CHAPTER XL_Revolutionary Europe, 1789-1815

1814–1815

The

Congress of Vienna—Monarchs and Diplomatists

present—History of the Congress—Treaty between France,

Austria, and England—The Questions of Saxony and

Poland—The German Confederation—Disposition of the

provinces on the left bank of the Rhine—Mayence and

Luxembourg—Reconstitution of Switzerland—Rearrangements

in Italy—Questions of Murat, Genoa, and the Empress Marie

Louise—Sweden—Denmark—Spain—Portugal—England’s share

of the spoil—The Questions of the Slave Trade and the

Navigation of Rivers—Close of the Congress—Preparations

against Napoleon—The first reign of Louis XVIII. in

France—Napoleon’s return from Elba—The Hundred Days—The

Campaign of Waterloo—Occupation of Paris—Second Treaty of

Paris—Napoleon sent to Saint Helena—The Holy Alliance—Return

of Louis XVIII.—Government of the Second Restoration—The

Chambre Introuvable—Reaction in Spain and Naples—Territorial

Results of the Congress of Vienna—The Principle of

Nationality—Permanent Results of the French Revolution

in Europe—The Problem of harmonising the Principles of

Individual and Political Liberty with that of Nationality.

[Sidenote: Congress of Vienna.]

On the 1st of November 1814 the diplomatists who were to resettle

Europe as arranged by the definitive Treaty of Paris met at Vienna.

But many of the monarchs most concerned felt that they could not

give their entire confidence to any diplomatist, however faithful or

distinguished, and they therefore came to Vienna in person to support

their views. The final decision of disputes obviously lay in the hands

of the four powers which by their union had conquered Napoleon. These

four powers solemnly agreed to act in harmony and to prepare all

questions privately, and then lay them before the Congress. In fact

they intended to impose their will upon the smaller states of Europe

just as Napoleon had done. That they did not succeed and that their

concert was broken was due to the extraordinary ability of Talleyrand,

the first French plenipotentiary. The history of the Congress is the

history of Talleyrand’s skilful diplomacy, and the resettlement of

Europe which it effected was therefore largely the work of France.

[Sidenote: Monarchs and Diplomatists present.]

The Emperor Francis of Austria acted as host to his illustrious

guests. The royalties present were the Emperor Alexander of Russia,

with his Empress, the Grand Duke Constantine, and his sisters, the

Grand Duchesses Marie of Saxe-Weimar and Catherine of Oldenburg; the

King of Prussia with his nephew Prince William; the King and Queen of

Bavaria, the King and Crown Prince of Würtemburg, the King of Denmark,

the Prince of Orange, the Grand Dukes of Baden, Saxe-Weimar, and

Hesse-Cassel, the Dukes of Brunswick, Nassau, and Saxe-Coburg. The King

of Saxony was a prisoner of war and absent.

The plenipotentiaries of Russia were Count Razumovski, Count von

Stackelberg, and Count Nesselrode, who were assisted by Stein, the

former Prussian minister, and one of Alexander’s most trusted advisers,

by Pozzo di Borgo, the Corsican, now appointed Russian ambassador to

Paris, by Count Capo d’Istria, the future President of Greece, by

Prince Adam Czartoryski, one of the most patriotic Poles, and by some

of the most famous Russian Generals, such as Chernishev and Wolkonski.

The Austrian plenipotentiaries were Prince Metternich, the State

Chancellor, the Baron von Wessenberg-Ampfingen, and Friedrich von

Gentz, who was appointed to act as Secretary to the Congress.

England was represented by Lord Castlereagh, Lord Cathcart, Lord

Clancarty, and Lord Stewart, Castlereagh’s brother, who as Sir Charles

Stewart had played so great a part in the negotiations in 1813, and who

had been created a peer for his services. The English plenipotentiaries

were also aided by Count von Hardenberg, and Count von Münster,

who were deputed to represent Hanoverian interests. The Prussian

plenipotentiaries were Prince von Hardenberg, the State Chancellor,

and William von Humboldt, who in military matters were advised by

General von Knesebeck. The French representatives, whose part was to be

so important, were Talleyrand, Prince of Benevento, the Duc de Dalberg,

nephew of the Prince Primate, the Marquis de la Tour du Pin, and the

Comte Alexis de Noailles. These were the representatives of the great

powers. Among the representatives of the lesser powers may be noted

from the importance of their action, Cardinal Consalvi, who represented

the Pope, the Count of Labrador for Spain, Count Palmella for Portugal,

Count Bernstorf for Denmark, Count Löwenhielm for Sweden, the Marquis

de Saint-Marsan for Sardinia, the Duke di Campo-Chiaro for Murat,

King of Naples, Ruffo, for Ferdinand King of the Two Sicilies, Prince

von Wrede for Bavaria, Count Wintzingerode for Würtemburg, and Count

von Schulemburg for Saxony. In addition to these plenipotentiaries

representing powers of the first and second rank, were innumerable

representatives of petty principalities, deputies for the free cities

of Germany, and even agents for petty German princes mediatised by

Napoleon in 1806.

[Sidenote: History of the Congress.]

When Talleyrand with the French legation arrived in Vienna he found,

as has been said, that the four great powers had formed a close union

in order to control the Congress. His first step therefore was to set

France forth as the champion of the second-rate states of Europe.

The Count of Labrador, the Spanish representative, strongly resented

the conduct of the great powers in pretending to arrange matters,

as they called it, for the Congress. Talleyrand skilfully made use

of Labrador, and through him and Palmella, Bernstorf and Löwenhielm

managed to upset the preconcerted ideas of the four allies, and

insisted on every matter being brought before the Congress as a whole,

and being prepared by small committees specially selected for that

purpose. His next step was to sow dissension amongst the great powers.

As the champion of the smaller states he had already made France of

considerable importance, and he then claimed that she too had a right

to be treated as a great power and not as an enemy. His argument was

that Europe had fought Napoleon and not France; that Louis XVIII. was

the legitimate monarch of France; and that any disrespect shown to him

or his ambassadors would recoil on the heads of all other legitimate

monarchs. He claimed that France had as much right to make her voice

heard in the resettlement of Europe as any other country, because the

allied monarchs had distinctly recognised that she was only to be

thrust back into her former limits and not to be expunged from the map

of Europe. Having made his claim good on the right of the legitimacy of

his master to speak for France as a great power equal in all respects

to the others, he proceeded to sow dissension among the representatives

of the four allied monarchs. This was not a difficult thing to do, for

the seeds of dissension had long existed. The difference he introduced

was that in speaking as a fifth great power, and as the champion of the

smaller states, France became the arbiter in the chief questions before

the Congress.

The division between the great powers was caused by the desire of

Russia and Prussia for the aggrandisement of their territories. The

Emperor Alexander wished to receive the whole of Poland. His idea,

which was inspired by his friend, Prince Adam Czartoryski, was to

form Poland into an independent kingdom ruled, however, by himself as

Emperor of Russia. The Poles were to have a new Constitution based

on that propounded in 1791, and the Czar of Russia was to be also

King of Poland, just as in former days the Electors of Saxony had

been Kings of Poland, but he was to be an hereditary, not an elected,

sovereign. To form once more a united Poland, Austria and Prussia were

to surrender their gains in the three partitions of Poland. Austria

was to receive compensation for her loss of Galicia in Italy; Prussia

was to be compensated for the loss of Prussian Poland by receiving

the whole of Saxony. As it had been already arranged that Prussia was

to receive the bulk of the Rhenish territory on the left bank of the

Rhine in addition to her great extensions of 1803, the result would be

to make Prussia by far the greatest power in Germany. Talleyrand was

acute enough to perceive that Lord Castlereagh did not approve of the

extension of the influence of Russia, and that Metternich was equally

indisposed to allow Prussia to obtain such a wholesale aggrandisement.

Saxony had been the faithful ally of France to the very last, and

Talleyrand felt that it would be an indelible stain on the French name

if it were thus sacrificed. He was cordially supported in this view by

his new master, for though the King of Saxony had been the faithful

ally of Napoleon, Louis XVIII. did not forget that his own mother was

a Saxon princess. Working, therefore, on the feelings of Castlereagh

and Metternich, he induced England and Austria to declare against the

scheme of Russia and Prussia.

The Emperor Alexander and Frederick William blustered loudly; they

declared that they were in actual military possession of Poland and of

Saxony, and that they would hold those states by force of arms against

all comers. In answer, Talleyrand, Castlereagh, and Metternich signed

a treaty of mutual alliance between France, England, and Austria, on

the 3d of January 1815. By this secret treaty the three powers bound

themselves to resist by arms the schemes of Russia and Prussia, and

in the face of their determined opposition the Emperor Alexander gave

way. Immediately Napoleon returned from Elba he found the draft treaty

between the three powers on the table of Louis XVIII. and at once sent

it to Alexander. That monarch, confronted with the danger threatened by

Napoleon’s landing in France, contented himself with showing the draft

to Metternich and then threw it in the fire. The whole of this strange

story is of the utmost interest; it proves not only the ability of

Talleyrand, but the inherent strength of France. It is most significant

that within a few months after the occupation of Paris by the allies

for the first time France should again be recognised as a great power,

and form the main factor in breaking up the cohesion of the alliance,

which had been formed against her.

[Sidenote: Secret Treaty of 3d Jan. 1815]

[Sidenote: Treaty of Ghent. Dec. 24, 1814.]

[Sidenote: Settlement of Saxony.]

The result of Talleyrand’s skilful policy was thus to unite England,

Austria, and France, supported by many of the secondary states, such

as Bavaria and Spain, against the pretensions of Prussia and Russia.

Powerful armies were immediately set on foot. France in particular

raised her military forces from 130,000 to 200,000 men, and her new

army was in every way superior to that with which Napoleon had fought

his defensive campaigns in 1814, for it contained the veteran soldiers

who had been blockaded in the distant fortresses or had been prisoners

of war. England too was enabled to make adequate preparations, for on

December the 24th, 1814, a treaty had been signed at Ghent between the

United States and England which put an end to the war which had been

proceeding ever since 1812 on account of England’s naval pretensions.

Bavaria also promised to put in the field 30,000 men for every 100,000

supplied by Austria. Although the secret treaty of January 3d was not

divulged until after the return of Napoleon from Elba, the determined

attitude of the opposition caused the Emperor Alexander to give way.

It was decided that instead of the whole of Saxony, Prussia should

only receive the district of Lusatia, together with the towns of

Torgau and Wittenberg; a territory which embraced half the area of

Saxony and one-third of its population. The King of Saxony, who had

been treated as a prisoner of war, and whom the Emperor of Russia had

even threatened to send to Siberia, was released from captivity, and

induced by the Duke of Wellington, who succeeded Lord Castlereagh as

English plenipotentiary in February 1815, to agree to these terms.

The salvation of Saxony was a matter of great gratification to Louis

XVIII., who remembered that though the king had been the faithful ally

of Napoleon, he was also his own near relative.

[Sidenote: Settlement of Poland.]

Since Prussia was obliged to give up her claim to the whole of Saxony,

Russia also had to withdraw from her scheme of uniting the whole of

Poland. Nevertheless, Russia retained the lion’s share of the Grand

Duchy of Warsaw; in 1774 her frontier had reached the Dwina and the

Dnieper; in 1793 she obtained half of Lithuania as far as Wilna; in

1795 she annexed the rest of Lithuania and touched the Niémen and the

Bug; in 1809 Napoleon had granted her the territory containing the

sources of the Bug; and now in 1815 her borders crossed the Vistula,

and by the annexation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, including that

city, penetrated for some distance between Eastern Prussia and Galicia.

Prussia received back its share of the two first partitions of Poland,

with the addition of the province of Posen and the city of Thorn, but

lost Warsaw and its share in the last partition; while Austria received

Cracow, which was to be administered as a free city. Alexander was

deeply disappointed by the frustration of his Polish schemes, but he

nevertheless kept his promise to Prince Adam Czartoryski and granted a

representative constitution and a measure of independence to Russian

Poland.

[Sidenote: The Germanic Confederation.]

Though the great diplomatic struggle arose over the combined question

of Saxony and Poland, the most important work of the Congress was

not confined to it alone. Committees were appointed to make new

arrangements for Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and to settle other

miscellaneous questions. Of these committees the most important was

that which reorganised Germany. It had been arranged by the secret

articles of the Treaty of Paris that a Germanic Confederation should

take the place of the Holy Roman Empire. The example of Napoleon and

his institution of the Confederation of the Rhine was followed and

developed. Instead of the hundreds of small states which had existed

at the commencement of the French Revolution, Germany, apart from

Austria and Prussia, was organised into only thirty-eight states. These

were the four kingdoms of Hanover, Bavaria, Würtemburg, and Saxony;

the seven grand duchies of Baden, Oldenburg, Mecklenburg-Schwerin,

Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, and Saxe-Weimar;

the nine duchies of Nassau, Brunswick, Saxe-Gotha, Saxe-Coburg,

Saxe-Meiningen, Saxe-Hildburghausen, Anhalt-Dessau, Anhalt-Bernburg,

and Anhalt-Köthen; eleven principalities, two of Schwartzburg, two of

Hohenzollern, two of Lippe, two of Reuss, Hesse-Homburg, Liechtenstein,

and Waldeck, and the four free cities of Hamburg, Frankfort, Bremen,

and Lübeck. The number of thirty-eight was made up by the duchies of

Holstein and Lauenburg, belonging to the King of Denmark, and the grand

duchy of Luxembourg, granted to the King of the Netherlands. In its

organisation the Germanic Confederation resembled the Confederation

of the Rhine. The Diet of the Confederation was to be always presided

over by Austria and was to consist of two Chambers. The Ordinary

Assembly was composed of seventeen members, one for each of the larger

states, one for the free cities combined, one for Brunswick, one for

Nassau, one for the four duchies of Saxony united, one for the three

duchies of Anhalt united, and one for the smaller principalities. This

Assembly was to sit permanently at Frankfort and to settle all ordinary

matters. In addition there was to be a General Assembly to be summoned

intermittently for important subjects, consisting of sixty-nine

members returned by the different states in proportion to their size

and population. Each state was to be supreme in internal matters, but

private wars against each other were forbidden as well as external wars

by individual states on powers outside the limits of the Confederacy.

In the territorial arrangements of the new Confederation, the most

important point is the disappearance of all ecclesiastical states. The

Prince-Primacy, which Napoleon had established in his Confederation of

the Rhine, was not maintained, and Dalberg, who had filled that office

throughout the Empire, was restricted to his ecclesiastical functions.

[Sidenote: Territorial arrangements on the Rhine.]

The most difficult problem to be decided was the final disposition of

the districts on the left bank of the Rhine, which had been ruled by

France ever since 1794. It had been settled by the secret articles at

Paris that these dominions should be used for the establishment of

strong powers upon the borders of France. The main difficulty was as

to the disposition of the important border fortresses of Mayence and

Luxembourg. Prussia laid claim to both these places, but was strongly

resisted by Austria, France, and the smaller states of Germany. It was

eventually resolved that Prussia should receive the northern territory

on the left bank of the Rhine, stretching from Elten to Coblentz, and

including Cologne, Trèves, and Aix-la-Chapelle. In compensation for

the Tyrol and Salzburg, which she was forced to return to Austria, and

in recognition of her former sovereignty in the Palatinate, Bavaria

was granted a district from the Prussian borders to Alsace, including

Mayence, which was designated Rhenish Bavaria. Finally, Luxembourg was

formed into a grand duchy, and given as a German state to the House

of Orange. It was not united to the new kingdom of the Netherlands,

which was formed out of Holland and Belgium, but was to retain its

independence under the sovereignty of the King of the Netherlands. The

union of the provinces of the Netherlands was one of the favourite

schemes of England, and was carried into effect in spite of the

well-known feeling of opposition between the Catholic provinces of

Belgium and the Protestant provinces of Holland.

[Sidenote: Switzerland.]

As in its reorganisation of Germany, so in the settlement of

Switzerland, the Congress of Vienna followed the example set by

Napoleon. The Emperor had quite given up the idea which had fascinated

the French Directory of forming Switzerland into a Republic, one

and indivisible. He had yielded to the wishes of the Swiss people

themselves, and organised them on the basis of a confederation of

independent cantons. The Congress of Vienna continued Napoleon’s

policy of forbidding the existence of subject cantons in spite of

the protests of the Canton of Berne. Napoleon’s cantons of Argau,

Thurgau, Saint-Gall, the Grisons, the Ticino, and the Pays de Vaud were

maintained, but the number of the cantons was raised from nineteen to

twenty-two by the formation of the three new cantons of Geneva, the

Valais, and Neufchâtel, which had formed part of the French Empire.

The Canton of Berne received in reply to its importunities the greater

part of the former Bishopric of Basle. The Swiss Confederation as

thus constituted was placed under the guarantee of the great powers

and declared neutral for ever. The Helvetic Constitution, which was

promulgated by a Federal Act dated the 7th of April 1815, was not quite

so liberal as Napoleon’s Constitution. Greater independence was secured

in that the constitutions of the separate cantons and organic reforms

in them had not to be submitted to the Federal Diet. The prohibition

against internal custom houses was removed. The presidency of the

Diet was reserved to Zurich, Berne, and Lucerne alternately, and the

Helvetic Diet became a Congress of Delegates like the Germanic Diet

rather than a Legislative Assembly. It is to be noted that in spite of

the declaration of the Congress of Vienna, Prussia refused to renounce

her claims on her former territory of Neufchâtel, the independence of

which as a Swiss canton was not recognised by her until 1857.

[Sidenote: Italy.]

The resettlement of Italy presented more than one special problem. The

most difficult of these to solve was caused by the engagements entered

into by the allies with Murat in 1814. Talleyrand, on behalf of the

King of France, insisted on the dethronement and expulsion of Murat,

while Metternich from friendship for Caroline Murat wished to retain

him in his kingdom. The Emperor Alexander, whoever prided himself on

his fidelity to his engagements, wished to protect Murat, and had

at Vienna struck up a warm friendship with Eugène de Beauharnais,

Napoleon’s Viceroy of Italy. Murat, ungrateful though he was personally

toward Napoleon, had yet imbibed his master’s ideas in favour of the

unity and independence of Italy. During the campaign of 1814, he had

led his army to the banks of the Po, and he persisted in remaining

there after the Congress of Vienna had met. But the diplomatists at

Vienna had no wish to accept the great idea of Italian unity. Murat’s

aspirations in this direction were most annoying to them, and it was

with real pleasure that they heard after the landing of Napoleon from

Elba that Murat had by an indiscreet proclamation given them an excuse

for an open declaration of war. The Duke di Campo-Chiaro, Murat’s

representative at Vienna, had kept him informed of the differences

between the allied powers, and an indiscreet note asking whether he was

to be considered as at peace or at war with the House of Bourbon gave

the plenipotentiaries their opportunity. War was immediately declared

against him; an Austrian army defeated him at Tolentino on the 3d

of May 1815, and he was forced to fly from Italy. The acceptance of

Murat’s ambassador, who spoke in his name as King of the Two Sicilies,

made it difficult for the Congress to know how to treat with Ruffo

who had been sent as ambassador by Ferdinand, the Bourbon King of the

Two Sicilies, who had maintained his power in the island of Sicily

through the presence of the English garrison. Acting on the ground

of legitimacy, it was difficult to reject Ferdinand’s claims, which

were warmly supported by France and Spain, but Murat’s ill-considered

behaviour solved the difficulty, and after his defeat Ferdinand was

recognised as King of the Two Sicilies. Murat, later in the year,

landed in his former dominions, but he was taken prisoner and promptly

shot.

Another Italian question which presented considerable difficulty was

the disposal of Genoa and the surrounding territory. When Lord William

Bentinck occupied that city, he had in the name of England promised

it independence and even hinted at the unity of Italy. Castlereagh

unfortunately felt it to be his duty to disavow Bentinck’s declaration,

and Genoa was united to Piedmont as part of the kingdom of Sardinia.

The third difficult question was the creation of a state for the

Empress Marie Louise. An independent sovereignty had been promised to

her. She was naturally supported by her father, the Emperor Francis

of Austria, and was ably represented at Vienna by her future husband,

Count Neipperg. It was eventually resolved that she should receive the

duchies of Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla, but the succession was not

secured to her son, the King of Rome, but was granted to the rightful

heir, the King of Etruria, who, until the succession fell in, was to

rule at Lucca. The other arrangements in Italy were comparatively

simple. Austria received the whole of Venetia and Lombardy, in the

place of Mantua and the Milanese, which she had possessed before 1789.

The Grand Duchy of Tuscany, with the principality of Piombino, was

restored to the Grand Duke Ferdinand, the uncle of the Emperor Francis

of Austria, with the eventual succession to the Duchy of Lucca. The

Pope received back his dominions including the Legations of Bologna

and Ferrara, and Duke Francis, the grandson of Hercules III., was

recognised as Duke of Modena, to which duchy he would have succeeded

had not Napoleon absorbed it in his kingdom of Italy.

[Sidenote: Other States.]

[Sidenote: Sweden.]

[Sidenote: Denmark.]

[Sidenote: Spain.]

[Sidenote: Portugal.]

[Sidenote: England.]

The arrangements with regard to the other states of Europe made at

the Congress of Vienna were comparatively unimportant, and did not

present the same difficult problems as the resettlement of Germany,

Switzerland, and Italy. Norway in spite of its disinclination was

definitely ceded to Sweden, but Bernadotte had to restore to France the

West-Indian island of Guadeloupe, which had been handed over to him

by England in 1813, as part of the price of his alliance. Denmark had

by the Treaty of Kiel with Bernadotte been promised Swedish Pomerania

in the place of Norway. This promise was not carried out. Denmark

like Saxony had been too faithful an ally of Napoleon not to be made

to suffer. Swedish Pomerania was given to Prussia, and Denmark only

received the small Duchy of Lauenburg. By these arrangements both

Sweden and Denmark were greatly weakened, and the Scandinavian States,

by the loss of Finland and Pomerania, surrendered to their powerful

neighbours, Prussia and Russia, the command of the Baltic Sea. Spain,

owing to the ability of the Count of Labrador, and the support of

Talleyrand, not only lost nothing except the island of Trinidad, which

had been conquered by England, but was allowed to retain the district

round Olivenza, which had been ceded to her by Portugal in 1801. The

desertion of Portugal by England in this particular is the chief blot

on Lord Castlereagh’s policy at Vienna. The Portuguese army had fought

gallantly with Wellington, and there was no reason why she should have

been forced to consent to the definite cession of Olivenza to Spain

when other countries were winning back their former borders. Portugal

was also made to surrender French Guiana and Cayenne to France.

England, though she had borne the chief pecuniary stress of the war

and had been more instrumental than any other power in overthrowing

Napoleon, received less compensation than any other country. She kept

Malta, thus settling the question which led to the rupture of the

Peace of Amiens; she received Heligoland, which was ceded to her by

Denmark, as commanding the mouth of the Elbe; and she was also granted

the protectorate of the Ionian Islands, which enabled her to close

the Adriatic. Among colonial possessions England took from France the

Mauritius, Tobago, and Saint Lucia, but she returned Martinique and the

Isle of Bourbon, and forced Sweden and Portugal to restore Guadeloupe

and French Guiana. With regard to Holland, England retained Ceylon and

the Cape of Good Hope, but she restored Java, Curaçao, and the other

Dutch possessions. In the West Indies also, she retained, as has been

said, the former Spanish island of Trinidad.

[Sidenote: The Slave Trade.]

[Sidenote: The Navigation of Rivers.]

One reason for Castlereagh’s moderation at Vienna is to be found

in the pressure that was exerted upon him in England to secure the

abolition of the slave trade. It is a curious fact that while the

English plenipotentiary was taking such an important share in the

resettlement of Europe, the English people were mainly interested in

the question of the slave trade. The great changes which were leading

to new combinations in Europe, the aggrandisement of Prussia, the

reconstitution of Germany, the extension of Austria, all passed without

notice, but meetings, in Lord Castlereagh’s own words, were held in

nearly every village to insist upon his exerting his authority to

abolish the trade in negro slaves. Castlereagh therefore lent his

best efforts, in obedience to his constituents, to this end. The

other ambassadors could not understand why he troubled so much about

what seemed to them a trivial matter. They suspected a deep design,

and thought that the reason of England’s humanity was that her West

Indian colonies were well stocked with negroes, whereas the islands

she was restoring were empty of them. The plenipotentiaries of other

powers possessing colonies in the tropics therefore refused to comply

with Castlereagh’s request and it was eventually settled that the

slave trade should be abolished by France after five, and by Spain

after eight years. Castlereagh had to be content with this concession,

but to satisfy his English constituents he got a declaration condemning

the slave trade assented to by all the powers at the Congress. Another

point of great importance which was settled at the Congress of Vienna

was with regard to the navigation of rivers which flow through more

than one state. It had been the custom for all the petty sovereigns to

impose such heavy tolls on river traffic that such rivers as the Rhine

were made practically useless for commerce. This question was discussed

by a committee at the Congress, and a code for the international

regulation of rivers was drawn up and generally agreed to.

[Sidenote: Close of the Congress of Vienna. June 1815.]

These matters took long to discuss, and might have taken longer had

not the news arrived at the beginning of March 1815 that Napoleon had

left Elba and become once more undisputed ruler of France. In the month

of February the Duke of Wellington had succeeded Lord Castlereagh as

English representative at Vienna, for the latter nobleman had to return

to London to take his place in Parliament. At the news of the striking

event of Napoleon’s being once more at the head of a French army all

jealousies at Vienna ceased for the time. The Duke of Wellington was

taken into consultation by the allied monarchs, and it was resolved

to carry into effect the provisions of the Treaty of Chaumont. The

great armies which had been prepared for a struggle amongst themselves

were now turned by the allies against France. A treaty of alliance

was signed at Vienna between Austria, Russia, Prussia, and England,

on the 25th of March 1815, by which those powers promised to furnish

180,000 men each for the prosecution of war, and stipulated that

none of them should lay down arms until the power of Napoleon was

completely destroyed. It was arranged that three armies should invade

France, the first of 250,000 Austrians, Russians, and Bavarians under

Schwartzenberg across the Upper Rhine, the second of 150,000 Prussians

under Blücher across the Lower Rhine, and the third of 150,000 English,

Hanoverians and Dutch from the Netherlands. Subsidies to the extent of

£11,000,000 were promised by England to the allies. These arrangements

made, the allied monarchs and their ministers left Vienna. But the

final general Act of the Congress was not drawn up and signed until the

8th of June 1815, ten days before the battle of Waterloo.

[Sidenote: The First Reign of Louis XVIII.]

It has been said that the allied armies after the abdication of

Napoleon at Fontainebleau had retired and left France to the rule of

Louis XVIII. That King on returning to France had made most liberal

promises in the declaration known as the Declaration of Saint Ouen.

These principles were embodied in a Charter, which was granted on the

4th of June 1814. By this Charter representative institutions and

entire individual liberty were promised, and also the maintenance of

the administrative creations of the Empire. Under the new Constitution

there were to be two chambers, the one of hereditary peers, the other

of elected representatives. The promises of the Charter were very fair,

and had they been duly carried out, France might have been entirely

contented, but unfortunately for himself Louis XVIII. had not learned

experience in his exile. In spite of the Charter he regarded himself as

a ruler by right divine. _Emigrés_, even _émigrés_ who had borne arms

against France and consistently abused their fatherland, were promoted

to the highest offices in the State. The King surrounded himself with

reactionary courtiers, and what was worse with reactionary ministers.

The favour shown to returned _émigrés_, the haughty attitude of the

Princes of the blood, and the violent proclamations of the returned

bishops and clergy made the people of France fear that the promises

made in the Charter were but a sham, and that the next step would

be that the estates of the Church and of the Crown which had been

sold during the Revolution would be resumed. The feeling of distrust

was universal. The rule of Louis XVIII. had been accepted only as a

guarantee of peace. It was never popular, and the former subordinates

of Napoleon began to regret the Imperial _régime_. If this was the

feeling among the civil population, it was still more keenly felt

in the army. Prisoners of war, and the blockaded garrisons, who had

returned to France, felt sure that Napoleon’s defeat in 1814 had been

but accidental and wished to try conclusions once more with Europe.

In all ranks a desire was expressed to wipe out the disgrace of the

occupation of Paris by the allies.

[Sidenote: Napoleon’s return from Elba. March, 1815.]

On the 1st of March 1815, Napoleon, who had been informed of the

universal feeling in France, landed in the Gulf of San Juan, and began

the short reign which is known as the Hundred Days. He was accompanied

by the 800 men of the Guard whom he had been allowed to have at Elba,

and was received with the utmost enthusiasm by all classes. His journey

through France was a triumphal procession. The King’s brother, the

Comte d’Artois, vainly attempted to organise resistance at Lyons.

Marshal Ney, who had promised to arrest his patron, joined him with the

army under his command on the 17th of March, and on the 20th Napoleon

re-entered Paris and took up his quarters at the Tuileries. Louis

XVIII. had fled on the news of Ney’s defection, and escaping from

France took shelter at Ghent. Napoleon had learnt bitter lessons from

his misfortunes. He declared that he would grant full and complete

individual liberty, and also the freedom of the press, and on the 23d

of April he promulgated what he called the Additional Act consecrating

these principles. He felt his error in depending too entirely upon his

bureaucracy, and he appealed on the ground of patriotism to the men

of the Revolution whom he had in the days of his power carefully kept

from office. These men rallied round him, and he appointed their most

noteworthy representative, Carnot, his Minister of the Interior. He

declared his acceptance of the two chambers ordained by the Charter,

and most of the peers created by Louis XVIII. took the oath of

allegiance once again to Napoleon.

[Sidenote: Campaign of Waterloo. June 1815.]

After rousing national enthusiasm by appeals to patriotism and by

the liberal provisions of the Additional Act, Napoleon organised

his army, and in his favourite fashion decided to strike before any

invasion of France took place. Of the three armies prepared for the

invasion the one nearest within reach was that commanded by the Duke

of Wellington. That General on leaving Vienna had been placed at the

head of a miscellaneous force of English, Hanoverians, Dutch, and

Belgians. He greatly regretted the absence of most of his veterans of

the Peninsula who were still in America, and complained of the number

of raw troops under his command. He agreed to act in harmony with the

Prussians under Blücher, who brought his army into the Netherlands.

Napoleon determined to strike before Wellington and Blücher had united.

He crossed the frontier at the head of 130,000 men, and by his skilful

and rapid movements practically surprised the allied generals. On the

16th of June 1815, he defeated Blücher at Ligny, while Ney with his

left fought a drawn battle with the English advanced divisions at

Quatre Bras. By these engagements the English and Prussian armies were

separated. Napoleon then resolved to attack the English with the bulk

of his army, and detached Marshal Grouchy to pursue the Prussians.

Blücher, however, promised to come to Wellington’s assistance if the

English were attacked, and Wellington relying on this promise took up

his position at Waterloo. On the 18th of June the battle of Waterloo

was fought. The English army held its position in spite of repeated and

furious attacks, until Blücher came up on the French right. Unable to

continue the struggle against two foes, the French army was obliged to

give way, and after the repulse of the Guard, which might have covered

his retreat, Napoleon recognised that he was completely routed. He fled

to Paris, and on the 22d of June he abdicated in favour of his son, the

King of Rome. He nominated an executive commission of government, and

then went on board ship in the hope of escaping to America. In this

project he failed, and on 15th July he surrendered to Captain Maitland

on board H.M.S. _Bellerophon_. The army of Wellington and Blücher

pursued the defeated foe, but the rout had been too complete for the

French to make another stand. Cambrai the only place that attempted to

resist was easily taken, and on the 3d of July Wellington and Blücher

reoccupied Paris. Meanwhile the grand army of Schwartzenberg had also

invaded France, and the country was once more in the possession of the

allies.

[Sidenote: Second Treaty of Paris. 20th Nov. 1815.]

The terms of the second Treaty of Paris proved that the allied monarchs

understood the difference between the opposition made by France

to Europe in 1814 and 1815. In 1814 the Treaty of Paris which was

then concluded was, if not particularly liberal to France, at least

perfectly just. The allied monarchs and their ministers had appreciated

the fact that in 1814 they were fighting Napoleon and not France. The

campaign of 1815 had been of a different character. The French nation

and not merely the French army had given proof of their attachment both

to the Empire and to Napoleon’s person. It was therefore considered

necessary, not only to impose harsher terms upon France, but to exact

securities for the future. Several schemes were proposed, of which

one was to detach Alsace, Lorraine, and French Flanders, if not the

whole of Picardy, and to reduce the limits of France to what they were

before the conquests of Louis XIV. This scheme, which was earnestly

supported by Prussia, who hoped to get the lion’s share of the

districts taken from France, was warmly opposed by Austria and England.

The latter power was not to be bribed by the proposed extension of

the frontier of its new creation, the Kingdom of the Netherlands. And

the former objected entirely to any increase of the power of Prussia.

Lord Castlereagh in his opposition to these extravagant suggestions

of Prussia was supported by the Emperor Alexander and his minister,

Nesselrode, and eventually it was agreed that France should be

reduced to its exact limits of 1789. This meant that France lost all

the cessions made to it in 1814, except Avignon and the Venaissin.

Chambéry and the part of Savoy then granted to France were restored

to the King of Sardinia; the districts in the neighbourhood of Geneva

were also returned to that canton, and the fortress of Huningen on the

borders of Switzerland was ordered to be dismantled; and the various

rectifications of the frontier on the eastern and north-eastern borders

were no longer sanctioned. A war contribution of 700,000,000 francs was

laid upon France, in addition to which she was to maintain, at the cost

of 250,000,000 francs a year, an army of 150,000 men in the possession

of her chief frontier fortresses for a period of five years.

[Sidenote: Napoleon sent to St. Helena.]

These were the most important conditions of peace contained in the

second Treaty of Paris, which was signed on 20th of November 1815.

But what France felt more bitterly than pecuniary contributions, or

even the loss of territory, was the decision of the allied powers that

the numerous pictures and works of art, which had been accumulated

in Paris during the wars of the Revolution and the Empire, should be

returned to their former owners. The Prussians were not satisfied with

this, they wished to punish Paris more severely. Blücher was only

prevented by the intervention of Lord Castlereagh and the Duke of

Wellington from exacting a contribution of a 110,000,000 francs from

the inhabitants of Paris alone. The Prussians even made preparations

to blow up the Bridge of Jena, whose name perpetuated their greatest

military humiliation, and were only prevented from their purpose by the

expressed determination of Louis XVIII. to stand upon the bridge and

be blown up with it if they persisted, and Blücher had to be satisfied

with the alteration of the name of the bridge from the Bridge of Jena

to the Bridge of the Military School. The question of the disposition

of the person of Napoleon was one of some difficulty. He reached Torbay

on board the _Bellerophon_ on the 24th of July 1815, and the English

Ministers did not know what to do with their illustrious prisoner. They

dared not trust him in any part of Europe or America from which he

could repeat his expedition from Elba. Blücher loudly declared that he

ought to be shot at Vincennes like the Duc d’Enghien, but the English

Government thought it would be sufficient to confine him on an isolated

island. For this purpose they borrowed the island of Saint Helena from

the East India Company, and on the 8th of August, Napoleon set sail for

his place of exile on board H.M.S. _Northumberland_.

[Sidenote: The Holy Alliance. Sept. 1815]

A month after the departure of Napoleon for St. Helena, the Emperor

Alexander, the Emperor Francis, and King Frederick William signed the

treaty which is known as the Holy Alliance. By this treaty it was

declared that the Christian religion was the sole base of government,

and the contracting monarchs promised to aid each other on all

occasions like brothers, and to recommend to their peoples the exercise

of the duties of the Christian religion. Lord Castlereagh declined

on behalf of the Prince Regent to join the Holy Alliance, but on the

28th of November 1815, after the signature of the Peace of Paris, he

agreed to an alliance that should include all the four powers, of which

the aims were to keep from the throne of France either Napoleon or

any relation of his, to combine together for the security of their

separate states, and the general tranquillity of Europe, and to hold at

fixed dates congresses for the settlement of disputed questions.

[Sidenote: The Second Restoration of Louis XVIII. July 1815.]

The second restoration of Louis XVIII. differed from the first as the

second Treaty of Paris differed from its predecessor. After the events

of the Hundred Days, the Bourbon King could no more delude himself

with the idea that he was welcome to the people of France. He owed his

seat upon the throne only to the absence of Napoleon and the presence

of the allied armies in France, and he prepared on this occasion to

punish those who had deserted him. He refused to grant an amnesty, and

on the 24th of July 1815, he proscribed fifty-seven of the leading men

in France, of whom nineteen were ordered to be tried by court-martial,

and thirty-eight were banished. The most illustrious of the victims who

perished under this proscription was Marshal Ney, who was shot at Paris

on the 7th of December, after being condemned to death by the Chamber

of Peers. This procedure was rendered necessary because it would have

been difficult to find a court-martial to condemn the bravest of the

French marshals. Marshal Moncey, who was nominated to preside over

such a court-martial, refused in an eloquent letter which caused him

to be sent to prison for three months. Far worse than these executions

was the result of the outbreak of brigandage in the south of France.

Under the pretext of being Royalists, the Companies of Jehu, which had

ravaged the south of France in the days of the Thermidorians and of

the Directory, again set to work. Political, religious, and personal

passions excited to massacre. Pillage and murder were rife throughout

the south of France, and among the victims who were slain in this White

Terror of 1815 were Marshal Brune, and Generals Ramel and Lagarde.

Special courts were formed by a law voted on the 12th of December 1815,

to punish political offences. These provost’s courts were as severe and

almost as unjust as the revolutionary tribunals in the provinces during

the Reign of Terror, and many hundreds of executions took place.

Finally, in January 1816, what was ironically called a Law of Amnesty

was passed. This law, from the list of its exceptions, was practically

a gigantic proscription. Among others, all surviving members of the

Convention who had voted for the death of Louis XVI. were exiled if

they had in any way accepted the authority of Napoleon during the

Hundred Days, which most of them had done. Under this Law of Amnesty

most of the great statesmen who had been concerned in the government of

France since 1793 were driven into exile. Conspicuous among them were

Carnot, Merlin of Douai, Sieyès, Cambacérès, and David, the greatest

painter of his time.

[Sidenote: Government of the Second Restoration.]

Restored for a second time to the throne of France, Louis XVIII.

declined to take warning from the result of his former policy. He again

showered his favours on returned _émigrés_, and pursued a thoroughly

reactionary policy. As soon as he was firmly seated at the Tuileries,

with the Prussians and the English encamped round Paris, he dismissed

Talleyrand and Fouché from office and formed a new and strongly

Royalist ministry under the presidency of the Duc de Richelieu, who had

spent the last twenty years of his life in exile as one of the chief

administrators of Russia. The king avowed his intention of keeping

the promises he made in the Charter of 1814, but those promises were

carried out in such a way as to make them absolutely illusory. He took

advantage of the general adhesion given to Napoleon on his return from

Elba to exclude from the Upper Chamber or House of Peers most of the

leading men in France, leaving the majority entirely in the hands of

former _émigrés_, and of men who by the excess of their royalism wished

to palliate their offence in not having emigrated. The Lower House,

or Chamber of Representatives, even exceeded the House of Peers in

its violent royalism. The deputies, chiefly elected under the direct

pressure of threats of vengeance, were ready to adopt any reactionary

measure suggested to them. Louis XVIII. gave this Assembly the name of

the ‘Chambre Introuvable,’ which he intended as a compliment, but which

has survived as a term of derision. Among the first laws voted were the

suspension of individual liberty, and of the liberty of the press, and

the request was then made that the King, in his goodness, would revise

fourteen articles of the Charter which were too liberal. But even this

chamber, aided by the presence of foreign armies, could not make France

revert to the condition in which it had been before 1789. A hint of the

resumption of ecclesiastical or national domains would have set the

whole country in an uproar, and the Chamber had to be satisfied with

voting a large sum of money out of the ordinary taxes as compensation

to the _émigrés_ for their sufferings in exile.

[Sidenote: The Reaction in Spain.]

[Sidenote: Naples.]

The spirit of reaction went much further in Spain than in France.

Ferdinand VII., on returning to his capital in May 1814, issued a

proclamation attacking the Cortes, which had done so much to recover

the country from the hands of the French. In his own words: ‘A Cortes

convoked in a manner never before known in Spain has been profiting by

my captivity in France, and has usurped my rights by imposing on my

people an anarchical and seditious Constitution based on the democratic

principles of the French Revolution.’ The King of Spain then proceeded

to annul by his own absolute authority everything that had been done

during his absence. He re-established the Inquisition, and proscribed

and condemned to death all who had taken part in reforming the

institutions of Spain, whether under the authority of Joseph Bonaparte

or under that of the National Cortes. Many hundreds, if not thousands,

of Spanish patriots were put to death in a vain attempt of Ferdinand

VII. to restore things as they had been in former days. The attempt to

carry out a complete reaction resulted in utter failure. Insurrections

broke out in all directions, and the Spanish colonies in South America

took advantage of the troubles in the fatherland to strike a blow for

their own freedom. It is satisfactory to be able to state that the head

of the third reigning branch of the House of Bourbon behaved with more

moderation and wisdom than Ferdinand VII. of Spain or Louis XVIII.

of France. Ferdinand IV., King of the Two Sicilies, returned to his

capital at Naples in June 1815. He can hardly be blamed for ordering

the execution of Murat whom he had always regarded as a usurper, and

it is greatly to his credit that he made some endeavour to retain

the excellent administration on the French system which had been

established by Joseph Bonaparte and Murat.

[Sidenote: Results of the Congress of Vienna.]

The final overthrow of Napoleon and his exile to St. Helena allowed the

new system for the government of Europe as laid down by the Congress

of Vienna to be tried. That system may be roughly designated as the

system of the Great Powers. Before 1789, certain states, such as

France and England and Spain, were, from fortuitous circumstances, or

the course of their history, larger, more united, and therefore more

fitted for war, than others, but the greater part of the Continent

was split up into small, and in the case of Germany, into very small

states. Several of these small states, such as Sweden and Holland,

had at different times exercised a very considerable influence, and

the policy of Frederick the Great had added another to them, in the

military state of Prussia. At the Congress of Vienna the tendency

was to diminish the number and power of the secondary states, and to

destroy minute sovereignties. Sweden and Denmark were relegated to the

rank of third-rate powers; the petty principalities of Germany were

built up into third-rate states. Austria and Prussia were established

as great powers, but the increase of their territory brought with it

dissimilar results. Prussia became the preponderant state of Germany,

while Austria, whose Imperial House had so long held the position

of Holy Roman Emperor, became less German, and now depended for its

strength on its Italian, Magyar, and Slavonic provinces. The irruption

of Russia into the European comity of nations was another significant

feature. By its annexation of the greater part of the Grand Duchy of

Warsaw, Russia thrust itself between Prussia and Austria territorially,

while its leading share in the overthrow of Napoleon made its place as

a European power unassailable. It may be doubted if the policy of Peter

the Great and the Empress Catherine was thus carried out. The tendency

of those rulers was to make the Baltic and the Black Sea Russian lakes,

and to build up an Empire of the East; affairs in Central Europe only

interested them in so far as they prevented interference with their

Eastern designs, and did not lead to the erection of powerful states on

the Russian border.

[Sidenote: The Principle of Nationality.]

Nothing is more remarkable in the settlement of Europe by the Congress

of Vienna than the entire neglect of the principle of nationality. Yet

it was the sentiment of national patriotism which had enabled France to

repulse Europe in arms, and had trained the soldiers with whom Napoleon

had given the law to the Continent and had overthrown the mercenary

armies of his opponents. It was the principle of nationality which had

crippled Napoleon’s finest armies in Spain, and which had produced

his expulsion from Russia. It was the feeling of intense national

patriotism which had made the Prussian army of 1813, and enabled

Prussia after its deepest humiliation to take rank as a first-class

power. But the diplomatists at Vienna treated the idea as without

force. They had not learnt the great lesson of the French Revolution,

that the first result of rousing a national consciousness of political

liberty is to create a spirit of national patriotism. The Congress of

Vienna trampled such notions under foot. The partition of Poland was

consecrated by Europe; Italy was placed under foreign rulers; Belgium

and Holland, in spite of the hereditary opposition of centuries, were

united under one king. The territories on the left bank of the Rhine,

which were happy under French rule, and had been an integral part of

France for twenty years, were roughly torn away, and divided between

Prussia, Bavaria, and the House of Orange, under the fancied necessity,

induced by the exploded notion of maintaining the balance of power in

Europe, of building up a bulwark against France. Such short-sighted

policy was certain to be undone. Holland and Belgium separated; Italy

became united; Poland maintained the consciousness of her national

unity, and has more than once endeavoured to regain her independence;

France has never ceased to yearn after her ‘natural’ frontier,

the Rhine; the states of Germany have developed a national German

patriotism which has led to the creation of the modern German Empire.

This feeling of conscious nationality was the result of the French

Revolution and the wars of Napoleon; its existence is the strength of

England, France, Russia, and Germany, its absence is the weakness of

Austria. In so far as the spirit of nationality was neglected at the

Congress of Vienna, its work was but temporary; in its resurrection,

which has filled the history of the present century, the work of the

French Revolution has been permanent.

[Sidenote: Permanent results of the French Revolution.]

But after all, the growth of the spirit of nationality is only a

secondary result of the French Revolution upon Europe; it did not

arise in France until foreign powers attempted to interfere with the

development of the French people after their own fashion; it did not

arise in Europe until Napoleon began to interfere with the development

of other nations. The primary results of the French Revolution,—the

recognition of individual liberty, which implied the abolition of

serfdom and of social privileges; the establishment of political

liberty, which implied the abolition of despots, however benevolent,

and of political privileges; the maintenance of the doctrine of the

sovereignty of the people, which implied the right of the people,

through their representatives, to govern themselves,—have also survived

the Congress of Vienna. When Europe tried to interfere, the French

people sacrificed these great gains to the spirit of nationality,

and bowed before the despotism of the Committee of Public Safety and

of Napoleon; they have since regained them. The French taught these

principles to the rest of Europe, and the history of Europe since 1815

has been the history of their growth side by side with the idea of

nationality. How the two, liberty and nationality, can be preserved in

harmony is the great problem of the future; the history of Europe from

1789 to 1815 affords many examples of the difficulty of the problem and

of the dangers which beset its solution.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I.

THE RULERS AND MINISTERS OF THE GREAT POWERS OF EUROPE, 1789–1815.

(_Capitals indicate Rulers; small capitals, Chief Ministers; and

italics, Foreign Ministers._

+-----+---------------------+---------------------+----------------------+

+-----+---------------------+---------------------+----------------------+

| | since 1765; ruler of| 1760). | 1774). |

|1790.|LEOPOLD II. (Feb.) | | |

| | | | (Aug.) |

|1793.| | | _Deforgues_ (June). |

|1795.| | |DIRECTORY (Oct.) |

|1796.| | | |

| | | | |

|1798.| | | |

| | | | |

|1800.| | | |

|1802.| | | |

|1803.| | | |

|1804.| |WILLIAM PITT (May). | |

| | | (Feb.) | |

|1808.| | | |

| | | | |

| | | (Dec.) | |

| | | (Oct.) | |

| | | (Dec.) | |

|1810.| | | |

| | | | |

|1811.| | | _Maret_ (April). |

|1812.| | _Lord Castlereagh_ | |

|1813.| | |_Caulaincourt_ (Nov.)|

|1814.| | |LOUIS XVIII. |

+-----+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+

+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+-----+

| | | | |

+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+-----+

| (since 1786). | 1762). | Dec. 1788). | |

| | | | |

| | | |1790.|

| _Schulemburg_ (May).| | |1791.|

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | |1793.|

| | | |1794.|

| | | | |

| | | |1795.|

| | | | |

| |PAUL I. (Nov.) | |1796.|

|FREDERICK WILLIAM | | |1797.|

| | | _Saavedra_ (March). |1798.|

| | | |1799.|

| | | | |

| | |GODOY (Dec.) |1800.|

| |ALEXANDER I. (Mar.) | |1801.|

| | | | |

| | VORONZOV. | |1802.|

| | | |1803.|

| | (May). | | |

| | | |1805.|

|HARDENBERG (Nov.) | (Aug.) | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | |JOSEPH BONAPARTE. |1808.|

| | | |1809.|

| | | | |

| | | |1811.|

| | | |1812.|

| | | | |

| | | |1813.|

| | |FERDINAND VII. |1814.|

| | | | |

+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+-----+

APPENDIX II.

THE RULERS OF THE SECOND-RATE POWERS OF EUROPE, 1789–1815.

+----+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

| | | | | |

+----+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

|1790| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1791| | | | |

|1792| (March.) | | | |

| | | | | |

|1793| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1794| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1795| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1796| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1797| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1798| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1799| | | |_Prince John, |

|1800| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1801| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1802| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1803| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1804| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1805| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1806| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1807| | |Mustapha IV. | |

| | | | (May.) | |

|1809|Charles XIII. | | | |

| | (May.) | | | |

|1810|_Bernadotte, | | | |

| | (Aug.)_ | | | |

|1811| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1812| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1813| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1814| | | | |

| | | | | |

|1815| | | | |

+----+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+----+

+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+----+

| 1773.) | | 1777.) | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | |1790|

| | | | | |

| | | | |1791|

| | | | | |

| | | | |1792|

| | | | | |

| | | | |1793|

| | | | | |

| | | | |1794|

| | | | | |

| | | |Frederick |1795|

|Charles Emmanuel| | | |1796|

| | | |Frederick I. |1797|

| | | | (Dec.) | |

| | | | |1798|

| | | | | |

| | |Maximilian | |1799|

| | | | |1800|

| | | | | |

| | | | |1801|

| | | | | |

|Victor Emmanuel | | | |1802|

| | | | |1803|

| |----------------| | | |

| | Naples. | | |1804|

| |----------------| | | |

| | | | |1805|

| | | | | |

| |Joseph | | |1806|

| | | | |1807|

| | | | | |

| |Joachim Murat. | | |1808|

| | | | |1809|

| | | | | |

| | | | |1810|

| | | | | |

| | | | |1811|

| | | | | |

| | | | |1812|

| | | | | |

| | | | |1813|

| | | | | |

| |Ferdinand IV | | |1814|

| | | | | |

| | | | |1815|

+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+----+

APPENDIX III.

THE FAMILY OF NAPOLEON.

Charles Bonaparte ==

b. 1746, d. 1785. |

+-----------------------------------------------------+------------------+-------------

| |

JOSEPH Alexandre ==(1779) Josephine = (1) NAPOLEON (1810)

b. 1768, de Beauharnais,| Tascher b. 1769, Marie

d. 1844. b. 1760, | de la d. 1821. Louise,

King of d. 1794. | Pagerie, of Austria,

Naples, | b. 1763, b. 1791,

1806–1808. | d. 1814. d. 1847.

King of | Duchess of

Spain, | Parma,

1808–1814. | 1815–47.

=(1794), |

Marie Julie |

Clary. |

| |

+-+---------+ +---------------------------------+

| | | |

Zénaide, Charlotte, Eugène de == (1806) Augusta Hortense, NAPOLEON II.,

b. 1801, b. 1802, Beauharnais | of Bavaria. b. 1783, b. 1811, d. 1832,

d. 1854, d. 1839, b. 1781, | d. 1837, King of Rome,

=1822, =1827, d. 1824. | =1802, 1811.

her her Viceroy of | Louis Duke of

cousin, cousin, Italy, 1805–1814.| Bonaparte, Reichstadt, 1818.

Charles Napoleon Duke of | King of

Lucien, Louis, son Leuchtenberg. | Holland.

Prince of Louis. and had issue. |

of _s.p._ |

Canino |

| |

and had |

issue. |

+----------+----------------

| |

Napoleon Napoleon == (1827)

Charles, Louis, | Charlotte

b. 1802, b. 1804, | Bonaparte.

d. 1807, d. 1831. |

chosen as Grand |

Napoleon’s Duke of |

heir Berg, |

(1805). 1808–1814. |

_s.p._

Letizia Ramolino,

b. 1750, d. 1839.

----+-------------+------------+-----------+------------+------------+

| | | | | |

LUCIEN, LOUIS, JÉROME, ÉLISA, PAULINE, CAROLINE,

b. 1775, b. 1778, b. 1784, b. 1777, b. 1780, b. 1782,

d. 1840, d. 1846, d. 1860, d. 1820, d. 1825, d. 1839,

Prince of King of King of Grand Duchess of =(1800),

Canino, Holland Westphalia Duchess of Guastalla Joachim

=(1794), (1806–1810) (1807–1814) Tuscany (1808–1814), Murat,

Christine =(1802), =(1803) (1808–1814), =(1801), King of

Boyer, Hortense Eliza =(1797), Charles Naples

=(1802), de Beau- Patterson Felix Leclerc, (1808–1814),

Alexandrine harnais. =(1807) Baciocchi, =(1803), |

de Bleschamp, | Catherine | Camillo, |

| | of Würtem- | Prince and had

| | burg. and had Borghese. issue.

and had | | issue. |

issue. | | |

| | Napoleon,

| | b. 1801,

| | d. 1804.

| |

| +------+--------+---------+

| | | |

| Jérome Napoleon Mathilde,

| Napoleon, Joseph, b. 1820,

| b. 1814, _Prince =Prince

| d. 1847. Napoleon_ Demidov.

| b. 1822,

| d. 1890,

| =(1859),

| Clothilde

| of Savoy.

| |

| +---------+---------+

----------+-------+ | | |

| | | |

NAPOLEON III.,==(1853) Eugénie Victor Louis Lætitia,

b. 1808, d. 1873. | de Montijo. Napoleon, Napoleon, b. 1866,

Emperor of the | b. 1862. b. 1864. =Duke of

French (1851–1870).| Aosta.

Napoleon Eugène,

Prince Imperial,

(1856–1879).

APPENDIX IV.

NAPOLEON’S MARSHALS.

+-------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+------------

+-------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+------------

|BERTHIER, |20 Nov. 1753 |22 May 1792 |13 June 1795 |19 May 1804

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|MASSÉNA, André. | 6 May 1756 |22 Aug. 1793 |20 Dec. 1793 | „

| | | | |

|AUGEREAU, Charles |21 Oct. 1757 | .. |25 Dec. 1793 | „

| | | | |

|BERNADOTTE, Jean |26 Jan. 1763 |26 June 1794 |22 Oct. 1794 | „

| | | | |

| | | | |

|BRUNE, Guillaume |13 May 1763 | .. |17 Aug. 1797 | „

| | | | |

| | | | |

|MORTIER, Adolphe |13 Feb. 1768 |23 Feb. 1799 |25 Sept. 1799| „

| | | | |

|NEY, Michel. |10 Jan. 1769 | 1 Aug. 1796 |28 March 1799| „

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|LEFEBVRE, François |15 Oct. 1755 | 2 Dec. 1793 |10 Jan. 1794 | „

| | | | |

|PÉRIGNON, Dominique|31 May 1754 | .. |25 Dec. 1793 | „

| | | | |

|SÉRURIER, Jean | 8 Dec. 1742 |22 Aug. 1793 |13 June 1795 | „

| | | | |

| | | | |

|MACDONALD, Jacques |17 Nov. 1765 |26 Aug. 1793 |28 Nov. 1794 |12 July 1809

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|PONIATOWSKI, | 7 May 1762 | .. | .. | Oct. 1813

| | | | |

+-------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+------------

+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

| Titles. | Notes. |

+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

|Prince-Duke of Neufchâtel 15 March|Peer of France 1814; committed suicide|

| 1806; Prince of Wagram 31 Dec. | or was murdered at Bamberg 1 June |

| 1809. | 1815. |

| | |

|Prince 1 Feb. 1805; Grand Duke of |Shot at Pizzo in Italy 13 Oct. 1815. |

| Berg 15 March 1806; King of | |

| Naples 1 Aug. 1808. | |

| | |

|Duke of Conegliano 2 July 1808. |Governor of the Hôtel des Invalides |

| | 1833–42; diedat Paris 20 April 1842.|

| | |

|Count 1 March 1808. |Peer of France 1814 and 1819; Governor|

| | of the Hôtel des Invalides 1830–33; |

| | died at Paris 23 Nov. 1833. |

| | |

|Duke of Rivoli 24 April 1808; |Died at Paris 4 April 1817. |

| of Essling 31 Jan. 1810. | |

| | |

|Duke of Castiglione 26 April 1808.|Peer of France 1814; died at |

| | La Houssaye 12 June 1816. |

| | |

|Prince of Ponte Corvo 5 June 1806;|King of Sweden 5 Feb. 1818; died at |

| Crown Prince of Sweden 21 Aug. | Stockholm 8 March 1844. |

| 1810. | |

| | |

|Duke of Dalmatia 29 June 1808. |Minister for War Dec. 1814-March 1815;|

| | Peer of France June 1815; exiled |

| | 1815–19; Peer of France 1827; |

| | Minister for War 1830–34, 1840–45; |

| | Marshal-General 1847; died at Saint |

| | Amans 26 Nov. 1851. |

| | |

|Count 1 March 1808. |Peer of France 2 June 1815; murdered |

| | at Avignon 2 Aug. 1815. |

| | |

|Duke of Montebello 15 June 1808. |Mortally wounded at the battle of |

| | Aspern; died at Vienna 31 May 1809. |

| | |

|Duke of Treviso 2 July 1808. |Peer of France 1814 and 1819; |

| | Ambassador to Russia 1830–31; |

| | Chancellor of the Legion of Honour |

| | 1831; Minister for War 1834–35; |

| | killed by the explosion of an |

| | infernal machine at Paris 28 July |

| | 1835. |

| | |

|Duke of Elchingen, 5 May 1808; |Peer of France 1814; shot at Paris 7 |

| Prince of the Moskowa 25 March | Dec. 1815. |

| 1813. | |

| | |

|Duke of Auerstädt 2 July 1808; |Minister for War 1815; Peer of France |

| Prince of Eckmühl 28 Nov. 1809. | at Paris 1 June 1823. |

| | |

|Duke of Istria 28 May 1809. |Killed at Lutzen 1 May 1813. |

| | |

|Count 1 March 1808; Duke of Valmy |Peer of France 1814; died at Paris 13 |

| 2 May 1808. | Sept. 1820. |

| | |

|Count 1 March 1808; Duke of |Peer of France 1814 and 1819; died at |

| Dantzic 10 Sept. 1808. | Paris 14 Sept. 1820. |

| | |

|Count 6 Sept. 1811. |Peer of France 1814; created a Marquis|

| | 1817; died at Paris 25 Dec. 1818. |

| | |

|Count 1 March 1808. |Governor of the Hôtel des Invalides, |

| | 1804–15; Peer of France 1814; died |

| | at Paris 21 Dec. 1819. |

| | |

|Duke of Belluno 10 Sept. 1808. |Peer of France 1815; Minister of War |

| | 1821–23; died at Paris 1 March 1841.|

| | |

|Duke of Taranto 9 Dec. 1809. |Peer of France 1814; Chancellor of the|

| | Legion of Honour 1815–31; died at |

| | Courcelles 7 Sept. 1840. |

| | |

|Count 2 July 1808; Duke of Reggio |Peer of France 1814; Chancellor of the|

| 14 April 1810. | Legion of Honour 1839–47; Governor |

| | of the Hôtel des Invalides 1842–47; |

| | died at Paris 13 Sept 1847. |

| | |

|Duke of Ragusa 28 June 1808. |Peer of France 1814; Ambassador to |

| | Russia 1826–28; died at Venice 22 |

| | July 1852. |

| | |

|Count 24 June 1808; Duke of |Peer of France 1814 and 1819; died |

| Albufera 3 Jan. 1813. | near Marseilles 3 Jan. 1826. |

| | |

|Count 3 May 1808. |Peer of France 1814; Minister for War |

| | July-Sept. 1815, 1817–19; created a |

| | Marquis 1819; died at Hyères 17 |

| | March 1830. |

| | |

| .... |Drowned in the Elster at the battle of|

| | Leipzig 19 Oct. 1813. |

| | |

|Count 28 Jan. 1809. |Exiled 1815–20; restored as Marshal |

| | 1831; died 29 May 1847. |

+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

APPENDIX V.

NAPOLEON’S MINISTERS DURING THE CONSULATE AND EMPIRE 1799–1814.

+-----+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------

+-----+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------

| | | | 15 Aug. 1809.) |

| | | | |

| „ | „ |25 Dec. Lucien | „ | „

| | | | |

|1800.| „ | „ | „ |12 April. Lazare

| | | | |

| „ | „ |6 Nov. Jean Antoine | „ |8 Oct. Louis

| | | 1808; | | Neufchâtel

| | | | | 31 Dec. 1809.)

| | | | |

|1801.| „ | „ | „ | „

| | | | |

|1802.| „ | „ | „ | „

| | | | |

|1803.| „ | „ | „ | „

| | | | |

|1804.| „ |1 Aug. Jean Baptiste| „ | „

| | | | |

|1805.| „ | „ | „ | „

| | | | |

|1806.| „ | „ | „ | „

| | | | |

| | 15 Aug. 1809.) | | | 1809.)

| | | | |

|1808.| „ | „ | „ | „

| | | | |

|1809.| „ |1 Oct. Jean Pierre | „ | „

| | | 1808.) | |

| | | | |

|1810.| „ | „ | „ | „

| | | | |

|1811.|17 April. Hugues | „ | „ | „

| | 15 Aug. 1809.) | | |

| | | | |

|1812.| „ | „ | „ | „

| | | | |

|1813.|20 Nov. Armand | „ | „ | „

| | 1808.) | | |

| | | | |

|1814.| „ | „ | „ | „

+-----+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------

+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+-----+

+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+-----|

| | 1808.) | | | |

| | | | | |

| „ |25 Dec. André Joseph| | | „ |

| | 1808.) | | | |

| „ | | | |1800.|

| | | | | |

| „ | | | | „ |

| | | | | |

|1 Oct. Denis DECRÈS.| | | |1801.|

| | | | | |

| „ |15 Sept. Claude |15 Sept. (_Ministry | |1802.|

| | 15 Aug. 1809.) | | | |

| | | | | |

| „ | „ | | |1803.|

| | | | | |

| „ | „ |10 July. Joseph | July. Jean Étienne |1804.|

| | | 15 Aug. 1809.) | | |

| | | | | |

| „ | „ | „ | „ |1805.|

| | | | | |

| „ | „ | „ | „ |1806.|

| | | | | |

| „ | „ | „ | Aug. Félix Julíen |1807.|

| | | | 1808.) | |

| | | | | |

| „ | „ | „ | „ |1808.|

| | | | | |

| „ | „ | „ | „ |1809.|

| | | | | |

| „ | „ | June 8. Anne Jean | „ |1810.|

| | | 1808.) | | |

| | | | | |

| „ | „ | „ | „ |1811.|

| | | | | |

| „ | „ | „ | „ |1812.|

| | | | | |

| „ | „ | „ | „ |1813.|

| | | | | |

| „ | „ | | |1814.|

+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+-----+

APPENDIX VI.

CONCORDANCE OF THE REPUBLICAN AND GREGORIAN CALENDARS

(Extracted from Stephens’ _History of the French Revolution_, vol. ii.

(Longmans and Co.))

+----------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------

| | YEAR II. | YEAR III. | YEAR IV.

| | 1793–1794. | 1794–1795. | 1795–1796.

+----------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------

| | | |

| 1 Vendémiaire, |22 September 1793.|22 September 1794.|23 September 1795.

|11 „ | 2 October. | 2 October. | 3 October.

|21 „ |12 October. |12 October. |13 October.

| 1 Brumaire, |22 October. |22 October. |23 October.

|11 „ | 1 November. | 1 November. | 2 November.

|21 „ |11 November. |11 November. |12 November.

| 1 Frimaire, |21 November. |21 November. |22 November.

|11 „ | 1 December. | 1 December. | 2 December.

|21 „ |11 December. |11 December. |12 December.

| 1 Nivôse, |21 December. |21 December. |22 December.

|11 „ |31 December. |31 December. | 1 January 1796.

|21 „ |10 January 1794. |10 January 1795. |11 January.

| 1 Pluviôse, |20 January. |20 January. |21 January.

|11 „ |30 January. |30 January. |31 January.

|21 „ | 9 February. | 9 February. |10 February.

| 1 Ventôse, |19 February. |19 February. |20 February.

|11 „ | 1 March. | 1 March. | 1 March.

|21 „ |11 March. |11 March. |11 March.

| 1 Germinal, |21 March. |21 March. |21 March.

|11 „ |31 March. |31 March. |31 March.

|21 „ |10 April. |10 April. |10 April.

| 1 Floréal, |20 April. |20 April. |20 April.

|11 „ |30 April. |30 April. |30 April.

|21 „ |10 May. |10 May. |10 May.

| 1 Prairial, |20 May. |20 May. |20 May.

|11 „ |30 May. |30 May. |30 May.

|21 „ | 9 June. | 9 June. |9 June.

| 1 Messidor, |19 June. |19 June. |19 June.

|11 „ |29 June. |29 June. |29 June.

|21 „ | 9 July. | 9 July. | 9 July.

| 1 Thermidor, |19 July. |19 July. |19 July.

|11 „ |29 July. |29 July. |29 July.

|21 „ | 8 August. | 8 August. | 8 August.

|1 Fructidor, |18 August. |18 August. |18 August.

|11 „ |28 August. |28 August. |28 August.

|21 „ | 7 September. | 7 September. | 7 September.

|1st Complementary Day,| | |

| or ‘Sans-Culottide,’|17 September. |17 September. |17 September.

|5th Complementary Day,| | |

| or ‘Sans-Culottide,’|21 September. |21 September. |21 September.

|6th Complementary Day,| | |

| or ‘Sans-Culottide.’| |22 September. |

+----------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------

NOTE.--Each month in the Republican Calendar consisted of _thirty_ days.

+------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+

| 1796–1797. | 1797–1798. | 1798–1799. | 1799–1800. |

+------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+

| | | | |

|10 May. |10 May. |10 May. |10 May. |

|20 May. |20 May. |20 May. |20 May. |

|30 May. |30 May. |30 May. |30 May. |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| .. | .. |22 September. | .. |

+------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+

MAPS.

Map 1. Europe in 1789.

„ 2. Europe in 1803.

„ 3. Europe in 1810.

„ 4. Europe in 1815.

These maps are intended to show the limits of the principal states of

Europe at the beginning of 1789, after the rearrangement in 1803, at

the height of Napoleon’s power in 1810, and according to the settlement

made by the Congress of Vienna in 1815.

The same colouring has been preserved through the series of maps in

order that the boundaries of each country may be compared at these

different dates.

The red line in Map 1 marks the boundary of the Holy Roman Empire.

The area in Germany left uncoloured—in all four maps—was occupied by

various states too small in size to be indicated by colours.

[Illustration: EUROPE IN 1789.

Period VII. John Bartholomew & Co., Edin^r.

_The Red line marks the limits of the Holy Roman Empire._]

[Illustration: EUROPE IN 1803.

Period VII. John Bartholomew & Co., Edin^r.]

[Illustration: EUROPE IN 1810.

Period VII. John Bartholomew & Co., Edin^r.]

[Illustration: EUROPE IN 1815.

Period VII. John Bartholomew & Co., Edin^r.]

INDEX

The dates given in brackets are those of the birth and death of the

person indexed; where only the date of death is known it is preceded by

a ♰.

Full names and titles are given.

Proper names commencing with ‘da,’ ‘de,’ ‘d’,’ are indexed under the

succeeding initial letter.

Abdul Hamid (1725–89), Sultan of Turkey, 44.

Abensberg, battle of (20 April 1809), 272.

Abercromby, Sir Ralph, English general (1735–1801), 224.

Aberdeen, George Gordon, Earl of, English diplomatist (1784–1860),

301, 311, 316, 323.

Abo, treaty of (April 1812), 302.

Aboukir Bay, French fleet defeated in, by Nelson (1 August 1798), 195.

Abrantes, Duke of. _See_ Junot.

Abrial, André Joseph, Comte, French statesman (1750–1828), 216.

Acre, siege of (1799), 208.

Acton, Joseph, Neapolitan statesman (1737–1808), 23.

Adda, the, Bonaparte forces the passage of, at Lodi (1796), 174;

Suvórov, at Cassano (1799), 203.

Addington, Henry, Viscount Sidmouth, English statesman (1757–1844),

225.

Additional Act, the, declared by Napoleon (23 April 1815), 352.

Adige, the, Italy up to, ceded to Austria by treaty of Campo-Formio

(1797), 192;

by treaty of Lunéville (1801), 220;

Austrian positions on, turned by Macdonald (1800), 219.

Adlersparre, George, Baron, Swedish general (1760–1837), 279.

Aix-la-Chapelle, a free city of the Holy Roman Empire, 35, 150, 230,

344.

Albuera, battle of (16 May 1811), 297.

Albufera, battle of (26 Dec. 1811), 297.

—— Duke of. _See_ Suchet.

Aldenhoven, battle of (2 Oct. 1794), 150.

Alessandria, fortress built at, by Victor Amadeus III., 27, 203, 204,

218.

Alexander I., Emperor of Russia (1777–1825), attitude at his

accession, 234;

joins coalition against France, 242, 243;

defeated at Austerlitz, 244;

at Eylau and Friedland, 248, 249;

interview with Napoleon at Tilsit, 249, 250;

makes treaty of Tilsit, 250;

conquers Finland, 254, 278;

acquisitions in Poland, and dislike of Grand Duchy of Warsaw, 261;

interview with Napoleon at Erfurt, 262;

conduct in 1809, 274;

war with Turkey, 281;

makes treaty of Bucharest, 281;

refuses a sister to Napoleon, 294;

causes of dissension with Napoleon, 299–301;

makes treaty of Abo with Bernadotte, 302;

summons Stein to his Court, 304;

his policy of retreat before Napoleon (1812), 305;

fights battle of Borodino, 305;

negotiates with Napoleon, 306;

forms friendship with Frederick William III. of Prussia, 308;

distrust of Napoleon, 310;

agrees to Proposals of Frankfort, 316;

desires to invade France, 317;

refuses to retreat, 319, 320;

enters Paris, 329;

influenced by Talleyrand, 329, 330;

speech to the French Senate, 330, 331;

greatness of his share in overthrowing Napoleon, 334;

at the Congress of Vienna, 337;

his desire for the whole of Poland, 339;

forced to give way, 340, 341;

gave constitution to Poland, 342;

protected Murat and Eugène de Beauharnais, 345;

signs treaty against Napoleon (1815), 350;

opposes partition of France, 354;

joins the Holy Alliance, 355.

Alexandria, 195, 224.

Alicante, Bentinck repulsed at (1812), 307.

Alkmaar, Convention of (18 Oct. 1799), 205.

Almeida, siege of (1811), 296.

Alps, French reach the summit of Mont Cenis (1795), 151;

Suvórov crosses (1799), 204, 205;

Bonaparte (1800), 218;

Macdonald (1800), 219.

Alsace, rights of the Princes of the Empire in, 79;

proposals of Mirabeau and Merlin, 80;

letter of Leopold on, 89, 90;

_conclusion_ of the Diet of the Empire on, 108;

invaded by Würmser, 130, 139;

recovered by the French (1794), 140;

proposal to detach from France (1815), 354.

Altdorf, Suvórov reaches (1799), 204.

Altenkirchen, battle of (20 Sept. 1796), 178.

Alton, Richard, Count d’, Austrian general (1732–90), 43, 47, 48, 63,

64.

Alvensleben, Philip Charles, Count von, Prussian statesman

(1745–1802), 153, 170, 179.

Alvinzi (Alvinczy), Joseph, Austrian general (1735–1810), 176.

America, South, 264, 358.

—— United States of. _See_ United States.

_Ami du Peuple,_ Marat’s journal, 61.

Amiens, treaty of (1802), 225.

Amnesty, general, decreed by the Convention (1795), 166.

—— law of, promulgated (1815), 357.

Amsterdam, 32, 149, 255.

Ancients, Council of. _See_ Council.

Ancona, 175, 207, 277.

Angoulême, Maria Thérèse Charlotte, Duchess of, daughter of Louis XVI.

(1778–1851), 168.

—— Louis Antoine, Duke of, son of the Comte d’Artois (1775–1844), 326,

327.

Anhalt, the Dukes of, Princes of the Empire (1789), 34, 343.

Anhalt-Köthen, Louis, Duke of (1761–1819), 293.

Anhalt-Zerbst, the Empress Catherine, a princess of, 18.

Ankarström, John James, Swedish officer (1761–1792), 110.

Anselme, Jacques Bernard Modeste d’, French general (1740–1812), 117.

Anspach, Napoleon violates Prussian neutrality by marching through

(1805), 244.

Antwerp, riot against the Austrians suppressed at (1788), 47;

abandoned to the Belgian patriots (1789), 64;

Napoleon’s buildings at, 276;

Carnot’s defence of (1814), 321;

its retention cause of Napoleon’s fall, 324.

Aoust, Eustache, Comte d’, French general (1764–94), 140.

Appenzell, democratic canton of Switzerland, maintained by Bonaparte

(1803), 228.

Aranda, Don Pedro Pablo Abaracay Bolea, Count of, Spanish statesman

(1718–99), 4, 21, 126.

Archbishop-Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, 34, 39, 40.

Arcis-sur-Aube battle of (20 March 1814), 328.

Arcola, battle of (16 Nov. 1796), 176.

Aremberg, Louis Engelbert, Duke of (1750–1820), 93.

—— Prosper Louis, Duke of (1785–1863), 282.

Argau, canton of Switzerland, formed by Bonaparte (1803), 228;

recognised by Congress of Vienna (1815), 344.

Aristocracy, Napoleon’s, 286.

Armistices: Cherasco (1796), 174;

Foligno (1796), 175;

Giurgevo (1790), 88; Pleswitz (1813), 309.

Arndt, Ernest Maurice, German poet (1769–1862), 291.

Arragon, Suchet’s campaigns in, 275, 295.

Arras, atrocities of Le Bon at (1794), 139.

Artois, Charles Philippe, Comte d’, younger brother of Louis XVI.,

afterwards King Charles X. of France (1757–1836), 55, 59, 102,

139, 167, 172, 351.

Aschaffenburg, principality of, granted to the Elector of Mayence,

225, 260.

Aspern or Essling, battle of (21, 22 May 1809), 273.

Assignats issued in France, 74;

their effect, 98.

Aubert-Dubayet, Jean Baptiste Annibal, French general (1759–1797),

166, 182.

Auckland, William Eden, Lord, English diplomatist (1744–1814), 65, 93.

Auerstädt, battle of (14 Oct. 1806), 247.

—— Duke of. _See_ Davout.

Augereau, Charles Pierre François, Duke of Castiglione, French general

(1757–1816), 191, 219, 321; App. iv.

Augsburg, Bishop of, an ecclesiastical prince of the Holy Roman

Empire, 34.

—— bishopric of, merged in Bavaria (1803), 227.

—— city of, a free city of the Empire (1789), 35;

taken by Moreau (1800), 219;

maintained as a free city (1803), 226;

Masséna’s headquarters (1809), 272.

Augusta, Princess, of Bavaria married to Eugène de Beauharnais, 258.

Augustus, Prince, of Prussia (1779–1843), 337.

Aulic Council, the, 35.

Austerlitz, battle of (2 Dec. 1805), 244.

Austria, position in 1789, 14–17;

influence in the Empire, 35;

obtained cessions by the treaty of Sistova (1791), 88;

got nothing in the second partition of Poland (1793), 122;

received Cracow, etc. at third partition of Poland (1795), 152;

received Venice for Lombardy by treaty of Campo-Formio (1797), 192;

and by treaty of Lunéville (1801), 220;

obtained Trent and Brixen, but lost much influence in the

resettlement of Germany (1803), 226;

formed into an empire (1805), 236;

lost Venice, Istria, the Tyrol, etc. by treaty of Pressburg (1805),

245;

lost Trieste, Galicia, Salzburg, etc. by treaty of Vienna (1809),

274;

at Congress of Vienna (1814) got back Cracow, 342, and Lombardy and

Venetia, 347.

_See_ Francis II., Joseph II., Leopold II.

Austrian Netherlands. _See_ Belgium.

Auvergne, movement against the Convention in (1793), 131.

Avignon, city of, wishes to join France (1790), 76;

secured to France by first treaty of Paris (1814), 333;

and by second treaty of Paris (1815), 354.

Babeuf, François Noël (Gracchus), French socialist (1764–97), 181.

Badajoz, treaty of (1801), 223;

taken by Soult (1810), 296;

by Wellington (1812), 306.

Baden, condition in 1789, 37;

made an electorate (1803), 225;

increased by the secularisations (1803), 227;

made a grand duchy (1806), 245;

received Ortenau and the Breisgau (1809), 258;

a state of the Confederation of the Rhine (1808), 260;

of the Germanic Confederation (1815), 342.

_See_ Charles Frederick, Charles Louis Frederick.

Bagration, Peter, Prince, Russian general (1762–1812), 281, 305.

Bailly, Jean Sylvain, French statesman (1736–93), 53, 59, 138.

Baird, Sir David, English general (1757–1829), 224.

Ball, Sir Alexander John, English admiral (1759–1809), 195.

Baltic Sea, effort to exclude English commerce from, 222;

command of, given to Russia and Prussia by the Congress of Vienna,

347.

Bamberg, Bishop of, an ecclesiastical prince of the Holy Roman Empire,

34.

—— bishopric of, merged in Bavaria (1803), 227.

Bank of France, founded by Bonaparte, 215.

Bantry Bay, French expedition to (1796), 185.

Barbé-Marbois, François, Comte de, French statesman (1745–1837), 188,

191, 214.

Barclay de Tolly, Michael, Prince, Russian general (1755–1818), 305,

309, 313.

Barentin, Charles Louis François de

Paule de, French minister (1738–1819), 51.

Barère, Bertrand, French orator (1755–1841), 117, 133, 134, 145, 149,

155.

Barnave, Antoine Pierre Joseph

Marie, French politician (1761–93), 100.

Barras, Paul François Jean Nicolas,

Comte de, French statesman (1755–1829), 147, 164, 165;

nominates Bonaparte to command the armyof Italy, 174;

his attitude as a Director, 181;

co-operates in _coup d’état_ of Fructidor 1797, 191;

only original Director left (July 1799), 209, 210;

resigns (Nov. 1799), 211.

Barrosa, battle of (5 March 1811), 297.

Bartenstein, treaty of (April 1807), 248.

Barthélemy, François, Marquis de,

French diplomatist (1747–1830), 156, 188, 189, 191.

Basire, Claude, French politician (1764–94), 117.

Basle, Bishop of, an ecclesiastical

prince of the Holy Roman Empire, 34, 41;

with fiefs in Alsace, 79.

—— bishopric of, part ceded to Baden (1803), 227;

part to canton of Berne (1815), 345.

—— canton of Switzerland, maintained by Bonaparte (1803), 228.

—— treaties of (1795), 156, 157.

Basque Roads, affair in the (1809), 276.

Bassano, Duke of. _See_ Maret.

Bastille, capture of the (14 July 1789), 57, 58.

Batavian Republic founded (1795), 150;

imitates the French constitutions, 193;

turned into the kingdom of Holland (1806), 254, 255.

Battles: Abensberg (1809), 272;

Albuera (1811), 297;

Albufera (1811), 297;

Aldenhoven (1794), 150;

Alexandria (1801), 224;

Altenkirchen (1796), 178;

Arcis-sur-Aube (1814), 328;

Arcola (1796), 176;

Aspern (Essling) (1809), 273;

Auerstädt (1806), 247;

Austerlitz (1805), 244;

Barrosa (1811), 297;

Bautzen (1813), 309;

Bergen (1799), 205;

Biberach (1800), 219;

Borodino (1812), 305;

Braila (1809), 281;

Brienne (1814), 319;

Burgos (1808), 269;

Busaco (1810), 296;

Cairo (1799), 208;

Caldiero (1796), 176;

Caldiero (1805), 244;

Camperdown (1797), 194;

Cassano (1799), 203;

Castiglione (1796), 175;

Ceva (1796), 174;

Champaubert (1814), 319;

Copenhagen (1801), 222;

Corunna (1809), 270;

Craonne (1814), 328;

Dego (1796), 174;

Dennewitz (1813), 313;

Dresden (1813), 312;

Dubienka (1792), 122;

Eckmühl (1809), 273;

Elchingen (1805), 244;

Engen (1800), 219;

Espinosa (1808), 269;

Essling (Aspern) (1809), 273;

Ettlingen (1796), 178;

Eylau (1807), 248;

Famars (1793), 130;

Figueras (1794), 150;

First of June (1794), 145;

Fleurus (1794), 144;

Foksany (1788), 45;

Friedland (1807), 249;

Fuentes de Onor (1811), 297;

the Geisberg (1793), 140;

Genola (1799), 204;

Giurgevo (1790), 88;

Gross-Beeren (1813), 312;

Gross-Gorschen (Lützen) (1813), 309;

Hanau (1813), 314;

Heliopolis (1800), 224;

Hohenlinden (1800), 219;

Hondschoten (1793), 140;

Jemmappes (1792), 118;

Jena (1806), 247;

Kaiserslautern (1794), 144;

the Katzbach (1813), 312;

Kioge (1807), 252;

Laon (1814), 328;

Leipzig (1813), 314;

Ligny (1815), 352;

Loano (1795), 151, 173;

Lodi (1796), 174;

Lützen (Gross-Gorschen) (1813), 309;

Maciejowice (1794), 152;

Magnano (1799), 202;

Maida (1806), 256;

Marengo (1800), 218;

Matchin (1791), 96;

Medellin (1809), 275;

Medina del Rio Seco (1808), 267;

Millesimo (1796), 174;

the Mincio (1814), 322;

Mœskirchen (1800), 219;

Mondovi (1796), 174;

Montebello (1800), 218;

Montenotte (1796), 174;

Montereau (1814), 319;

Montmirail (1814), 319;

Mount Tabor (1799), 208;

Nangis (1814), 319;

Neerwinden (1793), 127;

Neumarkt (1797), 186;

the Nile (Aboukir Bay) (1798), 195;

the Nive (1813), 316;

the Nivelle (1813), 316;

Novi (1799), 204;

Ocana (1809), 276;

Orthez (1814), 321;

Pacy-sur-Eure (1793), 131;

Paris (1814), 329;

the Pyramids (1798), 195;

Quatre Bras (1815), 352;

Raab (1809), 273;

Raclawice (1794), 151;

Rivoli (1797), 176;

Roliça (1808), 265;

the Rymnik (1788), 45;

Sacilio (1809), 273;

St. Vincent (1797), 183;

Salamanca (1812), 306;

Saorgio (1794), 144;

Silistria (1809), 281;

Stockach (1799), 202;

Svenska Sound (1790), 95;

Talavera (1809), 275, 276;

Tobac (1788), 45;

Tolentino (1815), 346;

Toulouse (1814), 332;

Trafalgar (1805), 245;

the Trebbia (1799), 203;

Tudela (1808), 269;

Unzmarkt (1797), 186;

Valmy (1792), 115;

Valsarno (1813), 315;

Vauchamps (1814), 319;

Vimeiro (1808), 265, 266;

Vittoria (1813), 315;

Wagram (1809), 274;

Waterloo (1815), 353;

Wattignies (1793), 140;

Zielence (1792), 121, 122;

Zurich (1799), 204.

Bautzen, battle of (20 May 1813), 309.

Bavaria, the Emperor Joseph’s designs on, 16, 17;

its Elector also Elector Palatine, 34;

condition in 1789, 37;

invaded by Moreau (1796), 178;

treaty of Pfaffenhofen, 180;

promised to Austria by Bonaparte (1797), 193;

occupied by Moreau (1800), 219;

increased by the secularisations (1803), 227;

invaded by the Austrians (1805), 243;

receives the Tyrol and becomes a kingdom (1806), 245;

receives Salzburg (1809), 257;

member of the Confederation of the Rhine, 260;

invaded by the Austrians (1809), 272;

great internal reforms, 289;

member of the Germanic Confederation (1815), 342;

receives Mayence for the Tyrol (1815), 344. _See_ Charles Theodore,

Maximilian Joseph.

Baylen, capitulation of (1808), 267, 268.

Bayonne besieged by the English (1813, 1814), 316, 321.

Beauharnais, Eugène de, step-son of Napoleon (1781–1824), 236, 238,

239, 244, 255, 256, 273, 308, 315, 321, 322, 345.

Beaulieu, Jean Pierre, Baron de, Austrian general (1725–1820), 174.

Beccaria, Cæsar Bonesana, Marquis de, Italian philosopher (1738–94),

26.

Belgium, opposition to the Emperor Joseph’s reforms in (1788), 15;

his apparent success, 43;

armed resistance in, 47;

abolition of Belgian liberties, 47, 48;

the Austrians driven from (1789), 64;

the Belgian Republic formed (Jan. 1790), 65;

struggle between the Van der Nootists and Vonckists, 92, 93;

reconquered by the Austrians (Dec. 1790), 94;

conquered by the French under Dumouriez (1792), 118;

annexed to the French Republic, 118;

rises against the French (1793), 126;

Dumouriez driven from (1793), 127;

reconquered by the French (1794), 144;

organised as part of the French Republic, 150;

cession to France agreed to by Austria at Leoben, 186;

and at Campo-Formio (1797), 192, 193;

organised into nine French departments, 230;

England insists on its separation from France, 318;

invaded by the Prince of Orange (1814), 321;

Napoleon refuses to give up, 324;

united with Holland into the kingdom of the Netherlands (1815), 344,

360.

Belgrade, taken by the Austrians (1789), 45.

Bellegarde, Henri, Comte de, Austrian general (1755–1831), on the

Mincio (1814), 322.

Belluno, Duke of. _See_ Victor.

Bender, city of, taken by the Russians (1789), 45.

—— Blaise Colombeau, Baron, Austrian general (1713–98), 65, 93, 94.

Benevento, principality of, belonged to the Pope in 1789, 24;

Talleyrand made prince of, 277.

Benezech, Pierre, French administrator (1745–1802), 166.

Benningsen, Levin Augustus Theophilus, Count, Russian general

(1745–1826), 221, 248, 249, 311.

Bentinck, Lord William Charles Cavendish, English general (1774–1839),

307, 315, 322, 346.

Beresford, William Carr, Viscount, English general (1770–1856), 266,

297.

Berg, grand duchy of, created for Murat (1806), its extent, 252;

member of the Confederation of the Rhine, 260;

conferred on son of Louis Bonaparte (1808), 283.

Bergen, battles of (19 Sept. and 2 Oct. 1799), 205.

Bergen-op-Zoom, English repulsed from (1814), 321.

Berlin, occupied by Napoleon (1806), 247;

decree issued at (1807), 251;

University of, founded, 303, 304;

the French driven from (1813), 308.