it, tried to 
 mutilate it. The ministry then asked the King to threaten the 
 Lords with the creation of enough new peers to change the 
 majority. The King refused, accepted their resignation, and even 
 tried to get Wellington to form a new ministry. But the Tories 
 did not dare to take command. The King was obliged to recall 
 the Whigs, promising now to create the requisite number of new 
 
36 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1832. 
 
 peers. The House of Lords, at Wellington's suggestion, finally 
 yielded and passed the bill. 
 
 The reform of 1832, the result of such hard labour, was a com- 
 promise between the old system supported by the Tories, and 
 the sweeping reform demanded by the Radicals. It preserved 
 the organization of the old system: the House of Commons 
 elected for a term of seven years ; the right of voting considered 
 a privilege, restricted to ancient privileged bodies (counties, bor- 
 oughs, universities) and dependent on the possession or occupa- 
 tion of property; the old form of public, recorded vote; a plurality 
 sufficing to elect vvithout second elections. The number of 
 representatives also was left unchanged (658). But it sup- 
 pressed the most glaring inequality between the representation 
 of the northwest and that of the southeast, and the most scan- 
 dalous of the abuses — the rotten boroughs, the long-drawn-out 
 polling, and the great disparity in the requirements for voting in 
 different boroughs. 
 
 The act contained three main provisions: 
 
 First. A redistribution of seats: 143 seats were taken from 
 boroughs; 56 boroughs under 2000 inhabitants lost all repre- 
 sentation,* 32 others lost one of their two seats. These were 
 redistributed to cities previously without representation and to 
 counties; 22 cities received 2 each, 21 cities received i each, 65 
 were given to English counties, 8 to Scotland, 5 to Ireland. 
 
 Second. A more uniform and wider -electoral franchise. In 
 the counties, copyholders and leaseholders of lands worth iio a 
 year were admitted to vote; also tenants-at-will of lands worth £50 
 a year. In the boroughs householders (whether as owners or 
 tenants) of houses worth iio a year were allowed to vote. 
 
 Third. The voting in each constituency was to be limited to 
 two days. Voters were no longer to travel long distances to 
 cast their votes at the county town. A registration of voters was 
 provided for. 
 
 The electoral body was increased in the counties from 247,000 
 to 370,000 electors, in the boroughs from 188,000 to 286,000. 
 The proportion of electors to population increased from 1-32 to 
 1-22. The great majority of the workingmen f were still ex- 
 
 * One of these had but one member. 
 
 •|- The number of labouring men entitled to vote was in fact reduced 
 by the reform. In boroughs such as Preston, where " all inhabi- 
 tants " had the vote, and in the numerous boroughs where all resident 
 householders or all " freemen " could vote, the labouring classes had a voice 
 in the old elections.— Tr. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 37 
 
 eluded from the right of voting, the increase was in the lower 
 middle class, the farmers and tenants who received the county 
 qualification, and, above all, in the industrial regions of the 
 north, where the cities, hitherto without representation, became 
 enfranchised boroughs. This was not a democratic reform, but 
 it marked a determined breaking away from the old system. 
 The House of Commons was transformed into a truly elective 
 and representative body; maintained and controlled by public 
 opinion, it was destined to become the political sovereign and 
 the instrument of reform. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 Crardiner and MulUnger's bibliography of English history, entitled " Intro- 
 duction to the Study of English History," 2d edit., 1894, stops at 1822. 
 From that point there is no single complete work. The student must 
 ransack the bibliographies of periods: " Jahresberichte der Geschichts- 
 wissenschaft " since 1878, "English Historical Review" since 1885 (see 
 langlois, " Manuel de Bibliog. Historique," 1896), and combine the biblio- 
 graphical notices of articles of the " National Biography," where the 
 titles are usually given without dates. 
 
 SOURCES.— It would be impossible, as well as useless, to give here in 
 ■ detail the sources of the contemporary history of England. I confine my- 
 self to the mention of the principal classes of documents. 
 
 1. Parliamentary documents, in four classes: Public Bills; Reports of 
 Select Committees; Reports of Royal Commissioners, Inspectors, and 
 Others; Accounts and Papers. A catalogue of each year's documents is 
 published annually, and a general catalogue for a series of years appears 
 at intervals. In the Boston (Mass.) Public Library catalogue, 1861, there 
 is a general index of the parliamentary documents to 1859; later catalogues 
 have supplementary indices. The reports of committees and commissions 
 are among the best sources for the study of English history. The acts 
 of Parliament are published yearly, under the title "Public General 
 Statutes." The public acts to 1869 are collected in 29 vols., with the title^ 
 " Statutes at Large." All the more important public acts of each year are 
 also published, with introductions and notes, in " Patterson's Practical 
 Statutes." The debates in both Houses are published in Hansard's De- 
 bates and in the London Times. Much material of a public sort is to be 
 found in the State Trials. 
 
 2. Official Publications of Public Departments.— A list of these will be 
 found in the " Statesman's Year-book," which has appeared annually 
 
 since 1864. 
 
 3. Histories of the Year.— The " Annual Register," an annual publi- 
 cation which dates back to the eighteenth century, gives the history of 
 each year in detail, and an account of events of every description. 
 
 4. Reviews and Newspapers.— The political periodicals are, with the 
 parliamentary documents, the most abundant sources of direct information 
 
38 ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORM OF 1833. 
 
 for the political history of the nineteenth century, in a country where 
 parliamentary life and the liberty of the press have never been interrupted. 
 On the bibliog. of English periodicals, see Langlois, " Manuel de Bibliog. 
 Historique." The most important reviews for the period up to 1832 are 
 the Edinburgh Review and the Quarterly Review. Poole's indexes to 
 periodical literature since 1802 are invaluable. 
 
 5. Correspondence, diaries, speeches, papers, and autobiographies are the 
 sort of collections most found in England. For this period the most important 
 are : Canning: Correspondence of 1820-27, edited by E. J. Stapleton, 1887; 
 Life, by A. G. Stapleton. — Lord Holland, Memoirs of the Whig Party, 1854. 
 — Croker, Corresp. and Diary, 3 vols., 1884. — Bomilly, Life, by his sons, 3 
 vols., 1840. — Eldon, Life, by Twiss, 3 vols., 1844. — Lord Liverpool, Life, by C. 
 D. Yonge, 3 vols., 1868.— Lord Colchester, Diary and Corresp., 3 vols., 1861. 
 — Peel, Life, by Parker, 2 vols., 1899. — LordElIenborough, Pol. Diary of 1828- 
 30, 2 vols., 1881. — Earl Grey, Corresp. with William IV., 2 vols., 1867. — 
 Lord Melbourne, Papers, edited by Sanders, 1889; Life, by Torrens, 2 vols., 
 1878. — Lord BusBell, Recollections, 1875; Life, by Sp. Walpole, 2 vols., 1889. 
 — Lord Falmerston, Life, to 1846 by Lord Dalling, 3 vols.; from 1846 to 1865 
 by E. Ashley, 2 vols; gives selections from speeches and despatches. — 
 Greville, Journals, (George IV. and William IV.), 2 vols. (Victoria), 5 vols., 
 filled with the political talk of the time in official circles. — Grattan, by his 
 son, 5 vols., 1839-46; for Irish questions. — Bamford, " Passages in the Life 
 of a Radical," 1844; Horner, edited by L. Horner, 2 vols., 1853; for the 
 Radical agitation. 
 
 WORKS. — For General English History. — S.B.Gardiner, "A Student's 
 History of England," vol. iii., period 1689-1885, new edition, 1894 ; a very 
 good text-book, detailed, accurate, and impartial (Green's history stops at 
 1815). — Bright, " History of England " 4 vols. 
 
 The " National Biography " (in course of publication). The biograph- 
 ical articles, each signed by the author, are able pieces of works, notable 
 for their accuracy and the reliability of their references ; some have the 
 proportions of a monograph. See the biographies of the sovereigns, 
 ministers, reformers, and agitators. 
 
 For Contemporary History.— Martineau (Miss Harriet), " Hist, of 
 England," 1816-46, 2 vols., 1849, popular in England; Am. ed. (enlarged), 
 in " 4 vols.— Walpole (Spencer), "A Hist, of England since 1815," 6 vols., 
 1878-90 ; the most complete history, full of details on domestic conditions ; 
 the author is a Radical Liberal.— G. C. Lewis, " Essays on the Administra- 
 tions of Great Britain from 1783 to 1830," 1864 ; a series of articles origi- 
 nally published in the Edinburgh Review, very valuable for the inner 
 history of the successive ministries. 
 
 In French.— H. Beynald, " Hist. Contemp. de I'Angleterre," very un- 
 satisfactory. 
 
 For the Organization and Practice of the Government.— May 
 (Erskine), "Constitutional Hist, of England," 1876.— Todd (Alpheus), 
 " On Parliamentary Government in England," 2 vols., 2d edit., 1887-89 ; 
 excellent history of the parliamentary system. 
 
 In French.— Eischel, " La Constitution d'Angleterre, 1863, a good ac- 
 count.— Glasson, " Histoire du Droit et des Institutions Politiques de 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 39 
 
 I'Angleterre, vol. vi., 1883. — Franqueville, " Le Gouvernment et le Parle- 
 meut Britanniques," 3 vols., 1887; by far the handiest and most com- 
 plete of all ; also gives the electoral reforms in detail. 
 
 For Local Administration Previous to the Reform.— Gneist (Rud.), 
 " Das Englische Verwaltungsrecht der Gegenwart. — Selbstverwaltung, 
 Kommunalverfassung und Verwaltungsgerichte in England." The 
 work in its first form, under a single title, appeared in 1857-60 ; it has 
 been revised and published in several editions, in three parts under different 
 titles, and the whole translated into English ; one of the volumes from an 
 old edition has been translated into French. It gives the most reliable 
 and the most complete description of English local institutions. 
 
 For the History of Labour Movements. — Webb (Sidney and Beatrice), 
 " Hist, of Trade Unionism," 1894 ; followed by a detailed bibliography ; one 
 of the most instructive historical works of our time, containing an unusual 
 quantity of fresh information, not only on the trade unions, but on the 
 whole political activity of the workingmen. — Von Sobulze-Gaevernitz, " Zum 
 Socialen Frieden," 2 vols., 1890, gives a practical account of the history 
 of the " political social education of the English people in the nineteenth 
 century " ; from the standpoint of the doctrine of liberal political economy. 
 
 For Economic Transformation in English Society.— W. Cunningbam, 
 "The Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times," 1892, 
 with a general bibliog. of economic history, the clearest and most concise 
 general account. 
 
 On Taxation.— A. 'Wagner, " Finanzwissenschaft," 1887; gives a bibliog. 
 and a general account.— S. Dowell, "History of Taxation and Taxes in 
 England," 1884 (since revised). 
 
 On Ireland.— de Pressense, " L'Irlande et I'Angleterre," 1889 ; a popular 
 work, very partial to the Irish.— Bryce, " Two Centuries of Irish History." 
 — Sigerson, " Hist, of Irish Land Tenure." 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS 
 (1832-67).* 
 
 New Conditions of Political Life. — The electoral reform of 1832 
 marks the end of England's old regime. There were no more 
 representatives chosen by patrons. The great industrial cities 
 entered into political life. The House of Commons became, if 
 not much less aristocratic, at least much more representative, 
 than before. 
 
 The change very soon made itself manifest by outward signs; 
 increase in the number of contested elections, in the length of 
 the sessions of the Commons, in the number of members present 
 at a sitting, in the number of volumes of reports printed for the 
 House (an average of 31 a year from 1824 to 1832, 50 from 1832 
 to 1840), in the number of petitions, which finally became so 
 great that they had to be turned over to a Committee on Pubhc 
 Petitions without debate (1839). 
 
 The publication of debates increased also, though it existed 
 only on sufiferance; as late as 1832 the Commons refused to pub- 
 lish the votes of the representatives, and when O'Connell made 
 them public in Ireland, his act was denounced as a violation of 
 Parliamentary privilege. By the rules of the House, according 
 to the mediaeval principles embodied in them, the sittings and 
 votes should be secret. But the need of publicity overcame this 
 tradition; the Parliament building having been destroyed by fire 
 in 1834, new halls were built with galleries for the reporters and 
 the public. Then the House of Commons itself decided to pub- 
 lish division lists (1836) — that is to say, the votes of the mem- 
 bers on both sides of contested questions. 
 
 The ancient form of procedure in the House of Commons 
 was preserved, except the manner of voting in case of division, 
 which was thereafter done by both sides going from the hall into 
 the lobbies, and on the way back passing between the tellers. 
 Practical discussion of financial matters and of details and pro- 
 
 *This chapter has been freely revised and in part rewritten. — S. M. M. 
 
 40 
 
NEW CONDITIONS OF POLITICAL LIFE. 41 
 
 posed amendments of bills was still carried on in " committee of 
 the whole House," with a chairman; the discussion of the general 
 principle of bills and test votes on their enactment were reserved 
 to the official sitting, presided over, in accordance with old cus- 
 tom, by the Speaker in his wig, with the mace on the table. Each 
 representative continued to speak from his seat; each had the 
 right to present a motion and to speak as long as he wished (the 
 English would have no shutting off of debate.) In practice 
 the Commons rarely passed any but the measures presented by 
 the ministry — and this is still true at the present time. 
 
 But, while preserving its ancient forms, the House of Com- 
 mons assumed a new activity. Elected by a more numerous 
 and more independent body of voters, it inclined toward a policy 
 of reform and real Parliamentary control. The old traditional 
 parties dropped the names of Whig and Tory; the Whigs, unit- 
 ing with the Radicals, called themselves Liberals; and the Tories 
 adopted the name of Conservatives. The leader pf the Conserva- 
 tives, Sir Robert Peel, declared, in an election manifesto^ of 1834, 
 that he accepted the reform as " a final and irrevocable settlement 
 of a great constitutional question . . . which no' friend to the 
 peace and welfare of the country would attempt to disturb either 
 by direct or by insidious means." The English Conservatives 
 have always followed this policy, fighting a reform before it is 
 passed, but accepting it afterward and never trying to induce a 
 reaction tO' overthrow it. Before the reform the Conservatives, 
 maintained by the gentry and the clergy, had had the upper hand. 
 Since the reform the majority has been more often with the 
 Liberals, maintained by the commercial classes and Ithe Dissent- 
 ers. In the 34 years from 1832 to 1866 the 'Liberals held power 
 for 25 years. 
 
 The government ceased to treat the press as an enemy; the 
 stamp duty was reduced in 1836 to i penny a copy, and then abol- 
 ished altogether in 1855. The number of newspapers increased 
 very little. England is still a country of few newspapers with 
 large circulation. The number of stamps sold went up from 36,- 
 000,000 in 1836 to 53,000,000 in 1838, and 107,000,000 in 1855. 
 Press prosecutions became rare, and the practical freedom of dis- 
 cussion was complete. 
 
 The Tory ministries had not greatly desired Parliamentary 
 government; the Liberal ministries embraced it with zeal. The 
 custom became settled that the leader of the party having a ma- 
 jority in the House of Commons should undertake the formation 
 
42 ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS. 
 
 of a ministry and that the ministry should govern without in- 
 terference from the King, in accordance with the phrase now 
 become classic : " The King reigns, but does not govern." 
 
 William IV. tried once again to make use of his prerogative 
 to take ministers of his own choosing. The House of Commons 
 elected in 1832 under the new electoral system, had a large but 
 incoherent Liberal majority, the Liberal ministry under Lord 
 Grey remaining in power. A division arose in the Cabinet on 
 the question of the revenues of the Irish Church, and the min- 
 istry was reconstructed under Melbourne. But the King did not 
 like the Melbourne ministry, particularly Brougham, the Lord 
 Chancellor. Lord Althorp, the leader of the Liberal party 
 in the House of Commons, having inherited a peerage, 
 the King dismissed the ministry by a simple letter to 
 Melbourne, saying that he na longer had confidence in 
 the stability of the ministry. Peel was then asked to 
 form a ministry, which he reluctantly consented to do. It 
 was a minority ministry. Peel dissolved the House, but 
 failed to obtain a majority, though he gained a number of seats. 
 He tried' to carry on the government in presence of the new 
 Parliament; but being left four times in a minority he resigned. ' 
 In doing so he declared that " according to the practice, the 
 principle, and the letter of the Constitution, a government should 
 not persist in directing the national affairs after a loyal attempt, 
 contrary to the decided opinion of the House of Commons, even 
 when it possesses the confidence of the King and a majority in 
 the House of Lords." Thus was the principle of Parliamentary ■ 
 supremacy formulated by the leader of the Conservative party 
 (1835). It has never since ceased to be regularly applied in 
 England. 
 
 William IV. was succeeded by his niece Victoria (1837), who 
 in her long reign has reduced her personal action to the narrow- 
 est limits, by always intrusting to the leader of the majority in 
 the House of Commons the task of forming a ministry. The 
 old theory of the balance of power between the three powers, 
 King, Lords, Commons, has been replaced by the balance of 
 power between the parties. The party having the majority of the 
 Commons should form the mmistry, because it has the confi- 
 dence of the majority of the voters. When a ministry loses its 
 majority in the House, it must resign the power to the party which 
 has acquired that confidence. But a defeated party holds itself 
 together in readiness to take the power again, under a chief who 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS. 43 
 
 is called the leader of the opposition. The two parties thus form 
 two organizations, one in the exercise of power, the other ready 
 to be called on at any minute. Between the two the voters hold 
 the scales, and determine, through the House of Commons, which 
 shall have control.* 
 
 Since 1832 the Liberals and Conservatives have alternated in 
 control of the Commons, according to changes in public opinion. 
 From this practice an inference has been drawn that the Eng- 
 lish Parliamentary system rests on a division of the nation into 
 two well-defined parties, and two only, which must alternate in 
 power. In reality the parties have never been sharply defined; 
 the Conservatives were divided into two sets, for and against 
 free trade, in 1846, as in 1827 they had been divided for and 
 against Catholic Emancipation. ,The Liberals were divided on 
 the army question in 1852, on the Chinese War in 1857, and on 
 electoral reform in 1866. In all these cases the dissenting por- 
 tion allied itself temporarily with the opposition, and the power 
 was exercised by a coalition instead of a majority. Moreover, 
 in addition to the two great parties, there were formed two new 
 groups, the Radical party and the Irish party, which ordinarily 
 voted with the Liberals, but remained independent of them. 
 These members sat neither on the left nor on the right in the 
 House; they remained on the cross benches. 
 
 Thus after the reform of 1832 was the Parliamentary sys- 
 tem fully established — a new system, for it has had full play only 
 since the accession of Queen Victoria. And thus was estab- 
 lished the alternation of parties founded on the rule of the ma- 
 jority, but with a mechanism much less precise than classic 
 theory assumes. 
 
 Administrative Reforms (1833-40). — ^The Liberal party, having 
 succeeded to power, refused all further Parliamentary reform, 
 and occupied itself solely with reforming the administrative 
 organization. There were still in England, outside of the incor- 
 porated towns, only two forms of territorial division — the county 
 and the parish. All those local affairs which spring up little by 
 little with the growth of civilization — poor-relief, assessment of 
 
 * The following is the series of ministries under the first Reform Act: 
 Grey, then Melbourne (Liberal) 1832-34 ; Peel (Conservative), 1834-35 ; 
 Melbourne (Lib.), 1835-41 ; Peel (Cons.), 1841-46 ; Russell (Lib.), 1846-52 ; 
 Derby (Cons.), 1^52 ; Aberdeen (coalition, Peelites and Liberals), 1852-55 ; 
 Palmerston (Liberal), 1855-58 ; Derby (Cons.), 1858-59 ; Palmerston, then 
 Russell (Lib.), 1859-66 ; Derby, then Disraeli (Cons,), 1866-68. 
 
44 ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS. 
 
 taxes, public health, roads, and police — were given over either 
 to the parish authorities, or, as was usually the case, to the 
 justices of the peace, who governed rural England free from con- 
 trol either by the central government or by the taxpayers. The 
 cities and the boroughs remained outside of these divisions, and 
 constituted independent districts; but they were governed by 
 close or self-perpetuating corporations, made up of privileged 
 local families ; even the police duties were performed by " con- 
 stables," residents of the place serving without regular pay. The 
 Liberals denounced this system as incoherent, feeble, and arbi- 
 trary. 
 
 It was not in the nature of the English Liberals to undertake 
 any sweeping reform; but they accomplished in a few years sev- 
 eral partial reforms which were sufficient to transform the old 
 administrative system. The Tories had, in 1829, created a spe- 
 cial police service for London — that is to say, for the region lying 
 within a certain radius from Charing Cross. It was made up of 
 policemen, with regular pay, military organization, and disci- 
 pline; but out of respect for English traditions the old name of 
 constable was preserved, and they were given, in place of arms, a 
 short club, which looked like a mere form, but could be used to 
 break heads. Other administrative reforms now followed: 
 
 First. The Liberals, under the Grey ministry, reformed 
 the system of poor relief. England was spending enormous 
 sums every year for the relief. of paupers; i8,6oo,ooo in the year 
 1833. But the charitable intention of the nation was badly car- 
 ried into practice. The administration of the poor law was 
 nominally in the hands of the parish overseers: these were the 
 church wardens, with two or more other persons appointed by 
 the justices of the peace. The overseers were subject to the 
 orders of any justice of the peace as regards the persons to re- 
 ceive aid and the amount of aid. The whole work of relief was 
 managed without any intelligent system or central control to 
 check the vagaries of local justices and overseers. Aid was 
 given not only to the sick and aged, but also to the young and 
 strong in the full exercise of their ordinary employment. Any- 
 body who was refused favour by the overseers could usually find 
 some benevolent justice ready to make the requisite order for an 
 allowance. The justices had standards of their own for deter- 
 mining how much an English labourer ought to have for the sup- 
 port of himself and family; and if a man's wages fell below this 
 standard, they gave an order for an allowance from the parish 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS. 45 
 
 rates to make up the deficiency. The larger the family the larger 
 the allowance. 
 
 This method, instead of relieving pauperism, was really increas- 
 ing it. The labourers had come to regard public alms, not as a 
 provision for relief of misfortune, but as a right of all poor people 
 at all times. They were taught to depend on the rates instead 
 of depending on their own industry; they were all becoming 
 paupers in spirit.' The few who struggled to maintain their self- 
 respect were sooner or later forced to go with the crowd; for 
 employers expected their labourers to apply for allowances, and 
 found it easy to hire all they needed at very low wages. Wages 
 were, in fact, declining, and allowances increasing, especially in 
 the case of the agricultural labourers. 
 
 The burden of the poor rates fell on all income from lands 
 and buildings (including the tithe) in each parish. So far as the 
 land classes were concerned the system of allowances was 
 simply a highly vicious method of supporting the farm labourers : 
 the more they paid in allowances the less they paid in wages. 
 So far, however, as the rates fell on the tithe of the parson or, 
 the patron, and on occupiers of houses who were not employers, 
 the system of allowances had the very unjust effect of throwing 
 a portid'n of the wages of farm hands on the shoulders of people 
 who had nothing to do with farming. 
 
 There were cases of local irregularity and hardship for which 
 the law afforded no remedy. Overseers had the right to prevent 
 any labourer from settling in their parish unless he gave security 
 against becoming a charge on the rates. iThis acted as a seri- 
 ous check on the free movement of labourers from regions where 
 employment was scarce to regions where new industries were 
 calling for additional labourers. Again, the overseers had the 
 right to hand over pauper children to employers as " appren- 
 tices " — a useful provision under proper safeguards, but one that 
 led to much cruelty because there was no care taken to protect 
 these unfortunates against the selfish avarice of factory owners. 
 
 A commission of inquiry appointed in 1833 disclosed an ap- 
 palling condition of affairs. Poor rates were so heavy that, in 
 some parishes, they were causing farms to be abandoned, as no 
 man could be found to till them rent-free, on condition of paying 
 the poor rate; and yet the country seemed to be filled with cases 
 of unrelieved misery and hardship. The dismayed Parliament 
 decided upon a sweeping and unpopular reform. They passed 
 the law of 1834, which established three main provisions: ist. 
 
46 ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS. 
 
 it set forth the principle that no more help should be given in the 
 paupers' own homes, except to the sick and aged; 2d, that each 
 healthy person asking for aid should be tested by the offer of a 
 place in the workhouse, where he would be taken care of, but 
 obliged to work and submit to a certain discipline; 3d, that sev- 
 eral parishes should have the right to form themselves into a 
 union, for the purposes of the poor law; the union to have a 
 single board of guardians and a uniform poor rate. 
 
 The new law seemed to philanthropists to be very hard on the 
 poor, but it produced the desired effect. Many workmen, un- 
 willing to go to the workhouse, gave up asking for help ; wages 
 rose gradually, and the burden of poor relief was lightened (four 
 millions sterling in 1837). This was also the beginning of an 
 administrative organization; between the county and the parish 
 an intermediate body had arisen, with its own elected officers and 
 its own paid employees, exercising its powers independently of 
 the justices of the peace. This was the first break in the Eng- 
 lish system of gratuitous and aristocratic administration. Also 
 a first step was taken toward centralization by the institution of 
 a central board of commissioners with large powers of control 
 over the local administration of the poor law. 
 
 Second. A similar system was created for public works; the 
 parishes were grouped into districts empowered to build and 
 maintain highways, with inspectors chosen by the inhabitants, 
 under direction of a central bureau in London. They gave over 
 some of the roads as turnpikes, to be built by private individuals, 
 who repaid themselves by charging tolls. The. railroads, how- 
 ever, were left to private management, the state interfering only 
 to vote the act of expropriation for the land required. 
 
 Third. There were also unions formed for purposes of health 
 and cleanliness, which were administered by boards of health. 
 
 Fourth. The municipalities of cities and boroughs were re- 
 formed by the Municipal Corporations Act (1835), which did 
 away with the " close " corporations, gave to all taxpayers the 
 right of voting for the city council, and organized all the city 
 governments on the same model, with a mayor, aldermen, and 
 councillors. 
 
 Fifth. The law of 1836 created an entirely new set of civil 
 officers, the county registrars and the registrar general, whose 
 duty was to register the facts relating to population, births, 
 deaths, and marriages. Thus was established a regular lay sys- 
 tem of vital statistics. The church officials continued to make 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS. 47 
 
 their records, but it tecame possible to perform a marriage with- 
 out their intervention, by directly addressing the lay registrar. 
 
 Sixth. Education was entirely given up to private enterprise. 
 The greater number of children did not go to school. It was 
 one of the Liberal doctrines that the state should not trouble 
 itself about education. The first departure from this prin- 
 ciple was a grant of i20,ooo to pri-ate societies for the 
 purpose of founding schools (1833). Then Parliamentary com- 
 mittees were appointed to investigate the question (1834-37). 
 Finally, in 1839, the ministry brought forward a bill for the crea- 
 tion of a central organ of supervision, the " Committee of the 
 Privy Council for Education," and the appointment of some 
 school inspectors. The Lords rejected it. It could not pass 
 without the conditions exacted by the Anglican party, which re- 
 garded the school as an adjunct of the Church; the inspectors 
 must be approved by the bishop, and must report to him. The 
 school appropriation increased little by little, but very slowly 
 (£164,000 in 1851, i8oo,ooo in 1861). 
 
 Seventh. The reform in the penal law consisted in abolishing 
 the pillory and the whipping-post; there was also a reform made 
 in the prisons. 
 
 Eighth. The reform in the postal service was made in 1839. 
 Instead of the high and variable rate of money charge, payable 
 by the receiver to the postman who delivered the letter, the new 
 law established the postage stamp at a fixed and moderate rate, 
 paid by the sender (the rate was reduced in 1840 to one penny). 
 Men who were experienced in the postal service had declared this 
 reform impracticable, the director explaining that the carriers 
 would no longer be able to carry all the letters and that the Gen- 
 eral Post Office would sink beneath the burden. 
 
 The result of all these reforms was to create in England an 
 administration which, though still incomplete, was organized on 
 new principles. The old local powers, controlled by the gentry, 
 existed only as ornaments; the justices of the peace alone retained 
 any real power. But in addition to these were established elect- 
 ive councils and paid officials of the unions which now took 
 charge of business aifairs. At their head was constituted a new 
 power at London, the Local Government Board, the foundation 
 of an institution which has become a sort of Ministry of the In- 
 terior. Thus the local administration of the country passed little 
 by Httle out of the hands of the aristocracy into those of special 
 bodies of elective boards and salaried officials; but these officials 
 
48 ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS. 
 
 were appointed by the local authorities, not, as in France, by the 
 central government. 
 
 The Labour Agitation of the Trades Unions (1832-34).— Indus- 
 trial crises, occurring from time to time, produced periods of 
 misery and falling wages. The years preceding the reform of 
 Parliament were a time of great suffering in the manufacturing 
 cities, the memory of which is perpetuated in literature by Dick- 
 ens' " Hard Times " and Disraeli's " Sybil," both of which set 
 forth the misery and despair of the working people. Official in- 
 vestigation into the causes of the cholera epidemic, also into the 
 condition of the women and children in the mines, disclosed the j 
 most appalling state of wretchedness and neglect of sanitary laws: 
 people packed together in narrow quarters; in Manchester a 
 tenth of the population living in dark and filthy cellars, the chil- 
 dren sleeping on the damp bricks; in London families of eight 
 persons crowded into one small room; in a parish of Dorsetshire 
 an average of thirty-six persons to a house; wages from eight to 
 ten shillings a week for a family, in a time when wheat was 
 very dear; payment of workmen by the truck system, which 
 forced them to take, in place of their wages, provisions at extor- 
 tionate prices for the benefit of the employer. In the official re- 
 ports of these conditions, two socialistic theorists, Marx and 
 Engels, found many practical examples for their purposes. 
 
 The workmen had tried to better themselves by forming asso- 
 ciations. Already they had succeeded in forming syndicates of 
 men of the same trade to discuss the terms of labour with the em- 
 ployers. They wished to develop these into large associations. 
 The idea started with a progressive philanthropist by the name 
 of Owen, proprietor of a great cotton mill. After having trans- 
 formed his own establishment into a model community, Owen 
 began to preach co-operation, urging workmen to associate for 
 the purpose of producing on their own account instead of pro- 
 ducing for the profit of a capitalist. 
 
 As early as 1824 Owen had founded " co-operative societies " 
 which, since 1829, held congresses of delegates; they had a co- 
 operative review, and had brought into use expressions that have 
 become a part of the workingman's vocabulary: co-operation, 
 productive class, fair value of labour, principles of equity, and 
 even the word socialist. From Owen's preaching the workmen 
 got the impression of a common interest between all labourers 
 and the idea that they should work together. 
 
 They tried to form associations of all the workmen in each par- 
 
THE LABOUR AGITATION OF THE TRADES UNIONS. 49 
 
 ticular trade, and a combination of all the trades. The movement, 
 drawn aside into politics by the reform agitation in 1831, became 
 again purely industrial in its objects. Owen had just made an 
 attempt at conducting a bank which was to issue notes in terms 
 of labour instead of coin. The bank had proved a failure (1832). 
 He founded a Society for National Regeneration, to obtain a law 
 fixing the working day at eight hours, so that workmen might 
 have time for study (December, 1833). Then he founded the 
 Great National Trades Union,* an association of all trades under 
 the form of a federation of lodges, copied after the Free Masons. 
 These lodges were associations of workingmen of one trade, but 
 organized with rites; a new member was initiated in a secret 
 meeting presided over by the figure of Death, where he had to 
 submit to a test with swords and axes and take an oath. This 
 was not a new custom; the novelty lay in admitting into lodges 
 peasants and even women. The " Trades Union " sent out mis- 
 sionaries and rose rapidly to a membership of half a million. 
 The object was to organize a general strike which should force 
 Parliament to agree to the eight-hour day. 
 
 This agitation struck terror to the hearts of manufacturers and 
 politicians. The former retaliated by a league of employers; they 
 bound themselves to refuse employment to any workman be- 
 longing to a union; before accepting a workman they must de- 
 mand a written guarantee that he belonged to no trade union. 
 The two parties were now pitted against each other, the work- 
 men striking to force employers to raise wages or shorten hours, 
 the employers trying to starve out the unions by the lock-out, or 
 closing of the factories. 
 
 The government, trembling at these demonstrations, consulted 
 an authority on political economy, Nassau Senior, who advised 
 exceptional laws against the workingmen. The Liberal ministry 
 was unwilling to violate " constitutional liberties "; but the King 
 himself urged them to take action against the workingmen. 
 Melbourne, the prime minister, announced in the name of his 
 colleagues the view that the methods followed by the unions 
 were criminal; they were, he declared, "illegal conspiracies," 
 punishable in the name of the law (August, 1833). They began 
 by prosecuting the members of trade unions for having taken 
 oath to a society not recognised by law. 'The most famous of 
 
 * The Trades Union, a fabulous association of Owen's, to unite all trades, 
 must not be confounded with the trade unions, special syndicates of each 
 trade, which still exist. 
 
so ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS. 
 
 these cases was that of six Dorsetshire labourers. They were 
 peasants who had formed a " friendly society of farm labourers," 
 to try and maintain a wage of ten shillings a week, the farmters 
 having reduced it to seven ; they had adopted the initiatory cere- 
 mony of a lodge belonging to the Trades Union. They were sen- 
 tenced to seven years' transportation for taking illegal oaths 
 (March, 1834), and the government ordered them shipped off 
 without delay.* 
 
 The National Trades Union, aided by other general associa- 
 tions, organized an enormous meeting to send a petition to the 
 ministry to plead for the condemned men. In a place near Lon- 
 don the workingmen met, grouped themselves according to 
 trades, and marched across the city, led by a Dissenting parson 
 on horseback; the builders had stopped work (August, 1834). 
 Then they appointed a special committee to obtain the release of 
 the condemned men. 
 
 But these great general associations, made up mainly of the 
 poorest labourers, weavers, spinners, miners, and journeymen, 
 had not money enough to maintain strikes ; so the strikes quickly 
 failed for want of funds. In August, 1834, Owen transformed the 
 Trades Union into a " British and Koreign Association of In- 
 dustry, Humanity, and Learning," having reduced its aim to the 
 humanitarian one of establishing the " new moral world," tO' try 
 and reconcile the classes of society. The prosecutions went on. 
 At Glasgow, in Scotland, five cotton spinners were condemned 
 to seven years' transportation (1837), ^"^ the House of Commons 
 named a committee to investigate the legality of unions. The 
 workingmen, losing heart, gave up the great general struggle of 
 the united labouring classes. 
 
 The Chartist Agitation (1837-48).— The Radical party, when it 
 joined the Whigs for the demonstrations of 1831, had counted on 
 preparing for radical reform by universal suffrage. Since 1832, 
 it had sometimes supported, sometimes attacked, the Liberal 
 ministry. After the accession of Queen Victoria the Radicals 
 demanded electoral reform. Russell replied that electoral re- 
 
 * The statutes forbidding combinations of workingmen were repealed in 
 1824. But there was still an act in force which made it a crime to take or 
 administer oaths not contemplated by the law. Combinations in restraint 
 of trade were forbidden by the common law ; and the projected combi- 
 nation of the labourers was held to be in restraint of trade. The Dorset- 
 shire labourers were prosecuted for their breach of the statute against 
 illegal oaths. They were pardoned at the end of two years. — Tr. 
 
THE CHARTIST AGITATION. Si 
 
 form was accomplished, and the Commons supported him, 
 500 to 22. 
 
 The Radicals once more began to stir up public interest for 
 electoral reform; they arranged with workingmen excited by the 
 great association movement of 1834. Owen's disciples had tried 
 to obtain a social reform by private associations among work- 
 ingmen; having failed, they wished to enforce reform through 
 legislation. They must, therefore, control the majority of the 
 House of Commons by winning over a majority of the electors. 
 In order to do this they must obtain the suffrage for the work- 
 ingmen — electoral reform being the primary condition of social 
 reform. They therefore revived the Radical policy of 1816. 
 
 The old Radicals, who were still individualists, and the Social- 
 istic labourers, or Owenites, came to an understanding by a con- 
 ference. The movement was managed by the London Labourers' 
 Association, a political society founded in 1837 by an Owenite 
 workingman, Lovett, an old ally of the Radicals. They decided 
 to adopt the Radical policy, to present to Parliament a petition for 
 universal suffrage, and to back it up with great demonstrations. 
 The petition, drawn up at London and published in May, 1838, 
 consisted of six demands: universal suffrage, secret ballot, pay 
 for representatives, : bolition of the property qualification, annual 
 elections, and, finally, division of the country into equal elec- 
 toral districts, in order to insure the equal distribution of seats. 
 This petition was known as the People's Charter. The " six 
 points of the Chanter " were simply a repetition of the demands 
 made by the Radicals from 1816 to 1819. Chartism was a com- 
 bination of the old Radical political party and the new Socialist 
 workingman's party. 
 
 The Chartist leaders laboured to obtain as many signatures to 
 the Charter as possible, and at the same time to stir up public 
 feeling by great public demonstrations. The Chartist agitation 
 lasted ten years (1838-48), with intervals of quiet. Its greatest 
 activity coincided with the periods of industrial depression. 
 Labourers out of work formed the great body of those making 
 Chartist demonstrations. These took place mainly in London, 
 and in the manufacturing regions of the west (Liverpool, Man- 
 chester, southern Wales) and in the interior (Leeds, Sheffield). 
 
 There were three great Chartist movements, marked by three 
 huge petitions (1838-39, 1842, 1848). 
 
 First. The agitation began after the drawing up of the Charter 
 (May, 1838). Great mass-meetings were held near Manchester, 
 
52 ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS. 
 
 some at night by torchlight. The principal orator, Stephens 
 (formerly a Dissenting minister), declared as the principle of the 
 Charter " every free man who breathes God's free air or treads 
 God's free earth has the right to a home." He called on his fol- 
 lowers to arm themselves with pikes and guns. The Tories de- 
 manded exceptional laws as in 1819, but the Liberal ministry re- 
 fused, Russell declaring (October, 1838) that the people had the 
 right of assembling and of discussion.* The speech from the 
 throne in 1839 announced that the government discarded all re- 
 pressive legislation, " trusting to the good sense and the wise 
 disposition of the people." 
 
 The Chartists, left free to act, organized a representative con- 
 gress of workingmen to direct the movement; they called it the 
 " National Convention," also the " Workingmen's Parliament." 
 It met in London (February, 1839) at the same time as Parlia- 
 ment, and gave its attention first to presenting the petition for 
 universal suffrage. The petition was presented with 1,200,000 
 signatures. The members of the House of Commons were little 
 inclined to favour its demands ; they refused by a large majority, 
 after debate, to take it into consideration. ' 
 
 In the " National Convention " some of the Chartist delegates 
 disputed over the further course to be followed, and they divided 
 into two parties. One, which refused to accept anything but 
 pacific action by legal measures, was composed mainly of the 
 most prosperous workingmen; those belonging to the best organ- 
 ized trades united in the Trade Union at London, under the 
 leadership of Lovett, the Owenite. The other, which was called 
 the " party of physical force," was made up of the mass of poorer 
 labourers (weavers, spinners, etc.), led by an Irish orator, Feargus 
 O'Connor. O'Connor, a man of gigantic height, fine presence, 
 and powerful voice, very excitable (he died a maniac), was nephew 
 of an Irish rebel of '98. He had been a Radical Irish member 
 of Pariiament in 1832, and in 1837 had just founded the London 
 Democratic Association and the Northern Star, a paper which 
 became the official organ of the Chartists. He announced his 
 intention of appealing " to unshorn chins and calloused hands," 
 and reproached Lovett and his followers with not being true 
 workingmen. 
 
 * But the right of freely meeting for discussion gave no right to incite 
 men to armed violence. The Liberal ministry prosecuted Stephens for 
 his incendiary utterances, and had him sentenced to eighteen months' 
 imprisonment. — Tr. 
 
THE CHARTIST AGITATION. S3 
 
 Actual violence was, however, confined to a few local out- 
 breaks. At Birmingham, whither the Chartist Convention had 
 transported itself, there was a night meeting, a riotous attack on 
 the police, a procession, followed by the destruction of a num- 
 ber of houses and shops. The ministry, alarmed at this out- 
 break, had a law passed permitting cities to organize a regular 
 police force like that in London; they had the Chartist leaders 
 arrested and condemned for seditious writings and speeches. 
 There was only one real attempt at insurrection, the attack on 
 Newport in Wales by an armed band. 
 
 Second. In 1842 wages had been lowered and the workingmen 
 in the north struck. The associations sent delegates to a con- 
 ference to discuss means for obtaining a return to the wages of 
 1840. The Chartists took advantage of this to urge all labourers 
 to cease work until the Charter should become the law of the 
 land; the general strike, proposed in 1834 to secure a working 
 day of eight hours, became a political agency. .The strike failed 
 for lack of funds. They then called for signatures tO' a new 
 petition, and presented it with, it is said, more than 3,000,000 
 names attached. The government refused to receive it. The 
 Radical workingmen tried to come to an agreement with the 
 middle-class Radicals in a conference at Birmingham. The 
 middle-class Radicals proposed tO' replace the " People's Charter" 
 with a " Bill of Popular Rights." O'Connor prevented the 
 agreement. 
 
 The Trade Unions then broke away from the Chartist move- 
 ment and, renouncing boisterous agitation and intimidation, tried 
 to improve the condition of the workingmen by coming to an 
 understanding with the employers and demanding labour re- 
 forms from Parliament. A " National Association of Trades 
 united for the Protection of Labour " was formed which recom- 
 mended conciliation by arbitration and the use of influence with 
 members of Parliament. This was the new peaceable policy 
 which was to take the place of the Chartist agitation. 
 
 The Chartists remaining in the movement followed O'Connor. 
 Returning to an old idea of Owen's to support labourers out of 
 work by distributing land to them, he created a society for the 
 purpose of buying up large estates, and dividing them up into 
 small farms to be given out by lot to his followers (1846). This 
 " National Land Company" ended in 1848 in bankruptcy. 
 
 Third. The Revolution of 1848 in France aroused the Chartists 
 to their last efifort. Once more they held a convention at Lon- 
 
54 ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS. 
 
 don (April, 1848); once more they prepared an enormous peti- 
 tion. O'Connor announced a mass-meeting and a great pro- 
 cession to carry the petition to Parliament. The ministry 
 became alarmed and declared it illegal to hold a meeting to escort 
 a petition " accompanied by an excessive number of persons " ; 
 they called on Wellington and intrusted to him the peace of Lon- 
 don. The old general stationed troops in the city as if for battle, 
 and enrolled the middle class of London as special constables, to 
 the number of 170,000. The meeting was held, but they stopped 
 the procession, and O'Connor alone carried the petition to Parlia- 
 ment in a hackney coach. The petition was examined by a 
 special committee; instead of the 5,716,000 signatures announced 
 by O'Connor, they found only 1,975,000, and some of those 
 spurious (the Queen, Wellington, Pug Nose). This was the end 
 of the Chartist agitation. 
 
 The Irish Agitation. — While the Chartists were stirring up 
 England, the Catholics were stirring up Ireland. A powerful 
 orator, O'Connell, whose fame had spread all over Europe, had 
 just organized into a party the great Catholic mass of the Irish 
 population. To tell the truth, he was not simply the leader of a 
 party, he was the life and soul of it. The Irish, unaccustomed to 
 public affairs, had no political life; they obeyed their priests, voted 
 for the candidates of the clergy, and came in a body to the meet- 
 ings organized by O'Connell, where they went wild over the en- 
 thusiastic discourses of their leader. 
 
 O'Connell declared that he belonged to the Liberal Catholic 
 party, which had just been formed in Europe; he demanded for 
 the Catholic Church only liberty and equality with the other 
 churches, he did not care to have it an established church. He 
 thus spoke at once in the name of Hberty and equality, in the 
 name of the Catholic religion, in the name of the oppressed Irish 
 nation; and this attracted to him the sympathies of revolutionists, 
 Catholics, and patriots, which made him the most popular man in 
 all Europe. Since the reform of 1829 the Irish Catholics had had 
 the political rights of voting and sitting in Parliament, but they 
 remained subject to all the old systematically organized depen- 
 dence on the Protestants; justices of the peace, police officials, 
 criminal juries, justices of the Supreme Court, grand juries 
 charged with the power of taxation, municipal corporations, all 
 the men invested with authority, were Protestants. The official 
 church was the Anglican Church; in some parts of Ireland it had 
 almost no members, but it possessed estates and in addition re- 
 
THE IRISH AGITATION. 55 
 
 ceived tithes and a church " cess " for the support of places of 
 worship, from all the inhabitants, that is to say, from Catholic as 
 well as Protestant peasants. Finally the government deprived 
 the Irish Catholics of the Hberty of holding meetings. 
 
 O'Connell seems to have hesitated between two tactics ; now he 
 demanded from the English Parliament reforms in detail — liberty 
 of holding meetings, a more equal distribution of power between 
 the Catholics and Protestants, and above all the abolition of 
 tithes. By agitating for repeal of the Act of Union, he tried to get 
 restored to Ireland the self-government which she had enjoyed 
 before the Union. In 1831 he formed a committee to obtain sig- 
 natures to a petition against the Union, but the government 
 prosecuted him. As early as 1832 he had founded an association 
 to demand autonomy, but it was thrice dissolved. But in the 
 Parliament elected after the Reform Act of 1832, O'Connell 
 ceased to fight the English government, and supported the Lib- 
 eral ministry, profiting by the meetings of the House of Commons 
 to air the grievances of the Irish against the English supremacy. 
 
 The Irish refused any longer to pay tithes to the Anglican 
 clergy. Some of the collectors were murdered; of 104,000 
 pounds sterling, only 12,000 were paid in. The ministry made a 
 partial reform, suppressing 12 of the 22 Anglican bishops, and 
 abolishing the tax for the support of the Church buildings. But 
 it was divided on the question of the Irish Church. The better 
 to oppose the Conservatives, the Irish party, nicknamed " O'Con- 
 nell's tail," joined the Liberals and secured to them a majority in 
 the House (1835). It was natural that the ministry should do 
 something in return for their support. 
 
 In every session from 1832 to 1838 the Liberal ministers had 
 measures before Parliament for the settlement of the difificulties 
 growing out of the general revolt of the Irish farmers against 
 the payment of tithes. They found it impossible to propose any- 
 thing that would at once satisfy the Irish Catholics, who de- 
 manded the total abolition of tithes, and the English champions 
 of the Protestant Establishment, who demanded that the revenues 
 of the Church of Ireland should not be reduced. The English 
 parties agreed as early as 1836 that the tithe should be converted 
 into a rent-charge, to be paid by the landlords. But they could 
 not agree as to the disposal of the surplus revenue arising from 
 the abolition of various ofiSces and livings in the Irish Church. 
 The ministers carried through the Commons each year a bill con- 
 verting the tithe into a rent-charge and appropriating the sur- 
 
S6 ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS. 
 
 plus to educational and charitable uses; the bill was regularly 
 defeated in the Lords. It was eventually passed in 1838 in the 
 form desired by the Tories — that is, without the appropriation 
 clause. In the same year a poor law was passed for Ireland. Two 
 years later an act was passed reforming the municipal corpora- 
 tions in Ireland — a less liberal measure, however, than the Eng- 
 lish act of 1S35, in that it gave the right of voting at municipal 
 elections, not to all rate-payers, but only to the £io-householders. 
 
 But the Liberal ministry had little by little lost its popularity 
 in England, perhaps because of its reforms, perhaps because of 
 internal divisions, and also because it was upheld by " the 
 Irish Papists." In the elections of 1837 it still had a majority, 
 but owed it to the members from Scotland and Ireland, the 
 Conservatives having once more carried England. Its Radical 
 supporters were offended at several of its measures, particularly 
 one dealing with Jamaica. In 1839 the ministry had to confess 
 to a continued deficit. After a vote in which it had a 
 majority of only 5, it felt itself so weak that it resigned. The 
 leader of the Conservatives, Peel, charged with the formation of 
 a ministry, could not agree with the Queen as to the retire- 
 ment of certain ladies-in-waiting who were wives or sisters of 
 Liberal ministers. Peel abandoned the attempt to form a minis- 
 try, and the Liberal ministry resumed control. But the def- 
 icit increased to two millions sterling in 1841. The ministry, 
 to remedy this, proposed to lower the import duties on sugar and 
 timber, and to adopt a fixed duty of a shilling a bushel on wheat, 
 instead of the sliding scale. Their measures were condemned by 
 a majority of 36. They dissolved the House, and for the first time 
 since the Reform Bill there was returned a Conservative ma- 
 jority. The Irish party in the House was reduced one-half. The 
 government was intrusted to a Conservative ministry, under 
 Peel. 
 
 O'Connell began once more to call for radical reform. He 
 reconstructed the league for repeal of the Union, and, adopting 
 the Chartist policy, he organized the agitation on a grand 
 scale. He started a newspaper, and held great mass-meetings 
 to demand home rule for Ireland. 
 
 Like the Chartists, the Irish, in demanding political reform, 
 were seeking social reform. The population increased rapidly 
 (from 6,800,000 in 1826 to 7,760,000 in 1836 and 8,670,000 in 
 1841), the land being divided up more and more. Official in- 
 quiry in 1835 reported the sufferings of the agricultural popula- 
 
THE FREE-TRADE AGITATION. 5? 
 
 3n as beyond description. The peasants almost invariably- 
 red in squalor in little windowless mud cabins, often under the 
 tme roof with their pigs and cows, having no clothing but rags, 
 id no food but potatoes. In addition to all this they were still 
 ^pendent upon the caprice of the landlord, who could turn them 
 it at will without compensation. Thejrish desired first of all 
 guarantee against this arbitrary power; they demanded fixed 
 mure — that is to say, the right of the peasant to the land. 
 The year 1843 was one of great agitation. O'Connell said that 
 le Queen had the right to convoke a Parliament for Ireland and 
 rophesied that such a Parliament would meet within the' year, 
 /ithin three months thirty mass-meetings were held in Ireland; 
 lat at Tara, where 250,000 men assembled, voted the re-establish- 
 lent of the Irish Parliament. O'Connell declared that he would 
 >nquer " by legal, peaceful, constitutional means and through 
 le electrical power of public opinion." 
 
 He called together a mass-meeting at Clontarf near Dublin, 
 ut the government had just passed a law which forbade unau- 
 lorized possession of firearms in Ireland ; it forbade this meeting 
 id sent troops to prevent it. O'Connell, wishing to do nothing 
 legal, implored his constituents to disperse. He was neverthe- 
 ss arrested, tried, and condemned, by a jury wholly Protestant, 
 >r plotting and inciting hatred and contempt against the govern- 
 lent. The sentence was set aside by the House of Lords by 
 ;ason of irregularity of procedure; and O'Connell, set at liberty,, 
 as received in triumph by the crowd. But his health was 
 roken and he retired from the contest. Like the peaceable 
 citation of the Chartists, that of the Irish was powerless against 
 le English confidence in the advantages of the Union. By 
 leans of prohibition, employment of troops, and prosecutions, 
 Dth agitations were put down. 
 
 The Free-Trade Agitation. — At the same time that the Char- 
 sts were working for universal suffrage and the Irish for home 
 lie, a free-trade party was working to obtain another sweeping 
 :form, the destruction of the ancient protective system. The 
 irty was organized first to procure the abolition of the import 
 tities on grain, and was known as the Anti-Corn-Law League, 
 he two Protestant aristocracies which together controlled Eng- 
 nd joined forces against the Irish agitatio.i for repeal of the 
 nion ; but on the question of the Corn Laws the interests of the 
 170 were in competition. The landed aristocracy wished to pre- 
 :rve the duties which kept wheat at a high price and conse- 
 
58 ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS. 
 
 quently kept rents high ; the manufacturing aristocracy wished to 
 lower the price of bread, so as to be able to lower the wages of 
 the workmen. 
 
 The free trade party was made up chiefly among the middle- 
 class manufacturers and merchants ; it had its centre at Manches- 
 ter, where they had built the Free Trade Hall, as a home for the 
 Free Trade Club. The early leader was Villiers, a member of 
 Parliament; but the movement was presently taken in charge by 
 Richard Cobden, a cotton merchant, who gave his life to the 
 cause, and John Bright, a Radical orator. These three began by 
 urging the repeal of the Corn Laws in Parliament, but the Com- 
 mons steadily rejected the measure by heavy majorities. The 
 party then adopted the policy of the Radicals, agitation by public 
 meetings and speeches. Cobden and Bright travelled all over 
 England holding meetings; they showed how the duties on wheat 
 benefited the landlords alone and injured all other classes; the 
 workmen by keeping up the price of their food, the manufac- 
 turers and merchants by preventing foreign countries from sell- 
 ing their wheat to the English and buying in return the products 
 of English industry. 
 
 The league converted the manufacturers and was also supported 
 by the labourers, who were working at once for the Charter 
 and against the Corn Laws. The Liberal ministry proposed a 
 slight reform, to establish a fixed rate of a shilling a bushel, and 
 was defeated (1841). The Conservative ministry (Peel) which 
 succeeded, depended on a majority of landowners hostile to the 
 reform. But Peel was not an absolute Conservative; as in 
 1829, at the time of the Catholic Emancipation, he tried to face 
 actual conditions, and to do what seemed best for the country at 
 large. He began by restoring equilibrium in the budget by re- 
 establishing the income tax abolished in 1816, on all incomes 
 exceeding £150. Although established provisionally, this duty 
 has been preserved and has become one of the foundations of 
 English finance. Peel also carried a lessening of the duties on 
 wheat against the wish of a fraction of his party. The equilibrium 
 of the budget was not only restored, there was a surplus instead of 
 a deficit. Peel took advantage of this to carry another reform in 
 the direction of free trade, abolishing what remained of the ex- 
 port duties and lowering the import duties, in spite of the mis- 
 givings of his own party. 
 
 Peel, in maintaining the grain duties, hoped to keep up a 
 sufficient home production to guard England against famine in 
 
THE FREE-TRADE AGITATION. 59 
 
 case of war. The famine of 1845 showed him that the population 
 had become too large to be able to live on native products alone. 
 The potato blight suddenly deprived the Irish of their ordinary 
 food, and there ensued a famine in Ireland, thousands of people 
 dying of starvation. Peel, in order to save the Irish, decided to 
 demand the abolition of the wheat duties; but as some of his fel- 
 low ministers would only agree to a suspension of them, he 
 thought it best to resign. But the Liberals could not form a 
 ministry, so Peel resumed power and succeeded in carrying the 
 repeal of the Corn Laws, against the majority of his own party, 
 by the aid of the Liberal minority. The bill was passed by 223 
 Liberals and 104 Conservatives against 229 Conservatives. Wel- 
 lington induced the Lords to accept it (1846). 
 
 The Chartist and Irish agitations had been directed against 
 both of the controlling classes; free trade in wheat was im- 
 posed on the landed aristocracy by the industrial middle class. 
 
 Industrial Legislation. — While the workingmen were strug- 
 ling to obtain radical reform, a number of philanthropists were 
 trying by means of small reforms to improve the condition of 
 workmen in the large factories. These men were not Radi- 
 cals, some of the most active leaders' were Conservatives (Ash- 
 ley); others were writers and preachers (Kingsley, Denison) 
 who were moved by the sufferings of the poor. They demanded, 
 in the name of humanity and Christian charity, that laws should 
 be passed to protect workmen against the neglect and avarice 
 of their employers. They had great trouble in convincing Par- 
 liament of the need of these laws; all liberal schools of political 
 economy of the time taught that the state should leave em- 
 ployers and workmen to settle between themselves the con- 
 ditions of labour, and never interfere. All industrial legislation 
 seemed a violation of the " freedom of contract." 
 
 The reformers began with the workers who were at once the 
 most wretched and the least capable of defending themselves, the 
 children. As early as 1802 an epidemic at Manchester had 
 .obliged Parliament to interfere for the protection of the " parish 
 apprentices," that is to say, the children of paupers; the parish 
 hired them out to manufacturers, who made them work night and 
 day in the cotton mills, as soon as they were seven years of age. 
 The law of 1802 forbade working them more than 12 hours a day, 
 and made other provisions for their protection. But this law was 
 limited to the " apprentices." In 1819 an act was passed extend- 
 ing the provisions of 1802 to all children employed in the cotton 
 
6o ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS. 
 
 factories, with the addition that no children under the age of nine 
 should be so employed. 
 
 In 1831 it was decided to create a commission of inquiry to 
 study the question. The inquiry revealed a state of affairs so 
 lamentable that the Tory philanthropist Ashley procured the 
 passage of the Factory Act of 1833. This act extended the pro- 
 tective provision to all children working in factories of any sort. 
 It fixed a maximum working, day of 9 hours for children under 
 13 years, a maximum of 12 hours for young persons from 13 to 
 18 years of ,ge ; it forbade night work. To oversee the execution 
 of this law factory inspectors were appointed. 
 
 The reform went on slowly, by little measures successively 
 wrung from the members of Parliament. The Conservative 
 party helped to pass them, through opposition to the manufac- 
 turers of the Liberal party. 
 
 A law was passed forbidding the truck system or payment of 
 wages in kind (the employer had a shop, where he expected his 
 workmen to get their supplies, deducting from their wages the 
 price of the articles bought). 
 
 Another law forbade the employment of children as chimney 
 sweeps. 
 
 The great reform was the Labour in Mines Act of 1842, passed 
 under the influence of a pitiful report by an investigating commis- 
 sion. It was discovered that children five years old were made to 
 work twelve hours a day in mines ill supplied with air and full of 
 water, in company with ruffians who ill-treated them ; that hardly 
 a twentieth of these boys could read; that little girls were har- 
 nessed to small wagons of coal and required to pull them through 
 passages that were not high enough to stand up in. Parliament 
 passed a sweeping reform, forbidding all underground work for 
 women and for children under 10 years of age; also providing 
 for the appointment of inspectors of mines. 
 
 The Factory Act of 1844 forbade the employment of children 
 under 9 in textile industries, lowered the maximum hours of 
 labour for children to 6^ daily, and ordered them sent to 
 school for a part of each day. A few years later a law was passed 
 fixing 10^ hours as the maximum day for women and young 
 persons employed in factories. 
 
 Industrial legislation extended gradually to almost all indus- 
 tries, until the act cf 1878 consolidated all the partial measures 
 into a sort of code. These laws protected only women and chil- 
 dren, grown men being considered capable of protecting them- 
 
THE IRISH CRISIS. 6 1 
 
 selves. In reality, however, in those mills which employed both 
 men and women, the hours of labour were limited by the legal 
 maximum for women and the men profited by it. 
 
 The Irish Crisis (1845-48.) — When the English government 
 had put an end to the Irish agitation for home rule, the great mass 
 of the national party, influenced by O'Connell and the Catholic 
 priests, resigned themselves to a peaceful attitude. But the more 
 ardent young men detached themselves and formed the Young 
 Ireland party, which broke with O'Connell. It was a lay party, 
 democratic and revolutionary, which was unwilling to obey the 
 clergy and talked of establishing Irish independence by force of 
 arms. 
 
 Peel tried to make a reconciliation with the peaceable wing of 
 the Irish. In order to win over the priests, he increased from 
 £9000 to £26,000 the annual grant to the Maynooth Colleges, the 
 Irish theological seminaries; this in spite of a furious outcry on 
 the part of ultra Protestants (1845). To win over the peasantry, 
 he appointed a commission of inquiry to study means for improv- 
 ing the condition of the tenantry. He then proposed to extend 
 to all "Ireland some features of the tenant-right prevailing in Ul- 
 ster; but the House of Lords rejected the plan (1845) and the re- 
 form scheme fell through. Peel tried to soothe the hatred between 
 the Protestants and Catholics by creating in the south, west, and 
 north of Ireland three neutral colleges to be affiliated with Dublin 
 University; but the Irish clergy condemned the scheme, and 
 Catholic youth have not attended in great numbers. Then came 
 the failure of the potato crop (1845) and the great famine of 1846. 
 The starving peasants swarmed into the cities to pick up scraps 
 of victuals; they ate herbs and lichens; the roads were strewn 
 with corpses. The surplus population perished from hunger or 
 emigrated to America; at a rough estimate the population of Ire- 
 land dropped from 8,170,000 in 1845 to 6,500,000 in 1851, and 
 since that time it has been steadily decreasing (5,100,000 in 1881, 
 4,700,000 in 1891). 
 
 To curb the revolutionary spirits. Peel proposed a bill regulat- 
 ing the possession of arms in Ireland. The Conservative pro- 
 tectionists seized the chance to avenge themselves for the 
 abolition of the Corn Laws; they voted with the Liberal minority. 
 Peel, defeated, handed in his resignation. The Russell minis- 
 try, supported by a coalition of Liberals and Peelites, continued 
 
 Peel's policy. 
 
 The ministry proposed to protect the Irish tenant against the 
 
62 ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS. 
 
 power of the landlord and to permit the sale of portions of those 
 entailed estates which were burdened with too heavy mortgages 
 (more than half the income of Irish estates was absorbed by 
 mortgages). They hoped by getting portions of these sold to sol- 
 vent buyers to replace the debt-laden landlords with prosperous 
 men who could apply capital to improve the wretched farming 
 prevalent in Ireland. But Parliament rejected the portion of the 
 plan especially designed for the tenantry, and passed only the bill 
 relating to encumbered estates (1849). In later years the new 
 landlords purchasing under the encumbered estates act proved to 
 be more ready to evict the peasants than the old landlords had 
 been. The peasants on their side h^ye been but too ready to 
 avenge evictions by outrages and murder. 
 
 All at once the revolutions of '48 aroused Young Ireland; 
 clubs were formed, an address was sent to the provisional gov- 
 ernment of France to ask for its aid. The English government 
 had exceptional laws passed and arrested 118 leaders of the party. 
 An armed band attempted an outbreak; it was surrounded and 
 captured by the police in a potato field. The leaders were trans- 
 ported (1848). Political agitation came to an end in Ireland. 
 
 Period of Inaction and Democratic Evolution (1849-65). — 
 The Conservative party, divided on the Corn Laws, remained 
 long in a weak state. The bulk of the protectionist party pulled 
 itself together again slowly under the leadership of Bentinck, 
 who died in 1848, and later under Derby and Disraeli; the dissi- 
 dents who had followed Peel in his conversion to free trade (the 
 Peelites) made for a time a sort of third party. The Liberal 
 party, in minority since 1841, regained a majority through a 
 dissolution of the House (1847) and kept it until the election of 
 1874; it gradually absorbed most of the Peelites, giving them 
 place in every Liberal ministry; one of these, Gladstone, ended 
 by becoming leader of the Liberal party. 
 
 Although the Liberals held the majority all the time, the minis- 
 try changed several times, once owing to rivalry between the two 
 Liberal leaders, Russell and Palmerston. The Conservatives 
 were twice enabled to take command for a period of several 
 months (1852, 1858-59). 
 
 This was a period of political inaction. The Liberals had ex- 
 hausted their reform program.* They completed the estab- 
 
 * The Ecclesiastical Titles bill was passed (1851) to soothe the Protestants. 
 It forbade the assumption of titles taken from English cities by Catholic 
 bishops. It never was enforced, and was repealed in 1871. 
 
PERIOD OF IN A CTION AND DEMOCRA TIC E VOL UTION. 63 
 
 lishment of free trade by repealing the Navigation Act (1849), by- 
 abolishing most of the remaining duties, and by concluding with 
 France the treaty of commerce of i860. They timidly increased 
 the appropriation for schools (164,000 pounds sterling in iSgi, 
 813,000 in 1861) and made the appropriation proportionate to the 
 number of scholars (1853). 
 
 Public life was dominated at that time by questions of foreign 
 policy. Napoleon's co'wp d'etat forced the retirement of Palmer- 
 ston, who had approved it; the Crimean War restored Palmerston 
 to power (1855) ; the Sepoy Rebellion (1857) led to the suppres- 
 sion of the India Company; the Chinese War, discountenanced 
 by the House of Commons, led to a dissolution which gave 
 Palmerston a majority (1857); the Orsini conspiracy (1858) 
 brought about his fall. Finally, after a short Conservative min- 
 istry, Palmerston was restored tO' office in 1859 and retained the 
 position until his death in 1865. 
 
 This was a period of material prosperity. England's com- 
 merce, her production, her wealth, all increased rapidly. The 
 number of paupers decreased from 1,429,000 in 1842 (maxi- 
 mum) to 890,000 in 1861 ; the number of criminals from 31,000 
 in 1842 (maximum) to 18,000 in 1861; drunkenness diminished, 
 the government having raised the duty on spirits from 2 to 16 
 shillings and lowered the duty on tea from 26 to 6 pence. 
 
 The condition of the workingmen improved. It was during 
 this period that the trades unions gradually built up the central 
 organization which was destined later to bind the workingmen 
 into common action. It was established without a prearranged 
 plan for practical reasons. Each trade union was at first only 
 an association of men working at the same trade in the same city, 
 a simple society for mutual support, with a fund, made up by reg- 
 ular contributions, for giving aid in case of funerals, sickness, 
 destitution, or change of residence. The society elected a board 
 which represented it in discussing collective interests with the 
 employers. Many unions had a special fund for help in case of 
 a strike, but it was made up of special contributions. 
 
 Between the unions of dififerent trades in the same town, and 
 between the unions of the same trade in dififerent towns, there 
 naturally sprang up federations, to receive workmen moving 
 from one place to another and to harmonize common decisions 
 among all the workmen of the same region. Each of these 
 federations had also a board, made up of elected delegates. 
 Finally general associations were formed of all the unions of the 
 
64 ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS. 
 
 same trade in all parts of England, of Scotland, or of all Great 
 Britain. A general congress of delegates was convoked when 
 there were special questions to be decided; but ordinary affairs, 
 especially matters of finance, which had become very complicated, 
 could no longer be left to the zeal of ordinary members who gave 
 up their evenings to writing.' There were now salaried secre- 
 taries, workingmen elected by their comrades, who gave up their 
 trade to serve the union exclusively. Thus was formed an 
 official " general staff " of workingmen, who made a business of 
 defending their class interests. 
 
 The united movement of English workingmen, interrupted in 
 1843, began again, but this time under their own leaders and with 
 a definite object. The general secretaries of the principal asso- 
 ciations — mechanics, carpenters, masons^-meeting in London 
 became accustomed to working in concert. They then succeeded 
 in founding a common organ for the trade unions, the Council of 
 the Unions. Officially this organization had no political motive, 
 its purpose being to discuss with employers the terms of labour 
 contracts. Unlike the Chartists, the leaders of the movement 
 rejected all thought of a political program. They had adopted 
 the liberal doctrine of the English middle classes, which depre-i 
 cated state interference in labour contracts. They relied on the 
 power given by association as of sufficient strength toi oppose 
 the employers. But they were handicapped by the laws restrain- 
 ing the right of striking; to get rid of these laws they must work 
 through members of Parliament. They therefore perceived the 
 necessity of establishing a voting force, and, abandoning the 
 principle of political neutrality, they joined the Radicals in the 
 demand for the extension of the suffrage to workingmen. 
 
 The Electoral Beform of 1867. — ^The reform question came up 
 after the death of Palmerston in 1865. Two projects of electoral 
 reform, one proposed by the Conservative ministry (1859), the 
 other by the Liberal ministry (i860), had been rejected by the 
 Commons. The new Liberal ministry (Russell-Gladstone) 
 brought forward a scheme (1866) to lower the franchise by re- 
 ducing the value of lands and houses qualifying for the privilege 
 of voting; but a fraction of the Liberal party, nicknamed the 
 AduUamites,* joined themselves to the Conservatives to carry an 
 amendment cutting down the proposed extension of the voting 
 
 * So nicknamed by John Bright, the allusion being to the Bible story 
 ■which tells how all who were discontented gathered themselves in the 
 Cave of Adullam.— I Samuel, xxii. a. 
 
THE ELECTORAL REFORM OF 1867. 65 
 
 right. The ministry retired (1866) and was succeeded by a Con- 
 servative ministry under Lord Derby. 
 
 The Conservatives were in a minority. The ministry depended 
 for its support on the coalition of Conservatives and AduUamites, 
 who opposed electoral reform. Then the workingmen took the 
 matter up. Reviving the Radical policy of 1831, they organized 
 mass-meetings. The movement was directed by the " National 
 Reform League," whose council was made up in part of the offi- 
 cial leaders of the workingmen, the secretaries of the trade 
 unions. The meeting at Trafalgar Square in London made a 
 strong declaration in favour of reform. Another meeting was 
 called at Hyde Park, but the government had the park closed; 
 the mob, in spite of the police, smashed the railings and invaded 
 the park. The government withdrew the police. Then, until 
 the end of 1866, meetings were held in all the great industrial 
 cities of the northwest and Scotland, demanding universal 
 suffrage. 
 
 The Conservative ministry at first declined to present a spe- 
 cific project of reform; they asked the House of Commons to 
 develop a series of resolutions embodying the wishes of the mem- 
 bers regardless of party lines. The Liberals declined to accept 
 this proposal. Disraeli, who had long favoured a wide sufifrage, 
 then prevailed on his colleagues to submit a definite scheme as a 
 Cabinet measure. The decision was not, however, unanimous; 
 three dissatisfied ministers retired. The project, strongly 
 amended in the Commons, became the reform act of 1867 (1868 
 for Scotland and Ireland). 
 
 As in 1832 this was only a partial reform consisting of two 
 measures; a redistribution of seats, andaloweringofthefranchise. 
 The redistribution took away 58 seats from the smaller boroughs ; 
 II were deprived of .11 representation, 35 were reduced to x mem- 
 ber each. Of the seats thus gained 19 were given to English 
 urban constituencies, 9 to Scotland, and 30 to the counties. The 
 franchise or voting qualification was granted in counties to oc- 
 cupying tenants-at-will of property worth ii2 a year (previously 
 £50). The iio freehold, leasehold, and copyhold qualification 
 was reduced to £5. In boroughs votes were given to all house- 
 holders (previously the house had to be worth iio a year), also 
 to lodgers in tenements whose lodgings were worth £10 a year 
 unfurnished. The latter provision was designed to admit all 
 the better class of town labourers to the elective franchise. 
 
 The reform did not do away with the unequal representation 
 
66 ENGLAND BETWEEN THE TWO REFORMS. 
 
 in the counties; it was estimated that 125 members represented 
 12,500,000 persons, while 158 members represented 7,500,000. 
 The boroughs with a population under 50,000 had 230 deputies 
 for 3,280,000 persons, those with a population above 50,000 hav- 
 ing 130 deputies for 11,537,000 persons. The reform preserved 
 the character of privilege in the right of voting. It demanded 
 further one year's residence before a man had the right to in- 
 scribe himself as a voter. But it doubled the voting body in the 
 English counties and boroughs, and trebled it in the Scottish 
 boroughs. In the cities the increase was especially great. In 
 short, the reform enfranchised nearly all the workingmen of the 
 cities, and England entered upon the democratic era. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY and SOURCES.— See bibliography under chap. ii. 
 
 The documents are of the same nature as for the preceding period. 
 The reviews are becoming more numerous and more important ; in ad- 
 dition to those already given, the Westminster Review, the Saturday 
 Review, and the Fortnightly Review. 
 
 Under the head of correspondence, memoirs, and speeches, in addition 
 to the documents common to the two periods indicated under the pre- 
 ceding chapter (Peel, Eussell, Palmerston, GrevlUe, Croker) the most impor- 
 tant are: Malmesbury, " Memoirs of an Ex-Minister," 2 vols. 1884 ; Iddes- 
 leigh (Stafford Northcote), Life, by Lang, 2 vols., 1890; Prince Consort, Life, 
 by Martin, 5 vols., 1880, has much original material for political history ; 
 O'Connell, T, Davis, i8go, both on the Irish agitation; Gammage, "Hist, of 
 Chartism," 1854, on the Chartist agitation. 
 
 WORKS.— On the General History. — See chap. ii. 
 
 In addition to Gardiner, Martineau, Walpole, and the " National Biog- 
 raphy," mentioned under chap, ii., there is a general history of England 
 from 1830 to 1871, 3 vols., by Uolesworth; also a history since Victoria's ac- 
 cession: by Justin McCarthy, " Hist, of Our Own Times," 5 vols., extending 
 to 1897. The series entitled, " Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria," 1890-91, 
 is a collection of biographies of the ministers, Peel, Aberdeen, Palmerston, 
 Gladstone Beaconsfleld, and Salisbury, by different authors. 
 
 On Central Government and Local Administration. — See bibliog- 
 raphy under chap. ii. 
 
 The chief works are : Todd, Gneist, and, in French, Franqueville.— Cox, " In- 
 stitutions of the English government," 1863, an excellent account for that 
 date. 
 
 On the Labour and Chartist Agitation.— In addition to S. Webb, see 
 articles and bibliog. in the " National Biography," on "Owen "and the 
 Chartist leaders (Lovett, O'Connor, O'Brien, Jones, Frost). There is as yet 
 no complete history of the Chartist movement ; Graham Wallace is prepar- 
 ing one. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 6? 
 
 On the Irish Agitation. — In addition to Fressense, see the " National 
 Biography," bibliog. under the article " O'Connell." 
 
 On the Free-Trade Agitation. — J. Uorleyi "Life of Cobden,"2 vols. ; 
 Villiers, Free-Trade Speeches, 2 vols., 1883 ; Bright, Letters, edited by- 
 Leech, 2 vols., Life, by Robertson, 1881 ; L, Brentano, "Anfangund Ende 
 der Englischen Kornzolle," 1892 ; Eichelot, " Histoire de la R6f orme Com- 
 merciale en Angleterre," 2 vols., 1853-55, a book for popular use. 
 
 On Internal Development.— A collection entitled " The Reign of Queen 
 Victoria, a survey of fifty years of prosperity," 5 vols., 1888 ; each author- 
 has treated one subject: Huxley, the natural sciences; Hatch, religion; 
 Courtney, finance ; Garnett, literature ; Caird, agriculture, and Matthew, 
 education. 
 
 On Destitution in England. — Karl Marx, " Das Kapital," vol. ii., 1885; 
 Engels, " Die Lage der Arbeitenden Classen in England," 1845 ; botk 
 socialists. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY.* 
 
 Conditions of Political Life. — The electoral reform of 1867, by 
 transforming the voting body, dhanged the conditions of politi- 
 cal life in England. Voters became much more numerous ; elec- 
 tions were more generally contested; in the cities and boroughs 
 the workingmen gained the political control. Almost every- 
 where since 1867 the voters have formed a popular mass too 
 numerous to be bought, or controlled by a great lord. 
 
 The parties have been obliged to adapt themselves to this 
 democratic transformation; they have adopted the custom origi- 
 nated in the United States of organizing a permanent association 
 to disseminate the party principles and direct party operations 
 in time of election. The Liberals set the example by founding a 
 league with its centre at Birmingham, and the Conservatives 
 have copied them. There existed already an organization of the 
 parties in Parliament, each having its recognised leader and its 
 whippers-in charged with bringing out the full strength of the 
 party for important votes. Parliament has preserved its ancient 
 custom of having no pay for members, and of voting openly by 
 division. Those members who have private business to carry 
 on are often absent from London; they must be summoned when 
 their vote is needed. 
 
 Each party has founded a correspondence bureau, to keep in 
 touch with its voters, with a permanent central committee and 
 local committees; as in the United States, election programs 
 have become party manifestos, and an attempt is made to sum up 
 each party's policy in a short and striking formula to serve as the 
 battle-cry for its adherents. 
 
 Representatives have become more dependent on the voters, 
 the House of Commons having become more representative. 
 Parliamentary rule has become more systematic; the House of 
 Commons is the sovereign power, no ministry daring to govern 
 without the support of its majority. 
 
 * This chapter has been freely revised and in part rewritten. — S. M. M. 
 
 68 
 
GLADSTONE'S REFORMS. 69 
 
 The parties have held their ground in their old strongholds. 
 The Conservative party still depends chiefly on the voters of the 
 English counties, that is to say, on the territory still controlled 
 by the Church and the landed gentry. The Liberals have the 
 voters of the boroughs and cities, chiefly in the manufacturing 
 regions of the north and west of England, the English Dissenters 
 opposed to the Anglican clergy, and the greater part of Scotland, 
 a democratic country; its electoral forces have increased. But 
 the House of Commons itself has been transformed. The old 
 aristocratic Whigs, hostile to the workingmen, have gradually 
 disappeared; a new generation of middle-class Radicals has ap- 
 peared, elected by the working classes, with a democratic pol- 
 icy. The English system of election by plurality vote, with- 
 out second ballots, compels the opponents of the Conservatives 
 to combine their votes on a single candidate. It thus prevents 
 the formation of a distinct Radical party. The Liberal party has 
 hecome a permanent coalition of old Liberals and Radicals 
 which little by little has come to adopt the Radical program. 
 The Liberal leader Gladstone, who began his career as a PeeHte 
 Conser,vative, has been won over by a continuous evolution to 
 the Radical standard. The Conservatives have maintained their 
 policy of steadily opposing all new reforms, though never at- 
 tempting to undo those already established. But it has also 
 taken on a more democratic appearance.* 
 
 Gladstone's Reforms (1868-74). — ^The Conservative ministry of 
 which Disraeli had become head (February, 1868) by the retire- 
 ment of Derby, maintained itself without a majority until the 
 end of 1868. They put ofif the election of a new Parliament until 
 the new lists of voters should be ready, in accordance with the Act 
 of 1867. 
 
 The elections held after the system had been reformed returned > 
 a heavy Liberal majority (387 against 271), given by the bor- 
 oughs and by Scotland. The Adullamites, or aristocratic Whigs, 
 had disappeared; the Liberals, elected by a coalition of Liberal 
 and Radical voters, entered on a reform program which had 
 been explained to the voters. There were two leading reform 
 
 * The statements of this paragraph were approximately true in 1870, 
 but they are not borne out by recent general elections. The cities are 
 chiefly represented by Tories. Nor is it true that the new Tories " steadily 
 oppose all new reforms "; they oppose some proposed by the Radicals, but 
 many of the liberal reforms of the last twenty-five years have been enacted 
 by the Tories.— Tr. 
 
70 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 projects. Gladstone, a Liberal-Conservative, leader of the Lib- 
 eral-Radical coalition, had spoken above all of reform for Ire- 
 land. Bright, leader of the Radicals, stood for free elementary 
 education, land reform to give peasants bits of ground, abolition 
 of duties on tea and sugar to give workingmen " a free breakfast 
 table," and a cut in the expenses of the army and navy. 
 
 As after 1832, the electoral reform stimulated Parliamentary 
 activity, and the Liberal majority undertook a series of reforms 
 to satisfy its Irish and Radical allies. 
 
 Gladstone began with Ireland. After the famine and emigra- 
 tion of 1848, the Irish had passed through a long period of de- 
 pression without political excitement. Then a new national 
 party was organized with the aid of the Irish established in the 
 United States. It took the form of a secret society, with an 
 initiatory oath, night meetings, and a symbolic standard, and gave 
 to itself the name of Fenians (a name taken from the legendary 
 history of Ireland). It was a revolutionary republican party, 
 wishing to establish the Republic of Ireland by an armed revolt 
 against England; it counted on the Irish-Americans who had just 
 se'rved in the two armies during the Civil War; it hoped also to 
 attract the Irish soldiers who were so numerous in the English 
 army. The Irish people secretly encouraged the movement 
 (there were even, in 1861, great demonstrations in honour of the 
 national martyrs). 
 
 The government had seized the secret printing-press of the 
 Fenian newspaper, arrested and condemned the leaders of the 
 party (1865). But the party had reorganized itself. The Feni- 
 ans remaining in the United States had tried to invade Canada. 
 Those who had come from America, officers and soldiers of the 
 American army, had prepared for a general uprising in Ireland 
 (March, 1867) ; this was a failure. The Fenians tried to agitate 
 in England also; one of them, Kelly, an American general, plot- 
 ted to seize the arms in the Chester arsenal, but he was caught 
 and taken away ; a band of Fenians attacked the carriage in which 
 he was being carried away and freed him; three of these men 
 were executed and were celebrated by the Irish as martyrs. An- 
 other Fenian general was confined in a prison in London; an 
 attempt was made to blow up the prison (1867). 
 
 These two incidents attracted the attention of the English. 
 Gladstone declared that reforms had become necessary in Ire- 
 land. Like Peel in 1845, he proposed not to satisfy the revo- 
 lutionists by granting home rule, but to appease the mass of the 
 
GLADSl'ONE'S REFORMS. Jl 
 
 population, the clergy, and the peasants. It was necessary, he 
 said, to make law as much respected in Ireland as in England, 
 and, in order to make it respected, they must first convince the 
 people that law is a friend, not an enemy. Following this prin- 
 ciple, the ministry carried two reforms: 
 
 First. They disestablished and disendowed the Anglican 
 Church in Ireland. They disendowed it by taking from it its 
 tithes and estates, the whole valued at sixteen million pounds 
 sterling. The proceeds were divided into three parts: the largest 
 went as compensation to the rectors and others having " vested 
 interests" in the Church, which was to become an unofficial cor- 
 poration; the second part went to assist the two other Irish 
 churches, the Presbyterian and the Catholic, and the third to be 
 a fund for the establishment of charitable institutions (hospitals 
 and asylums).* This was not a radical measure, for the An- 
 glican Church of Ireland retained its buildings and was still very 
 rich ; but the reform put an end to the official inequality between 
 the churches, so offensive to the majority (1869-71). 
 
 Second. To better the condition of the peasants the ministry 
 passed the Land Act of 1870. This gave the force of law to the 
 custom of the Protestant province of Ulster, where the landlord 
 was under obligation, by force of custom, not to raise the rent 
 arbitrarily, nor to evict the tenant without paying him a compen- 
 sation to reimburse him for all improvements made in the 
 land. A similar right to compensation for eviction was ex- 
 tended to the rest of Ireland. But the measure had little effect, 
 as no protection was given against eviction for non-payment of 
 rent — and such evictions became unhappily frequent in the years 
 following the passage of the act. 
 
 At the same time, to oppose the revolutionists, the government 
 passed a Coercion Act, instituting special measures for the sup- 
 pression of crime in Ireland. 
 
 In England the Liberal ministry, to satisfy the Radicals, car- 
 ried a reform in primary education. The old Liberals had 
 contented themselves with an appropriation for private schools; 
 the Act of 1870 made primary instruction obligatory. In all 
 
 ♦The amount given to the Catholics and Presbyterians Ofi, 120,000) was 
 fourteen times the annual grants they had been receiving under the name 
 of the Maynooth Grant and the Regium Donum. These annual grants 
 were then discontinued. The third part, known as the Irish Church 
 Surplus, has been drawn on for many purposes ; a portion of it was used 
 under the Act of 1882, to pay oflE the rents of tenants who were in 
 arrears. — Tr. 
 
72 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 those regions where the private schools seemed insufficient, the 
 government received the right to institute a school board, elected 
 by the taxpayers, which was empowered to levy a tax for build- 
 ing and maintaining public schools, to compel parents to send 
 their children to school, and to exempt the poor from the school 
 fees. The public schools had to be non-sectarian, but the Bible 
 might be taught. Tlie educational committee became a sort of 
 ministry of instruction, charged with the organization and di- 
 rection of the schools. It was a system of public education, 
 compulsory and independent of the Church, but which at the 
 same time did not interfere with private, voluntary, and sec- 
 tarian schools. 
 
 The ministry abolished the old custom of purchase in the 
 English army. They had carried the measure in the House of 
 Commons, but the Lords rejected it; they then accomplished the 
 reform by royal order, withdrawing the royal warrant on which 
 the system of purchasing commissions rested (1871).* 
 
 Finally the ministry, carrying out the promise made to the 
 Radicals, reformed the voting process. The Radicals since 1832 
 had been vainly calling for secret ballot, to make voters inde- 
 pendent, and to sustain them against the pressure of the aris- 
 tocracy and clergy. The reform of 1867 had preserved the 
 ancient system of viva voce voting. The old parties had held 
 to this because it gave landlords an opportunity to observe the 
 votes of their tenants ; they defended it theoretically on the ground 
 that voting, being a public function, should be carried on in 
 public. At last (1872) the Liberal party resigned itself to the 
 establishment of the secret ballot. They followed the plan in- 
 vented by the English democratic colony of Victoria in Australia: 
 
 ♦The army regulations fixed a money value for commissions of regi- 
 mental officers, ranging, in th6 infantry, from ;^450 for an ensigncy, to 
 ;£'45oo for a lieutenant-colonelcy. Before receiving his commission of any 
 grade the appointee had to pay into the " reserve fund " the price named 
 in the regulation. Further, any holder of a commission could resign it at 
 any time (during peace) and obtain out of the " reserve fund," a sum at 
 least equal to the various payments he had made into it. The avowed 
 object of the system was to provide a safe competence for retiring officers, 
 without burdening the state with pensions. As promotion went by 
 seniority, the younger officers had strong reasons for desiring speedy re- 
 tirement of those at the top. A practice had grown up of making large 
 private payments to the higher officers as an inducement to retire. When 
 the government cancelled the system, it reimbursed the officers then in 
 service for the " over-regulation" sums they had paid. — about ;^io,ooo,ooo, 
 
TRADE UNION LEGISLATION. 73 
 
 the election officer has a ticket printed containing the names 
 of all the candidates; each voter receives this ticket and marks 
 with a cross the candidate for whom he votes. 
 
 Gladstone next proposed to establish in Ireland a univer- 
 sity independent of the Church (1873); but the majority would 
 no longer follow him; they rejected the scheme. 
 
 Trade IJnion Legislation. — ^The workingmen who had aided in 
 bringing about the electoral reform now called for a reform in 
 the laws governing associations. Their professional syndicates, 
 the trade unions, were simply tolerated, not recognised; the Act 
 of 1825 (see chapter ii.) permitted coalition between workingmen, 
 but with certain restrictions so interpreted that justices of the 
 peace might condemn to imprisonment labourers who abused 
 a comrade unwilling to strike. The old law regarding Master and 
 Servant recognised the legal inequality between employer and 
 employee; if an employer broke the contract or discharged the 
 employee, he had only to pay damages; if the employee broke 
 the contract, he incurred the penalty of three months' imprison- 
 ment, a single justice of the peace having the power to arrest 
 and condemn him without appeal. In these cases the employer 
 could testify; the employee, being the accused, could not. Dur- 
 ing the single year of 1863 it was estimated that there had been 
 more than ten thousand prosecutions of workingmen. 
 
 In the period of industrial prosperity which followed i860 a 
 great strike was made for a rise of wages and a lessening of 
 the hours of labour. The employers' retaliated with lock-outs, 
 and, as formerly in 1834 (see chapter iii.), with the demand that 
 no man working for them should belong to a union. 
 
 Some workmen in Sheffield avenged themselves by vio- 
 lence — on one occasion by the use of dynamite in destroying 
 buildings (1866). Public opinion attributed these acts to the in- 
 fluence of the trade unions, and it became the custom in Eng- 
 land for some years to curse the unions for throwing working- 
 men into wretchedness by exciting them to strikes or working 
 on their fears to make them submit to the despotic orders of the 
 unions. Secretaries of associations were represented as adventur- 
 ers who lived at the expense of the labouring classes. The gov- 
 ernment appointed a commission of inquiry on the abuses com- 
 mitted by the unions. It was proved in evidence before the com- 
 mission that some officers of unions had been guilty of hiring 
 ruffians to maim and even murder labourers who refused to obey 
 the orders of the union; that gross and brutal oppression was 
 
74 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 habitually practised on labourers who declined to join the or- 
 ganizations. The commission, while faithfully reporting these 
 enormities, expressed the opinion that the existing law, by deny- 
 ing legal status to the union, tended rather to provoke than 
 to repress violent action. A judicial decree had decided that 
 trade unions had no legal recognition, could not hold title to 
 property nor maintain actions in the courts in defence of their 
 rights. The reason was that their objects were regarded as 
 illegal, being in the nature of restraints on the freedom of in- 
 dustry. The commissioners recommended that the law be so 
 changed as to enable trade unions to hold property and main- 
 tain actions in the courts, in the same way as Friendly Societies. 
 
 The Liberal ministry, following this advice, passed the Act of 
 1871, which recognised trade unions as capable of holding prop- 
 erty and of maintaining and defending actions at law. But to 
 satisfy the great manufacturers they passed at the same time an 
 amendment to the criminal law. This amendment forbade 
 strikers, under penalty of imprisonment, to station " pickets " to 
 warn labourers against taking places left vacant by them, or 
 to threaten, molest, or obstruct any labourer in order to cause 
 Tiim to leave an employment. Unions and strikes were made 
 lawful, but the use of violent means to make a strike succeed 
 remained unlawful. The act defines the forbidden " threats " to 
 be such as would entitle the person threatened to have the 
 threatener placed imder bond to keep the peace. 
 
 The trade unions began an agitation for the repeal of this law. 
 Their common central organ, created in 1867, the " Association 
 of United Trades " was replaced by a Parliamentary committee 
 (1871) charged with the task of influencing members of Parlia- 
 ment. This committee demanded the repeal of the Act of 1871 ; 
 Gladstone refused it. The working classes then abandoned the 
 Liberal party, which was put in a minority at the general elec- 
 tion of 1874. 
 
 The Imperialist Policy of the Conservative Ministry (1874-80). 
 — ^The Liberal ministry had little by little lost its majority; it had 
 alienated the Dissenters by accepting the church schools as part 
 of the new system and by allowing religious instruction to be 
 given in the public schools; it had alienated the working classes 
 by refusing to repeal the Act of 1871. Gladstone dissolved Par- 
 liament. In the new House of Commons, elected in January, 
 1874, the Conservatives for the first time since 1847, had a 
 majority (of nearly fifty votes). 
 
IMPERIALIST POLICY OF CONSERVATIVE MINISTRY. 75 
 
 The Conservative ministry governed six and a half years with 
 this majority. Its leader, Disraeli (made Lord Beaconsfield in 
 1876), had only a negative program for home affairs: to uphold 
 the institutions of old England — royalty, the House of Lords, and 
 the Anglican Church — against the attacks of the Radicals. But 
 he expressed this traditional policy under a new form. Being 
 an orator and a novelist, he inclined toward theatrical attitudes 
 and literary forms. He was credited with aiming to give the 
 Conservatives a policy and spirit altogether different from that 
 of the old aristocratic Tories. He belonged to a converted Jew- 
 ish family, and had come forward first as a Radical candidate 
 expressing in his early speeches and later in the novel " Sybil " 
 his sympathy with the Chartist labourers. Even when he had be- 
 come a Conservative member, he continued to ridicule the prevail- 
 ing ideas of the aristocracy ; he compared the English government 
 from 1688 to 1832 to the constitution of Venice; he accused the' 
 aristocratic families of having usurped the royal power, and 
 talked of " emancipating the sovereign " from the tyranny of 
 Parliament and founding a government on three forces, the 
 monarchy, the Church, and the people. Later he declared that 
 the Conservative party had three great objects: to preserve the 
 national Church, to keep the English Empire intact, and to raise 
 the condition of the people. He appealed to the people to sup- 
 port the sovereign and the Church; in return for which the sov- 
 ereign should improve the material condition of the people, and 
 the -Church their moral condition. His ideal was an ecclesias- 
 tical and democratic monarchy — a combination of the concep- 
 tions of Napoleon III., Bismarck, and Leo XIII. With the ex- 
 ception of the act of 1875 on strikes and some reforms of detail 
 (in schools, public health, and care of the poor), the Conservative 
 ministry did little that was noteworthy in domestic policy. It 
 occupied itself mainly with external matters. Disraeli tried to 
 excite English patriotism by adopting a warlike policy in the 
 name of English honour, compromised, as he said, by Glad- 
 stone's neutral policy. 
 
 He directed this patriotic agitation toward two subjects — the 
 English colonies and the Eastern question. The Literal influ- 
 ence was tending toward the separation of the colonies from the 
 mother country. Distant dependencies the Liberals regarded 
 simply as a useless expense. The Conservatives declared for the 
 " integrity of the British Empire," and looked toward tightening 
 the bonds between England and her colonies by a military and 
 
76 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 commercial federation. The government proclaimed the Queen 
 Empress of India. They attempted a federation of Southern 
 Africa, which ended in the war of the Transvaal. 
 
 In the Eastern question Disraeli declared for the support of the 
 Ottoman Empire. Gladstone checked him for a time by exciting; 
 popular opinion against the Turks as guilty of the " Bulgarian 
 atrocities " (the title of Gladstone's pamphlet). He organized in 
 1876 great indignation meetings in the large cities. But Parlia- 
 ment decided to approve interference; England, as at the time of 
 the Crimean War, adopted a warlike policy and played an active 
 part in European affairs. Beaconsfield took part in the Congress 
 of Berlin, and on his return was triumphantly received in London 
 (1878). 
 
 The Conservative ministry also ended the Ashanti war in 1874, 
 and began the war in Afghanistan and that against the Zulus. 
 
 The act of 1875 on strikes repealed Gladstone's criminal law 
 amendment of 1871 ; it also repealed the old law of Master and 
 Servant. Labourers who broke their agreemen-ts by leaving 
 their work were no longer to be subject to imprisonment, except 
 in cases where the desertion inflicts injury on the public or wil- 
 fully endangers life or property. They became liable, instead, 
 to a civil action for damages. Also, they were no longer to be 
 adjudged guilty of criminal conspiracy, for agreeing to do in 
 common anything that was not criminal when done by a single 
 individual. The new law retains the prohibitions against the use 
 of violence and intimidation in furtherance of strikes; persistent 
 following of men, watching or besetting their place of abode or 
 of work, subject the offenders to fine or imprisonment. The new 
 law satisfied the labour unions and has remained in force. 
 
 Formation of the Irish Home Rule Party. — Under the Con- 
 servative ministry there sprang up in Ireland a new opposition- 
 party which by a new policy acquired a decisive influence over 
 internal aflfairs in England. Until now the English had occupied 
 themselves with Ireland only intermittently. The Irish question 
 had faced each generation (1801, 1820-29, 1843-48, 1865-67) and 
 it was never settled. The Irish people remained miserable and 
 unhappy, but when they stopped active demonstrations, it was 
 said that the English forgot all about them. The Irish oppo- 
 sition existed no longer except in two classes of men working in- 
 dependently. In Parliament there was a little group of Irish 
 home-rule representatives, standing outside the great parties, 
 formed of insignificant men little considered by their richer col- 
 
FORMATION OF THE IRISH HOME RULE PARTY. 77 
 
 leagues. In Ireland there was an agrarian party, made up of 
 young men who avenged themselves for eviction by shooting 
 landlords or their agents and by mutilating cattle. These modes 
 of vengeance had been practised since the eighteenth century 
 and in the nineteenth century there had always been in Ireland 
 men ready to resort to violence. Whiteboys and moonlighters 
 were so called because they preferred to do their work at night; 
 they did not, however, form a political party. There were still 
 a few Fenians, but they were without organization. 
 
 The Irish had demanded first the repeal of the Act of Union, 
 then a republic. The Parliamentary group iidopted a new name, 
 that of the Home Rule party; they demanded not complete sepa- 
 ration, but a home government directed by an Irish Parliament. 
 
 This party at first had no influence, the House of Commons 
 taking little account of its Irish members. The situation 
 changed when Parnell took the leadership of the Home Rule 
 party. He was a Protestant and of English family, but brought 
 up in Ireland and devoted to the cause of Irish independence. 
 He induced the party to adopt a new policy in the English Par- 
 liament and in Ireland. 
 
 In Parliament his principle was to form an Irish party entirely 
 separate from the English parties, not allying itself to one to 
 oppose the other as in O'Connell's time, but devoting itself 
 to blocking the work of the Parliament. The aim was to stop 
 the progress of English affairs until the Irish question should be 
 settled. The customs of the English Parliament, consecrated by 
 tradition, recognised the right of every member to speak for an 
 indefinite length of time. Now every member could propose an 
 amendment on every line of every bill ; could call for a vote by 
 division, which takes time, and could make after each vote a 
 motion to adjourn or raise the question whether there was a 
 quorum present and demand a count of the House. It was 
 therefore easy for a small number of determined members to 
 stop the progress of business at will. 
 
 This plan, known as obstruction, had been a little employed by 
 every party when in minority, but only on rare occasions. Par- 
 nell made a systematic practice of it. The Irish members, hav- 
 ing arranged to relieve each other, began a series of discourses 
 which were not even reported in the papers, and dragged out the 
 sessions interminably; in the discussion of the South Africa Act 
 (1877) the Wednesday session lasted until two o'clock Thursday 
 afternoon. The obstruction of the " Irish brigade " became so 
 
78 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 annoying that the House of Commons, in defiance of established 
 custom, gave its Speaker the power to call for a vote on the 
 suspension of any member guilty of wilfully and persistently 
 obstructing the business of the House. In 1879 it was esti- 
 mated that during a single session of Parliament a certain Irish 
 member had spoken 500 times, another 369. 
 
 In Ireland the Parliamentary party came to an understanding 
 with the leaders of the land party. Davitt, an old Fenian con- 
 vict, brought back in 1877, started a defensive association among 
 the peasants which presently became the " Land League "; it was 
 founded in Galloway and then extended to all Ireland (1879). 
 The act of 1870 did not prevent the landlord from exacting an 
 extortionate rent nor from driving out a tenant who did not pay 
 his rent. By reason of several short crops, coupled with a fall 
 in prices of farm produce, many peasants could not pay their rent. 
 The number of evictions increased accordingly (from 1269 in 
 1876 to 2267 in 1879). The Land League adopted a program 
 summed up in three catchwords: ist, Hxity of tenure, the right of 
 the tenant to hold his land so long as he paid his rent; 2d, free 
 sale, the right of the tenant to sell his holding; 3d, fair rent, which 
 was explained to be the annual value of the land in its natural 
 state (" prairie value ")• These were known as the three F's. 
 Their intended efifect was to reduce the landlord to the position 
 of a mere rent-receiver and to transform the Irish peasants into 
 small proprietors burdened only with a small fixed rent. To 
 •compel the landlords to yield, Parnell advised those peasants who 
 had received notice to quit to stand by their farms until they were 
 driven out, trusting that many landlords would shrink from the 
 costly process of police eviction. The Land League was itself 
 to aid peasants who resisted, the members of the League pledg- 
 ing themselves not to take the place of an evicted tenant. 
 
 But there was no money to carry on this struggle. Parnell 
 called for contributions from Irish patriots in America. He 
 made a tour of the United States, was received there as the rep- 
 resentative of Ireland, and returned with the sum of seventy- 
 two thousand pounds sterling (1879-80). 
 
 The Home Rule party had combined three forces, the Irigh 
 peasants, the Irish members, and the Irish in America. In Ire- 
 land it worked upon the peasants by the promise of improving 
 their material condition ; it made them desire an Irish Parliament 
 to make the land reform ; it made them elect Home Rule candi- 
 dates. In England it employed the Irish members in forcing 
 
LIBERAL MINISTRY AND IRISH PARTY. 79 
 
 the attention of Parliament to the Irish question with the hope 
 of securing home rule. In America it gathered the necessary 
 funds for the national agitation. 
 
 The party, definitely organized in 1879, elected Parnell as its 
 leader. 
 
 Struggle between the Liberal Ministry and the Irish Party 
 (1880-85). — The Conservative ministry had all this time kept its 
 majority in the House of Commons. After the success of the 
 Congress of Berlin the common opinion was that the elections 
 of 1880 would return a Tory majority. But the voters, probably 
 indififerent to the foreign policy and discontented by reason of 
 business depression and a series of bad crops, deserted the Con- 
 servatives. The elections of 1880 gave the Liberals an unex- 
 pected majority (349 Liberals, 235 Conservatives, and 63 Home 
 Rulers). 
 
 The Liberal ministry under Gladstone, which now assumed 
 charge of the government, was occupied with the struggle against 
 the Irish party and with electoral reform. Abroad it began the 
 English occupation of Egypt and came to an agreement with 
 Russia as to the Afghan boundary. 
 
 The ministry tried in the session of 1880 to appease the Irish 
 by a bill designed to protect tenants against eviction for non- 
 payment of rent, in cases where the courts were satisfied that the 
 failure to pay was due to inability. The bill was not accepted 
 by the Irish members, and was eventually rejected by the 
 House of Lords. In the Home Rule party those in favour 
 of keeping up the struggle had just got the better of those who 
 favoured alliance with the Liberals: Parnell had been re-elected 
 as leader by a vote of twenty-three to eighteen. 
 
 The Home Rule party declared the government scheme in- 
 sufficient and again demanded radical reform — the suppression 
 of landlordism and the concession of national home rule. The 
 Irish agitation, instead of quieting down, increased in violence. 
 Agrarian crimes, that is to say, murders and other acts of violence 
 against landlords, became more numerous. New devices were 
 directed against the enemies of the League. They were put 
 under " boycott "; no Irishman would have anything to do with 
 them; they could find neither man nor woman willing to work 
 for them, nor any tradesman to sell them anything. This pro- 
 cedure, first applied to Captain Boycott (November, 1880), be- 
 came known under the name of the earliest victim. Active 
 resistance to eviction, boycotting, and personal acts of vengeance 
 
8o ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 made the situation intolerable to Irish landlords. A deputation 
 of 105 great proprietors entreated the Viceroy of Ireland to pro- 
 tect them and to keep their names secret, for fear of bringing 
 down upon them the vengeance of the League. 
 
 The government decided to fight it out. They instituted pro- 
 ceedings against the leaders of the League, accusing them of 
 keeping farmers from paying their rent and landlords from rent- 
 ing their lands. Parnell continued his campaign in Ireland. 
 
 The government then brought up a measure providing for the 
 repression of agrarian and political crimes in Ireland. The 
 Irish party retaliated by organizing obstruction against this 
 coercion bill. The session of Jan. 31, 1881, beginning Monday at 
 four o'clock, lasted without interruption until Wednesday morn- 
 ing. The Speaker then refused to hear any more speeches, and 
 the bill passed the first reading in spite of the Irish protestations. 
 The House of Commons passed in 1881 a provisional regulation 
 for closing debate. In 1882 it adopted a permanent rule for the 
 compulsory close of debate, with the restriction that the Speaker 
 alone should have the right of suggesting the proceeding, and 
 that if forty members voted against closing debate the number of 
 votes on the other side must be at least two hundred; otherwise 
 the debate should go on.* 
 
 In the session of 1881 Gladstone succeeded in passing the Sec- 
 ond Irish Land Act. This measure adopted the three F's in a 
 modified form. It set up a Land Court in Ireland, with power 
 to fix the rent of farms on request of either tenant or landlord. At 
 the rent so fixed, subject however to revision at intervals of fifteen 
 years, it gave tenants the right to hold their farms in perpetuity. 
 It also gave them the privilege of selling their tenancies to any 
 solvent person wishing to buy. In case of non-payment of rent, 
 the landlord may sell the tenant-right, but must pay over to the 
 outgoing tenant whatever sum is obtained for it, in excess of the 
 arrears of rent. The measure was opposed and denounced by 
 Parnell's followers in Parliament, on the ground that it was 
 utterly inadequate to settle Irish grievances. After it was 
 passed they tried to prevent the peasantry from taking advantage 
 of its provisions. 
 
 * In 1887 the requirement was reduced to one hundred ; and it was 
 made possible for any member to move the closure without a previous 
 intimation from the Speaker. The Speaker is, however, to decline to put 
 the motion unless he thinks the subject in hand has been " adequately 
 discussed."— Tr. 
 
LIBERAL MINISTRY AND IRISH PARTY. 8l 
 
 The government made use of the exceptional laws to arrest 
 some of the Irish leaders; but the number of evictions increased 
 and the Irish party went on with the fight. Its leaders tried to 
 prevent the tenantry from taking advantage of the new law. A 
 " national convention " of twelve hundred delegates, convoked 
 by the Land League at Dublin, passed the declaration that " the 
 cause of political and social evils is the system of foreign domina- 
 tion," and that the only remedy is to give Ireland the right to 
 govern herself (September, 1881). Gladstone denounced " the 
 new gospel of pillage " and " Mr. Parnell's tyranny," and de- 
 clared himself firm in maintaining English rule and rights of 
 property. Then he had Pamell arrested. Parnell replied with 
 the no-rent manifesto, calling upon peasants to stop the payment 
 of rent until the coercive measures were abandoned. The gov- 
 ernment declared the League dissolved (October, 1881). The 
 League transported its headquarters to England, and a league of 
 women led by Parnell's sister kept up the fight at home. 
 
 After several months of agitation, arrests, and prosecutions the 
 ministry made up their minds to a reconciliation, and made 
 arrangements with the Irish leaders imprisoned at Kilmainham. 
 This was known as the " Kilmainham treaty." The ministry re- 
 leased the prisoners and promised them a law remitting arrears 
 of rent to the tenants. 
 
 But a small revolutionary body, the Invincibles, were holding 
 by the Fenian traditions, and wished an armed revolt and a com- 
 plete separation from England. These men upbraided the Home 
 Rulers for demanding only a Home Rule Parliament, and rejected 
 their policy of legal resistance. In order to make a reconciliation 
 impossible, they assassinated in broad daylight, in a Dublin park, 
 the secretary and under-secretary for Ireland (May 6, 1882). 
 The ministry replied with a bill which instituted trial by magis- 
 trates without juries, and placed Ireland under coercion for three 
 years. 
 
 The violent revolutionists, allied with societies in America, 
 tried, like the Russian revolutionists, the effect of dynamite ex- 
 plosions to compel the English to grant Irish home rule. They 
 worked in England at the very doors of the government; there 
 was an explosion in the local government office in 1883, in 
 the vestibule of the House of Commons in January, 1885, and in 
 1883 a band was discovered which was making dynamite at Bir- 
 mingham and at Liverpool with which to blow up public build- 
 ings. This scheme was avowed in the United States at a public 
 
82 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 meeting by an Irish revolutionist named O'Donovan Rnssa; the 
 only way to get any concession from England, he said, was by 
 terrorizing her. 
 
 In Ireland a national subscription was taken up in honour of 
 Parnell, and at the banquet where the money was handed to him 
 the toast to the Queen was replaced by a toast tO' " Ireland as a 
 nation." 
 
 Electoral Reform (1884-85). — Many Liberals had long been 
 calling for electoral reform. They were trying especially to do- 
 away with the inequality between boroughs and counties. The 
 conference of Liberal representatives which met in October, 
 1883, determined to get the measure passed. The Gladstone 
 ministry presented it in two parts and carried it in the House of 
 Commons without resistance (1884); all parties were agreed that 
 such a reform was necessary. Even the Lords only delayed it a 
 little (1885). 
 
 For the first time the reformers were not content with a re- 
 distribution of seats ; they created new seats, increasing the num- 
 ber of members to 670. This was done tO' facilitate the appor- 
 tionment of seats. 
 
 They made a systematic attempt to lessen inequalities by mak- 
 ing the provisions uniform. 
 
 First. The franchise, or right of voting, hitherto differing in 
 the counties and boroughs, was brought under the same rules. 
 The borough franchise was extended to the counties, thus nearly 
 trebling the number of county voters by the admission of the 
 agricultural labourers. 
 
 Second. The smaller boroughs had had hitherto an excessive 
 share of the representation. It was estimated that on an average 
 the boroughs had one member for 41,000 inhabitants, the counties 
 one member for 78,000; the boroughs therefore had, for the same 
 population, almost double the representation of the counties.. 
 The act took away separate representation from 105 boroughs 
 with a population under 16,000 and left only one member each 
 to 37 boroughs under 50,000. It redistributed the seats thus 
 gained to the counties and to cities of over 165,000 inhabitants, 
 in the rough proportion of i member to 50,000. The cities and 
 counties were divided into districts so as to have everywhere 
 single-member districts, except in the case of 34 boroughs having 
 two members each. The experiment of " three-cornered " con- 
 stituencies, tried in 1867 with a view to giving minority represen- 
 tation in cities having three members, was abandoned. The prin- 
 
ELECTORAL REFORM. 83 
 
 ciple was that of the so-called " limited vote "—each voter being 
 allowed to vote for only two of the three members assigned to his 
 city. It had proved unsatisfactory to the Liberals of the cities. 
 
 This was not, however, a sweeping reform. The English elec- 
 toral system still preserved from its old organization of estab- 
 hshed custom, several remnants which bring out the lack of a 
 complete plan, and mark its unlikeness to the electoral systems 
 of the continent, which are based on rational principles. Fol- 
 lowing their traditional practice, the English, in creating new 
 ways of getting the right to vote, have taken care to preserve 
 the old ways. There is, therefore, now a medley of ways by which 
 the right of voting may be acquired. But they may be reduced 
 to two general classes: 
 
 (a) Residence within the district either in a separate house or in 
 a tenement worth iio a year. In this qualification there is no 
 question of ownership — it is the simple residence in the house or 
 the lodging, as the person in responsible charge, that confers the 
 right of voting. 
 
 (b) Ownership of land worth £5 a year within the district by 
 freehold or copyhold, or possession of the like amount under 
 lease; or the mere tenancy-at-will of land worth £12 a year in the 
 district. In these qualifications there is no question of residence; 
 the mere holding of land in the district confers the right, no mat- 
 ter where the holder resides. These qualifications belong to the 
 county franchise; a man can still vote at elections in every county 
 where he holds land in any of the ways named, except in the 
 county where he has a vote by residence. Men who are neither 
 householders nor £io-lodgers, nor holders of land in one of the 
 ways named, have no votes. It was estimated in 1885 that there 
 were 1,800,000 men shut out from the right of voting, sons of 
 families living at home, men living in cheap or temporary lodg- 
 ings, workmen lodging with their employers. 
 
 Further peculiarities of the English electoral system are that: 
 
 (c) Registration as a voter is not a matter of course. There 
 are formalities preceding registration; a man must have had at 
 least a year's residence in the place where he registers, and this 
 shuts out many workingmen who have moved from one town or 
 county to another within the election year. 
 
 (d) The election is not held on the same day all over the 
 country. 
 
 (e) The election is still settled by a plurality vote; there is no 
 second balloting. This system sometimes results in the election 
 
84 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 of Conservative candidates in districts where there is not a Con- 
 servative majority, or else it prevents the Radicals from casting 
 their votes for the candidates of their own choice by compelling 
 them to vote for the Liberal candidate. 
 
 (f) Parliament retains its term of seven years as a right. It 
 is indeed a common thing to dissolve Parliament before the seven 
 years are up ; but it is the government that decides it, so that the 
 duration of the House of Commons depends upon the will of the 
 ministry. 
 
 (g) Members do not receive pay, and the election expenses, 
 which are still very heavy, are paid by the candidates. As the 
 right of voting is attached to the property or the domicile, and 
 ■women are not expressly excluded, an attempt was made to secure 
 woman's suffrage on this basis; the courts, however, rejected this 
 interpretation. The House has since approved the principle, 
 but the principle only. 
 
 Disruption of the liberal Party (1885-86), — ^The Gladstone 
 ministry, having become unpopular through alleged weakness 
 in dealing with the Afghan question and with the affairs of Egypt 
 and South Africa, retired after a defeat on a minor point in the 
 budget in June, 1885. It was left in a minority of 12 votes, owing 
 to the abstention of some 50 Liberal members. The Conserva- 
 tive ministry under Salisbury which succeeded, not having a ma- 
 jority in the Commons, maintained itself only through Glad- 
 stone's forbearance. As in 1868, they waited until the new 
 electoral system should be in working order before dissolving 
 the House. The ministers tried to win over the Irish party by 
 declaring that they would not demand the renewal of the 
 exceptional laws for Ireland. 
 
 At the elections of November, 1885, the liberals presented a 
 program of democratic reforms. Gladstone demanded a more 
 equal distribution of taxes, an administrative reform which should 
 give the direction of local affairs to elective bodies, a reform in the 
 House of Lords, a land reform to give a small piece of land to 
 each farm labourer, so as to transform him into a peasant land- 
 owner. The election cry was " three acres and a cow." As to Ire- 
 land, he declared himself ready to grant all the local rights com- 
 patible with the unity of the Empire, but he strongly opposed the 
 re-establishment of a Parliament in Dublin. To this program 
 Chamberlain, the leader of the Radical division of the Liberal 
 party, added the disestablishment of the Anglican Church. 
 
 It was said that Parnell advised the Irish to vote for the Tory 
 
DISRUPTION OF THE LIBERAL PARTY. 85 
 
 candidates where they had no candidates of their own. There 
 were rumours of an arrangement between the two parties which 
 had been opposing Gladstone. Parnell was preparing to adopt 
 a policy more effective than obstruction ; it was not simply to pre- 
 vent the English Parliament from attending to English afifairs, 
 but to get the English ministry in the power of the Irish party. 
 If the two great parties should have each only a minority, the 
 Irish party, holding the balance in its hand, would become the 
 dispenser of power and could name its own conditions. This plan 
 succeeded. In the Parliament elected in 1885 there were 333 
 Liberals, 251 Conservatives, and 86 Irish Home Rulers. The 
 Conservative ministry, even if it succeeded in making a working 
 aUiance with the Home Rulers, would still not have a sufficient 
 majority to carry on the government. It therefore abandoned 
 whatever projects it may have had looking to such an alliance. 
 Gladstone, on the other hand, found in the situation reasons for 
 a new departure in the Irish question. He accepted the policy 
 of granting home rule. When the new Parliament met in Jan- 
 uary, 1886, there were rumours of an agreement between him and 
 Parnell. On an amendment to the address in answer to the 
 Queen's speech, the Home Rulers voted with the Liberals and 
 defeated the ministry. Gladstone was called on to form a new 
 ministry. 
 
 From now on English political discussion was entirely taken 
 tip with the question of the best policy to adopt towards Ireland. 
 And on this question the Liberal party broke up. Gladstone 
 joined the Irish, and proposed home rule as a measure of justice 
 and reparation, also as the best practical method of establishing 
 peace in Ireland. The great majority of the Liberal-Radical 
 party followed him. One section, however, broke away, main- 
 taining that the Union must be preserved first of all, and opposing 
 home rule as a dismemberment of the Empire. These Liberal 
 " Dissenters " took the name of " Liberal-Unionists " ; they in- 
 ' eluded most of the leading men of the Liberal party in both 
 houses of Parliament. 
 
 The division began when Gladstone was forming his Cabinet; 
 many of his old colleagues refused to join it. When he later com- 
 municated to his Cabinet his plans in regard to Ireland, several 
 who had joined it, including Chamberlain, the new Radical 
 leader, withdrew. The breach became definitive when the proj- 
 ect was put before the House of Commons. Gladstone proposed 
 to create an Irish Parliament consisting of one House of two 
 
86 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 Orders, and a responsible executive council like the English Cabi- 
 net; but reserving to the English government the control of mat- 
 ters of common concern: customs and excise duties, commercial 
 legislation, army and navy, foreign policy. In the Parliament 
 where these matters were to be settled for Ireland as well as 
 Great Britain, Ireland was to have no voice. 
 
 In England public opinion was distinctly hostile to the scheme. 
 In Ireland, the Ulster Protestants, who had long been organized 
 in secret societies (lodges), forming a national English party 
 called the Orangemen, made violent protests, and got up a 
 league against home rule. They did not limit themselves to a 
 protest against the ministerial project, but organized militia, an- 
 nouncing their intentions to fight rather than accept the rule of 
 an Irish Parliament. The Ulster women, to the number of 30,- 
 000, sent a petition to the Queen imploring her to refuse her con- 
 sent to the bill. After passionate discussion in the House of 
 Commons and in the newspapers, the bill was defeated by a vote 
 of 341 to 311, in the midst of unparalleled excitement among 
 the members and the public in the galleries (June 7, 1886). 
 
 Gladstone dissolved Parliament and appealed to the nation. 
 The election was exclusively on the Irish question; it was a strug- 
 gle, not between Liberals and Conservatives, but between Home 
 Rulers and Unionists. The Liberal voters, surprised at Glad- 
 stone's rapid evolution, had not had time to accustom themselves 
 to the idea of home rule; many refrained from voting. The 
 Conservatives had the advantage of reinaining united and pre- 
 senting themselves as partisans of national unity, with the addi- 
 tional support of the Liberal Unionists. The election of 1886 
 swamped Gladstone's party; in England they had only 125 seats 
 out of 455 (in London 11 out of 62); in Parliament there were 
 only 191 Gladstonians and 86 Home Rulers, against 317 Con- 
 servatives and 75 Liberal-Unionists. 
 
 Party lines were shattered. Instead of two great parties alter- 
 nating in power, there were two heterogeneous coalitions — the 
 Home Rule coalition, made up of Gladstonian Liberals and Irish 
 Nationalists; the Unionist coalition, made up of Conservatives 
 and Liberal-Unionists. 
 
 The Government of the Unionist Coalition (1886-92). — The 
 Unionist coalition had a majority of 116 votes; it held power for 
 6 years. The ministry (under Salisbury) was made up entirely 
 of Conservatives, but governed with the support of the Liberal- 
 Unionists. 
 
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNIONIST COALITION. 87 
 
 The coalition had been formed to keep Ireland dependent, on 
 the central government; the ministry was chiefly occupied with 
 the fight against the Irish Nationalist party. In Parliament the 
 position of the Irish had changed. Instead of standing alone in 
 systematic opposition, they joined the great Liberal party, which 
 promised to demand for them Irish home rule. This party was 
 supported mainly in the north of England and in the annexed 
 countries, Scotland and Wales. It began to regard home rule 
 as no longer an exceptional measure necessitated by Ireland's 
 special condition, but as a normal system applicable to all parts 
 of the Kingdom. Some of its members, therefore, began to de- 
 mand autonomy and even separate Parliaments for Scotland, 
 Wales, and England (or different parts of England). The British 
 Empire would thus be transformed into a federation into which 
 the colonies would necessarily enter. In adopting this pro- 
 gram, the Home Rule party lost its exclusively Irish char- 
 acter to become a democratic federalist party. Against the 
 Unionist majority it could accomplish nothing in Parliament, but 
 it worked outside to regain the majority in the next elections. 
 
 The Land Court established by the act of 1881 had by this time 
 succeeded in adjusting rents, directly or indirectly, over the greater 
 part of Ireland. In most cases it made a considerable reduction 
 from the old rents, on the average about 25 per cent. But the 
 decline in prices, owing to American competition, went on, and 
 presently there were complaints that even the reduced rents fixed 
 in 1881-83 were too high for the changed situation of 1885-86. 
 But the act of the three F's had enacted that rents once judicially 
 adjusted should remain unchanged for 15 years, and the executive 
 and courts could only uphold the law and the obligation of con- 
 tracts. There was, further, a suspicion that many tenants who 
 were abundantly able to fulfil their agreements, were induced to 
 join in resistance to the law by the mere hope of financial advan- 
 tage and the wish to embarrass a government which they dis- 
 liked. A new tenant league, under the name " Plan of Cam- 
 paign," endeavoured to enlist all tenants in a strike against pay- 
 ment of rents. The members claimed the right of determining for 
 themselves the fair rent of their farms. This amount they placed 
 in the hands of a committee to be tendered to the landlord, with an 
 intimation that any expense they were put to in resisting eviction 
 should be deducted from this rent. They bound themselves to 
 stand by each other, using the boycott and other forms of terror- 
 ism to coerce all who were not disposed to obey their decrees. 
 
88 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 Salisbury's Irish Policy. — ^The Salisbury ministry met this 
 movement with two sets of measures. As juries refused to 
 convict law-breakers, even in face of the clearest evidence, 
 the government carried through Parliament an act authoriz- 
 ing the trial of offenders in the disturbed districts of Ire- 
 land without juries; also giving the Irish executive special 
 powers in dealing with disorders. This act was passed with great 
 difficulty, against the combined resistance of the Liberals and 
 Home Rulers. Unlike previous acts of the kind, it was made a 
 permanent measure and is still in force. While thus striving, and 
 with success, to maintain the enforcement of law, the ministry 
 gave its attention to measures for the industrial and social benefit 
 of the Irish. Landlords were urged to be considerate in the as- 
 sertion of their legal rights — advice which, happily, most of them 
 did not need, having already made liberal concessions to their 
 tenantry. A commission was appointed to inquire into the com- 
 plaints regarding the judicial rents. Grants of money were 
 made for building railroads and making other local improve- 
 ments. Acting on the report of the commission just referred to, 
 an act was passed in 1887 authorizing the land court to readjust 
 rents fixed prior to 1886. Under this power the court made a 
 general decree reducing such rents 20 per cent. 
 
 But the most important part of the ministerial program for 
 Ireland was its measures for enabling the Irish peasants to buy 
 their farms. 'Gladstone's land acts had provisions for assisting 
 tenants in purchasing their land, by advancing two-thirds of the 
 purchase price from the Treasury on very easy terms; but the 
 provisions had been little used. The Salisbury ministry adopted 
 the bold policy of advancing the whole sum. In the short min- 
 istry of 1885-6, the sum of £5,000,000 was appropriated for this 
 purpose, by way of experiment. In 1888 the second Salisbury 
 ministry appropriated another five millions. The plan met with 
 so much success that the same ministry proposed and carried in 
 1891 a general Land Purchase Act, appropriating £33,000,000 
 additional for the purpose. Landlords are not compelled to sell, 
 but they have proved to be willing to accept the price tenants are 
 authorized to offer. The maximum price the law allows the gov- 
 ernment to pay is twenty years' purchase — that is to say, twenty 
 times the yearly rent. The average of prices actually paid is 
 seventeen years' purchase. From the moment of purchase, the 
 peasant becomes full legal owner of the land, subject to the obli- 
 gation of repaying the government loan. The terms of repay- 
 
GENERAL LEGISLATION OF UNIONIST COALITION. 89 
 
 ment are extremely easy: 4f per cent, for the firsffive years and 
 4 per cent, for 44 years following. At the end of the forty-nine 
 years the whole loan is, by this process, repaid in full. The gov- 
 ernment is able to borrow at 2% per cent., and the excess over this 
 rate paid annually by the peasants goes toward paying off the 
 principal. 
 
 The immediate gain for the peasant is best illustrated by an 
 example: A peasant who has been paying iio rent gets an ad- 
 vance of £170 in order to purchase his holding. For the first five 
 years he pays the government 4f per cent, on this sum — £8 a 
 year. For the remaining 44 years he pays 4 per cent. — £7 a year.. 
 ,That is to say, his annual payment falls from £10 to £8, then to 
 £7; and at the end of 49 years he owns the farm free from 
 .incumbrance. 
 
 Up to the middle of 1896 loans had been made to 34,700 ten- 
 ants for the purchase of their farms. The movement had slack- 
 ened, however, probably because there is an expectation of a. 
 further reduction of rents at the end of the first fifteen-years' term 
 under the act of 1881. Applications for a second fixing of rents 
 had begun to be made in the first half of 1896. Of course a reduc- 
 tion of rents would result in a corresponding reduction of prices 
 on purchase. Meanwhile the relations between all classes in 
 Ireland have become much improved. Agrarian crimes, boycot- 
 ting, and political disorders have practically ceased. 
 
 General Legislation of the TTnionist Coalition (1886-92). — The 
 Irish measures of the second Salisbury ministry encountered a. 
 vigorous and presistent opposition in the House of Commons. 
 In this opposition the Irish Home Rulers had the help of the. 
 Gladstonian Liberals. Debates, prolonged and bitter, were 
 raised at every stage of every business. The ministers, in order 
 to hasten the progress of their business, carried in 1887 a change 
 in the rules of the House, sharpening the process of closure estab- 
 Hshed by Gladstone in 1882. Under the rule of 1882 the pro- 
 ceeding for stoppage of debate could be initiated by no one but 
 the Speaker. Not until the Speaker had declared his opinion 
 that the question in hand had been adequately discussed, adding 
 that the House seemed to him to desire an end of the debate,, 
 could any member move the closure. It had been found in prac- 
 tice, however, that the Speaker, unwilling to abandon the tradi- 
 tional attitude of impartial good-will toward all sides of the House,, 
 would not give the necessary signal so long as any considerable 
 body of members wished debate to go on. Palpable, scarcely 
 
90 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 disguised obstruction had been freely practised between 1882 and 
 1887, and yet the closure had been applied only two or three 
 times. Under the new rule, any member of the House could 
 move the close of debate on any question, and this motion is to be 
 put forthwith, unless the Speaker gives it as his opinion that the 
 question has not been adequately discussed. In this form the 
 closure became an effective instrument for cutting off intermin- 
 able debate. Under the rule of 1882, if forty members voted 
 against closing a debate, the vote in favour of closing had to be at 
 least two hundred, in order to prevail. It had been found almost 
 impossible to keep so large a number of the ministerial sup- 
 porters on hand till two or three o'clock in the morning — the time 
 when closure is ordinarily needed. The required number was 
 therefore cut down to one hundred. Further, the American 
 practice of fixing in advance a day and hour for closing the com- 
 mittee stage of bills was introduced, but without the American 
 allowance of two five-minute speeches on each pending amend- 
 ment. In the English method all amendments not discussed 
 when the hour arrives are rejected in the lump. This was de- 
 nounced by the opposition as " not closure, but guillotine." But, 
 as usual in such cases, they used the same procedure themselves 
 when, in 1892, they assumed charge of affairs. 
 
 Next to their Irish measures, the most important act of the 
 Unionist ministry was the reformof county administration in 1888, 
 carried for the sake of satisfying their Radical allies. The tradi- 
 tional system gave all local power in the counties to the justices 
 of the peace, that is to say, to the local aristocracy. The act of 
 1888 established county councils elected for a term of 3 years by 
 the rate payers and Parliamentary voters. These bodies are made 
 up, Hke municipal councils, of councillors, aldermen, and a presid- 
 ing officer, bearing the title of chairman, however, not of mayor. 
 To these councils are intrusted a majority of the non-judicial 
 functions of the justices of the peace, construction and care 
 of court houses, jails, infirmaries, bridges, houses of correction, 
 control of cattle plagues, licensing of shows, etc., with the right to 
 levy taxes and to negotiate loans. This was a new administrative 
 body superior to the old unions of parishes. The larger counties 
 are divided for these purposes — each division having a council 
 of its own. Each of the larger cities and boroughs is treated as 
 a county by itself. There are 60 administrative counties and 61 
 " counties of boroughs," each of the latter being a city with more 
 than 60,000 inhabitants. The greatest of all is the County of 
 
GENERAL LEGISLATION OF UNIONIST COALITION. 91 
 
 London, made up from the boroughs surrounding the city, with 
 nearly five millions of inhabitants. The London County Council 
 has almost the proportions of a Parliament. The same system of 
 councils was extended to Scotland in 1889. It has now, by the 
 act of 1898, been extended to Ireland also, with slight modifica- 
 tions. 
 
 To satisfy the Radicals, these county councils are required, on 
 petition of workingmen demanding it, to buy land and sell it 
 again in small lots. The object is to create a class of peasant 
 landholders. 
 
 The Salisbury ministry carried out, in 1890, a conversion of 
 the national debt, reducing greatly the annual interest and pro- 
 viding for a still further reduction later. They also began a large 
 scheme of naval construction, intended to make and keep the 
 navy superior in force to any other two national navies combined. 
 
 In Ireland there came a division in the Nationalist party. 
 First, the Pope, by an encyclical, condemned the plan of campaign 
 (1888), compelling the Irish priests to retire from the land agita- 
 tion. Then Mr. Parnell was compromised* by scandalous reve- 
 lations in conjunction with a divorce trial (1890). The English 
 Dissenters, supporters of the Gladstonian party, threatened to 
 break off all connection with the Irish party if they retained such 
 a man as their leader. The group of Irish members in Parlia- 
 ment fell into bitter feud among themselves. The great ma- 
 jority, in order to preserve their alliance with the English 
 Liberals, elected a new leader; their choice fell on Mr. Justin 
 McCarthy, the historian and literary man. A small but deter- 
 mined minority stood by their former leader. This meant the for- 
 mation of two Irish parties — the anti-Parnellite party, to whose 
 ranks the Catholic priests, hostile to Parnell, led the mass of 
 voters; the Parnellite party, independent of the Church and revo- 
 lutionary in spirit, made up of the more ardent Nationalists. 
 These two factions began a passionate war against each other. 
 
 Parnell's death in 1891 did not altogether restore harmony, and 
 the Irish party remained weakened. The ministry finally pro- 
 posed to Parliament a special bill to establish local administra- 
 tion in Ireland (1892), but could not get it passed before the dis- 
 solution. 
 
 * The letters published by the Times in 1888 to prove that Parnell had 
 known and approved the Irish outrages of 1882, were proved to be forgeries 
 in the famous investigation of 1889. Pigott, the man who had forged 
 them, committed suicide. 
 
92 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 Formation of the Socialist Parties (1884-92). — During the 
 struggle between the Unionists and the Nationalists, a new .politi- 
 cal party had sprung up, the Socialist party. 
 
 For a long time there had been in England but few Socialists 
 except isolated doctrinaires, without political interest. Two 
 small societies attacked the English system of land-holding, 
 which concentrated the control of the land in the hands of a few 
 landlords, and reduced the peasants to the condition of day 
 labourers. 
 
 The " League for the Nationalization of the Land," founded 
 in Scotland by Wallace the naturalist (1880), demanded that the 
 estates should be taken from the landlords with proper compen- 
 sation, and become the collective property of the nation. The 
 " League for the Restitution of the Land," founded by the dis- 
 ciples of Henry George, declared that the land belonged to the 
 nation, which had a right to seize it without compensation. As 
 a practical procedure they proposed a " single tax of 20 shillings 
 in the pound," that is to say, a tax equal to the income from the 
 land. But the two leagues were recruited almost wholly from 
 the middle classes. The " Social Democratic Federation," 
 founded in 1880 by Hyndmann, a disciple of Marx, tried tO' 
 spread among workingmen the doctrine of the German Social- 
 ists, but had difficulty in getting together even a few thousand 
 adherents. 
 
 The Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Unions, which offi- 
 cially represented the various labour organizations, remained 
 faithful to the Radical program, and rejected the socialistic 
 propositions issued by the congress of delegates — that for na- 
 tionalization of the land in 1882, and that for a law limiting the 
 working day to eight hours in 1883. The belief was created 
 in England and in Europe that English workingmen, thanks to 
 the strong organization of their trade unions and their practical 
 spirit, were destined to remain always opposed to the spread of 
 socialism. But there have been signs of late that a modified 
 form of socialism is gaining a foothold in England. 
 
 A significant change has come about in the trade unions. The 
 majority of them were formerly syndicates of the technical 
 trades, those which required skilled labour. The workmen 
 in these trades, better paid and better educated than the 
 general mass, were more disposed to pay the necessary 
 contribution for keeping up a relief fund. The unskilled 
 labourers and farm hands remained outside of the unions.. 
 
THE FOURTH GLADSTONE MINISTRY. 93 
 
 A new movement, directed by the Socialist workingmen Tom 
 Mann and John Bums, was set on foot after the general strike 
 of the labourers in the London docks in 1889. The pub- 
 lic had supported the strikers and made the strike a success. 
 Unskilled workmen began to organize: dock and wharf labour- 
 ers, navvies, gas-men, sailors, and even farm hands (1889-90). 
 Unlike the old unions, the new unions asked only a small con- 
 tribution and gave up the plan of working as mutual aid socie- 
 ties. Their object was simply to establish a fighting organiza- 
 tion, to take their part in politics and become a political force. 
 
 In the old unions the number of members increased rapidly 
 (in the 10 great trade unions of builders, from 57,000 in 1888 to 
 94,000 in 1891) and the majority of them adopted a new pro- 
 gram. Their ordinary principle, since the failure of the great 
 agitations from 1834 to 1848, had been to accept the system of 
 freedom in labour contracts, and to associate in order to oblige 
 employers to maintain a living wage and satisfactory hours of 
 labour, without having recourse to state interference. This 
 principle, maintained by the better paid workmen (builders, me- 
 chanics, metal-workers) and by the miners in the extreme north, 
 became the doctrine of the ofificial leaders of the labour organiza- 
 tions — the general secretaries and members of the Parliamentary 
 committee who formed the " general staff " of the working 
 classes. But the lower ranks of workmen, especially the cotton- 
 spinners and miners, declared association to be insufficient for 
 opposing the employers, and demanded laws fixing a minimum 
 wage and the maximum working day. They secured in 1878 
 the ten-hour law for women and children. This new -doctrine 
 extended little by little to all trades. The change began with a 
 severe struggle between the advocates of the old and the new 
 policy. It ended in a disagreement between the central com- 
 mittee, which had remained faithful to the doctrine of non-inter- 
 ference from the state, and the mass of delegates to the congress, 
 which was beginning to pass socialistic resolutions. The con- 
 gress finally enforced its policy; the delegates from the various 
 trade unions officially announced themselves in sympathy with 
 Socialist measures; in 1888 with the nationalization of the land; 
 in 1890 with the statutory eight-hour day. 
 
 A Socialist Labour party sprang up first in Scotland (1888), 
 then in England. At the elections of 1892 two Socialists were 
 elected, the first to sit in the English Parliament. 
 
 The Fourth Gladstone Ministry (1892-94).— During the years 
 
94 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 1886-92 the Liberals had been gradually winning back their old 
 supporters who had left the party on the home rule question. 
 They regained their lost seats at almost all the by-elections. 
 At the general election of 1892 the Liberals came forward with a 
 Radical program. Gladstone himself, since 1891, had been pro- 
 posing, besides home rule for Ireland, the electoral reform 
 known as " one man, one vote," payment of members, reform of 
 the House of Lords, disestablishment of the Episcopal Church in 
 Wales, and the establishment of parish councils. 
 
 The elections of July, 1892, gave the Liberals a smaller majority 
 than had been expected: 355 for Gladstone (275 Liberals, 80 
 Home Rulers) against 315 (270 Conservatives and 45 Liberal- 
 Unionists). The Gladstonians had made their chief gain from 
 the Liberal-Unionists, who lost 32 seats. But their majority was 
 all from Ireland and Scotland; in England the Unionist coalition 
 still held a majority of 71 seats. 
 
 This English majority for the Unionists made the new Liberal 
 ministry (under Gladstone) powerless to carry any important con- 
 tested measure. It gave the House of Lords, with its great ma- 
 jority hostile to' home rule, the strength to resist the ministry. 
 In refusing bills passed by the Commons, the Lords presented 
 themselves as champions of English public opinion against the 
 enemies of national unity. 
 
 Gladstone presented a new home rule bill, giving Ireland a 
 local Parliament, with an executive ministry responsible to it. 
 This bill, different from that of 1886, proposed to retain Irish 
 members, to the number of 80, in the London Parliament, but 
 without a right to vote on purely English or Scotch questions. 
 Also it abandoned the plan of a single chamber composed of 
 two orders, and proposed an Upper House elected for a long term 
 by a select class of voters. 
 
 The bill was passed by the Commons in 82 days, after violent 
 debates, by a majority of 40 votes. It was rejected by a vote of 
 419 against 41 in the House of Lords. Gladstone, wearied of the 
 contest, retired, leaving his place to a young peer. Lord Rosebery. 
 The Liberals had now no longer a popular leader. They had 
 lost many of their supporters by subordinating everything to the 
 Irish question, in which few Englishmen were deeply interested. 
 To satisfy the mass of the people, they now adopted a purely 
 Radical program. The ministry brought forward successively 
 several democratic projects: employers' liability; pay for members 
 without private fortunes; an electoral reform to bring elections 
 
THE FOURTH GLADSTONE MINISTRY. 95 
 
 on the same day all over the United Kingdom; abolition of the 
 right of plural voting (the reform known as "one man, one 
 vote "), and a reduction of the period of residence required for 
 voting; the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in Wales; 
 the reinstatement of tenants evicted in Ireland during the plan 
 of campaign; tenant right to compensation for improvements in 
 land; eight-hour day for miners (1894); an act for the better pro- 
 tection of children in factories (1895). 
 
 Most of these projects had still to pass the House of Commons 
 when the ministry resigned in 1895. The Employers' Liability 
 bill was lost by disagreement between the two Houses. A single 
 legislative reform was carried (through a concession made by 
 Gladstone) : the creation of elective parish councils, analogous to 
 the communal councils on the continent. The act of 1894 
 established in every parish having more than 300 inhabitants a 
 council elected by the rate payers and Parliamentary voters. 
 Neighbouring parishes are allowed to combine and have a single 
 council for the group. The parishes had had from old times the 
 right of managing their own local afifairs; but the right was of a 
 semi-ecclesiastical character exercised in the vestry meeting, and 
 only rate payers could take part. The new system admits the 
 ordinary voters to a voice, and the councils are purely lay bodies. 
 In the case of the smaller parishes the act is only permissive, and 
 they have not generally, as yet, chosen to have councils. Some 
 of the most important powers conferred on the parishes by the 
 new law can be exercised only with consent of the county coun- 
 cil and the Local Government Board in London. 
 
 This last-mentioned fact suggests a profound change which 
 has taken place in the relations between the local authorities and 
 the central government. Formerly the local authorities exer- 
 cised their functions according to their own judgment. They 
 have now been brought under a somewhat minute supervision. 
 The money at their disposal is largely contributed by the na- 
 tional exchequer. The old autonomy, with its variety of aims 
 and methods, has largely given place to uniformity under ad- 
 ministrative dependence on the central power. 
 
 The budget, according to English constitutional theory, is 
 under the exclusive control of the House of Commons, at least 
 as regards its details. Financial bills, like other bills, have to pass 
 the House of Lords, but the House of Lords cannot amend them. 
 The Liberal ministry, using its majority in the House of Com- 
 mons, carried a progressive inheritance tax (death duties). This 
 
96 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 was the first time that an English budget had given countenance 
 to such a Radical-Socialist proposal as a progressive tax. It was 
 passed by the House of Lords, without resistance. 
 
 In checking the ministerial project of home rule, the House 
 of Lords had resumed in English politics the position of an inde- 
 pendent power, which, since the electoral reform of 1832, it 
 seemed to have resigned. For half a century it had given up 
 struggling against the representative House; although many 
 new peers had been created under Victoria, their hall was ordi- 
 narily almost empty. What now restored them to power was 
 not that they were lords; but that they appeared as champions of a 
 party popular with the English. The contest between the Lib- 
 eral majority and the Unionist minority in the Commons assumed 
 the form of a contest between the two Houses. 
 
 In 1894 the Liberals, finding their policy blocked by the 
 upper House, began an agitation against the Lords. As a con- 
 dition of democratic reforms they demanded a constitutional re- 
 form, " mending or ending " the Lords. The ultra-Radicals 
 called for abolition of the House of Lords, and government by a 
 single house (the system adopted in several English colonies). 
 The rest of the party would be content with replacing the Lords 
 by an elective assembly, or simply preserving it, but at the same 
 time depriving it of its power to check absolutely every bill passed 
 by the House of Commons. Rosebery declared (1894) that to 
 carry the home rule bill they must first convert England. He 
 then announced the plan of laying before the Commons a resolu- 
 tion looking to a revision of the constitution. A lively agitation 
 against the Lords was begun in the political meetings, but it 
 failed to attract much support and was presently allowed to drop. 
 In the general election of 1895 it was not made a serious issue. 
 
 During this struggle socalistic ideas seemed to be gaining 
 ground among workingmen. An independent labour party was 
 organized (January, 1893) to present candidates in opposition to 
 those of the other parties, with a complete doctrinal program. It 
 formulated its purposes thus: an industrial republic based on the 
 socialization of the land and of capital. The trade union congress, 
 meeting at Belfast in September, 1893, voted to raise a fund for 
 paying " labour candidates " and to give them as their program 
 state ownership of the means of production and distribution. The 
 congress of Norwich (1894) passed, by a vote of 219 against 61, 
 a resolution in favour of the nationalization of the soil and of the 
 instruments of production. 
 
THE UNIONISTS RETURN TO POWER. 97 
 
 The Unionists Return to Power (1895).— The Liberal ministry, 
 deprived of power by resistance of the House of Lords, and but 
 feebly sustained by public opinion in England, had difficulty in 
 holding its small majority in Parliament. The Liberal party was 
 a heterogeneous coalition of old Liberals, Radicals who were half 
 Socialists, Irish Catholics and Protestants Dissenters, both Eng- 
 lish and Welsh. To satisfy these different divisions, the ministry 
 had adopted a composite program : for the Irish, home rule and 
 compensation for evicted tenants; for the Radical workingmen, the 
 eight-hour day and pay for members of Parliament; for country 
 voters, land reform ; for Welsh Dissenters, the disestablishment of 
 the Anglican Church in Wales;* for the English Dissenters, who 
 desired compulsory temperance, the Local Option bill, which 
 would give to each municipality the right to forbid the sale of 
 intoxicating liquors. Each division insisted that its special re- 
 form should be attended to first. 
 
 The ministry, finding itself in a minority on a military question, 
 owing to the desertion of the Parnellites and some other mem- 
 bers, retired in June, 1895. The first act of the succeeding Con- 
 servative ministry (the third Salisbury) was to dissolve Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 At the elections of 1895 the Unionist coalition worked together, 
 while the Liberal coalition broke up. The independent Socialist 
 party presented its own candidates, but could not elect one, poll- 
 ing only 30,000 votes in all.f 
 
 The Dissenters led a campaign against alcoholic liquors which 
 alienated the liquor dealers of their party. The Unionist coali- 
 tion secured 411 seats (340 Conservatives, 71 Liberal-Unionists), 
 the Liberal coalition had only 259 seats (177 Liberals or Radicals, 
 82 Irish). The Liberal-Unionists regained most of the seats they 
 had lost in 1892. 
 
 England gave the Tories and Liberal-Unionists 349 seats 
 against 116; and in the other divisions of Great Britain the Lib- 
 erals had a majority of only 40 — 6 from Scotland, 34 from Wales. 
 
 The Conservatives had a majority of their own, without count- 
 ing in their Liberal-Unionist allies. But the alliance had become 
 
 • Wales, where the old Celtic language is more fully preserved than in 
 Ireland.had revived in the nineteenth century a spirit of Welsh nationality, 
 based on language. The great majority of the people are Protestant Dis- 
 senters. 
 
 t At the trade union congress of 1895, at Cardiff, the Socialists were in 
 
 a minority. 
 
98 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 SO close that the ministry remained composed of men of both divi- 
 sions. The former Radical leader, Chamberlain, now leader of the 
 Liberal-Unionists in the Commons, had. become the government's 
 man of action. From his earliest days he has retained the lean- 
 ing toward improvements in the material condition of the labour- 
 ing and peasant classes. The Conservative ministry, following 
 out party traditions, has occupied itself with foreign policy, and 
 with social and industrial rather than political reforms at home. 
 It has carried an act for giving workmen compensation in case 
 of accident, also an act granting public aid to the " Voluntary 
 Schools," which are maintained by the churches and are still 
 attended by a greater number of pupils than the public schools. 
 It has also extended the elective county councils to Ireland. 
 
 Political Evolution of England in the STineteenth Century. — • 
 England is the only state in Europe which has gone through the 
 nineteenth century without a revolution. She has preserved in- 
 tact her traditional constitution and even the mechanism of her 
 government. Outsiders', forgetting the revolutions of the seven- 
 teenth century, conclude from this that political stability is in- 
 herent in the English character. 
 
 Yet, beneath this firmly established mechanism, the practi- 
 cal side of politics has undergone, such a profound change, from 
 the beginning to the end of the century, that England has finally 
 emerged from her old regime. In 1814 the nation was still 
 under an aristocracy which had the legal control of society, local 
 administration, and central government. The nineteenth century 
 has renovated the constitution of society by establishing the prin- 
 ciple of equality before the law. Laws and customs have been 
 abolished which formerly sanctioned legal inequality, disabilities 
 of Dissenters, Catholics, and Jews, impressment of sailors, brutal 
 usage of paupers, prohibition of associations among working- 
 men. Local administration has been taken away from the local 
 aristocracy and given to councils elected by the people. The 
 central government has preserved its forms, but the transforma- 
 tion of the electing bodies has given it a new direction; the House 
 of Commons, formerly an aristocratic legislative body, has become 
 an assembly of representatives of the nation. It has little by little 
 shut out from the government the King and the Lords, until it 
 has become a virtually supreme authority, at least when it rep- 
 resents English opinion. It has made the ministry, which should 
 be the Queen's chosen advisers, its own executive committee. 
 England has thus passed from an aristocratic to a democratic 
 
POLITICAL EVOLUTION OF ENGLAND. 99' 
 
 system, and her democratic system is developing toward a repub- 
 lic governed by an assembly chosen by popular vote. 
 
 This evolution of society and government in a democratic sense 
 was so contradictory to the aristocratic constitution of Eng- 
 lish society that for a long time it remained unperceived. And 
 it really was not produced by an internal evolution of English 
 society, it was imposed from the outside. The change can only 
 be explained by the incongruous composition of the English 
 state. 
 
 The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which we 
 improperly speak of as England, is not, hke France, a real nation; 
 it is a mixture of ancient peoples (English, Welsh, Scotch, and 
 Irish), united in government, but distinct in social organization 
 and religion. One may count as still another nation the indus- 
 trial society born since the end of the eighteenth century in the 
 desert regions of the north and west of England. 
 
 The " old England," the England of the south and east, that 
 England which had organized the government and the Church, 
 was aristocratic and Anglican, and is still; docile under the hands 
 of its nobility and clergy, it has remained the mainstay of the 
 Conservatives. But the other nations of the Kingdom are at- 
 tached neither to the aristocracy nor to the Anglican Church; 
 Scotland is democratic and Presbyterian, Ireland Catholic and 
 hostile to the English landlords, Wales and the new industrial 
 England of the north and west are largely made up of Dissenters. 
 These democratic societies and Dissenters are naturally opposed 
 to a system which excluded them from political power and treats 
 their religion as inferior. It is they who have recruited the op- 
 position parties against the English nobility and the Anglican 
 Church. It is the Irish, the Scotch, the Welsh, the English of the 
 north and west, who have formed and who still form the mass 
 of the Liberal and Radical parties. It is they who have 
 brought a democratic evolution upon " old England." 
 
 But " old England," in possession of the government and the 
 court, has used its position to maintain its old system and its 
 supremacy over its subjects in the three kingdoms; and by re- 
 sisting innovations up to the limit of patience of its subjects, it 
 has succeeded in greatly checking the evolution toward democ- 
 racy.* This explains why the transformation in English institu- 
 
 * The evolution toward democracy has taken place in all the English 
 colonies ; it has been more rapid and more complete there than in Eng- 
 land. 
 
100 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 tions has been so slow in proportion to the enormous forces set 
 in motion by the opposition. 
 
 In no other European country was the influence of the demo- 
 cratic party spread so quickly. It was in England that the po- 
 litical program of the democratic parties of Europe was formu- 
 lated for the first time in the nineteenth century (by the Radicals 
 in 1819). No other democratic party has attracted the masses 
 in such numbers as the Radicals, the Chartists, the Irish under 
 O'Connell, and the strikers of 1866; England has been the coun- 
 try of gigantic agitations and demonstrations. But these 
 democratic masses, having respect for the law, yielded before 
 the resistance of the aristocratic government which, with force 
 at its command, easily held them in check by arrests, coercive 
 laws, and employment of troops. They have, with agitation, 
 accomplished less in a half-century than a handful of French 
 republicans, with a decisive blow, accomplished in a single day. 
 Further, in order to force the Conservative aristocracy to yield, 
 they have been obliged to join themselves with, and place them- 
 selves under, the Liberal aristocracy. They have had to content 
 themselves with the partial reforms which their allies consented 
 to propose. In this manner they have established, under the 
 form of compromise, a sufifrage almost universal — quasi-obliga- 
 tion of primary education, quasi-equality of classes in Ireland, 
 quasi-elective local administration, and quasi-democratic indus- 
 trial legislation. 
 
 In all these reforms the Liberal " general staiif " has led; the 
 democratic masses of workingmen and Irishmen gave at the 
 start the impelling force to set the movement on foot ; and when, 
 later, the crisis of the reform arrived, they insured its passage by 
 overawing the Conservative rulers by means of imposing dem- 
 onstrations. The old Radicals demanded complete electoral re- 
 form, and succeeded in extorting the partial reforms of 1832 and 
 1867, each followed by a series of reforms both democratic and 
 independent of the Church. The Irish claimed and obtained po- 
 litical equality of creeds. 
 
 After having acquired, by the right of voting, a part in politi- 
 cal power, the Radicals and the Irish have slowly won places for 
 themselves in the English Liberal party and have finally won it 
 over to their program of home rule and democratic reforms, 
 until it has become difficult to distinguish a Liberal from a Radi- 
 cal or a member of the Irish party. The Conservative party has 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. lOI 
 
 SO far yielded to the infusion of the Radical-Unionists that it 
 now takes the initiative in democratic measures. 
 
 Thus the old system, defended by the privileged English 
 minority, was destroyed by the attack of the non-English ma- 
 jority; but the work was done bit by bit. The new system has 
 been established in the same fashion, without a general plan, pre- 
 serving the Royal House and the hereditary peers, the privileged 
 Church established by law, the unsalaried elective officers, the 
 restrictions on the right of voting. The remains of ancient in- 
 stitutions have mingled with the foundations of the new in a 
 contradictory whole, where it is impossible to decide what will 
 survive and what will disappear. This is the cause of the con- 
 fused character of modern English politics. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 SOURCES.— See bibliog. of chapters ii. and iii. 
 
 To the reviews, already mentioned add : National Review , Fortnightly 
 Review, Nineteenth Century, Contemporary Review, Free Review; all 
 the articles are noted in Poole's Index. 
 
 The reviews, the London Times, the " Annual Register," Hansard's 
 " Debates," and the Parliamentary documents are the principal sources for 
 this period. 
 
 WORKS.— On the General History.— McCarthy, " Hist, of our Own 
 Times from 1880 to the Queen's Jubilee," 1897, continues the modern his- 
 tory by the same author. 
 
 On Electoral Reform. — Franqueville (see bibliog. of chap. ii.). 
 
 Heaton, " Three Reforms of Parliament." — Dickinson, " Development of 
 Parliament in the Nineteenth Century." 
 
 On Modern English Institutions. — "The English Citizen," 1881-91, 
 collection of monographs by different authors, for the most part very clear 
 and accurate : Traill (Central Government), Valpole (Electorate and Legis- 
 lature), Wilson (Finance), Chalmers (Local Administration), Maitland (Justice 
 and Police), Elliot (State and Church), Fowle (Poor Law), Jevons (Labor 
 Legislation), Farrer "(Trade), and Craik (Education).— Anson, " Law and 
 Custom of the Constitution," 2 vols., 1890, a clear and methodical descrip- 
 tion (vol. i. Parliament, ii. Crown). 
 
 On the Question of Obstruction.— Eeynaert, " Hist, de la Discipline 
 Parlementaire," 2 vols., 1884. 
 
 On Disraeli's Policy. — Brandes, " Lord Beaconsfield," German trans., 
 1879. — Cucheval-Clarigny, " Lord Beaconsfield et son Temps," 1880. — Keh- 
 hel, " Hist, of Toryism," 1886.— Froude, " Beaconsfield."— Lucy, " Diaries" of 
 the Parliaments since 1874. 
 
 On Ireland. — See in the " National Biography " the bibliog. under the 
 article on Parnell.— King, " Irish Question."— Walsh, " Irish Land Acts."— 
 Eichey, " Land Law of Ireland." 
 
102 ENGLAND AS A DEMOCRACY. 
 
 On the Socialist Parties. — Besides S. Webb, " Hist, of Trade-Union- 
 ism," see two bibliog. published by socialist groups : i. Fabian Society,. 
 " What to Read," 1893 ; II. Clarion, "Catal. of Books on Socialism," 1895,, 
 which give the list of publications by the socialist societies. In French, 
 deBoasierg, "Le Trade-Unionism en Angleterre," 1897. 
 
FRANCE. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 The Bourbon Bestoration. — After the decisive defeat of Napo- 
 leon and the capitulation of Paris, there was no longer any gov- 
 ernment for France ; the Allies undertook to provide her with one. 
 They wished neither another republic nor another Napoleon. 
 Three solutions were proposed: * ist, Napoleon's son (the King 
 of Rome), under the regency of his mother, Arch-Duchess Marie 
 Louise, daughter of the Austrian Emperor; 2d, a French general 
 (the Tsar was thinking of Bernadotte); 3d, the old royal family 
 of France, the Bourbons. The King of Rome was dropped from 
 the question, as the choice of him would have given Austria too 
 much influence; the idea of a French general was a personal whim 
 of Alexander's, the other Allies would not hear of it. The Bour- 
 bons alone were left, and Alexander alone objected to them. In 
 the interview at Langres with Metternich Qanuary, 1814) he 
 proposed to call upon the electoral assemblies of France to send 
 deputies who should decide the nation's destiny, while the armies 
 of the Allies kept down agitators. Metternich refused to listen to 
 any " experiment with the principle of sovereignty of the peo- 
 ple." " It would be," he said, " a new edition of the Convention, 
 a new breaking forth of the Revolution. . . Besides, what ques- 
 tion is this assembly to decide? The legitimate King is there." 
 
 The Tsar finally agreed to the Bourbons. The difiSculty was 
 to reconcile the French nation. The English government had 
 introduced the principle that the Allies should await the resto- 
 ration of the monarchy by the French nation itself, that they 
 might not appear .to have concerned themselves directly with the 
 internal affairs of France; they would treat with the government 
 recognised by the French. Now the Allies had been struck on 
 their march through France with the absence of any mention of 
 
 *The discussion began at the camp of Basle in January, 1814, between 
 Metternich and Castlereagh, the Tsar being absent. 
 
 103 
 
104 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 the name of Bourbon: the new generation fostered by the Revo- 
 lution and the Empire no longer recognised the family. Metter- 
 nich wrote in March: "The invasion has shown in the great 
 majority of the French people only an unexampled lack of in- 
 terest. . . The French people will never take the initiative on 
 the Bourbon question, the principles avowed by the Allies forbid 
 them to take it. The Bourbon princes must take the matter into 
 their own hands." The next step was to incite a demonstra- 
 tion in favour of the Bourbons. It was Talleyrand who organ- 
 ized it. He was in Paris, a member of the regency established 
 by Napoleon during his absence; he sent to the camp of the Allies 
 a royalist, de Vitrolles; the Count of Artois had sent another. 
 The Allies decided (March 20) to promise their support to the 
 Bourbon party if it declared itself publicly: they would allow 
 Monsieur (Charles, Count of Artois) to establish himself in the 
 invaded provinces, and place under the management of his parti- 
 sans all those districts which declared themselves loyal to him, 
 guaranteeing them impunity in any case. But while supporting 
 the Bourbons, the Allies gave them prudent advice: the English 
 government engaged Louis XVIII. not to show himself in 
 France, Metternich advised Monsieur not to bestow any ofiSce on 
 an emigre. 
 
 When, on the 31st of March, 1814, the Allies entered Paris, 
 they were in harmony with one another. The prefects had posted 
 an announcement that the Tsar would take Paris under his pro- 
 tection; the Austrian general, that "XThe sovereign powers are 
 seeking a worthy authority for France which should succeed in 
 establishing peace among all nations. To Paris the oppoirtunity 
 has now come to hasten the restoration of peace to the world. 
 Only let her announce her plan, and the army before the walls of 
 the city will sustain the decision." In the morning some royalist 
 gentlemen, upon showing themselves with white cockades, were 
 received with cries of " Long live the Emperor ! " The placards 
 restored their courage; they went through the streets with hand- 
 kerchiefs tied to their canes, crying "Long live the King!" 
 Then, when the sovereign powers made their formal entry (by 
 the gate of Saint Martin), the royalists marched alongside of the 
 Tsar, crying " Long live Alexander! Long live the Bourbons! " 
 
 That evening a discussion took place at Talleyrand's house; 
 there were eight present: the Tsar and his two councillors, the 
 King of Prussia, two Austrians (Schwarzenberg and Lichten- 
 stein), and two great Napoleonic dignitaries, Dalberg and Talley- 
 
THE BOURBON RESTORATION. I ©5 
 
 rand. The Allies again brought up the objection that France did 
 not want the Bourbons. Talleyrand undertook to secure their 
 call to the throne by official authority, and drew up the declara- 
 tion of the sovereign powers : " They will no longer treat with 
 Napoleon Bonaparte nor any member of his family; they will 
 respect ancient France as she was under her lawful kings; they 
 will recognise and guarantee the constitution which the French 
 nation gives itself. They invite the Senate to appoint a provis- 
 ional government which shall take the administrative duties upon 
 itself and prepare a constitution." 
 
 The Senate appointed a provisional government of five mem- 
 bers and drew up a constitution maintaining all the imperial in- 
 stitutions, or, more exactly, all the personal situations acquired 
 under Napoleon. It guaranteed to the Senate and the Legis- 
 lative Body their continuance as an essential part of the consti- 
 tution; to the army its appropriation, its grades and distinctions; 
 to state creditors the recognition of their claims; to purchasers 
 of national estates unimpeachable ownership. They promised 
 liberty of creed and liberty of the press, liberty to express politi- 
 cal opinion. Thus the Empire was suppressed by the bodies es- 
 tablished during the imperial regime, or rather by the minorities 
 of those bodies : the Senate by 62 members out of 142, the House 
 by yy out of 303, declared Napoleon dethroned, " the right of 
 heredity established for his family " abolished, the people and the 
 army absolved from their oath of allegiance. Napoleon, follow- 
 ing the advice of his marshals, abdicated at Fontainebleau. 
 
 Then the Senate alone decreed: "The French people of their 
 own free will summon to the throne Louis of France, brother 
 of the late King" and added that the senators would retain their 
 office (April 6). The Allies could then treat with the French 
 government. First they arranged with the Count of Artois an 
 armistice to recall the French troops scattered about in fortresses 
 outside of France (April 23), then the treaty of peace with Louis 
 XVIII. (May 30). The Allies had been very moderate; they left 
 to France her territory of 1792 with some extensions, renounced 
 all indemnity, refused to allow Prussia's claim for supplies to Na- 
 poleon's army, " in order to show their desire to efface all traces 
 of that unfortunate period." They did not even reclaim the 
 works of art seized by Napoleon and placed in French museums. 
 
 They waited until Louis XVIII. had published the Charter 
 guaranteeing to France a liberal monarchy, then they, with their 
 armies, left the country. 
 
«o6 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 Political Institutions under the Charter. — The Allies had de- 
 manded for France a constitutional system. The Count of Artois 
 had published a declaration which made no mention of guar- 
 antees. Metternich himself demanded that the King should bind 
 himself to govern under constitutional forms. Louis XVIII. 
 arrived in France, refused to swear fidelity to the constitution 
 drawn up by the Senate ; but at least, by the declaration of Saint 
 Ouen (May 2), he formulated the principles on which he meant 
 to found the liberal constitution he promised to propose to the 
 Senate and Legislative Body : representative government with two 
 bodies, the Senate and the House, controlling taxation ; responsi- 
 ble ministers ; permanent judges ; liberty of creed, press, and per- 
 son ; guarantee of ranks, of the national debt, of the revolutionary 
 land titles, and of the Legion of Honour; civil-service positions 
 to be open to all Frenchmen. 
 
 The Constitutional Charter (June, 1814) organized the mon- 
 archy. The restoration of royalty was not at all a re-establish- 
 ment of the old regime. France preserved the social organization 
 •created by the Revolution and the administrative organization 
 established by Napoleon. 
 
 The Revolution had created a society founded on legal 
 ■equality, without official recognition of classes, without an estab- 
 lished church, without legal privileges — a society where no social 
 advantage is hereditary except pr operty, and where property it- 
 self is divided between a great number of inhabitants. The 
 Empire had organized a body of professional officials, divided 
 into sharply defined services (army, clergy, magistracy, adminis- 
 tration, direct and indirect tax services, bridges and roads, 
 University), all strongly centralized under the supervision of all- 
 powerful ministers established at Paris ; recruited without distinc- 
 tions of birth by a sort of coaptation, practically permanent, and 
 full of a strong fellow-feeling, controlling the whole country with 
 uniform regulations. The nation in 18 14 was already provided 
 with its social and administrative organization; it remained — ^as 
 it still remains — a democratic society whose afifairs are managed 
 by a centralized administration. The mechanism of the central 
 government was not, however, yet constructed; France has 
 laboured to establish it; she has spent the nineteenth century in 
 making herself a political constitution. 
 
 Louis XVIII. preserved all the institutions of the Empire, 
 magistracy, codes, administration, Church, University, Legion of 
 Honour, banking, even the imperial nobility. He abolished only 
 
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE CHARTER. 107 
 
 conscription and the combined taxes which had made Napoleon 
 unpopular (these were soon replaced by enlistment and indirect 
 taxes). Nothing remained for him to do but to organize the 
 sovereign government. Alexander and the English advised him 
 to adopt a representative system ; the Senate demanded it ; Ben- 
 jamin Constant contrasted it with Napoleon's despotism; Louis 
 XVIII. accepted it. As the English constitution was once more 
 the fashion, France copied England, where the constitutional 
 monarchy had been in operation for more than a century, and 
 transplanted all the English political mechanism. The govern- 
 ment was divided between three powers : the King ; the Chamber 
 of Peers chosen by the King, and hereditary like the English 
 Lords ; the Chamber of Deputies elected, like the English Com- 
 mons, by property owners. As in England, the lower houses had 
 the primary control of the budget; laws must be passed by both 
 houses; the ministers could be impeached by the Deputies and 
 tried by the Peers; members of neither house were to receive 
 pay. As in England, the King had power to choose his min- 
 isters, sanction laws, convoke, adjourn, and dissolve the elected 
 house; and the ministers were responsible, that is to say, the 
 houses could call them to account for their political acts. The 
 Chambers must meet every year, every act of the King must be 
 countersigned by a minister, the press should be free ; these were 
 the English guarantees against despotism. They introduced 
 even some English customs : the speech from the throne at the 
 opening of the session, the address from the Chamber in reply. 
 As in England, institutions were established with a permanent 
 character ; no provision was made for revision. 
 
 This system left three political questions to be solved : 
 First. What should be the relations between the King and the 
 elected Chamber ? The question had not yet been settled beyond 
 possibility of doubt even in England (see p. 12). Could the 
 King choose any ministers he wished, according to the old Tory 
 theory ? or should he take them from the majority, according to 
 the Whig theory ? This was the leading question ; in a country 
 administered exclusively by appointed officials and provided with 
 an ^irresistible standing army, the real power is the executive 
 power, which controls the functionaries and the army. He who 
 controls the ministers is the really supreme authority. 
 
 Second. How should the electoral body be composed? The 
 Charter fixed the amount of tax demanded as a qualification for 
 voting (3CX) francs), but did not regulate the manner of election. 
 
io8 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 Third. How should the liberty of the press be regulated? 
 
 These last two questions were to be settled by laws which, not 
 being incorporated in the constitution, would always be open to 
 change. 
 
 Power to choose the ministers, electoral system, press laws, 
 were the three grounds on which the parties were destined to 
 contend and political life was to centre all through the Restora- 
 tion. 
 
 Conditions of Political Life. — In order to understand this his- 
 tory, we must look at the conditions of French life at this period. 
 This requires an effort of attention, as our current terras (electors, 
 chambers, newspapers) expressed entirely different meanings at 
 that time, so much has society changed since 1814. 
 
 Economic life in France had been checked by the imperial 
 wars, which had isolated the French people and forced them to 
 do without the products of English industry. An industrial 
 aristocracy had sprung up, made up of masters of ironworks and 
 of thread and cloth factories in the east and in Normandy, who 
 wished both then and now to monopolize the French market. 
 The land aristocracy of great proprietors tried to maintain the 
 high price of wheat. As these two aristocracies together con- 
 trolled the two Chambers, they kept the frontier closed by a sys- 
 tem of customs duties which perpetuated the continental block- 
 ade. The sliding scale for grain allowed the importation of w'heat 
 only when burdened with a duty which rose as the price fell, in 
 such fashion as to assure the French producers a minimum price. 
 This was an imitation of the English corn laws. The protective 
 tariff on iron and on cloth was prohibitive, firmly reserving the 
 market to French industry. The timid attempts made by the 
 government to open France to foreign commerce will only suc- 
 ceed, up to i860, in lowering some articles of the tariff. 
 
 The workingmen, since the system established by the Con- 
 stituante, had no longer the right to associate for the purpose of 
 settling the terms of labour ; the penal code made strikes and even 
 coalitions punishable by imprisonment. Labourers were there- 
 fore obliged to remain isolated without other tie than the re- 
 mains of the old journeyman societies preserved in several trades, 
 subject, without defence, to the will of the employers, and kept 
 under watch by means of the livret* They were ignorant and 
 dependent, without any share in political life ; and yet it was they 
 
 * A sort of pass-book carried by labourers showing wliere and by whom 
 they had been employed. 
 
CONDITIONS OF POLITICAL LIFE. 109 
 
 who furnished enthusiasts and fanatics to recruit the secret socie- 
 ties and stir up riots. In the country the tenant farmers and 
 metayers, who formed a large part of the population, especially 
 in the western and central parts, were dependent on the large 
 landowners. Thus, in spite of legal equality, French society was 
 still divided into classes, a titled and untitled aristocracy of 
 great proprietors juid great manufacturers, a middle class of petty 
 property owners and functionaries, a poor and dependent class of 
 day labourers. 
 
 The middle class still led a simple, quiet life, the life of the small 
 town — monotonous, without comforts, without amusements, with- 
 out intellectual activity, a slave to public opinion. Communica- 
 tion was still very difficult. There were nothing but old roads, 
 badly laid out; ill-kept, paved roads broken up by heavy teaming 
 (macadamizing did not begin until Louis Philippe's reign). Rail- 
 roads were not generally introduced until 1848; travellers were 
 still at the mercy of stage-coaches. Coaches which were thought 
 to be very quick took three days to go between Paris and Lyons. 
 The postal system was still based on the principle of postage paid 
 by the receiver; the price was high; in 1829 there were still only 
 1300 post offices, and except in the cities there was no carrier to 
 deliver the letters. 
 
 The long wars had almost suspended ^ intellectual life; the 
 tradition was preserved by some survivors of the eighteenth cen- 
 tury (the idealogues), but the new generation had received no 
 regular instruction. An intellectual restoration set in, and peo- 
 ple began once more to study and to teach. The Faculties were 
 still organized as special schools (called the Law School, the 
 Medical School) ; the students were few, but the public, eager for 
 instruction, went to the public courses, read historical works, and 
 exalted to the rank of great savants their professors and popu- 
 larizers (Cousin, Villemain, Guizot, Aug. Thierry, de Barante).. 
 Literature, in which, except for Chateaubriand and Beranger,, 
 there remained hardly any but strangers (Mme. de Stael, Benj. 
 Constant, the de Maistres), renewed itself by imitating foreign lit- 
 erature. Secondary education, left subject to the monopoly of the 
 University, was shared among the state colleges * and the little 
 Church seminaries, which combined the boarding school and the 
 monastery, wy:h division into classes and uniform studies, the 
 dead languages and mathematics — that is to say, the educational 
 
 * The imperial name lyc^e was during the monarchy replaced by the 
 old name of colUge. 
 
no THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 system of the Jesuits. Primary education was much neglected, 
 encouraged neither by the government nor the middle class; in 
 1821 th^re were 25,000 communes without schools, and the ap- 
 propriation was but 50,000 francs; and the Right wished to put 
 a stop to it altogether. It was only after the law passed in 1833 
 that the French began to organize primary schools. The great 
 majority of the French could not read; intellectual life could 
 hardly be said to exist among the people. 
 
 Religion had been disorganized; the clergy, few in number, had 
 lost a great part of their influence, the middle class rarely attended 
 church, there were almost no religious publications. In the 
 Protestant Church religious exercises, suspended by a century 
 of persecution, had recovered themselves only superficially. The 
 religious restoration of the Catholic Church was directed first by 
 the Congregation, a private society founded m 1816; then by the 
 Jesuit houses, and after 1830 by the Catholic Liberal party 
 (Lamennais, Montalembert, Lacordaire), who succeeded in mak- 
 ing religion the fashion again. In the Protesitant Church a simi- 
 lar restoration, the awakening (reveil), was brought about by the 
 action of foreign Protestants. But almost until 1840 religious 
 activity was too feeble to have any influence on political life. 
 
 The dominant characteristic of the political life of this period 
 was that it was limited to a very small portion of the nation. All 
 manual labourers, artisans, peasants, small tradesmen, almost all 
 lower officials, all the lower clergy, a great part of the middle 
 class were excluded. The right of voting seemed such a danger- 
 ous power that they did not dare to intrust it to more than a 
 small number of the French ; universal sufifrage recalled the Con- 
 vention and Napoleon's plebiscites. There was no hesitation 
 about adopting the evidence of property furnished by the taxes 
 as a basis of the right of voting. The Charter fixed a qualifica- 
 tion so high that it gave the whole system a plutocratic character. 
 The nation was divided into two classes, the great majority de- 
 prived of all political right, the small privileged minority of 
 voters (until 1830, with the qualification at 300 francs, between 
 88,000 and 110,000; after 1830, with the qualification at 200 
 francs, between 166,000 and 241,000). These voters, veritable 
 political grandees, met together at the chief town and formed an 
 electoral college (like the French colleges of senatorial electors at 
 present). In this they voted with written ballots. 
 
 The political press had the same character of plutocratic privi- 
 lege. Political journals had to make a heavy deposit with the 
 
HUNDRED DAYS AND SECOND RESTORATION. m 
 
 government (ordinarily 200,000 francs) as security for their good 
 conduct; also to pay a stamp tax of 10 centimes (2 cents) a copy, 
 a postage duty of 5 centimes. Papers were not sold by the single 
 copy, but to subscribers only and at a high price, each copy being 
 burdened with a tax of 15 centimes. A subscription was a lux- 
 ury reserved to the middle class, several of whom often united to 
 pay the expense. There were very few newspapers, three or four 
 to each party; and their circulation, till about 1830, did not ex- 
 ceed 15,000. A secret report in 1824 estimated the total number 
 of copies of political papers at 41,000 for the opposition, 15,000 
 for the government. In 1830 the 23,000 subscriptions to the 
 Constitutionnel were considered a great success. These papers 
 contained only political and literary articles, anonymous like 
 those in England. French people regarded it as nothing less 
 than revolutionary when the Presse, in 1836, published articles on 
 various subjects, and there was a great scandal when the Presse, 
 to cover expenses, inserted paid advertisements. The Restora- 
 tion papers, expensive, empty, and monotonous, bore no resem- 
 blance to the press of to-day. But they had, few as they were, 
 supreme influence over their subscribers; each man, reading only 
 one paper, had only that paper's opinion. 
 
 On the other hand the government, with a susceptibility which 
 we cannot realize, supervised the press; every opposition article 
 which could be suspected of offensive intention was referred to 
 the courts. In 1818, under a Liberal ministry, the authors of the 
 " Historical Library " were condemned to six months' imprison- 
 ment because " under pretext of gathering material for a history 
 of the time, they selected and introduced into their compilation 
 acts which had a constant tendency, through accompanying 
 notes, observations, and qualifications, to cast disfavour upon the 
 government . . . thereby denoting constant and deliberate ill 
 will." The law of 1819, the most liberal law passed under the 
 Restoration, still recognised as a misdemeanour any remark 
 against the person of the King, and prosecuted for such offence 
 an author who spoke of the Swiss guards as satellites and 
 janissaries. 
 
 The Hundred Days and the Second Restoration. — After the re- 
 turn of Louis XVIII. it was thought that France had entered 
 upon political calm. The King had kept the imperial ofiScials 
 and even Napoleon's ministers (Talleyrand, Fouche, Baron 
 Louis). The majority of the peers were former senators of the 
 Empire. There had been no elections; the members of the 
 
112 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 Chamber were still those that had assembled in 1814 to discuss 
 the project. Louis XVIII. seemed to have accepted sincerely the 
 society founded by the Revolution, and that society, rejoicing at 
 the end of war, welcomed the Bourbons, " the uncontested 
 family" (Benj. Constant). To mark this reconciliation, Beu- 
 gnot had made an historic remark concerning the return of the 
 Count of Artois: " Nothing is changed in France, there is simply 
 one more Frenchman." There was no division into political 
 parties; the Chamber was occupied only with finance. 
 
 This harmony could not last. The King, his brother, his per- 
 sonal associates, without any important political act, offended or 
 disturbed French society by the use of obsolete forms. The King 
 called himself Louis XVIII. and called his first year on the throne 
 the eighteenth year of his reign, as if to show that he did not 
 recognise the legitimacy of the governments preceding him. ' He 
 called himself King hy the grace of God, without mentioning the 
 will of the nation ; he called the constitution by an old name re- 
 vived from the Middle Ages, the " Charte Constitutionnelle," and 
 promulgated it with the formula " we concede and grant," like a 
 charter really granted, to which the nation had no right. He 
 re-established the red musketeers and the body guards. The im- 
 perial nobility was treated at court with less respect than was paid 
 to the ancient nobility. The Count of Artois, living in the pa- 
 vilion of Marsan, surrounded himself with emigres, who spoke of 
 taking possession of their confiscated property again. ,This cir- 
 cle, nicknamed the Entresol Ministry, was suspected of having in- 
 fluence over the government. In the country the Sunday pro- 
 cessions and compulsory rest were restored. All these measures, 
 unimportant in themselves, were nevertheless symbolic and gave 
 the middle class the belief that the court wished to re-establish 
 the old regime. The change of flag confirmed this impression. 
 The tricolour flag was that of the army, the white flag that of the 
 hnigres; Count Artois had entered Paris with an escort wearing 
 the two cockades. But the King had definitely decided in favour 
 of the white. This change humiliated the army like a symbol of 
 defeat. The officers, recalled from countries occupied by French 
 garrisons, were too numerous for the army in time of peace; as 
 there was no employment for them they were dismissed on half- 
 pay. For minister of war the King chose an unpopular general, 
 Dupont, the man that had capitulated at Baylen. 
 
 By these measures the government had irritated the army. An 
 " imperialist party was organized, principally among army officers. 
 
RESULTS OF THE HUNDRED DAYS. "3 
 
 Napoleon's minister of police, Fouche, made secret arrangements 
 with several generals for the return of the Emperor. Napoleon, 
 inforrned of this by a messenger, arrived in France. Avoiding 
 the Rhone valley, which the royalists controlled, he passed 
 through the mountains of Dauphine and came to Lyons. The 
 whole army at once joined him and resumed the tricolour flag; 
 the Bourbons, finding themselves deserted, fled to Belgium. Na- 
 poleon, to keep his hold, was willing to conciliate the Liberals 
 and even the Republicans. He asked Benjamin Constant to 
 draw up a liberal constitution; he promulgated it under the 
 title of the " Act Added to the Constitutions of the Em- 
 pire," and even had it ratified by universal suffrage, in- 
 viting every citizen to sign his name in registers provided 
 for this special purpose. One million five hundred thousand 
 votes were polled. The new constitution established the 
 same regime as the Charter, but it was never applied. France's 
 fate was to be determined by war. The Allies refused to recog- 
 nise Napoleon; their armies united once more. The Waterloo 
 campaign settled the downfall of the Empire and the return of the 
 Bourbons. Napoleon abdicated, proclaiming his son. Napoleon 
 II., Emperor of the French. The Legislative Chambers, however, 
 formed a provisional government of five members, which re- 
 fused to recognise Napoleon II., and governed in the name of the 
 French nation; then the Allies arrived, bringing back Louis 
 XVIII. and the white cockade. 
 
 Results of the Hundred Days. — The episode of the Hundred 
 days was simply a military revolt, a pronunciamiento of the army 
 of Napoleon. But in causing renewed interference from the 
 Allies it produced incalculable results: 
 
 First. There was, to begin with, the invasion, followed this 
 time by a long occupation. The Allies, now much irritated 
 against the French, did not treat them as in 1814; they demanded 
 a war indemnity of 700,000,000, payable in 5 years, and the sup- 
 port of an army of occupation of 150,000 men for a period of 3 to 
 5 years. 
 
 •■■ Second. There was a new and less advantageous division of 
 territory. The treaty of 181 5 took away from France, in addition 
 to Savoy, certain strips of her territory of 1790, in all half a 
 million of inhabitants. Again the Tsar and England were 
 obliged to oppose the dismemberment demanded by Prussia, Aus- 
 tria, and the German princes. 
 
 Third. There was at last a profound change in. national and 
 
114 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 political sentiments in France and in Europe. The invasion of 
 1814, short and skilfully managed, had left no lasting ill feeling; 
 the Allies had made war simply against Napoleon; they had re- 
 spected France's internal independence and her ancient territory. 
 Napoleon's return angered Europe against France. The Allies, 
 irritated because the French had so readily abandoned their 
 legitimate King, were convinced that Europe, in the interests of 
 peace, must k^ep supervision over such an incorrigibly revolu- 
 tionary people ; they determined to interfere in France's domestic 
 affairs, informing themselves of the state of the different parties, 
 threatening the French government, and arranging between 
 themselves to prepare armed interference in case of internal revo- 
 lution (secret treaty of November, 1815). This defiant attitude 
 of the European powers against France became a national feel- 
 ing, at least among the Germans. 
 
 Fourth. On their part the French, directly affected by the pro- 
 longed invasion, and mortified by the mutilation of their terri- 
 tory, regarded the conduct of the Allies in 1815 as an insult and 
 an abuse of power; patriotism consisted henceforth in demand- 
 ing a new war to efface the disgrace of the treaties of 18 15. The 
 patriots also resented France's dependent position toward for- 
 eign powers, in having to submit to interference in home affairs; 
 this sentiment was expressed in hatred of the coalition im- 
 properly termed the Holy Alliance, and it became the cus- 
 tom for the French to represent themselves as hostile to all 
 Europe. 
 
 Fifth. There was a new division of parties; France was sepa- 
 rated into two factions: those who had sided with Napoleon and 
 the tricolour flag and those who had remained faithful to the Bour- 
 bons and the white flag. On each side was a coalition without 
 real political unity. The tricolour party were imperialist Repub- 
 licans; the Republicans, joined to the old soldiers, ceased to re- 
 gard Napoleon as a tyrant; this was the beginning of the legen- 
 dary Napoleon, the patriotic ruler of France, pursued by the 
 hatred of the Allies because he loved France too well, who came 
 back in 1815 to defend the conquests of the Revolution against 
 the men of the old regime. The Revolution and the Empire be- 
 came one. This confusion is shown in the writings of the time^^— 
 P.-L. Courier, Casimir Delavigne, and especially the Republican 
 Beranger, Napoleon's old enemy, now the poet who sang of im- 
 perial glory; there are traces of it in historical works (Thiers, 
 Vaulabelle). The party was made up chiefly of the Emperor's 
 
THE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY CRISIS. 115 
 
 ofificers and old admirers, of Liberal middle-class people and 
 patriots, and workingmen in the large cities. It was a military 
 and patriotic party ; it appealed to the hatred of foreigners and to 
 national honour; it reproached the Bourbons with having been 
 " brought back in the enemies' baggage," with being foreign 
 proteges, with being in league with the " Holy Alliance," " mur- 
 derers of the people." It was a democratic and a lay party, 
 which appealed to the hatred of the old regime and accused the 
 Bourbons of wishing to restore tithes, forced labour {corvees), 
 and feudal rights, privileges of the nobility, the Inquisition, and 
 lettres de cachet. 
 
 Similarly the White Cockade party was not made up solely of 
 advocates of the Charter and of the constitutional monarchy. 
 The violent Royalists were no longer content with the partial 
 restoration of 1814; they wanted social restoration, a counter- 
 revolution, to destroy the work of the Revolution without being 
 agreed on the extent to which they wanted the old regime re- 
 stored. They attacked especially the retention of the confiscated 
 estates, and the Concordat. The Royalists, " more royalist than 
 the King," nicknamed the Ultras, were made up of emigres and 
 country gentry chiefly from the western part of the country; they 
 regarded as their leader not the King, but the King's brother, 
 the future Charles X. 
 
 From now on France was divided into irreconcilable factions. 
 It was not, as in England, simply a party struggle for the gen- 
 eral control of the government and the interpretation of the con- 
 stitution. There were two revolutionary parties which did not 
 recognise the constitution: the Ultras, similar to the English 
 Jacobites in the eighteenth century, hating the charter because 
 it sanctioned the Revolution; the Liberals (the Imperialist- 
 Republican coalition, a party without English parallel), rejecting 
 the monarchy because the monarchy rejected the national flag 
 and submitted to foreign supervision. 
 
 The Counter-Eevolutionary Crisis (1815-16). — The invasion of 
 1815 gave the power first to the Counter-Revolutionary party. 
 The Royalists, sustained by the presence of the allied armies, 
 avenged themselves for the defections of the Hundred Days. 
 Their revenge took two forms: political prosecutions and, in the 
 south, massacres. The amnesty granted to " Misled French- 
 men " did not extend to acts committed prior to March 23. 
 The superior officers accused of having aided Napoleon's return 
 were tried by court-martial (Neybefore the Court of Peers); many 
 
Il6 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 were condemned and shot. Then the Provost Courts were estab- 
 lished (December 20, 181 5), formed of five judges presided over 
 by a military officer, for the sumnaary judgment of every indi- 
 vidual accused of seditious acts or cries. The Legislative Houses 
 passed laws giving the government the right to detain without 
 trial fevery man accused of conspiracy, and decreed the penalty 
 of penal servitude for seditious writings or speeches. They 
 voted an amnesty from which they excluded all high offi- 
 cials of the Hundred Days and all regicides, that is to say, the 
 deputies to the convention which had decreed the death of 
 Louis XVI. 
 
 In the south, the Royalists of some of the cities massacred 
 generals and prisoners, maltreated Hundred Days officials, pur- 
 chasers of confiscated estates. Liberals, and even women; at 
 Nimes, where the Protestants had sympathized with- the Emperor, 
 violence took the form of religious persecution. This mass of 
 executions, massacres, and disorders, known as the White Terror, 
 brought the climax ofparty hatred. 
 
 The Chamber of 'l5eputies, enlarged to 402 members (by a 
 legislative decree), was elected in August, 1815, under the in- 
 fluence of the invasion and of the Terror. The election was con- 
 ducted under the electoral system of the Empire, by electoral 
 colleges of arrondissments and departments made up of electors 
 chosen for life. The arrondissement colleges proposed candi- 
 dates from among whom the department colleges made their 
 choice; but the prefects had had the right to add to the list of 
 electors ten names for each arrondissement, twenty for each 
 department, and many Imperialist voters had not dared to take 
 part in the election. The tricolour party was hardly represented. 
 The Chamber of Deputies was composed of a great majority of 
 Ultras and a minority of Royalists, supporters of the Charter and 
 the ministry. The King, satisfied at first with this unexpected 
 Royalist unanimity, .called it the Chambre Introuvable — ^the un- 
 findable Chamber. 
 
 This harmony between the King and the Chamber lasted until 
 the question arose. What measures shall be taken against the 
 enemies of royalty? The Chamber passed exceptional laws (sedi- 
 tious writings, provost courts, exceptions to amnesty). They 
 abolished divorce without debate as a " disgrace to the Code." 
 They also proposed to abolish some of the institutions guaranteed 
 by the Charter, the University, the national debt, permanent 
 justices, and even demanded the restitution of the confiscated es- 
 
THE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY CRISIS. "7 
 
 tates. Btit these attempts at restoration were checked by the 
 peers, old imperial officials and natural protectors of the regime 
 established by the Charter. Then the Chamber entered upon a 
 conflict with the King over the question of their respective 
 powers and over the electoral laws. 
 
 Louis XVIII. had dismissed his Imperialist ministers (Fou- 
 che, Talleyrand), but had replaced almost all of them with Royal- 
 ists of the constitutional party in minority in the House, and 
 had given the presidency to the Duke of Richelieu, a personal 
 friend of Alexander I.; he thus assured to France the protection 
 of the Tsar and facilitated negotiations for the payment of the 
 war indemnity and the evacuation of territory. Only three min- 
 isters belonged to the Ultras, the party having the majority in 
 the House. They were friends of the Count of Artois and they 
 were accused of forming with him a secret council at Marsan 
 pavilion. Their colleagues held aloof from them. The majority 
 of the deputies protested against this ministry, which did not pos- 
 sess their confidence, and demanded a ministry of the majority, 
 after the Parliamentary plan. Tlie King claimed his right to 
 free choice of ministers, and the minority of constitutional Liber- 
 als sustained him against the majority. The orator of the party, 
 Royer-Collard, thus clearly defined the theory of royal suprem- 
 acy: " If the day should come when the government were in the 
 hands of the majority in the Chambers, and when that majority 
 had the power to dismiss the King's ministers, then would come 
 the fall, not only of the Constitution, but of independent royalty; 
 then we should have a republic " (1816). 
 
 At this time were formulated the two opposing doctrines which 
 reappeared under Louis Philippe under the name of constitutional 
 monarchy and parliamentary government. The constitutional 
 doctrine recognised the King's right to choose his ministers as 
 he liked, even contrary to the wish of the Deputies, so long as 
 he did not govern contrary to the constitution; the King was 
 acknowledged head of the executive power, the only real power, 
 and consequently master of the nation; the legislature had over 
 him no other influence than the illusive right to impeach the min- 
 isters for violation of the constitution. The Parliamentary doc- 
 trine declared the King obliged to choose ministers from the 
 majority; the executive power was to be under the rule of the 
 Parliament, which by a vote of want of confidence could compel 
 the ministry to retire. The sovereignty was, in this view, indi- 
 rectly transferred to the Chamber of Deputies. In 1816 the Ul- 
 
Il8 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 tras upheld the doctrine of ParHamentary rights against the King, 
 and the Liberals defended the royal prerogatives against the 
 Royalists. 
 
 On the election question, the Ultras demanded election in two 
 degrees, by canton and department, and for the cantonal voters 
 the lowering of the qualification to 50 francs of direct tax, which 
 would mean the extension of suffrage to nearly 2,000,000 voters. 
 They demanded also a large House and the complete renovation 
 of the Chamber every five years. The King and the Liberal 
 minority wished to preserve the system of direct election with a 
 small body of voters (less than 100,000), demanding for qualifica- 
 tion 300 francs in taxes; they demanded partial renovation and 
 reduction in the number of deputies. The electoral law pro- 
 posed by the Ultras was passed by the Deputies and rejected by 
 the Peers (March-April, 1816). 
 
 The Ultras wished also to diminish the power of the prefects 
 and to give the local administration into the hands of the land- 
 owners. The Liberals defended the centralization established by 
 the Empire. 
 
 The roles of the parties seemed reversed; it was the old regime 
 party that wished to weaken the King that the Parliament might 
 profit; also to enlarge the electoral body, and increase local auton- 
 omy. It was the Liberal party that sustained royal supremacy, 
 the power of the prefects, and a limited suffrage. The parties re- 
 garded political mechanism simply as an instrument to secure for 
 themselves the control of the government, and cared less for the 
 form of government than for the direction given to public policy. 
 The Ultras, aiming to establish an aristocratic system, wished to 
 place the power in the hands of the country nobles, who would 
 have had control of the Chamber, thanks to the 50-franc electors. 
 The Liberals sought to preserve the supremacy of the King, 
 the prefects, and the 300-franc electors, because they were known 
 to favour the maintenance of the social regime founded by the 
 Revolution. 
 
 Louis XVIIL, supported by foreign powers, kept his ministry ■ 
 and resisted the Deputies ; he began by closing the session (April, 
 1816) and, without convoking it again, finally dissolved it (Sep- 
 tember, 1816). 
 
 The order for the dissolution re-established for the next Cham- 
 ber the number of 258 deputies, as in 1814. The King, by a sim- 
 ple ordinance, changed the composition of the House; it was a 
 coup d'etat like that of 1830. To secure the House of Peers the 
 
GOVERNMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PARTY. 119 
 
 King created new peers, naming former generals and officials 
 tmder the Empire. 
 
 During the struggle between the King and the Chamber of 
 Deputies, the tricolour party, reduced to nine deputies, had had 
 no direct influence. The plots for overthrowing the monarchy 
 (Didier at Grenoble, the patriots at Paris) were nothing but iso- 
 lated attempts, ignored or disowned by the party. 
 
 Government of the Constitutional Party (1816-20). — The new 
 Chamber, meeting in November, 1816, was made up almost en- 
 tirely of Constitutional Royalists, supporters of the ministry; the 
 two extremes, the Liberals and the Ultras, were reduced to two 
 small groups. The policy of the King and his ministers was to 
 maintain their power by reassuring those members of the middle 
 class who were interested in supporting the Charter, especially the 
 purchasers of confiscated estates, whom the " Chambre Introu- 
 vable" had made uneasy. Louis XVIII. said in his opening 
 speech to the Parliament : " May hatred cease, may the children of 
 the same country be as brothers." In 1818 he said: " The system 
 which I have adopted reposes on the principle that one cannot be 
 King over two peoples; all the efforts of my government are to 
 make of these two peoples, who unfortunately dwell side by side, 
 a united nation." 
 
 A regular political life now began. The fundamental question 
 of supremacy of King or Deputies was dropped; the Chamber left 
 the King free to choose his ministers and to direct politics gener- 
 ally, occupying itself with questions of finance. Under the Em- 
 pire the budget had hardly been anything but a sham; often ex- 
 ceeded by the ministers and made fictitious by carrying over 
 from one year to another. In 1817 the minister of war had ex- 
 ceeded the 36,CKDO,ooo granted; verification was put off indefi- 
 nitely, there being no fixed term for the liquidation of each budget, 
 and this permitted the carrying forward of unspent funds to the 
 account of another year. Instead of a single budget there were 
 several special ones ; the cost of collection was deducted from the 
 budget of receipts, which complicated the work of auditing. The 
 Chamber passed financial laws which determined in France the 
 rules for the formation and verification of the budget. The law 
 of 1818 obliged each minister to present each year the account for 
 the work of the past year, comparing the expenditures ordered by 
 him with the appropriations made by the Chamber; the minister 
 of finance must add to this a general summing up of the depart- 
 mental budgets, the account of the gross receipts, the account of 
 
I20 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 the public debt, and the Treasury report. The House is thus kept 
 informed of the sums received, spent, and left on hand. The 
 special budgets were gradually suppressed (from 1817 to 1829). 
 The system was completed by the suppression of the transfer of 
 items from one year to another (1822). 
 
 The Chamber of Deputies also legislated on two political ques- 
 tions as to which only general principles were set forth in the 
 Charter, the electoral system and the control of the press. They 
 adopted (1817) the partial renewal of the House, one-fifth each 
 year, and election by a single college meeting at the chief town 
 of the department; each elector must be 30 years old and pay 300 
 francs direct tax, each candidate 40 years old and pay 1000 francs 
 in taxes; this was the system demanded by the industrial upper- 
 middle class, the mainstay of the Liberal party. The law on the 
 press, long expected, was passed (1819) under the influence of a 
 group of admirers of the English Tories, the doctrinaires (Guizot, 
 Broglie, Royer-Collard). This was an imitation of the English 
 system; no more censorship, jury trial for press cases, newspapers 
 subjected to stamp and deposit of security.* They had wanted 
 free political papers, guaranteed by the jury against the abuse of 
 the government power, but only the journals of the middle class; 
 in demanding an enormous deposit for the establishment of a pa- 
 per (200,000 francs), in imposing on each copy a stamp tax, they 
 made the press a luxury beyond the reach of the greater part of 
 the nation. 
 
 This was a period of reorganization. French territory was 
 evacuated by the armies of the Allies. The debt was consoli- 
 dated and the budget balanced. ,The provost courts were sup- 
 pressed. The standing army was organized with the system o£ 
 drafting by lot, with the right of getting a substitute and 7 years 
 service (this system lasted until 1871). The University retained 
 the monopoly of higher and secondary education. A Catholic 
 party, improperly nick-named the Congregation,! had formed to 
 strengthen the power of the clergy; they demanded the aboli- 
 tion of Napoleon's Concordat. The Pope and Louis XVHL 
 agreed to conclude a new Concordat; the Houses, however, re- 
 fused. 
 
 * The deposit of money as security for good behaviour was never re- 
 quired in England. — Tr. 
 
 f The Co«^r^jfa^2i?« was a private society founded at Paris in 1816. The 
 members combined to carry on charitable work; they had the same ideal 
 as the Catholic party, but it is by no means certain that they were the 
 leaders of it. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF THE RIGHT. I2i 
 
 All this time the Liberals were gaining strength ; each year they 
 gained seats; they had 25 deputies in 1817, 45 in 1818, 90 in 1819. 
 The foreign powers were alarmed and urged Louis XVIIL to 
 take measures against these enemies of his house ; Louis accepted 
 the resignation of Richelieu, who favoured this policy (December, 
 1818) and kept the ministers who favoured a non-partisan policy 
 (Decazes ministry). Then the constitutional majority which had 
 supported the Richelieu ministry divided into two parts. The 
 Left Centre continued to support the ministry, the Right Centre 
 reproached the ministry with doing nothing against the revolu- 
 tion and proposed to modify the electoral law so as to prevent the 
 election of Liberals; finally it joined the Ultras against the minis- 
 try. Decazes at first resisted; he had 73 peers created in o^rdirto 
 keep the majority in the Chamber of Peers, and carried lib- 
 eral press law. But he had against him the Count of Artois, the 
 court, the Catholic party, and could maintain himself only by the 
 personal support of the King. He decided to satisfy the Right 
 by proposing a new electoral law. But, already weakened by the 
 election of the old Conventionist, Abbe Gregoire, in 1819, he 
 could not resist the anger of the Royalists, who were excited by 
 the assassination of the Duke de Berry (1820). The murderer 
 had acted on his own impulse, but the Liberals were held respon- 
 sible. Louis XVIII. resigned himself to desert Decazes and 
 took a ministry from the Right (Richelieu), which began the 
 Struggle against the Liberals. 
 
 Government of the Right (1820-27). — For seven years the 
 Right had the majority in the Chamber and kept the ministry by 
 maintaining harmony with the King, first Louis XVIIL, now old 
 and weak, and after 1824, Charles X., the former leader of the 
 Ultras, personally favourable to the politics of the Right. The 
 president of the ministry was first the Duke of Richelieu, but the 
 real leader of the majority and of the government was Villele, one 
 of the Ultra orators in the " Chambre Introuvable." 
 
 The Right, on assuming control, at once cancelled the political 
 work of the preceding years, the electoral and press laws. An 
 ordinance in 1820 re-established provisionally the full censorship. 
 The government's permission was once more necessary for start- 
 ing a paper, permission of the censors for publishing each issue, 
 and any paper might be suspended for six months by mere ex- 
 ecutive order. The electoral law of 1820 enlarged the Chamber 
 and restored the electoral colleges. The number of members 
 was increased to 430, elected for five years, and renewed in full at 
 
122 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 €ach election, but by two different systems: first, all the qualified 
 voters meeting in colleges, by arrondissements, as in 1815, elected 
 -258 members (since 1816 the total membership). Then the 
 electors whose tax reached the amount necessary for being 
 elected as members (1000 francs) met in colleges by departments, 
 to elect 172 additional members. These latter, therefore, had a 
 double vote. 
 
 The new elections under this system (November, 1820) resulted 
 in an enormous majority for the Right, which decisively assured 
 the power to the Ultras. The posthumous birth of an heir to the 
 Duke de Berry (the Count of Chambord) completed the consoli- 
 dation of the party by assuring the succession of the older branch 
 of the Bourbons. 
 
 The tricolour party, reduced to a powerless minority in the 
 House, gave up working by legal methods and once more began 
 to incite revolution. This was the period of military revolutions 
 in Spain and Italy. The French Charbonneric, modelled on the 
 Italian Carbonari, was a secret society divided into sections of 
 twenty members called, as in Italy, venies, and directed by a cen- 
 tral committee, the High Twenty. The object announced in the 
 founding of this society was tO' give the French the free exercise 
 ■of their right to choose their government, " seeing that the Bour- 
 bons were restored by foreign power." They talked of over- 
 throwing the Bourbons, but they could not agree on the system 
 to succeed them, for the revolutionists were a coalition of Repub- 
 licans and Imperialists. They counted on accomplishing their 
 object by an insurrection (the Charbonniers were under pledge to 
 have arms always ready), and particularly, as in Spain and Italy, 
 by raising a revolt in the army. They also hoped for aid from the 
 revolutionists of other countries, with whom they kept in touch 
 through the Cosmopolitan Alliance. It seems that the Liberal 
 leaders of the Chamber, Lafayette and Manuel, had knowledge 
 of these revolutionists, if they did not encourage them. The 
 Free Masons reorganized themselves about the same time to op- 
 pose the clergy, but it has never been proved that they worked 
 in concert with the secret political societies. 
 
 Many attempts were made at insurrection: at Belfort, at Col- 
 mar, at Toulon, at Saumur (1822); none of them succeeded; 
 everywhere the conspirators were executed, " the four sergeants 
 of Rochelle," affiliated with the Charbonniers, were put to death. 
 There were also demonstrations by the students with cries of 
 " Long live the Charter! " This was the motto chosen by the 
 
GOVERNMENT OF THE RIGHT. 123 
 
 Liberals, in order not to frighten the middle class. The 
 demonstration by the students about Paris led to a scrimmage in 
 which several persons were wounded. 
 
 The Right continued to control the House. They passed a 
 press law in 1822 which maintained the principle of previous 
 authorization for newspapers, and the government right to sus- 
 pend the publication, and gave the judgment of press cases to the 
 common courts composed of magistrates dependent on the gov- 
 ernment. Censorship was abolished, but the- ministry could 
 re-establish it by an ordinance. (There was even talk of for- 
 bidding the foundation of any new papers and buying up the old 
 ones one by one.) In fact, the press was subject to a system of 
 prosecutions and condemnations which made opposition almost 
 impossible. Even when the government found no cause for pros- 
 ecution, they could bring a " charge of tendency " — proces de ten- 
 dance — and have the paper condemned for a series of articles, 
 no one of which was punishable, but which taken together indi- 
 cated a subversive tendency. 
 
 The Right was sufficiently strong to oblige the King to make 
 war on Spain in order to re-establish absolutism. Manuel, for 
 having recalled the execution of Louis XVI., was expelled from 
 the Chamber; the Liberal deputies then withdrew (March, 1823). 
 The ministry, taking advantage of the Royalist sentiment among 
 the electors, carried the law fixing the duration of the House at 
 seven years. They then dissolved the Chamber and openly or- 
 dered all officials to support government candidates. The keeper 
 of the seals set forth in a circular this principle : " Whoever ac- 
 cepts a post in the public service at the same time pledges himself 
 to consecrate to the government's service his efiforts, his talent, 
 his influence." 
 
 The Chamber elected under these conditions (February, 1824) 
 was composed so largely of Ultras that it was called the Chamhre 
 Retrouvee (found again); there were only 19 Liberals. The ideal 
 held by the majority was expressed during the election period. 
 The program of the Liberal papers (Constutionnel and Courrier) 
 said: " Electors! will you prevent the schemes which propose: ist, 
 to give the clergy control of marriage, to assure them an inde- 
 pendent income, and to give them control of the instruction of 
 our youth; 2d, to re-establish the trade guilds and monopolies; 
 3d, to deprive the holders of industrial licenses of their political 
 influence ; 4th, to introduce into legislation some means of found- 
 ing a landed aristocracy; 5th, to grant compensation to the 
 
124 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 emigres (for the loss of their estates); 6th, to interpose legal ob- 
 stacles to the subdivision of property? " The Royalist Quoti- 
 dienne replied: " If the Liberals go to the polls to prevent these 
 things, we counsel the Royalists to go in order to have these 
 things done." 
 
 The majority accepted the constitutional system that had 
 placed it in power; but its own wish was to re-establish a landed 
 aristocracy and the authority of the clergy. Louis XVIII. died 
 in 1824 and his successor was the old leader of the Ultras, 
 Charles X. The Chamber, the Ministry, and the King were ia 
 harmony as to undertaking a work of restoration. Being un- 
 able to restore the confiscated estates, which had been guaranteed 
 to the purchasers by the Charter, they granted the dispossessed 
 emigres a thousand millions of francs as compensation. The 
 sum was raised by an issue of bonds ; and the occasion was used 
 to convert the outstanding five per cents into three per cents 
 (1825). In 1826 a law was passed against sacrilege, punishing 
 with death the theft of articles from the churches and the prof- 
 anation of sacred vessels and the host. The Chamber had even 
 adopted the punishment of parricide for these offences, but the 
 Peers rejected it. The act was a symbolic one, intended to show 
 that the law took note of crimes against religion. The number of 
 dioceses was increased. A bishop was appointed Grand Master 
 of the University. In 1824 teachers were subjected to the super- 
 vision of the bishops. Newspapers were prosecuted and officials 
 dismissed. 
 
 But this policy aroused against the party in power an oppo- 
 sition of three classes: the Liberals, who were directly attacked; 
 the manufacturers, threatened by the landed aristocracy; the 
 Gallicans, disturbed by seeing the Ultramontanes strengthened 
 (this was the party favouring the power of the Pope). An old 
 Gallican Royalist, Montlosier, in a book that was widely read, de- 
 nounced the Congregation and demanded the expulsion of the 
 Jesuits. This order had re-established itself in France contrary 
 to law, not having received the sanction of the French govern- 
 ment. Montlosier demanded in 1826 that the Articles of the 
 Gallican Church of 1682 be taught in the schools. The Catholic 
 party divided. Some of the bishops signed a declaration against 
 the Jesuits; the Paris Court of Appeal declared the principles of 
 the Jesuits to be incompatible with the Charter. In the Cham- 
 ber the Gallicans left the Catholics and joined the Voltaireans 
 again&t the Ultramontanes. The Royalist party also broke up. 
 
CONFLICT BETWEEN KING AND CHAMBER. 125 
 
 The Left Centre, dissatisfied with the policy of the Right, turned 
 against the ministry and joined the Liberals. A group of the 
 extreme Right went into opposition for personal reasons (it was 
 called the Defection). 'The Chamber of Peers, independent of the 
 ministers, assumed the position of defending Liberal instittitions 
 against the Chamber of Deputies. It rejected the bill giving a 
 double share of the inheritance tO' the eldest son in case of fami- 
 lies whose direct tax was 3000 francs or upward. It stopped the 
 famous bill relating to the press (nicknamed the " Vandal Bill ") 
 which would have compelled every newspaper to deposit with the 
 government the manuscript copy of every issue five days before 
 publication. It voted a bill on juries which admitted as jurors, 
 in addition to property owners, the members of the learned pro- 
 fessions. 
 
 The ministry tried to crush opposition. It dismissed office- 
 holders who opposed the new press law. It closed the Normal 
 School. It proposed to abolish jury trial. The National Guard 
 of Paris, composed of picked men of the middle class, cried at 
 a review by the King : " Long live the Charter ! Down with the 
 ministers ! " It was broken up. Finally the ministry re-estab- 
 lished the censorship by ordinance in 1827. The opposition re- 
 plied by founding the Association for defending the Liberty of the 
 Press. In order to get a majority in the Chamber of Peers, 
 Villele created 76 new peers, most of them taken from among the 
 deputies. But instead of retaining the Chamber of Deputies, 
 which might lawfully have run to 183 1, he had it dissolved, count- 
 ing on managing the elections as in 1824. In order to give the 
 opposition no time for organizing, he had the elections appointed 
 for a day only two weeks ahead. 
 
 Conflict between the King and the Chamber (1827-30).— At the 
 elections of November, 1827, all the opponents of the ministry 
 united against it: Liberals, Left Centre, and Defection. The 
 voters were irritated by the aristocratic leanings of the Right. 
 The bondholders disliked it for the conversion of the 5 per cents 
 into 3 per cents carried out in 1825. The new Chamber had a 
 strong opposition majority, 190 of them belonging to the Left. 
 The Villele ministry resigned. Charles X. was prevailed on to 
 take a ministry, not from the majority, but at least from the Lib- 
 eral Right Centre, the Martignac ministry of January, 1828. 
 This was a return to Decazes' policy of conciliation. 
 
 The Martignac ministry drew up a conciliatory speech from the 
 throne, reopened the courses of Cousin and Guizot, and made 
 
126 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 some changes of prefects. It carried, in 1828, a bill against elec- 
 tion frauds, requiring that the Hst of voters be posted in every 
 commune early enough to give time for corrections and additions ; 
 also a press act which abolished the censorship, the requirement 
 of previous license, and the ofifence of tendance. 
 
 To satisfy the Galileans the government by ordinance forbade 
 unauthorized religious orders to have the management of educa- 
 tional institutions. In order to maintain the monopoly of the 
 University, it forbade the small seminaries to receive day pupils, 
 and limited to 20,000 the whole number of their pupils ; they were 
 to receive only candidates for the priesthood. The bishops re- 
 jected these measures at first, but the government got from the 
 Pope a censure of their conduct. To satisfy the Liberals the 
 ministry had the King say in the speech from the throne in 1829: 
 " France knows as you do on what bases her welfare rests, and 
 those who seek it elsewhere than in a sincere union of royal 
 authority and the liberties that the Charter has consecrated, will 
 be promptly disavowed by her." It was the Left that, for the 
 first time, was charged with drawing up the address in reply. 
 
 But Charles X. had endured this ministry with grudging: he 
 thought himself entitled to choose his ministers without needing 
 the approval of the Chamber. " I should prefer to saw wood," 
 said he, " than to be a King in the position of the English King." 
 The members of the Left itself gave the Martignac ministry but 
 feeble support, alleging that they had no representative in it. 
 They voted with the extreme Right against the bill relating to the 
 councils of the departments and municipalities. Charles X. con- 
 sidered the attempt at conciliation as a failure. He said to Mar- 
 tignac in April, 1829: " I told you so; nothing could satisfy those 
 people." He waited till the budget was voted and the session 
 closed; then he dismissed the Martignac ministry and formed 
 a ministry of Ultras, presided over by one of his personal friends, 
 an emigrant, Count Polignac. 
 
 Charles X. exercised the royal prerogatives, as Louis XVIII. 
 had done in 1816, by governing with a ministry frankly opposed 
 to the Chamber. But Louis XVIII. had had the middle class and 
 the cities on his side against the Unfindable Chamber; Charles X. 
 had them against him. People began to speak of legal resistance. 
 The Chamber had one indirect means of forcing the ministry to 
 retire, namely the refusal of supplies. If the ministry should 
 attempt to levy taxes without legal authority, the taxpayers would 
 refuse to pay them. The Journal des Debats, an organ of the 
 
CONFLICT BETWEEN KING AND CHAMBER. l-'il 
 
 Left Centre, said, on the loth of August, 1829: "The Charter 
 has now an authority against which all the efforts of despotism 
 will fail. The people will pay a thousand millions to the law; 
 they will not pay one to the ordinances of a minister. If illegal 
 taxes were demanded, a Hampden would arise to crush them. . . 
 The article concluded with the words " Unhappy France ! Un- 
 happy King! " The writer was prosecuted and condemned, but 
 was acquitted on appeal. The opposition organized associations 
 to resist the collection of taxes, in case the ministers violated the 
 Charter. The first was the League of Breton Resistance; an- 
 other was the " Help Thyself and Heaven Will Help Thee," in 
 which Constitutional Royalists, such as Guizot and Broglie, 
 united with young Republicans. Lafayette, regarded as the rep- 
 resentative of the Revolution, made a political tour in the South. 
 He was triumphantly received by the Liberals and Free Masons. 
 
 The adversaries of the Bourbons tried to take advantage of the 
 general irritation tO' convert the resistance to the ministers into 
 a revolution against the royal family. 
 
 There was already in Paris a small Republican party composed 
 chiefly of students and labouring men. It was little known, for 
 it had neither deputy nor journal; but it was in communication 
 with Lafayette and ready to fight. It had erected barricades in 
 1827, at the time of the elections — the first seen in Paris since 
 the Fronde (on the great days of the Revolution the crowds went 
 forward to attack, and did not need to raise barricades for 
 defence). 
 
 Another small but very active party was formed to replace the 
 older line of the Bourbons with the younger Orleanist branch, 
 descended from Philippe, brother of Louis XIV. Louis Philippe,. 
 Duke of Orleans, son of Philippe Egalite, had fought in the Re- 
 publican army in 1792.* Returning in 1814, he had been coldly 
 treated at court, but had made himself popular with the middle 
 class by sending his sons to the ordinary colleges and by avow- 
 ing Liberal and Voltairean opinions. The Orleanist party was 
 started secretly at a meeting held, in 1829, at the house of Talley- 
 rand's niece, between two former Imperial ministers, Talleyrand 
 and Baron Louis, and two young writers from the south, Thiers 
 and Mignet, both of them champions of the Revolution. It was 
 decided to publish a journal, which appeared as the National, 
 
 * The public was not aware, at that time, that, under the empire, he had 
 tried to take service in the foreign armies : the fact was not divulged 
 until after 1840. 
 
128 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 edited by Armand Carrel. As was the fashion with the Constitu- 
 tionaHsts, Carrel took his illustrations from English history. He 
 wrote an article praising the revolution of 1688: the English na- 
 tion had delivered itself from an oppressive king by avoiding the 
 republic and simply substituting one branch of the royal family 
 for another. The allusion was clear. 
 
 The conflict between the Chamber and the ministry became 
 open at the beginning of the session of 1830. The speech from 
 the throne said : " If culpable manoeuvres should raise against my 
 government obstacles which I do not and must not anticipate, 
 my resolution to maintain the public peace would give me the 
 strength to surmount them." The Chamber replied in an ad- 
 dress voted by 221 deputies: " The Charter consecrates as a right 
 the intervention of the nation in the deliberations regarding its 
 interests. It has made the continuous agreement of the wishes 
 of your government with the wishes of your people the indis- 
 pensable condition of orderly progress in public affairs. This 
 agreement does not now exist " (March, 1830). Charles X. at 
 once prorogued the Chamber and then dissolved it. " This is 
 not a question of the ministry," said he, " but a question of the 
 monarchy." The King, in virtue of his royal power, believed he 
 had the right, in case of disagreement with the Chamber, to en- 
 force his own will. The Chamber, as representing the people 
 (it was not yet reproached with only representing the rich), 
 wished to compel him to yield before the will of the nation. It 
 had never, since 1814, been necessary to decide the question — the 
 majority of the Chamber never having resisted the King, except 
 in the case of the Unfindable Chamber, which was not supported 
 by the nation. In 1830 the two irreconcilable theories, sover- 
 eignty of the King and sovereignty of the people, were brought 
 squarely into conflict. According to the maxim borrowed from 
 England, the King could not be responsible: the ministers alone 
 could be. But by upholding his ministers, Charles X. had made 
 the fiction of irresponsibility iriipossible. The conflict was hence- 
 forth between the King and the Chamber. 
 
 Revolution of 1830. — Charles X. made some changes in his 
 ministry and ordered a new general election. In the new Cham- 
 ber, instead of 221 opposition members, there were 270. The 
 King, in spite of the warnings of the Tsar and Metternich, de- 
 cided to crush the opposition by a coup d'etat. The French army 
 had just taken Algiers, and the government was making an alli- 
 ance with the Tsar for the purpose of reconquering the Rhine 
 
REVOLUTION OF 1830. 129 
 
 boundary. The King therefore supposed he could count with 
 certainty on the army. Polignac had had a vision of the Virgin, 
 who admonished him to deliver his country from the domestic 
 enemy. The Archbishop of Paris, in conducting a service of 
 thanksgiving for the victory of Algiers, gave the same counsel. 
 
 The ministry, relying on Article 14 of the Charte, " The King 
 makes such regulations and ordinances as are necessary for the 
 execution of the laws and the safety of the state," published the 
 four ordinances of July 26. .These dissolved the new Chamber 
 before it had been called together, and purported to change the 
 laws regarding elections and the press. They restored the cen- 
 sorship and reduced the Chamber to 258 members, one-fifth to be 
 elected annually. The elections were to be by departments, and 
 none but land taxes were to qualify for voting — a provision which 
 would exclude the manufacturers, nearly all of whom belonged 
 to the opposition. The King and his ministers held that their 
 action was in accordance with the constitution. Polignac wrote 
 in a secret memoir: "The ministers are willing at need to sus- 
 pend it in order to strengthen it." They had so little thought of 
 resistance that they had only 14,000 soldiers in Paris and the 
 King went on with his shooting at Rambouillet. 
 
 In truth the Constitutional party, in spite of its majority in the 
 Chamber, was not organized for a conflict. The ordinances at- 
 tacked both the Chamber and the newspapers. But the Chamber 
 had not yet met. ,The Constitutionalist deputies who were about 
 Paris held a meeting on hearing of the ordinances, and resolved 
 on legal resistance, but were unable to agree on practical meas- 
 ures. The Liberal editors issued a protest: "The government 
 has violated the law; we are under no obligation to obey it, we 
 shall endeavour to publish our papers without asking the permis- 
 sion of the censors. The government has this day lost the char- 
 acter of legality which gives the right to demand obedience. For 
 our part, we shall resist it; it is for France to judge how fctr her 
 resistance shall extend." This was an indirect summons to 
 revolt; but the press had no means of action. The revolution 
 of 1830 was the work neither of the deputies nor of the editors. 
 
 An armed force was needed to oppose the troops in Paris; it 
 was the party of the tricolour which furnished this. There had 
 been for some years in Paris a revolutionary party made up of 
 young men, students, and labourers. Their leader, Godefroy 
 Cavaignac, son of a member of the Convention of 1792, wished 
 to re-establish the republic of 1793. 'His associates were lack- 
 
13° THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 ing in precise ideas, but hatred of the Bourbons and love of the 
 tricolour flag kept them together. They were not very numer- 
 ous, having from eig'ht to ten thousand combatants at most. The 
 government had considered them unworthy of notice. This weak 
 and obscure organization it was that made the revolution of 1830. 
 They were favoured by a combination of exceptional conditions. 
 1st, The government was almost as badly armed as the insur- 
 gents, having only 14,000 soldiers in Paris (there was no Parisian 
 police force at that date), and with the flintlocks still in use, the 
 soldiers had no advantage in arms over civilians. 2d, The Paris 
 of that time, especially in the eastern portions, was a labyrinth of 
 narrow and crooked lanes. It was possible, using the large and 
 heavy paving stones of the time, to construct in a few minutes a 
 barricade sufficient to stop the march of troops. Further, the 
 officers had had no experience of street fighting. 3d, The soldiers 
 v/ere reluctant to make war on the populace. 4th, The insur- 
 gents hoisted the tricolour flag — ^which the labourers and even 
 the soldiers still regarded as the national colours. 
 
 The struggle lasted three days. On July 27 the Republicans 
 fired some shots and began to build barricades. On the 28th the 
 eastern section was honeycombed with barricades ; the insurgents 
 took possession of the City Hall and Notre Dame Cathedral, and 
 hoisted over them the tricolore. There were no more cries of 
 Vive la Charte! The cry now was " Down with the Bourbons! " 
 Marmont, commanding the troops, sent his men forward in two 
 columns, one through the boulevards toward the Bastille, the 
 other along the Seine toward the City HaH. Behind them, after 
 they had passed, the barricades were rebuilt; the soldiers, worn 
 out with their exertions and the heat, fired upon from windows, 
 and pelted with stones, tiles, and pieces of furniture, were unable 
 to pass the barricades of the Rue Saint-Antoine and, abandoning 
 the east of Paris, retreated to the Louvre. On the 29th the insur- 
 gents took the offensive in the western section, attacked the 
 troops in their barracks, and the Swiss at the Tuileries. A num- 
 ber of soldiers of the line joined the insurgents. The rest of the 
 army evacuated Paris. After the fight, some of the deputies, 
 meeting with Laffitte, organized an executive committee to 
 " guard the safety of person and property." This committee. es- 
 tablished itself at the Hotel de Ville, restored the national guard, 
 and placed military control in the hands of Lafayette. Qiarles 
 X. had decided, after the third day, to withdraw his ordinances 
 and to make terms with the insurgents. The committee, how- 
 
REVOLUTION OF 1830. ' IS": 
 
 ever, refused to receive his envoys ; France was tired of the Bour- 
 bons. 
 
 Paris was in the hands of two parties who had united against 
 Charles X., the Republicans and the Liberal-Royalists. The 
 former controlled the east of Paris and the Hotel de Ville; the 
 latter controlled the west of Paris and the Chamber of Deputies. 
 They adopted the tricolour flag, but did not want a republic. The 
 partisans of the Duke of Orleans took advantage of this state of 
 affairs to establish a combination of royalty as represented by the 
 younger branch, with the tricolour flag and the Charter. They 
 divulged their plan gradually. First they posted a proclamation 
 drawn up by Thiers: " Charles X. cannot return to Paris, he has 
 shed the nation's blood. A republic would expose us to horrible 
 dissensions, it would embroil us with all Europe. The Duke of 
 Orleans is a prince devoted to the cause of the Revolution. . . 
 He was at Jemmapes. . . He is a citizen-King. He has borne 
 the tricolour standard in the midst of battle, he alone can bear it 
 again. He awaits our call. Let us issue this call, and he will 
 accept the Charter, as we have always wished it to be. It is at 
 the hands of the French nation that he will receive his crown." 
 Then Lafifitte and Thiers went to where the Duke was waiting 
 outside the city, and brought him to Paris. ,The Duke took 
 possession of the Royal Palace, and declared himself only Lieu- 
 tenant General of the Kingdom until the opening of the legislative 
 houses. He added: "A Charter shall be henceforth a reality." 
 A proclamation drawn up by Guizot and signed by 91 deputies 
 announced his resolution : " The Duke of Orleans is devoted to 
 the cause of the nation and the constitution. . . He will respect 
 our rights, for he will receive his own from us " (July 30). The 
 Chamber of Deputies met again and named Louis Philippe Lieu- 
 tenant General of the Kingdom. 
 
 But at the Hotel de Ville there remained a semi-Republican 
 government. Louis Philippe made his famous ride across the 
 still armed city and presented himself before the Committee; there 
 he had the Chamber's declaration read, kissed Lafayette, and 
 was cheered by the people (July 31). The Republicans made no 
 opposition, knowing that there was no wish for a republic in 
 France. Cavaignac replied to Duvergier's thanks : " You are 
 wrong in thanking us, we have yielded because we are not ready 
 for resistance." 
 
 The revolution did not spread beyond Paris and Louis Philippe 
 remained only Lieutenant General. Charles X. tried to preserve- 
 
132 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 the crown for his family by accepting the revolution ; he appointed 
 the Duke of Orleans Lieutenant General, then he and his son 
 abdicated in favour of the rightful heir, his grandson, Henry V., 
 and intrusted the regency to Louis Philippe. But the Chamber, 
 by a vote of 219 to 33 (there being but 252 of the 430 deputies 
 present), declared the throne vacant, and proclaimed Louis 
 Philippe I. King of the French (August 7). 
 
 Charles X., with his court and his guard, had retired to Ram- 
 bouillet, where he could continue the war. The national guards 
 of Paris marched on Rambouillet in disorder; but Charles made 
 no attempt to resist them. He fled to England. In France the 
 news of the revolution had been carried everywhere, together 
 with the tricolour flag; the people received it with joy, happy in 
 the restoration of the national colours. Not a man made any re- 
 sistance. 
 
 The Political System of Louis Philippe. — The revolution had 
 been brought on by a conflict between the King and the people. 
 Its result was to proclaim publicly the sovereignty of the people. 
 Thiers' declaration said : " It is from the French people that he 
 [Louis Philippe] will hold his crown." Guizot said: "He will 
 respect our rights, for it is from us that he will hold his." Louis 
 Philippe accepted this doctrine. He called himself " King of the 
 French by the grace of God and the good will of the nation." 
 Before he took possession of the throne, the Charter was read to 
 him; he signed it and swore to uphold it. It was understood that 
 this was no longer a Charter granted by the King as in 1814, but 
 a Charter imposed by the nation and agreed to by the King. The 
 Chambers limited themselves to revising the Charter, but the re- 
 port called the revised Charter a " new establishment," and 
 defined its position thus : " It is the case of a nation, in full pos- 
 session of its rights, saying to the prince on whom it intends to 
 confer the crown : ' Under the conditions written in the law, will 
 you reign over us?'" In this way the question of the royal 
 power was settled by the judgment of the people, that is to say, 
 of the Chamber. Article 14, which had served as the basis of 
 Charles X.'s coup d'etat, was modified to read : " The King issues 
 the ordinances necessary for the execution of the laws, but 
 never has power to suspend the laws or prevent their exe- 
 cution." 
 
 Guizot's declaration had announced " guarantees for establish- 
 ing firm and lasting liberty " : the re-establishment of the national 
 guard, jury trial for press cases, " legally determined responsi- 
 
THE POLITICAL SYSTEM OF LOUIS PHILIPPE. I33 
 
 "bility of ministers, the position of soldiers to be regulated by law, 
 the citizens to share in the formation of municipal and depart- 
 mental administrations." The revised Charter contained the 
 promise of laws relating to juries, the national guard, and muni- 
 cipal and departmental organization; it also forbade i the censor- 
 ship of the press and guaranteed freedom of education. Finally, 
 in order to indicate the equality ~of religions the formula " the 
 Catholic religion is the religion of France " was changed to " the 
 Catholic religion is the religion professed by the majority of the 
 French." 
 
 The revision slightly changed the mechanism of the Chambers 
 and of the elections. The Deputies had the right to elect their 
 president and to take the initiative in law-making (not yet indi- 
 vidually for each member, but collectively) ; the age for eligibility 
 was lowered from 40 to 30 years. 
 
 Two laws completed the revision : one lowered the voting quali- 
 fication from 300 to 200 francs in taxes; the other made the 
 peerage no longer hereditary, but for life only (183 1). * 
 
 This new regime, called the " July Monarchy " because it was 
 the result of the July revolution, was very little different from that 
 of the Restoration. The real change consisted in giving the 
 power to a new set of men. The royal family of the Bourbons, 
 bound by tradition to the old regime, favouring the maintenance 
 of the aristocracy and the power of the clergy, gave place to the 
 family of Orleans, half bourgeois and Voltairean, and obliged to 
 lean upon the Liberal middle class. The Chamber of Peers had 
 been deprived of half of its former members (175 of the 539 peers 
 refused to take the oath of allegiance t& Louis Philippe), robbed 
 of its hereditary privileges, and had lost its influence in the gov- 
 ernment. Political power was concentrated in the Chamber of 
 Deputies ; the majority belonged henceforth to the Liberal middle 
 class, the enemy of the nobility and clergy, who gave political 
 life a tendency directly opposed to that of the Restoration. 
 
 A new political force was created by the Revolution and recog- 
 nised by the Charter. " The Charter, and all the rights which it 
 consecrates, remain intrusted to the patriotism and courage of 
 the national guards." The national guard, reorganized in 1831, 
 was composed of all taxpayers who could afford to purchase a 
 -uniform; they elected their own officers up to the rank of cap- 
 tain. The national guard of Paris took the place of the royal 
 guard, which had been suppressed; it was the armed force 
 ■charged with defending the government. It was, however, a 
 
134 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 political organ as well. Louis Philippe personally reviewed the 
 national guards amid cheers, which were the principal manifesta- 
 tion of public opinion. This political character of the national 
 guard was the most original feature of the July regime. 
 
 Party Struggle in the Government (1830-31). — Louis Philippe, 
 enthroned by a Paris insurrection, dubbed " King of the bar- 
 ricades " by the legitimists, had promptly to show gratitude to 
 the insurgents. A national recompense was voted for the vic- 
 tims of the July Revolution, a monument was erected on the site 
 of the Bastille " in memory of the citizens who died in fighting 
 for the defence of public liberties." The King gave an audience 
 to " those condemned for political offences." The King came 
 out on foot with an umbrella, shook hands with the members of 
 the national guards, and allowed workingmen to offer him glasses 
 of wine. These democratic manifestations supplied material for 
 joking in the salons and the legitimist newspapers; which also 
 ridiculed the " insurrection of beggars," who had come to demand 
 government situations, and said that Lafayette had endorsed 70,- 
 000 requests for office. 
 
 The government remained divided into the two parties which 
 had conducted the Revolution : the old revolutionary party of the 
 tricolour flag, which had prepared the uprising against the Bour- 
 bons and formed the executive committee of the Hotel de Ville 
 (Lafayette, Laffitte, Dupont); the constitutional party (Guizot, 
 Broglie, Dupin), which had taken charge of the Chamber and 
 induced it to accept the Duke of Orleans. 
 
 Louis Philippe, in shaking off the young Republicans, had not 
 dared to break with the leaders of the tricolour party, who alone 
 were making the new order of things popular in Paris. He 
 therefore called to the government men of both sections of his 
 supporters; he gave seven portfolios to the Constitutionalists, to 
 the Liberals four portfolios and in addition the command of the 
 national guards (Lafayette) and the prefecture of the Seine 
 (Odilon Barrot)". 
 
 There was therefore in the ministry a continual struggle over 
 the general policy to be pursued. The ^arty of action (Lafayette, 
 Laffitte) wished to let the so-called " consequences of July " work 
 themselves out. They would sustain the democratic party, and 
 resist the clergy, at home ; and would aid abroad the peoples who 
 rebelled against monarchical governments. The party of resist- 
 ance (Guizot, Broglie, Casimir-Perier) declared the revolution at 
 an end; they wished to combat the Republicans at home, giving; 
 
PARTY STRUGGLE IN THE 'GOVERNMENT. 13S 
 
 the power to the middle class ; also to maintain peace abroad and 
 reconcile France with the monarchies. 
 
 The party of action had most influence at first; they had the 
 advantage of having the support of the national guard and the 
 Parisian insurgents. Their policy was to let the people of Paris 
 show what they wanted. The people wished first of all the death 
 of the four ministers of Charles X. who had signed the ordi- 
 nances. In order to save them, the " party of resistance " carried 
 in the Chamber an address favouring the abolition of the death 
 penalty for political offences. The people rebelled and attacked 
 the Royal Palace and the fortress of Vincennes, where the minis- 
 ters of Charles X. were imprisoned. The Resistance section of 
 the ministry resigned, and Louis Philippe, while himself favour- 
 ing the Resistance, gave the government to the leaders of the pro- 
 gressive party. He hoped thereby to get done with them more 
 quickly. This Laffitte ministry (November 2, 1830-March 13, 
 1831) protected Charles' ministers and the Court of Peers which 
 tried them, by lining the streets with soldiers. The clergy hav- 
 ing sustained Charles' government, the Revolution of 1830 had 
 been a victory for the Liberal Vol tair cans over the legitimist 
 clergy. In the country the mission crosses had been thrown 
 down, priests and monks insulted. In Paris the mobs sacked 
 the Church of Saint-Germain-l'Auxerrois, where the legitimists 
 had organized a service in memory of the Duke de Berry; they 
 demolished the Archbishop's palace for hate of the Archbishop, 
 who, in 1830, had advised Charles X. to make a military coup 
 d'etat. The government made no earnest effort to prevent these 
 outbreaks. Louis Philippe did not dare to join publicly in the 
 celebration of the mass, and therefore had a private service in a 
 private chapel. His coronation was conducted without any re- 
 ligious forms. 
 
 The party of action had for opponents the middle class, who 
 were frightened at the prospect of war and distressed by the com- 
 mercial crisis. Business was at a standstill. One hundred and 
 fifty thousand persons, it was said, had left Paris. The unem- 
 ployed made public demonstrations. The three per cent, bonds 
 had fallen to 52 francs, the five per cents to 82 francs. Laffitte 
 himself had to go into liquidation with his banking house. 
 Louis Philippe did not want an aggressive foreign policy; he 
 forbade his ministers to interfere in Italy or in Poland. Then the 
 party of action retired from office; the party of resistance took 
 the power under Casimir-Perier (March 13, 1831). 
 
136 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 The new policy was to consolidate the royal power, to secure 
 the government to the middle class by crushing the democratic 
 party, and to maintain peace with outside powers by abstaining 
 from interference with them. The Chamber of 1830 was dis- 
 solved, and deputies were chosen under the new electoral system 
 by the 200-franc voters. The ministry gained a distinct ma- 
 jority. Casimir-Perier indicated his policy in the speech from the 
 throne : " France has wished royalty to be national ; she has not 
 wished it to be impotent." He persuaded the King to leave 
 the Palais Royal, his ducal residence, and take possession of the 
 Tuileries, the King's palace. He passed a law forbidding armed 
 assemblages. He forbade all government officials to join the 
 National Association, which had been founded to oppose the 
 Bourbon and foreign influence. " France is to be governed," said 
 the Journal des Debats. 
 
 Struggle against Insurrections (1831-34). — The monarchy of 
 Louis Philippe which had become the government of the middle 
 class, was now attacked from two opposite sides at once. Two 
 parties organized insurrections for the purpose of overturning 
 the government. 
 
 The supporters of the elder branch, known to their adversaries 
 as the Carlists, but calling themselves the Legitimists, made at 
 Paris an attempt to carry off the royal family (the Prouvaires 
 Street Plot, February, 1832). Their great power was, however, 
 in the west, in the old province of Vendee. It was there that the 
 Duchess of Berry, mother of Henry V., after an unsuccessful at- 
 tack on Marseilles, incited the romantic insurrection which 
 ended in her capture (June-November, 1832). The Legitimists 
 renounced war and fell back on the press as a weapon. 
 
 ■The Republicans who reproached the Orleanists with having 
 " juggled " the revolution of 1830, tried to bring on another Re- 
 publican revolution by the same process that had been used with 
 such success against Charles X., riot and barricades in Paris. 
 They were as in 1830 a crowd of students and workingmen, 
 organized as armed secret societies. The object was to re-estab- 
 lish the republic of 1793; their ideal was the Convention. Their 
 scheme was to meet in arms, to barricade the tortuous lanes of 
 the Saint-Martin and Saint-Denis quarters, and to watch for a 
 favourable chance to march upon the Hotel de Ville and the Tui- 
 leries and proclaim the republic. We must remember that this 
 plan, which seems to us inconceivable, was proposed under con- 
 ditions which have since disappeared. There was no political Hfe 
 
STRUGGLE AGAINST INSURRECTIONS. 137 
 
 outside of Paris, and it was only necessary to gain control of Paris 
 in order to impose a government on France. Paris was at this 
 period confined to the limits of the twelve old arrondissements. 
 The bourgeois population of the western quarters was small and 
 passive; the eastern quarters, where the working classes were 
 massed, especially on the right bank, formed a strong place, easy 
 to defend with barricades and near the centre of political life, 
 the Hotel de Ville and the Tuileries. The government had really 
 no other defence but the national guard, of which a part could 
 probably be led to desert. 
 
 The Republican party was directed by secret societies formed of 
 the most determined members, of the party. These men began 
 the insurrection, followed by the malcontents, especially working- 
 men and small boys who came to help them build barricades 
 and fight. Those who were unarmed went into the house of a 
 bourgeois of the national guard and took his gun. When the 
 government dissolved a secret society, the Republicans formed a 
 new one under another name. There were successively: the 
 society of the " People's Friends," dissolved in 1831, which led 
 the riots against the ministers of Charles X. and Saint-Germain- 
 I'Auxerrois; the society for the " Rights of Man," the most pow- 
 erful of all, which directed the two great insurrections of 1832 
 and 1834; the society of the " Families " (1837), ^"d the society of 
 the " Seasons " which led the insurrection of 1839. 
 
 The Rights of Man Society was organized like an army, di- 
 vided into sections of 20 members (to evade the law which forbade 
 the association of more than 20 persons), each section having a 
 president and vice president; these sections were grouped in 
 series, each having its president. In Paris all the later so- 
 cieties followed this system. In Lyons emissaries of the Rights 
 of Man Society created a similar organization. They found the 
 workmen of Lyons excited by the insurrection of November, 
 1831, which had been merely an industrial outbreak without any 
 political object. During the commercial crisis produced by the 
 revolution of 1830 the silk manufacturers had made a reduction 
 in wages; the silk weavers of Lyons, carrying on the industry 
 in their own houses, procured from the municipality and from the 
 prefect permission to hold a meeting of delegates representing 
 both the manufacturers and the workingmen, to fix a minimum 
 wage. The prefect accepted the decision, but the manufacturers 
 refused it and stopped all work. The weavers came down from 
 the Croix Rousse with a black flag bearing the famous inscrip- 
 
138 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 tion: Vivre en travaillant ou mourir en combattant (Live by labour 
 or die fighting). After the combat the weavers remained masters 
 of the city for ten days. This uprising gave the workmen of 
 Lyons a reahzation of their own unity and power. The Repub- 
 licans organized them in the form of a mutual aid society, the 
 Miitualists, divided into 122 lodges of 20 members each, with a 
 treasury and a newspaper. 
 
 The Republican party, without counting the little outbreaks in 
 Paris in 1830 and 1831* and the Grenoble riot (March, 1832), 
 made two great insurrections. 
 
 First. In 1832, during the Legitimist uprising in la Vendee, 
 on the occasion of the funeral of General Lamarque, the Re- 
 publicans, re-enforced by Polish, Italian, and German refugees, 
 gathered around the platform on which the body rested and pro- 
 posed to proclaim a republic. An insurrection began which for 
 one night made them masters of the east of Paris. Then they 
 were gradually driven back by the national guard and 25,000 sol- 
 diers and surrounded in the Saint-Martin quarter, where the 
 movement was crushed by the battle of Saint-Merry Cloister 
 {June 5-6). 
 
 Second. In 1834, rebellion broke out at Lyons when the gov- 
 ernment, after a strike by the silk-weavers, proscribed the Mutu- 
 alist Society and arrested its leaders. The fight lasted four days. 
 The movement which the Paris Republicans were preparing was 
 broken up by the arrest of their leaders, 150 members of the 
 Rights of Man Society. It amounted to nothing more than a 
 fight in the Marais, rendered famous by the " massacre of the Rue 
 Transnonain " (April 13-14). 
 
 In the same period the Republican party had a political paper, 
 the Tribune, which attacked the King and the government of the 
 bourgeoisie, und some illustrated papers (the Charivari and the 
 Caricature) which used the King as their butt. Tliey represented 
 him as juggling with Revolution and Liberty as his balls, or 
 fleeing after having cut the throat of Liberty (this was a parody 
 of Prudhon's picture), or pictured him with a figure shaped like 
 a pear. In this state of society, so unaccustomed to the liberty 
 of the press, these attacks and caricatures seemed an intolerable 
 insult to authority; the pear caricatures were prosecuted as an 
 outrage against the king. The Tribune in four years was prose- 
 cuted III times; 20 times the editors were condemned, involv- 
 
 • That of the Place Vend6me was dispersed by turning fire engines on 
 the rioters. 
 
SUPPKESSION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. I39 
 
 ing 49 years' imprisonment and 157,000 francs in fines. The 
 editor-in-chief was even arraigned before the Chamber of 
 Deputies. 
 
 Suppression of the Republican Party (1834-35). — In order to 
 struggle against the Republicans, the Chambers adopted a sys- 
 tem of coercive laws, designed to restrain political liberty by 
 hindering the propagation and manifestation of Republican senti- 
 ments. They had begun with offences against the King and 
 the Chambers, against seditious placards (1830) and mobs (1831). 
 The Deputies passed a law against seditious cries (February, 
 1834), a law forbidding firearms being kept in houses, a law 
 against associations. After the troubles in April it was necessary 
 to pass judgment upon the Republicans arrested in Paris, in 
 Lyons, and in several other cities. The government, instead of 
 referring them to a jury, sent them before the Chamber of Peers, 
 constituted as a court of justice to judge attempts against the 
 peace of the State, and combined all the cases in one " monster 
 prosecution "; there were 164 accused (over 2000 arrested); 4000 
 witnesses were summoned. 
 
 The accused refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the Peers, 
 to defend themselves, to reply, or even to appear before the court. 
 The court finally judged them without a hearing. The leaders 
 had escaped from prison. 
 
 The Republicans, having lost almost all their leaders, made no 
 more insurrections. One final coup, organized by Blanqui and 
 Barbes, with the Seasons Society (900 members), fell through 
 after a scrimmage (1839). But some isolated Republicans at- 
 tempted to assassinate the King. There were in all six a:ttempts 
 against him between 1835 and 1846, the first and most striking 
 being that of Fieschi (July, 1835). The Chamber met these cases 
 with the Laws of September. To facilitate the condemnation of 
 political offenders, they granted the right of judgment in the 
 absence of the accused when they refused to respond to a sum- 
 mons; they also lowered from eight (two-thirds) to seven 
 (majority), the number of jurors necessary for conviction. The 
 press laws established a penalty of imprisonment and a fine not 
 exceeding 10,000 francs for offefices against the King's person, at- 
 tack on the principles of government, incitement to crimes against 
 the peace of the State. These laws created new press crimes: 
 it was forbidden to publish reports of libel cases or the lists of 
 jurors in libel cases, also to open a subscription for the payment 
 of fines incurred by a paper, or to attack the principle of private 
 
14° THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 property. A censorship was established over drawings, carica- 
 tures, and dramatic productions. These laws, passed in spite of 
 the third party, were applied so as to prosecute every newspaper 
 article advocating a republic, every Legitimist article which spoke 
 of legitimacy or usurpation. The Legitimist papers, having more 
 money, survived this regime; the Republicans were reduced to 
 papers printed secretly. There existed only the National, parlia- 
 mentary organ of the Left, which had broken with the Revolu- 
 tionists. 
 
 Formation of the Communist-Socialist Party. — During the 
 struggle against the monarchy the Republicans separated. Their 
 common aim was to re-establish the republic and universal suf- 
 frage, with the Constitution of 1793. Cavaignac, in the processes 
 of 183 1, recalled the memory of his father — " one of those who 
 proclaimed the Republic in the face of all Europe." The society 
 directing the party took the name of Rights of Man, and repro- 
 duced as its program the Declaration of Rights of 1793. But as 
 to the form the Revolution should take, opinions differed. 
 Should it be limited to a political revolution, which should merely 
 change the form of government, or should they make a social 
 revolution aiming to improve the condition of the poor? The 
 split began on the declaration of rights. Instead of the version 
 adopted by the Convention, Cavaignac took up the form proposed 
 by Robespierre, which differed from it in one significant formula: 
 " Property is the right that every citizen has to the enjoyment 
 of the portion of wealth assured to him by the law." That is to 
 say, property is not a natural right; it is one created by law and 
 subject to modification by law. Armand Carrel, editor of the 
 National, protested against this doctrine. The Republican party 
 was rent in twain. The purely political Republicans adhered to 
 the old program: the republic without change of the social 
 organization. They remained peaceful, agitating chiefly by 
 means of their organ, the National, and speeches in the Chamber. 
 The Socialist party, composed chiefly of workingmen under the 
 guidance of a few young men of the middle class, looked on the 
 republic as an agency for bringing about social reform. 
 
 It was the Socialists who directed the secret societies, and orga- 
 nized the insurrections ; they adopted the red flag which had been 
 simply a tradition of the former republic but which became the 
 symbol of social revolution, in opposition to the tricolour flag of 
 the middle-class republicans. The opposition between the two 
 parties was distinctly set forth in a manifesto as early as 1832: 
 
FORMATION OF COMMUNIST-SOCIALIST PARTY. 141 
 
 " We have in view not so much a political change as a social ref- 
 ormation. The extension of political rights, electoral reform, 
 universal suffrage may be excellent things, but simply as a means, 
 not as an end. Our object is the equal division of the burdens 
 and benefits of society, the complete establishment of the reign of 
 equality." This is the program which in the language of the 
 government and the property class was termed the " agrarian 
 law " or the " equal division of wealth." 
 
 In Paris the party was made up of working people in the east- 
 ern quarters (Maubert, Cite, Saint-Martin, Saint-Denis) and the 
 faubourgs, — ^theold faubourgs of Saint-Antoine, Saint-Martin, and 
 Sain't-Marcel, — not the extensive suburbs of to-day, which have 
 formed new arrondissements (Belleville, la Villette, Montmartre, 
 etc.). These were then only suburban villages without a labour- 
 ing population. The members of the new party were not factory 
 hands, but rather artisans, carpenters, blacksmiths, hatters, 
 tailors, cooks. They had at first only vague aspirations — no pre- 
 cise doctrine. The great prosecution of 1834 against the April 
 insurgents gave them one. During their imprisonment together 
 for over a year, the accused went through their doctrinal educa- 
 tion; they became acquainted with a survivor of the Communists 
 o^ I79S> Buonarotti, the author of the " History of the Babeuf 
 Conspiracy." His book, published in 1820 and as yet little 
 known, was now read and studied, and it made proselytes. The 
 Babouvist formulas may be found in the secret organ of the party, 
 the Freeman. In 1829 this party itself took the name of " Com- 
 munist." The society of the Seasons asked itself this question: 
 " Are we to make a political or a social reform?" and replied: "A 
 social reform." The way to accomplish this is to create " a dicta- 
 torial power with authority to direct the revolutionary move- 
 ment." 
 
 At the same time that this Communist revolutionary party of 
 workingmen was being organized, the socialist schools of Saint- 
 Simon and Fourier were extending peaceful influence among the 
 property class in favour of a social reform independent of politics. 
 Their ideas did not gain ground directly among the working 
 classes. However, Louis Blanc, editor of a democratic paper, 
 the Bon-Sens, later of the Revue du Progres, adopting a Saint- 
 Simon formula, published the " Organization of Labour " (1839). 
 He proposed as a practical solution to establish at the expense 
 of the government national workshops, where the labourers should 
 themselves direct their labour and share the profits. This was not 
 
142 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 Babeuf s old communism ; it was a new doctrine, at once political 
 and social, which began to be called socialism — a term in use as 
 early as 1832. Louis Blanc's theory was at once adopted by the 
 working classes. In 1840, in connection with a strike which was 
 going on at the time, Arago spoke to the Chamber of the 
 wrongs of the manufacturing population, saying that " labour 
 must be organized." A deputation of workingmen came to thank 
 him at the Observatory (May). Then the Republicans arranged 
 a campaign of banquets for July 14, and Goudchaux spoke on the 
 " exploitation of one man by another." A revolutionary pro- 
 gram confiscated in 1840 said: "These are our principles. We 
 want partnership of workingmen and abolition of the exploita- 
 tion of one man by another. We want to establish national work- 
 shops where the profits of labour are divided among the labourers, 
 where there shall be neither master nor servant." 
 
 A German named Stein wrote in 1842: "The time for purely 
 political movement in France is past; the next revolution can no 
 longer be any but a social revolution." 
 
 Parliamentary Struggles (1836-40). — During the struggle 
 against the Republican parties the government had remained in 
 the hands of the Orleanist Constitutionalists, who had a strong 
 majority in the Chamber. The ministry changed its leader sev- 
 eral times, but it was constantly made up of " Resistance " men, 
 such as Broglie and Guizot, or the former Orleanist agent Thiers. 
 They governed from 1832 to 1836, except for the interruption 
 known as the three days ministry (November, 1834). Then Thiers 
 and Guizot, already rivals, broke with each other, and the major- 
 ity was cut into two parts : the Right Centre with Guizot, the Left 
 Centre with Thiers. Between the two stood Dupin's little group, 
 the third party. On either side of these centre groups remained 
 the two extreme parties : on the right the Legitimists, advocating 
 Henry V. ; on the left the old Liberal party, which, not daring to 
 declare itself Republican, called itself the Dynastic Left. 
 
 The two centres were pitted against each other for the control of 
 the ministry. Each adopted a theory on the royal power, and 
 the constitutional question which had agitated the Restoration 
 Chambers was revived. Guizot, formerly a Legitimist, secretary 
 to Louis XVin. in 1815, upheld the Tory doctrine that it was the 
 King's prerogative to choose his ministers, — having regard in- 
 deed to the opinions of the Chamber, but not binding himself 
 strictly by the will of the majority. Thiers, who upheld revolu- 
 tionary principles, and conspired against the Bourbons, main- 
 
CONTESTS IN THE PARLIAMENT. 143 
 
 tained the Whig theory that the King should choose his ministers 
 in accordance with the will of the people, as expressed by the 
 majority in the Chamber, and leave his ministers to govern with- 
 out personal interference — all of which he summed up in the 
 formula: The King reigns and does not govern. Louis Philippe, 
 while not openly rejecting this theory, — it was, indeed, too clearly 
 the doctrine, admitted in 1830, of the sovereignty of the nation, 
 — did not wish for the role of constitutional King. He tried to 
 direct his ministers and to govern in their name. He insisted in 
 particular upon personally conducting matters of foreign policy, 
 which seemed to him to be the King's own special field. The 
 majority having voted against Guizot, he asked Thiers to form 
 a ministry. But when Thiers wished to engage him in a war 
 with Spain, he compelled him to 'resign, and took as prime min- 
 ister his personal friend Mole (September, 1836). 
 
 The two rival groups then joined forces against the King's 
 ministry. This was a struggle between the Chamber, wishing to 
 maintain its sovereignty, and the King, trying to establish his per- 
 sonal power. The struggle was slow and confused. Mole had 
 drawn away from the two centres many deputies who were ready 
 to support any ministry. When he was put in a minority, the 
 King ordered him to form a new ministry (April, 1837). The 
 Parliamentarians, Royer-Collard and Barante, lamented the 
 decay of political interest. The King was reproached with hav- 
 ing interfered in the arrangement of matters which he should have 
 left to his ministers, and of having interfered for the purpose of 
 getting grants of money for his family. People began to talk of 
 " personal government " and " court policy." 
 
 At last, in 1838, all the oppositions, the Dynastic Left, the Left 
 Centre, and part of the Right Centre (the doctrinaires), formed 
 a coalition against the " court ministry." The campaign was 
 organized in the press by a former partisan of the Resistance, Du- 
 vergier de Hauranne, who made arrangements with the organs of 
 the Left to work together. " Substitution of parliamentary gov- 
 ernment for personal government — that shall be our watchword." 
 He set forth his political theories in a book entitled " Principles 
 of Representative Government and Their Application " (1838). 
 He marked out distinctly the difference between parliamentary 
 government and constitutional monarchy; that in parliamentary 
 government " the Parliament is invested with the final authority 
 and possesses what modern political writers call the last word." 
 This had been shown in the conflict of 1830. "The Chamber had 
 
144 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 no idea of dethroning Charles X., and Charles X. did not want to 
 suppress the Chamber. But Charles X. believed and said that as 
 King he should have the last word, the Chamber believed apd 
 said that the last word belonged to the nation, legally consulted." 
 The author could conceive of no stable regime between absolute 
 monarchy and parliamentary government. " From the moment 
 that the elections became anything but a pretence, the deciding 
 voice must necessarily be given to the voting body." Louis 
 Philippe, it is true, did not openly oppose the Chamber, he did not 
 directly violate the constitution; but the ministry, " by its uncon- 
 ditional surrender to the dictates of the crown," ceased to be a 
 parliamentary government in order to become the instrument of 
 the King's personal power. 
 
 In the Chamber the coalition attacked the ministry by propos- 
 ing an impeachment. The discussion lasted 12 days; 128 speeches 
 were made — the great parliamentary tourney of the reign. The 
 coalition polled 208 votes, the ministry 221. Mole, holding his 
 majority too small, dissolved the Chamber. In the new House he 
 was in a minority and so resigned (March 8, 1839). The coali- 
 tion was, however, only a majority in opposition; there was not 
 a majority for any government. Two months went by without 
 anyone being able to form a ministry. The recret society of the 
 Saisons (Blanqui and Barbes) took advantage of this interregnum 
 to incite the last Republican insurrection (May 12). It was then 
 decided to form a ministry under a military leader, Soult. 
 
 The Soult ministry was still under the personal direction of the 
 King, who began once more to solicit an endowment (this time in 
 money) for his son, the Duke of Nemours. In the Chamber, the 
 committee on the measure reported favourably, but the opposi- 
 tion joined forces again and had it rejected without discussion, by 
 secret ballot (226 votes against 220). The Soult ministry 
 retired. 
 
 This was the time when the Eastern question was agitating the 
 middle classes. The British government broke away from 
 France and joined the other great powers against the French 
 protege Mehemet Ali. The Allies of 1814 thus found themselves 
 once more arrayed against France. The Left took advantage 
 of the situation to revive in the bourgeoisie the feeling against Na^ 
 poleon's old enemy, and reproached the King with having been 
 too friendly toward England. Louis Philippe attempted a Thiers 
 ministry in order to satisfy the national spirit of the bourgeoisie 
 (May, 1840). In the Chamber the government no longer had a 
 
THE GUIZOT MINISTRY. 14S 
 
 majority. Thiers could depend only on the Left Centre, his own 
 group, and on the remains of Mole's party, known as the 221. 
 He had against him the Legitimist Right and the Right Centre, 
 which did not want a warlike policy; also the Left, which de- 
 manded the repeal of the September Laws and a reform of the 
 election laws. To reassure the Right he promised to make no re- 
 forms. He tried to win over the Left by personal attentions 
 (known as " individual conquests ") and by patriotic demonstra- 
 tions. He had Napoleon's ashes brought back from St. Helena, 
 he recalled the soldiers absent on furlough, he introduced a plan 
 for the fortification of Paris. (Two plans had been proposed, a 
 fortified wall and detached fortresses; the new scheme combined 
 the two.) 
 
 This policy of parliamentary equilibrium and national " jingo- 
 ism," succeeded in producing an incongruous majority (246 
 against 160), but it could not bear the test of the Eastern question. 
 The city people liked to see the ministry protest against the 
 treaties of 181 5 and take an energetic stand before the world; 
 but they did not want war. When Thiers proposed to demand a 
 credit for 500,000 men, Louis Philippe refused and Thiers re- 
 signed. The Guizot ministry presented itself as the preserver of 
 peace (its adversaries said it wanted " peace at any price ") with 
 a peaceful speech from the throne. The Chamber, by a vote of 
 247 against 161, voted a peaceful address. " Peace, an honour- 
 able and solid peace, which shall insure the European balance of 
 power against every blow — that is our foremost wish." The 
 Right Centre and the Centre, lately reunited, formed a majority 
 against the Left. 
 
 It was during this period of parliamentary struggles that the 
 Bonapartist party began to reappear. Since the death of Na- 
 poleon II., the son of Napoleon I., in 1832, the inheritor of the 
 Napoleonic claims had been Louis Napoleon, the son of the King 
 of Holland. He attempted to overthrow the government in the 
 same way that Napoleon I. had ousted the Bourbons after his 
 return from the island of Elba, by showing himself in France 
 and calling the army and the people to him, in the name of the 
 glorious memories of the Empire and of national independence. 
 He made two attempts: at Strasburg in 1836, where he tried to 
 win over a regiment of artillery, and again at Boulogne in 1840, 
 where there was not even a scrimmage. 
 
 The Guizot Ministry (1840-48). — Louis Philippe had had ten 
 ministries in as many years up to 1840; in the next eight years he 
 
146 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 had only one, the Guizot ministry. In appearance this was a 
 parliamentary government. The ministry had always a majority 
 in the Chamber, and the majority increased at each election (in 
 1842, and in 1846). The King was therefore conforming to the 
 parliamentary rule of having only a ministry which conformed to 
 the will of the majority. He could no longer, as in Mole's time, 
 be reproached with having a personal government, for he left the 
 government to Guizot, his prime minister. In fact, the King had 
 succeeded in a masterly manner in directing the government in 
 the name of Guizot, and in harmony with him, their personal 
 views being the same. In order tO' maintain their power, Lotiis 
 Philippe and Guizot adopted a scheme fashioned after Walpole. 
 Wishing to have the appearance of obeying the will of the ma- 
 jority, they tried to secure a majority which should have no other 
 will than the desire to obey the ministers. To this end they ap- 
 pealed, not to their political convictions, but 'to their private inter- 
 ests. Guizot's system consisted in gaining the election of a 
 ministerial majority through winning over individual electors by 
 personal favours, such as offices, favours in stock transactions, to- 
 bacco licenses — what is known as electoral corruption. In order 
 to keep his hold on the deputies, Guizot gave them places or in- 
 terests in great railroad franchises and in other great undertak- 
 ings which were being started; at a time when there was no such 
 thing as parliamentary salaries, it was hard to prevent the depu- 
 ties from seeking lucrative offices: about 200 deputies, almost 
 half the Chamber, were office-holders. 
 
 The ministry, master of the Chamber, pursued a policy of 
 order and conservatism. At home they sought to avoid reform, 
 thus maintaining the domination of the middle class; abroad, to 
 assure peace and reconcile France with the other European 
 powers. They prosecuted newspapers which criticised their sys- 
 tem. The National was prosecuted for an allusion to the King's 
 share in the system : " We know well who the chief culprit is and 
 where he is; and France knows it too." Guizot lost the case, 
 but he continued to prosecute the papers and finally obtained con- 
 demnations. 
 
 The opposition in the Chamber was composed of the small 
 group of Legitimists and of the groups of the Left : the Left Cen- 
 tre (Thiers), the Dynastic Left (Odilon Barrot),the Radical Left 
 — a small group of members (Arago). They reproached the min- 
 istry with its policy of corruption, its inaction in domestic afifairs, 
 and its friendly attitude toward foreign nations, especially Eng- 
 
THE GUIZOT MINISTRY. 147 
 
 land. This opposition was expressed in several famous sentences. 
 Lamartine had already said in 1839: "The French nation is 
 bored." He also said in 1842 : " A stone post could carry out this 
 policy." A deputy, summing up the work of the ministry, cried : 
 " What have they done in seven years? Nothing, nothing, noth- 
 ing! " (1847). After the trial of Teste and Cubieres, former min- 
 isters, condemned for having sold their influence, an interpellation 
 was addressed to the government; the majority declared them- 
 selves " satisfied " with the explanations made by the ministry. 
 The deputies who voted for this order of the day were nicknamed 
 the " Satisfaits." To these attacks Guizot replied that it was 
 enough for him to conduct the affairs of the nation wisely; that 
 he laboured to satisfy " the general body of sane and calm citi- 
 zens," rather than " the limited body O'f fanatics " affected with 
 " a craze for innovation." 
 
 The opposition directed attention chiefly to two questions: the 
 English alliance and reform. The Left, which perpetuated the old 
 Liberal party of the Restoration, had remained hostile to Eng- 
 land. They tried to excite the national feeling of the middle class 
 against the ministers by reproaching them with having sacrificed 
 the honour of France. They had two opportunities to apply this 
 policy in the Chamber: the convention on the right of search, 
 destined to put a stop to the slave trade (1843), the Pritchard in- 
 demnity granted to an English missionary at Tahiti (1844). The 
 bill for the indemnity was so unpopular that the address support- 
 ing the ministry passed only by a vote of 213 against 205. The 
 papers published a list of the deputies who had voted for the in- 
 demnity, and they were nicknamed the Pritchardists. Foreign 
 policy was from 1842 to 1846 the principal ground of opposition; 
 the Left hoped to line up against the ministry even the deputies 
 who opposed reform, by making them fear the public opinion ex- 
 cited against the English. 
 
 In domestic policy * the Left had not ceased since 1830 to de- 
 mand reform in the Chamber. They brought forward two meas- 
 ures: parliamentary reform, designed to prevent parliamentary 
 
 *It may be well to mention here a dramatic episode, lacking political 
 importance, the visit of the Legitimist deputies to Henry V., then in Lon- 
 don (" the pilgrimage of Belgrave Square"), to which Louis Philippe 
 replied by inserting in his address the famous phrase: "The public con- 
 science is stained with shameful demonstrations." The episode was the 
 occasion of Guizot's celebrated reply to the Legitimists ("the height of 
 my disdain . . ." etc.), 1844. 
 
148 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 corruption by forbidding deputies from holding offices; electoral 
 reform, to prevent electoral corruption by increasing the number 
 of voters. The Remilly proposition, that the deputies should not 
 be promised salaried offices nor obtain distinctions, was killed by 
 the Thiers ministry (1840). A similar project failed of discus- 
 sion in 1842. For electoral reform the Left suggested various 
 schemes. The Dynastic Left demanded the lowering of the tax- 
 paying qualification and the addition of various new classes to the 
 voting lists (jurors, officers appointed by the King, graduates of 
 faculties, notaries, officers of the national guard, municipal coun- 
 cillors in the cities). The Radical Left proposed to give the right 
 of voting to all members of the national guard. Arago and Le- 
 dru-Rollin demanded universal suffrage. The ministry rejected 
 all reforms. Guizot replied that there were enough voters, and 
 that besides the number was increasing with the wealth of the 
 nation ; there were already more than 200,000. " Work and grow 
 rich," he said, " and you will become voters." As for universal 
 suffrage, he would not hear of it: "This world is no place for 
 universal suffrage, that absurd system wihich would call all living 
 creatures to the exercise of political rights." 
 
 The Left Centre for a long time took no interest in reform. 
 At last, however, in 1845, they joined the Dynastic Left (Odilon 
 Barrot) to demand electoral reform; — a limited reform: the low- 
 ering of the property qualification to a tax of 100 francs and the 
 addition of various other franchises. 
 
 The country was little aroused by these discussions in the 
 Chamber; the result was certain at the start. The ministerial 
 system was firmly established, its majority steadily increased. 
 The nation was divided into two factions. On one side were 
 the King, the ministers, the Deputies, and the voters (called the 
 fays legal); these governed without control and refused any 
 changes. On the other side stood all the rest of the nation, in- 
 cluding the King's sons, who were disgusted with the government 
 policy and with the ministers. The national guard of Paris had 
 cried " Long live reform! " (1840), and since then the King had 
 ceased to review them. 
 
 The Catholic and Democratic Opposition Parties. — Outside the 
 Legislature were growing up two parties as yet almost unknown 
 to the official political world, but very soon to dispute the control 
 of the government. 
 
 The Catholic party had been forming ever since 1830, when the 
 government had officially severed its connection with the clergy. 
 
CATHOLIC AND DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION PARTIES. i49 
 
 It was no longer the Cathqlic party of 1814, semi-Gallicah and 
 governmental. The Galileans had become extinct, taking with 
 them the antagonism between the National Church and the 
 Church of Rome, between the secular clergy and the Jesuits. In 
 France as elsewhere the Catholics of the rising generations were 
 ultramontane, devoted to the Pope and favouring the Jesuits. 
 Their political feelings also had changed. The clergy, recruited 
 from among the people, no longer wished to establish an aristo- 
 cratic society or to recover the Church estates confiscated in the 
 Revolution. Their power over the members of the Church was 
 sufficient to give them the control of society. The Voltairean 
 middle-class people, in proportion as they grew stronger in their 
 social superiority, were returning to the Church, now once more 
 the fashion. They had their daughters educated in the convents 
 and began to send their sons to the Church schools which were 
 getting re-established. The leaders of the Catholic party, in 
 opposition to the government, formed a liberal party; they de- 
 manded for the Church, not privileges, but simply liberty. 
 
 The Charter of 1830 had promised liberty of education. The 
 Catholics claimed the right to establish Catholic schools and 
 to abolish the monopoly of the University. Montalembert 
 had begun the struggle by himself opening a private school, 
 thus obliging the government to prosecute him as an example. 
 After the great oratorical successes of Lacordaire, the Catholic 
 party, greatly strengthened, founded a Catholic newspaper 
 (the Univers), which attacked the philosophy of the Univer- 
 sity as impious. The party proposed a new law on the liberty 
 of education which was discussed in 1844. The bishops pro- 
 tested against the University censorship over small colleges. The 
 King held aloof from the contest. He declared that he did not 
 favour liberty in education, but he said: " It is never necessary to 
 interfere in Church matters ; if you once begin you cannot stop." 
 He also said : " Do not make me disturb my good Queen." (The 
 Queen was a devoted Catholic; she had personally implored the 
 Peers to reject the divorce law passed by the Chamber, and 
 the bill was in consequence defeated.) The Chamber main- 
 tained the University monopoly, and some Liberals, fearing a 
 revival of the Catholic party, which they had believed to be dead, 
 manifested their anxiety by a campaign against the Jesuits (1844). 
 Quinet and Michelet attacked them in their classrooms at the 
 College de France, causing a tumult among the students. 
 
 The Republican revolutionary party was reduced to the secret 
 
150 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASb. 
 
 society of the Seasons, formed of professional conspirators, who 
 were no longer active, from lack of arms. They had among their 
 leaders La Hodde, an agent of the police. Two other societies 
 may be named: the Communists, connected with the London 
 Communists and the Icarians, disciples of Cabet; but these took 
 no part in politics. There remained, however, a democratic 
 group, without regular organization, trying to bring about a 
 social transformation by means of a political revolution. Ledru- 
 Rollin, the only deputy from this party, said in his profession of 
 faith in 1841 : " To pass by political paths to social improvement, 
 that is the march characteristic of the Democratic party." 
 
 A group of Republicans, discontented with the National, which 
 had ceased to be Republican, founded in 1843 the Reform, which 
 became the organ of the Democratic party. Their program, 
 drawn up by Louis Blanc, adopted as its principle equality, and 
 " association, which is the essential form of equality." " The 
 definite object of the association," it said, " is to satisfy the intel- 
 lectual, moral, and material needs of the world." It demanded 
 universal suffrage and a salary for deputies, free education, com- 
 pulsory miHtary service (without right of offering a substitute), 
 and the " organization of labour " to " elevate the labourers from 
 the condition of wage-earners to that of industrial partners." Tlie 
 Democratic party adopted from its foundation a partly socialistic 
 program, and the editors of the Reform held themselves in touch 
 with the secret societies. But its influence was very limited ; the 
 Reform never had 2000 subscribers. 
 
 The agitation for social reforms continued to be made by spe- 
 cial reviews of the socialistic schools, by pamphlets (Cabet, 
 Proudhon, P. Leroux), and even by the novels of George Sand 
 and Eugene Sue. The movement became sufficiently marked to 
 be noticed in a report of the prefect of poHce (1846). This re- 
 port spoke of the " danger not of anarchistic parties, but of 
 anarchistic publications which spread ideas of social renovation. 
 . . . The agitators, despairing of obtaining among the masses by 
 purely political preaching the results which they expect, have 
 begun to propagate certain doctrines much more subversive, 
 borrowed from the dreams of Utopians." 
 
 "Work of the Monarchy of the Property Classes. — From 1814 to 
 1848 the domestic history of France is little but a record of politi- 
 cal contests. The court, the high officials, and the wealthy mid- 
 dle-class people, who alone possessed the power, ignored the 
 needs of the people; and the people, excluded from the right of 
 
WORK OF THE MONARCHY. 151 
 
 voting, had no way to compel a recognition of their needs. Dur- 
 ing the whole existence of the " citizen monarchy " there were 
 made only three important reforms : 
 
 First. The general and municipal councils, reduced under the 
 Empire and during the Restoration to an imaginary, consultative 
 role, were reorganized under Louis Philippe (Martignac's at- 
 tempt in 1828 having come to nothing). The municipal coun- 
 cils were made elective in 1831, the general and district councils 
 in 1833. They were elected by very small electoral bodies formed 
 of the heaviest taxpayers and those possessing certain profes- 
 sional qualifications. The government still appointed the mayors 
 and their assistants. The powers of the general councils of the 
 •departments, regulated by the law of 1838, remained, as formerly, 
 very slight. 
 
 Second. The severity of the penal code was a little softened. 
 The law of 1832 abolished branding, pillory, mutilation of parri- 
 cides, and established the system of " extenuating circumstances " 
 which has lessened by half the number of death penalties. The 
 enactments of the commercial code were modified by the bank- 
 ruptcy law of 1838; but imprisonment for debt existed up to the 
 Revolution of 1848. 
 
 Third. The government had begun to interest itself in primary 
 •education. Guizot ordered first the investigation of 1832 re- 
 garding primary education, which revealed the lamentable con- 
 dition of the schools. Many had not even room for the classes. 
 The schoolmaster, receiving only the school fees paid by the 
 parents, often carried on another business. He gathered the 
 'Children into his room and contented himself with keeping 
 them quiet, without teaching them anything. The law of 1833 
 •obliged the communes to support primary schools and to assure 
 to the teacher a lodging and a schoolroom, a fixed salary and a 
 •pension. The school fee was preserved, but was simply an ad- 
 ditional source of income. The school expenses were covered 
 'by a communal tax added to the direct assessment, and by grants 
 irom the department and from the national government. The 
 teachers were to be appointed by the municipal council and had 
 *to be provided with certificates of competency. The primary 
 education budget finally reached 3,000,000 francs in 1847, the 
 number of pupils increasing from 2,000,000 in 1832 to 3,500,000 
 in 1848. The principle was established that elementary educa- 
 tion is a public service. 
 
 !E^ilroads did not begin to be constructed until toward the 
 
152 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 end of the monarchy. The Chamber had hesitated long between 
 the Belgian system of government railroads and the English 
 system of private ownership. After an unsuccessful attempt in 
 1838, they decided upon a compromise, the law of 1843, which 
 gave the monopoly to large companies under government super- 
 vision, subject to the provision that the roads should become 
 state property at the end of one hundred years. 
 
 The treasury and customs system of the Empire was hardly 
 changed. The government of the Restoration tried to balance 
 the budget and almost succeeded ; the total deficit of fifteen years 
 was only 1,200,000,000 francs (the billion granted to the emigres). 
 The average annual expenditure was about 1,000,000,000. 
 The Government of July increased the deficit to 2,500,000,000, 
 with an expenditure of about 1,200,000,000. The normal 
 state of the French budget under the monarchy of the prop- 
 erty class was therefore one of deficits, but of small deficits. 
 Thanks to peace the general wealth of the nation greatly 
 increased — more rapidly than the population (30,460,000 in 1821, 
 34,230,000 in 1841)'. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 There is as yet no bibliography of recent French history. The " Catal. 
 de I'Hist. de France," of the National Library, vols. iii. and iv., 1856-57, 
 and vol. xi., suppl., 1879, in-4, gives a list of all the works in the Library on 
 the history of France up to 1878, a list much too long to be of practical 
 use as a bibliography ; it is well, for works published from 1840 to 1890, 
 to see Lorenz, " Catal. de. la Librairie Fran}.," methodical tables, vols, 
 vii., viii., ix., and xiii. 
 
 SOURCES.— The chief sources may be classified under six categories : 
 
 1. Parliamentary documents. — The reports of meetings of the Chambers 
 and appendices (investigations, reports, budgets, documents, law projects) 
 have been published day by day in the Moniteur and, since 1869, the 
 Journal Officiel (in Feb. -March, 1871, the Moniteur de Bordeaux). They 
 have been partially reproduced in a retrospective collection : " Archives 
 Parlementaires," " a complete collection of the debates," which is to 
 cover the period from 1800 to i860 (vol. Ixxxv., issued in 1893, goes to 
 1834), and in an annual collection which has come out since 1861 under the 
 title of " Annales " (of the Senate, of the Corps L^gislatif , of the National 
 Assembly, of the Chamber of Deputies). The report of the Chamber is 
 in extenso (stenographic), except for the period 1852-60, for which there 
 was only an analytical report. There has been an analytical table since 
 1831, divided into seven series ; for the period preceding 1830 the chrono- 
 logical and analytical table of the "Archives Pari." (vol. Ixii.) fills its 
 place. 
 
 2. Legislative documents. — All ofl&cial acts are published in the " Bulletin 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. I53 
 
 des Lois," and in Duvergier, " Recueil des Lois." The constitutions are all 
 in F.-A. Helie, " Les Constitutions de la France," 1879. 
 
 3. Judicial documents. — The grea;t political prosecutions before the 
 Chambers have furnished material for special publications (see " Catal.. 
 de I'Hist. de France "). Reports of the cases are given by two special 
 papers: Gazette des Tribunaux, since 1826 ; the Droit, since 1836. 
 
 4. Annuals. — The "Annuaire Historique Universel " gives a summary 
 of the events of each year from 1818 to i860. 
 
 5. Newspapers and reviews.— A list of these will be found in the 
 " Catal. de I'Hist. de France," vol. iv. The leading papers for the period 
 1814-48 are : the Journal des Dibats, the Constitutionnel, Liberal ; the 
 Quotidienne, the Drapeau Blanc, Legitimist ; the Courrier Frang. , the 
 Globe, Left ; the National, the Tribune, Republican ; the Siicle, and the 
 Presse. The reviews are much less important than in England ; they 
 are, for this period, the Revue Britannique, the Correspondant, and the 
 Revue des Deux Mondes. 
 
 6. Memoirs, letters, speeches. — The most important are (I mention only 
 the author's name and the date of publication of the first volume) : 
 
 For THE Restoration.— VitroUes, 1883 ; Due de Broglie, i886 ; DeBarante, 
 1890 ; Pasquier, 1893 ; ViUele, 1890; Hyde de Neuville, 1889. 
 
 For Louis Philippe.— Guizot, 1858-67 ; H. Heine, " Lutece " (journal corre- 
 spondence from 1840 to 1843).— S. Berard, 1834; Broglie, Soudan, Tocqueville. — 
 Oiquel, " M6moires d'un Pr6fet de Police," 1840 (details on secret societies). 
 — Tascliereau, " Revue Retrospective," 1848, collection of the secret docu- 
 ments of Louis Philippe's government. 
 
 WORKS. — General Histories. — Henri Martin, " Hist, de France de 
 1789 4 nos Jours," 8 vols., 1878-85 ; Dareste, "Hist, de Fr.," have no scien- 
 tific value. 
 
 Of the histories of special periods the most important are : 
 
 For the Restoration. — Viel-Castel, " Hist, de la Rest." 20 vols., 1860-78, 
 especially for external history. — Duvergier de Hauranne, " Hist, du Gouverne- 
 ment Pari, en France, 18x4-48," 10 vols., since 1857 (the work stops at 1830), 
 chiefly for internal history. — Dulaure and Auguis, " Hist, de la Revol. . . 
 depuis 1814 jusqu'& 1830," 8 vols., 1834-38, for the history of conspiracies^ 
 against the Bourbons. — One can hardly make use of the other histories, 
 Lubis, Nettement, Capefigue, Rittiez, Hamel, Petit, Rochau ; Vaulabelle 
 is good only for the story of the Liberals. 
 
 For the Reign of Louis Philippe. — K. Hillebrand, " Gesch. Frankreichs," 
 2 vols., 1877-79 (Gotha coll.), begins at 1830, interrupted by the author's 
 death in 1848 ; far the best history of this period, written in a very mo- 
 narchical spirit, but scientific. — Tharean-Bangin, " Histoire de la Monarchic 
 de Juillet," 7 vols., 1887-92, very monarchical, adds a number of new 
 details. — L.Blanc, "Hist, de Dix Ans," (1830-40), 5 vols., 1841-44, social- 
 istic, of little scientific value, and untrustworthy. 
 
 The most important monographs are ; 
 
 On the Whte Terror.- E. Daudet, " La Terreur Blanche," 1878. 
 
 On the Catholic Party. — In addition to Montlosier, " M6moire 4 Con- 
 suiter," 1826 (on the discussion caused by this book see the bibl. in the 
 "Catal. de I'Hist. de France," vol. iii.).—DeGrandmaison, "La Congr6. 
 
154 THE MONARCHY OF THE PROPERTY CLASS. 
 
 gation," 1801-30, 1889; A. Leroy-Beaulieu, " Les Catholiques Lib6raux . , . 
 de 1830 a nos Jours," 1885; De Biancey, " Hist. Critique . . . de la Libertfe 
 d'Enseignement en France," 2 vols., 1844 ; " Compte Rendu des Elections 
 de 1846," 1846. All from the Catholic point of view. 
 
 On the Socialist Parties. — L, Stein, " Gesch. der Sozialen Bewegung in 
 Frankreich," 3 vols., 1850 (revised edit.), remains the fundamental work. 
 
 On Parliamentary Institutions. — ^E, Pierre, " Hist, des Assemblees Poli- 
 tiques en France," 1877 ; G. Weil, " Les Elections Legis. depuis 1789," 1895. 
 
 On Administration. — E. Aucoc, "Conferences sur . . . le Droit Admi- 
 nistratif," 3 vols., 1878. 
 
 On the Fiscal System. — Bibl. in A. Wagner, " Finanzwissenschaft," 
 vol. iii., 1888. — See especially D'Audiffret, " Systeme Financier de la Fr.," 
 2 vols., 3d edit., 6 vols., 1868-70, for documents. — B. Stourm, " Le Budget, 
 son Hist, et son M6canisme," 3d edit., 1896, general account. — I. Say, 
 " Diet, des Finances," in course of publ. since 1889. 
 
 On the Labouring Classes. — E. Levasseur, " Hist, des Classes Ouvrieres 
 en France depuis 1789," 2 vols., 1867. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 The Revolution of 1848. — ^The chief characteristic of the mon- 
 archy of the property owners was to reserve all poHtical power 
 to the limited class of large tax-payers; they alone formed the 
 " pays legal " — i. e., the country, in the eye of the law. All politi- 
 cal life was concentrated in the 200-franc electors, the Chamber, 
 the ministry, and the King. The remainder of the nation had no 
 share in it. The Revolution of 1848 consisted in extending po- 
 litical rights to all Frenchmen who had attained their majority. 
 At a single stroke it took the power out of the hands of the 
 property owners, converted France into a democracy, and trans- 
 formed all the conditions of political life. 
 
 It was a sudden revolution, unexpected by all save those who 
 made it. In 1848 Louis Philippe and the Guizpt ministry, secure 
 in their majority in the Chamber, were undisputed masters of 
 France. The opposition in the Chamber was composed chiefly 
 of the Dynastic Left, demanding electoral reform, but not desir- 
 ing either a republic or universal suffrage. The Republicans 
 were reduced to two groups; of these one, represented by the 
 National, limited itself to preferring a republic without any idea 
 of overturning the monarchy. The other, having but one deputy, 
 Ledru-Rollin, and an organ but little read, the Reform, kept up 
 the tradition of revolutionary riots, and demanded unixersal suf- 
 frage as a means of social reform. But it had no other force than 
 a few small secret societies, whicli were not skilful in making a 
 political fight. According to La Hodde, the Saisons had only 
 600 members, the Communists and Dissenters 500, and the 
 Icariens 400. 
 
 The Revolution began by a coalition of all malcontents against 
 the Guizot ministry; there followed a series of revolutions in 
 quick succession, with a result anticipated by no one. 
 
 The agitation first showed itself in 1847, i" the form of a cam- 
 paign of banquets demanding reform — that is to say, electoral 
 reform. The Dynastic Left, which had organized the campaign, 
 demanded only a partial reform, the lowering of the taxpaying 
 
 155 ^ 
 
IS6 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 qualification and the addition of other qualifications. Their 
 main object was to excite prejudice in order to overthrow the 
 Guizot ministry. These banquets were simply demonstrations 
 made by the Liberal and Royalist middle class. Toasts were 
 drunk to the King and to the reform. The Republicans inter- 
 ested themselves in the movement; at the Chateau-Rouge, in 
 Paris, they drank to " the bettering of the lot of the labouring 
 classes " (July 9), and at several banquets in the country the royal 
 toast was suppressed. The government replied with a phrase in 
 the speech from the throne against agitation " fomented by hos- 
 tile and blind passions " (December 28). The King declared that 
 he would never yield, and the Chamber passed an expression of 
 the same sentiments (February 12, 1848). 
 
 The government forbade the banquet of the 12th arrondisse- 
 ment. This was the cause of the Revolution. The opposi- 
 tion deputies protested against the prohibition and promised to 
 attend the banquet; the banquet committee arranged to have the 
 national guard and the students meet the deputies at the Made- 
 leine and escort them to the banquet hall (February 22). The 
 government forbade the gathering and the procession in the 
 streets (February 21). The deputies, with many protestations, 
 gave up the demonstration, and the Republicans, meeting at the 
 Reform office, decided to remain away from the banquet that the 
 government might not have an excuse for crushing them. 
 
 The demonstration was, however, carried out as announced, 
 even without the leaders. An enormous crowd of workingmen 
 and students met in the morning at the Place de la Concorde, 
 shouting "Hurrah for reform!" The Marseillaise was heard; 
 all day long there were riots which the police subdued without 
 serious violence; gunshops were plundered; in the evening, at the 
 Tuileries, there was a bonfire of chairs. The leaders of the 
 secret societies, who had joined the mob to watch the results, 
 declared revolution impossible (February 22). 
 
 The revolution set in the next day, lasting two days, February 
 23 and 24. The first day's outbreak was a riot by the reform 
 party against Guizot; the second was a revolt of the Republican 
 parties against the monarchy. On the morning of the 23d 
 the fight began as usual, with the barricading of the indus- 
 trial quarters of the east (Saint-Martin and Saint-Denis). The 
 workingmen armed themselves as usual, with the muskets belong- 
 ing to the national guard. The government 'had the call to arms 
 sounded, and the national guard assembled to march against the 
 
THE REVOLUTION OF 1848. 157 
 
 rioters. But the national guards of Paris hated Guizot; many of 
 them ran through the streets shouting " Hurrah for reform! 
 Down with Guizot ! " The insurrection spread to the western 
 part of the city. Louis PhiHppe, who always regarded the na- 
 tional guard as the representative of public opinion, suddenly lost 
 courage. He agreed to dismiss Guizot and recall Mole. The 
 reform party had conquered. The revolution seemed at an end; 
 there were illuminations in the evening. Then the Republicans 
 began their work, wishing to profit by the excitement of the in- 
 surgents still under arms, and by the barricades, which were still 
 in position. In the evening of the 23d, a band, leaving the east- 
 ern quarters, and re-enforced by a group who were celebrating in 
 front of the Natwnal office, marched through the boulevard, call- 
 ing for torches. On the Boulevard of the Capuchins, before the 
 ministry of foreign affairs, where Guizot lived, they attacked the 
 soldiers who were on guard; the soldiers fired on the crowd. 
 This was the famous massacre which incited the Republicans to 
 a decisive move. A cart, loaded with the victims' bodies, passed 
 along the boulevard. The bystanders spread the news around 
 Paris; the people got the impression that the government had 
 deceived the people in order to have them massacred by the 
 soldiers. 
 
 During the night of the 23d all the eastern quarters were firmly 
 barricaded. The 24th was the Republicans' day. Even they 
 had, till then, cried nothing but " Long live reform ! " On the 
 24th they cried " Long live the Republic ! " The drama of the 
 day was divided into four acts : 
 
 First. Louis Philippe, having been unable to form a Mole 
 ministry, had during the night made up his mind to call upon the 
 leaders of the opposition, Thiers of the Left Centre and Odillon 
 Barrot of the Dynastic Left. In the morning the Thiers ministry 
 was formed. To Bugeaud was given the command of the army 
 and the national guard of Paris. Bugeaud sent his troops to at- 
 tack the insurgents in their quarters ; but the soldiers, exhausted 
 and demoralized, halted before the crowd on the boulevard. The 
 government gave up the attack and recalled the troops to defend 
 the Tuileries. They then tried to calm the insurgents by send- 
 ing Barrot to announce the concessions wrested from the King: 
 orders given to cease hostilities, the Chamber to be dissolved, 
 Lamoriciere appointed commander-in-chief of the national guard, 
 and a Thiers-Barrot ministry to be announced. The insurgents, 
 already masters of the eastern quarters, refused to receive the 
 
158 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 King's messengers. The editors of the Reform posted placards 
 with the words " Louis Philippe massacres us as Charles X. did; 
 let him follow Charles X." 
 
 Second. About ten o'clock the insurgents took the ofifensive; 
 they seized the Palais Royal and attacked the soldiers stationed 
 opposite, at the Chateau d'Eau. This was the only real battle; 
 it checked the mob which was marching on the Tuileries. Dur- 
 ing the fight Louis Philippe, on horseback, showed himself in the 
 court of the Carrousel to encourage the national guard. He 
 heard the shouts of " Long live reform ! " saw that the guards 
 were disaffected, and returned to the Tuileries discouraged. 
 Then, by the advice of his son, he abdicated in favour of his grand- 
 son, the Count of Paris. The royal family left the Tuileries im- 
 mediately; the Duchess of Orleans, with the young King, took 
 refuge in the Chamber of Deputies. 
 
 • Third. At half-past four the mob entered the Tuileries with- 
 out resistance and destroyed the throne. In the Chamber, the 
 deputies, meeting once more, received the Duchess and her son. 
 They proclaimed the Count of Paris King, his mother regent, then 
 adjourned the meeting. The mob, however, invaded the Cham- 
 ber, crying "Down with royalty!" The Republican members 
 remained in session and resolved in the midst of tumult to appoint 
 a provisional government made up of deputies. The crowd ac- 
 claimed a list drawn up by the National. While the Republicans 
 in Parliament were thus carrying on the revolution at the Palais- 
 Bourbon" in the west of Paris, the Democratic Republicans were 
 at work in the east at the Hotel de Ville. The heads of the secret 
 societies, joining the editors of the Reform at their office, had dis- 
 cussed the National's list, and added three names of their own — 
 Flocon, L. Blanc, and a leader in the Saisons society, the me- 
 chanic Albert. They also made a different assignment of the 
 prefecture of police (Caussidiere) and the postmastership 
 (Arago). They had then taken possession of the Hotel de Ville, 
 where they proclaimed the republic. 
 
 Fourth. As in 1830, there were now two governments in Paris; 
 as in 1830, the government proclaimed at the Palais-Bourbon 
 marched through the streets held by the rebels to occupy the 
 Hotel de Ville. There the new government installed itself and 
 divided the ministerial posts between its members. But it was 
 necessary to do something for the men proposed by the Reform. 
 As there were no more portfolios to give them, they were ap- 
 pointed secretaries of the provisional government, and the govern- 
 
STRUGGLES IN THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT. 159 
 
 ment remained at the Hotel de Ville. The next day they decreed 
 that "The Republic is the government of France," and, on 
 March 5, promised to convoke an assembly elected by universal 
 suffrage to draw up a constitution. As in 1830, the revolution 
 made in Paris was passively accepted by the rest of the nation. 
 
 J. Simon thus sums up the revolution: "The agitation, set 
 on foot by certain Liberals, resulted in the republic which they 
 dreaded, and at the last moment universal suffrage, set on foot 
 by certain Republicans, resulted in promoting the cause of so- 
 cialism, which they abhorred." 
 
 Struggles in the Frovisional Government. — The provisional gov- 
 ernment was formed by two coalitions : the parliamentary Repub- 
 licans of the National's list (Arago, Cremieux, Marie, Gamier- 
 Pages, Lamartine), and the democratic Republicans of the 
 Reform's list (Flocon, Marrast, L. Blanc, Albert); Ledru-RoUin 
 was named in both lists. The two parties had united to establish 
 a republic; but their objects were different. The National party 
 wished simply a political revolution to establish the democratic 
 republic, retaining the tricolour flag. The Reform party de- 
 manded a social revolution to better the condition of the working 
 classes without regard to the rest of the nation; this was known 
 as the democratic and social republic, and adopted the red flag. 
 
 The contest between these two parties began at once and lasted 
 until the end. The democratic Republicans seemed to have the 
 upper hand, for the best-known members and ministers belonged 
 to them. But the social Republicans held the posts of action, 
 through Caussidiere, prefect of police, and Ledru-Rollin, min- 
 ister of the interior; and above all they, held the government at 
 the Hotel de Ville in subjection to the eastern quarters. It 
 was therefore the Socialists who had the advantage at first and 
 controlled the government. 
 
 The workingmen, armed by the Revolution, had retained their 
 weapons; having no leaders, they organized themselves by two 
 processes: ist, The government decreed that all citizens should 
 join the national guard. The workingmen entered in legions. 
 The number of national guards in Paris rose from 56,000 at the 
 beginning of February to 190,000 at the middle of March. 2d, 
 Political societies being no longer forbidden, workingmen's 
 clubs were formed. The most active of these, the Rights of Man, 
 was managed by the leaders of the secret societies, Sobrier and 
 Blanqui, the former president of the Seasons. In these clubs old 
 Communists sowed the seed for social revolution. The work- 
 
l6o THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 ingmen, being without precise doctrine, but Socialists by instinct, 
 became an army at the service of the party which talked of im- 
 proving their lot. The Socialist leaders, by means of clubs, gave 
 a rallying cry to the labourers, gathered them in armed bands, 
 and led them to the Hotel de Ville to present their demands to the 
 provisional government. There the socialist group compelled 
 their colleagues to yield. This plan was successfully followed 
 three times: 
 
 First. On the 25th of February an armed troop entered the 
 hall and demanded the Rights of Labour (a formula adopted 
 by the Socialists). L. Blanc drew up the decree: " The govern- 
 ment of the French Republic undertakes to guarantee the exist- 
 ence of the workingman by labour and to provide labour for all 
 citizens." The next day they decreed the immediate establish- 
 ment of " national workshops." This was the expression which 
 Louis Blanc had made so popular. A mob wished to hoist the 
 red flag at the Hotel de Ville, as the symbol of the social re- 
 public, but Lamartine induced it to keep the tricolour. 
 
 Second. On the 28th of February a crowd arrived with flags 
 bearing the words " Organization of Labour " (an old Saint-Si- 
 monian formula adopted by Louis Blanc), and demanded the 
 creation of a " Progress ministry." Blanc supported the demand, 
 but his colleagues refused to join him, so he had to content him- 
 self with securing the creation of the " government committee on 
 the labouring classes, with the express mission of looking after 
 their interests." Blanc and Albert were appointed members of 
 this committee and went to establish themselves at the Luxem- 
 bourg. There they called together delegates of workingmen 
 irom the different trades to arrange their demands. The dele- 
 gates demanded 'the reforms which interested them most closely: 
 the reduction of the hours of labour, and the abolition of payment 
 in kind (truck system). Their demands were immediately con- 
 verted into decrees. The working day was reduced from 11 to 
 10 hours in Paris, and from 12 to 11 hours in the country. The 
 preamble announced that " prolonged manual labour not only 
 ruins the labourer's health, but also, by preventing the cultiva- 
 tion of his mind, detracts from the dignity of man." The gov- 
 ernment, however, could not get its decree applied; employers 
 took no notice of it. The Luxembourg committee proposed 
 several practical measures (social workshops, arbitration between 
 employers and labourers, discount offices for small business), but 
 they possessed neither money nor means of action. They could 
 
STRUGGLES IN THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT. i6l 
 
 only hold conferences to which they invited the economists, and 
 organize a committee of delegates from the labouring classes. 
 This, by keeping Blanc and Albert away from the Hotel de Ville, 
 weakened the Socialist party in the government. 
 
 Third. The government having suppressed the picked com- 
 panies in the national guard (light infantry and grenadiers, men 
 from the middle classes), the guardsmen of those companies made 
 before the Hotel de Ville the "demonstration of bearskin 
 caps " (they insisted on preserving their original uniform). The 
 labouring classes believed the government to be threatened by 
 the middle class. They assembled at the Champ de Mars and 
 marched en masse to the Hotel de Ville, where they presented their 
 demands. This time they had a political favour to ask. The 
 provisional government had just summoned the voters all over 
 France to meet in their precincts on the 9th of April and elect 
 the assembly which should succeed to the power. The Socialist 
 party wished to have more time in order to convert the electors 
 to its views. The demonstration of March 17 demanded the 
 postponement of the elections, and the government consented to 
 postpone them until April 23. 
 
 But the social Republicans, who had had the advantage of con- 
 trolling the government at will, were after all only a small mi- 
 nority. All France opposed them and half of Paris. Their 
 opponents, feeling themselves in the majority, once more assumed 
 control. In opposition to the working-class guards they set up 
 guards of their own from the middle class, and the garde mobile, 
 formed of young volunteers receiving pay. The i6th of April 
 was the decisive day. The workingmen convoked by the clubs 
 and the Luxembourg delegation marched from the Champ de 
 Mars to the Hotel de Ville in order to present a petition for the 
 " abolition of the exploitation of one man by another, and for the 
 organization of labour by association." But Ledru-Rollin, until 
 now hovering between the two parties, decided against the 
 Socialists. He sounded the call to arms. The national guard 
 came armed before the Hotel de Ville and received the work- 
 ingmen with cries of " Down with the Communists ! " The mob 
 retired, having obtained no satisfaction. 
 
 The social Republicans at once lost all influence with the gov- 
 ernment. All that they had efifected was represented by promises 
 which could not be fulfilled, and by two institutions which the 
 government made useless: the Luxembourg committee and the 
 national workshops. The committee had never had any real 
 
1 62 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 power, all its practical work consisting in the creation of a per- 
 manent committee of delegates at the Luxembourg, which 
 thereby became a centre for the management of workingmen's 
 agitations. The national workshops were organized by the min- 
 ister of commerce, Marie; Blanc's opponent. The Revolution of 
 '48 had produced a crisis and put a stop to business and manu- 
 facture. Hundreds of labourers from all trades found them- 
 selves without work. The government undertook to employ 
 them; but instead of organizing them in real workshops where 
 each could work at his own trade, they employed them all indis- 
 criminately at building fortifications with a uniform pay of two 
 francs a day. Their number increased from 6000 in March to 
 100,000 in May. They were then reduced to two day's work in 
 the week, with half wages, or one franc daily, for the other days. 
 And, having completed the fortifications, there was no more work 
 for them to do. The Champ de Mars, where they were supposed 
 to work, became a hotbed of Socialist agitation. More than 
 7,000,000 francs were distributed to labouring men under this dis- 
 guised form of poor relief. 
 
 The provisional government did away with several unpopular 
 taxes: the salt tax and the stamp duty on newspapers; also the 
 octroi-dues at the gates of Paris. But having no more money in 
 the treasury and being unable to negotiate a loan, they estab- 
 lished an extraordinary tax of 45 centimes (i. e., 45 per cent.) 
 added to the direct taxes. This burden fell not only on the mid- 
 dle class, but on the peasants, and made them hate the Re- 
 public. 
 
 The Government of the Constituent Assembly. — ^The Assembly 
 was elected by general ticket, in each department, by universal 
 suffrage, a plurality sufficing to elect. It was composed of 900 
 representatives, receiving 25 francs a day for their services. It 
 intrusted the government to an executive committee of 5 mem- 
 bers, which was to appoint the ministers. This was a democratic 
 assembly, very different from the chamber of the property hold- 
 ers under Louis Philippe. The majority approved the policy of 
 the middle-class wing of the provisional government. They 
 wanted a democratic republic without a social revolution. The 
 Socialist party had few representatives in this assembly. A 
 strong minority, elected under the influence of the clergy and 
 landlords, wished, if not the monarchy, at least a firm policy 
 against revolution — the policy vaguely termed reaction. The 
 democratic Republicans then assumed control and kept it, Strug- 
 
GOVERNMENT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY. 1 63 
 
 gling against the two extreme parties, the Socialists and the 
 reactionists. 
 
 The Socialists, dissatisfied with the Assembly, twice attempted 
 a hew revolution to establish a social-reform government. They 
 met with armed resistance and the struggle ended in civil war. 
 
 The 15th of May witnessed a sudden outbreak by the clubs, 
 the former " party of action " (Blanqui, Barbes), and the foreign 
 refugees. Under the pretext of presenting a petition in favour 
 of Poland, they invaded the Assembly, declared it dissolved, and 
 proclaimed a provisional government by the Socialist leaders 
 (Barbes, Blanqui, Blanc, Albert, Cabet, Proudhon, Raspail, 
 Ledru-Rollin). The national guard, however, succeeded in dis- 
 persing them. 
 
 The "Days of June" were a general insurrection brought about 
 by an understanding between the workmen in the national work- 
 shops and the delegates of the Luxembourg committee. The 
 Assembly, hostile to the national workshops, had at first decided 
 to send back the workmen to their own departments. Then they 
 decided to close the workshops, inviting the workmen either to^ 
 enroll in the army or to get ready to go into the country, where 
 they would still be employed on earthworks (June 21). The 
 workmen had protested against this in advance. " It is not our 
 wish to be out of work, but we cannot get profitable employment 
 in our own trades. What will become of the 110,000 workers in 
 the national workshops? " (June 18). A delegation went in search 
 of Marie to present their grievances. He replied that unless 
 they left Paris freely they would be driven out by force. The 
 workmen were armed, and controlled the east of Paris. They 
 barricaded themselves in their quarters. They demanded the 
 dissolution of the Assembly and the re-establishment of the work- 
 shops. 
 
 The Assembly charged General Cavaignac to reduce the rebel- 
 lious districts, and invested him with dictatorial power. The 
 struggle that followed was the bloodiest street battle that had ever 
 been seen in France- On one side all the working population of 
 the eastern quarters of old Paris ; on the other the national guard 
 of the other quarters of the city, the garde mobile, the garrison 
 (20,000 men), and later the national guards of the surrounding 
 country, — the suburban arrondissements of the present day, — and 
 finally those of the neighbouring cities, all eager to exterminate 
 the Socialists. The insurgents fought without leaders, but with 
 desperation. Their centre of resistance was the Faubourg Saint- 
 
1 64 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 Antoine, which held out three days (June 24-26). The prisoners 
 were shot summarily or tried and transported. The government 
 suppressed 32 Socialist newspapers. There now existed no 
 longer an organized Socialist party. Only some of the leaders, 
 national representatives, Proudhon, Considerant, Pierre Leroux, 
 made isolated attempts to expound their views in the Assembly, 
 where they were received with laughter or shouts of indignation. 
 
 Cavaignac retained the executive power and governed in har- 
 mony with the Assembly and in sympathy with the democratic 
 republic. 
 
 The Constituent Assembly now began the work for which it 
 had been elected. It drew up the constitution of 1848. This 
 document expressed the political creed of the conservative demo- 
 cratic party which formed the majority. 
 
 First they passed a declaration of principles, according to the 
 tradition of the Revolution. " In the presence of God and in 
 the name of the people . . . France is constituted a Republic. 
 The French Republic is democratic. Its principles are Liberty, 
 Equality, Fraternity; its foundations, the family, rights of prop- 
 erty, public order." The declaration not only recognised all indi- 
 vidual liberties and abolished slavery, the censorship, and the 
 death penalty for political offences, but also promised social re- 
 forms, free primary education, professional education, equality of 
 relations between employer and labourer, provident institutions, 
 etc. The first plan, drawn up on June 20, also proposed to " rec- 
 ognise the right of every citizen to labour and to public assist- 
 ance." But the plan finally drawn up in August suppressed this, 
 substituting a non-committal phrase : " The Republic . . . must, 
 with fraternal aid, assure the existence of needy citizens either by 
 procuring them work within the limits of their capabilities or by 
 assisting those who are unable to work." This marked the victory 
 of the democratic over the social republic ; individual rights were 
 proclaimed and social reforms announced, but they were not for- 
 mulated as a right. 
 
 The government was organized in accordance with two theo- 
 retical principles: "All public powers emanate from the people. 
 . . . The separation of powers is the first condition of a free gov- 
 ernment." This theory meant that there were two powers, both 
 delegated by the French nation : the legislative power to a single 
 assembly of 750 members elected by universal suffrage; the execu- 
 tive to a citizen elected as President of the Republic for four years 
 (probably in imitation of the United States), with the right of 
 
GOVERNMENT OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY. 165 
 
 choosing his ministers. They did not want two Chambers, be- 
 cause a second house seemed an aristocratic institution; they re- 
 stricted themselves to the creation of a Council of State, elected 
 by the Assembly to prepare bills for the Assembly. 
 
 This was the American mechanism transported from a federal 
 government, without an army and without a functionary class, 
 into a centralized government, provided with an irresistible army 
 and a body of office-holders accustomed to ruling. All the prac- 
 tical force was embodied in the President. The fate of the Re- 
 public therefore hung on the question : How should the President 
 be chosen? By the Assembly? That would mean Cavaignac, who 
 controlled the republican party. By the people? Whom that 
 would mean, no one knew. Lamartine knew that the Assembly 
 ■would not elect him, so he advised popular election : " Let God 
 and the nation speak. Something must be left to Providence." 
 The Assembly, by a vote of 602 against 211, agreed upon this 
 plan. They then began to fear Louis Napoleon, who had just 
 been chosen to represent 5 dififerent departments; someone pro- 
 posed to disqualify members 9f former reigning families. The 
 Assembly refused because " a law against one man is unworthy 
 of a great Assembly." 
 
 The election of the President by universal suffrage (December 
 10, 1848) decided the possession of power. The two republican 
 parties, pitted against each other since the February Revolution, 
 had each its own candidate, the Socialists Ledru-Rollin.the Demo- 
 crats Cavaignac. A Bonapartist party, newly formed, nominated 
 Louis Napoleon, head of the Napoleonic family, who affected to 
 pose as a citizen, not as a pretender. The former royalists flocked 
 to his standard. The peasants had had no political education; 
 they knew but one name, that of the Emperor Napoleon; they 
 voted for that name. Louis Napoleon received 5,400,000 votes" 
 (Cavaignac 1,400,000, Ledru-RoUin 370,000) and took possession 
 of the executive power — ^swearing to " remain faithful to the 
 democratic Republic and to defend the Constitution"; he chose 
 a parliamentary ministry formed chiefly of Liberal Orleanists 
 and Catholics. The Constituent Assembly continued in session 
 though in discord with the President. It refused to pass a law 
 against political meetings and censured the President's order 
 sending the French troops to attack the Roman Republic in de- 
 fence of the Pope. In the country the new prefects appointed 
 by the ministers made trouble by doing away with the liberty trees 
 and the Phrygian caps. 
 
l66 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 The Government of the Monarchical Parties (1849-51). — In the 
 
 Legislative Assembly elected in May, 1849, the position of 
 parties was reversed. Of the more than 750 members, 500 were 
 monarchists, elected through the influence of the clergy and the 
 royalist middle class. Their election had been prepared by the 
 committee of the Rue de Poiters, the league of the three parties, 
 Orleanist (Thiers), Legitimist (Berryer), Catholic (Montalembert). 
 Of the 250 Republicans, only 70 represented the party which had 
 been in majority in the Constituent Assembly. The rest formed 
 the party of the Mountain (ultra-revolutionists), called by their 
 adversaries the Reds. There was a coalition of all the Repub- 
 licans, formed to save the Republic by making an appeal to 
 democratic sentiments. It had gathered together the remains 
 of the socialist parties, which had been disorganized by the loss of 
 their imprisoned and banished leaders (Blanqui, Barbes, Blanc). 
 This coalition had been organized for the parliamentary elections, 
 under the direction of election committees, the Friends of the Con- 
 stitution, the Republican Union (of which Jean Mace was secre- 
 tary), and the group of deputies known as the Mountain in the 
 Constituent Assembly. The programs of these committees prom- 
 ised a number of social reforms ; that of the Mountain, written by 
 Felix Pyat, recognised " the right of property by the right of 
 labour," and demanded " a progressive and proportional tax on 
 net income, and government control of railroads, mines, and 
 canals, and insurance." The large cities and the eastern and 
 central departments elected members of the Mountain party. 
 
 The majority, in harmony with the President and his ministers, 
 laboured to crush the Republican party, by taking away all their 
 means of agitation and action — their newspapers and political 
 societies, lay schools, and universal sufifrage. 
 
 The struggle began over the expedition to Rome. The Moun- 
 tain demanded the impeachment of the ministers for having vio- 
 lated the constitution * in making war on the Roman Republic 
 against the Assembly's wish. The majority rejected the meas- 
 ure. The democratic committees issued an appeal to the national 
 guards to gather for a demonstration. This resulted in the Arts- 
 and-Trades' outbreak. The Assembly suspended the party's 
 newspapers and ordered the arrest of 33 representatives. Ledru- 
 Rollin fled to London (June 13, 1849). Then a new press law 
 
 * Article 5 : " The French Republic respects foreign nations . . . and 
 will never employ her forces against the liberty of any people." 
 
GOVERNMENT OF THE MONARCHICAL PARTIES. 167 
 
 required a deposit by way of security of 24,000 francs and gave 
 the government the right to forbid the sale of newspapers (July, 
 1849). A bill was passed forbidding public political meetings. 
 All these measures were directed against the Republican parties. 
 
 After having crushed the Mountain the government party be- 
 gan to break up. The President took advantage of a disagree- 
 ment with his Orleanist ministers over the Roman policy to rid 
 himself of them and replace them with personal partisans. In 
 this way a Napoleonic party began slowly to detach itself from 
 the monarchists, bidding for popularity by combating " the 
 Reds." Carlier, perfect of police, founded a Social Leagne in 
 opposition to socialism and had the liberty trees cut down. 
 
 Once again, in 1850, all the monarchists united against the 
 Mountain. Their union was nicknamed " the Roman expedition 
 at home." They passed two laws — the education bill (March, 
 1850) and the electoral law of May 31, 1850. 
 
 The educational bill was the work of the Catholic party. The 
 Republican government in 1848 had proposed a scheme of free 
 and compulsory instruction, but the Legislature did not approve 
 even the principle. The majority distrusted lay teachers. 
 The minister called them " the regimental officers of the 
 democratic and social Republic"; Montalembert dubbed them 
 " horrible little rhetoricians " ; Lamartine said they were " f o- 
 menters of stupid anti-social doctrines." The law of 1850 
 made teachers subject to dismissal without right of appeal 
 and imposed on them the obligation of teaching the cate- 
 chism. This law, passed in the name of the principle of freedom 
 in education, abolished the monopoly of the University and gave 
 to individuals the right to open free schools, either secondary or 
 primary. The " congregations," almost the only ones to profit 
 by this liberty, founded all over France colleges and ecclesiastical 
 primary schools. The municipalities received the right to choose 
 for their primary schools between laymen and members of the 
 congregation; almost all the schools for girls were given into the 
 hands of the religious orders. 
 
 At the supplementary elections of 1850 almost all those elected 
 belonged to the Mountain. The majority became^ alarmed and 
 decided to " purify universal suffrage." The bill of May 31 made 
 it necessary for each elector to have three years' residence, veri- 
 fied by the taxing lists of the department It took away the right 
 of voting from persons condemned for rebellion, outrage against 
 authority, membership in a secret society or a club. The object 
 
l68 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 was to shut out from political life the workingmen and the demo- 
 cratic general staff; but the law also afifected many of the peasants 
 and diminished the number of electors by three millions. 
 
 The Conflict Between the President and the Assembly. — ^The 
 monarchist parties and the President, after having worked in con- 
 cert against the Republicans, broke apart. The President was 
 increasing his personal power; he had taken his personal sup- 
 porters for ministers ; he laboured to attach to himself the higher 
 officers of the army and the civil functionaries. He held military 
 reviews and made excursions into the country, giving occasion 
 for cries of " Long live Napoleon! " sometimes even " Long live 
 the Emperor! " His adversaries accused the generals and the 
 ministers of organizing these demonstrations. In the Assembly 
 the undecided Conservatives rallied around him, and began to 
 form a Bonapartist party. The Orleanist and Legitimist parties 
 were alarmed and entered into a struggle against the President. 
 
 The conflict began over the review at Satory (October lo, 
 1850). The cavalry cried "Long live Napoleon!" the infantry 
 made no cry. The minister of war cashiered the general who had 
 ordered the silence. The permanent committee in session during 
 the absence of the Assembly protested against the dismissal. The 
 President put an end to the conflict by a conciliatory message. 
 
 Then practical questions arose, — the disposition of the armed 
 force and the eligibility of the President to be elected for a second 
 term, — questions which in one form or another filled the decisive 
 year 1851. 
 
 First. The military power which the constitution intrusted to 
 the President and to his minister of war, was in practice, shared 
 between them and the commander-in-chief of the army and of 
 the national guard of Paris. Changarnier had held this latter 
 office since 1848 with the entire confidence of the monarchist 
 parties. Changarnier had just broken with the President by tak- 
 ing the part of the cashiered general. The President, having 
 failed in getting the Assembly to impeach him, dismissed him 
 (January 5, 185 1). The Assembly answered with a vote of want 
 of confidence in the ministry. By the help of the Republicans 
 this was carried by 417 votes against 286. The Assembly had 
 now broken definitely with the President, but the former majority 
 was dissolved. The Assembly was split into three irreconcilable 
 factions: first, the President's party; secondly, the monarchist 
 coalition made up of Legitimists, Orleanists, and fusionists (advo- 
 cating a fusion between the two royal branches), and, thirdly, the 
 
CONFLICT BETWEEN PRESIDENT AND ASSEMBLY. 169 
 
 Republican party. From now on there was no majority save by 
 coalition and the Assembly could pass only negative measures. 
 The President, pleading the lack of a majority, appointed a min- 
 istry without a policy. 
 
 Second. The ministry demanded an increase of the President's 
 salary. The proposition was rejected by a coalition of Republi- 
 cans and Legitimists (396 against 294; February, 1851). 
 
 Third. The Orleanists demanded the abrogation of the laws 
 decreeing exile against the princes of the Orleans family. The 
 scheme was defeated by a coalition of Napoleonists and Legiti- 
 mists. 
 
 Fourth. The Napoleonic party demanded the revision of the 
 constitution. There was an article forbidding re-election of the 
 outgoing President; Napoleon wanted to be re-elected. A com- 
 mittee organized an agitation to get petitions signed; with the ad 
 of the government officials they secured over a million signatures, 
 and of 85 general councils 80 demanded the revision. But by the 
 Constitution of 1848 a revision required a three-quarters vote of 
 the Assembly. The monarchist coalition voted against the re- 
 vision, and the measure was defeated by a vote of 446 against 278 
 (July 26). 
 
 Vacation interrupted the struggle, but it was clearly seen that 
 arms would be employed before long. The President had said at 
 Dijon (June i) : " Whatever duties the nation may impose upon 
 me, she will find me ready to carry out her wishes." The Repub- 
 licans had organized secret societies, especially in the southeast, 
 and in a part of the centre, which seem to have been in touch 
 with a central management at Paris and Lyons.* Some of these 
 societies had initiation ceremonies copied from the old societies 
 (the oath on a dagger), democratic emblems (red flag, Phrygian 
 cap, spirit-level), and a password; they were in communication 
 with foreign revolutionists and refugees in London and Switzer- 
 land. The government agents accused them of having stores of 
 arms and lists of suspects; also of preparing to crush the pre- 
 fectures in the elections of 1852 and create revolutionary tri- 
 bunals. The President's message on the reopening of the 
 
 * This organization, which has still been little investigated, is rendered 
 very obscure by the division into independent and even unfriendly groups, 
 the Blanquist party {Friends of Equality), the Central Democratic Com- 
 mittee (Ledru-Rollin), Louis Blanc's Socialist party, Karl Marx's Com- 
 munist Alliance, and the Union of the Communes. 
 
17° THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 Assembly declared : " A vast demagogic conspiracy is being 
 organized in France and all over Europe." 
 
 Fifth. The President demanded the repeal of the electoral law 
 of 1850 as incompatible with universal suffrage. Urgency was 
 asked for the repealing bill, but was refused; and the scheme was 
 rejected by a majority of six votes. 
 
 Sixth. St.-Arnaud, the minister of war, ordered the removal 
 irom all the barracks of all the placards of the decree of 1848, 
 which gave the President of the Constituent Assembly of that year 
 the right to call out the armed forces. The monarchist party, 
 feeling the Assembly menaced by the executive power, presented 
 the " proposition of the questors " conferring on the President of 
 the Legislative Assembly the right to demand the services of the 
 armed force and all persons in authority. The Republicans, how- 
 ever, feared a monarchist coup d'etat. The proposition was de- 
 feated (November 18) by a coalition of Bonapartists and Repub- 
 licans (408 to 300). ~ ' ' 
 
 Establishment of Personal Power (1851-52). — The President 
 put an end to the conflict by a coup d'etat on the 2d of Decem- 
 ber, 1851. He published a decree declaring the Assembly dis- 
 solved, universal suffrage re-established, and the French people 
 convoked in their primary assemblies. A proclamation to the 
 people set forth the motives for the coup d'etat and the plan for a 
 revision of the constitution. Theoretically it was founded upon 
 the sovereignty of the people : " My duty is to maintain the Re- 
 public ... by invoking the judgment of the only sovereign I 
 recognise in France — ^the people." In reality this was the revoh 
 of the executive power, that is to say, of the armed force against 
 the theoretical representatives of the nation. The coup d'etat was 
 prepared by the ministers and the generals of the army of Paris. 
 It began with a proclamation to the soldiers. 
 
 The Assembly was disorganized. The government had taken 
 care to arrest all party leaders during the night and to fill the 
 Legislative hall with soldiers. Nevertheless 217 representatives, 
 almost all monarchists, were able to meet at the town hall 
 (Mairie) of the loth arrondissement of Paris and constitute them- 
 selves as the Assembly. The constitution had provided against 
 this contingency: If the President dissolves the Assembly he 
 forfeits his position; the Assembly takes his powers and the High 
 Court meets to judge him (Article 68). The Assembly therefore 
 voted the expulsion of the President from ofifice, and named a 
 commandant for the army. The members were arrested and im- 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONAL POWER. I? I 
 
 prisoned. The High Court met at the Palace and began prepara- 
 tions for the trial; it was dispersed. 
 
 Resistance to the coup d'etat was slow in organizing; it was the 
 work of the Republicans. In Paris the soldiers marched through 
 the streets and fired upon the unarmed crowd; the only real battle 
 was in the workingmen's quarters in the east of Paris (Saint-An- 
 toine, Saint-Martin). In fifteen or more departments of the 
 southeast and the centre there were local insurrections of Re- 
 publicans, who tried to take possession of the chief towns. These 
 insurgents, especially in the southeast, were peasants and mem- 
 bers of secret societies. The government took advantage of this 
 to represent the movement as a jacquerie or a communist uprising 
 and to pose as the defender of society. The President proclaimed 
 martial law in 32 departments, granted himself by decree (De- 
 cember 8) the right to exile all members of secret societies, and 
 created mixed commissions (a general, a prefiiict, and an attorney) 
 with power to judge without appeal. 
 
 According to a document discovered in the Tuileries in 1870, 
 there were 26,642 persons arrested and only 6500 released; 5108 
 were made subject to police supervision, and 1.5,033 condemned 
 (of whom 9530 were transported to Algeria, 239 to Cayenne 
 after a long term on the pontoons, 2804 confined in a French 
 city). Eighty representatives, almost all Republicans, were ban- 
 ished. The Republican party, deprived of its leaders and its most 
 active members, remained disorganized and hardly recovered 
 from the blow until the return of these convicts and exiles in 
 1859. 
 
 The President, having rid himself of the Assembly, which had 
 held the legislative power, and the Republicans who were prepar- 
 ing to secure it again in the elections of 1852, found himself abso- 
 lute master of France. He organized his government on the 
 model adopted by Napoleon I., the Constitution of the year 
 VIII., which had " once already brought France peace and pros- 
 perity." 
 
 The President, elected for ten years, had all the executive 
 power. He was to be assisted by three bodies : a " Council of 
 State," appointed by him to prepare bills for enactment; a 
 " Legislative Body," elected byuniversal sufifrage, to discuss and 
 vote bills and the budget ; a " second assembly " (soon called the 
 Senate), appointed by the President as " guardian of the funda- 
 mental compact and of public liberties." The ministers were 
 chosen by the President and dependent upon him alone; they 
 
172 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 were no longer responsible. There was only one responsible per- 
 son, the President, but he was not responsible to any organized 
 body; he was responsible only to the people. Theoretically this 
 system concentrated all the powers in a sovereign nation, practi- 
 cally in the chief who represented it, for the people had no way 
 to express their will but by plebiscite, voting " yes " or " no." 
 This constitution, however, differed from that of Napoleon I., 
 in that it admitted a Chamber elected directly by the people. 
 This was a concession to representative democratic government 
 in a regime of personal government. Universal suffrage, the 
 creation of the Revolution of '48, is preserved and even made the 
 legal foundation of the constitution. 
 
 This system, proposed on the 2d of December, was voted by 
 plebiscite — 7,481,000 voting in favour and 647,002 against. Of 
 the opposing votes 39,000 were cast by soldiers. Then the sys- 
 tem was embodied in the Constitution of 1852. This defined the 
 President's powers; not only was he to choose all public officers, 
 declare war, make treaties, and declare martial law, but he had 
 the sok initiative in lawmaking, the Chamber being forbidden to 
 discuss any but bills laid before it by him : it could not even vote 
 amendments without his approval. The Senate, composed of 150 
 life members, was to expound and maintain the constitution. 
 Laws had to be submitted to it before promulgation; but it was 
 not a mere second chamber to pass or reject measures adopted by 
 the Legislative Body. It was the guardian of the constitution, 
 and, as such, had the right to correct any arbitrary or illegal act 
 brought to its attention by the government or by petition of 
 citizens. The Legislative Body was reduced to 251 deputies; 
 they were required to swear fidelity to the President. 
 
 Napoleon regarded himself as continuing his uncle's work, but 
 he gave his own interpretations to the policy pursued by Na- 
 poleon L In the " Napoleonic Ideas " he calls Napoleon the 
 " testamentary executor of the Revolution," who had " .hastened 
 the reign of Liberty." Me shows him absorbed by the desire to 
 establish democracy and to attain peace through war. Now " the 
 nature of democracy is to personify itself in one man." Na- 
 poleon, like his uncle, wished to embody democracy and prom- 
 ised to bring peace. 
 
 He had kept only provisionally the title of President. In his 
 tour through the country in 1852 he was received as a sovereign. 
 He himself at Bordeaux announced the restoration of the Empire 
 by saying: " The Empire means peace." The Senate chosen by 
 
THE AUTOCRATIC EMPIRE. 173 
 
 him passed a senatorial decree proclaiming Napoleon III. Em- 
 peror of the French. The people accepted it by a plebiscite (De- 
 cember ID, 1852). This was a restoration of the first Empire. 
 The power was to be hereditary in the imperial family (the chil- 
 dren of King Jerome) : an imperial dynasty was established. 
 
 The Autocratic Empire (1852-60).— During the first years of 
 the Empire French political life was suspended. There were still 
 political institutions, a chamber, elections, newspapers; the im- 
 perial government had had the art to make their power illusory 
 by reducing them to the mockery of serving only as an orna- 
 mental mask for the personal absolutism of the Emperor and his 
 ministers. This art consisted in measures of detail combined so 
 as to paralyze all political life. 
 
 The Chamber met at Paris for three months every year, to pass 
 laws and vote the budget. They could, however, neither make 
 their own rules, nor elect their president, nor propose a bill. 
 Their sessions were public, but their debates could be published 
 only in the form of an official analytic report, and the vote of 
 only five members could compel a secret discussion. There was, 
 therefore, no way for the opposition to come before the public. 
 They voted the budget, but in the lump, the appropriations for a 
 whole ministry at once, and the government, by transfers, could 
 make even this vote amount to nothing. 
 
 All male citizens could vote. The constitution rested upon 
 universal suffrage, and the qualification was made even simpler, 
 by substituting the commune for the canton as the voting dis- 
 trict (or precinct) and single-member districts for the general 
 ticket by departments. The government, however, controlled the 
 elections in several ways. It presented in each district an official 
 candidate recommended to the voters by white paper posters, at 
 the expense of the state. It made all public officials support him 
 actively. The theory was that the citizens needed the guidance 
 of the government. The opposition candidate had the disad- 
 vantage of presenting himself under his private name, at his own 
 expense, and as an adversary of the established power. After 
 1858 he was obliged, in addition, to sign a declaration of fidelity 
 to the Emperor and to the constitution. All election meetings 
 were forbidden, as a violation of the freedom of the voters; even 
 the distribution of ballots was not permitted, the Court of Cassa- 
 tion having decided that a ballot, like a book, must be subject 
 to the law forbidding hawking and could only be given out at a 
 fixed place. The election was directed by the mayor; all the 
 
174 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 mayors since 1852 had been appointed by the government. The 
 voting lasted two days; in the country, in the evening of the first 
 day, the mayor carried off the ballot box to his own house ; super- 
 vision was out of the question. In places where the peasants had 
 not yet grown accustomed to come and vote, the mayor impro- 
 vised the results of the ballot. The electoral districts were fixed, 
 not by law, but by a simple order of the government, made every 
 5 years without any rule. They laid out the districts in the way 
 most advantageous to the official candidates. They cut up the 
 cities into fragments, which they joined to rural districts in order 
 to overcome the opposition of the city democrats by the votes of 
 the peasantry. 
 
 Political journals were not suppressed, nor even as in 1815 sub- 
 jected to a censorship. The deposit by way of security for good 
 behaviour, although doubled since 1852 (50,000 francs in Paris), 
 was still less than in 1819. But the decree of 1852 had robbed 
 the press of all guarantee of independence. Previous authori- 
 zation for new journals was once more established, and such 
 authorization was granted only on condition that the government 
 should name the editor-in-chief. Press offences were taken 
 away from jury courts and given to tribunals of summary juris- 
 diction. On the second condemnation the journal was sup- 
 pressed. The government also secured the right to suppress any 
 paper in the name of public security. It was unlawful to report 
 press cases or sessions of the Chambers, or to publish false news 
 — ^that is to say, news displeasing to the government. The famous 
 system of warnings was established. If an article was displeas- 
 ing to the government, the paper received a warning from the 
 prefect; on a second ofifence, the paper might be suspended. The 
 prefects issued these warnings at will. The Corsican Observer 
 received one for having discussed public pastures : " this attack 
 may excite discontent among a certain class of citizens " ; the 
 Lighthouse of the Loire for the following sentence :. " The Em- 
 peror has made a speech whidh, according to the Havas agency, 
 several times evoked cries of 'Long live the Emperor!'" the 
 ground of warning being that " this doubtful expression is un- 
 suitable in the presence of the wild enthusiasm which the Em- 
 peror's words excited. . ." * 
 
 * The censorship of theatres permitted nothing with the slightest politi- 
 cal allusion, even of the most indirect nature. An opera on the Fronde 
 was forbidden as " impregnated with the spirit of revolution," and because 
 of the introduction of riots and the cry " To arms ! " on the stage. Musset 
 
THE AU7^0CRATIC EMPIRE. 1 75 
 
 Even individuals were watched by the police, and a political 
 conversation was enough to brand a person as a suspect under 
 this administration, which, having no public exposure to fear, 
 made arbitrary disposal of the liberty of all its subjects. The ca- 
 price of an agent might cause the arrest and detention of anyone 
 who seemed to him dangerous. The comedian Grassot was ar- 
 rested for 'having been overheard to say in a cafe: "This is like 
 Sebastopol; one can't take anything." A woman was arrested 
 at Tours for having said that the grape blight was coming again ; 
 in releasing her the prefect threatened to imprison her for life if 
 she spread any more bad news. 
 
 The national guard had not been abolished; but the decree of 
 1852 had declared the national guards dissolved, adding that 
 their " reorganization would depend on circumstances." They 
 were not reorganized. 
 
 The University remained, but subject to a regime calculated to 
 make it lose its liberal tendencies. The instructors must take 
 the oath of fidelity to the Emperor, and many preferred to resign. 
 The professors might be dismissed at any time, without appeal. 
 Education tended toward confining itself to the ancient languages 
 and the sciences; the professorships of history and philosophy 
 were suppressed. The Fortoul ministry has remained famous 
 (1851-56); this was the time when the exercises in all the classes 
 in France must take place at the same hour ; when the professors 
 received the order to shave their mustaches that they might drop 
 " from their appearance as well as from their manners the last 
 vestiges of anarchy." 
 
 The government depended on the army, which assured its 
 power; on the commercial middle class, satisfied with being no 
 longer troubled by politics; and above all on the clergy, who made 
 the country electors vote for the ofHcial candidates. (The most 
 widely circulated newspaper in the clerical world, the Univers, 
 after having supported the Republic, had gone over to Na- 
 poleon.) 
 
 Under this system political life had ceased. The Republicans, 
 deprived of their chiefs by exile or transportation, and persecuted 
 by the police, had no longer any means of showing their oppo- 
 sition. They had not even deputies until 1857, and from 1857 to 
 
 could not produce his " Lorenzaccio " because " the discussion of the right 
 to assassinate a sovereign whose crime cried for vengeance " was " a dan- 
 gerous spectacle." 
 
176 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 1863 they had only five, — " the Five," — elected by Paris and 
 Lyons. The Legitimists and Orleanists were less persecuted, as 
 the government hoped tO' win them over individually; but the 
 clergy, by joining Napoleon, had taken away their voters. The 
 opposition was scarcely shown except in the salons and in 
 newspapers brought in from foreign countries (England, Bel- 
 gium, and Switzerland). The government watched the frontier 
 and searched travellers, to prevent the entry of books and papers 
 hostile to the Emperor. 
 
 The leading men of the country were absorbed in business 
 undertakings. The great events of this period were the con- 
 struction of railroads, the creation of joint-stock companies, the 
 foundation of great financial establishments, the credit fonder, the 
 credit mobilier, agricultural societies, the World's Exposition of 
 1855, the transformation of Paris undertaken systematically by 
 Hausmann (1854), etc. Napoleon considered great public works 
 a means of winning over the industrial classes by procuring them 
 work. The only domestic political events were the Republican 
 plat of 1853 and three attacks on the Emperor. The most im- 
 portant of these attacks was made by Orsini in 1858. It was a 
 purely Italian plot, but the government used it against the, Re- 
 publicans. They forced the Qiamber to vote the General 
 Security Act. This law gave the government the power to de- 
 tain, exile, or transport without trial any person previously con- 
 demned for political offences; and to imprison or exile any per- 
 sons so condemned in the future. 
 
 Espinasse, a general well known for his share in the coup 
 d'etat, was appointed minister of the interior to apply this law. 
 He sent an order to each prefect to arrest a certain number of 
 persons, using his own choice in the selection. According to 
 Blanchard this number varied from 20 to 41 ; it was '" propor- 
 tioned to the general spirit of the department." Each prefect in- 
 terpreted the order in his own way — some limiting themselves 
 to men condemned at the time of the Republic, others taking 
 those who seemed to them dangerous, chiefly workingmen, law- 
 yers, and doctors. The object was simply to intimidate the 
 people. 
 
 Decline of the Autocratic Regime (1860-66). — ^The decisive 
 events of Napoleon III.'s reign were the foreign wars. The Em- 
 peror had the right to declare war without consulting the Cham- 
 ber. He had employed this right to pursue his personal policy 
 abroad, but his wars and his treaties reacted on his govern- 
 
DECLINE OF THE AUTOCRATIC R£GIME. i77 
 
 luent at home. The nation's fate hung upon the Emperor's for- 
 eign policy. 
 
 Up to 1857 the government had the support of the clergy 
 against the Liberals. , The Italian war alienated the clergy; by 
 setting up the Kingdom of Italy and allowing it to deprive the 
 Pope of the greater part of his states, the Emperor had aroused 
 Catholic opposition. To offset this loss Napoleon tried to win 
 over the Liberals. He began by the general amnesty of 1859, 
 perjnitting the return of all the exiles and convicts of 1851. The 
 Republicans, re-enforced by the return of their former leaders, so 
 far from fulfilling these hopes, found themselves once more 
 strong enough for open opposition. To conciliate the parlia- 
 mentary Liberals, Napoleon relaxed his legislative system. He 
 gave the Chamber the right to draw up an address in response 
 to the speech from the throne. He permitted the publication of 
 the debates in full in the official organ, the Moniteur (November, 
 i860). The ministerial budget was divided into sections on 
 which the Chamber voted separately (1861). This was returning 
 to former parliamentary practices. At the same time the Em- 
 peror, without consulting the Chamber, which he knew to be 
 dominated by protectionists, concluded with England the com- 
 mercial treaty of i860, abolishing prohibitions, and lowering pro- 
 tective duties. This was to set France on the road toward free 
 trade. 
 
 The press restrictions were also abated. Moderate opposition 
 papers were permitted, where criticism was veiled under the form 
 of allusions. The Orleanist Journal des Debats, the Republican 
 Siecle, and the Figaro began to be published. Political life had 
 begun again. 
 
 A coalition was formed between the enemies of the Empire — 
 the Republicans, the Orleanists, and even the Legitimists; this 
 was known as the Liberal Opposition. At the elections of 1863, 
 there were 35 opposition members and 249 government mem- 
 bers. Paris elected none but oppositionists. 
 
 Meanwhile Napoleon, once more taking up the democratic 
 policy set forth in Napoleonic Ideas, carried the bill of 1864 giv- 
 ing workingmen the rig'ht of forming unions. 
 
 In the Chamber elected in 1863 parliamentary life awoke again. 
 The minority tried to excite public opinion by speeches against 
 the government. They attacked their military expeditions 
 (especially the Mexican campaign), their expenses and their bor- 
 rowings (Berryer in 1865 reproached the government with hav- 
 
178 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 ing in 12 years created a deficit equal to that of previous gov- 
 ernments in 50). Their system of police and of repression were 
 also attacked. (Thiers demanded the necessary liberties). The 
 Catholic party, working independently, attacked the policy 
 adopted in Italy. The contest became acute when the govern- 
 ment forbade the publication of the Syllabus, as " containing 
 propositions contrary to the principles upon which the Consti- 
 tution of France rested " (January, 1865). The bishops pro- 
 tested; the protestation was condemned by the Council of State. 
 The speech from the throne promised to " maintain the rights of 
 the civil power " ; the bishops continued to protest. The Cath- 
 olic party, having become hostile to the government, made war 
 on Duruy, the minister of public education. The bishops pro- 
 tested against the creation of a course of secondary education for 
 girls. They presented, and supported before the Senate, petitions 
 denouncing the University instruction as materialistic (1868). 
 
 Little by little there grew up a Liberal-Imperialist party, dis- 
 posed to sustain the Emperor, but dissatisfied with the govern- 
 ment of his ministers ; the latter were reproached with acting each 
 for himself and arbitrarily. The Emperor, who was now begin- 
 ning to suffer in health, and who, besides, had never cared to oc- 
 cupy himself with home affairs, was not strong enough to main- 
 tain harmony among his ministers and to prevent their abuse of 
 power. The Chamber, deprived of all control over the ministers, 
 was reduced to the registration of laws and budgets. In accord- 
 ance with the doctrine of the liberal Constitutionalists, they de- 
 manded a coherent ministry, wishing to secure to the Chamber 
 a controlling power over the government and a means of inter- 
 vention in general politics. A group of deputies constituted 
 themselves a " third party " and proposed an amendment to the 
 address; this was the only occasion open to the Chamber for 
 showing an opinion on general political affairs. The amendment 
 received 63 votes in 1865 ^"d again in 1866. 
 
 The third party demanded, not the complete parliamentary sys- 
 tem, but what was known as the " development of political lib- 
 erty," that is to say, a responsible ministry, common law for the 
 press, freedom of public meeting (in 1865 the trial of the thirteen 
 had just taken place: thirteen political men condemned under the 
 law forbidding a meeting of more than 20 persons). The third 
 party's struggle against the government took the form of a 
 rivalry between Rouher, the leading minister, a declared advocate 
 of the autocratic regime, and Ollivier, one of the 5 Republican 
 
THE LIBERAL CONCESSIONS. 179 
 
 dq)uties, who had entered into relations with the Emperor since 
 1864. This rivalry covered a difference of views regarding 
 foreign policy. Rouher favoured war, or at least a warlike tone 
 toward Prussia and Italy, as did also the Empress and the Catho- 
 lic party, naturally devoted to the Pope and to Austria. The 
 third party wanted peace. 
 
 After the war of 1866 and the Mexican disaster, the Emperor, 
 feeling himself isolated in Europe and disapproved by even his 
 own subordinates, decided to look to the third party for support. 
 This intention he announced by the letter of January 19, 1867. 
 
 The Liberal Concessions (1867-69). — ^The new regime first gave 
 the Chamber the right of questioning the ministers on every act 
 of either foreign or domestic policy. The Senate's function was 
 precisely defined: to examine every law passed by the Chamber 
 and cancel it if it seemed contrary to the constitution. The Em- 
 peror had also promised a press law and a law on public meet- 
 ings. But he hesitated, wavering between the influence of 
 Rouher and that of Ollivier, and finally, in 1868, decided to pre- 
 sent the promised laws. 
 
 The press law abolished the government's discretionary power, 
 that is to say, the regime of administrative authorizations and 
 warnings. A permit was no longer necessary for establishing a 
 newspaper, a declaration being sufficient. Journals could no 
 longer be suppressed save by judicial process; but press trials 
 remained subject to the courts of summary process, not to jury 
 courts; and press ofifences were still visited with heayy penalties. 
 It was still forbidden to discuss the constitution 'or to publish 
 anything about legislative debates except the official report. 
 
 The law relating to public meetings permitted any seven citi- 
 zens to hold a public political meeting, on signing a declaration 
 assuming responsibility for its lawful character. It had to be 
 held in a closed hall and in the presence of a government agent 
 empowered to break it up. The government reserved the right 
 to postpone or to forbid any such meeting. 
 
 After 1866 the government tried to get the Chamber to agree 
 to a new military organization. The army, formed partly of re- 
 enlisted soldiers or substitutes, partly of conscripts drafted for 
 seven years' service, was a small, professional army. Even by 
 calling out the reserve, created in 1861 and formed of conscripts 
 serving only a few months, the whole army amounted to only 
 600,000 men. Military obligation was very unevenly distributed, 
 falling only on the poor. In place of substitution the government 
 
l8o THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE.^ 
 
 had in 1855 passed a law allowing a money payment in commuta- 
 tion of the service. The state used this money to procure an 
 experienced soldier in place of the man excused. After the cam- 
 paign of 1866, Niel, minister of war, proposed universal military 
 service like that of Prussia, but the Chamber would not consent 
 to it. It seemed still impossible in France, as in all other Euro- 
 pean countries, to induce the young men of the middle classes to 
 perform military service. The Republican party (Jules Simon) 
 proposed to adopt the Swiss system : universal service reduced to 
 a few weeks, — the time necessary to learn the trade, — the army to 
 be transformed into a defensive national militia. This system 
 would have required a policy of peace; it was barely discussed. 
 
 The Chamber finally compromised, granting the government 
 a service of nine years in two periods, five years with the active 
 army, and four with the reserve — which was expected to yield a 
 force of 800,000 men. The government renounced the require- 
 ment of actual service in the garde mobile, which was to include all 
 those exempted from service in the army. The guard was offi- 
 cially created, but remained on paper merely. 
 
 The Republicans took advantage of the partial liberty granted 
 by the laws of 1868 to make open opposition to the Empire in 
 their papers and in public meetings. This was the time of the 
 Lanterne (founded in 1868, and condemned after its third issue); 
 of the subscription in honour of Baudin, the representative killed 
 in the coup d'etat of 1851, and of the trial of the subscribers 
 wherein Gambetta made the speech which made him famous 
 (November, 1868). 
 
 In the Chamber, the deputies who favoured autocratic govern- 
 ment, being dissatisfied with the Liberal concessions and the 
 policy of peace, banded themselves together as a party, and were 
 known as the Arcadiens (they met at the Rue de I'Arcade). Their 
 program was to force a war in order to re-establish the honour 
 and influence of France, so greatly compromised by the Prussian 
 victories. A victorious war, they thought, would strengthen the 
 Imperial dynasty and permit a return to the autocratic regime. 
 
 The liberal Empire and the Radical Party (1869-70).— The 
 general elections of 1869 definitely decided Napoleon to adopt a 
 new system. Royalists and Republicans were united against the 
 government. The opposition, working in harmony, had, since 
 1863, gained a million and a half of voters, while the government 
 had lost a million. In the Chamber, the third party was becom- 
 ing the ruling force. They drew up an interpellafcion signed by 
 
THE LIBERAL EMPIRE AND THE RADICAL PARTY. i8l 
 
 1 16 deputies, demanding a responsible ministry. United with 40 
 deputies of the Left they henceforth held the majority. The Em- 
 peror at first granted only one-half; he promised to increase the 
 powers of the House, but without any mention of the ministry 
 (July 12). He then dismissed Rouher, changed three ministers, 
 and finally accepted a plan which became the senatorial decree 
 of September, 1869. 
 
 In this new system, the Chamber became a real parliamentary 
 assembly like that of England, electing its officers and making 
 its own rules. It had tlie initiative in lawmaking, the right to 
 demand explanations of ministerial policy and pronounce a de- 
 cisive judgment thereon; the right to vote the budget and to 
 discuss amendments clause by clause^ The Senate also became 
 a deliberative body, with public sessions, the right to question 
 the ministers, and to make its own rules. It had the power to 
 reject any bill passed by the Chamber which it declared to be 
 contrary to the constitution. The ministers deliberated in coun- 
 cil; they were dependent only on the Emperor, but were/respon- 
 sible, the Senate being, however, the body entitled to impeach 
 them. Ministerial responsibility was thus at once proclaimed and 
 rendered nugatory. 
 
 Napoleon, weakened by disease (he was believed to be dying in 
 August, 1869), took his time in reorganizing his government. He 
 admitted that a new system required new men and he was in 
 negotiation with Ollivier, leader of the third party; but he wished 
 to keep some of the old ministers. Meanwhile, contrary to the 
 constitution, he neglected to convoke the Chamber. When it 
 at length meit, he announced to it officially a system of govern- 
 ment " equally removed from reaction and from revolutionary 
 theories," founded at once on order and liberty. " I answer 
 for order; help me to save liberty." 
 
 Thus began the Liberal Empire. It was not a true parlia- 
 mentary system; the Emperor continued to exercise the exec- 
 utive power through ministers of his own choice, and the power 
 of changing the constitution through the Senate, whose mem- 
 bers he himself appointed. As to the policy to be pursued, the 
 third party was divided; the great majority followed Ollivier, who 
 was content with the new system. A group led by old parlia- 
 mentarians (Bufifet, Daru) was disposed to demand more power 
 for the elected Chamber and formed itself into the Left Centre; 
 the rest of the third party became the Right Centre. The old 
 government party (the official deputies) formed the Right; the 
 
1 82 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 Arcadians took the Extreme Right. After long negotiations, 
 Ollivier was charged by the Emperor to form a homogeneous 
 cabinet representing the majority in the Chamber. iThis was 
 the ministry of January 2, 1870, composed of four deputies of 
 the Right Centre, four of the Left Centre, and three of the pre- 
 vious ministry. With the third party and the deputies of the 
 Right professedly supporting the ministry, it had an enormous 
 majority in the Chamber to support it in the experiment of the 
 Liberal Empire. It announced certain measures relating to the 
 press, the repeal of the law of 1858, and permission to sell news- 
 papers in the streets. 
 
 The Left continued in opposition, unable to forgive Napoleon 
 for the coup d'etat or Ollivier for his conversion to the Empire. 
 Although powerless in the Chamber, where they controlled hardly 
 40 votes, they had the advantage of representing the most ardent 
 part of political France, all the large cities, the labouring classes, 
 and the students. The prefect of police affirmed this as early 
 as 1867. " The masses . . . remain true to the Emperor. . . 
 The active portion of society, that which is most interested in 
 politics, is strong in radical and systematic opposition." The 
 Left opposed the Empire in the name of liberty and the parlia- 
 mentary system; but they were mainly Republicans. 
 
 An openly Republican party, the Irreconciliables, had been 
 organized during the elections of 1869. It was made up of the 
 remains of the Republican party of '48 and the young generation 
 brought up under their influence. This party revived the tradi- 
 tions of the democraitic republic of 1793 and 1848. The majority 
 of the party, who began to be known as the Radicals, demanded 
 in the name of the sovereignity of the nation a regime similar to 
 that of Switzerland and the United States. This appeared in the 
 Belleville program (Gambetta's election program in 1869). It 
 demanded " the most radical application of universal suffrage " 
 in the election of municipal councillors and of deputies — "individ- 
 ual liberty placed under the shield of the law," liberty of the press, 
 of public meetings and clubs, and jury trial for all political of- 
 fences — " primary lay instruction, gratuitous and compulsory," 
 " competitive examination for admission to the higher courses " 
 — separation of Church and state — " suppression of standing 
 armies " — modification of the tax system — the election of all 
 officials — " direct responsibility of all officials," the suggestion 
 being that Article 75 of the Constitution of the year VIII. , then 
 still in force, should be repealed. This article forbade the prose- 
 
THE LIBERAL EMPIRE AND THE RADICAL PARTY. 183 
 
 cution of an official for abuse of power, except by consent of the 
 government.* 
 
 With the Radical party were mingled Socialists, few in number, 
 without organization and without a party program, disciples of 
 Proudhon (Mutualists), advocating social reform by industrial 
 association, partisans of state intervention, and a revolutionary 
 Blanquist group. But the political contest absorbed all public 
 interest. The Belleville program limited itself to a vague allusion 
 to the " economic reforms which affect the social problem, the 
 solution of which is almost dependent on political transforma- 
 tion." 
 
 The Republican party excited public interest by demonstrations 
 against the Empire. The most effective was at the funeral of 
 Victor Noir (January 2, 1870), who had been killed by Prince 
 Pierre Bonaparte. There were at least 100,000 persons present, 
 and they seemed disposed to make an outbreak. Since 1866 there 
 had been a series of strikes in the country and small uprisings in 
 Paris. But Paris at the end of the Empire was no longer the 
 Paris of 1848; it had been enlarged by all the suburbs within the 
 fortifications (8 new arrondissements), inhabited by workingmen 
 ■and strongly Republican. The former barricading quarters were 
 "wiped out or traversed by great avenues without paving stones, 
 and open to a cavalry charge or artillery fire. No insurrection 
 could any more avail against the Paris garrison provided with 
 perfected arms. The street warfare which had once done so 
 much for the Republicans was now out of the question. 
 
 Even in the heart of the ministry the Left Centre demanded the 
 repeal of the two remaining features of the autocratic regime: the 
 right of the government to fix the boundaries of electoral dis- 
 tricts and to present official candidates ; and, secondly, the exclu- 
 sive power of the Senate in amending the constitution. The 
 Left took advantage of this to expose the false position of the 
 ministers. Jules Favre called them "the sentinels who mount 
 guard over the personal government in order to make us credit 
 the existence ol a parliamentary regime." The Left then per- 
 suaded Ollivier to declare himself publicly against the system of 
 official candidature. A portion of the Right, irritated by this 
 declaration, broke away from the majority, and formed a group 
 of imperialist opposition (February 26). Ollivier, bound by his 
 promises of reform, finally proposed to the Senate a revision of 
 the constitution. 
 
 The revision was accepted (April 20), and the constitution 
 
 * It remained in force till 1870. 
 
1 84 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC EMPIRE. 
 
 modified in accordance with the parliamentary system. The 
 Senate became, like that of all other countries, an upper house, 
 sharing the legislative power with the elected house. Its consti- 
 tution-making power, created in 1852, was taken from it and 
 given to the nation; that is to say, no change could be made in the 
 constitution except by plebiscite. 
 
 On the advice of Rouher, the Emperor decided to apply the 
 new principle by inviting the people to vote on this proposition: 
 " The French nation approves the liberal reforms made in the 
 constitution since i860, and ratifies the senatorial decree of April 
 20, 1870." The affirmative vote showed at once that the people 
 ratified the liberal reforms by accepting the transformation of the 
 imperial regime, " and that they desired to retain the Emperor and 
 facilitate the transmission of the crown to his son." The Re- 
 publicans declared that they regarded the plebiscite as a means of 
 confiscating the national will and decided to vote no. The auto- 
 cratic Imperialists and Liberals voted yes. The ministry or- 
 dered all officials to display a " devouring activity " in urging the 
 affirmative vote. The plebiscite of May 8 gave more than 
 7,000,000 yes, and 1,500,000 no. 
 
 The liberal Empire seemed consolidated by this enormous ma- 
 jority. But the Left Centre ministers, who opposed the plebis- 
 cite, had retired. Daru, advocate of peace, was replaced in the 
 office of foreign affairs by an enemy of Prussia and Italy, the 
 Duke of Gramont. He it was who embroiled France in the war 
 with Prussia. The belligerent and autocratic party resumed con- 
 trol of the government; the ministry, constituted on a peace pro- 
 gram, let itself be persuaded to declare war in the name of 
 national honour. The Chamber supported the ministry by refus- 
 ing (159 votes against 84) to exact the communication of diplo- 
 matic documents, and by voting an appropriation of 500,000,000 
 francs for the mobilization of the army. They were, however, 
 counting on a sure victory ; the minister of war said : " We are 
 ready, more than ready " ; and Ollivier : " We accept the responsi- 
 bility with a light heart." 
 
 At the news of the first defeats, the ministry was abandoned by 
 the majority, a declaration of want of confidence was passed by 
 the Chamber. The Empress, acting as regent in the absence of 
 the Emperor, who had gone to the front, intrusted General Pali- 
 kao with the task of forming a ministry. This ministry, taken 
 from the belligerent Right, was the last ministry of the Empire. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 1 8$ 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 For a bibliography see chap. v. 
 
 SOURCES. — For parliamentary, legislative, and judicial documents, 
 and the annuals, see the preceding chapter. Of the parliamentary docu- 
 ments the most important is the Inquiry regarding May 15 and the Days of 
 June. For the newspapers, which were very numerous from 1848 to 1851, 
 see " Catal. de I'Hist. de France," vol. iv. The leading publications of 
 the Imperial period are : Journal des Dibats (Liberal), the Sikcle (Repub.), 
 the Temps (since 1861), the Pays (Imperialist), the Univers (Catholic). 
 
 In the category of memoirs and correspondence : 
 
 On the Period 1848-51. — Odilon Barrot, 4 vols., 1875. — Tocqueville, 1893. — 
 Froadhon, 1849. — Ganssidiere, 2 vols., 1849 (details for the prefecture of 
 police). — DelaHodde, "La Naissance de la Republique," 1850 ; the author 
 was a spy connected with the secret societies. — L. Blaac, " Revolution de 
 Fevrier au Luxembourg," 1849. — E. Thomas, " Hist, des Ateliers Nationaux," 
 1848. — The following histories can only be regarded as recollections : 
 lamartine, 1849; Garnier-Fages, 1861 ; L.Blanc, 1870. 
 
 On the Coup d'Stat. — Pascal Duprat, " Les Tables de Proscription de L 
 Bonaparte," 2 vols., 1852. 
 
 On the Period 1851-70. — De Uaupas, 2 vols., 1884. — H. de Tiel-Castel, 6 
 vols., 1884; untrustworthy. — GranierdeCassagnac, 3 vols., 1879. — Hausmann, 
 1890 ; Persigny, 1896, both of little real value. — Sarimon, various works, each 
 with a title, forming a series of recollections. — Ollivier, a series under vari- 
 ous titles. —Ebeling,i8gi.—Beaumont-Vas3y, 1874.— Banc, 1878.— See especially 
 Senior (Nassau- W.), "Conversations with Thiers, Guizot," etc., 2 vols., 
 1878, a collection of interviews with persons of different parties from 1852 
 to i860, details on France's internal system during the period when the 
 newspapers could not write freely. — " La Censure sous Napoleon III., 1852- 
 66," 1892 ; reports on the dramatic censorship. — " Papiers et Corresp. de la 
 Famille Imp6riale," 2 vols,, 1870-72; completed by E. Halt, " Papiers Sauves 
 des Tuileries," 1871, a collection of documents of all sorts found in the 
 Tuileries, published by the republican government. 
 
 WORKS.— There is no satisfactory general history. 
 
 On the Revolution of 1848.— Dan. Stern (Comtesse d 'Agout), " Hist, de 
 la R^vol. de 1848," 3 vols., 1850 (Repub.).— V.Fierre, " Hist, de la RSpub. de 
 1848," 2 vols., 1873-78 (Conservative).— L. Stein, " Gesch. derSozialen Bewe- 
 gung in Frankreich," 1850, is so far the most scientific work on the Revo- 
 lution of 1848. 
 
 On the Republic. — V.Fierre, already mentioned. — F, delaGorce, " Hist, 
 de la 2= Repub. Frang.," 2 vols., 1887 (strongly Conservative).— E. SpuUer, 
 " Hist. Parlement. de la 2" Repub.," 1891.— TMrria, " Napoleon III. avant 
 I'Empire," vol. ii., 1895. 
 
 On the Empire.— P.delaGorc0, vols. i. and ii., 1894-96, in course of publi- 
 cation, (Conservative).— TaxileDelord, "Hist. du2e Empire," 6 vols., 1870, 
 (Repub.), still the most complete work.— BuUe, " Gesch. desZweiten Kaiser- 
 reichs und des Konigreichs Italien " (Oncken coll.), a scientific populari- 
 zation. , . T^i -U 
 
 Monographs on Special Events.— E, Tenot, " La Province en D6cembre, 
 
l86 THE REPUBLIC AND THE DEMOCRATIC -EMPIRE. 
 
 51," 1865. "Paren Decembre, 1851," 1868, story of the coup d'etat 
 Repub.). — E. Tenot, " Les Suspects en 1858," i86g. 
 
 On the End of the Empire.— L 'Abrantes, " Essai sur la Regence de 
 1870," 1879. 
 
 On Finance. — G. duFuynode, " L'Administration des Finances en 1848- 
 49," 1849.— De Nervo, "Les Finances de la France de 1852 k i860," 5 vols., 
 1861. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 Government of National Defence. — ^The Imperial govern- 
 ment defended itself against the Republican population of Paris 
 by means of its army. When the army was lost in the Prussian 
 war the Empire fell without resistance. At the news of the 
 capitulation of Sedan, the Left proposed that the Corps Legis- 
 latif should vote the fall of the Empire and elect a committee of 
 government (September 3). The ministers tried to save the Re- 
 gency by bringing up a project signed by the Empress, insti- 
 tuting a council of 5 deputies (September 4, 1870). Thiers pro- 
 posed a committee. The Corps Legislatif, however, had no time 
 to vote; the mob broke in crying: "Down with the Empire! 
 Long live the Republic ! " and the Republic was proclaimed in 
 the midst of tumult. The Paris deputies, uniting with Trochu, 
 the military governor, constituted a " Government of National 
 Defence." This government refused to negotiate with the Cham- 
 ber, and, holding to Republican tradition, established itself in 
 the Hotel de Ville. As in 1848, the Republic grew out of an 
 insurrectionary movement. But in '48 it was imposed by a bare 
 half of Paris upon all the rest of France, whereas in 1870 it was 
 demanded by a large party which controlled all the large cities 
 and a part of the centre and east. In Lyons, Bordeaux, and 
 Marseilles the Republic had been proclaimed without waiting for 
 news from Paris. 
 
 The Government of the National Defence lasted till the end of 
 the war. It divided itself into two sections: the principal por- 
 tion was besieged with the rest of Paris; a delegation of 3 mem- 
 bers, re-enforced presently by Gambetta's escape from Paris in 
 a balloon (October 6), governed the rest of France. It was sta- 
 tioned first at Tours, later at Bordeaux. 
 
 In Paris the government experienced a crisis like that in 1848. 
 The Republican party, as in '48, was made up of Democrats and 
 Socialists; the Democrats alone had taken command. But in 
 
 187 
 
l88 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 organizing the national guard arms were given to all the able- 
 bodied men in Paris (over 300,000), which placed the govern- 
 ment at the mercy of the national guards. A revolutionary 
 party, following the eternal insurgent Blanqui, demanded the 
 creation of a Commune of Paris elected by universal suffrage, as 
 in 1792. They adopted the Blanquist tactics of a sudden attack 
 on the seat of government, and took advantage of the public 
 feeling against Trochu,. who was accused of having made a weak 
 defence for the city. At the news of the capitulation of Metz 
 and of the armistice officially proclaimed, the national guards of 
 Belleville marched on the Hotel de Ville and took possession of 
 it, crying : " War to the death ! Commune ! " They held the 
 government prisoner (October 31) until it was released by the 
 national guards of other parts of the city. Then, to strengthen 
 its position, the government organized a plebiscite of the inhabi- 
 tants of Paris, and won a heavy majority in favour of its powers 
 (357,000 yes, 62,000 no). There was only one other attack on 
 the Hotel de Ville, at the end of the siege; the government, for 
 answer, closed the clubs and appointed two councils of war 
 (January 22). 
 
 In the country the delegation was directed by Gambetta, min- 
 ister of the interior and of war, whO' exercised an almost abso- 
 lute authority. He replaced the imperial officials with an impro- 
 vised set of his own choosing, appointed local agents invested 
 with indefinite powers, dissolved the councils general of the de- 
 partments (December 25), ordered levies of men and requisitioes; 
 O'f supplies, issued proclamations and commands as if he were 
 a king. He worked in the name of the nation's welfare, with- 
 out control, as had been done in 1793. He met with no resist- 
 ance, except an outbreak at Lyons, where a body of guerrillas 
 (franc-tireurs), occupied the prefecture (September 22) and tried 
 to establish a commune. The federations of departments, which 
 were formed under the name of leagues (League of the West at 
 Rennes, of the South at Toulouse, of the Southeast at Marseilles), 
 existed only in name. 
 
 The government called itself provisional; the nature of the gov- 
 ernment to be established must depend on the decision of two 
 questions: What government will the Germans recognise? 
 What will be the sovereign assembly elected by the French? 
 The difficulty was to get Germany to accept the Republic and tb 
 get the voters to ratify it. 
 
 The German government hesitated. Bismarck had an inter- 
 
ELECTION OF THE ASSEMBLY AND THE COMMUNE. 189 
 
 view with Jules Favre, the delegate from the National Defence, 
 at Ferrieres (September 19), without any result. Favre would 
 entertain no cession of territory and Bismarck insisted on 
 surrender of a fort commanding Paris in exchange for an armis- 
 tice. There was still in Metz an Imperial army; the general-in- 
 chief, Bazairie, sent a request to the King of Prussia that this 
 army might be allowed to march out and restore order and the 
 Empire in Paris. The King agreed, on condition that the army 
 declared itself ready to maintain the power of the Empress as 
 Regent, and that the Empress should call on the nation to ratify 
 the peace and the cession of the territories demanded by Prus- 
 sia. The Empress, in London, on the advice of her council, de- 
 clared herself unable to accept any mutilation of France (Octo- 
 ber 23) and demanded an armistice for the army at Metz. The 
 King refused, and Bazaine's army capitulated a few days later. 
 After this the German government, renouncing the re-establish- 
 ment of the Empire, negotiated only with the National Defence 
 and tried to secure the election of a representative assembly 
 which alone could conclude terms of peace. 
 
 The government at Paris hesitated. They believed that the 
 voters would elect a Republican assembly, but they knew that 
 the prevailing sentiment was for peace, and they insisted, for the 
 honour of France, upon continuing the war to the very end. The 
 Delegation of Tours had appointed a general election for Octo- 
 ber 16; the government of Paris annulled the decree, and sent 
 Thiers to the German camp to negotiate for a truce. Bismarck 
 demanded some of the forts of Paris, then proposed to have the 
 assembly elected without an armistice; the government refused. 
 Outside Paris Gambetta was urging war to the bitter end. The 
 moment for securing a Republican assembly was thus allowed to 
 slip by. An impression got abroad that the election of Repub- 
 licans would mean the continuation of the war. 
 
 The Election of the Assembly and the Commune. — In signing 
 the capitulation of Paris the government accepted an armistice 
 that a National Assembly might be elected. They went back to 
 the forms of 1848. iThe elections were made by general ticket 
 for each department, the Whole number of deputies being fixed 
 at 750. A plurality was sufiScient to elect. The deputies were 
 to be paid at the rate fixed in 1848. Gambetta, at B'ordeaux, 
 added, contrary to the conditions of the armistice, a clause de- 
 claring ineligible all persons who' had been officials or deputies 
 or official candidates under the Empire. He thus placed him- 
 
ipo THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 self in open opposition to the government kt Paris, which an- 
 nulled his decree. 
 
 The election of February 8, 1871, was held without prepara- 
 tion. The Imperialists, whom Gambetta had wished to shut out, 
 dared not present themselves. The electors had the choice, in 
 Paris, between government partisans and revolutionists. In the 
 country the choice was between Republicans supported by the 
 Bordeaux delegation on the one hand, and opponents of Gam- 
 betta, mostly Royalists and dissenting Republicans, on the other. 
 Paris elected many revolutionists; the invaded departments and 
 the southeast sent chiefly Republicans. But in almost all the rest 
 of France the peasants avoided the Republican ticket as the " war 
 ticket " and voted for the " peace ticket," that is to say, in opposi- 
 tion to Gambetta. As in 1849, the majority in the Assembly 
 was made up of men of the old monarchist parties (Orleanists 
 and Legitimists), elected by the peasants. 'The Republicans 
 nicknamed it the " Assembly of clod-hoppers." 
 
 The Assembly, meeting at Bordeaux, refused to proclaim the 
 Republic and declared that they " would await the nation's de- 
 cision as to the definitive form of government." They limited 
 themselves to the election of a head of the executive power (Thiers, 
 the popular man of the moment), who should exercise his power 
 under the supervision of the Assembly and with the aid of min- 
 isters chosen and directed by himself. This was the compact of 
 Bordeaux (February 17). Thiers chose his ministers among 
 moderate Republicans and declared himself to be without a pro- 
 gram, except to bring peace to the country, restore France's 
 credit, and revive her industry. The Assembly voted for peace 
 and the deposition of Napoleon, then established itself at Ver- 
 sailles (March, 1871). 
 
 The population of Paris, already wearied with a long siege, 
 were unwilling to obey the Assembly of Versailles, which they 
 suspected of wishing to suppress the Republic and deprive Paris 
 of its position as the capital of France. Two practical measures 
 completed the exasperation of the Parisians. The Government 
 of the National Defence had, during the siege, suspended the 
 payment of rents and notes in Paris. The Assembly refused to 
 prolong the stay-law. In the course of negotiations with the 
 Germans for the disarmament of the garrison of Paris, Favre had 
 insisted upon the national guardsmen retaining their arms; the 
 Parisians had thus remained armed. The pay of the national 
 guard (a franc and a half a day) was the only means of sub- 
 
ELECTION OF THE ASSEMBLY AND THE COMMUNE. 191 
 
 sistence for many while awaiting a renewal of ordinary occupa- 
 tions. The Assembly suppressed this payment, except in the 
 case of persons provided with a certificate of indigence. 
 
 There was in Paris a revolutionary party with a vaguely so^ 
 cialist tendency, made up chjefly from the eastern suburbs. This 
 party set on foot a " Republican Federation of the National 
 Guard," with the avowed object of defending the interests of the 
 national guard and of resisting every attempt against the Re- 
 public (March 3). The federation was to be directed by a Cen- 
 tral Committee of 60 delegates. The Central Committee, con- 
 stituted on March 15, was in reality composed of only about 30 
 delegates, but it acted as the representative of the whole national 
 guard and undertook to place Paris in rebellion, and act as its 
 government. 
 
 Several cannon had been brought to Montmartre by the na- 
 tional guards; the provisional Central Committee having refused 
 to give them up, the Versailles government sent soldiers to seize 
 them, but they were repulsed. Two generals were captured and 
 shot by the insurgents. The Central Committee installed itself 
 at the Hotel de Ville (March 10). Thus the insurrection began. 
 
 Only a part of Paris accepted the insurgent government. The 
 national guards of the western quarters adhered to the " party 
 of order," that is to say, the government of the Assembly. They 
 made a pacific demonstration which ended in a massacre. The 
 mayors of Paris negotiated between the Central Committee and 
 the Assembly; they obtained, to appease the Parisians, delay in 
 the collection of rents and debts, the right of the national guard 
 to elect its own officers and the election of the members of the 
 Communal Council of Paris by universal suffrage. The election 
 on March 26 gave a strong majority to the partisans of the Cen- 
 tral Committee; the members elected by the party of conciliation 
 refused to sit. The rupture was complete. 
 
 The French government had evacuated Paris and the forts, 
 even Mont Valerien, which it had reoccupied. Whether because 
 Thiers thought himself unable to dispute Paris with the insur- 
 gents or because he wished for a war to get rid of the revolution- 
 ary party, the government had not supported the national guards 
 of its own party in Paris, and had concentrated all its troops at 
 Versailles to defend the Assembly. Paris was thus in insurrec- 
 tion against the rest of France. 
 
 The " Council General " of the Commune assumed the gov- 
 ernment; but the Central Committee continued to sit in order, as 
 
192 THE PARLIMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 it said, to serve as a link between the Council and the national 
 guard ; and there was no division of powers between the two. It 
 was this motley government that bore the name of the Commune. 
 
 It began by disarming the national guards favourable to the 
 Assembly. It established compulsory military service for all 
 able-bodied men, and declared void all acts of the " Versailles 
 government." It established ten committees,, the chief one be- 
 ing the Executive Committee of seven members, which was re- 
 placed later by nine delegates, one from each of the other com- 
 mittees; each of these nine took the title of a minister as if it 
 were at the head of a department. 
 
 The Commune adopted the Republican calendar and the red 
 flag, which had become the emblem of the Socialist party, but it 
 was made up of a coalition of revolutionists without a common 
 program. Of the 78 new members sitting in the Council, 
 only a score, members of the International, bad projects of social 
 reform (Varlin, Malon, Frankel) ; a score were Blanquists, parti- 
 sans of a violent revolution, without definite aim; the rest were 
 democrats of the pattern of 1793, inaccurately called Jacobins 
 (Valles, Rigault), Mountaineers of '49, with vague socialistic as- 
 pirations (Delescluze, F. Pyat), or perhaps sceptics who had 
 joined the revolution for the sake of power. 
 
 The Commune was never anything more than a tumultuous' 
 organization born of insurrection. It was regarded both in 
 France and abroad as a gathering of adventurers without politi- 
 cal standing. Its supporters, who called themselves Federh, 
 were known under the name of Communards. They were not 
 ■even recognised as belligerents; from the beginning of the fight- 
 ing the government had its prisoners shot. The Commune re- 
 plied by imprisoning notable persons " suspected of an under- 
 standing with Versailles," as hostages doomed to be shot by way 
 of reprisal. , 
 
 In several large cities (Marseilles, Toulouse, Saint-Etienne, 
 Narbonne) a revolutionary party tried to establish a commune, 
 independent of the National Asserhbly. All these movements 
 were quickly suppressed. At Lyons alone an irregular govern- 
 ment established itself peaceably ; it set up the red flag, but in the 
 end quietly dispersed. The civil war was confined to Paris. It 
 began with a march of the insurgents on Versailles; but it soon 
 took the form of a siege of Paris by the national army, now re- 
 organized and in possession of Mont Valerien. 
 
 The Commune, busied with the war, failed to organize a gov- 
 
ELECTION OF THE ASSEMBLY AND THE COMMUNE. 193 
 
 ernment or even a police. In the matter of social reforms it voted 
 only certain measures of detail proposed by the Internationalists; 
 it did not even attempt to seize the money of the Bank of France. 
 Its chief political act was the proclamation of April 19, which ex- 
 pressed the theory of government as "absolute communal 
 autonomy extended to all parts of France." All communes 
 should exercise "the rights inherent in the commune: the right 
 of voting the communal budget, of fixing and apportioning the 
 taxes — of controlling the local services — of organizing the magis- 
 tracy, internal police, and education — of administering the com- 
 munal property — ^of choosing public ofificers by election or 
 competition, with permanent right of dismissal — of organizing 
 the national guard, which should elect its own ofificers, and 
 should be sole guardian of order." — " The unity of France " 
 would thus be assured by the association of the " communes ad- 
 herent to the contract "; each commune should be sovereign, and 
 the communes should be united by a federal tie. This was the 
 opposite of the regime upheld hitherto by the French revolution- 
 ary party, which, following the traditions of the Convention of 
 1792, had ordinarily favoured an all-powerful central government 
 — ^that is to say, Paris directly governing France. But the 
 theory of communal autonomy, perhaps introduced by Bakou- 
 nine, harmonized with the existing situation of the Commune; 
 in insurrection against the central government of France it asked 
 only for the control of Paris, hoping to control France indirectly 
 by the example Paris should give to the other communes. 
 
 This regime came to an end with the taking of Paris. The 
 burnings and the massacre of the hostages perpetrated during the 
 street fights were without authority of the Council, which had al- 
 ready dispersed. But the impression prevailed throughout 
 France that the supporters of the Commune had made a system- 
 atic attempt to destroy Paris, and it seemed legitimate to treat 
 them as criminals. This was the fiercest civil war of the century, 
 and the suppression of the revolt was the bloodiest. Many taken 
 -with arms in their hands were shot on the spot. The ofificial 
 statement of the number of burials was 6500 (the true number 
 killed is unknown). The prisoners were judged by councils of 
 war; 7500 were sent to New Caledonia; there were 13,000 con- 
 demnations. Those in authority disregarded the French usage 
 which distinguishes political crimes from common-law crimes; 
 they condemned, without precise rules, some to the political 
 punishment of transportation, others to imprisonment with hard 
 
194 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 labour as ordinary criminals. Those who had escaped were con- 
 demned as fugitives from justice. The councils of war went on 
 until 1876; in that year they condemned 52 persons. The rev- 
 olutionary party, exhausted by this " blood-letting," was unable 
 to make head as a party any more. There remained only two 
 parties in the field, the Republican and the Monarchical. 
 
 Government of Thiers (1871-73). — The Assembly had been 
 elected without limit of term. After the complementary elections 
 of July, 1871, it was evident that a majority of the voters wished 
 to maintain the republic. But the Assembly held the sovereign 
 power, and there was no legal method of compelling it to relin- 
 quish it; it retained control for nearly five years (February, 1871- 
 January, 1876). In spite of the protestations of the Left, which 
 denied its " constituent " power, and in spite of petitions demand- 
 ing its dissolution, it took upon itself the task of giving France a 
 constitution. 
 
 It was a time of parliamentary agitation. The Assembly had 
 no compact majority; it was divided into groups: Legitimist 
 Extreme Right, Royalist Right, Orleanist Parliamentary Right 
 Centre, Republican Left Centre, Republican Left, Extreme Left, 
 besides the Imperialist party, which had been strengthened at the 
 complementary elections. Certain independents formed small 
 groups which wavered between the two Centres. 
 
 The government was throughout strictly parliamentary; the 
 ministry held office only so long as it had the support of a ma- 
 jority in the Assembly. Public policy therefore depended always 
 on the grouping of parties necessary in order to form a majority, 
 and the decisive question was : Shall the grouping be of the Cen- 
 tres against the Extremes, or of all the Rights against all the 
 Lefts? The two Centres had roughly the same political ideal: a 
 liberal parliamentary government controlled by the middle class 
 and favourable to the clergy. The Left Centre was composed 
 chiefly of old Orleanists like Thiers, who had gone over to the 
 Republic and universal suffrage. Between the two Centres there 
 was hardly a point of difference except as to the form of the 
 government. 
 
 The grouping was made in the first instance by an agreement 
 between the two Centres against the two extremes. The Assem- 
 bly, accepting provisionally the existing government, voted the 
 law proposed by Rivet, giving to Thiers the title .of President of 
 the Republic with the powers of a parliamentary king, but mak- 
 ing him responsible to the Assembly (August 31, 1871). The Ex- 
 
GOVERNMENT OF THIERS. 19S 
 
 treme Left voted against it, in order not to recognise the constit- 
 uent power of the Assembly. The harmony between the Centres 
 lasted nearly two years; it was during this period that the Assem- 
 bly did its work of reorganization. It recalled the Princes of 
 Orleans and restored to them their estates; issued loans of 2,000,- 
 000,000 in June, 1871, and 3,600,000,000 in July, 1872, for the 
 liberation of territory; abolished the legal-tender quality of bank 
 notes; passed the municipal and departmental laws of 1871 and 
 the military law of 1872. 
 
 In departmental administration the Assembly established the 
 decentralization which the Liberal opposition had demanded under 
 the Empire; it increased the powers of the council general,, 
 granted it two sessions yearly, made its meetings public, and 
 created the departmental committee, elected by the council, to 
 oversee matters during the interval between sessions. The right 
 of electing the mayors of the smaller communes was given to the 
 municipal councils. 
 
 The first step taken in military affairs was to do away with the 
 national guard (1871). " Of what use is it to arm everybody?" 
 said the report. " Against whom? Against everybody, since the 
 disturbers are not distinct in the mass of the nation." The army 
 was made over on the Prussian plan, recruited by compulsory 
 universal service without right of finding substitutes. It was 
 divided, as in Prussia, into four parts: active army, reserve, terri- 
 torial army, territorial reserve, with periodical practice. Educated 
 young men were granted the privilege of serving one year as vol- 
 unteers, with the obligation of finding their own equipment, as in 
 Prussia, but with the requirement of paying the government a 
 fixed sum for the ordinary equipment (1500 francs). None were 
 exempted from military service but Church men, teachers, and 
 sons of widows. The Assembly wanted a three-years' term in. 
 the active army, as in Prussia; but Thiers, who still preferred a 
 lengthy service, compelled the acceptance of a compromise, a five- 
 year service; and as it was impossible to maintain at once five full 
 classes under arms, they had to resort to drawing .lots iii order to 
 divide each year's contingent into two sections, the one to serve 
 five years, the other only six months. 
 
 The Assembly increased the revenue by new taxes (on matches, 
 paper, clubs, billiard-tables, receipts, railroad transportation), 
 and made the budget balance, but without making any complete 
 fiscal reform. 
 
 The government was attacked at once by the Royalist Right, 
 
196 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 which desired to recall the King,. and by the Extreme Left, which 
 was dissatisfied with seeing the Republic managed by men who 
 had previously been Orleanists. 
 
 The Radical opposition was almost without means of influence. 
 The government, since the Commune, had left all the large cities 
 in a state of siege, thus preserving the power of arbitrarily sup- 
 pressing every newspaper. As long as the Assembly lasted, 
 that is, until 1876, the press existed at the mercy of the govern- 
 ment. The speeches of Gambetta, leader of the Extreme Left, 
 were the main instrument of agitation. He made trips about the 
 country demanding the dissolution of the Assembly in the name 
 of the " sovereignty of the people." He announced " the coming 
 into politics of a new social stratum." Thiers, who had called 
 Gambetta's policy the policy of a raving lunatic, cerisured this 
 agitation in his official capacity. He said : " The Republic will 
 be conservative or it will cease to be." The Right showed its 
 dissatisfaction by interpellations and by contentions in favour of 
 the temporal power of the Pope, by pilgrimages, and by protesta- 
 tions against the Republic. 
 
 For a year and a half the Right Centre accepted the govern- 
 ment of Thiers and aided it in its work of reorganization. It 
 took part, however, in defeating the educational reform proposed 
 by Jules Simon and in preventing the introduction of a press law 
 which would have granted liberty to the newspapers. Little by 
 little it detached itself from Thiers. 
 
 The disagreement had reference to domestic policy and the 
 question of the constitution. Thiers wished to avoid a breach 
 with the Republicans. The Right Centre reproached Thiers 
 with not opposing energetically the agitation of the Radical 
 party and with letting the Republic get consolidated. It de- 
 manded a " fighting government " (mw gouvernement d? combat). 
 Thiers wished to escap : from the provisional situation by getting 
 the Assembly to vote a constitution which should establish the 
 Republican government definitively. " It is," said he, " the sys- 
 tem that, divides us least," " the lawful government of the coun- 
 try"; any other would be " a new revolution." The Right Centre 
 declared" that the Bordeaux agreement had established only a 
 " provisional government," and was meant to reserve to the 
 Assembly the right of choosing any other form of government. 
 The Assembly agreed to elect a committee to prepare a draft of 
 a constitution ; but in this committee of thirty the Right had a ma- 
 jority, and instead of drawing up a draft of a constitution it lim- 
 
GOVERNMENT OF THE MONARCHICAL PARTIES. 197 
 
 ited the powers of the President. Thiers had the practice of tak- 
 ing part in the debates of the Assembly, where his utterances in- 
 fluenced the wavering members. The committee declared 
 against " the personal intervention of the head of the executive 
 power in debates," and the Assembly imposed on Thiers as on a 
 parliamentary king the formality of communicating by message, 
 after the reading of which the sitting should be adjourned. 
 Thiers submitted, with a protest against this " absurdity." 
 
 The rupture became public in January, 1873, by the election of 
 a member of the Right Centre, Bufifet, to the presidency of the 
 Assembly instead of the Republican, Grevy, hitherto always re- 
 elected since 1871. Two facts made the rupture definitive. The 
 Radical candidate (Barodet) was elected deputy at Paris against 
 Thiers' candidate. People drew from this the conclusion that 
 Thiers was unable to prevent the victory of the Radicals (April 
 27, 1873). The ministry proposed to end the provisional situa- 
 tion, which it said favoured the Radical agitation ; it brought for- 
 ward bills for organizing the public powers with two Chambers 
 and a President. 
 
 The rupture was completed by an order of the day inviting the 
 President " to enforce in the government a resolutely conserva- 
 tive policy." This was carried by 360 votes against 344, thanks 
 to the little Target group which abandoned the government 
 (May 24, 1873). Thiers, instead of simply changing the ministry 
 while retaining the executive power, a course which would have 
 entailed a speedy dissolution, resigned his ofHce and handed over 
 the direction of afifairs to the enemies of the Republic. 
 
 The Government of the Monarchical Parties (1873-75). — It was 
 settled by the vote of May 24 that the grouping of the parties 
 should come about, not by the union of the Centres, but by the 
 union of the Extremes. The coalition of all the groups on 
 the Right took possession of power and kept it to the end of the 
 Assembly, in February, 1876. It elected Marshal MacMahon 
 President, selected by the Orleanists to prepare the way for the 
 return of monarchy; the groups of the Left took no part in the 
 election. The ministry, like the majority, was a coalition of three 
 parties, Orleanist, Legitimist, and Imperialist, under an"Orleanist 
 chief, the Due de Broglie. This was a " fighting government," 
 that announced the purpose of re-establishing "moral order," 
 destroyed by the Radicals; it was nicknamed Moral Order. 
 
 On three vital questions — domestic policy, constitution, and 
 Church policy — ^the coalition had a common program, at least of 
 
198 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 the negative sort. 1st, Not to let the Republicans regain power; 
 2d, Not to allow the Republic to be officially established; 3d, Not 
 to oppose the clergy. The ministry was thus united on negative 
 measures: 
 
 First. In the case of all offices held during pleasure (prefects 
 ^and sub-prefects, commissioners, inferior judges, district attor- 
 neys), it dismissed Republican office-holders and substituted Mon- 
 archists. The old office-holders of the Empire were restored to 
 their places. In order to have complete control of the adminis- 
 tration, the ministry obtained the adoption of the law of 1874, 
 which gave it the power of appointing the mayors in all the com- 
 munes (the law of 1871 had kept only the chief town in each 
 canton subject to executive appointment). In order to check the 
 Republican agitation, the government, using the state of siege, 
 exercised strict supervision over the daily papers and forbade the 
 sale of them in public places. It took advantage of the law which 
 required a prefect's license for drinking saloons, by threatening 
 to close every saloon where Republican politics were agitated. 
 It re-established in 1874 the censorship of theatres. In the by- 
 elections the ministry ordered civil servants to support actively 
 the monarchical candidate and practically re-established official 
 candidature. 
 
 Second. As regards the constitution the government pro- 
 longed the discussion of various drafts. While this was going on 
 it had the statues of the Republic removed from the city halls; 
 in all its official acts, and even in proclamations, it sedulously 
 avoided the use of the word Republic. 
 
 Third. The clergy and the Catholic party had full liberty of 
 agitation by meetings of bishops, writing in newspapers, proces- 
 sions, and pilgrimages. The great pilgrimage of 1873 to Paray- 
 le-Monial, sanctuary of the Sacred Heart, under the care of the 
 Jesuits, was a demonstration by the whole Catholic party in 
 favour of the re-establishment of the temporal power. They 
 dreamed of restoring simultaneously the King of France and the 
 Pope-King of Rome. Their solemn chant was " Save Rome and 
 France in the name of the Sacred Heart." The Assembly passed 
 an expropriation act to permit the building on Montmartre of 
 the Church of the Sacred Heart on the spot where St. Ignatius 
 gathered his first followers; this to typify the taking of Paris by 
 the Jesuits. In order to aid the soldiers in their religious duties, 
 it established the military almoners as agents of Catholic propa- 
 gandism in the regiments. The prefects opposed civil burials; 
 
GOVERNMENT OF THE MONARCHICAL PARTIES. 199 
 
 the prefect of Lyons forbade them by day. The Catholic party 
 managed the primary schools in the communes where it con- 
 trolled the municipal council. It had obtained by law in 1850 
 the right of carrying on secondary instruction and it now asked 
 for the rig'ht of carrying on higher instruction. The Assembly 
 eventually passed the act of 1875 which gave permission to found 
 free universities, and established mixed boards of examiners for 
 these universities. 
 
 Against the Monarchical coalition the three groups of the Left 
 united in a hard and fast agreement to vote as one body on all 
 party questions. The Extreme Left, led by Gambetta, gave up 
 temporarily its own policy and subordinated itself to the Left 
 Centre, which continued to be the controlling group to the end of 
 the Assembly. The coalition of the Left had only a defensive 
 policy: to save the Republic by obtaining a definitive constitution 
 and to defend individuals against the fighting government's 
 stretches of power. The Right aspired to protect order and so- 
 ciety against the Radicals ; the Left equally appealed to conserva- 
 tive sentiments by upholding the Republic, " the lawful govern- 
 ment of the people," which only revolution could suppress. 
 
 The Right controlled steadily a small but assured majority of 
 20 to 30 votes on all negative questions, but it could take no posi- 
 tive step except by compromises with the Left. 
 
 First. In the first place it wished to establish monarchy. The 
 old division into Legitimists and Orleanists had been closed by 
 the fusion; all recognised the Legitimist king, the Count of 
 Chambord, Henry V., head and last representative of the elder 
 branch of the Bourbons. His successor was to be the Orleanist 
 candidate, the Count of Paris, head of the younger branch. The 
 fusion had been officially confirmed by the visit of the Count of 
 Paris to the Count of Chambord at Frohsdorf, in Austria, August, 
 1873. During the recess of the Assembly the groups of the 
 Right, the Imperialists holding aloof, formed a committee of nine 
 charged to negotiate with the King the terms of restoration. On 
 all substantial questions they were agreed : the Assembly was not 
 to elect a King,'but to declare that Henry V. had been called to the 
 throne as head of the House of France by hereditary right. The 
 Constitution should be, not imposed by the King, but presented 
 by the King and voted by the Assembly, subject to the King's 
 approval. It should guarantee, like the " Charte " of 1814, a 
 constitutional system (annual vote of the budget, civil and reli- 
 gious liberties, equality before the law, etc.). But on a question 
 
200 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 of symbol they could not agree. The Right Centre wished to 
 announce, " the tricolour flag is maintained." The Count of 
 Chambord had declared himself several times since 1871 in honour 
 bound to keep the white flag, " received as a sacred deposit from 
 the old King, his grandfather, dying in exile," and to reject the 
 tricolour, " symbol of revolution." It was decided to postpone 
 the decision until the restoration. The Right regarded the resto- 
 ration as certain, and was already making preparations for the 
 vote and for the King's reception, when the letter of September 27 
 arrived: the Count of Chambord, learning from the newspapers 
 that people in France regarded the tricolour as definitely ac- 
 cepted, solemnly declared that he could not sacrifice the white 
 flag. The Right Centre had made the tricolour a necessary condi- 
 tion ; it now abandoned the restoration and sought to consolidate 
 its own control by prolonging the power of the President. The 
 Assembly conferred on MacMahon the Presidency for 7 years, 
 (the Right Centre had proposed 10 years, the Left Centre 5). 
 This law of the Septennate displeased the Legitimist group, who 
 hoped still to have the recall of the King adopted — the Count of 
 Chambord having come to Versailles November 20. It was the 
 Left Centre that secured the passage of the Septennate in order to 
 escape the restoration of monarchy. 
 
 Second. The Orleanist party, already in possession of the ex- 
 ecutive power through the President, attempted to gain posses- 
 sion of the Chambers for the future. It proposed an election law 
 similar to that of May 31, 1850, by demanding three years' 
 residence as a qualification for voting, and to create a Grand 
 Council appointed by the President of the Republic. The Ex- 
 treme Right, fearing an Orleanist restoration, voted with the 
 groups of the Left and defeated the ministry. May 16, 1874. The 
 new ministry (Cissey) was again a coalition of the three monar- 
 chical parties, but dominated by Bonapartist ministers, who gov- 
 erned in such way as to strengthen their own party. The by- 
 elections enlarged the group advocating appeal to the people;;; 
 there was an impression that the Imperialist party was rapidly 
 growing, and that at a general election there would be only two 
 parties. Republican and Imperialist (of 29 elections between May, 
 1873, and January, 1875, the Republicans won 23, the Imperial- 
 ists 6). The Assembly unearthed a committee of appeal to the peo- 
 ple, organized to manage the Imperial agitation and acting in 
 secret harmony with the ministers (1874). Certain members of 
 the Right Centre, strongly opposed to the Empire, made an 
 
GOVERNMENT OF THE MONAkCHICAL PARTIES. 201 
 
 understanding with the Left and brought to an end the debates 
 on the Lois Constitutionelles, which had dragged along for a year 
 and a half (June, 1875). The ministry, defeated as early as Janu- 
 ary, 187s, by a coalition of the Left and the Legitimists, had re- 
 mained in ofi&ce two months longer. 
 
 Fourth. The agreement between the Right and the Right Cen- 
 tre was broken over the question of the organization of powers. 
 The Legitimists would recognise only a personal authority in 
 MacMahon, which he might lay aside at any moment by giving 
 place to the legitimate king. The Right Centre held the Septen- 
 nate to be independent of the person of the President; to be at 
 once provisional and yet beyond the reach of attack. At the end 
 of the seven years the Chamber should regain the right of dealing 
 with the constitution; they hoped to transfer the power to the 
 Due d'Aumale. By the rupture the Monarchist coalition lost its 
 power of determining at will the form of government for France. 
 The Assembly rejected the proposition of the Left, declaring that 
 " the government of the Republic consists of two Chambers and a 
 President " ; but as some solution was a necessity, a small group, 
 deserting the Right Centre, joined the Left and carried, by a ma- 
 jority of one, the amendment offered by Wallon, which, by giv- 
 ing to the executive the title President of the Republic, recognised 
 by implication the Republic as the definitive government of 
 France (January 30, 1875). 
 
 'Fifth. Then provision was made for a Senate. The Orleanist 
 party was unable to carry the appointment of the Senators by 
 the President; but it succeeded in defeating the proposition of the 
 Left, that they should be elected by universal suffrage. It further 
 obtained a decision that seventy-five of its members should be 
 elected for life by the Assembly. The Left Centre proposed to 
 the Right Centre an agreement as to the members to be elected; 
 it asked for the Left only thirty of the seventy-five; the Right 
 Centre was not willing to grant more than thirteen. But the 
 Imperialist party, fearing the preponderance of the Orleanists, re- 
 fused to vote for their candidates. On the second day of the vot- 
 ing they came to an understanding with the Left : they detached 
 fifteen chevaulegers (Legitimists) from the majority by offering 
 them seats in the Senate. This coalition succeeded in electing 
 fifty-eight of the seventy-five senators from the Left, with nine 
 Legitimists, against eight candidates of the Right. The Buffet 
 ministry, formed March, 1875, by understanding between the two 
 Centres, still held office in opposition to the Republicans. 
 
^02 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 The Constitution of 1875. — ^The system established by the 
 Assembly in 1875 was the result of a compromise, as no majority 
 <:ould be found to support any complete constitution. To speak 
 accurately, there is no constitution of 1875 ^"^ the sense of the 
 previous French constitutions. We use the word, however, of 
 the Septennate law of 1873 and the three lois constitutionelks of 
 1875 taken together, and completed by various organic laws rela- 
 tive to the election of senators and representatives. These must 
 still be interpreted by means of the two laws of 1871 and 1873 
 which had regulated the powers of Thiers. 
 
 The whole organization is that of a constitutional monarchy on 
 the Belgian model. The President of the Republic, elected for 
 seven years, holds the position of a constitutional King; he has 
 the same powers, even the right of pardon, and he is similarly for^ 
 bidden to exercise any of them in person. All his public acts 
 must be performed through ministers; he is personally irre- 
 sponsible; he has the rig'ht of dissolving the Chamber, but only 
 with the approval of the Senate. 
 
 The ministers, who exercise the real power, form, as in Eng- 
 land, a ministry united and responsible in presence of the Cham- 
 bers. That which in England is only usage, is in France writ- 
 ten as a formal rule of the constitution, and the position of head of 
 the council, which in England exists only as a fact, has a similar 
 recoignition. Responsibility, as in all parliamentary countries, 
 implies the power of the Chambers, not only to judge the minis- 
 ters, but to compel them to resign by a simple vote.* 
 
 As this power cannot be practically exercised by two Cham- 
 bers at once it is considered as reserved exclusively for the lower 
 house. This is the interpretation which has prevailed in France, 
 even after the conflict of 1896. Sovereignty is thus indirectly 
 exercised by the lower house, which controls the fate of the 
 ministers. 
 
 The ministers are appointed by the President; the law of 1871 
 
 * The law does not explain whether the word responsible is to he taken 
 in its old legal sense or in its new political sense. Responsibility in the 
 old sense was enforced by the judicial process of impeachment. Political 
 responsibility, on the other hand, is enforced by a simple vote of the repre- 
 sentative Chamber. The Assembly of 1875 admitted at once both sorts 
 of responsibility, but in designating both by a single word it confounded 
 them together in one phrase : " The ministers are responsible in presence.; 
 of the Chambers," using the plural, which applies well to the case where 
 ministers are impeached by one Chamber before the other, but not to the 
 case where they are simply defeated in the popular Chamber. 
 
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1875. 203 
 
 even says that they are dismissed by him; but parliamentary 
 usage does not permit him to appoint them outside the parlia- 
 mentary majority, nor to use the right of dismissal; they leave 
 office only by resignation. As no process is indicated for deter- 
 mining when ministers must resign, they themselves must decide 
 the matter. In practice, the ministers have shown themselves 
 very respectful to the Chamber and have resigned as soon as they 
 have been left in minority, without waiting for a vote of want of 
 confidence. Of the provisional scheme established for Thiers in 
 1871, a scrap has been preserved which is contrary to the usage 
 of parliamentary countries, namely, the right of the President of 
 the Republic to preside in the Council of Ministers.* 
 
 The legislative power in its most extended sense, including the 
 right to vote war, peace, treaties, to interpellate the ministers, the 
 right of inquest, the right of initiative for every member, is 
 shared by two assemblies: a Chamber of Deputies, elected by 
 universal suffrage, and renewed as a body every four years; a 
 Senate of 300 members, one-fourth elected for life by the 
 Assembly, vacancies in the list of life imembers to be filled by the 
 Senate itself; three-fourths to consist of members elected for nine 
 years by electoral colleges in the departments. In these colleges 
 delegates from the municipal councils; one for each commune, 
 were the preponderating element.f 
 
 The Right Centre, in giving up the appointment of senators 
 by the President, had insisted on equal representation of all the 
 communes in the electoral colleges, in order to insure the pre- 
 dominance of the little country communes. The law attributes 
 exactly the same powers to the two Chambers, except that the 
 budget must be voted in the first instance by the Chamber, and 
 the Senate has the right of voting the dissolution of the Chamber 
 on the request of the President ; also the right to sit as a court of 
 justice for trial of political offenders. The Chambers have a 
 legal right to one session of five months yearly; the President 
 
 * The French ministers meet for confidential conference in conseil du 
 cabinet, -without the presence of the President of the Republic; but for 
 formal action as a conseil des ministres they need the President of the 
 Republic in the chair. The two forms of meeting are not essentially dif- 
 erent from the two forms of meeting used by the English Ministers; first, 
 when they meet for consultation as a Cabinet without the sovereign ; and, 
 secondly, when they meet for formal action as a Privy Council, in pres- 
 ence of the sovereign. The meeting for formal action is in both countries 
 recognised by the law. See Esmein, Droit Constitutionel, p. 615.— Tr. 
 
 t The senatorial elections were materially changed in 1S84 (see p. 209). 
 
204 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 may adjourn them for the rest of the year, and during tlieir recess 
 he stands alone. The right of setting up a permanent committee 
 by his side was abandoned. 
 
 The meeting of the two Chambers constitutes the National 
 Assembly, which alone is sovereign. This elects the President 
 and has the power of revising the constitution; but the revision 
 can be undertaken only after a separate vote of each Chamber 
 agreeing to hold the joint meeting. 
 
 The Council of State is simply a body of officers designated by 
 the government. 
 
 Of the English Parliamentary system, the French have thus 
 preserved the three powers, the irresponsible sovereign, the united 
 and responsible ministry, the right of dissolution and the two 
 houses; but to these they have added democratic innovations: 
 1st, The sovereign is elected, and for a limited term: he has not 
 the full power of dissolution. 2d, The upper house is elected 
 and is not confined to the rriere passage of bills. 3d, The lower 
 house is elected by universal suffrage. 4th, The members of 
 the houses receive pay for their services, and the senatorial elec- 
 tors receive travelling expenses. This is a compromise between 
 the English Parliamentary monarchy and the democratic system 
 adopted for France by the Convention (1793). In practice it has 
 leaned more to the democratic system. The Chamber, elected by 
 universal suffrage, has become the dominant power, because it 
 controls the ministry. The President has confined his personal 
 role to representing the government on ceremonial occasions, to 
 designating the head of each ministry, and to presiding at the 
 Council of Ministers. The Senate has made little use of its right 
 of initiative; it has rarely proposed laws, and has confined itself 
 to a right of veto on bills proposed by the Chamber. It has 
 adopted the practice of accepting, without serious changes, the 
 budget prepared by the Chamber, contenting itself with prevent- 
 ing the suppression of public services by mere action on the 
 budget. Thus has been established the political constitution 
 which France had vainly been striving for since 1789. There 
 are now recognised in France principles of government which no 
 party any longer contests: the sovereignty of the nation exer- 
 cised through the Chamber, universal suffrage, liberty of the 
 press, trial by jury, and right of public meeting. Under this 
 political constitution the social organization created by the Revo- 
 lution, and the administrative system created by Napoleon are 
 both preserved. 
 
STRUGGLE BETWEEN PRESIDENT AND CHAMBER. 205 
 
 Struggle between the President and the Chamber (1876-79).— 
 
 President MacMahon, elected by the Monarchist Right, thought 
 himself bound in honour to govern according to the ideas of the 
 Right. The Chamber, elected by universal suffrage, had a large 
 majority of Republicans, — 360 against 170,— the Senate, elected 
 before the Chamber, by the electoral colleges of the departments, 
 in which the municipal councils of the country communes had the 
 control, was at first about equally divided (thanks to the Repub- 
 lican majority of life senators elected by the Assembly) ; later the 
 Right had a majority of a few votes. The grouping of the parties, 
 formed in 1873 on the question of the Republic, continued; but 
 the parties had changed their attitude. The Republican party, 
 divided into three groups, — Left Centre, Republican Left (most 
 numerous), and Radical Left, — took the offensive to compel the 
 President to adopt a Republican policy. The old monarchical 
 party, now become the conservative party, was thrown on the de- 
 fensive. It was in three groups : Right, Right Centre, and Popu- 
 lar Appeal (the Extreme Right had disappeared). Unable now 
 to dispute the constitution, these groups sought, in the name of 
 the interests of society, to keep conservative office-holders in their 
 places — ^the thing called "the Republic without Republicans." 
 
 The question of the constitution being finally settled, the con- 
 test turned on the possession of power, the guarantees of public 
 liberty, and the policy toward the Church. The Left began by 
 asking for a Republican ministry. MacMahon accepted a min- 
 istry of the Left Centre (Dufaure in March, 1876, and later in the 
 year Jules Simon); but he held three ministerial offices — ^War, 
 Navy, and Foreign Affairs — to be outside of politics. 
 
 As to the civil services, the Left demanded a purge, that is to 
 say, the dismissal of office-holders openly hostile to the Republic. 
 The ministry effected this more or less completely. 
 
 In order to establish freedom of elections the Chamber con- 
 demned official candidatures by systematically refusing to admit 
 deputies elected by the help of the office-holders or the clergy. It 
 re-established freedom of the press and the right to sell news- 
 papers in public. It passed the Act of 1876, which restored to 
 the municipal councils, except in the case of the chief town of, 
 each canton, the right of electing the mayor. The clergy had 
 canvassed against the Republicans; the Left declared itself op- 
 posed to the influence of the clergy. The ministry prepared bills 
 to exclude members of religious orders from teaching in the pri- 
 mary schools and to withdraw from the Catholic universities the 
 
206 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 right of preparing students for the state examinations. The 
 Chamber refused to vote money for the military almoners (see 
 p. 198). The Catholic party drew up a petition to the Presi- 
 dent of the Republic, asking him to support the Pope against 
 Italy, with the object of re-establishing the temporal power. The 
 Chamber replied by a resolution against the ultramontane agi- 
 tation (May 4, 1877). This was the occasion of the rupture with 
 the President. 
 
 MacMahon, while accepting Republican ministers, continued 
 to consult his political friends, his former ministers, leaders of 
 the Conservative party. They persuaded him to rid himself of 
 the Republican Chamber before the autumn municipal elections, 
 upon the outcome of which depended the approaching renewal 
 of the Senate. MacMahon dismissed the Simon ministry (May 
 16), took a Conservative ministry (Broglie-Fourtou), adjourned 
 the Chamber for a month, then dissolved it with the consent of 
 the Senate. 
 
 May 16 meant political war between the President and Senate 
 on the one hand, and the Republican power, the Chamber, on the 
 other. The constitution placed the Chamber and the ministry 
 at the discretion of the President and Senate, and the Conserva- 
 tive party took advantage of this to regain power. In order to 
 keep office as long as possible the ministry extended by three 
 weeks the period within which the constitution required the 
 electors to meet, and thus got for itself five months of power. It 
 used these five months in preparing for the elections; it changed 
 at a stroke the whole administrative body, and appointed new 
 "fighting officials"; it embarrassed by prohibitions or prosecu- 
 tions the sale of Republican journals, political meetings, and 
 agitation for the Republic; it suspended Republican municipal 
 councils, substituting for them municipal commissioners. At 
 the elections it presented official candidates, indorsed by the 
 President of the Republic, and published Presidential mani- 
 festoes to the French people. In these MacMahon, abandon- 
 ing his role of the irresponsible sovereign, assumed officially a 
 position opposed to the Republicans and announced his purpose 
 " to fight it out tl> the last," even against the will of the voters. 
 The clergy supported the official candidates, and preached against 
 the Republicans. 
 
 The Left, thrown on the defensive anew, 'forgot its dififerences 
 and drew together as a homogeneous party. All the deputies 
 who supported the vote of May 16 (the 363) presented themselves 
 
SUPREMACY AND CHANGES OF REPUBLICAN PARTY. 207 
 
 with a common platform. The RepubHcan senators chose a 
 committee for common action. Their cue was to pose as con- 
 servatives, as defenders of the Republic against the revolutionary 
 coalition of monarchists and clergy— as defenders of the sover- 
 eignty of the people against the personal power of the President. 
 Gambetta launched two famous phrases: "Our foe is clerical- 
 ism " (Le clericalisme voila I'ennemi), " When the country shall 
 have spoken, he must either submit or resign " (Quand le pays 
 aura parle, il faudra se soumettre ou se demettre). The Repub- 
 licans also used with the voters the fear of war with Italy, urged 
 by the Catholic supporters of the temporal power. 
 
 The elections of October, 1877, returned about 330 Republicans 
 against 210 Conservatives. The ministry resigned. The Con- 
 servative party hesitated as to its future course. The President 
 tried a " business ministry " (Roehebouet), chosen outside of the 
 Chambers, but within the Conservative party. The Chamber de- 
 chned to recognise this ministry (November 24). The Senate 
 did not dare to approve a second dissolution; the budget had not 
 been voted and, in order to do without the Chamber, it would 
 have been necessary to levy taxes without legal authority, and to 
 use force against citizens who should resist. There were Con- 
 servatives ready to form a ministry with this program, but Mac- 
 Mahon would have no coup d'etat, preferring to submit. He 
 formed a ministry of the Left Centre, wholly Republican (Decem- 
 ber, 1877). This was the final overthrow of the Conservative 
 party. 
 
 The Republicans resumed power. The ministry restored the 
 ofifice-holders dismissed by the ministry of May 16, and the 
 Chamber quashed more than 50 elections made under administra- 
 tive or clerical pressure. The elections to fill these vacancies 
 brought up the number of Republicans to 370. The party was 
 still united; the exposition of 1878 was distracting attention from 
 politics. Gambetta advised the Radicals to cultivate union, dis- 
 cipline, and patience, saying that they must settle questions one 
 by one (December, 1878). Finally, at the renewal of one-third of 
 the Senate, the Republicans acquired a strong majority in that 
 body (178 against 126). MacMahon, isolated and reluctant to 
 make certain army appointments asked for by his Republican 
 ministers, handed in his resignation and was followed by a 
 Radical, Grevy (January, 1879). The Republicans thus acquired, 
 and have retained, control of the three organs of political power. 
 
 Supremacy and Changes of the Republican Party (1879-84). — 
 
zo8 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 The Republicans, united for defence, fell apart again when it 
 came to governing. The Left Centre had had the power because 
 it could get on with MacMahon, but it was weak with the elec- 
 tors. From this time forward it was only an insignificant group 
 in the Chamber. Its strength lay in the Senate, where, by uniting 
 with the Right, it formed until 1882 a Catholic majority, which 
 defeated the measures of the Chamber against the clergy. In the 
 Chamber the majority belonged to two groups, the Republican 
 Left and the former Extreme Left (Gambetta's party, now be- 
 come the Republican Union). But a new Extreme Left was 
 formed, which reproached Gambetta and his followers with aban- 
 doning Radical principles for a policy of opportunism. The 
 majority began by ousting the Dufaure ministry (Left Centre) 
 because it refused to dismiss all Monarchists from office. Power 
 passed to the Left, which formed several ministries in succession, 
 each made up more largely from the Extreme Left than its pred- 
 ecessor (Waddington, January, 1880; Freycinet, December, 
 1880; Ferry, 1881). 
 
 The government carried the transfer of the Chambers from 
 Versailles to Paris (June, 1880) and the institution of the National 
 Festival of July 14. It announced a series of projects : some to 
 realize a part of the old radical program : freedom of the press and 
 of public meeting, universal election of the mayors by the muni- 
 cipal councils, purchase of all railways by the State, and above 
 all free and compulsory primary education by lay teachers. 
 Other measures were directed against the Catholic party: to with- 
 draw the corporate quality from bishoprics, to suppress Church 
 cemeteries, to abolish the military almoners, to deprive the Cath- 
 olic universities of the name " university " and the right of pre- 
 senting for degrees. In proposing the bill regulating higher 
 education, the Minister of Instruction (Ferry) added the famous 
 Article 7, which forbade members of unauthorized religious 
 orders to take part in secondary education — the object being to 
 destroy the Jesuit colleges. 
 
 The positive measures encountered the passive resistance of 
 the Senate, where the Left Centre, in alliance with the Conserva- 
 tives, defeated the bills passed by the Chamber. It accepted only 
 the bill relating to the Catholic universities, without Article 7 
 (March, 1880). The government replied by issuing decrees 
 which called out of abeyance certain old unrepealed laws against 
 " unauthorized congregations," and ordered all such bodies to 
 disperse. The congregations refused to obey, and the govern- 
 
SUPREMACY AND CHANGES OF REPUBLICAN PARTY. 209 
 
 ment expelled them by force. This was the final breach between 
 the Republic and the Catholic clergy. 
 
 The resistance of the Right grew weaker with the progress of 
 time ; the government bills were eventually passed, some of them 
 bit by bit: the law as to election of the mayors in 1882, that 
 making the sessions of municipal councils public in 1884. Pri- 
 mary education was regulated by a series of acts passed between 
 1881 and 1886: the act making education gratuitous in 1881, that 
 making it compulsory and by lay teachers in 1882. Secondary 
 education for girls had been regulated by an act of 1880. A law 
 of 188 1 established complete freedom of the press, without restric- 
 tions in the form of money deposit, license, or stamp duty, and 
 with jury trial for all press offences; this was the system 
 demanded by the Radical party. Complete liberty of public 
 meeting was established, but not liberty of political clubs. In 
 1884 the law on professional syndicates at last secured to work- 
 ingmen the right to found societies like the English trade unions. 
 
 At the same time the ministers were struggling against the 
 Extreme Left in its demands for the dismissal of non-Republican 
 judges, for amnesty for the Communards, and for amendment of 
 the constitution. But this opposition grew steadily stronger; 
 the ministers yielded little by little. In 1880 they voted the 
 amnesty (preceded by individual pardons *) which permitted the 
 return to France of proscribed Communists and gave the revolu- 
 tionary Socialists a chance to organize themselves as a party once 
 more. In 1882 the dismissal of judges was brought about by 
 a law which suspended the irremovability of judges for six 
 months, and thus allowed the government to retire Conservative 
 magistrates. Then the government proposed a partial revision of 
 the constitution, to which the Senate eventually agreed (1884). 
 The 75 life senatorships were to be abolished: as vacancies 
 should occur in the list they were to be filled by the election of 
 ordinary senators, with nine-year terms — the election to be by 
 the departments. The number of senatorial electors in each 
 department was increased by assigning to each municipal council 
 a number of delegates varying from i to 24, according to the 
 population of the commune. This diminished the inequality 
 of representation in these elections. It still left, however, an 
 advantage in the hands of the rural communes. 
 
 * According to French practice, executive pardon {grace) simply remits 
 the active punishment of the offender, without restoring him to his rights 
 as a citizen. For this latter a legislative act of amnesty is necessary.— Tr. 
 
210 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 After the elections of 1881 the Chamber had 457 Republicans 
 against 88 Conservatives. In the Senate, after the renewal of 
 1882, there were 205 Republicans (30 belonging to the Left 
 Centre) against 95 Conservatives. The Conservative party gave 
 up the political contest.* The Republican party underwent a 
 change, the majority joining the Republican Union. Gambetta, 
 leader of the majority, agreed to take charge of the government 
 and formed " the great ministry," which had been long expected 
 as the incarnation of the Republican party (November, 1881). 
 But instead of inviting all the chiefs of the Left to join him, Gam- 
 betta formed his ministry of men of his own group exclusively. 
 He then proposed to amend the constitutional laws by inserting 
 a clause requiring the Chamber to be elected by general ticket; 
 the electoral system had been kept out of the constitution in 
 order that it might be modified at any time by ordinary law. 
 The Republican party divided. The Extreme Left had long up- 
 braided Gambetta for his opportunist policy (he had, during the 
 campaign of 1881, made a violent attack upon his adversaries, in 
 his district of Belleville). The Left reproached him with his 
 kingly airs, — referring to his triumphal entry into his native town, 
 Cahors, — with his authoritative language (his " speech from the 
 throne " to the Chamber), and his tendency to surround himself 
 with his personal devotees. The malcontents joined forces 
 against him and defeated his revision scheme of general ticket 
 by a large majority. Gambetta resigned, having lost his popu- 
 larity in three months (January, 1882); he died in December, 
 1882, without having regained it. 
 
 Once more the government fell into the hands of ministries 
 of the Left supported by the Republican Union: Freycinet, 
 then Duclerc, and lastly Ferry, the longest-lived ministry of the 
 Parliamentary Republic (February, 1883, to May, 1885). The 
 Radical party on attaining power had abandoned its great 
 reforms. Instead of the election of judges (voted as one of its 
 principles in 1883) it limited itself to a purging process. Instead 
 of state purchase of railroads it made " deals " with the large 
 companies (1883). It abandoned the income tax which it had 
 demanded in 1874. Of its former platform it preserved only the 
 
 •Since the death of the Prince Imperial, killed by the Zulus in 1879, the 
 Imperialists had been divided : the supporters of the direct heir, Prince 
 Jerome, and the supporters of his son Prince Victor, the latter being 
 favoured by the Empress and the Catholics. 
 
NEW PARTY DIVISIONS. 21 1 
 
 reform of primary instruction (accomplished in 1886), and the 
 reform of the military service, which the Senate rejected. It con- 
 centrated its efforts on its colonial policy. It strove to give 
 France once more an empire outside of Europe (Tunis, Soudan, 
 Congo, Tonquin, and Annam) in order to open up markets for 
 French commerce. 
 
 Division of the Republican Party and Reconstitution of the 
 Conservative Party (1884-87). — The Republican party at last 
 broke into two hostile factions. The Left and the Republican 
 Union formed the Republican party, supporting the government. 
 They were known as the Opportunists. The Extreme Left, tak- 
 ing the old name, formerly common to all Republicans, became 
 the Radical party. The two parties were divided by personal 
 rivalries rather than by a diflference in principles. The Radicals 
 were those who, having taken no part in Gambetta's personal 
 following and having opposed Ferry's colonial policy, had been 
 shut out of the government. But in resuming the portions of 
 the old Radical platform which the Republicans had dropped 
 when they attained power, the Radicals gave themselves a 
 " fighting platform." They demanded revision of the constitu- 
 tion in order to deprive the Senate of the right of voting the 
 budget and dissolving the Chamber; the separation of Church and 
 State, and the abolition of the Concordat, now defended by the 
 Opportunists; reform of the fiscal system by an income tax; war 
 on the large companies. (Nothing more was heard of the elec- 
 tion of judges nor of the suppression of standing armies, inscribed 
 in Gambetta's program of 1869.) The Radicals added the giving 
 up of colonial expeditions. 
 
 The two parties were agreed regarding divorce (which was 
 made lawful in 1884), on the general-ticket system (established 
 by law in 1885 *), and on the three-year military service with the 
 abolition of drawing lots, of the one-year volunteer privilege and 
 of exemptions for teachers and clergymen. The military law, 
 however, was delayed by the Senate and was not carried until 
 1889. 
 
 The main point of dispute was Tonquin. Ferry declared war 
 
 * The loisur le scrutin de Itste of 1885 required each department to elect 
 its deputies by general vote of the whole department. Seven depart- 
 ments had ten or more deputies; the Nord had twenty, the Seine thirty- 
 eight. France has changed her system six times since 1848: 1848, general 
 ticket; 1852, single-member districts; 1871, general ticket; 1875, single- 
 member districts; 1885, general ticket; 1889, single-member districts. — Tr. 
 
212 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 on the Radicals by saying: " Our danger is on the left." The 
 Radicals profited by the panic caused by the exaggerated news 
 of a defeat in Tonquin to induce the Chamber to vote against 
 the Ferry ministry (May, 1885). This was the last ministry sup- 
 ported by a compact majority. Until 1889 there were no more 
 coalition ministries. 
 
 The Left, during its rule, had abandoned the financial policy 
 of the Conservative party : balanced budgets, gradual liquidation 
 of the debt, and economy in expenditure. For the new railroads 
 (the Freycinet scheme), school buildings, and colonial expedi- 
 tions, it had incurred outlays which increased the debt and 
 caused a yearly deficit. People were accustomed to see the 
 budget estimates exceeded by the actual revenue; the commercial 
 crisis which began in 1882, after the crash of the General Union, 
 brought a contrary result. The bad state of the finances fur- 
 nished an additional argument against the Opportunists. 
 
 In the electoral campaign of 1885 the government had against 
 it two oppositions : the Radical Left, whose leader was Clemen- 
 ceau, and the Conservative and Catholic Right which, without 
 attacking the Republic, avowed itself in opposition to the consti- 
 tution. Since the death of the Count of Chambord in 1883 the 
 Legitimists had united with the Orleanist party, except a small 
 group of irreconcilables, who transferred their homage to the 
 Spanish branch of the Bourbons. , From both sides the Oppor- 
 tunists were censured for the Tonquin war, the deficit, and the 
 commercial crisis. 
 
 These were the conditions under which the general election 
 of October, 1885, was held, the first by general ticket since 1871. 
 Republican candidates were presented on two rival tickets, Re- 
 publican and Radical, which divided the party votes and pre- 
 vented their getting majorities. The Conservatives presented 
 themselves as a single party. The general-ticket system was 
 advantageous to the Conservatives, their voters being distributed 
 in more compact groups. The government lost seats. At the 
 regular elections more Conservatives than Republicans were suc- 
 cessful. At the subsequent elections, in the cases where no can- 
 didate had received a majority at the first balloting, the alarmed 
 Republicans restored party discipline, all voting for a combined 
 ticket made up of those candidates that polled the largest vote at 
 the first ballot. The Chamber was composed of 382 Republicans 
 and 202 Conservatives (reduced to 180 by the quashing of elec- 
 tions). A new generation of Conservatives had just entered 
 
THE BOULANGER CRISIS. 213 
 
 political life with a negative program of Liberal opposition. The 
 division was almost wholly local; the whole east and south had 
 elected Republicans, the west and north Conservatives. The 
 Republican party, divided into two nearly equal sets. Opportun- 
 ist and Radical, had for practical purposes no majority. In order 
 to rule, two lines of policy were attempted. The one consisted 
 in combining the two sets of Republicans against the Right; this 
 was the " policy of Republican concentration," formulated even 
 before the elections by the Brisson ministry, which had followed 
 Ferry. This policy was adopted by the first ministries after the 
 elections (Freycinet, January, 1886; Goblet, December, 1886). 
 The other policy consisted in getting the Conservatives to sup- 
 port the ministerial Republicans against the Radicals; this was 
 the " policy of conciliation," so named because it implied an end 
 of the war upon the Conservatives and the clergy. It was tried 
 by the Rouvier ministry (May, 1887) and given up after the 
 resignation of Grevy (December, 1887). 
 
 The concentration ministry demanded the expulsion of the 
 " pretenders." The Chamber had refused this in 1883, but voted 
 it in 1886. The object was to strike at the Count of Paris, who 
 was accused of having posed as a sovereign at the marriage of 
 his daughter. 
 
 The ministers, aiming to retain office, abandoned all schemes 
 of positive reform. Their program was limited to settling up 
 the colonial enterprises (the Tonquin appropriations had been 
 carried by a majority of only a few votes) and to restoring the 
 balance in the budget. The Chamber overturned the Goblet 
 ministry for not having proposed sufficient reductions of expense 
 <May, 1887). 
 
 The Boulanger Crisis (1887-89).— The Radicals had allied 
 themselves, against Ferry, with the patriots, who disliked colonial 
 expeditions because they diverted France from the war of revenge 
 against Germany. They insisted on a cabinet position for Gen- 
 eral Boulanger (January, 1886), who, on becoming minister of 
 war, made himself notorious by his democratic utterances. The 
 Opportunists, on their return to power (May, 1886), dismissed 
 Boulanger from his office; the Radicals supported him. His 
 name became so celebrated that a personal party formed itself 
 around him, the nucleus of it being the Patriotic League and a little 
 group of Radical deputies. 
 
 Presently came the scandal of the decorations. Wilson, the 
 President's son-in-law, was accused of selling places in the 
 
214 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 Legion of Honour. Grevy defended his son-in-law. The Cham- 
 ber censured the ministry and demanded the retirement of the 
 President. Grevy attempted to obtain a Radical ministry, but 
 nobody was willing to form a ministry with Boulanger, or dared 
 to form one without him. Grevy, unable to find ministers, at 
 length yielded to the necessity of resigning (December, 1887). 
 The Opportunists, having (thanks to the Senate) a majority in 
 the joint meeting of the Chambers, wished to elect Ferry to the 
 Presidency; but the Municipal Council of Paris declared that it 
 could not answer for public order if Ferry were elected. The 
 Conservatives, remembering Article 7 against Ferry, cast their 
 votes for General Saussier; Ferry failed of a majority on the first 
 ballot; and on the second, Carnot, a moderate Republican who 
 was acceptable to the Radicals, was duly elected. 
 
 Carnot's ministers (Tirard, December, 1887, defeated on the 
 question of Revision, and Floquet, Radical, April, 1887) reverted 
 to the policy of Republican concentration, but they had to con- 
 tend with the new Boulanger party. 
 
 The Boulangists no longer fought the Opportunists alone; they 
 had quarrelled with the Radicals also, and aimed to suppress the 
 Parliamentary system itself, which they reproached with weak- 
 ness and corruption. The party had no positive policy; its pro- 
 gram was summarized in three words by Boulanger: Dissolution, 
 Revision, Constituent Assembly (Consfittianfe). That is to say, 
 they would dissolve the existing chambers and elect an assembly 
 which should establish a republican but non-parliamentary gov- 
 ernment, with a single Chamber and an executive independent of 
 the legislature (substantially the Constitution of '48). Above all 
 General Boulanger must be placed in power; the rest would come 
 of itself. All patriotic Frenchmen were appealed to, including 
 Conservatives and Catholics, to join in establishing " the open 
 republic." The party took the name of Revisionist or National. 
 It adopted a novel plan of campaign, based on the scrutin de liste: 
 wherever a vacancy was to be filled in the representation of a 
 department, it nominated General Boulanger for the seat and was 
 thus obtaining a little plebiscite in his favour. The plan was 
 be^un in 1888 and was carried out systematically. 
 
 The Catholic Conservatives, opposed to Boulanger up to that 
 time on account of his radical utterances, joined the Revisionists 
 in order to destroy the constitution. They used Boulanger to 
 make a breach in the Republic. The electoral campaign con- 
 ducted by the Boulanger committee with money supplied by Con- 
 
THE BOULANGER CRISIS. 215 
 
 servatives (the Count of Paris and the Duchess d'Uzes) was pro- 
 moted by advertising devices similar to those used in commerce : 
 reams of posters, portraits, and biographies of General Beulan- 
 ger, songs in his praise, crowds hired to shout " Vive le general 
 Boulanger!" 
 
 In presence of this coalition, Republicans of all shades, includ- 
 ing the Socialists, joined hands to oppose the threatened dictator- 
 ship. Boulanger was very badly received on his appearance in 
 the Chamber, and, abandoning the parliamentary field, devoted 
 himself to running elections. He had no success in the Repub- 
 lican strongholds of the east and south; but he was repeatedly 
 elected, with large majorities, in the Conservative or doubtful 
 departments of the north and midland. He was elected by 
 240,000 votes against 165,000 in Paris, where the Radicals sup- 
 ported him through dislike of the ministry (January, 1889) . This 
 success was his ruin.* His tactics depended on the general-ticket 
 system, which made the vote of a whole department necessary 
 to fill every casual vacancy in the Chamber, and thus made pos- 
 sible a kind of general plebiscite in his favour, since such vacan- 
 cies were of quite frequent occurrence. Further, at the approach- 
 ing general election, the system would make it possible for him to 
 unite his Conservative and Radical supporters in each department 
 by giving each set a share in his general ticket. Boulanger had the 
 imprudence to display his hand in advance and thus forewarned 
 his adversaries. The scrutin de liste, it is true, had been a sort 
 of fad, held both by Opportunists and Radicals ; but the Repub- 
 licans made up their minds to sacrifice it, and, in spite of the 
 Conservatives, who were now in favour of it, they passed a law, 
 in February, 1889, restoring the system of single member dis- 
 tricts {scrutin uninominal) . They also took the further precaution 
 of making it unlawful for any person to present himself as a can- 
 didate in more than one district. 
 
 The Radical party, weakened by the secession of the Boulan- 
 gists and by the recollection of Boulanger's alliance with them, 
 yielded place to the Opportunists who had always opposed him. 
 The Floquet ministry, left in a minority on the question of 
 revision, was followed by the Tirard-Constans ministry (Feb- 
 ruary, 1889), which got rid of Boulanger by ordering him to 
 
 * I say nothing as to his chances of success by an appeal to force against 
 the government at Paris, where the swarms of police seem to have been 
 favourable to him. No arrangements for such a stroke had been made by 
 iim. 
 
2i6 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 appear before the Senate, constituted as a high court for the trial 
 of offences against the safety of the state. Boulanger retired to 
 Belgium without making a defence, and at once ceased to be of 
 political importance. Later in the year the great Exposition of 
 1889 produced a calm in politics. 
 
 At the general election of 1889 the contest was between the 
 Republicans of all shades on the one hand and the coalition of 
 the enemies of the Parliamentary Republic on the other. The 
 Revisionists wanted a different sort of republic, and the Con- 
 servatives and clergy wanted no republic at all. The Parlia- 
 mentary Republicans made a defensive and conservative com- 
 paign, defending the existing constitution against the Revision- 
 ists, and the laws as to schools and the military service against 
 the Catholics. 
 
 The Republicans carried 366 seats, against 172 carried by the 
 Conservatives and 38 by the Revisionists. The Conservatives 
 came from the north and west; the Revisionists from the Seine 
 and various scattered constituencies. The coalition of the ene- 
 mies of the Parliamentary Republic fell to pieces. The Revis- 
 ionists, beaten at the municipal elections of Paris (April, 1890), 
 ended by disbanding themselves on the suicide of Boulanger. 
 
 Transformation of the Extreme Parties. — The Republican 
 majority elected in 1889, on a negative platform, had little beyond 
 a policy of stand-still : to keep up the school law and the military 
 law, attacked by the Conservatives, and to give quiet to the coun- 
 try after its political excitements. In four years the Chamber 
 passed only certain commercial laws and a tariff (1892) which 
 restored the protective system. Napoleon in i860 had inaugu- 
 rated the system of commercial treaties aiming at a gradual intro- 
 duction o'f free trade; the Chamber refused to renew these treaties 
 as they expired, and returned to the plan of an independent tariff, 
 with the right of lowering or raising the duties at will. The 
 coalition of the great manufacturers with the agricultural group, 
 who asked for protective duties on grains and cattle, secured the 
 adoption of a complicated scale of duties, some of them so high 
 as to seem prohibitory. The act established two tariffs : a maxi- 
 mum tariff to be levied on the products of countries having no 
 reciprocity treaty with France, and a minimum tariff to be ac- 
 corded by such treaties. In practice most countries have 
 obtained the minimum tariff; and it has even been necessary to 
 go below this minimum in the case of Switzerland, in order to 
 preserve friendly commercial relations with her. 
 
TRANSFORMATION OF THE EXTREME PARTIES. 21? 
 
 The strife between the two wings of the Republican party, 
 stilled by the common danger of 1889, did not break out again 
 with much energy. The official policy continued to be Repub- 
 lican concentration. The ministerial Republicans, known also 
 as Moderates, had a majority of the Chamber, furnished the min- 
 isters, and held the power. The Radicals, reduced to a small 
 minority, clung to the wrecks of their program (Constitutional 
 Revision, Income Tax, and Separation of Church and State), 
 without the least chance of carrying a single point. 
 
 But in the extreme parties a change was preparing. A small 
 Socialist party of workingmen had arisen again since 1879, from 
 the amnestied Communists ; but it had remained a little doctrinal 
 church without political activity, and had been divided, since 
 1882, into two hostile sects. The Marxist group, the least 
 numerous, chiefly in the north, adhered to the German coUec- 
 tivist ideas, and had a centralized organization. The other 
 group, the " French Federation of Social-Revolutionist Working- 
 men," declared its willingness to work for one thing at a time, 
 in order to make its whole program possible. It had a federal 
 organization, leaving each local branch to govern itself. It was 
 nicknamed Possible-ist by its opponents. It broke into two fac- 
 tions (1890) on a constitutional question as to the powers of its 
 central organs. The remnants of the Blanc Socialists formed 
 another small party ; so that there were four Socialist parties in 
 the field. Their agitation was still confined to the workingmen 
 of the large cities and the mining districts, and their activity was 
 chiefly directed to the municipal elections of Paris. In the 
 Chamber a small group, called the Workingmen's party, had 
 dwindled to a few revolutionary deputies without a definite pro- 
 gram. In 1893, in prospect of the general election, all the 
 Socialist factions joined in a league for bringing in the " Social 
 Republic." The league was joined by the discontented Radicals, 
 who had formed the main body of the Revision party. In order 
 to win over the peasants, the Socialist congress of 1892 had 
 adopted a program of agrarian reforms; and the party no longer 
 demanded the suppression of private property in land, so far as 
 regards peasant farms. 
 
 At the same time the Conservative party was splitting up. 
 The Count of Paris, against the view of the older Orleanists, had 
 joined in the cry for Revision (1888), and was acting " parallel " 
 with the B'oulangists. Abandoning the ground of traditional 
 royalty, he had declared that the monarchy must be re-established 
 
2i8 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 by popular vote — the principle of the Imperialists. Henceforth 
 all the monarchist parties were supporters of the revolutionary 
 doctrine of popular sovereignty. I'his development displeased 
 both the old Legitimists and the old Orleanists ; but a new gen- 
 eration of Conservatives were displacing them. 
 
 The great Conservative party, discouraged by the reverse of 
 1889, gave up hope of restoring monarchy and reverted to the 
 policy of constitutional opposition. It no longer attacked the 
 form of government, taking care, however, not to recognise it 
 openly. It simply opposed the ministers and their policy. Some 
 of the party eventually adopted the plan of publicly accepting 
 the Republic in order to' conciliate Republican voters. The 
 movement was hastened by the Pope, who urged Catholics to ac- 
 cept the Republic definitively, and try to control it in the interest 
 of religion. This policy, officially avowed in 1892, was expressed 
 in a phrase attributed to Leo XIII. , in a private interview, "to 
 accept the constitution in order to modify legislation " (referring 
 especially to changes of the school and military laws). Thus, 
 by dismemberment of the Conservative party, the Catholic party 
 of the Rallied was formed. 
 
 This evolution gave new life to the policy of conciliation be- 
 tween the Conservative Right and the Republican Centre. In 
 1893, before the general election, the ministerial Republicans 
 (Moderates) disclosed a willingness to coalesce with the Rallies 
 and declared themselves unalterably opposed to the Socialists 
 by closing the Labour Exchange of Paris. The reconciliation 
 in the Assembly was an easy matter : the Right, resigning them- 
 selves to the school and military laws, demanded only a con- 
 servative policy in social matters ; but among the voters the case 
 was different, for the Republican voters bore a grudge against 
 the old Conservative leaders who had tried to overturn the Re- 
 public in 1889. 
 
 The Conservatives, in preparing for the electoral campaign of 
 1893, started the Panama scandal, which, greatly exaggerated by 
 the press, opened an era of denunciations, violent controversies, 
 and trials for libel. The leaders of both wings of the Republican 
 party. Moderate and Radical, were, as a result, badly compro- 
 mised, being suspected of having themselves taken part in the 
 financial " deals " of the Panama Company, or of having neg- 
 lected to prosecute those guilty of them. The old leaders were 
 pushed aside and replaced by a new set. 
 
 New Division of Parties. — The new Chamber elected in 1893 
 
NEW DIVISION OF PARTIES. 219 
 
 disclosed these transformations. One half of the deputies were 
 new men. The tactics of the Right had failed; only 30 Rallies 
 and 60 other Conservatives had been elected. The Republican 
 majority continued to be divided into Moderates and Radicals — 
 the latter counting from 120 to 155 members. On the extreme 
 Left the Socialist Union, having drawn together the disorgan- 
 ized voters of the old Revision party, had carried 55 seats. For 
 the first time there was a parliamentary body of Socialists suffi- 
 ciently large to influence politics. On the whole the centre oi 
 gravity had shifted toward the Left. 
 
 The Conservatives being now practically out of the field, the 
 Republicans had again to choose between concentration of Mod- 
 erates and Radicals against the two extremes (Conservatives and 
 Socialists) and a homogeneous ministry made up wholly of Mod- 
 erates or wholly of Radicals. Concentration would give an enor- 
 mous majority, but it would impose a passive policy, for the 
 Moderates had exhausted their own program of reforms and 
 favoured no part of the Radical program. A homogeneous min- 
 istry was advocated by the theorizers among the Moderates, as 
 harmonizing with Parliamentary government; but the Moderates 
 alone could hope to supply such a ministry, and it was doubtful 
 if they could give it a majority without help from some part of 
 the Right — which would have spoiled the homogeneity, and 
 would 'have been a return to conciliation, a difficult thing after 
 the electoral campaign of 1893. 
 
 According to official utterances, the policy o'f all ministries 
 from 1889 to 1893 was one of concentration; that is to say, a 
 majority of each were Moderates, following a policy of conserva- 
 tion accompanied by democratic declarations. Since those years 
 normal political life has been disturbed by the crimes of the 
 Anarchists. These were too few in number to form a regular 
 party, and refrained on principle from parliamentary action, re- 
 fusing to formulate a positive program. Their aim, they said, 
 was to free the individual by destroying society. But by adopt- 
 ing the methods of the Russian terrorists, especially in the use 
 of explosives, they gave themselves a prominence wholly out of 
 proportion to their importance. " Propagandism by facts," al- 
 ready tried in 1892, assumed political significance when the 
 Anarchists attacked the organs of the State, first the Chamber 
 and later the President. The public powers defended themselves 
 by two special laws, the one after the explosion in the Chamber, 
 December, 1893, and the other after the assassination of Carnot, 
 
220 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 June, 1894; Anarchist journals were suppressed, their propa- 
 ganda and their crimes were stopped. But during this crisis 
 concentration had fared badly; the Radicals had opposed the 
 ministers in the passage of the exceptional laws, accusing them 
 of confounding the Socialists with the Anarchists. At the elec- 
 tion of Carnot's successor, each wing of the Republicans pre- 
 sented a candidate of its own. Casimir Perier, the Moderate 
 candidate, was elected by a large majority over the Radical 
 Brisson ; he received nearly all the votes of the senators. 
 
 A personal quarrel broke out between the Socialists and the 
 new President. Casimir Perier, by his name and fortune, 
 seemed to symbolize the domination of the bourgeoisie. In the 
 Chamber the Moderates and the Radicals began to oppose each 
 other squarely. About a hundred deputies, undecided between 
 the two, were ready to support any ministry, but anxious to avoid 
 displeasing their constituents by an unpopular vote. This waver- 
 ing group placed three Moderate ministries in minority 
 (Casimir Perier, April, 1894; Dupuy, January, 1895; Ribot, Octo- 
 ber, 1895) on certain railroad questions. At the fall of the sec- 
 ond, Casimir Perier resigned the Presidency. He was followed 
 by Felix Faure, elected by a coalition of the Moderates and the 
 Right; but the vote for Brisson was larger than at the previous 
 election ; and the candidate who represented the opposition to the 
 Radicals, Waldeck-Rousseau, was dropped: The third ministry, 
 Ribot's, reverted to Republican concentration, carried an amnesty 
 law in order to soothe the Socialists, and even presented a meas- 
 ure founded on the Radical doctrine of progressive taxation (pro- 
 gressive tax on inheritances). The wavering members were 
 joining the Radicals; Brisson was elected President of the 
 Chamber. 
 
 The third Moderate ministry was succeeded by a cabinet having 
 for the first time a Radical chief, Leon Bourgeois. The new 
 premier wished to form a concentration cabinet, but with a reform 
 policy; but finding no Moderates willing to join him, he was 
 under the necessity of making it purely Radical. Of the old 
 Radical program he kept only a single point, — the progressive in- 
 come tax, — coupling with it a series of economic " reforms " of 
 the democratic sort. He promised also to bring light to bear 
 on the financial affairs as to which recent Moderate ministries 
 were suspected of irregularities. 
 
 On this program, a new dispdsition of the extremes came 
 about. The Right joined the Moderates in resisting the income 
 
POLITICAL EVOLUTION OF FRANCE. 221 
 
 tax, thus forming a party of social conservatism resting on the 
 bourgeoisie, the clergy, and the office-holders. The Socialists 
 joined the political Radicals, forming a party of Social Reform, 
 and appealing to the masses. The old local division was still ob- 
 servable, in that the Conservatives drew their chief strength from 
 the west and the Social Reformers from the south. 
 
 By winning over the crowd of wavering members, the Radicals 
 gained a majority in the Chamber for their progressive income 
 tax (1896). The Senate, by attacking the ministry, raised a con- 
 flict between the two houses which revived the agitation for 
 revision. 
 
 By rejecting certain appropriation bills, the Senate compelled 
 a resignation of the Bourgeois ministry and the formation of a 
 homogeneous ministry of Moderates (Meline, April, 1896) which, 
 by the help of the Right, obtained a majority. But no 
 party has a safe majority in the Assembly. By a phenomenon 
 new in France, the policy of each party is dictated by its central, 
 or less extreme, wing. The Right has abandoned its agitation 
 for the repeal of the laws unfavourable to the clergy, and de- 
 mands only resistance to further disturbance of existing society. 
 The Socialists, at the other extreme, have dropped their revolu- 
 tionary schemes, consenting to co-operate with the political 
 Radicals in carrying a partial reform of society and in procuring 
 a revision of the constitution by lawful means. For the first time 
 since 1814 there are in France only political parties: no party 
 avows a policy of subverting the Republic. 
 
 Political Evolution of France in the Nineteenth Century. — At 
 first glance the political history of France during the past cen- 
 tury seems an incoherent series of revolutions ; hence the general 
 opinion of other countries that the French are capricious in poli- 
 tics, and do not know what they want. Precisely the same was 
 said of the English at the end of the seventeenth century.* 
 
 There is, however, a point of view from which these unaccount- 
 able revolutions present the appearance of an entirely intelligible 
 development. The French nation at the end of the eighteenth 
 century was still monarchical, but already democratic and free 
 from clerical authority, at least in the east and south, where the 
 people are most democratic, peasant proprietors are most numer- 
 ous, and great landowners least influential. From this mass of 
 
 * A Eation whose " fickleness " is notorious ; they change their ideas 
 frequently, said Torcy. 
 
322 THE PARUAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 democratic monarchists a small revolutionary party branched off 
 in 1792, in the contest with the King and court, becoming Re- 
 publican almost against its will, but resolved to acquire the reins 
 of power, by force if need be. From 1792 to 1870 this Repub- 
 lican party seized the government four times, in each case by the 
 same process, a sudden stroke at Paris; but, being only a mi- 
 nority, it did not succeed in establishing itself firmly. The mo- 
 narchical majority presently found means of restoring monarchy. 
 Thus every Republican revolution was followed by a royalist 
 restoration which lasted until a new generation gave the Repub- 
 lican leaders enough recruits to make a new revolution. But 
 each revolution did away with some feature of the former sys- 
 tem which could not be restored. Four times has this oscillation 
 taken place. 
 
 First. The revolutionary party gained control at Paris by the 
 loth of August, 1792 ; and kept it until imperialism was set up 
 by Bonaparte, who ousted the Republican rulers, without, how- 
 ever, re-establishing the traditional monarchy. The restoration 
 of 1814, brought about by an accident of foreign policy, was but 
 a partial one: it retained the social democratic organization 
 created by the Revolution and the centralized administrative 
 organization left by Napoleon. Upon this democratic society 
 and this bureaucratic administration, it superimposed a political 
 mechanism royalist in form, imported from England. The revo- 
 lution of the Hundred Days was only an abortive attempt, the 
 last episode in Napoleon's contest with Europe, the first of the 
 military revolutions that followed the general pacification of 
 1814. It had, however, an influence on the political development 
 by uniting the remnants of the revolutionary Republicans with 
 the discontented Imperialists. 
 
 Second. The revolution of 1830 was made by a small Republi- 
 can party belonging to the new generation but brought up in the 
 faith of 1793. Too weak to impose its will on France, it yielded 
 the power to the Liberal Royalists, who set up the July mon- 
 archy. It sought to recover control by armed outbreaks in 
 Paris, 1831-34; but the government, resting on the majority, re- 
 sisted, and broke up these attempts by force of arms, prosecu- 
 tions, and legislation. But the July monarchy remained a revo- 
 lutionary government, based on the sovereignty of the people 
 and compromised by the tricolour flag, the symbol of the 
 Revolution. 
 
 Third. In the next generation the Republican party, reduced 
 
POLITICAL EVOLUTION OF FRANCE. 223 
 
 to a few secret societies, got the help of the Socialist workingmen 
 and made the revolution of 1848. This time it set up the " Dem- 
 ocratic and Social Republic." But it was unable to keep the 
 power: the great majority of the nation was against it. The 
 Republican Assembly of 1848 expelled it from the government; 
 and when it tried to return by violence, destroyed it by military 
 force on the " Days of June." Reconstituted as a democratic 
 party, it was assisted by the monarchist Assembly of 1849; and 
 at the moment when it had begun to gain the democratic regions 
 of the south and east, it was rudely shattered by the Imperialist 
 coup d'etat of 1851. Napoleon III. established a government, 
 monarchical in its processes, but even more revolutionary in prin- 
 ciple than the July monarchy. From the revolution of 1848 he 
 borrowed not only the power of the people to make the Constitu- 
 tion, but also universal suffrage, the starting-point of a new 
 democratic 'regime. 
 
 Fourth. The Republican party, reconstituted after the amnesty 
 of 1859, gathered strength in the new generation, and before the 
 end of the Empire formed in the large cities and democratic 
 regions a radical party sufficiently numerous to begin operations 
 in the electoral field. It made the revolution of 1870, which, like 
 that of 1792, was an outcome of foreign policy. 
 
 But the old royalist parties, in the confusion of the war, 
 gained an accidental majority in the sovereign Assembly which 
 came into power in 1871. The Republican party was rent in 
 twain. The Socialist party of Paris tried to obtain control by 
 the old Republican method of a revolution in Paris ; it set up the 
 Commune and was exterminated. France had received a politi- 
 cal education and no longer accepted revolutions in Paris as. 
 decisive. The Republicans of the provinces supported the law- 
 ful government, and as early as 1871 had a majority of the voters. 
 
 Once more a Republican revolution was followed by a mo- 
 narchical reaction, which failed, however, to bring about another 
 restoration. Its failure was due to the revolutionary emblem,, 
 the tricolour flag, now become so completely the emblem of the 
 nation that one of the royalist parties (the Orleanist) could not 
 make up its mind to sacrifice it. The Republicans, by a com- 
 promise with these dissident monarchists, at length obtained the 
 adoption of a republican constitution — parliamentary, like the 
 Orleanist monarchy ; democratic, like French society. 
 
 Little by little the royalist generation was passing away and 
 its place was taken by Republicans.- Since 1869 the latter were 
 
224 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 in majority in the cities ; in 1876 they became definitely masters 
 of the east and south, which assured them a majority in the As- 
 sembly and control of the government. It had no further motive 
 for making revolutions ; it had only to maintain the existing sys- 
 tem in order to win over gradually the west and north. Revo- 
 lutions ceased when the Republican party, the only one organ- 
 ized for making them, had no further need of revolutions. 
 
 The political development of the nineteenth century has been 
 a series of ebbs and flows, but the tendency has been toward 
 republicanism. By repeated seizures of the government and an 
 agitation more and more effective, the democratic Republicans 
 have finally conquered France. 
 
 But the revolutions have been directed only to the structure 
 of the central government and the possession of power. The 
 social organization and the administrative mechanism have been 
 preserved without serious change. 
 
 The democratic social organization, free from clerical control, 
 established by the Revolution, was acceptable to .the Republicans, 
 and sufficiently popular to escape attack. The monarchical gov- 
 ernments have tried indirectly to revive the influence of the great 
 landowners, the middle class, and the clergy, but they have not 
 touched any of the social institutions — peasant proprietorship, 
 equal division of inheritances, civil equality, eligibility for public 
 office without distinctions of birth, exclusion of clerical control: 
 France has steadily preserved the social system of the Revolu- 
 tion. 
 
 The centralized and bureaucratic administrative system of the 
 Empire has also remained nearly intact. All the parties, when 
 in opposition, have declared it to be oppressive, but, on attaining 
 office, have preserved it as an instrument of power. Of the older 
 Imperial regime France still retains : 
 
 (o) The central administration with its ministers, the depart- 
 mental administration with its prefects and sub-prefects, and its 
 control over the communes ; 
 
 (&) The judicial organization with its body of court counsellors 
 and its permanent judges, with its Ministry of Justice composed ■ 
 of advocates and prosecuting attorneys, with its antiquated and 
 formal civil procedure and its secret inquisitorial criminal pro- 
 cedure, with the Napoleonic code almost unchanged (the granting 
 of divorce is only a return to an institution taken away in 1815) ! 
 with its sale of the posts of solicitor, notary, registrar, and bailiff; 
 
 (c) The administrative justice of the Councils of Prefecture 
 
POLITICAL EVOLUTION OF FRANCE. 225 
 
 and the Council of State, briskly attacked by the Liberals under 
 Napoleon III., but later accepted, including the famous Article 75 
 of the Constitution of the year VIII. ;* 
 
 (d) The ecclesiastical organization established by the Concordat 
 and organic laws; the Legion of Honour, with its titles copied 
 from noble orders ; 
 
 {e) The University, with its rectors, inspectors ; its lyckes, with 
 their military discipline; its Normal School, and its system of 
 competitive examinations ; 
 
 (/) The revenue system, with its direct and indirect taxes, its 
 monopolies and octrois, and its agents divided off into special 
 services. New taxes have been created, old ones have been in- 
 creased, loans have been contracted, the national revenue has 
 been greatly enlarged, but neither the assessment nor the mode 
 of collection has been changed. 
 
 The customs system instituted to protect the manufacturers of 
 fabrics and iron wares by duties all but prohibitory, was shaken 
 by Napoleon III. and opposed by the agricultural regions of the 
 south and the traders of the seaports, and has been almost made 
 over since 1871. 
 
 Only four changes of importance have been made in the Impe- 
 rial system in a century : 
 
 1. The municipal authorities have been made elective — a begin- 
 ning of local political life of decentralization. Following the 
 old aristocratical principle, these oiBces are without salary, but 
 they are sought as stepping-stones to national services where 
 salaries are paid. 
 
 2. The military system has been transformed, in imitation of 
 
 * This article, which forbade suits against administrative officers with- 
 out permission of the government, was abrogated by decree of the Govern- 
 ment of National Defence in September, 1870. The author must have had 
 in mind the unexpected result of the abrogation. The ordinary courts 
 held that it opened the way for suits against public officers for illegal ac- 
 tion toward private citizens ; in other words, that it introduced in France 
 the familiar doctrine of our common law that an official who acts without 
 legal warrant may be proceeded against as a private trespasser. But 
 this view was not sustained by the tribunal des conflits — the final court 
 of appeal. That court decided in 1873 that, under the separation of pow- 
 ers, the judiciary cannot interfere with the action of the executive and its 
 agents. The result of abrogating Article 75 was, therefore, to cut oil even 
 the limited right that previously existed of bringing suit against official 
 wrongdoers by permission of the government. (See Ducrocq, "Droit 
 Administratif," 6th ed., vol. i., p. 644.)— Tr. 
 
226 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 Prussia, by the introduction of universal military service for a 
 short term, and the abolition of the national guard — retaining, 
 however, the old military schools. 
 
 3. Public education has been modified by the creation, since 
 1850, of secondary schools for boys, managed by ecclesiastics, 
 in competition with the state schools; by the reform of higher 
 education on the model of the German universities; by the insti- 
 tution of gratuitous and compulsory primary education, free from 
 clerical control, and a system of schools for girls — both copied 
 from Germany. These changes have created a body of lay 
 teachers in competition with the teaching brotherhoods and sis- 
 terhoods of the previous system. 
 
 4. The condition of labourers has been modified by freedom of 
 combination and by the creation of syndicates modelled on the 
 English trade unions. 
 
 With the exception of making the mayors and local councils 
 elective, — which was only an application of the new democratic 
 policy, — the evolution has been mainly the introduction of for- 
 eign institutions into France. 
 
 France, then, is governed by men chosen on the democratic 
 principle of election; its political chiefs are the deputies, chosen 
 directly, and the senators and ministers, chosen indirectly, by the 
 voters — all under the control of the press and public opinion. It 
 is administered by a bureaucratic body of officials, divided into 
 special services, which are organized as a hierarchy, with chiefs 
 who co-opt and control each other, subject to regulations and 
 special usages, but independent of public opinion. 
 
 These two sets of public servants, drawing their authority from 
 two opposing principles, tend to apply two conflicting con- 
 ceptions of government. The politicians, having only a tem- 
 porary power delegated from below, incline primarily to please 
 the voters on whom they depend, by conforming to the prevailing 
 opinion. The officials, exercising a power conferred from' above 
 and practically for life, tend to see in the citizens subjects of 
 administration, who must be kept in due submission to authority 
 and regulations. 
 
 Monarchical governments prevent conflicts between these two 
 sets by giving preponderance to the officials ; the democratic sys- 
 tem makes the conflict perpetual. The elected representatives of 
 the people, wielding the sovereignty, are not content with exer- 
 cising an indirect control over the officials through budget votes 
 and the enactment of laws. They wish to share with the official 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 227 
 
 class the practical sovereignty, which is the executive power. 
 The Chamber has established its superiority over the adminis- 
 trative officers through the persons of the ministers, its indirect 
 agents, who, in becoming official heads of the services, have 
 inherited the absolute authority over the official class formerly 
 exercised by the royal and imperial ministers. And as the min- 
 isters, once installed at the top of the hierarchy and surrounded by 
 permanent officials, readily catch the spirit of their subordinates 
 and the traditions of authority, the Chamber keeps them 
 in dependence upon itself by means of the Budget Committee 
 and interpellations. 
 
 It is this that makes the Interpellation the leading institution 
 of French parliamentary procedure. The deputies, the sole 
 direct representatives of the citizens, are led, by a logical conse- 
 quence of the democratic principle, to assume the part of direc- 
 tors and defenders of the people ; individually they come into per- 
 sonal contact with the ministers and officials, to hasten the slow 
 action of the latter in .the settlement of business matters affecting 
 their constituents, to check or repress abuses of power, and to 
 nominate candidates for vacant offices, or even to insure their 
 own personal influence or that of their particular group. This 
 is what is called " the pressure of the deputies on the adminis- 
 tration." The frequency of interpellations and the pressure of 
 the deputies are condemned by all writers on constitutional law 
 as interferences of the legislature with the executive, contrary to 
 the doctrine of the separation of powers. They have none the 
 less become fundamental features of the political life of France. 
 They are practical contrivances which enable two contradictory 
 sets of institutions to exist side by side: a democratic political 
 system and a permanent administrative hierarchy. It compels 
 the permanent officials to submit to the people's chosen 
 representatives . * 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 For bibliography see chap. v. On the Commune, A. Sohulz, " Bibl. de 
 la Guerre Franco-AUemande et de la Commune," 1886. A bibl. may be 
 
 * An Interpellation is a formal question addressed to the ministers, 
 calling on them for explanation and defence of their action on any matter. 
 It may be introduced by any deputy, and is entitled, under the rules, to 
 a place on the program of some sitting within a month of its intro- 
 duction. — Tr. 
 
328 THE PARLIAMENTARY REPUBLIC. 
 
 found by A. Adler in " Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften," under 
 the word "Commune," (1891). 
 
 SOURCES. — See bibl. of chap. v. The most important parliamentary- 
 documents are: i. "EnquSte sur les Actes du Gouvernement de la 
 Defense Nationale," reports, testimony of witnesses, official despatches 
 (see objections and corrections, Annales de I'Assemblde, vol. xxv.) ; 2. 
 " EnquSte sur 1' Insurrection du 18 Mars," at Paris and in the country (see 
 for claims, " Annales," vol. xi.). 
 
 Annual : Daniel (pseud. d'A. Lebon), " L' Annie Politique," since 1874. 
 
 In addition to the publications in chap. vi. : The Frangais (royalist 
 liberal, important for the Assembly period), for the period 1871-78; the 
 Ripublique Frangaise, Gambetta's organ, the Solet'l, the Gaulois, the 
 Figaro, and the XIX e, Steele. 
 
 In addition to the reviews : Revue Politique et LitiSraire, called the 
 Revue Bleue, the Revue Socialiste. (For the history of the socialist 
 parties in France there is a very abundant collection in the MusSe Social 
 founded by the Comte de Chambrun). 
 
 The recollections, memoirs, and letters are of small importance. — 
 J. Simon, " Souvenirs du 4 Septembre, 1874"; " Le Gouvernement de M. 
 Thiers," 1879. — Herisson, "Journal d'un Officier d'Ordonnance," 1885. — 
 J. de Qastyne, " Memoires Secrets . . . de la Commune," 1871. — H. Fessui, 
 " Mes Petits Papiers," 2 series, 1887-88.— Jourde, " Souvenirs d'un Membre 
 dela Commune," 1877. — Beslay, " Mes Souvenirs," 1873. 
 
 A collection of placards of 1870-71 : J, Claretie, " Les Murailles Politiques 
 de la France," 1870-71, 1880, in-4. " Documents pour . . . I'Hist. 
 de la Commune," 1871, collection of the official acts of the Commune. 
 
 WORKS.— General Wo*ks : Zevort, " Hist, de la 3nie R6publique," vol. 
 i., 1896, stops at May 24, 1873. — Oncken, " Zeitalter des Kaisers Wilhelm," 
 2 vols., 1890-92, Oncken coll. 
 
 On the Commune : there is no scientific history ; the leading works are : 
 Mazime Du Camp, "Les Convulsions de Paris," 5 vols., 1878-79, conserva- 
 tive.— Arnould, " Hist, de la Commune," 3 vols., 1878.— Lissagaray, "Hist, 
 dela Commune," 1896 edit. ; both communalist. 
 
 On the Attempt at Restoration in 1873 : Chesnelong, "La Campagne 
 Monarchique d'Octobre, 1873," 1895.— E.Daudet, " Trois Mois d'Hist. Con- 
 temp.," 1873. 
 
 On May 16 : " Du 16 Mai au 2 Sept. 1877," 1877, published by H. Monod. 
 
 Description of French Institutions: A. Lebon, "Das Staatsrecht der 
 Franzbsischen Republik," 1880 (Marqu. coll.).— Block, " Dictionnaire de 
 VAdmin. Frang.," 3d edit., 1891. — The collection in course of publication, 
 "La Vie Nationale," a series of popular works, contains much informa- 
 tion. — A. L. Lowell, "Parties and Governments in Continental Europe," 
 2 vols., 1897; chapters i and ii give an excellent sketch of the institutions 
 and party divisions of the third Republic. — Lupriez, " Les Ministres dans 
 les principaux pays," 2 vols., 2d ed., 1893; Part VIII. is an instructive 
 essay on the " r61e of the ministers in France." 
 
 On Finance : Uathieu Bodet, " Les Finances Frangaises de 1870 k 1878," 
 2 vols., 1881.— Amagat, " Les Finances Frangaises," 1889.— L. Say, "Dic- 
 tionnaire des Finances." 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 Formation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.— The kingdom 
 of the Netherlands was made up of territory that had been con- 
 quered by France and reduced to French departments, but was 
 made independent again in 1814. It was made by uniting three 
 pieces which had been separate before the French annexation: 
 the former Austrian Netherlands, the Bishopric of Liege (Lut- 
 tich), and the old United Provinces (known as Holland). 
 
 For these countries the French occupation had been, not a mere 
 episode, but a profound transformation. It had swept clean the 
 ground on which the political edifice of the nineteenth century 
 was to be built. There were in the Low Countries before the 
 Revolution provinces of very unequal importance, governed 
 under old and dissimilar customs, some of them without political 
 rights (the Belgian districts conquered by the Dutch). Society 
 was divided into classes unequal before the law; all political 
 power was in the hands of certain families or privileged bodies ; 
 the central government was weak; religious liberty was not rec- 
 ognised. France had swept away all the privileges, all the cus- 
 toms, all the political bodies of the provinces. She had set up 
 in their stead the French system — equality among the citizens, 
 equality among the provinces, systematic division into depart- 
 ments, each provided with a complete system of public services. 
 The old aristocratic and irregular system was gone ; a new demo- 
 cratic society, with a centralized administration, had been created 
 in its stead. This new society has made the Netherlands of the 
 nineteenth century. 
 
 The French revolutionary regime has remained firmly rooted 
 in the country ; but French rule did not survive the fall of Napo- 
 leon. The inhabitants had little liking for it, as it came to them 
 in the form of the military conscription and the Continental 
 blockade — death and ruin. As soon as the French armies with- 
 drew French administration collapsed. The movement began 
 with the arrival of the allied army at The Hague. Some mem- 
 bers of the old Dutch government organized a provisional admin- 
 
 229 
 
230 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 istration, recalled the former sovereign, William, and called a 
 meeting of notables to advise as to further proceedings. The 
 head of the provisional government, Hogendorp, proposed to 
 re-establish the old system; that is to say, the confederation of 
 provinces possessing unequal rights. Professor Kemper, though 
 an enemy of the French, showed that the old government was 
 no longer possible, and induced the Assembly to break with the 
 past, to accept the work of the Revolution, and establish a new 
 unitary kingdom.* The prince took the title of William I., King 
 of the Netherlands. 
 
 The Belgian provinces and the Bishopric of Liege, having no 
 legitimate sovereigns, were treated as vacant territory. The 
 Allies, being friendly to the Orange family, gave these lands 
 to the kingdom of the Netherlands in order to strengthen it and 
 " put it in a position to resist attack until the powers could come 
 to its aid." The new kingdom was to serve as a barrier against 
 France. The great powers, by an agreement inserted in the 
 treaties of Vienna, declared it neutral, and engaged with each 
 other to respect its neutrality. The neutrality of the Nether- 
 lands became and has remained a principle of European public 
 law. 
 
 Belgian Opposition. — The union of the Dutch and Belgian 
 Netherlands seemed to be a combination advantageous to all. 
 Belgium could supply agricultural and factory products; Hol- 
 land had its shipping and its colonies; the two countries com- 
 plemented each other. At least one-half of the Belgians spoke 
 Flemish, that is to say, Dutch. 
 
 The treaty of 1814 stipulated for equal protection of both 
 forms of worship and representation for the Belgians in the 
 States-General. It said "the Union shall be close and com- 
 plete." But it was made under conditions that made it hateful 
 to the Belgians. 
 
 The king had promised a constitution, and appointed a com- 
 mission, sitting in Holland, to draw it up. The Fundamental 
 Law established a constitutional monarchy of the sort desired by 
 Louis XVHL and the English Tories. The king shared the 
 legislative power with the States-General, and exercised the ex- 
 ecutive power through ministers; he had the right of making ;| 
 peace and war. But the ministers were not made responsible to 
 the States-General. These had only a very limited right of pro- 
 
 * The new kingdom re-established the old provinces, dividing the largest, 
 however, Holland and Flanders. 
 
BELGIAN opposition: 23 1 
 
 posing legislation, and no right of amendment. Of the two 
 Chambers composing them, the upper was appointed by the 
 king; the other was elected by the provincial councils, which in 
 turn were elected by the property owners, through the medium 
 of electors. The system of administration established by the 
 French was retained: each province had a governor and each 
 commune a burgomaster, all appointed by the King. The French 
 codes and hierarchy of judges were retained, but trial by jury 
 was suppressed.* In principle, liberty of the person, of resi- 
 dence, and of the press was accepted, but the deposit and stamp 
 were continued for newspapers, and the government could sus- 
 pend all forms of liberty in times of disturbance. 
 
 This constitution displeased the Belgian Liberals, brought up 
 in the school of Benjamin Constant. They said its provision for 
 representation was illusory, being subject to the personal power 
 of the King; and that its liberties were only a sham, being left at 
 the mercy of the administration. 
 
 The constitution laid down the principle of liberty of worship 
 and of the press, and thereby it offended the Belgian Catholics. 
 The bishops of Belgium condemned it publicly in 1815, in their 
 Doctrinal Judgment, which forbade their flocks to swear to support 
 the constitution. " We have thought it necessary to declare that 
 none of our spiritual subjects can, without making themselves 
 guilty of a great crime, take the different oaths prescribed by the 
 constitution." Among the provisions " opposed to the spirit and 
 maxims of the Catholic religion, the Judgment cites liberty of 
 religious opinion, equality of civil and political rights, the right 
 of publicly exercising every form of worship, and liberty of the 
 press. To swear to maintain freedom of religious opinion and 
 equal protection for all forms of worship is to swear to maintain 
 and protect error as truth, to favour the progress of anti-Catholic 
 doctrines, to sow, as far as we can, in the field of the family the 
 foulness and poison that shall infect present and future genera- 
 tions. . . The Catholic Church, which has always thrust from 
 its bosom error and heresy, could not regard as its true children 
 those who should dare to swear that which she has never ceased 
 to condemn. This dangerous new doctrine was introduced, for 
 the first time in a Catholic country, by the revolutionists of 
 France, about twenty-five years ago, and then the head of the 
 Church condemned it emphatically. To swear to keep a law 
 
 * It has not been re-established, up to the present time, in the kingdom 
 of the Netherlands. 
 
232 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 which makes all the King's subjects, whatever their religious be- 
 lief, capable of filling all offices and dignities, would be to justify- 
 in advance the measures taken to confide the interests of our holy 
 religion in Catholic provinces to Protestant officials." The 
 bishops also called attention to the article " which authorizes 
 liberty of the press and opens the door to an infinitude of dis- 
 orders, a deluge of anti-Christian writings." The Archbishop 
 of Malines, who wrote the Doctrinal Judgment, was brought be- 
 fore the courts and condemned to deportation. But the, Belgian 
 clergy refused absolution to the notables who had taken the oaths. 
 
 This constitution, viewed with disfavour by both Liberals and 
 Catholics, had been established in a way that gave ofience to all 
 Belgians. The King convoked an assembly of about 1600 
 Belgian notables to approve it: the asse *ibly pronounced against 
 it by a strong majority — 796 to 527. The government then de- 
 clared that those who had rejected it for religious reasons (126 
 Belgian Catholics) ought to be disregarded; it then added to the 
 number in favour those who had not voted. In this way it de- 
 cided that the Fundamental Law had been adopted by Belgium. 
 
 The government made itself even more unpopular than the 
 constitution among the Belgians. The seat of government was 
 in Holland. Nearly all office-holders, high and low, were 
 Dutch. In 1830 one of the seven ministers was Belgian; 11 of 
 the 117 officials of the Interior were Belgian; 288 out of 1967 
 military officers were Belgian. In the States-General, Belgium, 
 with three and one-half millions of inhabitants, had the same 
 representation as Holland with two arid one-half millions. By 
 detaching a few Belgian members, the government could have 
 a majority for Dutch measures. All the public establishments, 
 the Bank, the military schools, were Dutch. The Dutch brought 
 to the new kingdom a heavy debt which increased the fiscal bur- 
 dens of the Belgians. They introduced their system of taxes — 
 the grist tax and the meat tax — which were disliked by the 
 people of Belgium. The Belgians felt that they were treated as 
 an annexed people and exploited by the Dutch. 
 
 The government seemed to aim at assimilating the Belgians 
 by compelling them to change their language. From 1819 on 
 knowledge of Dutch was required of every person entering the 
 public service. In 1822 Dutch was made the official language, 
 except in the Walloon districts, for all public and judicial acts. 
 Now, the language of the bar, even in the Flemish districts, was 
 French. By this measure the government alienated the lawyers. 
 
REVOLUTION OF 1830. 233 
 
 It made itself odious to newspaper men by prosecuting them 
 before exceptional tribunals. It succeeded in irritating the 
 clergy by establishing in 1825 the Philosophical College of Lou- 
 vain and requiring future ecclesiastics to spend two years in study 
 there. The kingdom of the Netherlands was hardly accomplish- 
 ing what the treaty of 1814 promised — an " intimate and perfect 
 union." 
 
 Revolution of 1830.— The Belgians were discontented, but had 
 no practicable means •of escape from Dutch rule. The King was 
 against them, and the King was the government. In the States- 
 General the Dutch had one-half of the votes and, thanks to the 
 Orangists of Antwerp and Ghent, always had a majority. The 
 Belgians were not even united among themselves; some were 
 Catholic partisans of the old regime, others were Liberals and 
 devoted to the principles of the French Revolution. In 1827 it 
 seemed as if the Catholics, appeased by the Concordat arranged 
 between the King and the Pope, were going to come over to the 
 side of the government. 
 
 But some of the political leaders of the Catholic party had 
 lately adopted a new doctrine mainly inspired by the reading of 
 Lamennais. Instead of crying down the liberty condemned by 
 the Doctrinal Judgment of the bishops in 1815, they were insist- 
 ing on it as favourable to the triumph of Catholic truth. The 
 Liberal Catholics were, perhaps, not very numerous, but they 
 took the lead of the party, and concerted action in common with 
 the Liberals. 
 
 In 1828 the two Belgian parties, Catholic and Liberal, formed 
 the Union to oppose the common enemy, the Dutch government. 
 They began with petitions to the King demanding the liberties 
 guaranteed by the constitution. Then they demanded a separate 
 administration for Belgium. The conflict led to a rising. 
 
 It was the July revolution in France that gave the Belgians the 
 idea of a revolt. At the anniversary of the king's accession, 
 August 25, 1830, the opera La Muette (the Mute) was played at 
 Brussels. Its appeals to Liberty excited the spectators ; they cried, 
 " Let us do as the French have done." The mob demolished the 
 police offices and the place where the ministerial organ was pub- 
 lished. It was still only a Brussels outbreak; but the citizens 
 raised the Brabancon fiag, and the province of Brabant was in 
 revolt. Prince Frederick, eldest son of the King, went to Brus- 
 sels with troops and put himself in communication with the 
 leading men. It was agreed to ask the King to convoke the 
 
234 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 States-General to consider the question of giving each country a 
 separate government under the same King (a personal union). 
 The States-General met and the King spoke against the separa- 
 tion. At Brussels, on the 23d of September, Prince Frederick's 
 army of 10,000 men seized the upper part of the city and attacked 
 the lower part. -But the troops found it barricaded and defended 
 by citizens in arms. After three days of fighting the army was 
 driven off. The insurgents had formed an executive committee 
 to take charge of the insurrection; the committee organized itself 
 as a provisional government and issued a proclamation calling 
 home the Belgians in the King's army: " Belgian blood has been 
 shed. . . This shedding of generous blood has broken every tie. 
 The people of Belgium are unshackled." On the 29th of Sep- 
 tember the States-General pronounced for separation, by 50 votes 
 against 44; but it was too late. 
 
 All the Belgian provinces rose in revolt. The Dutch held only 
 two fortified places, Maestricht and Antwerp. The provisional 
 government decreed, October 4, " The provinces of Belgium, 
 detached from Holland by force, shall constitute an independent 
 state." It promised to draw up a draft of a constitution, and to 
 convoke a national congress to establish a system of government 
 for all Belgium. King William tried to arrest the rupture. He 
 sent his son to Antwerp to promise a Belgian administration, 
 managed by Belgians. The Prince even declared: " Belgians, 
 I recognise you as an independent nation; choose freely deputies 
 to a national congress." The provisional government replied: 
 ^'The people have driven the Dutch from Belgian soil; they 
 alone, and not the Prince of Orange, are at the head of this move- 
 ment to gain independence and establish their nationality." 
 
 Founding of the Kingdom of Belgium. — ^The Congress called 
 to make a constitution for Belgium was elected by men twenty- 
 five years of age and paying a tax varying from 13 to 150 florins, 
 according to locality, or following a liberal profession (in all 
 44,000 voters). 
 
 There were four parties: the Orange Monarchists (Ghent and 
 Antwerp); the Republicans, whose leader. Potter, had conducted 
 the rising; the partisans of annexation to France (in the Liege 
 region) ; and finally, the partisans of a national monarchy, far the 
 most numerous of the four. 
 
 The Congress voted, at the outset, four principles: ist, The 
 people of Belgium are independent. 2d, The people of Belgium 
 adopt as the form of their government an hereditary monarchy 
 
FOUNDING OF THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM. 235 
 
 with representative institutions (174 votes against 13 Republi- 
 cans). " It was not worth while," said Patter, " to spill so much 
 blood for such a trifle." 3d, The members of the Orange family 
 are permanently excluded from power in Belgium (168 votes 
 against 28 Orangists). 4th, This Congress is empowered to make 
 a constitution for the kingdom. 
 
 It was necessary to settle at once three practical questions: ist, 
 To choose a sovereign; 2d, To draw up a constitution; 3d, To 
 announce the new kingdom to Europe. 
 
 First. For the choice of King, the Congress at first hesitated 
 between the Prince of Leuchtenberg, son of Beauharnais, the 
 Austrian Archduke Charles, and the Duke de Nemours, son of 
 Louis Philippe. On the second ballot, in February, 1831, it 
 elected the Duke de Nemours; the vote stood Nemours 97, 
 Leuchtenberg 74, Archduke Charles 21. Louis Philippe refused 
 his approval of his son's election. The Congress then elected a 
 Regent, Baron Surlet de Chokier, who assumed the government 
 until a King should be elected. Presently the French and Eng- 
 lish governments agreed to propose Leopold of Coburg, who 
 was elected by 152 votes against 44. 
 
 Second. During the long negotiations respecting the choice of 
 a King, the Congress adopted the constitution. This was in two 
 parts; one providing for the organization of the government, the 
 other laying down principles of constitutional law. 
 
 The government was organized on the parliamentary system, 
 as represented by the principles of the English Whigs. The sov- 
 ereignty belongs to the people, not to the King. " All the 
 powers emanate from the nation. The King has no powers 
 other than those formally assigned to him by the constitution and 
 and laws made in accordance with it." As a confession of his 
 subordination to the people, the King must make the following 
 oath before taking possession of the crown : " I swear to observe 
 the constitution and laws of the Belgian people, to maintain the 
 national independence and the integrity of the territory." The 
 King has the executive power, but he can exercise it only 
 through ministers. The ministers are appointed by him, but 
 tliey are responsible to the Chambers, and in practice this responsi- 
 bility is interpreted as political rather than legal. The constitu- 
 tion promised a law regulating the responsibility of ministers and 
 the procedure for enforcing it; but no such law was passed till 
 1870, and the one then passed was practically needless. The 
 ministers resign when they have no longer a majority in the 
 
236 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 Chamber; this makes the Chamber the ruling power, and no 
 statute could add to the effectiveness of its control. The legis- 
 lature is composed of two houses — ^the Senate and the Chamber 
 of Deputies. Both are elected by the same voters and have the 
 same legal powers; but the Senators must be men of property, 
 paying at least two thousand florins in taxes. Every tax and 
 every levy of troops must be voted, in the first instance, by the 
 House of Representatives. Every statute must be accepted by 
 both houses and the King, and all three have the right of pro- 
 posing changes of law. Senators and Representatives are paid 
 for their services. To be a voter it was necessary to pay taxes 
 to the amount of at least 20 florins ($8.00) — a requirement which 
 appeared very small at that epoch. 
 
 The constitution decreed that there should be communal and 
 provincial councils to administer local affairs. These were to be 
 elected by the taxpayers — the qualifying amount being smaller 
 than in the case of national voters. They were to have about 
 the same powers as the municipal and general councils have had 
 in France since 1871. In those days of centralization their 
 powers were thought extensive. 
 
 The principles of public law established by the Congress rest 
 on the doctrine of complete liberty, accepted equally by the 
 leaders of both the Catholic and the Liberal parties. The con- 
 stitution guaranteed all the liberties : liberty of the person, of resi- 
 dence, of the press, of meeting and association, of worship, of 
 education, of language. A Catholic protested against the restric- 
 tion " saving the responsibility for writings that violate the 
 rights of society." " Under this clause," said he, " Abbe Lamen- 
 nais could not have given the human race his letters of liberation, 
 his chapters on liberty, which were against rights claimed by 
 society." 
 
 When the position of the Church was to be settled some of the 
 liberals proposed to place it under government control. The 
 Catholic liberals protested; Nothomb said: "We have come to 
 one of those epochs which occur only once in the life of a nation; 
 let us take advantage of it. We have a chance to exercise a 
 glorious initiative and to consecrate unreservedly one of the 
 greatest principles of modern civilization. For centuries there 
 have been two contending powers, civil power and ecclesiastical : 
 power. They fought for the control of society as if the empire of 
 the one excluded that of the other. It is this conflict that we are 
 called on to stop. There are two worlds before us, the civil 
 
FOUNDING OF THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM. 237 
 
 world and the religious world, they coexist without blending, 
 they have no point of union. Civil law and religious law are dis- 
 tinct, each has its domain. . . There is no more connection be- 
 tween the state and religion than between the state and 
 geometry. . . Let us signalize our transition by a grand prin- 
 ciple; let us proclaim the separation of the two powers." This 
 separation was established in Belgium according to an original 
 system. The Church was separated from the state in so far as 
 the lay portion of society have no power over the clergy ; the Bel- 
 gian bishops are directly installed by the Pope and appoint the 
 parish priests without interference on the part of the government. 
 But the Church retained the privileges which the state recognised 
 before the separation, the right held by all religious bodies of re- 
 ceiving an appropriation from the state, exemption from mili- 
 tary service for clergymen, the right to military honours in cere- 
 monies, the possession of cemeteries, and the right of overseeing 
 religious instruction in the schools. The separation freed the 
 Church of its burdens and left it its privileges. 
 
 Third. The recognition of the Kingdom of Belgium was a long 
 and delicate operation. It depended at once on King William 
 and the five great powers who had taken the Kingdom of the 
 Netherlands under their guarantee. The King was unwilling to 
 give up Belgium and prepared to reconquer it. Belgium, having 
 no regular army, would have been unable to defend itself alone, 
 even against the army of Holland; it was at the mercy of the 
 great powers. Their disunion was its salvation; the three abso- 
 lutist eastern powers wished to support William in maintaining 
 the treaties of 181 5 and in crushing the revolution. The two 
 liberal powers of the west sympathized with the Belgians — the 
 French to destroy the unpopular treaty of 181 5 and to show their 
 power, the English to keep the mouth of the Scheldt from falling 
 into the power of France. The two western powers had better 
 opportunity for action and were more free to act. They secured 
 the decision that each of the five powers should send an agent to 
 a conference in London to settle the Belgian question. 
 
 The London Conference settled the fate of Belgium, and the 
 Belgian Congress could only submit. It had to settle three im- 
 portant questions : the independence of Belgium, the frontier be- 
 tween Belgium and the Netherlands, and the division of the debt 
 between the two governments, besides a number of smaller ques- 
 tions : navigation of the Scheldt, demolition of the fortresses con- 
 structed against France, and indemnity to the Germanic Con- 
 
238 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 federation for Luxemburg. It was not long in declaring for in- 
 dependence: but on the other questions its decisions were guided 
 by diplomatic motives. It adopted successively three sets of de- 
 cisions (January 20, 183 1, June 26, October 15). The last, the 24 
 Articles, was the least advantageous for Belgium, obliging her to 
 give up part of Luxemburg and Limburg. The Belgian Con- 
 gress accepted the decision with great lamentation, and the 
 powers recognised the kingdom by declaring it neutral (Febru- 
 ary, 1832). 
 
 King William refused to accept the decision. At the expira- 
 tion of the armistice of November, 1830, which the powers had 
 imposed on him, he had begun the war again (August, 1831) and 
 routed the two Belgian armies; Leopold had called France to his 
 assistance, and it was a French army that delivered Belgium. 
 But the Dutch army, in retreating, had retained Antwerp. It 
 was again a French army which in 1832 besieged and took Ant- 
 werp; it worked without a declaration of war, as an army of 
 execution charged with carrying out the decisions of the 
 conference. 
 
 After the fall of Antwerp, the Dutch retained only two forts on 
 the Scheldt, and the King stubbornly refused to give them up. 
 Belgium, on her part, kept the bits of Limburg and Luxemburg 
 which the London Conference had granted to Holland. When 
 in 1839 William finally decided to demand an exchange, the Bel- 
 gian Chamber at first tried to resist, but in the face of the threat- 
 ening powers it yielded with many protests. 
 
 Thus the independence of Belgium was proclaimed in principle 
 by the Belgian insurgents and established in fact by France, with 
 the of35cial consent of the great states of Europe. 
 
 THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS SINCE 183O. 
 
 The Constitution of 1848. — ^The Kingdom of the Netherlands, 
 reduced to the former United Provinces, had at first only a sleepy 
 political life. The personal government of the King continued 
 until 1848. Politics were confined to the Belgian conflict and 
 the financial difficulties. The war and the King's personal ex- 
 penses had increased the debt by 375,000,000 florins in 10 years. 
 The press remained subject to the system of repression organized 
 against the Belgian papers. 
 
 William I., who had become very unpopular, abdicated in 
 1840: he wished to marry a Catholic, a maid of honour to the late 
 
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1848. 239 
 
 Queen. His son William II. dismissed his father's ministry, but 
 preserved the same system. The malcontents formed a small 
 liberal party in the second Chamber. Their leader, Thorbecke, 
 professor of public law at Leyden, took the initiative in demand- 
 ing a revision of the constitution in 1844. The King at first re- 
 fused. But in 1847 the agitation became more active, and in 
 1848 the King, doubtless affected by the revolutions of Europe, 
 appointed in addition to his ministry a commission charged with 
 the preparation of a plan of revision; Thorbecke and three other 
 liberals were members of it. Then the King convoked the States- 
 General, with a double number of deputies, to act on the revision. 
 They adopted the new fundamental law, and it was promulgated 
 in November, 1848. 
 
 The revision of 1848 was chiefly concerned with the method of 
 recruiting the States-General and with their rights. The first 
 Chamber, instead of being appointed by the King, is elected by 
 the provincial estates; the setond Chamber is chosen by direct 
 election of persons who pay a direct tax, varying according to 
 locality from 160 to 20 florins. The deputies receive a salary. 
 The second Chamber is elected for four years renewed by halves 
 biennially : but the King can dissolve the whole at any time. The 
 powers of the second Chamber are much increased; it has the 
 right to propose laws and to amend bills proposed by the govern- 
 ment. The ministers are declared responsible before the States- 
 General. 
 
 The fundamental law of 1848 recognised the rights of provinces 
 and communes. Each of the eleven provinces * has its provincial 
 estates, elected by the same voters as the second Chamber, for 9 
 years, renewed by thirds triennially; the members receive a 
 salary. They are occupied chiefly with roads and canals. Each 
 commune has its council elected for 6 years, renewed by thirds 
 (the property qualification for communal electors is one-half of 
 that for political electors), its aldermen elected by the communal 
 council, and its burgomaster appointed by the government. The 
 police is their chief province. The decisions of all authorities are 
 submitted to the government, w'hich may annul them. 
 
 The constitution also acknowledges the right of communities 
 to levy taxes and make regulations for the maintenance of dikes 
 and waterlocks (Waterschappen). 
 
 * To the 7 former United Provinces have been added 3 formerly subject 
 countries, Drenthe, Brabant, Limburg ; and Holland had been divided 
 into two parts. 
 
240 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 The Parties since 1848. — With the constitution of 1848 begins 
 the political life of the Netherlands. The responsibility of min- 
 isters before the Chambers is not interpreted as strictly as in 
 Belgium. The King retains in practice a portion of his per- 
 sonal power. He has even been known to take a ministry from 
 the minority when the majority was feeble and divided. But be- 
 fore a clear majority he has always yielded. Custom has inclined 
 more and more toward the parliamentary system. 
 
 In the Netherlands parties are chiefly religious, formed on the 
 question of public schools. The Constitution of '48 established 
 the principle that the state should provide free primary educa- 
 tion ; it recognised for all creeds the liberty of establishing private 
 schools, but the public schools must remain neutral. 
 
 The Catholics compose at least a third of the whole popula- 
 tion of the Netherlands and almost the whole population of the 
 southern provinces (Brabant and Limburg). Accustomed to 
 follow the direction of their clergy, they have constituted a com- 
 pact political party. The Protestants have divided into two 
 parties, the Orthodox, who favour Calvinistic education, and the 
 'Liberals, who favour non-sectarian education. The orthodox have 
 been the nucleus of the Conservative party, which calls itself anli- 
 revolutionary ; but they have been re-enforced by the partisans of 
 the regime existing prior to 1848, that is to say, of the gov- 
 ernment of officials. King, and aristocracy. The upper Cham- 
 ber is controlled by manufacturers and capitalists; the second 
 Chamber is composed of men who represent the average opinion 
 of small traders and small landowners. The labouring classes 
 are excluded from the right of voting. 
 
 Since 1840 the Liberal party, which is the party of the cities in 
 Holland, has had an almost uninterrupted majority, and has 
 usually held the ministry ; but at different times it has been so 
 weakened by divisions that the King has been enabled to follow 
 his personal preference by taking Conservative ministers. 
 
 The Catholic party began by working with the Liberals, who 
 favoured religious liberty, which the Orthodox party was threat- 
 ening. In 1853, when the Pope created the official organization 
 of the Church in the Netherlands (an archbishop at Utrecht and 
 four bishops, one for Holland, two for Brabant, and one for Lim- 
 burg), the Orthodox party protested. The Liberal ministry de- 
 clared it impossible to hinder the Catholics from organizing, and 
 confined itself to proposing a law which gave the government the 
 right to supervise the parishes. When it was finally decided to 
 
THE PARTIES SINCE 1848. 24' 
 
 organize the primary instruction promised by the Constitution of 
 1848, the CalhoHcs voted with the Liberals to establish the law of 
 1857, obliging every commune to maintain non-sectarian public 
 schools. The public school was not to give any denominational 
 instruction ; its aim was to be simply to " develop the intellectual 
 faculties of the children and educate them in all the virtues, both 
 Christian and social." The master must " not do or permit any- 
 thing contrary to the respect which is due to the religious feel- 
 ings of persons of another faith." The commune pays the ex- 
 penses of the public school and appoints the masters; it has the 
 right to levy a school tax; education is neither gratuitous nor 
 compulsory. The government makes good a part of the expense 
 and appoints the inspectors. 
 
 The Orthodox Protestants and Catholics, who object to neu- 
 tral education, have established private schools of their own 
 creeds (statistics of 1890 show about 3000 public schools with 
 450,000 scholars, against 1300 private sdhools with 195,000 
 scholars). The Catholic party has re-enforced its organization 
 in the Catholic districts ; the communal councils have employed 
 their right of choosing teadhers and to supervise education in 
 such ways as to transform the public schools into Catholic 
 schools. The clause of the law forbidding any teaching ofifensive 
 to any religious body has been in some cases interpreted in such 
 manner as to cut out from the list of studies the history of the 
 Reformation and the wars against Spain. 
 
 The Catholic party, now become stronger, joined the Orthodox 
 party against the Liberals to repeal the law of 1857 and establish 
 denominational public schools. The attempt began in 1868. A 
 Conservative ministry re-established separate government depart- 
 ments for Catholics and Protestants. The bishops issued a mani- 
 festo against the school law, adjuring parents to leave their chil- 
 dren without instruction rather than send them to the non- 
 sectarian school. This attack has been several times renewed. 
 The Liberals retorted with the law of 1878 which maintained the 
 principle of non-sectarianism in the same form as in 1857, in- 
 creased the salaries of teachers, and made the government respon- 
 sible for 30 per cent, of the expenses. 
 
 The Liberal party, united to support the non-sectarian schools, 
 divided on other questions: colonial policy, military reform, and 
 extension of the right of voting. 
 
 First. The system imposed on the natives of the Dutch Indies, 
 especially in Java, produced benefits for the mother country; 
 
242 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 since 1850 the government had been in the habit of balancing 
 the budget by means of the colonial surplus, and it had paid off 
 a portion of the old debt. In 1873 began the war against the 
 hostile people of Atje, in Sumatra, which is still going on, and in- 
 volves heavy military expenditures. From that date the colonial 
 budget has yielded, not a surplus, but a deficit which, added to the 
 deficit of the home government, amounts on an average to from 
 4,000,000 to 6,000,000 florins. It has been found impossible to 
 agree on the creation of new taxes to restore the equilibrium, and 
 so loans have been resorted to (1886, 1891). The policy of the 
 colonial war, and the deficit which it involved, have become a 
 favourite ground for the attacks of the opposition. 
 
 Second. The army was recruited by enlistment, to which was 
 added in 1861 enrollment by drafting with right of substitution; 
 the national guard, the Schutterij, has been preserved in the 
 cities. After 1870, under the influence of the general reform 
 movement in the armies of Europe and the fear of a German in- 
 vasion, a party was formed to demand the abolition of drafting 
 and substitution, and the establishment of universal military 
 service as in Prussia, with a reserve in place of the national guard. 
 But the movement met with stout resistance from the clergy and 
 the well-to-do classes, which controlled the States-General, and 
 the ministerial plan of 1891 was rejected in 1893. The Chamber 
 voted the principle of personal service, but the Catholics defeated 
 the passage of the law and caused the fall of the Conservative 
 ministry which had proposed it. 
 
 Third. Extension of suflFrage was demanded as early as 1872 
 by a portion' of the Liberals. But it could not be accomplished 
 except by a revision of the constitution. The government waited 
 years before presenting the plan ; the States-General were slow in 
 discussing it ; the revision, proposed in 1880, was not voted until 
 1887. It extended the right of voting to all those who could 
 fulfil the educational and property qualifications. This design- 
 edly vague formula has allowed the increase of the number of 
 voters from 135,000 to 350,000. The lower House, numbering 
 100 members, is renewable in full every fourth year, instead. of 
 being renewed by halves every second year, as before. 
 
 A small socialist party has been formed under a very active 
 
 leader, a former pastor, Domela-Nieuwenhuis ; it was recruited in 
 
 the large cities, and in Frisia, among the country labourers, 
 
 and demanded universal suffrage and the abolition of the upper 
 
 • Chamber. There have been two riots in Amsterdam. 
 
LUXEMBURG. 24 J 
 
 The Liberals have divided on the suffrage question; the ma- 
 jority has supported the Tak ministry, which proposed to extend 
 the right of voting to all who could read and write. The dis- 
 senters, joining the Conservatives and Catholics after the dissolu- 
 tion in 1893, secured a majority in coalition which took the min- 
 istry in 1894. This ministry succeeded in 1896 in passing an elec- 
 toral law which grants suffrage to most taxpayers. The total 
 number of voters is estimated at over 600,000. 
 
 The nineteenth century has been a time of prosperity for the 
 Netherlands. The population has increased from 2,600,000 in 
 in 1829 to 4,600,000 in 1891. 
 
 Luxemburg. — The powers of Europe, when creating the King- 
 dom of the Netherlands, had given Luxemburg a special and 
 complex position. While all the other Belgian provinces had 
 been ceded to the King of the Netherlands " as an increase of ter- 
 ritory," Luxemburg had been given to him as indemnity for the 
 German domains of the Orange-Nassau family, which had been 
 annexed to Prussia. It was set up as the Grand Duchy of 
 Luxemburg, hereditary in the Orange-Nassau family in the order 
 of male succession, and made a part of the Germanic Confedera- 
 tion. The city of Luxemburg was made a federal fortress, with 
 a Prussian garrison, and the King of the Netherlands granted to 
 Prussia the right of appointing the military governor. The 
 Grand Duchy became a state of the Germanic Confederation, at- 
 tached to the Netherlands by a personal union alone. 
 
 But the King ol the Netherlands, sovereign of Luxemburg, 
 created it as a province of his kingdom, applying to it the Consti- 
 tution of 181 5 and the Dutch laws. Provincial estates were 
 organized after an aristocratic system in three orders: knights, 
 citizens, and members for the rural districts. These were elected 
 indirectly by propertied voters, and chose the deputies to the 
 States-General. They had, beyond this, little more than a con- 
 sultative function. The country was in fact governed by Dutch 
 officials. 
 
 The Revolution of 1830 cut Luxemburg in two. The city, 
 which was occupied by the Prussian garrison, alone reniained 
 subject to the King. All the rest of the country revolted, joined 
 Belgium, and was incorporated in the new kingdom. Only one 
 part remained Belgian definitively.* Another part, the smallest, 
 
 * In exchange for the bit of Luxemburg which was taken from the 
 Germanic Confederation, Limburg was made a duchy and entered the 
 Confederation. 
 
244 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 was restored to the King of the Netherlands in 1839 ^'^'^ reunited 
 to the city; this is the existing Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. 
 Belgian rule had introduced there habits of self-government and 
 liberty which made it difficult in practice to return to the former 
 government, so the King gave Luxemburg a separate adminis- 
 tration. In 1842 he carried it into the German ZoUverein, or 
 customs union, against the wish of its inhabitants. 
 
 In 1848 the King granted the Grand Duchy a special consti- 
 tution modelled on that of Belgium, with a responsible govern- 
 ment and a Chamber directly elected by the propertied voters 
 (lo-franc qualification). As a part of the Germanic Confedera- 
 tion, Luxemburg sent deputies to the Frankfort Parliament. 
 
 During the general reaction against revolution, the King abro- 
 gated the Constitution of 1848 as contrary to the principles 
 adopted by the other sovereigns of the confederation. He gave 
 it instead the Constitution of 1856, which raised the voting quali- 
 fication and robbed the Chamber of almost all its powers, leaving 
 it only the right to vote the laws and new taxes proposed by the 
 government. 
 
 After the dissolution of the Germanic Confederation, the King 
 wished to sell Luxemburg to France, but was prevented by Ger- 
 many. Prussia withdrew her garrison, and the position of 
 Luxemburg was arranged by an international convention of the 
 powers in 1867. It was declared a sovereign, neutral state, under 
 the guarantee of the powers ; but it was forbidden to have an army 
 or a fortification. The King granted the Constitution of 1868, 
 founded on the same liberal principles as that of 1848, but ren- 
 dering the government practically independent of the vote of the 
 Chamber. Between Luxemburg and the Netherlands there re- 
 mained only a personal union. 
 
 In 1890 William III. being dead, his daughter inherited the 
 Kingdom of the Netherlands. But the Grand Duchy of Luxem- 
 burg, hereditary only through the male line, passed to his nearest 
 agnate, the Duke of Nassau, who had been deprived of his 
 Duchy of Nassau by Prussia in 1866. 
 
 The leading political question, in this little state, ie that of lan- 
 guages: French is still the official language, but the majority of 
 the inhabitants speak German and have their commercial rela- 
 tions with Germany, and the reigning family is German. 
 
 THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM. 
 
 rormation of Parties. — In 1830 all the Belgians had been 
 united against foreign rule. But the parties, which had joined for 
 
FORMATION OF PARTIES. 245 
 
 the Struggle, separated very soon. As early as 1831 a group of 
 Liberals established a newspaper, the Independence, with the 
 motto: independent civil power. It protested against the 
 religious liberty adopted by the Congress: "The Catholic 
 religion seems to us by nature given to encroaching; we believe 
 it dangerous and continually hostile to civil society. . . We 
 deem it our duty to watch its progress and resist its invasions." 
 The government had two universities, Ghent in the Flemish 
 provinces, Liege in the Walloon provinces; the two parties, tak- 
 ing advantage of the freedom of higher education, established 
 each a free university, the Catholics at Louvain, the Liberals at 
 Brussels. 
 
 In the first years of the kingdom the great divergence between 
 Catholics and Liberals did not take a distinctly political form; 
 parties were formed on practical questions. Until peace was de- 
 clared with Holland, there were twO' parties — the Greens, who 
 favoured war, and the Ripes, who favoured peace. The war party 
 wished to keep Luxemburg in defiance of the powers. The 
 Chambers were busy with the organization of local administra- 
 tion and the settlement of the finances. Belgium found herself 
 at once burdened with a part of Holland's debt and impoverished 
 by the rupture of relations with Holland. She went through 
 a terrible crisis: in 1839 the Bank and the Savings Bank failed. 
 
 The government sought to keep itself free from party control. 
 The ministries succeeded each other rapidly. But the King sys- 
 tematically avoided a party ministry. He chose men of mod- 
 erate opinions, or even combined representatives of opposite 
 tendencies (the Nothomb ministry — 3 Catholics and 3 Liberals). 
 It was at this time that the English theory of the eighteenth 
 century was admitted, that the sovereign should keep the govern- 
 ment from falling into the hands of a single party, and that the 
 ministry must be, not homogeneous, but impartial, without a 
 policy. . . The Minister of Justice in 1840 protested against 
 the " fatal divisions of opinion that always entail opposing par- 
 ties." He condemned " the division into Catholics and Liberals 
 as one without meaning in the presence of the great principles 
 of liberty consecrated by our constitution." 
 
 These peaceful intentions ceased when the Catholics, in the 
 name of religious liberty, carried the Education Act of 1842. 
 The prime minister, Nothomb, a Catholic Liberal, summed it 
 up as follows : " No primary schools without moral and religious 
 instruction. We break with the philosophical doctrines of the 
 
246 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 eighteenth century, which pretended to secularize education and 
 to constitute society on purely rationalistic bases." Religious 
 education was declared compulsory in public schools and 
 intrusted to the Church, the government reserving to itself only 
 the right of supervision. This division was regarded by the 
 deputies as a satisfactory settlement and the bill was passed unan- 
 imously, with the exception of 3 votes. 
 
 The Liberals, dissatisfied with the new law, sought to organ- 
 ize themselves to resist the clergy. Their leader was Defacqz, 
 the Grand Master of the Belgian Free Masons. In 1841 he had 
 founded, with the Liberals of every shade from the Orangists 
 to the Democrats, a political society, the Alliance, having for its 
 program the extension of the suffrage and a series of fiscal and 
 judicial reforms. After the passage of the law of 1842 the Lib- 
 erals formed local societies all over Belgium, and in 1846 the 
 Alliance convoked a congress of the Liberal societies at the City 
 Hall in Brussels. Three hundred and twenty delegates were 
 present. The congress, under the presidency of Defacqz, decided 
 to establish permanent Liberal associations in the cantons and 
 adopted a platform for the Liberal party. Of the reforms which 
 were demanded, two in particular marked the tendencies of the 
 party: i. "Extension of the suffrage by the continuous lower- 
 ing of the property qualification down to the minimum set by the 
 constitution"; 2. "The organization of public schools of all grades 
 under the exclusive direction of the civil authorities, by giving 
 them the constitutional means to compete with the private 
 establishments, and taking away from the clergy the legal right 
 to interfere with the instruction provided by the state." The suf- 
 frage and the schools have been from that time to the present 
 day the two great political questions in Belgium. 
 ., The King, being unable to make terms with the Liberals, had 
 just formed, in March, 1846, a ministry composed of Catholics. 
 This ministry tried, in 1847, to carry a law on secondary schools. 
 The Liberals excited demonstrations against it in the large cities. 
 Louis Philippe advised his son-in-law, Leopold, to " paralyze, 
 strike down, annihilate that audacious society [the liberal Alli- 
 ance] and by all means to maintain his ministry." Leopold 
 preferred to yield to public opinion as shown in the cities; 
 he took a ministry made up altogether of Liberals (August, 
 1847). 
 
 Struggles between Catholics and Liberals. — Since 1847 it has 
 been the constant practice in Belgium to choose a homogeneous 
 
STRUGGLES BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND LIBERALS. 247 
 
 ministry from the party in majority in the Chamber. Voters and 
 members have grouped themselves in two parties, Catholics and 
 Liberals, permanently opposed to each other. They struggle 
 against each other in elections of all sorts : for the Senate, for the 
 Chamber, for the provincial councils, and for the communal 
 councils. They contend for possession of the ministry and in vot- 
 ing laws on every question which concerns the authority of the 
 Church: education, public charities, cemeteries, civil marriage, or 
 diplomatic relations with the Pope. The Catholics contend in 
 the name of " the liberty of the Church," the Liberals in the 
 name of the " independence of the civil power." The Catholics 
 control all the Flemish provinces inhabited by peasants, Flanders, 
 Antwerp, Limburg, and a part of Brabant. The Liberals' 
 strength lies in the manufacturing Walloon provinces, Brussels, 
 Hainaut, and the Liege district. Antwerp and Ghent, the two 
 commercial cities of the Flemish provinces, and Namur and Lux- 
 emburg, in the agricultural region of the Walloons, are politi- 
 cally doubtful. Victory in these doubtful regions usually insures 
 success. 
 
 Since 1847 the two parties have been alternately in power. 
 Three times the Liberals have had control: August, 1847, to 
 March, 1855; November, 1857, to July, 1870; June, 1878, to 
 June, 1884 — ^twenty-eight years in all. Their leader has been 
 Frere Orban, member from Liege. The Catholics have been in 
 power: March, 1855, to November, 1857; July, 1870, to June, 
 -1878; and since 1884 — ^twenty-three years up to 1896. Their 
 leader was Malou, who died in 1886. This see-saw system has 
 the appearance of parliamentary government, but the position 
 of the parties is totally different. The English Whigs and 
 Tories, separated by secondary dififerences, agree in upholding 
 the constitution, which makes courteous relations possible. In 
 Belgium Catholics and Liberals disagree even in their concep- 
 tion of society; the contest is not between two political parties, 
 but between two societies broug-ht up side by side in opposing 
 principles. The contest lets loose hot religious passions and 
 bitter hatreds both in Parliament and in the press. It breaks 
 out in street demonstrations, which sometimes lead to fisticuffs. 
 It has been feared that the constitution could not hold out against 
 these agitations, and that liberty would be suppressed by the vic- 
 torious party. In reality, thanks to the common sense and nat- 
 ural tolerance of the Belgians, the struggle has been kept within 
 the limits of the constitution and liberty. It has not kept the 
 
248 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 country from increasing its wealth and population in unprec- 
 edented proportions.* 
 
 The Catholic party has had no need to create a special organ- 
 ization for itself; its leaders are the bishops, its staff the parish 
 clergy, its program the decisions of the Churoh. As the Liberal- 
 Catholics of 1830 have died out the party has discarded the liberal 
 doctrine set forth in the constitution, which had been condemned 
 by Pope Gregory XVI. in 1832,1 and by Pius IX. in the ency- 
 clical of 1864. The Liberal party had never been anything more 
 than a coalition of the opponents of the Catholic party. Their sole 
 ground of union was hostility to the clergy. When it was a ques- 
 tion of ousting the Catholics from power, the Liberals organized 
 themselves strongly, but after the victory the party was weak- 
 ened by dissensions on other questions. It had the advantage 
 of rousing the inhabitants of the great cities, the working classes, 
 and the Walloons, who were more active and more turbulent 
 than the Flemish peasants. 
 
 The Liberals have been long in power. From 1847 to 1870 
 they were in power 20 years. The Liberal ministry which was 
 in office in 1848 kept Belgium out of the revolutionary movement 
 except for an insignificant affray. A law passed in 1848 low- 
 ered the tax-paying qualification to the minimum set by the con- 
 stitution, 20 florins, and declared all office-holders ineligible. 
 Later the Liberal party regulated the secondary schools by the 
 law of 1850; it refused to recognise the right of the clergy to 
 supervise these schools. But the bishops, to secure this right for 
 themselves, resorted to the arrangement known as the Antwerp 
 Convention; as religious instruction can be given only by the 
 clergy and with the permission of the bishop, it was agreed, when 
 a city asks for a chaplain for its high school, to ask in return 
 that it shall promise to subject its schools to Church supervision, 
 and exclude from its high school ministers of other beliefs. 
 
 The Liberal party weakened itself by levying new taxes and 
 lost its majority. The Catholic party gained the ministry in 
 1855. In 1857 it wished to carry a law to establish " the liberty 
 of charity," which is the right of establishing charitable institu- 
 tions to be administered by the clergy, or, as the bill said, admin- 
 
 1831 1846 i8go 
 
 •Population, 3,785,000 4,337,000 6,069,000 
 
 Foreign commerce, 400,000,000 fr. 6,000,000,000 fr. 
 
 f "That absurd and erroneous doctrine that liberty of conscience must 
 be guaranteed to all." 
 
FORMATION OF PARTIES. 249 
 
 istered by " persons designated from time to time to fill certain 
 ecclesiastical or civil offices." The Liberals were aroused, insulted 
 the Catholics, and broke out in riots. The King at first declared 
 that he would support the ministry of the majority. But, the 
 communal elections having turned in favour of the Liberals, the 
 King formed a Liberal ministry, which dissolved the Chamber 
 and secured a strong majority, 70 against 38. 
 
 The Liberals kept the power 13 years, during which time they 
 accomplished several practical reforms : suppression of the octroi, 
 i860; revision of the penal and commercial codes, freedom of 
 association, reduction of railroad rates. But in this period they 
 divided, principally on the suffrage question. The Yornig Lib- 
 erals, later called the Progressists, demanded extended sufifrage, 
 the Radicals even demanded universal suffrage,* while the old 
 members of the party, the Doctrinaires, wished to maintain the 
 property qualification. The Liberal Alliance broke up; the 
 Doctrinaires founded the Liberal Union in support of the ministry. 
 There was disagreement about the army also; the Doctrinaires 
 wished to retain the system of enrollment, draft, and substitution ; 
 an Anti-military League was formed at Brussels in 1868 to replace 
 the army with a militia. In addition to these general causes of 
 contention, there were local oppositions: the Flemings de- 
 manded equality of Flemish with French in public acts; the 
 Antwerp Liberals protested against the new fortifications, which, 
 as they said, were making Antwerp a prison. In the elections 
 of 1870 the Liberal malcontents, Anti-militarists, and Flemish 
 Liberals refused to vote ; a number of Radicals, it was said, went 
 so far as to vote with the Catholics. 
 
 The Catholic party, assisted to power by the Democrats, set- 
 tled a number of the questions which divided the Liberals. 
 Flemish became the official language in the Flemish provinces; 
 correspondence with the communes and with individuals, as well 
 as criminal procedure, vaust be in the language of the district. 
 
 ♦These new ideas of the younger generations in Belgium have been 
 attributed to the influence of French Republicans who took refuge there 
 after the coup d'Hat. To their influence has also been attributed the 
 Belgian literary revival which has resulted in remarkable productiveness 
 for so small a nation. Brussels has during the last half of the century lost 
 its provincial character and become one of the intellectual centres of 
 Europe. But it is hard to tell whether this movement is due to foreign in- 
 fluence, or to the exceptional ability of the Walloons and the Flemings 
 of the cities. 
 
250 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 The voting qualification was reduced to 20 francs for elections 
 to provincial councils, 10 francs in the case of communal 
 councils. 
 
 This was the time of the struggle between the Pope and the 
 Kingdom of Italy, between the clergy and the government in 
 Germany. The Belgian Catholics favoured the re-establis'hment 
 of the Pope's temporal power. They signed petitions demand- 
 ing that a religious marriage should precede civil marriage, and 
 organized processions and pilgrimages. The Belgian bishops 
 denounced the governments of Italy and Germany. In 1876, at 
 the great Catholic banquet at Mechlin, under the direction of the 
 Archbishop-primate of Belgium, the Pope's health was drunk 
 before that of the King. The Catholic ministry, composed partly 
 of former Catholic Liberals, kept out of these demonstrations, 
 and even declared its determination to uphold the constitution; 
 in 1877 it carried a vote of censure against an address sent by 
 the pontifical Zouaves of Belgium to the nuncio. 
 
 To contend against the Catholic agitation, the Doctrinaires and 
 Progressists united and reorganized the Liberal party. In 1875 
 all the Liberal societies agreed to form the Liberal Federaticm, and 
 hold regular meetings. The Flemish Liberals founded a review, 
 the Liberal Flanders, revived the name of Beggars, which had for- 
 merly been borne by the Belgians who revolted against Spain, 
 and adopted the Gueuzenlied or Beggars' Song. 
 
 The Liberal Federation complained that the clergy forced 
 electors to vote for their candidates by watching their vote; It 
 ■demanded an investigation into the means of assuring rural 
 voters secrecy of the ballot (1876). The Catholic ministry de- 
 cided, in 1877, to propose a ballot law. By this new system, cop- 
 ied from the English ballot, the voter receives a printed ticket, 
 and goes alone into the electoral booth, where he marks the 
 name of his candidate with a cross. 
 
 In 1878 the Liberals regained their majority in the Chamber 
 (70 against 60), and with it the ministry. 
 
 The School law. — The Liberal party remained in power six 
 years, in which time they succeeded in establishing primary 
 schools independent of the Church. At first they created a special 
 ministry for public schools. Then they carried the law on pri- 
 mary schools. Every commune is obliged to maintain a public 
 school, which shall be free to poor children at least. The com- 
 mune appoints the teachers, but they must show a certificate of 
 proficiency; the State appoints the inspectors and approves the 
 
THE SCHOOL LAW. ^ 251 
 
 school-books. "Religious instruction is relegated to the care 
 of families and the clergy of the various creeds. A place in the 
 school may be put at their disposal where the children may re- 
 ceive religious instruction " (Article 4). Thus religious instruc- 
 tion ceased to be compulsory, but the schools remained open for 
 the clergy to come and instruct the children. This arrangement 
 was not enough for the Catholics; they demanded that religious 
 instruction should be part of compulsory primary education. 
 
 The bishops met at Mechlin and officially condemned the 
 school laws, agreeing to take ecclesiastical measures against the 
 masters and scholars of lay schools. The children should be 
 provisionally admitted to communion as having acted without 
 discernment; but absolution should be refused to the pupils and 
 teachers of normal schools, primary teachers, and parents who 
 let their children attend " schools in which the loss of the soul 
 cannot be prevented." The parish priests were to try and estab- 
 lish Catholic schools. 
 
 All over Belgium began an agitation to establish private Cath- 
 oHc schools and prevent the children going to the public schools. 
 The clergy gained their point, especially in Flanders. According 
 to the calculations of the Catholic party there were in November, 
 1879, only 240,000 pupils in the state schools and 370,000 in the 
 private schools, and in 1881 in the private schools 63 per cent, 
 of the whole school population (81 per cent, in West Flanders, 
 84 per cent, in East Flanders). 
 
 The Belgian government has no direct influence over the 
 clergy, for the bishops are appointed by the Pope and control the 
 priests of their dioceses. The ministry therefore addressed 
 itself to the Holy See. The nuncio replied at first that the Pope 
 had urged moderation upon the bishops and that in protesting 
 against the law the bishops had acted on their own responsibility. 
 But when the ministry tried to represent the Pope's attitude as 
 a reprimand of the Belgian clergy, it received a flat contradiction. 
 It then publicly accused the Holy See of " trickery," recalled the 
 Belgian ambassador from the papal court, and dismissed the 
 nuncio (1880). The rupture between the government and clergy 
 became a public issue. The Chamber accordingly voted an 
 investigation of the schools, and published the reports of the 
 committee, describing the sort of pressure brought to bear 
 on teachers and parents by the clergy, and showing the 
 insufficiency of the education given by the parish schools. 
 In 1883 the Chamber suppressed the salaries of 400 vicars 
 
252 , BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 or chaplains who performed no real service as vicars bi 
 acted as teachers in the Catholic schools. It abolished tli 
 privilege of theological students in military matters. Th 
 Liberals even began to consider means of hindering the ir 
 crease of convents and monasteries, which had doubled in nuir 
 ber and membership from 1846 to 1880. 
 
 But the Liberals were suffering from a new dissension withi 
 the party. The Progressists in 1881 demanded that the right c 
 voting in national elections should be granted to the provinc'' 
 electors (see p. 250). This the Doctrinaires, who controlled th 
 ministry, refused. A National League was formed to promot 
 an extension of the sufifrage. The Radicals in the Chamber de 
 manded a revision of the constitution in order to establish uni 
 versal suffrage; this was rejected by 113 votes against 11. Th 
 ministry granted only an exJtension of the provincial suffrage ti 
 those who could pass an educational test. 
 
 The government had also caused dissatisfaction by its finan 
 cial policy. To strengthen the public schools it had inorease( 
 the grant for primary education year by year up to 22,ooo,ooc 
 The result was a growing deficit: 6,000,000 in 1881, 12,000,000 ii 
 1882, 25,000,000 in 1883. The government had met this b; 
 means of a loan, and in 1883 proposed additional taxes on alco 
 hoi and tobacco and a raising of the customs tariff. 
 
 The discontent was so general that at the partial renewal 
 1884 only 3 Liberal deputies were elected against 66 Catholics 
 The Catholic party, strongly organized to oppose the school law 
 suddenly gained a majority of 32 votes in the Chamber. Th< 
 Catholic ministry, at once installed, busied itself with restor 
 ing sectarian primary education. The law of 1884 authorizec 
 communes to maintain, in place of a neutral public school, j 
 private Catholic school. The signature of 20 fathers of familie; 
 was necessary to oblige the commune to keep up the public 
 school. The commune got the right to include in its curriculurr 
 religious and moral instruction, placing it at the beginning or the 
 end of the session in order that parents who objected to it mighl 
 be able to keep their children away from it. Public teachers 
 whose schools were closed were dismissed with an allowance oi 
 750 francs. Under this law, in all the districts which were undei 
 clerical control, especially in Flanders, the public schools were 
 suppressed and replaced by Catholic schools whose teachers, 
 whether laymen or members of religious orders, are not required 
 to pass examinations for license. 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE. 253 
 
 Establishment of Universal Suffrage.— Since 1884 the Catholic 
 party has steadily held the majority * and the ministry, fiut side 
 by side with the old Liberal opposition has arisen a democratic 
 opposition which is very active in the manufacturing districts of 
 Liege and Hainaut, and the cities of Brussels and Ghent. It is 
 conducted by parties of different views, united only to secure uni- 
 versal suffrage — a socialist party connected with the German so- 
 ^ci^lists, composed chiefly of Flemish workingmen, having for 
 centres the Voorhuit of Ghent and the Brussels House of the 
 People; secondly, a revolutionary Republican party composed 
 chiefly of Walloons, in communication with the French Repub- 
 licans, recruited among the miners and workers in metals ; thirdly, 
 a Radical party, hostile to the rule of the property holders and 
 .to the military draft. 
 
 In 1886, during the economic crisis, the revolutionists organ- 
 ized strikes and demonstrations at Liege and in the coal districts, 
 which resulted in an insurrection: mills were burned, the army 
 was sent against the strikers, and a hundred or more were killed. 
 The committee charged with investigating the condition of the 
 industrial classes pointed out as legitimate their demand for com- 
 pulsory personal military service. The King desired it also as a 
 means of strengthening the army, but the Catholics, Who had de- 
 feated it once already in 1872, continued to oppose it. Contem- 
 porary with the campaign for universal suffrage was the Demo- 
 crats' campaign for the abolition of the privilege given to drafted 
 men of finding substitutes. 
 
 The old Liberal parties first attempted to reconstitute the 
 union; biit the negotiations fell through (1887); the Liberal Asso- 
 ciation, the Progressists, demanded that suffrage should be ex- 
 tended to all who could read and write; the Liberal League, the 
 Doctrinaires, refused. The opponents of the Catholics remained 
 therefore broken up into three sections, divided on the suffrage 
 question. The old Liberals, under Frere Orban, wished to keep 
 the "property qualification; the Progressists, under Janson, 
 adopted, at the Brussels Congress of 1887, suffrage for all who 
 could write; while the Democrats demanded universal suffrage. 
 
 Political life in Belgium has since then centred less in the 
 sessions of the Chamber, where the Catholic majority is assured, 
 than in the demonstrations and meetings of the Democratic par- 
 ties. The Progressists have joined in the support of the Radical 
 
 * In 1886 it had even increased it, 98 against 40; between 1888 and 1892, 
 however, the Liberals regained 24 seats. 
 
254 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 platform, abolition of substitutes in the army (1889), and later 
 universal sufiErage. People resigned themselves to the fact that 
 the constitution of 1831, the most liberal of its time, did not 
 answer the conditions of political life 60 years later. The King 
 himself in 1890 expressed the wish that the government should 
 take the initiative in proposing a revision of the constitution. 
 
 The Catholic party, in order to put an end to the trouble, de- 
 cided in 1891 to accept revision in principle. In a population of 
 6,000,000 souls there were not as many as 135,000 national 
 voters; it was therefore generally recognised that the require- 
 ments for voting must be changed. But it took two years 
 to agree on the precise changes to be made. 
 
 The Catholics proposed a lodger qualification, as in England 
 and Holland; the Doctrinaires an educational qualification; the 
 Progressists would have nothing less than universal suffrage. 
 After a year of discussion and negotiation the Senate and Cham- 
 ber agreed to vote the revision (1892), and both houses were dis- 
 solved. The Catholic party won a majority once more (92 
 against 66), but not the two-thirds majority necessary for a 
 change in the constitution. The Chamber rejected all the propo- 
 sitions (February, 1893). The workingmen, irritated by the long 
 delays, threatened a general strike if universal suffrage were not 
 voted, and trouble began again in Brussels. The militia was 
 called out, but did not seem inclined to march against the work- 
 ingmen. 
 
 The Chambers were alarmed and determined to pass the Nys- 
 sens project, a combination of the systems of the different 
 parties (1893). The new electoral law established plural voting. 
 It gives to every man over.25 years of age at least one vote, with 
 the right to additional votes on fulfilment of any of the following 
 conditions: ist, head of a family; 2d, possessor of real estate or 
 a savings-bank deposit to the extent of 2000 francs ; 3d, graduate 
 of a high school. No one can have more than 3 votes. (For the 
 Senate 75 senators are elected by voters over 30 years of age, 26 
 by the provincial councils.) Voting has been made compulsory, 
 under penalty of a fine and disfranchisement for the fourth ab- 
 stention. The government had proposed proportional represen- 
 tation, the Catholics rejected it. 
 
 The new system created 1,350,000 voters, with 2,066,000 votes. 
 At the first election, in 1894, the old Liberal party disappeared 
 almost entirely, except a few Progressists. The Catholics had an 
 enormous majority. The Walloon provinces elected principally 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 255 
 
 Socialists, The Catholic party used its large majority to carry in 
 1895 a law on municipal elections, favouraible to the peasants, 
 and a school law intrusting religious instruction in the schools 
 to priests. It also gave a share of the public-school moneys to 
 the Catholic parish schools. 
 
 The balance of parties in Belgium has been destroyed by uni- 
 versal suffrage. The Doctrinaire party no longer exists; its 
 voters, for fear of socialism, have joined the Catholic party. iThe 
 whole field is now occupied by the two extreme parties: the 
 Catholic party, supported by the Flemish peasantry, and the So- 
 cialist party, strong among the industrial classes of the Walloon 
 provinces. Between the two, the Progressists, who have grown 
 more and more like the French Radicals, are obliged, in order to 
 oppose the Catholic government, to join the Socialists. It is the 
 struggle of anti-clerical Republicans against the partisans of 
 Church and Monarchy. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 The Netherlands and Luxemburg. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— See langlois, "Manuel de Bibl. Hist.," paragr. 66 
 and 133. 
 
 WORKS. — The chief modern histories of the Kingdom of the Nether- 
 lands are : Nuyens, " Geschiedenis van het Nederlandschen Volk van 1815," 
 4 vols., 1883-86. — F. de Bosch-Eemper, " Geschied. van Nederland na 1830," 5 
 vols., 1873-82 ; both conservative. 
 
 On the Foundation of the Kingdom : Th. Juste, " Le Soulevement de 
 la HoUande et la Fondation des Pays-Bas," 1870. 
 
 On Political Institutions : De Hartog, " Das Staatsrecht d. K. Nieder- 
 lande," 1886 (Marquardsen coll.) a juridical 'account, with bibl. 
 
 On Religious Parties : Chantepie de la Saussaye, " La Crise Religieuse en 
 HoUande," i860.— Fr.Nippold, " Romisch Kathol. Kirche im K. d. Nieder- 
 lande," 1877. 
 
 For Luxemburg : Eyschen, " Das Staatsrecht d. Gr. H. Luxemburg,'' 
 i890(Marqu. coll.), gives a bibl., a history, and a description of institu- 
 tions. 
 
 Belgium. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— See Langlois, "Man. de Bibl. Hist."— Pironne, 
 " Bibl. de I'Hist. de Belgique," i8g3, stops at 1830.— Lorenz, " CataJ. de la 
 Librairie Frangaise," gives a number of Belgian works. 
 SOURCES. — The sources may be classified as follows : 
 Parliamentary Documents : Huyttens, " Discuss, du Congres Nation, de 
 Belgique," 5 vols., 1845. Then, since the origin of the Chambers, the 
 "Annales Parlementaires de Belg." Among the accompanying docu- 
 ments, " Enqugte Scolaire," 5 vols., 1881-84. 
 
25 6 BELGIUM AND HOLLAND. 
 
 Recollections and Private Papers. — Among the recollections pub- 
 lished by politicians or on their papers : L. de Potter, " Souvenirs," 2 vols., 
 1839, repub.— P. de Backer, "15 years, 1830-45," 1845, liberal.— Disoailles, 
 " Ch. Rogier," 4 vols., 1895, liberal. — ITothom^, " Essai surla R6vol. Beige," 
 2 vols., 4th edit., 1876, Cath. liberal. — Van de Weyer, " Mfemoires," 2 vols., 
 1871. 
 
 Papers and Reviews. — The most important reviews publications are : 
 L' IndSpendance Beige, liber. ; Le Bien Public, Cath. Liberal reviews : 
 Revue de Belgique ; Flandre Libirale. 
 
 WORKS. — Large General Histories : For the period 1814-30 : De 
 Gerlache, "Hist, du Roy. des Pays-Bas," 3d edit., 3 vols., 1859, Cathol., a 
 hist, of the whole kingdom up to the separation. — Hymans, " Hist. Parle- 
 ment. de la Belg. from 1814 to 1830," 1869. — For Belgium since 1835 : j,.j. 
 Thonissen, " La Belg. sous le Regne de Leopold I.," 4 vols., 1855-58, con- 
 servative. —Hymans, " Hist. Pari, de Belg. de 1830 k 1880," 1877-80. This 
 history of Belg. has the most complete supply of documents, consisting of 
 an analysis of all the debates in the Chambers. 
 
 On the Revolution Period : The works of Th. Juste, " La R6vol. Beige," 
 1870. — " Fondateurs de la Monarchie Beige," 22 vols., 1866-78, biographies 
 of the politicians of 1830. — " Congres National de Belgique," 2 vols., 18S0. 
 " Les Frontieres dela Belgique," 1866. 
 
 On Religious Struggles : Be laveleye, " Le Parti Clerical en Belgique," 
 1874. " La Belgique et le Vatican," 3 vols., 1880-81, attributed to Frere- 
 Orban; both liberal, — Woeste, " Vingt Ans de Pol6mique," 3 vols., 1885, 
 Cath. 
 
 On Political Institutions : Thonissen, " Constitution Beige," 3d. edit., 
 1879.— A. Giron, " Droit Public de la Belgique," 1884. " Droit Adninis. dela 
 Belg.," 2 vols., 1881.— Vauthier, " Staatsrecht d. K. Belgien," 1892 (Mar- 
 quardsen). — Hymans, " La Belg. Contemp.," 1880, a good historical outline 
 of political evolution.— Bupriez, "Les Ministres dans les pays," 2 vols., 
 2d ed., 1893; vol. I has an excellent account of the Belgian Government. 
 The author is himself a Belgian. . 
 
 On Social Development : " 50 Ans de Liberte," 4vols., 1881. Collection 
 of a number of authors on the progress of Belgium from 1830 to 1880 : 
 Polit. Life (Goblet d'Alviella), Sciences, Arts, Letters, Education, Politi- 
 cal Economy. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 SWITZERLAND. 
 
 It would be a mistake to measure the interest of Switzerland's 
 history by the size of her territory. This little country fills a 
 large place in the history of the existing institutions of Europe. 
 Every canton has been the scene of political experiences, and as 
 each combined, in a way peculiar to itself, varying conditions of 
 language, religion, territorial extent, and economic life, these 
 experiences have been extremely varied. It is not possible to 
 describe here the agitations, revolutions, wars, discussions, and 
 constitutional changes of all the cantons; but to one who would 
 comprehend the development of modern democratic states, this 
 history is to be commended as embodying the most instructive 
 practical examples of the principle of popular sovereignty. 
 
 The Switzerland of 1814. — Contemporary Switzerland, like Bel- 
 gium and Holland, is a product of the French Revolution. 
 France destroyed the old aristocratic regime in Switzerland and 
 prepared the way for the new democratic system. 
 
 In the eighteenth century Switzerland was only a perpetual 
 league of little sovereign states, held together by solemn engage- 
 ments not to make war on each other, and to help each other 
 against outside enemies. The union was not even a single 
 league, but a series of leagues within leagues, made at different 
 times and under dififerent conditions. The old members of the 
 confederation (13 cantons) were still distinguished from the 
 simple allies, to say nothing of the districts ruled by certain can- 
 tons w'hich had formerly conquered them.* 
 
 The cantons recognised no superior authority in the federation; 
 
 * The original league was between the three forest cantons, Uri, 
 Schwytz, and Unterwalden ; to these were added, in the fourteenth cen- 
 tury, three cities, Lucerne, Zurich, Berne, and two small districts, Zug and 
 Glarus. At the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth cen- 
 tury Soleure, Bale, Freiburg, Schaffihausen, and Appenzell joined the feder- 
 ation. These were the 13 confederate cantons. The a/h'es were Geneva, 
 Bienne, Neuchatel, Saint-Gall, the league of the Grisons and that of the 
 Valais. The subject districts were Vaud, Aargau, Thurgau, and the Italian 
 district of Ticino. 
 
258 SWITZERLAND. 
 
 the Diet was only a meeting of their ambassadors. They gov- 
 erned themselves without any common system, each following 
 its own customs based on historical rights. In each canton, ab- 
 solute power belonged to the people of one city or one region, 
 commonly even to certain old families, who goverried all the 
 other inhabitants with despotic power. Each government, hav- 
 ing power to regulate ecclesiastical affairs, imposed its accepted 
 religion on all its subjects. This made the cantons religious as 
 well as political divisions of the population. The league between 
 the cantons established no relations between their inhabitants: 
 citizens of one canton were treated as aliens in every other, and 
 special treaties were required to enable the citizens of any canton 
 to acquire a domicile or hold property in other cantons. Under 
 this traditional constitution, based on aristocracy and religious 
 differences, without national unity, religious liberty, or civil 
 equality, the Swiss people had neither political life nor the means 
 of reforming their condition. " The Swiss," said Goethe, " hav- 
 ing delivered themselves from one tyrant, have fancied them- 
 selves free; but from the carcass of the oppressor the sun has 
 caused a swarm of petty tyrants to spring up." 
 
 The French invasion of 1798 made an end of the old condition 
 of affairs. The Helvetic Republic, modelled on the French Re- 
 public, established a central government and civil equality of all 
 citizens. This was the first experience of a Swiss nation. It was 
 also the origin of civil wars which lasted five years.* The revo- 
 lutionary principle of unity and equality found few defenders out- 
 side the Vaudois, a people of French blood previously subject to 
 Berne. The Bernese and the people of the mountain cantons re- 
 sisted the new order of things with passionate energy. 
 
 Napoleon ended the war by imposing a compromise on the 
 contending parties. The Act of Mediation of 1803 restored the 
 sovereignty of the cantons by restricting the Diet to foreign and 
 military affairs, and making the deputies subject to the instruc- 
 tions of their cantons. But he maintained equality by giving the 
 title of Canton to the districts formerly recognised only as allied, 
 and even to the subject districts ; f also by requiring each canton 
 to adopt a constitution in conformity with French principles — 
 
 * These contests, and the very interesting experiments in constitution- 
 making in this period, are very clearly described in Hilty's " Oeffentliche 
 Vorlesungen iiber die Helvetische Republik." 
 
 f The six new cantons were Aargau, Thurgau, Vaud, Ticino, Saint-Gall, 
 and the Grisons. 
 
PERIOD OF THE RESTORATION. 259, 
 
 civil equality, religious liberty, freedom of commerce and ot 
 domicile. The ancient little cantons of the High Alps retained 
 their old assembly of the citizens {Lands gemeinde), meeting in, 
 the open air once a year to make their laws. The larger can- 
 tons adopted modern constitutions, with representative assem- 
 blies elected by the property owners. This new Switzerland had 
 little political life, as it was dependent on Napoleon, whose chief 
 concern with it was to get soldiers. (Ten thousand Swiss per- 
 ished in the Russian campaign.) But at least the Swiss began 
 under him an apprenticeship in individual liberty and equality,, 
 and in national spirit. 
 
 Period of the Restoration (1814-30).— When the allied armies, 
 entered Switzerland the partisans of the old regime rose to re- 
 establish the old cantonal governments and the old league.. 
 They succeeded in gaining control, first in the aristocratic can- 
 tons of Berne and Soleure, then in the Catholic cantons, Frei- 
 burg, Lucerne, the three forest cantons, and Zug. At Berne the 
 government that was in office in 1798 was restored, and declared 
 the Act of Mediation null. The federal Diet was sitting in 1814. 
 at Zurich (it alternated yearly between the six principal cities). 
 The eight cantons favouring the reaction withdrew their repre- 
 sentatives and formed a separate Diet at Lucerne. There they 
 demanded a return to the old constitution. Berne and Uri de- 
 manded back their former subjects. Schwytz and Unterwalden 
 aspired to go back to the beginning of Swiss history : the ancient 
 agreements should first be renewed between the three forest can- 
 tons, then that with Lucerne, then those with the other cantons,, 
 in the order in which they had been made originally. 
 
 The new constitution was supported by the other cantons, espe- 
 cially by the new ones, whose very existence was threatened. 
 Switzerland found herself divided into two hostile leagues, each 
 represented by a Diet. Civil war was on the eve of breaking out.. 
 It was the sovereigns of Europe who stopped it and saved the 
 work of Napoleon. The Tsar had had two Vaudois friends, La- 
 harpe and Jomini; he declared himself against the restoration. 
 The old regime governments, too weak to accomplish their ob- 
 jects without help, abandoned their claims on their former sub- 
 jects, offering to accept a money indemnity. The allies gave 
 Berne, by way of compensation, the district of Bienne and the 
 old bishopric of Bale, a Catholic country that had formed the. 
 French department of Mont-Terrible, and later became the Ber- 
 nese Jura. 
 
26o SWITZERLAND. 
 
 The eight seceding cantons returned to the Diet. Three new 
 cantons, taken from the French Empire, were added — Geneva, 
 Neuchatel, and Valais. This Diet of 22 cantons laboured seven- 
 teen months in making a constitution — the Federal Pact of 
 August 7, 1815, made after bitter contests regarding the old sub- 
 ject districts. The Great Powers ratified it, and guaranteed the 
 neutrality of Switzerland — ^which might furnish occasion for 
 interfering in its internal affairs. 
 
 The system established in 1815 dififered little from the Act of 
 Mediation. The cantons were sovereign, retaining all the 
 powers not expressly given to the confederation. They had the 
 postal service, the coinage, civil rights, and the power of making 
 commercial treaties with foreign nations. The confederation 
 had only diplomatic and military affairs and the settlement of 
 difficulties between cantons. The Diet was not an assembly of 
 representatives of the people, but a meeting of delegates from 
 the cantonal governments.* It sat alternately in the three lead- 
 ing cantons, Berne, Zurich, and Lucerne. The canton in which 
 its sessions were held in any given year was called the Vorort; 
 its executive council acted as a federal executive for the time. 
 Switzerland was not yet a federal state; it was a federation of 
 states. Its constitution was only a " federal pact " between 
 sovereign states. The inhabitants of one canton were not even 
 given the right of residence in other cantons; for this, special 
 agreements between the governments of the cantons were neces- 
 sary. On this point the " Pact of 181 5 " returned to the old 
 system. 
 
 Each canton settled at will its own internal constitution, each 
 had its own special institutions. Neglecting minor differences 
 we may classify the cantonal constitutions into five groups : 
 
 First. The little mountain cantons, Uri, Schwytz, Unterwal- 
 den, the two halves of Appenzell, Zug, and Glarus, retained the 
 old government by the Lands gemiende, or yearly open-air assem- 
 bly of the men of the canton. This decided public questions and 
 chose the executive officers. 
 
 Second. The ancient leagues — Grisons and Valais — remained 
 subordinate confederations. The Grisons had a central Grand 
 Council of 65 delegates — 27 from the Ligue Grise (Graubund), 25 
 
 • The delegates were bound by their instructions, and their consent to 
 measures was only provisional, ad referendum, ad insiruendum, or ad 
 ratificandum. Their sessions were secret. 
 
PERIOD OF THE RESTORATION. 261 
 
 from the Ligue Cadee (Gotteshausbund), and 13 from the League 
 of the Ten Jurisdictions. These delegates had to follow the 
 instructions of the districts they represented, each of which 
 had an almost sovereign assembly. Valais was divided into 13 
 Dizains, each of which had a council elected by the communes; 
 the power of the League was exercised by a Diet composed of 
 four delegates from each dizain, and four votes for the Bishop 
 of Sion. 
 
 Third. The old aristocratic cantons, Berne, Lucerne, Zurich, 
 Freiburg, Soleure, Bale, Schaffhausen, and Geneva, had com- 
 monly a Grand Council empowered to exercise the sovereign 
 power and a Lesser Council for executive business — both usually 
 composed of members of the old families. 
 
 Fourth. The new cantons, St. Gall, Aargau, Thurgau, Vaud, 
 and Ticino had elected Councils, elected, however, by the prop- 
 erty owners. 
 
 Fifth. Neuchatel kept its Prince, the King of Prussia, who by 
 the Constitutional Charter established two councils, the Executive 
 Council of State and the Audience General — the latter made up in 
 part of nominees of the Prince and in part of elected members. 
 
 Save in the mountain cantons, all the governments established 
 political inequality between the inhabitants. The people of the 
 chief-place, who made the constitutions, had followed a very old 
 custom by so regulating the election of the councils as to give 
 themselves always a majority against the rest of the canton, even 
 where the rest of the canton far outnumbered them in population. 
 Further, a majority of the members from the chief-place were, 
 in the case of the aristocratic cantons, chosen by the old 
 families. . . 
 
 In the new cantons, where the chief-place had not the habit of 
 ruling, the constitutions established elective councils, giving 
 roughly half of the members to the rest of the canton. But the 
 diiiference of wealth gave inequality of power, according to a prin- 
 ciple accepted at that time throughout Europe. The right of 
 electing was reserved to the heavier taxpayers. Besides, there 
 was systematic efifort to limit the action of the voters by several 
 devices. The representatives were chosen for very long periods, 
 so as to make the elections as infrequent as possible. Indirect 
 election was established. The election procedure was intention- 
 ally complicated. The Grand Council of Vaud was composed of 
 180 members elected for 12 years, and renewable by thirds; 63 
 chosen by the Grand Council itself from a list of candidates pre- 
 
s62 SWITZERLAND. 
 
 pared by the districts, 36 by a body of electors, 63 chosen directly 
 by the voters, 18 elected by the district assemblies. The maxim 
 of the Liberals of that day was: everything for the people, noth- 
 ing by the people. 
 
 Every canton was supreme in questions of Church and school. 
 Several forbade any form of worship other than that established 
 by the state. Valais did not allow Protestant worship ; Vaud did 
 not allow Catholic worship. Even in the cantons that had re- 
 ligious toleration it was the clergy who controlled marriage and 
 registered births and deaths. 
 
 Under these aristocratic and sectarian constitutions public 
 activity was weak until about 1829. Some institutions — the 
 Federal Military School of Thoune (1818), the Swiss Society of 
 Natural Sciences, the Students' Association, and the Federal 
 Shooting-matches — mark nevertheless the beginning of a better 
 feeling between citizens of the different cantons. But the chief 
 political business was the supervision of foreign refugees. 
 Switzerland was an asylum for the proscribed. Newspapers 
 hostile to the European governments were published there. 
 The Great Powers made complaints, and the government of 
 Berne induced the Diet to vote the " Conclusum " of 1823, which 
 required the cantons to " prohibit in newspapers and periodicals 
 everything that could ofiEend the powers in friendly relations with 
 Switzerland " and to prevent " persons escaped from another 
 state, after having committed there offences against the public 
 peace, from entering into, or sojourning upon, the territory of 
 the confederation." Every foreigner was to furnish a certificate 
 from the authorities of his own country. Several ca.ntons even 
 established a censorship of the press. This " conclusum," voted 
 for a year, was renewed annually until 1829. This measure of 
 Absolutist police was the only important federal act. 
 
 The Regeneration (1829-37). — In 1829 a series of agitations, 
 revolutions, and civil wars began which lasted until the general 
 war of 1847. The Swiss have called it the period of regenera- 
 tion. 
 
 The Swiss, who, until that time, had received their political 
 impulses from abroad, took themselves the initiative in constitu- 
 tional reform. As early as 1829 a democratic party appeared 
 which laboured to amend the •constitutions of the cantons and 
 then the constitution of the confederation. It was made up 
 chiefly from the classes left put of account by the government 
 and took presently the name of Radical party. The movement, 
 
THE REGENERATION. 263 
 
 begun in 1829, was stimulated by the French Revolution of 1830. 
 In nearly all the cantons the inhabitants gathered and drew up 
 petitions asking for revision of the constitutions. Neither revo- 
 lutions nor outbreaks were necessary; the governments were 
 alarmed and granted revision. 
 
 The centre of the agitation was Zurich. A fugitive German 
 professor, Snell, founded there a journal called the Swiss Re- 
 publican and drew up the " memorial of Kussnach," which em- 
 bodied the program of the party : sovereignty of the people, uni- 
 versal suffrage, and direct election. 
 
 One by one eleven cantons, the most populous, amended their 
 constitutions peaceably. The Radical program demanded sover- 
 eignty of the people, universal suffrage, equality of rights, separa- 
 tion of the powers, publicity of the debates, liberty of the press, 
 right of petition, freedom of opinion, of residence, and of industry. 
 The revised constitutions admitted nearly all these principles. . . 
 Exceptions worth noting were that Lucerne, Zurich, and Schaff- 
 hausen preserved the over-representation of the capital city, that 
 Berne retained the property qualification for voting, and Frei- 
 burg retained indirect election. 
 
 The federal Diet had decided, December, 1830, not to inter- 
 vene in any way in the constitutional changes of the cantons. It 
 was forced, however, to intervene to restore order in the can- 
 tons where serious dissensions arose. In Schwytz, the external 
 districts, having failed to gain equality, had seceded, and drawn 
 up a constitution as a new canton; they even attempted to sur- 
 prise the government garrison. The Diet condemned their 
 action as a breach of the peace and sent feder'al troops to put 
 them down. At Bale, the government, composed of city people, 
 having drawn up a constitution which accorded larger represen- 
 tation to the city than to the rural districts, the rural communes 
 had voted against it : the government took revenge by withdraw- 
 ing their right of self-government. The communes answered by 
 declaring themselves independent of the city, and drawing up a 
 ' constitution as a separate canton. The city resorted to military 
 force to put down the movement; but the Diet supported the 
 rural communes, and Bale was divided into two sovereign half- 
 cantons, Bale-city and Bale-country (1833). 
 
 The regenerated cantons wished the confederation to be re- 
 generated also, in order to strengthen the federal government 
 and proclaim the sovereignty of the people. The German can- 
 tons, taking the lead, formed, in March, 1832, the " Siebener- 
 
264 SWITZERLAND. 
 
 concordat," a league of seven cantons for mutual defence against 
 attempts at reaction. They pledged themselves to maintain the 
 rights and liberties of the people, to sustain the lawful authorities 
 and defend their new constitutions by force of arms. This league 
 was to labour for a revision of the federal constitution, in order to 
 have the cantonal constitutions protected by the federal govern- 
 ment; the Concordat was to lapse when the confederation should 
 have assumed this responsibility. 
 
 The cantons attached to the old system answered by a counter 
 league, the Sarnerbund, formed November, 1832, between Neu- 
 chatel, Bale, Valais, and the three forest cantons. These agreed 
 not to send their representatives to the Diet, in order to hinder 
 revision. The Diet, where the regenerated cantons had a ma- 
 jority, dissolved the league and compelled the members of it to 
 send their deputies as usual. Then it voted in favour of amend- 
 ing the constitution. A draft of the amendments was submitted 
 to the cantons, but failed of adoption because the people in two 
 of the regenerated cantons rejected them. No new draft was 
 agreed on, and so the project of revision was abandoned. The 
 main result of the movement was to lead the Diet to make its 
 sessions public. 
 
 After the failure of revision the political life of the cantons was 
 filled with confused movements. Three of these may be noted: 
 
 First. A new division of political parties came about. Till 
 then the division was into Liberals and Conservatives; after the 
 attempted revision the Liberals divided^ The more eager wished 
 to continue the revolution and establish political equality 
 throughout Switzerland: these formed the Radical party, resting 
 on the general, mass of the voters. On the other hand, the men 
 who, during the revision movement, had conducted the govern- 
 ments, regarded the revolution as ended and became the party 
 of the just mean, opposing further changes : this was the party of 
 the middle class, the statesmen, the jurists, and the educated 
 classes in general.* But it failed to develop strength; it held 
 aloof from political agitation and gradually lost its influence with 
 the masses. The Radical party was managed by a general asso- 
 
 * Rohmers has expressed the views of this party in a theory, or rather 
 a metaphor, which a well-known writer, Bluntschli, adopts in his work on 
 the state : ' ' There are four parties, corresponding to the four ages of man: 
 two extremes — the radical, who is the ignorant child, the absolutist, who 
 is the decrepit old man; two intermediate parties of political wisdom — the 
 liberal, who is the young man, and the conservative, the mature man." 
 
LOCAL CONFLICTS. 265 
 
 ciation, the National Verein; it went on agitating for revision and 
 gathered to itself young men of the new generation. 
 
 Second. The reactions that followed, throughout the Conti- 
 nent, the movements of 1830, filled Switzerland with political 
 refugees accused in their own countries of conspiracy. . . De- 
 mands for their expulsion led to contests in Switzerland, the 
 Radicals supporting the refugees in the name of Swiss indepen- 
 dence and democratic principles; the Liberals supported the de- 
 mands of the foreign governments and, joining the Conserva- 
 tives, carried through the Diet a provision for a central police to 
 exercise surveillance over the refugees. 
 
 Third. A transformation came about in the Catholic cantons. 
 A Catholic party was formed which put the religious question 
 before political questions. It found its support not among the 
 aristocratic Conservatives, but among the peasants, and avowed 
 itself a democratic party. It sought, by the help of the rural 
 voters, to deprive the Liberals of control. 
 
 Local Conflicts (1837-45). — Troubles broke out regarding 
 ecclesiastical affairs. German Switzerland belonged, until 1815, to 
 the diocese of Constance. The Swiss governments, unwilling to 
 be subject to a foreign bishop, obtained, after long negotiations, 
 the creation of six Swiss bishoprics directly subject to the Pope. 
 Certain Liberal governments agreed in the Articles of Baden to 
 place the relations between Church and state under sovereign 
 control of the lay power. The Pope condemned the Articles as 
 contrary to the constitution of the Church. There were out- 
 breaks of the Catholic inhabitants against the commands of the 
 Protestant governments in Aargau, Saint-Gall, and Bernese Jura. 
 
 In several cantons there were armed conflicts on various ques- 
 tions. There was a fight in Schwytz regarding the use of com- 
 mon pastures (Allmende). The owners of large cattle, nick- 
 named Horns, came to the Assembly of the canton armed with 
 clubs; their opponents, the owners of small cattle, nicknamed 
 Split-hoofs (Klauen) were unarmed. There was a vote, and the 
 vote was doubted. The Horns dispersed the Split-hoofs with 
 their clubs. There iwas a battle with guns in Ticino, and the 
 Radicals won the day. In Valais the Radicals had long de- 
 manded equa^ity of representation for Lower Valais; in 1838 they 
 got proceedings started for a revision of the constitution. The 
 Diet supported them and ordered the election of a convention to 
 frame a constitution. Upper Valais, to save its privileges, 
 wished to be made a separate canton, but this the Diet refused. 
 
266 SWITZERLAND. 
 
 The new constitution was submitted to popular vote: Lower 
 Valais gave a majority of 8000 in its favour; Upper Valais, ac- 
 cording to its own claim, gave a inajority of 10,770 votes against 
 it. Tliis was evidently a fraudulent claim. The Radicals of 
 Lower Valais made an armed invasion of Upper Valais and 
 forced it to accept the constitution (1840). 
 
 Of all the petty wars of the period the most characteristic is 
 the " affray of Zurich." The Radical governments had called 
 to the University of Zurich a German professor, the famous 
 rationalist Strauss, author of the " Life of Jesus." The pastors, 
 aroused, organized a Committee of the Faith, which demanded 
 the recall of the appointment. The government retired 
 Strauss, but declared that it could not allow the committee 
 to hold communal assemblies. The committee protested and 
 held a meeting of 15,000 persons. Early in the morning 
 of September 6, 1839, four or five thousand men, brought 
 together by the pastors of Pfaffikon, on the border of the lake, 
 marched on Zurich. At their Head were five hundred men 
 armed with guns; the rest carried scythes and flails. During 
 that year Zurich, as Vorort, was the seat of the Diet, and its 
 council was therefore acting as the federal executive. To de- 
 fend this government there were in the city only 190 foot soldiers 
 and 30 horsemen. One volley was enough to stop the insur- 
 gents ; but forthwith the troops were withdrawn to their barracks. 
 The citizens responsible for the care of the arsenals handed 
 them over to the insurgents and the members of the council re- 
 signed their offices. The insurgents, masters of Zurich, estab- 
 lished a provisional council, which found itself invested with the 
 federal executive power. Thus a petty cantonal insurrection 
 sufficed to change the directory of the confederation. 
 
 Amid these conflicts the intermediate parties. Conservatives 
 and Liberals, lost gradually their control of the cantons; power 
 was passing to the two extreme parties. In the Protestant can- 
 tons the Radicals were taking the place of the old families.* In 
 the Catholic cantons, the Democratic Catholic party was displac- 
 ing the champions of lay sovereignty. The Jesuits directed 
 
 * At Geneva, Fazy, the Radical leader, had to make a coalition with the 
 Catholics of the rural communes, in order to oust the patricians from the 
 government. A rising was required in 1841 to obtain the constitutional 
 convention that prepared the democratic constitution of 1842 ; a revo- 
 lution was needed in 1846 to drive the patrician leaders from the councils 
 and obtain the Constitution of 1847. 
 
THE SONDERBUND AND THE CIVIL WAR. 267 
 
 the movement, and took advantage of it to found colleges in 
 Schwytz, Freiburg, and Lucerne. The party got control in 
 Freiburg in 1837 and in Lucerne in 1841. By 17,555 votes 
 against 1679 the people of Lucerne voted the Democratic Cath- 
 olic constitution, giving the city and rural districts equal repre- 
 sentation, abrogating the Articles of Baden, and suppressing lay 
 supervision of schools. The new government submitted this 
 constitution to the Pope for his approval. In Valais, after a 
 bloody struggle, the victorious Catholics made a constitution 
 which forbade all other forms of worship than the Catholic 
 <i844). 
 
 The political forces gradually grouped themselves into two 
 parties, the Catholics and their opponents, without reference to 
 cantonal lines. The Protestant government of Aargau, after a 
 Catholic outbreak in opposition, suppressed the eight convents 
 in the canton; the Catholics got a decision from the Diet an- 
 nulling the action as contrary to the federal constitution. Aargau 
 ■accepted, in 1843, a compromise re-establishing the convents for 
 women; but in 1844 it demanded of the Diet the expulsion of 
 the Jesuits. Battalions of volunteers were formed in Lucerne, 
 and armed from the federal arsenals, to oppose the Catholic gov- 
 ernment; they were commanded by Ochsenbein, later chief of 
 the stafif in the federal army. Twice they marched upon the city, 
 but were beaten (1844-45). Th^ government of Lucerne con- 
 demned such of them as were captured to punishment as ordinary 
 ■criminals. 
 
 The Sonderbund and the Civil War (1845-47). — The Swiss were 
 divided into two extreme parties, ready for war with each other. 
 The Catholic party gave official form to the division by forming 
 a Separate Union (Sonderbund) between the seven Catiiolic can- 
 tons, Uri, Schwytz, Unterwalden, Zug, Lucerne, Freiburg, and 
 Valais (1845). These cantons agreed, " in case one or more of 
 their number should be attacked, to repel the attack in common "; 
 they represented their action as taken " in defence of their sov- 
 ereignty and territorial rights " ; their league as a defensive one, 
 modelled on the ancient alliances. They instituted a council of 
 war of seven delegates which should take the necessary meas- 
 ures to defend the cantons. Each canton contributed to the 
 defence fund in the proportion of its federal burdens. 
 
 The Radical party called on the Diet to expel the Jesuits and 
 dissolve the Sonderbund. This meant war. Several cantons 
 hesitated; in order to obtain a majority in the Diet, the Radicals 
 
268 SWITZERLAND. 
 
 laboured to overturn the cantonal governments that wished to 
 remain neutral. They made the expulsion of the Jesuits the pri- 
 mary question of Swiss politics. Taking advantage of the un- 
 popularity of the Jesuits to compromise the governments sus- 
 pected of favouring them, they succeeded in getting into power 
 in Vaud, Berne, Geneva, and Saint-Gall. The control of the 
 votes of these cantons gave them a majority in the federal Diet. 
 They carried through the Diet an order dissolving the Sonder- 
 bund, and a vote asking the cantons to expel the Jesuits. The 
 cantons of the Sonderbund decided to resist, and recalled their 
 deputies from the Diet. 
 
 The Diet gave the direction of the war to General Dufour, 
 a Conservative. In November, 1847, he had 100,000 men and 
 172 cannons. The Sonderbund had only 30,000 men and 74 can- 
 nons. But they counted on the weakness of the Diet, the ease 
 of defence in their mountains, and the likelihood of intervention 
 from without. The four great powers (Austria, Prussia, Russia, 
 and France) promised to intervene for the maintenance of the 
 Pact of 1815 and the sovereignty of the cantons placed under 
 their guarantee. The council of war of the Sonderbund re- 
 ceived 400,000 florins from Austria and 3000 guns and some 
 cannon from Louis Philippe. The Diet, having received from 
 the English government a secret intimation that the great powers 
 were going to intervene, ordered that operations should be rap- 
 idly pushed. Dufour, concentrating all his forces, marched on 
 Freiburg, which yielded without fighting (November 14), then 
 on Zug, then on Lucerne. The army of the Sonderbund dis- 
 persed, and Lucerne was taken November 24. The forest can- 
 tons had no choice but to capitulate. Later Valais was reduced 
 to submission. The campaign had lasted only three weeks. The 
 offer of mediation by the European powers did not arrive till all 
 was over. 
 
 The Sonderbund war was a war of principles between a cen- 
 tralizing lay policy and a cantonal sectarian policy. The Jesuits 
 and other religious orders were expelled from each canton occu- 
 pied by the federal troops. Then the people were compelled 
 to admit the Radicals to power, to withdraw from the Sonder- 
 bund, and amend the cantonal constitution. At Freiburg, the 
 new Council, taken from the Radical minority, amended the con- 
 stitution and governed the canton, contrary to democratic prin- 
 ciples, without consulting the mass of the people, who were 
 known to be hostile to the revolution. 
 
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF 1848. 269 
 
 The Radicals, by defeating the Catholics, acquired the mas- 
 tery of Switzerland, and have continued to hold it. 
 
 The Federal Constitution of 1848. — The victorious Radicals 
 reorganized Switzerland according to their own ideas. The Diet 
 appointed a committee to draft a new constitution — the Constitu- 
 tion of 1848. This established a Federal State {Bmdesstaat) 
 instead of the Federation of States (Staatenbund) created by the 
 Pact of 1815. It retained the formula "The people of the 22 
 sovereign Cantons form the Swiss Confederation" and copied 
 from the discarded Articles of Confederation of the United 
 States the assertion that the Cantons are sovereign and exercise 
 all the rights not conferred on the federal power. But it required 
 the cantons to ask of the Confederation the guarantee of their 
 constitutions, and determined the conditions to which these must 
 conform : 
 
 1. That these constitutions shall contain nothing contrary to 
 the provisions of the federal constitution. 
 
 2. That they shall insure the enjoyment of political rights ac- 
 cording to republican forms (representative or democratic). 
 
 3. That they shall have been accepted by the people, and shall 
 have a provision for amendment when demanded by a majority 
 of the voters. 
 
 All political alliances are forbidden between the cantons. 
 
 There are thus principles and political forms binding for all 
 the Swiss, a supreme federal public law which gives political 
 unity to Switzerland. This supreme law conforms to Radical 
 doctrine; it tolerates none but republican governments (Neu- 
 chatel declares itself independent of the King of Prussia), demo- 
 cratic governments resting on universal suffrage, republics in 
 which the constitution must be submitted to popular vote, and 
 must be open to amendment on demand of the majority. The 
 Swiss's country is no longer only his canton but all Switzerland. 
 Before 1848 any person expelled from his canton became 
 heimaislos, a man without a country; henceforth every Swiss en- 
 joys civil rights throughout the whole extent of the Confedera- 
 tion. The federal constitution guarantees to him equality of 
 rights, freedom of marriage, of commerce, of industry, of the 
 press, of association, and of worship. 
 
 The constitution divides the powers between the canton and 
 the Confederation. The canton retains its power of legislation 
 in civil and penal matters, in affairs of police, public worship, edu- 
 cation, public highways, military service, in the appointment of 
 
^^o SWITZERLAND. 
 
 ofificers, and in taxation; but it is subject to the federal laws. The 
 Confederation has power to manage foreign relations, the army, 
 customs duties, postal affairs, and the coinage. Henceforward 
 Switzerland has some institutions in common — one postal sys- 
 tem, one tariff (all internal customs duties were abolished), one 
 federal coinage, one federal system of weights and measures (the 
 French metric system), a federal army directed by a central gen- 
 eral staff. The Swiss army, reorganized in the revision of 1874, 
 is a national force, recruited by a universal compulsory service 
 for short terms (42 to 80 days). Young men pass in it only the 
 time necessary for learning to manage arms and to execute mili- 
 tary movements, under the command of ofificers who remain ordi- 
 nary citizens. 
 
 The new constitution institutes three organs of government, 
 invested with the three powers recognised by the theories in 
 vogue at that time. The Federal Assembly exercises " the legis- 
 lative power." The Federal Council, composed of seven mem- 
 bers elected for three years by the Assembly, holds " the execu- 
 tive power"; each of the seven takes charge of a department; 
 one of the seven, designated each year by the Assembly, acts as 
 President of the Council. The Federal Tribunal, elected by the 
 Assembly, has " the judicial power," but has not the right, as in 
 America, to disregard legislative acts that are, in its judgment, 
 contrary to the constitution. 
 
 The Federal Assembly is not a single body representing the 
 Swiss people, as the democratic school demanded; it is composed, 
 on the model of the United States, of two Chambers : the National 
 Council, elected directly by all the voters, in the proportion of 
 one for every 20,000 inhabitants; and the Council of States 
 (Standerath), composed of two members from each canton. For 
 the election of the Federal Council and the judges of the Fed- 
 eral Tribunal the two houses meet as one body. The members 
 of both councils receive pay for their services, the members of 
 the Council of States receiving it from their cantons. The fed- 
 eral government has a fixed residence assigned to it, the city of 
 Berne, which becomes the federal capital. 
 
 By its tenderness for the forms of cantonal sovereignty, and 
 by the division of the Federal Assembly, the Constitution of 
 1848 is a compromise between the traditional independence of 
 the cantons and the ideal of centralization urged by the Radical 
 party. The Committee of Revision expressed this point clearly 
 in its report : " If Switzerland is no longer in the condition for 
 
ESTABLISHMENT OF DIRECT POPULAR LEGISLA TION. 271 
 
 which the Pact of 18 15 was instituted, no more is it in a condi- 
 tion suitable for a unitary government — a new Helvetic Republic. 
 . . . Whatever advance the national spirit may have made, the 
 cantonal spirit is still deeply ingrained in Switzerland. The 
 unitary system might perhaps be introduced, but it could not be 
 maintained. . ." 
 
 The constitution was submitted to popular vote and was de- 
 clared to have been adopted by the people of fifteen cantons and 
 one half-canton. In this number Freiburg is included, although 
 there had been no popular vote there — the Radical Council under- 
 taking to answer for the people (see p. 268). In four cantons, 
 where a majority of the votes actually cast was against the new 
 constitution, a majority in its favour was made out by adding to 
 the minority voting yes the votes of those who had failed to take 
 part in the election.* 
 
 The Swiss nation dates from the Constitution of 1848. The 
 unity established by the Radicals has not been disputed; civil 
 wars have ceased ; f the Swiss of all the cantons have become 
 accustomed to regard each other as fellow-countrymen, and to 
 govern themselves according to the same democratic spirit. Co- 
 inciding with the introduction of railways, the constitution 
 ushered in a period of unwonted prosperity. The people of Swit- 
 zerland, proverbial up to that date for rustic qualities, have since 
 made themselves notable for their manufactures, for the comfort 
 everywhere observable among them, for the perfection of their 
 schools and for their political training. The population has 
 increased from 2,390,000 in 1850 to 3,300,000 in 1896. 
 
 Establishment of Direct Popular Legislation. — ^After 1848 the 
 'history of Switzerland is no longer made up of revolutions, ris- 
 ings, and civil wars: these are replaced by amendments of the 
 constitution. From 1830 to 1873 there were eighty-three con- 
 stitutional changes in the cantons, and the movement still goes 
 on. All the cantonal constitutions have been remodelled; there 
 remains now only one of earlier date than 1848; the oldest, that 
 of Berne, made in 1846, was modified in 1893. 
 
 The thing that gives interest to this movement is a phenom- 
 enon unique in history — the experiment of direct legislative 
 action by the people. This has been introduced in two forms — 
 
 • The four were Schwytz, Zug, Valais, and Lucerne. All the Catholic 
 cantons had given majorities against the new constitution. 
 
 f The only exceptions have been the royalist attempt in Neuch^tel in 
 1856, and certain fights in the Italian canton of Ticino. 
 
272 SWITZERLAND. 
 
 the Initiative and the Referendum. The Initiative is the right 
 granted to any sufficiently numerous group of citizens to pro- 
 pose a change of law, and to require the government to submit 
 the question to the judgment of the people. The Referendum 
 is the right given to the people to have a direct vote on any bill 
 passed by the legislature. These two contrivances aim to give 
 the people a direct voice in the making of laws; they constitute 
 a system wholly new in Europe. In the representative govern- 
 ments ol European states, the people h'ave only a general political 
 power; they are only choosers of men to govern. In all the Swiss 
 cantons, since 1848, the people, in addition to this right of choos- 
 ing their governing agents, have the right of collaborating in 
 making the constitution, and in many cantons in the passage of 
 laws. 
 
 In order to understand the very complicated history of this 
 innovation, we must rigorously distinguish: i. Between the Ini- 
 tiative and the Referendum; 2. Between constitutions and laws; 
 3. Between federal and cantonal institutions. 
 
 Initiative and Referendum in Changing the Constitution. — The 
 Radicals, as early as 1830, laid down the principle that the people 
 alone have the right to ordain their constitution; that a represen- 
 tative assembly ought not exercise this power, its only function 
 being to draw up a draft for acceptance by the people. This 
 principle came down from the Helvetic Republic of 1798, which 
 got it from the French republicans in the plebiscite of ratification. 
 All the cantonal constitutions made after 1830 declared the ap- 
 proval of the people to be essential for establishing or amending 
 a constitution (Freiburg, the sole exception, did not adopt the 
 doctrine till 1857). 
 
 This principle of popular sovereignty led, by inevitable conse- 
 quence, to the right of Initiative. This is, at bottom, the right 
 to demand that the people be allowed to say whether they wish 
 a change of constitution. In most of the constitutions made 
 from 1830 to 1848 the doctrine is not found; the representative 
 assemblies have the right of proposing changes. Only a few 
 cantons (SchaflEhausen, Aargau, Bale-country) ordained that a 
 petition from a certain number of citizens should oblige the gov- 
 ernment to consult the people. Further, the " men of the just 
 mean " (p. 264), partisans of constitutional stability, who had 
 drafted most of the new constitutions, had inserted in them a 
 clause prohibiting changes till after the lapse of a certain period. 
 The result was to compel the people to violate the constitutions 
 
miTIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 273 
 
 by bringing about changes before the end of the term set. The 
 right of initiative thus became recognised as the Radicals ob- 
 tained sway. 
 
 In 1848 the federal constitution made the Radical doctrine pub- 
 lic law in Switzerland. It declared that every constitution needs 
 to be accepted by the people (this is the Referendum) and ought 
 to have a provision for amendment " when a majority of the citi- 
 zens demand it" (this is the Initiative). Some cantons later 
 made the initiative easier to exercise by providing that a certain 
 number of citizens might present a demand for revision. 
 
 The principles laid down for the cantonal constitutions by 
 this Constitution of 1848 were applied to the federal system also. 
 The federal constitution was submitted for the approval of the 
 people, and did not go into efifect until it had been accepted by 
 a majority both of the voters and of the cantons. It could be 
 changed at any time on the initiative of 50,000 voters (in 1874 
 this number was reduced to 30,000). It was not thought neces- 
 sary in 1848 to provide for the case of single amendments; an 
 amendment was adopted in 1891 which obliges the federal gov- 
 ernment to submit to popular vote any amendment proposed by 
 50,000 voters. So a constitutional amendment drawn up by a 
 private individual and indorsed by 50,000 voters must be pre- 
 sented for the judgment of the whole body of citizens, no matter 
 what the opinion of the Assembly; and if it receives a majority of 
 the voters and of the cantons, it becomes part of the constitu- 
 tion. (A canton is held to approve if its voters give a majority 
 in favour.) 
 
 Initiative and Eeferendum in Ordinary Legislation. — Direct in- 
 tervention in making ordinary laws does not seem at first blush 
 a necessary consequence of popular sovereignty. The represen- 
 tative legislature is regarded as the lawmaking power. So the 
 evolution was slower here than in the case of the consltitution. 
 
 The first movement was made in 183 1 by the council charged 
 with drawing up a constitution for St. Gall, and it was made in 
 the name of a philosophic theory. Major Diog, a disciple of 
 Hegel, demanded for the people the right of ratifying the laws. 
 " For me," he said, " the main question is on what principle our 
 work ought to proceed. I know but one principle — the sover- 
 eignty of the people. The sovereign is supreme; his will is law. 
 I hear of a representative sovereignty, but persons exercising 
 a delegated power are not sovereign. We have heard that the 
 people are to control their own afifairs ; but if the Grand Council 
 
274 SWITZERLAND. 
 
 is to be a guardian over them, they have not such control." 
 When the advantages of the representative system were urged 
 in reply, he answered r " There is a tendency here to take the wel- 
 fare of the people as the fundamental principle; but the question 
 is of rights, not of welfare. If it were of welfare we might be- 
 told that constitutional monarchy would be best." The debate 
 ended in a compromise. It was decided that all laws passed by 
 the Grand Council should be subject to the approval, of the peo- 
 ple; but only if this were demanded within a certain time. This 
 potential or optional referendum was called the veto, in memory 
 of the Roman Tribunes. But in this timid form the legislative 
 Referendum had no great success in Saint-Gall: there were 919a 
 voters in favour of the constitution and 11,091 against it; 12,692 
 voters failed to cast their votes. These latter were treated as. 
 having voted yes, and the constitution was declared adopted. 
 
 The veto, introduced at Lucerne in 1841, was compromised in. 
 the eyes of the Radicals by the use the Catholic party made 
 of it. It reappeared under the name of the Referendum. This 
 was an old word with a new meaning. In the old Swiss Con- 
 federation and in the Grisons and Valais, which were themselves 
 federations, the delegates were simply agents, not sovereign leg- 
 islators. In the federal Diet they discussed but did not decide ; 
 they met ad audiendum et referendum, to hear propositions and 
 refer them to their constituents. In popular usage the word 
 referendum came to mean the decision given by the people on the 
 propositions brought to them by their envoys. This old refer- 
 endum disappeared; the Grisons, which kept it till 1853, was 
 compelled by the federal government to discontinue it as con- 
 trary to the Constitution of 1848, because the votes were counted 
 by communes and not by the simple num'ber of individuals for 
 and against. But the word referendum had begun to be used 
 for the right of the people to reject the acts passed by their 
 representatives. 
 
 At first there was only the optional referendum. Any act passed, 
 by the representative assembly was binding: the people had sim- 
 ply the right of demanding that it be put to general vote; and 
 they could only accept or reject the whole act. The optional 
 referendum was still only the veto. 
 
 The small ancient cantons of the mountains had from time 
 immemorial practised direct government by the assembled people 
 (Lands gemeinde). Once a year the people gathered in the open 
 air on a spot consecrated by tradition. The government pre- 
 
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 275 
 
 sente'd bills and the people voted on them by show of hands ; thus 
 the people made their laws directly. The government had not 
 even the exclusive right of proposing bills; any citizen had the 
 right to propose a bill, and a vote of the people was enough to 
 make it a law. (In Uri it was requisite that seven citizens of 
 seven different families should unite in proposing). Six can- 
 tons retained this system till 1848. But it was practicable only 
 with a small body of citizens deciding very simple questions. 
 Schwytz and Zug replaced it by a representative assembly. The 
 general meeting has been preserved in two cantons, Uri and 
 Claris, and in four half-cantons, the two Unterwaldens and the 
 two Appenzells. 
 
 In practice the optional referendum was little more than a fic- 
 tion; the right of the people to the legislative power was affirmed 
 in principle, but it was only on special occasions that the right 
 was brought into play; the laws continued to be made by the 
 representative assembly. The cantons having the Landsge- 
 meinde were the only ones in which the people voted directly on 
 all legislation. There was much hesitation in the other cantons 
 about giving the people the means of really expressing their judg- 
 ment on all proposed laws. A beginning was timidly made with 
 a referendum confined to financial affairs. On the occasion of 
 building a railway, Neuchatel, in 1858, made the referendum ob- 
 ligatory for any appropriation of 500,000 francs or upwards; 
 Valais adopted it in 1861 for any sum exceeding a million of 
 francs. The first complete experiment of the obligatory refer- 
 endum in the passage of laws was made by Bale-country, a half- 
 canton: its Constitution of 1863 ordained that twice a year the 
 government must submit to vote of the citizens all laws and 
 decrees of general concern. 
 
 Side by side with the movement leading to the obligatory 
 referendum, the Radical party had carried on an agitation for the 
 right of popular Initiative. The idea first appeared in the can- 
 ton of Vaud, in connection with the change of constitution of 
 1845. There were there, it was said, especially among the work- 
 ingmen of Vevey, revolutionists connected with the French se- 
 cret societies of the time; their opponents reproached them with 
 reading Buonarotti and with holding communistic principles. 
 These men proposed to provide in the new constitution for the 
 " Organization of Labour." The council which drew up the con- 
 stitution rejected the idea; but it took a new step in the direction 
 of popular initiative, by providing that any measure urged by 
 
276 SWITZERLAND. 
 
 8000 citizens should be examined by the Grand Council and sub- 
 mitted to the assemblies of the communes. 
 
 The Initiative was adopted in 1848 by the two cantons which 
 abolished their Landsgemeinde (Schwytz and Zug); in 1852 it was 
 adopted By Aargau. It began at that time to be regarded as 
 the complement of the referendum. Bale-country, in 1863, gave 
 to any 1500 voters the right to propose changes of law. The 
 people thus got, not only the right to reject measures proposed 
 by others, but to propose measures themselves. From that time 
 onward the two institutions, the Initiative and the Referendum, 
 were ordinarily advocated by the same party, and were incorpo- 
 rated together in every new constitution. Both rest on the prin- 
 ciple of direct government by the people. The voters are not 
 only the makers of constitutions — they are the true lawmakers, 
 proposing laws by the initiative and adopting them by the refer- 
 endum. 
 
 This system has step by step won acceptance in all the can- 
 tons — sometimes in the incomplete form of optional referendum, 
 or with a restriction to financial measures. The decisive success 
 was at Zurich's revision of her constitution in 1869. The com- 
 mittee managing the reform movement, in demanding the refer- 
 endum and initiative, had stated the case succinctly: " The ques- 
 tion is of converting our apparent sovereignty into a real 
 sovereignty of the people, to transfer the dominant power and 
 force from the hands of a few to the strong shoulders of the com- 
 munity." The people supported the proposal. In the conven- 
 tion called to draw up the new constitution, Suter, a Liberal, 
 proposed to confine themselves to the veto. Someone made 
 answer: " In the ship of state, as Suter would arrange matters, 
 the Grand Council would hold the tiller while the sovereign, on 
 the wharf, would watch it directing the ship. That is contempt 
 of the people, of its ability to manage the ship of state. We, on 
 the contrary, have full confidence in the people. The referendum 
 and initiative are new rights. . . In opposition to the repre- 
 sentative system, a new period of direct democratic legislation 
 by the people has begun. And Mr. Suter has just told us that 
 the Grand Council is, in the first instance, the holder of the legis- 
 lative power, the people being only auxiliaries in the work. We, 
 on the contrary, say that the legislative power resides in the 
 people, and in exercising the power, they use the help of the 
 Grand Council." 
 
 The Constitution of 1869 dropped the title of Grand Council, 
 
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES. 277 
 
 and declared that the people of Zurich exercise the legislative 
 power, " with the assistance of the Cantonal Council." The 
 Cantonal Council has no other function than to prepare bills. 
 Every bill presented by the initiative of 5000 citizens or sup- 
 ported by one-third of the members of the Cantonal Council, is 
 required to be submitted to the people. Twice a year the people 
 assemble by communes and vote on all such bills. The bills are 
 divided into three categories: i. Constitutional amendments, 
 laws, concordats. 2. Bills which the Council is incompetent to 
 pass definitively. 3. Bills which the Council is empowered to 
 enact, but which it prefers to submit to popular vote.* 
 
 This system was quickly adopted by most of the other large 
 German cantons, Thurgau, Soleure, Berne (without the initia- 
 tive). Lucerne in 1869. It was computed that in i860 1,030,000 
 inhabitants of Switzerland lived under a purely representative 
 system, and that in 1870 the number was only 330,000. 
 
 The movement has gone on, but more slowly. In 1889 there 
 remained but one canton, Freiburg, without any form of direct 
 popular action in making laws. There were still four cantons 
 retaining the Lands gemeinde, six and a half cantons having the 
 obligatory referendum and initiative, four and a half having the 
 initiative and optional referendum, and six having restricted 
 forms of the one or the other. 
 
 Federal Constitutional Changes. — The Radicals, while estab- 
 lishing the legislative referendum in the cantons, were urging 
 its introduction into the federal system also. The first effort to 
 carry the point failed ; amendments embodying the scheme were 
 rejected by the people in 1865. In 1869 a majority of the Na- 
 tional Council voted that the constitution ought to be brought 
 " into harmony with the needs of the time." As in 1848, the 
 Radical party wished to increase the powers of the federal gov- 
 ernment. The draft of a constitution approved by the two 
 Houses in 1872 placed under federal control the civil law, rail- 
 roads, public schools, liberty of worship, emigration agencies, 
 insurance, etc. It also established the referendum and the 
 
 initiative. 
 
 Then appeared an opposition, alive since 1798 but over- 
 shadowed by the struggle for democratic institutions, be- 
 
 * In the German cantons, where the politicians are educated in the Ger- 
 man public law, little attention is paid to the distinction between the con- 
 stitution and ordinary laws. This is particularly true of constitutional 
 amendments. 
 
278 SWITZERLAND. 
 
 tween those desiring a strong national government and the 
 champions of cantonal rights. The National or Unitary party 
 is made up in the main from the German Protestant cantons; 
 being radical and free from clerical domination, it inclines to 
 unify the institutions of all Switzerland and to intervene in the 
 government of the cantons to establish purely lay education. The 
 Cantonalist party is made up of two sets of men, who dislike the 
 federal power for two different reasons. The French Protestant 
 cantons, radical and free from clerical control, wish to preserve 
 their administrative autonomy and their Latin customs, which 
 they believe to be threatened by the German majority. The 
 Catholic cantons, thoug'h almost exclusively German, defend 
 clerical control of the schools against the German Radicals. 
 
 In 1872 the coalition of the French and Catholic cantons de- 
 feated the new constitution: the vote stood 256,000 voters and 9 
 cantons in favour, ^60,000 voters and 13 cantons against. The 
 National Council at once drafted a new scheme, in which, to con- 
 ciliate the French cantons, private law was omitted from the 
 subjects under federal jurisdiction, and the cantons retained con- 
 trol of their troops; but the referendum and the provision for 
 secular schools were retained: "The cantons shall provide for 
 public schools, which shall be adequate and placed exclusively 
 under the control of the civil authority. Education shall be com- 
 pulsory and, in the public schools, gratuitous. The public 
 schools shall be so conducted as to be capable of being attended 
 by the adherents of all religions. The Confederation shall take 
 measures against any canton not fulfilling this obligation." This 
 time the French cantons joined the German ones; the Catholics 
 were left alone. The Constitution of 1874 was adopted by 
 340,000 votes and 14J cantons in favour, against 198,000 votes 
 and 'j\ cantons opposed. There were 214 voters for every 1000 
 inhabitants — an exceptional proportion. The constitution estab- 
 lished the referendum in the optional form — the request of 30,000 
 voters being required in order to have any given bill put to the 
 popular vote. It had no provision for the initiative, even in pro- 
 posing amendment of the constitution. 
 
 The federal referendum instituted in 1874 has been frequently 
 used and has caused the rejection of a number of bills after their 
 passage by the legislative bodies. It has been used as a means 
 ol bringing a coalition between the two minority parties, the 
 French and the Catholic, against the German majority of Prot- 
 estant Radicals. In 1882 the federal assembly passed a bill es- 
 
TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES. 279 
 
 tablishing a Secretary of Education to watch over the execution 
 of the constitutional clauses relating to schools; the referendum 
 was demanded on it by 188,000 signatures, and at the general 
 vote it was rejected by 316,000 votes against 175,000. 
 
 The constitution has not been revised as a whole since 1874, 
 but several amendments have been made. These were proposed 
 by the federal Assembly and voted by the people. Up to 1891 
 there were five so proposed and adopted: (i) To restore to the 
 cantons the right of inflicting capital punishment (1879); (2) To 
 permit the establishment of a federal monopoly in the manufac- 
 ture and sale of alcohol, 1885; (3) To place copyright under fed- 
 eral control, 1887; (4) To give the federal government a monop- 
 oly of issuing paper currency, 1891 ; (5) Giving any 50,000 voters 
 the right to propose amendments of the constitution, 1891. 
 
 The fifth of these amendments has worked a profound trans- 
 formation by greatly increasing the direct control of the citizens 
 over the government. It has led in practice to the establishment, 
 under a disguise, of the popular initiative not only in constitu- 
 tional but also in legislative changes. For, since no clear dis- 
 tinction is made between the constitution and ordinary laws, the 
 demand of 50,000 citizens compels the government to submit 
 to popular vote as a constitutional amendment, any measure 
 whatsoever; and if the people adopt it, it goes into effect. Thus, 
 in 1893, the popular initiative was used by the Anti-Semites to 
 propose and carry a constitutional amendment forbidding the 
 bleeding of animals in the manner practised in certain Jewish 
 rites.* " When the Swiss democracy was induced to take this 
 leap in the dark, nobody dreamed of the unlimited scope of this 
 new popular right. The reputation of the Swiss for intelligence 
 and democratic maturity ... is going to be put to the rudest 
 test " (Borgeaud). 
 
 Transformations of the Political Parties since 1848. — The 
 decisive victory of the Radicals in 1848 set all the institutions of 
 
 * We are not without examples in this country of confusion between 
 matters proper to the constitution and matters for ordinary legislative 
 action. With us the mass of somewhat petty provisions in the newer 
 State constitutions is primarily due to distrust of the legislative bodies — 
 not to any theoretic hankerings for popular initiative. In Switzerland the 
 original Federal Constitution of 1874 sets the example of descending to 
 many trivial matters which have no proper place in a constitution : it is 
 not to be wondered at that, with theories of popular initiative to be grati- 
 fied, later amendments and the new cantonal constitutions should go 
 farther afield in the same direction.— Tr. 
 
28o SWITZERLAND. 
 
 Switzerland upon a course of democratic evolution which became 
 very pronounced after the change of 1874 and which has already 
 led to a direct government by the citizens. No civilized people 
 has yet gone so far in this path. But this triumph of Radical 
 policy has not resulted in giving the Radical leaders constant 
 possession of power in all the cantons. Under the new insti- 
 tutions the old parties have succeeded in regaining control. In 
 order to give themselves a fighting chance in the contest with the 
 Radicals, they accepted the democratic constitutions voted by 
 the people, without any attempt to return to^ the previous sys- 
 tem. They attacked, not the principles, but the administration 
 of the Radicals. 
 
 During the years of reaction following 1848 the Conservatives 
 and Liberals regained power in several cantons (Berne, Bale- 
 city) and the Catholic party reconquered all the Catholic can- 
 tons. The Radical party ordinarily retained the majority in the 
 federal bodies and in the Protestant cantons. But it maintained 
 its hold only by vigilant resistance to the three opposing parties, 
 sometimes in coalition. These contests at the elections for the 
 possession of power, combined with the movement for direct gov- 
 ernment, have kept contemporary Switzerland in heated political 
 excitement; but, except in the Italian canton of Ticino, agita- 
 tion has always been kept within peaceful limits and carried on 
 by methods accepted by all. 
 
 The history of these contests is further complicated by the 
 coalitions and changes of party names. (At Geneva the old Con- 
 servatives became the Independents, and later the Democratic 
 party.) I confine myself here to indicating the general develop- 
 ment of the parties. 
 
 The Protestant Conservatives have become few in number and 
 hardly count any more. In the Protestant cantons even the 
 Church has been given a democratic organization; neither pas- 
 tors nor communicants are held to a profession of faith; in sev- 
 eral German cantons all the pastors are elected for a limited 
 period. The political strugg'le in the Protestant cantons lay be- 
 tween the Liberals and Radicals; in those that a,re French the 
 Radicals maintain their power, whereas in the German ones there 
 has been an oscillation rather than a definite preponderance of 
 either party. 
 
 The Catholic party has been reconstituted in all the Catholic 
 districts, often under a democratic name. Its policy has been 
 to gain a majority by appealing to Catholic sentiment and to 
 
TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES. 28 1 
 
 cantonal patriotism against the federal government controlled by 
 the Protestants and the enemies of ecclesiasticism. The federal 
 constitution of 1848 had abolished all that still remained of the 
 old ecclesiastical regime in the cantons, suppressing all power 
 of the clergy and all church taxes. But it did not impose a com- 
 plete separation of Church and state; every canton retained its 
 recognised churches; the government settled the relations with 
 the Church and supervised the clergy. It also prescribed and 
 supervised the work of the schools. On these two matters. 
 Church and schools, the Catholic party made its contest. 
 
 It tried to get laws passed establishing liberty of the Church, 
 — that is to say, abolishing State supervision of the clergy, — 
 or, at the least, to get men elected who would not exercise the 
 right of supervision. It tried to keep the primary schools under 
 the control of the priests and to maintain in them Catholic teach- 
 ing — also, perhaps, to prevent the rigorous application of the. 
 provision making education compulsory. The proportion of 
 children going to school in the Protestant cantons (i in 5) is in 
 fact almost double that of the Catholic cantons (i in 9). In the 
 mixed cantons the proportion falls between these figures. 
 
 The Catholic party kept the power in the •j\ cantons that made 
 the Sonderbund: all of these rejected the new Constitution of 
 1874. Of all the Catholic cantons Ticino is the only one in 
 which the Liberal-Radical party has been able to dispute the 
 possession of power with the Conservative Catholic party. In 
 the mixed cantons the Catholic party is steadily in the minority 
 and in dogged opposition to the government. These cantons are 
 Geneva, Berne, Soleure, Thurgau, St. Gall, Bale-country; Appen- 
 zell is divided into two half-cantons, the one Protestant and the 
 other Catholic. 
 
 After the Vatican Council of 1870 the Catholic opposition took 
 the form of an open conflict. The Old Catholics, rejecting the 
 doctrine of Infallibility, separated themselves from the general 
 body of those in communion with Rome. The Protestant gov- 
 ernments of the cantons, holding the decrees of the Vatican Coun- 
 cil to be null, recognised the Old Catholics as having the same 
 rights as those who accepted the decrees, and undertook to main- 
 tain in the Church those Old Catholic priests who had been ex- 
 communicated by their bishop. In the canton of Geneva, belong- 
 ing to the diocese of Freiburg, the quarrel connected itself with 
 a previous conflict of powers. The Pope had instituted a vicar- 
 
282 SWITZERLAND. 
 
 general for the canton in spite of the government. In St. Gall 
 it took the form of a strife with the Jesuits. 
 
 The struggle began between the governments and the bishops. 
 The bishop of Soleure was deprived and banished: the Pope, 
 nearly all the priests, and the great majority of the Catholic laity 
 protested. Then the question of sovereignty came to the front: 
 Does the right to regulate the ecclesiastical organization belong 
 to the Church or tO' the civil power? Some of the governments 
 (Berne, Soleure, Aargau, Geneva) settled the question by getting 
 the people to adopt a sort of civil constitution of the clergy which 
 altered the territorial divisions without consulting the Pope, and 
 established election of the priests by the laity. The Catholics 
 called on the federal government to protect their religious liberty, 
 but the federal government declared that the cantons had not ex- 
 ceeded their constitutional power. Then came a co^nflict be- 
 tween Switzerland and the Holy See. The Pope censured the 
 cantons publicly; the federal government sent away the Pope's 
 nuncio; the Catholics refused to voite in the election of priests 
 (1873). The Old Catholics, organized into a " Catholic-Christian 
 Church," became, as a result, the ofificial Catholic Church. The 
 conflict ended in a schism; in Bernese Jura troops were employed 
 to put down Catholic outbreaks against the schismatic priests. 
 The strife lasted till after the election of Leo XIII. in 1878. 
 
 The new generation which has assumed the direction of the 
 Catholic party in these later years has dropped this contest re- 
 garding the powers of the state and the Church. A Catholic 
 Democratic party has been formed which uses the referendum as 
 a weapon against the centralizing measures of the Radicals. This 
 party has even begun to demand social reforms. The Catholic 
 Congress of 1894 voted to organize itself into a Catholic People's 
 party; and it founded a free society of Swiss Sociologists com- 
 posed of Catholics. 
 
 In the only Catholic canton in which the power of the Catholic 
 party has been disputed (Ticino), the violent contests between 
 the Catholic Conservatives and the Radical-Liberals led finally 
 to a civil war, followed by the adoption of proportional repre- 
 sentation — a change that may be the beginning of a new evolu- 
 tion in Swiss institutions. The two parties were about equal in 
 numbers, but the Conservatives, in order to maintain their hold 
 on power, had " gerrymandered " the electoral districts in such a 
 way as to make sure of a majority of the representatives. They 
 refused to submit to the people the question of changing the con- 
 
TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES. 283 
 
 stitution (1890). The Liberals rose in insurrection, ousted the 
 Conservative office-holders, and established a provisional govern- 
 ment. The federal authorities, compelled to intervene, induced 
 the two parties to accept a new electoral system, long advocated 
 by theoretical writers as a mode of protecting minorities. In- 
 stead of giving all the seats to the party having the majority in 
 the district, the representation is shared between the parties in 
 the proportion in which they share the popular vote. Propor- 
 tional representation, adopted in Ticino in 1891, has later been 
 introduced in Neuchatel, Geneva, and Zug. Its champions are 
 agitating for its adoption throughout Switzerland. 
 
 A Socialist agitation has also been developed since the change 
 of constitution in 1874. Switzerland remains the asylum for 
 political refugees; for the proscribed Germans of 1849, the prcH 
 scribed French Republicans of 1851, the Italian exiles, the Rus- 
 sian Liberals and Revolutionists, the refugees of the Parrs Com- 
 mune, the German Socialists. In Switzerland the International 
 has held nearly all its " congresses " ; there the German Socialists, 
 during the existence of the exceptional laws against them, re- 
 sumed the publication of their suppressed journals and held their 
 first " congress " (1880). The radical governments of the can- 
 tons and the federal government sustained the tradition, except 
 against the demands of the German Empire. After protesting 
 against the presence of the German spies (the Wohlgemuth case), 
 the Federal Council so far yielded as to expel the editors of the 
 Socialist journal. Their action was taken only against refugees 
 suspected of plotting the use of explosives — the Russian Nihilists 
 and the Anarchists. 
 
 But all these agitations were the work of foreigners ; the Swiss 
 themselves have held aloof from revolutionary societies. A 
 league of workingmen, formed in 1873, wais dissolved in 1880, 
 fcr want of support. The " Swiss Social Democratic party," 
 modelled after the German society, has hitherto received but few 
 adherents. 
 
 The only group with socialistic tendencies which has had any 
 influence on political life in Switzerland is the Griitli Union, a 
 democratic society founded in 1838, composed chiefly of Swiss 
 artisans, but little by little impregnated with Socialistic ideas, 
 through contact with foreign Socialists. Controlling enough 
 votes to set in motion the Federal referendum and initiative, the 
 Union has demanded social reforms. It has carried through 
 laws regarding inspection of factories and the liability of em- 
 
284 SWITZERLAND. 
 
 ployers, and instituting a Secretary of Labour (the secretary has 
 been a Socialist leader). It has even, in its official program, sub- 
 stituted the words Social Democracy for its old name Liberal 
 Democracy; it has demanded for labourers legal protection 
 against arbitrary dismissal by their employers, and a " Demo- 
 cratic organization of factory labour." It obtained in 1894 the 
 submission to popular vote of a bill guaranteeing to every Swiss 
 citizen "the right to an employment sufficiently remunerative"; 
 the bill was rejected by 308,000 votes against 75,000. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— See Cli,-V. Langlois, "Manuel de Bibliogr. Histo- 
 rique," 1896. 
 
 DOCUMENTS. — Collections of the parliamentary documents of the 
 cantons may be found in detail in the Swiss bibliographies. The consti- 
 tutional documents are gathered together in the official collection, ' ' Samm- 
 lung der Bundesverfassung und der . . . 1880, in Kraft Bestehenden 
 Kantonsverfassungen," 1880 ; the federal legislative documents in " Offi- 
 zielle Sammlung der das Schweizerische Staatsrecht BetrefEenden Akten- 
 stiicke . . . seit . . . 1848," 20 vols., 1849-87. See since 1890, "Annuaire 
 Statistique de la Suisse " (published by the Bureau de Statistique). 
 
 For the narrative of political events, Kiiller-rriedberg, and Escher, 
 " Schweizerische Annalen," since 1830 ; and since 1886, K. Hilty, " Poli- 
 tisches Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft," (i vol. each 
 year), perhaps the most scientific political annual in Europe. 
 
 The memoirs, recollections, and private papers form too numerous a 
 group to be given in detail. See especially " Ludwig Snells Leben und 
 Wirken," 1858, a careful account of the origin of the Radical movement. 
 
 WORKS. — The modern political history of Switzerland is better known 
 than that of any other European country, and more readily outlined in 
 general works ; it is enough to point out those works as they refer to the 
 monographs and special histories of the cantons. 
 
 General History of Events: Henne am Bhyn, " Gesch. des Schweizer- 
 volkes . . .," vol. iii., 1878, by a radical patriot; a very passionate 
 description of political struggles. — Daendliker, " Gesch. der Schweiz," new 
 edit., vol. iii., 1895, liberal; a handy bibliogr., especially for economic 
 hist. — Vuillemin, "Hist, de la Confederation Suisse . . .," 2d edit., vol. 
 ii., 1881. 
 
 Histories of Different Periods: Hilty, " OefEentliche Vorlesungen 
 liber die Helvetik," 1798 to 1803.— Tillier, " Gesch. der Eidgenossenschaft," 
 2 series. Restoration and period from 1830-48, — VanMuyden, "La Suisse 
 sous le Facte de 1815," 1890, a good account. — Baumgartner, " Die Schweiz 
 und ihre Umgestaltungen, 1830-50," 1853-65. — Feddersen, " Gesch. der 
 Schw. Regeneration," 1867. 
 
 Histories OF THE SoNDERBUND : Dufour, " Campagne du Sonderbund et 
 Evenements de 1856," 1875. The author was general-in-chief of the fed- 
 
BIBUOGRAPH Y. 2 85 
 
 eral army in the Sonderbund war. — Cretineau-Joly, " Hist, du Sonderbund," 
 2 vols. , 1850.— Esseiva, " Fribourg, la Suisse et le Sonderbund," 1882 ; both 
 written from the Catholic standpoint. 
 
 On the Catholic Party ■ Woeste, "Hist, du Culturkampf en Suisse, 
 1871-86," 1887, by a Belgian Catholic.— Keller, " In Rei Memoriam," 1882, 
 Catholic. — Gareis and Zom, " Staat und Kirche in der Schweiz," 3 vols., 
 1877, treatise on relations between Church and state, by partisans of the 
 sovereignty of the lay state. 
 
 On the Socialist Parties : Berghoff-Ising, " Die Socialistische Arbeit- 
 erbewegung in der Schweiz,'' 1895. The most complete' and scientific 
 account. 
 
 History of Institutions. — On the history of federal institutions, the 
 excellent scientific manuals of J, Ueyer, " Gesch. des Schweizerischen 
 Bundesrechtes." — Blumer, translated into French, and revised by Uorel, 
 "Handbuchdes Schweizerischen Bundesstaatsrechts," 3d edit., 1891-92. — 
 L. von Salis, " Schw. Bundesrecht," 2 vols., 1891-92, trans, into French, 
 gives an account of the practice of federal and administrative law since 
 1874. — Hilty, " Les Constitutions F6derales de la Suisse," 1891, a very solid 
 historical account. — Orelli's account in the Marquardsen collection is 
 simply a popular work. — Ch. Eorgeaud, " Etablissement et Revision des 
 Constitutions," 1893, gives a very intelligent view of the evolution of fed- 
 eral constitutional law-. 
 
 On the history of the referendum and initiative, Cnrti, " Gesch. der 
 Schw. Volksgesetzgebung," 2d edit., 1885. Very instructive. — Stussi, 
 " Referendum und Initiative in den Schw. Kantonen," 1894. — A. Keller, 
 " Das Volksinitiativrecht nach den Schw. Kantonsverfassungen," 1889. 
 
 The descriptions of Switzerland by foreigners (H. Dixon, Tissot, 
 Adams and Cunningham, Winchester) are in no way superior to the 
 works of Swiss authors. The best account of Swiss institutions in Eng- 
 lish is found in A.L.Lowell's "Parties and Governments in Continental 
 Europe," vol. ii. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 The Iberian peninsula, in the eighteenth century, was still 
 divided between two states : the great Kingdom of Spain and the 
 little Kingdom of Portug^al. Both kingdoms were governed by 
 the same general methods. Each had an absolute King who let 
 his favourites rule without restraint ; each had a National Church, 
 which owned great estates, and was armed with the Inquisition 
 against heretics. In both, the Church had a censorship over all 
 publications and the right of supervision over all the schools. 
 Both suffered in the nineteenth century the same series of revolu- 
 tions; both were at length organized into constitutional 
 monarchies. The two evolutions are parallel, so that we might 
 consider their history together. It will, however, be more clear 
 if we examine separately first Spain, then Portugal. 
 
 SPAIN. 
 
 Spain at the End of the Napoleonic Wars. — Spain until the 
 French invasion was an absolutist and ecclesiastical monarchy. 
 The former little kingdoms, united to form the Spanish monarchy, 
 still existed in name (Castile, Leon, Galicia, Asturia, Navarre, 
 Aragon, Valencia, and the kingdoms of Andalusia), but they 
 were nothing more than provinces ruled directly by the Castilian 
 government. The old assemblies of estates (the Cortes) were no 
 longer convoked. The descendants of the aristocracy, the 
 Spanish grandees, had been thrust aside. There remained but 
 one political power, the King. 
 
 The King had centralized all authority in his own person, but 
 he had ceased to exercise it himself; he left it to his court. It 
 was neither the old Castilian Council nor his ministerial cabinet 
 that governed in his stead. It was the sovereign's immediate 
 circle, his wife, his confessor, his favourite, or his wife's favourite, 
 that governed Spain in the King's name. This little group was 
 called the camarilla or little chamber. Thus during the reign of 
 Charles IV. the real sovereign was the Queen's favourite, Godoy, 
 created Prince of Peace. 
 
 286 
 
SPAIN A T END OF NAPOLEONIC WARS. 287 
 
 The Church alone preserved the privileges and powers of for- 
 mer times. It retained its immense domains almost without 
 taxes, its right to acquire property by mortmain, its convents, 
 and its ecclesiastical courts. It kept up the court of the Inquisi- 
 tion and its control of family relations, which gave it authority 
 over the private life of all laymen. Its censorship of all publica- 
 tions made it supreme over the nation's intellectual life. 
 
 There were thus in Spain but two real powers, the camarilla 
 and the clergy. The Spanish submitted to this twofold des- 
 potism without thought of saving themselves from it, at least 
 without the power to do so. The idea and the means of reform- 
 ing their government came from outside. In Spain, as in 
 Holland and Switzerland, an invasion began the work of 
 regeneration. 
 
 The French invasion, by destroying the old Spanish system, 
 compelled the Spaniards to try a new one; it was the decisive event 
 in their history. Napoleon, by setting up in Madrid a French 
 King, placed before Spain the alternative of accepting or fighting 
 him. Those who rallied to the French King's support, the afran- 
 cesados, made acquaintance with an absolutist and military gov- 
 ernment, but one directed by regular officials and free from the 
 power of the clergy. The patriots, rising against foreign do- 
 minion, continued to declare themselves subjects of the national 
 King, " Ferdinand the Idolized "; but as their King was impris- 
 oned in France, they had to fight and govern themselves without 
 him. The old system was gone with the Bourbon King; there 
 was no longer a camarilla nor an Inquisition nor a censor- 
 ship. In place of the lost government the patriots organized 
 another, while at the same time they improvised militia and 
 guerrillas. 
 
 The movement came from the provinces farthest from the 
 court, Asturia, Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, and Andalusia. The 
 provinces began once more to take a part in political life. They 
 formed at first provincial juntas, then a central junta, and finally 
 the Cortes of 181 1. These improvised governments and armies 
 brought into public life energetic men who were previously un- 
 known. The English of Wellington's army were astonished 
 at the opening of the Cortes; they had not thought it pos- 
 sible that Spain could produce so many brilliant men. Thus 
 during the invasion a body of politicians and military officers was 
 created to take the direction of affairs. These men, educated like 
 all Spaniards, had no political knowledge; but as reading and 
 
288 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 Speech were now unrestricted, they learned the existence of 
 things that had been hidden from them before. They read for- 
 eign books, talked with French and English officers, studied the 
 French Revolution and the English parliamentary system. 
 From this improvised instruction resulted the Constitution of 
 1812, which was the first form given in Spain to modern political 
 ideas. 
 
 The Constitution of 1812 can only be explained by the special 
 conditions under which it was produced. The Cortes, suddenly 
 summoned under the pressure of the people of Cadiz, had noth- 
 ing but the name in common with the historical Cortes of 
 grandees and prelates. It was an assembly elected by a sort of 
 universal suffrage in three degrees. The Castilian provinces, 
 which were occupied by the French armies, did not send deputies. 
 The majority was composed of deputies from the maritime prov- 
 inces, Catalonia, Galicia, and Cadiz, which were more democratic 
 and less attached to absolutism than the rest of Spain. The 
 Cortes thus had an exceptionally democratic character. It re- 
 sembled the French States-General of '89, adopted the same doc- 
 trines, and like them deliberated in the midst of clamour and ap- 
 plause from the public in the galleries, and voted the same 
 measures. 
 
 The Assembly was divided into two parties: the Serviles, at- 
 tached to the old regime, and the Liberals, partisans of liberty. It 
 was from Spain that the latter term came into popular usage. The 
 Liberates, who were in majority, declared the Cortes sovereign 
 and indissoluble (like the French Constituante in '89) and voted 
 to abolish the old system, with its censorship of the press, sei- 
 gniorial rights, patrimonial jurisdictions, and privileges of the 
 nobility. 
 
 The Constitution of 1812 was drawn up in the same spirit. 
 After a preamble in honour of the " old fundamental laws of this 
 monarchy," the Cortes proclaimed the very principle of the 
 French Revolution : " Sovereignty is vested essentially in the 
 nation, accordingly it is to the nation exclusively that the rig'ht of 
 making its fundamental laws belongs." The end of the sentence, 
 " and of accepting the form of government which suits it best," 
 was rejected by 87 votes against 73. The government was or- 
 ganized on the model of the French Constitution of 1791. The 
 executive power was given to the King to be exercised through 
 his ministers. The legislative power was given to the Cortes 
 subject to royal assent, which could be twice withheld. Ministers 
 
RESTORATION OF 1814. 289 
 
 could not be deputies and had access to the Cortes only when 
 sent for. The Cortes was composed of a single assembly, 
 elected by indirect universal suffrage. The deputies were elected 
 for two years only and were -not eligible for re-election. The 
 constitution established rules for the organization of courts, pro- 
 vincial administration, taxation, the army, and public education. 
 It proclaimed the principles of liberty and legal equality. This 
 was the abolition of the old regime root and branch. 
 
 On one point the Liberals did not dare break with tradition: 
 they did not announce religious liberty. " The religion of the 
 Spanish nation is and always will be the Apostolic Church of 
 Rome, the only true Church; the nation protects it by wise and 
 just laws and forbids the exercise of any other religion." At 
 least the Cortes refused to restore the Inquisition that the French 
 had abolished, in spite of the demands made by the monks who 
 filled the galleries. 
 
 Thus the national insurrection of 1808 in favour of the abso- 
 lute King against the French invaders had ended by creating a 
 Liberal party and a revolutionary constitution, like those of 
 France. 
 
 Eestoration of 1814. — ^The attempt at a liberal government by 
 the Cortes of 181 1 was suddenly brought to an end. French 
 intervention had caused the downfall of the old system, English 
 intervention brought about the Restoration. 
 
 ITie English army brought back the absolute King. The 
 King's absence in itself had been an advantage to the Liberals. 
 After his return the balance of parties shifted. The Serviles pre- 
 sented to Ferdinand a manifesto against the Cortes and the con- 
 stitution, which they said was a copy of the constitution proposed 
 by Napoleon at Bayonne; they asked (him to convoke the Cortes 
 according to the ancient custom. As the King passed through 
 the country the monks and the people saluted him with cries of 
 "Long live the absolute King! Down with the traitors ! " Fer- 
 dinand joined the absolutists; he signed the manifesto: "My 
 royal will is not only not to swear obedience to the constitution 
 and not to accept any decree from the Cortes, but to declare this 
 constitution and these decrees void. . . Whoever should main- 
 tain them . . . would commit an outrage against the preroga- 
 tives of my sovereignty and the welfare of the nation. , . I de- 
 clare him guilty of high treason; he shall suffer the penalty of 
 death/ if he sustain these acts by tongue or pen." Orders were 
 given to close the hall of the Cortes and to seize their records. 
 
290 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 Thirty-three notables of the Liberal party were then arrested. 
 The court could find no complaint against them; they were left 
 in prison for a year and a half. Finally, in December, 1815, the 
 King himself, sitting in judgment without having read the 
 papers in their cases, condemned some of them to eight years in a 
 convict prison (presidio), others to imprisonment in a convent, 
 others to exile, adding that at the expiration of their sentence 
 they would still remain at the King's discretion. The members 
 of the tribunal of Valencia were dismissed from their judgeships 
 for having had a medal struck with the inscription " The King 
 and the Constitution." 
 
 The old system was restored, as before 1808, with the Castilian 
 Council, privileges. Inquisition, and camarilla. Every evening, it 
 is said, the King's confessors met with him, drafted decrees, and 
 ordered arrests. 
 
 But the government did not find the same condition of affairs 
 as before the invasion, ist. Five years of war had destroyed the 
 cities, villages, roads, and bridges, decimated and impoverished 
 the population. The government resources were diminished 
 and its burdens increased. In 1816 the expenses were estimated 
 at 1,051,000,000 reals (about $13,000,000) and the receipts at 
 little more than half that amount. The financial system must be 
 reformed to cover this deficit. 2d, The American colonies, re- 
 volting against the French usurpers, had remained in revolt 
 against the legitimate King; armies must be sent to subdue them. 
 
 The restoration government came to grief in these two enter- 
 prises. Ferdinand at first let his minister Garay prepare a 
 budget project for 1817, reducing expenses and exacting a con- 
 tribution from the clergy and high officials. He even supported 
 Garay against the clergy and the court until September, 1817, 
 tfhen suddenly dismissed him before any reform had been realized. 
 In the American war Ferdinand had counted on assistance from 
 Tsar Alexander; he also remained for a number of years under 
 the influence of the Russian ambassador, who used his power to 
 keep Garay in office and to secure the financial reform. Finally, 
 in February, 1818, the Russian fleet sent to aid the king in sub- 
 duing his colonies arrived at Cadiz, but it was composed of old 
 unseaworthy ships; the King had to send them back to Russia 
 and pay the expenses of their return. In 1820 the army which 
 had been prepared in 1816 against Buenos Ayres was still waiting 
 to embark. 
 
 Eevolution of 1820. — ^The war against Napoleon had roused a 
 
REVOLUTION OF 1820. 291 
 
 nevv power in Spain, the officers of the army. These had led the 
 nation in revolt, and they remained the real representatives of the 
 nation in opposition to the court. They were acquainted with 
 one another, kept in communication from one end of Spain to the 
 other, and were able to take concerted action against the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Many of them, connected with Masonic lodges organized by 
 the French and English during the invasion time, had meetings 
 with the liberal Free Masons. It was the officers, aided perhaps 
 by the Free Masons, who started the revolution in the name of 
 the Constitution of 1.812. A military revolt attempted in 1815 
 had failed. But the army was not satisfied. Ferdinand had no 
 love for the army, and held aloof from the officers wherever he 
 could; the soldiers received neither clothes, food, nor money. 
 
 In 1820 the revolt began in the south, in the army encamped 
 near Cadiz, waiting since 1816 to leave for America. This pro- 
 nunciamiento did not succeed. Riego crossed the whole province 
 of Andalusia with 1500 men without meeting either opposition^ 
 or support. His example did, however, produce a decisive up- 
 rising in the north. Santiago, the old ecclesiastical city of 
 Galicia, had a rival, Corunna, the commercial seaport, where a 
 group of Liberals was still in existence. These made arrange- 
 ments with the officers of the garrison and formed an insurrec- 
 tional junta, which proclaimed the Constitution of 1812. The 
 other army corps refused to fight or else declared themselves in 
 sympathy with the insurgents. The King was alarmed and an- 
 nounced his readiness to accept the constitution. 
 
 Thus, from this first revolution on, provincial juntas and mili- 
 tary pronunciamientos were the active agencies of insurrection. 
 First created to oppose the foreign invader, these two instruments 
 were to serve henceforth to excite political revolutions. They 
 corresponded to the two elements in which Spanish political life 
 was concentrated, the army and the city populations, especially 
 in the outlying provinces, Galicia, Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, 
 Mercia, and Andalusia. The junta furnished the impulse to 
 revolt, the army supplied the power and controlled the movement. 
 
 The generals, who in old Spain were of no importance, became 
 veritable sovereigns of new Spain. The country entered upon a 
 regime of pronunciamientos; a superior officer revolted against the 
 government, issuing a proclamation to explain his conduct and 
 appeal to the discontented. If the government was no longer 
 sufficiently popular to be defended by the army, the insurgents. 
 
292 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 overturned it and set up another. This appeal to force, irregular 
 though it might be, was, in a country not yet provided with politi- 
 cal education, the sole check on the despotism of the court. 
 
 From the time of this first revolution parties began to form 
 and questions to arise. The absolutist party was shut out of the 
 government. The Liberal party organized itself. It was at first 
 directed at Madrid by a political club, " the National and Consti- 
 tutional Patriotic Society of the Lorencini Cafe," which held 
 public meetings and published the Auroru de Espana. In the 
 great cities of the provinces provisional juntas assumed the ad- 
 ministration in place of the officials; some of them even sup- 
 pressed or established taxes. The Liberal party held the King in 
 its power and governed in his name, invoking the constitution. 
 The text of the constitution was posted in each city, and carried 
 in processions like the Eucharist and treated with the same 
 honours. The King swore solemnly to observe the constitution 
 and signed a decree " that every Spaniard who will not swear 
 allegiance to the constitution or who does it with protest and 
 reservation is unworthy of being considered a Spaniard, instantly 
 loses his honour, his employment, and advantages conferred by 
 the state, and must be driven out of the monarchy." The bishops 
 received the order to have the constitution expounded by the 
 parish priests. The Cortes was then elected according to the 
 constitution. As early as this first election a fact appeared which 
 has been repeated in every subsequent Spanish election of the 
 century: the great majority of those elected were supporters of 
 the government. 
 
 In the Cortes of 1820 the Liberals divided into two parties : the 
 Moderados (moderates), who supported the ministry and wished 
 to avoid conflict with the King and clergy; the Exaltados 
 (fanatics), who wished to provoke conflict. The Moderados had 
 a great majority in the Cortes, while the Evaltados were sup- 
 ported almost entirely at first by the turbulent cities of Andalusia 
 and, in Madrid, by the Fontana de Oro club. The ministers ob- 
 tained from the Cortes laws limiting the liberty of the press and 
 forbidding political societies. But the Moderados could not keep 
 up their policy of conciliation with the King and clergy. The 
 king did not accept the constitution sincerely, and it could not be 
 modified, for the Cortes of 1812, in order to prevent the return 
 to absolution, had established a process for revision which re- 
 quired several years. The clergy was opposed to the liberal sys- 
 tem in advance. The finances were in a desperate state, with a 
 
RESTORATION OF 1833. 293 
 
 deficit increasing yearly, for the Cortes had lowered the unpopu- 
 lar land tax, and the taxes came in slowly. The debt was esti- 
 mated at 700,000,000 dollars. The ministry decided to appro- 
 priate the church estates by a law suppressing the monasteries. 
 The clergy became henceforth the irreconcilable enemy of the 
 Moderados. 
 
 The Moderados' opponents, absolutists and Exaltados, worked 
 together. The King's confessor secretly excited the Exaltados 
 against the ministry. In opposition to the leaders of the Mo- 
 derados the Free Masons formed a new secret society, the Com- 
 muneros, whose members had to swear " to defend the rights and 
 liberties of the human race and especially the Spanish people." 
 The members were chiefly young men and petty military officers. 
 
 The Moderados kept themselves in power with difficulty, sur- 
 rounded by Exaltado insurrections and Servile intrigues, for two 
 years, until the end of the Cortes. But at the renewal for 1822, 
 as the constitution forbade the re-election of any retiring deputy, 
 the leaders of the Moderados found themselves shut out, and the 
 elections, conducted in great disorder, gave the majority to the 
 Exaltados. The King again formed a Moderado ministry; but he 
 conspired against his ministry himself. Bands of absolutists, 
 formed by smugglers and peasants, led by monks, made their 
 appearance in the mountains of Catalonia. The royal guard re- 
 volted, dismissed its liberal officers, and fought against the army 
 in Madrid, on July 7, 1822. 
 
 A new ministry composed of Exaltados was imposed on the 
 king by the majority in the Cortes; it was supported by the Com- 
 muneros and the people in the cities of Andalusia, Valencia, Ara- 
 gon, and Catalonia. But when the absolutists revolted against 
 the Cortes and set up a junta in Catalonia which called the nation 
 to arm and deliver their imprisoned King from the rebels, they 
 declared null all the government's acts since 1820 and established 
 a regency. These insurgents called themselves " the apostolic 
 army " and posed as the defenders of religion against the Free 
 Mason constitutionalists (the Blacks). 
 
 Eestoration of 1823. — ^The absolutist party was too feeble to 
 reconquer Spain. The restoration was brought about by foreign 
 intervention. The governments of the four great continental 
 monarchies of Europe had been from the beginning unfriendly 
 to the revolution of 1820; but they dared not risk an invasion of 
 Spain. The French government finally took the responsibility 
 of it. The French army invaded Spain this time to restore the 
 
294 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 absolute monarchy. The guerrillas of the northern frontiers, who 
 in the time of Napoleon had fought against the French, 
 now formed the " army of the faith " and marched with the 
 invaders. 
 
 The Spanish government had neither army nor money, and 
 made no attempt to stop the French. The Cortes withdrew first 
 to Seville, then to Cadiz, taking with them the unwilling King. 
 Ferdinand said he was sick; they replied that a change of air 
 would cure him. On the departure for Cadiz, he refused to go; 
 the Cortes, not wishing to depose the King, declared him insane 
 and established a regency. The absolutists, entering Madrid 
 with the French army, formed a regency which restored the con- 
 ditions of 1820. All over the country bands of Royal Volunteers 
 were organized, and the bishop of Osma even founded a secret 
 absolutist society, the Destroying Angel. Notaible Liberals were 
 imprisoned and held to ransom and their houses pillaged. 
 
 The government of the Cortes at Cadiz capitulated at the end 
 of three months. After the fall of the Trocadero> Ferdinand was 
 sent to the French camp; on his. departure he promised to grant 
 an amnesty, " general, full, and complete." The next day Ferdi- 
 nand published a manifesto annulling all the acts of the " so- 
 called constitutional government " and ratifying all the acts of 
 the absolutist junta and regency. He then condemned to the 
 gallows the three members of the liberal regency. 
 
 Ferdinand, reinstated as an absolute monarch, chose his con- 
 fessor for his prime minister. He dared not restore the In- 
 quisition, but he tried to replace it with "juntas of the faith." 
 This meant the restoration of the old regime. But three perma- 
 nent results followed from the revolution: 
 
 1. The American colonies had taken advantage of the con- 
 fusion in the mother country to efifect a final separation. 
 
 2. The debt and the deficit had increased. 
 
 3. The absolutists and the king had acquired against the Lib- 
 erals a hatred which found vent in years of persecution. No one 
 who had filled an office or served in the national guard during the 
 constitutional regime could come within 1 5 miles of the royal resi- 
 dence. The Liberal leaders were arrested; Riego. was hanged. 
 Purge-commissions were established, before which every office- 
 holder and army officer must appear and prove that during the- 
 constitutional period he had committed no ofifence against the 
 crown or the Church. To encourage men to become king's evi- 
 dence the government promised them both secrecy and a pardon. 
 
WAX OF THE SUCCESSION. 29S 
 
 The inquiry was extended to the professors and students, and 
 finally to the common soldiers. 
 
 This rigorous system was beginning to relax when, in 1824, the 
 Liberal refugees in Gibraltar attempted an insurrection, and the 
 persecution was resumed. One hundred and twelve accused per- 
 sons were hanged or shot. Seven Free Masons were executed 
 for holding a meeting. Every man was prosecuted in whose pos- 
 session was found any book printed in Spain between 1820 and 
 1823, or a foreign book. In the universities the students had 
 to swear not to recognise the sovereignty of the people or to 
 join a secret society. 
 
 Until Ferdinand's death, in 1833, the government was controlled 
 by court intrigues or the influence of foreign ambassadors. The 
 ministers were all Absolutists, but they did not all have the same 
 policy. The majority (Ufalia from 1823, Zea in 1825, Burgos in 
 1827) wished to restore peace in the nation by granting amnesty 
 to the Liberals and putting the Royal Volunteers under govern- 
 ment control. The Apostolic party was dissatisfied and deserted 
 Ferdinand for his brother Carlos, who was known to be devoted 
 to the clergy. There were even royalist insurrections in Cata- 
 lonia against the King, in 1824, 1825, and particularly in 1827. 
 The insurgents demanded the dissolution of the army, the abo- 
 lition of new institutions of which the nation knew nothing, 
 " such as police and public education," and the meeting of a 
 national council to settle the true principles of religion. But 
 Carlos refused to lift a hand against the legitimate sovereign. 
 
 The result was to alienate Ferdinand from his own supporters. 
 He let the ministers make a timid attempt at financial reform. 
 But, in 1831, an attack by the Liberal refugees in France caused 
 him to revert to the system of terror. Courts-martial were es- 
 tablished. A young man was hanged in Madrid for crying 
 " Hurrah for liberty! " and a young widow at Granada for em- 
 broidering a flag with the inscription: " Law, Liberty, Equality." 
 
 War of the Succession (1830-33). — The absolutist system 
 came to an end in the quarrel regarding the law of succession. 
 By his first three wives Ferdinand had no children, so that his 
 brother Carlos must be his heir. His fourth wife was a Neapoli- 
 tan princess, Christina, who bore him two daughters. Since the 
 accession of the Bourbons at the beginning of the eighteenth cen- 
 tury, the succession had been, in Spain as in France, through the 
 male line exclusively; Carlos was therefore the legitimate heir. 
 But in 183 1 Ferdinand, wishing to secure the succession to his 
 
296 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 own daughter, availed himself of a decree restoring the old order 
 of female succession, which had been prepared in 1789 but had 
 never been promulgated; he now promulgated it without notify- 
 ing either his brother or the Council of State. 
 
 From this time, April 3, 1830, until Ferdinand's death, Spain's 
 whole policy depended on the struggle between two influences, 
 that of the Queen and that of the Apostolic party. The Queen 
 ruled at first, supported the ministers in office, had Louis 
 Philippe recognised, and, when a daughter was born to her, 
 sought to gain support among the ancient aristocracy so long 
 excluded from the court, by appointing chamberlains and maids 
 of honour. The attempt of the Liberals in 183 1 threw the King 
 on the side of the Apostolic party for eighteen months; in Sep- 
 tember, 1832, when he was thought to be dying, the Queen in 
 her isolation was obliged to consent to a measure annulling the 
 decree of 183 1 restoring female succession. But Ferdinand re- 
 covered, dismissed his ministers, and placed the government in 
 the Queen's hands. A royal act annulled the measure obtained 
 during the King's illness. In June, 1833, the Castilian Cortes 
 were convoked in the old form, — the grandees and the proctors of 
 38 cities, — and were made to swear to recognise the King's 
 daughter Isabella as Queen. But the new order of succession 
 was still much debated. The King had his brother asked to take 
 the oath. Carlos replied by begging him to communicate his 
 protest to the sovereigns : " I am firmly convinced of my legiti- 
 mate right to the throne of Spain in case I should survive Your 
 Majesty and you should leave no son; I declare that neither my 
 conscience nor my honour will permit me to swear to recognise 
 any other claims." 
 
 Carlos was supported by all the monks, the greater part of the 
 clergy, many army officers, all the Royal Volunteers (officially 
 estimated at 10,000 foot-soldiers and 4000 cavalry, armed and 
 vmiformed), all the cities of Castile, and all the Pyrenean 
 provinces. The Queen's party included only the office-holders, 
 grandees, and a part of the army; but it had the decided advan- 
 tage of being in possession of the government at the time of the 
 King's sudden death, September 29, 1833. The Queen was ap- 
 pointed regent until the majority of her daughter. Queen Isa- 
 bella. 
 
 The minister who governed in Christina's name, Zea Ber- 
 mudez, aspired to maintain the absolutist system and govern 
 in opposition to both the Carlists and the Liberals. In 1832 
 
STATUTE OF 1834 AND CONSTITUTION OF 1837. 29? 
 
 he had declared the Queen "irreconcilably opposed to any re- 
 ligious or political innovation " ; and after Isabella's accession, 
 he had her say: " I will maintain the forms and fundamental laws 
 of the monarchy without admitting dangerous innovations." 
 But Christina finally realized that to resist the Carlists she needed 
 the help of all opponents of the old regime, and she decided to 
 seek the support of the Liberals. She granted amnesty for politi- 
 cal oflences, and ordered the Royal Volunteers to disarm; the 
 Liberals then gave her open support. Spain was then arrayed in 
 two parties: Carlists and Christinos. The European states also 
 took sides : the constitutional governments, England and France, 
 with Christina, the absolute monarchies with Carlos. 
 
 The Statute of 1834 and the Constitution of 1837.— The gov- 
 ernment first attempted administrative reforms; Spain was 
 divided into 49 provinces, each with a civil governor, after the 
 model of the French departments. These still remain the divi- 
 sions of Spain, and have definitely replaced the former historic 
 provinces. Then, in order to be able to make war on the Car- 
 lists, the queen called on the Liberals to take the government. 
 
 The ministry, under a Liberal martyr, Martinez de la Rosa, 
 decided to grant a new constitution. But the framers of it af- 
 fected to avoid the forms of 1812. The Queen Regent promul- 
 gated a Royal Statute in her daughter's name, announcing that 
 she had " resolved to convoke the general Cortes of the king- 
 dom." These Cortes should hold public sessions and should 
 have the power to vote taxes and laws. But the ministers were 
 not to be responsible to the Cortes ; the government reserved the 
 right to convoke and dissolve the Coi^tes, to appoint its presiding 
 officers, and to propose bills for enactment. The Cortes was 
 divided into two estates (estamentos). That of the Proceres was 
 composed of prelates, hereditary grandees enjoying an income 
 of $10,000 and life-members appointed by the crown with 
 an income qualification of $3000. The Procur adores, who 
 formed the second estate, were deputies elected for three years 
 by indirect election — the primary voters being property owners. 
 Deputies-elect must have an income of $600, and were to receive 
 no salary. 
 
 Under old Spanish names this was almost the same as the 
 French Charter under Louis XVIII. Spain became, by con- 
 cession from the crown, a constitutional monarchy. It had not 
 yet, however, a true representative system; the ministry was still 
 independent of the nation's representatives. Even if it should 
 
298 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 become responsible to the Chamber, it would be so only in name. 
 If the ministers found themselves in conflict with the Cortes, they 
 had only to dissolve it in order to be sure of a victory, for the 
 government in Spain has an irresistible influence over the elec- 
 tors. There have been many elections since 1835, and they have 
 always given the government a majority. The elective chamber 
 was in 1844, and is still, hardly more than an ornament. And yet 
 the Statute of 1834 marks a new era in the political life of Spain; 
 henceforth the ministers, whether generals or politicians, exer- 
 cise the power, and the ministry has taken the place of the 
 camarilla. 
 
 With the opening of the Cortes in 1834 began a greatly agi- 
 tated parliamentary life. The Liberals who returned from exile 
 brought with them the doctrines and formulas of liberal coun- 
 tries — France and England. A new generation of orators ap- 
 peared with the Spanish gift of eloquence. But their debates 
 in the Cortes have more literary than political interest. The 
 possession of power rested mainly on military revolts, court in- 
 trigues, and the influence of the foreign governments that formed 
 the Quadruple Alliance. All these counterbalancing forces pro- 
 duced a very unstable equilibrium. The ministries were short; 
 in twenty-five years, 1833 to 1858, there were 47 presidents of the 
 council, 61 ministers of the interior, 78 of finance, and 96 of war. 
 As the deputies received no salary, politicians had no alternative 
 but to become ministers or office-holders. So the contention for 
 possession of the ministry has been fierce. In this impoverished 
 country, where opportunities to make a living are scant, there 
 have always been many more candidates than offices to be filled. 
 This competition between candidates for office is the ruling force 
 and explains the parliamentary disturbances in Spain. Personal 
 motives are, however, disguised under the name of efforts for the 
 success of a party. 
 
 The Liberals, as after 1820, divided into two parties: Moderates 
 and Progressists. The latter name took the place of Exaltados. 
 
 The Moderates accepted the Royal Statute, that is to say, the 
 sovereign's control over the Chambers. They wished to keep 
 the upper house exclusively for hereditary and life members, to 
 have high voting qualifications, and a censorship of the press. 
 They were willing to leave the local administrations — the munici- 
 palities and the provincial deputations — subject to the central 
 government. They wished to avoid radical reforms, which the 
 clergy and great landowners disapproved, and confine themselves 
 
STATUTE OF 1834 AND CONSTITUTION OF 1837. 299 
 
 to administrative and financial reforms. They were supported 
 by the French government. Their party was an aristocratic one, 
 formed by officials and such of the great landowners as were not 
 Carlists ; its power lay in the central and northern provinces. 
 
 The Progressists demanded the Constitution of 1812, which 
 made the Cortes superior to the government. They wanted more 
 democratic elections, liberty of the press and of creed, and elect- 
 ive local authorities in the provinces and cities. They declared 
 themselves opposed to the clergy and aristocracy. They looked 
 to the English government for support. They were a democratic 
 and provincial party, particularly numerous in Andalusia and 
 in the cities of ancient Aragon — Barcelona, Saragossa, and 
 Valencia. 
 
 The Moderates, called to the ministry by the Queen Regent, 
 had to direct the war against the Carlists. Despairing of bringing 
 it to an end, they twice asked help from France, and were twice 
 refused. The Progressists, irritated by the Carlist victories, had 
 risen against the monks; at Saragossa -the people sacked the 
 monasteries and massacred a number of monks; at Barcelona 
 they burned six monasteries, shot 32 monks, and beat others to 
 death; at Madrid four monasteries were burned. Insurrectional 
 juntas proclaimed the Constitution of 1812, attacked officials, and 
 levied taxes. In September, 1835, 'he Queen, on the advice of 
 the English ambassador, called to the ministry a Jewish banker, 
 Mendizabal, who was friendly to the Progressists and connected 
 in business afifairs with London. The new minister gave promise 
 of relieving Spain's financial embarrassment. 
 
 The budget had never ceased to show a deficit; since 1823 over 
 $150,000,000 had been borrowed. Mendizabal was count- 
 ing on the monastic possessions to pay off the debt; they were 
 valued at $900,000,000. There were 90,000 monks. In 
 1836, by a series of decrees, he suppressed all the monasteries, 
 congregations, and other religious houses for men, also some of 
 the convents for women. He declared their real and personal 
 property appropriated to paying off the national debt. The gov- 
 ernment gained almost nothing from this transaction: govern- 
 ment paper, instead of going up, went down from 16 to 12. 
 
 The Queen took a Moderate ministry again in 1836, and new 
 elections gave it a majority in the Cortes. But the Progressists 
 revolted in Andalusia, Aragon, Catalonia, and Madrid. Queen 
 Christina was with Muiioz, her favourite, at her country-seat, 
 Granja Castle. One evening, August 12, 1836, while the supe- 
 
300 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 rior officers were at the theatre, the lower officers led the garri- 
 son in revolt, invaded the castle, and forced the Queen to 
 promulgate the Constitution of 1812, then to summon a Prog- 
 ressist ministry. The Progressists assumed power, and decided 
 to revise the Constitution of 1812 without conforming to the pre- 
 scribed forms of revision, and had the Cortes vote the constitu- 
 tion of June, 1837. This was a compromise between the Consti- 
 tution of 1812 and the Statute of 1834. It gave to the Cortes the 
 initiative in making laws, to the King the right to refuse his 
 assent and to dissolve the Cortes. The Cor'tes was to consist of 
 two houses: the Senate, composed of members appointed for life 
 by the crown from a list prepared by the electors; the Congress, 
 composed of deputies elected by direct vote for 3 years. They 
 were made re-eligible, contrary to the system of 1812. The min- 
 isters might be taken from among the members of the Cortes. 
 The article on religion was purposely voted in very vague form: 
 " The nation promises to maintain the creed and ministers of the 
 Catholic religion which the Spaniards profess." They avoided 
 deciding between the principle of religious intolerance admitted 
 in 1812 and the principle of toleration demanded by the Prog- 
 ressists. Local and provincial administration was to be left to 
 elective authorities. 
 
 This system was not allowed time to work itself out in prac- 
 tice. But there were henceforth in Spain two constitutions, cor- 
 responding to the two parties: the Statute of 1834 for the Mod- 
 erates, the Constitution of 1837 for the Progressists. 
 
 The Carlist War (1834-39). — During all these political strug- 
 gles between the two factions of the Liberal party civil war was 
 still going on be'tween the government armies, the Christinas, 
 and the absolutist insurgents, the Carlists. Don Carlos had 
 taken no steps to organize his supporters. In all the provinces 
 except Andalusia, armed bands proclaimed Charles V., but were 
 soon dispersed (1834). Carlos was in Portugal, with the abso- 
 lutist pretender, Miguel, hoping to return to Spain with a Portu- 
 guese army. It was, however, a Spanish army that invaded 
 Portugal and forced the two pretenders to set sail for England. 
 
 The Carlists' power lay in the fact that their party was not 
 composed entirely of absolutists and clergy: it included also 
 the mountaineers of Navarre and the Basque country. The 
 three Basque provinces were not incorporated in the Spanish 
 monarchy; the king was only hrd there, with neither army nor 
 officials. The Basques governed themselves, each province hav- 
 
THE CARLIST WAR. 301 
 
 ing its senoria, each village its assembly of the heads of families. 
 They paid no royal taxes, rendered no military service. The 
 country was outside the line of Spanish customs duties, which 
 gave the inhabitants the double advantage of trading freely with 
 France on one side and of plying the trade of smuggling goods 
 into Spain on the other side. This is the combination of liber- 
 ties known as the fueros. Navarre enjoyed similar privileges. 
 The Basque country did not suffer the poverty of Spain. It had 
 none of the beggars and ruined villages {despohlados) seen in the 
 other provinces. The valleys were well cultivated and the houses 
 well kept up. There were many schools and few convents. The 
 society was democratic, composed of peasant landowners, and 
 very Catholic, rendering faithful obedience to native priests. 
 
 To these peoples the old regime signified the maintenance of 
 the fueros. Liberal victory meant centralization, uniform laws, 
 the prospect of descending to a level with Spain. By taking up 
 arms for the absolute king the mountaineers thus defended their 
 privileged position; also their religion, which they believed to be 
 threatened by the Liberals. 
 
 Zumalacarregui, a Basque, and a colonel in the regular army, 
 organized the first Carlist army in Navarre. The insurgents of 
 the Basque provinces then put themselves under his command. 
 Each province formed its battalions; the men, clothed in the 
 native costume of wool, with Tam o' Shanter caps, linen shoes on 
 their feet, carrying only a woollen blanket and a linen sack, could 
 pass through the most difficult mountain paths; they made 
 marches of 16 to 18 hours. The Carlist methods were the same 
 as those of the guerillas; to avoid battles, and take the enemy 
 by surprise, retreating before superior forces over the mountain 
 to another valley. They were sure of help from the inhabitants 
 everywhere. The Christinos were heavily encumbered and could 
 use only the valley roads, among a hostile population which re- 
 fused to guide them and reported their movements to the Car- 
 lists. The army, formed partially of new recruits, ill-equipped 
 and often left unpaid by the government, exhausted itself in fruit- 
 less manoeuvres. 
 
 This war of all Spain against the mountaineers las'ted over five 
 years. It consisted of numberless, confused, and insignificant 
 operations, conducted separately in two regions : in the west, Na- 
 varre and the Basque provinces; in the east, Catalonia and Ara- 
 gon. In all these countries the cities, guarded by national 
 guards composed of Liberals, remained faithful to the govern- 
 
302 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 merit and resisted the attacks of the Carlists. Don Carlos re- 
 turned from England in July, 1834, and established his court and 
 government in Navarre. 
 
 The war very soon became fierce. The Carlists murdered 
 their prisoners: they could not guard or feed them. The govern- 
 ment generals had the insurgent ofHcers and soldiers shot. 
 Notables of the opposing party were shot on both sides, and both 
 began to take hostages and execute them. In Catalonia, where 
 the Carlist general Cabrera had had an alcade shot. General 
 Mina, one of the heroes of the Liberal party, had Cabrera's 
 mother, an inoffensive old lady, arrested and shot, " to restrain," 
 he said, " by a just system of reprisals the excesses of the blood- 
 thirsty Cabrera." 
 
 Both parties received outside aid. The constitutional govern- 
 ments lent the Spanish government an English legion and a 
 French legion ; the absolutist governments and the French legiti- 
 mists sent Carlos money, arms, and volunteers. 
 
 The Carlists seemed many times to be on the point of victory; 
 but Don Carlos either could not or would not profit by these 
 occasions. He was neither a general nor a statesman; he 
 counted on miraculous help from the Mother of Grief, — whom he 
 appointed head of the royal armies in 1836, — and let himself be 
 directed by his camarilla of confessors and favourites, who 
 thwarted the operations of his generals. Three times he failed to 
 conquer: 
 
 1. In 1835, during the struggles between the Moderates and 
 Progressists, Zumalacarrequi was preparing to march on Madrid 
 with 28,000 men; the camarilla sent him to besiege Bilbao, and 
 he was killed. 
 
 2. In 1836, after the Granja pronunciamimto, the Moderates 
 seemed ready, ou't of hatred to the Progressists, to join Don 
 Carlos ; but, instead of promising an amnesty, he ordered public 
 prayers for the extermination of unbelievers. 
 
 3. In 1837 Don Carlos finally decided to march on Castile, but 
 he could take only 12,000 foot soldiers arid 1200 cavalry, unpro- 
 vided with food or money, and let himself be turned aside toward 
 Valencia. At the end of four months he came in sight of Madrid, 
 but, not daring to attack it, retired to the mountains without a 
 battle. 
 
 ■Don Carlos' supporters divided at length into two parties: on 
 the one hand, the Apostolicals, the king's ministers and con- 
 fessors; and, on the other, the Marotists, partisans of General-in- 
 
DICTATORSHIP OF ESPARTERO AND OF NARVAEZ. 303 
 
 chief Maroto, — the army and the mountaineers. Maroto finally 
 arrested and shot four generals of the Apostolic party; Don 
 Carlos declared him a traitor. Maroto at the head of his army 
 forced Don Carlos to dismiss his councillors and declare his ap- 
 proval of the steps taken by his general. 
 
 The Basques were weary of war. A party had been formed in 
 1837, with the 1 otto Paz y fueros, peace and the fueros. It was 
 ready to accept Queen Isabella on condition that the country 
 should retain its privileges. The Liberal government author- 
 ized its general, Espartero, tO' make terms with the insurgents on 
 this basis. The negotiations, interrupted but resumed again, 
 brought about the Convention of Vergara, August 31, 1839. 
 The Carlist army was disarmed; each man was given the choice 
 of retiring or passing into the service of the government with his 
 grade and his decorations. Espartero was to advise the govern- 
 ment to promise to recommend to the Cortes the guarantee of the 
 fueros. Don Carlos fled to France with 8000 men. Cabrera 
 continued the war in Catalonia until July, 1840. 
 
 The Military Dictatorship of Espartero and of Narvaez (1840- 
 51). — As soon as the Carlist war was over, the generals became 
 the political leaders of Spain; they bore the name of a party, but 
 in reality they struggled against one another for the mastery of 
 the power. 
 
 Espartero, created Duke of Vittoria, famed for having put an 
 end to the Carlist war, was the first military dictator. He dis- 
 liked Queen Christina, who favoured the Moderates, and so he 
 sided with the Progressists. The occasion of his revolt was the 
 municipal law of 1840, passed by the Moderates, who were then 
 in power; it took from the municipalities the right of electing the 
 alcaldes, and gave the power of appointment to the government, 
 contrary to the Constitution of 1837. The Progressists revolted 
 in Barcelona, then in Madrid; Espartero supported them. Chris- 
 tina, deserted by the army, fled to France (1840). Espartero got 
 himself named as regent. For three years he governed Spain, 
 He defeated the Moderate generals, who revolted at Pampeluna 
 in 1840. He bombarded Barcelona, where a Republican party 
 had formed, and, with the aid of the officers, had proclaimed a re- 
 public. After having dissolved the Cortes twice in five months, 
 he was defeated by a .coalition of all the parties. Moderates, Prog- 
 ressists, and Republicans, and was forced to leave Spain. 
 Queen Isabella was declared of age in 1843. 
 
 The coalition was short-lived. The Moderates, backed by the 
 
304 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 generals, overturned the Progressist ministry and recalled 
 Queen Christina, who married Mufioz and created him Duke of 
 Rianzares. One of the Moderate generals, Narvaez, assumed 
 control of the government in May, 1844, and governed, with a 
 few interruptions, until 1851. The Progressist constitution of 
 1837 was set aside to make room for the Constitution of 1845, 
 almost a reproduction of the Statute of 1834. The crown, the. 
 ministry, and a Council of State exercised all the real power, and 
 appointed the municipal and provincial authorities. It was a 
 centralized system copied from France. Newspapers were 
 closely watched, and no article could be printed without previous 
 approval of the government. 
 
 As a means of conciliation the clergy received back the posses- 
 sions that had not been sold. Under the Moderates' rule the 
 question of the Spanish marriages, which had for so long filled the 
 French and English newspapers, was at length brought to an 
 end. These marriages — that of Queen Isabella with her cousin 
 Francis, Duke of Cadiz, and that of Luisa, the Queen's sister, 
 with the Due de Montpensier, son of Louis Philippe — agitated 
 Europe and especially England, because they were expected to 
 make French influence supreme in Madrid : they were also said to 
 be a breach of engagements made between the French and Eng- 
 lish governments. V>vX their importance was overrated. They 
 did not change political conditions in Spain. Francis, the Prince 
 Consort, weak in body and mind, took no part in the government. 
 The queen mother, Christina, remained the head of the court. 
 
 Under the system of dictatorship, the government, whether 
 Progressist or Moderate, never followed the procedure pre- 
 scribed by the constitutions. It settled by a simple decree 
 matters which should have been voted under form of a law. It 
 suspended by decree the constitutional guarantees of personal 
 liberty or established martial law; it was thus able to arrest its 
 opponents, suspend their publications, and forbid public meet- 
 ings. 'As for the taxes, which by all the constitutions should pass 
 the Cortes before being levied, they were not once regularly im- 
 posed from 1834 to 1850; the ministry merely obtained a previous 
 authorization from the Cortes to draw up a budget and levy 
 necessary taxes. 
 
 The Moderates, once established in power, although they had 
 still to put down the Republican insurrections of 1848, were 
 chiefly occupied with financial regulations. They organized a 
 uniform system of direct taxes on consumption and on callings. 
 
THE CONCORDAT OF 1851. 305 
 
 The debt was consolidated and fixed officially at $600,000,000, 
 and the budget was almost balanced. The customs tariff of 1849 
 suppressed many prohibitions, lowered and regulated the duties 
 on foreign articles. 
 
 The Concordat of 1851 and the Breaking up of Parties.— When 
 Isabella was established on the throne, the absolutists abandoned 
 the Carlists little by little and rallied to the support of the govern- 
 ment. The Moderate party, transformed by these new recruits, 
 became more and more like the old absolutist party. The 
 camarilla formed again about Christina, then about Isabella, and 
 governed sometimes through the ministers, sometimes in opposi- 
 tion to them. In January, 1851, Christina got rid of Narvaez and 
 called her personal supporters to the ministry. 
 
 The Moderate party broke up between 1851 and 1854; the 
 Liberals detached themselves from it. The Moderates, left in 
 power with Christina's support, adopted an absolutist policy to 
 satisfy the aristocracy and the clergy, who were now reconciled 
 with the crown ; they wished to re-enforce the Church's authority 
 in the monarchy. This was the time of general reaction in 
 Europe following the excitements of 1848.* 
 
 Church affairs were the first to be settled. The government, 
 independently of the Cortes, signed with the Pope the Concordat 
 of March, 1851, whereby all Church affairs were to be regulated 
 according to canonical form. " Catholicism is the national re- 
 ligion, all others are forbidden. Instruction in the public schools 
 must be in harmony with religion." The bishops received power 
 to oversee the purity of the faith, and the religious education of 
 children. " The government will lend its support to the bishops 
 when they ask it to oppose any enterprise of a nature to pervert 
 the minds of believers and corrupt their morals; also tO' prevent 
 the publication, circulation, and introduction of evil books." 
 Thus the government gave the clergy control of education and a 
 censorship of books, and put itself at the service of the ecclesias- 
 tical authority. In return the Pope consented to the abolition of 
 Church jurisdiction and recognised the. sale of Church property; 
 but the government promised to respect the property not sold 
 and authorized the Church to acquire new lands. 
 
 In political matters, the ministers, in December, 1852, prepared 
 a series of projects for the reform of the constitution; they wished 
 
 *This movement is marked in Spain by Balmes' philosophy and the 
 ■writings of Donoso Cortes, for which the Catholic party made a European 
 reputation. 
 
306 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 to make the constitution conform with practice by officially 
 recognising the right of the government to govern without the 
 Cortes. The budget was to be permanent; the laws were to be 
 made by the Crown and the Council of State; relations with the 
 Church were to be settled by the Crown and the Pope. The 
 Cortes were to lose the publicity of their meetings, the Senate to 
 become hereditary, the number of deputies to be reduced from 
 349 to 171 and their property qualification raised. A decree had 
 created a special system against the press; crimes against public 
 order and society were judged by a jury composed of the heaviest 
 taxpayers; in the provinces the governor, or prefect, could im- 
 pose a fine by administrative process. The government might 
 suspend or suppress " any publication showing tendencies dan- 
 gerous to the fundamental principles of society." 
 
 The Liberal ITnion and the Eevolution of 1854. — This system 
 ended in a revolution. The Moderates, left out of the ministry, 
 forrned a coalition with the Progressists, with Narvaez at their 
 head. The generals led the opposition. In the Senate it was 
 shown by allusions to Christina's husband, who was accused of 
 securing concessions for railroads. The government replied by 
 suspending the Cortes. The generals set on foot tnilitary re- 
 volts; the ministry put down two of them, but was defeated by the 
 third. A Moderate general, O'Donnell, together with the 
 director-general of the cavalry, organized it at Madrid; Espar- 
 tero, once more leader of the Progressists, joined them in Ara- 
 gon. This time the people in Madrid built barricades and fought 
 for three days, sacking the ministers' houses and murdering the 
 police agents. Christina was obliged to flee, leaving Isabella at 
 the mercy of the insurgents. The revolution of July, 1854, was a 
 victory for the generals and the democrats of the large cities over 
 the court and clergy. The army gained by it: all the officers 
 were advanced a grade. 
 
 O'Donnell and Espartero, having secured control of the power,, 
 governed together from 1854 to 1856. Espartero, president of 
 the council, was supported by the Progressists; O'Donnell, min- 
 ister of war, had created a new party, the Liberal Union, formed 
 of seceders from the old parties, the Desengannados or Disillu- 
 sioned Ones, favouring a liberal constitutional monarchy, a 
 happy mean between the absolutism of the former Moderates and 
 the anarchy of the Progressists. 
 
 In this coalition government the Progressists had at first the 
 chief influence. They armed the militia (national guard) and 
 
LIBERAL UNION AND THE REVOLUTION OF 1854. 307 
 
 convoked a Cortes to draw up a constitution ; the majority in the 
 assembly was Progressist. The Progressist officials dismissed 
 in 1843 were reinstated, and the years that had elapsed since their 
 dismissal were to count as years of service. The Council of 
 State was suppressed, taxes on articles of food abolished, and the 
 administrative law of 1821 was re-enacted. The Constitution of 
 1855 was voted, making the Senate elective. But before the 
 constitution was promulgated the Progressists lost control of the 
 government. 
 
 A republican party had been formed, chiefly in the northwest- 
 ern provinces, demanding universal suffrage, liberty of holding 
 public meetings and the abolition of military conscription. At 
 Barcelona the workingmen, organized in secret societies, re- 
 volted, massacred a number of employers, and took possession of 
 the city. The Carlists revolted for the defence " of religion." 
 The Progressists, who were in power, in order to meet these up- 
 risings, suspended the guarantees of liberty, an action which 
 brought them into conflict with the democrats. 
 
 Queen Isabella broke with the Progressists when they ex- 
 pressed a desire to meddle with Church property. The law of 
 disamortxzation passed by the Cortes ordered the sale of all mort- 
 main property, that of the state, of the communes, of charitable 
 institutions, and of the clergy. The government was to reimburse 
 the clergy by giving them 3 per cent, bonds. Isabella refused to 
 sanction this law and threatened to abdicate; she would show, 
 she said, " that a Queen could make sacrifices for her faith." 
 
 In the ministry, O'Donnell was already in open conflict with 
 the Progressists ; the Queen took his part and asked him to form 
 a ministry. The Progressist deputies protested. The Madrid 
 militia revolted. O'Donnell won the victory. After this he sup- 
 pressed the militia, dismissed the Cortes, and restored the Consti- 
 tution of 1845, adding to it the Additional Act, which guaranteed 
 the Cortes a yearly session of 4 months and the presentation of 
 the budget at the opening of the session. 
 
 But the old Moderate party, strengthened by the defeat of the 
 Progressists, resumed its influence over the Queen. She dis- 
 missed O'Donnell and formed the Narvaez ministry of Moderates 
 only, October, 1856. This ministry abolished what was left of 
 the revolution of 1854: the Additional Act, the law of disamor- 
 tization, and the administrative law; they restored the former sys- 
 tem and even aggravated the press law. This reaction lasted two 
 years under three ministries. 
 
308 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 In 1858 Isabella recalled O'Donnell. He held the government 
 five years without interruption, and the Cortes completed their 
 legal term without being dissolved — an unprecedented thing. 
 The Liberal Union supported the government as " the only way 
 to escape anarchy on one hand, or despotism on the other." It 
 was a third party between the two old extreme parties. O'Don- 
 nell's policy consisted in avoiding bitter conflicts in domestic 
 affairs by taking no decisive measures, and in turning public at- 
 tention to foreign policy. He restored the law of disamortization, 
 but by an agreement with the Holy See, whereby the right of 
 acquiring property was recognised in the Church. He promised 
 a liberal press law, but did not present it. On the other hand, he 
 brought Spain into the Morocco war, the conquest of San Do- 
 mingo, the Mexican expedition, and the trouble with Peru. He 
 added to th.e deficit of the ordinary budgets a deficit of the special 
 budget, estimated at $50,000,000. The Liberal Union gradually 
 lost its supporters; the Queen returned to the Moderates in 1863, 
 and in 1864 restored Narvaez. 
 
 The Eevolution of 1868. — The return of the Moderates to 
 power began to make apparent the transformation of parties and 
 public opinion in Spain. The absolutists, abandoning the Car- 
 lists little by little, had gone over to the Queen's support; the 
 Moderates, thus re-enforced, gave up their constitutional and lib- 
 eral views to become absolutist and Catholic. Isabella, feeling no 
 longer obliged to lean on the Liberals, revived the tradition of 
 Catholic absolutism and government by the camarilla; the most 
 influential persons about her were the favourite Marfori, Father 
 Cirile, a Franciscan who had become Bishop of Toledo, Father 
 Claret, formerly a soldier, now a bishop, and Sister Patrocinio, 
 condemned by the courts for simulating the scars of the Passion. 
 The Queen's husband, who was on openly bad terms with the 
 Queen, had almost no influence. The camarilla was hostile to 
 O'Donnell and urged the Queen tO' display her devotion to 
 Catholicism. She refused until 1864 to recognise the Kingdom 
 of Italy, and the diplomats had to remonstrate with her before 
 she would pardon the Spanish Protestants condemned to the 
 galleys. 
 
 The Liberal parties, out of hatred to the cojnan7/a, -became 
 revolutionary. The Progressist party declared itself, by a mani- 
 festo, unwilling to take further part in the elections. Since 1863 
 it had presented no candidates, believing that nothing short of 
 revolution would improve the situation. A democratic party, 
 
THE REVOLUTION OF 1868. 309 
 
 favouring universal suffrage and a republic, was constituted in 
 the maritime provinces, Catalonia, Valencia, and Andalusia, and 
 in Madrid. The opposition was no longer directed against the 
 ministry; it attacked the dynasty itself, exciting public opinion 
 against the scandals of the court. 
 
 The Moderate ministry replied with a blow at journalists and 
 professors. Every article, before being printed, must be sub- 
 mitted to the authorities, who might forbid it, and the paper might 
 be suspended at the third warning given for these unpublished 
 articles. Castelar, a democratic professor at the University of 
 Madrid, was excluded from his chair. The rector was dismissed ; 
 the students wished to give him a serenade, which the govern- 
 ment authorized, then forbade. The result was a riot, in which 
 a hundred were killed and wounded. The government ordered 
 the dissolution of all clubs in which politics were discussed. 
 
 The Progressists endeavoured to excite the army against the 
 dynasty; General Prim, an exile, organized insurrections. The 
 first miscarried. That of Madrid, in June, 1866, was the work of 
 the artillery sergeants, who were disconitented with service in an 
 army where all ofificial positions were reserved for the pupils of a 
 certain school; it resulted in numerous executions. The govern- 
 ment became a military dictatorship with absolutist principles. 
 Gonzalez Bravo, Minister of the Interior, said in the decree dis- 
 solving the Cortes : " The time has come for the Spaniards to be 
 governed in the spirit of their history and the sentiments which 
 form their real character." The Liberal Union protested 
 against military rule; the government dissolved the Cortes, 
 arrested the leaders of the party, and in December, 1866, exiled 
 from Madrid Marshal Serrano, the President of the Senate. The 
 leaders of the Liberal Union fled to France. 
 
 The absolutist ministry held its place, in spite of general dis- 
 content, as long as Narvaez lived. This leader put down all re- 
 volts, and, having had a new Cortes elected, he got his measures 
 approved and carried a law authorizing him to expel from his 
 i home, and later to imprison, any citizen regarded as a suspect. 
 The speech from the throne announced administrative and edu- 
 cational reforms to " fortify the policy of firm resistance to revo- 
 lution " and to maintain " the tradition of the common action of 
 Church and state." The Pope sent Queen Isabella the golden 
 rose. 
 
 After Narvaez' death, in 1868, Gonzalez Bravo wished to con- 
 tinue the system. But he realized that the army was slipping 
 
310 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 away from him; he had several of the generals arrested and im- 
 prisoned and the Duke of Montpensier driven from Spain. Then 
 the leaders of the three persecuted parties, — Liberal Union, Prog- 
 ressists, and Democrats, — after long negotiation, agreed to make 
 a joint revolution. They took advantage of the moment when 
 the Queen was at the French frontier busy negotiating with Na- 
 poleon III. for the substitution of Spanish troops for the French 
 troops defending the Pope in Rome. 
 
 The Revolution began with the pronunciamiento of Admiral 
 Topete, commander of the Cadiz fleet; followed by a pronuncia- 
 miento signed by the principal generals of the opposition, Prim 
 and Serrano. The cry was: " Down with the Bourbons! Long 
 live national sovereignty! " the declared object was to establish a 
 provisional government and universal sufiErage as the " founda- 
 tion of political and social regeneration." It was Andalusia that 
 first declared for revolution. There was only one small battle, at 
 Alcolea, near Cordova, on September 29. After this Madrid, 
 then all Spain, joined the insurgents. Isabella was deserted and 
 fled to France. 
 
 The Constitution of 1869. — The provisional government was 
 set up at Madrid and recognised by all the insurrectional juntas 
 of the 48 provinces. It consisted of the leaders of the allied par- 
 ties, 5 Progressists, 4 Unionists, and i Democrat. Generals 
 Prim and Serrano were the actual heads. In a circular to foreign 
 nations, and in a manifesto to the people, they proclaimed the 
 principles of the new system : sovereignty of the people, religious 
 and educational liberty, and "liberty of the press. These prin- 
 ciples were recognised by all supporters of the revolution; all 
 called themselves enemies to the absolutism of court and clergy 
 as " opposed to the spirit of the century." 
 
 They were not agreed as to the form of government to adopt. 
 The Progressists and the Liberal Union wanted a monarchy 
 " surrounded by democratic institutions," with a new dynasty 
 chosen by the nation. 
 
 The Democratic party was divided : the Madrid Dem'ocrats ac- 
 cepted the centralized monarchy; those of Catalonia, Aragon, 
 and Valencia favoured a federal republic. The provisional gov- 
 ernment declared that the decision would be left to the Cortes 
 summoned to make a constitution. 
 
 The Cortes of 1869, elected by universal suffrage, i deputy for 
 each 45,000 souls, was in great majority composed of partisans of 
 the coalition. They voted by 214 votes against 71 for the mon- 
 
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1869. 311 
 
 archy, with a liberal democratic constitution: the Cortes to con- 
 sist of two houses, a " Congress " elected for 3 years by universal 
 suffrage, a Senate elected for 12 years by special electors. All 
 creeds were declared free; for the first time Spain dared to in- 
 scribe religious liberty in a constitution. 
 
 The Republicans replied with the " Compact of Tortosa " be- 
 tween the II provinces of the old crown of Aragon; they de- 
 manded a federal republic and organized party committees. 
 
 The Carlists had already issued a manifesto in 1868; they de- 
 clared themselves in favour of " the national kingship," against a 
 foreign monarchy, and for "unity of faith," against religious 
 liberty. Their candidate was Don Carlos VII., grandson of the 
 youngest brother of the former Don Carlos. 
 
 While awaiting the choice of a King, the Cortes gave the 
 regency to Marshal Serrano, by 193 votes against 45. The Car- 
 lists immediately revolted, under the leadership of the priests. 
 Serrano suspended the guarantees and put down the insurrection. 
 He then asked the bishops for the names of the priests who had 
 left their churches to make war, and ordered them to summon 
 the faithful to obey the government. 
 
 Irritated by religious liberty, which seemed an insult to the old 
 faith, the clergy fought the constitutional party. The govern- 
 ment wanted to make the clergy swear obedience to the constitu- 
 tion; all the bishops refused, except one. The government 
 ceased to pay the ecclesiastical salaries. The Cortes voted to 
 adopt civil marriage. This was open war between the clergy and 
 the revolution. 
 
 At the same time the constitutional coalition broke up over the 
 choice of a king. The Liberal Union proposed the Due de Mont- 
 pensier, while the Progressists and Democrats wanted a foreign 
 prince. The Unionists left the ministry. Prim, until his death, 
 governed in the name of the Progressists. 'He spent a year in 
 seeking the future King of Spain. He offered the crown to the 
 son of the King of Portugal, to the Duke of Genoa, son of the 
 King of Italy, and to the Catholic Prince of Hohenzollern-Sig- 
 maringen ; this latter offer caused the Franco-Prussian war. All 
 the offers were refused. 
 
 'Finally Amadeo, Duke of Aosta, son of Victor Emmanuel, 
 consented to accept the Spanish crown. The Cortes elected him 
 by 191 votes against 115. But when he arrived in Spain, toward 
 the end of December, 1870, Prim had just been assassinated. 
 The new King was openly opposed by a Republican party and 
 
312 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 two monarchical parties — the Carlists and the Unionists. He 
 had also against him fanatical patriots, who called him the 
 foreigner, the nobles, who were unhappy at seeing Democrats in 
 the palace (they put on their hats upon the King's entrance at the 
 opera), and finally the clergy, who objected to a constitutional 
 King. His power was so weak that at the elections of March, 
 1871, his partisans gained a bare majority. There were 185 
 deputies in the opposition, including 60 Republicans and 65 
 Carlists. 
 
 Amadeo wished to govern as a parliamentary King. He 
 chose his ministers from the majority formed by Progressists 
 and Democrats, the remnant of the coalition that had compassed 
 the revolution of 1868. But this coalition, left without a recog- 
 nised leader by the death of Prim, broke into two hostile factions, 
 the Progressists with Sagasta, the Radicals with Ruy Zorilla, two 
 civil leaders. There was no longer a majority. The ministry 
 resigned. The King protested against these changes, " which 
 are only the result of intrigues between parties or groups "; but 
 he did not succeed in forming a conciliation ministry. He called 
 upon both parties in turn: he took a Radical ministry in July, 
 1 87 1, which sent him on a tour of the Republican provinces in the 
 northeast; then two Progressist ministries, in October and De- 
 cember, 1871, under whose advice he dissolved the Cortes. The 
 Progressist ministry obtained a strong majority, 229 against 137, 
 with 18 doubtful. The Carlists then revolted; the majority pre- 
 pared to establish a military dictatorship, according to Spanish 
 custom in case of trouble. But no one could persuade the King 
 to sign the decree; the Progressist ministry retired in June, 1872. 
 
 The two former monarchist parties, the Moderates and the 
 Liberal Union, after making overtures to one another, became 
 one. Isabella had abdicated in favour of her son, Alphonso', who 
 w"as still a minor; Montpensier supported him as the legitimate 
 representative of the hereditary constitutional monarchy. The 
 combined Moderates and Unionists became the Alphonsists, who, 
 in June, 1872, pronounced themselves in favour of Alphonso 
 with Montpensier as regent. 
 
 The Radical Cordova-Zorilla ministry announced its decision 
 in favour of " restoring peace without special measures " by ob- 
 serving the constitution. It had a new Cortes elected in which 
 the majority was Radical. The ministry proposed great reforms; 
 compulsory military service, support of public worship by the 
 provinces and communes, exclusion of the clergy from political 
 
THE REPUBLIC. 313 
 
 and administrative offices. The bishops protested. Then came 
 the conflict with the artillery officers. These had put one of their 
 number, Hidalgo, under " boycott," for favouring the Repub- 
 lican insurrection of the sergeants in i866; the ministry appointed 
 him captain-general of the Basque provinces; the officers pro- 
 tested, demanded his recall, and then resigned in a body. This 
 was open war between the Radical government and the two most 
 powerful bodies in Spain, the clergy and the army officers. 
 
 The Republic (1873-74).— Amadeo had had enough of this 
 democratic royalty and the isolation in which the aristocracy left 
 him and his court. The grandees had, contrary to custom, made 
 no demonstration at the birth of his child. He abdicated and left 
 Spain; on February 12, 1873, the Cortes proclaimed the Re- 
 public by 256 votes against 32, and elected a ministry. 
 
 The Republicans were not long in dividing. The Radicals, 
 who supported the Republic, wished to preserve a centralized sys- 
 tem and keep the Cortes elected in 1872, in which they had a 
 majority. The old Republicans, elected by the provinces of Ara- 
 gon and Andalusia, demanded a federal republic and the election 
 of a new Cortes to make a new constitution. The Radicals 
 rested on the Cortes, the Federalists on the ministry, in which 
 the Cortes itself, under the pressure of opinion, had put the former 
 leaders of the federalist Republicans: Castelar, an Andalusian, 
 and Pi y Margall, a Catalonian.. The conflict ended in a coup 
 d'etat. The Cortes, in adjourning in March, had left a standing 
 committee, composed of a majority of Radicals and Alphonsists. 
 The generals offered to rid them of the Federalist ministry; the 
 ministry got ahead of them, drove out the committee, and con- 
 voked a Cortes for the making of a constitution (May, 1873). 
 
 The new Cortes was Federalist and elected a Federalist min- 
 istry, which proposed a federative constitution copied from the 
 United States : Spain to be divided into self-governing states, and 
 the Church to be separated from the state. But the Federalists 
 agreed only in principle; they differed as to the extent of terri- 
 tory to be given to the states. Should each state consist of one 
 of the old historic provinces, or one of the 48 new ones, or of 
 a still smaller subdivision, a canton? Must a single state be 
 made of Andalusia or Sevilla, of Cadiz or Cordova? The first 
 president. Pi y Margall, a translator and disciple of Proudhon, 
 inclined toward self-governing cantons. The Cantonists took 
 advantage of this to revolt at Sevilla, Malaga, Cadiz, and Alcoy ; 
 they called themselves intransigents, declaring themselves so- 
 
314 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 cialists and partisans of the International. At Alcoy the insur- 
 gents massacred a number of employers and set fire tO' factories 
 with petroleum. They seized the fortified city of Carthagena, 
 and, with the aid of the galley-slaves, defended themselves there 
 until January, 1874. 
 
 In July, 1873, the Cortes, finding Pi too much of a Cantonist, 
 gave the power to Salmeron, professor at the University of Ma- 
 drid, an avowed adversary of capital punishment. Then, to op- 
 pose the Carlists and Cantonists, they voted the re-estabhshment 
 of martial law, which permitted the shooting of insurgents. Sal- 
 meron retired in September, 1873. 
 
 The Cortes gave the presidency to the leader of the moderate 
 Republicans, Castelar the orator, and then adjourned until the 
 end of the year in order to give him time to restore order. Cas- 
 telar, provisionally renouncing federalism and liberal government, 
 returned to Spain's traditional resource — a centralized military 
 dictatorship. He suspended constitutional liberties by decree, 
 forbidding any Spaniard to leave his home without permission, 
 commanding newspapers not to excite insurrection or approve 
 any rebellious act, also restoring the system of warnings and 
 suspensions for the press. 
 
 When the Cortes came together again, Castelar called for a 
 vote of thanks, which was refused. General Pavia, governor of 
 Madrid and a friend of Prim, offered Castelar to rid him of the 
 Cortes. iCastelar refused and resigned on January 2, 1874. 
 Pavia made his coup d'etat alone; without leaving the Cortes time 
 to elect another president, he invaded their hall with his troops, 
 on January 3, and drove out the deputies. He then handed over 
 the power to a committee of Progressists and monarchist Rad- 
 icals, under the generals. The army once more controlled the 
 government. 
 
 The new ministry announced its intention to preserve the re- 
 public with the Constitution of 1869, and promised to convoke 
 the Cortes, as soon as order was restored. Meanwhile, there was 
 a military dictatorship. The government suspended the guar- 
 antees, suppressed Carlist and Cantonist publications, dissolved 
 all political societies " which conspired by word or deed against 
 the public safety and national honour." Marshal Serrano was 
 appointed president of the executive power. 
 
 During all these struggles the Carlist insurrection was going 
 on. It was a repetition of the first Carlist war. The insurgents 
 operated at once in the west, in the Basque provinces, and in 
 
THE RESTORATION OF 1874 3^5 
 
 Navarre, with a practically regular army of mountaineers, 
 amounting to 30,000 men — in the east, in Catalonia, and the 
 Maestrazgo, with ill-disciplined bands. Don Carlos' capital was 
 Estella, in Navarre. As before, the peasants, incited by the 
 priests, fought on their side or helped them secretly; while the 
 cities resisted them. They besieged Pampeluna and Bilbao with- 
 out being able to take them. As before, it was a barbaric war; 
 prisoners were often massacred; the Carlists even shot the cor- 
 respondent of a German newspaper. They broke up the rail- 
 roads, fired on the trains or stopped them, and even, in Cata- 
 lonia, forbade any railroad employee to approach the track under 
 penalty of being shot. 
 
 The Restoration of 1874. — Serrano's military dictatorship satis- 
 fied neither Republicans nor Monarchists. The generals were 
 tired of the republic and went over to the Alphonsist party. Al- 
 phonso, on attaining his majority, November 28, 1874, pro- 
 nounced in favour of the constitutional monarchy: " I shall never 
 cease to be a good Spaniard and a good Catholic like all my 
 predecessors, and, as a man of the century, a true liberal." 
 
 The restoration was at hand. Martinez Campos proclaimed 
 it in the pronunciamiento of Murviedro, December 29, 1874; the 
 other generals joined him. Serrano offered no resistance. Al- 
 phonso XII. was recognised as King of Spain. The power 
 passed into the hands of the Alphonsist coalition of Moderates 
 and Unionists. Their leader was a former disciple of O'Donnell, 
 a civilian named Canovas del Castillo. 
 
 The ministry governed for two years under the form of a dic- 
 tatorship. It was busied at first with fighting the Carlists and 
 conciliating the clergy. The Carlists made a long resistance. 
 Finally, in February, 1876, the two armies that were operating 
 against them forced them to take refuge in France. 
 
 The clergy had supported the Carlists, the Pope having de- 
 clared Carlos VII. the legitimate King. In order to reconcile 
 ihem, the government raised the churcih appropriation from 
 $150,000 to thirty times that amount, and promised to settle 
 the arrears of church salaries so far as the war expenses 
 would allow. It closed the Protestant chapels and schools that 
 had been established since the Revolution, abolished civil mar- 
 riage, and declared that the state would settle its relations with 
 the Church in harmony with the Holy See. The Pope thereupon 
 consented to recognise Alphonso. But the settlement was diffi- 
 cult to make. The nuncio demanded a return to the Con- 
 
3l6 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 cordat of 1851 and the unity of the faith. The committee ap- 
 pointed to draft a plan of constitution had divided into two 
 parties : the Moderates wished to restore the Constitution of 1845, 
 while the Unionists and Progressists, united under the name of 
 Constitutionalists, upheld the Constitution of 1869; they managed 
 to agree on a mixed scheme which admitted religious toleration. 
 
 The Cortes, finally elected in January, 1876, and composed of 
 ministerial deputies, voted the constitution, including Article i : 
 " The Apostolic Catholic religion of Rome is the national re- 
 ligion; the nation assumes the obligation of supporting religion 
 and its servants. No one is to be disturbed on account of his 
 religious opinions nor for the form of his worship, provided he 
 does not violate the respect due to Christian morality. Public 
 exhibitions and ceremonies of any other than the national re- 
 ligion are forbidden." * The Pope protested against " the tol- 
 eration of non-Catholics as an attack on the truth and on the 
 rights of the Church." 
 
 The government next regulated the condition of the Basque 
 provinces. In 1876 it set up as a principle " the constitutional 
 unity of Spain." This meant the abolition of the fueros, in spite 
 of the protests of the Basque delegates. The government ordered 
 the local authorities to declare that t'hey submitted in principle 
 to the Spanish laws. On the other hand, it made the concession 
 that these laws should be applied only gradually and that the 
 local administrations should be preserved. But it began the 
 work of assembling the new recruits for the army by sending 
 a large army of occupation, to avoid troubles (1877); it also 
 levied direct taxes and dismissed the councils that protested. 
 Thus the second Carlist war ended in the complete union of 
 Spain.f 
 
 The dictatorship was declared at an end and constitutional 
 guarantees restored in the last part of 1876; but the decrees that 
 had organized the dictatorship were not abrogated; the govern- 
 ment held the press and public meetings at its mercy. 
 
 * The restrictions on religious liberty gave rise to a jurisprudence which 
 forbade to non-Catholics any religious act in the street, any placard or 
 emblem on the outside walls of buildings. The " respect due to Christian 
 morality " has been interpreted to condemn any person who refused to 
 remove his hat in presence of a religious procession, or of the viaticum, 
 and to regard as a crime public mockery of a Catholic dogma. 
 
 f The Cuban insurrection, begun toward 1868, was not put down until 
 1878. Martinez Campos was sent to Cuba, and restored peace by making 
 terms with the insurgents. 
 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. 3^7 
 
 The Constitutional Monarchy,— The Constitution of 1876 estab- 
 lished a liberal constitutional monarchy: the King inviolable, the 
 ministers responsible, and the Cortes divided into two houses: 
 a Congress elected by the taxpayers and "a Senate composed of 
 dignitaries, life members, and members elected by the provincial 
 councils. In reality the Cortes is always, as before the revolu- 
 tion, of the same opinion as the ministry, and the choice of the 
 ministry depends on the personal will of the sovereign. The 
 King is thus master of the government. 
 
 Alfonso XII. had received a foreign military education; he 
 busied himself almost exclusively with the army, endeavouring 
 to organize it on the German model and to restore discipline in 
 the official corps; he refused to restore revolted officers to their 
 rank. He left civir afifairs to the prime minister. Thus was 
 formed a regular system of government, parliamentary in appear- 
 ance, which is still in operation. The government appears to 
 rest on the majority in the Cortes; even ministerial crises occur, 
 apparently broug'ht on by political questions, but in reality by 
 personal rivalry between certain party leaders, among whom the 
 sovereign makes his choice from variable motives. 
 
 The parties were reorganized under new names. There were 
 two constitutional monarchist parties, who held the power alter- 
 nately. The Conservatives wished to maintain the system estab- 
 lished by the restoration, and accepted only financial and military 
 reforms ; they were supported by the clergy and aristocracy. The 
 Liberals, also called Constitutionalists, later the Dynastic Left, de- 
 clared their acceptance of the Constitution of 1869; they de- 
 manded the return to civil marriage, liberty of the press and of 
 association, and jury trial; also extensions of suffrage until uni- 
 versal suffrage should be reached. This party, formed by former 
 Progressists, has been enlarged by a number of Unionists and 
 a fraction of the Democrats. Both parties are led by veterans 
 of the revolution, the Conservatives by Canovas del Castillo, the 
 Liberals by Sagasta. Outside of the constitution still exists the 
 Carlist party of the north, very much enfeebled, and the Repub- 
 lican party, supported chiefly in the maritime provinces of the 
 east. The Republicans were at first a united party, but about 
 1883 they divided into sections which have at times tried to work 
 together: socialist Federalists,* under Pi y Margall; democratic 
 
 *The secret society of the Black Hand, discovered in 1883 among the 
 peasants of Andalusia, seems to have been only a local movement; the 
 scheme is supposed to have had in view the equal distribution of wealth. 
 
318 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 Progressists, favouring revolution, under Zorilla and Salmeron; 
 and Possibilists, under Castelar, who finally decided to support 
 royalty. 
 
 The Conservative party that brought about the restoration was 
 in control a long time. But Canovas, weakened by his rivalry 
 with Martinez Campos, since 1879 general under the restoration, 
 was abandoned by the King in his conversion of the debt in 1881. 
 Then began a series of Liberal ministries, directed by the Sa- 
 gasta-Martinez Campos coalition, and lasting until 1884. Then 
 Canovas was restored to power and fought against the Republi- 
 can press. 
 
 At the death of Alphonso in November, 1885, his widow, Maria 
 Christina, an Austrian princess, took the regency in the name of 
 the child about to be born, w'ho became Alphonso XIII. She 
 then governed in her son's name. She seemed at first to sum- 
 mon Liberals to the ministry by preference. In 1890 universal 
 suffrage was restored, with the consent of the Conservative party. 
 Universal suffrage seems to have made little change in the prac- 
 tical conditions of political life; the ministry continues to have 
 the majority. Of late years the Queen Regent has rested more 
 on the Conservative party. A Canovas ministry was maintained 
 from July, 1890, to December, 1892, in spite of Republican pro- 
 test; it resigned before the excitement produced in Madrid by 
 Conservative administration of the municipality. But the Sa- 
 gasta ministry, on its return to power, did not dare keep up the 
 system of repression organized by Canovas against the Repub- 
 licans. It weakened its position by announcing the intention of 
 making certain economies to check the alarming growth of the 
 deficit. The opposition was so strong that it had been able to 
 elect 120 deputies (60 Conservatives, 50 Republicans, and even 
 a few Carlists); the ministry could detach from the Republican 
 party only a small group of possibilists, who rallied to the support 
 of the monarchy, and it was vigorously opposed in the Cortes. 
 The new taxes were received with riots in the Basque country 
 and in Catalonia. Martinez Campos, governor of Catalonia, hav- 
 ing put down a riot with great difficulty, the Anarchists of Bar- 
 celona made two attempts with bombs, one upon his family at the 
 theatre in Barcelona, the other upon himself. The Liberal min- 
 istry replied with executions, special laws, and prosecutions 
 against suspected Anarchists, who have accused the government 
 of using means akin to torture in order to extract confessions. 
 In the meantime the ministry had been driven by public opinion 
 
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1826. 3^9 
 
 into a petty war in Morocco. At length, after two reconstruc- 
 tions of the ministry in 1894, the Cuban revolt of 1895, with its 
 increasing dangers for the monarchy, brought back the Canovas 
 ministry (December, 1895). The Cuban war and, since 1896, the 
 war against the insurgents in the Philippines, have cost much 
 in money and men, and have absorbed all Spain's political 
 activity. 
 
 Insurrections have become very rare; pronunciamientos have 
 ceased. Spain seems to have grown accustomed to a civil gov- 
 ernment; some of the generals in 1889 even complained to the 
 Cortes that the army no longer played the part to which it was 
 entitled, and that the cabinets were no 'longer presided over by 
 generals. The officers were also indignant at certain newspaper 
 a.rticles against the army; in 1889 they demanded press jurisdic- 
 tion for councils of war, and in 1895 groups of officers invaded 
 the offices of several opposition journals at Madrid. 
 
 PORTUGAL. 
 
 The Constitution of 1826.— Portugal, at the end of the eight- 
 eenth century, was, like Spain, governed by the camarilla and 
 clergy; the absolute sovereign left the power to his court. The 
 Cortes met no longer, and the grandees were pushed aside. 
 Catholicism was obligatory; the Church controlled the censor- 
 ships of books, education, and the Inquisition. 
 
 As in Spain, regeneration began with foreign occupation. The 
 English army sent to drive out the French took possession of the 
 country and organized the Portuguese army. The royal family 
 had, in 1809, fled to Brazil before the French invasion, and re- 
 mained there even after the restoration. Portugal was gov- 
 erned despotically by the English general Beresford, who was 
 appointed commander-in-chief with a junta of regency to assist 
 him. The government persecuted secret societies in particular. 
 A decree of 1818 made it treason to join one. " Whosoever sells, 
 gives, lends, or hands to another a medal, seal, symbol, picture, 
 book, catechism, or instruction relating to these cursed societies 
 shall be punished by transportation of from 4 to 6 years." 
 
 As in Spain, it was the army that overturned this system. It 
 was discontented with receiving no pay and having to obey for- 
 eign commanders; many officers who had become Liberals, if 
 not Free Masons, by reading foreign books or .by contact with 
 the English, desired a constitution. A plot to drive out the Eng- 
 lish in 1817 had met with cruel repression. But in 1820, at the 
 
32° SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 news of the Spanish insurrection, the Portuguese army also re- 
 volted; first, in the north at Oporto. Beresford was in Brazil 
 at the time, warning the King of the danger he ran if the army 
 w«re not paid. The insurgents formed a provisional govern- 
 ment which refused to admit Beresford on his return from 
 Brazil, and asked the King to return. They complained that 
 Portugal was being governed as a Brazilian colony. The King, 
 John VI., convoked the Cortes to draft a constitution; it adopted 
 the Constitution of 1822, copied from the Spanish Constitution of 
 1812. The King accepted it. 
 
 Two parties were formed. Constitutionalists and Absolutists. 
 The Constitutionalists, divided into two parties, as in Spain, were 
 at first intrusted with the power. But the restoration of 1823 in 
 Spain encouraged the Absolutists; the King gave them the gov- 
 ernment, and restored the old historic constitution, the pretended 
 Charter of Lamego. 
 
 As in Spain, it was a conflict over the succession that defini- 
 tively established the constitutional system. John died in 1820; 
 leaving two sons. The elder, Pedro, had remained in Brazil and 
 had just proclaimed himself Emperor there. The other, Miguel, 
 had returned to Portugal with his father and became the head of 
 the Absolutist party; but in 1824, having attempted an insurrec- 
 tion against his father, he had been driven from the country. 
 Pedro, not wishing to come and reign in Portugal, yielded his 
 rights to his seven-year-old daughter, Maria da Gloria, and pro- 
 mulgated the Constitutional Charter of 1826. This was a granted 
 charter, and established a constitutional monarchy like that of 
 Louis XVIII. in France. 
 
 The Cortes consisted of two houses, the hereditary House of 
 Peers and the House of Deputies, elected for four years by prop- 
 ertied voters, the election being indirect. The Cortes had the 
 legislative power, voting the budget and the laws, subject to the 
 King's sanction. The executive power belonged to the King, 
 who exercised it through his ministers. The constitution also 
 attributed to the King the moderating power, conceived by Benja- 
 min Constant; this was the right to dissolve the house, create 
 peers, choose and dismiss the ministers — all the rights exercised 
 by the constitutional monarchs of the period. There was nothing 
 new in it but the phrasing of it. The constitution guaranteed 
 in principle all the liberties of citizens — liberty of the person, of 
 property, of residence, of the press, and of petition. Religious 
 equality was not granted; Catholicism remained the religion of 
 
STRUGGLES BETWEEN CHARTISTS AND SEPTEMBRISTS. 321 
 
 the kingdom, but it was admitted that " no one ought to be dis- 
 turbed on account of his religion." But all these guarantees 
 might be suspended by a law or even a royal decree. 
 
 Pedro had chosen his brother Miguel as his daughter's guar- 
 dian and regent, on condition that he should recognise the con- 
 stitution and promise to marry the young Queen; meanwhile he 
 intrusted the regency to his sister. The Absolutist party re- 
 volted, demanding Miguel as King, but the Regent succeeded 
 in maintaining her position, thanks to Canning's English army 
 (1826). But when, in 1828, the English government (Welling- 
 ton) changed its policy, Miguel returned to Portugal. 
 
 He declared himself ready to accept the constitution and rec- 
 ognised Queen Maria; but he gave the power to the Absolutists 
 and the clergy and dismissed the houses. He then convoked 
 the Cortes according to the old Constitution of Lamego, and 
 proclaimed himself King in 1829. He was supported by the 
 army and clergy. Then began tljie persecution of the Liberals. 
 According to Liberal traditions, there were, in six years, 17,000 
 persons executed, 16,000 transported, and 26,000 imprisoned. 
 Miguel even arrested a number of Frenchmen and Englishmen; 
 an English fleet, followed by a French fleet, came in 1831 to force 
 him to give satisfaction. 
 
 Maria's supporters joined the Liberals in the struggle with 
 Miguel. 
 
 The Azores Islands had remained faithful to Queen Maria. 
 With the aid of the English, an expedition was prepared in these 
 islands to reconquer Portugal. Pedro had abdicated the Empire 
 of Brazil and was once more in Europe directing operations. 
 The war was a long one. In 1832 Pedro had taken possession of 
 Oporto, a Liberal centre, but could go no further. An army sent 
 by sea to the extreme south forced Miguel to evacuate Lisbon. 
 He continued the war in the interior with the aid of Don Carlos, 
 The Quadruple Alliance sent a Spanish army, which finally 
 drove Miguel from the kingdom in 1834. The Constitution of 
 1826 was restored. Maria became of age, and married a prince 
 of Coburg, a kinsman of the King of Belgium. The monas- 
 teries were suppressed. 
 
 Straggles between Chartists and Septembrists (1834-52). — 
 When Miguel was conquered he had promised, in consideration 
 of a yearly allowance, to renounce the crown and never return 
 to Portugal. The Absolutist party had no longer a part to play. 
 As in Spain, the Liberals were divided into two parties. The 
 
322 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 Chartists wished to maintain the Charter of 1826, which gave the 
 King all the real power; the Septembrists wanted the Constitution 
 of 1822, establishing the sovereignty of the people. 
 
 As in Spain, political struggles concealed personal rivalries. 
 As in Spain, the parties fought by means of military insurrec- 
 tions; the officers, restive at receiving no promotion, and the 
 soldiers at receiving no pay, determined which party should have 
 the mastery. As in Spain, the elections always gave the majority 
 to the party in power. But in Portugal the revolutions have been 
 less violent, repression less cruel, and the oratorical contests less 
 dramatic. The English, who control the wine trade, have often 
 interfered to produce or to moderate political revolutions. The 
 clergy have taken a much less important part than in Spain; it 
 is also said that the Free Masons have had a more continuous 
 influence on politics. 
 
 Like the Spanish Moderates, the Chartists have been the fa- 
 vourite party at court, the one that has most often occupied the 
 ministry. The mass of the population has remained indifferent 
 to political life. The movements are always set on foot in Lis- 
 bon, the capital, or in Oporto, the city of the north and the 
 centre of the wine trade, or in Coimbre, the University city. 
 These three cities support the opposition party, corresponding to 
 the Spanish Progressists; but that party has never been power- 
 ful and has rarely taken action except with help from discon- 
 tented generals or grandees. 
 
 In 1836, at the news that the Spanish Progressists had just 
 restored the Constitution of 1812, the Portuguese opposition 
 party brought about a military revolt and forced the Queen to 
 restore the Constitution of 1822. This was the revolution of 
 September, 1836, which gave the party the name of Septembrists. 
 The Septembrists took the power and reformed the constitu- 
 tion as the Spanish Progressists had done, making the Constitu- 
 tion of 1838, which gave the crown the veto on bills and 
 established two houses. 
 
 The Septembrists lost the ministry through a military revolu- 
 tion in 1842. The Chartists restored the Charter of 1826 and 
 kept the power in spite of insurrections in 1844, 1846, 1847, and 
 1851. Their leader, Costa Cabral, governed after the fashion of 
 Narvaez. The party then went through an evolution toward 
 absolutism, less marked, however, than that of the Spanish 
 Moderates. 
 
 The Begenerators and the Deficit. — ^As in Spain, an opposition 
 
THE REGENERATORS AND THE DEFICIT. 32 S 
 
 coalition was formed, similar to the Liberal Union, a coalition 
 between the Septembrists and discontented Chartists. Its. 
 leader was the old marshal Saldanha, a Chartist minister who. 
 wished to revenge himself on Cabral. The party gave itself the 
 name of Regenerador, and undertook to regenerate Portugal. 
 
 The revolution of 1852 forced the Queen to give the ministry 
 to the Regenerators. They reformed the Charter by the Addi- 
 tional Act of 1852, establishing direct sufifrage and lowering the 
 qualification for voting. Since 1852 the qualification has been, 
 so low as to admit nearly a half-million voters. 
 
 The party did not remain long united. Saldanha governed, 
 as a dictator; the former Septembrists became discontented and 
 left him to form the Historic Left, led by a Grand Seignior of the. 
 Free Masons, the Marquis of Louie. Later the reformist party 
 was formed, and merged with the Historic Left in 1877 under- 
 the name of Progressists. 
 
 'The number of electoral districts was diminished in 1869.. 
 Hereditary peerage was abolished in 1885. Representation of. 
 minorities was established for the election of deputies by the re- 
 vision of 1884-85. Payment of deputies has been aJbolished.. 
 The civil codes were finally voted in 1868 and the code of pro- 
 cedure in 1877, conformably to the promise of the Charter of 
 1826. 
 
 The principal difficulty is still in voting the budget. Portugal 
 is burdened with a debt too heavy for her resources, and still 
 further increased by the foreign loans made by Miguel at usuri- 
 ous rates, which the constitutional government has accepted. 
 The deficit, now become chronic, can be met only by loans, and 
 thus the debt goes on increasing. 
 
 Several plans for avoiding a deficit have been tried: the num- 
 ber of general officers for an army of 30,000 men was reduced, 
 from 142 to 32; a part of the salaries of the office-holders was 
 held back; food taxes were established. Pereira, minister from 
 1871 to 1877, tried to overcome the deficit by extending com- 
 merce and industry. 
 
 But the debt still increases. From 39,000,000 milreis in 
 1853 it had increased in 1873 to 233,000,000, in 1890 to 428,- 
 000,000. In forty years, 1853-92, it has increased on an average 
 by 8,000,000 milreis a year.* It was decided in 1892 to suspend 
 payment of the interest on two-thirds of the debt. Financial 
 embarrassments, conflicts with the clergy on the subject of ex- 
 *The milreis is worth about $1.20. 
 
324 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 
 
 communicatiri'g Free Masons (1882-84), and with the English 
 government on the question of the African colonies (1889-92) 
 have given Portugal an agitated public life.* 
 
 Little by little the parties have been displaced. The former 
 Chartist party has been replaced by the Regenerators, who form 
 the Right; the Progressists form the constitutional Left. Out- 
 side of the constitution a Republican party has sprung up in the 
 large cities and among the students and has been organizing 
 clubs and demonstrations since 1881. This party, encouraged by 
 the fall of the monarchical system in Brazil in 1889, has begun a 
 constitutional agitation and even insurrections. The govern- 
 ment has replied with special measures and the King has even 
 modified the constitution by decree.f 
 
 Portugal has re-entered upon a period of political crises. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.^— See Ch.-V.Langlois, "Manuel de BibHographie," 
 1896. There is not yet an historical bibliography for either Spain or 
 Portugal. On Spanish institutions, Torres Campos, " Bibliog. Espaii. Con- 
 temp, del Derecho y de la Politica," 1883. 
 
 Spain. 
 
 DOCUMENTS. — For events up to 1840, Baumgarten (see below) gives a 
 list of contemporary accounts ; ttae most important are UiTaflores, 
 "Memorias para ... la Hist. Contemp. de . . . Isabel II.," 1843. — 
 Burgos, "Annales del Reinado de Isabel II.," 1850; both conservative. 
 For subsequent events, the most reliable accounts are to be found in for- 
 eign annuals : " Annual Register " ; " Annuaire des Deux Mondes," up to 
 1870. — Sohulthess, " Europ. Geschichtskalender," since i860. See also the 
 political articles in the " Revista de EspaSa."§ 
 
 For government acts and Cortes documents, see Torres Campos, 
 " Staatsrecht d. K. Spanieu," 1889. 
 
 WORKS.— Complete Histories : The great general history of Spain, 
 
 ♦Several times since the Spanish revolution of 1854 there has been talk 
 of an Iberic Union; i. e., a union between Spain and Portugal. The idea, 
 originated by Spanish Republicans, has never been popular in Portugal. 
 
 f There have been several sovereigns since the death of Maria in 1853 : 
 Pedro V. in 1853, Luis I. in 1868, and Carlos I. in 18B9. 
 
 % It has not been possible for me, with the resources at my command 
 in Paris, to draw up a satisfactory bibliography of works in Spanish 
 and Portuguese. 
 
 § I refrain from citing the various descriptions of Spain and Portugal 
 in the manner of De Amicis, which give political anecdotes and peculiar 
 customs without naming authorities. 
 
/BIBLIOGRAPHY. 325 
 
 M. de Lafuente, " Hist. Gei/eral de Espa5a,'' 28 vols, (several edits.) stops at 
 the death of Ferdinand./ It is continued by Pirala, " Hist, de la Guerra 
 Civile," 2d edit., i868. /"Hist. Contemp." (from 1843 to 1875), 6 vols., 1875. 
 The common faults a/e prolixity and lack of criticism. For the period 
 previous to 1839, it is^best to resort to Baumgarten, " Geschichte Spaniens," 
 3 vols., 1865-71 {Siaaieng-esch. coll.). In French, Hubbard, " Hist. Contemp. 
 de I'Espagne," 4 vols. 1882-84, chiefly interesting for the history of politi- 
 cal customs.— Eeynald, "Hist, de I'Espagne jusqu'en 1873," is a poor 
 sketch. 
 
 Episodes : H. Bruck, " Die Geheimen Gesellschaften in Spanien," 1881, 
 Catholic, and with little criticism.— De Mazade, "Revolutions de I'Esp. 
 Contemp." (1854 to 1868), 1869, gives little more than the " Annuaire des 
 Deux Mondes.— W. lauser, "Gesch. Spaniens von dem Sturz Isabellas," 
 2 vols., 1877, a fairly good history of the revolutionary period from 1868 to 
 1875, more accurate than Cherbuliez " L'Espagne Politique, 1868-73," 
 1874.— On the Carlist war: Valras, "Don Carlos VII. et I'Espagne 
 Carlista," 2 vols., 1876, Carlist.— Wedel, "Die Carlistische Armee und 
 Kriegsfuhrung," 1876, accurate details on means of fighting. In English, 
 E. H. Stroebel, " The Spanish Revolution," a good narrative from the fall of 
 Isabella to the accession of Alphonsus XII. in 1874, Boston, 1898. 
 
 Institutions.— For the whole : Torres Campos, " Das Staatsrecht d. K. 
 Spanien," 1889 (Marquardsen coll.), picture of the actual organization, 
 with some historic details of the 19th century. On the Cortes, Borrego, 
 " Hist, de las Cortes de Espana durante el siglo XIX.," 2 vols., 1885. — For 
 the administration: Colmeiro, " Derecho Admin, de Espaaa,"4th edit., 3 
 vols., 1876-80. 
 
 Portugal. 
 
 For the Colonies: A. Zimmermann, " Kolonialpolitik Portugals und 
 Spaniens" (in his "Europaische Kolonien" I), Berlin, 1896. 
 
 DOCUMENTS. — On the Period of the Formation of the Constitu- 
 tion: " Documentos para a historia das cortes geraes da nas8.o Portu- 
 guesa, 1820-28," 4 vols., 1883-87. For the succeeding period see the 
 Annuals ; the " Annuaire des Deux Mondes " gives a great deal of infor- 
 mation. 
 
 WORKS. — I know of no complete history. — Schaefer, " Geschichte von 
 Portugal," vol. v., 1854 (Gotha coll.), stops at 1820. — Arriaga, " Hist, da 
 Revolugio Portug^esa de 1820," 4 vols., 1886-89, very diffuse and declama- 
 tory. 
 
 Political Institutions : lavares de Uedeiros, " D. Staatsrecht d. K. Portu- 
 gal," 1892 (Marquardsen coll.), g^ives an historical exposition and a 
 bibliography. 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 ITALY. 
 
 The Restoration in Italy. — Italy, conquered by the French 
 armies, had been for fifteen years divided into three parts, all sub- 
 ject to the French government: ist, the Kingdom of Italy 
 (Lombardy,Venetia) under Beauharnais, Napoleon's stepson; 2d, 
 the Kingdom of Naples under Murat, Napoleon's brother-in- 
 law; 3d, the portions annexed to the French Empire (Piedmont, 
 Genoa, Tuscany, Parma, Rome). The two Italian dynasties had 
 fled to the islands, the court of Turin to Sardinia, the Bourbons 
 of Naples to Sicily. 
 
 French rule did not give Italians national independence, and 
 it imposed on them heavy military burdens ; Napoleon took with 
 him to Russia 27,000 men from the Kingdom of Italy and 
 brought back only 1000. On the other hand, French administra- 
 tion introduced into Italy modem ways, equality before the law, 
 personal liberty, and unity of laws (the Napoleonic code had be- 
 come Italian law). Convent estates had been secularized. Thus 
 the country had been prepared for political unity, and already a 
 number of patriots were conspiring against Napoleon for the in- 
 dependence of the Italian nation. 
 
 The victory of the Allies made Italy's position even worse. 
 They restored everywhere the political arrangements which had 
 prevailed 'before the Revolution, except in the two Republics of 
 Venice and Genoa, which were not re-established. The other 
 provinces were given back to their former owners, and Italy was 
 once more cut up into little states : the Kingdom of Sardinia en- 
 larged by the addition of the former territory of Genoa; the 
 duchies of Tuscany and Modena, given back to two Austrian 
 archdukes ; the duchy of Parma, given to the ex-Empress Marie 
 Louise; the principality of Lucca, the States of the Church, 
 the Kingdom of Naples. (Murat, firsit spared, then driven out, 
 was seized for treason and shot in 18 15.) Austria took her for- 
 mer province of Lombardy, added Venetia, and formed the Lom- 
 bardo- Venetian kingdom. These arrangements, begun in 1814, 
 modified by Napoleon's return in 1815, were not completed until 
 1817. 
 
 326 
 
THE RESTORATION IN ITALY. 327 
 
 All these states were monarchical, and in all of them the re- 
 stored prince found himself absolute sovereign, free to re- 
 establish the old regime in his own way. 
 
 The King of Sardinia officially re-established ecclesiastical 
 authority, restored to the clergy their control of marriage, set up 
 once more the laws punishing by death the profanation of the 
 Host, abolished religious freedom, re-established ecclesiastical 
 censorship of books and set apart new estates for the Church. 
 The University was placed under a committee of overseers ; in the 
 library these locked up dangerous books, such as Montesquieu. 
 In his hatred of France the King expelled by decree several thou- 
 sands of Frenchmen and ordered the destruction of a botanic 
 garden at Turin, as the work of the invaders. The municipal 
 council, in order to save a bridge over the river Po, menaced by 
 the same motive, had a church built there as a votive offering. 
 
 The Duke of Modena re-established the old laws of 1771 and 
 persecuted the Jews. The Duke of Tuscany, in re-establishing 
 the convents, contented himself with giving Ihem an endowment; 
 the former Church lands were left with their lay possessors. 
 Tuscany had been reformed in the eighteenth century by the 
 Emperor Leopold, and so the former system there did not differ 
 materially from that of France. 
 
 In the States of the Church the restoration was radical. The 
 civil administration was replaced by Church authority. The 
 Pope re-established the Inquisition and all the convents (1824 
 monasteries, 612 nunneries). The country was divided into 18 
 legations, each governed by a Cardinal legate. Lay office- 
 holders were dismissed, the Napoleonic Code abolished. Vacci- 
 nation and street lighting in Rome were suppressed as French 
 institutions. The Church government busied itself with the pur- 
 suit of secret societies, especially the Free Masons. But it was 
 too feeble to suppress the brigands, who, descending from the 
 mountains, plundered even the villas in the outskirts of Rome. 
 
 In the Kingdom of Naples, the King preserved the most im- 
 portant of the French institutions: the abolition of the privi- 
 leges of the nobles, the French civil law and penal code, the ad- 
 ministration of the communes by state officials (intendants), the 
 system of finance and even the conscription — ^that is to say, the 
 new social and administrative organization. He showed his 
 hatred of the French by refusing to drive in the new strada di 
 Posilipo, which had been built during their rule, and by stopping 
 the excavations at Pompeii, which had been actively pushed 
 
328 ITALY. 
 
 " during the foreign occupation." With the Church he made a 
 compromise; he did not restore all the secularized lands, nor did 
 he re-establish all the convents nor all the bishoprics.* 
 
 In 1806 there had been 132 bishoprics for a population of 
 5,000,000 souls; Murat had reduced the number to 43; the con- 
 cordat made with the Pope (1818) allowed 19 archbishops and 
 56 bishops. The restored government was accused of capricious 
 application of the laws ; the King voluntarily pardoned the brig- 
 ands who had fought in his name against the usurper Murat. 
 A mounted band of brigands became so dangerous that the gov- 
 ernment in 1817 hired them to make war on the other brigands, 
 then had them massacred in cold blood. 
 
 In Italy, as in Germany, the restored sovereigns did not en- 
 tirely restore their fortner system. From the Revolution they 
 accepted the abolition of the privileges enjoyed by the nobility 
 (majorats,t exemption from taxes, seignioral courts), the secu- 
 larization of convent lands, and the regulation of administration 
 and finance. What they did restore was mainly the authority of 
 the clergy and the political police; the restored system consisted 
 in the absolute government of the court, police, and clergy.^ 
 
 It discontented the Liberals, who had become so numerous in 
 the Italian cities, especially at Milan, at Naples, and in Romagna. 
 These wanted a constitutional liberal government, independent 
 of the Church. 
 
 The arrangements made by the Congress of Vienna wounded 
 Italian national sentiment also. Metternich had refused to allow 
 the Congress to establish a committee on Italian affairs like that 
 which had charge of Germany: he showed that Germany was a 
 political body; Italy, on the contrary, " represents simply a group 
 of independent states, united under the same geographical term." 
 Thus was dismemberment made the normal condition of Italy. 
 And in this dismembered Italy foreigners were supreme. A for- 
 eigner, the Emperor of Austria, possessed the Lombardo- Vene- 
 tian Kingdom and sent to Milan, as his governor, an Austrian 
 archduke; the three sovereigns of Tuscany, Modena, and Parma 
 were Austrians. 
 
 Even over the sovereigns who were Italian, Austria had an 
 
 * The following figures are given, but without satisfactory authority: 
 1806 : 47,008 priests, 25,000 monks, 26,000 nuns 
 1837 : 26,000 " 11,400 " 9.590 " 
 
 f A right of persons holding hereditary titles to entail property in con- 
 junction with their titles. — Tr. 
 
 X Stendhal, who examined this regime carefully, gives a description of it 
 in his famous romance, " La Chartreuse de Parme." 
 
THE MILITARY REVOLUTIONS OF 1820 AND 1821. 3^9 
 
 almost irresistible influence. She made the King of Naples 
 promise not to introduce into his states institutions incompatible 
 with those of the Lombardo-Venetian Kingdom. Metternich 
 even tried to form between the Italian sovereigns a confederation 
 which Austria would have controlled. The King of Sardinia, 
 supported by the Tsar Alexander, refused to join, and upset the 
 plan. 
 
 The political condition of Italy after 1815 may be defined by 
 three characteristics: small states, absolute governments, and 
 dependence upon Austria. Italian patriots and liberals de- 
 manded national unity, constitutional government, and the expul- 
 sion of outsiders. But they had to wait 30 years for a chance to 
 work together, and agitated at first only by local revolutions. 
 
 The Military Eevolutions of 1820 and 1821.— The first move- 
 ments were the work of army officers and secret societies. Thera 
 existed already in Italy secret societies when it was under French 
 control. The mos.t active of these, the Carbonara, had been 
 founded probably about 1807 i" 'the mountains of the Kingdom of 
 Naples and recruited among the charcoal burners of Calabria. 
 Its object was to drive out the French. Its origin is legendary, 
 but its organization is known: the Carbonari were formed in 
 lodges (ventes); the members, admitted after a ceremony of initia- 
 tion, swore to obey the orders of the chiefs; the lodges were 
 federated under the direction of the High Lodge. The Car- 
 bonara had its principal centre in the Kingdom of Naples; the 
 number of members was estimated at 60,000 after 1816, among 
 whom were many bandits who injured the society by their crimes. 
 The Carbonari were also numerous in the States of the Pope 
 (especially in Romagna) and in Austrian Italy (especially in 
 Lombardy). ^After the restoration their aim was changed : their 
 object now was to expel the Austrians and establish a united 
 Italy with constitutional government; the French were no longer 
 their enemies, and so became their allies.^ 
 
 At the same time Free Masonry was gaining ground in 
 Italy. These two secret societies differed in character: the Car- 
 bonari were conspirators ready to lead an armed revolution. 
 The Free Masons had only a humanitarian aim. But both were 
 made up froim the same classes, among the liberal middle class, 
 which opposed the power of the clergy, and military officers, who 
 were displeased with the restoration ; both were organized in the 
 form of a federation. Perhaps they were in secret connection 
 through some of their chiefs who belonged to both societies; they 
 
33° ITAL Y. 
 
 were jointly pursued by the governments and condemned by the 
 Pope.* The absolutists tried to oppose them with rival abso- 
 lutist societies: the Calderari, reorganized in 1816 by the minister 
 of police in Naples; the Sanfedists, in the States of the Church. 
 They fought each other by denunciations and murders, of which 
 it is impossible to get an exact account. 
 
 To tell the truth, the Italian revolutionists did not succeed in 
 organizing any original movement; they made nothing but imita- 
 tion revolutions, induced by foreign example and based on pro- 
 grams and plans copied from foreigners. It was the Spanish 
 revolution of 1820 that furnished the model for the Italian revo- 
 lutions ; they were military, like their model, at Naples in 1820, at 
 Piedmont in 1821. 
 
 At Naples, many of the military officers had served in Murat's 
 army; these " Muratists " reproached the government with re- 
 fusing them promotion and desired a constitution. Although 
 many officers were Carbonari, there had been no formal con- 
 spiracy: the chiefs did not dare to risk an insurrection. The 
 revolution was begun by two sub-lieutenants of cavalry with the 
 cry of " Long live the King and the Constitution ! " They led 
 their men toward Naples. The Carbonari followed them; the 
 army did not stop them. The King became alarmed, and an- 
 nounced that he would willingly grant a constitution. Without 
 waiting to draw up one, they promulgated the " Constitution of 
 Spain." The King took the oath, adding an invocation of his 
 own to God, " If I lie or break my oath, hurl the thunderbolt of 
 thy vengeance upoh my head." This constitution was democratic, 
 in'odelled after the French Constitution od 1791, which gave the 
 power to a single chamber. The King reserved the right to get 
 this plan modified by the Assembly. The Assembly was elected 
 and met at Naples; the majority were ready to vote the modifi- 
 cations which would make the constitution acceptable to the 
 French government. But the Carbonari had founded lodges in 
 every regiment and gathered together at Naples a general' 
 assembly of delegates from all the provinces; they bullied the 
 government, appointed the police, and managed the work of re- 
 cruiting. Their supporters in the assembly obstructed the dis- 
 cussion of the constitution. 
 
 In Sicily, the Palermo insurgents had first demanded an inde- 
 
 * The documents cited to prove a connection (Deschamps, " The Secret 
 Societies and Society ") were drawn up too long after the events, or else 
 by too prejudiced witnesses, to make categorical affirmation possible. 
 
THE MILITARY REVOLUTIONS OF 1820 AND 1821. 33^ 
 
 pendent government, with a royal prince, so as to permit the 
 existence of a personal union only. But the Sicilians had sent 
 their representatives to the Assembly at Naples, and the people 
 of Palermo, frightened by the prevailing massacres and pillage, 
 concluded to recognise the government of the Neapolitans. 
 
 Austria undertook to crush the Naples rebellion. She had re- 
 fused to recognise the constitution, reminding the King of the 
 promise, made in 1815, that he would not establish in his king- 
 dom any institution contrary to those of the Austrian states. 
 She made preparations to send an army to Naples and re- 
 establish the old government. The Tsar and the French govern- 
 ment, after some hesitation, decided against the constitution, and 
 Mettemich took advantage of the occasion to secure the formula- 
 tion of the theory of intervention in countries troubled by revolu- 
 tion. Delegates from the great powers met at Troppau, moved 
 to Laybach, and invited the King of Naples to join them in set- 
 tling the affairs of his kingdom according to the treaties. 
 
 Ferdinand set out, after swearing to the Assembly that he 
 would speak in favour of the constitution; he returned with an 
 Austrian army of 50,000 men sent in the name of the European 
 powers to occupy the Kingdom of Naples and put an end to the 
 government imposed by the Revolution. 
 
 The government of Naples got together two small armies, but 
 after the first encounter at Rieti the soldiers disbanded and the 
 Austrians occupied the whole kingdom without resistance. The 
 absolutist party, restored to power, forbade any person, under 
 penalty of death, to have arms in his possession or to wear the 
 colors of the Carbonari. Then began a long period of accusa- 
 tions and prosecutions. Many liberals were condemned to death 
 or the galleys, others were killed in the country or fled to foreign 
 lands. In order to prevent another military revolution, the 
 King, by a capitulation concluded for 30 years with the Swiss 
 cantons, hired four Swiss regiments. 
 
 In the Kingdom of Sardinia, the insurrection was begun by the 
 officers of the garrison of Alexandria (March 10, 1821). It was 
 not simply liberal, but national. The insurgents swore allegiance 
 to the Spanish Constitution, as at Naples; but in addition they 
 set up the Italian tricolour flag (green, white, and red) and pro- 
 claimed the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Italy and its ex- 
 tension over the whole nation. The principal leader of the 
 revolt, the Count of Santa Rosa, announced his intention to de- 
 liver the King and the country fr'om the Austrians and prevent 
 
332 ITALY. 
 
 the crushing of Neapolitan freedom. The conspirators counted 
 on Prince Charles Albert of Carignano, who was said to be allied 
 with the Carbonari and acquainted with the plot. The garrison 
 at Turin followed suit and threatened to bombard the city if the 
 King did not accept the constitution. 
 
 King Victor Emmanuel preferred to abdicate in favour of his 
 brother, then at Modena. While awaiting the arrival of his suc- 
 cessor he appointed as regent the Prince of Carignano, who pro- 
 claimed the constitution, swore obedience to it, and gave the 
 power into the hands of a special State Council, until the elec- 
 tion of the Assembly. Santa Rosa was made minister of war. 
 "^But the new King, Charles Felix, was an absolutist and un- 
 friendly to the Prince of Carignano, and he formally disavowed 
 the acceptance of the constitution; he invited those subjects who 
 were still faithful to resist and asked help from the Tsar. Alex- 
 ander ordered 100,000 men to start. The Austrian army was 
 already on the border. Santa Rosa, when called on by the King 
 to hand in bis resignation, asserted that the King wa's an Austrian 
 prisoner and tried to lead the army and the students to attack 
 Lombardy. The troop of liberals met the Austrians before No- 
 vara, and after a short combat dispersed. The leaders took 
 refuge at Genoa, then left the country; a special commission con- 
 demned to death 178 of the accused, and 220 officers were dis- 
 charged ; the two universities were closed for a year. Metternich 
 tried to punish the Prince of Carignano by having him deprived 
 of his rights to the throne of Sardinia and to replace him by the 
 Austrian Duke of Modena. But the French government sup- 
 ported the prince, so he was made to do penance by going with 
 the French army to fight the Spanish liberals; he then had to 
 promise never to grant a constitution. In 1831 the older 
 branch expired with Charles Felix, and the Prince of Carignano 
 became King Charles Albert. 
 
 There had also been a conspiracy at Milan against the Aus- 
 trians. The Lombardo- Venetian kingdom was governed by a 
 viceroy (the Austrian archduke Rainier) and an administration 
 partly composed of Italians assisted by councils formed of 
 Italian notables (the two assemblies of Lombardy and Venetia, 
 and the 17 provincial assemblies). Metternich himself, in 1817, 
 recommended the choice of Italians in order to show that Austria 
 did not mean to treat the kingdom as a German province. But 
 the liberals could ill support the Austrian legislation which had 
 abolished jury trial and public procedure, — the secret police that 
 
THE REVOLUTION OF 1831. 333 
 
 opened letters and set spies to watch suspected persons, — ^the 
 censorship which had, in 1819, suppressed the Hberal journal Con- 
 ciliatore. A number of liberals, young men of the middle class, 
 conspired at Milan (1820). Thirteen of them were arrested and 
 condemned to death; their sentence was then commuted to im- 
 prisonment in the fortress of Spielberg. One of them was Silvio 
 Pellico, who later became famous for his description of his cap- 
 tivity. Another plot in 1821 led to other condemnations. 
 
 In the duchy of Modena, where the liberals had conspired wilJi 
 those in Naples, a special commission passed sentence on 47 
 accused persons. 
 
 The Revolution of 1831. — After the failure of the military revo- 
 lutions all political movement in Italy ceased (except for an 
 uprising of the Carbonari in the Kingdom of Naples in 1827). 
 In the States of the Church, Pope Pius VII. and his minister Gon- 
 salvi, who favoured a pacific policy, had died in 1823 and 1824; 
 Pope Leo XII. (1824-29) pursued a policy of abolutist restora- 
 tion. He re-established ecclesiastical jurisdiction in civil afifairs 
 and the use of Latin in the courts, gave the Jesuits the direction 
 of education and ordered prosecution of the Carbonari. Men 
 were condemned to prison, banishment, or precetto politico — that 
 is to say, to reside in a city, forbidden to go out at night, and 
 obliged to report to the police every two weeks and to go to con- 
 fession every month. Each subject was ordered to denounce 
 any member of a secret society under penalty of the galleys. 
 
 A new revolutionary movement broke out at last, in 1830, in 
 the states which had not been in rebellion, and against the weak- 
 est governments, at Modena, Parma, and in the States of the 
 Church. This time the French Revolution was taken for a 
 model: the people in the cities rose, as in France, to demand a 
 constitution, a national guard, and liberty of the press. 
 
 The committee of Italian refugees prepared an insurrection in 
 the States of the Church, taking advantage of an interregnum 
 offered by the death of Pope Pius VIII., who died in 1830. 
 Their object was uncertain; they talked of pmclaiming Jerome 
 Bonaparte or a son of Eugene Beauharnais King of Rome (Louis 
 Napoleon was in the plot), but their great aim was to rid them- 
 selves of the government of priests and Sanfedisits. The Duke of 
 Modena was warned, had the conspirators arrested at the house 
 of their chief Menotti, and sent for the executioner. 
 
 Immediately the conspirators in the States of the Church broke 
 out in insurrection ; first at Bologna, then in all the other towns 
 
334 ITALY. 
 
 in Romagna, Umbria, the Marches, — everywhere except in the 
 patrimony of St. Peter. They formed national guards, then they 
 established provisional governments composed of nobles, doctors, 
 and lawyers. There was no fighting; all the laymen, even the 
 soldiers, agreed together to rid themselves of the Church ofiEcers. 
 The deputies met at Bologna and declared without debate for 
 " complete release from the temporal rule of the Pope and com- 
 plete union in a single government." Then they published a 
 manifesto against the Pope's administration and organized a 
 central government composed of a president and seven ministers. 
 
 A provisional government was installed without resistance at 
 Modena and in the duchy of Parma: there was in each a dictator 
 assisted by three consuls. 
 
 The insurgents hoped to be sustained by France, but Louis 
 Philippe would not risk a war. The Austrian army occupied Ro- 
 magna; the insurgents treated with one of the cardinals, and sub- 
 mitted upon a promise of amnesty (March, 1831). The Duke of 
 Modena was presently restored by the Austrians. The envoys 
 of the European powers met in conference, and presented 
 to the Pope a memorandum recommending certain reforms as 
 preventive of a new revolution. The principles proposed were: 
 I St, That reforms must be made not only in the rebellious prov- 
 inces, but in Rome; 2d, That laymen must be admitted to all judi- 
 cial and administrative offices; the communes must have elective 
 municipal councils and there should be a lay state council to re- 
 store financial order. This memoranduhi answered the com- 
 plaints of the inhabitants, who were mainly irritated at being 
 governed by churchmen. Pope Gregory XVI. had a scheme of 
 reform drawn up; but the cardinals were unwilling to divide the 
 government with laymen; they agreed to reject the election of 
 councillors and the creation of a lay council. They would only 
 agree to create municipal councillors, named by the Pope, and 
 provincial councillors who had not even the right of petition. 
 The finances were still controlled by ecclesiastical congregations ; 
 the country was still governed by prelates, the four cardinal 
 legates in the four large provinces, the delegated Monsignori in 
 the 17 others. 
 
 When the Austrian army withdrew, the liberals re-organized 
 the national guards; the Pope's soldiers, sadly disciplined, plun- 
 dered peaceable inhabitants ; the legate called back the Austrians, 
 who this time were received as liberators. The French govern- 
 ment had declared that if the Austrians interfered again, it would 
 
r 
 
 .MAZZINI AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 335 
 
 seize one of the ports as a guarantee ; a French garrison arrived 
 at Ancona (1832). This was merely a demonstration; the Pope 
 took the city again, and the garrison was confined in the citadel 
 until 1838. 
 
 To secure a defence against the malcontents the pontifical gov- 
 ernment hired two Swiss regiments for 20 years and encouraged 
 the Sanfedist regiments to organize as volunteers (militi cen- 
 turioni); in 1832 there were 30,000 of them under 30 com- 
 manders : they swore to sacrifice their lives and their property for 
 the Church and its head, undertook to act as a police and to 
 watch the liberals. Pope Gregory XVI. was more a theologian 
 than a sovereign and left the government to his secretary of state, 
 Lambruschini, a Genoese absolutist. 
 
 Tuscany, being the least despotic of the Italian states, had no 
 revolution; she even received refugees. Some young men in 
 183 1 made a plot to enter the theatre of Florence and ask the 
 Grand Duke for a constitution, but they did not dare do it. The 
 country remained under a paternal absolutism. In 1836, in a 
 population of 1,780,000, there were 10,000 secular priests, 3234 
 monks, and 4172 nuns. 
 
 Mazzini and the Eepublican Party. — Up to 183 1 the malcon- 
 tents had agitated by local insurrections organized on the spot, 
 and without a common program. Then began attempts to unite 
 all Italy for concerted action. 
 
 The first was under Mazzini. He was a Genoese lawyer, an 
 enemy to his sovereign the King of Sardinia. (The Genoese had 
 never reconciled themselves to becoming subjects of a Piedmon- 
 tese.) He was born in 1898, but had been living in exile in 
 France until 1831 ; he now changed his revolutionary policy. He 
 transferred the management of the movement to a place outside 
 of Italy and adopted for object the establishment of a united 
 Italy as a republic. In 1831 he founded Young Italy, a secret 
 society which admitted only men under forty years of age. Then 
 he again enlarged his program and founded Young Europe, to 
 deliver the nations from monarchical governments and to estab- 
 lish everywhere the republic and democracy; each nation should 
 form a republic united to the others by fraternity. In Young 
 Europe each country formed a section (in 1844 there were Young 
 Italy, Young Poland, Young Germany, then Young Switzerland, 
 Young France, and Young Spain); the whole was directed by a 
 central committee. 
 
 Mazzini was an enemy to the Church, but a deist and a mysti- 
 
336 ITAL Y. 
 
 cist. His motto was : " Liberty, equality, humanity, a God, a 
 sovereign, and the law of God." Young Italy was recruited 
 mainly among the well-to-do classes : lawyers, doctors, professors, 
 and officers; it formed a revolutionary republican party, hostile 
 to the Carbonari, but employing the same processes, — partial up- 
 risings and the murder of princes and traitors. They accom- 
 plished nothing but a series of unsuccessful plots, in Piedmont in 
 1834, and at Naples in 1844.* 
 
 The " Eisorgimento." — A pacific movement toward unity began 
 in the world of letters. It was perhaps prepared by the congress 
 of naturalists, organized in imitation of Germany, and held each 
 year in a diflerent city (Pisa, Turin, Florence, Padua). It came ^ 
 suddenly to the front through the publication of some poliltical 
 works which were read all over Italy and produced the effect of 
 manifestoes. 
 
 In 1843 Gioberti, a priest and theologian who had sought 
 asylum in France in 1831, published " Moral and Political Head- 
 ship of Italy." The essential idea of his book was that Italy, 
 destined by God to be the centre of humanity, holds within her- 
 self forces sufficient to accomplish her mission; it would suffice 
 for her to get back her unity under the direction of the Pope, who 
 would be at once the chief of Italy and of the world. Since Mac- 
 chiavelli, the Italians had regarded the Pope as an obstacle to 
 unity; Gioberti made the papacy the centre of the nation. But 
 he accused the Jesuits of having compromised the Pope's situa- 
 tion. (He wrote against them the " Modern Jesuit.") 
 
 Count Balbo', in " The Hopes of Italy " (1844), pointed out to 
 the Italians the faults which they must correct before they could 
 attain independence. 
 
 The poet d'Azeglio, in " Recent Events in Romagna " (1846), 
 recounts the struggles and persecutions of the Liberals in Ro- 
 magna in 1845, ^'I'l sets forth their grievances' against the Church 
 government as presented in the " Manifesto of the inhabitants 
 of the States of the Church to the princes and peoples of 
 Europe." While recognising the courage of the rebels, he re- • 
 
 *The Sicilian massacres of 1837, during the cholera, were not political 
 acts; the people believed themselves poisoned, and massacred all who 
 were suspected. The government of Naples seized the opportunity to 
 declare the Sicilians incapable of governing themselves, and revoked the 
 ordinances of i8i6, which reserved to them the civil and Church offices. 
 Henceforth there was to be no distinction between Neapolitans and 
 Sicilians. 
 
THE " RISORGTMENTO." 337 
 
 proached them with forgetting their main object, the deliverance 
 of their native land. 
 
 The strange part of it was that these three authors were Pied- 
 montese, and all three designated their sovereign, the King of 
 Sardinia, as the principal champion of independence. 
 
 Thus began the period called Risorgimento (resurrection). Tlie 
 idea of raising Italy again spread rapidly among cultivated men. 
 It was more a common sentiment than a party. There was no 
 organization, not even a precise object. They desired reforms, 
 a liberal government, and the union of all Italians; but as they 
 did not want a revolution to expropriate the princes who were 
 opposed to a union, they could think of nothing but a federation 
 between the sovereigns, and all did not agree about that. Should 
 there be three kingdoms or only two? And what place should 
 the Pope have? These aspirations were confused, but men were 
 agreed on two points: i. Italy must shake off the foreign yoke; 
 2. She was strong enough to efifect her unity without aid. The 
 motto was given by King Charles Albert: a minister asked him 
 how Italy would carry out her plans, and he replied: Italia fara 
 da se (Italy will do it alone). 
 
 Beginning with 1846, three sovereigns encouraged the national 
 movement: the Pope, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and the King 
 of Sardinia. At the death of Gregory XVI. (1846) the conclave, 
 which met at once without waiting for the foreign cardinals, re- 
 jected Cardinal Lambruschini, the candidate nominated by the 
 Absolutist and Austrian party, and elected the candidate of the 
 Roman party, Mastai, bishop of Imola, surnamed the Good, who 
 took the title of Pius IX. Elected in opposition to Austria and 
 supported by France, Pius IX. immediately passed as the liberal 
 Pope who was to realize the national dream of Gioberti. He 
 was adored by the Liberals, and the hymn " Long live Pius 
 IX.! " became a national chant all over Italy. 
 
 Pius IX. granted his subjects several liberal reforms: amnesty 
 for all prisoners condemned for political ofifences (July, 1846), 
 opening of a reading room, and a milder censorship for the press 
 (March, 1847), a Consulta di Stato, formed of laymen, one from 
 each province, chosen by the government for two years (April, 
 1847), and then a national guard (July). Prosecutions at once 
 began against the Sanfedists, who were accused of conspiring to 
 massacre the Liberals; some of them were executed, others ar- 
 rested, and the Sanfedist volunteers were disarmed. However, 
 when he received the members of the Consulta, the Pope informed 
 
338 iTAL Y. 
 
 them that he was resolved to preserve all his authority. But 
 already a political club had been organized, the People's Club; the 
 Roman people began to obey their local officers; a mob went to 
 congratulate the Swiss consul on the defeat of the Sonderbund, 
 crying: " Death to the Jesuits! " (November 30, 1847). Mazzini 
 wrote the Pope to place himself at the head of the national 
 movement. 
 
 The Grand Duke of Tuscany followed the example of the Pope. 
 He was forced to it by an agitation which was revolutionary at 
 Leghorn, the seaport and great trade centre of the country; lib- 
 eral at Florence, the capital, and at Pisa, the University city. In 
 May, 1847, Pisa and Leghorn made a celebration in honour of 
 Pius IX. and against the Austrians and Jesuits. The Grand 
 Duke granted the modification of the censorship of the press, 
 then a Consulta like that of the Pope, then a civic guard. At 
 Pisa and Leghorn tricolour flags were set up. The Duke of 
 Lucca abdicated and ceded his states to Tuscany. They abol- 
 ished the Tuscan institution of Sbires, secret agents of the police, 
 without uniform and now become almost hereditary. 
 
 King Charles Albert of Sardinia had hesitated long. He had 
 become suspected by both Absolutists and Liberals for his con- 
 duct in 1821, and had forced himself to reassure the European 
 governments by maintaining absolute government, limiting him- 
 self to having the codes revised (1837, 1840) and appointing con- 
 sultative councils in the provinces. He had laboured espe- 
 cially to re-enforce his army ; keeping each soldier only two years 
 in the army and eight years on leave, he increased his infantry 
 to 22,800 men in time of peace, 61,400 in time of war. But he 
 felt himself supervised by Austria, which had come to an under- 
 standing, it was said, with his own minister of police and had 
 got a papal nuncio established at Turin ; he dared not break with 
 either his absolutist ministers or the Jesuits; the Liberals had 
 nicknamed him Re Tenfenna, the Hesitating King. 
 
 The Risorgimento movement at last gave him courage, in 1846, 
 to enter into conflict with Austria on a question of customs duty. 
 The Austrian party distributed pamphlets against him; in answer 
 to these the Genoese made a great celebration for the fiftieth 
 anniversary of the expulsion of the Austrians (December, 1846). 
 The English government, in rivalry with Austria, hastened to 
 send a special envoy to Charles Albert, promising support, and 
 urged him to conclude a customs union with the Pope and Tus- 
 cany. The King still hesitated, in spite of the congress of nat- 
 
THE REVOLUTION OF 1848. 339 
 
 uralists in 1847, now become a political assembly for the discus- 
 sion of reforms; in spite of the anti- Austrian manifestations in 
 Genoa and Turin. Finally he issued the reform laws which abol- 
 ished privileged courts, deprived governors of police control, in- 
 creased the powers of municipal councils, and modified the cen- 
 sorship. To this independence movement the Austrian govern- 
 ment replied by establishing a garrison at Ferrara and making 
 alliances with the Dukes of Modena (1846) and Parma (Decem- 
 ber, 1847). 
 
 The Revolutions of 1848. — The excitement was so intense that 
 the Italians did not wait to follow the example of other nations. 
 
 Since the early part of January, 1848, there had been outbreaks 
 in the Lombardo- Venetian kingdom. The inhabitants had never 
 accepted foreign rule; they boycotted the Austrian garrisons, and 
 the Italian ladies refused to meet the German officers. The 
 Lombardo-Venetians complained of the Austrian censorship 
 which forbade the publication of any political discussion, of the 
 administration where native deputies had no influence, of the se- 
 cret police which had spies in every commune, and, above all, 
 of the Austrian financial system, the octroi of cities, the taxes on 
 the sale of drinks, on markets and bakeries, and the tobacco 
 monopoly. It was estimated that the Emperor drew from his 
 Italian subjects a quarter of his whole revenue, while they did not 
 form an eighth of the population of his empire. 
 
 To strike the government in its finances, Italian patriots de- 
 cided to consume no more cigars. On Sunday, January 2, at 
 Milan, anyone showing himself in the street with a cigar was 
 insulted or else the cigar was knocked out of his mouth. Aus- 
 trian soldiers walked about smoking ostentatiously and were 
 stoned. The dragoons charged, and a few persons were killed. 
 Like scenes occurred at Padua between students and soldiers. 
 
 The revolution began in Sicily. The Liberals, having vainly 
 petitioned the King, posted a call to arms all about Palermo. 
 The government arrested ten of the leaders. On the appointed 
 day (January 12) the people assembled, a number of insurgents 
 made barricades: the fighting was confused, with several days 
 intervening, from January 12 to 27; the troops bombarded the 
 city, then retired. The general committee, composed of men 
 of the high nobility, distributed the ministries among them- 
 selves; there was no talk of dethroning the King, the insurgents 
 asked for nothing but the re-establishment of the Sicilian Con- 
 stitution of 1812. 
 
34° 2TAL V. 
 
 In Naples the mob marched before the palace crying: " Long 
 live the King and the constitution! " Ferdinand, hearing that 
 he could not count on the army, promulgated a constitution 
 (January 29) on the model of the French Charter. Then he 
 formed a ministry under a formerly proscribed Muratist and Car- 
 bonaro, Bozzelli. 
 
 This revolution, the first of all the revolutions of 1848, aroused 
 the Liberals all over Italy. In the Kingdom of Sardinia, the 
 Genoese had begun by demanding the expulsion of the Jesuits 
 and the creation of a national guard. The journalists of Turin 
 decided to hold a meeting for the discussion of reforms. Ca- 
 vour proposed to demand a constitution (January 6). After the 
 revolution of Naples, the city council of Turin, composed mainly 
 of nobles, voted a petition to ask for the constitution and the 
 national guard. The King decided at last and granted the Con- 
 stitutional Statute (February 8), which later became the Con- 
 stitution of the Kingdom of Italy. In Tuscany the Grand Duke 
 granted a constitution, equally modelled on the French Charte. 
 
 At Rome the Pope, when giving his blessing tO' a crowd as- 
 sembled under his balcony (he was then living at the Quirinal), 
 added: "I ask you to cease making certain demands contrary 
 to the sanctity of the Church, which I neither can, nor ought, nor 
 will admit." But he appointed three lay ministers and, as 
 was done in the French Revolution, granted the prayers of his 
 subjects and promulgated the Fundamental Statute for the tem- 
 poral government of the States of the Church (March 14). There 
 were two councils, one of loo deputies elected by property own- 
 ers, the other of peers appointed by the Pope, a lay State Council 
 and a ministry. But the College of Cardinals remained the 
 supreme power, charged with the rejection or approval of laws, 
 and, in spite of the liberty of the press, the censorship of religious 
 books continued. 
 
 In the Italian countries occupied by Austrians the revolution 
 of '48 was the result of the revolution in Vienna (see chap, 
 xiii.). The Austrian government, disorganized, threatened on 
 all sides by national revolts, abandoned its Italian provinces. 
 The Milanese revolted; the Austrian general-in-chief, Radetzky, 
 fearing to have his communication cut off, retired with his army 
 into the Quadrilateral, a sort of entrenched camp formed by four 
 strongholds, between Lombardy and Venetia. The Lombards 
 then' formed a provisional government, which tried to organize 
 an army. At Venice, a republican lawyer, Manin, was ap- 
 
INTERNAL DISCORDS. 34 1 
 
 pointed president of the provisional government, and thus pro- 
 claimed the revolution: "Long live the Republic and Saint 
 Mark ! " The Austrians abandoned Modena, which had broken 
 out in revolution, and Parma, where the Duke gave a constitu- 
 tion (March, 1848). 
 
 The Liberals of Piedmont wanted to seize this occasion to 
 drive out the Austrians; Cavour wrote, on March 23, in the 
 Risorgimento, a moderate newspaper : " We, people of cool reason, 
 accustomed to listen to the commands of reason rather than to 
 the emotions of the heart, we say aloud there is but one way open 
 to the nation, the government", and the King: war, and imme- 
 diate war." The King decided to mobilize the army and sent 
 it into Lom'bardy. The armies of Tuscany, of the Pope, and of 
 Naples set out to join the Piedmontese army. 
 
 Until now the revolution had been liberal, monarchical, and 
 national. In the various states the people had hoisted the tri- 
 colour flag, the symbol of Italian unity, and the princes had ap- 
 peared disposed to unite against the foreigner. 
 
 Internal Discords. — There were two causes of weakness in this 
 revolution, i. The Italians had not sufificient military force to 
 drive out the foreign power without help; the Sardinian army, 
 the only one that was ready for war, consisted of only 60,000 
 men, two-thirds of whom were in the reserve. 2. They were not 
 agreed on the form of government they wished to adopt; the 
 Absolutists desired a return of the old government; the Liberals, 
 after having worked together, split into two hostile parties, the 
 constitutional monarchists and the radical republicans; each of 
 the two had its own solution of the national problem. The 
 Monarchist party desired to establish unity by a federation be- 
 tween the princes; its leaders were notable Liberals who relied 
 upon the governments. The Republican party, directed by Maz- 
 zini and his friends, wished to convoke a general parliament to 
 determine the fate of Italy; it was recruited among the people in 
 the large cities, especially Genoa, Milan, Rome, Leghorn, and 
 Naples, and looked for the support of the French Republicans. 
 
 The struggle between the three parties began. The Constitu- 
 tionalists predominated in the north of Italy, the Republicans in 
 the centre, and the Absolutists in the south. The south started 
 the reaction. The Chamber which was elected in the Kingdom 
 of Naples in accordance with the new constitution was com- 
 posed of Liberal Constitutionalists; before it had time to meet 
 the King took advantage of a Republican outbreak in Naples to 
 
342 ITALY. 
 
 dissolve it (May 15); he then suppressed the daily papers and 
 recalled the army which he had sent to the aid of the Pied- 
 montese. The Calabrians revolted and were subdued. A new 
 Chamber, elected by incomplete elections, came together in July; 
 it expressed its regret at the recall of the troops, because " the 
 resurrection of Naples cannot be accomplished without inde- 
 pendence and the establishment of Italian nationality," and de- 
 manded the completion of the elections and the control of the 
 budget. But the Absolutist ministry, encouraged by the Aus- 
 trian victory, adjourned the Chamber (September 5) and sup- 
 pressed the Liberal newspapers. They then sent the army to 
 reconquer Sicily. The Sicilian Parliament, in session since 
 March 25, had first demanded that Sicily should be united to 
 Naples by a personal union only; then, on the refusal of the 
 King, had declared the throne vacant and the dynasty excluded 
 (April 13). But in the choice of the new King of Sicily they 
 had hesitated between a Tuscan prince who was supported by the 
 Pope, and a Piedmontese prince; they had chosen the Pied- 
 montese, the Duke of Genoa, second son of King Charles Albert, 
 but the King had refused (August). This had led to a real war. 
 The Neapolitan army landed in Sicily, bombarded Messina, seized 
 and plundered it (September, 1848). Ferdinand was nicknamed 
 " Re Bomba " (King Bomba). The French and English gov- 
 ernments imposed an armistice; the war stopped until March, 
 1849. In 1849 the Sicilian Parliament rejected Ferdinand's ulti- 
 matum, decreed that all citizens between 18 and 30 years of age 
 should become soldiers, and gave the command to a Polish Re- 
 publican, Mieroslawski ; but he had almost no regular troops. 
 The war was reduced to one battle in the streets of Catani; the 
 •Neapolitan soldiers dared not advance, and the barricade was 
 forced by a Swiss regiment. The Liberal leaders left the coun- 
 try, and the revolutionary government resigned its powers into 
 the hands of the municipal council of Palermo; the Sicilian cities 
 surrendered. Ferdinand promised them a constitution, an am- 
 nesty, a viceroy, a national guard, and the recognition of the 
 debt of the revolutionary government; but he kept none of his 
 promises. Sicily found herself once more under an absolute 
 government (May, 1849). In the Kingdom of Naples the Abso- 
 lutist restoration was already accomplished; the King had dis- 
 solved the Chamber (March 13). Then began political prose- 
 cutions; of 114 deputies, two-thirds were condemned to death, 
 to prison, or banishment. Gladstone, in the English Parliament, 
 
INTERNAL DISCORDS. 343 
 
 accused the government of treating persons condemned for po- 
 litical action as criminals. 
 
 In the centre of Italy, the Republican party profited first by 
 the indignation against the King of Naples. The Pope had re- 
 fused the role of president of a federation of Italian princes and 
 leader of the Democratic party. Already, in the allocution of 
 April 29, 1848, he protested against the accusation of having 
 been the cause of the Italian revolutions; he declared that he had 
 always exhorted his subjects to obedience and had had no inten- 
 tion of declaring war upon Austria. He entered into conflict 
 with his lay ministry, struck out from his speech at the opening 
 of the Chambers a passage upon nationalities,* promulgated a 
 press law drawn up by the Dominicans (June 4). He refused 
 the request of the Chambers to separate the powers of head of the 
 Church and of sovereign of the State and to declare his min- 
 isters responsible to the Chambers. He then formed a new min- 
 istry. Its head, Rossi, formerly ambassador to France, tried to 
 resist at once the Republican party and the Church restoration 
 party. The day of the reopening of the houses he was assas- 
 sinated in Rome (November 5). The Republican party de- 
 manded a constituent assembly, the mob advanced on the Quiri- 
 nal. The Pope sent word to the European ambassadors that he 
 was yielding to violence, then he fled to the Kingdom of Naples 
 (November 24), leaving his power in the hands of a number 
 of prelates and conservative laymen; but these were not allowed 
 to act. The Liberals then formed a provisional government, 
 which tried to prevent the rupture; but the Pope threatened to 
 excommunicate any who should take part in the election. The 
 Constituent Assembly, elected in spite of this threat, declared the 
 Pope stripped of his temporal power and proclaimed the Roman 
 Republic (February 9, 1849). The government was placed in 
 the hands of a triumvijate with Mazzini at the head. He invited 
 all the Italians tcTelect deputies to a general Constituent Assem- 
 bly to establish Italian unity. 
 
 In Tuscany the government had forbidden clubs and political 
 meetings, but it could not carry out this order; at Leghorn the 
 Republicans repulsed the soldiers (September 2), and their chief, 
 the poet Guerazzi, now master of Leghorn, obliged the Duke to 
 
 * " God has here below, by differences of tongue, of soil, of races, and 
 of customs, established nations that they might live their own lives in their 
 own way . . . and God has given to Italy all these ineffaceable char- 
 acteristics." 
 
344 ITALY. 
 
 call him to the ministry. The Republican party, in the name 
 of national sovereignty, demanded a constituent assembly elected 
 by universal suffrage. The Chamber, elected by the property 
 owners, frightened by the Republicans in the galleries, voted a 
 constitituent assembly (January, 1849). The Grand Duke fled. 
 A band of Republicans invaded the Chamber and gave the gov- 
 ernment to a triumvirate (February 9); then, on the advice of 
 Mazzini, they proclaimed the Republic. 
 
 In Lombardy the provisional government of liberal mon- 
 archists, in order to cut short the republit;an agitation which 
 Mazzini had begun at Milan, had determined upon fusion with 
 the Kingdom of Sardinia. That the Republicans' own principle 
 might be applied, the decision was left to the sovereign people. 
 The Lombards were called upon to pronounce by universal suf- 
 frage " if the annexation of Lombardy to constitutional Piedmont 
 should take place at once or be postponed." There were 
 561,000 for immediate annexation against 681 opposed (May 28, 
 1848). In Venetia the fusion was voted by an assembly of nota- 
 bles, 127 against 6 (July 2). All northern Italy- was thus united 
 in a single constitutional kingdom. 
 
 The Reaction. — As in 1821 and 1831, foreign armies effected 
 the restoration. The Austrian army, in a single combat (at Cus- 
 tozza, July 24), put to flight the Sardinian army, and recon- 
 quered all of Lombardy. Radetzky, invested with unlimited 
 powers, levied a special tax on all who had taken part in the 
 revolution and set up a military government. Venetia alone 
 remained a republic, and the assembly gave the dictatorship to 
 Manin under the form of a triumvirate (August 13, 1848). 
 
 The Kingdom of Sardinia had simply arranged an armistice 
 with Austria; England and France offered their mediation, but 
 they could not agree on the constitution to give Lombardy. In 
 March, 1849, the King of Sardinia, supported by the Chamber, 
 began the national war again; this was at the time when Aus- 
 tria was occupied with Hungary. The Sardinian army had been 
 increased to 85,000 men, but they were untrained and demoral- 
 ized. A single defeat (Novara, March 23) made resistance im- 
 possible: Charles Albert abdicated to facilitate peace. His son 
 Victor Emmanuel secured peace by paying a war indemnity. 
 Venice surrendered after a long siege (August 22). Lombardy 
 remained until 1851 subject to summary jurisdiction (Standrecht). 
 The Austrian general, Haynau, who had taken Brescia by storm, 
 was nicknamed the " hyena of Brescia "; he was even reproached 
 
THE REACTION. 345 
 
 with having had women beaten. The most horrible thing to 
 Italians was the penalty of whipping, which the Austrians had 
 retained for their soldiers and now applied to the Italians. The 
 government' granted an amnesty, but excepted from it 86 nota- 
 bles, and later sequestered the estates of Lombards who' had fled 
 to Piedmont. 
 
 The duchies of Modena and Parma, which had joined Pied- 
 mont, were occupied by Austrians. The re-established dukes 
 restored their absolutist government, persecuted the Liberals and 
 clerical partisans of national unity, and concluded a customs 
 union with Austria. 
 
 In Tuscany the Liberals tried to drive out the Austrians by 
 forming, at Florence, a provisional government, and recalling 
 the Grand Duke; the Republican party kept only Leg'horn. But 
 the Austrian army occupied Tuscany and remained there until 
 1859, and the Grand Duke, under the pressure of the Austrian 
 government, finally (1852) withdrew the Constitution of 1848 and 
 revived censorship of the press. Tuscany was more oppressed 
 than before the revolution. 
 
 Four Catholic powers, France, Spain, Austria, and Naples, of- 
 fered the aid of their armies to the Pope against the Roman 
 Republic. The Neapolitans, who approached from the south, 
 were driven back by the Republican forces ; Spain sent only two 
 ships. The Austrians occupied only the northern part of the 
 States of the Church, the Romagna, where they remained until 
 1850. 
 
 -^It was the French expedition that undertook to win back the 
 city of Rome. The head of the Republic (established in March), 
 Mazzini, and the most popular general. Garibaldi, were both from 
 northern Italy: Mazzini from Genoa, Garibaldi from Nice. An 
 army of volunteers had been organized; those of Garibaldi wore 
 red shirts (at first blue) and the Calabrian plumed hat; a com- 
 mittee on barricades had been appointed. The French govern- 
 ment at first sent only a small army, hoping to enter Rome with- 
 out a battle, with the aid of the Liberal Monarchists; their object 
 was simply to re-establish the Pope and at the same time pre- 
 serve the liberal institutions; they were counting on a Liberal 
 proclamation from the Pope, which they did not get. The 
 French army attempted a surprise, and was repulsed by the 
 Romans. 
 
 The fate of Rome hung on the struggle between political par- 
 ties in France; the President and the Catholic Right in the As- 
 
346 ITALY. 
 
 sembly decided on the war in spite of the Republican party. The 
 Roman expedition ended in the siege and capture of the city 
 (June 30, 1849). The Pope granted an amnesty, but with 283 
 exceptions. He re-established the government of the Cardinals, 
 and Cardinal Antonelli, now secretary of state, rejected the re- 
 forms proposed by France as contrary to the papal sovereignty. 
 Nothing was done beyond creating a consulta of laymen ap- 
 pointed by the Pope and absolutely without power. >-^' 
 
 The Constitutional Kingdom of Sardinia (1849-58). — The rev- 
 olution of 1848 had failed. Nothing remained of it with the 
 people but memories, miseries, and deceptions; with the gov- 
 ernments, an even greater contempt for the press, liberal ideas, 
 and the bourgeoisie; deficit in the finances, foreign garrisons 
 all over central Italy (the Austrians in the duchies and the Ro- 
 magna, and the French in Rome). The national tricolour flag, 
 once adopted by all the states, was abandoned. Italy found her- 
 self once more, as in 1848, parcelled out and dependent upon 
 foreign powers. 
 
 One state alone avoided the restoration and issued trans- 
 formed from the crisis. The Kingdom of Sardinia preserved the 
 liberal Constitution of '48 and the national tricolour flag; it be- 
 came the centre where Italian unity was prepared. It was a 
 sufficiently commonplace state, with a population of less than 
 5,000,000, composed of four separate parts; the island of Sar- 
 dinia, a malarial country, poor, mediaeval, and without political 
 life; the coast of Genoa, a country of sailors, newly admitted to 
 the state, ill disposed toward the dynasty, and the centre of the 
 democratic republican party; Savoy, a rural French district, 
 controlled by the nobles and clergy; Piedmont, a country of 
 rustics, without industrial activity, with a single large city, Turin, 
 the residence of the court. 
 
 The society was aristocratic, with sharper class distinctions 
 than in Italy. The nobles held aloof from the middle class ; pre- 
 serving the traditions of military life, they usually became officers. 
 The peasants continued to obey the clergy. The bourgeoisie, 
 mostly of slender wealth, remained 'dependent upon the govern- 
 ment. These people spoke a dialect very different from literary 
 Italian, Piedmontese, considered a patois; to other Italians, un- 
 cultivated, coarse, backward, and only half Italian. But they 
 had a political advantage over all the other peoples of Italy: 
 they possessed an independent national dynasty and an army that 
 could fight. 
 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL KINGDOM OF SARDINIA. 347 
 
 Charles Albert of Sardinia bad been hated by the Liberals; 
 they could not forgive him for deserting them in 1821 and for 
 having preserved the absolutist government; even in 1848 they 
 remained hostile and even suspected him of treason. Now the 
 advocates of unity were all Liberals; to make Piedmont the 
 centre of the national movement, it must first be reconciled with 
 liberal opinion. This was fhe work of Victor Emmanuel and . 
 Cavour. 
 
 At the time of the general reaction in 1849, Victor Em- 
 manuel remained faithful to the liberal system. Austria offered 
 to modify the conditions of peace if he would renounce the Con- 
 stitutional Statute of 1848; he refused. He abandoned neither 
 the national tricolour flag nor the liberty of the press, and he 
 gathered Liberal fugitives from other countries. His kingdom 
 became the sole liberal and national state in Ital^;_____-- — — ^a 
 
 The Constitutional Statute of j[S4$5raS a combination of the 
 French Charte and the Belgian Constitution. It established a 
 parliamentary mechanism composed of a ministry responsible 
 to the Chambers, a Senate of life members appointed by the 
 King in two special classes, and a Chamber of Deputies elected 
 "by the property owners. It was a more democratic regime than 
 in France (the tax qualification for voting was 40 francs or 20 
 francs, according to the place), but less liberal than in Belgium. 
 The Statute announced neither the sovereignty of the people nor 
 personal rights ; it was simply a proclaimed constitution, without 
 procedure for revision; it did not recognise liberty of faith, but 
 ■declared Catholicism the state religion; it granted no salary to 
 deputies ; it left room for doubt as to the extent of the ministerial 
 responsibility. 
 
 In fact the system has worked after the model of the English 
 Parliament; the Statute has been modified often (and more easily 
 than a revisable constitution) by means of laws passed in the 
 usual form; the King has taken only those ministers that are 
 accepted by the majority in the House. But the mass of electors 
 has remained docile to the government, dissolution being usually 
 a sufficient means of securing a majority favourable to the min- 
 istry which the King supports. The King thus remains the 
 arbiter between parties, the true director of political life. The 
 system really is, under a parliamentary appearance, the personal 
 government of the King, as in France under Louis Philippe. 
 
 During the war against Austria the electors, excited by the 
 national movement, had returned a democratic majority which 
 
348 ITAL Y. 
 
 had obliged the King to take a ministry under Gioberti and 
 now aspired to secure unity by a federation of the Italian 
 states. After the defeat of 1849, the Chamber was not willing 
 to vote approval of the peace. Now the constitution demanded 
 that the treaty with Austria should be ratified by the Chamber. 
 There were three Chambers elected that year (January, dissolved 
 March 30; July, dissolved November 20; and December). The 
 King published an appeal to the voters and secured a Chamber 
 which voted the peace by 112 votes against 17 (January, 1850). 
 
 Then, in order to apply the article of the Statute which de- 
 *• clared the King to be the fountain of justice, it became necessary 
 to abolish the Church Courts. The government, having failed 
 in its attempt to have the Holy See abolish them by concordat, 
 decided to have the Chambers vote the famous " Siccardi laws " 
 (Siccardi was minister of justice), which suppressed the right of 
 asylum in convents, the clerical privilege of not being amenable 
 to lay justice, the penalties for labour on ordinary holy days, and 
 forbade the acquisition of possessions in mortmain without the 
 consent of the state. A rupture ensued between the government 
 and the higher clergy; the Archbishop of Turin forbade obedi- 
 ence to these laws, and was condemned to a month's imprison- 
 ment. One of the ministers died without absolution and the 
 clergy refused to bury him; his funeral was made the occasion 
 of a demonstration. 
 
 This struggle made the final arrangement of parties. There 
 was an extreme right, absolutist and opposed to the constitu- 
 tion, an extreme left, democratic (recruited mainly in Genoa) and 
 hostile to the dynasty; between the two the great constitutional 
 dynastic mass divided into two groups: the right, the Conserva- 
 tive party supporting the constitution, and the left centre, de- 
 tached from the Democratic party and now become a part of the 
 liberal and anti-clerical bourgeoisie. 
 
 Cavour's Policy. — In this constitutional government, where the 
 King, first of all a hunter and an army ofScer, took little interest 
 in politics, there was a minister, Cavour, who controlled the state. 
 Rqp/n .( Ji Cavour was a gentleman who could hardly be called 
 Italian; he was blonde, with a white skin, and spoke almost 
 nothing but French and the Piedmontese patois. He had been 
 first an artillery officer, but was discharged for having approved 
 the revolution of 1830, and retired to his own estates; he then 
 spent his time travelling in France, where he frequented Broglie's 
 salon and adopted the liberal doctrines of the French bourgeoisie, 
 
CAVOUR'S POLICY. 349 
 
 and in Germany, where he absorbed ideas of economic re- 
 forms. In 1847 he was one of the founders of the Risorgimento 
 in Turin, a Hberal monarchical paper. During the Revolution 
 he struggled against the democratic party so violently as to 
 make himself unpopular. But during this reaction he defended 
 the constitution and the liberty of the press. In the discussion 
 of Church laws, he broke loose from the Conservative party and 
 began to form a right centre, which approached the left centre 
 directed by Ratazzi. Cavour first entered the ministry in 1850 
 as a special minister (agriculture, commerce, marine) under 
 Azeglio (Conservative). In 1852 he left the Conservatives and 
 formed the Cavour-Ratazzi ministry, which had the support of 
 the two centres and lasted until 1859. 
 
 Cavour henceforth laboured to prepare for the contest with 
 Austria by increasing the country's forces and seeking foreign 
 allies. 
 
 To increase the wealth of the count ry, he attempted by means 
 of commercial treaties to revive Genoa's shipping trade, and to 
 develop the exportation of agricultural produce. His economic 
 reforms revived the struggle with the clergy. He proposed to 
 place a tax on Church estates, to secularize the lands of worn- 
 out orders, and to establish a Church treasury to equalize the 
 salaries of priests. He did not touch the 41 bishoprics (i for 
 every 149,000 souls) nor the secular clergy; but his plan for sup- 
 pressing convents was enough to stamp him as an enemy to the 
 Church. The Pope threatened the government with excommuni- 
 cation; then, as Victor Emmanuel had within one month lost his 
 mother, his wife, and his brother, the Pope sent him a letter 
 representing these deaths as a warning from God. The King 
 hesitated, but nevertheless sanctioned the law which suppressed 
 334 convents with 4280 monks and 1200 nuns; 264 remained. 
 The army under the direction of La Marmora, was reorganized 
 on the Prussian model. 
 
 For outside agitation Cavour placed himself in connection with 
 the a dvocates of Italian un ity. There were already in the king- 
 dom many Italian refugees, mainly Lombards. Several of the 
 Republicans of 1848, despairing of a union by republic, turned 
 toward the House of Savoy. The most noted convert was Ma- 
 nin, the former dictator of Venice. He wrote publicly (in the 
 Siecle, September 15, 1855) that his motto was " Independence 
 ai?ia unity," and, addressing himself to the King of Sardinia: 
 " Make Italy, and I and all other Republican patriots are for you 
 
35° ITALY. 
 
 and with you; if not, not." Other patriots joined him. In 
 August, 1857, they founded the National Union, a public society 
 in Piedmont, a secret society in the absolutist states. It won 
 support especially among cultivated city people, and especially in 
 northern Italy and Sicily (the secretary was a Sicilian, La 
 Farina *). The Union carried on its work by pacific propagan- 
 dism and disapproved of conspiracies and insurrections. It was 
 in conflict with the former Republican party, with Mazzini, who 
 founded a secret society in Genoa against the monarchy and in- 
 cited trouble in Genoa, Naples, and Leghorn. The Piedmont 
 papers began to attack the Austrian government openly; a sub- 
 scription was started in Italy to buy cannon for the fortress 
 of Alexandria in Piedmont, another for a monument in honour 
 of the Italian army. 
 
 (Cavour did not believe, with the patriots of 1848, that Italy was 
 strong enough to act alone ; since he had become minister of for- 
 eign affairs he had been looking for alliances. He was a great 
 admirer of the English Constitution, and did not forget the 
 former friendly relations between Piedmont and England ; but he 
 needed an ally with a strong army. He early thought of Na- 
 poleon III. To please him, he had had voted, in spite of the 
 left, the law forbidding insults to foreign sovereigns. In the 
 Crimean war he allied Sardinia with France and England against 
 Russia, although the Genoese thereby lost -their trade with 
 Odessa; he sent into the Crimea a Sardinian army at the expense 
 of the state, refusing English subsidies. The kingdom did not 
 draw any direct profit from this war, but it gave Cavour a chance 
 to take part in the Congress of 1856. He took advantage of this 
 opportunity to get Napoleon to ask him for a report on the con- 
 dition of Italy, and to thank him immediately in the name of all 
 the Italians. He took advantage of it at the end of the Congress 
 to present a report on the agitation in the States of the Church 
 caused by the Austrian occupation. 
 
 His success hung on the personal will of Napoleon. The latter 
 had in his youth sworn to work for Italian unity. It seems as if 
 he was prevailed on to act by Orsini's attempts at assassination, 
 and especially by the letter which Orsini had written him> con- 
 juring him to restore the freedom of Italy. He sent his physician 
 
 * La Farina tells that he was in secret communication with Cavour; 
 they had interviews in the early morning, and Cavour said to him : " Do 
 what you can. Before the world I shall deny you as Peter denied the 
 Saviour." 
 
FORMATION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY. 35' 
 
 to invite Cavour to a personal interview at Plombieres. At this 
 interview an understanding was completed. It was a bargain: 
 Napoleon promised to deliver the whole Lombardo-Venetian 
 kingdom as far as the Adriatic; Cavour, in return, promised him 
 Savoy and Nice. 
 
 Formation of the Kingdom of Italy (1859-60). — The union of 
 Italy was accomplished by all the Italian advocates of unity, 
 royalists and republicans, working in harmony with the Pied- 
 montese government, a Lded by a great Europe an power, firs t 
 
 I^ance . then Prussia . The process occupied eleven years and 
 was made in five successive annexations: Lombardy, 1859; Tus- 
 cany, Modena and Parma, Romagna, January, i860; Kingdom 
 of Naples, the Marches, and Umbria, at the end of i860; Vene- 
 tia, 1866; Rome, 1870. The first three operations formed a con- 
 tinuous series which ended in the creation of the Kingdom of 
 Italy. 
 
 War against Austria had been decided upon at Plombieres ; but 
 it was necessary to await a cause for declaring it; England, which* 
 wished peace, proposed a congress; Napoleon consented to it. 
 Cavour became desperate and already talked of blowing out his 
 brains. But Austria, instead of agreeing to the congress, sent 
 an ultimatum to Sardinia. War was declared. 
 
 This was not a war between states, but between parties. Aus- 
 t ria represented absolute government . Church domination, and 
 temporal power of the Pope; the conservative parties and the 
 1 clergy all over Europe prayed for her success in the Revolution 
 (they combined under this name all the constitutional and national 
 attempts); even in France the ministers and the salons disap- 
 proved of the war. The Sa'r^ipiq,n go vernment represej3 toi-na- 
 tional unity and liberal^ggvernment; ithad onits sideall Italian 
 patriots. Free Masons, and even Republicans, and in Europe all 
 liberal democratic anti-clerical parties. To leave the King mas- 
 ter, the Chamber of Sardinia conferred on him the dictatorship. 
 The National Union declared itself dissolved; there were neither 
 clubs nor newspapers. Garibaldi with his volunteers attacked 
 the Austrian flank, in conjunction with the regular army. After 
 the battle of Magenta the Austrians evacuated the whole of Lom- 
 bardy; when coming back to take it again they were stopped at 
 Solferino. But the " Quadrilateral " covered Venetia; Napo- 
 leon, seeing his army hard pressed and threatened by Prussia, 
 which was mobilizing her troops, decided to conclude peace. 
 Austria gave up only Lombardy, which was annexed to the 
 
352 ITALY. 
 
 Kingdom of Sardinia without a plebiscite, as if it had never 
 ceased to be a part of it since 1848. It was a cruel deception for 
 the Italians; they reproached Napoleon with having broken the 
 compact made at Plombieres (Italy to be " freed as far as the 
 Adriatic "). Cavour first refused peace; then, in despair, resigned. 
 
 But during the war Victor Emmanuel had called the Italians 
 to arms. At his call, the advocates of unity had, immediately 
 after the departure of the Austrian soldiers, formed provisional 
 governments in the three duchies of central Italy and in the 
 pontifical provinces farthest from Rome, the Legations (Ro- 
 magna). The movement had been arranged beforehand with 
 the Sardinian government; these provisional governments gave 
 the power to a dictator, a member of the National Union, some- 
 times a Sardinian office-holder. In Tuscany the two parties, 
 democratic and aristocratic, united and demanded the abdication 
 of the Grand Duke and war with Austria; the Grand Duke re- 
 fused and went away. A provisional government was formed 
 immediately (April zy), and offered the dictatorship to Victor 
 Emmanuel; the King accepted only the military management, 
 but sent an agent tO' whom the government was intrusted. 
 When the war was over, the Sardinian agent went home; the 
 Consulta convoked an assembly of deputies who voted the ex- 
 pulsion of the dynasty and annexation to Sardinia (August, 1859). 
 The dictators of Modena and Parma had the inhabitants vote for 
 annexation to Piedmont: at Modena by 90,000 votes, at Parma 
 by 63,000 (August, 1859). In the Romagna they elected a con- 
 stitutional convention, which declared unanimously, in the name 
 of the people, " that they did not want the temporal government 
 of the Pope," then " that they did want annexation to the King- 
 dom of Sardinia " (September, 1859). 
 
 It was harder to make the European powers accept this " revo- 
 lution," and they were really the arbiters of the fate of Italy. 
 Napoleon and the Emperor of Austria had decided together that 
 central Italy should remain divided into small states, united sim- 
 ply in a confederation; it was the tradition of French policy to 
 keep Italy divided up like Germany; in Tuscany, Napoleon would 
 have liked to establish his cousin Jerome. Besides, the Pope 
 protested against the revolution in the Romagna, and the French 
 government did not dare act against the Pope. For eight 
 months central Italy lived in uncertainty, at the mercy of diplo- 
 matic intrigues. Meanwhile, Modena, Parma, and the Romagna 
 adopted the constitution of Sardinia, suppressed the customs 
 
FORMATION OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY. 353 
 
 duties on the frontiers toward Sardinia, handed over the post- 
 offices to Sardinian employees, and formed a union under the 
 name of the royal provinces of Emilia. They then formed a mili- 
 tary league with Tuscany. 
 
 The Italians were planning now to bring Napoleon face to face 
 with an accomplished fact; they kept him from interfering by 
 treating him as a liberator, and imploring his aid in the name 
 of his own principles, nationality and the right of universal suf- 
 frage. Napoleon wanted to settle matters through a congress. 
 The congress was called, but never met, as the Pope would not 
 consent to it. In Piedmont the Republican party, irritated with 
 these delays, wished to begin fighting again; they founded a so- 
 ciety, the Nazione Armata, which should revolutionize Italy. The 
 coalition of the centres, which had been governing since 1852, 
 broke up; the right centre and the King were unwilling to act 
 against Napoleon. Ratazzi resigned; Cavour took the ministry 
 (January 20, i860) and persuaded Napoleon to permit the an- 
 nexation of central Italy, for the price set at Plombieres: Savoy 
 and the county of Nice. They avoided the formality of a treaty 
 of cession; all these annexations were simply put to a vote by 
 universal suffrage (March, i860) and carried almost unani- 
 mously. The new provinces then elected their delegates to the 
 Chamber at Turin, which took the name of the National Par- 
 liament. 
 
 The royalists had gained central Italy, the republicans as- 
 sumed control of the south. 
 
 The government of Naples was defended mainly by Swiss regi- 
 ments. Now, in 1859, Perugia had revolted against the Pope, 
 and had been taken by a Swiss regiment; the irritation of the 
 patriots had therefore been directed against the Swiss mercena- 
 ries established in Italian cities, which, menaced in their com- 
 merce, remonstrated with the Swiss federal government. The 
 Swiss government ordered the withdrawal of the Swiss national 
 emblems from the flags of the mercenaries. The Swiss regi- 
 ments in the service of Naples mutinied, refusing to serve under 
 any other flag, and the majority of the soldiers withdrew. So 
 the King of Naples was left with almost none but Neapolitan 
 soldiers, who had little interest in defending him. Victor Em- 
 manuel offered him an alliance and tried to make him grant a 
 constitution (1859); Ferdinand refused (March, i860). Revo- 
 lutionary committees were formed in Sicily, and insurrection be- 
 gan, supported by the Italians of the north. 
 
354 ITALY. 
 
 Garibaldi, secretly aided by the Sardinian government,* landed 
 in Sicily with a thousand volunteers, mainly Lombards (the 
 famous Marsala Thousand). A short combat (Calatafimi, May 
 17), a night march by the Garibaldians on Palermo (May 26), an 
 armistice (May 30), and the Neapolitan army retired in disorder. 
 Garibaldi, although master of Sicily, prepared to return to the 
 continent. Ferdinand asked aid of Napoleon, who replied : " The 
 Italians are shrewd, they know very well that after having shed 
 the blood of my children in the cause of their nationality, I can 
 never fire a cannon in opposition to it." Then, Ferdinand de- 
 termined to re-establish the Constitution of '48 and the tricolour 
 flag, to take a liberal ministry and convoke the Chambers. But 
 he no longer inspired confidence. He felt himself abandoned, 
 and when Garibaldi's army invaded the Kingdom of Naples, he 
 dared not resist, and fled to Gaeta. He wanted to take his fleet, 
 but the Neapolitan officers had had their boilers emptied and 
 their helms put out of order, so the fleet remained. Garibaldi 
 was received in triumph at Naples. There remained now to the 
 King but two places of refuge, Capua and Gaeta, and these were 
 taken later. 
 
 The Garibaldians next invaded the States of the Church. The 
 Pope, to replace his Swiss mercenaries, had enrolled a small army 
 of volunteers (about 20,000 men), mainly foreigners — Austrians, 
 Irish, Belgians, and French, under a French general, Lamori- 
 ciere; in addition to these, Rome had, since 1849, retained its 
 French garrison. The war began between the Italian Republi- 
 cans and the Pope's Catholic army. Cavour determined to in- 
 
 * Garibaldi, after the war, had been appointed general in Tuscany, then 
 charged by Victor Emmanuel with the formation of the national guard in 
 Lombardy. Dissatisfied with the Sardinian government, which had pre- 
 vented him while in Tuscany from attacking the States of the Church 
 (November, 1859) ; dissatisfied with the pacific policy of the National Union 
 (he resigned his office of honorary president in December, 1859); still more 
 dissatisfied with the cession of Nice, his native home, he had resigned. It 
 was said that he was urged against Sicily by Cavour, who had written to 
 him: " Nice or Sicily." The letter is disputed. It was said that the 
 Sardinian government sent to Garibaldi the guns from the arsenal of 
 Modena, furnished him money, and ordered the governor of Genoa to close 
 his eyes to his preparations. When the expedition was fairly started, 
 Cavour wrote ofBcially to the European powers, expressing his regret, but 
 Admiral Persano, commander of the fleet, says that he received from 
 Cavour a note to this effect : " Try to place yourself between Garibaldi 
 and the Neapolitan cruisers; I hope you understand me." Persano is 
 said to have replied: " My lord, I believe I do understand you. If there 
 is need, send me to the fortress prison of Fenestrella." 
 
THE ROMAN QUESTION. 355 
 
 I 
 terfere and called upon the pontifical government to disband its 
 foreign soldiers, " who are an insult to national feeling and pre- 
 vent the people from expressing their wishes." To Napoleon 
 he wrote: "We are forced to take action." Napoleon washed 
 his hands of the whole affair.* The Piedmontese army rapidly 
 occupied the provinces of the Marches and Umbria. The Pope's 
 little army, while ' retreating to Ancona, was checked and scat- 
 tered (Castelfidardo, September i8); the rest were taken at An- 
 cona. The agents of the Sardinian government had a vote taken 
 by universal suffrage on the question of annexation to the con- 
 stitutional monarchy of Victor Emmanuel (November, i860). 
 The vote was almost unanimous in favour of the annexation. 
 
 In the country conquered by the Republicans there was a 
 heavy struggle (August-October, i860). Garibaldi, " dictator of 
 Sicily " and later " dictator of the two Sicilies," obeyed the Re- 
 publican party, under the direction of the Sicilian, Crispi; he 
 refused annexation to the Kingdom of Italy. The liberal mon- 
 archists, directed by the pro-dictators of Sicily and Naples (De- 
 pretis, Pallavicino), insisted upon annexation. The people of 
 Naples then made their demonstration of " yes's." They showed 
 their wishes by placing in their hats, their windows, and their 
 doors a paper bearing the word si (yes). Garibaldi at last de- 
 cided to put the question of annexation to vote. It was voted 
 in Naples by 1,302,074 votes against 10,132; in Sicily by 432,053 
 votes against 667. 
 
 The Parliament, composed of 413 deputies and 214 senators, 
 proclaimed Victor Emmanuel King of Italy, " King by the grace 
 of God and by act of the people " (February-March, 1861). His 
 kingdom had increased from 5,000,000 to 22,000,000 souls. 
 
 The Roman Question (1860-66).— The Kingdom of Italy still 
 lacked Venetia and the province of Rome. The Italians were 
 not strong enough to take Venetia from the Austrians, nor Rome 
 from the defenders of the Pope. The process of union stopped,, 
 and Italian politics became absorbed with the Roman question. 
 
 This question had been before them since 1859, when the Pope's 
 subjects in the Romagna had rejected the temporal power./ 
 What should be the fate of the States of the Church? Four par- 
 ties were organized, each with a solution. 
 
 * Two messengers are said to have carried a letter from Victor Em- 
 manuel to Napoleon, at Chambfery ; according to one of them, Cialdini, 
 Napoleon replied : " Good luck and act promptly." This reply has taken, 
 the legendary form: " Act, but act quickly." 
 
3S6 ITALY. 
 
 1. The Pope and his minister Anton elli declared themselves 
 unable to renounce the temporal power over any of the States of 
 the Church; the Pope regarded himself as bound by his oath at 
 accession to hand them over intact to his successor. He there- 
 fore excommunicated his rebellious subjects, also the Sardinian 
 King and government for having agreed to the annexation. He 
 refused to recognise the Kingdom of Italy, " a creation of revo- 
 lution." His general, Lamoriciere, said to his soldiers : " Europe 
 is threatened to-day by revolution as she once was by Islam, and 
 to-day as then the cause of the papacy and of civilization is that 
 of the liberty of the world." He wrote: " Everywhere that revo- 
 lution shows the tip of its ear or its nose, it must be struck down 
 like a mad dog." 
 
 2. The Italian Republican party was really preparing for revo- 
 lution; Garibaldi and Mazzini demanded open war to deliver the 
 papal subjects from the " tyranny of priests." They wished to 
 employ volunteers as they had done against the King of Naples. 
 
 Between these two extreme parties, pontifical restoration and 
 Republican revolution, two parties were seeking an intermediate 
 solution. 
 
 3. Napoleon III. had to take care not to irritate the Catholic 
 party too much, as it was very powerful in France ; he would have 
 preferred not to touch the temporal power; he asked only a con- 
 stitution given by the Pope as in 1848. After the insurrection in 
 the Romagna, he advised the Pope to sacrifice a part ol the 
 States of the Church in order to retain the rest. The anonymous 
 pamphlet on " The Pope and the Congress," which he got pub- 
 lished in December, 1859, showed that restoration in the Ro- 
 magna was out of the question : the Pope needs a temporal power 
 in order to exercise his spiritual power freely, but he cannot gov- 
 ern a state of any size; the Catholic powers should guarantee 
 him only Rome and the patrimony of St. Peter. The Pope de- 
 nounced this pamphlet as " a monument of hypocrisy " and re- 
 fused to take part in the congress if the suggestion were not 
 discountenanced. Napoleon also let the Pope lose the Marches 
 and Umbria, and in a new pamphlet had it said that Italy and 
 the Pope must eventually reconcile themselves; meanwhile, he 
 maintained the French garrison in Rome to preserve the tem- 
 poral power in the interests of religion. 
 
 4. The Italian government found itself in a false position, not 
 wishing to break with the Pope, the head of the Catholics, not 
 being able to encourage the revolutionists openly for fear of 
 
ANNEXATION OF VENETIA AND ROME. 357 
 
 Europe, nor to attack Rome for fear of France, and not daring 
 either to fight the revolutionists or to abandon Rome for fear of 
 popular opinion at home. The King was a good Catholic and 
 continued to address the Pope in respectful terms. Cavour de- 
 clared publicly before the Chamber that the question must be 
 left in suspense (March 28, 1861): "Rome must be the capital 
 of Italy. Without Rome for her capital Italy cannot be definitely 
 constituted." But he added that two conditions were necessary: 
 harmony with France and the maintenance of the Pope's spiritual 
 sovereignty. His motto was : " A free Church in a free state," 
 that is to say, the clergy governing the faithful in spiritual afifairs 
 without intervention from the state. The Chamber passed a reso- 
 lution to the same effect. 
 
 Then began a period of waiting and senseless intrigue. The 
 Catholic party did not resign itself to the spoliation of the Pope, 
 nor did the national parties give up hope of Rome. But the 
 decision depended upon the will of foreign powers, especially 
 France. Garibaldi tried to repeat his expedition of i860; the 
 Ratazzi ministry let him land in Sicily, but afterward stopped 
 him at Aspromonte in Calabria; they then declared themselves 
 unable to answer for order in Italy if the government was hin- 
 dered from giving the nation its capital (1862). But the result 
 was to drive Napoleon to the side of the Pope's party, and to 
 compel the Ratazzi ministry to resign. 
 
 The Italian government then decided to postpone the solution; 
 it offered Napoleon to transfer its capital to Florence and to take 
 the role of defender of the Pope; this was Cavour's plan. Na- 
 poleon agreed to it in order to get rid of the conflicts between 
 his French generals and the court of Rome. This had as out- 
 come the September Convention of 1864. Italy promised to stop 
 her attacks on the Pope's territory, to defend it from all outside 
 attacks, and to let the Pope enroll an army of volunteers. France 
 promised to withdraw her troops in two years. The Italian gov- 
 ernment left Turin and transferred itself to Florence; the French 
 army finally evacuated Rome in 1866. The solution of the Ro- 
 man question was postponed. 
 
 Annexation of Venetia and Borne (1866-70). — As usual, the 
 solution came from outside. The Prussian government needed 
 Italy to help it in its war against Austria. It had been making 
 overtures since 1862; but the two governments lacked confidence 
 in one another, each suspecting that the other wanted to make 
 use of its help to secure more favourable conditions from Austria. 
 
3S8 ITALY. 
 
 Italy hoped to gain Venetia without fighting, in return for a 
 money compensation, or with Napoleon's aid, in exchange for 
 Roumania. At last Prussia and Italy concluded, with Napoleon's 
 consent, an offensive and defensive alliance for three months only 
 (April, 1866). The Italian army attacked the Quadrilateral and 
 was stopped at Custozza. It had begun once more to invade 
 Venetia, when the Italian fleet was half destroyed at Lissa. It 
 was the Prussians' victory at Sadowa that decided Austria in 
 favour of peace. -She accepted Napoleon's mediation, granting 
 him Venetia, which he gave to Italy, on condition that the an- 
 nexation was approved by universal suffrage. (The vote was 
 carried almost unanimously.) 
 
 Rome now remained defended only by the Papal volunteers. 
 Garibaldi, for the third time, taking advantage of a Ratazzi min- 
 istry, attacked the Roman territory. The Italian government 
 had vainly implored Napoleon to intrust to it alone the protec- 
 tion of the Pope. Napoleon had little faith in Italian interven- 
 tion, and sent a French expedition which accompanied the papal 
 troops against Garibaldi. The famous battle of Mentana ensued; 
 the Garibaldians were killed or taken prisoners under the very 
 eyes of the Italian army, which had arrived on papal territory and 
 was obliged to remain neutral (November 3, 1867). The French 
 used the new Chassepot gun for the first time, and the French 
 general telegraphed : " The Chassepots have worked splendidly." 
 This message rankled in Italian minds as an insult. In Paris, 
 the head of the ministry, Rouher, formally declared to the Cham- 
 ber: " Italy will not enter Rome. No, never! " A French gar- 
 rison was left in Rome (December 5). The Pope then felt safe 
 in summoning the ecumenical council of the Vatican for 
 December, 1869. 
 
 Once more the solution came from abroad. The war between 
 France and Germany robbed the Pope of his defender. After 
 "the first French defeats, the Emperor's government recalled the 
 French troops from Rome (August, 1870). After Sedan, the 
 Italian army invaded the papal territory and arrived before 
 Rome. Pius IX. declared that he would yield only to force, and 
 waited until a breach was made in the wall before he ordered his 
 troops to retire (September 20). The Italians occupied Rome 
 without a battle. The question of annexation to the Kingdom 
 of Italy was submitted to universal suffrage, and was voted by 
 130,000 against 1500. 
 
 The Kingdom of Italy was finally constituted under the na- 
 
FORMATION OF PARTIES. 359 
 
 ional dynasty of Piedmont, through the agreement of the two 
 national parties, republicans and constitutionaHsts, but chiefly 
 :hrough the aid of two foreign powers, France and Prussia. C.--^ 
 
 Formation of Parties and Internal Difaculties (1861-70).— The 
 iudden creation of the Kingdom of Italy had upset the condi- 
 lions of public life. The constitution of the Kingdom of Sardinia 
 liaving been extended to the new provinces, it was necessary to 
 adjust anew the administrative system, the relations with the 
 Church, the finances, and the army, and new parties had formed. 
 
 The extreme parties, absolutist and republican, had been 
 greatly weakened by the success of the constitutional monarchy; 
 they had almost no representation in the Chamber. The Pope^ 
 had given the Catholics the watchword Neither electors nor mem- 
 bers, and so the Catholic party had almost disappeared. The re- 
 publicans had taken the form of a radical party with a small mem- 
 bership. The Chamber was therefore composed almost entirely 
 of the two constitutional parties, the right (Minghetti and Ri- 
 casoli) and left centre (Ratazzi). Cavour had died in 1861. 
 
 The ministry alternated between these two parties, chiefly for 
 reasons of foreign policy. Ratazzi, who had succeeded to the 
 ministry as Napoleon's friend (1862), fell before the protestations 
 of the French government after Aspromonte; he foundered on 
 the same rock again in 1867, after Mentana. 
 
 The groups formed chiefly on local lines. The Piedmontese 
 (the former kingdom), supported by the deputies of central Italy, 
 were in control the greater part of the time; the deputies from 
 the south, with a part of the Lombards, opposed them — usually 
 In the guise of a radical party. 
 
 The first matter taken up was that of organizing the adminis- 
 tration. Minghetti proposed to give a degree of autonomy to 
 the provinces. The great majority preferred the centralizing sys- 
 tem used in France, with prefects and mayors appointed by the 
 central government; they divided the kingdom into 59 provinces, 
 corresponding not to the old historic provinces, but to depart- 
 ments.* They hoped thus to strengthen the unity which was 
 threatened by the particularist spirit. They feared especially to 
 arouse a feeling of jealousy iit other cities in choosing one to be 
 the capital of a whole province. 
 
 In the Kingdom of Naples, the brigands and idle moun- 
 taineers, acting in the name of King Ferdinand and aided by 
 
 * There are 69 since the annexation of Rome and Venetia ; they bear 
 the names of cities. 
 
360 ITAL Y. 
 
 the absolutists, terrorized the inhabitants, forbade them to pay 
 taxes, and kidnapped or murdered all liberals. The Italian army 
 for several years waged a veritable war against them in the 
 mountain districts. But it seems that they did not succeed in 
 destroying either the Camorra in Naples or the Mafia in Sicily, 
 secret societies of brigands who preyed on the inhabitants and 
 made them pay tribute under pain of robbery or assassination. 
 
 Church affairs were in an inextricable tangle. The right, 
 which ordinarily was in control, was formed of Catholic liberals, 
 faithful to Cavour's program: "A free Church in a free state." 
 They freely renounced the powers of the former governments 
 over the bishops in Church matters, and would even leave the 
 Pope the right of naming the bishops. They wanted an under- 
 standing with the Holy See to reorganize the Church in the new 
 provinces where the clergy were too numerous. But the Pope, 
 refusing to recognise the new kingdom, made it impossible to 
 conclude a new regulation and even to transact ordinary afifairs; 
 the bishoprics therefore remained vacant, the Pope appointing 
 bishops who refused to be installed by the government. They 
 had hoped to settle all this in 1866; the negotiation failed because 
 the Pope would not recognise any right of the state, and the 
 question of the appointment of bishops remained unsettled. 
 
 The government then resigned itself to carrying on the work 
 of reform alone; it did not interfere with the bishops, but adopted 
 a fiscal measure. It suppressed the convents and livings which, 
 having no cure of souls, were regarded as useless. It declared 
 their lands state property. The seminaries were reduced frorn 
 288 to 21 (1867). The secularized lands were sold for the benefit 
 of the state, which in exchange charged itself with the support of 
 the clergy. 
 
 The Italian army was still the former Piedmontese army, with 
 Italian recruits added to it. The same system was retained as to 
 active army and reserve. Local military bodies, each recruited in 
 its own region, were objected to as dangerous to unity. The 
 army was regarded as a school for national sentiment where sol- 
 diers of all provinces must learn to regard each other as fellow- 
 countrymen; it was also a primary school for raw recruits who 
 enlisted without knowing how to read (64 per cent, in 1866). 
 
 Of these difficulties the greatest was the organization of the 
 finances. The army, maintained at a high efifective force to be 
 always ready for the next war, and a newly created navy, en- 
 tailed an expenditure disproportionate to the wealth of the coun- 
 
THE CONSORTERIA. 3^1 
 
 try. The following table, taken from a report published in 1863,* 
 shows the diflerence between the budgets of the separate states in 
 1859 and the budget of the united kingdom in 1863: 
 
 1859 • . 
 
 Receipts. 
 
 • • 575,ooo,ooofr. 
 
 Deficit. 
 
 5o,ooo,ooofr. 
 
 Debt. 
 
 2,ooo,ooo,ooofr, 
 
 1863 . . 
 
 . . 900,000,000 
 
 350,000,000 
 
 4,000,000,000 
 
 In 1864 the treasury was empty, and the city of Brescia set the 
 patriotic example of paying its taxes in advance. Half of the 
 total receipts was absorbed by the interest on the debt; the an- 
 nual deficit was covered only by new loans. 
 
 The Consorteria (1861-76).— For fifteen years (1861-76) Italy's 
 domestic policy was subordinated to military and economic 
 necessities. This was the period of business ministries, without 
 distinct political character. The chief ministers were from the 
 constitutional right, Italians of the north and centre: Minghetti 
 was a Piedmontese, Sella a Lombard, Ricasoli a Tuscan, Fanti 
 a native of Romagna. They were called the Consorteria (club). 
 In various combinations they held the ministry most of the time; 
 Ratazzi twice succeeded in dislodging them by forming a 
 coalition of the left centre, the radicals and the discontented Pied- 
 montese, but his ministries were short (March-October, 1862; 
 April-October, 1867). The Piedmontese were displeased at 
 losing the capital, transferred from Turin to Florence, and for 
 several years formed a party (the permanents), but in 1869 they 
 made a reconciliation with a ministry of the right (Menabrea- 
 Minghetti). 
 
 The Consorteria governed during the critical period of the def- 
 icit and the sharp conflict with the Pope. Finally Sella, min- 
 ister of finance, persuaded the Chamber to adopt an heroic 
 measure. The deficit had reached 630,000,000.! 
 
 In 1868 they re-established the grist tax, which had been 
 abolished in 1859 as too unpopular. They also created new 
 taxes to the amount of about 150,000,000.- The sale of secular- 
 ized lands procured over 500,000,000 (from 1868 to 1876). In 
 1873 they made banknotes legal tender. 
 
 * Plebano and Musso, " The Finances of the Kingdom of Italy," 1863. 
 These figures are only approximate. 
 
 t According to Bella's calculations, the total expenditure from 1861 
 to 1870 had been 10,499,000,000; the receipts 10,054,000,000, of which 
 3,607,000,000 were special receipts, mainly loans. To borrow 2,691,000,000 
 the state had contracted a nominal debt of 3,852,000,000, and paid 1,219,- 
 000,000 as interest. 
 
362 ITALY. 
 
 The Consorteria had also the task of adjusting relations with 
 the Pope after the taking of Rome. The Italian government was 
 transferred to Rome, as the definite capital of the kingdom; the 
 King established himself in the Quirinal Palace. The Pope's 
 situation was settled by the law of guarantees (1871). The Pope, 
 recognised as an independent sovereign, preserved, in his Palace 
 of the Vatican, his sovereign powers, right to receive diplomatic 
 agents, jurisdiction, guard, and archives; Italy engaged to grant 
 him a civil list of three and a quarter millions. In exchange for 
 his temporal power, the state gave up to him its powers over the 
 Italian clergy, recognised his right to appoint the bishops, abol- 
 ished the bishops' oath to the King, the placet and the exequatur. 
 But Pius IX. nevertheless excommunigated the invaders, and de- 
 clared himself " indrally j. j>daanSj'' making .a rule-ior_hiinself 
 neYac±©-leav-e-th,e. Vatican again; he refused to enter into rela- 
 tions with the Italian government, and even to receive the civil 
 list. The ministry, which had never ceased to avow its respect 
 for the Holy Father, found itself, face to face with Europe and 
 the Italians, in a very delicate situation. 
 
 As the Pope persisted in his refusal to recognise the King- 
 dom of Italy, the occupation of Rome remained an actual posses- 
 sion, although not recognised by the Catholics and exposed to 
 the chance of a restoration. The Catholic party, especially in 
 France, protested against the captivity of the Holy Father and 
 talked of re-establishing the temporal power by force of arms, 
 as in 1849. From the time that the Catholic monarchists 
 assumed control in France in 1873 until the check of May 16 
 (1877), the Italian government thought itself threatened with a 
 French expedition. Now the " Consorteria " had been the 
 French party; it had made the alliance with Napoleon and had 
 been attacked by the republicans and radicals; in 1870, its sym- 
 pathies were with France. In 1871, relations with the French 
 government became so cool that the ministry decided to increase 
 the army to resist, as it said, " the clerical party, which might 
 make itself seem the national party in other countries." 
 
 The Pope's attitude made it impossible to settle by a concordat 
 the question of the Roman convents, or to make regular provi- 
 sion for the bishoprics which had become vacant (89 in 1871). 
 The government secularized the Roman convents by a law, and 
 their possessions were turned over to the treasury (1873). It 
 proposed a law to make civil marriage compulsory (1873), but 
 postponed the discussion in order not to aggravate the situation. 
 
ACCESSION OF THE LEFT. 3^3 
 
 The Pope continued to fill vacant bishoprics, and the bishops 
 entered upon their office without asking the consent of the gov- 
 ernment, confining themselves to publishing the bull of nomina- 
 tion in the sacristy; and the government contented itself with 
 this. The Catholic party tried to regain its position in political 
 life; a congress of Catholic societies (1874) determined to vote 
 everywhere at the communal elections in order to establish 
 municipalities favourable to Christian schools; the Catholics had 
 not yet voted except at Naples (1872); they failed at first, but 
 succeeded in a number of cities in 1875. 
 
 It was also a ministry of the right that carried the law for com- 
 pulsory military service like that of Prussia, with, a one-year vol- 
 unteer system. 
 
 The policy of the ministry of the right remained defensive; 
 Minghetti summed up his program in two points: balanced bud- 
 get, independent Church. 
 
 Accession of the Left (1876). — Little by little the proportion of 
 parties in the Chamber had changed. The left was growing. 
 This party, called radical, had allied itself to royalty; at the 
 twenty-fifth anniversa,ry of the King's accession (1874) the party 
 ■declared that " so far as attachment to the King and the House of 
 Savoy are concerned, the Left is not a hair's breadth behind the 
 Right." At the election of 1874 there were returned only 288 
 members for the government and 220 for the opposition. For 
 the first time party divisions were entirely geographical : northern 
 Italy voted for the right and the ministry, southern Italy for the 
 left. 
 
 The Tuscans, who had vainly borne the expense of installing 
 the government in Florence, where it had remained only six 
 years, formed a party and joined the left; the ministry was put in 
 minority on the grist tax by a vote of 242 against 181. A 
 Sicilian, Depretis, formerly Garibaldi's agent, formed the first 
 ministry of the left, in which southern Italians predominated 
 (March, 1876). It changed a large number of prefects, then ob- 
 tained a dissolution. The Chamber was in large part new men ; 
 •oJ^'y 332 of the 508 deputies retained their seats. Sicily and 
 Naples, instead of 149 deputies of the Left against 45 of the 
 Right, returned 184 of the Left. There were 385 members for 
 the government, 94 for the Right, and 20 Republicans. Since 
 1876 the Right, properly speaking, has never regained the 
 majority. 
 
 To understand the political contests of the last twenty years 
 
364 ITALY. 
 
 in Italy, it is necessary to study the practical conditions of elec- 
 toral and parliamentary life. Under_the_CQn^taitiQii,ofj,S4SJll^ 
 right of voting had been confined to property owners paying a 
 tax of 40 francs; now in the greater part of Italy the land be- 
 longed to large landholders, and the peasants were only tenants; 
 the number of voters scarcely exceeded 600,000; even after the 
 reform of 1882 it did not exceed 2,000,000. Even in this re- 
 stricted voting body, the great majority remained indifferent to 
 politics; the number of votes is rarely a half of the registered 
 names, and, further, among the voters a large proportion vote for 
 the candidate supported by the administration. The ministry is 
 almost sure of getting a majority of its candidates elected. 
 
 The Chamber itself has little political activity. The deputies 
 receive no pay, and so cannot afford to stay at their own expense 
 all through the session ; so, many are absent or come only to vote. 
 Since the capital has been at Rome, the Italians of the north, 
 being the farthest from the centre (and perhaps the most occu- 
 pied with private business), have left the Chamber in the hands 
 of Sicilian and Neapolitan deputies. The_direction_of Jtaly; has 
 changed hands, passing from the people of the- nor-th-4ou.ihose 
 of the-.south^_No_w, the north aJ i3rLaJiad-.tlie--b.abLt5_.of regular 
 administration_and_ liberal monarchy iJthe_south^_3^£re_^ol^ 
 interest had always faTcenTEFformif j:eTOlutiDXU..h 
 of attachment either to the_ constitution or to Jhe monarchy, 
 which had boffi coin^frdmih,e_Jiorth; it has furnished the great 
 mass and all the chiefs of the radical members. Thus was estab- 
 lished the domination of both the south and the radical party. 
 The Catholics, by obeying the order of the Holy See to abstain 
 from the parliamentary elections, have diminished the number 
 of Conservative voters and weakened the Right in the same 
 degree. v 
 
 The Left, which had attained power through the personal influ- 
 ence of the voters of southern Italy and the abstention of the 
 Catholics, supported a democratic platform, hostile to the 
 Church : extension of the right of- voting, abolition of the grist 
 tax, compuhjory primary ingtrugtion, administrative and judicial 
 reforms, " liberty of conscience," or measures against the abuse 
 of clerical influence, state administration of Church revenues. 
 But the party, united in the struggle for power, divided on the 
 attainment of it; it broke into personal groups supporting rival 
 chiefs. 
 
 The division first took the form of a difference in policy: the 
 
THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE AND PERSONAL RIVALRIES. iH 
 
 ministry of March 25, 1876, headed by a former ally of Ratazzi, 
 the Sicilian Depretis, came forward with a moderate left pro- 
 gram; it postponed the abolition of the grist tax, justifying this by 
 the deficit; it even forbade a public meeting on the question. 
 One of the Radical leaders who had sustained the ministry, Cai- 
 roli, made a coalition with the remaining leaders of the oppo- 
 sition and joined the Right. The ministry broke up, and two 
 months after the death of Victor Emmanuel (January 9, 1878) 
 was formed the Cairoli ministry (March 23), which took for its 
 program the diminution of the taxes. The budget, upset by this 
 reform, remained at first in deficit. But the years of prosperity 
 which followed produced equilibrium and even a small excess 
 about 1889. 
 
 The electoral reform, so long under discussion, ended in the 
 law of 1882. The left did not want universal suffrage, which 
 would have put the votes of the ignorant and wretched peasants 
 at the service of the landowners. They limited themselves to 
 lowering the voting qualification, based on property, to the pay- 
 ment of about four dollars in taxes or the possession of a 
 hundred-dollar farm. They added an educational _qualifi.cation, 
 conferring the right of voting on all men of full age who gave 
 evidence of having completed the prescribed course of the pri- 
 mary schools. This reform carried the number of voters from 
 627,000 to 2,048,000. Of these 710,000 get the right in virtue of 
 paying taxes, and 1,338,000 through the educational qualification. 
 The rearrangement of electoral districts established 135 divisions 
 of the kingdom, in each of which two or more deputies were to 
 be elected. The whole number assigned to any division had to 
 be chosen by general ticket (scrutin de liste). In any division 
 having five or more, to elect, the individual voter could only vote 
 for four. The whole system was, however, abandoned in 1891,, 
 and single-member district substituted. 
 
 The Triple Alliance and Personal Rivalries. — Since the Left 
 attained power, Italy's political history has been a series of per- 
 sonal contests, parliamentary intrigues, secret negotiations, coa- 
 litions and ruptures between parties, and sudden transfers of 
 power. The real reasons for- these actions are hard for a for- 
 eigner to penetrate, and even the Italians are not agreed on a 
 true interpretation. But the salient features of the period are 
 the pArcr[p>.l riv^lrivf ;ivf1 the p redomi najiceo^iomfflupQlicy. 
 
 The Left divided itself into groups of members, each attached 
 to a chief by friendship or business ties. The great leaders were 
 
366 ITALY. 
 
 two Sicilians :LDepreti3<^ormerly pro-dictator in i86o;vC£ispij) 
 formerly Garibaldi's minister, a Republican, " rallied " to the 
 monarchy; and three Neapolitans, Cairoli, Nicotera, Zanardelli. 
 Being unable to agree so far as to occupy the ministry at the same 
 time, they contended for the possession of it. The groups of 
 the chiefs in power formed the ministerial party, the groups of 
 the chiefs shut out from the ministry formed the opposition. 
 The ministry was constituted only by the coalition of several 
 leaders, and it had to be maintained against men of their 
 own party in opposition. The Right either joined the opposition 
 Left to defeat the ministry, or joined a minority of the Left in 
 supporting a ministry distasteful to the majority of the Left. The 
 ministers could therefore depend only on passing alliances be- 
 tween the rival groups; the combinations varied with the per- 
 sonal relations of the chiefs, and sometimes they were overturned 
 by accidents which compromised one of these (Nicotera in 
 1877, after the revelation of his past; Crispi, 1878, after an ac- 
 cusation of bigamy). 
 
 511 the'iF rivalrif^ inrr^as^d th? King's pfrsnr"^ ;nflnpr"'p; 
 being empowered to decidejjgtween jhe_riKal3, he succeeded in 
 choosing his ministers according to his personal preferences, at 
 the same time preserving the outward form of the parliamentary 
 system. It seems that he chose them according to the demands 
 of his foreign' policy; so that domestic policy must still, as before 
 the union, be controlled by relations with foreign powers. 
 
 The French alliance party had been the Right, the northern 
 Italians, whom the French had delivered from Austria; even to- 
 'day Milan remains the centre of opinion favourable to France. 
 The Left, Sicilians, Neapolitans, and Romans, was the natural 
 enemy of Catholic France, which had defended the Pope against 
 the Kingdom of Italy. It tended therefore to look toward Ger- 
 many. The Left attained power at the same time that the 
 French Catholic party began its campaign to re-establish the 
 temporal power (1877); this decided the Italian government to 
 cease its isolation policy and to seek terms of alliance with Ger- 
 many (1878). 
 
 Germany, however, had allied itself with Austria, the old 
 enemy of the Italian Republicans; and France, after the victory 
 of the Republican party, ceased to threaten Rome. The Italian 
 government wavered several years between the German states 
 and France. 
 
 The Depretis ministry had favoured Germany, Cairoli pre- 
 
THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE AND PERSONAL RIVALRIES. 3^7 
 
 ferred France. To meet the Depretis-Nicotera-Crispi coalition 
 Cairoli leaned at once on the two extremes, the Right and the 
 RepubUcans; he granted complete freedom of speech and of pub- 
 lic meeting, declaring that the monarchy had nothing to fear 
 from liberty. 
 
 The Republican party had but a small membership in the 
 Chamber, but was very active in the large cities (especially Milan 
 and Rome); it adopted the pohcy of the Radicals, and began to 
 agitate in the name of national sentiment. A number of patriots 
 declared I taly incomplet e, and demanded the restoration of 
 provinces speaking the Italian language but occupied by foreign 
 powers: the T yrol, fi"fl THfgfr by '^"'^^/^''^ .JSi'^'"..'^'"'^ rnrci^a Ky 
 France^ Ma,lta,-bis-Eiiglaiid; this_vras^jto2iiax£tei^4jini^^ 
 Italy). The Irredentist party threatened Austria, • especially by 
 s'EnSng to the malcontents in the Tyrol and in Trieste messen- 
 gers and calls to revolution. The Cairoli ministry permitted free 
 agitation by the Irredentist republicans. The excitement in- 
 creased; a cook, Passanante, tried to assassinate the King at 
 Naples (November, 1878); Barsanti Clubs were formed in honour 
 of Barsanti, a subordinate officer who' was shot for disobedience, 
 and later Oberdank Clubs (Oberdank was a young student of 
 Trieste condemned to death in 1882 for having conspired to 
 assassinate the Emperor of Austria). The German governments, 
 as in Cavour's time, suspected the Italian government of secretly 
 encouraging the republican agitation for the delivery of Italian 
 provinces in foreign control. Austria advanced troops toward 
 the frontier and remained in very cool relations with Italy. This 
 was the period of the Cairoli ministries (1878-81).* 
 
 But when France took possession of Tunis, in spite of Italy's 
 objections, public opinion turned suddenly against France, and 
 Cairoli, France's friend, fell beyond hope of recall. Depretis 
 and Crispi, Germany's supporters, took the ministry, concluded 
 the Triple Alliance, and stopped all the Irredentist and Republi- 
 can agitations. 
 
 Depretis quarrelled very soon with his allies of the Left, but 
 kept his position through the King's favour. He declared that 
 * December 18, 1878, the Depretis ministry, without a platform and 
 without a majority, was overthrown by Cairoli and Nicotera. — July 12, 1879, 
 the Cairoli ministry was left in minority, reconstructed November 24 by a 
 Cairoli-Depretis coalition, and overthrown by a Crispi-Nicotera-Zanardelli 
 coalition in April, 1880 ; retained its place by means of a dissolution ; over- 
 thrown again April 7, 1881, but once more re-established ;— May 28, 1881, 
 Depretis ministry. 
 
368 ITAL V. 
 
 the Left had exhausted his platform of 1876 and limited himself 
 to maintaining the constitution and the national monarchy, or, 
 in other words, to fighting the Republicans; he called upon the 
 members of the Right who were willing to join him. This he 
 called the transformismo (September, 1882). Depretis governed 
 (1882-87) with a coalition of Centres against the other chiefs of 
 the Left. His system was to abandon ministers who were too 
 sharply attacked and to reconstruct a new ministry from the 
 remains of the old one (he formed eight ministries). The five 
 other chiefs of the Left declared this system unconstitutional and 
 formed (November, 1883) a general coalition of deputies from 
 central Italy, which became known as the Pentarchy (Cairoli, 
 Crispi, Nicotera, Zanardelli, and Baccharini). A new socialist 
 party began to make its appearance at the elections of 1886, 
 chiefly in Lombardy and the Romagna; the ministry fought 
 against it and dissolved all the workingmen's clubs. 
 
 But this ministry failed in its colonial policy. The Pen- 
 tarchists profited by the expenditure and failure of the Abyssin- 
 ian expedition (begun in 1885) to force Depretis to take into his 
 ministry two of their men, Crispi and Zanardelli (April, 1887). 
 Depretis died in July. (Successive Depretis ministries : May 28, 
 1882; August, 1883; 1884; 1885; 1887.) 
 
 Crispi's Government (1887-96). — Crispi supplanted Depretis in 
 the King's confidence, and pursued Depretis' policy, the Triple 
 Alliance and war on the Republicans. He also advocated a new 
 classification of parties, declaring that the terms Right and Left 
 had lost their significance, and that what Italy needed was two 
 great constitutional parties. He affirmed that his ministry 
 would be strictly parliamentary, that he loved liberty and wished 
 for peace, both at home and abroad; he announced no great re- 
 form projects, but simply the intention of improving the admin- 
 istration of justice, the management of education, the army, 
 industry, and trade. He placed his reliance on the Left, which 
 promised him a large majority. His administration was mainly 
 
 occupied with combatting the opponents nf thp r pnnarrViy the - 
 
 P ^pe, the Republicans, the Irredentists, and the SnriVHs]-.; 
 
 Depretis had tried to settle the Church questionby a recon- 
 ciliation with the Pope; the King said, in 1887, that the relations 
 with the Holy See were going to become better; but Leo XIII. 
 refused to renounce his temporal power, and Crispi opened the 
 contest once more. The new penal code (1889) punished with 
 imprisonment and hard labour any attempt against the unity of 
 the state, and with one year's imprisonment any servant of the 
 
CSISPI'S GOVERNMENT. 369 
 
 Church who should, in the performance of his ofSce, criticise any 
 action on the part of the government. 
 
 Crispi placed the Republican and Irredentist agitation in the 
 hands of the police. He suppressed the demonstrations of the 
 unemployed in Rome (February, 1888), dissolved the committee 
 on Trieste and Trent as menacing the alliance with Austria, 
 " the foundation of the peace of Europe, and the guarantee of 
 Italian independence and unity," forbade the celebration in 
 honour of Oberdank (1889), the celebration in memory of the 
 Roman Republic of 1849, the democratic congress at Catania, and 
 declared the Barsanti and Oberdank clubs disbanded (August, 
 1890). He even had the King dismiss one of his own colleagues, 
 the minister of finance, for having listened without protest to an 
 Irredentist speech at a banqvtet. 
 
 He declared himself an enthusiastic advocate of the Triple Al- 
 liance (March 17, 1888); and, in spite of the enormous charges on 
 the budget, protested against any idea of disbanding the army 
 (February, 1889). " If," he said, " Italy alone disarmed, she 
 would commit a crime " (November, 1890). He continued his 
 attempts on the Red Sea, where he finally succeeded in estab- 
 lishing the colony of Erythrea and the protectorate over the I 
 Abyssinian Empire. 
 
 The expenses of this colonial policy and the business crisis 
 upset the balance of the budget. In 1887 Italy entered upon a 
 chronic state of deficit, and Italian bonds began to fall again. 
 The opposition Right in the Chamber and the Republican party 
 through the country began to attack the government on its 
 financial policy, and demanded a reduction of military expenses. 
 But Crispi had the King on his side, the great head of the army, 
 and as he controlled the elections, he secured for himself a de- 
 voted majority in the House. The Chamber elected in Novem- 
 ber, 1890, after a dissolution, was four-fifths made up of sitp- 
 porters of the ministry. Italy, like France under the Guizot min- 
 istry, was, though under parliamentary forms, governed by a 
 partnership between the King and his prime minister. But 
 Crispi had in his Republican past learned to consider public 
 opinion and to try and make himself popular. Contrary to the 
 demands of the Republicans, he appealed to patriotism, present- 
 ing the military monarchy and the Triple Alliance as necessary 
 guarantees of Italian unity, threatened by France and the Pope, 
 and defending the Red Sea expeditions in the name of the honour 
 of the Italian armies. The violent attacks made by French 
 papers furthered his policy, for', in reproaching Crispi with 
 
370 ITALY. 
 
 megalomania, they wounded Italian pride, for all Italy was de- 
 sirous of becoming a colonial power. As far as one can see into 
 Italian opinion, it seems that Crispi must have given the impres- 
 sion, to the middle classes at least, of being the one' minister 
 necessary to Italian honour. 
 
 He lost his ministry suddenly in January, 1891, by an ill-judged 
 remark in the Chamber, which offended the deputies of the 
 Right,* and for over two years he was excluded from the min- 
 istry. It was, however, only an intermission. 
 
 First came a ministry of the Right under di Rudini, re-en- 
 forced by one of the leaders of the Left, Nicotera (February 9, 
 1891), which announced itself in favour of an economic policy 
 and " fidelity to alliances "; the only reform was the suppression 
 of the general ticket. It sought a reconciliation with the Pope, 
 and to get him to recognise the law of guarantees of 1871 ; the 
 Pbpe replied (allocution of December 14, 1891), complaining of 
 both parties, the one that " wished to deal the death blow to the 
 papacy " (Crispi), and the one that " wished to subject the 
 Church to the state " (the Right), both of which hindered com- 
 munication with believers; he demanded the complete independ- 
 ence of Rome. 
 
 Then came a ministry of the Left under Giolitti, without 
 Crispi (May 15, 1892), which, by dissolving the Chamber, gained 
 for itself an enormous majority. It was, however, compromised 
 by the Roman Bank scandal, when the discovery was made that 
 it had illegally issued 65,000,000 of notes (January, 1893); the 
 parliamentary committee of investigation presented a report " re- 
 gretting " and " disapproving " the irregularities, naming the 
 deputies guilty of indiscretion, among them a minister, a personal 
 friend of Giolitti, and proving that the ministry had been aware 
 of the situation since 1889. The Giolitti ministry retired (No- 
 vember, 1893). 
 
 Crispi tTien resumed power and held it until 1896, reconstruct- 
 ing his ministry but once (June, 1894). The Left seemed to 
 have broken its monarchist coalition with the Right, in order 
 to resume its former democratic platform. Crispi demanded an 
 elective Senate, pay for deputies, and reduction of the standing 
 army (speech at Palermo, November, 1892). He declared him- 
 self " the apostle of peace, not of war," and like his models, 
 Mazzini and Garibaldi, the supporter of the federation of the 
 
 * In the course of debate Crispi referred to the foreign policy pursued 
 by the ministries up to 1876 (the Right). He was reproached with having 
 said that their policy had been " servile toward foreign powers." 
 
CRISPI'S GOVERNMENT. 371 
 
 nations, (speech at the unveiHng of the monument to Garibaldi, 
 October, 1893). But once more at the head of the ministry, he 
 presented himself as a government of public safety against the 
 attacks of Republicans and Socialists. He appealed, as before, 
 to all the constitutional parties to" defend the monarchy and build 
 up its injured credit and its burdened finances. " Our country's 
 situation is graver than ever. . . We need harmony in the Cham- 
 bers without party difference; I invite you to arrange a truce of 
 God. . . Until 1890 we worked to secure material unity of our 
 country; now we must secure moral unity" (declaration of De- 
 cember 20, 1893). " Let -Vls press close about the King, who is 
 the symbol of unity " (May, 1894). 
 
 Since then Italian politics have centred in the contest between 
 Crispi and the opponents of monarchy. The Socialists had 
 organized trade unions, especially in Lombardy, Carrara, and 
 Romagna. In Sicily they have taken advantage of the wretched 
 condition of the unsophisticated peasants, at the mercy of the 
 great landlords, to unite them in labour organizations {fas<ci). The 
 Sicilian fasci have stirred up bread riots (1893). The govern- 
 ment seized the occasion to put the island under martial law 
 (January, 1894), to send troops, to procure the condemnation 
 of the Socialist leaders by military courts,* to suppress all 
 through Italy the right of public meeting and suspend the lib- 
 erty of the press. In order to ward off a deficit, it decreed in- 
 crease in taxes and in customs duties. The ministry induced the 
 Chambers to grant it special powers. Crispi, the King's confi- 
 dential minister, has governed as a dictator; the old democratic 
 Left, now a part of the government, has adopted the old abso- 
 lutist methods to stop the progress of the new democracy. It 
 has seemed even to give up the fight against its traditional oppo- 
 nent and to try to gain favour with the Catholic party by making 
 peace with the Pope. 
 
 The Republican party has stripped for the contest; it attacks 
 in the Chamber every policy adopted by the ministry, represents 
 measures of repression as contrary to the liberty promised by the 
 constitution, colonial expeditions and armaments as the causes 
 of the economic and financial crisis, the Triple Alliance as the 
 cause for armament. It demands liberty of the press, public 
 
 * Molinari, a lawyer, leader of the socialist party of Carrara marble- 
 cutters, was condemned to 23 years imprisonment for having founded a 
 society to destroy the family and private property. De Felice, a deputy, 
 a member of the central committee of the Sicilian fasci, was condemned 
 to 18 years hard labour for having signed a manifesto. 
 
372 ITALY. 
 
 meeting and association, disarmament or reduction in military 
 expenses, and neutrality toward Germany and France. Since the 
 government decreed the dissolution of all the socialist or labour 
 societies (October 22, 1894), the Republicans have founded the 
 " League for the Protection of lliberty." 
 
 Crispi, finding his support in the Chamber becoming less 
 ardent, had the House adjourned, then dissolved (May, 1895); 
 in a manifesto speech he declared that the voters must choose 
 between " the national monarchy " and " social, moral, and politi- 
 cal anarchy," and invited " all good citizens to rally round the 
 King " ; he gave assurance that the financial crisis was at an end. 
 As is usual in Italy, there was a large government majority in 
 the new Chamber (355 against 172), which approved the taxes 
 imposed by the government. The Radicals and Socialists had, 
 however, gained seats; the meetings of the Chamber became 
 more excited; the deputies disputed over the amnesty, and 
 Cavallotti published a violent pamphlet against Crispi. A par- 
 tial amnesty for persons condemned for political offences was not 
 enough to conciliate the revolutionists. The two oppositions. 
 Right and Left, joined against Crispi; di Rudini, the leader of 
 the Right, reproached him with suppressing the liberty of the 
 press, confusing socialists with anarchists, and compromising 
 the prosperity of the nation. 
 
 As always in Italy, foreign policy determined the outcome of 
 domestic afifairs. The disaster to the Italian army in Abyssinia 
 compelled Crispi to retire (March, 1896). The Conservative 
 ministry (di Rudini), which the King consented to take, has re- 
 tained its position, without having to dissolve the Chamber, by 
 pursuing a policy of conciliation, peace, and economy. It has 
 granted political amnesty, renounced the conquest of Abyssinia, 
 and reduced colonial expenditure. It seems, however, to main- 
 tain itself in a very unstable equilibrium. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— For the detailed bibl. of the history of Italy, see 
 Ch.-T. Langlois, "Manuel de Bibliog. Histor.," 1896 (pp. 51, 120, 157, 167). 
 There is as yet no complete Italian bibl. of modern history ; the bibl. of 
 the Risorgimento is rather more a bookseller's catalogue. The " Ri- 
 vista Storica Italiana " gives a good bibl. of books published since 1884. 
 
 DOCUMENTS.— For legislative documents, see Brusa, " Staatsrecht d. 
 K. Italien." For legislative documents (Sardinia, later Kingdom of Italy), 
 see MaUbrecht, " Wegweiser durch die Literatur der Rechts- und Staatswis- 
 senschaften," 1893. 
 
 The most abundant category is that of memoirs, recollections, and let- 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 373 
 
 ters. The following are the most important: Pepe, " Mfemoires," etc., 3 
 vols., 1847, Naples revolution.— D'Azeglio, "Souvenirs," 2 vols., 1867 (Fr. 
 trans, of 1876); "Lettere," 1883, revolution of 1848.— La Farina, " Episto- 
 lario, 1869.— Manin, "Lettere," 1859, Venice revolution. — Garibaldi, "Auto- 
 biography" (in Engl.), 3 vols., 1889.— Eieasoli, " Lettere e documenti." 10 
 vols., 1888-95, Tuscany and foundation of the kingdom.— Cavour, " Dis- 
 corsi," i2vols., 1863-72 ; " Lettere," 6 vols. —1883-87 ; " Nouvelles Lettres," 
 1889.— Persano, " Diario," 1870, Fr. trans., Garnier, "Journal debordde P.," 
 1870. — Mazzini : a special bibl. of his works is given by G. Canestrelli, 1892. 
 
 The principal collections of political documents are : " Carte Segrete et 
 Atti uffiziali della Politica Austriaca in Italia, 1814-48," 3 vols., 1851, a 
 publication against the Austrian government, and especially Bianchi, 
 " Storia Documentata della Diplomazia Ettropea in Italia," 8 vols., 1865- 
 72, documents on Italy's relati.ons with the European governments. 
 
 For very recent events see "Annual Register" and " Geschichtskalen- 
 der," and the semi-panegyrical biographies indicated in the " Rivista 
 Storica." — On political customs, Laveleye, " Lettres d'ltalie,'' i88o ; " Nou- 
 velles Lettres," 1884. 
 
 The principal political reviews have been " Antologia Italiana," vol. i., 
 1846; then "Rivista Contemporanea," 1853 to 1870, then "Nuova Anto- 
 logia," since 1866 ; " Revue Internationale " (in Fr.), since 1883. 
 
 W.ORKS. — General Histories : There are several general histories in 
 Italian, all a little prolix and lacking in critical value. — Cautu, "Storia di 
 Cente Anni," 3 vols., stops at 1850 ; continued by " Delia Indep. Italiana 
 Cronistoria," 3 vols., 1872-77. " L'Hist. des Italiens," Fr. trans., 1862, 
 stops at 1861. Cantu is Catholic and a patriot. — Muratori, " Annali 
 d'ltalia," history of the i8th cent, continued up to 1870, a chronological 
 compilation. — The only critical hist, is Beuchlin, " Geschichte Italiens," 4 
 vols., 1859-73 ("Staatengeschichte" collect), which goes to 1870. The 
 author is rather a Gallophobian.— In French, Sorin, " Hist, de I'ltalie," 
 1888.— Zeller, " Pie IX. et Victor-Emmanuel," 1879 I popular works. 
 
 Histories of Different Periods : Hisoo, " Storia d'ltalia," 3 vols., 1881- 
 85, up to 1830. — Tivaroni, " Storia Critica del Risorgimento," 9 vols., 1891- 
 96.— Costa de Beauregard, " Dernieres Annees du Roi Charles- Albert, " 1890. 
 — PerrenB, " Deux Ans de Revolution en Italie (1848-49)," 1857. — 
 Chiala, " Dal Congresso di Plombieres al Congresso di Berlino," 1892.— 
 Bersezio, "II Regno di Vittorio Emmanuele," 8 vols., 1878-95.— Mistrali, 
 "Da Novara a Roma," 5 vols., 1870-79 (period 1849-70).— Petruoelli deUa 
 Gattina, " Storia d'ltalia," 1882 (period 1866-80).— Treitschke, " Histor. und 
 Polit. Aufsatze," vol. ii., 5th edit., 1886, gives a vivid description of the 
 formation of the Italian union and Cavour's work. 
 
 Histories of the States: Broiferio, "Storia di Piemonte," 3 vols., 
 1849-52.— Farini, " Lo Stato Romano," 4 vols., 1850-53.— Nisco, " Ferdinand 
 II " 1884 (Kingdom of Naples). 
 
 Institutions : Brnsa, "Staatsrecht d. K. Italien," 1890 (Marquardsen 
 coll.), gives, beside a study of the existing system, a very detailed historic 
 notice and a list of special works. — The most important is L, Falma, " Corso 
 di Diritto Costituzionale," 3 vols., 1884-86.— On Finances, J. Sachs, 
 " L'ltalie, ses Finances . . . 1859-84," 1885 ; a great deal of information, 
 Taut poorly classified. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION. 
 
 Germany in 1814. — Germany retained, even in the eighteenth 
 century, the old confused organization of the Holy Roman Em- 
 pire. In outward appearance it was a federal state with an elect- 
 ive sovereign, the Emperor, and a federal assembly, the Diet. 
 But the organs of this federal government had no real power; 
 each particular state, though theoretically subject to the Emperor, 
 was practically independent. In these states, which were organ- 
 ized under the most diverse constitutions, the sovereigns were of 
 every sort, king, duke, prince, count, bishop or abbot, knight, and 
 city corporation; their internal governments were of the most 
 varied character, but with one common trait: all these petty gov- 
 ernments were absolute. This confused Empire had no precise 
 limit; a number of the sovereigns had possessions both within 
 the Empire and outside (Austria, Prussia, Denmark, Sweden), 
 and made little distinction between their imperial and foreign 
 provinces. 
 
 The French wars lessened this confusion. In Germany, as in 
 the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, and Italy, the French in- 
 vasion swept away ancient institutions and prepared the ground 
 for the modern nation. But this clearing of the ground had not 
 been completed. The Emperor and the Diet had disappeared, 
 but there still remained an Austrian Emperor. Napoleon had 
 destroyed the smallest and least promising states, the knights of 
 the Empire, the Church States, and the free cities (with the ex- 
 ception of six); the number of sovereigns had decreased from 
 about 300 to 38, and there remained only the lay princes. This 
 work of simplification had, however, been accomplished only in 
 the south, where the suppressed states had been divided up 
 among four states. In the north the petty princes had not been 
 disturbed (Anhalt, Lippe, Reuss,' the Saxon duchies, etc.), so 
 the region of small states was no longer Southern but Northern 
 Germany. Many princes had taken new titles, and there were 
 five kings (Hanover, Prussia, Saxony, Wurtemburg, and Ba- 
 varia). Their royalty, however, was not entirely independent. 
 
 374 
 
FORMATION OF THE GERMANIC CONFEDERATION. 375 
 
 In the region that had been directly subject to France (the 
 left bank of the Rhine) French customs were firmly fixed, civil 
 equality, personal liberty, and regular, uniform administration. 
 The princes of Southern Germany copied this system in their 
 states, but in the other states the old regime had been maintained. 
 Sweden and France had severed their connection with Germany, 
 but there remained five rulers of territory in Germany who also 
 had possessions outside: two of these were German sovereigns, 
 the Emperor of Austria and the King of Prussia; three of them 
 were foreign sovereigns, the King of Denmark (as Duke of 
 Holstein), the King of England (as King of Hanover), and the 
 King of the Netherlands (as Duke of Luxemburg). 
 
 Germany was still, therefore, in 1814, under a regime of small 
 states with incomplete sovereignty, of absolutism and of criss- 
 cross with foreign sovereigns. She had been only partly mod- 
 ernized and must still pass through a long crisis before getting 
 rid of the remnants of her old regime. 
 
 Formation of the Germanic Confederation (1815). — After the 
 French had been driven out, the Germans felt the need of organ- 
 izing a stronger state than the old Empire for resisting French 
 attacks. But they had no definite idea as to the exact form to 
 give this state. 
 
 Many patriots, brought up under the Holy Roman Empire, 
 were attached to this venerable form of government under which 
 Germany had attained her period of grandeur in the Middle 
 Ages. Baron vom Stein, a mediatized knight, formerly a direct 
 subject of the Emperor, could not imagine Germany under 
 any system but the Empire. Assuming the Empire, the Em- 
 peror could not be of any house but Hapsburg, the royal house 
 of Austria; he would form, together with the leading princes, 
 a Directorium to direct affairs of common interest. This plan of 
 restoration met with irresistible opposition. The Emperor of 
 Austria was no longer interested in establishing a Germany 
 where the King of Prussia would be more powerful than he ; he 
 refused to accept the imperial crown, preferring to remain Em- 
 peror of Austria and to content himself with a diplomatic influ- 
 ence over the governments of the small German states. The 
 German princes were unwilling to submit themselves to a central 
 government which in practice would have been composed of the 
 Emperor and the King of Prussia; they greatly preferred to 
 retain their own sovereignty, which they had held since the dis- 
 solution of the Empire in 1806. A sovereign federal government 
 
376 GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION. 
 
 would be irreconcilable with local sovereignty; to establish it 
 would necessitate the destruction of the petty sovereigns. Now, 
 in 1813, the Allies had preferred to detach them from Napoleon, 
 by guaranteeing them their lands and titles by treaties ; the King 
 of Saxony, who had no treaty, had been saved by the pleni- 
 potentaries of the Congress of Vienna (see p. 8). There could, 
 therefore, be no thought of restoring the Empire, or even of 
 establishing a federal state. 
 
 Austria and Prussia drew up a scheme. The petty princes, 
 unwilling to let the two great German powers determine the 
 organization of Germany, agreed to sign the note of the 32 
 "minor states" (February 2, 181 5), demanding a general con- 
 gress of all the German states. The great states signified their 
 assent; then, for form's sake, invited to their conferences dele- 
 gates from all the sovereigns. In the Federal Act (June 18) " the 
 sovereign princes and free cities " declared themselves united by 
 a permanent alliance, to be known as the Germanic Confedera- 
 tion (Deutscher Bund). 
 
 The aim was defined as " the maintenance of external and 
 internal security and the independence and integrity of the indi- 
 vidual states," but they avoided defining the powers of the fed- 
 eral government. 
 
 The Confederation had but one organ, the Federal Assembly 
 or Diet (Bundesversammlung), a permanent conference of en- 
 voys from all the governments, sitting at Frankfort under the 
 presidency of the Austrian delegate. They were not deputies 
 with freedom of voting, but officers sent by their government 
 with precise instructions and obliged to ask instructions before 
 each vote. In ordinary afifairs they acted under the name of the 
 Engere Rath; the great states had each a vote, the others uniting 
 in groups to cast a collective vote (there were 17 votes in all). 
 In voting on certain classes of questions (constitution, religion, 
 and admission of new states), the Assembly voted as a plenum, 
 and the number of votes assigned to each state differed accord- 
 ing to importance (69 in all; Austria, Prussia, and the four 
 kingdoms had each 4). But for all important afifairs no decision 
 could be made by a majority; the vote had to be unanimous in 
 order to be effective. 
 
 The Assembly was to formulate fundamental laws and organic 
 institutions for the Confederation with reference to its foreign, 
 military, and domestic affairs, but each particular state controlled 
 its own diplomacy, its army, and its government. There was 
 
THE INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENTS. 377 
 
 no federal court and no Representative of the Confederation in 
 foreign states. In practice the princes remained sovereigns and 
 the Assembly was only the congress of their ambassadors. 
 
 The Assembly was to open September i, 1815, but it awaited 
 the settlement of the frontier questions between states; it met 
 the following summer, but did not actually open until Novem- 
 ber 5, 1816; popular interest in it began to languish. In the 
 early days of its session a number of delegates tried to present 
 projects, but it soon became apparent that the Assembly was 
 so organized that it could not reach any decision. Every ques- 
 tion must wait for the consent of each government; the govern- 
 ment that did not wish to have a question settled did not need 
 to answer, but only to refrain from answering. The middle 
 states especially, jealous of their sovereignty, hindered every 
 motion. The slowness of the Assembly became proverbial ; sev- 
 eral instances of it are still famous. The lawyers and legal 
 agents of the old imperial court made a claim for salaries due 
 from 1806 to 1816, which was granted in 1831; the creditors of 
 the fund for converting the debts contracted in the wars from 
 1792 to 1 80 1 were paid in 1843; the liquidation of the debts for 
 the Thirty Years War was completed, at the end of two centuries, 
 in 1850. The most urgent matter was the organization of mili- 
 tary defence: now, the plans for regulating the army were not 
 drawn up until 1821, and not applied until 1840; the forces fur- 
 nished by the states were organized in 1831, 1835, and 1836, 
 and were never united; the federal fortresses, of which France 
 had paid the cost in 1815, were not yet constructed in 1825; the 
 Confederation was waiting to choose between Ulm and Rastadt. 
 
 The Assembly met often, appointed many committees (there 
 were as many as 30 at once), with much solemnity of procedure, 
 like the old Diet ; but it had no power whatever, and became the 
 laughing stock of Germany and of all Europe. 
 
 The Individual Crovernments and Constitutions. — Each prince, 
 being a sovereign, arranged his government to suit himself. 
 Those who drafted the plan for the constitution had proposed 
 securing to subjects certain guarantees by Article 13: "There 
 must be established within one year a system of assemblies of 
 estates." But in the final draft they omitted the one-year limit, 
 and replaced the phrase " There must " {Es soil) by " There will 
 be " a system of Estates {Es wird). The Liberals ridiculed this 
 formula: " that is not a law," they said; " it is a prophecy." 
 
 They had purposely employed an ancient term, Landstdndische 
 
378 GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION. 
 
 Verfassung (organization based on the Estates), to avoid the 
 revohitionary term constitution. The universally admitted prin- 
 ciple is that the prince alone possesses the sovereignty, but that he 
 has the right to let his subjects share in the government. The gov- 
 ernment of each state, therefore, depended on the personal wishes 
 of the prince. Germany was divided between three systems. 
 
 1. In the pure absolutist system, the Prince governed alone 
 with his ministers and officers, without any restraint, without any 
 assembly of subjects. This was the regime of the most powerful 
 states, Austria and Prussia; several princes of the north copied 
 them. The best known of these' was the Elector of Hesse, the 
 only one that bore the old title of Elector, deprived of its signifi- 
 cance since the breaking up of the Empire. He had at first con- 
 voked an assembly, but dismissed it in 1816 and governed alone. 
 He had been driven out in 1806, but he pretended to recognise 
 nothing that had been accomplished during his absence; he re- 
 established his old laws, corvees, and corporations; he restored 
 his civil servants to their former places, his military officers to 
 their former ranks; ordered his soldiers to wear their hair in 
 queue (sopf) as formerly, and took back the princely domains 
 that had been sold as national property. The confederation re- 
 monstrated with him, for the purchasers of national property had 
 been guaranteed by treaties; he replied that he admitted no inter- 
 vention in the administration of his state. 
 
 2. The majority of the princes of northern Germany (Hanover, 
 Mecklenburg, Saxony, later Oldenburg) adopted a system of 
 assemblies of estates (Landstande). They made no promises to 
 their subjects, but they convoked the traditional assembly of no- 
 tables of the land, composed chiefly of nobles, and ordered them, 
 according to ancient custom, to vote taxes and guarantee loans. 
 The assembly made use of this opportunity to present claims; 
 but it was only a concession granted to public opinion, not a 
 real controlling power over the administration. In Hanover, 
 the government could not arrange with the nobles to put in one 
 fund the proceeds of the domain and the taxes, and accomplished 
 its reforms by ordinance. It finally, in 1819, transformed the 
 assembly by dividing it into two houses, nobles and commons. 
 It forbade the publication of debates, and only permitted the pub- 
 lication of extracts from the journal which were so uninterest- 
 ing that they found few purchasers. In Mecklenburg, the legis- 
 lature consisted of representatives of the nobles and privileged 
 municipalities; the nobles were the controlling power, filled all 
 
THE INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENTS. 379 
 
 offices, and maintained their absolute power over the peasants. 
 Every proprietor of a noble estate was master on his own land; he 
 exercised justice and police, and the right to grant or refuse 
 change of domicile. In Saxony the King, absorbed in the main- 
 tenance of his rank, never went out on foot and never spoke to 
 anyone beneath the rank of colonel. The government refused the 
 assembly information on financial affairs and forbade published 
 reports of debates. In Oldenburg, the Grand Duke declared 
 that before organizing the assembly it would be well to observe 
 the success of such institutions in other countries. 
 
 3. A number of princes, mainly in the south, decided to grant 
 written constitutions in imitation of France, with a body of elect- 
 ive representatives empowered to vote laws and taxes proposed 
 by the government. They had no intention of establishing a 
 parliamentary government; the prince remained sovereign, 
 A:hoosing his ministers independently of the majority, and even 
 reserving to himself the right of proposing new laws. It was 
 simply a constitutional monarchy, according to Tory doctrine, 
 as under Louis XVIII. 
 
 The example was given by the most liberal of the German 
 princes, the patron of learning, the Grand Duke of Saxe- Weimar. 
 He granted his subjects a constitution, and placed it under the 
 protection of the Confederation by recognising the right of the 
 federal power to use all means of constraint upon himself and his 
 people if either side should fail in keeping their engagements. 
 He established an assembly of deputies, knights, cities, and 
 peasants meeting in a single asmibly with the power of passing 
 on the budget, voting laws and taSces, and of demanding redress 
 of grievances. He guaranteed freedom of the press, emancipat- 
 ing it wholly from the censorship. 
 
 The other princes hesitated long before adopting a system 
 looked on with disfavour by the governments of the chief states. 
 But all those of southern Germany finally granted written consti- 
 tutions which established a representative body with the right of 
 voting laws and taxes, also guaranteeing individual liberty and 
 equality before the law: Bavaria (May, 1818), Baden (August, 
 1818), Wurtemburg (1819), Hesse-Darmstadt (1820). There 
 were also constitutions in Nassau, Brunswick, and some small 
 Saxon duchies. In Wurtemburg the King had granted a repre- 
 sentative constitution as early as 1815, but the Estates, which held 
 him in contempt, demanded the previous constitution; a conflict 
 iollowed which lasted, under his successor, until 1819. 
 
380 GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION. 
 
 Parties in Germany. — In all the countries, the mass of the Ger- 
 man people, accustomed to absolute government, remained in- 
 different to public affairs, and even among cultivated men only 
 a few dared to express an opinion. Those who occupied them- 
 selves with political matters were divided into three groups cor- 
 responding to the three forms of government established in 
 Germany. 
 
 The absolutists acknowledged no other power than the Prince 
 and his officers; they condemned every form of constitution as a 
 revolutionary innovation, every representative assembly as an 
 institution of disorder, every sort of constraint as an insult to the 
 sovereign. The theory had been formulated with logical rigour 
 by a Swiss convert to absolutism, L. von Haller, in his " Restora- 
 tion of Political Science" (1816), a sort of refutation of Rousseau's 
 " Social Contract." Haller rejected natural rights, social con- 
 tract, and sovereignty of the people as contrary to history. His- 
 torically, he said, the origin of the European state has been in 
 property-holding; every country belongs to a prince, a Church, 
 or a corporation, and the people are only a body of tenants 
 settled on the land. Even if the people should disappear, the 
 state would continue; the prince would only have to procure new 
 subjects to adorn his estates. The state being a private estate, the 
 prince was an absolutely independent proprietor; he charged his 
 personal servants to govern the people of his estate; he charged 
 his soldiers to defend them; he paid expenses with his personal 
 revenue. The aim of the state is the prince and his family. 
 The subjects are not citizens, they have no right to busy them- 
 selves with affairs of the state ; they must either obey or leave the 
 country. This book was received with enthusiasm by the Prince 
 Royal of Prussia. The absolutist doctrine was that of the Prus- 
 sian and Austrian nobles, the majority of the German princes, 
 ministers, and clergy. The absolutists were naturally hostile to 
 the press and to university education, which they accused of 
 propagating ideas of resistance and constraint of the sovereign. 
 The party of historic rights did not contest the prince's sov- 
 ereignty; they scorned written constitutions, as contrary to tra- 
 dition, and recognised only rights established by custom; but 
 under this title they demanded the re-establishment of the old 
 assemblies of estates that voted the taxes and controlled the pro- 
 vincial administration. They were a liberal aristocratic party, 
 admirers of the Tory government. Their principal representa- 
 tives were Germans of the north, university professors: Niebuhr, 
 
PARTIES IN GERMANY. 3^1 
 
 professor at Bonn, who condemned the French Revolution; 
 Dahlmann, professor at Kiel, secretary of the Holstein nobility 
 in their struggle against their sovereign, the King of Denmark. 
 (See chap, xviii.) The historic rights party, the one which 
 the German historians now regard with most respect, was then 
 the smallest, most scattered, and least popular and influential 
 with the masses. 
 
 The constitutional party, on the contrary, invoked natural 
 rights and sovereignty of the people; they demanded a constitu- 
 tion which should guarantee to citizens freedom against abuse 
 of power by officials and clergy, and legal equality against the 
 pretensions of the aristocracy; they wanted a government con- 
 trolled by the nation's representatives, masters of legislation and 
 taxation. They were a liberal democratic party, admirers of the 
 ' French Revolution. The members were chiefly Germans of the 
 south and west who had experienced the rule or influence of 
 France. German historians to-day, with scornful pity, re- 
 proach this party with having been the dupe of revolutionary 
 Utopians, at variance with history. But this party, though after- 
 ward ridiculed, comprised almost all the cultivated and literary 
 Germans of the day. Its most popular representatives were 
 Rotteck, professor at the University of Freiburg, and Welcker, 
 authors of a " Universal History." Rotteck (" On Assemblies 
 of Estates," 1819) declared that to the people belongs the sover- 
 eignty by reason of natural rights; the government is simply its 
 delegate, the state assemblies represent the people and must 
 exercise the powers that the nation has reserved to itself. 
 
 Public opinion in favour of a constitution grew so strong that 
 the princes of South Germany decided to grant written constitu- 
 tions and to introduce the constitutional system into all their 
 states. The people then had to improvise a staff of deputies, 
 without parliamentary pay. The country was too poor to furnish 
 them; there were few great landowners, few manufacturers, few 
 lawyers. Government office-holders at this time were almost 
 the only members of the educated classes, and the voters had to 
 choose many of their representatives from among them. These 
 deputies, who were also office-holders, found themselves in a con- 
 tradictory position, between the duty of obeying their govern- 
 ment and that of defending the interests of their constituents. It 
 was admitted that an office-holder elected to the Chamber might 
 keep his liberty of opinion and divide his allegiance, obeying the 
 government in his executive capacity, opposing it in his legisla- 
 
382 GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION. 
 
 tive capacity; and the opposition was composed, or at least con- 
 trolled, by office-holders. The government often profited by this 
 to intimidate the opposition by threats, or even employed a more 
 direct process, refusing to give them leave of absence to sit in 
 the Chamber. 
 
 Between the absolutists and constitutionalists the opposition 
 was complete and plainly irreconcilable. The absolutists trusted 
 in Metternich, the declared opponent of any change of any con- 
 stitution, and of popular representation; they naturally sym- 
 pathized with Austria. The liberals would have been glad to 
 rest on Prussia, Austria's rival, but the King of Prussia was an 
 absolutist who had broken his promise to give his own people 
 a constitution. (See chap, xiv.) The liberals therefore came 
 to detest Prussia even more than Austria. Heine said that Met- 
 ternich was at least a loyal enemy, while the King of Prussia was 
 a hypocritical enemy. The constitutionalists could look for no 
 other support than that of the princes of South Germany or of 
 foreigners; they therefore became particularists and admirers of 
 the French (which has drawn down upon them the scorn of Ger- 
 man historians). 
 
 The educated Germans found themselves drawn in two direc- 
 tions. They wanted a liberal, united Germany : now the only states 
 strong enough to bring about a union were opposed to liberty; 
 the liberal regime could be established only in the small states. 
 Patriotism drew the Germans toward union, but liberalism drew 
 them toward independence for the smaller states. The national 
 movement was not in harmony with the liberal movement. So 
 political life in Germany was very confused until 1848. It turned 
 on conflicts between the subjects and their own particular gov- 
 ernments, between the subjects and the federal government, be- 
 tween the state governments and the federal government. This 
 period is filled with small and unimportant events, interesting 
 rather for the history of ideas and literature than for political his- 
 tory. Three attempts at reform were made, all put down by the 
 governments. 
 
 University Perseention. — The "War of Liberation" against 
 France had produced a patriotic movement among the students. 
 Many of them had enlisted in the German armies. After the 
 victory they vaguely hoped to see the old united Germany re- 
 established under liberal forms. Absolutism and cutting up 
 into little states they considered a mistake. This discontent and 
 desire for national unity produced different manifestations : gym- 
 
UNIVERSITY PERSECUTION. 3^3 
 
 nasties, the Burschenschaft, secret societies, and all sorts of child- 
 ish and aimless manifestations, whose importance the govern- 
 ments concerned wilfully exaggerated, using them as bugbears 
 to frighten the friends of order. Hence the disproportionate 
 position that they occupy in the attention of contemporaries, and 
 still occupy in German histories. 
 
 1. Gymnastics were a form of patriotism: their object was to 
 prepare robust generations for the defence of their country. 
 This idea was embodied in a person regarded with a mixture of 
 mockery and respect, Jahn, a Prussian peasant belonging to the 
 light infantry of Liitzow, who after the war opened at Berlin a 
 school for gymnastics. He had come to Paris with a knotty 
 stick, long hair, and bare neck, for " the linen cravat did not suit 
 the free German." He used great familiarity with his pupils, 
 slapped their faces to awaken their thoughts, and made them 
 exercise in jackets of raw linen, with long hair and bare necks. 
 In vacations he took them oflf, each shouldering an axe, making 
 them camp at night, and feeding them on bread and milk. If 
 they met a dandy dressed in the French fashion, or an inscription, 
 in French, they circled about it, pointing and groaning. For 
 Jahn had a horror of France; he would have liked to separate 
 Germany from it by a vast forest peopled with monsters. He 
 avoided every word of French extraction, and used only Ger- 
 manic words. His disciples formed a " society for the German 
 language," which replaced French words by their German 
 equivalents: Universit'dt became Vermmftturnplats (gymnasium 
 of reason). Jahn had nO' further political ideas, and almost all 
 his pupils came from among young men educated in the second- 
 ary schools. 
 
 2. The Burschenschaft was an association of students, de- 
 signed to cultivate among its members religious sentiment, vir- 
 tuous principles, and patriotic devotion. The Burschen (com- 
 rades) wore a sombre costume with a high collar, " the Ger- 
 manic-Christian dress "; they had adopted the colours of the vol- 
 unteers of 1813, red, black, and gold; they met to sing patriotic 
 songs. They had organized themselves on a new principle in 
 the German universities. The former associations (which. still 
 exist in all the German universities), as their official name 
 (Landmannschaff) indicates, were simply little groups of students 
 from the same province who met for amusement, to drink to- 
 gether, and fight duels, without any idea beyond. The Burschen- 
 schaft now became a general association of all German students 
 
384 GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION. 1 
 
 and contributed to the formation of national sentiment. It was 
 founded after 181 5 at Jena, and chiefly by students from the 
 small states of central Germany. The Grand Duchy of Saxe- 
 Weimar had become the centre of the national liberal movement 
 since the Grand Duke had granted his people a constitution and 
 freedom of the press; the principal political organs were pub- 
 lished there : the Nemesis, the Isis, and the Oppositionsblatt. Jena, 
 the University of the Grand Duchy, and Weimar, the Grand 
 Duke's residence, were then the centres of intellectual political 
 activity in Germany. 
 
 The professors and the liberal journalists of the Grand Duchy 
 organized a festival at the Wartburg, October, 1817, for the joint 
 celebration of the religious anniversary of the Reformation and 
 the patriotic anniversary of the battle of Leipzig. It was an official 
 festival with delegates from the universities, authorized by the 
 government of Weimar; Luther's hymn was sung, and the pro- 
 fessors made speeches that could hardly be called political. But 
 in the evening the students lighted a bonfire, some of Jahn's 
 students threw old books in the flames, at the same time shout- 
 ing the names of the works their leader most disliked, those of 
 Kotzebue and Haller, the Napoleonic code, and the Prussian 
 code of mounted police. They added as military symbols a belt 
 from the uniform of the Prussian guard, a Hessian soldier's queue, 
 and the baton of an Austrian corporal, and burned them, shout- 
 ing : " Pere, Pereat! " (a student's refrain answering to " To 
 
 with!"). 
 
 This childish performance was talked of all over Germany, and 
 in the political stagnation of the time it had the look of a student 
 revolt against the authorities. Metternich represented it as a 
 product of the Revolution. A Roumanian seigneur, Stourdza, 
 denounced the universities to the Tsar as hotbeds of conspiracy. 
 The Grand Duke of Weimar was obliged to establish a censor- 
 ship of the press in his state. 
 
 3. Secret societies were in fashion all over Europe. The 
 oldest in Germany, the famous Tugendbund, formed in Prussia 
 about 1809 to resist the French, had been ordered to disband by 
 the Prussian government, but Metternich still spoke of it as a 
 powerful association. He wished to embarrass Prussia by giving 
 it the name of a nest of revolutionists. After 1815 secret 
 societies in Germany were few and short-lived; even the Free 
 Masons were inactive there. The only society that seems to 
 have been purely political had its headquarters at Giessen, uni- 
 
UNIVERSITY PERSECUTION. 3^5 
 
 versity town of a small state, Hesse-Darmstadt; it had formu- 
 lated a constitution based on the sovereignty of the people. 
 Sand, the melancholy student-lunatic who assassinated Kotzebue, 
 the Tsar's emissary, was a member of this society. A Nassau 
 student of pharmacy attempted to assassinate the head of the 
 government of Nassau (1819).* 
 
 These isolated crimes were used by Metternich to frighten the 
 governments, by convincing them of the existence of a wide- 
 spread conspiracy, and to induce them to join in measures of 
 suppression. Delegates from the principal governments met at 
 Carlsbad and made decisions which the Federal Assembly rati- 
 fied in four days; these were the Carlsbad decrees (1819). The 
 German princes who had refused to make any arrangements for 
 the common interests of their people, accepted without discus- 
 sion a common action against the enemies of the monarchy — the 
 universities, the press, and the liberals. The decrees authorized 
 the princes to dissolve the Burschenschaft and the gymnastic 
 societies, to establish curators in each university to oversee the 
 students and professors, and to establish a censorship to examine 
 every newspaper and pamphlet before allowing them to be 
 printed. A federal committee of seven members was appointed, 
 to sit at Mainz and organize an inquiry into " the origin and 
 ramifications of revolutionary conspiracies and demagogic asso- 
 ciations." ,• 
 
 This system was perfected at the Conference of Vienna (1820). , 
 Metternich would have liked even to abolish the liberal constitu- 
 tions of the southern states as contrary to the Act of Confedera- 
 tion. He dared not suggest it, but he secured an adjustment of 
 reciprocal rights of the states of the Confederation by this clause: 
 " As the Confederation consists of sovereign princes, the whole 
 power of the state should remain vested in the head of the state, 
 and the sovereign cannot be bound by a state legislature when 
 acting as a member of the federation, except in the exercise of 
 determined rights." They dared not close the debates of the 
 Chambers to the public, but they decided that " the legal limits to 
 the free expression of opinion must not be exceeded either in 
 debate or in publications in such a way as to endanger the peace 
 of the particular state or of Germany." There was also talk of 
 destroying or annulling the last remaining organ of political life, 
 the representative assembly. 
 
 * Treitschke, deceived by the false account given by Muench, believed 
 there was a revolutionary conspiracy. 
 
3^6 GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION. 
 
 The committee of investigation discovered no conspiracy what- 
 ever, not even a criminal act, except a small pamphlet. But the 
 governments, especially in Prussia, imprisoned and condemned 
 to confinement in fortresses a number of students who had sung 
 patriotic songs or worn the black, red, and gold colours, and even 
 a collegian for having drawn a picture of a devil eating a king. 
 
 The Opposition of the Constitutional States of the South. — Since 
 the Conference of Vienna the governments of the southern states 
 had protested against the plan of suppressing the constitutions. 
 They presented themselves as the defenders of political liberty 
 against the two great absolutist states, Austria and Prussia. 
 The movement was directed by Wangenheim, who represented 
 the King of Wurtemburg in the Diet. The Manifesto of South- 
 ern Germany, published in 1820 by order of the King of Wurtem- 
 burg, was supposed to be the manifesto of this party. The 
 leading idea is that the true Germany is the Germany of the 
 Middle Ages — the old duchies west of the Elbe; Austria and 
 Prussia are only half German colonies. The Confederation has 
 done wrong to assure the domination of these two half foreign 
 and absolutist powers over true liberal Germans; it should give 
 the power to old Germany. 
 
 The contest between the liberal governments of the southwest 
 and the great eastern states was carried into the Federal 
 Assembly. At first the southern states secured the adoption of 
 the military regulation of 1821, dividing the German army into 
 independent bodies, against the King of Prussia, who demanded 
 the command of the northern contingents. Thfen the Wurtem- 
 burg delegate openly protested against the Mainz committee of 
 investigation, the decisions of the Congress of Verona, and the 
 absolutist elector of Hesse. The governments of the large 
 states, wearied with this opposition, finally withdrew their envoys 
 from the court of Wurtemburg; the King became alarmed and 
 recalled Wangenheim. The opposition ceased. The govern- 
 ments reorganized the Federal Diet and decided that debates 
 should not be published. Then the delegates from the German 
 princes met at Johannisberg, in Metternich's castle, and drew up 
 resolutions which the Diet voted in August, 1824. - Not only did 
 they renew the decrees of 1819 against the press and the universi- 
 ties, but they empowered themselves to oversee the state 
 assemblies and prevent their " threatening monarchical prin- 
 ciples." 
 
 After this the Diet met but seldom until 1830. The news- 
 
MOVEMENTS OF 1830. 3^7' 
 
 papers were forbidden any political discussions; people did not 
 dare talk politics. German attention, turned aside from home 
 affairs, directed itself to foreign countries, Greek insurgents and 
 French liberals. 
 
 Movements of 1830. — From 1815 to 1830 the opinions of edu- 
 cated Germans had been transformed; they had lost their horror 
 of France and Napoleon; they detested the absolutist powers, 
 Austria and Prussia, and transferred their enthusiasm to the 
 nations that defended their liberty, especially to France and. 
 Poland. Rotteck said that in case of conflict between constitu- 
 tional France and the absolutist states of Germany, all liberal 
 Germans would side with France. They were less interested in 
 German unity than in political liberty. They wanted especially 
 the institutions of free countries, legislative chambers controlling 
 the budget, freedom of the press, jury trial, a national guard 
 which would place force in the hands of the people. There were 
 even republicans like Borne and Heine, both of whom admired 
 France and hated Prussia. 
 
 The Revolution of 1830 encouraged the German liberals; in 
 the small states where the government was worst they organized 
 demonstrations, and frightened the princes into granting coiisti-- 
 tutions in Brunswick, Hesse-Cassel'Xi83i), Saxony, Hanover^ 
 and in two Saxon duchies. In the constitutional states of the- 
 south, especially in Baden and Bavaria, political interest revived 
 and censorship was relaxed; there even appeared democratic 
 publications supporting the Polish rebels against the Tsar. 
 
 This liberty lasted until the governments felt themselves in 
 danger. In 1832, after the suppression of the Polish government, 
 they felt reassured; the Diet condemned the abuses of the press 
 and put down several liberal organs. The democrats, for the 
 purpose of resisting the coalition of princes, founded a Press 
 Union with the object of indemnifying persecuted journalists and 
 spreading the plan of an agreement for the establishment of a 
 German Empire with a democratic constitution. The centre of 
 the movement was situated in a country adjoining France, the 
 Bavarian Palatinate. The Union distributed pamphlets, held 
 meetings, and organized the "German May" festival at Hambach 
 Castle (May 27, 1832). A great crowd gathered, including Poles 
 and Frenchmen; from the great tower floated the red, black, and 
 gold flag (the Burschenschaft flag, now become the symbol of 
 German unity) and from a turret the Polish flag. There were 
 songs, speeches, toasts to the Fatherland, the sovereignty of the- 
 
388 GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION: 
 
 people, the United States of Gefmany, and Republican Europe. 
 ITie Hambach festival, like the previous one at the Wartburg, 
 was used by Metternich to frighten the Diet into voting the de- 
 crees of 1832. This time he secured what had always been 
 refused him before: a federal committee was appointed to oversee 
 the Cliambers of Deputies; the Diet declared void in advance 
 every constitutional plan which threatened monarchical principles 
 and promised armed intervention in every state where the sub- 
 jects refused to pay taxes. It forbade political societies, meet- 
 ings, liberty-trees, cockades, and other emblems of liberty; it re- 
 newed the decrees of 1819 and 1824. It annulled the press law 
 of the Grand Duchy of Baden as contrary to federal decisions. 
 The government of Baden tried to defend itself; it asked help of 
 Louis Philippe, but failed to get it, and finally changed the press 
 law. In Wurtemburg, Hesse, and Nassau the Chambers were 
 dissolved and the liberal publications suspended. 
 
 The liberal party broke up on the question of future policy. 
 The moderate liberals wanted to continue their opposition by 
 legal methods. The radicals were labouring to overthrow the 
 absolutist governments with the aid of French and Polish revo- 
 lutionists; they formed secret societies which were joined by 
 students and subordinate military officers. The conspirators 
 were counting on aid from the Polish refugees of Besanqon and 
 the Alsatian national guard. A mob of fifty men attempted to 
 seize Frankfort, the seat of the Federal Diet (April, 1833), and 
 were scattered or arrested. 
 
 This gave rise to a new form of persecution. The Diet ap- 
 pointed a central committee, which lasted until 1842, to oversee 
 the investigations aimed against the revolutionists, forbade the 
 publication of political debates, and the entrance of any person 
 into Germany or Switzerland without a passport. Metternich 
 declared that the root of the evil was in " the faction which was 
 seeking to introduce in the form of the representative system 
 the modern idea of popular sovereignty." He would have liked 
 to establish a federal police; the individual governments found 
 their own police sufficient. 
 
 In Prussia, twenty-nine students were condemned to death, 
 and their sentences later commuted to imprisonment in fortresses. 
 One of them, Fritz Renter, has told the story of his captivity in 
 Low German dialect in a famous romance. In Hesse, Jordan, 
 the leader of the liberals in the Chamber, was arrested and de- 
 tained six years in prison without trial, then tried and acquitted. 
 
THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT SINCE 1840. 389 
 
 In Baden, Rotteck and Welcker were suspended from their pro- 
 fessorships. In Bavaria, a journahst, after four years of pre- 
 ventive imprisonment, was condemned to make a public apology 
 before the King's portrait and to suffer indefinite confinement for 
 reprinting a certain article from another paper. 
 
 This persecution crushed liberal agitation and political interest 
 in Germany. From 1833 to 1847 there was no further political 
 incident, except in 1837 the affair of the seven professors. The 
 King of Hanover had abrogated the Constitution of 1833 be- 
 cause it prevented his paying his debts with state funds; seven 
 professors of Gottingen declared themselves bound to the consti- 
 tution by their oath of allegiance; the King deprived them of 
 their positions; a society was founded at Leipzic to raise sub- 
 scriptions for them all over Germany. 
 
 The National Movement since 1840. — ^The Diet, the only insti- 
 tution common to all Germany, had manifested its activity only 
 by persecutions, and had created nothing but a political police; 
 it therefore became hateful to educated Germans. The idea of 
 replacing it by a real national government had been expressed by 
 several isolated writers: Gagern of Hesse, a delegate to the Diet 
 in 1815; Welcker of Baden; Pfizer of Wurtemburg. Their sen- 
 timents and wishes were summed up in these two sentences: 
 " Nationality is the first condition of humanity, as the body is the 
 condition of the soul " (Pfizer). The " Confederation of States " 
 (Staatenbunct), united by too loose a bond, must give place to a 
 " Federal State " (JBundesstaai), strongly united.* Pfizer added 
 that this new state must be directed by the King of Prussia 
 assisted by an elective parliament. This dream of national unity 
 agreed with the desire of Prussian office-holders to increase 
 Prussia's power (expressed by minister BernstorfT in a memorial 
 to the King in 183 1). 
 
 In 1840 an incident in European politics was made the occa- 
 sion of a manifestation of German patriotism. The four great 
 powers, the old "Allies " of 1815, had just united against France 
 to settle the Eastern question. In the French Chamber there 
 was talk of breaking the treaties of 181 5 and even of reconquer- 
 ing the Rhine boundary. This produced an agitation against 
 
 * As early as 1818 the French ambassador Reinhard, in a report to his 
 government, said: " It is of European importance that Germany should 
 be united by a bond that can resist the demands of the moment. That 
 does not seem to me possible, until the confederation of the German states 
 shall become a federal state." 
 
39° GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION. 
 
 France in Germany, in the form of patriotic songs; it was at this 
 time that Becker's German Rhine was composed (" They shall not 
 have our free German Rhine ") and immediately sung all over 
 Germany, and the Wacht am Rhein, which remained unnoticed for 
 thirty years, when it became the national anthem in the war of 
 1870. The patriotic movement won even the princes; Becker 
 received a pension from the King of Prussia and an order from 
 the King of Bavaria. The Diet decided to draw up the regula- 
 tion of the Federal army. In 1842 the placing of the last stone 
 of the Cologne Cathedral was made a national festival of princes 
 under the presidency of the King of Prussia; the King of Wur- 
 temburg proposed a toast to " our fatherland." 
 
 Among the university professors public life took the form of 
 aspirations toward unity. The Germanist Congress held at 
 Frankfort in 1846 was at once a meeting of scholars (philologists, 
 historians, and jurists) and an assembly of patriots; they dis- 
 cussed national questions and a German parliament. There was 
 also a professor, Gervinus, who in 1847 foiunded at Heidelberg 
 the Deutsche Zeitung, a political newspaper, liberal and national, 
 designed for all Germany. 
 
 The meeting of the Prussian " United Landtag " in 1847 ^^ 
 length gave the largest of the German states a means of taking 
 part in politics (see chap. xiv). The Chambers of the south- 
 ern states, benumbed by the decrees of 1834, became active once 
 more. The southern liberals put themselves in relations with 
 those of Prussia. But, as in 1832, upon the course to pursue 
 they could not agree. 
 
 The democratic radicals, who had their centre at Mannheim, 
 in Baden, held an assembly (September 12, 1847) at Oflfenburg, 
 and adopted as their platform liberty of the press and of associa- 
 tion, jury trial, national guard, progressive taxation, military 
 oath of allegiance to the constitution, and a representative 
 assembly of the people by the side of the Diet. 
 
 The moderate constitutionalists, meeting at Heppenheim Octo- 
 ber 10, decided simply to lay before the Chambers of the indi- 
 vidual states resolutions calling for the creation of a German 
 parliament. 
 
 The Eevolution of 1848 in Germany. — The national movement 
 suddenly developed into revolution through the example of 
 France. (There was a small local revolt in Bavaria early in 
 February, 1848.) At the news of the Paris revolution, the 
 liberals organized public metings, and demanded liberty of the 
 
THE FRANKFORT PARLIAMENT. 391 
 
 press, the parliamentary system, and a German parliament. The 
 governments were stupefied and dared not resist them. 
 
 The advocates of unity took advantage of this confusion to at- 
 tempt the transformation of Germany into a federal state. The 
 movement, as usual, came from the south, the state of Baden; 
 51 liberals met at Heidelberg (March 5), decided to call an 
 assembly to draft schemes of reform, and appointed a committee 
 of seven members. 
 
 The committee of seven called together at Frankfort the Vor- 
 parlament, or preparatory parliament, composed of all the men 
 who had sat as deputies in a German chamber; from five to six 
 hundred of them came, most of them from the south (as it was 
 the southern states especially that had chambers), some Prussians 
 and a few Austrians. 
 
 The Diet continued to sit, but the governments had replaced 
 their delegates by popular men who aided the liberal cause. It 
 adopted the insignia of the national party: the red, black, and 
 gold standard of the Burschenschaft,' now become the official flag 
 of Germany (March 9). It accepted all the propositions of the 
 Vorparlament, and transformed them into decisions which the 
 governments executed. It convoked a genuine parliament, to 
 be elected in the proportion of i deputy to each 50,000 inhabi- 
 tants, from all the German states, not simply those that had 
 formed the Confederation, but even the German provinces of 
 Prussia and Austria outside of the Confederation (Silesia, west- 
 ern and eastern Prussia, the German districts of Posnania, and 
 Bohemia). In spite of its English name, the parliament was a 
 Constitutional Convention (constituante) in imitation of France, 
 elected by universal suffrage and convoked for the express pur- 
 pose of ordaining the German constitution. 
 
 The Frankfort Parliament. — The electors chose the leaders of 
 the former liberal and national oppositions, a large number of 
 whom were professors and writers. The parliament came 
 together at Frankfort, the seat of the Diet, and held its meetings 
 in St. Paul's Church. It was supposed to have 605 members; 
 but the Czechs of Bohemia had refused to send delegates to a 
 German assembly — so there were only 586 deputies. The Prus- 
 sian provinces had, on the contrary, sent their delegates. 
 
 It was a tumultuous assemblage; the deputies had had no 
 experience in debate; they all wanted to present their plans; the 
 president, Gagern, the old champion of unity, did not know how 
 to maintain order; he was perpetually wrangling with members 
 
392 GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION. 
 
 and allowed the galleries to applaud or make noisy protes- 
 tation. 
 
 The parliament found itself in an unprecedented situation : hav- 
 ing met for the final organization of the German government in 
 the name of the German people, it had only a moral authority; 
 the old governments all remained standing and retained their 
 strength. This contradiction between its functions and its means 
 of action rendered it powerless: it resembled a congress of 
 scholars discussing constitutional theories; it could propose 
 plans, but the governments alone could decide upon them. 
 
 It began by organizing a provisional federal government to 
 replace the Diet, now become irremediably unpopular. The dis- 
 cussion was stormy, with 9 projects and 189 orators. The propo- 
 sition made by the committee to create a directory of three 
 members appointed by the governments was rejected, as well 
 as the republican project for an executive committee elected by 
 the Assembly; the project of certain Prussian deputies to give 
 the provisional government' to the King of Prussia was received 
 with " general hilarity " and not even discussed. After six days' 
 discussion, the president proposed to choose a prince; the parlia- 
 ment created an " Imperial Administrator," and elected the most 
 popular of the German princes, the Austrian Archduke John, by. 
 a large majority. The Diet transmitted its powers to him and 
 was dissolved. 
 
 Archduke John formed an imperial ministry (justice, interior, 
 foreign affairs, war, finances, and commerce), which began to 
 govern according to the parliamentary system. Parties in the 
 .parliament began to be classified, and they were organized in 
 groups designated by the names of the places where they held 
 their meetings. They numbered eleven. The largest parties 
 were the two Centres — the Right Centre, of about 120 members, 
 the ministerial party, formed mainly of North Germans, divided 
 into "Casino" and "Landsberg"; the Left Centre, formed 
 mainly of South Germans, divided into " the Wurtemburg 
 Hotel " and " the Augsburg Hotel." 
 
 The 200 Republican deputies formed two parties : the Moderate 
 Left, divided into " Westendhall " and " the Nuremberg 
 Hotel"; the Radical Left, divided into "the German House" 
 and " Donnersberg." 
 
 The Right was cut into three groups: the North Germans, 
 Protestants, at the Milan Cafe ; the South Germans, Catholics, at 
 the Stone House: the Austrians. 
 
THE FRANKFORT PARLIAMENT. 393 
 
 The two centres, together with the unclassified members (the 
 Wilde, or savages), had a small majority. 
 
 The parliament, charged with the organization of the German 
 federal state, began to discuss the constitution. It had to solve 
 three general practical questions: i. What should be the form of 
 the federal government? 2. What countries should enter the 
 federal state? 3. To what prince should the federal power be 
 intrusted? There was no majority except on the first question; 
 it was agreed to settle it at once, beginning with the " funda- 
 mental rights " (Grundrechte) of German citizens. The liberals 
 predominated; they secured the adoption of the principles of the 
 Belgian Constitution, the model of liberal constitutions of the 
 period: equality before the law, judicial independence, communal 
 autonomy, popular representation in each state, freedom of the 
 press, of association, of religion, and of education. After three 
 months' discussion the project was carried through its first 
 stage (October, 1848).* 
 
 During this time the ministry ordered the soldiers of the 
 federal army to take the oath of allegiance to the Imperial Ad- 
 ministrator (August 6); the majority of the governments did not 
 obey it. The parliament, by a majority of 238 against 221, de- 
 cided to interfere against Denmark in favour of the Germans of 
 Holstein (September 5), which led to the dismissal of the min- 
 istry, and then made an opposite decision by a majority of 258 
 against 226 (September 16), which led to the return of the min- 
 istry. A number of Republican deputies then wished to take 
 advantage of the indignation against the 258 " traitors " to pro- 
 claim the Republic and dissolve the parliament. But the min- 
 istry summoned the Prussian and Austrian troops, and the 
 Republican uprising of Frankfort produced nothing but the as- 
 sassination of two deputies of the Right. 
 
 The government had decided to replace the Confederation, 
 with its absolutist principles, by a federal state with a liberal 
 constitution; it had begun by making the constitutional plan of 
 new Germany before fixing its limits and selecting its chief. Two 
 other questions remained: What territory should be included? 
 Who should exercise the central power? These were no mere 
 theoretical definitions of rights; two practical measures must be 
 adopted, and neither could be adopted without offending one 
 
 *The parliament had also to occupy itself with a particular federal 
 question, the affair of the duchies of Schleswig-Holstein. (See chap, 
 xviii.) 
 
394 GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION. 
 
 of the two great powers that were in control, Austria or Prussia. 
 The centres of the parliament, after having worked together on 
 constitutional questions, broke apart when it became necessary 
 to choose between Austria and Prussia. A new grouping of 
 parties was made. 
 
 The question of territory was insoluble. Neither Austria nor 
 Prussia was exclusively German. The parliament decided that 
 foreign provinces could not enter the German federal state; they 
 could be joined to German states only by a personal union (Octo- 
 ber 27). This decision, without satisfying Austria, irritated 
 Prussia, on account of the province of Posen. But the insoluble 
 difficulty came from Austria, whose German population was a 
 decided minority. The Austrian government was unwilling to 
 break up the Empire by separating the German provinces from 
 the Magyar, Slav, and Italian provinces. It wished to enter the 
 new state with all its possessions; it therefore asked that the 
 parliament should " leave in supense " Austria's relations with 
 Germany until Austria should have ordered her own future, 
 which meant not to make the constitution of the whole until the 
 Emperor of Austria should have made one for his own states. 
 The parliament had the choice of two solutions : either admit the 
 whole Austrian Empire into the Confederation, which would 
 have meant to renounce federal unity and content itself with 
 a tie sufficiently loose to include non-German peoples; or to 
 organize a federal government strongly knit together and leav- 
 ing out the German provinces of Austria, which would be to 
 renounce German unity. 
 
 The parliament and the German people divided into two par- 
 ties. The Great Germany (Grossdeutsche) party, in order to pre- 
 serve German unity, resigned themselves to union with Austria 
 — the traditional sentiment expressed in Arndt's famous patriotic 
 song: "What is the German fatherland? ... As far as the 
 German tongue is heard." They could not imagine a German 
 fatherland that shut out the Tyrolese and Austrians. The Little 
 Germany {Kleindeutsche) party, in order to create a real federal 
 state, resigned themselves to the reduction of territory involved 
 in the exclusion of Austria. This question of limitation was 
 allied to the question of the central power. If the German Con- 
 federation should admit Austria, it could have no other head than 
 the Emperor of Austria, who was superior in title, traditional 
 rights, and in the importance of his possessions; if the federal 
 state should be constituted without Austria, the King of Prussia 
 
THE FRANKFORT PARLIAMENT. 395 
 
 alone could be the head. Thus the Great Germany party was an 
 Austrian party, the Little Germany a Prussian party. 
 
 After some very lively contests the Prussian party prevailed. 
 The parliament, by 261 votes against 224, authorized the imperial 
 ministry to enter into diplomatic relations with Austria, thus 
 declaring that Austria was considered a foreign state. The 
 Centres had voted for Little Germany, the extreme Republicans 
 and the Right for Great Germany (January 13, 1849). 
 
 This decision involved an answer to the last question, that of 
 the central power. The parliament voted by a majority of 258 
 against 211: "The dignity of the supreme chief of the Empire 
 should be intrusted to one of the reigning German princes," and 
 by a majority of 9 votes only : " This chief shall bear the title of 
 Emperor of the Germans." Two months later the government of 
 Austria proposed that the whole Austrian Empire, with its 
 30,000,000 inhabitants, should enter the Confederation, and 
 should have 38 votes against 32 for all the rest of Germany. A 
 number of deputies, indignant at this ofSciousness, left the Aus- 
 trian party; the parliament declared the Empire hereditary, and 
 by 290 votes elected the King of Prussia to be Emperor of the 
 Germans (March 28). 
 
 The execution of parliamentary decisions, however, depended 
 on the individual governments. The King of Prussia wanted the 
 Imperial Crown, but he wanted to receive it from the princes, his 
 equals, not from an assembly of subjects. That which the par- 
 liament was offering him he called " a crown of mud and wood," 
 and said : " If anyone is to award the crown of the German nation, 
 it is myself and my equals who shall give it." He officially de- 
 clared himself unable to accept until he should have conferred 
 with the princes and examined the constitution. The parlia- 
 ment had to choose between the constitution and the King of 
 Prussia; the majority decided to stand by the constitution. The 
 King asked the advice of the other governments. Twenty-eight 
 states accepted the constitution, the hereditary Empire, and the 
 election; the four Kings (Bavaria, Wurtemburg, Saxony, and 
 Hanover) rejected the election, not wishing to be subject to the 
 King of Prussia, their equal. Austria broke openly with the 
 parliament and withdrew her deputies. The King of Prussia 
 was alarmed and refused the Empire absolutely (April 28, 1849). 
 
 The parliament, deserted by Prussia, decided (by 190 votes 
 qgainst 188) to promulgate the constitution in spite of the princes, 
 and to convoke the electors for July 15. It was then the Repub- 
 
396 GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION. 
 
 licans who became the defenders of the constitution and tried 
 to force the governments to recognise it. There had been al- 
 ready two Republican insurrections in the Grand Duchy of 
 Baden in 1848. In May, 1849, there were risings in the King- 
 dom of Prussia (Rhine province, Breslau, and Konigsberg), the 
 Kingdom of Saxony (Dresden), the Grand Duchy of Baden, and 
 the Bavarian Palatinate. The King of Saxony and the Grand 
 Duke of Baden fled and asked help from the King of Prussia. 
 The Prussian guard took Dresden after two days' fighting. The 
 governments recalled their deputies from Frankfort; the Impe- 
 rialists retired; only the determined Republicans remained. 
 
 The parliament, reduced to 105 members, almost all of whom 
 were south Germans, moved to Stuttgart (June 6), and elected 
 an Imperial Regency of 5 members. But it soon came into con- 
 flict with the government of Wurtemburg, which closed the hall 
 and dispersed the deputies. The Baden insurgents had formed 
 a provisional government which controlled Baden and the Pa- 
 latinate; they had with them a number of rebel regiments. A 
 Prussian army arrived; there was a genuine war; the insurgents 
 were conquered and dispersed; the councils of war had a part of 
 the prisoners shot. Many Republicans fled to Switzerlarul, 
 France, and America. This repression had lasting effect: the 
 Republican party, very numerous in southern Germany, was ex- 
 terminated, and has never been entirely reorganized. (On so- 
 cialist parties in Germany from 1848 to 1850, see chap, xxiv.) 
 
 The Prussian Union. — ^The attempt to establish a German fed- 
 eral state by a national assembly had failed; the Prussian 
 government tried to revive it by an understanding with the gov- 
 ernments. It had now prestige in the eyes of the princes for 
 having fought and crushed the revolution. It was free from 
 Austria, which was absorbed with wars in Italy and Hungary. 
 It proposed to organize a provisional government and to revise 
 the constitution voted by the parliament in order to cut out the 
 excessively democratic clauses. This was all discussed at the 
 Conference of Berlin, May 17, 1849. But again the same ques- 
 tion came up that had faced the parliament: What should be the 
 position of the Emperor of Austria in the new state? Prussia 
 proposed to create a federative state headed by the King of 
 Prussia, who would later conclude a wider alliance with Austria. 
 The Austrian government immediately retired. 
 
 The two North German Kings, Hanover and Saxony, not dar- 
 ing to refuse openly, concluded a one-year alliance with Prussia. 
 
GERMAN REACTION. 397 
 
 The Prussian plan of constitution established a government with 
 two Chambers: Chamber of the states, composed of i6o delegates 
 from the governments; Chamber of the people, composed of 
 elective deputies. Seventeen German states accepted the terms, 
 but the two Kings of Wurtemburg and Bavaria refused to yield 
 to them. The Prussian national party, however, had still some 
 hopes of seeing the union realized. One hundred and fifty for- 
 mer members of the Centres in the Frankfort parliament met at 
 Gotha, to come to an agreement on a plan for aiding Prussia by 
 sacrificing the constitution voted in 1849. 
 
 But the King of Prussia personally hesitated at leaning on 
 an elective Assembly; he refused to convoke a parliament in 
 1849, ^'^^ l°st time in negotiation with the governments. Aus- 
 tria used this delay to end her Italian and Hungarian wars, and 
 when the King of Prussia decided to call for an election, the two 
 Kings of Saxony and Hanover, encouraged by Austria, pro- 
 tested; they then withdrew. The King of Prussia tried to organ- 
 ize a Union with the little states. A parliament elected by the 
 inhabitants of these states (January, 1850) met at Erfurt in 
 March; being composed of advocates of the Union, it voted the 
 constitution which the Prussian government laid before it. 
 Meanwhile the kingdoms which opposed the Union proposed an 
 organization which should include Austria, with a directory of 
 seven members and a parliament with an equal number of Aus- 
 trian, Prussian, and German delegates. Austria accepted, Prus- 
 sia refused (February-March, 1850). 
 
 The Austrian government convoked the German states at 
 Frankfort to reorganize the old Diet. Prussia replied by con- 
 voking at Berlin a congress of the states of the Union. Mean- 
 while the German states were grouped into two opposing 
 leagues': that of Berlin, which favoured the Prussian party and 
 Little Germany; that of Frankfort, which favoured the Austrian 
 party and Great Germany. But one by one the states deserted 
 Prussia and joined the Frankfort conference. The King of 
 Prussia, threatened with war with Austria, hesitated, then yielded. 
 The Austrian government exacted the formal dissolution of the 
 Union (November 15, 1850). Schwartzenberg said openly that 
 " Prussia must be degraded, then demolished." (On the part 
 played by Russia and the Conference of Olmiitz, see chap, xxvi.) 
 
 German Beaction. — Now that Prussia had been forced to re- 
 nounce the role of director, Austria proposed to the German 
 states, that I the whole Austrian Empire should come into the 
 
398 GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION: 
 
 Confederation. The Dresden conference made a pretence of dis- 
 cussing the project; but the German princes did not like it, and 
 Austria gave it up. Finally they re-established the old Confed- 
 eration as it was before 1848, and the Diet, meeting as formerly 
 at Frankfort (May, 185 1), appointed a committee to study the 
 best means of securing domestic peace in Germany. This " re- 
 actionary committee," as it was called, recommended a revision 
 of the new constitutions in order to cut out all revolutionary ten- 
 dencies: universal suffrage and the military oath of allegiance to 
 the constitution. 
 
 During the revolutionary period of 1848 several governments 
 had adopted democratic constitutions, extended the right of vot- 
 ing to universal suffrage, established jury trial, national guard, 
 and freedom of the press. The Diet repealed the " fundamental 
 rights " voted by the parliament in 1849. Then the government 
 of each state worked systematically to restore the system which 
 had been in existence before 1848 (often called the Vormdrzische 
 Zustdnde, the system prevailing previous to March, 1848), re- 
 pressing the liberal customs of every sort which their subjects 
 had adopted during the revolution. This reaction consisted 
 chiefly of press prosecutions, espionage of office-holders and sus- 
 pected persons, dissolution of the Chambers, official pressure on 
 voters and in the Chambers, bickerings at the frontier} passports, 
 domiciliary visits, suppression of jury trial, special courts, gov- 
 ernment agents hired to instigate and then denounce political 
 offences, etc. The governments sought allies in the churches, 
 favoured professors of theology and orthodox pastors, and placed 
 the schools under clerical direction. 
 
 ,The Diet, as before 1848, was directed by Austria. But the 
 Austrian government had changed its attitude toward Prussia. 
 The new Prussian envoy, Bismarck, described his experiences at 
 Frankfort (1851-58) in a report which has since become famous 
 (Report on the necessity of inaugurating an independent Prusso- 
 German policy, March, 1858). Previous to 1848, he said, Austria 
 and Prussia worked together in the Diet and " reduced its action 
 to a small number of unimportant matters. . . Matters on which 
 they did not agree were not brought forward. . . Since 1851, 
 debates in the Diet present an entirely different aspect. Schwar- 
 zenberg adopted the plan of securing to Austria the leadership 
 of Germany by the means that the Constitution of the Confed- 
 eration offered." Bismarck then explained the methods of Aus- 
 tria's influence over the German princes, over manufacturers 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 399 
 
 and financiers, showing how she is assured of a certain majority 
 in the Diet, and works to " enlarge the sphere of the instrument 
 at her service " by increasing the number of affairs as to which 
 decisions may be taken by the majority. 
 
 Thus the restored Diet served Austria as an instrument to 
 maintain the absolutist system against the liberals, and the Con- 
 federation against the Prussian government. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— For the history of all the German countries, Ger- 
 many, Prussia, and Austria, it is always safe to refer to Sahlmann-'Waitz, 
 " Quellenkunde der Deutschen Geschichte," 6th edition, revised by 
 Steindorff, 1894, the best of all the national historical bibliographies. For 
 works published since 1893, see the periodical bibliography published as 
 an appendix to the " Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir Geschichtswissenschaft." * 
 
 DOCUMENTS.— The official documents of the Diet have been published 
 by Kluber, 1830-33, G. von Meyer, 1821-27, Zopfl, 1858-69; the constitutions 
 of the individual states, by Poelitz, and B31au, 1832-47, and Zacharise, 1855- 
 62. — For parliamentary acts of 1848 and 1849, see "Quellenkunde," nos. 
 6066 to 6073. — For operations in the Diet after 1850, the collection of docu- 
 ments by Foschinger (reports of Bismarck, Prussian envoy). 
 
 The most important of the letters and memoirs are Gentz (in the service 
 of the Austrian government, a confidant of Metternich), Varnbagen von 
 Ense, Liberal. 
 
 WORKS. — The most detailed history is Treitsohke, " Deutsche Gesch. 
 in XlXten Jahrhundert," 5 vols., last edition, 1886-95, stopped by the 
 death of the author in 1848 ; very partial and violent (Prussian and con- 
 servative), but well informed and agreeable reading. The most reliable 
 outline is C. Bulle, " Gesch. der Neuesten Zeit," 2d edit., 1886-87.— The 
 volume of the Oncken collection, G. Flathe, " Zeitalter der Restauration 
 und der Revolution " (1883), is mediocre. — The " AUgemeine Deutsche 
 Biographie," which began in 1875 and is to be completed in 40 vols., con- 
 sists of signed articles, biographies of scientific value. — In French: 
 Gervinus, " Hist, du XIX= Siecle" (trans, from the Germ.), stops at 1830; 
 now out of print. — Van Deventer, " Cinquante Annies de I'Hist. F6d6rale 
 de I'AUemagne," 1870, Belgian, popular work. 
 
 On the Diet : K. FiBcher, " Die Nation und der Bundestag," 1880, agood 
 account of the faults in the federal organization. G. Meyer, " Lehrbiich 
 des deutschen Staatsrecht " has a good sketch. 
 
 On Movements after 1830: J.-E. Mucke, " Die Politischen Bewegungen 
 in Deutschland von 1830 bis 1835," 2 vols., 1875. 
 
 * The excellence of these collections has led me to reduce the biblio- 
 graphical references for all the German countries to the fundamental 
 documents and the most convenient of the general works. Further, I have 
 felt able to confine myself to a brief indication of the author's name ; for 
 the title in detail, it is enough to refer to the " Quellenkunde." 
 
4°° GERMANY BEFORE THE UNION. 
 
 On the Revolution of 48 : Haym, " Die Deutsche Nationalversamm- 
 lung," 3 vols., 1848-50.— S.-E, Taillandier, " 6tude sur la Rfevol. en AUe- 
 magne," 2 vols., 1853. 
 
 On the Reaction : A, Bernstein, " Revolutions- und Reaktions-Ge- 
 schicbte," etc., 3 vols., 1882-84. 
 
 On the Movement for Unity : F. Jastrow, " Gesch. des Deutschen 
 Einheitstraumes . . .," 4th edit., 1891. — levy-Brnhl, " L'AUemagne depuis 
 Leibnitz," 1890. 
 
CHAPTER XIII, 
 
 THE AUSTRIAN EMPIRE UNDER THE ABSOLUTIST SYSTEM. 
 
 The Austrian Empire in 1814. — Austria was little affected by 
 the French Revolution. Its government had struggled against 
 Napoleon without attempting to reform its internal organiza- 
 tion; it had contented itself with becoming bankrupt, by the 
 Declaration of 1811, which reduced the value of its paper money. 
 Its territory was not thrown topsy-turvy like that of the German 
 states; Austria alone, in exchange for its outlying provinces 
 (Briesgau and Belgium), received adjoining provinces, the arch- 
 bishopric of Salzburg, and the domains of Venice, which included 
 the whole Adriatic coast. 
 
 After the fall of the German Empire the Emperor took the 
 new title of Emperor of Austria (1806); all his states were for 
 the first time united under a collective name. But this empire 
 did not form a nation; it remained a conglomeration of peoples 
 placed side by side under the same sovereign. To understand 
 the history of Austria it is, therefore, necessary to describe the 
 various peoples which compose it. These are ancient nations 
 or remnants of nations which, before being united under a com- 
 mon government, had had nothing in common, and which have 
 since preserved their distinctive tongues and administrative 
 forms. Historically they fall into four groups, omitting the 
 Italians in the Lombardo- Venetian Kingdom (already noticed in 
 chap, xi.): 
 
 1. The hereditary countries of the region of the Alps, grouped 
 about the Archduchy of Austria under various titles (11 
 provinces) ; 
 
 2. The countries of the Crown of Bohemia, composed of three 
 ancient provinces: Bohemia, Moravia, and Silpsia (the small bit 
 of Silesia around Troppau which still remains to Austria) ; 
 
 3. The Polish Kingdom of Galicia, with its annex, Bukovina, 
 a Roumanian country taken from Moldavia; 
 
 4. The countries of the Crown of St. Stephen, comprising four 
 states: the Kingdom of Hungary, the principality of Transyl- 
 
 401 
 
402 AUSTRIAN EMPIRE UNDER ABS0LU7VST SYSTEM. 
 
 vania, the Croatian Kingdom of Croatia and Sclavonia, and 
 the province of Servia. (The Kingdom of Dalmatia, formerly 
 a possession of Venice, makes a part of the same region and the 
 same people as the Croatian group, but by government it belongs 
 to the countries of the Vienna group.) 
 
 These groups are themselves only historical formations, con- 
 glomerations of disunited nations. This is the cause of the com- 
 plex nature of Austrian politics. 
 
 The countries of group i were essentially German. In 
 Vienna, the Archduchy of Austria, and the northern provinces 
 the German language prevails. But a Slavic population occu- 
 pied the south, Carniola, a bit of Styria and Carinthia, Goertz, 
 Gradisca, and Istria; in the two latter provinces and in Trieste, 
 however, Italian was the language of the cities. 
 
 The Bohemian group was mainly Slavic (Czechs), but there 
 was a large number of German colonists, especially in the cities, 
 and the northwest part of Bohemia which touches Germany had 
 been almost entirely Germanized. 
 
 The Galician group was Slavic, but of two different races. 
 Polish Catholics occupied the whole west, while in the east, for- 
 merly taken from the Russians, they formed only the aristocracy. 
 The majority in the east were Ruthenians; these had formerly 
 been orthodox, but now belonged to the United Greek Church, 
 and were affiliated with Catholicism, while preserving their Slavic 
 ceremony and their married priests. Bukovina had a Rou- 
 manian population. 
 
 The group of the Crown of St. Stephen was the most hetero- 
 geneous of all. The chief state, the Kingdom of Hungary, was 
 Magyar, but with many German colonies, scattered over the 
 plains, especially in the west; and an almost solid Slavic popula- 
 tion, the Slovacks, in the northwest, adjoining Moravia. Tran- 
 • sylvania was composed of orthodox Roumanian peasants, under 
 two ruling peoples: the Magyars from Hungary and Protestant 
 German colonists (Saxons), who had been established in the cen- 
 tral part of the country for several centuries. — Croatia,', Scla- 
 vonia, and Dalmatia had a population of Slavic (Croat) Catho- 
 lics. The Italians, however, predominated at that time' in the 
 coast cities, and in the east Servian refugees who had remained 
 orthodox. 
 
 There was not at that time the rivalry in language and religion 
 that now prevails ; but the differences were enough to prevent any 
 feeling of unity among the inhabitants of the Empire and even 
 
METTERNICH'S SYSTEM. A°Z 
 
 among neighbouring peoples in the same region. The govern- 
 ment had given up trying to unite them under a common admin- 
 istration. Metternich rejected the " plan of simple fusion " 
 which Joseph II. had tried. The Crown of St. Stephen had pre- 
 served its own government distinct from the monarchy; dualism 
 was the fundamental law of the Empire. The other groups, the 
 hereditary states, Bohemia and Galicia, were directly subject to 
 the government at Vienna, but retained remnants of a separate 
 administration. 
 
 The Slavs formed the majority of the population of the Em- 
 pire, but a submissive and unorganized majority. They were' 
 cut into two branches, north and south, separated by the Ger- 
 mans and Magyars in the valley of the Danube, and divided into 
 six national groups: (i) Czechs and Slovacks, (2) Poles, (3) 
 Ruthenians, in the north ; (4) Slovenians, (5) Croats, (6) Servians, 
 in the south. Tliey were ruled by an aristocracy and a govern- 
 ment representing a minority of more advanced civilization or 
 superior organization, the Germans in the west and the Magyars 
 in the east. 
 
 The Germany were the preponderant force. Vienna, the capital, 
 was a German city; the imperial family and court were German; 
 German was the language of the government and the army. This 
 system was the outcome of family policy, at a time when there 
 was almost no thought of nationalities; the birth of patriotism 
 would make it impracticable. 
 
 Metternicli's System. — The internal government remained the 
 same as before the Revolution. The Emperor exercised his 
 absolute authority, with the aid of ministers and councils. His 
 chief minister~was Metternich, a member of a noble family of 
 western Germany, first of all a diplomatist; he had charge of for- 
 eign affairs, but by his personal influence he directed internal 
 policy also. 
 
 iFrancis II., in spite of the familiar aspect given by his simple 
 manners and his Vienna dialect, was thoroughly imbued with 
 the spirit of absolutism, very firm against any sort of opposition; 
 as described by his uncle Joseph II., he was conservative, because 
 of his " indifference, indecision, and fear of being bored." He 
 abhorred the idea of reform, comparing his empire to an old 
 house which would crumble away if he should try to repair it. 
 Metternich, a man of society, a brilliant conversationalist, scepti- 
 cal, well read, smiling, and affable, had erected his conservative 
 feelings into a theory; he talked continually of fighting the Revo- 
 
404 AUSTRIAN EMPIRE UNDER ABSOLUTIST SYSTEM. 
 
 lution, which meant practically to prevent any change and avoid 
 any form of popular control. He fought the Revolution in 
 Europe by maintaining absolute governments; he fought it in 
 Austria by preserving the old regime. 
 
 The central government at Vienna was a medley of ministers 
 and governing boards, or collective ministries, some of them 
 having jurisdiction over the whole empire, some over a group of 
 provinces. The former chief council, the Haus-Hof-Staats- 
 kanzlei, managed foreign affairs, police, and finance; but there 
 were special chancelleries for Bohemia and Galicia, Austria and 
 Illyria, and the Lombardo-Venetian Kingdom; the special coun- 
 cils (Hofstelle) of Hungary, Transylvania, the Aulic Council of 
 War, the Aulic Chamber, and the general board of audit were pre- 
 served. In order to make this machinery work together, the 
 Emperor, in 1814, had ordered " conferences " between the heads 
 of departments and certain confidential councillors. It was not 
 until later, under his successor, that the Conference, a sort of min- 
 isterial council, was organized. The Council of State, which was 
 reorganized in 1814, was reduced to a consultative function. 
 
 These bodies, all interfering with one another, and unable to 
 decide a question without endless writing and formality, con- 
 ducted affairs with proverbial slowness, leaving to the Emperor 
 the responsibility of deciding the smallest details. And all these 
 official managers managed nothing at all. The government, 
 having neither accounts to render nor public opinion to contend 
 with, worked secretly and arbitrarily. No one could get a clear 
 view of the public finances. After 1814 there was always a def- 
 icit, but this deficit was not acknowledged; it was always cov- 
 ered with remnants of loans made to defray special expenses. 
 
 This administration of scribbling formalists shrunk from com- 
 ing to any decision. Each referred a measure to another, without 
 daring to settle anything. When Stadion, governor of Dal- 
 matia, required regulations for the communes of his province, he 
 had to enact them on his own responsibility; this gained him the 
 reputation of a hot-headed man. 
 
 Officially, society remained aristocratic. Nobles were ex- 
 empt from military service and common courts ; they alone had 
 the right to acquire noble lands and fill high offices. On their 
 own estates they retained the seigniorial powers of police, justice, 
 and the regulation of industry. Peasants were subject to sei- 
 gniorial justice, seigniorial dues, and corvee on the lands of the 
 seigneur. Provincial administration remained divided between 
 
METTERNICH'S SYSTEM. 405 
 
 government officials and the provincial estates, which were 
 charged with the apportionment of the taxes and the levies of 
 recruits. Estates were even re-estabhshed in those provinces 
 where they had fallen into disuse. But the old estates did not 
 represent the people and had no power. Except in the Tyrol, 
 they were composed almost entirely of nobles, a few cities being 
 represented (4 in Bohemia, i in Galicia). The estates, further- 
 more, were convoked only to hear and approve the official pro- 
 posals relating to taxes. The decree which re-established the 
 estates in Galicia in 1817 recommended " the avoidance of any- 
 thing that might produce the illusion that the taxes depended on 
 their consent." The session was reduced to a solemn and silent 
 meeting, followed by a banquet; often it lasted only one day. 
 
 An example is given, however, of a concession made to the 
 provincial estates: the Estates of Bohemia, in 1825, prevailed 
 on the government, which was asking a reform in land taxation, 
 to maintain the inequality in favour of the nobles ; this was done, 
 it is said, to compensate Prince Windischgraetz for the insult 
 given him at the Congress of Verona by the Russian Grand Duke 
 Constantine. 
 
 As the great aim of this government was to prevent any form 
 of agitation, the government took measures to deprive the people 
 of any temptation to concern themselves with public affairs, to 
 talk or even think of them. This was the task assigned to the 
 censarship and the secret police. Censorship, a branch of police, 
 was applied not only to the theatres, but to newspapers and 
 
 < books ; being independent of any restrictions, the censor was om- 
 nipotent. No political work was published in Austria. The 
 introduction of foreign books of a liberal nature, such as Hallam, 
 Augustin Thierry, Sismondi, and even Broussais' medical books 
 was forbidden. The police gave personal attention to foreigners, 
 professors, students, and even office-holders; they had spies in 
 the lecture rooms, and had librarians report the books borrowed 
 by each professor. Every form of association was strictly for- 
 bidden. A number of young men from Switzerland, most of 
 whom were teachers, had in 1817 founded an historico-pedagogic 
 society which they had soon dissolved: in 1819 they were ar- 
 rested, held in prison ten months and sent out of the country; 
 the police report said that their statutes resembled those of the 
 Free Masons. In 1825 the police arrested the members of a 
 comic society, writers, artists, and musicians, who were amusing 
 themselves with drafting passports with grotesque names. Aus- 
 
4o6 AUSTRIAN EMPIRE UNDER ABSOLUTIST SYSTEM. 
 
 trian subjects could not leave the Empire without a passport and 
 the government would grant only a few of them. 
 
 The Catholic Church was still the state church. The clergy 
 remained strictly dependent on the government; Metternich and 
 the Emperor held to Josephism — that is, the supremacy of the lay 
 sovereign. But religion remained compulsory for subjects; stu- 
 dents were compelled to go to mass and confession; many bought 
 confessional letters from comrades; these letters had among stu- 
 dents a variable price like stocks or bonds. The schools were 
 under clerical inspection. Non-Catholics were tolerated (sine* 
 Joseph II.), but legally excluded from public office; they had to 
 pay tor the privilege of acquiring landed property, the right of 
 citizenship, membership in a trade guild, or a university degree. 
 This set of measures was called the Metternich system, but the 
 name is but a poor definition for a system of paternal oppression, 
 slow and very negligent, like the Viennese officials charged with 
 enforcing it; it was a tendency rather than a system. 
 
 The government forbade its subjects any thought of public 
 interests, but allowed them to amuse themselves freely. Vienna 
 acquired the reputation of a capital given over to amusements. 
 
 National Opposition in Hungary. — There still remained in the 
 constitution of the Kingdom of Hungary a remnant of the 
 dualism recognised by Maria Theresa. The Emperor was still 
 King of Hungary and obliged to preserve the constitution. Jo- 
 seph II. had brought on an insurrection by trying to refo^ it, 
 but it had been re-established in 1791; Francis had publicly 
 praised it. In 1820, when he came to Pesth to take part in a 
 military review, he gave a discourse in Latin, the official lan- 
 guage of the Hungarian government. " Totus mundus stultisaf 
 et relicfis^ nnfiquis suis legibus, constitutiones imaginarias qiicerit. 
 Vos constiiutionem a majorihus acceptam illcesam habetis; amatis 
 illam et ego illam amo et conservaho et ad heredes transmittam." 
 
 But while protesting his affection for this traditional constitu- 
 tion, the Emperor had no thought of applying it. The consti- 
 tution of Hungary, which since the Middle Ages had been im- 
 posed on the Kings by the Magyar aristocracy, established a 
 central assembly, the Diet, to govern the kingdom in harmony 
 with the King and 55 local assemblies, one in each county 
 (comitat). This system resembled England's Parliament and 
 county assemblies. 
 
 The Diet was to meet at least once in three years; but since 
 1812 the government had not convoked it. In the absence of the 
 
NATIONAL OPPOSITION IN HUNGARY. 4°? 
 
 m 
 
 Diet the county assemblies resisted absolutism in the name of the 
 constitution. In 1815, when the government had made a direct 
 appeal to them, ordering them to raise subsidies and recruits, the 
 county assemblies decreed that they were unable to act without 
 being so ordered by the Diet, and forbade officials to obey the 
 call; the Emperor quashed these decrees as an oflence against 
 his royal powers. This time the counties yielded. But after 1820, 
 when the government ordered a levy of recruits or payment of 
 taxes in coin (instead of paper), the county assemblies refused 
 again and demanded a meeting of the Diet. The government sent 
 administrators and commissioners to assess the land tax and 
 levy the soldiers. The officials of the county made only a passive 
 resistance: they ceased to exercise their functions; but the royal 
 commissioners, being unable to discover either the records, the 
 seals, or the keys of the archives, could not levy the taxes for 
 want of information. The Emperor finally yielded; under pre- 
 text of wanting to have his wife crowned in Hungary, he con- 
 voked the Diet at Presburg in 1825. 
 
 After 1830 a political agitation was set on foot in Hungary, 
 and reform parties began to show themselves in the Diet and in 
 the county assemblies. The movement was at once liberal and 
 national. The Diet which met in 1832 demanded a more com- 
 pletely Hungarian government : more frequent visits by the Em- 
 peror to Hungary, the holding of the Diet, not at Presburg, a Ger- 
 m^ city on the border, but at Pesth, the Magyar capital, in the 
 heart of the country, — also the use of Magyar as the official lan- 
 guage in place of Latin. On national policy all the Magyars 
 were agreed; on liberal reforms they were divided. A liberal 
 party was organized, which proposed to reform th» constitution 
 and society, as well as a conservative party wh^n wished to 
 maintain the old regime with an exclusively Magyar gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Society in Hungary was still organized as in the Middle Ages, 
 divided into two classes unequal before the law: the nobles, the 
 only full citizens, exempt from taxation of any kind, owing no 
 military service but in the general call to arms (insurrectio); the 
 peasants, tenants of the nobility, burdened with rents and corvees, 
 paying all the taxes, furnishing all the recruits for the army, and 
 possessing no political rights whatever. The nobles alone con- 
 stituted the political nation ; there were, however, a great many of 
 them; many lived in the country, as poor and uneducated as the 
 peasantry. 
 
4o8 AUSTRIAN EMPIRE UNDER ABSOLUTIST SYSTEM. 
 
 The administration of the county belonged to the nobles. At 
 certain intervals, all the nobles of the county met in congregatio 
 to make reparatio, that is, to elect officers, judges, administrators, 
 and financial employees; the elections were tumultuous, with 
 banquets, sprees, fights between partisans of the various candi- 
 dates, vote by acclamation, and the successful candidate borne off 
 in triumph. A lively description of an election is given by one 
 of the liberal chiefs, Eotvos, in " Der Dorfnotar " (the village 
 notary), a romance of customs (translated into German). 
 
 The Diet of the kingdom was composed of two Tables: the 
 Table of Magnates, formed of great nobles holding their seats by 
 virtue of hereditary right; the Table of Estates, formed of elective 
 deputies, i lo nobles (2 for each county) and 2 representatives in 
 all for all the cities; also delegates from the Diet of the Kingdom 
 of Croatia. 
 
 This mechanism was similar to that of the English Lords and 
 Commons. But its working was disorderly. Jumbled together 
 in the same hall sat the deputies from the counties and the cities, 
 delegates from the Croatian Diet, prothonotaries, representa- 
 tives from the chapters and convents, proxies for absent Mag- 
 nates, not to mention spectators and even ladies; some had no 
 vote ; the two deputies of a county had but one vote between them. 
 There was no regular voting; instead the old Middle-Age maxim 
 was applied: Vota non numeranttir sed ponderantur. There was 
 not even an actual vote taken, for the deputies, being obliged to 
 await instructions from their constituents, could give only pro- 
 visional answers. 
 
 The Diet was not a real parliament, and found no really cen- 
 tralized ministry to co-operate with. Government policy was 
 decided, on the one hand, at Vienna under the influence of the 
 court; on the other, in the comitai assemblies, which were ruled by 
 the opinions of the country nobles. The liberal party desired at 
 once to reform society by abolishing the corvee, rents, and in- 
 equality of taxation, and to establish a true representative system 
 by extending the voting qualification to employees, teachers, 
 lawyers, notaries, physicians, clergymen, merchants, and manu- 
 facturers, and by giving each deputy an individual vote. 
 
 The Reform Diet lasted 40 months (1832-36) and held 470 
 meetings. The liberals presented their grievances and demanded 
 liberty of the press, but the Magnates, by agreement with the gov- 
 ernment, defeated almost all the reform projects. They did, how- 
 ever, adopt a measure that was regarded as an important prece- 
 
NATIONAL OPPOSITION BY THE SLAVS. A°9 
 
 dent: the suspension bridge over the Danube at Pesth was to 
 be a toll bridge, and nobles were to pay for crossing as well as 
 commons; this was the first action taken against the nobles' 
 privilege of exemption from taxes. 
 
 Meanwhile, in Transylvania, the Magyars were working to 
 effect a union between Transylvania and Hungary. The Estates 
 of Transylvania, convoked in 1834 for the first time since 1809, 
 struggled against the government, refused to recognise members 
 of the gubernium as not elected, constituted themselves without 
 them, declared themselves responsible to their electors, and had 
 their journals printed in spite of the prohibition against publish- 
 ing them. The government had them dissolved and set up a 
 military government. 
 
 Political life now awoke in Hungary. Kossuth, a young law- 
 yer, secretary to a deputy, established the first Magyar political 
 paper. He was arrested, held two years in prison, then con- 
 demned, but pardoned later. His reputation was made; he be- 
 came one of the leaders of the opposition. He demanded a Diet 
 for three years, to sit annually at Pesth, and the abolition of sei- 
 gniorial rights. There was a Diet in 1839, ^^'^ ^ Diet from 1842 
 to 1844; the Magnates again rejected the reforms, and the coun- 
 ties instructed their deputies to maintain the nobles' exemption 
 from taxes. 
 
 The government had at least yielded on the language question ; 
 Magyar was declared the language for laws in 1836, for the ad- 
 ministration in 1840, for the government and education in 1844. 
 Kossuth, possessing a strong and sonorous voice, with lively 
 gestures, had become very popular as an orator; he formed a 
 democratic and provincial party which proposed to abolish privi- 
 leges and create a Magyar government without diminishing the 
 power of the county assemblies. The centralizing liberals con- 
 sidered it necessary to diminish the influence of the counties, 
 which supported the system of privileges, and to increase the 
 power of the Diet. Their program in 1847, drafted by Deak, 
 demanded reform of taxation and control of taxes by the Diet. 
 " We think it unjust that Hungary's interests should be subordi- 
 nated to those of the hereditary states, and we will no longer con- 
 sent to the sacrifice of our rights to administrative unity, which 
 too readily passes for unity of the monarchy." 
 
 National Opposition by the Slavs. — In the Slavic countries, 
 which were less strongly organized than the Hungarian, the 
 national opposition was weaker and more scattered. It was de- 
 
410 AUSTRIAN EMPIRE UNDER ABSOLUTIST SYSTEM. 
 
 veloped independently by three peoples: Poles, Czechs, and 
 Croats. 
 
 1. The Polish movement had its centre outside of the Empire, 
 at Cracow, which was organized as an aristocratic republic since 
 1815; there the plots to re-establish ancient Poland were drawn 
 up. In 1831 the Austrian government sent an army of occupa- 
 tion into Cracow, then evacuated it. These conspiracies were, 
 however, directed less against the Austrian province of Galicia 
 than against the Prussian and Russian possessions in Poland. 
 
 2. The Czech movement was set on foot at Prague and was 
 chiefly literary. Since the downfall of the Czech nation in 
 1620, German had become the language, not only of the govern- 
 ment, but of the university, and of all educated society, the only 
 language of literature and science; Czech was regarded as a patois 
 fit only for the peasantry and the illiterate. In 1819 a number 
 of Czech patriots found in a convent at Koniginhof a manuscript 
 containing Czech national anthems of the thirteenth century 
 (now regarded as a forgery). A small group of learned and 
 scholarly men began then to work for the revival of national 
 pride, by reminding the Czechs of the literature they had pos- 
 sessed and the great nation they had once been; they established 
 Czech reviews and clubs; the patriotic historian Palacky wrote a 
 jiistory of Bohemia. 
 
 This Czech movement, unlike the other national movements 
 in Austria, extended its influence beyond a mere local agitation. 
 The Czech patriots interested themselves principally in questions 
 of langauge; they were impressed with the multitude of people 
 speaking the Slavic tongue, and began to consider the Slavs a 
 superior race, the most numerous and most gifted, which would 
 rule the world if it united and trusted in its force. They wished 
 to see it united in a single body; the Czechs, being the most civil- 
 ized, directed the movement of uniting all the Slavs into one 
 family. This was the origin of Panslavism. It was a vague idea; 
 the Czechs, while trying to formulate it, expected to be supported 
 by the only independent Slavic nation, the Russian Empire. The 
 literary opposition devoted its energies against the German race 
 and the Austrian government. Its hostility was shown most 
 distinctly in protestations against German officials in Bohemia 
 and against the use of German in administration and in schools ; 
 for lack of means of action, it accomplished no practical reform. 
 
 3. Among the southern Slavs the opposition was in the hands 
 of the only Slavic people that had preserved a remnant of a 
 
LIBERAL GERMAN OPPOSITION. 4" 
 
 national organization, the Croats ; its centre was at Agram, and it 
 was at once both literary and political. Patriots began to study 
 Croatian antiquities and laboured to build up a Croatian literature. 
 Gaj founded the Illyrian National Gazette in 1836. The Croats, 
 like the Czechs, desired to lead their brother Slavs; they dreamed 
 of a union of southern Slavs speaking the Croatian tongue, and 
 an Illyrian kingdom comprising Croatia, Sclavonia, and Dal- 
 matia. Croatia already had its national administration, its gov- 
 ernor, the Ban of Croatia, its provincial Estates. But it was 
 at the same time subject to two governments, that of Hungary and 
 that of the Empire. The Croatian national party thus confronted 
 both the Austrian government and the Magyar national move- 
 ment. The Hungarian Diet, in 1843, adopted Magyar in place 
 of Latin; the Croatian deputies wished to speak Latin still, but 
 whenever a Croatian began a speech with the hitherto accus- 
 tomed formula, Excellentissime domine, a general uproar drowned 
 his voice. The Magyars carried the day; the Austrian govern- 
 ment formally recognised Magyar as the only language in the 
 Diet, and ordered the Illyrian Gazette to change its name to Croat- 
 Slavonic-Dalmatian Gazette. The Croats retorted (1845) by de- 
 claring Croat the only language of the provincial estates at 
 Agram, and withdrawing from the Turopoles, rustic Magyar 
 nobles established in Croatia, the right of taking part in the 
 Estates. ' 
 
 Liberal German Opposition. — In the German provinces, where 
 the government was German, the opposition was not national, 
 but simply liberal. The nobles, citizens, and students wanted a 
 constitutional system with freedom of the press. They had taken 
 their ideas from foreign newspapers and political books, espe- 
 cially those of France and southern Germany. Such publica- 
 tions were prohibited and should have been stopped at the fron- 
 tier. But the censorship was relaxed. Francis IL, who died in 
 1835, had been succeeded by his son Ferdinand, a weak-minded 
 man, and incapable of managing his government. Mettemich, 
 as he grew older, was becoming more and more obstinate and 
 indolent. The absolutist machine still existed, but it did not 
 work well, for lack of a head; the prohibitions were maintained, 
 but the government agents had become more tolerant and per- 
 mitted things that they were charged to forbid. The director of 
 police in Prague, who had received orders to forbid balls during 
 Advent, turned his back to the dancers that he might not see 
 them. The police permitted the printing and circulation of 
 
412 AUSTRIAN EMPIRE UNDER ABSOLUTIST SYSTEM. 
 
 pamphlets unfavourable to the government and the selling of for- 
 bidden books. Publishers issued forbidden papers as covers to 
 prayer-books or cook-books. 
 
 In like manner, in the commercial world, customs duties that 
 were almost prohibitory were retained; but the officials permitted 
 foreign wares to be smuggled in. Until 1844 the duties collected 
 were ridiculous; according to official statistics, only one silk gar- 
 ment had entered the country within three years. 
 
 Education still excluded all modern subjects; in the ecclesias- 
 tical colleges only a smattering of Latin was taught; in the uni- 
 versities practically nothing but law. But many Austrians 
 secured themselves modern instruction in private — incoherent, 
 incomplete, and superficial instruction whose influence may still 
 be seen in the present generation. Austrian opposition, sprung 
 from contact with foreign ideas, was an imitation of the liberal 
 oppositions in France and Germany. 
 
 The Revolution of 1848. — The government was opposed by 
 two parties: the liberals, who reproached it with being arbitrary; 
 and the nationalists, who chafed under a foreign language and 
 administration. The malcontents took advantage of the general 
 movement in 1848 to organize a liberal and national revolution 
 like that in Germany; but while in Germany the national revolu- 
 tion consisted in the union of small states into one great nation, 
 in Austria it tended toward the separation of a great state into 
 small nations. 
 
 A first isolated revolt was made in Galicia as early as 1846. 
 The Polish nobles tried to re-establish the independence of Po- 
 land. The government did not even take the trouble to fight 
 them; they simply turned upon them their own peasants, the 
 Ruthenians; the peasants arrested the Polish conspirators and 
 gave them over to the Austrian authorities. The government 
 then seized the opportunity to occupy the Republic of Cracow 
 and annex it to Galicia, with the consent of Prussia and Russia 
 (1847). This was the last Polish state to lose its indepen- 
 dence. 
 
 The general movement began in March, 1848, in both of the 
 ruling nations at the same time, Germany and Hungary, and 
 almost simultaneously in the Slavic countries. 
 
 In Austria the news of the revolution in France was enough to 
 break up the government. Archduchess Sophia became alarmed 
 and demanded the dismissal of Metternich, who was very un- 
 popular; the archdukes and ministers signified their approval. 
 
THE REVOLUTION OF 1848. 4^3 
 
 The Viennese liberals began to show their dissatisfaction. In 
 the absence of any sort of political body to transmit their wishes 
 to the government, groups of every nature took the initiative: 
 publishers, the Industrial Society, the Juridico-political Reading 
 Club, and students. Petitions were presented calling for liberty 
 in education, religion, speech, and press, publicity of the budget, 
 and periodic representation. Censorship and police ceased to 
 perform their ofifice. The ministerial conference became alarmed 
 and declared itself ready to convoke a delegation of the Estates 
 of the different provinces to make terms with a government 
 committee. 
 
 The revolution came suddenly with a single riot ; the demoral- 
 ized government made no effort to defend itself. The Estates of 
 Lower Austria had just met. On March 14 the students met in 
 the courtyard before the hall where the Estates sat; a young 
 Jewish doctor mounted upon the roof of the well and cried: 
 " Long live liberty ! " The members of the Estates tried to 
 parley through the window, then sent a delegation of 12 mem- 
 bers. A report was circulated that the soldiers were coming; 
 the mob invaded the hall. The Estates went to the imperial 
 palace to present the demands; while they were gone the sol- 
 diers opened fire. The mob cried: "Down with Metternich! 
 Down with the soldiers ! " Metternich made light of this inci- 
 dent; it was, he said, a stroke concerted by certain Jews, Poles, 
 and Frenchmen. But the other members of the Conference were 
 alarmed, and, wishing to calm the crowd, finally obliged Metter- 
 nich to resign. 
 
 The revolution was the work of students and citizens of 
 Vienna; it was they who assumed power. They armed them- 
 selves and formed the Academic Legion and the national guard, 
 which in the month of May organized the " Central Committee 
 for the Defence of Popular Rights." This committee governed 
 Vienna. The Imperial government dared refuse k nothing; it 
 declared the preiss free from restriction, convoked the deputies 
 (March 15), and promulgated a constitution built on the Belgian 
 model (April 25). It then tried to dissolve the central committee. 
 But the populace forced it to convoke an assembly elected by 
 universal suffrage to draft a constitution (May 15). Then the 
 Emperor fled to the Tyrol with his family. The ministers were 
 at Vienna without troops (the soldiers had been sent to Italy); 
 they wished to dissolve the Academic Legion; but the students 
 and workingmen built barricades, and a " committee of citizens " 
 
414 AUSTRIAN EMPIRE UNDER ABSOLUTIST SYSTEM. 
 
 was established to maintain order and popular rights. The 
 ministers became alarmed and consented to retain the Legion 
 and to intrust the police of the city to the committee. This now 
 became the " Committee of Security." Then Archduke John, 
 who had been sent to Vienna to fill the Emperor's place, formed 
 a new ministry, with a majority of liberals. 
 
 The Assembly, elected by universal suffrage and comprising 
 deputies from all parts of the Empire except Hungary, met at 
 Vienna July 22. There were 92 peasant deputies. They spoke 
 in several tongues, and measures had to be translated before a 
 vote was taken. The Germans composed the left, the Czechs the 
 right. A son of a peasant proposed to declare all seigniorial 
 rights abolished. After a month of discussion (73 amendments, 
 159 questions), the Assembly unanimously voted to abolish the 
 seigniorial corvee, rents, and courts, and suppressed jail distinc- 
 tion between nobles^ and commons. This was the principal re- 
 sult of the revolution of 1848. 
 
 The Revolution in Hungary. — In Hungary, on March 3, the 
 Diet, acting under the influence of a speech by Kossuth, had sent 
 an address to the Emperor asking for a constitution. Soon clubs 
 and a committee of safety were constituted, which the Diet could 
 not resist. It then began to vote the reforms demanded by the 
 liberal party; freedom of the press, equal taxes and abolition of 
 seigniorial rights. The government of Vienna, unable to con- 
 test the matter, granted the Magyars all that they asked: first a 
 Hungarian ministry which was composed of the leaders of the 
 three parties, conservative, liberal, and democratic (March 22); 
 then the removal of the Diet from Presburg to Pesth, annual 
 sessions of the Diet, and the abolition of the censorship. Next 
 it granted the Hungarian Palatine permission to exercise all the 
 powers of a King. The Hungarian ministry moved to Pesth 
 on June 26; the constituent assembly for Hungary, elected in ac- 
 cordance with a new electoral law, met on July 2 ; and henceforth 
 the Hungarian government was conducted as a sovereign state 
 independent of the rest of the Empire. It forbade its officials to 
 receive orders from Vienna, established a Hungarian army with 
 the national colours of Hungary, a paper currency, and a Hun- 
 garian loan; it sent out Hungarian ambassadors and announced 
 that it would not aid Austria in a war against German unity 
 (August 3). 
 
 The Revolution in the Slav Countries. — In the Slav countries 
 four independent national movements were developed. 
 
THE REVOLUTION IN THE SLAV COUNTRIES. 4i5 
 
 In Galicia, a slight Polish insurrection at Cracow (April 26) 
 was checked by a cannonade of the city. 
 
 In Bohemia, the Czech patriots of Prague began with an ad- 
 dress to the Emperor, demanding equality between Czechs and 
 Germans, and the fusion of the provincial assemblies of the three 
 ancient provinces (Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia). They se- 
 cured the convocation of constituent provmcial Estates (April 
 8), and appointed a national committee to prepare for the elec- 
 tions to these Estates. The agitation increased; the Czech 
 national guards left the Germans to form a Slav militia; people 
 began to wear the national dress and to fight the Germans in the 
 streets. Then, under the pretext that the minister at Vienna was 
 controlled by revolutionists, the Bohemian governor decided to 
 form a provisional government with the leaders of the Czech 
 party (May 30). To begin a realization of the idea of panslavism, 
 the Czechs convoked a general congress of Slavs at Prague. 
 Palacky opened it on June 2; 340 members, of whom 237 were 
 Czechs, took part in it. Speeches in praise of the Slav race were 
 made in various languages, in Russian by Bakounine, in Polish 
 by Liebelt, and in Servian by Zach ; they were hardly understood. 
 The congress was preparing a manife'sto to the peoples of Europe 
 when it was broken up by the government. 
 
 Among the southern Slavs the national movement was di- 
 rected against the Magyars. The Croats first asked the Emperor 
 to appoint Jellachich, a Croatian colonel, as Ban (governor) of 
 Croatia, and obtained his consent. The Hungarian government 
 voted to depose him. Jellachich replied by convoking at Agram 
 the Estates of the triple Croat-Slavonic-Dalmatian kingdom in 
 accordance with the wishes of Croatian patriots. But the Dal- 
 matians sent their deputies to Vienna, and the Slavonians to 
 Pesth; only the" Croat deputies came; they demanded a southern 
 Slav kingdom with a separate ministry. The government was 
 dissatisfied, and sent an order to Jellachich to appear before the 
 Emperor at Innsbruck and explain his conduct. Jellachich, at 
 Innsbruck, regained the confidence of the government by ad- 
 dressing to the southern Slavs who were fighting in the Italian 
 army a manifesto, urging them to serve their Emperor faithfully. 
 The government after that avoided upholding the Magyars 
 against the Croats. 
 
 The Servians rebelled against the Hungarian government. 
 In May their religious leader, the Metropolitan, had convoked at 
 Carlowitz an assembly which decided to establish a national gov- 
 
4l6 AUSTRIAN EMPIRE UNDER ABSOLUTIST SYSTEM. 
 
 ernment and to join the Croats. They then appointed a national 
 committee, opened the war again, and drove out the Hun- 
 garians. 
 
 Even the Roumanians, peasants poissessing no political inter- 
 ests, revolted in Transylvania against their Magyar and German 
 masters; they held a great mass-meeting (of 40,000 men, it is 
 said) and demanded equality with the other nations. To oppose 
 this movement by the Roumanian peasants, the Germans made 
 common cause with the Magyars, and the provincial Estates 
 voted the union of Transylvania and Hungary (May 30). 
 
 Meanwhile the Italian provinces of the Empire revolted and 
 joined the kingdom of Sardinia (see p. 340). 
 
 The Civil War and the Repression. — The Austrian government, 
 deficient in information and incapable of firm and decisive action, 
 had become stupefied by the revolution; it had resigned its 
 powers to the liberal and national parties, of whose weakness 
 it knew nothing. When it finally suspected the truth, it began 
 to seize its powers back by force. It asked aid from the army, 
 which hated the revolutionists, and from the. Slavic peoples, as 
 enemies to the Germans and Magyars. Two generals managed 
 the work of putting down the revolt; Radetzky, commander of 
 the army in Italy, and Prince Windischgraetz, head of all the 
 other Austrian armies. The central government gave them a 
 sort of dictatorship to get the territory from the local revolution- 
 ary governments; the revolutionists made armed resistance, and 
 the revolution ended in civil war. This gave the opportunity for 
 the government to crush the liberal and national parties and re- 
 establish absolutism. The Slavs aided the government through 
 their hatred of the ruling nations, Germans and Magyars, who 
 formed the revolutionary parties. 
 
 The conquest began with Bohemia. The Czechs detested the 
 head of the army in Bohemia, Windischgraetz, as an aristocrat 
 and absolutist; a mass-meeting agreed to ask the authorities at 
 Vienna to recall him; then the Czech militia at Prague made a 
 riot before his house; they shot through the windows, and killed 
 the prince's wife (June 12). There was fighting in the streets of 
 Prague. Windischgraetz first withdrew on the request of the 
 government at Vienna, then returned, bombarded the city, and 
 put down the Czech revolt (June 17). The Panslavic Congress 
 broke up, and the provincial Estates did not meet again. Bo- 
 hemia was placed under martial law. Windischgraetz, vanquisher 
 of the revolution, gained the confidence of the court, which 
 
THE CIVIL WAR AND THE REPRESSION. 41? 
 
 secretly appointed him commander-in-chief of all the imperial 
 troops. 
 
 In Italy, Radetzky, after conquering the Sardinians, won back 
 Lombardy (July, 1848). 
 
 The government felt itself strong enough 'to break with the 
 Hungarian revolutionists. It restored to the Palatine his full 
 powers, refused to sanction the military and financial measures 
 passed by the Diet, ordered a cessation of hostilities against the 
 Servians, and declared that the concessions made to Hungary 
 would not be allowed without the consent of the other nations of 
 the Empire. In his manifesto of June 10 the Emperor had 
 sworn to uphold the honour of the crown of Hungary. The 
 Magyar national party demanded that this oath should be kept, 
 and the Diet sent a delegation of 100 members to beg the 
 Emperor to come to Pesth. But the Austrian government had 
 decided to use the Slavs against the Magyars; Jellachich, re- 
 stored to his powers, marched upon Pesth with 40,000 Croats. 
 The Palatine met Jellachich on the border of Lake Balaton and 
 proposed an interview on board of his steamship. Jellachich 
 refused, because " the machinery of the boat might, against the 
 Prince's will, be stronger than his word of honour." The Pala- 
 tine resigned his powers and left Hungary (September 24). 
 Meanwhile, at Pesth the democratic par'ty gained the upper hand 
 and the Diet appointed a committee to defend the country (Sep- 
 tember 22); Kossuth, one of the six members of the committee, 
 became the actual head of the Hungarian government. 
 
 The government at Vienna, taking part openly against the 
 Magyars, forbade the Hungarian troops to attack Jellachich, and 
 sent an Austrian general, Lambert, to take command of all the 
 troops in Hungary; his appointment was not countersigned by 
 any of the Hungarian ministers, which rendered it void accord- 
 ing to the new constitution. The Diet at Pesth declared it high 
 treason if Lambert should accept this illegal nomination. Lam- 
 bert went to Pesth to ask the signature of the first minister, failed 
 to get it, was overtaken by the mob, and assassinated (September 
 28). Jellachich, in withdrawing, lost 10,000 men, who were sur- 
 rounded and taken by the Magyar army. 
 
 This was the rupture. The government at Vienna chose as 
 the King's lieutenant in Hungary the Magyar's enemy, Jellachich, 
 declared Hungary in a state of war, and the Hungarian Diet dis- 
 solved (October 3). It then ordered the Viennese troops to 
 march upon Hungary. 
 
4l8 AUSTRIAN EMPIRE UNDER ABSOLUTIST SYSTEM. 
 
 The war against the Magyars brought on civil war in the Ger- 
 man countries. There had already been trouble between the 
 German deputies and those of the Slavic countries who con- 
 trolled a majority in the Assembly; trouble between the ministry 
 and the democratic party. The committee of safety had been 
 dissolved (August 3), but the agitation in the streets and clubs 
 continued. A central committee was formed against the demo- 
 cratic societies. The defiant attitude of the Viennese liberals 
 against the Magyar aristocrats was abandoned when Kossuth 
 and the democrats took charge of affairs in Hungary. The Ger- 
 mans and Magyars, hitherto bitter rivals, joined forces against 
 their common enemies, the government and the Slavs. 
 
 A Viennese regiment received the order to march upon Hun- 
 gary and refused to obey it; Latour, minister of war, in order to 
 enforce the march, sent a Slavic regiment from Galicia; a battle 
 ensued between the soldiers; the suburban workingmen joined 
 the rebels and helped them to victory. A mob surrounded La- 
 tour's house, where the ministry was holding a meeting, called 
 him out, and hanged him (October 6). The Emperor fled during 
 the night to seek the protection of the Slavs at Olmiitz in Mo- 
 ravia; thence an imperial manifesto summoned the Austrian 
 peoples to arms against the revolution. 
 
 TTien began war against both the German democrats in Vienna 
 and the Magyars in Hungary. The campaign against Vienna 
 was short. Jellachich arrived from the east with his Croat army, 
 Windischgraetz from the north with his Bohemian army (Octo- 
 ber 26); the democratic societies, which were now the only power, 
 tried to defend Vienna by means of a garde mobile; but on Octo- 
 ber 30, on the advice of the commander-in-chief, the municipal 
 council decided to arrange a capitulation. Just then the Hun- 
 garian army, coming to aid Vienna, arrived before the city and 
 attacked Jellachich; the defenders inside the city began to fight 
 again. The Hungarians were driven back, however; Windisch- 
 graetz fired on the city, then took armed possession of it. He 
 declared Vienna under martial law. Councils of war had the 
 democratic chiefs shot, and with them Blum, one of the German 
 envoys sent by the Frankfort parliament to please the liberals. 
 Vienna remained under a reign of terror in the hands of soldiers 
 and spies. 
 
 The Austrian Assembly was transferred to Slavic territory, at 
 Kremsier near Olmiitz, and reopened on November 22. The 
 government restored its absolute system; the new ministry of 
 
THE HUNGARIAN WAR. 419 
 
 November 21, under Prince Schwartzenberg, a conservative and 
 man of the world, busied the Assembly with discussions of the 
 general principles of a constitution that was never voted. 
 
 The Hungarian War. — The campaign against Hungary was 
 much longer. The Hungarians formed an organized nation, 
 and this was an actual war between two governments and two 
 armies. 
 
 The Austrian government quashed the Diet's decrees, declared 
 Kossuth and his associates guilty of high treason, and conferred 
 on Windischgraetz the command over all Hungary (November). 
 Then, feeling itself restrained by the Emperor's oath to respect 
 the Constitution of Hungary, it got rid of it through a trick: 
 the oath was considered as personally taken by Ferdinand; he 
 was made to abdicate (December 2), and his nephew, Francis 
 Joseph, succeeded him. The new Emperor, bound by no oath, 
 would be free to violate the constitution. In December, 1848, 
 his armies invaded Hungary through Galicia, Moravia, the 
 Danube, and Styria. The Diet and the committee of defence, 
 feeling themselves in danger in Pesth, withdrew to Debreczin, 
 behind the marshes of the Theiss (January 4, 1849). Th^ Hun- 
 garian armies, after two months of manoeuvring, under a Polish 
 commander, Dembinski, were driven behind the Theiss. 
 
 The Hungarians were relieved by a diversion: a Pole, named 
 Bem, one of the defenders of Vienna, collected an army in Tran- 
 sylvania, and reconquered the country from the Roumanian 
 militia. The Servians were discontented with the Constitution 
 of March 4, 1849, ^"^ ceased fighting the Hungarians. 
 
 The Hungarian army, increased to 50,000 men, took the of- 
 fensive, crossed the Theiss, drove back Windischgraetz, and freed 
 almost the whole of Hungary. The Diet, led by Kossuth, de- 
 clared Hungary separated from the Austrian monarchy; it then 
 proclaimed the Hungarian Republic, with Kossuth as President. 
 
 The Emperor, having failed in his attempt to employ the Aus- 
 trian Slavs against Hungary, appealed to the foreign Slavs. He 
 asked help from the Tsar of Russia against the " party of the 
 European revolution." Nicholas, out of haitred to the revolu- 
 tion, consented, and it was a Russian army that was charged 
 with the conquest of Hungary. Paskiewitch entered with 
 80,000 men through the Carpathians (June 14). The Hun- 
 garian armies moved back to Arad; the principal army (23,000 
 men) preferred to surrender to Russia rather than to Austria; it 
 capitulated at Vilagos (August 13). Kossuth and those v;ho 
 
420 AUSTRIAN EMPIRE UNDER ABSOLUTIST SYSTEM. 
 
 could escape fled to Turkey. The war of repression shed much 
 blood. The councils of war condemned the ofiScers to be 
 hanged and the first minister to be shot. Many patriots were 
 imprisoned, incorporated in the Austrian army, or exiled. 
 
 The Absolutist Eestoration of 1849. — ^The revolution of 1848 
 had been democratic, constitutional, and nationalist. The vic- 
 torious government restored its absolutist and centralized 
 system. 
 
 In Austria, the Constituent Assembly, moved to Kremsier, 
 had divided into a German liberal Left and a Czech ministerial 
 Right; it was to consider a liberal plan of constitution, drafted 
 by a committee on March 2. But all the former powers, the 
 court, the nobles, officers, and clergy, demanded that the minstry 
 should put a stop to what they called " a parliamentary game." 
 The ministry suddenly presented a constitution, granted by the 
 government, which even the Right found too conservative 
 (March 6). The next day the deputies found their hall occu- 
 pied, and in the streets an imperial manifesto declaring the Diet 
 to be dissolved " for having placed itself in contradiction with 
 the actual conditions of the monarchy." A constitution granted 
 by the government and dated March 4 was published for the 
 whole empire; it declared all the nations of the monarchy equal 
 among themselves, and established a constitutional system, with 
 a Diet composed of deputies from all the provinces, and a re- 
 sponsible ministry. This constitution of March 4, 1849, was 
 never applied, and on December 31, 1851, an imperial decree 
 declared it abrogated in the name " of the unity of the Empire 
 and monarchical principles." 
 
 In Hungary, the government declared that the nation, by 
 its late revolt, had sacrificed its former constitution and must 
 come under the common Constitution of March 4. In reality 
 it regarded neither one nor the other; it restored its old system 
 of absolutism and centralization. All the annexations to the 
 kingdom, Transylvania, Croatia, and the Servian country, were 
 detached and organized under special administrations; the king- 
 dom itself was cut into five governments. There was no longer 
 a Diet nor county assemblies ; Hungary was governed by officials 
 sent from Vienna, Germans and especially Czechs. 
 
 The reaction of 1849 was not a simple restoration of the sys- 
 tem overturned in 1848. A part of the regime destroyed by the 
 revolution could not be restored and a part was transformed in 
 •order to resist revolutionary movements more successfully. 
 
THE CONCORDAT OF 1855. 421 
 
 What remained destroyed was the aristocratic system. Sei- 
 gniorial rights were not restored, nor unequal taxation, nor pro- 
 vincial administration by the nobility. While the reorganization 
 of the government was being discussed, Windischgraetz wrote: 
 "A monarchy cannot exist without its nobility; it is useless to 
 seek other elements to support the monarchical principle." 
 Schwartzenberg replied: " How desirable it would be to let the 
 aristocratic element predominate in the new form of our state, 
 no one realizes more than I. But as forms can take life and 
 force only through individuals, I see no way to realize this desire. 
 I do not know in our class a dozen men of sufficient political 
 intelligence and provided with the necessary knowledge to in- 
 trust to them an important part of the power without fearing that 
 they would soon lose it. . . Democracy must be combatted . . . 
 but the government alone can do it; for an ally as weak as our 
 aristocracy unfortunately injures the cause more than it serves 
 it." In default of the aristocracy, the power was intrusted to 
 office-holders. 
 
 The paternal and negligent despotism of Metternich's time had 
 neither foreseen nor prevented the revolution. The restoration 
 government became systematically absolutist. The ministers 
 concentrated their powers and governed directly. The laws 
 passed by the assemblies of 1848 were abolished, and the special 
 measures taken by the government during the civil war remained 
 in force ; Austria was under a " provisional government " for ten 
 years. 
 
 The government systematically punished all the nations that 
 had taken part in the revolution. An imperial manifesto an- 
 nounced the intention of " uniting in one great state all the coun- 
 tries and races of the monarchy." In place of the former dual- 
 ism a centralized military system was to be created; the king- 
 doms, especially Hungary, became provinces under a single 
 administration. The centre was at Vienna, in German territory; 
 thus the policy of centralization led to the establishment of Ger- 
 man as the universal language of the Empire, and to the giving 
 of the administration into the hands of German officials. The 
 Czechs, who had been government allies against the revolution, 
 had their share of power also. 
 
 The Concordat of 1855. — Schwartzenberg had died in 1852, and 
 the first minister was now Baron Zach, a liberal in the year 1848, 
 but converted to absolutism. He was supported by the enemies 
 of the revolution, the officials and clergy. 
 
42 2 AUSTRIAN EMPIRE UNDER ABSOLUTIST SYSTEM. 
 
 Until 1848 Austria had preserved Josephism; since Joseph II. 
 the Church had been subordinate to the state; the prelates were 
 appointed by the government and watched like officials of the 
 government. The court was religious, but devoutness was only 
 employed as a means of advancement for employees and officers. 
 Zach saw in the clergy a natural ally against liberal and national 
 revolution. The general assembly of the 32 Austrian bishops 
 at Vienna had condemned political liberty as " impious " and 
 declared that nationality wasonly a relic of paganism, because 
 the different tongues arose from the tower of Babel. 
 
 The absolutist government allied itself with the clergy. It 
 granted Catholicism the privilege of being the state religion and 
 recognised in the bishops an official power over believers. To 
 make this system definite, the government signed with the Pope 
 the Concordat of 1855. This was the official fall of Josephism. 
 
 The previous ecclesiastical organization rested on the state's 
 absolute right to regulate its relations with the Church, accord- 
 ing to secular law. The Concordat offered the inverse principle; 
 " The Catholic, apostolic, and Roman religion will always exer- 
 cise all over the Empire the rights and privileges to which it is 
 entitled by divine institution and canon law " (Article i). This 
 meant to recognise in the Church the right of regulating its 
 relations with the state according to ecclesiastical law; the situa- 
 tion was reversed. 
 
 The government consequently recognised in the bishops not 
 only the liberty of direct communication with the Holy See and 
 of publishing acts of ecclesiastical power, without state authori- 
 zation, but the power to oversee the schools,* exercise the censor- 
 ship of books,f regulate marriage affairs, and to ask the secular 
 power to apply the disciplinary punishments of the Church. The 
 Holy See consented, through tolerance, " considering the times," 
 to recognise civil and criminal jurisdiction of the courts over 
 ecclesiastics, but the clerks must always bear their punishment 
 
 * ' ' All instruction of Catholic youth in all schools, whether public or 
 private, shall conform to the doctrine of Catholicism. The bishops, by 
 virtue of the rights proper to their office, shall direct the education of 
 youth in all places of instruction, whether public or private, and shall see 
 that in all branches of education there is nothing contrary to the Catholic 
 religion and morals." 
 
 f " The bishops shall freely exercise their proper authority in subjecting 
 to censorship all books which threaten religion and morals, and forbid 
 believers to read them ; but the government shall take the necessary 
 measures to prevent the publication of such books. " 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 423 
 
 in cells apart from the lay prisoners." The Church had the 
 right to acquire landed property, the ownership of which was de- 
 clared inviolable. 
 
 The measures taken at the conference between the bishops and 
 government delegates (1856) gave the bishops full authority over 
 their clergy, the faithful, and Church schools and possessions. 
 
 Thus was completed the centralized absolutist and ecclesiasti- 
 cal system, which lasted until 1859. All political life ceased in 
 Austria for ten years. The finances remained in disorder; be- 
 tween 1847 a-nd 1857 the debt increased by a billion florins; it 
 was raised to 2,400,000,000. In spite of the increase in taxes, 
 the yearly deficit grew larger; in 1859 it amounted to 280,000,000 
 florins. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.* 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— In addition to Waitz, " Quellenkunde," mentioned 
 tinder chap. xii. : Erones, " Grundriss der Oesterr. Gesch.," 1882, gives a 
 detailed bibl. of works published before i88i. 
 
 DOCUMENTS. — The chief official documents are fragments published 
 in llettemich, "* Nachgelassene Papiere,'' 8 vols., 1880-84 (there is a French 
 edit.) ; the reports of the Reichstag committee of 1848-49 published by 
 Springer, 1885. 
 
 Among letters and memoirs, see especially : Uetternich,— Gentz ; I. von 
 Wirkner, "Meine Erlebnisse (1825-52)," 1879. — Frokesch von Osten, " Aus 
 den Briefen (1849-55)," 1896, letters from the ministers in the reactionary 
 period. 
 
 WORKS. — The best complete history so far is A. Springer, "Gesch. 
 Oesterr.," 2 vols., 1865 (" Staatengesch. der Neuesten Zeit " coll.) German 
 Liberal. — Erones, " Grundriss der Oesterr. Gesch.," 1882, and " Gesch. der 
 Neuzeit Oesterreichs," 1879 ; exact, but uninteresting. — In French, L. Leger, 
 " Hist, de I'Autriche-Hongrie," 4th edit. (1895), federalist and Slavophil, 
 one of the best histories of the Duruy coll., containing a picked bibl. — 
 Wnrzhach, " Biographisches Lexicon des K. Oesterreichs," 60 vols., 1856-91, 
 inferior to the " Allgemeine Deutsche Biographic." 
 
 On the Revolution of '48: G. A. von Helfert, "Gesch. Oesterr.," etc., 
 4 vols., i86g-86, very conservative. — Iranyi and Chassin, " Hist. Polit. de la 
 /Revol. de Hongrie," 2 vols., 1859, very Magyar. 
 
 On the Reactionary Period: W. Eogge, "Oesterr. von Vilagos bis zur 
 Gegenwart," vol. i., 1872, work of a journalist. 
 
 On Finance : Beer, " Gesch. der Oesterr. Finanzen im XlXten Jahrh.," 
 1877. 
 
 On the Peasant Emancipation: See " Handworterbuch der Staats- 
 wissenschaften," under the word " Bauernbefreiung." 
 
 * On the character given to this bibl. see note to bibl. of chap. xii. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 Although the Kingdom of Prussia had nearly all of its ter- 
 ritory within the German Confederation, it has had a devel- 
 opment so distinct as to deserve separate study, and has played 
 so important a part as to make it necessary to fecord its history 
 apart from that of the other states. 
 
 Prussian Eeforms during the Wars of Napoleon. — Unlike the 
 rest of Germany, Prussia had not passed under the domination 
 or influence of France. Though conquered, dismembered, 
 forced to pay a war contribution, and occupied by the armies of 
 Napoleon, she had remained an independent state. King Fred- 
 erick William III. had refused to enter the Confederation of the 
 Rhine, and had kept intact his sovereign power. Yet his king- 
 dom emerged from this crisis revolutionized. In order to make 
 head against Napoleon, he had himself transformed the whole 
 internal organization of Prussia. 
 
 The Prussian state, as its founders, Frederick William I. and 
 Frederick II., had fashioned it, was an absolute military mon- 
 archy, aristocratic and bureaucratic, governed by colleges of 
 directors (a species of collective ministries) and administered by 
 royal officers without any control on the part of the people. So- 
 ciety was divided into three hereditary classes — nobles, citizens, 
 and peasants; the Prussian code of laws, the Landrecht, promul- 
 gated in 1794, recognised this division. All civil and military 
 offices were reserved for nobles. The peasants were subject to 
 the authority of the titled landowners; every noble had the right 
 of justice and police over the inhabitants of his domain. 
 
 The disaster of 1806 which, rightly or wrongly, was attributed 
 to this organization, led the King to try the experiment of a new 
 system. The reformers who proposed it to him were not Prus- 
 sian subjects, but Germans from districts subject to the French: 
 two Hanoverians (Scharnhorst and Hardenberg) and a baron of 
 the Empire (Stein) ; the old Prussian bureaucrats regarded them 
 with contempt, and even treated them as Jacobins. As for the 
 
 424 
 
PRUSSIAN REFORMS DURING WARS OF NAPOLEON. 42S 
 
 King himself, it was only with hesitations, restrictions, and back- 
 ward steps that he allowed their plans to go into effect. Stein 
 was dismissed in January, 1807, taken back in October, 1807, 
 and finally dismissed in November, 1808. It was not till June, 
 1810, that Hardenberg was given control. Except in the army, 
 the reforms, opposed by the nobles and the official class, were 
 left uncompleted. They were sufficient, however, to lift Prussia 
 out of her old regime. 
 
 The innovators, though treated in Prussia as revolutionists, 
 appealed to wholly different principles from those of the French 
 revolutionists. In France popular sovereignty and the rights 
 of the citizens were put at the front; a system was to be organ- 
 ized in which the French were to be free and equal, because they 
 had a right to be so. In Prussia the King kept full sovereignty, 
 making the reforms on his own exclusive authority, by royal 
 ordinances, and speaking to his subjects only of their duty. The 
 object in view was not to better the condition of the people, but 
 to demand of them a new effort to rescue the state from the ruin 
 caused by the Freiich invasion. Yet these two movements, set- 
 ting out from opposite principles, made appeal to the same feel- 
 ing, — love of^^ountry, — and they led in practice to analogous 
 reforms. !_Jn "order to render the subjects more capable of con- 
 tributing to the needs of the state, the King decided to remove 
 the trammels on their industry by giving them individual liberty 
 and equality; and in order to interest them in public affairs, he 
 was led to give them a share in managing thei2iC;As was said; 
 by Hardenberg, it was " a revolution in the best sense," come 
 from above^^ " royal night of the 4th of August," a " monarchi- 
 cal government with democratic principles." 
 
 The general direction of affairs, up to tljat time vaguely 
 shared between ministerial boards, was rearranged in 1810, on 
 the English and French model; there were to be five ministers, 
 each at the head of a service (Interior, Finances, Foreign Affairs, 
 War, and Justice), with a chancellor as prime minister and presi- 
 dent of the council. The chancellor, the ministers, and certain 
 high military officers, meeting as a Cabinet, were to consider 
 general questions; the King retained in his own hands the power 
 of sovereign decision. 
 
 The subjects, up to that time without part in public affairs, 
 were now called on to take a hand, if not in government, at least 
 in administration. In each city a council was instituted, elected 
 by the inhabitants owning property or in receipt of a certain in- 
 
426 THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 come; also an executive committee (Magistrat), some of whose 
 members were elected for a long term and received salaries. The 
 Council was empowered to control the city expenditures and to 
 impose the taxes. The state supervision was confined to audit- 
 ing their accounts and approving their regulations. At that time 
 of paternal government, this autonomy granted to the cities of 
 Prussia caused them to be nicknamed " little republics." 
 
 Stein proposed to reform the administration of the provinces 
 in the same way, by intrusting it to elected representatives; but 
 he could not bring the King to consent. The " Chamber of War 
 and the Domain," which had held the control of each province, 
 was replaced by a more regularly organized Board of Govern- 
 ment (Regierung), divided into two sections, the one adminis- 
 trative and the other economic, but composed wholly of royal 
 officers. 
 
 Hardenberg, who went on with the reforms, was content to 
 copy French institutions. He created in 1812 a gendarmerie 
 (mounted police) whose superior officers were to aid the admin- 
 istrative officials. The reform of the administration of the Circles 
 (Kreise) was promulgated in 1812, but was not put in force. 
 
 Hardenberg also imitated the new French methods of taxation: 
 He copied the license fees and the personal tax, secularized 
 church property, sold crown lands, levied taxes on luxuries 
 (horses, carriages, liveried servants). 
 
 The most far-reaching of these reforms was the abolition of 
 the official classification of the people. In principle it was con- 
 tained in the decree of 1807, which permitted nobles to enter on 
 professional and business careers, and citizens and peasants to 
 change their status of birth. The full liberty of industry and 
 residence followed in 1808: " No man shall be restricted in the 
 enjoyment of his property, his civil rights, and his liberty further 
 than is necessary for the general welfare of the state; law and 
 administration have no other mission than the removal of all 
 obstacles to the free development of the faculties and powers of 
 the citizens." 
 
 Industrial liberty was completed by a fiscal measure. The 
 decree fixing the new taxes on trades and occupations abolished 
 the monopolies of the industrial corporations and towns; who- 
 ever paid the license fee was free to follow the occupation every- 
 where (1810). 
 
 The emancipation of the peasants, a more complicated opera- 
 tion, had been promised and begun, but remained incomplete. 
 
PRUSSIAN REFORMS DURING WARS OF NAPOLEON. 42? 
 
 There were two classes of peasants, those on the Royal estates 
 and those on the estates of the nobles. Both classes were 
 merely tenants and, in law, " subjects," that is to say, attached to 
 the soil and bound to perform services for the owner. The peas- 
 ants on the Crown lands had, in fact, become, as early as the 
 end of the eighteenth century, true hereditary landowners, freed 
 from the obligations of serfdom. The peasants on the noble 
 estates, however, had remained in their previous condition, at- 
 tached to the soil, and subject to seigniorial corvee and the duty 
 of rendering services. The King had shrunk from emancipating 
 them, out of respect for the property rights of the nobles. 
 
 The French administration of the new Grand Duchy of War- 
 saw, created in 1807, by emancipating the Polish serfs, compelled 
 Prussia to emancipate her own. The Prussian government at 
 first thought only of emancipating those in the provinces bor- 
 dering on Poland ; but the King, on the advice of Stein, extended 
 the measure to his whole kingdom. It abolished " hereditary 
 subjection " (Erbunterthdnigkeit), and declared all the people to be 
 personally free (1807). But the peasants still remained under 
 the police and criminal jurisdiction of the seigneurs; the regula- 
 tion of 1810 on domestic servants allowed the master to inflict 
 moderate chastisement on the members of his household. 
 
 After the emancipation, it was necessary to regulate the new 
 condition of the peasantry. On the crown lands the peasants 
 were given full ownership, paying therefor an annual charge. 
 The same principle was applied in 181 1 to the estates of the 
 nobles, but in a manner unfavourable to the peasants ; they were 
 compelled to pay for their liberty by giving a part of their land 
 to the seigneur.* 
 
 In this period of half-measures, there was only one complete 
 reform — ^that of the army. This was the work of the " Com- 
 mittee on Military Reorganization " presided over by Scharn- 
 horst, son of a soldier who had risen to be a general. It adopted 
 squarely the principle of universal service : " All the inhabitants 
 
 *The lands occupied by the serfs had belonged in law to the seigneurs ; 
 in return for his right of using the land the serf had owed various ser- 
 vices to the legal owner. Now that the services were to cease, it would 
 seem only reasonable that some compensation should be made to the 
 nobles for the loss. It may be that the decree of 181 1 went too far in 
 ordering that one-third of these lands should be assigned to the nobles and 
 only two-thirds to the peasants. But the principle seems unimpeachable, 
 unless we are to hold that the French Revolution, in confiscating the 
 seigniorial rights, furnished an example to be followed everywhere.— Tr. 
 
428 THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFOkE WILLIAM I. 
 
 of the state are its defenders by birth." All able-bodied men 
 were to become soldiers. As the treaty with Napoleon limited 
 the Prussian army to 42,000 men, this little army was to be made 
 a school in which the recruits should pass only enough time to 
 learn their drill and then make room for others. Thus the short- 
 term service came into the practice of armies ; the old professional 
 soldiers were replaced by young men, who pass through the army 
 before beginning active life, and are ready to return to it in case 
 of war; the ofificers alone are soldiers by profession. A national 
 militia is incorporated into the nucleus of a standing army. This 
 reform was not borrowed from France ; it was neither the requisi- 
 tion of the revolution nor the conscription of Napoleon; both 
 the idea and the name, Landzvehr, Defence of the Country, were 
 derived from the Middle Ages. But the application led to a 
 democratic revolution. Instead of allowing educated young 
 men of the noble and middle class to purchase exemption or 
 supply substitutes, the law required them to perform the service 
 in person, the object being to raise the moral standard of the 
 force. But with such men in the ranks, the old methods of mili- 
 tary discipline became impossible; so the whippings and beat- 
 ings formerly in use were forbidden. Ofificers were to be ap- 
 pointed and promoted only after passing examination. The 
 nobles continued to be preferred as officers, but they were re- 
 quired to furnish evidence of their fitness by passing examina- 
 tions. 
 
 Political Life in Prussia. — ^After the War of Liberation a new 
 series of reforms began. The reorganized kingdom of 1807 to 
 1815 had been cut down by Napoleon to four provinces: Bran- 
 denburg, Pomerania, Silesia, and Prussia. The Congress of 
 Vienna, besides enlarging Pomerania, added four new provinces 
 — Westphalia, the Rhine Province, Saxony, and Posen. The 
 Prussian statesmen would have preferred to annex the whole 
 Kingdom of Saxony, which would have formed, with the old 
 possessions, a compact territory (see p. 5). As it emerged from 
 the deliberations of the Congress, the kingdom remained a 
 heterogeneous patchwork which did not even form a continuous 
 territory. It lay in two main divisions : in the east, the old king- 
 dom, enlarged by the addition of Posen and the province of 
 Saxony, and itself cut up into pieces separated from each other 
 by the possessions of other princes; in the west the provinces of 
 Westphalia and the Rhine. These latter were not only separated 
 from the rest of the kingdom by the whole width of Hanover, 
 
POLITICAL LIFE IN PRUSSIA. 4^9 
 
 but also differed from the rest in their social constitution and in 
 their administrative institutions. 
 
 The east remained aristocratic and rural. The land was 
 divided into about 15,000 knightly estates (Ritterguter), and into 
 about 25,000 little communes, each consisting of a wretched vil- 
 lage, having hardly 200 inhabitants on the average in the most 
 easterly parts. Except in the cities, which were now self- 
 governed, the region was still subject to the nobles, who had 
 official authority over the peasants, the right of police, and of im- 
 posing lighter punishments, who also still kept the rights of 
 patrons over the Church. 
 
 The west, revolutionized by the French occupation, had be- 
 come democratic; every legal privilege had vanished. In the 
 Rhine Province it could hardly be said there were nobles any 
 more; social leadership there, as in France, belonged to the 
 wealthy middle class — manufacturers, merchants, landowners, 
 and lawyers. The municipal system was also that of France: 
 city and country had the same form of organization. The com- 
 munes, about 4500 in number, were much larger than in the east, 
 and more capable of self-government; each had at its head a 
 Bur germeister, appointed by the government from among its 
 leading men. Tlie Rhine Province had, further, French law, the 
 civil law of the Code Napoleon, public trials, and the jury in crimi- 
 nal cases. 
 
 This straggling and motley kingdom had in all less than 
 12,000,000 of inhabitants, and, except in the west, a soil naturally 
 poor. To keep it in the position of a great power required a 
 constant struggle and a rigid economy. 
 
 The work of reorganization, suspended during the war of lib- 
 eration, was resumed after Waterloo. The reforms adopted dur- 
 ing the crisis were provisional, incomplete, and limited to the 
 four old provinces. It was now necessary to decide which of 
 these reforms should be retained, how they should be completed,, 
 and whether they should be extended to the new provinces. The 
 decision depended on the King, and consequently on the influ- 
 ences which should gain the ascendancy over him. 
 
 As Prussia had neither a parliament nor a political press, her 
 whole political life was centred in the court and the high officers 
 surrounding the King. Now, there was at this time a great 
 division of opinion in this circle of advisers. An old-regime party 
 condemned as revolutionary the reforms already made: some 
 wished to restore the uncontrolled sway of the royal officers; 
 
430 THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 others to restore the authority of the nobles in the rural dis- 
 tricts. In open opposition to these absolutist aristocrats was 
 a group of supporters of the reforms. These, too, were divided 
 in opinion. Some wanted a liberal constitutional system of the 
 Tory or Louis XVIII. pattern (Humboldt, Schon, Vincke); 
 others (Stein, Niebuhr, Gneisenau) wanted a system founded on 
 historic rights. Hardenberg, grown old and indolent, wavered 
 between these various schemes. 
 
 The King, drawn this way and that by conflicting influences, 
 adopted contradictory decisions, or resigned himself to compro- 
 mises, or oftener turned the matter over to committee after com- 
 mittee without reaching any decision. The work of reorganiza- 
 tion proceeded very slowly therefore. The ordinance regarding 
 city administration was not published till 1831; the regulations 
 touching freedom of labour appeared in 1845; the provisions re- 
 garding compensations for the emancipation of the serfs were 
 not completed in 1850; the reform of the land tax was only fin- 
 ished in 1861 ; the local administration of the Circles and the rural 
 communes was not fully organized until 1872 and 1891. The 
 revision of the old laws (Landrecht), on which a committee was 
 still labouring in 1847, has never been finished. The bulk of the 
 work actually accomplished was done in the years 181 5 to 1823; 
 the history of it is so intricate that I can only describe the results. 
 
 The Absolutist Reforms (1814-23). — The mainspring of the 
 government continued to be the new creation, the Ministry. By 
 its side the Council of State remained — a deliberative body made 
 up of royal princes, ministers, and high dignitaries. According 
 to the Ordinance of 1817, it was to give advice on changes of law 
 and regulations, on conflicts between ministers, and on all 
 matters submitted to it by the King. It seemed likely at first 
 to become the chief organ of the government, but after 1827 the 
 King almost ceased to consult it. After Hardenberg died, in 
 1822, no new chancellor was appointed. In practice the min- 
 isters, holding office for life, enjoying the King's confidence and 
 selected by him at will, worked with him and drafted his decrees. 
 It was a government by King and Cabinet. 
 
 For administrative purposes the kingdom was divided into ten 
 provinces, presently reduced to eight. At the head of each was 
 placed an Oberpraesident, a kind of civil governor. The next 
 lower division was the Besirk, of which there were 25, each with 
 a governing board (Regierung). Under these the old local 
 division into Circles was retained; of these there were upward 
 
THE ABSOLUTIST REFORMS. 431 
 
 of 300. At the head of each was the Landrath, a salaried officer 
 and landowner, obliged to pass the civil-service examination, 
 but selected from a list prepared by the representative assembly 
 of the Circle (Kreistag). The representative system promised in 
 1815, but kept back by the conflict between the nobles and the 
 official class, led only to the establishment, in 1825, of these Circle 
 assemblies, with purely consultative functions, their only real 
 power being that of nominating candidates for the post of Land- 
 rath. They were almost wholly aristocratic. The communes, as 
 already stated, were not reorganized till 1872. Each province 
 retained its old laws and customs. 
 
 The decree of 1810 on the redemption of the seigniorial rights 
 in the eastern provinces was interpreted and modified by the 
 declaration of 1816 in a way even more unfavourable to the 
 peasants. These were divided into two classes: those who had 
 the right of redemption, and those who remained in their former 
 condition. In the first class only those peasants were included 
 whose holdings were sufficient to support a household; it was 
 further required that their possession should be ancient and con- 
 firmed by the assessment roll. Only these got the right to re- 
 deem the dues and services they owed to the seigneurs by pay- 
 ment of an equivalent. From the land they had held as tenants 
 burdened with charges, they retained two-thirds in full owner- 
 ship if their holding was hereditary, one-half if it was not. The 
 other part went to the seigneur. The adjustment proceeded 
 slowly, not being completed as late as 1848. 
 
 All the other peasants — the great majority — were excluded 
 from the right to claim the advantage of the decree. The gov- 
 ernment had given them personal liberty, but was unwilling to 
 make them peasant proprietors; they must remain under the 
 control of the noble landlords, who needed them to cultivate their 
 domains. The mass of the eastern peasants, therefore, remained 
 as tenants of small holdings, living in villages or on the great 
 estates, cultivating (often from father to son) a bit of land the 
 use of which the proprietor gave them in exchange for manual 
 labour. They subsisted in a wretched way, partly on the products 
 of their little holding, partly on money earned as hired farm 
 labourers. But in the eighteenth century the Kings had com- 
 pelled the seigneurs to keep up the number of peasant holdings 
 (Bauemstette); since 1816 the institution of peasant protection 
 (Bauemschufz) had been abandoned. The great landowner 
 was released from the obligation to assist the peasants to repair 
 
432 THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 their cottages, to allow them to take wood in the forests and 
 share the pasturage; above all, he had the right to take from the 
 peasants lands they held on precarious title or for a limited term. 
 The result was to enlarge the great domains at the expense of 
 the small holdings and to convert the great majority of the ten- 
 ants into mere day labourers^) When, in 1850, a law was passed 
 to protect the rights of tenants of this class, only a few of them 
 remained. 
 
 Thus it has happened that, throughout the whole former King- 
 dom of Prussia, society has continued to be aristocratic.^; The 
 great land-owning nobles have greatly enlarged their domains; 
 only a minority of the peasants have become landowners, even 
 at the expense of surrendering a part of their holdings. The 
 others are only agricultural labourers, employed by and de- 
 pendent upon the great proprietors. 
 
 In Posen, where the government made no effort to humour 
 the great landowners, who were Polish nobles, the proprietors 
 were forbidden to suppress the peasant tenures (1819), and 
 smaller payments were required in redemption of the seigniorial 
 rights; the settlements also were much more quickly made. But 
 there also the smaller holders were excluded from these benefits. 
 
 In the western provinces the reform had been already accom- 
 plished, the peasants had become landowners, and rural society, 
 especially in the Rhine Province, was already democratic. 
 
 The financial reorganization of the kingdom was effected be- 
 tween 181 5 and 1820. The war had left a floating debt and a 
 yearly deficit of 10,000,000 thalers.* A five per cent, loan was 
 negotiated at 72 (1817). The King, in order to save the credit 
 of the state, directed that the debt operations should be kept 
 secret. Its amount was set at 180,000,000 thalers, with a sinking- 
 fund designed to reduce it. The King pledged himself not to 
 contract a further loan, " except with the consent and under the 
 guarantee of the future assembly of the Estates of the Kingdom " 
 (1820). 
 
 In order to get rid of the deficit, the budget was revised with an 
 economy so rigid that the gross expenditure was reduced to about 
 5,000,000 thalers. The King cut down his personal expenses 
 to the lowest terms. He announced that the budget should 
 be published every third year, in order that everybody might see 
 that not a penny was demanded beyond the actual necessities 
 
 *The Prussian thaler was equivalent to about seventy-five cents. 
 
THE ABSOLUTIST REFORMS. 433 
 
 of the state. As a matter of fact, the accounts were not published 
 till 1829, and then with inaccurate figures. 
 
 It was necessary to impose new taxes: in the cities a tax on 
 consumption as in Holland (a grist tax and a tax on slaughter- 
 houses); in the rest of the country a personal tax by classes or 
 graduated poll-tax (changed in 185 1 into an income tax). The 
 readjustment of the customs duties led to the formation of the 
 Zollverein (see p. 452). 
 
 A reform of the general laws and judicial procedure was prom- 
 ised, but not carried out. Meantime the Prussian Code of 1794 
 was extended to three of the new provinces. The govern- 
 ment even made two attempts to impose it on the Rhine 
 Province instead of the French " revolutionary " code and trial 
 by jury. The inhabitants petitioned the King to be allowed to 
 keep their existing system, which was, with difficulty, granted 
 provisionally. 
 
 In relation to primary education, which had been made com- 
 pulsory in the eighteenth century, the old arrangements were 
 allowed to stand. The reform announced in 1817, and prepared 
 in 1819, was not put into effect. The provisions of the Code of 
 1794 were extended to the new provinces. Parents are obliged 
 to send their children to school; the school is supported in part 
 at their expense, is placed under the direct supervision of the 
 pastor or priest, and religious instruction is compulsory. 
 
 The reorganization of the army was the decisive event in the 
 history of Prussia. The system hastily devised during the Na- 
 poleonic crisis was attacked by professional military men on the 
 ground that the service was too short to make real soldiers, and 
 was disliked by the middle class because it bore so hardly on 
 young men of good family. The King adhered to the principle 
 of universal service, and refused to admit substitutes, although 
 this was done in all other countries. The Berlin Council having 
 petitioned for exemption, the king threatened to publish the 
 names of the petitioners. The service was kept on the universal 
 and compulsory basis; but young men who gave evidence of cer- 
 tain educational attainments were let off with one year of army 
 training, on condition of supplying their own support and equip- 
 ment. These are the one-year volunteers. For the other recruits 
 the service was fixed at three years in principle. This period, 
 which at that time seemed very short, was adopted in order to 
 make all young men pass through the army without too great 
 expense to the government. The active army was reduced to the 
 
434 THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 very low number of 115,000 men. The men dismissed from the 
 active army as fully trained belonged to the reserve up to the age 
 of twenty-five. 
 
 The King hesitated more about keeping the Landwehr. It 
 was said to be insufficient for war and dangerous in case of out- 
 break. Tlie liberals had compromised it by exalting it at the ex- 
 pense of the active army; a legend which lasted long in Europe 
 represented the Prussian victories of 1813 as the work of the 
 Landwehr. The King decided to keep the institution, but in- 
 creased the length of the yearly drills and arranged to have the 
 men exercised in conjunction with the active army. Thus with 
 a small standing army, in keeping with its meagre budget, Prus- 
 sia had in time of war a disposable force composed of all her 
 able-bodied men, and naturally divided into three parts: the 
 Active Army, the Reserve, and the Landwehr — the latter in two 
 divisions. 
 
 This system, adopted later by all Europe, was the most original 
 feature of Prussia. The army became for domestic purposes the 
 school in which Prussian national spirit was fostered; and to- 
 ward foreign nations it gave to a state of the second order the 
 military force and rank of a great power. 
 
 Creation of the Provincial Estates (1815-25). — While these 
 changes were laboriously proceeding, court and official circles 
 were agitated on the great question of the form of government. 
 Up to the crisis of 1806 Prussia had been an absolute monarchy 
 in which the King had sovereign control, even in making laws 
 and imposing taxes. The reformers had persuaded Frederick 
 William III. to admit a representative assembly; he had accepted 
 as early as 1810 the principle of " giving a representation to the 
 nation." In 181 5, before the battle of Waterloo, he promised by 
 his famous ordinance of May 28 to give the Prussian nation a 
 written constitution; the first clause of his ordinance said: "There 
 shall be formed a representation of the people." The representa- 
 tives were to be elected by Provincial Estates. But, after the 
 end of the war, the King hesitated as to the mode of fulfilling the 
 promise. He appointed in succession five different committees 
 on the subject, and took eight years to arrive at a decision (1815- 
 
 23)- 
 
 A strong party at court condemned every sort of constitution 
 as revolutionary. The Prince Royal, later Frederick William 
 IV., an admirer of Haller (see p. 000), was for admitting only his- 
 torical rights and detested written constitutions. The Liberal 
 
THE CREATION OF PROVINCIAL ESTATES. 435 
 
 party dwelt on the King's promise solemnly given in 1815, but 
 was divided as to the proper form of representation for the king- 
 dom. The King sent a commission to learn the wishes of the 
 provincial notables. Meanwhile he received from Metternich 
 some suggestions as to the danger of constitutions and presently 
 drew away from the constitutional party. The excitement 
 among the students alarmed him, and he ordered a censorship of 
 the universities and the press. Then began the proceedings 
 against the " demagogues " (1819). Jahn was arrested and 
 Arndt was dismissed. Severities were resumed in 1823; one 
 hundred and twenty students were locked up in fortresses where 
 they lay three years without trial (see p. 385). The censorship 
 of books still existed in Prussia, but ordinarily had been exercised 
 with moderation. It now became rigorous: a new edition of 
 Fichte's " Address to the German Nation " was denied the right 
 of publication by the superior board of censors. 
 
 The revolutions of 1820-21 in Spain and Italy had the effect of 
 making constitutional systems odious to the King.* He re- 
 jected Hardenberg's project (1821) and made up his mind not to 
 go beyond the institution of the provincial assemblies. The 
 fifth and last committee on the constitution, presided over by the 
 Prince Royal, drew up the scheme of representation which was 
 enacted as law in 1823. The King did not formally withdraw his 
 promise of 181 5, but he did not keep it. Instead of a general 
 representation of the kingdom, he granted only Provincial 
 Estates. 
 
 These Estates, fashioned to the taste of the Prince Royal, were 
 not national, but provincial; not representative of the people, but 
 of classes and corporations, with power to advise but not to con- 
 clude. There were eight of them — one for each province. In 
 order to emphasize their local character, they were established 
 by eight separate decrees, almost, of course, identical in their 
 terms. Each assembly included at least three Estates: nobles, 
 cities, peasants. In four provinces (Saxony, Silesia, Westphalia, 
 and the Rhine Province) the nobles were subdivided into sei- 
 gneurs and chevaliers. The seigneurs sat in person; the cheva- 
 liers, like the cities and the peasants, were represented by depu- 
 ties elected for six years. For voting in the choice of city and 
 
 * I cannot enter into the details, nowwell known, of the contests within 
 the government. Hardenberg, before proposing his timid scheme of a 
 constitution, had come to an understanding with the absolutists against the 
 Liberals, and had secured the dismissal of Humboldt. 
 
436 THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 peasant deputies, a property qualification was required. The 
 totals for the whole monarchy were 278 nobles, 182 citizens, and 
 124 deputies for the peasants. 
 
 The three sets or " estates " met as one assembly in each 
 province, and their proceedings were secret. Their functions 
 were to give advice on laws affecting their province and to regu- 
 late communal affairs (highways, poor-relief). They had no 
 direct relations with the King's ministers; their communications 
 were through a special commission, and the King made no 
 answer until the whole eight had been heard from, which meant, 
 in many cases, not till after a year. 
 
 These assemblies, which the King declared to be created in 
 the spirit of the " ancient German constitution," could be made 
 up only by manufacturing new institutions for the purpose. The 
 three or four Estates which they were to represent existed neither 
 in law nor in the facts of society, and even in the provinces of the 
 west it was necessary, in order to fill up the Estate of the nobles, 
 to admit thereto citizen landowners. 
 
 End of Frederick William III.'s Beign. — ^The system established 
 between 1815 and 1825 lasted without serious change till 1848. 
 Prussia was an absolute and bureaucratic monarchy, like Aus- 
 tria, with aristocratic provincial estates; political life was con- 
 fined to the royal family and the officials. But society, especially 
 in the west, was in law as democratic as in the rest of western 
 Europe. The nobles had easier access to public employments, 
 but the non-noble were not excluded. It was a government of 
 office-holders. It was long the fashion tO' quote as characteris- 
 tic of the system the answer of the minister of the interior to a 
 complaint of the municipal council of Elbing: it was to the effect 
 that the measures of the government were " above the limited in- 
 telligence of the subjects." But this governing body was kept to 
 its duty by strict rules. The Prussian officials, selected by means 
 of examinations, had slow promotion and hard work. Protected 
 against arbitrary treatment, they acquired an esprit de corps 
 which sometimes made them sufficiently independent to maintain 
 their rights or perform their duty ; they had a reputation in Ger- 
 many for pedantic consciences and capacity for work. 
 
 Public life was little more than administration. Until the 
 death of Frederick William III., in 1840, political activity was 
 almost lacking among the people. German historians say in 
 explanation that the Prussian people loved their aged King for 
 his conduct in the evil days of the French invasion, and shrank 
 
OPENING YEARS OF FREDERICK WILLIAM IV. 437 
 
 from disturbing his quiet by demanding reforms. As a matter 
 of fact the people had no practical means of expressing their 
 wishes. The King, as he grew older, became more and more 
 hostile to change, and confined himself to the settlement of daily 
 business. In the last fifteen years of his reign the only domestic 
 events of note were the crusade against the agitators of 1834 
 and the Church troubles. As a result of the first, thirty-nine 
 students were sentenced to death, but were reprieved and con- 
 fined in fortresses. 
 
 The Church troubles were twofold. A conflict with the 
 Lutheran Church grew out of a plan of conciliation. The King 
 had expressed a wish to bring about a Union between the 
 Lutheran and Calvinistic churches. His proposals were ac- 
 cepted by the Calvinists and the majority of the Lutherans 
 (1817). But after 1830 certain Lutheran ministers, chiefly in 
 Silesia, protested against the Union; they were, in consequence, 
 deprived and even imprisoned (1832-35) ; they eventually founded 
 a separate church (1841). 
 
 A conflict broke out with the Catholic Church in the new 
 Catholic provinces of Westphalia and the Rhine, where an oppo- 
 sition grew up against the Protestant ofiSce-holders. The " revo- 
 lutionary " institution of civil marriage not being recognised in 
 Prussia, the clergy kept the registers of births and deaths and 
 had the sole right to perform the marriage ceremony. In the 
 case of a mixed marriage, the canons of the Catholic Church for- 
 bade the clergy to marry any couple who would not pledge them- 
 selves to have their children brought up in the Catholic faith. 
 Now a Prussian law decreed that such children should follow the 
 religion of their father. When this law was extended to the 
 Rhine Province in 1825, the bishops consulted the Pope, who, by 
 a brief of 1830, sustained the canonical principle, but left a way 
 open for the bishops to make a compromise with the government. 
 It was arranged that the priest, without blessing the mixed mar- 
 riage, was to make it possible by his passive assistance. This was 
 a procedure already in use in the old Prussian duchy of Jtilich 
 (Juliers). This arrangement, at first accepted, was condemned 
 by the new Archbishop of Cologne, then by the Polish Arch- 
 bishop of Posen. The Pope sustained these prelates. The King, 
 in anger, had them put in prison and even deposed the Arch- 
 bishop of Posen. 
 
 Opening Years of rrederick William IV.'s Keign (1840-47). — 
 The Prince Royal, at length become, in his forty-fifth year. King 
 
43^ THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 Frederick William IV., was already a man of note in Germany as 
 an orator and a patron of learning. The educated public looked 
 to him for great reforms. He began his reign with solemn 
 coronation ceremonies (at Koenigsberg and later at Berlin). He 
 pardoned political prisoners, recalled Jahn, restored Arndt to 
 his professorship, and abolished the commission for investigating 
 the political ideas of candidates for public employment. He re- 
 leased and restored the imprisoned prelates. But, though speak- 
 ing much and earnestly, and incessantly forming plans, he 
 seldom reached a final decision on great questions. 
 
 He found himself drawn in one direction by his own ideals 
 and in another by the wishes of his subjects. His own ideal he 
 had indicated in his coronation speech. At Koenigsberg he 
 swore to be " a just judge, a faithful prince, conscientious and 
 merciful, a Christian King." He added, " In our country there 
 is a union of the head and the members, of the princes and the 
 people." At Berlin he said, " I know that I hold my crown in 
 fief of Almighty God and that I owe Him an account of every 
 moment of my reign. If anybody asks a guarantee for the 
 future, I give him this sentence. It is of more weight and binds 
 more strongly than all the coronation oaths and all the parch- 
 ment pledges." Then, addressing himself directly to the crowd 
 filling the space in front of the palace, he asked, " Will you help 
 me to bring into even more brilliant activity the qualities whereby 
 Prussia, with her fourteen millions of people, stands among the 
 great powers of the world : honour, faithfulness, struggle toward 
 light, right, and truth, stepping forward with the wisdom of age 
 and at the same time the heroic vigour of youth? Will you . . . 
 help me faithfully in good days as in evil ones? Oh, then, answer 
 me with the most beautiful word of our mother-tongue, answer 
 me a Ja! [yes]." To the loud acclaim of the crowd the King re- 
 plied: " That Ja! was for me; it is my own property . . . it binds 
 us inseparably in mutual love and fidelity." 
 
 Like his friends of the historical and romantic school, Niebuhr, 
 Savigny, and Ranke, Frederick William hated the rationalistic 
 and democratic French Revolution, with its popular sovereignty 
 and its paper constitutions. His ideal was the Christian Ger- 
 man state of the Middle Ages, as conceived by the writers of 
 romance: the King responsible to God alone, governing in ac- 
 cordance with custom with the aid of his subjects grouped in 
 their traditional classes, personally loved and respected by all, 
 extending his paternal care to all and guiding them by divine 
 inspiration. 
 
OPENING YEARS OF FREDERICK WILLIAM IV. 439 
 
 The middle class and some of the nobles wished for a consti- 
 tutional system. The estates of the province of Prussia, as early 
 as 1840, entreated the King " to assure to his people an assembly 
 of representatives of the country." The Rhine Province, neigh- 
 bour to the parliamentary Kingdom of Belgium, expressed a 
 similar wish. The question of a national representation became 
 the leading subject of discussion in the press, the provincial 
 bodies, and the governing class. 
 
 The King promised in 1840 a development of the provincial 
 estates. He granted them a session once in two years, and the 
 right of publishing their proceedings. Then he decided, with 
 some reluctance, to summon to Berlin delegations elected by all 
 the provincial estates, for consultation regarding a loan. The 
 decree of 1820, fixing the limit of the debt, had declared that no 
 new loan should be contracted without the consent of the future 
 assembly of the estates of the kingdom. Money was now needed 
 for construction of railway lines. The united delegations, 
 consisting of 46 delegates of the nobles, 32 of the cities, and 20 of 
 the peasants, approved the building of the proposed roads, but 
 did not venture to assume the right of burdening the nation. 
 The King, in dismissing them, took pains to remind them that 
 they ought to regard themselves as invested with the rights of 
 their estate, " not as representing the wind of opinion and the 
 doctrines of the day! " Immediately afterward he appointed a 
 commission to study the plan of a constitution. 
 
 The public was getting tired of waiting. The King had 
 ordered a relaxing of the censorship (December, 1841). In 1842 
 engravings and books were exempted from censure. The mal- 
 contents took advantage of this to ridicule the government in 
 cartoons, especially at Berlin and Cologne. A famous caricature 
 appeared — the King holding in one hand an Order, in the other 
 a Counter-order, while across his forehead the word Disorder was 
 written (Frederick William IV., who died insane, already gave 
 signs of mental derangement). The journalists were generally 
 hot-headed young people, believers in democracy and enemies of 
 tradition, whether aristocratic or Christian (many of them were 
 Jews). Frederick William, wounded in his faith, did not long 
 tolerate freedom of the press; he had Jacoby, a Jew of Koenigs- 
 berg, prosecuted — the result, however, was an acquittal. He 
 suppressed two journals for " subversive tendencies " (1843) and 
 established a court of censorship. He even compelled the Uni- 
 versity of Berlin to stop the lectures of a privat-docent, and in an 
 
44° THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 indignant letter against the university for allowing this " licensed 
 revolutionist to endanger the loyalty of the students," he declared 
 it was necessary once for all to conduct themselves according to 
 his ideas. The Minister of Public Worship dismissed teachers 
 suspected of being rationalists or liberals. In 1847 he turned 
 the celebrated rationalist Diesterweg out of the principalship of 
 a normal school at Berlin. 
 
 Opinion among educated Germans turned against the King; 
 the poets Heine, Herweg, Freiligrath attacked him or satirized 
 him. He became enraged against this " clique, who by speech, 
 writings, and cartoons were laying the axe to the roots of Ger- 
 man existence; who sought not the free superposition of the 
 classes, but a hodge-podge of all classes " (letter to Bunsen). 
 
 The United Landtag of 1847. — By the King's direction, his con- 
 fidential advisers had been considering the proper organization of 
 States-General for the whole kingdom. In 1845 the matter was 
 referred to a special commission. Later it was withdrawn from 
 the commission and seriously discussed in the council of minis- 
 ters. These deliberations lasted till 1847, ^"^^ finally resulted in 
 the patent of February 3 of that year. This was not the constitu- 
 tion awaited by the public; the King alone had signed it in order 
 to " avoid all resemblance to a fundamental law." The patent 
 created a United Landtag which was not, after all, the " repre- 
 sentation of the people " promised in 1815, but only a general 
 meeting at Berlin of all the members of the various Provincial 
 Estates. It was composed, not of representatives of the people, 
 but of deputies of classes. They were to sit together in consider- 
 ing financial questions, but for all other matters they sat as two 
 bodies: the curia of seigneurs consisting of princes and great 
 nobles (80) and the curia of the three inferior estates. The 
 powers of the Landtag were limited to the voting of new taxes 
 and the presentation of petitions. The King reserved the right 
 to consult it in reference to changes of law whenever he should 
 see fit. The gathering was not even made a settled institution, 
 as the King declined to pledge himself to convene it periodically. 
 He only promised to convoke, every fourth year, committees 
 representing all the Provincial Estates, for consultation on laws, 
 and every year a delegation consisting of one member from each 
 province, to receive the accounts of the national debt. 
 
 The disappointment was general. All parties agreed in de- 
 manding at least a periodical meeting of the United Landtag. 
 At the opening session of the Landtag, April 11, the King took 
 
THE UNITED LANDTAG OF 1847. 441 
 
 pains to give notice, by a solemn declaration, " that no power on 
 earth could ever bring him to change the natural relation . . . 
 between prince and people into one of convention or of constitu- 
 tion." " I shall never allow a sheet of paper drawn up as a second 
 Providence, to be placed between God and our country, to make 
 its paragraphs our rulers and substitute them for the ancient 
 faithfulness. You, gentlemen, are the German Estates (Stdnde), 
 in the old traditional sense, that is to say, you are before all the 
 representatives and defenders of your own rights, the rights of 
 the estates. . . You are to exercise at once the rights the Crown 
 has granted to you. Your mission is not to represent opinions, 
 to give effect to the opinions of a period or of a school. That 
 would be quite un-German as well as unfavourable to the general 
 welfare, for it would lead to endless difficulties with the sovereign, 
 who, according to the law of God and of the country, must 
 govern according to his own unfettered judgment and not ac- 
 cording to the will of majorities." Then he adjured his loyal 
 Estates to help him in combatting the spirit of revolution and un- 
 belief. Then, suddenly rising, he uttered the famous sentence 
 from the Psalmist : " As for me and my house we will serve the 
 Lord, yea! in truth." 
 
 The conflict between Frederick William and the Landtag be- 
 gan at once, with a show of outv/ard respect. The assembly 
 voted an address of thanks, reserving, however, by 484 votes 
 against 107, " the rights of the estates " — that is to say, the right 
 to a representation of the people promised in 1815. The King 
 answered that, in convoking the Landtag, he had acted from the 
 fulness of his kingly power and had even gone beyond the 
 promise of his father; that he therefore refused tO' recognise in 
 the Landtag any other right than those he had granted to it. 
 He declared the decree of 1847 " unassailable in its main 
 features." 
 
 The government asked for a guarantee of the railway loan. 
 The Landtag refused, and proceeded to adopt a petition for 
 liberty of the press, control of the finances, and above all a 
 promise of periodical convocation, lliese requests the King re- 
 fused. The Landtag broke up without having granted or ob- 
 tained anything, June, 1847. 
 
 The " United Committees " of the Provincial Estates, sum- 
 moned to Berlin for consultation regarding the Criminal Code in 
 January, 1848, were still sitting when the King, alarmed by the 
 prevalent agitation, decided to give way on the question of. 
 
442 THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 periodic meetings of the Landtag (March 8, 1848). This tardy 
 concession did not arrest the popular movement. 
 
 Revolution of 1848. — The revolution in Prussia was an imita- 
 tion of the revolution in France ; it was accomplished by a rising 
 in the capital. At Berlin there were neither political parties nor 
 recognised leaders, nor even organization by secret societies ; but 
 there was a discontented multitude of young men and labourers, 
 mixed with foreigners, particularly Poles. The crowd in the 
 city had perhaps been increased by the scarcity following the bad 
 harvest of 1847. This multitude, already stirred up against the 
 King, the nobles and the public officers, and inspired by a vague 
 democratic feeling, was suddenly aroused by the news of the 
 Paris revolution and the agitation in various German states. In 
 Prussia herself, in the manufacturing towns of the Rhine and 
 Silesia, great popular assemblages were meeting to prepare peti- 
 tions to the King. At Berlin improvised gatherings were held 
 in the cafes when the newspapers arrived from without. On 
 the 7th of March a meeting held in the Thiergarten resolved to 
 present a petition calling for a meeting of the Landtag. 
 
 Then began the " days of March." This was a conflict be- 
 tween the two sets of men holding physical force in Berlin, the 
 revolutionists and the officers. The middle class held aloof. 
 The officers affected to despise the crowd; they spoke of the trash. 
 The multitude grew angry, irritated by the military measures of 
 precaution, the massing of troops at the palace, the cannons, the 
 sentries, the cavalry posted at the city gates. There were col- 
 lisions, and several were wounded. The general wrath was 
 directed against the Prince Royal, later Emperor William I., 
 who was unpopular as the leader of the military and absolutist 
 party. At the news of the Vienna revolution, a mob gathered in 
 front of his palace (March 15). They were dispersed by the mili- 
 tary, but without violence. 
 
 The King was beginning to yield before the storm. Like the 
 other German princes, he seems to have had an exaggerated view 
 of the power of the revolutionists. On the 14th of March he 
 announced a meeting of the Landtag for the end of April, " to 
 assist in the measures to be taken for the welfare of the German 
 Fatherland." He promised to work for " a real regeneration of 
 the Confederation." On the i8th, having received deputations 
 from the provinces of the Rhine, Prussia and Silesia, he advanced 
 the date of the meeting to April 2 ; at the same time he expressed 
 the opinion that " the reorganization of the federal system could 
 
REVOLUTION OF 1848. 443 
 
 be accomplished only by agreement of the princes with the peo- 
 ple " and that this " necessitated a constitutional organization of 
 all the German states." He thus sacrificed his favourite doctrine. 
 
 The proclamation was published on the morning of March i8. 
 During the day crowds gathered before the palace shouting for 
 the King, who thanked them from his balcony. But instead of 
 dispersing, they remained on the spot, in spite of the summons 
 of the officer of the guards. Then, without further ado, a light 
 broke out between the mob and the soldiers, who had in fact been 
 in a state of conflict for some days. Two discharges of mus- 
 ketry, fired at random, caused the crowd to riin away, crying 
 Treason! Several were killed. There was a sally of the troops 
 stationed at the palace, a volley by the infantry, and a charge by 
 the dragoons. The mobs then pillaged the gun-shops, working- 
 men came armed with crowbars; there was a battle near the 
 palace; barricades were put up in the streets as in Paris. This 
 street warfare, was directed by journalists, students, and revolu- 
 tionists from without. The contest went on until after midnight. 
 
 The army had little by little pushed back the rioters and was 
 preparing to crush them on the following day. But the King 
 suddenly faltered in presence of civil war. On the morning of 
 the 19th a proclamation " to my dear Berliners " appeared. The 
 King adjured his Berliners, in the name of the sick Queen, not 
 to let themselves be seduced by a gang of malefactors; he asked 
 them to remove the barricades, promising, if they did so, to re- 
 move the troops. The insurgents demanded that the first step 
 should be the retirement of the troops. On the advice of the 
 loyal citizens the King yielded. He ordered the troops to be 
 withdrawn from the streets, granted the citizens permission to 
 arm themselves and announced a change of ministers. The civic 
 guard became masters of Berlin and of the government. Prince 
 William, nicknamed Prince Mitraille, was ordered by the King, 
 his brother, to leave Berlin, and departed for England. The 
 King, through horror of bloodshed, had given the people a vic- 
 tory over the army. 
 
 Frederick William, abruptly renouncing his pet theories and 
 even adopting the revolutionary terminology, assumed the part 
 of a constitutional king at the head of a national movement. On 
 the 2ist of March, in a proclamation " to the Prussian people and 
 the German nation," he announced himself in favour of a " true 
 constitutional system, with responsibility of the ministers, public 
 trials in the courts, jury in criminal cases, equality in civil and 
 
444 THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 political rights." Then, robed in the colours of the Empire 
 (the black, red, and gold of the students), he went through Berlin 
 on horseback, making speeches to the crowds. In the evening 
 he exclaimed, " My people will not desert me, and Germany, con- 
 fiding, will unite herself to me. Prussia henceforth is swallowed 
 up in Germany." At one stroke the King accepted all the 
 "revolutionary" institutions of France: a written constitution, 
 a single national assembly elected by universal suffrage; he got 
 the Landtag, assembled for the last time, to indorse this pro- 
 gram by its vote.* 
 
 The National Assembly. — ^The Prussian National Assembly of 
 402 members was chosen by indirect election. Each Circle was 
 allowed to choose a delegate; the choice was made by a body of 
 electors who were themselves chosen by the voters — each voting 
 district choosing one elector for every 500 inhabitants. To be a 
 voter it was sufficient to be twenty-four years of age and to have 
 resided in the district six months. The Assembly consisted prin- 
 cipally of jurists, professors, and parsons, with about a hundred 
 peasants and artisans. The most notable men in it had been 
 members of the German Vor-parlament. Endowed, not with the 
 power of sovereign decision on the provisions of the new consti- 
 tution, but only of discussing them with the King, the Assembly 
 found itself in continual conflict with the old governing powers — 
 the King, the military men, and the civil officers. It lasted only 
 seven months, but this period was decisive for the political future 
 ol Prussia. Then it was that the political parties of the kingdom 
 took form. 
 
 The Left, coming chiefly from the democratic regions of the 
 west and from the large cities, was a radical democratic party re- 
 sembling the French republicans. It sought, French fashion, to 
 establish sovereignty of the people; it proposed that the Assembly 
 should declare itself sovereign, and should vote that the insur- 
 gents of March had deserved well of their country. It demanded 
 lay control of the schools and of the etat-civil;\ also a radical 
 reform of the administration. It came to an understanding with 
 the Left of the Frankfort Assembly in support of a federal gov- 
 ernment for Germany superior to the state governments. 
 
 * In the province of Posen, where the Polish revolutionists had tried a. 
 resort to force in 1846, there was a Polish insurrection which required a 
 real war for its suppression (April-May). 
 
 f That is, the registration of marriages, births, and deaths, with the at- 
 tendant right of deciding on the validity of marriages and on questions of 
 legitimacy. 
 
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. 445 
 
 In Opposition to this party of revolution and German unity, 
 there was formed a Conservative Particularist party, made up 
 mainly from among the great landowners of the east. This party 
 demanded the maintenance of the privileges of the aristocracy, 
 the power of the Protestant clergy, and the independence of 
 Prussia. It got the name of the Feudal party or, from the name 
 of the journal it had just founded, the Kreuzzeitung party. 
 
 Between these two extremes, the centre formed a party of con- 
 ciliation, liberal, royalist, and national: it wished a liberal consti- 
 tution for Prussia and a federal union of Germany, but on such 
 terms as to preserve the King's sovereignty and the independence 
 of the Prussian government. 
 
 The Centre held control in the national assembly. It obtained 
 the rejection of the propositions made by the Left and had be- 
 gun voting a constitution prepared by a committee in accordance 
 with its own views. It was a very liberal constitution, patterned 
 after that of Belgium, the model government in the eyes of the 
 liberals of the Rhine Province. It established legal equality and 
 all the Belgian liberties — liberty of the person, of residence, 
 property, religion, education, the press, meetings, clubs, petition. 
 It abolished the survivals of seignioral authority — police, justice, 
 and dues. The government was to be organized as in Belgium: 
 two elective houses, summoned and dissolved by the King, con- 
 trolling the finances and making the laws ; the King, head of the 
 executive power, swearing fidelity to the constitution and gov- 
 erning through responsible ministers; the judges independent; 
 local administration handed over to elective councils. But in- 
 stead of the Belgian property qualification for voting, universal 
 suffrage was to be the rule, coupled with indirect election {i. e., 
 the voters, instead of voting directly for their representatives, 
 were to choose electors to act for them). The constitution was 
 to be agreed to by the King, as in Belgium. 
 
 The Prussian national assembly had no more power than the 
 German national assembly of Frankfort to enforce obedience to 
 its decisions. Its deliberations were substantially free; the 
 Burgher guard of Berlin defended it even against a democratic 
 outbreak in June. But the King, gradually recovering his confi- 
 dence, began to show a leaning toward the Feudal party; and he 
 had the army under his command. In the cities of Prussia there 
 were continual quarrels between the burgher guard and the 
 noble army officers, who were accustomed to treat civilians as 
 their inferiors; several civilians were killed. After the afifair of 
 
446 THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 SchweiBnitz (July 31), in which fourteen persons were killed, the 
 Assembly asked for a decree ordering the army officers to avoid 
 conflicts with the citizens. The King refused the request, as an 
 infraction of his authority over the army. The Assembly, by 219 
 votes against 143, repeated its request in more emphatic form 
 (September 7). This brought on an overt breach. The King, 
 who had appointed two liberal ministries in succession, one in 
 March and the other in June, now dismissed his liberal advisers 
 and formed a ministry of the old sort; he also appointed, as mili- 
 tary commander of the province of Brandenburg, General von 
 Wrangel, an advocate of repression by military force. Under 
 this threat the Assembly gave a majority to the Left; it refused to 
 insert the phrase " by the Grace of God " and voted an invitation 
 to the federal government to defend the liberty of Vienna (see 
 p. 416). 
 
 The people of Berlin had made the revolution following 
 French example; the King embraced reaction following Austrian 
 example. When the Austrian army had crushed the revolution 
 in Vienna, Frederick William resolved to use the army against 
 the Berlin Assembly. He formed a " fighting ministry " under 
 his uncle, the Duke of Brandenburg, and ordered the Assembly , 
 to move to the small town of Brandenburg. The Assembly re- 
 fused, and went on with its sessions at Berlin. Then the army en- 
 tered the city, took possession of the hall in which the Assembly 
 sat, and disarmed the burgher guard. Berlin was proclaimed in 
 a state of siege; all gatherings of more than twenty persons were 
 forbidden (November 10-12). The Assembly protested and even 
 voted a refusal of the taxes. But between the Assembly and the 
 army the contest was too unequal; the Assembly was broken up. 
 
 The King, having failed to win over a majority of the deputies 
 to support Brandenburg, declared the Assembly dissolved (De- 
 cember 5). At the same time, invoking the traditional sover- 
 eignty of the Prussian King he proclaimed a constitution on his 
 own authority — adding, however, that it would be subject to re- 
 vision by legislative process. He also announced a meeting of 
 the Chambers created by the instrument, to be held in Berlin. 
 
 The constitution of the 6th of December reproduced pretty 
 closely the work of the National Assembly; but it was " granted " 
 by the King, without the advice and consent of the nation's repre- 
 sentatives; and one Article gave the King the right, in the ab- 
 sence of the two houses, to issue ordinances having the force of 
 law. This was taken from that article of the French Charte 
 
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1850. 447 
 
 which had brought the revolution of 1830. It was put to imme- 
 diate use in promulgating a law to regulate the elections to the 
 Chambers, and even in effecting some liberal reforms — introduc- 
 tion of jury trial, abolition of special jurisdictions, and redemp- 
 tion of seignioral dues. 
 
 The King, by retaining command of the army, had resumed his 
 sovereign power as soon as he wished, but he did not dare aay 
 more to violate constitutional forms " desired by his people ; 
 and he himself introduced once for all into Prussia all the revo- 
 lutionary institutions condemned by his own ideal — a written 
 constitution, popular representation, and even universal suffrage. 
 
 The Constitution of 1850. — The two Chambers, called together 
 for the revision of the new constitution, had not time to finish 
 their work. They got into conflict with the King, at first on the 
 question of German unity, later on home questions. They en- 
 treated him to accept the imperial crown offered to him by the 
 Frankfort Assembly, expressing at the same time the opinion that 
 the constitution adopted by that assembly was valid and binding 
 (see p. 395). Later they asked that the " state of siege " decreed 
 for Berlin be withdrawn. On the 27th of April the King dis- 
 solved the popular chamber. In order to get a more docile Par- 
 liament he enacted, by way of ordinance, a new election law much 
 less democratic than the one under which the dissolved Chamber 
 was elected. 
 
 1. Universal suffrage was retained in the first stage of the 
 elections, but it was made unequal. In each voting precinct the 
 primary voters were divided into three classes on the basis of 
 direct taxation, by first arranging them in a descending scale, the 
 heaviest taxpayers at the head, the less heavy next, and so on 
 down to those who pay the least or no tax at all; the list is then 
 cut into three parts at such points as to have each part represent 
 one-third of the whole direct taxation of the precinct. The tax- 
 payers named in each part constitute a class, and each class 
 chooses the same number of electors. The heavy taxpayers who 
 constitute the first class, being few in number, are individually 
 much more strongly represented than the crowd of poor men 
 who constitute the third class. This " three-class system," estab- 
 lished provisionally by royal decree, still subsists in Prussia. 
 
 2. The voting at each of the two stages is viva voce, and each 
 man's vote is a matter of public record. The reason given by 
 the law is that " nothing is so indispensable to a free people as 
 tne courage to express one's conviction publicly." 
 
448 THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 The Chamber, elected in 1850 under this law, at a time of gen- 
 eral reaction, included about 200 office-holders in a total of 350 
 members. It had no will to oppose the government. It ac- 
 cepted the constitution, with such modifications as the King was 
 pleased to make in it: the election law of the three classes, the 
 re-establishment of the stamp tax on newspapers, together with 
 the " deposit " of money as a security for good conduct, the 
 abolition of the requirement that soldiers should swear to sup- 
 port the constitution, the establishment of a special court for the 
 trial of political offences ; and even Article 109, under which exist- 
 ing taxes continue to be collected until changed by law, a pro- 
 vision which reduces the power of the Chamber to the mere vot- 
 ing of new taxes. Regarding the composition of the upper 
 house, no agreement was found possible; the Chamber wished to 
 preserve some form of election, whereas the King held out for 
 appointment. It was decided to postpone the settlement of this 
 question till 1852. 
 
 The King then consented to promulgate the constitution 
 (January 31, 1850). Later he swore to maintain it, but in doing 
 so explained that he gave it his sanction only because it had 
 been improved : " It is a condition of life that government be left 
 possible for me, for in Prussia the King must rule, and I rule . . . 
 because it is God's command." Thus did he come back to the 
 doctrine of divine right and the sovereign power of the King. 
 And yet the Constitution of 1850, by consecrating the " rights 
 of Prussians " to liberty and equality, established a system in 
 form democratic and liberal — more democratic than even that of 
 Belgium. It brought Prussia into the political life of our time. 
 
 The Reaction (1850-59). — ^The reaction against the revolution 
 of 1848 did not lead, in Prussia, to a restoration of the old system. 
 Frederick William refused to imitate the coups d'etat of the 
 Austrian government and Napoleon III. He allowed himself 
 to propose a plan for reducing the constitution to a charte and for 
 restoring election by " estates " ; but he did not dare to break his 
 oath, and he preserved the constitution. 
 
 The cotatradiction between the absolutist traditions of the 
 Prussian government and the new Constitution was surmounted 
 in practice by devices which recall those of Napoleon III. (see 
 p. 173). The lower house remained a representative assembly, 
 but it was made dependent on the government. The adminis- 
 tration, as in France, arranged the electoral districts to suit itself. 
 It recommended to the voters candidates agreeable to the 
 
THE REACTION. 449 
 
 King, — often office-holders, — and always secured the election of 
 a large ministerial majority. The chamber of 1855 was nick- 
 named the " House of Landrdthe " ; it had 72 of them. (The 
 Landrath answers roughly to the French subprefect.) 
 
 It was hardly necessary to take trouble to get so docile a 
 representative body. The usage was established of not present- 
 ing the budget to the Parliament until after the money had been 
 expended. The chamber voted it en bloc without debating the 
 details ; it simply ratified what had already been done. 
 
 The lower house, besides, had only half of the legislative 
 power; the upper house was able to hold it in check. Now 
 the King was no longer willing to have the elective upper 
 house of the Belgian type, originally contemplated by the 
 constitution. He held out for an aristocratic chamber, as 
 in other great monarchies. He prevailed on the Chambers 
 to give him the power of determining the composition of 
 the body by royal ordinance (1853). The final ordinance, 
 in 1854, created a House of Lords (Herrenhaus) consisting 
 partly of hereditary and partly of life members, the whole 
 in three categories: (i) The royal princes; (2) The hereditary 
 nobles who formed the curia of seigneurs in the Landtag of 
 1847; (3) Life members appointed by the King at his own pleas- 
 ure or on the nomination of the noble families, great landowners, 
 universities, and cities. The number of members was not 
 limited; it has varied from 200 to 400, but the nobles have always 
 been in majority and have supported the King in opposition to 
 the elected lower house. 
 
 This profound transformation of the constitution, contrary to 
 the very terms of the original and made by mere ordinance, was 
 never ratified by a regular law; so several commentators on Prus- 
 sian constitutional law regard the Herrenhaus as unconstitu- 
 tional. It has nevertheless remained a part of the legislature, 
 equal in power with the elected house. The Prussian Parlia- 
 ment was given no collective name in the Constitution of 1850. 
 The King proposed the old historical name of Landtag. This 
 proposal the lower house rejected (1855); but the King would 
 not have the French name of " Chambers." The ministry 
 adopted, for daily practice, the name of Landtag, which has be- 
 come the established designation. 
 
 The press, which the constitution declared to be free, was 
 stifled with prosecutions and threats. A member of the Land- 
 tag was prosecuted for inciting the people against the Junkers 
 
45° THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 (squires). The Voter's Journal was confiscated as often as three 
 days in a week. 
 
 The right of holding' political meetings was suspended; even 
 the religious meetings of dissenting Protestants were forbidden. 
 Political clubs were dissolved; the government prevented the 
 holding of gatherings in the beer-gardens by withdrawing the 
 license of any beer-seller who allowed his premises to be used 
 for such purposes. Certain democrats, accused of conspiracy, 
 were kept in prison eight months without trial. 
 
 This system rested on an alliance between the court, the great 
 landowners, the military men, and the Orthodox party. The 
 King, the ministers, and the Kreuszeitung, the ofificial organ of 
 the Court, declared it was necessary to re-establish the autocratic 
 power of the Crown, the influence of the aristocracy, and the 
 reign of religion. The King, in receiving a deputation in 
 Silesia, reproached the inhabitants with " following the example 
 of the large cities," and he threatened them with his displeasure 
 if agitations were begun again. " There is in the cities an evil 
 spirit," said he. At Elbing, in 1853, he censured " those munici- 
 pal authorities who, following demoralizing and de- Christianiz- 
 ing tendencies, still worship the unclean and corrupting con- 
 quests of a shameful epoch." Stahl, rector of the University of 
 Berlin, in a famous toast, declared: "Science must face about." 
 He reproached it with having been " in conflict with the facts of 
 life and especially with its controlling forces." 
 
 The nobles obtained a modification of the constitution as re- 
 gards the abolition of their privileges. The institution of Me 
 commissa was restored in 1852, which enabled them to keep up 
 the entail of their lands ; and in 1856 landowners were given the 
 police jurisdiction of their domains. Above all, the remodelling 
 of the administrative arrangements of the provinces. Circles, and 
 communes was arrested; the laws already passed, which had 
 made a beginning of the work, were repealed. The provincial 
 estates, the old assemblies of the Circles, and the administration 
 of the communes by the nobles, as before 1850, were all restored. 
 
 Prussia found herself again under the administration of royal 
 officers and the landholding nobility, and under the personal gov- 
 ernment of the King and ministers — disguised by a democratic 
 representative system, as in France at the same period. 
 
 This system lasted until Frederick William IV., so far touched 
 in his mind as to have become incapable of business, handed over 
 the government to his brother, first as Lieutenant (October, 
 
THE ZOLLVEREIN. 45 ^ 
 
 1858) and later as Regent. William swore to maintain the con- 
 stitution and chose ministers favourable to reform; but he took 
 pains to announce publicly that no change of system was to be 
 looked for: "what has been promised shall be performed, what 
 has not been promised shall be withheld." 
 
 Prussia's German Policy. — ^Throughout this whole period, since 
 1814, Prussia had laboured to extend her influence over the rest 
 of Germany. Like Austria, she was at once a great European 
 power and a member of the German Federation for a part of 
 her territory. But Austria had only a small minority of German 
 subjects (8,000,000 in 36,000,000) and her German districts, 
 touched the rest of Germany only at one corner — the southwest. 
 Prussia, on the other hand, peopled almost exclusively by Ger- 
 mans, was composed of provinces which spread across the whole 
 Federation, bordering on twenty-eight other states and intimately 
 connected with the economic life of all parts of Germany. Be- 
 ing thus so much more German than Austria, she was in a posi- 
 tion to lay the foundation for eventual leadership of the union. 
 To this end she employed three sets of agencies — ^military, politi- 
 cal, and commercial. 
 
 She had the best army in Germany, the defence of half of the 
 western frontier, supposed to be threatened by France; she also 
 had garrisons in certain federal fortresses. As early as 1815 she 
 had asked that the Diet should grant her the command-in- 
 chief of the troops of the other North German states, Austria to. 
 have the command of those of South Germany. But except dur- 
 ing the critical years when fear of a French invasion gave 
 Prussia a passing influence over the threatened states (1830, 
 1840, 1848), the other governments steadily opposed a measure 
 which would have given Prussia military control. So the federal 
 army remained decentralized. 
 
 As to political leadership, the King of Prussia left that to 
 Austria till 1848; and when the revolutionary Assembly of Frank- 
 fort tendered it to Frederick William IV., under the title of Em- 
 peror, he refused it, because it had not been offered " by his 
 equals " (see p. 395). Now the princes of Germany, especially 
 those of them who bore the title of King, would not willingly 
 place themselves under the King of Prussia, whom they accused 
 of wishing to aggrandize himself at their expense. They pre- 
 ferred to support the Emperor, their traditional superior, wha 
 bad no eye to annexations nor to a closer union of Germany. 
 
 The Zollverein. — It was neither through military nor political' 
 
452 THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM I. 
 
 measures, but through commerce, that the unity of Germany 
 under Prussian leadership began. The first form of unity was 
 the Zollverein or Customs Union, instituted and directed by 
 Prussia. It was formed slowly, in the face of resistance which, 
 general at first, became gradually weaker as the various states 
 perceived the material advantages it ofifered. It was begun in 
 1818, but was not completed until 1853. 
 
 It originated in the extremely depressed economic condition 
 of Prussia after 1815, which made a radical reform of her tarifif 
 necessary. The several parts of the kingdom had never before 
 been under one and the same tariff; each district had a customs 
 system of its own; in fact, Prussia had 67 diflferent tariff areas. 
 Her territory, cut into two widely separated divisions, made up 
 of fragments interspersed with lands belonging to other states, 
 would have been hard to encircle with custom houses ; the com- 
 plicated nature as well as the length of the frontiers (over 4000 
 miles) would have made smuggling easy. 
 
 Maassen, the officer charged with arranging the customs af- 
 fairs, succeeded in setting up a common tariff and a single 
 administration for the whole kingdom (1818). Foreseeing the 
 impossibility of preventing smuggling by direct means, he chose 
 the plan of making it unprofitable, by setting a low scale of 
 duties: ten per cent, on manufactured products which might be 
 imported at all points on the frontiers; twenty per cent, on colo- 
 nial or over-sea products, which could only be brought in 
 through ports easily guarded. In order to avoid disputes as to 
 the valuation of goods, as well as the temptation to show false 
 invoices, he adopted specific duties as far as possible, instead of 
 the ad valorem method. Prussia was thus constrained, by her 
 defective frontiers, to adopt the most liberal commercial policy 
 of all Europe. No other great state, at that time of trade re- 
 strictions, had a tariff so nearly approaching free trade. 
 
 In establishing her line of custom houses, Prussia was led to 
 include within it the inclosed territories belonging to the petty 
 princes of Thuringia. She offered these pi inces to share the rev- 
 enue collected on the basis of population; at first they protested 
 against the tyranny of Prussia, and brought the matter before 
 the Federal Diet; but in the end they accepted the arrangement. 
 The first treaty, with Schwarzburg-Sonderhausen (1819), served 
 as a model for the treaties with the other states whose territory 
 was inclosed within Prussia. The inclosed state entered for good 
 and all into the Prussian customs system, accepting the Prus- 
 
THE ZOLLVEREIN. 453 
 
 sian tariff and the collection by Prussian officers, and receiving 
 of the proceeds a share proportioned to its share of the total 
 population contributing to the revenue. For the smaller state 
 the arrangement was financially advantageous. 
 
 The Prussian government sought to negotiate treaties with the 
 southern and central states, but for some time the princes rejected 
 every proposition of Prussia as an attack on their independence. 
 They preferred to make local customs unions among themselves. 
 From 1820 to 1828 there were negotiations between the central 
 states, between the Rhenish states, and between Bavaria and 
 Wurtemburg. Austria, which clung to her prohibitive system, 
 would neither admit the German states to a customs union with 
 herself nor consent to their entering a union with Prussia. 
 
 Finally, after some years of intrigue, Prussia, having failed 
 to win over her nearest neighbours, made a treaty directly with 
 Hesse-Darmstadt, which, with its divided territory, found itself 
 isolated in the west. The agreement, in this case, was a bad 
 financial operation for Prussia. Hesse-Darmstadt, for a territory 
 of only 3000 square miles, brought her a customs frontier of 
 500 miles. But the government accepted it from motives of 
 policy, to create a precedent. The treaty of 1828 with Hesse- 
 Darmstadt became, in fact, a pattern for the later customs treaties 
 with the other German states. In order to soothe the sover- 
 eignty of the smaller states, these treaties were given the form 
 of a customs union (Zollverein),the two contracting parties stand- 
 ing on a footing of equality in each case. The two states were 
 to abolish all customs duties in their trade with each other, and 
 to have a common tariff in their trade with foreign countries. 
 Each was to administer this common tariff on its own part of 
 the common frontier, each was to send an agent to watch the 
 customs administration of the other. But Prussia, in every case, 
 prevailed on the other to adopt the Prussian tariff and her excise 
 taxes on tobacco, also her commercial treaties with foreign coun- 
 tries; in a word, Prussia controlled the customs union. The 
 treaties were made for six years only, at the end of which term 
 each state regained liberty of action. 
 
 In competition with the Prussian union in the north a southern 
 customs league was formed by Bavaria and Wurtemburg; also 
 a commercial union of central Germany (1828). But the south- 
 ern and northern leagues, threatened with separation by the es- 
 tablishment of a barrier between, took measures against their 
 common enemy, the central union, and succeeded in detaching 
 
454 THE KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA BEFORE WILLIAM /. 
 
 from it two little states, with the result of opening a passage 
 through the line that threatened to separate them. Thereupon 
 the Central Union broke up; Hesse-Cassel joined the Zollverein 
 (1831), the southern states followed, and finally most of the other 
 states. By 1836 the greater part of Germany had joined the 
 Prussian Zollverein. The method was by separate treaties, for 
 a term of years, between Prussia and each of the states. The 
 Zollverein included 25,000,000 of people, and its frontier was less 
 extended than that of Prussia in, the days when she stood alone. 
 The only states remaining outside were Mecklenburg, the four 
 Free Cities, and the states of the northwest (Hanover, Bruns- 
 wick, Oldenburg), which formed a separate union with a lower 
 tariff than the Zollverein. 
 
 The Zollverein brought so manifest benefits that, in spite of 
 the dislike of the other governments for Prussia, the treaties, at 
 their expiration, were renewed for twelve years — to run till 1853. 
 
 In 1850, after the unsuccessful attempt of Prussia to form a 
 new political union, the German princes made preparations to go 
 out of the Zollverein, in order to form a customs union with 
 Austria on the basis of a higher tariff: they found the Prussian 
 tariff not sufficiently protectionist. Prussia was not willing 
 to follow them in joining Austria; she turned to the states of the 
 northwest, which had stood aloof from the Zollverein because 
 they regarded its scale of duties as too high for their trade with 
 England. With these she formed a customs union, consenting 
 to lower her tariff for the purpose. The old Zollverein seemed 
 to be broken up (1852). But the former members of it failed, 
 after all, in their negotiations with Austria, and in the year 1853 
 revived their treaties with Prussia for another twelve years. 
 
 The Zollverein, by a series of special temporary treaties, had 
 almost realized the commercial union which the Diet had failed 
 to establish. All the German states, except Austria, were now 
 members of it. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— Dahlmann-Waitz, " Quellenkunde der Deutschen 
 Gesch.," 1894 ed. (On this work and the character given to the bibl. of 
 this chapter, see note to bibl. to chap, xii.) 
 
 DOCUMENTS.— The prjncipal official documents are the Reports of the 
 assemblies of 1848 (see Waltz, 1894 edit., Nos. 6081-82,) and the Gesetz- 
 sammlung (official collection of Prussian laws). 
 
 Of the letters and recollections, the most instructive are : Hardenberg, 
 5 vols., 1877.— Friedrich Wilhelm IV., 1873, correspondence with his friend 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 455 
 
 Bunsen. (Extracts in S.-E. Taillandier, " Dix Ans de I'Hist. d'AUemagne," 
 J875.)— Th. vonBernhardi, vol. i., ii., 1893. 
 
 WORKS. — The chief complete history is Treitschke, " Deutsche Gesch.," 
 5 vols., 1886-95, stops at 1848 (see bibl. to chap, xii.) ; it tells the secret 
 history of the government from documents in the Prussian archives ; very 
 Prussian, and very partial to Frederick William III. — Summary in BuUe, 
 «ee chap. xii. — Excellent articles in the " AUgemeine Deutsche Bio- 
 graphie." 
 
 In French : Veron, " Hist, de la Prusse," popular edit. 
 
 On Reforms from 1807 to 1814 : See the monographs on reformers : 
 Fertz, " Leben des . . . Fr. von Stein," 6 vols., 1849-55, exaggerates the 
 role of his hero. — Seeley, " Life and Times of Stein," 3 vols., 1880. — (Sum- 
 maries in Cavaignac, " Formation de la Prusse Contemp.," 1891). — Leluuazui, 
 " Scharnhorst," 2 vols., 1886-87. — Oncken, " Zeitalter der Revolution," vol. 
 ii., 1887 (Oncken coll.). 
 
 On the History of Institutions : VonEonne, '• Staatsrecht der Preussi- 
 «chen Monarchie," 4 vols., ist edit., 1856-63, 4th ed., 1881; description 
 both juridical and historical of all Prussian institutions, the most complete 
 work of this nature ; the first edition is preferable, as it describes the sys- 
 tem previous to the transformations of 1867. — Bornhak, ' ' Gesch. des Preussi- 
 schen Verwaltungsrechts," 4 vols., 1884-92.— Grant Duff, " Studies in 
 European Politics," has excellent chapters on German affairs under the 
 Confederation. — Ualet, " Overthrow of the Germanic Confederation." 
 
 On Social and Political Life : v. Bulow-Cummerow, " Preussen, seine 
 Verfassung . . .," 2 vols., 1842-43, aristocratic. — F. Fischer, "Preussen 
 am Abschlusse der Ersten Halfte des XIXt=n Jahrhunderts," 1876, lib- 
 eral.— K. Hilletoand, " La Prusse Contemp. et ses Institutions," 1867. 
 
 On the Peasant Emancipation: J.-F, Enapp, " Die Bauernbefreiung . . 
 Preussens," 2 vols., 1887, an accurate study of the condition of the 
 peasants. 
 
 On the Zollverein; W. Weber, " Der Deutsche ZoUverein," 1869. — 
 Bibl. in " Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften." — In English, 
 Bowring's " Report on the Russian Commercial Union," Eng. Pari. Doc. 
 J840. — Eand's " Selections in Economic History," 1888. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 Germany, kept in the helpless condition of the Federation by 
 the rivalry between Prussia and Austria, has become a nation by 
 the victory of Prussia. The creation of the new Empire was 
 made possible by a series of struggles and transformations. But 
 during this period of preparation (1859-71) the history of Prus- 
 sia is so closely interwoven with that of the other German states 
 that it will be advantageous to make one narrative of the whole. 
 
 Reform of the Prussian Army (1859-62). — The Prince Royal of 
 Prussia, regent since 1858, became, in January, 1861, at the age 
 of sixty-three. King William I. Very unpopular with the Prus- 
 sian liberals as head of the Prussian military party, he had always 
 taken a great interest in the army. From the moment that he 
 became master of the government, he set himself to reorganize 
 the Prussian military system. 
 
 The law of 1814 had established in principle the universal three- 
 year service in the active army; but although the population had 
 increased meanwhile from 12,000,000 to 18,000,000, the size of 
 the army had hardly been changed. The number of possible 
 recruits had risen from about 40,000 a year to about 63,000; but 
 as the number of actual soldiers for whom pay and outfit were 
 provided was only about 130,000, the practice was to enlist only 
 a part of the young men each year, and to turn most of them 
 over to the reserve after two years of active service. That is 
 to say, the two principles of universal military drill, and service 
 for three years with the colours, had been abandoned in practice. 
 As service in the reserve was for two years only, this body was 
 insufficient, if called out, to raise the whole army to its war- 
 footing of 400,000 men. To complete it, men of the Landwehr, 
 that is to say, fathers of families, would have to be called out. 
 Now the Landwehr was not up to the standard of the active 
 army, and a call upon it for service would impose heavy sacrifices 
 on the people. 
 
 King William accomplished two reforms: i. He re-established 
 the universal service, and for the three full years. This raised 
 
 456 
 
REFORM OF THE PRUSSIAN ARMY. 457 
 
 the active army to nearly 200,000 men. 2. He lengthened the 
 period of service in the reserve from two to four years. On the 
 other hand he provided that the men should retire from the Land- 
 wehr at the age of thirty-two, instead of forty, the previous rule. 
 The three years' service in the active army and the four years 
 in the reserve, covering for the young men the years from twenty 
 to twenty-seven, suf35ced to yield an army of 440,000 men with- 
 out calling on the Landwehr. The change gave an army con- 
 sisting of men at once younger and better drilled than the old 
 practice. But for these reforms more officers and more money 
 were necessary. 
 
 The King took advantage of the mobilization of the Prussian 
 army during the Italian war of 1859; of the Landwehr battalions 
 called out at that juncture, he retained the officers in service after 
 the men in the ranks were dismissed. But the money necessary 
 for paying these officers had only been voted for one year. The 
 King proposed to the Landtag a bill for reorganizing the army 
 and at the same time asked for an increase of the land-tax to 
 cover the expense. The Lower House disliked the proposed 
 lengthening of military service from two years to three; the 
 Upper House disliked the land-tax. The government had to be 
 satisfied with a compromise: the two houses renewed for one 
 year the vote of money to maintain provisionally and complete 
 the measures necessary to the existing war-footing and to the 
 enlarged army (May, i860). 
 
 In spite of the word " provisionally," inserted as an amend- 
 ment by the Lower House, the government acted on the as- 
 sumption that the reorganization of the army was a settled fact. 
 It transformed provisional battalions into regular regiments with 
 numbers and colours. The Chamber continued to vote the addi- 
 tional money with the declaration that it was merely provisional. 
 
 The Prussian House of Representatives had not the same prac- 
 tical power as the representative bodies in other parliamentary 
 states of western Europe. Recently created by a revolutionary 
 movement, it had been reduced by the absolutist reaction to the 
 position of a mere consulting and registering body. Its consti- 
 tutional right of passing laws and voting taxes was confined to 
 rejecting bills and new taxes proposed by the government. It 
 had no means of putting effective pressure on the ministers and 
 their subordinates, who remained the real holders of power. 
 
 King William, at his accession, had accepted the constitution, 
 but he interpreted it as a rule of procedure for the conduct of 
 
458 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 public affairs, not as a contract between the King and the people. 
 He still held the King to be invested with a higher power of 
 divine origin, which gave him the right and the duty of direct- 
 ing the government, and in particular the army and the foreign 
 policy. It was in substance the Tory doctrine of the Divine 
 Right, re-enforced by the Hohenzollern tradition which made 
 the King the hereditary head of the army (Kriegsherr). 
 
 Nevertheless Regent William's course had reassured the lib- 
 erals. He had discarded the feudal party who had surrounded 
 his brother and had taken his ministers from among the sup- 
 porters of the constitution. The reaction of 1850 had exhausted 
 itself, and the constitution was safely established. A " new era " 
 was beginning. It showed itself in the elections of 1858, which 
 returned a strong majority of constitutional liberals. This ma- 
 jority tried to act in harmony with the ministers of the new era, 
 who, on their part, brought forward a liberal reform^ — a per- 
 missive civil marriage bill (the Herrenhaus rejected it). The 
 Lower House avoided a renewal of the conflict regarding the 
 army question by voting the additional supplies ; but in 1861 this 
 was done by a majority of eleven only, and with a reduction in 
 the amount proposed by the ministry. 
 
 William, on becoming King in 1861, delivered some utterances 
 which showed the growing breach between him and the liberals. 
 The proclamation " to my people " reproduced, with commenda- 
 tion, the saying of his predecessor in 1847: "As for me and my 
 House, we will serve the Lord." At the public coronation in 
 Koenigsberg he convoked the two Houses of the Landtag, and 
 took pains to explain to them his doctrine of the divine right: 
 " The Kings of Prussia receive their crown from God. I shall 
 therefore take my crown to-morrow from the Lord's table and 
 place it on my head." He did in fact take it from the com- 
 munion table, and made the further declaration : " I am the first 
 King to mount the throne since it was surrounded with modern 
 institutions; but not forgetting that the crown comes only from 
 God, I have shown . . . that I have received it from his hands " 
 (October, 1861). 
 
 Formation of the Progress Party (1861-62). — Between Will- 
 iam I., King by divine right, and the liberal majority in the 
 House of Representatives, a conflict began which lasted, in the 
 acute form, for four years. For the elections of 1861 a new Ger- 
 man-Progress party was formed. In its electoral address it de- 
 clared itself squarely opposed to the ministers both in their do- 
 
THE CONFLICT REGARDING THE CONSTITUTION. 459 
 
 mestic policy and in their German policy. In home affairs the 
 party demanded the completion of the " Constitutional State " by 
 establishing the responsibility of public officers — ^that is to say, 
 the right of prosecuting them before the courts. (This was at 
 that time one of the favourite demands of all the liberal parties 
 on the Continent; a law on ministerial responsibility was men- 
 tioned in the Prussian Constitution, but had not yet been en- 
 acted.) They also demanded a reform of local and provincial 
 administration abolishing the privileges of the great landowners ; 
 a reform of the public schools making them independent of the 
 clergy; civil marriage; right of jury trial in press cases; two 
 years' service in the army, so as to reduce the cost to the nation. 
 And above all, in order to make the other reforms possible, they 
 demanded a " radical reform of the House of Lords, the enemy 
 of all progress." In German affairs the party demanded a close 
 union of Germany, with a strong central power in the hands of 
 Prussia, and a representation of the people of all Germany. In 
 other words, they advocated a return to the program of 1849. 
 The Progress party (Fortschrittspartei) set itself in array against 
 three powers in the state — ^the official class, the aristocracy, and 
 the clergy. 
 
 The Feudal party replied in a purely negative manifesto, re- 
 jecting all the demands of the Progressists. The liberal majority 
 of the retiring deputies advised the avoidance of hasty action. 
 
 In the Chamber elected in 1861 the Progress party had con- 
 trol. It had carried the large towns and the manufacturing 
 provinces — Saxony, Silesia, and the Rhine Province. The old 
 liberal party was reduced to a small minority. Between these 
 two parties the Left Centre adhered to the Progress party in 
 the struggle. 
 
 The House assumed a decided attitude toward the ministers. 
 It refused to continue the provisional vote of money for the addi- 
 tions to the army. It demanded a regular budget with the 
 items in detail, and a stoppage of the practice of using money 
 for a different purpose than the one for which it was granted. 
 The ministry offered its resignation; the King preferred to dis- 
 solve the House, and in March, 1862, he appointed a " fightinj 
 ministry," under Hohenlohe. 
 
 The Conflict Eegarding the Constitution (1862-66).- 
 struggle had begun between the House of Representatives, on 
 behalf of the people, and the King, supported by the ministers 
 and the Hou«e of Lords. It related primarily to a practical 
 
 1 
 
460 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 question. The voters wished to maintain the two years' military 
 service which had been in use for a score of years and seemed 
 sufficient for the defence of the country. They were averse to 
 increasing taxes in order to support a heavier military burden. 
 Their wish was so decided that they were ready to resist even the 
 King: neither dissolution nor royal manifesto could move them. 
 Twice, in 1862 and again in 1863, they re-elected the Progress- 
 ists. The King held tenaciously by his project of army reform; 
 he thought it a necessity and regarded his own judgment as final 
 on a military question. He denied the right of the House of 
 Representatives to refuse him the money needed for fulfilling his 
 duty as head of the army. He had thoughts of abdicating, but 
 none of accepting the two years' service. 
 
 This conflict on a practical question raised a conflict of doc- 
 trine that was new in the history of Prussia. The King, up to 
 that time, had always decided questions of the army organiza- 
 tion on his own sovereign judgment. If he declared a reform 
 necessary, could the houses refuse him the money required for 
 the purpose? William I. had, by implication, started the ques- 
 tion by deftnitively creating new regiments, for which the Cham- 
 bers had granted him only a provisional appropriation. But, on 
 the other hand, if the House was under compulsion to vote every 
 appropriation demanded as necessary by the King, it lost the sole 
 effective right which the constitution gave it — the right to impose 
 the taxes; it would become on those terms a mere consultative 
 body. 
 
 The ministry represented the conflict as one for the possession 
 of power; the question was "whether the power of the govern- 
 ment should remain in the hands of the Crown ... or should 
 pass to the Chamber of Deputies." The circular to the admin- 
 istrative officers instructing them how to influence the voters, 
 spoke of the opposition between the King's government and the 
 " democratic party," which was exerting itself to establish " the 
 so-called Parliamentary government " by " transferring the 
 centre of gravity of public power from the Crown to the repre- 
 sentatives of the people." The Progressives defended them- 
 ^Ives from the charge of attacking the constitutional rights of the 
 PCrown; the question to be decided was "whether, side by side 
 with the great power of the government, the constitutional right 
 of the people's representatives should have a meaning or not." 
 
 The question was not, therefore, as in France in the time of 
 Charles X., squarely presented in the form of a conflict between 
 
THE CONFLICT REGARDING THE CONSTITUTION. 461 
 
 a constitutional system and a parliamentary system. The point 
 was not whether the King or the House should ordinarily have 
 the last word. The two opposing parties were not agreed in 
 saying what the question really was. The King said it was 
 whether the system of the constitution was to be maintained 
 against an attempt at a parliamentary system; the Chamber said 
 it was defending the constitution against an absolutist pretension. 
 A fact which muddled the question was that the House drew its 
 powers from the Constitution of 1850, a copy of a foreign consti- 
 tution which was founded on the sovereignty of the people, and 
 that the King held his from the traditional military monarchy. 
 If between these two powers, springing from contradictory 
 sources, a conflict arose, neither the constitution nor tradition 
 indicated a method of settling it. 
 
 The King dissolved the House (1862); but the Progressists 
 were re-elected, and in sufficient number to supply a majority of 
 their own. The former ministerial liberals disappeared. 
 
 The ministry attempted to conciliate the majority by some 
 concessions in foreign policy; it recognised the new Kingdom of 
 Italy and it intervened in Hesse-Cassel. It also made some 
 vague promises of concessions regarding the army. But after 
 long negotiations, the House, by 308 votes against 10, refused to 
 continue the appropriation provisionally voted in the preceding 
 years, for carrying out the army reorganization. 
 
 The King hesitated, was inclined to abdicate, even drew up his 
 act of abdication, but later called on Bismarck and charged him 
 to form a fighting ministry {un ministere de combat). Bismarck, 
 a gentleman of Brandenburg, had distinguished himself as early 
 as 1847 by his hatred of Parliamentary government and his de- 
 votion to the absolute monarchy. He had protested, in 1849, 
 against introducing into monarchical Prussia the constitutional 
 arrangements of the west, particularly against Parliamentary con- 
 trol of the budget. He accepted the leadership of the govern- 
 ment with a pledge never to yield. 
 
 Bismarck came into power with a policy already marked out, 
 which he expressed, in conversation with the members of the 
 budget committee, in symbolical terms: "We are fond of carry- 
 ing a suit of armour too stout for our lean body, so we ought to 
 make use of it." He also said : " It is not Prussia's liberalism 
 that Germany looks to, but her military power." " The unity of 
 Germany is to be brought about, not by speeches nor by votes 
 of majorities, but by blood and iron." As Prussian envoy at the 
 
462 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 Diet he Had learned to despise the Confederation, in which 
 Prussia was always outvoted; he wished to see it broken up. 
 He looked forward to a war with Austria; and for this war, which 
 must decide the fate of Germany, he wished the Prussian army 
 to be powerful and capable of rapid movement. He stood for 
 the reorganization, therefore, as strongly as the King. 
 
 By intrusting the government to so noted a representative of 
 the Junker party, the King broke once for all with the Chamber. 
 When Bismarck presented himself before the Budget Committee 
 with an olive branch, plucked by him at Avignon, this symbol 
 of conciliation was looked upon as derisive. The Chamber 
 raised the constitutional question. It abandoned the practice of 
 continuing provisionally the expenditures of the preceding year, 
 without having voted them; and it declared it " contrary to the 
 constitution that the government should make an expenditure 
 rejected by the Chamber." The ministry answered by carrying 
 its budget to the House of Lords, which passed it by an enor- 
 mous majority. The Lower House declared this action null and 
 void, as contrary to the constitution, as the budget must be voted 
 in the first place by the people's representatives (October, 1862). 
 
 The House relied on the formal text in asserting that the 
 ministers had violated the constitution.* Bismarck urged in re- 
 ply the theory of an omission in the constitution. He admitted 
 that the ministry was about to be " forced to manage the budget 
 without the basis prescribed by the constitution " ; but he con- 
 tended that he was in duty bound to " cover the expenses neces- 
 sary for maintaining the institutions of the state and the welfare 
 of the country." The constitution, he argued, contained no pro- 
 vision for the case. The omission could be supplied only by 
 recurring to the law as it stood before the Constitution of 1850. 
 Now in Prussia the old law admitted the unlimited power of the 
 King; the King then must have the power of adopting the 
 budget. The Constitution of 1850 had established three legis- 
 lative powers, the King, the Chamber of Deputies, and the House 
 of Lords, and had given all three equal power, even in budget 
 matters. No one of the three had the right of forcing the others 
 to yield. For the case of disagreement the constitution provided 
 
 *"A11 the revenues and expenditures of the state shall be annually 
 estimated in advance and set down in the budget ; the budget is fixed 
 annually by a law " (Article 99). " The taxes and dues for the treasury of 
 the state can only be levied as they are set down in the budget or or- 
 dained by special laws " (Article 100). 
 
THE CONFLICT REGARDING THE CONSTITUTION. 463 
 
 no solution ; it assumed an agreement by compromises. " If 
 compromises are out of the question because one of the powers 
 insists on its own will with a doctrinaire absolutism, then . . . 
 instead of compromises we have conflicts; and as the life of the 
 state cannot be arrested, the conflicts become questions of force " 
 (1863). This saying, twisted by Bismarck's opponents, became 
 the famous formula " Force beats law." 
 
 The struggle became a conflict of forces. Now the House 
 had only the moral force of public opinion and the legal right 
 of voting the budget. The ministry, supported by the King, 
 had the physical force of the army and the machinery for levying 
 the taxes. The ministry went on with its own idea. It remained 
 in ofifice three years, acting on an unconstitutional budget, ir- 
 regularly voted by the House of Lords. It got the Lower House 
 dissolved again in 1863; but the Progressives came back with a 
 still stronger majority. The ministry was not moved ; it only gave 
 up presenting the budget to the House, and cut the sessions of 
 the Landtag as short as possible. Agatnst its opponents it 
 copied the methods of Napoleon III. (see pp. 000-00) . - — 
 
 Official candidacy, already tried in 1862 in the form of a cir- 
 cular to the officials, was openly established. An order was 
 issued by the King, declaring that the oath of fealty and obedience 
 taken by officials required them " to follow as voters the course 
 indicated by the King." 
 
 Against the journals the government suspended liberty of the 
 press as given by the constitution, and established the system of 
 notifications. The government assumed the right of notifying 
 any paper dangerous to " the public welfare," and of suppressing 
 it after two notifications. It said in explanation that it was 
 necessary to forbid all criticism of the acts of the government. 
 The chief liberal newspapers were suppressed or reduced to 
 silence. The government proceeded against the elective munici- 
 palities by refusing to install the officers-elect, naming in their 
 stead commissioners of their own appointment — a thing which 
 had never been done in Prussia since the establishment of the 
 municipalities. 
 
 To this government pressure the people and their representa- 
 tives could oppose nothing but displays of public opinion. Tlie 
 House of Representatives voted addresses, which the King de- 
 clined to receive; it protested against the press ordinance as con- 
 trary to the constitution; it voted an inquiry into the pressure 
 put upon the elections, but the government prevented the in- 
 
4^4 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 quiry; it passed a bill to enforce the responsibility of ministers 
 (1863). The municipal councils presented petitions, but were 
 fined for their action; the cities organized meetings, which the 
 government prohibited ; they refused to celebrate the royal anni- 
 versaries. 
 
 All through these years the House was protesting against the 
 foreign policy of Bismarck — the convention with Russia for the 
 extradition of Polish refugees (1863), the Schleswig-Holstein 
 expedition (1864), and the war with Austria (1866). 
 
 The National-Liberal Agitation in Germany (1859-64). — In the 
 other states of Germany political life had been awakened again, 
 as in Prussia, by the Italian war. In 1859 Germany emerged 
 from the absolutist and states-rights reaction and entered a period 
 of agitations at once liberal and national. It was a time of con- 
 fusion and conflict. The individual governments wished to keep 
 up the autocratic system, while their subjects were demanding 
 a return to the constitutional ideas of 1848. The governments 
 were bent on maintaining their separate sovereignty; the national 
 parties demanded the unity of Germany. Almost everywhere 
 there was a national-liberal party contending against a state- 
 rights autocratic party. But the supporters of union were di- 
 vided, some wishing Prussia, others Austria, to be at the head. 
 There was, then, internal conflict in each state both on a domestic 
 constitutional question, and at the same time on the national 
 question; conflict in the federal government between the two 
 great powers, and conflict between their supporters throughout 
 Germany. 
 
 In the domestic conflict of the various states, the elected 
 Chamber contended with the official body in the name of the con- 
 stitution or of liberty. The most famous of these conflicts took 
 place in Hesse-Cassel regarding the Constitution of 183 1, unlaw- 
 fully suppressed in 1849. The elector was compelled to re-es- 
 tablish it, under threats from the other sovereigns. 
 
 On the national question, since the fear had arisen that Na- 
 poleon III. might attack Germany, there was a general agree- 
 ment that a reform of the Confederation was needed to make it 
 capable of resisting foreign attack. But as to the precise reform 
 to be made, there was the same disagreement as in 1848. The 
 reformers were still face to face with two insoluble questions: 
 I. Who should have the leadership? The King of Prussia would 
 enter no union in which he should not be the head; the other 
 kings would not hear of the King of Prussia. 2, What coun- 
 
THE NATIONAL.LIBERAL AGITATION. 4^5 
 
 tries should belong to the union? Austria would come in only 
 on condition of bringing in her whole empire ; the Germans were 
 unwilling to admit the un-German parts of it. The parties of 
 1848 — ^the Prussian party, or Kleindeutsche, and the Austrian 
 party, or Grossdeutsche — were therefore still at the force. 
 
 Two political clubs had sprung up representing these two con- 
 flicting policies. The National Union, founded in 1859, on the 
 model of the Italian Union, to labour for the union of Germany, 
 proposed a close federation, with an assembly of representatives 
 under the presidency of Prussia, according to the plan of Union 
 projected in the year 1850. This club was controlled by 
 former members of the Gotha Reunion, chiefly professors, and 
 had its strength in northern Germany. The Reform Qub, started 
 in 1862, advocated a looser federation, with a collective directory 
 and a chamber composed of delegates from the local legislatures, 
 in such manner as to let Austria come in. This club had its 
 strength in southern Germany, especially Bavaria. 
 
 The agitation carried on by these clubs, in these years of re- 
 awakening public life, of patriotic festivals and scientific con- 
 gresses, forcibly attracted the attention of the educated classes 
 and even disquieted the state governments. Several of these 
 forbade their subjects to join the " National Union." But the 
 real decision of the great question lay with the two leading Ger- 
 man states. 
 
 The Austrian government, which had just established a con- 
 stitutional system in its own empire, had on its side the majority 
 of the German princes, enemies of the King of Prussia. These 
 had met in conference as early as 1859, at Wurzburg, and 'had 
 proposed a scheme of reform for the confederation. This had been 
 discussed, in a leisurely way, during the three subsequent years. 
 Prussia rejected it in i860. Austria accepj:ed the general prin- 
 ciple of it in 1861, and, after long negotiations, finally convened 
 a Congress of the Princes at Frankfort, in August, 1863. This 
 body adopted the Austrian plan of reforms: a Directory of six 
 members — Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, and three other states in 
 alternation; a Federal Council of 21 votes, in which a two-thirds 
 majority should be necessary for making war; an Assembly of 
 302 delegates from the legislatures of the different states; and a 
 Federal Tribunal. Twenty-four princes signified their accept- 
 ance of the plan. But without the adhesion of Prussia it was 
 impossible, and Prussia refused. 
 
 Bismarck would hear no more of a confederation to which 
 
466 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 Austria belonged and in which she was sure to hold Prussia in 
 check; he wished to replace it with a new union under Prussian 
 leadership, without Austria. As early as 1862 he declared to the 
 Austrian ambassador that Austria ought to withdraw from Ger- 
 many and " transfer her centre of gravity to Ofen " — ^that is, to 
 Hungary. In communicating the refusal of Prussia to take part 
 in the Congress of Princes, he twice explained his own project 
 of union (January and August, 1863): instead of a confederation, 
 a union, with a military system and a treasury of its own ; instead 
 of a collective Directory, a single head, the King of Prussia; 
 instead of a meeting of delegates of the legislatures, an Assembly 
 of Representatives of the people, chosen by direct ^ection, in 
 proportion to population, — " the sole legitimate organ of the 
 German nation," — a necessary agent for overcoming the resist- 
 ance of the state governments. This was the old revolutionary 
 scheme of 1849. 
 
 A meeting of liberal members of the legislatures of the differ- 
 ent states, and a general gathering of the " National Union " 
 (September-October, 1862), had just declared for the Constitu- 
 tion of 1849. It seemed, then, that the national party through- 
 out Germany was going to support Prussia, which was resuming 
 her old program. In 1861 the " National Union," in its mani- 
 festo, had declared that Germany needed Prussia and that they 
 must " push Prussia along the right road." But the German 
 patriots were at the same time liberals, and the hostility of King 
 William's government to liberalism made them despair of Prus- 
 sia. When Bismarck published his scheme of reform, they did 
 not believe him to be sincere: they thought him a champion of 
 autocracy and of Prussia, like his party. A portion of the Ger- 
 man liberals turned toward Austria, at that time governed by a 
 liberal German minister; the Emperor, when on his way to the 
 Congress of Princes, in 1863, was received with popular demon- 
 strations in the cities of Southern Germany. 
 
 As regards the German princes, most of the greater ones were 
 still hostile to Prussia. Hardly any were for her except her little 
 neighbours in the north, and Baden in the south. In the crisis 
 that had come on Germany, the great majority both of govern- 
 ments and subjects were going to take part against Prussia. 
 
 Crisis of the Duchies (1864-66). — Bismarck announced that the 
 question of union would be solved only by force. He was there- 
 fore preparing for war both by military measures and diplomacy. 
 He needed an army capable of winning prompt victories, and so 
 
CRISIS OF THE DUCHIES. 4^7 
 
 was maintaining the reorganization of the Prussian army at the 
 cost of a quarrel with the whole nation. He needed the support 
 or the neutrality of the great European powers, for in the 
 European balance of power Germany had been treated as a coun- 
 try without a master, where all Europe had the right of interven- 
 tion. The key of success therefore lay in diplomacy. Bismarck 
 was above all a diplomatist — a diplomatist of the new school 
 which, breaking with the polite forms and smooth falsehoods of 
 usage, went on the plan of saying exactly what was to be done. 
 He manoeuvred in such a way as to isolate Austria; he won Rus- 
 sia to his side by aiding her against the Poles ; France, by letting 
 Napoleon believe that he would help him in annexing territory; 
 Italy, by the promise of Venetia. As for England, he saw that, 
 for a Continental war, her support could be dispensed with. 
 
 The union of Germany was accomplished, as he foretold, by 
 blood and iron, in three wars: with Denmark in 1864, with Aus- 
 tria in 1866, and with France in 1870-71. 
 
 The war with Denmark arose from a disputed succession to 
 the crown of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. The con- 
 test was between Christian, the new King of Denmark, and 
 Frederick Duke of Augustenburg. The settlement decreed in 
 1852 by the great powers of Europe in favour of Christian, had 
 not been ratified by the German Diet nor by the assemblies of 
 the " estates " representing the people of the two duchies, nor by 
 the heir of the Duke of Augustenburg. Of the German powers, 
 Austria and Prussia alone had pledged themselves. When, in 
 1863, the throne became vacant by the death of Frederick VII. 
 of Denmark, the assemblies of the duchies proclaimed the acces- 
 sion of Frederick VIII., the Augustenburg candidate; Holstein, 
 whose population was purely German, and Schleswig, where, ex- 
 cept in the north, the great majority was German, announced 
 their separation from Denmark in order to unite with Germany. 
 The question of the duchies thus became a national question. 
 German patriots took up the cause of the Germans in the duchies 
 and the German prince Frederick VIII. against the Danish 
 foreigners. 
 
 It was at first a patriotic popular movement. The two great 
 political clubs opened subscriptions, and enrolled volunteers in 
 order to expel the Danes. In December, 1863, acting in concert, 
 they called a congress of members of the state legislatures, which 
 named a committee of thirty-six to direct the movement in favour 
 of the independence of the duchies. The legislatures of the dif- 
 
468 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 ferent states were urging on their governments, obliging them to 
 recognise Frederick VIII. and then to vote in the Diet to send 
 a federal " army of execution " to Holstein, where a government 
 had been formed in the name of Frederick VIII. (December, 
 1863). 
 
 Prussia and Austria opposed this move, though it was urged 
 by their elected Chambers. They asked that the appeal of the 
 Duke of Augustenburg be rejected by the Diet, and even that the 
 committee of thirty-six be dispersed. The other states declined 
 this course. Germany was dividing into two camps : on the one 
 side, the governments of the two great powers which were for 
 recognising King Christian as successor to the ducal crown, on 
 condition of establishing only a personal union between the 
 duchies and Denmark; on the other side all the other govern- 
 ments and all the liberals, including those of Prussia and Austria. 
 Bismarck, without concerning himself about public opinion, 
 induced Austria to join him in the opposition to the action of the 
 Diet. Austria and Prussia called on the King of Denmark to 
 give Schleswig an independent government, and on his refusal 
 'decided on war (January, 1864). This was a distinct war from 
 that decreed, by way of federal execution, by the Diet. The 
 Prussian and Austrian armies occupied the two duchies without 
 a battle, compelling the federal army of execution to withdraw 
 (this was composed of Saxon and Hanoverian troops). The war 
 was fought in Danish territory. While it was going on Prussia 
 and Austria declared that the only solution was the recognition 
 of Frederick of Augustenburg (May, 1864). But at the treaty of 
 peace (August, 1864) they compelled Christian to cede his claims 
 to the duchies, not to the Duke of Augustenburg, but to the King 
 of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria. They took possession 
 by instituting a provisional administration controlled by a joint 
 commission of two members, one Prussian, the other Austrian. 
 
 As to the final disposition of the duchies, the two governments 
 were unable to agree. They did not yet dare to cast aside the 
 claims of the Duke of Augustenburg, indorsed by themselves in 
 May, 1864, and still sustained by public opinion in Germany and 
 in the duchies. But before allowing the Duke to come into pos- 
 session, Prussia demanded the entry of the duchies into the Zoll- 
 verein, a treaty whereby the military force of the duchies should 
 belong to the Prussian army, and the cession of the port of Kiel 
 and several forts and military roads in such fashion as to honey- 
 comb the territory with Prussian forces (February, 1865). The 
 
DISSOLUTION OF THE CONFEDERATION. 4^9 
 
 Duke hesitated, and laid down as a condition that the treaty 
 should be agreed to by the representatives of the people. Now, 
 the people of the duchies, by various manifestations, had shown 
 an aversion to the Prussian government. 
 
 Bismarck then proposed annexation to Prussia. Austria re- 
 jected this. In the duchies the Prussian commissioner, by his 
 manner of treating the local authorities, had put himself in con- 
 flict with his Austrian colleague. People began to talk of a war 
 between Austria and Prussia. Bismarck wished it, knowing 
 that Austria was not ready. One battle, he said to the Bavarian 
 minister, would suffice to enable Prussia to dictate her terms. 
 But King William preferred peace. By the Convention of Gas- 
 tein (August, 1865) the two powers shared the possession of the 
 duchies, Austria taking Holstein and Prussia Schleswig. 
 
 An assembly of delegates of the state legislatures of Germany, 
 convoked at Frankfort in October, declared the Convention of 
 Gastein a " violation of right." In the name of the right of the 
 people of Schleswig-Holstein to decide their own fate, the 
 assembly invited the people of the duchies to persist and the 
 whole people of Germany to sustain them. Prussia and Austria 
 replied by sending threatening despatches to the Diet of Frank- 
 fort, informing it that they could no longer endure those " sub- 
 versive manoeuvres,^' and that they regarded the committee of 
 thirty-six as a permanent organ for the revolutionary party of 
 Germany. In the Diet, the governments of the other states, in- 
 timidated, did not venture to come to any decision. In Schles- 
 wig the Prussian government systematically persecuted the advo- 
 cates of independence, threatened to arrest the Duke if he entered 
 the duchy, confiscated newspapers that gave him the title of Duke 
 of Schleswig, took revenge on a town that had received the Duke 
 by placing a Prussian garrison in it, suppressed all patriotic 
 societies, dismissed public officers favouring independence, and 
 even replaced them with Danish sympathizers. Prussia had on 
 ' her side in the duchies only Danes and a few nobles; her policy 
 ■ in Schleswig brought her into collision with the patriots of the 
 duchies and with all the liberals in Germany. But their protes- 
 tations were lost on the Prussian army, which formed the reliance 
 of the Prussian government. 
 
 Oissolution of the Confederation (1866). — In making the war 
 of 1864 in their own way, displacing the agents of the Diet, Aus- 
 tria and Prussia had morally destroyed the confederation made 
 by them in 1815 with the other German states. When, later. 
 
47° ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 they broke with each other, they destroyed it effectually; and 
 there was nothing left for them to do, after the war, but to recog- 
 nise ofificially the destruction they had wrought. 
 
 The rupture between Austria and Prussia, delayed by the Con- 
 vention of Gastein, came about on account of the duchies. The 
 Austrian governor of Holstein, following a policy opposed to 
 that of the Prussians in Schleswig, encouraged the partisans of 
 independence and Duke Frederick. He allowed them to hold an 
 assembly which demanded the convocation of the regular repre- 
 sentatives of the duchies (January, 1866). Bismarck charged 
 the Austrian government with aiding a revolutionary movement, 
 and summoned it to say plainly whether it wished to act in har- 
 mony with Prussia. The Emperor answered that he had done 
 nothing of which Prussia had a right to complain, but that he 
 could not, to please her, make any further sacrifice of his good 
 relations with the other German states. 
 
 Prussia at once began preparations for war by negotiating with 
 Italy. She sent to the Diet a plan of radical reform of the con- 
 federation, including a parliament elected by universal suffrage 
 (April, 1866). Austria made friendly understandings with the 
 other states, taking advantage of the indignation felt by the 
 liberals and patriots against Prussia; most of the legislatures 
 were in her favour and voted additional military supplies. Both 
 sides were arming. Austria convoked the " estates " of Hol- 
 stein. 
 
 The offensive was taken by Prussia. She marched her troops 
 into Holstein, and the Austrian troops withdrew. Austria asked 
 the Diet to intervene and call out the federal troops. The pub- 
 lic rupture was made by the vote on this question (June 14). 
 There were nine votes in favour and six against — Prussia not 
 voting. As to two of the votes included in the majority there 
 was some doubt, as they were cast in the name of groups of small 
 states some of which had not clearly expressed their judgment 
 Prussia declared at once that she regarded the federal compact as 
 broken — announcing, however, at the same time that she " held 
 to the unity of the German nation " and would endeaTour to re- 
 establish it on a more solid basis. She published her scheme of 
 a federal constitution with an elected parliament. 
 
 The states that had refused to vote (Oldenburg, Mecklenburg, 
 and Luxemburg) remained neutral. Those which had voted 
 with Austria made an alliance with her against Prussia. The 
 war was between Prussia single-handed, on the one side, and 
 
DISSOLUTION OF THE CONFEDERATION. 47 1 
 
 Austria and the chief German states on the other. The four 
 kingdoms, Bavaria, Wurtemburg, Saxony, and Hanover, the 
 two Hesses, Nassau, and Baden all took up arms against Prussia. 
 But, in addition to the alliance with Italy, — ^which gave occupa- 
 tion to a part of the Austrian forces, — Prussia had the advantage 
 of an army better prepared and a more rapid mobilization. She 
 made war simultaneously in three separate quarters of Germany, 
 and in all three she took the offensive. 
 
 1. In Northern Germany, she invaded Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, 
 and Nassau, after an ultimatum which offered them neutrality on 
 condition of disarming and accepting the Prussian plan of union. 
 She occupied the whole territory of Hanover, surprised its army 
 on the march to join Saxony, and, in spite of initial defeat, com- 
 pelled it to surrender at Langensalza, June 25. 
 
 2. In the southeast she occupied Saxony without a battle. 
 Then, with three armies, she invaded Bohemia, where the struggle 
 with Austria was decided in a single battle at Sadowa, July 4. 
 
 3. In the southwest the Bavarian army and the armies of the 
 other South German states lost time in confused operations and 
 had not even succeeded in joining forces before the battle of 
 Sadowa. A Prussian army, attacking them separately, defeated 
 them and occupied Frankfort. This free city was severely 
 treated : the Prussian general arrested several of its senators, sup- 
 pressed its newspapers, and imposed a war contribution of six 
 million thalers. His successor demanded twenty-five millions 
 under threat of burning the city. The burgomaster, in despair, 
 hanged himself. The southern states, abandoned by Austria, 
 sued for peace. 
 
 The immediate result of the war was the formal dissolution 
 of the Confederation. Austria accepted this result and gave her 
 consent to a new organization of Germany, in which she should 
 have no part. Prussia, thus made sole mistress of Germany, 
 established a new union in accordance with her own plan, com- 
 pelling all the states north of the river Main to join it. Only four 
 German states remained outside of it — Bavaria, Wurtemburg, 
 Baden, and Hesse-Darmstadt. The " line of the Main " was 
 adopted on the demand of foreign powers, especially of France, 
 which hoped to limit the extent of the new union, and to play 
 ofl a southern confederation against the northern one. But the 
 southern states had already concluded treaties of alliance, oiifen- 
 sive and defensive, with Prussia; the South German confedera- 
 tion was never formed. 
 
472 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 The Prussian victory ended the rivalry between the two great 
 powers, which had maintained the system of petty states and the 
 dualism of Germany; but it has done so at the cost of expelling 
 eight millions of Germans, subjects of Austria. It was the final 
 abandonment of the Greater-Germany idea — ^the triumph of the 
 Prussian scheme of a Lesser-Germany. 
 
 Annexations by Prussia. — Prussia immediately took advantage 
 of her commanding position to round out her territory. The 
 duchies of Schleswig and Holstein she annexed outright without 
 consulting tfie inhabitants, even of the north, although a clause 
 of the treaty of Prague provided " that the people of the northern 
 districts of Schleswig shall be ceded to Denmark, if by a free vote 
 they manifest a desire for union with that country." Bismarck 
 relied only on the right of conquest. Austria had ceded her 
 rights in the larger duchies to Prussia by the treaty of Prague. 
 Her share in the duchy of Lauenburg she had sold to Prussia be- 
 fore the war. 
 
 Prussia also annexed the three states lying between her west- 
 ern provinces and the rest of the Kingdom: Hanover, Hesse- 
 Cassel and Nassau ; also the city of Frankfort. The King's mes- 
 sage announcing these annexations justified them by the judg- 
 ment of God and the duties of Prussia. " The governments of 
 those states . . . by rejecting the neutrality offered by Prussia . . . 
 appealed to the arbitrament of war. The issue, by the decree of 
 God, has gone against them. Political necessity compels us not 
 to restore to them the authority of which they have been deprived 
 by the victories of our armies. These countries, if they kept 
 their independence, could, by reason of their geographical posi- 
 tion, create embarrassments for Prussia far beyond the measure 
 of their natural power." The bill providing for their annexation 
 declared that Prussia ought not to be obliged, in case of war, to 
 " employ an important part of her forces in occupying countries 
 that menaced her in the rear." It added that the governments of 
 the annexed states, " by their obstinate refusal of reform in the 
 Confederation," had made their retention impossible by showing 
 that it was not to be reconciled with an organization satisfactory 
 to the German nation. 
 
 The committee of the Lower House sought another title than 
 that of conquest : it held that " mere force alone now no longer 
 suffices as a basis of national ownership; no professor of inter- 
 national law recognises it as giving title." Bismarck replied: 
 " Our right is the right of the German nation to exist, to breathe, 
 
FORMATION OF NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION. 473 
 
 to unite; it is the right and duty of Prussia to give Germany the 
 condition of things necessary for her existence." 
 
 In contrast with Italy and France, which had a popular vote 
 taken before every annexation, Prussia consulted none of the 
 annexed communities. The royal message admitted that " only 
 a part of the inhabitants agreed in the necessity " of annexation, 
 but it expressed the " confidence that a living participation in 
 the continued development of the common nationality . . . 
 would make easy for them the transition into a new and larger 
 community." The people of Hesse-Cassel and Nassau accepted 
 without resistance the Prussian connection. Those of the 
 northern duchies, except the Danes of Schleswig, resigned them- 
 selves to it, joining at the same time the Liberal opposition. In 
 Hanover a large body of dissatisfied people hoped for some years 
 for a return of the old dynasty, and formed a " Guelph " party 
 strong enough to carry some parliamentary seats. At Frankfort 
 many young men got themselves naturalized as citizens of 
 Switzerland; but the Prussian government announced that it 
 should treat as Prussians all who remained in the country. 
 
 By the annexations Prussia raised her population to 25,ooo>ooo 
 and gave her territory a cohesion which it had always lacked, 
 But by her appeal to the old right of conquest, by her decision 
 not to recognise the right of the people aflfected to vote on the 
 question of annexation, by the language of Bismarck, so d'ififerent 
 from the delicate formalities of diplomacy, by the repressive 
 actions of the Prussian generals in Schleswig and at Frankfort, 
 she gave Europe the impression of a barbarous power greedy 
 for conquests, and aroused apprehensions which twenty-five 
 years of a peaceable policy have hardly sufficed to dissipate. 
 
 Formation of the Worth German Confederation (1866-67). — 
 The union of Northern Germany spoken of in the treaty of 
 Prague was fbrrried by agreement between the governments of 
 the states and the King of Prussia in 1866. Then the draft of a 
 constitution, based on these agreements, was discussed and ac- 
 cepted by an assembly elected by universal suffrage (1867). 
 
 The North German Confederation (Norddeutsehe Bund) in- 
 cluded all Germany except the four states of the south; even 
 Hesse-Darmstadt entered it for her fragment of territory north 
 of the Main. Although it still bore the old name of Bund, it 
 differed profoundly from the Bund of 1815. According to the 
 expression of theoretic writers, it was not a " federation of states " 
 (Staatenbund), but a federal state (Bundesstaat). Each of the 
 
4-74 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 states preserved its own government, but they all became subject 
 to a superior government, armed with physical power. 
 
 This federal government was organized according to the plan 
 which had been officially proposed by Bismarck in 1865 and 
 1866, and which revived the program of the Union of 1849. 
 It was composed of a Presidency permanently assigned to the 
 King of Prussia, a Federal Council (Bundesrath) representing the 
 various governments, and an elected assembly (Reichstag) repre- 
 senting the people. A place was thus formed for each of the 
 three forces which contended for the control of Germany, — ^the 
 King of Prussia, the sovereign princes, and the elective parlia- 
 ment, — but their powers were not equal. The Prussian govern- 
 ment, victorious over the other governments and the parlia- 
 mentary opposition, took for itself the controlling position in the 
 new Germany. 
 
 The King of Prussia exercised his Presidency through a chan- 
 cellor chosen at his pleasure. He held all the powers, military 
 as well as diplomatic, the right to make war and to conclude 
 treaties, the right to appoint and receive ambassadors, the posi- 
 tion of commander-in-chief of the federal army, with the right 
 of appointing all the corps commanders and heads of garrisons, 
 the right to determine the organization of the federal army, to 
 decree regulations and to supervise the execution of them. He 
 was also the political sovereign for home afifairs; head of the 
 federal government, whose officers he appointed, with the power 
 of keeping the other members of the union to their duty by the 
 use of military force. 
 
 The Federal Council consisted of delegates from the several 
 states, government officers, bound by their instructions as in the 
 old Diet. It had permanent committees to act for it when not 
 in session. The votes in the Council were distributed among 
 the princes as in the former Diet; there were forty-three in all, 
 of which Prussia held seventeen, and Saxony, the next highest, 
 four.* For any change of the constitution a majority of two- 
 thirds was required. 
 
 The Reichstag consisted of two hundred and ninety-seven 
 members elected by universal suffrage, in the proportion of one 
 for every 100,000 inhabitants. It had only the power of voting 
 
 * Prussia's seventeen were assigned on the basis of adding to her own 
 original four votes, the votes of the states she had annexed — Hanovei 
 four, Holstein three, Hesse-Cassel three, Nassau two, Frankfort one. 
 
FORMATION OF NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION. 475 
 
 on proposed changes of law and on the budget. The members 
 received no pay. 
 
 This organization thus consisted in a combination of the old 
 Diet with the Prussian Constitution, but construed, in Bismarck's 
 fashion, as giving supreme power to the King. The King of 
 Prussia, as President, had not only the military force, but also 
 the control of the other powers; he convoked and dissolved the 
 Reichstag; his chancellor presided over the Bundesrath. 
 
 Everything suggestive of parliamentary control had been 
 avoided. Bismarck had refused to institute a responsible federal 
 ministry; the chancellor alone represented the federal govern- 
 ment before the Reichstag, the other ministers of the Confedera- 
 tion were only his clerks; the decrees of the King-President 
 were countersigned by him alone. He " took the responsibility," 
 said the ccJhstitution, but this was only a moral responsibility. 
 The Reichstag had no hold on the Chancellor and consequently 
 none on the government; it had only the negative power of refus- 
 ing to pass new laws. 
 
 The two assemblies were of so dififerent origin that the gov- 
 ernment ran little risk of finding them united against it. On 
 the contrary, Bismarck counted on playing them off against each 
 other: of using the Bimdesrath, naturally aristocratic and mo- 
 narchical, to check the democratic and parliamentary claims of the 
 elected body, and of using the Reichstag, the organ of national 
 public opinion, to overcome the particularist tendencies of the 
 state governments. He insisted on an assembly chosen by uni- 
 versal suffrage as a bulwark against state feeling. (This was 
 the time of enormous majorities for the Imperial government in 
 France, under universal suffrage.) 
 
 While forming a confederation, the German states preserved 
 their separate existence and organization. The powers were 
 shared between the new federal government and the old local 
 governments. The principle laid down by Bismarck was " to 
 find the minimum of concession which the several states must 
 make to the whole, in order that it may live " and " to demand 
 of the state governments only those sacrifices which are indis- 
 pensable for the success of a national community." 
 
 All the powers necessary for establishing national and eco- 
 nomic unity were assigned to the federal government, (i) The 
 military forces — army and navy; (2) International relations, 
 ambassadors, consuls, treaties ; (3) Commerce and transportation, 
 customs duties, mail and telegraph, money, weights and meas- 
 
476 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 ures, general regulation of railroads, banking, passports, over- 
 sight of aliens; (4) sanitary organization; (5) a part of the legis- 
 lative power over commercial law, maritime law, criminal law, 
 and judicial procedure. 
 
 The armies of all the states were organized on the Prussian 
 model: universal military service for three years in the active 
 army and four years in the reserve. The Prussian system of 
 local regiments and divisions made it possible to leave each con- 
 tingent in its own state (the Saxon troops even formed a separate 
 army corps), but the whole force was equipped and drilled on 
 the Prussian system, under the supervision of Prussian officers. 
 The new national flag — black, white, and red — ^was the symbol of 
 Prussian hegemony, her colors being black and white. 
 
 For the federal expenses a federal budget was created. The 
 revenues were of two sorts: (i) The revenues from customs, from 
 indirect taxes on consumption, and from the post office and tele- 
 graphs; (2) The contributions paid by the several states accord- 
 ing to fixed proportions (Matrikel), to make up any deficiency. 
 The government demanded that the Reichstag renounce the 
 right of annual vote in the case of the army expenses ; the appro- 
 priation was made for a five-year period, at the rate of 225 
 thalers for each soldier. 
 
 The several states retained all the other powers: justice, civil 
 rights, public worship, education, public works, together with 
 their independent administrative and financial systems, their local 
 legislatures, and their legislative power. They were no longer 
 sovereign, but they remained autonomous, much more independent 
 than the Swiss cantons. 
 
 The whole arrangement was a compromise between national 
 unity and traditional state independence, or rather between the 
 King of Prussia and the other princes. "We recalled," said 
 Bismarck, " the forces of resistance which wrecked the attempts 
 at Frankfort and Erfurt, and tried to arouse them as little as 
 possible." He had been urgent for the speedy realization of a 
 national system: " Let us work quickly, gentlemen; let us place 
 Germany in the saddle; she will know how to ride." 
 
 Transformation of the Parties (1866-70).— Between the two 
 great wars of 1866 and 1870 Germany went through a profound 
 transformation. The Confederation became a nation, and the 
 struggle for and against national unity, which dominated public 
 life, produced a new formation of parties and a change of policy 
 on the part of the Prussian government. The victory of 1866 
 
TRANSFORMATION OF THE PARTIES. 477 
 
 ended the constitutional contest in Prussia. The Progress party, 
 which had conducted the struggle, was abandoned by the voters. 
 In the House of Representatives elected in June, 1866, it had 
 barely seventy members, nearly all from the west or from the 
 province of Prussia; the Conservatives rose in number to nearly 
 a hundred. The question of theory had not been settled, and 
 even the ministry recognised the right of the House to vote the 
 budget, for it asked for the passage of an act of indemnity reliev- 
 ing it of the responsibility it had incurred in governing without 
 a regular budget. But this act of indemnity, passed by 230 votes 
 against 75, was a practical victory for the government. The 
 ministry remained in office, and the King declared that he would 
 do the same thing again in a similar case. A new party was 
 formed under the name of " National Liberal," which declared 
 its intention " to sustain the government fully in its foreign 
 policy " while " maintaining in home matters the position of a 
 watchful and loyal opposition." 
 
 Presently a provisional Reichstag was elected by the people of 
 all the states, to discuss the constitution (February, 1867). The 
 majority of the body consisted of Liberals who had come over to 
 Bismarck. Furthermore it could do little but ratify the scheme 
 previously drawn up by the governments; it made only some 
 amendments of detail. On the points of disagreement between 
 the majority and Bismarck, it was the majority that yielded; in 
 spite of formal votes in favour of a responsible federal ministry 
 and payment of the members of the Reichstag, neither proposal 
 was adopted in the constitution. 
 
 At the regular elections to the Reichstag and the Prussian 
 House of Representatives, in August, 1867, the parties succeeded 
 in clearing up their issues. ' 
 
 The National Liberal party drew to itself a part of the Prog- 
 ressists, some remnants of the " Old Liberals," and some deputies 
 of the liberal opposition in the annexed province^, Hanover, 
 Hesse, and Nassau. Coalescing with the Liberal Conservatives 
 detached from the old Conservative party, it formed the govern- 
 ment majority. It wished for a consolidation of Prussia by the 
 assimilation of the annexed provinces, and for a completion of 
 the German union by the admission of the southern states into 
 the Confederation. It accepted, therefore, the leadership of Bis- 
 marck, and confined itself to asking him for certain liberal re- 
 forms : the reform of the local institutions by the abolition of the 
 remaining powers of the nobles; the reform of the primary 
 
478 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 schools by withdrawing them from the power of the clergy; the 
 reform of the Prussian electoral system by the introduction of 
 simple universal suffrage. It wished also for some economic re- 
 forms, especially freedom of industry and commerce. It was a 
 party of middle-class imperialists, opposed to the influences 
 which had till then dominated Prussian life — ^the nobles, the 
 clergy, and the official class. Its chief strength lay in the centre 
 of the old kingdom and in the annexed provinces. Its leader, 
 Bennigsen, was the leader of the former Liberal opposition in 
 Hanover. The manufacturers, the merchants, and the univer- 
 sity professors belonged to it; it included many Jews. 
 
 The Free Conservatives, of whom there were forty in the 
 Reichstag of 1867, were large land-proprietors of the central 
 provinces, and Silesia, stalwart ministerialists, ready to vote for 
 all measures proposed by the government. 
 
 The bulk of the Conservative party, calling themselves Ger- 
 man Conservatives in the Reichstag, were the old aristocratic 
 party of the Kreuzzeitung, which had supported Bismarck and 
 the King in the constitutional conflict. Its strength lay chiefly 
 among the great landowners of the eastern provinces. It sought 
 to maintain the power of the nobles and clergy. Its stronghold 
 was in the Prussian Parliament, where it constituted almost the 
 whole House of Lords and had a strong minority in the Lower 
 House. Its opponents accused it of devotion to exclusively 
 Prussian interests. 
 
 The Progress party, greatly weakened by the triumph of its 
 adversary Bismarck, dwindled to twenty members in the Reichs- 
 tag; only the large cities and a part of Schleswig-Holstein re- 
 mained faithful to it. It continued the liberal opposition, while 
 accepting the policy of union. 
 
 From this time new parties of radical opposition appeared. 
 In the new provinces these were parties of protest against the 
 annexation. In Schleswig the Danes demanded the popular 
 vote promised in the treaty of Prague; there were two of them 
 in the provisional Reichstag; the government, by a new district- 
 ing, reduced them to one in the regular Reichstag and two in 
 the Prussian Parliament. 
 
 In Hanover the Guelph party, seven in the Reichstag and three 
 in the Prussian Parliament, was a coalition between the partisans 
 of the expelled King and patriots who disliked the Prussian sys- 
 tem. In the old Prussian province of Posen, which belonged to 
 the Prussian Kingdom but had remained outside of the German 
 
TRANSFORMATION OF THE PARTIES. 479 
 
 Confederation, the Polish deputies protested against the incorpo- 
 ration of the Grand Duchy of Posen into the North German 
 Confederation, as contrary to the treaties ; also " against every act 
 designed to give the Poles of Prussia a German character and 
 destroy their national existence." The Polish party, counting 13 
 in the Reichstag, a score in the Prussian Parliament, was made 
 up of Catholic nobles. 
 
 By the side of these parties of protest on nationalist grounds 
 a party of protest on social grounds appeared — the Socialists. 
 As early as 1848, Socialists of the French type were found in 
 Germany. But the party, dispersed by persecutions, did not re- 
 appear until 1863, when it got a footing among the labourers of 
 the eastern provinces of Prussia. It was formed by the activity 
 of a Jewish orator, Lassalle, a Socialist of 1848, who held doc- 
 trines borrowed from the old French Socialists, together with 
 Louis Blanc's " national workshops," managed by labourers, at 
 the cost of the state. He revived the old French name of " So- 
 cial-Democrat," making it the title of his journal, founded in 
 1865. It was a time of struggle. Lassalle, opposing the 
 middle-class Progressists, had relations with Bismarck, who was 
 later reproached with having encouraged the Socialists. The 
 party at first got its recruits among the co-operative societies 
 founded by Schulze-Delitsch, a liberal. With the introduction 
 of universal sufifrage, it entered the political field. Lassalle, who 
 was killed in a duel in 1864, left the party organized under a 
 monarchical dictatorship. His second successor, Schweitzer, 
 was elected to the Reichstag of 1867. 
 
 In opposition to this Prussian .Socialist party of Lassalle's 
 disciples, there was formed an International party under Marx. 
 This had its strongholds at first outside of Prussia — in Saxony, 
 among the " educational societies for workingmen " (Arbeiterbil- 
 dungsvereine) organized by the middle-class Progressists. Their 
 founder was Liebknecht, a revolutionary journalist of 1848, who 
 had fled to London, where he became a disciple of Marx. He 
 converted the favourite orator of the Saxon labourers, Bebel, a 
 lathe-worker and Catholic democrat, who, in 1867-68, went 
 over to socialism with his associates. The meeting of " educa- 
 tional societies " at Nuremburg in 1868 declared in favour of the 
 International by a two-thirds vote. Later the " Social Demo- 
 cratic Workingman's party " was founded (1869). Its program, 
 drawn up at Eisenach, combined the demands of the Swiss radi- 
 cal party with the economic doctrines of Marx.* Its two 
 
480 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN' UNITY. 
 
 leaders, Liebknecht and Bebel, sat in the Reichstag as early as 
 1867. 
 
 The two socialist parties, after abortive negotiations in 1868- 
 69, remained in a position of rivalry till 1874. 
 
 In presence of the new condition of parties, Bismarck modi- 
 fied his policy. He ceased to lean exclusively on the Conserva- 
 tives and gradually made approaches to the National Liberals. 
 In Prussia he retained the ministry of the conflict time, although 
 the Liberal majority of the Prussian Lower House protested 
 against the minister of education, Muhler, who advocated clerical 
 control of the schools. Not till December, 1869, did he admit 
 two National Liberals as colleagues. But as early as 1868 the 
 Conservatives of the Prussian Lower House, having refused him 
 the creation of a provincial debt for Hanover (even after a threat 
 of resignation, he carried it only by a majority of 198 against 
 192), he began to make terms with the National Liberals by 
 accepting their administrative and economic reforms. The re- 
 form of the local institutions dragged till 1872; but the economic 
 reforms proceeded rapidly (1868-69), especially those in the fed- 
 eral domain: repeal of usury laws, abolition of restrictions on 
 business enterprises (1867), freedom of marriage (1868), freedom 
 of industry, abolition of imprisonment for debt, removal of re- 
 strictions on labour unions. Later the Supreme Tribunal of 
 Commerce was organized and the new penal code adopted. 
 
 In those practical reforms Bismarck was in agreement with 
 the National Liberals. But he continued to reject with disdain 
 and mockery their demands for a responsible ministry and pay- 
 ment of Representatives. 
 
 These measures of reorganization seem to have made many 
 opponents, especially among the peoples who, up to that time, 
 had been outside the Prussian system. The Prussian universal 
 military service, introduced at a stroke, seemed too severe. It 
 brought new expenses and caused deficits in all the states, even 
 in Prussia itself, and compelled an increase of the taxes. The 
 new system of economic freedom disturbed tffe old ways of the 
 great landowners and artisans. 
 
 Of the annexed countries it was Hanover which gave most 
 emphatic signs of hostility. The King of Hanover rejected the 
 money indemnity offered to him by the Prussian government 
 (the other dispossessed sovereigns accepted it). He demanded 
 the restoration of his kingdom, negotiated with the enemies of 
 * For the programs of the various Socialist parties, see chap. xxiv. 
 
SOUTHERN GERMANY. .481 
 
 Prussia, and formed in France the Guelph Legion, consisting of 
 Hanoverian volunteers. Bismarck took advantage of this to 
 sequestrate the Hanoverian indemnity (the Guelph Fund) and 
 to get authority to use the interest. He used it at first in paying 
 a secret police to wratch the Guelph agents — the thing he called 
 " following the reptiles into their holes in order to find out what 
 they are doing" (1868). But little by little the "reptile fund," 
 as it was then called, came to be used in bribing German news- 
 papers, and the name " reptile press " was applied to the minis- 
 terial journals. 
 
 Southern Germany. — In southern Germany the four inde- 
 pendent states continued to be torn by two contradictory policies. 
 Already united to Prussia by the Zollverein and the treaties of 
 alliance of 1866, they could not keep themselves entirely inde- 
 pendent of the Northern Confederation. The Grand Duke and 
 legislature of Baden would have been willing to join it; they 
 held aloof from fear of European complications. But in the two 
 kingdoms, Bavaria and Wurtemburg, there was no desire for a 
 closer union with the North; the governments from attachment 
 to their independent sovereignty, the people from aversion to the 
 Prussians and their military service, preferred to stand aloof. 
 The governments would not even have the Southern Confedera- 
 tion dreamed of by Napoleon III., for fear of being drawn into 
 union with northern Germany. 
 
 The southern states, therefore, remained isolated. Bismarck 
 tried to attract them by means of the Zollverein. He arranged 
 that the customs tariff, instead of being established by treaties 
 between the governments, should be voted in the form of a law by 
 a Customs' Parliament, consisting of the North German Reichs- 
 tag with the addition of deputies elected by universal suffrage 
 in the southern states (1868). But the enemies of Prussia had 
 the upper hand in the south, the democratic party in Wurtem- 
 burg and the Catholic party in Bavaria; the National Liberals 
 had a majority in Baden only. Of 85 members elected to the 
 Customs Parliament only 24 were in favour of union with the 
 north; 46 were hostile to Prussia; the rest followed their govern- 
 ments. In combination with the Conservatives and professed 
 opponents of Bismarck in the north, they formed a majority 
 against union. The Customs' Parliament rejected an address in 
 favour of union, by 186 to 150, and then refused to impose a tax 
 on petroleum (1868). It lasted till 1870, but confined its action 
 to matters connected with the customs duties. 
 
482 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 In southern Germany the opposition to Prussia increased. In 
 Wurtemburg the democratic majority proposed the Swiss mili- 
 tary system (1868), and later a reduction of the military expenses; 
 the ministry resigned. In Bavaria a dissolution of the legisla- 
 ture resulted in a re-election of the Catholic (Patriot) majority, 
 which forced the King to dismiss his ministry and demanded 
 a reduction of the military service to eight months. Even in 
 Baden the National party was weakening in its resistance to the 
 ministers. 
 
 Foundation of the Empire (1870-71). — At the beginning of 
 1870 German unity seemed farther off than in 1866. The war 
 with France brought a great change. 'All the states of Germany 
 went heartily with the Confederation. Then the great victories 
 won in common created a strong feeling of German unity. 
 
 Before the end of the war, during the siege of Paris, the princes 
 of the southern states offered to join the Confederation, and on 
 the suggestion of the King of Bavaria it was decided to revive 
 the old historical names of Reich and Kaiser — Empire and Em- 
 peror. This was only an extension of territory and a change of 
 name. There was no new constitution. By separate treaties 
 between the Confederation and the four southern states, these 
 were admitted to the existing union, under its new name of Ger- 
 man Empire; the two larger states obtained some special con- 
 ditions — even in military matters. Bavaria retained her inde- 
 pendent postal system and her own military uniform. 
 
 The Empire was inaugurated by a ceremony in which the 
 princes alone took part. The King of Prussia was crowned Em- 
 peror at Versailles in presence of the German sovereigns in Jan- 
 uary, 1871. At that time the treaties between the governments 
 had been presented to the parliaments of the four southern 
 states affected, iln Bavaria the Patriot anti-Prussian majority 
 divided : one part joined the national liberal minority, thus form- 
 ing a two-thirds majority, 102 to 48; the other part, consisting of 
 the deputies of the most intensely Catholic rural districts, entered 
 a protest in the name of Bavarian independence, January, 1871. 
 The other three southern states had ratified the conventions in 
 1870 with almost no opposition. In ratifying the treaties be- 
 tween the governments, the Reichstag, in April, 1871, trans- 
 formed them officially into the Constitution of the Empire. 
 
 The territory taken from France was annexed, not to Prussia, 
 as the National Liberals demanded, but to the Empire. It be- 
 came the " Imperial Province " {Reichsland) Alsace-Lorraine, and 
 
FOUNDATION OF THE EMPIRE. 483 
 
 was placed in an exceptional relation with the government. 
 Having become a member of the Confederation, not by agree- 
 ment but by conquest, it received no autonomous government 
 and no delegates to the Federal Council; it was put directly 
 under the power of the Imperial government; that is, it was, 
 actually governed by the Chancellor, with the assistance of a. 
 special bureau. As in 1866, the country was annexed without 
 consulting the inhabitants. 
 
 The Empire thus constituted was unlike any preceding form 
 of government. Theorists in public law found it difficult to 
 define. It was a federated state formed of small autonomous, 
 monarchies, but subject to a higher sovereign, a federation 
 (Bund) that had become an Empire (Reich) without ceasing to. 
 be a federation. The official document reads : " This Bund shall, 
 bear the name of Reich'' The federation had no federal gov- 
 ernment outside of and superior to all the federated governments.. 
 One of its members, the King of Prussia, supported by irresisti- 
 ble military power and invested with the higher dignity of Em- 
 peror, commanded all the others as a superior; the princes were 
 no longer his equals, but his subjects. 
 
 The individual states became subordinate to the Empire, not 
 only in affairs common to all, such as foreign, military, and com- 
 mercial affairs, but submitted in their own local concerns to the 
 laws that should be adopted by the Imperial government. They 
 were bound by perpetual treaties, but with no guarantees for the 
 future. No limit was set to the power of the federal government 
 to amend the constitution; it could change the organization by 
 laws of such a kind as to restrict indefinitely the autonomous 
 rights of the states ; it could even transform the Empire and de- 
 prive it of its federal character, on the sole condition of getting 
 two-thirds majority in the Federal Council. Even the special 
 rights reserved to some of the states by treaty can be relinquished 
 by the government of the state without the consent of the 
 legislature. 
 
 The federal government itself has been so constructed as to 
 give the Emperor the same preponderaiting power in the Empire 
 as he had in Prussia as King. No decision can be made in op- 
 position to him. He governs by his own sovereign power, as 
 in a constitutional monarchy, through his chancellor, who de- 
 pends on him alone, and is beyond the reach of the elected 
 assembly of the nation. The sovereignty belongs, not to the 
 German people, but to the Emperor and the Federal Council. 
 
484 ESTABLISHMENT OF GERMAN UNITY. 
 
 The " fundamental rights " of the individual, expressly guar- 
 anteed in 1848, were not mentioned in 1871. The " Constitution 
 of the German Empire " is only a practical regulation of powers; 
 like Bismarck, the founder of the Empire, it is matter-of-fact. 
 
 The empire is not even established precisely on the lines of 
 nationality. It is the territory of the Kingdom of Prussia, en- 
 larged by states that entered the Zollverein and by districts con- 
 quered by Prussia. It does not even include the whole German 
 nation : the Austrian Germans are outside of it. It does include 
 the alien populations annexed by conquest and still protesting 
 against the connection: the Poles of Posen and Prussia, the 
 Danes of Schleswig, and the French of Alsace-Lorraine. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.* 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— See Waitz, " Quellenkunde," 1894 edit. 
 
 DOCUMENTS. — The principal collections are : Reports of the Cham- 
 bers ; " Die Innere Politik der Preussischen Regierung," 1866, collection 
 of government acts during the constitutional conflict. — L, Hahn, " Fiirst 
 Bismarck," 5 vols., 1878-91; collection of all Bismarck's speeches and 
 declarations. — H, Kohl, " Die Politischen Reden des Fiirsten Bismarck," 9 
 vols., 1892-94. There is a French edition of Bismarck's speeches. 
 
 For practical use all important documents and a detailed story of events 
 may be found in Sohulthess, "Europ. Geschichtskalender," 1 vol. a year 
 since i860. — The principal political reviews for this period are the " Grenz- 
 boten " and the " Preussische Jahrbiicher." 
 
 WORKS. — Of the endless German books it is difScult to make a selec- 
 tion. An outline will be found in von Sybel, " Die Begriindung des 
 Deutschen Reiches," 4th edit., 7 vols., 1893-94, imperialist, semi-official, 
 not enough references. — Oncken, " Zeitalter Wilhelms I.," vol. i., 1890 
 (Oncken coll.), a scientific popular work. 
 
 In French : E. Simon, " L'Empereur Guillaume," 1886 ; " Hist, du Prince 
 de Bismarck." 
 
 For Institutions : Boenne, (see chap, xiv.) andliaband, " Das Staatsrecht 
 des Deutschen Reiches," 3 vols., 1876-82.— Mohl, " Das Deutsche Reichs- 
 staatsrecht." 
 
 * On the character of this bibliog. see chap. xii. 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 Parties in the Empire. — The union of all the states into one 
 Empire completed the political transformation begun in 1866. 
 The Reichstag, established above the legislatures of the individ- 
 ual states, attracted the greater part of political activity, and the 
 parties were formed on questions of national policy. 
 
 The grouping continued to be nearly the same as in the North 
 German Confederation, but the proportions were dififerent. As 
 was the case before 1,870, the Reichstag continued to be divided 
 into ten or more parnes of which no one has ever had a majority 
 by itself. 'It is difficult to classify them according to their atti- 
 tude toward the government, for several of them have changed 
 their attitude according to the government's policy. Neverthe- 
 less, a distinction may be made between the parties of systematic 
 opposition, hostile to the very constitution of the Empire, and 
 the parties of intermittent opposition under the constitution. 
 
 The systematic opposition consisted of groups of very dififerent 
 character. There were three parties of national protest, formed 
 by the deputies of the non-German peoples at the three extremi- 
 ties of the Empire: the Schleswig Danes, one deputy; the Poles 
 of Posen and Prussia, varying in number from 13 to 19, accord- 
 ing to the result of the elections in the districts of mixed nation- 
 ality, an aristocratic and Catholic party won over since 1890; the 
 Alsace-Lorrainers, since 1874, represented by 15 deputies, a 
 democratic party, for the greater part Catholic. All three pro- 
 tested against the incorporation of their country in the Empire. 
 There was a party of dynastic protest, the Guelphs of Hanover, 
 hostile to Prussia; the permanent nucleus of the party was com- 
 posed of the partisans of the nobles and of the Lutheran clergy, 
 who remained faithful to the legitimate King. Around these 
 have gathered voters dissatisfied with the Prussian government, 
 so that the membership of the party has increased from four to 
 eleven deputies. 
 
 The party of social protest, at first divided into two wings, was 
 
 485 
 
486 THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 united after the elections of 1874 into one party, the Socialist 
 Workingman's party, organized at Gotha in 1875. It was a 
 radical party systematically opposed to monarchical government, 
 to the social system, to the influence of the clergy; and although 
 it was not allowed to take the name of republican, it openly 
 declared itself hostile to the whole monarchical system. At first 
 the elections and the Reichstag were for the Socialists merely 
 a means for spreading their doctrines; they put forward candi- 
 dates, even in places where they knew they had no chance of 
 electing them, in order to gather partisans on all sides. They 
 cared more for the whole number of votes given to these candi- 
 dates throughout the Empire than for the number of deputies 
 they elected. In the Reichstag the party abstained from taking 
 part in ordinary business, but were always on the watch for op- 
 portunities to attack existing institutions and always voted 
 against the government. Only after 1890 it began to take a 
 positive part in the labours of the Reichstag. Since the fusion of 
 1875 it has retained its former leaders of the Marx section, Lieb- 
 knecht and Bebel. It has its strongholds in the large cities and 
 the manufacturing districts, in the Prussian provinces of the 
 Rhine, of Saxony, and of Silesia, in Berlin and Hamburg, and 
 in the Kingdom of Saxony. !The number of voters belonging 
 to it has risen in almost constant progression from 300,000 to 
 1,700,000; the number of deputies has varied between 2 and 44. 
 (At the elections of 1898 the number of voters was 2,120,000 out 
 of a total of 7,600,000, and the number of socialist deputies 
 elected was 56.) 
 
 The remaining parties have accepted the Empire and its con- 
 stitution; they are classified according to the direction which they 
 try to give to the government. The chief questions on which 
 they are divided relate to the matters directly submitted to the 
 Reichstag; the federal budget, the army, the customs and indi- 
 rect taxes, the relations between ministers and Reichstag, ques- 
 tions of law and of legal procedure. But they do not limit them- 
 selves strictly to these matters. They form combinations with 
 the parties in the Prussian Parliament that„have formed around 
 questions of the Church and the schools. Almost all of them 
 originated and have their chief power in Prussia. 
 
 The Conservative party (Detitschconservativ) was a continuation 
 of the old aristocratic and orthodox Protestant party of Prussia. 
 Like the original it had its strength in the farming regions of 
 eastern Prussia, was made up of great landowning nobles, and 
 
PARTIES IN THE EMPIRE. 48? 
 
 had the same organ, the Kreuszeitung. Its aims were to preserve 
 the estabhshed institutions — the power of the King, the organ- 
 ization of the army, the authority of the aristocracy over the 
 peasants, and of the clergy over the schools. Without openly 
 ■combatting the new constitution of the Empire, it protested 
 against the tendency of the Liberals to " absorb Prussia into 
 Germany " ; it sought to prevent the assimilation in order to 
 maintain the special system of aristocratic old eastern Prussia. 
 It was regarded as a Prussian particularist party, hostile to the 
 national unity, and it had, in fact, few supporters outside of 
 Prussia. By sustaining the King and his ministry in the con- 
 flict period it had acquired a strong influence over King Wil- 
 liam; it remained the party of the court and the nobility. It was 
 undisputed master of the Prussian House of Lords. In the 
 Reichstag it had a very variable number of deputies, — from 21 
 to 76, — according as it supported or opposed the ministry. 
 
 The Conservative-Liberal or Imperial party {Reichspartei), 
 made up of large manufacturers, great landowners (especially in 
 Silesia), and office-holders, always supported the ministry and 
 became liberal when Bismarck adopted a liberal policy (see 
 p. 494). 
 
 The National-Liberal party, drawing support from all parts 
 of the Empire, remained what it had been from its birth, a middle- 
 class imperialist anti-clerical party. Its program was to support 
 Bismarck in giving the Empire a strong organization and to 
 obtain from him in return a constitutional system with free trade 
 and anti-clerical tendencies. It demanded a responsible minis- 
 try for the Empire, payment of the people's representatives, com- 
 plete freedom of industry and commerce, including free trade and 
 a reduction of the excise taxes on consumption. In Prussia it 
 demanded freedom of the press, a reform of local administration 
 that should abolish the authority of the nobles over the peas- 
 antry, and a reform of the school system, that should take away 
 the clerical control of education. 
 
 The party of Progress (Fortschritt; since 1884 Freisinnig) has 
 always preserved its original program. It was, like the National- 
 Liberals, a middle-class party of anti-clerical tendencies, but it 
 was an opposition party, hostile to the military system and to 
 the bureaucratic method of administration. It demanded a re- 
 duction of the period of service and of the expenses of the army, 
 and it leaned toward a parliamentary government. It professed 
 the doctrine of the English Manchester school as to the advan- 
 
488 THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 tages of free trade. When the National Liberal party abandoned 
 this doctrine to follow Bismarck's evolution, a " secession " of 
 free-traders left it (1881) and eventually joined the Freisinnige. 
 This party drew its strength chiefly from the large cities, from 
 Holstein, Hesse, the province of Prussia, and the Kingdom of 
 Saxony. 
 
 The Democratic party (Volkspartei), peculiar to South Ger- 
 many and especially to Wurtemburg, was radical, anti-clerical, 
 and anti-Prussian. Greatly weakened by the founding of the 
 Empire, it seems to have gathered strength since 1890 by its op- 
 position to the ecclesiastical policy of the government. 
 
 The Centre was the Catholic party, formed at first in Prussia. 
 There had always been in the Prussian Parliament a small 
 " Catholic group," but nearly blended with the Conservatives. 
 After the Vatican Council and the capture of Rome by Italy, 
 a completely separate party was organized in the parliament of 
 1870, formed exclusively of Catholics, of whom there were fifty- 
 six. It presented itself as a conservative monarchical party with 
 Catholic tendencies. Its first formal act was an address to the 
 King asking him to help the Pope in recovering his temporal 
 power (February, 1871). The party immediately began activity 
 in the Reichstag of 1871, taking there also the name of Centre. 
 Its published program demanded only the maintenance of the 
 federal character of the Empire and the liberty of the Church. 
 But it was then and has remained a purely Catholic party, found 
 nowhere outside of the Catholic districts of Prussia, Bavaria, and 
 Baden. It has had no other policy than to defend the Catholic 
 religion and the Holy See, to maintain or increase the power 
 of the clergy and to resist the secularizing parties. It is a con- 
 servative Catholic party; but, by a natural dislike of the Protestant 
 government of the' Empire, it has, on the federal side, assumed 
 the character of an opposition. Recruited in part from the demo- 
 cratic population of the west, it has retained a popular following 
 which has kept it in touch with the democratic parties. 
 
 Conditions of Political Life. — In order to understand the tactics 
 of these German parties, it is necessary to bear in mind the con- 
 stitutional arrangements of Germany. 
 
 The Empire, created in the likeness of Prussia, is a strictly 
 constitutional monarchy, like France under Louis XVIII. The 
 Emperor and his Chancellor in Germany, the King and his min- 
 isters in Prussia, exercise the sovereign powers of government 
 through subordinates who depend on them alone. The repre- 
 
CONDITIONS OF POLITICAL LIFE. 489 
 
 sentatives of the people have no means of coercing the govern- 
 ment, not even an independent power of legislation. The 
 Reichstag has indeed the right of proposing changes of law; on 
 the request of 15 members it can discuss and pass any bill: but no 
 bill becomes a law without the consent of the Emperor and the 
 princes of the Federal Council. Practically the power of the 
 elected assembly is purely negative; it consists in the right of 
 refusing to adopt new laws and new taxes desired by the gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Practically the directing power lay with Bismarck, Chancellor 
 of the Empire and President of the Prussian ministry,* the con- 
 fidential adviser of the sovereign till 1890, a man who, in accord- 
 ance with his doctrine of 1862, systematically prevented Germany 
 from developing toward parliamentary government. Accus- 
 tomed to be obeyed, he would endure no control on the part of 
 the people's representatives, nor even a partial divergence of 
 opinion on the part of his colleagues and his supporters in the 
 legislative bodies. He even refused to permit the organization 
 of a regular Imperial ministry; he reduced the federal government 
 to a bureau of the Chancellor, composed of certain ofScials tak- 
 ing over work prepared for them by the Prussian ministry. Ger- 
 many, like Prussia, has lived under a liberal bureaucratic system, 
 under the personal government of the Emperor and his Chan- 
 cellor. Political life has been dominated by Bismarck's views, 
 then by those of William II., and by their attitude toward the 
 political parties. 
 
 This government, master of the whole administration, needed 
 to ask the Reichstag only for new taxes and occasionally for a 
 piece of legislation, usually of the repressive sort. The parties, 
 conscious of having no other means of action, adopted defensive 
 tactics, opposing a passive resistance to the government, yield- 
 ing to it one step at a time when they ran any risk of not being 
 upheld in resistance by the voters, bargaining with it to induce 
 it to abate its demands as much as possible, avoiding appropria- 
 tions for long terms of years, and all legislation that would leave 
 the Reichstag disarmed for the future, endeavouring to get con- 
 cessions in return for their votes. 
 
 The government itself having, unlike parliamentary minis- 
 tries, no need of a stable majority in order to govern, took ad- 
 vantage of the medley of parties to get a coalition, from time to 
 
 * The experiment of a President of the Prussian Ministry distinct from 
 the Chancellor of the Empire (1873) was not lasting. 
 
490 
 
 THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 time, sufficient for the day of the vote. Among the parties ac- 
 cepting the constitution (Conservative, National-Liberal, Centre, 
 Progress) it selected those it could win over to its policy most 
 cheaply, and made such concessions to their several programs 
 as were necessary in order to obtain their votes. Later, as its 
 own policy changed, it turned to a new combination. As is 
 natural in a monarchical country administered by powerful offi- 
 cials, each party, during its temporary alliance with' the govern- 
 ment, has been more numerous than when in opposition. This 
 fluctuation has been most marked in the most ministerial parties: 
 the Conservative, which has varied from 21 to 80; the Reichs- 
 partei from 57 to 21; the National-Liberal from 152 in 1874 to 
 50 in 1884, then from 99 in 1887 to 42 in 1890. 
 
 The following table shows approximately the strength of each 
 party in the Reichstag since the founding of the Empire. The 
 deputies not attached to any party, the so-called " Savages," are 
 not included. 
 
 1871 
 
 1874 
 
 1877 
 
 1878 
 
 1881 
 
 1884 
 
 1887 
 
 i8go 
 
 1893 
 
 Conservatives . . . . 
 
 Reischpartei 
 
 National I^iberals., 
 
 Progress 
 
 People's Party 
 
 Socialists 
 
 Centre 
 
 Guelphs 
 
 Poles 
 
 Alsace-Lorrainers. . 
 
 Danes 
 
 Anti-Semites 
 
 56 
 
 39 
 
 120 
 
 46 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 63 
 
 4 
 14 
 
 21 
 
 36 
 
 152 
 
 49 
 
 I 
 
 9 
 91 
 
 4 
 14 
 15 
 
 I 
 
 40 
 
 38 
 
 127 
 
 36 
 
 3 
 12 
 92 
 
 5 
 14 
 10 
 
 76 
 
 28 
 
 50 
 
 65 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 100 
 
 II 
 
 16 
 
 13 
 I 
 
 71 
 21 
 42 
 
 67 
 10 
 24 
 107 
 II 
 16 
 10 
 I 
 
 53 
 21 
 48 
 
 43 
 8 
 
 56 
 
 103 
 
 9 
 
 14 
 
 10 
 I 
 
 The German Empire must not be conceived as a centralized 
 state in which the whole political life is centred in the Imperial 
 government and the Reichstag. Neither in Prussia nor in the 
 smaller states has the local legislature fallen to the level of a 
 provincial council; it has continued to be a political assembly,, 
 discussing vital questions of education, the Church, taxation, etc.; 
 and the division of parties in it has continued to be a living 
 question. 
 
 Prussia's victories in war increased everywhere the party fa- 
 vouring German unity under Prussian leadership — the National- 
 Liberal party. It has prevailed in Baden and Hesse over the 
 
CULTURKAMPF AND ORGANIZATION OF EMPIRE. 49 1 
 
 Catholic party. In Wurtemburg it allied itself with the minis- 
 ters against the anti-military and anti-Prussian Democrats. In 
 Bavaria it formed the nucleus of the Liberal party, which has its 
 strength in the Rhenish Palatinate and among the Franconian 
 Protestants, and which supports the ministers against the Catho- 
 lic majority. Thanks to the Bavarian system, it nearly equals 
 in the legislature the Patriot (Catholic) party, which has on its 
 side the great majority of the voters. In Saxony it nearly 
 equalled the old Conservative Lutheran party up to the time 
 when the two joined hands against the Socialists, who were be- 
 ginning to carry seats in the Legislature. In Mecklenburg, 
 where as early as 1871 it had an enormous majority of the voters, 
 it has been held in check by the deputies of the nobles (the Ritter- 
 schaff), who control the " Estates," which are still organized 
 in the eighteenth century fashion. Several times the Reichstag 
 has protested against these old " estates " as contrary to the con- 
 stitution of the Empire; but the efforts for reform made by the 
 Grand Duke have been nullified by the resistance of the nobles. 
 Among the small states the voters are usually divided between 
 the National-Liberals and the Progressives. 
 
 Like Prussia and the Empire, the German states are governed 
 by sovereigns, ministers, and officials. The government is some- 
 times liberal, but never pailiamentary. The legislature has only 
 a negative power; it can worry the ministers, but cannot compel 
 them to resign; in Bavaria the Lutz ministry has maintained 
 itself continuously in office, in spite of the Catholic majority. All 
 Germany still lives under bureaucratic monarchies. 
 
 The Culturkampf and the Organization of the Empire (1871-77). 
 — During the first years of the new Empire, Bismarck, going 
 on in his evolution of 1867, allied himself with the National- 
 Liberal party in order to establish the institutions necessary to 
 national unity. His chief opponents in those years were the 
 Catholic Centre. 
 
 The Prussian Constitution of 1850, based on the model of the 
 Belgian Constitution (see p. 235), had made the Catholic Church 
 almost independent of the state : " The Evangelical and Catholic 
 churches, as well as every other religious body, shall govern and 
 manage their affairs in an independent manner." The govern- 
 ment had thus abandoned its power of control over the clergy — 
 " the right of proposing, nominating, electing, and confirming " 
 bishops and priests, supervision of the publication of ecclesiasti- 
 cal acts, and of the external relations of the churches. It had at 
 
49" THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 the same time charged the clergy with the direction of the re- 
 Hgious instruction in the primary schools. It had continued to 
 the clergy their grants of public money, their power over civil 
 status, their right to public honours, and the enforcement of eccle- 
 siastical authority by the state. This meant freedom of the clergy 
 from control of the civil government, while remaining a public 
 power. The bishops, having become sole masters of their clergy, 
 had acquired over the laity a political influence which showed 
 itself sharply in the formation of the Centre party. 
 
 This unexpected revelation of the moral power of the clergy 
 frightened and irritated the politicians. It became the fashion to 
 denounce the Ultramontanes as " enemies of the Empire," and to 
 compare them to the Guelphs and the Socialists. Then began 
 the very complicated struggle between the Centre and the gov- 
 ernment which goes by the name of the Culturkampf , i. e., the 
 fight for civilization. This was a long series of manifestoes by 
 the Pope or the Catholic clergy of Germany, and of repressive 
 measures by the government, the one in answer to the other, and 
 growing in violence as the struggle progressed. The battle 
 raged both in the Reichstag and in the Prussian Parliament. 
 
 The Centre began operations in the Prussian Parliament by 
 demanding the restoration of the temporal power of the Pope 
 (1871), and in the Reichstag by proposing to insert in the Im- 
 perial Constitution the articles of the Prussian Constitution 
 which guarantee religious liberty. Bismarck took a special dis- 
 like to this party. It had for its leader Windthorst, a Hanoverian 
 Guelph, who supported the Polish Catholics of Posen in their 
 proposition to have Polish taught in the primary schools. 
 
 The set conflict began over the question of the " old Catho- 
 lic " professors in the Catholic theological faculties of the Uni- 
 versities, and Catholic teachers in the public Gymnasien (Latin 
 schools), who rejected the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility. 
 The bishops forbade these men to go on with their teaching and 
 then excommunicated them. The government, not itself ap- 
 proving the decrees of the Vatican Council, refused to dismiss 
 the condemned teachers. The bishops protested in a collective 
 address to the Emperor, September, 1871. The limits of the 
 powers of the Church were thus made the subject of conflict. 
 
 The contest gradually widened. ^ The priests, particularly in 
 Bavaria, spoke from their pulpits against the Old Catholics and 
 the government that protected them. On request of the Bavarian 
 ministry, the Reichstag passed a clause supplementary to the 
 
CULTURKAMPF AND ORGANIZATION OF EMPIRE. 493 
 
 penal code of the Empire, punishing with imprisonment any 
 priest indulging in political controversy or in attacks on the gov- 
 ernment from the pulpit (the " Pulpit Paragraph," December, 
 1871). In Prussia the Catholic clergy used their right of super- 
 vising the primary schools by dismissing the Old Catholic 
 teachers, and their control over marriage licenses by refusing to 
 marry Old Catholics. The government decided to curtail the 
 powers of the clergy. It proposed a bill relating to marriages 
 and one relating to the inspection of schools. The Conservative 
 party and the Emperor himself, who insisted on the influence of 
 the Protestant clergy over the schools and the religious char- 
 acter of marriage, were reluctant to accept proposals so contrary 
 to the traditions established since 1840. At first the government 
 succeeded only with the bill transferring the inspection of schools 
 from the clergy to lay inspectors (February, 1872). The Min- 
 ister of Public Worship, a partisan of the clergy, having lost Bis- 
 marck's confidence, was replaced by Falk, a partisan of the power 
 of the state. The bishops protested, and the bishop of Posen 
 refused to apply the inspection law. 
 
 Bismarck tried negotiations with the court of Rome, but was 
 unable to induce the Pope to accept as ambassador Cardinal 
 Hohenlohe. He complained in the Reichstag, where he pro- 
 nounced the famous sentence, " We shall not go to Canossa " 
 (May, 1872). The Pope replied in an allocution, denouncing the 
 persecution of the Church in Germany. The answer of the gov- 
 ernment was an act expelling the Jesuits and affiliated orders 
 from Germany. A new papal allocution against the " hypocriti- 
 cal persecution " was answered by the recall of the German am- 
 bassador to the Vatican (December, 1872). Diplomatic relations 
 between the Pope and the German Empire were broken. 
 
 The clergy, forced to choose between their spiritual sover- 
 eign and the temporal power, unanimously went with the Pope. 
 They protested against the commands and the laws of the civil 
 power. The government, especially after the attempt of a Cath- 
 olic labourer to assassinate Bismarck (July, 1874), treated the 
 clergy as rebels. It prosecuted the bishops, seized their goods, 
 deprived them of their jurisdiction, and finally put them in 
 prison. At the same time, in order to bring the clergy under 
 the power of the state, it secured the passage of the three series 
 of acts known as the " May Laws," or " Falk Laws," 1873-75. 
 The aim at first was to transform the bishops and priests into 
 state officials, by requiring of every candidate for the priesthood 
 
494 THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 three years of study at the Universities and an examination in 
 " general culture " (philosophy and history), also by requiring 
 the bishops to give notice to the government of every ecclesiasti- 
 cal nomination, in order that the administrative officers might see 
 to the enforcement of the new legislation. The state also as- 
 sumed the right of supervision of all ecclesiastical seminaries. 
 In order to deprive the clergy of their ofificial authority the Em- 
 peror finally made up his mind, in 1874, to accept civil marriage 
 for Prussia. In 1874 an imperial act established obligatory civil 
 marriage for the whole Empire. The Pope, by an ecclesiastical 
 letter to the Prussian bishops, solemnly declared these laws void, 
 as contrary to the constitution of the Church, and pronounced 
 his blessing on the condemned bishops. The conflict had be- 
 come one of principle betwee'n the two powers. 
 
 The government demanded a declaration of submission to the 
 new laws, and withheld the salaries of the bishops and priests who 
 refused to make it. It induced the Prussian Parliament to repeal 
 the articles of the Constitution of 1850 relating to the inde- 
 pendence of the Church; also to pass, in 1875, a law dissolving 
 all monasteries in the kingdom. Then Bismarck declared that 
 the " armour was complete " and that the state would keep on 
 the defensive. The contest, from that time on, consisted in mani- 
 festoes and protestations on the part of the clergy, and on the 
 part of the government in prosecutions and punishments of those 
 making them. Some of the bishoprics and parishes were left 
 vacant; but the Catholic Centre, instead of submitting, increased 
 its strength at the elections of 1874, and entered on a course of 
 systematic opposition. 
 
 This contest caused Bismarck to depart from his old policy. 
 In order to combat the Catholic Centre, he made approaches to 
 the Liberal parties led by free-thinkers and Jews. The National 
 Liberals, nicknamed " Bismarck's Party," had been elected to the 
 number of 152, as friends of the government; they were able to 
 make a majority of the Reichstag and of the Prussian Lower 
 House, by combining with the Progress party. The Conserva- 
 tive ministers of the " conflict time " had been replaced, one after 
 another, by National Liberals. The real power was exercised 
 by a coalition of Bismarck and the Liberals. 
 
 Bismarck still held the reins. He yielded nothing to his new 
 allies that could strengthen the Reichstag, and he rejected with 
 disdain all their political demands: a responsible ministry and 
 payment of the deputies (they had only free passes on the rail- 
 
CULTURKAMPF AND ORGANIZATION OF EMPIRE. 495 
 
 ways). He constrained them to support his army policy, at first 
 by a provisional arrangement; then, in 1874, he demanded an 
 increase of the force to 401,000 on a peace footing; he even 
 wished to have a permanent appropriation made for this number 
 of soldiers, and was with difficulty induced to accept a compro- 
 mise. The Reichstag voted the provision for 401,000 men, for 
 a period of seven years : this was called the " military septennate," 
 with allusion to MacMahon's recently voted septennate in 
 France. He also led them into voting for the military penal 
 code, which the previous Reichstag had found too severe ; also a 
 series of criminal laws intended to reach the different kinds of 
 opponents of the government (one of these was called the "rubber 
 paragraph " from its elastic nature) ; also a press law abolishing 
 the stamp and the deposit as security, but fixing severe penalties 
 for attacks on the government. 
 
 The Liberal parties obtained only certain administrative, ju- 
 dicial, and economic reforms. In Prussia, in addition to lay 
 inspection of schools and civil marriage, consequences of the 
 Culturkampf, the reform of local administration, promised in 
 1814, was at last carried out in the eastern provinces. The 
 House of Lords had always rejected it; it rejected it again in 
 1872, but in that year Bismarck induced the King to create 
 twenty-five new members, and the law was then passed. It 
 abolished the judicial and police powers of landowners on their 
 domains, and changed the Circle assemblies into elected bodies, 
 with power to impose taxes. 
 
 In the Empire the Reichstag and the government worked in 
 concert to establish economic and judicial unity. The war in- 
 demnity of five thousand millions of francs paid by France made 
 easy the economic arrangements. Several special funds were 
 created — invalid pensions, war chest, fortresses, navy. A uni- 
 form currency was established in 1872, with the inark as the unit 
 (= 24 cents). The old paper currency of the individual states 
 was replaced with notes issued by the Imperial Treasury. An 
 Imperial Bank was established. The customs duties on iron 
 were almost wholly abolished (1873). 
 
 In the field of judicial reform, the individual governments 
 rejected in the Federal Council the plan of a uniform system 
 adopted by the Reichstag. Four years were necessary for reach- 
 ing a compromise. A conference of ministers of the various 
 states, then a commission of jurists, and finally a committee of 
 the Reichstag, laboured over the matter. The results were a 
 
49^ THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 common system of judicial procedure in civil matters, a general 
 bankruptcy law, certain common principles of civil law, crim- 
 inal procedure, and organization of courts. 
 
 The French war indemnity, distributed as repayment of out- 
 lays or expended on public works, had at first the effect of raising 
 prices and wages and of stimulating speculative enterprises, par- 
 ticularly in the construction of railways and in the building of 
 houses in Berlin. This was the period of " promoters " and of 
 speculations in the stock-exchange. It ended abruptly in a panic 
 and business depression (1874). 
 
 The Conservative party, dissatisfied with the reform of local 
 administration, with the measures of free trade, with the with- 
 drawal of the schools and the marriage ceremony from clerical 
 hands, went over gradually into opposition to the government. 
 It reproached Bismarck with " Germanizing " Prussia and with 
 overturning the foundations of religion and society. Emperor 
 William, who remained personally devoted to the church and the 
 aristocracy, gave free scope to his Chancellor, while confessing 
 to his intimate friends that his heart was full of misgivings. It 
 seems that some of the Conservatives hoped to bring about Bis- 
 marck's fall and to set up in his place Count von Arnim, am- 
 bassador to France, a favourite at court backed by the Empress. 
 The severe struggle between Bismarck and von Arnim led to a 
 public explosion, the recall and arrest of von Arnim, followed 
 by his trial and condemnation, first for wrongfully taking public 
 documents from his embassy, and secondly for publishing an 
 anonymous pamphlet against the Chancellor (1876). The Con- 
 servatives replied by a newspaper campaign against Bismarck. 
 They accused him of being bought by Jew speculators, particu- 
 larly Bleichroeder the banker, averring that he had opened " the 
 Bleichroeder era " for Germany ; hence new prosecutions. 
 
 Struggle against the Socialists (1878).— From the beginning 
 of the Empire the government had combatted the Socialists by 
 means of prosecutions. It had obtained in 1872 the condem- 
 nation of their two chiefs for high treason and in 1873 had prose- 
 cuted their journals in Berlin. But, perhaps because of the 
 industrial distress following the panic of 1873, the Socialists made 
 rapid gains among the working- classes, especially in Saxony, 
 Holstein, Thuringia, and Berlin. At the elections of 1874 they 
 received 340,000 votes and then coalesced in a single party with 
 a centralized management, an official journal, a treasury, and an 
 annual congress. 
 
STRUGGLE AGAINST THE SOCIALISTS. 497 
 
 Bismarck wished to check their agitation by laws against the 
 press. But the Reichstag, anxious for liberty of the press, re- 
 jected his proposals. In 1877 the Socialists polled 480,000 
 votes. 
 
 The two attempts on the life of the Emperor in 1878 finally 
 gave the government the means of overcoming the scruples of 
 the liberal parties. The would-be assassins had acted on their 
 own motion, and their party disavowed their acts: but they were 
 Socialists. Bismarck took advantage of the public excitement 
 caused by the second attempt on the Emperor's life to dissolve 
 the Reichstag, with which he was already at variance on his 
 economic policy. The liberal parties lost their majority; the 
 new Reichstag voted the law against the Socialist agitators. 
 This was an exceptional measure, expressly directed " against 
 the subversive efforts of the social democrats." It forbade 
 all associations, meetings, and publications having for their 
 object " the subversion of the social order " or in which " so- 
 cialistic tendencies should appear, of a kind to endanger the 
 public peace and, in particular, the good understanding between 
 the classes of the people." It gave the police power to seize 
 socialistic publications and to prohibit or disperse socialistic 
 meetings. It gave the governments power to proclaim for a 
 year at a time, in any threatened city, the state of minor siege, 
 which gave the administration the power of forbidding all meet- 
 ings and of expelling every suspected person. The law was to 
 be in force four years. Twice extended later, it lasted till 1890. 
 It broke up the official organization of the Socialists, put an end 
 to their clubs and their publications. According to statements is' 
 sued by the party in 1890, the law had, in twelve years, suppressed 
 1400 publications, banished 900 persons, and condemned 1500 to 
 prison. But the party had reorganized itself under the guise of 
 local societies, outwardly innocent of political aims — such as 
 choral societies, smokers' circles, workingmen's unions, etc. It 
 had kept up the spread of its doctrines by private conversation 
 and by means of flying sheets printed in secret. The publication 
 of its official organ, the Social Democrat, was carried on from 
 Zurich in Switzerland, whence it was smuggled into Germany. 
 The socialist " Congress " was also held outside of Germany. 
 
 The repressive measures seemed at first to check the progress 
 of socialism. At the elections of 1881 the party polled only 310,- 
 000 votes — electing 12 deputies. But in 1884 the number of 
 voters rose to 550,000, and 24 socialists were elected. In 1887 
 
498 THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 and 1890 the number of voters rose to 763,000 and 1,427,000, re- 
 spectively. These results showed that repression was a failure. 
 
 Bismarck's Economic and Social Policy (1878-86). — In order to 
 put down the Catholic clergy, Bismarck had allied himself with 
 the National Liberals and had accepted their economic doctrines: 
 a customs tariff approaching free trade, direct taxes for Imperial 
 revenue, non-interference by the state in questions between 
 labourers and employers. Little by little Bismarck became dis- 
 satisfied with this system ; at the same time he was growing tired 
 of his contest with the Catholic Church. He took up the new 
 currents of thought that had begun to show themselves in Ger- 
 many. 
 
 Certain professors of political economy, especially Wagner and 
 Schmoller, advocates of state intervention in industrial matters, 
 had founded in 1872 a "society for the study of social policy" 
 (Verein fiir Socialpolitik). This body had instituted inquiries into 
 the condition of the labourers, and was advocating a reform of 
 the laws relating to labour, factory inspection, tenements, and 
 life and accident insurance. Their opponents nicknamed them 
 " Socialists of the chair." 
 
 The protectionists, aided by the depression of 1874, had started 
 a movement for reform of taxation and a new commercial policy ; 
 they called for a restoration of the duties on iron, which had been 
 nearly abolished in 1873. Bismarck became first a protectionist 
 and then a state-socialist. He began by proposing a new tariff 
 on imports (1877); a few years later he was advocating state in- 
 terference with industry under the name of Social policy. 
 
 As early as 1877, the imperial budget being in a state of deficit, 
 Bismarck proposed excise taxes on cards and tobacco. The 
 National Liberal party demanded in return the creation of an 
 Imperial ministry. Bismarck refused, took a vacation, and came 
 back from it with a plan involving a fiscal revolution. Up to 
 that time the Empire had had a low tarifl, approximately free 
 trade in principle, and slight excise taxes. The revenue from 
 customs was not sufficient for the expanses of the Empire; the 
 deficit had been made up by contributions demanded yearly from 
 the various states according to population. Bismarck wished to 
 have high duties, like other great states, in order to protect home 
 industries ; he therefore resolved to increase the imperial revenues 
 from this source to a sufficient extent to get rid of the need of 
 contributions. Within the Empire he wished to establish a mo- 
 nopoly of tobacco, on the model of France, and to increase the 
 
BISMARCK'S ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICY. 499 
 
 excise duties. The imperial budget would then much more than 
 balance; the surplus would be distributed to the states and would 
 enable them to lower their direct taxes. This reform would give 
 the Empire an independent revenue system; it would no longer 
 have to " beg at the door of the states." 
 
 The project was rejected by the National Liberals, not only 
 for its antagonism to free trade, but also because it would give 
 the government a revenue independent of annual vote and would 
 thus weaken still further the control of the Reichstag over the 
 administration. Bismarck then abandoned the Liberals and 
 sought a majority on the other side of the house, by coming to 
 an understanding with the two conservative parties which he had 
 just been fighting — the Prussian Conservatives and the Catholic 
 Centre. Taking advantage of the attempts to assassinate the 
 Emperor in 1878, he dissolved the Reichstag elected in 1877, the 
 Liberal majority of which had just rejected his tobacco monopoly 
 and his anti-Socialist bill. In the new Reichstag the Liberal 
 parties, now become opponents of Bismarck, lost their majority. 
 By a coalition of the Conservatives and Catholics, a new majority 
 was formed, ready to accept a part at least of Bismarck's new 
 economic program. It took at first the form of an " economic 
 group," consisting of 204 members who declared themselves in 
 favour of a protective tariff (1878). 
 
 Bismarck got this coalition to vote his new tarifif. This was 
 protectionist, without, however, raising the duties on foreign 
 grain, although the landowners demanded protection. Bismarck 
 thus carried some fragments of his program; it was done 
 slowly and by a compromise. The Reichstag first voted the 
 taxes on tobacco, coffee, and petroleum, but with the provision 
 that the revenue from customs and excise beyond 130,000,000 of 
 marks should be distributed to the states, and that certain of the 
 taxes should be granted only for a year at a time, a condition in- 
 tended to preserve the financial control of the Reichstag (1879). 
 
 In return for these favours, Bismarck granted his new allies a 
 change of domestic policy in Prussia. He broke with his Liberal 
 colleagues; Falk, the minister of the Culturkampf, gave way 
 to a Conservative successor. He stopped the reform of local 
 administration, which was opposed by the Conservatives. The 
 reconciliation with the Centre was slower. It began with nego- 
 tiations with the new Pope, Leo XIII., which, however, came to 
 nothing. The questions were of filling the bishoprics and 
 parishes vacated by deaths and exclusions: the May Laws re- 
 
50O THE GERMAIN EMPIRE. 
 
 quired certain declarations which the ecclesiastics declined to 
 make. An escape was found by the device of getting the Prus- 
 sian Parliament to grant the government the power of dispensing 
 with the requirements of the laws (1880). Thus ended the 
 Culturkampf. Subsequently the measures adopted during the 
 struggle were one by one withdrawn (1880-93). There remained 
 only civil marriage and the repeal of the articles relating to the 
 Church in the Constitution of 1850. The Catholic clergy are 
 considered in Germany to have come out victorious in the contest 
 with the government. 
 
 The coalition of the Conservatives and the Centre also voted 
 the purchase of the Prussian railroads. Of 20,000 kilometers of 
 road, 6000 kilometers belonged to the state. Bismarck proposed 
 the purchase of all the roads by the government. He succeeded 
 in purchasing them gradually, beginning in 1879. 
 
 In this change of policy the National Liberal party broke into 
 two parts. One section, devoted above all to Bismarck, followed 
 him and joined the Right (1879). Another section, attached to 
 free trade and to the May Laws, joined the Left (1880), forming 
 the secession of 28 members who eventually joined the Progress 
 party (1881). This crisis brought manifestations of ill will on 
 the part of Bismarck toward his former allies and ministerial 
 colleagues, together with various flings at the Reichstag and at 
 parliamentary government. He went so far as to propose bien- 
 nial sessions for the Reichstag, and vote of the budget for a two- 
 year period instead of annually. At the elections of 1881 the 
 Liberal parties complained of the pressure put upon the voters 
 to induce them to support the ministerial candidates. 
 
 In order to counteract the Socialist agitation Bismarck under- 
 took to make the imperial government popular by establishing a 
 government system of life and accident insurance, intended to 
 better the condition of the labouring class. This was his " social 
 policy." 
 
 He began by the creation, in November, 1880, of an Economic 
 Council of 75 members for Prussia. Then he proposed a bill 
 on accident insurance, announced as the first of a series. In 
 November, 1881, the Emperor, in a famous message, laid down 
 the principle that the state owes help to " its needy members," 
 not only as " a simple duty of humanity and Christianity," but as 
 " a task of self-preservation." It is necessary to " create even 
 among the poor, who are the most numerous and the least in- 
 structed class, the conception of the state as an institution not 
 
THE ARMY LAW AND THE "CARTEL." SOi 
 
 only necessary but benevolent." It was a development of the 
 modern idea of the state, resulting from Christian morality, that 
 " beyond the duty of defence, the state has the task put upon it 
 .... of promoting in positive ways the well-being of all its 
 members, particularly the weak." This doctrine, represented by 
 Bismarck as the old tradition of the Prussian Kings, was identi- 
 cal with the teachings of the theorists known as State Socialists, 
 and of the new party calling themselves " Christian Socialists," 
 which had just been founded by the court preacher, Stoecker. 
 
 The new principle was put in practice by slow instalments, 
 painfully wrung from the Reichstag. A fund was created, under 
 imperial management, for giving pensions to labourers disabled 
 by accident, sickness, or old age. This institution was greeted 
 by the university economists of Germany as a social revolution 
 which was to save millions of labourers from suffering and inter- 
 est them in the preservation of society. The Socialists treated 
 it as a trick to divert the labourers from the pursuit of real reform. 
 It does not seem, in fact, to have drawn the labourers to support 
 the government. 
 
 In the Reichstag elected in 1881 the Liberal opposition ap- 
 peared with increased numbers (Progressives, 58; Secession Lib- 
 erals, 47). Bismarck made a closer alliance with the coalition of 
 Conservatives and Catholics. He got, through its help, some 
 fragments of his fiscal and social program and a law against 
 the Anarchists. His tobacco monopoly was rejected. 
 
 During the same period he entered upon a colonial policy 
 which, begun by the efforts of individuals and companies (1880), 
 resulted in the creation of colonies aided by grants of money from 
 the Reichstag. This was a new field for opposition; the Reichs- 
 tag of 1884 pronounced against the colonial policy. 
 
 The Army Law and the "Cartel" (1886-88).— The coalition 
 of Conservatives and Centre broke on the question of colonies. 
 The Centre deserted Bismarck and joined the Progressives and 
 other opposition parties to defeat the appropriations for colonial 
 purposes. The rupture became final when the Prussian govern- 
 ment, having expelled the Poles from the eastern provinces, re- 
 fused to answer questions on the subject in Parliament. A coali- 
 tion was formed to pppose Bismarck; it was led by the two chiefs 
 of the Centre and the Progressives, and, as it included a majority 
 of the Reichstag, it succeeded in defeating Bismarck's fiscal pro- 
 posals. 
 
 German domestic politics were disturbed by external compli- 
 
502 THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 cations. This was the time of the Boulanger excitement and the 
 Patriotic League in France; there was a feeling abroad that Ger- 
 many was threatened with a war against France and perhaps 
 Russia. Bismarck used these fears, which his adherents in the 
 press seem to have fomented, to get the better of his opponents 
 in the Reichstag. He asked, in 1886, for a renewal of the mili- 
 tary septennate, although it did not expire till 1888, and an in- 
 crease of 41,000 men in the army. The Progressives and Centre 
 voted the increase, but limited the duration of the military law 
 to three years. Bismarck dissolved the Reichstag in January, 
 1887. 
 
 At the elections of 1887 a coalition of all the parties favouring 
 Bismarck was formed to oppose the enemies of the Septennate. 
 The three parties. Conservatives, Imperialists, and National Lib- 
 erals made a formal agreement (Cartel) to help each other at 
 the second ballotings. (In Germany the second ballots are con- 
 fined to a choice between the two candidates standing highest 
 at the first ballot.) The elections, turning on the military ques- 
 tion, resulted unfavourably for the opposition, and gave a con- 
 siderable majority for the Cartel: 220 against 175. 
 
 With this new majority Bismarck controlled the Reichstag. 
 He got his army law passed in 1888, got a renewal of the law 
 against the socialists, and an ex'tension of the duration of the 
 Reichstag, from the three-year period fixed by the constitution 
 to five years. He came to a direct understanding with the Pope, 
 who consented to censure the Centre for opposing the army 
 septennate; in return Bismarck got an act through the Prussian 
 Parliament allowing religious orders to be restored in Prussia. 
 And, finally, he succeeded in passing several bills embodying his 
 "■social policy." 
 
 William II. and Christian Socialism. — Bismarck had governed 
 Prussia since 1862 and the Empire since its establi'shment. He 
 had been the trusted adviser of William I. In all his contests 
 with the Prussian Parliament, with the Reichstag, with col- 
 leagues in the Prussian ministry, with the Federal Council, his 
 master had always sustained him. Frequently by threatening 
 resignation, which William I. would never accept, he was able 
 to crush opponents. He had come to be regarded as the neces- 
 sary head of the government. 
 
 William I. died in March, 1888. His son and successor, 
 Frederick III., was sufifering with a fatal disease at the time of 
 his accession. With him and his wife Victoria, daughter of the 
 
WILLIAM II. AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM. 503 
 
 English Queen, Bismarck had been in standing disagreement, 
 as they were advocates of parliamentary government on the 
 English pattern. The new reign was too short to change the 
 policy of the government (Frederick died in June, 1888). But 
 it raised at the new court an active movement against Bismarck. 
 The struggle led to the publication of Frederick's III.'s diary for 
 the years 1870-71, in which were some passages unfavourable 
 to Bismarck. Bismarck had the editor prosecuted as a falsifier, 
 but the result was an acquittal (1889). 
 
 William II. had been known as an admirer of his grandfather 
 and Bismarck. He was an enthusiast for the army and the 
 Church. His first utterances showed him to be a prince imbued 
 with the military and religious spirit of the Prussian kings, a 
 believer in the divine right of rulers, a pronounced enemy of the 
 socialists and free-thinkers. 
 
 His first proclamation was to the army and navy. In his 
 proclamation to the people he announced that he had assumed 
 the government " in presence of the King of kings and had prom- 
 ised God to be a just and clement prince, to cultivate piety and 
 the fear of God." In opening the Reichstag, he announced his 
 intention of continuing the legislative work of his grandfather, 
 particularly as to the things mentioned in his message of Nov- 
 ember, 1881 : " protection of the labouring classes , . . accord- 
 ing to the principles of Christian morality." 
 
 Then he adopted the practice of giving out his personal im- 
 pressions on political matters in after-dinner speeches, im- 
 promptu discourses, answers to addresses, speeches to the re- 
 cruits joining the army and navy, etc. Instead of the retired 
 and sedentary life of his predecessors, he adopted a life of inces- 
 sant movement and bustle : trips to all the monarchies of Europe, 
 progresses through all parts of his empire, yachting trips over 
 all the northern seas. In Berlin he got the nickname of William 
 the External. He continued to show a passionate interest in the 
 army, directing its exercises, assisting at its reviews and 
 manoeuvres in all parts of the empire. 
 
 His political utterances showed especially his respect for re- 
 ligion, his hatred of social revolution, his admiration for per- 
 sonal government and military discipline. After the success of 
 the socialists at the elections of 1890, his references to the strug- 
 gle against " the subversive elements " became menacing. In 
 Silesia he expressed the wish that the " citizens might at length 
 ■wake from their sleep and not leave the state and its organs to 
 
504 THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 fight the revolutionary elements singlehanded." He hoped there 
 might be success in " re-establishing respect for the Church, re- 
 spect for the law, and unquestioning obedience to the crown." 
 At a dinner given to the Estates of the province of Brandenburg 
 in 1890, he said: "The spirit of disobedience is abroad in the 
 country. It uses an ocean of printer's ink and paper to obscure 
 paths that are and ought to be clear to anybody whO' knows me 
 and my principles." At Munich, in a visitor's album, he wrote; 
 Suprema lex regis voluntas esto (Let the King's will be highest 
 law). . . To the recruits who had taken the military oath at 
 Potsdam in November, 1891, he made an address regarding 
 their duty in case of outbreak, in which he is reported to have 
 said: "You are now my soldiers, you have given yourselves to 
 me body and soul. There is now but one enemy for you, and 
 that is my enemy. In these times of socialist intrigues it may 
 happen that I shall order you to fire on your brothers and fathers. 
 God save us from it! But in such a case you are bound to obey 
 me without a murmur." 
 
 Meanwhile he intervened personally in special questions. He 
 called an international conference to consider labour legislation. 
 He took part in a school conference called tO' discuss a reform 
 of secondary education, and expressed the opinion that more 
 time ought to be given to modern subjects. He even sketched 
 a plan for instruction in history which should begin with the 
 events of our own time. . . 
 
 At the beginning of his reign he allowed Bismarck to govern. 
 But soon the change of sovereign brought a change in parties, 
 and presently a change in the ministry. 
 
 The Conservative party, being in sympathy with the religious 
 views of the Emperor, drew away from the alliance with the 
 National Liberals, who were suspected of indifference to religion. 
 The breach began in Prussia over a bill for making the primary 
 schools free. The Conservatives joined the Catholics in oppos- 
 ing the bill, and defeated it (1888). Then the Kreuszeitung, the 
 organ of the Conservatives, openly attacked the Cartel as " anti- 
 Christian," as a union of the " gold of Conservative principle with 
 the baser metal of liberalism." 
 
 The Conservatives had as chiefs two leaders of the new con- 
 servative socialistic movement: Wagner, the economist represent- 
 ing state socialism ; and Stoecker, the court preacher, founder of 
 the " Christian Socialists." This party, started in 1878 as a 
 workingman's party, announced that it " placed itself on the 
 
THE "NEW COURSE." 505 
 
 foundation of Christian faith, love of the King and the father- 
 land, and rejected social democracy as impracticable, anti- 
 Christian, and anti-patriotic." It was, therefore, a monarchical 
 and ecclesiastical party, but it asked of the state profound social 
 changes : compulsory corporations with aid from the state, labour 
 legislation, inspection of factories, funds for insurance against 
 accidents and sickness, a progressive tax on incomes and inher- 
 itances, regulation of the hours of labour. It opposed its pro- 
 gram to those of the old Liberal parties, champions of industrial 
 and commercial freedom, and declared itself the foe of the Man- 
 chester school and the Jews. Stoecker, although his following 
 remained small, acquired an influence over the Conservatives by 
 his unceasing campaign of agitation. 
 
 The Emperor stepped in to maintain the coalition between the 
 Conservatives and National Liberals. He stopped Stoecker's 
 political campaign, censured the Kreuszeitung, and announced 
 in the government organ that he regarded the Cartel as an ar- 
 rangement favourable to the principles of his government. The 
 Cartel was renewed for the elections of 1890, but without a com- 
 mon program. The electoral campaign was made against the 
 enhancement of prices of provisions by the new imposts and 
 against the tendency to reaction in religion shown by the minis- 
 terialists. It resulted in a complete defeat for the parties of the 
 Cartel: they lost more than a third of their seats, getting only 
 135 instead of their previous 220; whereas the opposing parties 
 came back with greatly increased strength. 
 
 The " New Course." — The government having lost its majority, 
 Bismarck proposed to make up a new one by a coalition of Con- 
 servatives and Catholics. The Emperor refused. As early as 
 1889 a latent schism had begun between Bismarck and the per- 
 sonal friends of William II., especially Count Waldersee, chief of 
 staff. Relations were already somewhat strained between the 
 Emperor and the Chancellor, owing to the latter's dislike of the 
 international conference regarding labour questions. On the Em- 
 peror's refusal to approve Bismarck's project of a new coalition, 
 and Bismarck's refusal to forego the regulation of 1852, which 
 forbade any Prussian minister to communicate with the King 
 otherwise than through the Minister-President, confidential re- 
 lations between them came to an end. 
 
 The rupture was abrupt and startling: Bismarck was asked to 
 resign both his imperial chancellorship and his position as a 
 Prussian minister. His successor. General Caprivi, was at once 
 
5o6 THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 installed (March, 1890). By a despatch couched in nautical 
 terms, the Emperor announced the event and his intention to 
 make no change in policy: " I am as much afflicted as if I had 
 lost my grandfather anew; but we must endure whatever God 
 sends us, even if we should have to die for it. The post of officer 
 on the quarter-deck of the ship of state has fallen to me; the 
 course remains unchanged. Forward with all steam ! " 
 
 In point of fact, after Bismarck's retirement, the government 
 policy took a somewhat different direction, which got named 
 " the new course." It was at first a change in the personal rela- 
 tions between the Chancellor and the members of the Reichstag. 
 The discussion's, which had been bitter under Bismarck, whom 
 the least contradiction irritated, became more calm under Caprivi. 
 The latter declared himself ready to accept " ideas to which the 
 too powerful personality of Bismarck was an obstacle." He al- 
 lowed greater liberty of the press and of public meetings. Even 
 the parties most opposed to his policy, the Progressives and So- 
 cialists, were less aggressive in their opposition. The exceptional 
 law against the Socialists, which expired in 1890, was not re- 
 newed. The Socialist party reorganized itself openly, with its 
 newspapers, its treasury maintained by contributions from its 
 members, its " congresses " held in Germany, and its official body 
 of managers. But it assumed a less revolutionary tone. The 
 new government was helped by the easier mood of all the par- 
 ties, relieved as they were of the feeling of compression from 
 which they had suffered under the autocratic sway of Bismarck. 
 
 In commercial matters the new government, without returning 
 to free trade, adopted a system of commercial treaties, at first 
 with the allies of the Empire, Austria-Hungary and Italy (1891), 
 then with other countries. The aim of the treaties was to open 
 markets for the products of German manufactures and to avoid 
 the embarrassments caused by sudden changes of tariffs on the 
 part of customer countries. 
 
 This change of commercial policy was connected with a change 
 of foreign policy. The government gave up the effort after a 
 Russian alliance and took up a more friendly attitude toward 
 the Poles. In Prussia it stopped the scheme for Germanizing 
 Posen. Bismarck had tried to introduce there a German popula- 
 tion by establishing a fund for the purchase of Polish estates — 
 the lands to be sold again, to German farmers. He had also 
 tried to extirpate the Polish language from the primary schools. 
 But it was shown that Polish, instead of receding, had gained 
 
THE "NEW COURSE." 507 
 
 ground since i860. The Catholic Poles were not becoming 
 Germanized, and a part of the German population had become 
 Polish in speech. The government made a reconciliation with 
 its Polish subjects, gave them a Pole as archbishop, and received 
 Polish nobles with favour at the court in Berlin. The Poles, 
 perhaps out of hatred for Russia, became friendly to the Prussian 
 government. Both in the Prussian Parliament and in the 
 Reichstag, the Polish party, hitherto in systematic opposition, 
 became steadfast supporters of the government. 
 
 Meanwhile the policy of coalition with the Catholic Centre, 
 which Bismarck had urged, had been forced on the government. 
 The Conservatives refused to support its plan of communal re- 
 form; the National Liberals were opposed to its labour legisla- 
 tion and the increase of army expenditure. Caprivi made terms 
 for the support of the Centre. He granted it, in 1890, a law 
 relieving persons studying for the priesthood from the obligation 
 of military service (the Protestant theological students asked not 
 to be included). In return the Centre voted for the two meas- 
 ures long discussed in Prussia — ^the reform of the national in- 
 come tax and the reform of local administration in the eastern 
 provinces (1891). The first adopted the principle of a slightly 
 increasing rate on incomes above 30,000 marks ($7,200), using 
 the taxpayer's declaration as a basis of proceeding. A portion of 
 the increased proceeds from the income tax was to be turned 
 over to the communes in order to lighten local taxes. The act 
 regarding local administration at length completed the reform 
 begun in 1808 by creating in the eastern provinces, not com- 
 munes on the French plan (the villages being too small and 
 poor), but unions on the English plan, for certain special objects 
 — roads, schools, poor relief. 
 
 On a question relating to the Prussian school system, a coali- 
 tion was made between the two parties favourable to clerical 
 influence — the Protestant Conservatives and the Catholic Centre. 
 The government proposed to suppress mixed schools and to 
 make all education sectarian; the ordinary teachers to give the 
 religious instruction, but under licenses granted by ecclesiastical 
 authorities, and subject to revocation by the same. All the other 
 parties joined in opposition to the scheme. In the debate the 
 ministers declared that the issue was between Christianity and 
 atheism. The universities and city councils sent up protests 
 against the measure. The Emperor, shaken by the widespread 
 opposition, withdrew his support of the bill. A ministerial crisis 
 
5o8 THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 followed. Caprivi wished to resign, but was only relieved of 
 his position as head of the Prussian ministry — retaining his ofifice 
 of Imperial Chancellor (March, 1892). 
 
 The Conservatives, disappointed in the Emperor, turned to the 
 anti-Semites, who, under the name of Social Reform, were gain- 
 ing support among the lower middle class. A gathering of 
 Conservatives adopted a declaration that " the Church and the 
 state are divine institutions between which a cordial co-opera- 
 tion is necessary for cherishing the life of the people. . . We are 
 opposed to the influence of the Jews which has fastened itself 
 on the country and is devouring its life." Bismarck, in retire- 
 ment on his estates, carried on a petty warfare of newspaper 
 articles and interviews against his successor. He reproached 
 him with having compromised the safety of the Empire by 
 alienating Russia, and with sacrificing the interests of German 
 producers by abandoning protection. His trip to Vienna in 1892 
 was the occasion of ovations half intended as censures of the gov- 
 ernment; public servants were forbidden to take part in them. 
 
 Against the commercial policy of the government, a new 
 economic party was formed, which had its following chiefly 
 among the Conservatives of eastern Prussia. Their griev- 
 ance was the low price of farm products in 1892. They 
 took the name of j the " Farmers' League." The leader of the 
 movement, an obscure farmer of Silesia, said in his published 
 statement : " We must give up being Liberals, Ultramontanes, 
 and Conservatives; we must unite in one great Farmers' Party, 
 to try and get more influence over parliaments and legislation." 
 The party organized local branches, with a central bureau and 
 a membership fee equal to three per cent, of the member's land 
 tax. Its platform demanded a protective tariff on agricultural 
 products, free coinage of silver, the institution of Chambers of 
 Agriculture, supervision of corn exchanges. The party opposed 
 the commercial treaty, made in 1894, with- Russia; it demanded 
 that the importation of foreign grain be made a government 
 monopoly. 
 
 The government, attacked by the Conservatives, was sup- 
 ported, somewhat hesitatingly, by the Progressives and the 
 Centre. The harmony, such as it was, came to an end on the 
 new military question. As in i860, the population had increased 
 and the existing regiments were no longer sufficient to receive 
 all the recruits; there were 60,000 in excess. The government 
 asked for an appropriation for 100,000 additional soldiers; but, 
 
THE "NEW COURSE." 5^9 
 
 in contrast with the course taken in i860, it proposed to reduce, 
 conditionally, the term of active service in the infantry from three 
 years to two. The Progressives refused the additional appro- 
 priation, except on condition that the reduction of service be 
 made final. The Centre asked for concessions in ecclesiastical 
 matters as a condition of its support. The bill was rejected in 
 May, 1893, and the Reichstag was dissolved. 
 
 At the elections of 1893 the Progressives fell apart on the 
 army question, some of them favouring the government's scheme, 
 the rest opposing it and trying to combine with the democratic 
 party of southern Germany; they returned from the elections 
 greatly reduced in strength. Most of the other parties gained 
 some seats — a fact which enabled the government to carry the 
 army law, by 11 majority, in the new Reichstag. 
 
 The greatest success, however, was won by the Socialists. No 
 other party received so many votes — 1,786,000, instead of the 
 1,427,000 received in 1890. The next most numerous party, the 
 Conseifvatives, received only 1,038,000 votes. The Socialists 
 carried only 44 seats, but this was because the districting was 
 unfavourable to them. The districts remain as they were made 
 in 1867-71; but the large cities and manufacturing regions, in 
 which the Socialists have their chief strength, have greatly in- 
 creased in population since that date. 
 
 The struggle against the Socialists became the Emperor's chief 
 concern. In a prepared speech. at Koenigsberg he said: " Gen- 
 tlemen, to you I address my appeal: stand up and fight for re- 
 ligion, morality, and order against the champions of subversion ! " 
 The government prepared a " bill against subversion," which 
 became an occasion of difficulty between Chancellor Caprivi and 
 Eulenburg, head of the Prussian ministry: the result was that 
 both retired from office, in October, 1894. 
 
 The new Chancellor, Hohenlohe, proposed a bill creating new 
 penalties for inciting soldiers to disobedience, or attacking re- 
 ligion, the monarchy, marriage, the family, or property. The 
 Conservatives and the Catholics accepted the principle of the bill ; 
 but in the debate in the Reichstag attacks were made on the uni- 
 versities and their " socialists of the chair," which annoyed the 
 Liberal-Conservatives. Later the committee of the Reichstag 
 amended the bill to suit the Catholics. All the other parties 
 united in defeating it (May, 1895). 
 
 The Conservative party, already deeply afifected by the intro- 
 duction of the Farmers' Party, and by the understanding with the 
 
Sio THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 anti-Semites, was shaken by a schism among the Christian Social 
 party. In opposition to the aristocratic element, Parson Nau- 
 mann had drawn away the mass of the party to support a demo- 
 cratic policy of " aiding the labouring class to organize itself and 
 attain equality on a Christian basis." By demanding that farm 
 labourers should have the right to form unions, he brought on 
 a rupture with the great landowning Conservatives and the 
 Kreusseitung, which denounced him as an ally of the Socialists. 
 The Emperor pronounced publicly against the Christian Social 
 party. " Political parsons," he said, " are a monstrosity. Who- 
 ever is a Christian is also social." The Anti-Semites had already 
 declared themselves a party of the people, hostile to squires and 
 country gentlemen. It would seem, then, that the Conservatives 
 are getting drawn into a democratic evolution. 
 
 Alsace-Lorraine. — The region taken from France in 1871 has 
 been kept ever since in an exceptional condition, which makes 
 necessary a separate sketch of its history. The region includes 
 three districts corresponding roughly to the three French depart- 
 ments: Upper Alsace (Haut-Rhin), a manufacturing district, by 
 majority Catholic; Lower Alsace (Bas-Rhin), agricultural, and by 
 majority Protestant; Lorraine {Moselle), agricultural and wholly 
 Catholic. Most of Lorraine is French in language and ignorant 
 of German. In the rest and in Alsace a dialect of German is 
 spoken, very hard for a North German to understand — in Upper 
 Alsace, impossible.* 
 
 According to Prussian practice, the country was annexed with- 
 out consulting the inhabitants. Bismarck seems to have had 
 a hope of conciliating them easily. He said in the Reichstag in 
 1871, while admitting the repugnance of the Alsace-Lorrainers 
 to the union with Germany : " It is our duty to overcome it by 
 our patience. I feel myself called on to be their advocate in the 
 new state they are entering." In order to keep the country 
 under his own hand, he had it erected into an Imperial Land 
 (Reichsland), governed directly by the Chancellor of the Empire. 
 It is represented in the Reichstag by elected deputies, but not 
 represented in the Federal Council, because it has no state gov- 
 ernment of its own. It is subject to the laws of the Empire, but 
 retains its own special laws — the French laws in force before the 
 annexation. 
 
 Provisionally Alsace-Lorraine remained under a dictatorship, 
 
 *The German Census of 1880 gives 44 of the 855 communes in Alsace 
 as French-speaking; and for Lorraine 341 French as against 370 German 
 
ALSACE-LORRAINE, S^^ 
 
 governed autocratically by the agents of the Chancellor. The 
 administration continued to be organized on the French plan, 
 with a President instead of prefects, Kreisdirektors instead of sub- 
 prefects, Bur germeisters instead of Maires; the local councils of 
 the French system were retained. But instead of the twelve 
 arrondissements of the French rule there were 22 Circles (Kreise) 
 made. All the officials appointed by the Chancellor were 
 Germans. 
 
 Troubles soon began between the inhabitants and the admin- 
 istrative officers on the subject of language and various French 
 demonstrations. The administration worked systematically to 
 extirpate French from the schools, from official proceedings, and 
 from public institutions, including the railroads, now become state 
 property; it was even forbidden on signs and posters. Fine and 
 imprisonment were used to repress manifestations of sympathy 
 with France in any form. Journals with French tendencies and 
 journals coming from France were suppressed. The people 
 complained that the German officials, accustomed to a precise 
 and patriarchal system, made their administrative attentions 
 oppressively felt by the subjects; the officials charged the inhab- 
 itants with treating them as infected persons and " boycotting " 
 them. 
 
 Then came the contest regarding option. The treaty of Frank- 
 fort gave the inhabitants of the annexed provinces the right of 
 choosing to be French citizens. At the end of the time given for 
 choice (October, 1872) the number choosing French nationality 
 was 164,000. But the government announced that it should re- 
 gard the option as valid only when followed by emigration; it 
 treated as German subjects all who remained in the country. 
 
 The introduction of the German military system brought other 
 conflicts. Many young Alsace-Lorrainers, not willing to serve 
 Germany, took refuge in France. . . The German government 
 held their families responsible. 
 
 The trouble connected itself with the Culturkampf . The Al- 
 satian clergy tried to keep French in the Catholic schools. A 
 society, with French connections, was founded for the defence of 
 Catholic interests. The government expelled the vicar-general 
 of Strasburg. 
 
 The dictatorship, continued to 1874, had succeeded in giving 
 Alsace-Lorraine a German administration, but had not made it 
 acceptable to the people. The government at length decided to 
 admit the Imperial Province to the benefits of ordinary law. 
 
512 THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 Alsace-Lorraine was put under the legislative power of the Em- 
 pire, and was given 15 representatives in the Reichstag. The 
 first delegation, elected in 1874, was entirely composed of " Pro- 
 testers." They went to the Reichstag to present a collective 
 protest against the annexation of their country to Germany, and 
 to demand that the people should be allowed to decide their fate 
 themselves. They then retired from the body. 
 
 Later there was formed in Alsace-Lorraine a party which, in- 
 stead of protesting against the German government, aimed to 
 make terms with it in order to have the regime of conquest re- 
 laxed. Its avowed object was to obtain autonomy for Alsace- 
 Lorraine; that is, the right to regulate its domestic afifairs and 
 have elected representatives and a budget, like the German states 
 of the Empire. This Autonomist party had its strength chiefly 
 in Protestlant Lower Alsace. It began operations in the depart- 
 mental councils, where the Protesters, in order to avoid taking 
 the oath of allegiance to the Emperor, refused to sit. In 1874 out 
 of 94 councillors elected 49 refused to sit. In 15 cantons no 
 elections were held. But the Autonomists were willing to 
 sit, a fact which enabled the government to open one of 
 the three councils — that of Lower Alsace. To strengthen 
 this party, the government instituted a Provincial Committee 
 (Landesausschuss), consisting of 30 delegates, 10 from each de- 
 partment, with a right to be consulted in the legislation, taxes, 
 and expenditure of the province. It is the embryo of a future 
 legislature for Alsace-Lorraine. 
 
 The Autonomists, openly encouraged by the administration, 
 took charge of the Committee, the Protesters refusing to sit, 
 and entered into working relations with the government. It 
 took up the discussion of practical afifairs, avoiding questions of 
 national policy. The party became strong enough to elect, in 
 1877, the whole five members of the Reichstag for Lower 
 Alsace. The government, thinking reconciliation with the an- 
 nexed population had begun, resolved to adopt a new system, 
 the third since 1871. 
 
 The Provincial Committee received power, in 1877, to vote 
 laws and the budget. The government, thereafter, could choose 
 between this body and the Reichstag in getting legislation 
 adopted for Alsace-Lorraine. Presently the administration was 
 transferred from Berlin to Strasburg; an Imperial governor 
 (Statthalter) was appointed, assisted by a Secretary of State and 
 a Council composed of higher officials, and ten or more notables 
 
ALSACE-LORRAINE. 5^3 
 
 chosen by the government — an institution that may develop into 
 an upper House. The province was even given a delegate to 
 represent it in the Federal Council of the Empire — without the 
 right of voting, however. The Autonomists were beginning to 
 demand complete equality with the other states of the empire: 
 Alsace-Lorraine should be transformed into an Imperial state 
 (Kaiser land), in which the Emperor should be the local prince. 
 
 The first Statthalter, General Manteuffel, arrived with a pro- 
 gram of reconciliation. He said : " The Emperor has sent me to 
 your country to heal wounds, not to make them. I am to con- 
 ciliate the feelings that are quite natural after separation from 
 a country like France. I am to smooth the change by an ad- 
 ministration both just and advantageous to the intellectual and 
 material interests of the inhabitants." Manteuffel did, in fact, 
 try, by acts of good-will and by an administration that he con- 
 sidered fatherly, to reconcile the people to the government. But 
 the existence of the Autonomist party rested on a misappre- 
 hension ; the Autonomists could carry elections only by confining 
 their policy to a recognition of the fact of German rule, without 
 in any way accepting it as legitimate. At the elections of 1881, 
 Manteuffel asked of them " a loyal and open recognition of the 
 union of Alsace-Lorraine with Germany." The party was shat- 
 tered by the suggestion ; none but Protesters were elected. 
 
 The German government, without changing institutions, re- 
 verted to the methods of the early years — the discretionary power 
 of the officials and the repression of popular manifestations. The 
 conflict with the people went on. The administration, in order 
 to turn the minds of the children away from France, prohibited 
 the teaching of French in the schools; confiscated French news- 
 papers ; excluded, or limited to a few days' stay. Frenchmen, even 
 Alsatians by birth, who had been naturalized in France. 
 
 The elections of 1887 showed the feeling of the people.* The 
 question in the canvass was the new army bill (see p. 501). The 
 government gave out that a vote against the supporters of 
 the bill would be a vote in favour of an invasion by France. 
 The voters got the impression that the election was a sort of 
 plebiscite between Germany and France, and cast a full vote for 
 the Protesting candidates. The government sharpened its re- 
 pression; it expelled Frenchmen, even one who had been elected 
 to the Reichstag; confiscated newspapers, dissolved societies 
 
 *The state of feeling in Alsace is well described by an Alsatian (under 
 the pseudonym Heimweh) in La Question d' Alsace, 1889. 
 
SI4 THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 suspected of French leanings, prosecuted persons carrying any- 
 thing blue, white, and red on their persons, and brought mem- 
 bers of the Patriotic League to trial for high treason. In 1888, 
 in order to check intercourse with, France, it restored the old 
 system of passports; reviving certain exceptional French laws 
 of 1795 to 1814, which had become obsolete; it demanded pass- 
 ports of travellers entering by the French frontier. Chancellor 
 Caprivi explained in 1890 that " the experiment of Germanizing 
 the people having failed, there was left only the resource of deep- 
 ening the ditch that divides Alsace-Lorraine from France." 
 Passports were discontinued in 1891, but the discretionary power 
 of the Statthalter sufiSces to maintain the exceptional system. 
 
 In the Reichstag of 1893- Protestation took new forms. One 
 socialist deputy was elected, and the Catholic deputies from 
 Alsace-Lorraine joined the Centre. 
 
 Political Development of Germany in the Nineteenth Century. 
 — The people of Germany, when released from the French in- 
 vasion, were sufficiently uniform in language and customs to feel 
 themselves one nation and to desire political unity. But they 
 had not all reached the same stage of political advancement and 
 they were subject tO' governments that were hostile to union. 
 The west, revolutionized by France, had a democratic social sys- 
 tem, free from clerical control, and an administration subject to 
 law; they needed only representative institutions at the top. The 
 east, retaining eighteenth-century conditions, had still the official 
 power of the nobles and clergy, with traditional customs and ad- 
 ministrative methods that would ill accord with any other gov- 
 ernment than that of an absolute, aristocratic monarchy. Now, 
 the two dominant governments, Austria and Prussia, both hav- 
 ing their political centre in the east, checked, by their absolutist 
 and aristocratic polity, the development of Germany toward a 
 liberal system. ■ By their rivalry they checked progress toward 
 unity. This double clash between the democratic west and the 
 aristocratic east, and between Austria and Prussia, explains the 
 confused and conflicting agitations and the evolution of German 
 political life in the nineteenth century. 
 
 For more than thirty years (1814-48) political life was centred 
 in the west. A number of small monarchies, with liberal consti- 
 tutions copied from France, were formed in that region. Their 
 natural destiny seemed to be to form a federation of small parlia- 
 mentary states like Belgium. During this time Prussia, by 
 organizing her army on a democratic principle and by building 
 
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT OF GERMANY. S^S 
 
 up the Customs Union, was preparing the means for obtaining 
 a military and economic supremacy in Germany. 
 
 The revolution of 1848 consisted in two democratic outbreaks 
 of the French sort in the two absolutist capitals, and an attempt 
 of all German Liberals to form a national union by means of a 
 democratic federal assembly. The two risings compelled the 
 governments of Vienna and Berlin to accept democratic liberal 
 constitutions; the federal Jissembly adopted one for Germany. 
 But the absolute sovereigns presently swept away with their 
 armies the new democratic regime and got rid of the new consti- 
 tutions by coups d'etat. The Emperor of Austria cancelled his; 
 the King of Prussia mutilated his to the point of making it little 
 more than a form of governmental procedure. The democratic 
 federal constitution was brushed aside by Prussian troops, in a 
 movement that also broke up the Republican party of the west. 
 From this whole abortive experiment of 1848 there remained in 
 Prussia a wreck of a democratic constitution and the indepen- 
 dence of the Catholic Church ; there remained also' a plan of Ger- 
 man unity, elaborated by the Smaller Germany party in 1849 — ^ 
 federal empire, from which Austria should be excluded, governed 
 by the King of Prussia with a democratic assembly representing 
 all Germany. 
 
 When the absolutist and anti-union reaction came to an end in 
 1859, political life began again in two parallel movements, the 
 one toward liberal parliamentary government, the other toward 
 a union of all Germany, including Austria. The two movements 
 were abruptly checked by the personal action of Bismarck. Re- 
 lying on the King of Prussia and the Prussian army, he imposed 
 on Prussia the monarchical solution of the parliamentary 
 struggle and on Germany the Prussian solution of German unity 
 formulated in 1849. Both solutions were compromises between 
 the popular wishes and the royal power, but compromises dic- 
 tated by the King of Prussia, who reserved for himself the greater 
 share of the advantage. 
 
 The German Empire, a compromise between a federation of 
 the German nation and annexation of Germany to Prussia, was 
 made up of German states and of Prussian conquests old and 
 new, inhabited in part by aliens (Poles, Danes, and Alsace-Lor- 
 rainers) ; it was put under the government of the King of Prussia. 
 Germania, it was said, is a daughter of Borussia, not of Teutonia 
 (ancient Germany). 
 
 The constitutional system in Prussia and in the Empire is a 
 
5i6 THE GERMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 compromise between the liberal democracy of 1848 and the abso- 
 lute monarchy of old Prussia. It is a personal government of 
 the King, who retains all his bureaucratic and military apparatus, 
 slightly controlled by a democratic representative assembly. 
 
 In this imperial democratic system, parties have not succeeded 
 in constituting themselves with the same gradation as in the 
 other great Continental states. The continuous chain which else- 
 where extends from the Catholic extreme Right toi the socialist 
 extreme Left, is broken in Germany by the absence of the radical 
 republican party, which was exterminated in 1849 ^"d is repre- 
 sented only by the wreck called the People's party. The ele- 
 ments which would normally belong to a radical party are there- 
 fore obliged to join the socialists, who' thus acquire exceptional 
 strength. On the other hand, the Right is twofold, for the so- 
 called " Centre " is politically a Catholic Right, a pendant of the 
 Protestant Conservative Right, both of them champions of a 
 monarchy in alliance with the Church. 
 
 German society, since the founding of the Empire, seems drawn 
 in two opposite directions by two conflicting tendencies. The 
 one is monarchical, bureaucratic, and military; springing from 
 the Prussian government, it tends to mould all Germany on the 
 Prussian model, by extending to it the old regime of divine right 
 and ecclesiastical authority. The other tendency is democratic, 
 springing from the new populations of the great cities and manu- 
 facturing districts, but now beginning to extend to the rural sec- 
 tions and to affect even the Conservatives through the Agrarian, 
 Anti-Semitic, and Christian Social agitations. Between these 
 two tendencies — the one monarchical, ecclesiastical, and military, 
 incarnate in William II.; the other democratic, anti-clerical, and 
 industrial — the contradiction is so evident that it brings on the 
 whole political life of Germany a confused but undeniable unrest.* 
 
 *The German Empire has become since 1871 the second country of 
 Europe in industry and commerce, and begins to compete with England in 
 the production of coal, iron, and fabrics. The total population has risen 
 from 42,000,000 in 1875 to 52,000,000 in 1895. The total urban population 
 has, in the same period, increased from 36 per cent, to 47 per cent, of the 
 whole. The population of Berlin has trebled in thirty years ; it was 
 500,000 in i860. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPH Y. 5^7 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.* 
 
 * On the character of this bibliography, see chap. xii. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— See Waitz, " Quellenkunde," up to 1894; for very 
 recent works, the periodical bibliog. of the " Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir 
 Geschichtswissenschaf t. " 
 
 DOCUMENTS.— For collections, same bibl. as for chap, xv.— The 
 principal documents are parliamentary reports, Hahn, Kohl; in addition, 
 Foschinger, " Documente zur Gesch. der Wirthschaftspolitik in Preussen und 
 im Deutschen Reich," 5 vols., 1889-91, collection for the history of Bis- 
 marck's ideas and political economy. 
 
 For practical use, important documents will be found in Sohulthess' 
 " Geschichtskalender," edited by Selbriiok, from 1885 to 1894. — To the re- 
 views already mentioned (" Grenzboten, Preuss. Jahrbiicher") add the 
 "Deutsche Rundschau," since 1874, liberal; "Deutsche Revue," since 
 1877; "Die Neue Zeit," since 1883, socialist. — Mueller, " Das Jahr," pub. 
 yearly since 1875. 
 
 WORKS. — The complete histories go only to 1890.— Oncken, " Zeitalter 
 des K. Wilhelm, vol. ii., 1892 (Oncken coll.) a scientific popular work, 
 stops at 1888. — H, Blum, "Das Deutsche Reich zur zeit Bismarcks," 1893, 
 goes to 1890; Blum is an intimate friend of Bismarck. — The " Geschichts- 
 kalender " gives at the end of each volume a pglitical review of the year, 
 from the point of view of the National-Liberals. 
 
 On Bismarck see his own " Gedanken und Erinnerungen," 2 vols., 
 1898; Eng. tr. by A. J. Butler, 1899. Busch, " Bismarck: Some Secret 
 Pages of his History," 2 vols., i8g8. Eng. tr. by Macmillan; " Unsei 
 Reichskanzler," 2 vols., 1884, Eng. tr. "Our Chancellor"; and the 
 series of studies signed *,j* (Waitz, " Quellenk.," No. 6461). In Eng- 
 lish, Lowe, " Life of Bismarck," 2 vols., rather journalistic. — The bio- 
 graphies of William I., (W. MiiUer, 1888; L.Hahn, 1888) are the work of 
 hero-worshippers. 
 
 In French: E.Simon, "L'Empereur Guillaume," 1886. — lavisse, " Trois 
 Empereurs d'AUemagne," 1888. 
 
 On the Culturkampf : L. Hahn, " Gesch. des Kulturkampfes in Preus- 
 sen," 1881, collection of documents, prot. and governmental.— F.-X. 
 Schulte, "Gesch. des Kulturk. in Preussen," 1882, Catholic— Majunke, 
 " Gesch. des Kulturk. in Preussen und Deutschland," 1876-88, Catholic. 
 
 On Institutions : Uarquardsen, " Handbuch des Offentlichen Rechts der 
 Gegenwart," vols. i. and iii., detailed description of the government and 
 administration of the Empire and of each of the States. — For Prussia, 
 Bornhak, "Gesch. des Preussischen Verwaltungsrechts," suppl. 1892.— 
 Bonne, " Staatsrecht der Preussischen Monarchie," 4 vols., latest edit, and 
 the suppl. of Schoen, " Recht der Kommunalverbande in Preussen" (1897), 
 for the latest reforms.— In English, W. H. Dawson, "Germany and the Ger- 
 mans," 2 vols., 1894; Lowell, " Governments and Parties in Continental 
 Europe," 2 vols., 1897. 
 
 On Social Legislation : Detailed articles and special bibl. in " Hand- 
 worterbuch der Staatswissenschaften." 
 
 On the Socialist Party : See bibl. to chap, xxiv. 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 After the war with Italy, Austria emerged from her absolut- 
 ism, but, before becoming the constitutional dual monarchy of 
 Austro-Hungary, she passed through a critical period, from 
 1859 to 1867, during which even the constitution of the monarchy 
 remained in a provisional and precarious condition, many times 
 transformed and always contested by some of the nations subject 
 to the Emperor. It is a short period in the history of Austria, 
 but very clearly marked and decisive, between the old centralized 
 absolutist system and the Austro-Hungary of the present day. 
 
 FORMATION OF AUSTRO-HUNGARY. 
 
 The Constitution of October, 1860. — The absolutist system, re- 
 stored in 1849, fell in the disastrous Italian war of 1859; the gov- 
 ernment itself had to recognise the necessity of abandoning it. 
 For a long time the government had existed with a chronic de- 
 ficit, which it covered by loans. After its defeat, when it wished 
 to reorganize the army, it found its credit gone (in i860 only 75,- 
 000,000 florins were subscribed in response to a call for a loan of 
 200,000,000). Evidently the subjects had lost their interest in 
 state affairs, in which they had no part whatever. To revive 
 public life the people must be given a share in the government. 
 
 The Emperor, immediately after the end of the war, recognised 
 in a manifesto (August, 1859) the " hereditary abuses " which 
 had caused the defeat, and before issuing the loan of i860 he de- 
 termined to appeal directly to his subjects, asking their aid in 
 exchange for liberal reforms. He announced that he would 
 grant representation to the various provinces of the monarchy. 
 Meanwhile he convoked a " re-enforced Council of State " (ver- 
 stiirkter Reichsrath), comprising the ordinary members of the 
 Council of State, a number of dignitaries, and 38 notables (includ- 
 ing several grand seigneurs) chosen from the different countries 
 in such manner that all were represented. 
 
 5i8 
 
THE CONSTITUTION OF OCTOBER, 1860. 5 '9 
 
 This Council, where the ofSce-holders and aristocracy predomi- 
 nated, was to give its opinion especially on financial questions and 
 the most important laws, but it had no right of proposing meas- 
 ures. Austrians regarded it simply as an instalment of the 
 promised reforms. The notables that were summoned, even the 
 Hungarian nobles, attended the meetings, but simply as a mark 
 of their good-will. Further, it was necessary, in order to induce 
 them to come, to re-establish a single governor instead of four, 
 and to promise the restoration of the county " congregations " 
 (assemblies), as before the reaction of 1849. 
 
 In the " re-enforced council " the Hungarians declared " that 
 they did not regard themselves as representative Hungarians, 
 that they reserved the historic rights of Hungary, and counted on 
 the Emperor to find a means of abandoning the special system." 
 A committee was then appointed to examine the budget. It 
 unanimously condemned " the system of internal organization 
 in the monarchy '' and demanded that " the dififerent countries 
 should share in the administration of their afifairs," as the only 
 means of effecting economies and especially of combating " that 
 numbness of public spirit which paralyzes the moral force of the 
 state." 
 
 But on the organization of this administration by the countries 
 themselves the committee was divided, and from the time of this 
 first assembly, though so narrow and so little representative, 
 two parties appeared, the unitarian and the federalist, whose 
 strife was henceforth to rule political life in the Austrian 
 monarchy. 
 
 The unitarian party had its chief force in the middle classes of 
 the German provinces, for " the maintenance of the unity of the 
 monarchy " meant government by the German administration 
 established in Vienna; this was the party of the cities and manu- 
 facturing regions, which had need of a strong central government 
 to make liberal reforms and to restore a lay regime in spite of the 
 clergy. They had for allies the representatives of the little 
 nations, who needed a central government to protect them 
 against their stronger neighbours; in i860 there were no small 
 nations represented except those of Hungary: the Servians, and 
 the Saxons in Transylvania; but the others, when they should 
 get a voice in the assemblies, were sure to pursue the same policy. 
 
 The federalist party was mainly composed of nations that were 
 strong enough to hope for national governments independent of 
 the centre: Magyars, Croats, Czechs, Poles, and Slovens (in i860 
 
520 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 the Italians of Venetia). It demanded the historic rights, that is 
 to say, the independence enjoyed by the nation before its union 
 with the monarchy, and wished to weaken if not suppress the 
 common administration and reduce the monarchy to a federa- 
 tion of nations. As the aristocratic form of society still prevailed, 
 each nation was represented almost solely by its nobles and higher 
 clergy. The federalist party was also an old-regime party, invok- 
 ing historic rights in order to return to the old aristocratic gov- 
 ernment of the nation and wishing to maintain the domination of 
 nobility and clergy. Its allies in the German province were the 
 old-regimists, — ^the lords, who opposed the bourgeoisie, and the 
 clergy, who opposed purely lay government. 
 
 The committee split into a majority and a minority; each pre- 
 sented its report, in which already it made use of expressions 
 which were destined to become classic in Austria.* 
 
 The federalist majority (25 votes, of which 13 belonged to 
 nobles, 3 to bishops) demanded " recognition of the historico- 
 political individualities of the particular countries," " equality of 
 all the countries within the monarchy," and for each " autonomy 
 in administration and internal legislation." It advised that re- 
 form should be confined as much as possible to^ " previous insti- 
 tutions." The unitarian minority (13 . votes) demanded that 
 home rule should not be granted " at the expense of imperial 
 unity and a strong central imperial power," and that in granting 
 local powers " those rights should be reserved to the united state 
 and to the imperial government, without which true imperial 
 unity cannot be conceived." It advised the Emperor to estab- 
 lish these institutions " by virtue of his own full power," con- 
 sequently to present them as granted in opposition to the theory 
 of historical rights, which demanded them as the restoration of 
 an old national right. It neglected to define the institutions to 
 be created, not daring to speak of a " constitution," which was 
 then regarded as revolutionary. 
 
 The Emperor at first followed the advice of the majority. By 
 the diploma of October 20, i860, he granted a " fundamental 
 state law, permanent and irrevocable." This diploma recognised 
 in the Diets of the various countries the power of voting laws, in 
 accordance with historic forms. " In the countries under the 
 crown of Hungary, action must be in conformity with their pre- 
 
 * The majority of these expressions, composed in the philosophic lan- 
 guage of the German political law, cannot well be translated correctly 
 into French. 
 
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1861. S^^ 
 
 vious constitutions "; in the others, in conformity with their local 
 ordinances. For the case of laws common to the whole Empire, 
 and especially on financial matters (taxes, loans, budgets, and 
 accounts) an Imperial Council of loo members was instituted, 
 composed of delegates from the various Diets. The Emperor 
 abolished the common ministers of interior, justice, and educa- 
 tion and re-established the chancelleries of Hungary and Transyl- 
 vania. He declared that institutions must " correspond to the 
 consciousness of historic rights " of his " kingdoms and nations." 
 This was the official recognition of the federalist theory. 
 
 The Constitution of 1861. — This first federalist constitution 
 lasted four months. The Hungarians, restored to the possession 
 of their constitution, declared null all acts done by the govern- 
 ment without the consent of their Diet since 1848. They recog- 
 nised no other constitution but that of '48, no other laws but 
 those of '48, the only ones legally established by agreement be- 
 tween the Diet and the King. Now the regime of 1848 made 
 Hungary an entirely independent state, joined to Austria by a 
 simply personal imion. The Emperor did not wish to go so far, 
 since he created a legislative assembly common to all the states, 
 including Hungary; but in restoring the Hungarian constitution 
 he had forgotten to fix limits to what he granted them. 
 
 The Hungarians immediately conducted themselves as if the 
 Constitution of '48 were still in force. The counties organized 
 themselves, and conducted elections according to the laws of 
 1848, in spite of the government circulars issued to them, which 
 they received and " deferentially " set aside. The people refused 
 to pay taxes (because they were not voted by the Diet) or to 
 obey Austrian magistrates. The imperial government and gov- 
 ernors of the counties had no means of opposing this general 
 movement. The Emperor complained of the condition of 
 afifairs and threatened not to convoke the Diet again. The 
 counties replied with an address demanding the complete restora- 
 tion of the laws of '48 and full amnesty for all who had taken part 
 in the revolution (January, 1861). 
 
 Schmerling, the new minister of the interior (December, i860), 
 had just promised that the other countries in the monarchy 
 should have Diets chosen by direct election, with public sessions 
 and the right of proposing laws — ^which meant a constitutional 
 government for each country. But the liberal bourgeoisie de- 
 sired a like system for the general government. The minister 
 of finance consulted the chambers of commerce on the means of 
 
522 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 raising the very low value of paper money; all replied that a 
 " real constitution " was the only way of curing " hereditary 
 abuses." 
 
 The Emperor, unwilling to yield to Hungary and worried over 
 the financial situation, adopted the advice of the unitary 
 minority and promulgated a new constitution, the " patent " of 
 February 26, 1861, which, while pretending to complete the 
 diploma of i860, replaced it with an altogether different system. 
 Each country was to keep its Diet, organized by a special ordi- 
 nance; Venetia and the countries under the crown of Hungary 
 were not included. In the other countries the Diet was to be 
 elected, according to class divisions, by three bodies of electors 
 as the Prussian Provincial Estates were before 1848, — large land- 
 owners, cities, and rural districts, — so as to give a strong pre- 
 ponderance to the landed aristocracy. But the Imperial council 
 became an actual annual parliament of the monarchy, comprising 
 two Chambers. The House of Lords was composed of a number 
 of dignitaries and hereditary lords appointed by the Emperor. 
 The House of Representatives was to have 343 members chosen 
 by the local Diets (Hungary 85, Transylvania 20, Croatia 9, Bo- 
 hemia 54, Moravia 22, Galicia 38), reserving to the government 
 the right of having them directly elected if necessary, by electoral 
 bodies ; this provided for the case of a Diet refusing to elect. 
 
 The Emperor promulgated "this collection of fundamental laws 
 as the Constitution of his Empire " and promised that he and his 
 successors should " maintain it inviolable " and that, at each ac- 
 cession, a special oath to this effect should be made by proclama- 
 tion. By this granted constitution Austria became a constitu- 
 tional monarchy after the Tory conception: the Emperor to 
 choose his ministers at will and retain absolute control of the 
 government; the council to have power only to vote laws and 
 the budget, like the Chambers of Louis XVIII. 
 
 Attempt at a Unitary Government (1861-65). — The Constitu- 
 tion of 1861 answered the wishes of the unitary party, and re- 
 ceived the support of the German liberals and the small nations: 
 Serbs and Roumans, under the crown of Hungary; Ruthenians in 
 Galicia, and Croats in Dalmatia. It displeased the aristocratic 
 federalist party, and the strongly constituted nations, by subject- 
 ing them to an assembly common to the whole Empire, and the 
 old-regimists by establishing a liberal constitutional system. 
 
 But the coalition that had composed the majority in i860 
 broke up. The more independent nations declared the constitu- 
 
ATTEMPT AT UNITARY GOVERNMENT. 5*3 
 
 tion contrary to their historic rights; consequently they refused 
 to elect delegates to the Reichsrath; the Magyars, the Italians in 
 Venetia, and the Croats held no elections and were not repre- 
 sented. But the other federalist nations did not at first dare to 
 adopt such a radical policy; the Poles, Czechs, and Slovenians 
 sent their deputies, but held to their historic rights. (In Istria 
 and Transylvania the Diets had first refused ; the government, by 
 dissolving the Diet and changing the electoral law, secured a ma- 
 jority in favour of holding an election). The Tyrol, where the 
 clerical party predominated, protested against equality in creed, 
 and demanded the prohibition of Protestantism, but sent dele- 
 gates nevertheless. The decisive action was taken by the great 
 landowners, who were very strongly represented in the Diets. 
 They deserted their federalist allies to obey the government. The 
 Reichsrath was not complete; it lacked 140 deputies, but it was 
 sufficiently large to take legal action as the " narrower council " 
 for the non-Hungarian part of the Empire. Later, in 1863, 
 when the government had organized the Diet of Transylvania, 
 the Saxons, who were opposed to the Magyars, sent their depu- 
 ties to the Reichsrath, and the Emperor declared it constituted as 
 the " larger council," competent to direct the affairs of the whole 
 monarchy. 
 
 The constitutional system began with a German ministry 
 under Schmerling, who had been an imperial minister in 1848, 
 an old liberal and German patriot. His policy was marked par- 
 ticularly by liberal and German declarations. This was the 
 period of negotiations with the German states (1863; see p. 465). 
 The House of Representatives of the Reichsrath, where the ma- 
 jority was German, approved this policy and voted an address 
 begging the Emperor to tighten the tie with the German states. 
 This system at first met with resistance from nations unwilling 
 to be governed by Germans, then from the Germans themselves 
 who did not find the government sufficiently liberal. 
 
 The national resistance began in Venetia and in Hungary. 
 The Central Congregation, or provincial assembly of Venetia, re- 
 fused to send its delegates (1861). The Hungarian Diet, con- 
 voked by the government at Ofen (opposite Pesth), consented to 
 hold a meeting. But immediately, on the question of the answer 
 to be made to the Emperor, it broke into two almost equal par- 
 ties. One wanted to reply by a decision of the Diet indicating that 
 Hungary would not consent even to a discussion, but demanded 
 the restoration of the Constitution of '48. The other, directed 
 
524 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 by the old liberals, Deak and Eotvos, proposed to adopt the more 
 conciliatory form of an address to the King protesting against the 
 new constitution. After three weeks of discussion the " address 
 party " won the victory over the " decision party " (155 votes 
 against 152). But the address was drafted in the form of a deci- 
 sion; instead of addressing itself to the King (according to Hun- 
 garian custom) the Diet used the term " Most gracious krd," in- 
 dicating that it did not recognise the abdication of Ferdinand and 
 Francis Joseph's accession. The Emperor refused to receive the 
 address. The Diet consented to adopt the form of 1790, but at 
 the same time declared that " the King of Hungary could legally 
 become King only by coronation," and that coronation rested on 
 certain previous conditions: i. The union of the countries under 
 the crown of Hungary (Croatia and Transylvania), whose depu- 
 ties should sit in the Hungarian Diet; 2. The " complete restora- 
 tion of the fundamental laws," which meant the Constitution of 
 '48; 3. The " restoration of the parliamentary system with a re- 
 sponsible ministry." As for the general constitution, which made 
 Hungary " an Austrian province," under " a body chiefly foreign," 
 the Diet refused it as contrary to " the contract concluded be- 
 tween the nation and the reigning dynasty." It declared that it 
 would never " sacrifice the constitutional independence of the na- 
 tion for any sort of consideration or interests " (July, 1861); that 
 it " could not make the Hungarian government dependent upon 
 any other than the King of Hungary "; that it would not join in 
 any general representation of the monarchy, and consented only 
 to negotiate each question with the peoples of the heredi- 
 tary states as one independent nation with other independent 
 nations. 
 
 Neither of the two sides wished to negotiate until it should 
 have secured from the other the formal recognition of its right: 
 the Hungarians their historic constitution, the Emperor his 
 granted constitution; the two rights being mutually contra- 
 dictory, the negotiation ended in an official rupture. The gov- 
 ernment returned to its policy of repression as a provisional 
 system, to wear out the patience of the Hungarians. But the 
 Hungarians did not yield, and the system remained in force until 
 1866. The Croats also refused to join the Reichsrath, as long as 
 the government refused them upion with Dalmatia. 
 
 The less strongly organized nations, Poles and Czechs, who 
 had begun by joining in the Reichsrath, gradually changed their 
 policy. It seemed to them more advantageous to imitate the 
 
SUSPENSIOI^ OF THE CONSTITUTION. 5^5 
 
 Hungarians. The Poles withdrew from the Reichsrath; the 
 Czechs, after winning the majority in the Bohemian Landtag, 
 refused to send their delegates. There remained in the Reichs- 
 rath only Germans and representatives of the little nations. 
 
 Meanwhile the ministry disagreed even with the German party 
 in the Reichsrath, principally on its financial policy; the deficit 
 continued, the debt increased, and the ministry was obliged to 
 confess that it had concealed the deficit hy cooking of the ac- 
 counts. The German liberal party reproached the ministry with 
 having reduced the constitutional system to a fiscal process, to 
 obtain money. The Chamber demanded first a balanced budget 
 (1864), then a reduction in expenses (1865), and finally refused 
 to sanction a loan. 
 
 Suspension of the Constitution. — The Emperor had accepted 
 the Constitution of 1861 in order to maintain unity between his 
 states and to aid his government to perform its offices. The sys- 
 tem worked badly in one part of the monarchy; in the other the 
 population refused it, and it was impossible even to convoke an 
 assembly of representatives of the empire. The Reichsrath, so 
 far from aiding the ministers, hindered them by demanding ac- 
 counts. The Emperor, disgusted with this failure, returned to 
 the Austrian tradition of dualism. Finding in Hungary a dis- 
 tinct nation too independent to enter a centralized monarchy, the 
 Emperor resigned himself to its separation from the rest of the 
 monarchy, that he might have it for an ally. 
 
 Then began negotiations with the Hungarians to reconcile 
 their historic rights with imperial unity. In order to avoid being 
 interfered with during these negotiations, the Emperor got rid of 
 the Reichsrath, the German liberal ministry (July 27), and finally 
 the constitution. He declared (September 20) that, " having 
 decided to come to an understanding with the legal representa- 
 tives of his peoples in the eastern regions," he found it " neces- 
 sary to suspend (sistiren) the constitution." The suspension was 
 announced as provisional. But the new ministry (Belcredi) was 
 composed of nobles of the aristocratic party. So the suspension 
 was denounced as a coup d'etat by German liberals and was 
 received with joy by the federalists in Poland and Bohemia, and 
 the Catholic party in the Tyrol. The Hungarian and Croatian 
 Diets were convoked to discuss the conditions of the agreement; 
 the Empire recognised the laws of '48 in principle, on condition 
 that the Diet should revise them in accordance with the require- 
 ments of unity. The negotiations began in December, 1865, but 
 
526 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 were interrupted by the war of 1866, and were not completed 
 until 1867. 
 
 It became necessary to choose between two systems: dualism, 
 which would divide the Empire between two nations only (the 
 crown of St. Stephen for the Magyars, the imperial crown for 
 the Germans); and federalism, which would break it up into an 
 indefinite number of states. The ministry promptly decided in 
 favour of the federalists, and convoked a special Reichsrath, 
 where the majority was federalist. But the members from the 
 German countries refused to take their seats, so the Reichsrath 
 found itself no longer large enough to discuss the compromise 
 to be concluded with Hungary. 
 
 It was the former prime minister of Saxony, von Buest, who, 
 having entered the service of Austria after the war of 1866, 
 induced the Emperor to renounce federalism. The Beust 
 ministry (February, 1867) put an end to the suspension by estab- 
 lishing dualism and the constitutional system? 
 
 The Hungarian Compromise. — ^The compromise (Ausgkich) of 
 1867 was the first work of the new government. It cut the Em- 
 pire into two states, strictly equal in rights, both subject to the 
 same sovereign, though under two different titles. Emperor of 
 Austria and apostolic King of Hungary, with the same flag (the 
 imperial eagle). The monarchy officially adopted the double 
 title of Austria-Hungary. The division was made according to 
 historic traditions: the state of Hungary was composed of 
 the countries under the crown of St. Stephen (Hungary, Croatia, 
 Slavonia, Transylvania, Servia, and the military frontier), the 
 state of Austria including all the rest (17 provinces). The 
 two groups were designated by names already in use, Cisleithania 
 (Austria) and Transleithania (Hungary). These were exact geo- 
 graphical terms when applied to the province of Austria and the 
 kingdom of Hungary, which were separated by the Leitha river, 
 but have become purely conventional by extension to all the 
 countries joined to Austria, of which several (Galicia, Bukovina) 
 are east of the Leitha. Each of the two states comprised a ruling 
 race, which gave the government its national character, German 
 in Cisleithania, Magyar in Transleithania, and several small 
 peoples, mainly Slavs, less strongly organized and less civil- 
 ized. Beust is said to have remarked to the Hungarian 
 ministry : " Take care of your barbarians, we will take care of 
 ours." 
 
 The two states were joined, not by a simply personal union, 
 
THE HUNGARIAN COMPROMISE. 5^7 
 
 as in 1848, but by a common government directing common 
 affairs. These affairs were of two sorts : 
 
 1. Affairs common to the two halves of the Empire were re- 
 duced to three classes: foreign affairs, army and navy (except the 
 fixing of the number of troops and the regulation of military 
 service), and finances connected with the common expenses. 
 These subjects were assigned to three imperial ministers, in 
 theory responsible at once to the parliaments of both states. 
 
 2. Affairs to be settled on common principles by agreements 
 made from time to time (commerce, customs tariffs, currency, 
 military system, and factory legislation). 
 
 For the management of affairs of the first class, the compro- 
 mise of 1867 establishes, side by side with the common ministry, 
 the institution known as the delegations. These are two bodies 
 of delegates from the two parliaments, 60 from each, of whom 
 40 are in each case chosen by the lower house and 20 by the 
 upper house. In order to maintain the equality of the two 
 halves, it was agreed that the delegations should meet alternately 
 at Vienna and at Buda-Pesth. The two delegations sit sep- 
 arately, deliberating each in its own language, and communicat- 
 ing only by written messages; if they do not succeed in coming 
 to an agreement they meet together, but simply to vote, with- 
 out debate. The delegations are not a legislature; their chief 
 function is to control the expenditure for the common purposes, 
 and to exert a parliamentary influence over the common min- 
 istry. They have no power of taxation: the money needed for 
 covering such expenditures as they approve is raised, under ap- 
 portionment, by the two halves of the monarchy. 
 
 Affairs of the second class — those regulated according to 
 identical principles — do not come within the field of the dele- 
 gations. They are settled by agreements or contracts, nego- 
 tiated from time to time between the two ministries (Austrian 
 and Hungarian) and later carried through the two parliaments 
 in substantially identical form. 
 
 The first contract established a system of common customs 
 tariff, a bank, a common system of currency (with two different 
 issues), and weights and measures. It divided the previous debt 
 and expenses for the future ; Hungary took only .30 per cent. 
 
 This system was an unprecedented'creation, which the theorists 
 were at a loss to define. It was not a federal state like North 
 Germany. There were no permanent regulations for economic 
 interests; the economic matters in common between the two 
 
528 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 states, determined by temporary agreements of short date, were 
 to be brought up for settlement periodically; either of the two 
 parliaments could break the tariff union, destroy the bank, unity 
 in economic legislation, and even unity of weights and measures. 
 Nothing was to be permanent but the diplomatic and military 
 union, and even this is not perpetual. Union has been con- 
 cluded, not between the two states, but between each of them 
 and the reigning dynasty; if the family of Lorraine should be- 
 come extinct, the union would come to an end and Hungary 
 would become an elective kingdom. 
 
 The liberal Constitutions of 1867. — In each of the two states 
 the compromise was accompanied by a restoration of the consti- 
 tution and elective representation. 
 
 Hungary received the Constitution of 1848 again, revised by 
 the King's request, so that he should have the right of choosing 
 all the ministers. It was a very liberal constitution, similar to 
 the Belgian. The King swore to uphold it. It guaranteed all 
 personal and political liberties. It gave the executive power to 
 a responsible ministry, the legislative power to a Diet composed 
 of two Chambers. The Chamber of Magnates remained aristo- 
 cratic, composed chiefly of hereditary nobles (more than 800 
 members). The Chamber of Deputies, which became in fact the 
 principal assembly, was composed of deputies elected by public 
 vote, under a very extended suffrage — ^with a low property quali- 
 fication and very wide rights of voting based on education and 
 occupation. Ability to speak Magyar is required. 
 
 In Austria the Constitution of 1861, modified by the " funda- 
 mental laws " of 1867, became also a liberal and parliamentary 
 constitution. The law " on the general rights of citizens " pro- 
 claimed equality, according to the revolutionary formula: "Ail 
 citizens are equal before the law; public employments are equally 
 open to all." It recognised personal and political liberties ac- 
 cording to liberal forms, and to reassure the non-German peoples, 
 it proclaimed equality of language and race.* 
 
 The Reichsrath retained its organization, with a House of 
 
 * " All races in the state enjoy equal rights, and each has an inviolable 
 right to its own nationality and tongue. The equal rights (^Gleich- 
 berechtigung) of all the languages in use is recognised by the state in 
 school, office, and public life. In countries peopled by a number of races, 
 public educational institutions must be so organized that, without resort- 
 ing to constraint to compel the learning of another language, each of 
 these races shall receive the necessary privileges of instruction in their 
 own tongue." 
 
CONDITIONS OF POLITICAL LIFE IN AUSTRIA. 5^9 
 
 Lords and a House of Representatives (203) elected by the Diets' 
 of the 17 provinces.* The ministry was declared responsible to 
 the Reichsrath, and the right of initiative was granted to that 
 body. 
 
 The power was divided between the central Reichsrath and the 
 local Diets, so that the Reichsrath should receive all that was 
 deemed necessary to the maintenance of unity, not simply the 
 powers conferred on the German Reichstag (common budget, 
 military service, commerce, weights and measures, credit, trans- 
 portation, public health, naturalization), but even the regulation 
 of the freedom of the press, public meetings, association, " con- 
 fessional relations," " educational principles," criminal justice, 
 civil and commercial rights, and organization of courts and ad- 
 ministration. To the Diets were intrusted " all other objects of 
 legislation not expressly reserved to the Reichsrath." The con- 
 stitution could be changed only by a two-thirds majority in the 
 Reichsrath. 
 
 Austria became a liberal constitutional monarchy, almost par- 
 liamentary, with a representative system in three stages: in each 
 of the 17 provinces a Diet (Landtag) voting the laws and the 
 budget of the province ; for Austria the Reichsrath; for the whole 
 Austro-Hungarian monarchy the Delegations. 
 
 AUSTRIA-HUNGARY. 
 
 Since 1867 Austria and Hungary have been two distinct states : 
 each has its own domestic policy. But the common sovereign 
 and foreign policy maintain between them a joint responsibility 
 which affects even their domestic policy. I shall, therefore, give 
 a parallel presentation of their history, divided into two periods 
 by an historical incident, the occupation of Bosnia (1878), which, 
 though outside of the monarchy, has modified the internal evolu- 
 tion of both states. 
 
 Conditions of Political Life in Austria. — Cisleithania was still 
 a very heterogenous mixture of peoples. Political life, after 
 1867, continued to be subject to strife between races ; parties were 
 essentially national ; they were grouped into Centralists, who ad- 
 vocated the common government under German officials, and 
 Federalists, who advocated local governments under Slavs 
 
 * Bohemia 54, Moravia 22, Silesia 6, Galicia 38, Bukovina 5, Dalmatia 5, 
 Lower Austria 18, Upper Austria 10, Salzburg 3, Styria 13, Carinthia 5, 
 Camiola 6, Tyrol 10, Vorarlberg 2, Istria 2, Goerz-Gradisca 2, Trieste 2. 
 
53° THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 (Czechs, Poles, Slovenians, and Croats). The Germans broke 
 into political parties also: the old-regime and Catholic party (con- 
 servative), and the democratic, anti-clerical party (liberal). 
 
 Political life was greatly complicated by the fact that the na- 
 tions no longer corresponded to the sharp distinctions of race. 
 " Races," in Austria-Hungary, were practically distinguished 
 only by language ; a man's nationality depended on the language 
 he usually spoke; part of the Germans are Germanized Slavs.* 
 So in each province the nations, or peoples speaking different 
 tongues, are not juxtaposed, but entangled and superposed. In 
 almost all the countries where the Slavs predominated, German 
 remained the language of the cities, the great landlords, and edu- 
 cated men; for it was the language of co'mmerce, the court, 
 science, and literature. Italian played the same part on the 
 Adriatic coast. There were countries which were altogether 
 German, or rather Germanized, and exempt from this national 
 strife; but in all the others the difference in tongue created en- 
 mity between the inhabitants of the same region, often of the 
 same city even. The struggle was therefore carried not only 
 into the Reichsrath, on questions of the general policy of the mon- 
 archy, but also into the Diet of each province, on questions of the 
 rights of each race, which in reality resolved themselves into 
 rights of those using the same language. 
 
 The constitution, in proclaiming the principle of " equal 
 rights " of race and tongue in " school, office, and public life," 
 had presented the language question without settling it. In 
 practice it was possible to have primary schools for each lan- 
 guage (not easily, however, in the villages of mixed tongues and 
 in the cities where the families of a special tongue lived far apart). 
 But should secondary education be given in the local tongue 
 according to the principle of equality? Or would it be necessary, 
 even in the interest of the scholars, to keep German as the lan- 
 guage of education, that they might have access to modern 
 science? A like embarrassment hindered the application of the 
 principle of equality to " offices and public life." The unity of 
 the monarchy required a state language for common operations. 
 German had always been the language of the court, the govern- 
 ment, and the army, and, besides, the only language in which the 
 
 * It would be out of place here to consider whether European races are 
 distinct in the ethnological sense, that is to say, varieties of men with an 
 anthropological character, fixed and transmissible, or diifer only in lan- 
 guage and education. 
 
POLITICAL AND NATIONAL PARTIES. S3 1 
 
 other nations themselves could communicate with each other.* 
 It was clearly necessary to leave it this privilege and to restrict 
 the equality to local administration and the courts. But there 
 again, how should it be established in practice? It was not 
 enough to draw up regulations and advice in various languages; 
 every subject must be given the right to speak to the authorities 
 and receive their answer, to present actions, and to receive judg- 
 ment in his own tongue. But how could every office-holder be 
 expected to have a fluent knowledge of every language in the 
 province? Mixed primary schools, secondary and higher educa- 
 tion, and the regulation of languages in the courts and adminis- 
 tration, have thus been the principal fields of conflict. 
 
 In these conflicts the position of parties was determined by the 
 electoral organization. The Constitution of 1867 had preserved 
 the system of 1861, which rested not on the abstract right of 
 suffrage, regarded as revolutionary, but on the " representation 
 of interests." Four classes of electors had been established ac- 
 cording to qualifications based on economic status: great land- 
 owners, chambers of commerce, cities, and rural districts; each 
 class voted separately and elected its own deputies; in the rural 
 districts the vote was in two degrees. Not only was the suffrage 
 restricted, for there was a property qualification (varying in dif- 
 ferent provinces), even for city and rural voters; but it was also 
 very unevenly distributed, for in the classes of great landowners 
 and chambers of commerce, where voters were few, each vote 
 had much more weight than in the city class, and in the latter 
 more than in the rural districts. As the majority of great land- 
 owners, merchants, and manufacturers were either German or 
 Germanized, this inequality in representation secured the Ger- 
 mans a majority in almost all the diets, even in the Slavic coun- 
 tries (Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia), where the native population 
 was represented only by rural districts. The German majorities 
 in the Diets assured a German majority in the Reichsrath. 
 
 Political and National Parties. — ^The German provinces in the 
 
 * The following table, taken from the official census, gives the propor- 
 tion of languages in 1869 and in 1890 ; the figures are given in millions : 
 
 
 1869 
 
 i8go 
 
 
 1869 
 
 i8go 
 
 German, 
 
 • 7-1 
 
 8.5 
 
 Slovenian, 
 
 . 1.19 
 
 1.20 
 
 Czech, 
 
 . 4-7 
 
 5-5 
 
 Croatian, . 
 
 . 0.52 
 
 0.65 
 
 Polish, 
 
 . 2.44 
 
 3-8 
 
 Italian, 
 
 . 0.58 
 
 0.67 
 
 Ruthenian, 
 
 . 2.58 
 
 3-0 
 
 Rouman, . 
 
 . 0.20 
 
 0.2a 
 
532 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 central regions were divided, not intO' nationalist parties, but into 
 Liberal and Catholic parties, like those of other countries. The 
 Liberals predominated in the industrial provinces of the east, 
 Lower Austria (where Vienna is situated), Styria, the region of 
 the metallurgic industry, and Carinthia. The Catholic strength 
 lay in the mountains of the west, where the peasants were still 
 under clerical influence; they had a permanent majority in the 
 Tyrol, and won it in Vorarlberg and Salzburg. In Upper Aus- 
 tria the majority depended on the great landowners, who followed 
 the government. 
 
 The Slovenian province of Carniola became the centre of the 
 Slovenian national party, which secured the equality of Slove- 
 nians in Carniola and claimed it for the provinces where 
 Slovenians remained subject to the Germans (Carinthia and 
 Styria), or to the Italians (Istria, Goerz, and Trieste). 
 
 In the southern provinces the Italians at first predominated; 
 then little by little they gave place to the Slavic population of the 
 country, the Slovenians in Istria, Goerz, Gradisca, and Trieste, 
 and the Croats in Dalmatia. The defection of the great land- 
 owners lost them the Diet in Dalmatia; the Croat majority made 
 Croatian the language of the province. In the Tyrol the 
 regional division of races still obtained: Germans in the north, 
 Italians in the south; the Italian minority demanded a separate 
 administration for the Italian districts. 
 
 In the northern provinces, where the Slavs were strongest, par- 
 ties divided on nationalist lines. 
 
 Bohemia was the centre of the Czech party. The Czechs con- 
 trolled the country parts and occupied at least two-thirds of the 
 kingdom; but the great landowners assured a strong majority 
 to the German party in the Diet until the government, which had 
 now allied itself to the Czechs, gained the election of a ma- 
 jority on their side (1879). In the old provinces now joined to 
 Bohemia (Moravia and Silesia), where the great mass of the 
 people were Czech, the Germans held their majority, thanks to 
 the cities and landowners. 
 
 In Galicia the Polish party predominated, directed by the 
 Catholic aristocracy, to which the mass of the Polish population 
 was still subject. The Ruthenians had never Had a political 
 power proportionate to their numbers; they had remained a rural 
 class, socially inferior, and even in the Ruthenian region a por- 
 tion of the deputies are still Poles. The Galician Diet has always 
 been controlled by a majority of Polish nobles; the Ruthenian 
 
POLITICAL AND NATIONAL PARTIES. 533 
 
 minority confined itself to asking for autonomy for its schools 
 and church (United Greeks). 
 
 Bukovina, where the people are Roumanian, has led only a 
 feeble political existence. At first it sent ministerial deputies 
 to the Reichsratk; then the Roumanian national party finally 
 gained possession of a majority in its Diet. 
 
 Thus, at the beginning of the constitutional system, there al- 
 ready existed in Austria two German political parties, liberal and 
 conservative (which were to subdivide into groups), and seven 
 nationalist parties (Czechs, Poles, Ruthenians, Slovenians, Ital- 
 ians, Croats, and Roumanians), whose policy consisted princi- 
 pally in trying to gain from the central government concessions 
 for their languages and their national autonomy. These par- 
 ties in the Reichsrath were organized in extra-parliamentary 
 meetings called clubs. Each formed only a slight minority. So 
 there has never been in the Reichsrath a homogeneous majority 
 composed of a single party. The majority has always been a 
 coalition between parties. 
 
 The leading question in domestic policy was the adjustment 
 of relations with the clergy. Should the official power of the 
 Church be maintained as it was established by the Concordat of 
 1855 (see p. 422), with prohibition of non-Catholic public worship 
 and clerical control of schools? Or should the German lay sys- 
 tem be adopted? The liberal party, composed, like the national 
 liberal party in Germany, of the imperialist and anti-clerical 
 middle class, demanded, first of all, ecclesiastical and educational 
 reform. It was sub-divided into two clubs, progressive and lib- 
 eral. The Conservative party demanded the maintenance of the 
 old ecclesiastical and economic system ; it was composed of two 
 sets of opponents to the liberals, German Catholics and conserva- 
 tives from the little countries (Slovenians and Croats). 
 
 National politics were occupied at once with the language 
 question and the rights of local Diets. The Germans wished to 
 retain German as the state language for the courts, administra- 
 tion, and secondary schools. The other races, in proportion to 
 their power, demanded either simply the administration of their 
 own schools and churches, administrative autonomy, complete 
 equality of theil- language, or independence of their Diet. 
 
 In foreign affairs the German liberals favoured Germany and 
 Italy, while the Catholics were hostile to them. Among the 
 Slavic races, the Czechs, in their role of Panslavists, were en- 
 thusiastically friendly toward Russia and hostile toward Ger- 
 
534 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 many; the Poles still hated Russia irreconcilably; the Slovenians, 
 Croats, and Ruthenians had Russian sympathies. 
 
 In this intersection of political contradictions, which seemed 
 to permit only temporary combinations, the various parties in 
 Austria have, however, united in more lasting coalitions than in 
 Germany. A social affinity attracted the aristocratic Polish and 
 Czech clubs to the German conservative clubs: a common hos- 
 tility united the national " historic rights " parties and the old- 
 regimists against the new centralized and liberal constitution. 
 There was a natural coalition between the Slavs, the aristocrats, 
 and the Catholics. 
 
 After 1867 the Emperor governed as a constitutional sover- 
 eign, and even seemed to adopt the practices of the parliamentary 
 system, for the ministry always had a majority in the Chamber 
 of Deputies. But, in contradiction to the parliamentary system, 
 the Emperor did not choose his ministers from the majority in 
 the Chamber; following out his personal policy, he chose min- 
 isters who made a majority for themselves in the Chamber. The 
 electoral system of classes, created among the deputies a social 
 division which prevented the formation of an independent gov- 
 ernment majority. In practice the deputies from the property- 
 holding classes always followed the ministry, and their votes suf- 
 ficed to give the majority to one or other of the coalitions. (In 
 the House of Lords the ministers could directly control the bal- 
 ance of parties by appointing new life members.) Thus the ma- 
 jority depended on the landowners, the landowners on the 
 ministry, and the ministry on the Emperor. The Emperor could, 
 therefore, choose with which party he would carry on the gov- 
 ernment. But between the two coalitions he has never been 
 able to make a definite choice. As a German, and in the interests 
 of his empire, he leans toward the German Centralist coalition; 
 as an aristocrat and Catholic, he personally prefers the aristo- 
 cratic federalist coalition. His oscillations between the two have 
 been the controlling factor in the political history of Austria. 
 
 The Liberal Ministry (1867-70). — The Emperor began by giv- 
 ing the ministry and the majority to the German liberal party, 
 which accepted the new Constitution of 1867 without reservation. 
 The Auersperg ministry was principally occupied with the ec- 
 clesiastical struggle. The official authority of the Catholic 
 clergy, which the Concordat of 1855 had formally recognised, 
 found itself in irrevocable contradiction with the Constitution of 
 1867, which guaranteed complete religious liberty. The minis- 
 
THE LIBERAL MINISTRY. 53S 
 
 try, without repudiating the Concordat, passed laws which 
 practically abrogated it. i. Jurisdiction of marriage affairs was 
 restored to the lay courts and a civil form of marriage was created 
 for cases where the Church refused to perform the ceremony. 
 2. The law on the relations between school and Church estab- 
 lished the principle that : " The superior direction and supervision 
 of education belong to the state and are exercised by the organs 
 which it creates for the purpose." In consequence, all public 
 schools were opened " to all citizens without regard to creed," 
 and educational offices were declared " equally accessible to all 
 citizens"; churches and religious societies of all creeds received 
 the right to maintain private schools. 3. The law on " intercon- 
 fessional relations " established religious equality and recognised 
 the right of every subject to choose his religion and that of his 
 children, to be buried in the public cemetery, and to enjoy un- 
 restrained freedom in religious exercises. 
 
 These laws, which were carried with difficulty through the 
 House of Lords (1868), put an immediate stop to the compulsive 
 authority of the clergy; they established freedom of religion and 
 made education independent of the Church. This was the chief 
 ground of opposition. The concordat had been a treaty between 
 the Emperor and the Pope: the Catholic party declared that it 
 could be abrogated only by a new treaty with the Pope. The 
 government, on the contrary, claimed, in the name of the sover- 
 eignty of the state, the sovereign power of regulating internal 
 affairs. A theoretical conflict ensued between the two authori- 
 ties, state and Church. The Pope, in an address (June, 1868), 
 called the Constitution of 1867 " really deplorable " (infanda 
 sane) and the laws of 1868 " abominable." " By virtue of the 
 apostolic authority," he " rejected and condemned these laws," 
 declaring them " void for the present and the future." In con- 
 sequence of this a number of bishops refused to issue papers in 
 matrimonial causes; the Archbishop of Linz, who resisted with 
 force, was tried and condemned, in 1869, but afterward pardoned. 
 
 The ministry had to reorganize the army and the financial sys- 
 tem. It adopted the Prussian system of a universal military 
 service of three years, but with a gards mobile, on the French plan. 
 The contingent was divided into two parts, one doing effective 
 service (three years in the active army, seven in the reserve, two 
 in the Landwehr), the other remaining twelve years in the 
 Landwehr. By making it a Cabinet question, the ministry se- 
 cured the exemption of the number of the effective forces from 
 
53^ THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 annual discussion, as in Germany; the figure was fixed for ten 
 years. In financial affairs, the ministry renounced the system of 
 chronic deficit and loans: it re-established the balance by taxes 
 and a partial bankruptcy under form of a tax on the interest of 
 government bonds. The ministry was always supported in the 
 Chamber of the Reichsrath by a majority composed of German 
 liberals and great landowners. But the Slavic national parties 
 offered a vigorous resistance which finally defeated the ministry. 
 
 The Czech party refused to sit in the Bohemian Diet. In the 
 declaration of August, 1868, the Czech nation set forth its theory 
 and claims: between the Emperor, its hereditary King, and the 
 " political nation of Bohemia " exists a contract renewed at each 
 succession by the King's coronation oath and the representatives' 
 oath of homage. The Kingdom of Bohemia is joined to Austria 
 only by a dynastic union (which would expire with the dynasty); 
 it preserves its " historic and rightful individuality." This con- 
 stitutional relation cannot be changed legally except " by a new 
 contract between the King of Bohemia and the lawful representa- 
 tives of the people." No outside representative body, not even 
 the Reichsrath, has the right to impose a debt or taxes on Bo- 
 hemia. The Hungarian compromise has robbed the Constitu- 
 tion of 1860-61 of all value. Bohemia could no longer recognise 
 the Reichsrath, which now represented only " a chance group 
 without historical foundation." The constitutional contest can- 
 not be settled except by an agreement between the King and the 
 people. 
 
 The Czechs took toward the Emperor exactly the same atti- 
 tude that the Hungarians had taken previous to 1867. They, 
 too, claimed the position of an independent nation in the name of 
 " historic right " and " personal union." They too demanded 
 the reconstitution of the Middle-Age kingdom by the reunion of 
 the three " countries under the crown of Wenceslaus " (Bohemia, 
 Moravia, Silesia). It was the same historic theory, the same 
 tactics: to recognise the Emperor by the title of King only, and 
 to refuse to enter into relations with the other countries of the 
 Empire. But the actual situation was.not the same. The Mag- 
 yars had always been self-governing; the absolutist system at- 
 tempted after 1849 had been too short-lived to disorganize them; 
 they had found themselves still intact, with their aristocracy still 
 national, and had unanimously decided to repulse any form 
 of foreign government. The Czechs had had their reaction in 
 1620, and their centralization had already endured two and a half 
 
ATTEMPT AT A FEDERALIST CONSTITUTION. 537 
 
 centuries; half of the aristocracy and a third of the population 
 were foreigners, accustomed to treat Czechs as inferiors and 
 ready to defend the government of Vienna. In Moravia and 
 Silesia the foreign element controlled the country. The Ger- 
 mans answered the Czech declaration with the theory that Bo- 
 hemia had no special historic right and consequently no other 
 law than the constitution granted by the Emperor. 
 
 The Polish party set forth its theory in the resolution passed by 
 the Polish majority in the Galician Diet. Not being able, like the 
 Magyars and Czechs, to invoke the right of forming an indepen- 
 dent state, it confined itself to demanding " national autonomy." 
 It reproached the Constitution of 1867 with " not granting the 
 amount of legislative and administrative independence " to which 
 the country was entitled. It therefore demanded that " the 
 Galician delegation should not take part in the deliberations of 
 the Reichsrath except in the case of matters common to this king- 
 dom and the other countries." It wished to reserve for the Diet 
 legislation on matters of commerce, credit, education, public 
 health, penal law, judicial and administrative organization. 
 
 Attempt at a Federalist Constitution (1870-71). — The opposi- 
 tion, adopting the policy of abstinence which had brought suc- 
 cess to the Magyars, refused to sit in the Reichsrath. The consti- 
 tution gave the government an easy means of action against a 
 Diet which should refuse en masse to choose delegates to the 
 Reichsrath; this was the right to have delegates directly elected by 
 the voters who chose the members of the Diert. But against the 
 delegates of a Diet who individually refused to take their seats in 
 the Reichsrath the government was powerless. Meanwhile, in 
 Vienna, the workingmen, organized by German socialists, came 
 before the Chamber with a great demonstration and presented 
 a petition for universal suffrage, freedom of public meeting, asso- 
 ciation, and the press (December, 1869).* 
 
 The Emperor began by dismissing the aristocratic minority of 
 the ministry (December, 1869). But all the opposition parties 
 withdrew from the Reichsrath, the Tyrolean Catholics, the Gali- 
 cians, Slovenians, Italians from Trieste and Istria, and the Rou- 
 mans from Bukovina; there remained hardly any but Germans, 
 who just made up a quorum. The centralist ministers de- 
 manded the dissolution of the local Diets. The Emperor refused, 
 
 * The military law brought on an insurrection of Slav mountaineers in 
 southern Dalmatia; the government subdued it only by renouncing the 
 introduction of the Landwehr into this region (1869-70). 
 
538 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 He changed his system and determined to make terms with the 
 Slavic nationalist aristocracy, as he had done in 1865 with the 
 Magyar aristocracy. Meanwhile he took a transitional ministry 
 (April, 1870) under a Pole, Potocki. 
 
 The uncertainty caused by the Franco-Prussian war put a 
 temporary check upon the Emperor's plans. But the war over, 
 he called a federalist ministry with an aristocratic chief (Hohen- 
 wart) and two Czech members (February, 1871). The parties 
 were of two groups: constitutionalist (Verfassungstreu), which 
 wanted to preserve the centralist constitution of 1861 ; federalist, 
 which demanded an increase of power for the local Diets. The 
 federalist ministry had the Diets dissolved that had a German 
 constitutionalist majority; and the landowners, who always sup- 
 ported the ministry, turned the balance in favour of the 
 federalists. 
 
 The Czechs joined the coalition only on the condition of inde- 
 pendence for Bohemia. Their chiefs negotiated personally with 
 the Emperor, who announced the outcome in a message (Sep- 
 tember 12, 1871). He declared himself " willing to recognise the 
 rights of this kingdom," and ready to renew the coronation oath. 
 The Bohemian Diet replied with 28 fundamental articles estab- 
 lishing for Bohemia the same system of union as that of Hun- 
 gary. 
 
 A violent agitation arose all through the German states: the 
 Diets protested, the newspapers threatened, the people held mass- 
 meetings. The Emperor, however, was most influenced by the fact 
 that Chancellor Beust and the Hungarian ministers, disturbed 
 by the Czech Panslavism, joined hands against the federalists. 
 A council which was held between the leading ministers (Octo- 
 ber, 1871) determined the Emperor to return to the Constitution 
 of 1867. The Hoihenwart ministry withdrew. Then Beust, its 
 principal opponent, suddenly fell into disgrace and was replaced 
 in the foreign affairs of Austria-Hungary by a Hungarian, An- 
 drassy. (The title of Chancellor was suppressed.) 
 
 Electoral Reform and Constitutionalist Ministries (1871-78).— 
 In returning to the constitution, the Emperor took a German 
 ministry again (Auersperg); a new dissolution of the Diets re- 
 stored the majority to the German constitutionalist party in the 
 Reichsrath. In turn the Czechs, Slavs, and Catholics refused to 
 sit in it. But the ministry had won over the Poles and the Dal- 
 matian Croats. It now renewed the project of election by direct 
 vote. 
 
CONSTITUTIONALIST MINISTRIES. 
 
 S39 
 
 Although electoral reform had been accepted in principle, it 
 was not accomplished for more than a year. All were agreed 
 that the number of deputies should be increased; but the liberals 
 proposed to distribute the additional seats among the least repre- 
 sented classes; the ministry was unwilling to sacrifice the privi- 
 leges of the propertied classes, whose support it would need in 
 making up the two-thirds necessary to a change of constitution. 
 
 The electoral law of 1873 passed the Chamber of Deputies by 
 a vote of 120 against 2. For election of the deputies by the 
 local Diets it substituted election by the voters. But it applied 
 to these elections the system of classes used in the election of 
 members of the local Diets.* 
 
 The number of deputies was increased to 353: 85 to land- 
 owners, 137 to cities and chambers of commerce, 131 to rural 
 districts (these by indirect election). There was still an enormous 
 inequality of representation (in 1890, i deputy to 63 electors in 
 the property holders' curia, 1 to 27 in the chambers of commerce, 
 I to 2918 in the cities, i to 11,600 in the rural districts). The 
 Germans still held the majority. (Up to 1878 there were in the 
 Chamber of Deputies about 220 Germans, against 115 Slavs and 
 15 Italians.) 
 
 * The following table gives the distribution of seats among the classes 
 and provinces: 
 
 
 Rural 
 Districts. 
 
 Cities 
 
 Chambers 
 or 
 Commerce. 
 
 Great 
 Landowners 
 
 Bohemia 
 
 30 
 
 
 32 
 
 
 7 
 
 23 
 
 Moravia 
 
 II 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 Galicia 
 
 27 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 3 
 
 20 
 
 Lower Austria, 
 
 ID 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 Upper Austria, 
 
 7 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 Styria 
 
 Carinthia, 
 
 9 
 4 
 
 
 8 
 3 
 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 I 
 
 Bukovina, 
 
 3 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 
 Rural 
 Districts 
 
 Cities and 
 
 Chambers 
 
 of Commerce, 
 
 Great 
 Landowners. 
 
 Dalmatia, . . . . 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 I 
 
 Istria 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 I 
 
 Goerz, 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 I 
 
 Carniola 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 2 
 
 Salzburg, 
 
 Tyrol 
 
 Vorarlberg 
 
 Silesia, 
 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 2 
 3 
 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 
 
 I 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Trieste: 4 (elected by 3 electoral bodies and i chamber of commerce). 
 
54° THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 The ministry, supported by the German Constitutionalist ma- 
 jority, resumed its anti-clerical policy. The "May Laws" (1874), 
 so called in imitation of the German laws of the Culturkampf, 
 formally abolished the system of the concordat. They obliged 
 the bishops to report to civil authority all vacancies in Church 
 offices and all nominations, and recognised the right of non- 
 Catholics to found religious societies. The Pope protested; he 
 wrote to the Emperor, who replied by entrenching himself be- 
 hind the rights of the Reichsrath. 
 
 There was under this ministry a fever of stock-jobbing like 
 that of the " promoters " in Berlin (p. 496). The fictitious values 
 created by the banking societies, railroad and building corpora- 
 tions suddenly fell in the famous Vienna crash (May 9, 1873), a 
 gigantic collapse of the stock-exchange, which was followed by a 
 long business depression. 
 
 In the Reichsrath the Constitutionalist party had organized into 
 distinct clubs, which were, however, united to support the min- 
 istry: the United Left, nicknamed " the Young Ones " (about 65 
 deputies), divided into ■democrats and German nationalists, — ^the 
 Liberal Qub (about 100), nicknamed " the Old Ones," — the Cen- 
 tralist Right (about 60), a group of great landowners who made 
 up the Coronini club, mainly Italians. The opposition consisted 
 of the Polish club (between 40 and 45), — tlie Catholics, who 
 were not yet organized, — the Hohcnwart club (Rechtspartei), com- 
 posed of federalists belonging to the small countries. The 
 Czechs (more than 40) refused to attend the Reichsrath after the 
 rupture of 1871. 
 
 Parties and Politics in Hungary (1867-78). — A period of politi- 
 cal calm followed the compromise of 1867 in the Kingdom of 
 Hungary. As in Austria, the compromise had given the govern- 
 ment to the politically dominant race, though not the greatest 
 numerically. Of a population of 16,000,000 souls, the Magyars 
 numbered at that time hardly more than 6,000,000. But their 
 relative force was much greater than that of the Austrian Ger- 
 mans. They constituted a compact nation with a patriotic aris- 
 tocracy accustomed to ruling, very much in favour with the Em- 
 peror, and an inert and docile rural population. The commercial 
 bourgeoisie, composed mainly of Germans and Jews, had no 
 political force whatever. The other races were mainly composed 
 of masses of peasants having no political interest, and, besides, 
 cut off in the extremities of the kingdom, — the Slovacs in the 
 northwest, the Roumans in the east (in Transylvania), and the 
 
PARTIES AND POLITICS IN HUNGARY. 54' 
 
 Serbs in the southeast. The German colonies scattered over 
 the Hungarian plains, the Germans and Jews established indi- 
 vidually in the cities, were absolutely without cohesion or 
 national organization, and did not form a party. Two groups 
 alone had a national organization: the kingdom of Croatia-Sla- 
 vonia in the southeast, and the little group of Saxons in Tran- 
 sylvania (200,000 souls), a German colony which retained its 
 German character, but whose growth in population was slight. 
 
 The government had at first but little to do with the Slovac 
 peasants, who either did not vote at all or else voted for the Mag- 
 yar nobles. The Serbs had their orthodox patriarch, their 
 churches and their schools, and especially clung to their religious 
 autonomy. Transylvania, where the government had opposed 
 the Saxons to the Magyars by organizing an independent Diet 
 (1849 and 1863), was incorporated into the Kingdom of Hun- 
 gary. It lost its Diet and its independent administration, and 
 was divided into 75 districts directly represented in the Hun- 
 garian Diet. The Saxons joined the Magyars through fear of 
 the orthodox Rouman peasants, who formed the base of the popu- 
 lation: the electoral system of property qualification gave almost 
 all the rural seats to the two aristocracies. 
 
 The Croats alone, who had in old times a constitution and were 
 represented by an aristocracy, had been able to preserve their 
 autonomy by taking advantage of the rivalry between Austria 
 and Hungary. The compromise concluded between the Hun- 
 garian and Croatian Diets (1868) left to the united kingdom of 
 Croatia-Slavonia its governor (Ban), its capital Agram, and 
 its Diet composed of 75 members elected by property holders and 
 48 members by right (magnates and dignitaries). It was a self- 
 governed state, with a national coat of arms, an official national 
 language (Croatian), a system of justice, education, religion, and 
 a legislative power exercised by the Diet. But it remained 
 united to Hungary by very extensive " common affairs," which 
 included, in addition to the affairs common to the two states of 
 Hungary and Austria, all questions of commerce and of com- 
 munication. In these matters, Croatia was represented in the 
 government by a Croatian minister, in the Hungarian Diet by 40 
 delegates from the Diet at Agram, in the Imperial Delegation by 
 5 delegates. A financial agreement, made for ten years, divided 
 the income from Croatian taxes between the twO' countries, 
 granting 45 per cent, for Croatia's particular expenses, but fixing 
 a minimum which Hungary must complete in case of a deficit. 
 
542 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN A USTRIA. 
 
 The Hungarian government at Pesth appointed the Ban; it also 
 imposed in 1868 an electoral system so arranged as to give the 
 majority to the advocates of the compromise. 
 
 In the two Hungarian Chambers the secondary peoples had 
 thus only insignificant minorities. The Diet was composed 
 almost entirely oi Magyars, and party division was based only 
 on questions of policy. The situation was almost the same as in 
 1848. The Right or moderate opposition, the conservative party, 
 especially numerous in the Chamber of Magnates, was still in 
 favour at the court of Vienna; its aim was to maintain the aris- 
 tocratic and Catholic regime as firmly as possible. The " address 
 party," organized as the " Deak Qub," had accepted the com- 
 promise of 1867 and the agreement with Austria; it wished to 
 establish in Hungary a liberal parliamentary system, at the same 
 time preserving the administration by the nobility. The Leii, 
 formerly the upholders of the Constitution of '48, were hostile to 
 Austria, demanded a personal union, and protested against the 
 compromise of 1867 as contrary to national independence. The 
 extreme Left was composed of democrats, followers of Kossuth, 
 and exiles of 1848, irreconcilable enemies to Austria. (Kossuth, 
 who had retired to Italy, refused to the day of his death, in 1894, 
 to return to his native land or to recognise Francis Joseph.) 
 
 The government was always strictly parliamentary, the King 
 choosing only those ministers who had the support of the ma- 
 jority in the House. But in Hungary, as. in Italy, the ministry 
 had until now always controlled the elections. 
 
 The Deak party had at first a strong majority and became the 
 liberal ministerial party. .The liberal ministry concluded the 
 arrangements with Austria and had the laws of 1848 revised. It 
 then began the reorganization of the army, the administration, 
 and the financial system. The active army remained common to 
 all the states of the Empire, and retained German as the language 
 of command. But the Honveds, corresponding to the Landwehr, 
 became an exclusively Hungarian army. The counties remained 
 self-governing, directed by a committee formed half of elected 
 delegates, half of the heaviest taxpayers; none dared to make a 
 complete reform, for fear of irritating the nobility. The liberal 
 party had also in its program the separation of the state from 
 Church authority (full religious liberty, civil marriage, abolition 
 of compulsory confession of faith). The discussion of these re- 
 forms was, however, long delayed, for fear of driving the Catholic 
 party into a coalition with the Left. 
 
CRISIS OF THE OCCUPATION OF BOSNIA. 543 
 
 The principal matter was to secure national unity in the coun- 
 try by Magyarizing it. The government, with the aid of all par- 
 ties, struggled to give Magyar the place occupied by German in 
 Cisleithania — ^the language of the state and of civilization; it 
 made it the language not only of the government and the Uni- 
 versity, but of the administration, courts, fiscal ofifices, and sec- 
 ondary public education. It was next introduced into the 
 municipal council of Buda-Pesth (1872) * and in the railroads, 
 where it had to be taught to employees. The scattered Germans 
 became quickly Magyarized, and so6n they even adopted Mag- 
 yar names.f 
 
 The financial reorganization was so laborious that it produced 
 a crisis in the parties. The deficit increased, credit diminished, 
 and the ministerial party was weakened little by little. At the 
 elections of 1869 it had lost 50 votes; after 1872 it sought to win 
 over the Right. The main branch of the Left {Left Centre), 
 under Tisza's direction, renounced the policy of a personal union 
 and joined the Deak party (1875) in trying tO' restore financial 
 order. The liberals, thus re-enforced, had 329 seats against 88 
 opponents. They have always held their majority and gov- 
 erned Hungary without interruption. After the election of Au- 
 gust, 1875, Tisza took the ministry and held it for over fifteen 
 years. 
 
 In Croatia the unionist party, which had made the compromise 
 of 1868, was accused of having sold itself to the Magyars, and of 
 monopolizing all the official positions. The nationalist party won 
 the majority in the Diet at Agram in 1872, and compelled the 
 Hungarian government to appoint the President of the Diet as 
 Ban. 
 
 Crisis of the Occupation of Bosnia (1878). — ^The compromise 
 arranged between Austria and Hungary for ten years was re- 
 newed after two and a half years of laborious negotiations be- 
 tween the two governments. The two ministries secured its; 
 adoption only by agreeing to make it a question of confidence in 
 the two parliaments. 
 
 * The new commune of Buda-Pesth, established as the capital of Hun- 
 gary, was formed by the union of Pesth with the old German city of Ofen 
 (Buda), on the other side of the Danube, and a number of suburbs. 
 
 f It is said that Mommsen, on his arrival at Pesth, declared that he had 
 seen on his journey three persons of true Magyar type: Erdy, Matrai. 
 Toldy; he was told that the real names of his three Magyars were Lutzen- 
 bacher, Rothcrebs, and Schaedel — The famous artist Munkacsy was of 
 German parentage. 
 
544 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 The crisis in foreign affairs completed the rupture between the 
 Emperor and the constitutionalist party. By the decisions of the 
 Congress of Berlin, Austria undertook the administration of 
 Bosnia and Herzegovina in the name of the Sultan, with the 
 object of restoring them to order. The Austrian army took pos- 
 session of the territory without a battle. But immediately the 
 Mussulmans in the mountains revolted ; a war was inevitable and 
 an army of 200,000 men was needed to carry it on. The expedi- 
 tion was a costly one, and even after peace was made the country 
 proved too poor to share the expense. Occupation involved 
 further increase in expenditure. In addition, it complicated the 
 inter-racial strife. The provinces which were occupied had a 
 population speaking the Croatian language, but divided among 
 three religions: Mussulman, Orthodox, and Catholic. The 
 Croatian nationalist party adopted the idea of a Greater Croatia 
 which should unite all races speaking the Croatian tongue 
 (Croatia, Dalmatia, Slavonia, and Bosnia). This Slavic agita- 
 tion was equally disquieting to both Hungary and Austria. 
 
 In both states the parliaments were displeased with the minis- 
 tries for undertaking the occupation of Bosnia, and the additional 
 expenditure it involved, without consulting them; they asserted 
 that the treaty of Berlin ought to be laid before them for discus- 
 sion. In both states the ministers, instead of resigning, asked the 
 confidence of the House. In Hungary the address favourable to 
 the government, in spite of the enormous ministerial majority, 
 was carried by a majority of only 22. In Austria it was passed 
 only through the support of the Poles and the Right, usually in 
 opposition (1878). 
 
 The Delegations reduced the extra appropriations demanded 
 for the Bosnia expedition (1878). The wrangling continued on 
 the occupation question. The left wished to evacuate Bosnia, 
 the government wished to organize a system of definite occupa- 
 tion — until the country occupied should be able to reimburse 
 Austria for the expenses of occupation. Several attempts were 
 still made to patch up the Constitutionalist ministry; then a pro- 
 visional ministry was once more resorted to (February, 1879). 
 
 The Emperor, who placed his foreign policy before everything 
 else, now made a new departure. He deserted the Constitution- 
 alist party and returned to the aristocratic-federalist coalition. 
 This necessitated a negotiation with the Czechs. This time 
 these did not ask for the independence of the Kingdom of Bo- 
 hemia. They consented to take seats in the Reichsrath, only 
 
FEDERALIST POLICY OF THE TAAFFE MINISTRY. 545 
 
 asserting that they " reserved the question of the constitution 
 and crown of Bohemia " (1879). 
 
 At the elections of 1879 the great landowners once more upset 
 the balance of parties. But the majority of the federalist coali- 
 tion was still very weak. The 145 constitutionalists were in two 
 clubs, 94 liberals, 51 progressists; the 168 federalists in three 
 clubs, 54 Czechs, 57 Poles, and 57 in the Hohenwart club (Ger- 
 man federalists, Slovenians, Dalmatian Croats). There were, be- 
 sides 40 unclassified deputies, mainly great landowners. The 
 minister of the interior, Taaff e, announced his intention of group- 
 ing them in a third party which should hold the balance between 
 the two opposing parties. The Emperor charged him with the 
 formation of a ministry. 
 
 Federalist Policy of the Taaffe Ministry (1879-93). — The Taaffe 
 ministry, which was to last fourteen years, presented itself at first 
 as a ministry of conciliation, formed of members of both parties. 
 In reality, from its beginning it favoured the ristocratic federal- 
 ist-Catholic coalition, and after 1880 its members were all 
 federalists. 
 
 The German left opposed the ministry on its military law. 
 They were no longer willing to vote it except for three years, 
 and with a reduction of effective force; the ministry insisted that 
 it should be passed for 10 years and with the same effective force. 
 As this would require a two-thirds majority, the law, after hav- 
 ing been twice defeated, was passed through the defection of a 
 half of the liberal club (December, 1879). The federalist coali- 
 tion, now become the ministerial party, accepted the constitution 
 of 1867, using their support of the government to gain conces- 
 sions in favour of the Slavic peoples and the Catholic clergy. 
 By slow but constant effort the nationalist aristocracies and the 
 clergy increased their influence at the expense of the German 
 officials and the lay power. 
 
 The two Czech parties, Old and Young Czechs, united against 
 the Germans. They secuured the division of the University of 
 Prague into two universities, one German, the other Czech 
 (1882), and later an ordinance from the minister of justice, 
 Prazak (1886), obliging office-holders to answer the public in 
 Whichever of the two languages, Czech or German, the demand 
 was presented. This was a means of shutting out German offi- 
 cers who were not familiar with Czech. Bohemia continued to 
 be the most agitated province in the whole Empire, torn by Czech 
 demonstrations, scuffles between Czech and German students at 
 
S46 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 Prague, struggles in the Diet, where the Czechs had finally (1883) 
 gained the majority, and quarrels over the schools. The Ger- 
 mans, feeling themselves overpowered, asked first that Bohemia 
 should be separated into two racial groups, each with its own 
 language; then, adopting the tactics formerly pursued by the 
 Czechs, they refused to sit in the Diet. 
 
 The Polish aristocratic party had already gained the upper 
 hand in Galicia, where since 1877 it had reduced the Ruthenians 
 to an insignificant minority in the Diet (10 in 150). The govern- 
 ment abandoned Galicia to its management, confining itself to 
 preventing official demonstrations against Russia, which would 
 have interfered with its foreign policy. 
 
 The Slovenian party, having regained its majority in the Diet 
 of Carniola (which it had lost from 1877 to 1883), completed the 
 Slavicizing of that province. 
 
 The conservatives secured the abolition of industrial liberty. 
 The law of 1883 restored compulsory corporations for a part of 
 the industrial and commercial professions; no one could be ad- 
 mitted to them except after examination, with a certificate of 
 capacity. They carried an electoral reform lowering the prop- 
 erty qualification in the inferior electoral classes, granting 
 suffrage to " 5-florin men," wiho as a rule favoured the Catholic 
 party (1882). 
 
 In the face of this coalition, rendered irresistible by its alliance 
 with the Emperor, the German liberals were uncertain as to the 
 policy they should pursue. At first they were divided. The 
 progressist club, displeased at having been deserted in the fight 
 against the military law, broke away from the liberal coalition 
 (1879). They then came together in a " United Left " (1881), 
 which took a German national character with the motto " unity 
 of all Germans in Austria." Next this left broke in two, the 
 German Club and the Austro-German Club (1885). Finally a part 
 of the German club detached itself from the rest, as the " union 
 of German Nationalists " who refused to desert the anti-Semites. 
 At each election to the Reichsrath the Left suffered a loss. It lost 
 its majority in the Delegation (1882). In 1885 it had fallen to 
 132 members; in 1891 to no. The House of Lords, where the 
 German party predominated, delayed the vote on the school law; 
 but the ministry, by appointing new peers, finally gained a 
 majority. 
 
 Outside of the Reichsrath the Socialist party was for a long 
 time paralyzed by the depression following the financial crash, 
 
FEDERALIST POLICY OF THE TAAFFE MINISTRY. 547 
 
 then by the struggle between the socialists and anarchists. The 
 anarchists, who were mainly Slavs, attempted the policy of ter- 
 rorism by means of riots (1882-83). The government met them 
 with martial law and special measures (1884-85). 
 
 The federalist coalition of the Taaffe ministry was dislocated 
 by the democratic evolution of the Czech people. The demo- 
 cratic party of Young Czechs, formed in 1867, had always sup- 
 ported a political platform opposed to that of the Old Czechs: 
 universal suffrage, liberty of the press and of public meetings, 
 and lay schools. But it had consented to work against the Ger- 
 mans in harmony with the aristocratic party of Old Czechs. In 
 1887 it broke up violently on the national question. Gregr, the 
 leader of the Young Czechs, reproached Rieger, the orator of 
 the Old Czechs, with having said: "We must gather up the 
 crumbs of our rights from under the table " (speaking of joining 
 the ministry and Emperor). The Old Czechs, in accepting the 
 Constitution of 1867 and the Triple Alliance, had sacrificed their 
 former national platform : independence of the Bohemian crown, 
 alliance with Russia, and hostility to Germany. The Young 
 Czechs, taking up this program together with their democratic de- 
 mands, entered upon an ardent campaign of protestations, mass- 
 meetings, demonstrations in favour of France and Russia,* which 
 in a few years gained them the majority in the cities and rural 
 districts of Bohemia. The Old Czechs became alarmed, and 
 persuaded the Germans in Bohemia to resume their seats in the 
 diet. A compact was agreed upon (1890), but a number of the 
 Old Czechs, the " realists," were frightened by the national agi- 
 tation of the Young Czechs and dared not vote for it. In the 
 Reichsrath elected in 1891 the Young Czech party had 36 depu- 
 ties (against 12 for the Old Czech party). They produced a 
 doubly revolutionary platform: in national affairs, an inde- 
 
 * 1887: manifestations by students for Gregr against Rieger; a meeting 
 of 20,000 persons, where Gregr spoke against the feudal clerical alliance, 
 passed a resolution declaring that the Czech people did not wish to become 
 a nation of two tongues, that it wished the Czech language to predomi- 
 nate, and refused to renounce the rights of the Bohemian state.— 1888: 
 scene in the Diet (January). Popular meeting, program : Czech State with 
 Czech as the state language, coronation of the King in Bohemia. — 1889 ; 
 the reading club at Prague sent delegates to Paris; address before the 
 Students' Association: " We adore France." The Young Czechs demanded 
 that the name of John Huss should be inscribed upon the museum at 
 Prague; the Old Czechs refused the idea as an insult to the Catholic 
 Church.— 1892: delegation to the Nancy festival. 
 
548 7'HE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 pendent Bohemia for Czechs alone, complete equality between 
 Prague and Vienna, decentralization of railroads; in political 
 affairs, universal suffrage, equality of labouring classes, diminu- 
 tion of the army. It supported this platform with violent 
 speeches and fiery scenes in the Reichsrath, where it introduced 
 its methods of popular national agitation.* 
 
 Meanwhile a democratic movement was beginning in the Ger- 
 man cities and industrial regions. The " social democratic in- 
 dustrial party," built after the German model (1888), became 
 strong enough to organize great demonstrations, May Day festi- 
 vals in favour of an eight-hour day (1890-92), and petitions for 
 universal suffrage. In Vienna, where the population, more and 
 more heterogeneous, was composed of Germans, Jewish mer- 
 chants, and Czech labourers, an anti-Semite party was founded; 
 it was a coalition of revolutionists and Catholics, which finally 
 won the municipal council of Vienna and the Diet of Lower Aus- 
 tria. The anti-Semite movement was also manifested by declara- 
 tions to the Chamber and in newspapers and street riots. 
 
 German-Polish Coalition and Electoral Eeform of 1896. — The 
 Emperor became alarmed by the growth of these revolutionary 
 parties, threatening, as they did, both his domestic policy by dem- 
 ocratic claims and his foreign policy by assailing the German 
 alliance. The Taaffe ministry wavered, negotiated first with the 
 German Left (1892), then with the Czechs (1893), then placed 
 Prague under martial law, suspending trial by jury and liberty 
 of the press, and finally brought forward a scheme of radical 
 electoral reform. In the two classes of the cities and rural com- 
 munes (which elected 268 out of 353 deputies) it proposed to 
 extend the right of voting to all who should prove a six- 
 months' domicile and ability to read and write; this would have 
 increased the number of voters from 1,500,000 to 4,500,000. 
 
 The Conservative and German parties combined against this 
 project. The Emperor came to an understanding with them, and 
 formed the Windischgraetz ministry (November, 1893), sup- 
 ported by the most heterogeneous coalition that had yet been 
 seen in Austria: the German parties (Left, Liberals, and Catho- 
 
 *i89i: Gregr compared Bohemia to a lemon squeezed by Austria; the 
 Czechs feel themselves in the captivity of Babylon; the whole Slavic nation 
 is crushed by Austrian centralization as if in the arms of a vampire. — 1892 
 (November 18): Speech by Masaryk against Germanization; Mayer replied 
 that the Germans consider it an act of high treason to speak of the State 
 of Bohemia; his voice was lost in the clamour of Czech and Slovenian 
 deputies. 
 
POLITICAL STRUGGLES IN HUNGARY SINCE 1878. 549 
 
 lies), the Hohenwart Club, and the Polish Club opposing the 
 Young Czechs, friends of Russia. In order to quiet the agita- 
 tion in favour of electoral reform, the ministry proposed to create 
 a new group of 43 members elected by universal suffrage (1894). 
 But the coalition could not agree as to the details, and it fell to 
 pieces on the question of a public grant in aid of a Slovenian 
 secondary school in Styria. The German Left refused to vote 
 for the grant and deserted the coalition, whereupon the min- 
 istry resigned. 
 
 After a provisional business ministry (June, 1895), the Badeni 
 ministry was formed, resting on a coalition of the Conservative 
 parties, the Polish Club, the Hohenwart Qub, Liberal party, and 
 Catholic party, with a policy of conciliation on a conservative 
 basis: to take account at once of the claims of the nationalities 
 and of the " traditional position " and more advanced " civiliza- 
 tion " of the German people; " to prevent the overthrow of social 
 order and to cultivate the religious feelings and religious educa- 
 tion of youth." 
 
 The Polish aristocratic party had broken with the Czechs, now 
 become democrats: it left the Slavic coalition to join a coalition 
 of anti-democratic Germans, of which it assumed the leadership. 
 Badeni, the prime minister, and Goluchowski, the common min- 
 ister of foreign affairs, are Poles. The conflict was now be- 
 tween the aristocratic coalition, supported by the Emperor, and 
 the new democratic parties, the Young Czechs in Bohemia, the 
 socialists and anti-Semites in Austria. 
 
 The government, under the pressure of public opinion, has 
 made an electoral reform (1896) which, without changing the 
 former classes, creates a fifth class of 72 deputies, elected by dis- 
 tricts, by universal suffrage (direct in six large cities, indirect 
 elsewhere). 
 
 Political Struggles in Hungary since 1878. — In Hungary the 
 liberal ministerial party preserved a sufficiently large majority to 
 carry on the government. It continued to Magyarize the 
 schools, and accomplished a number of reforms without incon- 
 veniencing itself. The House of Magnates was reduced in mem- 
 bership (1886) ; the term of ofifice for the House of Deputies was 
 increased from three to five years (the Left's demands for ex- 
 tended suffrage and secret ballot were rejected). The govern- 
 ment took possession of the railroads, and adopted the famous 
 zone tariff (1889). The ten-year agreement with Austria was 
 renewed without difficulty for 1888-98. The political struggles 
 
55° THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 among Magyars 'had reference to secondary questions only. The 
 Left struggled against the ministry, by preventing reform in the 
 counties (1891), and especially by organizing great demonstra- 
 tions in honour of Kossuth (1890 and 1894). The right had op- 
 posed the reform of the ecclesiastical system. The ministry had 
 finally decided (1893) to present laws for the establishment of 
 civil marriage, religious liberty, legal equality of the Jews. 
 These laws, passed in the House by both the left and the min- 
 isterial party, were rejected by the Magnates, who were said to 
 have the secret support of the King. Against the civil-marriage 
 law the clergy had organized an agitation all over the country. 
 It was finally passed when the ministry secured the King's per- 
 mission to create new magnates to make up a majority (1894). 
 These two crises caused ministerial changes. The Kossuth 
 agitation led to Tisza's retirement in 1890; the agitation 
 against civil marriage, in 1894, forced Wekerle to give place to 
 Banfify. 
 
 The struggle was more intense between the Magyars and the 
 small nationalities. 
 
 In Croatia, especially, the National party, excited by the occu- 
 pation of the new Croat-speaking provinces, Bosnia and Herze- 
 govina, had once more taken up the scheme of a Greater Croatia, 
 which should be independent of Hungary and joined to the mon- 
 archy by a personal union. The Agram Diet voted an address 
 to the Emperor (1878), demanding a union of Dalmatia and 
 Bosnia. In renewing the Hungarian compromise it demanded 
 the annexation of the Military Frontier to Croatia. This prov- 
 ince, peopled by Croatian soldiers, had been, since the abolition 
 of its special government (1866), in a provisional condition; it 
 was finally incorporated with Croatia and was represented in the 
 Agram Diet. The Diet also demanded the port of Piume (1881), 
 but Hungary has retained her provisional governor there. 
 
 Croatia, now enlarged, kept up its stolid national opposition 
 against the Hungarian government, interspersed with violent 
 outbreaks. A radical party, which had been formed by the side 
 of the nationalist ministerial party, demanded a personal union. 
 In 1883 the Hungarian minister of finance had set up over the 
 finance offices at Agram coats of arms bearing inscriptions in 
 both Magyar and Croat. A mob tore them down and the 
 Ban refused to restore them. The Hungarian government sent 
 soldiers to put them up again, appointed another Ban, and ad- 
 journed the Diet; it then resigned itself to omitting the inscrip- 
 
POLITICAL STRUGGLES IN HUNGARY SINCE 1878. SS^ 
 
 tions from the coats of arms (1883). But the patriotic agita- 
 tion in Croatia had been so vigorous that in 1884 the Radical 
 party increased from 17 to 24 deputies. The Hungarian gov- 
 ernment ordered the Agram archives to be transported to Buda- 
 Pesth (1885); this gave rise to violent scenes in the Diet; two 
 Radical deputies were condemned to imprisonment. The gov- 
 ernment majority, which was striving to maintain the union with 
 Hungary, was still strong enough to contend against the 
 Greater-Croatia pai1:y; but the agitation was still actively car- 
 ried on. During the Emperor's visit to Agram a Magyar flag 
 was burned by the students (1895). 
 
 The other nationalities, deprived of political organization, had 
 almost no means of action except protest. The Slovacs in the 
 northwest tried to unite with the Czechs in Bohemia and 
 Moravia, who were their neighbours and spoke the same lan- 
 guage. The Magyar government and the Lutheran clergy re- 
 plied by forbidding any pastor or teacher in a Slovac country to 
 join in the Slavic propagandism (1884). 
 
 Among the Serbs in the south a little separatist party, under 
 the direction of a secret society, the Omladina, has been labour- 
 ing since 1872 to unite the whole Servian nation under the gov- 
 ernment of Servia. The National party, including the greater 
 part of the nation, was content with demanding home rule. It 
 protested against the Magyar government, demanding (1884) 
 the right, granted to the Serbs in 1790, 1848, and 1868, of elect- 
 ing their Metropolitan and directing church and sdhool matters. 
 In Croatia, where the Serbs differ from the Croats only in re- 
 ligion (Orthodox) and alphabet (Slavonic), the independent 
 " Serb party of Croatia," formed after the annexation of the 
 " Military Frontier," claimed the equality of the Cyrillic with the 
 Latin alphabet, and the revision of the school law (1887). 
 
 The Roumans, who were almost shut out from representation 
 by the electoral system, had for a long time confined themselves 
 to passive protestation. They began, in 1881, to demand a sep- 
 arate government for Transylvania. Finally they sent a deputa- 
 tion to " the Emperor " at Vienna, with a memorandum (1892). 
 The Hungarian government had the leaders tried and impris- 
 oned (1895). A separatist party, connected with the Irredentists 
 of Roumania, had begun to talk of " Roumania irredenta," and to 
 dream of separation from Hungary and union with the Kingdom 
 of Roumania. 
 
 The Saxons have finally joined the Magyars against the Rou- 
 
552 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IN AUSTRIA. 
 
 man agitation.* On the other hand, the small nationalities have 
 tried to unite against their Magyar masters. A congress of 
 Roumans, Slovacs, and Serbs has formed an alliance for the de- 
 fence of local autonomy and the unity of the kingdom (1895). 
 
 Political Evolution of Austria-Hungary in the Nineteenth 
 Century. — Austria was a confused mixture of races, themselves 
 a combination of heterogeneous elements and subject to an abso- 
 lutist and aristocratic monarchy. The government maintained 
 political unity and reduced the nationalist opposition to a few 
 demands in the Hungarian Diet, and elsewhere to simple written 
 protests. But this system, though practicable in a bureaucratic 
 state, was not in harmony with representative assemblies fired 
 with racial passion; it became impossible when representative 
 institutions were granted. The revolution of 1848 suddenly re- 
 vealed the national antagonisms; it established dualism, that is 
 to say, division of the monairchy between the two leading races, 
 Magyars and Germans. But as both had joined the democratic 
 parliamentary party, the monarchical government crushed them 
 with the aid of the Slavs, who remained submissive to the Em- 
 pire, and restored absolutism, completed by clerical control. 
 
 The military defeats of 1859 and 1866 and the loss of its credit 
 made the German government decide to adopt a liberal consti- 
 tutional system. It first attempted to maintain the unity of the 
 whole Empire, then, yielding to the unanimous resistance of the 
 Magyars, it took the bold course of abandoning to the Magyars 
 all the countries under the crown of St. Stephen. There a Mag- 
 yar state grew up with a liberal and semi-aristocratic parlia- 
 mentary government, strong enough to impose its will on the 
 small nationalities, but obliged to let the Croats make themselves 
 a self-governing state. 
 
 With the rest of the Empire the German government began 
 once more to organize a unitary constitutional system. It suc- 
 ceeded, by means of an electoral system favouring the Germans 
 and property holders, in setting up this system. At one time it 
 united the German liberals with the aristocracy (1867-68); at 
 another it joined the German aristocracy with the Slavic aristoc- 
 
 * The anti-Semite agitation may be included among the nationalist 
 struggles. It has been violently manifested by the prosecution of the 
 Jews of Tisza-Eslar, who were accused of the ritual murder of a young girl 
 (1882-83), and by the formation of an anti-Semite party (17 in the Diet of 
 1884). The Socialist agitation has been limited to the capital, and has 
 been of no political importance. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 553 
 
 racies (1879-93). But it has been obliged to sacrifice to the latter 
 a part of its liberal and anti-clerical policy (established after 1867) 
 and a part of the former predominance of the German language; 
 it has let Austria slip back toward the old system, under the 
 authority of nobles and clergy. Then, a new democratic party, 
 by an appeal to patriotism, won the Czechs; the government, 
 alarmed at the growth of democracy, has therefore made good 
 the loss of the Czech party by taking in the German liberal 
 party. It rests on an anti-democratic coalition, directed by the 
 Poles. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.* 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. — Bibliographies will be found in the works men- 
 tioned under chap, xiii., Waitz, Krones, Leger. 
 
 DOCUMENTS. — The parliamentary reports and law collections are 
 indicated in MiiUbrecht, " Wegweiser zur Literatur der Staatswissen- 
 schaften." Practically all the documents and important facts maybe 
 found in gchulthess, " Europaischer Geschichtskalender," i vol. a year since 
 i860; Austria-Hungary is one of the best treated parts, but from a stand- 
 point very hostile to the Slavs and Magyars. — See also the " Annuaire des 
 Deux Mondes," up to 1870, and the " Annual Register." 
 
 For party history see the reviews, the " Grenzboten," the " Preussische 
 Jahrbucher," the "Deutsche Rundschau" since 1874, the "Deutsche 
 Revue " since 1877, " Unsere Zeit," and the " Revue Polit. et Parlemen- 
 taire " since 1894. 
 
 WORKS. — For general histories, Krones, Leger, see chap. xiii. — W. Bogge, 
 "Oesterreich von Vilagosbis zur Gegenwart," 3 vols., 1872-73; " Oesterr. 
 seit der Katastrophe Hohenwart-Beust," 2 vols., 1879; stops at the 
 Eastern crisis; a journalistic work, very partial to the Germans. 
 
 On NATioNAtiTiES. — There is a collection of descriptive monographs, 
 ' ' Die Volker Oesterreich-Ungarns." I prefer not to mention the nationalist 
 controversial writings, Czech, Magyar, German, and Polish, like that of 
 Bicger, "Le Royaume de BohSme," 1867, Heiuze, " Hungarica," 1882; 
 they are very numerous and of little historic value. 
 
 On Institutions : See the bibl. in TTlbrich, " Oesterreichisches Staats- 
 recht," 1892, Marquardsen coll. — Jellinek, " Ungarisches Staatsrecht," 
 same coll., is announced. — The principal treatises are TTlbrich, " Lehrbuch 
 des Oesterr. Staatsrechts," 1883; " Handbuch der Oesterr. Politischen 
 Verwaltutig," 2 vols, and i supplem., 1888-92. Since 1895 a dictionary has 
 been published under the direction of Misehler and TTlbrioh, "Oesterr. 
 Staatsworterbuch." — In English, Lowell, "Governments and Parties," 
 vol. ii. — de Worms, "Count Beust." — Forster, "Life of D6S,k." — Dilka, 
 "Present Position of European Politics." — Valuable articles maybe found 
 in the English reviews, particularly the Westminster. 
 
 * My ignorance of the Magyar and Slavic tongues prevents my prepar- 
 ing a truly scientific bibliog. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 Formation of the Scandinavian States. — The three Scandinavian 
 countries, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, are ancient states 
 formed during the Middle Ages. The three peoples are alike 
 in their origin, language, religion, and conditions of life; they 
 have passed through similar evolutions and their histories are 
 parallel up to the nineteenth century. 
 
 The political situation of the three countries was upset by the 
 wars with the French Empire. The modern political life of 
 Scandinavia, like that of Switzerland, the Netherlands, Italy, the 
 Iberian peninsula, and Germany, was aroused by the intervention 
 of France. 
 
 Sweden, during Napoleon's alliance with the Tsar, was con- 
 quered by Russia, which detached the Grand Duchy of Finland 
 from the kingdom. Irritated by the incapacity of their King, 
 the Swedes revolted and imposed upon him a sort of constitu- 
 tion (the form of government of 1809), which replaced the abso- 
 lute royalty by an aristocratic government. 
 
 A French general, Bernadotte, who directed the occupation of 
 Swedish Pomerania, conciliated the Swedish aristocracy; the 
 King, who had no children, adopted him as his heir; Bernadotte, 
 as prince royal, governed in the King's place and joined the 
 Russo-English alliance against Napoleon. The King of Den- 
 mark, the absolute sovereign of the two kingdoms of Denmark 
 and Norway, remained Napoleon's ally ; the Allies promised Nor- 
 way to Bernadotte. After the fall of Napoleon, the Danish King 
 was obliged to cede Norway to Sweden (Peace of Kiel, January, 
 1814), retaining only Denmark and the duchies of Schleswig- 
 Holstein. 
 
 Norway, which for four centuries had been treated as a remote 
 province by the Danish government, had lost all political inter- 
 est. The Norwegians, speaking Danish and having no other 
 literature but the Danish, did not feel themselves a distinct race. 
 The Norwegian patriotic party did not appear until 1810; it 
 
 534 
 
FORMATION OF THE SCANDINAVIAN STATES. 555 
 
 founded the " Society for the good of the Norwegian people," 
 then raised subscriptions for a Norwegian university (1811). 
 
 National sentiment grew rapidly. When the news came of 
 the cession of Norway to Sweden the Norwegians determined not 
 to submit to it. The Danish prince who, under the title of 
 viceroy, governed Norway, wished to take advantage of this 
 movement to declare himself King of Norway. But instead of 
 declaring himself an absolute King, as he had first intended, he 
 followed the advice of Professor Sverdrup, and appealed to the 
 nation. He convoked an assembly of notables, then a Diet of 
 1 12 members formed of elected representatives and office-holders. 
 The Diet declared that the crown of Norway had been restored 
 to the people by the Danish King's renunciation, and elected 
 Prince Christian Frederick King (May 17, 1814). It then voted 
 a constitution similar to the French Constitution of I'j^gi, founded 
 on the sovereignty of the people, represented by an indissoluble, 
 elective assembly. 
 
 Bernadotte came to take possession of the country and offered 
 the Norwegians a viceroy and a constitution. The Norwegians 
 refused. Then war began, and the Swedes were driven back. 
 But it was impossible for Norway to resist the formal order of 
 the great European powers. Christian therefore convoked the 
 representative assembly and induced it to accept his resignation 
 of the crown. But the assembly, while yielding to the King of 
 Sweden, maintained the principle of the sovereignty of the peo- 
 ple; it elected Charles XIII. King of Norway, on condition that 
 he should recognise the Constitution of 1814. 
 
 A convention made terms between the two countries (181 5). 
 There should be a King of Sweden and Norway, a common sov- 
 ereign in all foreign relations (war and diplomacy); but the two 
 peoples should each preserve its own constitution and govern- 
 ment; Norway had its Council of State, performing the ofiSces of 
 a ministry, its Assembly, its Supreme Court, its capital at Chris- 
 tiania, and its bank at Drontheim. 
 
 There were henceforth three distinct Scandinavian states. 
 Norway has the same King as Sweden and the same language 
 as Denmark. All three have established the Lutheran Church. 
 All three have experienced during the nineteenth century an 
 economic, political, and literary revival. All three have estab- 
 lished religious liberty. This evolution has been parallel, but to 
 understand it in detail each country must be looked into 
 separately. 
 
556 THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 SWEDEN. 
 
 Transformation of the Swedish Constitution. — Swedish society- 
 remained aristocratic until the nineteenth century.' The south 
 (Scania) was a region of large landowners; the rest, where the 
 soil is less fertile, has only a scattered population of peasants and 
 fishermen, with several mining districts and a few cities. The 
 court, nobles, military oii&cers, office-holders, and Lutheran 
 clergy form the active part of the nation and rule the people; 
 political life is centred about the King at Stockholm. 
 
 Sweden had preserved all her old institutions: the Council of 
 State, performing the office of a ministry, — the Diet, divided into 
 four orders, nobles, clergy, citizens, and peasants, voting sep- 
 arately, — ^the Lutheran Church as the state church, the practice 
 of any other religion being prohibited, — the army (indelki) main- 
 tained by assignments of land. Since 1809 the King had been 
 unable to decide any question except in the Council of State, 
 which was composed of two ministers, four secretaries of state, 
 a chancellor, and six councillors, collectively responsible; the 
 government could make laws only through the Diet. 
 
 The first reform was one of government. The Council of 
 State in 1840 took the modern form of a ministry divided into 
 seven departments, each forming a service, under the direction 
 of a Councillor of State (foreign afifairs, defence, navy, justice, 
 interior, finance, education). Measures are examined by each 
 head of a department, then by the Council; the King signs the 
 decision, which must then be countersigned by the head of the 
 department concerned (except in military matters). 
 
 Next religious freedom was established. The ordinance of 
 1826 on conventicles, which forbade laymen to hold public re- 
 ligious meetings, was repealed in 1858. Religious tolerance was 
 brought into practice; and the law abolished by which only sup- 
 porters of " the pure evangelical doctrine " could hold offices. In 
 spite of the protests of the Synod and the supreme court of jus- 
 tice, a special law recognised in Dissenters the right to spread 
 their religion, at the same time reserving to recognised religious 
 societies the exclusive right of carrying on public worship. The 
 Jews, who until then had been confined to four cities, were per- 
 mitted to settle in all parts of the kingdom (1873). 
 
 The distribution of representation had not been revised, and 
 so was grossly disproportionate to existing conditions. It was 
 estimated, in 1858, that, out of 3,000,000 inhabitants, possessing 
 
SWEDISH PARTIES. SS7 
 
 537,000,000 rixdalers, 1,194,000, possessing 245,000,000, were cut 
 off from representation; and, owing to the system of voting by 
 orders, 27,090 men, possessing 52,000,000 rixdalers, were suf- 
 ficient to counterbalance the vote of 2,478,000, possessing 
 340,000,000. 
 
 The great constitutional reform was the transformation of the 
 Diet. A reform committee was formed, which organized a cam- 
 paign of petitions. The two lower orders, citizens and peasants, 
 prayed the King to present a reform scheme; the two privileged 
 orders, nobles and clergy, voted against it (i860). The King 
 then took the part of the reformers. The first step was to estab- 
 lish local assemblies (Landsting); they were to be elected by 
 property-holders, without distinction of order. Then the gov- 
 ernment presented a plan for the complete revision of the Diet 
 (1863). 
 
 In 1865 (the legal date of the new constitution is 1866) the two 
 privileged orders resigned themselves to voting the King's plan 
 (the nobles by 361 votes against 294). This was a radical re- 
 form. The old Diet of States-General, with its short and 
 irregular sessions, was transformed into a modern type of parlia- 
 ment, with an annual session of four months. The Diet was 
 composed of two Chambers. The " first Chamber " was aristo- 
 cratic, composed of representatives from the 25 local assemblies, 
 and of representatives from the cities, in the proportion of i for 
 every 30,000 inhabitants, elected for nine years, with a high prop- 
 erty qualification and no pay for services. The " second Cham- 
 ber" was composed of deputies elected for three years by the 
 propertied classes and receiving a salary. The proportion of 
 deputies was i for each rural district up to 40,000 population, 
 and I for every 10,000 in the cities. This gave the cities a 
 decided electoral advantage. The two Chambers had the same 
 powers; they were to make the laws and the budget. If they 
 should disagree on financial questions, they were to meet to- 
 gether, and the vote of the majority was to prevail (a Scandi- 
 navian practice). 
 
 Swedish Parties. — In Sweden, as in the other Scandinavian 
 states, parties were formed in an exactly opposite fashion from 
 the rest of Europe. The cities, where the court and the officials 
 predominated, formed the aristocratic conservative party (right), 
 disposed to support the ministers chosen by the King. The rural 
 districts formed the democratic party (left), which opposed the 
 ministry. 
 
SS8 THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 The right had called itself the " intelligent p^rty "; its members 
 were of the cultivated classes ; the left, composed mainly of peas- 
 ants, had taken the name of the " rustic party." As in the other 
 Scandinavian countries, the struggle came over the budget of 
 expenses, especially military (army and navy). The King and 
 his ministers, continuing the Swedish military tradition, perhaps 
 also influenced by the example of the German monarchies, 
 wished to reorganize the army on the Prussian model, establish- 
 ing a permanent army and expending great sums on the building 
 up of a navy. The left, above all bent on economy, rejected these 
 expenditures as useless for a people threatened by no enemy; it 
 demanded that the army should be remodelled on the Swiss plan, 
 as a national militia. 
 
 Relations between the ministry and the Second Chamber have 
 been regulated according to the usages of a constitutional mon- 
 archy, and the King has avoided establishing the parliamentary 
 system; he has continued to choose his ministers outside of the 
 majority. The Chamber, deprived of means of constraint, can- 
 not get control of the government; it has only its power of re- 
 sistance to ministerial projects. 
 
 Conflict began in 1871 over the question of military reform: 
 the left demanded that the " antiquated system " of the indelta 
 should be abolished; the government plan was passed by the 
 First Chamber, but rejected by the Second Chamber (105 against 
 
 79)- 
 
 The ministry kept its majority in the Diet (the two Chambers 
 voting together), owing to the votes of the aristocratic and min- 
 isterial upper House. But as early as 1875 the left had a majority, 
 even in the Diet (155 against 141). The ministry has continued 
 to present its schemes, the Diet has continued to reject them; the 
 military reform has not been accomplished. But the conflict has 
 not become sharp as in the other Scandinavian countries. The 
 King has admitted to the ministry the leaders of the moderate 
 section of the rustic party. 
 
 Then, the classification of parties has changed. A new demo- 
 cratic party has been foriried in the cities, more radical than the 
 Rustics. In 1884 the Conservative party lost Stockholm. 
 Meanwhile the question of taxation was breaking up the old par- 
 ties. The price of grain had fallen greatly, and a party had 
 formed about 1880 to demand an increase of import duties on 
 grain. The ministry, which had always advocated free trade, 
 resisted for a long time. In 1886 the protectionists had a small 
 
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. SS9 
 
 majority in the lower Chamber, though still insufficient to coun- 
 terbalance the great free-trade majority in the upper Chamber. 
 In 1887 the ministry, having appealed to the nation by a dissolu- 
 tion (the first since the reform of the Diet), the free-trade govern- 
 ment party had only 100 votes in 222. The majority depended 
 on the election in Stockholm, which had returned 22 democrats; 
 it was annulled because one of those elected had not fulfilled the 
 property qualification required by law, and the protectionist 
 ticket was declared elected. The ministry resigned, and pro- 
 tective measures were passed. But in 1892 the free-traders re^ 
 gained the majority (142 against 86) in the Second Chamber 
 (128 against 102, in 1896). 
 
 The socialist party had just been organized (1889), on the 
 model of the German socialists, by founding political societies 
 and syndicates of workingmen. It began its agitation with a press 
 campaign and a demonstration in favour of the eight-hour day 
 (1890). The government replied with prosecutions for high trea- 
 son or blasphemy, condemning to prison all the editors of the 
 socialist organ. The socialist party, powerless to effect the elec- 
 tion of its candidates by propertied voters, joined the democratic 
 party in an appeal for universal suffrage. The two united parties 
 organized an election for a " people's Diet." This private Diet, 
 held in 1893, presented to the King an address in favour of uni- 
 versal suffrage. The Rustics divided on this question (1893); 
 one part joined the right to defeat the electoral reform (the First 
 Chaftiber rejected it again in 1896). The government, disturbed 
 by the agitation in the cities, carried, in 1894, a law which, by 
 reducing the number of deputies to 230, lessens the proportion of 
 deputies from the cities. Political life has turned, since that year, 
 on the conflict with Norway (see p. 565). 
 
 NORWAY. 
 
 The Democratic Party. — After the union with Sweden, Nor- 
 way had the most democratic form of social and political consti- 
 tution to be found in Europe. The separation from Denmark 
 had removed the controlling Danish classes; there remained 
 almost nothing of the Norwegian nobility; the officials were few 
 in number and centred at Christiania, a capital without a court. 
 Society was reduced to peasants (who were almost all landown- 
 ers), merchants, sailors, and pastors. It has been steadily demo- 
 cratic in character. 
 
560 THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 The government was monarchical in form; but the King was a 
 foreigner and seen in Norway only when the Assembly met; 
 he therefore had but little personal influence. The Constitution 
 of 1814, based, like the French Constitution of 1791, on the doc- 
 trine of the separation of the powers, was so constructed as to 
 make the Assembly entirely independent of the King. Unlike 
 that of other monarchical governments, it could not be dissolved 
 and it could make laws against the will of the King — though, to 
 tell the truth, it was by a slow process. When a measure is re- 
 jected by the Kipg it must, in order to become a law, be voted by 
 three successive Assemblies with intervals of three years between 
 the votes. 
 
 The Assembly (Storthing) was elected for a short term (three 
 years) by indirect election, by an electoral body which was very 
 democratic for the period, for it included every landholder, every 
 city burgher, and every possessor of an income of 500 krones in 
 the country or 800 krones in the city.* The Assembly was 
 divided into two Chambers, which sat separately. 'The Upper 
 Chamber (Lagthing) was, however, only a fragment of the Stor- 
 thing, formed of a quarter of the members elected by the whole. 
 The remaining three- fourths constituted the Odelsthing, with the 
 sole right of inspecting the accounts. In case of disagreement 
 over a projected law the two Chambers voted together, and the 
 project must in this case have a two-thirds majority. 
 
 The King chose the Council of State, which wielded the execu- 
 tive power. This Council, formed of two ministers and 'nine 
 councillors, was cut into two sections : a minister and two coun- 
 cillors composed the delegation to be with the King at Stock- 
 holm ; the others remained at Christiania and composed the min- 
 istry. Following the doctrine of the separation of the powers ^ 
 Councillors of State could not be deputies or even enter the 
 Storthing hall. 
 
 Political life at first commanded little interest. The Storthing 
 held only one session of two months in three years. It was, how- 
 ever, divided into two parties on the same principle as in Sweden. 
 The democratic party, composed of representatives from the 
 peasant classes, opposed the expenditure proposed by the gov- 
 ernment; the right, which favoured the ministry, was supported 
 by the deputies from the capital. But from the beginning, the 
 left had the majority; it had the advantage of appearing as the 
 
 * A Krone is roughly equal to a quarter of adoUar, 
 
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 5^^ 
 
 Norwegian patriots' party, as opposed to the government party 
 representing a foreign king. 
 
 Charles XIV. (Bernadotte) was in conflict with the Norwe- 
 gians throughout his reign (1818-44): conflict over the civil list; 
 conflict over the abolition of the nobility, which the Storthing de- 
 manded in three successive votes; conflict over the reform of 
 the constitution (the King wished to secure for himself the 
 same powers that were enjoyed by the kings of other mon- 
 archies: veto, right of dissolution, appointment of presiding 
 officers; the Storthing rejected all his amendments in 1824; con- 
 flict in 1829 with students who were celebrating the anniver- 
 sary of the Norwegian constitution instead of the anniversary of 
 the union with Sweden (the King sent troops t.^ disperse them) ; 
 conflict over the choice of the viceroy for Norway. This time the 
 King went so far as to dissolve the Storthing, which retorted by 
 impeaching the ministry for having advised the King to violate 
 the constitution; the ministry was condemned to pay a fine, and 
 the King yielded, taking a Norwegian for his viceroy. 
 
 The two succeeding Kings, Oscar I. (1844-59) ^.nd Charles 
 XV. (1859-72), lived in peace with the Storthing. Oscar recog- 
 nised the national flag of Norway and gave up the right of ap- 
 pointing a viceroy (the charge was abolished in 1873). Reli- 
 gious liberty, which had been forgotten in the constitution, was 
 established by laws. The law on Dissenters (1845) gave to all 
 Christian sects the right to establish communities and to practice 
 their religion. Jews were given the same privilege in 185 1. Uni- 
 versal religious liberty was granted in 1878. Lutheranism re- 
 mained compulsory for office-holders, however. The Storthing 
 session was made annual (1869), and this increased political 
 activity in Norway. 
 
 Prosperity increased rapidly. Norway had never beeij so 
 populous or so rich. The population had increased from less 
 than 1,200,000 souls in 1835 to 1,800,000 in 1875 (2,000,000 in 
 1891); the population of the cities from 135,000 in 1832 to 332,- 
 000 in 1875. 'Th^ debt, which had been very heavy in 181 5, was 
 paid oflf in 1850. The customs duties, growing more and more 
 productive, were sufficient to cover the expenses of the state. 
 The little Norwegian people owned a fourth of the merchant 
 marine of Europe: in 1879 56,000 sailors and 7800 ships, not to 
 mention the fishermen, who in 1890 were estimated at 120,000. 
 The land was divided among a great number of peasants. The 
 
562 THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 number of landowners had increased from 45,000 in 1814 
 to 105,000 in 1835. There remained no great property- 
 holders. 
 
 The Constitutional Conflict. — With Oscar II. (1872) began the 
 great conflict for reform of the constitution. Hitherto the demo- 
 cratic party, abiding by the terms of the Constitution of 1814, 
 had simply tried to restrict the government by reducing the bud- 
 get. It had at first even refused to change the law forbidding 
 Councillors of State to join in meetings of the Assemblies, for 
 fear of their gaining a personal influence over the deputies. It 
 held the old doctrine, the doctrine maintained by the French Con- 
 stitution of 1 79 1. Later it had proposed a law (1851) which per- 
 mitted the Councillors of State to take part in the meetings of the 
 Storthing. The King had rejected it. 
 
 In 1872 the democratic party changed its policy ; it endeavoured 
 to get control of the Council of State, to compel the King to 
 choose his ministers from the majority in the Storthing, thus re- 
 placing the separatist system by the English parliamentary sys- 
 tem. The constitution forbade ministers tO' sit in the Storthing; 
 the democratic party passed a law to permit it. Thereupon be- 
 gan the conflict between the King and the Storthing. The King 
 declared that the Storthing had no power to change the constitu- 
 tion witho'Ut the consent of both powers, King and Storthing; as 
 the constitution had established no other procedure for revision, 
 the change could be made only by agreement. He would will- 
 ingly consent to the innovation, but in return asked the right of 
 dissolving the Assembly, as in parliamentary monarchies. The 
 majority in the Storthing looked at the question in a different 
 light. It declared that, as the constitution had made no distinc- 
 tion between laws and constitutional amendments, a law was 
 sufficient to change the constitution, and this could be passed 
 over the King's veto. It therefore passed the law giving the 
 ministers entrance to the Storthing; the King refused his sanc- 
 tion; but, in accordance with the rules of Norwegian procedure, 
 the Storthing passed the measure three times (1872-77-80) and 
 passed several formal votes of censure against the ministry. 
 
 The King refused to recognise the law, even after the third 
 vote, and chose " fighting ministers " pledged to resistance 
 (1880). The Storthing had no lawful means of action; according 
 to the doctrine of the separation of powers, the King, in his 
 choice of ministers, was under no obligation to pay attention, to 
 the votes of the Assembly. The breach widened. The two 
 
THE NATIONAL CONFLICT. 563 
 
 powers, both King and Storthing, refused to yield. The Stor- 
 thing replaced the formula " Most Gracious Majesty " with the 
 words " To the King." The King secured from the Law 
 Faculty of Christiania a favourable opinion on his theory. In 
 Sweden there was talk of employing force; in Norway a society 
 was established to arm volunteers. There remained but one 
 process, which was to impeach the Council of State ; but the out- 
 come of the attempt was doubtful. According to the constitu- 
 tion, impeached ministers must be tried by a court composed of 
 9 judges from the High Court of Justice and -22 members of the 
 Lagthing, and the accused had the right to challenge a third of 
 them. Nothing could be expected of the judges, who were de- 
 pendent on the government; the members of the Lagthing alone 
 could be expected to decide the conflict against the King. 
 
 The elections of November, 1882, were decisive. The Left had 
 83 members elected, the Conservatives 31. The Left used its 
 majority to elect a Lagthing disposed to condemn the ministry. 
 The trial was a long one. The Odelthing accused the ministers 
 of having acted contrary to the interests of the country by advis- 
 ing the King to refuse his sanction to the constitutional amend- 
 ment; the court declared the ministers guilty and condemned 
 them to dismissal (1884). 
 
 This time the King yielded and accepted the judgment. He 
 did, however, attempt to form a Conservative ministry, but no one 
 dared accept a place in it. The King finally resigned himself to 
 charging Sverdrup, leader of the Left, with the formation of a 
 ministry (1884). This was a radical change; Norway made a 
 sudden leap from constitutional monarchy to the parliamentary 
 system. The Council of State became a ministry politically re- 
 sponsible to the Storthing. The power, hitherto exercised by the 
 King, the Christiania officials, and the conservative party, passed 
 into the hands of the representatives of the Norwegian people 
 under the control of the peasant democratic party. 
 
 The National Conflict. — ^The accession of the leader of the Left 
 to power did not end the conflict; it simply gave it a new direc- 
 tion. The party which had conquered the King was a loose coa- 
 lition of the various opposition groups; by the side of the old 
 peasant Left, which was still composed of monarchists and intol- 
 erant Lutherans, there had sprung up, within a generation, a 
 more radical group, whose members belonged in large part to the 
 cities and ports. It was indififerent or hostile to the Church, and 
 was led by the novelist Bjornstern Bjornson. 
 
564 THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 During the struggle against the King, Sverdrup had produced 
 a program of democratic reforms : extension of the suffrage, estab- 
 lishment of jury trial, reorganization of the army, and develop- 
 ment of education (1882). On these reforms the Left was in 
 harmony, but the understanding was broken up on a question of 
 Church policy. Sverdrup, influenced by his nephew John, an 
 Orthodox pastor, caused the rejection of the pension proposed 
 for the writer, Kielland, because the latter had expressed anti- 
 Christian views (1885). Sverdrup proposed a bill on parish 
 councils (1886) which gave the councils the right to strike from 
 the voting list the name of anyone who should have broken away 
 from the Church or who led an immoral life. (In Norway the 
 parish is identical with the civil commune; this bill would give 
 the Orthodox believers a discretionary power over the elections.) 
 The democratic party broke into two parts; the Old Left, sup- 
 porting Sverdrup, and the New Left, under Bjornson, attacking 
 him (1886).* 
 
 The two groups continued to vote together on the electoral 
 law (1884), introduction of jury trial, and the reorganization of 
 the army as a militia (1887). But the New Left demanded the 
 dismissal of John Sverdrup and defeated the parish law in the 
 Storthing (84 against i). Sverdrup, though put in a minority, 
 refused to resign, invoking the anti-parliamentary theory which 
 he had been fighting all his life. Then, to maintain his position, 
 he joined the Right, which enabled him to defeat a vote of want 
 of confidence by 61 votes (of which 30 were Conservative) against 
 51 (1888). He even spoke of the necessity of winning the confi- 
 dence of " the master of the ministry " (the King). The mass of 
 the democrats followed the New Left. The delegates from the 
 democratic clubs, who met at Drontheim in July, 1887, adopted as 
 their platform universal suffrage, the parliamentary system (that 
 is, the resignation of a defeated ministry), and the establishment 
 of special consuls for Norway. By this last article the New Left 
 appealed to patriotism against the King of Sweden. 
 • Henceforth there were three parties: Conservative, Ministerial, 
 and Radical. In the elections of 1889 the coalition of Minis- 
 terialists and Conservatives retained their majority: 22 Minis- 
 terialists, 54 Conservatives, 38 Radicals. But the Ministerial 
 party was too far reduced to maintain its foothold. The Con- 
 servatives, who were now the largest party relatively, defeated 
 
 *Bj6rnson's adversaries called it the " literary " or " European Left,' 
 because it introduced foreign ideas into Norway. 
 
THE NATIONAL CONFLICT. S^S 
 
 Sverdrup, and the King took a Conservative " fighting ministry," 
 under Stang (1889). 
 
 Then began the democratic and patriotic agitation against the 
 King of Sweden. The factory system had been introduced into 
 Norway, and had created a labouring class. A socialist party 
 had just been formed among the workingmen (1887) and had 
 secured the support of the congress of trade unions (1889). An- 
 other Radical workingman's party, represented by the federa- 
 tion of the leagues of Norwegian workingmen, demanded 
 woman's suffrage, a progressive income and inheritance tax, 
 an eight-hour day, and legislation in the interest of workingmen. 
 
 When the Conservative ministry presented a bill tO' regulate 
 relations between Sweden and Norway, the two groups of the 
 Left united and left the government in minority (February, 1891). 
 The King decided to call on one of the Radical leaders Steen. 
 The Steen ministry did not have at first a majority in the Stor- 
 thing, but gained a majority in the elections of 1891. The party 
 had adopted a platform of universal sufifrage, direct taxes, and 
 particularly the creation of a Norwegian ministry of Foreign 
 Affairs and Norwegian consuls. The elections were very ani- 
 mated; the Radical Left gained 18,500 votes. It elected 65 depu- 
 ties, the Sverdrup party 14, and the Conservative party 35. 
 
 Trouble began at once with the King on the question of Nor- 
 wegian consuls. The Storthing declared that the creation of a 
 consular body was an exclusively Norwegian affair, to be settled 
 by Norwegian legislation. The King replied that the right of 
 settling the question belonged to him according to the laws 
 established on the union of the two countries (March, 1892). 
 The Storthing determined to create consuls; the King refused his 
 sanction; the ministers offered to resign, but the King was 
 obliged to keep them (1892). As at the time of the previous con- 
 flict, they were met by a question of procedure; the Storthing 
 claimed the right of final decision, as the representative of the 
 sovereign people of Norway, while the King affirmed that a 
 change in the relations established by the union could be made 
 only by agreement between the two governments. In Sweden 
 the Diet (April, 1893), in Norway the Right, supported the King. 
 The King once more took a conservative ministry (Stang, April, 
 ^893) and kept it in spite of the Storthing's vote of want of confi- 
 dence. The Storthing retorted by refusing to vote funds for 
 foreign affairs, the civil list, and the ministers (1893), and 
 determined upon a separate consulate for Norway. The Left 
 
566 THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 won the majority in the elections of 1894 and the contest has 
 remained open. The Storthing has continued to vote measures 
 in opposition to the King's ministers — separation of consulates, 
 and later (1896) a Norwegian flag with no symbol of the union. 
 The King has continued to refuse his sanction to the decisions of 
 the Storthing (1894) and has retained his conservative ministry, 
 even after it has indicated a wish to resign (1895). 
 
 The conflict has provoked a counter movement in Sweden, 
 and has taken the form of a conflict between the two peoples, 
 Norwegians and Swedes. In both countries, the Chambers have 
 manifested a mutual lack of confidence by voting special military 
 appropriations (1895). The Swedish government has proposed 
 a revision of the union compact; but the Storthing insisted that 
 the negotiations should be carried on by a ministry which was 
 in harmony with the Norwegian majority; the King has formed 
 a routine ministry, and the conflict goes on. 
 
 DENMARK AND THE DUCHIES. 
 
 The Danish Monarchy before the Separation of the Duchies. — 
 
 After the cession of Norway, the Danish monarchy was reduced 
 to the Kingdom of Denmark (comprising Jutland and the 
 islands), Iceland, and the duchies of Schleswig, Holstein, and 
 Lauenburg. 
 
 The population was chiefly agricultural, but there remained an 
 extensive nobility which controlled the court and filled the offices. 
 The peasants, who until 1788 had been dependent on the nobles to 
 an extent bordering on serfdom, had not yet any political activity. 
 Copenhagen, the only city of any importance, was the centre of 
 court life. The King preserved the tradition of the " enlight- 
 ened despotism " of the eighteenth century : religious toleration, 
 patriarchal administration, absolute, secret, and uncontrolled* 
 government. 
 
 Frederick VI. (1808-39) confined himself to a promise of 
 publishing the budget (1813), which was not carried out before 
 1835 ; he also created a set of provincial Estates after the Prussian 
 model, purely consultative, for consideration of laws and financial 
 questions (1831-34). There were four provinces: the Islands, 
 Jutland, Schleswig, and Holstein. The only business which was 
 made public was the regulation of the heavy financial burdens 
 left by the wars of the French Empire. In 1813 the paper money 
 had fallen to one-fourth of its value, and the government had 
 
THE DUCHIES OF SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN. 567 
 
 gone into partial bankruptcy; the debt remained enormous and 
 did not begin to decrease until 1841. 
 
 A small liberal aristocratic party had been formed among the 
 cultivated classes in Copenhagen, desiring a constitution and 
 hoping to secure it from the hereditary prince. But Christian 
 VIII. (1839-48), who was now King, became an absolutist. 
 He was besides absorbed by the struggle against his German 
 subjects in Holstein, and died before getting beyond the plan of 
 a constitution (January, 1848). 
 
 The whole reign of Frederick VII. (1848-63) was filled with the 
 intrigues, negotiations, and wars of the Schleswig-Holstein affair, 
 and during all that time Danish politics were controlled or dis- 
 turbed by the quarrels with the duchies. 
 
 The Liberals were meanwhile the Danish national party, desir- 
 ing union with the duchies, or at least with Schleswig, with a 
 single constitution for the whole monarchy. Frederick VII. 
 leaned on this party and formed a Liberal ministry (March, 1848), 
 which repealed the laws against the liberty of the press. He 
 then granted a constitution, the fundamental law of June, 1849, 
 which established an annual Diet composed of two Chambers, 
 elected by the owners of property; it also guaranteed liberty of 
 the press, of religion, and of public meeting. 
 
 This constitution, confined to the Kingdom of Denmark, was 
 short-lived. The King then proposed a constitution for the 
 whole monarchy, including the duchies; but this project, drawn 
 up at the time of the general reaction against the representative 
 system, lessened the power of the Diet. The Diet protested; the 
 government replied with press prosecutions, and the King, by 
 virtue of his own authority, promulgated the Constitution of July, 
 
 1854. This reduced the Diet to a single consulting assembly 
 having no authoritative vote except in imposing new taxes. The 
 Diet voted to impeach the ministry. It was dissolved, but re- 
 elected (1854), and the King changed his ministry. The conflict 
 ended in a compromise; this was the Constitution of October 2, 
 
 1855, which reserved to the Diet all its powers and established a 
 common Council of State for the whole monarchy, in which the 
 Kingdom of Denmark had 47 representatives (35 elected, 12 ap- 
 pointed by the King), and the duchies 33 (8 appointed by the 
 King). This constitution, declared void by the provincial estates 
 of the duchies, remained in a precarious condition. 
 
 The Duchies of ScMeswig-Holstein. — The King of Denmark 
 was sovereign of the two duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, and 
 
568 THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 also of the duchy of Lauenburg (received in 1815 as: indemnity 
 for the loss of Pomerania). These duchies were distinct from 
 the Kindom of Denmark and belonged to. the King as Dnh. 
 They had had each its own history, its distinct administration and 
 Assembly of Estates, though united under the same sovereign, 
 and declared indissolubly united. In 1815, however, when the 
 German Confederation was formed, Holstein and Lauenburg 
 alone were included in it and Schleswig had remained outside. 
 The population of Holstein, Lauenburg, and southern Schleswig 
 was German, that of Northern Schleswig was Danish. Thus, by 
 a contradictory combination of terms, the duchies and Denmark 
 made part of the same monarchy without forrtiing one nation; 
 Holstein, although subject to the Danish government, was a 
 member of a foreign confederation in which Schleswig was not 
 included, although indissolubly united to Holstein; and the limits 
 of the Danish nationality did not coincide with the limits of either 
 province. These contradictions made a rational solution im- 
 possible. 
 
 The " question of the duchies " was, however, long in coming 
 into prominence, for national feeling was not yet aroused. The 
 Germans in Holstein were used to regarding Denmark as their 
 country; they even sang the Danish national songs. 
 
 The agitation began against Frederick, who governed as an 
 absolute sovereign, without consideration for the historic privi- 
 leges of the knights of Holstein; Dahlmann, the historian, a pro- 
 fessor at Kiel, presented their claims in the name of historic 
 rights. In 1830 a more radical agitator, Uwe Lornsen, de- 
 manded a single constitution for the two duchies and separation 
 from Denmark. " We have nothing in common with the 
 Danes," he said, " but the King and the enemy." He was 
 arrested, and the King created two assemblies of estates, one for 
 Schleswig, the other for Holstein. But the Germans in Holstein 
 were beginning to object to being Danish; the University of 
 Kiel became a centre of Germanic propagandism. 
 
 Conflict then began between the German patriots who wanted 
 a separate administration for the duchies and the Danish patriots 
 who wanted to maintain the united monarchy. Between the 
 two extreme parties came two intermediate parties: a German 
 party in Holstein which renounced Schleswig, and a Danisli 
 party which renounced Holstein. But soon all the Germans 
 united to sustain the indissolubility of the duchies. 
 
 After the death of Frederick VI. (1839) there remained but two 
 
THE WARS OF THE DUCHIES. 569 
 
 princes, neither of whom had an heir ; these were the later Kings 
 Christian VIII. and Frederick VII. The question of the suc- 
 cession had to be decided. Now the right of succession was not 
 the same all over the monarchy: in Denmark the succession 
 could be inherited by women, in Holstein by men only; in the 
 case of Schleswig and Lauenburg the point was in dispute. The 
 Danish government, however, meant to preserve the monarchy 
 intact, including Holstein, and the German party wished to cut 
 off from it both Holstein and Schleswig as inseparable. 
 
 The two parties officially declared their pretensions. The Es- 
 tates of Holstein, in the petition of 1844, maintained three points : 
 the duchies are (i) independent, (2) united forever, (3) hereditary 
 in the male line. The King replied that Schleswig followed the 
 female line like Denmark, that for Holstein the question was in 
 doubt, but that he would be forced to assure the maintenance of 
 the Danish monarchy (1846). The German party made rejoin- 
 der in the form of mass-meetings, a protest from the Estates of 
 Holstein to the king, who refused to receive it, and a complaint 
 to the German Diet. Then appeared the patriotic song of the 
 duchies, Schleswig-Holstein meerumschlungen. 
 
 The Wars of the Duchies. — The revolution of 1848 excited the 
 national parties and pushed the conflict at length to the point 
 of war. The Danish liberal nationalist party, which the King 
 called to the ministry, had adopted a mixed solution : to renounce 
 Holstein, the German country, which belonged to the Confedera- 
 tion, to keep the country north of the Eider, that is, Schleswig, 
 and to make it one nation with Denmark ; this is what was called 
 the party of the " Eider Danes." This solution implied the rup- 
 ture of the union between Schleswig and Holstein, a common 
 constitution for Schleswig and Denmark, and for the future suc- 
 cession through the female line for Schleswig. The German 
 party in the duchies, in the name of the indissoluble union, de- 
 manded the admission of Schleswig into the Confederation and 
 a common constitution for the duchies; on the refusal of the 
 King the party rose in rebellion and established a provisional 
 government, which declared itself in favour of indissoluble unity, 
 male succession, and the entrance of Schleswig into the Con- 
 federation. 
 
 From this moment three questions awaited decision: i. 
 Should Schleswig remain united to Holstein and join the Con- 
 federation, or remain outside of the Confederation and joined to 
 Denmark? 2. Should the constitution be common to the 
 
570 THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 duchies or to Schleswig and Denmark? 3. Should the succes- 
 sion be male or female? 
 
 The War began in August, 1848, and lasted until 1850, broken 
 by truces into three wars. The German party had its centre at 
 Kiel and carried on its work through the aid of volunteers or 
 regular troops from Germany. The Danish party carried on its 
 work through the Danish army and the aid of European 
 diplomacy. 
 
 1. In the first war the Danish army drove back behind the 
 Eider the Germans of Schleswig-Holstein and German volun- 
 teers; the Prussian troops forced the Danish army to evacuate 
 the duchies. The European powers imposed a truce (August, 
 1848) which established in the duchies a provisional government, 
 half Prussian and half Danish. The Frankfort Parliament re- 
 jected the truce by 238 votes against 221, then accepted it by 258 
 against 238. No definite arrangement could be made, as the 
 Danes wished Schleswig to be inseparable from the monarchy, 
 and the Germans refused. 
 
 2. The truce over, the German army of Holstein invaded Jut- 
 land, but was surprised and put to rout. A new truce; then 
 Schleswig, evacuated by the Holstein army, was occupied by the 
 Prussian troops and governed by two officers, a Dane and a 
 Prussian (April- July, 1849). 
 
 3. After the failure of the German revolution the European 
 powers (England, France, and Russia) decided at the London 
 Conference to uphold the integrity of the Danish monarchy as 
 necessary to the balance of power in Europe. The isolated King 
 of Prussia withdrew his troops. The Holstein army, abandoned 
 by the German states, was crushed by the Danish army in July, 
 1850. 
 
 The King of Denmark resumed possession of the duchies. He 
 declared their union dissolved by a decree (January, 1852). 
 He imposed on them a common constitution with Denmark. 
 The succession was regulated by the powers under the form of a 
 protocol adopted in London (May, 1852) : the Prince of Gliicks- 
 burg, husband of the King's niece, was declared heir of the whole 
 monarchy, including the duchies. The intervention of the 
 powers had decided the questions as Denmark wished. But the 
 solution was not accepted by the Estates of Schleswig and Hol- 
 stein, nor by the Germanic confederation, nor the male heirs of 
 the duchies (the consent of the nearest heir had been secured but 
 not that of his successor). The Estates of Schleswig and Hoi- 
 
THE SEPARATION OF THE DUCHIES. 571 
 
 stein refused to recognise the female line of succession, protested 
 against the Constitution of 1855, and refused to elect deputies to 
 the Council of State, where the majority was Danish. 
 
 The Danish government, treating its adversaries as rebels, dis- 
 ttiissed all officials, pastors, and teachers belonging to the Ger- 
 man party — also even the professors in the University of Kiel. 
 In some parts of Schleswig it forbade the use of German in the 
 schools. In Germany the Danish domination over the German 
 population of the dtlchies became one of the grievances of the 
 national party. 
 
 Even in Denmark the national party disapproved the King's 
 policy. It insisted upon retaining Schleswig, in spite of the Ger- 
 mans' demands, in the hope of annexing it to Denmark; it did 
 not, however, want to keep Holstein, whose German population, 
 by its systematic opposition, would prevent the establishment of 
 a truly national constitution. This party finally won over the 
 King. A patriotic society, the Denmark Union, was founded in 
 1861, " to resist all attempts at foreign intervention in the home 
 affairs of Denmark, to maintain the Danish nationality in Schles- 
 wig and introduce into that country that liberty which was prom- 
 ised by the Constitution of 1849." The King promulgated a 
 regulation which established a special system for Holstein 
 (March, 1862). The German majority in the Schleswig Estates 
 protested, and then resigned their seats; the German Diet at 
 Frankfort voted to enforce the execution of its decisions of 1858, 
 i860, 1861, and 1863. The Danish government replied by pre- 
 senting a common constitution. 
 
 The Separation of the Duchies. — In the midst of the conflict. 
 King Frederick VII. died suddenly, and the question of succes- 
 sion had to be settled. The heir to the Danish throne. Christian 
 IX. of Glucksburg, backed by the London protocol, had himself 
 proclaimed as King in both Denmark and the duchies. He hesi- 
 tated at accepting the new constitution common tO' Denmark 
 and Schleswig, as contrary to the London protocol; but the 
 people of Copenhagen, when the patriotic party resigned, came 
 en masse to the palace, and Christian signed the Constitution of 
 1863. In the duchies,' on the contrary, the Estates recognised as 
 their sovereign the heir in the male line, Frederick of Augusten- 
 burg. Three questions came up at once: the union of Schles- 
 wig, the common constitution, and the succession. 
 
 The solution came not from the Danes or the inhabitants of 
 the duchies, but from foreign powers. The Germans in the 
 
572 THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 duchies pinned their hopes on the German Diet, which had 
 already decided to send a federal army; the Danes were counting 
 on the states of Europe that in 1852 had guaranteed the territory 
 of the Danish monarchy. But both parties were deceived. The 
 two great German states, Austria and Prussia, declaring them- 
 selves bound by the London protocol, began by recognising 
 Christian. Frederick was supported only by the small states of 
 Germany (see p. 468). Prussia and Austria accepted the succes- 
 sion, but not the Constitution of 1863; they sent to Denmark a 
 demand that it should be abrogated; on the King's refusal they 
 sent their troops into Schleswig (February, 1864). The Danish 
 government awaited the intervention of the European states. 
 The Queen of England, however, did not want war, and Na- 
 poleon spoke of having the question settled by a vote of the in- 
 habitants of the duchies, according to the principle of nationalitjf. 
 
 The Danish army (35,000 men) had received the order to risk 
 no decisive action; its part was to give European intervention 
 time to make its appearance. It evacuated Schleswig almost 
 without resistance and withdrew behind the entrenchments of 
 Diippel, which covered Jutland; there it held out for six weeks. 
 The position was taken by storm on April 18. On April 25 
 the conference between the European powers was reopened. 
 England proposed to divide Schleswig; Napoleon, directly con- 
 sulted by Denmark, accepted the plan, but proposed to divide the 
 duchy according to language. Prussia and Austria demanded 
 the complete cession of the two duchies, which should form a 
 single state. The conference was interrupted (June 25). The 
 armies of Austria and Prussia took possession of the whole of 
 Jutland and threatened the islands. Denmark, abandoned by 
 Europe, resigned herself to signing a peace ceding the three 
 duchies to Austria and Prussia (August, 1864). 
 
 Austria and Prussia held to their conquest. In 1866 Austria, 
 after her defeat, gave up her rights over the duchies, and Prussia 
 annexed them. One article of the treaty promised that the 
 " people of northerA Schleswig, if by a free vote they should 
 signify their desire to be united to Denmark, should be ceded to 
 Denmark." But Prussia never consulted the people, and in 
 1878 Austria agreed to cancel that clause. The Danish party in 
 Schleswig remained under Prussian rule; the inhabitants have 
 never ceased to show their discontent by electing always a pro- 
 tester as their deputy. The Prussian government has retorted 
 by persecuting Danish patriots and forbidding the use of the 
 
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1866. 573 
 
 Danish language. In 1885 sixteen young girls were fined for 
 singing Danish patriotic songs; a bookseller was fined for hav- 
 ing offered for sale a book whose covers bore the Danish colors. 
 
 The Constitution of 1866. — ^After the separation of the duchies 
 Danish poUtics were transformed. A new democratic party, the 
 Friends of the Peasants, demanded the abrogation of the existing 
 constitution and the restoration of the Constitution of 1849. 
 
 The government presented a plan to re-establish the system 
 of 1849, but with an important change. Of the two Chambers 
 of the Diet, one, the Folkething, was still to be a really repre- 
 sensative body, elected under a very extended sufiErage; but the 
 upper Chamber, the Landthing, was to be composed of 66 mem- 
 bers, 12 appointed by the king, the others elected by voters pos- 
 , sessing an income of 2000 crowns. The lower house rejected 
 this plan as anti-democratic; it was dissolved, but re-elected 
 (1865); and after a long conflict the government plan became 
 the Constitution of 1866, which rules Denmark to-day. 
 
 For the first few years the ministry governed almost without 
 opposition; it was absorbed in the reorganization of the army, 
 navy, and military service. But a great transformation was pre- 
 paring to take place in public opinion. The " Liberal " party, 
 which had held the ministry during the struggle over the duchies, 
 was before everything a belligerent patriotic party; its program 
 had consisted chiefly in the defence of Schleswig. After the loss 
 of Schleswig it became a conservative party, composed of officials 
 and landowners, the party of the court and middle class ; its force 
 lay in the capital (Copenhagen) and its neighbourhood. The 
 rest of the country quickly joined the opposition. It divided 
 into two groups : the Moderate Left, composed chiefly of deputies 
 from the north of the islands and of Jutland; the Democratic 
 Left (Peasants' Friends), recruited principally from the south of 
 the islands and southern Jutland. 
 
 As in Norwa)', the subject of dispute was the budget; the 
 Right supported the King and the ministry, who demanded 
 money for officials and war expenses; the Left wished to reduce 
 expenditure and taxes. As in Norway, the peasants formed the 
 Democratic party, while the capital elected the Conservatives. 
 
 At each election the opposition gained seats in the Lower 
 House. In 1870 the groups of the Left joined forces and de- 
 feated the budget, whereupon the ministry resigned. The fol- 
 lowing ministries secured their budgets by only a few votes ma- 
 jority. In 1873 the Left coalition had 49 members, the Right 
 
574 THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 (national-liberal) only 15; in addition to these was the Third 
 party (15 members) and the "transitional group" (9 members). 
 The coalition demanded an extended suffrage and choice of pas- 
 tors by the faithful; it rejected the budget and passed a vote of 
 want of confidence in the ministry by 55 votes against 34. The 
 Chamber was dissolved, but the Left was re-elected. 
 
 The Constitutional Conflict (1873-94), — The conflict over vot- 
 ing the budget led to a constitutional conflict. The declaration 
 of the Lower House in 1873 placed the question thus: "It is 
 a necessary condition of constitutional monarchy that the gov- 
 ernment should be in harmony with the house which is elected 
 by universal suffrage." The King must choose a " ministry in 
 harmony with the people's representatives." This was the theory 
 of the parliamentary system iri practice in England, Belgium, 
 and France. The King replied that the Chamber misunder- 
 stood the conditions of the constitution (1873); he considered 
 himself entitled to keep a ministry which one of the Chambers 
 supported; he declared (1883) that "understanding was possible 
 only through negotiation between the two Chambers." This was 
 the theory of harmony between the three powers and equality 
 between the two Chambers, which Bismarck had imposed on 
 Prussia. 
 
 The conflict was interrupted by a compromise ministry (1874), 
 but went on under the " fighting ministry " (Estrup) formed in 
 1875. The Left, in spite of dissolutions (1876; 1878; May, 1881; 
 July, 1881), retained its large majority in the Folkething; after 
 the dissolution of 1876 it controlled three-fourths of the votes. 
 The ministry, however, refused to retire, and the Chamber could 
 not get rid of it by impeachment because the Landthing, which 
 would have sat in judgment on the trial, had been, since the 
 promulgation of the Constitution of 1866, controlled by the 
 court. 
 
 The Folkething began to refuse the budget, not simply as 
 presented by a ministry which did not possess the confidence 
 of the country, but because the ministry, following the belligerent 
 traditions of the national-liberal party, demanded great sums for 
 the navy and for fortifying Copenhagen. The Democratic party 
 held that Denmark, not being threatened by Germany, had no 
 need of costly armament. The Landthing, of course, supported 
 the ministry. Each year the Folkething rejected the budget, 
 each year the Landthing voted it, and the ministry acted on it 
 by means of a provisional financial law. This expedient, em- 
 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT. 575 
 
 ployed since 1877, was based on Article 25 of the constitution: 
 "The King may, in case of urgency, when the Diet is not as- 
 sembled, decree provisional laws. . . These laws must always 
 be brought before the Diet at its next session." This interpreta- 
 tion, similar to that made by Charles X. in the French Charte, 
 did not rid the ministry of t'he obligation tO' secure the approval 
 of its provisional budget for the following year. The Left did 
 not agree on its policy. The moderate group, to avoid rupture 
 with the ministry, consented to vote a compromise budget, omit- 
 ting the expenditure for fortifying Copenhagen (1882), and let 
 the provisional financial law become a custom. 
 
 The Democratic Left (Berg), which opposed every form of con- 
 ciliation, finally won the majority in the Folkething in 1884. For 
 the first time part of Copenhagen escaped the Conservatives, the 
 socialists gaining three members there (out of 9). The contest 
 then became sharp. The Folkething declared that " any discussion 
 of reform with the present ministry was a waste of time," and 
 refused to examine any projects. This meant open war between 
 the Democratic nation as represented by its elective Chamber, 
 and the King, as master of the ministry and supported by the 
 aristocracy — a similar contest to that in Prussia from 1862 to 
 1866. 
 
 As in Prussia, the ministry, which in its executive function was 
 the controlling force, had the power to govern outside of legal 
 formalities, in the name of the interest of the state. Not only 
 did it continue to spend money on objects authorized by the old 
 budget without the consent of the Lower House, but it also intro- 
 duced new items of expenditure for army expenses, carried them 
 through the tipper House, and added them to the provisional 
 budget. Henceforth there was no longer a legal budget in Den- 
 mark. In order to put a stop to tjie demonstrations of discon- 
 tent, the ministry had the Landthing pass other provisional laivs^ 
 increasing the number of police and gendarmerie, and limiting 
 liberty of the press and of public meeting (1885); it secured the 
 imprisonment of the head of the Democratic party. Berg, who 
 was accused of having " encouraged rebellion " in a public meet- 
 ing. Denmark lived under a regime of special measures, as if 
 under martial law. 
 
 The ministry, armed with force against a disarmed nation, suc- 
 ceeded finally in discouraging resistance. The Democratic 
 party, worried by personal rivalries, broke up. In 1884 the 
 " Danish Left," under Berg, the former peasant party, separated 
 
576 THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 from the " literary Left " under a group of writers (Horup, 
 Brandes), which was analogous to the " European Left " in Nor- 
 way, a primarily urban party, demanding universal suffrage and 
 social reforms. The literary Left worked in harmony with the 
 socialist party, organized in 1878 as the workingmen's party, 
 but later recruited in the country districts also, especially in Jut- 
 land. 
 
 In 1888 the Left, cut into four sections, disputed over its 
 policy. Berg wanted to continue the policy of obstruction. A 
 congress of the opposition parties determined to negotiate with 
 the ministry, and secured an amnesty and the abolition of the 
 special laws of 1885. Finally, Berg being dead (1891) and 
 Horup not being re-elected, the Democratic party lost the ma- 
 jority. In the Folkething of 1892 it had only 29 members against 
 38 of the moderate Left and 32 of the ministerial party. The 
 moderate Left voted the budget and the military laws (1894); 
 then only did Estrup retire, with the thanks of the King. The 
 conflict ended in victory for the King and his ministers.* 
 
 Like the Norwegians, the Danes, in the midst of political con- 
 flict, have produced their most brilliant generation of writers, 
 a number of novelists of European reputation; they have attained 
 an unprecedented degree of prosperity. The population, which 
 had at least doubled between 1800 and 1870, has continued to 
 increase (from 1,794,000 in 1870 to 2,185,000 in 1890). The 
 merchant marine, between 1870 and 1890, increased by 700 ships 
 and 85,000 tons. The national debt, increased to 380,000,000 in 
 1866, was reduced in 1891 to 250,000,000, and the budget has 
 almost always shown a surplus. 
 
 Iceland. — While the Danish conflict was in progress, the gov- 
 ernment engaged in conflict with Iceland. In 1874 the island, 
 hitherto governed by a sort of patriarchal sytem, received a con- 
 stitution. A Chamber (AUhing) of 36 members, 6 appointed by 
 the King, 30 elected by universal suffrage, had the legislative 
 power; the executive power was vested in a resident governor, 
 and a minister for Iceland in Denmark. The opposition, which 
 was in majority in the Althing, demanded a ministry for Iceland 
 independent of Danish policy, also financial independence. 
 
 The Constitution of 1893 finally established home rule in Ice- 
 land. The island no longer contributes to the treasury of the 
 
 * In the elections of 1895 the Left regained the majority (54 against 24 of 
 the Right and 27 of the Third party). The socialist members increased 
 from 2 to 8. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 577 
 
 monarchy; the Secretary for Iceland resides at Copenhagen and 
 is responsible for the maintenance of the constitution. The 
 Althing is composed of two Chambers: the Upper Chamber of 
 6 members, appointed by the King, and 6 elected by the Lower 
 House; it has the right to complain of the governor, but the King 
 xeserves the right to decide such cases. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY* 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. — For periodical bibliographies of Scandinavian 
 ■countries, see Ch.-V. Langlois, "Manuel de Bibl. Hist.," p. 157. — The bibl. 
 of the history of institutions is given in the monographs of the Marquard- 
 sen collection. 
 
 DOCUMENTS.— The official documents are indicated in the bibl. of 
 the Marquardsen coll. (the texts of the constitutions are in Dareate, "Les 
 Constitutions "). The reproduction and analysis of chief of these, as well 
 as the story of events, may be found in the three annuals : " Annuaire 
 des DeuxMondes" up to 1870, Schnlthess, " Europ. Geschichtskalender " 
 since i860 (in which the Scandinavian countries receive inadequate 
 attention), and the " Annual Register " in particular, the best of the three 
 for the Scandinavian countries. 
 
 WORKS. — Complete Histories: Allen, "Hist, of Denmark" (Fr. tr.), 
 1878, stops at 1866. — Thorsae, " Den Danske Statspolitiske Historie," 2 
 vols., 1872-7S, goes from 1800 to 1848. — H. Weitmeyer, " Le Danemark, 
 Hist, et G6ogr. ," 1889, popular synopsis. — Boyesen, " The Hist, of Norway," 
 1886; a good brief account. — Save, " Sveriges Historia under den Nyaste 
 Tiden," i8go, a popular work. 
 
 On the Duchies of Schleswig-Holstein : See Waitz, " Quellenkunde 
 der Deutschen Gesch.," 1894 edit.; Nos. 6174 to 6203 and 6272 to 6286; 
 bibl. of works in every language. 
 
 Information concerning political life in the Scandinavian countries may 
 be found in the German and English reviews (see bibl. of chap, ii-iv., and 
 xv-xvi.}. 
 
 History of Institutions : Aschehoug, " Staatsrecht d. K. Schweden- 
 Norwegen," 1886. — Goes and Hansen, " Staatsrecht Danemarks," i88g,both 
 in the Marquardsen coll.— Berenoreutz, " Droit Constitutionnel du Royaume 
 de Sufede," 1886, Stockholm. 
 
 * Being unacquainted with the Scandinavian languages, I have been 
 able to prepare only a brief bibliography, which gives no idea of the ac- 
 tivity of literary production in the Scandinavian countries. 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 The Eussian Empire in 1814. — The Tsar's Empire in Europe 
 had its territory complete as early as 1814. It was, without 
 counting his Asiatic possessions, by far the largest of the 
 European states; the total population in 181 5 was estimated at 
 45,000,000. It was composed of several groups of peoples united 
 by a series of conquests under the same rule, who preserved their 
 own particular dress, language, and religion, and lived side by 
 side without blending. As the Russian government's struggle 
 against these nationalities is one of the leading facts in the his- 
 tory of Russia during the nineteenth century,* it is necessary tc 
 give an exact representation of the incongruous bits which com- 
 bined to make the Russian Empire: 
 
 1. Greater Russia, the original centre and the most important 
 part of the Empire, had a Russian population speaking the Rus- 
 sian language (Greater-Russian dialect) and belonging to the 
 Orthodox Greek Church. The Dissenters (Old Believers), who 
 had been separated from the official Church since the reform of 
 the liturgy in the seventeenth century, formed numerous sects, 
 though forbidden by law. 
 
 2. Lesser Russia (Kiev, Ukraine), a Russian district partially 
 subject to Poland, and later reconquered, had also a population,, 
 speaking the Russian language and belonging to the Orthodox 
 Church. But the Lesser-Russian dialect is svifficiently different 
 
 * It would be difficult, in a political history, to give the Russian Empire ' 
 the space due to its importance. This empire, by means of its autocratic 
 constitution, has escaped the public agitations which constitute modern 
 political life. Except for the liberal period under Alexander II., its politi- 
 cal history is particularly that of the court and the government, as in the ab- 
 solute monarchies of the eighteenth century; and this history is in great part 
 kept secret from us: it is almost unknown except through the accounts 
 given by opponents of the government, which are published abroad and 
 are beyond govei-nment control, or through official acts and articles in 
 official publications. The internal history of Russia has in any case less 
 place in this chapter than the struggles of the government against its 
 Polish, socialist, and dissenting opponents. 
 
 578 
 
THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE IN 1814. 579 
 
 from literary Russian to have a distinct popular literature, and 
 the Orthodox religion was not the only one in practice; for, 
 without speaking of the Protestant German colonies, a popula- 
 tion of Polish Jews had settled in the cities and even in the vil- 
 lages, and a number of Orthodox believers had joined the Catho- 
 lic Church under the form of United Greeks, preserving their 
 married clergy and Slavic liturgy. 
 
 3. The country to the east of the Volga, formerly a group of 
 Tartar monarchies, was inhabited by a mixture of Russians and 
 the yellow races from Asia, mainly Orthodox, but partly Mussul- 
 mans. 
 
 4. Southern Russia, composed of territory taken from the 
 Ottoman Empire, was peopled by Russian colonists, the Cos- 
 sacks, and tribes of Asiatic origin, interspersed with German col- 
 onies which had settled with the promise of preserving their 
 nationality. Bessarabia, which had been detached from Molda- 
 via in 1812, had a Roumanian Orthodox population mixed with 
 Polish Jews. This southern region had no unity either of race,, 
 tongue, or religion. 
 
 5. Caucasia, which Alexander I. had begun to annex, was a 
 conglomeration of little peoples, some Christian (Armenians), 
 others Mussulmans (Circassians), but all warlike, whose subjec- 
 tion was not completed until 1864, and who have preserved their 
 separate national life — ^the only exception being that certain 
 princely families, particularly in Georgia, have mingled with the 
 Russian aristocracy. This district was and still is the military 
 frontier of the Empire, occupied by armies and military colonists, 
 under a military government. 
 
 6. Western Russia, the old Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which 
 Catherine II. had annexed, was composed of old Russian coun- 
 tries {White Russia), with an Orthodox Russian population^ 
 formerly subdued by the Lithuanians — and of a Lithuanian 
 country in which a portion of the population still preserved the 
 Lithuanian dress and speech, while another portion, particularly 
 the aristocracy, considered themselves a Polish people. White 
 Russia was Orthodox, but its nobility was Catholic; Lithuania 
 proper was Catholic, but with a large proportion of Jews. 
 
 7. The Baltic provinces (Esthooia, Livonia, Courland) had a 
 population of two classes, one subject to the other. The primi- 
 tive inhabitants, Finns and Lithuanians, who were still in the 
 condition of peasants, formed a lower class and preserved their 
 national speech. All the upper classes, the nobility, clergy, and 
 
5 So THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 townspeople, were descendants of German colonists, spoke Ger- 
 man, and followed German ways of living. The Tsar, in receiv- 
 ing them as subjects, had promised to preserve their customs and 
 privileges. All the inhabitants were Lutherans. The district of 
 St. Petersburg (formerly Ingria), cut off from the Baltic prov- 
 inces, had lost its original character ; it was a mixture of all the 
 languages and all the religions in the Empire — the residence of 
 the court and the officials. 
 
 Siberia and later Asiatic Russia were more like colonies than 
 provinces. The Duchy of Finland and the Kingdom of Poland, 
 newly acquired by Alexander, remained distinct states, in which 
 the Tsar was Grand Duke or King. 
 
 The Russian Empire was thus, like the Austrian Empire, a 
 conglomeration of peoples ; a single tie bound them together, sub- 
 jection to the power of the autocratic Tsar, their absolute, uncon- 
 trolled sovereign. The political and social system had remained 
 what Peter the Great and Catherine had made it. Society con- 
 sisted of two classes, one subject to the other: the peasants, the 
 great majority of whom were serfs of the crown or of the nobility, 
 and subjected to the knout, the poll-tax, and military service; 
 they paid the taxes to the government, rents to the nobles, and 
 furnished the soldiers (military service was for 25 years): the 
 landlord nobles (about 100,000 families), who were exempt from 
 the knout, poll-tax, and military service, were supported by the 
 peasants and filled the civil and military offices. The middle 
 classes were of almost no consequence. The secular or isMk 
 clergy, the ^opes, married, ignorant, poor, excluded from high 
 office, had almost no part but to conduct the church ceremonies; 
 the regular or hlack clergy, the monks, who alone could become 
 bishops and abbots, were strangers to society. The merchants, 
 although organized in corporations and officially recognised as 
 a class, were scarcely above the peasants, and had neither edu- 
 cation nor political life; except for the government residences, 
 the Russian cities were simply enormous villages. 
 
 There were thus two classes of society, one placed above the 
 other: underneath were the peasants, merchants, j^opes, and 
 monks, who were still Eastern, Orthodox, strangers to any sort 
 of culture or political interest; above were the nobles and the 
 officers of the government, who had become Westernized, scepti- 
 cal, and disposed to adopt all the political ideas of Europe, as well 
 as its fashions and language. Between these two classes of so- 
 ciety there was no mutual interest, not even that of language. 
 
THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE IN 1814. 5^1 
 
 The high aristocracy spoke almost nothing but French; a num- 
 ber of the offices were filled by Germans from the Baltic 
 provinces. 
 
 The government had this same incongruous character. At 
 bottom it was still, like the people, eastern and patriarchal — that 
 is, despotic: a single power, the autocratic Tsar, the absolute 
 master, no other government centre than his residence, no law 
 but his decrees (ukases), no public authority but his officials, no 
 institutions but those he was pleased to establish. But it had 
 pleased the Tsars to establish European institutions; and Russia 
 had a European capital (St. Petersburg), European diplomacy, 
 an army organized on the German system, a European centraliza- 
 tion of the government, with councils and committees, European 
 courts with written secret procedure, European police, taxes, and 
 monopolies copied from Europe, division into gubernies (gov- 
 €rnments) and districts, assemblies of nobles under the presidency 
 of a marshal chosen from the nobles after the German fashion. 
 Even the Orthodox Church, the only national institution, was 
 subject to an ecclesiastical college, the Holy Synod, and to a lay 
 officer copied from Europe, the High Proctor of the Holy Synod, 
 who proposed the appointments of the prelates and all ecclesiasti- 
 cal measures. 
 
 This was the " enlightened despotism " of the eighteenth cen- 
 tury, without any sort of political liberty for subjects. The gov- 
 ernment admitted neither liberty of the press nor of public meet- 
 ing, neither deliberative assemblies nor public demonstrations 
 without authorization, neither control over the actions of officials 
 nor guarantee against their abuse of power. Even religious free- 
 dom was limited by the state Church. All previous creeds of 
 peoples annexed were protected by special promises from the 
 Tsar; every Protestant, Catholic, Jew, or Mussulman subject was 
 free to practise his religion. But no Orthodox subject could 
 leave the official Church ; conversion of an Orthodox to any other 
 religion was forbidden under heavy penalty, and Dissenting sects 
 (raskoF) which broke away from the old Church, were pursued 
 like criminals. Toleration was limited to foreign religions. 
 
 This system had never been perfectly applied. The Russian 
 officials, accustomed to the indolent and arbitrary ways of the 
 Eastern countries, let matters drag along, and eventually decided 
 them by caprice or for bribes. They lost their heads in the 
 European complication of bureaus and in the enormous mass of 
 ukases, which were often contradictory. 
 
582 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 The Government of Alexander L^Alexander I., brought up 
 by a Vaudois, Laharpe, and imbued with liberal and humani- 
 tarian ideas, had attempted to restore order in the central gov- 
 ernment by regulating the work of his ministers ; * they had to 
 meet in committee to decide together on current affairs, but they 
 did not form a ministry, and the general direction of policy still 
 depended on the personal influence which was brought to bear 
 upon the Tsar. Peter the Great's Senate was reduced to the 
 functions of a court of justice. The Council of State, established 
 in 1810, was simply a consultative assembly, to give advice on 
 projected laws. 
 
 Alexander I., following the advice of Speranski, the son of a 
 pope, an experienced official, who advocated European reforms, 
 had tried to emancipate the serfs, reorganize education, codify 
 the laws, and reorganize finance; these reforms were only par- 
 tially accomplished. After his rupture with France (181 1) he 
 fell under the influence of the anti-French patriotic party, Ortho- 
 dox and absolutist, and of his aide-de-camp Araktcheieff. After 
 1815, deceived by Metternich, who represented to him the dan- 
 gers of revolution, he gave up all idea of reform and left his 
 officials to restore the customs of the eighteenth century. Rus- 
 sian political life withdrew into secret societies and Free Mason 
 lodges, whose members were taken principally from among the 
 high officials of state and army. 
 
 Alexander remained the autocratic" Tsar in his Empire of Rus- 
 sia, but he wished to be a liberal sovereign in his new European 
 states. 
 
 Finland and the Constitutional Kingdom of Poland. — Alex- 
 ander had promised to leave the Grand Duchy of Finland in pos- 
 session of its constitution. As in the Baltic provinces, the popu- 
 lation was entirely Lutheran, but formed of two classes, one sub- 
 ject to the other. The country people, descended from the old 
 Finnish population, preserved the Finnish language and dress; 
 all the privileged classes, nobles, pastors, and bourgeois, were 
 Swedish; Swedish was the official language of the government. 
 Finland, after coming under the Tsar's rule, retained its Diet of 
 four Estates, modelled after the Swedish system (until 1863 it 
 
 *Iii 1802, 8 ministers had been established: war, navy, foreign affairs, 
 finance, commerce, justice, education, and interior. In 1811, 4 were 
 added: police, roads and canals, foreign creeds, and control. After vari- 
 ous changes, there were, in 1896, 12 ministers, including the Proctor of the 
 Holy Synod. 
 
FINLAND AND THE KINGDOM OF POLAND. 583 
 
 was not convoked). It preserved its autonomy complete, its laws, 
 courts, currency, postal system, even its customs duties. The 
 civil government was still intrusted to the Finnish Senate, divided 
 into two sections, justice and finance, to native office-holders and 
 municipalities, which meant the Swedish nobility and middle 
 class. Swedish remained the language of the administration. 
 
 The new Kingdom of Poland, created in 1815 from the former 
 Grand Duchy of Warsaw, included only a bit of ancient Poland,* 
 the district assigned to Prussia in the last division of Poland 
 (1795); but this bit was Warsaw, the heart of the Polish nation 
 in modern times. Alexander, disposed, through his friendship 
 with Princess Czartoryski, to respect the Polish nation, made 
 Poland an independent state, joined to Russia by a personal 
 union alone. The Tsar bore simply the title of King there. The 
 Kingdom of Poland kept all its institutions distinct, its Catholic 
 Giurch, with its donations and privileges, its schools conducted 
 in the Polish tongue, its currency, postal system, and customs 
 duties, its administration, even its army. Its officials, clergy, 
 and army officers were all Poles ; offices were reserved to natives. 
 The only outsiders were the Viceroy, the Tsar's representative, 
 and the Imperial Commissioner. 
 
 Alexander had held to his plan of making his kingdom a con- 
 stitutional monarchy, in spite of the advice of the absolutists. 
 The Charter of December, 181 5, guaranteed to the kingdom a 
 native administration and created a Diet composed of a Senate 
 of 30 members, appointed by the King, and a deputation of 60 
 nuncios, elected by the nobles and the cities. The Diet was con- 
 voked only once in two years, and then for a short session; its 
 deliberations were directed by an Imperial Commissary. Its 
 power was limited to voting the laws and new taxes; it had no 
 influence over the ministry, which was responsible to the King 
 alone; it had not even the right to censure the actions of the gov- 
 ernment. During the session of 1818 Alexander reminded it 
 that it " had met simply to give its opinion 00 questions which 
 the government judged it necessary to submit to its examina- 
 tion." 
 
 It was therefore a very imperfect system of constitutional 
 liberty with a freedom of the press very much restricted by the 
 censorship of newspapers. But at this period of absolutism, no 
 
 * The chief part had been at first (eleventh or twelfth century) the prov- 
 ince of Posen, annexed to Prussia in 1793, then until the end of the Middle 
 Ages it had been Lesser Poland (Galicia), which Austria had annexed. 
 
584 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 Other people of ceatral Europe had as much political liberty as 
 the Poles. 
 
 Society remained aristocratic in form. The peasants, freed 
 from serfdom since 1807, but without having received lands, re- 
 mained in the condition of day-labourers or tenants, at the mercy 
 of the land-holding nobles. The population of the cities, par- 
 tially composed of Jews, had taken almost no part in public life. 
 The high nobility and clergy retained the management of the 
 country. 
 
 The ministry, composed of former partisans of Napoleon, was 
 at first controlled by Lubecki, a Lithuanian Catholic, who was 
 little in favour of the constitutional system and occupied chiefly 
 with the material interests of the kingdom. He succeeded in 
 establishing the Bank of Poland and the Loan Association, which 
 regulated the debt. Material prosperity increased. From 1815 
 to 1830 the population increased by a million and a half. Great 
 cloth factories were established at Lodz. Polish bonds went up; 
 the finances were so well ordered that the kingdom was able ta 
 advance one year's taxes to the Russian government. 
 
 This system did not, however, become popular in Poland; it 
 checked both patriotism and liberalism. The patriots did not 
 accept a Kingdom of Poland reduced to the dimensions of the 
 Grand Duchy of Warsaw; they demanded at least the former 
 provinces of Lithuania which the Tsar had left outside. The 
 Liberals accused the government of violating the Charter of 1815 
 by dismissing permanent judges, arresting members of the Diet, 
 subjecting books to censorship, and closing the primary schools. 
 People complained of the Imperial Commissioner, Novosiltzow, 
 and still more of Viceroy Constantine, the Tsar's brother, a 
 whimsical lunatic who forbade broad-brimmed hats, and with his 
 own hand cut off the brims of offending hats. 
 
 The Diet attempted to warn the Tsar. He replied that his 
 subjects must have unlimited confidence in his principles of 
 Christian morality (1820) ; then declared that Poland's " exist- 
 ence was threatened if she did not show herself capable of main- 
 taining herself in the system which had been bestowed upon her." 
 Secret societies, copied from Europe, had been formed among- 
 the young men. One of these, the Patriotic Club, made its mem- 
 bers swear to " devote their lives to the re-establishment of their 
 unfortunate and dearly loved country." The Russian police dis- 
 covered it ; a court-martial condemned Lukazinski to hard labour 
 (1824) for the mere fact of having belonged to a secret society. 
 
THE INSURRECTION OF DECEMBER, 1825. 585 
 
 Alexander finally forbade the Diet to make its deliberations 
 public (1825) and arrested the leader of the opposition, who was 
 made a prisoner on his own estate under the perpetual watch of 
 a policeman. 
 
 The Insurrection of December, 1825. — Alexander, who at the 
 end of his life had become an absolutist Tsar, died without leaving 
 a son. His nearest heir, his brother Constantine, had before this 
 renounced the crown, preferring to remain Viceroy of Poland, as 
 he had married a Polish woman. His younger brother Nicholas, 
 who was still in Russia, was designed as the successor to the 
 throne; but, at the death of Alexander, he at once recognised 
 Constantine as Tsar, and had the oaths taken in his name — 
 awaiting a new renunciation before having himself proclaimed 
 Tsar. 
 
 The Russian malcontents tried to take advantage of this inter- 
 regnum to make a liberal revolution. There were then three 
 secret societies in Russia, copied from those in western Europe, 
 especially the Carbonari; their members, as in Spain and Italy, 
 came from the most active part of the population at that time, the 
 army officers. Their political ideas were confused; they wished 
 to bring into Russia the institutions of western civilization, but 
 they seem to have been unable to agree on their model. The 
 Northern Society, founded at Petersburg, wanted a constitutional 
 monarchy; the Central Society, recruited in the garrisons of 
 Lesser Russia, preferred a republic; the United Slavs inclined 
 toward federation. The leaders had concerted a military insur- 
 rection for January i, 1826. The death of Alexander decided 
 them to hasten it a few days; the conspiring officers took ad- 
 vantage of the changed situation by making the soldiers believe 
 that the rightful Tsar was Constantine. Two regiments at 
 Petersburg rose with the cry of "Long live Constantine and the 
 constitution! " (To the soldiers this constitution was Constan- 
 tine's wife.) After a moment of surprise, the revolt was checked, 
 and the rebellious soldiers denounced each other. In the central 
 part of the country the conspirators were arrested before taking 
 action (December, 1825). 
 
 The revolt of the Decabrists (December) ended in an enor- 
 mous prosecution; there were 321 accused, almost all nobles, and 
 5 were condemned to death. The dramatic execution of Pestel 
 and Rileief was an event known all over Europe. This revolt 
 made a deep impression on the new Tsar, Nicholas, and con- 
 firmed his aversion for European liberalism. To watch the sus- 
 
S86 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 pects, a ministry of political police was established under the 
 name of the third section of the Chancellery. 
 
 The Polish Insurrection (1830-32). — Nicholas had agreed to be 
 crowned King in Poland and to wear the Polish uniform. But 
 he ceased to convoke the Diet and left the government of Poland 
 to absolutists, who spoke of revoking the Charter of 1815; one 
 of them declared: " It is no longer a question of discussion, but 
 of obedience." 
 
 This system irritated all the Poles, but they could not agree on 
 the course to pursue; they divided into two parties. The great 
 landowners, high officials, and clergy, still preferred to be sub- 
 jected to Nicholas' despotism rather than expose the Polish 
 nation to complete destruction: Poland would await his death 
 before taking up her constitutional life again, but she would 
 maintain her independence. This was the prudent aristocratic 
 party, nicknamed the Whites. The students of Warsaw, who ad- 
 mired France and the Revolution, wanted open strife against the 
 Tsar for the defence of liberty and the re-establishment of Poland 
 with her old boundaries. This was the patriotic democratic 
 party, known as the Reds, directed by secret societies in com- 
 munication with the Carbonari. In 1825 the leaders had had 
 interviews with the Russian Decabrists, but had been unable to 
 agree on the boundaries of Poland; they were prosecuted before 
 the Senate, and acquitted. 
 
 Until 1830 the Whites kept the Reds in check. But the French 
 revolution of 1830, so easily victorious, excited the fighting party. 
 The Tsar called to^ ther the Polish army to send it against'the 
 revolutionists in France and Belgium. The revolutionists seized 
 the moment when the national army was ready to march against 
 the revolution and used it against the Tsar. The students in the 
 military school surprised the Palace of Warsaw at night. Con- 
 stantine was alarmed and fled half-clad ; then, losing his mind, he 
 withdrew from the kingdom, taking with him the Russian troops 
 and officials (November-December, 1830). 
 
 The Poles, abandoned by the Russian government, sent dele- 
 gates to Constantine, begging him to return, but he refused. 
 The Whites, who wished before all to avoid war, decided to form 
 a provisional government to maintain the authority of the Tsar. 
 Chlopicki consented to take command of the troops, in order to 
 prevent their following the revolutionary leaders; he took the 
 dictatorship " in the King's name," and wrote to Nicholas an ap- 
 peal to his nobility of soul, excusing the Poles by " an unprece- 
 
THE POLISH INSURRECTION. 5^7 
 
 dented chain of circumstances." He asked for withdrawal of the 
 Russian army. Tlie Tsar replied with a manifesto which de- 
 manded submission or death. He refused the Polish envoys to 
 retract the manifesto or to make any promises. The Poles, he 
 said, must trust their sovereign's word, and he added: " The first 
 cannon-shot will be Poland's ruin." 
 
 The conciliatory Whites gave up the direction of the provi- 
 sional government to the belligerent Reds. The Diet proclaimed 
 the fall of the R(^anoff dynasty and the indissoluble union of 
 Poland and Litfiuania (January, 1831). Official envoys were 
 sent to ask help from the great powers which had made the 
 treaties of Vienna. In England, Palmerston declared that the 
 Congress of Vienna had not guaranteed the constitution of Po- 
 land. In France, in spite of public demonstrations, the govern- 
 ment refused to join in a war. Poland was abandoned. 
 
 The Polish army, already mobilized, took the initiative by 
 entering Lithuania. But when Dibitsch arrived with his great 
 force (120,000 men against 45,000), the Poles fell back tbward 
 the Vistula. They made heroic resistance in five battles, from 
 February to May, 183 1. The cholera checked operations. The 
 Russian army, renewed by re-enforcements, finally arrived before 
 Warsaw. The general offered amnesty and the constitution; the 
 Polish generals advised acceptance. But the democrats con- 
 trolled Warsaw; they had just massacred a number of suspects 
 in the prisons ; they refused to treat with the Russians. Warsaw 
 was bombarded, and surrendered, September, 183 1. The Diet 
 withdrew; the remains of the Polish army passed into Russia and 
 Austria. A large Polish emigration, composed chiefly of nobles, 
 went to France and settled there. 
 
 Poland remained under a military dictatorship. Nicholas 
 took away her independence by an ukase: " Poland shall be 
 henceforth a part of the Empire and form one nation with 
 Russia." He abolished the Charter of 1815, replacing it by the 
 Organic Statute of February, 1832. He suppressed the Diet and 
 the Polish army, and gave the power to a Russian governor, 
 Russian officials, and a section of the Council of St. Petersburg. 
 He promised still to leave to the people their church, their lan- 
 guage, and their distinct administration ; but this promise, which 
 was without guarantee, was not kept. 
 
 Paskiewitch, the new Viceroy of Poland, held an absolute 
 power to the day of his death (25 years) ; he surrounded himself 
 wjth Russian officials and officers, and keot the kingdom under 
 
S88 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 a military reign of terror. Orders were given to illuminate in 
 honour of the Organic Statute. Two hundred and eighty-six 
 emigres were condemned to death; their estates were confiscated 
 and distributed to Orthodox Russian generals. The govern- 
 ment suppressed the University of Warsaw and closed most of 
 the educational institutions. It forbade all associations, even 
 reading clubs, permitting only the Loan Association. It for- 
 bade public meetings, except private evening entertainments, on 
 condition that the number of invitations should be limited and 
 police agents received. It subjected books and even music to a 
 censorship which admitted no foreign book ; it made the Russian 
 language compulsory for all officials. All political offences, and 
 even some others, were judged by military commissions. In 
 1835 Nicholas made at Warsaw a famous speech : " If you persist 
 in holding to your dreams of separate nationality, independent 
 Poland, and all these fancies, you will involve yourselves in great 
 misfortunes. I have built a citadel, and I declare to you that at 
 the least sign, of uprising I will batter down the city." 
 
 The Empire under Nicholas (1825-35). — ^The Tsars since Peter 
 the Great had kept up the absolutist regime, but, being indifferent 
 to religious differences, they admired the monarchies of civilized 
 Europe and sought to imitate them. Nicholas not only abhorred 
 constitutions and liberal forms of government, but he despised 
 European life. Being a confirmed Orthodox, he felt it a sacred 
 duty to shut out from " Holy Russia " the ideas of the heretical 
 West. His reign, which lasted from 1825 to 1855, was distin- 
 guished from preceding reigns by an attempt to break with West- 
 ern civilization and to restore the old Russian system in the 
 Empire. 
 
 Communication with Europe became difficult; such foreigners 
 as were allowed to enter Russia, were watched by the police; all 
 books and papers were stopped at the frontier by censors. Rus- 
 sian law did not recognise, and does not yet recognise, the right 
 of subjects to leave the Empire; under Nicholas, a personal per- 
 mit from the Tsar was required; he g'ave it rarely and for five 
 years at the most; to emigrate was and is a crime punishable with 
 transportation and confiscation. 
 
 The Russians, shut off from the rest of the world, retired 
 within themselves. Literature, hitherto imitated from the West, 
 took on a Russian character; it began to express a patriotic 
 feeling of admiration for ancient Russia. Under Nicholas, the 
 first original Russian novelists appeared. It was then that the 
 
THE EMPIRE UNDER NICHOLAS. 5^9 
 
 national hymn was composed, " God Proitect the Tsar," and the 
 national opera, " Life for the Tsar." 
 
 Nicholas seems to have been devoted to the work of rebuilding 
 the old Orthodox Russia. But, as officials were controlled only 
 by other officials, the control was always imaginary. The 
 venality of employees of every sort, their negligence in the con- 
 duct of affairs, their insolence toward persons under their admin- 
 istration, their servility toward superiors, became so notorious 
 that the Tsar himself approved the work of Gogol in putting 
 them into his comedy of " The Inspector.'' The subjects had not 
 even a means of protesting; newspapers were forbidden to dis- 
 cuss official acts, individuals to concern themselves with politics. 
 In 1848, at Petersburg, a number of young men, officers, em- 
 ployees, and professors had adopted the habit of meeting in the 
 evenings to read and discuss European publications. The police 
 arrested 32 of them (1849); they were condemned to death, par- 
 doned just before execution, and their sentence commuted to 
 hard labour; one of them, Dostoievsky, later wrote his recollec- 
 tions of the convict prison. 
 
 There were also, under Nicholas, a number of religious perse^ 
 cutions, against the sect of Old Believers. Penal laws, still in 
 force, were adopted against the conversion of Orthodox believers 
 to any other religion. Abjuration is punished with confiscation 
 and from 8 to 10 years of hard labour; the attempt to convert an 
 Orthodox believer by a sermooi or a writing is punished with 8 
 to 16 months' imprisonment, and at the third offence with exile 
 to Siberia; a person who neglects to hinder the conversion is 
 liable to imprisonment. Every mixed marriage must be cele- 
 brated before a j^o^e, and the children of such marriages brought 
 up to Orthodoxy; any dissenting pastor who should perform 
 such a marriage would be prosecuted. (This provision, abol- 
 ished in 1865, was re-established in 1885.) 
 
 Under this reign began the attempt to Russianize by force the 
 subjects in the western provinces. In the Polish provinces of 
 Lithuania, the Uniate peasants (Catholic Greeks) received orders 
 to accept Orthodoxy; then an assembly of Greek bishops de- 
 clared the Uniate Church free from the Roman clergy and given 
 over to Orthodoxy (1839). In the Kingdom of Poland, in spite 
 of the Tsar's promise, the government persecuted the Catholics, 
 closing the churches and convents under legal pretexts, forbid- 
 ding sermons not authorized by the censor, as well as the employ- 
 ment of Catholic teachers. It laboured to suppress the remains of 
 
59° THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 Polish autonomy, subjected the schools to the Russian ministry of 
 education (1839), transferred to the Senate at Petersburg the 
 functions of the Council of State and the Court of Cassation 
 (1841), and extended to Poland the Russiain penal code. 
 
 At the end of the reign, even German, the ofHcial language of 
 that army lacked direction, material, and management — all that 
 the government correspondence should be carried on in Russian, 
 and that officials must speak Russian. But it was not carried 
 into effect. 
 
 The " Nicholas system " was denounced all over liberal Europe 
 as a finished form of Eastern despotism; the literature of the 
 period is filled with maledictions against " the autocrat " and his 
 government. Nicholas was the symbol of absolutism in the 
 struggle against liberal revolution, and loved to attribute this role 
 to himself. A military sovereign before all, always dressed in 
 uniform, busied in reviewing and watching his troops, he be- 
 lieved his army the best of its time; and in the period which fol- 
 lowed 1848 he seemed the arbiter of Europe and the future con- 
 queror of the Ottoman Empire. The Crimean war showed that 
 that army lacked direction, material, and management — all that 
 which demands orderly habits and control. Conquered by the 
 Westerners whom he despised, Nicholas died broken-hearted and 
 >^ his system fell through (1855). 
 
 ■" liberal Reaction against the " Nicholas System." — Alexander 
 II. spoke of his father with respect and retained the staff which 
 had served him; but, as a humane and educated sovereign, he 
 shrank from the system of compression and isolation; he there- 
 fore revived the imitation of the civilized societies of Europe. 
 Without wishing to bind himself by a constitution, he announced 
 his intention of making reforms and appealed to the nobles for 
 assistance. 
 
 Immediately public opinion, which had remained hidden until 
 now, sprang into life. It was shown among the educated nobles 
 and students, known in Russia as the intelUguensia — ^the intelli- 
 gent part of the nation. The Crimean war had suddenly 
 changed the tone of society: the Tchinovniks (officials), responsi- 
 ble for malfeasances and neglects which defeat had exposed,, had 
 lost their assurance and dared not hinder criticism of their 
 actions. The censorship was not suppressed, but, feeling itself 
 no longer in favour, it relaxed its efforts. No newspaper pub- 
 lished in Russia was as yet able to speak freely, but a refugee, 
 Herzen, published at London a newspaper, the Kolokol (Bell), 
 
THE EMANCIPATION OF THE SERFS. 591 
 
 whose numbers, though prohibited, found their way into Russia 
 by the thousand; Alexander II. himself read them, to keep in- 
 formed on the abuses of power. It is said that an official 
 denounced in one issue placed before the Tsar a falsified number 
 in which the article was suppressed; some time later the Tsar 
 received from London a letter containing the article with an ex- 
 posure of the trick. 
 
 The intelliguensia was agreed in demanding reforms; but on 
 the nature of the reforms they were divided into two camps. 
 The great majority desired liberal institutions like those in 
 Europe, representative assemblies, a constitution, and guaran- 
 tees of liberty: these were the westerners, the liberal party, who 
 predominated at Petersburg. Some, on the other hand, wished 
 to go back to the days before Peter the Great, to suppress the 
 European importations of the eighteenth century, and to restore 
 the institutions of the Russian people in their purity. Orthodoxy 
 and the patriarchal aristocracy. These were the nationalists, the 
 patriotic party, formed, during the regime of isolation, at Mos- 
 cow, the old capital, abandoned since the time of Peter the Great. 
 This historic school, essentially Russian, was nevertheless an 
 imitation of the West, a Russian form of romanticism; the old 
 Russia which it wished to restore was an imaginary Russia like 
 the Middle Ages of the romanticists; it took the bo'iars for a na- 
 tional parliament and the mir for a primitive free commune. 
 
 The two parties began by working together against the offi- 
 cials — the common enemy of every reform. They demanded, be- 
 sides liberty of the press and of education, a control over the 
 officials and, above all, emancipation of the serfs. Alexander 
 followed their advice. He recalled some of the Siberian exiles, 
 modified the censorship, permitted travel, including trips to other 
 countries, and prepared a scheme for emancipation of the serfs. 
 Without changing his ministers or the political institutions of 
 his empire, he allowed his subjects an amount of freedom beyond 
 precedent. 
 
 ! The Emancipation of the Serfs (1858-63). — The most important 
 
 1/ measure of the reign was the reform of the land system, coupled 
 
 V with the liberation of the serfs. If we leave out of sight the two 
 
 '\ extremes of the country, — the north inhabited by landowning 
 
 \ peasants, the south studded with foreign colonies or peopled with 
 
 Cossacks, — almost the whole of historical Russia was held in 
 
 large estates with serfs as labourers. This system rested on three 
 
 institutions: 
 
592 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 1. The land was held in large estates, partly belonging to the 
 Tsar and the imperial princes, the rest to about 100,000 noble 
 families. The large estates absorbed nine-tenths of the whole 
 arable land of the Empire. Each estate was divided into two 
 parts, the one farmed directly by the owner, the other handed 
 over to a village of peasants in return for a yearly payment. 
 
 2. The peasants were attached to the soil by law. As a result 
 they found themselves bound to the proprietor of the land : they 
 paid him dues, performed for him compulsory labour, obeyed 
 him as their master. Their condition was that of mediaeval serfs 
 (the Russian word designating, them is translated by serf). But 
 the proprietors were not satisfied to act merely as mediaeval 
 barons ; they used their power, practically unlimited, to transform 
 themselves into masters in the old sense. Often they detached 
 the peasant from the land and used him according to their fancy. 
 They sent serfs to establish themselves in towns as artisans, or 
 traders, requiring them to pay a periodical due from their earn- 
 ings (the obrok) and reserving the right to call them home at 
 pleasure. About 2,000,000 of serfs were employed in the per- 
 sonal service of their masters about their residences; their con- 
 dition was that of ancient slaves. In Russian society of the 
 nineteenth century all the characteristics of Roman slavery re- 
 appeared: unbridled brutality on the part of the masters, servile 
 submission on the part of the serfs; the female serfs handed over 
 to the caprice of the master, the men compelled toi follow all 
 trades, and avenging themselves by murders and house-burnings 
 (70 at least each year on an average), beaten, mutilated, done to 
 death. The picture is the same in all the descriptions of Russian 
 life.* 
 
 3. The part of the estate cultivated by the peasants was not 
 divided up into separate holdings, as in the case of the mediaeval 
 serfs. The Russian serf had nothing but his house as an indi- 
 vidual possession ; it was the village as a whole, the mir, that held 
 the land collectively. The woods, the pastures, the streams were 
 used in common; the meadows and plough-lands were distrib- 
 uted in portions, but for a term only, varying in length from two 
 to fifteen years, according to the custom of each region. At the 
 end of the term the whole was returned to the condition of com- 
 mon property and redistributed. The Russians have so little 
 studied their country that this institution had only lately been 
 
 *The most striking is that given in Tourguenef's "Souvenirs d'un 
 Chasseur." 
 
THE EMANCIPATION OF THE SERFS. 593 
 
 made known to the world, and that by a foreigner, Haxthausen; 
 but as soon as known, the mir had become one of the favourite 
 institutions of the National party — a venerable relic of ancient 
 Russia, a survival of the collective ownership that was believed 
 to have been the primitive system of the human race.* 
 
 This condition of affairs made reform far from easy. Alex- 
 ander began by consulting the provincial nobles. He wished 
 them to take the initiative, but they preferred tO' keep their serfs. 
 The Tsar stood firm ; he brought together a " committee on the 
 state of the peasantry," which prepared a plan of emancipation. 
 Then the question was officially brought to the attention of the 
 governor of Wilna; the Tsar, speaking as if the nobles of 
 Lithuania were in favour of the reform, authorized them tO' form 
 committees " to improve the lot of the peasants " (November, 
 1857). He brought it to the notice of the nobles of the other 
 provinces also, and compelled them, too, to form committees for 
 the discussion of his project. 
 
 A declaration, in 1858, laid down the principles of the reform: 
 the peasants should buy out their master's claim to their houses 
 and garden-plots with a sufficient area of farming-land to live 
 upon; the state should aid them to pay. The Tsar set an ex- 
 ample by freeing the serfs on the lands belonging to members 
 of the imperial family; these serfs were at once turned into land- 
 owners, subject to an annual payment for forty-nine years (Set- 
 tlement of 1863). t For the serfs of the ordinary estates, the 
 emancipation, hindered by the passive resistance of the nobles, 
 took more than three years to complete it. The Ukase of Feb- 
 ruary 19, 1861, finally abolished serfdom. 
 
 The serfs that had been living detached from the land, domestic 
 servants, and those under the ohrok were declared free, but with- 
 out right to property. These came into the condition of the 
 ordinary European day-labourers. The situation of the peas- 
 ants on the land, much more difficult to regulate, presented three 
 questions for solution: 
 
 * It is probable that the mir is a recent institution, created, like all other 
 Russian institutions, by order of the Tsar, to facilitate the collection of 
 the taxes by making the villages responsible collectively. It does not 
 clearly appear, in the sources before the sixteenth century, and it was not 
 formerly established in Little Russia. (See Keussler.) 
 
 fThe peasants on the Tsar's own crown estates had not been treated as 
 serfs, but as farmers under obligation to remain on the crown estates ; 
 they were in 1866 made into free farmers on long leases, with the right of 
 buying out the crown's right in their lands. 
 
594 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 1. The Peasant's Right in the Land. — The nobles, in law the 
 owners of the soil, wished to keep the whole of it. The peasants 
 regarded themselves as the legitimate owners of land which they 
 had cultivated from generation to generation and from which 
 they could not be lawfully evicted. The serfs of a certain village, 
 whose master offered them liberty on condition of leaving the 
 land, replied: "We are yours, but the land is ours." The en- 
 franchisement in the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, in 1807, and ia 
 the Baltic provinces from 1816 to 1820, had consisted in declar- 
 ing the serfs free and the noble the sole owner of the land. The 
 result had been tO' transform the peasants into needy day- 
 labourers or tenants-at-will. To avoid the creation of a similar 
 agricultural proletariat in Russia, a device was adopted. The 
 peasant-lands were divided into two parts : the landlord kept one, 
 and the other was allotted to the peasants ; they got the right to 
 redeem the landlord's interest in it and in the house and garden, 
 but with the consent of the landlord and on payment of a sum 
 sufficient to compensate him for the land and the lost right to 
 services. The state advanced four-fifths of the sum necessary — 
 two thousand five hundred millions in all.* The peasants came 
 under obligation to reimburse the government by paying six per 
 cent, on the sum advanced, for forty-nine years. The portion 
 assigned to each peasant and his share of the debt to the govern- 
 ment varied according to the quality of the land. 
 
 2. System of Peasant Proprietors. — Ought the ownership in the 
 new land-system to be individual or collective? It was the 
 fashion at that time to speak of the danger that the peasants 
 might become mere hired labourers, as in so many Western com- 
 munities. There was a hope of avoiding this danger by retain- 
 ing the common ownership of the mir. Under the influence of 
 Miliutin it was decided that, in principle, the land should be 
 granted, not to the individual peasant, but to the commune as 
 a body, giving the assembly the right to assign it, by two-thirds 
 vote, as private property, to its members. 
 
 3. Rights of the Nobles over the Peasants. — The nobles wished to 
 retain the police jurisdiction over their peasants, as in the Baltic 
 provinces. The Tsar preferred to deprive the former masters of 
 all legal authority and to give the police powers to the assem- 
 blies of the peasants. The mir, formed of the heads of families, 
 presided over by a village elder, decides on the admission of new 
 
 * According to Wallace's " Russia " the nobles had, for the most part, to 
 remit the other fifth.— Tr. 
 
THE EMANCIPATION OF THE SERFS. 595 
 
 members, settles the distribution of the land and the taxes ; it can 
 inflict corporal punishments and even expel from the commune 
 — a very heavy punishment, for the expelled peasant is driven 
 into distant exile, often to Siberia. The Volost, a union of sev- 
 eral villages, has an assembly of elected delegates, an elected 
 head and collectors of taxes, and a secretary; it has charge of 
 certain common burdens — roads, schools, and relief of the poor. 
 It has an elective tribunal, which judges in minor cases under 
 customary law, and can sentence to imprisonment or whipping. 
 
 The Ukase of 1861 settled the principles of the reform at one 
 stroke; but it gave time for applying them and created special 
 courts for settling disputes as to sharing the lands or fixing the 
 compensations. It was assumed that the redemptions would be 
 completed in twenty years. The process was slower than the 
 forecast. In 1882 there were still a million and a half of peasants 
 who had not redeemed the claims of the nobles. The economic 
 results did not at first correspond to the expectations. The 
 nobles had set too high a valuation on their rights and too low 
 an estimate on the quantity of land necessary to support a peas- 
 ant. The compensation, fixed at from 8 to 10 rubles for each 
 allotment, exceeded the value of the land; in the central regions 
 the allotments were less than 12 acres ; a third of the peasants got 
 less than 8 acres. The people, unable to live on the land 
 assigned, emigrated or went off to work as hired labourers. So 
 a class of agricultural day-labourers came into existence — a result 
 which the mir was expected to prevent. But the mir is breaking 
 up of its own accord, in proportion as population increases; for 
 land is lacking for the newcomers. In 1882 it was estimated 
 that ten per cent, of the families in the government of Moscow 
 were without land. The compensations paid to the nobles, 
 amounting to 700,000,000 of rubles up to 1890, have not re- 
 sulted, as was expected, in improving agriculture. The nobles 
 have gone on selling their lands to capitalists whose only object 
 in buying is to cut down the forests for timber. 
 
 Meanwhile the emancipation of the serfs has transformed Rus- 
 sian society. By giving the mass of the population equal liberty 
 and the management of their communal affairs it has converted 
 Russia into a modern state. It has prepared her tO' deliver herself 
 from arbitrary practices, from the servility and sloth that attend 
 slavery, and has brought her the legal conditions that go with 
 private enterprise and orderly public administration. The econ- 
 omic progress of the country showed itself at the end of Alex- 
 
596 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 ander II.'s reign by the increased area of cultivation, increased 
 value of land, greater yield of the taxes, increase of export trade, 
 and improved condition of the peasantry. 
 
 Alexander II.'s liberal Eeforms. — After this great social re- 
 form the Liberals expected a constitution. Alexander refused 
 to grant one. The assembly of the nobles of Tver having asked 
 for " the convocation of a national assembly of deputies from all 
 parts of the Empire," thirteen of its members were arrested. 
 The Tsar carried out a series of limited reforms which must serve 
 to indicate that the scope of his plan was to abolish privileges and 
 class distinctions with a view to consolidating all his subjects 
 into one nation on the basis of equality. 
 
 1. Justice had been dispensed by administrative oliScers with 
 secret and written procedure, in the eighteenth-century manner. 
 It was now remodelled to accord with the nineteenth~century. 
 The Tsar decreed, in 1862, that the judicial power should be 
 independent of the administration and reserved for regular courts 
 organized in a gradation of jurisdictions, on the Western model 
 — justices of the peace (sitting singly), sessions of several justices 
 of the peace (as in England), district courts, supreme court. 
 Senate (acting as a court of final appeal). As in other countries, 
 prosecuting attorneys were appointed, a bar instituted, trial by 
 jury for criminal cases established, together with publicity of 
 proceedings and secure tenure for the judges. These reforms 
 had a political bearing: they established equal justice for all, sur- 
 rounded by guarantees against arbitrary interference. They 
 made the justices of the peace local representatives, for they 
 must be elected by the municipal councils of the cities and by 
 the Zemstvos. 
 
 2. To make up for the refusal of a voice in the government, 
 the people are called on to take part in the local administration. 
 Self-government was the fashion in Europe at the time: it was 
 represented as the only solid foundation of political liberty. 
 Therefore two grades of local assemblies, or Zemstvos, were in- 
 stituted : one for each district in a province, and a central assembly 
 for the whole province. The Zemstvo of the district is composed 
 of deputies elected by the three recognised classes, nobles, city 
 people, and peasants, the first two classes electing their repre- 
 sentatives directly, the other class choosing electors to choose 
 for them. The Zemstvo oi the province is composed of delegates 
 elected by the discrict assemblies. It holds but one short ses- 
 sion yearly; it elects a standing committee for three years. The 
 
THE POLISH INSURRECTION OF 1863. 597 
 
 assemblies of both grades are to act on " matters connected with 
 the economic interests and needs " of the people: roads, bridges, 
 public buildings, churches and schools, relief of the poor, prisons, 
 public health. They have the right of imposing local taxes. 
 
 3. The preventive censorship of books and newspapers was 
 abolished in the two capitals, St. Petersburg and Moscow, in 
 1865, and was replaced with the system used in France under 
 Napoleon III. — administrative notice in case of objectionable 
 articles and suspension in case of repetition of the offence. In 
 the other cities the old censorship was retained. 
 
 4. Public schools on the European model were organized. By 
 the side of the old classical " gymnasium," institutions were 
 founded for giving a modern scientific education, on the model 
 of the German Realschule. 
 
 5. The army was reorganized on the Prussian model. The 
 twenty-five-year service for a limited number was replaced by 
 obligatory short-term service for all (1873). 
 
 The Polish Insurrection of 1863. — The severe measures of 
 Nicholas had not destroyed the Polish nation. The nobles had 
 retired to their estates and lived among their peasantry; they, 
 the women, and the clergy had fostered the national feeling 
 among the rising generation. The Polish exiles were urging 
 Europe to intervene in order to re-establish Poland. The 
 aristocratic exiles gathered about Prince Czartoriski in Paris 
 were counting on the help of the Catholic countries. The 
 young Poles who had joined the democratic parties in various 
 countries were looking for a new European revolution. The 
 national movement extended to the Polish regions of Lithu- 
 ania, which had been incorporated with Russia proper and 
 were officially known as " the Governments of the North- 
 west." 
 
 Alexander II. would have no independent Poland. To the 
 deputies of the nobles at Warsaw he said : " Let us have no idle 
 dreams. Embrace the union with Russia and abandon all 
 thoughts of independence, now and forevermore impossible. 
 All that my father did was rightly done. My reign shall be a 
 continuation of his." But, in practice, Gortschakoff, the new 
 governor, relaxed the severity of the repressive system. 
 
 The Polish nobles had been allowed to retain their control in 
 the rural districts. Each in his own domain had the legal own- 
 ership of the soil, the charge of police and village administra- 
 tion, together with the right of choosing the priests. The Agro- 
 
598 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 nomic Society, founded in 1855, supplied them with a mechan- 
 ism for acting in concert. It had more than 5000 members. A 
 central committee at Warsaw directed its action. 
 
 Alexander II. was at that time expected to make liberal reforms 
 in Poland. One of the leaders of the aristocratic party, the 
 Marquis Wielopolski, at his request submitted reports for his ex- 
 amination ; but the government at Petersburg took no further ac- 
 tion. The Poles grew tired of waiting and began to make public 
 demonstrations in i860 and 1861. These were at first mass- 
 meetings, passive and silent, to celebrate the anniversaries 
 of the revolution of 1830. On the occasion of one of these cele- 
 brations, under the auspices of the Agronomic Society, the 
 crowd was charged by Russian soldiers. The burial of the vic- 
 tims gave occasion for one more manifestation of popular feel- 
 ing. The Agronomic Society sent to the Tsar an address claim- 
 ing the " institutions emanating from national spirit, its tradi- 
 tions and its history." 
 
 Alexander, drawn in opposite directions by two parties, wav- 
 ered between two policies: whether to make liberal concessions 
 and appease the Poles, or to suppress these demonstrations by 
 force. In March, 1861, he granted Poland a separate ministry 
 of education and public worship, to which he appointed the Mar- 
 quis of Wielopolski, a Pole; he also granted a Council of State 
 and elective provincial assemblies. In April he suppressed the 
 Agronomic Society; a crowd gathered to demand its restora- 
 tion, and the afifair ended in a massacre. Between May, 1861, 
 and June, 1862, the Tsar changed the governor five times, some- 
 times appointing a friend, sometimes an enemy, to the Poles. 
 The demonstrations continued, notably on the anniversary of the 
 union with Lithuania and the death of Kosciusko. The mob 
 took refuge in the churches and was driven out by the soldiers. 
 The electors of the provincial assemblies refused to vote, de- 
 manding an " elective representation with free discussion." 
 
 As in 1830, the malcontents were divided into two parties, the 
 Whites, the party of the great landowners, united in the Agro- 
 nomic Society, and the Reds, the democratic party, made up of 
 the students, ofificers, and young men of Warsaw, directed by a 
 secret central committee. Alexander decided to give the gov- 
 ernment to Marquis Wielopolski, who accepted Russian domina- 
 tion in order to save Polish self-government; Grand Duke Con- 
 stantine, the friend of the Liberals, was appointed viceroy. But 
 the Polish patriots wanted to see their country independent. The 
 
THE POLISH INSURRECTION OF 1863. 599 
 
 Reds regarded Wielopolski as a traitor, and attempted to assas- 
 sinate him in July and August, 1862. The Whites refused to 
 support him. In response to a proclamation from Constantine, 
 enumerating the reforms to be made, a meeting of the nobility 
 declared it impossible to maintain the government " unless it was 
 a national Polish government, with all the provinces united under 
 free laws." The nobility of Podolia and Lithuania voted ad- 
 dresses demanding union with the Kingdom of Poland. 
 
 In order to rid himself of the democratic party, Wielopolski 
 planned to make use of military recruiting. He issued a secret 
 order for levying recruits, not, as was the custom, from among 
 the peasants, but in the cities, and without excepting the stu- 
 dents, choosing by preference persons " of ill repute since the 
 late troubles." At Warsaw the young men designated were ar- 
 rested at night and imprisoned in the citadel. But the majority 
 had been warned in time and had taken refuge in the woods. 
 Thus began the insurrection of 1863. 
 
 It was a secret revolt, altogether different from that of 1830. 
 The insurgents had at no time either army, government, or fixed 
 centre. They were not in control of any city, the whole country 
 remaining in the power of the Russian ofificials and soldiers. 
 But armed bands, formed in the forests, appeared suddenly, rriade 
 little skirmishes, and finally took refuge on Austrian soil, in 
 Galicia. The secret central committee at Warsaw printed and 
 posted proclamations, gave orders, levied contributions, and bore 
 itself like a government, while the Poles obeyed it without letting 
 the Russian police discover it (it met in the University buildings). 
 This committee first declared itself a provisional government 
 and issued a proclamation against " the foreign government of 
 brigands," promising to the peasants ownership of their land 
 and to the landlords indemnity at the state's expense. All who 
 took part in the war were to receive allotments of land (January, 
 1863). In March it enjoined the Polish subjects of Austria and 
 Prussia to make no revolt in their provinces, but to " concentrate 
 all the national force against the most terrible enemy, the Rus- 
 sian Tsar." It begged them to send men, arms, and money to 
 the Poles in Russia. It appointed successively two dictators, 
 then proclaimed itself " the national government." Another se- 
 cret committee, formed at Wilna, called itself the " national gov- 
 ernment " in Lithuania, declaring the country an inseparable part 
 of Poland (March 31). Then the provinces of the southwest, 
 Volhynia, Podolia, and Ukraine, revolted in May, 1863. 
 
6oo THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 The secret government of Warsaw began to publish news- 
 papers and to give official orders stamped with a seal. It for- 
 bade Poles to pay taxes to Russians, to accept partial amnesty, 
 to go to the theatres, sing in churches, or ring bells. It ordered 
 the wearing of mourning, established a compulsory loan and con- 
 tribution. Its orders were obeyed. In each circle it established 
 a revolutionary tribunal of three members to judge offences 
 against the national cause; the Warsaw tribunal condemned to 
 execution, or rather assassinated, ten Russian agents. 
 
 The Poles did not expect to deliver their country through their 
 own efiforts, but hoped for the intervention of the European 
 powers. However, Bismarck, who governed Prussia, aided 
 Russia by signing a secret convention, closing the Prussian 
 frontier to the insurgents. The Prussian Landtag even accused* 
 him of delivering up refugees. The three other great states, 
 France, Austria, and England, arranged to send identical notes 
 to the Russian Government. They urged "six points": i. 
 amnesty; 2. national legislative representation; 3. national ad- 
 ministration by Polish officials; 4. complete religious liberty; 5. 
 Polish as the official language; 6. a regular system of recruiting. 
 Three times the European governments took this collective 
 action in favour of Poland (April, June, and August, 1863). But 
 they were not sufficiently tenacious of their claims to support 
 them with actions. The Russian government simply replied that 
 it was not bound by the treaties of 181 5 in the government of 
 Poland and that the insurrection, the work of " the party of 
 disorder," was sustained only by the hope of intervention. 
 
 Eepression of the Polish National Movement. — In Russia, the 
 Liberals had at first favoured the Poles in their common demand 
 for political liberty. Herzen sided with them, the Petersburg 
 students assisted at a funeral service for the Warsaw victims, and 
 Bakounine formed a volunteer corps. But the little Russian 
 nationalist party of Moscow supported the government against 
 the insurgents. Katkofif, editor of the Moscow Gazette, and an 
 enemy to Europeans, attacked the Poles as false tO' the Slavic 
 brotherhood. He said that in fighting the only state capable of 
 bringing the Slavic idea to triumph they were acting as aristo- 
 crats and enemies of the Orthodox religion. The Poles' inten- 
 tion of taking Lithuania again, a partially Russian and Ortho- 
 dox country, served to excite Russian patriotism. A wave of 
 public opinion, shown by addresses to the Tsar, urged the gov- 
 ernment to a patriotic and religious crusade against the Poles. 
 
11 
 
 ' REPRESSION OF POLISH NATIONAL MOVEMENT. 6oi 
 
 Thus repression took on a Russian and Orthodox character, and 
 was more systematic than in 1832. 
 
 It began with the Lithuanian provinces. Mouravief, appointed 
 governor-general of the four Lithuanian governments, in May, 
 1863, subjected the country to a " military civil administration." 
 In each district an officer, called prefect of war and invested with 
 absolute power, was charged with the supervision of all the au- 
 thorities, clergy, and landowners; he was to dismiss every office- 
 holder, arrest and send before a council of war every individual 
 suspected of having aided the insurgents or even of not having 
 denounced them. He was to sequestrate the estates of any who 
 should give assistance to the insurgents or attempt tO' overthrow 
 the government. Mouravief systematically crushed the Polish 
 aristocracy. He imposed an income tax of 10 per cent, on the 
 estates of the nobility, payable within eight days under penalty of 
 the sale of their personal property. He employed their Ortho- 
 dox peasants against the Polish Catholic landlords. While he 
 disarmed the whole population he created armed bodies of peas- 
 ants and sent them in pursuit of insurgents, promising a bounty 
 for each prisoner. He distributed the possessions of insurgent 
 nobles among the peasants, giving preference to those that had 
 distinguished themselves in the campaign of repression. All in- 
 surgents taken with arms upon their persons were executed 
 within 24 hours, and mourning for them was forbidden. Land- 
 lords were ordered to remain on their estates and were 
 made responsible for every act of insurrection within their 
 domain. 
 
 When the insurrection was put down, Mouravief began to 
 Russianize Lithuania. In February, 1864, he declared Russian 
 the only official language; he then closed the Polish bookstores 
 and pubHshing houses, and forbade the building or repairing o£ 
 Catholic churches without special permission. Later he ordered 
 that Catholic religious instruction should be given in Russian. 
 The Polish language and the Roman alphabet were forbidden 
 even in private life; it was a crime for a tradesman to answer a 
 customer in PoHsh. Mouravief was nicknamed by the Poles, 
 "the butcher of Wilna"; but the Russian patriots extolled 
 him and established a national holiday in memory of the 
 deliverance of Lithuania and the subjugation of the Polish 
 nobility. 
 
 In the southwestern provinces the Russian governors crushed 
 the Polish movement by similar processes, arresting the patriotic 
 
602 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 nobles and sending them to Siberia, and replacing native officials 
 with Orthodox Russians. The United Greek Church was turned 
 into the Orthodox Church. 
 
 In the Kingdom of Poland, the governor, as military dictator, 
 surrounded Warsaw in September, 1863, and searched all the 
 houses without finding the central committee. He revenged 
 himself by imposing a special contribution and arresting hun- 
 dreds of suspects. The Poles, despairing of European support, 
 gave up the battle in February, 1864. The members of the 
 committee were found and hanged in August. 
 
 The Polish patriots, suspected of sympathy with the insur- 
 gents, were arrested in all the Polish districts and transported in 
 a body to Siberia, either as free exiles or condemned to enforced 
 labour in the mines. A " government commission " invested 
 with absolute power was charged with the reorganization of Po- 
 land. The head of the commission undertook " to root out La|in 
 civilization and replace it with a true Slavic civilization." AH 
 the institutions belonging to Poland were destroyed, and in 1867 
 the country was divided into 10 governments and 85 districts like 
 the rest of the Empire and with the same administrative system. 
 The governing boards were removed from Warsaw to Peters- 
 burg. 
 
 Polish patriotism had been shown especially by the nobles, 
 students, and clergy; it was kept up by the Polish language and 
 the Catholic religion, which made the Poles feel themselves a dif- 
 ferent nation from the Russians. The Russian government 
 wished to exterminate Polish, and made Russian the language of 
 education in the University of Warsaw, the secondary colleges, 
 and the primary schools. It forbade the use of Polish in all ad- 
 ministrative acts, then in judicial acts (1876), and finally in the 
 churches, in signs, and in public notices. 
 
 In order to weaken the clergy the majority of the monastic 
 bodies were suppressed in 1864. Of 155 monasteries with 1635 
 monks there remained 25 with 360; of 42 convents with 549 nuns 
 there remained 10 with 140. As the secular clergy could not be 
 destroyed, they were subjected to political supervision and their 
 estates secularized — the Church receiving in return grants of 
 money from the state (1865). The concordat with the Pope was 
 abrogated in 1866 in spite of the remonstrances of Pius IX. The 
 administration of the Catholic Church was handed over to the 
 ecclesiastical college at Petersburg. Orders were given to the 
 United Greek clergy to use the Russian language and suppress 
 
RETURN TO ABSOLUTISM IN RUSSIA. 603 
 
 all Roman Catholic rites. Then the Uniate Church of Poland 
 was detached from Rome and made a part of the Orthodox 
 Church. 
 
 In order to destroy the power of the nobility in the country, a 
 radical land reform was made in March, 1864.' The peasants 
 occupying lands under the crown, clergy, and nobles, were de- 
 clared proprietors of their houses and cattle, and the land of which 
 they had been only tenants. All seigniorial dues and compulsory 
 services were abolished and replaced by an annual tax of con- 
 siderably less amount — two-thirds of the annual value gi the 
 services and four-fifths of the annual dues. The government re- 
 ceived the tax and compensated the landowners by an annuity of 
 5 per cent, for 42 years. The village became a commune ad- 
 ministered by the assembly of peasants, a mayor, and a summary 
 tribunal, both elected. The priest and the noble were excluded 
 from the assembly. The nobles lost by this reform about one- 
 half of their income and all rights over their former peasants. 
 The peasants not only became at a stroke independent of their 
 lords, but they received more land and with fewer charges than 
 the Russian peasants. Another measure toward Russification 
 was to forbid Poles to acquire lands in Poland. 
 
 It does not appear that the government has succeeded in Rus- 
 sianizing the Polish people. But it has not restored the former 
 institutions, and Poland has remained under a system of martial 
 law, administered without restraint by Russian generals and 
 officials. 
 
 Return to Absolutism in Russia. — Alexander II. 's liberal meas- 
 ures had never been sincerely accepted by the officials, accus- 
 tomed as they were to carry on the administration without 
 publicity or restraint. The Tsar himself had hesitated, and the 
 officials had used every opportunity to return to the former sys- 
 tem. In the arrangements for the emancipation of the serfs they 
 had fixed, for the limit of the lots of land and the redemption of 
 the nobles' rights, figures disadvantageous to the peasants; and 
 they delayed the work of redemption. In 1862 a " central com- 
 mittee of revolution " having published a proclamation against 
 the imperial family, and numerous incendiary crimes having 
 startled Petersburg, the government closed the reading clubs 
 and circulating libraries and suspended a number of journals. 
 It arrested Tschernyschewski, a democratic writer, author of the 
 ' famous novel "What is to be done?" and condemned him to four- 
 teen years of hard labour. A number of young democrats had 
 
604 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 organized Sunday-schools for the instruction of poor children; 
 the government closed them. 
 
 After the Polish insurrection, the nationalist party began to 
 curse European institutions and to declare the autocratic system 
 the only one that would bring about Russian unity. When the 
 Moscow assembly begged the Tsar to grant a representative con- 
 stitution, Alexander replied : " The right of initiative belongs to 
 me exclusively and is. united inseparably to the autocratic power 
 which God has intrusted to me. . . No one is qualified to come 
 before me with requests concerning the general interests 
 and needs of the state." The Zemstvos attempted to busy them- 
 selves with local affairs, to control officials and even to express 
 political views. But the government distrusted them, permitting 
 the publication of their deliberations only after review by the 
 governor, forbidding the expression of political views and sus- 
 pending or closing their sessions. It gave the governor the 
 power to suspend all their decisions when he judged them con- 
 trary to the welfare of the state. Thus hampered, the zemstvo 
 did not become an institution of self-government as had been 
 hoped, but remained subject to the officials. 
 
 The judicial reform was to guarantee subjects against despot- 
 ism and to do away with special and secret tribunals. But on the 
 first occasion for the application of the new system to a political 
 crime, the government flinched. A fanatic named Karakosof 
 had fired upon the Tsar; instead of sending him before the com- 
 mon court, they had him tried secretly before a special commis- 
 sion, according to the old usage. This precedent became the 
 custom; in political cases special commissions are employed, and 
 they judge secretly without guarantee for the accused. This 
 process was regulated in 1871 ; in every political afifair the minis- 
 ter of justice decided whether the accused should be tried by judi- 
 cial procedure before a jury or by special procedure before a 
 secret commission; he rarely decided in favour of jury trial. 
 Persons accused of political offences had neither publicity nor 
 guarantee. They were seized by the police and kept in prison on 
 suspicion indefinitely, in prisons like those of the eighteenth cen- 
 tury, dark, damp, fever-dens, where they lay at the mercy of their 
 jailers. Officials could even dispense with judicial formalities. 
 Russian law did not guarantee free choice of a dwelling place, 
 but gave officials the right to assign a residence to the Tsar's sub- 
 jects in any part of the Empire, even in Siberia. Russian officials 
 could seize and transport to Siberia by administrative means per- 
 
THE OPPOSITION PARTIES. 605 
 
 sons of forbidden opinions, sometimes even those who on accu- 
 sation had been tried and acquitted. Transportation was 
 usually effected by Kibitka, springless vans, — whence arose the 
 popular expression " Kibitka justice," — and the family of a sus- 
 pect oft'en knew not even where he had been taken.* 
 
 Liberty of the press was rendered a fallacy in both capitals by 
 warnings and suspensions. The newspapers could publish only 
 what the ofificials were pleased to let pass ; there were left only the 
 official political organs and that of Katkoff, leader of the auto- 
 cratic party, the Moscow Gazette. 
 
 Education matters were put in charge of a new Minister of 
 Education, Count Tolstoi, an absolutist (not to be confused with 
 Leo Tolstoi, also a count, the great novelist, of liberal and evan- 
 gelical opinions). He revolutionized secondary education, sup- 
 pressing the sciences, which were considered revolutionary, and 
 substituting the ancient languages. In the universities he for- 
 bade students' clubs, and when they held an indignation meeting, 
 treated them as insurgents (1869). He finally appointed special 
 inspectors to watch them. 
 
 The Opposition Parties. — The gradual return to the absolutist 
 lO/'stem was a bitter disappointment for the intelliguenzia. The 
 enthusiasm of the first years of the reign was followed by a pro- 
 found discontent. An opposition was formed, among young 
 men in particular, which little by little became revolutionary. 
 This evolution, begun in 1861, may be divided into three phases: 
 the critical dissatisfaction of Liberals about 1869, the socialist 
 movement until 1875, and finally revolutionary terrorism. 
 
 I. In the years following the reform of 1861 the malcontents 
 were chiefly those who admired European institutions, the 
 liberal aristocratic nobles, young men, and democratic humani- 
 tarian students. They would have wished more far-reaching 
 reforms, a European constitution, a representative assembly 
 (which the nobles demanded officially in a number of provinces), 
 complete liberty of press and religion. They complained that 
 the reform decrees were not applied. The discontent was at first 
 theoretical and vague, a sort of general discouragement. Then, 
 when the reform turned out a failure, the cultivated Russians, 
 reflecting on the social conditions of their country, found them 
 
 ♦This system of transportation and enforced residence by administra- 
 tive authority is described by Kennan, the American journalist, who saw it 
 in operation. His book, "Siberia," though little noticed in France, has 
 had great attention in the United States and Europe. 
 
6o6 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 desperate and gave up hope. They did not form an active party, 
 and the secret societies had been paralyzed by the prosecutions 
 of 1862 to 1864; they contented themselves with a pessimistic 
 criticism of society in general. Natural sciences and positivist 
 and materialist philosophy were the fashion of the hour; people 
 dissected frogs and read Buckle, Darwin, and Btichner. Tour- 
 guenef described this condition of mind in his novel " Fatheis 
 and Children" in 1862. He gave these cynical pessimists the 
 name of nihilists.* The name became famous all over Europe, 
 and it is still used as a term of reproach for the Russian revolu- 
 tionists. The malcontents of this generation were addicted to a 
 very destructive criticism, scoffing at religion, family ties, and 
 government ; but they attempted little in the way of action. Kar- 
 akosof's attempt against the Tsar in 1866 made a great impres- 
 sion; it was the first attempt by a Russian. The government 
 replied with a rescript against these dangerous doctrines that 
 were attacking every sacred object, destroying the foundations 
 of the family and property, obedience to the law, and respect for 
 authority. From this rescript dates the definite return to the 
 absolutist system. The malcontents became alarmed and fled the 
 country. 
 
 2. In foreign countries the refugees adopted socialistic ideas. 
 These ideas began to enter Russia in two forms : Marxist social- 
 ism, represented in particular by Lavroff, and Proudhon's 
 anarchy, adopted by Bakounine. But Bakounine, by adapt- 
 ing Proudhon's doctrine to Russian ideas, wished to transfer the 
 ownership of the soil to the commune (mir) and declared that to 
 prepare the way for revolution the people must be roused by acts 
 of violence, riots, and conspiracies. A revolutionist named 
 Netchajew founded a society directed by a secret committee, and 
 persuaded the members that Russia was full of societies ready for 
 action. His heroes were the national brigands, Razin and Fou- 
 gatchef. The society murdered a spy in 1868, and was discov- 
 ered and suppressed. But the doctrines continued to spread. 
 Bakounine's motto was " to go among the people," which meant 
 to mingle with the people and excite them to revolt. Lavroff 
 also recommended preparing the people for a peaceful economic 
 revolution by educating them. A proclamation invited the in- 
 telliguenzia to descend among the people. Several groups were 
 formed, composed mainly of students and young girls. Then 
 began a period of obscure acts of self-devotion: the young men 
 
 * The word itself -was not new, having been used in France before 1848. 
 
THE OPPOSITION PARTIES. 607 
 
 became day-labourers or peasants in order to mix with the 
 people. That their white skin might not betray them they ex- 
 posed their faces to the sun and blackened their hands with tar. 
 They talked with their fellow workmen, secretly printed and dis- 
 tributed propagandist writings. Tourguenef describes in his 
 novel " Virgin Soils " this new generation of agitators, so 
 different from the nihilists. These socialists spread over several 
 provinces ; but having neither common organization nor uniform 
 tactics, they produced no important results. The government, 
 warned in 1874 by an informer, ordered the prosecution of 770 
 persons; 265 suspects were held in prison in 1875. The secret 
 societies, recognising the uselessness of peaceful propagandism, 
 sought to influence the peasants by announcing a more equitable 
 division of land. There were several local riots of peasants dis- 
 contented at having received too small a portion of the village 
 land. Arrests and political prosecutions continued, that of 
 Odessa in 1877 involving 193 accusations. Political prisoners 
 complained of brutal treatment in the prisons. In 1878, a young 
 girl named Vera Sassulitch fired on the chief of police, who was 
 accused of having had prisoners beaten; her case was brought 
 before a jury and she was acquitted. 
 
 3. The movement then changed its character, and violent 
 socialists assumed control. They gave up the propagation of 
 doctrine and even the preparations for social revolution; experi- 
 ence had proved that propagandism is impossible under the abso- 
 lutist system and that Russia has no proletary class to aid a revo- 
 lution. The malcontents wished first to destroy the absolutist 
 system and force the government to grant a national representa- 
 tion and liberty of the press : social revolution would come later. 
 The Russian revolutionists gave up social agitation provisionally 
 in order to return to the former program of the Liberals; they 
 demanded political liberty. But they employed other resources; 
 for advancing their cause; to the governmental terror they 
 wished to oppose a revolutionary terror. In May, 1878, remnants 
 of the secret societies of Petersburg and Southern Russia met in 
 a secret society, strongly organized at Petersburg under a direct- 
 ing committee, which ordered and prepared attempts against the 
 authorities. Each member bound himself to the execution of 
 decrees. The party had a very small membership, formed of a 
 number of obscure young men, students, workingmen, and 
 young women, but strongly organized for action, with secret 
 printing establishments, laboratories, and money which they pro- 
 
6o8 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 cured by voluntary gifts or by terror. It began with the murder 
 of several spies. It then attacked the officers of police and ad- 
 ministration who arrested or maltreated people of the party. 
 The chief of the " third section " (the political police), who had 
 maltreated persons under arrest, was stabbed in broad daylight. 
 The terrorists were fighting a duel with the government. From 
 1878 to 1882 there were 6 attempts against high officials, 4 
 against chiefs of police, and 9 spies were killed; 31 revolutionists 
 were executed, 8 died in prison, and 3 committed suicide. The 
 Tsar called on Russian society for aid against the " revolutionary 
 band " in August, 1878. Certain Zemstvos answered this appeal 
 by pointing out the vices of the administration and begging the 
 Tsar to grant his subjects " the same liberties as he had gained 
 for the Bulgarians." 
 
 The Terrorists decided to kill the Tsar. Four attempts were 
 made against him: a shot, a mine under the railroad over which 
 the imperial train was to pass, an explosion of dynamite in the 
 Winter Palace, finally bombs thrown against his carriage in 
 March, 1881. To oppose the Terrorists, Alexander in 1879 
 divided the country between 6 governors-general invested with 
 discretionary powers. In 1880 he established a commission for 
 the preservation of order in the state, whose head, Loris Melikoff, 
 enjoyed a sort of dictatorship. Lewis Melikoff tried to win the 
 good opinion of the Liberals by pardoning condemned persons, 
 ordering an investigation of the prisons, and forbidding the gov- 
 ernors to sentence to transportation by administrative order. 
 Alexander seemed ready to restore the liberal system; he dis- 
 missed Count Tolstoi, suppressed the third section, and was 
 about to sign a project for the creation of deliberative assem- 
 blies, when he was assassinated. The Terrorist executive com- 
 mittee announced that the death sentence pronounced upon the 
 Tsar, on September 9, 1879, had just been carried out, and called 
 on his successor, Alexander III., to give Russia a liberal system. 
 
 Alexander III.'s Beign. — ^Alexander did not dismiss Loris 
 Melikoff at once. He even seemed to approve the creation of a 
 reform committee. But he was not, like his father, in sympathy 
 with Europe; he was, like Nicholas, a Russian, an Orthodox, 
 and an enemy to Western ideas. He first chose councillors from 
 among those who hated the West: Katkoff, the head of the 
 nationalist party, Pobiedonostsef, proctor of the Holy Synod of 
 the Russian Church, and General Ignatieff. He announced his 
 " faith in the strength and truth of autocratic power," said he 
 
ALEXANDER III.'S REIGN. 609 
 
 was " called to strengthen and defend the nation's welfare against 
 attack" (manifesto of May 11). And in truth Alexander III. 
 maintained throughout his reign the autocratic system of his 
 grandfather Nicholas. But, unlike Nicholas, he preserved peace 
 with other nations. Ignatiefif, who favoured an aggressive policy 
 in Europe, was dismissed in 1882. The Tsar retained only the 
 absolutists, Katkoff and Pobiedonostsef; he recalled Count Tol- 
 stoi, who had made himself so famous by his struggle against 
 modern science. As soon as Alexander III. declared his auto- 
 cratic intentions, the Terrorists reopened their campaign. They 
 prepared an attack for the coronation day at Moscow, but the 
 police discovered it. The Terrorists were few in number and 
 were finally exterminated about 1884. Since then we have read 
 in foreign papers that the police continue to guard the Tsar, and 
 that there have been several unsuccessful attempts and arrests, 
 some, it is said, among the army officers; but we do not know 
 whether the revolutionary party is still organized; the govern- 
 ment, if it knows, keeps silence. 
 
 The Russian government restored the system of Nicholas I. 
 and laboured to destroy the work of Alexander II. It kept a 
 sharp eye on all institutions through which there was danger of 
 European ideas entering Russia — ^the press, the schools and col- 
 leges, and the local assemblies. The censorship of country papers 
 was so applied as to prevent the publication not only of criticisms, 
 but even of information disagreeable to officials, such as fires, 
 robberies, and deaths. As for the papers in the capitals, the 
 system of warnings reduced them to hardly more than official 
 organs. The organs of the autocratic party alone were per- 
 mitted freedom of speech, so that to the outside world Russian 
 opinion seemed represented by Katkoff, the enemy of the West 
 and especially of republican France. 
 
 A special censorship examined foreign books and newspapers, 
 either excluding them or permitting their entrance only after 
 striking out passages considered dangerous for Russian readers. 
 This operation, performed with an ink-covered roller, was 
 familiarly known as " Knocking out the caviar." 
 
 The government tried to develop religious education by creat- 
 ing primary schools, directed by the popes. It also tried to 
 exterminate the dissenting religions of the west by converting to 
 Orthodoxy the Lutheran peasants of the Baltic provinces and the 
 Catholic peasants of Poland. It persecuted the religious sect of 
 Stundists. 
 
6lo THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 In the universities a number of liberal professors were dis- 
 missed or silenced, and the students, always suspected of revolu- 
 tionary ideas, were subjected to continual supervision, which 
 seems to have provoked frequent trouble, from 1884 to 1890. In 
 Russia, the universities are, as in Europe during the Middle 
 Ages, frequented chiefly by poor young men, sons of fo^es, lower 
 officials, and small Jewish merchants^ This intellectual prole- 
 tariat disturbed the government. The report of the conspiracy 
 of 1887 showed, among the compromised, the names of pro- 
 fessors and students of the lower classes. A circular was issued 
 forbidding secondary schools and universities to receive the chil- 
 dren of workingmen and domestic servants. 
 
 The elective justices of the peace, established by Alexander II., 
 were suppressed. In the rural districts they were replaced in 
 1889 by new officials, chiefs of the canton, appointed by the gov- 
 ernment exclusively from the nobility. These officials were 
 charged not only with the administration of justice, but with the 
 appointment and dismissal of the chiefs of the villages, and with 
 the supervision of the village councils. The peasants were thus 
 made subject to the nobles. 
 
 No opposition could now be made by lawful methods; but the 
 'foreign papers often announced the discovery of plots, secret 
 printing houses, and political societies; they reproduced procla- 
 mations issued by the revolutionists, petitions to the Tsar point- 
 ing out abuses of power by officials, and protests against the 
 treatment given to political convicts. 
 
 Alexander III.'s reign was a period of economic transforma- 
 tion. Financial embarrassment had followed the war of 1877, 
 the settlement of claims under the emancipation of the serfs, and 
 the grain famine. The budget showed great deficits; the paper 
 money, excessive issues of which caused the gold to be sent 
 abroad, had fallen to one-half of its face value. The acknowl- 
 edged deficit lasted until 1887, when a new Minister of Finance, 
 Vichnegradzky, a protege of Katkoff, turned the deficit into a 
 surplus. He set up against the German industries a protective 
 tariff that was almost prohibitive. He paid the Russian debt, 
 placed partly in Germany, by means of a series of new loans made 
 in France beginning with 1888; the total of the French capital 
 lent to the Russian government was estimated at one or one and 
 a half billion dollars. According to official statistics the revenues 
 of the government increased between 1881 and 1891 from 650,- 
 
R USSIFICA TION. 6 1 \ 
 
 ooG.cxx) to 891,000,000 rubles, railroad traffic from 42,000,000 
 tons in 1885 to 67,000,000 in 1890. 
 
 Eussification. — The attempt at enforced Russification of the 
 western provinces had begun under Nicholas I. Alexander II. 
 at first confined himself to the Polish provinces which threat- 
 ened to form an independent nation ; he seemed to have decided 
 to respect the language and religion of the peoples that asked 
 only for self-government. He put a stop to Nicholas' project 
 of Russification in the Baltic provinces. In Finland he con- 
 voked in 1863, for the first time since the conquest, the Diet of 
 the four estates, in order to vote a new tax system. They spoke 
 four languages, the Russian governor in Russian, the nobles and. 
 clergy in French, the middle class in Swedish, the peasants in 
 Finnish. But the Slavic party, which had become supreme, 
 finally entangled the Tsar in the struggle against foreign lan- 
 guages and religions.* As early as 1867 the Baltic provinces, 
 were ordered to enforce the Ukase of 1850, making Russian com- 
 pulsory. The assemblies of the three provinces protested, invok- 
 ing the Tsars' promise to maintain their rights, including " the 
 use of German in government and city offices and in the courts." 
 The government replied that the Tsars, while confirming the 
 rights of the Baltic provinces, added the clause " in soi far as they 
 are consistent with the general institutions and laws of our Em- 
 pire," and that the use of a separate language was contrary to 
 the " principles of unity " (1867-70). In reality the measure 
 was not enforced. 
 
 Under Alexander III. the government once more attempted 
 Russification. In 1885 the three Baltic governments were ordered, 
 to write their communications in Russian. The city councils of 
 Riga and Revel refused, and were prosecuted. The secondary- 
 schools were ordered to give Russian the first place in education. 
 The postal system demanded addresses in Russian. At the same 
 time measures were resumed against the Lutheran religion. 
 Qiildren born of a mixed marriage must be brought up in the 
 Orthodox Church. Lutheran peasants, who had been converted 
 to Orthodoxy by the promises of the government and wished to 
 return to their primitive religion, were arrested, and the pastors 
 
 *The persecution was extended to the Russian dialects. A popular 
 literature in Lesser-Russian dialect had been built up in the Ukraine. 
 The Russian Government in 1876 forbade the printing of any original 
 work in Lesser-Russian, also the acting, reciting, or singing of any piece: 
 in that dialect. 
 
6l2 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 who had performed a religious act for them were prosecuted for 
 attempting to convert an Orthodox believer. To the protests of 
 the Lutheran clergy Pobiedonostsef replied : " Russia's first duty 
 is to protect the Orthodox faith against inward doubts and out- 
 ward attacks. . . The religions of the West have not yet given 
 up attacking the integrity of the Empire. Russja* cjmnot let 
 them tempt her Orthodox sons." Radical measures were taken 
 at length: orders were given in 1889 to the German schools to 
 adopt the Russian language, orders to replace German with Rus- 
 sian on signboards, and to use Russian alone in all public busi- 
 ness. Russian judges replaced the German judges. The Uni- 
 versity of Dorpat, the centre of intellectual activity in the Baltic 
 provinces, was Russianized. In 1890 it received orders to con- 
 duct its courses in Russian. 
 
 Meanwhile the government was endeavouring to drive out the 
 Jews. These numbered about 5,000,000, mainly in the western 
 provinces, the former Kingdom of Poland. They had preserved 
 not only their religion, which was still very formal, but also their 
 costume, customs, and language — the latter a German jargon 
 full of Hebraisms. First they were forbidden to enter the liquor 
 trade or to acquire land (1882). The people, excited against the 
 Jews, plundered and burned their houses. To keep the Jews out 
 of the liberal professions, a limit was set to the number of Israel- 
 ites who could be admitted to the secondary schools and uni- 
 versities, reducing the number from 10 per cent, of the whole to 
 3 per cent. In 1890 a general measure was adopted. All Jews 
 remaining in the interior of Russia were to emigrate to the 
 western provinces, and in the districts where they were concen- 
 trated they were forbidden to own or lease lands, and were forced 
 to remain in the cities, where all the liberal prof essions were closed 
 to them. In 1891 the Jewish workmen of Moscow were ar- 
 rested and taken away by soldiers. There were peasant out- 
 breaks against the Jews, and some 300,000 Jews left the country. 
 
 The Grand Duchy of Finland was the last country reached by 
 Russification. Alexander II. had continued to convoke the 
 Diet every five years, Alexander III. every three years. The 
 Diet came into conflict with the government over the law estab- 
 lishing the censorship of the press. The Diet refused to pass it 
 and the government imposed it by administrative means, in 1867, 
 in connection with certain changes relating to the schools and 
 the revenue. 
 
 But Finland retained her Swedish administration and reorgan- 
 
TSAR NICHOLAS II. 613 
 
 ized her bank in 1867, her courts in 1868, her church in 1869, her 
 railroads and her schools in 1872, her communal system in 1873, 
 her militia in 1878, her law of civil rights and her poor relief. A 
 Finnish party was formed, which gained from the government 
 the establishment of Finnish as an official language, on an 
 equality with Swedish. In 1890 Finland's economic home rule, 
 in relation to money, customs, and transportation, seemed to be 
 threatened; a plan was also made to reform the Finnish penal 
 code on the Russian model. The Diet of 1891 protested against 
 this policy, and the Tsar left to Finland her self-government. 
 
 Tsar Nicholas II. — The death of Alexander III. in November, 
 1894, made no change in Russia's domestic system. His son 
 Nicholas II. has several times declared his desire to continue his 
 father's policy. He said to the delegates from the nobility and 
 cities, in January, 1895 : " Let it be known that I shall maintain 
 the autocratic system as firmly as my immortal father." He 
 considered it an " absurd dream " that the " Zemstvos could take 
 part in affairs of state." A petition from writers and journalists 
 for the amelioi'ation of the press laws was rejected. Pobie- 
 donostsef remains at the head of the government, in full pos- 
 session of his influence, and it is said that the decisive argument 
 in the administration of affairs is : " This is how it was done in the 
 time of the late Tsar." 
 
 The principal undertaking seems to have been the series of 
 financial operations designed to procure for Russia the quantity 
 of gold necessary for restoring the value of the ruble. The only 
 domestic event has been the coronation ceremony at Moscow 
 in 1896, in which several thousand bystanders were crushed, 
 through the negligence of the police. The masses in memory of 
 the victims of this catastrophe were made the occasion of a great 
 demonstration by the students in Moscow. This was followed 
 by repressive measures. The report to the government on this 
 incident seems to indicate an extensive liberal movement. 
 
 In spite of the official declarations and the acts of the govern- 
 ment, there is a general impression that the system is nearing a 
 change. The Tsarina, who hitherto has taken no part in public 
 affairs, is a German princess accustomed to Western life, and the 
 purposes which are attributed to the Tsar himself indicate that 
 he does not believe the autocratic system likely to be a lasting 
 one. 
 
6 14 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND POLAND. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. — A selected bibliography will be found in Bamband, 
 " Hist, de la Russia,'' 1894 edit. 
 
 DOCUMENTS.*— The principal official documents and the history of 
 events in the annuals of the three languages : ' ' Annual Register," 
 "Annuaire de Lesur," and later, "Annuairedes Deux Mondes," " Ge- 
 schichtskalender " since i860. 
 
 PRINCIPAL WORKS.— Complete Histories : The only good one is 
 Bernhardy, "Gesch. Russlands u. der Europaeischen Politik," 4 vols., 1863 
 (" Staatengesch. d. n. Z."), stops at 1831. — Creliange, " Hist, de la Russie 
 jusqu'a Nos Jours," 1896 edit., a summary popular edition, hardly worth 
 while except for Poland. 
 
 Episodes : Important information in anonymous but well-compiled 
 works: "Von Nicholas I. zu Alexander III." (1881), on the affairs of 
 1848; "Ausder Petersburger Gesellschaft," 1882; " Russische Wandlun- 
 gen," 1882, on the reign of Alexander II. — On Nicholas II., Fr. Schutz, 
 "Das Heutige Russland," 1897. 
 
 Descriptions of Russia : These works, giving much instij'uctive about 
 Russia, where custom holds a more important place in political life than 
 events, may be classified into three periods: 
 
 1. Period of Nicholas I. : Nic. Turguenieff (not to be confused with the 
 celebrated novelist, Ivan Tourguenef), " LaRussie et les Russes," 3 vols., 
 1847, the work of a Russian. — Sohnltzler, " L'Empire des Tsars," 4 vols., 
 1862-69, officious. — Haxthausen, " :6tude sur les Institutions Nationales de 
 la Russie," trans, from the Germ., 3 vols., 1847-53, famousfor the descrip- 
 tion of the Russian Mir. 
 
 ■i. Liberal period of Alexander II.: Wallace, "Russia,'' 2 vols., 1879, 
 trans, into Fr., observations of an Englishman on the working of the new 
 institutions. — Anat. Leroy-Beaulieu, " L'Empire des Tsars," 3 vols., 1881-89. 
 
 3. Period of Reaction: Tikhomirov, " Russie Politique et Sociale," 1886 ; 
 rich in facts, the work of a revolutionist, later converted. — Stepniak, " La 
 Russie Souterraine," 1885, " La Russie sous les Tsars," 2 vols., 1885, "The 
 Russian Peasantry," 1888; the author, whose real name was Kraftchewsky, 
 was an exiled revolutionist. The most instructive romances on Russian 
 life are Gogol's " Dead Souls" and Tourguenef s novels already mentioned. 
 
 On the Revolutionary Movement: A. Thun, "Gesch. der Revolu- 
 tionaren Bewegungen in Russland," 1883, intelligent and well informed, 
 with a good bibliography. — Oldealjerg, " Der Russische Nihilismus," 1888; 
 for the end. — Bibl. in ' ' Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften " 
 (Anarchismus, Sozialismus), 1890-93. 
 
 * Being unacquainted with Russian, I do not quote the Russian docu- 
 ments, but confine myself to French, German, and English works; and 
 further, mentioning only the chief of those, those which suffice for knowl- 
 edge of the facts, and which give references to incidental writings and 
 monographs. I omit the literature of Polish martyrdom, the political 
 writings of revolutionists, polemic pamphlets and works (Herzen, Dolgo- 
 roukov, I. Golovine). 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 615 
 
 On the Peasant Emancipation: Anat. Leroy-BeauUeu, " Un Homme 
 d'Etat Russe," 1884; study of Miliutine and the drafting of the emanci- 
 pation project. — ^EeusBler, "Zur Gesch. u. Kritik des Bauerlichen Grund- 
 besitzes in Russland," 3 vols., 1876-82; the chief study of the whole, refers 
 to previous works. 
 
 On Russification : J. v. Dometli, "Die Russificierung der Ostseeprovin- 
 zen," 1887, and a well-prepared anonymous work, " Deutschprotestantische 
 Kampfe in den Baltischen Provinzen Russlands," 1888, both from the 
 German standpoint. — For the persecution of the Jews, the publication 
 " Darkest Russia," and Frederic, " The New Exodus," 1892. 
 
 On Transportation to Siberia: Cr. Eennan, " Siberia and the Exile Sys- 
 tem," new edit., 2 vols, 1891 (partially trans, into Fr.), the story of an 
 American eyewitness. 
 
 On Institutions: Engelmann, "Staatsrecht d. K. Russland," 1889 
 <Marquardsen coll.), description of official institutions ; bibliog. — Lehr, 
 "Legislation Panale de la Russie," 1879. — DeCleroii, " Les Finances de 
 I'Emp. de Russie," 1886. 
 
 On Finland: Schyliergson, "Gesch. Finnlands," 1896, tr. from the 
 Swedish (Gotha coll.), goes as far as 1894, good for official facts. — Ilechelin, 
 "Staatsrecht Finnlands," 1889 (Marquardsen coll.); "Precis du Droit 
 Public de Finlande," 1886. 
 
 On Poland: Bibliog. of works in French in Lorenz, " Catal. de la Libr. 
 Fr." (analyt. tables, vols. viii. and xi.). — Chodsko, " Hist. Popul. de la 
 Pologne," 14th ed., 1864. — Lisicki, " Le Marquis Wielopolski," 2 vols., 1880, 
 Polish Conservative, very well informed on the revolution of 1863. — BatBCh, 
 "La Russie Lithuanienne," 1869, for the insurrection of 1863. — Leiiwa, 
 "Russie et Pologne," 1896, for the existing conditions of Poland. 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 
 THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.* 
 
 The Ottoman Empire in 1814. — The Ottoman Empire, founded 
 of old by the family of Ottoman Sultans, whose name it bears, 
 was an absolute military monarchy, established in Asia, and 
 extended by conquest through a whole region of Europe. 
 
 Its territory, even after the losses of the eighteenth century, 
 was still very large ; it comprised the whole of Asia Minor, as far 
 as Persia, Syria, Egypt; and in Europe the whole of the Balkan 
 Peninsula as far as Austria, and Russia. But its government re- 
 mained an Oriental, Mussulman despotism, which estranged it 
 more and more from Christian Europe, where the liberal form of 
 government was steadily gaining ground. The Ottoman gov- 
 ernment also has lived through this century in a constant alterna- 
 tion of crises and attempts at reform. 
 
 Like all despotic Oriental states, the Empire had no institution 
 working acco!rding to law. The central government was in the 
 hands of a confused combination of the personal will of the Sultan 
 or his favourites, orders from his lieutenant, the Grand Vizier, 
 and decisions from the Divan, a council of high dignitaries. The 
 army was mainly composed of janissaries, stationed in or about 
 Constantinople. These were hereditary soldiers, who were poor 
 fighters, lacking in discipline, and even at times revolting against 
 their master (they had already deposed two Sultans, 1807-08). 
 Finances were but rudely organized, without a budget (the Sultan 
 drew from the treasury at will). There was neither ledger nor 
 audit: the papers were kept in sacks. There was no regular 
 assessment nor systematic collection of taxes. The poll-tax 
 
 * This chapter is short ; the Asiatic provinces are outside the field of a 
 history of Europe; the interference of European powers in the Eastern 
 question is treated in the chapters on inter-state relations. The history 
 of the independence of the Balkan Christians it has seemed to me best to 
 put in the chapter upon those peoples. There remains here, therefore, 
 only the history of the government of the Sultans in Europe, and their 
 attempts at reform. 
 
 616 
 
THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN 1814. 617 
 
 (Kharadj) upon all male subjects who were not Mussulmans, the 
 rents on the domain, and the taxes on transportation were 
 farmed out to undertakers who exacted more than their due. 
 Provincial administration was not much more than authorized 
 extortion; the governors took the province at auction, and the 
 officials, receiving no pay, besides being left without supervision, 
 oppressed and tyrannized over the inhabitants. 
 
 Being a Mussulman government, the Empire encountered 
 special difficulties in Europe. The Sultan was Caliph, Com- 
 mander of the Faithful; the Koran was the law — not only re- 
 ligious law, but civil and political as well — for all Mussulmans. 
 It confused the Church and state, allowing the Church to make 
 the laws of the state. The civil power forbade all Mussulmans, 
 under pain of death, to be converted to any other religion. The 
 real Ottoman people comprised only Mussulmans. It was not 
 a nation in the ethnological sense, not even a group united by 
 common language or customs like the nations of Europe. The 
 nationalities that went over to Islam were admitted to equality 
 with their conquerers, even when they retained their own lan- 
 guage and national dress. The popular expressions, Turkey, 
 Turkish Empire, are accurate neither politically, for all Mussul- 
 mans are Ottomans, nor ethnographically, for in European Turkey, 
 except about Constantinople, the Mussulman population is not 
 Turkish. (Even in Asiatic Turkey it is a mixture of Turks and 
 converted peoples, Armenians, Greeks, and Syrians.) There are 
 Croats in Bosnia, Albanians in Epirus, Bulgarians (Pomaks) in 
 Macedonia, and Greeks in the islands. Among all these Mussul- 
 mans the government made no distinction either in theory or 
 in practice, rank and office being open to all alike. The Mussul- 
 man Empire was a truly democratic monarchy. 
 
 But as the Mussulmans, unlike the Christians of the Middle 
 Ages, tolerated non-Mussulmans merely as social inferiors, the 
 population in almost all the European provinces found itself com- 
 posed of two layers, one placed over the other. The old inhab- 
 itants, who were still Christians and had become ratas (flocks), 
 strangers in the Ottoman state, could not, in principle, either 
 enter the army or any office. The government tolerated them, 
 but shut them out from political life and made money out of 
 them by means of the Kharadj. The Mussulmans formed a 
 democracy among themselves, but an aristocracy with regard to 
 the raias. Ottoman society, democratic by its social system, had 
 become aristocratic by its religion. It comprised two classes, 
 
€l8 THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 one excluded from political rights, the other- in exclusive pos- 
 session of the power, classes which were necessarily unequal and 
 hostile to each other and unable to blend, because separated by 
 religious hatred. Political inequality had produced social in- 
 equality; everywhere the Mussulmans were property holders and 
 lords, the Christians tenants and subjects. 
 
 The Christians, in order to defend themselves against the Mus- 
 sulmans, had secured from the Sultans promises of guarantees 
 for their religion, that is to say, for their clergy and churches. 
 Each Christian society (and the Jews as well) had formed a re- 
 ligious community of sufficiently strong construction to become 
 an actual administrative district. The Ottoman government 
 favoured this organization as facilitating communication with its 
 subjects. In every community the leaders of the clergy, patri- 
 arch, metropolitans, bishops,* official representatives of their 
 flocks and responsible to the government, had become the civil 
 authorities, who judged, governed, and in some cases tyrannized 
 over their followers. 
 
 In behalf of foreign Christians who had come from Europe, 
 a number of states had at first secured the appointment of consuls 
 as the political heads of their nationalities. Then the Sultan had 
 allowed the protection of foreign consuls to be extended to a part 
 of his Christian subjects. France had acquired the official right 
 of protecting Catholics (who were especially numerous in Asia), 
 Russia secured the right of protecting Orthodox worshippers, 
 which included nearly all the Christians in European Turkey. 
 Thus two European governments were enabled to interfere in 
 the internal aiifairs of the Empire. 
 
 The Sultan, being a Mussulman, could not join the Christian 
 sovereigns of Europe; his states remained outside of Christian 
 international law; he had forced his entrance as an intruder and 
 ran the risk of being expelled by force. 
 
 The Empire was thus not only weakened by the lack of organ- 
 ization of its military forces, but its weakness extended especially 
 to its religious constitution. It governed, not a nation, but a 
 group of nations, superposed and irreconcilable, the majority 
 hostile to the very principle of the state, the Mussulman religion. 
 The Christians, the natural enemies of the state, remained organ- 
 ized in national bodies, ready for revolt; they were officially pro- 
 
 * In the ancient Byzantine Empire, where each city had its bishop, the 
 Metropolitan, whose title corresponds to that of archbishop in the West, 
 bad only a small province. 
 
CJilSIS OF THE GREEK INSURRECTION. 619 
 
 tected by a great European government which was hostile to the 
 Empire, and free from the restraints of international law. 
 
 The Empire, threatened in the eighteenth century by the 
 Austro-Russian coalition, which had already arranged to divide 
 it between them, was saved by the wars between the European 
 powers, which diverted the attention of its Western enemies, and, 
 by the establishment of the English in India, which gave Eng- 
 land a direct interest in shutting out the other powers from the 
 road to India. In addition to France, his old ally, the Sultan 
 could count on defence from England, which had become his ally 
 during the Egyptian campaign; Austria, his former enemy, was 
 now busied with Italy and Germany. Russia alone remained 
 hostile, and yet she had abandoned the Empress Catherine's 
 dream of conquering and dismembering Turkey. 
 
 Crisis of the Greek Insurreetion (1820-27). — When peace was 
 restored in Europe, the Eastern question (as it was now called) 
 began to be discussed : What is to become of the Ottoman Em- 
 pire? The question was subdivided into two: i. Will the Empire 
 be maintained or dismembered? 2. Are the Sultan's Christian 
 subjects to remain rdias or be organized as a nation? Of these 
 two questions the diplomatists, accustomed to consider only the 
 sovereigns, seemed to perceive the first alone. The second 
 slbwly commanded attention in spite of the diplomatists. The 
 Greeks and Servians had already urged it on the Congress of 
 Vienna, by demanding a national administration; their petitions 
 had been rejected. 
 
 'The Ottoman Empire, since 1814, has lived in almost constant 
 agitation, insurrections by the subjects, revolts of the pashas, 
 invasions, negotiations with the European powers, not to men- 
 tion intrigues in the seraglio. The first great crisis was pro- 
 duced by the Greek insurrection (1820). But, as there were 
 Greeks scattered all over the Empire, they did not at first know 
 distinctly in what part they should begin the revolt, and they 
 made the attempt simultaneously in Epirus, Roumania, and 
 Greece (seep. 650). 
 
 In Roumania the uprising was the work of a secret society, 
 an hetairia, founded at Odessa, following out the rites prescribed 
 by the secret societies of the period, with secret leaders, several 
 degrees of initiation, a cipher, and a symbolic black flag bearing 
 a phoenix; they talked of restoring the Greek Empire by the aid 
 of Tsar Alexander. The leaders had decided to stir up revolt in 
 Morea; but Ypsilanti, who had friends in Moldavia, preferred to 
 
620 THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 issue his proclamation at Jassy.* The Roumans were little in- 
 terested in a Greek rebellion ; they left Ypsilanti alone with his 
 "sacred battalion," which was driven into Austria (1821). 
 Karavias surprised the city of Galatz, pillaged the mosques, mas- 
 sacred the garrison and the Mussulmans. 
 
 In the Greek countries the revolt was general and accom- 
 panied by massacres (see p. 651). It excited such sharp irrita- 
 tion among the Mussulmans that the Sultan had the Greek 
 patriarch hanged, together with three archbishops in their 
 priestly robes, at the gate of the Greek Church, on Easter Sun- 
 day. Then, the Greeks of Samos having tried to incite revolt in 
 Chios, the Turks sent an expedition to the latter island. They 
 promised an amnesty, but massacred or enslaved that peaceful 
 people t (1823). This execution and massacre prejudiced Europe 
 against the Turks. The powers were, however, slow in begin- 
 ning their intervention. 
 
 The Sultan asked help from the pasha of Egypt, Mekemet-Ali, 
 who was ofificially his subject, and who sent him an army under 
 his own son Ibrahim. Greece was invaded and conquered, but 
 saved by the intervention of the European powers, who sent their 
 fleets to Morea (1827) to enforce the departure of Ibrahim, and 
 especially by the Russian invasion of the Ottoman Empire (1828- 
 29). The entrance of the Russian army into Adrianople decided 
 the Sultan to ask for peace. He recognised the independence of 
 the new kingdom of Greece (1829). Since 1820 he had allowed 
 a Servian Christian, Miloch, to become hereditary prince of the 
 Servians in the province of Belgrade (see p. 658). This was the 
 first break in the Ottoman Empire. 
 
 In order to make peace with the Tsar (September, 1829) the 
 Sultan promised to open to foreign commerce the straits which 
 gave access to the Black Sea (Bosporus and Dardanelles); he 
 undertook to destroy all his fortifications on the left bank of the 
 Danube, which meant the military abandonment of the whole of 
 Roumania; he promised to reimburse Russia for its expenses in 
 
 * This proclamation is full of classic references: ' ' Let us place ourselves 
 between Marathon and Thermopylae. . . The blood of tyrants will be an 
 agreeable expiation to the souls of Epaminondas, Thrasybulus, Miltiades, 
 and Leonidas. The Turks, these effeminate descendants of Darius and 
 Xerxes, will be much easier to conquer than the Persians of old times." 
 
 1 1 pass rapidly over these events, which though highly picturesque and 
 dramatic, and celebrated by the greatest poets of the century, are of little 
 political importance. On the independence of Greece, see p. 652; on the 
 intervention of Europe, see chap. xxv. 
 
MAHMOUD'S REFORMS. 621 
 
 the war, which made him dependent on the Russian government, 
 for he had no money and, as time went on, he was obliged to 
 replace his payments by political concessions. 
 
 Mahmoud's Reforms (1826-38). — Mahmoud, who had been 
 Sultan since 1808, wished, like Peter the Great, to reform his 
 empire on the European model. This admiration for Europe 
 had been handed down to him, it was said, by his uncle Selim 
 (1788-1807), who had fallen a victim to it, for he was deposed for 
 having wished to reform the janissaries. 
 
 Mahmoud began with the army. During the war with Greece 
 he announced (May, 1826) the formation of a troop to be trained 
 by Arabs. He proposed, not to introduce new schemes, but to 
 restore the ancient Ottoman tradition (Solyman's regulations), 
 which had been unduly abandoned. He ordered the janissaries 
 to furnish some of the men for his new army. The janissaries 
 mutinied. Mahmoud, supported by other bodies, ordered a dis- 
 charge of cannon on the janissaries' barracks, at the same time, 
 it is said, ordering the back gates to be opened as a means of 
 escape. The most unruly of them were massacred, and the 
 Sultan declared the janissaries abolished (1826). Later he abol- 
 ished the other ancient bodies of spahis and armorers. 
 
 A new army was then formed, with European dress and disci- 
 pline, numbering 70,000 men. A Prussian officer, von Moltke, 
 who later became so famous, had an active part in this organiza- 
 tion, and has given a satirical description of it in his Letters: 
 "The reform consisted chiefly in externals, names, and trap- 
 pings. The army was built on the European plan, with Russian 
 tunics, a French code, Belgian guns, Turkish turbans, Hungarian 
 saddles, English sabres, drill-sergeants of every nation, an army 
 composed of timariotes, of soldiers for life, of a landwehr without 
 fixed terms of sei'vice, in which the leaders were recruits, andi 
 the recruits enemies of the day before." 
 
 Mahmoud also aspired, like Peter the Great, to reform the 
 manners of his empire on the European model. He drank wine, 
 in spite of the Koran, and liked to see his high officials tipsy. 
 He dressed like an Egyptian, in short clothes, with a short-cut 
 beard, and settled the cut and material of the clothing of his 
 courtiers. He even made an ordinance (1837) on the length of 
 the mustache, and ordered, contrary to custom, that the beard 
 should be cut an inch from the chin. 
 
 Mahmoud broke up that sort of official aristocracy which, at 
 the court and in the provinces, was beginning to form a class 
 
62 2 THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 of hereditary office-holders. He disturbed the Divan by intro- 
 ducing the custom of deciding matters with each minister indi- 
 vidually. He intimidated the body of ulemas (at once theo- 
 logians and judges) to prevent its making any open opposition 
 to his reforms. But for the reconstruction of regular institu- 
 tions he could not find sufficiently well-educated helpers among 
 the Mussulmans * and he could not avail himself of the services 
 of Europeans, who were despised as Christians. He did not suc- 
 ceed in reforming the financial system. His imitation of Europe 
 was only superficial and had no effect, except on the army. 
 
 Crisis of the Egyptian Conflict (1833-40). — While these reforms 
 were on foot, the Ottoman Empire underwent a new crisis. 
 Mehemet-Ali, governor of Egypt, after aiding the Sultan against 
 the Greeks, had become embroiled with the Ottoman govern- 
 ment, headed by the grand vizier Chosrew Pasha, his personal 
 enemy. 
 
 Mehemet claimed first of all the government of Syria, which 
 the Sultan had promised him in return for his assistance. After 
 waiting three years he determined to occupy it by force (1831), 
 while still acknowledging himself subject to the Sultan, to whom 
 he offered a large sum of money, at the same time demanding 
 investiture. His enemies at court, however, persuaded Mah- 
 moud to declare him a rebel. Then his army, which was in 
 control of Syria, invaded Asia Minor and marched on Constanti- 
 nople. Mahmoud became alarmed and asked help from the 
 Tsar, who, as protector of the Ottoman Empire, sent 15,000 Rus- 
 sians to camp before Constantinople and defend it. In exchange 
 he secured the treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi (1833), which, under 
 guise of an alliance, established a Russian protectorate. Russia 
 promised to bring aid to the Sultan, who in return opened the 
 straits to the Russian navy. France, which supported Mehemet- 
 Ali, secured for him a grant of the government of Syria. 
 
 * " It is almost impossible," says von Moltke, " for a European to realize 
 the state of Easterti intelligence. . . A Turk who can read and write 
 poses as a scholar." He tells how one of the best educated dignitaries 
 could not believe that the earth was round. No one, with the exception 
 of the Christian renegades, speaks a foreign language. For the rest, von 
 Moltke recognises the progress in their manners. " That the Sultan has 
 dared to dismiss a man like Chosrew, who has raised 32 of his slaves to 
 the rank of pasha, without bringing his head to the block, is a proof of 
 Turkish progress, for that would formerly have been impossible " (1836). 
 It was also a mark of progress that when the Sultan's daughter brought a 
 son into the world the child was not strangled ; it was simply announced 
 that he had died a natural death', as has been done ever since in like cases. 
 
THE REFORMS OF RESCHID PA^HA. 623 
 
 Mehemet represented himself always as a faithful servant of 
 the Sultan,* who wished not to destroy the Ottoman Empire, 
 but to consolidate it by dismissing the bad ministers and taking 
 their place in the master's favour. In the East, as formerly in 
 Europe, resistance to the sovereign's agents did not mean revolt 
 against the sovereign. But the European powers regarded the 
 question dififerently; they looked upon Mehemet as an inde- 
 pendent sovereign, the Sultan's rival, and an enemy to the Otto- 
 man Empire. They prepared to stop him. 
 
 After the death of Mahmoud, Chosrew, on his return from an 
 expedition against the Kurds, thought himself strong enough to 
 take back Syria from Mehemet, but his army was put to rout 
 (1839). This was a renewal of the war of 1833. The Egyptian 
 army crossed Asia Minor and marched on Constantinople. But 
 this time the English government interfered, and induced the 
 other powers, against the wish of France, to impose terms of 
 peace upon Mehemet and even insist upon his resigning Syria 
 (1840). Then, to deprive Russia of her monopoly in protecting 
 the Sultan, it secured the Straits Convention (1841), which closed 
 the two straits to all European fleets. 
 
 The crisis had effected the consolidation of the Ottoman 
 Empire. 
 
 The Reforms of Reschid Pasha (1838-50). — Mahmoud died 
 before the Egyptian crisis was over (1838). His successor, 
 Abdul-Medjid, left the government to his ministers. The head 
 minister, Reschid Pasha, had formerly been ambassador to Eng- 
 land and had learned there the force of public opinion. He tried 
 to introduce European institutions, and, to win favour in Europe, 
 he had them announced by a solemn act copied from the Euro- 
 pean charters. 
 
 The hatti-sherif of November 3, 1839, was promulgated at Guh- 
 lane (one of the Sultan's gardens), in the presence of great dig- 
 nitaries, deputies from the rata peoples (Greeks, Armenians, 
 
 * According to Prokesch-Osten, an Austrian diplomat, Mehemet said as 
 early as 1829 to an English agent who had Qome to o£Eer him a chance to 
 make himself independent : " You are a stranger, you do not know a 
 Mussulman's way of thinking. . . Do you know what the breaking up of 
 the Empire would mean to me ? Every Mussulman would start from me 
 with horror, my own soil would be the first to desert me. The Sultan is 
 insane, but God has given him to us for our sins." In 1833 he is said to 
 have remarked to Europeans in Alexandria : " I wish to remain the Sul- 
 tan's servant. . . Ibrahim, if he reached the Bosporus, would throw him- 
 self at the Sultan's feet, ask his pardon and permission to return to Egypt." 
 
624 • THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 Catholics, Jews), and the European diplomatic corps, with a sol- 
 emn ceremonial, a salute of loi guns, a prayer, and an astrologer 
 to watch the propitious moment for the reading. The hatti-sherif 
 was a sort of constitutional charter, given by the Sultan to his 
 subjects, to all his subjects without religious distinction. The 
 Sultan commended old customs, declared that trouble had come 
 from abandoning them, and so proclaimed new institutions. 
 This contradiction was inherenj: in the situation of a reformer 
 among a people atttached to religious tradition. These national 
 institutions were to guarantee to subjects of every religion se- 
 curity of life, honour, and fortune. The Sultan promised to 
 abolish tax-farming, confiscation, and monopolies. 
 
 Recognising in the raias the same private rights that the Mus- 
 sulmans enjoyed was a revolution. The hatti-sherif confined 
 itself, however, to promises. Reschid laboured to introduce its 
 measures into practice. A number of European institutions had 
 already been adopted, lighthouses on the Bosporus, a hospital, 
 and a quarantine; a ministerial council had been established to 
 make the central government more regular. ResChid tried to 
 reform' the financial system. By means of commercial treaties 
 he got the European governments to renounce the maximum 
 tarifif which had formerly been stipulated, and in return he abol- 
 ished the complicated system of variable rates of internal trans- 
 portation, replacing it with a single tarifif of 9 per cent, on foreign 
 merchandise. This facilitated trade with Europe. Within the 
 Empire he abolished tax-farming, and ordered that the poll tax 
 should be apportioned and levied by districts and paid over to 
 receivers. 
 
 These reforms irritated the Mussulmans, who favoured the old 
 regime, the " Old Turk " party, who sought to turn the Sultan 
 against his ministry. Abdul-Medjid wavered between the Old 
 Turks and the reformers. This contest was complicated by a 
 struggle for influence between the two rival European powers, 
 England and Russia, which had each its special party in the 
 Sultan's court. Reschid supported England, Riza supported 
 Russia. Several times Reschid was dismissed, then recalled. 
 Riza also attempted a number of reforms. While Reschid and 
 Riza were contending, the officials, left to their own devices, re- 
 stored the old system of tax-farming and' collection by military 
 governors. 
 
 Reschid had regard for the good opinion of Europe, especially 
 of England. " I agree," he said in 1846, " that our government 
 
PERIOD OF THE CRIMEAN WAR. 625 
 
 is still far from good. But we prevent its being worse." 
 Abdul-Medjid himself seemed to be interested in reforms. He 
 read in public a decree, drawn up by his own hand, in which he 
 declared himself very regretful that his projects had not pro- 
 duced the desired result and announced the establishment of 
 schools to instil in his subjects the principles of science and in- 
 dustry (1845). 
 
 These confused reforms, interrupted by reactions — these crea- 
 tions which, for the most part, remained only promises — did not 
 lead to a ver)»-profound reorganization of the Empire. The only 
 lasting institution was the army, recruited by the European sys- 
 tem of conscription. It was divided into two parts, the active 
 army (Nisam), with a five-year service, and the reserve (Redif), 
 with a seven-year term, organized in five local army corps, and 
 supplied with European arms. As before it was composed only 
 of Mussulmans. It was an army of good soldiers, brave and 
 steady, but commanded by incompetent officers. 
 
 Reschid decreed a complete reorganization of the administra- 
 tion. The hitherto general power of the governor of the prov- 
 ince was divided among three distinct officials, a military gov- 
 ernor, a civil administrator (vali), and a receiver of taxes. Thus 
 were established three services, each with a minister at its head, 
 as in Europe. Reschid had hoped to make the vali the principal 
 officer by putting the police under his control, and tried to con- 
 trol him by establishing provincial councils of notables; but these 
 councils hindered reform. Judicial reorganization was confined 
 to a number of mixed courts, composed of Mussulmans and 
 Europeans, with a written procedure. Financial reform was 
 abandoned for lack of honest agents, and taxes and customs 
 duties were again farmed out. The state schools which had 
 been announced were not established. The bank which Reschid 
 had attempted to found was replaced by the Ottoman Bank, man- 
 aged by Europeans. 
 
 This was, however, a period of relative prosperity and peace 
 (except for the insurrection of the Christians in Crete ,in 1841). 
 The government became less harsh, and torture and confiscation 
 disappeared. 
 
 Period of the Crimean War (1852-59). — ^The attempt at reor- 
 ganization on the European model had given the European gov- 
 ernments the hope of settling the Eastern Question by the trans- 
 formation of the Ottoman Empire into a modern state. Tsar 
 Nicholas, however, did not accept this solution. As early as 
 
626 THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 1844, in his visit to England, he had said: "There are in my 
 Cabinet two opinions on Turkey ; one that she is dying, the other 
 that she is already dead. In either case nothing will prevent 
 her speedy end." In 1852 he said to the English ambassador 
 that " they ought to agree about the funeral." The English gov- 
 ernment preferred to maintain the Ottoman Empire by checking 
 the Tsar, and succeeded in forming a league with Napoleon III. 
 and the King of Sardinia. (See chap, xxvii.) 
 
 The conflict was complicated by the quarrel between the 
 Catholic monks, who were under France's protecjjon, and the 
 Greek monks, who were under that of Russia. They were dis- 
 puting over the possession of the keys of the Holy Places in 
 Palestine (Bethlehem and the Holy Sepulchre). After long ne- 
 gotiation the Tsar brought his army into Moldavia, declaring 
 that lie came to protect the Orthodox Church. This was the 
 beginning of the war (for the history of it, see chap, xxvii.). But 
 the European armies defended the Ottoman Empire and carried 
 the war into the Crimea. 
 
 At the Congress of Paris (1856) the European powers, con- 
 sidering the Empire necessary to the balance of power, declared 
 the integrity of Ottoman territory guaranteed ; but in return they 
 imposed on the Sultan certain concessions. 
 
 Napoleon secured autonomy for Moldavia and Walachia. This 
 was the second break in the Empire. 
 
 Even in the interior of the Empire the powers, which had 
 hitherto had confidence in the credit of the Ottoman govern- 
 ment, demanded pledges for the making of various long-prom- 
 ised reforms. The Sultan promulgated a reform edict (/loWi- 
 humayoun, February, 1856) and communicated it to the other 
 governments, who replied : " The contracting powers appreciate 
 the high value of this communication. It is well understood 
 that it could not in any case give the said powers the right to 
 interfere, either collectively or separately, in the relations of the 
 Sultan with his subjects, nor in the internal administration of 
 the Empire." 
 
 The hatfi-humayoun did not proclaim the principle of personal 
 security simply, as in 1839, but also of liberty and legal equality 
 for all Ottoman subjects without distinction of religion. All 
 legal difference between Mussulmans and Christians was sup- 
 pressed. Christians should be admitted to every military rank 
 and to every office, they should no longer pay the poll-tax, they 
 should be represented in the provincial councils. The Ottoman 
 
ATTEMPTS AT REFORM, FUAD AND ALT. 627 
 
 Empire would thereby lose its religious character. But the full 
 promise could not be secured. The English government wished 
 to have the death penalty abolished in the case of a Mussulman 
 converted to another religion. European indignation was 
 aroused by the case of a young Christian who had become a Mus- 
 sulman in a moment of anger and was later put to death on re- 
 verting to his own religion. The Ottoman government replied 
 that it could give its word that the penalty would not be enforced 
 again, but that to proclaim it in a public act would provoke an 
 outburst of fanaticism. England had to be content with an am- 
 biguous article. "All religious creeds shall be freely practised; 
 no Ottoman subject shall be hindered or disturbed in the exer- 
 cise of his religion, or constrained to change it." 
 
 Attempts at Beform, Fuad and Ali (1859-71). — The haiti- 
 hiimayoim promised radical reform, a lay state, in which Chris- 
 tians would be protected by law; but as the Mussulman system 
 gave them no protection, to make them equal with Mussulmans 
 would have involved a struggle which the Ottoman government 
 dared not face. On the other hand, the European powers had 
 acted upon this promise and kept watch over the government to 
 insist upon its being kept. The Sultan found himself in a tight 
 place, between his subjects, whp did not want the reform, and 
 the foreign powers, who insisted upon it. 
 
 The Christian subjects themselves distrusted the reform. 
 Their leaders, patriarchs and bishops, were fearful of losing their 
 power over the faithful, for the government, after declaring all 
 its subjects equal, had drawn from that the conclusion that the 
 privileges of religious communities must be abolished, or at least 
 revised. The Christians held to their privileges; a common sys- 
 tem represented to their minds simply the absence of special pro- 
 tection, and that meant to be given defenceless into the hands of 
 the Mussulmans. They were unwilling to serve in the army, 
 preferring to make a money payment; the poll-tax was restored 
 in the form of a tax for exemption from military service. 
 
 The Mussulmans, accustomed to despise unbelievers, were un- 
 willing to obey them, either as military or civil officers. The 
 government announced a judicial reform. Justice was to be 
 separated from the administration, and administered by mixed 
 courts chosen by notables, where Christians would be allowed to 
 testify as well as Mussulmans, where judgment would be based 
 on modern codes, with public sittings and a regular procedure. 
 All Turkey knew that this reform could not be applied. It was 
 
628 THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 not applied, and the Christian mountaineers of Herzegovina, sup- 
 ported by their neighbours in Montenegro, finally revolted; * an 
 army had to be sent to subdue them (1860-61). 
 
 The governments of Europe ofificially expressed their regret 
 that the Ottoman Empire " was not proceeding to a gradual and 
 sustained application of reforms " (1859), and Russia proposed an 
 investigation into the condition of the Christians. But their at- 
 tention was either distracted by Italian affairs or absorbed by the 
 massacre of Christians in Libanus. In 1861 Abdul-Medjid died, 
 and the new Sultan, Abdul-Aziz, left the government to Fuad 
 and Ali, two favourites, acknowledged reformers. Their sway, 
 however, was at times interrupted. (It was said that once he 
 offered the government to a dancing dervish.) 
 
 The leading reform was an attempt to keep the promise made 
 in 1856 by separating justice from the general administration 
 (1864). In each of the administrative subdivisions, vilayet (gov- 
 ernment), sandjak (department), kaza (district), a tribunal and 
 council of notables were established, naturally composed chiefly 
 of Mussulmans, for the lists were prepared by Mussulmans. 
 
 In Crete, where the population is mainly Greek and Christian, 
 and partly composed of armed mountaineers, the discontent took 
 the form of a general insurrection (there had already been one in 
 1841). The Greek patriots in the Kingdom of Greece laboured 
 to bring back Crete into the Hellenic union. A Cretan com- 
 mittee established at Athens kept in touch with the peopfe of the 
 island. In 1866 the Christians formed a committee, which pre- 
 sented a petition to the Sultan, denouncing the abuse of power 
 by the governors and Mussulmans, and claiming personal and 
 property rights. The government refused to do them justice, 
 and the whole Christian population rose in revolt (May, 1866). 
 The general assembly of Cretans decreed Ottoman rule abolished 
 and Crete " united indissolubly to her mother, Greece " (Sep- 
 tember). The insurgents occupied the whole island, except the 
 strongholds in the north, where the Mussulmans had taken 
 1 efuge. Arms and volunteers came from Greece to aid them, but 
 tbe European powers, whose help they asked, refused to inter- 
 
 * The petition sent by the Christians to the European consuls at Mostar 
 shows their usual grievances : " We want permission to build churches, to 
 place bells in them and ring them, we want a bishop of our own race to 
 direct our religious affairs, we want schools, we want to have taxes estab- 
 lished in a fixed sum for each house, and we do not want to have Zaptiehs 
 (gendarmes) lodged in our houses." 
 
ATTEMPTS AT REFORM, FUAD AND ALL 62g 
 
 vene. When the Turkish army, of 30,000 men at the least, took 
 the offensive (October, 1866), the insurgents were quickly driven 
 back into the mountains, where the people of Sphakia held out 
 until 1868. The Greeks in Epirus and Thessaly attempted a re- 
 volt, but failed. 
 
 The investigation made by the powers, in 1867, showed that 
 the equality promised in 1856 had not been realized. The ad- 
 mission of Christians to office was imaginary; they were accepted 
 only in subordinate positions. These officers had no influence, 
 and were detested by the Christians of other creeds. Mixed 
 courts were very rare, and besides Christians had not the courage 
 to sit in them. A Christian could not obtain justice against a 
 Mussulman, as his testimony was not listened to; the only way 
 for him to get justice done him was to bribe two Mussulman 
 witnesses. In the army the Christians were unwilling to serve 
 with Mussulmans and the Mussulmans were unwilling to obey 
 unbelievers; the army therefore remained Mussulman. Public 
 procedure in the courts remained a figment of the imagination, 
 for police guarded the entrance to the hall. The prisons were hor- 
 rible, and the police (saptiehs) were recruited from the criminal 
 classes. The tax-farming which the reformers had worked so 
 hard to abolish had been restored; the budget was illusory, con- 
 trol of the Court of Accounts amounted to nothing, " boodlers " 
 were not prosecuted, the Supreme Council of Justice had met 
 only once. The only institutions that were respected were the 
 privileges of religious communities, and the powers of patriarchs, 
 including their abuse of power, because these were old institu- 
 tions. 
 
 Europe accordingly protested against the failure to execute' 
 the hatti-humaymm of 1856. A struggle for influence ensued be- 
 tween France and Russia, to determine what reforms should be 
 made. France proposed the fusion of races, that is, to suppress 
 all " distinction between the various nationalities," to establish 
 civil equality and uniform administration as in France, so as to 
 form a single Ottoman nation. Russia had already declared her- 
 self opposed to an " incoherent fusion of the Ottoman peoples " ; 
 she demanded for each " special guarantees based on religious 
 and communal institutions adapted to the nationalist principle." 
 " Equality before the law will never be realized in Turkey so long 
 as Turks are Turks; that is, until they forswear the Koran, 
 which traces an ineffaceable line between them and the Chris- 
 tians." Russia's advice was to " separate Christian and Mussul- 
 
630 THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 man interests by granting parallel and progressive development 
 to all nationalities and creeds under the Sultan, in accordance 
 with the exigencies of European balance of power " ; this meant 
 to make every Christian nationality a little self-governing state. 
 France's advice was that of a friend, kindly but impracticable; 
 Russia's scheme was practicable but dangerous, for the au- 
 tonomy of hostile races was the same as dismemberment. 
 
 The Ottoman government at first followed France's advice; it 
 attempted fusion and tried to improve its administrative staff by 
 giving its young men a European education. The French Col- 
 lege of Galata, a suburb of Constantinople, was founded at this 
 time. But the two reform ministers died, Fuad in 1869, Ali in 
 1871. The defeat of France by Germany put an end to her in- 
 fluence over the Sultan, and destroyed the European concert which 
 was protecting the Ottoman Empire against Russia. 
 
 Financial Crisis and Young Turkey (1871-76). — After 1871 the 
 disorder increased. The deficit became so large (112,000,000 in 
 1875) and money so scarce that the government became partially 
 bankrupt. It declared itself able to pay only a half of the 
 interest on the debt. Taxes grew heavier and discontent in- 
 creased, until at length the Christian Serbs in Herzegovina, ex- 
 cited by their Montenegrin neighbours, and possibly by emis- 
 saries from Servia and Russia, refused to perform the corvee and 
 rose in rebellion (1875). The European powers, being busy at 
 the time with their own domestic affairs, took little interest in 
 the Ottoman Empire. 
 
 The Turkish government, to calm the malcontents, issued a 
 new reform edict (1875), once more announcing the admission of 
 ■all subjects to office, abolition of tax-farming, judicial reorganiza- 
 tion, and a council to supervise the execution of the reforms. 
 But the states of Europe had lost their faith in promises. They 
 replied with a collective note, named after Andrassy, the Austrian 
 minister: " The powers feel that there exists a strict unity of 
 interest between Europe and Turkey and the insurgents; they 
 hold that reform must be adopted to put a stop to a disastrous 
 and bloody contest " (December 30, 1875). It was therefore 
 necessary " that Christianity should be put on the same footing 
 with Islamism, in theory and practice . . . that tax-farming 
 should be abolished once for all." It was not necessary " that the 
 execution of reforms should be left to the discretion of pashas; a 
 controlling hoard should be established, made up of Christians 
 and Mussulmans." This time the Empire's protectors were not 
 
FINANCIAL CRISIS. 631 
 
 content with promises, but demanded guarantees and control. 
 The Turkish government refused. 
 
 The insurrection in Herzegovina became a real war. Later 
 the Bulgarian peasants, excited by a committee, made a slight 
 attempt at revolt (May, 1876). At the same time, in Salonica, 
 the Mussulman mob assassinated the French and English 
 consuls. 
 
 Then came a new sort of crisis in Turkey. For some years 
 there had been increasing dissatisfaction with Sultan Abdul-Aziz 
 and his extravagances. He was said to be insane. Among the 
 Mussulmans, mainly of the younger generation, had sprung up 
 a party. Young Turkey, demanding a constitution. As early as 
 1868 Kereddin held that according to the tradition of Solyman, 
 ukmas and ministers had the right to remonstrate with the Sul- 
 tan, and, if he should persist in violating the law and following 
 out his caprices, the right to depose him. A manifesto issued by 
 Mussulman patriots to the foreign powers (March, 1876) said: 
 " If instead of a despot Turkey possessed a wise monarch who 
 would lean on a consulting Chamber composed of representa- 
 tives from all our races and religions, she would be saved. That 
 is the true solution, and it is not contrary to the Koran; the 
 Turkish government is elective." 
 
 Ymmg Turkey profited by the excitement following the Bul- 
 garian insurrection. The theological students (softas) came en 
 masse before the palace. The Sultan sent to ask what they 
 wanted. " We want nothing," they said, " but the reigning gov- 
 ernment is good for nothing." The Sultan was alarmed, imme- 
 diately dismissed his grand vizier (May 18), then took as his 
 minister one of the leaders of Young Turkey, Midhat-Pasha 
 (May 19). This was the minister who made terms with the guar- 
 dian of the faith, the Scheik-ul-Islam, getting from him a de- 
 cision declaring the Sultan incapable of carrying on the govern- 
 ment. Abdul-Aziz was deposed (March 30, 1876), and imme- 
 diately after it was announced that he had killed himself. His 
 nephew, Mourad V., was proclaimed his successor, but very soon 
 became insane. He was deposed and replaced by Abdul-Hamid 
 (August 31, 1876). Midhat governed in the name of the Sultan. 
 
 Midhat had to reply to Europe's demand in behalf of the 
 Christians of Herzegovina, that a commision be sent to make re- 
 forms under the supervision of the European consuls. Then he 
 had to fight the Bulgarian insurgents. As the regular army was 
 busy in Herzegovina, bands of irregulars, half brigands (Bashi- 
 
632 THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 Bazouks), were turned on Bulgaria; they amused themselves 
 with burning the villages, massacring the men, and carrying off 
 the women. (According to the American consul 100 villages 
 were destroyed, from 25,000 to 40,000 inhabitants massacred, 
 and 12,000 women carried away; the English consul reduced 
 these figures to 68 villages and 12,000 to 15,000 inhabitants.) 
 Europe rose in horror. The assassination of the consuls at Sa- 
 lonica and the Bulgarian atrocities, as Gladstone called them, 
 completed the turn of public opinion against the Turks. The 
 governments dared not interfere in favour of the Ottoman 
 Empire. 
 
 Servia, upheld by Russia, openly entered the war in July, 1876, 
 invoking " Panslavism." The Sultan's government could not 
 pay the interest on even the debt to which it had reduced its 
 creditors. The powers began to regard the Ottoman Empire as 
 a minor incapable of taking care of itself; they determined to take 
 it under their guardianship. They began by imposing on it an 
 armistice with the conquered Servians. They then held a con- 
 ference at Constantinople and finally drew up the Berlin Memo- 
 randum — a schedule of reforms to he imposed on the Sultan, Eng- 
 land not assenting thereto. 
 
 Young Turkey, to avoid this European guardianship, had 
 dreamed of transforming the absolutist empire into a constitu- 
 tional monarchy. The Ottoman nation, putting an end to the 
 Sultan's arbitrary rule, was to take charge of its own affairs; it 
 would be able at once to reorganize the country and make it 
 needless for foreign powers to interfere. It is hard to tell 
 whether the authors of this scheme really thought the constitu- 
 tional system would prevent the fall of the Ottoman Empire, or 
 were simply acting out a comedy for the entertainment of Europe, 
 in order to get rid of foreign intervention. 
 
 The constitution, drafted in secret by a committee of officials 
 and ulemas, was promulgated unexpectedly, but with solemn 
 teremony, in December, 1876. It was a European form of consti- 
 tution, with a responsible Council of Ministers, a General 
 Assembly of two Chambers, a Senate and an elective Chamber of 
 Deputies, liberty of the press and of public meeting, permanent 
 judges, and even compulsory primary education. Islamism re- 
 mained the state religion. In laying this constitution before the 
 powers, care was taken to point out its lack of theocratic tenden- 
 cies, " that it established in the Empire the reign of liberty, jus- 
 tice, and equality, and the triumph of civilization," and above all 
 
RUSSIAN INVASION, CRISIS AND DISMEMBERMENT. 633 
 
 that " the constitution was not a promise, but a real and formal 
 act which has become the property of all Ottoman subjects." 
 Consequently, when the powers presented their reform ulti- 
 matum, a great council, composed of high ofificials, replied that 
 these demands were contrary to the constitution (January, 1877). 
 
 Eussian Invasion, Crisis and Dismemberment (1877-78). — 
 Young Turkey's reign was short; Midhat-Pasha, grand-vizier 
 and head of the government, suddenly fell (February, 1877). 
 The Chamber, which was made up principally of Mussulmans, 
 creatures of the governors, served only to reject the demands of 
 Europe. (The deputies were known by a name already old in 
 the East: Evet Eifendim, the Yes, Sirs.) 
 
 Europe had ceased to believe in reforms made by Mussulmans ; 
 all, even England, accepted the scheme proposed by Russia, the 
 autonomy of the Christian nationalities and supervision by 
 European agents. The conference of Constaiy^inople (March, 
 1877) declared that " the powers propose to observe through 
 their ambassadors the manner in which the promises of the gov- 
 ernment shall be executed," and that " if their hope were again 
 deceived, they would consider measures in common." Euroi)e 
 was abandoning the Ottoman Empire. 
 
 Russia took up again the plan arrested in 1854 by Europe. 
 The Tsar declared war, this time not in the name of religion as in 
 1854, but in the interests of Russia and of Europe disturbed by 
 agitations of oppressed Christians. This was a repetition of the 
 war of 1828-29. The Russian army, aided by the Roumanian 
 army, finally arrived at Andrianople and forced the Sultan to ac- 
 cept peace on the terms dictated by Russia ( Peace of San Stef ano, 
 1878. On the Russo-Tiirkish war, see chap xxviii.). 
 
 Russia demanded the separation of all the Christian countries, 
 except those occupied by the Greeks (Thessaly, Crete), in which 
 she was not interested. The Sultan renounced his sovereignty 
 over all the Christian peoples who were still tributary to him 
 (Roumania, Servia, Montenegro), and granted them their terri- 
 tory. He recognised a new Christian state, Bulgaria, composed 
 of the country on both sides of the Balkans and Macedonia. 
 This was a definite dismemberment. The Empire retained only 
 three scattered bits in Europe: i. Roumelia; 2. the peninsula of 
 Salonica, Thessaly, Epirus, and Albania; 3. Bosnia, and Herze- 
 govina, where the Christians were to have an independent admin- 
 istration. 
 The other European governments found this dismemberment 
 
634 THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 too favourable to Russia, and the Congress oi Berlin adopted 
 another. The three Christian states, Roumania, Servia, and 
 Montenegro, became sovereign states, with increased territory. 
 They cut down the share of the two states specially protected by 
 Russia, Montenegro, and more particularly Bulgaria (see p. 665). 
 To make up for this, they asked Austria to occupy Bosnia and 
 Herzegovina for the purpose of restoring order there, without fix- 
 ing the limit of time for the occupation. France and Italy secured 
 a promise of an enlargement for Greece; but a change of the 
 diplomatic situation came near to making the promise worthless. 
 It waS only after long negotiation that Greece succeeded in 
 obtaining from the Ottoman government Thessaly and a bit of 
 Epirus (1881). 
 
 The Empire now held in Europe only the Mussulman prov- 
 inces of Roumelia {vilayets of Constantinople and Adrianople), 
 Albania and Epirus, and the Christian province of Macedonia. 
 
 Personal Government of Abdul-Hamid. — The crisis of 1878 left 
 the Ottoman Empire heavily involved. It had to arrange terms 
 of evacuation with Russia and a war indemnity; the Empire, for 
 the lack of money, remained in debt to Russia. It had to ar- 
 range with Austria for the situation of Bosnia; technically the 
 Sultan remained sovereign over it, but he recognised Austria's 
 right to organize the province as she wished, with the promise to 
 respect religious freedom. In reality Bosnia was not only occu- 
 pied by the Austrian army, but governed, under the direction of 
 the common minister of finance of Austria-Hungary, by a resi- 
 dent governor and a " government " composed of Austrian offi- 
 cials. The Sultan had also to negotiate with his creditors; the 
 principal of the debt was reduced and the customs revenue was 
 pledged as security, to be administered by a European com- 
 mission (1881). 
 
 The Albanian Mussulmans in the territory ceded to the Chris- 
 tians made armed resistance to the Sultan's orders. They even 
 formed an " Upper-Albanian League " (1878) which attacked 
 Montenegro and had to be put down by force (1881). 
 
 Abdul-Hamid at first wavered between contradictory influ- 
 ences. He took as grand-vizier a protege of France, Khereddin, 
 formerly a minister of Tunis, who announced a number of re- 
 forms; the Sultan dismissed him when he demanded the right to 
 choose the ministers (1879). He let England propose a plan of 
 reforms which were never carried out (1880). Then he himself 
 took charge of the government at the head of the ministry. The 
 
PERSONAL GOVERNMENT OF ABDUL-HAMID. 63$ 
 
 official Divan still existed, but the real control of the government 
 passed into the hands of the Sultan, who adopted the custom of 
 settling matters in personal consultation with his favourites. At 
 length, overburdened with suspicions of conspiracies, Abdul- 
 Hamid shut himself up in his " Kiosque," surrounded by a large 
 guard, the hamidies, composed of Kurds, Syrians, and Albanians, 
 and showed himself to his subjects only on rare occasions. The 
 Ottoman Empire was subjected to the personal government of a 
 painstaking but ill-informed sovereign. 
 
 Abdul-Hamid seemed to wish to act as religious head of all the 
 Mussulmans; he sought the society of holy persons and encour- 
 aged the preaching of hadjis (pilgrims from Mecca). He was 
 even supposed to be thinking of Panislamism, as a cry to unite 
 all the faithful under the direction of the Sultan. He had dis- 
 missed the advocates of European institutions, the authors of the 
 revolution of 1876, and had Midhat-Pasha condemned as the 
 murderer of Abdul-Aziz. Young Turkey, taking refuge in for- 
 eign lands, became a revolutionary opposition party, trying to 
 prevail on Europe to depose Abdul-Hamid. 
 
 Abdul-Hamid meanwhile left himself to the guidance of Eng- 
 land in his choice of ofificers and, though the reforms had failed, 
 succeeded in establishing a tolerable administration in his Asiatic 
 provinces. From Germany he received some Prussian generals 
 (1883) who wished to reorganize the army by extending military 
 service to Christians (1886), and a German financier whO' tried to 
 draft an exact budget (1883). Except for the chronic agitation 
 in Crete * and a number of movements in Albania (1884, 1887), 
 peace was almost restored in the Empire. This period of calm 
 was of advantage to the Armenians, Gregorian Christians, indus- 
 trious and peace-loving mountaineers ; they formed all over Asia 
 Minor and at Constantinople a notable proportion of the mer- 
 chants, workingmen, and also officials in employments where 
 
 *The organic statute of 1868, given to Crete after the insurrection, 
 established a " national assembly," elected where the Christians had the 
 majority. The Assembly and the Mussulman governor were in continual 
 conflict. The Christians demanded first of all Christian and native ofiS- 
 cials and a part of the custom-duties and taxes of the island to meet the 
 expenses of the island. One party (radicals) continued to make plans for 
 separation, in harmony with a Greek committee at Athens. The insur- 
 rections continued during the war of 1877, in 1885, 1887, i88g, 1895, i8g6. 
 The Turkish government promised reforms by ordinance (1878, 1887, 1896); 
 but the Christians have continued to complain of the despotism of the 
 Mussulman officials and have finally compelled Europe to interfere. 
 
636 THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. 
 
 real labour was necessary. Europe protected them as Christians 
 and agents of civihzation. 
 
 About 1890 Abdul-Hamid seemed to change his policy. 
 Shaking off German and English influence, he turned to Russia 
 and France. His policy toward the Armenians changed about 
 the same time. Then began riots against the Armenians in Con- 
 stantinople (1890), and in Asia Minor quarrels between the Ar- 
 menians and Kurds — the latter encouraged by the Mussulman 
 authorities (1893). A small national Armenian party was 
 formed, directed by revolutionary committees, partly composed 
 of Armenian subjects of Russia. It demanded, not separation, 
 but simply autonomy for Armenians and guarantees for security. 
 The government replied by condemning real or pretended revo- 
 lutionists (1893), then by massacres (1894-95) directed by the 
 Mussulman authorities, executed by soldiers or hired assassins. 
 These massacres were, however, officially represented to Europe 
 as Armenian revolts. 
 
 At length, to enforce the attention of Europe, a number of Ar- 
 menian revolutionists made a sudden attack on the Ottoman 
 Bank. The government immediately ordered the massacre of 
 all the Armenians in Constantinople (August, 1896). In spite of 
 the silence of the newspapers favourable to the government, in- 
 formation gathered on all sides and reports of European consuls 
 ended by rousing Europe to an outburst of indignation against 
 the Sultcm and obliging the powers to unite in a demand for re- 
 forms and guarantees. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— For works in French: lorenz, "Catal. de la Libr. 
 Fr." (analyt. tables). 
 
 DOCUMENTS.— The official documents and story of events in the an- 
 nuals: "Annual Register," " Annuaire Lesur" and "Ann. des Deux 
 Mondes," " Geschichtskalender," the official documents since 1861 in the 
 " Staatsarchiv." — Among the numerous records of impressions, see par- 
 ticularly VonMoItke, " Lettres sur la Turquie," tr. from the German, 1877 
 (sojourn from 1835 to 1837) ; among political manifestos, Midhat-PaBha, 
 " La Turquie, son Pass6, son Avenir," 1878. 
 
 WORKS.— The best complete history is E. Engelhardt, " La Turquie et 
 le Tanzimat. Hist, des R6formes depuis 1826," 2 vols., 1882-83, intelligent 
 and very accurate.— Eosen, "Gesch. der Tiirkei," 2 vols., 1866-67 ("Staat- 
 eng. d. n. Z."), goes from 1826 to 1856.— Juohereaude Saint Denys, " Hist, de 
 I'Empire Ottoman," 4 vols., 1844, stops at 1844.— De la Jonquiere, " Hist, de 
 I'Empire Ottoman," 1881 ; popular edit., a little confused, gives a bibliog. 
 
 For the crises, all of which had a European character, see the works 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 637 
 
 mentioned under chaps, xxv. to xxviii. For the Greek countries and 
 Crete, bibl. may be found in Hertzlierg ; see the bibl. of chap. xxi. 
 
 For the reign of Abdul-Hamid, F. Charmes, " L'Avenir de la Turquie," 
 1883 ; Georgiades, " La Turquie Actuelle," 1892, and especially V. Berard, 
 " La Turquie et I'Hellenisme Contemporain," 1893, " La Politique du Sul- 
 tan," 1897 (for Armenian affairs). The best sources of Armenian affairs 
 are the admirable series of English Consular Beports for 1896 and following 
 years. 
 
 For Bosnia, " Die Occupation Bosniens," 1879-80, Austrian official pub- 
 lication. — " Bosnien unter Oesterreichischer-ungarischer Verwaltung," 
 i886, an anonymous work, rose-coloured. 
 
CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 Christian Nations of the Ottoman Empire in 1814. — The 
 
 European part of the Ottoman Empire, which, for want of a 
 common name, we call by the two conventional terms European 
 Turkey and the Balkan Peninsula, has always had, since the 
 Middle Ages, a heterogeneous population, made up of several 
 peoples with sharp distinctions of language, dress, and national 
 feeling. They had been in fact separate nations, constituted as 
 such long ago; the Ottoman conquest of the fifteenth century 
 had covered them up and preserved them intact; the Turks had 
 settled only Roumelia, the region about Constantinople. 
 
 Without counting the Gipsies and Jews, there were, in the 
 Balkan Peninsula, five nations previous to the coming of the 
 Turks, differing in race,* or at least in language: in the north- 
 west the Servians, — in the west the Albanians, — on the south, in 
 the islands and on the coasts, the Hellenes, — in the north, on 
 either side of the Balkans, the Bulgarians, — and north of the 
 Danube the Roumanians. 
 
 The Albanians, a mountain people, while preserving their 
 national dress and customs and even their old language, Schkipe- 
 tar, had for the most part become Mussulmans, and consequently 
 a part of the Ottoman nation. They furnished a good part of 
 the of55cials and especially of the soldiers and military officers of 
 the Empire. A part of the Servians had been converted, and 
 formed in Bosnia a Mussulman aristocracy, which preserved the 
 Slavonic tongue and national dress, but no longer felt itself in 
 unison with the greater part of the nation, which was still 
 Christian. 
 
 The Christian nations had nothing in common but religion, 
 for the two Slavic peoples, Servians and Bulgarians, differed in 
 
 *They do not seem to have really been races in the anthropological 
 sense, that is, species of men constituted with precise and hereditary 
 physical characteristics; that is evident in the case of the Hellenes, who 
 have absorbed so many of the Albanians, not to mention the Slavs. 
 
 638 
 
CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. 639 
 
 language and costume. Except for the Bosnian Catholics, all the 
 Christians in European Turkey were Orthodox,^ in communion 
 with the Greek Church of Constantinople. Their clergy con- 
 sisted of married priests, of little education, and living in poverty 
 without regular income, and of monks sworn to celibacy. The 
 bishops, chosen from among the monks, were the heads, not only 
 of the clergy, but also of the community. According to the gen- 
 eral custom of the Orthodox Church, religion consisted mainly 
 of practices, ceremonies, fasting, and pilgrimages; the clergy 
 seldom preached or gave religious instruction, and had little 
 influence over the intellectual life of laymen. 
 
 Each of these Christian nations formed a compact group on 
 a portion of territory which was to become the centre of a Chris- 
 tian state. But each had also some of its meinbers settled out- 
 side of its principal territory. This gave rise to complications 
 of two sorts: 
 
 1. On the frontier of each territory, and in the intervening 
 regions between the national centres, the population was a mixed 
 one, composed of little national groups. This led to conflicts 
 between the different Christian nations for the possession of these 
 undecided territories. The complication was especially inextri- 
 cable in the province of Macedonia, where, into a population 
 mainly Slavic (Bulgarian or Servian) Albanian colonies and 
 bands of Wallachian shepherds (Roumanians) had introduced 
 themselves; also on the coasts and in the cities, where a whole 
 Hellenic or Hellenized population had settled. The boundaries 
 between the Servian and Bulgarian and the Greek districts were 
 not only uncertain, but fluctuating; they varied with the changes 
 of population, which were rapid in a country of high birth-rate ; 
 also with the progress of Hellenization, for the Hellenes have 
 preserved the faculty of turning into Greeks the foreigners with 
 whom they come in contact. 
 
 2. Each of these nations had outside of its territory members 
 who were subjects of pne of the great neighbouring empires, but 
 who preserved their religion, language, and a vague sentiment 
 of national unity. Thus the desire to establish the unity of the 
 whole nation brought conflicts with great neighbouring states, 
 who objected to any attempts at depriving them of subjects. 
 
 -There were Roumanians in Transylvania, in the Kingdom of 
 
 * The heretical sects, the Gregorians of Armenia, and the Nestorians of 
 Chaldea and Syria, and the sects recognising Rome, were hardly repre- 
 sented in Europe, outside of Constantinople. 
 
640 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 Hungary, in Bukovina in Austria, in Bessarabia in the Russian 
 Empire; Servians in Hungary, Albania, and Herzegovina; 
 Greeks in tlie islands and on the coast of Asia. 
 
 In 1814 all these Christian nations were subject to the Sultan. 
 They have become independent during the course of the century. 
 The Eastern Question has not been settled either by the Russian 
 conquest or the reform of the Ottoman Empire, but by the sep- 
 aration of the Christian peoples, who have been organized into 
 states on the European model. 
 
 The separation has come by degrees; except for Greece, the 
 Christian states remained officially a part of the Ottoman Em- 
 pire until 1878, and the last-born, Bulgaria, is still in that condi- 
 tion. But to understand their history, it is better, without regard 
 for ofificial forms, to study them separately, bringing each up to 
 the beginning of its political life. 
 
 ROUMANIA. 
 
 The Principalities of Moldavia and Wall&cMa up to 1856.— v 
 
 Of all the Christian nations subject to the Sultan, the Rou- 
 manians had been least affected by Ottoman rule. The two prin- 
 cipalities, Wallachia, the plain between the Danube and the 
 Carpathians, and Moldavia, the plain between the Carpathians 
 and the sea, had only become tributary to the Sultan. No vic- 
 torious Mussulmans had come in to set themselves up over the 
 Christian people; the principalities preserved all their social and 
 political organization, their Christian aristocracy of landowners 
 and dignitaries (boiars), their prince (Hospodar) elected by the 
 aristocracy, and their Orthodox clergy. 
 
 But in the eighteenth century the Ottoman government, sus- 
 pecting the Roumanian hospodars of relations with the Tsar, had 
 adopted the custom of sending as hospodars Christians who were 
 strange to the country. It usually chose Greeks from Phanar, 
 the Greek quarter of Constantinople, who were rich enough to 
 buy their nomination, and gave them but a short term; between 
 1716 and 1821 there were 37 hospodars in Wallachia and 33 in 
 Moldavia. Since 1774 .the Tsar, posing as protector of the 
 Christians, had obliged the Sultan to promise to fix the tribute 
 and appoint the hospodars for seven years. 
 
 During wars between Russia and the Sultan, the first act of 
 the Russians was always to occupy the principalities and to or- 
 ganize there a provisional administration which lasted until their 
 
PRINCIPALITIES OF MOLDAVIA AND WALLACHIA. 641 
 
 withdrawal. In 1812 Russia kept a bit of Moldavia, Bessarabia, 
 to the left of the Danube. On her withdrawal in 1834 she im- 
 posed Roumanian hospodars of her own choosing and left in 
 force the organic regulation of 183 1, drawn up in each principality 
 under the direction of the Russian authorities by an assembly of 
 boiars and bishops. 
 
 In both principalities political life was still rudimentary. The 
 only cities were the two residences of the hospodars, Jassy in 
 Moldavia and Bucharest in Wallachia, and the trading ports on 
 the Danube and the Pruth. The population was composed al- 
 most entirely of peasants, settled in the great plains; the forest- 
 covered mountains were practically uninhabited. The land was 
 divided into great estates of 400 to 8000 hectares (1000 to 20,000 
 acres), belonging to the nobles, very few of whom, especially in 
 Wallachia, resided on their estates, but left them in the hands of 
 overseers. The peasants were therefore only tenants, cultivat- 
 ing from father to son a lot which their lord gave them in return 
 for labour on the -part of the estate reserved to himself. This 
 Jaboiir, fixed officially at 12 days. in. 1831, was often trebled in 
 practice. The peasants lived in wretched huts grouped in vil- 
 lages, with almost no furniture, for they could have saved nothing 
 from pillage in that open country, constantly traversed by Rus- 
 sian and Turkish armies.* All public life was centred in the 
 capitals, where the nobles flocked to the hospodar's court to 
 spend their income. Bucharest had already a population of 
 100,000, palaces, theatres, newspapers, and carriages. It was an 
 oasis of French civilization set in a Slavic and Oriental waste; 
 for the Roumanians, a nation of Romanic language, were drawn 
 toward France; their nobles learned to speak French and im- 
 ported their luxuries and literature from Paris. Political inter- 
 est was furnished chiefly by the boiiars' complaints against the 
 hospodars, whom they accused of despotic government. 
 
 It was the French revolution of 1848 that awoke the principal- 
 ities to political life. The Roumanian nobles, in their admiration 
 for France, followed the example of Paris. The nobles of Mol- 
 davia demanded a constitution from their hospodar Stourdza, 
 
 * Von Moltke, who saw Wallachia in 1835, described it as a desert plain, 
 showing neither castles, bridges, mills, inns, gardens, nor trees; not even 
 villages, for these are hidden and formed of low huts. The people are 
 unarmed and bow down before any well-dressed man. In the houses 
 there are neither dishes, furniture, nor provisions; the Wallachian carries 
 his knife, pipe, and tobacco on his person, leaving nothing in his house. 
 
642 THE CHRISTIAN NA TIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 who replied by ordering them out of the country; attempts were 
 made to assassinate him. In Wallachia, the malcontents, aided 
 by the people of Bucharest, forced Bibesco, the hospodar, to 
 sign a constitution; then, when he fled the country, they set up 
 a provisional government. But the Tsar interfered to support 
 his proteges, the hospodars, and to put down the revolution. A 
 Russian army took possession of Moldavia in July, then Wal- 
 lachia, where a Turkish army had already seized Bucharest. The 
 Tsar and the Sultan arranged by the treaty of Balta-Liman, May, 
 1849, to replace the two hospodars with successors appointecl for 
 seven years only, and to restore the organic regulation of 1831, 
 with the prorriise to have it revised. 
 
 The war between the Tsar and the Sultan overthrew this com- 
 bination. When the Russian army, in 1854, evacuated the prin- 
 cipalities, Austria occupied them until the peace, in 1856. 
 
 Formation of tihe State of Roumania (1856-66).— The Rou- 
 manian state was the work of the European governments. The 
 Congress of Paris, in order to keep Russia from monopolizing 
 the protection of the Roumanians, put both principalities under 
 the collective guarantee of the powers. The Sultan promised 
 to leave them complete independence in internal administration; 
 as he had already, in 1829, given up his fortresses and garrisons 
 there, his sovereignty was reduced in practice to exacting a trib- 
 ute and forbidding independent foreign relations. Moldavia re- 
 covered that part of Bessarabia which was taken away from 
 Russia in order to keep her from the Danube. A European 
 commission was appointed to organize the two countries, assisted 
 by two councils {divans) elected by the inhabitants. 
 
 Two parties were formed on the final organization. Napoleon 
 III. wished to see the Roumanian nation united, as did also the 
 great majority of the Roumanians. The Ottoman and Austrian 
 governments preferred to keep the two principalities separate; 
 this system was advocated by a number of Moldavians, who 
 feared the supremacy of Bucharest. The provisional governors 
 appointed by the Sultan managed the elections so as to have 
 non-unionists elected in Moldavia. But France intervened and 
 obliged the Sultan to quash the election; the partisans of unity 
 were then elected. 
 
 In October, 1857, the two councils of Moldavia and Wallachia 
 asked for union in a single principality of Roumania, with a for- 
 eign prince. The Sultan refused and declared the councils dis- 
 solved; Napoleon supported the Roumanians. Finally, at the 
 
FORMATION OF THE STATE OF ROUMANIA. 643 
 
 Paris Conference, a compromise was effected: the principalities 
 kept their two governments, two elective hospodars, and two 
 representative assemblies; but, in 1858, they became the United 
 Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, with a common com- 
 mission of 16 members for common affairs and a common court 
 of justice. 
 
 The complete union was established by an expedient. The 
 two assemblies agreed, in 1859, to elect the same hospodar, a 
 Moldavian boiar named Couza, who was proclaimed under the 
 title of Alexander I., " Prince of Roumania." The Sultan finally 
 recognised this as a title for life, in 1861. Couza then announced 
 by a proclamation: "The Roumanian nation is founded." The 
 two ministries retired and were replaced by a single ministry. 
 The two assemblies were merged into a single National Assem- 
 bly in Bucharest in 1862. Henceforth the Roumanian state had 
 a government and a capital. 
 
 The formation of the union was accompanied by violent politi- 
 cal agitations and a permanent conflict between the prince and 
 the Assembly. The constitutional system, though officially estab- 
 lished, was not put in operation. The prince governed despoti- 
 cally, without a regular budget, and changing his ministers from 
 personal motives (twenty ministries in seven years). The As- 
 sembly voted an address claiming the constitutional system, then 
 refused to vote the budget until the ministry recognised its finan- 
 cial rights. The prince closed the Assembly, and appointed him- 
 self commander-in-chief (1863). The Assembly, at its next 
 meeting, passed a vote of lack of confidence against the ministry, 
 then refused to discuss the budget. The prince made a coup 
 d'etat, copied after Napoleon III.; he declared the Assembly dis- 
 solved, took possession of the hall, suspended the press law, and 
 promulgated a statute establishing universal suffrage, a Senate, 
 and a Chamber. He had it ratified by a plebiscite by universal 
 suffrage, 620,000 ayes against 1307 nays; he even exacted ap- 
 proval of the new system from his officials, on pain of dismissal. 
 Then, in 1864, under pretext of a conspiracy, he had the leaders 
 of the constitutional party arrested. After tha:t he pursued a 
 masterful policy, decreeing the budget, having his official candi- 
 dates elected, and reducing the function of the legislature to 
 mere registration of his decisions. He had himself declared 
 hereditary prince in 1865, and having no children he designated 
 his successor. 
 
 The Assembly represented in this conflict, not the entire na- 
 
*44 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 tion, but the Roumanian nobility, the only part of the nation of 
 sufficient education to take part in political life; the mass of the 
 nation remained inactive. Alexander attempted, like Napoleon 
 III., to pose as a democratic sovereign. The Paris Convention 
 imposed on the Roumanians the obligation of abolishing all class 
 privileges and " proceeding without delay to the revision of the 
 law regulating the relations of landlords with the farmers, with 
 a view to bettering the condition of the peasants." The Assem- 
 bly had been unable to agree on the reform, and the prince made 
 it by decree, in August, 1864. The peasants received as their 
 own property the land they possessed as tenants, and were freed 
 from compulsory labour, paying insteiad an indemnity to the 
 great landlords. ■ The government assumed charge of the trans- 
 action, expropriating the landowners, but leaving them at least 
 a third of their property and giving them a compensation. The 
 land was distributed among the peasants in lots proportioned to 
 their live stock. They were to pay for it in annual instalments 
 spread over 15 years. Four hundred thousarid families becatiie 
 proprietors. ■ -•.■,: » 
 
 Alexander was detested by the people of Bucharest. The 
 Roumanian nobles took advantage of this to rid the country of 
 him by a plot. The conspirators surprised him in his sleeping 
 apartments, forced him to abdicate, and set up a provisional gov- 
 ernment which convoked the Chambers to elect a new prince. 
 The Roumanians were convinced that their country could not be 
 governed by a Roumanian prince, as the great families could not 
 bear to yield obedience to one of their own rank. They there- 
 fore agreed to invite a foreign prince. The Chambers elected 
 first a Belgian prince, who refused. A German prince of the 
 Catholic branch of the Hohenzollerns became Charles I. of Rou- 
 mania (1866). 
 
 The Constitutional Monarchy. — With the accession of Prince 
 Charles a regular political life began. The Constitution of 1866 
 established in Roumania a liberal system like that in Belgium 
 (jury trial, national guard, liberty of press, and of public meet- 
 ing), and the machinery of the government of the constitutional 
 monarchies, a responsible ministry chosen by the King, a parlia- 
 ment consisting of two houses, both chosen by voters divided 
 into groups by a system similar to the Prussian classes: a Senate 
 of 120 members, of which 1 10 are elected from among the prop- 
 erty owners by two groups of propertied voters, and a Chamber 
 of Deputies of 178 members, elected by almost universal but un- 
 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. 643 
 
 equal suffrage — ^the voters acting in four groups, of which the 
 last includes all taxpayers. The country was organized on the 
 French system of departments and districts, administered by 
 prefects and subprefects; with centralized services, a Court of 
 Accounts, and legal codes copied from France. 
 
 The former parties began to dispute for possession of the 
 power. Their chief points of difference were on foreign policy 
 and social tendencies. The White or Conservative party, com- 
 posed of the great landowners and called the " Boiar party," was 
 Russia's party, hostile to the foreign prince and ill-disposed to- 
 ward reform. The Red or Liberal party wanted government by 
 the middle class and alliance with Germany and Austria. The 
 leader of the Liberal party, John Bratiano, gained for himself the 
 name of Roumanian Bismarck. Between the two, as the result 
 of personal rivalries, arose a third party, the " Young Right," 
 whose efforts were chiefly directed against Bratiano's adminis- 
 tration. A group of dissenters detached itself from the Liberal 
 party, led by a brother of Bratiano ; also another group under 
 Rosetti, favouring universal suffrage; - The- struggles and coali- 
 tions between these groups made parliamentary life animated and 
 complicated. 
 
 Charles I., who, until he became prince, had been an ofiScer in 
 the Prussian army, busied himself chiefly with the army and with 
 foreign policy. He always observed very nearly the parlia- 
 mentary principle, governing with ministers supported by the 
 majority in the Chambers. But it is plain that in Roumania the 
 ministry has such control over the elections that the sovereign 
 may in many cases make the majority by calling to the ministry 
 the party he prefers. Charles I., naturally leaning toward the 
 Liberals, who favoured the German alliance, began with a Lib- 
 eral ministry under Bratiano, and kept the Liberal party in office 
 except when the united oppositions became too strong. 
 
 One of the great difficulties was in the financial organization; 
 the country had already a heavy debt, amounting to almost 
 $160,000,000, and a chronic deficit which went on for twenty 
 years. The state lands were sold, a government monopoly in 
 tobacco introduced, the currency was reformed and placed on 
 the decimal system. Bratiano's program included the develop- 
 ment of the country's economic resources by establishing rail- 
 roads and schools. But the Liberal party was still too weak to 
 keep itself in power. The Roumanian sympathy with France 
 made the position of a Hohenzollern prince a very difficult one. 
 
646 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 as long as France and Prussia were on such bad terms. The 
 Conservatives gained the majority in the Chambers. Charles I., 
 feeling himself unpopular, resigned himself to a Conservative 
 ministry, but occasionally tried to restore Bratiano until 1868. 
 Roumania went through a period of severe struggles inter- 
 spersed with outbreaks. In 1870 the Chamber officially ex- 
 pressed its sympathy with France, and the prince talked of ab- 
 dicating;* a demonstration in honour of the German victory 
 in March, 1871, led to a riot in Bucharest. Finally by means of 
 a dissolution a Chamber was secured that was willing to support 
 a compromise Conservative ministry under Catargi, who con- 
 sented to govern in harmony with the prince. Order was re- 
 stored, and the Catargi ministry remained in ofiSce until 1876. 
 For the first time a Chamber lived out its term. 
 
 Charles I. laboured to build up an army on the Prussiaa 
 model. He obtained a compulsory three-year service; but, as 
 the budget would not permit the enrollment of the whole con- 
 tingent, it was divided into two sections, a standing army for 
 three years and a reserve, the dorobanze, called out for periodical 
 practice. It thus formed an army of nearly 150,000 men in time 
 of war, provided with modern artillery imported from Germany. 
 This Roumanian army was to play a decisive part in the war 
 against the Turks. 
 
 The prince's position was strengthened. When the crisis of 
 the Ottoman Empire set in, Charles I. found himself strong 
 enough to pursue a national policy. His plan was to free Rou- 
 mania from Turkish sovereignty, which still made itself felt in 
 many offensive ways. The Porte refused to call the country 
 Roumania, to recognise her diplomatic agents in Turkey, or tO' 
 let them settle the affairs of Roumanian subjects. Charles I. 
 then shook off the Conservative party and, after trying a mixed 
 ministry, took a Liberal ministry under Bratiano in 1876, which, 
 with a short interruption in 188 1 and several reconstructions, 
 lasted until 1888. 
 
 Roumania, having entered the war against the Sultan, joined 
 forces with Russia, who promised her the integrity of her terri- 
 tory. But in the peace Russia took Roumanian Bessarabia, 
 which she needed in order to reach the left bank of the Danube; 
 
 * In a private letter dated 1871 he complains of the inexperience of the 
 Roumanian people, who have " jumped from a despotic system to a most 
 liberal constitution," and who " have not the necessary strength of char- 
 acter for an almost republican form of government." 
 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. 647 
 
 in exchange she made the Sultan cede to Roumania the 
 Dobrudsha, a fertile but unhealthy and deserted country. Rou- 
 mania appealed to the Congress of Berlin, but secured only a 
 slight increase of compensation. 
 
 The war made Roumania a sovereign state. Her indepen- 
 dence, which had been proclaimed by the Roumanian Qiambers 
 as early as 1877, was officially recognised by the Sultan and the 
 Congress, but on the condition of granting legal equality with- 
 out religious distinctions; this related to the Jews of Moldavia, 
 who numbered nearly 300,000, and had hitherto been excluded 
 from political rights. The title of prince was replaced by that 
 of King in 1881. 
 
 Tlie Kingdom of Roumania was still, however, far from includ- 
 ing the whole Rouman stock. Not to mention the Wallachian 
 shepherds and Roumanish communities scattered through Bul- 
 garia, Servia, and Macedonia, there remained a half million of 
 Roumans in Bessarabia, 2,500,000 in Hungary and Transylvania, 
 and 200,000 in Bukovina. A party has been formed to deliver 
 unredeemed Roumania {Roumania irredenta). It has put itself 
 in communication with the outside Roumans, especially those in 
 Hungary, and has made sundry demonstrations against which 
 the Hungarian government has publicly protested. 
 
 On the other hand an Orthodox Russian movement has been 
 made among the clergy by the priests educated in the Russian 
 seminary of Kiev, and among the peasants, by the popes and 
 peddlers of patriotic Russian emblems. The Roumanian 
 Church, governed by a synod of its own bishops, under the di- 
 rection of lay oiBcers, has been declared wholly independent of 
 the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople. This led to an Ortho- 
 dox agitation, aimed in reality against the King, on account of 
 his being a Catholic. In order to calm the discontent the King 
 had his nephew and heir, Prince Ferdinand, brought into Rou- 
 mania; this prince has himself remained a Catholic, but has had 
 ' his son baptized in the Orthodox faith (1893). 
 
 The Liberal ministry went on building railroads and establish- 
 ing schools and supporting the King's military enterprise of turn- 
 ing Bucharest into a great fortified camp. The ministry at- 
 tempted an agrarian reform. In 1884 it procured a revision of 
 the Constitution, abolishing the national guard, and making the 
 suffrage more democratic by suppressing the separate group of 
 3000-franc electors. A small socialist party was formed, having 
 its centre at Bucharest and seeking to gain the support of the 
 
648 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 peasants who were disappointed in their expectation of receiv- 
 ing lands. 
 
 The Liberal party, weakened by the divisions among its 
 leaders, was overthrown by the agitation, produced by the new 
 understanding between France and Russia. The Conservative 
 party accused it of having made the Roumanian army a part of 
 the German army, and with having allied itself to the enemies 
 of France. The Conservatives obtained a majority in the Cham- 
 ber and even voted to impeach the Bratiano ministry (1889). 
 
 After the experiment of a coalition ministry of seceding Lib- 
 erals and young Conservatives, the King, in 1889, went back to 
 Conservative ministries, with a sprinkling of Liberal-Conserv- 
 tives; these ministries lasted until 1895. At that time, Bratiano 
 being dead, the Liberal party regained the majority and the 
 ministry (Stourdza, 1895; Aurelian, 1896). 
 
 The industrial advance of the country has continued. If the 
 debt has increased, it has been for the construction of state rail- 
 roads. The credit of the government has been strengthened and 
 its bonds have risen in price. 
 
 GREECE. 
 
 The Greek Nation before 1820. — Greece, conquered by the Ot- 
 tomans, placed under Mussulman governors, and held down by 
 Mussulman garrisons, had nothing corresponding to a national 
 organization. The Greeks, since the Middle Ages, did not form 
 a single nation. The Greek Church was common to all the 
 Orthodox, so that outsiders made no distinction between Greeks 
 and Slavs. But the Greek langauge had been preserved, and 
 this, combined with memories of ancient Greece, was enough to 
 keep alive the thought of an Hellenic nation. All the Christians 
 who spoke Greek, not only descendants of the Hellenes, but also 
 the Hellenized Albanians and Slavs, felt Ithemselves to be mem- 
 bers of one and the- same illustrious race, to which it was glorious 
 to belong. 
 
 The renascence of the Hellenic nation became manifest at the 
 end of the eighteenth century. Under the Sultan Selim, who 
 favoured his Christian subjects, the Greeks had grown in num- 
 bers, wealth, and civilization. They had established the manu- 
 facture of silk and of cotton, especially in Thessaly. They had 
 taken advantage of the European wars to build up a merchant 
 marine under the flag of Turkey, which remained neutral. They 
 
THE CREEK NATION BEFORE 1820. 649 
 
 carried on almost the whole exportation of Russian grain from 
 Odessa and a large share of European commerce in the Levant. 
 Being good and courageous sailors, they made quick voyages at 
 slight expense, for the crew consisted of the relatives of the 
 owner and shared in the profits. It was said in 1816 that they 
 had about 600 vessels and 17,000 sailors; they had established 
 colonies of Greek merchants in the chief ports of the Mediter- 
 ranean (Marseilles, Leghorn, Trieste, and Odessa) and even in 
 London and Liverpool. 
 
 By contact with the civilized countries the Greeks advanced 
 in civilization. Their merchants, enriched by the new trade, 
 founded schools for the instruction of Greek youth at Bucha- 
 rest, Corfu, and Constantinople. The Greek language, debased 
 by centuries of barbarism, began to recover its purity. By the 
 labours of Corai, a practical compromise was found between the 
 vulgar tongue and classical Greek. 
 
 Through education the Greeks became conscious of their na- 
 tionality. The French Revolution aroused them ; * later the 
 destruction of the Republic of Venice created, in the Ionian Isles, 
 an Hellenic centre independent of the Sultan. These France 
 erected into the Republic of the Seven Isles. After their capture 
 by England they were placed under an English governor with 
 a special administration (1815). 
 
 The Greeks were scattered all over the Ottoman Empire, on 
 the coasts and in the large cities. But a compact Greek popula- 
 tion, in the southern part of European Turkey, occupied Morea, 
 Romaie (central Greece), Thessaly, and the islands. There were 
 among them Albanian and Slavic Christians who were rapidly 
 becoming Hellenized. In these regions there were Hellenic 
 groups with enough strength of organization to have thoughts 
 of national independence. 
 
 , In Morea, where there were few Mussulmans, each Christian 
 community was administered by it^ own notables ; for the coun- 
 try as a whole the assembly of primates, elected by delegates 
 from the communes, met each year with the Mussulman Pasha 
 at Tripolitza. In Maina (ancient Laconia) the mountaineers, the 
 Mainotes, remained armed, with leaders entrenched in strong 
 castles and carrying on petty warfare with one another. 
 
 •■ *Rhigas, the Greek patriot of Thessaly, composed a national hymn: 
 "Rise, sons of Greece, the time of deliverance is nigh." The Austrian 
 police handed him over to the Pasha of Belgrade, who had him drowned 
 (1798). 
 
6S0 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 In the mountains of central Greece and Epirus the Christians, 
 Hellenes, and Albanians formed an irregular militia, the Paili- 
 cares, who kept their national dress and their national leaders, 
 the Armatoles. But since the Turkish government, distrusting 
 the Christian armatoles, had excited Albanian Mussulmans 
 against them, the Pallicares had retired to the mountains and 
 become Klephts or brigands. They defied the Turkish authori- 
 ties and were the national heroes of the Hellenes; they fought 
 in small bands, usually with guns, which they fired from behind 
 rocks. There were no sailors then except in the islands, where 
 the Greek population was allowed to govern itself, paying taxes 
 to Turkey. Almost all the seafaring population was concen- 
 trated on three bare and barren rocks, the Nautical Isles, in the 
 Argolic Gulf. The largest of these was Hydra, where the people, 
 though wearing the Greek dress, were still Albanian and spoke the 
 Albanian language; it had a population of 40,000, crowded into 
 3000 stone houses built in the shelter of a high bluff. The com- 
 munity was aristocratic, only the landowning " primates " could 
 vote in choosing the 12 demogerofiies (elders of the people) who 
 governed the island. Spezzia, which was peopled by half-Hel- 
 lenized Albanians, was less populous, less rich, and less aristo- 
 cratic, with fewer " primates " and less powerful families. Psara, 
 the smallest of the islands, was altogether Greek and democratic. 
 All three lived like small republics, with the condition of send- 
 ing presents to the dignitaries of the Turkish navy. 
 
 Their ships, armed with cannon for defence against the Bar- 
 bary pirates, manned by semi-martial sailors, formed a veritable 
 navy. The general peace, by putting an end to the privileged 
 situation of the Turkish flag, had reduced the sailors of the 
 Nautical Isles to inaction and disposed them to throw themselves 
 into adventures. 
 
 Formation of the Kingdom of Greece (1820-29). — In 1820 
 Greece had warriors armed and ready to fight: the Morean 
 mountaineers and Pallicares, and the sailors of the Nautical Isles. 
 Her opportunity came when the revolt of a Mussulman gov- 
 ernor, Ali, Pasha of Janina, set the example of insurrection. 
 The Greeks revolted at once in Epirus, Morea, and the islands. 
 
 In Morea the " primates " sent to Tripolitza to check the ris- 
 ing judged it more prudent to join the rebels. The Mainotes 
 came down from the mountains and the Archbishop of Patras 
 called his flock to arms. In three weeks the Mussulmans had 
 lost everything but the capital, Tripolitza. The Christian in- 
 
FORMATION OF THE KINGDOM OF GREECE. 651 
 
 surgents, led by Kolokrotoni, a Klepht, blockaded the city and 
 finally massacred the Mussulmans (1821). This was from the 
 first a war of race and religion, a war of extermination, in which 
 prisoners and even women and children were massacred on both 
 sides. The war was long and widespread, full of dramatic 
 episodes which were sung by the poets and became famous all 
 over Europe. It was a period of coercion in all the European 
 countries; the newspapers, forbidden to concern themselves with 
 domestic affairs, were full of the exploits of the Greek heroes. 
 
 In fact the fate of Greece did not depend on the insurgents, 
 -who were' too few to resist all the forces of the Ottoman Empire; 
 it depended on the Christian powers of Europe. But the in- 
 surgents' resistance gave the public opinion of Europe time to 
 compel the governments to intervene. It took six years to do it. 
 
 The insurrection was entirely stamped out in Epirus, Thes- 
 saly, and Crete (1823-24), after a number of massacres. It cen- 
 tred itself in the three regions that were to form the Kingdom of 
 Greece: Morea, the Islands, and central Greece. The Greeks 
 held out there for four years, 1821 to 1825; they drove back a 
 Turkish army in Morea in 1823, and des'troyed a Turkish fleet 
 in 1824; their methods were those of guerrilla warfare — ambus- 
 cades on land, fireships at sea. 
 
 The Greeks had as leader, at first, a young nobleman, Demet- 
 rius Ypsilanti, who came to their assistance with his followers 
 and his black flag bearing the design of a phoenix (see p. 619) ; he 
 was called the Archstrategist. A national assembly met in the 
 woods near Epidaurus and proclaimed the independence of 
 Greece. It formed governments of notables (gerotisies), two for 
 ■central Greece and one for Morea, with a common central gov- 
 ernment for the whole. But the Greeks, who grudged obedience 
 to an outsider, soon got rid of the band of followers and the 
 phcenix. They then broke into two parties — on one side the 
 Morean primates and the people of the Nautical Isles, favouring 
 European civilization, and directed by Maurokordato, who wore 
 a black coat and an eye-glass; on the other the Morean warriors 
 under Kolokotroni, the Klepht. The Klephts at first drove out 
 the legislative assembly, and each party had its own government; 
 then they fought each other, and the civilized party prevailed. 
 After this they divided into primates and Nauticals, and went 
 on fighting (1823). 
 
 At length, in 1825, two Mussulman armies invaded Greece at 
 once. One, coming by land from the north, besieged Misso- 
 
6s 2 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 longhi, and made the famous assault and massacre in 1826. The 
 other, under Ibrahim, came from Egypt by sea, landed in the 
 south, and regained Morea. The struggle went on between the 
 primate party, friendly to England, and the warrior party, 
 friendly to Russia. Each had its assembly. They decided to 
 join in a single assembly, which made the Constitution of Troe- 
 zen and elected for seven years a head of the government (Ky- 
 bernetes) ; they chose Capodistrias, an Ionian, an agent of Russia, 
 with an English admiral-in-chief and general-in-chief. After 
 the Turks took the Acropolis, in June, 1827, the insurgents had 
 nothing left but some forts, without ammunition, provisions, or 
 money. 
 
 Greece, which was already in Mussulman hands again, was de- 
 livered by the European powers. (On the negotiations and the 
 succeeding war, see chap, xxv.) The governments of England, 
 Russia, and France had finally decided to interfere. They 
 meant only to intimidate the Sultan and make him give Greece 
 an autonomous government; their fleets came to Greece only to 
 compel Ibrahim's army to withdraw (1827). But the battle of 
 Navarino, which came on against the wish of the governments, 
 obliged them to active intervention. A French army took 
 Morea from the Turks onte more (1828), and the next year a 
 Russian army forced the Sultan to accept the decisions of the 
 powers. The London Conference created an independent King- 
 dom of Greece, eventuafly suppressing the tribute money which, 
 according to its first plan, was to be paid to the Sultan. But it 
 did not wish to found a true Greek nation. The territory of the 
 Kingdom was made up, not of all the countries having a Greek 
 population, but only of those that were still in insurrection in 
 1825: that is to say, Morea, central Greece, and the European 
 islands. The King was to be a European prince, and they were 
 long in finding him. Leopold of Coburg, who later became King 
 of Belgium, refused the invitation in 1830. 
 
 The Absolutist System (182943). — Meanwhile Capodistrias 
 was governing despotically and insulting the Greeks. " You are 
 all of yoU," he said, " brigands and liars." The people of Hydra 
 revolted, seized the Greek ships and burned them. The Mau- 
 romichalis, the chief family of the Mainotes, revolted. Capodis- 
 trias had the head of the family imprisoned and was himself 
 assassinated in October, 1831. His brother tried to succeed 
 him, but the malcontents formed a government which made war 
 on him and forced him to flee. At length, in Otto, son of Louis, 
 
THE ABSOLUTIST SYSTEM. 653 
 
 the King of Bavaria, a prince was found who had no connection 
 with any of the great rival powers and was an admirer of Greece. 
 
 The Greece resulting from this war and diplomacy was a small 
 and poverty-stricken state (750,000 souls). It lacked the richest 
 Greek region, Thessaly, and the principal island, Crete. The 
 country left to it was laid waste and depopulated by a war of 
 extermination drawn out through 10 years. It was still full of 
 armed bands (the semi-brigand Pallicares); it was without re- 
 sources, and was burdened already with a usurious debt con- 
 tracted in 1824-25. The Greek nation has spent all the rest of 
 this century in renewing its population, restoring its land to 
 cultivation, ridding itself of brigands, and trying to increase its 
 territory, and improve its financial condition. It has had but a 
 slow and partial success in a task so out of proportion to its 
 resources. The European public, which knew little of the actual 
 condition of the country, expected a brilliant renaissance of an- 
 cient Greece. The disillusionment which followed this philhel- 
 lenic enthusiasm produced a feeling of derisive contempt which 
 the obvious progress of Greece has not yet altogether dis- 
 sipated. 
 
 The Greeks were a people of peasants, sailors, and warriors, 
 with democratic customs, but accustomed to rally around popu- 
 lar chiefs. In this mountainous country, without roads and 
 almost without cities, the only public life was municipal life. 
 Over this still semi-barbaric people was placed a European gov- 
 ernment. King Otto, who was still a minor, brought with him 
 a Bavarian regent who governed until his majority; alsO' a Bava- 
 rian ministry. Bavarian officials, and a small army of Bavarian, 
 volunteers. He himself, still a Catholic and a German, brought 
 to his task the ideas and methods of personal government. Po- 
 litical life began with the Greek Orthodox antipathy to the for- 
 eign Catholics, with the dissatisfaction of the Greek pallicares, 
 incorporated in an army with the German uniform; with the 
 ravages of the disbanded pallicares who had become klephts with 
 the Mainote revolt (1835), and finally with the irritation of the 
 clergy against the organization of the Greek Church under a 
 synod of 5 prelates and a lay proctor on the Russian model. 
 The government succeeded, however, in organizing some of the 
 institutions of a civilized state: a capital, at Athens instead of 
 Nauplia, in 1834, — a gendarmerie in 1833, — an administration 
 like that in France, 10 names with prefects, 42 eparchies with sub- 
 prefects and communes under demarchs practically appointed by 
 
6s 4 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 the government, — a Council of State, composed of the principal 
 Greeks, in 1835, — the University of Athens in 1837, which be- 
 came a centre of learning and patriotism for the whole Hellenic 
 world, — a national bank in 1841. 
 
 Greek politics were entirely controlled by its dependence on 
 the three European powers that had established the kingdom and 
 advanced the money necessary for its organization, in the form 
 of a loan of $12,000,000 guaranteed by all three. Each had its 
 party. Russia supported the Napists, Capodistrias' former 
 party, recruited among thp clergy and the Orthodox believers, 
 chiefly in Morea; France favoured the Coletti party, whose 
 power was in central Greece; England, the Maurokordato and 
 Tricoupis party, composed chiefly of the islanders. All three, 
 struggling against the Bavarian court and government, agreed 
 on a revolution. The Russian party wished to drive out the 
 King and replace him with an Orthodox prince; the two others, 
 to impose a constitution upon him. They took advantage of the 
 government's financial embarrassment. England and Russia, 
 by demanding interest on the loan and reduction of expenses in 
 1843, forced the King to disband his Bavarian soldiers. The 
 Greek soldiers then revolted; the defenceless King dismissed his 
 ministers, convoked a national assembly (1843), and accepted the 
 Constitution of 1844. This was a liberal European constitution 
 with a responsible ministry and two houses, a Senate chosen by 
 the King, and a Chamber of Deputies elected, by universal suf- 
 frage, for three years, and receiving salaries. 
 
 Greece under the Constitutional System. — The King, in his 
 subsequent isolation, was obliged to make honest application of 
 the parliamentary system. Greece, alone among the new Balkan 
 states, has been governed by ministers who are really subjected 
 to the will of the majority, resigning under a hostile vote of the 
 Chamber or the people. 
 
 This essentially democratic society, without religious passions, 
 and but little influenced by the clergy, had no sufficiently sharp 
 distinctions to make real parties. But as ways of making a 
 career are few, employment scarce, and higher education con- 
 fined to the upper classes, there are too many politicians and 
 candidates for office for so poor a country. This causes sharp 
 competition in elections to the Chamber and in the Chamber 
 continuous struggles for possession of the ministerial offices. 
 Greece is remarkable for the intensity of her political passions, 
 shown in electoral struggles by administrative pressure, frauds, 
 
GREECE UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM. 655 
 
 and riots in connection with the ballot, and by the violence of 
 the parliamentary debates and newspaper articles. 
 
 At first the contention for possession of power lay between the 
 old parties. The advantage remained with the English and 
 French parties, who had established a Western constitution and 
 maintained the Catholic King, in spite of the Russian party. 
 The French party then took the ministry (1844) and kept it. 
 This caused trouble with the English government. On account 
 of Don Pacifico, a Portuguese Jew and an English subject, 
 whose house was pillaged in a riot in 1850, England sent a fleet 
 to blockade the Piraeus. 
 
 The Crimean war revolutionized Greek politics. The Greeks 
 hoped for a chance to complete their territory through the war; 
 they sent volunteers and arms to the Greek insurgents in Thes- 
 saly (1854). But England and France were unwilling to have 
 the Ottoman Empire cvirtailed. French troops came to occupy 
 the Piraeus from 1854 to 1857. Greece was forced to accept 
 peace with the Sultan and to promise to pay ofif the debt. Rus- 
 sia did nothing for Greece, preferring to protect the Slavic 
 peoples. 
 
 The conduct of Greece's former guardians ruined the French, 
 English, and Russian parties and completed Otto's unpopularity; 
 he was reproached with having ofifered no resistance tO' Europe. 
 The new division was between the court party and the demo- 
 cratic party. The court minister (Miaoulis, 1857-62), who main- 
 tained himself by " managing " the elections, became so unpopu- 
 lar that the army finally turned against the King. The soldiers 
 revolted during the absence of the King and plundered the royal 
 palace. A provisional government, composed of democrats, con- 
 voked a national assembly, which voted to dethrone Otto (1862). 
 ^ The Greeks used this revolution to gain an increase of terri- 
 tory. The Ionian Isles, governed since 1815 by EngHsh gov- 
 ernors, had a Greek population which had not ceased to ask an- 
 nexation to the kingdom, and had even attempted revolts (1848- 
 49). In 1862 England decided to give them to Greece, should 
 the new King please her. The Greeks hastened to elect Prince 
 Alfred, who refused; then they chose the English candidate, a 
 son of Christian of Gliicksburg, Crown Prince of Denmark. He 
 became George I. in 1863. The Ionian Isles were annexed, and 
 the University of Corfu was joined with that of Athens. 
 
 The Constitution of 1864 established liberty of the press and 
 abolished the Senate. All the parliamentary power was centred 
 
6s 6 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 in the Boide, elected by universal suffrage, increased to 192 mem- 
 bers with a four-years' term. Political parties became hardly 
 more than personal coteries (Kommata) known by the leader's 
 name, and usually made up of men from his own part of the king- 
 dom. The principal leaders were Komoundouros (Maina), 
 Delyannis (Morea), Bulgaris (Nautical Isles), Zaimis (Northern 
 Morea), Deligeorgis (Missolonghi), and Lombardos (Ionian 
 Isles). Competition was sharp and ministries short. It became 
 the custom, as formerly in the United States, for each party to 
 change all the officials when it assumed control, which finally 
 gave political contests the appearance of quarrels for private 
 interest. However, behind these rivalries there was perceptible 
 a clashing between two opposing tendencies — a national tend- 
 ency, hostile to European civilization, represented especially by 
 Delyannis and the Moreans, and, on the other side, a European 
 tendency represented by Tricoupis and his attempts at public 
 works and the establishment of schools. 
 
 For fifteen years the ministry has alternated between Tricoupis 
 (1882-85, 1886-90, 1893-95) and Delyannis (1885-86, 1890-92 
 and since 1895). The primary objects of Greek policy are still 
 the completion of her territory and the payment of the national 
 debt, both of which keep the Greeks strictly dependent on Eu- 
 ropean governments and capitalists. At each crisis of the Otto- 
 man Empire, Greece has attempted to regain a bit of Greek ter- 
 ritory; but the powers have always interfered to prevent it: — after 
 the aid given to Cretan insurgents in 1868, by the Conference of 
 Paris (1869); — during the Russian invasion in 1878; — in 1886, 
 in connection with Crete. France and Italy obtained for Greece a 
 promise in 1878, which, after long negotiations, and mainly 
 by English exertions, ended in the annexation of Thessaly in 
 1881. The finances have not yet been restored to order. The 
 deficit goes on, increased by armaments for attempts at war 
 against Turkey, and by railroads and canals. The debt, increased 
 by borrowing to pay interest and by new loans (1864), grew to 
 exceed $100,000,000; payments were finally suspended in, 1893. 
 
 Nevertheless the country is gaining in population (2,200,000) 
 and in welfare. Her wealth increases with her agriculture and 
 commerce. Primary education has become universal. At the 
 same time the assimilating power of the Hellenes continues to 
 increase the number of Hellenes in the Ottoman Empire. The 
 whole number of Greek-speaking people is estimated at 8,000,000. 
 The Kingdom of Greece is the national centre for the scattered 
 
FORMATION OF THE PRINCIPALITY OF SERVIA. 657 
 
 Hellenes, the Greek merchants of the large cities of Europe, and 
 the Greek physicians of the Mussulman countries. It is to these 
 " Homogenes " (people of the same race), enriched abroad but 
 still Greek patriots, that the kingdom, and particularly Athens, 
 owe the legacies and foundations that enable Greece to hold her 
 place in civilized Europe. 
 
 SERVIA AND MONTENEGRO. 
 
 ronnation of the Principality of Servia. — The Servian nation, 
 which had suffered an effective conquest, had lost its national 
 aristocracy. There remained only a peasant people of Servian 
 tongue and Orthodox religion unable to read or write, living on 
 corn and maize and herds of swine which fed in the oak forests. 
 Mussulman warriors, settled in the country, occupied the place of 
 an aristocracy. But the Servians were in relations with Austria; 
 many of them served in the Austrian army, from which some re- 
 turned to their homes having attained the ranks of inferior offi- 
 cers. These returned officers and the pork-dealers were the 
 notables of this land of peasants. 
 
 The Christian Servians took advantage of a civil war between 
 the Mussulman warriors, to revolt first in the name of the Sultan, 
 then against the Mussulmans ; they took Belgrade and plundered 
 it in 1805. The swineherds of Schoumadia, accustomed to roam 
 armed through the forests, and the brigands (heiduques), who 
 were popular heroes as in Greece, were the fighting force of the 
 insurrection. Georges, the leader, called by the Turks Kara 
 (the Black), was a petty Austrian officer who had become a pork- 
 dealer. The Tsar, who was at war with the Sultan (1806-12), 
 upheld the Servian insurgents, who recognised him as their pro- 
 tector. But, after peace was made, the insurgents, abandoned 
 by Russia, could resist no longer, and fled to Austria. Only a 
 memory and some epic poems remained of Kara-Georges' 
 Servia. The Turks re-established collectors, and began once 
 more to impose forced labour, and to behead and impale 
 Christians.* f?; ■ ' — o -^/lli 
 
 A local chief (voiwode) Milosh Obrenowitch, a pork-dealer 
 and an enemy to Kara-Georges, took up the work of emancipa- 
 tion, but by different methods. He did not pose as a national 
 
 *The history of the Servian people before the independence and until 
 1820 is known almost entirely through oral tradition and the national 
 songs. 
 
658 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 hero, but as a servant of the Sultan. By protesting against the 
 servile condition of Servia, he obtained power to collect the taxes 
 and a right to keep arms. When Kara-Georges came back to 
 Servia, he was assassinated, by order, it is said, of Milosh (1818). 
 
 Milosh, grown wealthy by levying taxes and holding the 
 monopoly in the pork trade, induced the Ottoman government 
 to give him the title of " Prince of the Servians of the Pashalik 
 of Belgrade " (1820). During the Sultan's wars against the 
 Greeks and against the Russians, Milosh remained neutral. The 
 Sultan rewarded him by making him hereditary prince in 1830, 
 withdrawing the Turkish garrisons from the country (except in 
 Belgrade); he also gave him some of the districts inhabited by 
 Servians outside of the Pashalik. This was the obscure begin- 
 ning of the principality of Servia, under the form of a self-govern- 
 ing province of the Ottoman Empire, administered in the name 
 of the Sultan by an hereditary native prince. 
 
 Milosh, established at Kragujevatch, in the interior, governed 
 as an absolute monarch,* summoning only on great occasions 
 the Skouptchina, a general assembly of the heads of families, 
 which offered him no resistance. But he had displeased Russia, 
 then all-powerful with the Ottoman government, and alienated 
 many of his own supporters. A party led by his own brother 
 Jephrem obliged him to accept a constitution in 1835; but the 
 Russian and Turkish governments rejected it, and the opposi- 
 tion fled the country. Finally, in 1837, the Sultan and Russia 
 imposed on him a constitution giving him three ministers and 
 establishing a Senate of 17 life-members. The Senate, composed 
 of his adversaries, asked him for accounts. Milosh attempted to 
 get rid of the Senate by a peasant revolt; then, in 1839, abdicated 
 in favour of his son Milan, a consumptive, who died soon after, 
 leaving as his successor Michael, aged sixteen years. 
 
 Michael reigned with a regency composed of the notables that 
 had overcome Milosh. But the regents could not agree. A 
 strong party, supported by the Turks, revolted, drove out 
 Michael, and made the Skouptchina elect Alexander Kara- 
 georgewitch, the son of the national hero, Kara-Georges; 
 the Sultan accepted him (1842). Alexander was a peace- 
 loving prince. Established at Belgrade, where there was a 
 
 ♦Tradition tells us that he took what he chose, paying for it what he 
 chose; whoever was imprudent enough to complain of him was assassi- 
 nated and his murder credited to a Turkish brigand; he forced merchants 
 of the Danube cities to come and mow and reap in his fields. 
 
SERVIA UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM. 659 
 
 Mussulman garrison, he remained subject to Austria and 
 the Sultan. He was reproached with receiving in Oriental 
 fashion, with his fez on, and with allowing himself to be 
 led astray by the Austrian consul. The Servians were Ortho- 
 dox, and did not take kindly to a prince who favoured Catholics 
 and Mussulmans, and who did not convoke the Skouptchina. 
 The senators conspired against him in 1857. He had them 
 arrested and dismissed from ofifice; the Turkish government 
 forced him to restore them. His ministers, working in harmony 
 with Russia, had a Skouptchina elected which requested the 
 Prince to abdicate On his refusal, he was deposed and old Mi- 
 losh recalled (1858). 
 
 Michael, who succeeded Milosh in i860, seems to have had a 
 plan to make one state of all the regions peopled by Orthodox 
 Servians, by annexing Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Montenegro 
 to Servia. This nationalist policy demanded a military force in 
 Servia and an understanding with Servians abroad. Michael be- 
 gan to build up a Servian army. It was composed of a very 
 small standing force of 2 battalions, designed only to serve as a 
 nucleus; and, secondly, of a national militia to include all able- 
 bodied men (80,000). Abroad the Servians excited and sup- 
 ported the insurgent Christians in Herzegovina (1862). This 
 nationalist agitation led to conflicts in Belgrade between the 
 Christian inhabitants and the Turkish garrison. The Turks fired 
 on the city. The European powers intervened and obliged the 
 Sultan to withdraw his troops from Belgrade. Turkish garri- 
 sons still remained in certain fortresses. By direct agreement 
 with the Turkish government, Michael secured their withdrawal 
 in 1867. He still kept the Turkish flag by the side of the Servian 
 flag, as the last remnant of Ottoman rule in Servia. He was 
 about to secure something still better, the government of Bosnia, 
 under promise of paying a tribute. This would have been a long 
 step toward a Greater Servia. But the hatred felt toward him by 
 the family of Kara-Georges, the Karageorgewics, was a fatal 
 obstacle. These opponents, supported by Austria, formed a 
 conspiracy and assassinated Michael in 1868. 
 
 Servia under the Constitutional System. — Michael had no chil- 
 dren; but his family, the Obrenowics, had become the popular 
 national dynasty; the Skouptchina proclaimed Prince Milan, Mi- 
 losh's grand-nephew, who was then 14 years old and was at 
 school in Paris. The council of regency which governed in his 
 name until his majority (1872) was presided over by Ristitch, the 
 
66o THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 leader of the Liberal party. Ristitch tried to organize the gov- 
 ernment on the European plan, by the Constitution of 1869. 
 
 The Senate was transformed into a Council of State of 11 to 15 
 members appointed by the government; its functions were to 
 prepare legislation, to settle cases in administrative law, and in 
 addition to supervise the public expenditures. The Skouptchina 
 became a representative assembly, regularly elected, one member 
 for every 10,000 in population. In this community of substantially 
 equal peasant proprietors, there could be no thought of establish- 
 ing either a middle-class representative system or an aristocratic 
 second chamber. Suffrage was made almost universal, as every 
 taxpayer could vote, and the deputies received salaries. The 
 Skouptchina remained the only assembly, but to supply the place 
 of an aristocracy, the prince was given the right to add members 
 by appointment to the extent of one-fourth of the whole. 
 Changes in the constitution, territory, or government were to be 
 voted by a special Skouptchina, four times as numerous as the 
 ordinary assembly. This was the beginning of political life in 
 Servia. Parties were formed with European names: conserva- 
 tive, progressist, liberal, radical. Certain of these names covered 
 nothing but personal rivalries between party leaders. However, 
 it is plain that political life in Servia was in reality dominated by 
 the opposition, if not between two parties, at least between two 
 tendencies. 
 
 The Servian masses, essentially peasant and Orthodox, were 
 determined not to be burdened with officials and taxes. The 
 most prominent aims of their domestic policy were to procure 
 communal autonomy, insist upon economy, and refuse to pay 
 new taxes. In foreign policy their religious sympathies demanded 
 alliance with Orthodox Russia, and the union of all Orthodox 
 Servians to Servia. The Radical party, which has taken the 
 direction of this movement, is above all a popular party with 
 little love for Western civilization. Its instrument is the Skoup- 
 tchina, whose elections, apart from government pressure, always 
 give a Radical majority. Its centre was at first at Kragujevatch, 
 the former capital, whose place has been taken by Belgrade. 
 
 The policy of the government, on the contrary, looked toward 
 the introduction into Servia of the institutions of monarchical 
 Europe. It desired to connect the country with the economic 
 life of the civilized world by building railroads and developing 
 her trade with Austria, the natural outlet for Servia's agricultural 
 products. To do this the government had to raise money by 
 
SERVIA UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM. 66 1 
 
 taxes and loans and make overtures to the Western governments, 
 especially Austria. Its domestic policy therefore consisted in 
 maintaining the supremacy of the central government in spite of 
 the Skouptchina, extending the power of the ofificials at the ex- 
 pense of the communes, and increasing the standing army and 
 the taxes. Its foreign policy was to secure an alliance with Aus- 
 tria. The partisans of this policy were few in number but they 
 had the great advantage of having on their side all the permanent 
 powers of the country, — ^the prince, the ministers, the Council of 
 State, the office-holders and the army officers. The personal 
 parties into which they were divided differed mainly, it seems, in 
 the degree of arbitrary procedure that each was ready to employ 
 in order to restrain the Radical movement. 
 
 The Liberal party, under Ristitch, governed during the re- 
 gency, 1868 to 1872. Prince Milan, on attaining his majority, 
 took a Conservative ministry, then a Progressist ministry. But 
 the Christian revolt in Herzegovina excited national passion in 
 the Skouptchina to the point of obliging Milan to take a Radical 
 nationalist ministry (Grouitch and Ristitch), which decided to 
 make war on Turkey with Russia's assistance. 
 
 Servia began the war (July, 1876). When conquered and in- 
 vaded by the enemy, she was saved by European intervention, 
 which imposed on the Sultan a truce, then a peace. But during 
 the Russian invasion of 1877 Servia reopened the war. At the 
 final peace of Berlin (1878) she obtained a territorial increase and 
 complete independence. But the war had left a heavy debt, and 
 the peace, by establishing Austria in the Servian country of Her- 
 zegovina, gave rise to great discontent, because it made the build- 
 ing up of a Greater Servia impossible. The Radical nationalist 
 party, wishing to continue a Russian policy, negotiated with the 
 Bulgarians to attempt a recovery of Bosnia with Russia's aid. 
 In the meantime it protested against the plan of a railroad joining 
 the Austrian system and rejected the commercial treaty with 
 Austria. 
 
 Austria sent a threatening note which caused the dismissal of 
 the ministry. The Austrian party took the power in October, 
 1880, and, under different ministries, for the most part Progres- 
 sist, held it until 1887. The prince procured from Austria and his 
 allies permission to take the title of King of Servia (1882). The 
 Radicals protested against the treaty concluded with the General 
 Union (Bontoux) and demanded a revision of the constitution in 
 1883. The government got rid of the opposition at first by an- 
 
662 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 nulling the elections of Radicals (1882) and later by a coup d'etat. 
 The Radicals had regained the majority; the King adjourned the 
 Skouptchina, suspended the guarantees of liberties, put the coun- 
 try under martial law, and ordered the surrender of all arms. 
 The Radicals rebelled, and the insurrection ended in the shoot- 
 ing of many, a vast prosecution (819 accused), and the establish- 
 ment of absolutism (1883). The Skouptchina, elected under offi- 
 cial pressure, was merely an instrument for voting government 
 proposals. In place of the poll-tax a new system was established 
 of taxes on land, houses, capital, income (1884), and a govern- 
 ment monopoly in tobacco. The communes lost their autonomy, 
 with their right to levy taxes and dispense justice. Servia came 
 under a centralized administration after the European model. 
 She began to have a standing army like the European countries 
 (25,000 infantry), with a three-year service ; also a European debt 
 formed during the war of 1876-78, and increasing with subse- 
 quent deficits (it was $5,000,000 in 1878 and $65,000,000 in 1895). 
 
 The war of 1885 against Bulgaria, which ended in defeat and 
 invasion, made the government and the King so unpopular that 
 after several ministerial crises and reconstitutions of the Garas- 
 chanine ministry, the Austrian Progressist party found itself 
 unable to govern. Milan gave the ministry to the nationalist 
 opposition, the Russian party, a coalition of Radicals and 
 Liberals; first a Liberal ministry under Ristitch (1887), quickly 
 succeeded by a Radical ministry under Grouitch.* 
 
 The Radical party made the Constitution of 1888, which trans- 
 formed the Skouptchina into a purely representative assembly, 
 suppressing the one-fourth appointed by the King, and greatly 
 increasing its powers. Milan abdicated in 1889, declaring that 
 he would not be " a King for signing papers." His son Alexan- 
 der being still a minor, he appointed a regency under Ristitch, 
 who promised to maintain the same foreign policy. Servia 
 seemed to have entered upon the parliamentary system under 
 the direction of a Radical-Liberal coalition. 
 
 *The domestic quarrels of the royal family, -which were given such 
 notoriety by the European papers, were nothing more than episodes. In 
 1888 Milan, having quarrelled with Queen Nathalie, the daughter of a 
 Russian colonel, prevailed on the Metropolitan to pronounce a divorce, 
 and got back the Crown Prince, who had been taken to Germany by his 
 mother. Nathaliereturned to Belgrade in 1889. The government begged 
 her to go away and iinally insisted upon it. The people rallied to her 
 defence, and she was taken away in the night (i8gi). Later the king and 
 queen were reconciled and annulled their divorce (1893). 
 
MONTENEGRO. 663 
 
 But Milan took advantage of the discords between the Radi- 
 cals and Liberals of the regency to resume control of the young 
 King secretly. Alexander I., by his father's advice, made two 
 cou^s d'etat in succession: i. He declared himself of age, had 
 the regents arrested, and gave the ministry to his teacher 
 Dokitsch, who rested on the Liberal party (1893). He brought 
 his father to Servia, and, in order to silence the newspapers, 
 which were attacking him, restored to him by decree the rank of 
 member of the royal family. 2. Breaking with the Radicals, he 
 issued a decree abrogating the Constitution of 1888 and the laws 
 guaranteeing liberty of the press and communal elections. He 
 also restored the Constitution of 1869. He then put himself in 
 the hands of the Austrian party, which, under ministries of dif- 
 erent names. Liberal (Christitch) or Progressist (Garaschanine), 
 has kept the power and governed with the support of the officials 
 and military officers, levying the taxes by royal decree, arresting 
 or dismissing Radical and Liberal leaders, and procuring the 
 election of a ministerial Skouptchina. The negotiations between 
 the King and the Radical party for the establishment of a con- 
 stitution having come to nothing (1896), Servia remains under a 
 provisional system. 
 
 Montenegro. — Tchernagora, better known by the Italian name 
 Montenegro, is a small, almost inaccessible country lying in the 
 range of mountains that skirts the eastern Adriatic. It had 
 maintained itself as a practically independent district within the 
 Ottoman Empire. Its inhabitants, Orthodox Serbs, nominally 
 Turkish subjects, formed a small nation of armed mountaineers, 
 governed by a family of national and religious leaders who suc- 
 ceed each other from uncle to nephew, with the title of Vladika or 
 prince-bishop. It was a democracy of warriors ; the women cul- 
 tivated the land and the men practised arms. The neighbour- 
 hood of Herzegovina gave Montenegro a political role; the 
 Vladikas became allies of Russia, which used the Montenegrins 
 to rouse the Christian Serbs of Herzegovina and to make raids 
 upon the Turks. 
 
 In 1851 Danilo, on succeeding his uncle, dropped the title 
 of Vladika, married, and founded the dynasty of the princes of 
 Montenegro. The Sultan sent an army against him, which the 
 Tsar obliged him to recall (1852). Then, in return for the atti- 
 tude he had taken in the Crimean war, the Prince of Montenegro 
 received an annual subsidy from the Tsar. Danilo was killed by 
 •a private enemy in i860 and was succeeded by his nephew Nikita. 
 
664 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 Montenegrin political life consisted of little more than the 
 almost continual struggle against the Mussulmans, which came 
 to open war during the Herzegovina insurrections (1862 and 
 1876). Russia repaid Montenegro's services in the campaign o£ 
 1877 by making the Sultan cede to her a larger and more popu- 
 lous territory than the whole former principality, with a port 
 which assured her communication with Europe (1878). But the 
 Albanian Mussulmans who occupied the country refused tO' give 
 it up; and Montenegro got possession of it only after a long war 
 and the famous demonstration of the European fleets before 
 Dulcigno. 
 
 Of domestic political life there has been extremely little. The 
 prince, once officially independent of the Sultan, has remained an 
 absolute sovereign, controlling the budget, exercising all the 
 powers, appointing even Church officials. But he has covered 
 the patriarchal system with European forms. The administra- 
 tive Statute of 1879 established a legislative Council of State of 8 
 members, half chosen by the prince, the other half elected by the 
 people. A legal code of the French sort has been adopted. The 
 organization has remained military, the people divided into 
 tribes, each with its elective elders and its military chief. But 
 the princely family of Montenegro, by means of marriages with 
 the reigning families of Russia (1889) and Italy (1896), has 
 entered the society of European dynasties. 
 
 BULGARIA. 
 
 The Bulgarian People before the Union of 1885. — Bulgaria, like 
 Servia, had a Christian population of Orthodox Slavs, subject to 
 a Mussulman aristocracy. The Bulgarian people was made up 
 only of peasants, tenants of Mussulman landlords. But while the 
 other Christian nations retained at least their national clergy, the 
 Bulgarian clergy, subject to the Greek Church of Constantinople, 
 had been disorganized. The Greek bishops had endeavoured to 
 Hellenize the Orthodox Bulgarians, by replacing their Bulgarian 
 religious books with Greek books, the Slavonic liturgy with the 
 Greek liturgy, and by establishing Greek schools. In the Otto- 
 man Empire where every nationality was represented by its 
 national church, the Bulgarians, subjected as they were to Greek 
 bishops, had ceased to form a nationality. They were counted in 
 with the Greeks under the general head of Orthodox Greeks. 
 The world had forgotten the Bulgarian people. The Russians,, 
 
BULGARIANS BEFORE THE UNION OF 1885. 665 
 
 when they occupied the country in 1828, were surprised to find a 
 Slavic people, speaking a language much like their own. 
 
 With the Russian occupation the Bulgarian nation awoke to 
 new life. A number of patriots took heart and entered into a 
 struggle with the Greeks. The upper Greek clergy, supported 
 by the Turkish government, persecuted the patriots, whom they 
 suspected of acting as agents of Russian propagandism. In 
 order to escape the Greek clergy, the Bulgarians, following the 
 advice of Austrian Catholics, began about 1859 to form United 
 Greek churches, which entered the Catholic communion by sub- 
 mission to the Pope, on condition of preserving at the same time 
 their Slavic rite and their married priests. The Bulgarians as a 
 consequence became the proteges of the Catholic powers — 
 France and Austria. Russia was so disturbed at the loss of them 
 that she persuaded the Sultan to institute an independent Bul- 
 garian Church with a supreme head, the Bulgarian Exarch, es- 
 tablished at Constantinople in 1870. The Greek Patriarch ex- 
 communicated the Bulgarian clergy. 
 
 The Bulgarians were still only a nation of raias under Mussul- 
 man administration. An insurrection, organized by a committee 
 established in Roumania, led to the famous massacres of 1876 
 (see p. 632) and the Russian occupation. The Bulgarian state 
 was founded by Russia after the war. The principality of Bul- 
 garia, as Russia arranged in the treaty with the Sultan, was to 
 comprise the whole Bulgarian race, including Macedonia, which 
 was inhabited by a mixture of nationalities — Bulgarians, Ser- 
 vians, Greeks, Wallachians, and Albanians. The new state 
 seemed destined to remain under Russia's hand. 
 
 The Congress of Berlin, fearing Russian influence, cut the Bul- 
 garian state into three parts. It restored the Sultan to full pos- 
 session of Macedonia. Of the Bulgarian region south of the 
 Balkans, it made eastern Roumelia a self-governing province 
 under a mixed administration. It left to Bulgaria only the 
 northern region, which became tributary to the Sultan, like Rou- 
 mania before 1878, with a prince elected by the country and ap- 
 proved by the Sultan. 
 
 The principality of Bulgaria was organized by the Russians 
 who occupied the country and who, on withdrawing, left military 
 officers there. The Constitution of 1879 was presented by the 
 Russian governor to an elective national assembly and was 
 adopted by it. As in Servia, it established a ministry and a single 
 assembly, the Sobranje, elected by universal suffrage, with a 
 
666 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 quarter of the members to be chosen by the prince, and a 
 double number for changing the constitution; it proclaimed 
 all the modern liberties. In Bulgaria, as in Servia, society 
 was democratic, composed of peasants, popes, and school- 
 teachers. The prince elected by the assembly was Alexander 
 of Battenberg, whom the Tsar had suggested. A Bulgarian 
 militia was organized and commanded by Russian officers, 
 with an outfit left by the Russian army. In fact, Bulgaria 
 was at first governed by the Russians, as the grateful assembly 
 recognised those who remained in the country as having all the 
 rights of Bulgarian citizens, and consequently admitted them to 
 every office. 
 
 The Bulgarian assembly soon broke up into political parties, 
 which astonished the outside world by their practical sense. The 
 chief leaders were teachers who had been educated abroad. The 
 division came on the nationalist question. The conservative 
 party (Grekoff) resigned themselves to the separation of Rou- 
 melia in order to avoid trouble with Europe. The nationalist 
 party, which demanded unity at the risk of war, was composed of 
 two groups. Liberals (Zankof?) and Radicals (Karaveloff). 
 These divisions corresponded to personal rivalries. Prince 
 Alexander formed a Conservative ministry, favourable to an 
 alliance with Austria. The Radical-Liberal party, which was 
 popular with the masses, had a majority in the Sobranje (1879). 
 Political life began with a conflict between the prince and the 
 assembly. The Sobranje was dissolved in 1879 and re-elected in 
 1880. Alexander tried a nationalist ministry, and then made a 
 coup d'etat. He dismissed the ministry, convoked an assembly, 
 suppressed the constitution, and secured for himself special 
 powers (1881). He formed a Conservative ministry under two 
 Russian generals, who ended by dismissing the Conservatives 
 and governing alone.* 
 
 The leaders of all the Bulgarian parties, discontented with this 
 foreign government, arranged secretly among themselves, then 
 with the Prince, to rid themselves of the Russians. The Sobranje 
 suddenly presented an address to the Prince, begging him to re- 
 
 * SkobolefE, one of these Russians, tells us that Alexander attributed the 
 coup dUtat to the Russians in order to damage their popularity, but had 
 in fact made it himself at the instigation of Austria. He further says that 
 the Conservative party, to which his colleagues belonged, was only a 
 clique of some two hundred persons hostile to Russia; that the leaders of 
 this faction, knowing their own unpopularity, attempted to veil their anti- 
 Russian designs under cover of a partly Russian Cabinet. 
 
BULGARIA SINCE THE UNION OF 1885. 667 
 
 store the Constitution of 1879, and suggesting the desired amend- 
 ments. The Russians were taken by surprise; they left the 
 assembly in a fury and handed in their resignation.* The prince 
 formed a coalition ministry of Conservatives and Liberals 
 (1883), then an exclusively Liberal ministry. The revised con- 
 stitution created a second Chamber. But Russian ofHcers con- 
 tinued to command the Bulgarian army ; the Russian diplomatic 
 agent excited against the Liberals the Radical party, which 
 gained a majority in the Sobranje of 1884 and was put in posses- 
 sion of the ministry. 
 
 Meanwhile eastern Roumelia had been organized as a self- 
 governing province with a national militia commanded by 
 European officers, an elective provincial assembly, a Christian 
 governor appointed by the Sultan for 5 years, and a directory to 
 perform the functions of a ministry. The first governor was 
 Vogorides, a Greek, who surrounded himself with Bulgarians; 
 the second, appointed under Russian pressure, was one of the 
 members of the directory, a Bulgarian (Krestowitch), who took 
 the name of Gavril-Pasha. The provincial assembly desired 
 union with Bulgaria; the officials and military officers endeav- 
 oured to make way for it. It was a general conspiracy. One 
 day (September 18, 1885) a battalion of militia arrested the gov- 
 ernor and the general-in-chief ; a provisional government was set 
 up and was at once recognised by all the local authorities. It 
 asked aid from the Prince of Bulgaria. The Tsar, who had been 
 displeased with the Bulgarians since 1883, did not want the 
 uhion. Prince Alexander knew this,t but he had to choose be- 
 tween a rupture with Russia and a breach with his own subjects 
 by fighting the Roumelian Bulgarians. He agreed to the union, 
 took the title of " Prince of the Two Bulgarias," and went with 
 his army to take possession of Roumelia, where he was recog- 
 nised as prince by a general vote of the inhabitants. 
 
 Bulgaria since the Union of 1885. — The union transformed 
 Bulgarian politics. At first the great powers, fearing a general 
 insurrection, condemned the action of the Bulgarians. The 
 
 * According to an Austrian account, Kaulbars left the hall crying: 
 " Pigs, blackguards, liars! " while the Bulgarians replied with cheers. 
 
 t He had been informed of it in an interview with the Russian minister, 
 Giers, and had rej:-lied that the people desired tho union, but did not seem 
 ready for it. He was warned of the revolution three days in advance, it 
 is said, by a delegation from the revolutionary committee, and dissuaded 
 them from the idea; but on their return the delegates found the revolu- 
 tion already in progress. 
 
668 THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 Tsar recalled the Russian officers who were in command of the 
 Bulgarian army. The European ambassadors at Constantinople 
 " condemned the revolution " and called upon the Bulgarians to 
 disarm and dissolve the union. Then the Servian army invaded 
 Bulgaria, which was unprotected on the western side. Alexan- 
 der came back from Roumelia. The army, with Bulgarian ofiS- 
 cers in place of the Russians, took the offensive, forced the 
 Servians back through the passes and drove them into Servia. 
 Europe imposed peace. 
 
 Bulgaria's victory made the separate existence of Roumelia 
 impracticable. The great powers continued, however, to demand 
 execution of the Treaty of Berlin and to refuse to recognise 
 the new state formed by the fusion of the two Bulgarias ; but they 
 contented themselves with a protest. The Turkish government 
 finally accepted a compromise: Alexander was appointed gov- 
 ernor of Roumelia (1886). 
 
 Russia would not be appeased. The result was to make of the 
 Radical party, determined to maintain the union, a nationalist 
 party opposed to foreign intervention. This party kept the 
 ministry and had an enormous majority in the Sohranje, now re^ 
 enforced by delegates from Roumelia. Zankofif, the leader of 
 the Liberal party, became an agitator in Russia's service against 
 the government. There remained a strong Russian party in the 
 army and among the Orthodox clergy. The officers of special 
 military services and the pupils of the military school at Sofia 
 made a military coup d'etat. Alexander, surprised by the con- 
 spirators, was forced to abdicate and was carried out of the coun- 
 try. Zankoff issued a proclamation explaining the deposition as 
 the result of following a policy hostile to the Slavic race (Augustf 
 1886). A counter revolution quickly followed. The conspir- 
 ators were arrested, Alexander was recalled and received with 
 acclamation. The Tsar, however, refused to approve his return. 
 Alexander abdicated, and a regency of three members took the 
 power until a new prince should be elected. 
 
 Stambouloff, one of the regents and president of the Sobranje, 
 then took charge of Bulgaria. He governed in harmony with 
 Moutkouroff , the Roumelian commander of militia ; but he quar- 
 relled with the third regent, Karavelofif, the former leader of the 
 Radical party. 
 
 Bulgaria's whole political life turned on plans for inducing 
 Europe to accept the union and on the struggle against the Rus- 
 sian party. Russia refused to recognise the Sobranje because of 
 
BULGARIA SINCE THE UNION OF 1885. 669 
 
 the presence of the Roumelian delegates. She demanded first 
 (1886) the withdrawal of martial law and the holding of new 
 elections; then, in 1887, a Russian general for regent, and for 
 prince the Prince of Mingrelia, a Russian subject. The Sobramje 
 refused in the name of national independence. But it was not 
 easy to find a prince. Waldemar of Denmark was elected in 
 1886, but refused. The Bulgarian government gave up trying to 
 appease the Tsar and decided to lean on Austria. It had a 
 Catholic prince elected, Ferdinand of Coburg, an ofificer in the 
 Hungarian army (July, 1887), who took a Stamboulofif ministry. 
 The powers refused to recognise him. 
 
 The Russian party in Bulgaria tried, by means of intrigues, 
 military plots, insurrections (February, 1887, November, 1887, 
 1888), and attempts at murder (1887, 1891), to overthrow Stam- 
 bouloff and put the country under Russia's protection once more. 
 Stamboulofif defended himself with prosecutions, executions, sup- 
 pressions of newspapers and a system of terror; he was accused 
 of torturing accused men and condemning innocent men (case of 
 Major Paniza, 1890). The Liberals protested against the viola- 
 tion of the liberties guaranteed by the constitution. But the 
 government was consolidated; Ferdinand was recognised by 
 the Sultan, and had the constitution revised, cutting down the 
 number of deputies and increasing their term from 3 to 5 years. 
 The Metropolitan was condemned to prison for preaching a ser- 
 mon against the Catholic prince. 
 
 At length Ferdinand, wearied of obeying Stamboulofif, took a 
 Conservative ministry, recalled the former leaders, the Radical 
 Karavelofif and the Liberal Zankoff, and made advances to the 
 Orthodox Russian party (1894). Stamboulofif was assassinated 
 in 1895, and his murderers are still unpunished. Ferdinand has 
 had his son. Crown Prince Boris, baptized into the Orthodox 
 Church (1896), with the Tsar for his godfather. Bulgaria has 
 been reconciled with Russia, and at the same time has main- 
 tained her national independence and unity. 
 
 The agitation for the union of Macedonia continues. Bands 
 of Bulgarian insurgents have fought small battles in the cause 
 (1896). But the Bulgarian agitation meets other agitations in 
 Macedonia, for the population there is very mixed, and it is 
 doubtful whether the majority of Slavs are Bulgarians or 
 Servians, 
 
670 THE CHRISTIAN NA TIONS OF THE BALKANS. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— Laviase and Eambaud, " Hist. Generale," vol. ix.. 
 p. 737, indicates complete histories. — See Lorenz, " Catalogue delaLibrai- 
 rie FranQ.," for books -written in French; for Greece, Hertzberg, "Gesch. 
 Griechenlands," which may serve as a bibliography; for Roumania, 
 Bergner, " Rumanien," 1887, J, Bengesco, " Bibliogr. Franco-Roumaine du 
 XIXe s.,'' 1895. — For recent works see the " JahresberichtederGeschichts- 
 wissenschaft " (since 1878). 
 
 DOCUMENTS. — The majority of documents and references are found 
 in the three "Annuaires" and the " Staatsarchiv " (see Pref. p. viii.), or 
 in the reviews published in Germany, France, and England, mentioned in 
 the bibliog. for each of these countries. — For Roumania, Petresou and 
 Stourdza, " Actes et Documents Relatifs 4 1'Histoire de la Regeneration de 
 la Roumanie," 7 vols., 1889-92. 
 
 WORKS. — Complete Histories : Bamberg, "Gesch. der Oriental. Frage " 
 (Oncken coll.), period 1856-78. — Oncken, " Zeitalter d. K. Wilhelm" 
 (Oncken coll.). 
 
 Description of Political Customs: E. de Laveleye, "La Peninsule des 
 Balkans," 1886, the story of a flying trip.— Sp. Gopcevio, " Der Turko- 
 Montenegrinische Krieg, 1876-78," 3 vols., 1879; " Serbien und die Ser- 
 ben," 1881; " Oberalbanian und seine Liga," 1881; " Bulgarien und 
 Ostrumelien, 1876-86," 1886, " Makedonien und Alt-Serbien," 1889; 
 journalistic works; insufficient, but full of interesting details. 
 
 Roumania: Prince Bibesco, "Roumanie, 1829-49," 2 vols., 1893-94.— 
 Samuelson, "Roumania," 1882 (in English). — B. Bergner, "Rumanien," 
 1887. — Elarambei'g, " Essai sur les Institutions de la Roumanie," 1885. 
 
 Greece: nendelsohn-BartboIdy, "Geschichte Griechenlands," 2 vols,, 
 1870-74 ("Staatengesch. d. n. Zeit." coll.). — Hertzberg, " Gesch. Griechen- 
 lands," vols. iii. and iv., 1879 (Gotha coll.), stops at 1878, both scientific and 
 critical. 
 
 In addition to the works previous to 1878 mentioned in Hertzberg, see 
 Thouvenel, " La Grece du roi Othon," 1890, private letters of a diplomat. 
 
 Serbia : Eanke, " Serbien und die Serben," 1879, chief history of the 
 independence. 
 
 Bulgaria : Jirecek, " Das Furstenthum Bulgarien," 1891, chief complete 
 history. — Kanitz, " Donau-Bulgarien," 3 vols., 1877-80, for the Turkish 
 period. — For Alexander's reign: A. Koch, " Prinz Alexander von Batten- 
 berg," 1887; the author was the prince's chaplain. — A. v. Huhn, "Der 
 Kampf der Bulgaren um ihre Nationaleinheit," i886; " Aus Bulgari- 
 scher Sturmxeit," 1886, from the German point of view. — Sobolew, " Der 
 Erste Furst v. Bulgarien," 1886, trans, from the Russian. — ^Drandar . . . 
 " Prince Alexander of Battenberg," 1884. 
 
CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 TRANSFORMATION IN THE MATERIAL CONDITIONS OF 
 POLITICAL LIFE. 
 
 ludustrial Inventions. — No other period in the history of the 
 human race has seen such profound and rapid transformations in 
 the material conditions of life as have taken place in Europe dur- 
 ing the nineteenth century. The practical arts, which had been 
 merely improved since old times by slow changes in points of de- 
 tail, have been so completely revolutionized that the distance is 
 much greater between the industrial processes of the eighteenth 
 century and those of the present day than between those of the 
 eighteenth century and the ancient arts, even those of Egypt.* 
 
 This revolution is the result of technical inventions made partly 
 by experiment, party by methodical application of the theoretical 
 sciences. Many of these inventions date back to the last third 
 of the eighteenth century; but their practical effect was not felt 
 by the masses in Europe before the end of the wars of Napoleon. 
 The transformation of industrial life did not really begin until 
 after 1814. It is the greatest modern event, an international 
 event, for the inventions have been made by scholars and in- 
 ventors of all nations, united in so close an international col- 
 laboration that it is not always possible to determine which 
 country took the initiative in each; and they have passed from, 
 one nation to another, gaining imperceptibly from each. 
 
 We are already so accustomed to the new conditions of ma- 
 terial life that we can hardly realize the Europe of 1814, so near 
 to us in space of time and so far from us in conditions of life. 
 It is therefore well worth our while to recall the principal in- 
 ventions which in three-quarters of a century have placed such 
 a distance between our ancestors and us. I shall not try to give 
 their history ; almost all of them have been accomplished at dif- 
 
 * To get an impression of this vast difference in the rapidity of evolu- 
 tion we need only compare the paintings on the Egyptian tombs repre- 
 senting the trades, the Encyclopedia engravings of the i8th century and 
 the figfures in any contemporary work of popular science. 
 
 671 
 
672 TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL LIFE. 
 
 ferent times by a series of fumbles and successive improvements,* 
 which make it difficult even to classify them in chronological 
 order. It is enough here to enumerate them and group them ac- 
 cording to the knowledge of which they are the application. 
 
 The mechanical inventions, almost all made in England in the 
 eighteenth century, were at first hand-machines, machines for 
 spinning cotton, for spinning wool, for carding wool, for weav- 
 ing cotton, for weaving wool, for making stockings. Between 
 1790 and 181 5 the English used water-power for driving their 
 spinning and weaving machines. Steam was not used until 
 later. Agricultural machinery and machinery for the manu- 
 facture of paper were slow in coming into use. Invention has 
 revolutionized modes of communication by macadamized roads 
 {1820) and graded tracks — which have replaced the costly and 
 nncomfortable stone roads, with their direct lines and steep 
 grades; also by suspension bridges, viaducts, and railroad 
 tunnels. 
 
 Machinery, by transforming the extractive industries, has pro- 
 cured in enormous quantities the materials necessary to other 
 industries — coal, metals, and petroleum. The manufacture of 
 metals, transformed by the use of coal, the building of great 
 furnaces and steam hammers, has furnished iron, brass, and steel, 
 which are the primary materials in the manufacture of the instru- 
 ments of modern industry: tools, arms, rails, machines, frame- 
 works, and bridges. 
 
 The gold and silver mines have been doubled in production by 
 the use of the new machinery and chemical processes.f 
 
 The study of physics has furnished the two most characteristic 
 forces of modern civilization, steam and electricity. Steam has 
 been put to three great uses: first, the stationary steam-engine, 
 used first in the mines, which now replaces animal and natural 
 forces in all the great industries, spinning and weaving, and even 
 in agriculture for threshing and reaping; secondly, the steam- 
 
 * For example, the electric telegraph and steamboats. 
 
 \ The following table gives, where estimate is possible, some approxi- 
 mate figures on the increase in annual production, in millions of tons: 
 
 England. France. Germany. Belgium. 
 Coal, . . . , ' 
 
 (1 
 
 Iron 
 
 The total production of gold is estimated at $600,000,000 from 1800 to 
 1848; from 1848 to 1890 at $5,000,000,000. 
 
 1850 
 
 64 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 1887 
 
 162 
 
 20 
 
 60 
 
 18 
 
 1850 
 
 2.2 
 
 0.4 
 
 0.2 
 
 
 1887 
 
 7-5 
 
 1.5 
 
 4 
 
 
NEW MEANS OF DESTRUCTION. ^73 
 
 ship, which has quickened transportation by water; and, thirdly, 
 the locorriotive and the railroad, which have increased in vast pro- 
 portion the power and speed of transportation by land.* Elec- 
 tricity is more recent, but has already given us the electric tele- 
 graph, both land lines and submarine cables, the telephone, elec- 
 tric lighting, electric street cars, the galvanic battery, and the 
 phonograph. f 
 
 Chemistry has given us the greater number of secondary in- 
 ventions: chemical phosphorus matches in place of the steel, 
 which was slow and hard to handle; chemical fertilizers, which 
 have revolutionized agriculture; beet-sugar; illuminating gas, till 
 recently the great means of lighting public places; colours ex- 
 tracted from coal, benzine, and creosote; photography and helio- 
 gravure; new explosive materials; chemical medicines; chlorine 
 for bleaching and extracts for tanning; preserved foods, the 
 extraction of aluminum, production of paper from wood- 
 pulp, etc. 
 
 The biological sciences have made less progress, but they have 
 given us, in particular, anaesthetics, which facilitate surgery, and 
 antiseptics, which have transformed the practice of medicine. 
 We must not forget the improvement in grain-raising and cattle- 
 breeding, resulting from methodical experiments connected with 
 the modern sciences. 
 
 This summary review of the principal inventions is enough to 
 recall the mighty changes that have taken place in our life. My 
 object is merely to show how this material transformation has 
 affected European politics, directly by changing the practical 
 conditions of government, indirectly by transforming the com- 
 position of society. 
 
 New Means of Destruction. — ^Until the middle of the century 
 the world was still using the old explosive substances of the end 
 of the Middle Age. The armies of 1814 had still only powder 
 and guns with the flint-lock; cannon had been somewhat im- 
 proved, but were still loaded from the muzzle. They were short- 
 range arms which were slow to load and inaccurate in fire. Their 
 chief advantage was their moral effect; they did not hinder a 
 disciplined troop from keeping themselves in a firm mass, com- 
 
 *It is estimated that the cost of transportation in Germany has already 
 decreased in the proportion of 20 to i. 
 
 t Under the head of physics come also the optical instruments, micro- 
 scope and lighthouse lenses. Neither air-balloons nor diving bells have as 
 yet altered the conditions of life. 
 
674 TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL LIFE. 
 
 ing up close to the enemy, and making use of the bayonet. In 
 order to join a revolt at this time one needed only a fowHng-piece, 
 powder, and balls; the difference in armament was hardly per- 
 ceptible between soldier and insurgent, and in a street fight the 
 insurgent, being in shelter, even had the advantage. 
 
 The new explosive substances have given the governments a 
 destructive force which has changed the art of repression. The 
 first was fulminate of mercury, which led to the invention of per- 
 cussion caps. In 1847 came the much more important discov- 
 ery of the explosive property of nitric compositions, primarily 
 nitroglycerine, which, mingled with inert matter, became, in 1864, 
 dynamite. The new shattering explosives, furnished by the nitric • 
 compositions, which are exploded by an instantaneous chemical 
 combination, have a destructive force greatly superior to powder, 
 whose explosion, produced by heat, is much slower. Mine- 
 powder was replaced by dynamite, not only for submarine mines 
 and torpedoes, but also in the work of blasting for the construc- 
 tion of roads. Gunpowder, which is still used, has been replaced 
 for guns by the new smokeless powders, invented in 1870, in all 
 the different countries independently; for artillery it has been 
 replaced by compositions of nitric or picric acid, melinite, robur- 
 ite, etc. 
 
 At the same time a revolution was introduced in the construc- 
 tion of arms. Guns were invented with central percussion and 
 a prepared cartridge loaded at the breech. This has greatly in- 
 creased the rapidity and slightly increased the accuracy of the 
 shot. The first application of it was the needle-gun (Dreyse), 
 adopted for the Prussian infantry as early as 1847, but only 
 slowly imitated in the other countries. France clung to the 
 muzzle-loader (Lefaucheux). It was only after the Prussian vic- 
 tories of 1866 that the breech-loader became, under various 
 forms (Chassepot, Mauser, Martini), the weapon of all Europe. 
 A parallel evolution in artillery produced breech-loading cannon 
 (the English Armstrong gun in 1854), perfected in Germany 
 (Krupp), and later steel cannon and howitzers, throwing shells by 
 use of melinite. This revolution in arms was traceable to chemi- 
 cal discoveries. Smokeless powder, by increasing the explosive 
 power, makes possible a lighter gun, a smaller ball, and a longer 
 range. This was shown in the weapon improperly called the 
 " Lebel gun." 
 
 All these new instruments of destruction, so much more effi- 
 cacious than the old ones, have transformed the conditions of 
 
NEW MEANS OF DESTRUCTION. 675 
 
 warfare. The old fortified cities, incapable now of resistance, 
 have lost their military role as defenders of the frontier. Nothing 
 is of value now but intrenched camps, centres of supplies de- 
 fended by a circle of detached forts. The use of great masses 
 of s;oldiers, rendered impossible by quick-firing guns and shells, 
 has given place to the manoeuvre of isolated sharpshooters, who 
 shelter themselves behind such cover as the field of action affords. 
 
 There has as yet been no experience to show the effect of this 
 revolution in the art of war;* military men themselves carmot 
 imagine what a war would be between two great European 
 powers. But the idea of it is so frightful that it is enough to 
 keep every government from taking the responsibility of it. The 
 progress of the art of war has made war so hideous that no one 
 dares to bring it on. The chemistry of explosives has worked 
 in favour of peace. 
 
 In domestic policy the new arms have assured to the govern- 
 ments an irresistible force. No insurrection can be improvised 
 now with chance weapons or by plundering the gunshops. A 
 battle is impossible between sporting guns and military guns; 
 no barricade can resist the new cannon. It is surely not a mere 
 coincidence that revolutions and insurrections, so frequent in 
 Europe until 1848, should have entirely ceased since the trans- 
 formation in arms. A German socialist, Bebel, gave this ex- 
 planation in 1890: " I have already told what the result of a 
 revolution would be, carried on by 200,000 men at most, in this 
 epoch of repeating guns and Maxim cannon; we should be mis- 
 erably shot down like sparrows." 
 
 There is no longer any way to overturn a legal government, 
 not even to defend a constitution against the executive power. 
 The civil population has lost its only efifective means of resist- 
 ance to abuse of power by the government. 
 
 The art of revolutionary attempts has also been transformed 
 by explosives. The old-fashioned " infernal machine," such as 
 that used against Louis Philippe, has been replaced by dynamite 
 bombs (Tsar Alexander in 1881). These terrifying methods 
 have given isolated individuals a means of forcing public atten- 
 tion and taking on the appearance of a party; they have not 
 added to the real power of the revolutionary parties, and have 
 
 *The transformation was only just beginning at the time of the Franco- 
 Prussian War in 1870. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877 and the Servo- 
 Bulgarian War of 1885 employed only semi-European armies, ill trained 
 and ill equipped. 
 
676 TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL LIFE. 
 
 probably lessened their chances of success. Popular indigna- 
 tion is excited by their destructive explosions, and in the troubled 
 mind of the public all the revolutionary parties are held jointly 
 responsible. 
 
 Uew Methods of Communication. — The revolution in methods 
 of communication has transformed political life by three direct 
 means: the telegraph, railroads, and newspapers. 
 
 One of the political difficulties in government had always lain 
 in the slowness of communication; tO' issue an order from the 
 central authority, to receive a report from local agents, the old 
 means of transportation, courier or ship, were so slow that often 
 an order did not arrive in time to be carried out. This weak- 
 ened the influence of the central authority or even made it power- 
 less: an ill-defined power had to be intrusted to the local agents, 
 and even the diplomatic agents in distant countries had to be 
 practically left to their own discretion. All hope of receiving 
 information from these agents in season to exercise any control 
 over them had to be given up. 
 
 Aerial telegraphy, as invented by Chappe, was regarded as a 
 great advance, but it could transmit only a few messages and 
 only on a clear day. Electrical telegraphy, established after 1850, 
 enabled governments to keep themselves informed and to take 
 instantaneous action at any distance. The effect was quickly felt 
 in diplomacy, where the government, informed of the smallest 
 episodes, assumed the management of all affairs, and reduced 
 its agents to mere instruments of transmission. In domestic 
 affairs the telegraph has greatly quickened the relations between 
 government and agent, although there still exist in administra- 
 tion many survivals of the period before telegraphy was intro- 
 duced, in the form of writings which have now become useless 
 but which the governments have forgotten to suppress. The 
 telegraph, by strengthening the action of the central power, has 
 increased centralization. 
 
 Railroads have revolutionized the postal system, an institution 
 of long standing, but hampered by difficulty in transmission; it 
 has now at its disposal a means of transportation which allows 
 indefinite increase in the volume of mail-matter and a wonderful 
 decrease in the cost of postage. There were in Europe, in 1890, 
 according to the statistics of the international postal service, 
 90,000 post offices, and they had handled 10,000,000,000 letters 
 and packages. The railroads, roads, and post offices, by facili- 
 tating the movements of persons and letters, have greatly prO' 
 
NEW METHODS OF COMMUNICATION. 677 
 
 moted all branches of public service and political life. They 
 have permitted the establishment of an administration which, by 
 regular and continuous action, reaches the inhabitants of the 
 most remote districts. They have caused the disappearance of 
 the oases of barbarism which were preserved in Europe, even in 
 the heart of the most civilized countries. The police system, 
 organized everywhere on the model of the French gendarmerie, 
 has finally succeeded, thanks to the network of roads, in sup- 
 pressing highway robbery in Europe, even in the forest and 
 mountain districts. 
 
 All the inhabitants have entered into public life by regular 
 relations with the agents of justice, taxation, military recruiting, 
 and administration. The new means of communication have 
 brought the government close to those who pay its taxes or need 
 the attention of its courts and administrative officers. Their re- 
 lations have thus been made at once more efficacious and less 
 onerous. The improved communications have also been of ad- 
 vantage to the political parties by facilitating the propagation of 
 doctrine and the presence of their leaders at their gatherings all 
 over the country. 
 
 The press has been revolutionized by machinery, — ^the steam 
 press made in 1814 for the English Times, the composing ma- 
 chine, then the rotary press; these, by lessening the time neces- 
 sary for the mechanical work, permit the production of an 
 enormous number of copies in a very short time and at slight 
 expense.* The daily political newspaper, which was a luxury 
 reserved for subscribers of the middle class, has reached the 
 masses as buyers of single copies. The governments systemati- 
 cally attempted to keep the papers from reaching the multitude, 
 first by the stamp duty, contrived in England in the eighteenth 
 century; then by the deposit-pledge, invented in France in 1819; 
 or by a tax on paper. These fiscal devices were aided by prose- 
 cutions against the press and suppression through administrative 
 channels, which during the reaction against the revolution of 
 1848 produced a very noticeable efifect on the sale of papers. 
 But the cheap newspaper, in spite of the hostility of the govern- 
 ments, has finally effected a definite entrance into the life of all 
 Europe.f 
 
 * To show this reduction in time an American has calculated that what 
 may now be done in one hour would formerly have taken 100 days (72,000 
 sheets). 
 
 f Complete figures for calculating this progression are wanting; but the 
 yearly circulation, which in the large countries was counted by millions, is 
 
678 TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL LIFE. 
 
 Now the daily paper, by its incomparable powers of reaching 
 the masses, is in modern society the instrument of publicity, not 
 only for commerce, but for politics. For acts of government, 
 laws, orders, and judicial decrees, the old methods of pubHshing 
 by proclamation, posted notice, and announcement in the 
 churches, have been replaced by insertion in the newspapers. 
 The newspaper has made it useless to forbid the publication of 
 ecclesiastical acts, and needless to use the right of petition, for- 
 merly one of the fundamental liberties. But everywhere the 
 newspaper influences public opinion in two ways: it reports and 
 discusses the acts of the government and also of its agents, thus 
 furnishing the only effectual means of protest against abuse of 
 power; it expounds and spreads opinions, the necessary condi- 
 tion for the formation of political parties. 
 
 As long as the newspaper was a luxury for the wealthy, the 
 middle class had a monopoly of politics, control, and opposition; 
 the rest of the population came into political life only by riots. 
 A cheap press made it possible to introduce into this inert mass 
 a current of propagandism and opposition, which aroused the 
 political life of the people and started the evolution of politics in 
 the direction of democracy. 
 
 Adding to the direct transformations of political life the minor 
 services rendered to the cause of good order by the lighting of 
 the streets and the photographing of dangerous persons, I think 
 we have the complete list of direct changes in political condi- 
 tions. The indirect transformations are more numerous, but less 
 evident; it is hardly possible here to indicate any but the most 
 important and the least contestable. 
 
 Transformation in Population. — The progress in industrial arts 
 has produced an increase in the means of subsistence which has 
 certainly contributed to the rapid and continuous growth of pop- 
 ulation all over Europe. The almost exact census organized by 
 the governments permits a measurement of its importance. The 
 population of Europe, estimated in 1800 at about 180,000,000, 
 to-day exceeds 350,000,000.* . The growth has been principally 
 
 now counted by hundreds of millions; the production has increased more 
 than a hundredfold. 
 
 * The following table gives the comparative density per square kilo- 
 metre, about one-third of a square mile, in 1820 and i8go: 
 Germany, 50 91 England and Wales, 80 192. 
 
 ( Cisleithania, 79 t^ 
 Austria, 47 ] Transleithania, 54 ^'■^°'^' ■ • • 56 71 
 Belgium, 138 (in 1840) 206 Italy, ... 64 107- 
 
INCREASE IN WEALTH. 679 
 
 in the northern countries. The increase in the number of in- 
 habitants does not necessarily influence political life in itself. 
 There are now in the Orient, and perhaps were in the Middle 
 Ages, very dense and very inert masses of population ; the United 
 States, with a density of 7 inhabitants, has a much more intense 
 political life than British India, with its density of 88. The 
 political importance of the increase of population in the nine- 
 teenth century has been confined chiefly to what it has done for 
 the cities everywhere. 
 
 The cities in 1814 were hardly more than centres of supplies 
 and administration for the landlords and peasants of the region; 
 the majority of them were inhabited by small groups of office- 
 holders, artisans, and tradesmen, and were placed, at wide in- 
 tervals, among a rural population; very few exceeded a popula- 
 tion of 50,000. The new industries, by bringing workmen 
 together in thousands, and steam transportation, by creating 
 an enormous international commerce all over the world, have 
 given rise to a new population of workingmen and commercial 
 employees. The old cities have grown with unprecedented rapid- 
 ity; manufacturing villages have become large cities.* In cer- 
 tain manufacturing districts, notably in England, Germany, and 
 Belgium, the population has become so dense as to almost cover 
 the land. The proportion of the city population to the whole has 
 increased, in France, from 24 per cent, in 1846 to 36 per cent, in 
 1886. England, the first country to enter upon this evolution, 
 had already, in 1851, a city population of 51 per cent., and in 
 1890 79 per cent. 
 
 Now, the history of the nineteenth century shows the large 
 cities and manufacturing districts all over Europe to have been 
 centres of revolution and of opposition to the government and 
 clergy; it is they particularly that have recruited the democratic 
 parties. The increase in city population has certainly been one 
 of the material conditions in the general evolution of Europe to- 
 ward democracy. 
 
 Increase in Wealth. — Machinery, by bringing to the service of 
 industry the unlimited forces of nature, has led to the production 
 of a much greater number of objects in a shorter space of time, 
 
 *In 1880 there were in Europe 4 cities with a population exceeding 
 1,000,000; 6 between 1,000,000 and 500,000 ; 25 between soo.coo and 
 «oo,ooo; 40 between 200,000 and 100,000; in all 178 exceeding 50,000. The 
 total population of the great cities exceeding 500,000 was 11,000,000; in 
 1890 it exceeded 14,000,000. 
 
68o TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL LIFE. 
 
 and consequently has caused goods to be sold at much lower 
 prices.* Steam transportation has permitted Europe to import 
 at low prices the raw materials and agricultural products of the 
 whole world, while at the same time her own agriculture has 
 been growing more productive by underdraining, rotation of 
 crops, chemical fertilizers, and intensive cultivation. A parallel 
 increase in the production of gold and silver has for a long time 
 prevented a corresponding fall in prices.f But the increase in 
 production and the increase in money have worked together, in- 
 creasing the abundance of useful objects and the ease of pro- 
 curing them. This is shown in two ways : increased consumption 
 of goods and increased accumulation of capital. 
 
 The increase in comforts of life has been so rapid and has 
 so profoundly altered social habits that it is difficult to imagine 
 the simple life of the beginning of the century. The luxury of 
 the wealthy has become almost a burden. But everywhere the 
 increase in commodities has penetrated to the masses and relieved 
 their condition. ■ Many things that were formerly luxuries have 
 become articles of general use: sugar, coffee, chocolate, linen, 
 cotton and silk stuffs, wall-paper, ready-made clothing, furni- 
 ture, windows, dishes, candles and lamps, books, newspapers,, 
 music, theatres, and pictures. 
 
 By a parallel evolution, filthy ways of living, which in the 
 eighteenth century prevailed among all classes in all countries, 
 have become a reproach among civilized people and no longer 
 exist in Europe except in the south and east or in the poorest 
 portion of the community. Cleanliness of body, linen, house, 
 and food tend to become a moral obligation and begin to be 
 spread by the schools into the remotest parts of the country. 
 Public cleanliness comes with personal cleanliness; street sweep- 
 ing, sewers, and drains, almost unknown in 1814, have become 
 indispensable institutions in all the cities. A public feeling of 
 
 * The saving in labour and time varies greatly according to the industry. 
 Taking as a measure the number of workmen which would have been for- 
 merly necessary to manufacture the quantity produced to-day by a single 
 workman, the following estimates by experts give some idea of the dif- 
 ference: 
 
 Boots, .... 5 for 1 
 Hats, . . . . 6 " 
 
 Weaving, . . . 30 for i 
 Spinning, . . . iioo " 
 
 Printing, . . . about 1000 for i 
 fThe great development of deposit banking, and the use of cheques; 
 and bank notes instead of coin, have perhaps done as much to prevent a 
 fall of prices as has the increased production of the precious metals. 
 
TRANSFORMATION OF ECONOMIC LIFE. 68l 
 
 disgust and shame has compelled the clearing away of the in- 
 fected dwellings and alleys in which the poor of the great cities 
 had been allowed to bury themselves. 
 
 The manual labourer of to-day has as many opportunities for 
 enjoyment and mental culture, as much refinement in his sur- 
 roundings, as the lower middle class had in 1814. Also, he has 
 been enabled to take part in politics without causing the reaction 
 of barbarism which men of experience predicted and which 
 seemed an invincible argument against universal suffrage. 
 
 Only a part of the abundance produced by the new industrial 
 system has been consumed; the rest has become savings. It is 
 impossible to express by figures the savings accumulated since 
 1814, even in a single country; * the estimates rest on a too uncer- 
 tain and varying basis of conjectural reasoning. But it is certain 
 that it represents a capital at least double the sum of the capital 
 left by all past centuries. Of this new capital a part has served 
 to buy the new stock of tools for manufacture and commerce, 
 and is represented by the railroads and factories; the rest has 
 been lent to the governments for war and armament, and is repre- 
 sented by government bonds.f This enormous mass of dis- 
 posable capital has revolutionized the financial conditions of 
 government; it has made possible an increase of taxation, ex- 
 penditure, and debts in proportions which would formerly have 
 seemed intolerable. It has also made it easy to undertake a war 
 on credit and to pass on the debt to future generations. Thus 
 have increased the economic power of the government and the 
 influence of the representative assemblies invested with the man- 
 agement of these enormous budgets. 
 
 Transformation of Economic Life. — The quicker and cheaper 
 methods of transportation have produced a revolution in the 
 economic activity of civilized nations. Formerly, the labouring 
 classes produced hardly enough for their own consumption or 
 for the local market; the peasants did little selling and almost 
 no buying; artisans laboured only for local clients. The larger 
 industry of the time, and even the foreign commerce, were con- 
 
 *Mulhall e.stimates the whole savings of England, from 1815 to 1880, at 
 $17,000,000,000, and the annual savings of the world at about $2,4oo,ooo',ooo. 
 
 t England's debt was already formed in 1814, amounting in 1820 to 
 $4,200,000,000, and has since decreased. But for the whole of Europe 
 national debts have increased from $6,800,000,000 in 1820 to $20,400,000,000 
 in 1881. The annual expenses of the central governments for all Europe 
 have increased from $1,000,000,000 in 1830 to $3,000,000,000 in 1881. 
 
682 TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL LIFE. 
 
 fined almost entirely to articles of luxury made in certain 
 factories and colonial products from over the sea. In the 
 nineteenth century, by an evolution already begun in England 
 between 1789 and 1814, producers, and even cultivators, have 
 come to work no more for themselves or even for known cus- 
 tomers, but only for the market, and not now the local market, 
 but the market of the world. 
 
 The system of joint stock companies has developed rapidly in 
 its application to large industrial enterprises, while the issues of 
 government bonds have increased with the rapid increase of 
 loans. Thus has been created an enormous quantity of new 
 personal property, easily passed from one holder to another, and 
 therefore forming a favourite subject of speculation. 
 
 The management of production has thus passed intO' the con- 
 trol of groups of speculators who direct the world's market, settle 
 prices, order the goods to be produced, and determine the values 
 of stocks and government^ bonds. The Commercial Exchange 
 and the Stock Exchange have become the directing centres of 
 the economic life of nations.* 
 
 This new power has efifected a profound change in political 
 conditions. The new aristocracy of personal wealth, bankers, 
 manufacturers, and merchants, though held at arm's length by 
 the old landed aristocracy, has made a place for itself in politics, 
 by furnishing the mainstay of the liberal parties, and trying to 
 guide the democratic mass of the nation. Lucrative industrial 
 enterprises and large speculations depended directly on the state, 
 in its action touching customs duties, loans, and concessions of 
 public works; they depended indirectly on the press, by reason 
 of its power of publicity. The financial aristocracy has tried to 
 gain ascendency over the government, the legislative bodies, and 
 the press. In what measure it has succeeded in the different 
 countries of Europe is still a secret history which I have not 
 attempted to relate. But the power of speculation over the politi- 
 cal rulers of the states has certainly been one of the characteristics 
 of the political life of the nineteenth century. 
 
 * The importance of the Stock Exchange is shown in the number of 
 stocks of all sorts quoted on Exchange: 
 
 1815. London, . . 30 Paris, . . 15 Berlin, . . 11 
 1877. " . • 1307 " . . 553 " . ■ 613 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 683 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— See " Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften," 
 1890-94, and the 1895 supplement to the words Borse, Eisenbahnen, 
 Eisen, Gold, Anleihen, Staatschulden, Silber, Telegraphie, etc., where 
 the bibliography of each question is given.— See also W. Cuuningham, " The 
 Growth of English Industry and Commerce . . ." 
 
 WORKS. — I am not acquainted with the complete scientific history of 
 modern inventions. Many of the details are given in the popular works : 
 Figuier, "Les Merveilles de la Science"; " L'annee Scientifique " (pub- 
 lished annually since 1855) ; " Das Neue Buch der Erfindungen . . .," 
 6 vols., 1864-67. 
 
 For comparative statistics of wealth and population : Kolb, " Handbuch 
 der Vergleichenden Statistik," ist edit., 1857, 8th edit., 1879 (Eng. 
 translation, " Condition of Nations," 1880), the most reliable work of this 
 kind.— Mulhall, " Dictionary of Statistics," new edit., 1886; handy, but 
 unreliable. 
 
 C. D. Wright, "The Industrial Evolution of the United States," 1895, an 
 intelligent sketch of the industrial history of the world in its relation to 
 the United States. 
 
 For the evolution in France: Kambaud, "Hist, of Modern Civilization in 
 France," 1888. — For England: W. Cunningham, "Growth of English 
 Industry and Commerce . . .," 1892, very instructive, indicating special 
 histories of commerce (Levi, Yeats,) and the different trades (Baines, cotton; 
 Bi8olioff, woollens, etc.). 
 
CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 The Church before the Revolution. — ^The political history of the 
 Catholic Church in the nineteenth century is the history of the 
 relations between Church authority and lay authorities.* To 
 understand the conflicts which have filled the century, one must 
 know how the question stands between the governments and the 
 clergy, and what powers they dispute. But it is hardly possible 
 to realize the position of the clergy in contemporary society 
 without reviewing the organization of the Church before the 
 Revolution. 
 
 The principle of all Christian nations since the Middle Ages 
 was that all Christian society must obey at once two authorities: 
 the lay sovereign governs the body, the church sovereign the 
 soul; they share the power and mutually support each other. 
 The right of governing souls implies, to enforce obedience, a 
 material power; so the Church demanded a share of public 
 authority. 
 
 The Church had need of absolute independence to fulfil its 
 divine mission. It must therefore, like the state, form a body 
 capable of being sufficient to itself, what is called a " complete 
 society " (societas perfecta). It had its organization parallel with 
 that of the state: its sovereign power (the Pope and ccmncil), 
 its officials (the clergy organized in a hierarchical body), its laws 
 and its legal principles, decreed by itself (the canons and canon 
 
 *The technical term for these is relations of church and state. A 
 Church history would give an opportunity to study the relations of the 
 different churches with the state in the various countries of Europe. The 
 Protestant and Orthodox Greek churches, being national churches sub- 
 ordinated to the lay sovereign, have no common political history. There 
 may be from one country to another personal relations and sympathies 
 between the members of the same church; but there is no international 
 Protestant or Orthodox party, because these churches have no general 
 organization. The Catholic Church alone, being universal, forms an in- 
 ternational body directed by a single head, independent of all the govern- 
 ments. Its members, whose bond of union is superior to the dividing lines 
 of states, are grouped in international Catholic parties. 
 
 ei4 
 
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REVOLUTION. 685 
 
 law), its ecclesiastical courts, its procedure and its prisons, its 
 domains and its taxes (the tithe's) ; it had the power to give com- 
 mands and inflict punishments on its subjects. 
 
 All laymen were members of the Church and subject to the 
 clergy in religious matters. The clergy regulated matters of 
 faith, worship, and morals; they prescribed all that laymen should 
 believe, say, and do, and their orders were obligatory. They dis- 
 pensed the sacraments with a sovereign hand, including mar- 
 riage, one of the chief acts of private life. They kept the registers 
 of births and deaths. They directed schools and education, hos- 
 pitals, and public charities. They supervised, speech and writ- 
 ings and subjected publications to their censorship. 
 
 The practice of religion, being an obligation of public interest, 
 must be imposed on all laymen, even by force, just as respect for 
 decency and good order was imposed on them. As the Church 
 has no physical means of constraint, the state lent its strength. 
 The clergy decreed the religious duties to be imposed on the 
 faithful, denounced omissions, and pronounced condemnations. 
 The government offered its services in enforcing decisions; it 
 forced the monks and nuns to fulfil their vows ; it forced laymen 
 to obey the clergy, to practice their religion regularly, to attend 
 the services, to fast, to confess, to be married and buried by the 
 clergy, and to have their children instructed in religiotis matters. 
 It forbade the books condemned by Church censorship, and ex- 
 ecuted the judgments of the Church courts. 
 
 In eviery Catholic country there existed a compact between 
 Church and state, with three conditions: i. independent organ^ 
 ization of the clergy; 2. power of the clergy tO' issue orders to all 
 laymen; 3. assistance of the lay government in maintaining 
 Church authority. In this regime members of the clergy were 
 free from lay authority; the government could not impose on 
 clerks any temporal charge, either tax or military service — not 
 even the obligation to appear before its courts. On the contrary, 
 members of the government, as members of the Church, were 
 subject to the religious authority of the clergy; they must place 
 themselves at its service to carry out its orders. The division 
 of power into spiritual and temporal did not even assure to the 
 lay power a share of independent sovereignty, for the clergy 
 alone drew the dividing lines between the two domains and de- 
 cided which affairs belonged within its own. Thus the clergy 
 gave orders, but received none. It was the theory formulated 
 by Boniface in the bull Vnam Sanctam: Christ has instituted two 
 
686 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 swords — ^the one spiritual, belonging to the Church, the other 
 temporal, belonging to the princes; but the princes must wield 
 their sword according to the wish of the Pope; it is a Manichean 
 heresy to recognise an independent lay power side by side with 
 the ecclesiastical power, for every human being is subject to the 
 Pontiff. The Church is superior to the state. 
 
 In practice, however, laymen had imposed an inverse system 
 on the Church. The government, even in the states which had 
 remained Catholic, had subordinated the Church to the state.* 
 The clergy no longer form an independent body; they are sub- 
 ject to lay taxes and courts. They have no longer their self- 
 governing organization; the prelates, heads of the clergy, are 
 chosen by the lay government. They have not retained even 
 their sovereignty in religious matters; the government has im- 
 posed on them a supervision which is expressed in similar forms 
 throughout the great Catholic states: the placet, the government 
 authorization required before publishing any decision by the 
 Church authorities; the exequatur, the government confirmation 
 necessary for the execution of an order; 'Ca^ recur sus ab abusu, 
 the right of the lay courts to break through an ecclesiastical 
 sentence. 
 
 This system did not do away with compulsory Church author- 
 ity; the state continued to force its subjects to practice religion 
 and obey the clergy. But in a number of states the religious 
 contests which followed the Reformation had led to compromises 
 contradictory to the fundamental principle of the Catholic 
 Church, unity of faith. The government permitted laymen to 
 substitute the practice of another religion for that of Catholicism; 
 Catholic believers remained subject to clerical authority, while 
 non-Catholics were exempt from it. This system took two 
 forms : Toleration, or " private exercise of religion," maintained 
 the superiority of the State Church and simply tolerated the other 
 religions in an inferior position; this was the system which had 
 prevailed in Austria since Joseph II., and in France since 
 Louis XVI. Parity, practised in the German states and in Hun- 
 
 *In Protestant as well as Orthodox states, the sovereign has become 
 the official head of the Church; this is Ccssaropapism. The Reformation 
 did not establish liberty of conscience; but in breaking up the Church it 
 established little churches too weak to maintain their authority, churches 
 in which the clergy have become the servants of the lay power. The gov- 
 ernment, subject to the absolute will of the lay sovereign, has gradually 
 become indifferent to religion and has finally become a lay state. In this 
 sense the Reformation prepared the way for revolution. 
 
THE REVOLUTION IN THE CHURCH. 687 
 
 gary, consisted in maintaining several state churches side by 
 side, equally supported by the government, and each obligatory 
 for its own members (this system was combined with toleration 
 for unrecognised creeds). Spain and Italy alone preserved 
 Catholic unity and official intolerance.* The others had adopted 
 the system of toleration and superiority of the lay power. 
 
 Meanwhile the governments, to make the Catholic clergy still 
 more dependent on the lay sovereign, had diminished the author- 
 ity of the ecclesiastical sovereign, the Pope. A number of 
 Catholic states even attempted to establish a national Church, 
 joined to the universal Church by the ties of a common faith, 
 but with a distinct national organization and its own particular 
 form of liturgy; examples are the Gallican Church in France, the 
 doctrine of Febronius in Germany, and in Austria Josephism. 
 
 Thus, from the period of " enlightened despotism " the Church 
 preserved its privileges, estates, and endowments, exemption 
 from military service for the clergy, special system of taxation, 
 and pre-eminence marked by honours and precedence in cere- 
 monies; it even retained an efifective authority, supervision over 
 the conduct of laymen, censorship of books, the control of mar- 
 riage and records of vital statistics. It was still a system of col- 
 laboration between government and clergy. But the church- 
 men had descended to the rank of ofificials under the lay power. 
 The Pope alone, at once the head of the Church and a temporal 
 prince, remained an independent sovereign and maintained in the 
 Catholic Church an independent spiritual authority, at least in 
 matters of faith and worship. His political influence, however, 
 was weakened. 
 
 The Revolution in the Church. — The old church system, 
 greatly shaken by the Reformation, was overturned by the Revo- 
 lution. The Republican party, which controlled the French Con- 
 vention of 1792 and the Directory, adopted a radical solution 
 already tried in the United States. They established the ex- 
 clusive preponderance of the lay power in society, and systemati- 
 cally destroyed all that remained of the ofificial Church institution, 
 all the powers of the clergy over the faithful in matters of con- 
 
 *The Protestant countries were divided, in like manner between these 
 three systems: England and the Netherlands had tolerance and Prussia 
 parity, while the Scandinavian countries tolerated none but the Lutheran 
 Church. The Orthodox countries retained in principle compulsory religion 
 and Church unity; in the Ottoman Empire the Sultan imposed the belief 
 which it pleased him to recognise, and in the Russian Empire the Tsar 
 had guaranteed the preservation of the Church of each country annexed. 
 
688 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 duct, education, and civil records. The Revolution had deprived 
 the Church of its courts, tithes, estates, all its honorary privi- 
 leges, and even cancelled its religious vows. Religion became 
 a purely personal matter, freed from all outside authority; the 
 clergy lost all means of material constraint, even over Church 
 members. All public institutions, marriage, registration, educa- 
 tion, charity, and burials, were made independent of the Church; 
 there remained nothing but lay power. This marks the com- 
 plete separation of Church and state, the complete indifiEerence 
 of the government in religious matters, the absolute liberty and 
 equality of all creeds — a system directly opposed to that of the 
 Middle Ages. 
 
 Napoleon I. restored the system of " enlightened despotism " 
 and the Galilean Church. By the Concordat with the Pope he 
 recognised the Church as an official institution; he officially re- 
 stored the clerical hierarchy and granted it its official honours, 
 a state appropriation, exemption from military service, and the 
 right of having colleges. But to this restored clergy he granted 
 no authority over laymen, no control of civil records, no cen- 
 sorship, nor supervision of schools, no material power over its 
 members, no compulsory vows nor means of coercion. He left 
 them not even the internal liberty accorded to every private re- 
 ligious society where the separation of Church and state is estab- 
 lished. He made them subject to the lay government as a body 
 of office-holders, and revived the old royal powers over the Gal- 
 licah Church. This was the Gallican Church, with all its sub- 
 jection to lay authority, but without its authority over individuals. 
 
 Of the old church system Napoleon had restored only the 
 forms and the supervising power of the lay government. Of the 
 Revolution he preserved the fundamental principle, religious lib- 
 erty and equality, and the withdrawal of all public authority from 
 the clergy. For the government this was the system of " en- 
 lightened despotism," for individuals it was the system of the 
 Revolution. The form of the Concordat concealed this revolu- 
 tionary character by recognising in the Church the right to treat 
 with the state. But to this Concordat, concluded in the form of 
 a treaty between two powers, Napoleon added the organic 
 articles. These were simple laws, the exclusive work of the lay 
 power, which, in spite of protests from the Pope, regulated, in 
 a sense contrary to canon law, the " general relations of the 
 Church with state laws and police." They imposed on the 
 Church the old forms of lay supremacy : appeal to the Council 
 
THE RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH. 689 
 
 of State on questions of clerical powers, government authoriza- 
 tion for publishing papal acts, for sending nuncios, holding coun- 
 cils, establishing festivals, and creating parishes. 
 
 The Concordat, or a similar system, was extended to all the 
 states under the rule or influence of Napoleon, that is, all the 
 Catholic states except Austria and Portugal. It overturned the 
 organization of the Catholic Church in Europe and simplified 
 the relations between Church and state. In all the countries, 
 the Church, while fully preserving the character of an ofificial 
 state institution, was deprived of every means of constraint and 
 treated as a dependency of the government. It was weakened 
 at the same time by systematic secularizations, which abolished 
 the old religious orders and Church estates ; in Germany the lay 
 princes suppressed the states of the ecclesiastical princes, with 
 over 3,000,000 inhabitants, and divided them among themselves. 
 Napoleon himself annexed the Papal States to his Empire. 
 
 The Restoration of the Church. — The Allies, after defeating 
 Napoleon, restored the Papal States to the Pope, with the ex- 
 ception of Avignon. But this was the only ecclesiastical state 
 that was restored. The Church, having been part of the old 
 regime, had been overturned by the Revolution, but it was re-es- 
 tablished by the Restoration. The restored lay sovereigns re- 
 stored the Church organization. It was for them a conscientious 
 duty to set up the legitimate Church again at the same time as 
 the legitimate monarchy, and an act of conservative policy to 
 restore the naturally conservative authority of the clergy. The 
 Legitimists demanded " the union of throne and altar," the alli- 
 ance of government and clergy. This was the theory of the le- 
 gitimist school, Chateaubriand, de Maistre, Haller, and Schlegel; 
 it was put in practice by the governments. The two powers, 
 menaced by the Revolution, saw their common interest, and 
 joined hands to fight the common enemy. 
 
 Relations between the two powers were, however, regulated in 
 different ways. The Pope made full restoration in his states; 
 he restored the convents that had been suppressed by the Revo- 
 lution, and even, abandoning a decision that had been enforced 
 by the former monarchies, restored the Jesuit Society, by a sol- 
 emn bull,* in April, 1814, without consulting the governments, 
 
 *This society, abolished by the Pope in 1773, had in reality been per- 
 petuated in non-Catholic states, Russia and Prussia, and under another 
 name. Fathers of the Faith, in the Catholic states. It had already been 
 re-established in the Kingdom of Sicily. 
 
690 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 The absolutist monarchies of Spain and Portugal, and those of 
 Italy, except for the Austrian provinces and Tuscany, also re- 
 turned to the old ecclesiastical system. They restored unity of 
 faith (compulsory Catholicism), Church courts, tithes. Church 
 estates, religious orders, and clerical control of marriage and 
 registration. 
 
 The two great Catholic monarchies preserved state control of 
 the Church and religious liberty. Austria preserved Josephism 
 with toleration, France the Napoleonic Concordat with equality 
 of creeds. They restored neither compulsory unity of faith, nor 
 independence of the Church; France did not even restore the 
 religious orders nor the Church domains that the Revolution had 
 destroyed. The Pope protested against the Charter,* an exclu- 
 sively lay document in which there was no mention of the Catho- 
 lic Church, " not even of the name of God " ; against Article 22, 
 which established " liberty of creed and conscience " and " prom- 
 ised protection to ministers of what are called the denominations," 
 putting "on a level with heretical sects and even Jewish perfidy 
 the Holy Spouse of Christ, the Church outside of which there 
 could be no salvation " ; against Article 23, on the press, " liberty 
 which threatens morals and faith." 
 
 In Germany, the Church of the times before the Revolution 
 was not restored; not only the ecclesiastical principalities, but 
 the convents, remained suppressed. The plan of a single regu- 
 lation for the whole Confederation fell through. A new Church 
 with new districts was established by special agreement between 
 the Pope and the government of each state. Bavaria alone gave 
 to this agreement the form of a concordat (1817); it recognised 
 in the Church the " rights and privileges which appertain to 
 it by divine order and canon law,"^ut the Concordat was pro- 
 mulgated with an edict similar to Isjapoleon's organic articles, 
 which, in spite of the protests of the Pope, guaranteed religious 
 liberty. In the other German states, the Church was organized 
 by a series of papal bulls concerted with the governments. 
 Everywhere the government preserved its power over the 
 Church, and even continued, as in the eighteenth century, to 
 interfere in the regulating of details in purely Church matters, 
 liturgy, festivals, and pilgrimages. 
 
 The Restoration re-established only an impoverished and sub- 
 ordinated Church. 
 
 ♦ This was really against the constitution drafted by the Senate, but the 
 incriminated articles passed into the Charter. See p 231 for a similar 
 protest against the constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 
 
THE ULTRAMONTANE PARTY. 691 
 
 The Ultramontane Party. — From the crisis of the Revolution 
 the Church emerged transformed in spite of herself. While 
 everyone thought her enfeebled she found herself fortified. The 
 clergy of the eighteenth century, w^ith its aristocratic and im- 
 perfectly centralized constitution, had many privileges and appar- 
 ent authority; yet it had little activity and little influence on 
 society. The cultivated classes did not obey it, and over the 
 masses its influence remained local, without unity of aim. Each 
 great state had its National Church, practically almost inde- 
 pendent of the Pope and subject to the government. 
 
 The bishops, those princes of the Church who were really lay 
 nobles, and the old religious orders, holders of great estates, were 
 swept away by the crisis. Instead of these instruments of aris- 
 tocracy and decentralization, bishops of democratic origin, fresh 
 from the seminaries, became the heads of the clergy; the re- 
 ligious orders of Roman origin were devoted to the Pope, espe- 
 cially the Jesuits, and they took charge of preaching and educa- 
 tion. The seminaries were reorganized according to the decrees, 
 of the Council of Trent; the dogma of the supremacy of the 
 Pope, taught to new generations, became once more the funda- 
 mental doctrine touching the organization of the Church. 
 
 The National Churches, established, after the weakening of 
 the papacy in the fourteenth century, and maintained in spite of 
 the restoration effected by the^Council of Trent, had still sup- 
 porters who tried to resist this new restoration of the papal 
 power; the governments supported them in contempt of the 
 Pope. The conflict that divided the Catholics into two parties, 
 national and pontifical, was especially sharp in France. The 
 National Church there took the form of a doctrine, the " maxims 
 of the Galilean Church " of 1682 ; Napoleon had declared these 
 obligatory (the organic articles, among the " cases of abuse " of 
 clerical authority, enumerated " attempts against the liberties, 
 immunities, and customs of the Galilean Church "). The old 
 struggle was reopened between the Galileans and Ultramontanes. 
 The Galileans rested on the lay power. Even after the Restora- 
 tion the King, the ministers, and the administrative staff re- 
 mained Galileans; churchmen in positions of control were Gal- 
 licans, the headmaster of Frayssinous University, the Superior 
 of St. Suplice, the archbishops of Paris ; the Jesuits were expelled, 
 as supporters of papal sovereignty, and their order continued 
 to be regarded as abolished, in spite of the Bull of 1814. But 
 the Ultramontanes gradually won the mass of the clergy and 
 
■692 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 the faithful. A similar conflict and evolution, though less 
 marked, occurred in Germany. The result was to replace the 
 former aristocratic national clergy, half officials of the state, by 
 a democratic clergy subject to an international ecclesiastical 
 monarchy, the Papacy. The government of the Catholic world 
 was definitely centralized at Rome. The Church had lost in 
 wealth and official authority, but she gained in force of centraliza- 
 tion. Meanwhile new orders were being established, and new 
 ■convents, particularly of women; these, by means of legacies and 
 gifts, began once more to build up ecclesiastical estates. 
 
 In Rome the Pope was struggling against his spiritual and 
 temporal adversaries. Pius VII. condemned the Bible Societies 
 "which were spreading translations of the Bible. Leo XII. (1823- 
 -29) prosecuted particularly the secret societies: the Carbonari, 
 who were labouring to establish Italian unity, and consequently 
 to destroy the temporal power of the Pope; alsO' the Free Masons, 
 who attacked unity of the faith by demanding religious liberty. 
 Then began that bitter contest between the Holy See and the 
 Free Masons, which was to fill the nineteenth century with 
 polemics. 
 
 The Liberal Catholic Party. — ^The constant tendency of the 
 Catholic clergy had been to rest on authority in order to make 
 the' true religion obligatory and maintain unity of faith; the 
 Pope's doctrine, formulated in his declarations, condemned 
 liberty of religion and of the press. But Catholics were drawn 
 into the movement toward liberalism which brought reforms and 
 revolutions to England, Switzerland, France, and Belgium. 
 About 1828 a new Liberal Catholic party appeared which tried 
 to reconcile the new liberal doctrines with the traditional power 
 of the Church. Instead of asking privileges for the clergy and 
 government assistance against the opponents of their religion, 
 they confined themselves to demanding for the Church that 
 liberty of common law which the liberal system accorded to 
 simple individuals, the right of association, the right to acquire 
 property, to found educational and charitable institutions. The 
 Church, in possession of the truth, had no need of coercive 
 power ; liberty would be sufficient to enable her to undertake the 
 direction of society, through education, preaching, and the mani- 
 festation of her virtues and moral superiority. 
 
 The movement began in three countries, Ireland, Belgium, 
 and France, whose governments, either Protestant or Galilean, 
 allowed the Catholic clergy less liberty of action than the liberal 
 
THE LIBERAL CATHOLIC PARTY. 693 
 
 doctrine allowed to private associations, and where simple liberty 
 for the Church represented an increase of power. The Liberal 
 Catholics conducted the campaign simultaneously in the three 
 countries ; their leaders were in personal communication. 
 
 In Ireland, O'Connell, in the name of liberty, demanded and 
 obtained (1829) the repeal of the Test Act and the admission of 
 Catholics to civil equality. In Belgium the Liberal Catholics, in 
 the name of liberty, aided in the revolt against Holland and 
 secured the Constitution of 1831. This granted to the clergy 
 complete liberty as in America, and at the same time preserved 
 to them their privileges as in Europe. In France the party was 
 merely a group of young men. Their leader. Abbe Lamennais, 
 had protested against the expulsion of the Jesuits (1829) : " We 
 demand for the Catholic Church the liberty promised by the 
 Charter to all religions, the^ liberty which is extended to Protes- 
 tants and Jews. . . We want liberty of conscience, of the press, 
 and of education, and that is what the Belgians, too, are demand- 
 ing." Lacordaire demanded American liberty. The party was 
 small and had no influence with the government, but it excited 
 public opinion through its organ, the Avenir, founded in August, 
 1830, and by the declarations of Montalembert, peer of France. 
 He demanded liberty of education, tha/t is, the right to establish 
 Catholic schools. Later they went on to reject the concordat, 
 which gave the choice of bishops to the enemies of Catholicism, 
 and to demand the separation of Church and state. 
 
 The Liberal Catholics, in accepting liberty, did not give up the 
 direction of morals, education, and charities; but they declared 
 that these things, not being within the domain of the state, must 
 be cared for by the individual citizen, who had the right to hand 
 over the control of them to the clergy. In the Church they 
 recognised the supreme and absolute power of the Pope; they 
 were Ultramontanes, opposed to the National Churches, although 
 the ill-informed French public often made Liberal the synonym 
 for Gallican and the opposite of Ultramontane. But the doctrine 
 of liberty, as opposed to unity of the faith, was never accepted by 
 the court of Rome. Gregory XVI. (1830-46) condemned the 
 Belgian constitution as Pius VII. had condemned the French 
 Charte, because it recognised liberty of religion and of the press ; 
 he condemned the Liberal Catholics of France in the encyclical 
 Mirari Vos (August, 1832).* 
 
 ♦Among the " causes of the evils that afHict the Church " it specified 
 indifferentism, or that perverse idea spread about through the dishonesty 
 
694 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 In spite of the condemnation, the Liberal party took charge of 
 the Catholic movement in the constitutional states, and continued 
 to demand the liberties necessary to the Church.* The estab- 
 lishment of the constitutional monarchy in Portugal and in Spain 
 destroyed practical unity of faith in those states and introduced 
 actual toleration, secularized almost all the Church estates, and 
 suppressed almost all the monasteries. 
 
 The Liberal movement appeared later in Italy, with the 
 risorgimento ; it took mainly the form of clerico-liberal societies^ 
 formed by priests to establish at once liberty and national unity. 
 One of the writers of the risorgimento, Gioberti, was a priest. 
 Pius IX., elected against the candidate of the Austrian party, 
 passed for the Pope of the Liberal party, and his election at first 
 seemed the definite triumph of the Liberal Catholics (1846). 
 
 The Catholic Democracy and the Eevolution of 1848. — The 
 Catholics began to feel the effects of a new political movement, 
 the movement toward democracy, which ended in the revolutions 
 of 1848. As before 1830 a Liberal Catholic party had been 
 formed in all the states, so before 1848 a democratic Catholic 
 
 of wicked men that eternal salvation of the soul may be secured by a pro- 
 fession of any sort of faith, provided that one conforms in morals to the 
 prevalent ideas of justice and decency. . . From the fetid sources of this 
 indifferentism flows that ridiculous and erroneous idea, or rather that 
 madness, that we must procure and guarantee for everybody liberty of 
 conscience, an error . . . for which the way is smoothed by that com- 
 plete and immoderate freedom of opinion . . . out of which some, in an 
 excess of imprudence, pretend that some good may come to religion. . . 
 With this is connected that liberty of the press, the worst of all, which can 
 never be sufficiently execrated and cursed. . . There are, however, men 
 carried away by imprudence to the point of maintaining obstinately that 
 the deluge of errors which arises from it is sufficiently compensated by 
 some book that is published . . . for the defence of religion and truth. . . 
 Is it possible that a man of sense could say that . . . poisons should be 
 put on public sale, because there are remedies which may snatch from 
 death? " The Encyclical recalls the services rendered by the Index and 
 condemns the doctrine of those who not only reject censorship of books 
 . . . but go so far as to declare that it is contrary to the principles of 
 justice and dare to refuse to the Church the right to establish and 
 enforce it." Then, recalling the disastrous revolutions produced by 
 heretics, it adds: "We cannot expect happier results for religion and the 
 lay power from the desires of those who wish to separate Church and 
 state and break the union of priesthood and empire, for it is an estab- 
 lished fact that lovers of unbridled liberty dread this union, which has 
 always been salutary both for Church and state." 
 * See for Ireland p. 54, for Belgium p. 245, for France p. 49. 
 
CATHOLIC DEMOCRACY AND REVOLUTION OF 1848. 695 
 
 party was formed in the democratic countries. It began where 
 the democratic revolution had been first made, in the Catholic 
 cantons of Switzerland. It was an Ultramontane party, attached 
 to the sovereignty of the Pope; at Freiburg it enlisted the Jesuits; 
 at Lucerne, when it had obtained possession of the government, 
 it submitted the new constitution of the canton for the approval 
 of Gregory XVI. It was a party of unity of the faith, hostile to 
 the doctrine of religious liberty. But, while preserving the old 
 doctrines, it adopted new lines of action which practically 
 changed the relations of the clergy with the political body, in 
 countries where Catholicism is not the state religion. The 
 Church, without theoretically condemning any form of govern- 
 ment, had hardly ever actually allied itself except with princes and 
 aristocracies. Its own organization is 4 monarchical hierarchy, 
 in which all authority comes from above, by virtue of a mystical 
 right, and is exercised without control over a body of subjects. 
 In the democratic republics of Switzerland, based on the sover- 
 eignty of the people and government by elective ofiScers, the 
 authority was, on the contrary, delegated from below. Between 
 these two opposing systems the Catholic party found a practical 
 reconciliation. The representatives of the sovereign people, 
 masters by election of the sovereign lay power, subjected them- 
 selves voluntarily, as Catholics, to the sovereign spiritual power 
 of the Pope and left him judge of the limits between the two 
 powers. In this system of revolutionary origin, the Church re- 
 covered indirectly a higher authority than in the monarchies ; for 
 the Pope, instead of having to treat with an hereditary sovereign, 
 accustomed to command, found only submissive sons of the 
 Church, accustomed to obey. He became once more the su- 
 preme arbiter in settling the relations between Church and state. 
 But to make good this new power, the old means of ecclesias- 
 tical influence were no longer sufficient. Democratic processes 
 must be adopted: electoral and parliamentary organization, and 
 the press; parliamentary Catholic parties were organized. Cath- 
 olic committees and Catholic newspapers were established. Then 
 began also new difificulties. The majority of Catholic members 
 and journalists were laymen. This was a new power in the 
 direction of Catholic interests; between them and the official 
 heads of the Church, bishops and priests, rivalries in influence 
 and divergencies in opinion led to conflicts of a new sort. The 
 Pope, called upon to end them by his sovereign authority, was 
 
696 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 to be led to interfere more and more in the current politics of 
 Catholic countries and to take the part of a leader of a political 
 party. 
 
 This democratic evolution was suddenly accelerated by the 
 revolutions of 1848. These were lay and democratic revolutions, 
 made in the name of the lay sovereignty of the people and abso^ 
 lute liberty, usually with a sentiment of good-will for the clergy. 
 They did not destroy the institutions of the Church, but they pro- 
 claimed the principle of the complete liberty of creed and tended 
 to laicize public institutions. In France, where the state was, 
 already completely lay, the official organization of the Church 
 remained the same, but universal suffrage gave the clergy a 
 political influence which became the most active force of the 
 Conservative party. In Italy the governments were content to 
 set up the principle of religious liberty, and Catholicism remained 
 the privileged state religion. In the German countries the revo- 
 lution introduced the Belgian system of Church liberty. The 
 Frankfort Parliament adopted an article which passed finally into 
 the Constitution of Prussia : " Every religious society regulates 
 and administers its affairs in an independent manner, but re- 
 mains . . . subject to the laws of the state." The German 
 bishops met at Wurzburg in October, 1848, and demanded the 
 abolition of the subjection imposed on the Church (placet, prohi- 
 bition of correspondence with the Holy See, appeal to the courts 
 against clerical decrees). The revolution in Prussia and Austria 
 resulted in abolishing the placet and state supervision. In the 
 other German states the regulations were made only slowly, in 
 the midst of complicated conflicts. 
 
 Reaction in the Church. — ^The Revolution of 1848 made a deep 
 impression on Pius IX. ; he consented to liberty granted under a 
 paternal government, but his subjects wanted to impose on him 
 a constitutional liberty and to limit his power legally. He broke 
 with the Liberal party. Driven from Rome by the revolution- 
 ists, he returned a partisan of the absolutist system, determined 
 to fight the revolution with the aid of the governments, and con- 
 vinced that the temporal power of the Pope was the necessary 
 barrier against revolution.* 
 
 * The Encyclical Nostts et Nobtscutn to the bishops of Italy (December 
 8, 1849), after condemning socialism and communism, declares that " the 
 successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, possesses supreme authority 
 (primatum) over the whole world; he is the true vicar of Christ, head of 
 the whole Church, father and teacher of all Christians. The easiest way 
 
REACTION IN THE CHURCH. 69?/ 
 
 In all the states, the revolution was followed by a reaction ; the 
 lay governments, as after the Restoration, made alliance with the. 
 Church authorities and by a more methodical alliance than in 
 1814. The socialist movement of 1848 had alarmed the middle 
 classes and decided them to appeal to the Conservative power of 
 the clergy.* Irreligion, which had gone out of fashion among 
 the nobility after the Revolution of 1793, went out of fashion in 
 the middle classes after the Revolution of 1848; in all the Cath- 
 olic countries f religion became, and has remained, a worldly 
 obligation, a part of good education and the fashion of good, 
 society. .The Catholic party used these conditions to increase 
 the power of the clergy. In France it secured the liberty of 
 secondary education and Catholic primary schools (1850). Later, 
 under Napoleon III., it gained the favour of the government. la 
 Prussia the state resigned to the bishops the control of their clergy 
 and their colleges (see p. 491). In the small German states, 
 a series of long and complicated negotiations succeeded in estab- 
 lishing a similar system. In Austria the Holy See secured the 
 abandonment of Josephism in 1850, then the Concordat of 1855, 
 the first in which the government of a great state recognised that 
 the Church held its rights, not as a concession from the lay power,, 
 but " by divine institution and canon law." State criminal juris- 
 
 to keep the nations in the profession of the Catholic faith is to keep them, 
 in the communion and in obedience to the Pope. The modern enemies of 
 God and of human society also do their utmost to draw away the Italian 
 peoples from obedience to us." As for the princes, " they see that the 
 diminution of the authority of the bishops and the increasing contempt for 
 divine and Church precepts that are violated with impunity have equally 
 diminished the obedience of the people to lay authority and opened to the- 
 enemies of public peace an easier means of inciting sedition against the 
 prince. They also see that by seizing, confiscating, and publicly selling 
 temporal property lawfully belonging to the Church, respect for property 
 consecrated to a religious purpose has been weakened among the people, 
 who are thus disposed to listen more readily to the partisan of socialism 
 and communism, threatening to seize and divide or make common other 
 forms of property." 
 
 ♦Louis Veuillot, director of the Catholic paper the Univers, thus form- 
 ulated the policy of Thiers, head of the Orleanist-Catholic coalition: " He 
 would like to-day to fortify the party of smug and thorough-going revolu- 
 tionists, of which he is the leader, by a body of gendarmes in cassocks, on 
 account of the manifest insufficiency of the others." 
 
 t A similar evolution has taken place in the Protestant countries, espe- 
 cially in England. In the Orthodox countries of eastern Europe, religious; 
 indifference has remained the fashion in cultivated society. 
 
6g8 THE CHURCH AND THE CA THOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 diction over the clergy was represented simply as a concession 
 from the Pope " out of consideration for the conditions of the 
 time." A similar • concordat had been concluded in Spain in 
 185 1. Meanwhile the Pope secured the right to institute offi- 
 cially bishoprics and ecclesiastical districts in the Protestant 
 countries — in England in 1850, and in Holland in 1853. Through- 
 out Europe the period of reaction from 1849 to 1859 was used to 
 increase the power of the Catholic parties in almost all the coun- 
 tries. The Kingdom of Sardinia alone has, since 1850, under- 
 taken to laicize her institutions and enter into open conflict with 
 the Holy See (see p. 348). 
 
 In addition to these partial restorations, Pius IX. laboured to 
 eiifect a general restoration of Catholic society, according to the 
 plan indicated in his official acts and commented on by his official 
 organ, the Civilta Catolica (Catholic Civilization), founded in 1850. 
 He began with an act of doctrinal sovereignty proclaiming the 
 Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, the favourite doctrine of 
 the Franciscans and Jesuits, but rejected by the Dominicans. 
 After asking the advice of the bishops and receiving 576 answers, 
 almost all affirmative, he solemnly promulgated the dogma in 
 the Sistine chapel on the 8th of December — a day chosen for 
 a mystical reason and ever afterward consecrated to the great 
 acts of his pontificate. He promulgated it without a meeting of 
 the council by virtue of his pontifical authority, thus affirming 
 the right of the Pope to define, by his own act, the faith of the 
 Catholic Church (1854). 
 
 He then called together a congregation to prepare a complete 
 exposition of his doctrine on the role of the Church in modern 
 society and to draw up the catalogue of contemporary errors; it 
 worked five years, and made the plan which served as the doc- 
 trinal manifesto of 1864. 
 
 While Pius IX. was preparing his doctrinal exposition, the 
 Sardinian government established the Kingdom of Italy, deprived 
 the Pope of a part of his states, and announced its intention of 
 making Rome the capital of the new kingdom. Pius IX. treated 
 the annexation of the States of the Church as a robbery. The. 
 destruction of the temporal power, even though accomplished by 
 a monarchy, was to him a most shocking case of Revolution. He 
 thought himself back in 1848, all the more so because the Italian 
 monarchical government worked in harmony with the revolu- 
 tionists of 1848, with Garibaldi, one of the triumvirs of the 
 Roman Republic. Pius IX. therefore condemned the new RevO' 
 
ENCYCLICAL "QUANTA CURA " AND THE SYLLABUS. 699 
 
 Mion and excommunicated all those who had " taken part in the 
 criminal invasion of his provinces.* 
 
 The Encyclical "Quanta Cura" and the Syllabus (1864). — 
 When France, by the September Convention, consented to vifith- 
 draw the troops which defended the Pope at Rome, Pius IX., 
 indignant, decided to publish his plan for the reconstruction of 
 society, December 8, 1864. He gave it the form of an encyclical 
 to Christendom, followed by a " catalogue (syllabus) of modern 
 errors " which he had previously condemned. 
 
 The Quanta Cura set forth in definite form the fundamental 
 conception of the Pope, already explained in the Civilta Catolica: 
 Catholic civilization, so prosperous during the Middle Ages, had 
 been successively enfeebled by Lutheranism, Jansenism, Vol- 
 tairanism, and socialism; society has been organized in a hetero- 
 dox spirit, it must be reconstructed from the bottom on legiti- 
 mate authority. 
 
 The Encyclical began by recalling the fact that the office of the 
 Pope is to preserve the faithful from heresies and errors. Pius 
 IX. had already condemned " the principal errors of our most un- 
 happy epoch " (trisHssimcB nostrcz cetatis), and " the monstrous 
 opinions which predominate everywhere in our time . . . and 
 from which almost all the other errors have their origin." 
 
 The fundamental error is " naturalism " {naturalismus), the 
 idea " that the best organization of government and civil prog- 
 ress demand absolutely that human society shall be constituted 
 and governed without taking any more account of religion than if 
 it did not exist, or at least without making a distinction between 
 
 *The apostolical letter of March 26, i860, expounds the doctrine of the 
 temporal power. " The Catholic Church, founded by Christ, . . . has 
 secured by virtue of her divine institution the form of a perfect society; 
 she should, therefore, enjoy so full liberty that in the exercise of her sacred 
 ministry she should never be subjected to any lay power. It is therefore 
 by a special decree of Providence, that the Pope, established by Christ as 
 the head and centre of his whole Church, has acquired the temporal power. 
 The divine wisdom has willed that in such a crowd of temporal princes 
 the Sovereign Pontiff shall enjoy that political authority which is neces- 
 sary to the exercise of his spiritual power, authority, and jurisdiction. It 
 was agreed that the Catholic world should have no occasion to suspect 
 that this See can be, as head of the Church universal, influenced by the 
 temporal powers or drawn away by parties." A letter of 1863 condemns 
 churchmen who " attack the temporal power of the Holy See " and " dare 
 to establish wholly objectionable societies called Clerical Liberals, Mutual 
 Aid, Deliverer of the Italian Clergy, (clerico-Uberali, Di mutuo soccorso, 
 Emanci^patrice del clero italtano)." 
 
700 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 the true religion and false religions ; further, " that the best 
 system is that in which the government is not empowered to visit 
 punishment on violators of the Catholic religion except so far as 
 the public may require." (The idea that the government must 
 be founded on natural motives and remain a stranger to religion 
 is really historically the foundation of the English constitutional 
 system and of the modern lay state; it has resulted in withdraw- 
 ing from the clergy every means of material constraint, leaving 
 them only a moral authority. It is contrary tO' the unity of faith, 
 the fundamental doctrine of the Church. It implies the mental 
 reservation that the different religions * are of sufficiently equal 
 value to make it possible to leave each man to choose one for 
 himself.) 
 
 " From this absolutely false^idea of society and government" 
 arises the error, " set down as madness by Gregory XVI.," that 
 " liberty of conscience and of creed is the right of every man, 
 and may be proclaimed and admitted into every well-constituted 
 society, and that citizens are entitled to full liberty of publishing 
 and maintaining their opinions through the press or otherwise 
 without restraint from any civil or ecclesiastical authority." 
 Now, this is " a fatal liberty, for if free discussion of human 
 opinion is always allowed, there will always be people who dare 
 to resist the truth." (Liberty of conscience and of the press is in 
 fact irreconcilable with unity of faith; historically it was first 
 established in countries torn by religious revolutions.) 
 
 When " religion has been discarded from civil society ... the 
 idea of justice and law" is lost; the immediate consequence is 
 that " the will of the people, as manifested by public opinion or 
 any other means, constitutes the supfeme law independently of 
 every divine and human right, and that in political order accom- 
 plished facts . . . have the force of law." It is thus that the re- 
 ligious orders were abolished. After religion had been driven 
 out of society, it was to be excluded from the family, by civil mar- 
 riage and lay schools. (It is a fact that the sovereignty of the 
 people has not been historically admitted except in those coun- 
 tries which no longer recognise the sovereignty of the Church; 
 it has led to civil marriage and neutrality of the public school.) 
 
 * The errors of indifferentism and latitudinarianism are mentioned in the 
 Syllabus in these terms: " Man may in the creed of any religion find the 
 road to eternal salvation and secure eternal salvation. Every man is free 
 to embrace and to profess the religion -which he believes to be true, con- 
 ducted by the light of reason." 
 
ENCYCLICAL ''QUANTA CURA" AND THE SYLLABUS. 701 
 
 In political matters it is an " error to say that the supreme 
 authority intrusted by Christ to the Church and the Holy See is 
 subject to civil authority, and to deny all the rights of the Church 
 and the Holy See in those things which belong to the outside 
 world," by declaring that " the Papal Acts and decrees relative 
 to religion and the Church must have the consent of the civil 
 power, and that the Church has not the right to visit those who 
 violate its laws with temporal punishments.* This regime rests 
 on " the heretical principle " that " the ecclesiastical power is not, 
 by divine law, distinct and independent of the civil power." (This 
 is in fact the principle of the Protestant states and of Ccesaro- 
 papism. The " Catholic dogma " is, on the contrary, that " the 
 full power was divinely conferred by Christ on the Pope, to tend, 
 rule, and govern the universal Church." It follows from it that 
 "the Church must form an independent society." 
 
 Thus to the lay state founded on religious liberty and the su- 
 premacy of the civil power, the Encyclical opposes the ideal of 
 the Catholic state founded on the complete independence of the 
 ecclesiastical power and compulsory unity of faith. 
 
 The Syllabus, (catalogue) " of the principal errors of our times, 
 set forth in consistorial addresses, encyclicals, and other apostoli- 
 cal letters of Pope Pius IX. ,^' reproduced in a summary form all 
 the doctrines condemned by him. They are numbered, from i 
 to 80, and grouped in logical order, beginning with errors of 
 theory under the following titles: I. Pantheism, naturalism, and 
 absolute rationalism. II. Moderate rationalism. These are phil- 
 osophic opinions. HI. Indifferentism, latitudinarianism. This 
 is the theory of liberty of conscience (see p. 693). IV. Socialism, 
 communism, Bible societies, Clerico-Liberals. V. Errors concerning 
 the Church and its rights. These are the theory of clerical subor- 
 dination to the lay power,t and the practice of toleration. VI. 
 
 * The end of the Encyclical recommends the bishops to teach laymen 
 that " royal power is not conferred simply for the government of the world , 
 but especially for the protection of the Church," and orders prayers for 
 God's aid "in so great calamities of the Church and civil society, in such a 
 conspiracy of enemies, and in so great a mass of errors against Catholic 
 society and the Holy See." 
 
 t " 19. The Church is not a true and completely free society, it does not 
 enjoy its proper and constant rights, conferred by its divine founder, but 
 it belongs to the civil power to define the rights of the Church and the 
 extent of those rights. 20. Ecclesiastical power may not exercise its 
 authority without the permission of the civil government. 24. The Church 
 has not the right to employ force; it has no temporal power, either direct 
 
702 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 Errors concerning civil society considered either by itself or in its 
 relations with the Church. These are the theory of the state's 
 right to interfere in ecclesiastical affairs (exequatur, recursus ah 
 abusu, seminaries, religious vows, congregations) * and the 
 theory of lay education.f VII. Errors concerning natural and 
 Christian morality. These are the theory of lay morality, the 
 value of the accomplished fact, the principle of non-intervention. 
 VIII. Errors concerning Christian marriage. These are civil 
 marriage % and divorce. IX. Errors concerning the temporal power 
 of the Pope. These relate to the destruction of the temporal 
 power. X. Errors which relate to modern liberalism. 
 
 The Syllabus thus condemns not only the enemies of the 
 Church who wish to destroy it, but also the indifferent people 
 who wish to take away its official privileges by reducing it to the 
 condition of a private association, and the supporters of religious 
 liberty and neutrality between sects, who demand lay citizen- 
 ship, lay marriage, and lay schools. It also condemns the 
 
 or indirect. 26. The Church has no native and legitimate right to acquire 
 and possess. 30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons 
 arises from civil law. 31. Ecclesiastical justice for the trial of civil or 
 criminal cases against the clergy must be absolutely abolished, even with- 
 out consulting the Holy See. 32. The personal immunity which exempts 
 the clergy from military service may be repealed without violation of 
 natural rights and equity." 
 
 * "42. In case of conflict of laws between the two powers, civil law pre- 
 vails. 49. Civil authority may prevent communication of the bishops with 
 the Pope or with each other. 50. Lay authority has in itself the right to 
 present bishops and may require them to assume the administration of 
 dioceses without receiving canonical institution from the Holy See. 52. 
 The government may change the age prescribed by the Church for reli- 
 gious profession . . . and order religious communities to allow no person 
 to pronounce their solemn vows without its permission. 53. The civil 
 government may grant its aid to all who wish to give up the religious life 
 and break their vows. 55. Church and state must be separate from each 
 other." 
 
 f " 47. The best form of civil society demands that the public schools, 
 open to all children, and in general public institutions ... for higher 
 education . . . shall be free from all Church authority . . . and sub- 
 ject to the direction of civil and political authority." 
 
 X" tt. The marriage sacrament is only an accessory to the contract, and 
 may be separated from it. 67. By natural law the marriage tie is not in- 
 dissoluble, and in various cases divorce properly so called may be sanc- 
 tioned by civil authority. 68. The Church has not the power of preventing 
 improper marriages; this power belongs to the civil authority. 74. The 
 trial of cases relating to marriage and betrothal belongs, properly, to civil 
 justice." 
 
ENCYCLICAL "QUANTA CURA" AND THE SYLLABUS. 703 
 
 conditional allies of the Church who struggled with her against 
 the revolution, and the monarchical governments, advocates of 
 lay sovereignty who have abolished Church courts and obliga- 
 tory vows, and keep the clergy in subjection by means of 
 exequatur, recursus ab abusu, and the requirement of previous 
 authorization. To these may be added the Galileans, the oppo- 
 nents of temporal power, and even the Liberal Catholics, who ad- 
 mit religious liberty.* In order to mark more distinctly the op- 
 position between the ideal Catholic society and modern society, 
 the close of the Syllabus condemns this proposition : " The Pope 
 can be and ought to be reconciled and keep pace with progress, 
 liberalism, and modern civilization." 
 
 The Syllabus, owing to its abbreviated and negative form, is 
 difficult of interpretation; it is not enough to turn each of the 
 propositions as formulated into the opposite sense to find the true 
 meaning of the author. There is the further fact that it is a 
 theological document, in which distinction must be made be- 
 tween thesis and hypothesis; a proposition condemned in principle 
 may be tolerated in practice under given conditions. Two oppo- 
 site interpretations f of it were published, both approved by the 
 Pope. Compared with the Encyclical, the Syllabus at least 
 shows that the Pope, even if he did not condemn the contempo- 
 rary lay state, had an altogether different ideal, and preferred the 
 system of the Middle Ages. If the Syllabus was received with 
 joy by the enemies of the Church, who represented it as a decla- 
 ration of war by the Pope upon modern society, it was received 
 with vexation by the governments, which tried to prevent its 
 publication, and with obvious embarrassment by the Liberal 
 Catholics. 
 
 * " 77. In our time it is no longer desirable to retain the Catholic religion 
 as the only state religion, to the exclusion of all other beliefs. 78. It is also 
 well that in certain Catholic countries legal provision has been made 
 whereby foreigners going there nlay enjoy public exercise of their re- 
 ligions." 
 
 t In France, Dupanloup, Bishop of Orleans, one of the leaders of the 
 Liberal Catholic party, represented the Syllabus as a reply to the Septem- 
 ber Convention meant simply to condemn revolution and the abuse of mod- 
 em liberty (" The Encyclical and the September Convention," 1864). His 
 interpretation won the support of 630 bishops. (See a similar explanation 
 in A. Bosseboeuf, " The Syllabus without Prejudice," 1885.) Schrader, an 
 Austrian Jew, a member of the congregation charged with the drafting 
 of the Syllabus, took the texts, however, in their literal sense as a condem- 
 nation of modern society, " Der Papst und die modernen Ideen," 1865. 
 
704 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 The Vatican Council (1869-70). — In order to perfect the doc- 
 trinal reconstruction of Catholic society, Pius IX. decided to have 
 a solemn recognition of the absolute monarchical power of the 
 Pope in the Church, even in matters of doctrine, under the form 
 of the dogma of Papal infallibility. In 1867 he charged a con- 
 gregation of six cardinals with the preparation of a project of 
 decrees. Then in June, 1868, he summoned to the Vatican an 
 Ecumenical Council, the first in three centuries. 
 
 The Council, which met December 8, 1869, was an exclusively 
 ecclesiastical assembly of about 780 members.* No civil gov- 
 ernment was represented there. The Pope had made sovereign 
 regulations for the procedure of the council ; the plans were drawn 
 up by the committees he had chosen; nothing could come under 
 consideration without his authorization, and the Pope alone pos- 
 sessed the right of initiative. The first discussion was in general 
 congregation, under the presidency of a cardinal (chosen by the 
 Pope), who controlled the right of speech. Any proposition 
 which was not adopted unanimously, passed into the hands of a 
 deputation of 24 members elected by secret ballot, who discussed 
 it and presented a printed report. Thence it returned to the gen- 
 eral congregation, where each member voted orally: Placet, Yes; 
 Non placet, No ; Placet juxta modum, Yes with amendments. The 
 speaking was in Latin; the sessions were secret, and all those 
 who took part in them were bound to secrecy. The public ses- 
 sions were simply ceremonies of publication. The Pope had at 
 command an assured majority, principally made up of the 224 
 Italians, the 42 Orientals, and the 119 bishops in partibus. 
 
 Opposition had begun before the meeting of the Council, in 
 certain publications ; f in the Council it was first shown in the 
 protest of Strossmayer, a Croatian bishop, in December, 1869, 
 against the regulation imposed on the assembly by the Pope; 
 
 *In the order of ranks: 48 cardinals. 10 patriarchs, 4 primates, 137 arch- 
 bishops, 527 bishops, 16 mitred abbots, 35 generals, or vicars-general, of 
 orders. By nations: 224 Italians, 81 Frenchmen, 40 Spaniards, 43 Aiis- 
 trians, 16 Germans, 27 English, 19 Irish, 40 Americans from the United 
 States, 9 Canadians, 30 Latin-Americans, 19 Europeans from the small 
 states, 42 Orientals, 119 bishops in partibus, etc. 
 
 f In Germany, Dollinger, professor of theology at Munich, the most 
 celebrated Catholic theologian in Germany, published a number of articles 
 in the Augsburg Gazette in March, 1869, which he gathered into a book 
 under an assumed name : Janus, " The Pope and the Council." In France, 
 Mgr. Maret, professor in the Theological Faculty of Paris published " The 
 Council and Religious Interests," in September, i86g. 
 
THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 705 
 
 then in a petition of the German and Austrian bishops of the 
 same character, in January, 1870. The opposition was of two 
 sorts. The first, the Anti-infallibilists, rejected the dogma of in- 
 fallibility as in itself contrary to the traditions of the Church; 
 DoUinger described it as an " ecclasiastical revolution." The 
 others, the majority it seems, admitted the dogma, but thought 
 the moment inopportune for promulgating it. They feared to 
 irritate the governments and increase the prejudice against the 
 Church produced by the Syllabus by giving the impression that 
 the Pope was aspiring to universal domination. These were 
 known as the Inopportunists; they belonged to the Liberal Cath- 
 olic party. 
 
 The opposition complained of the rules imposed on the Coun- 
 cil; of the attitude of the presiding cardinals, who, they said, kept 
 the opposition orators from speaking freely; of the acoustic de- 
 fects of the place of meeting (a part of a church) ; of the lack of 
 stenographic reports of the sessions; of articles sent out by jour- 
 nalists of the Infallibilist party (the French bishops drew up 
 against Veuillot, the Postulata a pluribus Galliarum episcopis; 
 the Pope sent to Veuillot a commendatory note). They re- 
 proached their opponents with hurrying the voting, and estimated 
 that the bishops of the minority represented in themselves a 
 greater number of Catholics than the majority, which was com- 
 posed chiefly of Italians (24,000,000 souls), of Orientals (1,000,- 
 000), and bishops without dioceses. The Pope complained that 
 the secrecy of the deliberations had been violated; that the " Let- 
 ters from the Council," in the Augsburg Gazette in January, 1870, 
 revealed to the public discussions which should have remained 
 secret. He was offended that they had presumed to oppose tra- 
 dition to him. " I myself am tradition," he said. The public re- 
 garded the struggle as a conflict between the Pope, directed by 
 the absolutist Jesuits, and the liberal or national bishops. Even 
 to-day it is hardly possible to establish historically what place 
 this rivalry held in the divisions of the Council. 
 
 The Council had to deliberate on various subjects, divided 
 among 4 deputations, committees on faith, discipline, religious 
 orders, and Oriental rites. The main point was the definition of 
 the articles of faith. A complete scheme had been drawn up in 
 condemnation of errors, conformably to the Syllabus, but the 
 dogma of infallibility was not included in the scheme. Those 
 who advocated the promulgation of infallibility addressed a 
 petition to the Pope signed by 400 members, begging him to 
 
706 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 present the project of promulgation. This was the ground of 
 the conflict. The majority, supported by the Pope, pressed the 
 proposal to a vote; the minority, 46 Germans and Austrians, 30 
 French, and 20 Italians, first presented an address begging the 
 Pope " not to impose the necessity of that vote " (January, 1870). 
 The Pope promulgated a new regulation, according to which 
 decrees were no longer to require unanimity for their adoption, 
 but only a majority (February 20). The minority replied with 
 a " representation " in March. The Pope then had a new article 
 inserted in the project " on the Church of Christ " — the formal 
 declaration of infallibility. The majority demanded that this 
 article should be discussed before any other. 
 
 After unanimously voting a part of the project " on the faith," 
 the Council passed on to the dogma of infallibility, in spite of an 
 address from yy members protesting against the change in the 
 order of deliberations (April 24). The reporter (chairman of 
 committee) Mgr. Pie of Poitiers, advocated the promulgation; 
 he introduced a new argument: St. Peter was crucified head 
 downward, his head bearing the weight of the whole body, just 
 as the Pope bears the whole Church. Now, it is he who bears 
 that is infallible, not that which is borne. One hundred and 
 thirty-nine amendments to the project were presented; but life 
 in Rome was becoming more and more unhealthy and unpleas- 
 ant; the majority, urged to bring matters to a conclusion, did 
 not wait for the end of the speeches announced, but voted to close 
 debate. There still remained 40 who wished to speak. The 
 chapter " concerning the Pope," containing the article on infalli- 
 bility, was voted in general session by 371 placet against 88 mn 
 placet and 61 placet juxta modum (July 13). The minority, of 115 
 members, left Rome before the public session in which the Con- 
 stitutio de Ecclesia was adopted by 547 votes against 2 (July 18). 
 France had just declared war against Prussia; Rome was to be 
 evacuated by the French garrison and thus left without defence 
 against the Italians. The Pope suspended the Council ; then, on 
 October 20, adjourned it indefinitely. 
 
 The Vatican Council came to an end before finishing the work 
 for which it had been convoked; it had voted only the chapters 
 " on the faith " and 4 chapters " on the Pope." Its part was re- 
 duced to the consecration of the dogma of infallibility, which 
 recognised in the Pope the exclusive authority in matters of 
 faith.* This measure did not produce the disasters expected by 
 
 *The Pastor jEternus bull of July 18 defined it thus: "The Pope, 
 when he speaks from the throne, ex cathedra, that is when, in exercising 
 
CONFLICTS BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE. 707 
 
 those who opposed the promulgation. All the bishops sub- 
 mitted to it. There now remained only the German priests and 
 theologians. These refused to sign the declaration required by 
 their bishops, and established a new Church (1871); but the 
 schism of the OH Catholics remained confined to Germany and 
 Switzerland, and even there it was confined to a small minority of 
 theologians and people of the middle class. It did not penetrate 
 into the mass of the faithful. The governments expressed dis- 
 approbation; but they thought that the moment had passed for 
 laymen to interfere in matters of faith. Austria alone forbade 
 the publication of the decrees of the Council; a number of Ger- 
 man states refused them the placet. 
 
 Conflicts between Churcli and State. — After the reaction 
 was over conflict had begun once more between the Catholic 
 Church and the lay governments. The most violent was the 
 Italian conflict on the subject of temporal power and the posses- 
 sion of Rome. The Pope declared the temporal power an indis- 
 pensable condition for the exercise of his spiritual authority, and 
 the political struggle became one of religion. The Catholics in 
 all the countries demanded the intervention of their govern- 
 ments to secure Jhe re-establishment of the temporal power. The 
 Pope, refusing to recognise the Kingdom of Italy, continued in 
 his addresses to protest against the robbery of the " Piedmontese 
 government " ; he forbade Catholics to take part in the elections. 
 The Italian government had adopted, since Cavour's time, the 
 motto of the Catholic Liberals — A free Church in a free state. 
 It tried to introduce the Belgian system in Italy. On the 
 one hand, it -suppressed all that remained of the old compulsory 
 Church authority, Church courts, tithes (1866), and established 
 full religious liberty; later it adopted civil marriage; it sup- 
 pressed the majority of the convents, and secularized the Church 
 estates, replacing them with salaries for the secular clergy. On 
 the other hand, it abolished the former subjection of the Church 
 to the state, leaving the Pope free to appoint bishops, and re- 
 served to the clergy their honorary privileges. But as the Pope 
 
 the ofBce of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his apostolic 
 authority, he defines a doctrine on faith or morals which must be adhered 
 to by the whole Church, possesses, by virtue of the divine aid promised 
 him in the person of St. Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine 
 Saviour wished to invest his Church in the definition of doctrine on faith 
 and morals; consequently the Pope's definitions under these conditions are 
 in themselves incapable of amendment, even by the consent of the 
 Church." 
 
7o8 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 refused to negotiate, this organization, though established in fact, 
 remained unrecognised by the Church. 
 
 The occupation of Rome in September, 1870, greatly aggra- 
 vated the conflict. The government, by the law of guarantees, 
 promised to let the Pope enjoy the personal situation of a sov- 
 ereign in his palace of the Vatican, to grant him an annual com- 
 pensation for his lost revenues, and to guarantee him absolute 
 independence in his office as head of the Church. It abolished 
 all power of the civil authority in Church affairs. But Pius IX., 
 declaring himself morally a prisoner, refused to negotiate, and 
 shut himself up in the Vatican; he could not go into the city of 
 Rome, where he was exposed, he said, to a meeting with enemies 
 of religion, revolutionists or Protestants, in the free display of 
 their opinions. The conflict became a chronic one and has not 
 yet ceased. 
 
 In Austria, the Constitution of .1867, which guaranteed re- 
 ligious liberty contrary to the Concordat, opened the conflict with 
 the Pope. The government began to pass laws contrary to the 
 Concordat; the Pope declared them null, by virtue of his apos- 
 tolic authority, thus affirming the superiority of Church au- 
 thority, and its right to annul the acts of the lay power. The 
 Austrian government maintained its laws, affirming the right of 
 the lay power to modify by its own sole authority eyen a regu- 
 lation made in common with the Church authority. It then 
 used the promulgation of infallibility to rid itself of the Con- 
 cordat, which it had already violated. It declared that the doc- 
 trine set forth by the Council established relations between 
 Church and State on an altogether new footing, by Enlarging the 
 Pope's province and concentrating all the powers in his person; 
 one of the two contracting parties having changed its situation, 
 the contract became void. The conflict continued in the laws of 
 1873, and Austria returned to the system of Joseph II., but with- 
 out restoring the old forms of state guardianship. The Church 
 found itself in much the same position there as in France, except 
 that it retained its control of marriage and records of population. 
 
 In France, up to the end of the Empire, the conflict was con- 
 fined to minor questions — the publication of the Syllabus in 
 1864, the struggle of the bishops (Dupanloup) against the Duruy 
 reforms in the University, against the creation of lay schools for 
 girls, and against the materialistic doctrines of the professors. 
 The chief efifort of the Catholic party bore on the Roman ques- 
 tion, to induce the government to defend the temporal power. 
 
CONFLICTS BETWEEN- CHURCH AND STATE. 709 
 
 This was a period of sharp controversy between the Liberal 
 Catholics (Dupanloup) and the Infallibilist party (Veuillot and 
 the Univers). The conflict ceased during the war. While the 
 National Assembly was in session the Catholic party tried to 
 bring about intervention in favour of the temporal power; it suc- 
 ceeded only in securing the creation of Catholic universities. 
 Then came the " anti-clerical " reaction, which led the Republi- 
 can party to expel the unauthorized religious orders (1880), and 
 deprived the clergy of the control of the primary public schools, 
 which, since the law of 1850, had been under the municipal coun- 
 cils. This left to the clergy only the private schools. In 1889 
 the clergy lost even the exemption from military service which 
 they preserved in all the other Catholic states. 
 
 In Spain the conflict was violent after the revolution of 1868; 
 for the first time in Spain unity of faith was officially abolished ; 
 the Constitution of 1869 proclaimed the public liberty of non- 
 Catholic beliefs; then, the clergy having opposed the govern- 
 ment, the Cortes established civil marriage. Pius IX. openly 
 sided with Don Carlos, the legitimate King, and the breach was 
 complete between the Holy See and the Spanish government 
 until the restoration of 1874. The Pope consented to recognise 
 the government of Alphonso^ XII.; but he did not secure the 
 complete restoration of unity of faith, and protested against the 
 Constitution of 1876, which granted toleration of private wor- 
 ship for non-Catholics. 
 
 The Russian government had broken official relations with the 
 Pope in 1866, in connection with the measures for Russification 
 directed against the Catholic Church of Poland; it had with- 
 drawn its ambassador from Rome and forbidden the Polish 
 clergy to hold any communication with the Pope. 
 
 In Germany and Switzerland the conflict was indirectly a re- 
 sult of the Council. It began over the excommunication of the 
 Old Catholics. It led to a complete rupture with the Holy See. 
 
 Pius IX. spent his last years in protesting against the violation 
 of Church liberty in the various states of Europe. He showed 
 his indignation in addresses to pilgrims, circulars to the nuncios, 
 or brief addresses to the clergy and faithful of the countries in 
 conflict.* 
 
 * Address to the German Reading Club, June, 1872, against the " perse- 
 cution of the Church in Germany" directed by "the prime minister"; 
 Pius IX. pronounced the famous words : " Who knows how soon the little 
 stone shall come from the height and break the heel of this colossus ? "— 
 
7IO THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 He died leaving the Church engaged in a general conflict with 
 the civil power. Everywhere the Church's official authority had 
 declined. It had lost its exclusive control in the central states; 
 even Spain had escaped from unity of the faith. Italy and Aus- 
 tria had adopted the system of religious liberty. Germany had 
 taken from the Church the control of marriage and clerical 
 autonomy. In France and Belgium a party was to come into 
 power which was hostile to the Church and was preparing to take 
 away the schools from its control. All these struggles, however, 
 had, by exciting the ardour of the Catholics, obliged them to 
 unite and get rid of national and liberal dissensions. All the 
 Catholics joined in a disciplined party, armed for the political 
 fight. The Catholic party was strong enough to keep the power 
 in Belgium from 1870 to 1878; in Switzerland it had been reor- 
 ganized and had reconquered the old cantons of the Sonderbund; 
 in Prussia and Germany it had just created the centre; in Aus- 
 tria it was beginning to form a home rule party. In Spain and 
 France it remained a part of the Conservative party, and its 
 principal power. The economic resources of the party had just 
 been shown on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the 
 accession of Pius IX., in 1877; the gifts sent to the Pope by the 
 Catholics exceeded $3,000,000. The Peter's Pence, consisting of 
 voluntary contributions from the faithful, permitted the Holy 
 See to cover its expenses without accepting the grant from 
 Italy. 
 
 Policy of Leo XIII. — The successor of Pius IX., Pecci, was 
 elected, it is said, as the candidate of the party intermediate be- 
 tween the supporters and the opponents of reconciliaticwi with 
 Italy (February, 1878). He had been the pupil of Jesuits and the 
 protege of Leo XII.; he took the name of Leo XIII. He had 
 had some experience in politics, having been delegate or prefect 
 in the States of the Church, and later papal nuncio in Belgium, 
 
 Consistory of Cardinals, December, 1872; address against the attack on the 
 Church lands in Italy, against Germany, the Swiss Confederation, and 
 Spain. — Encyclical, November, 1873, against the persecution in Germany 
 and Switzerland and the protection given to the Old Catholics. — Encycli- 
 cal to the Prussian prelates, February, 1875; which declared the May Laws 
 null and void, as contrary to the divine institution of the Church. — Address 
 to the German pilgrims, May, 1877: " Many centuries ago God sent Attila 
 to rouse the peoples; to-day he has ^.roused the noble German people by a 
 new Attila." — Address to the Austrian pilgrims: " To-day revolution con- 
 trols the world against the will of the nations." — Protest against the acces- 
 sion of Humbert under the title of King of Italy, January, 1878. 
 
POLICY OF LEO XIII. 711 
 
 from 1843 to 1846, the time when the Belgian Catholic party 
 completed its organization. 
 
 The political doctrine of Leo XIII. on the relations between 
 Church and state was exactly that of Pius IX.; he expressed in 
 his doctrinal utterances the same ideal of Christian society and 
 reproduced the condemnations of the Syllabus against modern 
 society. The Encyclical Inscrutabili of 1878 condemned "the 
 laws destructive of the divine constitution of the Catholic Church, 
 adopted in most countries, . . . untrammelled freedom to teach 
 and publish all sorts of evil." * 
 
 The Encyclical of December, 1878, concerning "modern 
 errors," directed against socialists, condemns the lay state, sov- 
 ereignty of the people,t and lay schools.:j: 
 
 The EncycHcal "concerning Christian marriage" (1880) 
 claims the " legislative and judicial control " of marriage, which 
 the Church has not ceased to exercise since the time of the Chris- 
 tian Emperors, and rejects " the distinction made by regalists, 
 who separate the marriage contract from the sacrament ... so 
 as to subject the contract to the power and whim of the prince." 
 
 The Encyclical " concerning the origin of civil power " (1881) 
 condemns the theory of society founded on free consent, " the 
 false philosophy " of the eighteenth century, " what is known 
 
 *"The evils wliich overwhelm humanity from every side " come "from 
 scorning and rejecting the authority of the Church." The Pope denounces 
 " that extensive subversion of the supreme truths which are the founda- 
 tions of human society." Comparing "the epoch in which we live, so 
 hostile to religion and the Church of Christ, with those happy times when 
 the Church was worshipped as a mother by all nations," he concludes that 
 the cause of the superiority of the old times, " so much more prosperous," 
 lay in the fact that " the peoples were more obedient to the government 
 and laws of the Church," while our epoch " is rushing headlong to ruin." 
 He declares lay civilization a "false civilization." He condemns the civil 
 marriage established by " impious laws," and denounces " the citizens 
 who in place of marriage have adopted legal concubinage." 
 
 f "This new impiety, unknown even to the heathen," by which "the 
 states have been constituted without taking account of God and the order 
 He has established," which has announced " that public authority derives 
 its principle, its majesty, and its power to command, not from God, but 
 from the multitude of the people." 
 
 "To refuse to recognise God as the source of the right to command is to 
 wish to rob political power of its splendour and cut its sinews. To say that 
 it depends on the will of the people is first of all to commit an error, and 
 secondly, to establish sovereignty on a frail foundation." 
 
 t " The Creator and Redeemer of mankind shut out of the studies of the 
 universities, colleges, and high schools." 
 
712 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 as modern law and the sovereignty of the people " (imperium 
 popular e). 
 
 The Encyclical " concerning the Free Masons " (1884) de- 
 nounces them as supporters of the lay state, who " shut out the 
 very wholesome influence of the Catholic religion from the laws 
 and government " and end by " building up a state wholly inde- 
 pendent of the institutions and precepts of the Church." It re- 
 news the condemnations of the Masons decreed by Pius IX. 
 
 The Encyclical Immortale Dei (1885) " concerning the Chris- 
 tian constitution of states " condemns " the expectation of seek- 
 ing the regulation of civil life elsewhere than in the doctrines 
 approved by the Church," enumerates the errors of the " new 
 ideas of law," * and formally recalls the condemnations of the 
 Syllabus. 
 
 The Encyclical to the Hungarian bishops (1886) condemns 
 the " schools termed neutral, mixed, or lay," created " that the 
 scholars may grow up in complete ignorance of holy things." 
 
 The Encyclical " concerning human liberty " (1888) denounces 
 " that extensive and powerful school of men who wish to be 
 called liberals," the " supporters of liberalism," who apply the 
 principles of naturalism in politics ; it condemns modern liberties, 
 liberty of creed, liberty of opinion, of the press, of education,! 
 
 * The ideas condemned are the natural equality and liberty of all men, 
 sovereignty of the people, unfettered freedom of opinion, and the lay 
 state (" The state makes no public profession of religion; it must not 
 search for the only true creed, nor prefer one to another . . . but must 
 grant to all equality before the law. . . Every religious question must be 
 left to the judgment of individuals; each man shall be free to pursue the 
 religion which pleases him, or even none, if none please him"). The 
 Encyclical asserts that " the Church no less than the state is a perfect 
 society by nature and by right," and that " the governors . . . must not 
 deprive it of any rights conferred by Jesus Christ." 
 
 f They are thus formulated: "It is lawful for each man to profess the 
 religion he prefers, or even none." . . (The Pope explains that this liberty 
 offered to man confers on him the power to distort or even desert, with 
 impunity, the most sacred of duties.")— " The state has no reason to 
 express any form of belief in God . . . nor to prefer one belief to another, 
 but must recognise the same rights in all." (The Pope explains that 
 "justice and right forbid the state to become atheistic, or, which would 
 lead to atheism, to have the same feeling toward various religions and to 
 grant them equal rights without distinction.") — In speech and press the 
 Pope recognises only the right " to spread freely and prudently all that is 
 true and honest "; but as for " false opinions," it is just that public author- 
 ity should repress them, that they may not be allowed to extend to the 
 ruin of the state. 
 
POLICY OF LEO XIII. 713 
 
 "which are vaunted as triumphs of our times." In opposition 
 to liberalism the Pope explains the nature of the toleration granted 
 by the Church, which must be precarious.* 
 
 The Encyclical " of the protection of St. Joseph and the Holy 
 Virgin, to implore their aid in the difificulties of the times " 
 (1889), declares the present time " hardly less calamitous for 
 Christian society than those which have always been regarded 
 as the most calamitous." 
 
 Leo XIII. maintained toward the Italian government the same 
 attitude as Pius IX. Never did he cease to reclaim temporal 
 power as the indispensable condition of the liberty of the Holy 
 See and the free exercise of spiritual power. Each year, in his 
 solefnn addresses to the cardinals, on the anniversary of his coro- 
 nation, March 5, and on Christmas, he renewed his protest 
 against the occupation of Rome and reserved the rig'hts of the 
 Holy See.f Like Pius IX., he persisted in declaring himself 
 
 •" The Church would like to introduce Christian principles at once into 
 practice in all orders of the state. For they are the most powerful agent 
 in overcoming the evils of the present time . . . born in great part of 
 these boasted liberties. . . If a remedy is sought, let it be sought in the 
 return of wholesome doctrines. . . Nevertheless, in her maternal judg- 
 ment, the Church takes account of human frailty, and does not ignore the 
 tide which invades our epoch. With this motive, while granting rights 
 only to true and honest things, she does not oppose the public power in 
 its support of some things contrary to truth and justice in order to avoid a 
 greater evil or to secure or preserve a greater good. . . But . . . the 
 more evil a state has to tolerate, the more that state is cut oflE from perfec- 
 tion; and the tolerance of evil . . . must be absolutely circumscribed 
 within the limits that public safety demands. . . If, in view of the 
 special conditions of the state, it happens that the Church agrees to cer- 
 tain modern liberties, not that she prefers them in themselves, but because 
 she judges it expedient to allow them; in case the times should improve, 
 she should use her liberty ... to fulfil the duty God has assigned to 
 her, to labour for the eternal salvation of mankind. It is always true that 
 this liberty for all men in all things is not desirable in itself, because it is 
 contrary to reason that the false should have the same rights as the true." 
 — The Pope condemns not only "the separation of Church and state," but 
 the doctrine "that it is not within the Church's province to make laws, to 
 judge, or to punish, and that she must confine herself to the exhortation, per- 
 suasion, and direction of those who voluntarily subject themselves to her." 
 
 * He makes besides a special protest against the law which transfers to 
 the Italian government the administration of the possessions of the Prop- 
 aganda, an international congregation, which was to be independent of 
 all lay authority (1884); against the anti-Catholic demonstrations at the 
 transfer of the ashes of Pius IX. (1881); against the monument to Giordano 
 Bruno (1889). 
 
714 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARTIES. 
 
 a moral prisoner, and made it a rule never to go out of the Vati- 
 can. He never ofScially recognised the Italian government; he 
 did not notify it of his accession; he refused to negotiate with 
 it, to accept the law of the guarantees, or even the money for 
 his civil list. He forbade Italian Catholics to take part in the 
 elections. Every rumour of a reconciliation between the Pope 
 and the King of Italy, Leo energetically denied. The church- 
 men who dared to propose conciliation, Curci in 1884 and Tosti 
 in 1887, were disowned and forced to retract. The Catholic 
 princes who visited the King of Italy were not received at the 
 Vatican, Leo accepting only Protestant princes under these con- 
 ditions. Several times, in 1883, 1884, and 1889, a rumour was 
 spread about that the Pope was going to move his residence out 
 of Italy. The pilgrims continued to regard the Pope as the sov- 
 ereign of Rome, and sometimes they showed this by crying; 
 " Long live the Pope King ! " 
 
 Like Pius IX., Leo XIII. waged continual war on the Free 
 Masons; he issued a special encyclical against them, the H«- 
 mamcm Genus of 1884, and a letter to the Italian people in 1892, 
 in which he recommended them "to avoid any connection with 
 persons suspected of belonging to the Free Masons or any 
 similar society." 
 
 But the practical policy of Leo XIII. was not that of Pius IX. 
 Instead of struggling against the governments, he made terms 
 with them, except in Italy, where he would have been obliged to 
 sacrifice the principle of the temporal power. Instead of pro- 
 longing the conflict, he tried to end it. He succeeded in renew- 
 ing the relations which Pius had broken off with Switzerland, 
 the German Empire, and Russia. In France, during the strug- 
 gle of 1880 against the congregations, he avoided a rupture and 
 g\e against the congregation of 1880, he avoided a rupture and 
 confined himself to approval of the protests made by the French 
 bishops. Instead of leaving the Catholics in each country to 
 fight alone, he tried to take the direction of the Catholic parties 
 and press, so as to combine their action. 
 
 His policy seems to have been to form in each country a Cath- 
 olic party which should represent a sufficiently great power polit- 
 ically to make its alliance desirable, and to offer this alliance to 
 the government in return for concessions to the Church. In 
 Germany Leo got the Centre to vote for the military law, and 
 after long negotiation, gradually secured the abolition of the 
 measures adopted during the Culturkampf , except civil mar- 
 riage and the modifications of the Prussian Constitution. In 
 
POLICY OF LEO XIII. 715 
 
 England he assisted the government against the Irish agitation 
 by sending to Ireland, in 1888, a nuncio who decided against the 
 Land League. In Russia he exhorted the Polish clergy to obe- 
 dience in 1894, and in 1895 secured the reappointment of a Rus- 
 sian ambassador to the Papal Court. In France, after the defeat 
 of the Conservatives in 1889, he tried to establish a Catholic 
 party (1891-92) by ordering the Catholics to accept the Republi- 
 can constitution in order to labour for the repeal of laws contra- 
 dictory to the rights of the Church. 
 
 The Pope was thus led to interfere in the domestic policy of the 
 governments. At first he met resistance from the leaders of 
 the Catholic parties, who were accustomed to direct the policy 
 of their party — the Irish in 1883 and 1887, the German Centre 
 in 1887, and the French Conservatives in 1891. They pretended 
 to distinguish between matters of faith, in which every Catholic 
 is bound to obey the Pope, and temporal questions, in which 
 every man is independent. I-eo XIII. condemned this distinc- 
 tion as contrary to the legitimate authority of the Holy See, hold- 
 ing that the Pope, as head of the Church, is the only judge of 
 the interests of the Church and that the faithful have no right 
 to fix the limits of their obedience.* The monarchical unity of 
 religious control, proclaimed at the Vatican Council, pointed to 
 unity in the political direction of all Catholics. 
 
 After the attempts at socialistic policy by the German govern- 
 ment, Leo also interfered in the social movement with the famous 
 Encyclical " concerning the condition of the working classes " 
 (1891); he condemned socialism and strikes, preached harmony 
 between capital ires) and labour (opera), praised industrial cor- 
 porations, and recommended the creation of unions of Catholic 
 workingmen. 
 
 Leo XIII. has endeavoured to bring the Orthodox churches 
 into Catholic unity. In 1884, at the solemn reception of the Slavic 
 Catholic pilgrims, Croats, Czechs, and Galicians, led by the head 
 of the Croat nationalists. Bishop Strossmayer, he expressed the 
 hope of the union of the great Slav nation. In 1894 he pub- 
 
 *In France the Pope signified his decision by repeated acts, in 1892. 
 Xetter to the Archbishop of Paris, January 5; Encyclic to bishops and 
 faithful, February 16; Encyclic to French cardinals, May 6; Letter to 
 French Catholics, June 14; Letter to the Bishop of Grenoble, June 22: 
 ■" When politics are allied to religious interests, it becomes the part of the 
 head of the Church to determine the best means to defend the religious 
 interests." 
 
7l6 THE CHURCH AND THE CATHOLIC PARITES. 
 
 lished the Encyclical " to tHe princes and peoples of the world," 
 inviting into the union the Orientals and even the Protestants. 
 He convoked a conference to prepare the way for union, and 
 promulgated a regulation for the Eastern churches which came 
 over to Rome, guaranteeing them the maintenance of their re- 
 ligious rites. 
 
 In the course of the nineteenth century, the state has taken 
 from the Catholic Church in Europe all material power; it has 
 suppressed compulsory unity of faith to establish religious lib- 
 erty. But through the effective concentration of all Church 
 authority in the person of the Pope, now an absolute sovereign, 
 through the creation in all the countries of parliamentary Catho- 
 lic parties, all subject to a common centre, through the enlarge- 
 ment of the clerical body, both secular and regular, through the 
 accumulation of wealth, and the organization of Catholic schools 
 of all degrees, the Church has acquired a social and political 
 power which is certainly superior to the official power she has 
 lost. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— Punk, " Hist, de I'figlise," French trans., 2d ed., 2 
 vols., 1895, Catholic. — Kurtz, " Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.," 2 vols., gth 
 edit., 1885, Protestant. 
 
 DOCUMENTS. — Collections of the most important official acts, beside 
 the Papal Acts, " Collection of Addresses ... by the Pontiffs," are : 
 Walter, " Pontes Juris Ecclesiastici . . .," 1862, for conventions with the 
 Holy See. — "Acta et Decreta Sacr. Conciliorum Recentiorum," 7 vols., 
 1870-90 (vol. vii. on Vatican Council). — The Encyclical of 1864 and the 
 Syllabus are published separately: Baulz, " Encycl. et Docum.," etc., 2 
 vols., 1865. The great Encyclicals of the Popes, as well as the Syllabus, 
 in a popular Catholic collection (with a Fr. trans.), "Apostolic Letters of 
 Pius IX., Gregory XVI., Pius VII." (s. d. 1893), and " Apostol. Letters of 
 His Holiness Leo XIII.," 4 vols. (s. d.) 
 
 The speeches of Pius IX. and Leo XIII. have been gathered together in 
 Italian collections, the '' Discorsi." 
 
 For the Council : Friedberg, ' ' Sammlung der Aktenstucke zum Vatikan. 
 Concil," 1872, Old Cath.— Frond, " Actes et Hist, du Concile," 8 vols., in- 
 fol. — Friedrioh, " Documenta ad lUustrandum Concil. Vatican.," 1871.— 
 Veuillot, " Rome Pendant le Concile," 2 vols., 1872. 
 
 The chief Catholic periodicals are : CiviltA. Catkolica, since 1850 ; 
 L'Univers, previous to 1848 ; Stimmen aus Maria Laach (German 
 Jesuits), since 1865 ; fyudes Religieuses, since 1856 (Jesuits) ; Le Corre- 
 spondant, since 1829 (Cath. Liberal). 
 
 WORKS.— The general Church histories ; Funk (Cath.) ; Kurtz (Prot.) 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 'i\'i 
 
 ire rather summary.— Eohrbacher, " Hist, de I'Eglise," 1842-49, continued 
 )y Chantrel and Chamard, " Annales Ecclesiastiques " is an uncritical com- 
 )ilation. 
 
 Modern Church Histories : Gams, " Gesch. der Kirche Christi.," 3 vols., 
 854, Cath.— Nielsen, " Gesch. des Papstthums im XIX. Jahrhundert," 2 
 rols., 1880 (Danish). 
 
 Special Histories: For Germany, BTippold, " Handb. der Neuesten Kir- 
 ihengesch.," 3ded.,4 vols., 1883-92; Briick, "Gesch. der Kathol. Kirche 
 m XIX. Jahrh.," vols, i.-iii., 1887-96, goes to 1870. 
 
 Biographies of the Popes (see Kurtz and Funk) : The chief of these are : 
 Irtaud, "Hist, de Pie VII.," 2 vols., 1837, " de Leon XII.," 1843, "de Pie 
 iTIII.," 1844.— Pougeois, "Hist, de Pie IX,," 6 vols., 1877-86, prolix.— 
 )'EeiUy, " Life of Leo XIII.," 1877. 
 
 Vatican Council : Cecconi, " Storia del Concilio," 1873 (Fr. trans., " H. 
 lu Concile," 4 vols., 1887), Roman.— Frledrich, " Gesch des Vatikanischen 
 :;oncils," 2 vols., ^77-83, Cath. opposition.— Friedberg, " Samml. der 
 \ktenstiicke," already mentioned, gives a condensed history, opposition! — 
 Irthur, "The Pope, the Kings . . .," 2 vols., 1877, Prot. 
 
 Old Catholics: Schulte, " Der Altkatholicismus . . .,"1887. 
 
 Liberal Catholics: A. Leroy-Beanlien, " Les Catholiques Lib6raux . . . 
 le 1830 k nos jours," 1885, interesting sketch.— Minghetti, " L'fitat et 
 "Eglise," trans, from the Italian, 1882, doctrine of the Italian liberal 
 Catholics. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Law: liberatore, " La Chiesa e lo Stato," 1871 (Fr. 
 trans.); " Le Droit Public de I'Eglise," 1888.— Tarquini, "Juris. Eccles. 
 Publ. Institutiones ; Principes du Droit Public de I'figlise," 1891 ; both 
 jxpound the pontifical doctrine. — Hergenrother, " Lehrb. des Kathol. 
 Kirchenrechts," 1888, Cath. — Philipps, " Kirchenrecht," 8 vols., 3d edit., 
 1872-89, Cath. — Bicbter, " Lehrb. des Kathol. u. Evangel. Kirchenrechts," 
 Sth ed., 1886, Prot., expounds German law in particular. 
 
CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 Free Masons and Carbonari. — Free Masonry, which had in the 
 eighteenth century become a society for the propagation of hu- 
 manitarian doctrines, was a kind of international federation, with- 
 out the character of a political party. But in endeavouring to 
 establish religious liberty, it brought itself into conflict with the 
 Church, which condemned it as a heresy in 1738 and 1751. In 
 so far as it was preparing for the destruction of the coercive 
 power of the churches, it became a revolutionary association. 
 
 After the French Revolution, when the system of the l3.y state 
 was established, it became once more a peaceful society, without 
 precise political aim. After the Restoration, in the countries 
 which preserved religious liberty, it remained a secret society 
 in name, with secret rites and mysterious meetings, but tolerated 
 in fact, in some cases even encouraged. It drew its members 
 from among the well-to-do. middle classes, and even from among 
 the high officials, often choosing members of the government as 
 its dignitaries. In the central countries, where Catholicism was 
 again obligatory, the Free Masons were a really secret society, 
 prohibited, pursued, and consequently revolutionary, recruited 
 principally among the free-thinking young men of the bour- 
 geoisie and discontented army officers. In Spain, Portugal, and 
 Italy, and especially in the States of the Church, the Free Masons 
 conspired against the government. 
 
 The Free Masons of different countries had but one principle 
 in common, namely, religious liberty. They supported every 
 form of government, and did not call themselves republican. In 
 actual fact they were chiefly from the liberal parties, hostile to 
 the clergy and to absolute government. The society was organ- 
 ized in self-governing lodges united as a federation, ordinarily 
 as a national federation — each nation having a Grand Master 
 and a Supreme Council. ' 
 
 The Free Masons kept themselves in communication from 
 one country to another, and had international signs of recogni- 
 
 718 
 
FREE MASONS AND CARBONARI. 719 
 
 tion. It is probable that those of the constitutional countries 
 worked against the governments that persecuted their fellows; 
 it is also possible that the Masons had transmitted from one 
 country to another a certain idea, somewhat vague, of a liberal 
 constitutional system. Was there, beside the national ofificial 
 organization, a secret international directory, working, in addi- 
 tion to the acknowledged doctrines and aims, to make a republi- 
 can, lay revolution in all the covintries? This is the view of 
 certain Catholic writers, Cretineau-Joly, Father Deschamps, 
 Claudio Jannet. It is not possible to settle it historically; we 
 can only see that there was no unity of political doctrine among 
 Free Masons, that a number of revolutionary leaders have been 
 Free Masons, that some have gone into the Masonic lodges to 
 win supporters, perhaps even to propagate revolutionary ideas 
 there. But there is nothing to show that they worked for revo- 
 lution as Free Masons. 
 
 The Restoration governments dififered in their conduct toward 
 the Free Masons. The Protestant states left them alone. In 
 France the Liberal ministries (Descazes) favoured them. The 
 Tsar of Russia, Alexander I., encouraged the creation of lodges. 
 Metternich, on the contrary, forbade all associations and de- 
 nounced to the other governments the intrigues of the sects, as 
 he termed all political or religious societies, including the mys- 
 ticists and Bible societies. He took advantage of the associa- 
 tions of German students (which were probably purely national 
 and without connection with Free Masonry), and more emphati- 
 cally of the revolution in Spain and Italy, to ask the Tsar to 
 suppress secret societies (1820-21). Alexander decided, in 1822, 
 to forbid Free Masonry in Russia. 
 
 After the absolutist restoration in Naples, the secret society 
 of Carbonari, hitherto exclusively Italian, entered into relations 
 with the French revolutionists, perhaps with the Free Masons. 
 The French Charbonnerie was then constituted on the Italian 
 model, in 182 1, by the founders of a Masonic lodge, the Friends 
 of Truth, Buchez, Joubert, Bazard, and Flottard. This was, 
 however, a national society, with a national platform, the ex- 
 pulsion of the Bourbons (see p. 122). The only international 
 organization was the Cosmopolitan Alliance, founded by certain 
 leaders of the French Liberals, among them Lafayette. 
 
 The action of the secret societies was confined to unsuccessful 
 revolutions in Spain and Italy, and unsuccessful conspiracies 
 against the Bourbons, from 1820 to 1822; and perhaps to the 
 
720 THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 revolt of the Russian Decabrists (see p. 558), but they helped to 
 form in France the little Republican party which made the revo- 
 lution of 1830, and in Belgium the Liberal party, which was 
 organized by Defacqz, Grand Master of the Free Masons (see 
 p. 246). 
 
 The Republican " Young Europe." — In imitation of the French 
 Republican party, Republican parties were formed in several 
 countries after 1830. They were recruited among the young 
 men and workingmen, and were particularly active in the feebly 
 governed states, Germany, central Italy, and Poland. These 
 parties were in communication from one country to another, but 
 were without international management; their action in each 
 country was limited to demonstrations in favour of the revolu- 
 tionists of the other countries; they demanded first of all inter- 
 vention to aid the Poles in their rebellion against the Tsar, and 
 the subjects of the Pope in their attempt at revolution. 
 
 After the failure of the revolts Mazzini endeavoured to estab- 
 lish a political association to make methodical preparation for 
 revolution and set up a democratic, lay republic. The organ- 
 ization, primarily Italian with a foreign centre, became very 
 quickly European (see p. 335). Young Italy became a branch of 
 Young Europe. It was founded to unite all Italy in a single 
 state, " a.- republic one and indivisible " ; the members promised 
 to obey and keep the secret; a secret tribunal condemned traitors 
 and chose some of their members to kill them. 
 
 Mazzini succeeded in organizing several national sections. 
 Young Italy, Young Poland, Young Germany, Young Switzer- 
 land, Young France, and Young Spain. These were composed 
 of men over forty years of age, chiefly belonging to the bour- 
 geoisie. They were all federated, under Mazzini's direction. 
 This man's extraordinary activity accomplished only conspira- 
 cies, unsuccessful outbreaks, and some assassinations. After 1848 
 Young Europe broke up, without having gained any direct politi- 
 cal result. But the republican groups in France, Germany, Swit- 
 zerland, and Poland served as revolutionary centres from which 
 communist and socialist parties have sprung. 
 
 Mazzini continued to plot to make Italy a republic and expel 
 the Austrians. He incited the Orsini attempt against Napoleon 
 III., for having failed to keep his oath to deliver Italy. During 
 the period in which the unity of Italy was getting accomplished 
 (1859-70), he was in communication with the heads of the Italian 
 government, perhaps with King Victor Emmanuel, with the 
 
THE SOCIALISTIC SCHOOLS. 721 
 
 Hungarian refugees, Kossuth, Generals Tiirr and Klapka, and 
 with the PoHsh insurgents. Attempts were made to organize a 
 general insurrection against Austria. This was not, however, 
 an international party; it was only a coalition of national revo- 
 lutionists. 
 
 The Socialistic Schools. — While the republican parties were be- 
 ginning to prepare a political revolution, parties of a new char- 
 acter were formed, who laboured after a social revolution. 
 
 The movement began under the Restoration, 1814-30, simulta- 
 neously in England and France, by slow and confused work over 
 the adoption of doctrines. Certain peace-loving philanthropists, 
 Owen and Thomson in England, Saint-Simon and Fourier in 
 France, criticised modern society. Taking it up where the 
 eighteenth century philosophers had left it, they did not stop at 
 political institutions, but took up social institutions, — private 
 property, inheritance, the family, and wages — institutions which 
 were regarded as the very foundations of society by the philos- 
 ophers and economists. The creation of the factory system be- 
 gan to produce a change, already visible in the more advanced 
 countries, England and France. It had formed a new class of 
 wage-earners, having nothing but their daily wages to live on, 
 and reduced during industrial crises to starvation and wretched- 
 ness. People began to talk of the proletarians, an old Roman 
 name revived to designate a new class, and of pauperism, a new 
 sort of distress caused by industrial wealth. 
 
 The objections, though very different in form, may be reduced 
 to two fundamental ideas: 
 
 1. Society was too hard on the poor, inflicted on them too 
 much suffering, too mean and uncertain wages, an unhealthy oc- 
 cupation, laborious and brutalizing, too long working hours, a 
 servile dependence on the master and his foreman, small, dirty, 
 and unhealthy lodgings, unwholesome food, a sad and disorderly 
 life, and prostitution for the women. The protest against this 
 system took a sentimental form of compassion for the poor, in- 
 dignation against the rich, mingled with early Christian reminis- 
 cences and ranting speeches. It Was expressed in France by the 
 formula "To each according to his needs," or in judicial lan- 
 guage, the right to existence. 
 
 2. Society was organized contrary to justice. Property and 
 inheritance divided men into two unequal classes. From this 
 inequality, consecrated by law contrary to the principles of 1789, 
 arose an injustice in dividing the products of labour. The cap- 
 
72 2 THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 italist kept the product and gave the labourer only a wage, obvi- 
 ously inferior to his worth, since the employer's wealth increased, 
 although it was not he that had done the work. This demand 
 was expressed in the phrase " To each according to his works," 
 or, in judicial language, right to the full product of labour. Com- 
 bining the two formulae the next demand was for the ri^t of 
 labour — the right of existence through labour. 
 
 The authors of this social theory, later called socialists, attrib- 
 uted the vices of society to its economic organization, private 
 property, inheritance, wages, and free competition, which they 
 also reproached with the wasting of forces. As to remedies they 
 could not agree. Before 1830, however, two systems had already 
 been set forth: that of Owen and that of Saint-Simon, perfected 
 by Bazard. The official organ of the S'aint-Simonians, the Globe 
 (1830), took for its motto: " All social institutions must have as 
 their object the bettering of the moral, material, and intellectual 
 conditions of the poorest and most numerous class ; all privileges 
 of birth must be abolished without exception. To each accord- 
 ing to his capacity, to each capacity according to its works." 
 
 A second generation of socialists, P. Leroux Considerant, 
 L. Blanc, and Proudhcm in France, Rodbertus and Mario (pseu- 
 donym of Winkelblech) in Germany, completed the social 
 theory. 
 
 All the socialists except Louis Blanc were outside of political 
 life, and confined themselves to the propagation of their ideas. 
 Some of them tried to create a model society, to test their reform 
 on a small scale — the St.-Simonians, Owen, the Fourierists, 
 Cabet, and the Icarians ; but they did not organize political parties. 
 They were nevertheless the fathers of socialism. It was they 
 who conceived all the criticisms of existing society, all 'the formu- 
 las, even the practical means of action and the measures of so- 
 cialistic reform. Previous to 1848 there was already talk of 
 " exploitation of man by man," of the " right to labour," of " sur- 
 plus value," anarchy, social democracy, inter-class struggles, 
 workingman's party, international understanding between work- 
 ingmen, emancipation of the proletariat, organization of labour, 
 industrial federation, and the like. Co-operative association of 
 producers was proposed. National workshops, gratuitous loans, 
 bank of exchange, superannuation fund, laws for the protection 
 of industry, collective ownership, progressive taxation, general 
 strike, eight-hour day, workingmen's congresses, etc., were 
 advocated. 
 
THE COMMUNIST PARTIES. 723 
 
 The socialist parties, which were formed later, lived on the 
 intellectual labour of the first half of the century. 
 
 The Conmninist Parties. — The socialist schools did not consti- 
 tute a revolutionary party. The movement toward social revo- 
 lution began first in the revolutionary republican party in Paris 
 under the form of a revival of Babeuf's communism ; it was a sur- 
 vivor of Babouvism, Buonarotti, who converted Voyer d'Argen- 
 son,* and later those who were accused in the April prosecutions 
 (see p. 139). A communist party detached itself from the French 
 Republican party, demanding a social revolution by the abolition 
 of private ownership. Its further doctrines remained rudimen- 
 tary: it was first of all a party for revolutionary action (see 
 p. 150). But the communist propaganda had reached Germany. 
 
 In Germany a division similar to that in the French party had 
 taken place in the revolutionary democratic party of 1833 (see 
 p. 382). Buchner founded in Hesse a secret society, the Rights 
 of Man, and in 1834 addressed the peasantry in a paper begin- 
 ning: "Peace to the cottages! War on the palaces." He de- 
 clared political revolution impossible without a social revolution. 
 
 In Paris, the German workmen and refugees founded, in 
 1836, a secret society, the Bimd der Gerechten (League of the 
 Just), which quickly took the name of Alliance of Communists 
 and organized itself as a federation. It consisted of groups called 
 communes, federated in clubs, which sent delegates to a congress, 
 where a central authority was chosen to direct the whole league. 
 The Alliance of Communists was in relations with workingmen's 
 clubs (Arbeiterbildungsvereine) for reading, study, and discussion, 
 where it worked to win support. 
 
 The Alliance, created in Paris, gathered adherents in the coun- 
 tries of political liberty: in Switzerland, where the tailor Weit- 
 ling settled himself in 1841 and spread the doctrine among the 
 German workingmen ; f in England, where a refugee, Schapper, 
 founded a "commune" at London, in 1840; in Belgium, where 
 Karl Marx and Engels founded a group at Brussels in 1845. 
 
 *In 1838 d'Argenson and Ch. Teste were prosecuted for a communistic 
 pamphlet. Teste proposed a social reform thus conceived: "Art. i. All 
 real and personal estate . . . belongs to the people, who alone may 
 regulate its distribution.— Art. 2. Work is a necessary duty of every 
 citizen." 
 
 f Weitling preached a sentimental doctrine— liberty, equality, harmony; 
 he wished a bloodless revolution, attacking only property. " The Gospel 
 of the Poor Fisherman "(1843) was a communistic interpretation of Christ's 
 doctrines. 
 
724 THE INTERNAJ-IONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 Germans predominated in all these groups; they were chiefly 
 workmen in the superior metals, and Jews, in relations with the 
 radical German poets, Freiligrath, Herwegh, Gutzkow, and with 
 the democrats who directed the publication named the Vor- 
 w'drts. The French government suppressed the paper and exiled 
 some of its editors — Karl Marx, who went to Brussels, Moses 
 Hess, who went back to Germany. There was at that time in 
 the Rhine region, Colpgne, Treves, and Diisseldorf, a centre of 
 communist propaganda, publishing prohibited writings. There 
 were also communist demonstrations in the manufacturing re- 
 gions of Silesia, and a secret society was discovered there, which 
 was perhaps without connection with the international move- 
 ment. The weavers' revolt in 1844, made famous by G. Haupt- 
 mann's drama, seems to have been only a bread riot. 
 
 To escape the prosecutions that followed the Blanqui-Barbes 
 trial in 1840 the central authorities of the Alliance moved from 
 Paris to London, where they remained until 1848. In 1846 they 
 persuaded Karl Marx and Engels, who were then at Brussels, 
 to join the Alliance, and asked them to draw up a manifesto, 
 which was accepted by the Congress of 1847. This was the cele- 
 brated Manifesto of the Communist Party, published early in 1848, 
 before the Revolution. It passed unnoticed at the time, but it has 
 of late years become the gospel of the collectivist party, for it con- 
 tains already all Marx's doctrines in a concise and vivid form. 
 It was divided into 4 parts: i. Capitalists and proletarians, his- 
 tory of the social evolution ; * 2. Proletarians and communists, justi- 
 
 * The fundamental ideas are: i. " The history of all society to the pres- 
 ent day is simply the history of struggles between classes. Society is 
 divided more and more into two hostile classes, Capitalists and Prole- 
 tarians." — 2. " Every class struggle is a political struggle." "Political 
 power is the organized power of one class for the suppression of another.' 
 " Modern government is simply a committee for the administration of the 
 affairs of the capitalist class." — " 3. The factory system has created the 
 market of the world." " By exploiting the world's market, the capitalist 
 class gives a cosmopolitan character to production in all countries; it has 
 taken from industry its national basis." Society has become international. 
 — 4. ' ' The capitalist class . . . has created more varied and more colossal 
 productive forces than all past generations," but " the system has become 
 too narrow to hold the wealth created within it "; hence " the paradoxical 
 epidemic of over-production." The middle class has produced crises more 
 and more general. — 5. " The capitalist class has produced . . . men who 
 will deal it its deathblow, the modern workingmen, the proletarians . . . 
 crowded into the factories, with military organization." They " are in- 
 creasing in power and are becoming conscious of their power," re-enforced 
 
THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 725 
 
 fication of the doctrines and practical program of the party; * 3. 
 Socialist and communist literature, criticism of socialist doctrines, 
 reactionary socialism, bourgeois socialism (Proudhon), critico- 
 Utopian socialism and communism (Owen, Fourier, Cabet) ; 4. Po- 
 sition of communists in face of the various opposition parties, party 
 policy. 
 
 The conclusion is international and revolutionary. ~" The com- 
 munists labour for the union of democratic parties in all coun- 
 tries. They do not stoop to dissimulate their opinions and aims. 
 They proclaim aloud that their ends could not be attained with- 
 out the violent overturning of all existing social order." And 
 the manifesto ends with the famous appeal : " Proletarians of all 
 nations, unite." 
 
 The Revolutionary Parties during the Revolution of 1848 and 
 the Reaction. — The revolutionary parties, political and social, re- 
 publican, democratic, socialist, communist, formed in Europe be- 
 fore 1848 only little isolated groups in certain cities, tracked by 
 the police, obliged to work in secret and often to hide or leave 
 the city, ignored or scorned by the public. The French revo- 
 lution of 1848, made by the action of the socialist democratic 
 party, in the name of equality and the Republic, excited the hopes 
 of all European revolutio'nists. Refugees returned to their na- 
 
 by the lower middle class, the artisans, the peasants who are falling into 
 the proletariat." — 6. "Until now all historic movements have been pro- 
 duced by minorities to their own profit. The proletarian movement is 
 the movement of the immense majority for the benefit of the majority." 
 It begins with " a national struggle "in each country. But it will become 
 international, for " workingmen have no country." 
 
 *The communists defend "the common interests of the proletariat"; 
 their propositions are not inventions of world reformers, they are confined 
 to the " expression of the actual conditions of an existing class contest, of 
 an historical movement"; their aim is to organize the proletarians in a 
 class party, to have the proletariat gain political power, and to abolish 
 middle-class property ownership, " created by the labour of wage-earners 
 ^or the profit of capitalists." Capital is "a social power," it will become 
 common property. This will be the abolition of " middle-class freedom " 
 i{bf <^mmerce), of the "middle-class family," of traditional religion and 
 morauity, and of hostility between nations. The revolution will be made 
 by a- Bplitical process. As transitional measures, the manifesto proposes: 
 I. tfie confiscation of land rent; 2. highly progressive direct taxes; 3. 
 abolition of inheritance; 4. confiscation of the property of emigrants; 5. 
 centralization of credit by a national bank with public capital and exclu- 
 sive monopoly; 6. centralization of all means of transportation; 7. na- 
 tional manufactories, national cultivation of the land; 8. compulsory labour 
 for all; 9. public free education for all children. 
 
726 THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 tive lands, in Germany and Italy, to join in the revolution. The 
 revolutionists remained in communication, from country to coun- 
 try, some of them even went to other countries to aid the demo- 
 cratic insurgents against the governments. The Poles in par- 
 ticular took part in all the European insurrections, and inter- 
 vention in favour of Poland was demanded by the revolutionary 
 parties in France and Germany. The Revolution of 1848 was 
 not, however, the work of an international party. The revolu- 
 tionists of the dififerent nations excited one another by example 
 and encouragement, but they made only national revolts, with- 
 out common direction. 
 
 In France the revolutionists, at the head of the government, 
 divided into democratic republicans, opposing social revolution, 
 and democratic socialists. The discord led to civil war. In the 
 other countries the republicans, forced to struggle once more 
 against monarchical government, remained united (Prussia, Ger- 
 many, Austria-Hungary, and Italy); the difference in doctrine 
 remained theoretical and did not hinder the communists and 
 socialists from working in harmony with the democratic republi- 
 cans. But a number of industrial organizations were founded 
 in Germany. A social-democratic union of workingmen in Ber- 
 lin held a workingmen's congress in August, 1848, out of which 
 grew the Fraternity, a German federation of workingmen, who 
 took part in the revolutions of Baden and Dresden. In the 
 west, at Cologne, Karl Marx founded a communist newspaper; 
 a socialist workingmen's union was established, and an assembly 
 voted a bill to establish a " social democratic republic " (Septem- 
 ber, 1848). After the coup d'etat at Berlin, the communists issued 
 a proclamation for the refusal of taxes; Marx at Cologne and 
 Lassalle at Diisseldorf were prosecuted for inciting revolt. In 
 the Frankfort Parliament sat a number of socialist deputies, who ■ 
 demanded recognition of the right to labour. In Italy the move- 
 ment remained democratic and national. 
 
 The reaction of 1849 and 1850 destroyed the revolutionary 
 groups; the communists, prosecuted in Germany, France, and 
 even Belgium and Switzerland, fled to London. The Alliance 
 was reorganized there in 1849 ^"d tried to renew relations with 
 the communes in Germany, France, and Switzerland, but it was 
 cut into two groups, one of which, under Willich, wished to con- 
 tinue preparations for an armed revolution; the other, under 
 Marx, wished to confine itself to the propagation of the doc- 
 trine. The Marx group moved to Cologne and was surprised 
 
THE INTERNATIONAL. 727 
 
 by the police, in 1851. The subsequent prosecution of the 
 Cologne communists, who were condemned for high treason, 
 obliged Marx to dissolve his group. The Diet, on the request 
 of the two great powers, passed a decree, in 1854, obliging all 
 the German governments to dissolve all political societies of 
 workingmen. The Willich group retained the management of 
 the societies in Switzerland, Brussels, and France, and even es- 
 tablished an " international social-democratic committee " ; it was 
 discovered by the French police. 
 
 The socialists, reduced to hiding, disappeared completely from 
 public life; the governments, warned by the revolution of 1848, 
 took measures against revolutionary propagandism ; the move- 
 ment seemed to have definitely failed. L. Reybaud, writing the 
 history of the socialists, said: " Socialism is dead; to mention it 
 is to pronounce its funeral oration." 
 
 When political life began again after 1859, a doctrine was 
 preached which seemed new to most people of the time, so com- 
 pletely was socialism forgotten. Yet it was simply a revival of 
 the socialist movement of the days previous to 1848; the leaders 
 were the men of '48, Karl Marx, Lassalle, Liebknecht, who 
 taught a new generation the doctrines, formulae, and procedure 
 of the former socialists. 
 
 The revival was brought about simultaneously by two inde- 
 pendent and even rival creations, Karl Marx' International Asso- 
 ciation and Lassalle's German National Party. 
 
 The International (1862-72). — The new socialist organization 
 began in London, the centre of socialist refugees, the residence 
 of Karl Marx. The first step was taken by the leaders of the 
 English workingmen, the general secretaries of the trade unions. 
 The occasion was the London Exhibition of 1862, where the 
 English workingmen met delegates from the French and Belgian 
 working classes. They met again, in 1863, in a great meeting 
 held in London to protest in favour of the Polish insurgents. To 
 this French delegates also were sent. The idea of international 
 association was mentioned. 
 
 The Frenchmen were men of a new generation (Tolain, Fri- 
 bourg), who were not acquainted with the socialists of 1848; their 
 ideal was Proudhon's mutualism, the association of workingmen 
 without state intervention. The English from the trade unions, 
 already accustomed to their national associations of workingmen, 
 •dreamed of an international association which, by extending joint 
 lesponsibility among the workingmen of every nation, would 
 
728 THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 hinder employers from opposing workmen of one country to 
 those of another. 
 
 They complained that, to break down strikes, English em- 
 ployers resorted to foreign labourers. There was no plan as yet 
 for anything more than a professional association without politi- 
 cal aim. 
 
 A final meeting in London, September 28, 1864, appointed a 
 cornmittee of 50 members to draw up the statutes for an associa- 
 tion. The former revolutionists presented schemes: Mazzini 
 one for a strongly centralized organization, Marx one for a fed- 
 eration. Mazzini's plan was rejected, as it did not seem to have 
 been designed for a society of workingmen. Marx' plan was 
 adopted, in the form of provisional statutes, in 1864. 
 
 The International Association of Labourers was organized as a 
 federation. The members, who declared themselves faithful to 
 the principles of the association, divided into self-governing sec- 
 tions, each having its committee. The substription was very 
 small, almost nominal. The Association had two common 
 organs: the Congress of delegates from the sections, meeting once 
 a year and invested with sovereign power, and the General Coun- 
 cil, appointed by the Congress. The Council was to be station- 
 ary in London, and was charged with the preparation of business 
 for the Congress and with conducting the correspondence with 
 the sections. This was the system of the English trade societies, 
 with no resemblance to the former revolutionary secret societies. 
 No professional condition was required; the French delegates' 
 proposal to admit only manual labourers had been rejected. In 
 fact, not only workingmen joined the International, but also 
 revolutionists and even middle-class philanthropists, as, for in- 
 stance, Jules Simon. The avowed object was to establish a cen- 
 tre of union and of common methodical action between the work- 
 ingmen's clubs of the different countries which aimed at the pro- 
 tection, progress, and emancipation of the labouring classes. It 
 was to be accomplished now only by peaceful agreement. 
 
 The " International " gained members slowly. The first con- 
 gress could not be held until 1866, at Geneva, where definite 
 statutes were adopted. After this there was an annual congress,, 
 held in some small country, usually Switzerland; and Marx took 
 the direction of the General Council, making it the real power. 
 The International at once assumed the character of a political so- 
 ciety, becoming more and more revolutionary at each congress. 
 
 The Congress of 1866, at Geneva, confined itself to formulating 
 
THE INTERNATIONAL. 729 
 
 general principles,* but it was here that Marx's theory of class 
 strife first appeared. He recommended the organization of an 
 understanding between workingmen against the intrigues of 
 capitalists, and an investigation into the condition of the work- 
 ing classes in every country; also the encouragement of co-opera- 
 tive production and workingmen's syndicates. He demanded 
 the abolition of standing armies. 
 
 The Congress of 1867, at Lausanne, declared " that the social 
 emancipation of the labouring man is inseparable from political 
 emancipation and that the acquisition of political liberty is a 
 prime necessity." It voted that the state should assume control 
 of transportation. 
 
 The Congress of 1868, at Brussels, protested against war and 
 the wages system, pronounced itself in favour of the international 
 organization of strikes, and demanded that mines and quarries, 
 forests and means of communication should be made common 
 property. On the land question it expressed the opinion that 
 " economic evolution will make the taking of arable soil into the 
 collective ownership of the state a social necessity." The Inter- 
 national adopted Marx' collectivist doctrine. 
 
 The Congress of 1869, at Bale, confirmed the resolutions of 
 1868, against the will of the French, who upheld individual prop- 
 erty rights. It declared that " society has the right tO' convert 
 private lands into collective lands, and that this transformation is 
 necessary." 
 
 The International returned to the communist program of 1848 : 
 to unite the proletarians of every nation and establish collective 
 ownership of implements of labour. But this was only a doc- 
 trine. No exact program was formulated as to the practical 
 means of realizing it ; and, besides, the International was opposed 
 to the use of force. It was thought to be rich, like the trade 
 unions; the workingmen clung to it to get support in case of 
 strikes, and they had a chance to make reluctant employers yield 
 by means of this imaginary aid. The members did not pay, how- 
 ever, and the treasury remained almost empty. 
 
 * " The emancipation of the labouring class must be accomplished by the 
 labouring class itself. . . The economic emancipation of the labouring class 
 is the final end to which every political movement must be subordinated 
 as a means. This emancipation is neither a local nor national, but a 
 social problem, which includes every country where modern society exists, 
 and whose solution depends on the common action of the most advanced 
 countries." 
 
73° THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. ' 
 
 The International greatly alarmed the governments and the 
 employing class. In France the committee of the Paris section 
 was first prosecuted (1867), then all the leaders were arrested 
 (1870). In reality it acted simply as a society for the propaga- 
 tion of doctrine, and its career was a brief one. It was at once 
 attacked from without and disorganized from within. 
 
 The war of 1870 weakened it by exciting national patriotism 
 against every international body; the protest of the General 
 Council of the International against a war of German conquest, 
 in September, 1870, passed unnoticed. The war brought on the 
 Commune of Paris; this was not a product of the International, 
 but rather a reminiscence of 1792; even the small minority of 
 internationalists in the Commune were not representatives of the 
 International. But after the defeat, Karl Marx, in the name of 
 the General Council of the International, issued a manifesto in 
 honour of the Paris of the labouring men and the martyrs of the 
 labouring classes. The International, having rendered itself con- 
 jointly responsible with the Commune, was treated as insurrec- 
 tionist. In France the Assembly passed a special law against it 
 in 1872; in England the workingmen abandoned it. It was left 
 almost without supporters, except in Germany, Belgium, 
 Switzerland, and the southern countries. 
 
 Meanwhile it was disorganized by an internal struggle. A 
 Russian refugee in Switzerland, Bakounine, a revolutionist of 
 '48, now an anarchist, had joined the International in 1868; he 
 had just founded a federative society, the International Alliance of 
 the Social Democracy, under the direction of a central committee 
 established at Geneva, of which he himself was the head (see his 
 program on p. 735). Its members belonged to the countries of 
 the Romance languages — Italy, Spain, Belgium, and the Italian 
 and French portions of Switzerland. He insisted on having it 
 join the International, while preserving its own organization, 
 The General Council replied that sections could be admitted, but 
 not a federation. Bakounine decided to dissolve his Alliance and 
 enter the sections separately into the International (1869). But 
 the federation between them still existed secretly, and soon came 
 into conflict with the General Council of the International on the 
 questions of a congress of the Romance federation in 1870, and 
 the terrorist propaganda of Netchajew in Russia (see p. 606). 
 This was a contest between two revolutionary leaders, Bakounine 
 and Marx, — ^between two groups of people, the men of the Ro- 
 mance languages, attached to Bakounine, and the men of the 
 
FORMATION OF THE SOCIALIST PLATFORM. 731 
 
 North supporting Marx, — between two programs, Marx' collec- 
 tivism and Bakounine's anarchism, — between two policies, 
 Marx' legal political action and Bakounine's abstention from 
 the polls and violent revolution, — between two organizations: 
 Marx wished to strengthen the General Council for the general 
 direction of the International ; Bakounine to reduce it to the role 
 of a " letter box," leaving each section independent. 
 
 The annual Congress of the International had been prevented 
 in 1870 and 1871 by the war and the prosecution of the German 
 socialists. The Congress of 1872, held at The Hague, had to de- 
 cide between the two rivals; the struggle began with the pro- 
 posal made by Bakounine's supporters to suppress the authority 
 of the General Council ; the Marxist majority were resolved, on 
 the contrary, that the Council should have the right to suspend a 
 section or even a federation. They voted to exclude Bakounine 
 and the former members of the Alliance and transfer the session 
 of the Council to New York. The Blanquists withdrew from the 
 International, reproaching it with deserting the field of battle; 
 there remained only the English, Germans, and Americans, who 
 held one more congress, in 1873 at Geneva, and finally declared 
 the association dissolved in 1876. 
 
 The International disappeared without having accomplished 
 any positive results. Founded to secure social reforms by inter- 
 national agreement, it had succeeded only in alarming the gov- 
 ernments and the public. This was the last attempt at inter- 
 national party organization. 
 
 Formation of the Socialtst Platform in Germany (1863-75). — 
 While the International was trying to create an international 
 party of social revolution, a national socialist party was being 
 formed in Germany, with a platform and an organization which 
 furnished a model for all Europe. 
 
 The Socialist party was founded by Lassalle (see p. 479), an 
 old revolutitionist of '48, who began with political conferences in 
 connection with the conflict at Berlin (1862). The new genera- 
 tion of workingmen were ignorant of socialistic theories, but they 
 were beginning to discuss means of improving their condition. 
 A committee was formed at Leipzig to organize a workingmen's 
 congress in which to discuss their interests. This committee 
 consulted Lassalle, who replied with an " open letter," in March, 
 1863. He urged labouring men to form a workingmen's party 
 independent of the middle-class parties, in order to gain control 
 of political power. Their aim should be to escape the " iron law 
 
732 THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 of wages," which causes the wages of the labourer to be always 
 reduced by competition to the minimum necessary for existence, 
 Workingmen can rise out of their condition neither by the indi- 
 vidual effort which the economists inculcate, nor even by private 
 association (co-operative societies, syndicates, credit societies); 
 they must have assistance from the state. The practical method 
 is to create clubs of productive workmen with state appropria- 
 tions. But to secure this appropriation they must gain political 
 control and as a first condition demand universal suffrage. Las- 
 salle thus revived Louis Blanc's ideas, universal suffrage and 
 national workshops. He also revived the old name of social 
 democrat. But he combined the socialistic doctrines of '48 with 
 the theories of official political authority. This is what he calls 
 " being armed with all the science of the epoch." (The " iron 
 law of wages " was a theory of the liberal economists, first formu- 
 lated by Turgot.) 
 
 Lassalle at first won the workmen of the manufacturing regions 
 of the Rhine, and the Leipzig Congress created the " General 
 Union of German Workingmen " (May, 1863). This was 
 strongly centralized under the direction of a president elected for 
 five years. Lassalle, elected president, went tO' Berlin tO' struggle 
 against the progressist party and entered into relations with Bis- 
 marck (see p. 479). After his death, in 1864, his party remained 
 a German patriotic party at once monarchical and democratic, 
 with a limited socialist program. 
 
 The Marx party was organized later. It began with the seces- 
 sion of the Germans of the International from Lassalle's national 
 party, which was accused of having sold itself to the Prussian 
 government. It was formed by the conversion to socialism of 
 the societies in, Saxony (see p. 479), which joined the Inter- 
 national in 1868. 
 
 The party was constituted at the Eisenach Congress in 1869, 
 where the first complete socialist program was drawn up. The 
 majority (262 against no) belonged to Marx' disciples; it repro- 
 duced his doctrines and formulae. Marx, who had just published 
 his system in the first volume of " Capital " (1867), proceeded like 
 Lassalle, giving to his socialist doctrines of 1848 the form of a 
 scientific system. His theory of value rested on the official doc- 
 trine of 1848 that value is the product of labour. He avoided the 
 sentimental and Utopian allurements of the former socialists. The 
 doctrine remained otherwise the same as in 1848, very different 
 from the old Babouvist communism, which imposed a sharing of 
 
FORMATION OF THE SOCIALIST PLATFORM. 733 
 
 goods and a common life. Marx limited himself to making the 
 means of production common property. Communism, out of 
 favour since 1848, was replaced by collectivism. 
 
 The party took the name of the social democratic party of work- 
 ingmen, the old name of '48. The platform was divided into 
 three parts: i. the object; 2. the principles which the members 
 promised to maintain ; * 3. the immediate practical program. The 
 doctrine is that of the manifesto of 1848: class strife, conquest of 
 political power to attain a social revolution, international under- 
 standing. The immediate program is that of the radical demo- 
 cratic party,t with the addition of certain social reforms: limi- 
 tation of the working day, diminution of labour for women, 
 prohibition of child labour, single progressive tax on income 
 and inheritance, state appropriations to associations of producers 
 (this last article to win Lassalle's supporters). 
 
 The organization was federative, opposed to that of Lassalle. 
 Bebel declared that they wished to prevent " faith in authority " 
 and " personal creeds." The members from a single city met 
 without forming a permanent society to escape the laws against 
 associations, and chose a trustworthy man to convoke the meet- 
 ings and collect the subscriptions. Each year the elected dele- 
 gates met in congress to regulate general afifairs. The congress 
 
 *i. The object is "the creation of the free democratic state" 
 ( Volksstaaf). 
 
 The principles are : "The existing social and political conditions are 
 unjust in the highest degree, and should be fought with the greatest 
 energy. The struggle for the emancipation of the labouring class is a 
 struggle ... for equality in rights and duties and the abolition of all 
 class domination. . . The party seeks in abolishing the existing system 
 of production (the wages system) to secure through associated labour the 
 full product of his toil for each workman. Political liberty is the most 
 indispensable condition for economic emancipation . . . the social ques- 
 tion . . . can be resolved only in a democratic state. Political and 
 economic emancipation of the labouring class is possible only if it fights for 
 it in common. Emancipation is neither local nor national, but a social 
 problem. . . The party considers itself a branch of the International." 
 
 t Universal suffrage at 21 years of age in all elections (universal suffrage 
 exists in Germany only for the Reichstag, and only for men over 25 years 
 of age),— pay for representatives,— direct legislation (referendum),— aboli- 
 tion of all privileges of class, property, birth, or religion, — national militia, — 
 separation of Church and state,— lay school, compulsory in the pri- 
 mary degree and free to all,— free justice, with juries and oral procedure, 
 —liberty of the press, of meetings, and of unions,— abolition of indirect 
 taxes. 
 
734 THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 appointed an executive committee of 5 members under the super^ 
 vision of a controlling committee of 1 1 members, the two resid- 
 ing in twO' different cities. There was a party organ, supported 
 by subscription. 
 
 The two German socialist parties held separate congresses, pre- 
 sented separate candidates, and fought against each other until 
 1875; but associations being prosecuted and dissolved in Prussia 
 under the law against the union (Verband) of political societies, 
 they united in one party, the socialist party of the workingmen of 
 Germany. Their common platform, set up at Gotha in 1875, may 
 be divided into two parts, an exposition of doctrine and a pro- 
 gram. The doctrine * was that of the Marxist program of 1869, 
 stated precisely and combined with the Lassalle formulae, with- 
 out thought for the contradictions : " labour the sole origin of 
 wealth " and " the iron law of wages," — " creation of associations 
 of production with government aid," and " emancipation of the 
 labouring classes by the formation of a political workingmen's 
 party," — the " international character of the movement " and 
 " action within national lines." f 
 
 The program is in two parts: i. the political ideal, "founda- 
 tion of the state": universal suffrage, direct legislation, militia; 
 complete liberty of the press, of association and public meeting, 
 justice by the people, universal and gratuitous education, re- 
 ligion declared a private matter (this is the democratic program 
 of 1869); 2. immediate social reforms (in existing society): ex- 
 tension of rights in the idealistic sense, progressive income tax, 
 freedom of coalition, length of day fixed by law, interdiction of 
 child labour, laws for the protection of the workingman, sanitary 
 
 * Marx wrote his partisans a violent letter against this conciliatory pro- 
 gram: it was not made public until 1890, in the Neue Zeit. 
 
 f These are the principal passages: " Labour is the source of all wealth 
 . . . and is possible only through society. The whole product of labour 
 therefore belongs to society, that is, to all its members, with universal 
 duty of labour and equal rights; to each, according to his reasonable 
 ■wants. . . Emancipation of labour demands the transformation of the 
 means of labour into the common property of society, the corporative 
 reg^ulation of all labour. . . It must be the work of the labouring class, 
 in the face of which all other classes are only a reactionary mass. 
 The party. . . . will try all legal means of securing a free state and 
 socialistic society, the breaking down of the iron law of wages by the 
 abolition of the wages system of labour, the suppression of employment in 
 every form, the disappearance of all social and political inequality. The 
 party . . . though acting primarily within national lines, is conscious of 
 the international character of the movement." 
 
THE ANARCHIST PARTIES. 735 
 
 control of factories, mines, and lodgings, liability of the employer, 
 regulation of prison labour. 
 
 The organization was federative, similar to that of the Marxists 
 in 1869: local self-governing groups; an annual congress of dele- 
 gates, invested with sovereign power; a government composed of 
 3 organs — ^a directory (Vorstand) of 5 members, a board of con- 
 trol of 7 members sitting in another city, a commission of 18 
 members to serve as arbiter between the two; a party publication 
 and a fund. 
 
 The doctrine differed little from the manifesto of 1848, the 
 organization resembled that of the International. Marx' attempt, 
 which had failed under the name of communism and the form 
 of an international society, finally succeeded under the name of 
 collectivism and the form of a national party. The creation of 
 this party in Germany was an international event. For the first 
 time in a great state a socialist workingmen's party was formed, 
 directed by a permanent organization, — a central government, 
 an annual congress, and an official organ, — maintaining a regular 
 budget, working in the name of a definite program, at once doc- 
 trinal and practical, and holding a permanent place among politi- 
 cal parties. This German party was to furnish a model to the 
 socialists of other countries; as it preserved the international 
 spirit of its founder, it revived by example and propaganda the 
 work the International had failed to accomplish. 
 
 The Anarchist Parties. — The words cmarchy and anarchist were 
 for a long time only injurious terms applied to revolutionists by 
 their enemies. Proudhon first gave the name of anarchy to his 
 system. In so far as a positive formula may be deduced from 
 his works, which are mainly critical and controversial, his ideal 
 was a federation of voluntary associations of workingmen and 
 farmers without political government. Among the revolution- 
 ists between 1840 and 1848, some showed a similar tendency, but 
 they did not form a party (Hess and Griin in Germany, Marr in 
 Switzerland). 
 
 The creator of the anarchist party was Bakounine, a Russian 
 officer and militant revolutionist who had become a disciple of 
 Proudhon during his stay in Paris (1843-47). He took from 
 Proudhon the idea of anarchy and federation, but he added to it 
 hatred of civilized institutions and systematic calls for violence to 
 destroy them. He declared the oppressed classes incapable of 
 emancipating themselves; if they should reconstruct a new so- 
 ciety they would make it as oppressive as the old one. It was 
 
73*5 THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 therefore necessary to avoid every positive creation and siinply 
 "unchain all the so-called evil passions and destroy all of what 
 is knovi^n as public order." The tactics must consist in exciting 
 riots. 
 
 The Alliance of the Social Democracy founded by Bakounine in 
 1868 had secret statutes and an anarchistic program; it demanded 
 not only full equality for all and collective ownership of land and 
 the implements of labour, but " universal revolution — social, 
 philosophic, economic, and political." Its aim was to destroy 
 all the governments and all the churches, together with their re^ 
 ligious, political, financial, judicial, police, university, economic, 
 and social institutions." 
 
 In 1869 the Alliance joined the International, then left it with 
 Bakounine in 1872. It was composed of revolutionists of the 
 Romanic countries, the most unruly and violent members of the 
 International, the Italian section, the Spanish section that took 
 part in the cantonalist insurrections (see p. 313), a Belgian sec- 
 tion, and the Jura Federation, recruited among the clock-makers 
 in the canton of Neuchatel, a small but very active section. It 
 held congresses in 1872, '73, '74, '76, and 'yy. 
 
 Few in number and sharply combated by the socialists, the 
 anarchists gained almost no members except in the countries 
 where the socialist party had not yet been organized. They did, 
 however, acquire a political influence disproportionate to their 
 numbers by adopting the methods- of the Russian terrorists — ^the 
 commission of murder and outrage by means of explosives. 
 This method they exalted into a theory, which has given them 
 universal notoriety. The revolutionary parties had heretofore 
 employed acts of violence only to produce a decisive effect by de- 
 stroying some objectionable individual. The anarchists valued 
 acts of violence as a means of publicity, committing them in 
 order to attract the attention of the public to the vices of society 
 and force it to reflect. This was propagation by facts. 
 
 The anarchist party, by the very nature of its policy, was 
 unable to make itself a permanent party. As soon as an active 
 group was formed in a country, it made itself conspicuous by its 
 actions, and was quickly exterminated. There remained only 
 the anarchist writers, whom the governments tolerated and sur- 
 rounded with spies. In addition to this, the majority of an- 
 archists, both by temperament and doctrine, refused to recognise 
 even voluntary authority. They formed " groups " of " com- 
 rades " rather than parties and did not work in harmony.. In 
 
FORMATION OF THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTIES. 737 
 
 fact their political influence was limited to the reactions brought 
 on by their propaganda of outrage, and their history was nothing 
 but a recital of individual demonstrations in different countries. 
 
 The remnants of the Alliance and the Paris " group " held at 
 London in 1881 a congress which declared it " necessary to use 
 all possible means to spread actively revolutionary ideas and the 
 spirit of revolt among the masses, who as yet take no active part 
 in the movement and delude themselves on the morality and 
 efficacy of legal methods." It recommended the study of 
 chemistry, " which has already rendered great service to the revo- 
 lutionary cause." 
 
 An anarchist movement was made in France from 1872 to 
 1882, in the southeast and in Paris. It was chiefly noticeable 
 for the doctrinal teachings of two writers, Kropotkin and E. 
 Reclus, and for the Lyons explosion, followed by prompt repres- 
 sion (1882). 
 
 The anarchist movement produced in Austria by Most and 
 Peukert (1882-85) was crushed by special laws and arrests en 
 masse. The last anarchist movements were produced at Paris 
 from 1892 to 1894, in Italy, and in Spain. In the German coun- 
 tries the movement was checked by the socialist party. In Eng- 
 land, London served as a refuge for foreign anarchists, but no 
 anarchistic acts were perpetrated there. 
 
 Formation of the National Socialist Parties. — ^The German so- 
 cialists, in order to gain the political power necessary for social 
 revolution, had provisionally renounced the international organi- 
 zation and had constituted themselves as a national party with an 
 electoral and parliamentary organization. 
 
 The other countries have gradually imitated them. Evolution 
 was at first retarded by the anarchists' resistance to the Alliance, 
 then by internal divisions among the socialists, and the repressive 
 measures taken by the governments. But almost everywhere a 
 socialist workingmen's party has been formed on the model of 
 the German party and with a similar program. In Austria, after 
 the destruction of the anarchists, the " social democratic work- 
 ingmen's party " was constituted in 1888, with an international * 
 collectivist program and an organization composed as in Ger- 
 many of a congress, a directory, and a board of control. It has 
 
 *"The party . . . is an international party; it condemns the privi- 
 lege of nations, as well as those of birth, sex, and property, and declares 
 that the struggle against exploitation must be international like exploita- 
 tion itself" 
 
738 THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 especially made demonstrations in favour of universal suffrage 
 and the eight-hour day. In the three Scandinavian countries^ 
 Holland, and Belgium, the party has been constructed after the 
 German model. In Poland the party, formed in 1882 in the 
 manufacturing cities of Russian Poland, \was crushed in 1885. 
 It was revived in 1892-93 with a collectivist platform copied 
 from Germany; but this is a party of Polish patriots who demand 
 the reconstitution of Poland as a democratic republic. In 
 France and the Romanic countries the collectivist ideas have 
 gradually permeated all the revolutionary parties; but they have 
 not adopted a regular organization and a central management. 
 
 The German party, obliged to dissolve its official organization 
 and to hold its congresses abroad (see p. 479) while the special 
 laws were in force (1878-90), took advantage of the return to 
 ordinary law to reorganize. It took the name of the social 
 democratic party (1890), restored the organization by local 
 groups (ordinarily constituted in the form of electoral com- 
 mittees), and decided to push socialist propagandism in the rural 
 districts. The Congress of Erfurt, in 1891, revised the program, 
 suppressing the passages which recalled Lassalle's doctrine and 
 developing much more broadly Marx' theory that natural evolu- 
 tion will do away with private property and prepare for collectiv- 
 ism. The party set itself the task of organizing class struggles 
 by arousing the workingmen to the necessity of contest. To this 
 main object they have added emancipation of women, free medi- 
 cal care, and free burials. In labour legislation they demand ex- 
 tension to farm labourers and domestic servants of the measures 
 taken for the factory operatives. 
 
 Thus in the majority of the European states socialist parties 
 have been created, with a democratic constitution, composed of 
 two organs : an annual congress of elected representatives, a sov- 
 ereign deliberative assembly which determines the program and 
 general policy; a permanent committee chosen by the congress 
 and charged with the executive functions. It is a complete gov- 
 ernment provided with the means of practical action: a fund, an 
 organ, and an electoral organization. Each party is constituted 
 within the lines of a single nation, since it has to act through a 
 single parliament. There are, indeed, in some countries several 
 rival socialist parties. 
 
 The socialist doctrine rests on the same principles everywhere. 
 The existing economic system is unfavourable to the labouring 
 class; the reform must be the work of the labouring class; it will 
 
POLICY OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 739 
 
 be accomplished by gaining political control and employing the 
 power of the state to establish the collective ownership of instru- 
 ments of production, including the soil. 
 
 The practical reforms aimed at are political and social. Their 
 political program is the former radical democratic program, 
 pushed to the farthest logical consequences: absolute equality, 
 meaning universal suffrage, even for women; equal military 
 service; complete instruction for all; absolute liberty, meaning 
 liberty of the press, of public meeting and association ; the com- 
 plete separation of Church and state; complete laicization; abso- 
 lute fraternity, meaning general peace, disarmament, no more 
 distinction between natives and foreigners, international regula- 
 tion of all common affairs. 
 
 The socialist party takes the title democratic; it is from the 
 democratic parties that it draws its members, it is from the demo- 
 cratic doctrine as a starting-point that it goes on to demand a 
 social revolution. In Germany and Austria, it holds the position 
 of radical party. In the countries with restricted suffrage, Aus- 
 tria, the Scandinavian states, Holland, and Italy, it demands uni- 
 versal suffrage, as the socialists demanded it in France prior to 
 1848, in Germany prior to 1866, and in Belgium prior to 1893. 
 
 The socialist program aims at practical reforms in detail to im- 
 prove the condition of the labouring classes (syndicates, legis- 
 lation in favour of the workingman, regulation of wages and the 
 length of the working day, superannuation fund), and measures 
 to begin economic transformation in the collectivist sense (sociali- 
 zation of railroads, mines, and insurance, progressive income 
 tax). The program also keeps in view the ultimate goal of com- 
 plete collectivism, as an aim to be realized in the future. 
 
 Altogether it is a political, democratic, levelling, liberal, lay, 
 pacific, democratic program, joined to a program of eventual 
 state socialism, working through legislation and taxation. Of 
 these two independent programs it is difficult to determine which 
 attracts the more members to the socialist parties. 
 
 Policy of the Revolutionary Parties. — During the first half of 
 the century revolutionary parties knew no means of action but 
 violent revolution, such as Mazzini's conspiracies in Italy and 
 Blanqui's insurrectional uprisings in France. All their successes 
 in that period were due to revolt, in the army or in the capital. 
 
 In the second half of the century the governments being better 
 armed (see p. 674), the revolutionists have conceived a different 
 policy, namely, peaceful propagandism to attain legal acquisition 
 
74° THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 of power. The association founded by Lassalle declared in its 
 statutes in 1863 that its object was to work by " peaceful and 
 legal means," by winning public favour. The Marxist socialist 
 party, even while announcing their purpose of establishing the 
 dictatorship of the proletariat, made it a rule to avoid outbreaks. 
 The doctrine of natural evolution toward the collectivist system, 
 inculcated among the socialists by Marx, turned them from 
 sudden revolution, which was useless as it was premature 
 and dangerous because it might cause the destruction of the 
 party. The Gotha program of 1875 declared that the party was 
 acting " by all legal means," and this clause was suppressed in 
 1880 only in response to the special law of 1878, which made 
 even the propagation of socialistic doctrines illegal. 
 
 What policy must it adopt to prepare the way for social revolu- 
 tion? This is the question that has dominated the policy of the 
 revolutionary parties, that has caused almost all their internal 
 discord, their ruptures and division into groups. 
 
 The radical democratic party has lost all revolutionary charac- 
 ter, except in Russia, and has become a parliamentary party. It 
 proceeds by proposing reforms in detail through legislation and 
 by endeavouring to gain a parliamentary majority and thereby 
 the ministry. 
 
 Certain socialist revolutionary parties have also detached 
 themselves, at the other extreme — notably, the anarchist party. 
 In the negative criticism of society the anarchists agree with the 
 socialists; they long talked the same language and worked in 
 harmony, and the public continues to confound them together 
 as equally hostile to existing social order. But difference in 
 temperament has led them to radically different policies. Com- 
 mon action has now become impossible; an irreconcilable enmity 
 has arisen between them. 
 
 The anarchists, unwilling to bind themselves to a party dis- 
 cipline in order to prepare a revolution which would not bring 
 absolute liberty to the individual, refused to join in any political 
 action, scorned elections and assemblies and recommended violent 
 action to rouse public opinion. Those of them who wished to 
 act, employed the criminal tactics of the Russian terrorists. The 
 German socialists expressly condemned these methods in 1887.* 
 
 * ' ' Force is a factor as reactionary as revolutionary, and even more often 
 the former than the latter. The policy of the individual use of force does 
 not accomplish its object; and, wounding as it does the sense of popular 
 rights, it is positively injurious, and therefore to be condemned." 
 
POLICY OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 741 
 
 The socialists have taken a stand halfway between the radical 
 democrats and the anarchists, thus avoiding both purely parlia- 
 mentary action and violent action. But this general principle, 
 variously interpreted, has led to various tactics: of these at least 
 three may be distinguished — two extreme, leading the one to- 
 ward radical, the other toward anarchistic methods; the third, a 
 sort of mean between these two. 
 
 1. The official policy of the German Marxist parties has con- 
 sisted in the adoption of the forms of parliamentary political par- 
 ties, but only as a means of spreading socialistic doctrines. The 
 party presents candidates at the elections, sends deputies to the 
 political assemblies, and organizes them in a parliamentary 
 group; but in entering the electoral and parliamentary arena of 
 middle-class society, it declares that it does not count on elections 
 or assemblies to bring about social reform. It sees in them only 
 a means of publishing its ideas, of agitating public opinion, of 
 gaining adherents, of organizing them and counting them, caring 
 more for the total number of socialist votes than for the number 
 of deputies elected. It regards assemblies as a platform from 
 which to set forth its doctrines, refuses to take part in parliament- 
 ary work by proposing slight social reforms, and avoids relations 
 with other parties. But it recommends abstention from any 
 revolutionary movement which might give the government a 
 pretext for crushing the party. This is a policy of revolutionary 
 agitation by parliamentary processes, the object of which is a 
 peaceful realization of a complete revolution. 
 
 2. On the left, making the transition toward anarchy, comes 
 the policy of revolutionary abstention destined to prepare a sud- 
 den revolution. It consists in avoiding contact with electoral 
 and parliamentary life which would involve compromises, cause 
 principles to be forgotten and revolutionists to mingle with so- 
 ciety by accustoming them to that of the middle class. The 
 party must therefore abstain from every regular political act and 
 hold itself ready for revolution. As to the means of bringing 
 about the revolution opinions diverge : the Blanquists have clung 
 to the old policy of civil war, which becomes more and more im- 
 practicable; others prefer economic war, a general strike. This 
 is a policy of extra-parliamentary agitation, looking forward to 
 a complete revolution by force. 
 
 3. On the right, making the transition toward the political 
 radicals, has appeared more recently a group advocating a policy 
 of gradual progress and of compromise. While waiting for the 
 
742 2'HE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 chance to realize the w'hole ideal, this group is willing to realize 
 fragments of it in the form of laws. It is therefore willing to 
 enter into parliamentary life, to make terms with parties hostile 
 to social revolution, and induce them to accept partial social re- 
 forms. To attract voters, it has begun to present programs 
 reduced to certain practical reforms without doctrinal character. 
 In order to reassure rural voters, in particular, it has come to 
 abandon the principle of collectivism of all instruments of pro- 
 duction. It would admit small individual ownership for the 
 peasant who cultivates his land himself. This is a policy of par- 
 liamentary action with a view to a gradual social reform. 
 
 The socialist parties have had to choose between these policies, 
 and that which each has adopted has determined its general atti- 
 tude in political life : abstention, entrance into politics as a means 
 of agitation, entrance into politics in contact with non-socialist 
 parties. Altogether they have tended to gravitate from the policy 
 of the Left to that of the Right, passing through the intermediate 
 stage of primitive Marxism; but the parties of the different 
 policies have been preserved in each country, and remaia 
 rivals. 
 
 The policy of semi-anarchistic revolutionary abstention has 
 been that of the old parties, small in numbers, who can hope for 
 nothing except through a surprise; its supporters have been re- 
 duced to petty groups, impatient at delay or dissatisfied with the 
 conduct of socialist representatives forced to mingle with other 
 members of parliament. This is the attitude of certain French 
 groups, Blanquists and Allemanists ; * of a fraction of the Dutch 
 socialist party, and of a small Berlin group of Independents or 
 Striplings, as they were called, who accused the party leaders of 
 having killed the revolutionary spirit and made the socialist party 
 a mei'e reform party. This group was expelled by the Congress 
 of 1891. 
 
 The Marxist policy was that of a doctrinaire party, confident 
 of ultimate triumph and fearing tO' retard it by any imprudence, 
 but reproached by all other parties and replying to their scorn 
 with violent language and systematic abstention from parlia- 
 mentary action. The system of special laws prolonged this atti- 
 tude in Germany. But since the abandonment of special laws, , 
 the German party, while fully retaining the principle of its tradi- 
 
 * A fusion with the anarchists was attempted, under the name of liberty 
 loving communism. 
 
THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONGRESSES. 743 
 
 ional policy, has inclined toward the policy of the socialist 
 Right.* 
 
 The policy of gradual reform had, in 1882, been adopted by 
 he majority of the labouring men's party, which led to the 
 •upture between the possibilists and the Orthodox Marxist group 
 see p. 217). Since the official reconciliation of 1893 it has been 
 ;he prevailing policy. It has succeeded in forming, under the 
 lame of radical socialists, a group which makes a connecting link 
 jetween the socialists and the main body of the republican party. 
 [t showed itself at the Congress of Nantes in 1894, by the 
 idoption of a program of land reforms destined to attract the 
 peasants by assuring to them the preservation of peasant prop- 
 ;rties, and enrolling them against " the common enemy, the feu- 
 lalism of large land-holding." This is also the policy of the 
 English Fabians Society. The Belgian socialists have in like 
 manner entered into relations with the progressist party. In 
 Germany, this policy has been discussed, since 1891, in the party 
 :ongresses. Vollmar, leader of the Bavarian socialists, wished 
 in 1891 to discuss in the Reichstag bills drawn up in the interest 
 Df the labouring man. The leaders of the party, Bebel and 
 Liebknecht, opposed this in the name of maintaining a class 
 struggle against the ruling classes and the state. By abandon- 
 ing this struggle for the sake of a single practical aim, it would 
 become a mere party of opportunity. The Congress avoided 
 :ommitting itself. The South German socialists adopted a policy 
 similar to that of the French radical socialists; their deputies to 
 :he Bavarian Landtag refused to reject the budget in the lump 
 [1894). in the same year the Frankfort Congress decided to 
 cave the socialists in each state free to choose their own policy. 
 k plan for land reform, designed to attract the peasants, was re- 
 jected by the Congress of 1895 ; but the Bavarian socialists con- 
 inued to agitate in this direction and the Halle Congress of 1896 
 igain discussed this policy without reaching a definite con- 
 tusion. 
 
 The International Socialist Congresses. — Since the dissolution 
 )f the International the national socialist parties have attempted 
 maintain the international understanding by congresses in 
 
 *" While the conquest of political power cannot be the work of a 
 noment, nor the outcome of a momentarily successful surprise, but can 
 >e secured only by persistent labour and by skilful use of all means of 
 preading our ideas, — resolved that there is no reason to alter the policy 
 if the party." 
 
744 THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 which a program of social reforms of general interest is theoreti- 
 cally discussed. But the practical question that dominates the 
 deliberations is to decide on what conditions the delegates may 
 be admitted to sit in the Congress, that is, whether delegates from 
 the anarchist groups should be refused or admitted. This is the 
 ground of dispute between the semi-anarchistic socialists and the 
 " authoritarians " or Marxists. 
 
 The first Congress, at Ghent in 1877, was a victory for the 
 " authoritarians." The anarchists had been admitted to it, and 
 another attempt at conciliation was made. The organization of 
 production was discussed; the anarchists proposed their ideal 
 of free productive groups keeping in harmony with each other 
 by force of common interest without any higher power over 
 them. The Authoritarians carried the principle that the state, 
 representative of the whole people, " should own the land and 
 the instruments of labour." They also pronounced labour- 
 unions " one of the most efficacious means in the struggle of 
 labourers against being exploited by capitalists." 
 
 'The Congress of 1881, whose meeting at Zurich was prevented 
 by the government, was reduced tO' the Conference of Coire, 
 which was not large enough to take action. The meetings of 
 1883 and 1886 were reduced to conferences held at Paris by 
 French Possibilists and English delegates from the trade unions; 
 the Marxists refused to consider them real congresses. 
 
 The division of French socialists was shown by the two con- 
 gresses held at Paris on the same day, July 14, 1889. One, 
 convoked by the Possibilists and chiefly French (524 French 
 delegates out of 606), demanded " complete education," mini- 
 mum wage, and workshops supported by the government. The 
 other, that of the Marxists (221 French delegates out of 395), 
 voted the Marxist doctrine, equal pay for women, liberty of 
 coalition, resolutions in favour of the eight-hour day, prohibition 
 of labour of children and women, prohibition of unhealthy and 
 night labour, rest of thirty-six consecutive hours each week, 
 suppression of employment offices and employers' bureaus, and 
 the creation of factory boards of inspection, composed one-half 
 of workingmen. It invited the proletarians of all nations to or- 
 ganize an international demonstration for the eight-hour day, on 
 the Labour festival of May i. It condemned standing armies 
 and made a demonstration at the graves of the " martyrs of the 
 Commune." 
 
 The Congress of Brussels, in 1891, demanded, for admission. 
 
THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONGRESSES. 745 
 
 that delegates should declare their recognition of " the necessity 
 of political struggle," which shut out the anarchists. It congratu- 
 lated itself on the influence exercised by the Congress of 1889, 
 which had caused Emperor William to call together the inter- 
 national conference of 1890 to consider labour legislation. It 
 complained that the laws for the protection of the labouring man 
 were ill applied, decided upon an investigation of the conditions 
 of the labouring class, and invited the labourers of the whole 
 world to use their political rights to free themselves from the 
 bondage of the wage system. It refused even to discuss anti- 
 Semitism, resting on the principle of all socialist parties, who 
 " do not recognise any antipathies of nations or races, but only 
 a struggle of the wage-earning class of all countries against the 
 capitalist class of all countries." It undertook to organize itself 
 in syndicates to direct the struggle. The Marxist majority re- 
 jected the proposition, made by Domela Niewenhuis, to reply, 
 in case of a declaration of war, by a general strike. 
 
 The Congress of Zurich in 1893 (440 delegates) excluded the 
 anarchists, who demanded admission because their methods also 
 constituted a form of political influence. It passed resolutions 
 regarding the festival of May i, the eight-hour day, the political 
 tactics of the socialists, the organization of syndicates, and the 
 attitude to be taken in case of war. It rejected the general strike 
 and confined itself to inviting the socialist deputies to vote 
 against any war budget and to demand disarmament. In order 
 to cut short attempts at agrarian conciliation, it voted the prin- 
 ciple of the collective ownership of the soil. 
 
 The Congress of London in 1896 (800 delegates) excluded the 
 anarchists; the minority, which had voted to admit them (144 
 votes against 223), was a coalition of the opponents of the Marx- 
 ists, chiefly English and French. The Congress voted resolu- 
 tions in favour of universal sufifrage, the referendum, emancipa- 
 tion of women, nationalization of railroads, mines, and factories, 
 and abolition of customs duties; against standing armies and 
 colonial expansion. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. — Stammhammer, " Bibliographie des Sozialismus," 
 1895, in alphabetical order. It is more practicable to have recourse to 
 the bibl. of the " Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaften," 6 vols., 
 1890-94, and Suppl., 1895, under the words Anarchismus, Sozialdemokratie, 
 Internationale, and names of the persons concerned. 
 
 DOCUMENTS. — The principal documents, beside the writings of heads 
 
746 THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES. 
 
 of revolutionary schools and parties, are chiefly reports of party meetings 
 published in the party organs or in special pamphlets (for Germany, 
 the Vorwarts catalogue), which it would be impossible to enumerate (see 
 the bibl. of G. Adler, articles on Sozialdemokratie, mentioned above). 
 The most important periodicals are the Vorwarts, the Sozialdemokrat, 
 the " Jahrbuch fiir Sozialwissenschaft u. Sozialpolitik," which lasted two 
 years, 1879-81, and Die Neue Zeit ; in France the Revue Socialistt. 
 
 WORKS. — For revolutionary movements other than socialistic: 
 Seschamps, " Les Societes Secretes et la Revolution," 2 vols., 3d ed., 1880; 
 Claudia Jannet, vol. iii., sub-titled "Notes et Documents," s. d. (1883), a 
 ■confused, passionate, and uncritical work, based on documents and pre- 
 vious works on Free Masonry, Carbonarism, Mazzini, etc. The chief 
 works are: Diamilla-MuUer, " Politica Segreta Italiana," 1880; Menacci, 
 " Memorie Docum. p. la Storia della Revol. Ital.," 1879 ! Th. Frost, " The 
 Secret Societies of the European Revolution," 2 vols., 1876. 
 
 For the socialist parties, full histories are books for the people: 
 Xaveleye, " Le Socialisme Contemporain," loth ed., 1896; clear and in- 
 structive (original details on the southern countries). — B. Malon, " Hist, du 
 Socialisme," 5 vols., 1880-85, uncritical compilation, but may be found use- 
 ful. — Stegemann and Hugo, " Handbuch des Sozialismus," 1894-95, 
 socialistic, in dictionary form, gives a great mass of information, but un- 
 fortunately no references. 
 
 On the period preceding 1848: Stein, " Gesch. der Sozialen Bewegung* 
 in Frankreich," 3 vols., 1850 (a revision of " Sozialismus und Communis- 
 mus des Heutigen Frankreichs," 2 vols., 1848), is so far the most complete 
 work for France.— G. Adler, " Gesch. der ersten Sozialpolitischen Arbeiter- 
 bewegung in Deutschland," 1885, for Germany. 
 
 On the International and the foundation of the German parties, in addi- 
 tion to the biographies of Lassalle and Marx (mentioned in the " Hand- 
 worterbuch des Staatswissenschaft."), the chief history is: E. Meyer, 
 " Der Emancipationskampf des Vierten Standes," 2 vols., 1874-75 
 •(socialistic conservative). 
 
 On the recent period : Zaoher, " L'International Rouge," 1885.— Winterer, 
 " Le Socialisme International," 1890. — J. Bourdeau, " Le Socialisme AUe- 
 mand et le Nihilisme Russe," 1892 (popular edit.). — Wyzewa, " Le Mouve- 
 ment Socialiste en Europe," 1892 (popular edit.). 
 
 On anarchy, no complete history: G. Adler, art. Anarchismus, mentioned 
 above, 1890 and 1895, gives a review and a detailed bibl. — ^E. Zenker, " Der 
 Anarchismus," 1895. 
 
 For socialist doctrines, the " Handwbrterbuch der Staatswiss." gives, 
 under the name of each author, the bibl. of his works in great detail, and 
 a very accurate resume of his theories. The best full expositions of the 
 socialist ideal are : SchaefBe, " Quintessenz des Sozialismus," 1875, Fr. 
 trans., 1886 ; and especially A. Uenger, "Das Recht auf den VoUen Ar- 
 beitsertrag," 1886, 2d-ed., 1891, a masterpiece of logic and clearness. 
 
 For the history of socialist parties in each country see the bibliog. of the 
 different countries. 
 
CHAPTER XXV. 
 
 EUROPE UNDER THE METTERNICH SYSTEM,* 
 1815-30. 
 
 European ftuestions in 1815. — The great powers had, in 1814 
 and 1815, regulated the whole organization of Europe, the di- 
 vision of territory, and even the internal government (see 
 chap, i.), and had agreed together to maintain this regulation. 
 Europe of " the treaties of 181 5 " rested on a permanent alliance 
 of five great states, designed to defend the European balance of 
 power and the legitimate monarchies, that is, to prevent the re- 
 turn of the revolutionary governments and the French wars of 
 conquest. 
 
 All these states were aristocratic monarchies: three absolutist, 
 Russia, Austria, and Prussia; the other two constitutional, Eng- 
 land and France, but with executive governments that were mas- 
 ters of foreign policy. All decisions depended, therefore, on a 
 very small number of men, the sovereigns and their ministers; 
 the personal sentiments, impressions, and wills of these few de- 
 cided the fate of Europe. All were not actually of the same 
 weight. The King of France and his ministers, absorbed by 
 domestic affairs and dominated by the necessity of peace; the 
 English statesmen of the Tory party, advocates of the status quo 
 and indifferent to continental affairs ; the King of Prussia, timid, 
 hesitating, docile to the counsels of Metternich, all desired to 
 
 *In these last chapters (xxv.-xxviii.) on the relations between the states, 
 I have deliberately broken away from the traditional custom of intro- 
 ducing into political history the recital of the details of war and diplo- 
 matic negotiations. These details, indispensable to technical histories of 
 the art of war and diplomacy written for specialists, generals, and diplo- 
 matists, have seemed to me out of place in a general history; they are no 
 aid to the understanding of political evolution. I relate here, in regard to 
 diplomatic and military events, only what is strictly necessary to explain 
 how questions of foreign policy have arisen, in what form and by what 
 means they have been settled. The wars which have had a direct effect 
 upon internal policy have been already described in the history of each 
 country; there remain here only international events. 
 
 747 
 
748 EUROPE UNDER THE METTERNICH SYSTEM. 
 
 avoid foreign complications and pursued only a passive policy. 
 The only governments capable of taking the initiative and able 
 to impose a policy on the others were the two empires of Russia 
 and Austria, which practically meant Alexander I. and Metter- 
 nich. On their harmony or discord depended the policy of the 
 great powers, and consequently the decision of European aflfairs. 
 As early as 1815 a number of questions began to occupy the 
 diplomatists, i. France had joined the alliance, but the Hun- 
 dred Days had given the impression that her legitimate govern- 
 ment was threatened. Must she be freely admitted to the Euro- 
 pean concert or kept under surveillance and controlled in her 
 domestic affairs? This was the French question, which was set- 
 tled at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle. 
 
 2. The Allies had guaranteed each state its territory, but not 
 its internal government. Must they be left to establish new con- 
 stitutions or should the Allies intervene to maintain absolute 
 monarchy? This was the intervention question, decided in con- 
 nection with the Italian revolutions. 
 
 3. The Allies had guaranteed the maintenance of all territory 
 in Europe except the Ottoman Empire. Must they also main- 
 tain the integrity of the Sultan's territory? This was the Eastern 
 question, already brought up at the Congress of Vienna, where 
 the Tsar refused to have it discussed. It was to come up again 
 with the Greek insurrection. 
 
 4. The Allies had decided nothing about the American colo- 
 nies. Should ,they intervene to subject the Spanish colonies? 
 The question arose in 1815 and was not decided until the Con- 
 gress of Verona. 
 
 The Holy Alliance (1815).— The treaties of 181 5 had been 
 purely political acts, with no religious character. Alexander, in- 
 fluenced by Christian mysticists,* wished to re-enforce the politi- 
 cal alliance of the sovereigns by a religious alliance. The King 
 of Prussia, bound to him by ties of friendship during the cam- 
 paigns of 1813 to 1815, and being personally a very religious 
 man, approved this plan. The Emperor of Austria accepted it 
 out of politeness to the Tsar. The three sovereigns, meeting 
 once more in France, concluded a compact which was solemnly 
 published, under the name of the Holy Alliance, September 26, 
 1815. 
 
 * He was at this time subject to Mme. de Kriidener, whose acquaintance 
 he had made in May, 1815; she was a mysticist, born at Riga, in the Balti* 
 provinces, and had passed some years in Switzerland. 
 
THE HOLY ALLIANCE. 749 
 
 This treaty, unprecedented in European diplomacy, began 
 with an invocation to " the most holy and indivisible Trinity," 
 and contained simply religious declarations and moral pledges. 
 " Having acquired the intimate conviction that it is necessary 
 to base the course to be pursued by the powers in their mutual 
 relations on the sublime truths which are taught by the eternal 
 religion of God the Preserver of mankind, the sovereigns sol- 
 emnly declare that the present act is only to show, in the face of 
 the world, their invincible determination to take for their rule 
 of conduct . . . only the precepts of that holy religion, the pre- 
 cepts of justice, charity, and peace, which, far from being applica- 
 ble only to private life, should, on the contrary, influence the 
 resolutions of princes and guide all their steps. 
 
 " In conformity with the words of Holy Scripture, which order 
 all men to regard themselves as brethren, the three contracting 
 monarchs will live united by the bonds of a true and indissoluble 
 fraternity; and on every occasion and in every place they will 
 lend each other aid and succor; regarding themselves in relation 
 to their subjects as fathers of families, they will direct them in 
 the same spirit of fraternity ... to protect religion, peace, and 
 justice. The only working principle between the governments 
 or their subjects will be to render reciprocal service, ... to 
 consider themselves all as members of a single Christian nation, 
 the three allied princes considering themselves only as agents 
 of Providence to govern three branches of the same family . . . 
 thus confessing that the Christian nation of which they and their 
 peoples form a part has really no other sovereign but . . . God, 
 our divine Saviour Jesus Christ, the Word of the Most High, 
 the Word of Life." 
 
 This was a compact of Christian fraternity opposed to revolu- 
 tionary fraternity, but concluded outside of the churches, in the 
 name of the peoples, by the sovereigns, " the agents of Provi- 
 dence." This Holy Alliance between three princes of rival 
 faiths, one Catholic, one schismatic, one heretic, was not pleas- 
 ing to the court of Rome. A notable Catholic writer, J. de 
 Maistre, denounced it as filled with the " spirit of visionaries . . . 
 who opposed religiousness to religion " ; the true title should have 
 been : " Convention by which the princes declare that all Chris- 
 tians are but one family professing the same religion, and that 
 the different denominations that distinguish them signify noth- 
 ing." It was, in fact, a demonstration of indiiferentism, a heresy 
 condemned by the Church. 
 
75° EUROPE UNDER THE METTERNICH SYSTEM. 
 
 The treaty invited the other powers to join this Holy Alliance 
 and " to confess solernnly its sacred principles." Louis XVIII. 
 adhered to it out of deference to the Tsar; the majority of sov- 
 ereigns did likewise. The English government refused, giving 
 as its reason that such a general alliance could not be counter- 
 signed by any minister, and every act of the English King must 
 be countersigned by a minister. 
 
 The Holy Alliance remained a solemn demonstration* with- 
 out practical result ; Metternich called it a " sonorous nothing." 
 It did, however, produce a distinct impression upon the enemies 
 of the Restoration, especially in France. The public confused it 
 with the alliance of the powers against France; it becanle a com- 
 mon thing to designate the Allies of 1814 by the name of EoV^ 
 Alliance, which became to the liberals a synonym for war against 
 France and liberalism. 
 
 Rivalry between Alexander I. and Metternich (1815-18). — ^The 
 apparent harmony between the governments of the great states 
 concealed a secret struggle between the two men who were then 
 determining the policy of Europe, Alexander and Metternich. 
 They were opposed in character, political ideals, and practical 
 interests. 
 
 Alexander, naturally tender, easily influenced, religious, com- 
 passionate, was devoted to his duties and open to humanitarian 
 ideas. Educated by a liberal instructor, the Waldensian La- 
 harpe, he held an ideal of constitutional monarchy with pre- 
 dominance of the sovereign, almost the same as the Tory theory. 
 In harmony with England he had assisted in supporting a con- 
 stitutional system in France and Switzerland, and had himself 
 granted a constitution to his kingdom of Poland. 
 
 Metternich, a hlase and sceptical diplomat, insensible to pity, 
 followed only the policy of interest, and regarded as the funda- 
 mental interest the preservation and support of all existing in- 
 stitutions. 1" The basis of modem policy is and must be repose" 
 he wrote in 1817. An enemy to revolution in all its forms, he 
 declared his preference for aristocratic absolute monarchy, and 
 regarded a constitution as a weapon for revolutionists. 
 
 Between Alexander and Metternich the chief ground of dis- 
 pute was the internal organization of the European states and 
 the attitude toward parties. Alexander supported the liberal 
 constitutionalists, Metternich combated them. The envoys 
 from Russia and Austria to the secondary courts strove against 
 each other by intrigues for influence over the governments. In 
 
ALEXANDER I. AND METTERNICH. 75 1 
 
 Germany the Russian agents supported the princes who wished 
 to grant constitutions to their subjects— Weimar, Wurtemberg, 
 Baden, and Bavaria. Alexander became the protector of the 
 constitutional states of southern Germany; the goveniments of 
 Baden and Bavaria, contesting for possession of the Palatinate 
 on the right bank of the Rhine, both appealed to him. In Italy, 
 the King of Sardinia, invited by Metternich in 1815 to sign a 
 special treaty with Austria (see p. 329), asked help from Eng- 
 land, which advised him to accept; he then appealed to Alex- 
 ander, who said that the general alliance excluded all separate 
 treaties; thus Austria was defeated in her plan for an Italian con- 
 federation under her influence. In Spain, the Russian ambas- 
 sador, all-powerful with King Ferdinand, maintained, in spite 
 of the absolutist party, the Garay ministry, which was attempting 
 financial reform; overstepping his instructions he promised 
 money and even the acquisition of Portugal and tried to secure 
 for the insurgent American colonies an amnesty and a charter 
 (see p. 290). In France Alexander upheld the ministry of 
 Richelieu (who as governor of Odessa, had spent many years 
 in Russia), in support of the Charter, against the Introuvable 
 Chamber, which was trying to force the King to take a rhinistry 
 of Ultras (see p. 117). He sent Louis XVIII. a note against the 
 Ultra demonstrations, in which he declared that the object of 
 the treaty of 1815 was to consolidate the order of things estab- 
 lished in France in 1814. This was to be done by the inviolable 
 maintenance of royal authority and the observance of the Con- 
 stitutional Charter. He urged Louis XVIII. to dissolve the 
 Chamber. 
 
 In addition to direct intervention with the governments, Alex- 
 ander was in relations with the notables of the opposition par- 
 ties; or at least the liberal malcontents gained authority from his 
 name. It was well known that he did not like the Bourbons 
 (see p. 103) and that he favoured religious propaganda outside 
 of the established churches. The Bonapartists, who organized 
 a plot in Belgium, in 1816, to drive out the Bourbons and replace 
 them by the Prince of Orange, the brother-in-law of the Tsar, 
 intimated that the Tsar was friendly to them. In Italy Metter- 
 nich attributed the liberal and national agitation to Russian emis- 
 saries; he accused them later (1819) of "presiding over clubs of 
 Carbonari," and complained of the Tsar's encouragement of Bible 
 societies. He wrote to the Emperor of Austria: "Since 1815 
 Alexander has given up Jacobinism to throw himself into mysti* 
 
752 EUROPE UNDER THE MEETTRNICH SYSTEM. 
 
 cism. Always, as his tendency is constantly revolutionary, his 
 religious sentiments are equally so. . . The desire of making 
 proselytes holds first place in all his calculations. It is in this 
 spirit that he enlists the Jacobins in Italy and the sects in Eu- 
 rope." (Metternich includes under the head of Jacobins all par- 
 tisans of a constitutional system.) He calls " the attention of 
 cabinets to the progress of the sects which are beginning to 
 menace the peace of central Europe." He regarded Mme. de 
 Kriidener as particularly dangerous " because her preachings are 
 all designed to excite the indigent classes against landowners" 
 (1817). 
 
 In the Orient Alexander had pursued a policy of conquest. 
 In Napoleon's time he had already concluded a preliminary alli- 
 ance between France and Russia, leaving the West to France, 
 on condition of having a free field in the East. He had begun 
 the conquest of the Ottoman Empire in 1806 and had kept a piece 
 of it, Bessarabia. Metternich suspected him of wishing to re- 
 new the close alliance with France and to begin conquest once 
 more. Alexander had refused, at the Congress of Vienna, to 
 include the Sultan among the sovereigns whose territory was 
 guaranteed. In reality he was tired of the war on the Danube, 
 as it was breaking up the Russian army; he wanted no further 
 complications on this side; in 1817 he refused to hear the envoy 
 from a Greek patriotic society who had come to implore his 
 assistance. 
 
 Congress of Aix-Ia- Chapelle and Alexander's Conversion (1818), 
 — The rivalry between Alexander and Metternich had been 
 of profit to the liberals, by diminishing the violence of the ab- 
 solutist reaction in the countries subject to the Tsar's influ- 
 ence. But little by little Alexander became alarmed at the 
 progress of the liberal parties. Metternich began to gain in- 
 fluence over him and to draw him into supporting the absolutist 
 policy. 
 
 Alexander's conversion began on the question of French 
 policy. Since 181 5 the Allies had been taking precautiorisf 
 against a return of the Revolution. Their ambassadors in Paris 
 met once a week to talk over the state of affairs in France, give 
 advice to the French government, supervise the payment of the 
 army of occupation, and decide the movements of the troops. 
 The instructions given to Wellington, the commander of the 
 army of occupation, on November 3, 1815, informed him that 
 the Allies had " formally promised King Louis XVIII. the sup- 
 
CONGRESS OF AJX-LA-CHAPELLE. 753 
 
 port of their arms against any revolutionary convulsion " and 
 left the management of the troops to his discretion. 
 
 The treaty of November 20, 1815, excluded from the govern- 
 ment of France Napoleon and his family " for the general tran- 
 quillity of Europe " and established between the four Allies a per- 
 manent league of supervision over France. It was agreed " to 
 renew at stated intervals meetings sacred to the great common 
 interests and to the examination of the measures which in each 
 of these periods shall be deemed most salutary to the peace and 
 prosperity of Europe." The idea was to make these congresses 
 a regular institution through which the great powers should con- 
 trol Europe and watch over France. 
 
 The first opportunity for holding a congress was the political 
 state of France. The Richelieu ministry implored Alexander to 
 hasten the evacuation of French territory. The English govern- 
 ment consented to diminish the army of occupation on payment 
 of a part of the indemnity; France procured the money by a 5 
 per cent, loan, subscribed for at 55 by an English bank, in Febru- 
 ary, 1817. 
 
 The Allies decided to hold a meeting to settle upon definite 
 terms of evacuation; Alexander proposed a congress like that at 
 Vienna, to which all the states of Europe should be invited. 
 Metternich, in order to avoid the worries he had endured at 
 Vienna, secured the adoption of a conference between the four 
 Allies alone, to which France should be invited. 
 
 This conference, wrongly termed the Congress of Aix-la- 
 Qiapelle, held in November, 1818, was a personal meeting of the 
 three sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and Prussia and of the prime 
 ministers of the five great powers. The four Allies began by 
 agreeing among themselves before admitting France. They ar- 
 ranged terms for evacuation in October. Alexander, already 
 disturbed by the discovery of a secret society of Russian officers, 
 was greatly alarmed by the liberal success at the elections of 
 October in France (he had already advised Louis XVIII. to 
 change the electoral law).* Metternich took advantage of these 
 impressions to secure a secret convention between the four Allies, 
 
 *An agent of the Ultra party,' Vitrolles, sent a note to the Russian 
 ambassador begging the Tsar to check the revolutionary movement by 
 asking the King to change his ministry. A secret note to this effect was 
 communicated to the Decazes ministry. The ministers published it, and 
 accused the Ultras of having conspired against the king; this was the iord 
 de I'eau conspiracy of 1818. 
 
754 EUROPE UNDER THE METTERNICH SYSTEM. 
 
 November i. They agreed to use their combined force in case 
 any uprising should succeed in France and threaten the peace or 
 security of her neighbours. England agreed to this only in case 
 a Bonaparte should be placed on the throne. 
 
 Having taken their precautions against France, the Allies 
 granted to Richelieu what they had just refused him in October, 
 the admission of France to the Alliance. This was done in the 
 form of a secret protocol (November 15) and a public declara- 
 tion. The secret agreement provided for war measures in case 
 of a revolution in France, the march of the armies, and the de- 
 fence of the fortresses. The Tsar even proposed a plan of cam- 
 paign. After this the conference discussed the affairs of Ger- 
 many, Spain, and the colonies. 
 
 The Conference of Aix-la,-Chapelle was a decisive victory for 
 Metternich's policy. The chief result was to proclaim solemnly 
 the maintenance of the Alliance against the revolutionists. " The 
 happiest result," wrote Metternich,* will be that there is to he no 
 change in the existing order of things," and it will be " a most bril- 
 liant triumph for the Cabinets that have never invoked the spirit 
 of innovation." It was a moral defeat for Alexander, " for the 
 court which has rendered homage to what is called the spirit of 
 the time and which by its words has roused the hopes of inno- 
 vators and sectarians of every description." After the Congress, 
 Metternich wrote : " The Congress has pncouraged the friends of 
 order and peace in all nations and everywhere alarmed innovators 
 and factionists." 
 
 Alexander's conversion, begun at Aix-la-Chapelle, was com- 
 pleted by the impression of the demonstrations of German stu- 
 dents, the elections to the French Chamber in 1819, and espe- 
 cially the murder of his agent Kotzebue (see p. 385). Metter- 
 nich used these incidents to persuade him of the existence of a 
 " great conspiracy that was spreading all over Germany " and 
 even of a revolutionary organization of the Liberals of all 
 Europe, which was encouraged by the Jacobins (Liberals) who 
 surrounded the King of Prussia, and was directed 'by the sects. 
 He secured the adoption in Germany of measures against the 
 universities and the press. In the case of France it was Alexan- 
 der himself who proposed intervention. The Decazes ministry, 
 
 * The benefit of the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle to conservative policy 
 is set forth in Metternich's notes and in Gentz's memoirs in a verbose and 
 confident form. (" Metternich Papers," vol. iii.) 
 
CONGRESSES AND INTERVENTIONS. 755 
 
 abandonea by the Tsar, turned to the English government, which 
 refused to interfere. 
 
 Austrian Congresses; the Interventions (1820-23). — The revo- 
 lutions in Spain and Italy completed Metternich's triumph over 
 Alexander. Within one year four revolutions broke out in 
 Spain, Portugal, Naples, and Sardinia, brought about by army 
 officers belonging to secret societies, either Free Masons or Car- 
 bonari. They had the same program, the Spanish Constitution 
 of 1812, copied from the French Constitution of 1791. In France 
 the assassination of the Due de Berri and a series of military 
 plots, added to the outbreaks in the other countries, seemed to 
 justify Metternich's warnings and predictions. The Tsar, con- 
 vinced of the dangers of the Revolution, was converted to Metter- 
 nich's principle of intervention. To restore order in the countries 
 disturbed by the Revolution, the governments of the great 
 powers held congresses, all in Austrian territory, at Troppau in 
 Silesia in 1820, Laybach in Carniola in 1821, and Verona in Ve- 
 netia in 1823. 
 
 Alexander himself proposed that the five Allies should inter- 
 fere to check the Spanish revolution ; the English government re- 
 fused, fearing to offend the Spanish nation. But the revolution 
 of Naples interested Austria directly, as her Italian subjects in 
 Lombardy were conspiring with the Liberals. She prepared 
 troops and announced that the Emperor was going to fulfil his 
 duty as " natural guardian and protector of public tranquillity in 
 Italy." The French government, unwilling to let Austria set 
 herself up as the sovereign power in Italy, suggested collective 
 intervention to the other states, in order to reassure the Italians, 
 who were alarmed by the entry of an Austrian army. The Tsar 
 agreed, and it was decided to hold a congress of the five great 
 powers. 
 
 The Congress of Troppau Was devoted to Neapolitan aiifairs. 
 Metternich proposed intervention to restore the absolutist system 
 that Ferdinand, by an agreement with Austria in 1815 (see p. 316), 
 had promised not to change. The Tsar and France wished to 
 begin by negotiating with the King of Naples to remove the 
 revolutionary features of the constitution without suppressing it. 
 England refused to hear of intervention; the powers, in her view, 
 were to guarantee only the territorial balance of power among 
 the states of Europe; they were not to interfere in their domestic 
 policy. Thus the two opposing principles were formulated: 
 intervention by Austria, the most absolutist power in Europe at 
 
7S6 EUROPE UNDER THE METTERNICH SYSTEM. 
 
 this time; non-intervention by England, the most liberal power. 
 This did not, however, prevent England and Austria from being 
 natural allies against Russia. Intervention became henceforth a 
 part of the absolutist program, non-intervention of the liberal pro- 
 gram. (The latter was condemned by the Syllabus; see p. 701.) 
 England and France refused to sign a collective declaration. 
 But Metternich persuaded Alexander to it by showing him revo- 
 lution threatening everywhere — in Portugal, in the Diet of War- 
 saw, in a riot of the Imperial Guard at Petersburg.* The three 
 eastern powers, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, signed a declara- 
 tion of principle. Every state of the European Alliance suffer- 
 ing an internal revolution thereby ceased to be a member of the 
 Alliance and remained excluded " until its government should 
 ofifer guarantees for legitimate order." The powers agreed to 
 refuse to recognise illegal reforms and to bring into " the bosom 
 of the Alliance " those states in which such changes should be 
 made. They reserved the right to employ first friendly over- 
 tures, then, if necessary, measures of constraint. Thus was the 
 principle of intervention officially recognised in European public 
 law. The Allies declared themselves at one in the struggle 
 against revolution and ready to maintain by force their work of 
 1814, not only their territorial arrangements, but the political 
 restoration of the absolutist system. This they were to do, not 
 only against the will of the people, but even if need be against the 
 
 * He sent him a doctrinal exposition on the causes of revolution, sum- 
 ming them up "in a single word, presumption. . . Religion, morals, 
 legislation, political economy, administration, all seem to have become a 
 common good and accessible to all." . . He denounces "the idea of 
 emancipation of the peoples as absurd in itself." The evil arose from the 
 governments of the eighteenth century who had permitted irreligious writ- 
 ings and " talk of social compacts," then from the Hundred Days and 
 " the utterly wrong course of the French government from 1815 to 1820." 
 "It is the middle classes that have been seized by this moral gan- 
 grene. . . The people doubt the movement . . . the interested classes 
 are the capitalists . . . state officials, literary men, lawyers, and the per- 
 sons in charge of public education. . . Their war-cry. Constitution . . 
 means change and trouble." " It is not in the midst of the agitation o£ 
 passions that we should think of reform. Wisdom teaches us at such 
 times to confine our efforts to preservation." The same elements of 
 destruction have existed from the beginning of time; there have always 
 been " immoral ambitious men, hypocrites, fanatics, evil spirits, and makers 
 of plans." But what gives them power in our time is " the liberty of the 
 press, a plague unknown to the world until the last half of the eighteenth 
 century." 
 
AUTSRIAN CONGRESSES AND INTERVENTIONS. 757 
 
 will of the governments. They constituted themselves a politi- 
 cal supreme court for Europe, directing an international police 
 against revolution. The two constitutional monarchies of the 
 West, England and France, kept out of this demonstration, but 
 in a passive attitude, leaving the field clear for the absolutist mon- 
 archies of the East. 
 
 This triumph for Metternich was announced to the world in 
 the form of a despatch from the Russian government to its ambas- 
 sador at Naples. " The Neapolitan revolution presents in itself 
 too alarming a character to be ignored by the sovereigns. . . 
 They have recognised this same spirit of trouble and disorder 
 which will shortly lay waste the whole world. . . The sover- 
 eigns at once decided to admit the legality of nothing that was 
 established in the Kingdom of Naples by revolution and usurpa- 
 tion." 
 
 Accordingly the sovereigns, refusing to negotiate with a revo- 
 lutionary government, invited the King of Naples to come in 
 person, to make terms with them at Laybach, where the congress 
 was now sitting. They also summoned the other princes of 
 Italy. y^ ^, 
 
 The Congress of Laybach regulated the domestic arrange- 
 ments of the Kingdom of Naples ; King Ferdinand, who had left 
 Naples swearing to defend the constitution, asked the congress to 
 restore the absolutist system. The great powers decided among 
 themselves to send an Austrian army if the King's subjects did 
 not submit ; they then communicated their decision to the envoys 
 of the Italian governments. France made a useless demand to 
 begin with conciliatory measures. Austria, acting in the name 
 of the sovereigns, sent an army into the Kingdom of Naples. 
 The length of the occupation was to be settled by a new congress. 
 
 The Congress of Laybach ended in a public declaration from 
 Austria regarding the uniformity of views and principles of the 
 great powers. The French government corrected it in an ex- 
 planatory note, which Metternich seized upon to represent France 
 to the Tsar as a hotbed of revolution. The sovereigns were 
 about to leave Laybach, where they had been awaiting the result 
 of the Austrian expedition into Naples, when they learned of the 
 revolution of Piedmont (see p. 331)- This was immediately fol- 
 lowed by the Greek revolt of Ypsilanti in Moldavia (see p. 619). 
 Alexander, without hesitation, gave his judgment against the 
 revolutionists. He offered an army against Piedmont and dis- 
 
758 EUROPE UNDER THE METTERNICH SYSTEM. 
 
 owned Ypsilanti, whose name he caused to be struck off the rolls 
 of the Russian army. 
 
 The Austrian army which had been sent into the Kingdom of 
 Naples reduced it almost without fighting, in March, 1821. In 
 Piedmont, an Austrian army, joined to the faithful Sardinian 
 regiments, scattered the insurgent regiments at Novara (see p. 
 332). Ypsilanti's band was crushed by the Turks. Metternich 
 took advantage of Alexander's irritation to excite him against 
 revolution and against France.* He again issued a public 
 declaration regarding " the vast conspiracy," the " impious 
 league " organized " to overthrow existing institutions." He 
 spoke also of "the barrier" that the sovereigns oppose to "this 
 torrent." The Eastern question was then reopened by the Greek 
 insurrections and massacres (see p. 619). The Tsar, traditional 
 protector of Orthodox believers, protested by an ultimatum in 
 June, 1 82 1. " Christianity," he said, " could not remain a passive 
 spectator of the extermination of a Christian people." But in the 
 face of Austrian and English resistance, he finally accepted their 
 mediation, designed to give the Sultan time to crush the Chris- 
 tian insurgents. Metternich had paralyzed Alexander. 
 
 The Spanish question was still to be settled. This was the 
 work of the Congress of Veronr (October to December, 1822)— 
 a meeting of the three sovereigns of the East, and envoys from 
 the great powers and from the princes of Italy. The King of 
 Spain had written personally to Louis XVIII. asking aid against 
 his subjects. The French government did not wish to interfere, 
 remembering the Spanish national war against Napoleon. The 
 English government declared intervention dangerous, and refused 
 to take part in it. But Alexander wanted war, " war against 
 Spain, by France, with France, without France, or against 
 France." The powers, with the exception of England, agreed to 
 send a despatch to the Spanisji government announcing Eu- 
 
 * He sent him another memorial in May, 1821: " A vast and dangerous 
 conspiracy has since 1814 gained enough power and means of action to 
 have obtained possession of many posts in public administrations . . . 
 one word suffices to bring it into public favour . . . the word Constitu- 
 tion. . . Infiuence, position, fortune, all that human passions can covet, 
 hang . . . from the tree of liberty, as from a greased pole." . . He 
 recommends an agreement between Russia and Austria which shall 
 impose on their representatives the obligation of mutual support on every 
 occasion. . . " The factionists of every nation . . . have established a 
 centre of information and influence (at Paris). . . We must establish 
 another in opposition " (Vienna). 
 
INTERVENTION IN THE EAST. 759 
 
 ropean intervention. The French government still hesitated for 
 some time. But the French Chamber wanted war as a legitimist 
 deihonstration. France therefore made war to restore the au- 
 thority of the King of Spain. It was nothing more than a mili- 
 tary promenade, ending with the Siege of Cadiz (see p. 294). 
 
 English Policy under Canning. — Until now the alliance of the 
 five powers had been ofificially maintained. England refused to 
 intervene with her allies, but did not intervene against them. 
 The alliance began to break up over two questions which had 
 been left unsettled in 18 15, the question of the Spanish colonies 
 and the Eastern question. 
 
 A change in English policy came from a change in the office 
 of foreign minister. Castlereagh having committed suicide in 
 1822, his successor. Canning, began by protesting at Verona 
 against the Spanish intervention. Abandoning the passive atti- 
 tude, he interfered actively in opposition to the Allies. His 
 policy was the opposite of Metternich's. Not only did he, like 
 his English predecessors, reject the principle of intervention in 
 domestic questions, saying that the guarantee promised to the 
 sovereigns by the treaties of 181 5 was " territorial, not political," 
 and did not bind the powers to maintain the internal system 
 against revolutions ; he went further, and claimed the right to ^re- 
 vent the intervention of another power in domestic questions. 
 
 The insurgent Spanish colonies had organized as independent 
 states. At the Congress of Verona, Chateaubriand, envoy from 
 France, proposed to extend the principle of intervention to colo- 
 nies, and help the King of Spain to subdue them. Canning re- 
 plied at first with a Parliamentary speech on the independence of 
 peoples and national honour. He then officially recognised the 
 Spanish republics, January, 1825. In answer to the French ex- 
 pedition to Spain, he interfered in Portugal, sending, late in 1826, 
 a squadron, then an English army corps, against Don Miguel. 
 
 This was the first breach in the Metternich system. 
 
 Intervention in the East (1823-29). — The Eastern question 
 had been before the world since 1823. Public opinion in Europe 
 was very favourable to the Greek insurgents, but the govern- 
 ments kept out of the movement. The Congress of Verona re- 
 fused even to receive the Greek envoys, and censured the revolt. 
 Canning took the initiative by recognising the Greeks as belliger- 
 ents in February, 1823. Alexander, in whom the Greeks had 
 hoped and whose friends urged him to war, decided tO' take deci- 
 sive part neither for the revolutionary Greeks nor for the Sultan, 
 
76o EUROPE UNDER THE METTERNICH SYSTEM. 
 
 the enemy of Christians. He called a conference at St. Peters- 
 burg to restore peace, and proposed a compromise: Greece to be 
 divided into three self-governing principalities. This was unani- 
 mously rejected. The conference confined itself to inviting the 
 Sultan, in April, 1825, to accept the mediation of the powers, but 
 without threatening to impose peace on him. 
 
 Alexander was about to make a final decision, when he died, 
 December, 1825. His death hastened the sudden change in 
 Russian policy. Nicholas, his successor, refused to leave Eng- 
 land the monopoly in protecting the Greeks; he had before his 
 accession expressed sympathy for the Greek insurgents. Can- 
 ning, taking advantage of these tendencies, sent Wellington to 
 make terms with Nicholas ; they agreed in April, 1826, that Eng- 
 land should offer her mediation to the Sultan and that Russia 
 should support her. This was an abandonment of Metternich's 
 policy. 
 
 Russia had begun negotiations with the Turkish government 
 on other questions, and was awaiting their termination to bring 
 up the Grecian question. It was only at the end of a year, April, 
 1827, that the Grand Vizier received ofificial communication of 
 the Anglo-Russian protocol of 1826. He refused to consider it. 
 But England and Russia held to their decision. France had al- 
 ready adhered to the protocol; the other powers, in July, 1827, 
 declared their readiness to impose Grecian autonomy by force, 
 and sent a fleet into Greece. They demanded from the Sultan an 
 armistice for the Greeks, threatening in case of a refusal to take 
 active measures (August). Thus the situation was the reverse of 
 that of 1820: England and France were intervening, but in sup- 
 port of a revolution, while Austria and Prussia refused to inter- 
 vene; Russia in 1820 intervened against the subjects, in 1827 
 against the sovereign. 
 
 The unexpected death of Canning in August changed the 
 policy of the English ministry ; his successors wished tO' avoid all 
 complications. But the three powers found themselves already 
 entangled. Their fleet, commanded by the English admiral, had 
 come to the western coast of Morea to impose a truce on the two 
 parties. Ibrahim at first accepted; then, on an order from the 
 Sultan, began to devastate Messenia. The European fleet inter- 
 fered, calling on the Egyptian fleet to depart. As in Ibrahim's 
 absence his men refused to move, the allied fleet took a position 
 in the harbor of Navarino by the side of the Egyptian ships. 
 The Christian sailors were so excited against the Mussulmans 
 
INTERVENTION IN THE EAST. 761 
 
 that a shot from an Egyptian vessel was enough to produce the 
 battle of Navarino and the destruction of the Egyptian fleet 
 (October 20)/ After this the Europeans withdrew. The Sultan 
 demanded a disavowal and an indemnity, which were refused. 
 Then, in December, he broke off relations with the three powers. 
 The intervention finally led to a rupture with the Ottoman 
 Empire. 
 
 Even the rupture did not, however, produce a general war. 
 England simply sent a fleet in August, 1828, which decided Me- 
 hemet-Ali to recall Ibrahim. France sent an expedition into 
 Morea in the same year. Russia alone entered upon war (Feb- 
 ruary, 1828). 
 
 The war included two campaigns. That of 1828 was simply 
 a march of Russians across Rbumania, followed by the siege of 
 fortresses; the Russian army, ill supplied and badly led, was 
 stopped before reaching the Balkans, by the intrenched camp of 
 Shumla. 
 
 The campaign of 1829 was decided by a single battle in Bul- 
 garia. The Ottoman army, disorganized since the destruction 
 of the janissaries, fell to pieces. Diebitsch profited by this to 
 cross the Balkans and come down to Adrianople. He had with 
 him only about 20,000 men, some of whom were disabled, and 
 was too weak to take Constantinople. But the Sultan, intimi- 
 dated by Diebitsch's decided attitude, imagined himself at the 
 mercy of the Russians and accepted all their terms: war indem- 
 nity, destruction of the Turkish fortresses in Roumania, free 
 passage of the straits to ships of all nations, and creation of the 
 Kingdom of Greece (September, 1829). The peace of Adrianople 
 (see p. 620) established Russia's predominance in the east. 
 
 Breaking up of the European Alliance (1830).— The Metter- 
 nich system was shaken by Canning's policy and the Tsar's war 
 in Turkey. But hitherto the powers had conflicted with Austria 
 only on questions and in countries outside of the settlements of 
 1815. The treaties of 1815 were still intact. 
 
 The revolution of 1830 in France was the first breach in the 
 work of the Congress of Vienna. It took away the legitimate 
 government from the Bourbons, to whom the Allies had guaran- 
 teed it, and gave it to a revolutionary government under Louis 
 Philippe, " King of the barricades." The new government was 
 established in the name of the sovereignty of the people, the doc- 
 trine of the Revolution, with the tricolour flag, the emblem of the 
 Revolution. 
 
762 EUROPE UNDER THE METTERNICH SYSTEM. 
 
 Then came the Belgian revolution, which cut in two the King- 
 dom of the Netherlands, the work of the Allies. Finally in Eng- 
 land the Tories, allied with the absolutist monarchies against 
 France, gave place in November, 1830, to the Whigs, allied with 
 the European liberals. The Alliance of 181 5 was definitively 
 broken up; the Metternich system was abandoned. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 For International Relations, 1814-1896 (chapters xxv. to xxviii.). 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— Waitz, " Quellenkunde der Deutschen Geschichte," 
 edit, of 1894; Erones, " Grundriss der oesterr. Gesch.," 1882, may serve as 
 bibliog. for the external history. (For recent publications see Ch.-V. 
 langlois, " Manuel de Bibliog. Hist," 1896, §§ 161, 163, 183, 184). — For the 
 technical history of the wars, the " Catalogue de la Bibliotheque du 
 DepSt de la Guerre," vol. iii., 1885, constitutes practically a handier 
 bibliog. than J. PoMer, " Bibliotheca His. -Mil.," 3 vols., 1887-95 (in course 
 of publication), a universal catalogue. 
 
 DOCUMENTS. — The diplomatic documents are collected in Martens, 
 " Recueil des Traites, Nouveaux Supplements," 3 vols., 1839-42, " Nou- 
 veau Recueil " in two series (see Waitz, " Quellenk.," Nos. 688 and 6078). 
 From 1861 it is best to resort to the periodic publication " Das Staats- 
 archiv." (see preface). 
 
 The chief oiScial documents and story of events are in the annuals (see 
 preface) and the series published under two different titles: " Die 
 Gegenwart," 12 vols., 1848-56 ; "Unsere Zeit," since 1857. 
 
 The English " Foreign and State papers," pub. annually since 1814, 
 contain valuable documents for all the countries. 
 
 WORKS.— Complete Histories.— C. BuUe, " Gesch. derNeuesten Zeit," 
 4 vols., i886(see preface).— G. Weber, (" AUgemeine Weltgesch."), "Gesch. 
 des XlXten Jahrhunderts," 2 vols. 1879-80, semi-scientific popular edit.— 
 Plathe, "Die Neueste Zeit," 3 vols., 1888-91 ("AUgem. Weltgesch.") 
 In French there are only academic manuals. 
 
 The Oncken coll., "Allgem. Gesch. in Einzeldarstellungen," historical 
 series of periods (see preface) is still the most scientific work. 
 
 For the diplomatic history, Sebidour, " Hist. Diplom. de I'Europe," 1814- 
 78, 2 vols., 1891, gives an account and bibliographies. 
 
 On the Period 1815-30. 
 
 DOCUMENTS.— For Metternich's policy, Metternich, " Papiers," 8 vols., 
 1880-84 (letters and acts), principal collection ; F. Gentz, Metternich's 
 agent, a number of letters or memoirs (given in detail in Waitz, " Quellen- 
 kunde," No. 5799). — For Russian policy, Fozzo di Borgo, " Correspondance 
 Diplomatique," 1890.— For English policy, Castlereagh, "Memoirs and 
 Correspondence," 12 vols., in three series, 1848-49, 1851, 1853; Stapleton, 
 " Canning and His Times," 1835.— For French policy, in addition to the 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 763 
 
 memoirs of Villele, Pasquler, VitroUes, Hyde da Neuville mentioned in the 
 bibliog. to chap, v.; deSerre, " Correspondance," 6 vols., 1876-77; L. de 
 Crousaz-Cretet, " Le Due de Richelieu . . .," 1897, extracts from the 
 archives of foreign affairs. 
 
 WORKS.— Complete Histories : Stern, " Gesch. Europas," vol. i., 1894, 
 is the most reliable guide, but stops at 1820.— Gervinus, " Gesch. des 
 XlXten Jahrhunderts," 1855-66, French edit. "Hist, du XIXe Siecle," 22 
 vols., 1864-74, stops at 1830, much detail, not always reliable.— piathe, 
 " Das Zeitalter der Restauration und der Revolution," 1883 (Oncken coll.), 
 fairly intelligent, few references. 
 
 The most detailed accounts of this period are found in the national his- 
 tories, mentioned for each country: Treitsohke (Germany), Springer (Aus- 
 tria), Bernhardy (Russia), particularly important for European policy, 
 Tiel-Castel (France), the leading French history for foreign policy, Spencer 
 Walpole (England), Beuchlin (Italy), Baumgarten (Spain), Hertzberg and 
 Mendelssohn (Greece), Bosen (Turkey). — Fanli, "Gesch. Englands," 2 vols., 
 1864-67 (" Staatengesch. d. n. Zeit" coll.), which I have thought best not 
 to cite for England's domestic history, is useful for her foreign relations. 
 
 Episodes. — E. Unhlen'beck, " fitude sur les Origines de la Sainte- Alliance," 
 1888. — A. Hugo, " Hist, de la Guerre en Espagne en 1823," 2 vols., 1824-25. 
 — Frokesch-Osten, "Gesch. des Abfalls der Griechen . . .,"6 vols., 1867, 
 Grecian war. — VonMoltke, " Campagnes des Russes en Turquie d'Europe, 
 1828-29," trans, from the German., 2 vols. 1854 (or'g. edit. 1845). 
 
CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 RIVALRY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND, 
 183054. 
 
 Conditions of Foreign Policy after 1830. — The Revolution of 
 1830 in France and the Whigs' accession to power in England 
 transformed the political situation of Europe. The two' great 
 states of the West became parliamentary countries controlled by 
 liberal parties; they broke the alliance with the three states that 
 were still faithful to the principles of the Restoration. Europe 
 was cut into two parts: the East, still absolutist, and the West, 
 now become liberal. 
 
 In the absolutist monarchies of the East, the direction remained 
 concentrated in the person of the sovereign or his ministers. 
 The masters of policy were : in Austria, Metternich, governing in 
 the name of the Emperor (Francis, then Ferdinand from 1835 to 
 1848); after the revolution of '48, Prince Schwarzenberg ; — in 
 Russia, Tsar Nicholas, autocrat and soldier, who himself directed 
 diplomacy; — in Prussia, King Frederick William III., timid and 
 peace-loving, and after 1840 Frederick William IV., full of fan- ■ 
 cies, but, except for one moment from 1849 to 1850, without a 
 personal policy. Metternich, growing old and discouraged, with 
 no personal influence over Nicholas, without means of action, for 
 he knew the Austrian army to be disorganized, ceased to control 
 diplomacy. The influence passed into the hands of the Tsar, the 
 master of a victorious army; Nicholas was from 1830 to 1854 the 
 representative of absolutism, the adversary of revolution and of 
 France. 
 
 In the parliamentary monarchies of the West the ministers no 
 longer decided foreign policy alone : they had to reckon with the 
 Chambers and the opinion of the people. In France Louis 
 Philippe, desirous of consolidating his throne and providing for 
 his children, had personally a peaceful policy; but, as a parlia- 
 mentary King, he had to appear to leave the government to his 
 ministers. He evaded the difificulty by taking ministers from 
 those who advocated his policy (Casimir-Perier, Broglie, and 
 Guizot), or without policy (Mole and Soult), or when he was 
 
 764 
 
CONDITIONS OF FOREIGN POLICY AFTER 1830. 765 
 
 obliged to submit to ministers of the Left (Laffitte and Thiers), 
 by hindering their influence. In fact, France's policy was that of 
 Louis Philippe, a policy of peace and inactivity, interspersed with 
 belligerent demonstrations to satisfy national self-respect. 
 
 In England the sovereigns, William and later Victoria, left 
 to the ministry even the direction of foreign affairs; English 
 policy therefore depended on the ministerial party and varied 
 with the changes of majority. The Conservative party main- 
 tained its policy of peace and abstention, but it was in power 
 only for short intervals (1834-35, 1841-46, 1852). The Liberal 
 or Whig party thus determined England's attitude, and this party 
 left the direction of foreign policy almost entirely to Lord Pal- 
 merston, the minister of foreign affairs. Palmerston posed as 
 the champion at once of English national honour and the liberal 
 system; his policy was to intimidate the great powers by display 
 of troops, threats of wars, and secret negotiation with liberal mal- 
 contents of every country to excite them against their govern- 
 ments. For more than thirty years (he died in 1865) he suc- 
 ceeded in hiding England's military weakness, and made her the 
 rival of Russia as a controlling power. Europe from 1830 to 
 1854 was dominated by the rivalry between Nicholas and Pal- 
 merston, symbols of the absolutist East and the liberal West. 
 
 Under these ofiScial heads of Europe an accessory role in 
 European diplomacy was played by a new sovereign family, that 
 of Saxe-Coburg. Leopold, having become King of the Bel- 
 gians and then son-in-law of the King of France, arranged a 
 marriage for one of his nephews, Ferdinand, with the Queen of 
 Portugal in 1836, and for another, Albert, with the Queen of 
 England in 1840; the relations of the Coburg family with the 
 reigning houses permitted them at times to act as mediators be- 
 tween the courts of the great states. 
 
 European policy became more complicated and more unstable 
 than at the time of the Restoration. This was a period of active 
 and intricate plots, revolutions, and demonstrations, which filled 
 the newspapers, aroused violent feeling, and in the end accom- 
 plished but little. 
 
 Foreign policy was expressed by certain official formulae. 
 Maintenance of treaties was the preservation of the territorial ar- 
 rangements of 181 5. Intervention signified for the great powers 
 the right to interfere in the internal affairs of secondary states 
 in order to maintain the system established in 181 5. When they 
 interfered in the opposite direction, it produced a struggle for 
 
766 SIVALRY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND. 
 
 influence, unless it resulted in a conference to restore the 
 European concert. The European balance of power, an old formula 
 of the old regime, was the endeavour to keep any of the five great 
 powers from extending its dominion, especially in the Ottoman 
 Empire, which was outside of the treaties of 1815. 
 
 Every internal complication in each country was for the great 
 powers a temptation to interfere and extend their influence and 
 an occasion for debating the question whether it was necessary 
 to interfere for the support of the treaties or of the balance of 
 power. 
 
 Eecognition of the July Monarchy (1830). — The revolution of 
 1830 was a violation of the treaties of 1815; by driving from 
 France the Bourbons, whose dynasty the powers had guaranteed, 
 it opened up the casus belli foreseen by the convention of 1818 
 (see p. 751), it therefore presented the question of intervention in 
 France against the revolution. 
 
 But the Allies did not feel strong enough to interfere; Louis 
 Philippe represented to them that he had accepted the throne 
 only to stop the revolution, that his presence alone guaranteed 
 France against a republic, and assured the maintenance of the 
 treaties of 1815. England, where the Tory ministry was held in 
 check by a strong Whig minority, refused to interfere; she 
 ordered her ambassador to remain in Paris, then recognised the 
 government of Louis Philippe.* Metternich did not even ask 
 the execution of the convention of 1818; no power had its army 
 ready to march. The Tsar alone wished to crush the Revolu- 
 tion; he ordered his Russian subjects to leave France, forbade 
 the tricolour flag in Russian ports, and sent agents to the Aus- 
 trian and Prussian courts, urging them to war. But the other 
 governments having recognised the usurper, he did the same. 
 He contented himself with showing his contempt by refusing to 
 call him " my brother," as the other sovereigns did. 
 
 The revolutionary monarchy of France, in spite of the treaties 
 of 1815, joined the European concert. But "the King of the 
 barricades " remained an intruder to the other sovereigns; Louis 
 Philippe felt himself always regarded in Europe as an upstart, 
 and the desire to put an end to this partial " boycott " was one of 
 the constant features of his policy. 
 
 Settlement of Belgium (1830-32). — The Belgian revolution 
 
 * There is, so far as I know, no reason for supposing ttiat the Wellington 
 ministry had any thought of interfering in the domestic affairs of France. 
 — S. M. M. 
 
SETTLEMENT OF BELGIUM. 767 
 
 was a second breach in the treaties of 1815. King William asked 
 the great powers to restore him in possession of the territories 
 guaranteed him in 1814. England called a conference at Lon- 
 don to try and save the kingdom by persuading the Belgians to 
 be content with a separate administration. The King of Prussia, 
 William's brother-in-law, assembled an army on the Dutch fron- 
 tier. The Tsar offered 60,000 men, and his envoy Diebitsch re- 
 mained two months in Berlin to urge the King to war. 
 
 But the French governm>ent, urged by the party of action (see 
 p. 134), took the part of the Belgians. The idea was to satisfy 
 national self-respect by destroying even in a secondary matter, 
 the treaties of 1815, setting up the principle of non-intervention 
 and thereby securing the demolition of the Belgian fortresses 
 erected against France, or even the cession of a bit of territory. 
 France stopped Prussia by declaring that, if a Prussian army 
 should enter from the east, a French army should enter from the 
 west. The Tsar, on the point of interfering, was hindered by 
 J:he Polish revolution (see p. 587). 
 
 When the London Conference opened, the Tory ministry had 
 been replaced by a Whig ministry. Palmerston had the direc- 
 tion of foreign affairs and adopted the policy of an understand- 
 ing between the two liberal powers, France and England. He 
 agreed with Talleyrand, France's representative, to set up the 
 principle of the absolute separation of Belgium. The envoys 
 from the Eastern powers, having no precise instructions, yielded. 
 The Conference imposed a truce on the two parties, then recog- 
 nised the independence of Belgium, in December, 1830. 
 
 The Conference had to determine the territory of the new king- 
 dom, the division of the debt between the two states, and the 
 choice of the Belgian king. Talleyrand demanded for France an 
 annexation of territory, Luxemburg or at least Philippeville and 
 Marienburg, in order to satisfy French national pride; Palmer- 
 ston, out of English national pride, refused.* It was agreed to 
 give the throne to no prince of any of the five great powers. 
 
 The conference adopted three arrangements in succession : 
 
 I. January 20, 1831, the bases of the separation: the whole of 
 Luxemburg to be given over to the King of Holland, about half 
 of the total debt to Belgium. The King of Holland agreed; the 
 Belgian Congress refused and elected as King a son of Louis 
 
 *Palmerston wrote: The French government constantly says to us: 
 'This or that must be done to satisfy public opinion in France,' but it 
 should consider that public opinion exists in England as well as in France," 
 
768 RIVALRY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND. 
 
 Philippe. Palmerston threatened France with war if he should 
 accept; Louis Philippe, in spite of his ministry of actionists, de- 
 cided on a refusal. The kingdom was then offered to Leopold 
 of Coburg, who exacted, before accepting, a mitigation of the 
 conditions of January 20. 
 
 2. June 26, 1831, the 18 articles: the status quo in Luxemburg, 
 the debt contracted before 1816 to ' be assigned to Holland. 
 Belgium accepted; and now it was Holland that refused and sent 
 an army into Belgium. Leopold asked help from France; the 
 French army entered to carry out the decisions of the conference. 
 Palmerston, disturbed at seeing the French in Belgium, de- 
 manded evacuation and arranged a truce; but the French army 
 remained until the Conference should have arranged for the dem- 
 olition of the fortresses erected against France. 
 
 3. October 15, 1831, the 24 articles: restitution to Holland of 
 a portion of Luxemburg and Limburg; Belgium made no objec- 
 tion, but the King of Holland persisted in his refusal. The Con- 
 ference concluded the definite treaty. The great powers recogn 
 nised the Kingdom of Belgium as a neutral state in 1832. The 
 fortress of Antwerp had now to be taken from the Dutch. The 
 two Western states agreed to employ force, against the wish of 
 the other powers. 
 
 The Polish Question (1830-32). — The Polisih insurgents against 
 the Tsar asked help from the Western powers. The liberal par- 
 ties supported them out of hatred for Nicholas; the opinion of 
 all educated Europe showed itself strongly in their favour. The 
 LaiiStte ministry attempted to urge the Sultan to war. The Casi- 
 mir-Perier ministry proposed to England a joint mediation. But 
 neither France nor England had any means of action against a 
 Russian army in Poland, and Palmerston refused to take part in 
 a proceeding without practical effect. Poland therefore received 
 only demonstrations of sympathy; the French Chamber voted in 
 the address to the King a phrase expressing the conviction " that 
 the Polish race would not perish." 
 
 The Eastern powers divided. Austria declared herself neutral, 
 and was rather favourable to the Poles, although insurgents; 
 Prussia, which hated Poland, aided the Russian army with 
 supplies. 
 
 The Polish war, reduced to a struggle between the Polish and 
 Russian armies, ended in the crushing of the Polish nation. Pal- 
 merston, by virtue of the treaties of 1815, claimed the mainte- 
 nance of the privileges assured to the Poles. Russia replied that 
 
INTERVENTION IN SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. 7^9 
 
 the Treaty of Vienna imposed on her no conditions of internal 
 government; the Constitution of 1815, having been only a sponta- 
 neous act of the Tsar, was annulled by the fact of the rebellion. 
 
 In France the taking of Warsaw was a national grief; in Paris, 
 business was suspended, the theatres closed, and the declaration 
 from the minister of foreign affairs, " order reigns in Warsaw," 
 was regarded as an insult (1832). 
 
 Intervention of Austria and France in Italy (1831-32). — In 
 Italy the revolution in the central states, the States of the Church, 
 Modena, and Parma, had resulted in the creation of provisional 
 governments. The dispossessed sovereigns asked aid from Aus- 
 tria. In France the " party of action " urged the support of the 
 liberal insurgents against Austria's proteges. The Laffitte minis- 
 try declared that the Austrians would be allowed tO' occupy 
 Parma, but not the States of the Church. The Austrian army 
 from Lombardy occupied all the insurgent countries in March, 
 1831. The Casimir-Perier ministry ofifered no resistance, and 
 contented itself, after the submission of the Italians, with demand- 
 ing the retreat of the Austrian army. To satisfy French national 
 pride, it declared its intention to occupy a portion of the States 
 of the Church if the Austrians did mot evacuate before the open- 
 ing of the Chambers. 
 
 The Austrian army, having accomplished its work, withdrew 
 from the States of the Church. But when, in January, 1832, it 
 returned at the Pope's call, the French government found itself 
 obliged to carry out its threat. It sent three ships with 1200 men 
 to occupy the citadel of Ancona. Austria took advantage of this 
 to leave her troops in the States of the Church until 1838. 
 
 Intervention in Spain and Portugal (1833-36). — In Spain and 
 Portugal intervention began with a question of succession dis- 
 puted between a minor queen supported by the Liberals, Isabella 
 in Spain, Maria in Portugal, and a pretender supported by the 
 absolutists, Carlos in Spain, Miguel in Portugal. The two par- 
 liamentary states of the West recognised the two queens, while 
 the three absolutist monarchies of the East, while not officially 
 recognising the two absolutist pretenders, yet gave them their 
 support. 
 
 The liberal ministry in Spain asked aid from England. Palm- 
 erston advised the governments of the two queens to make an 
 alliance with each other and with England; Talleyrand secured 
 the entrance of France into the combination, and in April, 1834, 
 the Quadruple Alliance was concluded. The powers undertook 
 
77° RIVALJiY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND. 
 
 to expel both pretenders from Portugal, England with her fleet, 
 Spain with her army; the participation of France would be regu- 
 lated later, if there was need of it. The treaty stipulated no inter- 
 vention in Spain; Palmerston had not wished to furnish France 
 this opportunity to gain a foothold in the peninsula. 
 
 Palmerston presented the Quadruple Alliance as a league of 
 the four constitutional monarchies of the West which counter- 
 balanced the league of the three absolutist monarchies of the 
 East. It was more a demonstration than an effective act. It 
 had almost no result except in Portugal. 
 
 The Eastern ftuestion (1832-33).— The Tsar, since the treaty of 
 1829, had kept the Ottoman Empire under his influence. France 
 supported Mehemet-Ali, the Egyptian pasha: in popular opinion 
 he was regarded in France as the future regenerator of the Otto- 
 man Empire and the faithful ally of the French. 
 
 Palmerston declared the integrity of the Ottoman Empire in- 
 dispensable to English interests; it was to him a dogma which 
 was not to be discussed. He distrusted Mehemet-Ali, attribut- 
 ing to him a project for creating an Arabian kingdom. Ibra- 
 him's expedition into Syria, followed by the march of the Egyp- 
 tian army into Asia Minor, made a vivid impression on public 
 opinion in 1832. The Sultan, having failed to secure aid from 
 the maritime states, appealed to Russia, which sent troops in 
 April, 1833. 
 
 France and England, by frightening the Sultan, succeeded in 
 making him accept Mehemet-Ali's conditions. Russia made no 
 objection, but used the Sultan's irritation to secure the treaty of 
 alliance of Unkiar-Skelessi in July, 1833 (see p. 622). 
 
 England and France were informed of this, but could not ar- 
 range to co-operate against Russia. 
 
 The Refugees and the Alliance of the Absolutist Monarchies 
 (1833). — The three Eastern powers, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, 
 discontented with the intervention of the Western states in Bel- 
 gium, Spain, and Portugal, disturbed by the agitations of Ger- 
 man, Polish, and Italian revolutionists, who had taken refuge in 
 Switzerland and France, arranged together for a demonstration 
 against revolution. This was the Miinchengraetz interview of 
 September, 1833, between the Emperor of Austria, the Tsar, and 
 the Crown Prince of Prussia. A manifesto was drawn up, but 
 the King of Prussia refused to sign it for fear of being entangled 
 in a war, and they had to be content with the secret treaty of Ber- 
 lin, October 15, 1833. The three sovereigns, "in consideration 
 
RUPTURE OF THE ALLIANCE. TJt 
 
 of the dangers with which the order of things established in 
 Europe by public law and treaties, especially those of 1815, con- 
 tinued to be threatened," declared themselves " unanimously re- 
 solved to consolidate the system of preservation which consti- 
 tutes the immutable basis of their policy." Consequently they 
 " recognised that every independent sovereign has the right to 
 call to his aid, in the domestic troubles as in the external dangers 
 of his country, such other independent sovereign as seems to him 
 most fitted to assist him, and that the latter has the right to refuse 
 such aid according to his interests or convenience. In case this 
 aid should be granted, no power not invoked ... by the threat- 
 ened state has the right to interfere, either to. prevent the assist- 
 ance or to act in a contrary direction. In case the material 
 assistance of one of the three courts should be called for and any 
 power should wish to oppose it by armed force, the three courts 
 should consider as directed against each of them any act of hos- 
 tility undertaken with this end." This was an engagemerit to 
 maintain the doctrine of intervention * formulated in 1820 — an 
 Eastern league opposed to that of the West. 
 
 After the death of Emperor Francis, the agreement between 
 the three courts was renewed by two interviews in 1835 at Kalisch 
 in Poland and at Teplitz. It was agreed to publish no mani- 
 festo. " What the three courts wish is generally known," wrote 
 Metternich ; " to repeat it is useless, and could have no other re- 
 sult than to weaken their strong position." 
 
 Rupture of the Alliance between France and England (1836- 
 40). — The understanding established between France and Eng- 
 land in 1830 broke up of itself, owing to the difiference in interest 
 of the governments. 
 
 I. Both were parliamentary governments of property holders, 
 obliged to consider the passions of the middle class. Now, in 
 both countries the recollection of the long wars between England 
 and France was still vivid. The national heroes were, in Eng- 
 land Wellington, the conqueror of Waterloo, in France Na- 
 poleon, the mortal enemy of England. In this time, when the 
 army was composed entirely of poor men, the liberal middle class 
 
 * Metternich, as early as 1833, spoke contemptuously of the July Mon- 
 archy. "This throne has created nothing . . . all it can do is to main- 
 tain itself. Its only product is that of the so-called principle of non- 
 intervention, . . . the only invention that has been made by the capital 
 of propaganda, . . . a negative means of keeping other states in the 
 nullity of action that its own position necessitates." 
 
772 RIVALRY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND. 
 
 in France spoke freely of war and conquest, to destroy the odious 
 treaties of 1815 and restore the " national boundaries," the Rhine 
 and the Alps. The English Parliament loved to boast of Eng- 
 land's glory, her domination on the seas and in Europe. Eng- 
 lish patriotism consisted in regarding insular affairs only as 
 worthy of consideration and employing the word continental as a 
 term of contempt. The difficulty increased when the great 
 political questions which had absorbed the attention of all parties 
 had been almost settled — in England after the reforms, in France 
 after the strengthening of the monarchy. Domestic policy, which 
 had become stagnant, ceased to arouse the public and fill the 
 newspapers. Interest was centred on foreign affairs. The oppo- 
 sition, especially in France, finding at home no material with 
 which to excite the middle class against the government, busied 
 itself with foreign policy, in which it sought to exalt national 
 pride. Between these two jealous and conceited nations there 
 was continual rivalry and incessant coolness. The governments, 
 for fear of dangerous unpopularity, had to be always ready to 
 sustain " national honour," which practically meant to refuse all 
 that the rival nation asked for. These sentiments were enough 
 to make harmony difficultw 
 
 2. Louis Philippe wished to be accepted by the legitimate sov- 
 ereigns and, by means of alliances with the old dynasties, intro- 
 duce his family into monarchical society. He laboured per- 
 sonally to regain favour with the Eastern monarchs, who led the 
 courts of Europe, and to free himself from the compromising 
 union with the liberal ministries of England. 
 
 The coolness became apparent as early as 1836. In the coun- 
 tries where England and France had interfered together, Greece, 
 Spain, and Portugal, each supported a party subject to its own 
 influence and strove to excite it against the party of the other. 
 
 The discord was shown especially in Spain. Louis Philippe 
 supported his kinswoman Christina and the moderate party. 
 England sided with the progressists. 
 
 The Spanish government, threatened by the Carlists, asked 
 help from the Quadruple Alliance in 1836. Louis Philippe 
 promised it; but as the progressists had gained control of the 
 government by a revolution, he broke with Thiers and remained 
 neutral between Isabella and Don Carlos. 
 
 Louis Philippe made overtures to the Eastern powers. He 
 wished to marry his eldest son, the Duke of Orleans, and sent 
 him to visit the courts of Prussia and Austria. In Vienna the 
 
THE EASTERN QUESTION. 773 
 
 Duke met with a cold reception; the Austrian nobility, being 
 legitimist, ignored his presence. He asked for the hand of a 
 daughter of the Archduke, but was refused. Louis Philippe was 
 hurt, and resigned himself to the acceptance of a princess pro- 
 posed by the King of Prussia, Helen of Mecklenburg, who be- 
 came Duchess of Orleans. 
 
 The Eastern Question and the Straits Convention (1839-41). — 
 The official rupture between France and England came on the 
 Eastern question. All the great powers announced the intention 
 of maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. France 
 alone had not defined her policy; she hesitated between the Sul- 
 tan, her traditional ally, and Mehemet-Ali, her protege. 
 
 The question was little by little complicated by the personal 
 intrigues of English representatives. Sultan Mahmoud, urged 
 by Ponsonby, the English ambassador, wished to avenge the de- 
 feat of 1832, and in 1839 ordered his army to invade Syria; the 
 Egyptian forces were at the frontiers. 
 
 England and France, once more working together, wanted to 
 impose a truce on the two parties. But when the French envoy 
 arrived at Constantinople to put a stop to hostilities, Ponsonby 
 refused to assist, because he had received no instructions. The 
 Turkish government concluded from this that England wanted 
 war, and gave the order to march. The Ottoman army was put 
 to rout (June, 1839); then the Ottoman admiral, going over to 
 the winning party, led the fleet to join that of Mehemet-Ali 
 (July). Mahmoud had just died; Khosrew, in the name of the 
 new Sultan, Abd'ul-Medjid, ofifered to make peace. Mehemet 
 refused to negotiate with him. 
 
 The Tsar had intervened by right of the treaty of 1833. To 
 prevent his working alone, the other powers announced to the 
 Sultan that they would take the question in hand, and engaged 
 him to await the result of their course before making terms 
 0uly 24). But France and England disagreed on the terms to 
 be imposed on Mehemet-Ali. Palmerston wanted to demand the 
 restitution of the Turkish fleet, and proposed to demand it by an 
 ultimatum ; the French government refused to agree to this. 
 
 Palmerston, changing his tactics, entered into negotiation with 
 the Eastern powers, first with Austria, offering to call upon Me- 
 hemet to return the fleet, and, if he refused, to blockade the coasts 
 of Egypt and Syria; he added that if necessary England would 
 act " with less than four powers." The Tsar, seizing the chance 
 to isolate France, sent an offer of co-operation to England; he 
 
774 RIVALRY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND. 
 
 renounced his separate treaty of 1833 with the Sultan, and de- 
 clared himself ready to work in harmony with all his allies, but 
 by preference without France (September). 
 
 Palmerston proposed the simultaneous entry of the three fleets, 
 English, French, and Russian; the French government (Soult) ■ 
 agreed. But when the Chamber met, in January, 1840, the Soult 
 ministry fell, and public opinion in France declared itself firmly 
 opposed to any ultimatum to Mehemet-Ali. 
 
 Palmerston finally negotiated independently of France. The 
 four other powers concluded with the Sultan the Treaty of Lon- 
 don, July 15, 1840, which determined the ultimatum to be im- 
 posed on Mehemet-Ali: the Sultan offered him only hereditary 
 Egypt and a part of Syria during his lifetime, and this on condi- 
 tion that 'he should accept within ten days ; at the end of that time 
 he would be driven back into Syria, and ten days later the Sultan 
 would no longer be bound to anything. The powers agreed to 
 fulfil these conditions by force. 
 
 As in 181 5, France found herself alone against the four allies; 
 their decision took the aspect of an ultimatum addressed to 
 France over the head of Mehemet-Ali ; the Eastern question be- 
 came a question of national honour. The Chambers became 
 wildly excited; people began to talk of renewing the struggle 
 against Europe, of breaking down the treaties of 1815, even of 
 regaining the Rhine frontier. This aroused a counter, movement 
 in Germany (see p. 389). The Thiers ministry, which rested only 
 on national feeling,* began to prepare armament, and Austria 
 and Prussia concluded arrangements in the" event of a war 
 (November). But neither feouis Philippe nor the Chamber 
 wanted war. Mehemet-Ali had rejected the ultimatum. France 
 recalled her fleet to Toulon and left the powers a free field 
 against him. 
 
 A combined English, Austrian, and Turkish fleet bombarded 
 the Syrian ports; it destroyed in three hours St. Jean d'Acre, 
 which was thought to be impregnable, and then went to blockade 
 Alexandria. Mehemet, abandoned by France, yielded, in No- 
 vember, T.840. The allies then consented to annul the treaty of 
 
 * Before the break with England the French government had asked of 
 Palmerston — who willingly granted it — permission to bring back to France 
 the body of Napoleon I. , which had been buried at St. Helena. The Prince 
 of Joinville was sent to bring it; on his return, the Thiers ministry hart 
 fallen, and the transfer of Napoleon's ashes to the Invalides was simply an 
 official ceremony. 
 
THE SPANISH MARRIAGES. Ill 
 
 London, and to replace it with a general treaty of all the powers 
 with the Sultan, — the Straits Convention of July, 1841, — which 
 declared the straits closed to all war vessels. But France's pride 
 had received a wound for which the middle classes could not for- 
 give England. 
 
 The "State of Good Feeling" (1841-45).— The succession of a 
 Right Centre ministry in France (Guizot) and a Conservative 
 ministry in England to the control of foreign affairs, both with a 
 policy of peace and conciliation, led to a desire for a restoration of 
 good feeling between the two governments. They tried to restore 
 harmony between the two states. The sovereigns exchanged 
 visits, Victoria in France at the Chateau d'Eu in 1843 and 1845, 
 Louis Philippe in England in 1844; the ministries chatted to- 
 gether amicably, and all ofiScial utterances spoke of the friendly 
 feeling between the two countries. 
 
 But the understanding was between the governments alone, 
 and they had to contend with public opinion to avoid conflicts 
 between the two nations. In France, the public mind was 
 aroused against the droit de visite, or right of searching vessels 
 engaged in the slave trade, and still more against the Pritchard 
 indemnity (see p. 147). In England, the public protested against 
 the tariff union between France, Belgium, and Switzerland, and 
 the government declared that England regarded it as an attempt 
 against the independence of Belgium: she could not permit 
 French soldiers to work in Antwerp under the disguise of cus- 
 toms officials (1842). Public opinion was also aroused by the 
 French war against Morocco. 
 
 It was then that Tsar Nicholas came to England (1844) to pro- 
 pose an arrangement with the Tory government for settling to- 
 gether the fate of the Ottoman Empire, whose end he believed to 
 be near at hand. He disclaimed any desire to take any part of 
 its territory, but could not allow any other power to seize it. The 
 English ministers refused to discuss the question. 
 (, The Spanish Marriages (1846). — Queen Isabella of Spain and 
 her younger sister Louisa were now of marriageable age; their 
 mother wished to give their hands to French princes. Louis 
 Philippe took this opportunity to provide for his son, the Duke 
 of Montpensier. The two governments of France and England 
 came to an agreement as to these marriages. They settled the 
 principle in 1845 that Queen Isabella should marry a Bourbon, 
 and that after she should have issue the Infanta Louisa might be 
 married to the Duke of Montpensier. One of two cousins was to 
 
776 RIVALRY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND. 
 
 marry the Queen: France proposed Francis of Assisi, England 
 his brother Henry. Christina despised Francis, who was weak 
 in both body and mind, and detested Henry, who had linked his 
 name with the progressists. She would have preferred a Eu- 
 ropean prince. The two governments arranged to urge her to 
 a decision. 
 
 But Bresson and Bulwer, who represented France and England 
 in Spain, were personal rivals and enemies, and laboured against 
 each other. Bresson urged the Queen to marry both her daugh- 
 ters at once; Bulwer sought to prevent the Infanta's marriage, 
 and to obtain Isabella's hand for a Prince of Coburg. Christina 
 sent a message to the father of the Coburg prince, proposing the 
 marriage (May, 1846). Guizot gave notice that if the candi- 
 dature of the Bourbons were rejected, France would assert her 
 right to act for Montpensier; Aberdeen censured Bulwer, and 
 notified Guizot of the intrigue. 
 
 But the Tory ministry, to which Aberdeen belonged, fell in 
 June, 1846. Palmerston took charge of English foreign policy 
 and altered the position of the question; he declared England's 
 willingness to allow a choice between three candidates^— : 
 Isabella's two cousins and Coburg; but he added that the Spanish 
 government was arbitrary and that its ministers must soon return 
 to the constitution (July 19). Louis Philippe regarded the 
 agreement of 1845 ^s broken. Bresson had already, without in- 
 structions, endeavoured to accomplish the simultaneous marriage 
 of Isabella with Francis and the Infanta with Montpensier; in- 
 stead of disowning him, France continued the negotiations. 
 Christina, who was bitterly opposed to English influence, induced 
 Isabella to accept Francis. The two marriages were announced 
 and immediately celebrated. The English government repre- 
 sented the affair as a breach of faith, and declared the good under- 
 standing between England and France at an end. 
 
 The Cracow Affair (1846).— In 1815 the Allies had made the 
 Polish province of Cracow an aristocratic republic governed by 
 a Senate under Austrian supervision. The destruction of the 
 Kingdom of Poland made Cracow the centre of the Polish 
 nationalist movement; in 1831 a " Society of the Polish People" 
 was founded there, branches of which were established in the 
 Polish countries. 
 
 The revolutionary patriots decided to incite revolt in both 
 Prussian and Austrian Poland at once. But the Prussian police 
 arrested the leaders in the plot, and the insurrection was confined 
 
THE SWISS AFFAIR. Ill 
 
 to Galicia. The Cracovian Senate declared itself unable to an- 
 swer for order, so Austria sent troops to its support. The pa- 
 triots revolted, drove out the Austrians, and, in February, 1846, 
 formed a provisional government which published a manifesto. 
 
 The Austrian army returned quickly with crushing force, and 
 the three monarchies of the East made arrangements to suppress 
 the Republic of Cracow. Metternich announced in November 
 that it was annexed to Austria, explaining that as Cracow had 
 put an end to her political life with her own hands, she had for- 
 feited herself to the power to which she had belonged. England 
 and France, having just fallen out on the Spanish marriages, 
 merely protested in the name of the treaties of 1815. 
 
 The Portuguese and Italian Affairs (1847). — After the Spanish 
 marriages Louis Philippe completed his evolution toward the 
 autocratic monarchies of the East. The English government 
 was isolated and began to work alone, on opposite lines from 
 those followed by the other powers. 
 
 In Portugal, England interfered to end a civil war. The Eng- 
 lish Parliament passed a vote of censure against Palmerston for 
 having violated the principle of non-intervention. 
 
 In Italy Palmerston intervened to encourage the liberal and 
 nationalist movement and persuaded the princes to make reforms 
 (see p. 338). Metternich, disturbed by a movement so palpably 
 hostile to Austria, sent a note to the four great powers. He re- 
 peated his famous saying " Italy is a geographical expression," 
 and asked if they desired to maintain the treaties of 1815, where- 
 by Italy was divided into independent sovereign states. Pal- 
 merston replied that the sovereignty of the Italian princes guar- 
 anteed them the right to make reforms without outside hin- 
 drance; that the reforms were necessary to calm discontent. He 
 urged Austria to use her influence to secure reforms in Naples. 
 The Italian governments had the impression that only a pretext 
 was wanting for Austria to make armed intervention-; in October, 
 1847, Palmerston, informed of this impression, sent as special 
 envoy Lord Minto, to assure the King of Sardinia of England's 
 friendship; he brought about a treaty of customs union between 
 the Pope, Tuscany, and Sardinia, and stopped the civil war in 
 Sardinia by imposing a truce upon the King. The English gov- 
 ernment posed as protector of the Italians against absolutist 
 Austria. 
 
 The Swiss AflPair (1847-48). — The treaties of 1815 guaranteed 
 the Constitution of Switzerland. The Radical party, in propos- 
 
778 RIVALRY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND. 
 
 ing a revision, menaced the work of the AlHes (see p. 268) ; it dis- 
 turbed the monarchical governments by its democratic domestic 
 policy. The King of Prussia wished to prevent the transforma- 
 tion of Switzerland into a federal republic, which would be 
 irreconcilable with his rights as the Prince of Neufchatel. 
 
 In 1845 Austria, Prussia, and France had agreed on the neces- 
 sity of preventing revolution and supporting the Sonderbund; 
 but they had been unable to agree on the means. Metternich 
 proposed an armed intervention; Guizot a peaceful pressure, for 
 fear " of wounding, in all the Swiss, conservative or radical, the 
 feeling of national independence." Guizot wished to wait for 
 war before interfering, and he desired joint action by all the 
 powers guaranteeing the treaties, including England. He kept 
 the French envoy from taking any hand in the contest. When 
 the Diet prepared to vote the dissolution of the Sonderbund, Met- 
 ternich proposed to send identical notes before the vote, in order 
 to intimidate the deputies. Guizot refused this, and contented 
 himself with making some suggestions regarding the nature of 
 the Swiss union and the treaties of 181 5. Palmerston took ad- 
 vantage of this to play off the four powers against each other. 
 He did not refuse to intervene, but he delayed negotiations and 
 secretly advised the Swiss Diet to work quickly. While the 
 powers were drafting an identical note to impose peace, the Swiss 
 government determined upon war, November 4. Palmerston 
 again gained time by proposing a counter project, which the 
 others refused; he, in his turn, refused that of Guizot, and the 
 English agent in Switzerland sent word to General Dufour to 
 finish the war as soon as possible. When the identical note ar- 
 rived the war was over. 
 
 The canton of Neufchatel, which had remained neutral, was 
 condemned by the Diet to pay a fine; then it made its revolt, 
 drove out the Prussian governor, and constituted itself as a re- 
 public, in 1848. The King of Prussia protested vigorously, 
 asked the powers to intervene, and finally consented to leave the 
 decision to a conference. The Revolution of 1848 interrupted 
 the affair. 
 
 Revolutions of 1848. — Revolutions had begun in Switzerland as 
 early as 1847, i" Sicily in January, 1848. The French revolution 
 was not the first, but by its example it incited a general move- 
 ment of democratic and nationalist insurrections. The govern- 
 ments, as yet inexperienced in the art of repression, seized with 
 a mystical fear of revolution, a mysterious and incalculable force, 
 
REVOLUTIONS OF 1848. 779 
 
 lost heart and hardly resisted. Except in the extreme West 
 (England, Spain, and Portugal), Sweden, Norway, and Russia, 
 the movement was produced all over Europe. In Belgium, Hol- 
 land, and Denmark it took the peaceful form of an electoral or 
 constitutional reform. It was an internal revolution in France 
 (February), in Austria and Prussia (March), in Germany, and in 
 central Italy. It took the form of a nationalist movement, 
 resulting in war, in northern Italy, Schleswig-Holstein, and 
 Hungary. 
 
 The revolution upset all European politics by transforming the 
 domestic condition of the three central powers. It suddenly 
 withdrew France from the understanding with the autocratic 
 monarchies and paralyzed Austria and Prussia. England and 
 Russia alone retained their liberty of action, and used it 
 to take the role of arbiters, but in directions opposed to each other. 
 
 At one time it was thought that the French Republic was to 
 revive the tradition of the war of Republican propagandism. In 
 Paris there was a demonstration in favour of intervention in 
 Italy and Poland. The provisional government had determined 
 on peace, and Lamartine announced it to Europe by an official 
 declaration, March 5. But as the belligerent demonstrations 
 continued (the insurrection of May 15 was made to demand inter- 
 vention in Poland), the revolutionists of Europe continued to 
 hope for aid from the French revolutionists, who might be 
 brought into power by a new revolution. 
 
 Palmerston, content with the fall of Guizot, recognised the 
 Republic; the other powers had no time to arrange to oppose 
 him. Austria was occupied with a revolution in Vienna and in 
 her Lombar do- Venetian Kingdom (March). For the first time, 
 Sardinia, urged by the Italian nationalist movement, dared to at- 
 tack Austria. After the revolt of Milan, the Sardinian army 
 entered Lombardy without a declaration of war (April). The 
 Austrkn government, out of which Metternich had been driven, 
 appealed to Palmerston to restrain his ally, Sardinia. Pal- 
 merston thus became arbiter between Austria and the Italian 
 states. 
 
 When Austria had recovered her balance, Radetzky's army, 
 which had remained intact in the barracks and was now re-en- 
 forced by 20,000 men, took the ofifensive, reoccupied Venetia, 
 except Venice, in June, and then attacked the Sardinian army. 
 A sittgle battle, Custozza, July 25, settled the war; the Sardinian 
 army fell back and left the whole of Lombardy to the Austrians. 
 
78o RIVALRY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND. 
 
 Sardinia asked assistance from France and England, who agreed 
 to offer their meditation; a truce was arranged, and a conference 
 to be held at Brussels; but victorious Austria refused any 
 cession of territory, and the negotiations hung in suspense.. 
 England also intervened to impose a truce on the King of 
 Naples in his war with his subjects in Sicily (September, 1848). 
 
 In Germany the revolution brought about a national parlia- 
 ment which, in June, 1848, created an imperial government (see 
 p. 392). But the new government was not recognised by Eng- 
 land, which opposed the commercial unity of Germany, nor by 
 France, which did not want commercial unity without a demo- 
 cratic constitution, nor by the Tsar, who abhorred all forms of 
 revolution. 
 
 In the duchies of Schleswig-Holstein the revolution, at first 
 purely local, established a German government and led to a na- 
 tional war between the Danes and the people of the duchies — the 
 latter being supported by German volunteers, and later by Prus- 
 sian troops. The Northern powers were inclined to support the 
 Danes, England in order to prevent the creation of a German 
 navy, the Tsar from hatred of revolution and because the King 
 of Denmark was his kinsman. England, Russia, and Sweden 
 organized the London Conference, which imposed a truce and a 
 provisional solution (see p. 570). 
 
 The Restorations (1849). — Austria, the power. most shaken by 
 the revolution of '48, set the example of military reaction. 
 Prince Schwarzenberg took charge of Austrian affairs and 
 laboured to destroy the work of the revolutionists. 
 
 The restoration was begun by Austria in October, 1848; the 
 King of Prussia followed the example in Prussia in Decembern 
 The progress of reaction was interrupted by the Hungarian revo- 
 lution and by the attempt to constitute a German Empire under 
 the King of Prussia. 
 
 In Italy the republicans took advantage of this to establish 
 a republic in central Italy, in February, 1849; Sardinia to renew 
 hostilities. The Austriian army, however, attacked the Sardinian 
 army, and the single combat of Novara (March, 1849) was suf- 
 ficient to scatter it and force Sardinia to ask for peace. Austria 
 demanded the suppression of the Italian republics; she herself 
 undertook the management of Tuscany. For Rome the inter- 
 vention was much slower; the Catholic states disputed as to who 
 should undertake it. France took the task upon herself, in order 
 to check Austria (see p. 345). But the majority in the French 
 
AUSTRIA'S TRIUMPH OVER PRUSSIA. 781 
 
 Assembly wanted the restoration of the Pope, while the President 
 desired to restore Rome only when reformed in lay matters and 
 with the consent of the inhabitants. This discord showed itself 
 in contradictory military operations. The French expedition 
 announced on landing that it had come to prevent Austrian in- 
 tervention and fraternized with the soldiers of the Roman Re- 
 public. It found Rome barred against it, however, and, after 
 attempting a surprise, was driven back. Then came to the 
 Pope's aid armies from Naples, Spain, and Austria; the Austrians 
 occupied Romagna. The French agent, de Lesseps, arranged 
 a compromise with the Romans on May 31, but the French gov- 
 ernment rejected it. The French army, with re-enforcements, 
 finally besieged Rome and forced it to capitulate. The restora- 
 tion was complete; President Louis Napoleon signified his dis- 
 satisfaction in a public letter. 
 
 In Germany the conflict between the democrats and the gov- 
 ernments turned into insurrection. The King of Prussia accom- 
 plished the restoration by means of his armies in Baden and in 
 Saxony; the Frankfort Parliament dispersed. The question of 
 the duchies was revived at the expiration of the truce, but the 
 King of Prussia had enough of this war, and undertook personal 
 charge of the negotiations ; the conference, transferred to Berlin, 
 could not arrange a definite settlement and confined itself to a 
 truce (see p. 570). 
 
 In Hungary, where the revolution had set up a republic, the 
 restoration was accomplished by a regular war against the Hun- 
 garian army (see p. 419)- Austria, threatened with a renewed in- 
 vasion by the Hungarians, appealed to the Tsar; and it was a 
 Russian army that conquered Hungary. 
 
 Nicholas had posed as a restorer of legitimate monarchy. Pal- 
 merston posed as protector of revolutionary patriots. Five thou- 
 sand Hungarians had taken refuge in Turkey; Austria and 
 Prussia insisted upon their extradition. Palmerston induced the 
 Sultan to refuse this. The two Emperors threatened, and broke 
 off their diplomatic relations with the Sultan, but in the end had 
 to be content with the expulsion of the refugees from Turkey. 
 The Sultan imprisoned about thirty of them, whose release Pal- 
 merston accomplished after two years' of negotiating. England 
 also protested against the treatment of political prisoners in the 
 Kingdom of Naples. 
 
 Austria's Triumph over Prussia (1850).— Austria, busy with 
 Italy and Hungary, had left the King of Prussia to work his will 
 
782 RIVALRY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND. 
 
 in German affairs; he had put down the insurrections, organized 
 the Union (see p. 397), and taken up the question of the duchies. 
 But Austria and Russia were agreed to make the restoration 
 complete by destroying Prussia's work. 
 
 The King of Prussia found himself divided by two contra- 
 dictory sentiments: from German patriotism he supported the 
 Germans in the duchies; from self-respect he held to the Union, 
 since Austria wished to destroy it; but his respect for legitimacy 
 kept him from interesting himself in subjects who revolted against 
 their sovereign and in a constitution voted by a revolutionary 
 parliament, ye agreed to change the constitution of the Union, 
 but by a conference between Prussia and Austria without inter- 
 ference from the Diet, which he regarded as dissolved. The 
 Austrian government insisted on referring matters to the Diet; 
 it did not wish to make war on Prussia single-handed, but was 
 trying to draw Russia and the German states into it. 
 
 Schwarzenberg's policy, summed up in the famous epigram: 
 " Humiliate Prussia, then destroy her," consisted in compromis- 
 ing the King of Prussia with the Tsar by compelling him to 
 declare himself opposed to restoration. Nicholas, though dis- 
 pleased with the King of Prussia for having given a " demo- 
 cratic " constitution to his people, and also favorable to the King 
 of Denmark, wished, nevertheless, to avert war between the two 
 conservative monarchies of Germany. He promised his support 
 to the one that remained faithful to the treaties of 1815. 
 
 The Berlin Conference failed tO' settle the question of the 
 duchies. England and France * insisted that it should be settled. 
 All the powers were inclined to return to the arrangements ex- 
 isting prior to 1848. The King of Prussia, in alarm, decided to 
 desert the Germans in the duchies, and made the Treaty of Ber- 
 lin, July 2. The conference was transferred to London. England, , 
 France, and Russia pledged themselves to maintain the integrity 
 of the Danish monarchy, thus giving the question of the duchies 
 a European interest. They later solved the problem of the suc- 
 cession (1852) by a permanent union of Denmark with the 
 duchies. 
 
 Then Austria, approaching the question of the Union, asked 
 the King of Prussia to declare null the Constitution of Erfurt. 
 The King perceived that this constitution was impracticable, but 
 
 * Napoleon's attempts to profit by the disunion between Prussia and 
 Austria, his sending of Persigny in 1849, and his conversation with the 
 Prussian ambassador in 1850, had no practical effect. 
 
RECOGNITION OF THE FRENCH EMPIRE. 783 
 
 he did not wish to abandon the principle. Schwarzenberg mob- 
 ilized his forces, the Kings of Wurtemburg and Bavaria joined 
 Austria against Prussia; the three sovereigns had an interview 
 in October, in which a martial toast was drunk. 
 
 The Prussian government divided into two parties, one for 
 peace, the other for mobilization. The King first let his min- 
 istry decide by majority for peace (Prince William was one of 
 the minority); then, on learning that Austria was bringing 
 troops into Bavaria, he ordered mobilization. The war was 
 thought to be begun; there was even a skirmish. Then 
 Schwarzenberg (November 5) demanded the withdrawal of the 
 Prussian troops. The King obeyed; and, yielding on the ques- 
 tion of the Union, he had it declared dissolved by his allies. He 
 mer 'y asked to be intrusted with the execution of the decisions 
 of the Diet in Holstein and in Hesse (his object was to support 
 the people of Hesse in maintaining their constitution). Austria 
 refused, and the Tsar supported her. 
 
 The King of Prussia, isolated and distressed, again gave way; 
 he asked an interview with Schwarzenberg. This was the famous 
 Olmiitz interview, November 28, 1850 — the symbol of Prussia's 
 humiliation. The Prussian envoy promised disarmament. 
 Prussia obtained in return only the promise of a conference, 
 which was held at Dresden in 185 1, and led to nothing but cer- 
 tain exchanges of notes. 
 
 There remained nothing of Prussia's plans. Germany, hav- 
 ing seen her publicly give way, long retained the impression that 
 she had not the 'strength to resist Austria. 
 
 Becognition of the French Empire (1852). — The restoration of 
 the monarchical system in France was welcomed by the great 
 powers. The Tsar approved the coup d'etat, though protesting 
 beforehand against the title of emperor. Austria even accepted 
 the title of emperor, " however injurious it may seem to the dig- 
 nity of the old dynasties to yield an equal rank to an individual 
 like Louis Napoleon." In England Palmerston approved the 
 coup d'etat; and it was the occasion of a conflict with his col- 
 leagues and the Queen, who reproached him with having acted 
 contrary to the decisions adopted by the Cabinet. The King of 
 Prussia, though ill disposed toward the usurper, followed the 
 example of the other governments. 
 
 The proclamation of the Empire reopened the French ques- 
 tion. The treaties of 181 5 and 1818 excluded forever the Bona- 
 parte family from the throne of France; the accession of a Na- 
 
784 RIVALRY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND. 
 
 poleon was, therefore, a casus belli. The numeral adopted by 
 Napoleon (III.) aggravated the violation of the treaties by 
 counting as a legitimate sovereign Napoleon II., who' had never 
 been recognised by the Allies. But the advantage of seeing 
 France once more a monarchy decided the governments to ac- 
 cept the new empire; Napoleon III., like Louis Philippe, had 
 formally assured them of his intention to maintain peace. 
 
 The four great powers contented themselves with announcing 
 in December, 1852, that they would accept Napoleon's promises 
 of peace and continue to maintain the status quo. After this the 
 English government, followed by all the rest, recognised the Em- 
 pire. But the Tsar would grant only the title " good friend," 
 saying that the Russian court said " dear brother " only to those 
 sovereigns whose claim rested on the same principle as that of 
 the Tsar. 
 
 Napoleon, though recognised, was not admitted to equality 
 with the princes of Europe. When he wanted to marry, no 
 princely house, not even the Vasas, nor the Hohenzollern- 
 Sigmaringen, was willing to give him a daughter. He decided, 
 in 1853, to marry Eugenie de Montijo, belonging to an old family 
 of the Spanish nobility. 
 
 The Tsar and the Eastern Question (1852-53). — Nicholas, hav- 
 ing restored order in the East, wished to settle the Eastern ques- 
 tion. He felt himself able to count on the docility of Austria 
 and Prussia; he had only to come to an agreement with England. 
 He had not wished to treat with Palmerston, the patron of revo- 
 lutionists. But a coalition ministry, under Aberdeen, having 
 succeeded to power in 1852, he renewed the proposition which 
 he had made without success in 1844 to the Peel ministry, 
 namely, that England and Russia should settle the Eastern ques- 
 tion together. He told the English ambassador that " the sick 
 man " (Turkey) was dying and that he believed the moment at 
 hand to arrange with England for his burial; for his own part, 
 he had decided to occupy Constantinople as a pledge, but not to 
 keep it. He then offered Egypt and Crete to England. 
 
 The English government, as always before, supported the Ot- 
 toman Empire. The English ambassador ' to Constantinople, 
 Stratford Canning, was personally hostile to Russia, and encour- 
 aged the Sultan to resist the Tsar. Since 1850 a conflict for the 
 possession of the Holy Places had been raging between the Cath- 
 olics, under French protection, and the Orthodox (or Greek 
 Church) believers, under Russian protection (see p. 626). The 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 785 
 
 Turkish government, pressed by the two rival states, had tried 
 to escape trouble by granting the demands of both (January, 
 1852); but the two grants were contradictory. France and 
 Russia both demanded a solution, each in accordance with its 
 own document; both threatened the Sultan with force. 
 
 The Tsar, under pretext of settling the question, sent a special 
 envoy, Menschikoff, who arrived in Constantinople in April, 
 1853, with a grand escort and the airs of a master. The English 
 ambassador knew that he had come to conclude a special treaty 
 that should recognise the Tsar as the protector of Orthodox 
 churches throughout the Turkish Empire. He therefore advised 
 the Porte to decide the question of the Holy Places as Russia 
 wished, — ^which was done, — and to reject the treaty for the guar- 
 antees of the Greek Church. Menschikoff then presented an 
 uhimatum. The Sultan refused, and, in May, MenschikofiE with- 
 drew, severing diplomatic relations. 
 
 The Tsar was annoyed and wanted to declare war, but his 
 ministry advised peace. As a compromise the Tsar accepted a 
 halfway measure. He sent an army, in July, to occupy the Rou- 
 manian principalities, but without declaring war on the Sultan. 
 This was a means of coercion that he had tried before. It now 
 stirred up public opinion in England and displeased Austria. 
 The governments of the great powers, not as yet disposed to war, 
 arranged a note of conciliation. The Tsar accepted it, but Strat- 
 ford Canning persuaded the Sultan to demand a change in ter- 
 minology, which the Tsar refused (September). 
 
 At the Sultan's request the English and French fleets entered 
 the Straits, contrary to the convention of 1841. Russia pro- 
 tested. England replied that Turkey, since the occupation of 
 the principalities, was no longer at peace. The Sultan ordered 
 the Turkish army to cross the Danube and declared war on the 
 Tsar (November 4). The Eastern question was opened again; 
 but the Sultan was not alone in the face of the Tsar. For the 
 first time since 1815 the great powers were to make war. The 
 European concert was definitely at an end. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 For bibliography and complete histories see tinder chap. xxv. 
 
 DOCUMENTS.— For Austrian policy, Metternioh (see bibliog. of chap, 
 xxv).— For English policy, I. Bulwer, "The Life of Viscount Palmerston," 
 3 vols., 1871-74, Palmerston's letters, connected by historical text; 
 Malmesbnry, " Memoirs of an ex-Minister," 3 vols., 1885 ; Loftus, " Diplom. 
 
786 RIVALRY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND ENGLAND. 
 
 Reminiscences, 1837-62,'' 2 vols., 1892; Urquhart, " The Portfolio," 6 vols.^ 
 1836, Fr. edit. 5 vols., 1837, anti-Russian policy. — For French policy, 
 Guizot, " Memoires," 8 vols., 1858-67. — For Prussian policy, Banke, " Aus; 
 dem Brief wechsel Friedrich Wilhelms IV. mit Bunsen," 1873. — For the 
 Coburg policy, Stockmar, " Denkwiirdigkeiten," 1872, extracts from the 
 papers of the Coburgs' confidant ; Th. Martin, " Life of the Prince Consort," 
 5 vols., 1875-85, an authorized biography of Prince Albert. 
 
 WORKS.— riathe, "Zeitalter der Restaur, u. d. Revol.," 1884 (Oncken 
 coll., see bibliog. of chap, xxv.), is the only complete history. — The most 
 important national histories for foreign policy are Walpole (England), 
 Hillebrand, Thureau-Sangin, Taxile Selord (France); Treitsohke (Germany); 
 Springer (Austria); Beuchlin and BiancM (Italy); Baumgarten (Spain)). 
 Bosen (Turkey); Juste (Belgium); HenneamBhyn (Switzerland). 
 
 EPISODES. — For the Belgian, Polish, Italian, and Portuguese wars, see 
 the "Catal. du D6p6t de la Guerre." — For the Austrian war of 1848-49 in 
 Lombardy, Schoenhalg, " Campagnes d'ltalie de 1848 et 1849," Fr. trans., 
 1859 (originally an anonymous publication: " Erinnerungen eines Oesterr. 
 Veteranen . . .,"1852). — For the conflict between Prussia and Austria, 
 H. von Sybel, "Die Begriindung des Deutschen Reiches," vols, i-iii., 4th 
 edit., 1893, personal information and extracts from Prussian archives 
 which are still secret. — On the recognition of Napoleon by Europe, " Der 
 Staatsstreich vom 2 Dec. 1851 und seine Riickwirkung auf Europa," 1870 
 (the anonymous author is Geflfcken). — For the complications in the Orient^ 
 see the bibl. of the following chapter. 
 
CHAPTER XXVII. 
 
 FRENCH PREPONDERANCE AND THE NATIONALIST WARS, 
 1854-70. 
 
 Transformations in European Policy. — ^The period from 1844 to 
 1854 had been a period of internal revolution and external 
 peace; in 40 years there had been no great European war, no 
 change in the Europe of 1815 but the creation of the two little 
 kingdoms of Greece and Belgium and the destruction of the 
 Republic of Cracow. With the Crimean war began a period 
 of wars and territorial changes: in 16 years there were four 
 European wars between great powers, not to mention the 
 local wars in Italy and Denmark; all central Europe was 
 rearranged. 
 
 This change was produced by the arrival in power of new 
 rulers in France and Prussia, the two great powers which had 
 hitherto remained inactive, and in Sardinia, a secondary state, 
 which, in these years, raised itself to the rank of a European 
 power. 
 
 In France, Napeoleon III., invested with the power of declar- 
 ing war and concluding treaties independently of the Chamber 
 and of public opinion, was absolute master of foreign policy. 
 His army was thought very strong, and he did not shrink from 
 the idea of war. By suppression of her political life at home, 
 France became a preponderating force in Europe. But Napo- 
 leon III. directed this force according to his personal views. He 
 abandoned the monarchical tradition of a policy of peace and na- 
 tional interest. Formerly an Italian revolutionist and a partisan 
 of Italian unity, he leaned toward a revolutionary policy. Openly 
 hostile to the treaties of 1815 and to Austria also, advocating 
 the right of peoples to determine their own political fortunes, he 
 wished to destroy the work of the Allies. He wished to employ 
 France in the disinterested work of helping the oppressed nation- 
 alities to emancipate themselves, expecting as recompense some 
 increase of territory for France — what Bismarck ironically 
 called a pourboire (waiter's tip). This was the " policy of nation- 
 
 787 
 
788 FRENCH PREPONDERANCE. 
 
 alities," combined with a policy of annexations. But Napoleon's 
 personal adherents were divided into two hostile parties : the rev- 
 olutionary party, directed by Prince Jerome, urged intervention 
 on behalf of nationalism and a war against Austria; the con- 
 servative party, represented by the Empress, wanted peace and 
 maintenance of the Catholic powers. Napoleon, subject to per- 
 sonal influences, hesitated, wavered from one party to the other, 
 took contradictory measures; sometimes he even concealed his 
 actions from his ministers, and took, through secret agents, steps 
 opposed to the official line of conduct decided on by his govern- 
 ment. This gave his policy an incoherent and tortuous appear- 
 ance. 
 
 In Sardinia, the new King, Victor Emmanuel, had a small but 
 efficient army. He left the direction of his foreign policy to 
 Cavour (see p. 348), an Italian patriot who was determined to 
 achieve Italian unity by any and all means. 
 
 Prussia remained passive until William I. succeeded to the 
 throne. Although personally a lover of peace, like his two 
 predecessors, William was before everything commander of the 
 army, and might be persuaded to face a war. After 1862 he left 
 the direction of his foreign policy to Bismarck, a German 
 patriot, who had determined to secure German unity by force of 
 arms. Now the Prussian army, by its universal service, per- 
 fected armament, rapid mobilization, and skilful tactics, was to 
 show itself the strongest army in Europe. 
 
 In face of these three powers which were beginning to act, the 
 powers which had controlled Europe were reduced to a passive 
 role. Austria, weakened by Hungarian nationalist opposition 
 and disturbed by financial complications, had only a defensive 
 policy. Emperor Francis Joseph, whO' conducted her foreign 
 affairs, had no love for war. He was, however, unable tO' avoid 
 it, and went into it under unfavourable conditions, with an army 
 ill equipped, ill commanded, and slow in its movements. In 
 Russia Nicholas had been succeeded, in 1855, by Alexander, a 
 humane and peace-loving prince, who reigned twenty years with- 
 out making war in Europe. In England Palraerston continued 
 to manage foreign affairs until his death in 1865, but his meas- 
 ures of intimidation no longer influenced powers that had de- 
 cided on war. England, with her small army of volunteers, 
 could not fight against the continental armies, with their com- 
 pulsory military service. The English government resigned 
 itself to the impotence which was now plain to the eyes of the 
 
THE CRIMEAN WAR. 789 
 
 world. It abstained from military policy, except where a vital 
 English interest was to be defended. 
 
 Europe was led, during this period, by France, Italy, and 
 Prussia,— in other words, by Napoleon, Cavour, and Bismarck,— 
 and her policy depended upon their relations. All three had 
 a common ground of interest, the principle of nationalities and 
 opposition to Austria. The former European concert rested on 
 the " maintenance of the treaties," but the revolutions of '48, by 
 realizing for a moment the new nations, Italian, German, and 
 Hungarian, had shaken the system that the treaties had estab- 
 lished. They had brought up new questions of nationality all 
 over central Europe. The reaction had crushed the nationalist 
 movements without solving these problems. They were to come 
 up again; but this time the conservative power, Austria, found 
 itself alone against Napoleon, Cavour, and Bismarck, who had 
 become allies of nationalist revolution. 
 
 The Crimean War (1853-56).— The war between the Sultan and 
 the Tsar, instead of remaining localized as in 1828, became a 
 European war. Napoleon III., desiring to make himself a posi- 
 tion in Europe, had joined the English government to defend the 
 Ottoman Empire. France and England had together sent their 
 fleets to Constantinople. The Russian fleet, crossing the Black 
 Sea, came to destroy the Turkish fleet at Sinope, November 30, 
 1853. In England public indignation was aroused against the 
 Aberdeen ministry and Prince Albert, who desired to maintain 
 peace; the English did not want to leave the Russians masters of 
 the Black Sea. The English government decided to accept Na- 
 poleon's propositions. The united English and French fleets 
 entered the Black Sea, in January, 1854, with orders to request 
 the withdrawal of all Russian ships to Sebastopol. The Tsar was 
 displeased, and determined to break with France and England. 
 
 The rupture was retarded by negotiations with the two Ger- 
 man states. France and England finally demanded the with- 
 drawal of the Russian troops from the Roumanian principalities, 
 which the Tsar refused. They then concluded a treaty with the 
 Sultan, promising him the aid of an army and engaging not to 
 treat separately (March 12). On March 27 they declared war 
 on Russia, and on April 10 agreed not to seek any individual 
 advantage in the .war. They invited the other powers to join 
 them; the King of Prussia refused from aversion to the revolu- 
 tionary projects of Napoleon and Palmerston; in order to keep 
 Austria neutral, he promised to support her in case of attack. 
 
79° FRENCH PREPONDERANCE. 
 
 The Allies were at first unwilling to free the Roumanian prov- 
 inces from the Russian occupation because this would remove 
 Austria's sole motive for joining against the Tsar. They con- 
 fined themselves to a defensive war. A small Franco-English 
 army was sent to Gallipoli to defend Constantinople, and an ex- 
 pedition was sent to the Piraeus to check the Greeks. As the 
 Russians did not advance, the army re-embarked, and at the 
 request of the Turks proceeded to Varna ; thence to the Dobrudja, 
 where it was decimated by cholera. These operations were con- 
 ducted, slowly and confusedly. 
 
 The Tsar still hesitated ; he tried to conciliate his former allies, 
 Prussia and Austria. He finally evacuated Roumania, thus 
 leaving no motive for war. But France and England wanted to 
 assure the future; they arranged with Austria " points " to im- 
 pose on the Tsar: i. The Roumanian principalities to be under 
 European guarantee, instead of Russian; 2. free navigation of 
 the Danube; 3. revision of the Straits Convention to neutralize 
 the Black Sea; 4. protection of the Sultan's Christian sub- 
 jects without injury to his sovereignty (August 8). Russia 
 rejected the four " points," declaring that she would await the 
 progress of events. The Austrians and Turks occupied the Rou- 
 manian provinces in September. 
 
 The defensive war was at an end. Napoleon proposed to in- 
 cite revolt in the Caucasus ; England preferred to attack Sebasto- 
 pol, Russia's military seaport on the Black Sea. Thus the war 
 for the protection of the Ottoman Empire led to an expedition 
 against the Crimea. 
 
 The Russians were not expecting an attack from this direction; 
 they had stationed 200,000 men on the Baltic Sea, 140,000 in Po- 
 land, 180,000 on the Danube, and only 50,000 in the Crimea. 
 The little Russian army could not prevent the landing of the 
 allies, but it was intrenched on steep ground, and the battle of 
 Alma, September 30, was so bloody that the Franco^English 
 army gave the garrison of Sebastopol time to improve the de- 
 fences of the place by scuttling the ships in the bay and raising 
 earthworks. The French general Canrobert, when he reached 
 Sebastopol, did not venture an assault; he conducted a regular 
 siege. 
 
 It was a slow and murderous siege, which absorbed all the 
 forces of the allies. The besieging army had been attacked by 
 cholera, which delayed their operations. When they were ready 
 for the assault, a Russian army came to the assistance of the city 
 
THE CONGRESS OF PARIS. 79 1 
 
 and forced them to fight on the plain and in the valleys the bloody 
 battles of Inkermann and Balaklava, in November, 1854. The 
 allies had to face a winter campaign in a desert country, in in- 
 tense cold; nothing had been prepared. The English army, 
 poorly sheltered and provisioned, lost half of its numbers. Eng- 
 lish opinion was aroused, and insisted on the resignation of the 
 Aberdeen ministry. 
 
 The allies sent new troops and were re-enforced by a Turkish 
 army which on its arrival fought at Eupatoria, February, 1855. 
 Sardinia sent an army corps. ' Sardinia joined the war in Janu- 
 ary to please the Western powers and flatter Napoleon. Austria 
 also had concluded an offensive alliance in the preceding month, 
 and urged Prussia and the Diet to prepare for war. But the 
 Diet, though hitherto obedient to Austria, refused to move, and 
 Austria dared not act alone. 
 
 All at once Nicholas died (March 2, 1855), from chagrin, it was 
 said, at being conquered by the Turks. The war had no further 
 purpose, and negotiations for its termination were opened at 
 Vienna. The negotiations failed because Alexander refused the 
 third point, to limit the number of Russian war vessels on the 
 Black Sea, to which England clung obstinately. The allies 
 therefore completed the siege of Sebastopol; a bombardment 
 was still necessary (250,000 cannon shots, 8000 killed, in April) — ■ 
 a battle (Tchernaia, in May), — the attack on the Mamelon fort 
 (in June; 13,000 killed), — an unsuccessful assault, — a second 
 bombardment, — an assault on the Malakoff. The Russians de- 
 stroyed everything, then evacuated the place (September). 
 
 The allies, masters of Sebastopol, did not know how to force 
 the Tsar to peace. Napoleon proposed to excite nationalist wars 
 in Poland, Finland, and the Caucasus, or to make a naval war by 
 blockading the Baltic. But the Anglo-French fleet in the Baltic 
 in 1854 and 1855 had been able to bombard only isolated points; 
 Sweden did not dare enter the war. England desired only a 
 limited war. Napoleon decided in November to make peace, 
 against the wishes of Palmerston, who threatened to continue the 
 war alone with the Turks. Austria undertook to present to the 
 Tsar an ultimatum containing four points, which the Tsar ac- 
 cepted in January, 1856, and the powers concerned decided to 
 arrange the conditions of peace in a congress at Paris. 
 
 The Congress of Paris (1856). — The Congress of Paris, in 
 March and April, 1856, was composed of two plenipotentiaries 
 :from each of the six powers, France, England, Russia, Turkey, 
 
792 FRENCH PREPONDERANCE. 
 
 Austria, and Sardinia, under the presidency of the French pleni- 
 potentiaries; Prussia was afterward invited to join. 
 The Congress began by settling the Eastern question. 
 
 1. The integrity of the Ottoman Empire was guaranteed by 
 the powers; the Sultan promised reforms (see p. 626), and the 
 powers renounced any right of intervention in the internal affairs 
 of the Empire. 
 
 2. The Danube was declared open to navigation; a commis- 
 sion of representatives from the seven powers was to take meas- 
 ures to make the river navigable and establish tolls to cover the 
 expenses; the supervision was then to pass into the hands of a 
 commission from the bordering states. 
 
 3. The Black Sea was declared neutral, and no state was to 
 have on its coast any maritime arsenals nor any vessels of war, 
 beyond the number, not to exceed ten, of small ships requisite 
 for policing the coasts. 
 
 4. Moldavia and Wallachia became self-governing (see p. 640). 
 After signing the peace, the Congress regulated the question 
 
 of maritime law by four decisions which became part of European 
 international law: i. Privateering is abolished; 2. All enemy 
 property, other than contraband, carried under a neutral flag is 
 exempt from capture; 3. all neutral merchandise under the 
 enemy's flag is similarly exempt; 4. blockade may not be estab- 
 lished by a simple declaration; it is valid only when efifective. 
 
 Cavour, representing Sardinia, succeeded in bringing up the 
 Italian question in the Congress by making terms with the repre- 
 sentatives of France and England. These spoke of the evacua- 
 tion of the Piraeus by the French troops, and used the occasion 
 thus afforded to bring up the continued occupation of Tuscany 
 by the Austrians; England asked that it should cease. Austria 
 refused to discuss the matter. But Cavour took advantage 
 of this opportunity to describe the lamentable condition of 
 Italy. 
 
 Napoleon's Predominance (1856-59). — The Congress of Paris 
 had been a personal success for Napoleon and his policy. Not 
 only had he gained the admission of France into the European 
 concert, but for the first time he had had a European congress 
 meet on his territory and under his presidency. He had secured 
 autonomy for the Roumanians and brought up the Italian 
 nationalist question, making the instrument Metternich had 
 created against the nationalities serve in the nationalist cause. 
 He was attached to this idea, and his policy aimed at the calling of 
 
ALLIANCE BETWEEN FRANCE AND SARDINIA. 793 
 
 a new congress to make over Europe and abolish the treaties of 
 1815; but without success. 
 
 The Congress of Paris changed. Napoleon's position in 
 Europe. The sovereigns, seeing him firm at home and powerful 
 abroad, made advances to him. The example was set by the 
 princes of the Coburg family; Ernest of Coburg-Gotha was the 
 first to make him a visit; after him came Leopold, King of the 
 Belgians, then the King of Portugal; finally Prince Albert, con- 
 sort of Queen Victoria, consented to see Napoleon, in September, 
 1854. Napoleon and the Empress went to England the follow- 
 ing April, and Victoria and Albert returned their visit — the first 
 time since 1422 that an English sovereign had visited Paris. 
 The Coburg example decided Victor Emmanuel, who had 
 hitherto refused. After the Congress of 1856 the sovereigns of 
 Wurtemburg, Bavaria, and Tuscany visited France. 
 
 Napoleon wished to use these relations to take up an active 
 policy again. He sought to gain the King of Prussia, but failed; 
 in J^ugust, 1857, he spoke to the English ministry of revising the 
 treaties of 181 5, but was coldly received. He then approached 
 Russia, having an interview with the Tsar at Stuttgart in Octo- 
 ber, 1857. In 1858 France and Russia worked together for Rou- 
 manian unity against Turkey, Austria, and England; in Servia 
 they combined to support the Obrenovitch against Austria. 
 
 Alliance between France and Sardinia (1858). — Cavour, who 
 had decided to make war on Austria, declared publicly to the 
 Chamber that the principles of Vienna and those of Turin were 
 irreconcilable. In May, 1856, Austria replied that the Emperor 
 would continue to use his right of intervention. The following 
 year (March, 1857) the Austrian government severed diplomatic 
 relations with Sardinia. 
 
 Napoleon still hesitated. Orsini, a Mazzinist, in January, 
 1858, attempted to kill him for having failed to keep the oath he 
 had sworn in his youth to work for the independence of Italy. 
 The attempt made a great impression on Napoleon; he had 
 Orsini's letter published (see p. 351). He then sent for Cavour, 
 and the two, meeting secretly at Plombieres, concluded an alli- 
 ance and prepared for war (July, 1858). The practical condi- 
 tions were soon arranged: all the Austrian possessions in Italy 
 for Sardinia, Savoy for France; and eventually Parma and Mo- 
 dena for Sardinia, and in this case Nice for France. But they 
 had difficulty in arranging a pretext for the war; Napoleon was 
 unwilling to appear in support of a revolution. As the price oi 
 
794 FRENCH PREPONDERANCE. 
 
 the alliance, Victor Emmanuel gave Princess Clotilde in mar- 
 riage to Prince Jerome, the Emperor's cousin, a partisan of 
 nationalist schemes. Napoleon hoped to profit by the national- 
 ist uprisings in Italy to give Tuscany to his cousin, and the King- 
 dom of Naples to Prince Murat. In order to isolate Austria he 
 sent his cousin to the Tsar, who promised neutrality; he asked 
 Prussia for her alliance, but was refused. 
 
 Meanwhile Napoleon, disturbed by conspiracies against his 
 person, had conducted a diplomatic campaign against the 
 French refugees. He secured a special law for the repres- 
 sion of insults to foreign sovereigns, in Sardinia by Cavour, in 
 Belgium by the new Liberal ministry. But in England the bill 
 presented by Palmerston, coupled with the anti-English utter- 
 ances in France, offended national sentiment, and the House of 
 Commons rejected the measure (February, 1858). The minis- 
 try resigned, and the new Tory ministry, under Derby, showed a 
 more friendly disposition toward Austria. 
 
 The Italian War (1859). — ^The project of war on Austria had 
 been kept secret. It was suddenly announced by two significant 
 utterances: the one, a word from Napoleon to the Austrian am- 
 bassador, at the New Year's reception in 1859; the other, a sen- 
 tence in Victor Emmanuel's speech from the throne on January 
 10, in which mention is made of the " cry of pain which resounded 
 from so many parts of Italy." Armament began on both sides. 
 
 England, on request from Austria, offered her mediation, in- 
 vited France and Sardinia to set forth their grievances, and pro- 
 posed the evacuation of the Italian states and certain reforms. 
 Napoleon appeared to hesitate. The war was popular in France, 
 especially with the liberal and Republican parties, the enemies of 
 the government. It was regarded with disfavour by the min- 
 isters, the Empress, the salons, the CathoHcs, and the business 
 world. Napoleon got Russia to propose a congress, his fav- 
 ourite idea (March, 1859). Austria insisted that Sardinia should 
 not be invited to the Congress and that she should disarm. Eng- 
 land proposed that all the Italian states should be invited and 
 that both sides should disarm at once; Napoleon could not con- 
 fess that he wanted the war; he had to accept England's proposal, 
 and telegraphed Cavour to accept also. Cavour was in despair, 
 but replied that he would obey. It was Austria that brought on 
 the war by sending to the King of Sardinia an ultimatum de- 
 manding his promise to disarm within three days. Sardinia 
 refused to comply, and the Austrian army entered Sardinian ter- 
 
PEACE WITH AUSTRIA. 795 
 
 ritory. Austria thus appeared to have made the war, and was 
 left in isolation. 
 
 The war of 1859 consisted of two operations which showed the 
 almost equal disorder and incoherency of direction of the two 
 armies. Austria, with 250,000 men, had only 1 10,000 at her dis- 
 posal; 32 French regiments had an effective force of less than 
 1400 men; mobilization was slow and incomplete on both sides. 
 
 1. The Austrian army of 100,000 men, instead of taking the 
 offensive against the Sardinian army of only 70,000, gave the 
 French, with 130,000 men, time to join the Sardinians at Ales- 
 sandria. Then, thinking that the enemy was about to march 
 southward on Parma, the Austrians sent a detachment to pre- 
 vent the movement; but this force was repulsed at Montebello. 
 Meanwhile the Franco-Sardinian army, passing to the north, 
 took the offensive and entered Lombardy (battle of the advance- 
 guard at Palaestro, May 30). The Austrians fell back to the de- 
 fence of Milan and took a position in the plain behind a 
 canal. The decisive battle of Magenta was a confused struggle 
 conducted without any general plan. A partial attack by the 
 French on the bridge of the canal was followed by a series of 
 combats between re-enforcements sent by both sides. The Aus- 
 trian general had already telegraphed the news of his victory, and 
 Napoleon believed himself beaten, when MacMahon's corps, ar- 
 riving at the last minute, compelled the Austrians to retreat. The 
 French army, in disorder, spent the night where they stood, with- 
 out pursuing the enemy. The result was the retreat of the Aus- 
 trians from Lombardy, followed by a nationalist revolution there. 
 
 2. The Austrian army formed again in Venetia, where the 
 Emperor came to place himself at its head. Re-enforced to 200,- 
 000 men, after much hesitation it took the offensive once more in 
 order to reconquer Lombardy. The Franco-Sardinian army, 
 somewhat fewer in number, marched on the Mincio. The two 
 armies met unexpectedly, each being ignorant of the other's 
 movements. The unexpected battle of Solferino, on June 24, 
 consisted of three separate affairs: one in the north, where the 
 Sardinian army was checked; another in the south, where Niel 
 held firm and accused Canrobert of not having supported him 
 (they had a duel later); the third in the centre, where the tak- 
 ing of Solferino by the French compelled the Austrians to retreat. 
 
 Peace with Austria (1859). — Napoleon, agitated by the sight of 
 the battlefield, disturbed by quarrels between his generals, be- 
 came disgusted with the war; he did not feel strong enough to 
 
796 FRENCH PREPONDERANCE. 
 
 overcome the Quadrilateral. He thought to distract Austria by 
 revolution in Hungary; he had put himself in personal communi- 
 cation with Kossuth, the leader of the Hungarian refugees, and 
 had had him come to Paris. He now summoned him to Italy. 
 But he feared a rupture with England. 
 
 The German public, alarmed at France's success, urged Prussia 
 to take Austria's part. Prince William had been waiting to make 
 Austria accept his conditions, but he finally mobilized and threat- 
 ened the Rhine frontier. Napoleon, not to leave the powers time 
 to impose their mediation on him, negotiated directly with the 
 Emperor of Austria. A personal interview at Villafranca on 
 July II settled the preliminaries of peace. The final treaty was 
 concluded at Zurich in November, 1859: Lombardy alone was 
 ceded to Sardinia; Tuscany and Modena were to be restored to 
 their princes, and an Italian federation was provided for. Except 
 for the cession of Lombardy, no clause of the agreement was 
 carried out. 
 
 Annexations and the Italian Question (1860-62). — Napoleon let 
 Italian unity get accomplished by Italian revolutionists, assisted 
 by the Sardinian government (see pp. 351-54), and in return for 
 his neutrality obtained Savoy and Nice. 
 
 This annexation excited general distrust of Napoleon. 
 Switzerland claimed the part of Savoy declared neutral by the 
 treaties of 181 5, and the Swiss Federal Council talked of military 
 occupation. The King of Holland, who had been on unfriendly 
 terms with Belgium since 1830, paid a visit to the King of the 
 Belgians. In Germany the National Union protested against the 
 annexation. In England volunteer militia was formed to defend 
 the coast against a landing of French troops. 
 
 Napoleon protested that he had no thought but of peace; he 
 worked in harmony with England in China, Syria, and Turkey, 
 and concluded the treaty of commerce of i860. But the distrust 
 continued. England, Prussia, and Austria arranged to discuss 
 together every international communication coming from 
 France. 
 
 The creation of the Kingdom of Italy had brought up the Ro- 
 man question (p. 356). Napoleon tried to secure a congress to 
 settle it peaceably, but Europe did not want one. He still hesi- 
 tated, not daring either to withdraw his garrison from Rome or 
 to recognise the Kingdom of Italy, the outcome of a revolution 
 condemned by the Pope. Then he made a compromise. 
 Against the wishes of the Empress, he recognised the Kingdom 
 
THE POLISH AFFAIRS. 797 
 
 of Italy, on June 15, 1861, but with the qualification that he 
 would not guarantee it and did not wish to detract from the value 
 of the protests of the curia. He wrote personally to Victor 
 Emmanuel that his past obliged him to leave his troops in Rome; 
 but he replaced his ambassador, Gramont, a partisan of the Pope, 
 by sending Lavalette, a partisan of Italy. He instructed the 
 new ambassador to propose to the Pope to cede his provinces to 
 the King of Italy as vicar. The Pope replied that he and his 
 cardinals were bound by their oath to maintain the integrity of 
 the States of the Church. After Garibaldi's attempt (p. 354) Na- 
 poleon took as ministers supporters of the Pope and of the peace 
 with Austria (October, 1862). 
 
 The Polish Affairs (1863). — Napoleon, disgusted with affairs in 
 Italy, returned to the nationalist question in Poland. After some 
 years of nationalistic agitation, the Poles had revolted in order 
 to induce the powers to intervene. Insurgent bands came from 
 outside, notably from Austria. In all the great states, public 
 opinion was loud in favour of intervention. 
 
 The Tsar, hampered by finding himself isolated and censured, 
 addressed himself personally to the King of Prussia; Bismarck 
 used this opportunity to establish an understanding between 
 Prussia and Russia. He concluded a convention in February, 
 1863, to combine the military action of the two states against the 
 insurgents, and against the wish of all Germany declared himself 
 openly hostile to the Poles. The other great powers, Austria, 
 England, and France, took the part of Poland. 
 
 Napoleon first addressed the Tsar in a personal letter, urging 
 him to restore the Kingdom of Poland. On his refusal Na- 
 poleon proposed to make a common war on Russia; England re- 
 fused. The three powers agreed only to propose to the Tsar cer- 
 tain reforms in Poland, and loaded him with diplomatic commu- 
 nications. They did not wis'h, however, to go so far as to make 
 war. The Russian government knew it, and the afifair was 
 limited to the exchange of notes (p. 600). Austria, threatened 
 with war by Russia, put Galicia under martial law in order to 
 hasten the end of the insurrection. England, busy with the ques- 
 tion of the Elbe duchies, deserted Poland. Napoleon attempted 
 his favourite method: he invited the powers to a congress' to 
 settle all the pending questions — Poland, the duchies, and Rome, 
 and to revise the treaties of 1815. England, by way of answer, 
 showed the futility of such a congress. 
 
 Napoleon thus remained isolated and powerless — at variance 
 
798 FRENCH EREPONDERANCE. 
 
 with the Tsar, and entangled in the Roman question. He had 
 lost his predominance; Prussia, with the Tsar's alliance, was to 
 succeed to it. 
 
 The War of the Duchies (1864). — The question of the duchies 
 of Schleswig-Holstein, opened in 1848, and closed by the powers' 
 decision in 1852, was reopened by the extinction of the Danish 
 dynasty in 1863 (p. 572). The German states supported the 
 Duke of Augustenburg; the European powers defended the in- 
 tegrity of the Danish monarchy; Austria and Prussia took an 
 intermediate position, accepting the Gliicksburg succession 
 guaranteed by Europe, but rejecting the new Danish constitution 
 (January, 1864). There were then three parties :> i. Denmark, 
 supported by the great non-German powers; 2. the Duke of 
 Augustenburg, supported by the States of Germany; 3. Prussia 
 and Austria. 
 
 The Danish government was counting on European interven- 
 tion. England declared to Prussia that she did not guarantee 
 neutrality, and proposed a conference of the powers that had 
 signed the treaty of 1852 (December, 1863). But Napoleon, dis- 
 pleased with England for having abandoned him in the Polish 
 affair, thought to apply the " principle of nationalities " by unit- 
 ing to Germany the German parts of the duchies. He refused 
 armed assistance to Denmark. Queen Victoria did not want 
 war, and the English ministry dared not send an ultimatum. 
 Prussia and Austria began the war of the duchies in January, 
 1864. It is divided into three acts. 
 
 1. The Danish army of 35,000 men, intrenched behind the 
 lines of the Danewerk, had received orders that the operations 
 should be dragged out long enough to give Europe time to inter- 
 vene, but not to expose itself to defeat, for it was the only Dan- 
 ish army. The Austro-Prussian army, of 70,000 men, was in- 
 structed to destroy the Danish army without giving it time to 
 reach the lines of retreat in case of an attempt to retire to Jutland. 
 It attacked the Danewerk, but the Danish army, without waiting 
 to be forced, withdrew by night and escaped. The allies took 
 possession of the whole of Schleswig in January and February, 
 1864. 
 
 2. The Danish army, stationed behind the Diippel intrench- 
 ments, barred the entrance to Jutland. The operations against 
 Dtippel, in March and April, consisted of a five-weeks' blockade, 
 a bombardment, and a general assault of six columns against the 
 redoubts. The Danes evacuated Jutland, and the allies occupied 
 
RUPTURE BETWEEN PRUSSIA AND AUSTRIA. 799 
 
 it. England had finally succeeded in organizing the London 
 Conference; but when it opened, on April 12, the taking of Diip- 
 pel had already practically settled the question; victorious Prus- 
 sia and Austria no longer wished to recognise the treaties of 1852 
 and demanded the complete separation of the duchies from Den- 
 mark. England offered France to agree on an ultimatum. 
 France recalled " the deplorable issue " of their course in the 
 Polish question and asked if England was willing to conclude an 
 offensive alliance. England made no reply, and the conference 
 broke up without accomplishing anything. 
 
 3. When the armistice had expired, in June, the allies invaded 
 the islands. The Danish government asked for peace. The 
 peace of Vienna, concluded in October 30, ceded the duchies 
 to Prussia and Austria. 
 
 Rupture between Prussia and Austria (1864-66). — ^Austria and 
 Prussia had been in conflict since i860, when reform of the Con- 
 federation had been attempted (p. 465). But the Austrian gov- 
 ernment, having fallen out with the German states on the ques- 
 tion of the duchies, had made overtures to Prussia. 
 
 The conflict began again with the question of determining the 
 disposition of the duchies they had conquered together. A 
 special council of the Prussian ministers, July 21, 1865, declared 
 Austria's concessions insufficient and advised immediate war. 
 But King William was unwilling to attack, and Austria, having 
 no money, wished to avoid a war. The Gastein Convention in 
 August settled the question provisionally by dividing the duchies. 
 France protested against this act as a violation of the principle 
 of nationalities and the popular will, and as a revival of a pro- 
 cedure that had become obsolete in Europe. Thus the French 
 theory of popular right as expressed by plebiscite, was avowed, in 
 opposition to the traditional theory of the right of conquest 
 adopted by Prussia. (On the famous formula. La force prime le 
 droit, Force masters law, by which the French public characterize 
 Bismarck's policy, see p. 463.) 
 
 Napoleon had made advances to Italy, bringing up the Ro- 
 man question by the September convention, 1864. The peace 
 party, which had held the ministry since 1862, hoped to reconcile 
 Italy with Austria by inducing the latter to give up Venetia. 
 But the Italian government wished to keep its army ready, and 
 Austria still refused to recognise the Kingdom of Italy. 
 
 Bismarck tried to conclude an alliance with Italy against Aus- 
 tria. Italy could do nothing that France did not approve; Na- 
 
8oo FRENCH PREPONDERANCE. 
 
 poleon's authorization must therefore be obtained. Bismarck 
 came to ask it of him. The Biarritz interview of October, 1865,* 
 was the decisive act of this negotiation. Napoleon resumed his 
 personal policy: to bring about the national unity of Italy, to 
 fortify Prussia against Austria, and to profit by the conflict to 
 gain territory and destroy the treaties of 181 s.f Bismarck's 
 game was to encourage these hopes without making any formal 
 engagement. He prevailed on Napoleon to promise the neutral- 
 ity of France. 
 
 With Italy the negotiation was long. The Italian govern- 
 ment, having twice already received a proposition of alliance, in 
 1862 and 1865, no longer believed in Bismarck's sincerity, sus- 
 pecting him of using Italy to alarm Austria. When the conflict 
 with Austria became bitter Prussia sounded the Italian govern- 
 ment, and an Italian general was sent to Berlin. But the negotia- 
 tions dragged along without result. Italy hoped to gain 
 Venetia without war, in exchange for Roumania, which had be- 
 come vacant (p. 644). In Prussia both King William and most 
 of the ministers desired peace. Bismarck, however, succeeded in 
 obtaining an ofifensive alliance for three months on April 8. 
 Italy promised armed support to Prussia's plans for the reform 
 ■of the Confederation, and Prussia promised to secure the cession 
 of Venetia. Italy had wished not merely Venetia but "the 
 Italian territories subject to Austria," — which would have in- 
 cluded the Tyrol, a part of the German Confederation; this Bis- 
 marck had declined to agree to. Napoleon promised neutrality. 
 
 Austria's policy was to delay a rupture in Germany in order to 
 force Prussia, by taking the aggressive role, tO' alienate the Ger- 
 man States (which plan succeeded) and in Europe to isolate Prus- 
 sia by satisfying Italy. She proposed to Prussia, on April 25, 
 that both sides should disarm, but not in Italy. She left France 
 the hope that she would cede Venetia if Italy remained neutral. 
 As compensation for Venetia she spoke of taking back Silesia 
 from Prussia. 
 
 Napoleon, divided between Prince Jerome and the Catholic 
 party, hesitated. He fell back on his favorite idea of a congress, 
 
 * Bismarck had gone to Biarritz tlie preceding year, but Napoleon and 
 his minister of foreign affairs had not taken him seriously. 
 
 t In a speech at Auxerre, May 6, 1866, he said: " I detest these treaties 
 of 1815, which we are expected to-day to make the basis of our foreign 
 policy." Thiers had just made in the Chamber a speech against Prussia 
 and German unity which was applauded even by the imperialist majority, 
 
THE WAR OF 1866. 80 1 
 
 to revise the map of Europe. England and Russia agreed; 
 Prussia and Italy, from regard for Napoleon, had agreed before- 
 hand. Austria defeated the scheme by demanding that no in- 
 crease of territory should be discussed and that the Pope should 
 be invited. 
 
 The rupture came in Germany, in the Diet (p. 470). Prussia, 
 reassured on the French side, removed her garrisons from the 
 western frontier and concentrated all her powers against Austria 
 and her allies. 
 
 The War of 1866. — ^War broke out at once in Bohemia, Ve- 
 -netia, and Germany, between Prussia allied with Italy and Aus- 
 tria allied with most of the German States. Like all the rest of 
 Europe, Napoleon believed that as the forces were almost equal 
 the war would be a long one; he was planning, w'hen the belliger- 
 ents were exhausted, to intervene as an all-powerful arbiter, with- 
 out even needing to fight. This scheme was baffled by an unex- 
 pected development, the unprecedented swiftness of the Prussian 
 army's successes. 
 
 For her war against Austria, Prussia mobilized 300,000 men 
 and formed three separate armies, — the army of the Elbe, the first 
 army of Silesia, and the second army of Silesia, — which entered 
 Bohemia from three sides, and driving before them the Saxons 
 and Austrians (June 26-30) manceuvred to come together again. 
 The Austrian army, comprising 220,000 men, was more slowly 
 mobilized, did not defend the defiles, and was reduced to the 
 defensive. It concentrated itself in a fortified position in Konig- 
 graetz, already demoralized by the quick movements of the Prus- 
 sians and the rapid fire of their needle-guns. 
 
 The war was decided in a single day. Two of the three Prus- 
 sian armies (the Elbe and first Silesia) had met and were await- 
 ing the third, which had to traverse more difficult passages. 
 They attacked the Austrian army, intrenched on the steep heights 
 of a forest country, defended by artillery arranged tier over tier. 
 The battle of Sadowa or Koniggraetz, on July 3, was long and 
 bloody. It was decided by the arrival of the third Prussian 
 army, which penetrated to the midst of the Austrian positions 
 without having been perceived. The Austrian general, Benedek, 
 said it was concealed by mist. The Austrians, having lost 25,000 
 men and 20,000 prisoners, retreated in disorder. They could do 
 nothing more to hinder the enemy's march on Vienna. 
 
 In Italy, the Austrian army had held itself on the defensive, 
 guarding Venetia. The Italian army, which was larger, attacked 
 
802 FRENCH PREPONDERANCE. 
 
 it and was driven back. This was the battle of Custozza, June 
 24, which forced the Italians to fall back into Lombardy. After 
 the news of Sadowa, the Italians made it a point of honour to 
 conquer Venetia themselves; but the Italian army gained no de- 
 cisive success, and their fleet was destroyed at Lissa by the Aus- 
 trian fleet. 
 
 Peace of Prague (1866). — The Austrian government, in order 
 to concentrate its forces against Prussia, ceded Venetia to Na- 
 poleon, begging him to negotiate peace with Italy (July 5). Na- 
 poleon seemed to be the arbiter of Europe. The minister of 
 foreign affairs, who favoured Austria, urged him tO' mobilize and 
 stop Prussia by threatening to take possession of the left bank 
 of the Rhine, w'hich was unprotected. But the minister of war 
 confessed that the army was disorganized by the Mexican expe- 
 dition and that he could not get together more than 40,000 men. 
 Napoleon, who was in ill health, hesitated between two policies: 
 whether to impose peace on Prussia or negotiate with her to 
 secure advantage for himself.* He thus let slip the moment 
 for intimidating Prussia by a demonstration on the Rhine. 
 The policy of the Prussian government was to put Napoleon off 
 with vague promises, keeping him passive while the Prussian ' 
 army was marching on Vienna. 
 
 Napoleon first tried to check Italy by threatening to join Aus- 
 tria against her (July 9); Italy replied that she could agree to 
 nothing without Prussia and refused an armistice. Napoleon 
 then sent to the Prussian camp to ask the King to authorize a 
 truce for Italy. He then proposed the bases of a peace (July 14):: 
 integrity of Austria, dissolution of the Confederation, confedera- 
 tion of northern Germany, and cession by Austria of her right in 
 the duchies. On these conditions all were agreed. The dififi- 
 culty was in arranging additions of territory; Prussia wished to 
 annex several German states, but Austria dared not abandon her 
 allies to that fate. Napoleon wanted to secure some territory to 
 
 * On "July 4, at eleven o'clock at night, he signed a decree convoking the 
 Chambers to vote the mobilization; on the 5th, at 5 o'clock in the morn- 
 ing, he countermanded the order. He held a council on the 5th; on the 
 advice of Drouyn and the Empress, he decided to continue the prepara- 
 tions for war; then, on Lavalette's representation of the bad condition of 
 the French army and the superiority of the needle gun, he suspended his 
 decision; Drouyn insisted, saying that a military demonstration on the 
 Rhine would suffice; Jerome objected on the g^round that after having 
 encouraged Prussia, a hostile attitude would make a bad impression. 
 Napoleon remained undecided. 
 
THE LUXEMBURG AFFAIR. 8oj 
 
 compensate France for the increase of Prussia. But Bismarck 
 knew that Prussia's army made her mistress of the situation, and 
 he stood out for his own terms. 
 
 By the prehminary peace of Nikolsburg, July 26, Austria with- 
 drew from German affairs, ceding her right in the duchies and 
 leaving Prussia free to establish a new confederation and to 
 annex the North German states except Saxony. Bismarck 
 made concessions of form: i. The German states south of the 
 Main, left out of the new confederation, should have the right to 
 form a union of their own. 2. The northern districts of Schles- 
 wig should be restored to Denmark if their population so wished. 
 The final peace of Prague of August 23 preserved these two 
 clauses, but they remained illusory. 
 
 Napoleon asked Prussia for a territorial enlargement, and the 
 Prussian envoy let him hope for one (July 19). When the Tsar 
 proposed a congress to settle the changes in Germany, it was 
 Napoleon himself that refused, hoping to gain more from Prus- 
 sia. He offered a secret understanding for mutual enlargement: 
 France to have the possessions of Bavaria and Hesse on the left 
 bank of the Rhine. Bismarck insisted upon a, written draft of 
 the scheme (to use against Napoleon), then refused it, and later 
 published it in a conversation with a correspondent of the 
 Siede. In face of the commotion in Germany, Napoleon with- 
 drew his project, denied the rumours of negotiation (August 12),. 
 and turned to Belgium. He proposed (August 20) that Prussia 
 should aid France to acquire Belgium and Luxemburg. Bis- 
 marck had the plan written out at Napoleon's dictation; he 
 published it in 1870, to embroil England and Belgium with 
 France.* 
 
 The South German states were isolated and quickly crushed 
 by Prussia. They at once asked for France's mediation ; but Bis- 
 marck showed them Napoleon's plans for annexation at their 
 expense, and in August induced them to conclude with Prussia 
 secret treaties of offensive and defensive alliance. 
 
 Napoleon therefore obtained no positive result, and Prussia, by 
 a single war, acquired first place in Germany. Europe had done 
 nothing to prevent it." Prussia's new methods of fighting had 
 made the European concert powerless. 
 
 The luxemburg Affair (1867).— The Grand Duchy of Luxem- 
 burg, after the dissolution of the Germanic Confederation, re- 
 
 •The Germans in 1870 seized the Rouher papers and published the re- 
 port of the French envoy Benedetti on this negotiation. 
 
•8o4 FRENCH PREPONDERANCE. 
 
 mained occupied by the Prussian garrison of the federal fortress 
 (see p. 243). Its sovereign, the King of Holland, was anxious 
 to sell it; Napoleon grasped at this opportunity to secure addi- 
 tional territory. He believed that the Prussian government was 
 only awaiting a pretext to withdraw its garrison in such a way as 
 not to offend German public opinion; Bismarck left him under 
 this delusion. The King of Holland agreed to sell, provided 
 Prussia would consent; Bismarck did not refuse distinctly, but 
 on March 19, 1867, he published the treaties concluded with the 
 South German states in 1866, so as to show Prussia's power. 
 He told the King of Holland that he would leave to him the 
 responsibility for his acts. The King, believing that Bismarck 
 wished only to have his hand forced, notified Napoleon that the 
 sale would be made (March 30). 
 
 The treaty of cession had been drawn up and announced to 
 Europe, when an interpellation was made in the Reichstag on 
 the rumour of a sale of German territory by a prince of German 
 blood. Bismarck replied that nothing had yet been arranged 
 and sent word to the King of Holland that in the present agitated 
 condition of opinion in Germany the cession of Luxemburg 
 would result in war. The King withdrew his consent, in spite 
 of French insistence. Napoleon seemed to shrink from the 
 crisis. This was a diplomatic victory for Prussia. 
 
 The question of the federal fortress was settled by a European 
 conference, which revised the treaty of 1839. 
 
 Latent Conflict between France and Prussia (1867-70). — By the 
 superiority of her army Prussia had won first place in Europe, 
 and she was preparing a complete union of Germany. The 
 other great powers were not reconciled to these two revolutions, 
 which threatened the old balance of power in Europe. But Aus- 
 tria was discouraged, England powerless, and the Tsar opposed 
 to war. France felt strong enough single-handed to check Prus- 
 sia and restore her own predominance. Public opinion in France 
 had suddenly become hostile to German unity; people talked of 
 " avenging Sadowa." In Prussia national pride, exalted by suc- 
 cess, showed itself in threats against the " hereditary enemy." 
 But on both sides these warlike sentiments were counterbalanced 
 by the fear of a war which all felt would be a terrible one. 
 
 A period of hesitation followed. The visit of the Tsar and 
 the King of Prussia to the World's Exposition at Paris in 1867 
 seemed to promise peace. But the interview between Napoleon 
 and the Emperor of Austria in August, 1867, disturbed the public 
 
LATENT CONFLICT. 805 
 
 mind, especially when Napoleon, on his return to France, re- 
 ferred in an official speech to " black clouds on the horizon." 
 The party formerly in favour of peace (with Austria) now became 
 a war party and sought alliances against Prussia. In Austria 
 the Emperor had given the direction of foreign policy to a former 
 minister of the King of Saxony and an enemy to Prussia, Count 
 Beust, who still hoped to restore Austria to her old position in 
 Germany. - 
 
 Then came a series of agitations in the East, fomented, it was 
 said, by French agents, to occupy Russia and keep her from 
 interfering in the West. The revolt in Crete, supported by Greece 
 (1866-68), a movement in Bulgaria excited by bands from Rou- 
 mania (1868), a Roumanian agitation and armament (1868), a 
 conspiracy in Servia, and a gathering of Polish refugees in 
 Galicia, following each other in close succession. The Tsar, 
 however, remained calm, and quiet was soon restored. 
 
 The French government was counting on Denmark against 
 Prussia. Bismarck, before taking, in Schleswig, the plebiscite 
 promised in 1866, asked special guarantees for protection of the 
 Germans in Schleswig (1867); then, as no agreement could be 
 made regarding the territory to be ceded, he broke off the nego- 
 tiations in March, 1868. The Danish government sent its min- 
 ister of war to Paris in April. The Austrian and Italian gov- 
 ernments also wished to join France. But in Austria Beust was 
 fettered by the Hungarians, who favoured peace, and the Ger- 
 mans, who hated France; in Italy the Consorteria ministry, favour- 
 ing the French alliance, was intimidated by the Radicals, who 
 were irritated by the Mentana affair. These wished to join 
 Prussia and force France to abandon Rome. The whole nego- 
 tiation was secret, and its nature has been interpreted in various 
 ways, but no practical result was accomplished. 
 
 The occasion was the purchase of the Belgian railroads by the 
 French Eastern Company, in February, 1869; the Belgian gov- 
 ernment forbade the sale. The French government attributed 
 this check to Bismarck. Napoleon was annoyed, and proposed 
 to Austria and Italy a triple alliance to put a stop to Prussia's 
 encroachments and restore Austria to her old place in Germany. 
 The negotiation was conducted by the ambassadors (March). 
 Austria accepted the defensive alliance, but reserved the right 
 of neutrality if France were the one to begin war (April). The 
 Italians asked that the French troops might be withdrawn from 
 Rome, and were content with Napoleon's promise to withdraw 
 
8o6 FRENCH PREPONDERANCE. 
 
 them as soon as possible; but when, in August, it became neces- 
 sary to ratify the project, the Italian ministry demanded the 
 immediate withdrawal from Rome, and a declaration that France 
 would not again intervene in Italian affairs. The negotiation 
 hung in the balance; each of the three sovereigns simply prom- 
 ised to conclude no other alliance without notifying the other 
 two. Napoleon then accepted a parliamentary ministry whose 
 head, Ollivier, had declared himself in favour of peace and recon- 
 ciliation with Germany. This ministry, in January, 1870, re- 
 vived the plan for securing the peace of Europe by getting both 
 France and Prussia to disarm; England agreed to transmit it. 
 France offered to diminish her yearly military contirigent by 
 10,000 men. Bismarck made the objection that Prussia's organ- 
 ization made disarmament impossible (February, 1870). 
 
 The proposition made to the Reichstag on February 24, to 
 admit the Grand Duchy of Baden into the northern confederation,, 
 renewed the agitation against Prussia and German unity; Bis- 
 marck was reproached with having failed to reply that this would 
 be contrary to the treaty of Prague, whereby the independence 
 of the states south of the Main was guaranteed. Bismarck re- 
 plied, through his newspapers, that the treaty did not forbid the 
 Southern States to join the northern confederation. The Aus- 
 trian Archduke Albert passed some weeks in Paris, studying 
 the French military situation. He proposed to Napoleon a plan 
 of campaign; the French army, he said, was too weak to fight 
 Prussia alone; it should invade South Germany, which the Aus- 
 trian and Italian armies would enter through Bavaria. Napo- 
 leon kept this plan without speaking of it (March). 
 
 The Vatican Council, and later the plebiscite on the constitu- 
 tional changes, engaged the attention of the French govern- 
 ment. The Catholic powers had refrained from interfering in 
 the convocation of the Council; but when, in February, the plan 
 for the promulgation of infallibility came up, Daru, the French 
 minister of foreign affairs, together with Napoleon, drew up 
 a note reserving the rights of the state and announcing the send- 
 ing of a French representative to the Council. Ollivier pre- 
 vented this course, the Holy See having claimed the right of the 
 Church to arrange its affairs freely (March). Daru drew up a 
 note which Austria approved; the Roman curia refused to bring 
 it before the Council (April). France could influence the Pope 
 by threatening to withdraw her troops from Rome ; Ollivier per- 
 suaded Napoleon to renounce this means. Daru completed his 
 
LATENT CONFLICT. 807 
 
 rupture with Ollivier on the question of the plebiscite (see 
 p. 184). 
 
 In the reconstitution of the ministry, Daru, who favoured 
 peace, was replaced by Gramont, an enemy to Prussia. Napoleon 
 communicated the Archduke's plan of campaign to certain French 
 officers and sent General Lebrun to Vienna, with no offiicial mis- 
 sion, to discuss with the Archduke modifications of his plan: 
 Austria and Italy needed six weeks to mobilize; France, which 
 would be ready much sooner, would enter upon the campaign in 
 South Germany; Austria and Italy would arm, but preserve their 
 neutrality. Lebrun obtained a private audience with the Em- 
 peror of Austria, who told him he could not declare war at the 
 same time with France (June).* Napoleon seemed to have given 
 up the idea of war, for the minister of war asked the Chamber 
 for 10,000 less men, and Ollivier declared that peace had never 
 been more assured, the governments having all learned the neces- 
 sity of respecting the treaties on which Europe's peace rested, 
 that of Paris for the East, that of Prague for Germany (June 30). 
 
 Declaration of War (1870). — Peace seemed assured. Napoleon 
 was ill, and the Prussian government taking a vacation, when a 
 diplomatic incident suddenly produced a complication which in 
 a few days led to a war between the two first military powers in 
 Europe. 
 
 Since 1869 the Spanish provisional government had been seek- 
 ing a king (see p. 311). It offered the throne to a Catholic 
 
 *Two French diplomats, the Duke of Gramont and Chaudordy, have 
 given an interpretation of these negotiations that has been adopted in 
 Prance by a proportion of the people and propagated by German his 
 torians hostile to Beust, who are disposed to believe in a secret plot pre- 
 pared against Prussia.— Gramont said that France before declaring was 
 had secured the aid of Austria and Italy; she had, if not a formal treaty, 
 at least the promise that Austria would support her; neutrality was once 
 a means to gain time for mobilization. — Chaudordy tells of Gramont's dis- 
 cussions (between July 15 and August 4, 1870) with Austrian and Italian 
 ambassadors and military attachfes— Metternich and Vitzthum, Nigra and 
 Vimercati; he thinks that neutrality was agreed on in order to give 
 Austria and Italy time to arm, and that these states were to enter upon 
 the campaign in September, on condition that a French army should have 
 entered South Germany. — This interpretation rests on two ambiguous 
 phrases in a letter from Beust to the Austrian ambassador, July 20, 1870. 
 —As for Italy, Prince Jerome declared that the alliance was wrecked by 
 discord on the Roman question. There is, therefore, no proof that the 
 Triple Alliance was ever more than a project (see v. Sybel, " Begriindung 
 des Deutschen Reiches," vol. vii.). 
 
8o8 FRENCH PREPONDERANCE. 
 
 prince, Leopold of HohenzoUern-Sigmaringen, allied to the im- 
 perial family of France.* The offer was made four times to the 
 Prince's father; three times it was refused, but the fourth tirtie 
 it was accepted, July, 1870. The French government, which 
 had known of the negotiations even in 1869, received official in- 
 formation from Spain; it did not reply directly, fearing to offend 
 Spanish pride by appearing to interfere in the free choice of a 
 king. It addressed the Prussian government, declaring that 
 France had but a poor opinion of the selection. The coming oi 
 a Hohenzollern to Spain was regarded as a provocation and a 
 menace from Prussia; France, it was said, could not suffer the 
 Empire of Charles V. to be restored. In Berlin it was said, on 
 the contrary, that the choice of a Spanish sovereign did not con- 
 cern the Prussian government; that it was a private affair of the 
 Hohenzollern family, and that William had no authority over 
 the Sigmaringen branch. f 
 
 In the French Chamber a question was raised regarding the 
 candidacy of a Hohenzollern for the Spanish throne. The 
 French ministry, favouring peace by a large majority, prepared 
 a peaceful answer. But Gramont, who considered the affair a 
 plot of Bismarck's, added a sentence on the craftiness of Prussia; 
 it was received with patriotic acclamations in the Chamber, and 
 the papers began to talk of war (June 6). 
 
 *The idea was originated by Salazar, a Unionist Spanish deputy, in 
 Februai-y, 1869: i. Proposition made to the Prince's father, who refused 
 in the spring of 1869; the French agent in Prussia, Benedetti, on hearing 
 of it, questioned Bismarck, who seemed to consider the refusal as certain. 
 — 2. Proposition carried secretly to the prince's father, who, before begin- 
 ning negotiations, asked the assurance that William and Napoleon ap- 
 proved, and informed Napoleon of it, September, 1869. — 3. Proposition 
 carried secretly with two personal letters from Prim to William and Bis- 
 marck in February, 1870; William advised a refusal; Bismarck, who advo- 
 cated acceptance, was taken sick and left for the country. — 4. Proposition 
 from the Spanish government on June 14; the Prince accepted. 
 
 f Two opposite interpretations have been given to these facts. The Ger- 
 mans, who believed there was a plan on foot .between the three Catholic 
 powers to make war on Prussia, regarded the sudden opposition of the 
 French government to the Hohenzollern candidacy as a pretext for use as 
 a casus belli. — The French, on the contrary, believed it a ruse of Bismarck's 
 to pique France's pride and lead her into a war. Von Sybel's demonstra- 
 tion shows that neither of these two interpretations has been proved. 
 But a suggestion from the King of Roumania, Charles of Hohenzollern, 
 in 1894, indicates that the candidacy was an instrument of Prussian 
 policy. 
 
DECLARATION OF WAR. 809 
 
 The European powers disapproved the Prince's candidacy and 
 desired to maintain peace; the EngHsh government tried to in- 
 duce Spain to withdraw the offer. Napoleon personally charged 
 the King of Belgium to induce the Prince to reconsider his ac- 
 ceptance. On July 12 the Prince withdrew it by an official 
 declaration. The matter was thought to be settled. Ollivier 
 announced that peace was assured, and 'the public funds rose 
 2 francs. 
 
 But Gramont had already put the question on a new ground 
 and created a new complication. Convinced that the Hohen- 
 zoUern prince was only the secret tool of the King of Prussia, 
 he asked William to forbid the Prince to accept this candidacy, 
 which was so offensive to France. " No one," he said, " will 
 believe that a Prussian prince could accept the Spanish crown 
 without permission from the King, the head of his family. . . 
 If the King has not given his permission, let him forbid it " 
 (July 7). The King was taking the waters at Ems; the French 
 government sent Benedetti there to present the new demand. 
 The King replied that the matter was no affair of his govern- 
 ment and that he had no power to forbid the Prince. Gramont, 
 who felt sure that the King of Prussia made evasive answers 
 in order to gain time for preparation, wished to oblige him to 
 unmask; he gave orders to demand a categorical reply. He was 
 trying to show Europe that Prussia was responsible for this affair 
 and that France had forced her to draw back. The King, on 
 the contrary, preserved the attitude of a disinterested spectator; 
 on July 1 1 he said that he was waiting for the Prince's reply. 
 
 After the renunciation on July 12, Gramont, having no further 
 ground for demanding a prohibition, wished to obtain from the 
 King a declaration to satisfy French national honour; in the 
 Chamber the belligerent Right announced an interpellation on 
 the securities obtained for the future. The government, there- 
 fore, sent Benedetti to the King to say that, as the resignation 
 was not a sufiScient reply to the demands and still less a guar- 
 antee for the future, the King should promise that he would 
 not allow the Prince to resume the candidacy. However, the 
 council of French ministers refused the mobilization proposed 
 by the minister of war. 
 
 The decisive action was taken at Ems on July 13. The King 
 was in the park. Benedetti came in the morning to communi- 
 cate to him the request for a guarantee. The King replied: 
 "You are asking a promise without limit of time and for all 
 
Sio FRENCH PREPONDERANCE. 
 
 conditions. I cannot give it." Benedetti insisted; the King re- 
 plied that he refused this unparalleled demand once for all. Then 
 came a despatch from the Prussian ambassador saying that Napo- 
 leon was going to ask the King for a personal letter assuring 
 him that he had had no intention to injure France's interests. 
 William was vexed, and decided not to receive Benedetti again; 
 he sent word to him by his aide-de-camp that the letter from the 
 Prince of Sigmaringen had arrived confirming his withdrawal, 
 and that he regarded the matter as at an end. Benedetti insisted 
 upon an audience; the aide-de-camp replied that the King ad- 
 hered to the declaration of the morning. 
 
 Bismarck, once more in Berlin, irritated by Gramont's declara- 
 tion and by certain articles in the French newspapers, announced 
 to the English ambassador his intention of demanding explana- 
 tions and guarantees from France. He received by telegraph 
 an account of the Em's interview, with authorization to communi- 
 cate it to the press. He also published it immediately in his 
 semi-official organ, the North German Gazette, in an abbreviated 
 and precise form which brought out distinctly the King's refusal 
 to reply to Benedetti's demands.* 
 
 The article was sent all over Europe, and made war inevitable. 
 It was received in Germany as a patriotic demonstration, in 
 France as an insult. The council of ministers, held on the morn- 
 ing of July 14, had still sought to maintain peace; it thought of 
 Napoleon's favourite plan, a congress of the powers to establish 
 the principle of excluding all members of reigning families from 
 the Spanish throne. Another council, held at St. Cloud, at six 
 o'clock that evening, was still deliberating, when Gramont re- 
 ceived and read a despatch which caused an immediate decision 
 in favour of mobilization; this was the news of the insult given to 
 France.f War was announced the next day to the Chamber in 
 
 * Bismarck having boasted later of having modified the terms of the note 
 to make war inevitable, the German socialists reproached him with hav- 
 va.%falstfied the Ems despatch; and the French press has repeated this 
 accusation. It is enough to compare the two texts to show that there was 
 no falsification. The despatch sent to Bismarck by Abeken in the King's 
 name is in a confidential and obscure form, not suitable for publication, and 
 ends thus: " H. M. leaves it to your excellency to judge if Benedetti's new 
 demand should not be communicated to our ambassador and the press." 
 The note published by Bismarck adds nothing which is not in the des- 
 patch; it simply abbreviates it. 
 
 \ The nature of this insult has always been obscure. German historians 
 confuse it with Bismarck's article on the Ems interview. An oral tradi- 
 tion in French diplomatic circles attributes to King William a phrase 
 which no one would ever dare to publish. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPH Y. 8 1 1 
 
 reply to the interpellation on the future guarantees (July 15). 
 The government declared that it had called out the reserves and 
 asked a vote authorizing mobilization. A committee, imme- 
 diately appointed, listened to a statement by the minister of war, 
 who declared himself ready; Gramont explained the insult and 
 gave the committee to understand that Austria and Italy might 
 be counted on for aid. The Chamber then voted the authoriza- 
 tions. The same day at Berlin, at the news of Gramont's declara- 
 tion, the King ordered mobilization. 
 France declared war on the 19th of July. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 For general bibliography, documents, and works, see chap. xxv. 
 Recollections of diplomats during this period are numerous. 
 
 DOCUMENTS. — In addition to the notes, memoirs, and correspondence 
 indicated in chap. xxvi. (Kalmesbory, Stookmar, Martin), the principal docu- 
 ments are; 
 
 For Prussia: Foschingei:, " Preussen im Bundestag, 1851-59," 1882-84, 
 extracts from the Prussian archives ; Hahn, " Fiirst Bismarck," 5 vols., 
 1878-91 (see bibl. of chap, xv.) ; vonSybel, " Begriindung des Deutschen 
 Reiches " (see below). 
 
 For Italy: Bianchi, " Storia Docum. della Diplom. Europ.," 8 vols., 1865- 
 72 (see bibl. of chap, xi.) ; Mme. Rattazzi, " Rattazzi and his Time," 1881; 
 Xa Marmora, " Un peu plus de Lumiere sur . . . I'Annfee 1866," trans, 
 from the Italian, 1S73. — Chiiccioli, " Quintino Sella," 1887 (for the period 
 1867-70). 
 
 For France : S'Harcourt, " Les Quatre Ministeres de Drouyn de Lhuys," 
 1882 (Austrian alliance party); L. Thouvenel, " Nicolas I. et Napolfeon III., 
 1852-54," 1891, " Le Secret de I'Empereur . . . 1860-63," 2 vols., 1889 ; 
 Bothan'a series of "Souvenirs Diplomatiques " (see Waitz, "Quellenk.," 
 No. 6356); the author, French consul in Germany, has collected diplomatic 
 traditions; A. Memor (pseudo. for Gramont), " L'Allemagne Nouvelle 
 (1863-67)," 1879. 
 
 For Austria: Beust, "Aus Drei Vierteljahrhunderten," 2 vols., 1887.— 
 Titzthnm von Eckstatt, " Sanct-Petersburg und London," 1852-64, 1888; 
 " London, Gastein, und Sadowa, 1864-66," 1889, recollections of an Aus- 
 trian attachfe. 
 
 For the Coburgs : Ernst II. von SaohBen-Cobnrg-Gotha, " Aus Meinem 
 Leben . . .," 3 vols., 1887-89. 
 
 On the origin of the war of 1870; Gramont, " La France et La Prusse 
 . . .," 1872.— Benedetti, "Ma Mission en Prusse," 1871; the documents of 
 the Committee of Inquiry on the war, 1872; Revue des Deux Mondes, 
 1878, art. by Prince Napoleon.-Iiebrnn, "Souvenirs Militaires," 1895 ; "Aus 
 dem Leben Konigs Karls von Rumanien," vol. ii., 1894 (memoirs of the 
 king of Roumania, Charles of HohenzoUern), both of which give details 
 unknown to von Sybel. 
 
8l2 FRENCH PREPONDERANCE. 
 
 WORKS. — Complete Histories. — Coll. Oncken: EuUe, "Gesch. des 
 Zweiten Kaiserreiches und d. K. Italien," 1890; Bamberg, " Gesch. der 
 Orientalischen Angelegenheit " (from 1856 to 1878), 1892; not enough 
 references in either; Oncken, " Zeitalter des K. Wilhelms," 2 vols., 1890-92, 
 more scientific, very Prussian. 
 
 i H. TonSybel, " Die Begriindung des Deutschen Reiches durch Wilhelm 
 I.," 7 vols., 1889-94, stopped at 1870 by the author's death, is the chief 
 work for the outside history; it is hampered by official respect for the 
 Prussian government and attempt at literary style. — Friedjung, " Der 
 Kampf um die Vorherrschaft in Deutschland, 1859-66," vol. i., 1897, in 
 course of publication, Austrian.— Jerrold, " Life of Napoleon," 4 vols., 
 1874-82. In addition, the national histories indicated under chap, xxvi., 
 Walpole, Springer, Seuclilin, Bosen, and, for France, Tazile Delord, " Histoire 
 du Second Empire," 6 vols., 1870. 
 
 Episodes.— Crimean War.— Geffcken, " Zur Gesch. des Orientalischen 
 Krieges," 1881; Einglake, " Invasion of the Crimea," 3d edit., 5 vols., 1863, 
 Fr. trans. ; " L'Invasion de la Crimee," 2 vols., 1877; Totleben, " Defense de 
 Sebastopol," 4 vols., 1863, Russian. 
 
 Italian War: " Campagne de . . . Napoldon III. en Italie," 1862, 
 French government publication; " Der Krieg in Italien 1859," 3 vols., 
 1872-76, Austrian General Staff publication; Lecomte, "Relation . . . 
 de la Campagne d'ltalie," 2 vols., i860, Swiss. 
 
 War of the Duchies : See Waitz, " Quellenkunde," Nos. 6275 to 6286. 
 There are two official histories: "Der Deutsch-Danische Krieg, 1864," 2 
 vols., 1886-87, Prussian General Staff; "Den Dansk-Tydske Krieg," 1808 
 92, Danish Staff-office. 
 
 Negotiations between the two wars: J. Elaczko, " Les Prfeliminaires de 
 Sadowa," i860; J. Vilbort, " L'CEuvre de M. de Bismarck, 1863-66," 1869. 
 
 War of 1866: See Waltz, " Quellenkunde," Nos. 6321 to 6347. There are 
 two official histories by the two general staffs : Austrian, 1867-69, Prus- 
 sian, 1868; in French, Eustow, " La Guerre de 1866 en AUemagne et en 
 Italie," 1866; Lecomte, "Guerre de la Prusse en 1866," 2 vols., i868, Swiss; 
 Crousse, "Les Luttes de I'Autriche en 1866," 3 vols., 1868-70, Belgian 
 trans, from the history of the Austrian General Staff. 
 
 Luxemburg affair : Bothan, " Souvenirs Diplom.," 1882. 
 
 The Council: Ollivier, " L'Eglise et I'^tat au Concile du Vatican," 2 vol*., 
 1879. 
 
CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 GERMAN ASCENDENCY AND THE ARMED PEACE. 
 
 War with France (1870-71).— France had declared war on 
 Prussia alone. But Prussia had with her as allies outside of the 
 North German Confederation, all the sovereign states of the 
 South. For the first time Germany was fighting unitedly and 
 without foreign aid against France. 
 
 England, after offering her mediation, declared her neutrality 
 on July 19. The Tsar, personally related to the King of Prussia 
 and desirous of ridding himself of the treaty of 1856, declared 
 himself neutral, but at the same time made it known that he 
 would intervene against Austria should she support France. 
 With Austria and Italy the French government negotiated until 
 the first defeats; it asked them to prepare for war without ofiS- 
 cially departing from their neutrality, giving out, meanwhile, that 
 they were arming to prepare for mediation. In Austria, Beust 
 wished to wait; Andrassy, the Hungarian prime minister, caused 
 a decision to be made in favour of neutrality ; but Beust did not 
 dare announce it distinctly to the French government; he prom- 
 ised to arrange with Italy for a common mediation.* In Italy, 
 Victor-Emmanuel wanted war, but the ministry felt it impossible 
 
 * His letter to the Austrian ambassador at Paris, July 20, contains one 
 of those ambiguous sentences which conform to the traditions of European 
 diplomacy : " Kindly repeat to the Emperor and his ministers that, faith- 
 ful to the engagements we agreed to in the letters exchanged between the 
 two sovereigns last year, we shall consider the cause of France our own 
 and contribute to the success of her arms to the fullest extent of our 
 power." After having explained that Austria was restrained by Russia, 
 the Hungarians, and Austrian Germans, Beust added: " Under these cir- 
 cumstances, the word neutrality, which we pronounce not without regret, 
 is imposed on us by imperious necessity. . . But this neutrality is only a 
 means . . . toward the accomplishment of our policy, the only means 
 whereby we can complete our armament and avoid exposing ourselves 
 defenceless to a sudden attack.'' Gramont understood this to be a promise 
 of assistance; it may refer to the agreement made by the three sovereigns 
 in 1869, to conclude no treaty without giving each other notice of it, and 
 may be only a vague promise of mediation. 
 
 813 
 
8l4 GERMAN ASCENDENCY AND THE ARMED PEACE. 
 
 considering the state of the army and the treasury. It did, nev- 
 ertheless, negotiate with the French government, but the Roman 
 question hindered any definite agreement. France was therefore 
 ^eft to face Germany alone. 
 
 The war was divided into two separate parts by the defeat of 
 Sedan : 
 
 I. Both sides wished tO' take the ofifensive; mobilization was 
 efifected in a fortnight. The Germans, following a plan of cam- 
 paign prepared in 1868 by von Moltke, intended to " search out 
 the principal force of the enemy and attack it where they found 
 it," on the Metz-Strasburg line. They made no attempt to de- 
 fend Baden, but centred their forces in the Palatinate. They 
 were divided into three armies, which, once complete, rose to 
 almost 500,000 men. The First army, of 75,000 men^ the Sec- 
 ond, of over 200,000, marched on Metz by the Sarre, while the 
 Third, of over 150,000 men, mainly from South Germany, under 
 the Crown Prince of Prussia, marched on Strasburg. 
 
 The Frenc'h wished to enter Germany by crossing the Rhine, 
 probably below Rastadt, in such manner as to separate the South 
 Germans from Prussia. They had two armies: the army of the 
 Rhine, the chief army and headed by Napoleon III., on the 
 border of Lorraine on the Sarre, and MacMahon's army in 
 Alsace. But the active army, comprising 750,000 men on 
 paper, in reality only had 250,000; the garde mobile of 600,000 
 men was not organized at all. Mobilization consisted in sending 
 to the frontier regiments as they stood in time of peace, without 
 even waiting to fill up their complement of men. The regiments 
 had scarcely half of their full strength; the army of the Rhine 
 had barely 110,000 men, that of MacMahon but 40,000. Napo- 
 leon III. had to give up any idea of ofifensive warfare. These 
 armies, composed of veteran soldiers, brave and experienced, 
 were ill-supplied with food, ammunition, and field-hospitals, and 
 commanded by officers who had, in Algeria, grown accustomed 
 to irregular warfare, without a definite plan of campaign, without 
 knowledge of the strength and position of the enemy, without 
 topographical knowledge of the territory, and even without maps 
 (they had been given only maps of Germany). They marched 
 slowly and in disorder, the dififerent corps badly mixed together, 
 exposed to sudden attack, without scouts, sometimes even with- 
 out outposts. It had been almost the same in the Crimean War, 
 but the enemy was then in the same condition. In 1870 the 
 war was between a small army of the old professional kind and 
 
fVA/l WITIf FRANCE. 815 
 
 a great, scientifically organized army of the most improved sort. 
 The first campaign divided itself into three acts. 
 
 1. The Germans, taking the ofifensive, attacked both the army 
 of the Rhine and that of Alsace simultaneously (August 6). The 
 arrny of Alsace, crushed by the Third army at Froeschwiller- 
 Reichshoffen, a confused battle entered upon unintentionally by 
 the Bavarians, evacuated Alsace in disorder and retreated to 
 Chalons. The army of the Rhine, attacked by the First army at 
 Forbach-Spickeren, a height which the Prussians took by storm, 
 fell back on Metz. The results were the abandonment of Alsace, 
 where the Germans had now only to besiege Strasburg, the fall 
 of the Ollivier ministry, the withdrawal of the troops from Rome, 
 and an impression throughout Europe that France was irre- 
 mediably defeated. Italy, which was still negotiating, decided to 
 remain neutral. She had made a treaty of neutrality with Aus- 
 tria, but remained armed: in order to resist Napoleon's solicita- 
 tions more easily, she concluded with England a treaty binding 
 both to remain neutral. 
 
 2. The three German armies attacked the army of the Rhine, 
 increased to over 150,000 men, and checked its progress by three 
 series of battles, the most disastrous of the war: Borny, in the 
 east, on August 14; Mars-la-Tour, in the southwest, on August 
 16; and Gravelotte, in the northwest, on August 18. Meanwhile 
 the Second army had surrounded Metz and cut ofif its retreat. 
 The result was to bottle up the principal French army, which 
 was formed of picked soldiers and was the only body capable 
 of checking the enemy's advance. The Germans left before 
 Metz the First and Second armies joined in one (200,000 men), 
 which shut in the French by a line of intrenchments. The Third 
 German army marched on Chalons; a Fourth army of 7S,ooo 
 men was left on the Meuse to cut ofif the French re-enforcements. 
 
 3. An army improvised at Chalons from the debris of the army 
 of Alsace and re-enforcements of an inferior character, set out 
 under MacMahon to relieve the Metz army. It advanced so 
 slowly that it gave the Third army of Germans time to arrive; 
 stopped by the army of the Meuse, then driven northward, it 
 was surrounded at Sedan, and the whole army, with Napoleon 
 himself, was forced to surrender (September 2). There was no 
 longer a French army. Italy occupied Rome. 
 
 11. The second part of the war was longer and more com- 
 plicated, but much less important from a military standpoint. 
 France, invaded and deprived of her regular army, resisted to 
 
8l6 GERMAN ASCENDENCY AND THE ARMED PEACE. 
 
 save her honour. The new government of the National Defence 
 improvised armies formed of remnants of regiments, sailors, 
 marines, mobiles; it proclaimed a levee en masse of all men of 
 twenty-one to forty years of age, and provided some of them 
 with arms bought in England and the United States. This un- 
 foreseen resistance astonished the Germans.* But the outcome 
 was never in doubt for a moment, in spite of French illusions. 
 The war was reduced to the siege of Paris and attempts to de- 
 liver the city. It was divided into three acts. 
 
 1. The Third and Fourth German armies marched on Paris, 
 while the Second blockaded the French army in Metz.- The 
 French government sent Thiers, on September 12, to search Eu- 
 rope for alliances. Public opinion, which had been unfavourable 
 to Napoleon, had turned in favour of France against the invad- 
 ing Germans, who had suddenly become too strong; it was shown 
 by manifestations of sympathy and private subscriptions; but no 
 government dared tO' interfere. J. Favre, in a circular of Sep- 
 tember 6, announced as the condition of peace: " Not an inch 
 of our territory, not a stone of our fortresses." At the Ferrieres 
 interview, on September 19 (see p. 188), Bismarck demanded 
 Alsace; not even an armistice could be arranged. The Germans 
 on the same day took the heights of Chatillon, which enabled 
 them to bombard Paris from the south, and they invested the 
 city. Bazaine, wishing to preserve the Metz army, made no 
 serious attempt to force the blockade, but negotiated with the 
 Germans (see p. 189), and was finally driven by famine to sur- 
 render his army, on October 27. On Odtober 31 Russia de- 
 clared that she no longer considered herself bound by the treaty 
 of 1856 and resumed her liberty of action on the Black Sea. 
 Thiers was sent to arrange a truce (October 31); Bismarck de- 
 manded Alsace and $600,000,000 ; the negotiation was broken off 
 on December 5, when on the point of completion.f 
 
 2. The army of the Loire, formed at Orleans of more than 150,- 
 
 * There were, according to Freycinet, " La Guerre en Province," 1871, 
 230,000 infantry, 32,000 cavalry, 110,000 mobiles, 180,000 militiamen, 
 30,000 franc-tireurs (guerrillas), and 1400 cannon. See the estimate of 
 these forces by a German ofiBcer, von der Goltz, " Lfeon Gambetta and 
 his Armies," 1877. 
 
 f Different reasons are given for the rupture: the insurrection of 
 October 31, which made the provisional government fear a revolt in case 
 of a truce; Bismarck's new demands for securities to be taken against 
 Paris, and King William's dissatisfaction over Gambetta's proclamation 
 regarding Bazaine. 
 
TREATIES OF LONDON AND FRANKFORT. 817 
 
 000 men, began, in October, to march on Paris, in spite of the 
 advice of the general, who had no confidence in his improvised 
 troops. It was quickly stopped by the Second German army, 
 which had become disengaged by the taking of Metz, and after 
 a three-days' battle (December 1-3) retreated behind the Loire 
 in disorder. The army created at Paris, chiefly of mobiles and 
 national guards, 300,000 in all, attempted to march southward 
 to meet the army of the Loire, but was stopped and driven back 
 to Paris (November 30-December 2). 
 
 3. A winter campaign in exceptional cold completed the de- 
 struction of the French army. The army of the Loire under 
 Chanzy was attacked by the Second army, and withdrew to le 
 Mans on December 16. The army of the East, under Bourbaki, 
 composed of a part of the army of the Loire, was to march 
 through Franche-Comte to Belfort and force the Germans to re- 
 tire by threatening their communications in the rear. An army 
 formed in the North under Faidherbe, was to march on Paris. 
 The army of the Loire was put to rout at le Mans January 10-12, 
 the army of the North at St. Quentin January 19; the army of the 
 East, delayed by the cold weather, and stopped by a small but 
 well-intrenched German force (Villersexel, January 9, and Heri- 
 court, January 15-18), was surrounded and took refuge in Swit- 
 zerland on February i. Paris, bombarded since December 27, 
 and out of provisions, made a fruitless sortie (Buzenval, January 
 10) ; then, on January 24, capitulated. 
 
 Treaties of London and Frankfort (1871). — Russia, in denounc- 
 ing the treaty of 1856, had given just cause for war; England 
 and Austria protested,* England even threatened. But not one 
 of the powers that guaranteed the treaty was in a condition to 
 make war. Bismarck proposed to settle the matter by a confer- 
 ence, in January, 1871. Russia acknowledged the principle that 
 a power has not the right to discard a treaty; but this was only 
 a concession of form. The London Conference annulled the arti- 
 cles that Russia had denounced and on March 13 drew up a new 
 treaty restoring to Russia her freedom on the Black Sea. The 
 Sultan, moreover, accepted this without remonstrance. 
 
 * According to the Crown Prince's Journal, King William was greatly 
 displeased with the Russian circular, saying that it was beyond a joke 
 and that he would never again give his hand to GortschakofE, the author 
 of "this piece of rascality" (ce coup de Jarnac). At the Congress of 
 Berlin in 1878, GortschakofE told how anxious he had been, Russia having 
 no army ready. 
 
8l8 GERMAN ASCENDENCY AND THE ARMED PEACE. 
 
 Negotiation between France and Germany was divided into 
 three acts. 
 
 1. An armistice was arranged on January 28, to give time for 
 the election of an assembly to discuss the terms of peace. The 
 army of the East was not included in the truce. 
 
 2. The preliminaries concluded at Versailles, on February 26, 
 between Bismarck and Thiers, settled the conditions of peace. 
 Bismarck had demanded all of Alsace, including Belfort, a part 
 of Lorraine, and 6,000,000,000 francs. Thiers, by his powers 
 of insistence, retained Belfort and reduced the indemnity to 
 5,000,000,000 francs. The German army was to enter Paris 
 and remain there until the acceptance of the terms.* The As- 
 sembly, by 546 votes against 107, promptly approved the treaty 
 (March i); the Germans had time to occupy only the Champs- 
 Elysees. 
 
 3. Negotiation for the final treaty began at Brussels toward 
 the end of March. The terms of payment for the indemnity, the 
 purchase of railroads in the ceded districts, and commercial rela- 
 tions had still to be settled. The Germans demanded payment in 
 coin, cession of the railroads without compensation, and restora- 
 tion of the commercial treaties of 1862; no agreement could be 
 made. The Commune arrested negotiations; the Germans re- 
 mained neutral, but Bismarck spoke in the Reichstag of the 
 necessity of keeping the army ready. Thiers was anxious, and 
 resumed negotiations at Frankfort in May. The treaty of 
 Frankfort of May 20 determined the new frontier, the mode 
 of paying the war indemnity, and the date of German evacu- 
 ation. 
 
 Bismarck consented to buy the railroads from the Eastern 
 Company for 325,000,000 francs (he had at first offered 100,- 
 000,000), to accept a partial payment in securities, and renounce 
 the commercial treaty of 1862; but he insisted that the tariff 
 between the two nations should be lowered to the rate of the 
 most favoured nation. f 
 
 New Conditions of European Policy since 1871. — The Franco- 
 
 *The King had consented not to urge the entrance of the Germans 
 into Paris; Thiers secured Belfort in exchange for the entrance into Paris. 
 
 f This was called in France an " industrial Sedan." It was the preser- 
 vation of the semi-free-trade which had been tried in Europe since i860 
 and which France had given up. In reality, as it was impossible to im- 
 pose by diplomatic means a restriction on the legislation of both countries, 
 the treaty was confined to designating certain nations toward which 
 equality of customs duties must be maintained. 
 
NEW CONDITIONS OF EUROPEAN POLICY. 819 
 
 Prussian war overturned European politics. It established the 
 German Empire, that is to say, the unity of Germany under the 
 military predominance of Prussia. It gave Germany an indispu- 
 table predominance in Europe. It destroyed the temporal power 
 of the Pope and completed Italian unity. It ended the neutrality 
 of the Black Sea and revived the Eastern question. It destroyed 
 the Napoleonic Empire and established in France the first Re- 
 public that has endured. It deprived France of three depart- 
 ments (1000 square miles and more than 1,500,000 inhabitants) 
 and created the Alsace-Lorraine Question. 
 
 In addition to this, it altered the ideas of European govern- 
 ments and peoples on foreign policy. Universal military service, 
 adopted by all the great states on the continent, in imitation of 
 Germany, has, by making the young men of wealthy families join 
 the army, personally interested the members of the governments 
 and parliaments in avoiding war. The new system of war, with 
 its enormous masses of troops, its invasions, requisitions, com- 
 plete cessation of business, and new destructive machines, has 
 made war so formidable that all nations wish to avoid it, and so 
 odious that no statesman dares to take the responsibility of be- 
 ginning it. The representative assemblies, which have become 
 at once more powerful and more democratic, have taken more 
 account of the desires of the peace-loving mass of the nation and 
 have put more pressure on the governments to keep them from 
 war. 
 
 The personal will of sovereigns and ministers, which in the pre- 
 ceding period determined the wars, has been paralyzed by pub- 
 lic sentiment. The influence of statesmen, although consider- 
 able in a number of cases since 1871 (Bismarck, Andrassy, Gort- 
 schakoff, Disraeli, and Gladstone), has become less decisive on 
 the outcome of events. It is only in the East, in the countries 
 which have remained outside of the conditions of modem life, 
 with absolute sovereigns and ill-trained armies, that wars and 
 the full sway of diplomatists continue: the ipternational politics 
 of Europe since 1871 has centred in the Balkan Peninsula and 
 its neighbourhood. In civilized Europe, diplomacy, deprived of 
 its only eflfective means of action, recourse to war, is reduced to 
 a game of demonstrations of sympathy or antipathy. Diplo- 
 matists continue to make alliances, though deprived of the mili- 
 tary sanction; newspapers still gather sensational news from the 
 diplomatic world; the public is kept in continual anxiety; but 
 no great event has come from it. 
 
 The German invasion transformed the French idea of war: 
 
820 GERMAN ASCENDENCY AND THE ARMED PEACE. 
 
 they saw it no longer as an " expedition," but an " invasion." 
 The representatives who direct foreign policy know that in no 
 case would the great majority of their electors approve an offen- 
 sive war. 
 
 But the treaty of Frankfort, by annexing to Germany Alsace- 
 Lorraine, against the obvious wishes of the inhabitants, 
 created a new question in Europe. In the minds of Frenchmen 
 it presented itself, confused at first, under the popular form of 
 revenge. This was the old idea that war is a duel between two 
 nations, in which the vanquished must redeem his honour. 
 This formula gave Germany and possibly Europe the impres- 
 sion that the French protestations against the treaty of Frankfort 
 arose from the same feelings that had prompted the former 
 hatred of the treaties of 1815. It is true that in 1815 only 
 national pride was affected, while the annexation of the people 
 of Alsace-Lorraine against their zvill gave rise to a question of 
 political justice. It violated the fundamental principle of de- 
 mocracy. It was impossible for the French to recognise the 
 treaty of Frankfort as legitimate, since it was contrary to the 
 rights of the annexed people. But this watchword of revenge, 
 coupled with a program for the reconquest of Alsace-Lorraine, 
 gave the movement the appearance of a simple territorial claim, 
 founded on national rivalry alone. Even to-day France has not 
 yet learned to let the question rest on the rational ground of the 
 rights of the people. France's representatives, though anxious 
 to maintain peace, have never been able to declare that French- 
 men accept the treaty of 1871, nor to make the real ground of 
 their refusal understood. One point only has been made clear 
 to Europe, which is that France, having become irreconcilably 
 Germany's enemy, is only awaiting an occasion to make war 
 upon her, a policy expressed later by Gambetta's motto : " Think 
 of it always and never speak of it." 
 
 As after 181 5, European policy has consisted chiefly in main- 
 taining France in peace. Like Austria in 1815, Germany has 
 undertaken this charge. Having nothing further to ask, being, 
 like Austria before, " saturated " (Metternich's expression, re- 
 vived by Bismarck), she has endeavoured to maintain the status 
 quo — that is to say, her own conquests and predominance. But 
 Austria, with her military weakness, had qviickly lost her pre^ 
 dominance; Germany, with the strongest army in Europe, has 
 kept hers. 
 
 The Alliance of the Three Emperors (1871-76).— Bismarck's 
 
THE ALLIANCE OF THE THREE EMPERORS. 821 
 
 aggressive policy in 1864 and 1866, and the annexations of 1864 
 and 1866, all founded on the right of conquest, had given Europe 
 the impression that Germany was intending, like Napoleon in 
 former years, to use the incontestable superiority of her army to 
 continue her annexations; the conquest of the Germanic coun- 
 tries was next expected, the Netherlands, the German states of 
 Austria, and German Switzerland. The Emperor had an- 
 nounced in a proclamation on January 18, and in a speech from 
 the throne on May 21, that Germany, henceforth united and 
 strong, would strive only to maintain peace in Europe; but these 
 statements were distrusted. For a number of years, the little 
 states neighbouring the Empire, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, 
 Switzerland, and Denmark, were in constant anxiety through 
 distrust of the Germans. In actual fact, the German government 
 has since 1871 made neither war nor conquest, nor deserted 
 its peaceful policy. 
 
 The other powers recognised German predominance, and the 
 other governments approached Germany with demonstrations 
 of good will and desire for peace. Austria was the first; the 
 creation of the Empire having destroyed all her hopes of ever 
 resuming the first place in Germany, she directed her efiforts 
 henceforth toward the Orient (according to Bismarck's advice 
 in 1862), and on this side she needed Germany to counterbalance 
 Russia. The good feeling between Austria and Germany, 
 which has lasted ever since, was shown in 1871 by a series of in- 
 dications: Beust's address in July to the Austrian and Hun- 
 garian Delegations on Austria's friendship with Germany and 
 Italy, which would make central Europe the bulwark of peace, — 
 the Gastein interview be<tween Bismarck and Beust in August, — 
 and the interview between the two Emperors at Salzburg in Sep- 
 tember. It was consolidated by the fall of Beust in December, 
 1871 (see p. 538), and the succession to the department of foreign 
 affairs of Andrassy, a Hungarian representative and natural ally 
 of Germany against the Slavs. 
 
 In Russia, public opinion, in the Slavic nationalist party and 
 in the official world, was already beginning to manifest itself 
 against Germany. The Tsar, a personal friend of Emperor 
 William, tried to preserve the friendly relations begun in 1863 
 during the struggle against the Poles. He showed his feelings 
 in a toast to the Emperor in which he recalled the fraternal feel- 
 ing between the German and Russian armies and the friendship 
 
822 GERMAN ASCENDENCY AND THE ARMED PEACE. 
 
 between the two sovereigns, " the best guarantee for the peace 
 and order of Europe " (December 8, 1871). 
 
 Italy, disturbed by the demonstrations of the Catholic party 
 in France for the restoration of the temporal power, began to 
 make overtures to Germany. The movement was emphasized 
 by the visit of the Crown Prince Humbert to the Emperor at 
 Berlin in May, 1872. 
 
 The understanding between the powers was shown by the 
 interview between the three Emperors and their ministers at Ber- 
 lin in September, 1872. Bismarck explained the significance of 
 it: "Europe recognised the German Empire as the bulwark of 
 general peace." This is what was improperly termed " the alli- 
 ance between the three Emperors " ; no treaty was concluded. 
 Other interviews followed: at the Vienna Exposition in 1873, — at 
 Petersburg in 1874, — at Ischl, in the mountains of Austria, in 
 1874-75, — at Salzburg in 1876, — and in Bohemia in 1875-76. The 
 King of Italy visited Vienna and Berlin in 1873 ; the two Em- 
 perors returned his visit in 1875, but did not go to Rome on 
 account of the Pope; courteous relations were maintained on all 
 sides. 
 
 England and France remained outside, isolated in the face of 
 the monarchies of the Centre and East. This peaceful state of 
 affairs lasted until the Eastern troubles in 1876, without other 
 incident * than the rumours of war between France and Germany 
 in April and May, 1875, whose exact history is not known.f 
 
 * I do not count the intervention of a German cruiser in the Civil War 
 at Carthegena in 1873, nor the conflict between Germany and Belgium 
 over the declarations of Belgian bishops against Bismarck in 1875. 
 
 f These are the undisputed facts. The National Assembly had just 
 voted a law on the organization of the army. The German chief of staff, 
 von Moltke, declared that this law could only mean that France was pre- 
 paring for another war. The German government instructed its ambassa- 
 dor at Paris, Hohenlohe, to ask an explanation; Hohenlohe presented 
 himself before Decazes, minister of foreign affairs, and said to him: 
 "I am charged by my government to inform you that it regards your 
 armament as a threatening action; will you take note of this? " Decazes 
 refused to take any action, declaring the suspicions unjust. A German 
 semi-official publication, the Post, published an article, " War in sight," 
 which discussed the chances of war. About the same time Radowitz went 
 on a special mission from Germany to the Tsar. The rumour spread 
 through the whole diplomatic world of Europe that France was threat- 
 ened with war; Decazes asked help from Orloff, the Russian ambassador, 
 and declared that if the French were attacked they would retreat behind 
 the Loire. An article in the Times said that the Prussian military party 
 
EASTERN AFFAIRS. 823 
 
 Eastern Affairs (1875-76).— After France's defeat, Russia had 
 gained a ruling influence over the Turkish government. She 
 secured the creation of a Bulgarian Exarchy which removed the 
 religious direction of the Orthodox Bulgarians from the Greek 
 Patriarch of Constantinople in order to give it to ^^lavic prel- 
 ate, a protege of Russia. The Slavic nationalist T^t§ in Russia 
 
 to^^l; 
 vf; dire 
 
 founded a Society for the Deliverance of the Slav'^directed by a 
 central committee and sub-committees. This society excited the 
 Christian Slavs in Bosnia and Bulgaria and worked in communi- 
 cation with Russian consular agents.* 
 
 The Orthodox Servians of Herzegovina finally revolted, in 
 July, 1875, which reopened the Eastern question. Andrassy's 
 note (see p. 631) enumerated the guarantees to be demanded of 
 the Turks in order to restore peace; the note was not in collective 
 form for fear of offending the Sultan. 
 
 But the insurgents demanded reforms which the Porte re- 
 
 ■wished to declare war, march on Paris, and claim new millions. In Russia, 
 Chancellor Gortschakoff, informed of this by the French ambassador 
 Lefl6, replied: "Be strong! You are too rich not to excite envy." 
 Lefl6 obtained an audience of the Tsar, told him of his fears, and asked 
 if he would shield France with his sword. The Tsar replied that his word 
 would be enough, that he would go to Berlin and there express his wish 
 for the maintenance of peace. On May ri the Tsar saw the Emperor at 
 Berlin, and the rumours of war ceased at once. Some time after, Emperor 
 William said to the French ambassador that the rumours of war had arisen 
 from manoeuvres on the Stock Exchange; and to the French military 
 attach^ he said: " It was a plot to make trouble between us." Bismarck, 
 in the Reichstag in February, 1886, declared that the papers busied them- 
 selves too much with foreign affairs. 
 
 These facts have been given two interpretations. Gortschakoff let it be 
 understood, and Ambassador Gontaut-Biron said, that Prussia had decided 
 on war, and sent Radowitz to sound the Tsar's opinion; also that had 
 it not been for the Tsar's intervention Prussia would have attacked 
 France. This opinion seems to have been that of most European diplo- 
 matists. Bismarck, on the other hand, has declared that neither he nor 
 the Emperor desired war, which would have been " a colossal piece of 
 stupidity"; that this whole incident was a plot between Gortschakoff and 
 Gontaut-Biron, both his personal enemies, to annoy him and to set them- 
 selves up as guardians of peace; that they had made use of Radowitz' 
 mission and the Tsar's visit to Berlin, which Gortschakoff knew before- 
 hand, to make people believe there had been a design of war on foot and 
 that the Tsar had arrested it. 
 
 *This secret action was revealed by letters which the Turkish govern- 
 ment procured in 1872, and published in 1877, with the suppression of 
 proper names. It is a matter of opinion, whether the Russian agents 
 worked by order of their government or without its knowledge. 
 
824 GERMAN ASCENDENCY AND THE ARMED PEACE. 
 
 fused; they then drove back the Turkish army with the aid of the 
 Montenegrins (April, 1876). The Sultan, threatened by Russia, 
 dared not declare war on Montenegro; but he sent an army to 
 the frontier. The Prince of Montenegro openly declared war. 
 Then animosity against the Turks grew so strong that the 
 war party g4(B^ssession of the power in Servia- and Roumania 
 dnd the Bulga^ns revolted. Meanwhile the assassination of 
 , the German and French consuls by the Mussulmans at Salonica 
 obliged the powers to intervene. The conceil of Europe was 
 counted on to force the Porte to grant reforms that would put 
 an end to the trouble. But the Disraeli ministry, resuming the 
 traditional English policy of defending the Ottoman Empire 
 against Russia, refused to be bound by the BerHn Memorandum,. 
 in which the other powers concurred. England sent her fleet 
 independently to the neighbourhood of Constantinople, giving 
 the Turks the impression that she was supporting them. 
 
 Servia declared war; small Servian armies, composed of 
 militiamen, entered Turkish territory in July; they were quickly 
 thrown back into Servia. The Tsar, the declared protector of 
 Servia, had Russian volunteers enrolled and spoke publicly of a 
 war "perhaps near at hand"; finally, in November, he de- 
 manded of the Turks a truce of two months. Then, Disraeli, 
 having made a threatening speech in England, the Tsar began, 
 to mobilize his army (November). He nevertheless got Eng- 
 land to agree to a conference at Constantinople, formed of the 
 ambassadors of the six powers; a plan of reforms was drawn up,, 
 but the Turkish government refused to accept it. 
 
 The powers recalled their ambassadors in January, 1877, and 
 Russia succeeded in persuading the other powers to sign the 
 London protocol, by which she promised to disarm if the Sultan 
 would agree to make the promised reforms (see p. 632). The 
 Porte having refused this protocol, Russia announced that, all 
 the reform projects having received an unqualified rejection from 
 the Porte, her interests forced her to put an end to the dis- 
 turbances. Alexander II., in spite of his desire for peace, had 
 finally yielded to the nationalist 'party, which, under AksakofF, 
 had for two years been conducting a press campaign to induce 
 the government to go to the aid of their Slavic brethren op- 
 pressed by Turkey. 
 
 The Turkish War (1877-78). — All the European powers de- 
 clared neutrality; England protested in the name of the treaties, 
 but added that she would not interfere unless to protect her 
 
THE TURKISH WAR. 825 
 
 own interests, the Suez Canal, Constantinople, and the Dar- 
 danelles. 
 
 Russia, besides Montenegro, which was still at war, had as an 
 ally Roumania. This nominally Turkish principality having 
 failed to obtain Turkey's consent to neutrality, preferred to join 
 hands with Russia, and offered her the right of passage for her 
 army on condition that Russia should guarantee her territorial 
 integrity. 
 
 The war consisted of four operations. 
 
 1. The Russian army entered Roumania in April and slowly 
 crossed the Danube in May and June, in spite of the Turkish 
 fleet; it made use of the Roumanian supplies, but refused the help 
 of her army. 
 
 2. The Russian army invaded Bulgaria, and, leaving the quad- 
 rilateral of Turkish fortresses, marched on the Balkans; the ad- 
 vance guard, under Gourko, surprised and took the Shipka pass, 
 tried to descend on the other side and was driven back, but re- 
 tained possession of the pass. The Turkis'h army intrenched 
 itself in Plevna, at the intersection of the principal highroads 
 of Bulgaria, and repulsed two attacks (July). The Russian army 
 saw itself compelled to conduct a regular siege, and asked the 
 aid of the Roumanian army. 
 
 3. The siege of Plevna was long and bloody (September- 
 December). The Turkish soldiers, mainly Albanians, having 
 got rid of their officers and divided themselves into small 
 groups, sheltered by intrenchments, with good Martini and Sny- 
 der guns and unlimited cartridges from the Plevna arsenal, de- 
 fended themselves with stubborn courage and killed many of 
 the enemy (16,000 Russians, 5000 Roumanians). The Russian 
 army was poorly supplied. and had no intrenching tools. They 
 had to wait for re-enforcements to surround the place ; they finally 
 inclosed it in October, in order to starve it into surrender. A 
 Turkish army came to relieve the place, but was beaten ofJ. The 
 
 famished Plevna army issued from its intrenchments, made an 
 attack, was surrounded, and capitulated on December 10. 
 Servia, which had long been armed, declared war anew. 
 
 4. The Russian army, in spite of snow and cold, crossed the 
 Balkans, forced the passes, surrounded and captured a Turkish 
 army in the mountains, then descended through the valley of the 
 Maritza upon Philipopolis, where it put the last Turkish army 
 to flight, January 14 to 17, 1878. The Russians then marched 
 to Adrianople. 
 
826 GERMAN ASCENDENCY AND THE ARMED PEACE. 
 
 Peace of San Stefano and Congress of Berlin (1878).— The Sul- 
 tan, left without an army, sent a request for peace, declaring him- 
 self at the mercy of the Tsar's generosity; Russia set forth her 
 conditions in the Adrianople protocol, on January 31: inde- 
 pendence and enlargement of Roumania, Servia, Montenegro, a 
 principality of Bulgaria, and autonomy for Bosnia. England 
 was disturbed and prepared her fleet (January 28), then sent her 
 vessels into the Dardanelles against the Sultan's w'ishes. Rus- 
 sia replied to this demonstration by declaring that she con- 
 sidered herself free to occupy Constantinople (February). A pro- 
 visional agreement prevented a conflict. As the Turkish gov- 
 ernment was trying to prolong negotiations, Grand-Duke 
 Nicholas transferred his headquarters to San Stefano; there the 
 Russian plenipotentiary, Ignatieff, communicated his ultimatum. 
 The preliminaries of San Stefano, March 3, 1878, concluded the 
 peace on the bases of the protocol of January 31 (see p. 633). 
 
 Russia had worked exclusively in the interests of her Slavic 
 proteges. The English government replied with warlike demon- 
 strations, but hesitated to engage in a conflict in which no other 
 power would follow her. Russia was exhausted and wanted 
 peace. The Russian and English governments finally agreed 
 on the questions to be discussed in a European congress. To 
 counterbalance Russia's acquisitions- in Asia, England con- 
 cluded a secret treaty with the Sultan on June 4, promising, if 
 the Russian annexations should be maintained, to defend Asia 
 Minor; the Sultan in return promised reforms in those countries 
 and authorized England to occupy Cyprus. 
 
 The Congress of Berlin, composed of the ministers and ambas- 
 sadors of the six great powers (Russia, Germany, Austria, Eng^ 
 land, France, and Italy), and of the Sultan, met in June, 1878, 
 under the presidency of Bismarck. It showed Germany's pre- 
 dominance in Europe. Bismarck had declared that he woul'd 
 accept the role, not of arbiter, but of an " honest courtier " to aid 
 in the restoration of peace. 
 
 The congress settled all the questions that bad been brought 
 up in the Ottoman Empire by insurrections and wars. All the 
 powers were agreed on Austria's occupation of Bosnia, and im- 
 posed it on the Turks. Their disagreements arose concerning 
 Bulgaria, Asia Minor, and the Danube. In the case of Bul- 
 garia, the powers obliged Russia to yield (see p. 665). England 
 protested, as a matter of form, against Russia's annexations in 
 Asia Minor, and took the opportunity to publish the secret treaty 
 
FORMATION OF THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE. 827 
 
 which gave her Cyprus. On the Danube question, Austria com- 
 pelled Russia to accept neutralization and the destruction of 
 fortresses. 
 
 The congress also discussed the case of Greece and forced 
 Servia and Roumania to grant political equality to the Jews. 
 
 Formation of the Triple Alliance (1870-83). — The settlement 
 of the Eastern question at Berlin had broken the understanding 
 between the Empires. Gortschakoff could not forgive Bis- 
 marck for not having supported Russia's demands. Austria, 
 , mistress of Bosnia, endeavoured to iiicrease her influence with 
 the Christians of the Balkan Peninsula and to open for herself 
 a commercial route through Salonica. These objects brought 
 her into competition with Russia. The discord was marked by 
 articles against Germany in the Russian papers and Russian 
 military activity on the Austrian frontier. Bismarck approached 
 Austria more closely to support her against Russia in the East. 
 Austria concluded secretly with the German Empire, in October, 
 1879, " an alliance for peace and mutual defence," designed espe- 
 cially in case of an " attack on either by Russia " ; for in the case 
 of an attack by any other power, the states promised each other 
 only a friendly neutrality, unless the aggressor should be sup- 
 ported by Russia. 
 
 Alexander's personal friendship for William kept up the offi- 
 cial appearance of harmony; there were still interviews between 
 the Emperors in 1879, ^'^^ i" March, 1880, a toast was proposed 
 by Alexander " to his best friend, William." But the Russian 
 government was making military preparations in Poland as if 
 for a Western war. It allowed the newspapers to agitate in 
 favour of France and against Germany. The idea of an under- 
 standing between France and Russia, which had been suggested 
 several times prior to 1830 (by Napoleon, Richelieu, and Poli- 
 gnac), but had been abandoned for half a century because of 
 the indignation caused by Russian policy in Poland, began 
 to be talked of once more. France was eager to find an ally 
 against Germany, and Russia was irritated by German predomi- 
 nance. An alliance was proposed in an interview with Gort- 
 schakoff by a French journalist (of the SoleiT) in September, 
 1879; iater the same idea appears in Gambetta's declarations 
 and in the speeches of the Russian general, Skobelefif, in 1882. 
 
 The Eastern question had destroyed the understanding be- 
 tween the Eastern monarchies and prepared a new grouping. 
 Colonial policy completed this evolution. France, abandoning 
 
828 GERMAN ASCENDENCY AND THE ARMED PEACE. 
 
 her " policy of recollection," sought new conquests in Asia and 
 Africa. She thus put herself in conflict with Italy. Italy since 
 1870 had been hesitating between distrust of France, which she 
 suspected of wishing to restore the temporal power, and hos- 
 tility to Austria, which controlled the Italian Tyrol and Trieste. 
 She pursued the " policy of free hands," avoiding all engage- 
 ments in order to keep herself free to seize any opportunities 
 that might arise. After the triumph of the French Republicans 
 in 1877 she was inclined to approach France and support the 
 Irredentists. The conquest of Tunis suddenly changed her atti- 
 tude; she broke with France, renounced irredentism, and ap- 
 proached Austria; the King paid a visit to the Emperor in 
 October, 1881. 
 
 England, on the succession of the Liberal ministry in 1880, 
 changed her Eastern policy. Gladstone, wlio openly hated the 
 Turks, sided with Montenegro and Greece (see pp. 663 and 634). 
 
 The death of Alexander II., in 1881, completed the destruction 
 of the understanding between the three Emperors. Alexander 
 III. was personally hostile to German influence. But being de- 
 termined to maintain peace above everything, he took a peace- 
 ful minister of foreign afifairs, de Giers (1-882), and continued 
 the traditional interviews between the Emperors; in Germany in 
 1881 and 1884, and in Austria in 1885. 
 
 The Italian government, probably to consolidate the mon- 
 ardhy, asked to be admitted to the defensive alliance between 
 Germany and Austria. Thus was concluded, in 1883, the Triple 
 Alliance, designed to maintain peace by a coalition of three 
 Europe;an powers against the supposed warlike desigpis of 
 France and Russia. French opinion would put no faith in the 
 purely defensive and consequently peaceful character of the 
 Triple Alliance. France steadily regarded it as a threat of war. 
 
 Formation of the Franco-Russian Understanding. — The Triple 
 Alliance at first seemed to be a centre for all the monarchical 
 states : the Kings of Roumania, Servia, and Spain looked to Ger- 
 many. England, contesting with France for Egypt and Indo- 
 China and with Russia for Afghanistan, made advances to Italy. 
 Even the Tsar, in his desire to maintain peace in Afghanistan, 
 concluded a secret convention* by which Russia and Germany 
 mutually promised a friendly Neutrality in case one or the other 
 
 •This was not known until October, i8g6, when Bismarck's semi- 
 official journal gave the sense, but not the text; it seems to have had a 
 war with England in view. 
 
THE FRANCO-RUSSIAN UNDERSTANDING. 829 
 
 should be attacked. This was agreed on at an interview between 
 the three Emperors at Skiernevice, in September, 1884. France, 
 isolated and busy with her colonial enterprises, resigned herself 
 to making terms with Germany for the regulation of African 
 affairs (Conference of Berlin, 1884-85). 
 
 Once again it was the Eastern question that brought a change 
 in European politics. The Roumelian revolution in 1885 (see p. 
 667) obliged the powers to take sides. They all began by de- 
 claring void the union with Bulgaria, as contrary to the treaty 
 of 1878. But Austria finally protected Bulgaria. Bismarck, 
 without officially recognising Ferdinand, refused to interfere 
 actively in an affair which did not interest Germany. (He said 
 that it was not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grena- 
 dier.) 
 
 Alexander III., who had become hostile to the Bulgarians, 
 was annoyed at the action of Germany and Austria. Russian 
 opinion used the opportunity to show its hatred of Germany 
 (1886-87).* This agitation coincided with the agitation caused 
 in France by certain incidents on the German frontier f and the 
 campaign of the League of Patriots. In both countries' war with 
 Germany and an alliance began to be talked of, in 1887. Bis- 
 marck replied to these demonstrations, whose practical signifi- 
 cance might be a matter for discussion, by publishing in Febru- 
 ary, 1888, the treaty of alliance made with Austria in 1879 ^^id by 
 increasing Germany's active army. There was no rupture with 
 Russia, as had been expected, for the treaty of neutrality of 1884 
 lasted until i8go. But the German creditors got rid of Rus- 
 sian government bonds, and the impression got abroad that the 
 Triple Alliance was growing stronger, while France and Russia 
 held aloof from each other. Boulanger's defeat calmed the 
 agitation in France. Alexander III. held to his policy of peace 
 and confined himself to the expression of his dissatisfaction by 
 the toast to the Prince of Montenegro in 1889, " To Russia's 
 only sincere and faithful friend." But after the fall of Bismarck 
 
 * KatkoflE's articles against Bismarck in 1886; declarations against Austria 
 by the Russian superior officers (in the Daily News) /—interview with 
 IgnatiefiE by a Servian journalist;— Prince Nicholas' toast at Dunkirk in 
 October, 1887. 
 
 t Arrest of a French commissary of police, Schnasbel^, on the Frontier 
 in April, 1887; the German government released him. The motive of the 
 arrest has never been made clear.— The Raon incident, in September, 
 1887: a hunter killed on French territory by a German soldier; Germany 
 paid an indemnity. 
 
830 GERMAN ASCENDENCY AND THE ARMED PEACE. 
 
 the German government refused to renew the treaty with Rus- 
 sia, which expired in 1890,* and displeased the Tsar by effecting 
 a reconciliation with the Poles in Posen (see p. 506). 
 
 England, directed since 1886 by Salisbury's conservative 
 ministry, inclined toward the monarchies of the Triple Alliance. 
 This harmony was marked by the cession to the German Empire 
 of the little German island of Heligoland, which had been held 
 by England since the days of the Continental Blockade. This 
 was a tribute to national feelings which Germany requited by 
 concessions in eastern Africa in iSgo.f 
 
 But the Tsar had finally decided to make open advances to 
 France. He showed this by public acts. A French squadron 
 sent into the Baltic was solemnly received at Kronstadt; the 
 Tsar ordered the Marseillaise to be played, and listened to it 
 standing. He sent the President of the Republic a telegram in 
 which he spoke of the " profound sympathies that unite France 
 and Russia " (July, 1891). A Russian loan was opened in France 
 and covered by French subscribers. The visit which the Tsar 
 was to make to the Emperor of Germany was delayed and re- 
 duced to his passing a few hours in Kiel, on his return from a 
 stay in Denmark (June, 1892). A Russian squadron came in 
 October, 1893, to Toulon, whence it sent a detachment to Paris; 
 it was received with much celebration and honour. The Tsar and 
 the President exchanged telegrams; the Tsar spoke of the "bonds 
 that unite the two countries." French opinion assumed that 
 Russia and France were united by a formal alliance. In any 
 case it was evident that there existed at least a Franco-Russian 
 understanding; the exact nature of this understanding remained 
 a secret. England replied with a demonstration of friendship 
 for Italy; an English squadron visited Italy in 1893. 
 
 European policy was henceforth dominated by stubborn oppo- 
 sition between the Triple Alliance of central Europe and the 
 Franco- Russian league. Both having the same declared object, 
 the maintenance of peace, their opposition has produced the 
 
 * This change in policy is known only through the revelations made in 
 October, 1896, by the Hamburger Nachrichien, which attributes it to the 
 influence of England, which was supposed to have been threatened by the 
 treaty of 1884. 
 
 fThe International Conference for the study of legislation for the 
 protection of the labouring men, proposed by Switzerland in 1889, and at 
 Emperor William's request held at Berlin under his own presidency, pro- 
 duced no practical result (March, 1890). 
 
ARMED PEACE. 831 
 
 same practical effect as a general understanding. But Russia, 
 certain of France's support in any case, has acquired a sort of 
 predominance in the affairs of the East and the extreme East. 
 After the Chinese war, she intervened with France, drawing in 
 Germany, which did not wish to be left alone, to force Japan to 
 make peace. 
 
 When the Eastern questioii^ was reopened by the Armenian 
 massacres, Russia and England seemed to have exchanged their 
 traditional attitudes. England proposed that Europe should in- 
 tervene to impose on the Sultan certain reforms in favour of his 
 Christian subjects ; and it was Russia that took the Sultan's part 
 against intervention and reforms.* With France's support, 
 Russia paralyzed England. Austria and Germany, to avoid 
 complications in the East, adhered to Russia's policy; and the 
 European concert of 1895-96 took no effective step in the Sul- 
 tan's affairs. Russia, having regained her influence in Bul- 
 garia (see p. 669) and shut out European intervention from the 
 Ottoman Empire, seems to have resumed her sway in the Bal- 
 kan Peninsula. She has consolidated the Franco-Russian 
 understanding by Nicholas' visit to Paris in October, 1896, which 
 gave the impression of a complete alliance between the two coun- 
 tries. German predominance in the West is counterbalanced 
 by Russia's predominance in the East; this is the new form of 
 European balance of power. 
 
 Armed Peace. — Since the completion of German and Italian 
 unity within a quarter of a century, there has been in all Europe — 
 except the semi-barbaric Balkan countries — no war, either large 
 Dr small. It is the first time that Europe has lived through so 
 long a period of absolute peace. But this peace covers a per- 
 manent hostility.' Between Germany and France there is con- 
 flict over the Alsace-Lorraine question, which is still confused in 
 French minds, but is produced by an irreconcilable opposition 
 between two conflicting conceptions of right: sovereignty of 
 the government by right of conquest, the principle of the Ger- 
 man monarchy; sovereignty of the people, whence arises the 
 right of every population to determine its nationality, the prin- 
 ciple of the French democracy. Between Austria and Russia 
 it is the old conflict over the Eastern question, under the form 
 of a struggle for influence in the Balkan countries. 
 
 The fear of war, which has become much more horrible than 
 
 * This policy is explained by a remark attributed to the Russian ambas- 
 sador: " We do not wish to have Armenia made a second Bulgaria." 
 
832 GERMAN ASCENDENCY AND THE ARMED PEACE. 
 
 in former times, acts as a check on hostile feelings. All the 
 nation's have conceived such a horror of war that the govern- 
 ments no longer dare even to use a threat of it to carry out their 
 policy. All are agreed to adopt, as the fundamental rule of their 
 policy, the maintenance of peace. 
 
 But these unanimous expressions of desire for peace are not 
 enough to reassure the public mind ; for fifteen years it has been 
 announced that there must be war the next spring. National 
 distrust is so deep rooted that each people refuses to trust its 
 neighbour's sincerity and takes its protestations of peace as a 
 manoeuvre designed to quiet the suspicioiK of some nation about 
 to be attacked. Now in modern warfare mobilization is so rapid, 
 and the advantage of the offensive so decisive, that, to have a 
 chance to resist, each country must hold itself always ready for 
 war.* The rapid progress in the art of warfare obliges each 
 state, in order to keep up with the rest, to make over her war 
 material often and increase the number of her soldiers. The 
 effective force of armies in time of peace is to-day equal to the 
 former effective force in time of war. The account of Europe's 
 military expenditure has often been made out; but as yet no one 
 is able to estimate the deficit in production caused by the time 
 lost in military service. The economic danger to Europe has 
 often been pointed out, in competition with America and Asia, 
 which are exempt from these charges. An International Peace 
 League has proposed that the nations shall disarm, and make 
 war impossible by accepting the principle of arbitration between 
 states. This campaign has produced no effect on the govern- 
 ments except in America and Norway. In Europe it encounters 
 mutual distrust of the nations and the difficulty pointed out by 
 Bismarck in 1870, of securing an effective disarmament with 
 the short-term system of military service. No government has 
 accepted the, solution proposed by the French Republicans 
 of 1867, to shorten the service to a period sufficient to 
 make the army a national militia as in Switzerland. The 
 German reform of two-year service for infantry (see p. 509), 
 which seemed a step in this direction, was only an expedient to 
 increase the effective force in case of war. Europe lives in peace, 
 but it is armed peace, peace with the burdens of war, and without 
 security. 
 
 * Bismarck clearly explained this situation in two addresses to the 
 Reichstag on the military law (January 11, 1887; February 6, 1888). 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 833 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 See p. 811, the bibliography of documents and works on the whole ex. 
 ternal history. 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.— Waitz, '■ Quellenkunde . . .." stops at 1888. For 
 history since 1870 the most reliable process is gleaning the periodic bibli- 
 ographies indicated in Ch.-V. Langlois, " Manual of Histor. Bibliog.," 1896. 
 
 DOCUMENTS.— Besides the " Staatsarchiv " (see preface, p. xii.), the 
 principal publications for this period are the official collections of diplo- 
 matic documents presented by the governments to the Chambers of the 
 different countries (blue books, yellow books, etc.), and for the war of 1870- 
 71, " L'EnquSte Parlementaire de I'Assembl^e Nationale," and Angeberg, 
 " Recueil *des trait6s et pieces diplomatiques concernant la Guerre 
 Franco-AUemande," 5 vols., 1873. Recollections, notes, and correspond- 
 ence are rare and of little importance, except for the French war (see bibl. 
 in Lorenz, " Catalogue de la Libr. Frang."). The best sources of informa- 
 tion are the " Annual Register," the " Geschichtskalender," and the re- 
 views (indicated in the bibl. of the difEerent countries). 
 
 WORKS. — Complete Histories: G.Balle, "Gesch. der N. Z.," 4 vols., 
 1886 (see pref., p. xii.), stops at 1885. — Oncken, " Das Zeitalter des Kaisers 
 Wilhelm," 2 vols., 1890-92, stops at i888(coll. Oncken), scientific populari- 
 zation, very German, fairly well provided with references, may serve as 
 bibl. for the question of the rumours of war in 1875. — Hippean, " Hist. 
 Diploma, de la 2" Republique,'' 1888. 
 
 Eastern Affairs: Samberg, " Gesch. der Orientalischen Angelegen- 
 heit . . .," 1892 (coll. Oncken), goes to the peace of Berlin, very few 
 references. 
 
 Episodes: Franco-Prussian War (see Waitz, " Quellenkunde," Nos. 6369- 
 6430) : " Der Deutsch-Franzosische Krieg," by the German General Staff, 
 5 vols., 1878-81, Fr. trans, by Costa da Serda; " La Guerre Franco-AUe- 
 mande de 1870-71," 20 vols., 1873-82; the leading technical history. — 
 Chuqnet, " La Guerre de 1870-71," 1895, the handiest and most reliable his- 
 tory of the whole. — Valfirey, " Hist, du Traits de Francfort . . .,"2 vols., 
 1874-75.— Sorel, " Hist. Diplom. de la Guerre Franco- AUem.," 2 vols., 1875. 
 
 Eastern wars (see " Catal. de la Bibliotheque du D6p6t de la Guerre ").} 
 Eustow, " Der Krieg in der Tiirkei," 1877 ; " Der Orientalische Krieg 
 . . .," 1877.— Lecomte, "La Guerre d'Orient en 1876-77," 2 vols., 1878-79. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 POLITICAL EVOLUTION OF EUROPE, 
 
 The nineteenth century has brought all the nations of 
 Europe more profound and more rapid changes than any other 
 period in the history of the world. Every state has since 1814 
 changed its political or social organization. In almosfall* this 
 evolution has been accompanied, if not produced, by revolutions 
 and civil wars, and in several by nationalist wars. The nine- 
 teenth century has been a time of internal revolutions. On the 
 other hand, compared to preceding centuries it has been a time of 
 European peace; — forty years, 1814 to 1854, without a great 
 war, — a quarter of a century, since 1870, without any war except 
 in the Bast; between the two, only fifteen years of great wars, 
 1854-70.1 These revolutions and wars were very unevenly 
 distributed. Almost all have concentrated themselves upon 
 short periods of agitation, 1820-23, 1830-35, 1847-50, 1859-70,. 
 separated by longer periods of calm. 
 
 Contemporary history begins with a general reaction against 
 revolutionary France and Napoleon, the restitution of the ter- 
 ritory they had conquered and the restoration of the governments 
 they had destroyed. All over Europe the political power was 
 restored to the hereditary sovereigns, supported by the aristoc- 
 racy. In almost all the states the Prince and his ministers gov- 
 erned as absolute masters, without a constitution, without a repre- 
 sentative assembly, without control. Certain states (England, 
 France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, South German States,, 
 Sweden, Norway, Poland, and Hungary), had an elective repre- 
 sentation, based on property, with guarantees against arbitrary 
 rule; but everywhere, even in England, the assembly waspr^'C- 
 tically subordinated to the ministers. 
 
 The prevailing system of Continental Europe in 1814 was, a& 
 in the eighteenth century, the personal government of the 
 
 • The only states that have not had revolutions are England, Russia,, 
 and Sweden. , 
 
 f There remain outside of these periods only Eastern wars: 1828, 1854, 
 1877, almost foreign to the general evolution of Europe. 
 
 834 
 
POLITICAL EVOLUTION OF EUROPE. 835 
 
 Prince, aided by his officials; some southern countries had even 
 the rule of the camarilla. The landed aristocracy, which 
 was still richer than the rising industrial aristocracy, held its 
 economic power, social supremacy, influence with the sovereign, 
 and, in the countries with assemblies, the electoral power; it 
 shared the direction of the nation with the officials. The army, 
 recruited by voluntary enlistment or compulsory draft, was not 
 a national force, but a controlling instrument at the service of 
 the sovereign. The clergy, subordinated to the lay power, had 
 lost, except in the southern countries, its former ecclesiasticd 
 power; it had become everywhere a body of state office-holders. 
 This system was upheld by a coalition of all the bodies in pos- 
 session of power. An official alliance obliged the governments 
 of all the great states to maintain the settlements of territory 
 made in 181 5; the Austrian government, through Metternich's 
 influence, directed the common policy and sought to extend the 
 guarantee of the status quo to the domestic system of all the states, 
 so as to prevent any political change in Europe. In each coun- 
 try a tacit coalition between the sovereign, the office-holders, 
 the aristocracy, the clergy, and the army laboured to maintain 
 the political system. 
 
 In the face of this all-powerful coalition, the opposition forces 
 included only the middle class (few in numbers and often de- 
 pendent), the people of certain large cities, the youth in the 
 schools, a number of journalists, and in countries subjected to 
 dismemberment or to foreign rule, the nationalist patriots. 
 These malcontents, without means of political influence, material 
 force, or even common leadership, seemed powerless against the 
 great weight of conservative forces. In every country, the 
 mass of the nation, the peasants and the lower middle class, were 
 inert and unaccustomed to political life in any form; they added 
 no force to the opposition. 
 
 This apparently firm system did not, however, endure a half- 
 century. This was because the revolutionary period had not 
 left merely memories and regrets; it had formed a militant staff 
 of agitators which, grouping the malcontents of every descrip- 
 tion into liberal and nationalist parties, conducted a perpetual 
 warfare against the work of the Restoration. Their means were 
 violent: plots, city riots, military revolts, and nationalist insur- 
 rections. The governments replied with prosecutions, condemi- 
 nations, executions, and a system of political persecution — in- 
 termittent in France and central Europe, continuous in the 
 
836 CONCLUSION. 
 
 South. But they opposed to their adversaries only small and 
 poorly equipped armies and a clumsy police. The revolutionists 
 also profited by the discord between the defenders of established 
 order, hereditary nobles and upper middle class, clergy and 
 office-holders, army officers and court, and especially national 
 hatreds and rivalry between states. 
 
 Everywhere the struggle was over the same fundamental ques- 
 tions of political life: to what organ the sovereign power be- 
 longed hy right, what set of men should exercise it in fact? 
 This is why party division has seemed the same in all civilized 
 countries. Excluding the nationalist parties and omitting the 
 personal coteries and special groups, there remained four great 
 parties, constituted everywhere on almost the same plan and 
 with the same programs: 
 
 1. The absolutist conservative party, formed by the high offi- 
 cials and landed aristocracy, desired to maintain absolute gov- 
 ernment, clerical authority, and censorship of the press; it con- 
 trolled all the central, eastern, and southern states of Europe. It 
 no longer existed in England; the former absolutist party, the 
 Jacobites, had not survived a century of political liberty.* It 
 never existed in the Netherlands or in Sweden and Norway; in 
 France it was never alone in power. 
 
 2. The liberal conservative or constitutional party, Tory and 
 Right Centre, composed of the upper middle class and the liberal 
 office-holders, demanded that -the assembly should control the 
 administration of the government, particularly in financial mat- 
 ters. Its ideal was personal government by the sovereign with 
 a parliament of two houses, one aristocratic, the other elective; 
 an electoral body limited by a considerable property qualifica- 
 tion; the parliament to vote the annual budget, but to leave the 
 Prince free in the choice of his ministers and in the direction of 
 general policy ; no censorship, but a liberty of the press restricted 
 to the weialthy classes; the nation's rights guaranteed by a con- 
 stitution. This party was in power in the constitutional states; 
 in the absolute monarchies it demanded a constitution, a repre- 
 sentative assembly, and abolition of censorship. 
 
 3. The parliamentary liberal party, Whig and Left Centre, re- 
 cruited in the middle class, demanded not only control for the 
 elected assembly, but its supremacy over the sovereign, the min- 
 
 * This is one cause of the peaceful character of England's evolution and 
 of the small number of parties (improperly called classification into two 
 parties). 
 
POLITICAL EVOLUTION OF EUROPE. 837 
 
 isters, and the aristocratic chamber. Its ideal was the parlia- 
 mentary system, a ministry chosen from the party in majority in 
 the house, governing in the Prince's name, but according to the 
 will of the elective representatives of the nation; a constitution 
 recognising the superior rights or sovereignty of the people, po- 
 litical liberties (press, public meeting, and association), and abso- 
 lute religious liberty. As a material guarantee, it demanded, on 
 the continent, a national guard, that is, an armed middle class, 
 to defend its political rights. It would admit only property- 
 owners to the vote, but tended to lower the qualification in order 
 to admit to the voting body the lower middle classs. This party, 
 shut out of power by the Restoration, did not begin to gain it 
 until 1830. 
 
 4. The democratic or radical party, formed by students, work- 
 ingmen, writers, and lawyers, demanded, according to the motto 
 of the French Revolution, sovereignty and political equality of 
 the people. It added to the demands of the parliamentary party 
 universal suffrage and pay for representatives, abolition of all 
 political privileges for the wealthy classes, and separation of 
 Church and state. Its ideal was a purely representative demo- 
 cratic and preferably republican government like that of the 
 French Convention, or even a direct government in which the 
 people should make the constitution. In 181 5 this party, so far 
 from being in power in any country, had not even the right to 
 formulate its program publicly except in England, Sweden, and 
 Norway. 
 
 The two extreme parties, absolutist and democratic, had the 
 two diametrically opposite conceptions of government and 
 society. The absolutists wanted a society based on hereditary 
 ineqtiality, a government based on the absolute sovereignty of the 
 Prince, all authority concentrated in a personal sovereign and 
 descending by delegation, with compulsory religion. The demo- 
 crats admitted neither political heredity nor ecclesiastical author- 
 ity; they demanded social equality, authority ascending by dele- 
 gation of citizens, a purely lay state, and sovereignty of the people. 
 A country might, however, pass from one of these extremes to the 
 other by gradual evolution, for the four parties formed a con- 
 tinuous gradation. The absolutist system became constitutional 
 when the Prince consented to grant a constitution, as in the Ger- 
 man states from 1816 to 1819. The constitutional system was 
 insensibly transformed into the parliamentary system, as the sov- 
 ereign took more account of the wishes of the elective chamber, 
 
838 CONCLUSION. 
 
 as in England after 1830. The parliamentary system became 
 democratic with the extension of suffrage and the assembly's 
 acquisition of an irresistible supremacy over all the other jrowers, 
 as in Switzerland. Now, the enlargement of the electoral body 
 was to be made by a series of transitions; the transition of the 
 "sovereignty of the prince " into that of the people, inconceiva- 
 ble in theory, was to be accomplished by slow increase in parlia- 
 mentary influence, which imperceptibly transformed its control- 
 ling influence into absolute rule. It is by this evolution that 
 the word control has come to mean rule. 
 
 This gradation has made possible coalitions between neigh- 
 bouring parties. The natural tendency of parties was to join 
 forces against the party in power: the absolutist system was 
 opposed by the coalition of the three liberal parties; the consti- 
 tutional system by the coalition of parliamentarians and demo- 
 crats. The instinctive policy of the extreme parties was to take 
 shelter behind the nearest government party, in order to 
 advance a step together. The French liberals cried : " Long live 
 the Charter ! " the English radicals supported Whig reforms, the 
 German and Italian democrats demanded constitutions. The op- 
 position was always, even in England, rather a coalition than 
 a coherent party. 
 
 England and France, provided with a constitution, a parlia- 
 ment, and a political press, were model states to the liberals and 
 furnished the doctrines for all Europe. The struggle against the 
 governments began in England with the Radicals' unsuccessful 
 reform campaign, 1816-19; in France, after 1816, with the cry for 
 electoral reform, and in Germany with the university move- 
 ments. Later it took the form of armed revolutions in Spain, 
 Portugal, Naples, and Sardinia, in the name of sovereignty of 
 the people. The allied governments crushed these armed revo- 
 lutions in short wars, and used the opportunity to formulate the 
 doctrine of intervention against revolution (1820-23). 
 
 •The absolutists' triumph was short-lived. The alliance be- 
 tween the governments, shaken by conflicts over the questions 
 left unsettled in 181 5, — namely, Spanish colonies and the Otto- 
 man Empire, — was broken up by the revolution of 1830. This 
 revolution was the work of the small democratic republican party 
 in Paris, which took advantage of the parliamentary conflict with 
 Charles X. to rise in insurrection. The movement of 1830 set 
 up in France the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, a- 
 
POLITICAL EVOLUTION OF EUROPE. 839 
 
 parliamentary system controlled by the property owners, the po- 
 litical power of the national guard, and liberty of the press. A 
 parallel but peaceful evolution established in England, by the 
 Reform Bill of 1832, the full-blown parliamentary system, a truly 
 representative house and an extended suffrage. The French 
 and English system, which had become the ideal of the parUa- 
 mentary parties in other countries, was introduced into Belgium 
 in 1831 by a nationalist revolution, aided by the governments 
 of France and England. A parallel movement in Switzerland 
 overturned the defenceless Conservative ruling class, and gave 
 the democratic representative system to the great " regenerated " 
 cantons. 
 
 In Italy the movement was a failure. In eastern Europe it 
 led to the destruction of the Polish nation and its constitutional 
 system. In France the democratic party, in its endeavour to 
 renew the revolution, was destroyed by its former ally, the par- 
 liamentary party. In the Iberian countries, two successive quar- 
 rels over the succession ended in introducing constitutional forms 
 and parties copied from other countries, but the army remained 
 the real political power. 
 
 Europe was divided into two regions : the eastern and the cen- 
 tral states remained absolutist, the West had become parliamen- 
 tary. The former alliance was cut into two leagues: on the one 
 hand, France and England, which worked in unison until the 
 Eastern affair of 1840, and on the other the coalition of the three 
 autocratic monarchies. Revolutions in Switzerland continued 
 until the defeat of the Sonderbund Catholics and the adoption of 
 the federal constitution of 1848, which established democratic 
 republican government all over Switzerland. In England this 
 was a time of great agitations, political, industrial, Chartist, and 
 Irish, — huge peaceful demonstrations which failed to accomplish 
 any reform. The rest of Europe was almost stationary from 
 1835 to 1847, and France fell back toward a personal constitu- 
 tional government. 
 
 This calm was the decisive period of preparation for the parties 
 and ideas which filled the remainder of the century. Two new 
 parties were formed, of an international character: the Catholic 
 party and the Socialist (communist) party, sprung from the 
 former political parties, but no longer regarding politics as any- 
 thing but a means of carrying into effect a general scheme of 
 religious and social reorganization. The Catholic party, includ- 
 ing the mass of conservatives, especially the peasants, who had 
 
840 CONCLUSION. 
 
 hitherto been inert, laboured to restore the public authority of 
 the Church. The socialist party, recruited among the democrats, 
 demanded universal suffrage, but only as a means of accomplish- 
 ing a social revolution. At the same time nationalist parties were 
 forming all over central Europe — Austria, Germany, and Italy. 
 Founded as they were on hatred of foreigners and on community 
 of language, incorrectly termed race, they attracted together 
 patriots of all kinds, from the aristocratic monarchists to the 
 democratic republicans. But they joined the political opposi- 
 tion parties against the governments and became revolutionists. 
 
 The revolution of 1848 in France, carried through by a social- 
 ist party working in the shelter of the democratic and parlia- 
 mentary parties, brought into power a coalition of democrats and 
 socialists which, at a single stroke, established in France the com- 
 plete democratic system: a republic, universal suffrage, a sov- 
 ereign elective assembly, a popular national guard, liberty of the 
 press by the abolition of financial restrictions, and freedom of 
 political clubs. The first attempts at socialistic reform, the right 
 to employment and national workshops, which the socialist 
 minority imposed, disappeared in the suppression of the socialist 
 insurrection of June. 
 
 The French revolution set the example for a general democratic 
 movement in central Europe; the governments, alarmed by the 
 sudden agitation and overestimating the practical power of the 
 revolutionists, either let the popular revolution proceed or re- 
 signed themselves to making one in their own name. The King- 
 dom of the Netherlands passed from a constitutional to a parlia- 
 mentary system, Denmark from an absolutist to a constitutional 
 system. In Germany, both in Prussia and in Austria, the revolu- 
 tion produced new democratic forms, universal suffrage, equality 
 before the law, a constituent assembly, popular publications and 
 clubs, without touching the monarchy or the army. It was com- 
 bined with a nationalist movement for German unity which hesi- 
 tated between two forms: a democratic federation or an empire 
 under the King of Prussia. In the Austrian Empire, the revolu- 
 tion was democratic in Austria proper, but nationalist in the 
 Magyar, Slav, and Italian sections. In Italy the Kingdom of 
 Sardinia adopted the constitutional system, with a very extended 
 suffrage, and took the direction of the nationalist movement 
 against Austria; the democratic republicans in 1849 established 
 republics in central Italy. 
 
POLITICAL EVOLUTION IN EUROPE. 841 
 
 The reaction was brought about by the armies, which were 
 still intact and at the sovereign's service ; they crushed the demo- 
 cratic party in the large cities. Begun by the Emperor of Aus- 
 tria, with the aid of the Slavs, against the Germans and Magyars, 
 continued by the King of Prussia, first in his own kingdom, then 
 in Germany, it was completed in Italy by foreign armies, in 
 Hungary with the aid of the Russian army, in Germany by the 
 Tsar's threats, and in the duchies in 1850 by European inter- 
 vention. In France a domestic reaction brought a Napoleon 
 to the executive power, then the Catholic conservative party 
 to the legislative power; after having worked together against 
 the democratic party they entered into a conflict with each other, 
 which ended in the Empire; France fell back into the military 
 absolutist system. Spain, under constitutional forms, returned 
 to personal government. 
 
 The governments, having learned a lesson from revolution, 
 organized an alliance of all conservative forces, including the 
 bourgeoisie, which was disturbed by the socialist movement, and 
 the Pope, who was alarmed by the Roman Republic. The re- 
 pressive measures taken against the revolutionary parties and 
 their instruments, the press and public meetings, deprived all the 
 parties of political power, even the parliamentarians. The abso- 
 lutist system then extended all over Europe, except Switzerland 
 and the countries which had remained outside of the revolution 
 of 1848, England, Belgium, Holland, and Norway. The abso- 
 lutist cdm reigned ten years, interrupted only in Spain by a local 
 revolution in 1854, which restored the constitutional system. 
 
 But the revolution of 1848 left a change in three states: in 
 France, universal sufifrage and the official doctrine of the sov- 
 ereignty of the people; in Prussia, the Constitution of 1850, which, 
 from its Belgian model and its revolutionary origin, retained the 
 theory of liberties and an almost universal sufifrage; in Sardinia 
 the Statuto of 1848, which established semi-parliamentary gov- 
 ernment, an almost democratic property qualification, and the 
 system of the lay state. Further, the unsuccessful attempts at 
 national unity had left in Sardinia the desire to accomplish 
 Italian unity, in Prussia the desire to accomplish German unity, 
 and Napoleon, formerly a revolutionist, remained personally in 
 favour of the "policy of nationality." Napoleon first joined 
 England, checked the Tsar, and took the opportunity afforded 
 by the settlement of the Eastern question to sketch the national 
 Roumanian state and bring up the Italian question. Then the 
 
842 CONCLUSION. 
 
 three revolutionary governments combined against Austria, the 
 conservative power that was hindering the unity of Italy and 
 Germany. In 1859 Napoleon, with his army, aided Sardinia to 
 begin the Italian union, by beginning to drive Austria out of 
 Italy; in 1866, by his neutrality, he helped Prussia to begin the 
 German union by driving Austria out of Germany. Both unions 
 were completed by the defeat of France in 1870. 
 
 The first nationalist war in 1859 ended the reactionary period. 
 The absolutist system, which had been in practice since 1849, 
 was no longer defended in theory; the educated public still dis- 
 approved of the French idea of democratic revolution, but it 
 was permeated with English liberalism and enamoured of self- 
 government and aristocratic representative institutions. Within 
 ten years there came all over Europe, aided by the governments, 
 a revival of liberalism which produced a general transformation 
 in political institutions. From these peaceful revolutions has 
 resulted the Europe of to-day. 
 
 England, by the electoral reform of 1867, succeeded to a demo- 
 cratic parliamentary system. France, by a series of concessions 
 from the Emperor, secured a constitutional government ap- 
 proaching the parliamentary system, almost liberal and com- 
 pletely democratic. 
 
 Austria, under the pressure of financial distress, adopted a 
 constitutional system with an aristocratic suffrage, " the repre- 
 sentation of interests." She then went through a crisis of con- 
 flicts between the predominating Germans, who wished to pre- 
 serve the centralized system, and the subordinate nationalities, 
 Magyars, Czechs, Poles, and Slovenians, who joined the old- 
 regime parties, aristocracy and clergy, in the demand for federal- 
 ism. The final settlement was accomplished by separation into 
 two states united toward foreign nations: Hungary, which re- 
 vived the aristocratic parliamentary system established during 
 the revolution of 1848; Austria, which retained the centralized 
 constitutional system, with ascendency of the German element 
 and a withdrawal of power from the clergy. 
 
 In Prussia, after long conflict with the parliamentary party, 
 the conservative ministry, from 1862 to 1866, took advantage of 
 its military victories to establish, as a compromise, a military 
 constitutional system which left the ruling power to the King 
 and his ministers. In Germany, it established, in 1867, the union 
 tinder a common constitutional government with democratic suf- 
 frage, monarchical-democratic military service on the Prussian 
 
POLITICAL EVOLUTION IN EUROPE. 843 
 
 model, and the sovereignty of the King of Prussia and the Chan- 
 cellor. The creation of the Empire in 1871 brought all the Ger- 
 man states into this union. Each preserved its constitutional 
 system, government by officials under more or less control by 
 assemblies elected on a semi-democratic suffrage. 
 
 Italy, where the way for national unity was prepared by agree- 
 ment between the revolutionary government of Sardinia and the 
 republicans, was created by successive annexations of all the Ital- 
 ian states to the kingdom of Sardinia — annexations effected 
 with the formal consent of the inhabitants and in spite of the 
 Pope's protests. She preserved her constitutional system, which, 
 thanks to the abstention of the Catholic conservatives, developed 
 into a parliamentary and democratic system under the direction 
 of the Southern Radicals. 
 
 Even Russia, which had hitherto kept out of the political evo- 
 lution, was transformed by the reforms of Alexander II., freedom 
 of the serfs, creation of local assemblies, and liberal reforms in 
 justice and press which prepared the way for a Russian nation 
 and the formation of a public opinion to serve as a check on the 
 Tsar's personal government. The Poles, encouraged by the feel- 
 ing through Europe, attempted a nationalist and democratic in- 
 surrection; but the European governments dared not give them 
 armed support. The movement was put down in the name of the 
 unity of the Slavic race. In the midst of a general evolution to- 
 ward liberty, Poland returned to a system of national and re- 
 ligious repression. 
 
 Denmark, separated from the duchies by the war, finally issued 
 from the constitutional crisis begun in 1848, adopting, in 1866, 
 a constitutional democratic system with the effective power 
 vested in the King, as was shown by the constitutional conflict 
 from 1886 to 1892. Sweden transformed her old assembly of 
 estates into a modern parliament, and entered upon the demo- 
 cratic constitutional system. 
 
 The new Christian states detached from the Ottoman Empire 
 were transformed by European example. Greece, by a revolu- 
 tion in 1862, completed the change from the constitutional sys- 
 tem to the democratic parliamentary system with a single house 
 (Greece having no aristocracy). Roumania also got rid of her 
 personal government by a revolution in 1866 and entered upon 
 an almost parliamentary and still aristocratic system. Servia, 
 a nation of peasants, still under the personal system, received, 
 during a regency, a democratic monarchical constitution. 
 
844 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Spain, owing to a military revolution in 1868, began a rapid 
 evolution, which brought her out of a lay parliamentary monarchy 
 with universal suffrage into a federalist democratic republic after 
 the American pattern ; a military restoration in 1874 brought her 
 back to a constitutional monarchy, ruled by the ministry and 
 clergy. 
 
 Switzerland, by a series of cantonal revisions, organized the 
 first experiment in direct legislation by the whole body of 
 citizens. 
 
 The absolutist system, eliminated from central Europe, con- 
 fined itself to the two Eastern empires — taking in Russia the form 
 of a bureaucratic monarchy, in the Ottoman Empire the form 
 of personal despotism. After having been, in 181 5 and in 1852, 
 the universal system, it has come to be an outgrown survival. 
 The liberal system became the normal government in Europe, 
 under democratic parliamentary form in the west, and constitu- 
 tional form in the centre. The governments themselves sum- 
 moned the liberal parties to share the power. Under this sys- 
 tem of political liberty the democratic parties were reconstituted: 
 in France a radical republican party, in Italy a radical party sdp- 
 porting the monarchy, in Germany a socialist party, in the 
 Scandinavian countries a peasants' party. 
 
 The two international parties, Catholic and Socialist, reap- 
 peared in the struggle. The Catholic party, once more thrown 
 on the defensive by the new lay policy of the governments, 
 affirmed its resistance to revolution in 1864 by protests from the 
 Pope against the Kingdom of Italy and against modern liberties. 
 It engaged in a general conflict with the governments concerning 
 the rights of the Church, losing ground everywhere except in 
 Belgium, but bracing itself to maintain the political struggle. 
 The Socialist party, reconstituted by the survivors of 1848, after 
 an attempt at international association, took the form of national 
 parties organized under a permanent management with a socialist 
 democratic program. It took this course first in Germany, 
 where it occupied the place of a radical party, then in the other 
 countries. 
 
 Meanwhile the balance of power in Europe was overturned by 
 war. 
 
 Prussia, hitherto a secondary power, had preserved from her 
 wars against Napoleon, a monarchical-democratic military serv- 
 ice, which, combined with intelligent tactics and perfected arma- 
 
POLITICAL EVOLUTION IN EUROPE. 845 
 
 ment, gave her military supremacy in Germany in 1866, in Eu- 
 rope in 1870. 
 
 The war of 1870 ended the crisis of nationalist wars. Ger- 
 many, supreme in Europe, has obliged the other states to adopt 
 her military system and has put a stop to war by making it horri- 
 ble. By annexing Alsace-Lorraine, she created between herself 
 and France a permanent hostility which reduces the whole for- 
 eign policy of Europe to a game of diplomatic combinations for 
 the preservation of peace. All warlike action has related to the 
 Orient and has been practically outside of Europe. The jealousy 
 of the European powers has prevented a rational solution of the 
 Eastern question. The Turkish problem has, however, been get- 
 ing gradually, if incompletely, solved by the formation of Chris- 
 tian states. These, under political forms borrowed from Europe, 
 are still agitated by the rivalry for influence among the powers 
 and by the conflict between European civilization and national 
 tradition. 
 
 War has ceased. The perfect police system and the vast mili- 
 tary power of the governments have made revolutions impossi- 
 ble. Each state has therefore remained steadfast in the form of 
 government it had when the military transformation took place; 
 the governments, taking heart from their power, have stopped 
 the evolution from the constitutional to the parliamentary sys- 
 tem. France alone was able to overthrow the Empire, which 
 had lost its armies, and has established a democratic parliamen- 
 tary system in which, after long conflict with the Catholic monar- 
 chical parties, the Radical party acquired control in 1879, and 
 is slowly paving the way for direct representative government. 
 The other states have preserved their former system, parliamen- 
 tary in the west, constitutional in the centre. 
 
 The nationalist parties in central Europe, Germany, Italy, and 
 Hungary, have weakened the opposition by going over to the 
 support of the new national governments. But the internal evo- 
 lution, though slower, has continued peacefully, and the political 
 parties have undergone a gradual transformation which has led 
 them little by little toward democracy. The governments have 
 abandoned the absolutist system; the conservative party has been 
 obliged to follow them and has slipped into the place left by the 
 liberal constitutional party. The parliamentary party, unable to 
 support restricted suffrage, has approached the democratic pro- 
 
846 CONCLUSION. 
 
 gram. The two intermediary parties of the hberal middle class 
 have thus been almost entirely absorbed, the constitutional into 
 the conservative party, the parliamentary into the democratic 
 party. Norway has profited by its lack of an army and by its 
 revolutionary Constitution of 1814, to force the King to accept 
 a democratic parliamentary system. In England, the Liberals, 
 disorganized by their alliance with the Irish party, have been 
 merged with the Radicals. In Belgium the old liberal party, faith- 
 ful to the plan of a property qualification for voting, was swept 
 away after the establishment of universal suffrage, which was ex- 
 torted from the Chambers by the threat of a revolution by the 
 workingmen. In France, Italy, and Germany the former parlia- 
 mentary parties, being unable to sustain electoral competition 
 with the democratic radical parties, have been reduced to mere 
 remnants. Europe has now practically but two parties, conserva- 
 tive and democratic, but these are much farther apart than the 
 parties so named in 18 15. The evolution which has brought the 
 conservatives on the old liberal platform has also pushed the 
 liberals toward democracy. Bismarck and William II., Disraeli, 
 Napoleon III., and the Count of Paris have given the new watch- 
 word of " democratic monarchy," whose ideal is the personal 
 government of the sovereign resting on the traditional devotion 
 of the people. Permanent harmony between the prince who 
 directs the nation's policy and the subjects who ratify his acts, is 
 to be maintained by universal sufifrage. 
 
 The two international parties, Catholic and socialist, have 
 taken a permanent place in political life and begun to leaven 
 with their principles the old political parties. The conservative 
 party tends to lose itself in the Catholic party or to ally itself with 
 it in the Protestant countries, in order to restore the conservative 
 power of the Church. The democratic party is impregnated 
 with socialistic ideas and, in the countries where its own pro- 
 gram is exhausted, tends to replenish it with plans of social 
 reform. 
 
 All parties thus tend, as in Belgium, to concentrate into two 
 masses, one conservative, the other democratic, both of which 
 tend to draw their theoretic inspiration from the doctrines of the 
 two extreme wings, for which politics is but a means. Now these 
 two extremes show in their doctrine, and apply with logical 
 vigour in their' own organization, two radically opposed con- 
 ceptions which they strive to introduce into political life: the 
 Church remains faithful to the absolutist tradition of sovereign 
 
POLITICAL EVOLUTION IN EUROPE. 847 
 
 authority emanating from above and exercised by chiefs invested 
 with sacred authority; the socialists, according to democratic 
 principles, admit only an authority delegated from below to 
 chosen mandatories. But the practical direction of pohtical life 
 rests everywhere with the intermediary parties, parliamentarians 
 or liberal conservatives, business parties, occupied with practical 
 affairs rather than with doctrine. These intermediary parties, 
 deadening the shock between two opposite conceptions, main- 
 tain, in the midst of ardent polemics, a social peace and liberty 
 which Europe has never known before. 
 
 A natural tendency to attribute great effects to great causes 
 leads us to explain political evolution, like geological evolution, 
 by deep and continuous forces, more far-reaching than individual 
 actions. The history of the nineteenth century accords ill with 
 this idea. 
 
 England, Norway, and Sweden alone have gone through a 
 regular political evolution, produced by continuous internal de- 
 velopment. The rest of Europe, from 1814 to 1870, suffered 
 sudden crises caused by sudden events: i. The revolution 
 of 1830, which destroyed the European alliance against revolu- 
 tion, implanted the parliamentary system in the West and pre- 
 pared the field for the rise of the Catholic and socialist parties; 
 
 2. the revolution of 1848, which brought universal suffrage into 
 general practice, prepared the way for the national unity of cen- 
 tral Europe, and organized the socialist and Catholic parties; 
 
 3. the war of 1870, which created the German Empire, made it 
 supreme in Europe, destroyed the temporal power of the Pope, 
 changed the character of warfare, and established the system 
 of armed peace. 
 
 The revolution of 1830 was the work of a group of obscure 
 republicans, aided by the blunders of Charles X. The revolu- 
 tion of 1848 was the work of certain democratic and socialist 
 agitators, aided by Louis Philippe's sudden lack of nerve. The 
 war of 1870 was the personal work of Bismarck, prepared by 
 Napoleon III.'s personal policy. For these three unforeseen 
 facts no general cause can be discerned in the intellectual, 
 economic, or political condition of the continent of Europe. It 
 was three accidents that determined the political evolution of 
 modern Europe. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abdul-Aziz, Sultan of Ottoman Em- 
 pire, 628 ; popular dissatisfaction 
 with, 631; struggle with "Young 
 Turkey," 631 ; deposed, 631. 
 
 Abdul-Hamid, Sultan of Ottoman Em- 
 pire, 631 ; personal government of, 
 634 ; religious head, 635 ; Panislam- 
 ism, 635 ; English and German in- 
 fluence, 635 ; turns to France and 
 Russia, 636. 
 
 Abdul-Medjid, Sultan of Ottoman 
 Empire, 623 ; interested in reforms, 
 625 ; reform edict, 626 ; death, 628. 
 
 Aberdeen, English prime minister, 
 43, footnote ; Spanish marriages, 
 776 ; Eastern Question, 784 ; Cri- 
 mean War, 789. 
 
 Adrianople, peace of, 761. 
 
 AduUamites, 64 ; disappear, 6g. 
 
 Agronomic Society (Poland), 597. 
 
 Aix-la-Chapelle, Congress of, 748, 
 752. 
 
 Albania, revolt of, 634 ; chronic agi- 
 tation, 635. 
 
 Albert, Austrian Archduke, 806. 
 
 Alexander (Karageorgewitch), prince 
 of Servia, 658 ; unpopularity of, 
 659 ; deposed, 659. 
 
 Alexander, King of Servia, 662 ; 
 coups-d'itat, 663. 
 
 Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria, 666 ; 
 coup-d'etat, 666 ; military coup-d'e'tat, 
 668 ; abdicates, 668. 
 
 Alexander I. , Prince of Roumania,643 ; 
 conflict with Assembly, 643; coup- 
 d'dtat, 643 ; forced to abdicate, 644. 
 
 Alexander I., Tsar of Russia, attitude 
 toward Bourbon restoration in 
 France, 103; opposes restoration in 
 Switzerland, 259; sends aid to King 
 of Sardinia, 332; government, 582; 
 death, 585; policy toward Free Ma- 
 sons, 719; Holy Alliance, 748; 
 character and policy, 750; liberal 
 
 Alexander I — Continued. 
 interests, 750; rivalry with Metter- 
 nich, 750; Eastern policy, 752; con- 
 version to absolutism, 752. 
 
 Alexander, II., Tsar of Russia, 590; 
 liberal tendencies, 590; first re- 
 forms, 591; liberal reforms, 596; re- 
 turn to absolutism, 603; Karako- 
 sof's attempt against, 606; Terror- 
 ists' attempts against, 608; death, 
 608; peaceful policy, 7S8, 821. 
 
 Alexander III., Tsar of Russia, 608; 
 death, 613. 
 
 All, Ottoman reformer, 628; death, 
 630. 
 
 Allies, formation and policy, i; treaty 
 of Paris, 5; permanent agree- 
 ment, 5; restore the Bourbons in 
 France, 103 ; armies withdraw 
 from France, 105 ; defeat Na- 
 poleon at Waterloo, 113; restore 
 the Bourbons once more under 
 changed conditions, 113 ; unite again 
 against France on the Eastern ques- 
 tion, 144, 389, 774; settle the Bel- 
 gian question (London Conference), 
 237; questions in 1815, 747; Holy 
 Alliance, 748; French policy, 752; 
 break up of Alliance, 761, 762; 
 Quadruple Alliance, 770; Cracow 
 affair, 776; end of European con- 
 cert, 785. 
 
 Alma, battle of, 790. 
 
 Alphonso XII., Isabella abdicates in 
 his favour, 312; attains his majority 
 and declares in 'favour of constitu- 
 tional monarchy, 315; recognized 
 King, 315; his government, 317; 
 dies, 318. 
 
 Alsace-Lorraine, taken by Germany, 
 482; government, 510; church, 511; 
 parties, 512; Statthalter Manteuffel, 
 513; Alsace-Lorraine question, 819, 
 831. See also under Germany, 510. 
 849 
 
850 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Anarchists, 735. 
 
 Andrassy, Austrian prime minister, 
 538; attitude in Franco-Prussian 
 War, 813. 
 
 Andrassy Note, 630, 823. 
 
 Anglican Church, 18; disestablished 
 and disendowed in Ireland, 71 ; 
 disestablishment proposed by 
 Chamberlain, 84; place of, in evo- 
 lution of 19th century, gg. 
 
 Anglo-Russian Protocol, 760. 
 
 Anti-Corn-Law League (England), 57. 
 
 Antwerp, siege of, 238; Convention 
 of, 248, 
 
 Aosta, AmadSo, Duke of, accepts 
 Spanish crown, 311; opposed by 
 Republicans, Carlists, tjnionists, 
 patriots, and finally clergy, 311; his 
 government, 312; abdicates, 313. 
 
 Arcadiens, 180. 
 
 Armed Peace, 831. 
 
 Armenian Massacre, 636. 
 
 Arndt, in nationalist agitation, 3g4; 
 dismissed, 435; pardoned, 438. 
 
 Arnim, Count von, 496. 
 
 Artoife, Charles, Count of, see Charles 
 X. 
 
 Aspromonte, Garibaldi's second expe- 
 dition checked at, 357. 
 
 Auersperg, Austrian prime minister, 
 534; second ministry, 538. 
 
 Augustenburg, Frederick, Duke of, 
 Schleswig-Holstein Crisis, 467, 798. 
 See also under Denmark, 571. 
 
 Aurelian, Roumanian prime minister, 
 648. 
 
 Austria, in settlements of 1815, 4; 
 compensations for loss of Nether- 
 lands and Swabia, 6; mixed popu- 
 lation of, 8; power in Italy, 328; 
 undertakes to crush the Naples re- 
 bellion, 331; the revolution of 1848, 
 341; the Italian war, 351, 793; in Ger- 
 manic confederation, 375; govern- 
 ment, 378; absolutism, 380, 382; 
 territorial questions affecting new 
 constitution, 394; Great Germany 
 party, 394; shiit out of German 
 Empire and breaks with Frankfort 
 Parliament, 395; Frankfort Confer- 
 ence, 397; Dresden Conference, 398; 
 reestablishment of old confedera- 
 tion, 398; directs Diet, 398; condi- 
 tion in 1814, 401; German predomi- 
 nance, 403; Metternich's system, 
 ^oy, Josephism, 406; no public inter- 
 est in politics, 406; national opposi- 
 tion in Hungary, 406; dualism, 406; 
 
 Austria — Continued. 
 
 Hungarian constitution, 406; na< 
 tional opposition in Slavic countries, 
 409; Liberal German opposition, 
 411; weakening of Metternich sys- 
 tem, 411; Cracow Republic, 412; 
 revolution of 1848, 413; Metternich 
 resigns, 413; Academic Legion and 
 Central Committee for Defence of 
 Popular Rights, 413; Emperor flees, 
 413; Archduke John forms new 
 ministry, 414; Assembly of 1840 and 
 its work, 414; Hungary granted 
 independent government, 414 ; 
 Slavic revolution, 414; Panslavic 
 Congress, 415; breaks with Hun- 
 garian revolutionists, 417; uses 
 Slavs against Magyars, 417; Lam- 
 bert's nomination, 417; Viennese 
 troops march on Hungary, 417; 
 Vienna campaign, 418; absolutist 
 system restored, 418; aristocratic 
 system restored, 421; Concordat of 
 1855, 422; fall of Josephism, 422; 
 political life ceases, 423; financial 
 disorder, 423; remains outside ZoU- 
 verein, 454; Bismarck's diplomacy 
 toward, 467; induced to join Bis- 
 marck, 468; takes Holstein (Gastein 
 Convention), 469; confederation dis- 
 solved, 470; Austro-Prussian War, 
 470, 801; treaty of Prague, 472; 
 Emperor recognises " hereditary 
 abuses," 518; reenforced council, 
 518; parties, 519; "historic rights," 
 520; Constitution of October, i860, 
 520;Constitutionof'6i,52i; distribu- 
 tion of seats in House of Represen- 
 tatives, 522; attempt at unitary gov- 
 ernment, 522; national resistance in 
 Hungary and Venetia, 523; Hun- 
 gary's demands, 524; Croats, Czechs, 
 and Poles withdraw from Reichs- 
 rath, 524; constitution suspended, 
 525; Emperor restores dualism and 
 negotiates with Hungary, 525; 
 Hungarian compromise, 526; Cislei- 
 thania, 526; government under the 
 Union, 527; Liberal constitutions 
 of 1867, 528; distribution of seats in 
 Reichsrath, 529; footnote; political 
 conditions, 529; race complications, 
 530; proportion of races in Empire, 
 531; political and national parties, 
 531 ! government of Liberals, 534; 
 religious laws, 535; conflict between 
 Church and State, 535; financial 
 and military reorganization, 535; 
 
INDEX. 
 
 851 
 
 Austria — Continued. 
 Slavic nationalist movements, 536; 
 attempt at federalist constitution, 
 537; opposition withdraws from 
 Reichsrath, 537; electoral reform, 
 538; distribution of seats, 539; 
 constitutional ministries, 540; "May 
 Laws," 540; political clubs, 540; 
 liberal program, 542; condition of 
 army, 542; national unity agitation, 
 543; Bosnia crisis, 543; Slavic agi- 
 tation, 544; Emperor deserts con- 
 stitutional party, 544; negotiation 
 with Czechs, 544; balance of parties 
 upset, 545; federalist policy of Taaffe 
 ministry, 545; Germans unite, 546; 
 Czech evolution, 547; Germans and 
 Poles unite, 548; electoral reform 
 of 1896, 548, 549; political evolution 
 in nineteenth century, 552; Polish 
 insurrection, 600; Austria in Holy 
 Alliance, 748; Polish question, 768; 
 intervention in Italy, 768; Miin- 
 chengraetz interview, 770; absolu- 
 tist alliance, 771; Italian affair, 777; 
 Swiss affair, 777; restoration after 
 revolution of '48, 780; refugees, 
 781; triumphs over Prussia, 781; 
 recognition of French Empire, 783; 
 reduced to defensive policy, 788; 
 severs diplomatic relations with 
 Sardinia, 793; Zurich treaty, 796; 
 connection with Polish affairs, 797; 
 Italy and Prussia unite against, 
 800; policy, 800; interview between 
 Emperor and Napoleon, 804; Na- 
 poleon proposes triple alliance, 805; 
 Franco-Prussian War, 813; alliance 
 of three Emperors, 821; Austria's 
 part in Berlin Congress, 826; Triple 
 Alliance formed, 827; armed peace, 
 831; share in political evolution of 
 Europe, 842. 
 
 Austro-Prussian War, 470, 801. 
 
 Baden, constitution under Germanic 
 Confederation, 379; political re- 
 vival, 387; decrees of 1832, 388; 
 revolution of 1848, 390; Republican 
 rising, 396; supports Prussia in the 
 union agitation, 466; joins Austria 
 against Prussia, 471; supported by 
 Russia, 751. 
 
 Baden, Articles of, condemned by 
 Pope, 265. 
 
 Badeni, Austrian prime minister, 
 
 549- . ^ 
 
 Bakounine, in Panslavic Congress, 
 
 Bakounine — Continued. 
 415; on repression of Polish na- 
 tional movement, 600; brings so- 
 cialism into Russia, 606; the Inter- 
 national, 730; contest with Marx, 
 730; founds Anarchist party, 735. 
 
 Balkan Peninsula, condition of na- 
 tions in 1814, 638; centre of inter- 
 national politics since 1871, 819. 
 
 Balta-Liman treaty, 642. 
 
 Banffy, Austrian prime minister, 550. 
 
 Barbfes, French Republican, 139; So- 
 cialist leader, 163. 
 
 Barcelona, burning of monasteries 
 and massacre of monks by Spanish 
 Progressists, 299; revolt of Pro- 
 gressists, 303; Republican party 
 proclaims a republic, 303; bom- 
 barded by Espartero, 303; revolt of 
 working men, 307. 
 
 Basque provinces, position in the 
 Spanish monarchy, 300; govern- 
 ment, 300; support Don Carlos, 300; 
 make peace with the government 
 for maintenance of privileges, 303; 
 in second Carlist war, 314; condi- 
 tion regulated by Constitution of 
 1876, 316. 
 
 Bavaria, Constitution under Germanic 
 Confederation, 379; political re- 
 vival, 387; revolution of 1848, 390; 
 King rejects election of Prussian 
 King as Emperor, 395; Zollverein, 
 454; joins Austria against Prussia,, 
 471, 783; concordat with Pope, 690; 
 supported by Russia, 751. 
 
 Bazaine, French general, 189, 816. 
 
 Beaconsfield, see Disraeli. 
 
 Belcredi, Austrian prime minister, 
 526. 
 
 Belgian Railroad Purchase, 805. 
 
 Belgium, formation of Kingdom of 
 the Netherlands, 229; social condi- 
 tions in 1814, 229; effects of French 
 occupation, 229 ; neutrality, 230 ; 
 government under Fundamental 
 Law, 230 ; opposition to Dutch 
 government, 230 ; Doctrinal Judg- 
 ment, 231; Catholic Liberal Union, 
 233; Revolution of 1830, 234, 762; 
 Belgian Congress, 234; independent 
 Kingdom founded, 234; Leopold of 
 Coburg chosen King, 235; settle- 
 ments of London Conference, 237, 
 766; siege of Antwerp, 238; parties, 
 244; financial crisis, 245; Education 
 Act of 1842, 245; Liberal Alliance, 
 246; struggles between Catholics 
 
852 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Belgium — Continued. 
 and Liberals, 246 ; Popes condemn 
 constitution, 248; Liberals in power, 
 248 ; revolution of '48, 248 ; Ant- 
 werp Convention, 248; "Young 
 Liberals " or Progressists, and 
 Doctrinaires, 249 ; army question, 
 249 ; bishops support Pope, 250; 
 Liberal Federation, 250 ; School 
 Law, 250; universal suffrage estab- 
 lished, 252; attempts to reconstitute 
 Liberal Union, Orban and Janson, 
 253 ; Democratic demonstrations, 
 253 ; Nyssen's project, 254; present 
 political parties, 255. 
 
 Belleville Program, 182, 183. 
 
 Bern, 419. 
 
 Benedetti, 809. 
 
 Beresford, English general, estab- 
 lishes dictatorship in Portugal, 319; 
 refused admittance on return from 
 Brazil, 320 
 
 Berg, Danish Democratic leader, 575. 
 
 Berlin, peace of, 661. 
 
 Berlin, Conference of, 396, 782; mem- 
 orandum, 632, 824; Treaty of, 770. 
 
 Berlin, Congress of, 826; Disraeli 
 takes part in, 76; Austria invited 
 to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
 544; dismemberment of Ottoman 
 Empire, 634; compensation for Rou- 
 mania, 647; settlement of Bulgaria, 
 665. 
 
 Bermudez Zea, Spanish absolutist 
 minister under Christina, 296. 
 
 Bernadotte, see Charles XIV. of Swe- 
 den. 
 
 Berri, Due de, assassination of, 121, 
 
 755- 
 Berryer, leader of Legitimists 
 
 (France), i56; the deficit, 177. 
 Bessarabia, restored to Moldavia, 
 
 642; taken by Russia, 646. 
 Beust, von, Austrian prime minister, 
 
 526; fall of, 538; foreign policy, 
 
 805; in Franco-Prussian War, 813. 
 Biarritz interview, 800. 
 Bismarck, Prussian prime minister, 
 
 interview with Favre at Ferriferes, 
 
 189; report on Frankfort Diet, 398; 
 
 first ministry, 461 ; policy, 461 ; 
 
 House protests against foreign 
 
 policy, 464; plan for union, 466; 
 
 duchies crisis, 466; diplomacy, 467; 
 
 induces Austria to join him, 468; 
 
 modifies his policy, 480; economic 
 
 reforms, 480 ; Guelph Fund, 481; 
 
 Customs Parliament, 481; govern- 
 
 Bisraarck-:-C(7«/8«»^a^. 
 ment as Chancellor of Empire, 489; 
 joins National Liberals against 
 Catholics, 491; Culturkampf, 492; 
 attempt to assassinate, 493; " Bis- 
 marck's party," 494; military, pe- 
 nal, and press laws, 495; Liberal 
 reforms, 495; financial measures. 
 Imperial Bank established, 495 ; 
 Count von Arnim agitation, 496; 
 Bleichroeder Era, 496 ; struggle 
 against Socialists, 497 ; economic 
 and social policy, 498 ; Economic 
 Council, 500; coalition of Conser- 
 vatives and Catholics, 501; colonial 
 policy, 501; Army Law, 502; Cartel, 
 502; importance to William L, 502; 
 beginning of movement against, 
 503; Frederick's diary, 503; con- 
 tinues to govern under William H., 
 504; rupture with Emperor, 505; 
 resigns, 505; war against Caprivi, 
 508; trip to Vienna, 508; Alsace- 
 Lorraine, 510; leads European pol- 
 icy, 789; Biarritz interview, 799; 
 alliance with Italy, 800; Austro- 
 Prussian war, 8oi; secret interview 
 with Napoleon, 803; declaration of 
 Franco-Prussian war, 807; London 
 and Frankfort treaties, 817; inter- 
 views of three Emperors, 822. 
 
 Black Sea, declared neutral, 792 ; 
 Russia regains freedom in, 817. 
 
 Blanc, Louis, French Socialist, 141; 
 theory of national workshops, 141; 
 draws up program of Democratic 
 party, 150; in the provisional gov- 
 ernment of the Republic, 159; 
 rights of labour, 160; national work- 
 shops established by decree of pro- 
 visional government, i5o; outbreak 
 by clubs, 163; "Days of June," 
 163; socialistic schools, 722. 
 
 Blanqui, French Republican, organ- 
 izes insurrection, 139 ; Socialist 
 leader, 163; Commune of Paris, 
 188. 
 
 Bleichroeder Era, 496. 
 
 Bohemia, Czech national opposition 
 to Austrian rule, 410; Panslavism, 
 410; revolution of 1848, 414; Pan- 
 slavic Congress, 415 ; centre of 
 Czech national movement, 532; de- 
 mand for personal union, 536; Aus- 
 tria- negotiates with, 544; Czechs 
 unite against Germans, 545; agita- 
 tions, 545; evolution of Czechs, 547. 
 
 Bordeaux, Compact of, 190. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 853 
 
 BSrne, 387. 
 
 Bosnia Crisis, 543. See also under 
 Ottoman Empire, 634, 
 
 Bosporus, Strait of, opened, 620 ; 
 Straits Convention, 623. 
 
 Boulanger Crisis, 213, 829. 
 
 Bourgeois, French prime minister 
 (Radical), 220; program, 220. 
 
 Brandenburg, Duke of, Prussian 
 prime minister, 446. 
 
 Bratiano, Roumanian prime minister, 
 645. 
 
 Bravo, Gonzalez, Spanish minister, 
 309. 
 
 Bresson (Spanish marriages), 304, 775. 
 
 Bright, John, Radical leader, heads 
 free trade movement, 58; his pro- 
 gram, 70. 
 
 Brisson, French prime minister, 213; 
 candidate for presidency, 220. 
 
 Broglie, French minister, press law 
 of 1819, 120; unites with Republi- 
 cans against Charles' government, 
 127; party of resistance, 134; min- 
 ister under MacMahon, 197; " Mor- 
 al Order" government, 197 ; min- 
 istry defeated, 2oi; second ministry, 
 206; resigns, 207. 
 
 Brunswick, constitution granted, 387; 
 action on Zollverein, 454. 
 
 Buffet, French prime minister, par- 
 liamentarian influence, 181; presi- 
 dent of National Assembly, 197 ; 
 forms ministry, 201. 
 
 Bukovina, centre of Roumanian na- 
 tional movement, 532. 
 
 Bulgaria, revolt of peasants, 631, 665; 
 insurrection put down by Bashi- 
 Bazouks, Bulgarian atrocities, 631, 
 665; Congress of Berlin, 634; Bul- 
 garian people before 1885, 664 ; 
 Church affairs, 665; constitution of 
 1869, 665; Alexander of Battenberg 
 chosen prince, 666; parties, 666; 
 coup d'etat, 666 ; protest against 
 I Russians, 667; union with Roume- 
 lia, 667; conditions since union, 
 667; political transformation, 667; 
 struggle for the union, 668; Europe 
 imposes peace, 668; military coup 
 dViat, 668; Ferdinand of Coburg 
 chosen prince, 669 ; attempts of 
 Russian party against Stambouloff, 
 669; Ferdinand recognized by Sul- 
 tan, 66g; revision of constitution, 
 669; Stambouloff assassinated, 669; 
 reconciled with Russia, 669; Mace- 
 donian agitation, 669. 
 
 Bull of 1814, 689. 
 
 Bulwer (Spanish marriages), 304, 775, 
 
 Burschenschaft, 383, 385. 
 
 Cabral, Costa, leader of Portuguese 
 Chartists, 322. 
 
 Cabrera, Carlist general, 302; con- 
 tinues the Carlist war in Catalonia 
 after peace is made, 303. 
 
 Cadiz, siege of, 294, 759. 
 
 Cairoli, Italian prime minister, 365. 
 
 Camarilla of Spain, restored in 1815, 
 290; succeeded by a ministry, 298 ; 
 forms again about Christina, and 
 governs without ministerial control, 
 305; under Isabella, 308. 
 
 Campos, Martinez, proclaims the 
 Spanish restoration of 1874 by pro- 
 nunciamenio, 315 ; makes terms of 
 peace with Cuban insurgents, 316, 
 footnote; unites with Sagasta in 
 the government, 318. 
 
 Canning, detaches England from 
 Holy Alliance, 30; prime minister, 
 33; favours Catholic emancipation, 
 33 ; English policy under, 759 ; at 
 Congress of Verona, 759 ; death, 
 760. 
 
 Canning, Stratford, 784. 
 
 Canovas del Castillo, Spanish min- 
 ister under Alphonso XII., 315; 
 leader of Conservative party, 317; 
 abandoned by the king in conver- 
 sion of the debt, 318; restored, and 
 fights against Republican press, 
 318. 
 
 Canrobert, French general in Crimean 
 war, 790; Italian war, 795. 
 
 Cantonists, revolt of (Spain), 313. 
 
 Capodistrias, head of Greek govern- 
 ment, 652; despotism, 652; assassi- 
 nated, 652. 
 
 Caprivi, German Chancellor, 505 ; 
 resigns Prussian prime minister- 
 ship, 508 ; Bismarck's opposition, 
 508; disputes with Eulenberg, 509; 
 resigns chancellorship, 509; policy 
 in Alsace-Lorraine, 514. 
 
 Carbonari, organization and aims, 
 329 ; persecution, 331 ; uprising in 
 Naples, 334; struggle against Pope, 
 692. 
 
 Carignano, Charles Albert, prince of, 
 part in the Sardinian rebellion, 332; 
 appointed regent by Victor Emman- 
 uel, 332 ; succeeds to throne of 
 Sardinia, 332; his motto, 337; Ke 
 Tentenna, 338; conflict with Austria, 
 
8S4 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Carignano — Continued. 
 
 338; his reforms, 339; grants the 
 Constitutional Statute, 340; revolu- 
 tion of 1848, 340; begins national 
 war again in 1849, 344; abdicates, 
 
 344- 
 
 earlier, 167. 
 
 Carlists, composition of the party, 
 296 ; Carlists and Christinos , 297; 
 the Carlist war, 300 ; Carlist army 
 and tactics, 301; division of the 
 party, 302; end of this war, 303; 
 gradually abandoned by the abso- 
 lutists, 305 ; revolt for the de- 
 fence "of religion," 307 ; declare 
 themselves in favour of " the na- 
 tional kingship" and "unity of 
 faith," in 1868, 311 ; led by the 
 priests, revolt against Serrano's 
 regency, 311; revolt against Ama- 
 deo, 312; repetition of first Carlist 
 war under the Republic, 314; Carl- 
 ist army- forced to take refuge in 
 France, 315; end of second Carlist 
 war, 316 ; present condition of 
 party, 317- 
 
 Carlsbad Decrees, 385. 
 
 Carniola, centre of Slovenian na- 
 tional movement, 532. 
 
 Carnot, president of French Republic, 
 214; assassinated, 219. 
 
 Carrel, Armand, 128, 140. 
 
 Cartel, 502. 
 
 Casimir-Perier, French prime min- 
 ister, party of resistance, 134 ; policy 
 of his ministry, 136. 
 
 Casimir-Perier, prime minister and 
 president of French Republic, 220; 
 personal quarrel with socialists, 
 220; resigns, 220. 
 
 Castelar, Spanish minister and orator 
 under the Republic, 313; president 
 of Spanish Republic, 314; his sys- 
 tem of military dictatorship, 314; 
 resigns, 314; leader of Possibilists, 
 318. 
 
 Catalonian Junta, 293. 
 
 Catholic Church, condition before 
 French Revolution, 684; Toleration 
 and Parity, 686; the Revolution in 
 the Church, 687; " enlightened des- 
 potism," 688 ; Concordat of 1801 
 and organic articles, 688; restora- 
 tion of, 689 ; Bull of 1814, 689 ; 
 transformation of, 6gi; Ultramon- 
 tane party, 691; evolution of French 
 national church, 6gi; government 
 of Rome, 692 ; Liberal Catholic 
 
 Catholic Church — Continued. 
 
 party, 692; Mirari Vos, 693; Catho- 
 lic Democracy, 694; revolution of 
 1848, 696; reaction, 696; Nostis et 
 Nobiscum, 696 ; Josephism aban- 
 doned, 697; Concordat of 1855, 697; 
 doctrine of Immaculate Conception 
 proclaimed, 698; Quanta Cura, 699; 
 Syllabus, 701; Vatican Council, 704; 
 doctrine of Infallibility adopted, 
 706 ; Anti-infallibilists, 705 ; Inop- 
 portunists, 705 ; Pastor jEternus 
 Bull, 706 footnote; separation of 
 Church and State in Italy, 707 ; 
 Church of Old Catholics formed, 
 707; law of Papal guarantees, 708; 
 Austria abrogates Concordat of 
 1855, 708; Peter's Pence, 710; Leo 
 XIII. elected, 710; his encyclicals, 
 711; his policy, 714; Culturkampf, 
 714; Leo XIII. interferes in domes- 
 tic policy, 715; encyclical for Cath- 
 olic union, 716; new powers of, 716. 
 
 Catholic Emancipation (England), 32. 
 
 Catholic Liberals, Belgian Union of, 
 233; demands of the party, 692; in 
 Ireland, 693; in Belgium, 693. 
 
 Cavaignac, Godefroy, 129; formation 
 of Communist Socialist party, 140; 
 invested with dictatorial power by 
 Constituent Assembly, 163; can- 
 didate for presidency, 165. 
 
 Cavour, Italian minister, favours rev- 
 olution of 1848, 341; description of, 
 348; his policy, 349; agreement of 
 Plombidres, 351; Roman question, 
 357 ; September Convention, 357 ; 
 death, 359 ; foreign policy, 7S8 ; 
 leads European policy, 789; makes 
 alliance with Napoleon, 793. 
 
 Chamberlain, Radical leader, 84; pro- 
 poses disestablishment of Anglican 
 Church, 84; leaderof Liberal Union- 
 ists in House of Commons, 98 ; 
 government's man of action, 98. 
 
 Chambord, Count of, birth secures 
 Bourbon succession, 122 ; recog- 
 nised by Right as Henry V., 199. 
 
 Changarnier, i68. 
 
 Charbonnerie, in revolutionary agita- 
 tion, 122; "four sergeants of Ro- 
 cbelle," 122; organization of, 719. 
 
 Charles Albert, King of Sardinia, see 
 under Carignano. 
 
 Charles I., prince of Roumania, 644; 
 builds up army, 646. 
 
 Charles X., Bourbon restoration, 104, 
 105; Beugnot on the return of, Ii2j 
 
INDEX. 
 
 855 
 
 Charles X. — Continued, 
 
 the Entresol ministry, 112; flees to 
 Belgium in the Hundred Days, 113; 
 second restoration, 113 ; leader of 
 Ultras, 115 ; becomes king (1824), 
 124; works toward restoration in 
 harmony with chamber and minis- 
 try, 124; exercises royal prerogative 
 in choice of ministers, 126; forms 
 an Ultra ministry under Polignac, 
 126; opposition to, 127; open con- 
 flict with the chamber, 128; deter- 
 mines on a coup d'etat, 128; July 
 revolution, 130; decides to make 
 terms with insurgents, 130; abdi- 
 cates in favour of his grandson, 132. 
 
 Charles XIV. of Sweden, made heir 
 to throne, 554 ; conflict with Nor- 
 way, 561. 
 
 Charles XV., King of Sweden, 561. 
 
 Charter (France), io5; Pope protests 
 against, 690. 
 
 Chartist agitation (England), 50-54; 
 Disraeli's sympathy with, 75. 
 
 Chosrew Pasha, Grand Vizier of 
 Ottoman Empire, 622; attempts to 
 regain Syria, 623, 773. 
 
 Christian VIII, King of Denmark, 
 567. 
 
 Christian IX., King of Denmark, 571; 
 victory over Folkething in consti- 
 tutional conflict, 576, 
 
 Christina of Spain, power of, in the 
 government under her husband, 
 Ferdinand VII., 296; appointed re- 
 gent for her daughter Isabella, 296; 
 gains the support of the Liberals, 
 297; promulgates the Statute of 
 1834, 297; is forced to promulgate 
 the Constitution of 1812, 300; is de- 
 serted by the army in Espartero's 
 revolt and flees to France, 303; is 
 recalled by Moderates, 304; marries 
 her favourite Munoz, 304; remains 
 head of the court, 304; rids herself 
 of Narvaez and gives the ministry 
 to her personal following, 305 ; 
 revolution of 1854 obliges her to 
 flee, 306. 
 
 Christinos (Spain), 297. 
 
 Cobbett, Radical agitation by, 27. 
 
 Coercion Act (Ireland), 71. 
 
 Commons, House of, under the new 
 electoral system (1832), 42; princi- 
 ple of parliamentary supremacy set 
 up, 42; after the reform o£ 1867, 
 68; the sovereign power, 68; "ob- 
 struction " in, 77; persistent oppo- 
 
 Commons, House of — Continued. 
 sition to Salisbury's Irish policy, 
 89; evolution in 19th century, g8; 
 
 Commune of Paris, i88 ; government 
 of, 191. 
 
 Communication, new methods of , 676. 
 
 Communists, 192, 723; alliance of, 
 723 ; manifesto of, 724 ; program 
 of, 725, footnote. 
 
 Concordat of i8oi (France), 688; Con- 
 cordat of 1851 (Spain), 305 ; Con- 
 cordat of 1855 (Austria), 421, 697; 
 abrogated, 534, 708. ' 
 
 Congr6gation, French Catholic party, 
 formation, 120; denounced by Mont- 
 osier, 124. 
 
 Consorteria, 361; financial measures 
 _ and restoration of the grist tax, 
 361 ; adjustment of relations with 
 Pope after taking of Rome, 362; 
 sympathy with France, 362; atti- 
 tude in latent conflict between 
 France and Prussia, 805. 
 
 Constant, Benjamin, intellectual res- 
 toration in France, 109 ; draws up 
 a liberal constitution for Napoleon 
 in Hundred Days, 113. 
 
 Constantine, Viceroy of Poland, 584; 
 recognised by Nicholas as Tsar 
 of Russia, 585; reappointed Vice- 
 roy, 598. 
 
 Constantinople, Conference of, 632, 
 633, 824. 
 
 Constituent Assembly (France), 162. 
 
 Coral, 649. 
 
 Corn Laws (England), 21; sliding 
 scale adopted, 31; repealed, 59. 
 
 Corporation Act, repeal of, 33. 
 
 Cortes of Portugal, powers under 
 charter of 1826, 320. 
 
 Cortes of Spain, manifesto against 
 them presented to Ferdinand by 
 Serviles, 289; hall closed and rec- 
 ords seized, 289 ; Cortes of 1820, 
 292 ; struggles with Ferdinand in 
 1803, 294; convoked in the old form 
 in 1833 to recognise Isabella as 
 Queen, 296; regulations of Chris- 
 tina's Statute of 1834, 297; subse- 
 quent agitation in political life, 
 298; votes the constitution of 1837, 
 300; legislative regulations by the 
 Constitution of 1837, 300; position 
 under the system of dictatorships, 
 304; suspended by the government, 
 306; convoked by Progressists to 
 draw up a constitution, 307 ; the 
 Additional Act guarantees a yearly 
 
8S6 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Cortes of Spain — Continued. 
 
 session and presentation of the 
 budget, 307; elected by universal 
 suffrage in 1868, 310; its composi- 
 tion, 310; proclaims Republic and 
 elects a ministry, 313; convoked by 
 Federalist ministry to make a con- 
 stitution, 313; deputies driven from 
 their hall by Gen. Pavia, 314; votes 
 the restoration constitution (1876), 
 316; present conditions, 317. 
 
 Couza, see under Alexander I, of 
 Roumania, 643. 
 
 Cracow Republic, 412, 776. 
 
 Crete, insurrection of, 625, 650; sec- 
 ond insurrection, 628; chronic agi- 
 tation, 635; organic statute, 635, 
 footnote. 
 
 Crispi, Sicilian leader of the Repub- 
 lican party, aids Garibaldi, 355; 
 prime minister of Italy, 368; second 
 ministry, 370 ; his colonial policy, 
 399; speech at unveiling of Gari- 
 baldi monument, 370, 371. 
 
 Crimean War, 789; restores Palmer- 
 ston to power, 63; effects in Russia, 
 590; declaration of, 785. 
 
 Croatia, national opposition to Aus- 
 trian rule, 410; revolution of 1848, 
 415 ; Hungarian-Croatian compro- 
 mise, 541 ; Unionist party, 543 ; 
 Greater Croatia agitation, 550 ; 
 Serb party of, 551. 
 
 Culturkarapf (Germany), 492, 714. 
 
 Custozza, Sardinian army defeated 
 by Austrian army (1848), 344, 779 ; 
 (1866) 358, 802. 
 
 Czartoriski, Prince, 597. 
 
 Danilo, Prince of Montenegro, 663. 
 
 Danube, declared open, 792. 
 
 Dardanelles, opened, 620 ; Straits 
 Convention, 623. 
 
 Daru, 181; French minister of for- 
 eign affairs, 184 ; responsible for 
 Franco-Prussian war, 184; on Vati- 
 can Council, 806. 
 
 Days of June (France), 163. 
 
 Days of March (Prussia), 442. 
 
 D6^k, Hungarian leader, reform pro- 
 gram, 409; address party, 524; 
 D6ak party, 542. 
 
 Decabrists, revolt of, 585, 720. 
 
 Decazes, French prime minister, 121; 
 policy, 121 ; deserted by King, 121; 
 favours Free Masons, 719 ; rumours 
 of war between France and Ger- 
 many, 822. 
 
 Defacqz, 246, 720, 
 
 Defection, the, 125. 
 
 Delyannis, Greek prime minister,6 56. 
 
 Denmark, gains Lauenburg, 5 ; for- 
 mation of Scandinavian States, 554; 
 Church, 555; composition and con- 
 dition of the monarchy, 566 ; 
 Schleswig-Holstein national agita- 
 tion, 568; wars of the Duchies, 569; 
 798; Eider Danes, 569; Prussia and 
 Austria intervene, 572; loss of the 
 Duchies, 572; Constitution of 1866, 
 573; "Peasants' Friends," 573; 
 constitutional conflict, 574; Iceland, 
 576; political evolution of, 843. 
 
 Depretis, Italian prime minister, 365; 
 makes coalition of centres against 
 other leaders of Left, 368 ; Pen- 
 tarchy to oppose, 368; list of suc- 
 cessive ministries, 368; death, 368. 
 
 Derby, English prime minister, leader 
 of Protectionist party, 62 ; third 
 ministry, 65 ; reform act of 1867^ 
 65; retires, 69; attitude in Italian 
 war, ^94. 
 
 Destruction, new means of, 673. 
 
 Diebitsch, Russian general, Polish 
 insurrection, 587; Turkish war, 761, 
 
 Disraeli, English prime minister, 69; 
 second ministry, 75 ; policy and 
 ideals, 75; colonial policy, 75; sup- 
 ports Ottoman Empire in the East- 
 ern Question, 76, 824; at Congress, 
 of Berlin, 76. 
 
 Diet (Germany), organ of the Ger- 
 manic Confederation, 376 ; Assem- 
 bly of 1816, 377; Carlsbad Decrees, 
 385 ; publication of debates for- 
 bidden, 386; decrees of 1832, 388 ;, 
 liberal majority accepts work of 
 Vorparlament, 391; restored, 398;. 
 appoints " reactionary committee," 
 398 ; repeals fundamental rights, 
 398; dissolved by Prussia's victory 
 in 1866, 471. 
 
 Doctrinal Judgment (Belgium), 231. 
 
 DSUinger, on Infallibility, 705. 
 
 Domela-Neiuwenhuis, Dutch social- 
 ist, 242. 
 
 Don Carlos VI., supported by Apos- 
 tolic party, 295; refuses to oppose 
 Ferdinand, 295; left legitimate heir 
 to throne by Ferdinand's death with- 
 out male issue, 295; refuses to rec- 
 ognise Isabella as Queen, 296 ; his 
 support, 296; the Carlist war, 300; 
 forced to sail for England, 300; re- 
 turns to Spain and sets up his court 
 
INDEX. 
 
 857 
 
 Don Carlos VI. — Continued. 
 and government at Navarre, 302; 
 his poor generalship, 302; his sup- 
 porters divide, 302; flees to France, 
 303. 
 
 Don Carlos VII., Carlist candidate for 
 "national kingship" in 1868,311; 
 second Carlist war, 314; capital at 
 Estella, 315 ; declared legitimate 
 King by the Pope, 315. 
 
 Dresden Conference, 398, 783. 
 
 Dualism, Austro-Hungarian, 406. 
 
 Duchies, war of, 798. See also under 
 Prussia, 466, and Denmark, 569. 
 
 Duclerc, French prime minister, 210. 
 
 Dufour, Swiss general, 268. 
 
 Dulcigno, demonstration of European 
 fleets before, 664. 
 
 Dupanloup, on the Syllabus, 703, 
 footnote; opposes lay schools, 708. 
 
 Dupuy, French prime minister, 220. 
 
 Duppel, blockade of, 572, 798. 
 
 Dufaure, French prime minister, 205; 
 second ministry defeated, 208. 
 
 Dynamite, use of, 674. 
 
 Eastern Question, the Allies arrayed 
 against France on the, 144, 389; 
 Europe hopes, by making Ottoman 
 Empire a modern state, to settle, 
 625; settlement of, 640; comes be- 
 fore Allies, 748, 758; Congress of 
 Verona, 758; intervention of Eu- 
 rope, 760; Palmerston's policy, 770; 
 Disraeli's policy, 76; causes rup- 
 ture between France and England, 
 773; Nicholas wishes to settle, 784; 
 end of European concert, 785; Cri- 
 mean .war, 789; Congress and 
 Peace of Paris. 792 ; reopened by 
 Herzegovina revolution, 823; Rus- 
 sian influence, 823; Eastern ques- 
 tion divides Europe, 827; reopened 
 by Roumelian revolution, 829. 
 
 Economic Council (Prussia), 500. 
 
 Economic Life, transformation in, 681. 
 
 Education Act,' of 1870 (England), 
 71; of 1833 (France), 151; of 1850 
 (France), 167 ; of 1842 (Belgium), 
 245. 
 
 Egyptian conflict (Mehemet Ah), 622, 
 
 773. 
 
 Eider Danes, 569. 
 
 Emancipation of Serfs (Russia), 591. 
 
 Ems Interview, 809. 
 
 Engels, socialistic theorist, 48; agita- 
 tion, 724; Manifesto of Communist 
 Party, 724- 
 
 England, settlements of 1815, 4, 6; 
 condition in 1814, 10; system of 
 government under George III., 10; 
 unreformed electoral system, 15; 
 Church, i8; social conditions, rg; 
 Corn Laws, 21; reform movement, 
 23; old regime, 24; Radical agita- 
 tion in 1816, 26; Luddite Riots, 26; 
 Spafield, 27; "Gag Laws," 29; 
 partial reforms, 30; holds aloof 
 from the Holy Alliance, 30; Catholic 
 Emancipation, 32; electoral reform 
 of 1832, 34; new conditions of politi- 
 cal life, 40; Peel formulates princi- 
 ple of parliamentary supremacy, 42; 
 parliamentary system, 42; series of 
 ministries, 43, footnote; Liberal ad- 
 ministrative reforms and their re- 
 sults, 43-48; industrial conditions 
 and labor agitation of the trades 
 unions, 48, 49; government prose- 
 cutes the unions, 50; Chartist agita- 
 tion, Workingmen's Parliament, 
 Lovett and O'Connor, 50-54; Irish 
 agitation, O'Connell and the Irish 
 party, 54-57; free-trade agitation, 
 Anti-Corn-Law League, Cobden, 
 Bright, and Villiers, 57; repeal of 
 Corn Laws, 59; industrial, reforms, 
 Ashley, Dennison, and Villiers, 59; 
 Factory Act of 1833, Labour in 
 Mines Act, Factory Act of 1844, 
 Act of 1878, 60; Irish Crisis, 61; 
 Maynooth Grant, 61; period of in- 
 action and democratic evolution, 
 62 ; Conservative division, Peel- 
 ites and protectionists (Bentinck, 
 Derby, Disraeli), 62; Ecclesiastical 
 Titles bill, 62, footnote; free trade 
 established. Navigation Act re- 
 pealed, treaty of commerce con- 
 cluded with France, 63; importance 
 of foreign policy, 63; period of 
 material prosperity, 63; improved 
 industrial conditions, 63; federa- 
 tion of trade unions, 63, 64; Adul- 
 lamites, 64; electoral reform of '67, 
 64; effect of the reform on political 
 conditions, 68; Gladstone's re- 
 forms (disestablishment of Angli- 
 can Church in Ireland, Irish Land 
 Act of 1870, Coercion Act, Education 
 Act of 1870, abolition of army pur- 
 chase, secret ballot), 69-72; trade- 
 union legislation, 73; Disraeli's 
 policy, foreign, colonial, and domes- 
 tic, 75, 76; Irish Home Rule party 
 formed, 76; "obstruction," 77; 
 
858 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 England — Continued. 
 
 Irish "Land League," and the 
 three F's, 78; Second Irish Land 
 Act, 80; Kilmainham Treaty, 81; 
 Invincibles assassinate secretary 
 for Ireland, 81; use of dynamite 
 explosions by Irish revolutionists, 
 81; electoral reform (1885), 82; Salis- 
 bury's first ministry, 84; "three 
 acres and a cow," 84; Gladstone's 
 third ministry, and the Irish ques- 
 tion, 85; "Liberal Unionists," 85; 
 projected system of Irish home 
 rule, 85, 86; Ulster's petition against 
 home rule, 86; party lines shat- 
 tered at elections of 1886, 86; Salis- 
 bury's second ministry supported 
 by the coalition, 86; Irish policy 
 and Land Purchase Act, 88; Parlia- 
 mentary opposition to Salisbury's 
 Irish policy, 89; reform of county 
 administration, 90; conversion of 
 national debt, 91; naval construc- 
 tion, 91; break-up of Irish party, 
 gi; formation of socialist party, 
 92; Gladstone's fourth ministry, 93; 
 reform program, 94 ; Rosebery 
 succeeds, 94, legislative reform of 
 1894 and its effects, 95; progressive 
 inheritance tax, 95; '' mend or end" 
 the Lords, 96; Unionists again in 
 power under Salisbury, 97; Salis- 
 bury's policy, 98; political evolu- 
 tion in 19th century, 98; growth of 
 democracy, 100; English attitude 
 in Carlist War, 302; as to Spanish 
 marriages, 304; Portuguese affairs, 
 319-322; Polish insurrection, 600; 
 Egyptian Conflict, 623, 773; in- 
 fluence in Ottoman Empire, 635; 
 in Greek politics, 654; fleet sent to 
 blockade the Piraeus, 655, 761; 
 refuses to enter Holy Alliance, 750; 
 policy under Canning, 759; Eastern 
 Question, 760; Anglo-Russian pro- 
 tocol, 760; triumph of Whigs, 762 ; 
 ministers control policy, 765 ; 
 Palmerston makes England rival 
 of Russia, 765; attitude on Polish 
 Question, 768 ; intervention in 
 Spain and Portugal, 769; Quad- 
 ruple Alliance, 770 ; rupture of 
 alliance with France, 771; State of 
 Good Feeling, 775; England iso- 
 lated, 777; her course in Italian 
 affairs, 777; refugees in, 781; recog- 
 nition of French Empire by, 783; 
 Nicholas tries to settle Eastern 
 
 England — Continued. 
 Question with, 784; fleet enters 
 straits, 785; end of European Con- 
 cert, 785; military impotence, 788; 
 Crimean War, 789; Polish affairs, 
 797; isolation of, 822; Berlin Con- 
 gress, 826 ; Gladstone changes 
 Eastern policy of, 828; mutual con- 
 cessions with Germany, 830; policy 
 on Armenian massacres, 831; politi- 
 cal evolution of, 842. 
 
 EotvSs, Hungarian nationalist, 524. 
 
 Epirus, Greek insurrection, 619, 650; 
 second insurrection, 629; action of 
 Congress of Berlin regarding, 634. 
 
 Erfurt Parliament, 397, 782. 
 
 Espartero, Spanish Liberal (Pro- 
 gressist) general, concludes peace 
 to end Carlist war, 303; created 
 Duke of Vittoria and becomes mili- 
 tary dictator of Spain, 303; supports 
 Progressist revolt against new 
 municipal law, 303; has himself 
 named regent and governs Spain 
 for three years, 303; is defeated by 
 a coalition of all parties and forced 
 to leave Spain, 303; becomes again 
 leader of the Progressists, and 
 joins the revolution of 1854, 3o6; 
 governs, together with O'Donnell, 
 306. 
 
 Espinasse, French minister of in- 
 terior, 176. 
 
 Estrup, Danish prime minister, 574. 
 
 Eulenberg, Prussian minister-presi- 
 dent, 509. 
 
 European Balance of Power, doctrine 
 of, 766. 
 
 European Concert, doctrine of, 766. 
 
 Factory Acts (England), Act of 1833, 
 60; Act of 1844, 60. 
 
 Falk, German minister, 493; " Falk 
 Laws," 493; resigns, 499. 
 
 Favre, Jules, interview with Bis- 
 marck at Ferriferes, 188; on Franco- 
 Prussian War, 816. 
 
 F6d6rfes, 192. 
 
 Fenian Agitation, 70. 
 
 Ferdinand, Emperor of Austria, 
 accession and character, 411; flight 
 from Vienna, 413; abdicates, 419. 
 
 Ferdinand, prince of Bulgaria, 669. 
 
 Ferdinand VII., King of Spain, re- 
 stored in 1814 by the English 
 army, 289; his government and un- 
 successful enterprises, 290; his dis- 
 like of the army, 291; revolution 
 
INDEX. 
 
 859 
 
 Ferdinand VII. — Continued. 
 of 1820 intimidates him, 291 ; his 
 struggles with his Liberal minis- 
 tries, 293; France restores the abso- 
 lute government, 293 ; Ferdinand 
 annuls by manifesto all acts of the 
 "constitutional government," 294; 
 restores the old r6gime as^^ar as 
 possible, 294; troubles in his gov- 
 ernment, 295; War of the Succes- 
 sion, 295; promulgates decree re- 
 storing female succession, 296. 
 
 Ferriferes, interview between Bis- 
 marck and Favre, 189, 816. 
 
 Ferry, French prime minister, 208; 
 second ministry, 210; opposes Radi- 
 cals, 211; defeated by Radicals, 212; 
 candidate for presidency, 214. 
 
 Feudal Party (Prussia), 445. 
 
 Finland, 582; system for Russifica- 
 tion, 612. 
 
 Flanders, Liberals in {Beggars), 250; 
 school law, 252. 
 
 Floquet, French prime minister, 214. 
 
 Fouch6, French minister, retains 
 office under Restoration, III ; 
 arranges secretly for Napoleon's 
 return, 113; dismissed by Louis 
 XVIIL, 117. 
 
 France, invaded by armies i>f Allies, 
 2; Bourbon restoration, 103; Char- 
 ter, io6i conditions of political life 
 in 1814, 108; Hundred Days and 
 Second Restoration, iii; results 
 of Hundred Days, 113, 222; new 
 division of parties, 114; Ultras, 
 115 ; counter-revolutionary crisis 
 brought on by Royalists, Provost 
 Courts, White Terror, 115; Chambre 
 Introuvable, 116; conflict between 
 King and Chamber, 116; constitu- 
 tional monachy and parliamentary 
 government, 117; beginning of a 
 regular political life, 119; policy of 
 Louis XVIII. and his ministry, 119; 
 electoral and press laws, 120; re- 
 organization period, 120; formation 
 of a Catholic party, the Congrega- 
 tion, 120; Liberals gain strength, 
 121; Duke de Berry assassinated, 
 i2j; government of the Right under 
 Richelieu and Villfele, 121; revo- 
 lutionary agitations, Charbonniers 
 and Free Masons, 122; press law of 
 1822, 123 ; seven-year period for 
 chamber, 123; Chambre RetrouvSe, 
 123; work of restoration under 
 Charles X., 124; the •■ i^-'— :— " 
 
 ' Defection,' 
 
 France — Continued. 
 
 125; unauthorized orders, 126; op- 
 position to King, 127; origin of 
 Orleanist party, 127; open conflict 
 between Chamber and King, 128; 
 Charles determines on a coup d'etat, 
 129; the four ordinances of July 
 26, 129; conditions favouring out- 
 breaks, 128; July revolution, 130; 
 executive committee organized, 130; 
 Louis Philippe named Lieutenant- 
 General of kingdom, 131; enthusi- 
 asm over revolution and tricolour 
 flag, 132; sovereignty of the' people, 
 pie, 132; " July Monarchy," 133; po- 
 litical power centres in the Cham- 
 ber, 133; political character of the 
 national guard, 133; democratic 
 manifestations, 134; party struggle 
 in the government, 134; party of 
 action, party of resistance, 134; 
 irreligious character of the July 
 Monarchy, 135; policy of Laflitte's 
 ministry, 135; commercial crisis, 
 135; National Association, 136; the 
 Carlists and the Duchess of Berry's 
 insurrection, 136; Republican agita- 
 tion, 136; "Rights of Man" society, 
 137; revolt of the Lyons weavers, 
 137; " Mutualists," 138; Republican 
 insurrections in Paris andLyons, 138 ; 
 Laws of September, 139; Republican 
 party suppressed, 139; CommunistT 
 Socialist party, formation and aims, 
 141; long "resistance" ministry, 
 142 ; three days' ministry, 142 ; 
 break between Guizot and Thiers, 
 142; general union against the 
 king and the court ministry, 143; 
 Allies arrayed against France on 
 the Eastern Question, 145; M0I6, 
 Soult, and Thiers, 143, 145; reap- 
 pearance of Bonapartist party, 145 
 Guizot's ministry, 146; Pritchard in- 
 demnity, 147; foreign and domestic 
 policy, 146, 147; agitation for 
 electoral reform, 147; Catholic and 
 democratic opposition parties, 148; 
 attack on Jesuits, 149; Seasons, 
 Communists, Icarians, remnants of 
 Republican party, 150, 155; Demo- 
 cratic party and its program, 
 150; continued agitation for social 
 reform, 150; work of monarchy of 
 property classes, 150 ; municipal 
 councils, penal code, educational 
 reforms, increased deficit, 151; 
 political conditions in 1848, 155; 
 
86o 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 France — Continued. 
 
 reform agitation by banquets, 155; 
 revolution of 1848, 156; provisional 
 government, 158, 159; Republic de- 
 clared, 159; socialist agitation, 159; 
 national workshops established, 
 160; industrial reforms decreed, 
 160; business crisis, 162; financial 
 measures adopted by provisional 
 government, 162; Constituent As- 
 sembly elected by universal suff- 
 rage, 162; its reactionary policy, 162; 
 dictatorship of Cavaignac, 163; 
 Constitution of, 1848, 164; election of 
 Louis Napoleon as president, 165; 
 his discord with the Chamber, 165; 
 the Mountain, 166; Republican 
 party crushed, 166; Roman Expedi- 
 tion, 166; electoral law of 1850, 167; 
 education bill of 1850, 167; ques- 
 tions which occupied the year 1851, 
 168; the coup d'etat. 170; organiza- 
 tion of the government, 171 ; Empire 
 restored, 172; suspension of politi- 
 cal life, 173; autocratic rfegime, 173; 
 "the Five," 176; events of the 
 period, 176; Orsini Conspiracy, 
 176; Napoleon's foreign policy, 176; 
 Italian war, 177, 793; revival of 
 political life, 177; "third party," 
 178; Catholic party opposes the 
 government, 178 ; Mexican cam- 
 paign, 177, 179; failure of Na- 
 poleon's foreign policy, 179; liberal 
 concessions, 179; Arcadiens, 180; 
 senatorial decree of Sept. , 1869, 181 ; 
 Irredentists (Radicals, Socialists, 
 Mutualists, and Blanquists), 182; 
 Belleville program, 182, 183; Re- 
 publican agitation, 183; constitu- 
 tion modified by plebiscite, 184 ; 
 Prussian war, 184 ; fall of the 
 Empire, 187; Government of Na- 
 tional Defence, 187, 816; Commune 
 of Paris, 188; election of National 
 Asssembly, 189; election of Thiers, 
 190 ; Compact of Bordeaux, 190 ; 
 government of the Commune, 191 ; 
 FM^re's and Communards , 192 ; de- 
 centralization, departmental com- 
 mittee, 195; national guard abol- 
 ished, 195; new taxes, 195; rupture 
 in the government, 197 ; Thiers 
 resigns, 197; MacMahon elected, 
 190; "Moral Order" government, 
 190 ; program of Right, 199 ; Law 
 of Septennate, 200; Lois Constitu- 
 tionelles, 201 ; recognition of Re- 
 
 France — Continued. 
 
 public, 201; provision for Senate, 
 201 ; Constitution of 1875, 202 ; 
 struggle between MacMahon and 
 Chamber, 205; resignation of Mac- 
 Mahon and election of Grfevy, 207; 
 supremacy and changes of Re- 
 publican party, 207; ministries, 208- 
 210; breach with Catholic clergy, 
 2og; Republicans divide into Op- 
 portunists and Radicals, 211; Ton- 
 quin, 211; reconstitution of Con- 
 servatives, 212 ; " policy of Re- 
 publican concentration," " policy 
 of conciliation," 213; Boulanger 
 crisis, 213; Wilson scandal, 214; 
 resignation of Gr6vy and election 
 of Carnot, 214; policy of Boulan- 
 gists (Revisionist or National party), 
 214 ; transformation of extreme 
 parties: Moderates, Marxists, and 
 Possibilists, 216; " Rallied," 218; 
 conciliatory policy advised by the 
 Pope, 218; Conservatives split up, 
 217; Paris Labour Exchange closed, 
 218 ; Panama scandal, 218 ; new 
 division of parties, 218 ; assassina- 
 tion of Carnot, 219; election of 
 Faure, 220; political evolution in 
 nineteenth century, 221; use of In- 
 terpellation, 226, 227, and footnote; 
 French army sent to aid Belgium, 
 238; France restores absolutism in 
 Spain, 293; sides with Christina 
 against Don Carlos, 297; refuses to 
 aid against Carlists, 299; share in 
 Carlist war, 302 ; inBismarck's diplo- 
 macy, 467; in Polish insurrection, 
 600; protector of Catholics in Otto- 
 man Empire, 630; influence in Greek 
 politics, 654; troops sent to block- 
 ade the Piraeus, 655, 761; evolution 
 of National Church, 691; Gallican 
 party, 691; policy of Allies toward, 
 752; admitted to Holy Alliance, 
 754; intervention in Italy, 768; in- 
 tervention in Spain and Portugal, 
 769; Quadruple Alliance, 770; rup- 
 ture of alliance with England, 771; 
 in Egyptian conflict, 773; "State of 
 Good Feeling," 775; Swiss affair, 
 777 ; recognition of Empire, 783 ; 
 fleet enters Straits, 785 ; end of 
 European concert, 785; preponder- 
 ance of, 787; leads European policy, 
 789; Crimean War, 789; alliance with 
 Sardinia, 793; Zurich treaty, 796; 
 annexes Savoy and Nice, 796! com- 
 
INDEX, 
 
 86 1 
 
 France — Continued. 
 
 mercial treaty of i860, 7g6; Polish 
 policy, 797 ; latent conflict with 
 Prussia, 804 ; Napoleon proposes 
 triple alliance, 805; plan of cam- 
 paign, 806; Prussian war declared, 
 807; London and Frankfort treaties, 
 817 ; armed camps, 819 ; effect of 
 war in, 820; isolated, 822; rumours 
 of war with Germany, 822; Berlin 
 Congress, 826; understanding with 
 Russia, 828; League of Patriots, 
 829 ; armed peace, 831 ; political 
 evolution of, 840; Church, liberty 
 of creed granted by the Charter, 
 106 ; condition in 1814, no ; re- 
 vised Charter establishes religious 
 equality, 133; irreligious character 
 of the July Monarchy, 133; Catholic 
 opposition party, 148 ; Paray-le- 
 Monial, 198 ; policy of Catholic 
 party under Republic, iq8; breach 
 between Catholic clergy and Re- 
 public, 209. 
 
 Francis II., Emperor of Austria, char- 
 acter and policy, 403. 
 
 Francis Joseph, Emperor of Aus- 
 tria, 419; recognises "hereditary 
 abuses," 518; grants constitution 
 of October, i860, 420; deserts con- 
 stitutional party, 544. [See under 
 Austria and Germany for events of 
 his reign.] 
 
 Franco-Prussian War, declaration of, 
 807; conduct of, 813; effect in Eu- 
 rope, 818; effect in France, 820: in 
 political evolution of Europe, 845. 
 [See also under France, 184, 187; 
 under Germany, 482.] 
 
 Frankfort, Conference, 397; Parlia- 
 ment, 391, 696; Treaty of, 818. 
 
 Frederick III., Emperor of Germany, 
 502 ; beginning of movement against 
 Bismarck, 503; diary, 503; death, 
 503. 
 
 Frederick VI., King of Denmark, 566; 
 agitation in Schleswig - Holstein 
 against, 567. 
 
 Frederick VII., King of Denmark, 
 567; course in question of duchies, 
 569; death, 571. 
 
 Frederick William III., King of 
 Prussia, accepts principle of repre- 
 sentation, 434; leaves constitutional 
 party, 435; end of reign, 436; master 
 of European diplomacy, 764. 
 
 Frederick William IV., King of 
 Prussia, opposes idea of constitu- 
 
 Frederick William IV. — Continued. 
 tion, 434; beginning of reign, 438; 
 reforms, 438; ideals, 438; carica- 
 tures of, 439; popular opposition 
 to, 440; refuses constitution, 441; 
 conflict with Landtag, 441; joins 
 revolution of '48 and grants consti- 
 tution, 443; end of reign, 450; posi- 
 tion in European policy, 764. 
 
 Free Masons; struggle with Holy 
 See, 692, 714; Humanum Genus En- 
 cyclical, 714; origin and evolution 
 of, 718; aims and organization of, 
 718; favoured in France, 719; for- 
 bidden in Russia and Austria, 719; 
 action in Europe, 719; in France, 
 122; in Belgium, 246; in Spain: con- 
 nection with revolution of 1820, 291; 
 the Blacks, 293; seven Masons exe- 
 cuted for holding a meeting, 295; in 
 Italy, 329; in Germany, 384; in 
 Russia, 582. 
 
 Freycinet, French prime minister, 
 208; second ministry, 210; third 
 ministry, 213. 
 
 Fuad, Ottoman reformer, 628; death, 
 630. 
 
 Fundamental Law (Netherlands), 230, 
 
 " Gag Laws " (England), 29. 
 
 Gagern (Hesse), 389. 
 
 Galicia (Austrian), revolution of 1848, 
 414; centre of Polish national move- 
 ment, 532. 
 
 Gambetta, speech at trial of Baudin 
 subscribers, 180; Belleville pro- 
 gram, 182 ; escapes from Paris 
 in a balloon, 187; minister of in- 
 terior and war in 1870, 188; influ- 
 ence, 188, 189; election of 1871, 189; 
 leader of Extreme Left, 199; two 
 famous phrases, 207; upbraided for 
 opportunism, 208, 210; forms " the 
 great ministry," 210; resigns, 210; 
 death, 210. 
 
 Garay, Spanish Minister; attempts 
 financial reform, 290, 751. 
 
 Garibaldi, general under Roman Re- 
 public, 345; expedition to Sicily, 
 354; attacks States of the Church, 
 354; "dictator of the two Sicilies," 
 355; Aspromonte, 357; Mentana, 
 358; unveiling of monument to, 
 370-71. 
 
 Gastein Convention, 469, 799. 
 
 George I., King of Greece, 655. 
 
 George IV., becomes King of Eng- 
 land, 30; character and influence, 
 
862 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 George IV. — Continued. 
 
 30; opposes Catholic Emancipation, 
 32, 33; death, 34. 
 
 Germanist Congress, 390. 
 
 Germany, condition in 1814, 374; for- 
 mation of Germanic Confederation, 
 375; Federal Act, 376; Diet, 376; 
 individual governments, 377; con- 
 stitutionalists and absolutists, 380; 
 university persecution, 382; Wart- 
 burg festival, 384; Carlsbad De- 
 crees, 385 ; constitutional opposition, 
 Manuscript of Southern Germany, 
 386; revolutionary movements of 
 1830, 387; Press Union, 387; Ham- 
 bach Festival, 387; Radicals, 388; 
 affair of the seven professors, 389; 
 national movement since 1840, 389; 
 patriotic manifestation of 1840, 389; 
 Germanist Congress, Deutsche Zei- 
 tung. United Landtag, Offenburg 
 Assembly, Heppenheim meeting, 
 3go; revolution of 1848, 390; Vor- 
 parlament, 391 ; Frankfort Parlia- 
 ment, 391; election of Archduke 
 John as Imperial Administrator, 
 392; parties, 392; Grossdeutsche and 
 Kleindeutsche parties, 394; Empire 
 declared and King of Prussia chosen 
 Emperor, 395; trouble over the elec- 
 tion, 395; Republicans defend Con- 
 stitution, 395; Republican outbreaks 
 and extermination of party, 396; 
 Conference of Berlin, 396, 397; Er- 
 furt Parliament, 397; Prussian 
 Union, 397; Dresden Conference, 
 398; old Confederation re-estab- 
 lished, 398; reactionary committee, 
 398 ; work of restoration, 398 ; Diet di- 
 rected by Austria, 398; national and 
 liberal awakening, 464; agitation 
 for union, 464; political clubs, 465; 
 Wurzburg Conference, 465; Con- 
 gress of Princes, 465; reform plan 
 adopted, 465; Prussia refuses, 465; 
 Bismarck's plan for union, 466; 
 duchies' crisis, 466; Austro-Prussian 
 War, 470; Confederation of 1815 dis- 
 solved, 470; new union headed by 
 Prussia, 471; treaty of Prague, 
 472; Prussia's annexations, 472 ; 
 formation of North German Con- 
 federation, 473; organization and 
 government, 474; transformation of 
 parties, 476; National Liberals, 477; 
 the socialists, 479; Bismarck's modi- 
 fied policy and economic reforms, 
 480; Guelph Fund, 481; isolation of 
 
 Germany — Continued. 
 
 South Germany, 481; Customs Par- 
 liament, 481; Franco-Prussian War, 
 482; foundation of Empire, 482; Con- 
 stitution of the Empire, 483; parties, 
 485; conditions of political life, 488; 
 approximate strength of parties, 
 490; importance of local legislation, 
 490; growth of National Liberal 
 party, 490; Culturkampf, 492; " Pul- 
 pit Paragraph," 493; diplomatic re- 
 lations with Pope broken off, 493; 
 May or Falk Laws, 493; Count von 
 Arnim agitation, 496; Bleichroeder 
 Era, 496; struggle against socialists, 
 496; Bismarck's social and economic 
 policy, 498; "socialistsof the chair," 
 498; new tariff law, 499; end of Cul- 
 turkampf, 500; National Liberals 
 divide, 500; Army Law, 502; Cartel, 
 502; Frederick III. and beginning 
 of movement against Bismarck, 503; 
 William II. and Christian Socialism, 
 503; rupture between Emperor and 
 Bismarck, 505; Bismarck resigns, 
 505; New Course, 506; change in 
 commercial and foreign policy, 506; 
 Bismarck's opposition to Caprivi, 
 508; Farmers' League, 508; elections 
 of 1893, 509; Hohenlohe succeeds 
 Caprivi, 509; Anti-Semites, 510; 
 Alsace-Lorraine, 510; political de- 
 velopment in 19th century, 514; 
 influence in Ottoman Empire, 635; 
 evolution of national church, 692; 
 formation of socialist program, 731; 
 restoration after revolution of '48, 
 781 ; predominance and peaceful pol- 
 icy, 820; alliance of three Emperors, 
 821; rumours of war with France, 
 822; Berlin Congress, 826; forma- 
 tion of Triple Alliance, 827; Skier- 
 nevice interview, 828 ; attitude 
 toward Bulgaria, 829; mutual con- 
 cessions with England, 830; armed 
 peace, 831; political evolution, 
 842. 
 
 Gioberti, Italian theologian, 336, 694. 
 
 Gladstone, English prime minister. 
 Peelite, joins Liberals, 62 ; with Rus- 
 sell tries to lower franchise, 64; con- 
 version to Radicalism, 69; first min- 
 istry, 70; his reforms: disestablish- 
 ment of Anglican Church in Ireland, 
 Irish Land Act of 1870, Coercion 
 Act, Education Act of 1870, aboli- ■ 
 tion of army purchase, secret ballot, 
 69-72; trade-union legislation, 73; 
 
INDEX. 
 
 863 
 
 Gladstone — Continued, 
 
 second ministry, opposition to Irish 
 party, ele^toial reform, 79; foreign 
 policy, ;/^; second Irish Land Act, 
 80; Kilmainnam Treaty, 81; elec- 
 toral reform, 1885, 82; becomes un- 
 popular on foreign policy and re- 
 tires, 84; program at elections of 
 1885, 84; accepts home-rule policy, 
 85; third ministry, 85; division of 
 his party, 85; fourth' ministry and 
 program, 93, 94; new home-rule 
 bill, 94; retires in favour of Lord 
 Rosebery, 94; attitude in Turkish 
 affairs, 632, 828. 
 Goblet, French prime minister, 213. 
 Gortschakoff, Russian minister, gov- 
 ernorof Poland, 597; poses as peace- 
 maker between France and Ger- 
 many, 823; formation of Triple 
 Alliance, 827. 
 Gramont, Duke of, French minister, 
 184, 807; brings on war with Prussia, 
 809. 
 Greece, insurrection, 620; independ- 
 ence recognised, 620; at Congress 
 of Berlin, 634; conditions before 
 1820, 648; commercial prosperity, 
 648; national renascence, 649; be- 
 ginning of independence, 649; Palli- 
 cares and Armatoles, 650; insurrec- 
 tion, 650; Mussulman invasion, 651; 
 constitution of Troezen, 652; Euro- 
 pean fleets arrive, 652; London Con- 
 ference, 652; absolutist system in, 
 652; Otto of Bavaria chosen king, 
 652; conditions after independence, 
 653; politics, 654; military revolt, 
 654; constitution of 1844, 654; politi- 
 cal conditions under constitutional 
 system. 654: Don Pacifico, 655; Eng- 
 lish fleet and French troops sent to 
 blockade the Piraeus, 655; effect of 
 Crimean War on Greek politics, 
 655; division of parties, 655; Ionian 
 Isles annexed, 655; George I. be- 
 comes king, 655; constitution of 
 i860, 655; political parties and their 
 leaders, 656; Tricoupis and Del- 
 yannis ministries, 656; financial 
 disorder, 656; general prosperity, 
 656. 
 Gregory XVI., Pope of Rome, con- 
 demns Belgian constitution, 248; 
 revolution of 1831, 333; reform pro- 
 jects, 334; his government, 335; en- 
 courages movement for national 
 unitv. 337- 
 
 Grey, English prime minister, favours 
 the electoral reform, 34; his minis- 
 try, 34, 35; ministry divides and is 
 reconstructed under Melbourne, 42; 
 reforms poor-laws, 44. 
 
 Gr6vy, president of French Republic, 
 loses presidency of National Assem- 
 bly, 197; elected president of Re- 
 public, 207; resigns by reason of 
 Wilson scandal, 214. 
 
 Griitli Union, 283. 
 
 Guelph Fund. 481. 
 
 Guizot, French prime minister, press 
 law of 1819, 120; unites with Re- 
 publicans against Charles' govern- 
 ment, 127; proclaims sovereignty 
 of the people, 132; party of resist- 
 ance, 134; breaks with Thiers, 142; 
 his theory, 142: his ministry, 145; 
 " Satisfaits," 147; Pritchard indem- 
 nity, 147; agitation for electoral re- 
 form, 147; political conditions in 
 1848, 155; denounced by national 
 guard, 156; dismissed from office, 
 157; " State of Good Feeling," 775; 
 Swiss affair, 777. 
 
 Haller, L. von, 380, 434; *' anion of 
 throne and altar," 689. 
 
 Hambach Festival, 387. 
 
 Hanover, government under Ger- 
 manic Confederation, 378; consti- 
 tution granted, 387; affair of the 
 seven professors, 389; King rejects 
 election of Prussian King as Em- 
 peror, 395; Prussian alliance, 396; 
 Zollverein, 454; joins Austria 
 against Prussia, 471; annexed to 
 Prussia, 472; opposition, 480; 
 Guelph Fund, 481. 
 
 Hardenberg, Prussian prime min- 
 ister, 425. 
 
 Heine, 382, 387; opposes Frederick 
 William IV., 440. 
 
 Heligoland, ceded to Germany by 
 England, 830. 
 
 Heppenheim Meeting, 390. 
 
 Herzegovina, revolt of Christians in, 
 628; revolt against corvee, 630J 
 war, 631; Europe demands reforms 
 in, 631; action by Congress of Ber- 
 lin, 634. 
 
 Herzen, repression of Polish national 
 movement, 600. 
 
 Hess, German Socialist, 724., 
 
 Hesse-Cassel, constitution of 1831, 
 387; Zollverein, 454; conflict over 
 constitution of 1831, 464; joins 
 
864 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Hesse-Cassel — Continued. 
 Austria against Prussia, 471; an- 
 nexed to Prussia, 472. 
 
 Hesse-Darmstadt, constitution under 
 Germanic Confederation, 379; se- 
 cret society in Giessen formulates 
 a constitution, 384; Zollverein,453; 
 joins Austria against Prussia, 471, 
 
 Hidalgo, 313. 
 
 Hogendorp, 230. 
 
 Hohenlohe, Prussian prime minister, 
 459; Chancellor of Empire, 509; 
 rumours of war between France 
 and Germany, 822. 
 
 Hohenwart, Austrian prime minister, 
 
 537. 
 
 Holy Alliance, 748. 
 
 Home Rule (Ireland) : formation of 
 Home Rule party, 76-78; party 
 principles, 77; uses "obstruction," 
 77; demands radical reform, 79; 
 " boycott," 79; Kilmainham Treaty, 
 81; Gladstone converted to, 85; the 
 projected system of, 85, 86; support 
 of the party, 87; extension of the 
 doctrine, 87; Justin McCarthy suc- 
 ceeds Parnell as Irish leader, 91; 
 Irish party breaks up, 91. 
 
 Humanum Genus (Encyclical), 714. 
 
 Hundred Days, m; results of, 113. 
 
 Hungarian Compromise, 526. 
 
 Hungarian War, 419. 
 
 Hungary, liberal and nationalist oppo- 
 sition to Austria, 406; dualism, 406; 
 constitution, 406; organization of 
 society, 407; government, 408; 
 Reform Diet, 408; political awak- 
 ening, 409; Magyar the official 
 language, 409; liberal reform pro- 
 gram, 409; revolution of 1848, 414; 
 demands for liberal reforms con- 
 ceded by Austria, 414; independent 
 government, 414; Austria breaks 
 with Hungarian revolutionists, 417; 
 Palatine resigns, 417; Kossuth at 
 head of, 417; Viennese troops march 
 on, 417; Hungarian War, 419; Re- 
 public declared, 419; absolutist re- 
 storation, 420; aristocratic system 
 destroyed, 421; reenforced Coun- 
 cil, 519; rejects constitution, 521; 
 not included in constitution of '61, 
 522; national resistance, 523; ad- 
 dress and decision parties, 523; de- 
 mands, 524; dualism restored, 525; 
 negotiations, 525; Hungarian Com- 
 promise, 526; Transleithania, 526; 
 government under the Union, 527; 
 
 H ungary — Continued. 
 receives Constitution of 1848 again, 
 528; parties and poMtiog^ 540; Hun- 
 garian-Croatian cofap/omise, 541; 
 Bosnia Crisis, 544; political strug- 
 gles since 1878, 549; nationalist 
 agitations, 550; Omladina, 551; 
 Roumans, Slovacs, and Serbs form 
 alliance for local autonomy, 552; 
 political evolution in 19th century, 
 552; restoration after revolution of 
 '48, 781; attitude in Franco- Prus- 
 sian War, 813. 
 
 Huskisson, Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer, 30; modifies economic 
 system, 31. 
 
 Hydra, 650. 
 
 Ibrahim, leads Egyptian army to aid 
 Sultan, 620, 641, 760. 
 
 Icarians, 150. 
 
 Iceland, 576. 
 
 Ignatieff, Russian general, councillor 
 under Alexander III., 608. 
 
 Industrial Legislation, in England: 
 agitation for improved conditions 
 of labour, Kingsley, Dennison, 
 Ashley, 59; Factory Act of 1B33, 
 60; minor reforms, 60; Labour in 
 Mines Act, 60; Factory Act of 1844, 
 60; industrial code consolidated in 
 the Act of 1878, 60; trade-union 
 legislation, 73; act of 1875 on 
 strikes, 76; compensation for acci- 
 dent, 98. In France : reforms 
 granted by the provisional govern- 
 ment of 1848, 160. 
 
 Inkermann, battle of, 791- 
 
 Initiative and Referendum (Switzer- 
 land), 271-277. 
 
 International Society, 479, 727. 
 
 International Peace League, 832. 
 
 Interpellation, 226, 227, and footnote. 
 
 Intervention, principle officially re- 
 cognised, 756; signification in Eu- 
 ropean policy, 765; absolutist alli- 
 ance to maintain doctrine of, 77i- 
 
 Ionian Isles, ceded to England, 6; 
 creation of Hellenic centre in, 649; 
 Republic of the Seven Isles, 649; 
 ceded to Greece, 655. 
 
 Ireland, condition in 1814, 22; Catho- 
 lic Emancipation, 32; Catholic As- 
 sociation, 32; repeal agitation, 54; 
 O'Connell and the Irish party, 54; 
 Irish agitation, 54-57; church rev- 
 enues, 55; Irish demands, 56, 57; 
 the year 1843, Tara and Clontarf, 
 
INDEX. 
 
 865 
 
 Ireiana — Continued, 
 
 57; faminjH^ '45, 5g; Irish crisis, 
 61,62; Jl^^^ Ireland, 61; May- 
 nooth ^^^^161; famine of '46, 
 61; end^^^Elitical agitation, 62; 
 Fenians re^Rre political activity, 
 70: disestablishment of Anglican 
 Church, 71; Irish Land Act of 1870, 
 71; Coercion Act, 71; formation 
 and aim of Irish Home Rule party, 
 76-78; "obstruction," 77; "Land 
 League" and the three F's, 78; 
 Gladstone's treatment of, 79; Sec- 
 ond Irish Land Act, Land Court, 
 80; Kilmainham Treaty, 81; the 
 Invincibles, 81; assassination of 
 secretaries, 81; use of dynamite by 
 Irish revolutionists, 8i; O'Donovan 
 Rossa, 82; policy of Gladstone's 
 third ministry, 85; Orangemen, 85; 
 Ulster's petition against home 
 rule, 86; work accomplished by 
 Land Court, 87; the " Plan of Cam- 
 paign," 87; Salisbury's policy, 88; 
 Land Purchase Act, 88; division in 
 Nationalist party, 91; elective 
 county councils granted by Salis- 
 bury, 98; Liberal Catholic party, 
 
 693- 
 
 Irish Church, political position^ in 
 1814, 22; Catholic Emancipation, 
 32; Grey ministry divides on ques- 
 tion of revenues, 42; O'Connell 
 demands liberty and equality with 
 other churches, 54; revenue ques- 
 tion, 55; Anglican Church dises- 
 tablished in Ireland, 71; Irish 
 Church Surplus, 71, footnote. 
 
 Irish Land Acts (1870), 71; (1881), 80; 
 Purchase Act, 88. 
 
 Irish Party, 54. 
 
 Irredentists, in Italy, 367; agitation 
 placed in hands of police, 368; in 
 Roumania, 551; in France, 182. 
 
 Isabella of Spain, succeeds her father, 
 Ferdinand VII., 296; her mother 
 appointed regent, 296; declared of 
 age in 1843, 303; marries Francis, 
 Duke of Cadiz, 304; breaks with 
 Progressists over Church property 
 and threatens to abdicate, 307; 
 asks O'Donnell to form a minis- 
 try, 307; dismisses O'Donnell and 
 forms the Narvaez ministry of 
 Moderates, 307; recalls O'Donnell, 
 308; restores Moderates and Nar- 
 vaez, 308; gains support of abso- 
 lutists, 308; revives Catholic abso- 
 
 Isabella of Spain — Continued. 
 
 lutism and government by the 
 camarilla, 308; her favourites, 308; 
 receives the golden rose from the 
 Pope, 309; deserted in revolution 
 of 1868 and flees to France, 310; 
 abdicates in favour of her son, 
 Alphonso, 312. 
 
 Italian Church, regulations after re- 
 storation, 327; Siccardi laws, 348; 
 the Roman Question, 356; en- 
 tanglement of Church affairs after 
 formation of kingdom of Italy, 
 360; Church property in Rome sec- 
 ularized, 362; Crispi's penal code, 
 368. 
 
 Italian War, 793. See also under 
 France, 177, and under Italy, 351. 
 
 Italy, parcelled out in 1815, 8; 
 political condition in 1815, and the 
 restoration, 326; political condition 
 after 1815,329; the secret societies. 
 Carbonari, Free Masons, Calderari, 
 Sanfedists, 329: the Naples rebel- 
 lion, 330; the Sardinian rebellion, 
 331; Victor Emmanuel abdicates in 
 favour of Charles Felix, 332; suc- 
 cession of Carignano as Charles 
 Albert, 332; revolution of 1831, 
 333; Mazzini and the Republican 
 party, 335; Young Italy, 335, 72°: 
 the Risorgimento, 336, 694; revolu- 
 tions of 1848, 339; internal dis- 
 cords, 341; reaction, 344; French 
 expedition against Roman Repub- 
 lic, 345; Sardinia after the revo- 
 lution, 347; Victor Emmanuel and 
 the Constitutional Statute, 347; 
 Siccardi laws, 348; final division of 
 parties, 348; Cavour's policy, 349; 
 the National Union, 350; agreement 
 of Plombiferes, 351; formation of 
 the kingdom of Italy, war against 
 Austria, 351; Garibaldi's expedi- 
 tion into Sicily, and the States of 
 the Church, 354; the Roman Ques- 
 tion, 355, 796; Garibaldi defeated 
 at Aspromonte,357; SeptemberCon- 
 vention, 357; formation of parties 
 and internal difficulties, 359; or- 
 ganization of the administration, 
 359; financiaj measures, 360; Con- 
 sorteria, 361 ; Sella's financial re- 
 forms, grist tax re-Sstablished, 361; 
 Rome made capital of the king- 
 dom, 362; strained relations with 
 France, 362; appointment of 
 bishops, 363; universal military 
 
866 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Italy — Continued. 
 service adopted, 363; Left in 
 power, 363; qualifications for vot- 
 ing. 364; Depretis ministry, 365; 
 electoral law of '82, 365; joins the 
 Triple Alliance, 366, 367; later par- 
 ties, 366; Irredentists, 367; Barsanti 
 clubs, 367; Oberdank, 367; effect 
 of French seizure of Tunis, 367; 
 Crispi's government, 368; new 
 penal code, 368; financial crisis, 
 369; colonial ambitions and policy, 
 369; government of the Right, 370; 
 restoration of the Left and Roman 
 bank scandal, 370; Crispi's second 
 ministry, 370; present political 
 conditions, 371, 372; Sicilian bread 
 riots, and the Socialists, 371; Re- 
 publican party, 371; Crispi retires, 
 372; Rudini ministry, 372; Bis- 
 marck's diplomacy, 467; separation 
 of Church and State, 707; Austrian 
 and French intervention, 769; 
 Italian affair, 777; restoration after 
 revolution of '48, 780; leads Euro- 
 pean policy, 789; alliance with 
 Prussia, 800; Napoleon proposes 
 triple alliance, 805; in Franco- 
 Prussian War, 813; takes Rome, 
 815; makes overtures to Germany, 
 822; at Berlin Congress, 826; for- 
 mation of Triple Alliance, 827; 
 policy since 1870, 828; political 
 evolution, 843. 
 
 Jahn,383; arrested, 435; pardoned, 438. 
 
 Janissaries, 616, mutiny of, 621. 
 
 Jellachich, appointed Ban of Croatia, 
 415; manifesto of Innsbruck, 415; 
 civil war in Hungary, 417 ; appointed 
 king's lieutenant in Hungary, 417. 
 
 Jesuits, restored by Papal Bull in 
 18x4, 689. In France: condemned 
 by Montlosier, 149 ; attacked by 
 Liberals, 149; expelled, 691. In 
 Switzerland: lead Democratic Cath- 
 olic movement, 366, 695; expelled, 
 268. In Germany: expelled, 493. 
 
 John, Archduke, Austrian prime 
 minister, 414; elected Imperial Ad- 
 ministrator, 392. 
 
 Jordan (Hesse), 388. 
 
 Josephism, 406; fall of, 422. See also 
 under Church and Catholic Parties, 
 687, 697. 
 
 July Monarchy, 133; recognised, 766. 
 
 July Revolution (France), influence 
 on reform in England, 34; outbreak 
 
 July Revolution — Continued. 
 
 of, 130; fnfluence ii^Belgium, 233J 
 influence in Switze^^^ 262, 
 
 Junta, institution of^^^^ 
 
 : i il_lJ elg 
 
 w 
 
 Kalisch Interview, 77 
 
 Kara-Georges, Servian revolutionist, 
 657; assassinated, 658. 
 
 Karakosof, 606. 
 
 Katkoff, repression of Polish national 
 movement, 600; leader of autocratic 
 party, 605; heads nationalist party, 
 608 ; Councillor under Alexander 
 III., 608. 
 
 Khereddin, Grand Vizier of Ottoman 
 Empire, 634. 
 
 Kiel, Peace of, 554. 
 
 Kilmainham Treaty,' 81. 
 
 Kosciusko, 598. 
 
 Kossuth, leader of Hungarian Oppo- 
 sition, 409 ; head of Hungarian 
 Government, 417; President of Re- 
 public, 419; flees to Turkey, 419; 
 agitation in honour of, 550; Napo- 
 leon communicates with, 796. 
 
 Kotzebue, assassinated, 385, 754. 
 
 Krtidener, Frau von, 748; regarded 
 by Metternich as dangerous, 752. 
 
 Kussnach, memorial of, 263, 
 
 Labour in Mines Act (England), 60. 
 
 Lafayette, French Liberal leader, 
 122 ; makes a triumphal tour 
 through southern France, 127 ; 
 given military control of July Rev- 
 olution, 130; given command of 
 national guard, 134; party of action, 
 134- 
 
 LafBtte, French prime minister, or- 
 ganization of executive committee 
 after July Revolution, 130; brings 
 Louis Philippe to Paris, 131; party 
 of action, 134; policy of his min- 
 istry, 135. 
 
 Lambruschini, Genoese absolutist. 
 Secretary of State under Gregory 
 XVI., 335; rejected as candidate 
 for the Papacy, 337. 
 
 Lamego, Charter of, restored by 
 John VI. of Portugal in 1823, 320. 
 
 Lamennais, Abb6, 236, 693. 
 
 Land League (Ireland), 78. 
 
 Land Purchase Act, 88. 
 
 Landrath (Prussia), 449. 
 
 Lassalle, German Socialist, 479, 727; 
 part in founding Socialist party, 
 731- 
 
 Latour, Austrian minister of war, 418. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 867 
 
 Lavroff, Russian Socialist, 606. 
 Lauenburg^reded to fJenmark by 
 Prussi^^^annexed by Prussia, 
 
 Laybach,^^Mtess of, 757. 
 
 Ledru-RollS^rench Radical leader, 
 148, 155; in the provisional gov- 
 ernment of the Republic, 159 ; 
 Socialist leader, 163 ; candidate for 
 presidency, 165 ; flees to London, 
 166. 
 
 Leo XIL, Pope of Rome, his policy, 
 333 ; struggle against secret soci- 
 eties, 692. 
 
 Leo XIII., Pope of Rome, negotia- 
 tions with Germai.y, 499; election 
 of, 710 ; encyclicals, 711 ; policy, 
 714; struggle against Free Masons, 
 
 714 ; interferes in domestic policy, 
 
 715 ; attempts to unite Orthodox 
 Churhes into Catholic unity, 
 715; encyclical for Catholic union, 
 716. 
 
 Leopold of Coburg, becomes King of 
 Belgium, 235; takes Liberal min- 
 istry, 246; European policy, 765. 
 
 Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmarin- 
 gen, candidate for Spanish throne, 
 3ti, 808. 
 
 Liberal Alliance (Belgium), 246. 
 
 Liberal Unionists (England), 85. 
 
 Livret, labourer's pass-book, 108. ' 
 
 Lois Constitutionelles (France), 201. 
 
 Lombardy, restored to Austria, 4, 
 326; Milan conspiracy against 
 Austria, 332 ; revolution of 1848, 
 339; Lombardo-Venetian Kingdom 
 unites with Sardinia for independ- 
 ence, 344; reconquered by Austria, 
 344; becomes part of the kingdom 
 of Italy, 351. 
 
 London Conference (1831), for settle- 
 ment of Belgium, 237, 767 ; of 
 Greece, 652; of Schleswig-Holstein, 
 570; of Black Sea (1871), 817. 
 
 London, Treaty of, 817. 
 
 Louis XVIII. , King of France, re- 
 stored to throne, 103 ; publishes 
 liberal Charter, 105 ; Hundred 
 Days, 113; flees to Belgium, 113; 
 restored once more, 113; conflict 
 with the Chamber, 116; policy of 
 his government, 119; adheres to 
 Holy Alliance, 750; death, 124. 
 
 Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, 127; 
 brought to Paris and appointed 
 Lieutenant-General of kingdom, 
 131 ; rides across Paris, 131; pro- 
 
 Louis Philippe — Continued. 
 claimed king, 132; "July Mon- 
 archy," 133 ; democratic manifes- 
 tations, 134; attacked and ridiculed 
 by the press, 138; attempted assas- 
 sinations, Fieschi, 139; parliament- 
 ary struggles, 142; tries for per- 
 sonal government, 143; M0I6, Soult, 
 Thiers, 143-145; Guizot's ministry, 
 145 ; political conditions in 1848, 
 155; revolution of 1848, 156; recalls 
 Thiers, 157; Republic declared, 159; 
 his parliamentary policy, 764; his 
 position in Europe, 766; snubbed 
 by European courts, 772. 
 
 Louis Napoleon. See Napoleon III. 
 
 Loul6, Marquis of. Grand Seignior of 
 the Free Masons, leader of Portu- 
 guese Historic Left, 323, 
 
 Lovett, disciple of Owen, leader of 
 the Chartist agitation, 51. 
 
 Lubeck, Polish prime minister, 584. 
 
 Luddite Riots, 26. 
 
 Luxemburg, disposal by Allies in 
 1814, 243; joins Belgium in revolu- 
 tion of 1830, 243; constitutions of 
 '48 and '56, 244 ; constitution of '68 
 and personal union, 244; passes to 
 Duke of Nassau, 244 ; settlement of 
 relations with Belgium by London 
 Conference, 767 ; sale to France 
 prevented by Germany, 244, 803. 
 
 Maassen, Prussian financier, 452. 
 Maina, 649; revolt in, 652. 
 Maintenance of Treaties, doctrine of, 
 
 765; system broken up, 789. 
 Maistre, J. de, on the Holy Alliance,, 
 
 74C- 
 
 Malines, Archbishop of, 232. 
 
 Manin, Venetian Republican, ap- 
 pointed president of provisional 
 government of Venetia, 340 ; con- 
 verted to national unity, 349. 
 
 Manteuffel, Prussian general, first 
 Statthalter of Alsace-Lorraine, 513. 
 
 Manuel, French Liberal leader, 122; 
 expelled from the Chamber, 123. 
 
 Manuscript of Southern Germany, 
 386. 
 
 Machinery, influence of, 672. 
 
 Mac-Mahon, President of French Re- 
 public, 197; "Moral Order" gov- 
 ernment and its program, 197; Law 
 of Septennate, 200; struggle with 
 Chamber, 205; resigns, 207; in Ital- 
 ian war, 79S; in Franco-Prussian 
 war, 814. 
 
868 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Mageuta, battle of, 795. 
 
 Mahmoud, Sultan of Ottoman Em- 
 pire, 621; reforms, 621; death, 623; 
 Eastern Question, 773. 
 
 Maroto, Carlist General-in-Chief, 
 leader of the Marotists, 302; forces 
 Don Carlos to submit to his despotic 
 tactics, 302. 
 
 Maria Christina, wife of Alphonso 
 XI I., becomes regent after his death, 
 318; her early preference for Lib- 
 erals, and later dependence on 
 Conservatives, 318. 
 
 Maria, Queen of Portugal, her acces- 
 sion, 320; Miguel, her regent, de- 
 clares himself king, 321; restored, 
 with the constitution of 1826, 321. 
 
 Maritime Law, regulation of, 792. 
 
 Martignac, French prime minister, 
 125; returns to Decazes' policy of 
 conciliation, 125. 
 
 Marx, socialistic theorist, makes use 
 of English industrial conditions, 48; 
 International, 479; influence in 
 Russia, 606; agitation, 723; Mani- 
 festo of Communist Party, 724 ; 
 Paris manifesto, 730I contest with 
 Bakounine, 730; Marx party, 732. 
 
 May Laws (Germany), 493; (Austria), 
 
 540- 
 
 Maynooth Grant, 61. 
 
 Mazzini, Genoese Republican, 335 ; 
 Young Italy and Young Europe, 335, 
 720; his efforts for Italian unity, 
 335; composition of his party, 341; 
 head of the Roman Republic, 343; 
 incites Orsini conspiracy, 720. 
 
 Mecklenburg, government of, under 
 Germanic Confederation, 378. 
 
 Mehemet-Ali, pasha of Egypt, sends 
 aid to Sultan, 620; claims Syria as 
 reward, 622; Egyptian Conflict, 622, 
 773; loses Syria, 623; forced to ac- 
 cept peace, 623. 
 
 Melbourne, English prime minister, 
 reconstructs Grey ministry, 42 ; 
 prosecution of the trade unions, 
 49; attitude towards first Chartist 
 agitation, 52 ; treatment of Irish 
 difficulties, 55; resigns, but is rein- 
 stated, 56; defeat, 58. 
 
 Melikoff, Loris, 608. 
 
 Mendizabal, Spanish Liberal (Pro- 
 gressist) minister under Christina, 
 299 ; suppresses religious houses, 
 299. 
 
 Menschikofif, mission to Turkey, 
 785. 
 
 Mentana, Garibaldi defeated by troops 
 of France and Papa^fcates, 358. 
 
 Metz, blockade of, 8^^^^ 
 
 Mexican expedition, ^^^Bg. 
 
 Metternich, Bourboi^HRoration in 
 France, 103; oppos^^talian unity, 
 328; formulates theory of interven- 
 tion in countries troubled by revo- 
 lution, 331; opposes Prince of 
 Carignano, 332 ; leader of absolutists 
 in Germanic Confederation, 382; 
 fights secret societies, 384; liberal 
 movement of 1830, 388; character, 
 4031 750; theory of conservatism, 
 403; his system, 403; weakening of 
 his system, 411; loses popularity, 
 412 ; resigns, 413 ; forbids Free 
 Masons and all other associations, 
 719; on Holy Alliance, 750; rivalry 
 with Alexander I., 750; his Eastern 
 policy abandoned, 760 ; his system 
 abandoned, 762 ; one of the mas- 
 ters of European diplomacy up to 
 1848, 764; in Swiss affair, 777. 
 
 Miaoulis, Greek minister, 655. 
 
 Michael, prince of Servia, 658; driven 
 out, 658 ; succeeds Milosh, 659 ; 
 policy, 659; assassinated, 659. 
 
 Midhat Pasha, Grand Vizier of Otto- 
 man Empire, 631; crushes Bulgarian 
 insurrection, 631; fall of, 633. 
 
 Milan, prince of Servia, 658. 
 
 Miguel, son of John VI. of Portugal, 
 leader of Absolutists. 320; becomes 
 regent for his niece Maria, 321 ; 
 proclaims himself king, 321; driven 
 from the kingdom in 1834, 321. 
 
 Milan II., prince of Servia, 659 ; gov- 
 ernment, 661; secures title of king, 
 661. 
 
 Milosh Obrenowitch, work of, eman- 
 cipation, 658 ; made hereditary 
 prince of Servia, 658; government, 
 658; abdicates, 658; recalled, 659. 
 
 Minghetti, Italian leader of Right, 
 359; work in organizing adminis- 
 tration, 359; minister in the Con- 
 sorteria, 360; prime minister, 361; 
 sums up his program, 364. 
 
 Mirari Vos (Encyclical), 693. 
 
 Missolonghi, siege of, 651. 
 
 Modena, given back to Austrian rule, 
 326; the restoration, 327; revolution 
 of 1831, 333; Duke allies with Aus- 
 tria, 339; revolution of 1848, 341; 
 restoration, 344; becomes part of 
 the kingdom of Italy, 351 ; the 
 Italian war, 352. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 869 
 
 M0I6, French prime minister, 143 ; 
 dissolves the chamber, 144; left in 
 minority and resigns, 144; recalled, 
 157- If 
 
 Moldavia, Napoleon III. secures 
 autonomy for, 626; condition up to 
 1856, 640; revolution of 1848, 641; 
 formation of state of Roumania, 
 642 ; recovers Bessarabia, 646 ; 
 joins Russia in war of 1877, 642 ; 
 deprived of Bessarabia, 646 ; Ypsi- 
 lanti's revolt, 757. 
 
 Moltke, von, organizes Ottoman army, 
 621 ; report on Wallachia, 641, 
 footnote ; Franco - Prussian war, 
 814 ; rumours of war between 
 France and Germany, 822. 
 
 Montlosier, Galilean writer, 124. 
 
 Montenegro, supports Christian re- 
 volt in Herzegovina, 628 ; revolt 
 against corvde, 630; in congress of 
 Berlin, 634; political conditions, 
 663 ; Danilo succeeded by Nikita, 
 663; territorial increase, 663; dem 
 onstration of Dulcigno, 664; gov- 
 ernment, 664. 
 
 Montalembert, leader of Catholic 
 party (France), 166; education bill 
 of 1850, 167, 693. 
 
 Moravia, Czech national opposition, 
 410 ; Pan-Slavism, 410; revolution 
 of 1848, 414. 
 
 Morea, European fleets sent to, 620, 
 760; Hellenic national awakening, 
 649; government, 649; revolt, 650. 
 
 Mountain (France), 166; growth of, 
 167. 
 
 Mourad V., Sultan of Ottoman Em- 
 pire, 631. 
 
 Mouravief, 601. 
 
 Miinchengraetz Interview, 770. 
 
 Municipal Corporations Act (Eng- 
 land), 47. 
 
 Mufioz, favourite of Christina of 
 Spain, 299 ; marries her and is 
 created Duke o^^Rianzares, 304. 
 
 Mutualists, 138. ■' 
 
 Naples, kingdom of, the restoration 
 in, 329; military revolution of 1820, 
 330> 755; Sicilian massacres, 336, 
 footnote; revolution of 1848, 340, 
 Sicilian war, 342; becomes part of 
 the kingdom of Italy, 351 : the 
 Camorra, 360. 
 
 Napoleon I., effects of his rule, i; 
 concordat, 688; final union of the 
 powers against him, i; his rejection 
 
 Napoleon I. — Continued. 
 of terms offered by the Allies, 2; 
 Hundred Days, iii, 222 ; ashes 
 brought back to France by Thiers, 
 145. 774i footnote. 
 
 Napoleon III., attempts to overthrow 
 government of Louis Philippe, 
 Strasburg, Boulogne, 145; elected 
 president, 165 ; discord with the 
 Chamber, 165 ; the " Mountain," 
 166 ; Roman expedition, 166 ; in- 
 creases personal power, 168; ques- 
 tions which occupied the year 1851, 
 168; his coup d'etat, 170; organiza- 
 tion of his government, 171; Empire 
 restored, 172; autocratic regime, 173; 
 Orsini conspiracy, 176 ; his foreign 
 policy, 176 ; Italian war, 177; tries 
 to win over Liberals by reforms, 
 177 i opposed by Catholic party, 
 178; Mexican disaster and failure 
 of foreign policy, 179; his liberal 
 concessions, 179; senatorial decree 
 of Sept., 1869, 181; failing health, 
 181 ; slowly reorganizes his gov- 
 ernment as Liberal Empire, 181 ; 
 Prussian war, 184, 187 ; fall of 
 Empire, 187; deposed, 190; leagues 
 with England and Sardinia to main- 
 tain Ottoman Empire against Rus- 
 sia, 626; as master of foreign policy, 
 787, 789 ; predominance of, 792 ; 
 Congress of Paris changes position 
 of, 792; alliance with Cavour, 793; 
 communicates with Kossuth, 796 ; 
 Zurich treaty, 796; annexes Savoy 
 and Nice, 796; commercial treaty 
 of i860, 796; Roman Question, 796; 
 action in Polish affairs, 797; isolated 
 and loses predominance, 797; Sep- 
 tember Convention, 799; Biarritz 
 interview, 799; peace of Prague, 
 802 ; secret interview with Bis- 
 marck, 803; interview with Emperor 
 of Austria, 804. 
 
 Narvaez, Spanish general, Liberal 
 (Moderate), assumes control of the 
 government, 304 1 dismissed by 
 Christina, 305; heads a coalition of 
 Progressists and Moderates against 
 the ministry, 306; called by Isabella 
 to form a ministry of Moderates, 
 307; recalled, 308; policy by which 
 he held the ministry until his death, 
 309. 
 
 Nassau, decrees of 1832, 388 ; joins 
 Austria against Prussia, 470 ; an- 
 nexed to Prussia, 472. 
 
870 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 National workshops (France), theory 
 formulated by Louis Blanc, 141 ; 
 established by decree of provisional 
 government of Republic, 160. 
 
 National Defence, government of the, 
 187, 816. 
 
 Nautical Isles, 650; revolt of, 650. 
 
 Navarino, battle of, 652, 760. 
 
 Navarre, position in the Spanish 
 monarchy, 300; government, ;io; 
 supports Don Carlos, 300 ; first 
 Carlist army organized there by 
 Zumalacarregui, 301; seat of Carl- 
 ist government, 302; second Carlist 
 war, 314. 
 
 Navigation Act repealed (England), 
 
 63- 
 
 Netchajew, Russian Terrorist, 606, 
 730. 
 
 Netherlands, formation of kingdom 
 of the, 229; social conditions in 1814, 
 229; effects of French occupation, 
 229; neutrality, 230; Belgian op- 
 position, 230; government under 
 Fundamental Law, 230; Revolution 
 of 1830, 234; Belgium becomes in- 
 dependent of, 234; London Confer- 
 ence, 237; siege of Antwerp, 238; 
 Constitution of 1848, 238; parties 
 since 1848, 240; school question, 
 241; Sumatra revolt, 242; finance, 
 army, and suffrage questions, 242; 
 prosperity, 243; position of Luxem- 
 burg in the kingdom. 243. 
 
 Nice, annexed by France, 796. 
 
 Nicholas L, Tsar of Russia, 5S5; puts 
 down Polish insurrection, 587; sys- 
 tem, 588; Crimean War, 5go; death, 
 5go; on condition of Turkey, 626; 
 Eastern policy, 760; one of the 
 masters of European policy, 764; 
 influence, 764; wishes to settle 
 Eastern Question, 784. 
 
 Nicholas IL, Tsar of Russia, 613. 
 
 Niel, French minister of war, 180; in 
 Italian war, 795. 
 
 Nikolsbu rg, preliminary peace of, 803. 
 
 North German Confederation, 473. 
 
 Norway, union with Sweden, 5; 
 formation of Scandinavian States, 
 554; Church, 555; Democratic party, 
 559; government, 560; prosperity, 
 561; Oscar II. 's conflicts with Stor- 
 thing on constitutional question, 
 562; national conflict, 563. 
 
 Nostis et Nobiscum (Encyclical), 696. 
 
 Nothomb, Belgian prime minister, 
 236, 245; Education Act of 1842, 245. 
 
 Novara, Austrian army defeats Sar- 
 dinian Liberals (1821), 332; Austrian 
 army defeats Sardinian army (1849), 
 344- % 
 
 Novosiltzow, Imperial commissioner 
 of Poland, 584. 
 
 Oberdank, 367. 
 
 Obstruction (England), 77. 
 
 O'Connell, director of the Catholic 
 Association (Ireland), 32; elected to 
 Parliament, 33; forces repeal of 
 Catholic disabilities, 33; organizes 
 the Irish party, 54; his purposes 
 and policy, 54; begins to agitate for 
 radical reform and home rule, 56; 
 the year 1843, 57; arrested and con- 
 demned, then discharged and re- 
 tires, 57. 
 
 O'Connor, Irish orator, leader in the 
 Workingmen's Parliament, Chart- 
 ist agitation, 52. 
 
 Odilon - Barrot, French minister, 
 leader of Dynastic Left, 146, 148; 
 called to ministry, 157. 
 
 O'Donnell, Spanish Moderate gen- 
 eral, organizes the revolution of 
 1854 at Madrid, 306; governs, to- 
 gether with Espartero, 306; the 
 Liberal Union, 306; takes the min- 
 istry and restores the constitution 
 of 1845, with the Additional Act, 
 307; dismissed by Isabella, 307; 
 second ministry and policy, 308. 
 
 Old Catholics, Church of, formed, 
 707. 
 
 Oldenburg, government of, under 
 Germanic Confederation, 378; con- 
 nection with Zollverein, 454. 
 
 Ollivier, leader of third party, rivalry 
 with Rouher, 178; relations with 
 Napoleon III., 181; opposition of 
 Left, 182; declares against official 
 candidature, 183; proposes revision 
 of constitution, 183; ministry de- 
 feated in Prussian War, 184; foreign 
 policy, 806; proposed disarmament, 
 806. 
 
 Olmiltz Interview, humiliation of 
 Prussia, 783. 
 
 Omladina, 551. 
 
 Orloff, Russian ambassador, connec- 
 tion with rumours of war between 
 France and Germany, 822. 
 
 Orsini conspiracy, leads to Palmer- 
 ston's fall, 63; attack on Napoleon 
 III., 176; incited by Mazzini, 720; 
 impression on Napoleon, 793. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 871 
 
 Oscar I., King of Sweden, 561. 
 Oscar II., King of Sweden, conflict 
 
 with Storthing, 562. 
 Otto I., King of Greece, 652. 
 Ottoman Empire, conditions in 1814, 
 616; government, 6i6; church, 617; 
 society, 617; allies, 619; Eastern 
 Question, 619; agitated conditions 
 since 1814, 6ig; Greek insurrection 
 crisis, 619; European intervention, 
 620; Straits opened, 620; Mah- 
 moud's reforms, 621; army reform 
 and mutiny of janissaries, 621; in- 
 tellectual conditions, 622, footnote; 
 Egyptian conflict, 622; European 
 intervention, 623; consolidation of, 
 623; Straits Convention, 623; Abdul- 
 Medjid grants constitutional char- 
 ter of 1839, 623; Reschid's reforms, 
 624; " Old Turks," 624; England 
 and Russia contend for influence 
 over, 624; struggle between Res- 
 chid and Riza, 624; reforms in 
 army, administration, and finance, 
 625; Ottoman Bank, 625; period of 
 prosperity and peace, 625; Eng- 
 land, Sardinia, and Napoleon III., 
 unite to maintain Empire against 
 Nicholas, 626; monks quarrel over 
 keys of Holy Places, 626; Crimean 
 War, 626, 789: Congress of Paris, 
 626; autonomy for Moldavia and 
 Wallachia, 626; reform edict, 626; 
 religious liberty promised, 626; ad- 
 ministrative and judicial reforms 
 under Fuad and AH, 628; revolt of 
 Cretans and (jreeks, 628; reforms 
 prove fallacious, 629; Europe pro- 
 tests, 629; end of French influence, 
 630; destruction of European con- 
 cert of protectors, 630; financial 
 crisis, 630; rebellion against corvie, 
 630; Europe demands guaran- 
 tees and control, 631; French and 
 English consuls assassinated in 
 Salonica, 631; "Young Turkey," 
 631; Midhat-Pasha, 631; Bulgarian 
 atrocities, 632; public opinion in 
 Europe turns against, 632; Europe 
 determines to become guardian of, 
 632; Conference of Constantinople 
 and Berlin Memorandum, 632; Con- 
 stitution of 1876, 632; Islamism the 
 state religion, 632; fall of Midhat- 
 Pasha, 632; Evet Effedim, 633; 
 Europe loses faith in promises, 633; 
 Russian invasion, 633; dismember- 
 ment after Russo-Turkish War. 633; 
 
 Ottoman Empire — Continued. 
 
 Congress of Berlin, 634; personal 
 government of Abdul-Hamid, 634; 
 Albanian revolt, 634; Panislamism, 
 635; English and German influence, 
 635; peaceful period, 635; French 
 and Russian influence, 636; Ar- 
 menian massacre, 636; powers de- 
 mand reforms and guarantees, 636; 
 Christian nations of, in 1814, 638; 
 peace of Adrianople, 761; refugees, 
 781; Nicholas wishes to settle 
 Eastern Question, 784: Russia 
 severs diplomatic relations with, 
 785; integrity of, guaranteed, 792; 
 Peace of Paris, 792; Berlin Con- 
 gress, 826. 
 
 Owen, English philanthropist, found- 
 er of associations of workingmen, 
 48; the Great National Trades 
 Union, 49, 50 ; the socialistic 
 schools, 721. 
 
 Pact of 1815 (Switzerland), 260. 
 Palacky, 410; Panslavic Congress, 
 
 415- 
 
 Palikao, French prime minister, 184. 
 
 Palmerston, English prime minister, 
 leader of Liberals, 62; retires on 
 Napoleon's coup d'/tat, 63; restored 
 to power by Crimean War, 63; 
 retires on the Orsini conspiracy, 
 63; third ministry, 63; death, 63, 
 64; makes England rival of Russia, 
 765; Eastern Question, 770, 773; 
 work in Italy, 777; recognises 
 French Republic, 779; refugees, 
 781; end of influence, 788. 
 
 Panama Scandal, 218. 
 
 Paniza, Major, case of, 669. 
 
 Panslavic Congress, 415. 
 
 Panslavism, 410. 
 
 Papal Guarantees, law of, 708. 
 
 Paris, Conference of, 643; Congress 
 of, 626, 7gi; formation of state of 
 Roumania, 642 ; peace of (1856), 
 792; siege of, 816; treaty of (1815), 5. 
 
 Paris, Count of, successor under 
 Compact of Bordeaux, 190, 199; 
 expulsion of "pretenders," 213; 
 joins in cry for Revision, 217. 
 
 Parma, revolution of 1831, 333; Duke 
 allied with Austria, 339: abandoned 
 by Austria, 341; restoration, 344; 
 becomes part of the kingdom of 
 Italy, 351; in the Italian war, 352. 
 
 Parnell, takes leadership of Home 
 Rule party, 77; party principles, 
 
872 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Parnell — Continued. 
 77; " obstruction," 77; tours through 
 United States, 78; denounced and 
 arrested by Gladstone, 81; Kil- 
 mainham treaty, 81; violent agita- 
 tion, 81; banquet and subscription 
 in his honour, 82; new policy of 
 controlling ministry, 85; rumours of 
 agreement with Gladstone, 85; 
 compromised by scandalous divorce 
 trial, gi; party breaks up, 91; 
 death, 91. 
 Paskiewitch, Viceroy of Poland, 587. 
 Pastor jEternus (Bull), 706, footnote. 
 Pavia, Spanish general, governor of 
 
 Madrid, 314. 
 Peasants' Friends (Denmark), 573. 
 Pedro, son of John VI. of Portugal, 
 resigns succession in favour of his 
 daughter Maria and promulgates 
 the Constitutional Charter of 1826, 
 320; comes to Europe to make war 
 against Miguel, 321. 
 Peel, English prime minister. Home 
 Secretary, 30; reforms penal code, 
 30; resigns with Wellington and is 
 recalled, 33; leader of Conserva- 
 tives, 41; on the reform of '32, 41; 
 two unsuccessful attempts to carry 
 on a minority ministry, 42, 56; third 
 ministry, financial and customs re- 
 forms, 56-59; repeal of Corn Laws, 
 59; attempts to conciliate the Irish, 
 61; increases Maynooth Grant, 61. 
 Pellico, Silvio, imprisoned for leader- 
 ship in the Milan conspiracy, 333. 
 Pereira, Portuguese minister, at- 
 tempts to overcome the deficit, 323. 
 Pestel, execution of, 585. 
 " Peterloo," massacre, 29. 
 Peter's Pence, 710. 
 Pfizer (Wurtemburg), 389. 
 Pi y Margall, Spanish minister under 
 the Republic, 313; first President of 
 the Republic, 313; leader of social- 
 ist Federalists, 317. 
 Pie, Cardinal, 706. 
 
 Piedmont, revolution of 1S48, 341; at- 
 tacks the Austrian government 
 openly, 350; in the Italian war, 351; 
 the Nazione Armata, 353. 
 Pius IX., Pope of Rome, condemns 
 Belgian constitution, 248; grants 
 liberal reforms, Consulta di Stato, 
 337; grants further reforms and the 
 Fundamental Statute, 340; Roman 
 Republic, 343; Roman Question, 
 355; rejects law of guarantees, 362; 
 
 Pius IX. — Continued. 
 struggle against adversaries, 692; 
 election- of, 694; on modern errors, 
 698; on loss of temporal power, 698; 
 conflicts with lay governments, 707. 
 Plevna, siege of, 825. 
 Plombi^res, interview of, 351, 793. 
 Pobi^donostsef, councillor under 
 
 Alexander III., 608. 
 Poland, disposal of, at Congress of 
 Vienna, 5; Polish national opposi- 
 tion to Austrian rule, 410; Cracow 
 Republic, 412; revolution of 1848, 
 415; demand of national autonomy, 
 536; government of, under Russia, 
 583; society, 584; prosperity, 584; 
 unpopularity of system, 584: insur- 
 rection, 586; abandoned by Europe, 
 586; under military dictatorship, 
 587; insurrection of 1863, 597; Agro- 
 nomic Society, 597; Ranted sepa- 
 rate ministry, 598; national move- 
 ment crushed, 600; Russificatlon, 
 611; Polish Question, 768; Cracow 
 affair, 776; revival of nationalist 
 agitation, 797. 
 Polignac, French prime minister, 126; 
 
 his vision, 129. 
 Pomerania, ceded to Prussia by 
 
 Sweden, 5. 
 Ponsonby, 773. 
 
 Population, transformation in, 678. 
 Portugal, government prior to 1814, 
 319; army overturns system estab- 
 lished by the English, 319; King 
 John VI. returns from Brazil by in- 
 vitation of the army and accepts 
 the Constitution of 1822,320; party 
 divisions, 320; John restores Char- 
 ter of Lamego, 320; the Constitu- 
 tional Charter of 1826, 320; the War 
 of the Succession, 321; Chartists 
 and Septembrists, 322; Additional 
 Act of 1852, 323; the deficit, 323; 
 present political conditions, 324; 
 Russian influence, 750; Canning's 
 policy in, 759; intervention in, 769; 
 Palmerston's action in, 777; Church 
 regulations under Constitution of 
 1836, 320. 
 Potocki, Austrian prime minister, 
 
 537. 
 
 Potter (Belgium), 234. 
 
 Prague, treaty of, 472, 802. 
 
 Press, effects of machinery on, 677. 
 In England: begins to be a power, 
 25; improved conditions under re- 
 form of 1832, 34. In France: liberty 
 
INDEX. 
 
 873 
 
 Press — Continued. 
 granted by Charter, 106; condition 
 in 1814, no; penal servitude de- 
 creed for seditious writings, 116; 
 law of 1819, i2o; law of 1822, 123; 
 prosecutions under Charles X., 124; 
 Vandal Bill, 125; four ordinances 
 and protest, 129; censorship forbid- 
 den by revised charter, 133; Laws 
 of September, 139; law of 1849, 166; 
 under Second Empire, 174; restric- 
 tions abated, 177; law of 1868, 179. 
 In Switzerland: Conclusum of 1823, 
 262; freedom under Constitution of 
 1848,269. In Spain: strict govern- 
 ment censorship under Constitution 
 of 1845, 304; special system decreed, 
 306; aggravated further by Narvaez, 
 307; Moderate ministry attaclcs jour- 
 nalists and professors, 309; liberty 
 established by revolution of 1868, 
 310; Castelar restores system of 
 warnings and suspensions, 314. In 
 Germany: Carlsbad Decrees, 385; 
 decrees renewed, 386; Press Union, 
 387. In Austria: Metternich sys- 
 tem, 405; system weakened, 411. 
 In Prussia: lacking in 1815, 429: 
 censorship ordered, 435; censorship 
 relaxed by king, 439; censorship 
 restored, 439; stifled, 450; notifica- 
 tion system, 463- In Russia: re- 
 laxation of censorship under Alex- 
 ander II., 590; liberal system, 597; 
 return to absolutism, 603; censor- 
 ship restored, 609; "knocking out 
 the caviar," 609. In Greece: free- 
 dom established, 655. 
 
 Prim, Spanish genera), with Serrano, 
 heads the provisional government 
 of 1868, 310; governs in the name 
 of the Progressists until his death, 
 311; seeks a king for Spain, 311; is 
 assassinated, 311. 
 
 Princes, Congress of, 465. 
 
 Pritchard Indemnity, 147. 
 
 Pronunciamiento, institution of, 
 291. 
 
 Proudhon, 150; new socialist revolu- 
 tion, 163, 722; Anarchy, 735. 
 
 Provincial Estates (Prussia), 434. 
 
 Provost Courts (France), Ii5- 
 
 Prussia, compensation for loss of Po- 
 land, 5, 428; formation of Germanic 
 Confederation, 375; system of gov- 
 ernment, 378; absolutism, 380, 382; 
 persecution of revolutionists, 388; 
 national manifestation, 390; United 
 
 Prussia — Continued, 
 Landtag, 390; Little Germany party, 
 395; King chosen Emperor, 395; 
 King refuses, 395; crushes the Re- 
 publican rising, 396; alliance with 
 Saxony and Hanover, 396; plan of 
 constitution, 397; Berlin Confer- 
 ence, 397; Prussian Union, 397; 
 yields to Austria and dissolves the 
 Union, 397; reforms, 424; social and 
 political conditions in 1815, 429; 
 parties and political leaders, 429; 
 absolutist reforms, 430; government 
 of the kingdom, 430; social condi- 
 tions after 1815, 431 ; financial organ- 
 ization, 432; extension of Prussian 
 Code, 433; compulsory primary edu- 
 cation, 433; reorganization of army, 
 433; creation of Provincial Estates, 
 434; censorship of press, 435; pro- 
 cedure against " demagogues," 435; 
 conditions up to 1848,436; Church 
 
 . conflicts, 437; accession of Frederick 
 William III., 438, his reforms, 438; 
 his ideals, 438; censorship court 
 established, 439; conflict between 
 King and Landtag, 441; King con- 
 cedes periodic meeting, 442; Revo- 
 lution of '48, 442; Days of March, 
 442; Frederick William joins revo- 
 lutionists and grants constitution, 
 with universal suffrage, 443; Na- 
 tional Assembly, 444; Feudal party, 
 445; constitution of December 6, 
 446; constitution of 1850, 477; the 
 reaction, 448; Landrath, 449; crea- 
 tion of House of Lords, 449; name 
 Landtag adopted, 449; press stifled, 
 450; court party, 450; personal gov- 
 ernment restored, 450; William I. 
 becomes Regent, 450, policy toward 
 leadership of Germany, 451; ZoU- 
 verein, 452; reform of army, 455; 
 William I. becomes King, 456; con- 
 flict between King and Liberals, 
 458; Progress party and its pro- 
 gram, 458; Representatives oppose 
 King's army reform, 459; conflict 
 between King and Chamber, 461; 
 ministerial concessions in foreign 
 policy, 461; Bismarck's first minis- 
 try and policy, 461; "notification'' 
 system, 463; opposition to Bis- 
 marck's foreign policy, 464; re- 
 fuses to accept work of Congress of 
 Princes, 465; duchies crisis, 466, 
 798; Bismarck's diplomacy, 467; 
 Gastein Convention, 469; takes 
 
874 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Prussia — Continued. 
 
 Schleswig, 469; Austro-Prussian 
 War, 470, 801; Confederation dis- 
 solved, 471; heads new union, 471; 
 annexes Schleswig and Holstein, 
 472; treaty of Prague, 472; impres- 
 sion produced by her policy. 473; 
 formation of North German Con- 
 federation, 473; organization and 
 government, 474; Franco-Prussian 
 War, 482; Bismarck s Economic 
 Council, 500; Bismarck resigns, 505; 
 Caprivi resigns prime-ministership, 
 508; Prussia in Holy Alliance, 748; 
 Polish question, 768; Quadruple 
 Alliance, 769; Miinchengraetz inter- 
 view, 770; absolutist alliance, 771; 
 Cracow affair, 776; Swiss affair, 
 777; revolution of '48 and restora- 
 tion, 780; refugees, 781; Austria 
 triumphs over, 781; King confers 
 with Schwartzenberg at Olmiitz, 
 783; recognition of French Empire, 
 783; increasing strength of, 788; 
 leads European policy, 789; refuses 
 to join in Crimean War, 789; refuses 
 to join in Italian War, 794; action in 
 Polish affairs, 797; alliance with 
 Italy, 800 ;latent conflict with France, 
 804; Triple Alliance, 805; Franco- 
 Prussian War declared, 807; London 
 and Frankfort treaties, 817; foreign 
 policy and armed camps, 819; holds 
 predominance, 821; political evolu- 
 tion of, 842. 
 
 Prussian Union, 397. 
 
 Psara, 650. 
 
 Pulpit Paragraph, 493. 
 
 Quadruple Alliance, 770. 
 Quanta Cura (Encyclical), 699. 
 
 Radetzky, Austrian general-in-chief, 
 leads Austrian forces in the Italian 
 revolution of 1848, 340; defeats 
 rebels and sets up a military 
 government, 344 ; in Civil War, 416. 
 
 Radicals, in England: agitation in 
 1816, 26; Spafield, 27; program, 28; 
 " Peterloo," 29; " Gag Laws," 29; 
 Cato Street conspiracy, 30; econo- 
 mic reforms Instituted by Place and 
 Hume, 31; Chartist agitation, 50; 
 Workingmen's Parliament, O'Con- 
 nor and Lovett, 52; desert the Mel- 
 bourne ministry, 56; joined by 
 federation of workingmen for ex- 
 tension of suffrage, 64; Disraeli's 
 
 Radicals, in England — Continued. 
 early sympathy with, 75; evolution 
 of 19th century, loi. In France, 
 211; join patriots, 213; the Bou- 
 langer crisis, 213; first radical min- 
 istry, 220; present program, 221. In 
 Switzerland, 262; National Verein, 
 264; victory over Catholics, 268; 
 reorganize Switzerland, 268. In 
 Spain, 312. In Germany, 388 ; Offen- 
 burg Assembly, 390. In Servia, 
 660. In Bulgaria, 666. See also 
 under Political Evolution of Europe, 
 837. 
 
 " Rallied" Catholics (France), 218. 
 
 Ratazzi, Italian minister, leader of 
 Left Centre, 349; second Garibaldi 
 expedition, 357; failure of his for- 
 eign policy, 359; opposition to the 
 Consorteria, 361. 
 
 Reform Bills (England), act of 1832, 
 36; its effect on political conditions, 
 40, 838; act of 1867, 64; its effect 
 on political conditions, 68; reform 
 of 1885, 82. 
 
 Refugees, 770, 781. 
 
 Reschid Pasha, Grand Vizier of Otto- 
 man Empire, 623 ; reforms, 624 ; 
 struggle with Riza, 624, 
 
 Renter, Fritz (Prussia), 388. 
 
 Revolution of 1830, in France, 130 ; 
 in Belgium, 233; in Netherlands, 
 234; influence in Switzerland, 262; 
 makes first break in European alli- 
 ance, 761 ; effect in Europe, 764; 
 political evolution of Europe, 839. 
 
 Revolution of 1848, 779; revolution- 
 ary parties during, 725; effects on 
 political evolution of Europe, 840 ; 
 influence on Chartist agitation in 
 England, 53; influence on Young 
 Ireland, 61; in France, 156; in Bel- 
 gium, 248; in Italy, 339; in Austria, 
 341,413; in Germany, 390; in Prus- 
 sia, 442; in Hungary, 414; in the 
 Church, 696., 
 
 Rhigas. Greek patriot, 649, footnote. 
 
 Ribot, French prime minister, 220. 
 
 Richelieu, Duke of, French prime 
 minister, 117 ; president of French 
 Chamber, 117; resigns, 121; prime 
 minister, 121 ; supported by Rus- 
 sia, 751. 
 
 Rights of Man Society, 137, 723; its 
 program, 140; social revolutionary 
 agitation, 159. 
 
 Rileief, execution of, 585. 
 
 Risorgimento, 336, 694. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 875 
 
 Ristitch, president of Servian re- 
 gency, 660; prime minister, 661 ; 
 regent under Alexander, 662, 
 
 Riza, Ottoman reformer, struggle 
 with Reschid, 624. 
 
 Rochebouet, French prime minister, 
 forms a " business ministry," 207. 
 
 Rotteck, 381; suspended, 389. 
 
 Romale, Hellenic national awaken- 
 ing, 649. 
 
 Roman Bank Scandal, 370. 
 
 Roman Expedition, 166, 345. 
 
 Roman Question, 355, 796. 
 
 Roman Republic established, 343, 
 
 Rome, annexation to the kingdom of 
 Italy, 351, 358 ; secularization of 
 Church property, 362; made capital 
 of kingdom of Italy, 362. 
 
 Rosa, Martinez de la, Spanish Lib- 
 eral minister under Christina, 297; 
 decides to grant a new constitution, 
 297. 
 
 Rosebery, Lord, succeeds Gladstone 
 as prime minister, 94 ; projected 
 program, 94, 97; parish councils, 
 95; progressive inheritance tax, 95; 
 fall of the ministry through Liberal 
 dissensions, 97. 
 
 Rouher, French prime minister, ri- 
 ,valry with Ollivier, 178 ; warlike 
 policy, 179; dismissed by Napo- 
 leon, 181. 
 
 Roumania, revolution of 1848, 416 ; 
 " Roumania Irredenta," 551, 647; 
 Greek insurrection, 619 ; at Con- 
 gress of Berlin, 634; formation of 
 State of, 642; results of union, 643; 
 Prince's conflicts with Assembly, 
 643, cotip d'etat, 643; land reform, 
 644 ; constitutional monarchy, 644 ; 
 parties, 645; joins Russia against 
 Ottoman Empire, 646; receives 
 Dobrudsha in exchange for Bessa- 
 rabia, 647 ; officially recognised as 
 independent kingdom, 647 ; work 
 of liberal ministries, 648 ; prosper- 
 ity, 648. 
 
 Roumelia, Eastern organization and 
 government of, 667 ; union with 
 Bulgaria, 667. 
 
 Rouvier, French prime minister, 213. 
 
 Royal Volunteers (Spain), 294. 
 
 Royer-CoUard, French Liberal ora- 
 tor, defines theory of royal suprem- 
 acy, 117 ; press law of 1819, 120. 
 
 Rudini, di, Italian leader of Right, 
 prime minister, 370; opposition to 
 Crispi, 372; second ministry, 372. 
 
 Russell, Lord John, English minis- 
 ter, electoral reform of '32, 34 ; 
 prime minister, continues Peel's 
 policy, 61 ; second ministry deserted 
 by AduUamites, 64. 
 
 Russia, settlements of 1815, 6 ; aids 
 Austria in Hungarian war, 419 ; 
 Bismarck's diplomacy, 467 ; terri- 
 torial and social conditions in 1814, 
 578 ; government, 581 ; death of 
 Alexander I., 585; secret societies, 
 585 ; revolt of Decabrists, 585; exe- 
 cution of Pestel arid Rileiet, 585 ; 
 third section of Chancellery, 586;. 
 Polish insurrection, 586 ; under 
 Nicholas I., 588 ; literature, 588 ; 
 religious persecutions, 589 ; pro- 
 cess of Russianizing western prov- 
 inces, 589; Crimean war and its ef- 
 fects in, 5go; death of Nicholas and 
 fall of his system, 590 ; liberal re- 
 action under Alexander II., 590;, 
 intelliguenzia, westerners, and na- 
 tionalists, 590; Alexander's first re- 
 forms, 591 ; emancipation of serfs, 
 591; effects of the land reform, 595; 
 liberal reforms, 596; Polish insur- 
 rection of 1863, 597 ; Polish na- 
 tional movement crushed, 600 ; 
 Church troubles, 602 ; Concordat 
 abrogated, 602; radical land reform, 
 603; return to absolutism, 603; op- 
 position parties, 605 ; Karakosof's 
 attempt against the Tsar, 606; So- 
 cialists, 606; Terrorists, 607; Alex- 
 ander III.'s reign, 608; autocratic 
 system revived, 609 ; censorship 
 of press, 609; financial measures, 
 610; Russification, 611; Nicholas 
 II. 's financial measures, 613; coro- 
 nation accident, 613 ; autocratic 
 system threatened, 613 ; protector 
 of Orthodox in Ottoman Empire, 
 618; sends aid to Sultan, 622; Russo- 
 Turkish war, 633, 761; Greek poli- 
 tics, 654; Free Masons forbidden, 
 719; share in Holy Alliance, 748; 
 influence in Southern Germany, 
 Sardinia, Spain, and Portugal, 750; 
 change in Eastern policy, 760 ; An- 
 glo-Russian protocol, 760; peace of 
 Adrianople, 761; Polish Question, 
 768; Munchengraetz interview, 770; 
 absolutist alliance, 771 ; recogni- 
 tion of French Empire, 783 ; Nicholas 
 wishes to settle Eastern Question, 
 784 ; peaceful policy, 788 ; Polish 
 affairs, 797 ; attitude in Franco- 
 
8;6 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Russia — Continued, 
 
 Prussian war, 813; denounces treaty 
 of '56, 816 ; public opinion hostile 
 to Germany, 821; Alliance of three 
 Emperors, 821 ; Berlin Congress, 
 826 ; understanding with France, 
 828 ; Skiernevice interview, 828 ; 
 predominant in the East, 831 ; place 
 in armed peace, 831; political evo- 
 lution of, 843; Church, concordat 
 abrogated and monastic bodies 
 suppressed, 602. 
 
 Russo-Turkish War, 761. See also 
 under Ottoman Empire, 633. 
 
 Sadowa, Prussia defeats Austria, 471, 
 801. 
 
 Sagasta, leader of Spanish Progress- 
 ists, 312; leader of Liberals, 317; 
 unites with Martinez Campos in 
 the government, 318; weakens po- 
 sition of his ministry by economies 
 and new taxes, 318. 
 
 Saldanha, Portuguese Chartist minis- 
 ter, leader of Regeneradors, 323 ; his 
 government, 323. 
 
 Salisbury, English prime minister, 
 84; second ministry, 86; Irish pol- 
 icy, 88 ; Land Purchase Act, 88 ; 
 county administration reform, 90 ; 
 conversion of national debt, 91; na- 
 val construction, 91; third ministry, 
 97 ; foreign policy, social and in- 
 dustrial reforms, 98. 
 
 Salmeron, second president of Spanish 
 Republic, 314; retires from office, 
 314; leader of Progressists, 318. 
 
 Salonica, French and English consuls 
 assassinated at, 631, 
 
 San Stefano, peace of, 826. 
 
 Santa Rosa, Count of, leader of Sar- 
 dinian rebellion, 331 ; minister of 
 war, 332. 
 
 Saragossa, sacking of monasteries 
 and massacre of monks by Spanish 
 Progressists, 299. 
 
 Sardinia, gains Genoa, 326; the res- 
 toration, 327; resists Austrian in- 
 fluence, 328; military revolution of 
 1821, 331; King encourages move- 
 ment for national unity, 337; revolu- 
 tion of 1848, 340 ; Constitutional 
 Statute, 340; unites with Lombardo- 
 Venetian kingdom, 344; army de- 
 feated by Austria, 344; effects of the 
 revolution, 346; government of Vic- 
 tor Emmanuel, 347; Siccardi laws, 
 348; leagues with England and Na- 
 
 Sardinia — Continued. 
 
 poleon in. to maintain Ottoman 
 Empire against Russia, 626 ; Rus- 
 sian influence, 750; customs union 
 with Tuscany and Pope, 777 ; res- 
 toration after revolution of 1848, 
 780; Cavour's policy, 788 ; alliance 
 with France, 793 ; political evolu- 
 tion of, 841. 
 
 Sarnerbund, 264. 
 
 Saussier, candidate for presidency of 
 France, 214. 
 
 Savoy, offered as reward to France, 
 793; annexed by France, 796. 
 
 Saxe-Coburg, policy of, 765. 
 
 Saxe-Weimar, constitution under Ger- 
 manic Confederation, 379 ; Wart- 
 burg festival, 384; press censorship 
 established, 384. 
 
 Saxony, partition of, at Congress of 
 Vienna, 5; government under Ger- 
 manic Confederation, 378; constitu- 
 tion granted, 387; King rejects 
 election of Prussian King as Em- 
 peror, 395; Republican rising, 396 ; 
 Prussian alliance, 396; joins Aus- 
 tria against Prussia, 471. 
 
 Scharnhorst, military reform in Prus- 
 sia, 427. 
 
 Schleswig-Holstein Crisis, 466, 798., 
 See also under Denmark, 567. 
 
 School Law (Belgium), 250. 
 
 Scotland, unreformed electoral sys- 
 tem, 17; church, 19; prosecution of 
 workingmen's unions, 50; federa- 
 tion of trade unions, 64 ; supports 
 Liberal party and home rule, 87; 
 socialism, 92 ; Socialist Labour 
 party, 93. 
 
 Schwartzenberg, Austrian prime min- 
 ister, 419 ; one of the masters of 
 European policy, 764 ; part in res- 
 toration, 780 ; policy toward Prus- 
 sia, 782 ; confers with King of 
 Prussia at Olmiitz, 783. 
 
 Schweidnitz Affair, 446. 
 
 Seasons Society, organizes insurrec- 
 tion, 139; aims at social reform, 
 141; last Republican insurrection, 
 144; remnant of Republican party, 
 150. 
 
 Sebastopol, siege of, 790. 
 
 Sedan, surrender of Napoleon III., 
 815. 
 
 Sepoy Rebellion, leads to suppression 
 of India Company, 63. 
 
 September, Convention, 357, 799; 
 Laws of, 139. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 877 
 
 Septennate, French law of, 200; Ger- 
 man law of (military), 495. 
 
 Serrano, Spanish general, with Prim 
 heads the provisional government 
 of 1868, 310; receives the regency 
 from the Cortes, 311; puts down 
 Carlist insurrection, 311; struggle 
 with the clergy, 311; appointed 
 president of the Republic, 314; his 
 dictatorship unsatisfactory to both 
 parties, 315; offers no resistance to 
 restoration of Alphonso, 315. 
 
 Servia, revolution of 1848,415; Ontla- 
 dina, 551; enters Bulgarian war, 
 632; Congress of Berlin, 634; for- 
 mation of principality, 657; work 
 of emancipation, 657; Austrian in- 
 fluence, 657; revolt in, 657; Kara- 
 Georges, 657; Milosh Obrenowitch 
 becomes prince, 658; government, 
 658; constitution of 1837, 658; 
 Michael's policy, 659; army re- 
 organized, 659; under constitu- 
 tional system, 659; constitution of 
 1869, 660; Liberal government, 661; 
 war against Turkey, 661; peace of 
 Berlin, 661; Austrian party, 661; 
 General Union, 661; Radicals de- 
 mand revision of constitution, 661; 
 Radical insurrection, 662; central- 
 ized administration, 662; war 
 against Bulgaria, 662; constitution 
 of 1888, 662; Milan abdicates, 662; 
 Ristitch regent under Alexander, 
 662; Alexander's coups, 662; con- 
 stitution of '69 restored, 663; pro- 
 visional system, 663. 
 
 Seven Professors, affair of, 389. 
 
 Siccardi laws, 348. 
 
 Sicily, demands independence, 331; 
 begins revolution of 1848, 339; war 
 against Neapolitan rule, 342; Gari- 
 baldi's expedition, 354; Garibaldi's 
 second expedition, 357; the Mafia, 
 360; the Socialists and the bread 
 riots, 371. 
 
 Siebenerconcordat, 263. 
 
 Silesia, Czech national opposition, 
 410; Panslavism in, 410; revolution 
 of 1S48, 414. 
 
 Simon, Jules, French minister, on 
 revolution of 1848, 159; ministry, 
 205; dismissed, 206; joined Inter- 
 national, 728. 
 
 Skiernevice, interview at, 829. 
 
 Snell, Swiss Republican, 263. 
 
 Socialists, schools of, 721; theories 
 in opposition to organization of 
 
 Socialists — Continued, 
 
 society, 721; new policy, 722; Com- 
 munist parties, 723; Alliance of 
 Communists, 723; Fraternity, 726; 
 International, 727; work of the an- 
 nual congresses, 728; Marx's mani- 
 festo, 730; formation of platform 
 in Germany, 731; Lassalle, 731; 
 General Union of German Work- 
 ingmen, 732; Anarchists, 735; Na- 
 tional Socialist parties, 737; policy 
 of revolutionary parties, 739; In- 
 ternational Socialist Congresses, 
 743; in political revolution of Eu- 
 rope, 839, 844. In England: forma- 
 tion of parties, 92 ; " League for Na- 
 tionalization of the Land," "League 
 for Restitution of the Land," "So- 
 cial Democratic Federation," 92; 
 Tom Mann and John Burns, 93; 
 Socialist Labour Party, 93; first to 
 sit in Parliament, 93; socialistic 
 ideas gain ground, 961. In France: 
 formation of Communist-Socialist 
 party, 140; aims of the party, 141; 
 Louis Blanc, 141; continued agita- 
 tion for social reform, 150; after 
 the Revolution of 1848, 159; Rights 
 of Labour, i6o; national workshops 
 established, l6o; " Organization of 
 Labour," 160; government commit- 
 tee on labouring classes, 160; slight 
 representation in Constituent As- 
 sembly, 162; twice attempt new 
 revolution, 162; "Days of June," 
 163; party stamped out, 164; rem- 
 nants gathered into Assembly of 
 1849, 166; mingle with Radical 
 party, 183; revival of, 217; Marx- 
 ists and Possibilists, 217; " Social 
 Republic," 217; Socialist Congress 
 of 1892, 217; Paris Labour Ex- 
 change closed, 218; become a purely 
 political party, 221. In Nether- 
 lands, 242. In Belgium, 255. In 
 Switzerland, 283; Griitli Union, 
 283; Wohlgemuth Case, 283. In 
 Germany, 479; Socialist Working- 
 man's Party, 486; repression of, 
 496; " Socialists of the chair," 498; 
 " State Socialists" and " Christian 
 Socialists," 501; revival, 506; suc- 
 cess in elections of '93, 509; Em- 
 peror's struggle against, 509. In 
 Austria: demonstration by, 537; 
 crushed, 546; social democratic in- 
 dustrial party, 548. In Sweden, 
 559; in Norway, 565; in Russia, 
 
878 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Socialists — Continued. 
 
 606; in Roumania, 647; in the 
 Church, Leo XIII. issues Encyclical 
 Humanutn Genus against, 715- 
 
 Solferino, battle of, 351, 795. 
 
 Sonderbund, 267, 778. 
 
 Soult, French prime minister, 144; 
 Eastern Question, 774. 
 
 Spafield, 27. 
 
 Spain, condition in 1814, 286; resto- 
 ration of 1814, absolute king 
 brought back by English army, 
 289; effects of the wars, 290; revo- 
 lution of 1820 by the officers of the 
 army restores the constitution 
 of 1812, 290; institution of junta 
 and pronunciamiento, 291 ; organiza- 
 tion of parties and Cortes of 
 1820, 292; financial diflSculties, 292; 
 France restores the absolutist gov- 
 ernment, 293; " Royal Volunteers," 
 294; permanent results of the revo- 
 lution, 294; troubles in the govern- 
 ment, 295; war of the succession, 
 295; Ferdinand decrees his daugh- 
 ter Isabella his successor, 296; her 
 mother, Christina, takes the re- 
 gency, 296; Christina gains the 
 support of the Liberals, 297; Car- 
 lists and Christinas, 297; govern- 
 ment attempts administrative re- 
 forms, 297; Christina promulgates 
 the Statute of 1834, by which Spain 
 becomes <i constitutional mon- 
 archy, 297; subsequent agitatioa in 
 political life, 298; Mendizabal at- 
 tempts to pay off the national debt, 
 299; the Queen is forced by Pro- 
 gressists to promulgate the consti- 
 tution of 1812, 300; the Constitu- 
 tion of 1837, 300; the Carlist war, 
 300; composition and tactics of the 
 two armies, 301; peace made at 
 Convention of Vergara, 302; mili- 
 tary dictatorship of Espartero and 
 of Narvaez, 303; Constitution of 
 1845, 304; the Spanish marriages, 
 304. 775; the system of dictator- 
 ship, 304; financial regulations 
 made by the Moderates, 304; Mod- 
 erates adopt an absolutist policy, 
 305; period of reaction throughout 
 Europe, 305; Concordat of 1851, 
 305; constitutional reform projects 
 bring about the revolution of 1854, 
 306; O'Donnell's Liberal Union, 
 306; government of Espartero and 
 O'Donnell, 307; Progressist resto- 
 
 Spain — Continued. 
 
 ration, 307; O'Donnell restores the 
 Constitution of 1845, with the Ad- 
 ditional Act, 307; the Narvaez min- 
 istry restores the former system, 
 307; O'Donnell's second ministry 
 and policy, 308; transformation of 
 parties and public opinion, 308; 
 series of insurrections and revolu- 
 tion of 1868, 309; Isabella fiees 
 and provisional coalition govern- 
 ment set up at Madrid, 310; mani- 
 festo proclaims principles of the 
 new system, 310; clergy fight 
 against religious liberty and the 
 revolutionary government, 311; co- 
 alition breaks up over choice of a 
 King, 311; Amadfeo, Duke of Aosta, 
 chosen, 311; difficulties of his gov- 
 ernment, 312; Isabella abdicates in 
 favour of her son Alphonso, who 
 is supported by a Moderate-Union- 
 ist coalition, 312; the Radical gov- 
 ernment is opposed by clergy and 
 army officers (see under Hidalgo), 
 313; Amad6o abdicates, 313; Cortes 
 proclaims a Republic, 313; Repub- 
 lican party divides, 313; Federalist 
 coup d'/tat, 313; Cantonist revolt, 
 313; Pi y Margall, Salmeron, Caste- 
 lar, 314; army once more controls 
 the government through Pavia's 
 coup d'dtat, 314; Serrano appointed 
 president, 314; second Carlist war, 
 314; restoration of Alphonso, 315; 
 his ministry, 315; conciliates the 
 Pope, 315; end of second Carlist 
 war, 316; constitution of 1876, 316; 
 constitutional guarantees restored, 
 but decrees of dictatorship not 
 abrogated, 316; the constitutional 
 monarchy, 317; reorganization of 
 parties, 317; death of Alphonso 
 XII., and regency of Maria Chris- 
 tina, 318; universal suffrage estab- 
 lished, 318; internal and external 
 troubles, 318-ig; present condition 
 of Spain, 319; Russian influence 
 in, 750; intervention in, 769: Quad, 
 ruple Alliance, 770; political evo- 
 lution of, 844. Church; opposed 
 to liberal system, 292; Mendizabal 
 suppresses religious houses, 299; 
 religious regulations undel the 
 Constitution of 1837, 300; Concordat 
 of 1851, 305; abolition of Church 
 jurisdiction and sale of Church 
 property sanctioned by Pope, 305; 
 
INDEX. 
 
 879 
 
 Spain — Continued, 
 
 religious liberty established by 
 revolution of 1868, 310; clergy fight 
 against religious liberty, 311; res- 
 toration ministry conciliates the 
 Pope, 315; Church under constitu- 
 tion of 1876, 316. 
 
 Spanish Liberals, 289; under Chris- 
 tina, 297; divisions, 298; desert 
 Moderates, 305; present condition, 
 316-17. 
 
 Spanish Marriages, 304, 775. 
 
 Speranski, 581. 
 
 Spezzia, 650. 
 
 Stambouloff, Bulgarian prime min- 
 ister, 668; assassinated, 669. 
 
 Stang, Norwegian prime minister, 
 565. 
 
 State of Good Feeling, 775. 
 
 States of the Church, the restoration 
 in, 327; revolution of 1831, 333; 
 government, 334; annexed to the 
 kingdom of Italy, 351; attacked by 
 Garibaldi, 354. 
 
 Statute of 1834 (Spain), 297. 
 
 Steen, Norwegian prime minister, 
 565. 
 
 Stein, Baron vom, Prussian minister, 
 375; reforms, 424. 
 
 St. Arnaud, French minister of war, 
 170. 
 
 St. Petersburg, Conference of, 760. 
 
 St. Simon, French Socialist, 721. 
 
 Stoecker, 501, 504. 
 
 Stourdza, university persecution in 
 Germany, 384; hospodar of Mol- 
 davia, 641; Roumanian prime min- 
 ister, 648. 
 
 Straits Convention, 623, 775. 
 
 Strauss, in the Zurich affray, 266. 
 
 Strossmayer, at Vatican Council, 704; 
 received by Leo XIIL, 715; attempt 
 to unite orthodox churches into 
 Catholic unity, 715. 
 
 Surlet de Chokier, Belgian Regent, 
 
 235. 
 
 Suter, 276. 
 
 Sverdrup, Norwegian prime minister, 
 563. 
 
 Sverdrup, John, Norwegian pastor, 
 564. 
 
 Syllabus, 701; publication of , forbid- 
 den by French government, 178. 
 
 Syria, claimed by Mehemet-Ali, 622; 
 assigned to him, 622; restored to 
 Sultan by Europe, 623. 
 
 Sweden, cession of Pomerania to 
 Prussia, and union with Norway, 
 
 Sweden — Continued. 
 
 5 ; formation of Scandinavian 
 States, 554; Church, 555; transfor- 
 mation of constitution, 556; re- 
 forms, 556; transformation of Diet, 
 557; parties, 557; national move- 
 ment, 566. 
 
 Switzerland, settlements of 1815, 6; 
 condition in 1814, 257; Act of Me- 
 diation, 258; restoration, 259; Alex- 
 ander of Russia opposes restoration 
 of old regime (Laharpe and Jomini), 
 259; Pact of 1815, 260; constitution 
 of the cantons, 260; " Conclusum," 
 262 ; regeneration, 262 ; Radical 
 party, 262; Snell's " Memorial of 
 Kussnach," 263: Siebenerconcordat, 
 263; Sarnerbund, 264; confused po- 
 litical life, 264; local conflicts, 265; 
 Church troubles, 265, 281; labour 
 reforms, 283; Wohlgemuth Case, 
 283; Griltli Union, 283; political 
 evolution of, 844 ; Church: trouble 
 with Pope over Articles of Baden, 
 265; religious freedom under Fed- 
 eral Constitution of 1848, 269. 
 
 Taaffe, Austrian prime minister, 545. 
 
 Tak, Dutch prime minister, 243. 
 
 Talleyrand, French envoy to Congress 
 of Vienna, 3; his policy, 3; secures 
 defensive alliance with Austria and 
 England, 4; organizes demonstra- 
 tion in favour of Bourbons, 104; re- 
 tains his office under restoration, 
 III ; dismissed by Louis XVIIL, 
 117; in Orleanist party, 127; share 
 in settlement of Belgium, 767. 
 
 Tchernagora. See under Montenegro. 
 
 Teplitz Interview, 771. 
 
 Terrorists (Russia), 607. 
 
 Test Act, repeal of, 33, 693. 
 
 Thessaly, revolt, 629 ; Congress of 
 Berlin, 634; commercial prosperity, 
 648; Hellenic national awakening, 
 649. 
 
 Thiers, French prime minister, a 
 founder of the Orleanist party, 
 127 ; draws up a proclamation 
 against Charles X., 131; brings 
 Louis Philippe to Paris, 131; pro- 
 claims sovereignty of the people, 
 132; breaks with Guizot, 142; his 
 theory, 142; compelled to resign, 
 143 ; second ministry, 144,; policy, 
 145; resigns, 145; recalled, 157; de- 
 mands the "necessary liberties," 
 178; action during Franco-Prussian 
 
880 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Thiers — Continued, 
 war, 187, i8g, 816; elected head of 
 government, 190; policy, 190; gov- 
 ernment, 194 ; resigns, 197 ; on 
 Eastern Question, 774 ; action in 
 London and Frankfort treaties, 817. 
 
 Thorbecke, Dutch minister, 239. 
 
 "Three Acres and a Cow" agitation 
 (England), 84. 
 
 Three Emperors, Alliance of, 821. 
 
 Three F's (Irish Land), 78. 
 
 Tirard, French prime minister, 214. 
 
 Tisza, Austrian prime minister, 543. 
 
 Tolstoi, Russian minister of educa- 
 tion, 605; dismissed, 608; recalled, 
 609. 
 
 Tonquin agitation, 2li. 
 
 Tortosa, Compact of, 311. 
 
 Trade Unions, in England ; Origin, 
 48, 49; Chartist agitation, 50; break 
 away from the Chartist movement, 
 53; build up central organization, 
 Council of the Unions, 63, 64; pol- 
 icy, 64; legislation, 73; Parliament- 
 ary Committee of the, 92; change 
 in character, 92 ; London dock 
 strike, 93 ; Tom Mann and John 
 Burns, 93; fund for sending mem- 
 bers to Parliament, 96. In France: 
 forbidden ini8i5,io8; Napoleon III. 
 permits unions, 177. 
 
 Transylvania, incorporation with 
 Hungary, 409. 
 
 Tricoupis, Greek prime minister, 656. 
 
 Triple Alliance, 827. 
 
 Tripolitza, blockade of, 650. 
 
 Trochu, military governor of Paris, 
 187. 
 
 Troppau, Congress of, 755. 
 
 Tugendbund, 384. 
 
 Turkey. See under Ottoman Empiri. 
 
 Turkish War, 824. 
 
 Tuscany, given back to Austrian rule, 
 326; the restoration, 327; Grand 
 Duke encourages movement for 
 national unity, 337 ; Duke grants 
 liberal reforms, 338; Duke grants 
 a constitution, 340; revolution of 
 1848, 341 ; Republic proclaimed, 
 344; restoration, 345; becomes part 
 of the kingdom of Italy, 351; cus- 
 toms union with Sardinia and Pope, 
 777- 
 
 Ultras, or Ultra-royalists (France), 
 opposed to Charte, 115 ; majority 
 in Chamber of 1815, Ultra minis- 
 ters, 117; conflict with Louis XVIII., 
 
 Ultras — Continued, 
 
 118; gain control in 1820, 122; legis- 
 lation and policy of, 123 ; ministry 
 of, under Polignac, 126. 
 
 Ultramontanes, in France, 124, 149. 
 See also under Church and Catholic 
 Parties. 
 
 United Landtag, 390, 440. 
 
 Unkiar-Skelessi, treaty of, 622, 770. 
 
 Vatican Council, 704, 806. 
 
 Venetia, ceded to Austria by Congress 
 of Vienna, 4; revolution of 1848, 
 339 : Lombardo-Venetian kingdom 
 unites with Sardinia for independ- 
 ence, 344; reconquered by Austria, 
 344; becomes part of the kingdom 
 of Italy, 351, 357. See also under 
 Austria, 523. 
 
 Vergara, Convention of, ends the 
 Carlist war, 303. 
 
 Verona, Congress of, 758. 
 
 Vichnegradzky, Russian financier, 
 610. 
 
 Victor Emmanuel, son of Charles 
 Albert, makes peace with Austria 
 in 1849, 344; his liberal government, 
 347. See also under Italy. 
 
 Victoria, becomes Queen of England, 
 42; parliamentary character of her 
 reign, 42; proclaimed Empress of 
 India, 76. 
 
 Vienna, Campaign, 418; Conference 
 of, 385 ; Congress of, 2 ; questions 
 to be settled at, 3 ; France's posi- 
 tion at, 3 ; territorial settlements 
 at, 4 ; decisions regarding France 
 after the Hundred Days, 5 ; final 
 act of, 5 ; work of, 6 ; peace of, 799. 
 
 Villafranca, interview of, 796. 
 
 Villfele, French prime minister, I2t; 
 opposition to Chamber, 125 ; resigns, 
 125. 
 
 Vorparlament, 391. 
 
 Waddington, French prime minister, 
 
 208. 
 Waldeck Rousseau, candidate for 
 , presidency of France, 220. 
 Wallachia, Napoleon III. secures 
 
 autonomy for, 626; condition up to 
 
 1856, 640; revolution of 1848, 641; 
 
 merged in state of Roumania, 642. 
 Wangenheim, 386. 
 Wartburg Festival, 384. 
 Wealth, increase of, 679. 
 Wekerle, Austrian prime minister, 
 
 550. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 88l 
 
 Welcker, 381; suspended, 389. 
 
 Wellington, Duke of, ministry, 33; 
 carries Catholic emancipation, 33; 
 attitude on Parliamentary reform, 
 34; intrusted with defence of Lon- 
 don, 54. 
 
 Westphalia, forms part of Prussian 
 indemnity, 5. 
 
 White Terror, 116. 
 
 Wielopolski, Polish minister, 598. 
 
 William I., King of Prussia, unpop- 
 ular as absolutist leader, 442; be- 
 comes Lieutenant, later Regent, 
 450; becomes King, 455; army re- 
 form, 455; government of, 456; head 
 of army, 457; wins confidence of 
 Liberals, 458 ; doctrine of divine 
 right, 458; conflict with Liberals, 
 458; crowned Emperor, 482; fidelity 
 to Bismarck, 502; increases Prus- 
 sia's strength, 788 ; declaration of 
 war with France, 807; death, 502. 
 
 William II., Emperor of Germany, 
 503; character, opinions, and policy, 
 503; rupture with Bismarck, 505; 
 the "New Course," 505; struggle 
 against socialists, 509. 
 
 William I., King of Netherlands, 230; 
 revolution of 1830, 234; refuses to 
 accept settlements of London Con- 
 ference and renews war, 238; abdi- 
 cates, 238, 
 
 William II., King of Netherlands, 239. 
 
 William III., King of Netherlands, 
 244. 
 
 William IV., King of England, 34; 
 tries to take ministers of his own 
 choosing, 42; succeeded by Victoria, 
 42. 
 
 Willich, 726. 
 
 Windischgraetz, Austrian commander 
 during civil war, 416; in Hungarian 
 war, 419; prime minister, 548. 
 
 Wohlgemuth Case, 283. 
 
 Wurtemburg, constitution under Ger- 
 manic Confederation, 379; constitu- 
 tional opposition in, 386; decrees of 
 1832, 3S8; national manifestation, 
 390; King rejects election of Prus- 
 sian King as Emperor, 395; in Zoll- 
 verein, 453; joins Austria against 
 Prussia, 471, 783 ; supported by 
 Russia, 751. 
 
 Wurzburg Conference, 465, 696. 
 
 Young Europe, 720. 
 Ypsilanti, Greek insurrection, 619, 
 651, 757; " arch-strategist," 651. 
 
 Zach, Austrian prime minister, 421; 
 Concordat of 1855 and fall of Jo- 
 sephism, 422. 
 
 ZoUverein, 452. 
 
 Zorilla, Ruy, leader of Spanish Rad- 
 icals, 312; leader of Progressists, 
 318. 
 
 Zurich, treaty of, 796 ; affray of, 265. 
 
 Zumalacarregui, organizes the first 
 Carlist army in Navarre, 301; be- 
 sieges Bilbao and is killed, 302. 
 
SEIGNOBOS'S POLITICAL HISTORY OF EUPOPE 
 
 since 1814. i 
 
 By Charles Seignobos. Translation edited by Profc 
 Silas M. MacVane, of Harvard University, xx + 881 pp. 
 8vo. ?3.oo net. 
 
 The author's capacity for seizing on the decisive events of recent 
 European history, his skill in using one event to explain another, 
 lis steady interest in the virelfare of the common mass of men, his 
 thorough freedom from national or other prejudice, and above all 
 his very suggestive generalizations on the later history of Europe, 
 give his work instructive qualities not always found in our general 
 Jiistories.— ^f-OOT the Editor's Preface. 
 
 " The best history of Europe in the nineteenth century that has 
 yet appeared." — Prof. H. Morse Stephens of Cornell Univer- 
 sity, in Book Reviews. 
 
 SEIGNOBOS'S HISTORY OF THE ROMAN PEOPLE 
 
 Translation edited by Dr. Wm. Fairley. With maps 
 and numerous illustrations. 528 pp. i2mo. $1.50 »rf. 
 This history has all the clearness characteristic of French his- 
 torical writing, and is graphic in its presentation. Large use has 
 been made of the legendary and anecdotal material, but the subor- 
 dinate importance of this has been indicated by placing it in smaller 
 type than the body of the text. The space thus gained has been 
 ■utilized to carry on M. Seignobos's work from the time of Theo- 
 dosius I. to Charlemagne. The editor has also appended to eaeh 
 chapter a list of sources available in English, and a very iiill set of 
 Parallel Readings. 
 
 SEIGNOBOS'S FEUDAL REGIME 
 
 Translated by Prof. E. W. Dow, University of Michigan. 
 70 pp. 8vo. Paper. y>c net. 
 This notable monograph, originally contributed to Lavisse and 
 Rambaud's " Histoire G6n6rale," has been pronoimced by author- 
 ities to be perhaps the most illuminative work on its subject. 
 
 LANGLOIS & SEIGNOBOS'S STUDY OF HISTORY 
 
 An Introduction to the. Study of History. By Ch. V. 
 
 Langlois and Ch. Seignobos. Translated by G. G. Berry. 
 
 With a Preface by F. York Powell. 350 pp. 8vo. 
 
 $2.25 net, 
 " It points out how facts in the past are to be determined, and 
 tow they are to be used in writing history. It is full of interest for 
 every student of history, and of valuable suggestions for those wtio 
 ■write or hope to write Kl." ^Journal of Education (London). 
 
 HENRY HOLT & CO. ^gSdSS^ 
 
 ■viii '01 
 
Medieval Europe 
 
 395-1270. 
 
 By CHARLES B£M0NT and G. MONOD. 
 
 Translated by MARY SLOAN, with notes and revisions by PROF. 
 GEORGE BURTON ADAMS, of Yale. 
 
 556 pp., izmo, ^1.60 net. 
 
 ■^ The original work has come to be well- 
 nigh universally regarded as the best general 
 account of the period it covers to be found 
 in any language. 
 
 THE DIAL: 
 
 ^^Combines happily simplicity of statement with a greater fullness of 
 detail. By grouping details around the most important facts in prefer- 
 ence to a mere chronological enumeration of events, the work obtains 
 a certain unity." 
 
 AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW : 
 
 "Prepared by real scholars. Besides accuracy, [it has] a certain com- 
 bination of clearness with brevity and of definiteness with generaliza- 
 tion that is not always found in such a book. It is a pleasure to have it 
 at last done into English, and by competent hands." 
 
 PROF. GEORGE L. BURR, of Cornell: 
 
 *^The book of B€mont and Monod I have long regarded as the very 
 best text-book known to me in its field.^' 
 
 PROF. DANA C. MUNRO, of the University of Wisconsin : 
 
 ^^I am very glad to see the translation. This is one of the best books 
 we have ever had for Medieval history." 
 
 PROF. MERRICK WHITCOMB, of the University of Cincinnati : 
 
 ^^The most comprehensive and accurate presentation we have yet had 
 of the period, and the best adapted for class purposes." 
 
 PROF. A. B. SHOW, of Leland Stanford Junior University: 
 
 *'I regard the work as the very best general history of the Middle Ages 
 now available in English." 
 
 HENRY HOLT & COMPANY, 
 
 NEIV rORK. (x,'o3). CHICAGO, 
 
"A FASCINATING BOOK" 
 
 Titnes* Review in a notice o/a column and a half. 
 
 America, Asia and the Pacific 
 
 WITH SPECIAL REFERENi *E TO THE RUSSO-JAPANESF 
 
 WAR AND TS RESULTS 
 £y Dr. Wolf von Schibrbrand, Author of " Germany of To-day " 
 
 13 maps, 334 pp. $1.50, net. (By mail, $1,62.) 
 
 This book treats the present conflict and its probable results 
 as only preliminary to larger considerations. It considers 
 America's relations to all the' countries affected by the Pan- 
 ama Canal, to those on both coasts of the Pacific, and to the 
 islands, besides analyzing the strength and weakness of our 
 rivals. 
 
 Puhlic Oj^inion :—" X most interesting treatise . . . having an im- 
 portant bearing upon our future progress." 
 
 Review of Reviews : — "His observations on the Panama Canal and 
 the future of the Dutch East Indies are particularly interesting and sug- 
 gestive." 
 
 Outlook'. — "An interesting . . . survey of a broad field. , . . The 
 work contains a great variety of useful infonnation concerning the many 
 countries under review . . . especially valuable lo American exporters." 
 
 Literary IVorld {Boston) : — " While the work is primarily intended to 
 relate particularly to the present war and its outcome, it contains many 
 facts and figures about near.y a<l countries in the world, which are con- 
 vanient for reference, and readi.y may be found by consulting a very good 
 index at the end of the volume." 
 
 Philadelphia, Letii^er : — "Will repay perusal by every thoughtful 
 business man. . . . Presenting in a forceful and attractive manner the 
 importance of the Pacific as the future field for the world's political and 
 commercial activity." 
 
 Brooklyn Eagle : — " A forceful and animated setting forth of certain 
 world-important conditions as they obtain to-day." 
 
 Detroit Free Press: — "Most illuminating. . . , The author is a keen 
 student of world forces. He has the insight of the historian, the grasp of 
 tiie logician, a forcible and lucid style, and writes with the sincerity 
 of conviction." 
 
 San Francisco Chronicle: — "Possesses the great merit of directing 
 the attention of the American people to the necessity of prompt and ener- 
 getic action if they would reap the fruits of their position on the Pacific? 
 . . . the production of an eminent pubHcist." 
 
 Washington Star: — "His entire discussion is suggestive and stimu- 
 lating. Data and reasoning worth profound consideration." 
 
 *#* Of interest in this connection are Wallace''s Russia, fifteenth 
 printing. %z.aQ. 
 
 Krau.«?se's Russia in Asia, 1558-1899. With twelve maps. 
 
 -(Second printing.) ;$4.oo. 
 
 Thompson's Russian Politics, with maps. $2,00. 
 
 Henry Holt and Company 
 
 ^Publishers Cix '04) Ne^v Yorl/ 
 
GORDY'S HISTORY OF POLITICAL PARTIES 
 
 IN 'the united states 
 
 In Four Volumes. 
 
 Vol. I, 1783-1809. SECOND EDITION^ THOROUGHLY RE- 
 VISED. 598 pp. i2m.o, $1.75, net^ special, 
 
 ^This volume by itself presents a well-rounded history of the 
 Federal Period. It is intended for the thoughtful reader without mucli 
 previous knowledg-e of the subject. 
 
 ' Nation (ist notice) : *'May be read not only by beginners, but by 
 Almost anybody, with profit. It is written in a clear and simple style, 
 is entirely non-partisan, and makes the causes of the early party struggles 
 much clearer than many a more elaborate account." 
 
 Nation (2d notice): "Four years ago we had an opportunity to pro- 
 nounce a favorable judgment on it. . . . Now there is much extension in 
 addition to a thorough revision. . . . The opening sentences (no mean cri- 
 terion often) are of a nature to whet the appetite for what is to come." 
 
 Boston Herald: " Dr. Gordy writes easily and vivaciously, and makes, 
 his 'parties' as interesting as if they were persons, . , . but his best 
 quality is his impartiality." 
 
 Chicago Evening Post: "Most interesting to the student of history. 
 . . . The history of the Federalist party is traced up to its defeat by the 
 Republicans in 1800, the issues then and in the contests that followed be- 
 ing clearly defined and fully explained." 
 
 Chicago Tribune: "The book is well worth careful study, for the 
 author's research has been wide and deep, his judgment is good, and he is. 
 apparently free from political or sectional bias. The working out of our 
 national destiny between the Jeffersonian party's fear of centralized gov- 
 ernment and the Hamiltonian party's fear of disorder and injustice from a 
 govejrnment of the unthinking rabble, is well set forth in tlie present vol- 
 ume, which brings the story down to the end of Jefferson's administra- 
 tion." 
 
 Piihlic opinion: "This is the most pretentious book of the kind that 
 has yet been attempted, and in point of detail of treatment and historical 
 conttprehensiveness it is not far from the best." 
 
 Brooklyn Daily Eagle : " Gives promise of being the most comprehen- 
 sive and scholarly discussion of the kind that has yet been produced." 
 World'^s Work : " A book of first-hand research, useful for reference." 
 Hetrt/ord Conrant : " A well-constructed work . . . of great value.'* 
 Providence Journal : " The general tone of the book is admirable. On 
 every page careful research is shown. It is, perhaps, not too much to say 
 that it is Ukely to become a standard work on this subject." 
 
 V 
 
 hEMRY HOLT & CO. ^^^^%r%%r^^ 
 
 II. ''01. ■ ' 
 
■ KUHNS'S GERMAN AND SWISS SETTLEMj E NTS 
 OF COLONIAL PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 A Study of the 50-caIled Pennsylvania Dutch, 
 
 By Oscar Kuhns, Metnber of the Pennsylvania SoeieCy of ytt 
 Sons of the Revolution^ of the Pennsyi^'ania-Gerntan l*ociety^ 
 and of the Lancaster County Historical 3ociety^ 268 pp. lamo, 
 
 $1.50. 
 
 " All that is best in their history is compressed into this little Tolume, 
 and even their defenders will be surprised to learn how much romance 
 there is in the stoiy of their su^erings in the Palatinate, and how much 
 spiritual exaltation there was back of their emigration to America. . . . 
 The author^s account of the religious taith and feeling of the German 
 Quakers is written with great sympathy and insight, and his apology for 
 the deep-seated conservatism of the Penasylvaoia Dutch is skillfully 
 .made." — Outlook. 
 
 *' An historical work of peculiar and capital interest. ... A chapter 
 in modern history, particularly in American historjr, which Americans in 
 whatever part of the country cannot afford to be ignorant of. . , , The 
 writer has managed with extraordinary skill to infuse into his narrative 
 the constant element of personal interest, so that the whole story is trans* 
 fused with the spirit of a fascinating romance.** — Chicago Evening Post, 
 
 " Ein erschSpfendes Bildjener einwanderung, dasssichdurchsachliche 
 Ruhe und Unparteilichkeit auszeichnet und einer ausfUhrlichen Besprech- 
 ung werth ist. . . . So interessantauch die Ausfilhrungen des Verfassers 
 liber die vielen Sekten sind, die theils sich hier niederlieszen, theils hier 
 g-ebildet wurden, so kSaaen wir ihm darin nicht folgen." — N, K. Staats' 
 Zeitung, 
 
 ** No more exhaustive account of the origin, emigration and subsequent 
 history of the early German and Swiss settlers in Pennsylvania than this 
 has yet been issued. , . . The appendix concerning the change in form 
 undergone by many Pennsylvania-German family names, the bibliography, 
 and index contribute greatly to the interest and practical importance of 
 Mr, Kuhns*s valuable monograph.*' — Philadelphia Ledger, 
 
 " It is a first-rate service to the cause of American nistory which Oscar 
 Kuhns has rendered in his popular yet scholarly book. . , .An exceedingly 
 interesting and instructive story," — Chicago Record-Heraid, 
 
 McCRACKAN'S RISE OF THE SWISS REPUBLIC 
 
 A History. By W. D. McChackan. Second Edition, Revised 
 ' and Enlarged, x +423 pp. Svo. $2.00. 
 
 "This is the most convenient and serviceable book in English on Swiss 
 history and development, and America has much to learn from the experi- 
 ence of our sister republic."— /'ro/; Albert B. Hart, of Harvard. 
 
 " It seems to me that you have happily blended the picturesque treat- 
 ment vrhich some parts of Swiss history demand, with the object of bring- 
 ing out the political lesson of the last thirty or fifty years. I trust your 
 book may do much to show our people, as well as yours, how much is to 
 •be learned from a study of Swiss affairs."— TA* Right Hon. James Bryce, 
 M.P. 
 
 " All things cocsidered, this history seems to me to be far and away the 
 best Swiss history ever yet oublished in English."— English Historical 
 Review. 
 
 HEMRY HOLT & CG. ^^ "T^%%^^?^l*'^ 
 
 vi 'at 
 
ENGLISH ROMANTICISM 
 
 By Prof. Henry A. Beers of Yale 
 2 vols. i2mo, laid paper, gilt tops 
 
 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. $2. 
 
 \ Contents: The Subject Defined; The Augustans; The Spenser, 
 ians; The Landscape Poets; The Miltonic Group; The School of 
 Warton; The Gothic Revival; Percy and the Ballads; Ossian; 
 Thomas Chatterton; and The German Tributary. 
 
 " The individuality of his style, its humor, its color, its delicacy 
 . . . virill do quite as much to continue its author's reputation as. 
 his scholarship. The book is the vi^ork of a man who has studied 
 hard, but who has also lived." — New York Commercial Advertiser. 
 
 " One of the most important contributions yet made to litcvary 
 history by an American scholar." — Outlook, 
 
 "Remarkably penetrating and scholarly. It is a noteworthy 
 book by an acknowledged authority upon -a most interesting: 
 period." — New York Times Saturday Review. 
 
 " Always interesting. . . . On the whole, may be commended 
 as an excellent popular treatment of the special subject of the lit- 
 erary revival of mediEevalism in the eighteenth century in 
 England. " — Nation. 
 
 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. li.7S «^t. (Postage isc). 
 Contents: Walter Scott; Coleridge, Bowles, and the Pope Con- 
 troversy; Keats, Leigh Hunt, and the Dante Revival; The Roman- 
 tic School in Germany; The Romantic Movement in France;. 
 Diffused Romanticism in the Literature of the Nineteenth Century • 
 The Pre-Raphaelites; Tendencies and Results. 
 
 "Among the few really great contributions to the study of Anglo- 
 Saxon literature yet made by American scholars. . . . Prof. Beers 
 is a delightfully human student, a companion on the way, not a 
 Dry-as-dust of portentous mien." — Mail and Express. 
 
 "Where there is need of tasle in forming and realizing an im- 
 pression, and play for a gift of humorous and picturesque phrase of 
 expression. Prof. Beers is at his best. . . . Full of felicitous judg- 
 ments and memorable sentences." — Nation. 
 
 "There is a large feeling of the onward sweep of events that is. 
 almost dramatic. ... It is in making his readers understand the 
 spirit of the age that Prof. Beers excels." — Book-Buyer. 
 
 " Full of color, change, animation, and vivacity. The general 
 romantic ' chain ' is traced with an instinct that is unerring. . . . 
 He does iiot neglect to mention such newcomers as Hewlett, Yeats, 
 and John Davidson." — Chicago Post. , 
 
 HENRY HOLT & CO. ^® ^%^^-?^^*«-^ 
 
TWO BOOKS BY THE LATE 
 
 FRANCIS A. WALKER 
 
 President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
 
 tfeiCUSSIONS IN ECONOMICS AED STATISTICS 
 
 ^J/l^i'y.^''S*^=^°'' Davis R. Dewey. 
 
 ^r^ii^t/S''''"- «4 + 48ipp. 2 vols. 8vo. %6.oa net. 
 Tiomi?%w: P*j?^? 9° Finance, Taxation, Money, Bimetallism, Eco- 
 ?,^SlS.i,5 -jy- Statistics, National Growth, Social Economics, etc. The. 
 
 ■T-A^ n^ / .P5^ *? himself bring these papers together. 
 •„„v,if„ ' „ ^"""^^^^o"" Dewey has performed a real service to the 
 
 ?niw«^^ ^^" f ?.'° l'^^ memory of his late chief. ... In the present 
 „?"? ?,° i°?. *^''°.'' ^'asnot included everything General Walker ever 
 t?^^ >,t has aimed, so far as possible, to avoid repetitions of 
 tnougnt .... there are some discussions of the national finances in 
 the period following the Civil War, which have a timely as well as his- 
 torical interest at the present time. ... To improve the census was. 
 trenerai walker s work for many years, and his experience cannot fail 
 tope of interest to the present generation. . . . Economics in tlie hands. 
 ot tnis master was no dismal science, because of his broad sympathies, 
 nis healthy, conservative optimism, his belief in the efficacy of effort; 
 ana, in a more superficial sense, because of his saving sense of humor 
 and his happy way of putting things .... he was the fortunate pos- 
 sessor of a very pleasing literary style .... clear and interesting to 
 the general reader, as well as instructive to the careful student. There 
 could have been no more fitting monument to his memory than these- 
 two volumes, together with the other volume of ' Discussions in Educa- 
 tion.' " 
 
 Jfew York Commercial Advertiser : "Clear, direct and forceful, full of 
 familiar illustration and appeal to fact, and always interesting. Cer- 
 tainly no other man has had such a wide influence on the economic 
 thought of America, or has done so much to elevate it. . . . This state- 
 ment, however, can ^ive no adequate notion of the wealth of material 
 or wide scope of subjects covered by these shorter articles .... one- 
 can almost hear the spoken word in some of the adresses . . • . an 
 excellent index." 
 
 DISCUSSIONS IN EDUCATION 
 
 Edited by James Phinney Munroe. 342 pp. 8vo. %-\.aa net. 
 
 The author had hoped himself to collect these papers in a volume. 
 
 The Dial .• " A fitting memorial to its author. . . . The breadth c* his. 
 experience, as well as the natural range of his mind, are here refieotsd. 
 The subjects dealt with are all live and practical. . . . He never deals 
 with them in a narrow or so-called ' practical ' way." 
 
 Literature : "The distinguishing traits of these papers are open- 
 mindedness, breadth, and sanity. , . . No capable student of educa- 
 tion will overlook General Walker's book; no serious collection of 
 books on education will be -without it. The distinguished author's 
 honesty, sagacity, and courage shine on every page." 
 
 The Boston Transcript : " Two of his conspicuous merits characterize 
 these papers, the peculiar power he possessed of enlisting and retaining 
 the attention for what are commonly supposed to be dry and difficult 
 subjects, and the capacity he had for controversy, sharp and incisive, 
 but so candid and generous that it left no festering wound." 
 
 UCXIDV UTM T Xr r^r\ 29 West 28d St., New York 
 nClMXI nVv/L I ex K^KJ, 878 Wabaeh Ave., Chicago 
 
 ii igoo 
 
A NEW EDITION UP TO DATE 
 
 WALLACE'S RUSSIA 
 
 By Sir DONALD MACKENZIE WALLACE 
 With two colored maps, $5.00 retail 
 
 The first edition of Wallace's. "Russia" was published in 
 1877, and was at once accepted as the leading authority in 
 English. The author has brought the book up to date, and 
 the present edition, rewritten throughout and greatly en- 
 larged, may now be accepted, as the first one was, for the 
 one work in our language most needed by those who care to 
 understand Russia. 
 
 Contents: Travelling- in Russia; In the Northern Forests; 
 Voluntary Exile; The Villa£e Priest; A Medical Consultation; A 
 Peasant Family of the Old Type; The Peasantry of the North; The 
 Mir or Villag^e Community; How the Commune has been preserved 
 and what it is to effect in the Future; Finnish and Tartar Villages; 
 Lord Novgorod the Great; The Towns and the Mercantile Classes; 
 The Pastoral Tribes of the Steppe; The Mongpl Domination; The 
 Cossacks; Foreign Colonists on the Steppe: Among the Heretics; The 
 Dissenters; Church and State; The Noblesse; Landed Proprietors of 
 the Old School; Proprietors of the Modern School; Social Classes; 
 The Imperial Administration and the Officials ; Moscow and the 
 Slavophils; St. Petersburg and European Influence; The Crimean 
 War and its Consequences ; The Serfs : The Emancipation of the 
 Serfs; The Landed Proprietors since the Emancipation; The Emanci- 
 pated Peasantry; The Zemstvo and the Local Self-Government; The 
 New Law Courts; Revolutionary Nihilism and the Reaction; Socialist 
 Propaganda ; Revolutionary Agitation and Terrorism ; Industrial 
 Progress and the Proletariat; The Revolutionary Movement in its 
 Latest Phase; Territorial Expansion and Foreign Policy; The Present 
 Bimation. 
 
 "A book of extreme value on a remarkably diffictilt subject 
 has been rendered invaluable— nay, indispensable."— A^a^itiM. 
 
 "Masterly, in the same class as . , . Mr. Bryce's' American 
 Commonwealth,' and. it is in some respects a greater achieve- 
 ment. . . . Impossible to praise . , , too highly." — London 
 Times. 
 
 Henry Holt and Company 
 
 «Q W. 23D Street (vii, '05) New York