NATIONAL SELF-GOVERNMENT IN EUEOPE AND AMEEICA. BY J. W. PEOBYN, AUTHOR OP "essays ON ITALY, lEELAND, AND THE UNITED STATES.' LONDON : TRUBNER & Co., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1870. [ All rights reserved. ] (Si B Cornell University B Library The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031446473 CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. EEPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT AND PERSONAL GOVERNMENT. Order and Liberty both necessary to good government. — The Characteristics of Representative Institutions and of Personal Rule. — Security given by the former. — Uncertainty as to the future arising from the latter. — Two forms of Representative Government ; the one Monarchical, the other Republican. — Their similarities and their diiferences. — Two forms of despot- ism. — The old and the new form contrasted. — A nation should do nothing more than choose a master, say some persons 1 CHAPTER II. BELGIUM AND FRANCE. Louis Philippe overthrown while Leopold I retained his throne without difficulty. — The causes of this remarkable difference discussed.— Belgian crisis of 1846. — Louis Philippe's letter of advice upon the matter to King Leopold. — The latter happily does not follow it. — Louis Philippe acts in accordance with that advice in directing his own policy. — The Prince de Joinville on French affairs in 1847. — Striking speech of M. de Tocqueville in the French Chamber on the 27th of January, 1848. — Louis Philippe falls because imfaithful to thoroughly constitutional government. — Personal rule not a new thing in France. — It was in full force under the " Ancien Regime" of the Bourbons, and under the first Empire: — It destroyed both. — The Acte Addi- V CONTENTS. tionnel of Napoleon on his return from Elba. — The Restora- tion. — Fall of Charles X occasioned by his abandoning consti- tutional government for arbitrary personal rule 20 CHAPTEE III. THE PEOGEESS OF LIBEETY IN EUEOPE. 1850-1870. Despotic reaction on the Continent in 1849 to 1852. — Nicholas of Russia. — Frederick William of Prussia. — Prince Mettemich. — The compliments paid by them to King Leopold in 1848. — Nicholas heads the reaction by suppressing the ancient Consti- tutional Rights of Hungary. — Frederick William's vacOlating course. — Prussia obliged to succumb to Austria supported by Russia, in the Olmiitz Conferences of 1850. — Ultra-despotism and centralisation triumphant in Austria and Italy. — The reaction in France. — Policy of the Emperor Nicholas towards Turkey. — Alliance of France, England, and Piedmont against Russia. — Austria provokes the hatred of the latter power by her neutrality. — A severe blow thus given to the alliance and strength of Despotism in Europe.— Constitutional Freedom in Piedmont damages Austrian Despotism, especially in Italy. — Alliance between France and Piedmont. — War of 1859. — The despotic system of Austria breaks down. — The Vienna Govern- ment of Baron von Schmerling. — Its contest with Hungary. — Restoration of Hungarian Rights after the War of 1866. — Free- dom in Hungary, Austria, Italy, and Germany. — France greatly afiected by it. — The French National Assembly of 1848. — The Coup WEtat of December 1851. — Imperial Concessions of 1860, after the Itahan War. — Reviving strength and progress of freedom in France from that time until 1870. — Progress of Liberty in England and Sweden 53 CHAPTEE IV. THE PEOGEESS OF LIBEETY IN THE UNITED STATES. The attempt of the Mother Country to tax the Colonists results in their independence. — The Articles of Confederation and CONTEXTS. V Perpetual Union of 1778.— The Constitution of 1783.— Legal means provided for amending and altering the Constitution. — Slavery. — The Missouii Compromise of 1820. — Nullification policy of South Carolina. — The Annexation of Texas. — ^The Key. Dr. Channing's letter on the subject to 'Mi. Clay. — The Fugitive Slave Law. — ^The Free-Soil or Republican Party and its policy. — Presidential Election of 1856 : Col. Fremont, the Free-sou Candidate, defeated. — Presidential Election of 1860 : Mr. Lincoln, the Free-soil Candidate, elected. — Secessionist movement. — Attack on Fort Sumter by the Secessionists. — What course they might have lawfully adopted. — Speech of Mr. A. H. Stephens of Georgia against Secession. — His speech when Se- cessionist Vice-President as to the principles of the new con- federation with regard to slavery. — Mr. President Lincoln up- holds the lawful authority of the United States by arms. — He carries out consistently from the first the Free-soil Policy. — Gradual adoption of an Abolition Policy. — Feelings manifested in England during the American Civil War. — Trades Union- ists and Artisan Classes. — Upper and richer classes. — Feeling manifested on the Continent. — Interview in January 1865 at Fortress Munroe between President Lincoln and leading Seces- sionists. — Close of the War. — The 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing Slavery duly passed in December 1865. — ^Reconstruction. — The returning prosperity of the South. — Treatment of the Secessionists by the United States Govern- ment. — Lesson taught by the progress of Freedom in the down- fall of Slavery - 126 CHAPTEE V. EELIGIOUS LIBERTY. This question considered from the Christian point of view. — The teaching and example of Christ. — His religion maintained and spread for three centuries by persuasion and conviction alone. — After that time Christianity became united to the temporal po^er. — From that date reHgious persecution and intolerance commences, and becomes general throughout Christendom. — In 1 CONTENTS. what manner alone Christians, whether rulers or private citi- zens, ought to uphold the faith of Christ. — Ciyil disabilities useless without more stringent measures of intolerance. — ^The result of thorough-going persecution as exhibited in the case of Spain. — The union of Church and State. — Different kinds of this union. — ^The Temporal Power of the Roman Church. — The Temporal Power of the late Irish State Church. — The pre- sent Church estabhshments in England and Scotland, Austria and the kingdom of Italy. — The disunion of Church and State will come, but need not be pushed on in every case with ex- treme precipitation. — The payment of all denominations. — Christianity has nothing to fear from perfect and absolute freedom 178 CHAPTER VI. CONCLUSION. Personal Government is not without redeeming points. — Repre- sentative Institutions are not without faults. — Instances of the first and second French Empire. — Instances of such countries as England and the United States whose normal condition is that of freedom. — Excellence of their systems shown by their power of self-reform. — Republicans and Constitutional Mon- archists may learn much from one another. — Both should oppose any section of their people which seeks to enforce its policy by violence. — ^^Vhat form of freedom is best for continental nations ? — Every nation is bound to respect the rights of others. — France and the Roman question. — Constitutional liberty should be variously modified to suit various coimtries. — Cor- ruption a disgrace to representative institutions and theiri-pro- fessed supporters. — Princes as well as people have much to learn. — The position of a constitutional monarch. — Limited power better both for rulers and nations. — The examples of King Leopold I and of Queen Victoria 209 NATIONAL SELF-GOVERNMENT IN EUEOPE AND AMERICA. CHAPTEE I. REPRESEXTATIVE GOVERNMENT AND PERSONAL GOVERNMENT. Order and Liberty both necessary to good government. — The Characteristics of Representative Institutions and of Personal Kule. — Security given by the former. — Uncertainty as to the future arising from the latter. — Two forms of Representative Government ; the one Monarchical, the other Repubhcan. — Their similarities and their differences. — Two forms of despot- ism. — The old and the new form contrasted. — A nation should do nothing more than choose a master, say some persons. In the present day every intelligent person, it may fairly be presumed, will admit, at least in theory, that both order and liberty are necessary to the good government of a civilised people. Without order nothing remains but anarchy ; without liberty nothing but tyranny. A state of prolonged civil convulsion is sure to end in des- potism ; a period of despotism inevitably results in an uprising agaiast despotic rule. Such violent changes tend to the destruction both of lawful authority and of Z KEPEESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT real freedom. To avoid these untappy extremes, which so constantly reproduce each other — ^to form and per- petuate a system of National Government which shall unite in harmonious action the principle of order with the principle of freedom, thus securing the peaceful progress of the nation, are objects worthy the best efforts alike of rulers and of people. Such aims will be viewed with special favour by those who have learned to feel an interest in other countries, and who desire that they too should possess a government whose authority over its subjects is maintained, not by mere force, not by the possession of so many hundred thousand bayonets, but by respect for the law, wide-spreading among all classes, because the law itself upholds the rights and freedom of all. Those who take this higher and larger view, will find no pleasure in the thought, that the want of freedom in some neighbouring land, not less civilised than their own, only brings out in stronger relief the possession of freedom by themselves. They will repel the selfish idea, that the weakness or division of other nations is desirable, because iacreasing the relative power of their own country. The littleness which thus prompts some politicians to foster (as occasion offers) the divisions of others, to oppose their union or promote their disunion, constantly turns out to be not less short-sighted than it is unworthy. Such a policy is apt, sooner or later, AND PERSONAL GOVERNMENT. 3 to recoil on its abettors, and they find out, too late, that more generosity and sympathy towards other nations would have been not only a nobler, but also a more expedient course. Instead of the low and narrow aims dictated by selfishness, the really wise and good will desire for other nations that union, order, and freedom, which their own country perchance enjoys ; they will aid, at least by their moral support, those who are striving to attain such objects, or who are seeking to develope them more perfectly. Generous natures feel instinctively that by thus acting they further the progress of all the peoples of the world ; conduce most to the happiness, and promote best the prosperity, of the whole human family. Two kinds of government are offered to the choice of those nations who in the present day claim, not without reason, to be among the leaders of civilisation. Each one of these two kinds is considered, by its own partisans, as superior to the other. The one is known as Eepre- sentative Government, the other as Personal Government. The former carries on the government of the nation hy the nation ; the latter hands over the government of the nation to a siagle ruler. The motto of the former is " self-government," that of the latter is the well known saying of Louis XIV, " L'^tat c'est moi," " The State ! / am the State ;" or it may be the phrase ascribed to the First Napoleon, "Everything for the people, no- 4 EEPKESENTATIVE GOVEEXMEXT thing hy the people." Eepresentative Government treats the nation as worthy and capable of governing itself; Personal Government treats the nation as un- ^Yorthy, if not incapable, of so doing. The one system declares the nation to have arrived (so to speak) at man's estate, and to have capacity suf&cient for the management of its own affairs ; the other system treats the nation as still an infant who must be kept in tute- lage. Such tutelage is no doubt well suited to a people but little advanced in civilisation. Under Eepresenta- tive Government the responsibility for the conduct of public affairs rests upon the nation itself. It chooses those who are to direct the national counsels, and if their policy prove to be bad, the nation is empowered to change both counsellors and policy. Under Personal Government, the responsibility falls with crushing weight upon the single ruler. If his policy be bad, the nation possesses only a melancholy choice between submission and revolution. The death of the personal ruler not unfrequently exposes the nation to the dangers • of civil discord, and his demise is contemplated with fear by some, with hope by others, and with uneasi- ness by all. Does the life of the irresponsible sovereign seem in danger, his subjects often present, at such a moment, the pitiable spectacle of millions of men seized with a panic of doubt and fear ; because instead of pos- sessing self-reliance and seK-govemment, they know AND PERSONAL GOVERNMENT. 5 nothing but a sorry dependence upon one of tlieir fellow mortals. Thus a whole nation's weal hangs upon the thread of a single life. On the other hand, the death of the ruler or leading statesman of a representative government occurs without entailing any danger. An instance of this was given when Leopold I, of Belgium, died. The whole Belgian people, without distinction of class or party, mourned their sovereign's death with a deep sorrow felt only for the loss of the wise and good. With absolute unanimity did that same people rally at once around his son and successor, who immediately assumed the crown as prescribed by the laws of Belgium's constitution. There was throughout the country the siacerest grief at the old king's death, but neither fear nor panic, for the Bel- gians are notpolitical serfs helplessly dependent upon the will of one man, but the free citizens of a free coun- try accustomed to national self-government. A more striking instance was given when the President of the United States was assassinated, and his Prime Minister at the same moment laid low : yet sad and unexpected as was the catastrophe, it did not produce even a mo- mentary dif&culty, so completely did the constitution of that self-governing country provide against aU emer- gencies. Thus free representative institutions are not only proved to possess a liberty wholly unknown to personal rule, but are also shown to guard far more b EEPEESENTATIVE GOATEENMENT effectually that principle of order, which personal and irresponsible government proclaims itself specially quali- fied for maintaining, and to which it sacrifices the principle of freedom. Eepresentative Government has two forms — the one monarchical, as in England and Belgium ; the other re- publican, as in the United States and Switzerland. Both carry on the government of the nation hy the nation ; both are founded upon the union of order and freedom ; both inculcate respect for law and love of liberty. In both the principle of national seK-govemment is the mainspring of national life, the motive power by which the free institutions of the country work, and by which they are kept in healthy and vigorous action. Assuredly neither the one nor the other of these forms of free government is without its faults and defects. But even those who are most prejudiced against the repubhcan form cannot deny that it is based on the principle of national self-government, and carries out that principle in all its fulness. If, on the other hand, some pre- judiced republican should deny that constitutional monarchy puts in practice that self-same principle, he will do well to consider the testimony borne by so emi- nent a republican as M. Louis Blanc, who, in one of his letters written from England, says : " Here, in fact, it is public opinion which governs." The truth is that a constitutional monarchy and a republic are not hostile AND PERSONAL GOVERNMENT. 7 but, on the contrary, kindred systems of a representa- tive character, which apply in different modes their common principle of national self-government. In both, when honestly and fully carried out, " it is public opinion which governs." The most apparent difference in these two forms of free government is, that the supreme office in the state is hereditaiy in the one case, and elective in the other. There is more to be said in favour of this application of the hereditary, and of the elective principle respectively, than the bigoted upholders of either can be brought to allow. It is, doubtless, true that the tendency of things is to undermine mere hereditary rights, whose force lies in the traditions of the past, in their ancient and not unmerited prestige, rather than in the strength of their position as capable of logical defence. But logic is only a part, and by no means always the most important part, of states- manship. Practical results are not unfrequently, far more important than logical accuracy. All lovers of freedom, who are republicans, or who lean to republican views, will do well to consider whether a form of go- vernment, presided over by an hereditary monarch, always acting on the advice of responsible ministers, who may at any moment be forced to resign, and have their whole policy reversed, is, after all, practically less free, than that other form of national self-government 8 EEPEESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT under which a president is elected, whose policy, during his term of of&ce, must prevail, or, if it does not, an un- pleasant conflict between the executive and the legisla- ture is sure to arise. It will be remembered that such a conflict did actually take place between Mr. President Johnson and the United States Congress, on the im- portant question of reconstruction. On the other hand, those supporters of constitutional monarchy who talk of republican institutions as if they were incompatible with the maintenance of law, should bear in mind how striking a proof the United States have given to the world that a republican govern- ment can maintain its lawfiil authority without sacri- ficing its liberties. Most effectually did that Govern- ment enforce its supreme constitutional rights, and put down a powerful minority, who, on account of an electoral defeat, appealed to arms, thereby changing constitutional opposition into revolutionary violence. Two legislative chambers exist in aU countries, mon- archical or republican, which are now in the possession of representative institutions. Whether the Upper House should be hereditary or not, is decided differently in different constitutional monarchies. The hereditary principle obtains in England, the elective in Holland, Sweden, and Belgium ; while in Italy and the Austro- Hungarian monarchy the members of the Upper House are nominated for life by the Crown, on the advice of AND PEESONAL GOVERNMENT. 9 its responsible Ministers. It is an error to suppose that the throne is less secure where the Upper House is elective. Thus, in 1848, when the revolution triumphed in so many countries of Europe, it failed to shake the constitutional monarchy of England, where the Upper House is hereditary; but it failed no less signally in Belgium, where the Upper House is elective. Again, a year or two later, when a strong reaction set in, and despotism prevailed generally throughout Continental Europe, Belgium maintained intact her liberties, and so preserved, like England, freedom in the midst of tyranny. It was a most striking proof that the principle of " na- tional seK-government," when faithfully and honestly carried out by the Sovereign and his Ministers, is an admirable means of preserving lawful authority ta times of civil convulsion, and popular liberties in the day of despotic reaction. Nor must it be forgotten that the ancient republic of Switzerland, also, weathered no less happily the revolutionary storm of 1848 ; and resisted, with equal success, the violent reaction of despotism which set in some two years afterwards. In 1847, the old Swiss Diet put down the revolutionary proceedings of the Sonderbund, or Separate League, without sacrificing the liberties of Switzerland. In 1848, a large measure of reform was legally carried, and a new Constitution inaugurated, better suited than the old one to the wants of the nation, to its liberties, and progress. 10 EEPRESENTATITE GOVEENMENT Whether the Upper House should be hereditary, should be nominated by the Crown, or should be elec- tive (and, if elected, how, and by whom), are questions which must be decided by the circumstances of each constitutional monarchy, and by the wants of the times. The necessity of having a second chamber at aU is, no doubt, open to discussion ; but the great fact remains that both forms of Eepresentative Government carefully preserve a second chamber, as may be seen in the United States, as weU as in England and Belgium. It is, further, a matter for careful consideration how far it is desirable to maiutaui the hereditary principle in whole or ia part, and whether some modification of it, at any rate, does not place an Upper House more ia harmony with the national feeling, and with the neces- sities of our own day. Those who maintain that an hereditary Upper House is a necessity in an hereditary monarchy, must be reminded that Belgium has disproved such a necessity. Those who would resist any and every change at all cost, should remember that such con- duct is but too often the best friend of violent changes ; and that, on the other hand, timely reform is the best friend of order, no less than of freedom. All, then, who (like the writer) are favourable to the maintenance of two legislative chambers, do well to consider what is really the best mode of constituting an Upper House, so as to make it as useful and ef&cient a portion of the AND PEESONAL GOVERNMENT. 11 machinery of Governinent as possible. An Upper House, the convictions of the majority of whose members are habitually opposed to the convictions of the majority of the nation, is not a satisfactory condition of things. ISTor is it a satisfactory solution of the difBiculties which that condition creates, when, upon some question of the utmost importance, the majority of the members of the Upper House are obliged either to maintain a dangerous opposi- tion to the will of the majority of the nation, or else to vote for a measure which the greater part of the members of that House believe to be bad in principle, inexpedient in policy, and, therefore, grievously detrimental to their country's welfare. It is surely unfair to place a body of men (not less high-minded and able than any other existing body) in a position in which they must either, by opposition, expose the country to the most serious dangers, or else by consenting to a measure they disap- prove, be false to their own consciences. It seems, then, most desirable, when an Upper House is reduced to a condition like this, that a change should be made in the mode of its construction, because such a condition is not good either for itself or for the country. It would be well if an Upper House, situated thus unfortunately, would initiate such change of its own free will. The questions of an hereditary, or an elective chief of the State, of two legislative houses or of one, of the best method for calling such a house or houses into existence, 12 EEPEESENTATIVE GOVEENMENT though questions of very great importance, may yet be regulated variously without such variety affecting the vital principle of representative government, namely, "the government of the nation hy the nation," that principle of national self-government which is directly opposed to mere personal government, with its evil maxim, "everything for the people, nothing hy the people." Thus it is that in Belgium, England, and the United States, these very questions receive very dif- ferent answers, yet all three countries are essentially self-governing. They are emiaently free countries, where law rests upon the maintenance both of order and liberty. In them really representative institutions pro- vide constitutional means for making all such changes as the wants of the times, and the growth of public opinion may demand; and in aU three such constitu- tional means are constantly used to effect reforms of a very vital character. But while these free countries differ as regards the important matters just mentioned, they agree in the maintenance, and daily practice, of what is e,ssential to free government, by carefully guarding the liberty of the subject, through a Habeas Corpus Act, or some similar provision; by maintaining the indepen- dence of aH judges, magistrates, and juries ; by freedom of speech, freedom of public meeting, freedom of the press; and by giving a widely-extended suffrage, through which municipal authorities are chosen, who have the AND PERSONAL GOVEENJIENT. 13 management of local affairs, ajid national representatives elected, who have a real control over the Executive of the State, and over the whole policy of the country. Here it is well to remark that universal suffrage does' not exist in any country. In all countries the suffrage has limits imposed upon it. In the first place, one half of the whole population is excluded from the suffrage simply on account of sex. To talk, therefore, of univer- sal suffrage, while such a state of things exists, is an absurd misnomer. Then there is necessarily a limit of age, fixed at twenty-one in some countries, at twenty- five in others. There is another limit imposed by requir- ing that the voter should have resided for a certain time in the country or locality in which he votes. Again, aU paupers, criminals, and persons of unsound mind, are, upon sufficient, though not identical grounds, justly ex- cluded from the suffrage. Where an attempt has been made to carry on repre- sentative government, as in France, under the Monarchy of July, by giving great liberty of speech, and of the press, while maintaining a miserably restricted franchise, the attempt failed, and ended in revolution. The im- mediate cause of that revolution was the stupid resist- ance of King Louis Philippe to an extension of the suf- frage, although the demands made were of the most moderate kind. Anything like real liberty of the press, and of speech, united to a very restricted electoral body. 14 EEPEESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT easily managed and corrupted, is equally dangerous and foolish ; for it gives the nation a suflQcient knowledge of public affairs, while refusing it a sufficient control over them. Such a state of things is almost sure to create a chamber representiag the nation only in name, the ex- ecutive easily managing the elections in conformity with its own policy, of which the too restricted electoral body becomes the mere tool, instead of faithfully representing the opinions of the nation at large. This is fatal to re- presentative government, because it is thus reduced to the veriest sham, the necessary result of which is its overthrow, unless, indeed, a large and timely extension of the franchise be accorded. Where, on the other hand, an attempt has been made, as in France, imder the Second Empire, to govern in connection with what is calLed universal suffrage, with- out freedom of speech, of the press, and of public meet- ing, and without any real control over the executive by the chambers, the result has been irresponsible personal government, or despotism pure and simple. Such a mode of carrying on a government is full of peril, for it gives the people a very wide suffrage, while depriving them of all real means of learning what is the true state of public affairs. Of these little or nothing can be known save through government organs, which do their utmost to flatter the ruler, and cry up all he does. Everything is represented as scarcely short of perfection, and as emau- AND PERSONAL GOVEENMENT. 15 ating from his " lofty wisdom," " sa haute sagesse," until flatterers and flattered ahnost persuade themselves that the ruler is in possession of superhimian wisdom. While matters go on pretty weU the people are thus managed and cajoled with tolerable success, but when blunders are made, and misfortunes arise (as is sm-e to be the case sooner or later), a great reaction sets in against this personal and irresponsible rule. At length no choice is left between violent repression, in order to maiataia that rule, or such changes as virtually annihilate its personal and irresponsible character. In other words, the system of personal government breaks down. These things should be carefully .borne in mind by all who love reaUy representative institutions, by which the nation governs itself; for such facts prove that national self- government can only be maintained where freedom of speech, of the press, and of public meeting exist, in con- nection with a wide extension of the suffrage, from which the majority of no class is excluded, and by which a really representative body is chosen, which truly reflects the interests and wishes of the nation. These matters are of the essence of free and national seK-government, for without them the nation cannot have a real know- ledge of public affairs, nor exercise a real control over them. As there are two forms of free government, the one monarchical, like that of England and Belgium, the other 16 EEPEESENTAXrVE GOVERNMENT republican, like that of the United States and Switzer- land, so there are two forms of personal government. The one is ancient; it is that of pure hereditary des- potism. It claims for the ruler divine right and adopts as its motto the words of Louis XIV, " L'etat c'est moi." The other form of despotism is of modem growth. It delights to conjure with what is called universal suf- frage. It loves to deck itself out in popular colours, and presents a curious mixture of democratic theories and absolutist practice. Its rule is as personal and despotic as that of its elder sister, the ancien regime, which honestly avowed the theory of divine right and claimed passive obedience. But the modern form, of personal and irre- sponsible government seeks to deceive by high-sounding phrases. Itcries aloud, "everything /or thepeople, nothing Jni the people." It declares the ruler to be directly re- sponsible to the nation and to the nation alone ; but it permits the nation no practical control over the policy of the personal ruler. It admits indeed very clearly the possibility of emeutes and barricades, as may be seen by the hosts of bayonets, breech-loaders and rifled cannon which it ever keeps in readiness. It turns to its own account the fear and lassitude consequent upon some civH convulsion, by getting the people to hand over, in such a moment, their rights and liberties into the keeping of a single individual, who from that hour becomes simply despotic ; nor is he the less obviously A.XD PERSONAL GOVEENMENT. 17 SO, because saliited with the high-soimding title of " Sauveur de la societe," " Saviour of society," by none more clamorously tlian by' those who avowedly hate liberty and love despotism. What effect these two forms of autocratic rule have had on the more civilised nations of Europe who, in recent times, have been subjected to them, it is the purpose of this volume to show, or at least to sketch out generally by means of a few salient facts. Those who feel an interest in the subject, can gain a further knowledge of it by studying more in detail the recent history of those civiLised and progressive European nations who have been governed upon such autocratic principles. It is further intended to contrast the effect of these two forms of despotic rule, with that of repre- sentative institutions when they have been honestly carried out by rulers and statesmen, when " National Self-Government," or "the Government of the nation hy the nation," has been adopted both in theory and in practice. It is worth wliile remarking that personal and irrespon- sible rule finds favour not only with old-fashioned lovers of despotism, but also with some who profess to be very advanced and enlightened politicians. They may per- haps be defined as Cesarian Democrats or Imperial Socialists. They are apt to pour contempt on represent- ative government; they wiLl give, as occasion offers, c 18 EEPEESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT a slap in the face to constitutional monarchy, and then administer a smart back-hander to republicanism, leav- ing the less instructed of their readers or auditors in hopeless wonder as to what may be the beau-ideal of such teachers in the matter of government. That beau- ideal seems to be, that a people can make no better use of its rights and liberties than by resigning such pos- sessions, and by conxmitting them to the tender mercies and safe keeping of some individual. This modern school would have the world believe that the truly wise course for a people to pursue, is to deprive itself of aU real control and power over its own affairs (except it may be that of a revolution from time to time) in order that their coimtry may be duly drilled and governed by a single ruler and liis irresponsible ministers. Thus the true function of a people is reduced to the mere choosing of a master; — that once accomplished nothing more remains than simply to obey. "Why a people who are incapable of managing their own affairs, should be capable of choosing well and wisely a master, does not appear. The old-fashioned despotism of divine right pure and simple, declared a people incapable of both, and therein appears to be more consistent than its new-fangled successor. This latter, despite many high-sounding phrases, proclaims in fact, that a people show the truest appreciation of political freedom, when using it to accomplish political suicide. No doubt AND PERSONAL GOVERN JIENT. 19 presidential elections, parHamentaiy dissolutions and changes of ministry have their inconveniences, their dark as well as their bright side ; but such experiences may weQ. be preferred to those afforded by periodical changes of regime and dynasty, accompanied sometimes by barricades, sometimes by coups cl'4tat, and sometimes by an exciting admixture of both. 20 CHAPTEE II. BELGIUM AND FRANCE. Louis Philippe overthrown while Leopold I retained his throne without difficulty. — The causes of this remarkable difference discussed. — Belgian crisis of 1846. — Louis Philippe's letter of advice upon the matter to King Leopold. — The latter happily does not follow it. — Louis Philippe acts in accordance with that advice in directing his own policy. — TTie Prince de Joinville on French affairs in 1847. — Striking speech of M. de Tocqueville in the French Chamber on the 27th of January, 1848. — Louis Philippe falls because unfaithful to thoroughly constitutional government. — Personal rule not a new thing in France. — It was in full force under the " Ancien Regime" of the Bourbons, and under the first Empire. — It destroyed both. — The Acte Addi- tionnel of Napoleon on his return from Elba. — The Restora- tion. — Fall of Charles X occasioned by his abandoning consti- tutional government for arbitrary personal rule. " Whilst Louis Philippe, abandoned and fugitive, landed on the shores of England, twenty peoples rose up and fought for their independence, their nationality, and their liberty. But the Belgians remained calm and un- moved ; grouped, without distinction of parties, around the throne which they had themselves erected in 1831 ; full of confidence in the Prince who had, as it were, identified himself with the most liberal Constitution of the Continent ; they were resolved to maintain the work of the national Congress." BELGIUM AND FEANCE. 21 Thus truly does M. Theodore Juste, in his "Life of Leopold I.", King of the Belgians, present the remark- able contrast offered in 1848 by Belgium on the one hand, and by France and Continental Europe on the other. The French King died in exile, his throne pass- ing into other and very different hands. Leopold I. died in the land over whiclr he had long reigned so wisely and constitutionally, amidst the heartfelt grief of his subjects. He was succeeded by his son, who was welcomed with every mark of attachment and confidence which it was possible to bestow on the new Sovereign and his dynasty. What is the explanation of a contrast so striking, and, as regards one of tlie two monarchs, so sad ? To the ordinary Englishman the answer is easy enough, and is briefly expressed in some such words as these : " Those restless French are incapable of free go- vernment, and are never satisfied." Such a reply, always at hand, and often given, has several advantages in the eyes of those who make it. In the first place, it is short, and saves the trouble of a careful examination of the causes of so marked a contrast : this in itself is a de- cided recommendation to all who are either idle, super- ficial, or careless. Next it implies that which is pecu- liarly acceptable to English pride — namely, that English- men alone, or nearly alone, in Europe, are worthy and capable of free government. It bolsters up a sort of secret belief that Providence intended freedom for the 22 BELGIUM AND PEANCE. special benefit of England, or, at most, of the EngUsli race. Further, this mode of accounting for the contrast in question pleases all who hate or dread liberty, by ap- pearing to impose upon it certain limits. Such persons hope to confine it to Great Britain ; they would carefully warn every other country against touching so dangerous an instrument. This idea is specially grateful to the opponents of Kberty in France, for it favours that which they admire — Personal Government, and bars the way to that which they hate — Eepresentative Government. Unfortunately for these French and other opponents of free institutions, there is a fcKt which impugns very forcibly the idea, that it is impossible to carry on respon- sible or representative government in France. For both in Europe and in America is to be seen a country French in language, and in religion, and, to a great extent, French in race, whose people are most successful in the practice of free institutions, and are, at the same time, thoroughly loyal to their respective Governments. That this is true of Belgium and Lower Canada cannot be denied. Both enjoy full constitutional liberty, com- plete self-government, and rehgious equality; in both really representative institutions, perfect freedom of the press, of speech, and of public meetings, are in full opera- tion. The people of both are eminently contented, happy, and prosperous. Not, indeed, that all is perfect in those countries. Much, no doubt, remains to be done. BELGIUM AND FRANCE. 23 and many an arduous problem yet awaits solution ; still, the Frencli Eoman Catholics of Belgium and Lower Canada have a right to say, hke the people of England: "We are, and deserve to be, a free and self-governing community." With such facts patent to the whole world, it is, to say the least of it, very difficult to main- tain that the French people are necessarily incapable of carrying on Eepresentative Government. If, in 1848, Belgium and France offered so remarkable a con- trast, some other causes than those arising out of the character of the French people must have been at work. Each of these countries possessed a Government which had sprung from a successful revolution. Both Govern- ments had been founded about the same time; both were viewed with iH-will by the despotic Powers of Europe ; both professed constitutional principles. But did both the Belgian and French monarchs understand and prac- tise those principles fully and sincerely ? Leopold did ; Louis Philippe did not, as will be clearly shown. The King of the Belgians died on his throne, surrounded by a free and loyal people, who lamented his loss with all sin- cerity, and transferred their willing allegiance to his son. The King of the French died in exHe ; and stUl an exHe's sad lot is that of his children, and of his children's children. The virtues and the talents of the Orleanist princes, the quiet dignity with which their lot is borne, the absence aKke of querulous repining, of plottings. 24 BELGIUM AND FKANCE. and of intrigues ; the enlightened interest displayed by more than one amongst them in the great questions of oui time, have won for the exiled family the respect and esteem of the English nation. All this only deepens our regret that Louis Philippe should have failed so miserably in his mission as a constitutional Sovereign — failed to do (as he might have done) for France that which Leopold did so well for Belgium. That failure is chiefly, if not whoUy due to the French King himself. There was a crisis during the reign of Leopold which proved in the clearest manner how fully he under- stood the duties of a constitutional Sovereign, and how iitterly incapable Louis Philippe was of comprehending them. The advice given by the French King to his son- in-law. King Leopold, during that crisis, in 1846, would, had it been followed, have led inevitably to a cata- strophe ; happily, it was Twt followed. Yet, in 1847, and in the early days of 1848, the French monarch, despite that lesson, pursued the very policy he had iu vain urged on Leopold — ^with what result, the Eevolution of February 1848 made patent to the world. The Belgian crisis of 1846 arose from the state of political parties m Belgium, which rendered the forma- tion of a homogeneous Cabiaet, commanding a majority in the Chambers, very difficult. The King, having failed in obtaining a Ministry composed of the leaders of the Progressive, or Liberal party, or one formed from BELGIUM AND FEANCE. 25 the ranks of the Unionists, had recourse to the party known as the Conservative, or Catholic party. Its cliief, M. de Theux, succeeded in the formation of a Cabinet on the 31st March, 1846. It was attacked by its opponents with great energy. The Chief Electoral Association of Brussels convoked, for the 14th June, a " Liberal Congress," which was to be composed of dele- gates from aU the provincial associations. These dele- gates met, to the number of three hundred, in the Hotel de Vnie, at Brussels. They drew up an act of federa- tion among themselves, and announced a programme of Belgian Liberalism. The Cabinet of M. de Theux, thus vigorously assaulted, finally succumbed ia the following elections of June, 1847, and offered its resignation. The King accepted it, and a Cabinet was formed by M. Eogier, who came into power at the head of a Liberal Administration, which solemnly announced a new policy. Some sis or seven months after followed the French Ee- volution of 1848, which convulsed nearly the whole of Continental Europe, but which did not overthrow in Bel- gium, either throne, laws, or liberties. Such was the result of alio wing ia that country full and free play to repre- sentative institutions ; such the effect of carrying out the principle of really national self-government in all its in- tegrity, without any attempt to check it, either by fraud or violence. Now, what was the advice given at the very height of the Belgian crisis of 1846, a,t the time when 26 BELGIUM AND PEANCE. the Liberal Congress was about to meet at Brussels, by King Louis Philippe to King Leopold ? That advice shall be given in the French Sovereign's own words : — "KING LOUIS PHILIPPE TO THE KING OF THE BELGIANS. "Paris, 14th May, 1846. " It is at the council table that I am writing to you. Your letters, and aU the information I gather as to the situation in Belgium, ferment in my head on the strength of my long experience, and the revolutionary storms which have passed before my eyes. It is, above all, that assembly of the delegates of the Belgian associa- tions, about to meet at Brussels, wliich preoccupies me. It recalls to my miud nothing less than the Commune of Paris, iu 1792, dictating from the Hotel de ViHe to the National Convention at the Tuileries (after the fall of royalty), all which it seemed good to it to impose, and going so far as to send to its (the National Assembly's) bar deputations which forced it to promulgate, on the morrow, the decrees which it (the Commune) had de- clared the preceding night. " I do not know what means the Belgian legislation offers for paralysing, striking down, annihilating, this auda- cious meeting, unless it allows of preventing it beforehand, which certainly would be preferable. They tell me that the Belgian Constitution authorises associations ; but I do not know up to what point this authorisation extends. BELGIUM AND FRANCE. 27 and I doubt that it can extend so far as to authorise the formation of an assembly of delegates, elected with- out legal authority, deliberating, passing resolutions like the chambers legally elected and exercising constitutional powers with which they are invested by the constitution and law of the country. According to my view it is nothing less than the formation of a revolutionary na- tional convention, because it will exist outside of aU the laws and of the constitutional authority of the king- dom, and probably without any relations with the legal government of the country. "I have just talked over the matter with my ministers, and they with one voice pronounced such a state of things incompatible with the existence of a legal and constitutional government of the country. Thank God, that state of things does not yet exist at least in its full development ; but do not forget that it is precisely from the absence of all legal rule in their creation that revolutionary assemblies draw their strength for destroy- ing legal institutions, and these last allow themselves to be intimidated by the unbridled audacity of the others. " We are by no means disposed to let the Belgian crisis reach such extremities ; nor are we disposed on the other hand to go outside the limits traced by treaties and by our respect for the independence and the neu- trality of the Belgian kingdom. "Seeing before us the possibility of suchlike events, I feel strongly the need of knowing your opinion : 28 BELGIUM AND FRANCE. "1. As to what you think you can do to prevent them. "2. As to what in case your government should be powerless, and also in case it should be overborne, you think you ought and might ask of us. We ought not and do not wish to do anything except by your initia- tive ; but one ought to provide beforehand, and concert that which rapid storms may unexpectedly demand. "As the post is starting I cannot write to you more at length. Above all retain your actual* ministry, uphold it as vigorously as you possibly can; nothing is more likely to shatter everything than a ministerial crisis, and above all the entry into the ministry of the dele- gates, of their adherents, and of those of their political party." M. Theodore Juste, who gives the original of the above at page 346 of his first Volume of the " Life of King Leopold," does not give the Belgian Sovereign's reply to this panic-stricken letter of poor Louis Philippe. But he does narrate how King Leopold and his Govern- ment, instead of following such preposterous advice, took just the opposite course. They never attempted to in- terfere with the meeting of the three hundred delegates at Brussels as Louis Philippe foolishly advised. On the contrary, the Belgian King, as M. Juste says, " would * That of M. de Theux. BELGIUM AND FEANCE. 29 not impede a constitutional right (tliat of public meet- ing), trusting besides to the good sense of the people." He gave indeed his confidence to his then ministers, of whom M. de Theux was the chief, without however stupidly and unconstitutionally taking sides with them at an costs as against the leaders of the opposition. He allowed the ministerial crisis to come, and when the country, in the fuU exercise of its free system (both in the chambers and out of doors), finally declared against the Minister, the King accepted the resignations offered and called upon the leaders of the liberal opposition to form a government. He treated the Government so formed, of which M. Eogier was the chief, with the same just and unprejudiced confidence which he had given to ^1. de Theux and his colleagues. In a word, King Leopold did exactly what poor short-sighted Louis Philippe advised him not to do. The latter, well-intentioned but narrow-minded and petty, miscon- ceived utterly the part which a really constitutional monarch has to perform. It is for him to keep himself free from all parties, not to back up one against another ; to allow in all its plenitude the fundamental right of public meeting and discussion, not to put them down for fear of consequences ; to accept loyally ministers of whatever political party, if they have the confidence of the country, not to determine to stick to men of one ■ party and to have nothing to do with those of another. 30 BELGIUM AND FEANCE. If a constitutional sovereign really understands his posi- tion and desires to fill it well and faitMully, he will act as did Leopold, and he will carefully avoid such a course as that advised by Louis PhUippe— advice which he himself followed to the loss of his throne. The monarch who acts thus ia conformity with constitutional princi- ples will reap such fruit as the King of the Belgians reaped, and he who does the contrary will run great risk of coming to an end similar to that of the King of the French. The truth is that the French Sovereign committed the fatal mistake of trying to govern more or less personally under the appearance of a constitutional system. He thought he could retain representative forms and to some degree priaciples, and yet manage to caiTy on to a great extent the baneful system of Personal Government. The result was, what it deserved to be, disastrous failure. The personal influence of Louis Philippe had for some years been increasingly felt and seen, and had estranged more and more the French people from him and his Government. The number of electors in France was at the time miserably small, being verj^ little over two hundred thousand. It is needless to dwell upon the wretched iusuf&ciency of such a constituency for a nation of thirty-five minions. The leaders of the oppo- sition in the French chambers proposed an enlargement of the suffrage, which may be called almost ludicrously BELGIUM AND FRANCE. 31 moderate, for it would hardly have doubled the number of electors. When that juncture came, the King made up his mind to pursue the policy he had so recently recommended to King Leopold. Louis Philippe deter- mined to stick to his actual advisers, (who opposed reform) at aU. costs. The public meeting of the reformers which was to take the shape of a banquet was prohi- bited. No wonder that the Prince de Joinville wrote in November 1847 to his brother the Due de Nemours, " We come before the chambers with a detestable state of things at home, and in foreign affairs matters are scarcely better. AU that is the work of the King alone .... those unhappy Spanish marriages ! Have we not yet exliausted the bitter dregs they contain ?" Yes, " all that was the work of the King alone ;" in other words all was the fruit of that evU thing. Personal Government. Well may M. Juste exclaim : " Happy would it have been for Louis Philippe if he had imitated the King of the Belgians, if he too had inaugurated a new policy." But he would not. So it came to pass that in 1848 a constitutional monarchy, rightly directed in accordance with its own free principles, was crowned with enduring success in Belgium ; while a neighbouring monarchy, professedly of the same kind, but whose principles of free self-goverment were stultified by its sovereign and perverted, in no small measure, to the ends of his own personal rule, failed in France. 32 BELGIUM AND FRANCE. Thus the catastrophe which befel the Monarchy of July arose not from the French people being incapable of free self-government, but because their Mng was unfaithful to the constitutional system he professed; because he made of it a mere cloak, under cover of which he fol- lowed, to a great extent, the fatal maxims of personal rule. The lesson is all the more striking from the fact that Louis Plxilippe was very far from being a bad, or even an ill-disposed man. His private Hfe was exemplary. His public life bears ample evidence of good intentions, and of a kind heart. He possessed both abihties and ex- perience above the average. But he was narrow in his views, and became very selfish ia his aims ; he was es- sentially petty ia his home and in his foreign policy. He seems never to have fully comprehended the real principles of constitutional rule, and he consequently failed in the practice of them. In vain was he brought into hourly contact, so to speak, with the wisdom and the example of Leopold I. of Belgium. The French king's government, for some time previous to its overthrow, was becoming daily more corrupt in the means it employed, and more and more retrograde in its policy. It was no longer upheld by the confidence of the coimtry, but kept in place partly by the personal iafluence of the sovereign, and partly by corrupt means of various kinds, only too easily and effectually brought to bear on an electoral body which numbered but little more than 200,000 voters for BELGIUM AND FRANCE. 33 the whole of France, whose population was at that time about thirty-five millions and a half. Such a system of representation' was little better than a mere sham. The real state of things, and the fatal results to which they tended, were pourtrayed in a powerful speech, delivered in the French Chamber on the 27th January, 1848, by M. de Tocqueville, one of the clearest and most profound political writers and speakers of his day. He represented the system of government as being opposed to progress, as seeking to win support, not by good measures, and great pubhc aims, but by corruption, by pandering to individual and personal interests. Instead of appealing to what was good, noble, and generous, the government, he said, appealed to sordid, selfish, and petty motives. He described public morality as declining, as already much tainted, and becoming more deeply so every day. He said : " More and more opinions, sentiments, and ideas of a public character are supplanted by personal interests, personal aims, points of view borrowed from private in- terest and private life." He showed that by indirect and crafty means, " other means than those granted by the constitution," the government had been leaving the path of freedom and progi'ess for that of increasingly despotic power. Hence the growing feeling of danger and inse- curity for the future ; hence " the instinct of instability,'' as he called it, " which already exists to a most serious degree in the country." M. de Tocqueville thus concluded : D 34 BELGIUM AND FRANCE. " Several changes in legislation have been talked of. I am. much inclined, to believe that such changes are not only useful, but necessary. I believe in the utUity of electoral reform, in the urgency of parliamentary reform. But I am not so senseless as to be unaware that it is not the laws in themselves which make the destiny of peoples ; no, it is not the mechanism of the laws which produces the great events of the world, it is the spirit of the government. Keep your laws if you will, though I think it a great error, keep them ; keep even the men, if you like, I, for my part, will make no opposition to it ; but for God's sake change the spirit of the government ; for, I say it again, that spirit is hurrying you to the abyss." Within four or five weeks the justness of M. de Tocq[ue- viUe's views, and the truth of his predictions, were only too clearly proved ; for scarcely had a month elapsed when the Monarchy of July feU, and the government, which had refused to entertain a question of reform, was swept away by a revolution. Thus did Louis Philippe lose the admirable opportunity, which his advent to the throne had afforded him, of founding in France (as Leo- pold did in Belgium) a system of national self-govern- ment. Instead, he but prepared the way for another civil convulsion, to be followed only too soon by a period of avowedly personal and irresponsible rule, under the Second Empire. That rule was not the less despotic be- BELGIUM AND FEANCE. 35 cause bedecked with a few of the outward trappings of liberty, which deceived only those who wished to be de- ceived. Irresponsible personal government is nothing new in France. Its roots run deep iuto French history. It was brought to a full development under Louis XIV, and his famous "L'^tat c'est moi." When writing of the close of his reign, M. Henri Martin, the historian of France, speaks of the monarchy as " having beaten down aU the forces which limited it." So M. Michel Chevalier, in his pamphlet on the English Constitution, describes Louis XIV as striving " to impose on the whole world religious as well as political absolutism, whose most offensive maxims he had revived." The Eegency and Louis XV perpetuated them by destroying every remaining vestige of local self-government. The king and his ministers raled alone. They ordered everything great and small throughout the kingdom ; the nation had no part or lot in the matter, save that of simply obeying. The fruit of this unhappy system was reaped by their unfortunate successor, Louis XVI. Louis XIV, the Eegency, and Louis XV prepared the way for the great revolution of 1793. This is set forth with admirable clearness by M. de TocqueviUe, in his work entitled L'Ancien Regime et la Eholntion. As he truly says : " What preceded must never be lost sight of, if the history of our revolution is to be understood." What preceded was a series of wars, 36 BELGIUM AXD FRANCE. in whicli the nation's blood was shed in torrents, to gratify royal ambition; the people taxed beyond all en- durance, and reduced to a state of starvation; civil and religious liberty trampled under foot. The nobility, rich in privileges, servile to their royal master, and oppres- sive to those below them, possessed scarcely a redeeming virtue save the vulgar one of personal courage. The state clergy, abounding in the wealth and honours of this world, were ever ready to flatter the vices of the great, ever willing to prop up abuses both in church and state. But worst of all was the system of centralised government, alike irresponsible and personal, which de- stroyed local self-government, and deprived the nation of all control over its own affairs. It tended to unfit all classes of citizens for the exercise of such control; it concentrated everything in the hands of the central power, namely, the King and his council. Thus, the very idea of na,tional self-government was uprooted, no- thing was left but a single government machine in the capital, directed by a single irresponsible ruler and his no less irresponsible ministers. M. de Tocqueville, in a striking passage of his Ancien Regime et la Revolution, reminds his readers that Edmund Burke complained in one of his pamphlets on the French Eevolution, that no man was to be found who could answer for the smallest district — indeed, no man who could answer for another. Each one, said the English Statesman, is arrested with- BELGIUM AND FRANCE. 37 out resistance, whether it be a question of royalty, mo- derate ideas, or anything else. M. de Tocqueville's com- ment upon these observations is well worth reading. " Burke knew little," he writes, " in what a condition the monarchy which he regretted had bequeathed us to our new masters. The administration of the Ancien Eegune had beforehand deprived the French of aU pos- sibility and wish to aid each other. When the Eevo- lution came, not ten men could be found in France who had the habit of acting in common in a regular manner, and themselves watch over their own defence." In ano- ther passage of his admirable work, M. de Tocqueville says, — " Under the Ancien E^gime, as in our own day (1856), there was not a city, town or village, not a hamlet however small, not a hospital, convent, or college, which had an independent voice in its own affairs, nor admin- istered according to its own will its own possessions. Then, as to-day, the administration held the whole French people in tutelage, and if that insolent word was not actually ia use, the thing itself at any rate existed." Thus completely had the personal and centralised government of the old Bourbon kings driven out the principle of national self-government. Under that auto- cratic rule the great masses of the people were grossly ignorant and fearfully miserable. Its innumerable vices, public and private, had estranged from it aU the intelli- gence and honesty which stiU survived in France. Thus 38 BELGIUM AND FRANCE. this evil system brought on the terrible revolution that destroyed it, while it rendered the French people incap- able of establishing in its place an enduring system of free yet orderly government. In the words of M. de Tocqueville, " everything became possible after the fall of the monarchy." What did come was an awful ming- ling of heroic greatness and bloody oppression. Under the National Assembly and the Convention, France pre- sented the wonderful spectacle of a nation torn in pieces by the strife of political parties, who sent each other in turn to the guillotine, and yet able at that very time to improAdse armies which drove back the forces of the most powerful monarchies of the day who had dared to invade the soil of the republic. Those who read the history of that tremendous convulsion are divided be- tween horror at the civil bloodshed which desolated France, and admiration at the heroism which, at such a time, called forth in an instant legions of citizen soldiers who beat back the trained armies of the foreigner. But the Assembly and the Convention, which, in the very midst of the throes of the great revolution, often enunciated great principles, enacted good laws, and laid the foundations of the famous French code, failed to establish a free and enduring government. At length France, weary with the bloody strife of parties, disgusted with the worthless rule of the Directory, stood, as it were, awaiting a patriot hand which should guide her into BELGIUM AND FRANCE. 39 the haven of a free, yet orderly and secure government. With the occasion arose a man possessing, indeed, all the talent necessary to accomplish the noble mission, but possessed, also, by a demon of selfish ambition, at whose bidding he trampled on freedom, set truth at defiance, and sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives. Never was there a grander opportunity for accomplishing a work of the highest and most patriotic kind ; never was an op- portunity more wantonly sacrificed to the ends of mere personal aggrandisement and self-exaltation. The bless- ings which might have been conferred on France, and through her on Europe, by the great genius of Napoleon, were turned into curses by his yet greater selfishness. Instead of seeking to bestow on France a government which should give her at once order and freedom, Bona- parte simply made her the tool of his own selfish ambi- tion. His government was a mere return to the system of the Bourbons — the system of irresponsible personal rule — ^the system which leaves the nation no effectual control over its own affairs, which hates national self- government, which hands over all real power into the keeping of a single ruler, to whom unlimited sway is given. Such was the " Constitution de I'An VIII" (1799), which was framed under the special direction of Napo- leon, after his famous and unprincipled cowp d'etat of the 18th Brumaire. There were not wanting some able and patriotic men who sought to mitigate, at least, 40 BELGIUM AND FEANCE. this violent return to arbitrary Personal Government. Poremost among them was the upright and talented Benjamin Constant, of whom Monsieur Lanfrey (in his " History of the First Napoleon") says : — " Placed from the first among the foremost writers of the day by his publications, which were dictated by fin intelligent and courageous hatred of the terrorist despotism, he now came forward to dispute with military despotism the last remains of our free institutions." In 1799-1800, M. Constant vainly endeavoured to secure, much to the displeasure of the First Consul, even an approach to in- dependence of debate in the Corps Legislatif " With- out independence, there could be," said he, " neither harmony nor Constitution, but only servitude and silence — silence that all Europe would hear." What was obvious to the penetration of Constant, was assuredly not hid from that of Napoleon. But servitude and silence were what Bonaparte wanted — ^not a free Con- stitution and liberty of speech. As M. Lanfrey clearly shows, the result was " to place Prance definitively in the power (sous la main) of Bonaparte," truly adding that Napoleon did but " restore and perfect that centrali- sation" so well known to Louis XIV and the ancien regime. M. Lanfrey thus speaks of the Napoleonic system inaugurated by the First Consul in this " Con- stitution de I'An VIH" (1799-1800) :— " The new Administrative organisation was a simpli- BELGIUM AND FRANCE. 41 fication analogous to that which had just taken place in the Government itself. The deliberating bodies were systematically annulled to the benefit of the executive authority. The prefets were, according to Bonaparte's own observation, so many first consuls — that is, petty dictators. Like the chief of the executive power, they had beside them assembhes who were supposed to par- ticipate in their Administration, but whose power (that of the assemblies) was even more Ulusory than that of the Corps Legislatif, for they had but a consultative voice. The same was the case with the sous-prefets and mayors, who represented the Government in the lower steps of this administrative ladder. The whole system was a sort of hierarchy of dictatorships one above the other, which were all resumed in a single one — that of the First Consul. "This conception had not even the merit of origi- nality. It had but been borrowed from the old absolutist arsenal. It was as nearly as possible the system of in- tendants of Eichelieu, perfected by Louis XIV — an in- stitution which the ancien regime itself had ended by abandoning as oppressive and useless. It must be allowed, indeed, to the advantage of the Intendant system, that its abuses were in part redeemed by the protection which it afforded against the usurpations of an insolent and tyrannical nobihty : that the Intendants had no influence on the judgment of litigants — ^that is. 42 BELGIUM AND FEANCE. of litigation between the Administration and private in- dividual's, for that jurisdiction devolved on the Parlia- ments — and, finally, the most prosperous part of France, " les pays d'etat," which the other provinces so greatly envied, escaped from this Government, and administered themselves." Thus, then, did Napoleon re-establish Personal and Irresponsible Government in Prance. She was soon again a helpless instrument in the hands of a master. That master displayed great administrative abHity, but he took care so to apply it as to concentrate all power in himself alone. He used that power unscrupulously in promoting his own selfish and ambitious schemes. He shed the blood of Prance, in torrents, over the whole surface of Europe, from Madrid to Moscow. His military genius, unequalled, at least, in modern times, was crowned with twelve years of dazzling victory. Then came the gigantic catastrophe of the Eussian campaign, brought on by his own self-wiU and ambition, which r neither his country nor his counsellors had any power I to control. Yet, in the following year (1813), notwith- standing that awful lesson, when the Corps Legislatif asked, in the name of Prance, that the country should ihave more internal liberty, and more control over its own 'affairs, Napoleon dismissed the members of the Legisla- ' tive Body with anger, saying that they were meddling with what did not concern them. The next year, 1814, BELGIUM AND FRANCE. 43 his unlimited personal rule brought yet more fearful calamities on his iinhappy country ; for then was it that France, utterly exhausted and bleeding at every pore, was deKvered into the hands of her enemies, at whose bidding the Bourbons were restored. The French mon- archy re-appeared, but it was not permitted to retain those frontiers of the Alps and the Ehiae, which the Ee- public had conquered and which the Empire lost. Such was the consummation brought about by the personal and irresponsible rule of the first Empire. Such the result to France of ceasing to have a voice in the man- agement of her own affairs ; of giving herself wholly into the power of a single man. Tet that man, be it remembered, possessed a genius for administration and command, such as the world has rarely seen ; but, to the ctirse of France, of Europe, and even of himself, his power was absolute, personal, and uncontrolled: most truly might he have exclaimed, " L'dtat ! c'est moi." The "Spectre Eouge" of the Terror had sacrificed many a French life in the day of its cruel power ; but the blood so spilt was a drop in the ocean, as compared with the torrents shed by the " Spectre Eouge" of mili- tary glory at the bidding of Bonaparte's ambition — an ambition which was often, as in the case of the invasions of Spain and Eussia, utterly unscrupulous, lawless, and selfish. Gifted with unsurpassed genius, the First 'Na- poleon might, with the opportunities he possessed, have 44 BELGIUM AND FRANCE. made France at once the guardian and example of a wise, orderly, and progressive freedom. He might have raised her to a position in which her influence, without trenching in any degree on the rights and liberties of her neighbours, would have been incalculably great and incalculably beneficent. He would thus have gained a bright and enduring fame which might weU have rivalled even that of Washington himself But false to France and her liberties, true only to self, Napoleon's career is little else than a warning to civilised and pro- gressive nations of what calamities may overwhelm them, if they deliver themselves over into the uncon- 1 trolled power of a single irresponsible ruler, even when I that ruler possesses abilities such as have been rarely I bestowed upon the sons of men. Thus the baneful system of irresponsible Personal Government brought not only innumerable woes upon France and Europe, but ruin upon those who governed by it. The fruit it bore to the ancien regime was the destruction of throne, church, and nobility. The fruit it bore to Napoleon was his own overthrow, the occupa- tion of France by foreign armies, and the restoration of the Bourbons. No policy ever resulted in more disastrous failure, even from the point of view of those who carried it on ; for it brought about, in each case, what the rulers who upheld and directed that policy most hated and dreaded. Such was the experience of France in Per- BELGIUM AND FEANCE. 45 sonal and Irresponsible Government from the days of Louis XIV to the memorable year 1815. Napoleon, upon his return from Elba, gave to the Trench a really free constitution, known as the " Acte additionnel." The man who, at the Emperor's request, had the chief part in drawing it up, was that same M. Benjamin Constant who had formerly withstood to the utmost, first the tyranny of the Terror, and afterwards the despotism of the First Consul. The work was worthy of so tried and able a friend of constitutional freedom. It received the approbation of persons such as !^Iadame de Stael, Sismondi, Lafayette, and others who had ever been staunch to the same cause. The enemies of the Emperor simply refused to believe in his sincerity. It must, however, be remembered that most impartial and intelligent persons, tried friends, too, of freedom, like Madame de Stael, beheved him to be sincere. The final overthrow of Napoleon, which occurred within a few weeks, prevented his sincerity being put to the proof. But whether true or false in his gift of a free constitution, the Emperor did, by this act, publicly re- nounce personal government, and publicly establish con- stitutional liberty. Thus, in the face of the whole world, the man who, more than all others, delighted in irre- sponsible personal rule, and abhorred representative in- stitutions, gave up that rule, and did public homage to constitutional freedom by establishing in France "Na- tional Self-Government," 46 BELGIUM AND FEANCE. Before the year 1815 had closed the Bourbons were again restored to the French throne. Under them par- liamentary and constitutional rights were given, in a considerable measure, by the charter (la Charte), which Louis XVIII swore to maintain, as did his brother, Charles X, who succeeded him. But the suffrage was so restricted, and the whole administrative system of the country (as will presently be shown) was so utterly at the mercy of the executive, that the ministers of the day were able to exercise the greatest control over the elections, and often used that power unsparingly and vmscrupulously. The personal interference of the sove- reign continually increased, until at length the openly illegal use of it, in the publication of the celebrated Ordonnances of July 1830, brought on the crash which drove Charles X from the throne. In an interesting article, entitled " Les Trois Crises du Gouvernement Per- sonnel," in one of the recent numbers of the Revue des Beux Mondes, M. Saint-Marc Girardin says : " The in- fatuation of personal government spoiled and destroyed in ISTapoleon the greatness of his genius, and the brilliancy of his glory ; it spoiled and destroyed in King Charles X the ever rare gift of honesty in the occupant of a throne; above aU, it spoiled and lost for ever the beneficent des- tiny of the Eestoration . . ." The same writer aptly relates, from the Histoire Parlementaire of M. Duvergier de Hauranne, the success of the opposition in the elec- BELGIUM AMD FRANCE. 47 tions of 1827, and the opportunity thus afforded of " con- firming the alliance between liberty and legitimacy." " Charles X could/' says the last-named author, speaking of these events of 1827, " by conforming promptly and completely to the manifest wish of the nation, have drawn around the throne those who kept at a distance, and disarmed the irreconcilable enemies of the dynasty." M. Saint-Marc G-irardia proceeds to ask : " What was it, then, which prevented Charles X from opening, m 1827, this era of durable reconciliation? The infatuation of personal government, inspired, it is true, in the mind of Charles X, by very different sentiments from those which inspired it in Napoleon I ; but because it did not spring from the same cause, the evil was not, on that account, different, and the effects were the same. Napoleon be- lieved in the divine right of his genius, and the pre- destination of his empire. Charles believed in the rights of his race. Eoyalty was to him a sacred deposit, con- fided by heaven to his family . . . ." Louis XVIII used to talk of "my personal policy," and Charles X of " my political system." "When M. de Martignac, one of the most moderate and prudent states- men of the Restoration, desired, while in office, to change a certain number of pr^fets, etc., so as to have men in those high positions more in accordance with the views of the cabinet, Charles X said : " You want me to send away aU my friends. I cannot, however, and will not abandon my party (mon partz)." 48 BELGIUM AND FRANCE. Such was the way in which the king opposed his personal will, in public matters, to a minister of the crown, devoted to his person and dynasty, possessed of no inconsiderable ability, and who was engaged in a worthy effort to unite the constitutional rights of the sovereign to the no less constitutional liberties and wants of the nation. This matter of the prefets recalls to mind the fact, before alluded to, of the complete centralisation of the whole administration, and its entire dependence on the executive. This sprang from the organisation of the First Empire, continued under the Eestoration. In February 1829, M. de Martignac, just before his resig- nation, proposed a reform of this system, but gave up office before the reform was carried out. M. de Vaula- belle, ia his detailed work, entitled The History of two Restorations, says: "The communal and departmental organisation then existing (February 1829) was. stiU that of the Empire, as it had been constituted by the law of the year VIII (1799-1800). The Eestoration had changed nothing. Those who were governed Qes administrds) did not participate in any case in the composition of the Councils of Commune, District (d'arrondissement), and Department ; the nominations belonged without excep- tion to the administration, which thus absorbed in itself aU powers, all rights, and had only, for the control of its acts, and the rectification of its accounts in each locality, the judge which itself nominated. In other words, the BELGIUM AND FRANCE. 49 king nominated the ministers, the ministers named the prefets, then, on the presentation of the prefets, the councillors of districts and departments. The prefets, in their turn, on the proposition of the mayors that they themselves had chosen, elected the municipal council- lors. It was ministerial autocracy, exercised in the most summary and energetic manner, with regard to the ad- ministration of the material and moral interests of each Department and of each Commune. The two proposals (of M. de Martignac in February 1829) would have put an end to this organisation; sad legacy of the imperial despotism which the Ancien Rdgime itself had not known. Everywhere the principle of election would have taken the place of the action of those in authority." Instead of considering whether his ministers possessed the confidence of the chambers and the country, Charles X thought only whether they were the men for whom he had himself a preference, and whose political views coincided with his own. Such a minister he found in the Prince de Polignac, whose cabinet was formed on the 8th of August, 1829. On the 15th of March, 1830, the new ministry was beaten by a majority of forty on the address to the crown. To this vote of want of confidence the i king replied by assuring his ministers " that lie would 1 never consent to their dismissal, and so submit to the pretensions of the chamber." The whole of the retro- grade party, strongly supported by the bishops and clergy, 50 BELGIUM AND FRANCE. backed up the crown in its determination to make its personal will supreme, in despite of the chamber. The language of the priests was very violent against this latter body ; it was represented by some of the most promi- nent members of the Episcopacy, " as wishing, in its im- pudence and audacity, to dictate laws to the sovereign, to annihilate his most essential prerogatives, and overthrow the men of his choice." In the following general elec- tion of May the government strained every means to secure a majority. The king, by a most unwise procla- mation, interfered personally in the elections, thus plac- ing himself, as M. de Vaulabelle remarks, "outside aU the conditions of constitutional government." But, des- pite everything that the king and his ministers could do, the new chamber was as hostile as the old one to the Polignac administration. Nothing, however, would in- duce the king to part with his ministers. It was finally determined to carry out a coup d'etat. On the 26th of July, 1830, appeared the celebrated ordoimances, which imposed a rigid censorship of the press, disfranchised a large portion of the electors, changed the electoral laws, and dissolved the chambers. By these ordonnances, as M. Saint-Marc Girardin says, " Charles X seized the dic- tatorship in the name of the counter-revolution ;" and by that act he fell. Before a week had elapsed the dynasty of the Bourbons had ceased to reign in France. " The ordonnances of July," says M. Guizot, in the new pre- BELGIUM AND FRANCE. 51 face to his Milanges Historiqiies et Politiques, "were an absolutely gratuitous act, arising from the frivolous alarms and superstition of personal power, which had taken pos- session of the soul of Charles X, not from any real danger to royalty and the state." After poiuting out various minor differences between Charles X and Louis Philippe, M. de Vaulabelle adds, " however, both one and the other perished by the same blind obstinacy in favour of a system which was pecu- liar to themselves (cpd leur itait propre), by a similar resistance to the wishes and warnings of public opinion,; both fell crying ' no concessions !' {pas de concessi§ns !)" Each of these two monarchs had the opportunity of doing for France what King Leopold did so well for Belgium, and each faded to turn that oppor- tunity to good purpose. Charles failed on account of his direct adherence to personal government, and of his determination to rule by it if the Chambers did not sup- port the ministers he liked, and pursue the policy he approved. Louis PhiUppe faded, because, though less directly influenced by a like feeling, he was nevertheless eyer seeking to maintain a policy specially his own, "qui lui itait propre," to use M. de Vaulabelle's words, — a poUcy generally petty and selfish ; while his ministers (at least latterly) sought to retain power partly by cor- ruption and partly by the personal influence of the king ; thus was vitiated the whole system of represent- 52 BELGIUM AND FRANCE. ative government, and its spirit, if not its very letter, was broken. Hence, M. de Tocqueville's earnest cry in January, 1848, " for God's sake change the spirit of the government, for again I say, that spirit is hurrying you to the abyss.'' Charles X and Louis Philippe under- mined the constitutional systems of which they were the chiefs — systems which, though defective from the first, might easily have been improved and made instrumental to the establishment in France of an enduring form of " National Self-government." The failure to do so under the Eestoration and under the Monarchy of July, was the fault of the French kings and their advisers, not the fault of the French people. 53 CHAPTER III. THE PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 1850-1870. Despotic reaction on the Continent in 1849 to 1852. — Isicholas of Russia. — Frederick William of Prussia. — Prince Metternich. — The compliments paid by them to King Leopold in 1848. — Nicholas heads the reaction by suppressing the ancient Constitu- tional Rights of Hungary. — Frederick William's vacillating course. — Prussia obliged to succumb to Austria supported by Russia, in the Olmiitz Conferences of 1850. — Ultra- despotism and centralisation triumphant in Austria and Italy. — The re- action in France.- — Policy of the Emperor Nicholas towards Turkey. — Alliance of France, England, and Piedmont against Russia. — ^Austria provokes the hatred of the latter power by her neutrality. — A severe blow thus given to the alliance and strength of Despotism in Europe. — Constitutional Freedom in Piedmont damages Austrian Despotism, especially in Italy. — Alliance betwSen France and Piedmont. — War of 1859. — The despotic system of Austria breaks down. — The Vienna Govern- ment of Baron von Schmerling. — Its contest with Hungary. — Restoration of Hungarian Rights after the AVar of 1866. — Free- dom in Hungary, Austria, Italy, and Germany. — France greatly affected by it.— The French National Assembly of 1848.— The Coup d'Etat of December 1851. — Imperial Concessions of 1860, after the Italian War. — Reviving Strength and progress of freedom in France from that time until 1870. — Progress of liberty in England and Sweden. Never was despotic reaction more triumphant on the Continent than in 1851. Never did the cause of free- dom appear more hopeless. Popular liberties and popular excesses had alike been crushed. " Order was re-estab- lished/' not in " Warsaw," but in " Europe." Unfortu- 54 PROGEESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. nately, however, both for rulers and people, this order was wholly divorced from liberty. It was, after aU, mere repression, resting, not upon law, but upon bayonets. Of these latter it has been said, with equal wit and truth, " On pent tout faire avec les baionnettes, excepte s'asseoir dessus" — " One can do anything with bayonets, except sit down upon them." Such, however, does not appear to have been the opinion of the Sovereigns who formed, in the good old days, " the holy alliance ;" nor was it that of their immediate successors to the thrones of Eussia, Prussia, and Austria, who hailed, in 1850-51, the return of what they called order. They seemed quite satisfied that bayonets and repression were very suitable and efficient props to royal seats. The smaller despots of Germany and Italy coincided in that opinion ; so they imitated, as far as in their power lay, their big brethren of the " Holy Alliance." An English diplomatist is said to have once observed, to the Emperor Nicholas, that only two thrones in Europe were secure — that of England and of Eussia. " Speak of England, if you please," replied the Czar ; " but I, you know, sit on a volcano." The imperial answer bore unimpeachable testimony to the truth, that despotism and revolution are ever near neighbours. Yet the despotic rule of Nicholas was by no mBans without ex- cuse; for, although a certain number of the Eussian upper classes were as highly cultivated as any men in PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 55 Europe, that number was small, indeed, as compared with the whole nation, which was but semi-barbarous. This was proved, not only by the backward state of edu- cation, by the abasement of the majority of the priests, by the habitual use of the knout, but, above aU, by Eussia still numbering, in those days, not less than twenty- two millions of serfs in her population. Such a country was assuredly not as yet fitted to have any great control over its own affairs. That Nicholas governed his Eussian subjects despotically was, then, excusable ; that he did little or nothiag to pave the way for a better state of things was blamable ; but that he was allowed to domuieer over the Governments of highly civilised Ger- many, and trample on the ancient liberties of Hungary, was iatolerable. It was neither more nor less than per- mitting semi-barbarism to repress, by brute force, the civilisation and progress of Europe. Frederick William IV of Prussia, half a savant and half a mystic pietist, had no love for really represent- ative institutions. He told the Assembly, which he reluctantly called together by the patent of the 3rd February, 1847, that the last thing in the world which he wished its members to do, was to represent the feel- ings of the people. Such proceedings were agreeable enough to the Eussian Czar, whose influence was weU nigh all-powerful with his brother of Prussia, but they were not of a kind to stand the test of the revolutionary 56 PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. storm which burst over Europe in the following year, 1848. As to Austria, she was under the direction of a states- man whose very name was the antithesis of constitu- tional liberty ; whose mode of government consisted of diplomatic intrigue, united to forcible repression of liberty everywhere, and at all times. Bayonets, duly directed by bureaucracy and diplomacy, were Prince Mettemieh's panacea for aU the ills of his own country in particular, and of the world in general. It was on the 1st January, 1848, that this veteran counsellor of the House of Hapsburg assured the foreign diplomatists then in mission at Vienna, that never was Austria so tranquil, nor the peace of Europe more assured. His long expe- rience, and his thorough knowledge of public affairs, had, it seems then, quite conviuced the Prince that he, at any rate, did not sit upon a volcano. Before the summer arrived, Milan, Venice, Vienna, and Berlin, were all in insurrection, and Prince Metter- nich was a fugitive. His place of refuge was Brussels, where he had a good opportunity of leamiog that con- stitutional freedom was a better support to a throne than any niunber of bayonets. But, to do him justice, it must be stated that he admitted it was ignorance which had led him to deal hardly with the Belgian Kingdom at the commencement of its career. " If we had known you better," said the Austrian statesman. PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IX EUROPE. 57 " we should have treated you better ; but we thought you an ungovernable people." A thought which seems always to occur to the despotic rulers of Europe when- ever their subjects ask, however quietly, for constitu- tional liberties. Happily, however, it does seem as if even such rulers were at last beginning to see the dense stupidity of such notions. From Frederick William of Prussia and his Govern- ment came a deluge of compliments to King Leopold and the Belgians, touching the wisdom of the King, the fidelity of the people, the noble, firm, and truly national attitude of Belgium. Haughty Czar Mcholas liimself was positively moved to admiration at the spectacle offered by the Belgians in 1848. He was, indeed, so impressed by the sight, that he actually consented, at length, "to establish regular diplomatic relations between the two countries.'' It is quite amusing to read the kind of patronising condescension with which this semi-bar- baric Majesty thus officially acknowledges one of the ablest and most far-sighted rulers of modem times. Nicholas, like Mettemich, found out at last that, as re- garded the formation of the Belgian monarchy, he had only been displaying his ignorance ! Their Majesties of the Holy Alliance school had now good proof that their once despised brother of Belgium, whose Government they had so reluctantly acknowledged, sat upon some- thing pleasanter than bayonets ; and, what was more, sat not only more comfortably, but more securely. 58 PEOGKESS 01' LIBERTY IN EUROPE. But witli returning power, the rulers of Eussia, Prussia, and Austria, forgot tlie salutary lesson. Once again the bayonet policy prevailed. The return, how- ever, to that policy served, at least, one good purpose ; for it proved that the constitutional monarchy of Belgium could not only preserve order in the midst of the revo- lutions of 1848, but could also, in the years which im- mediately followed, preserve liberty in the midst of European despotism. It thus proved itself to be at once the best friend of order, and the best friend of freedom. The prime mover of the reaction was Nicholas of Eussia. While the conflict between Austria and Hun- gary was still raging, and the balance inclined visibly in favour of the latter, the Czar marched one hundred thousand troops to the aid of the Austrian Emperor against his Hungarian subjects. After a gallant struggle, Hungary succumbed. By the autumn of 1848 all was over. The Western Powers looked on at this unjust interference, on the part of the Eussian Czar, in the affairs of another country, without any attempt to oppose such high-handed wrong. Meanwhile, poor Frederick WOliam of Prussia had been tossed about in the revolutionary storm, like a ship without sails or rudder. He did not Hke really repre- sentative institutions, yet he was in favour of an As- sembly of some kind. He gave in to the revolution for PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 69 a time, and then went against it. He desired to cut a great figure in Germany, but he would not accept the Imperial Crown which the Frankfort Parliament offered to him. He did not like the impracticable old German Bund, but he could contrive nothing new to put in its place. He did not wish to quarrel with Austria, but he coidd not manage to agree with her. He desired to satisfy the German people, and strove to please, at the same time, Nicholas of Eussia. One day he was preaching popular views, wrapt up in an incomprehensible mysticism, and another he was full of the divine right and sacredness of kingship. Of all the pitiable sights presented to Europe in the stormy days of 1848 and 1849, none was more pitiable than that offered by his Prussian Majesty. The finale was the worst of all. Frederick William and his Government declared in September 1850, their resolve to uphold the Constitution of Hesse-Cassel against its petty tyrant. Austria supported that diminutive despot vigorously. So hot grew the dispute, that the armies of both the great German Powers were called out. Shots even were said to have been exchanged between the out- posts. But the Czar threw his whole influence into the Austrian scale, and his influence meant, in the last resort, bayonets ; for, to do Nicholas justice, he was always ready to give his friends something stronger than the cheap sup- port of moral sympathy. Poor Frederick William at once succumbed. He dismissed his Minister, Eadowitz — a man 60 PEOGEESS OF LIBEETY IN EUEOPE. of ability and determination. M. Manteuifel succeeded to office, and at once hastened to the Conference held at Olmiitz, where he gave up everything. The degradation of Ohnutz, for such it was truly felt to be by every Prussian, rankled ever after in the breast of the whole nation. That degradation was destined to be avenged with a completeness that Europe, and Prussia herself, little dreamed of at the time. The feeling of humilia- tion, consequent upon this affair, was assuredly not lessened by the Emperor Nicholas one day telling the officers of the Eoyal Guard at Berlin, that " they were his advanced posts." Happily, all that is to-day (1870) entirely changed, and German progress and civilisation are no longer at the mercy of a Muscovite Czar. With Olmiitz disappeared all idea of a new and regene- rated German Confederation of any kind whatever. The old Frankfort diet was restored, which an able German Statesman has called "the contradiction of thirty-five wills." It may truly be said that this cumbrous piece of machinery was the best ever contrived by the ingenuity of man for carrying out a policy of " how not to do it." If that were the object of its framers it must be allowed that they attained a success unsurpassed in the world's his- tory. Whether or not such machiaery was fitted to aid the liberties and progress, of so great, so cultivated, and so civilised a people as the Germans, the reader may decide for himself. PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 61 Austria had once again riveted chains upon Italy, but she had to share with her victim the loss of all civil and religious Kberty. In no country was the reaction of 1860 to 1851 more omnipotent. The repres- sive policy of Metternich was finally replaced by the leaden despotism of a Schwartzenberg and a Bach, duly crowned in 1855 by the famous Concordat with Eome, the special work of despotic statesmen and bigoted priests. The ancient liberties of Hungary were utterly and, as tyranny hoped, for ever suppressed. This un- mitigated and centralised absolutism foimd favour with the young and inexperienced Francis Joseph, who had, unhappily for himself and his country, been carefully nurtured in its principles. They were upheld by the military faction, and were, of course, joyfully supported by the priests and by Eome, who poured their choicest benedictions upon Austria, now more retrograde than ever. Thus she became at once the favourite and the knight errant of military and priestly tyranny. But despite the blessings of Pope and Jesuits, the fruit such a system has borne to Austria has been bitter indeed ; bringing upon her woes and perils without end. While obeying the behests of these retrograde counsellors, her treasury has been exhausted, her armies defeated, her pride and power humbled in the dust, her people's affections alienated, and the wiU of the conqueror im- posed upon her at the sword's point. VerUy she has 62 PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. reaped a rich harvest from the policy dictated by des- potism and priestcraft. At length this degraded and degrading system, utterly broken down and discredited, has been discarded, it may be hoped, for ever, not only in the interests of Europe but of Austria, upon whose rulers and people it has inflicted every species of ill. Meanwhile, the reaction had from 1849 to 1852, gained notable success in France. It had led this latter power to crush the sister Eepublic of Eome, and then pro- ceeded in conjunction with retrograde Austria, to stifle all liberty in Italy. But the French learned to their cost, that those who trample down the freedom of their neigh^ hours, are but preparing the way for the destruction of their own liberties. They had helped to refasten the chains of Italy, they were now to have similar chains fastened on themselves. By the coup d'etat of 2nd December, 1851, the liberties of France were destroyed, and before many months were passed an absolutist military Empire was restored in name as well as in spirit. The priest party hailed with delight this new victory of despotism. The coup d'dtat was without any sufficient justification. ISTor was it the less unprincipled, because he who carried it out has used the power so gained some- times to good purpose, and in one instance — that of the Italian war of 1859^to the great benefit alike of Italy, and of Europe. But we must not anticipate. The close of the year 1851 beheld the complete triumph PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 63 of despotic reaction. It was master from the Bay of Biscay to the confines of Asia. Nicholas of Eussia might well have said, "order is re-established not merely in Warsaw but in Europe." It was however only the order of sheer brute force. It was strong, not in the contentment and good of the governed, but in the million or more bayonets of the rulers. It was 'the victory of might, not of right. It was called peace, but it was only servitude. Through- out the continent all was still and quiet, biit it was in every great country of Europe and in most of the smaller ones, nothing save the quiet of the jail and the stiUiiess of the tomb. A high-minded and gifted Prince did, iadeed, convene in 1851 the world to the ennobling strifes of peace, and called into existence a universal exhi- bition from which all warlike instruments were excluded. It was a great and worthy conception admirably carried out. Biit the rulers of the old world had yet to learn by bitter experience, just as the rulers of the United States in the new world have had to learn by experience not less bitter, that no rulers and no nation, how- ever rich and powerful, however vast their dominion or resources, can ever hope to build enduring peace and prosperity upon oppression and injustice. The fall of such oppression and injustice may be delayed for a time, but in the end it is inevitable ; their de- struction may be brought about indirectly, or even in part 64 PROGKESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. directly, by tlie very men who most, desire to uphold them, hut by one means or another their overthrow will surely come and will not tarry. Ever is the downfall accom- panied with sore chastisements, punishing the aggressors and making men's hearts to fail ; for it is nothing new in the world's history that the oppressed should be deli- vered out of the house of bondage, by signs and by wonders, with a mighty hand and a stretched out arm. The first shock given to that system of so-called order which reactionary despotism had established in 1851 throughout Europe, came from the policy of the very Autocrat who specially delighted in that system, and who had had the greatest share in its general re-esta- blishment. The Emperor Nicholas, elated with his triumph in Hungary and at Olmiitz, thought the time was come for carrying out, in some degree at least, those designs against Turkey which he had long cherished, and of which he had spoken several years before to English statesmen. The Eussian and French Governments had sided respectively with the Greek and Latin Churches in one of the wearisome and endless disputes about the holy places. In March, 1853, a firman of the Porte de- cided in favour of the Greek church. The French Government reluctantly acceded to the decision. But the Emperor Nicholas thought the opportunity a good one for making further claims. He accordingly pro- PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 65 ceeded to do so through his accredited miaister Prince Menschikoff, whose whole conduct towards Turkey was imperious and overbearing to the last degree. The Porte refused to do more, upon which Eussia invaded the Principalities in July 1853. Whatever may be said of the management of the negotiations between Russia and the Western Powers, and what- ever may be urged in favour of the former or the latter by their respective partisans, there can be but one opiaion among impartial men as to the conduct of Eussia, or rather of the Emperor Nicholas, towards Turkey. It was nothing more nor less than a determination on the part of the former to fasten a mere wolf and lamb quarrel upon the latter. Nor was the fact of Mahometanism being a waniag system, and Turkey a weak Mahometan power, any justification whatever for a professedly Chris- tian Government picking such a quarrel in order to ad- vance its own interests at the expense of a feeble neigh- bour. Such a mode of extending Christianity is not only disgraceful, but is also a complete violation of all Christian principles and teaching. But only too often have those priaciples been cast to the winds by rulers in church and state throughout Christendom, whenever they wanted to gratify their lawless ambi- tion, or desired to enact intolerant laws against those of their brother Christians whose views of religion differed from that taken by kings and priests. F 66 PROGEESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. In October 1853, Turkey, whose Danubian Provinces had been invaded by the armies of the Czar tinder the command of Prince Gortschakoff, at length declared war against Eussia. Prom that date untH March 1854, when the Western Powers allied themselves to the Porte, the Turks maintained a single-handed and suc- cessful contest against Eussia all along the line of the Danube. Under the able generalship of Omar Pacha, the troops of the Sultan repulsed with success the at- tacks of their old enemies. The Turks thus made as creditable and gallant a defence of their country, as did the Eussians against France and England in that prolonged siege of Sebastopol which redounded so justly to the honour of Eussia's brave soldiers. Both of the Western Powers were right in coming to the rescue of Turkey in 1854. But, it may well be asked, were they not wrong, in not coming to the defence of Hungary in 1849, when Eussia interfered in the purely internal confhct then going on between Austria and the Hungarian people ? If the despot may help his brother despot, may the free people never help, even in that case, their brother free- men ? Had France and England stopped the Czar when he determined to cross the Carpathian mountains, they would, in all probabiLLty, never have had occasion to stop him from crossing the Pruth or the Danube. England ■was supported in the Eussian war by a majority of her statesmen, who thought about the balance of power ; by PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 67 a majority of her conunercial classes, who thought about the road to India ; by a majority of her people, who were determined that Czar Nicholas should no more be allowed to invade his weaker neighboiirs just as he thought fit, for the benefit of despotism, and to the great damage of liberty. In that determination the English people were much to be applauded. The results of the war were the destruction of the fortress of Sebas- topol, of the Eussian Black Sea Fleet, and the loss of a small strip of territory close to the mouths of the Danube, from which Eussia was thus cut off. The allies lost heavily both in men and money, but the conflict crippled Eussian resources far more, cost the Emperor Mcholas his life, and his country half a mLllion of good soldiers. The Czar's whole policy was thus checked and brought into bad odour ; for assuredly not such results as these were expected from the mission of Prince Menschikoff to Constantinople in 1853. The cause of European liberty was aided not a little by the reverses and humiliation thus inflicted upon its proudest and most determined enemy. Yet greater still was the gain it received from the bitter feeling engen- dered in Eussia against Austria, on account of the latter's neutrality throughout the war, despite the immense ser- vices rendered to her despotic government by Nicholas in Hungary and at Olmiitz. So intensely bitter was this feeliQgj that it swept away every vestige of the so- 68 PROGEESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. called " Holy Alliance/' as between St. Petersburgh and Vienna; thus was irreparably broken the strength of despotism in Europe. But happily Eussia herself has, in the end, had great benefits conferred upon her by the check her military despotism received from the war which was terminated by the Treaty of Paris in 1856 ; for the whole policy of Nicholas being brought into discredit, the way became opened for those beneficent reforms which have been inaugurated by his son and successor, Alex- ander II. The army has now no longer the precedence of all other services. The party which seeks to improve Eussia by means of local self-government has gained much strength, and has effectually aided the formation of provincial assemblies, possessing great freedom of action. This work is advancing, and cannot fail to in- crease the interest felt in internal reforms. Important and beneficial alterations have been made in the judicial system. Commercial enterprise, and the development of the country's resources have been stimulated. Above all, there has been effected that mighty change, which every friend of liberty and justice hails with joy — the emanci- pation of the Eussian serfs, numbering twenty-two mil- lions. This immense gain to the cause of freedom renders educational improvement both necessary and inevitable. Such has been the progress of liberty in Eussia since the close of the Crimean war, and the death of the Em- peror Mcholas. There remains but one obstacle to the PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 69 further development of Eussian freedom. That obstacle is Poland. A satisfactory solution of the Polish question is not only desirable for Poland, but for Eussia herself Difficult as it is, Eussia must find some way of solving it, if she would herself become a really free and pros- perous nation. Por she, no more than others, can make her peace, her freedom, and her prosperity harmonise with injustice and oppression. Austria failed to do so ; nor did she become, as she now is, really free, untU she had given up her tyrant sway in Italy. So, too, the great republic of the United States has learned, by ter- rible experience, the cost of endeavouring to keep within her body politic the ever hostile principles of freedom and slavery. ISTor will Eussia be able to develope her own liberties, and yet continue to oppress Poland. May the statesmen and people of Eussia have the wisdom and the courage to remove out of their own path this fright- ful obstacle to their future progress. In the meanwhile, there is no enlightened man who wUl not rejoice at the onward march of Eussia duxiag the last fourteen or fifteen years. While the aggressive policy of the Emperor Nicholas resulted in dividing and weakening the power of des- potism in Europe, that power was being, at the very same time, undermined by a small but thoroughly constitutional monarchy, whose freedom was born of the revolutions of 1848. So limited in extent was 70 PKOGRESS OF LIBEETY IN EUROPE. that kingdom, as scarcely to have attracted any notice amidst the triumph of reaction which swept over Europe from 1849 to 1852. Yet was this little country- destined to communicate liberty from itself to the whole of Italy of which it was a part, while it was indirectly instrumental to the spread of constitu- tional freedom in Austria herself, who once again, from 1849 to 1859, deprived Italy of all freedom, at the price, however, of possessing no freedom herself. Such has been the work accomplished by the constitu- tional Kingdom of Piedmont, which, like the leaven hidden in the meal, has leavened the whole lump. This small but free state was, at its cammencement, but as a grain of mustard-seed, which is " the least of all seeds," but which grew and extended until it gave large and effectual shelter to the cause of Italian union and free- dom. The liberties of Piedmont date only from March 1848. They were granted at that time by Charles Albert. Brought to the verge of destruction by the unsuccessful war against Austria in 1849, the liberties so given only survived the fatal defeat of Novara through the courage and honesty of King Victor Emmanuel. He succeeded his father Charles Albert on the very battle-field which had witnessed the defeat and abdication of that unfortu- nate monarch. The new sovereign's fidelity to his people's liberties was admirably seconded by the in- tegrity and talents of his minister, the late Marquis PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 71 Massimo d'Azeglio. They were, within a year or two, supplemented by the masterly statesmanship of Cavoui". ISTo difficulties, and they were many, no en- treaties of Austria, and they were reiterated, no offers to mitigate the terms of peace, no foolish, but not unnatural, irritation on the part of the people ever shook, even for a moment, the resolute and honest de- termination of King Victor Emmanuel to confirm fully and absolutely to his country both the letter and the spirit of that large constitutional freedom granted by his father. This truly upright and patriotic sovereign de- termined to obey the dictates of honour and rectitude, rather than foUow the examples of perjury and violence then so frequent among European rulers. He, at least, would prove that a Continental prince could be true to his word, and faithful to his people's liberties. He be- lieved that what had been done ia Belgium could be done in Piedmont. Then it was that Victor Emmanuel, by faithfully maiataining the cause of constitutional freedom, in the midst of surrounding and triumphant despotism, won from his people the title of " 11 re ga- lantuomo," "the honest king." Alone among Italian princes he kept his word, and preserved the constitution to which he had sworn. Alone he offered to the oppressed of Italy a refuge, gave them shelter in the hour of despotic triumph, and kept hope alive within their hearts. There- fore was it that, when the day of redemption came, Italians 72 PROGRESS OF LIBEETT IN EUROPE. would have none other for their king. For Italy he had risked life and crown ; she did well, then, to seat him on her throne. Had the private life of Victor Emmanuel been as worthy as his public conduct, he would have held a singularly pre-eminent position among royal persons, and conferred great additional blessings upon Piedmont and upon Italy. For the pure life of a sovereign goes far to keep a court pure, sets a good example to the nation, and does honour to that simple and admirable morality which Christianity teaches to all men, without respect of persons. But crowned heads, cathoUc ma- jesties, eldest sons of the Church, and most Christian kings, seem to fancy that they may hide the im- moralities of private life, by much public profession of religion, quite forgetting that in thus acting they simply add hypocrisy to licentiousness. From 1849 to 1859 the Sovereign, statesmen, parlia- ment, and people of Piedmont, carried out a policy of liberty and progress in all the affairs of state. They made civil and religious freedom the basis of their country's institutions. JSTot only was the contrast great between the contentment, the progress, and the good government of Piedmont, as compared with all the rest of Italy, but also as compared with the majority of Con- tinental states. Piedmont, like Belgium, proved that con- stitutional liberty is better both for order and freedom, than bayonets and repression can ever be. But the con- PEOGEESS OF LIBEETY IN EUEOPE. 73 trast offered by Piedmont to the despotic and personal rule of neighbouring countries was especially displeasing to Austria. It was a standing menace and perpetual danger to her sway in Italy, where she upheld, generally by bayonets, and always by her diplomatic influence, both her own despotism and that of the petty Italian princes, who ever turned for support and counsel to Vienna. This happy condition of Piedmont won for her, not only the esteem of all enlightened men, but also the love of the whole Italian people, who looked to her as their hope for the future. Thus a deadly feud sprang up between the old despotic Austria of the past, and free Piedmont. The prize to be struggled for was Italy. Was she to remain enslaved by the former, or to be set free by the instrumentality of the latter ? In the solution of that question, the great statesman who ruled the destinies of Piedmont dis- played an ability in home affairs which was only equalled by his foreign policy. Did Austria seek to overstep her treaty rights in Italy so as to strengthen her hold there. Count Cavour at once began a diplomatic war, in which it was not he, assuredly, who was worsted. Did an opportunity occur of forming an alliance with England and France, he seized upon it with all the promptitude and foresight of real statesmanship, leav- ing Austria to reap, by her vacillating policy, the contempt of the Western Powers and the hatred of 74 PEOGEESS OF LIBEETT IN EUEOPE. Eussia. Thus, Cavour won for his country a' Euro- pean position, and obtained at the Congress of Paris, in 1856, an avowal from England, France, and Eussia, that the condition of Italy was so intolerable, that it must, in one way or another, be amended. The story runs that old Prince Metternich, watching, from tlie quiet retreat in which he now lived, the course of European politics, said one day : " There is but one diplomatist in Europe, and, unfortunately, that one is M. de Cavour.'' If not true, the story might well have been so, for such a saying was, in its spirit at least, not too great a com- pliment to the admirable skiU of this able Italian Minis- ter. After such an admission as that made by the ministers of France, Eussia and England touching the condition of Italy, it was obvious that that condition could not long endure ; it's overthrow was but a ques- tion of time. Happy would it have been for Austria if she had had the wisdom and courage to have followed even then the advice given her some eight years before by Lord Pahnerston in his admirable despatches of 1848. Had she done so, she would have given up by negotia- tion that Lombardo-Venetian kingdom which has since been wrested from her, after incalculable losses of men and money, alter sacrifices, humiliations and perils which all but anniliLlated her, and from which she is now, (1870) recovering by means of that very constitu- tional freedom of which in 1859 her absolutist and PKOGEESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 75 personal government was the deadly foe. At the Con- gress of Paris in 1856, Austria would not hear of any change whatever in Italy. In 1857, diplomatic rela- tions were broken off between Turin and Vienna. The end was visibly drawing near. Any incident might fire the train which had thus been laid and so produce a general conflagration. Early in 1858 took place Orsini's attempt on the life of the French Emperor. That it alone induced ISTapoleon III to enter on the Italian war is doubtless untrue ; but that it brought home to him personally the terrible condition of Italy, and the hatred which filled the hearts of Italians on account of that condition, cannot possibly be denied. It was now clear to the Emperor that Italy was not only en- dangering the whole peace of Europe, but endanger- ing also his own life and dynasty. After the Orsiai "attentat" and the ofBcial declaration of France Eng- land, and Eussia at the Congress of Paris, as to the state of Italy, no wonder that Napoleon determined to make, at all risks, a radical change in the condition of the Italian Peninsula. That he had long desired to effect some amelioration there was proved, not only by his joining with England in expostulating with more than one of the petty tyrants of Italy, but also by his reiterated endeavours, ever since the French occupation of Eome in 1849, to persuade the Papal Government to reform its administration and adapt itself more to 76 PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IK EUROPE. the wants of its own subjects and of the present age. I Such persuasion was utterly thrown away, for the Papacy had determined to make use of French troops without paying any attention to the advice of France ; on the contrary, it only listened to the councils of re- trograde Austria, and joined sincerely with this latter power in promoting despotism and reaction in the affairs alike of church and state, always and everywhere. 'Not has the Papal G-overnment in the least degree changed its policy at the present time (1870), it but cleaves more tenaciously than ever to absolutism both temporal and spiritual, while anathematising the wise and liberal laws which the constitutional Austro-Hun- garian State is to-day carrying out through the free institutions now in operation throughout its dominions. French bayonets alone uphold at the present time that retrograde and absolutist " temporal" power which, by their aid alone, still preserves in Eome its despotic and personal rule. For many years, then, previous to 1859 the old Aus- tria of the past had been morally wrong in the Italian question. In truth, that Austrian policy in Italy can- not be more accurately described than in the words of the upright and aUe Massimo d'Azeglio, as, " a system which reduced i^gplf to this, to kill Italy morally and politically ia order to reign in her place." In 1859 this same Austria managed matters so clumsily that she put PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 77 herself diplomatically in the wrong by declaring war against Piedmont and invading its territory. Having done so, the Austrian Government committed another blunder ; for instead of marching its troops straight upon Turin before the French could pass the Alps in real force, the Austrian army only just crossed the Ticino and there awaited the approach of the allies. France came at once to the rescue of Piedmont with no little dash and gallantry. The allied victories of Palestro, Magenta, and Solferino drove the Austrians back across the Mincio. The war ended with the peace of VOla- franca, which obliged Austria to give up the rich pro- vince of Lombardy. Napoleon had indeed promised to establish freedom " from the Alps to the Adriatic," so forming a kingdom of North Italy under the sceptre of Victor Emmanuel. This conception was in every re- spect most admirable, and would have been an immense improvement upon the state of Italy previous to 1859. But when the difficulties and dangers which menaced France in the summer of that year are taken into fair account, it is unjust to blame very severely the French Emperor for stopping short of his promise. Prussia was beginning to move in good earnest, and had mobilised her army. Eassia, although delighted at the humilia- tion of Austria, did not conceal her dislike of the cry of "nationalities" so openly raised by France. England, or rather a large section of her upper and governing classes. 78 PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. threw their influence into the scale of Aiistria and Eome, as against the French Emperor fighting for Italian freedom. Many who had supported him while he was trampling down liherty in France, cursed him now that he was aiding liherty in Italy. Not a few, and those too holding high office in England, who usually made, and stiU make, much ado ahout their specially Protest- ant principles, were all civihty to Cardinal Wiseman, and rejoiced the hearts of the Ultramontanes and the Papal Court, by their avowed sympathies for retrograde Austria. Despite the French Emperor's most friendly attitude towards England throughout the Indian mutiny, he was ere long accused of aU sorts of designs agaiast this country. How could Englishmen be favourable to the man of the December coiq} d'4tat ? was asked even by some who had been far from disapproving that evil deed. Quite as easily, one would have thought, for the sake of Italy as for that of Turkey. Had French and English fleets appeared together off the lagoons of Venice, as they did off the harbour of Sebastopol, Venetia would have been freed in 1859 instead of 1866. But if England de- cided well in not actually going to war, she decided very badly in not taking Lord Palmerston's dispatches of 1848 as laying down her true policy in the Austro-Italian question ; they were well fitted to enforce her own decla- rations at the Congress of Paris touching the intolerable condition of Italy. By thus acting, England might fairly PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 79 have flung her whole moral and diplomatic weight into the scale of France and Piedmont. Had she done so in good earnest, she would, without actually drawing the sword, have aided ia the formation of a constitutional kingdom of North Italy. Thus the joint action of France and England would have done a most beneficent work, very similar to that effected by them as regards Bel- gium. The benefit to Austria would have been no less great than to Italy, for the retention of Venetia by the former power was a cause of immense weakness to her, and helped most directly to bring about that terrible disaster which, in 1866, obliged Austria to succumb utterly to her rival in Germany. The events of 1859 and of 1866 were the almost literal fulfilment of the warnings which Lord Pahnerston had given to the statesmen of Vienna, in his far-sighted de- spatches written in 1848 and 1849, touching the conse- quences to Austria of her continued rule in Italy. Speak- ing generally, the policy of England, during the first six months of 1859, must be characterised as petty and short-sighted, with reference to the Itahan question. It was in some degree atoned for afterwards, when Lord Palmerston himself returned to power, just at the end of June ia that year ; for, on more than one important occasion did his Government give most effectual aid to Italy's just and noble cause. Napoleon III and France deserve great praise for the Italian war — it 80 PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. will ever remain a bright page in their history. Their policy in that matter was both great and generous. The people of Paris, who crowded around the Imperial carriage which conveyed the Emperor from his Palace, when leaving the capital for Italy, did well to support him with their hearty and enthusiastic approbation. They were not only right, but wise; for in striking a blow for the freedom of a kindred people, the French were taking a first step towards the restoration of their own liberties. The Italian war of 1859 gave a mortal blow to despotism in Italy, and, by breaking up the old absolu- tist system of Austria, paved the way for that free Austro- Hungarian State which to-day rejoices the hearts of all who love justice and liberty. It was not, however, possible to make France thus instrumental in giving freedom to other nations, and yet deny that boon to herself. To surround her with free peoples, and yet to keep her own people permanently bowed beneath purely despotic and personal rule is simply impossible ; no amount of bayo- nets and rifled cannon can hope to accomplish such a task. It is a most significant fact that the first liberal concessions made by the^^mperor, small though they were, date from November 1860 — that is, from the year following the Italian war. But before tracing more fully the progress of freedom in France, the final transform- ation of Austria and Germany must be briefly related. The utter collapse of the old Absolutist rule of the PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 81 House of Hapsburg rendered a complete change im- perative. Before poor Baron Bruck, the Austrian Finance Minister, committed suicide in April 1860, he declared the whole system to be rotten to the core. So indeed it was. In May a slight step was made in ad- vance by calling together an enlarged Council of the Empire, which, however, was able to effect nothing, thoiigh it was not without good intentions. In Decem- ber a Ministerial crisis followed, and M. Schmerling came into power. He had always been opposed to what was called, under the regime of Priace Metternich, " the system," which that statesman carried out to so dis- astrous an end. The Patent of February 1861, was the result of M. Schmerling's accession to office. It gave a representative Constitution creating two Chambers, of which the lower one consisted of three hundred and forty-three members, elected by provincial parliaments throughout the whole Empire, and enjoying the rights of public debate, and the initiative of public measures, which had never before been conceded. N'one can doubt that this Constitution was granted in good faith, and possessed no inconsiderable merits. But it was incon- sistent with the old historical rights of Hungary and the Pragmatic Sanction — ^that ancient compact between the House of Hapsburg and the Hungarians. It further ignored the firm resolve of Venetia to accept nothing at the hands of Austria. A system which, whatever G 82 PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. may have been its merits, ran counter to these two facts, was hopeless as a means of regenerating Austria. To struggle as M. SchmerHng did in vain for nearly four years, until he left ofSce in the autumn of 1865, to enforce that system, was not statesmanship, but folly. The first object which Austria had to effect was a tho- rough reconciliation with Hungary. Instead of that, M. Schmerling endeavoured to compel the Magyars to accept a system incompatible with their ancient rights. This mistake was the more obvious, because the Hun- garians were under the leadership of one of the ablest and most enlightened statesmen of our times — ^Francis Deak. He earnestly desired to continue the union of his country to Austria, with the chief of the House of Hapsburg as King of Hungary ; but that union was to be effected by the restoration of the territorial integrity of St. Stephen's Crown, by the recognition of the con- tinuity of Hungary's constitutional rights, and by a re- storation of the municipal and coramunal freedom of the nation, with a separate Ministry responsible to the Diet sitting at Pesth. Such was the only true basis of Hun- garian liberties, and the nation refused to exchange them for a bran new Constitution, however good, given by the Austrian Emperor. Such a gift was all very well for the provinces of Austria proper, but Hungary needed no such gift. Her ancient historic rights, and her acknow- ledgment of Francis Joseph because of those rights, were PEOGEESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. So the only terms upon which she would treat, and the only basis she would accept. Those terms and that basis once consented to at Vienna, then, but not till then, would Hungary proceed to consider matters of detail, and regulate common affairs as between herself on the one hand, and the House of Hapsburg and Austria on the other. For four years did Hungary, led by Francis Deak, -sternly resist aU the efforts of the Viennese poli- ticians, headed by M. Schmerhng. In vain was the at- tempt made to break the spirit of the Hungarian nation by something only too like a return to the evil and worthless rule of Schwartzenberg and Bach. Before the end of 1865 the attempt was given up, M. Schmer- ling retired, and an Imperial manifesto of 20th Septem- ber 1865, announced the overthrow of his policy, by suspending the Patent of February 1861. As to Venetia, she based her claims to be sole master of her o-«Ti destinies upon eight centuries of independence full of glory. Of that independence she had been shame- lessly robbed by one of Bonaparte's most culpable acts, perpetrated contrary to the orders he received from Paris, and carried out by an admixture of fraud and violence worthy of those who effected the partition of Poland. The destruction of the old and feeble Eepublic of Venice by the treaty of Campo Formio, signed in 1797 by the Eepublican General of France, was confirmed in 1815 by the diplomatists who framed the treaties of Vienna. Those 84 PROGEESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. legitimist statesmen thought it would suit their plans to do so, just as their enemy, Bonaparte, thought it suited his plans ; so they followed his example and endorsed his evil work. Such were the title deeds of Austria's " divine right" to Venetia. The Venetians demanded a restoration of their ancient independence, that they might decide their own future for themselves. They urged that demand all the more vigorously when Austria made the self-same claim on behalf of Schleswig-Hol- steia, as against Danish rule and Prussian ambition. How Austria was conducting herself at this time in Venetia, with M. Schmerling as her leading Minister, may be gathered from her conduct in the shameful " Proces Saint-Georges," which took place in Venetia in the summer of 1862. The whole affair was worthy of the worst days of Austrian misrule. The truth is, Austria had only half learned the lesson that, if she would be reaUy free, she must cease to trample on the rights of others. Another disaster, far more terrible than the one of 1859, was needed to bring that lesson home to her. In 1866 the catastrophe came with a rapidity and com- pleteness which none anticipated — not even her vic- torious assailant. The crushing defeat of Austria re- sulted in ejecting her from the German Confederation, and ia depriving her of Venetia. Both were in reality a blessing, despite of the humiliation they inflicted. It is not possible to justify the conduct of Prussia to- PEOGKESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 85 wards Austria during the two years whicL. preceded the war of 1866 ; nevertheless, this strife between these two rival powers was but a continuance of the conflict as to which of the two should be master in Ger- many. Indeed, it had for a long time previously become clear that one of them must, in the end, yield to the other. It w£is good neither for Germany nor for Europe that the struggle between the Hohenzollern and the Hapsburg should be prolonged. The gordian knot of this difficulty was finally cut at Sadowa. Then was it that Prussia avenged, with a terrible vengeance, the hu- miliation she had suffered at Olmiitz. Assuredly none can defend aU the acts of the victor which preceded that final settlement ; but it is, never- theless, true that the result has been excellent. It has benefited Germany by putting an end to the long rivalry within her borders, which marred and impeded her action at every turn. It has laid the foundation of her union, already completed north of the Mayn. It has annihilated the old domineering influence of Eussia as exercised by Nicholas. It has strengthened the Father- land against whatever may remain of an aggressive feel- ing on the part of France. Thus Germany is now free to develops her own resources and progress accord- ing to her own needs, without hindrances from, within or interference from without. As to Austria, her losses have been her gain. She is, at length, delivered from 86 PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. the burden of having to govern discontented Italian pro- vinces, and bolster up petty Italian tyrants. Instead of a perpetual strain to maintain her position in Germany, she has now become reconciled with Hungary, and ac- cepted her true mission of heading a constitutional mon- archy, of a federative character, which occupies the vast and rich vaHey of the Danube. In seeking to apply the principles of national self-government honestly and fuUy, the rulers of the Austro-Hungarian State already see their country fast recovering from the cata- strophe of 1866, and becoming daily more powerful and more free. Instead of repelling those who love liberty and progress, because of her subserviency to priestly and military despotism, Austria to-day rallies around her the warmest sympathy of every intelligent man. Instead of being a byword on account of her retrograde misgovernment, she is fast becoming an example of con- stitutional freedom, which some of her neighbours will do well to follow. " Vive la liberty comme en Autriche !" cried the Parisians, when the Emperor of Austria visited the capital of France in the autumn of 1867 ; and as- suredly that cry was, then at least, raised by them not without reason. The Hungarian statesmen, having obtained from Count Beust, the new Austrian Minister, aU their demands, the Emperor Francis Joseph was crowned King of Hun- gary at Pesth, on the 8th June, 1867. The coronation was performed with all the peculiar ceremonial which PROGEESS OF LIBERTY IN" EUROPE. 87 ancient custom prescribed as necessary to tlie august occasion. Then was it that the newly-crowned King of Hungary took, in the presence of the assembled nation, the oath to maintain faithfully Hungary's constitu- tional liberties. Thus solemnly were restored her tune- honoured rights; and thus was re-established, in the face of the world, her true relation to Austria and the House of Hapsburg. This ceremony celebrated, in fact, one of the most imposing victories ever gained by a free people, after a long and patriotic struggle. That victorj- was won, not by an appeal to arms, but by moral force and right of law. This remarkable triumph redounded above all to the honour of the great Hungarian statesman, Francis Deak, and his noble compeers; it bore, also, good testimony to the skill and ability of M. de Beust. It, moreover, gave emphatic confirmation to the belief that Prancis Joseph had for ever abandoned that per- sonal and despotic system of government which had brought his Empire and his dynasty to the very verge of destruction. None could have witnessed that gorgeous coronation scene without contrasting it with those events of which Hungary had been the theatre eighteen years before (1849). Then, indeed, had she drunk the cup of woe, and drained it to the dregs. Her gallant armies had been defeated, but not dishonoured. Her territory and people were in the power of the Eussian Czar 00 PEOGEESS OF LIBEETY IN EUEOPE. and his Cossack hordes, and by them were handed over to the tender mercies of men like Haynau, the woman- flogger. Her noblest sons were driven into exile, cast into prison, and done to death. Her ancient rights and modem reforms were alike trampled upon with contumely and violence. As tyrants pressed upon her neck their iron heels, they doubtless thought, in the pride of their hearts, that they had for ever made away with Hun- garian freedom. Had some believer in the might of liberty and justice bid the haughty conquerors, in that dark hour of their triumph, beware how they allowed the perpetration of such cruelties and wrong, with what scorn would they not have pointed to their myriad bayonets. Fools ! they had yet to learn that " force," without " right," is but as " the staff of a broken reed, upon which, if a man lean, it will go into his hand and pierce it." Let those whom the dangers and difficulties of out own day cause to despair of the triumph of "right," compare the Hungary of 1850 with the Hungary of 1870. That contrast will not, indeed, make a wise and good man believe that nothing more remains to be done in Magyar, or in other lands ; neither will it lead him to forget that, only by many a costly effort can the final victory be won ; but it will assuredly bid him "never despair," and make him " thank God and take courage", as he lends a hand, more resolutely than ever, to the cause of jiistice,Kberty, and right. PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 89 But if Hungary has gained much, so too has Austria. Before the close of 1867 her free Parliament, the Eeichsrath, was in fuU operation. In accordance with its desire the Emperor ordered that the laws concern- ing the union with Hungary, and all others which were, so to speak, the title deeds of the constitutional priviLeges of the Austrian people and their representatives, should be promulgated. Large rights of public meeting, equality of all subjects before the law, personal liberty, liberty of the press, and the equal admission of all citizens to public of&ces, were accorded. The independence of judges, the real responsibility of every of&cial for his acts, perfect freedom of conscience and the abolition of civil disabilities on account of religious opinions, were established throughout the land. The national repre- sentatives now control taxation and expenditure ; they too regulate the military conscription. Delegations appointed respectively by the Austrian Eeichsrath, and the Hun- garian Diet, arrange those public concerns which are common to the two countries. In May 1869, an edu- cational system for common or people's schools was by law established iu Austria, by which instruction is given in religion, language and arithmetic, and in that which is most worthy of being known in geography and history, especially with regard to the fatherland and its constitution, in writing, singing, and gymnas- tics. All that relates to instruction in the schools 90 PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. and to tlieir organisation is determined by tlie Minister of Education in concert with, or on the basis of the pro- posals of, the provincial educational councils. Liberty of conscience is carefully provided for, so that children may have such religious teaching as their parents desire. " The teachers of religion, church boards, and religious societies, must submit to the school laws, and to the orders and regulations of the school boards issued under their authority." Any dispositions respecting religious teaching and exercises not in harmony with the general school regulations, are forbidden. In case a church or religious community neglect their religious teaching, the school board has, after communicating with the inter- ested parties, to make the necessary arrangements. " Parents and their representatives are not permitted to allow their children or wards to be without the in- struction which is prescribed for the people's public schools." "Compulsory attendance commences on the completion of the sixth year and continues tOl the com- pletion of the fourteenth year ;" except always in cases of illness and where private instruction is given at home. Owners of factories, etc., are responsible for the regular attendance of the children in their employ at school, either that of the commune or of one in connexion with the factories. Schools must be found edwhere, within a circle of about four miles, there are more than forty children who have to attend a school more than two and a half miles distant. PEOGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 91 Equality before the law paralysed the bishops' op- position to the new and equal legislation concerning mar- riage. Eeligious equality has secured to every non- Eoman Catholic subject the full exercise of all civil and religious rights. The concordat of 1855, if not legally abolished, has been practically set aside. Eome and the Jesuits frown and anathematise. ISTo longer do they bless Austria and sing her praises, as in days now happily past. But those wlio wish her well, who be- lieve that freedom, justice, and "national self-govern- ment," are better supports to a throne and greater blessings to a people, than bayonets and priestcraft, rejoice unspeakably at the transformation tlius effected in Austria. In May 1869, when the Emperor closed the session of the Austrian Eeichsrath, he declared that the constitution was the true ground on which the popu- lations of Austria might and ought to come to a mutual understanding. Questions indeed remain which have not as yet had a full solution, such as those connected with the claims urged by the Czechs of Bohemia and the Poles of Galicia. Upon such claims a foreigner will do well not to dogmatise, for their settlement reqiiires a far more intimate knowledge of the present condition of these countries and of their past history, than almost any foreigner can possibly possess. Moderation, and wisdom, with perhaps a fuller application of the federal principle, as opposed to a too centralised constitutionalism. 92 PEOGEESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. at Vienna, will, it may be hoped, bring about a final and satisfactory settlement of these difficulties. The finances of Austria, and of Italy demand the care and attention of their respective governments and legislatures, if indeed they desire to establish their monetary affairs upon a sound basis, and thereby secure to themselves the benefits of that general public con- fidence so necessary to the sound financial condition of all countries. But if, in both of these kingdoms, much remains to be done, in both much has been already accomplished. To their former relationship of oppressor and oppressed, has succeeded a common friendship, an interchange of goodwill, an increase of commercial, of public, and of private intercourse. But yesterday they were the victims of a common oppression, for Austria was herself weighed down by that self-same personal and despotic rule which she imposed upon Italy. To-day they are the possessors of a common freedom, and vie with one another in liberty and pro- gress, in commercial enterprise and the arts of peace. A few years ago military and priestly despotism made them alike, " hateful and hating one another ;" now are they reconciled by means of freedom and justice, which have given to each one of them his due. Most striking indeed is the contrast of the Austria and the Italy of, 1850, as compared with the Austria and the Italy of 1870. PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IX EUROPE. 93 In rearranging their financial concerns, and establish- ing them on a sound footing, these two countries are now, as it were, pitted against each other. "Which of the two will succeed best and quickest ? Both have difficulties peculiar to themselves, and the friends of both wiL. assuredly wish them equal and speedy success. As regards Italy, it is curious to remark, that while her parliament and statesmen find it so hard to arrange her financial affairs satisfactorily, the country itself is making great material progress. Several independent witnesses testify to this fact. The Revue des Deux Mondes in its political chronicle of the 15th November 1869, says: "Italy is one of those countries in which there is disorder on the surface and progress at the bottom. Parliament, administration, government get on as well as they can ; but the country progresses. What has been done in eight years is immense. Six thousand kilometres of railway have been made. The commerce of Genoa increases daily. N"aples carries out considerable public works. In Lombardy the savings' banks, whose deposits were sixty-eight million francs in 1858, were one hundred and sixty-five million in 1868. Education, public works, production, every- thing has developed itself in the enlarged frame of a strong nationality. On this foundation is it that re- poses the unity represented by the house of Savoy, sheltered both from revolutionary attacks and from a 94 PEOGEESS OF LIBERTY IN EUEOPE. return of the old order of things. Without doubt, events might burst forth in France which would have an effect beyond the Alps ; they would not however seriously menace the constitutional monarchy to which Italy owes its existence, which is the condition of its inde- pendence and its liberty, which will in the end permit the realisation of interior reforms, the last remaining difficulty of the new rigime.'' The Spectator of the 16th October 1869 contains a long and interesting article headed, " Italian Industry," the whole of which is worth reading. The following extract only can be given herb : " Milan, Plorence, Ancona, leghorn, Genoa -are as busy as northern capitals ; and Naples the ci ^'-i of the Lazzaroni is a hive of workmen, who, though tlie;Jy sleep in the heat, work on tirelessly from five until n qqu, and from two until five at their occupations, and ™ey again at home far into the night, work with a wil'; ai4^n energy equal to that of any ordinary artizans, though inferior, no doubt, to English navvies In the cities a passion for in- struction has broken out, and in northern and central Italy the communes are meeting the demand most nobly, the single want being an adequate supply of teachers. In some towns the adults are thronging to night schools ; as in Venice, where the gondoliers are learning to read ; and in Florence, where unskilled la- bourers, cabmen, masons' assistants, and the like, gu«i PROGEESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. -Q^ I two hours of their rest to leain to read and write!^ and record the calciilations which even ia the unlettered days they could always make. It needs but time and quiet to make ediication as universal in Italian cities as in Prussia." The London Times of 19th November 1869, says : " We have before us letters from Naples telling of a well-being and a progress apparently quite out of pro- portion with the brief nine years pfiriod of emancipation. The province of Terra di Lavoro, rid of its brigands as much by the exertions of General Pallavicini as by the assistance of the industrious population, has put forth all the wonted fertility of its fields and gardens, and by the exuberance of its harvest is re-asserting its claims to its old nickname of Campania Felix. Along the shore long tracks of marshes are reclaimed by drain- age, and the health and wealth of the country proceed hand in hand. At San Leucio, Piedimonte, Arpino, Teano, Sant'Elia, Sora, Isola, cotton, silk, wool, paper and iron factories have at least doubled their trade, owing to the markets opened to them by the removal of the old boundaries in central and northern Italy. At Acerra the mere cultivation of the madder has enabled the town to rebuild from its foundation every edifice from the lofty cathedral to the poorest labourer's cabin. -The activity of the Port of Naples and of those along the- so-called "coast" of Sorrento is prodigious. The 96^^ PEOGEESS OF LIBEETY IN EUEOPE. num'&er and tonnage of the vessels in the docks is twice what it^ was under Bourbon rule ; and by the side of material prosperity education is everywhere advancing. Boys and girls, rescued from priests and nuns, are in- trusted to better paid and more respected teachers. Yet this is N"aples, for centuries the dark spot of the Peninsula." Such are the facts vouched for by the three inde- pendent authorities given above. Their accuracy is further attested, by two or three gentlemen, personal friends of the writer, who have recently visited Italy, and have, while there, made a point of looking care- fully into the material and educational condition of the country. This progTess does great credit to the Italians, and cannot but rejoice the hearts of those who have ever advocated their complete national freedom ; but it at the same time reflects discredit upon the parliament and leading public men of Italy. For the fact of there being this real and rapid advance in the general wealth and resources of the country, ob- viously proves that there ought to have been a propor- tionate advance in the financial condition of the public exchequer, if Italian administrators had done their part properly and efficiently. The Parliament and legislators of Italy have doubtless performed much good work, but their policy has hitherto been ineffi- cient as regards the public finances. Nor can ~"^ch PROGRESS OF LIBERTY I^f EUROPE. 97 failure arise from anything, save want of good man- agement and administrative power, for the material wealth of Italy is shown to have increased very largely during the last ten years. Italian politicians of all parties are more or less to blame for this state of things, which injures Italy's credit and therefore impedes that general and material progress which the country is making. Her parliamentary representatives must cease from those petty personalities, plottings, and cabals, which prolonged foreign domination and misrule have so largely developed in the national character during the last century or more. It is indeed true, as old Massimo d'Azeglio says in one of his writings, that " if Europe knew all that has been done in Italy to beat down the strongest minds, to sear the conscience, to darken the intellect, great would be her surprise at seeing that virtue, sound judgment, and magnanimity, stOl live amongst us." But that mournful truth, while it leads every candid mind to make great allowances, will assuredly not prevent the true friends of Italy from pointing out the vices engendered by that accursed past, in order that they may be wholly up-rooted and so no longer hinder the real progress and bright pro- spects of the present and the future. That this will be done, and Italy's public iinances be so organised as to bear their true relation to the great increase of her general wealth, wiU no doubt be the case; but the H 98 PEOGEESS OF LIBEETY IN EUEOPB. sooner this is done the better, not only for the general good of the country but also for the credit of the Italian Parliament. It has full and ample power in these matters, and it must bear the whole blame if that power is not used to good purpose. Will Austria or Italy be the first to put the national finances on a sound footing ? Happy will it be if a generous rivalry spur on each of these now free countries to outdo the other in performing this necessary work. Yet Englishmen will do well not to censure over harshly their defects and shortcomings. For if they do so, Italians, for instance, might be tempted to say: It is true that for now nine years we have had in our own hands (always excepting the Eoman question) the management of our country, and many faults have been committed and much remains to be done ; but have not you had the management of Ireland for a somewhat longer period, and have you committed no faults in governing that portion of the United Kingdom ; is no- thing left for you to put to rights tliere after, not years, but centuries of possession ? The question is not a pleasant one, particularly to any Englishman versed in the eighteenth chapter of Mr. HaUam's Constitutional History, touching Ireland. But Germany too has had her share in this progTess of freedom. The old dead-lock confederation, with its " contradiction of thirty-five wills," has happily been PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 99 improved off the face of the earth. It has given place in the north to a powerful federated State mimbering thirty millions of people, commanding the respect of foreign powers, giving security to the fatherland and deve- lopiag both its liberties and its resources. This Northern Confederation is headed by Prussia, whose territory and people form quite two-thirds of the whole federated body. The King of Prussia is the chief of the military forces of the confederation. Its Parliament consists of a federal council and a lower house. The former represents the various governments, having in aU forty- three votes, of which seventeen belong to Prussia and the rest to the smaller States. The latter, that is the lower house, is elected by universal male suffrage. This Parliament possesses large powers and a real control over the policy of the country. Upon the important question of the Military Estimates both of men and money, a compromise was made as between the draft of the Constitution presented by Prussia, and the proposals of the constituent assembly to whom the draft was sub- mitted for approval. This assembly was a national Parliament in the fullest sense of the word, to which almost every man of mark in the country, of whatever party, was elected. The compromise effected was that the quota of money and men named in the draft of the constitution, instead of being fixed once for all, was only so fixed until 1871, when the Parliament was to vote 100 PEOGEESS OF LIBEETY IN EUEOPE. afresh the military estimates both of men and money. j By treaties between Prussia and the Southern German ' States, Bavaria, Wurtemberg and Baden, the contract- ' ing parties have guaranteed to each other their respec- / tive territories, and in case of war place their entire military forces at each other's disposal. The Southern States have bound themselves to entrust the supreme military command, on the breaking out of hostilities, to the King of Prussia. Thus the whole of Germany is very strongly protected against foreign aggression, while as regards liome affairs her national liberties have been not a little enlarged and strengthened. The great principle of constitutional freedom which thus mightily prevailed from the Baltic to the shores of Sicily, and from the Ehine to the confines of Turkey, has not left France untouched. Her policy and war of 1859 had directly aided the advance of liberty in Italy, and indirectly prepared its introduction into Aus- tria. It was impossible that France should give so great an impulse to freedom and yet not be influenced by it herself. It was impossible that the people, who still speak with pride of 1789, should remain under personal and irresponsible government, when their neighbours were being set free from its yoke — and set free in no small degree by French agency. Therefore is it that the reactionary policy, which finally reestablished mere per- sonal and despotic rule in 1851, has had to give way to PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 101 the returning tide of liberty, and to the desire of the French nation to have a real voice in the management of its own affairs. Scarcely had the republic of 1848, -which succeeded to the monarchy of July, lasted four months, when its citizens were engaged in a fratricidal strife which raged for four days in the streets of Paris. It was a sad and discouraging spectacle to the true friends of freedom. Those " days of June " were afterwards turned to per- petual account by the retrograde party as a means of frightening the nation back into despotism. The par- tisans of liberty had not been sufficiently careful to guard the principle of order ; and in their turn the partisans of order were not careful enough to guard efficiently the principle of liberty. Probably those who manned the barricades, and those who finally' overthrew them, had both a share in the errors, mistakes, and faults which led to the deplorable conflict of June 1848. But this at least must be said, that General Cavaignae and those who defeated the barricaders, did not make the victory thus won an excuse for overthrowing all the liberties of France. The General, whatever his de- fects and mistakes, did not proclaim himself alone capa- ble of saving society, and therefore perpetrate a coup d'etat in order to inaugurate his own dictatorship. He thought it enough to uphold what he believed to be the cause of order, without trampling down both law and 102 PllOGRBSS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. freedom by means of a violent military revolution. Had he done so at once, he would have had much apparently to justify him in the eyes of those who take but a super- ficial view of public events, and he would have been loudly applauded by the lovers of despotism, both lay and clerical; but in thus acting he would in reality have shown himself to be neither a friend of order nor a friend of liberty, but only a revolutionist and a usurper. That the General did not do so proves that, despite faults and blunders, he was an upright and loyal citizen who desired to do only what he conceived to be his duty, while remaining true to the democratic principles he professed. The republican constitution of France was thus preserved. It was allowed to continue its na- tural and lawful existence. In December 1848 a Pre- sident was elected in the person of Louis Napoleon, iuto whose hands General Cavaignac and the government at once resigned their powers. That election was valid until May 1852, at which date another President had to be chosen for the next term of of&ce. The Constitution carefully provided that no citizen could fiU the Presi- dential chair during two successive terms. Only by ob- taining a constitutional revision of the law could the newly-elected President continue in office after May 1852, unless, indeed, he could manage to effect that object by revolutionary violence, and a breach of the oath he had taken to the Constitution. No such con- PEOGEESS OF LIBEETY IN EUEOPE. 103 stitutional revision was ever obtained. Prom December 1848, until December 1851, President Louis Napoleon reiterated again and again, in public and in private, his intention of observing tbe oath he had specially taken, at the time of his inauguration, to preserve and maintain the Constitution. It was in May 1850, that a law was passed limiting very much the suffrage. That limitation, wise or unwise as it may be deemed, was presented to the National Assembly by the Ministers of the President, and iu due course became law. In November, 1850, the President, in his message, made the strongest profession of attaclxment to the Constitution. In January 1851, M. Baroche, then Minister, protested indignantly against there being any idea of restoring the Empire. StiU. suspicions were felt, and many minor circumstances continued to give good ground for them. How utterly false were all these professions of fidelity to the Eepublic on the part of its chief magistrate has siace been proved, not by the assertions of the enemies, but of the supporters of the cowp d'Stat. Thus a Bonapartist writer, M. P. Mayer, in his " History of 2nd December", states that the coup d'4tat was con- ceived, and its execution meditated, from "the first month" of 1851. This testimony fully agrees with what has been obtained from other sources as to the early date at which plans were laid for carrying out a military revolution, the object of which was the over- 104 PEOGEESS OF LIBEETY IN EUEOPE. throw of law and liberty as established by that Constitu- tion to which the President had sworn, and which he repeatedly declared he would uphold. Yet, from the sad days of June 1848 to December 1851, there did not occur, in any part of France, any disorder whatever which rendered extraordinary measures necessary, nor any act on the part of the National Assembly in the least degree irregular. If France wished for a more Conservative, or monarchical, form of Government, she would have had abundant means of expressing that wish when re- electing the National Assembly, after its first legal dis- solution in 1852. So far, then, as France or the cause of order were concerned, there was no occasion for any extra-legal measures at all, much less for a violent breach and overthrow of the Constitution. During the month of May 1851, a number of peti- tions were sent to the Assembly praying for a revision of the Constitution. The majority believed such a revision would be a good means of arranging all important ques- tions and differences, which had chiefly originated in the limitation of the siiifrage by the law of 31st May, 1850 — a law which disqualified some three million, out of seven or eight million, voters. On the 28th May, 1851, M. de Broglie made a formal proposition to that effect, with the consent of the Ministers of the day. The three-fourths majority necessary to the acceptation of a revision of the Constitution, was not obtained in the PEOGEESS OF LIBEETY IN EUEOPE. 105 division which took place. The proposition was, there- fore, lost. On the 10th August there was a prorogation. On the 4th November, 1851, the Presidential message, de- livered at the opening of the session, once again assured the national representatives of the fidelity of the Presi- dent to the Constitution. It concluded with a demand for the restoration of what is called universal suffrage, which had been so much restricted by the law of May 1850 — a law introduced by the then Ministers of the President, and agreed to by a majority of the National Assembly. That body now determined that the Pre- sidential proposal should not be voted at once as a matter of urgent necessity, but should first be carefvdiy examined by a committee (les Bureaux) of the Chamber. Just at this time another important matter was much debated, which deserves special attention. On the 28th October, 1851, M. de Saint- Arnaud, the Minister of War, issued an order to the army, setting forth that it owed obedience to its chief alone, and that his authority covered the responsibUity of all who were under him. It was in consequence of this that the famous proposi- tion, known as the "Proposition des Questeurs" was presented to the Assembly on the 6th November, 1851. It required that the Sixth Article of the Decree of 11th May, 1848, should be promulgated and placed in all the barracks. By this decree, the President of the National Assembly was charged with the duty of watching over 106 PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IX EUROPE. the security of that body, and could, therefore, command to be put at Jiis disposal such forces as he deemed neces- sary for that object. This proposition was afterwards made a ground for accusing the Assembly of seeking to deprive the President of his legitimate power. The charge is absurdly false, because the Assembly needed only to protect itself, inasmuch as the President's term of office expired legally and naturally in May 1862 ; nor could he be re-elected. It was obvious, then, that there was no reason for attacking him illegally. But how, save by unlawful violence, could President Louis Napoleon obtain a prolongation of his power ? Such violent lawlessness was surely a strange way of saving order and society ! This Proposition of the " Questeurs" about the Decree of May 1848, was, however, lost by a majority of four hundred and eight against three hundred on the 17th November, 1851. Thus the President and his Ministers were supported by a majority of the Assembly. A Bonapartist writer, M. Belouino, relates that, on learn- ing the result of the vote, M. de Saint-Arnaud said, " Nous nous en serions bien passes !" — " We could have done well enough without it." The simple meaning of the observation of the Minister of War was this : , if the Assembly had gone against us, instead of for us, we should have snapped our fingers at its legitimate autho- rity, and disobeyed it, if not set it aside. In other words, if lawful authority, which we are bound to obey, PROGKESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 107 opposes our will, we shall simply overthrow lawful authority. Such was the utterly anarchical and revo- lutionary principle avowed by one in high autho- rity, who only two weeks afterwards was a prime mover in that coup d'etat, whose perpetrators tried to persuade the world that they were men of order, engaged in saving society ! At the end of November 1851, the position of affairs in France may be summed up as fol- lows. The proposal of President Louis Napoleon for the re-establishment of what is usually called universal suffrage, had been referred by the Assembly to the Bureaux of the Chamber — a perfectly lawful proceeding. The revision of the Constitution had been legally pro- posed and legally defeated. The Proposition " des Questeurs", touching the Sixth Article of the Decree of May 1848 had been settled in favour of the Govern- ment by a majority of one hundred and eight. The National Assembly had kept perfectly within its legal functions. No riot or disturbances of any kind had taken place in Paris, or in any other part of the country. In the following May a new President and a new Assembly were to be elected, thus affording France a perfectly legal occasion for freely expressing her wishes on all matters of home and foreign policy. It was in the midst of this ordinary state of things, unbroken by any dis- turbance, that the coup d'6tat was perpetrated in the early hours of 2nd December, 1851. Ere daylight 108 PEOGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. dawned, a military force had taken possession of the Legislative Chamber, after ejecting those who were on guard there. In those dark hours were arrested and imprisoned a nimiber of the leading and most honoured representatives of France, absolutely and wholly guilt- less of any illegal act whatever. No less than sixty thousand soldiers had been concentrated in Paris, and thirty thousand more were ready to march on the capital. Thus, after months of repeated falsehood, was carried out, by this violent military revolution, the over- throw of the laws and liberties then established ia France. Every public paper was stopped, except a few devoted to the President, for so he was still called. All freedom of the press, of public meeting, and of discussion, was abolished, not without much bloodshed ; the amount of which, supplemented by transportation to Cayenne, may be disputed, but not the fact that both were pretty freely made use of This work accomplished, the so- called universal suffrage plan was put in operation. Wise and patriotic men will, no doubt, continue to dis- pute what is really the amount of restriction which should be put upon the suffrage, for in all cases some restrictions do, and always must, exist. But none, save the merest dupes, can speak of any suffrage, large or small, as anything but the veriest farce when deprived of all other liberties — that is, of aU that public and private discussion, whether by speaking or writing, which alone PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 109 can enable a nation to use any kind of franchise in a safe and intelligent manner. To give any suffrage whatever, while at that very time annihilating all other rights and liberties, is like giving a man a beautiful opera glass, after having carefully bandaged his eyes. "No power to see !" exclaims the bandager, in reply to those who remonstrate with him; "why, have I not given the man a splendid opera glass ?" The old-fashioned despotism of the divine right of kings was thorough- going enough, but it had, at least, tlie merit of not play- ing the hypocrite. The new-fangled despotism uses purely revolutionary violence to overthrow the estab- lished order of government, making all the while infinite professions about upholding law and saving society; then it proceeds to crush out everything necessary to the safe and enlightened use of the suffrage, while, at the same moment, it calls on the people to elect a master. Do the supporters of purely personal and despotic rule think they add to its charms, by supple- menting the inherent evils of old-fashioned tyranny with the further vices of fraud and hypocrisy ? Louis ISTapoleon was elected Dictator (though that unpleasant title was avoided) for ten years, and in the fol- lowing November (1862) he was chosen Emperor. His election was no matter for wonder. What would have been the use of doing otherwise ? After, as before the cowp d'etat, it was he who commanded the bayonets. If, de- 110 PEOGEESS OF LIBEETY IN EUROPE. spite repeated solemn and public promises, lie had not respected the rights of the people's representatives, why should he have respected the shadow of rights stiH left to the people ? M. de Saint- Amaud's " Nous nous en serious bien passes," was quite as applicable to the vote of the nation as to the vote of the national Chamber. 'No doubt many supported Louis Napoleon on account of the prestige still attached to the first Emperor's name. This was done all the more willingly, because some of the Powers who had framed the treaties of Vienna had declared they never would recognise a Bona- parte as ruler of France. Many timid people, no doubt, really persuaded themselves that to vote in November 1852 for the Empire, was the only hope of preserving order. But whatever extenuating circumstances may be brought forward, it is impossible, after a full considera- tion of the whole subject, not to condemn those who perpetrated this deed, inasmuch as it trampled down national rights, violated law, and deprived France of all real freedom. It was unprincipled, and, so far as re- garded the political necessities of the country, uncalled for. That Napoleon III, having thus established purely autocratic and personal rule, has used it on several oc- casions for good, is true, but that can never justify the means by which the second Empire was founded. During the first few years of Imperial Government France slumbered, or at least appeared to slumber. The PEOGBESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. Ill commotions of 1848 and the blow of 1851 seemed to have wearied and stunned her. The Crimean war dis- tracted the attention of the nation, and gratified justly- enough its mihtary pride. The Italian war of 1859, not only crowned with victory in battle, but with the far brighter glory of a kindred nation's deUverance, covered the Empire with real honour. Those who seek to maintain the contrary undertake as hopeless a task as those who try to justify the cowp d'etat. The impe- rial policy of 1859 had no doubt its defects and short- comings ; the 2nd December had, despite its guilt, some mitigating circumstances ; yet the former merits great praise and the latter severe condemnation. But one important and inevitable result of the Italian war was to impair despotic power. No French ruler could make France directly instrumental ia giving freedom to a neighbouring country and yet keep the French people in a state of tutelage. To play the part of liberator and of despot at the same time is a dangerous experiment. The Emperor seems to have felt this, for in November 1860 he enlarged the power of the Senate and Corps Legislatif. M. de Morny, one of Napoleon's ablest advisers, in speaking of these concessions, said: "the Emperor had given back to the country rights of which he made a salutary surrender," and then proceeded to state that at the council table his Majesty had said: "that which damages my government is the absence 112 PEOGEESS OF LIBEETY IN EUEOPE. of publicity and control." Such was the experience of Napoleon III, after nine years of irresponsible personal rule, when that rule was at the height of its fortunes. It was an admission of no small importance in favour of tliose who had aU along demanded such publicity and control as necessary to the good conduct of the nation's affairs. From 1860 dates the revival of political life in France. In the elections of 1857 the Government candidates obtaiaed over five million votes, and the opposition but little more than haK a miUion. In the elections of 1863 the Government candidates obtained about the same number as in the previous elections, but the opposition received nearly two million votes. The enlarged powers accorded to the legislative body brought out in debate the weak points of the imperial system of personal rule. The enormous increase of taxation, the fre- quent loans, the immense expenditure for public works, always uncontrolled, but not always necessary, excited severe and just criticism. There arose a vigorous demand for a more careful administration of the public finances. Notwithstanding all the adulation of ofi&cial and semi- official writers and speakers, it was pretty clear that the wisdom of a single man did not suffice for the wants and interests of a great nation like the French. Soon followed the tragic fiasco of the Mexican expedi- tion. It struck a tremendous blow at the credit of personal government ; for the Mexican expedition was PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 113 ■tt'liolly the work of the Emperor and of his chosen ad- visers. Had France had a real voice in the matter she would never have sanctioned the imperial policy. The unexpected result of the German war of 1866 discredited still further the system of personal rule, and wounded, though not very justly, the national pride. Fiirther concessions, or at least, alterations, were made touching the powers of the Legislature. In the meantime national and constitutional liberties had been making great strides in Austria and Germany ; while in Italy they were consolidating more and more. In the autumn of 1867, when the Emperor Francis Joseph visited Paris, he and the Emperor Napoleon were received with cries of " Vive la liberte comme en Autriche." The Austrian Emperor had, after many a bitter lesson, thus somewhat turned the tables on the victor of Solferino. A system which kept France behiad Austria could not long endure. Was the nation who boasted of 1789 to be held in tutelage when her neighbours were being set free ? At length came the elections of 1869. The number of those who took part m them was larger than on any previous occasion. The result of those elections showed that the number of votes for Government candidates had gone down to four million five hundred thousand, while those given to opposition candidates had risen to three million five hundred thousand. Thus the Government had lost some half million of votes as compared with 1863, I 114 PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. while the opposition had gained about one million and a half. This success, obtaiaed in the face of very great Government pressure through the Prefets, Mayors, and other officials, arose chiefly from the vote of the cities, the great centres of thought and industry. It was quite clear how that France was determined to have a real voice in her o^vn affairs, and that the system of personal rule must be very greatly modified. In July 1869, the Em- peror announced his intention of making large conces- sions in accordance with the demands of the country. Soon after appeared the Senatus-Consultum, which was discussed in the Senate on the 1st September. It curtailed the powers of mere personal rule, enlarged very considerably those of the national representatives, tliough not according complete constitutional freedom. It left unsettled the important question of ministerial responsibility, and quite untouched the famous 75th article, by which public functionaries are placed under the sole control and authority of the Government which appoints them. Especially able was the speech of Prince Napoleon in the Senate. He expressed his entire approval of the reforms made, while regretting that they had not gone still further. He admits, indeed, that the Government has entered upon the path of constitutional freedom: "enfin, en 1869, on entre en plein dans la voie du gou- vernenient constitutionnel," " at length, in 1869, the path PEOGEESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 115 of constitutional government is entered upon completely." The Prince, however, is anxious not only to enter on it but to press forward to the end. He points out clearly the shortcomings of the Senatus-Consiiltum. He then proceeds to propose as a remedy for its defects, the re- sponsibility of Ministers to the Cliamber; the reorganis- ation of the Senate by making it an elective body, instead of being nominated by the Crown; the breaking up of the present centralised system of administration in France, in order that it may be replaced, in great part if not in whole, by local self-government. In a word, the Prince declares himself to be in favour of full con- stitutional liberty. He is right in advocating such a policy from every point of view, both for the sake of France as well as for that of his own family. M. Michel Chevalier also adopted a similar line of argument in his speech to the Senate. He held up the self-governing systems of England and of the United States as prefer- able to that of personal government. He, too, would remedy the defects of the Senatus-Consultum in the same manner as that proposed by Prince Kapoleon. Nq^ doubt there are many difficulties to be overcome in carrying out this programme. But the great difficulty in the way of the Emperor, is not the claims of other French Princes, still less is it any inherent incompati- bility of the French for free government; neither is it that Napoleon is dishonest in his present profession of 116 PROGRESS OV LIBERTY IN EUROPE. desiring to inaugurate a more liberal rule; nor is it even that vacillation -which has, especially of late years, marked and marred his public policy. The terrible obstacle in his path, now that he would do what is right and politic, is the wide-spread feeling of distrust in him, caused by the recollection of the repeated false- hoods which for so many months masked the prepa- rations for the coup d'etat, and the revolutionary over- throw alike of law and freedom, by which it was finally executed. This difficulty has beset Napoleon III at every turn, throughout his reign. On this account it was that the statesmen and people of England made, with feelings of doubt and reluctance, an alliance with him as the de facto ruler of France, in 1854, right though that alliance was. So, when in 1859 he inaugurated, by the Italian war, a policy at once wise, great, and noble, the coup d'etat was cast in his teeth even by many of those who had apologised for it and delighted in it, but who now made use of it against him, because they abhorred the work of Italian liberation. Again and again the liberals of Italy, France, and England, were taunted with accepting aid from the man of the 2nd December. In 1851 he was a favourite with European reactionists, but, in 1859, they simply cursed him. So, again, to-day (1869-1870) the obstacle, though not the only one, to that poHcy of right and freedom, which the Emperor Napoleon seems sincerely desirous of pursuing. PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 117 is the mistrust and doubt begotten of the wrong done and the blood spUt by the perpetrator of the cmip d'itat and by his abettors in the guilty plot. Can we trust liim ? Shall we forgive him ? are the questions which the friends of freedom in and out of France are asking themselves. There are, as it appears to the writer, suffi- cient grounds for trusting and forgiving. It seems the best practical course for the sake of liberty itself It will, indeed, be well both for France and the Emperor if he fuUy and frankly adopt a system which shall give his country a real control over her own affairs. Such a course is now pressed upon him by the best and wisest men in France, as well as by one at least of his own nearest relatives, while he himself appears more than half inclined to follow such advice. The only right as well as really politic course is to do so at once and completely; it is also the only sufficient re- paration that the Emperor can offer for the gTeat wrong done in December, 1851 — that gross violation of law, freedom, and truth. The Emperor's speech, delivered on the 29th Novem- ber, 1869, at the opening of the legislative session, falls decidedly short of the mark. It is too vague, and has faUed to give thorough satisfaction to the just desire of France to have an effective control over the national policy. Yet it announces concessions inthematter of local self-government which are not without their value, and 118 PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN^ EUROPE. makes admissions important to the cause of national self-government. It says : "the more direct participa- tion of the country in its own affairs wiQ give new strength to the Empire"; and, again: "let the Chambers prove that Prance, without falling into excesses to be regretted, is capable of supporting Kberal institutions which are tlie honour of civilised countries." Thus the system of personal and irresponsible rule is obliged to give way more and more to the spirit of freedom, and to the principles of national self-govern- ment. They, the Emperor admits, will give new strength to the Empire ; they are the glory of civUised nations. But in giving that new strength they will inevitably change the imperial autocracy into what Prince Napoleon called "I'Empire liberal"; they are, indeed, the glory of civilised nations by whom they are adopted, and whom they continually educate in the science of free govern- ment by the daily practice of its vivifying and enno- bling principles. Such, then, are the admissions of one whose whole system has been until now the incarnation of personal and irresponsible rule, whose supporters have, through a fettered and restricted press, so often vaunted its great superiority over what they called, with a sneer, parliamentarianism. To this complexion have matters come at last. That such a ruler should be forced thus to speak, and be obliged to yield even so much as he has yielded, are victories the value of which PROGRESS OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE. 119 is enhanced by the fact that they have been gained, not by barricades and violence, but by purely moral force, whose strength lies in the needs of France which personal government cannot satisfy, and in the progress of liberty which, despite the possession of half a million of bayonets, such a government is unable to restraia. Thus all the more evidently is proved the impossi- bility of permanently governing a nation like France by mere personal and irresponsible rule, backed up by chassepots and riiied cannon. Mere force and bayonets alone are not, and never can be, the reign of law and liberty, order, and freedom; they are, at best, but the sorry expedients of a moment, not the enduring sup- ports of a truly national government. "On peut tout faire avec les baionnettes, excepte s'asseoir dessus." Thus is made manifest that the government of the nation ly the nation, under the guidance of leaders really responsible to the nation, and really controlled by it, is the one enduring method by which order and freedom can be maintained, and so the peaceful progress of the nation be effectually secured. It can- not be too often insisted upon that respect for law, and the daily practice of freedom, are both essential to the progress and to the healthy condition of those nations which, in our own day, desire to maintain their position as leaders and helpers in the great work of human civilisation. 120 PROGEESS OF LIBERTY IK EUROPE. The noble task of endowing France with liberal in- stitutions of a lasting character, which " are the glory of civilised nations," cannot be more effectually car- ried on to its complete and iinal triumph than by that moral force which has already obliged personal govern- ment to make great concessions. By such means will the victory be best achieved, and so Trance take her rightful place among the free and self-governing nations of the world. The extreme democratic party, then, should remember that outrageous violence of language ia the press and in public meetings hinders this work and but fur- thers the cause of reaction. Mere personal abuse of tlie Emperor will only have the effect of inclining to- wards him many in France who would be in opposition to his personal rule, if the defects of that rule were set forth by able arguments couched in clear yet temperate language, without descending to scurrilous attacks upon Napoleon himself. Such attacks retard France in re- covering her position as a free country; they rejoice the hearts of reactionists, and impede those who are en- deavouring to establish national self-government by a union of order and liberty. But it must not for a mo- ment be supposed that language of outrageous violence and scurrility is confined to the organs of extreme demo- cracy. They have been well kept in countenance by what has appeared in the columns of an ultra-imperialist PEOGEESS OF LIBEETY IN EUEOPE. 12l paper, unspeakably d4vwttit«ii^ttfU'u»k'Lnlnmtairt \ w