CHAPTER IV.

FRANCE AND HER TRIBUTARIES

(1801-3).

 

 

In 1798 it had been the aim of the Coalition to destroy those revolutionary creations of the Directory: the Ligurian, Cisalpine, Batavian, and Helvetian Republics. The result of the campaign of 1800 was to affirm their existence and their independence. More than this; under the terms of the Treaty of Lunéville, Bonaparte intervened in Germany on the question of the indemnities to be paid to the dispossessed Princes of the left bank of the Rhine; and he proposed, by enforcing his own doctrine of “secularisation”, to bring about the aggrandisement of certain lay Princes and so create allies in the heart of Germany. It was only under the rule of Bonaparte that the political effects of the Revolution acquired any degree of durability in the tributary States. He had himself lost no time, after the events of Brumaire, in making important modifications in the constitutions of the Cisalpine Republic, Holland, and Switzerland. After the Peace of Amiens he was able to undertake the reorganisation of these countries.

At the outbreak of the revolutionary wars, the educated classes in Italy had welcomed the French as deliverers, in the hope of obtaining from them what as yet the Italians lacked: liberty and a fatherland. The French Revolution, while it ushered in the civil reforms which had been so ardently longed for by the majority of the people, had laid down, as a first principle, the independence of nations, and had aimed at giving them their freedom and at uniting them in appropriate groups by the ties of patriotism. It was this feature of the great movement of political emancipation in France which struck enlightened Italians, and caused all inhabitants of the peninsula to hail that movement with enthusiasm. This enthusiasm did not, however, survive the wars of the Republic. The Italians believed that it was the sole object of the French to free them and to ensure their liberty. The French, indeed, were willing to free the Italians and to share with them the gains of the Revolution; but the protection thus given was primarily intended to attach them to the Republic. The war, too, was costly; and by whom should the cost be defrayed if not by those who benefited by it? Before long, however, the necessities of the conqueror brought with them the desire of gain; and, by degrees, the wars of liberation were turned into wars of conquest. The Convention had treated the nations which submitted to it with a certain degree of generosity; the Directory, in its dealings with them, displayed only greed and cruelty. Generals and administrators rivalled each other in the art of making war at a profit. Bonaparte, during his first Italian campaign, showed a special aptitude in this direction. Not only did he levy enormous contributions upon the towns, sequestrate the estates and goods of the clergy, and quarter his soldiers upon the inhabitants, but he sent to Paris “everything which could be carried off and which might be useful”. Moreover his officers, agents, and commissioners, not content with enforcing requisitions on behalf of the army or the Directory, pillaged so shamelessly on their own account that Bonaparte was occasionally compelled to intervene.

During the second Italian campaign the people were subjected to the same exactions; and risings took place everywhere after the arrival of the French. Bonaparte, however, flattered himself that he would be able to win over the Italians by fair speeches and promises of good government. One of the chief mistakes of the Directory had been the persecution of religion. The First Consul, on the other hand, as soon as he entered Italy, declared himself its defender. In all his proclamations this advice was repeated: “Let your priests say mass; power lies with the people; if they wish for religion, respect their wishes”. This respect for religion went a long way towards smoothing down Italian opposition. An entirely new section of adherents were gained over, the middle classes and the people. To reconcile the Liberals with the new régime, Bonaparte boasted the benefits of the Revolution, civil equality and the suppression of abuses and privileges. He led the patriots to believe that, by means of the institutions which were to be given to Italy, he was preparing the way for national unity, which had already been brought about in France by the creation of a unity of principles and of legislation, of thought and sentiment, the tie which never fails to bind together all human communities. He thus led all parties to cherish the illusion that the new polity, half national republic, half protectorate, would eventually lead them to the full possession of their independence.

It was certainly no part of Bonaparte’s scheme to promote Italian unity. At Campo Formio, in spite of the wishes of the Directory, who had planned the creation of a strong republic in North Italy, he himself had been the foremost to mutilate that great scheme by the surrender of Venice, and, later, by the annexation of Piedmont. To enable him to become master of Italy, it was necessary that the country should be split up. In his private conversations with Frenchmen he declared that the Italian people, enervated by centuries of bondage, was unfitted for liberty and independence. To Italians he held out the splendid prospect of a united Italy; but he was well aware that the bulk of the nation, keenly interested in local and municipal matters and at heart indifferent to forms of government, would sooner or later be gained to France by the dispensing of equal justice and by a wise and careful administration. It was with these views that he organised Piedmont, Liguria, and the Cisalpine Republic.

The future of Piedmont had been provisionally settled by a decree of April 21, 1801, which made of it a French military province. By a decree of September 21, 1802, the administration was made civil instead of military; and the country was divided into six departments. This incorporation with France had been long foreseen; and the people accepted it willingly. Forced, after the Austro-Russian invasion, to submit to the excesses of a reaction which had not even restored their reigning family; invaded once more by the French, whom they had hailed as liberators; and governed subsequently by commissioners who were hampered by incessant financial difficulties, the Piedmontese desired nothing so much as peace, even at the expense of their nominal independence. During a year and a half they had become accustomed to the French administration, and had found it to be just and careful of the general good; the change made by Bonaparte did not affect them; it was merely a substitution of the permanent for the provisional. For the rest, they were by no means badly off under French rule. Agriculture, which had suffered much from the wars, was generally resumed; manufactures and commerce prospered; the people, who could now pursue their callings in peace, became reconciled to a régime which, if it did not give them liberty, at any rate ensured them security and a certain degree of comfort.

While Bonaparte was incorporating Piedmont with the French Republic, the government of the Ligurian Republic underwent important changes at his hands. The existing constitution of the latter country was a copy of the French constitution of the year III: it provided for government by a Directory with two elective Chambers. This constitution Bonaparte abolished; and, in concert with Salicetti, the French representative at Genoa, he created a new form of government, composed of a Senate and a Doge, who was to be his nominee. The change was made without opposition; and the new authorities took office on June 29, 1802. From that time forward, the Republic of Genoa was a docile instrument in Bonaparte’s hands, and continued to lend him useful support in his struggle with Great Britain until its incorporation with the French Empire in 1805.

In the Cisalpine, Bonaparte had no difficulty in reestablishing his authority; for Austrian ill-usage had caused the French to be remembered with regret. Not less intent than the French had been on absorbing the riches of the country, the Austrians had made themselves especially odious by the mean vengeance which they wreaked on those who had borne office under the Republic. Far-seeing men had not been wanting in Austria to warn the Government against these excesses, but their warnings were in vain. Patriots had been publicly flogged, and many had been thrown into prison. All the high functionaries of the Cisalpine Republic had been compelled to expiate their crime by forced labour on the government works at Cattaro. The gains of the Revolution had been nullified by a stroke of the pen ; and the former régime. aggravated by the abuses peculiar to Austrian rule, had been reestablished.

In its beginnings, however, French rule proved harsh enough. Before it obtained a regular polity, the Cisalpine had to submit to a Provisional Government which literally sucked the country dry. Bonaparte had indeed promised to reorganise the Republic in accord­ance with the principles which had triumphed in France in Brumaire: religion, equality, and good order. A year, however, was to pass before the promise was fulfilled; and during that time the Cisalpine was governed, first by a French agent, General Petiet, a former war minister of the Directory; then by a commission of nine, which was reduced subsequently to a triumvirate composed of three Milanese advocates, Sommariva, Visconti, and Ruga. In addition to this executive, there was a Legislative Assembly or Consulta, the members of which, limited in number, had been selected by Bonaparte. This Assemble was powerless; and the country lay at the mercy of the Triumvirate, two of whom, Sommariva and Ruga, governed with the sole object of enriching themselves at the expense of the State. The condition of the Cisalpine was for some time pitiable: compelled, according to the principle laid down by Bonaparte, to support the army of occupation, the Republic had under this head to make a monthly payment of 100.000 francs into the French Treasury. To this heavy charge were added innumerable and neverending requisitions in kind. The country districts had been ravaged; and a succession of bad harvests added to the general misery.

It was high time for Bonaparte to intervene, if he were not to lose the fruits of his conquest. After the signature of the Treaty of Lunéville, he announced to the inhabitants of the Cisalpine that he was about to organise their Republic on a permanent basis. Bonaparte had no intention of leaving to the Lombards the task of framing their own constitution. It was at Paris that the Constitution of the Cisalpine was drawn up. on the model of the French Consular Constitution. In September, 1801, when the draft was ready, Bonaparte summoned four of the most considerable citizens of the Republic, Marescalchi, Melzi, Aldini, and Serbelloni, submitted the result of his labours to them, and asked for their criticisms. But, subject to some slight modifications made at their suggestion, the Constitution remained essentially such as he himself had evolved it. The complete instrument was referred in secret to the Consulta at Milan, which adopted it without amendment.

As the foundation of the whole system, Bonaparte created a body of electors, divided into three colleges, the proprietors (possidenti), the learned classes (dotti), the trading classes (commercianti). These electors, 700 in number, appointed various bodies: a Commission of Censorship (Censura) of 21 members, whose duty it was to safeguard the constitution, and which resembled the French Senate; a Consulta of 8 members, whose business it was to draw up new laws, and who corresponded to the French Council of State; a Legislative Council of 10 members, whose task, like that of the French Tribunate, was to discuss proposed legislation; and lastly a Legislative Body of 75 members, condemned, like its French prototype, to silence, whose only function was to countersign such laws as were passed. But the powers of these various bodies were still further curtailed to the advantage of the executive. The executive authority was concentrated entirely in the hands of a President and a Vice-President, the powers of the latter being even more shadowy than were those of a Second Consul. These two magistrates were appointed for ten years.

In organising the Cisalpine Republic after this fashion, Bonaparte set before himself a double object. He strove, on the one hand, to set up a stable government which might reassure threatened interests and satisfy to a certain extent the national aspirations; on the other hand, to establish French rule in the north of Italy on a durable footing. Bonaparte attained the first end by the grant of a Constitution, and the second by reserving to himself the nomination of all the functionaries of the Republic. As usual, he was astute enough to make it appear that, in so doing, he was only carrying out the wishes of the people. Prompted by his agents, certain of the citizens came to Paris to beg him to choose their officials and so render a service to their country. Bonaparte replied that it was not possible for him to perform the task unaided; and he proposed to do so in concert with the most influential members of the Republic. It was arranged that this new Commission, the members of which had been chosen by Bonaparte, should meet at Lyons, in order, as he said, that its deliberations might be free from local influences. Four hundred and fifty-four deputies, all favourable to France, went to Lyons at the beginning of 1802, and in concert with Bonaparte dis­tributed the offices of the Republic. When they came to the choice of the chief magistrate—the President—a committee appointed for the purpose nominated Count Melzi, the most prominent person in Lombardy and a man who appeared to stand high in Bonaparte’s favour. Bonaparte, however, strongly disapproved of their choice. What was his reason for doing so the Lombards failed to understand, until Talleyrand enlightened them by enquiring why they did not nominate Bonaparte himself. The Italians took the hint at once, and lost no time in offering to Bonaparte the first place in their Republic. Bonaparte received the proposal as a matter of course. He told the Lombards that he accepted, “because he had found no one amongst them who had sufficient claims on popular esteem... and who had rendered services to his country sufficiently important to make him worthy of the chief magistracy”.

Not to have a President of their own nationality was a rude disappointment to the Lombards; but Bonaparte, by way of consolation, announced at the last sitting of the Commission, January 25, 1802, that from that time forward the name “Italian” should be substituted for that of “Cisalpine”. These words were received with unanimous applause. Did they not proclaim to the whole of Italy that the Republic might be welcomed as the first step towards national unity, towards that Italia virtuosa, magnanima ed una, which their poet Alfieri had foretold? Melzi was at the same time appointed Vice-President, with the task of governing in Bonaparte’s absence.

This first experiment of an Italian Republic was, at least at the outset, fairly successful. Melzi, a man of a gentle and conciliatory dis­position, who belonged to an old Lombard family, and earned great weight in the country, succeeded by his personal influence in smoothing down to a great extent the opposition of the privileged classes—the nobility and the clergy. The clergy in particular, already reassured by Bonaparte, were completely won over. The well-to-do classes, who had hitherto suffered severely from the depredations of French agents and the incessant requisitions imposed by the army, were harassed no longer. The support of the corps of occupation was arranged for on a definite basis, so that the burden could not be increased by arbitrary demands.

From the political point of view also, the situation seemed at first to promise fairly. Melzi, it is true, did not share Bonaparte’s ideas; he was a Liberal, and would have preferred a Constitution on the English model; but. he administered with strict impartiality the Constitution which had been given to his country. He received valuable assistance in his task from the officials whom Bonaparte had chosen, particularly from Prina, the famous minister, a very able man. In less than a year all the chief departments of state were organised; and the machine of government was put into working condition. Order was reestablished in the finances; a national army was created; and military schools for the instruction of officers were opened at Pavia and Modena. Public instruction, which under the Austrians had fallen into neglect, made a fresh start; and the universities of Bologna and Pavia were reopened.

But these auspicious beginnings led no further. Melzi did not receive that support from the people which might have given durability to his work. The nation, whose moral and national unity he strove to bring about, was strongly particularist at heart. The local spirit of the towns rebelled against the decisions of the central authority. The States to the south of the Po were impatient of the supremacy of Milan, and, in the words of the Vice-President, were “constantly hankering after federation”. Of devotion to the common cause there was none; each man thought only of himself. At the same time there was perpetual friction with the French. No one spoke well of the administration. “Why”, it was asked, “do we need an army of occupation? Are we not ourselves capable of keeping order in our own country?”. Strange to say, as better order was established, discontent increased. “The feeling of animosity against the French”, wrote Melzi, “is universal”.

To make head against so many difficulties a man of energy was needed, a man capable of combining all parties by the force of his own will. Melzi was not of this stamp; he lacked the higher qualities of a statesman. As a great noble, moreover, Melzi could not but feel an instinctive aversion to the Jacobin leaders, men who sprang from the middle or lower classes, and many of whom still sat on the various councils. Now these Jacobins were the representatives of French ideas; and, if they were no favourites of Bonaparte, he knew how to make use of them. On all occasions they found a ready listener in Murat, who commanded the army of occupation; and he omitted no opportunity of keeping the First Consul informed of what was happening in Lombardy. Naturally the tendency of these reports was to give the impression at Paris that Melzi was an enemy of France.

An event happened which for the moment almost lent credibility to these accusations. A captain in the Italian army, Ceroni, published under a pseudonym a collection of sonnets in which he sang the former glories of Italy, and contrasted them with her present humiliation, bewailing “the fatherland prostrate beneath the heel of the stranger”. In Bonaparte’s eyes such a book was treasonable; and he expressed surprise that Melzi should have allowed it to be published. So harsh, indeed, was his reprimand, that the Vice-President of the Italian Re­public, disheartened already by the ill success of his policy, sent in his resignation. Bonaparte declined to accept it. He was already, in his own mind, tracing the future of Lombardy. On the point of being proclaimed Emperor of the French, he dreamt of reviving in his own favour the kingdom of Italy; until that dream could be realised, it was necessary that Melzi should retain his office. The latter was compelled to sacrifice his own wishes and remain as Vice-President till Bonaparte came to Milan to assume the iron crown of Lombardy (May, 1805).

Compared with the north, which prospered in spite of French domination, the condition of the rest of Italy was deplorable in the extreme. The remaining States, unlike the Cisalpine and Piedmont, had not only lost their political independence, but were ill-governed and ill-administered into the bargain. In spite of the wealth of the soil, agriculture was at its lowest ebb. Industry and commerce were stifled under an antiquated system of laws. The commercial decline of Venice, which had begun in the middle of the eighteenth century, was hastened under the Austrian rule. Tuscany, which had been turned into the kingdom of Etruria, for the benefit of the Duke of Parma, the son-in-law of the King of Spain, was in a pitiable state: the King, feeble in mind and body, and affected by epilepsy, was entirely dominated by his wife, the bigoted Marie-Louise, who in her turn was dominated by the priesthood; the last vestiges of liberty had been abolished, and the privileges of the clergy augmented to a corresponding extent. At Rome the situation was no better. Pius VII, a man adorned with great virtues in private life, possessed no aptitude for government; and his States, administered as they had been in the Middle Ages, were reputed the most wretched in Italy. At Naples, Ferdinand IV was equally careless in promoting the prosperity of his kingdom; the policy on which he was wholly bent was one of feigning blind submission to Bonaparte, while he secretly intrigued against him with the Governments of Vienna, London, and St Petersburg.

Compared with these peoples, so execrably governed, northern Italy seemed fortunate. Her citizens, if they did not enjoy liberty, possessed at all events equality and equitable laws. If Bonaparte did not give the country its independence, he developed its wealth by undertaking great works of public utility. He made roads, cut canals, improved the ports, and transformed the cities. Consequently, among the Venetians, the Romans, and the Neapolitans there were many who would have welcomed French rule or annexation to the Italian Republic. Bonaparte, too, did not fail to encourage the belief that what he had effected in Piedmont and Lombardy had been effected in the interest of the Italians. In his official speeches he declared that the state of semi-subjection in which he held their country was only a stage on the road to absolute freedom, and that the day would come when he would restore to Italy the control of her own destinies. This illusion of the Italians was not to last long. In 1804 the Empire was established in France; and this involved for Italy the complete subjection of the country.

1797-1801] Changes in the Batavian Republic.

If the Dutch did not show the enthusiasm of the Italians for the doctrines of the French Revolution, those doctrines had, nevertheless, made their way into Holland even before the arrival of the armies of the Republic. The fragments of the old republican party, whose chief men had taken refuge in France after the revolution effected by the Stadholder William V in 1787, still existed in the country. In imitation of what had been done in Paris, these republicans founded clubs in most of the towns; after the French conquest, many of them became leaders in the new polity and the first office-bearers in the Batavian Republic. The first republican government was remarkable for its wisdom and moderation, but it was incapable of grappling with its political and financial difficulties. The ancient particularist tendencies of the Dutch showed themselves in each province and even in each town; and the military requisitions, which were often crushing, caused general discontent. An attempt at centralisation made in 1796, in the shape of a National Convention, whose members chose the executive, succeeded no better; and after two years the plan was abandoned. For some time (1797-8) all political life in Holland was paralysed by a series of coups d’état. Government by a Directory, modelled on that of France, at last secured to the country three years of comparative repose.

The Dutch Directory consisted of an executive body of five members. The legislative authority was shared between two Chambers: a Grand Council, which was representative in character, and a Council of Ancients. This system worked fairly well, and at any other time would probably have secured the well-being of the country. At the head of the Republic were active men of moderate views, capable of restoring to Holland her financial prosperity, which had been compromised by a series of revolutions. Progress, however, in that direction was once more blocked by the war of 1799 ; and on the morrow of Brune’s victories the Republic sank under the weight of its debt. Augereau, who commanded the army of occupation, drained the provinces dry by his incessant requisitions; and, as a last resource, the legislature was com­pelled to vote for the year 1800 a forced loan of 3 per cent, on capital values. Under these conditions the Government was quickly discredited.

This state of things afforded Bonaparte abundant excuse for interference in Holland. Ever since the revolution of Brumaire, his wish had been to change the system of government; and Semonville, the representative of France at the Hague, had written, “Batavia will accept whatever Constitution you give her”. In 1801 Bonaparte considered that the moment for intervention had come; and he drew up a Constitution which strengthened the executive, while it diminished the authority of the legislature to a corresponding extent. He created a Council of twelve members (Staatsbewind), with a Secretary-General and four Secretaries of State. The legislative power rested with a single Chamber of 35 members, chosen, in the first instance, by the Government, and afterwards to be renewed, one-third at a time, by the electors. This Chamber could only vote by a simple “aye” or “no” on the bills placed before them.

Bonaparte resolved to submit this Constitution to the two Chambers for ratification, convinced that they would accept it eagerly. He was mistaken: the Chambers declined to give it their sanction, and they were supported in their refusal by two of the Directors. Bonaparte did not hesitate. On Sept. 26, 1801, Augereau proclaimed the dissolution of the two Chambers; and, as the people made no sign, the Moniteur was able to say that the operation had been accomplished without the smallest disturbance. Bonaparte declared that he would appeal to the nation; and he did in fact, a few days later, submit his Constitution to the suffrages of the Dutch. Of 416,419 electors, 52,219 voted against the Constitution, and 16,771 for it; the rest abstained. This abstention was treated by Bonaparte as acquiescence; and on October 6, 1801, he declared that the Constitution had been accepted. In order to reconcile the Batavians to the new arrangement, he agreed to reduce, from 25,000 to 10,000 men, the number of soldiers which Holland was to support till the conclusion of peace with England. But, as a set-off to this reduction, he exacted a contribution of 65,000,000 florins.

This intervention of France in Holland took place only a few days before the signature of the Preliminaries of London, and could not fail to be displeasing to the British Government. Was it a prelude to the annexation of the country, in spite of the engagements which Bonaparte had entered into at Lunéville? To an enquiry made on this subject by the British Cabinet the First Consul replied “that every State had a right to organise itself as it thought fit; that Holland was free; and that, like the other Powers, she had her representative at Paris. This reply could not deceive the British Government. They did not, however, press the point, probably hoping that Bonaparte, tied down as he was by the Treaty of Lunéville, and by Article 2 of the Convention of the Hague, which bound him, on the conclusion of peace with England, to evacuate Holland, would refrain from further intervention.

In Holland the coup d’état of September 18, 1801, was received, not with the enthusiasm described by Semonville in his despatches to Paris, but with resigned indifference. The most that could be said was, that those of the nation who longed for repose saw in it some hope of a period of tranquillity. This hope became almost a certainty after the signature of the Treaty of Amiens. Freedom of navigation encouraged the Dutch to look forward to a renewal of their trade and to the end of the evils which had accumulated during nine years of war. At the same time, the struggle which had hitherto raged between the Orangists and the Patriots was terminated by the action of the Prince of Orange, who, on behalf of himself and his heirs, renounced all claims to the Stadholdership, and accepted in exchange the grant of the secularised German bishopric of Fulda, and the abbeys of Corvey and Weingarten. All this seemed to promise a brighter future.

These hopes, however, were doomed to disappointment. The Government, composed of men of undoubted honesty but lacking in ability and courage, was incapable of securing the repose and prosperity of the country. The gravest question which it had to deal with was the question of finance. There was a deficit of 50,000,000 florins; and the Council adopted most unpopular measures to make it good. They imposed, for example, a tax of 4 per cent, on property and of 10 per cent, on income for eight years. They showed, moreover, intolerance towards Jews and Catholics, who, as under the former régime, were excluded from political life; and this policy irritated the Liberals. Other measures alienated the sympathies of the army; and a conspiracy, stirred up by Generals Daendels and Dumonceau, very nearly succeeded. It was only due to the interference of Bonaparte, who managed to reduce the soldiery to order, that a fresh coup d'état did not take place.

The rupture of the Treaty of Amiens finally ruined the hopes of the Dutch. On June 25, 1803, Bonaparte imposed on them, in addition to the maintenance of the French army of occupation, the duty of providing 16,000 men, of fitting out five men-of-war and five frigates, and of building transports and boats sufficient for the accommodation of more than 60,000 men. This was too much for a country whose finances were exhausted. The Government, driven into a corner, attempted . to evade its engagements, and to delay the outbreak of hostilities with Great Britain. Bonaparte, who got wind of these measures, proposed in 1803 to bind Holland more closely to France by placing, as he said, “a man of character” at the head of affairs—he had already Schimmelpenninck in his eye—but the mass of business on his hands forced him to defer the execution of this plan.

Secularisation in Germany. [1797-1814

In Germany the effects of the French Revolution were not less important than in Italy. The people had become familiar with the ideas of liberty, fraternity, and equality through the teaching of their philosophers and poets, who at the end of the eighteenth century were essentially humanitarian and cosmopolitan. But these ideas would have had little chance of taking practical effect, had not the blows dealt by the revolutionary armies, and still more by those of Napoleon, shattered the political fabric which had so long kept Germany disunited and strangled all efforts at reform. Even after the rearrangement of 1803 had recast the map of Old Germany and given the States their more modern shape, the process of reform would never have been completed had not the Holy Roman Empire been dissolved, and had not, above all, the Napoleonic wars, by exciting the patriotism of the Germans, aroused in them an ardent spirit of nationality. Indirectly, then, the French Revolution and the events that followed produced great results in Germany. But its immediate effects hardly made themselves felt in that country except on the left bank of the Rhine. There the conditions of life bore a strong resemblance to those existing in France. Landed estates had been broken up; and the peasant proprietors enjoyed sufficient civil liberty to give them a taste for more. The feudal system had been so much relaxed as to suggest the idea of casting it off altogether. If we add to this the absence of historical traditions, we can understand the ease with which French ideas were acclimatised in the newly-conquered districts.

The inhabitants of the Rhenish provinces welcomed the French, who freed them from ecclesiastical and feudal burdens and gave them civil equality. The people were by no means strongly imbued with the sentiment of German patriotism. The young publicist, Gorres, a native of Coblenz, accepted annexation with the words: “The Rhine was created by nature to serve as the boundary of France.” It is true that, at the outset of the French conquest, the people had much to put up with, and that the requisitions imposed upon them caused great discontent: but from 1797 onward they had a regular and definite government. The German districts on the left bank, divided into four departments under a French Commissioner who resided at Mainz, were attached to the great Republic and enjoyed the advantages of the con­nexion. Bonaparte merely confirmed this arrangement, which lasted till 1814. During the whole of this period the left bank of the Rhine, defended by the line of fortresses which Napoleon had carefully constructed along the course of the river, enjoyed absolute peace. The district was indeed traversed by the Imperial armies, but remained untouched by war. The development of agriculture followed rapidly on civil freedom. The sale of the national domains at low prices created a multitude of peasant proprietors; and the various industries, freed from oppressive restrictions, grew rapidly and found important outlets in France. Napoleon encouraged the growth of the towns by the promotion of public works. In the rural districts roads were constructed; fruit trees were planted, and new breeds of horses, homed cattle, and merino sheep introduced. Liberty, it is true, existed no more on the banks of the Rhine than it did in France, and the press and all books sent from Germany were subject to a strict censorship; but, as the administration was fair and honest, the people were not dissatisfied with their lot. Till 1814 they remained attached to France.

The occupation of the left bank of the Rhine by the French brought about an important revolution in Germany. The Treaty of Lunéville provided that the dispossessed princes should be indemnified, and that the policy of secularisation should be put into force. When the Emperor Francis II announced this arrangement to the Diet at Ratisbon, that body was roused from its torpor and began to display an unwonted activity. On March 6, 1801, the three Colleges met to consider the Imperial communication. The King-Elector of Brandenburg proposed the ratification of the treaty, subject to certain reservations for the future, and to the condition that the Estates of the Empire should take part in the rearrangement of territory which must follow as a necessary consequence. This proposal was adopted by a majority.

Though not too well pleased to see the number of beneficiaries increased by the addition of the Stadholder and the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the temporal Princes were, on the whole, enchanted with the prospect of secularisation. They called to mind the vast confiscations of church property which had followed on the Reformation, and which the Treaties of Augsburg and Westphalia had confirmed. The fortunes of Prussia, Saxony, and Electoral Hesse dated from that time; and the rulers of Baden, Wurttemberg, and Bavaria looked forward to obtaining, by the aid of Bonaparte, similar aggrandisement. On the other hand, the Princes of the Church would not listen to the proposals for secularisation, and protested loudly against them, averring that, if their claims were disregarded, the Empire and the Catholic religion would alike perish.

Between two extremes—the party which adopted the policy of wholesale secularisation and that which repudiated it altogether, a third party sprang up, the party of limited secularisation, headed by Austria and Saxony. These three views were debated at great length; and, as no one was prepared to make concessions, discussion only served to intensify the divergence. Not only had the principle of redivision to be decided, but also the question of the amount of the indemnities them­selves. The rivalry was bitter; Austria and Prussia were peculiarly jealous of each other. At one time it seemed that these two Powers had come to an understanding with the object of settling all matters between themselves in a friendly way. They fell out, however, over the electorate of Cologne and the bishopric of Munster; and the discussions in the Diet grew more and more violent. Eventually, Bonaparte, in concert with the Tsar Alexander, resolved to intervene.

Bonaparte had long been waiting for this opportunity to meddle in the affairs of Germany. Master of the left bank of the Rhine, he called to mind the advice of Turenne, If you would defend the left bank of the Rhine, cross to the right. Accordingly, while deferring the project of creating, after Mazarin’s idea, a League of the Rhine, he aimed at establishing on the right bank friendly Powers who would mount guard for him. The Tsar, on his side, invoking the Treaty of Teschen (1779), declared that no rearrangement of German territory could take place without his participation. Bonaparte, who was not sorry to associate a great Power with the transformation which he contemplated in Germany, gave a cordial welcome to the Russian overtures. Their acceptance left him still master of the situation; and it was he, in the last resort, who determined the apportionment of property in Germany.

The German Princes knew well enough that the division of the spoil depended finally upon Bonaparte, and they forthwith hastened to Paris. In 1802 the capital of France presented a curious spectacle. An auction might have been going on for the sale of German lands, with Bonaparte as auctioneer. He bound all the Princes who received benefits by special and separate treaties, which placed them at his discretion. The Tsar, whose vanity he had flattered by giving him the credit of a successful mediation, and by satisfying him on all points in which the interests of France and Russia were identical, gave his approbation to the scheme, which was laid before the Diet on February 25, 1803. The question before the deputies involved readjustments of territory so important as to recast the whole map of Germany from one end to the other; the majority however approved the scheme; and the Emperor, Francis II, having no alternative, ratified their decision. The only objections which he put forward were in relation to the balance of votes in the Diet. The Protestants in that body, hitherto in a minority of 45 to 67, became, by virtue of the new arrangement, a majority of 67 to 53. This change entailed the defeat of the Austrian and the triumph of the Prussian party. In spite of this opposition, the new Imperial Constitution came into force in 1803; and it was destined to last, in essentials, until the complete destruction of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.

By this decision of the Diet the sixth part of Germany, with a population of four millions, was re­distributed amongst certain secular States, which gained more strength by consolidation than the Empire had lost by curtailment. Austria, which ceded the Breisgau and Ortenau to the Duke of Modena, received the bishoprics of Brixen and Trent. The Grand Duke of Tuscany, an ally of Austria, obtained the archbishopric of Salzburg, with the surrounding territory. Bavaria was very favourably treated. She received an area of 17,000 square kilometres with 900,000 inhabitants in exchange for the 12,000 square kilometres with 700,000 inhabitants which she surrendered on the left bank of the Rhine, and was rendered far more compact by the addition of these new territories. Würtemberg got nine free cities and a number of abbeys. Baden, which had lost nothing but a few petty lordships, received the bishopric of Constance, the towns of Heidelberg and Mannheim, ten abbeys, seven free cities, and gained 237,000 additional inhabitants. The Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel was liberally indemnified at the expense of the territory of Mainz. Hesse-Darmstadt, Nassau, and other of the minor lay Princes each received a substantial increase of territory. But, of all the States, it was again Prussia that came off best. In the place of the 2750 square kilometres and the 125,000 subjects which she lost, she acquired 12,000 square kilometres and 500,000 inhabitants in Westphalia, the very heart of Germany; she was thus placed in a position to renew her designs on the hegemony of the north.

The effect of all these changes was to add materially to the concentration of Germany. The petty Princes, especially the Princes of the Church, were nearly all dispossessed. Of these latter, numerous as they had formerly been, only three remained, viz. Dalberg, Elector of Mainz, who through Bonaparte’s influence was translated to the see of Ratisbon, now raised to an archbishopric, the holder of the see being made ex officio President of the Diet; the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order; and the Grand Master of the Order of the Knights of St John. The number of the electors was raised from 7 to 10; and that increase was favourable to the Protestants, 6 being Protestant and 4 Catholic. The free cities were reduced in number from 50 to 6, namely Hamburg, Lubeck, Bremen, Frankfort, Augsburg, and Nurnberg. The upshot of it all was that the Germany of the Middle Ages, with its ecclesiastical States, its orders of knighthood, and the preponderance of the Habsburgs, vanished, never to return. The independent nobility (Reichsadel) disappeared, to the advantage of the Princes; and the most powerful among the latter were the chief gainers. Another stage on the road towards a united Germany was accomplished; and, for this reason, the Imperial Recess of 1803 was in its way a revolution as radical as was the French Revolution of 1789.

1789-97 Influence of the Revolution in Switzerland

In Switzerland, the effects of the French Revolution resembled those in Germany: the ancient federation of 13 cantons with its subject and allied provinces, together with the extraordinary inequalities which existed between the country districts and the towns, disappeared once for all. In its place was created the Helvetic Republic, one and indivisible, which, by abolishing ecclesiastical and feudal burdens and the monopolies that clogged manufactures and commerce, and by establishing civil equality and liberty of conscience, laid the foundation of the democratic Switzerland of the nineteenth century. This work, it must be admitted, was accomplished less by the will of the citizens than by the conquering armies of the Revolution. The ideas of 1789 had indeed penetrated into Switzerland, where they found a ready response. The peasants, who were in subjection to the oligarchy of the towns, and the populations of the subject provinces—Vaud, Aargau, Thurgau, St Gallen, Ticino—who bore with impatience the yoke of their rulers, sympathised with the French revolutionaries. At Paris a Helvetian Club was founded in 1790, with the object of propagating revolutionary ideas in Switzerland: it flooded the towns and country districts with tracts and pamphlets preaching war against the oligarchy. Some risings took place in certain parts of Switzerland, at Schaffhausen and in Vaud, where, at the instigation of Frederic-Cesar de La Harpe and a knot of patriots, trees of liberty were planted and tricolour flags displayed, to the refrain of “Ça ira”. But these movements were promptly put down. The existing Governments in Switzerland were strongly reactionary; and even in the small democratic cantons of Old Switzerland, Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden, which had furnished many officers to France, Jacobinism was held in abhorrence. Consequently, in no part of Europe were French émigrés more numerous, relatively speaking, than in Switzerland; and they were generally welcomed.

This hospitality accorded to the refugees prejudiced the French revolutionary Government against Switzerland, and supplied it with an excuse for intervention. The strategical importance of the country had not escaped the Directory, which, after the coup d’état of Fructidor, 1797, had prepared a scheme of invasion. Returning from his first Italian campaign, Bonaparte passed through Switzerland on his way to the Congress of Rastatt, and satisfied himself that France, if she intervened in that country, would receive the support of certain sections of the population. The resolution of the Directory was taken forthwith: French agents, under the guise of travellers, overran the country, inciting the inhabitants to rebellion and promising the aid of France. Not long afterwards, French troops arrived in the Bernese Jura (then the bishopric of Basel) and in Vaud; and a few months later (March, 1798) the whole of Switzerland was under the rule of French generals, who announced themselves as liberators and promised to respect persons and property.

This pretended respect for persons and property was a cruel irony. Of the countries invaded by the revolutionary armies, none was worse treated than Switzerland. “The Directory”, said Carnot, “has looked for the country where it could find the greatest number of free men to sacrifice, and has thrown itself upon Switzerland”. Merciless contributions were levied on all the cantons and towns. The rich treasure lying at Bern found its way to Paris. Arsenals were pillaged, old banners carried off. The Confederation was impotent and could not interfere. As yet the cantons had not learned to make common cause. Each one fought for itself; and Bern opposed a heroic resistance to the foreign invaders. In the end, however, the country was subdued.

General Brune drew up a Constitution, under which the country was divided into three republics—the Rhodanique or Latin Switzerland, the Telliane or Old Switzerland, and the Helvetique or German Switzerland. This scheme, the work of a man who knew nothing of Swiss affairs, turned out impracticable, and at the end of seven days it was abandoned.

A new Constitution drawn up by Peter Ochs of Basel, one of the chiefs of the Swiss revolutionary party, was next established. It was copied from the French Constitution of the year III, and divided Switzerland into 23 cantons administered by prefects. The central legislative authority was divided between two bodies, the Senate and the Grand Council. The executive authority was in the hands of a Directory of five members chosen by the legislative bodies. A supreme tribunal was also created. This Constitution, however, was never accepted by the Swiss people as a whole. The mountain cantons, in particular, opposed it so strenuously that it was necessary, in order to enforce submission, to call in the French troops; and these unhappy districts were also deluged with blood.

The new Government, supported as it was by French arms, might have been accepted by the country had it not proved altogether inefficient. Its ideas were ambitious; it aimed at establishing a system of civil law, at organising public instruction, which was very backward in most of the cantons, at developing agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and art; but, having no funds at its disposal, it could effect nothing. The country, beneath the exactions of the French troops, had been taxed to the uttermost; and yet it was called upon every year to submit to fresh sacrifices of men and money. Aristocrats and democrats, who had been overawed by the French bayonets, began to grow restless when the Coalition defeated the French in Germany and Italy in 1799. But after Massena’s victories at Zurich, which confirmed once more the French protectorate in Switzerland, that country gave up the struggle.

For some years the revolutionary Government of the Helvetic Republic had much difficulty in maintaining its authority; and, attacked as it was by the aristocrats of the towns and the democrats of the old cantons, its members perceived that a coup d’état was the only means of establishing their power. They proposed to accomplish at Bern in the beginning of 1800 what Bonaparte had recently accomplished at Paris in Brumaire. The Federalists, on the other hand, believing that they could count upon Bonaparte (who had confided to one of them, the Bernese Jenner, his sympathies with the federal form of government), began an active agitation in certain of the cantons.

Bonaparte was not indifferent to what was passing in Switzerland; and, as in the case of Holland, he was on the watch for an opportunity to intervene. He gave the preference to neither of the two extreme parties which divided the country, but inclined rather to an intermediate group which recognised at once the advantages of the new regime and of certain institutions belonging to the past which it considered indis­pensable. This party, known in Switzerland as the Republican, stood midway between the patriots or Jacobins on the one side and the reactionaries or Federalists on the other. It was moderate in its claims and unionist in its objects. But the party was weak in numbers; its members were men of distinction who had been trained in the school of the Republic, and they formed, so to speak, a staff of officers without an army. Bonaparte nevertheless approached them ; and on January 8, 1800, a coup d’état was effected at Bern which placed these men in power.

This coup d’état was chiefly aimed at the Jacobin members of the Directory, La Harpe, Secretan, and Oberlin, who since the beginning of December, 1799, had been covertly preparing a coup d’état of their own. The two Directors who belonged to the Moderate party, Dolder and Savary, proposed in the Directory that it should dissolve itself. On the refusal of the majority to do this, the Moderates placed the matter before the two Councils, which were hostile to the Jacobin Directors. The two Councils dissolved the Directory, and entrusted the executive power to Dolder and Savary. Soon afterwards, instead of nominating fresh Directors, the Councils appointed an Executive Committee of seven members, moderate and experienced men, who were to act as a Provisional Government till another Constitution could be proclaimed.

This coup d’etat was speedily followed by another. Bonaparte could not tolerate the existence in Switzerland of two Assemblies, each with a Jacobin majority. He therefore encouraged the Executive Committee to substitute for the two Councils a Legislative Body composed of 43 members, of whom 35 were to be chosen from the Councils by the Executive Committee, while the remaining 8 were to be co-opted by the 35. The Legislative Body thus constituted was in its turn to appoint the executive in the shape of a Council of seven members. The Grand Council, on this proposal being submitted to it, discerned in it the hand of Bonaparte and voted it unanimously. The Senate, after a show of resistance, also acquiesced (August 8, 1800).

The Republican party formed the majority in the new Government, both in the executive and in the legislative departments; and they thought themselves strong enough to establish a Constitution framed in accordance with their own ideas, that is to say, at once unionist and liberal. It was, however, no part of Bonaparte’s plan to favour the creation of a centralised Switzerland which would be less under his control than a federation. The new Government submitted a scheme based on the French Consular Constitution. To this Bonaparte replied by a counter-project, the Constitution of Malmaison; and this he imposed upon the country in defiance of the Treaty of Lunéville, which had recognised Switzerland as an independent State.

The Constitution of Malmaison (May, 1801) divided Switzerland into 17 cantons, to each of which was given autonomy in various matters, particularly in those relating to finance and public instruction. Each canton was placed under the authority of a prefect; and the administra­tion was in each case adapted to local needs. The central authority consisted of a Diet of 77 members and a Senate of 25 members; and from the latter was chosen the First Magistrate of the country, who bore the title of Chief Landammann of Switzerland. The Landammann presided over a Council of Four, who formed the executive authority.

This Constitution, in spite of its imperfections, was the best that the country could hope for at the time. Taking into account recent events, it met the requirements of nature and history better than the unionist Constitutions which had preceded it; it may even be said that in certain respects it was superior to the Act of Mediation which followed it (1803). Had it been loyally applied, it would have restored peace to Switzerland and spared her many misfortunes; but, as things turned out, it found favour nowhere. The Republicans complained that it did not centralise sufficiently; the urban aristocrats could not forget the fact that it transformed the provinces which had formerly been held in subjection into autonomous cantons. The democrats of the smaller cantons declared roundly that they would never accept a Constitution imposed by a stranger. All parties therefore agreed in demanding its modification; and the Republicans, who formed the majority in the Diet, appointed a committee to reconstruct Bonaparte’s work. Nothing was better calculated to irritate the First Consul than this piece of audacity; and his annoyance was aggravated when the Diet declared that “the absolute integrity of Helvetian territory was a fundamental article of the Constitution”. This declaration was an answer to the proposal attributed to Bonaparte, of detaching Valais from the rest of Switzerland, so as to ensure the control of the passes into Italy.

The reply of the irate First Consul was not long delayed. On October 28, 1801, a third coup d’état at Bern swept away the Government of the Moderates. The stroke was secretly planned at Bern by Bonaparte’s agent Verninae, in collusion with the Bernese aristocrats. These latter, finding that Bonaparte was annoyed with the Republicans, made common cause with the Federalists of the small cantons in order to upset the Government. They succeeded, thanks to the support of French troops under General Montchoisy. The Diet was declared to be dissolved; the Constitution of Malmaison was reestablished; and for the office of Laudammann of Switzerland the choice fell on Aloys Reding, an ardent Federalist of Schwyz, who had organised the resistance of the smaller cantons to France in 1798. Meanwhile, Valais was occupied by the troops of General Thureau.

When he heard what had happened at Bern, Bonaparte feigned the liveliest indignation. Montchoisy was disavowed and recalled; but Verninae, who had pulled the strings, retained his post. In point of fact, the First Consul was very well satisfied with this fresh revolution, which increased the confusion in Switzerland. He received the new Landammann at Baris, and, according to his own expression, talked to him “as the First Magistrate of the Gauls might have done at the time when Helvetia formed part of Gaul”. The Federals demanded three things—the withdrawal of the French troops, the restitution to the cantons of their subject lands, and the retention of Valais as part of Switzerland. Bonaparte was unable to give a satisfactory reply on any of these points, but lie left Reding in the belief that he was favourably disposed towards the Federal party. Reding returned to Switzerland full of hope, but subsequently, when he found that Bonaparte had put him off with fair words, he turned to the other European Powers and sent agents on secret missions to Berlin, London, Vienna, and St Petersburg, to beg those Governments to maintain the independence and the neutrality of Switzerland.

Bonaparte, on hearing of this proceeding, was deeply incensed, withdrew his support from the Federals, and, shifting his position in the manner familiar to him, made a show of sympathy with the Republicans. The latter, believing that the moment had come for a fresh coup d’état, took advantage of the absence of many of the Federals from Bern during the Easter recess, declared the Senate indefinitely adjourned (April 17, 1802) and summoned an assembly of notables from all the cantons to agree on the changes to be made in the Constitution of Malmaison. Bonaparte allowed them to proceed, foreseeing that their action would but add to the existing confusion, and so furnish him in the eyes of Europe with the necessary pretext for forcible intervention. The convention was thereupon drawn up: it was a compromise between the Malmaison scheme and the Constitution designed by Ochs. On being submitted to the nation for approval, it was rejected by 92,000 votes against 72,000; but the Republicans, following the example of Bonaparte, declared that the 167,000 abstentions should count in its favour.

This new Constitution, imposed by force, gave rise to incessant troubles. In Vaud the peasants, irritated by the revival of taxes and tithes, rose in revolt, plundered the archives of castles and towns, and burnt their contents. To quell the rising, the aid of French troops was required. This was the very moment chosen by Bonaparte, with Machiavellian astuteness, to withdraw his soldiers from Swiss territory. Bonaparte had not miscalculated; hardly had the last French soldier quitted Swiss soil than risings took place in all directions. Instigated by Aloys Reding, the smaller cantons, with some of the others—Zurich being one—formed themselves into a federal State. Before long, this federation, which included the partisans of the old régime, grew so strong that the Helvetian Government was powerless to compel its dissolution by force of arms. General Andermatt, who commanded the government troops, after an unsuccessful attack on Zurich, was compelled to retire. The Federalists, under experienced leaders, made themselves masters of Bern, and expelled the Government. They then defeated their rivals at Morat, October 4, 1802, and marched on Lausanne in order to overthrow the Government, which had taken refuge there. At this point Bonaparte intervened. General Rapp, one of his aides-de-camp, brought the following message to the Swiss: “As you cannot agree amongst yourselves I have decided to step in as mediator”.

While he appeared merely to offer mediation, Bonaparte in reality imposed it by force. At the very moment when Rapp presented himself before the Helvetian Government, General Ney was ordered to march into Switzerland with 30,000 men and “crush all opposition”. He issued proclamations in which he stated that it was “at the request of the nation, and particularly on the demand of the Senate and the smaller cantons, that the First Consul intervened as mediator”. It was true; but, at the moment when the French invaded the territory of Switzerland, the Federalist Government despatched a protest to London, Vienna, and Berlin. The Emperor Francis II vouchsafed no reply, though the action of Bonaparte was in direct violation of the Treaty of Lunéville. The King of Prussia, Frederick William III, also kept silence. The British Government alone protested against the aggression, although infinitely less interested in Swiss affairs than were the continental Powers. On October 10, 1802, Lord Hawkesbury despatched a note to the French Government, reminding them that the principle of the neutrality of Switzerland was closely bound up with the questions of peace and the balance of power in Europe; that the Treaty of Lunéville, signed only a year before, had solemnly recognised and guaranteed that principle ; and that, in spite of all that was happening in Switzerland, he was unwilling to believe that it could be intended to reduce a free people to slavery.

In answer to this note, moderate in form but firm in tone, the First Consul, on October 23, caused Talleyrand to forward a declaration to Otto, French minister in London, which stated that, “if the British ministry made any public statement from which it might be inferred that the First Consul had refrained from doing any particular thing because he had been prevented, he would do it forthwith”. When Talleyrand despatched this note, the relations between England and France were already much strained. In Great Britain, public opinion was growing exasperated because the Government had failed to obtain a treaty of commerce from France. Bonaparte evaded their demands, and put off the proposal for a definite agreement by vague promises. As nothing came of this, the English began to lose patience. Bonaparte had his own grievances against the British Government. He resented the hospitality offered to refugees who were his enemies, and to the French Princes who conspired against him. He complained also of the attacks directed against him in the English press.

But, more than anything else, it was Bonaparte’s policy in Europe which embittered the relations of the two peoples. He was well aware of this; and his vigorous abuse of the English newspapers was due to the fact that they persisted in exposing and condemning his unworthy treatment of the weaker States, the hypocrisy of his high-handed proceedings glossed over by the falsehoods of the Moniteur, and the acts of violence of which he had been guilty towards Portugal, Spain, Holland, and Switzerland. Bonaparte sought to justify his long premeditated aggressions on the Continent by the refusal of the British Government to satisfy his demands, which he sought to represent as measures of precaution taken in view of a possible attack on the part of Great Britain. Thus, in August, 1802, after Lord Hawkesbury had formally refused to reply to Bonaparte’s menacing communications on the subject of the émigrés, the exiled French Princes, and the measures to be taken against the English press, the First Consul had retaliated by the definite annexation of Piedmont and the Isle of Elba, by a refusal to evacuate Flushing and Utrecht, and, a little later, by sending his forces under General Ney to occupy Switzerland.

All these acts, following on Bonaparte’s usurpations in Italy, and on the steps which he had taken to secure for himself the Presidency of the Cisalpine Republic, amply justified the apprehensions of British statesmen, who saw no limits to his aggressive career. They, too, sought protection against Bonaparte’s growing ambition; and it was with this object that they persistently demanded a return to the conditions which existed at the time of the Peace of Amiens. To this Bonaparte retorted : “At the time of the Peace of Amiens we had 30,000 men in Piedmont and 40,000 in the Cisalpine Republic; it follows that, if the English desire the state of things which existed at that date, they cannot complain of the state of things which exists today... As for Switzerland, we cannot do without her”. Switzerland was clearly the weak point in Bonaparte’s argument; the silence of the Treaty of Amiens on this subject could not be urged in his favour, for his intervention as mediator was subsequent to the declaration of peace.

Bonaparte was well aware that the British Government was deeply interested in the questions of Switzerland and Holland, and that these questions would in the end form the pivot of the discussion. At the time of his intervention in Switzerland, Otto wrote to Talleyrand: “The general opinion is that the evacuation of Malta will depend on the result of the negotiations relating to Switzerland.” Bonaparte declined in any circumstances to allow England to connect the two questions. “As to Switzerland”, he wrote to Talleyrand, “we cannot permit England to meddle there, for, if she did so, it would be only to spread disorder; she would make it a second Jersey from which to encourage agitation against France”; and he added, “I require, first and foremost, a frontier to cover Franche Comté. I require (in Switzerland) a firm government, friendly to France; this is my first aim, and, if I cannot secure it, I shall know what to do in the interests of France”.

Such was the position in October, 1802, when Bonaparte intervened in Switzerland. With so much suspicion on the one side and so much menace on the other, a rupture between the two Powers seemed only a question of days. Nevertheless both nations were so deeply interested in the preservation of peace, and each was so firmly convinced that the other desired peace and was prepared to make concessions to secure it, that a few weeks later regular diplomatic relations were renewed, Count Andreossy being sent as ambassador to London, and Lord Whitworth to Paris.

In order to arrive at a mutual understanding, it was arranged to avoid all burning questions ; but this was a difficult matter. At the opening of Parliament at the end of November, 1802, King George, while expressing his desire for the preservation of peace and the maintenance of good relations with all the Powers, added that England could not cease to emphasise the interest which she took “in certain States”. The States referred to were evidently Switzerland and Holland. Sheridan, speaking in Parliament, exposed in plain language Bonaparte’s policy of conquest. “Look at the map of Europe”, he exclaimed, “and you will see nothing but France”. Great Britain was consequently compelled to take certain measures of precaution; and, in spite of the pacific assurances of the King, the ministry asked for and obtained, with a view to the protection of Ireland, an addition of 66,000 men to the army and of 20,000 men to the navy.

Bonaparte had no belief in the warlike intentions of England; and, as the reports which he received from London spoke of the people as keenly desirous of peace, he imagined that the British Cabinet would yield to threats. Not a day passed but he abused the British Government. When in January, 1803, he received the Swiss delegates at Paris, he declared to them that, if the Cabinet of St James made representations on the subject of Switzerland, he would annex their country outright. A few days later, in a sitting of the Legislative Body, he announced that he was about to equip an army of 500,000 men against England, which he spoke of as “ isolated and powerless.” Finally, on January 30, there appeared in the Moniteur, with his approbation, the report of Colonel Sebastiani, who had been sent on a special mission to Egypt. This report described the army of occupation as an ill-armed and undisciplined rabble, worn out by debauchery, and went on to say that 6000 French soldiers would suffice for the reconquest of Egypt. It was by utterances of this sort that Bonaparte believed that he could force England to yield to his demands. The very opposite took place. Sebastiani’s report, added to the provocations already received, decided the British Government to declare that their troops would not be withdrawn from Malta until the conditions of March 1802 had been reestablished.

Bonaparte’s anger knew no bounds. On February 18, 1803, in the course of a violent scene with Lord Whitworth, he declaimed against British perfidy. When the British ambassador referred to the aggressive nature of Bonaparte’s policy in Europe, the First Consul answered, “Piedmont, Switzerland, Holland, are mere trifles”; and he went on to use language so coarse that Lord Whitworth wrote to his Government, that “he talked more like a captain of dragoons than the head of one of the greatest States in Europe”. On March 8 the King replied to this fresh provocation by asking Parliament for supplies. On the 10th the militia was embodied, and an addition of 10,000 men to the navy was voted. This gave Bonaparte the opportunity of making another scene with Lord Whitworth—the historic scene of March 13, when, in the presence of all the other ambassadors assembled at the Tuileries, Bonaparte addressed him with threatening words. “It is you who are determined to make war against us; you want to drive me to it. You will be the first to draw the sword; I shall be the last to sheathe it. Woe to those who show no respect for treaties!”

In spite of all this rodomontade, Bonaparte in his heart wished to maintain peace. He was informed by Duroc from Berlin and by Colbert from St Petersburg that neither the King of Prussia nor the Tsar approved his policy. The situation, however, had become so strained by reason of this very conduct that peace was no longer possible; or rather war could only have been avoided by his agreeing to the fresh conditions laid down by Great Britain. These were—(1) that she should retain Malta for ten years; (2) that Lampedusa should be ceded to her in perpetuity; (3) that the French troops should evacuate Holland and Switzerland. These terms Bonaparte could not bring himself to accept. Negotiations between London and Paris did indeed continue for a few weeks longer. Among the men who surrounded Bonaparte there was a peace party, whose leaders were Talleyrand, Cambacérès, and Joseph Bonaparte; and they made every effort to avert a rupture. The British Government, on its side, made what concessions it could, even undertaking by a secret article to evacuate Malta when the French should have withdrawn from Holland. But Bonaparte would not come to terms; and on May 12, 1803, Lord Whitworth left Paris.

Bonaparte had foreseen that the war could not be confined to France and England, but would involve the rest of the Continent. This, indeed, was his reason for occupying Piedmont, for reorganising Lombardy and Holland, and for recasting the map of Germany. His latest intervention in Switzerland gave him the control of the most important strategic position in central Europe.

Among Bonaparte’s works of constructive policy none has been more generally admired than the Act of Mediation. It has been termed a masterpiece, and such it may have been; but it was a masterpiece of Machiavellian policy. Bonaparte did not consult the Swiss when he gave them a Constitution. In conformity with the promise which he had made them in October, 1802, he summoned to Paris in the beginning of 1803, as a consultative assembly, the members of the Senate and all the citizens who had during the last three years filled the higher posts in the central administration. Some sixty deputies obeyed the summons, the greater part of whom belonged to the party of progress and unity. Bonaparte, however, was no more disposed in 1803 than he had been in 1800 to show special favour to any one party. Accordingly, at the first sitting, he asked for the appointment of a commission of ten members, five Federals and five Unionists, who, together with four French delegates, should study the question of the Constitution.

The scheme of the First Consul was a skilful compromise between new ideas and the traditions of Old Switzerland. The Unionists did not obtain the centralised authority which they demanded, while the aristocrats of the towns were compelled to renounce their privileges, and to include the former subject districts in the new Federal Constitution on an equal footing with the other cantons. The commissioners, in con­junction with the French delegates, were required to draw up memoranda containing their observations on the scheme. A preliminary draft was then prepared, which was read and discussed on January 29, 1803, at a meeting of the commission, presided over by Bonaparte. He listened to all the objections which were urged, and consented to modify certain points of detail; but in its essence the scheme was left precisely as he had conceived it. On February 19, 1803, the ten commissioners added their signatures in the name of the Swiss nation, which had not been consulted and upon which this constitution had been thrust.

The Act of Mediation replaced the Helvetic Republic, one and indivisible, by a Swiss Confederation of nineteen cantons, each enjoying sovereign powers and equal rights. The Confederation was identical with the Swiss Federation of today, except that it did not include Valais, Geneva, Neuchatel, or the former bishopric of Basel, i.e. the Bernese Jura. Politically, the cantons were divided into three groups, the rural cantons, the urban cantons, and the former subject districts. The rural cantons comprised the rural and mountain districts of central Switzerland as well as the Grisons; they recovered their ancient democratic organisation with their Landesgemeinden, or popular assemblies, which voted on the bills prepared by their Grand Councils; the executive authority was placed in the hands of a small Council, presided over by a supreme magistrate, or Landammann. The urban cantons received a political organisation aristocratic in character; the supreme magistrate (avoyer or burgomaster) governed with the aid of a Senate, a Council, and a Representative Body, elected on a limited suffrage, which contained deputies from the country districts. As for the districts formerly subject, now recognised as independent cantons, they also had Petty and Grand Councils; but, as in their case the electoral qualification was lower, their Governments were more democratic in character.

All the cantons were bound to conform to the terms of the federal compact, and were forbidden to conclude alliances either amongst themselves, or with a foreign Power. The local militias could, in case of necessity, be formed into a Federal contingent of 15,000 men ; and it was decided that every canton should contribute to the common expenses, which were estimated at 500,000 francs per annum. Six of the cantons, viz. Bern, Fribourg, Luzern, Zurich, Solothurn, and Basel, became in successive years the seat of the central authority. This “directorial” canton was known as the Vorort; and its first magistrate became Landammann of Switzerland. The powers of the Landammann were restricted; he had the general management of foreign affairs, opened and presided over the Diet, and was responsible for the main­tenance of internal order. He was authorised to convoke the cantonal authority in the event of disorders taking place, or of urgent operations being necessary in connexion with roads or rivers. He received a salary paid by his canton, which fixed its amount and also paid the salaries of his aide-de-camp, of the Chancellor of the Confederation, and of a clerk, the only three functionaries who held permanent office in the Government.

In addition to the Landammann, the central power consisted of the Federal Diet, which met every year during a month in the summer at the Vorort. Each canton sent a single deputy to the Diet, making 19 in all; but there were 25 votes, as every canton containing more than 100,000 inhabitants possessed two votes. The Diet dealt with treaties, raised the troops necessary to provide the Federal contingent, appointed the commander-in-chief, and settled disputes between the cantons when arbitration had failed. It had no other powers. The State possessed no standing army, hardly any revenue, and no diplomatic agents, and, in obedience to the will of Bonaparte, was compelled to accept the position of absolute neutrality.

It cannot be denied that Bonaparte showed marvellous penetration in dealing with the conditions existing in Switzerland. The Swiss were so sharply divided in political matters that a general agreement was impossible; and neither of the two great parties was willing to make concessions. By the compromise involved in the Act of Mediation, which aimed at holding the balance equal between the two sections, Bonaparte restored peace to the country. Between the premature aspirations of the Republicans and the purely federal tendencies of those who wished to revive in Switzerland, emancipated as she had been by the Revolution, the obsolete forms of the old régime, Bonaparte chose the form of Constitution best fitted to the circumstances. But it is open to question whether, when engaged in his task of construction, Bonaparte took the interests of the Swiss sufficiently into account. Their true interest would have demanded a better grouping of the various districts, greater centralisation, an army capable of enforcing respect for their neutrality, and a common treasury which would have enabled them to carry out urgent public works. A strong and compact Switzerland, however, was not what Bonaparte wanted; it was to his interest that she should be helpless without the aid of France, and strictly under her guardianship. By the Act of Mediation he obtained what he wanted: from 1803 to 1814 Switzerland ceased to have a distinct political existence; she became a mere satellite of France.

From the domestic point of view, the Act of Mediation was beneficial. After many years of barren strife Switzerland had at last time to breathe and work. The Act did not please everyone, for the country was neither free nor independent; but the bulk of the nation, satisfied with civil equality, and with the final suppression of the abuses of the old régime and of the gross injustice of the old relations between the cantons and subject districts, acclaimed with joy the work of Bonaparte. Above all, the inhabitants of the smaller cantons were overjoyed to return to their ancient form of government; and they drank to the health of the great mediator “who had relieved them from the intolerable yoke of Unionism”. They sent addresses of congratulation to Bonaparte, to which he graciously replied with the words, “The title of restorer of the liberty which you received from Tell is more dear to me than the most brilliant of my victories.” In later days the nation was to change its tone; but in 1803 it was in full enjoyment of its newly recovered tranquillity and peace.