But Europe, delivered from one tyrannical master, was now

given over to several of them, in a combination which

oppressed it for a generation. The sovereigns who had united

to dethrone Napoleon, with the two emperors, of Austria and

Russia, at their head, and with the Austrian minister,

Metternich, for their most trusted counselor, assumed first,

in the Congress of Vienna, a general work of political

rearrangement, to repair the Revolutionary and Napoleonic

disturbances, and then, subsequently, an authoritative

supervision of European politics which proved as meddlesome as

Napoleon's had been. Their first act, as before stated, was to

restore the Bourbon monarchy in France, indifferent to the

wishes of the people. In Spain, Ferdinand had already taken

the throne, when Joseph fled. In Italy, the King of Sardinia

was restored and Genoa transferred to him; Lombardy and

Venetia were given back to Austria; Tuscany, Modena and some

minor duchies received Hapsburg princes; the Pope recovered

his States, and the Bourbons returned to Naples and Sicily. In

Germany, the Prussian kingdom was enlarged again by several

absorptions, including part of Saxony, but some of its Polish

territory was given to the Czar; Hanover became a kingdom;

Austria resumed the provinces which Napoleon had conveyed to

his Rhenish proteges; and, finally, a Germanic Confederation

was formed, to take the place of the extinct Empire, and with

no more efficiency in its constitution. In the Netherlands, a

new kingdom was formed, to bear the Netherland name, and to

embrace Holland and Belgium in union, with the House of Orange

on the throne.

The Holy Alliance.

Between the Czar, the Emperor of Austria, and the King of

Prussia, there was a personal agreement that went with these

arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, and which was

prolonged for a number of years. In the public understanding,

this was associated, perhaps wrongly, with a written

declaration, known as the Holy Alliance, in which the three

sovereigns set forth their intention to regulate their foreign

and domestic policy by the precepts of Christianity, and

invited all princes to join their alliance for the maintenance

of peace and the promotion of brotherly love. Whether

identical as a fact with this Holy Alliance or secreted behind

it, there was, and long continued to be, an undoubted league

between these sovereigns and others, which had aims very

different from the promotion of brotherly love. It was wholly

reactionary, hostile to all political liberalism, and

repressive of all movements in the interest of the people.

Metternich was its skilful minister, and the deadly, soulless

system of beaureaucratic absolutism which he organized in

Austria was the model of government that it strove to

introduce.

In Italy, the governments generally were reduced to the

Austrian model, and the political state of the peninsula, for

forty years, was scarcely better, if at all, than it had been

under the Spanish rule in the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries.

Germany, as divided as ever, under a federal constitution

which federated nothing else so much as the big and little

courts and their reactionary ideas, was profoundly depressed

in political spirit, while prospering materially and showing

notable signs of intellectual life.

France was not slow in finding that the restored Bourbons and

the restored émigrés had forgotten nothing and learned

nothing, in the twenty-five years of their exile. They put all

their strength into the turning back of the clock, trying to

make it strike again the hours in which the Revolution and

Napoleon had been so busy. It was futile work; but it sickened

and angered the nation none the less. After all the stress and

struggle it had gone through, there was a strong nation yet to

resist the Bourbonism brought back to power. It recovered from

the exhaustion of its wars with a marvellous quickness. The

millions of peasant land-owners, who were the greatest

creation of the Revolution, dug wealth from its soil with

untiring free arms, and soon made it the most prosperous land

in Europe. Through country and city, the ideas of the

Revolution were in the brains of the common people, while its

energies were in their brawn, and Bourbonism needed more

wisdom than it ever possessed to reconcile them to its

restoration.

Revolutions of 1820-1821.

It was not in France, however, but in Spain, that the first

rising against the restored order of things occurred.

Ferdinand VII., when released from his French imprisonment in

1814, was warmly received in Spain, and took the crown with

quite general consent. He accepted the constitution under

which the country had been governed since 1812, and made large

lying promises of a liberal rule. But when seated on the

throne, he suppressed the constitution, restored the

Inquisition, revived the monasteries, called back the expelled

Jesuits, and opened a deadly persecution of the liberals in

Spanish politics. No effective resistance to him was organized

until 1820, when a revolutionary movement took form which

forced the king, in March, to reestablish the constitution and

call different men to his council. Portugal, at the same time,

adopted a similar constitution, and the exiled king, John VI.,

returning now from Brazil, accepted it.

The revolution in Spain set fire to the discontent that had

smouldered in Italy. The latter broke forth, in the summer of

1820, at Naples, where the Bourbon king made no resistance to

a sudden revolt of soldiers and citizens, but yielded the

constitution they demanded at once. Sardinia followed, in the

next spring, with a rising of the Piedmontese, requiring

constitutional government. The king, Victor Emmanuel I., who

was very old, resigned the crown to his brother, Charles

Felix. The latter refused the demands of the

constitutionalists and called upon Austria for help.

{1097}

These outbreaks of the revolutionary spirit were alarming to

the sovereigns of the Holy Alliance and excited them to a

vigorous activity. They convened a Congress, first at Troppau,

in October, 1820, afterwards at Laybach, and finally at

Verona, to plan concerted action for the suppressing of the

popular movements of the time. As the result of these

conferences, the congenial duty of restoring absolutism in the

Two Sicilies, and of helping the King of Sardinia against his

subjects, was imposed upon Austria and willingly performed;

while the Bourbon court of France was solicited to put an end

to the bad example of constitutional government in Spain. Both

commissions were executed with fidelity and zeal. Italy was

flung down and fettered again; French troops occupied Spain

from 1823 until 1827. England, alone, protested against this

flagrant policing of Europe by the Holy Alliance. Canning, its

spirited minister, "called in the New World," as he described

his policy, "to redress the balance of the old," by

recognizing the independence of the Spanish colonies in

America, which, Cuba excepted, were now separated forever from

the crown of Spain. Brazil in like manner was cut loose from

the Portuguese crown, and assumed the constitution of an

empire, under Dom Pedro, the eldest son of John VI.

Greek War of Independence.

These stifled revolutions in western Europe failed to

discourage a more obstinate insurrection which began in the

East, among the Christian subjects of the Turks, in 1821. The

Ottoman government had been growing weaker and more vicious

for many years. The corrupted and turbulent Janissaries were

the masters of the empire, and a sultan who attempted, as

Selim III. (1789-1807) had done, to introduce reforms, was

put to death. Russia, under Alexander I., had been continuing

to gain ground at the expense of the Turks, and assuming more

and more of a patronage of the Christian subjects of the

Porte. There seems to be little doubt that the rising begun in

1821, which had its start in Moldavia, and its first leader in a

Greek, Ypsilanti, who had been an officer in the Russian

service, received encouragement from the Czar. But Alexander

turned his back on it when the Greeks sprang to arms and

seriously appealed to Europe for help in a war of national

independence. The Congress of Verona condemned the Greek

rising, in common with that of Spain. Again, England alone

showed sympathy, but did nothing as a government, and left the

struggling Greeks to such help as they might win from

individual friends. Lord Byron, with others, went to Greece,

carrying money and arms; and, generally, these volunteers lost

much of their ardor in the Greek cause when they came into

close contact with its native supporters. But the Greeks,

however lacking in high qualities, made an obstinate fight,

and held their ground against the Turks, until the feeling of

sympathy with them had grown too strong in England and in

France for the governments of those countries to be heedless

of it. Moreover, in Russia, Alexander I. had been succeeded

(1825) by the aggressive Nicholas, who had not patience to

wait for the slow crumbling of the Ottoman power, but was

determined to break it as summarily as he could. He joined

France and England, therefore, in an alliance and in a naval

demonstration against the Turks (1827), which had its result

in the battle of Navarino. The allies of Nicholas went no

farther; but he pursued the undertaking, in a war which lasted

until the autumn of 1829. Turkey at the end of it conceded the

independence of Greece, and practically that of Wallachia and

Moldavia. In 1830, a conference at London established the

Greek kingdom, and in 1833 a Bavarian prince, Otho I., was

settled on the throne.

Revolutions of 1830.

Before this result was reached, revolution in western Europe,

arrested in 1821-23, had broken out afresh. Bourbonism had

become unendurable to France. Charles X., who succeeded his

brother Louis XVIII; in 1824, showed not only a more arbitrary

temper, but a disposition more deferential to the Church than

his predecessor. He was fond of the Jesuits, whom his subjects

very commonly distrusted and disliked. He attempted to put

shackles on the press, and when elections to the chamber of

deputies went repeatedly against the government, he undertook

practically to alter the suffrage by ordinances of his own. A

revolution seemed then to be the only remedy that was open to

the nation, and it was adopted in July, 1830, the veteran

Lafayette taking the lead. Charles X. was driven to

abdication, and left France for England. The crown was

transferred to Louis Philippe, of the Orleans branch of the

Bourbon family,--son of the Philip Égalité who joined the

Jacobins in the Revolution.

The July Revolution in France proved a signal for more

outbreaks in other parts of Europe than had followed the

Spanish rising of ten years before.

Belgium broke away from the union with Holland, which had

never satisfied its people, and, after some struggle, won

recognized independence, as a new kingdom, with Leopold of

Saxe Coburg raised to the throne.

Russian Poland, bearing the name of a constitutional kingdom

since 1815, but having the Czar for its king and the Czar's

brother for viceroy, found no lighter oppression than before,

and made a hopeless, brave attempt to escape from its bonds.

The revolt was put down with unmerciful severity, and

thousands of the hapless patriots went to exile in Siberia.

In Germany, there were numerous demonstrations in the smaller

states, which succeeded more or less in extorting

constitutional concessions; but there was no revolutionary

movement on a larger scale.

Italy remained quiet in both the north and the south, where

disturbances had arisen before; but commotions occurred in the

Papal states, and in Modena and Parma, which required the arms

of Austria to suppress.

In England, the agitations of the continent hastened forward a

revolution which went far beyond all other popular movements

of the time in the lasting importance of its effects, and

which exhibited in their first great triumph the peaceful

forces of the Platform and the Press.

{1098}

England under the last two Georges.

But we have given little attention to affairs in Great Britain

during the past half century or more, and need to glance

backward.

Under the third of the Georges, there was distinctly a check

given to the political progress which England had been making

since the Revolution of 1688. The wilfulness of the king

fairly broke down, for a considerable period, the system of

responsible cabinet government which had been taking shape and

root under the two earlier Hanoverians, and ministers became

again, for a time, mere mouthpieces of the royal will. The

rupture with the American colonies, and the unsuccessful war

which ended in their independence, brought in another

influence, adverse, for the time being, to popular claims in

government. For it was not King George, alone, nor Lord North,

nor any small Tory faction, that prosecuted and upheld the

attempt to make the colonists in America submissive to

"taxation without representation." The English nation at large

approved the war; English national sentiment was hostile to

the Americans in their independent attitude, and the

Whigs--the liberals then in English politics--were a

discredited and weakened party for many years because of their

leaning to the American side of the questions in dispute.

Following close upon the American war, came the French

Revolution, which frightened into Toryism great numbers of

people who did not by nature belong there. In England, as

everywhere else, the reaction lasted long, and government was

more arbitrary and repressive than it could possibly have

continued to be under different circumstances.

Meantime extraordinary social changes had taken place, which

tended to mark more strongly the petrifying of things in the

political world. The great age of mechanical invention had

been fully opened. Machines had begun to do the work of human

hands in every industry, and steam had begun to move the

machines. The organization of labor, too, had assumed a new

phase. The factory system had arisen; and with it had appeared

a new growth of cities and towns. Production was accelerated;

wealth was accumulating more rapidly, and the distribution of

wealth was following different lines. The English middle class

was rising fast as a money-power and was gathering the

increased energies of the kingdom into its hands.

Parliamentary Reform in England.

But while the tendency of social changes had been to increase

vastly the importance of this powerful middle class, the

political conditions had actually diminished its weight in

public affairs. In Parliament, it had no adequate

representation. The old boroughs, which sent members to the

House of Commons as they had sent them for generations before,

no longer contained a respectable fraction of the "commons of

England," supposed to be represented in the House, and those

who voted in the boroughs were not at all the better class of

the new England of the nineteenth century. Great numbers of

the boroughs were mere private estates, and the few votes

polled in them were cast by tenants who elected their

landlords' nominees. On the other hand, the large cities and

the numerous towns of recent growth had either no

representation in Parliament, or they had equal representation

with the "rotten boroughs" which cast two or three or

half-a-dozen votes.

That the commons of England, with all the gain of substantial

strength they had been making in the last half of the

eighteenth century and the first quarter of the nineteenth,

endured this travesty of popular representation so long as

until 1832, is proof of the potency of the conservatism which

the French Revolution induced. The subject of parliamentary

reform had been now and then discussed since Chatham's time;

but Toryism had always been able to thrust it aside and bring

the discussion to naught. At last there came the day when the

question would no longer be put down. The agitations of 1830,

combined with a very serious depression of industry and trade,

produced a state of feeling which could not be defied. King and

Parliament yielded to the public demand, and the First Reform

Bill was passed. It widened the suffrage and amended very

considerably the inequities of the parliamentary

representation; but both reforms have been carried much

farther since, by two later bills.

Repeal of the English Corn Laws.

The reform of Parliament soon brought a broader spirit into

legislation. Its finest fruits began to ripen about 1838, when

an agitation for the repeal of the foolish and wicked English

"corn-laws" was opened by Cobden and Bright. In the day of the

"rotten boroughs," when the landlords controlled Parliament,

they imagined that they had "protected" the farming interest,

and secured higher rents to themselves, by laying heavy duties

on the importation of foreign bread-stuffs. A famous "sliding

scale" of such duties had been invented, which raised the

duties when prices in the home market dropped, and lowered

them proportionately when home prices rose. Thus the consumers

were always deprived, as much as possible, of any cheapening

of their bread which bountiful Nature might offer, and paid a

heavy tax to increase the gains of the owners and cultivators

of land.

Now that other "interests" besides the agricultural had a

voice in Parliament, and had become very strong, they began to

cry out against this iniquity, and demand that the "corn laws"

be done away with. The famous "anti-corn-law league,"

organized mainly by the exertions of Richard Cobden, conducted

an agitation of the question which brought about the repeal of

the laws in 1846.

But the effect of the agitation did not end there. So thorough

and prolonged a discussion of the matter had enlightened the

English people upon the whole question between "protection"

and free trade. The manufacturers and mechanics, who had led

the movement against protective duties on food-stuffs, were

brought to see that they were handicapped more than protected

by duties on imports in their own departments of production.

So Cobden and his party continued their attacks on the theory

of "protection" until every vestige of it was cleared from the

English statute books.

The Revolutions of 1848.

Another year of revolutions throughout Europe came in 1848,

and the starting point of excitement was not, this time, at

Paris, but, strangely enough, in the Vatican, at Rome. Pius

IX. had been elected to the papal chair in 1846, and had

immediately rejoiced the hearts and raised the hopes of the

patriots in misgoverned Italy by his liberal measures of

reform and his promising words. The attitude of the Pope gave

encouragement to popular demonstrations in various Italian

states during the later part of 1847; and in January 1848 a

formidable rising occurred in Sicily, followed in February by

another in Naples. King Ferdinand II. was compelled to change

his ministers and to concede a constitution, which he did not

long respect.

{1099}

Lombardy was slow this time in being kindled; but when the

flame of revolution burst out it was very fierce. The

Austrians were driven first from Milan (March, 1848), and then

from city after city, until they seemed to be abandoning their

Italian possessions altogether. Venice asserted its republican

independence under the presidency of Daniel Manin. Charles

Albert, King of Sardinia, thought the time favorable for

recovering Lombardy to himself, and declared war against

Austria. The expulsion of the Austrians became the demand of

the entire peninsula, and even the Pope, the Grand Duke of

Tuscany, and the King of Naples were forced to join the

patriotic movement in appearance, though not with sincerity.

But the King of Sardinia brought ruin on the whole

undertaking, by sustaining a fatal defeat in battle at

Custozza, in July, 1848.

France had been for some time well prepared for revolt, and

was quick to be moved by the first whisper of it from Italy.

The short-lived popularity of Louis Philippe was a thing of

the past. There was widespread discontent with many things,

and especially with the limited suffrage. The French people

had the desire and the need of something like that grand

measure of electoral reform which England secured so

peacefully in 1832; but they could not reach it in the

peaceful way. The aptitude and the habit of handling and

directing the great forces of public opinion effectively in

such a situation were alike wanting among them. There was a

mixture, moreover, of social theories and dreams in their

political undertaking, which heated the movement and made it

more certainly explosive. The Parisian mob took arms and built

barricades on the 23d of February. The next day Louis Philippe

signed an abdication, and a week later he was an exile in

England. For the remainder of the year France was strangely

ruled: first by a self-constituted provisional government,

Lamartine at its head, which opened national workshops, and

attempted to give employment and pay to 125,000 enrolled

citizens in need; afterwards by a Constituent National

Assembly, and an Executive Commission, which found the

national workshops a devouring monster, difficult to control

and hard to destroy. Paris got rid of the shops in June, at

the cost of a battle which lasted four days, and in which more

than 8,000 people were wounded or slain. In November a

republican constitution, framed by the Assembly, was adopted,

and on the 10th of December Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, son of

Louis Bonaparte, once King of Holland, and of Hortense

Beauharnais, daughter of the Empress Josephine, was elected

President of the Republic by an enormous popular vote.

The revolutionary shock of 1848 was felt in Germany soon after

the fall of the monarchy in France. In March there was rioting

in Berlin and a collision with the troops, which alarmed the

king so seriously that he yielded promises to almost every

demand. Similar risings in other capitals had about the same

success. At Vienna, the outbreak was more violent and drove

both Metternich and the Emperor from the city. In the first

flush of these popular triumphs there came about a most

hopeful-looking election of a Germanic National Assembly,

representative of all Germany, and gathered at Frankfort, on

the invitation of the Diet, for a revision of the constitution

of the Confederation. But the Assembly contained more learned

scholars than practical statesmen, and its constitutional work

was wasted labor. A Constituent Assembly elected in Prussia

accomplished no more, and was dispersed in the end without

resistance; but the king granted a constitution of his own

framing. The revolutionary movement in Germany left its

effects, in a general loosening of the bonds of harsh

government, a general broadening of political ideas, a final

breaking of the Metternich influence, even in Austria; but it

passed over the existing institutions of the much-divided

country with a very light touch.

In Hungary the revolution, stimulated by the eloquence of

Kossuth, was carried to the pitch of serious war. The

Hungarians had resolved to be an independent nation, and in

the struggle which ensued they approached very near the

attainment of their desire; but Russia came to the help of the

Hapsburgs, and the armies of the two despotisms combined were

more than the Hungarians could resist. Their revolt was

abandoned in August, 1849, and Kossuth, with other leaders,

escaped through Turkish territory to other lands.

The suppression of the Hungarian revolt was followed by a

complete restoration of the despotism and domination of the

Austrians in Italy. Charles Albert, of Sardinia, had taken

courage from the struggle in Hungary and had renewed

hostilities in March, 1849. But, again, he was crushingly

defeated, at Novara, and resigned, in despair, the crown to

his son, Victor Emmanuel II. Venice, which had resisted a long

siege with heroic constancy, capitulated in August of the same

year. The whole of Lombardy and Venetia was bowed once more

under the merciless tyranny of the Austrians, and savage

revenges were taken upon the patriots who failed to escape.

Rome, whence the Pope--no longer a patron of liberal

politics--had fled, and where a republic had been once more

set up, with Garibaldi and Mazzini in its constituent

assembly, was besieged and taken, and the republic overturned,

by troops sent from republican France. The Neapolitan king

restored his atrocious absolutism without help, by measures of

the greatest brutality.

A civil war in Switzerland, which occurred simultaneously with

the political collisions in surrounding countries, is hardly

to be classed with them. It was rather a religious conflict,

between the Roman Catholics and their opponents. The Catholic

cantons, united in a League, called the Sonderbund, were

defeated in the war; the Jesuits were expelled from

Switzerland in consequence, and, in September, 1848, a new

constitution for the confederacy was adopted.

{1100}

The Second Empire in France.

History for ready reference, Volume 2, El Dorado to Greaves · 第 91 / 222 段