READING HALL

THE DOORS OF WISDOM

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

CHAPTER LXXI.

NAPOLEON III AND EUROPE

WHILE great part of Europe was thus disturbed, the new French Republic was peacefully consolidating itself. The clubs were suppressed; part of the garde mobile dismissed; Blanqui, Raspail, and other agitators were condemned by the Court of Assizes at Bourges. In the spring of 1849 Louis Napoleon conciliated the Church by despatching to Rome the expedition under General Oudinot already mentioned, with the collateral view of establishing in Italy a counterpoise to Austrian influence, and making the arms of France respected.

The newly-elected Legislative Assembly met at Paris, May 28th. More than half the Chamber were new members, and many who had taken a leading part in the Revolution were not returned. Among those excluded were Lamartine and Marrast. The Red Republicans and Socialists were furious; Ledru Rollin violently attacked the President’s policy, nay, even sought to impeach him. The ill success at first of Oudinot at Rome favoured an attempt to incite a general insurrection. The Republicans of the Opposition, called the Mountain, consisting of about 120 members, invited the National Guard to make a procession, though unarmed, to the Assembly, in order to remind it of its duties (June 13th). But the President had taken the necessary military precautions, and Changarnier, at the head of the troops, dispersed the procession and destroyed the barricades which had been commenced. The insurgents were also driven from the Conservatory of Arts, where they had opened a sort of Convention, and named Ledru Rollin Dictator. Several of the ringleaders were appre­hended, while Ledru Rollin only saved himself by flight. The Paris insurrection was thus suppressed, as well as another which occurred the same day at Lyons; the latter, however, not without considerable bloodshed. After these events the republican journals were in part suppressed, and the remainder subjected by a new law to more rigid control.

In the summer of 1849 the President made several tours in the provinces. His policy assumed more and more a conservative tendency. Early in December he made some partial changes in the Ministry, and announced his intention to be firm; such, he said, had been the wish of France in choosing him. Many former adherents of the Bourbons now joined him, as Thiers, Mole, Broglie, Berryer, Montalembert, and others; but only in the hope that a restoration of one of the Bourbon lines might be effected. Most of the projets de loi which the President submitted to the Assembly were directed against liberty; such as higher securities for the journals, the leading articles of which were ordered to be signed, the limitation of the elective franchise, a severe law for the transporta­tion of political offenders, etc. The Chamber tamely submitted, and voted the President, though exceptionally for a year, a salary of 2,160,000 francs, instead of 600,000. Out of this supply he defrayed the expense of the military feasts, in which he was toasted as the “Emperor.” His plans were promoted by dread and hatred of Socialism, and his Government even became popular, because it insured tranquillity, with employment and prosperity as its consequences. But the basis of his power was fixed chiefly in the provinces, which now for the first time possessed more influence than Paris.

The Pretender, Henry V, Duke of Bordeaux, who in his exile used only the modest title of Comte de Chambord, visited Wiesbaden in August, 1850, where he was soon surrounded by the leading Legitimists of France. He was persuaded to publish a foolish manifesto. In the same month the ex-King, Louis Philippe, died at Claremont (August 26th). He left his family not altogether at unity. The Count of Paris, the claimant of the French throne, resided in Germany, at a distance from his relatives.

Another change in the French Administration took place in January, 1851, the chief feature of which was the dismissal of General Changarnier. It had been observed that in the reviews of the preceding autumn, all the regiments had shouted “Vive l’Empereur” except those commanded by Changarnier. The Assembly, however, began to show symptoms of resist­ance. A vote was carried of non-confidence in the new Ministry, which was again changed; and in February a proposal for increasing the President’s salary was rejected. But this opposition only stimulated Louis Napoleon in his purpose. Petitions came up from all parts of France demanding a revision of the Constitution or, in plain words, an Empire instead of a Republic; but they were rejected by the Chamber. When the Chamber was reopened in November the President again demanded a revision of the Constitution, in order, as he intimated, to regulate legally what the French people would otherwise know how to obtain in another manner. He alluded to the support which he might expect from the clergy, the agricultural and manufacturing interests, and above all from the troops ; and he hinted the influence of his name among the army, of which, according to the Constitution, he alone had the disposal. If the Assembly would not vote the revision of the Constitution, the people would, in 1852, when the term of his Presidency expired, express its new decision; that is, in other words, he would be proclaimed Emperor by universal suffrage.

The struggle between the President and the Chambers continued throughout 1851, in which year the Ministry was re­peatedly changed. A Government project to modify the electoral law of May 31st, 1850, and to restore universal suffrage, having been rejected by the Assembly in November, and a measure having been brought forward for determining the responsibility of the Ministers and of the head of the State, Louis Napoleon resolved on a coup d'etat. The soldiery were devoted to him, he had surrounded himself with able generals who favoured his cause, and he relied on the disunion which reigned among his opponents. M. de Thorigny, who refused to lend himself to the proposed coup d'état, was superseded as Minister of the Interior by M. de Moray, a speculator of doubtful repute. One of the chief agents in the plot was Major Fleury, a spendthrift and gamester of ruined fortunes and desperate character, to whom were assigned the more hazardous parts of the enterprise, and who stimulated and supplemented the sometimes faltering courage of Napoleon. Maupas, another coadjutor, was made Prefect of Police. M. de Persigny, an attached friend of Napoleon’s, took no very active share in the plot. To secure the army, General St. Arnaud, whose real name was Jacques Arnaud Le Roy, who had no troublesome scruples, was sent for from Algeria, and made Minister of War. The services of General Magnan, who commanded the troops quartered in Paris, were also secured. On the night of December 1st, the President, in order to divert attention, gave a grand party, during which the troops were distributed in readiness for action, the Government presses were employed in printing placards and proclamations, and arrests were quietly effected of all such generals, deputies, and other persons whose opposition might prove troublesome. Among those arrested were Generals Cavaignac, Changarnier, Lamoricière, Bedeau, and others; Messrs. Thiers, Roger du Nord, Victor Hugo, Eugene Sue, etc. The prisoners were carried, some to Vincennes, some to Ham, in the cage-like carriages used for the conveyance of persons sentenced to transportation. On the morning of December 2nd placards appeared upon the walls of Paris containing the following decrees: “The National Assembly is dissolved, universal suffrage is re-established, the Elective Colleges are summoned to meet on the 14th of December, the first military division (Paris and the Department of the Seine) is placed in a state of siege, the Council of State is dissolved.” These decrees were accompanied with an Address to the people, proposing a responsible chief, to be named for ten years, and other changes. If the people were discontented with the President’s acts, they must choose another person; but if they confided to him a great mission, they must give him the means of fulfilling it. Another proclamation was addressed to the army, in which Louis Napoleon reminded them of the disdain with which they had been treated during the reign of Louis Philippe, that they had now an opportunity to recover their ancient consideration as the elite of the nation, that their history was identified with his own by a preceding community of glory and misfortunes.

On the appearance of these proclamations, the Deputies, to the number of 252, among whom was Odillon Barrot, finding the Palais Bourbon, their usual place of meeting, occupied by troops, assembled at the Mayoralty of the 10th Arrondisse­ment, and resolved, on the motion of M. Berryer, to depose the President, and to give General Oudinot the command of the army. But they were all surrounded and taken into custody by the Chasseurs de Vincenues. Some resistance was attempted on the morning of December 4th, and a few barricades were erected on the Boulevards, but not of the requisite strength; and the troops, under General Magnan, easily overcame all opposition. Yet there was a regular massacre, and hundreds of innocent persons, who were offering no resistance, were killed, while the troops lost only twenty-five men. Per­sons captured with arms in their hands were shot on the spot. Within a few weeks after, 26,500 persons, accused of belonging to secret societies, were transported, and several thousands more were imprisoned. The fear of anarchy induced the upper and middling classes to support Napoleon: the National Guard remained passive.

The Revolution was favourably received at Vienna, St. Petersburg, and Berlin. Napoleon surrounded himself with a consultative Commission, into which were admitted all the notabilities that were inclined to adhere to him. M. Leon Faucher alone refused to be nominated. Matters took the course which had been anticipated. Before the end of December Napoleon was elected President for ten years by nearly seven and a half million votes, while only 640,737 were recorded against him. He now released the adversaries whom he had imprisoned. General Cavaignac was allowed to return to Paris: Changarnier, Lamoricière, Victor Hugo, Thiers, and the rest were banished: but M. Thiers was shortly after permitted to return. Rioters taken in arms were transported en masse to Cayenne.

It now only remained to prepare the way for the grand final step—the assumption of Imperial power. Early in 1852 the gilt eagles of the first Napoleon were restored on the standards of the army; the National Guard was dissolved and reconstituted on a new system; the trees of liberty and other Republican emblems were removed from the public places; the name of Napoleon was substituted for that of the Republic in the prayers of the Church. On the 15th of January the new Constitution was promulgated, which, though it professed to confirm the principles of 1789, was a return to the system of the first Napoleon. The Executive power was vested in the President, who was to be advised with still decreasing authority by a State Council, a Senate of nobles, and a completely powerless Legislative Assembly, whose transactions, at the demand of five members, might be secret. Napoleon confiscated the greater part of the possessions of the House of Orleans, and ordered that the remainder of them should be sold by the family itself before the expiration of the year. De Morny, with his colleagues, Roucher, Fould, and Dupin, who did not approve this measure, resigned; but their places were soon supplied by other Ministers devoted to Napoleon, to whom he gave large salaries. At a grand review, held January 21st, he distributed among the soldiers medals which entitled the holders of them to one hundred francs yearly. The Universities were reformed, the Professors deprived of the inde­pendence which they had enjoyed, and some of them, as Michelet and Edgar Quinet, were dismissed. The grateful Senate voted the President a civil list of twelve million francs, the titles of “ Prince ” and “ Monseigneur,” and the use of the Royal Palaces.

In the autumn the President again made a long tour in the south of France, and was everywhere saluted with cries of “Vive I’Empereur”. On re-entering Paris in state, October 16th, whither many provincial persons had flocked, the same cry struck his ear, the emblems of the Empire everywhere met his eyes. Napoleon now alighted at the palace of the Tuileries, where he fixed his residence. He directed the Senate to debate the restoration of the Empire, which had been so significantly demanded during his tour in the provinces; but it was to be sanctioned by the universal suffrage of the nation, by votes to be taken on November 21st and 22nd. On this occasion the votes recorded in his favour were 7,824,189, and those against him only 253,145. On December 2nd he was proclaimed Emperor, with the title of Napoleon III. Thus did he recklessly violate the solemn oath which he had sworn before God, and the plighted word of honour which he had given to the nation, in 1848, that he would uphold the indivisible Republic. And his inauguration as Emperor was blessed by the priests in the same cathedral in which he had uttered the oath to be faithful to the established Constitution.

The Constitution of January, 1852, was confirmed with some modifications. The royal title was restored to Napoleon’s uncle, Jerome Bonaparte; Generals St. Arnaud, Magnan, and Castellane were created Marshals of the Empire. All foreign Courts were assured of the French Emperor’s wish for peace, in token of which a reduction of 30,000 men was made in the army. England and most of the European Powers acknow­ledged Napoleon’s title; the three Northern Courts did the same, after a short hesitation, in January, 1853. On the 29th of that month Napoleon married Donna Eugenia Montijo, Countess of Teba: on which occasion he granted an amnesty for political offences, and pardoned upwards of 3,000 loyal persons.

Rivalry of Austria and Prussia.

Meanwhile, in Germany, where the influence of Austria was restored by the extinction of the revolution, matters were gradually resuming their ancient course. The question of the German Constitution, however, still remained a cause of dis­union. Austria, backed by the influence of Russia, succeeded in reestablishing the Federal Constitution with the Frankfurt Diet, as arranged in 1815. But Prussia was not willing to relinquish her pretensions to take a more leading part in the affairs of Germany. On February 26th, 1850, Frederick William IV took the oath to the new Prussian Constitution, granted by himself, as of divine right, in the preceding month. The Prussian Government now endeavoured, in opposition to Austria, to form a new Bund, or Confederation, of which Prussia was to be the presiding Power, and which was to consist of all the German States except the Austrian. With this view a German Parliament was convoked at Erfurt, March 20th, which was attended by representatives from such States as approved the Prussian views. But distrust and apprehension prevailed, and after a few sittings the New Parliament was indefinitely adjourned. The King of Wurtemberg, on opening the Diet of his Kingdom, March 15th, 1850, expressed himself so strongly against the projects of the Court of Berlin, that diplomatic relations were suspended between Wurtemberg and Prussia. Frederick William IV made another attempt to form a separate league by summoning a Congress at Berlin in May, which was attended by twenty-two German Princes, besides the representatives of Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck. At the same time, Austria had summoned the Diet of the Confederation to meet at Frankfurt, which was attended by representatives from all the States except Prussia and Oldenburg. Thus two rival congresses were sitting at the same time; one at Berlin, to establish a new Confederation under Prussian influence; and one at Frankfurt, to maintain the old one under the supremacy of Austria. The quarrel of the two leading German Powers was brought to an issue by some disturbances which occurred in Hesse-Cassel. Hassenpflug, the Elector’s Minister, treating the States with contempt, attempted to raise taxes without their consent. This arbitrary and unconstitutional act was opposed even by persons in the employ of the Government, and the Elector in alarm fled to Frankfurt. Even a deputation from the officers of the army proceeded to Frankfurt to protest against the illegal proceedings of Hassenpflug; to whom the Elector replied: “If you will not obey, take oft your coats.” Hereupon, between two and three hundred officers resigned their commissions. The seat of the Electoral Government was now established at Wilhelmsbad (September). The Diet at Frankfurt resolved to support the Elector against his subjects, and Austria, Bavaria, and Würtemberg prepared to interfere in his favour; while Prussia took up the opposite side, and moved a large military force towards the Hessian frontier. A collision ap­peared inevitable, when hostilities were averted by Russian interference and a change of ministry at Berlin. To put an end to these disputes, conferences were opened at Olmütz, and on November 27th was signed the Convention of Olmütz, by which Prussia virtually abandoned her ambitious projects, and subordinated herself to Austria. The Olmütz Convention was followed by conferences at Dresden towards the end of Decem­ber, which lasted till the middle of May, 1851. In these debates, Prussia, under Russian influence, was induced to ac­knowledge the Frankfurt Diet, in short, to withdraw all her novel pretensions ; and thus the ancient state of things, after four years of revolution and disturbance, was re-established in the German Confederation. The Emperor of Austria now withdrew the Constitution which he had granted to his subjects, the definitive abolition of which was proclaimed January 1st, 1852.

Frederick William IV of Prussia was at this time and till the end of his reign entirely guided by what was called the Kreuz party, or Party of the Cross. The chiefs of it were the Queen, Manteuffel, General Gerlach, the counsellor Niebuhr, and at this time also Herr Bismarck Schonhausen. Its organ was the Kreuz Zeitung, and its policy to draw closer the bonds of union between Austria and Prussia; to acquire the confidence of the smaller German Powers by moral influence ; to look up to Russia as the protectress of monarchical principles ; and to oppose a tacit resistance to all impulses from the Western nations. Austria, on her side, kept herself as much aloof as possible from all commerce or interchange of ideas with the rest of Germany by a prohibitive system of customs dues, by passports, a rigid censorship of the Press, and other means of the like sort. In this policy she was encouraged by Russia, and as that Power also predominated at Berlin, it may be said to have exercised at this period a sort of dictatorship in Germany. But among the more enlightened and enterprising Prussians a growing desire prevailed for the establishment of German unity under Prussian supremacy. Although now submitting to Austrian influence, Prussia was undoubtedly the more powerful State of the two. But to consolidate her power, much remained to be done. The straggling line of her dominions from the Baltic to the Rhine, flanked on all sides by independent States, was an element of weakness. Above all, she needed and coveted some good ports in order to become a naval Power. But the accomplishment of these objects awaited the master-hand of a great statesman.

The reign of Frederick William IV may be said to have virtually ended in 1857. In July of that year he was seized with a malady at first considered trifling; but it was soon followed by congestion of the brain, and ended in mental weakness. Having no children, he transferred, in October, to his brother William, Prince of Prussia, the management of affairs; who, in October of the following year, was declared Regent by a royal ordinance. Both Manteuffel and Bismarck, hitherto subservient to Austria, now began to oppose that Power, and the personal sentiments of the Regent himself were thought to incline that way. A scheme was at this time formed of two separate unions—one of North Germany, under Prussia, and another of the South, under Austria, which it was thought would do away with the rivalry and bickerings of those Powers. But the plan was distasteful to the minor States, as involving their subjection to one of the leading Powers. In opposition to it, Bavaria, Würtemberg, Saxony, Hanover, Hesse-Cassel and Hesse-Darmstadt would have pre­ferred a union among themselves, thus forming a German Triad; and this scheme was advocated, but without result, by Von der Pfordten and Von Beust, the Bavarian and Saxon Ministers.

The affairs of Schleswig-Holstein had been again occasion of anxiety and disturbance. A definitive peace between Denmark and the King of Prussia, in the name of the German Confederation, had been signed July 2nd, 1850, by which the Duchies were relinquished to the Danes, but the rights of the German Bund in Holstein were maintained. The Duchies, however, renewed the war on their own account, but were finally reduced to submission to the King of Denmark by the intervention of the German Confederation. In the negotiations which ensued Denmark engaged that she would do nothing towards the incorporation of Schleswig; but at the same time it was maintained that the German Diet had no right to meddle with the affairs of that duchy. Nor was any such engagement mentioned in the subsequent Treaty of London, May 8th, 1852; and therefore the treaty was not conditional upon it, though no doubt it induced Austria and Prussia to sign. By this treaty, to which were parties Austria, France, England, Prussia, Russia, and Sweden, all the dominions then united under the sceptre of Denmark were to fall to Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, and his issue in the male line by his marriage with Louisa, Princess of Hesse. The principle of the integrity of the Danish monarchy was acknowledged by the contracting parties; but the rights of the German Confederation with regard to the Duchies of Holstein and Lauenburg were not to be affected by the treaty. The Duke of Augustenburg relinquished, for a pecuniary satisfaction, his claim to Schleswig and Holstein.

Although Schleswig was a sovereign duchy, whilst Holstein was subject to the German Confederation, they were neverthe­less united by having the same Constitution and a common Assembly. Prussian troops had occupied Holstein while the negotiations were going on, and to get rid of them the King of Denmark explained his views regarding a Constitution. The two great German Powers deemed his plans too liberal, and Frederick was invited to give separate Constitutions to the duchies. Thus the Constitutional union between Schleswig and Holstein was to be dissolved at the instance of the Germans themselves. The new Constitution was not published till October, 1855. The four States constituting the Danish monarchy had a general Assembly, or Rigsraad, consisting of deputies from each. It soon, however, became evident that such a Constitution would not work, and there were constant bickerings, especially on the part of the Holsteiners. The consequences of such a state of things will appear in a subsequent chapter.

SPAIN

In Spain, after the ill-omened marriage of Isabella, the Government of the country seemed mainly to depend on her licentious amours. Weariness of Serrano and a new passion for Colonel Gandara led to the overthrow of Salamanca’s Ministry, October 4th, 1846, and the establishment of Narvaez and the Moderados. Narvaez compelled Isabella to observe at least external decency, and persuaded her again to admit King Francisco to the palace. Espartero returned to Spain early in 1848 and reconciled himself with Narvaez, but retired to a country life. Narvaez and the Moderados were in power at the time of Louis Philippe’s fall, and were on a good understanding with the Queen-mother Christina, who had returned to Spain. The French Revolution of February 1848 was followed in Spain, as in other countries, by disturbances. The Progressistas, or ultra democratic party, attempted an insurrection, March 23rd, and again, May 6th, but they were put down by the energy of the ministers. A suspicion that the English Government was concerned in these movements produced a temporary misunderstanding between Spain and Great Britain. After the fall of Louis Philippe, Lord Palmerston had instructed Sir H. Lytton Bulwer, the English Ambassador at Madrid, to advise the Spanish Government to adopt “ a legal and constitutional system.” This interfer­ence was naturally resented by the Spaniards, and after some correspondence, passports were forwarded to Sir H. L. Bulwer, May 19th, on the alleged ground that he had been privy to some plots against the Government. This quarrel was followed by a suspension of diplomatic correspondence between the two countries, which was not renewed till August, 1850. A de­sultory guerilla warfare was also kept up throughout the year 1848 in the north of Spain by General Cabrera, the leader of the Carlists.

The continued success of Narvaez and the Moderados encouraged Queen Christina to attempt the restoration of absolutism. Narvaez was suddenly dismissed, October 18th, 1849, and General Cleonard appointed in his place; a person, however, so wholly insignificant and incompetent, that it soon became necessary to restore Narvaez. Other more secret intrigues against that minister were baffled; but a piratical attempt by the Americans in 1850 to seize Cuba led to his downfall, by showing how necessary the friendship of England was to Spain. Narvaez was dismissed January 11th, 1851, to the great grief of Isabella. Christina now ruled for some time with the new minister Bravo Murillo, but kept in the Con­stitutional path; till Napoleon’s coup d'état in December, 1852, and Isabella’s delivery of a healthy daughter, which seemed to secure the succession, encouraged her mother to adopt some reactionary measures. These, however, served only to unite the Moderados and Progressistas; it became necessary to recall Narvaez; but in December, 1853, Christina dismissed and banished him. The Queen-mother’s thoughts were now bent on nothing but plundering the State for the benefit of her illegitimate children. Her conduct produced two or three unsuccessful revolts; but she was at length overthrown, and sent into Portugal (July 20th, 1854). Espartero and the extreme Progressistas having now seized the reins of government, were in turn overthrown by an insurrection of the soldiery, conducted by O’Donnell, July 16th, 1856. But O’Donnell’s hold of power was but short. He was compelled to resign in October, when Christina and Narvaez once more took the helm.

Portugal, under the reign of Donna Maria da Gloria, had also been agitated by two or three insurrections, which were, however, suppressed. Queen Maria died, in the prime of life, November 15th, 1853, and was succeeded by her son, Don Pedro V. The new King being a minor, the Regency was assumed by his father, Ferdinand; but after spending some time in travelling, Pedro took the government into his own hands in 1855.

Meanwhile Rome continued to be occupied by the French, under the protection of whose bayonets Pius IX returned to Rome in April, 1850, and almost seemed to enjoy his former power. Under French guardianship attention to political matters was superfluous, and the Pope’s thoughts were diverted to the more congenial affairs of the Church. He employed himself in propagating Mariolatry, and in 1854 he caused a great assembly of bishops to establish the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: a doctrine accepted by the Council of Basle in 1439, but not hitherto confirmed by the Pope. Pius IX. celebrated its establishment by crowning the image of the Virgin with a splendid diadem, December 8th, 1854. The smouldering discontent in many other parts of Italy produced during the next few years no events worth recording. The oppressions of the Neapolitan Government caused the French and English Cabinets in 1856 to break off diplomatic relations with it. But the tyranny of the rulers of Italy was only preparing their own punishment.

In France, the Emperor Napoleon III went on consolidating his power. The first great political event of his reign was the war which he waged, in conjunction with England, against Russia. There was an ancient prophecy that in the year 1853, when four centuries would have elapsed from the taking of Constantinople, the Turkish Empire would be overthrown. The position of affairs appeared to the Russian Emperor Nicholas a favourable one for attempting a long-cherished Muscovite project. The Turkish Empire seemed in a state of irretrievable prostration, and the Tsar proposed to the British Government early in 1853 a partition of the “sick man’s” spoils, by which Egypt, and, perhaps, Candia, was to fall to the share of England. The offer was, of course, rejected; it was then made to France with the like result, and the two Western nations united to oppose the designs of Nicholas. The Tsar explained his views at this period in an interview with Sir G. H. Seymour, the English Ambassador at St. Petersburg. Nicholas observed: “There are several things which I never will tolerate. I will not tolerate the permanent occupation of Constantinople by the Russians; and it shall never be held by the English, French, or any other great nation. Again, I will never permit any attempt at the reconstruction of the Byzantine Empire, or such an extension of Greece as would render her a powerful state: still less will I permit the breaking up of Turkey into little republics, asylums for the Kossuths and Mazzinis, and other revolutionists of Europe. Rather than submit to any of these arrangements, I would go to war, and as long as I have a man or a musket I would carry it on.” Here the only reason which the Tsar alleges against a Greek state is, that it would be powerful; that is, a bar to Muscovite ambition.

Russia seized the opportunity of a dispute respecting the use and guardianship of the Holy Places at Jerusalem and in Palestine to pick a quarrel with the Porte. Nicholas, as protector of the Greek Christians in the Holy City, complained that the Porte had, contrary to treaty, allowed undue privileges to the Latin Christians, especially by granting them a key to the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem; also one of the keys of each of the two doors of the Sacred Manger; and further permitting the French monks to place in the Sanctuary of the Nativity a silver star adorned with the French arms; while France, on the other hand, as protector of the Latin Christians, maintained that all that had been done was only in conformity with ancient usage and agreement. Such were the pretexts sought for a sanguinary war. It was de­sired by Napoleon, and M. de Lavalette, the French Ambas­sador to the Porte, is said to have been the first to use threats. The Emperor Nicholas, after mustering the Russian fleet with great ostentation at Sebastopol, as well as an army of 30,000 men, despatched Prince Menschikofl on a special embassy to Constantinople, to demand the exclusive protection of all members of the Greek Church in Turkey, and the settlement of the question respecting the Holy Places, on terms which would have left the supremacy to the Greeks. Menschikoff purposely delivered his message with marks of the greatest contempt, appearing in full Divan in his great coat and boots (March 2nd, 1853). Lord Stratford de Redcliffe and M. De la Cour, the English and French Ambassadors, were unfortunately absent; but they returned in April, and on their assur­ance of vigorous support, the Sultan rejected the Russian demands. Lord Stratford, however, had succeeded in adjusting the question about the Holy Places, and the breach was caused by the Porte rejecting the Russian demand for the protectorate of the Greek Church in Turkey. Menschikoff, after handing in an ultimatum which was disregarded, took his departure, May 21st, with the threat that he had come in his great coat, but would return in his uniform.

The Sultan published in June a Firman, confirming the Christians in his Empire in all their rights, and about the same time the English and French fleets, under Admirals Dundas and Hamelin, anchored near the entrance of the Dardanelles. Early in July the Russian army under Prince Gortschakov crossed the Pruth, and commenced a war which the Tsar wished to appear as a war of religion. The Russians, divided into two corps of about 40,000 men each, commanded by Generals Dannenberg and Luders, exercised under this holy pretence all manner of plunder and violence in Moldavia and Wallachia, the hospodars of which principalities fled into Austria. Meanwhile the Turkish army remained on the right bank of the Danube, and the Russians during the summer contented themselves with occupying the left. It was mani­festly the interest of Austria that Russia should not be allowed to increase her power south of the Danube; yet she contented herself with joining Prussia in friendly representations to the Court of St. Petersburg, that both Powers would enter into no further engagements than to cooperate in endeavouring to maintain peace. France and England, indeed, the latter under the Government of Lord Aberdeen, with Mr. Gladstone as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had relieved Austria from the necessity of drawing the sword on her own behalf. The Court of Berlin displayed as usual a base servility to the Russian autocrat. Nicholas had an interview with the Austrian Emperor Francis Joseph, at Olmütz, September 24th; whence he proceeded to Berlin, on a visit to his brother-in-law, Frederick William IV. He wished to form with these Sovereigns a triple alliance against the Western Powers, but succeeded only in obtaining their neutrality ; and he engaged that his troops should not cross the Danube.

WAR

A declaration of war by the Porte, October 4th, in case the Russians refused to evacuate the principalities, afforded Nicholas the wished-for opportunity to proclaim himself the party attacked. He did not, however, push the war with a vigour at all proportioned to his boastful threats. The first trial of strength was in favour of the Turks. Omar Pasha having sent 3,000 men over the Danube, this small corps intrenched itself at Olteniza and repulsed the attacks of 7,000 Russians (November 4th, 1853). On the 27th of the same month France and England concluded a treaty with the Porte, promising their aid in case Russia would not agree to moderate conditions of peace. But an event which occurred a few days after entirely dissipated all such hopes. Admiral Nachimov, the Russian commander in the Black Sea, taking advantage of a fog, attacked and destroyed the Turkish fleet under Osman Pasha, while lying at Sinope, not, however, without considerable damage to his own vessels (November 30th). As the English and French fleets had passed the Dardanelles in September, and were now at anchor in the Bosphorus, the act of Nachimov appeared a wilful defiance of the Maritime Powers. This event excited feelings of great indignation in England; and, as was natural, still more so at Constantinople. It was now evident that the attempts of the Conference, which the four great neutral Powers, Austria, France, Great Britain, and Prussia, had assembled in the summer at Vienna, to maintain peace, would be abortive; and, indeed, their proposals were rejected both by Russia and the Porte; by the latter, chiefly because of an article requiring a renewal of the ancient treaties between Turkey and Russia. The Emperor of the French addressed an autograph letter to the Emperor Nicholas, January 29th, 1854, to which, contrary to expectation, Nicholas replied at length, and though sophistically, with politeness. It can hardly be doubted, however, that Napoleon desired a war, with a view to secure his throne by diverting the attention of the French from domestic affairs, and dazzling them with feats of arms. A close alliance with England, moreover, would add stability to his government, and give his usurpation a sort of sanction. In February, diplomatic relations were broken off between Russia and the Western Powers; the latter declared war against the Tsar, and concluded an offensive and defensive alliance with Turkey, March 12th. Austria contented herself with placing a corps of observation on the Servian frontier; while Prussia, though recognizing the injustice of the Russian proceedings, declined to oppose them.

Towards the close of 1853, the Russians, under General Anrep, 50,000 strong, had attacked Kalafat, which forms a fortified tête de pont to Widdin, in the hope of penetrating into Servia; but they were repulsed, and suffered severe loss from the climate at that season. The Russians renewed the attempt, January 6th, 1854, but were again defeated at Citate; after which they withdrew from this quarter, on account of the Austrian army of observation. The plan to make their way to Constantinople by an insurrection of the Slavs, Servians, Bosnians, and Bulgarians, was thus frustrated. Some of the Greeks rose, but only to commit robbery and murder; and the Court of Athens was too fearful of the Western Powers to venture on any movement.

Prince Paskiewitsch was now appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army, and the attack was transferred from the right wing to the left. A division crossed the Danube near Silistria, another lower down, near the Pruth, and having formed a junction, advanced to attack Omar Pacha, who retired to Shumla (March, 1854). With a view to draw him from this position, Paskiewitsch caused Silistria to be besieged. But Omar was too wary to fall into the trap ; all the Russian assaults were repulsed, Paskiewitsch himself was wounded, and on June 21st he abandoned the siege, recrossed the Danube, and even the Pruth. The last step was taken in consequence of the attitude assumed by Austria and Prussia. Those two Powers had entered into an offensive and defensive alliance, April 20th, by which they agreed to declare war against Russia if her troops should pass the Balkan, or if she should attempt to incorporate the principalities. An Austrian note, backed by Prussia, and addressed in June to the Cabinet of St. Petersburg, had required the evacuation of Wallachia and Moldavia; and those principalities, by virtue of a convention with the Porte, were now occupied by the Austrians.

Meanwhile France and England were beginning to take part in the war. The allied fleets had attacked Odessa, April 22nd, and burnt a number of ships and houses, but abstained from bombarding the town. The English army under Lord Raglan, under whom served the Duke of Cambridge and other officers of distinction, had landed at Gallipoli, April 5th, where they found a portion of the French army already disembarked. Hence the allies proceeded to Varna, with the design of penetrating into the Dobrudscha  but the nature of the country and the fearful mortality among the troops, from the climate and cholera, caused the enterprise to be abandoned. To penetrate into the heart of Russia appeared im­possible, and it was therefore resolved to attempt the capture of Sebastopol. The allied armies, in spite of their losses, still numbered about 50,000 men; and embarking with about 6,000 Turks, they landed without opposition near Eupatoria in the Crimea, September 14th, 1854. Nachimov, the victor of Sinope, though he had fifty-four Russian ships at Sebastopol, ventured not to come out and attack the allied armament. The forces of Prince Menschikov, who commanded in the Crimea, were inferior to those of the allies; but he had taken up a position on the river Alma which he deemed impregnable, and in his overweening confidence he had invited a party of ladies from Sebastopol to come and behold the destruction of the enemy. But the position was carried by the indomitable courage of the British, September 20th; not, however, without great loss, from having to assault the position in front; while the French, under Marshal St. Arnaud, who were to turn the enemy’s left wing, contributed but little to the success of the day. The allied loss amounted to 3,479 men, of which nearly three-fifths belonged to the British, although their troops were not nearly so numerous as the French. The Russian loss was estimated at about 8,000 men.

A necessary delay to bury the dead and provide for the sick and wounded deprived the allies of the opportunity to penetrate along with the enemy into Sebastopol. It was not judged practicable to take it by assault, though this might perhaps have been accomplished had it been immediately undertaken, and a siege in regular form became therefore necessary. Marshal St. Arnaud was compelled by the state of his health to resign the command to General Canrobert soon after the battle of the Alma. He died in his passage to Constantinople. The English army now took up a position at the Bay of Balaclava, the French at that of Kamiesch, and began to open trenches on the plateau on the south side of Sebastopol. The allies opened their fire on the town, October 17th. Sebastopol was also bombarded by the fleets, which, however, suffered so severely that they were compelled to desist. The Russians attacked the English position at Balaclava, October 25th, but were repulsed; a battle rendered memorable by the gallant but rash and fatal charge of the British cavalry, when, by some mistake in the delivery of orders, nearly two-thirds of the light brigade were uselessly sacrificed. This battle was soon followed by that of Inker­man, November 5th, when the Russians, with very superior forces, and in the presence of the Grand Dukes Nicholas and Michael, again attacked the British position, and were once more repulsed with dreadful loss. The British were most gallantly supported by their French allies. During this cam­paign, Admiral Napier, with the British fleet, accompanied by a French squadron, proceeded into the Baltic, where, however, little was effected. Cronstadt was found too strong to be attacked; the Russian fleet kept in port, and the British admiral was forced to content himself with capturing some merchant vessels, and burning timber and other stores. Some English ships also penetrated into the White Sea, blockaded Archangel, and destroyed the port of Kola. A detachment of French troops under General Baraguay d’Hilliers captured Bomarsund in the Aland Isles, August 15th; after which exploit the allied fleet quitted the Baltic.

Austria concluded an offensive and defensive alliance with the two Western Powers, December 2nd, 1854, but lent them no assistance. Russia pretended to enter into negotiations for a peace at Vienna, only with a view to gain time, and if possible to separate the allies. A more active ally than Austria, though without the same interest in the dispute, was the King of Sardinia; who, in January, 1855, joined the Western Powers and sent an army of 15,000 men, under General La Marmora, into the Crimea. The allied armies had passed a most dreadful winter in their encampments. The British soldiers especially died by hundreds of cold, disease, and privation, while the clothing, stores, and medicines, which might have averted these calamities, were, through the almost incredible bungling and mismanagement of the commissariat department, lying unpacked at Balaclava. The just and violent indignation felt in England at this state of things produced the fall of the Aberdeen Ministry in February, 1855. Lord Aberdeen was succeeded as Prime Minister by Lord Palmerston.

The Russians made an ineffectual attempt on Eupatoria, February 16th. The sudden and unexpected death of the Emperor Nicholas, March 2nd, seemed to open a prospect for peace. His successor, Alexander II, was more pacifically disposed than his father, and the conferences at Vienna were reopened. The recall of Prince Menschikov from the Crimea, who was succeeded by Prince Gortschakov, seemed also a concession to public opinion. The reduction of Sebastopol appeared, however, to the allies, and especially to Napoleon III, to be a necessary satisfaction for military honour. The bombardment of Sebastopol was, after a long preparation, reopened by the allies, April 6th, 1855; but the fire of the place still proved superior. A naval expedition, under Admirals Lyons and Bruat, proceeded to the Sea of Azov, took Kertsch, Yenikale, Mariapol, Taganrog, and other places, and destroyed vast quantities of provisions and stores which served to supply Sebastopol. A grand assault delivered by the allies on that city, June 18th, was repulsed with great loss to the assailants. A change in the command of both the allied armies took place about this time. By the death of Lord Raglan, June 28th, General Simpson succeeded to the command of the English force, while the French General Canrobert had resigned a little previously in favour of Pelissier. Austria this month virtually withdrew from an alliance which she had never materially assisted, and by discharging great part of her troops enabled Russia to despatch to the Crimea several regiments which she had been obliged to keep in Poland.

In the Baltic, Admiral Dundas, who had been substituted for Napier, found himself unable to effect more than had been accomplished by his predecessor the year before. His operations were confined to the burning of a few Russian harbours and an ineffectual attempt to bombard Sveaborg. But under their reverses the allied Powers drew still closer the entente cordiale. Napoleon with his consort had visited London in the spring, and in August his visit was returned by Queen Victoria. A meeting of both the Sovereigns at the tomb of Napoleon the First seemed calculated to obliterate for ever any remains of national animosity.

The valour and perseverance of the allies were at length to triumph over all difficulties. An attack on the allied position by the Russians from the Tschernaja was repulsed with great loss, August 16th, and on the following day a terrible bom­bardment of Sebastopol was begun. By September 8th, the fortifications had been reduced almost to a heap of rubbish, and it was determined to assault the place. The French succeeded in capturing the Malakov Tower, while the British penetrated into the Redan, but were unable to hold it. The south side of Sebastopol was, however, no longer tenable after the capture of the Malakov; and in the night Prince Gortschakov evacuated it, passing over the arm of the sea which separates it from the north side by means of a bridge of boats. Previously to their departure the Russians sunk all their ships in the harbour with the exception of a steamer. The success of the allies was not, however, decisive. They made one or two ineffectual sorties against Gortschakoff’s new position; and even had they succeeded in driving him thence, the Crimea still remained to be conquered. With the view of effecting that conquest, the fleets had undertaken a second expedition to the Sea of Azov, where they destroyed the small fortresses of Fanagoria and Taman, as well as another against Kinburn, to the north-west of the Crimea, which was captured after a short bombardment. But it was found impossible to take Perekop, and thus, by obtaining command of the Isthmus, compel Gortschakov to retreat.

During this period a war had been also raging between the Turks and Russians in the Trans-Caucasian provinces, which our limits permit us not to describe. This year the remains of the Turkish army in this quarter were dispersed by the Russian general Muraviev. The English general Williams distinguished himself by the defence of Kars, repulsing re­peated assaults of the Russians ; but famine at length com­pelled him to surrender the city, November 7th, 1855.

The capture of Kars seemed a compensation to Russian The Peace military honour for the loss of Sebastopol, and facilitated the opening of negotiations for a peace. Austria now intervened; Prince Esterhazy was despatched to St. Petersburg, and on January 16th, 1856, signed with Count Nesselrode a protocol containing the bases of negotiation. These were: the abolition of the Russian protectorate in the Danubian Principalities, the freedom of the Danube and its mouths, the neutralization of the Black Sea, which was to be open to the commerce of all nations, but closed to ships of war; no military or naval arsenals to be maintained there; the immunities of the Rayah, or Christian, subjects of the Porte to be preserved. In order to deprive Russia of any pretence for interference with regard to this last point, the Porte accepted ten days later twenty-one propositions with regard to it made by the Western Powers and Austria, which included reforms of the tribunals, police, mode of taxation, etc. After the arrangement of these matters Conferences for a peace were opened at Paris, February 26th, when an armistice was agreed upon to last till March 31st. The Conference consisted of the representatives of Great Britain, Austria, France, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey. Prussia, having taken no part in the war, was at first excluded from the Congress, but by persevering importunity, obtained admission, March 11th. The definitive Peace of Paris was signed on the conditions before mentioned, March 30th. Russia engaged to restore Kars to the Porte, and the Allied Powers to evacuate Sebastopol and all their other conquests in the Crimea. The integrity of the Turkish Empire was guaranteed, and the Porte admitted to participate in the ad­vantages of European public law and concert. A Firman which the Porte had published in favour of the Christians was not to give other Powers a right to interfere in the internal administration of Turkey. The Black Sea was neutralized, the Emperor of Russia and the Sultan agreed not to erect or maintain any military arsenal on its coasts, and to keep only such a number of ships of war in that sea, for the maintenance of the necessary police, as might be agreed on between the two Powers. The Danubian principalities remained in the same state as before; and the Porte engaged that they should have an independent administration, with liberty of worship, legislation, etc. The Danube was declared unconditionally free, and a European Commission was appointed to superintend its navigation and police. The line of the Russian and Turkish frontier was left to be arranged by delegates of the contracting Powers, and was finally determined by another Treaty of Paris, concluded between those Powers June 19th, 1857. The line in Bessarabia was laid down according to a topographical map prepared for the purpose. The islands forming the Delta of the Danube, including the Isle of Serpents, were now restored to the sovereignty of the Porte.

A fortnight after the first Treaty of Paris, a short tripartite Treaty in three Articles was executed at Paris (April 15th) by Austria, France and Great Britain, guaranteeing the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire; of which every infraction was to be considered a casus belli.

To complete the account of these transactions must be added the Convention respecting the Danubian Principalities, signed at Paris by the six Christian Powers and the Porte, August 19th, 1858, of which the following were the chief provisions : —Moldavia and Wallachia, as united principalities, remained under the suzerainty of the Sultan; Moldavia paying an annual tribute of 1,500,000 piastres, and Wallachia 2,500,000. The principalities were to enjoy a free and independent ad­ministration. Each was to be governed by a Hospodar, elected for life, and an elective Assembly, acting with the concurrence of a Central Commission common to both, sitting at Tockshany. Individual liberty was guaranteed, and Christians of every denomination were to enjoy equal political rights.