READING HALL

THE DOORS OF WISDOM

A HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE : A.D. 1453-1900

CHAPTER XLII.

REVIEW OF THE PERIOD, 1648-1789

AT this epoch it may be advantageous to cast a glance on some of the characteristics of the period extending from formation the Peace of Westphalia to the first French Revolution.

The wars which sprung out of the Reformation were closed by the Thirty Years’ War. So long a strife, if it did not extinguish, at least mitigated religious animosity; above all, Rome saw that she had no longer the power to excite and nourish it. The results, both of the war and the peace, must have convinced the most sanguine Pope that no reasonable expectation could any longer be entertained of subjugating the Protestants by force. Nearly all Europe had been engaged in the struggle, and the cause of Rome had been vanquished. Nay, the Papal Court had been even foiled in the more congenial field of negotiation and diplomacy. The influence exercised by the Papal Nuncios at the Congress of Munster had been quite insignificant. A peace entirely adverse to the Pope’s views had been concluded, against which, instead of those terrible anathemas which had once made Europe tremble, Innocent X. had contented himself with launching a feeble protest, which nobody, not even the Catholic Princes, regarded.

The Peace of Westphalia may, therefore, be considered as inaugurating a new era, whose character was essentially political and commercial. It is true that the religious element is not altogether eliminated in the intercourse of nations. The Catholic and the Protestant Powers have still, in some degree, different interests, and still more different views and sentiments; and in the great struggle, for instance, between Louis XIV and William III, the former monarch may in some measure be regarded as the representative of the Papacy, the latter of the Reformation. Yet in these contests political and commercial interests were altogether so predominant that what little of religion seems mixed up with them was only subservient to them, and a means rather than an end.

These changes were not without their effect on the intellectual condition of Europe. The same causes which produced the Reformation had set all the elements of thought in motion, and had given rise to great discoveries. The human mind seemed all at once to burst its shackles, and to march forth to new conquests. It was the age which showed the way. Columbus discovered a new hemisphere, Copernicus a new system of the universe, Bacon a new method of all sciences. Boldness and originality also characterized literature, and the age of the Reformation produced Shakespeare and Rabelais. The period following the treaty of Westphalia employed itself in working on the materials which the previous era had provided, and in setting them in order. It was the age of criticism and analysis. Intellectual efforts, if no longer so daring, were more correct. Science made less gigantic, but surer steps; literature, if less original, no longer offended by glaring blemishes at the side of inimitable beauties. The spirit of the age was best exhibited in France. French modes of thinking, French literature, French taste, French manners, became the standard of all Europe, and caused the period to be called the Age of Louis XIV. Its influence survived the reign of that Monarch, and gave an influence to France, even after her political preponderance had declined.

When we talk of the “Age of Pericles”, the “Age of Augustus”, the “Age of Louis XIV”, we naturally imply that the persons from whom those periods took their names exercised a considerable influence on the spirit by which they were characterized. In reality, however, this influence extended no further than to give a conventional tone and fashion. The intellectual condition which prevailed from about the middle of the seventeenth century till towards the close of the eighteenth was the natural result of the period which preceded it; and it might, perhaps, not be difficult to show that the same was the case with the two celebrated eras of Athens and Rome. It would be absurd to suppose that the patronage of the great can call works of genius into existence. Such patron­age, however, especially where there is no great general public to whom the authors of works of art and literature may address themselves, is capable of giving such works their form and colour—in short, of influencing the taste of their producers; and this is precisely what the Courts of Augustus and Louis XIV effected. The literature and art of the Athenian Commonwealth were subject to somewhat different conditions. Greek literature was not so much the literature of books as the Roman, and still more the modern. The appeal was chiefly oral, and made more directly to the public, but a public that has not been found elsewhere—a body of judges of the most critical taste and discernment. Hence Attic literature and art present an unrivalled combination of excellences; all the vigour and fire of originality, subdued by the taste of a grand jury of critics. We do not mean, however, to assert that the writers of the age of Augustus and Louis possessed no original genius, but only that it was kept more in check. It cannot be doubted, for instance, that Virgil and Horace, Racine and Moliere, possessed great original powers, which, in another state of society, they might probably have displayed in a different, and, perhaps, more vigorous fashion, but at the sacrifice of that propriety and elegance which distinguish their writings.

If Louis XIV claimed to represent the State in his own person, still more did he represent the Court, which set the fashion in dress and manners, as well as in literature. There was much, fortunately, in Louis’s character that was really refined, and which left an unmistakable impress on the nation. His manner towards women was marked by a noble and refined gallantry; towards men, by a dignified and courteous affability. He is said never to have passed a woman even of the lowest condition without raising his hat. There was no doubt a great deal of acting in all this; but it was good acting. He had made it his study to support the character of a great king with a becoming dignity and splendour, for he felt himself to be the centre of Europe as well as of France. Hence, as regards merely external manner, his Court has, perhaps, never been surpassed, and it is not surprising that it should have become a model to all Europe. It combined a dignified etiquette with graceful ease. Every one knew and acquiesced in his position, without being made to feel his inferiority. The King exacted that the higher classes should treat their inferiors with that polite consideration of which he himself gave the example. Thus the different ranks of society were brought nearer together without being confounded. The importance of the great nobility was reduced by multiplying the number of dukes and peers; while civic ministers and magistrates were loaded with titles, and brought almost to a level in point of ceremonial with persons of the highest birth. At the same time certain honorary privileges were reserved for the latter which afforded some compensation to their self-love. They alone could dine in public with the King; they alone could wear the cordon bleu and the justaucorps à brevet; a sort of costume adopted by the King, which could be worn only by royal licence, and established a sort of equality among the wearers. All these regulations tended to produce a mutual affability between the different classes, which spread from the Court through the nation, and produced a universal politeness. Hence French society attained an unrivalled elegance of manner, which it retained down to the Revolution. There was nothing that could be compared to the Court of France and French society. Hence also the French language attained a grace and polish which render it so admirable an instrument of polite conversation, and caused its general diffusion in Europe. The Courts of Austria and Spain were shackled by a cold and formal etiquette, destructive of all wit, taste, and fancy. The only Court which approached the French was that of England under Charles II. Essentially, perhaps, Charles was not more immoral than Louis; but he wanted that refinement which deprives immorality of its grossness. The result is manifest in the contemporary literature of the two nations, and especially the drama, the best test of the manners of a people.

In patronizing literature and art, Louis XIV only followed the example given by Richelieu, with whom it was a part of policy. He knew that literature glorifies a country, and gives it a moral strength; that it makes the prince who patronizes it popular at home, respected and influential abroad. The benefits which Louis bestowed on literary men were not confined to those of his own country. Many foreign literati of distinction were attracted to France by honorable and lucrative posts; while pensions and flattering letters were accorded to others. There were few countries in Europe without some writer who could sound the praises and proclaim the munificence of Louis XXV.

It is impossible here to enter into any critical examination of the great writers who adorned the reign of Louis. The dramas of Racine and Moliere, the poems of Boileau and La Fontaine, the sermons and other writings of Bossuet and Bourdaloue, besides the works of numerous other authors, are still read, not only in France, but also throughout Europe.

If royal patronage can give a tone to works of imagination, it can still more directly assist the researches of learning and natural science. The King, in person, declared himself the protector of the Academie Française, the centre and representative of the national literature, and raised it, as it were, to an institution of the State, by permitting it to harangue him on occasions of solemnity, like the Parliament and other superior courts. In the state of society which then existed, this was no small addition to the dignity of letters. Under the care of Louis and Colbert arose two other learned institutions : the Academie des inscriptions et belles lettres, and the Academie des sciences. The origin of the former was sufficiently frivolous. It was at first designed to furnish inscriptions for the public monuments, legends for medals, subjects for artists, devices for fêtes, with descriptions destined to dazzle foreign nations with the pomp and splendor of French royalty. It was also to record the great actions achieved by the King; in short, it was to be the humble handmaid of Louis’s glory. But from such a beginning it became by degrees the centre of historical, philological, and archaeological researches. The Academie des sciences was founded in 1666, after the example of the Royal Society of London. In the cultivation of natural science, England had, indeed, taken the lead of France, and could already point to many eminent names. The French Academy of Architecture was founded in 1671, and the Academy of Painting and Sculpture, originated by Mazarin in 1648, received a fresh development at the hands of Louis and his ministers.

If we turn from the Court to the Cabinet of Louis, we find him here also affecting the first part. But it was in reality by the ability of his ministers, Le Tellier, Colbert, Lionne, Louvois, that he found the means of sustaining the glories of his reign. After the death of Louvois, who, though a detestable politician, was an excellent military administrator, the affairs of Louis went rapidly to decay. Jean-Baptiste Colbert, one of the ablest ministers that France had ever seen, was born in 1619, the son of a trader of Rheims. After receiving the rudiments of a commercial education, he became successively a clerk to a merchant, a notary, and an attorney, and finally entered the service of the Government by becoming clerk to a treasurer of what were called the parties casuelles. Thus Colbert, though subsequently a warm patron of art and literature, had not received a classical education, and began at the age of fifty to study Latin, to which he applied himself while riding in his carriage. He owed his advancement to Le Tellier, who saw and appreciated his merit. In 1649 that minister caused him to be appointed a counsellor of state, and from this period his rise was rapid. He obtained the patronage of Mazarin, for whom, however, he felt but little esteem. The Cardinal on his death-bed is said to have recommended Colbert to the King; and, in 1661, after the fall of Fouquet, he obtained the management of the finances. He had already conducted all the affairs of France during eight years, before he obtained, in 1669, the office of Secretary of State, with the management of the Admiralty, commerce, colonies, the King’s household, Paris, the government of the Isle of France and Orleans, the affairs of the clergy, and other departments.

Colbert had taken Richelieu as his model, and like that statesman had formed the grandest plans for the benefit of France by promoting her agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, and by developing the intellectual as well as the material resources of the kingdom. He increased the revenue by making the officers of finance disgorge their unjust profits, by reforming the system of taxation, and reducing the expenses of collection. He improved the police and the administration of justice. He facilitated the internal communications of France by repairing the highways and making new ones, and by causing the canal of Languedoc to be dug, which connects the Mediterranean with the Atlantic. He also formed the scheme of the canal of Burgundy. He caused Marseilles and Dunkirk to be declared free ports, and he encouraged the nobility to engage in commerce by providing that it should be no derogation to their rank. He formed the harbour of Rochefort, enlarged and improved that of Brest, and established large marine arsenals at Brest, Toulon, Havre, and Dunkirk; while, by the care which he bestowed upon the fleet, France was never more formidable at sea than at this period. His commercial system, however, though perhaps suited to the wants and temper of France in those days, would not meet the approbation of modern political economists. He adopted the protective system, and instead of encouraging private enterprise, established monopolies by forming the East and West India Companies, as well as those of the Levant and of the North. Colbert retained office till his death, in 1683.

With regard to the political consequences of the Reformation, it is certain that Germany, the chief scene of that event, viewed as a confederate State, was much enfeebled by it. Had the Empire remained united in its allegiance to Rome, or had it become, as it at one time promised, universally Protestant, France and Sweden would not have been able to play the part they did in the Thirty Years’ War, and to aggrandize themselves at its expense. The bad political constitution of the Empire, which contained within itself the seeds of perpetual discord, was rendered infinitely more feeble by the introduction of Protestantism. Having become permanently divided into two or three religious parties, with opposite views and interests, materials were provided for constant internal dissensions, as well as for the introduction of foreign influence and intrigues. The same was also the case in Poland. On the other hand, in those countries where the Reformation was entirely successful, as England and the Scandinavian Kingdoms, its tendency was to develop and increase the national power. It is true that the different German Princes, and especially the more important ones, grew individually stronger by the Thirty Years’ War and the Peace of Westphalia. Such was the case even with the House of Habsburg, which, after the battle of Prague, in 1620, was enabled to render the Crown of Bohemia hereditary. The maintenance of a standing force of mercenaries, which existed in most of the German States after the war, contributed to the same result, by enabling the Princes to usurp the rights of their subjects. The provisions of the Capitulation extorted from the Emperor Leopold, in 1658, had the same tendency, by rendering the territorial Princes less dependent on the grants of their people; and, as this Capitulation was wrung from Leopold through the influence of France, it must be regarded as a direct consequence of the Thirty Years’ War. The enhancement of the power of the Electors of Bavaria and Brandenburg by this means, is particularly striking. In Bavaria, the States, which were seldom assembled, entrusted the administration of financial matters to a committee appointed for a long term of years; with which the Elector found the transaction of business much more easy and convenient. The power of the Prince made still greater progress in Brandenburg under Frederick William, the “Great Elector”. After the year 1653 the States of the Mark were no longer assembled. Their grants were replaced by an excise and a tax on provisions, which the Elector had introduced in 1641, immediately after his accession; and, as these did away with the direct taxes levied monthly and yearly, they were popular with the householders, and there was no difficulty in making them perpetual. The conduct of Frederick William in Prussia was still more arbitrary. When the sovereignty of that Duchy was finally confirmed to him by the Peace of Oliva, he put an end, though not without a hard struggle, to the authority of the Prussian States, by abrogating their right of taxation; and he signalized this act of despotic authority by the perpetual imprisonment of Rhode, Burgomaster of Konigsberg, and by the execution of Colonel von Kalkstein, another assertor of the popular rights.

But it was in the direct ratio of the increase of strength in its separate States, that the strength of the Empire as a Confederation was diminished, because the interests of its various territorial Princes were not only separate from, but frequently hostile to, those of the general Confederation and of the Emperor. The minor States, which could not hope to make themselves important and respected alone, attained that end by combining together. Hence, the Catholic and Protestant Leagues, formed under French influence soon after the Peace of Westphalia, and under the pretext of maintaining its provisions. These Leagues became still more hostile to the Imperial power, when, soon after the election of Leopold, they were united in one under the title of the Rhenish League.

It must be confessed that the personal character of the Emperor Leopold contributed not a little to produce this state of things. Leopold, who reigned during forty-seven years as the contemporary of Louis XIV, was in every respect the foil of the French Monarch. Hence much of the diversity in the political development of Germany and France. While the Imperial authority was weakened by decentralization, Louis was uniting all the powers of the State in his own person. Under Leopold, the Diets, the chief bond of German Federation, lost all their importance. That of 1663, summoned on account of the Turkish War, he opened not in person; and he afterwards attended it only as a kind of visitor. He took no care to terminate its disputes on the important subject of the Capitulations of future Emperors, and permitted the Assembly to be interminable. Thus the authority and constitution of the Diet became completely changed. Henceforth neither Emperor nor Prince of the Empire appeared in it in person, and the Imperial Assembly shrank into a mere congress of ambassadors and deputies without plenipotentiary authority, who, before they could act, were obliged to apply to their principals for instructions. Business was reduced to a mere empty observance of forms and ceremonies, and a perpetual contest of the most trivial kind arose about degrees of rank and titles. Hence, from the Court and Diet, formality penetrated through all the ranks of the German people. Even in the promotion of natural science, literature, and art, the influence of Leopold, though a more learned Prince than Louis, showed itself less judicious and efficient. Louis promoted the vernacular literature of France by every means in his power, and with such success that he rendered the French tongue the universal language of educated Europe. On the other hand, little or no Imperial patronage shone on German literature, because almost all the men of genius were Protestants. Leopold, who, being bred up to the Church, had received a scholastic education, amused himself by inditing Latin epigrams and epistles, and by conversing in that language with the learned; while, with his courtiers and family, and in the literary assemblies which he held in his apartments in the winter, the conversation was usually in Spanish or Italian. Hence German literature was still confined in the chains of scholastic bondage.

France, after the Peace of Westphalia, presents a picture the very reverse of this. The scattered elements of political power, instead of being divided and dissipated, were concentrated in a narrow focus, and an intense nationality was developed. The progress of France, like that of Germany, had been arrested by the consequences of the Reformation, and by the long wars of religion under the Valois. It was Henry IV who first restored tranquillity, and prepared France to take that place in Europe to which her resources and situation called her. But with the demands for liberty of conscience had been mixed up a republican spirit, to which even Henry’s own example as the leader of a faction may have contributed; and this was further nourished by the immunities which he granted to the Huguenots. It was often difficult to distinguish between those who merely desired religious freedom and those who wished to overthrow the monarchy. Richelieu subdued this dangerous faction and founded the absolute supremacy of the French monarchy. Having thus secured domestic unity and strength, he turned his attention to the affairs of Europe; and by his able, but unscrupulous policy, well seconded by Mazarin, France secured, at the Peace of Westphalia, the advantages already related, which were further extended by the Peace of the Pyrenees, in 1658.

Thus, when Louis XIV assumed the reins of government he had only to follow the course marked out for him. Without wishing to detract from the merit of that Prince, it may be safely affirmed that the state of Europe contributed very much to facilitate his political career. It was principally the weakness of Germany, resulting from the misfortunes of the Thirty Years’ War, and that of the Spanish branch of the House of Austria, which created the strength of France, and helped her to become for a while the dictator of Europe. Spain, at the Peace of Westphalia, was still, indeed, to all appearance, a great Power. She possessed Naples, Sicily, and Milan, Franche-Comté, and Flanders, besides immense territories in both the Indies. Yet this vast Empire, from the necessity it entailed of defending remote provinces connected with it by no natural tie, was a source rather of weakness than of strength. France, entrenched within her own boundaries, and with scarce a single foreign possession, was a much more formidable Power. Spain was also internally weakened through bad government, fanaticism, and bigotry. The spirit of the two neighboring countries was entirely opposite. While France was founding a new era of progress, Spain was falling back into the middle ages. In spite of the declining condition of the kingdom, the number and the wealth of ecclesiastics increased to such a degree that, in 1636, the Cortes of Madrid, in return for a grant, obtained from Philip IV a promise that for the next six years no more religious foundations should be established; yet even this limited promise appears not to have been fulfilled. At the same time, while most of the principal towns of Spain had lost the greater part of their trade, with a corresponding decay in their population; while whole districts were in some instances reduced almost to desolation, and the kingdom to a state of universal bankruptcy, the Court of Spain, mindful rather of its ancient grandeur than of its present misfortunes, kept up a splendour and magnificence far above its means, and opened in this way another source of poverty. Add to all these evils the revolts of Catalonia and Portugal. The annexation of Portugal during a period of sixty years had tended to revive the declining power and glory of Spain; and now she was not only deprived of this support, but the long wars which she entered into for the recovery of that kingdom also became a source of weakness to herself and of strength to her enemies.

If the condition of Germany and Spain favored the progress of France, that of England offered no obstruction. Cromwell, who assumed the reins of power soon after the Peace of Westphalia, flung his sword into the French scale; and the two succeeding Stuarts, the pensioners of Louis, seldom ventured to dispute his behests. It was not till the accession of William III that England again became a considerable Power in the European system. From this time was established a new balance of power, the origin and progress of which system is worthy of consideration.

The first well-marked symptoms of that national jealousy which ultimately produced the theory of the balance of Power may be traced to the ambition of the House of Austria, and the suspicion that it was aiming at a universal monarchy. During the reign of Charles V, such a consummation seemed no improbable event. Master of Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, a great part of Italy, besides his possessions in the Indies, that Monarch seemed to encircle the earth with his power, and to threaten the liberties of all Europe. It was natural that France, whose dominions were surrounded by those of the Emperor, should first take alarm; and hence the struggle between Charles and Francis I recorded in the preceding volumes. But France had to maintain the struggle almost alone. She sought, indeed, allies, and her treaties with the Porte show how the ideas of religion were already beginning to be superseded by political ones; she also allied with the German Protestants, and by these means she checked the preponderance in Europe of the Habsburg House. The policy of England, then directed by the counsels of Wolsey, had for its object, the establishment of a balance of power, though Henry VIII, himself was, perhaps, more influenced by a feeling of pride at the power he could display by intervening between two such powerful sovereigns as Charles and Francis, than by any regard to a political balance. Nay, it may well be doubted whether Francis was ever actuated by any abstract ideas of that kind, and whether he was not rather governed in his hostility to Charles sometimes by ambition and the love of military glory, sometimes by the requirements of self-defense, or the cravings of unsatisfied resentment.

THE BALANCE OF POWER

Nevertheless, it is certain that the rivalry between France and Austria first gave rise to the idea of a balance of power. So great was the impression of alarm created by the exorbitant power of the House of Habsburg, that even the abdication of Charles V, and its severance into two branches, could not dissipate it. Half a century after that event, Henry IV, or his minister Sully, as we have before related, formed the scheme of opposing the Theocratic Monarchy, supposed to be the object of that House, by a Christian Commonwealth, in which all the nations of Europe should be united; a design in which, however chimerical it may appear, we see the first formal announcement of the theory of the balance of power as a rule of European policy. After the death of Henry IV, French politics changed for a while, and a friendly feeling was even established with Spain; but on the accession of Richelieu to power, Henry’s anti-Austrian policy, though not his extravagant scheme, was renewed, and was continued by Mazarin.

We are thus brought down to the Thirty Years’ War and Peace of Westphalia, which first in any degree practically established the European equilibrium. For although the attempt of the House of Austria, during the period of Catholic reaction, to extend its power along with that of the Roman Church, and thus to found a religious and political absolutism which would have been dangerous to all Europe, was chiefly opposed by France and Sweden, yet most of the European nations had been more or less directly engaged in the war; and only three Powers, England, Russia, and Poland, were absolutely unrepresented in the Congresses which assembled to arrange the peace. At no preceding epoch, except, perhaps, during the Crusades, had the nations of Europe been so universally brought together. The Northern Powers now for the first time became of any importance in the European system. Sweden had played a part in the war equal to that of France, and had reaped corresponding advantages from the peace; and an intimate alliance was contracted between these two Powers which lasted a considerable period, and was of great importance in the affairs of Europe. Sweden became a leading Power in the North; and she only quitted it in the next century to make room for Prussia, whose influence had likewise been founded by the events of the Thirty Years’ War. Thus Northern Europe added another member to the European system, and another element to the balance of power. The discussion and adjustment of the differences which had arisen among these various nations in the Congresses of Minister and Osnabrück, and the rules then laid down for further observance, naturally drew them closer together, and cemented them more into one great commonwealth. It was now that the practice of guaranteeing treaties was introduced. Before the Peace of Westphalia it would be difficult to point to a treaty formed with a direct view to the balance of power; while after that event such treaties are frequent. Such were the Triple Alliance of 1668, the League of Augsburg in 1687, the Grand Alliance of 1701, and others. From the same cause also sprang that more intimate, as well as more extended diplomatic intercourse which now arose among the nations of Europe. Permanent legations were generally established, and the forms and usages of diplomacy were brought to perfection. The French ministerial dispatches of this period are among the best models of their kind.

The changes produced in the relative strength of nations through the Thirty Years’ War and its consequences materially altered their European relations. Before that event the House of Austria had been the dominant Power. But the policy of Henry IV, of Richelieu, and Mazarin, against that House, had been so successfully pursued and consummated, that it was France herself which became in turn the object of jealousy and alarm. Louis XIV, before the close of his reign, was thought to aim at being the universal monarch; and Europe, to save herself from his extravagant ambition, formed new leagues to regulate the political balance. It was not, however, till towards the close of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century that all the materials were provided for this purpose. Great Britain finally took her proper station as one of the arbiters of Europe only in the reign of William III. Nor was it till about the same period that the strength of Prussia and Russia began to be developed, and to complete the balance.

The League of Augsburg, formed in 1686 under the auspices of William III, may be regarded as inaugurating a system of European policy which lasted far into the present century; of which, with some interruptions, the mainspring was the rivalry between France and England. The alliance between Great Britain and Austria in 1689 was purely political. There was no question of trade or commerce between the two countries, while their sentiments regarding civil and religious government were entirely opposite. Their sole object was to check the exorbitant pretensions of France, and preserve the political balance. After the war of the Austrian Succession, Maria Theresa, deserted her ally, and formed a connection with France which lasted down to the time of the French Revolution. The declining state of France, however, at that period rendered this alliance less important than it might otherwise have proved.

After the death of Louis XIV Prussia and Russia began to assume the rank of great European Powers, though their influence was not fully developed till the latter half of the eighteenth century, in the reigns of Frederick the Great and Catharine II. By their means the north and east of Europe were brought into closer connection with its southern and western nations. By this new state of things both France and Sweden began in turn to feel that opposition to their predominance which they had themselves carried on against the House of Austria.

As the intercourse between the European States became, after that Peace, more frequent and intimate, so a more perfect system of international law grew up, and was, indeed, required for its regulation. This science had hitherto been very meagre and imperfect. There was no system of public law during the Middle Ages. When difficult cases arose, appeals were made, sometimes to the Pope, sometimes to the Jurists, and especially to the celebrated School of Bologna. Thus, for instance, the question between the Lombard cities and the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, at the famous Diet of Roncaglia, in 1158, was decided by the opinions of four doctors of Bologna, who appear to have been guided by the principles of the Roman law. It was natural, from the spirit of those ages, that the Pope should be made the arbiter of secular disputes, in which his authority supplied the place of a code of public law. For the same reason we are not surprised to find that the science had its origin among the monks and clergy, in those times almost the sole depositaries of learning, and especially among the casuists of Spain. The bigotry of that country and the proceedings of the Inquisition naturally attracted the attention of the learned to cases of conscience; and it is an appeal to conscience which forms the basis of all international law. Hence Spain became unrivalled, as well in the number of her casuists as in their intellectual acuteness. The attention of these men was first directed towards the principles of international law by the discovery of America, which opened up so many questions respecting the conduct to be observed towards the natives. We find these principles first touched upon in the writings of Francis de Victoria, who began to teach at Valladolid in 1525, and in those of his pupil Dominico Soto. Soto, who was confessor to Charles V, dedicated his treatise on Justice and Law to Don Carlos. Soto was consulted by Charles V when the conference was held at Valladolid between Sepulveda, the advocate of the Spanish colonists, and Las Casas, the humane champion of the natives of the West India Islands, respecting the lawfulness of enslaving those unhappy people. The opinion of the monk, that no distinction should be drawn, as to natural rights, between Christian and Infidel, and that the law of nature is the same for all, is highly honorable to him, and shows him far in advance of his age. The Edict of Reform of 1543 was founded on Soto’s decision in favour of the West Indians, and he denounced slavery altogether, in whatever shape.

The science made some progress in the hands of Francis Suarez— Suarez, a Jesuit of Granada, who flourished at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century. One of the books of his Tractatus de Legibus ac Deo Legislatore  is devoted to the law of nature and nations. It was Suarez who first perceived that the principles of international law do not only rest on the abstract principles of justice, but also on usages long observed in the intercourse of nations, or what has been called the consuetudinary law. His views on this point are even clearer than those of his contemporary, the Italian Alberico Gentili, though the latter has been by some considered as the founder of the science of public law. Gentili’s father, one of the few Italians who embraced the Reformation, was forced to fly his country, and sent his son to England, where he ultimately obtained the Chair of Law at Oxford. Grotius acknowledges his obligations to Gentili’s treatise De Jure Belli, published in 1589, and dedicated to his patron the Earl of Essex. He had previously published (1583) a treatise De Legationibus, dedicated to Sir Philip Sidney.

Balthazar Ayala, a Spanish writer who flourished about the same time, was not a casuist but a jurisconsult. He was Judge Advocate of the Spanish army in the Netherlands, under the Prince of Parma, to whom he addressed, 1581, from the camp at Tournai, his treatise De Jure et Officiis Bellicis. It is divided into three books; the first of which treats of war as viewed by the law of nations, with examples from Roman history and jurisprudence. The second book concerns military policy, and the third martial law. The ninth chapter treats of the rights of legation.

Several other authors had written on the subject of public law before the time of Hugo Grotius, who enumerates most of them at the beginning of his work De Jure Belli ac Pacis. Their treatises, however, were fragmentary, and the work of Grotius is the first in which the subject is systematically handled. Hence Grotius has been justly considered as the founder of the public law of Europe, and his book must be regarded as forming an epoch in the history of philosophy. We have already recorded Grotius’s flight to Paris on account of the Arminian controversy, and the composition of his celebrated book in that capital, where it was published in 1525. Thus, it was written during the first fury of the Thirty Tears’ War, and he announces, as his motive for composing it, the licence of wars waged without any adequate pretext. Grotius recognizes, as the foundation of public law, along with the law of nature, the right springing from custom and the tacit consent of nations. In this respect he differs from Puffendorf, who wrote about half a century later, and his followers Wolf, Vattel, and Burlamaqui, who found the law of nations entirely on the law of nature. Grotius supported his views of natural law by passages drawn from the writers of antiquity, and thus gave his work an appearance of pedantry for which he has been sometimes unjustly reproached, as if he wished to cite those writers as authorities without appeal, instead of mere witnesses to the general sentiments of mankind. Few authors have exerted a more extensive influence on opinion than Grotius. His work soon became a text-book in foreign universities, though its progress was slow in England. Gustavus Adolphus is said to have slept with a copy of it under his pillow. It was not, however, till after the Peace of Westphalia that sufficient materials were collected to build up a complete system of international law. Leibnitz first made a collection of treaties to facilitate the study. Hence arose the technical school of publicists as opposed to the speculative, showing the last development of the science. Moser first founded that practical system of international law which rests on custom alone; in which school the works of George Frederick de Martens are the most celebrated

Among other characteristics of the period under consideration was the growth of what has been called the financial, or mercantile system. The production of wealth, the fostering of trade and commerce, became principal objects with most of the European Governments. But these subjects were still imperfectly understood. The chief aim was to obtain a favourable balance of trade, as it was called. With this view tariffs were framed and commercial treaties concluded. Recourse was had to restrictive, monopolizing, and prohibitory systems, which tended to produce isolation and even war. It was not before the latter half of the eighteenth century that philosophers began to promulgate more rational theories, or rather to revise some ancient Italian ones, and it was reserved for our own age to see them carried into practice. Commerce was now chiefly founded on colonization, which had reached a high pitch of development, and exercised a material influence on the prosperity and power of some of the leading States of Europe, enriching them both by the products of various climates and by the manufactures and other articles of native industry exported in return. Vast mercantile navies were thus created, the nurseries of hardy seamen; while the large fleets of war required for the protection of the colonies supplied a new element of national strength. Hence the colonial system has played so important a part in the wars and negotiations of the last two or three centuries, that we shall here give such a brief connected outline of its progress, down to the Peace of Paris in 1763, as our limits will permit.

SPANISH ANSD PORTUGUESE COLONIES

We have already taken a general view of maritime discovery and colonization down to the opening of the seventeenth century. The Spaniards and the Portuguese, as they were the first ocean navigators and discoverers, so they were the only nations which up to that period possessed any settlements out of Europe. The Spanish colonies were almost confined to the Western Hemisphere. They comprised, on the North American continent, New Spain or Mexico, with all the countries dependent on that viceroyalty; viz., California on the west, the vast and undefined region called New Mexico on the north, and on the east, Yucatan, Honduras, and all the countries on the isthmus which separates the two American continents. Some of these, however, and especially the northern and western districts, were but scantily settled, and subdued rather than occupied. In South America, Spain possessed Peru and its dependency, Chili, the kingdom of New Granada, the kingdom of Tierra Firme, stretching from the isthmus of Darien to the mouth of the Orinoco, and the southern colony of La Plata, or Paraguay. All these vast regions were subject to the Viceroy of Peru. Besides these continental possessions Spain also held all the principal islands in the Caribbean Sea.

The maritime enterprises of the Portuguese, the rivals of the Spaniards in discovery and colonization, were chiefly directed towards the East. We have already indicated generally their settlements in Asia and Africa, as well as the foundation of the Empire of Brazil in South America. By the conquest of Portugal by Philip II in 1580, all the Portuguese colonies fell under the dominion of the Spanish Crown; so that at this period Spain was the sole possessor of all the European settlements in America and the East Indies. In the latter quarter the only Spanish possession, previously acquired, was the Philippine Isles, occupied in 1564. These were governed by a viceroy; but they were chiefly valued by the bigoted Court of Spain as the seat of Catholic missions, and most of the soil belonged to the monks. A regular commerce, carried on by a few South Sea galleons, had been established between Manilla and Acapulco, which diverted to the East much of the Mexican silver. The union of the Portuguese colonies in Asia under the Spanish sceptre, by exposing them to the attacks of the enemies of Spain, as well as by the neglect which they experienced from the Spanish Government, was one of the chief causes of their ruin. Nor had they been governed by the Portuguese in a way calculated to promote their strength and provide them with the means of resistance. The frequent change of viceroys, who were recalled every two or three years, prevented the establishment of a strong administration. King Sebastian rendered matters still worse by distributing the colonies under the three independent governments of Monomotapa, India, and Malacca, and by further lessening the authority of the viceroys by the addition of a council. To these sources of decay must be added a wretched system of administration, and the depressing influence which a bigoted and superstitious church naturally exercised upon all enterprise.

The shutting of the port of Lisbon against the Dutch in 1594, and the edict of Philip III prohibiting his subjects from all commerce with that people, were followed by the most disastrous effects to the Portuguese colonies. The Dutch being thus deprived of their customary trade, and having discovered the weakness of the Spaniards at sea, resolved to extend their enterprises beyond the bounds of Europe, to which they had hitherto confined them, and to seek at the fountain-head the Indian trade, of which they had up to this time partaken only at second-hand through the medium of the Portuguese. We have already given a general sketch of the progress of the Dutch in the East Indies. Batavia, founded in 1619, became the centre of their commerce and the seat of their government in the East. Trade, not colonization, was their aim. They at first avoided the Indian continent, where the Mogul dynasty was then very powerful, and sought in preference to establish themselves in the islands, with a view especially to the spice trade. Throughout the century their power continued to increase in Asia. In 1661 they wrested from the Portuguese Palicata on the coast of Coromandel, Calicut, Cochin and Cananor in Malabar, together with several places in Ceylon, Malacca, etc. The Portuguese were also expelled from Japan, and the Asiatic possessions of that nation were ultimately reduced to Goa and Diu. The extensive jurisdiction of the Dutch East India Company was divided into the five governments of Java, Amboyna, Ternate, Ceylon, and Macassar, besides several directories and commanderies; the whole under the central government of Batavia. Their colony at the Cape of Good Hope, founded in 1653, constituted a sixth government, and formed a sort of defensive outwork to their East Indian possessions.

The Butch long enjoyed their preeminence in the East. The enterprises of the English and French, their only rivals in this quarter of the globe, were at first but slow and feeble. The attempts of the English East India Company, founded as we have said in the year 1600, to open a trade with the Spice Islands, excited the jealousy of the Dutch, and the most bloody engagements ensued between the two nations in the Indian Ocean and its islands. To put an end to these horrible scenes a treaty was concluded in 1619, between James I and the States- General, by which the English were to be admitted to a share of the spice trade; but the Dutch, by their cruelties at Amboyna, to which we have already referred, succeeded in excluding them from the Moluccas. In other respects, also, the English East India Company made little progress during the first half of the seventeenth century, and seemed on the point of dissolution. It had not attempted to make settlements and build forts, and had contented itself with establishing a few factories at Bantam, and along the coasts of Malabar and Coromandel. It had, however, acquired Madras, by permission of the King of Golcondo (1640). The Protector Cromwell somewhat revived the Company, by granting it new privileges (1658). Madras was now erected into a presidency. Charles II also enlarged the Company’s political privileges, and increased its territorial dominion by assigning to it Bombay (1668), which he had acquired as part of the portion of his consort Catharine of Portugal. Bombay rapidly increased in importance, and in 1685 the Government was transferred thither from Surat. The English power in the East now began to make more rapid strides. Before the end of the century, factories and forts had been established at Bencoolen in Sumatra and at Hooghly; and the district of Calcutta was purchased, and Fort William founded in 1699. During this period the French East India Company, established by Colbert, had planted a factory at Surat, in Malabar (1675), and founded Pondicherry on the coast of Coromandel (1679). Meanwhile, however, the Dutch continued to retain their monopoly of the spice trade, the French and English commerce chiefly consisting in manufactured articles and raw stuffs.

The Dutch had not confined their enterprises to the East Indies. They had also founded in North America, in the in present State of New York, the colony of Nova Belgia, or New Netherlands. Hudson had explored the vast regions to the north, and the shores of the great bay which takes its name from him; and as Hudson was an Englishman, though he sailed in the Dutch service, this circumstance subsequently gave rise to conflicting claims between the two nations. The Dutch had also established a West India Company, chiefly with the design of conquering Brazil; and in 1630 they succeeded in making themselves masters of the coast of Pernambuco. John Maurice, Count of Nassau, who was sent thither in 1636, subdued all Pernambuco, as well as some neighboring provinces; and by the truce between the States-General and Portugal, in June, 1641, after the latter country had thrown off the Spanish yoke, it was stipulated that the Dutch were to retain these conquests. In spite, however, of the peace between the mother countries, the war was renewed in Brazil in 1645; the Count of Nassau had been recalled, the Portuguese possessions were heroically defended by Don Juan de Vieira; and in January, 1654, the Dutch were totally expelled from South America. This was the chief, and, indeed, only important reverse which the Dutch, who were now at the height of their commercial prosperity, experienced up to this period. Besides their settlements in the East Indies, they had extended their trade in the Baltic, and were become the chief carriers of Europe. They had also established themselves at St. Eustatia, Curaçao, and one or two other small West India Islands. The first check to this prosperity was experienced from the rivalry of England, and especially from the celebrated Navigation Act, to which we have before adverted.

ENGLIAH COLONIZATION IN AMERICA

The English, indeed, under the sway of the pacific James, a instead of opposing the Dutch in the East, had chiefly directed their attention to the Western Hemisphere, where their establishments made a surprising progress during the first part of the seventeenth century. In this period they occupied the Bermudas, Barbadoes, St. Kitt’s, Nevis, the Bahamas, Montserrat, Antigua, and Surinam. In 1655, Jamaica fell into their power as it were by an accident. But more important than all these settlements was the vast progress made in the colonization of the North American Continent, to which a great impulse had been given by the voyage of Bartholomew Gosnold, in the last year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. By steering due west, instead of taking the usual southern route, Gosnold made the land at the promontory which he named Cape Cod, thus shortening the voyage by a third. The reports which he brought home of the inviting aspect of the country created a great sensation in England; and, as they were confirmed by other navigators who had been dispatched purposely to ascertain their correctness, plans of colonization began to be formed. Richard Hakluyt, a Prebendary of Westminster, the publisher of the well-known Collection of Voyages, was a distinguished promoter of this enterprise. In 1606 King James I divided the whole western coast of America, lying between the 34th and 45th degrees of north latitude, into two nearly equal portions; which retained the name of Virginia, bestowed on this part of the American continent in honor of Queen Elizabeth, in whose reign, as already mentioned, Raleigh had made an unsuccessful attempt to colonize it. The two divisions made by James were respectively called the First, or South, and the Second, or North Colony of Virginia; but the latter portion obtained, in 1614, the name of New England. The settlement of Southern Virginia was assigned to a London Company; that of the Northern portion to an association formed in the West of England, and called the Plymouth Company. James Town, in Virginia, founded by Captain Newport, in 1607, was the first English settlement in the New World. It was, however, Captain Smith who, by his courage and perseverance in defending the infant colony from the attacks of the native savages, and in cheering the settlers when dejected by famine and disease, may be regarded as its true founder. After an existence of only two or three years, the colony was on the point of being abandoned, when the arrival of Lord Delaware with supplies, and the wise measures which he adopted as Governor, saved it from dissolution. Soon afterwards tobacco began to be cultivated, negro slaves were introduced, the colony gradually increased in numbers, and extended its settlements to the banks of the Rappahannock and the Potomac. Yet, in 1624, when the London Company was dissolved, scarce 2,000 persons survived out of 9,000 who had settled in Virginia. Charles I granted the Colony a more liberal Constitution in 1639, after which it went on rapidly improving. At the beginning of the Civil War it contained 20,000 inhabitants, and by 1688 their numbers exceeded 60,000.

If the colonization of Virginia was a work of labour and of difficulty, that of New England at first proceeded still more slowly. For many years the Plymouth Company effected little or nothing. The first permanent settlement was made in 1620 at New Plymouth, in the present State of Massachusetts, not, however, under the auspices of the Company, but by some members of the sect of the Brownists, who had proceeded thither of their own accord. A charter was granted in 1627 to a company of adventurers, mostly Puritans, for planting Massachusetts Bay, and by these Salem was founded. Emigrants now began to pour in, and in a few years arose the towns of Boston, Charles Town, Dorchester, and others. That spirit of fanaticism and intolerance which had led the Puritans to cross the Atlantic, accompanied them in their new abodes, and, by the disputes which it excited among themselves, was incidentally the means of extending colonization. Thus many of the inhabitants of Salem followed, in 1634, their banished pastor, Williams, and founded Providence and Rhode Island; while the secession of one of two rival ministers at Massachusetts Bay led to the settlement of Connecticut (1696). New Hampshire and Maine were next established, but did not obtain a regular Constitution till after the accession of William III. Towards the period of the Civil Wars the tide of emigration to the New England colonies set in so strongly that masters of ships were prohibited from carrying passengers without an express permission. It is computed that by 1640 upwards of 21,000 persons had settled in those districts. In 1643 the four settlements of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and Newhaven formed a Confederation, under the name of the United Colonies of New England. Maryland was settled in 1632, mostly by Roman Catholics of good family, who proceeded thither under the conduct of Lord Baltimore.

In the latter half of the seventeenth century the English began to spread themselves beyond the boundaries of New England and Virginia. In 1663 Charles II bestowed the land between the 31st and 36th degrees of north latitude on eight lords, who founded Carolina, afterwards divided (in 1729) into North and South Carolina. The colonization of this district had been previously attempted both by French and English settlers, but without success. Locke drew up a plan of government for Carolina, based on religious toleration, though its political principles were not so liberal. The rulers of the colony became tyrannical; and Granville, who, as the oldest proprietor, had become sole Governor in 1705, endeavored to make the non-conforming settlers return to the Church of England. All the Governors, except Carteret, who retained his eighth share, were stripped of their prerogatives in 1728, when the government of the province was vested in the Crown. The State of Pennsylvania was settled by Penn, the Quaker, in 1682, the land being assigned to him by Charles II for a debt. Thus all the religious sects of England had their representatives in the New World. Georgia, the last province founded by the mother country, had its origin in 1732. It consisted of territory separated from South Carolina. It was first settled, under the superintendence of General Oglethorpe, by prisoners for debt, liberated by a bequest, and aided by subscriptions and a Parliamentary grant. In 1735 it was increased by the arrival of some Scottish Highlanders, and of German Protestants from Salzburg and other parts: but it was ill-managed, and never attained the prosperity of the other settlements. The erection of this colony occasioned disputes with the Spaniards, who claimed it as part of Florida. The provinces of New York, New Jersey, and Delaware—which last was subsequently incorporated with Pennsylvania—arose out of the conquest of the Dutch settlement of Nova Belgia, in 1664, confirmed to England by the Treaty of Breda in 1667.

The French also began to turn their attention to colonization early in the seventeenth century, but their attempts were not in general so happy as those of other nations. Henry IV, indeed, laid claim to all the territory of America situated between the 40th and 52nd degrees of north latitude, under the title of New France, embracing Newfoundland, Acadia, Canada, etc., besides a great part of the subsequent English Colonies. The French first settled in Acadia, in 1604, and the more important colony of Canada was founded in 1608. Its progress, however, was very slow. In 1626 it had only three wretched settlements, surrounded with palisades, the largest of which counted only fifty inhabitants. One of these was Quebec, the future capital. The continual attacks to which Canada was exposed, both from the English and Iroquois, prevented it from attaining any importance till about the middle of the century. Montreal was founded in 1641, and in 1658 Quebec became the seat of a bishop. The colony felt the impulse given by Colbert to French enterprise. Troops were sent thither, the Iroquois were gradually subdued, and in 1687 Canada numbered 11,000 inhabitants. It was also under the auspices of Colbert that Louisiana was explored and claimed by the French Crown. Cavelier de la Salle, a native of Rouen, and celebrated navigator, having discovered the Mississippi, descended that river to its mouth in 1682, and claimed for France the tracts which it waters, as well as the rich countries on each side, lying on the Gulf of Mexico. These vast regions obtained the name of Louisiana, in honor of the French King.

The French also made some acquisitions in the West Indian Archipelago. They settled at St. Kitt’s in 1625 (though in conjunction with the English) and at Martinique and Guadaloupe, ten years later. These islands, first occupied by private enterprise, were purchased by Colbert for the French Government in 1664, together with several others, as St. Lucie, Grenada, Marie Gulante, St. Croix, Tortosa, etc., some of which had belonged to the Maltese. A subsequently much more important settlement than these was the French portion of St. Domingo, originally formed by the Buccaneers; a band of desperate pirates and adventurers, English as well as French, who, about the year 1630, had established themselves at Tortuga, a small rocky island on the north coast of Hispaniola, for the purpose of preying upon the Spanish trade. Hence they began gradually to make settlements in the western part of Hispaniola, or St. Domingo. After 1664 these freebooters were recognized and supported by the French Government; the right of possession was not contested by Spain, and after the accession of a Bourbon Prince to the throne of that country, half St. Domingo remained in the hands of France.

The Dukes The Dukes of Courland must also be ranked among the as American colonizers. Duke James II, who possessed a considerable fleet, which he employed in discoveries and commerce, besides erecting several forts in Africa, encouraged his subjects to settle in the Island of Tobago. The flourishing condition to which they brought it roused the avidity of the Dutch. Two Dutchmen, the brothers Lambsten, by offering to hold Tobago as a fief under Louis XIV, obtained the encouragement of that King. The Duke of Courland claimed the protection of Charles II, to whose father he had been serviceable; and, by a treaty of November 28th, 1664, he abandoned to England the fort of St. Andrew, in Guinea, reserving only some commercial rights to his subjects, and agreed to hold Tobago as a fief under the English Crown. The Dutch, however, would not surrender the island, which they called New Walcheren. It was taken in 1678 by Marshal d'Estrées, who, after reducing it to the condition of a desert, abandoned it. After this it was long regarded as neutral.

The colonies of the various European nations remained down to the peace of Utrecht, in 1713, much in the same relative condition that we have described, though they increased, of course, in wealth and importance. The chief feature of the Spanish colonies was the progress made by the Jesuit missions in Paraguay. The Portuguese, more fortunate in Brazil than the East Indies, enlarged their possessions by founding San Sacramento on the Plata (1681); subsequently, however, the source of bitter disputes with Spain. They were also enriched by the discovery of gold mines near Villa Rica in 1696. The Dutch had added to their possessions in America Surinam, Essequibo, and Berbice.

The Treaty of Utrecht gave a great impulse to the English colonies and trade. The Asiento, or right of supplying the Spanish colonies with slaves, and the privilege of visiting the fair of Vera Cruz, proved very profitable, though rather by the opportunities which they afforded for contraband trade than by the direct advantages which they offered. Almost all the trade of Spanish South America now fell into the hands of the English. The South Sea Company, founded in 1711, began to flourish apace. The questions, however, which arose out of this traffic respecting the right of search occasioned a war with Spain, as we shall have to relate in another chapter. Spain had beheld with bitter, but helpless jealousy, the colonial progress of England. By the donation of Pope Alexander VI, even as modified by the Treaty of Tordesillas, she conceived herself entitled to all the continent of North America, as well as the West India Islands. It was not till 1670, in the reign of the Spanish King Charles II, during which England and Spain were on a more friendly footing than at any other period, that the English possessions in America had been recognized. After the accession of his grandson to the Spanish throne, Louis XIV conceived the hope of checking the maritime and colonial power of England, which, from an early period of his reign, had been the object of his alarm and envy. The results of the war of the Spanish Succession were, however, as we have seen, favourable to English commerce and colonization. Besides the advantages already mentioned, conceded by Spain in the Peace of Utrecht, England obtained from France Hudson’s Bay, Newfoundland (though with the reservation of the right of fishery), Acadia, now called Nova Scotia, and the undivided possession of St. Kitt’s. Thus the sole possessions which remained to France in North America were Louisiana, Canada, and the island of Cape Breton. The places ceded to Great Britain were, however, at that time little better than deserts. The alliance between France and England, after the death of Louis XIV, was favourable to the progress of the French colonies. Their West India islands flourished, on the whole, better than the English, from the greater commercial freedom which they enjoyed, as well as from the custom of the French planters of residing on their properties. In North America the attempt of the French to connect Canada with Louisiana, by means of a line of forts, occasioned a bloody war, as we shall have to relate in another chapter.

In the East Indies no material alteration took place either in in the French or English settlements till after the fall of the Mogul Empire. The French had taken possession, in 1690, of the Isle of France, and in 1720 of the Isle of Bourbon, both which places had been abandoned by the Dutch. After the death of Aurengzebe in 1707, the Mogul Empire began to decline, and the incursion of Nadir Shah in 1739 gave it a death-blow. The subordinate princes and governors, the Soubahs and Nabobs, now made themselves independent, and consequently became more exposed to the intrigues and attacks of Europeans. The most important of these princes were the Soubah of Deccan (the Nizam), on whom were dependent the Nabob of Arcot, or the Carnatic, the Nabobs of Bengal and Oude, and the Rajah of Benares.

It seemed at this period as if the French, under the conduct of Labourdonnais and Dupleix, would have appropriated India; but the bad understanding between those commanders prevented the success which they might otherwise have achieved. Labourdonnais captured Madras in 1746, which, however, was restored to the English by the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle. The conquests of Dupleix and Bussi were still more extensive and important. They obtained the circars or circles of Condavir, Mustapha-Nagar, Ellora, Radja-Mundri, and Tehicacobe, with Masulipatam as capital, together with large districts near Carical and Pondicherry, etc.; in a word, the French, about the middle of the eighteenth century, held at least a third of India. But the recall of Dupleix, who was succeeded by the unfortunate Lally, and the appearance of Lawrence and Clive, secured the preponderance of the English domination. Masulipatam was taken by the English in 1760, Pondicherry in 1761, when its fortifications were razed; and though Pondicherry was restored by the peace of 1763, it never recovered its former strength and importance. In like manner, the success of the English in the war which broke out in America in 1754, and especially the taking of Quebec by General Wolfe in 1759, compelled the French to abandon all their possessions on the American continent, except Louisiana, at the same peace.

No great alteration was experienced during this period by the colonies of other European nations. Though the English had taken Porto Bello and Havannah, they were restored to Spain at the Peace of Paris. Brazil, after the Peace of Utrecht, had increased in prosperity and wealth. The Dutch experienced no sensible diminution of their East India commerce before the Peace of Versailles in 1783. The colonial transactions of other nations are unimportant. The Danes, who had occupied the West India island of St. Thomas since 1671, purchased St. Croix from the French in 1733. In the East Indies they had obtained possession of Tranquebar. The Swedes also established an East India Company in 1731, but merely for trading purposes.

With regard to the inward and domestic life of the European States after the close of the great struggle for religious freedom, it does not appear that the Reformation was immediately favourable to civil liberty, except in the case of the Dutch Republic. The principles of the Reformation had been introduced into Holland against the will of the Sovereign, and while the Dutch people had become universally Protestant, their ruler was one of the most bigoted Papists in Europe. Hence persecution on the part of the Government, resistance on that of the subject, brought the question of civil obedience, as well as of religious submission, to an immediate issue. Liberty of conscience could not be enjoyed unless supported by political freedom ; and, after a glorious struggle of eighty years, both were confirmed to the Dutch by the Peace of Westphalia. But in other countries where the principles of the Reformation had been generally adopted, they had been introduced at least with the connivance, if not with the direct support of the Government. Such was the case in England and in the Northern States of Europe. The immediate effect of this was to strengthen the power of the Monarch, by throwing into his hands a vast amount of ecclesiastical property and patronage. He no longer shared with a foreign potentate the allegiance of his subjects, and diverted into his own exchequer tributes which had formerly flowed to Rome. Hence it was that the Tudors became absolute monarchs. It was also in a great measure from this cause that the Electorate of Brandenburg was developed into the powerful Kingdom of Prussia. In those countries also where the Reformation, though partially introduced, did not succeed in establishing itself, its effects, like the quelling of an ineffectual rebellion, were at first favourable to the power of the Sovereign. We have already adverted to this effect, in the case of some of the German sovereignties; and it has been shown how the religious wars of France enabled the King to reduce the power of the great nobles, and to concentrate the government of the kingdom in his own hands; a work consummated by the policy of Richelieu. Hence, generally speaking, and with regard more especially to the European Continent, never was monarchical power displayed in greater fullness than in the period extending from the Peace of Westphalia to the first French Revolution. Most of the wars of that era were waged for dynastic interests and kingly glory.

It was impossible, however, that the impetus given to the human mind by the bursting of its religious bonds should be altogether arrested. It could not be that the spirit of inquiry, when once awakened, and directed to all the branches of human knowledge, should not also embrace the dearest interests of man—the question of his well-being in society, of his right to civil liberty. This question, as we have said, was first practically solved in Holland. Yet it was not a solution calculated to establish a theoretical precedent. The revolt of the Dutch can hardly be called a domestic revolution. It was an insurrection against a foreign Sovereign; nor was it in its essence an appeal to the people, as the only legitimate source of power. To establish a Commonwealth, so far from being the object of the Dutch, was not even at first contemplated by them. They became republicans only because they could find no eligible master, and because it was the only method by which they could maintain their ancient rights. The true solution was first given in England. The theories respecting kingly power put forward by the first Stuart kings of England, as well as their adoption of religious principles at variance with those held by their Puritan subjects, cost Charles I his Crown and his life, and ultimately, through a long chain of consequences, resulted in establishing constitutional monarchy. It was these precedents, and the debates and discussions with which they were attended, the free utterances of the only truly national assembly in Europe, and the writings of men like Milton, Sidney, Locke, and others, which established not only for England, but all Europe, the true model of liberty combined with law and order. Thus the most striking instances and most influential examples of civil liberty in modern times were mainly the offspring of the Reformation.

It remains to view some religious phases of the period under consideration. In conformity with its general spirit, fanaticism itself seemed to assume a milder form than in the exciting period of the Reformation. Instead of the Anabaptists and their atrocious absurdities, we find the Pietists and the Moravian Brethren. Even the Roman Catholic Church had its sects of a somewhat analogous kind.

The Pietists were founded by Philip Jacob Spener. Born at Rappoltsweiler in Upper Alsace, in 1635, Spener became a preacher at Strassburg, and subsequently principal minister at Frankfurt. Instead of the dogmatical subtleties which had been the chief themes of the Lutheran preachers, he endeavored to introduce a more practical system of Christianity; and with this view he began, in 1670, to hold private prayer meetings, which he called Collegia Pietatis—whence the name of his followers. In these meetings, texts from the Bible were discussed in a conversational manner. His system, which is explained in his work entitled Pia Desideria, was intended to put the finishing hand to Luther’s Reformation, which he considered as only half completed. Such a system naturally led to separatism, or dissent, which, however, he himself disclaimed. His sect may be regarded as a sort of German Methodists, or, as we might say, Low Church party. In 1686 John George III, Elector of Saxony, invited Spener to Dresden. The old Lutheran orthodoxy, by laying too much stress upon the saving power of faith, had caused many of its followers to neglect altogether the practice as well as the doctrine of good works. If they attended church punctually, communicated regularly, and discharged all the other outward observances of religion, they considered that they had done enough for their justification, and were not over strict about the morality of their conduct. The Elector himself may be included in this category, and some remonstrances of Spener’s, which were considered too free, caused his dismissal from Dresden in 1691. Spener now went to Berlin, and in 1705 he died at Halle.

One of Spener’s most celebrated followers was Count Nicholas Louis von Zinzendorf, born at Dresden in 1700. The inclination which Zinzendorf displayed in early youth towards the sect of the Pietists, induced his friends to send him to Paris, with the view of diverting his mind from such thoughts. But his stay in that capital (1719-21) was precisely the period when the Jansenist controversy was at its height; the discussion of which subject, as well as his intercourse with Cardinal Noailles, only served to increase his religious enthusiasm. After his return to Dresden Zinzendorf began to hold Collegia Pietatis in imitation of Spener’s. At these meetings he became acquainted with Christian David, a journeyman carpenter of Fulneck in Silesia. It was in the neighborhood of Fulneck that the Bohemian Brethren, the last remnants of the Hussites, had contrived to maintain themselves, by ostensibly complying with the dominant Church, whilst in private they retained the religion of their forefathers. Some inquisitions, made by the Imperial Government in 1720, having compelled the members of this sect to emigrate, Christian David proceeded to Dresden, where, as we have said, he became acquainted with Count Zinzendorf, and obtained permission to settle with some of his brethren on that nobleman’s estate of Bertheldsdorf in the neighborhood of Zittau in Lusatia. The first colony was planted on the Hutberg in 1722, and was called Herrn-hut (the Lord’s care). The creed of the Moravian Brethren seems to have been an indiscriminate mixture of Lutheran and Calvinistic tenets with those of their own sect. Count Zinzendorf added to these some peculiar notions of his own; establishing as his main dogma the wounds and sacrifice of Christ, or, as he styled it, the Blood and Cross Theology. In 1737 he procured himself to be named bishop of this new sect. Frederick II of Prussia, after his conquest of Silesia, protected the rising colony, and allowed it the open and independent exercise of its worship. The numbers of the Herrn-huter, or Moravian Brethren (so called from the first members being refugees from Moravia), soon wonderfully increased, and they spread themselves in most parts of the world. Count Zinzendorf died in 1760, at Herrnhut, which is still a flourishing little town.

Of the sects which sprung up in the Roman Catholic Church, the most celebrated was that of the Jansenists, so called from its founder, Cornelius Janssen, a Fleming. Educated at Louvain, which he quitted in 1617, Janssen ultimately became Bishop of Ypres. The distinguishing feature of his system was the adoption in their most rigid form of the tenets of St. Augustine respecting predestination and absolute decrees. In fact, Jansenius and his followers, except that they retained some of the sacraments of the Romish Church, and especially that of the Eucharist, approached more nearly the doctrines of Calvin than those of Rome. Jansenius explained his views in his book entitled Augustinus.

Jansenism was introduced into France by Jean Duvergier de Hauranne, the friend and fellow-collegian of Janssen. Duvergier, by birth a Basque, became abbot of the little monastery of St. Cyran, in Provence; an office which he refused to exchange for the episcopal mitre. In 1635 St. Cyran became the spiritual director of Mother Angelica (Angelica Arnaud), the Superior of Port Royal, the celebrated Parisian convent of Benedictine nuns. Under the auspices of St. Cyran, Jansenism became the creed of the Society. Like other apostles, however, St. Cyran had to endure persecution. Neither the political nor the religious tenets of the Jansenists were agreeable to Cardinal Richelieu. The Bishop of Ypres had violently opposed and denounced Richelieu’s designs upon Lorraine and the Spanish Netherlands in a pamphlet entitled Mars Gallicus. St. Cyran himself, suspected on account of his connection with an enemy of France, had opposed the cassation of the marriage of the King’s brother, Gaston d'Orleans, with Margaret of Lorraine.His own freely expressed opinions and those of his disciples of Port Royal respecting kings were but ill-suited to royal ears in those days. He had also offended Richelieu by haughtily repulsing all his advances and repeatedly refusing the offer of a bishopric. In May, 1638, a lettre de cachet transferred St. Cyran to the dungeon of Vincennes. Persecution, however, as usual, served only to attract attention and add a new interest to his life and opinions. Port Royal acquired more influence than ever. It was now that the distinguished recluses began to gather round it to whom it chiefly owes its fame. The first of these were kinsmen of the abbess—her nephew Antony Lemaistre, her brother Antony Arnaud, the author of the celebrated treatise De la fréquente communion. These hermits, as they were called, and their pupils, inhabited a separate building called La maison des hommes. It was Arnaud and his colleague Nicole who published those works on grammar, logic, and other branches of education which still preserve their reputation. The Jesuits found themselves worsted in their own peculiar domain as instructors. A still greater champion appeared rather later in the Society—Blaise Pascal, the author of the Pensées, the redoubtable adversary of the Jesuits. Pascal, who had become a convert to Jansenism in 1646, entered Port Royal in 1654. His Lettres Provinciales (Letters to a Provincial) were a terrible blow to the Jesuits. It was after this period that they began to direct their attention more to worldly affairs and commerce, to their ultimate ruin.

The dangerous tendency of Jansenism had not escaped the vigilance of Rome and the more orthodox clergy. Jansenius’s work Augustinus was condemned by a bull of Pope Urban VIII in 1643. In 1644, at the instigation of the Jesuits, eighty-five French bishops presented to Urban’s successor, Innocent X, five propositions, extracted, as they said, from the Augustinus, for condemnation as heretical. Only a small minority of prelates stood up in their defence, but it was not till 1653 that Innocent condemned them. The Papal bull was accepted by Anne of Austria and Mazarin, by the Bishops and the Sorbonne; Port Royal and the Jansenists seemed on the verge of destruction, when they were saved by the Provincial Letters.

In spite of the hostility of Louis XIV, repeatedly manifested, the Jansenists were destined to survive his reign, though Port Royal fell before its close. The imprudence and disputatious humour of the Jansenists brought their doctrines again into question in 1702. The King’s antipathy to them was increased by some papers seized at Brussels in the house of their chief, Father Quesnel; from which it appeared that they had formerly purchased the Isle of Nordstrand, on the coast of Holstein, to form an asylum for their sect; and also that they had endeavored to get themselves comprised in the truce of Ratisbon in 1684, under the name of the “Disciples of St. Augustine”, as if they formed a political body like Lutherans or Calvinists. Louis, in his own name, and in that of Philip V, now besought Pope Clement XI to renew against the Jansenists the constitutions of his predecessors. Clement complied by a bull, which was accepted by the French clergy, in spite of the opposition of Cardinal de Noailles, Archbishop of Paris (1705). To revenge themselves on Noailles, the Jesuists obtained from Clement a condemnation of Quesnel’s Moral Reflections on the New Testament; a book of much repute, which had been published under the superintendence of the Cardinal, and which Clement himself is said to have praised. A ruder stroke was the suppression of the Abbey of Port Royal. The nuns had refused to accept the Papal bull of 1705. Le Tellier, who had succeeded Père La Chaise as the King’s confessor, resorted to violent measures, and the Cardinal de Noailles, to clear himself from the suspicion of being a Jansenist, gave his sanction to them. In November, 1709, the nuns of Port Royal were dragged from their abode and dispersed in various convents; and the famous abbey itself, consecrated by the memory of so much virtue, piety, and talent, was razed to its foundations.

Although the Cardinal de Noailles had taken part in the persecution of the Port Royalists, he refused to retract the approbation which he had given to Quesnel’s book. Louis’s Jesuit confessor, Le Tellier, instigated several bishops to denounce him to the King as an introducer of new doctrines; the book was prohibited by the Royal Council; and Pope Clement XI was requested to give it a fresh condemnation in a form which might be received in France. After waiting nearly two years, Clement replied by promulgating the famous Bull Unigenitus (September 8th, 1713). Instead of the general terms of the former bull, the present instrument expressly condemned 101 propositions extracted from the Reflexions Morales. Many of these breathe the spirit of true Christianity, and might be found in the writings of St. Augustine and even of St. Paul. Noailles and a few other prelates protested against the bull; but the King compelled the Parliament to register it, and the Sorbonne and other universities to receive it, the principal opponents of it being sent into exile. Nevertheless, the recusant bishops, who did not exceed fifteen in number, were supported by most of the principal religious orders, by the majority of the clergy, and by the opinion of the public, always adverse to the Jesuits. Le Tellier now endeavored to obtain the deposition of Noailles from the Archbishopric of Paris; and he was saved from that degradation only by the death of Louis XIV. The disputes proceeded during the Regency. The Jansenists seemed to gather fresh strength, and talked of appealing against the bull to a future Council. To put an end to the contest, and to save the Parliament, threatened with dissolution by the Court for refusing to register a Royal Decree for the acceptance of the bull, Noailles at length agreed to subscribe to it, with certain modifications. The question, however, was by no means set at rest. It was again agitated in the pontificate of Benedict XIII, in 1725; and, in 1750, it produced a great public scandal and disturbance, as we shall have to relate in a subsequent chapter.

The Quietists, another Roman Catholic sect, were much less important than the Jansenists. Their mystical tenets—a sort of inward, quiet, contemplation of the Divine perfections, a worship of the heart—were too refined and transcendental to attract many followers. The founder of the sect in France was Madame Guyon, who gave her principles to the world in two works, entitled Le Moyen Court and Les Torrents. The talent and enthusiasm of Madame Guyon obtained for her an illustrious disciple in Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambrai, the author of Telemachus. The sect had previously appeared in Italy, where the doctrines of Quietism had been propagated by a Spanish priest named Molinos. It had there been found, however—what is not unfrequently the case with exalted religious enthusiasm—that these mystical tenets had been productive of immorality among his disciples, who imagined that, so long as the soul was wrapped up in God, the acts of the body were of little consequence; and, in 1687, Molinos had been condemned by the Inquisition at Rome to perpetual imprisonment. These circumstances at first threw a suspicion on the French Quietists, who, however, do not appear to have deserved the reproach of immorality. But their doctrines were approved neither by the orthodox clergy nor by the Jansenists. Bossuet, the illustrious Bishop of Meaux, was their most virulent opponent. He caused Madame Guyon to be imprisoned at Vincennes, entered into a violent controversy with Fenelon, and procured from Pope Innocent XII a condemnation of that prelate’s work, entitled Explication des Maximes des Saints sur la Vie Interieure, in which he had explained and defended his principles. This affair, as well as the publication of Telemachus, entirely ruined Fenelon with Louis XIV and Madame Maintenon, and deprived him of all his former influence.

It is not our intention to describe the various religious sects which sprung up in England during this period, as the Independents, Quakers, Methodists, and others. As the Reformation had a tendency to produce sectarianism in men of enthusiastic temperaments, so, on the other hand, among those of more reasoning minds it was apt to beget scepticism and infidelity. The English School of Freethinkers took its rise in the seventeenth century with Hobbes, Shaftesbury, Tindal, Bolingbroke, and others; and hence was derived the French sceptical philosophy which produced the Revolution.

CHAPTER XLIII

THE INTRIGUES OF ELIZABETH FARNESE,1715-1733