LORD'S LECTURES

BEACON LIGHTS OF HISTORY, VOLUME IX

EUROPEAN STATESMEN. 

BY JOHN LORD, LL. D. , AUTHOR OF "THE OLD ROMAN WORLD, " "MODERN EUROPE, "ETC. , ETC. 

CONTENTS. 

MIRABEAU. 

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. 

First act of the RevolutionRemote causesLouis XVIDerangement of financesAssembly of notablesMirabeau; his writings and extraordinary eloquenceAssembly of States-GeneralUsurpation of the Third EstateMirabeau's ascendencyParalysis of governmentGeneral disturbances; fall of the BastilleExtraordinary reforms by the National AssemblyMirabeau's conservatismTalleyrand, and confiscation of Church propertyDeath of Mirabeau; his characteristicsRevolutionary violence; the clubsThe Jacobin oratorsThe King arrestedThe King tried, condemned, and executedThe Reign of TerrorRobespierre, Marat, DantonReactionThe DirectoryNapoleonWhat the Revolution accomplishedWhat might have been done without itCarlyleTrue principles of reformThe guide of nations

EDMUND BURKE. 

POLITICAL MORALITY. 

Early life and education of BurkeStudies lawEssay on "The Sublime and Beautiful"First political stepEnters ParliamentDebates on American difficultiesBurke opposes the governmentHis remarkable eloquence and wisdomResignation of the ministryBurke appointed Paymaster of the ForcesLeader of his party in the House of CommonsDebates on IndiaImpeachment of Warren HastingsDefence of the Irish CatholicsSpeeches in reference to the French RevolutionDenounces the radical reformers of FranceHis one-sided but extraordinary eloquenceHis "Reflections on the French Revolution"Mistake in opposing the Revolution with bayonetsHis lofty characterThe legacy of Burke to his nation

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. 

THE FRENCH EMPIRE. 

Unanimity of mankind respecting the genius of NapoleonGeneral opinion of his characterThe greatness of his servicesNapoleon at ToulonHis whiff of grapeshotHis defence of the DirectoryAppointed to the army of ItalyHis rapid and brilliant victoriesDelivers FranceCampaign in EgyptRenewed disasters during his absenceMade First ConsulHis beneficent rule as First ConsulInternal improvementsRestoration of lawVast popularity of NapoleonHis ambitious designsMade EmperorCoalition against himRenewed warVictories of NapoleonPeace of TilsitDespair of EuropeNapoleon dazzled by his own greatnessBlundersInvasion of Spain and RussiaConflagration of Moscow and retreat of NapoleonThe nations arm and attack himHumiliation of NapoleonElba and St. HelenaWilliam the Silent, Washington, and NapoleonLessons of Napoleon's fallNapoleonic ideasImperialism hostile to civilization

PRINCE METTERNICH. 

CONSERVATISM. 

Europe in the Napoleonic EraBirth and family of MetternichUniversity LifeMetternich in EnglandMarriage of MetternichAmbassador at DresdenAmbassador at BerlinAustrian aristocracyMetternich at ParisMetternich on NapoleonMetternich, Chancellor and Prime MinisterDesigns of NapoleonNapoleon marries Marie LouiseHostility of MetternichFrederick William IIICoalition of Great PowersCongress of ViennaSubdivision of Napoleon conquestsHoly AllianceBurdens of MetternichHis political aimsHis hatred of libertyAssassination of von KotzebueInsurrection of NaplesInsurrection of PiedmontSpanish RevolutionDeath of Emperor FrancisTyranny of MetternichHis characterHis services

CHATEAUBRIAND. 

THE RESTORATION AND FALL OF THE BOURBONS. 

Restoration of the BourbonsLouis XVIIIPeculiarities of his reignTalleyrandHis brilliant careerChateaubriandGénie du ChristianismeReaction against RepublicanismDifficulties and embarrassments of the kingChateaubriand at ViennaHis conservatismMinister of Foreign AffairsHis eloquenceSpanish warSeptennial BillFall of ChateaubriandHis latter daysDeath of Louis XVIIIHis characterAccession of Charles XHis tyrannical governmentVillèleLaws against the pressUnpopularity of the kingHis political blindnessPopular tumultsDeposition of Charles XRise of great menThe _salons_ of great ladiesKings and queens of societyTheir prodigious influence

GEORGE IV. 

TORYISM. 

Condition of England in 1815The aristocracyThe House of CommonsThe clergyThe courts of lawThe middle classesThe working classesMinistry of Lord LiverpoolLord CastlereaghGeorge CanningMr. PercevalRegency of the Prince of WalesHis scandalous private lifeCaroline of BrunswickDeath of George IIICanning, Prime MinisterHis great servicesHis deathHis characterPopular agitationsCatholic associationGreat political leadersO'ConnellDuke of WellingtonCatholic emancipationLatter days of George IVHis deathBrilliant constellation of great men

THE GREEK REVOLUTION. 

Universal weariness of war on the fall of NapoleonPeace broken by the revolt of the Spanish coloniesAgitation of political ideasCauses of the Greek RevolutionApathy of the Great PowersState of Greece on the outbreak of the revolutionCharacter of the GreeksYpsilantiHis successesAtrocities of the TurksUniversal rising of the GreeksSiege of TripolitzaReverses of the GreeksPrince MavrokordatosAli PashaThe massacres at ChiosAdmiral MiaulisMarco BozzarisChourchid PashaDeliverance of the MonaGreeks take Napoli di RomaniaGreat losses of the GreeksRenewed efforts of the SultanDissensions of the Greek leadersArrival of Lord ByronInterest kindled for the Greek cause in EnglandLondon loansSiege and fall of MissolonghiInterference of Great PowersIbraham PashaBattle of NavarinoGreek independenceCapo d'IstriasOtho, King of GreeceResults of the Greek Revolution

LOUIS PHILIPPE. 

THE CITIZEN KING. Elevation of Louis PhilippeHis characterLafayetteLafitteCasimir PérierDisordered state of FranceSuppression of disordersConsolidation of royal powerMarshal SoultFortification of ParisSiege of AntwerpPublic improvementsFirst ministry of ThiersFirst ministry of Count MoléAbd-el-KaderStorming of ConstantineRailway maniaDeath of TalleyrandVillemainRussian and Turkish warsTreaty of Unkiar-SkelessiLamartineSecond administration of ThiersRemoval of Napoleon's remainsGuizot, Prime MinisterGuizot as historianConquest of AlgeriaDeath of the Due d'OrléansThe Spanish marriagesProgress of corruptionGeneral discontentsDethronement of Louis PhilippeHis inglorious flight

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

VOLUME IX. 

Napoleon Insists that Pope Pius VII. Shall Crown Him_After the painting by Jean Paul Laurens_. 

Louis XVI. _After the painting by P. Duménil, Gallery of Versailles_. 

Murder of Marat by Charlotte Corday_After the painting by J. Weerts_. 

Edmund Burke_After the painting by J. Barry, Dublin National Gallery_. 

Napoleon_After the painting by Paul Delaroche_. 

"1807, " Napoleon at Friedland_After the painting by E. Meissonier_. 

Napoleon Informs Empress Josephine of His Intention toDivorce Her_After the painting by Eleuterio Pagliano_. 

George IV. Of England_After the painting by Sir Thomas Lawrence, Rome_. 

The Congress of Vienna_After the drawing by Jean Baptiste Isabey_. 

Daniel O'Connell_After the painting by Doyle, National Gallery, Dublin_. 

Marco Bozzaris_After the painting by J. L. Gerome_. 

BEACON LIGHTS OF HISTORY. 

MIRABEAU. 

A. D. 1749-1791. 

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. 

Three events of pre-eminent importance have occurred in our moderntimes; these are the Protestant Reformation, the American War ofIndependence, and the French Revolution. 

The most complicated and varied of these great movements is the FrenchRevolution, on which thousands of volumes have been written, so that itis impossible even to classify the leading events and the ever-changingfeatures of that rapid and exciting movement. The first act of thatgreat drama was the attempt of reformers and patriots to destroyfeudalism, --with its privileges and distinctions and injustices, --byunscrupulous and wild legislation, and to give a new constitution tothe State. 

The best representative of this movement was Mirabeau, and I accordinglyselect him as the subject of this lecture. I cannot describe theviolence and anarchy which succeeded the Reign of Terror, ending in aDirectory, and the usurpation of Napoleon. The subject is so vast that Imust confine myself to a single point, in which, however, I would unfoldthe principles of the reformers and the logical results to which theirprinciples led. 

The remote causes of the French Revolution I have already glanced at, ina previous lecture. The most obvious of these, doubtless, was themisgovernment which began with Louis XIV. And continued so disgracefullyunder Louis XV. ; which destroyed all reverence for the throne, evenloyalty itself, the chief support of the monarchy. The next mostpowerful influence that created revolution was feudalism, which grounddown the people by unequal laws, and irritated them by the haughtiness, insolence, and heartlessness of the aristocracy, and thus destroyed allrespect for them, ending in bitter animosities. Closely connected withthese two gigantic evils was the excessive taxation, which oppressed thenation and made it discontented and rebellious. The fourth mostprominent cause of agitation was the writings of infidel philosophersand economists, whose unsound and sophistical theories held outfallacious hopes, and undermined those sentiments by which allgovernments and institutions are preserved. These will be incidentallypresented, as thereby we shall be able to trace the career of theremarkable man who controlled the National Assembly, and who appliedthe torch to the edifice whose horrid and fearful fires he wouldafterwards have suppressed. It is easy to destroy; it is difficult toreconstruct. Nor is there any human force which can arrest a nationalconflagration when once it is kindled: only on its ashes can a newstructure arise, and this only after long and laborious efforts andhumiliating disappointments. 

It might have been possible for the Government to contend successfullywith the various elements of discontent among the people, intoxicatedwith those abstract theories of rights which Rousseau had so eloquentlydefended, if it had possessed a strong head and the sinews of war. ButLouis XVI. , a modest, timid, temperate, moral young man of twenty-three, by the death of his father and elder brothers had succeeded to thethrone of his dissolute grandfather at just the wrong time. He was agentleman, but no ruler. He had no personal power, and the powers of hiskingdom had been dissipated by his reckless predecessors. Not only wasthe army demoralized, and inclined to fraternize with the people, butthere was no money to pay the troops or provide for the ordinaryexpenses of the Court. There was an alarming annual deficit, and thefinances were utterly disordered. Successive ministers had exhausted allordinary resources and the most ingenious forms of taxation. They madepromises, and resorted to every kind of expediency, which had only atemporary effect. The primal evils remained. The national treasury wasempty. Calonne and Necker pursued each a different policy, and with thesame results. The extravagance of the one and the economy of the otherwere alike fatal. Nobody would make sacrifices in a great nationalexigency. The nobles and the clergy adhered tenaciously to theirprivileges, and the Court would curtail none of its unnecessaryexpenses. Things went on from bad to worse, and the financiers werefilled with alarm. National bankruptcy stared everybody in the face. 

If the King had been a Richelieu, he would have dealt summarily with thenobles and rebellious mobs. He would have called to his aid the talentsof the nation, appealed to its patriotism, compelled the Court to makesacrifices, and prevented the printing and circulation of seditiouspamphlets. The Government should have allied itself with the people, granted their requests, and marched to victory under the name ofpatriotism. But Louis XVI. Was weak, irresolute, vacillating, anduncertain. He was a worthy sort of man, with good intentions, andwithout the vices of his predecessors. But he was surrounded withincompetent ministers and bad advisers, who distrusted the people andhad no sympathy with their wrongs. He would have made concessions, ifhis ministers had advised him. He was not ambitious, nor unpatriotic;he simply did not know what to do. 

In his perplexity, he called together the principal heads of thenobility, --some hundred and twenty great seigneurs, called the Notables;but this assembly was dissolved without accomplishing anything. It wasfull of jealousies, and evinced no patriotism. It would not part withits privileges or usurpations. 

It was at this crisis that Mirabeau first appeared upon the stage, as apamphleteer, writing bitter and envenomed attacks on the government, andexposing with scorching and unsparing sarcasms the evils of the day, especially in the department of finance. He laid bare to the eyes of thenation the sores of the body politic, --the accumulated evils ofcenturies. He exposed all the shams and lies to which ministers hadresorted. He was terrible in the fierceness and eloquence of hisassaults, and in the lucidity of his statements. Without being learned, he contrived to make use of the learning of others, and made it burnwith the brilliancy of his powerful and original genius. Everybody readhis various essays and tracts, and was filled with admiration. But hismoral character was bad, --Was even execrable, and notoriouslyoutrageous. He was kind-hearted and generous, made friends and usedthem. No woman, it is said, could resist his marvellousfascination, --all the more remarkable since his face was as ugly asthat of Wilkes, and was marked by the small-pox. The excesses of hisprivate life, and his ungovernable passions, made him distrusted by theCourt and the Government. He was both hated and admired. 

Mirabeau belonged to a noble family of very high rank in Provence, ofItalian descent. His father, Marquis Mirabeau, was a man of liberalsentiments, --not unknown to literary fame by his treatises on politicaleconomy, '--but was eccentric and violent. Although his oldest son, CountMirabeau, the subject of this lecture, was precocious intellectually, and very bright, so that the father was proud of him, he was yet soungovernable and violent in his temper, and got into so many disgracefulscrapes, that the Marquis was compelled to discipline him severely, --allto no purpose, inasmuch as he was injudicious in his treatment, andultimately cruel. He procured _lettres de cachet_ from the King, andshut up his disobedient and debauched son in various state-prisons. Butthe Count generally contrived to escape, only to get into freshdifficulties; so that he became a wanderer and an exile, compelled tosupport himself by his pen. 

Mirabeau was in Berlin, in a sort of semi-diplomatic position, when theAssembly of Notables was convened. His keen prescience and profoundsagacity induced him to return to his distracted country, where he knewhis services would soon be required. Though debauched, extravagant, andunscrupulous, he was not unpatriotic. He had an intense hatred offeudalism, and saw in its varied inequalities the chief source of thenational calamities. His detestation of feudal injustices wasintensified by his personal sufferings in the various castles where hehad been confined by arbitrary power. At this period, the whole tendencyof his writings was towards the destruction of the _ancien régime_, Hebreathed defiance, scorn, and hatred against the very class to which hebelonged. He was a Catiline, --an aristocratic demagogue, revolutionaryin his spirit and aims; so that he was mistrusted, feared, and detestedby the ruling powers, and by the aristocracy generally, while he wasadmired and flattered by the people, who were tolerant of his vices andimperious temper. 

On the wretched failure of the Assembly of the Notables, the primeminister, Necker, advised the King to assemble the States-General, --thethree orders of the State: the nobles, the clergy, and a representationof the people. It seemed to the Government impossible to proceed longer, amid universal distress and hopeless financial embarrassment, withoutthe aid and advice of this body, which had not been summoned for onehundred and fifty years. 

It became, of course, an object of ambition to Count Mirabeau to have aseat in this illustrious assembly. To secure this, he renounced hisrank, became a plebeian, solicited the votes of the people, and waselected a deputy both from Marseilles and Aix. He chose Aix, and hisgreat career began with the meeting of the States-General at Versailles, the 5th of May, 1789. It was composed of three hundred nobles, threehundred priests, and six hundred deputies of the third estate, --twelvehundred in all. It is generally conceded that these representatives ofthe three orders were on the whole a very respectable body of men, patriotic and incorruptible, but utterly deficient in politicalexperience and in powers of debate. The deputies were largely composedof country lawyers, honest, but as conceited as they were inexperienced. The vanity of Frenchmen is so inordinate that nearly every man in theassembly felt quite competent to govern the nation or frame aconstitution. Enthusiasm and hope animated the whole assembly, andeverybody saw in this States-General the inauguration of aglorious future. 

One of the most brilliant and impressive chapters in Carlyle's "FrenchRevolution"--that great prose poem--is devoted to the procession of thethree orders from the church of St. Louis to the church of Notre Dame, to celebrate the Mass, parts of which I quote. 

"Shouts rend the air; one shout, at which Grecian birds might dropdead. It is indeed a stately, solemn sight. The Elected of France andthen the Court of France; they are marshalled, and march there, all inprescribed place and costume. Our Commons in plain black mantle andwhite cravat; Noblesse in gold-worked, bright-dyed cloaks of velvet, resplendent, rustling with laces, waving with plumes; the Clergy inrochet, alb, and other clerical insignia; lastly the King himself andhousehold, in their brightest blaze of pomp, --their brightest and finalone. Which of the six hundred individuals in plain white cravats thathave come up to regenerate France might one guess would become theirking? For a king or a leader they, as all bodies of men, must have. Hewith the thick locks, will it be? Through whose shaggy beetle-brows, andrough-hewn, seamed, carbuncled face, there look natural ugliness, small-pox, incontinence, bankruptcy, --and burning fire of genius? It isGabriel Honoré Riquetti de Mirabeau; man-ruling deputy of Aix! Yes, thatis the Type-Frenchman of this epoch; as Voltaire was of the last. He isFrench in his aspirations, acquisitions, in his virtues and vices. Markhim well. The National Assembly were all different without that one;nay, he might say with old Despot, --The National Assembly? I am that. 

"Now, if Mirabeau is the greatest of these six hundred, who may be themeanest? Shall we say that anxious, slight, ineffectual-looking man, under thirty, in spectacles, his eyes troubled, careful; with upturnedface, snuffing dimly the uncertain future time; complexion of amultiplex atrabilious color, the final shade of which may be palesea-green? That greenish-colored individual is an advocate of Arras; hisname is Maximilien Robespierre. 

"Between which extremes of grandest and meanest, so many grand and mean, roll on towards their several destinies in that procession. There isexperienced Mounier, whose presidential parliamentary experience thestream of things shall soon leave stranded. A Pétion has left his gownand briefs at Chartres for a stormier sort of pleading. AProtestant-clerical St. Etienne, a slender young eloquent and vehementBarnave, will help to regenerate France, "And then there is worthy Doctor Guillotin, Bailly likewise, time-honored historian of astronomy, and the Abbé Sieyès, cold, butelastic, wiry, instinct with the pride of logic, passionless, or withbut one passion, that of self-conceit. This is the Sieyès who shall besystem-builder, constitutional-builder-general, and build constitutionswhich shall unfortunately fall before we get the scaffolding away. 

"Among the nobles are Liancourt, and La Rochefoucauld, and pious Lally, and Lafayette, whom Mirabeau calls Grandison Cromwell, and the ViscountMirabeau, called Barrel Mirabeau, on account of his rotundity, and thequantity of strong liquor he contains. Among the clergy is the AbbéMaury, who does not want for audacity, and the Curé Grégoire who shallbe a bishop, and Talleyrand-Pericord, his reverence of Autun, withsardonic grimness, a man living in falsehood, and on falsehood, yet notwholly a false man. 

"So, in stately procession, the elected of France pass on, some tohonor, others to dishonor; not a few towards massacre, confusion, emigration, desperation. "

For several weeks this famous States-General remain inactive, unable toagree whether they shall deliberate in a single hall or in threeseparate chambers. The deputies, of course, wish to deliberate in asingle chamber, since they equal in number both the clergy and nobles, and some few nobles had joined them, and more than a hundred of theclergy. But a large majority of both the clergy and the noblesse insistwith pertinacity on the three separate chambers, since, united, theywould neutralize the third estate. If the deputies prevailed, they wouldinaugurate reforms to which the other orders would never consent. 

Long did these different bodies of the States-General deliberate, andstormy were the debates. The nobles showed themselves haughty anddogmatical; the deputies showed themselves aggressive and revolutionary. The King and the ministers looked on with impatience and disgust, butwere irresolute. Had the King been a Cromwell, or a Napoleon, he wouldhave dissolved the assemblies; but he was timid and hesitating. Necker, the prime minister, was for compromise; he would accept reforms, butonly in a constitutional way. 

The knot was at last cut by the Abbé Sieyès, a political priest, and oneof the deputies for Paris, --the finest intellect in the body, next toMirabeau, and at first more influential than he, since the Count wasgenerally distrusted on account of his vices. Nor had he as yetexhibited his great powers. Sieyès said, for the Deputies alone, "Werepresent ninety-six per cent of the whole nation. The people issovereign; we, therefore, as its representatives, constitute ourselves anational assembly. " His motion was passed by acclamation, on June 17, and the Third Estate assumed the right to act for France. 

In a legal and constitutional point of view, this was a usurpation, ifever there was one. "It was, " says Von Sybel, the able German historianof the French Revolution, "a declaration of open war between arbitraryprinciples and existing rights. " It was as if the House ofRepresentatives in the United States, or the House of Commons inEngland, should declare themselves the representatives of the nation, ignoring the Senate or the House of Lords. Its logical sequence wasrevolution. 

The prodigious importance of this step cannot be overrated. Ittransferred the powers of the monarchy to the Third Estate. It wouldlogically lead to other usurpations, the subversion of the throne, andthe utter destruction of feudalism, --for this last was the aim of thereformers. Mirabeau himself at first shrank from this violent measure, but finally adopted it. He detested feudalism and the privileges of theclergy. He wanted radical reforms, but would have preferred to gainthem in a constitutional way, like Pym, in the English Revolution. Butif reforms could not be gained constitutionally, then he would acceptrevolution, as the lesser evil. Constitutionally, radical reforms werehopeless. The ministers and the King, doubtless, would have made someconcessions, but not enough to satisfy the deputies. So these samedeputies took the entire work of legislation into their own hands. Theyconstituted themselves the sole representatives of the nation. Thenobles and the clergy might indeed deliberate with them; they were notaltogether ignored, but their interests and rights were to bedisregarded. In that state of ferment and discontent which existed whenthe States-General was convened, the nobles and the clergy probably knewthe spirit of the deputies, and therefore refused to sit with them. Theyknew, from the innumerable pamphlets and tracts which were issued fromthe press, that radical changes were desired, to which they themselveswere opposed; and they had the moral support of the Government ontheir side. 

The deputies of the Third Estate were bent on the destruction offeudalism, as the only way to remedy the national evils, which were soglaring and overwhelming. They probably knew that their proceedings wereunconstitutional and illegal, but thought that their acts would besanctioned by their patriotic intentions. They were resolved to securewhat seemed to them rights, and thought little of duties. If theseinestimable and vital rights should be granted without usurpation, theywould be satisfied; if not, then they would resort to usurpation. Tothem their course seemed to be dictated by the "higher law. " What tothem were legalities that perpetuated wrongs? The constitution was madefor man, not man for the constitution. 

Had the three orders deliberated together in one hall, although againstprecedent and legality, the course of revolution might have beendirected into a different channel; or if an able and resolute king hadbeen on the throne, he might have united with the people against thenobles, and secured all the reforms that were imperative, withoutinvoking revolution; or he might have dispersed the deputies at thepoint of the bayonet, and raised taxes by arbitrary imposition, as abledespots have ever done. We cannot penetrate the secrets of Providence. It may have been ordered in divine justice and wisdom that the Frenchpeople should work out their own deliverance in their own way, inmistakes, in suffering, and in violence, and point the eternal moralthat inexperience, vanity, and ignorance are fatal to sound legislation, and sure to lead to errors which prove disastrous; that nationalprogress is incompatible with crime; that evils can only gradually beremoved; that wickedness ends in violence. 

A majority of the deputies meant well. They were earnest, patriotic, andenthusiastic. But they knew nothing of the science of government or ofconstitution-making, which demand the highest maturity of experience andwisdom. As I have said, nearly four hundred of them were countrylawyers, as conceited as they were inexperienced. Both Mirabeau andSieyès had a supreme contempt for them as a whole. They wanted what theycalled rights, and were determined to get them any way they could, disregarding obstacles, disregarding forms and precedents. And they werebacked up and urged forward by ignorant mobs, and wicked demagogues whohated the throne, the clergy, and the nobles. Hence the deputies mademistakes. They could see nothing better than unscrupulous destruction. And they did not know how to reconstruct. They were bewildered andembarrassed, and listened to the orators of the Palais Royal. 

The first thing of note which occurred when they resolved to callthemselves the National Assembly and not the Third Estate, which theywere only, was done by Mirabeau. He ascended the tribune, when Brézé, the master of ceremonies, came with a message from the King for them tojoin the other orders, and said in his voice of melodious thunder, "Weare here by the command of the people, and will only disperse by theforce of bayonets. " From that moment, till his death, he ruled theAssembly. The disconcerted messenger returned to his sovereign. What didthe King say at this defiance of royal authority? Did he rise in wrathand indignation, and order his guards to disperse the rebels? No; theamiable King said meekly, "Well, let them remain there. " What a king forsuch stormy times! O shade of Richelieu, thy work has perished!Rousseau, a greater genius than thou wert, hath undermined theinstitutions and the despotism of two hundred years. 

Only two courses were now open to the King, --this weak and kind-heartedLouis XVI. , heir of a hundred years' misrule, --if he would maintain hispower. One was to join the reformers and co-operate in patriotic work, assisted by progressive ministers, whatever opposition might be raisedby nobles and priests; and the second was to arm himself and put downthe deputies. But how could this weak-minded sovereign co-operate withplebeians against the orders which sustained his throne? And if he usedviolence, he inaugurated civil war, which would destroy thousands whererevolution destroyed hundreds. Moreover, the example of Charles I. Wasbefore him. He dared not run the risk. In such a torrent ofrevolutionary forces, when even regular troops fraternized withcitizens, that experiment was dangerous. And then he wastender-hearted, and shrank from shedding innocent blood. His queen, Marie Antoinette, the intrepid daughter of Maria Theresa, with herAustrian proclivities, would have kept him firm and sustained him by hercourageous counsels; but her influence was neutralized by popularministers. Necker, the prosperous banker, the fortunate financier, advised half measures. Had he conciliated Mirabeau, who led theAssembly, then even the throne might have been saved. But he detestedand mistrusted the mighty tribune of the people, --the aristocraticdemagogue, who, in spite of his political rancor and incendiary tracts, was the only great statesman of the day. He refused the aid of the onlyman who could have staved off the violence of factions, and broughtreason and talent to the support of reform and law. 

At this period, after the triumph of the Third Estate, --now called theNational Assembly, --and the paralysis of the Court, perplexed anduncertain whether or not to employ violence and disband the assembly byroyal decree, a great agitation began among the people, not merely inParis, but over the whole kingdom. There were meetings to promoteinsurrection, paid declaimers of human rights, speeches without end inthe gardens of the Palais Royal, where Marat, Camille Desmoulins, andother popular orators harangued the excited crowds. There wereinsurrections at Versailles, which was filled with foreign soldiers. The French guards fraternized with the people whom they were to subdue. Necker in despair resigned, or was dismissed. None of the authoritiescould command obedience. The people were starving, and the bakers' shopswere pillaged. The crowds broke open the prisons, and released many whohad been summarily confined. Troops were poured into Paris, and the oldDuke of Broglie, one of the heroes of the Seven Years' War, nowwar-minister, sought to overawe the city. The gun-shops were plundered, and the rabble armed themselves with whatever weapons they could laytheir hands upon. The National Assembly decreed the formation of anational guard to quell disturbances, and placed Lafayette at the headof it. Besenval, who commanded the royal troops, was forced to withdrawfrom the capital. The city was completely in the hands of theinsurgents, who were driven hither and thither by every passion whichcan sway the human soul. Patriotic zeal blended with envy, hatred, malice, revenge, and avarice. The mob at last attacked the Bastille, aformidable fortress where state-prisoners were arbitrarily confined. Inspite of moats and walls and guns, this gloomy monument of royal tyrannywas easily taken, for it was manned by only about one hundred and fortymen, and had as provisions only two sacks of flour. No aid couldpossibly come to the rescue. Resistance was impossible, in itsunprepared state for defence, although its guns, if properly manned, might have demolished the whole Faubourg Saint-Antoine. 

The news of the fall of this fortress came like a thunder-clap overEurope. It announced the reign of anarchy in France, and thehelplessness of the King. On hearing of the fall of the Bastille, theKing is said to have exclaimed to his courtiers, "It is a revolt, then. ""Nay, sire, " said the Duke of Liancourt, "it is a revolution. " It wasevident that even then the King did not comprehend the situation. Buthow few could comprehend it! Only one man saw the full tendency ofthings, and shuddered at the consequences, --and this man was Mirabeau. 

The King, at last aroused, appeared in person in the National Assembly, and announced the withdrawal of the troops from Paris and the recall ofNecker. But general mistrust was alive in every bosom, and disordersstill continued to a frightful extent, even in the provinces. "InBrittany the towns appointed new municipalities, and armed a civic guardfrom the royal magazines. In Caen the people stormed the citadel andkilled the officers of the salt-tax. Nowhere were royal intendants seen. The custom-houses, at the gates of the provincial cities, weredemolished. In Franche-Comté a noble castle was burned every day. Allkinds of property were exposed to the most shameful robbery. "

Then took place the emigration of the nobles, among whom were Condé, Polignac, Broglie, to organize resistance to the revolution which hadalready conquered the King. 

Meanwhile, the triumphant Assembly, largely recruited by the liberalnobles and the clergy, continued its sessions, decreed its sittingspermanent and its members inviolable. The sittings were stormy; foreverybody made speeches, written or oral, yet few had any power ofdebate. Even Mirabeau himself, before whom all succumbed, was deficientin this talent. He could thunder; he could arouse or allay passions; heseemed able to grasp every subject, for he used other people's brains;he was an incarnation of eloquence, --but he could not reply to opponentswith much effect, like Pitt, Webster, and Gladstone. He was still theleading man in the kingdom; all eyes were directed towards him; and noone could compete with him, not even Sieyès. The Assembly wasted days infoolish debates. It had begun its proceedings with the famousdeclaration of the rights of man, --an abstract question, first mooted byRousseau, and re-echoed by Jefferson. Mirabeau was appointed with acommittee of five to draft the declaration, --in one sense, a puerilefiction, since men are not "born free, " but in a state of dependence andweakness; nor "equal, " either in regard to fortune, or talents, orvirtue, or rank: but in another sense a great truth, so far as men areentitled by nature to equal privileges, and freedom of the person, andunrestricted liberty to get a living according to their choice. 

The Assembly at last set itself in earnest to the work of legislation. In one night, the ever memorable 4th of August, it decreed the totalabolition of feudalism. In one night it abolished tithes to the church, provincial privileges, feudal rights, serfdom, the law of primogeniture, seigniorial dues, and the _gabelle_, or tax on salt. Mirabeau was notpresent, being absent on his pleasures. These, however, seldominterfered with his labors, which were herculean, from seven in themorning till eleven at night. He had two sides to his character, --oneexciting abhorrence and disgust, for his pleasures were miscellaneousand coarse; a man truly abandoned to the most violent passions: theother side pleasing, exciting admiration; a man with an enormous powerof work, affable, dignified, with courtly manners, and enchantingconversation, making friends with everybody, out of real kindness ofheart, because he really loved the people, and sought their highestgood; a truly patriotic man, and as wise as he was enthusiastic. Thisgreat orator and statesman was outraged and alarmed at the indecenthaste of the Assembly, and stigmatized its proceedings as "nocturnalorgies. " The Assembly on that memorable night swept away the wholefeudal edifice, and in less time than the English Parliament would taketo decide upon the first reading of any bill of importance. 

The following day brought reflection and discontent. "That is just thecharacter of our Frenchmen, " exclaimed Mirabeau; "they are three monthsdisputing about syllables, and in a single night they overturn the wholevenerable edifice of the monarchy. " Sieyès was equally disgusted, andmade a speech of great force to show that to abolish tithes without anindemnity was spoliating the clergy to enrich the land-owners. Heconcluded, "You know how to be free; you do not know how to be just. "But he was regarded as an ecclesiastic, unable to forego his personalinterests. He gave vent to his irritated feelings in a conversation withMirabeau, when the latter said, "My dear Abbé, you have let loose thebull, and you now complain that he gores you. " It was this politicalpriest who had made the first assault on the constitution, when he urgedthe Third Estate to decree itself the nation. 

The National Assembly had destroyed feudal institutions; but it had notyet made a constitution, or restored order. Violence and anarchy stillreigned. Then the clubs began to make themselves a power. "Come, " saidthe lawyer Danton to a friend, in the district of the Cordéliers, "comeand howl with us; you will earn much money, and you can still chooseyour party afterwards. " But it was in the garden of the Palais Royal, and in the old church of the Jacobins that the most violent attacks weremade on all existing institutions. "A Fourth Estate (of able editors)also springs up, increases, multiplies; irrepressible, incalculable. "Then from the lowest quarters of Paris surge up an insurrection ofwomen, who march to Versailles in disorder, penetrate the Assembly, andinvade the palace. On the 5th of October a mob joins them, of the lowestrabble, and succeed in forcing their way into the precincts of thepalace. "The King to Paris!" was now the general cry, and Louis XVI. Appears upon the balcony and announces by gestures his subjection totheir will. A few hours after, the King is on his way to Paris, underthe protection of the National Guard, really a prisoner in the hands ofthe people. In fourteen days the National Assembly also follows, to benow dictated to by the clubs. 

In this state of anarchy and incipient violence, Mirabeau, whose powerin the Assembly was still unimpaired, wished to halt. He foresaw thefuture. No man in France had such clear insight and sagacity as he. Hesaw the State drifting into dissolution, and put forth his hand andraised his voice to arrest the catastrophe which he lamented. "The mobof Paris, " said he, "will scourge the corpses of the King and Queen. " Itwas then that he gave but feeble support to the "Rights of Man, " andcontended for the unlimited veto of the King on the proceedings of theAssembly. He also brought forward a motion to allow the King's ministersto take part in the debates. "On the 7th of October he exhorted theCount de Marck to tell the King that his throne and kingdom were lost, if he did not immediately quit Paris. " And he did all he could to inducehim, through the voice of his friends, to identify himself with thecause of reform, as the only means for the salvation of the throne. Hewarned him against fleeing to the frontier to join the emigrants, as theprelude of civil war. He advocated a new ministry, of more vigor andbreadth. He wanted a government both popular and strong. He wished toretain the monarchy, but desired a constitutional monarchy like that ofEngland. His hostility to all feudal institutions was intense, and hedid not seek to have any of them restored. It was the abolition offeudal privileges which was really the permanent bequest of the FrenchRevolution. They have never been revived. No succeeding government haseven attempted to revive them. 

On the removal of the National Assembly to Paris, Mirabeau took a largehouse and lived ostentatiously and at great expense until he died, fromwhich it is supposed that he received pensions from England, Spain, andeven the French Court. This is intimated by Dumont; and I think itprobable. It will in part account for the conservative course headopted to check the excesses of that revolution which he, more than anyother man, invoked. He was doubtless patriotic, and uttered his warningprotests with sincerity. Still it is easy to believe that so corrupt andextravagant a man in his private life was accessible to bribery. Such aman must have money, and he was willing to get it from any quarter. Itis certain that he was regarded by the royal family, towards the closeof his career, very differently from what they regarded him when theStates-General was assembled. But if he was paid by different courts, itis true that he then gave his support to the cause of law andconstitutional liberty, and doubtless loathed the excesses which tookplace in the name of liberty. He was the only man who could have savedthe monarchy, if it were possible to save it; but no human force couldprobably have arrested the waves of revolutionary frenzy at this time. 

On the removal of the Assembly to Paris, the all-absorbing questionsrelated to finance. The State was bankrupt. It was difficult to raisemoney for the most pressing exigencies. Money must be had, or therewould be universal anarchy and despair. How could it be raised? Thecredit of the country was gone, and all means of taxation wereexhausted. No man in France had such a horror of bankruptcy as Mirabeau, and his eloquence was never more convincing and commanding than in hisfinance speeches. Nobody could reply to him. The Assembly was completelysubjugated by his commanding talents. Nor was his influence ever greaterthan when he supported Necker's proposal for a patriotic loan, a sort ofincome-tax, in a masterly speech which excited universal admiration. "Ah, Monsieur le Comte, " said a great actor to him on that occasion, "what a speech: and with what an accent did you deliver it! You havesurely missed your vocation. "

But the finances were in a hopeless state. With credit gone, taxationexhausted, and a continually increasing floating debt, the situation wastruly appalling to any statesman. It was at this juncture thatTalleyrand, a priest of noble birth, as able as he was unscrupulous, brought forth his famous measure for the spoliation of the Church, towhich body he belonged, and to which he was a disgrace. Talleyrand, asBishop of Autun, had been one of the original representatives of theclergy on the first convocation of the States-General; he had advocatedcombining with the Third Estate when they pronounced themselves theNational Assembly, had himself joined the Assembly, attracted notice byhis speeches, been appointed to draw up a constitution, taken activepart in the declaration of Rights, and made himself generallyconspicuous and efficient. At the present apparently hopeless financialcrisis, Talleyrand uncovered a new source of revenue, claimed that theproperty of the Church belonged to the nation, and that as the nationwas on the brink of financial ruin, this confiscation was a supremenecessity. The Church lands represented a value of two thousand millionsof francs, --an immense sum, which, if sold, would relieve, it wassupposed, the necessities of the State. Mirabeau, although he was nofriend of the clergy, shrank from such a monstrous injustice, and saidthat such a wound as this would prove the most poisonous which thecountry had received. But such was the urgent need of money, that theAssembly on the 2d of November, 1789, decreed that the property of theChurch should be put at the disposal of the State. On the 19th ofDecember it was decreed that these lands should be sold. The clergyraised the most piteous cries of grief and indignation. Vainly did thebishops offer four hundred millions as a gift to the nation. It was likethe offer of Darius to Alexander, of one hundred thousand talents. "Yourwhole property is mine, " said the conqueror; "your kingdom is mine. "

So the offer of the bishops was rejected, and their whole property wastaken. And it was taken under the sophistical plea that it belonged tothe nation. It was really the gift of various benefactors in differentages to the Church, for pious purposes, and had been universallyrecognized as sacred. It was as sacred as any other rights of property. The spoliation was infinitely worse than the suppression of themonasteries by Henry VIII. He had some excuse, since they had become ascandal, had misused their wealth, and diverted it from the purposesoriginally intended. The only wholesale attack on property by the Statewhich can be compared with it, was the abolition of slavery by a strokeof the pen in the American Rebellion. But this was a war measure, whenthe country was in most imminent peril; and it was also a moral measurein behalf of philanthropy. The spoliation of the clergy by the NationalAssembly was a great injustice, since it was not urged that the clergyhad misused their wealth, or were neglectful of their duties, as theEnglish monks were in the time of Henry VIII. This Church property hadbeen held so sacred, that Louis XIV. In his greatest necessities neverpresumed to appropriate any part of it. The sophistry that it belongedto the nation, and therefore that the representatives of the nation hada right to take it, probably deceived nobody. It was necessary to givesome excuse or reason for such a wholesale robbery, and this was thebest which could be invented. The simple truth was that money at thisjuncture was a supreme necessity to the State, and this spoliationseemed the easiest way to meet the public wants. Like most of thelegislation of the Assembly, it was defended on the Jesuit plea ofexpediency, --that the end justifies the means; the plea of unscrupulousand wicked politicians in all countries. 

And this expediency, doubtless, relieved the government for a time, forthe government was in the hands of the Assembly. Royal authority was amere shadow. In reality, the King was a prisoner, guarded by Lafayette, in the palace of the Tuileries. And the Assembly itself was now in fearof the people as represented by the clubs. There were two hundredJacobin clubs in Paris and other cities at this time, howling theirvituperations not only on royalty but also on everything else which wasnot already destroyed. 

The Assembly having provided for the wants of the government by theconfiscation of two thousand millions, --which, however, when sold, didnot realize half that sum, --issued their _assignats_, or bondsrepresenting parcels of land assigned to redeem them. These were mostly100-franc notes, though there were also issues of ten and even fivefrancs. The national credit was thus patched up by legislators who tooka constitution in hand, --to quote Burke--"as savages would alooking-glass. " Then they proceeded to other reforms, and abolished theparliaments, and instituted the election of judges by the people, thusstripping the King of his few remaining powers. 

In the mean time Mirabeau died, worn out with labors and passions, andsome say by poison. Even this Hercules could not resist theconsequences of violated natural law. The Assembly decreed a magnificentpublic funeral, and buried him with great pomp. He was the first to beinterred in the Pantheon. For nearly two years he was the leading man inFrance, and he retained his influence in the Assembly to the end. Nordid he lose his popularity with the people. It is not probable that hisintrigues to save the monarchy were known, except to a few confidentialfriends. He died at the right time for his fame, in April, 1791. Had helived, he could not have arrested the tide of revolutionary excesses andthe reign of demagogues, and probably would have been one of the victimsof the guillotine. 

As an author Mirabeau does not rank high. His fame rests on hisspeeches. His eloquence was transcendent, so far as it was renderedvivid by passion. He knew how to move men; he understood human nature. No orator ever did so much by a single word, by felicitous expressions. In the tribune he was immovable. His self-possession never left him inthe greatest disorders. He was always master of himself. His voice wasfull, manly, and sonorous, and pleased the ear; always powerful, yetflexible, it could be as distinctly heard when he lowered it as when heraised it. His knowledge was not remarkable, but he had an almostmiraculous faculty of appropriating whatever he heard. He paid thegreatest attention to his dress, and wore an enormous quantity of hairdressed in the fashion of the day. "When I shake my terrible locks, "said he, "no one dares interrupt me. " Though he received pensions, hewas too proud to be dishonest, in the ordinary sense. He received largesums, but died insolvent. He had, like most Frenchmen, an inordinatevanity, and loved incense from all ranks and conditions. Although he wasthe first to support the Assembly against the King, he was essentiallyin favor of monarchy, and maintained the necessity of the absolute veto. He would have given a constitution to his country as nearly resemblingthat of England as local circumstances would permit. Had he lived, thedestinies of France might have been different. 

But his death gave courage to all the factions, and violence and crimewere consummated by the Reign of Terror. With the death of Mirabeau, closed the first epoch of the Revolution. Thus far it had been earnest, but unscrupulous in the violation of rights and in the destruction ofancient abuses. Yet if inexperienced and rash, it was not marked bydeeds of blood. In this first form it was marked by enthusiasm and hopeand patriotic zeal; not, as afterwards, by fears and cruelty andusurpations. 

Henceforth, the Revolution took another turn. It was directed, not bymen of genius, not by reformers seeking to rule by wisdom, but bydemagogues and Jacobin clubs, and the mobs of the city of Paris. Whatwas called the "Left, " in the meetings of the Assembly, --made up offanatics whom Mirabeau despised and detested, --gained a completeascendency and adopted the extremest measures. Under their guidance, thedestruction of the monarchy was complete. Feudalism and the Churchproperty had been swept away, and the royal authority now received itsfinal blow; nay, the King himself was slain, under the influence offear, it is true, but accompanied by acts of cruelty and madness whichshocked the whole civilized world and gave an eternal stain to theRevolution itself. 

It was not now reform, but unscrupulous destruction and violence whichmarked the Assembly, controlled as it was by Jacobin orators and infideldemagogues. A frenzy seized the nation. It feared reactionary movementsand the interference of foreign powers. When the Bastille had fallen, itwas by the hands of half-starved people clamoring for bread; but whenthe monarchy was attacked, it was from sentiments of fear among thosewho had the direction of affairs. The King, at last, alarmed for his ownsafety, contrived to escape from the Tuileries, where he was virtuallyunder arrest, for his power was gone; but he was recaptured, and broughtback to Paris, a prisoner. Robespierre called upon the Assembly tobring the King and Queen to trial. Marat proposed a militarydictatorship, to act more summarily, which proposal produced a temporaryreaction in favor of royalty. Lafayette, as commander of the NationalGuard, declared, "If you kill the King to-day, I will place the Dauphinon the throne to-morrow. " But the republican party, now in fear of areaction, was increasing rapidly. Its leaders were at this time theGirondists, bent on the suppression of royalty, and headed by Brissot, who agitated France by his writings in favor of a republic, while MadameRoland opened her _salons_ for intrigues and cabals, --a bright woman, "who dreamed of Spartan severity, Roman virtue, and Plutarch heroes. "

The National Assembly dissolved itself in September, and appealed to thecountry for the election of a National Convention; for, the King havingbeen formally suspended Aug. 10, there was no government. The first actof the Convention was to proclaim the Republic. Then occurred the morecomplete organization of the Jacobin club, to control the NationalConvention; and this was followed by the rapid depreciation of the_assignats_, bread-riots, and all sorts of disturbances. Added to theseevils, foreign governments were arming to suppress the Revolution, andwar had been declared by the Girondist ministry, of which Dumouriez waswar-minister. At this crisis, Danton, of the club of the Cordéliers, who found the Jacobins too respectable, became a power, --a coarse, vulgar man, but of indefatigable energy and activity, who wished to doaway with all order and responsibility. He attacked the Gironde as notsufficiently violent. 

It was now war between the different sections of the revolutioniststhemselves. Lafayette resolved to suppress the dangerous radicals byforce, but found it no easy thing, for the Convention was controlled bymen of violence, who filled the country with alarm, not of theirunscrupulous measures, but of the military and of foreign enemies. Heeven narrowly escaped impeachment at the hands of the NationalConvention. 

The Convention is now overawed and controlled by the Commune and theclubs. Lafayette flies. The mob rules Paris. The revolutionary tribunalis decreed. Robespierre, Marat, and Danton form a triumvirate of power. The September massacres take place. The Girondists become conservative, and attempt to stay the progress of further excesses, --all to nopurpose, for the King himself is now impeached, and the Jacobins controleverything. The King is led to the bar of the Convention. He iscondemned by a majority only of one, and immured in the Temple. On the20th of January, 1793, he was condemned, and the next day he mounted thescaffold. "We have burned our ships, " said Marat when the tragedy wasconsummated. 

With the death of the King, I bring this lecture to a close. It wouldbe interesting to speculate on what might have been averted, hadMirabeau lived. But probably nothing could have saved the monarchyexcept civil war, to which Louis XVI. Was averse. 

Nor can I dwell on the second part of the Revolution, when thegovernment was in the hands of those fiends and fanatics who turnedFrance into one vast slaughter-house of butchery and blood. I have onlyto say, that the same unseen hand which humiliated the nobles, impoverished the clergy, and destroyed the King, also visited withretribution those monsters who had a leading hand in the work ofdestruction. Marat, the infidel journalist, was stabbed by CharlotteCorday. Danton, the minister of justice and orator of the revolutionaryclubs, was executed on the scaffold he had erected for so many innocentmen. Robespierre, the sentimental murderer and arch-conspirator, alsoexpiated his crimes on the scaffold; as did Saint-Just, Lebas, Couthon, Henriot, and other legalized assassins. As the Girondists sacrificed theroyal family, so did the Jacobins sacrifice the Girondists; and theConvention, filled with consternation, again sacrificed the Jacobins. 

After the work of destruction was consummated, and there was nothingmore to destroy, and starvation was imminent at Paris, and generaldetestation began to prevail, in view of the atrocities committed inthe name of liberty, the crushing fact became apparent that the nationsof Europe were arming to put down the Revolution and restore themonarchy. In a generous paroxysm of patriotism, the whole nation armedto resist the invaders and defend the ideas of the Revolution. TheConvention also perceived, too late, that anything was better thananarchy and license. It put down the clubs, restored religious worship, destroyed the busts of the monsters who had disgraced their cause andcountry, intrusted supreme power to five Directors, able and patriotic, and dissolved itself. 

Under the Directory, the third act of the drama of revolution openedwith the gallant resistance which France made to the invaders of hersoil and the enemies of her liberties. This resistance brought out themarvellous military genius of Napoleon, who intoxicated the nation byhis victories, and who, in reward of his extraordinary services, wasmade First Consul, with dictatorial powers. The abuse of these powers, his usurpation of imperial dignity, the wars into which he was drawn tomaintain his ascendency, and his final defeat at Waterloo, constitutethe most brilliant chapter in the history of modern times. TheRevolution was succeeded by military despotism. Inexperience led tofatal mistakes, and these mistakes made the strong government of asingle man a necessity. The Revolution began in noble aspirations, butfor lack of political wisdom and sound principles in religion andgovernment, it ended in anarchy and crime, and was again followed by thetyranny of a monarch. This is the sequence of all revolutions which defyeternal justice and human experience. There are few evils which areabsolutely unendurable, and permanent reforms are only obtained bypatience and wisdom. Violence is ever succeeded by usurpation. Theterrible wars through which France passed, to aggrandize an ambitiousand selfish egotist, were attended with far greater evils than thosewhich the nation sought to abolish when the States-General first met atVersailles. 

But the experiment of liberty, though it failed, was not altogetherthrown away. Lessons of political wisdom were learned, which no nationwill ever forget. Some great rights of immense value were secured, andmany grievous privileges passed away forever. Neither Louis XVIII. , norCharles X. , nor Louis Philippe, nor Louis Napoleon, ever attempted torestore feudalism, or unequal privileges, or arbitrary taxation. Thelegislative power never again completely succumbed to the decrees ofroyal and imperial tyrants. The sovereignty of the people wasestablished as one of the fixed ideas of the nineteenth century, and therepresentatives of the people are now the supreme rulers of the land. Aman can now rise in France above the condition in which he was born, and can aspire to any office and position which are bestowed on talentsand genius. Bastilles and _lettres de cachet_ have become animpossibility. Religious toleration is as free there as in England orthe United States. Education is open to the poor, and is encouraged bythe Government. Constitutional government seems to be established, underwhatever name the executive may be called. France is again one of themost prosperous and contented countries of Europe; and the only greatdrawback to her national prosperity is that which also prevents otherContinental powers from developing their resources, --the large standingarmy which she feels it imperative to sustain. 

In view of the inexperience and fanaticism of the revolutionists, andthe dreadful evils which took place after the fall of the monarchy, weshould say that the Revolution was premature, and that substantialreforms might have been gained without violence. But this is a merespeculation. One thing we do know, --that the Revolution was a nationaluprising against injustice and oppression. When the torch is applied toa venerable edifice, we cannot determine the extent of theconflagration, or the course which it will take. The French Revolutionwas plainly one of the developments of a nation's progress. Toconservative and reverential minds it was a horrid form for progress totake, since it was visionary and infidel. But all nations are in thehands of God, who is above all second causes. And I know of no modernmovement to which the words of Carlyle, when he was an optimist, when hewrote the most original and profound of his works, the "SartorResartus, " apply with more force: "When the Phoenix is fanning herfuneral pyre, will there not be sparks flying? Alas! some millions ofmen have been sucked into that high eddying flame, and like mothsconsumed. In the burning of the world-Phoenix, destruction and creationproceed together; and as the ashes of the old are blown about do newforces mysteriously spin themselves, and melodious death-songs aresucceeded by more melodious birth-songs. "

Yet all progress is slow, especially in government and morals. And howforcibly are we impressed, in surveying the varied phases of the FrenchRevolution, that nothing but justice and right should guide men in theirreforms; that robbery and injustice in the name of liberty and progressare still robbery and injustice, to be visited with righteousretribution; and that those rulers and legislators who cannot makepassions and interests subservient to reason, are not fit for the workassigned to them. It is miserable hypocrisy and cant to talk of arevolutionary necessity for violating the first principles of humansociety. Ah! it is Reason, Intelligence, and Duty, calm as the voices ofangels, soothing as the "music of the spheres, " which alone shouldguide nations, in all crises and difficulties, to the attainment ofthose rights and privileges on which all true progress is based. 

AUTHORITIES

Dumont's Recollections of Mirabeau; Carlyle's French Revolution;Carlyle's article on Mirabeau in his Miscellanies; Von Sybel's FrenchRevolution; Thiers' French Revolution; Mignet's French Revolution;Croker's Essays on the French Revolution; Life of Lafayette; Loustalot'sRévolution de Paris; Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution;Carlyle's article on Danton; Mallet du Pau's Considérations sur laRévolution Française; Biographie Universelle; A. Lameth's Histoire del'Assemblée Constituante; Alison's History of the French Revolution;Lamartine's History of the Girondists; Lacretelle's History of France;Montigny's Mémoires sur Mirabeau; Peuchet's Mémoires sur Mirabeau;Madame de Staël's Considérations sur la Révolution Française; Macaulay'sEssay on Dumont's Recollections of Mirabeau. 

EDMUND BURKE. 

A. D. 1729-1797. 

POLITICAL MORALITY. 

It would be difficult to select an example of a more lofty andirreproachable character among the great statesmen of England thanEdmund Burke. He is not a puzzle, like Oliver Cromwell, although thereare inconsistencies in the opinions he advanced from time to time. Hetakes very much the same place in the parliamentary history of hiscountry as Cicero took in the Roman senate. Like that greatest of Romanorators and statesmen, Burke was upright, conscientious, conservative, religious, and profound. Like him, he lifted up his earnest voiceagainst corruption in the government, against great state criminals, against demagogues, against rash innovations. Whatever diverse opinionsmay exist as to his political philosophy, there is only one opinion asto his character, which commands universal respect. Although he was themost conservative of statesmen, clinging to the Constitution, and toconsecrated traditions and associations both in Church and State, stillhis name is associated with the most important and salutary reformswhich England made for half a century. He seems to have been sent toinstruct and guide legislators in a venal and corrupt age. To my mindBurke looms up, after the lapse of a century, as a prodigy of thoughtand knowledge, devoted to the good of his country; an unselfish anddisinterested patriot, as wise and sagacious as he was honest; a sagewhose moral wisdom shines brighter and brighter, since it was based onthe immutable principles of justice and morality. One can extract moreprofound and striking epigrams from his speeches and writings than fromany prose writer that England has produced, if we except Francis Bacon. And these writings and speeches are still valued as among the mostprecious legacies of former generations; they form a thesaurus ofpolitical wisdom which statesmen can never exhaust. Burke has left anexample which all statesmen will do well to follow. He was not a popularfavorite, like Fox and Pitt; he was not born to greatness, like Northand Newcastle; he was not liked by the king or the nobility; he wasgenerally in the ranks of the opposition; he was a new man, like Cicero, in an aristocratic age, --yet he conquered by his genius the proudestprejudices; he fought his way upward, inch by inch; he was the founderof a new national policy, although it was bitterly opposed; and he dieduniversally venerated for his integrity, wisdom, and foresight. He wasthe most remarkable man, on the whole, who has taken part in publicaffairs, from the Revolution to our times. Of course, the life andprinciples of so great a man are a study. If history has any interest orvalue, it is to show the influence of such a man on his own age and theages which have succeeded, --to point out his contribution tocivilization. 

Edmund Burke was born, 1730, of respectable parents in Ireland. He waseducated at Trinity College, Dublin, where he made a fair proficiency, but did not give promise of those rare powers which he afterwardsexhibited. He was no prodigy, like Cicero, Pitt, and Macaulay. He earlysaw that his native country presented no adequate field for him, andturned his steps to London at the age of twenty, where he entered as astudent of law in the Inner Temple, --since the Bar was then, what it wasat Rome, what it still is in modern capitals, the usual resort ofambitious young men. But Burke did not like the law as a profession, andearly dropped the study of it; not because he failed in industry, for hewas the most plodding of students; not because he was deficient in thegift of speech, for he was a born orator; not because his mind repelledsevere logical deductions, for he was the most philosophical of thegreat orators of his day, --not because the law was not a noble fieldfor the exercise of the highest faculties of the mind, but probablybecause he was won by the superior fascinations of literature andphilosophy. Bacon could unite the study of divine philosophy withprofessional labors as a lawyer, also with the duties of a legislator;but the instances are rare where men have united three distinct spheres, and gained equal distinction in all. Cicero did, and Bacon, and LordBrougham; but not Erskine, nor Pitt, nor Canning. Even two spheres areas much as most distinguished men have filled, --the law with politics, like Thurlow and Webster; or politics with literature, like Gladstoneand Disraeli. Dr. Johnson, Garrick, and Reynolds, the early friends ofBurke, filled only one sphere. 

The early literary life of Burke was signalized by his essay on "TheSublime and Beautiful, " original in its design and execution, a model ofphilosophical criticism, extorting the highest praises from DugaldStewart and the Abbé Raynal, and attracting so much attention that itspeedily became a text-book in the universities. Fortunately he was ableto pursue literature, with the aid of a small patrimony (about £300 ayear), without being doomed to the hard privations of Johnson, or thehumiliating shifts of Goldsmith. He lived independently of patronagefrom the great, --the bitterest trial of the literati of the eighteenthcentury, which drove Cowper mad, and sent Rousseau to attics andsolitudes, --so that, in his humble but pleasant home, with his youngwife, with whom he lived amicably, he could see his friends, the greatmen of the age, and bestow an unostentatious charity, and maintain hisliterary rank and social respectability. 

I have sometimes wondered why Burke did not pursue this quiet andbeautiful life, --free from the turmoils of public contest, with leisure, and friends, and Nature, and truth, --and prepare treatises which wouldhave been immortal, for he was equal to anything he attempted. But suchwas not to be. He was needed in the House of Commons, then composedchiefly of fox-hunting squires and younger sons of nobles (a body asignorant as it was aristocratic), --the representatives not of the peoplebut of the landed proprietors, intent on aggrandizing their families atthe expense of the nation, --and of fortunate merchants, manufacturers, and capitalists, in love with monopolies. Such an assembly needed atthat day a schoolmaster, a teacher in the principles of politicaleconomy and political wisdom; a leader in reforming disgraceful abuses;a lecturer on public duties and public wrongs; a patriot who had otherviews than spoils and place; a man who saw the right, and was determinedto uphold it whatever the number or power of his opponents. So EdmundBurke was sent among them, --ambitious doubtless, stern, intellectuallyproud, incorruptible, independent, not disdainful of honors andinfluence, but eager to render public services. 

It has been the great ambition of Englishmen since the Revolution toenter Parliament, not merely for political influence, but also forsocial position. Only rich men, or members of great families, have foundit easy to do so. To such men a pecuniary compensation is a smallaffair. Hence, members of Parliament have willingly served without pay, which custom has kept poor men of ability from aspiring to the position. It was not easy, even for such a man as Burke, to gain admission intothis aristocratic assembly. He did not belong to a great family; he wasonly a man of genius, learning, and character. The squirearchy of thatage cared no more for literary fame than the Roman aristocracy did for apoet or an actor. So Burke, ambitious and able as he was, must bidehis time. 

His first step in a political career was as private secretary to GerardHamilton, who was famous for having made but one speech, and who waschief secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the Earl of Halifax. Burke soon resigned his situation in disgust, since he was not willingto be a mere political tool. But his singular abilities had attractedthe attention of the prime minister, Lord Rockingham, who made him hisprivate secretary, and secured his entrance into Parliament. LordVerney, for a seat in the privy council, was induced to give him a"rotten borough. "

Burke entered the House of Commons in 1765, at thirty-five years of age. He began his public life when the nation was ruled by the great Whigfamilies, whose ancestors had fought the battles of reform in the timesof Charles and James. This party had held power for seventy years, hadforgotten the principles of the Revolution, and had become venal andselfish, dividing among its chiefs the spoils of office. It had becomeas absolute and unscrupulous as the old kings whom it had oncedethroned. It was an oligarchy of a few powerful whig noblemen, whoserule was supreme in England. Burke joined this party, but afterwardsdeserted it, or rather broke it up, when he perceived its arbitrarycharacter, and its disregard of the fundamental principles of theConstitution. He was able to do this after its unsuccessful attempt tocoerce the American colonies. 

American difficulties were the great issue of that day. The majority ofthe Parliament, both Lords and Commons, --sustained by King George III. , one of the most narrow-minded, obstinate, and stupid princes who everreigned in England; who believed in an absolute jurisdiction over thecolonies as an integral part of the empire, and was bent not only inenforcing this jurisdiction, but also resorted to the most offensiveand impolitic measures to accomplish it, --this omnipotent Parliament, fancying it had a right to tax America without her consent, without arepresentation even, was resolved to carry out the abstract rights of asupreme governing power, both in order to assert its prerogative and toplease certain classes in England who wished relief from the burden oftaxation. And because Parliament had this power, it would use it, against the dictates of expediency and the instincts of common-sense;yea, in defiance of the great elemental truth in government that eventhrones rest on the affections of the people. Blinded and infatuatedwith notions of prerogative, it would not even learn lessons from thatconquered country which for five hundred years it had vainly attemptedto coerce, and which it could finally govern only by a recognition ofits rights. 

Now, the great career of Burke began by opposing the leading opinions ofhis day in reference to the coercion of the American colonies. Hediscarded all theories and abstract rights. He would not even discussthe subject whether Parliament had a right to tax the colonies. He tookthe side of expediency and common-sense. It was enough for him that itwas foolish and irritating to attempt to exercise abstract powers whichcould not be carried out. He foresaw and he predicted the consequencesof attempting to coerce such a people as the Americans with the forceswhich England could command. He pointed out the infatuation of theministers of the crown, then led by Lord North. His speech against theBoston Port Bill was one of the most brilliant specimens of oratory everdisplayed in the House of Commons. He did not encourage the colonies inrebellion, but pointed out the course they would surely pursue if theirritating measures of the Government were not withdrawn. He advocatedconciliation, the withdrawal of theoretic rights, the repeal ofobnoxious taxes, the removal of restrictions on American industry, thewithdrawal of monopolies and of ungenerous distinctions. He would bindthe two countries together by a cord of love. When some member remarkedthat it was horrible for children to rebel against their parents, Burkereplied: "It is true the Americans are our children; but when childrenask for bread, shall we give them a stone?" For ten years he laboredwith successive administrations to procure reconciliation. He spokenearly every day. He appealed to reason, to justice, to common-sense. But every speech he made was a battle with ignorance and prejudice. "Ifyou must employ your strength, " said he indignantly, "employ it touphold some honorable right. I do not enter upon metaphysicaldistinctions, --I hate the very name of them. Nobody can be argued intoslavery. If you cannot reconcile your sovereignty with their freedom, the colonists will cast your sovereignty in your face. It is not enoughthat a statesman means well; duty demands that what is right should notonly be made known, but be made prevalent, --that what is evil should notonly be detected, but be defeated. Do not dream that your registers, your bonds, your affidavits, your instructions, are the things whichhold together the great texture of the mysterious whole. These deadinstruments do not make a government. It is the spirit that pervades andvivifies an empire which infuses that obedience without which your armywould be a base rabble and your navy nothing but rotten timber. " Such isa fair specimen of his eloquence, --earnest, practical, to the point, yetappealing to exalted sentiments, and pervaded with moral wisdom; theresult of learning as well as the dictate of a generous and enlightenedpolicy. When reason failed, he resorted to sarcasm and mockery. "Because, " said he, "we have a right to tax America we must do it; riskeverything, forfeit everything, take into consideration nothing but ourright. O infatuated ministers! Like a silly man, full of his prerogativeover the beasts of the field, who says, there is wool on the back of awolf, and therefore he must be sheared. What! shear a wolf? Yes. Buthave you considered the trouble? Oh, I have considered nothing but myright. A wolf is an animal that has wool; all animals that have woolare to be sheared; and therefore I will shear the wolf. "

But I need not enlarge on his noble efforts to prevent a war with thecolonies. They were all in vain. You cannot reason withinfatuation, --_Quem deus vult perdere, prius dementat_. The logic ofevents at last showed the wisdom of Burke and the folly of the king andhis ministers, and of the nation at large. The disasters and thehumiliation which attended the American war compelled the ministry toresign, and the Marquis of Rockingham became prime minister in 1782, andBurke, the acknowledged leader of his party, became paymaster of theforces, --an office at one time worth £25, 000 a year, before the reformwhich Burke had instigated. But this great statesman was not admitted tothe cabinet; George III. Did not like him, and his connections were notsufficiently powerful to overcome the royal objection. In our times hewould have been rewarded with a seat on the treasury bench; with lesstalents than he had, the commoners of our day become prime-ministers. But Burke did not long enjoy even the office of paymaster. On the deathof Lord Rockingham, a few months after he had formed the ministry, Burkeretired from the only office he ever held. And he retired toBeaconsfield, --an estate which he had purchased with the assistance ofhis friend Rockingham, where he lived when parliamentary dutiespermitted, in that state of blended elegance, leisure, and study whichis to be found, in the greatest perfection, in England alone. 

The political power of Burke culminated at the close of the war withAmerica, but not his political influence: and there is a greatdifference between power and influence. Nor do we read that Burke, afterthis, headed the opposition. That position was shared by Charles JamesFox, who ultimately supplanted his master as the leader of his party;not because Burke declined in wisdom or energy, but because Fox had moreskill as a debater, more popular sympathies, and more influentialfriends. Burke, like Gladstone, was too stern, too irritable, tooimperious, too intellectually proud, perhaps too unyielding, to controlsuch an ignorant, prejudiced, and aristocratic body as the House ofCommons, jealous of his ascendency and writhing under his rebukes. Itmust have been galling to the great philosopher to yield the palm tolesser men; but such has ever been the destiny of genius, except incrises of public danger. Of all things that politicians hate is thedomination of a man who will not stoop to flatter, who cannot be bribed, and who will be certain to expose vices and wrongs. The world will notbear rebukes. The fate of prophets is to be stoned. A stern moralgreatness is repulsive to the weak and wicked. Parties reward mediocremen, whom they can use or bend; and the greatest benefactors lose theirpopularity when they oppose the enthusiasm of new ideas, or becomeaustere in their instructions. Thus the greatest statesman that thiscountry has produced since Alexander Hamilton, lost his prestige whenhis conciliating policy became offensive to a rising party whosewatchword was "the higher law, " although, by his various conflicts withSouthern leaders and his loyalty to the Constitution, he educated thepeople to sustain the very war which he foresaw and dreaded. And hadthat accomplished senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner, whosucceeded to Webster's seat, and who in his personal appearance andadvocacy for reform strikingly resembled Burke, --had he remaineduninjured to our day, with increasing intellectual powers and profoundermoral wisdom, I doubt whether even he would have had much influence withour present legislators; for he had all the intellectual defects of bothBurke and Webster, and never was so popular as either of them at oneperiod of their career, while he certainly was inferior to both innative force, experience, and attainments. 

The chief labors of Burke for the first ten years of his parliamentarylife had been mainly in connection with American affairs, and which theresult proved he comprehended better than any man in England. Those ofthe next ten years were directed principally to Indian difficulties, inwhich he showed the same minuteness of knowledge, the same grasp ofintellect, the same moral wisdom, the same good sense, and the sameregard for justice, that he had shown concerning the colonies. But indiscussing Indian affairs his eloquence takes a loftier flight; he isless conciliating, more in earnest, more concerned with the principlesof immutable obligations. He abhors the cruelties and tyranny inflictedon India by Clive and Hastings. He could see no good from anaggrandizement purchased by injustice and wrong. If it was criminal foran individual to cheat and steal, it was equally atrocious for a nationto plunder and oppress another nation, infidel or pagan, white or black. A righteous anger burned in the breast of Burke as he reflected on thewrongs and miseries of the natives of India. Why should that ancientcountry be ruled for no other purpose than to enrich the younger sons ofa grasping aristocracy and the servants of an insatiable andunscrupulous Company whose monopoly of spoils was the scandal of theage? If ever a reform was imperative in the government of a colony, itwas surely in India, where the government was irresponsible. The Englishcourts of justice there were more terrible to the natives than the verywrongs they pretended to redress. The customs and laws and moral ideasof the conquered country were spurned and ignored by the greedy scionsof gentility who were sent to rule a population ten times larger thanthat between the Humber and the Thames. 

So Burke, after the most careful study of the condition of India, liftedup his voice against the iniquities which were winked at by Parliament. But his fierce protest arrayed against him all the parties that indorsedthese wrongs, or who were benefited by them. I need not dwell on hisprotracted labors for ten years in behalf of right, without thesympathies of those who had formerly supported him. No speeches wereever made in the English House of Commons which equalled, in eloquenceand power, those he made on the Nabob of Arcot's debts and theimpeachment of Warren Hastings. In these famous philippics, hefearlessly exposed the peculations, the misrule, the oppression, and theinhuman heartlessness of the Company's servants, --speeches whichextorted admiration, while they humiliated and chastised. I need notdescribe the nine years' prosecution of a great criminal, and the escapeof Hastings, more guilty and more fortunate than Verres, from thepunishment he merited, through legal technicalities, the apathy of menin power, the private influence of the throne, and the sympathies whichfashion excited in his behalf, --and, more than all, because of theundoubted service he had rendered to his country, if it _was_ a serviceto extend her rule by questionable means to the farthermost limits ofthe globe. I need not speak of the obloquy which Burke incurred from thepress, which teemed with pamphlets and books and articles to underminehis great authority, all in the interests of venal and powerfulmonopolists. Nor did he escape the wrath of the electors of Bristol, --anarrow-minded town of India traders and Negro dealers, --who withdrewfrom him their support. He had been solicited, in the midst of hisformer éclat, to represent this town, rather than the "rotten borough"of Wendover; and he proudly accepted the honor, and was the idol of hisconstituents until he presumed to disregard their instructions inmatters of which he considered they were incompetent to judge. Hisfamous letter to the electors, in which he refutes and ridicules theirclaim to instruct him, as the shoemakers of Lynn wished to instructDaniel Webster, is a model of irony, as well as a dignified rebuke ofall ignorant constituencies, and a lofty exposition of the duties of astatesman rather than of a politician. 

He had also incurred the displeasure of the Bristol electors by hismanly defence of the rights of the Irish Catholics, who since theconquest of William III. Had been subjected to the most unjust andannoying treatment that ever disgraced a Protestant government. Theinjustices under which Ireland groaned were nearly as repulsive as thecruelties inflicted upon the Protestants of France during the reign ofLouis XIV. "On the suppression of the rebellion under Tyrconnel, " saysMorley, "nearly the whole of the land was confiscated, the peasants weremade beggars and outlaws, the Penal Laws against Catholics wereenforced, and the peasants were prostrate in despair. " Even in 1765 "thenative Irish were regarded by their Protestant oppressors with exactlythat combination of intense contempt and loathing, rage and terror, which his American counterpart would have divided between the Indian andthe Negro. " Not the least of the labors of Burke was to bring to theattention of the nation the wrongs inflicted on the Irish, and theimpossibility of ruling a people who had such just grounds fordiscontent. "His letter upon the propriety of admitting the Catholics tothe elective franchise is one of the wisest of all his productions, --soenlightened is its idea of toleration, so sagacious is its comprehensionof political exigencies. " He did not live to see his ideas carried out, but he was among the first to prepare the way for Catholic emancipationin later times. 

But a greater subject than colonial rights, or Indian wrongs, orpersecution of the Irish Catholics agitated the mind of Burke, to whichhe devoted the energies of his declining years; and this was, theagitation growing out of the French Revolution. When that "roaringconflagration of anarchies" broke out, he was in the full maturity ofhis power and his fame, --a wise old statesman, versed in the lessons ofhuman experience, who detested sophistries and abstract theories andviolent reforms; a man who while he loved liberty more than anypolitical leader of his day, loathed the crimes committed in its name, and who was sceptical of any reforms which could not be carried onwithout a wanton destruction of the foundations of society itself. Hewas also a Christian who planted himself on the certitudes of religiousfaith, and was shocked by the flippant and shallow infidelity whichpassed current for progress and improvement. Next to the infidel spiritwhich would make Christianity and a corrupted church identical, as seenin the mockeries of Voltaire, and would destroy both under the guise ofhatred of superstition, he despised those sentimentalities with whichRousseau and his admirers would veil their disgusting immoralities. Tohim hypocrisy and infidelity, under whatever name they were baptized bythe new apostles of human rights, were mischievous and revolting. And asan experienced statesman he held in contempt the inexperience of theRevolutionary leaders, and the unscrupulous means they pursued toaccomplish even desirable ends. 

No man more than Burke admitted the necessity of even radical reforms, but he would have accomplished them without bloodshed and cruelties. Hewould not have removed undeniable evils by introducing still greaterones. He regarded the remedies proposed by the Revolutionary quacks asworse than the disease which they professed to cure. No man knew betterthan he the corruptions of the Catholic church in France, and thepersecuting intolerance which that church had stimulated there eversince the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, --an intolerance so cruelthat to be married unless in accordance with Catholic usage was to livein concubinage, and to be suspected of Calvinism was punishable byimprisonment or the galleys. But because the established church wascorrupt and intolerant, he did not see the necessity for the entire andwholesale confiscation of its lands and possessions (which had not beengiven originally by the nation, but were the bequests of individuals), thereby giving a vital wound to all the rights of property whichcivilization in all countries has held sacred and inviolable. Burke knewthat the Bourbon absolute monarchy was oppressive and tyrannical, extravagant and indifferent to the welfare of the people; but he wouldnot get rid of it by cutting off the head of the king, especially whenLouis was willing to make great concessions: he would have limited hispower, or driven him into exile as the English punished James II. Heknew that the nobles abused their privileges; he would have taken themaway rather than attempt to annul their order, and decimate them byhorrid butcheries. He did not deny the necessity of reforms so searchingthat they would be almost tantamount to revolution; but he would notviolate both constitutional forms and usages, and every principle ofjustice and humanity, in order to effect them. 

To Burke's mind, the measures of the revolutionists were all mixed upwith impieties, sophistries, absurdities, and blasphemies, to saynothing of cruelties and murders. What good could grow out of such anevil tree? Could men who ignored all duties be the expounders of rights?What structure could last, when its foundation was laid on the sands ofhypocrisy, injustice, ignorance, and inexperience? What sympathy couldsuch a man as Burke have for atheistic theories, or a social progresswhich scorned the only conditions by which society can be kept together?The advanced men who inaugurated the Reign of Terror were to him eitherfools, or fanatics, or assassins. He did not object to the meeting ofthe States-General to examine into the intolerable grievances, and, ifnecessary, to strip the king of tyrannical powers, for such a thing theEnglish parliament had done; but it was quite another thing for _onebranch_ of the States-General to constitute itself the nation, and usurpthe powers and functions of the other two branches; to sweep away, almost in a single night, the constitution of the realm; to take awayall the powers of the king, imprison him, mock him, insult him, andexecute him, and then to cut off the heads of the nobles who supportedhim, and of all people who defended him, even women themselves, andconvert the whole land into a Pandemonium! What contempt must he havehad for legislators who killed their king, decimated their nobles, robbed their clergy, swept away all social distinctions, abolished therites of religion, --all symbols, honors, and privileges; all that wasancient, all that was venerable, all that was poetic, even to abbeychurches; yea, dug up the very bones of ancient monarchs from theconsecrated vaults where they had reposed for centuries, and scatteredthem to the winds; and then amid the mad saturnalia of sacrilege, barbarity, and blasphemy to proclaim the reign of "Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality, " with Marat for their leader, and Danton for their orator, and Robespierre for their high-priest; and, finally, to consummate theinfamous farce of reform by openly setting up a wanton woman as the idolof their worship, under the name of the Goddess of Reason!

But while Burke saw only one side of these atrocities, he did not closehis eyes to the necessity for reforms. Had he been a Frenchman, he wouldstrenuously have lifted up his voice to secure them, but in a legal andconstitutional manner, --not by violence, not by disregarding theprinciples of justice and morality to secure a desirable end. He wasone of the few statesmen then living who would not do evil that goodmight come. He was no Jesuit. There is a class of politicians who wouldhave acted differently; and this class, in his day, was made up ofextreme and radical people, with infidel sympathies. With this class hewas no favorite, and never can be. Conservative people judge him by ahigher standard; they shared at the time in his sympathies andprejudices. 

Even in America the excesses of the Revolution excited generalabhorrence; much more so in England. And it was these excesses, thismode of securing reform, not reform itself, which excited Burke'sdetestation. Who can wonder at this? Those who accept crimes as anecessary outbreak of revolutionary passions adopt a philosophy whichwould veil the world with a funereal and diabolical gloom. Reformersmust be taught that no reforms achieved by crime are worth the cost. Noris it just to brand an illustrious man with indifference to great moraland social movements because he would wait, sooner than upturn the veryprinciples on which society is based. And here is the great difficultyin estimating the character and labors of Burke. Because he denouncedthe French Revolution, some think he was inconsistent with his earlyprinciples. Not at all; it was the crimes and excesses of the Revolutionhe denounced, not the impulse of the French people to achieve theirliberties. Those crimes and excesses he believed to be inconsistent withan enlightened desire for freedom; but freedom itself, to its utmostlimit and application, consistent with law and order, he desired. Is itnecessary for mankind to win its greatest boons by going through a seaof anarchies, madness, assassinations, and massacres? Those who takethis view of revolution, it seems to me, are neither wise nor learned. If a king makes war on his subjects, they are warranted in taking uparms in their defence, even if the civil war is followed by enormities. Thus the American colonies took up arms against George III. ; but theydid not begin with crimes. Louis XVI. Did not take up arms against hissubjects, nor league against them, until they had crippled andimprisoned him. He made even great concessions; he was willing to makestill greater to save his crown. But the leaders of the revolution werenot content with these, not even with the abolition of feudalprivileges; they wanted to subvert the monarchy itself, to abolish theorder of nobility, to sweep away even the Church, --not the Catholicestablishment only, but the Christian religion also, with all theinstitutions which time and poetry had consecrated. Their new heaven andnew earth was not the reign of the saints, which the millenarians ofCromwell's time prayed for devoutly, but a sort of communisticequality, where every man could do precisely as he liked, take even hisneighbor's property, and annihilate all distinctions of society, allinequalities of condition, --a miserable, fanatical dream, impossible torealize under any form of government which can be conceived. It was thisspirit of reckless innovation, promulgated by atheists and drawnlogically from some principles of the "Social Contract" of whichRousseau was the author, which excited the ire of Burke. It was license, and not liberty. 

And while the bloody and irreligious excesses of the Revolution calledout his detestation, the mistakes and incapacity of the new legislatorsexcited his contempt. He condemned a _compulsory_ paper currency, --not apaper currency, but a compulsory one, --and predicted bankruptcy. Heridiculed an army without a head, --not the instrument of the executive, but of a military democracy receiving orders from the clubs. He madesport of the legislature ruled by the commune, and made up not of men ofexperience, but of adventurers, stock-jobbers, directors of assignats, trustees for the sale of church-lands, who "took a constitution in handas savages would a looking-glass, "--a body made up of those courtierswho wished to cut off the head of their king, of those priests who votedreligion a nuisance, of those lawyers who called the laws a dead letter, of those philosophers who admitted no argument but the guillotine, ofthose sentimentalists who chanted the necessity of more blood, ofbutchers and bakers and brewers who would exterminate the very peoplewho bought from them. 

And the result of all this wickedness and folly on the mind of Burke wasthe most eloquent and masterly political treatise probably everwritten, --a treatise in which there may be found much angry rhetoric andsome unsound principles, but which blazes with genius on every page, which coruscates with wit, irony, and invective; scornful and saddoubtless, yet full of moral wisdom; a perfect thesaurus of politicaltruths. I have no words with which to express my admiration for thewisdom and learning and literary excellence of the "Reflections on theFrench Revolution" as a whole, --so luminous in statement, so accurate inthe exposure of sophistries, so full of inspired intuitions, soChristian in its tone. This celebrated work was enough to make any manimmortal. It was written and rewritten with the most conscientious care. It appeared in 1790; and so great were its merits, so striking, and yetso profound, that thirty thousand copies were sold in a few weeks. Itwas soon translated into all the languages of Europe, and was in thehands of all thinking men. It was hailed with especial admiration byChristian and conservative classes, though bitterly denounced by manyintelligent people as gloomy and hostile to progress. But whether likedor disliked, it made a great impression, and contributed to settlepublic opinion in reference to French affairs. What can be more just andenlightened than such sentiments as these, which represent the spirit ofthe treatise:--

"Because liberty is to be classed among the blessings of mankind, am Ito felicitate a madman who has escaped from the restraints of his cell?There is no qualification for government but virtue and wisdom. Woe beto that country that would madly reject the service of talents andvirtues. Nothing is an adequate representation of a State that does notrepresent its ability as well as property. Men have a right to justice, and the fruits of industry, and the acquisitions of their parents, andthe improvement of their offspring, --to instruction in life andconsolation in death; but they have no right to what is unreasonable, and what is not for their benefit. The new professors are so taken upwith rights that they have totally forgotten duties; and without openingone new avenue to the understanding, they have succeeded in stoppingthose that lead to the heart. Those who attempt by outrage and violenceto deprive men of any advantage which they hold under the laws, proclaimwar against society. When, I ask, will such truths become obsolete amongenlightened people; and when will they become stale?"

But with this fierce protest against the madness and violence of theFrench Revolution, the wisdom of Burke and of the English nation ended. The most experienced and sagacious man of his age, with all his wisdomand prescience, could see only one side of the awful political hurricanewhich he was so eloquent in denouncing. His passions and his prejudicesso warped his magnificent intellect, that he could not see the goodwhich was mingled with the evil; that the doctrine of equality, if falsewhen applied to the actual condition of men at their birth, is yet astate to which the institutions of society tend, under the influence ofeducation and religion; that the common brotherhood of man, mocked bythe tyrants which feudalism produced, is yet to be drawn from the Sermonon the Mount; that the blood of a plebeian carpenter is as good as thatof an aristocratic captain of artillery; that public burdens which bearheavily on the poor should also be shared equally by the rich; that alllaws should be abolished which institute unequal privileges; that taxesshould be paid by nobles as well as by peasants; that every man shouldbe unfettered in the choice of his calling and profession; that thereshould be unbounded toleration of religious opinions; that no one shouldbe arbitrarily arrested and confined without trial and proof of crime;that men and women, with due regard to the rights of others, should bepermitted to marry whomsoever they please; that, in fact, a total changein the spirit of government, so imperatively needed in France, wasnecessary. These were among the great ideas which the reformersadvocated, but which they did not know how practically to secure onthose principles of justice which they abstractly invoked, --ideas neverafterwards lost sight of, in all the changes of government. And it isremarkable that the flagrant evils which the Revolution so ruthlesslyswept away have never since been revived, and never can be revived anymore than the oracles of Dodona or the bulls of Mediaeval Rome; amid thestorms and the whirlwinds and the fearful convulsions and horridanarchies and wicked passions of a great catastrophe, the imperishableideas of progress forced their way. 

Nor could Burke foresee the ultimate results of the Revolution any morethan he would admit the truths which were overshadowed by errors andcrimes. Nor, inflamed with rage and scorn, was he wise in the remedieshe proposed. Only God can overrule the wrath of man, and cause melodiousbirth-songs to succeed the agonies of dissolution. Burke saw theabsurdity of sophistical theories and impractical equality, --libertyrunning into license, and license running into crime; he sawpretensions, quackeries, inexperience, folly, and cruelty, and heprophesied what their legitimate effect would be: but he did not see inthe Revolution the pent-up indignation and despair of centuries, nor didhe hear the voices of hungry and oppressed millions crying to heavenfor vengeance. He did not recognize the chastening hand of God ontyrants and sensualists; he did not see the arm of retributive justice, more fearful than the daggers of Roman assassins, more stern than theoverthrow of Persian hosts, more impressive than the handwriting on thewall of Belshazzar's palace; nor could he see how creation would succeeddestruction amid the burnings of that vast funeral pyre. He foresaw, perhaps, that anarchy would be followed by military despotism; but henever anticipated a Napoleon Bonaparte, or the military greatness of anation so recently ground down by Jacobin orators and sentimentalexecutioners. He never dreamed that out of the depths and from theclouds and amid the conflagration there would come a deliverance, atleast for a time, in the person of a detested conqueror; who wouldrestore law, develop industry, secure order, and infuse enthusiasm intoa country so nearly ruined, and make that country glorious beyondprecedent, until his mad passion for unlimited dominion should arouseinsulted nations to form a coalition which even he should not bepowerful enough to resist, gradually hemming him round in a king-hunt, until they should at last confine him on a rock in the ocean, tomeditate and to die. 

Where Burke and the nation he aroused by his eloquence failed in wisdom, was in opposing this revolutionary storm with bayonets. Had he and theleaders of his day confined themselves to rhetoric and arguments, ifever so exaggerated and irritating; had they allowed the French peopleto develop their revolution in their own way, as they had the right todo, --then the most dreadful war of modern times, which lasted twentyyears, would have been confined within smaller limits. Napoleon wouldhave had no excuse for aggressive warfare; Pitt would not have died of abroken heart; large standing armies, the curse of Europe, would not havebeen deemed so necessary; the ancient limits of France might have beenmaintained; and a policy of development might have been inaugurated, rather than a policy which led to future wars and national humiliation. The gigantic struggles of Napoleon began when France was attacked byforeign nations, fighting for their royalties and feudalities, andaiming to suppress a domestic revolution which was none of theirconcern, and which they imperfectly understood. 

But at this point we must stop, for I tread on ground where onlyspeculation presumes to stand. The time has not come to solve such amighty problem as the French Revolution, or even the career of NapoleonBonaparte. We can pronounce on the logical effects of right andwrong, --that violence leads to anarchy, and anarchy to ruin; but wecannot tell what would have been the destiny of France if the Revolutionhad not produced Napoleon, nor what would have been the destiny ofEngland if Napoleon had not been circumvented by the powers of Europe. On such questions we are children; the solution of them is hidden by thescreens of destiny; we can only speculate. And since we short-sightedmortals cannot tell what will be the ultimate effect of the greatagitations of society, whether begun in noble aspirations or in depravedpassions, it is enough for us to settle down, with firm convictions, onwhat we can see, --that crimes, under whatever name they go, areeternally to be reprobated, whatever may be the course they are made totake by Him who rules the universe. It would be difficult to single outany memorable war in this world's history which has not been ultimatelyoverruled for the good of the world, whatever its cause orcharacter, --like the Crusades, the most unfortunate in their immediateeffects of all the great wars which nations have madly waged. But thisonly proves that God is stronger than devils, and that he overrules thewrath of man. "It must needs be that offences come; but woe to that manby whom the offence cometh. " There is only one standard by which tojudge the actions of men; there is only one rule whereby to guidenations or individuals, --and that is, to do right; to act on theprinciples of immutable justice. 

Now, whatever were the defects in the character or philosophy of Burke, it cannot be denied that this was the law which he attempted to obey, the rule which he taught to his generation. In this light, his life andlabors command our admiration, because he _did_ uphold the right andcondemn the wrong, and was sufficiently clear-headed to see thesophistries which concealed the right and upheld the wrong. That was hispeculiar excellence. How loftily his majestic name towers above theother statesmen of his troubled age! Certainly no equal to him, inEngland, has since appeared, in those things which give permanent fame. The man who has most nearly approached him is Gladstone. If thecharacter of our own Webster had been as reproachless as his intellectwas luminous and comprehensive, he might be named in the same categoryof illustrious men. Like the odor of sanctity, which was once supposedto emanate from a Catholic saint, the halo of Burke's imperishable gloryis shed around every consecrated retreat of that land which thus far hasbeen the bulwark of European liberty. The English nation will not lethim die; he cannot die in the hearts and memories of man any more thancan Socrates or Washington. No nation will be long ungrateful foreminent public services, even if he who rendered them was stained bygrave defects; for it is services which make men immortal. Much morewill posterity reverence those benefactors whose private lives were inharmony with their principles, --the Hales, the L'Hôpitals, the Hampdensof the world. To this class Burke undeniably belonged. All writers agreeas to his purity of morals, his generous charities, his high socialqualities, his genial nature, his love of simple pleasures, his deepaffections, his reverence, his Christian life. He was a man of sorrows, it is true, like most profound and contemplative natures, whose laborsare not fully appreciated, --like Cicero, Dante, and Michael Angelo. Hewas doomed, too, like Galileo, to severe domestic misfortunes. He wasgreatly afflicted by the death of his only son, in whom his pride andhopes were bound up. "I am like one of those old oaks which the latehurricane has scattered about me, " said he. "I am torn up by the roots;I lie prostrate on the earth. " And when care and disease hastened hisdeparture from a world he adorned, his body was followed to the grave bythe most illustrious of the great men of the land, and the whole nationmourned as for a brother or a friend. 

But it is for his writings and published speeches that he leaves themost enduring fame; and what is most valuable in his writings is hiselucidation of fundamental principles in morals and philosophy. And herewas his power, --not his originality, for which he was distinguished inan eminent degree; not learning, which amazed his auditors; not sarcasm, of which he was a master; not wit, with which he brought down thehouse; not passion, which overwhelmed even such a man as Hastings; notfluency, with every word in the language at his command; not criticism, so searching that no sophistry could escape him; not philosophy, musicalas Apollo's lyre, --but _insight_ into great principles, the moral forceof truth clearly stated and fearlessly defended. This elevated him to asphere which words and gestures, and the rich music and magnetism ofvoice and action can never reach, since it touched the heart and thereason and the conscience alike, and produced convictions that nothingcan stifle. There were more famous and able men than he, in somerespects, in Parliament at the time. Fox surpassed him in debate, Pittin ready replies and adaptation to the genius of the house, Sheridan inwit, Townsend in parliamentary skill, Mansfield in legal acumen; but noone of these great men was so forcible as Burke in the statement oftruths which future statesmen will value. And as he unfolded and appliedthe imperishable principles of right and wrong, he seemed like anancient sage bringing down to earth the fire of the divinities heinvoked and in which he believed, not to chastise and humiliate, but toguide and inspire. 

In recapitulating the services by which Edmund Burke will ultimately bejudged, I would say that he had a hand in almost every movement forwhich his generation is applauded. He gave an impulse to almost everypolitical discussion which afterwards resulted in beneficent reform. Some call him a croaker, without sympathy for the ideas on which modernprogress is based; but he was really one of the great reformers of hisday. He lifted up his voice against the slave-trade; he encouraged andlauded the labors of Howard; he supported the just claims of theCatholics; he attempted, though a churchman, to remove the restrictionsto which dissenters were subjected; he opposed the cruel laws againstinsolvent debtors; he sought to soften the asperities of the Penal Code;he labored to abolish the custom of enlisting soldiers for life; heattempted to subvert the dangerous powers exercised by judges incriminal prosecutions for libel; he sought financial reform in variousdepartments of the State; he would have abolished many useless officesin the government; he fearlessly exposed the wrongs of the East IndiaCompany; he tried to bring to justice the greatest political criminal ofthe day; he took the right side of American difficulties, and advocateda policy which would have secured for half a century longer theallegiance of the American colonies, and prevented the division of theBritish empire; he advocated measures which saved England, possibly, from French subjugation; he threw the rays of his genius over allpolitical discussions; and he left treatises which from his day to ourshave proved a mine of political and moral wisdom, for all whose aim orbusiness it has been to study the principles of law or government. These, truly, were services for which any country should be grateful, and which should justly place Edmund Burke on the list of greatbenefactors. These constitute a legacy of which all nations shouldbe proud. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Works and Correspondence of Edmund Burke; Life and Times of EdmundBurke, by Macknight (the ablest and fullest yet written); An HistoricalStudy, by Morley (very able); Lives of Burke by Croly, Prior, andBisset; Grenville Papers; Parliamentary History; the EncyclopaediaBritannica has a full article on Burke; Massey's History of England;Chatham's Correspondence; Moore's Life of Sheridan; also the Lives ofPitt and Fox; Lord Brougham's Sketch of Burke; C. W. Dilke's Papers of aCritic; Boswell's Life of Johnson. The most brilliant of Burke'swritings, "Reflections on the French Revolution, " should be read byeverybody. 

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. 

A. D. 1769-1821. 

THE FRENCH EMPIRE. 

It is difficult to say anything new about Napoleon Bonaparte, either inreference to his genius, his character, or his deeds. 

His genius is universally admitted, both as a general and anadministrator. No general so great has appeared in our modern times. Heranks with Alexander and Caesar in ancient times, and he is superior toGustavus Adolphus, Turenne, Condé, Marlborough, Frederic II. , Wellington, or any of the warriors who have figured in the great wars ofEurope, from Charlemagne to the battle of Waterloo. His military careerwas so brilliant that it dazzled contemporaries. Without the advantagesof birth or early patronage, he rose to the highest pinnacle of humanglory. His victories were prodigious and unexampled; and it took allEurope to resist him. He aimed at nothing less than universalsovereignty; and had he not, when intoxicated with his conquests, attempted impossibilities, his power would have been practicallyunlimited in France. He had all the qualities for success inwar, --insight, fertility of resource, rapidity of movement, power ofcombination, coolness, intrepidity, audacity, boldness tempered bycalculation, will, energy which was never relaxed, powers of endurance, and all the qualities which call out enthusiasm and attach soldiers andfollowers to personal interests. His victorious career was uncheckeduntil all the nations of Europe, in fear and wrath, combined againsthim. He was a military prodigy, equally great in tactics andstrategy, --a master of all the improvements which had been made in theart of war, from Epaminondas to Frederic II. 

His genius for civil administration was equally remarkable, and isuniversally admitted. Even Metternich, who detested him, admits that "hewas as great as a statesman as he was as a warrior, and as great as anadministrator as he was as a statesman. " He brought order out ofconfusion, developed the industry of his country, restored the finances, appropriated and rewarded all eminent talents, made the whole machineryof government subservient to his aims, and even seemed to animate it byhis individual will. He ruled France as by the power of destiny. Thegenius of Richelieu, of Mazarin, and of Colbert pale before hisenlightened mind, which comprehended equally the principles of politicalscience and the vast details of a complicated government. For executiveability I know no monarch who has surpassed him. 

We do not associate with military genius, as a general rule, markedintellectual qualities in other spheres. But Napoleon was an exceptionto this rule. He was tolerably well educated, and he possessedconsiderable critical powers in art, literature, and science. Hepenetrated through all shams and impostures. He was rarely deceived asto men or women. He could be eloquent and interesting in conversation. Some of his expressions pierced like lightning, and were exceedinglyeffective. His despatches were laconic and clear. He knew somethingabout everybody of note, and if he had always been in a private stationhis intellectual force would have attracted attention in almost anyvocation he might have selected. His natural vivacity, wit, andintensity would have secured friends and admirers in any sphere. 

Nor are the judgments of mankind less unanimous in reference to hischaracter than his intellect and genius. He stands out in history in amarked manner with two sides, --great and little, good and bad. None candeny him many good qualities. His industry was marvellous; he wastemperate in eating and drinking; he wasted no precious time; herewarded his friends, to whom he was true; he did not persecute hisenemies unless they stood in his way, and unless he had a strongpersonal dislike for them, as he had for Madame de Staël; he could bemagnanimous at times; he was indulgent to his family, and allowed hiswife to buy as many India shawls and diamonds as she pleased; he wasnever parsimonious in his gifts, although personally inclined toeconomy; he generally ruled by the laws he had accepted or enacted; hedespised formalities and etiquette; he sought knowledge from everyquarter; he encouraged merit in all departments; he was not ruled bywomen, like most of the kings of France; he was not enslaved byprejudices, and was lenient when he could afford to be; and in theearlier part of his career he was doubtless patriotic in his devotion tothe interests of his country. 

Moreover, many of his faults were the result of circumstances, and ofthe unprecedented prosperity which he enjoyed. Pride, egotism, tyranny, and ostentation were to be expected of a man whose will was law. Nearlyall men would have exhibited these traits, had they been seated on sucha throne as his; and almost any man's temper would have occasionallygiven way under such burdens as he assumed, such hostilities as heencountered, and such treasons as he detected. Surrounded by spies andsecret enemies, he was obliged to be reserved. With a world at his feet, it was natural that he should be arbitrary and impatient ofcontradiction. There have been successful railway magnates as imperiousas he, and bank presidents as supercilious, and clerical dignitaries ashaughty, in their smaller spheres. Pride, consciousness, and egotism arethe natural result of power and flattery in all conditions of life; andwhen a single man controls the destinies of nations, he is an exceptionto the infirmities of human nature if he does not seek to bendeverything before his haughty will. There have been many Richelieus, there has been but one Marcus Aurelius; many Hildebrands, only oneAlfred; many Ahabs, only one David, one St. Louis, one Washington. 

But with all due allowance for the force of circumstances in thedevelopment of character, and for those imperial surroundings whichblind the arbiters of nations, there were yet natural traits ofcharacter in Napoleon which call out the severest reprobation, and whichmake him an object of indignation and intense dislike among true-mindedstudents of history. His egotism was almost superhuman, his selfishnesswas most unscrupulous, his ambition absolutely boundless. He claimed amonopoly in perfidy and lying; he had no idea of moral responsibility;he had no sympathy with misfortune, no conscience, no fear of God. Hewas cold, hard, ironical, and scornful. He was insolent in his treatmentof women, brusque in manners, severe on all who thwarted or opposed him. He committed great crimes in his ascent to supreme dominion, and mockedthe reason, the conscience, and the rights of mankind. He broke the mostsolemn treaties; he was faithless to his cause; he centred in himselfthe interests he was intrusted to guard; he recklessly insulted all thegovernments of Europe; he put himself above Providence; he disgracefullyelevated his brothers; he sought to aggrandize himself at any cost, andruthlessly grasped the sceptre of universal dominion as if he were anirresistible destiny whom it was folly to oppose, In all this he aimedto be greater than conscience. 

Such was the character of a despot who arose upon the ruins of the oldmonarchy, --the product of a revolution, whose ideas he proposed todefend. Most historians, and all moralists, are on the whole unanimousin this verdict. As for his deeds, they rise up before our minds, compelling admiration and awe. He was the incarnation of force; heperformed the most brilliant exploits of our modern times. 

The question then arises, whether his marvellous gifts and transcendentopportunities were directed to the good of his country and the cause ofcivilization. In other words, did he render great services to France, which make us forget his faults? How will he be judged by enlightenedposterity? May he be ranked among great benefactors, like Constantine. Charlemagne, Theodosius, Peter the Great, and Oliver Cromwell? It is theprivilege of great sovereigns to be judged for their services ratherthan by their defects. 

Let us summon, then, this great Emperor before the bar of universalreason. Let him make his own defence. Let us first hear what he has tosay for himself, for he is the most distinguished culprit of moderntimes, and it may yet take three generations to place him in his truehistorical niche; and more, his fame, though immortal, may forever be indoubt, like that of Julius Caesar, whom we still discuss. 

This great man may quietly yet haughtily say to us who seek to take hismeasure: "It is for my services to France that I claim to be judged. Ido not claim perfection. I admit I made grand mistakes; I even committedacts which the world stigmatizes as crimes. I seized powers which didnot belong to me; I overthrew constitutions; I made myself supreme; Imocked the old powers of earth; I repudiated the ideas in the name ofwhich I climbed to a throne; I was harsh, insolent, and tyrannical; Idivorced the wife who was the maker of my fortune; I caused theassassination of the Duc d'Enghien; I invaded Spain and Russia; and Iwafted the names of my conquering generals to the ends of the earth inimprecations and curses. These were my mistakes, --crimes, if you pleaseto call them; but it is not for these you must judge me. Did I not cometo the rescue of law and order when France was torn with anarchies? DidI not deliver the constituted authorities from the mob? Did I not rescueFrance from foreign enemies when they sought to repress the Revolutionand restore the Bourbons? Was I not the avenger of twenty-five hungrymillions on those old tyrants who would have destroyed theirnationality? Did I not break up those combinations which would haveperpetuated the enslavement of Europe? Did I not seek to plant libertyin Italy and destroy the despotisms of German princes? Did I not giveunity to great States and enlarge their civilization? Did I not rebukeand punish Austria, Prussia, Russia, and England for interfering withour Revolution and combining against the rights of a republic? Did I notelevate France, and give scope to its enterprise, and develop itsresources, and inspire its citizens with an unknown enthusiasm, and makethe country glorious, so that even my enemies came to my court to wonderand applaud? And did I not leave such an immortal prestige, even when Iwas disarmed and overthrown by the armies of combined Christendom, thatmy illustrious name, indelibly engraved in the hearts of my countrymen, was enough to seat my nephew on the throne from which I was torn, andgive to his reign a glory scarcely inferior to my own? These were myservices to France, --the return of centralized power amid anarchies anddiscontents and laws which successive revolutions have not destroyed, but which shall blaze in wisdom through successive generations. "

Now, how far can these claims be substantiated? Was Napoleon, although ausurper, like Cromwell and Caesar, also a benefactor like them; and didhis fabric of imperialism prove a blessing to civilization? What, inreality, were his services? Do they offset his aspirations and crimes?Is he worthy of the praises of mankind? Great deeds he performed, butdid they ultimately tend to the welfare of France and of Europe?

It was a great service which Napoleon rendered to France, in thebeginning of his career, at the siege of Toulon, when he was alieutenant of artillery. He disobeyed, indeed, the orders of hissuperiors, but won success by the skill with which he planted hiscannon, showing remarkable genius. This service to the Republic was notforgotten, although he remained long unemployed, living obscurely atParis with straitened resources. By some means he caught the ear ofBarras, the most able of the Directory, and was intrusted with thedefence of the Convention in a great crisis, and saved it by his "whiffof grapeshot, " as Carlyle calls his dispersion of the mob in the streetsof Paris, from the steps of St. Roch. This, doubtless, was a service tothe cause of law and order, since he acted under orders, and dischargedhis duty, like an obedient servant of the constituted authorities, without reluctance, and with great skill, --perhaps the only man ofFrance, at that time, who could have done that important work so well, and with so little bloodshed. Had the sections prevailed, --and it wasfeared that they would, --the anarchy of the worst days of the Revolutionwould have resulted. But this decisive action of the young officer, intrusted with a great command, put an end for forty years to theassumption of unlawful weapons by the mob. There was no futureinsurrection of the people against government till Louis Philippe wasplaced upon the throne in 1830. Napoleon here vindicated not only thecause of law and order, but the Revolution itself; for in spite of itsexcesses and crimes, it had abolished feudalism, unequal privileges, thereign of priests and nobles, and a worn-out monarchy; it had proclaimeda constitutional government, in the face of all the European despotisms;it had asserted that self-government was a possibility, even in France;it had inspired the whole nation with enthusiasm, and proclaimed theRepublic when hostile armies were ready to march upon the soil of Franceand restore the Bourbons. All the impulses of the Revolution weregenerous; all its struggles were heroic, although it was sullied withcrimes, and was marked by inexperience and follies. The nation ralliedaround a great idea, --an idea which is imperishable, and destined tounbounded triumph. To this idea of liberty Napoleon was not thenunfaithful, although some writers assert that he was ready to draw hissword in any cause which promised him promotion. 

The National Convention, which he saved by military genius and supremedevotion to it, had immortalized itself by inspiring France withheroism; and after a struggle of three years with united Christendom, jealous of liberty, dissolved itself, and transferred the government toa Directory. 

This Directory, in reward of the services which Napoleon had rendered, and in admiration of his genius, bestowed upon him the command of thearmy of Italy. Probably Josephine, whom he then married, had sufficientinfluence with Barras to secure the appointment. It was not popular withthe generals, of course, to have a young man of twenty-six, withoutmilitary prestige, put over their heads. But results soon justified thediscernment of Barras. 

At the head of only forty thousand men, poorly clad and equipped andimperfectly fed, Napoleon in four weeks defeated the Sardinians, and inless than two years, in eighteen pitched battles, he destroyed theAustrian armies which were about to invade France. That gloriouscampaign of 1796 is memorable for the conquest of Piedmont and Lombardy, and the establishment of French supremacy in Italy. Napoleon's careeron the banks of the Po was so brilliant, unexpected, and startling, thathis nation was filled with equal astonishment and admiration. Instead ofpredicted ruin, there was unexampled victory. The enthusiasm of theFrench was unbounded. Had Napoleon died at the Bridge of Lodi, he wouldhave passed down in history as a Judas Maccabaeus. In this campaign hewon the hearts of his soldiers, and secured the admiration of hisgenerals. There was something new in his system of fighting, not seen atleast in modern times, --a rapid massing of his troops, and a still morerapid concentration of them upon the weak points of the enemy's lines, coming down on them like a mountain torrent, and sweeping everythingbefore him, in defiance of all rules and precedents. A new master in theart of war, greater than Condé, or Turenne, or Marlborough, or FredericII. , had suddenly arisen, with amazing audacity and faith in himself. 

The deliverance of republican France from four great Austrian armies wasa grand service; and Napoleon merited its gratitude and all the honorshe received. He had violated no trust thus far. He was still CitizenBonaparte, professing liberal principles, and fighting under the flag ofliberty, to make the Republic respected, independent, and powerful. Herobbed Italy, it is true, of some of her valuable pictures, and exactedheavy contributions; but this is war. He was still the faithful servantof France. 

On his return to Paris as a conqueror, the people of course wereenthusiastic in their praises, and the Government was jealous. It hadlost the confidence of the nation. All eyes were turned upon thefortunate soldier who had shown so much ability, and who had given gloryto the country. He may not yet have meditated usurpation, but hecertainly had dreams of power. He was bent on rising to a greaterheight; but he could do nothing at present, nor did he feel safe inParis amid so much envy, although he lived simply and shunned popularidolatry. But his restless nature craved activity; so he sought andobtained an army for the invasion of Egypt. He was inspired with apassion of conquest, and the Directory was glad to get rid of soformidable a rival. 

He had plainly rendered to his country two great services, withouttarnishing his own fame, or being false to his cause. But what excusehad he to give to the bar of enlightened posterity for the invasion ofEgypt? The idea originated with himself. It was not a nationalnecessity. It was simply an unwarrantable war: it was a crime; it was adream of conquest, without anything more to justify it than Alexander'sconquests in India, or any other conquest by ambitious and restlesswarriors. He hoped to play the part of Alexander, --to found a newempire in the East. It was his darling scheme. It would give him power, and perhaps sovereignty. Some patriotic notions may have blended withhis visions. Perhaps he would make a new route to India; perhaps cut offthe empire of the English in the East; perhaps plant colonies amongworn-out races; perhaps destroy the horrid empire of the Turks; perhapsmake Constantinople the seat of French influence and empire in the East. But what harm had Turkey or Syria or Egypt done to France? Did theymenace the peace of Europe? Did even suffering Egyptians call upon himto free them from a Turkish yoke? No: it was a meditated conquest, onthe same principles of ambition and aggrandizement which ever haveanimated unlawful conquests, and therefore a political crime; not to beexcused because other nations have committed such crimes, ultimatelyoverruled to the benefit of civilization, like the conquest of India byEngland, and Texas by the United States. 

I will not dwell on this expedition, which failed through thewatchfulness of the English, the naval victory of Nelson at the Nile, and the defence of Acre by Sir Sidney Smith. It was the dream ofNapoleon at that time to found an empire in the East, of which he wouldbe supreme; but he missed his destiny, and was obliged to return, foiled, baffled, and chagrined, to Paris;--his first greatdisappointment. 

But he had lost no prestige, since he performed prodigies of valor, andcovered up his disasters by lying bulletins. Here he first appeared asthe arch-liar, which he was to the close of his career. In thisexpedition he rendered no services to his country or to civilization, except in the employment of scientific men to decipher the history ofEgypt, --which showed that he had an enlightened mind. 

During his absence disasters had overtaken France. Italy was torn fromher grasp, her armies had been defeated, and Russia, Austria, andEngland were leagued for her overthrow. Insurrection was in theprovinces, and dissensions raged in Paris. The Directory had utterlylost public confidence, and had shown no capacity to govern. All eyeswere turned to the conqueror of Italy, and, as it was supposed, ofEgypt also. 

A _coup d'état_ followed. Napoleon's soldiers drove the legislative bodyfrom the hall, and he assumed the supreme control, under the name ofFirst Consul. Thus ended the Republic in November, 1799, after a briefexistence of seven years. The usurpation of a soldier began, who trodthe constitution and liberty under his iron feet. He did what Caesar andCromwell had done, on the plea of revolutionary necessity. He put backthe march of liberty for nearly half-a-century. His sole excuse was thathis undeniable usurpation was ratified by the votes of the Frenchpeople, intoxicated by his victories, and seeing no way to escape fromthe perils which surrounded them than under his supreme guidance. Theyparted with their liberties for safety. Had Napoleon been compelled to"wade through slaughter to his throne, "--as Caesar did, as Augustusdid, --there would have been no excuse for his usurpation, except theplea of Caesar, that liberty was impossible, and the people needed thestrong arm of despotism to sustain law and order. But Napoleon was moreadroit; he appealed to the people themselves, recognizing them as thesource of power, and they confirmed his usurpation by anoverwhelming majority. 

Since he was thus the people's choice, I will not dwell on theusurpation. He cheated them, however; for he invoked the principles ofthe Revolution, and they believed him, --as they afterwards did hisnephew. They wanted a better executive government, and were willing totry him, since he had proved his abilities; but they did not anticipatethe utter suppression of constitutional government, --they still hadfaith in the principles of their Revolution. They abhorred absolutism;they abhor it still; to destroy it they had risked their Revolution. Tothe principles of the Revolution the great body of French people havebeen true, when permitted to be, from the time when they hurled LouisXVI. From the throne. Absolutism with the consent of the French nationhas passed away forever, and never can be revived, any more than theoracles of Dodona or the bulls of Mediaeval popes. 

Now let us consider whether, as the executive of the French nation, hewas true to the principles of the Revolution, which he invoked, andwhich that people have ever sought to establish. 

In some respects, it must be confessed, he was, and in other respects hewas not. He never sought to revive feudalism; all its abominationsperished. He did not bring back the law of entail, nor unequalprivileges, nor the _régime_ of nobles. He ruled by the laws; rewardingmerit, and encouraging what was obviously for the interests of thenation. The lives and property of the people were protected. The _idea_of liberty was never ignored. If liberty was suppressed to augment hispower and cement his rule, it was in the name of public necessity, as anexpression of the interests he professed to guard. When he incited hissoldiers to battle, it was always under pretence of delivering enslavednations and spreading the principles of the Revolution, whose product hewas. And until he assumed the imperial title most of his acts wereenlightened, and for the benefit of the people he ruled; there was noobvious oppression on the part of government, except to provide means tosustain the army, without which France must succumb to enemies. While hewas First Consul, it would seem that the hostility of Europe was moredirected towards France herself for having expelled the Bourbons, thanagainst him as a dangerous man. Europe could not forgive France for herRevolution, --not even England; Napoleon was but the necessity which thepolitical complications arising from the Revolution seemed to create. Hence, the wars which Napoleon conducted while he was First Consul werevirtually defensive, since all Europe aimed to put down France, --such anest of assassins and communists and theorists!--rather than to put downNapoleon; for, although usurper, he was, strange to say, the nation'schoice as well as idol. He reigned by the will of the nation, and hecould not have reigned without. The nation gave him his power, to bewielded to protect France, in imminent danger from foreign powers. 

And wisely and grandly did he use it at first. He turned his attentionto the internal state of a distracted country, and developed itsresources and promoted tranquillity; he appointed the ablest men, without distinction of party, for his ministers and prefects; herestored the credit of the country; he put a stop to forced loans; hereleased priests from confinement; he rebuked the fanaticism of theultra-revolutionists, he reorganized the public bodies; he createdtribunals of appeal; he ceased to confiscate the property of emigrants, and opened a way for their return; he restored the right of disposingproperty by will; he instituted the Bank of France on sound financialprinciples; he checked all disorders; he brought to a close thedesolating war of La Vendée; he retained what was of permanent value inthe legislation of the Revolution; he made the distribution of thepublic burdens easy; he paid his army, and rewarded eminent men, whom heenlisted in his service. So stable was the government, and so wise werethe laws, and so free were all channels of industry, that prosperityreturned to the distracted country. The middle classes were particularlybenefited, --the shopkeepers and mechanics, --and they acquiesced in astrong rule, since it seemed beneficent. The capital was enriched andadorned and improved. A treaty with the Pope was made, by which theclergy were restored to their parishes. A new code of laws was made bygreat jurists, on the principles of the Justinian Code. A magnificentroad was constructed over the Alps. Colonial possessions were recovered. Navies were built, fortifications repaired, canals dug, and thebeet-root and tobacco cultivated. 

But these internal improvements, by which France recovered prosperity, paled before the services which Napoleon rendered as a defender of hiscountry's nationality. He had proposed a peace-policy to England in anautograph letter to the King, which was treated as an insult, andanswered by the British government by a declaration of war, to last tillthe Bourbons were restored, --perhaps what Napoleon wanted and expected;and war was renewed with Austria and England. The consulate was nowmarked by the brilliant Italian campaign, --the passage over the Alps;the battle of Marengo, gained by only thirty thousand men; the recoveryof Italy, and renewed military _éclat_. The Peace of Amiens, October, 1801, placed Napoleon in the proudest position which any modernsovereign ever enjoyed. He was now thirty-three years of age, --supremein France, and powerful throughout Europe. The French were proud of aman who was glorious both in peace and war; and his consulate had beensullied by only one crime, --the assassination of the heir of the houseof Condé; a blunder, as Talleyrand said, rather than a crime, since itarrayed against him all the friends of Legitimacy in Europe. 

Had Napoleon been contented with the power he then enjoyed as FirstConsul for life, and simply stood on the defensive, he could have madeFrance invincible, and would have left a name comparativelyreproachless. But we now see unmistakable evidence of boundless personalambition, and a policy of unscrupulous aggrandizement. He assumes theimperial title, --greedy for the trappings as well as the reality ofpower; he openly founds a new dynasty of kings; he abolishes everytrace of constitutional rule; he treads liberty under his feet, andmocks the very ideas by which he had inspired enthusiasm in his troops;his watchword is now not _Liberty_, but _Glory_; he centres in himselfthe interests of France; he surrounds himself, at the Tuileries, withthe pomp and ceremonies of the ancient kings; and he even induces thePope himself to crown him at Notre Dame. It was a proud day, December 2, 1804, when, surrounded by all that was brilliant and imposing in France, Napoleon proceeded in solemn procession to the ancient cathedral, wherewere assembled the magistrates, the bishops, and the titled dignitariesof the realm, and received, in his imperial robes, from the hands of thePope, the consecrated sceptre and crown of empire, and heard from thelips of the supreme pontiff of Christendom those words which oncegreeted Charlemagne in the basilica of St. Peter when the Roman clergyproclaimed him Emperor of the West, --_Vivat in oeternum semperAugustus_. The venerable aisles and pillars and arches of the ancientcathedral resounded to the music of five hundred performers in a solemn_Te Deum_. The sixty prelates of France saluted the anointed soldier astheir monarch, while the inspiring cry from the vast audience of _Vivel'Empereur!_ announced Napoleon's entrance into the circle of Europeansovereigns. 

But this fresh usurpation, although confirmed by a vote of the Frenchpeople, was the signal for renewed hostilities. A coalition of allgovernments unfriendly to France was formed. Military preparationsassumed a magnitude never seen before in the history of Europe, whichnow speedily became one vast camp. Napoleon quit his capital to assumethe conduct of armies. He had threatened England with invasion, which heknew was impossible, for England then had nearly one thousand ships ofwar, manned by one hundred and twenty thousand men. But when Napoleonheard of the victories of Nelson, he suddenly and rapidly marched to theRhine, and precipitated one hundred and eighty thousand troops uponAustria, who was obliged to open her capital. Then, reinforced byRussia, Austria met the invader at Austerlitz with equal forces; butonly to suffer crushing defeat. Pitt died of a broken heart when heheard of this decisive French victory, followed shortly after by thedisastrous overthrow of the Prussians at Jena, and that, again, by thevictory of Eylau over the Russians, which secured the peace of Tilsit, 1807, --making Napoleon supreme on the continent of Europe at the age ofthirty-nine. It was deemed idle to resist further this "man of destiny, "who in twelve years, from the condition of an unemployed officer ofartillery, without friends or family or influence, had subdued in turnall the monarchies of Europe, with the exception of England and Russia, and regulated at his pleasure the affairs of distant courts. To what aneminence had he climbed! Nothing in history or romance approaches thefacts of his amazing career. 

And even down to this time--to the peace of Tilsit--there are no gravecharges against him which history will not extenuate, aside from theegotism of his character. He claims that he fought for Frenchnationality, in danger from the united hostilities of Europe. Certainlyhis own glory was thus far identified with the glory of his country. Hehad rescued France by a series of victories more brilliant than had beenachieved for centuries. He had won a fame second to that of no conquerorin the world's history. 

But these astonishing successes seem to have turned his head. He isdazzled by his own greatness, and intoxicated by the plaudits of hisidolaters. He proudly and coldly says that "it is a proof of theweakness of the human understanding for any one to dream of resistinghim. " He now aims at a universal military monarchy; he seeks to make thekings of the earth his vassals; he places the members of his family, whether worthy or unworthy, on ancient thrones; he would establish onthe banks of the Seine that central authority which once emanated fromRome; he apes the imperial Caesars in the arrogance of his tone and theinsolence of his demands; he looks upon Europe as belonging to himself;he becomes a tyrant of the race; he centres in the gratification of hispassions the interests of humanity; he becomes the angry Nemesis ofEurope, indifferent to the sufferings of mankind and the peace ofthe world. 

After the peace of Tilsit his whole character seems to have changed, even in little things. No longer is he affable and courteous, butsilent, reserved, and sullen. His temper becomes bad; his brow isusually clouded; his manners are brusque; his egotism is transcendent. "Your first duty, " said he to his brother Louis, when he made him kingof Holland, "is to _me_; your second, to France. " He becomes intolerablyhaughty, even to the greatest personages. He insults the ladies of thecourt, and pinches their ears, so that they feel relieved when he haspassed them by. He no longer flatters, but expects incense fromeverybody. In his bursts of anger he breaks china and throws his coatinto the fire. He turns himself into a master of ceremonies; he cheatsat cards; he persecutes literary men. 

Napoleon's career of crime is now consummated. He divorcesJosephine, --the greatest mistake of his life. He invades Spain andRussia, against the expostulations of his wisest counsellors, showingthat he has lost his head, that reason has toppled on her throne, --forhe fancies himself more powerful than the forces of Nature. All thesecrimes are utterly inexcusable, except on the plea of madness. Suchgigantic crimes, such a recklessness of life, such uncontrollableambition, such a defiance of justice, such an abrogation of treaties, such a disregard of the interests of humanity, to say nothing of thewelfare of France, prostituted, enslaved, down-trodden, --and all tonurse his diabolical egotism, --astonished and shocked the wholecivilized world. These things more than balanced all the services heever rendered, since they directly led to the exhaustion of his country. They were so atrocious that they cried aloud to Heaven for vengeance. 

And Heaven heard the agonizing shrieks of misery which ascended from thesmoking ruins of Moscow, from the bloody battlefield of Borodino, fromthe river Berezina, from the homes of the murdered soldiers, from thewidows and orphans of more than a million of brave men who had died toadvance his glory, from the dismal abodes of twenty-five millions morewhom he had cheated out of their liberties and mocked with his ironicalproclamations; yea, from the millions in Prussia, Austria, and Englandwho had been taxed to the uttermost to defeat him, and had died martyrsto the cause of nationalities, or what we call the Balance of Power, which European statesmen have ever found it necessary to maintain at anycost, since on this balance hang the interests of feeble anddefenceless nations. Ay, Heaven heard, --the God whom he ignored, --andsent a retribution as signal and as prompt and as awful as his victorieshad been overwhelming. 

I need not describe Napoleon's fall, --as clear a destiny as his rise; alesson to all the future tyrants and conquerors of the world; a moral tobe pondered as long as history shall be written. Hear, ye heavens! andgive ear, O earth! to the voice of eternal justice, as it appealed touniversal consciousness, and pronounced the doom of the greatest sinnerof modern times, --to be defeated by the aroused and indignant nations, to lose his military prestige, to incur unexampled and bitterhumiliation, to be repudiated by the country he had raised to such apitch of greatness, to be dethroned, to be imprisoned at Elba, to beconfined on the rock of St. Helena, to be at last forced to meditate, and to die with vultures at his heart, --a chained Prometheus, rebelliousand defiant to the last, with a world exultant at his fall; a hopelessand impressive fall, since it broke for fifty years the charm ofmilitary glory, and showed that imperialism cannot be endured amongnations craving for liberties and rights which are the birthright ofour humanity. 

Did Napoleon, then, live in vain? No great man lives in vain. He isever, whether good or bad, the instrument of Divine Providence, GustavusAdolphus was the instrument of God in giving religious liberty toGermany. William the Silent was His instrument in achieving theindependence of Holland. Washington was His instrument in giving dignityand freedom to this American nation, this home of the oppressed, thisglorious theatre for the expansion of unknown energies and the adoptionof unknown experiments. Napoleon was His instrument in freeing Francefrom external enemies, and for vindicating the substantial benefits ofan honest but uncontrolled Revolution. He was His instrument in arousingItaly from the sleep of centuries, and taking the first step to secure aunited nation and a constitutional government. He was His instrument inoverthrowing despotism among the petty kings of Germany, and thusshowing the necessity of a national unity, --at length realized by thegenius of Bismarck. Even in his crimes Napoleon stands out on thesublime pages of history as the instrument of Providence, since hiscrimes were overruled in the hatred of despotism among his own subjects, and a still greater hatred of despotism as exercised by those kings whofinally subdued him, and who vainly attempted to turn back the progressof liberal sentiments by their representatives at the Congressof Vienna. 

The fall of Napoleon taught some awful and impressive lessons tohumanity, which would have been unlearned had he continued to besuccessful to the end. It taught the utter vanity of military glory;that peace with neighbors is the greatest of national blessings, and warthe greatest of evils; that no successes on the battlefield cancompensate for the miseries of an unjust and unnecessary war; and thatavenging justice will sooner or later overtake the wickedness of aheartless egotism. It taught the folly of worshipping mere outwardstrength, disconnected from goodness; and, finally, it taught that Godwill protect defenceless nations, and even guilty nations, when theyshall have expiated their crimes and follies, and prove Himself the kindFather of all His children, even amid chastisements, gradually leadingthem, against their will, to that blessed condition when swords shall bebeaten into ploughshares, and nations shall learn war no more. 

What remains to-day of those grand Napoleonic ideas which intoxicatedFrance for twenty years, and which, revived by Louis Napoleon, led to abrief glory and an infamous fall, and the humiliation and impoverishmentof the most powerful state of Europe? They are synonymous withimperialism, personal government, the absolute reign of a single man, without constitutional checks, --a return to Caesarism, to theunenlightened and selfish despotism of Pagan Rome. And hence they arenow repudiated by France herself, --as well as by England andAmerica, --as false, as selfish, as fatal to all true national progress, as opposed to every sentiment which gives dignity to struggling States, as irreconcilably hostile to the civilization which binds nationstogether, and which slowly would establish liberty, and peace, andindustry, and equal privileges, and law, and education, and materialprosperity, upon this fallen world. 

AUTHORITIES. 

So much has been written on Napoleon, that I can only select some of thestandard and accessible works. Bourrienne's Memoirs of Napoleon I. ; L. P. Junot's Memoirs of Napoleon, Court, and Family; Las Casas' Napoleonat St. Helena; Thiers' History of the Consulate and the Empire; Memoirsof Prince Metternich; Segur's History of Expedition to Russia; Memoirsof Madame de Rémusat; Vieusseau's Napoleon, his Sayings and Deeds;Napoleon's Confidential Correspondence with Josephine and with hisBrother Joseph; Alison's History of Europe; Lockhart's and Sir WalterScott's Lives of Napoleon; Court and Camp of Napoleon, in Murray'sFamily Library; W. Forsyth's Captivity at St. Helena; Dr. Channing'sEssay on Napoleon; Lord Brougham's Sketch of Napoleon; J. G. Wilson'sSketch of Napoleon; Life of Napoleon, by A. H. Jomini; Headley'sNapoleon and his Marshals; Napier's Peninsular War; Wellington'sDespatches; Gilford's Life of Pitt; Botta's History of Italy underNapoleon; Labaume's Russian Campaign; Berthier's Histoire del'Expédition d'Egypte. 

PRINCE METTERNICH. 

1773-1859. 

CONSERVATISM. 

In the later years of Napoleon's rule, when he had reached the summit ofpower, and the various German States lay prostrate at his feet, therearose in Austria a great man, on whom the eyes of Europe were speedilyfixed, and who gradually became the central figure of Continentalpolitics. This remarkable man was Count Metternich, who more than anyother man set in motion the secret springs which resulted in a generalconfederation to shake off the degrading fetters imposed by the Frenchconqueror. In this matter he had a powerful ally in Baron von Stein, whoreorganized Prussia, and prepared her for successful resistance, whenthe time came, against the common enemy. In another lecture I shallattempt to show the part taken by Von Stein in the regeneration ofGermany; but it is my present purpose to confine attention to theAustrian chancellor and diplomatist, his various labors, and theservices he rendered, not to the cause of Freedom and Progress, but tothat of Absolutism, of which he was in his day the most noted champion. 

Metternich, in his character as diplomatist, is to be contemplated intwo aspects: first, as aiming to enlist the great powers in armedcombination against Napoleon; and secondly, as attempting to unite themand all the German States to suppress revolutionary ideas and popularinsurrections, and even constitutional government itself. Beforepresenting him in this double light, however, I will briefly sketch theevents of his life until he stood out as the leading figure in Europeanpolitics, --as great a figure as Bismarck later became. 

Clemens Wenzel Nepomuk Lothar, Count von Metternich, was born atCoblentz, on the Rhine, May 15, 1773. His father was a nobleman ofancient family. I will not go into his pedigree, reaching far back inthe Middle Ages, --a matter so important in the eyes of German and evenEnglish biographers, but to us in America of no more account than thegenealogy of the Dukes of Edom. The count his father was probably ofmore ability than an ordinary nobleman in a country where nobles are sonumerous, since he was then, or soon after, Austrian ambassador to theNetherlands. Young Metternich was first sent to the University ofStrasburg, at the age of fifteen, about the time when Napoleon wascompleting his studies at a military academy. In 1790, a youth ofseventeen, he took part in the ceremonies attending the coronation ofEmperor Leopold at Frankfort, and made the acquaintance of the archduke, who two years later succeeded to the imperial dignity as Francis II. Wenext see him a student of law in the University of Mainz, spending hisvacations at Brussels, in his father's house. 

Even at that time Metternich attracted attention for his elegant mannersand lively wit, --a born courtier, a favorite in high society, and soprominent for his intelligence and accomplishments that he was sent toLondon as an attaché to the Netherlands embassy, where it seems that hebecame acquainted with the leading statesmen of England. There must havebeen something remarkable about him to draw, at the age of twenty, theattention of such men as Burke, Pitt, Fox, and Sheridan. What interestedhim most in England were the sittings of the English Parliament and thetrial of Warren Hastings. At the early age of twenty-one he wasappointed minister to the Hague, but was prevented going to his post bythe war, and retired to Vienna, which he now saw for the first time. Soon after, he married a daughter of Prince Kaunitz, eldest son of thegreat chancellor who under three reigns had controlled the foreignpolicy of the empire. He thus entered the circle of the highestnobility of Austria, --the proudest and most exclusive on the face of thewhole earth. 

At first the young count--living with his bride at the house of herfather, and occupying the highest social position, with wealth and easeand every luxury at command, fond equally of books, of music, and ofart, but still fonder of the distinguished society of Vienna, and aboveall, enamored of the charms of his beautiful and brilliant wife--wishedto spend his life in elegant leisure. But his remarkable talents andaccomplishments were already too well known for the emperor to allow himto remain in his splendid retirement, especially when the empire wasbeset with dangers of the most critical kind. His services were requiredby the State, and he was sent as ambassador to Dresden, after the peaceof Luneville, 1801, when his diplomatic career in reality began. 

Dresden, where were congregated at this time some of the ablestdiplomatists of Europe, was not only an important post of observationfor watching the movements of Napoleon, but it was itself a capital ofgreat attractions, both for its works of art and for its society. HereCount Metternich resided for two years, learning much of politics, ofart, and letters, --the most accomplished gentleman among all thedistinguished people that he met; not as yet a man of power, but a manof influence, sending home to Count Stadion, minister of foreignaffairs, reports and letters of great ability, displaying a sagacity andtact marvellous for a man of twenty-eight. 

Napoleon was then engaged in making great preparations for a war withAustria, and it was important for Austria to secure the alliance ofPrussia, her great rival, with whom she had never been on truly friendlyterms, since both aimed at ascendency in Germany. Frederick William III. Was then on the throne of Prussia, having two great men among hisministers, --Von Stein and Hardenberg; the former at the head offinancial affairs, and the latter at the head of the foreign bureau. Tothe more important post of Berlin, Metternich was therefore sent. Hefound great difficulty in managing the Prussian king, whose jealousy ofAustria balanced his hatred of Napoleon, and who therefore stood aloofand inactive, indisposed for war, in strict alliance with Russia, whoalso wanted peace. 

The Czar Alexander I. , who had just succeeded his murdered father Paul, was a great admirer of Napoleon. His empire was too remote to fearFrench encroachments or French ideas. Indeed, he started with manyliberal sentiments. By nature he was kind and affectionate; he wassimple in his tastes, truthful in his character, philanthropic in hisviews, enthusiastic in his friendships, and refined in hisintercourse, --a broad and generous sovereign. And yet there wassomething wanting in Alexander which prevented him from being great. Hewas vacillating in his policy, and his judgment was easily warped byfanciful ideas. "His life was worn out between devotion to certainsystems and disappointment as to their results. He was fitful, uncertain, and unpractical. Hence he made continual mistakes. He meantwell, but did evil, and the discovery of his errors broke his heart. Hedied of weariness of life, deceived in all his calculations, " in 1825. 

Metternich spent four years in Berlin, ferreting out the schemes ofNapoleon, and striving to make alliances against him; but he found hisonly sincere and efficient ally to be England, then governed by Pitt. The king of Prussia was timid, and leaned on Russia; he feared to offendhis powerful neighbor on the north and east. Nor was Prussia thenprepared for war. As for the South German States, they all had theirvarious interests to defend, and had not yet grasped the idea of Germanunity. There was not a great statesman or a great general among themall. They had their petty dynastic prejudices and jealousies, and wereabsorbed in the routine of court etiquette and pleasures, stagnant andunenlightened. The only brilliant court life was at Weimar, where Goethereigned in the circle of his idolaters. The great men of Germany atthat time were in the universities, interested in politics, like theHumboldts at Berlin, but not taking a prominent part. Generals anddiplomatists absorbed the active political field. As for orators, therewere none; for there were no popular assemblies, --no scope for theirabilities. The able men were in the service of their sovereigns asdiplomatists in the various courts of Europe, and generally were nobles. Diplomacy, in fact, was the only field in which great talents weredeveloped and rewarded outside the realm of literature. 

In this field Metternich soon became pre-eminently distinguished. He wasat once the prompting genius and the agent of an absolute sovereign whoruled over the most powerful State, next to France, on the continent ofEurope, and the most august. The emperor of Austria was supposed to bethe heir of the Caesars and of Charlemagne. His territories were moreextensive than that of France, and his subjects more numerous than thoseof all the other German States combined, except Prussia. But the emperorhimself was a feeble man, sickly in body, weak in mind, and governed byhis ministers, the chief of whom was Count Stadion, minister of foreignaffairs. In Austria the aristocracy was more powerful and wealthy thanthe nobility of any other European State. It was also the mostexclusive. No one could rise by any talents into their favored circle. They were great feudal landlords; and their ranks were not recruited, asin England, by men of genius and wealth. Hence, they were narrow, bigoted, and arrogant; but they had polished and gracious manners, andshone in the stiff though elegant society of Vienna, --not brilliant asin Paris or London, but exceedingly attractive, and devoted to pleasure, to grand hunting-parties on princely estates, to operas and balls andtheatres. Probably Vienna society was dull, if it was elegant, from theetiquette and ceremonies which marked German courts; for what was calledsociety was not that of distinguished men in letters and art, but almostexclusively that of nobles. A learned professor or wealthy merchantcould no more get access to it than he could climb to the moon. But asVienna was a Catholic city, great ecclesiastical dignitaries, not alwaysof noble birth, were on an equality with counts and barons. It was onlyin the Church that a man of plebeian origin could rise. Indeed, therewas no field for genius at all. The musician Haydn was almost the onlygenius that Austria at that time possessed outside of diplomatic ormilitary ranks. 

Napoleon had now been crowned emperor, and his course had been fromconquering to conquer. The great battles of Austerlitz and Jena had beenfought, which placed Austria and Prussia at the mercy of the conqueror. It was necessary that some one should be sent to Paris capable offathoming the schemes of the French emperor, and in 1806 CountMetternich was transferred from Berlin to the French capital. No ablerdiplomatist could be found in Europe. He was now thirty-three years ofage, a nobleman of the highest rank, his father being a prince of theempire. He had a large private fortune, besides his salary asambassador. His manners were perfect, and his accomplishments weregreat. He could speak French as well as his native tongue. His head wasclear; his knowledge was accurate and varied. Calm, cold, astute, adroit, with infinite tact, he was now brought face to face withTalleyrand, Napoleon's minister of foreign affairs, his equal inastuteness and dissimulation, as well as in the charms of conversationand the graces of polished life. With this statesman Metternich had thepleasantest relations, both social and diplomatic. Yet there was amarked difference between them. Talleyrand had accepted the ideas of theRevolution, but had no sympathy with its passions and excesses. He wasthe friend of law and order, and in his heart favored constitutionalgovernment. On this ground he supported Napoleon as the defender ofcivilization, but afterward deserted him when he perceived that theEmperor was resolved to rule without constitutional checks. His naturewas selfish, and he made no scruple of enriching himself, whatevermaster he served; but he was not indifferent to the welfare and glory ofFrance. Metternich, on the other hand, abhorred the ideas of theRevolution as much as he did its passions. He saw in absolutism the onlyhope of stability, the only reign of law. He distrusted constitutionalgovernment as liable to changes, and as unduly affected by popular ideasand passions. He served faithfully and devotedly his emperor as a sacredpersonage, ruling by divine right, to whom were intrusted the interestsof the nation. He was comparatively unselfish, and was prepared for anypersonal sacrifices for his country and his sovereign. 

Metternich was treated with distinguished consideration at Paris, notonly because he was the representative of the oldest and proudestsovereignty in Europe, --still powerful in the midst of disasters, --butalso on account of his acknowledged abilities, independent attitude, andstainless private character. All the other ambassadors at Paris weredirected to act in accordance with his advice. In 1807 he concluded thetreaty of Fontainebleau, which was most favorable to Austrian interests. He was the only man at court whom Napoleon could not browbeat orintimidate in his affected bursts of anger. Personally, Napoleon likedhim as an accomplished and agreeable gentleman; as a diplomatist andstatesman the Emperor was afraid of him, knowing that the Austrian wasat the bottom of all the intrigues and cabals against him. Yet he darednot give Metternich his passports, nor did he wish to quarrel with sopowerful a man, who might defeat his schemes to marry the daughter ofthe Austrian emperor, --the light-headed and frivolous Marie Louise. SoMetternich remained in honor at Paris for three years, studying thecharacter and aims of Napoleon, watching his military preparations, andpreparing his own imperial master for contingencies which would probablyarise; for Napoleon was then meditating the conquest of Spain, as wellas the invasion of Russia, and Metternich as well as Talleyrand knewthat this would be a great political blunder, diverting his armies fromthe preservation of the conquests he had already made, and giving to theGerman States the hope of shaking off their fetters at the firstmisfortune which should overtake him. No man in Europe so completelyfathomed the designs of Napoleon as Metternich, or so profoundlymeasured and accurately estimated his character. And I here cannotforbear to quote his own language, both to show his sagacity and toreproduce the portrait he drew of Napoleon. 

"He became, " says Metternich, "a great legislator and administrator, ashe became a great soldier, by following out his instincts. The turn ofhis mind always led him toward the positive. He disliked vague ideas, and hated equally the dreams of visionaries and the abstractions ofidealists. He treated as nonsense everything that was not clearly andpractically presented to him. He valued only those sciences which can beverified by the senses, or which rest on experience and observation. Hehad the greatest contempt for the false philosophy and falsephilanthropy of the eighteenth century. Among its teachers, Voltaire wasthe special object of his aversion. As a Catholic, he recognized inreligion alone the right to govern human societies. Personallyindifferent to religious practices, he respected them too much to permitthe slightest ridicule of those who followed them; and yet religion withhim was the result of an enlightened policy rather than an affair ofsentiment. He was persuaded that no man called to public life could beguided by any other motive than that of interest. 

"He was gifted with a particular tact in recognizing those men who couldbe useful to him. He had a profound knowledge of the national characterof the French. In history he guessed more than he knew. As he alwaysmade use of the same quotations, he must have drawn from a few books, especially abridgments. His heroes were Alexander, Caesar, andCharlemagne. He laid great stress on aristocratic birth and theantiquity of his own family. He had no other regard for men than aforeman in a manufactory feels for his work-people. In private, withoutbeing amiable, he was good-natured. His sisters got from him all theywanted. Simple and easy in private life, he showed himself to littleadvantage in the great world. Nothing could be more awkward than he in adrawing-room. He would have made great sacrifices to have added threeinches to his height. He walked on tiptoe. His costumes were studied toform a contrast with the circle which surrounded him, by extremesimplicity or extreme elegance. Talma taught him attitudes. 

"Having but one passion, --that of power, --he never lost either his timeor his means in those objects which deviated from his aims. Master ofhimself, he soon became master of events. In whatever period he hadappeared, he would have played a prominent part. His prodigioussuccesses blinded him; but up to 1812 he never lost sight of theprofound calculations by which he so often conquered. He never recoiledfrom fear of the wounds he might cause. As a war-chariot crusheseverything it meets on its way, he thought of nothing but to advance. Hecould sympathize with family troubles; he was indifferent to politicalcalamities. 

"Disinterested generosity he had none; he only dispensed his favors inproportion to the value he put on the utility of those who receivedthem. He was never influenced by affection or hatred in his public acts. He crushed his enemies without thinking of anything but the necessity ofgetting rid of them. 

"In his political combinations he did not fail to reckon largely on theweakness or errors of his adversaries. The alliance of 1813 crushed himbecause he was not able to persuade himself that the members of thecoalition could remain united, and persevere in a given course ofaction. The vast edifice he constructed was exclusively the work of hisown hands, and he was the keystone of the arch; but the giganticconstruction was essentially wanting in its foundations, the materialsof which were nothing but the ruins of other buildings. "

Such is the verdict of one of the acutest and most dispassionate menthat ever lived. Napoleon is not painted as a monster, but as asupremely selfish man bent entirely on his own exaltation, making thewelfare of France subservient to his own glory, and the interests ofhumanity itself secondary to his pride and fame. History can add butlittle to this graphic sketch, although indignant and passionate enemiesmay dilate on the Corsican's hard-heartedness, his duplicity, histreachery, his falsehood, his arrogance, and his diabolic egotism. Onthe other hand, weak and sentimental idolaters will dwell on hisgenerosity, his courage, his superhuman intellect, and the love anddevotion with which he inspired his soldiers, --all which in a sense istrue. The philosophical historian will enumerate the services Napoleonrendered to his country, whatever were his virtues or faults; but ofthese services the last person to perceive the value was Metternichhimself, even as he would be the last to acknowledge the greatness ofthose revolutionary ideas of which Napoleon was simply the product. Itwas the French Revolution which produced Napoleon, and it was the FrenchRevolution which Metternich abhorred, in all its aspects, beyond anyother event in the whole history of the world. But he was not arhetorician, as Burke was, and hence confined himself to acts, and notto words. He was one of those cool men who could use decent andtemperate language about the Devil himself and the Pandemonium in whichhe reigns. 

On the breaking up of diplomatic relations between Austria and France in1809, Metternich was recalled to Vienna to take the helm of state in theimpending crisis. Count von Stadion, though an able man, was not greatenough for the occasion. Only such a consummate statesman as Metternichwas capable of taking the reins intrusted to him with unboundedconfidence by his feeble master, whose general policy and views weresimilar to those of his trusted minister, but who had not the energy tocarry them out. Metternich was now made a prince, with large gifts ofland and money, and occupied a superb position, --similar to that whichBismarck occupied later on in Prussia, as chancellor of the empire. Itwas Metternich's policy to avert actual hostilities until Austria couldrecover from the crushing defeat at Austerlitz, and until Napoleonshould make some great mistake. He succeeded in arranging another treatywith France within the year. 

The object which Napoleon had in view at this time was his marriage withMarie Louise, from which he expected an heir to his vast dominions, anda more completely recognized position among the great monarchs ofEurope. He accordingly divorced Josephine, --some historians say with herconsent. Ten years earlier his offers would, of course, have beenindignantly rejected, or three years later, after the disasters of theRussian campaign. But Napoleon was now at the summit of his power, --thearbiter of Europe, the greatest sovereign since Julius Caesar, with ahalo of unprecedented glory, a prodigy of genius as well as a recognizedmonarch. Nothing was apparently beyond his aspirations, and he wantedthe daughter of the successor of Charlemagne in marriage. And herfather, the proud Austrian emperor, was willing to give her up to hisconqueror from reasons of state, and from policy and expediency. To allappearance it was no sacrifice to Marie Louise to be transferred fromthe dull court of Vienna to the splendid apartments of the Tuileries, tobe worshipped by the brilliant marshals and generals who had conqueredEurope, and to be crowned as empress of the French by the Pope himself. Had she been a nobler woman, she might have hesitated and refused; butshe was vain and frivolous, and was overwhelmed by the glory with whichshe was soon to be surrounded. 

And yet the marriage was a delicate affair, and difficult to be managed. It required all the tact of an arch-diplomatist. So Prince Metternichwas sent to Paris to bring it about. In fact, it was he more than anyone else who for political reasons favored this marriage. Napoleon wasexceedingly gracious, while Metternich had his eyes and ears open. Heeven dared to tell the Emperor many unpleasant truths. The affair, however, was concluded; and after Napoleon's divorce from Josephine, in1810, the Austrian princess became empress of the French. 

One thing was impressed on the mind of Metternich during the festivitiesof this second visit to Paris; and that was that during the year 1811the peace of Europe would not be disturbed. Napoleon was absorbed withthe preparations for the invasion of Russia, --the only power he had notsubdued, except England, and a power in secret coalition with bothPrussia and Austria. His acquisitions would not be secure unless theColossus of the North was hopelessly crippled. Metternich saw that thecampaign could not begin till 1812, and that the Emperor had need of allthe assistance he could get from conquered allies. He saw also themistakes of Napoleon, and meant to profit by them. He anticipated forthat daring soldier nothing but disaster in attempting to battle thepowers of Nature at such a distance from his capital. He perceived thatNapoleon was alienating, in his vast schemes of aggrandizement, even hisown ministers, like Talleyrand and Fouché, who would leave him themoment they dared, although his marshals and generals might remain trueto him because of the enormous rewards which he had lavished upon themfor their military services. He knew the discontent of Italy and Polandbecause of unfulfilled promises. He knew the intense hatred of Prussiabecause of the humiliations and injuries Napoleon had inflicted on her. Metternich was equally aware of the hostility of England, although Pitthad passed away; and he despised the arrogance of a man who looked uponhimself as greater than destiny. "It is an evidence of the weakness ofthe human understanding, " said the infatuated conqueror, "for any one todream of resisting me. "

So Metternich, after the marriage ceremony and its attendantfestivities, foreseeing the fall of the conqueror, retired to his postat Vienna to complete his negotiations, and make his preparations forthe renewal of the conflict, which he now saw was inevitable. His workwas to persuade Prussia, Russia, and the lesser Powers, of the absolutenecessity of a sincere and cordial alliance to make preparations for theconflict to put down, or at least successfully to resist, the commonenemy, --the ruthless and unscrupulous disturber of the peace of Europe;not to make war, but to prepare for war in view of contingencies; andthis not merely to preserve the peace of Europe, but to save themselvesfrom ruin. All his confidential letters to his sovereign indicate hisconviction that the throne of Austria was in extreme danger of beingsubverted. All his despatches to ambassadors show that affairs wereextremely critical. His policy, in general terms, was pacific; he longedfor peace on a settled basis. But his policy in the great crisis of 1811and 1812 was warlike, --not for immediate hostilities, but for war assoon as it would be safe to declare it. It was his profound convictionthat a lasting peace was utterly impossible so long as Napoleon reigned;and this was the conviction also of Pitt and Castlereagh of England andof the Prussian Hardenberg. 

The main trouble was with Prussia. Frederick William III. Was timid, andconsidering the intense humiliation of his subjects and the overpoweringascendency of Napoleon, saw no hope but in submission. He was afraid tomake a move, even when urged by his ministers. Indeed, he had in 1808exiled the greatest of them, Stein, at the imperious demand of theFrench emperor, --sending him to a Rhenish city, whence he was soon aftercompelled to lead a fugitive life as an outlaw. It is true the king didnot like Stein, and saw him go without regret. He could not endure theovershadowing influence of that great man, and was offended by hisbrusque manners and his plain speech. But Stein saw things asMetternich saw them, and had when prime minister devoted himself toadministrative and political reforms. Prince Hardenberg, the successorof Stein, was easily convinced of Metternich's wisdom; for he was apatriot and an honest man, though loose in his private morals in somerespects. Metternich had an ally, too, in Schornhurst, who wasremodelling the whole military system of Prussia. 

The king, however, persisted in his timid policy until the Russiancampaign, --a course which, singularly enough, proved the wisest in hiscircumstances. When at last the king yielded, all Prussia arose withunbounded enthusiasm to engage in the war of liberation; Prussia neededno urging when actually invaded; Austria openly threw off herconservative appearance of armed neutrality: and the coalition for whichMetternich had long been laboring, and of which he was the life andbrain, became a reality. The battle of Leipsic settled the fateof Napoleon. 

Even before that fatal battle was fought, however, Napoleon, had he beenwise, might have saved himself. If he had been content in 1812 to spendthe winter in Smolensk, instead of hurrying on to Moscow, the enterprisemight not have been disastrous; but after his retreat from Russia, withthe loss of the finest army that Europe ever saw, he was doomed. Yet hecould not brook further humiliation. He resolved still to struggle. "Itmay cost me my throne, " said he, "but I will bury the world beneath itsruins. " He marched into Germany, in the spring of 1813, with a fresharmy of three hundred and fifty thousand men, replacing the half millionhe had squandered in Russia. Metternich shrank from further bloodshed, but clearly saw the issue. "You may still have peace, " said he in anaudience with Napoleon. "Peace or war lie in your own hands; but youmust reduce your power, or you will fail in the contest. " "Never!"replied Napoleon; "I shall know how to die, but I will not yield ahandbreadth of soil. " "You are lost, then, " said the Austrianchancellor, and withdrew. "It is all over with the man, " said Metternichto Berthier, Napoleon's chief of staff; and he turned to marshal theforces of his empire. A short time was given Napoleon to reconsider, butwithout effect. At twelve o'clock, Aug. 10, 1813, negotiations ceased;the beacon fires were lighted, and hostilities recommenced. During thepreparations for the Russian campaign, Austria had been neutral and therest of Germany submissive; but now Russia, Prussia, and Austria wereallied, by solemn compact, to fight to the bitter end, --not to ruinFrance, but to dethrone Napoleon. 

The allied monarchs then met at Toplitz, with their ministers, toarrange the plan of the campaign, --the Austrian armies being commandedby Prince Schwartzenberg, and the Prussians by Blücher. Then followedthe battle of Leipsic, on the 16th to the 18th of October, 1813, --"thebattle of the nations, " it has been called, --and Napoleon's power wasbroken. Again the monarchs, with their ministers, met at Basle toconsult, and were there joined by Lord Castlereagh, who representedEngland, the allied forces still pursuing the remnants of the Frencharmy into France. From Basle the conference was removed to the heightsof the Vosges, which overlooked the plains of France. On the 1st ofApril, 1814, the allied sovereigns took up their residence in theParisian palaces; and on April 4 Napoleon abdicated, and was sent toElba. He still had twelve thousand or fifteen thousand troops atFontainebleau; but his marshals would have shot him had he made furtherresistance. On the 4th of May Louis XVIII. Was seated on the throne ofhis ancestors, and Europe was supposed to be delivered. 

Considering the evils and miseries which Napoleon had inflicted on theconquered nations, the allies were magnanimous in their terms. No warindemnity was even asked, and Napoleon in Elba was allowed an income ofsix million francs, to be paid by France. 

After the leaders of the allies had settled affairs at Paris, theyreassembled at Vienna, --ostensibly to reconstruct the political systemof Europe and secure a lasting peace; in reality, to divide among theconquerors the spoils taken from the vanquished. The Congress ofVienna, --in session from November, 1814, to June, 1815, --of which PrinceMetternich was chosen president by common consent, was one of thegrandest gatherings of princes and statesmen seen since the Diet ofWorms. There were present at its deliberations the Czar of Russia, theEmperor of Austria, the kings of Prussia, Denmark, Bavaria, andWürtemberg, and nearly every statesman of commanding eminence in Europe. Lord Castlereagh represented England; Talleyrand represented theBourbons of France; and Hardenberg, Prussia. Von Stein was also present, but without official place. Besides these was a crowd of petty princes, each with attachés. Metternich entertained the visitors in the mostlavish and magnificent manner. The government, though embarrassed andstraitened by the expense of the late wars, allowed £10, 000 a day, equalperhaps in that country and at that time to £50, 000 to-day in London. Nothing was seen but the most brilliant festivities, incessant balls, fêtes, and banquets. The greatest actors, the greatest singers, and thegreatest dancers were allured to the giddy capital, never so gay beforeor since. Beethoven was also there, at the height of his fame, and thegreat assembly rooms were placed at his disposal. 

The sittings of the Congress, in view of the complicated questionswhich had to be settled, did not regularly begin till November. Themeetings at first were harmonious; but ere long they became acrimonious, as the views of the representatives of the four great powers--Russia, Austria, England, and Prussia--were brought to light. They all, exceptEngland, claimed enormous territories as a compensation for thesacrifices they had made. Talleyrand at first was excluded from theconferences; but his wonderful skill as a diplomatist soon made hispower felt. He was the soul of intrigue and insincerity. All thediplomatists were at first wary and prudent, then greedy andunscrupulous. Violent disputes arose. The Emperor Alexander openlyquarrelled with Metternich, and refused to be present at his parties, although they had been on the most friendly terms. 

In the division of the spoils, the Czar claimed the Grand Duchy ofWarsaw, to be nominally under the rule of a sovereign, but really to beincorporated with his vast empire. Metternich resisted this claim withall the ability he had, as bringing Russia too dangerously near thefrontiers of Austria; but Alexander had laid Prussia under such immenseobligations that Frederick William supported his claims, --with themutual understanding, however, that Prussia should annex the kingdom ofSaxony, since Saxony had supported Napoleon. The plenipotentiaries werein such awe of the vast armies of the Czar, that they were obliged toyield to this wicked annexation; and Poland--once the most powerful ofthe mediaeval kingdoms of Europe--was wiped out of the map ofindependent nations. This acquisition by far outbalanced all theexpenses which Alexander had incurred during the war of liberation. Itmade Russia the most powerful military empire in the world. 

Although Prussia and Austria had been, since the times of Frederic theGreat, in perpetual rivalry, the greatness of the common danger fromsuch a warlike neighbor now induced Metternich to make every overture toPrussia to prevent a possible calamity to Germany; but Frederick Williamwas obstinate, and his league with Alexander could not be broken. Itappears, from the memoirs of Metternich, that it had been for a longtime his desire to unite Prussia and Austria in a firm alliance, inorder to protect Germany in case of future wars. That was undoubtedlyhis true policy. It was the policy fifty years later of Bismarck, although he was obliged to fight and humble Austria before he couldconsummate it. With Russia on one side and France on the other, the onlyhope of Germany is in union. But this aim of the great Austrianstatesman was defeated by the stupidity and greed of the Prussian king, and by his interested friendship with "the autocrat of all theRussias. " Alexander got Poland, with an addition of about four millionsubjects to his empire. 

A greater resistance was made to the outrageous claims of Prussia. Shewanted to annex the whole of Saxony and important provinces on theRhine, which would have made her more powerful than Austria. NeitherMetternich nor Talleyrand nor Castlereagh would hear of this crime; andso angry and threatening were the disputes in the Congress that a treatywas signed by England, France, and Austria for an offensive anddefensive alliance against Prussia and Russia, in case the claims ofPrussia were persisted in. After the combination of Russia, Prussia, Austria, and England against Napoleon, there was imminent danger of warbreaking out between these great Powers in the matter of a division ofspoils. In rapacity and greed they showed themselves as bad asNapoleon himself. 

Prussia, however, was the most greedy and insatiable of all thecontracting parties. She always has been so since she was erected into akingdom. The cruel terms exacted by Bismarck and Moltke in their latecontest with France indicate the real animus of Prussia. The conquerorswould have exacted ten milliards instead of five, as a war indemnity, ifthey had thought that France could pay it. They did not dare to carryaway the pictures of the Louvre, nor perhaps did those iron warriorscare much for them; but they did want money and territory, and weredetermined to get all they could. Prussia was a poor country, and mustbe enriched any way by the unexpected spoils which the fortune of warthrew into her hands. 

This same rapacity was seen at the Congress of Vienna; but theopposition to it was too great to risk another war, and Prussia, at theentreaty of Alexander, abated some of her demands, as did also Russiaher own. The result was that only half of Saxony was ceded to Prussia, raising the subjects of Prussia to ten millions. The tact and firmnessof Talleyrand and Castlereagh had prevented the utter absorption ofSaxony in the new military monarchy. Talleyrand, whose designs couldnever be fathomed by the most astute of diplomatists, had succeeded alsoin isolating Russia and Prussia from the rest of Europe, and raisingFrance into a great power, although her territories were now confined tothe limits which had existed in 1792. He had succeeded in detachingAustria and the southern States of Germany from Prussia. He had splitGermany into two rival powers, just what Louis Napoleon afterwardsaspired to do, hoping to derive from their mutual jealousies some greatadvantage to France in case of war. Neither of them, however, realizedthe intense common love of both Austria and Prussia, and indeed of allthe German States at heart, for "Fatherland, " needing only the geniusof a very great man finally to unite them together in one great nation, impossible to be hereafter vanquished by any single power. 

Austria retained for her share Lombardy, Venice, Parma, Placentia, --thefinest part of Italy, that which was known in the time of Julius Caesaras Cisalpine Gaul. She did not care for the Low Countries, which formeda part of the old empire of Charles V. , since to keep that territorywould cost more than it would pay. She also received from Bavaria theTyrol. As further results of the Congress of Vienna, the Netherlands andHolland were united in one kingdom, under a prince of the house ofNassau; Naples returned to the rule of the Bourbons; Genoa became a partof Piedmont. The petty independent States of Germany (some threehundred) were united into a confederation of thirty-seven, called theGerman Confederacy, to afford mutual support in time of war, and to bedirected by a Diet, in which Austria and Prussia were to have two voteseach, while Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Hanover were to have one vote each. Thus, Prussia and Austria had four votes out of seven; which practicallygave to these two powers, if they chose to unite, the control of allexternal relations. As to internal affairs, the legislative power wasvested in representatives from all the States, both small and great. Itwill be seen that the higher interests of Germany were not consideredin this Congress at all, attention being directed solely to a divisionof spoils. 

But while the Congress was dividing between the princes who composed itits acquisition of territory by conquest, and quarrelling about theirrespective shares like the members of a family that had come into alarge fortune, news arrived of the escape of Napoleon from Elba, after abrief ten months' detention, the adherence to him of the French army, and the consequent dethronement of Louis XVIII. The Congress at oncedispersed, forgetting all its differences, while the great monarchsunited once more in pouring such an avalanche of troops into France andBelgium that Napoleon stood no chance of retaining his throne, whatevermilitary genius he might display. After his defeat at Waterloo theallies occupied Paris, and this time exacted a large war indemnity of£40, 000, 000, and left an army of occupation of one hundred and fiftythousand men in France until the money should be paid. They alsoreturned to their owners the pictures of the Louvre which Napoleon hadtaken in his various conquests. 

It was while the allies were in Paris settling the terms of the secondpeace, that what is called the "Holy Alliance" was formed betweenAlexander, Frederick William, and Francis (to whom were afterward addedthe kings of France, Naples, and Spain), which had for its object thesuppression of liberal ideas throughout the Continent, in the name ofreligion. Some of these monarchs were religious men in theirway, --especially the Czar, who had been much interested in the spread ofChristianity, and the king of Prussia; but even these men thought moreof putting down revolutionary ideas than they did of the triumphsof religion. 

We must, however, turn our attention to Metternich as the administratorof a large empire, rather than as a diplomatist, although for thirtyyears after this his hand was felt, if not seen, in all the politicalaffairs of Europe. He was now forty-four years of age, in the prime ofhis strength and the fulness of his fame, --a prince of the empire, chancellor and prime minister to the Emperor Francis. On his shoulderswere imposed the burdens of the State. He ruled with delegated powersindeed, but absolutely. The master whom he served was weak, but wascompletely in accord with Metternich on all political questions. He ofcourse submitted all important documents to the emperor, and requestedinstructions; but all this was a matter of form. He was allowed to do ashe pleased. He was always exceedingly deferential, and never madehimself disagreeable to his sovereign, who could not do without him. From first to last they were on the most friendly terms with eachother, and there was no jealousy of his power on the part of theemperor. The chancellor was a gentleman, and had extraordinary tact. Buthis labors were prodigious, and gave him no time for pleasure, or evensocial intercourse, which finally became irksome to him. He was too busywith public affairs to be a great scholar, and was not called upon tomake speeches, as there was no deliberative assembly to address. Nor washe a national idol. He lived retired in his office, among ministers andsecretaries, and appeared in public as little as possible. 

After the final dethronement of Napoleon, the policy of Metternich withreference to foreign powers was pacific. He had seen enough of war, andit had no charm for him. War had brought Germany to the verge ofpolitical ruin. All his efforts as chancellor were directed to thepreservation of peace and the balance of power among all nations. At theclose of the great European struggle the finances of all the GermanStates were alike disordered, and their industries paralyzed. Comparedwith France and England Germany was poor, and wages for all kinds oflabor were small. It became Metternich's aim to develop the materialresources of the empire, which could be best done in time of peace. Austria, accordingly, took part in no international contest for fiftyyears, except to preserve her own territories. Metternich did not seemto be ambitious of further territorial aggrandizement for his country;it required all his talents to preserve what she had. Indeed, thepreservation of the _status quo_ everywhere was his desire, withoutchange, and without progress. He was a conservative, like the EnglishLord Eldon, who supported established institutions because they _were_established; and any movement or any ideas which interrupted the orderof things were hateful to him, especially agitations for greaterpolitical liberty. A constitutional government was his abhorrence. 

Hence, the policy of Metternich's home rule was fatal to all expansion, to all emancipating movements, to all progress, to everything whichlooked like popular liberty. Men might smoke, drink beer, attendconcerts and theatres, amuse themselves in any way they pleased, butthey should not congregate together to discuss political questions; theyshould not form clubs or societies with political intent of any kind;they should not even read agitating tracts and books. He could not helptheir thinking, but they should not criticise his government. Theyshould be taught in schools directed by Roman Catholic priests, who weregood classical scholars, good mathematicians, but who knew but littleand cared less about theories of political economy, or even historyunless modified to suit religious bigots of the Mediaeval type. Hemaintained that men should be contented with the sphere in which theywere born; that discontent was no better than rebellion againstProvidence; that any change would be for the worse. He had no liking foruniversities, in which were fomented liberal ideas; and those professorswho sought to disturb the order of things, or teach new ideas, --anythingto make young scholars think upon anything but ordinary duties, --weresilenced or discharged or banished. The word "rights" was an abominationto him; men, he thought, had no rights, --only duties. He disliked thePress more than he did the universities. It was his impression that itwas antagonistic to all existing governments; hence he fettered thePress with restrictions, and confined it to details of littleimportance. He would allow no comments which unsettled the minds ofreaders. In no country was the censorship of the Press more inexorablethan in Austria and its dependent States. All that spies and a secretpolice and priests could do to ferret out associations which had in viewa greater liberty, was done; all that soldiers could do to suppresspopular insurrection was effected, --and all in the name of religion, since he looked upon free inquiry as logically leading to scepticism, and scepticism to infidelity, and infidelity to revolution. 

In the Catholic sense Metternich was a religious man, since herecognized in the Roman Catholic Church the conservation of all that isvaluable in society, in government, and even in civilization. He broughtCatholics to his aid in cementing political despotism, for "Absolutismand Catholicism, " as Sir James Stephen so well said, "are butconvertible terms. " Accordingly, he brought back the Jesuits, andrestored them to their ancient power and wealth. He formed the strictestunion with the Pope. He rewarded ecclesiastics, and honored the greatdignitaries of the established church as his most efficient and trustedlieutenants in the war he waged on human liberty. 

But I must allude to some of the things which gave this great mantrouble. Of course nothing worried him so much as popular insurrections, since they endangered the throne, and opposed the cherished ends of hislife. As early as 1817, what he called "sects" disturbed central Europe. These were a class of people who resembled the Methodists of England, and the followers of Madam von Krüdener in Russia, --generally mystics inreligion, who practised the greatest self-denial in this world to makesure of the promises of the next. The Kingdom of Würtemberg, the GrandDuchy of Baden, and Suabia were filled with these people, --perfectlyharmless politically, yet with views which Metternich considered aninnovation, to be stifled in the beginning. So of Bible societies; hewas opposed to these as furnishing a class of subjects for discussionwhich brought up to his mind the old dissertations on "the rights ofman. " "The Catholic Church, " he writes to Count Nesselrode, the Russianminister, "does not encourage the universal reading of the Bible, whichshould be confined to persons who are calm and enlightened. " But he goeson to say that he himself at forty-five reads daily one or two chapters, and finds new beauties in them, while at the age of twenty he was asceptic, and found it difficult not to think that the family of Lot wasunworthy to be saved, Noah unworthy to have lived, Saul a greatcriminal, and David a terrible man; that he had tried to understandeverything, but that now he accepts everything without cavil orcriticism. Truly, a Catholic might say, "See the glorious peace andrepose which our faith brings to the most intellectual of men!"

In 1819 an event occurred, of no great importance in itself, but whichwas made the excuse for increased stringency in the suppression ofliberal sentiments throughout Germany. This was the assassination of VonKotzebue, the dramatic author, at Manheim, at the hands of a fanatic bythe name of Sand. Kotzebue had some employment under the Russiangovernment, and was supposed to be a propagandist of the views of theCzar, who had lately become exceedingly hostile to all emancipatingmovements. In the early part of his reign Alexander was called aJacobin by Metternich, who despised his philanthropical and sentimentaltheories, and his energetic labors in behalf of literature, educationalinstitutions, freer political conditions, etc. ; but when Napoleon wassent to St. Helena, the Russian ruler, wearied with great events anddreading revolutionary tendencies, changed his opinions, and was nowleagued with the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria insupporting the most stringent measures against all reformers. Sand was atheological student in the University of Jena, who thought he was doingGod's service by removing from the earth with his assassin's dagger avile wretch employed by the Russian tyrant to propagate views whichmocked the loftiest aspirations of mankind. The murder of Kotzebuecreated an immense sensation throughout Europe, and was followed byincreased rigor on the part of all despotic governments in muzzling thepress, in the suppression of public meetings of every sort, andespecially in expelling from the universities both students andprofessors who were known or even supposed to entertain liberal ideas. Metternich went so far as to write a letter to the King of Prussiaurging him to disband the gymnasia, as hotbeds of mischief. Hisinfluence on this monarch was still further seen in dissuading him towithhold the constitution promised his subjects during the war ofliberation. He regarded the meeting of a general representation of thenation as scarcely less evil than democratic violence, and his hatred ofconstitutional checks on a king was as great as of intellectualindependence in a professor at a gymnasium. Universities and constituentassemblies, to him, were equally fatal to undisturbed peace andstability in government. 

In the midst of these efforts to suppress throughout Germany allagitating political ideas and movements, the news arrived of therevolution in Naples, July, 1820, effected by the Carbonari, by whichthe king was compelled to restore the constitution of 1813, or abdicate. Metternich lost no time in assembling the monarchs of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, with their principal ministers, to a conference or congressat Troppau, with a view of putting down the insurrection by armedintervention. The result is well known. The armies of Austria andRussia--170, 000 men--restored the Neapolitan tyrant to his throne; whilehe, on his part, revoked the constitution he had sworn to defend, andaffairs at Naples became worse than they were before. In no country inthe world was there a more execrable despotism than that exercised bythe Bourbon Ferdinand. The prisons were filled with political prisoners;and these prisons were filthy, without ventilation, so noisome andpestilential that even physicians dared not enter them; while thewretched prisoners, mostly men of culture, chained to the mostabandoned and desperate murderers and thieves, dragged out their wearylives without trial and without hope. And this was what the king, supported and endorsed by Metternich, considered good government to be. 

The following year saw an insurrection in Piedmont, when the patrioticparty hoped to throw all Northern Italy upon the rear of the Austrians, but which resulted, as will be treated elsewhere, in a sad collapse. Thevictory of absolutism in Italy was complete, and all people seekingtheir liberties became the object of attack from the three great Powers, who obeyed the suggestions of the Austrian chancellor, --nowunquestionably the most prominent figure in European politics. He hadnot only suppressed liberty in the country which he directly governed, but he had united Austria, Prussia, and Russia in a war against theliberties of Europe, and this under the guise of religion itself. 

Metternich now thought he had earned a vacation, and in the fall of 1821he made a visit to Hanover. He had previously visited Italy with theusual experience of cultivated Germans, --unbounded admiration for itsworks of art and sunny skies and historical monuments. He was asenthusiastic as Madame de Staël over St. Peter's and the Pantheon. Inhis private letters to his wife and children, so simple, so frank, sochildlike in his enjoyment, no one would suppose he was the arch andcruel enemy of all progress, with monarchs for his lieutenants, andgovernors for his slaves. His journey to Hanover was a triumphantprocession. The King George IV. Embraced him with that tenderness whichis usual with monarchs when they meet one another, and in thefulsomeness of his praises compared him to all the great men ofantiquity and of modern times, --Caesar, Cato, Gustavus Adolphus, Marlborough, Pitt, Wellington, and the whole catalogue of heroes. On hisreturn journey to Vienna, Metternich stopped to rest himself a while atJohannisberg, the magnificent estate on the Rhine which the emperor hadgiven him, near where he was born, and where he had stored away fortyhuge casks of his own vintage, worth six hundred ducats a cask, for theuse of monarchs and great nobles alone. From thence he proceeded toFrankfort, a beautiful but to him a horrible town, I suppose, because itwas partially free; and while there he took occasion to visit fiveuniversities, at all of which he was received as a sort of deity, --thestudents following his carriage with uncovered heads, and with cheersand shouts, curious to see what sort of a man it was who had so easilysuppressed revolution in Italy, and who ruled Germany with such aniron hand. 

And yet while Metternich so completely extinguished the fires ofliberty in the countries which he governed, he was doomed to see howhopeless it was to do the same in other lands by mere diplomaticintrigues. In 1822 the Spanish revolution broke out; and a year aftercame the Greek revolution, with all its complications, ending in a warbetween Russia and Turkey. From this he stood aloof, since if he helpedthe Turks to put down insurrection he would offend the EmperorAlexander, thus far his best ally, and commit Austria to a war fromwhich he shrank. It was his policy to preserve his country fromentangling wars. It was as much as he could do to preserve order and lawin the various States of Germany, at the cost of all intellectualprogress. But he watched the developments of liberty in other parts ofEurope with the keenest interest, and his correspondence with thedifferent potentates--whether monarchs or their ministers--is veryvoluminous, and was directed to the support of absolutism, in whichalone he saw hope for Europe. The liberal views of the English Canninggave Metternich both solicitude and disgust; and he did all he could toundermine the influence of Capo D'Istrias, the Greek diplomatist, withhis imperial master the Czar. He hated any man who was politicallyenlightened, and destroyed him if he could. The event in his long reignwhich most perplexed him and gave him the greatest solicitude was therevolution in France in 1830, which unseated the Bourbons, andestablished the constitutional government of Louis Philippe; and thiswas followed by the insurrection of the Netherlands, revolts in theGerman States, and the Polish revolution. With the year 1830 began a newera in European politics, --a period of reform, not always successful, but enough to show that the spirit of innovation could no longer besuppressed; that the subterranean fires of liberty would burst forthwhen least expected, and overthrow the strongest thrones. 

But amid all the reforms which took place in England, in France, inBelgium, in Piedmont, Austria remained stationary, so cemented was thepower of Metternich, so overwhelming was his influence, --the one centralfigure in Germany for eighteen years longer. In 1835 the Emperor Francisdied, recommending to his son and successor Ferdinand to lean on thepowerful arm of the chancellor, and continue him in great offices. Norwas it until the outbreak in Vienna in 1848, when emperor and ministeralike fled from the capital, that the official career of Metternichclosed, and he finally retired to his estates at Johannisberg to spendhis few declining years in leisure and peace. 

For forty years Metternich had borne the chief burdens of the State. Forforty years his word was the law of Germany. For forty years all thecabinets of continental Europe were guided more or less by his advice;and his advice, from first to last, was uniform, --to put down popularmovements and uphold absolutism at any cost, and severely punish allpeople, of whatever rank or character, who tempted the oppressed toshake off their fetters, or who dared to give expression to emancipatingideas, even in the halls of universities. 

In view of the execrable tyranny, both political and religious, whichMetternich succeeded in establishing for thirty years, it is natural foran ordinary person to look upon him as a monster, --hard, cruel, unscrupulous, haughty, gloomy; a sort of Wallenstein or Strafford, to beheld in abhorrence; a man to be assassinated as the enemy of mankind. 

But Metternich was nothing of the sort. As a man, in all his privaterelations he was amiable, gentle, and kind to everybody, and greatlyrevered by domestic servants and public functionaries. By his imperialmaster he was treated as a brother or friend, rather than as a minister;while on his part he never presumed on any liberties, and seemed simplyto obey the orders of his sovereign, --orders which he himself suggested, with infinite tact and politeness; unlike Stein and Bismarck, who wereoverbearing and rude even in the presence of the sovereign and court. Metternich had better manners and more self-control. Indeed, he was themodel of a gentleman wherever he went. He was the hardest worked man inthe empire; and he worked from the stimulus of what he conceived to behis duty, and for the welfare of the country, as he understood it. Though one of the richest men in Austria, and of the highest socialrank, he lived in frugal simplicity, despising pomp and extravagancealike. His highest enjoyment, outside the society of his family, wasmusic. The whole realm of art was his delight; but he loved Nature moreeven than art. He enjoyed greatly the repose of his own library, --anapartment eighteen feet high, and containing fifteen thousand volumes. The only unamiable thing about Metternich was his fear of being bored. He maintained that it was impossible to find over six interesting men inany company whatever. With people whom he trusted he was unusually frankand free-spoken. With diplomatists he wore a mask, and made it a pointto conceal his thoughts. He deceived even Napoleon. No one couldpenetrate his intentions. Under a smooth and placid countenance, unruffled and calm on all occasions, he practised when he pleased theprofoundest dissimulation; and he dissimulated by telling the truthoftener than by concealing it. He knew what the _ars celare artem_meant. When he could find leisure he was fond of travelling, especiallyin Italy; but he hated and avoided the discomforts of travel. If hemade distant journeys he travelled luxuriously, and wherever he went hewas received with the greatest honors. At Rome the Pope treated him as asovereign. The Czar Alexander commanded his magnates to give to him thesame deference that they gave to himself. 

While the world regarded Metternich as the most fortunate of men, he yethad many sorrows and afflictions, which saddened his life. He lost twowives and three of his children, to all of whom he was devotedlyattached, yet bore the loss with Christian resignation. He found reliefin work, and in his duties. There were no scandals in his private life. He professed and seemed to feel the greatest reverence for religion, inthe form which had been taught him. He detested vulgarity in everyshape, as he did all ordinary vices, from which he was free. He wasself-conscious, and loved attention and honors, but was not a slave tothem, like most German officials. Nothing could be more tender andaffectionate than his letters to his mother, to his wife, and to hisdaughters. His father he treated with supreme reverence. No public manever gave more dignity to domestic pleasures. "The truest friends of mylife, " said he, "are my family and my master;" and to each he wasequally devoted. On the death of his second wife, in 1829, he writes, --

"I feel this misfortune most deeply. I have lost everything for theremainder of my days. The other world is daily more and more peopledwith beings to whom I am united by the closest ties of affection. I tooshall take my place there, and I shall disengage myself from this lifewith all the less regret. My only relief is in work. I am at my desk bynine in the morning. I leave it at five, and return to it at half-pastsix, and work till half-past ten, when I receive visitors tillmidnight. "

Time, however, brought its relief, and in 1831 he married the PrincessMelanie, and his third marriage was as happy as the others appear tohave been. In the diary of this wife, December 31, I read:--

"We supped at midnight, and exchanged good wishes for the new year. MayGod long preserve to me my good, kind Clement, and illuminate him withHis divine light. It touches me to see the pleasure it gives him to talkwith me on business, and read to me what he writes. "

Such was the great Austrian statesman in his private life, --a dutifulson, a loving and devoted husband, an affectionate father, a faithfulservant to his emperor, a kind master to his dependants, a courteouscompanion, a sincere believer in the doctrines of his church, a manconscientious in the discharge of duties, and having at heart thewelfare of his country as he understood it, amid innumerable perils fromforeign and domestic foes. As a statesman he was vigilant, sagacious, experienced, and devoted to the interests of his imperial master. 

But what were Metternich's services, by which great men claim to bejudged? He could say that he was the promoter of law and order; that hekept the nation from entangling alliances with foreign powers; that hewas the friend of peace, and detested war except upon necessity; that hedeveloped industrial resources and wisely regulated finances; that hesecured national prosperity for forty years after desolating wars; thathe never disturbed the ordinary vocations of the people, or inflictedunnecessary punishments; and that he secured to Austria a proudpre-eminence among the nations of Europe. 

But this was all. Metternich did nothing for the higher interests ofGermany. He kept it stagnant for forty years. He neither advancededucation, nor philanthropy, nor political economy. He was theunrelenting foe of all political reforms, and of all liberal ideas. Whatwe call civilization, beyond amusements and pleasures and the ordinaryroutine of business, owes to him nothing, --not even codes of law, orenlightened principles of government. Judged by his services tohumanity, Metternich was not a great man. His highest claims togreatness were in a vigorous administration of public affairs anddiplomatic ability in his treatment of foreign powers, but not infar-reaching views or aims. As a ruler he ranks no higher than Mazarinor Walpole or Castlereagh, and far below Canning, Peel, Pitt, or Thiers. Indeed, Metternich takes his place with the tyrants of mankind, yetshowing how benignant, how courteous, how interesting, and evenreligious and beloved, a tyrant can be; which is more than can be saidof Richelieu or Bismarck, the only two statesmen with whom he can becompared, --all three ruling with absolute power delegated byirresponsible and imperial masters, like Mordecai behind the throne ofXerxes, or Maecenas at the court of Augustus. 

AUTHORITIES. 

The greatest authority is the Autobiography of Metternich; but Alison'sHistory, though dull and heavy, and marked by Tory prejudices, isreliable. Fyffe may be read with profit in his recent history of ModernEurope; also Müller's Political History of Recent Times. The AnnualRegister is often quoted by Alison. Schlosser's History of Europe in theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries is a good authority. 

CHATEAUBRIAND. 

1768-1848. 

THE RESTORATION AND FALL OF THE BOURBONS. 

In this lecture I wish to treat of the restoration of the Bourbons, andof the counter-revolution in France. 

On the fall of Napoleon, the Prussian king and the Austrian emperor, under the predominating influence of Metternich, in restoring theBourbons were averse to constitutional checks. They wanted nothing lessthan absolute monarchy, such as existed before the Revolution. On theother hand, the Czar Alexander, generous and inclined then to liberalideas, was willing to concede something to the Revolution; while thegovernment of England, mindful of the liberty which had made thatcountry so glorious and so prosperous, also favored a constitutionalgovernment in the person of the legitimate heir of the French monarchy. Such was also the wish of the French nation, so far as it could beexpressed; for the French people, under whatever form of governmentthey may have lived, have never forgotten or repudiated the ideas andbequests of the greatest movement in modern times. 

Prussia and Austria, therefore, were obliged to yield to Russia andEngland, supported by the will of the French nation itself. Russia hadno jealousy of French ideas; and England certainly could not, consistently with her struggles and her traditions, oppose what theEnglish nation resolutely clung to, and of which it was so proud. Prussia and Austria, undisturbed by revolutions, wished simply therestoration of the _status quo_, which with them meant absolutemonarchy; but which in France was not really the _status quo_, since theRevolution had effected great and permanent changes even under therégime of Bonaparte. Russia and England, in conceding something toliberty, were yet as earnest and sincere advocates of legitimacy asPrussia and Austria; for constitutional rights may exist under amonarchy as well as under a republic. Moreover, it was felt byenlightened statesmen of all parties that no government could be stableand permanent in France which ignored the bequests of the Revolution, which even Napoleon professed to respect. 

Accordingly it was settled that Louis XVIII. , --the younger brother ofLouis XVI. , who had fled from France in 1792, --should be recalled fromexile, and restored to the throne of his ancestors, since he agreed toaccept checks to his authority, and swore to defend the newconstitution, although he insisted upon reigning "by the grace ofGod, "--not as a monarch who received his crown from the people, or as agift from other monarchs, but by divine right. To this all partiesconsented. He maintained the dignity of the royal prerogative at thesame time that he recognized the essential liberties of the nation. Theywere not so full and complete as those in England; but the kingguaranteed to secure the rights both of public and private property, torespect the freedom of the Press, to grant liberty of worship, tomaintain the national obligations, to make the judicial powerindependent and irremovable, and to admit all Frenchmen to civil andmilitary employment, without restrictions in matters of religion. Thesein substance constituted the charter which he granted on condition ofreigning, --an immense gain to France and the cause of civilization, ifhonestly maintained. 

Louis XVIII. Was neither a great king nor a great man; but his longexile of twenty years, his travels and residences in various countriesin Europe, his misfortunes and his studies, had liberalized his mindwithout embittering his heart. He never lost his dignity or his hopes inhis sad reverses; and when he was thus recalled to France to mount thethrone of his murdered brother, he was a very respectable man, bothfrom natural intelligence and extensive attainments. He possessed greatsocial and conversational powers, was moderate in his views ofCatholicism, virtuous in his private character, affectionate with hisfriends and the members of his family, prudent in the exercise of power, and disposed to reign according to the constitution which he honestlyhad accepted; but socially he restored the ancient order of things, surrounded himself with a splendid court, lived in great pomp andceremony, and appointed the ancient nobles to the higher offices ofstate. According to French writers, he was the equal in conversation ofany of the great men with whom he was brought in contact, without beinggreat himself, thereby resembling Louis XIV. He had handsome features, amusical voice, pleasing manners, and singular urbanity, without beingcondescending. He was infirm in his legs, which prevented him fromtaking exercise, except in his long daily drives, drawn in hismagnificent carriage by eight horses, with outriders and guards. 

The king delegated his powers to no single statesman, but held the reinsin his own hand. His ability as a ruler consisted in his tact andmoderation in managing the conflicting parties, and in his honestabstention from encroaching on the liberties of the people in rareemergencies; so that his reign was peaceable and tolerably successful. It required no inconsiderable ability to preserve the throne to hissuccessor amid such a war of factions, and such a disposition forencroachments on the part of the royal family. In contrast with thesplendid achievements and immense personality of Napoleon, Louis XVIII. Is not a great figure in history; but had there been no Revolution andno Napoleon, he would have left the fame of a wise and benevolentsovereign. His only striking weakness was in submitting to the influenceof either a favorite or a woman, like all the Bourbons from Henry IV. Downward, --except perhaps Louis XVI. , who would have been more fortunatehad he yielded implicitly to the overpowering ascendency of such a womanas Madame de Maintenon, or such a minister as Richelieu. 

The reign of Louis XVIII. Is not marked by great events or greatpassions, except the unrelenting and bitter animosity of the Royaliststo everything which characterized the Revolution or the militaryascendency of Napoleon. By their incessant intrigues and unboundedhatreds and intolerant bigotry, they kept the kingdom in constantturmoils, even to the verge of revolution, gradually pushing the kinginto impolitic measures, against his will and his better judgment, andcreating a reaction to all liberal movements. These turmoils, which areuninteresting to us, formed no inconsiderable part of the history of thetimes. The only great event of the reign was the war in Spain tosuppress revolutionary ideas in that miserable country, ground down bypriests and royal despotism, and a prey to every conceivable faction. 

The ministry which the king appointed on his accession was composed ofable, moderate, and honest men, but without any ascendant genius, exceptTalleyrand; who selected his colleagues, and retained for himself theportfolio of foreign affairs and the presidency of the Council, givingto Fouché the management of internal affairs. Loth was the king toaccept the services of either, --the one a regicide, and the other atraitor. The whole royal family set up a howl of indignation at theappointment of Fouché; but it was deemed necessary to secure hisservices in order to maintain law and order, and the king remained firmagainst the earnest expostulations of his brother the Comte d'Artois, his niece the Duchesse d'Angoulême, and all the Royalists who hadinfluence with him. But he despised and hated in his soul Fouché, --thatminion of Napoleon, that product of blood and treason, --and waited onlyfor a convenient time to banish him from the councils and the realm. Nordid he like Talleyrand (at that time the greatest man in France), butmade use of his magnificent talents only until he could do without him. When the king felt established on his throne, he sent Talleyrand away;indeed, there was great pressure brought to bear for the dismissal bythose who found the minister too moderate in his views. The king did notpunish him, but kept him in a subordinate office, leaving him to enjoyhis dignities and the immense fortune he had accumulated. 

Talleyrand was born in 1754, and belonged to one of the most illustriousfamilies in France. He was destined to the Church against his will, being from the start worldly, ambitious, and scandalously immoral; buthe accepted his destiny, and soon distinguished himself at the Sorbonnefor his literary attainments, for his wit and his social qualities. Attwenty, as the young Abbé de Périgord, he was received into the highestsociety of Paris; his noble birth, his aristocratic and courtly manners, his convivial qualities, and his irrepressible wit made him a favoritein the gay circles which marked the early part of the reign of LouisXVI. , while his extraordinary abilities and consummate tact naturallysecured early promotion. In 1780 he was appointed to the office ofgeneral agent for the clergy of France, which brought him before thepublic. Eight years after, at the early age of thirty-four, he was madeBishop of Autun. In May, 1789, he became a member of the States-General, and with his fascinating eloquence tried to induce the clergy tosurrender their tithes and church lands to the nation, --a result whichwas brought about soon after, _nolens volens_, by the genius ofMirabeau. Talleyrand hated the Church and despised the people, but, likeMirabeau, was in favor of a constitution like that of England, In allhis changes he remained an aristocrat from his tastes, his education, and his rank, but veiled his views, whatever they were, with profounddissimulation, of which he was a consummate master. The laxity of hismorals, the secret hatred of his order, and his infidel sentiments ledto his excommunication, which troubled him but little. Out of the paleof the Church, he turned his thoughts to diplomacy, and was sent toLondon as an ambassador, --without, however, the official title andinsignia of that high office, --where he fascinated the highest circlesby the splendor of his conversation and the causticity of his wit. Onhis return to Paris he was distrusted by the Jacobins, and withdifficulty made his escape to England; but the English government alsodistrusted a man of such boundless intrigue, and ordered him to quit thecountry within twenty-four hours. He fled to America at the age offorty, with straitened means, but after the close of the Reign of Terrorreturned to Paris, and six months later was made foreign minister underthe Directory. This office he did not long retain, failing to secure theconfidence of the government. The austere Carnot said of him:--

"That man brings with him all the vices of the old régime, withoutbeing able to acquire a single virtue of the new one. He possesses nofixed principles, but changes them as he does his linen, adopting themaccording to the fashion of the day. He was a philosopher whenphilosophy was in vogue; a republican now, because it is necessary atpresent to be so in order to become anything; to-morrow he wouldproclaim and uphold tyranny, if he could thereby serve his owninterests. I will not have him at any price; and so long as I am at thehelm of State he shall be nothing. "

When Bonaparte returned from Egypt, Citizen Talleyrand had been sixmonths out of office, and he saw that it would be for his interest toput himself in intimate connection with the most powerful man in France. Besides, as a diplomatist, he saw that only in a monarchical governmentcould he have employment. Napoleon, who seldom made a mistake in hisestimate of character, perceived that Talleyrand was just the man forhis purpose, --talented, dexterous, unscrupulous, and sagacious, --andmade him his minister of foreign affairs, utterly indifferent as to hisprivate character. Nor could he politically have made a wiser choice;for it was Talleyrand who made the Concordat with the Pope, the Treatyof Luneville, and the Peace of Amiens. Napoleon wanted a practical manin the diplomatic post, --neither a pedant nor an idealist; and that wasjust what Talleyrand was, --a man to meet emergencies, a man to build upa throne. But even Napoleon got tired of him at last, and Talleyrandretired with the dignity of vice-grand elector of the empire, grandchamberlain, and Prince of Benevento, together with a fortune, it issaid, of thirty million francs. 

"How did you acquire your riches?" blandly asked the Emperor one day. "In the simplest way in the world, " replied the ex-minister. "I boughtstock the day before the 18th Brumaire [when Napoleon overthrew theDirectory], and sold it again the day after. "

When Napoleon meditated the conquest of Spain, Talleyrand, likeMetternich, saw that it would be a blunder, and frankly told the Emperorhis opinion, --a thing greatly to his credit. But his advice enragedNapoleon, who could brook no opposition or dissent, and he was turnedout of his office as chamberlain. Talleyrand avenged himself by plottingagainst his sovereign, foreseeing his fall, and by betraying him to theBourbons. He gave his support to Louis XVIII. , because he saw that theonly government then possible for France was one combining legitimacywith constitutional checks; for Talleyrand, with all his changes andtreasons, liked neither an unfettered despotism nor democratic rule. Asone of those who acted with the revolutionists, he was liberal in hisideas; but as the servant of royalty he wished to see a firmlyestablished government, which to his mind was impossible with the reignof demagogues. When the Congress of Vienna assembled, he was sent to itas the French plenipotentiary. And he did good work at the Congress forhis sovereign, whose representative he was, and for his country bycontriving with his adroit manipulations to alienate the northern fromthe southern States of Germany, making the latter allies of France andthe former allies of Russia, --in other words, practically dividingGermany, which it was the work of Bismarck afterward to unite. A unitedGermany Talleyrand regarded as threatening to the interests of France;and he contrived to bring France back again into political importance, --to restore her rank among the great Powers. He did not bargain forspoils, like the other plenipotentiaries; he only strove to preserve thenationality of France, and to secure her ancient limits, which Prussiain her greed and hatred would have destroyed or impaired but for themagnanimity of the Czar Alexander and the firmness of Lord Castlereagh. 

On his return from the Congress of Vienna, the reign of Talleyrand asprime minister was short; and as his power was comparatively small underboth Louis XVIII. And his successor Charles X. , and as he was not therepresentative of reactionary ideas or movements, but only ofa firm government, I do not give to him the leadership of thecounter-revolution. He was unquestionably the greatest statesman at thattime in France, though indolent, careless, and without power asan orator. 

Who was then the great exponent of reaction, and of antagonism toliberal and progressive opinions, during the reigns of the restoredBourbons? It was not the king himself, Louis XVIII. ; for he did all hecould to repress the fanatical zeal of his family and of the royalistparty. He despised the feeble mind of his brother, the Comte d'Artois, his narrow intolerance, and his court of priests and bigots, and was inperpetual conflict with him as a politician, while at the same time heclung to him with the ties of natural affection. 

Was it the Duc de Richelieu, grand-nephew of the great cardinal, whomthe king selected for his prime minister on the retirement ofTalleyrand? He hardly represents the return to absolutism, since he wasmoderate, conciliatory, and disposed to unite all parties under aconstitutional government. No man in France was more respected thanhe, --adored by his family, modest, virtuous, disinterested, andpatriotic. As an administrator in the service of Russia during theascendency of Napoleon, he had greatly distinguished himself. He was afavorite of Alexander, and through his influence with the Czar Francewas in no slight degree indebted for the favorable terms which shereceived on the restoration of the monarchy, when Prussia exacted acruel indemnity. He wished to unite all parties in loyal submission tothe constitution, rather than secure the ascendency of any. While ableand highly respected, Richelieu was not pre-eminently great. Nor wasVillèle, who succeeded him as prime minister, and who retained his powerfor six or eight years, nearly to the close of the reign of Charles X. , a great historical figure. 

The man under the restored monarchy who represented with the mostability reactionary movements of all kinds, and devotion to the cause ofabsolute monarchy, I think was Francois Auguste, Vicomte deChateaubriand. Certainly he was the most illustrious character of thatperiod. Poet, orator, diplomatist, minister, he was a man of genius, whostands out as a great figure in history; not so great as Talleyrand inthe single department of diplomacy, but an infinitely more respectableand many-sided man. He had an immense _éclat_ in the early part of thiscentury as writer and poet, although his literary fame has now greatlydeclined. Lamartine, in his sentimental and rhetorical exaggeration, speaks of him as "the Ossian of France, --an aeolian harp, producingsounds which ravish the ear and agitate the heart, but which the mindcannot define; the poet of instincts rather than of ideas, who gained animmortal empire, not over the reason but over the imagination ofthe age. "

Chateaubriand was born in Brittany, of a noble but not illustriousfamily, in 1769, entered the army in 1786, and during the Reign ofTerror emigrated to America. He returned to France in 1799, after the18th Brumaire, and became a contributor to the "Mercure de France. " In1802 he published the "Génie du Christianisme, " which made himenthusiastically admired as a literary man, --the only man of the timewho could compete with the fame of Madame de Staël. This book astonisheda country that had been led astray by an infidel philosophy, andconverted it back to Christianity, not by force of arguments, but by anappeal to the heart and the imagination. The clergy, the aristocracy, women, and youth were alike enchanted. The author was sent to Rome byNapoleon as secretary of his embassy; but on the murder of the Dued'Enghien (1804), Chateaubriand left the imperial service, and lived inretirement, travelling to the Holy Land and throughout the Orient andSouthern Europe, and writing his books of travels. He took no interestin political affairs until the time of the Restoration, when he againappeared. A brilliant and effective pamphlet, "De Bonaparte et desBourbons, " published by him in 1814, was said by Louis XVIII. To beworth an army of a hundred thousand men to the cause of the Bourbons;and upon their re-establishment Chateaubriand was immediately in highfavor, and was made a member of the Chamber of Peers. 

The Chamber of Peers was substituted for the Senate of Napoleon, and waselected by the king. It had cognizance of the crime of high treason, andof all attempts against the safety of the State. It was composed of themost distinguished nobles, the bishops, and marshals of France, presidedover by the chancellor. To this chamber the ministers were admitted, aswell as to the Chamber of Deputies, the members of which were elected byabout one hundred thousand voters out of thirty millions of people. Theywere all men of property, and as aristocratic as the peers themselves. They began their sessions by granting prodigal compensations, indemnities, and endowments to the crown and to the princes. Theyappropriated thirty-three millions of francs annually for themaintenance of the king, besides voting thirty millions more for thepayment of his debts; they passed a law restoring to the formerproprietors the lands alienated to the State, and still unsold. Theybrought to punishment the generals who had deserted to Napoleon duringthe one hundred days of his renewed reign; they manifested the mostintense hostility to the régime which he had established. Indeed, allclasses joined in the chorus against the fallen Emperor, and attributedto him alone the misfortunes of France. Vengeance, not now directedagainst Royalists but against Republicans, was the universal cry; thepeople demanded the heads of those who had been their idols. Everythinglike admiration for Napoleon seemed to have passed away forever. Theviolence of the Royalists for speedy vengeance on their old foessurpassed the cries of the revolutionists in the Reign of Terror. Francewas again convulsed with passions, which especially raged in the bosomsof the Royalists. They shot Marshal Ney, the bravest of the brave, andColonel Labedoyèn; they established courts-martial for politicaloffences; they passed a law against seditious cries and individualliberty. There were massacres at Marseilles, and atrocities at Nismes;the Catholics of the South persecuted the Protestants. The king himselfwas almost the only man among his party that was inclined to moderation, and he found a bitter opposition from the members of his own family. Added to these discords, the finances were found to be in a mostdisordered state, and the annual deficit was fifty or sixty millions. 

All this was taking place while one hundred and fifty thousand foreignsoldiers were quartered in the towns and garrisons at the expense of thegovernment. The return of Napoleon had cost the lives of sixty thousandFrenchmen and a thousand millions of francs, besides the indemnities, which amounted to fifteen hundred millions more. No language ofdenunciation could be stronger than that which went forth from the mouthof the whole nation in view of Napoleon's selfishness and ambition. Butone voice was listened to, and that was the cry for vengeance; prudence, moderation, and justice were alike disregarded. All attempts to stem thetide of ultra-royalist violence were in vain. The king was obliged todismiss Talleyrand because he was not violent enough in his measures; atthe same time he was glad to get rid of his sagacious minister, beingjealous of his ascendency. 

So the throne of Louis XVIII. Was anything but a bed of roses, amid thewar of parties and the perils which surrounded it. All his tact wasrequired to steer the ship of state amidst the rocks and breakers. Mostof the troubles were centred in the mutual hostilities, jealousies, andhatreds of the Royalists themselves, at the head of whom were the king'sbrother the Comte d'Artois, and the Vicomte de Chateaubriand. Sovehement were the passions of the deputies, nearly all Royalists, thatthe president of the Chamber, the excellent and talented Lainé, waspublicly insulted in his chair by a violent member of the extreme Right;and even Chateaubriand the king was obliged to deprive of his office onaccount of the violence of his opinions in behalf of absolutism, --agreater royalist than the king himself! The terrible reaction was forcedby the nation upon the sovereign, who was more liberal and humane thanthe people. 

Of course, in the embittered quarrels between the Royalists themselves, nothing was done during the reign of Louis XVIII. Toward useful andneeded reforms. The orators in the chambers did not discuss great ideasof any kind, and inaugurated no grand movements, not even internalimprovements. The only subjects which occupied the chambers wereproscriptions, confiscations, grants to the royal family, therestoration of the clergy to their old possessions, salaries to highofficials, the trials of State prisoners, conspiracies and crimesagainst the government, --all of no sort of interest to us, and of nohistorical importance. 

In the meantime there assembled at Verona a Congress composed of nearlyall the sovereigns of Europe, with their representatives, --as brilliantan assemblage as that at Vienna a few years before. It met not to putdown a great conqueror, but to suppress revolutionary ideas andmovements, which were beginning to break out in various countries inEurope, especially in Italy and Spain. To this Congress was sent, as oneof the representatives of France, Chateaubriand, who on its assemblingwas ambassador at London. He was, however, weary of English life andsociety; he did not like the climate with its interminable fogs; he wasnot received by the higher aristocracy with the cordiality he expected, and seemed to be intimate with no one but Canning, whose conversion toliberal views had not then taken place. 

In France, the ministry of the Duc de Richelieu had been succeeded bythat of Villèle as president of the Council, in which M. Matthieu deMontmorency was minister of foreign affairs, --member of a mostillustrious house, and one of the finest characters that ever adorned anexalted station. Between Montmorency and Chateaubriand there existed themost intimate and affectionate friendship, and it was at the urgentsolicitation of the former that Chateaubriand was recalled from Londonand sent with Montmorency to Verona, where he had a wider scope forhis ambition. 

Chateaubriand was most graciously received by the Czar Alexander and byMetternich, the latter at that time in the height of his power andglory. Alexander flattered Chateaubriand as a hero of humanity and areligious philosopher; while Metternich received him as the apostle ofconservatism. 

The particular subject which occupied the attention of the Congress was, whether the great Powers should intervene in the internal affairs ofSpain, then agitated by revolution. King Ferdinand, who was restored tohis throne after the forced abdication of Joseph Bonaparte, had brokenthe Constitution of 1812, which he had sworn to defend, and outraged hissubjects by cruelties equalled only by those of that other Bourbon whoreigned at Naples. In consequence, his subjects had rebelled, and soughtto secure their liberties. This rebellion disturbed all Europe, and thegreat Powers, with the exception of England, --ruled virtually byCanning, the foreign minister, --resolved on an armed intervention tosuppress the popular revolution. Chateaubriand used all his influence infavor of intervention; and so did Montmorency. They even exceeded theinstructions of the king and Villèle the prime minister, who wished toavoid a war with Spain; they acted as the representatives of the HolyAlliance rather than as ambassadors of France. The Congress committedRussia, Austria, and Prussia to hostile interference, in case the kingof France should be driven into war, --a course which Wellingtondisapproved, and which he urged Louis XVIII. To refrain from. Inconsequence, the French king temporized, dreading either to resist or tosubmit to the ascendency of Russia, and dissatisfied with the coursehis negotiators had taken at the Congress, especially his minister offoreign affairs, on whom the responsibility lay. Montmorency accordinglyresigned, and Chateaubriand took his place; in consequence of which acoolness sprung up between the two friends, who at the Congress hadequally advocated the same policy. 

The discussions which ensued in the chambers whether or not Franceshould embark in a war with Spain, --in other words, whether she shouldinterfere with the domestic affairs of a foreign and independentnation, --were the occasion of the first serious split among thestatesmen of France at this time. There was a party for war and a partyagainst it; at the head of the latter were men who afterward becamedistinguished. There were bitter denunciations of the ministers; but thewar party headed by Chateaubriand prevailed, and the French ambassadorwas recalled from Madrid, although war was not yet formally declared. Inthe Chamber of Peers Talleyrand used his influence against the invasionof Spain, foretelling the evils which would ultimately result, even ashe had cautioned Napoleon against the same thing. He told the chamberthat although the proposed invasion would be probably successful, itwould be a great mistake. 

M. Molé, afterward so eminent as an orator, took the side of Talleyrand. "Where are we going?" said he. "We are going to Madrid. Alas, we havebeen there already! Will a revolution cease when the independence ofthe people who are suffering from it is threatened? Have we not theexample of the French Revolution, which was invincible when its causebecame identical with that of our independence?" "This man, " exclaimedthe king, "confirms me in the system of M. De Villèle, --to temporize, and avoid the war if it be possible. "

Chateaubriand replied in an elaborate speech in favor of the war. Fromhis standpoint, his speech was masterly and unanswerable. It was a grandconsecutive argument, solid logic without sentimentalism. While headmitted that, according to the principles laid down by the greatwriters on international war, intervention could not generally bedefended, he yet maintained that there were exceptions to the rule, andthis was one of them; that the national safety was jeopardized by theSpanish revolution; that England herself had intervened in the FrenchRevolution; that all the interests of France were compromised by thesuccesses of the Spanish revolutionists; that a moral contagion wasspreading even among the troops themselves; in fact, that there was nosecurity for the throne, or for the cause of religion and of publicorder, unless the armies of France should restore Ferdinand, then avirtual prisoner in his own palace, to the government he had inherited. 

The war was decided upon, and the Duke of Angoulême, nephew of the king, was sent across the Pyrenees with one hundred thousand troops to putdown the innumerable factions, and reseat Ferdinand. The Duke wasassisted, of course, by all the royalists of Spain, by all the clergy, and by all conservative parties; and the conquest of the kingdom wascomparatively easy. The republican chiefs were taken and hanged, including Diego, the ablest of them all. Ferdinand, delivered by foreignarmies, remounted his throne, forgot all his pledges, and reigned on themost despotic principles, committing the most atrocious cruelties. Thesuccessful general returned to France with great _éclat_, while thegovernment was pushed every day by the triumphant Royalists intoincreased severity, --into measures which logically led, under CharlesX. , to his expulsion from the throne, and the final defeat of theprinciple of legitimacy itself, --another great step toward republicaninstitutions, which were finally destined to triumph. 

Among the extreme measures was the Septennial Bill, which passed bothhouses against the protest of liberal members, some of whom afterwardbecame famous, --such as General Foy, General Sebastiani, Dupont (del'Eure), Casimir Périer, Lafitte, Lanjuinais. This law was a _coupd'état_ against electoral opinions and representative government. Itgave the king and his government the advantage of fixing for sevenyears longer the majority which was secured by the elections of 1822, and of closing the Chamber against a modification of public opinions. Villèle and Chateaubriand were the authors of this act. 

Another bill was proposed by Villèle, not so objectionable, which was toreduce the interest on the loans contracted by the State; in otherwords, to borrow money at less interest and pay off the old debts, --asalutary financial measure adopted in England, and later by the UnitedStates after the Civil War. But this measure was bitterly opposed by theclergy, who looked upon it as a reduction of their incomes. HereChateaubriand virtually abandoned the government, in his uniform supportof the temporalities of the Church; and the measure failed; which sodeeply exasperated both the king and the prime minister thatChateaubriand was dismissed from his office as minister offoreign affairs. 

The fallen minister angrily resented his disgrace, and thenceforwardsecretly took part against the government, embarrassing it by hisarticles in the journals of the day. He did not renounce hisconservative opinions; but he became the personal enemy of Villèle. Chateaubriand had no magnanimity. He retired to nurse his resentments inthe society of Madame Récamier, with whom he had formed a friendshipdifficult to be distinguished from love. He had been always her devotedadmirer when she reigned a queen of society in the fashionable _salons_of Paris, and continued his intimacy with her until his death. Daily didhe, when a broken old man, make his accustomed visit to her modestapartments in the Convent of St. Joseph, and give vent to his melancholyand morbid feelings. He regarded himself as the most injured man inFrance. He became discontented with the Crown, and even with thearistocracy. On the day of his retirement from the ministry theintelligence of the Royalist party followed him in opposition to thegovernment, whose faults he had encouraged and shared. The "Journal desDébats, " the most influential newspaper in France, deserted Villèle; andfrom this defection may be dated, says Lamartine, "all those enmitiesagainst the government of the Restoration which collected in one work ofaggression the most contradictory ideas, which alienated public opinion, which exasperated the government and pushed it on from excesses toinsanity, irritated the tribune, blindfolded the elections, and finishedby changing, five years afterward, the opposition of nineteen voteshostile to the Bourbons into a heterogeneous but formidable majority, inpresence of which the monarchy had only the choice left between ahumiliating resignation and a mortal _coup d'état_. "

Chateaubriand now disappears from the field of history as one of itsgreat figures. He lived henceforth in retirement, but bitter in hisopposition to the government of which he had been the virtual head, contributing largely to the "Journal des Débats, " of which he was thelife, and by which he was supported. In the next reign he refused theoffice of Minister of Public Instruction as derogatory to his dignity, but accepted the post of ambassador to Rome, --a sort of honorable exile. But he was an unhappy and disappointed man; he had taken the wrong sidein politics, and probably saw his errors. His genius, if it had beendirected to secure constitutional liberty, would have made him anational idol, for he lived to see the dethronement of Louis Philippe in1848; but like Castlereagh in England, he threw his superb talents inwith the sinking cause of absolutism, and was after all a politicalfailure. He lives only as a literary man, --one of the most eloquentpoets of his day, one of the lights of that splendid constellation ofliterary geniuses that arose on the fall of Napoleon. 

Soon after the retirement of Chateaubriand, Louis XVIII. Himself died, at an advanced age, having contrived to preserve his throne bymoderation and honesty. In his latter days he was exceedingly infirm inbody, but preserved his intellectual faculties to the last. He was alonely old man, even while surrounded by a splendid court. He wantedsomebody to love, at least to cheer him in his isolation; for he had nopeace in his family, deeply as he was attached to its members. Hehimself had discovered the virtues and disinterestedness of his ministerDécazes, and when his family and ministers drove away this favorite, theking was devoted to him even in disgrace, and made him his companion. Still later he found a substitute in Madame du Caylus, --one of thoseinteresting and accomplished women peculiar to France. She was notambitious of ruling the king, as her aunt, Madame de Maintenon, was ofgoverning Louis XIV. , and her virtue was unimpeachable. She wrote to theking letters twice a day, but visited him only once a week. She was thetool of a cabal, rather than the leader of a court; but her influencewas healthy, ennobling, and religious. Louis XVIII. Was not what wouldbe called a religious man; he performed his religious duties regularly, but in a perfunctory manner. He was not, however, a hypocrite or apharisee, but was simply indifferent to religious dogmas, and secretlyaverse to the society of priests. When he was dying, it was with greatdifficulty that he could be made to receive extreme unction. He diedwithout pain, recommending to his brother, who was to succeed him, toobserve the charter of French liberties, yet fearing that his blindbigotry would be the ruin of the family and the throne, as eventsproved. The last things to which the dying king clung were pomps andceremonies, concealing even from courtiers his failing strength, andgoing through the mockery of dress and court etiquette to almost thevery day of his death, in 1824. 

The Comte d'Artois, now Charles X. , ascended the throne, with the usualpromises to respect the liberties of the nation, which his brother hadconscientiously maintained. Unfortunately Charles's intellect was weakand his conscience perverted; he was a narrow-minded, bigoted sovereign, ruled by priests and ultra-royalists, who magnified his prerogatives, appealed to his prejudices, and flattered his vanity. He was not crueland blood-thirsty, --he was even kind and amiable; but he was a fool, whocould not comprehend the conditions by which only he could reign insafety; who could not understand the spirit of the times, or appreciatethe difficulties with which he had to contend. 

What was to be expected of such a monarch but continual blunders, encroachments, and follies verging upon crimes? The nation cared nothingfor his hunting-parties, his pleasures, and his attachment to mediaevalceremonies; but it did care for its own rights and liberties, purchasedso dearly and guarded so zealously; and when these were graduallyattacked by a man who felt himself to be delegated from God withunlimited powers to rule, not according to laws but according to hiscaprices and royal will, then the ferment began, --first in thelegislative assemblies, then extending to journalists, who controlledpublic opinion, and finally to the discontented, enraged, anddisappointed people. The throne was undermined, and there was no powerin France to prevent the inevitable catastrophe. In Russia, Prussia, andAustria an overwhelming army, bound together by the mechanism whichabsolutism for centuries had perfected, could repress disorder; but in acountry where the army was comparatively small, enlightened by the ideasof the Revolution and fraternizing with the people, this was notpossible. A Napoleon, with devoted and disciplined troops, might havecrushed his foes and reigned supreme; but a weak and foolish monarch, with a disaffected and scattered army, with ministers who provoked allthe hatreds and violent passions of legislators, editors, and peoplealike, was powerless to resist or overcome. 

The short reign of Charles X. Was not marked by a single event ofhistorical importance, except the conquest of Algiers; and that wasundertaken by the government to gain military _éclat_, --in other words, popularity, --and this at the very time it was imposing restrictions onthe Press. There were during this reign no reforms, no publicimprovements, no measures of relief for the poor, no stimulus to newindustries, no public encouragement of art or literature, no triumphs ofarchitectural skill; nothing to record but the strife of politicalparties, and a systematic encroachment by the government on electoralrights, on legislative freedom, on the liberty of the Press. There was asenseless return to mediaeval superstitions and cruelties, all to pleasethe most narrow and intolerant class of men who ever traded on theexploded traditions of the past. The Jesuits returned to promulgatetheir sophistries and to impose their despotic yoke; the halls ofjustice were presided over by the tools of arbitrary power; greatoffices were given to the most obsequious slaves of royalty, withoutregard to abilities or fitness. There was not indeed the tyranny ofSpain or Naples or Austria; but everything indicated a movement towardit. Those six years which comprised the reign of Charles X. Were aperiod of reaction, --a return to the Middle Ages in both State andChurch, a withering blast on all noble aspirations. Even the primeminister Villèle, a legitimatist and an ultra-royalist, was too liberalfor the king; and he was dismissed to make room for Martignac, and heagain for Polignac, who had neither foresight nor prudence nor ability. The generals of the republic and of the empire were removed from activeservice. An indemnity of a thousand millions was given by an obsequiouslegislature to the men who had emigrated during the Revolution, --agenerous thing to do, but a premium on cowardice and want of patriotism. A base concession was made to the sacerdotal party, by making it acapital offence to profane the sacred vessels of the churches or theconsecrated wafer; thus putting the power of life and death into thehands of the clergy, not for crimes against society but for an insult tothe religion of the Middle Ages. 

But the laws passed against the Press were the most irritating of all. The Press had become a power which it was dangerous to trifle with, --theone thing in modern times which affords the greatest protection toliberty, which is most hated by despots and valued by enlightened minds. A universal clamor was raised against this return to barbarism, thisextinction of light in favor of darkness, this discarding of thenational reason. Royalists and liberals alike denounced this culminatingact of high treason against the majesty of the human mind, thisdeath-blow to civilization. Chateaubriand, Royer-Collard, Dupont (del'Eure), even Labourdonnais, predicted its fatal consequences; and theirimpassioned eloquence from the tribune became in a few days the publicopinion of the nation, and the king in his infatuation saw no remedy forhis increasing unpopularity but in dissolving the Chamber of Deputiesand ordering a new election, --the blindest thing he could possibly do. It was now seen that he was determined to rule in utter defiance of thecharter he had sworn to defend, and on the principles of undisguisedabsolutism. All parties now coalesced against the king and hisministers. The king then began to tamper with the military in order toestablish by violence the old régime. It was found difficult to fillministerial appointments, as everybody felt that the ship of State wasdrifting upon the rocks. The king even determined to dissolve the newChamber of Deputies before it met, the elections having pronouncedemphatically against his government. 

At last the passions of the people became excited, and daily increasedin violence. Then came resistance to the officers of the law; thenriots, then barricades, then the occupation of the Tuileries, thenineffectual attempts of the military to preserve order and restrain theviolence of the people. Marshal Marmont, with only twelve thousandtroops, was powerless against a great city in arms. The king thinking itwas only an _émeute, _ to be easily put down, withdrew to St. Cloud; andthere he spent his time in playing whist, as Nero fiddled over burningRome, until at last aroused by the vengeance of the whole nation, hemade his escape to England, to rust in the old palace of the kings ofScotland, and to meditate over his kingly follies, as Napoleon meditatedover his mistakes in the island of St. Helena. 

Thus closed the third act in the mighty drama which France played forone hundred years: the first act revealing the passions of theRevolution; the second, the abominations of military despotism; thethird, the reaction toward the absolutism of the old régime and itsfinal downfall. Two more acts are to be presented, --the perfidy andselfishness of Louis Philippe, and the usurpation of Louis Napoleon; butthese must be deferred until in our course of lectures we haveconsidered the reaction of liberal sentiments in England during theministries of Castlereagh, Canning, and Lord Liverpool, when the Toriesresigned, as Metternich did in Vienna. 

Yet the reign of the Bourbons, while undistinguished by great events, was not fruitless in great men. On the fall of Napoleon, a crowd ofauthors, editors, orators, and statesmen issued from their retreats, andattracted notice by the brilliancy of their writings and speeches. Crushed or banished by the iron despotism of Napoleon, who hatedliterary genius, they now became a new power in France, --not topropagate infidel sentiments and revolutionary theories, but to awakenthe nation to a sense of intellectual dignity and to maturer views ofgovernment; to give a new impulse to literature, art, and science, andto show how impossible it is to extinguish the fires of liberty whenonce kindled in the breasts of patriots, or to put a stop to theprogress of the human mind among an excitable, intelligent, thoughfickle people, craving with passionate earnestness both popular rightsand constitutional government in accordance with those laws of progresswhich form the basis of true civilization. 

There was Count Joseph de Maistre, --a royalist indeed, but whopropounded great truths mixed with great paradoxes; believing all hesaid, seeking to restore the authority of divine revelation in a worlddistracted by scepticism, grand and eloquent in style, and astonishingthe infidels as much as he charmed the religious. 

Associated with him in friendship and in letters was the Abbé deLamennais, a young priest of Brittany, brought up amid its wilds insilent reverence and awe, yet with the passions of a revolutionaryorator, logical as Bossuet, invoking young men, not to the worship ofmediaeval dogmas, but to the shrine of reason allied with faith. 

Of another school was Cousin, the modern Plato, combating thematerialism of the eighteenth century with mystic eloquence, and drawingaround him, in his chair of philosophy at the Sorbonne, a crowd ofenthusiastic young men, which reminded one of Abélard among his pupilsin the infant university of Paris. Cousin elevated the soul while heintoxicated the mind, and created a spirit of inquiry which was feltwherever philosophy was recognized as one of the most ennobling studiesthat can dignify the human intellect. 

In history, both Guizot and Thiers had already become distinguishedbefore they were engrossed in politics. Augustin Thierry described, withromantic fascination, the exploits of the Normans; Michaud brought outhis Crusades, Barante his Chronicles, Sismondi his Italian Republics, Michelet his lively conception of France in the Middle Ages, Capefiguethe Life of Louis XIV. , and Lamartine his poetical paintings of theGirondists. All these masterpieces gave a new interest to historicalstudies, infusing into history life and originality, --not as a barrencollection of annals and names, in which pedantry passes for learning, and uninteresting details for accuracy and scholarship. In thatinglorious period more first-class histories were produced in Francethan have appeared in England during the long reign of Queen Victoria, where only three or four historians have reached the level of any one ofthose I have mentioned, in genius or eloquence. 

Another set of men created journalism as the expression of publicopinion, and as a lever to overturn an obstinate despotism built up onthe superstitions and dogmas of the Middle Ages. A few young men, almostunknown to fame, with remorseless logic and fiery eloquence overturned athrone, and established the Press as a power that proved irresistible, driving the priests of absolutism back into the shadows of eternalnight, and making reason the guide and glory of mankind. Among thesewere the disappointed and embittered Chateaubriand, who almost redeemedhis devotion to the royal cause by those elegant essays which recalledthe eloquence of his early life. Villemain wrote for the "Moniteur, "Royer--Collard and Guizot for the "Courier, " with all the haughtinessand disdain which marked the Doctrinaire or Constitutional school;Etienne and Pagès for the "Constitutionel, " ridiculing the excesses ofthe ultra-royalists, the pretensions of the clergy, and the follies ofthe court; De Genoude for the "Gazette de France, " and Thiers for the"National. "

In the realm of science Arago explored the wonders of the heavens, andCuvier penetrated the secrets of the earth. In poetry only two names areprominent, --Delille and Béranger; but the French are not a poeticalnation. Most of the great writers of France wrote in prose, and forstyle they have never been surpassed. If the poets were few after theRestoration, the novelists were many, with transcendent excellences andtranscendent faults, reaching the heart by their pathos, insulting thereason by their exaggerations, captivating the imagination whileshocking the moral sense; painting manners and dissecting passions withpowerful, acute, and vivid touch. Such were Victor Hugo, Eugene Sue, andAlexandre Dumas, whose creations interested all classes alike, notmerely in France, but throughout the world. 

The dignity of intellect amid political degradation was never morestrikingly displayed than by those orators who arose during the reign ofthe Bourbons. The intrepid Manuel uttering his protests against royalencroachments, in a chamber of Royalists all heated by passions andprejudices; Lainé and De Serres, pathetic and patriotic; Guizot, DeBroglie, and De St. Aulaire, learned and profound; Royer-Collard, religious, disdainful, majestic; General Foy, disinterested andincorruptible; Lafitte, the banker; Benjamin Constant, the philosopher;Berryer, the lawyer; Chateaubriand, the poet, most eloquent ofall, --these and a host of others (some liberal, some conservative, allable) showed that genius was not extinguished amid all the attempts ofabsolutism to suppress it. It is true that none of these orators aroseto supreme power, and that they were not equal to Mirabeau and othergreat lights in the Revolutionary period. They were comparativelyinexperienced in parliamentary business, and were watched and fetteredby a hostile government, and could not give full scope to theirindignant eloquence without personal peril. Nor did momentous questionsof reform come before them for debate, as was the case in England duringthe agitation on the Reform Bill. They did little more than show thespirit that was in them, which under more favorable circumstances wouldarouse the nation. 

There was one more power which should be mentioned in connection withthat period of torpor and reaction, and that was the influence of the_salons_. To these all the bright intellects of Paris resorted, and gavefull vent to their opinions, --artists, scholars, statesmen, journalists, men of science, and brilliant women, in short, whoever was distinguishedin any particular sphere; and these composed what is called society, atremendous lever in fashionable life. In the _salons_ of Madame deStaël, of the Duchesse de Duras, of the Duchesse de Broglie, of Madamede St. Aulaire, and of Madame de Montcalm, all parties were represented, and all subjects were freely discussed. Here Sainte-Beuve discoursedwith those whom he was afterward to criticise; here Talleyrand utteredhis concise and emphatic sentences; here Lafayette won hearts by hiscourteous manners and amiable disposition; here Guizot prepared himselffor the tribune and the Press; here Villemain, with proud indifference, broached his careless scepticism; here Montlosier blended aristocraticalparadoxes with democratic theories. All these great men, and a host ofothers, --Béranger, Constant, Etienne, Lamartine, Pasquier, Mounier, Molé, De Neuville, Lainé, Barante, Cousin, Sismondi, --freely exchangedopinions, and rested from their labors; a group of geniuses worth morethan armies in the great contests between Liberty and Absolutism. 

And here it may be said that these kings and queens of societyrepresented not material interests, --not commerce, not manufactures, notstocks, not capital, not railways, not trade, not industrialexhibitions, not armies and navies, but ideas, those invisible agencieswhich shake thrones and make revolutions, and lift the soul above thatwhich is transient to that which is permanent, --to religion, tophilosophy, to art, to poetry, to the glories of home, to the certitudesof friendship, to the benedictions of heaven; which may exist in alltheir benign beauty and power whatever be the form of government or theinequality of condition, in cottage or palace, in plenty or in want, among foes or friends, --creating that sublime rest where men may preparethemselves for a future and imperishable existence. 

Such was the other side of France during the reign of the Bourbons, --thelights which burst through the gloomy shades of tyranny andsuperstition, to alleviate sorrows and disappointed hopes, --theresurrection of intellect from the grave of despair. 

AUTHORITIES. 

The History of the Restoration by Lamartine is the most interesting workI have read on the subject; but he is not regarded as a high authority. Talleyrand's Memoirs, Mémoires de Chateaubriand; Lacretelle, Capefigue, Alison; Biographie Universelle, Mémoires de Louis XVIII. , Fyffe, Mackenzie's History of the Nineteenth Century, --all are interesting, andworthy of perusal. 

GEORGE IV. 

1762-1830. 

TORYISM. 

Where an intelligent and cultivated though superficial traveller torecount his impressions of England in 1815, when the Prince of Wales wasregent of the kingdom and Lord Liverpool was prime minister, he probablywould note his having been struck with the splendid life of the nobility(all great landed proprietors) in their palaces at London, and in theirstill more magnificent residences on their principal estates. He wouldhave seen a lavish if not an unbounded expenditure, emblazoned andcostly equipages, liveried servants without number, and all that wealthcould purchase in the adornment of their homes. He would have seen aperpetual round of banquets, balls, concerts, receptions, and gardenparties, to which only the _élite_ of society were invited, all dressedin the extreme of fashion, blazing with jewels, and radiant with thesmiles of prosperity. Among the lions of this gorgeous society he wouldhave seen the most distinguished statesmen of the day, chiefly peers ofthe realm, with the blue ribbon across their shoulders, the diamondgarter below their knees, and the heraldic star upon their breasts. Perhaps he might have met some rising orator, like Canning or Perceval, whose speeches were in every mouth, --men destined to the highestpolitical honors, pets of highborn ladies for the brilliancy of theirgenius, the silvery tones of their voices, and the courtly elegance oftheir manners; Tories in their politics, and aristocrats in theirsympathies. 

The traveller, if admitted as a stranger to these grand assemblages, would have seen but few lawyers, except of the very highest distinction, perhaps here and there a bishop or a dean with the paraphernalia ofclerical rank, but no physician, no artist, no man of science, nomillionaire banker, no poet, no scholar, unless his fame had gone out toall the world. The brilliancy of the spectacle would have dazzled him, and he would unhesitatingly have pronounced those titled men and womento be the most fortunate, the most favored, and perhaps the most happyof all people on the face of the globe, since, added to the distinctionsof rank and the pride of power, they had the means of purchasing all thepleasures known to civilization, and--more than all--held a securesocial position, which no slander could reach and no hatredcould affect. 

Or if he followed these magnates to their country estates after the"season" had closed and Parliament was prorogued, he would have seen thepalaces of these lordly proprietors of innumerable acres filled with aretinue of servants that would have called out the admiration of Ciceroor Crassus, --all in imposing liveries, but with cringing manners, --and acrowd of aristocratic visitors, filling perhaps a hundred apartments, spending their time according to their individual inclinations; some inthe magnificent library of the palace, some riding in the park, othersfox-hunting with the hounds or shooting hares and partridges, othersagain flirting with ennuied ladies in the walks or boudoirs or gildeddrawing-rooms, --but all meeting at dinner, in full dress, in the carvedand decorated banqueting-hall, the sideboards of which groaned under theload of gold and silver plate of the rarest patterns and most expensiveworkmanship. Everywhere the eye would have rested on priceless pictures, rare tapestries, bronze and marble ornaments, sumptuous sofas andlounges, mirrors of Venetian glass, chandeliers, antique vases, _bric-à-brac_ of every description brought from every corner of theworld. The conversation of these titled aristocrats, --most of themeducated at Oxford and Cambridge, cultivated by foreign travel, andversed in the literature of the day, --though full of prejudices, wasgenerally interesting; while their manners, though cold and haughty, were easy, polished, courteous, and dignified. It is true, most of themwould swear, and get drunk at their banquets; but their profanity wasconventional rather than blasphemous, and they seldom got drunk tilllate in the evening, and then on wines older than their children, fromthe most famous vineyards of Europe. During the day they were able toattend to business, if they had any, and seldom drank anything strongerthan ale and beer. Their breakfasts were light and their lunches simple. Living much in the open air, and fond of the pleasures of the chase, they were generally healthy and robust. The prevailing disease whichcrippled them was gout; but this was owing to champagne and burgundyrather than to brandy and turtle-soups, for at that time no Englishmanof rank dreamed that he could dine without wine. William Pitt, it issaid, found less than three bottles insufficient for his dinner, when hehad been working hard. 

Among them all there was great outward reverence for the Church, and fewmissed its services on Sundays, or failed to attend family prayers intheir private chapels as conducted by their chaplains, among whomprobably not a Dissenter could be found in the whole realm. BothCatholics and Dissenters were alike held in scornful contempt orindifference, and had inferior social rank. On the whole, thesearistocrats were a decorous class of men, though narrow, bigoted, reserved, and proud, devoted to pleasure, idle, extravagant, and callousto the wrongs and miseries of the poor. They did not insult the peopleby arrogance or contumely, like the old Roman nobles; but they were notunited to them by any other ties than such as a master would feel forhis slaves; and as slaves are obsequious to their masters, and sometimesloyal, so the humbler classes (especially in the country) worshipped theground on which these magnates walked. "How courteous the nobles are!"said a wealthy plebeian manufacturer to me once, at Manchester. "I wasto show my mill to Lord Ducie, and as my carriage drove up I was aboutto mount the box with the coachman, but my lord most kindly told meto jump in. "

So much for the highest class of all in England, about the year 1815. Suppose the attention of the traveller were now turned to thelegislative halls, in which public affairs were discussed, particularlyto the House of Commons, supposed to represent the nation. He would haveseen five or six hundred men, in plain attire, with their hats on, listless and inattentive, except when one of their leaders was making atelling speech against some measure proposed by the opposite party, --andnearly all measures were party measures. Who were these favoredrepresentatives? Nearly all of them were the sons or brothers or cousinsor political friends of the class to which I have just alluded, withhere and there a baronet or powerful county squire or eminent lawyer orwealthy manufacturer or princely banker, but all with aristocraticsympathies, --nearly all conservative, with a preponderance of Tories;scarcely a man without independent means, indifferent to all questionsexcept such as affected party interests, and generally opposed to allmovements which had in view the welfare of the middle classes, to whichthey could not be said to belong. They did not represent manufacturingtowns nor the shopkeepers, still less the people in their ruggedtoils, --ignorant even when they could read and write. They representedthe great landed interests of the country for the most part, andlegislated for the interests of landlords and the gentry, theEstablished Church and the aristocratic universities, --indeed, for thewealthy and the great, not for the nation as a whole, except when greatpublic dangers were imminent. 

At that time, however, the traveller would have heard the mostmagnificent bursts of eloquence ever heard in Parliament, --speecheswhich are immortal, classical, beautiful, and electrifying. On the frontbenches was Canning, scarcely inferior to Pitt or Fox as an orator;stately, sarcastic, witty, rhetorical, musical, as full of genius as anegg is full of meat. There was Castlereagh, --not eloquent, but gifted, the honored plenipotentiary and negotiator at the Congress of Vienna;the friend of Metternich and the Czar Alexander; at that time perhapsthe most influential of the ministers of state, the incarnation ofaristocratic manners and ultra conservative principles. There was Peel, just rising to fame and power; wealthy, proud, and aristocratic, asconservative as Wellington himself, a Tory of the Tories. There werePerceval, the future prime minister, great both as lawyer and statesman;and Lord Palmerston, secretary of state for war. On the opposite benchessat Lord John Russell, timidly maturing schemes for parliamentaryreform, lucid of thought, and in utterance clear as a bell. There, too, sat Henry Brougham, not yet famous, but a giant in debate, andoverwhelming in his impetuous invectives. There were Romilly, the lawreformer, and Tierney, Plunkett, and Huskisson (all great orators), andother eminent men whose names were on every tongue. The traveller, entranced by the power and eloquence of these leaders, could scarcelyhave failed to feel that the House of Commons was the most gloriousassembly on earth, the incarnation of the highest political wisdom, thetheatre and school of the noblest energies, worthy to instruct and guidethe English nation, or any other nation in the world. 

From the legislature we follow our traveller to the Church, --theEstablished Church of course, for non-conformist ministers, whatevertheir learning and oratorical gifts, ranked scarcely above shopkeepersand farmers, and were viewed by the aristocracy as leaders of seditionrather than preachers of righteousness. The higher dignitaries of theonly church recognized by fashion and rank were peers of the realm, presidents of colleges, dons in the universities, bishops with an incomeof £10, 000 a year or more, deans of cathedrals, prebendaries andarchdeacons, who wore a distinctive dress from the other clergy. I neednot say that they were the most aristocratic, cynical, bigoted, andintolerant of all the upper ranks in the social scale, though it must beconfessed that they were generally men of learning and respectability, more versed, however, in the classics of Greece and Rome than in SaintPaul's epistles, and with greater sympathy for the rich than for thepoor, to whom the gospel was originally preached. The untitled clergy ofthe Church in their rural homes, --for the country and not the city wasthe paradise of rectors and curates, as of squires and men ofleisure, --were also for the most part classical scholars and gentlemen, though some thought more of hunting and fishing than of the sermons theywere to preach on Sundays. Nothing to the eye of a cultivated travellerwas more fascinating than the homes of these country clergymen, rectories and parsonages as they were called, --concealed amidshrubberies, groves, and gardens, where flowers bloomed by the side ofthe ivy and myrtle, ever green and flourishing. They were not large butcomfortable, abodes of plenty if not of luxury, freeholds which couldnot be taken away, suggestive of rest and repose; for the favoredoccupant of such a holding, supported by tithes, could neither beejected nor turned out of his "living, " which he held for life, whetherhe preached well or poorly, whether he visited his flock or buriedhimself amid his books, whether he dined out with the squire or went upto town for amusement, whether he played lawn tennis in the afternoonwith aristocratic ladies, or cards in the evening with gentlemen nonetoo sober. He had an average stipend of £200 a year, equal to £400 inthese times, --moderate, but sufficient for his own wants, if not forthose of his wife and daughters, who pined of course for a more excitinglife, and for richer dresses than he could afford to give them. Hissermons, it must be confessed, were not very instructive, suggestive, oreloquent, --were, in fact, without point, delivered in a drawlingmonotone; but then his hearers were not used to oratorical displays orlearned treatises in the pulpit, and were quite satisfied with theglorious liturgy, if well intoned, and pious chants from surplicedboys, if it happened to be a church rich and venerable in which theyworshipped. 

Not less imposing and impressive than the Church would the travellerhave found the courts of law. The House of Lords was indeed, in ageneral sense, a legislative assembly, where the peers deliberated onthe same subjects that occupied the attention of the Commons; but it wasalso the supreme judicial tribunal of the realm, --a great court ofappeals of which only the law lords, ex-chancellors and judges, who werepeers, were the real members, presided over by the lord chancellor, whoalso held court alone for the final decision of important equityquestions. The other courts of justice were held by twenty-four judges, in different departments of the law, who presided in their scarlet robesin Westminster Hall, and who also held assizes in the different countiesfor the trial of criminals, --all men of great learning and personaldignity, who were held in awe, since they were the representatives ofthe king himself to decree judgments and punish offenders against thelaw. Even those barristers who pleaded at these tribunals quailed beforethe searching glance of these judges, who were the picked men of theirgreat profession, whom no sophistry could deceive and no rhetoric couldwin, --men held in supreme honor for their exalted station as well as fortheir force of character and acknowledged abilities. In no othercountry were judges so well paid, so independent, so much feared, and sodeserving of honors and dignities. And in no other country were judgesarmed with more power, nor were they more bland and courteous in theirmanners and more just in their decisions. It was something to be a judgein England. 

Turning now from peers, legislators, judges, and bishops, --the men whocomposed the governing class, --all equally aristocratic and exclusive, let us with our traveller survey the middle class, who were neither richnor poor, living by trade, chiefly shopkeepers, with a sprinkling ofdissenting ministers, solicitors, surgeons, and manufacturers. Amongthese, the observer is captivated by the richness and splendor of theirshops, over which were dark and dingy chambers used as residences bytheir plebeian occupants, except such as were rented as lodgings tovisitors and men of means. These people of business were rarelyambitious of social distinction, for that was beyond their reach; butthey lived comfortably, dined on roast beef and Yorkshire pudding onSunday, with tolerable sherry or port to wash it down, went to church orchapel regularly in silk or broadcloth, were good citizens, had a horrorof bailiffs, could converse on what was going on in trade and even inpolitics to a limited extent, and generally advocated progressive andliberal sentiments, --unless some of their relatives were employed insome way or other in noble houses, in which case their loyalty to thecrown and admiration of rank were excessive and amusing. They read goodbooks when they read at all, educated their children, some of whombecame governesses, travelled a little in the summer, were hospitable totheir limited circle of friends, were kind and obliging, put on no airs, and were on the whole useful and worthy people, if we can not call them"respectable members of society. " They were, perhaps, the happiest andmost contented of all the various classes, since they were virtuous, frugal, industrious, and thought more of duties than they did ofpleasures. These were the people who were soon to discuss rights ratherthan duties, and whom the reform movement was to turn into politicalenthusiasts. 

Such was the bright side of the picture which a favored traveller wouldhave seen at the close of the Napoleonic wars, --on the whole, one ofexternal prosperity and grandeur, compared with most Continentalcountries; an envied civilization, the boast of liberty, for there wasno regal despotism. The monarch could send no one to jail, or exile him, or cut off his head, except in accordance with law; and the laws coulddeprive no one of personal liberty without sufficient cause, determinedby judicial tribunals. 

And yet this splendid exterior was deceptive. The traveller saw onlythe rich or favored or well-to-do classes; there were toiling andsuffering millions whom he did not see. Although the laws were made tofavor the agricultural interests, yet there was distress amongagricultural laborers; and the dearer the price of corn, --that is, theworse the harvests, --the more the landlords were enriched, and the morewretched were those who raised the crops. In times of scarcity, whenharvests were poor, the quartern loaf sold sometimes for two shillings, when the laborer could earn on an average only six or seven shillings aweek. Think of a family compelled to live on seven shillings a week, with what the wife and children could additionally earn! There was rentto pay, and coals and clothing to buy, to say nothing of a proper andvaried food supply; yet all that the family could possibly earn wouldnot pay for bread alone. And the condition of the laboring classes inthe mines and the mills was still worse; for not half of them could getwork at all, even at a shilling a day. The disbanding of half a millionof soldiers, without any settled occupation, filled every village andhamlet with vagrants and vagabonds demoralized by war. During the warwith France there had been a demand for every sort of manufactures; butthe peace cut off this demand, and the factories were either closed orwere running on half-time. Then there was the dreadful burden oftaxation, direct and indirect, to pay the interest of a national debtswelled to the enormous amount of £800, 000, 000, and to meet the currentexpenses of the government, which were excessive and frequentlyunnecessary, --such as sinecures, pensions, and grants to the royalfamily. This debt pressed upon all classes alike, and prevented the useof all those luxuries which we now regard as necessities, --like sugar, tea, coffee, and even meat. There were import duties, almostprohibitory, on many articles which few could do without, and worst ofall, on corn and all cereals. Without these it was possible for thelaboring class to live, even when they earned only a shilling a day; butwhen these were retained to swell the income of that upper class whoseglories and luxuries I have already mentioned, there was inevitablestarvation. 

To any kind of popular sorrow and misery, however, the government seemedindifferent; and this was followed of course by discontent and crime, riots and incendiary conflagrations, murders and highway robberies, --anincipient pandemonium, disgusting to see and horrible to think of. Atthe best, what dens of misery and filth and disease were the quarters ofthe poor, in city and country alike, especially in the coal districtsand in manufacturing towns. And when these pallid, half-starved minersand operatives, begrimed with smoke and dirt, issued from theirinfernal hovels and gathered in crowds, threatening all sorts ofviolence, and dispersed only at the point of the bayonet, there wassomething to call out fear as well as compassion from those who livedupon their toils. 

At last, good men became aroused at the injustice and wretchedness whichfilled every corner of the land, and sent up their petitions toParliament for reform, --not for the mere alleviation of miseries, butfor a reform in representation, so that men might be sent as legislatorswho would take some interest in the condition of the poor and oppressed. Yet even to these petitions the aristocratic Commons paid but littleheed. The sigh of the mourner was unheard, and the tear of anguish wasunnoticed by those who lived in their lordly palaces. What was desperatesuffering and agitation for relief they called agrarian discontent andrevolutionary excess, to be put down by the most vigorous measures thegovernment could devise. _O tempora! O mores!_ the Roman oratorexclaimed in view of social evils which would bear no comparison withthose that afflicted a large majority of the human beings who struggledfor a miserable existence in the most lauded country in Europe. In theirdespair, well might they exclaim, "Who shall deliver us from the body ofthis death?"

I often wonder that the people of England were as patient and orderlyas they were, under such aggravated misfortunes. In France the oppressedwould probably have arisen in a burst of frenzy and wrath, and perhapshave unseated the monarch on his throne. But the English mobs erected nobarricades, and used no other weapons than groans and expostulations. They did not demand rights, but bread; they were not agitators, butsufferers. Promises of relief disarmed them, and they sadly returned totheir wretched homes to see no radical improvement in their condition. Their only remedy was patience, and patience without much hope. Nothingcould really relieve them but returning prosperity, and that dependedmore on events which could not be foreseen than on legislation itself. 

Such was the condition, in general terms, of high and low, rich andpoor, in England in the year 1815, and I have now to show what occupiedthe attention of the government for the next fifteen years, during thereign of George IV. As regent and as king. But first let us take a briefreview of the men prominent in the government. 

Lord Liverpool was the prime minister of England for fifteen years, from1812 (succeeding to Perceval upon the latter's assassination) to 1827. He was a man of moderate abilities, but honest and patriotic; this chiefmerit was in the tact by which he kept together a cabinet ofconflicting political sentiments; but he lived in comparatively quiettimes, when everybody wanted rest and repose, and when he had only tocombat domestic evils. The lord chancellor, Lord Eldon, had been seatedon the woolsack from nearly the beginning of the century, and was the"keeper of the king's conscience" for twenty-five years, enjoying hisgreat office for a longer period than any other lord chancellor inEnglish history. He was doubtless a very great lawyer and a man ofremarkable sagacity and insight, but the narrowest and most bigoted ofall the great men who controlled the destinies of the nation. Heabsolutely abhorred any change whatever and any kind of reform. Headhered to what was already established, and _because_ it wasestablished; therefore he was a good churchman and a most reliable Tory. 

The most powerful man in the cabinet at this time, holding the secondoffice in the government, that of foreign secretary, was LordCastlereagh, --no very great scholar or orator or man of business, but aninveterate Tory, who played into the hands of all the despots of Europe, and who made captive more powerful minds than his own by the elegance ofhis manners, the charm of his conversation, and the intensity of hisconvictions. William Pitt never showed greater sagacity than when hebought the services of this gifted aristocrat (for he was then a Whig), and introduced him into Parliament. He was the most prominent ministerof the crown until he died, directing foreign affairs with ability, butin the wrong direction, --the friend and ally of Metternich, Chateaubriand, Hardenberg, and the monarchs whom they represented. 

But foremost in genius among the great statesmen of the day was GeorgeCanning, who, however, did not reach the summit of his ambition untilthe latter part of the reign of George IV. But after the death ofCastlereagh in 1822, he was the leading spirit of the cabinet, holdingthe great office of foreign secretary, second in rank and power only tothat of the premier. Although a Tory, --the follower and disciple ofPitt, --it was Canning who gave the first great blow to the narrow andselfish conservatism which marked the government of his day, and enteredthe first wedge which was to split the Tory ranks and inaugurate reform. For this he acquired the greatest popularity that any statesman inEngland ever enjoyed, if we except Fox and Pitt, and at the same timeincurred the bitterest wrath which the Metternichs of the world haveever cherished toward the benefactors of mankind. 

Canning was born in London, in the year 1770, in comparatively humblelife, --his father being a dissipated and broken-down barrister, and hismother compelled by poverty to go upon the stage. But he had a wealthyrelative who took the care of his education. In 1788 he entered ChristChurch College, where he won the prize for the best Latin poem thatOxford had ever produced. After he had graduated with distinguishedhonors, he entered as a law student at Lincoln's Inn; but before he worethe gown of a barrister Pitt had sought him out, as he had Castlereagh, having heard of his talents in debating societies. Pitt secured him aseat in Parliament, and Canning made his first speech on the 31st ofJanuary, 1794. The aid which he brought to the ministry secured hisrapid advancement. In a year after his maiden speech he was madeunder-secretary of state for foreign affairs, at the age of twenty-five. On the death of Pitt, in 1806, when the Whigs for a short period cameinto power, Canning was the recognized leader of the opposition; and in1807, when the Tories returned to power, he became foreign secretary inthe ministry of the Duke of Portland, of which Mr. Perceval was theleading member. It was then that Canning seized the Danish fleet atCopenhagen, giving as his excuse for this bold and high-handed measurethat Napoleon would have taken it if he had not. It was through hisinfluence and that of Lord Castlereagh that Sir Arthur Wellesley, afterward the Duke of Wellington, was sent to Spain to conduct thePeninsular War. 

On the retirement of the Duke of Portland as head of the government in1809, Mr. Perceval became minister, --an event soon followed by theinsanity of George III. And the entrance of Robert Peel into the Houseof Commons. In 1812 Mr. Perceval was assassinated, and the long ministryof Lord Liverpool began, supported by all the eloquence and influence ofCanning, between whom and his chief a close friendship had existed sincetheir college days. The foreign secretaryship was offered to Canning;but he, being comparatively poor, preferred the Lisbon embassy, on thelarge salary of £14, 000. In 1814 he became president of the Board ofControl, and remained in that office until he was appointedgovernor-general of India. On the death of Castlereagh (1822) by his ownhand, Canning resumed the post of foreign secretary, and from that timewas the master spirit of the government, leader of the House of Commons, the most powerful orator of his day, and the most popular man inEngland. He had now become more liberal, showing a sympathy with reform, acknowledging the independence of the South American colonies, andvirtually breaking up the Holy Alliance by his disapprobation of thepolicy of the Congress of Vienna, which aimed at the total overthrow ofliberty in Europe, and which (under the guidance of Metternich and withthe support of Castlereagh) had already given Norway to Sweden, theduchy of Genoa to Sardinia, restored to the Pope his ancientpossessions, and made Italy what it was before the French Revolution. The most mischievous thing which the Holy Alliance had in view wasinterference in the internal affairs of all the Continental States, under the guise of religion. England, under the leadership ofCastlereagh, would have upheld this foreign interference of Russia, Prussia, and Austria; but Canning withdrew England from thisintervention, --a great service to his country and to civilization. Infact, the great principle of his political life was non-intervention inthe internal affairs of other nations. Hence he refused to join thegreat Powers in re-seating the king of Spain on his throne, from whichthat monarch had been temporarily ejected by a popular insurrection. Butfor him, the great Powers might have united with Spain to recover herlost possessions in South America. To him the peace of the world at thatcritical period was mainly owing. In one of his most famous speeches heclosed with the oft-quoted sentence, "I called the New World intoexistence to redress the balance of the Old. "

Canning, like Peel, --and like Gladstone in our own time, --grew more andmore liberal as he advanced in years, in experience, and in power, although he never left the Tory ranks. His commercial policy wasidentical with that of his friend Huskisson, which was that commerceflourished best when wholly unfettered by restrictions. He held thatprotection, in the abstract, was unsound and unjust; and thus he openedthe way for free-trade, --the great boon which Sir Robert Peel gave tothe nation under the teachings of Cobden. He also was in favor ofCatholic emancipation and the repeal of the Test Act, which the Duke ofWellington was compelled against his will ultimately to give tothe nation. 

At the head of all this array of brilliant statesmen stood the king, orin this case the regent, who was a man of very different character frommost of the ministers who served him. 

It was in January, 1811, that the Prince of Wales became regent inconsequence of the insanity of his father, George III. ; it was duringthe Peninsular War, when Wellington, then Sir Arthur Wellesley, waswearing out the French in Spain. But the reign of this prince as regentis barren of great political movements. There is scarcely anything torecord but riots and discontent among the lower classes, and theincendiary speeches and writings of demagogues. Measures of relief wereproposed in Parliament, also for parliamentary reform and the removal ofCatholic disabilities; but they were all alike opposed by the Torygovernment, and came to nothing. Four years after the beginning of theregency saw the overthrow of Napoleon, and the nation was so wearied ofwar and all great political excitement that it had sunk to ingloriousrepose. It was the period of reaction, of ultra conservatism, and hatredof progressive and revolutionary ideas, when such men as Cobbett andHunt (Henry) were persecuted, fined, and imprisoned for their ideas. Cobbett, the most popular writer of the day, was forced to fly toAmerica. Government was utterly intolerant of all political agitation, which was chiefly confined to men without social position. 

But of all the magnates who were opposed to reform, the prince regentwas the most obstinate. He was wholly devoted to pleasure. His court atthe Carleton palace was famous for the assemblage of wits and beautiesand dandies, reminding us of the epicureanism which marked Versaillesduring the reign of Louis XV. It was the most scandalous period inEngland since the times of Charles II. The life of the regent was aperpetual scandal, especially in his heartless treatment of women, andthe disgraceful revels in which he indulged. 

The companions of the prince were mostly dissipated and ennuiedcourtiers, as impersonated in that incarnation of dandyism who went bythe name of Beau Brummell, --a contemptible character, who yet, it seems, was the leader of fashion, especially in dress, of which the princehimself was inordinately fond. This boon companion of royalty requiredtwo different artists to make his gloves, and he went home after theopera to change his cravat for succeeding parties. His impertinence andaudacity exceeded anything ever recorded of men of fashion, --as when herequested his royal master to ring the bell. Nothing is more pitiablethan his miserable end, deserted by all his friends, a helpless idiot ina lunatic asylum, having exhausted all his means. Lord Yarmouth, afterward the Marquis of Hertford, infamous for his debaucheries andextravagance, was another of the prince's companions in folly anddrunkenness. So was Lord Fife, who expended £80, 000 on a dancer; and ahost of others, who had, however, that kind of wit which would "set thetable on a roar, "--but all gamblers, drunkards, and sensualists, whogloried in the ruin of those women whom they had made victims of theirpleasures. 

But I pass by the revelries and follies of "the first gentleman" in therealm, as he was called, to allude to one event which has historicalimportance, and which occupied the attention of the whole country, --andthat was the persecution of his wife, who was also his cousin, CarolineAmelia Elizabeth, daughter of the Duke of Brunswick. He drove her fromthe nuptial bed, and from his palace. He sought also to get a divorce, which failed by reason of the transcendent talents and eloquence ofBrougham and Denman, eminent lawyers whom she employed in her defence, and which brought them out prominently before the eyes of thenation, --for the great career of Brougham, especially, began with thetrial of Caroline of Brunswick, the unhappy woman whom the Prince ofWales married to get relief from his pecuniary necessities, and whom heinsulted as soon as he saw her, although she was a princess ofconsiderable accomplishments, and as amiable as she was beneficent. Theonly palliation of his infamous treatment of this woman was that henever loved her, and was even disgusted with her. No sooner was themarriage solemnized, than she was treated on every occasion with studiedcontumely, and scarcely had she recovered from illness incident to thebirth of the Princess Charlotte, when the "first gentleman of the age"was pleased to intimate that it suited his disposition that they shouldhereafter live apart. Never allowed to be crowned as queen, driven fromthe shelter of her husband's roof, surrounded with spies, accused ofcrimes of which there was no proof, even excluded from the publicprayers, and finally forced into exile, she sank under her accumulatedwrongs, and was carried off by a fatal illness at the age offifty-three. 

On the death of the old king in 1820, the Prince of Wales became GeorgeIV. , after having been regent for nine years. As he was inflexiblyopposed to all reforms, no great measures had been carried throughParliament except from urgent necessity and fear of revolution. But theState was being prepared for reforms in the next reign. In 1820 theagitation, which finally ended in the Reform Bill, set in with greatearnestness. Henry Brougham had become a great power in the House ofCommons, and poured out the vials of his wrath on the Tory government. Lord John Russell busily employed himself in forging the weapons bywhich he, more than any other man, afterward broke the power of theTories. The voice of Wilberforce was also heard in demanding theabolition of negro slavery. Romilly was advocating a reform in criminallaw. Macaulay was making those brilliant speeches which would haveelevated him to the highest rank among debaters had he not cherishedother ambitions. 

The only things which stand out as memorable and of political importancein this reign were a change in the foreign policy of England, thediscontents and agitations of the people, the removal of Catholicdisabilities, and the repeal of the Test Acts. 

On the first I shall not dwell, since I have already alluded to it asthe great work of Canning. As foreign minister he divorced England fromthe Holy Alliance, and insisted on maintaining non-intervention in theinternal affairs of other nations, and a peace policy which raised hiscountry to the highest pinnacle of power she ever attained, and broughtabout a development of wealth and industry entirely unprecedented. Hadhe lived he would have carried out those reforms that later were theglory of Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel, for he was emancipatedfrom the ideas which made the Tories obnoxious. His spirit was liberaland progressive, and hence he incurred bitter hostilities. Thegovernment, however, could not be carried on without him, and the kingwas forced unwillingly to accept him as minister. His magnificentservices as foreign secretary had mollified the hostilities of GeorgeIV. , who became anxious to retain him in power at the head of theforeign department, after the retirement of Lord Liverpool. But Canningfelt that the premiership was his due, and would accept nothing short ofit, and the king was forced to give it to him in spite of the howl ofthe Tory leaders. He enjoyed that dignity, however, but two months, being worn out with labors, and embittered by the hostilities of hispolitical enemies, who hounded him to death with the most cruel andunrelenting hatred. His sensitive and proud nature could not standbefore such unjust attacks and savage calumnies. He rapidly sank, in theprime of his life and in the height of his fame. Canning's death in 1827was a marked event in the reign of George IV. ; it filled England withmourning, and never was grief for a departed statesman more sincere andprofound. He was buried with great pomp in Westminster Abbey. Thesculptor Chantry was intrusted with the execution of his statue, --amemorial which he did not need, for his fame is imperishable. The dayafter the funeral his wife was made a peeress, an annuity was granted tohis sons, and every honor that it was possible for a grateful nation tobestow was lavished on his memory. 

Canning left only £20, 000, --a less sum than he had received from hiswife upon his marriage. His domestic life was singularly happy. He wasalso happy in the brilliant promises of his sons, one of whom becamegovernor-general of India, and was created a peer for his services. Hisonly daughter married the Marquis of Clanricarde. His children thusentered the ranks of the nobility, --a distinction which he himself didnot covet. It was his chief ambition to rule the nation through theHouse of Commons. 

Some authorities have regarded Canning as the greatest of Englishparliamentary orators; but his speeches to me are disappointing, although elaborate, argumentative, logical, and full of fancy and wit. They were too rhetorical to suit the taste of Lord Brougham. Rhetoricalexhibitions, however brilliant, are not those which posterity mosthighly value, and lose their charm when the occasions which producedthem have passed away. Canning's presence was commanding and dignified, his articulation delicate and precise, his voice clear and musical;while the curl of his lip and the glance of his eye would silence almostany antagonist. In cabinet meetings he was habitually silent, havingalready made up his mind. He could not gracefully bear contradiction, and made many enemies by his pride and sarcasm. In private life he wascourteous and gentlemanly, fond of society, but fonder of domestic life, pure in his moral character, devoted to his family, --especially to hismother, whom he treated with extraordinary deference and affection. 

The next subject of historical importance in the reign of George IV. Wasthe perpetual agitation among the people growing out of their misery anddiscontent. There were no great insurrections to overturn the throne, asin Spain and Italy and France; but there was a fierce demand for theremoval of evils which were intolerable; and this was manifested inmonster petitions to Parliament, in incendiary speeches like those madeby "Orator Hunt" and other agitators, in such political tracts asCobbett wrote and circulated in every corner of the land, in occasionaluprisings among agricultural laborers and factory operatives, in angrymobs destroying private property, --all impelled by hunger and despair. To these discontents and angry uprisings the government was haughty andcold, looking upon them as revolutionary and dangerous, and putting themdown by sheriffs and soldiers, by coercion bills and the suspensionof the Act of _habeas corpus_. Some speeches were made inParliament in favor of education, and some efforts in behalf of lawreforms, --especially the removal of the death penalty for smalloffences, more than two hundred of which were punishable with death. Numerous were the instances where men and boys were condemned to thegallows for stealing a coat or shooting a hare; but the sentences ofjudges were often not enforced when unusually severe or unjust. Moreover, large charities were voted for the poor, but withoutmaterially relieving the general distress. 

On the whole, however, the country increased in wealth and prosperity inconsequence of the long and uninterrupted peace; and the only greatdrawback was the mercantile crisis of 1825, resulting from the mania ofspeculation, and followed by the contraction of the currency, --theeffect of which was the failure of banks and the ruin of thousands whohad calculated on being suddenly enriched. Alison estimates theshrinkage of property in Great Britain alone as at least £100, 000, 000. Men worth £100, 000 could not at one time raise £100. The banks wereutterly drained of gold and silver. Nothing prevented universalbankruptcy but the issue of small bills by the Bank of England. Therewas a lull of political excitement after the trial of Queen Caroline, and Parliament confined itself chiefly to legal, economical, andcommercial questions; although occasionally there were grand debates onthe foreign policy, on Catholic emancipation, and on thedisfranchisement of corrupt boroughs. Ireland obtained considerableparliamentary attention, owing to the failure of the potato crop and itsattendant agricultural distress, which produced a state bordering onrebellion, and to the formation of the Catholic Association. 

But the great event in the political history of England during the reignof George IV. Was unquestionably the removal of Catholicdisabilities, --ranking next in importance and interest with the ReformBill and the repeal of the Corn Laws. Catholic disability had existedever since the reign of Elizabeth, and was the standing injustice underwhich Ireland labored. Catholic peers were not admitted to the House ofLords, nor Catholics to a seat in the House of Commons, --which was acondition of extremely unequal representation. In reality, only theProtestants were represented in Parliament, and they composed only aboutone tenth of the whole population. 

In addition to this injustice, the Irish, who were mostly RomanCatholics, were ground down by such oppressive laws that they werereally serfs to those landlords who owned the soil on which they toiledfor a mere pittance, --about fourpence a day, --resulting in a generalpoverty such as has never before been seen in any European country, withits attendant misery and crime. The miserable Irish peasantry lived inmud huts or cabins, covered partially with thatch, but not enough tokeep out the rain. No furniture and no comforts were to be seen in thesehuts. There were no chairs or tables, only a sort of dresser for layinga plate upon; no cooking utensils but a cast-metal pot to boilpotatoes, --almost the only food. There were no bedsteads, and but fewblankets. The people slept in their clothes, the whole family generallyin one room, --the only room in the cabin. For fuel they burned peat. Inorder to pay their rent, they sold their pigs. Beggars infested everyroad and filled every village. No one was certain of employment, even attwopence a day. Everybody was controlled by the priests, whose powerrested on their ability to stimulate religious fears, and who weresupported by such contributions as they were able to extort from thesuperstitious and ignorant people, --by nature brave and generous andjoyous, but improvident and reckless. It was the wonder of O'Connell howthey could remain cheerful amid such privations and such wrongs, withthe government seemingly indifferent, with none to pity and few to help. Nor could they vote for the candidates for any office whatever unlessthey had freeholds, or life-rent possessions, for which they paid a rentof forty shillings. The landlords of this wretched tenantry, unable toface the misery they saw and which they could not relieve, or fearful ofassassination, left the country to spend their incomes in the greatcities of Europe, not being united with their people by any ties, socialor religious. 

What wonder that such a wretched people, urged by the priests, shouldform associations for their own relief, especially when famine pressedand landlords exacted the uttermost farthing, --when the crimes to whichthey were impelled by starvation were punished with the most inexorableseverity by Protestant magistrates in whose appointment they hadno hand!

The result was the rise of the Catholic Association, the declared objectof which was to forward petitions to Parliament, to support anindependent Press, to aid emigration to America, --all worthy, andunobjectionable on the surface, but with the real intent (as affirmed bythe Tories and believed by a large majority of the nation) of securingthe control of elections, of bringing about the repeal of the Union withEngland (which, enacted in 1801, had done away with the separate Irishparliament), the resumption of the Church property by the Catholicclergy, and the restoration of the Catholic faith as the dominantreligion of the land. Such an Association, embracing most of the RomanCatholic population, was regarded with great alarm by the government;and they determined to put it down as seditious and dangerous, againstthe expostulation of such men as Brougham, Mackintosh, and Sir HenryParnell. Then arose the great figure of O'Connell in the history ofIreland (whose eloquence, tact, and ability have no parallel in thatcountry of orators), defending the cause of his countrymen with masterlypower, leading them like a second Moses according to his will, --in fact, uniting them in a movement which it was hopeless to oppose except withan army bent on the depopulation of the country; so that George IV. Isreported to have said, with considerable bitterness, "Canning is king ofEngland, O'Connell is king of Ireland, and I am Dean of Windsor. "

Such, however, was the hostility of Parliament to the Irish Catholicsthat a bill was carried by a great majority in both Houses to suppressthe Association, supported powerfully by the Duke of York as well as bythe ministers of the crown, even by Canning himself and Sir Robert Peel. 

Then followed renewed disturbances, riots, and murders; for thecondition of the Roman Catholics in Ireland was desperate as well asgloomy. The Association was dissolved, for O'Connell would do nothingunlawful; but a new one took its place, which preached peace and unity, but which meant the repeal of the Union, --the grand object that fromfirst to last O'Connell had at heart. Of course, this scheme was utterlyimpracticable without a revolution that would shake England to itscentre; but it was followed by an immense emigration to America, --sogreat that the population of Ireland declined from eight and a half tofour and a half millions. The Irish Catholics, however, werecomparatively quiet during the administration of Mr. Canning, whoseliberal tendencies had given them hope; but on his death they becamemore restive. The coalition ministry under Lord Goderich was muchembarrassed how to act, or was too feeble to act with vigor, --not forwant of individual abilities, but by reason of dissensions among theministers. It lasted only a short time, and was succeeded by that of theDuke of Wellington, with Sir Robert Peel for his lieutenant; both ofwhom had shown an intense prejudice and dislike of the Irish Catholics, and had voted uniformly for their repression. On the return of theTories to power, the Irish disturbances were renewed and increased. Hitherto the landlords had directed the votes of their tenantry, --theforty-shilling freeholders; but now the elections were determined by thedirection of the Catholic Association, which was controlled by thepriests, and by O'Connell and his associates. In addition, O'Connellhimself was elected to represent in the English Parliament the County ofClare, against the whole weight of the government, --which was a bitterpill for the Tories to swallow, especially as the great agitatordeclared his intention to take his seat without submitting to thecustomary oath. It was in reality a defiance of the government, backedby the whole Irish nation. The Catholics became so threatening, theycame together so often and in such enormous masses, that the nation wasthoroughly alarmed. The king and a majority of his ministers urged themost violent coercive measures, even to the suspension of_habeas corpus_. 

O'Connell was not admitted to Parliament; but his case precipitated anintense turmoil, which settled the question forever; for then the greatgeneral who had defeated Napoleon, and was the idol of the nation, seeing the difficulties of coercion as no other statesman did, andinfluenced by Sir Robert Peel (for whom he had unbounded respect), madeone of his masterly retreats, by which he averted revolution andbloodshed. Wellington hated the Catholics, and was a most loyal memberof the Church of England; moreover, he was a Tory and anultra-conservative. But at last even his eyes were opened, not to theinjustices and wrongs which ground Ireland to the dust, but to thenecessity of conciliation. Like Peel, he could face facts; and when hispath was clear he would walk therein, whatever kings or ministers orpeers or people might think or say. He resolved to emancipate theCatholics, as Sir Robert Peel afterward repealed the Corn Laws, againstall his antecedents and affiliations and sympathies, and more than allagainst the declared wishes and resolutions of the monarch whom henominally served, yet whom he controlled by his iron will. Sir RobertPeel, as obstinate a Tory as his chief, had been for some time convincedof the necessity of conciliation, and at once resigned his seat as therepresentative of Oxford University, which he felt he could no longerhonorably hold. In March, 1829, he brought forward his bill for theremoval of Catholic disabilities, which was read the third time, andpassed the Commons by a majority of 178. In the House of Peers, it wascarried by a majority of 104, --so great was the influence of Wellingtonand Peel, so impressed at last were both Houses of the necessity forthe measure. 

The difficulty now was to obtain the signature of the king, although hehad promised it as the probable alternative of revolution, --a greatState necessity, which his ministers had made him at last perceive, butto which he reluctantly yielded. He was somewhat in the position of PopeClement XIV. When obliged, against his will and against the interests ofthe Catholic Church, to sign the bull for the revocation of the charterof the Jesuits. _Compulsus feci! compulsus feci!_ he exclaimed, withmental agony. George IV. Could have said the same. He procrastinated; helay all day in bed to avoid seeing his ministers; he talked of hisfeelings; he threatened to abdicate, and go to Hanover; he would notviolate his conscience; he would be faithful to the traditions of hishouse and the memory of his father, --and so on, until the patience ofWellington and Peel was exhausted, and they told him he must sign thebill at once, or they would immediately resign. "The king could nolonger wriggle off the hook, " and surrendered. O'Connell was instantlyre-elected, and took his seat in Parliament, --a position which heoccupied for the rest of his life. George IV. Was the last of themonarchs of England who attempted to rule by personal government. Henceforward the monarch's duty was simply to register the decrees ofParliament. 

But the admission of Catholics to Parliament did not heal the disordersof Ireland as had been hoped. The Irish clamored for still greaterprivileges. The cry for repeal of the Union succeeded that for theremoval of disabilities. Their poverty and miseries remained, whiletheir monster meetings continued to shake the kingdom to its centre. 

The historical importance of Catholic emancipation consists inthis, --that it was the first great victory over the aristocratic powersof the empire, and was an entrance wedge to the reform of Parliamenteffected in the next reign. It threw forty or fifty members of the Houseof Commons into the ranks of opposition to the Tory side, which with afew brief intervals had governed England for a century. "The reformmovement was the child of Catholic agitation; the anti-corn law leaguethat of the triumph of reform. " Brougham was the legitimate successor ofO'Connell. A foresight of such consequences was the real cause of themovement being so bitterly opposed by the king and Lord Eldon. It wasnot jealousy of the Catholics that moved them, --that was only thepretence; it was really fear of the blow aimed against Toryism. They hadsagacity enough to see the inevitable result, --the advancing power ofthe Liberal party, and the impossibility of longer ruling the countrywithout ceding privileges to the people. The repeal of the Test Act bythe previous administration, which removed the disabilities ofDissenters from the Established Church to hold public office, was onlyanother act in the great drama of national development which was to giveascendency to the middle class in matters of legislation, rather than tothe favored classes who had hitherto ruled. The movement was politicaland not religious, whatever might be the hatred of the Tories for bothCatholics and Dissenters. 

Nothing further of political importance marked the administration of theDuke of Wellington except the increasing agitations for parliamentaryreform, which will be hereafter considered. Wellington was elevated tohis exalted post from the influence and popularity which followed hismilitary achievements. His fame, like that of General Grant, rests onhis military and not on his civil services, although his greatexperience as a diplomatist and general made him far from contemptibleas a statesman. It was his misfortune to hold the helm of state instormy times, amid riots, agitations, insurrections, and partydissensions, amid famines and public distresses of every kind; whenEngland was going through a transition state, when there was every shadeof opinion among political leaders. The duke, like Canning before him, was isolated, and felt the need of a friend. He was not like acommander-in-chief surrounded with a band of devoted generals, but withministers held together by a rope of sand. He had no real colleagues inhis cabinet, and no party in the House of Commons. The chief troubles inEngland were financial rather than political, and he had no head forfinance like Huskisson and Sir Robert Peel. 

In the midst of the difficulties with which the great duke had tocontend, George IV. Died, June 26, 1830. He was in his latter days agreat sufferer from the gout and other diseases brought about by thedebaucheries of his earlier days; and he was a disenchanted man, livinglong enough to see how frail were the supports on which he hadleaned, --friends, pleasures, and exalted rank. 

All authorities are agreed as to the character of George IV. , thoughsome in their immeasurable contempt have painted him worse than hereally was, like Brougham and Thackeray. All are agreed that he wasselfish and pleasure-seeking in his ordinary life, though courteous inhis manners and kind to those who shared his revels. As dissipatedhabits obtained the mastery over him, and the unbounded flattery of hisboon companions stultified his conscience, he became heartless and evenbrutal. He was proud and overbearing; was fond of pomp and ceremony, andultra-conservative in all his political views. He was outrageouslyextravagant and reckless in his expenditures, and then appealed toParliament to pay his debts. He liked to visit his favorites, andreceived visits from them in return so long as his physical forcesremained; but when these were hopelessly undermined by self-indulgence, he buried himself in his palaces, and rarely appeared in public. Indeed, in his latter days he shunned the sight of the people altogether. Hischaracter appears better in his letters than in the verdicts ofhistorians. Those written to his Chancellor Eldon, to the Duke ofWellington, to Lord Liverpool, to Sir William Knighton, keeper of theprivy purse, and others, show great cordiality, frankness, and the utterabsence of the stiffness and pride incident to his high rank. Theyabound in expressions of kindness and even affection, whether sincere ornot. They are all well written, and would do credit, from a literarypoint of view, to any private person. His talents and conversation, hiswit and repartee, and his felicitous description of character areundeniable. He is said to have had the talent of telling stories toperfection. His powers of mimicry were remarkable, and he was fond ofsinging songs at his banquets. Had he been simply a private person or anordinary nobleman, he would have been far from contemptible. 

The latter days of George IV. Were sad, and for a king he was leftcomparatively alone. He had neither wife nor children to lean upon andto cheer him, --only mercenary courtiers and physicians. His tastes wererefined, his manners affable, and his conversation interesting. He wasintelligent, sagacious, and well-informed; yet no English monarch wasever more cordially despised. The governing principle of his life was alove of ease and pleasure, which made him negligent of his duties; andthere never yet lived a man, however exalted his sphere, who had notimperative duties to perform, without the performance of which his lifewas a failure and a reproach. So it was with this unhappy king, who diedlike Louis XV. Without any one to mourn his departure; and a new kingreigned in his stead. 

And yet the reign of the fourth George as king was marked by returningnational prosperity, --owing not to the efforts of statesmen andlegislators, but to the marvellous spread of commerce and manufactures, resulting from the establishment of peace, thus opening a market forBritish goods in all parts of the world. 

This period of the fourth George's rule, as regent and king, was alsoremarkable for the appearance of men of genius in all departments ofhuman thought and action. As the lights of a former generation sankbeneath the horizon, other stars arose of increased brilliancy. Inpoetry alone, Byron, Scott, Rogers, Coleridge, Southey, Wordsworth, Moore, Campbell, Keats, would have made the age illustrious, --aconstellation such as has not since appeared. In fiction, Sir WalterScott introduced a new era, soon followed by Bulwer, Dickens, andThackeray. In the law there were Brougham, Eldon, Lyndhurst, Ellenborough, Denman, Plunkett, Erskine, Wetherell, --all men of thefirst class. In medicine and surgery were Abernethy, Cooper, Holland. Inthe Church were Parr, Clarke, Hampden, Scott, Sumner, Hall, Arnold, Irving, Chalmers, Heber, Whately, Newman. Sir Humphry Davy waspresiding at the Royal Society, and Sir Thomas Lawrence at the RoyalAcademy. Herschel was discovering planets. Bell was lecturing at the newLondon University, and Dugald Stewart in the University of Edinburgh. Captain Ross was exploring the Northern Seas, and Lander the wilds ofAfrica. Lancaster was founding a new system of education; Bentham andRicardo were unravelling the tangled web of political economy; Hallam, Lingard, Mitford, Mills, were writing history; Macaulay, Carlyle, Smith, Lockhart, Jeffrey, Hazlitt, were giving a new stimulus to periodicalliterature; while Miss Edgeworth, Jane Porter, Mrs. Hemans, wereentering the field of literature as critics, poets, and novelists, instead of putting their inspired thoughts into letters, as bright womendid one hundred years before. Into everything there were found some tocast their searching glances, creating an intellectual activity withoutprevious precedent, if we except the great theological discussions ofthe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Even shopkeepers began to readand think, and in their dingy quarters were stirred to discuss theirrights; while William Cobbett aroused a still lower class to politicalactivity by his matchless style. All philanthropic, educational, andreligious movements received a wonderful stimulus; while improvements inthe use of steam, mechanical inventions, chemical developments andscientific discoveries, were rapidly changing the whole materialcondition of mankind. 

In 1820, when the regent became George IV. , a new era opened in Englishhistory, most observable in those popular agitations which ushered inreforms under his successor William IV. These it will be my object topresent in another volume. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Croly's Life of George IV. ; Thackeray's Four Georges; Annual Register;Life of the Duke of Wellington; Life of Canning; Life of Lord Liverpool;Life of Lord Brougham; Miss Martineau's History of England; Life ofMackintosh; Life of Sir Robert Peel; Alison's History of Europe; Life ofLord Eldon; Life of O'Connell; Molesworth's History of England. 

THE GREEK REVOLUTION. 

1820-1828. 

When Napoleon was sent to St. Helena, the European nations breathed morefreely, and it was the general expectation and desire that there wouldbe no more wars. The civilized world was weary of strife andbattlefields, and in the reaction which followed the general peace of1815, the various States settled down into a state of dreamy repose. Notonly were they weary of war, but they hated the agitation of those ideaswhich led to discontent and revolution. The policy of the governments ofEngland, France, Germany, and Russia was pacific and conservative. Therewas a universal desire to recover wasted energies and develop nationalresources. Visions of military glory passed away for a time with theenjoyment of peace. Nations reflected on their follies, and resolved tobeat their swords into ploughshares. 

Then began a period of philanthropy as well as of rest and reaction. Societies were organized, especially in England, to spread the Bible inall lands, to send missionaries to the heathen, and proclaim peace andgood-will to all mankind, A new era seemed to dawn upon the world, marked by a desire to cultivate the arts, sciences, and literature; todevelop industries, and improve social conditions. War was seen to bebarbaric, demoralizing, and exhausting. Peace was hailed with anenthusiasm scarcely less than that which for twenty years had createdmilitary heroes. The Holy Alliance was not hypocritical. Although apolitical compact made under a religious pretext, it was formed bymonarchs deeply impressed by the horrors of war, and by the necessity ofestablishing a new basis for the happiness of mankind on the principlesof Christianity, when peace should be the law of nations; at the sametime it was formed no less to suppress those ideas which it was supposedled logically to rebellions and revolutions, and to disturb the reign oflaw, the security of established institutions, and the peaceful pursuitof ordinary avocations. This was the view taken by the Czar Alexander, by Frederick William of Prussia, by Francis I. Of Austria, by LouisXVIII. Of France, as well as by leading statesmen like Talleyrand, Nesselrode, Hardenberg, Chateaubriand, Metternich, Wellington, andCastlereagh. 

But these views were delusive. The world was simply weary of fighting;it was not impressed with a sense of the wickedness, but only of theinexpediency of war, except in case of great national dangers, or togain what is dearest to enlightened people, --personal liberty andconstitutional government. 

Consequently, scarcely five years passed away after the fall of Napoleonbefore Europe was again disturbed by revolutionary passions. There wereno international wars. On the whole, England, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria put aside ambitious designs of further aggrandizement, andwere disposed to keep peace with one another; and this desire lasted fora whole generation. But there were other countries in which the flamesof insurrection broke out. The Spanish colonies of South America wereimpatient of the yoke of the mother country, and sought nationalindependence, which they gained after a severe struggle. Thedisaffection in view of royal despotism reached Spain itself, and arevolution in that country dethroned the Bourbon king, and wassuppressed only by the aid of France. All Italy was convulsed byrevolutionary ideas and passions growing out of the cruel despotismexercised by the various potentates who ruled that fair but unhappycountry. Insurrections were violent in Naples, in Piedmont, and in thepapal territories, and were put down not by Italian princes, but byAustrian bayonets. As it is my design to present these in anotherlecture, I simply allude to them in this connection. 

But the most important revolution which occurred at this period, takinginto view its ultimate consequences and its various complications, wasthat of Greece. It was different from those of Spain and Italy in thisrespect, that it was a struggle not to gain political rights fromoppressive rulers, but to secure national independence. As such, it isinvested with great interest. Moreover, it was glorious, since it wasultimately successful, after a dreadful contest with Turkey for sevenyears, during which half of the population was swept away. Greeceprobably would have succumbed to a powerful empire but for the aidtardily rendered her by foreign Powers, --united in this instance, not tosuppress rebellion, but to rescue a noble and gallant people from acruel despotism. 

Had the armed intervention of Russia, England, and France taken place atan earlier period, much suffering and bloodshed might have been averted. But Russia was fettered by the Holy Alliance to suppress allinsurrection and attempts at constitutional liberty wherever they mighttake place, and could not, consistently with the promises given toAustria and Prussia, join in an armed intervention, even in a matterdear to the heart of Alexander, whose religion was that of Greece. TheCzar was placed in an awkward position. If he gave assistance to theGreeks, whose religious faith was the same as his own and whose foe wasalso the traditionary enemy of Russia, he would violate his promises, which he always held sacred, and give umbrage to Austria. The intoleranthatred of Alexander for all insurrections whatever induced him to standaloof from a contest which jeoparded the stability of thrones, and withwhich in a political view, as an absolute sovereign, he had no sympathy. On the other hand, if Alexander remained neutral, his faith would betrodden under foot, and that by a power which he detested bothpolitically and religiously, --a power, too, with which Russia had oftenbeen at war. If Turkey triumphed in the contest, rebels against along-constituted authority might indeed be put down; but a hostile powerwould be strengthened, dangerous to all schemes of Russianaggrandizement. Consequently Alexander was undecided in his policy; yethis indecision tore his mind with anguish, and probably shortened hisdays. He was, on the whole, a good man; but he was a despot, and did notreally know what to do. England and France, again, were weakened by thelong wars of Napoleon, and wanted repose. Their sympathies were with theGreeks; but they shielded themselves behind the principles ofnon-intervention, which were the public law of Europe. 

So the poor Greeks were left for six years to struggle alone and unaidedagainst the whole force of the Turkish empire before relief came, whenthey were on the verge of annihilation. It was the struggle of a littlecountry about half the size of Scotland against an empire four times aslarge as Great Britain and France combined; of a population less than amillion against twenty-five millions. It was more than this: it was, inmany important respects, a war between Asia and Europe, kindred inspirit with the old Crusades. It was a war of races and religions, rather than of political principles; and hence it was marked by inhumanatrocities on both sides, reminding us of the old wars between Jews andSyrians. It was a tragedy at which the whole civilized world gazed withblended interest and horror. It was infinitely more fierce than anycontest which has taken place in Europe for three hundred years. To theGreeks themselves it was, after the first successes, the mostdiscouraging contest that I know of in human history; and yet it had allthose elements of heroism which marked the insurrection of theHollanders under William the Silent against the combined forces ofAustria and Spain. It was grand in its ideas, like our own RevolutionaryWar; and the liberty which was finally gained was purchased by greatersacrifices than any recorded in any war, either ancient or modern. Thewar of Italian independence was a mere holiday demonstration incomparison with it. Even the Polish wars against Russia were nothing toit, in the sufferings which were endured and the gallant feats whichwere performed. 

But as Greece was a small and distant country, its memorable contest wasnot invested with the interest felt for battles on a larger scale, andwhich more directly affected the interests of other nations. It was nottill its complications involved Turkey and Russia in war, and affectedthe whole "Eastern Question, " that its historical importance was seen. It was perhaps only the beginning of a series of wars which may drivethe Ottoman Turks out of Europe, and make Constantinople a great prizefor future conquerors. 

That is unquestionably what Russia wants and covets to-day, and what theother great Powers are determined she shall not have. Possibly Greecemay yet be the renewed seat of a Greek empire, under the protection ofthe Western nations, as a barrier to Russian encroachments around theBlack Sea. There is sympathy for the Greeks; none for the Turks. England, France, and Austria can form no lasting alliance withMohammedans, who may be driven back into Asia, --not by Russians, but bya coalition of the Latin and Gothic races. 

It is useless, however, to speculate on the future wars of the world. Weonly know that offences must needs come so long as nations and rulersare governed more by interests and passions than by reason orphilanthropy. When will passions and interests cease to be dominant ordisturbing forces? To these most of the wars which history records areto be traced. And yet, whatever may be the origin or characterof wars, those who stimulate or engage in them find plausibleexcuses, --necessity, patriotism, expediency, self-defence, even religionand liberty. So long then as men are blinded by their passions andinterests, and palliate or justify their wars by either truth orsophistry, there is but little hope that they will cease, even with theadvance of civilization. When has there been a long period unmarked bywar? When have wars been more destructive and terrible than within thememory of this generation? It would indeed seem that when nations shalllearn that their real interests are not antagonistic, that they cannotafford to go to war with one another, peace would then prevail as apolicy not less than as a principle. This is the hopeful view to take;but unfortunately it is not the lesson taught by history, nor by thatphilosophy which has been generally accepted by Christendom for eighteenhundred years, --which is that men will not be governed by the loftiestprinciples until the religion of Jesus shall have conquered and changedthe heart of the world, or at least of those who rule the world. 

The chapter I am about to present is one of war, --cruel, merciless, relentless war; therefore repulsive, and only interesting from themagnitude of the issues, fought out, indeed, on a narrow strip ofterritory. What matter, whether the battlefield is large or small? Therewas as much heroism in the struggles of the Dutch republic as in thewars of Napoleon; as much in our warfare for independence as in thesuppression of the Southern rebellion; as much among Cromwell's soldiersas in the Crimean war; as much at Thermopylae as at Plataea. It is thegreatness of a cause which gives to war its only justification. A causeis sacred from the dignity of its principles. Men are nothing;principles are everything. Men must die. It is of comparatively littlemoment whether they fall like autumn leaves or perish in a storm, --theyare alike forgotten; but their ideas and virtues are imperishable, --eternal lessons for successive generations. History is a record notmerely of human sufferings, --these are inevitable, --but also of thestepping-stones of progress, which indicate both the permanent welfareof men and the Divine hand which mysteriously but really guidesand governs. 

When the Greek revolution broke out, in 1820, there were about sevenhundred thousand people inhabiting a little over twenty-one thousandsquare miles of territory, with a revenue of about fifteen millions ofdollars, --large for such a country of mountains and valleys. But thesoil is fertile and the climate propitious, favorable for grapes, olives, and maize. It is a country easily defended, with its steepmountains, its deep ravines, and rugged cliffs, and when as at that timeroads were almost impassable for carriages and artillery. Its peoplehave always been celebrated for bravery, industry, and frugality (likethe Swiss), but prone to jealousies and party feuds. It had in 1820 nocentral government, no great capital, and no regular army. It owedallegiance to the Sultan at Constantinople, the Turks having conqueredGreece soon after that city was taken by them in 1453. 

Amid all the severities of Turkish rule for four centuries the Greeksmaintained their religion, their language, and distinctive manners. Insome places they were highly prosperous from commerce, which theyengrossed along the whole coast of the Levant and among the islands ofthe Archipelago. They had six hundred vessels, bearing six thousandguns, and manned by eighteen thousand seamen. In their beautifulislands, --

 "Where burning Sappho loved and sung, "--

abodes of industry and freedom, the Turkish pashas never set their foot, satisfied with the tribute which was punctually paid to the Sultan. Moreover, these islands were nurseries of seamen for the Turkish navy;and as these seamen were indispensable to the Sultan, the country thatproduced them was kindly treated. The Turks were indifferent tocommerce, and allowed the Greek merchants to get rich, provided theypaid their tribute. The Turks cared only for war and pleasure, and spenttheir time in alternate excitement and lazy repose. They disdainedlabor, which they bought with tribute-money or secured from slaves takenin war. Like the Romans, they were warriors and conquerors, but becameenervated by luxury. They were hard masters, but their conqueredsubjects throve by commerce and industry. 

The Greeks, as to character, were not religious like the Turks, butquicker witted. What religion they had was made up of the ceremonies andpomps of a corrupted Christianity, but kept alive by traditions. Theirpatriarch was a great personage, --practically appointed, however, by theSultan, and resident in Constantinople. Their clergy were married, andwere more humane and liberal than the Roman Catholic priests of Italy, and about on a par with them in morals and influence. The Greeks werealways inquisitive and fond of knowledge, but their love of liberty hasbeen one of their strongest peculiarities, kept alive amid all theoppressions to which they have been subjected. Nevertheless, unarmed, atleast on the mainland, and without fortresses, few in numbers, withoverwhelming foes, they had not, up to 1820, dared to risk a generalrebellion, for fear that they should be mercilessly slaughtered. So longas they remained at peace their condition as a conquered people was notso bad as it might have been, although the oppressions of tax-gatherersand the brutality of Turkish officials had been growing more and moreintolerable. In 1770 and 1790 there had been local and unsuccessfulattempts at revolt, but nothing of importance. 

Amid the political agitations which threw Spain and Italy intorevolution, however, the spirit of liberty revived among the hardy Greekmountaineers of the mainland. Secret societies were formed, with a viewof shaking off the Turkish yoke. The aspiring and the discontentednaturally cast their eyes to Russia for aid, since there was a religiousbond between the Russians and the Greeks, and since the Russians andTurks were mortal enemies, and since, moreover, they were encouraged tohope for such aid by a great Russian nobleman, by birth a Greek, who wasprivate secretary and minister, as well as an intimate, of the EmperorAlexander, --Count Capo d'Istrias. They were also exasperated by thecession of Parga (a town on the mainland opposite the Ionian Islands) tothe Turks, by the treaty of 1815, which the allies carelesslyoverlooked. 

The flame of insurrection in 1820 did not, however, first break out inthe territory of Greece, but in Wallachia, --a Turkish province on thenorth of the Danube, governed by a Greek hospodar, the capital of whichwas Bucharest. This was followed by the revolt of another Turkishprovince, Moldavia, bordering on Russia, from which it was separated bythe River Pruth. At Jassy, the capital, Prince Ypsilanti, adistinguished Russian general descended from an illustrious Greekfamily, raised the standard of insurrection, to which flocked the wholeChristian population of the province, who fell upon the Turkish soldiersand massacred them. Ypsilanti had twenty thousand soldiers under hiscommand, against which the six hundred armed Turks could make but feebleresistance. This apparently successful revolt produced an immenseenthusiasm throughout Greece, the inhabitants of which now eagerly tookup arms. The Greeks had been assured of the aid of Russia by Ypsilanti, who counted without his host, however; for the Czar, then at theCongress of Laibach, convened to put down revolutionary ideas, wasextremely angry at the conduct of Ypsilanti, and, against allexpectation, stood aloof. This was the time for him to attack Turkey, then weakened and dilapidated; but he was tired of war. Among the Greeksthe wildest enthusiasm prevailed, especially throughout the Morea, theancient Peloponnesus. The peasants everywhere gathered around theirchieftains, and drove away the Turkish soldiers, inflicting on them thegrossest barbarities. In a few days the Turks possessed nothing in theMorea but their fortresses. The Turkish garrison of Athens shut itselfup in the Acropolis. Most of the islands of the Archipelago hoisted thestandard of the Cross; and the strongest of them armed and sent outcruisers to prey on the commerce of the enemy. 

At Constantinople the news of the insurrection excited bothconsternation and rage. Instant death to the Christians was theuniversal cry. The Mussulmans seized the Greek patriarch, an old man ofeighty, while he was performing a religious service on Easter Sunday, hanged him, and delivered his body to the Jews. The Sultan Mahmoud wasintensely exasperated, and ordered a levy of troops throughout hisempire to suppress the insurrection and to punish the Christians. Theatrocities which the Turks now inflicted have scarcely ever beenequalled in horror. The Christian churches were entered and sacked. AtAdrianople the Patriarch was beheaded, with eight other ecclesiasticaldignitaries. In ten days thousands of Christians in that city werebutchered, and their wives and daughters sold into slavery; while fivearchbishops and three bishops were hanged in the streets, without trial. There was scarcely a town in the empire where atrocities of the mostrepulsive kind were not perpetrated on innocent and helpless people. InAsia Minor the fanatical spirit raged with more ferocity than inEuropean Turkey. At Smyrna a general massacre of the Christians tookplace under circumstances of peculiar atrocity, and fifteen thousandwere obliged to flee to the islands of the Archipelago to save theirlives. The Island of Cyprus, which once had a population of more than amillion, reduced at the breaking out of the insurrection to seventythousand, was nearly depopulated; the archbishop and five other bishopswere ruthlessly murdered. The whole island, one hundred and forty-sixmiles long and sixty-three wide, was converted into a theatre of rapine, violation, and bloodshed. 

All now saw that no hope remained for Greece but in the most determinedresistance, which was nobly made. Six thousand men were soon in arms inThessaly. The mountaineers of Macedonia gathered into armed bands. Thirty thousand rose in the peninsula of Cassandra and laid siege toSalonica, a city of eighty thousand inhabitants, but were repulsed, andfled to the mountains, --not, however, until thousands of Mussulmans wereslain. It had become "war to the knife, and the knife to the hilt. " Noquarter was asked or given. 

All Greece was now aroused to what was universally felt to be a deathstruggle. The people eagerly responded to all patriotic influences, andespecially to war songs, some of which had been sung for more than twothousand years. Certain of these were reproduced by the English poetByron, who, leaving his native land, entered heart and soul into thedesperate contest, and urged the Greeks to heroic action in memory oftheir fathers. 

 "Then manfully despising The Turkish tyrant's yoke, Let your country see you rising, And all her chains are broke. Brave shades of chiefs and sages, Behold the coming strife! Hellenes of past ages Oh, start again to life! At the sound of trumpet, breaking Your sleep, oh, join with me! And the seven-hilled city seeking, Fight, conquer, till we're free!"

Success now seemed to mark the uprising in Southern Greece; but in theDanubian provinces, without the expected aid of Russia, it was farotherwise. Prince Ypsilanti, who had taken an active part in theinsurrection, was dismissed from the Russian service and summoned backto Russia; but he was not discouraged, and advanced to Bucharest withten thousand men. In the mean time ten thousand Turks entered thePrincipalities and regained Moldavia. Ypsilanti fled before theconquering enemy, abandoned Bucharest, and was totally defeated atDragaschan, with the loss of all his baggage and ammunition. Onlytwenty-five of his hastily collected band escaped into Transylvania. 

The intelligence of this disaster would have disheartened the Greeks butfor their naval successes among the islands of the Archipelago. Hydra, Ipsara, and Samos equipped a flotilla which drove the Turkish fleet backto the Dardanelles with immense losses. The Greeks having now thecommand of the sea, made successful incursions, and hoisted their flagat Missolonghi, which they easily fortified, it being situated in themidst of lagoons, like Venice, which large ships could not penetrate. But on the mainland they suffered severe reverses. Fifteen thousandGreeks perished at Patras; but the patriots were successful at Valtezza, where five thousand men repulsed fifteen thousand Turks, and drove themto seek shelter in the strong fortress of Tripolitza. The Greeksavoiding action in the open field, succeeded in taking Navarino andNapoli di Malvasia, and rivalled their enemies in the atrocities theycommitted. They lost Athens, whose citadel they had besieged, butdefeated the Turks in Thermopylae with great slaughter, which enabledthem to reoccupy Athens and blockade the Acropolis. 

Then followed the siege of Tripolitza, in the centre of the Morea, theseat of the Pasha, where the Turks were strongly intrenched. It was soontaken by Kolokotronis, who commanded the Greeks. The fall of thisfortress was followed by the usual massacre, in which neither age norsex was spared. The Greek chiefs attempted to suppress the fury andcruelty of their followers; but their efforts were in vain, and theircause was stained with blood needlessly shed. Yet when one remembers thecenturies during which the Turks had been slaying the men, carrying offthe women to their harems, and making slaves of the children of theGreeks, there is less to wonder at in such an access of blind fury andvengeance. Nine thousand Turks were massacred, or slain in the attack. The capture of this important fortress was of immense advantage to theGreeks, who obtained great treasures and a large amount of ammunition, with a valuable train of artillery. 

But this great success was balanced by the failure of the Greeks, underYpsilanti, to capture Napoli di Romania, --another strong fortress, defended by eight hundred guns, regarded as nearly impregnable, situated, like Gibraltar, on a great rock eight hundred feet high, thebase of which was washed by the sea. It was a rash enterprise, but camenear being successful on account of the negligence of the garrison, which numbered only fifteen hundred men. An escalade was attempted byMavrokordatos, one of the heroic chieftains of the Greeks; but it wassuccessfully repulsed, and the attacking generals with difficultyescaped to Argos. The Greeks also met with a reverse on the peninsula ofCassandra, near Salonica, which proved another massacre. Three thousandperished from Turkish scimitars, and ten thousand women and childrenwere sold into slavery. 

Thus ended the campaign of 1821, with mutual successes and losses, disgraced on both sides by treachery and massacres; but the Greeks weresufficiently emboldened to declare their independence, and form aconstitution under Prince Mavrokordatos as president, --a Chian by birth, who had been physician to the Sultan. The seat of government was fixedat Corinth, whose fortress had been recovered from the Turks. Sevenhundred thousand people threw down the gauntlet to twenty-five millions, and defied their power. 

The following year the Greek cause indirectly suffered a great blow bythe capture and death of Ali Pasha. This ambitious and daring rebel, from humble origin, had arisen, by energy, ability, and fraud, to a highcommand under the Sultan. He became pasha of Thessaly; and havingaccumulated great riches by extortion and oppression, he bought thepashalic of Jannina, in one of the richest and most beautiful valleysof Epirus. In the centre of a lake he built an impregnable fortress, collected a large body of Albanian troops, and soon became master of thewhole province. He preserved an apparent neutrality between the Sultanand the rebellious Greeks, whom, however, he secretly encouraged. In hiscastle at Jannina he meditated extensive conquests and independence ofthe Porte. At one time he had eighty thousand half-disciplined Albaniansunder his command. The Sultan, at last suspecting his treachery, summoned him to Constantinople, and on his refusal to appear, denouncedhim as a rebel, and sent Chourchid Pasha, one of his ablest generals, with forty thousand troops, to subdue him. This was no easy task; andfor two years, before the Greek revolution broke out, Ali had maintainedhis independence. At last he found himself besieged in his islandcastle, impregnable against assault, but short of provisions. From thisretreat he was decoyed by consummate art to the mainland, to meet theTurkish general, who promised an important command and a high rank inthe Turkish service. In the power now of the Turks, he was at oncebeheaded, and his head sent to Constantinople. 

Ali's death set free the large army of Chourchid Pasha to be employedagainst the Greeks. Aided too by the enthusiasm which the suppression ofa dangerous enemy created, the Sultan made great preparations for arenewed attack on the Morea. The contest now assumed greaterproportions, and the reconquest of Greece seemed extremely probable. Sixty thousand Turks, under the command of the ablest general of theSultan, prepared to invade the Morea. In addition, a powerful squadron, with eight thousand troops, sailed from the Dardanelles to reinforce theTurkish fortresses and furnish provisions. In the meantime theinsurrection extended to Chios, or Scio, an opulent and fertile islandopposite Smyrna. It had eighty thousand inhabitants, who drove the Turksto their citadel. The Sultan, enraged at the loss of this prosperousisland, sent thirty thousand fanatical Asiatic Mussulmans, and a fleetconsisting of six ships-of-the-line, ten frigates, and twelve brigs, toreconquer what was regarded as the garden of the Archipelago. Resistancewas impossible against such an overwhelming array of forces, whomassacred nearly the whole of the male population, and sold their wivesand children as slaves. The consuls of France and Austria remonstratedagainst this unheard-of cruelty; but nothing could appease the fanaticalfury of the conquerors. The massacre has no parallel in history sincethe storming of Syracuse or the sack of Bagdad, Not only were theinhabitants swept away, but the churches, the fine villas, the scatteredhouses, and the villages were burned to the ground. When the slaughterceased, it was found that twenty-five thousand men had been slain, andforty-five thousand women and children had become slaves to glut themarkets of Constantinople and Egypt, while fifteen thousand had fled tothe mainland. 

This great calamity, however, was partially avenged by the sailors andchiefs of Hydra, a neighboring island, under the command of one of thegreatest heroes that the war produced, --the intrepid and fearlessAndreas Miaulis, who with fire-ships destroyed nearly the whole of theTurkish fleet. He was aided by Constantine Canaris and George Pepinis, equal to him in courage, who succeeded in grappling the ships of theenemy and setting them on fire. The Turks, with the remnant of theirmagnificent fleet, took refuge in the harbor of Mitylene, while thevictors returned in triumph to Ipsara, and became the masters of theArchipelago. 

The Greek operations were not so fortunate at first on the land as theywere on the sea. Mavrokordatos led in person an expedition into Epirus;but he was no general, and failed disastrously. Even the brave MarcoBozzaris was unable to cut his way to the relief of his countrymen, shutup in their fortresses without an adequate supply of provisions; and allthat the Greeks could do in their great discouragement was to supplyMissolonghi with provisions and a few defenders, in anticipation ofa siege. 

Epirus was now fallen, and nothing remained but a guerilla warfare. Indeed, a striking feature of the whole revolution was "the absence ofany one great leader to concentrate the Greek forces and utilize thesplendid heroism of people and chieftains in permanent strategicsuccesses. The war was a succession of sporadic fights, --successes andfailures, --with small apparent mutual relations and effects. " InMacedonia, which had joined the insurrection, there were six thousandbrave mountaineers in arms; but they had to contend with fifteenthousand regular troops under the command of the pashas of Salonica andThessaly, who forced the passes of the Vale of Tempe, and slew allbefore them. Chourchid Pasha, having his rear provided for, with thirtythousand men now passed through the defile of Thermopylae, appearedbefore Corinth, took its citadel, advanced to Argos, dispersed thegovernment which had established itself there, and then pursued hisvictorious career to Napoli di Romania, whose garrison he reinforced. But the summer sun dried up the surrounding plains; there was nothingleft on which his cavalry could feed, or his men either, and he foundhimself in a perilous position in the midst of victory. 

The defeated Greeks now rallied under Ypsilanti and Kolokotronis, whoraised the siege of Corinth, and advanced against their foes with twelvethousand men. The Turkish army, decimated and in fear of starvation, resolved to cut their way through the guarded defiles, and succeededonly by the loss of seven thousand men, with all their baggage andmilitary stores. The Morea was delivered from the oppressor, and theTurkish army of thirty thousand was destroyed. Chourchid Pasha was soonafter seized with dysentery, brought about by fatigue and anxiety, towhich he succumbed; and the ablest general yet sent against the Greeksfailed disastrously, to the joy of the nation. 

This great success was followed by others. The Acropolis of Athenscapitulated to the victorious Greeks, not without the usual atrocities, and Attica, was recovered. But the mountains of Epirus were still filledwith Turkish troops, who advanced to lay siege to Missolonghi, defendedby a small garrison of four hundred men under Marco Bozzaris. Mavrokordatos contrived to come to his relief, and the town soon hadthree thousand defenders. Six times did the Turks attempt an assaultunder Omar Vrione; but each time they were repulsed with greatslaughter, and compelled to retreat. The Turkish general lost threequarters of his army, and with difficulty escaped himself in an openboat. Altogether twelve thousand Turks perished in this disastroussiege, with the loss of their artillery. 

As the insurrection had now assumed formidable proportions in Cyprus andCandia, a general appeal was made to Mussulmans of those islands, whosenumbers greatly exceeded the rebels. Twenty-five thousand men ralliedaround the standards of the Moslems; but they were driven into theirfortresses, leaving both plains and mountains in the hands ofthe Greeks. 

These brave insurgents gained still another great success in thismemorable campaign. They carried the important fortress of Napoli diRomania by escalade December 12, under Kolokotronis, with ten thousandmen, and the garrison, weakened by famine, capitulated. Four hundredpieces of cannon, with large stores of ammunition, were the reward ofthe victors. This conquest was the more remarkable since a large Turkishfleet was sent to the relief of the fortress; but fearing the fire-shipsof the Greeks, the Turkish admiral sailed away without doing anything, and cast anchor in the bay of Tenedos. Here he was attacked by the Greekfire-ships, commanded by Canaris, and his fleet were obliged to cuttheir cables and sail back to the Dardanelles, with the loss of theirlargest ships. The conqueror was crowned with laurel at Ipsara by hisgrateful countrymen, and the campaign of 1822 closed, leaving theGreeks masters of the sea and of nearly the whole of their territory. 

This campaign, considering the inequality of forces, is regarded byAlison as one of the most glorious in the annals of war. A population ofseven hundred thousand souls had confronted and beaten the splendidstrength of the Ottoman Empire, with twenty-five millions of Mussulmans. They had destroyed four-fifths of an army of fifty thousand men, andmade themselves masters of their principal strongholds. Twice had theydriven the Turkish fleets from the Aegean Sea with the loss of theirfinest ships. But Greece, during the two years' warfare, had lost twohundred thousand inhabitants, --not slain in battle, but massacred, andkilled by various inhumanities. It was clear that the country could notmuch longer bear such a strain, unless the great Powers of Europe cameto its relief. 

But no relief came. Canning, who ruled England, sympathized with theGreeks, but would not depart from his policy of non-intervention, fearing to embroil all Europe in war. It was the same with Louis XVIII. , who feared the stability of his throne and dared not offend Austria, wholooked on the contest with indifference as a rebellious insurrection. Prussia took the same ground; and even Russia stood aloof, unpreparedfor war with the Turks, which would have immediately resulted if theCzar had rendered assistance to the Greeks. Never was a nation ingreater danger of annihilation, in spite of its glorious resistance, than was Greece at that time, for what could the remaining five hundredthousand people do against twenty-five millions inspired with fanaticalhatred, but to sell their lives as dearly as they might? The contest waslike that of the Maccabees against the overwhelming armies of Syria. 

As was to be expected, the disgraceful defeat of his fleets and armiesfilled the Sultan with rage and renewed resolution. The whole power ofhis empire was now called out to suppress the rebellion. He had longmeditated the destruction of that famous military corps in the Turkishservice known as the Janizaries, who were not Turks, but recruited fromthe youth of the Greeks and other subject races captured in war. Theyhad all become Mussulmans, and were superb fighters; but their insultsand insolence, engendered by their traditional pride in the prestige ofthe corps and the favor shown them by successive Sultans, filled Mahmoudwith wrath. The Sultan dissembled his resentment, however, in order tobring all the soldiers he could command to the utter destruction of hisrebellious subjects. He deposed his grand vizier, and sent orders to allthe pashas in his dominions for a general levy of all Mussulmansbetween fifteen and fifty, to assemble in Thessaly in May, 1823. He alsomade the utmost efforts to repair the disasters of his fleet. 

The Greeks, too, made corresponding exertions to maintain their armies. Though weakened, they were not despondent. Their successes had filledthem with new hopes and energies. Their independence seemed to them tobe established. They even began to despise their foes. But as soon assuccess seemed to have crowned their efforts they were subject to a newdanger. There were divisions, strifes, and jealousies between thechieftains. Unity, so essential in war, was seriously jeoparded. Hadthey remained united, and buried their resentments and jealousies in thecause of patriotism, their independence possibly might have beenacknowledged. But in the absence of a central power the various generalswished to fight on their own account, like guerilla chiefs. They wouldnot even submit to the National Assembly. The leaders were so full ofdiscords and personal ambition that they would not unite on anything. Mavrokordatos and Ypsilanti were not on speaking terms. One is naturallyastonished at such suicidal courses, but he forgets what a powerfulpassion jealousy is in the human soul. It was not absent from our ownwar of Independence, in which at one time rival generals would havesupplanted, if possible, even Washington himself; indeed, it is presenteverywhere, not in war alone, but among all influential and ambitiouspeople, --women of society, legislators, artists, physicians, singers, actors, even clergymen, authors, and professors in colleges. Thisunfortunate passion can be kept down only by the overpowering dominancyof transcendent ability, which everybody must concede, when envy isturned into admiration, --as in the case of Napoleon. There was no onechieftain among the Greeks who called out universal homage any more thanthere was in the camp of Agamemnon before the walls of Troy. There weremen of ability and patriotism and virtue; but, as already noted, no oneof them was great enough to exact universal and willing obedience. Andthis fact was well understood in all the cabinets of Europe, as well asin the camps of their enemies. The disunions and dissensions of therival Greek generals were of more advantage to the Turks than a force offifty thousand men. 

These jealous chieftains, however, had reason to be startled in thespring of 1823, when they heard that eighty thousand Mussulmans were tobe sent to attack the Isthmus of Corinth; that forty thousand more wereto undertake the siege of Missolonghi; that fifty thousand in additionwere to co-operate in Thessaly and Attica; while a grand fleet of onehundred and twenty sail was to sweep the Aegean and reduce the revoltedislands. It was, however, the very magnitude of the hostile forces whichsaved the Greeks from impending ruin; for these forces had to be fed indried-up and devastated plains, under scorching suns, in the defiles ofmountains, where artillery was of no use, and where hardy mountaineers, behind rocks and precipices, could fire upon them unseen and withoutdanger. There was more loss from famine and pestilence than fromfoes, --a lesson repeatedly taught for three thousand years, but onewhich governments have ever been slow to learn. Alexander the Great hadlearned it when he invaded Persia with a small army of veterans, ratherthan with a mob of undisciplined allies. Huge armies are not to berelied on, except when they form a vast mechanism directed by a masterhand, when they are sure of their supplies, and when they operate in awholesome country, with nothing to fear from malaria or inclemency ofweather. Then they can crush all before them like some terrible andirresistible machine; but only then. This the old crusaders learned totheir cost, as well as the invading armies of Napoleon amid the snows ofRussia, and even the disciplined troops of France and England when theymarched to the siege of Sebastopol. 

Hence, in spite of the divisions of the Greeks, which paralyzed theirbest efforts, the Turkish armies effected but little, great as weretheir numbers, in the campaign of 1823. The intrepid Marco Bozzaris, with only five thousand men, kept the Turks at bay in Epirus, and chaseda large body of Albanians to the sea; while Odysseus defended the passof Thermopylae, and prevented the advance of the Turks into SouthernGreece. The grand army destined for the invasion of the Morea graduallymelted away in attacking fortresses, and under the desultory actions ofguerilla bands amidst rocks and thickets. Bozzaris surprised a Turkisharmy near Missolonghi by a nocturnal attack, and although he himselfbravely perished, the attack was successful. The Turks in renewednumbers, however, advanced to the siege of Missolonghi; but they wereagain repulsed with great slaughter. 

The naval campaign from which so much was expected by the Sultan alsoproved a failure. As usual the Greeks resorted to their fire-ships, notbeing able openly to contend with superior forces, and drove the fleetback again to the Dardanelles. When the sea was clear, they were able toreinforce Missolonghi with three thousand men and a large supply ofprovisions; for it was foreseen that the siege would be renewed. 

It was at this time, when the Greek cause was imperilled by thedissensions of the leading chieftains; when Greece indeed was threatenedby civil war, in addition to its contest with the Turks; when the wholecountry was impoverished and devastated; when the population was meltingaway, and no revenue could be raised to pay the half-starved andhalf-naked troops, --that Lord Byron arrived at Missolonghi to share hisfortune with the defenders of an uncertain cause. Like most scholars andpoets, he had a sentimental attachment for the classic land, --theteacher of the ancient world; and in common with his countrymen headmired the noble struggles and sacrifices, worthy of ancient heroes, which the Greeks, though divided and demoralized, had put forth torecover their liberties. His money contributions were valuable; but itwas his moral support which accomplished the most for Grecianindependence. Though unpopular and maligned at this time in England forhis immoralities and haughty disdain, he was still the greatest poet ofhis age, a peer, and a man of transcendent genius of whom any countrywould be proud. That such a man, embittered and in broken health, shouldthrow his whole soul into the contest, with a disinterestedness whichwas never questioned, shows not only that he had many noble traits, butthat his example would have great weight with enlightened nations, andopen their eyes to the necessity of rallying to the cause of liberty. The faults of the Greeks were many; but these faults were such as wouldnaturally be produced by four hundred years of oppression and scorn, ofcraft, treachery, and insensibility to suffering. As for theirjealousies and quarrels, when was there ever a time, even in periods oftheir highest glory, when these were not their national characteristics?

Interest in the affairs of Greece now began to be awakened, especiallyamong the English; and the result was a loan of £800, 000 raised inLondon for the Greek government, at the rate of £59 for £100. Greecereally obtained only £280, 000, while it contracted a debt of £800, 000. Yet this disadvantageous loan was of great service to an utterlyimpoverished government, about to contend with the large armies of theTurks. The Sultan had made immense preparations for the campaign of1824, and had obtained the assistance of the celebrated Ibrahim Pasha, adopted son of Mohammed Ali, Pasha of Egypt, who with his Egyptiantroops had nearly subdued Crete. Over one hundred thousand men were nowdirected, by sea and land, to western Greece and Missolonghi, of whichtwenty thousand were disciplined Egyptian troops. With this great forcethe Mussulmans assumed the offensive, and the condition of Greece wasnever more critical. 

First, the islands of Spezzia and Ipsara were attacked, --the latterbeing little more than a barren rock, but the abode of liberty. It waspoorly defended, and was unable to cope with the Turkish armada, havingon board fifteen thousand disciplined troops. Canaris advised a combaton the sea, but was overruled; and the consequences were fatal. Theisland was taken and sacked, and all the inhabitants were put to thesword. In addition to this great calamity, the spoil made by the victorswas immense, including two hundred pieces of artillery and ninetyvessels. Canaris, however, contrived to escape in a boat, to pursue avictorious career with his fire-ships. The Turkish and Egyptian fleetshad effected a junction, consisting of one ship-of-the-line, twenty-fivefrigates, twenty-five corvettes, fifty brigs and schooners, and twohundred and forty transports, carrying eighty thousand soldiers andsailors and twenty-five hundred cannon. To oppose this great armament, the Greek admiral Miaulis had only seventy sail, manned by five thousandsailors and carrying eight hundred guns. In spite however of thisdisproportion of forces he advanced to meet the enemy, and dispersed itwith a great Turkish loss of fifteen thousand men. All that the Turkshad gained was a barren island. 

On the land the Turks had more successes; but these were so indecisivethat they did not attempt to renew the siege of Missolonghi, and thecampaign of 1824 closed with a great loss to the Mussulmans. The littlearmy and fleet of the Greeks had repelled one hundred and twentythousand soldiers confident of success; but the population was nowreduced to less than five hundred thousand, becoming feebler every day, and the national treasury was empty, while the whole country was a sceneof desolation and misery. And yet, strange to say, the Greeks continuedtheir dissensions while on the very brink of ruin. Stranger still, theircourage was unabated. 

The year 1825 opened with brighter prospects. The rival chieftains, inview of the desperate state of affairs, at last united, and seeminglyburied their jealousies. A new loan was contracted in London of£2, 000, 000, and the naval forces were increased. 

But the Turks also made their preparations for a renewed conflict, andIbrahim Pasha felt himself strong enough to undertake the siege ofNavarino, which fell into his hands after a brave resistance. Tripolitzaalso capitulated to the Egyptian, and the Morea was occupied by histroops after several engagements. After this the Greeks never venturedto fight in the open field, but only in guerilla bands, in mountainpasses, and behind fortifications. 

Then began the memorable siege of Missolonghi under Reschid Pasha. Itwas probably the strongest town in Greece, --by reason not of itsfortifications but of the surrounding marshes and lagoons which made itinaccessible. Into this town the armed peasantry threw themselves, withfive thousand troops under Niketas, while Miaulis with his fleet raisedthe blockade by sea and supplied the town with provisions. Reschid Pashadetermined on an assault, but was driven back. Thrice he advanced withhis troops, only to be repulsed. His forces at the end of October werereduced to three thousand men. The Sultan, irritated by successivedisasters, brought the whole disposable force of his empire to bear onthe doomed city. Ibrahim, powerfully reinforced with twenty-fivethousand men, by sea and land stormed battery after battery; yet theGreeks held out, contending with famine and pestilence, as well as withtroops ten times their number. 

At last they were unable to offer further resistance, and they resolvedon a general sortie to break through the enemy's line to a place ofsafety. The women of the town put on male attire, and armed themselveswith pistols and daggers. The whole population, --men, women, andchildren, --on the night of the 22d of April, 1826, issued from theirdefences, crossed the moat in silence, passed the ditches and trenches, and made their way through an opening of the besiegers' lines. For awhile the sortie seemed to be successful; but mistakes were made, apanic ensued, and most of the flying crowd retreated back to thedeserted town, only to be massacred by Turkish scimitars. Some madetheir escape. A column of nearly two thousand, after incrediblehardships, succeeded in reaching Salonica in safety; but Missolonghifell, with the loss of nearly ten thousand, killed, wounded, andprisoners. 

It was a great disaster, but proved in the end the foundation of Greekindependence, by creating a general burst of blended enthusiasm andindignation throughout Europe. The heroic defence of this strongholdagainst such overwhelming forces opened the eyes of European statesmen. Public sentiment in England in favor of the struggling nation could nolonger be disregarded. Mr. Canning took up the cause, both fromenthusiasm and policy. The English ambassador at Constantinople had asecret interview with Mavrokordatos on an island near Hydra, andpromised him the intervention of England. The death of the CzarAlexander gave a new aspect to affairs; for his successor, Nicholas, made up his mind to raise his standard in Turkey. The national voice ofRussia was now for war. The Duke of Wellington was sent to St. Petersburg, nominally to congratulate the Czar on his accession, butreally to arrange for an armed intervention for the protection ofGreece. The Hellenic government ordered a general conscription; forIbrahim Pasha was organizing new forces for the subjection of the Moreaand the reduction of Napoli di Romania and Hydra, while a powerfulfleet put to sea from Alexandria. No sooner did this fleet appear, however, than Canaris and Miaulis attacked it with their dreadedfire-ships, and the forty ships of Egypt fled from fourteen small Greekvessels, and re-entered the Dardanelles. But the Turks, always morefortunate on land than by sea, pressed now the siege of the Acropolis, and Athens fell into their hands early in 1827. 

For six or seven years the Greeks had struggled heroically; but reliefwas now at hand. Russia and England signed a protocol on the 6th ofJuly, and France soon after joined, to put an end to the sanguinarycontest. The terms proposed to the Sultan by the three great Powers weremoderate, --that he should still retain a nominal sovereignty over therevolted provinces and receive an annual tribute; but the haughty andexasperated Sultan indignantly rejected them, and made renewedpreparations to continue the contest. Ibrahim landed his forces on theMorea and renewed his depredations. Once more the ambassadors of theallied Powers presented their final note to the Turkish government, andagain it was insultingly disregarded. The allied admirals then enteredthe port of Navarino, where the Turkish and Egyptian fleets were atanchor, with ten ships-of-the-line, ten frigates, with other vessels, altogether carrying thirteen hundred and twenty-four guns. The Ottomanforce consisted of seventy-nine vessels, armed with twenty-two hundredand forty guns. Strict orders were given not to fire while negotiationswere going on; but an accidental shot from a Turkish vessel brought on ageneral action, and the combined Turkish and Egyptian fleet wasliterally annihilated Oct. 20, 1827. This was the greatest disasterwhich the Ottoman Turks had yet experienced; indeed, it practicallyended the whole contest. Christendom at last had come to the rescue, when Greece unaided was incapable of further resistance. 

The battle of Navarino excited, of course, the wildest enthusiasmthroughout Greece, and a corresponding joy throughout Europe. Neversince the battle of Lepanto was there such a general exultation amongChristian nations. This single battle decided the fate of Greece. Theadmirals of the allied fleet were doubtless "the aggressors in thebattle; but the Turks were the aggressors in the war. "

Canning of England did not live to enjoy the triumph of the cause whichhe had come to have so much at heart. He was the inspiring genius whoinduced both Russia and France (now under Charles X. ) to intervene. Chateaubriand, the minister of Charles X. , was in perfect accord withCanning from poetical and sentimental reasons. Politically his policywas that of Metternich, who could see no distinction between theinsurrection of Naples and that of Greece. In the great Austrian's eyes, all people alike who aspired to gain popular liberty or constitutionalgovernment were rebels to be crushed. Canning, however, sympathized inhis latter days with all people striving for independence, whether inSouth America or Greece. But his opinion was not shared by Englishstatesmen of the Tory school, and he had the greatest difficulty inbringing his colleagues over to his views. When he died, England againrelapsed into neutrality and inaction, under the government ofWellington. Charles X. In France had no natural liking for the Greekcause, and wanted only to be undisturbed in his schemes of despotism. Russia, under Nicholas, determined to fight Turkey, unfettered byallies. She sought but a pretext for a declaration of war. Turkeyfurnished to Russia that pretext, right in the stress of her ownmilitary weakness, when she was exhausted by a war of seven years, andby the destruction of the Janizaries, --which the Sultan had longmeditated, and concealed in his own bosom with the craft which formedone of the peculiarities of this cruel yet able sovereign, but which hefinally executed with characteristic savagery. Concerning this Russianwar we shall speak presently. 

The battle of Navarino, although it made the restoration of the Turkishpower impossible in Greece, still left Ibrahim master of the fortresses, and it was two years before the Turkish troops were finally expelled. But independence was now assured, and the Greeks set about establishingtheir government with some permanency. Before the end of that year Capod'Istrias was elected president for seven years, and in January, 1828, he entered upon his office. His ideas of government were arbitrary, forhe had been the minister and favorite of Alexander. He wished to rulelike an absolute sovereign. His short reign was a sort of dictatorship. His council was composed entirely of his creatures, and he sought atonce to destroy provincial and municipal authority. He limited thefreedom of the Press and violated the secrecy of the mails. "In Plato'shome, Plato's Gorgias could not be read because it spoke too stronglyagainst tyrants. "

Capo d'Istrias found it hard to organize and govern amid the hostilitiesof rival chieftains and the general anarchy which prevailed. Localself-government lay at the root of Greek nationality; but this heignored, and set himself to organize an administrative system modelledafter that of France during the reign of Napoleon. Intellectually hestood at the head of the nation, and was a man of great integrity ofcharacter, as austere and upright as Guizot, having no toleration forfreebooters and peculators. He became unpopular among the sailors andmerchants, who had been so effective in the warfare with the Turks. "Adark shadow fell over his government" as it became more harsh andintolerant, and he was assassinated the 9th of October, 1831. 

The allied sovereigns who had taken the Greeks under their protectionnow felt the need of a stronger and more stable government for them thana republic, and determined to establish an hereditary but constitutionalmonarchy. The crown was offered to Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, who atfirst accepted it; but when that prince began to look into the realstate of the country, --curtailed in its limits by the jealousies of theEnglish government, rent with anarchy and dissension, containing apeople so long enslaved that they could not make orderly use offreedom, --he declined the proffered crown. It was then (1832) offered toand accepted by Prince Otho of Bavaria, a minor; and thirty-five hundredBavarian soldiers maintained order during the three years of theregency, which, though it developed great activity, was divided initself, and conspiracies took place to overthrow it. The year 1835 sawthe majority of the king, who then assumed the government. In the sameyear the capital was transferred to Athens, which was nothing but a heapof rubbish; but the city soon after had a university, and also becamean important port. In 1843, after a military revolution against theGerman elements of Otho's government, which had increased from year toyear, the Greeks obtained from the king a representative constitution, to which he took an oath in 1844. 

But the limits of the kingdom were small, and neither Crete, Thessaly, Epirus, nor the Ionian Islands were included in it. In 1846 theseislands were ceded by Great Britain to Greece, which was alsostrengthened by the annexation of Thessaly. Since then the progress ofthe country in material wealth and in education has been rapid. Othoreigned till 1862, although amid occasional outbreaks of impatience andrevolt against the reactionary tendencies of his rule. In that year hefled with his queen from a formidable uprising; and in 1863 PrinceWilliam, son of Christian IX. King of Denmark, was elected monarch, under the title of George I. King of the Hellenes. 

The resurrection of Greece was thus finally effected. It was added tothe European kingdoms, and now bids fair to be prosperous and happy. "Thus did the Old Hellas rise from the grave of nations. Scorched byfire, riddled by shot, baptized by blood, she emerged victorious fromthe conflict. She achieved her independence because she proved herselfworthy of it; she was trained to manhood in the only school of realimprovement, --the school of suffering. "

The Greek revolution has another aspect than battles on the Morea, massacres on the islands of the Archipelago, naval enterprises underheroic seamen, guerilla conflicts amid the defiles of mountains, bravedefences of fortresses, dissensions and jealousies between chieftains, treacheries and cruelties equalling those of the Turks, --another aspectthan the recovery of national independence even. It is memorable for thecomplications which grew out of it, especially for the war betweenTurkey and Russia, when the Emperor Nicholas, feeling that Turkey wasweakened and exhausted, sought to grasp the prize which he had longcoveted, even the possessions of the "sick man. " Nicholas was theopposite of his brother Alexander, having neither his gentleness, hisimpulsiveness, his generosity, nor his indecision. He was a hard despotof the "blood-and-iron" stamp, ambitious for aggrandizement, indifferentto the sufferings of others, and withal a religious bigot. The Greekrebellion, as we have seen, gave him the occasion to pick a quarrel withthe Sultan. The Danubian principalities were dearer to him than remotepossessions on the Mediterranean. 

So on the 7th of May, 1828, the Russians crossed the Pruth and invadedMoldavia and Wallachia, --provinces which had long belonged to Turkey byright of conquest, though governed by Greek hospodars. The Danube wascrossed on the 7th of June. The Turks were in no condition to contend inthe open field with seventy thousand Russians, and they retreated totheir fortresses, --to Ibraila and Silistria on the Danube, to Varna andShumla in the vicinity of the Balkans. The first few weeks of the warwere marked by Russian successes. Ibraila capitulated on the 18th ofJune, and the military posts on the Dobrudscha fell rapidly one afteranother. But it was at Shumla that the strongest part of the Turkisharmy was concentrated, under Omar Brionis, bent on defensive operations;and thither the Czar directed his main attack. Before this strongholdhis army wasted away by sickness in the malarial month of September. TheTurks were reinforced, and moved to the relief of Varna, also investedby Russian troops. But the season was now too far advanced for militaryoperations, and the Russians, after enormous losses, withdrew to theDanube to resume the offensive the following spring. The winter wasspent in bringing up reserves. The Czar finding that he had no aptitudeas a general withdrew to his capital, intrusting the direction of thefollowing campaign to Diebitsch, a Prussian general, famous for hissuccesses and his cruelties. 

In the spring of 1829 the first movement was made to seize Silistria, toward which a great Turkish force was advancing, under Reschid Pasha, the grand vizier. His forces experienced a great defeat; and two weeksafter, in the latter part of June, Silistria surrendered. Resistance tothe Russians was now difficult. The passes of the Balkans were leftundefended, and the invading force easily penetrated them and advancedto Adrianople, which surrendered in a great panic. The Russians couldhave been defeated had not the Turks lost their senses, for the troopsunder Diebitsch were reduced to twenty thousand men. But this fact wasunknown to the Turks, who magnified the Russian forces to one hundredthousand at least. The result was the treaty of Adrianople, on the 14thof September, --apparently generous to the Turks, but really of greatadvantage to the Russians. Russia restored to Turkey all her conquestsin Europe and Asia, except a few commercial centres on the Black Sea, while the treaty gave to the Czar the protectorate over the Danubianprincipalities, the exclusion of Turks from fortified posts on the leftbank of the Danube, free passage through the Dardanelles to the merchantvessels of all nations at peace with the Sultan, and the free navigationof the Black Sea. 

But Constantinople still remained the capital of Turkey. The "sick man"would not die. From jealousy of Russia the western Powers continued tonurse him. Without their aid he was not long to live; but his existencewas deemed necessary to maintain the "balance of power, " and they cameto his assistance in the Crimean War, twenty-six years later, and gavehim a new lease of life. 

This is the "Eastern Question, "--How long before the Turks will bedriven out of Europe, and who shall possess Constantinople? That is aquestion upon which it would be idle for me to offer speculations. Another aspect of the question is, How far shall Russia be permitted tomake conquests in the East? This is equally insoluble. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Finlay's Greece under Ottoman Domination; Leake's Travels in NorthernGreece; Gordon's Greek Revolution; Metternich's Memoirs; Howe's GreekRevolution; Mendelssohn's Graf Capo d'Istrias; Ann. Hist. Valentini;Alison's Europe; Fyffe's History of Modern Europe; Müller's PoliticalHistory of Recent Times. 

LOUIS PHILIPPE. 

1773-1850. 

THE CITIZEN KING. 

A new phase in the development of French revolutionary history tookplace on the accession of Louis Philippe to the throne. He became Kingof the French instead of King of France. 

Louis XVIII. , upon his coming to the throne at Napoleon's downfall, would not consent to reign except by divine right, on principles oflegitimacy, as the brother of Louis XVI. He felt that the throne was hisby all the laws of succession. He would not, therefore, accept it as thegift of the French nation, or of foreign Powers. He consented to befettered by a Constitution, as his brother had done; but that any powercould legally give to him what he deemed was already his own, was in hiseyes an absurdity. 

This was not the case with Louis Philippe, for he was not the legitimateheir. He belonged to a younger branch of the Bourbons, and could not bethe legitimate king until all the male heirs of the elder branch wereextinct; and yet both branches of the royal family were the linealdescendants of Henry IV. This circumstance pointed him out as the properperson to ascend the throne on the expulsion of the elder branch; but hewas virtually an elective sovereign, chosen by the will of the nation. So he became king, not "by divine right, " but by receiving the throne asthe gift of the people. 

There were other reasons why Louis Philippe was raised to the throne. Hewas Duke of Orléans, --the richest man in France, son of that Égalitéwho took part in the revolution, avowing all its principles; thereforehe was supposed to be liberal in his sentiments. The popular leaders whoexpelled Charles X. , among the rest Lafayette, --that idol of the UnitedStates, that "Grandison Cromwell, " as Carlyle called him, --viewed theDuke of Orléans as the most available person to preserve order and law, to gain the confidence of the country, and to preserve theConstitution, --which guaranteed personal liberty, the freedom of thePress, the inviolability of the judiciary, and the rights of electors tothe Chamber of Deputies, in which was vested the power of grantingsupplies to the executive government. Times were not ripe for arepublic, and only a few radicals wanted it. The nation desired asettled government, yet one ruling by the laws which the nation haddecreed through its representatives. Louis Philippe swore to everythingthat was demanded of him, and was in all respects a constitutionalmonarch, under whom the French expected all the rights and libertiesthat England enjoyed. All this was a step in advance of the monarchy ofLouis XVIII. Louis Philippe was rightly named "the citizen king. "

This monarch was also a wise, popular, and talented man. He had passedthrough great vicissitudes of fortune. At one time he taught a school inSwitzerland. He was an exile and a wanderer from country to country. Hehad learned much from his misfortunes; he had had great experiences, andwas well read in the history of thrones and empires. He was affable inhis manners, and interesting in conversation; a polished gentleman, withconsiderable native ability, --the intellectual equal of the statesmenwho surrounded him. His morals were unstained, and his tastes weredomestic. His happiest hours were spent in the bosom of his family; andhis family was harmonious and respectable. He was the idol of the middleclass; bankers, merchants, lawyers, and wealthy shopkeepers were hisstrongest supporters. All classes acquiesced in the rule of a worthyman, as he seemed to all, --moderate, peace-loving, benignant, good-natured. They did not see that he was selfish, crafty, money-loving, bound up in family interests. This plain-looking, respectable, middle-aged man, as he walked under the colonnade of theRue de Rivoli, with an umbrella under his arm, looked more like a plaincitizen than a king. The leading journals were all won over to his side. The Chamber of Deputies by a large majority voted for him, and theeighty-three Departments, representing thirty-five millions of people, by a still larger majority elected him king. The two Chambers prepared aConstitution, which he unhesitatingly accepted and swore to maintain. Hewas not chosen by universal suffrage, but by one hundred and fiftythousand voters. The Republicans were not satisfied, but submitted; soalso did the ultra-Royalists. It was at first feared that the alliedPowers, under the influence of Metternich, would be unfriendly; yet oneafter another recognized the new government, feeling that it was thebest, under the circumstances, that could be established. 

The man who had the most to do with the elevation of Louis Philippe wasthe Marquis de Lafayette, who as far back as the first revolution wasthe commander of the National Guards; and they, as the representativesof the middle classes, sustained the throne during this reign. Lafayettehad won a great reputation for his magnanimous and chivalrous assistanceto the United States, when, at twenty years of age, he escaped fromofficial hindrances at home and tendered his unpaid voluntary servicesto Washington. This was in the darkest period of the AmericanRevolution, when Washington had a pitifully small army, and when theAmerican treasury was empty. Lafayette was the friend and admirer ofWashington, whose whole confidence he possessed; and he not onlyperformed distinguished military duty, but within a year returned toFrance and secured a French fleet, land forces, clothing and ammunitionfor the struggling patriots, as the result of French recognition ofAmerican independence, and of a treaty of alliance with the new Americannation, --both largely due to his efforts and influence. 

When Lafayette departed, on his return to France, he was laden withhonors and with the lasting gratitude of the American people. Hereturned burning with enthusiasm for liberty, and for Americaninstitutions; and this passion for liberty was never quenched, underwhatever form of government existed in France. He was from first to lastthe consistent friend of struggling patriots, --sincere, honest, incorruptible, with horror of revolutionary excesses, as sentimental asLamartine, yet as firm as Carnot. 

Lafayette took an active part in the popular movements in 1787, and in1789 formed the National Guard and gave it the tricolor badge. But hewas too consistent and steady-minded for the times. He was not liked byextreme Royalists or by extreme Republicans. He was denounced by bothparties, and had to flee the country to save his life. Driven from Parisby the excesses of the Reign of Terror, which he abhorred, he fell intothe hands of the Prussians, who delivered him to the Austrians, and bythem he was immured in a dungeon at Olmutz for three and a half years, being finally released only by the influence of Napoleon. So rigorouswas his captivity that none of his family or friends knew for two yearswhere he was confined. On his return from Austria, he lived incomparative retirement at La Grange, his country-seat, and took no partin the government of Napoleon, whom he regarded as a traitor to thecause of liberty. Nor did he enter the service of the Bourbons, knowingtheir settled hostility to free institutions. History says but littleabout him during this time, except that from 1818 to 1824 he was amember of the Chamber of Deputies, and in 1825 to 1830 was againprominent in the legislative opposition to the royal government. In 1830again, as an old man, he reappeared as commander-in-chief of theNational Guards, when Charles X. Was forced to abdicate. Lafayette nowbecame the most popular man in France, and from him largely emanated theinfluences which replaced Charles X. With Louis Philippe. He was not aman of great abilities, but was generally respected as an honest man. He was most marked for practical sagacity and love of constitutionalliberty. The phrase, "a monarchical government surrounded withrepublican institutions, " is ascribed to him, --an illogical expression, which called out the sneers of Carlyle, whose sympathies were withstrong governments and with the men who can rule, and who therefore, ashe thought, ought to rule. 

Lafayette was doubtless played with and used by Louis Philippe, the mostastute and crafty of monarchs. Professing the greatest love and esteemfor the general who had elevated him, the king was glad to get rid ofhim; so, too, were the Chambers, --the former from jealousy of hispopularity, and the latter from dislike of his independence andintegrity. Under Louis Philippe he held no higher position than as amember of the Chamber of Deputies. As deputy he had always been andcontinued to be fearless, patriotic, and sometimes eloquent. Hisspeeches were clear, unimpassioned, sensible, and he was always listenedto with respect. He took great interest in the wrongs of all oppressedpeople; and exiles from Poland, from Spain, and from Italy found in hima generous protector. His house was famous for its unpretendinghospitalities, especially to American travellers. He lived long enoughto see the complete triumph of American institutions. In 1824, upon aformal invitation by Congress, he revisited the United States as theguest of the nation, and received unprecedented ovations wherever hewent, --a tribute of the heart, such as only great benefactors enjoy, when envy gives place to gratitude and admiration. A great man he wasnot, in the ordinary sense of greatness; yet few men will live as longas he in the national hearts of two nations, for character if not forgenius, for services if not for brilliant achievements. 

The first business of the new monarch in 1830 was to choose hisministers, and he selected as premier Lafitte the banker, a prominentmember of the Chamber of Deputies, who had had great influence incalling him to the throne. Lafitte belonged to the liberal party, andwas next to Lafayette the most popular man in France, but superior tothat statesman in intellect and executive ability. He lived in grandstyle, and his palace, with its courts and gardens, was the resort ofthe most distinguished men in France, --the Duke of Choiseul, Dupin, Béranger, Casimir Périer, Montalivet, the two Aragos, Guizot, OdillonBarrot, Villemain, --politicians, artists, and men of letters. Hisministry, however, lasted less than a year. The vast increase in thepublic expenditure aroused a storm of popular indignation. The increaseof taxation is always resented by the middle classes, and by thismeasure Lafitte lost his popularity. Moreover, the public disorderslessened the authority of the government. In March, 1831, the king foundit expedient to dismiss Lafitte, and to appoint Casimir Périer, an ablerman, to succeed him. Lafitte was not great enough for the exigencies ofthe times. His business was to make money, and it was his pleasure tospend it; but he was unable to repress the discontents of Paris, or tocontrol the French revolutionary ideas, which were spreading over thewhole Continent, especially in Belgium, in which a revolution tookplace, accompanied by a separation from Holland. Belgium was erectedinto an independent kingdom, under a constitutional government. PrinceLeopold, of Saxe Coburg, having refused the crown of Greece, was electedking, and shortly after married a daughter of Louis Philippe; whichmarriage, of course, led to a close union between France and Belgium. Inthis marriage the dynastic ambition of Louis Philippe, which was one ofthe main causes of his subsequent downfall in 1848, became obvious. Buthe had craft enough to hide his ambition under the guise of zeal forconstitutional liberty. 

Casimir Périer was a man of great energy, and liberal in his politicalantecedents, a banker of immense wealth and great force of character, reproachless in his integrity. He had scarcely assumed office when hewas called upon to enforce a very rigorous policy. France was in adistracted state, not so much from political agitation as from thediscontent engendered by poverty, and by the difficulty of finding workfor operatives, --a state not unlike that of England before the passageof the Reform Bill. According to Louis Blanc the public distress wasappalling, united with disgusting immorality among the laboring classesin country districts and in great manufacturing centres. In consequencethere were alarming riots at Lyons and other cities. The people wereliterally starving, and it required great resolution and firmness on thepart of government to quiet the disorders. Lyons was in the hands of amob, and Marshal Soult was promptly sent with forty thousand regulartroops to restore order. And this public distress, --when laborers earnedless than a shilling a day, and when the unemployed exceeded in numberthose who found work on a wretched pittance, --was at its height when theChamber of Deputies decreed a civil list for the king to the amount ofnearly nineteen millions of francs, thirty-seven times greater than thatgiven to Napoleon as First Consul; and this, too, when the king'sprivate income was six millions of francs a year. 

Such was the disordered state of the country that the prime minister, whose general policy was that of peace, sent a military expedition toAncona, in the Papal territories, merely to divert the public mind fromthe disorders which reigned throughout the land. Indeed, the earlieryears of the reign of Louis Philippe were so beset with difficultiesthat it required extraordinary tact, prudence, and energy to govern atall. But the king was equal to the emergency. He showed courage and goodsense, and preserved his throne. At the same time, while he suppresseddisorders by vigorous measures, he took care to strengthen his power. Hewas in harmony with the Chamber of Deputies, composed almost entirely ofrich men. The liberal party demanded an extension of the suffrage, towhich he gracefully yielded; and the number of electors was raised toone hundred and eighty thousand, but extended only to those who paid adirect tax of two hundred francs. A bill was also passed in the Chamberof Deputies abolishing hereditary peerage, though opposed by Guizot, Thiers, and Berryer. Of course the opposition in the upper house wasgreat, and thirty-six new peers were created to carry the measure. 

The year 1832 was marked by the ravages of the cholera, which swept awaytwenty thousand people in Paris alone, and among them Casimir Périer, and Cuvier the pride of the scientific world. 

But Louis Philippe was not yet firmly established on his throne. Hisministers had suppressed disorders, seized two hundred journals, abolished hereditary peerage, extended the electoral suffrage, while hehad married his daughter to the King of Belgium. He now began toconsolidate his power by increasing the army, seeking alliances with thedifferent powers of Europe, bribing the Press, and enriching hissubordinates. Taxation was necessarily increased; yet renewed prosperityfrom the increase of industries removed discontents, which arise notfrom the excess of burdens, but from a sense of injustice. Now began themillennium of shopkeepers and bankers, all of whom supported the throne. The Chamber of Deputies granted the government all the money it wanted, which was lavishly spent in every form of corruption, and luxury againset in. Never were the shops more brilliant, or equipages more gorgeous. The king on his accession had removed from the palace which CardinalMazarin had bequeathed to Louis XIV. , and took up his residence at theTuileries; and though his own manners were plain, he surrounded himselfwith all the pomp of royalty, but not with the old courtiers of CharlesX. Marshal Soult greatly distinguished himself in suppressing disorders, especially a second riot in Lyons. To add to the public disorders, theDuchess of Berri made a hostile descent on France with the vain hope ofrestoring the elder branch of the Bourbons. This unsuccessful movementwas easily put down, and the discredited princess was arrested andimprisoned. Meanwhile the popular discontents continued, and a freshinsurrection broke out in Paris, headed by Republican chieftains. TheRepublicans were disappointed, and disliked the vigor of the government, which gave indications of a sterner rule than that of Charles X. Moreover, the laboring classes found themselves unemployed. Thegovernment of Louis Philippe was not for them, but for the bourgeoisparty, shop-keepers, bankers, and merchants. The funeral of GeneralLamarque, a popular favorite, was made the occasion of freshdisturbances, which at one time were quite serious. The old cry of _Vivela Republique_ began to be heard from thousands of voices in the scenesof former insurrections. Revolt assumed form. A mysterious meeting washeld at Lafitte's, when the dethronement of the king was discussed. Themob was already in possession of one of the principal quarters of thecity. The authorities were greatly alarmed, but they had taken vigorousmeasures. There were eighteen thousand regular troops under arms witheighty pieces of cannon, and thirty thousand more in the environs, besides the National Guards. What could the students of the PolytechnicSchool and an undisciplined mob do against these armed troops? In vaintheir cries of _Vive la Liberté; à bas Louis Philippe!_ The militaryschool was closed, and the leading journals of the Republican party wereseized. Marshal Soult found himself on the 7th of June, 1832, at thehead of sixty thousand regular troops and twenty thousand NationalGuards. The insurgents, who had erected barricades, were driven backafter a fierce fight at the Cloister of St. Méri. This bloody triumphclosed the insurrection. The throne of the citizen king was saved by thecourage and discipline of the regular troops under a consummate general. The throne of Charles X. Could not have stood a day in face of such aninsurrection. 

The next day after the defeat of the insurgents Paris was proclaimed ina state of siege, in spite of the remonstrances of all parties againstit as an unnecessary act; but the king was firm and indignant, andordered the arrest of both Democrats and Legitimists, includingGarnier-Pagès and Chateaubriand himself. He made war on the Press. During his reign of two years two hundred and eighty-one journals wereseized, and fines imposed to nearly the amount of four hundredthousand francs. 

The suppression of revolts in both Paris and Lyons did much tostrengthen the government, and the result was an increase of publicprosperity. Capital reappeared from its hiding-places, and industryrenewed its labors. The public funds rose six per cent. The first dawnof the welfare of the laboring classes rose on their defeat. 

For his great services in establishing a firm government Marshal Soultwas made prime minister, with De Broglie, Guizot, and Thiers among hisassociates. The chief event which marked his administration was a warwith Holland, followed by the celebrated siege of Antwerp, which theHollanders occupied with a large body of troops. England joined withFrance in this contest, which threatened to bring on a general Europeanwar; but the successful capture of the citadel of Antwerp, after agallant defence, prevented that catastrophe. This successful siegevastly increased the military prestige of France, and brought Belgiumcompletely under French influence. 

The remaining events which marked the ministry of Marshal Soult were theproject of fortifying Paris by a series of detached forts of greatstrength, entirely surrounding the city, the liberal expenditure ofmoney for public improvements, and the maintenance of the colony ofAlgeria. The first measure was postponed on account of the violentopposition of the Republicans, and the second was carried out withpopular favor through the influence of Thiers. The Arc de l'Étoile wasfinished at an expense of two million francs; the Church of theMadeleine, at a cost of nearly three millions; the Panthéon, of1, 400, 000; the Museum of Natural History, for which 2, 400, 000 francswere appropriated; the Church of St. Denis, 1, 350, 000; the École desBeaux Arts, 1, 900, 000; the Hotel du Quay d'Orsay, 3, 450, 000; besidesother improvements, the chief of which was in canals, for whichforty-four millions of francs were appropriated, --altogether nearly onehundred millions of francs, which of course furnished employment fordiscontented laborers. The retention of the Colony of Algeria resultedin improving the military strength of France, especially by theinstitution of the corps of Zouaves, which afterward furnished effectivesoldiers. It was in Africa that the ablest generals of Louis Napoleonwere trained for the Crimean War. 

In 1834 Marshal Soult retired from the ministry, and a series of primeministers rapidly succeeded one another, some of whom were able and ofhigh character, but no one of whom made any great historical mark, untilThiers took the helm of government in 1836, --not like a modern Englishprime minister, who is supreme so long as he is supported by Parliament, but rather as the servant of the king, like the ministers of George III. 

Thiers was forty years of age when he became prime minister, althoughfor years he had been a conspicuous and influential member of theChamber of Deputies. Like Guizot he sprang from the people, his fatherbeing an obscure locksmith in Marseilles. Like Guizot, he first becamedistinguished as a writer for the "Constitutional, " and afterward asits editor. He was a brilliant and fluent speaker, at home on allquestions of the day, always equal to the occasion, yet without strikingoriginality or profundity of views. Like most men who have been thearchitects of their own fortunes, he was vain and consequential. He wasliberal in his views, a friend of order and law, with aristocratictendencies. He was more warlike in his policy than suited either theking or his rival Guizot, who had entered the cabinet with him on thedeath of Casimir Périer. Nor was he a favorite with Louis Philippe, whowas always afraid that he would embroil the kingdom in war. Thiers'political opinions were very much like those of Canning in later days. His genius was versatile, --he wrote history in the midst of hisoratorical triumphs. His History of the French Revolution was by far theablest and most trustworthy that had yet appeared. The same may be saidof his History of the Consulate and of the Empire. He was a greatadmirer of Napoleon, and did more than any other to perpetuate theEmperor's fame. His labors were prodigious; he rose at four in themorning, and wrote thirty or forty letters before breakfast. He wasequally remarkable as an administrator and as a statesman, examining allthe details of government, and leaving nothing to chance. No man inFrance knew the condition of the country so well as Thiers, from both acivil and a military point of view. He was overbearing in the Chamber ofDeputies, and hence was not popular with the members. He was primeminister several times, but rarely for more than a few months at a time. The king always got rid of him as soon as he could, and much preferredGuizot, the high-priest of the Doctrinaires, whose policy was like thatof Lord Aberdeen in England, --peace at any price. 

Nothing memorable happened during this short administration of Thiersexcept the agitation produced by secret societies in Switzerland, composed of refugees from all nations, who kept Europe in constantalarm. There were the "Young Italy" Society, and the societies of "YoungPoland, " "Young Germany, " "Young France, " and "Young Switzerland. " Thecabinets of Europe took alarm, and Thiers brought matters to a crisis bycausing the French minister at Berne to intimate to the Swiss governmentthat unless these societies were suppressed all diplomatic intercoursewould cease between France and Switzerland, --which meant an armedintervention. This question of the expulsion of political refugees drewMetternich and Thiers into close connection. But a still more importantquestion, as to intervention in Spanish matters, brought about adifference between the king and his minister, in consequence of whichthe latter resigned. 

Count Molé now took the premiership, retaining it for two years. He wasa grave, laborious, and thoughtful man, but without the genius, eloquence, and versatility of Thiers. Molé belonged to an ancient andnoble family, and his splendid chateau was filled with historicalmonuments. He had all the affability of manners which marked the man ofhigh birth, without their frivolity. One of the first acts of hisadministration was the liberation of political prisoners, among whom wasthe famous Prince Polignac, the prime minister of Charles X. The oldking himself died, about the same time, an exile in a foreign land. Theyear 1836 was also signalized by the foolish and unsuccessful attempt ofLouis Napoleon, at Strasburg, to overthrow the government; but he washumanely and leniently dealt with, suffering no greater punishment thanbanishment to the United States for ten years. In the following yearoccurred the marriage of the Duke of Orléans, heir to the throne, with aGerman princess of the Lutheran faith, followed by magnificentfestivities. Soon after took place the inauguration of the palace ofVersailles as a museum of fine arts, which, as such, has remained tothis day; nor did Louis Napoleon in the height of his power venture touse this ancient and magnificent residence of the kings of France forany other purpose. 

But the most important event in the administration of Count Molé wasthe extension of the Algerian colony to the limits of the ancientLibya, --so long the granary of imperial Rome, and which once could boastof twenty millions of people. This occupation of African territory ledto the war in which the celebrated Arab chieftain, Abd-el-Kader, was thehero. He was both priest and warrior, enjoying the unlimited confidenceof his countrymen; and by his cunning and knowledge of the country hesucceeded in maintaining himself for several years against the Frenchgenerals. His stronghold was Constantine, which was taken by storm inOctober, 1837, by General Vallée. Still, the Arab chieftain found meansto defy his enemies; and it was not till 1841 that he was forced to fleeand seek protection from the Emperor of Morocco. The storming ofConstantine was a notable military exploit, and gave great prestige tothe government. 

Louis Philippe was now firmly established on his throne, yet he hadnarrowly escaped assassination four or five times. This taught him to becautious, and to realize the fact that no monarch can be safe amid theplots of fanatics. He no longer walked the streets of Paris with anumbrella under his arm, but enshrouded himself in the Tuileries with theusual guards of Continental kings. His favorite residence was at St. Cloud, at that time one of the most beautiful of the royal palacesof Europe. 

At this time the railway mania raged in France, as it did in England. Foremost among those who undertook to manage the great corporationswhich had established district railways, was Arago the astronomer, who, although a zealous Republican, was ever listened to with respect in theChamber of Deputies. These railways indicated great material prosperityin the nation at large, and the golden age of speculators andcapitalists set in, --all averse to war, all worshippers of money, allfor peace at any price. Morning, noon, and night the offices of bankersand stock-jobbers were besieged by files of carriages and clamorouscrowds, even by ladies of rank, to purchase shares in companies whichwere to make everybody's fortune, and which at one time had risenfifteen hundred per cent, giving opportunities for boundless frauds. Military glory for a time ceased to be a passion among the mostexcitable and warlike people of Europe, and gave way to the moreabsorbing passion for gain, and for the pleasures which money purchases. Nor was it difficult, in this universal pursuit of sudden wealth, togovern a nation whose rulers had the appointment of one hundred andforty thousand civil officers and an army of four hundred thousand men. Bribery and corruption kept pace with material prosperity. Never beforehad officials been so generally and easily bribed. Indeed, thegovernment was built up on this miserable foundation. With bribery, corruption, and sudden wealth, the most shameful immorality existedeverywhere. Out of every one thousand births, one third wereillegitimate. The theatres were disgraced by the most indecent plays. Money and pleasure had become the gods of France, and Paris more thanever before was the centre of luxury and social vice. 

It was at this period of peace and tranquillity that Talleyrand died, onthe 17th of May, 1838, at eighty-two, after serving in his advanced ageLouis Philippe as ambassador at London. The Abbé Dupanloup, afterwardbishop of Orléans, administered the last services of his church to thedying statesman. Talleyrand had, however, outlived his reputation, whichwas at its height when he went to the Congress of Vienna in 1814. Thoughhe rendered great services to the different sovereigns whom he served, he was too selfish and immoral to obtain a place in the hearts of thenation. A man who had sworn fidelity to thirteen constitutions andbetrayed them all, could not be much mourned or regretted at his death. His fame was built on witty sayings, elegant manners, and adroitadaptation to changing circumstances, rather than on those solid meritswinch alone extort the respect of posterity. 

The ministry of Count Molé was not eventful. It was marked chiefly forthe dissensions of political parties, troubles in Belgium, andthreatened insurrections, which alarmed the bourgeoisie. The king, feeling the necessity for a still stronger government, recalled oldMarshal Soult to the head of affairs. Neither Thiers nor Guizot formedpart of Soult's cabinet, on account of their mutual jealousies andundisguised ambition, --both aspiring to lead, and unwilling to acceptany office short of the premiership. 

Another great man now came into public notice. This was Villemain, whowas made Minister of Public Instruction, a post which Guizot hadpreviously filled. Villemain was a peer of France, an aristocrat fromhis connections with high society, but a liberal from his love ofpopularity. He was one of the greatest writers of this period, both inhistory and philosophy, and an advocate of Polish independence. Thiersat this time was the recognized leader of the Left and Left Centre inthe Deputies, while his rival, Guizot, was the leader of theConservatives. Eastern affairs now assumed great prominence in theChamber of Deputies. Turkey was reduced to the last straits inconsequence of the victories of Ibrahim Pasha in Asia Minor; France andEngland adhered to the policy of non-intervention, and the Sultan in hisdespair was obliged to invoke the aid of his most dangerous ally, Russia, who extorted as the price of his assistance the famous treaty ofUnkiar-Skelessi, which excluded all ships-of-war, except those ofRussia and Turkey, from the Black Sea, the effect of which was to makeit a Muscovite lake. England and France did not fully perceive theirmistake in thus throwing Turkey into the arms of Russia, by theireagerness to maintain the _status quo_, --the policy of Austria. Therewere, however, a few statesmen in the French Chamber of Deputies whodeplored the inaction of government. Among these was Lamartine, who madea brilliant and powerful speech against an inglorious peace. This oratorwas now in the height of his fame, and but for his excessive vanity andsentimentalism might have reached the foremost rank in the nationalcouncils. He was distinguished not only for eloquence, but for hishistorical compositions, which are brilliant and suggestive, but ratherprolix and discursive. 

Sir Archibald Alison seems to think that Lamartine cannot be numberedamong the great historians, since, like the classic historians of Greeceand Rome, he has not given authorities for his statements, and, unlikeGerman writers, disdains foot-notes as pedantic. But I observe that inhis "History of Europe" Alison quotes Lamartine oftener than any otherFrench writer, and evidently admires his genius, and throws no doubt onthe general fidelity of his works. A partisan historian full ofprejudices, like Macaulay, with all his prodigality of references, isapt to be in reality more untruthful than a dispassionate writer withoutany show of learning at all. The learning of an advocate may hide andobscure truth as well as illustrate it. It is doubtless the custom ofhistorical writers generally to enrich, or burden, their works with allthe references they can find, to the delight of critics who glory indulness; but this, after all, may be a mere scholastic fashion. Lamartine probably preferred to embody his learning in the text thandisplay it in foot-notes. Moreover, he did not write for critics, butfor the people; not for the few, but for the many. As a popular writerhis histories, like those of Voltaire, had an enormous sale. If he wereless rhetorical and discursive, his books, perhaps, would have moremerit. He fatigues by the redundancy of his richness and the length ofhis sentences; and yet he is as candid and judicial as Hallam, and wouldhave had the credit of being so, had he only taken more pains to provehis points by stating his authorities. 

Next to the insolvable difficulties which attended the discussion of theEastern question, --whether Turkey should be suffered to crumble awaywithout the assistance of the Western Powers; whether Russia should bedriven back from the Black Sea or not, --the affairs of Africa excitedgreat interest in the Chambers. Algiers had been taken by French armiesunder the Bourbons, and a colony had been founded in countries of greatnatural fertility. It was now a question how far the French armiesshould pursue their conquests in Africa, involving an immenseexpenditure of men and money, in order to found a great colonial empire, and gain military _éclat_, so necessary in France to give strength toany government. But a new insurrection and confederation of the defeatedArab tribes, marked by all the fanaticism of Moslem warriors, made itnecessary for the French to follow up their successes with all the vigorpossible. In consequence, an army of forty thousand infantry and twelvethousand cavalry and artillery drove the Arabs, in 1840, to theirremotest fastnesses. The ablest advocate for war measures was Thiers;and so formidable were his eloquence and influence in the Chambers, thathe was again called to the head of affairs, and his secondadministration took place. 

The rivalry and jealousy between this great statesman and Guizot wouldnot permit the latter to take a subordinate position, but he wasmollified by the appointment of ambassador to London. The prime ministerhad a great majority to back him, and such was his ascendency that hehad all things his own way for a time, in spite of the king, whoseposition was wittily set forth in a famous expression of Thiers, _Le Roirègne, et ne gouverne pas_. Still, in spite of the liberal andprogressive views of Thiers, very little was done toward theamelioration of the sufferings of the people, for whom, personally, hecared but little. True, a bill was introduced into the Chambers whichreduced the hours of labor in the manufactories from twelve to eighthours, and from sixteen hours to twelve, while it forbade the employmentof children under eight years of age in the mills; but this beneficentmeasure, though carried in the Chamber of Peers, was defeated in thelower house, made up of capitalists and parsimonious money-worshippers. 

What excited the most interest in the short administration of Thiers, was the removal of the bones of Napoleon from St. Helena to the banks ofthe Seine, which he loved so well, and their deposition under the domeof the Invalides, --the proudest monument of Louis Quatorze. LouisPhilippe sent his son the Prince de Joinville to superintend thisremoval, --an act of magnanimity hard to be reconciled with his usualastuteness and selfishness. He probably thought that his throne was sofirmly established that he could afford to please the enemies of hishouse, and perhaps would gain popularity. But such a measure doubtlesskept alive the memory of the deeds of the great conqueror, and renewedsentiments in the nation which in less than ten years afterwardfacilitated the usurpation of his nephew. In fact, the bones ofNapoleon were scarcely removed to their present resting-place beforeLouis Napoleon embarked upon his rash expedition at Boulogne, was takenprisoner, and immured in the fortress of Ham, where he spent six yearsin strict seclusion, conversing only with books, until he contrived toescape to England. 

The Eastern question again, under Thiers' administration, became thegreat topic of conversation and public interest, and his military policycame near embroiling France in war. So great was the public alarm thatthe army was raised to four hundred thousand men, and measures weretaken to adopt a great system of fortifications around Paris. It wasfar, however, from the wishes and policy of the king to be dragged intowar by an ambitious and restless minister. He accordingly summonedGuizot from London to meet him privately at the Château d'Eu, inNormandy, where the statesman fully expounded his conservative andpacific policy. The result of this interview was the withdrawal of theFrench forces in the Levant and the dismissal of Thiers, who had broughtthe nation to the edge of war. His place was taken by Guizot, whohenceforth, with brief intervals, was the ruling spirit in the councilsof the king. 

Guizot, on the whole, was the greatest name connected with the reign ofLouis Philippe, although his elevation to the premiership was longdelayed. In solid learning, political ability, and parliamentaryeloquence he had no equal, unless it were Thiers. He was a native ofSwitzerland, and a Protestant; but all his tendencies were conservative. He was cold and austere in manners and character. He had acquireddistinction in the two preceding reigns, both as a political writer forthe journals and as a historian. The extreme Left and the extreme Rightcalled him a "Doctrinaire, " and he was never popular with either ofthese parties. He greatly admired the English constitution and attemptedto steer a middle course, being the advocate of constitutional monarchysurrounded with liberal institutions. Amid the fierce conflict ofparties which marked the reign of Louis Philippe, Guizot graduallybecame more and more conservative, verging on absolutism. Hence he brokewith Lafayette, who was always ready to upset the throne when itencroached on the liberties of the people. His policy was pacific, whileThiers was always involving the nation in military schemes. In thelatter part of the reign of Louis Philippe, Guizot's views were notdissimilar to those of the English Tories. His studies led him to detestwar as much as did Lord Aberdeen, and he was the invariable advocate ofpeace. He was, like Thiers, an aristocrat at heart, although sprung fromthe middle classes. He was simple in his habits and style of life, andwas greater as a philosopher than as a practical statesman amid populardiscontents. 

Guizot was the father of what is called philosophical history, and allhis historical writings show great research, accuracy, and breadth ofviews. His temperament made him calm and unimpassioned, and hisknowledge made him profound. He was a great historical authority, likeRanke, but was more admired fifty years ago than he is at the presentday, when dramatic writings like those of Motley and Froude have spoiledordinary readers for profundity allied with dulness. He resembles Hallammore than Macaulay. But it is life rather than learning which givesimmortality to historians. It is the life and the individuality ofGibbon which preserve his fame and popularity rather than his marvellouslearning. Voltaire lives for his style alone, the greatest of modernhistorical artists. Better it is for the fame of a writer to have athousand faults with the single excellence of living power, than to haveno faults and no remarkable excellences. Guizot is deficient in life, but is wonderful for research and philosophical deductions, and hence isto be read by students rather than by the people. As a popular historianhe is inferior to Thiers, but superior to him in general learning. 

Guizot became the favorite minister of Louis Philippe for hisconservative policy and his love of peace rather than for his personalattractions. He was less independent than Thiers, and equally ambitiousof ruling, and was also more subservient to the king, supporting him inmeasures which finally undermined his throne; but the purity of Guizot'sprivate life, in an age of corruption, secured for him more respect thanpopularity, Mr. Fyffe in his late scholarly history sneers at him as asanctimonious old Puritan, --almost a hypocrite. 

Guizot died before Thiers had won his greatest fame as the restorer oflaw and order after the communistic riots which followed the siege ofParis in 1871, when, as President of the Republic, he renderedinestimable services to France. The great personal defect of Thiers wasvanity; that of Guizot was austerity: but both were men of transcendentability and unimpeached patriotism. With these two men began the mightypower of the French Press in the formation of public opinion. With themthe reign of Louis Philippe was identified as much as that of QueenVictoria for twenty years has been with Gladstone and Disraeli. Betweenthem the king "reigned" rather than "governed. " This was the period whenstatesmen began to monopolize the power of kings in Prussia and Austriaas well as in France and England. Russia alone of the great Powers wasruled by the will of a royal autocrat. In constitutional monarchiesministers enjoy the powers which were once given to the favorites ofroyalty; they rise and fall with majorities in legislative assemblies. In such a country as America the President is king, but only for alimited period. He descends from a position of transcendent dignity tothe obscurity of private life. His ministers are his secretaries, without influence, comparatively, in the halls of Congress, --neithermade nor unmade by the legislature, although dependent on the Senate forconfirmation, but once appointed, independent of both houses, andresponsible only to the irremovable Executive, who can defy even publicopinion, unless he aims at re-election, a unique government in thepolitical history of the world. 

The year 1841 opened auspiciously for Louis Philippe. He was at thesummit of his power, and his throne seemed to be solidly cemented. Allthe insurrections which had given him so much trouble were suppressed, and the country was unusually prosperous. The enormous sum of£85, 000, 000 had been expended in six years on railways, one quarter morethan England had spent. Population had increased over a million in tenyears, and the exports were £7, 000, 000 more than they were in 1830. Paris was a city of shops and attractive boulevards. 

The fortification of the capital continued to be an engrossing matterwith the ministry and legislature, and it was a question whether thereshould be built a wall around the city, or a series of strong detachedforts. The latter found the most favor with military men, but the Pressdenounced it as nothing less than a series of Bastiles to overawe thecity. The result was the adoption of both systems, --detached forts, eachcapable of sustaining a siege and preventing an enemy from effectuallybombarding the city; and the _enceinte continuée_, which proved anexpensive _muraille d'octroi_. Had it not been for the detached forts, with their two thousand pieces of cannon, Paris would have been unableto sustain a siege in the Franco-Prussian war. The city must havesurrendered immediately when once invested, or have been destroyed; butthe distant forts prevented the Prussians from advancing near enough tobombard the centre of the city. 

The war in Algeria was also continued with great vigor by the governmentof Guizot. It required sixty thousand troops to carry on the war, bringthe Arabs to terms, and capture their cunning and heroic chieftainAbd-el-Kader, which was done at last, after a vast expenditure of moneyand men. Among the commanders who conducted this African war wereMarshals Valée, Changarnier, Cavaignac, Canrobert, Bugeaud, St. Arnaud, and Generals Lamoricière, Bosquet, Pelissier. Of these Changarnier wasthe most distinguished, although, from political reasons, he took nopart in the Crimean War. The result of the long contest, in which weredeveloped the talents of the generals who afterward gained underNapoleon III. So much distinction, was the possession of a countrytwelve hundred miles in length and three hundred in breadth, many partsof which are exceedingly fertile, and capable of sustaining a largepopulation. As a colony, however, Algeria has not been a profitableinvestment. It took eighteen years to subdue it, at a cost of onebillion francs, and the annual expense of maintaining it exceeds onehundred million francs. The condition of colonists there has generallybeen miserable; and while the imports in 1845 were one hundred millionfrancs, the exports were only about ten millions. The great importanceof the colony is as a school for war; it has no great material orpolitical value. The English never had over fifty thousand Europeantroops, aside from the native auxiliary army, to hold India insubjection, with a population of nearly three hundred millions, whereasit takes nearly one hundred thousand men to hold possession of a countryof less than two million natives. This fact, however, suggests theimmeasurable superiority of the Arabs over the inhabitants of India froma military point of view. 

The accidental death, in 1842, of the Due d'Orléans, heir to thethrone, was attended with important political consequences. He was afavorite of the nation, and was both gifted and virtuous. His death lefta frail infant, the Comte de Paris, as heir to the throne, and led togreat disputes in the Chambers as to whom the regency should beintrusted in case of the death of the king. Indeed, this sad calamity, as it was felt by the nation, did much to shake the throne ofLouis Philippe. 

The most important event during the ministry of Guizot, in view of itsconsequences on the fortunes of Louis Philippe, was the Spanishmarriages. The Salic law prohibited the succession of females to thethrone of France, but the old laws of Spain permitted females as well asmales to reign. In consequence, it was always a matter of dynasticambition for the monarchs of Europe to marry their sons to those Spanishprincesses who possibly might become sovereign of Spain. But as suchmarriages might result in the consolidation of powerful States, and thusdisturb the balance of power, they were generally opposed by othercountries, especially England. Indeed, the long and bloody war calledthe War of Spanish Succession, in which Marlborough and Eugene were theheroes, was waged with Louis XIV. To prevent the union of France andSpain, as seemed probable when the bequest of the Spanish throne wasmade to the Duc d'Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV. , who had married aSpanish princess. The victories of Marlborough and Eugene prevented thisunion of the two most powerful monarchies of Europe at that time, andthe treaty of Utrecht permanently guarded against it. The title of theDuc d'Anjou to the Spanish throne was recognized, but only on thecondition that he renounced for himself and his descendants all claim tothe French crown, --while the French monarch renounced on his part forhis descendants all claim to the Spanish throne, which was to descend, against ancient usages, to the male heirs alone. The Spanish Cortes andthe Parliament of Paris ratified this treaty, and it became incorporatedwith the public law of Europe. 

Up to this time the relations between England and France had been mostfriendly. Louis Philippe had visited Queen Victoria at Windsor, and theQueen of England had returned the visit to the French king with greatpomp at his chateau d'Eu, in Normandy, where magnificent fêtes followed. Guizot and Lord Aberdeen, the English foreign minister, were also inaccord, both statesmen adopting a peace policy. This _entente cordiale_between England and France had greatly strengthened the throne of LouisPhilippe, who thus had the moral support of England. 

But this moral support was withdrawn when the king, in 1846, yielding toambition and dynastic interests, violated in substance the treaty ofUtrecht by marrying his son, the Duc de Montpensier, to the Infanta, daughter of Christina the Queen of Spain, and second wife of FerdinandVII. , the last of the Bourbon kings of Spain. Ferdinand left twodaughters by Queen Christina, but no son. By the Salic law his youngerbrother Don Carlos was the legitimate heir to the throne; but hisambitious wife, who controlled him, influenced him to alter the law ofsuccession, by which his eldest daughter became the heir. This bred acivil war; but as Don Carlos was a bigot and tyrant, like all hisfamily, the liberal party in France and England brought all theirinfluence to secure the acknowledgment of the claims of Isabella, nowqueen, under the regency of her mother Christina. But her youngersister, the Infanta, was also a great matrimonial prize, since on thefailure of issue in case the young queen married, the Infanta would bethe heir to the crown. By the intrigues of Louis Philippe, aided by hisastute, able, but subservient minister Guizot, it was contrived to marrythe young queen to the Duke of Cadiz, one of the degenerate descendantsof Philip V. , since no issue from the marriage was expected, in whichcase the heir of the Infanta Donna Fernanda, married to the Duc deMontpensier, would some day ascend the throne of Spain. The Englishgovernment, especially Lord Palmerston, who had succeeded Lord Aberdeenas foreign secretary, was exceedingly indignant at this royal trick; forLouis Philippe had distinctly promised Queen Victoria, when heentertained her at his royal chateau in Normandy, that this marriage ofthe Duc de Montpensier should not take place until Queen Isabella wasmarried and had children. Guizot also came in for a share of theobloquy, and made a miserable defence. The result of the whole matterwas that the _entente cordiale_ between the governments of France andEngland was broken, --a great misfortune to Louis Philippe; and theEnglish government was not only indignant in view of this insincerity, treachery, and ambition on the part of the French king, but wasdisappointed in not securing the hand of Queen Isabella for PrinceLeopold of Saxe-Coburg. 

Meanwhile corruption became year by year more disgracefully flagrant. Itentered into every department of the government, and only by evidentcorruption did the king retain his power. The eyes of the whole nationwere opened to his selfishness and grasping ambition to increase thepower and wealth of his family. In seven years a thousand million francshad been added to the national debt. The government works beingcompleted, there was great distress among the laboring classes, andgovernment made no effort to relieve it. Consequently, there was anincreasing disaffection among the people, restrained from open violenceby a government becoming every day more despotic. Even the army wasalienated, having reaped nothing but barren laurels in Algeria. Socialistic theories were openly discussed, and so able an historian asLouis Blanc fanned the discontent. The Press grew more and more hostile, seeing that the nation had been duped and mocked. But the most markedfeature of the times was excessive venality. "Talents, energy, andeloquence, " says Louis Blanc, "were alike devoted to making money. Evenliterature and science were venal. All elevated sentiments wereforgotten in the brutal materialism which followed the thirst for gold. "The foundations of society were rapidly being undermined by dangeroustheories, and by general selfishness and luxury among the middleclasses. No reforms of importance took place. Even Guizot was as muchopposed to electoral extension as the Duke of Wellington. The king inhis old age became obstinate and callous, and would not listen toadvisers. The Prince de Joinville himself complained to his brother ofthe inflexibility of his father. "His own will, " said he, "must prevailover everything. There are no longer any ministers. Everything restswith the king. "

Added to these evils, there was a failure of the potato crop and amonetary crisis. The annual deficit was alarming. Loans were raisedwith difficulty. No one came to the support of a throne which was feltto be tottering. The liberal Press made the most of the difficulties tofan the general discontent. It saw no remedy for increasing evils but inparliamentary reform, and this, of course, was opposed by government. The Chamber of Deputies, composed of rich men, had lost the confidenceof the nation. The clergy were irrevocably hostile to the government. "Yes, " said Lamartine, "a revolution is approaching; and it is arevolution of contempt. " The most alarming evil was the financial stateof the country. The expenses for the year 1847 were over fourteenhundred millions, nearly four hundred millions above the receipts. Sucha state of things made loans necessary, which impaired thenational credit. 

The universal discontent sought a vent in reform banquets, whereinflammatory speeches were made and reported. These banquets extendedover France, attended by a coalition of hostile parties, the chiefs ofwhich were Thiers, Odillon Barrot, De Tocqueville, Garnier-Pagès, Lamartine, and Ledru-Rollin, who pointed out the evils of the times. Atlast, in 1848, the opposition resolved on a great banquet in Paris, todefy the government. The radicals sounded the alarm in the newspapers. Terror seized all classes, and public business was suspended, forrevolution was in the air Men said to one another, "They will befighting in the streets soon. "

The place selected for the banquet was in one of the retired streetsleading out of the Champs Elysées, --a large open space enclosed bywalls capable of seating six thousand people at table. The proposedbanquet, however, was changed to a procession, extending from the Placeof the Bastille to the Madeleine. The National Guard were invited toattend without their arms, but in uniform. The government was justlyalarmed, for no one could tell what would come of it, although theliberal chiefs declared that nothing hostile was meant. Louis Blanc, however, --socialist, historian, journalist, agitator, leader among theworking classes, --meant blood. The more moderate now began to fear thata collision would take place between the people and the military, andthat they would all be put down or massacred. They were not prepared foran issue which would be the logical effect of the procession, and at theeleventh hour concluded to abandon it. The government, thinking that thecrisis was passed, settled into an unaccountable repose. There were onlytwenty thousand regular troops in the city. There ought to have beeneighty thousand; but Guizot was not the man for the occasion. 

Meanwhile the National Guard began to fraternize with the people. Thepopular agitation increased every hour. Soon matters again becameserious. Barricades were erected. There was consternation at theTuileries. A cabinet council was hastily called, with the view of achange of ministers, and Guizot retired from the helm. The crowdthickened in the streets, with hostile intent, and an accidental shotprecipitated the battle between the military and the mob. Thiers washastily sent for at the palace, and arrived at midnight. He refusedoffice unless joined by the man the king most detested, Odillon Barrot. Loath was Louis Philippe to accept this great opposition chief asminister of the interior, but there was no alternative between him andwar. The command of the army was taken from Generals Sébastiani andJacqueminot, and given to Marshal Bugeaud, while General Lamoricièretook the command of the National Guard. 

The insurgents were not intimidated. They seized the churches, rang thebells, sacked the gunsmith shops, and erected barricades. The oldmarshal was now hampered by the Executive. He should have been madedictator; but subordinate to the civil power, which was timid andvacillating, he could not act with proper energy. Indeed, he had ordersnot to fire, and his troops were too few and scattered to oppose thesurging mass. The Palais Royal was the first important place to beabandoned, and its pictures and statues were scattered by the triumphantmob. Then followed the attack on the Louvre and the Tuileries; then theabdication of the king; and then his inglorious flight. The monarchyhad fallen. 

Had Louis Philippe shown the courage and decision of his earlier years, he might have preserved his throne. But he was now a timid old man, andperhaps did not care to prolong his reign by massacre of his people. Hepreferred dethronement and exile rather than see his capital deluged inblood. Nor did he know whom to trust. Treachery and treason finishedwhat selfishness and hypocrisy had begun. Still, it is wonderful that hepreserved his power for eighteen years. He must have had great tact andability to have reigned so long amid the factions which divided France, and which made a throne surrounded with republican institutions at thattime absurd and impossible. 

AUTHORITIES. 

Louis Blanc's Six Ans de Louis Philippe; Lamartine; Capefigue'sL'Histoire de Louis Philippe; Lives of Thiers and Guizot; Fyffe's ModernEurope; Life of Lafayette; Annual Register; Mackenzie's NineteenthCentury; Conversations with Thiers and Guizot.