The Revolutionary Movement of 1848-9 in Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Germany / With Some Examination of the Previous Thirty-three Years

by C. Edmund Maurice

THE VIENNA LEGION.

Their hearts beat high and hopeful,
In the bright October days;
Not March's glorious breezes
Could bolder daring raise.
No more with idle drum beats,
But with cannons' thundering tone,
Marched forth to guard the ramparts,
Vienna's Legion.

Once more they come to guard it,—
The freedom won by fight;
Once more 'tis force must conquer,
When blood is shed for right.
A steely forest threatens,
Ere yet the day be won;
But the Fatherland, they'll save it,
Vienna's Legion.

And, as the Spartans hurled them
On the Persian's mighty horde,
They burst on the barbarian,
To smite with German sword.
Their lives into the balance
In careless scorn they've thrown;
And victory crowns their daring,
Vienna's Legion.

Thus did they struggle boldly,
For many a day and night;
Thus were they crushed, o'er wearied
By the tyrant's conquering might;
Grey warriors wept in anguish
O'er many a gallant son;
E'en in defeat 'twas victor,
Vienna's Legion.

Their deeds will well be honoured
In the victor's glorious lay;
Our youth lay dead in battle,
But they would not yield the day.
Let others crouch and tremble!
No pardon will they own;
They dare not live in bondage,—
Vienna's Legion.

In the days of bright October
They shouted in their pride;
Their blows fell thick and boldly,
They struck their strokes—and died.
The gallant lads have fallen;
In blood the Legion lie;
But in the grave that hides them
Is buried—Germany.

CHAPTER X.
THE LAST EFFORTS OF CONSTITUTIONALISM. JUNE, 1848-MARCH, 1849.

Difference of the Prussian movement from the other March movements.—The Silesian question.—The Rhine Province.—The Berlin workmen.—The grievances of the other Prussian Liberals.—Hansemann and his concessions.—The proposal of a Workmen's Parliament.—The "German" movement in Prussia.—The fall of Hansemann.—The reaction in Berlin.—The deputation to Potsdam.—"Das Unglück der Könige."—"Brandenburg in the Chamber, or the Chamber in Brandenburg."—The struggle between the Parliament and the King.—The refusal to pay taxes.—The final dissolution.—Value of the resistance of the Prussian Liberals.—The offer of the Crown of Germany to Frederick William.—Consequences of his refusal.—Abdication of Ferdinand of Austria.—The Parliament at Kremsier.—Its character.—Its dissolution.—Difficulties of Pius IX. and of his Ministers.—Rossi as Prime Minister.—The contradictions in his position.—His opposition to Italian ideas.—His murder.—The rising in Rome.—The democratic Ministry.—The flight to Gaeta.—Mamiani's theories.—The Forli petition.—The summons to the Roman Assembly.—Leopold of Tuscany and Guerrazzi.—Flight of the Grand Duke.—Guerrazzi and Mazzini.—Difficulties of Gioberti.—His schemes for restoring the Pope and the Grand Duke.—Their failure.—Radetzky's breaches of faith in Lombardy.—The appeal of the Lombards.—The declaration of war by Charles Albert.—Attitude of the Roman Assembly.—Mazzini's appeal and its effect.—The blunders of Charles Albert and his officers.—Tito Speri at Brescia.—"Defeat more glorious than victory."—The "Tiger of Brescia."—Novara.—Abdication of Charles Albert.—End of the "Constitutional" efforts for freedom.

While the Frankfort Parliament had been discussing personal liberties, Constitutional arrangements, and the relation of the different races to each other; while in Italy, Hungary, and Bohemia the questions of national independence and race equality had thrown every other into the background; while in Vienna the republican aspirations of the students, the contest between German and Bohemian, and the discontent of the workmen, had all merged into one common element of confusion, so as at last to make government impossible; in Prussia the condition of the workmen had assumed a position of such paramount importance, during the period from April to August, as to obscure even the most pressing Constitutional questions. The workmen's petition had been the first step in the March movement in Berlin; and the miseries of the Silesian famine had quickened the desire for the improvement of the condition of the poor. This Silesian question, indeed, may perhaps be reckoned as the chief cause of the difference between the Prussian movement, and those which were taking place in the other countries of Europe. In that unfortunate province, the aristocracy seem to have tried to combine the maintenance of their old feudal power with such advantages as they could gain from modern commercial ideas. Thus the millers, who carried on the chief industry of Silesia, still paid enormous dues to the landlords for the use of their mills, while, at the same time, the landlords would start mills of their own in competition with the millers, who were paying dues to them; and, as the landlord was free from those imposts, he was often able to ruin those who were at once his rivals and dependents. Other dues of a peculiar kind were paid for protection supposed to be given by the landlord; others, again, were exacted under the pretext of supplying education to the children; while at the same time excessive preservation of game was hindering the natural development of agriculture. At the same time on the Western side of Prussia, in the Rhine Province, the French influence was colouring the feelings of the population; and the socialistic June risings in Paris excited the sympathies of the citizens of Cologne.

All these causes, combined with those new hopes for a change of condition which had been roused by the Revolution, tended to excite the workmen of Berlin to action of a more definitely socialistic kind than was possible even in Vienna; and on May 21 the workmen's union of Berlin called upon all the unions of workmen throughout the Kingdom to send representatives to the capital. This naturally tended to fix the attention of the Prussian politicians on the questions specially affecting the working classes; and Hansemann, a moderate Conservative, promised to bring forward measures for curing the distresses of the workmen. In Berlin, as elsewhere, the suffering classes found that these things were more easily promised than fulfilled; and the disappointment of their hopes produced a continual tendency to riot and disorder.

But the discontent roused by these causes was considerably strengthened by other grievances of a different kind. The aristocratic character of the Prussian Constitution which was proclaimed in April, had excited indignation in members of the Prussian Liberal party, who had little sympathy with socialistic agitations. The return of the Prince of Prussia to Berlin was reckoned as a sign of still further reactionary intentions on the part of the Government; while a more justifiable ground of complaint than either of these was found in the cruelties with which General Pfuel was stamping out in Posen a movement originally sanctioned by the Prussian King and Parliament. He had stirred up riots and encouraged the Germans to insult the Poles, some of whom were branded and had their heads shaved; their priests had been murdered, and images desecrated. These cruelties and insults provoked not only anger, but fear; for some of the Prussian Liberals believed that the troops then used against the Poles might end in trampling out the liberties of Berlin. If we add to these causes of discontent that tyrannical conduct of the Prussian soldiers in Mainz, which had so provoked the Frankfort Liberals; the apparent defiance to the French Republic, by the massing of troops in the Rhine Province, combined with the neglect to guard the North-eastern frontier of Prussia against the Russian troops which were fast gathering there; and last, but not least, the sluggishness and hesitation shown in the Schleswig-Holstein war, we shall see how naturally the bitter disappointment of the workmen chimed in with the feelings of suspicion felt by other classes of Liberals. The Berlin students, indeed, endeavoured to prevent the workmen from continually betaking themselves to violence; but they were unable to accomplish much in this direction. The workmen had despaired of peaceable remedies; and on June 8 they broke into the Assembly, attacked the Ministers, and were with difficulty restored to order.

This state of things naturally produced a general feeling of suspicion and bitterness among all classes; and while, on the one side, a movement began in Berlin, and some of the other Prussian towns, in favour of a more Conservative Ministry, and the extreme champions of reaction even talked of removing the Parliament to Potsdam, the miseries of Silesia and Posen so roused the feelings of the Prussian Democrats that every step in the Conservative direction, however apparently innocent, gave cause for new outbreaks. Thus when new gates were put up to bar the entrance to the royal castle at Berlin, they were seized and carried off by the crowd; and when a deputation of thirty starving workmen, bearing the German flag, with the red flag by its side, were repulsed by the Ministers, there arose a cry for the general arming of the people; and when this was refused, the workmen stormed the armoury and carried off about 3,000 weapons.

The Ministry now became alarmed for the peace of Berlin; and, in spite of a decision of the Assembly to the contrary, they sent for three new battalions of militia, and prosecuted the men who had taken part in the attack on the armoury. The time, however, had not yet come for a complete reaction; and it was therefore unavoidable that concessions should be made to so strong a popular movement. So on June 23 Camphausen fell; Hansemann, who had promised relief to the workmen, formed a Ministry; and on the same day a scheme was brought forward in the Prussian Parliament, for abolishing the feudal dues. Hansemann further promised to develope municipal government; and he repudiated the attacks which Camphausen had made on the March movement. Then proposals were brought forward, with the approval of the Minister of Trade, for a Commission of Enquiry into the condition of the Silesian workmen. But the workmen were determined, to a great extent, to keep matters in their own hands; and the proposal for a conference of their unions had now grown into a demand for a Workmen's Parliament which was to meet in August, and to carry out a great many points of the modern socialistic programme; such as the guarantee of work for all; the care by the State for those who were helpless or out of work; the regulation of hours of labour; and the support by the State of workmen's associations. And if the programme of Hansemann did not prevent workmen from insisting on their extremer demands, neither did it suppress the riotous methods by which they asserted their claims. Many members of the Assembly were still alarmed by hearing of attacks on machinery in Breslau, and by seeing demonstrations of workmen in Berlin; and the provision of special work on the railways produced just as much, and just as little satisfaction, as such temporary expedients usually do.

In the meantime the growing collision between the power of Prussia and the power of the Assembly at Frankfort was exciting new divisions in Berlin. During the months of June and July the democratic feeling in Prussia had been strongly in favour of Frankfort as against Berlin; while, on the other hand, the military party desired more and more to assert the independence of the King of Prussia against any central Parliament, and more particularly against one which had given its highest post to an Austrian prince. The workmen's movement thus, by a natural process, began to be coloured by the desire of the more cultivated Liberals for a united Germany; and the special demands of the workmen began to fall into the background as the larger questions of the freedom and unity of the whole country came more prominently to the front. The fears of the Ministry were naturally increased by this alliance; and early in August several members of the Prussian Left were suddenly arrested; and amongst them Rodbertus, one of the more moderate members who had helped to place Hansemann in power. The new quarrel threatened to be as bitter as the old one; collisions took place in various parts of the kingdom between the Prussian soldiers and the champions of German unity; and when the members of the Left began to demand the dismissal from the army of reactionary officers, and to make demonstrations against the Ministry, the Ministers met them by passing a law for the suppression of public meetings, while the fiercer reactionists circulated a petition in favour of making the Prince of Prussia the Commander-in-Chief of the forces.

The truce of Malmö brought the crisis to a head; and the members of the Left resolved that if the Ministry would not remove the reactionary officers, the Liberal members would leave the Assembly. Thus the Schleswig-Holstein crisis consolidated completely the different elements of opposition; and on September 16 a vote of want of confidence in the Hansemann Ministry was carried in the Assembly. The greatest enthusiasm was roused by this vote; the members who voted for it were carried on the shoulders of the people, and it seemed, for a moment, as if a constitutional solution had been found for the difficulties of Prussia. But the riots at Frankfort, and the triumph which they secured to the reactionary party in Parliament, gave new courage to the King of Prussia in resisting the opposition; and he entrusted the formation of a Ministry to General Brandenburg, a man of more fiercely despotic principles than any who had recently held office. New prosecutions were begun; and, for the first time since the March insurrection, a newspaper was seized and confiscated. The Liberals, however, were not disposed to yield; and, as if to strengthen their alliance with the champions of provincial and class liberties, they carried by a small majority a motion in favour of securing special rights to the province of Posen, and adopted unanimously a report for finding work for the spinners and weavers in certain parts of the kingdom; while demonstrations were made in favour of sending help to Vienna in its struggle against Windischgrätz.

The fall of Vienna, however, enabled the King of Prussia to take another step towards absolutism, and General Brandenburg was appointed Minister in spite of the opposition of the Liberals. The King himself had withdrawn to Potsdam: and the Assembly resolved almost unanimously to send a deputation to the King, to entreat him to dismiss this Ministry. The deputation had to wait for a long time in a dark gallery, the King refusing at first to receive them otherwise than through the Ministers; but a Ministerial despatch arrived, calling attention to this deputation; and thus the King's scruple was removed, and he consented to hear them. When the address was completed he took it up, folded it, and prepared to withdraw; but Johann Jacoby exclaimed, "We are not come here merely to present the address, but to explain to Your Majesty the true condition of the country. Will you not grant us a gracious hearing?" The King refused, upon which Jacoby uttered the memorable words: "It is the misfortune of Kings that they will not hear the truth." Then Frederick William withdrew in great anger, and refused to have any further communication with the deputies. On November 6 he announced that, if the Assembly did not accept the Ministry, they would be dissolved by force; and two days later he declared unconditionally that he should remove the Assembly by force to the town of Brandenburg; or, as he epigrammatically put it, the choice was between "Brandenburg in the Chamber, or the Chamber in Brandenburg."

Von Unruh, the President of the Chamber, read this announcement to his colleagues, but declared that he would not carry it out without the sanction of the Assembly; and, when General Brandenburg tried to speak, in order to command the closing of the Assembly, the President informed him that he was out of order, and, if he desired to make an explanation, he must ask leave to speak. Brandenburg then declared that the further sitting of the Parliament was illegal; and, accompanied by seventy members, he left the House. The Assembly then, by 250 votes against 30, decided to continue their sitting. They further resolved that "the Assembly finds at present no reason for changing their place of deliberation; that it cannot grant to the Crown the right to remove, to adjourn, or to dissolve the Assembly against its will; that the Assembly does not consider those officials who have advised the Crown to take this step capable of presiding over the Government of this country; and that those officials have become guilty of grave violations of their duty to the Assembly, the country, and the Crown." They further resolved that, although they were obliged to adjourn, the President and Secretaries should remain all night at their post, as a sign of the permanence of the Assembly. On November 9 General Brandenburg answered this defiance by a letter, in which he declared that these resolutions were illegal, and that he held Von Unruh and others responsible for the consequences. In the meantime Brandenburg had appealed to the Civic Guard to prevent the Members from attending the meetings; but the commandant of the Civic Guard denied the right of the Ministers to send him this order, and further protested against the proposal to remove the Assembly to the town of Brandenburg. The Town Council tried to reconcile the Parliament to the King; but Von Unruh, while declaring his desire to avoid bloodshed, denied that the Assembly could yield on any point, and the Members issued an appeal to the country in which they denounced the illegal conduct of the King and his Ministers, but urged the people to maintain a strictly legal position in the defence of their liberties. The address concluded with these words: "The calm and determined attitude of a People that is ripe for freedom will, with God's help, secure the victory of freedom."

The situation had become terribly dangerous; for General Wrangel, soon after his return from Schleswig-Holstein, marched his troops into the market place, in front of the building in which the Parliament was sitting, and on November 11, Von Unruh and the other Members, coming to hold their meetings, found the doors locked, and the soldiers guarding the place. They then adjourned to the Hotel de Russie, where they declared Brandenburg guilty of High Treason, and called on the people to refuse to pay taxes. Deputations came in from Magdeburg, Breslau and Frankfort, declaring their sympathy with the Assembly; and the Civic Guard refused to give up their arms to Wrangel. Wrangel now declared all public meetings prohibited, announced that the Civic Guard was dissolved; and declared Berlin in a state of siege. But the addresses of sympathy came in more freely than ever; and it was rumoured that Silesia was actually in a state of insurrection. Even several citizens of Brandenburg itself sent an address to the Assembly, declaring that they would resist the transfer of the Parliament to their town. The opposition between the bourgeoisie and the workmen, which had been caused by the riots of June, July and August, had now entirely disappeared in a common zeal for Constitutional freedom; and the Town Council permitted the Assembly to meet in their Hall. But even there Wrangel would not leave them in peace, and soon after they were driven from this refuge also. Even the ex-Minister Hansemann became an object of denunciation to the Court party; and on November 15 the Assembly put into a formal vote the proposal which they had already hinted at, that no further taxes should be paid. This vote was carried just after they had been driven from the Town Council House to another meeting place. The next day soldiers were called out, who threatened the Civic Guard with violence, but finally marched off without firing; and some soldiers and officers were dismissed for not consenting to act against the people. Taxes were beginning to be refused in various parts of Prussia; several arrests were made in Cologne; and Düsseldorf was declared in a state of siege. The soldiers were forbidden to read the National Zeitung; while on the other hand printers and publishers offered to print the decrees of the Assembly without any compensation for loss of time. Attempts to enforce the payment of taxes led to riots in Bonn and Breslau; and in Coblenz the people attacked officers for speaking evil of the National Assembly. The Government tried, in some cases, to cut off the payment of deputies; but the people insisted on making the payment, in spite of this prohibition; and even a Government official in Düsseldorf declared his belief that if the Brandenburg Ministry lasted three or four days more, none of the official boards would consent to act. One of the Roman Catholic bishops of Silesia appealed to his flock not to refuse taxes, as otherwise they would be damned for "refusing to give to Cæsar the things that were Cæsar's." To this appeal several Roman Catholics of Silesia retorted by an address in which they expressed their fear for the spiritual condition of the clergy, since they had never paid taxes at all.

On November 27, the Government resolved on a new act of violence. While the deputies were met at the Hotel Mylius, Major von Blumenthal entered at the head of a band of soldiers, and ordered the deputies to leave the Hall.[18] Jacoby asked him what he wanted. The Major answered, "I come in the name of the law." Jacoby: "Of what law?" Major: "In the name of the highest law." Jacoby: "Of what law do you speak?" Major: "I speak in the name of the Constitutional law." Jacoby: "There is no law that forbids us to meet in an hotel in the day-time." Elsner: "Even Wrangel's proclamations contain no prohibition of this kind; we are no club."[19] Major: "That does not concern me. I act under the authority of my board." Jacoby: "What is your name?" Major: "I am the Major Count Blumenthal." Jacoby: "Who has given you this authority?" Major: "The board set over me." Several voices: "Name the board." Major (after a pause): "Gentlemen, do not embarrass me." Jacoby: "Well, then, I declare to you that you are not acting in the name of law, but of force; and it is a sad thing that the soldiers are misemployed for such acts of violence." The Major then ordered them once more to leave the Hall, and seized on the parliamentary papers. Jacoby denounced this seizure as robbery, and attempted to make a copy of the documents. The Major snatched the papers from Jacoby's hands; upon which the latter exclaimed, "Go on with your robberies, and scorn all laws; some day you will be brought to account for this." Then the deputies, still refusing to leave the Hall, were driven out by the soldiers.

In the meantime, the members of the Right had been meeting at Brandenburg; and at last von Unruh and many of his friends joined them there; but demanded, at the same time, that the Assembly should accept all the resolutions passed in Berlin between the 4th and the 15th of November. But, on December 5, the King finally dissolved the Parliament, announcing that it should meet on February 26 in Berlin, and that he would then issue a new Constitution. The Liberal members all flocked to Brandenburg to protest against this dissolution; and the King found it necessary to suppress meetings even in Brandenburg, as dangerous to his authority.

It was impossible in the then state of Germany that any organized insurrection could produce a satisfactory result. On the one hand the Republican leaders had weakened their cause by spasmodic and useless appeals to insurrection, at times when Constitutional action would have been perfectly possible; while in Prussia itself, the differences between the workmen and the bourgeoisie made the permanent coherence of a Constitutional party almost impossible. On the other hand, the Parliament at Frankfort, abandoned by many members of the Left, had been growing ever more and more timid, and had not only passed a resolution condemning the resistance of the Prussian Parliament, but had even sent Bassermann, one of the Frankfort Ministers, to Berlin, to persuade the Parliament to yield. Under these circumstances, the passive resistance of Von Unruh and his friends was, in all probability, the wisest and most dignified course which was open to the champions of liberty; and when the Assembly actually met again in February, the leaders of the Left were received with enthusiasm by the people, as men who had deserved well of their country. If the King of Prussia had heartily accepted the new condition of affairs, he might even now have done something to secure a better future for Germany than any that it has since achieved; for the Frankfort Parliament had come to the conclusion that the only hope for the unity of Germany lay in its acceptance of the King of Prussia as its head. They had repudiated the connection of Germany with Austria; Archduke John had resigned his post as Administrator of the Empire; and on March 28, 1849, they finally resolved to offer the crown of Germany to the King of Prussia. But the flavour of freedom and independence which still lingered, even in these later months, about the Frankfort Parliament, made this offer distasteful to a King whose liberalism, always superficial, had now quite evaporated. The Frankfort Parliament had been the result of a popular movement; and it had elaborated a free Constitution, which it desired to treat as a necessary part of the proposed monarchy. Under these circumstances, therefore, Frederick William IV. refused to accept the crown of Germany, unless it were offered to him by the Princes of Germany; and by this refusal he put an end to the hope that the German question might be settled in a peaceable and Constitutional manner.

In the meantime, experience was showing that it was almost as difficult in Austria as in Prussia to reduce parliamentary government to a mere tool of despotism. The members of the Bohemian party in the Viennese Parliament had withdrawn from its sittings after the murder of Latour; and had attempted to find a free place for deliberation in Olmütz. About the same time Ferdinand, grown weary of the struggles of parties and races, unsatisfied as to the contending claims of Kossuth and Jellaciç, and unable to reconcile himself to the proceedings either of Windischgrätz, or of the Viennese Democrats, listened to the advice which the clique around him were pressing upon him, and consented to resign his throne, not to his brother and lawful heir, but to his nephew, Francis Joseph, who, being a mere boy at the time, would fall easily under the power of the Camarilla, who were governing Austria. The advisers of Francis Joseph, however, still thought that they could keep up an appearance of parliamentary government; and they, therefore, summoned a parliament to meet at Kremsier in Moravia early in December.

It soon became apparent, however, that the men who met in the Kremsier Parliament were by no means less zealous for freedom, hardly even less democratic than those who met at Vienna. Those Bohemian members, who had objected to the rule of terror in the Viennese Assembly, had appealed, even from Olmütz, to the Emperor not to deal too harshly with Vienna; and they now showed themselves as zealous for freedom as any German could be. Men, too, like Borrosch, Löhner, Schuselka and Fischhof, who had not acted with the Bohemians at Vienna, were ready to take part in the Kremsier Parliament. On the motion of Schuselka, that Parliament, early in January 1849, abolished all privileges of rank; the right of summary arrest was also taken away, and trial by jury secured; while the freest criticisms were passed on the action of the Austrian Government in Vienna, Hungary and Italy; and Rieger specially denounced the desire of the Ministry to crush out all feeling for the special nationalities. The Parliament began to attract the attention of many who were at first disposed to speak of it with scorn; and even those courtiers who had hoped to use it as a weapon against the Magyars, became alarmed at its evident democratic leanings. Acting under their advice, Francis Joseph, on March 7, announced that this Parliament, from which he had hoped so much, had driven off still further "the restoration of peace and law, and of public confidence," and had raised the hopes of "the not wholly conquered party of disorder." He therefore dissolved the Parliament, and announced, as the King of Prussia had done, that he would settle the Constitution without their help. The Bohemian leaders united with the Germans to protest against this final act of violence; and so ended for about ten years all hopes of Constitutional Government in Austria.

In the meantime affairs in Italy had been also hastening in the direction of a more violent solution of difficulties than had been wished for in the early days of the movement. In spite of his apparent abandonment of the policy embodied in the encyclical of April 9, in spite even of his acceptance of Mamiani as Minister, Pius was still hesitating between two different policies. He was disposed to rely continually on Cardinals who were out of sympathy with his Ministers; and he was particularly anxious to assert that, in introducing a Parliament, he had not surrendered his absolute authority as Pope. This conflict of feelings in Pius IX. led to a curious exhibition at the opening of the Roman Parliament of June 4, 1848. On this occasion the Pope entrusted Cardinal Altieri with a discourse which had not had the approval of Mamiani. Mamiani, on the other hand, as Prime Minister, read to the Chamber a discourse in which he declared that the Pope abandoned to the wisdom of the deputies the care of providing for temporal affairs, and spoke of entrusting the papal volunteers in Lombardy to the leadership of Charles Albert. In spite of the action of Altieri, Mamiani declared that his speech had been approved by the Pope; but the Papal Nuncio in Vienna repudiated the language of the Papal Prime Minister. This continual jar between the Pope and his Ministers naturally excited distrust in the Assembly; and when the Austrians crossed the Po and occupied Ferrara, the cry for war rose, not only in the Assembly, but also in popular meetings out of doors; and the feebleness of the papal protest against this second occupation of Ferrara, increased the distrust of the Pope which was now growing in Rome. At last, in August, Mamiani, finding his position impossible, resigned; and, for a time, an old man named Fabbri was accepted as Minister by the Pope, as a kind of stop-gap. But he, too, speedily found the position impossible, and resigned his post.

It was under these circumstances that Pius IX. called to his counsels the man whom he had previously desired to employ, the former ambassador of Guizot, Pellegrino Rossi. Rossi was known for his previous services to the cause of liberty, in the early part of the century; for his careful study of Roman law, and for his attempt to devise a Constitution for Switzerland. He was a personal friend of Pius IX., and had desired even a wider Constitution than that which the Pope had granted. He was further known to have gained respect from some of the Italian exiles in Paris. On all these grounds he naturally seemed to Pius a fit person to be trusted with his confidence. But though a man of sterling honesty, he was the worst possible Papal Minister at this juncture. His friends expected him to be welcomed as a former sufferer in the cause of Italian liberty. He was, on the contrary, hated as a friend of Guizot, and as the former representative of Louis Philippe. Sterbini, one of the fiercest democrats in Rome, declared that, if Guizot's friend appeared in the Assembly, he would be stoned. And, while he was hated by the Jesuits for his desire for secular Government, and for his Protestant wife, an outcry was at once raised against his Ministry by the Liberals, when it was found that it contained two Cardinals. While, too, in his own way, he wished for the freedom and independence of Italy, his way was exactly opposite to that which was then desired by the people.

Professor Montanelli, who had been taken prisoner by the Austrians at Curtatone, but who had since been allowed to return to Tuscany, was propounding there his scheme for a Constituent Assembly, which was to embrace all Italy. And this proposal, welcomed eagerly in Tuscany, and accepted by the Grand Duke, was being advocated in Rome, especially by Charles Buonaparte, the Prince of Canino. On this plan Rossi threw cold water, desiring to substitute for it a League of Princes, to be begun by a Congress of Ambassadors at Rome. This idea, unwelcome and unpopular in itself, was made more unpopular still by Rossi's eager advances to Ferdinand of Naples, to whom he actually consented to surrender fugitives who had escaped from his tyranny. While, too, he made this alarming concession to the Prince, who was most deservedly hated throughout Italy, he allowed General Zucchi, whom he had sent to Bologna, to refuse Garibaldi entrance into that city on his return from Lombardy; and when Gavazzi, one of the most popular preachers of the Italian war, protested against this act, Rossi ordered him to be arrested. And as if the Clericals, the Republicans, and those who placed Italian unity above any special political creed, were not enemies enough for one man, Rossi proceeded, by special signs of suspicion towards Charles Albert, to irritate against him the powerful party of the Albertisti, who looked to the King of Sardinia as the necessary leader of a movement for Italian liberty.

All this was done in the most open and scornful manner. Rossi ridiculed the proposed Constituent Assembly as a Council of Drunkards, and scornfully told Sterbini that every one knows "that there are praises which injure and blame which honours." Rumours were spread of his intention to bombard Rome; and the students mobbed him in the streets. On one occasion when they were following him, he crossed a bridge; and as he passed he handed to the toll-man a much larger sum than was his due, saying, with a wave of his hand towards the students, "Take for them too." Rumours came to him of plots against his life, but he refused to pay any attention to them. At last, on November 15, as he was going down to Parliament, a priest came to him, and told him that he would die if he went. He answered, "The cause of the Pope is the cause of God. God will help me." As he passed through the square, the crowd hooted at him. He warded them off with his stick, and ascended the stair. Suddenly an umbrella struck him; he turned his head, so that his neck became exposed; and, in the same instant, a dagger pierced him, and he fell mortally wounded. So died Pellegrino Rossi, a man who undoubtedly deserved a better fate; but who was thrust upon a position and a time which required a man of genius and humanity; while he had nothing to give but cut-and-dried maxims, enforced with a courage which was too nearly allied to insolence.

That the guilt of Rossi's death should be laid to the account of different parties by different people, with equal confidence, was natural enough, considering the variety of enemies which his policy and character had stirred up against him; but it is a strange fact that actual eye-witnesses dispute as to whether it was received with joy or indignation by the people of Rome. It is tolerably evident, however, that all feelings about the actual event were quickly merged in the panic about its consequences. A general demand was made for a popular Ministry; and Galletti, who had been Minister of Police under Fabbri, went to the Pope to ask leave to form a Ministry. The Pope refused, and the people who had followed Galletti soon came to blows with the Swiss Guard. The Guard were driven back, and the crowd succeeded in getting cannon into their hands; but Federico Torre thrust himself in front of the cannon, exclaiming, "Shame to point cannon at the men who gave us the amnesty." Pius had hoped that some of the inhabitants of the Trastevere would have risen on his behalf; but, finding no support from them, he yielded to the demand for a Liberal Ministry, and appointed as his Prime Minister Rosmini, a champion of Charles Albert, and suspected of heresy by the Cardinals. Mamiani, who was at the time absent from Rome, was made Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Sterbini Minister of Commerce and Public Works. On the refusal of Rosmini, the Premiership was given to Muzzarelli. But these appointments, like Ferdinand's acceptance of a Democratic Ministry under similar circumstances, did not express the real feeling of the Pope. He was completely panic-struck by the events which had taken place; and, urged by Cardinals and Ambassadors, he fled secretly from Rome on the night of the 24th of November disguised as a footman, and took refuge at Gaeta, under the protection of the King of Naples.

Mamiani had reluctantly accepted the office of Foreign Minister; but he still believed that it was desirable to uphold the authority of the Pope, because, as he expressed it, "the only choice for Rome lay between Pius IX. and Cola di Rienzi." Nor was he shaken in his determination, even when a letter came from the Pope at Gaeta, denouncing the acts of the people, repudiating his Ministers, and appointing as Commissioners of State men of the most violently reactionary character.

But, in the meantime, a strong force of public opinion was growing in the Roman provinces, in favour of the election of a Constituent Assembly; and at last Aurelio Saffi, who had been so prominent as a champion of reform in the time of Gregory XVI., succeeded in gathering together, at Forli, representatives of different local Societies, and preparing an Address to the Ministry, which set forth in a concise form those feelings which were floating in the provinces at that time. This address expressed great regret at the flight of the Pope, whose name the petitioners declared they had been wont to reverence as "the symbol of a magnanimous idea." They went on to say, however, that, as Pius IX. had thrown himself into the arms of the worst enemies of Italy, it had become necessary to take steps to prevent civil war and anarchy. As Constitutional Monarchy had been cut short by the departure of the Pope, and as it was impossible to accept Commissioners whom the Pope had appointed since his flight to Gaeta, it was necessary for the Council of Deputies to nominate a Provisional Government which should issue writs for the election of an Assembly by universal suffrage, and should settle definitely the political arrangements of the State, "saving only the rights of the nation united in an Italian Constituent Assembly, such as has been proclaimed by the Tuscan Parliament." This Address produced a great effect in Rome; and Armellini urged his colleagues to accept the proposals of the petitioners. Mamiani, seeing that the Constitutional compromise which he desired had become impossible, refused to remain a Minister of State. A Provisional Government of eight members was then formed, in which Sterbini, Galletti, and Armellini took part; and the new Government on December 29 issued an Address to the Roman people, calling upon them to elect an Assembly for the Roman State, which was to meet in Rome on February 5.

In the meantime, the flight of the Pope had startled the other Princes of Italy. Leopold of Tuscany had seemed more ready than most of his brother Princes to accept Constitutional Government, and even to look forward to arrangements for the unity of Italy. Guerrazzi, from what motives it may be difficult to guess, had discouraged Montanelli's plan of an Italian Constituent Assembly, and had warned the Grand Duke that his own position would be destroyed by such an institution. But, when the Pope fled from Rome, Guerrazzi had conceived the idea that Leopold might be chosen President of the new Assembly, and that the combination of Tuscany with the Roman States might prove a check on the ambition of Charles Albert. Leopold, however, seems to have been actuated by very different motives from those to which Guerrazzi appealed. So far from being strongly moved by personal ambition, or by a sense of official dignity, he was particularly inclined to accept the lead of other Princes. He had imitated Ferdinand of Naples in proclaiming Constitutional Government; he had followed Charles Albert in proclaiming war on Austria; and he had accepted first the Italian League, and afterwards the plan of an Italian Constituent Assembly, without a sign, as far as is apparent, of any other motive than the desire to promote the unity of Italy. But this very willingness to act with other Princes made Leopold averse from the idea of standing alone in his policy. It was therefore that flight of the Pope which seemed to Guerrazzi to open a new chance for Tuscany, which awoke in Leopold scruples and hesitations; and when Pius issued from Gaeta his denunciation of the proposals of the Roman Council, Leopold lost heart, and secretly fled from Florence to Siena, leaving a written statement to the effect that the Pope's opposition to the Italian Constituent Assembly compelled him to revoke the decree by which he had just sanctioned that Assembly.

On February 8 the news of the Grand Duke's flight was received in Florence, and it was immediately followed by a rising, in which the insurgents demanded the appointment of a Provisional Government composed of Guerrazzi, Montanelli, and a man named Mazzoni. Just about the same time Mazzini arrived in Leghorn. Guerrazzi, who still wished to act in the name of the Grand Duke, tried to forbid Mazzini's entrance; but the Livornese went out to meet him with banners bearing his motto, "Dio e il Popolo." He exhorted them to preserve order, and then went to Florence to urge the Tuscan Ministry to join their country to the Roman State. But Guerrazzi succeeded in preventing the acceptance of this proposal, and Mazzini went on to Rome.

Gioberti, on his part, had been much exercised in his mind by the new aspect of affairs. His great desire that the Pope should unite Italy seemed utterly frustrated by the flight of Pius from Rome, and still more by his placing himself under foreign protection. For, though it was to the King of Naples that the Pope first appealed, Gaeta soon became the gathering place of the ambassadors of the extreme Roman Catholic Powers; and, when Gioberti sent messengers to Gaeta, they found the Pope surrounded by men who had no sympathy with the ideas of the Primato. When the Piedmontese envoys offered him a refuge at Nice, and promised that their King would join with other Italian Princes in restoring him to Rome, the Pope answered that he had appealed to the European Powers, and must await their decision; and he further reproached Charles Albert with the sanction which he had given to the idea of an Italian Constituent Assembly, accusing him of intriguing with those who were opposed to the rights of the Church. Though discouraged by this rebuff, Gioberti hoped to find a new mission in the restoration of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, who had now followed the Pope to Gaeta. But in this plan he found himself opposed at once by Guerrazzi, and by the Austrians; while his own colleagues were so indignant at the proposal, that he was compelled to leave the Ministry which he had only just joined.

In the meantime, the Austrian conquerors of Lombardy had been supplying justifications for a new Italian war. The capitulation of Vicenza had been violated almost as soon as it had been made, by the infliction of new vexations on those to whom a free pardon had been granted; and the more important capitulation of Milan had been followed by similar breaches of faith. Special burdens had been laid on those who had taken an active part in the struggle against Austria; while some of the regulations of General Welden in Pavia had been so cruel as to excite a protest even from the Viennese Assembly. He had ordered that anyone who went about with arms was to be shot within twenty-four hours, and that his patrols should fire on any group of men more than three in number who were found in the streets at night. The Council of Lombardy had, therefore, appealed to Charles Albert to secure them justice, because Radetzky had acted "in defiance of his own word, in defiance of the orders of his Sovereign, in defiance of the military conventions, in defiance of the mediation of England and France." The stronger Liberals of Piedmont soon began to cry out for war; but, for a long time, Charles Albert and his Ministers hoped to stave off action, and to secure a settlement of these differences by diplomacy. But the rebuffs which Gioberti had received gradually convinced them that no further help was to be found in appeals to foreign Powers; and, urged on by a strong popular feeling, Charles Albert for the last time declared war upon Austria.

It might be reasonably doubted how far such a war would excite the sympathies of the Romans. The Piedmontese Ministry had recently attempted to suppress the liberties of Rome; and although that Ministry had fallen, Charles Albert was himself known to be strongly Monarchical in his feelings about the government of Rome. The Roman Assembly, which met on February 5, had, on the 9th, declared the Pope deposed, and had proclaimed the Republic; a step which they might naturally expect to widen the breach between them and the Piedmontese. Some were even disposed to think that Charles Albert had given another sign of hostility in ignoring the former league with Rome, and declaring an Italian war without any consultation with, or notice to the Roman Ministry. But any doubts or hesitations as to the right attitude of Rome towards Piedmont at this crisis were put an end to by Mazzini. He had been chosen by Leghorn as their representative in the Roman Assembly, and had taken his seat on March 6, the whole Assembly rising to greet him. When, then, the news came that Charles Albert had declared war once more on Austria, Mazzini appealed to the Romans to join in the struggle. "There must," he said, "be only two kinds of Italians in Italy: the friends and the enemies of Austria. Republican Rome will make war by the side of Monarchical Piedmont." Mazzini never considered that ready or eloquent speech was a power that he possessed; and, what is more to the point, some of those who loved and admired him held the same opinion; but the intensity of his conviction seemed to take the place of readily-turned phrases or imagery; and, as he went on to speak of the sacrifices that the war demanded of all Romans, there fell upon the table beside him, in showers, the jewels which the ladies in the gallery had plucked off, as their offerings for the good of their country. The Assembly voted war, almost unanimously, and twelve battalions of the National Guard were despatched to Lombardy.

The war was little worthy of their enthusiasm. The Piedmontese officers were so little trusted by Charles Albert that he chose a Pole named Chrzanowski as his Commander-in-Chief, while the second in command was that Ramorino who had betrayed Mazzini in the Expedition of 1833-4. The three or four days of the war were mere scenes of mutual distrust, mismanagement, and, possibly, treachery; and it is pleasant to turn for a moment from the Piedmontese battles to the one part of the struggle which redeemed this episode from utter contempt. On March 23, Brescia, from which a portion of the Austrian forces had, for a time, then withdrawn, sprang to arms, drove out the remaining troops, and raised the Italian flag. Tito Speri, a Mantuan, organized the poorer citizens, and led them against the forces of Nugent, which were advancing on the city. After a sharp struggle, the Brescians were driven back with some loss; but, two days later, Speri made another sortie, and, though attacked by the cavalry, succeeded in driving them back, and in occupying the hills which overlook Brescia. He now attempted to treat with the Austrians; but Nugent answered that he would enter Brescia, either by force or by love; to which Speri replied, "Perhaps by force, but never by love!" Rumours came of Charles Albert's defeat, but the Brescians refused to believe it; and Nugent was forced to retreat from Brescia, after having, apparently, concluded an armistice with the citizens. But, on March 30 or 31, Haynau appeared before the city; and, in answer to the appeal of the Brescians to the terms of the armistice, he declared that, if they did not yield in two hours, he would reduce the city to ashes. But the Brescians were resolved, as their own inscription tells us, to teach "that defeat may be more glorious and fruitful than victory;" and they, therefore, refused to yield. On April 1, Haynau bombarded the city; and, after a fierce struggle at Porta Torlunga, in which General Nugent was mortally wounded, Haynau forced his way into the city, and put men, women, and children to the sword—the cruelties of his proceedings gaining for him, among the Italians, the title of "the Tiger of Brescia."

But, before Brescia had fallen, Charles Albert, betrayed by his officers, distrusted by his soldiers, and out of heart, had been defeated at Novara; and, in response to a demand which he had made to Radetzky for a truce, he had been asked terms which he considered too dishonourable to accept. His officers, however, told him that his army was in too disorganised a state to be depended on, and he then answered in these words: "For eighteen years I have always used every possible power for the advantage of my people. It is painful to me to find my hopes deceived; not so much for my sake, as for my country's. I have not been able to find on the field of battle the death that I so ardently desired. Perhaps my person is the only obstacle to the obtaining of just terms from the enemy. The continuation of the war having become impossible, I abdicate the Crown in favour of my son, Victor Emmanuel, in the hope that a new King may be able to obtain more honourable terms, and to secure for the country an advantageous peace." So ended the chequered career of Charles Albert, a man of many attractive qualities and noble aspirations, but who, by a fatal weakness of will made more evident by a painfully difficult situation, had been constantly dragged into acts of cruelty and treachery from which a man of stronger purpose would have been saved. With his fall ended the Constitutional struggles of this period; and, during the remaining months of the Revolution, the Peoples of Rome, Venice, Sicily, and Hungary had to depend, in their struggles for liberty, on the force of popular feeling, and on the guidance of those leaders whom they had themselves placed at the head of affairs.

CHAPTER XI.
THE DEATH STRUGGLE OF FREEDOM.—OCTOBER 1848-AUGUST 1849.

Division of Feeling among the Magyar Leaders.—Arthur Görgei.—Ground of his quarrels with Kossuth.—Bem.—The Volunteers.—The Plan of Defence.—The Flight to Debreczin—The Proclamation at Waitzen.—Effect of Hungarian Conscription Law in Transylvania. Puchner and the Roumanians.—Puchner finally adopts their Cause.—Avraham Jancu.—The Saxons and Roumanians.—Bem in Transylvania.—His Character and Work.—The Appeal to General Lüders.—The Russians in Transylvania.—The Capture of Hermannstadt.—Bem and Csanyi.—The Reign of Terror.—The Death of Roth.—Görgei and Dembinski.—Effect of Francis Joseph's coup d'état.—Why it did not produce greater results.—The Race Feuds.—The Constitutional Difficulty.—The Declaration of Independence.—Kossuth's Power and its Causes.—The Struggle in Rome.—The Triumvirate and their Difficulties.—Order and Liberty.—The Danger from France.—A Pacific Candidate.—The Collapse of the Tuscan Movement.—The Final Struggle and Fall of Sicily.—The French Expedition.—The Landing at Civita Vecchia.—Oudinot and Manara.—The Occupation of Civita Vecchia.—The March to Rome.—Guerra! Guerra!—The Repulse of the French.—The Debates in France.—The Defence of Bologna.—Lesseps in Rome.—Lesseps and Oudinot.—French Treachery.—Garibaldi and Roselli.—Further Treachery.—The Fight by the Vascello.—Ledru Rollin's Insurrection.—The Final Struggle for German Liberty and its Failure.—The Final Struggle in Rome.—Mazzini's Proposals.—Decision of the Assembly.—Garibaldi's last Effort.—"Cardinal" Oudinot in Rome.—The Struggle in Venice.—Manin and Kossuth.—Kossuth's Blunder.—Görgei's Policy.—The Russian Invasion of Transylvania.—The Struggle at the Temos Pass.—Bem and Kossuth.—Kossuth's Resignation.—The Surrender at Vilagos.—The Cholera in Venice.—The Final Surrender.—Manin's Stone.—General Estimate of the Struggle and its Results.

The battle of Schwechat had brought into prominence the great difficulties with which the Hungarian Government had now to contend. The flight of the Count Palatine, and the resignation of Batthyanyi, had thrown the government into the hands of the Committee of Defence, over which Kossuth's power was nearly supreme. But, however much this concentration of authority in the hands of the most popular leader may have given strength to the civil part of the Executive, yet the revolutionary character which it gave to the movement called out scruples in many military men, who had hitherto been willing to work with tolerable heartiness for the Hungarian cause. The flight of Archduke Stephen deprived the Government of that Constitutional sanction which would have been derived from the presence of an official directly representing the Emperor; while at the same time, Ferdinand's approval of Jellaciç and the dissolution of the Hungarian Diet, placed the Emperor and the Magyars in that condition of direct opposition to each other, which most of the Magyar statesmen had desired to avoid. This change of position considerably affected the feelings of the officers, especially of those who had previously served in the Austrian Army, and in whom the military preference for Monarchical Government was strongly developed. This feeling had shown itself even during the struggle against Jellaciç's invasion; and it was this which had led those Magyar officers, who were friendly to the Viennese cause, to ask for a direct summons from the Viennese Parliament before they would cross the frontier. Finally, it was this feeling which had led to those orders and counter orders, and to that general uncertainty of plan which had ruined the Hungarian cause at the Battle of Schwechat. Kossuth, and all who wished to carry on the war vigorously, felt that a change of generals was necessary, if the freedom of Hungary was not to be destroyed by the internal divisions of the country. General Moga had therefore to be removed; and the question was, who was to take his place? It was under these circumstances that Kossuth called to the front a man whose character and actions have ever since been the favourite debating ground of the students of the Hungarian war.[20]

Arthur Görgei had been a lieutenant in the Austrian Army, and, by his own account, had lived away from Hungary until April, 1848, and was "nearly ignorant of his country's customs, and above all, wholly deficient in even a superficial and general acquaintance with civil administration." He had, however, been made a captain in the newly raised regiments of Honveds or Home troops of Hungary, in the summer of 1848. He very soon began to complain of the men who had been placed over his head; and specially at being superseded on one occasion by Moritz Perczel. To Perczel he soon began to show the same insubordinate demeanour which remained ever his characteristic attitude towards his superior officers; and he was only saved by the intercession of friends from being shot for disobeying orders. He had, however, gained credit with some of the fiercer patriots among the Magyars, by his summary execution of Count Eugene Zichy, who had been suspected of treason; and this act, though condemned by the more temperate champions of the cause, was considered to have committed Görgei so strongly to an anti-Austrian policy, that there could be no fear of his lack of zeal in the coming struggle. When then General Moga had shown that, either from military incapacity, or from want of sympathy with the cause, he was not to be trusted with the command of the army, Kossuth turned to Görgei, and offered him the post of which Moga had been deprived. Görgei accepted it; and then there almost immediately began that long series of differences and difficulties which was to ruin the cause of Hungarian liberty.

The quarrel between Kossuth and Görgei will always be judged differently by military and non-military critics; for, setting aside those unfortunate peculiarities of character which marked both these leaders, the struggle was one between the ideas of a statesman and the ideas of a soldier. Kossuth had already had experience of the difficulties which arose from putting confidence in officers who are out of sympathy with the cause for which they are fighting; and he was therefore specially alive to any sign of this want of sympathy in the successor of General Moga. Görgei, on the other hand, had that belief, so common in men of his profession, that all political questions were mainly to be judged from the military point of view; and that his admitted ignorance in matters of civil administration did not disqualify him from laying down the law on the most important affairs of Government. Although he shared Kossuth's distrust for General Moga, he sympathised with Moga's preference for Monarchical Government; and although he had fought bravely against the forces of Windischgrätz at the battle of Schwechat, he had previously declared that he did not see the solidarity between the cause of Hungary and that of Vienna; and he held that the oath which the officers had taken to the March Constitution implied their duty to preserve that Constitution in the exact form in which it had been originally granted.

But if Görgei went beyond his province in his interference with affairs of civil government, Kossuth no doubt, in turn, hampered Görgei in matters in which he was bound to trust him, so long as he retained him in his command. But in periods of revolution there always arise a large number of questions which, in ordinary times, would be decided on purely military grounds, but which, in that abnormal state of affairs, become necessarily complicated with political considerations. It is this peculiarity of circumstances, for which both statesmen and soldiers find it so hard to make allowance, and which makes it so difficult to judge justly in such a controversy as that which we are considering.

The first point of difference between Kossuth and Görgei related to exactly one of those matters in which military and political feeling seem most necessarily and reasonably to come into collision. This was the choice of Bem as a general in the Hungarian army. Bem had succeeded in escaping secretly from Vienna and coming to Hungary. He had, indeed, offered his services to the Hungarians at an earlier period, but Pulszky had persuaded him that he could best serve the cause of Hungary in Vienna; and now that that city had fallen, he hastened back to Kossuth. Kossuth and Bem seem always to have recognized in each other that common faith in the people, and power of calling out popular enthusiasm, which, in different ways, was the great strength of both of them. Bem's conduct in the defence of Vienna had given sufficient pledge of his zeal against the power of Austria, a zeal which had produced such effect on the imagination of his enemies that it was said by the Vienna wits that Francis Joseph ordered the bells of Vienna to be muffled because they would ring out "Bem, Bem!" But Görgei disliked Bem for the very reason for which Kossuth approved of him. He considered him a knight errant who followed revolutionary methods of warfare which were quite unknown to correct military tacticians; and he soon found that his own estimates of the different officers under him were quite opposed to those formed by Bem. Kossuth therefore wisely decided that Görgei and Bem could not work together, and he despatched Bem to take the command in Transylvania.

On the next question at issue the balance of opinion will probably be in favour of Görgei. The volunteers who had been raised by the national Government were naturally objects of special favour to them; but they had in some cases shown themselves disorderly; and this disorder was, no doubt, considerably increased by the return to their country of Hungarian soldiers who had been stationed in Galicia and other parts of the Empire. These soldiers had, in many cases, thrown off the authority of their officers, and asserted their national rights at the expense of military discipline. Görgei tried to make special arrangements for so redistributing these recruits as to utilize their services while preventing the growth of any such feelings of insubordination as might be likely to spring from their previous mutiny. In these methods of re-organization the Committee of Defence saw a tendency to discourage patriotic feeling; and Görgei found himself opposed in matters where he justly felt that he should have been allowed some freedom of action.

But an even more important question of controversy was the general plan of the campaign. Kossuth and the Committee of Defence were extremely anxious to defend the Western frontier of Hungary, partly in order to weaken the fears produced by the battle of Schwechat; partly, as Görgei believed, to make it easier to draw the line between Hungary and Austria, and so break off political connection between them. Görgei, on the other hand, held that, since Hungary was now threatened on north, south, and west, and, since Windischgrätz's army was better disciplined than the Hungarian soldiers, a defence of the frontier was impossible, and that it would be better to retreat to Raab and defend the principal passes across the White Mountains, while removing the seat of Government beyond the Theiss. In this plan he was at first over-ruled. But his ideas received apparent justification in the defeats which he suffered from Windischgrätz; and, on December 19 he was actually compelled to retreat to Raab.

Then followed an episode which has brought much discredit on Kossuth. He issued a sensational address, declaring that the Committee of Defence would be buried under the ruins of Buda rather than desert the capital. Görgei ridiculed the idea of the defensibility of Buda-Pesth; but the Committee of Defence insisted; and Görgei was preparing for battle, when, early in January, 1849, the news suddenly arrived in his camp that the Committee of Defence had left Pesth without waiting for the siege, and had retired to Debreczin. But, if Kossuth had been to blame in these earlier matters of controversy, Görgei now took a step which certainly seems to justify all Kossuth's subsequent suspicions. Görgei was, at this time, stationed at Waitzen, a little north of Pesth; and he there issued a declaration to the army condemning the policy of the Committee of Defence, and calling upon the officers to declare that the army was fighting for the maintenance of the Constitution of Hungary as sanctioned by King Ferdinand V.;[21] that it will oppose all those who may attempt to overthrow the Constitutional Monarchy by untimely Republican intrigues; and that it will only obey orders received from the responsible Minister of War, appointed by the King.

A few weeks later Görgei was again defeated by Windischgrätz, who, after the battle, offered him an amnesty, and free life out of Austria. In answer to this offer, Görgei sent a copy of the proclamation drawn up at Waitzen, declaring that this was the ultimatum, both of his army and of himself. By this act it is evident that he called the attention of the General against whom he was nominally fighting to the internal party divisions of Hungary. However brilliant Görgei's military abilities might be, and however unfairly he had been interfered with by the Committee of Defence, it cannot be wondered at that, after this act of treachery, they looked upon him with distrust. In the following month Görgei was deprived of his command and superseded by the Polish General Dembinski.

In the meantime a struggle of far greater moral importance, though possibly of less value to military science, was being carried on in Transylvania. The Roumanian movement had been undergoing the same change, which had already passed over the national movements of the Serbs and Croats. As early as June, 1848, the Croatian Assembly had expressed their sympathy with the struggle of the Roumanians; and even from the Italians some utterances of sympathy had been heard, in favour of their kinsmen in Transylvania. The rejection of their petition by the Emperor, and the consequent persecution by the Magyars had led the Roumanians to rely upon themselves; and had induced some of their leaders to look for help rather to the new State which was trying to struggle into existence in Wallachia and Moldavia, than to the Austrian Government. In September, however, a new element was introduced into the struggle by the passing of a Conscription law by the Hungarian Diet. While the Roumanians resented this, as an attempt to make them serve under the military leadership of their persecutors, they also saw that an attempt to enforce a law, passed without the sanction of the Emperor, was a direct defiance of his authority; and at a meeting in the town of Orlat, they protested against this conscription, and declared their preference for the Austrian army, as against the Hungarian. They now openly announced their separation from Hungary, and demanded to be formed into an independent nation. The Hungarians met this demand by authorizing their Commissioner Berczenczei to summon the Szekler to a public meeting, nominally to plan the defence of their country, but really as a counterblast to the demands of the Roumanians.

But the Roumanians felt that it was necessary to strengthen themselves by an appeal to a recognized authority; and they saw that the desultory and barbarous warfare, which they had hitherto carried on, would never suffice to win them the rights which they had now resolved to claim; they therefore made advances to Field-Marshal Puchner, the General of the Austrian forces in Transylvania. Latour had for some time past been trying to stir up Puchner to action; but Puchner had hesitated to listen either to the Austrian Minister, or to the Roumanian leaders. He seems to have been a man of much higher type than most of the Austrian generals who were engaged in the struggles of this period; and he shrank alike from the underhand intrigues of Latour, and from the dreadful cruelties of Roumanian warfare. The latter feeling would have had special force with him at this period; because the most urgent appeals for his help came from Urban, a former officer in the Austrian army, who had been the most notorious for his brutalities of all the leaders of the Roumanians. But, while Puchner was unwilling to commit himself definitely to the Roumanian cause, he opposed himself to the reckless persecution which the Magyar Commissioner Vay had carried on against all who had helped in organizing the petition of the Roumanians; and Puchner had even gone to Karlsburg, and successfully petitioned for the release of some of the Roumanian prisoners. He had hoped, however, to combine this merciful and moderate policy with the recognition of Vay's authority, and even with a kind of co-operation with him. But the fiercely revolutionary character, which the Hungarian Diet began to assume after the death of Latour, compelled Puchner into more decided opposition to their proceedings.

On the 8th of October, Kossuth issued an order to the towns of Hungary, in which he told them that anyone who did not hang out the Hungarian flag, and express in writing his devotion to the Hungarian cause, and his willingness to obey the committee appointed by the Government, should be shot as a traitor; and this savage proclamation was followed the next day by a command from Commissioner Vay, to the tax collectors of Transylvania, that they should no longer send the taxes to the central office at Hermannstadt, but to the office in Klausenburg, which had hitherto been considered subordinate. As Hermannstadt was at once the military head-quarters of the Austrian army and the chief town of the Saxon settlement in Transylvania, this was a direct attack both on the Imperial power, and on the influence of the Saxons. A few days later the Szekler, in the meeting which had recently been summoned, denounced Puchner for his attempt to hinder that meeting, and formally repudiated his authority.

Puchner now felt that the time had come for action; and, on the 18th of October, he issued from Hermannstadt an appeal to all the inhabitants of Transylvania, and especially to the official boards. In this he declared that, since the Count Palatine and his Ministers had resigned their offices, there had been no legal Government in Hungary. The Government of Kossuth, which wrongfully claimed to act for the Emperor, was substituting terror for equality, and had falsely spread the rumour that the Government desired to use the Roumanians to oppress the Magyar and Szekler. In order, then, to put an end to anarchy, and to protect the country from terrorism, he, Puchner, had resolved to take advantage of the Imperial Manifesto of October 3, which had placed Hungary under military Government; and he called upon all boards to act with him in restoring order, and upon the volunteers and national guards to place themselves under his command.

Nor were the Roumanians content with this official appeal; for their own national committee issued about the same time, on their own responsibility, an address to the Szeklers and Magyars. In this address they declared that they, like the Szeklers and Magyars, had sympathized with the March movement in Hungary; but that a faction had now usurped the Government of the country, and was aiming, at once, at depriving the King of his crown, and the Hungarian Peoples of their nationality. They hoped that the better part of the Magyars and Szeklers would unite against this faction; but, if they would not, then the Roumanians must declare war on them. They promised, however, to carry on the war in a humane manner, and to spare women, old men, and prisoners. At the same time, they issued an appeal to their countrymen, urging them to abstain from cruelties in warfare, as such practices were unworthy of a free people. The Saxons had, at first, been somewhat unwilling to act with the Roumanians; but the new movement seemed to give an opening for better co-operation. Joint committees of the two races were formed, and Puchner undertook to organize the soldiers of both races.

Of the Roumanian leaders who now came to the front, the most remarkable was Avraham Jancu.[22] He had been originally trained as a lawyer; but, after the meeting in September, he went off to organize the National Guard in his own mountains; and, when Puchner had issued his proclamation, Jancu received orders to give his assistance in disarming the Magyars. This process had been begun by the Roumanians, without waiting for orders; and it had, in consequence, been accompanied with many acts of cruelty. Jancu therefore sent down three tribunes with forces to protect the Magyar families from violence; and he also persuaded one or two of the towns to surrender to him, that he might then protect them from ill-treatment. Jancu also won several victories, and became so formidable to his opponents that he gained the name of the "Mountain King." But the humane exertions of Jancu and other tribunes, seconded with all his influence by Puchner, were not sufficient to keep in check the wildness of some of the Roumanian leaders. The cruelties which both the Magyars and Szeklers had committed in the struggle; the summary execution at Klausenburg of three leaders of the Roumanians, before the actual rising had taken place, and the reputed crucifixion of another at Maros Vasarhely, roused the fury of the Roumanians to its highest pitch.

The fiercest hatred of the Roumanians was directed against the Szeklers who had been their most determined enemies; and General Gedeon marched against Maros Vasarhely. Its specially isolated position, and the bad roads in its neighbourhood made it an easy prey for a General who had some skill in guerilla warfare. The city fell into the hands of Gedeon, who revenged the wrongs of the Roumanians by inflicting every species of brutality on the Szekler inhabitants. Horrified as Puchner was at these cruelties, he did not wholly understand the character of the men with whom he was working; for, in one of the orders which he issued, he gave a distinct sanction to the practice of burning villages. He seems, indeed, to have intended this form of violence merely to be used as an extreme measure in case of retreat; but the Roumanians did not so understand it; and when, on one occasion, Puchner was sternly rebuking some of the Roumanian leaders for not better preventing the cruelties of their followers, one of them retorted by appealing to this order.

Besides the difficulties arising from these cruelties, Puchner had to contend against the continual rivalry between the Saxons and Roumanians. The former were contemptuous towards their allies; and, according to the Roumanian theory, were disposed to take unfair advantage of the Roumanians in the election of the members of the Committee of Management. Nevertheless, the help of the Saxons probably enabled Puchner to secure a more orderly Government than he could have achieved without it; and, amongst others from whom he received this kind of help, was the Saxon clergyman, Stephan Ludwig Roth, who had already been known for his efforts to secure German emigrants to Transylvania. He was appointed by Puchner to govern the district of Mediasch, in the valley of Kokelburg, where he distinguished himself by his humanity to the Magyar families who came under his protection, and showed his large-hearted sympathy by adopting a Magyar child who had been deserted by its parents. Moreover, Bishop Schaguna, who, it will be remembered, had discouraged the first risings of the Roumanians, now joined in with Puchner's plans, and exerted himself to restrain the violence of his countrymen.

But while Puchner, aided by men like Schaguna, Jancu and Roth, was endeavouring to check the cruelties which his new followers were too ready to inflict, there was needed on the other hand an equally strong influence to restrain the savagery of the Magyar and Szekler. This was the more necessary, because, whatever injustice these races had committed towards the weaker races of Hungary, in the state in which things then stood, the Magyar cause had become identified with the cause of European freedom. Only in the success of the armies which Kossuth was trying to organize, did there seem even the least remaining chance for the overthrow of that Government which was crushing out the life of Vienna, which had trampled on the freedom of Lombardy, and which threatened to be the complete inheritor of the old system of Metternich. But if the Magyar armies in North Hungary were to achieve either the military or moral success which such a cause required, it was necessary that, in Transylvania also, the same race should deserve and obtain a similar success. For that purpose, they would need a man who would be the equal of Puchner both in generalship and humanity. For under Puchner's leadership, the Saxons and Roumanians were gaining in military prowess, even more than in self-restraint, and Klausenburg had fallen into the hands of the Imperial forces.

Such was the state of things, when, on December 15, it was announced that Bem had been appointed by Kossuth Commander-in-Chief of the Transylvanian Army. He at once assembled the officers of the Army which he was to command, and informed them that he required from them unconditional obedience. Those who did not obey, he said, would be shot. Those who did obey he would know how to reward. With these few stern words, he dismissed them. This address was evidently one which might either be delivered by a mere overweening tyrant, or by a man of real genius and strong will, who understood the work that was before him. A few months served to show in which class Bem was to be reckoned. Ignoring the Commissioner, who had been sent down, he armed and reclad his troops; punished disorder with a stern hand, but showed such personal sympathy with his followers, that he became known as "Father Bem;" while his enemies soon learned to distinguish him from the other leaders by his generosity and humanity to the conquered. He seems to have been one of those born leaders of men, who understand when to be stern, and when to be indulgent. On one occasion an officer doubted if he could hold a position. Bem told him that he must either hold it, or be shot; and it was held. On another occasion his troops, seized by the panic natural to undisciplined levies, fled before the enemy, leaving Bem in great danger. He announced afterwards that he might have had to shoot or flog many of them; but he would not do the first, because he thought they might still serve their country; nor the second, because he would not treat them as beasts; and, therefore, he must forgive them. With regard to his military capacity, although the conventional military critics were disposed to discredit it, yet it could not be denied that he taught an undisciplined mob to stand fire before a regular army, to obey discipline, and even to develope a courage and capacity which won special applause and honours for the Szekler nation; that he succeeded in about three months in completely turning the fortunes of the war in Transylvania; and at a later period in holding his own for another two months against the powerful armies of two nations. His personal daring was more like that of a knight errant than of a modern general. On one occasion, after a battle in which he had been worsted, he saw some Austrians carrying off one of his cannon. He darted forward alone, exclaiming, "That is my cannon"; and so cowed his enemies, that they surrendered it at once. On another occasion he sent an aide-de-camp to call up the rear-guard of his Army, and found that they had all disappeared, and that he was continuing the struggle with hardly any followers.

As if to mark the cause for which Bem was fighting as more distinctly than ever the cause of liberty, Puchner began, in January, 1849, those negotiations with the Russians which were finally to stamp the Austrian invasion of Transylvania with the anti-national character which other circumstances of the struggle might have made doubtful. In this matter, as in his original adoption of the Roumanian cause, Puchner seems not so much to have taken the lead as to have been driven into his position by unavoidable circumstances. Schaguna, whose prominence among the Roumanians had specially marked him out as an object of hostility to the Magyar Government, fled from Hermannstadt on the first news of Bem's arrival in Transylvania, and is believed to have made the first appeal for Russian help. The Roumanians, whose kinsmen of the Principalities (Wallachia and Moldavia) were in some alarm about the intentions of Russia, do not seem to have sympathized warmly with this action of their bishop; but the Saxons were less scrupulous; and the towns of Kronstadt and Hermannstadt sent a formal address to General Lüders, the Russian Commander in Bucharest, asking him to come to their assistance. Lüders answered that the Czar sympathized with the brave defenders of the Austrian throne, and wished to respond to their appeal; but that he was unable to do so without a direct request from the Austrian Commander-in-Chief. Under these circumstances, Puchner felt himself bound to yield to the wishes of the Saxons; some of the Roumanian leaders joined in the appeal; and so, on February 1, formal application was made for Russian help. The Russians do not seem to have come in great numbers, nor with that formal announcement of war which accompanied their later invasion, in June. Bem, at any rate, did not lose courage. Although he had recently been repulsed by Puchner, he rallied his forces; and, on March 11, he defeated the Russians before Hermannstadt, and followed up his victory by the capture of the town. This signal victory secured, for a time, the reconquest of Transylvania by the Magyars; and, if Bem had remained in that province, it is possible that he would not only have retained the territory under Magyar rule, but that he might have made that rule acceptable to the Saxons, and, in time, even to the Roumanians.

But behind Bem stood the dark figure of one who had already brought disgrace and injury on the Magyar cause, and who was still further to degrade it on this occasion. This was Ladislaus Csanyi, the intriguer who had introduced into the election of Zala County those elements of bribery and intimidation which had compelled Deak to refuse election. Csanyi now desired to put Hermannstadt to the sword; but Bem interfered, and the Saxons still honour his memory as that of the man who saved their countrymen from massacre and their chief city from destruction. Determined to counteract, so far as he could, the brutal policy of Csanyi, Bem issued a general amnesty to those who had opposed the Magyar Government; but, unfortunately, that Government believed that they needed Bem's military talents more than his civil wisdom; and they despatched him into the Banat, to clear that province also of the enemies of Magyar rule. So, while Bem was succeeding in battle in the Banat, Csanyi was undoing his work in Transylvania. With the approval, apparently, of Kossuth, Csanyi repudiated Bem's amnesty altogether, and established tribunals in Transylvania for the summary execution of his enemies and the confiscation of their goods.

There was one victim of this reign of terror whose character and sufferings stand out in a manner which throws a halo over the Saxon cause. Stephan Ludwig Roth had, as above mentioned, distinguished himself by his humanity in the administration of the government of Mediasch under Puchner's rule; and the Magyar officials of the town of Elizabethstadt had sent him an address of thanks for his protection of their town from plunder. But he was hated by the strong partizans of Magyar rule, as the most illustrious embodiment of the feeling in favour of Saxon independence; and his attempts to promote the immigration of Germans into Transylvania had been remembered against him by those who wished to crush out, in Hungary, all national feeling except that of the Magyars. Bem had been so well aware of the hatred which Roth had excited, that he had thought it necessary to give him, in addition to the general amnesty, a special guarantee for his safety. In reliance on this security, Roth had retired to his parish of Meschen, and was living without any apparent fear, when he was suddenly arrested there by the soldiers of Csanyi, and brought, after some delay, to Klausenburg. There he was kept in prison, and, though at first leniently treated, he was, after a time, prevented from holding any communications with his friends. In the meantime, the tribunal which was to decide his fate was not allowed to come to a free decision. The Magyar mob of Klausenburg gathered round the court and demanded his death; and even those of the judges who were convinced of his innocence were terrified into voting for his condemnation. His friends appealed for mercy to Csanyi, but he indignantly rejected all petitions, declaring that Roth had deserved ten deaths.

After his condemnation Roth sent the following letter to his children:—

"Dear Children,—I have just been condemned to death, and in three hours more the sentence will be put into execution. If anything gives me pain, it is the thought of you, who are without a mother, and who now are losing your father. But there are good men who will advise and help you for your father's sake. The Hungarian foundling whom I adopted, I entreat you to continue to take care of; only if its parents should wish for it, they have a nearer claim. Except for this, I have nothing more in this world. The children of my church at Meschen, and my Nimisch people I think of in love. May God make these communities become rich in the fruits of godliness, like fruit-trees whose loaded boughs hang down to the ground! In my writing-table are the prospectuses of the school and church newspaper which is to be published. The body of the nation is broken to pieces. I do not believe in any binding together of its limbs any more. So much the more do I desire the keeping alive of the spirit which once lived in these forms. For that purpose I entreat my brother clergy whom I leave behind to take care to carry on this newspaper, in order to keep alive the character, pure manners, and honesty of will of our people. But, if it is decreed in the Counsels of History that it must perish, may it perish in a manner that shall not bring shame on its ancestors! Time flies. I know not if my sick body can honourably support my willing spirit. All whom I have insulted I heartily entreat for pardon. For my part, I leave the world without hate, and pray God to forgive my enemies. So let the end come in God's name!

"Klausenburg, 11th May, 1849.

"I must add that neither in life nor death have I been an enemy of the Hungarian nation. May they believe this, on the word of a dying man, in the moment when all hypocrisy falls away!"

He was shortly after led out to execution. When his sentence was read out to him, in which he was accused of having taken the sword instead of the Bible, and of having led on the Saxon and Wallack hordes, he cried out indignantly, "It is not true. I never carried a sword." He refused to have his hands bound; and, with his face to the soldiers, he fell, after the third shot. The captain in command of the soldiers was so much impressed by the spectacle, that he exclaimed, "Soldiers, learn from this man how to die for one's people."

But long before Csanyi's reign of terror had reached this climax, the aspect of affairs in other parts of Hungary had gone through important changes. The removal of Görgei and the appointment of Dembinski had caused great irritation among the friends of the former. This irritation might be somewhat excused by the fact that nearly a month had elapsed between the time when Görgei had sent his proclamation to Windischgrätz and his deposition from command; and the deposition even received an appearance of injustice and hardship from its announcement at the moment when Görgei had just obtained a victory. But the opposition to this change of command would have been almost as certain if the removal had taken place earlier, and under different circumstances. It was looked upon as a blow struck by the politicians of Buda-Pesth at the politicians of the army; and the appointment of a foreigner added an element of national prejudice to the outburst of professional irritation. Moreover, Dembinski seems to have been exactly the kind of officer whom Görgei most disliked. His reputation rested on certain brilliant feats of guerilla warfare in the Polish insurrection of 1830; and of course Görgei and his friends may have been right in thinking that such a man was ill fitted to carry on the more regular warfare which was needed for the defeat of Windischgrätz. But, whatever excuse they may have had for opposition to the appointment, they clearly put themselves in the wrong by their evident determination not to allow Dembinski a fair chance. Görgei, indeed, at first affected to discourage the protests against Dembinski's appointment; but the language in which he did so was so evidently defiant in intention as to call forth a censure from his personal friend, the War Minister Meszaros; nor was it long before Görgei threw off even this slender mask, and openly defied Dembinski's authority.

Görgei's faction among the officers was so strong, and the dislike to Dembinski so general, that the commanders of divisions at last agreed to demand the deposition of their chief. Kossuth came down to the camp to inquire into the circumstances; and he found the feeling against Dembinski so violent that he consented to his removal. Görgei seems to have used this opportunity for once more discussing the political situation with Kossuth; and, strange to say, he made to him the very proposal which Batthyanyi had rejected when it was put forward by Jellaciç; namely, that the War and Finance Ministries should be removed to Vienna. If this proposal had been unsatisfactory when Vienna was free, and Ferdinand on the throne, it could have sounded little short of treason to the cause of Hungary, when Vienna was under the absolute rule of Windischgrätz; and it is not wonderful, therefore, that, though Kossuth was willing to remove Dembinski, he preferred appointing General Vetter as Commander-in-Chief to trusting Görgei with the leadership.

It was at this crisis that the event occurred which was mentioned in the last chapter, and which hastened on the final phase of the movement. Encouraged, as Görgei believed, by the victories of Windischgrätz, Francis Joseph and his advisers suddenly dismissed the Parliament at Kremsier, and proclaimed a Constitution "octroyè" for the occasion. Hungarians of all parties condemned this act as a violation of their old laws and customs, and an assertion of the arbitrary will of the sovereign. For, indeed, the discontent now aroused was far from being confined to the Magyars; and it would have been strange had it been otherwise. The dissolution of the Kremsier Parliament was, even irrespective of all that followed it, the most barefaced act of despotism that had been committed since the March risings of the previous year. Even Ferdinand of Naples could plead that barricades had been thrown up in the streets before his coup d'état of May 15. The unfortunate June insurrection at Prague had given a plausible excuse for preventing the meeting of the Bohemian Parliament; the murder of Lamberg had, no doubt, seemed to Ferdinand of Austria to supply at least a palliation for his dissolution of the Hungarian Diet; the murder of Latour and the persecution of the Bohemian deputies supplied Windischgrätz with sufficient argument for depriving Vienna of its liberties; and even the violent dispersal of the deputies of Berlin could be defended by the King of Prussia by reference to the previous riots of August. But not a single excuse of this kind could, with the least show of plausibility, be urged in defence of the dissolution of the Kremsier Parliament. Indeed, Francis Joseph betrayed the weakness of his case by pleading in his defence the nature of the subjects that had been discussed in the Parliament; and he could not even pretend that it had either exceeded its powers or exercised them in a disorderly manner.

Nor was the Constitution, which was offered as a sequel to this dissolution, any more acceptable than the dissolution itself; and a general protest went up from nearly every race in the Empire. However much the Viennese might, under other circumstances, have liked a Constitution which was centralised at Vienna, they none of them would welcome it when it was combined with the rule of Windischgrätz. The Bohemian leaders felt themselves doubly offended; first by the dissolution of a Parliament to which they had specially trusted for justice; and secondly by the refusal of any real provincial independence to Bohemia. The Croats indignantly denounced the restoration of the military rule on the frontier, and the consequent separation from Croatia of the Slavs who inhabited the frontier district. The Serbs, ever since January, had been complaining of the advance of military rule in the Serb districts, and the gradual diminution of the power of the Voyvode; and they now felt that all their local institutions were still further endangered by the centralisation of the new Constitution. Some of the bitterest protests came from the Roumanians. They had been treated from the first with the greatest contempt by most of the Imperialist officers; and directly after the capture of Hermannstadt by Bem, they found themselves suddenly deserted by the Austrian forces, which were withdrawn into Wallachia. While they were still smarting under this treachery, the news of the new Constitution reached them; and they found that they were as far off as ever from obtaining that separate national organization for which they had so long been pleading; while a part of the Banat, which they considered specially Roumanian, was to be placed, by the new arrangement, under the Serbs.

In this state of general discontent, it might have seemed that Kossuth would have had a fair chance of rallying round him all the races of the Empire, in a common desire for local independence, and a common hostility to the rule of Francis Joseph. But the divisions and mutual suspicions between the various races of the Empire had gone too deep to allow of this change. As for co-operation between the Bohemians and Germans, even if such a combination had been possible after the various causes of bitterness mentioned in the preceding chapters, little good could be effected by it at this crisis, when both Prague and Vienna were at the mercy of the conqueror. The important question, therefore, was the attitude to be taken up towards the new Constitution, by the various races in the Kingdom of Hungary; and here it must be owned that it was not wholly the fault of Kossuth, that he did not succeed in combining them in this emergency.

Many both of the Croats and Serbs expressed plainly their discontent with the treatment which they had received from the House of Austria, but both Croats and Serbs were paralysed by the leaders whom they had accepted. The Banal Council[23] of Croatia protested against the publication of the new Constitution; but Jellaciç declared that he was bound to see that it was published, and that the Council were only to carry out his orders. In a similar manner, many of the leading Serbs remonstrated with Rajaciç on his acceptance of the vague promises, which were the substitute in the new Constitution, for those ancient liberties which the Serbs claimed as their due. But Rajaciç maintained his authority over his countrymen, and accepted a place of completer subordination to the Austrian General than that which he had hitherto held. On the other hand, Kossuth seems to have neglected the opportunity offered by the general feeling of discontent, which prevailed at this time among the Serbs and Croats; and it was not till months later, when driven to desperation, that he proposed to make those concessions, which had by that time lost all grace. Towards the Roumanians, indeed, Kossuth seemed disposed to make concessions, by which he hoped to draw them away from the Saxons; and he chose a negotiator, whom he thought well fitted for this purpose. But Jancu distrusted Kossuth's emissary, and perhaps also Kossuth himself; and so the negotiation broke down.

And if Kossuth failed to draw round him, at this crisis, the different races who were discontented with the new Constitution, it was a much stranger fact that he was unable to maintain the union between the different parties in the Magyar nation itself. This was all the stranger, because just at this time both the personal and political grounds for difference between Kossuth and Görgei seemed to be suddenly removed. Deep as had been Görgei's irritation at the appointment of Vetter, it had naturally been brought to a close by the sudden illness which removed Vetter from the command, and which was followed on March 31 by the appointment of Görgei as provisional Commander-in-Chief; while, as to political opinions, Görgei and Kossuth were both agreed in denouncing the circumstances under which Francis Joseph had been thrust on to the throne of Hungary, and the character and origin of the Constitution which he had just issued. Under these circumstances, it seemed as if there could be no further ground for division between the military party who followed Görgei, and the larger body of Magyars, who accepted Kossuth as their leader. But it soon appeared that this was not the case.

Kossuth and his friends naturally argued that as the only member of the House of Hapsburg who claimed the throne of Hungary was admittedly in an illegal position, the only logical course was to depose the House of Hapsburg from the throne of Hungary; and that as the only Constitution by which the rulers of Austria would consent to link themselves to Hungary was admittedly an illegal Constitution, the only logical course was to separate Hungary from Austria. Görgei and his friends, on the other hand, shrank with horror from the idea of fighting without the authority of a King. They had sworn to obey Ferdinand, and to accept the Constitution of March 1848; they therefore insisted on ignoring the abdication of Ferdinand, and the abolition of that Constitution, and continued to fight, in the name of a King who did not wish to reign, and on behalf of a Constitution which had ceased to exist. Kossuth and his friends, however, were resolved to assert their principles; and on April 14 they issued the celebrated "Declaration of Independence."

The strongly legal and historical character which had marked the whole Hungarian movement since the time of the meeting of the Diet in 1825, still shows itself even in this semi-revolutionary document. The Declaration goes back to the first connection of the House of Hapsburg with the throne of Hungary, and declares that no House had ever had so good a chance of governing successfully, and had so misused it. After mentioning some of the tyrannies of the earlier Kings of this House, the Declaration dwells on the fact that while Hungary had often had to fight for its freedom, it had always been so moderate in its demands that it had laid down its arms as soon as the King gave a new oath to preserve its freedom; but these oaths had never been kept, and for three hundred years this policy had never been changed. The people, after each promise, had forgotten the wounds of past years, in exaggerated magnanimity; but now the time had come to break the union. The House of Hapsburg had united itself with the enemies of the people, and with robbers and agitators, in order to oppress the people. It had attacked those of its subjects who would not combine against the Constitution which it had sworn to protect, or against the independent life of the nation. It had attacked with violence the integrity of the country, though it had sworn to preserve it. It had used a foreign Power to murder its own subjects and suppress their lawful freedom. Any one of these crimes was sufficient reason for depriving the Dynasty of its throne. The Declaration then goes on to consider the excuses which the Dynasty offered for its conduct. As for the independence secured by Hungary in March, 1848, that was only the confirmation of an old tradition; for the Pragmatic Sanction showed that neither Hungary nor any of the provinces connected with it had ever been absorbed in Austria. Joseph II. alone had ignored this fact, and his name, therefore, never appeared in the list of the kings of Hungary. As for the laws which the Diet had passed in March, Ferdinand had sanctioned them; but he now wished to suppress them. Yet the Hungarians had taken no advantage of the disturbances in different parts of the Austrian Empire to secure greater independence for themselves, but had remained content with what had been granted in March. They had supported the monarchy; but Ferdinand had tried to break his oath as soon as it was made. The Government at Vienna had at first tried to act through the Count Palatine; but, as this combination had weakened their power, they had gradually withdrawn more and more power from him. They had tried to impose customs duties which would have cut off Hungary from the rest of the world; and when this method failed they tried to stir up the different nationalities against the Hungarian Ministry. The proclamation proceeds to say that dates and documents prove that the Archduke Louis, the Archduke Francis Charles, and the Archduchess Sophia had stirred up the movements in Croatia and Slavonia. They attribute Ferdinand's first denunciation of Jellaciç as a traitor to the difficulties caused by the war in Italy; but they accuse him of having played a double part, both in Croatia and Slavonia, and of having helped the Croats and Serbs with money and ammunition at the very time when he was denouncing them as rebels. They charge the Serbs with having committed great cruelties in their rising. They denounce, as illegal, the scattering of Hungarian troops in different provinces of the Austrian Empire, and they declare that it was in consequence of this arrangement that they were unable to save Fiume from Jellaciç. They complain of the order given to the soldiers and commanders of fortresses not to obey the Hungarian Ministry, and to take orders only from Vienna. They complain that the Emperor had made a general of the Slavonic priest who had headed the rising of the Slovaks in North Hungary. They complain of their desertion by the Archduke Stephen, after his promises of support, and of the intrigues of Latour with Jellaciç and with other generals against the liberties of Hungary. Lastly, they complain of the abdication of Ferdinand in favour of Francis Joseph. Yet even Francis Joseph they would have accepted had he claimed his rights in a legal manner; but he had threatened to conquer Hungary by force, and had, for the conquest of Transylvania, called in those Russians who had crushed out the liberties of Roumania. They further stated that, although at first the Hungarians had been driven back, they had now recovered their ground in Transylvania, cleared North Hungary of foes, suppressed the Serb rising, and defeated the Austrians in five battles. Under these circumstances they now declared Hungary independent of the House of Hapsburg, and appointed Kossuth as their President.

Kossuth's supremacy in Hungary had been an important fact for a considerable time past, and had been due, not only to his personal qualities, but to the gradual retirement from public life of most of the leading statesmen who had played a part in the earlier phases of the struggle against the ruling powers in Vienna. Batthyanyi had abandoned all direct initiative in Hungarian politics ever since his resignation of the Premiership, and had only attempted to mediate between the contending armies, a mediation which had been scornfully rejected by Windischgrätz. Deak had, from the first, announced that he was unfit for revolutionary propaganda; and, after devoting himself, in the early days of the March Ministry, to the compilation of a code of laws and the administrative work of his office, he had gradually assumed the same position of mediator which Batthyanyi had desired, and with equal want of success. Wesselenyi was now old and blind; and, though he had consented to go with Eötvös on that deputation to the Vienna Assembly which had been repulsed by the Bohemian Deputies, neither he nor Eötvös now took any regular part in public affairs. Szechenyi, horrified at the results which, as he considered, had flowed from his early encouragement of Magyar feeling, lost his reason, and was at this time under restraint. Thus, of the statesmen who had been prominent in Hungary during the struggle against Metternich, Kossuth was the only one who could still be said to be before the public.

Kossuth's unrivalled eloquence, and his keen sympathy, both with the intensity and the narrowness of Magyar feeling, had given him a force which none of the other leaders of the movement had ever possessed; and his discovery of the military genius of Bem had secured him an influence in Transylvania which considerably increased the strength of his position. On the other hand, his intolerant attitude towards the subject races of Hungary had marked him out in a special manner as the object of their hatred; while his contempt for ordinary military arrangements, his growing distrust of Görgei, and last, but perhaps not least, the belief among many military men that he was deficient in physical courage, tended to strengthen against him a formidable party in the army which was eventually to prove too strong for him. But, if the divided state of Hungarian feeling threw formidable difficulties in the way of Kossuth, he could find compensations in the condition of the forces opposed to him. Windischgrätz does not seem to have been reckoned, by military critics, a considerable general. Stratimiroviç, whatever military qualities he may have possessed, was continually held in check by the cautious policy of Rajaciç. Puchner, who had succeeded in giving such force to the Roumanian rising, was becoming an object of suspicion to the more conventional Austrian generals, and was shortly to be removed from Transylvania; while a cause of weakness, which was perhaps still more important, was to be found in the withdrawal from the country of a large body of Austrian and Croatian soldiers, who were being despatched against the new Government of the Roman States.

For in Italy, too, the champions of liberty were preparing for their final struggle, though under rather different auspices from those under which it was being fought out in Hungary. On the very day when the Declaration of Independence was published in Hungary, Mazzini, Saffi, and Armellini, who had been elected Triumvirs of the Roman Republic, after the failure of Charles Albert's final war, appeared in the Assembly for the first time in their new capacity. They had no light task before them. Apart from the enemies who were threatening the Republic from outside, there were dangers arising from the feelings of the different parties within the Roman State. The deposition of the Pope had undoubtedly given a shock to the feelings of many strong Liberals, of a much keener, and if one may say so, more intelligible kind, than the deposition of the House of Hapsburg could possibly give to any Hungarian leader. Even Castellani, the Ambassador of the Venetian Republic, hesitated to identify the cause of his city with that of the opponents of the Pope; while the feeling among the priests of the Roman States had been shown by a formidable conspiracy in Imola and Ascoli. General Zucchi, who had taken part in this conspiracy, had even attempted to force his way into the Neapolitan territory, in order to put himself under the authority of the Pope. Garibaldi had defeated this attempt, and Zucchi had been sent as a prisoner to Rome; but the conspiracy was not forgotten; and, when the Triumvirs came into power, they found that these outbursts of priestly opposition were provoking savage reprisals on the part of the Republicans.

While Saffi had been only Minister of the Interior, and Mazzini only a private member of the Assembly, they had both warned the Government of the probability of this danger; and they now found that a Society had been formed at Ancona which threatened death to the enemies of Liberalism. The Triumvirs first sent down two officers, who tried to organize the local leaders into a committee for preserving public order; but, though their emissaries were satisfied with their own action, the Triumvirs were less easily contented. Felice Orsini was sent down with full powers to put down the insurrection; and, if necessary, to declare Ancona in a state of siege. He at once arrested twenty men, called out the National Guard, put down opposition by force, and carried off his prisoners to Rome, where they were shut up in the Castle of St. Angelo. From Ancona Orsini went on to Ascoli, where he condemned three of the most dangerous persons to be shot, and sequestrated the goods of a cardinal, who had stirred up the clerical insurrection. But the Austrian forces were now advancing into the Roman territory; and Orsini was compelled to retire to Rome.

Even in the capital the Triumvirs had to use strong measures to check the fierce feeling against the priests. This feeling had just been roused to an unusual height by special discoveries of priestly cruelty. In sweeping away the various irregular tribunals, which had grown up under the papal tyranny, the Triumvirs had to deal with the question of the Inquisition. They appropriated the former offices of that celebrated institution, as dwellings for the poor; but, in making the buildings available for this purpose, they threw open the secret dungeons, and discovered prisoners who were slowly dying of their imprisonment. One bishop, who had remained there since the time of Leo XII., had absolutely lost the power of walking. The horrible instruments of torture, which were found in the same place, excited still further the indignation of the people; and that feeling found yet a new cause for its expression, when a book was discovered in the library of the Inquisition, containing the secrets of the principal families of Italy, which had been obtained through the revelations of confessors. Several of the fiercer spirits in Rome at once made an attack on the pulpits and confessionals, and burnt some of them in the Piazza del Popolo. These tumults were sternly checked by the Triumvirs; and they succeeded in protecting from the popular vengeance the convent in which the chief Inquisitor lived. But while they protected the persons and private property of the priests, they appropriated the greater part of the ecclesiastical lands to the support of the poor, arranging that every family of three persons should have as much land as could be managed by a pair of oxen. At the same time the jurisdiction of the clergy over the universities and schools was taken away.

While the attention of the Government was thus devoted to the restoration of internal order, and the carrying out of necessary reforms, they did not neglect the vigorous measures which were needed for the resistance to foreign enemies. The forces which had been rather carelessly scattered in the outlying provinces of the Roman State, were concentrated by the Triumvirs near Bologna. That gallant little city had been in a state of alarm ever since the early part of February, when the Austrian forces had again attacked Ferrara; and the difficulties of communication between these two cities had increased the alarm of the Bolognese, though it had also strengthened their eagerness for resistance. But even before this Austrian invasion, the Roman Republicans had been alarmed at the threats issued by another Power. Three days after the flight of the Pope, General Cavaignac announced in the French Assembly that he had sent three frigates to Civita Vecchia to secure the safety of His Holiness. This expedition had excited much opposition in France; and, during the subsequent contest for the Presidency, the following letter was addressed by one of the candidates to the editor of a French newspaper:—

"Mr. Editor,

"Knowing that my agreement to the vote for the Expedition to Civita Vecchia has been remarked upon, I think myself bound to declare that, whatever may have been decided about the arrangements suitable for guaranteeing the liberty and authority of the chief Pontiff, nevertheless I cannot approve by my vote a military demonstration that appears dangerous both to the sacred interests that they pretend to protect, and that has a tendency to compromise European peace.

"Yours respectfully,
"Louis Napoleon Buonaparte.

"December 2, 1848."

As this pacific candidate had been shortly after elected President of the French Republic, there seemed little fear that an expedition "tending to compromise European peace," would again be entered upon by France; and the Mountain of the French Assembly had lately sent greetings to the Roman Republic.

Since then the immediate danger to Rome seemed to come rather from the North than from the West, the Triumvirs watched with much anxiety the hesitating attitude of Guerrazzi and the Tuscan Government. So eager had the leaders of the Roman Assembly been for a union between Tuscany and the Roman States that they had even offered to Montanelli and Guerrazzi places in the first Triumvirate, which had been formed before Mazzini and Saffi had been called to power. Guerrazzi, however, had refused to accept this offer; and, while declaring his desire for union with Rome, he professed his inability to find a means for effecting that union. Indeed, Guerrazzi held an almost impossible position. Though unable to make up his mind to accept a Republican Government, he was yet determined to resist any interference, either by Piedmontese or Austrians, in favour of the former Government of Tuscany. And while he still seemed to cherish Italian ideas, he felt that the defeat of Charles Albert had taken away the hopes for any satisfactory continuance of the War of Independence. Under these circumstances the champions of the restoration of the Grand Duke naturally gained ground in Tuscany. Guerrazzi, distrusted alike by Republicans and Royalists, was unable either to resist this movement, or to guide it according to his own theories; and on April 12 the Municipality of Florence took the matter out of the hands both of Guerrazzi and the Assembly, and decreed the recall of the Grand Duke.

This catastrophe, though a subject of regret, could scarcely have caused much surprise to the leaders of the Roman Republic. A feeling of far deeper pain must have been roused by the final failure of the earliest of all the struggles for liberty of this period. The coup d'état at Naples of May 15, 1848, though it had shattered the hopes of the Neapolitans, had only intensified the zeal of the Sicilians in their struggle against Ferdinand. As they had just deposed him from the throne, and proclaimed the Duke of Genoa as their King, they thought themselves safe against the restoration of Neapolitan rule; and the Ambassadors of France and England tried to persuade the King of Naples not to send an expedition to Sicily. He refused, however, to listen to these remonstrances; the expedition sailed; and, by his bombardment of Palermo, Ferdinand won for himself throughout Sicily the title of Il Re Bombardatore, which was quickly shortened into Bomba. Ruggiero Settimo, who had taken part in the struggles of 1812 and 1821, was placed at the head of the Sicilian Government, and Garibaldi was invited to come to defend the island. Garibaldi, however, did not arrive; and the chief defence of the island was entrusted to the Polish General Mieroslawski, who, having failed to save Posen from the hands of the Prussians, had become a kind of knight errant of liberty in other parts of Europe. He brought, however, but little good to the causes which he defended. He quarrelled with the Italian General Antonini, and was so often defeated, that the Sicilians began to fear treachery, and at last compelled him to resign his command. The struggle had, in fact, now become hopeless; and on April 17, 1849, the Sicilian Parliament decided to meet no longer. Then Ruggiero Settimo called his friends together, and declared that he was ready to undergo all his troubles again, if they decided to continue the contest. But they believed that the case was now desperate, and voted for peace. Then Settimo consulted the National Guard, but also in vain; and finding that any further efforts were useless, he resigned his Presidency, and left the island. The separateness of the Sicilian movement lessened, no doubt, in some degree the importance of this defeat; but the gallantry of their struggle had excited much sympathy in Rome; and their fall set free the Neapolitan forces for action against the Roman Republic.

This addition to the dangers which were harassing the Republic would not perhaps have been so formidable had not a new and more important enemy begun to show signs of hostility at the same period. The election of Louis Napoleon as President of the French Republic had been hailed with some satisfaction both in Venice and Rome; and, after the Roman Republic had been established, two envoys were sent to Paris, who reminded the President of the share he had taken in one of the insurrections against Gregory XVI. Louis Napoleon replied that the time of Gregory XVI. had gone by in Rome, and that his youth was also gone by. Both remarks were undoubtedly true, nor were they in themselves very alarming; but Ledru Rollin, one of the few Frenchmen who really sympathized with Italy, warned Mazzini that danger was coming; and the nature of the danger soon became apparent. On April 16 Odillon Barrot moved in the French Assembly a proposal for a vote of twelve hundred thousand francs for an expedition to Italy; an expedition, he said, which was not to restore the Pope; but to protect liberty and humanity. On April 20 General Oudinot took the command of the expedition, and told his followers that his object was to maintain the old legitimate French influence, and to protect the destinies of Italy from the predominance of the stranger, and of a party who were really in a minority. So kindly was the tone of the French Ministry towards the Romans, that Colonel Frapolli, one of the envoys of the Roman Republic, obtained the leave of the French President to organize a French Legion, which was to fight for the defence of Rome, and to be commanded by Pierre Buonaparte. But Pierre Buonaparte suddenly resigned his command; the prefect was ordered to hinder the embarkation of the Legion; and a large supply of muskets, which had been bought by the Roman Republic, were confiscated by the French Government. In the meantime Oudinot had set sail, and on April 24 he appeared before Civita Vecchia.

About the time when the French troops were landing, there arrived at the same place a very different force. The leader of this force was Luciano Manara, who had fought so gallantly in the "Five Days" of Milan, and who had afterwards been so hampered by Casati and Charles Albert in his attempt to rescue the Southern Tyrol from Austrian rule. He, like others, had been disappointed by the failure of Charles Albert's final war; but he had refused to join in the Genoese insurrection, which followed the defeat at Novara, and had preferred to set out with 8,000 men to help the Roman Republic. The difficulties thrown in the way of their march were, however, so great that only 600 remained with Manara by the time that he reached Civita Vecchia. Oudinot, with extraordinary impudence, disputed the right of the Lombards to interfere on behalf of Rome; and he even tried to persuade them that the cause of Rome was so distinct from that of Lombardy, that the Lombards could consistently join their forces with the French against Rome. Manara indignantly repelled the suggestion; and then Oudinot in vain attempted to exact a promise that the Lombard forces should not act against him until the 4th of May. Manara, having refused this further demand, Oudinot was forced to allow the Lombards to pass; and Manara marched to Rome to tell the Romans how the French Republic was preparing to defend the cause of "liberty and humanity."

In spite of this plain evidence of his intentions, Oudinot still attempted to play his double part; and, since his utterance about the government of a party in a minority had alarmed the inhabitants of Civita Vecchia, he authorised the Secretary of the Legation to declare the sympathy of the French for the Romans, and to assure the citizens of Civita Vecchia that the French Army had only come to defend them against the Austrians. Mannucci, the Governor of Civita Vecchia, had wished to oppose the first landing of the French; but he was overborne by the Chamber of Commerce and the Municipal Council, who were convinced that the French could not really intend to destroy the freedom which they so much professed to cherish. No sooner, however, had Oudinot effected a landing, than he announced that he would not protect the Anarchical Government of Rome, which had never been officially recognised. The Municipality became alarmed; and Oudinot again altered his tone, and declared that the French would respect the vote of the majority of the population, and did not desire to impose any special form of Government upon them. In spite of the warnings given by Oudinot's previous proclamation, the Municipal Council consented to admit him into the town; and, no sooner was he there, than he disarmed the battalion which was to have defended the town; and still further showed his zeal for the interests of "Liberty and humanity," by suppressing a printing office in Civita Vecchia, because it had recently printed an address in which the Papacy was condemned.

In the meantime the news had spread to Rome; and the Assembly were debating how they should receive Oudinot. So deep was the conviction of the reality of the French zeal for freedom, that Armellini actually suggested that Oudinot should be received as a friend. But, while the Assembly were debating, Mazzini entered the hall, and announced that Colonel le Blanc had confessed that the expedition was sent to restore the Papacy. Thereupon the Assembly voted that the Triumvirs should have power to resist force with force. But another difficulty arose; the officers of the National Guard declared that they did not believe their soldiers would fight. Thereupon Mazzini ordered that the battalions of the Guards should defile next morning in front of the Quirinal, where the Assembly were meeting; and, as the Guards passed, he put to them the question whether they were for peace or war. A loud shout of "Guerra, guerra!" answered his appeal; and the defence was at once resolved on.

In every district the heads of the people and the representatives of the Assembly were to organize the defence of every inch of the country. Barricades were thrown up; arms were to be given to all the people; while the municipality undertook to provide them with corn, meat, and other eatables. At the same time all foreigners, and particularly all Frenchmen living in Rome, were to be placed under the protection of the nation. Anyone who injured them was to be punished as having violated the honour of Rome. With regard to the actual soldiers to be used in the first defence of the city, they were arranged as follows:—the 1st brigade, commanded by Garibaldi, guarded the line outside the walls, which extends from the Porta Portese to the Porta San Pancrazio. The 2nd brigade, commanded by Colonel Masi, was drawn up before the Porta Cavalleggieri, the Vatican, and the Porta Angelica. The 3rd, under Colonel Savini, stood in reserve in the Piazza Navona. Colonel Galletti commanded the 4th, which was stationed in the Piazza Cesarini; while a reserve force under General Galletti, in which Manara and his Lombard volunteers were included, was held back for the present, to come up when needed. The whole of the forces were supervised by General Avezzana, who had organized the insurrection in Genoa after the defeat at Novara, and who now acted apparently both as Minister of War and Commander-in-Chief.

On April 29 Avezzana took his staff up to Monte Mario, from which point he could see the French army advancing from Civita Vecchia. As they marched along the road, the French saw everywhere a singular inscription painted upon the walls and posts. It ran as follows:—"Article 5 of the preamble of the French Constitution. The French Republic respects foreign nationalities as it intends to make its own respected. It does not undertake any war of conquest. It will never use its own forces against the liberty of any people." Whether as a kind of answer to this challenge, or in contempt of it, Oudinot announced to his troops that they came to liberate Rome from the factious party which had expelled the Pope, and which had answered his words of conciliation with ill-considered provocations.

It was at 11.30 a.m. on April 30 that the French and Roman armies first came into collision. Garibaldi advanced from Porta San Pancrazio to meet the French, who were entering the grounds of the Villa Pamfili, and who, hearing the bells of the city ring for the attack, supposed that an insurrection had broken out in favour of the Pope, and that they would have an easy victory. Garibaldi, however, repelled them, after a sharp fight, and made 300 prisoners. But the main attack of the French was in the meantime directed against the Porta Angelica. There one of the French captains had hoped to lead a column into Rome by a secret way near the Vatican. But a fire was poured on the advancing column from the Papal gardens, while the troops from Monte Mario attacked them in the rear. The battle lasted for four hours. The French captain Picarde managed at first to drive back the University battalion; but as he advanced, Colonel Arcioni at the head of a regiment of the Lombard exiles attacked him on one flank, and Galletti at the head of the National Guard on the other; finally Garibaldi, having disposed of his original opponents at the Villa Pamfili, charged the French force, and compelled them to lay down their arms.

Several acts of special valour marked this battle. One officer, named Montaldi, having been surrounded by the French, was beaten to his knees, and fought on with only a piece of his sword left. He had fought under Garibaldi at Monte Video, and was a Genoese by birth. Ugo Bassi[24] distinguished himself by riding about the field urging the Romans to battle. His horse was killed under him, and, as he was embracing it with tears, the French came up and took him prisoner. Garibaldi himself was wounded; but would not allow it to be known until the battle was over, when he sent privately for the doctor.

On the following day the battle was renewed; the people flocking to the defence of the walls, and the French sharp-shooters being finally driven out from the Pamfili gardens. Garibaldi would now have been able to cut off the French retreat and destroy their army; but the Triumvirs, though they had no faith in Oudinot's promises, believed that, if the French were generously treated, the Republican feeling would awake again in France and overthrow the Government, or defeat their plans; but that, if they were driven to extremities, the French vanity would hinder even the most consistent Republicans from opposing the war. On these grounds, they allowed the French to retreat, granted them a short truce, and set free the prisoners who had been captured.

But the hope of any change of feeling in the French was soon found to be utterly vain. A debate, indeed, had been begun in the French Assembly soon after the sailing of the expedition, and a Committee had been appointed to enquire into the object of the expedition; but Jules Favre, the chairman of that Committee, reported that the Government had no intention of making France a party to the overthrow of the Roman Republic; and that it only interfered in order that, under the French flag, humanity might be respected; and that a limit might be placed on the pretensions of Austria. In spite, therefore, of the opposition of Ledru Rollin, the money for the expedition had been voted by 325 against 283. But even Jules Favre could not be entirely blinded by such phrases as these, when considered in the light of Oudinot's actions; and on May 8 the National Assembly invited the Government to take, without delay, the necessary measures for preventing the expedition to Italy from being diverted from the scope assigned to it; and they therefore decided to send Ferdinand Lesseps to negotiate with the Triumvirs for terms of peace.

In the meantime, the Roman Republic realized that it had to guard itself against two other enemies. On May 2, a Neapolitan army was found to be on its way to Rome. On the 4th, Garibaldi marched to Palestrina, and, with the help of Manara and his Lombard battalion, utterly defeated the Neapolitan forces. Just at the same time, the Bolognese became aware that the threatened attack of the Austrians was about to become a reality. Ferrara was occupied on May 7; but, even with the Austrian troops present in the city, the Municipal Council of Ferrara voted, by thirty-seven to three, in favour of the Roman Republic. Such a protest was undoubtedly of use in proving the earnestness of the Roman provinces on behalf of the new Government. But something more was expected, from a city so heroic in its traditions as Bologna. On May 6 it had been announced by the President of the Municipality that medals were about to be distributed in memory of August 8, 1848. On May 8 it was announced that the Austrians were advancing upon Bologna. In that city, as in Rome, the internal defence was organized in special districts under special leaders, while the National Guard and the University battalion were to fight side by side with the regular troops. By nine o'clock in the morning of the 8th the Austrians were at the gates of Bologna, and before eleven o'clock fierce struggles had taken place at the Porta Galliera, the Porta San Felice, and the Porta Saragozza. The people indignantly refused every proposal for capitulation, and at about four o'clock the Austrians began to bombard the city. Before the end of the day, the President had resigned his office, believing that resistance was useless; but the Municipality having in vain endeavoured to obtain the terms which they had hoped for, the assault was renewed, and the Austrians discharged rockets into the city from the bell-tower of the Franciscan convent. A special Commission was appointed to carry on the struggle, and the band of one of the regiments, standing under the tree of Liberty in the Piazza San Petronio, encouraged the combatants with music and songs. The struggle, however, was a desperate one, and, on May 10, it was again necessary to send a deputation to ask for a truce. But the combat was soon renewed, and the Bolognese troops were so eager in the attack that the general had to warn them against firing off their pieces needlessly. The pastry cooks were ordered to suspend the making of mere confectionary, in order that there might be more bread for the defenders of the city, and reinforcements were expected from the country districts of the Romagna. General Wimpffen, who was leading the Austrian troops, denounced the defence as "the stupid work of a blind faction;" but the Provisional Government answered that the proclamation signed by Marshal Wimpffen, and forwarded by him to the magistrates, having come without any accompanying evidence, could not be received by them. Weary of acting merely on the defensive, the Bolognese made a sortie from the Porta Maggiore, repelled an attack of the Austrians, and succeeded in joining a body of the Romagnoli, who were coming to the relief of the city. But the chances of uniting with the outside world became less and less; for the Austrian troops drew ever more closely round the city, and, on the 15th, the bombardment was renewed. Then a number of the citizens requested leave to go to Rome, to find out how things were going on there, in order that they might know what was still required of them at headquarters. But this proposal seems to have been a mere utterance of despair; for, on the 16th, it became necessary to abandon the defence and arrange for terms of surrender.

While the Bolognese were engaged in this desperate struggle, Ferdinand Lesseps had arrived in Rome, and was rapidly becoming converted to the belief that the Republican Government was the free choice of the people, and that it was better able to maintain order than the Papacy had been; while a conversation with Mamiani had shown him that even the so-called Moderate Liberals were unwilling to act against the Republic. But, though Lesseps was honest enough to confess these facts, his vanity, both personal and national, prevented him from making the natural inference that neither he nor Oudinot were needed in Rome. He, therefore, proposed that the Roman States should request the paternal protection of the French Republic; that the Roman populations should pronounce freely on their form of government; that Rome should receive the French as their friends; and that Roman and French troops should act together in defence of the city. The Assembly rejected these proposals, on the ground that Rome had no need of protection, and that the name of the Roman Republic was not mentioned in the negotiation; and they further complained that, on May 19, while the truce was still in force, the French soldiers had crossed the Tiber. Then the Triumvirs proposed, in their turn, that the Roman Republic should acknowledge the help offered by the French nation against foreign intervention; that the Constitution which had been adopted by the General Assembly should be sanctioned by a popular vote; that Rome should welcome the French soldiers as brothers; but that they should stay outside the city till the Roman Republic called for them. These proposals were accepted, with some modifications, by Lesseps, within the time of the truce; and he left Rome, well satisfied with Mazzini, still better with himself.

Great, however, was the indignation of this unfortunate diplomatist, when, on reaching the camp of Oudinot, he found that the general, without waiting for the expiration of the truce, had suddenly occupied Monte Mario! Lesseps was divided between his feelings as a man of honour and his unwillingness to oppose his countrymen. He threatened at first that if the order for assault were not withdrawn, he would himself go back to Rome and give the alarm; but when, on his return to the city, the Triumvirs questioned him about the breach of the truce, he assured them that Monte Mario had only been occupied in order to prevent its falling into the hands of the French reinforcements, which were on their way to Rome. The fact was that, from first to last, Lesseps had been the dupe of the unscrupulous men who were ruling France. While he had been entrusted with apparently peaceful negotiations, secret instructions had been sent to Oudinot to the following effect:—"Tell the Romans that we do not wish to join with the Neapolitans against them. Continue your negotiations in the sense of your declaration. We are sending you reinforcements. Wait for them. Manage to enter Rome by agreement with the inhabitants; and if you should be compelled to assault it, do it in the manner that shall be most likely to secure success." Oudinot fully understood his instructions. On May 31 he scornfully rejected the convention which had been accepted by Lesseps; and on the same day Lesseps received his recall to Paris, and Oudinot received orders to take Rome by force.

In the meantime an unfortunate occurrence had called attention to another danger which was threatening the Roman Republic. General Roselli had now been appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Roman army; but he found it very difficult to control Garibaldi. After the defeat of the Neapolitan forces, Garibaldi had desired to push on to Velletri. Roselli forbad him to do so; but Garibaldi disobeyed the orders of his chief, and marched forward. Part of the troops who followed him had not learned to stand fire, and fled at the first attack. Garibaldi was in such danger that he was obliged to send to Roselli for fresh troops. With the help of these reinforcements, Garibaldi drove back the Neapolitans; but he then disobeyed Roselli's orders for the second time, marched forward to Velletri, and entered it on May 20. Fierce recriminations followed between the friends of Garibaldi and those of Roselli; Garibaldi and his friends maintaining that, but for Roselli's delay, the victory would have been more complete; the supporters of Roselli declaring that, if it had not been for Garibaldi's rashness, Ferdinand himself, and a great part of his army, would have fallen into the hands of the Romans. Roselli further demanded that Garibaldi should be summoned before a Court-Martial for his disobedience to orders. But the Triumvirs felt that there would be a certain incongruity in such a trial, which could only lead to mischief, and they persuaded Roselli to abandon his proposal. Garibaldi's influence, indeed, was strong, not only among his soldiers, but also among the members of the Assembly; and Sterbini, who seems generally to have suspected all existing Governments, demanded that Garibaldi should be made Dictator, and that Roselli's command should be taken from him. This proposal, however, the Assembly rejected, and, on June 3, declared itself in permanence.

On that very day Oudinot gave another proof of his peculiar ideas of French honour. The day before, he had promised to defer the attack until June 4. The grounds of the Villa Pamfili lie at a short distance from the Porta San Pancrazio, and were then more thickly wooded than they are now. On the night of June 2 they were occupied by three companies of Bolognese. These soldiers, trusting to the honour of Oudinot, were sleeping peacefully, when suddenly two French divisions entered the wood. They surrounded and captured 200 of the soldiers; but the remaining 200 retreated fighting, before a body of 8,000 French. Garibaldi hastened up with reinforcements, and the fight lasted from 2 a.m. till 6 p.m. on June 3. Four times were the houses in the grounds of the Villa Pamfili lost and won. The walls shook with the thunder of the French and Roman artillery; and the houses were filled with the dead and wounded of both armies. But the treachery of Oudinot had been successful in securing him so good a position, that the houses at last remained in the hands of the French, although they were so ruined that they afforded them very little protection.

IL VASCELLO, ROME (taken since the siege).

This struggle seemed only to rouse the energies of the Romans to new efforts. Between the Villa Pamfili and the Porta San Pancrazio, stood an old house which, from its shape, was known as the Vascello or little ship; and it was by the walls of this house that, for nearly a month from this time, General Medici and Garibaldi held their own against the numbers, the training, and the treachery of the French. Nothing could exceed the enthusiasm of the Romans in the defence of their city. The walls were crowded with people during the fight; youths, not able yet to bear arms, rushed into the crash of battle. And girls went, while the cannon was still firing, to search for the dead, to encourage the combatants, and to heal the wounded. But treachery steadily gained ground upon valour. Enrico Dandolo, a young captain in Manara's regiment, was about to attack a company of Frenchmen, when the French captain cried out, "We are friends!" Dandolo ordered the attack to be suspended, and advanced to the Frenchman, holding out his hand. The French at once fired, and Dandolo and more than a third of his company fell dead. Oudinot, however, over-estimated the credulity of the Romans; for on June 12 he demanded to be admitted into Rome, on the ground that his intentions had been misunderstood, and that he wished to secure Roman liberty. When, however, he was reminded of his violation of Lesseps's agreement, he showed his zeal for Roman liberty by proceeding to bombard the city.

But there were still some Frenchmen who held different views from Oudinot's on the subject of their country's honour. On the very day when the bombardment of Rome began, Ledru Rollin and his friends, having in vain tried to secure a condemnation of the Roman expedition from the French Assembly, took up arms for a final effort to vindicate the honour of France against its faithless rulers. But the revolutionary force of France had been wasted in the Socialist insurrection of the previous year; and, after a gallant struggle, the champions of French honour and liberty were suppressed by General Changarnier. The failure of this effort must, no doubt, have been terribly disappointing to those Romans who had hoped to the last that France would vindicate herself against those who were dishonouring her. And, as if to bring home to the Romans how isolated their position was becoming as defenders of liberty, there came to them, shortly after, the news of the final downfall of German liberty.

Ever since April 24, when the King of Prussia refused the crown of Germany, he had been following a steady course of opposition to the Liberal movements in favour of German unity; and on May 24 he had recalled the Prussian Deputies from the Frankfort Assembly. This had encouraged the other Princes of Germany to dissolve their local parliaments and recall their subjects from the Frankfort Parliament; while the strengthening of the troops near Frankfort seemed to limit the freedom of debate among the few deputies who remained. At last, on June 6, the few remaining representatives of German unity decided to transfer their place of meeting from Frankfort to Stuttgart. The Baden Republicans had in the meantime taken the stronger course of appealing for the last time to insurrection; but both the constitutional and the revolutionary attempt to save the liberties of Germany proved hopeless. On June 18 the remnant of the German Parliament was dispersed by the Würtemberg soldiers; the Baden rising failed, to a great extent from the quarrels between the Polish general Mieroslawski and the Baden general Sigel; and the Prussian soldiers trampled out the last remains of German liberty.

In the meantime the Austrians were capturing city after city in the Roman provinces; and the French were pressing nearer to the city. But the enthusiasm of the Romans did not slacken. As Garibaldi went through the hospitals to visit the wounded, several of the sufferers sprang from their beds to embrace his knees, with cries of "Papa, papa"; and the women exerted themselves gallantly to relieve the sufferings of the wounded. The French did not even now seem absolutely certain of victory; for when a sortie, planned by Garibaldi on June 22, had ended in a fiasco, a certain M. Corcelles attempted to reopen diplomatic negotiations. But Mazzini, warned by his experience of Lesseps, sternly repelled all proposals for negotiation; and the struggle was renewed. The state of the Roman Republic was, however, really desperate. On June 24 came the news that, after twenty-five days' struggle, Ancona had fallen into the hands of the Austrians, who had almost immediately violated the understanding on which it had been surrendered.

In the meantime the French slowly advanced in the struggle by the Vascello, Medici continually driving them back. Many of the houses were battered down, but the inhabitants were provided by the Triumvirs with fresh lodgings in the deserted houses of the Cardinals. When the French knocked down part of the walls, the citizens picked up the stones to repair them. At last, however, on June 29, Oudinot resolved to make a final effort, and directed his forces against Garibaldi's house, which was known as the Villa Spada. Twice the invaders attacked this house, and twice they were repelled. Then they succeeded in capturing a barricade which had been raised in front of the house; but again the Romans recaptured it. Garibaldi fought in the midst of his followers, singing a war-song; and more than a hundred of his soldiers fell round him. Seven times the barricade was taken and retaken; the gallant Manara was killed; and at last, after twelve hours' fighting, it was discovered that the Porta San Pancrazio was no longer tenable.

On June 30 the Roman Assembly met, and Mazzini propounded to them three alternatives. Either they should continue the defence, which now seemed impossible; or they should yield altogether; or, thirdly, they should cut their way out into the provinces, and continue the struggle there. Mazzini strongly urged the third course. While the debate was still proceeding, Garibaldi in his red shirt, covered with mud, sprang into the Assembly. He declared that further defence was impossible, unless they were prepared to abandon the Trastevere, and break down the bridges. Under these circumstances, he supported Mazzini's recommendation, that they should cut their way out into the provinces, and carry on the struggle there. Cernuschi, however, proposed the following resolution:—"The Roman Constituent Assembly abandons a defence which has become impossible, and remains at its post." This motion was carried; the Triumvirs resigned their post to the Municipality, and a new Triumvirate was elected to carry out the terms of peace.

Then Garibaldi called round him his followers in the Piazza San Pietro, and addressed them as follows:—"I have nothing to give you but hunger, sufferings, and battles; the bare earth for your bed, and the burning sun for your refreshment. Yet let him who does not yet disbelieve in the fortune of Italy follow me." He then marched out from the Porta San Giovanni, followed by 4,000 men. They made their way to the northern part of the Roman States; but after much suffering and privation, they were forced to abandon the struggle. Ugo Bassi and others fell into the hands of the Austrians, and were shot. Garibaldi and a small remnant of his followers succeeded in escaping from the country.

In the meantime the Roman Municipal Council attempted to make terms with Oudinot; but finding it impossible to secure honourable conditions, they declared that they yielded only to force. On July 3 the French troops entered Rome; and while they marched through the city they found all the shops closed, and heard from every side the cries of "Death to Cardinal Oudinot! Death to the soldiers of the Pope! Death to the Croats of France!" On the same day the Roman Assembly proclaimed from the Capitol the Constitution of the Republic. On the next day a regiment of French infantry dissolved the Assembly by force; and soon after a Commission of three Cardinals was appointed to govern Rome.

The hopes of Italy now centred in Venice, where, ever since the abandonment of Milan by Charles Albert in the previous August, the Republican Government had struggled alone against Austria. So fierce had been the feeling caused by Charles Albert's treatment of Venice, that it had required all Manin's influence to hinder a violent attack on the Sardinian Commissioner. The Sardinian Admiral, indeed, attempted at first to disregard the orders of Charles Albert, and to continue the defence of Venice, but he was compelled after a time to withdraw. Manin, however, was anxious to secure foreign allies for Venice; and, shortly after his abandonment by Charles Albert, he appealed to France for help. The French Government answered by those vague and cheap promises which meant nothing; while the English Consul at Venice tried to form an Austrian party in the city; and Lord Palmerston worried Manin with all sorts of useless proposals for diplomatic compromises. But if Manin found little help from foreign Governments, he received much encouragement from those Italians who had not yet despaired of their country. In September, 1848, 1,200 soldiers who had served under Durando arrived in Venice; and on October 3 a vessel brought 6,000 guns from Genoa. The Austrian blockade, indeed, pressed ever closer, and on October 10 it had become so close that food could not be brought into the town. But so little did Manin lose heart that on October 11 he declared to the Assembly that Venice was in a better state for defence than when the Dictatorship had been established in August; and the Assembly in turn voted that Manin and the two colleagues who had been appointed to assist him should be entrusted with all political negotiations, saving the ratification by the Assembly of the final treaty. So great was the mutual confidence between Manin and the poorer classes of Venice, that in January, 1849, two Gondoliers were chosen to assist him in the Government.

The proclamation of the Republic in Rome had excited both the sympathies and the fears of Manin; for while he saw in it a step towards an Italian Republic, in which Venice might take a part, he also saw that it might hasten an Austrian intervention in the Roman States. The failure of Charles Albert's final effort in April, 1849, so alarmed the Venetians that Manin began to speculate on the desirability of accepting an Austrian Prince as Constitutional Sovereign of Lombardo-Venetia. But the Hungarian Declaration of Independence once more revived his hopes, and from that time his one aim in foreign policy was to secure and strengthen an alliance between Venice and Hungary. Yet the month of May, in which this alliance was concluded, seemed one of the most desperate periods in the fortunes of Venice. The fortress of Malghera, which lies on an island in the lagunes, about two hours' gondola journey west of Venice, was the scene of one of the fiercest struggles between the Austrians and Venetians. General Haynau had effected a landing on this island, and attempted to seize the fortress; but the Venetians on their side let loose the waters to swamp the Austrian trenches, sent boats under the fire of the Austrians to bring food to the defenders, and made expeditions to carry off oxen, even from the country already occupied by the Austrians. So desperate was the resistance that Radetzky treated Haynau's attempt as a failure, and sent General Thurn to take his place. But, partly by breaking a truce, partly by force of superior numbers, the Austrians succeeded in carrying the day; and on May 26, when the fortress had been reduced to ruins, the Venetians were compelled to abandon Malghera, and to retreat to some islands nearer the city. In the following month Manin again tried to enter into negotiations with Radetzky; but a letter from Kossuth encouraged him to stand firm; and he made such demands for independence that the Austrians scornfully rejected them.

In spite, however, of the encouragement which he had sent to Manin, Kossuth's own position was one of increasing danger. The Declaration of Independence of April 14 had been followed by the resignation of several Hungarian officers; and Görgei, though unwillingly retaining his command, became more and more antagonistic in his attitude towards Kossuth. This mutual distrust was one of the main causes of a step not very creditable to either party, and which is reckoned by military critics one of the most unfortunate in the war. On April 26, Görgei and General Klapka had, by a desperate march, rescued the fortress of Komorn from the Austrians; and Klapka and others believed that, if Görgei had followed up this success by marching to Raab, he might have been able to reopen communications with Vienna. Kossuth, however, was anxious that Buda-Pesth should not be allowed to remain in the hands of the Austrians, and he therefore desired Görgei to turn his forces to the deliverance of the capital. Görgei, in common with all the military leaders, believed this proposal to be a mistake; but he has frankly recorded his reasons for readily obeying Kossuth's orders. If he had followed up his advantages and marched into Austria, a Republic, he believed, would have been proclaimed in Hungary; and a compromise with the Austrian Government would have become impossible; whereas, by occupying Buda-Pesth, he thought that he should gain a vantage ground which would enable him to persuade both parties to accept the modified Constitution for Hungary which he desired. Hence it came to pass that the greater part of May was taken up by the siege of the fortress of Buda, while Görgei was intriguing with Kossuth's opponents in the Diet, and the Austrians were gaining ground in Hungary. And while he was with difficulty holding his own against Görgei's intrigues, Kossuth was alarmed by the news that a more formidable enemy had once more appeared on the scene.

On May 1 the Emperor of Austria had formally appealed to the Russians to assist him against his Hungarian subjects; and in June the Russian forces began to gather near the passes of the Carpathians. On the 17, Colonel Szabò encountered the Russians near the Temos Pass. When he first advanced to meet them, he believed that he had only to do with some skirmishing troops, such as those with whom he had previously dealt. But more and more soldiers pressed in to the attack, and Szabò was compelled to retreat. Two days later Colonel Kiss, at the head of a band of Szeklers, came up to resist the invaders; and, while those who were on the hills above hurled down stones and wood on the Russians, the soldiers below, though only 400 in number, resisted so gallantly that the Russians at first fled before them. At last, however, Kiss was laid senseless by a shot, and his soldiers were seized with a panic and fled in disorder.

Bem, who had returned to Transylvania about the end of May, now attempted to rally the Szekler by inspiriting appeals to the memories of their former struggles. On June 25 he recaptured the Saxon town of Bistritz, and then encountered in the open field a combined corps of Russians and Austrians. For seven hours he held out against them; but new reinforcements came up, and he was compelled to retreat. The enormous numbers of the Russians seem to have impressed Bem's followers, and to have increased their original panic. The country was overrun by the enemy; Hermannstadt was captured and recaptured, and when, on August 5, it at last fell into the hands of the Russians, Bem narrowly escaped with his life. Even then he wished to continue the struggle; but on August 7 he was summoned to North Hungary by Kossuth, to advise him in his difficulties with Görgei.

After an attempt to supersede Görgei by Meszaros, Kossuth had been compelled to allow the former to resume the command; but he had by no means recovered confidence in him, and he felt ready to clutch at any proposal which would extricate himself and his country from their difficulties. Amongst other suggestions he proposed to offer to Jancu and the Roumanian leaders independent commands in the Hungarian Army, and to concede to them most of the points about which they had been fighting. He had even opened negotiations with Jancu for this purpose; but Bem steadily opposed the scheme, and the negotiations came to nothing. But Kossuth's great hope was to supersede Görgei by Bem. This proposal, however, was opposed, not only by Görgei himself, but also by Csanyi, who seems throughout to have sympathised with Görgei, as against Kossuth. Bem, therefore, returned to the war. Kossuth, left unsupported, became more and more alarmed. Csanyi and Görgei pressed for his resignation; and, while he was doubting, he received the news that Bem had been dangerously wounded in battle. The report, indeed, was exaggerated; and Bem wrote a letter to assure Kossuth of the slightness of his wound, and to encourage him to stand firm. But this letter never arrived, and the next news which Bem received was that Kossuth had abdicated, and Görgei been declared Dictator of Hungary. Bem wrote a letter of remonstrance to Kossuth, and, at the same time, marched towards Lugos, in the Banat, to meet the Russians. Dembinski, who was now in Bem's army, disobeyed his orders, and Bem was defeated. On that very day, August 13, Görgei surrendered at Vilagos with all his forces to the Russian general.

This surrender is now believed to have been necessary on military grounds. The advances made by the Austrians during the siege of Buda, and the Russian conquest of Transylvania had placed Hungary at the mercy of the conqueror. Nevertheless, it cannot be doubted that the quarrel between Görgei and Kossuth, and the factions which the former had stirred up in the army, had tended considerably to bring about this result; while, with regard to the terms of surrender, General Görgei has never been able to explain how it was that, while the amnesty was so scrupulously observed towards himself both by the Austrians and Russians, the generals, whose only fault was that they had served under him, were ruthlessly put to death by Haynau. Anyhow, whatever may have been the excuses for the act, the surrender of Vilagos produced a startling close to the Hungarian War. Bem, indeed, hastened back to Transylvania, and attempted to rouse his former followers; and General Klapka held out for a month longer at Komorn. But Bem's efforts were of no avail; Klapka's defence only served to secure rather better terms; and both these generals, as well as Kossuth, were forced to take refuge in Turkey.

The news of the surrender of Vilagos did not reach Venice till August 20. There Manin had had much difficulty in still retaining the control which had been necessary for the guidance of affairs; and on August 6 a minority of 28 in the Assembly had protested against his reappointment as Dictator. The cholera had now been added to the other horrors of the siege; provisions were growing scarce; and thus the news of Görgei's surrender came as the last straw to break down the hopes of the defenders of Venice. On the 22nd, therefore, the Government agreed to yield. Manin succeeded in preventing the riots which seemed likely to break out on the news of the capitulation; and on August 30 the final surrender of Venice to the Austrians brought to a close the long struggle for liberty which had begun with the Sicilian rising of 1848.

On December 20, 1849, there appeared the following statement in a Swiss paper: "In front of Manin's door was a stone on which his name was engraved. The Austrians broke it to pieces; but the smallest fragments of it have been collected by the Venetians as sacred relics."

So ended the revolutionary period of 1848 and 1849. Those Revolutions had displayed, in a way unknown before, the strength and the weakness of the national principle. The enthusiasm for liberty, and the power of generous self-sacrifice, which was kindled by the feeling for a common language and common traditions, had been shown in each of the Revolutions; and they had struck a blow at the merely diplomatic and military settlements of States which produced a lasting effect. But, on the other hand, with the love for men of the same race and language there awoke in all these nations, with terrible force, the hatred and scorn for men of other races and languages; and thus, while the leaders of the movement taught tyrants their danger, they supplied them at the same time with a defence against that danger,—with another justification of the old maxim of tyrants, "Divide et impera." And so the work of the Revolutionists did not fail; but yet it could not achieve all the noble ends for which it was intended.

The time which followed the defeat of the Revolutionists was to show both their failure and their success. The dreary period of reaction from 1849 to 1859 could not have been expected by any sane man to be of long duration. But the time of reawakening was not like the time of the first dawn of hope. The work which had been ennobled by the thought of Mazzini, by the sword of Garibaldi, by the statesmanship of Manin, and the eloquent enthusiasm of Ciceruacchio, was to be carried to completion by the intrigues of Cavour, and the interested speculation of Louis Napoleon. In the place of the wisdom of Robert Blum, and the wild popular energy of Hecker, was to arise the stern hard policy of "blood and iron"; and, as Germany had failed to absorb Prussia, Prussia was finally to absorb Germany. The blunders and prejudices of the leaders of the Vienna Revolution were to be reproduced by Schmerling, without their self-sacrifice or generosity. But at the same time Francis Deak, the wise statesman, who had stood aside in dislike of the fiercer and more unscrupulous policy of other Magyar leaders, was to re-establish gradually for his country the freedom which she had lost for a time during the Revolutionary struggle. The race struggles of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were to be renewed in a milder form, and the solution of their difficulties postponed to a distant future; while the yet more dangerous problems of Socialism, which had forced themselves in so untimely a manner on the citizens of Vienna and Berlin, were gradually to assume ever greater prominence in the affairs of Europe. Thus it will be seen that the Revolutions of 1848 to '49 were but the climax of movements of which we have not yet seen the end; but, for good and for evil, they left a mark on Europe, which is never likely to be entirely effaced.

THE END.

INDEX.

[A]

[B]

[C]

[D]

[E]

[F]

[G]

[H]

[I]

[J]

[K]

[L]

[M]

[N]

[O]

[P]

Q

[R]

[S]

[T]

[U]

[V]

[W]

X

[Y]

[Z]

A.
Aargau, [152], [155], [160].
Agram, Bishop of in Gaj's time, [99];
Assembly at, [144]-[5];
May Meeting at, [318]-[19];
contrasted with Prague, [333].
Albrecht (Professor), [92]. See also [Arch Dukes].
Alessandria, occupation of, [3];
in 1821, [39]-[40], [43];
threatened by Radetzky, [182].
Alexander I. of Russia, character of, [3]-[4];
relations with M^me de Krüdener, [7];
plan of Holy Alliance, [8];
supports Sardinia, [27];
attitude in 1820, [32];
treatment of Greece, [46]-[7];
death, [49].
Alfieri, Vittorio, influence of, [23];
Manzoni's feeling to, [25], [54];
influence in Piedmont, [35].
Allemandi, [350].
Alliance, Holy. See [Holy Alliance].
Altieri, Cardinal, [417].
Ancona, in 1831, [61], [118];
treatment of by French, [159];
by Triumvirs, [464]-[5];
fall of, [485].
Andrian, [208].
Anfossi, Augusto, conspiracy against Charles Felix, [61];
early career, [263];
in Milan, [263], [265], [267], [269];
death, [337].
---- Francesco, [365].
Antologia, of Florence, [54]-[5].
Antonelli, Cardinal, supports Italian war, [346];
suspected of treachery, [348].
Antonini, General, [469].
Apponyi, Chancellor of Hungary, [201].
Arch Duchess Sophia, opposed to Metternich, [207];
favours Jellaciç, [288];
denounced by Hungarians, [460].
Arch Duke Albert, in March insurrection, [239], [241].
---- Francis Charles, in Imperial Council, [207];
appealed to by merchants, [231];
attitude to Metternich, [241];
denounced by Hungarians, [460].
---- John, promises to Italy, [21];
his toast at Cologne, [209]-[10];
his liberalism, [241];
pressure on Metternich, [243];
made administrator, [363], [373];
forms new ministry, [374];
opens Viennese Parliament, [378];
intervenes in Croatian question, [383].
---- Louis, helps to govern Vienna, [206];
opposes removal of Hye, [207];
warns Metternich, [232];
his proposal about Windischgrätz, [240];
denounced by Hungarians, [460].
---- Maximilian, in March rising, [242]-[3].
---- Sigismund, [268].
---- Stephen, deserts Hungary, [395], [432];
denounced by Hungarians, [461].
Arcioni, at defence of Rome, [475].
Armellini, in provisional government, [423];
Triumvir, [464]; feelings to French, [473].
Arndt, relations with Stein, [10];
professor, [12];
in 1816, [12];
restored by Frederick William IV., [94];
thanked at Frankfort, [361]; vote on truce of Malmö, [374]-[5].
Arthaber, [245].
Ascoli, Duke of, [34]-[5].
---- conspiracy in, [464]-[5].
Auersperg, General, in October rising, [391], [393].
Auerswald, death of, [376].
Austria, Arch Duchy of, relations with Bohemia and Hungary, [250]-[3].
---- Emperors of. See [Francis], [Ferdinand], [Francis Joseph].
---- Empire of, special evils of in Italy, [20]-[22];
German language in, [89]-[90];
policy of, [132]-[3];
in Switzerland, [151], [159];
political character of, [209];
Möring's view of, see [Möring];
Kossuth's view of, [227]-[8];
attitude of Bohemians towards, [298]-[300];
of Viennese towards, [304];
proposed federation of, [333];
Radetzky's position in, [335].
---- Estates of. See [Estates].
---- House of, policy towards Serbs, [281]-[2];
feeling to Italy, [363];
deposed in Hungary, [458]-[61].
Avezzana, [474].
B.
Bach, his soup kitchen, [212];
his treatment of Rieger, [379].
Baden, from 1815-47, [219]-[20];
movement in in 1847-8, [220]-[1];
programme of leaders of, [232]-[3];
insurrections in, [361], [377]-[8], [485]. See also [Struve], [Hecker], and [Republicans, South German].
Balbo, Prospero, supposed liberalism of, [35];
in 1821, [38]-[9];
inconsistencies, [120]-[1].
---- Cesare, early career, [121];
Speranze d'Italia, [121]-[2].
Banat, [449], [456].
Bandiera Brothers, [118]-[20], [368].
Bassermann, [221].
Bassi, Ugo, [475], [487].
Batthyanyi, Louis, in 1839, [86];
in 1857, [202];
Prime Minister, [246];
his difficulties, [279]-[80];
his appeal to Szeklers, [316];
his interview with Jellaciç, [383]-[4];
feeling about Lamberg, [386];
his resignation, [388];
attempted mediation, [462]
Battles, of White Hill, [250]-[1];
of Goito first, [341];
second, [356];
of Cornuta, [349];
of Curtatone, [355];
of Somma Campagna, [364];
of Custozza, [364];
of Schwechat, [396]-[7], [432];
of Novara, [429].
Bava, General, [341], [363]-[4].
Bavaria, treatment of by Metternich, [13];
protest against concluding act of Vienna, [18];
resistance of to Metternich, [218];
revolution of 1848 in, [222];
quarrel of with Baden, [377].
Beauharnais, [21], [25].
Bem, early career, [394];
defence of Vienna, [396];
relations with Kossuth and Görgei, [436];
first campaign in Transylvania, [446]-[7];
contrasted with Csanyi, [449]-[50];
final struggle of, [492]-[3];
flies to Turkey, [494].
Bentinck, Lord William, [21], [44].
Berczenczei, [440].
Bergamo, [197], [268].
Berlin, March rising in, [247]-[9];
discontents in, [402]-[3];
riots in, [405]-[6];
struggle of Assembly in, [409]-[14].
Bern, [152], [154], [156].
Bible, Metternich's view of, [6].
Bini, Carlo, [55].
Blasendorf, [312]-[14].
Blum, Robert, first appearance, [92];
sympathy with Ronge, [95];
victory of, [96];
sympathy with Poland, [192];
in March rising, [223]-[5];
influence in Preparatory Parliament, [293], [295];
hinders May rising, [361];
view of Truce of Malmö, [374]-[5];
action in Frankfort riot, [375]-[6];
difference with Hecker, [376]-[7];
his republicanism, [377]-[8];
in Vienna, [393]-[7];
his death and its effects, [397]-[8].
Blumenthal, Major von, [412]-[13].
Bohemia, division of classes in, [204];
national feeling in, [206];
history of in 17th and 18th centuries, [250]-[3];
revival of language in, [253]-[4];
March rising in, [254]-[60];
race difficulties in, [289]-[92];
relations of to Frankfort Parliament, [295]-[302];
effect on of May rising, [308], [310];
peculiarity of its position, [333];
feeling towards Italy, [335];
triumphed over by Frankfort Parliament, [363];
Deputies of in Viennese Parliament, [387], [392];
Deputies at Olmütz, [415]-[16];
at Kremsier, [416];
treatment of in Constitution of 1849, [455]. See also [Slavs], [Prague], [Rieger].
Bologna, in 1830, [60];
attitude to Corsica, [60];
sympathy with Lombards, [354];
in August, 1848, [368]-[9];
struggle of in 1849, [466], [477]-[9].
Bolza, [144], [183], [267].
Bonn, [412].
Borrosch, tries to save Latour, [391];
at Kremsier, [416].
Bozzelli, [177].
Brandenburg, General, [408], [409]-[10].
---- City, [409], [413]-[14].
Brescia, [189], [261];
March rising in, [268]-[9];
Anfossi's service at, [365];
Garibaldi's march to, [356];
rising in 1849, [428]-[9].
Breslau, [406], [412].
Brunetti. See [Ciceruacchio].
Buda-Pesth, March movement in, [278]-[9];
contrasted with Presburg, [279]-[80];
death of Lamberg in, [388];
question of its defence, [438];
besieged by Görgei, [491].
Bund, constitution of in 1815, [8];
effect on of Carlsbad Decrees, [17];
strengthened in 1834, [90];
proposed reform of, [223].
Bundestag, duty of, [9];
decrees of in 1830, [50];
in Schleswig-Holstein question, [165];
action of in March, 1848, [224];
relations of with Frankfort Parliament, [295], [372]-[3].
Buonaparte, Charles Lucien, at Genoa, [143];
in Venice, [192]-[3];
advocates Italian Assembly, [419].
---- Napoleon I., [1], [2], [20]-[1].
---- Louis Napoleon, expulsion of from Switzerland, [154];
letter on Cavaignac's expedition, [467];
elected President, [467], [470];
answer to Roman deputation, [470].
Buonaparte, Pierre, [471].
Buonarotti, [70]-[1].
Burschenschaft, [14]-[15].
C.
Camarilla, [244], [381].
Camphausen, his policy, [370];
his fall, [405].
Campo Formio, Treaty of, [20], [23].
Canino, Prince of. See [Buonaparte, Charles Lucien].
Canning, George, his foreign policy, [48];
Metternich's opinion of him, [48];
treatment of Greece, [49];
his death, [50].
Capo d'Istria, [47].
Carbonari, [4];
rise and work of, [29]-[30];
in 1820, [31]-[2], [33];
Mazzini's relations with, [56]-[8].
Carlowitz, importance of to Serbs, [283], [284];
May meeting at, [311]-[12];
June attack on, [319]-[20];
contrasted with Prague, [333].
---- General von, [225].
Carlsbad Decrees, [17], [221].
Carlsruhe, [221].
Carpathians, [108], [109].
Casati, honours Confalonieri, [144];
character and position, [185];
behaviour in smoking riots, [197];
in March rising, [264]-[6], [267];
in Lombard war, [336];
policy of, [337];
Mazzini's relations with, [342], [349], [365];
action in May rising, [357];
feeling to Charles Albert, [358].
Castellani, [464].
Castlereagh, in 1815, [2];
in 1821, [44];
suicide, [48].
Cavaignac, [467].
Cavour, [181].
Cernuschi, conduct in March rising, [264];
arrested in May, [357]-[8];
his proposal in Rome, [487].
Charles Albert, early career, [37];
visits hospitals, [39];
action in 1821, [40], [41], [42];
accession, [61];
feelings of Italians to, [62]-[3];
Mazzini's letter to, [63]-[4];
position in Italy, [64]-[6];
conduct in 1846, [136]-[7], [147];
sympathies with Sonderbund, [157];
attitude in February 1848, [180]-[2];
action about Lombard rising, [337]-[8];
mistakes and victories, [340]-[1];
Pope's suspicions of, [346];
treatment of Venetia, [348]-[50], [359];
action about fusion, [350]-[1];
causes of influence, [351]-[2];
later victories and defeats, [355]-[6];
betrayal of Milan, [356]-[7];
Rossi's suspicions of, [420];
Guerrazzi's feeling to, [423]-[4];
rebuked by Pope, [425];
last war with Austria, [426], [428], [429];
Roman feeling towards, [427];
abdication, [429]-[30].
Charles Felix, his politics, [36]-[7];
accession, [41];
appeal to Charles Albert, [42];
system of government, [43];
treatment of Mazzini, [59];
conspiracy against, [61].
---- VI. of Germany, treatment of Serbs, [282].
Christian VIII. of Denmark, policy of in 1846, [163]-[4];
in 1848, [371]-[2].
Chrzanowski, [428].
Ciceruacchio, his myth of Pius IX., [142]-[3];
his suppression of clerical conspiracy, [145];
his demands for reform, [178];
desires Lombard war, [339].
Civita Vecchia, [467], [471], [472]-[3].
Coblenz, resistance to King of Prussia, [412].
Cologne, Archbishop of, quarrel of with Frederick William III., [93];
released, [94].
---- socialism in, [403].
Como, [189];

March rising in, [268].
Concordat of Seven, [152], [155].
Confalonieri, Federigo, position and work, [25]-[6];
in 1821, [36];
imprisoned, [44]-[6];
effect of death, [144].
Congress of Laybach, [34], [39], [40], [46].
---- of Verona, [48].
---- of Vienna, [2], [3].
Consalvi, Cardinal, policy, [3];
protest about Ferrara, [146].
Constitution, promise of in Bundes-act, [8];
granted by King of Würtemberg, [13];
promised by King of Prussia, [16];
crushed in 1819, [17]-[18].
---- for Austria, proposed by Kossuth, [227]-[8];
of April 1848, [305]-[6];
of May, [308];
of March 1849, [455]-[8].
---- of Bohemia, old, [251]-[4].
---- of Germany, devised at Frankfort, [415].
---- of Hungary, [73]-[5].
---- of Naples in 1848, [178], [199].
---- of Piedmont, [182].
---- of Prussia in April 1848, [403]-[4].
---- of Sicily, destruction of, [2];
in 1820, [33].
---- Spanish, [31];
in Naples, [32], [34];
in Sicily, [33];
in Piedmont, [36], [41], [43].
---- of Tuscany, [180].
Corcelles, [485].
Cornuta, [349].
Correnti, [264].
Corsica, [60].
Corsini, [128].
Cosenza, [119]-[20].
County Assemblies of Hungary, [74].
Cracow, [129]-[32], [134]-[5].
Cremona, [189];
March rising in, [269].
Crnojeviç, [311].
Croatia, early traditions of, [97]-[8];
language movement in, [98]-[100];
internal struggles, [104]-[5];
treatment of by Magyars, [106]-[7];
sympathy of with Saxons, [116];
Kossuth's view of in March 1848, [227]-[8];
soldiers of in Milan, [269];
in Venice, [271]-[3];
demands of in March 1848, [276]-[7];
opposition of to "Twelve Points," [287]-[8];
relations of with Ferdinand, [310];
with Serbs, [318]-[19];
demands of in Slav Congress, [327];
feeling in about Italy, [335]-[6];
sympathy of with Roumanians, [439];
attitude of to Constitution of 1849, [455];
influence of Jellaciç in, [457].
Csanyi, [449], [450]-[1].
Curtatone, Battle of, [355]-[6].
D.
Dahlmann, in 1837, [92];
in 1840, [94];
opposes truce of Malmö, [374];
subsequent action in Parliament, [374], [376].
Dalmatia, [97]-[8].
Dandolo, Enrico, [483].
Dante, influence of on Mazzini, [55]-[6].
Darmstadt. See [Hesse].
Dawkins, Consul, [488].
D'Azeglio, Massimo, "I Casi di Romagna," [128]-[9];
championship of Charles Albert, [137]-[8];
praise of Gizzi, [140];
demands Constitution, [181];
puts pressure on Pope, [339].
Deak, in 1832, [81]-[2];
rebuke to Gaj, [100];
resignation in 1843, [103];
helps in reforms, [201]-[2];
position in first Ministry, [279]-[80];
rebuke to Saxons, [315];
attempted mediation, [462];
final triumph, [496].
Debreczin, [438].
De Laugier, [355].
Del Caretto, [177].
Della Torre, in 1821, [42]-[3].
Dembinski, made commander, [439];
quarrel with Görgei, [452]-[3];
dismissal, [454].
Denmark, relations of with Schleswig-Holstein, [164], [371]-[2];
war with Germany, [373]-[5].
Dessewfy, in 1825, [76].
Deym, Count, [301], [323].
Dresden, [223]-[5].
Durando, Giacomo, conspiracy of, [61];
book on Italy, [125]-[6];
demands Constitution, [181].
---- Giovanni, made Papal general, [339]-[40];
denounces Radetzky, [340];
relations with Charles Albert and Manin, [345];
at Cornuta, [349];
defence of Vicenza, [349];
surrenders Vicenza, [359].
Düsseldorf, resistance to King of Prussia, [412].
E.
Endlicher, Professor, [234].
England, policy of in 1815, [2];
"madness of," 49;
relations of with Cracow, [131]-[2];
Gagern's feeling to, [233];
action in Sicily, [469].
Eötvös, controversy with Kossuth, [200];
in first Ministry, [279];
in deputation to Vienna, [387];
retirement, [462].
Estates of Bohemia, [208], [253].
---- of Lower Austria, [204], [210];
promises of Metternich to, [225];
action in March rising, [234]-[9].
---- of Schleswig-Holstein, [371].
Esterhazy in Hungarian Ministry, [279].
Ewald, protest in 1837, [92].
F.
Fabbri, [418].
Faster, [255], [260], [320], [331].
Favre, Jules, [476].
Ferdinand of Austria, accession, [85]-[6];
attitude to Croats, [106];
contrasted with Kossuth, [107];
feeling of Vienna towards, [206]-[8], [235], [245]-[6];
March deputation to, [234];
struggle with Ministers, [244]-[5];
concessions to Viennese, [246]-[7];
to Bohemia, [290];
appeal of Bohemians to, [301]-[2];
attitude in May, [308];
treatment of Jellaciç, [310];
of Roumanians, [318];
Palacky's gratitude to, [322];
supposed friendship with St Januarius, [352];
return to Vienna, [378];
attitude towards rival races, [381]-[5];
treatment of Hungarians, [385], [386]-[7], [388];
second flight, [393];
abdication, [415]-[16];
denounced by Hungarians, [460]-[1].
---- I. of Germany, Bohemian policy, [250];
opposition to Turks, [281].
---- II. of Germany, Bohemian policy, [251]-[2].
---- III. of Germany, Bohemian policy, [251]-[2].
---- I. of Naples, destroys Sicilian Constitution, [2];
influence of Filangieri on, [29];
attitude in 1816, [29];
in 1820, [82];
goes to Laybach, [34]-[5];
treachery of, [39];
tyranny, [44].
Ferdinand II. of Naples, government of Sicily, [169]-[70];
his birthday, [173];
concessions, [177]-[8];
joins Lombard war, [338];
jealousy of Charles Albert, [346];
May coup d'état, [352]-[3];
re-conquers Sicily, [468]-[70].
---- of Spain, tyranny, [30];
in 1820, [31].
---- of Tuscany, [53].
Ferrara, Austrian claim to, [3];
first Austrian occupation, [146]-[50];
expulsion of Austrians from, [354];
second occupation, [368];
third attack on, [466];
capture of, [477];
vote of, [477].
Ferrari, [349].
Ferrero, action in 1821, [40].
Ficquelmont, [186], [261], [302].
Filangieri, [29].
Fischhof, on March 13th, [235]-[9];
appeals about Press Law, [304];
tries to save Latour, [391]-[2];
at Kremsier, [416].
Fiume, [461].
Florence, [180], [424]-[5], [468].
Forli, [138], [422].
Foscolo, Ugo, early career, [23];
writes "Jacopo Ortis," [24];
"Il Conciliatore," [26].
Fossombroni, his policy, [53]-[4];
effect of his death, [128].
France in 1815, [2];
Mazzini in, [68]-[9];
sympathy with Poland, [129];
relations with Poland, [129];
with Cracow, [131];
in 1848, [215]-[18], [221], [225], [256];
treatment of Roman Republic, [469];
ambassador in Sicily, [469].
Francis, Emperor of Austria, relations with Metternich, [1];
popularity in Rhine Province, [12];
treatment of Hungary, [73], [75];
death, [85];
relations with Gaj, [99];
concessions to Cracow, [130];
rebuke of Salzburgers, [206];
effect of death, [206];
dislike of Jesuits, [211];
treatment of Estates of Lower Austria, [240];
treatment of Serbs, [283].
Francis IV. of Modena, character and policy, [41];
treachery, [50], [58];
attitude to Charles Albert, [64].
---- V. of Modena, [149]-[50].
---- of Naples, supposed liberalism, [30];
tyranny of, [62].
[---- Joseph], Kossuth's hopes from, [227];
accession, [416];
summons Kremsier Parliament, [416];
dissolves it, [417];
issues new Constitution, [455];
hostility to Hungary, [461];
appeals to Russians, [491].
Frankfort, Decrees at in 1832, [50], [221].
---- Preparatory Parliament at, [292]-[7].
---- Committee of Fifty at, [297].
---- riots at, [375]-[6].
---- Constituent Assembly at, proposed, [232];
early action of, [360]-[3];
causes of loss of power, [397];
failure in Schleswig-Holstein question, [370]-[5];
attitude of towards Prussian Parliament, [414];
offers Crown of Germany to Frederick William, [415];
fall of, [484]-[5].
Frankl, [note to 399].
Frederick II. of Prussia, attitude to German literature, [89].
---- William III. of Prussia, in 1815, [2]-[3];
feeling to Holy Alliance, [7]-[8];
relations with Schmaltz, [10]-[11];
scruples, [16];
quarrel with Archbishop of Cologne, [93];
character and death, [93]-[4].
---- William IV. of Prussia, character, [94];
relations with Metternich, [163];
summons to Estates, [165]-[6];
conduct in March rising, [226], [246]-[9];
treatment of Posen, [370];
declares war on Denmark, [373];
makes truce, [373]-[4];
appoints Brandenburg, [408];
interview with Jacoby, [408]-[9];
dissolves parliament, [413]-[14];
recalls deputies from Frankfort, [484];
suppresses Baden rising, [485];
see also [Prussia], [Frankfort], [Jacoby].
Freyburg, Canton, [160]-[1].
---- Town, [162].
Fröbel, [397].
Füster, [234].
G.
Gabler, [254]-[5], [258].
Gaeta, [422], [425].
Gagern, Heinrich von, influence in Darmstadt, [222];
at Heidelberg, [283].
Gaj, his Illyrian movement, [98]-[9];
his answer to Deak, [100];
defeat of his work, [100];
in March movement in Vienna, [276];
suspected by Greek clergy, [283]-[4];
his attitude to Serbs, [319];
his feelings to Italy, [335].
Galicia, insurrection of,1846, [132]-[4], [140];
Maria Theresa's treatment of, [253];
April rising in, [306]-[7];
demands in Slav Congress, [326];
wish for separation, [327].
Galletti, General, [474].
---- Minister, [421].
Garibaldi, repulsed by Charles Albert, [342];
in Lombardy, [366]-[7];
excluded from Bologna, [419];
defeats Zucchi, [464];
invited to Sicily, [469];
defeats Oudinot, [475]-[6];
defeats Neapolitans, [477];
quarrel with Roselli, [481]-[2];
struggle by the Vascello, [482]-[6];
popularity, [485];
advice to Assembly, [486];
final effort, [487].
Gavazzi, [419].
Gedeon, General, [444].
Genoa, treatment of, by England, [2];
in 1821, [42]-[3];
in 1847-8, [180]-[2];
sends volunteers to Lombardy, [337];
final insurrection in, [474].
Germany, aspirations of, [3];
religious feeling in, [5];
relations of with Bund, [8]-[9];
Stein's feeling towards, [8]-[10];
discontent in, [12]-[16];
condition of from 1819 to 1840, [90]-[1];
literary and religious movement in, [91]-[6];
question of unity of, [12], [210], [221]-[3], [226], [232], [236], [238], [248]-[9], [292]-[4], [407], [415];
relations of to Vienna, [209];
to Bohemia, [295]-[302];
feeling in to Italy, [335], [346];
relations of with Prussia, [376], [378];
effect on, of fall of Vienna, [398], [400];
fall of liberties of, [484]-[5].
Germany, South, [218]-[22], [232].
Gervinus, in 1837, [92].

Gioberti, writes for "Young Italy," [69];
early career, [122]-[3];
"Il Primato," [123]-[5];
quarrel with Jesuits, [122], [125];
affected by Pius IX.'s election, [138];
plans for restoring Pope, [425].
Giskra, [307]-[8].
Gizzi, Cardinal, [140]-[2].
Goegg, [220].
Goethe, influence on Foscolo, [24];
opinion of Manzoni, [25].
Goito. See [Battles].
Goldmark, on March 13th, [237];
tries to reconcile Germans and Bohemians, [325];
saves Rieger from violence, [379];
tries to save Latour, [391].
Görgei, early career, [433]-[4];
made commander, [434];
quarrels with Kossuth, [434]-[9];
feelings to Bem, [436];
removed from command, [439];
quarrel with Dembinski, [452]-[4];
political creed, [435], [458]-[9];
captures Komorn, [490];
besieges Pesth, [491];
made Dictator, [493];
his surrender, [493]-[4].
Görres, [12], [17].
Greece, rising in, [46]-[7], [49].
Greek Church, [99], [112], [283]-[4], [313].
Gregory XVI., treatment of Gaj, [99];
unpopularity of, [125];
Renzi's charges against, [126];
state of government at death of, [138]-[9];
Metternich's attitude to, [146];
denounces Swiss reformers, [153];
reforms proposed to him, [347];
Louis Napoleon's insurrection against, [470].
Grillo, Giovanni, [171]-[2].
Grimm brothers, in 1837, [92].
Guerrazzi, literary leadership, [54];
liberalism of, [148];
imprisoned, [180];
plans for Leopold, [423]-[4];
in provisional government, [423]-[4];
opposes Mazzini, [424]-[5];
opposes Gioberti, [425];
failure of his government, [467]-[8].
Guizot, relations with Metternich, [150];
policy in Switzerland, [162].
H.
Hanover, constitution granted, [90];
abolished, [91];
protest of professors in, [91]-[2].
---- King of, resists March movement, [226];
opposes Frankfort Assembly, [373].
Hansemann, [403], [405], [407], [411].
Hapsburg. See [Austria, house of].
Haulik, Bishop, [105].
Haynau, [428]-[9], [489]-[90].
Hecker, causes of popularity, [219]-[20];
attitude of at Heidelberg, [233];
effect of insurrection, [376]-[7].
Heidelberg, March meeting at, [232].
Herbst, Dr., [note to 134].
Hermannstadt, importance in Transylvania, [441];
treatment by Bem, [449];
fall of, [492].
Hesse Cassel, March rising in, [222].
---- Darmstadt, March rising in, [222];
position of Gagern in, [233].
---- Duke of, his action in Mainz, [361].
Hofer, Andrew, [10].
Holy Alliance, end of, [50]. See also [Alexander], [Krüdener (M^me de)], [Frederick William III.], [Metternich].
Honveds, [433].
Hormayr, [204].
Horn, Uffo, [258].
Hoyos, [307].
Hrabowsky, [312], [320].
Hungary, difference from other countries, [73]-[5];
division of races in, [96], [276], [288];
relations of with Croatia, [97], [276]-[7], [287]-[8];
growth of national feeling, [106]-[7];
"nobles," [102]-[3];
compared with Lombardy, [191];
feelings of, for county government, [201]-[3];
relations of, with Vienna, [209], [226]-[30];
Gagern's admiration of, [233];
responsible ministry in, [246]-[7];
relations of with Bohemia, [250], [253];
treatment of by Ferdinand, [384]-[7];
invasion of by Jellaciç, [388]-[9];
position of after Schwechat, [432]-[3];
division of parties in, [433]-[9];
later struggles in, [433]-[63];
relations of with Venice, [489]-[90];
final effort of, [490]-[2];
fall of, [493]-[4].
Hungary, Diet of, in 1825, [75]-[6];
in 1832, [81];
in 1840, [100];
in 1843, [102];
in 1849, [439], [441].
Hye, share in debating Society, [207];
denounces annexation of Cracow, [212];
hesitations in March, [234]-[5];
appealed to by Windischgrätz, [245];
attitude about press law, [303]-[4].
---- House of Magnates of, their concession to Croats, [105].
I.
Illyrian Movement, [99], [283].
Imola, conspiracy in, [464]. See also [Pius IX.]
Innspruck, [306], [310], [393].
Inquisition, [465]-[6].
Istria, influence of Venice in, [97].
Italy, conquerors' promises to, [20]-[1];
condition of, in 1820-30, [52]-[3];
question of unity of, [56]-[8], [170], [190], [419], [423];
contrasted with Hungary, [117]-[18];
position of Charles Albert in, [62]-[4];
relations of with Switzerland, [157], [159];
feelings of other races to, [335]-[6];
separateness of struggle in, [336];
feeling of Frankfort parliament to, [362]-[3];
of Viennese to, [387], [389]-[90];
feelings in towards Roumanians, [439];
final struggles in, [463]-[88].
---- Young. See [Mazzini].
J.
Jacoby defies King of Prussia, [409];
interview with Blumenthal, [412]-[13].
Jahn, [14]-[15], [16], [94].
Jancu, career in Transylvania, [443];
suspicions of Kossuth, [457];
Kossuth's negotiations with, [492].
Jellaciç, elected Ban, [288];
in April and May, [310];
advances to Serbs, [318]-[19];
feelings to Italy, [335];
feelings of Viennese to, [380];
position in June, [383];
interview with Batthyanyi, [383]-[4];
change of position, [384];
invades Hungary, [388];
Dictator, [388];
his defeats, [390];
marches against Vienna, [393];
publishes Constitution of 1849, [457].
Jesuits, attacks on in Saxony, [95];
Gioberti's quarrel with, [122], [125];
influence at Rome, [126];
in Tuscany, [128], [148];
in Switzerland, [156], [157];
expulsion of from Rome demanded, [178];
from Turin, [181];
hatred of in Vienna, [211];
in Bavaria, [222];
Anfossi's hostility to, [263];
attacks on in Brescia, [268];
propaganda of against Greek Church, [282];
hatred of Rossi, [419].
John, Arch Duke. See[ Arch Duke].
Joseph I. of Germany, his treatment of Serbs, [282].
---- II. of Germany, his policy, [5];
his agrarian reforms, [81];
Germanising attempts of, [89]-[90];
reforms in Transylvania, [110]-[11];
policy in Bohemia, [253];
denounced by Hungarians, [460].
Jozipoviç, [104]-[5].
Jungmann, [254].
K.
Kikinda. See [Velika Kikinda].
Kiss, victory over Serbs, [385]-[6];
struggle with Russians, [491]-[2].
Klapka, captures Komorn, [490];
his defence of it, [494].
Klausenburg, [316], [441], [444], [446].
Knicsanin, [320], [385].
Kollar, [254], [283].
Kolowrat, relations with Metternich, [206], [241];
founds College of Censorship, [214];
mistakes in March, [231]-[2];
attitude to Bohemians, [260];
in March Ministry, [302].
Komorn, [490], [494].
Kossuth, [51];
character and early career, [83]-[4];
imprisoned, [85];
released, [86];
starts "Pesti Hirlap," [100];
attacks Slavs, [101]-[2];
championship of Jozipoviç, [105];
contrasted with Ferdinand, [107];
sympathy with Poland, [129];
dispute with Eötvös, [200]-[1];
growth of power, [201]-[3];
programme of reform, [201]-[2];
speech of March 3rd, [226]-[9];
its effects, [229], [232], [236], [238];
his welcome in Vienna, [246];
position of in March Ministry, [279]-[80];
attitude of to Serbs, [284];
to Croats, [287]-[8];
to Ferdinand in May, [309];
suspected by Bohemians, [332];
inconsistencies about Italy, [336];
feelings of Viennese towards, [380], [384];
treatment of Croatian army, [384];
urges advance of Hungarians, [395]-[6];
position after Schwechat, [432];
appoints Görgei, [433];
quarrels with Görgei, [433]-[9];
relations with Bem, [436];
order in October, [441];
relations with Csanyi, [449];
appoints Vetter, [454];
issues Declaration of Independence, [458]-[62];
causes of power, [462];
relations with Manin, [489]-[90];
final struggles, [490]-[2];
fall, [493].
Kotzebue, [14], [15].
Kremsier, Parliament at, [416]-[17], [454]-[5].
Kriny, [171]-[2].
Krüdener, M^me de, [7].
Kübeck in March ministry, [302].
Kudler, [212].
Kukuljeviç, [276]-[7].
Kuranda, edits "Grenz Boten," [208];
argues with Bohemians, [299];
appeals against Press Law, [304].
L.
La Farina, [170], [172], [176].
Lago Maggiore, [367].
La Masa, [174], [176].
Lamberg, [386], [388].
Lambruschini, [138], [141], [145].
Latour, Governor at Vienna, [240], [242].
---- War Minister, his intrigues, [381]-[3], [386], [440];
sends Lamberg to Pesth, [386];
his plot discovered, [389];
sends troops to Hungary, [390]-[1];
his death, [381]-[2].
Laybach. See [Congress of].
Lazzaroni, [353].
Le Blanc, Colonel, [473].
Leghorn, literary movement in, [54]-[6];
revolution in, [180];
Mazzini in, [424].
Legion, of Vienna students, [302], [396], [399]-[400].
---- of Prague, [321].
Leipzig, sympathy of, with Dahlmann, [92];
riot at in 1845, [95]-[6];
March rising in, [223]-[5].
See also [University].
Lemberg, contrasted with Prague, [333].
Lemenyi, [314].
Leo XII., [65].
Leopold I., Emperor of Germany, treatment of Illyrians, [99];
of Transylvania, [110];
of Serbs, [281].
---- II., Emperor of Germany, Bohemian policy, [253];
concessions to Serbs, [283].
---- I., Grand Duke of Tuscany, contrasted with his successors, [53].
---- II., Grand Duke of Tuscany, policy, [53];
treatment of Renzi, [128];
banishes D'Azeglio, [129];
becomes a reformer, [148];
relations with Lucca and Modena, [149]-[50];
grants Constitution, [179]-[80];
declares war on Austria, [338];
motives of action, [423]-[4];
flight, [424];
recalled, [468].
Lesseps, [479]-[81].
Libelt, [321].
Löhner, his proposal in March, [240];
denounces Latour, [389];
at Kremsier, [416].
Lola Montez, [222].
Lombardy, effect on of Napoleon's wars, [19];
weakness of Central Congregation, [21];
condition in 1815, [22];
Carbonarism in, [30];
state in 1821, [44]-[6];
Menz's plans for, [72]-[3];
in 1846, [143]-[4];
government of, [184]-[6];
grievances of, [189]-[192];
February edict in, [214]-[15];
March risings in, [260]-[9];
war in, [336]-[68];
Austrian treachery in, [426];
Charles Albert's last war in, [428]-[9].
See also [Nazari].
Louis, Arch Duke. See [Arch Duke].
---- Napoleon. See [Buonaparte].
---- Philippe, his conservatism, [50];
attitude in 1833, [60];
policy in Switzerland, [153], [154], [159]. See also [Guizot].
Lucca, political position, [52];
relations of with Tuscany, [149], [150].
Lüders, General, [448].
Luzern, [152], [153]-[4], [156], [160], [162].
Lychnowsky, his death, [376].

M.
Maestri, [366].
Magyars, their relations with other races, [96]-[7];
Metternich's hostility to them, [99];
their hostility to Croats, [99]-[102], [107];
1st settlement in Hungary, [108];
position in Transylvania, [108], [114];
relations with Roumanians, [110], [112], [442]-[3];
opposition to Roth, [115]-[16];
relations with Slovaks, [276];
with Slavs, [278], [281]-[2], [284]-[6], [310]-[20];
attitude in May, [309];
quarrel with Bohemians, [332], [387]-[8];
attitude towards Italy, [335]-[6];
relations with Vienna, [387]-[9], [395], [397].
Mailath, Anton, [86], [201], [229].
Mainz, treatment of by Prussians, [361], [404].
Malghera, [489]-[90].
Malmö, truce of, [373]-[5];
its effect in Berlin, [407].
Mamiani, Terenzio, his banishment, [61];
influence at Paris, [123];
refuses amnesty, [141];
made Minister, [348];
policy and fall, [417]-[18];
made Foreign Minister, [421]-[2];
attitude after Pope's fall, [423];
interview with Lesseps, [479].
Manara, in rising in Milan, [269];
difficulties in Lombard war, [337];
march to Civita Vecchia, [471];
controversy with Oudinot, [471]-[2];
at defence of Rome, [474]-[7];
death, [486].
Manin, promotes railway with Piedmont, [137];
his petitions, [193]-[5];
imprisonment, [196];
its effect, [270];
his release, [271];
in March rising, [271]-[4];
influenced by Venetian traditions, [343]-[4];
relations with Durando, [345];
welcomes Pepe, [354]-[5];
resists fusion, [358];
tries to help Vicenza, [358]-[9];
resignation, [359]-[60];
recall, [367];
final struggle, [488]-[90];
surrender, [494];
his stone, [494]-[5].
Mannheim, [221].
Mantua, in March rising, [340];
captured by Radetzky, [341];
fortification of, [348];
movements of Radetzky about, [355].
Manzoni, career and aims, [24]-[5];
growth of influence, [54].
Margherita, Solaro della, opposed to Gioberti, [123];
politics, [137];
sympathy with Sonderbund, [157].
Maria Theresa, agrarian reforms of, [81];
treatment of Transylvania, [110], [115];
of Bohemia, [253];
of Serbs, [282]-[3].
Marinovich, [272].
Maros Vasarhely, [108], [444].
Maximilian. See[ Arch Duke].
Mayerhoffer, [386].
Mazzini, [51];
early career, [55]-[6];
attitude to Carbonari, [56]-[7];
political creed, [57]-[9];
first banishment, [59];
first insurrection, [60];
letter to Charles Albert, [63]-[4];
personal influence, [66]-[7];
contrasted with other revolutionists, [67]-[8];
founds Young Italy, [68]-[9];
invasion of Savoy, [69]-[71];
impression on Metternich, [71];
relation with Brothers Bandiera, [118]-[20];
sympathy with Poland, [129];
effect of on working classes, [191];
relations with Tommaseo, [194];
appeal for Charles Albert, [337]-[8];
visit to Milan, [342];
appealed to by Lombard Government, [349];
advice rejected, [349]-[50];
protest against fusion, [350]-[1];
opposes May insurrection, [356]-[7];
plan for defence of Milan, [365]-[6];
last struggle in Lombardy, [367];
in Leghorn, [424]-[5];
attitude to Charles Albert, [427];
work as Triumvir, [464];
warned by Ledru Rollin, [470];
urges resistance to French, [473];
feeling of Lesseps to, [480];
repels Corcelles, [485];
his final advice to Assembly, [486].
Mazzoni, [424].
Medici, last effort in Lombardy, [367];
defends Vascello, [483]-[6].
Menotti, Ciro, [50].
Mensdorff, [331].
Menz, [71]-[3], [157].
Meesenhauser, [396].
Messina, in 1820, [34];
Ferdinand's visit to, [169];
September rising in, [171].
Meszaros, in Batthyanyi's Ministry, [279];
rebukes Görgei, [453];
supersedes Görgei, [492].
Metternich, Prince, rise to power, [1];
system of government, [2];
feeling to Alexander, [3]-[4];
to religion, [5]-[7];
opposition to Stein, [8]-[10];
to S. German States, [13];
a "moral power," [15];
triumph in 1819, [16]-[18];
surprise at movement of 1820, [32];
treatment of Lombardy in 1821, [44];
of Confalonieri, [44]-[6];
attitude to Greece, [46]-[7];
opinion of Canning, [48];
change towards England, [48]-[9];
triumph in 1832, [50]-[1];
policy towards Tuscany, [53];
opinion of Mazzini, [71];
feelings to Hungary, [73];
quarrel with Szechenyi, [78];
defeat in 1839, [86]-[7];
attitude to Gaj, [99];
denounces Grand Duke of Tuscany, [128];
treatment of Cracow, [134];
feeling to Charles Albert, [135]-[6];
treatment of Canton Ticino, [136];
occupation of Ferrara, [146];
attitude towards Switzerland, [151]-[2], [157], [162], [167], [214];
feeling about Jesuits, [157];
relations with Guizot, [159];
relations with Frederick William IV., [163], [165];
attitude to Schleswig-Holstein, [163]-[5];
position at end of 1847, [167];
concessions to Lombardy, [199];
opinion of Italy, [200];
attack on Hungarian County Government, [201]-[3];
how affected by Ferdinand's accession, [207];
attack on Grenz Boten, [208];
causes of unpopularity, [211];
oppression of Lombardy, [214];
attitude to S. Germany, [218]-[19];
alarm at French Revolution, [225];
hopes to crush Hungary, [228];
vague promises of, [231]-[2];
resistance to March rising, [240]-[1];
demands for removal of, [225], [230], [234]-[5];
his fall, [243]-[4];
opinion of Serbs, [382].
Metternich, Princess, her opinion of Pius IX., [141];
of Frederick William IV., [166].
---- Germain, [375].
Mieroslawski, in March rising, [248];
enthusiasm for in Berlin, [370];
in Sicily, [469];
in Baden, [485].
Mihacsfalva, [317].
Milan, grain riots in 1847, [144];
demonstration at, [146]-[7];
government of in February 1848, [182]-[6];
Provincial Congregation, [189];
smoking riots, [196]-[8];
Metternich's concessions to, [199];
effect of Sicilian revolution in, [199]-[200];
March rising, [262]-[9];
government of, in Lombard war, [336]-[7];
Mazzini's visit to, [342], [349]-[50];
contrasted with Venice, [343]-[4];
May rising in, [356]-[7];
fall of, [365]-[7].
Military frontier, [281], [319], [455].
Minto, Lord, [147], [177].
Modena, political position, [52];
Austrian occupation, [150];
insurrection in, [337];
defended by Durando, [345];
Radetzky's policy in, [note to 380]. See also [Francis IV.] and [V.]
Moga, General, hesitations, [396];
defeat, [396]-[7];
deposition, [433].
Moltke, [374].
Moncenigo, [195]-[6].
Montanara, [365].
Montanelli, promotes unity in Italy, [138];
brings pressure on Pius IX., [148];
his scheme of constituent Assembly, [419];
joins provisional Government, [424];
offered place in Triumvirate, [468].
Montecuccoli, [236]-[9].
Monti, Vincenzo, [22], [23].
Moravia, relations of with Bohemia, [258], [289], [290], [291];
demands of in Slav Congress, [326].
Moro, Domenico, [119].
Möring, [213].
Murat, [21], [29], [32].
N.
Naples, Carbonari in, [4], [29], [30];
struggles for freedom in, [28]-[9];
tyranny in, [169];
relations of with Sicily, [169]-[71], [469];
insurrection of in 1848, [177];
riots in, [338];
coup d'état in, [351]-[3];
struggle of with Rome, [477].
---- Kings of. See [Ferdinand], [Francis].
Napoleon. See [Buonaparte].
Nassau, revolution of '48, [222]-[3].
Nazari, [186]-[90].
Neuhaus, [155].
Neusatz, [284]-[5].
Nicholas of Russia, [49].
Nopcsa, [314].
Nota, Alberto, [37].
Novara. See [Battles].
Nugent, General, his promises to Italy, [21];
his appointment in Naples, [29];
his choice of Pepe, [32];
his invasion of Venetia, [348];
attack on Brescia, [428];
death, [429].
O.
Ochsenbein, [159].
O'Donnell, [261], [264];
his carriage, [266].
Offenburg (meeting at), [166], [220].
Olivieri, [356].
Olmütz, [415], [416].
Opizzoni, opinion of smoking riots, [198];
saved by Bolognese, [369].
Orsini, preserves order, [464]-[5].
Oudinot, expedition to Civita Vecchia, [470], [472]-[3];
interview with Manara, [471]-[2];
defeated by Garibaldi, [475];
his treachery, [480], [481], [482]-[3];
capture of Rome, [487].
P.
Pachta, [183]-[4].
Padua, [197];
relations of with Venice, [344];
Durando's wish to assist, [345];
desire of for fusion, [358];
fall of, [359].
Palacky, revives Bohemian language, [254];
refusal to Committee of Fifty, [297];
speech in Prague Committee, [298]-[9];
summons Slav Congress, [301];
speech in Congress, [321]-[3];
feast of reconciliation, [325];
action in June rising, [330];
accused of plot, [332].
Palermo, in 1820, [33]-[4];
in 1847, [170]-[1];
in January, 1848, see [Sicily];
bombardment of, [469].
Palffy, [194], [271], [273].
Palma, Count, [40].
Palmanuova, fall of, [359].
Palmerston, protest about Cracow, [134];
policy in Italy, [147];
opposition to Metternich, [158];
policy in Switzerland, [162];
treatment of Manin, [488].
Papacy, Metternich's respect for independence of, [50];
its effect on Charles Albert, [65];
Gioberti's view of, [123]-[4].
Pareto, [338].
Parini, Giuseppe, [23].
Paris, contrasted with Palermo and Presburg, [Preface 2];
treatment of Young Italy in, [68];
Polish centre in, [70];
revolution in, see [France];
Mazzini's address from, [337];
Rossi's influence in, [418].
Parma, political position of, [52];
occupied by Austrians, [150];
throws off Austrian yoke, [347];
defended by Durando, [345].
Passalacqua, [338].
Pavia, [189], [197], [427].
Peasantry, of Poland, [80].
---- of Hungary, [80]-[3].
Pepe, Guglielmo, chosen leader in 1820, [31]-[2];
defeated in 1821, [42];
heads Lombard expedition, [338];
recalled by Ferdinand, [334];
welcomed by Manin, [354].
---- Florestano, [33].
Perczel, his quarrel with Görgei, [434].
Perthes, [91].
Peschiera, [349], [355], [358].
Pesth. See [Buda-Pesth].
Petöfy, [278].
Pfuel, General von, [247], [370], [404].
Piedmont, Gioberti's view of its position, [124]-[5];
relations of with Ticino, [135]-[6];
share of in Lombard war, see [Charles Albert];
league of princes against, [346];
fusion of with Lombardy, [350]-[1], [356];
fusion of with Venetia, [359]-[60];
relations of with Rome, [427].
Pillersdorf, concessions to Bohemians, [289];
in March Ministry, [302]-[4];
advice in May, [308];
his fall, [378].
Pisa. See [University].
Pius VII., his protest against Treaty of Vienna, [3];
effect on Papacy of early career, [65], [124], [126].
Pius VIII., [65].

Pius IX., election, [140];
amnesty, [141];
popular belief in, [142]-[3];
reforms, [145];
conspiracy against him, [145];
uncertainties, [147]; effect of his reforms, [169];
concessions at end of 1847, [179];
hesitations, [335];
dragged into Lombard war, [338];
confusion of his position, [339];
Encyclical of April 29th, [346]-[7];
accepts Mamiani, [348];
suspicions of King of Naples, [354];
Radetzky's alarm at his reforms, [358];
attitude in June 1848, [417]-[18];
appoints Rossi, [418];
accepts democratic Ministry, [421];
flight to Gaeta, [422];
denounces Charles Albert, [425].
Poerio, Carlo, [177].
Poland, insurrection of 1830, [50];
relations of exiles with Italy, [69]-[71];
weakness of, [80];
feelings of Liberals to, [129];
proposals about in Frankfort Parliament, [306];
its share in Slav Congress, [321], [323], [327].
Pollet, [243].
Portugal, [48].
Posen, Blum's feeling to, [129];
March movement in, [248]-[9];
relations of with Prussia, [296], [370];
with Frankfort Parliament, [362];
cruelties of Pfuel in, [404], [405];
concessions to, [408].
Pozzo di Borgo, [4].
Pragmatic Sanction, [97].
Prague, in the 17th century, [252];
March movement in, [254]-[60];
race difficulties in, [289]-[90];
meeting of Congress at, [320]-[8];
June rising in, [328]-[33];
effect of fall, [332]-[3].
Presburg, influence of contrasted with Paris, [preface 2];
policy of contrasted with Buda-Pesth, [278]-[9].
Press, Austrian law on, [193]-[4];
demands for freedom of, [195], [212], [220], [221], [224], [236], [305], [371];
concessions of in Vienna, [244], [303]-[4];
in Hungary, [246], [280];
in Berlin, [247];
censorship of, [214], [224], [225], [231].
Prussia, position in Europe, [7];
hatred of in Rhine Province, [12];
position of in Germany in 1837, [93];
policy of to Cracow, [130];
rivalry of with Frankfort, [361], [375];
relations of with Posen, [370];
action of in Danish war, [371]-[5];
change of relations with Germany, [376], [496];
constitutional struggles in, [402]-[14].
---- King of. See [Frederick William III.] and [IV.]
Prussia, Prince William of, [370], [404], [407].
Puchner, relations of with Roumans, [440]-[1];
campaign in Transylvania, [442]-[6];
negotiates with Russians, [447]-[8];
deposed, [463].
Pulazky, [229], [254], [389], [395], [436].
R.
Raab, [437], [490].
Radetzky, appealed to by Duke of Modena, [150];
threatens Charles Albert, [182];
Milanese opinion of, [184];
hostility of to Lombard clergy, [196];
organizes smoking massacres, [197]-[8];
proclamation by, [198]-[9];
in March rising, [265]-[6], [269];
accepted as champion of Empire, [335];
retreat from Milan, [337];
denounced by Durando, [340];
recaptures Mantua, [341];
fortifies it, [348];
at Curtatone, [355];
at Goito, [356];
share in May conspiracy, [357];
captures Vicenza, [359];
defeats Charles Albert, [363]-[4];
reconquers Lombardy, [367];
invades Roman States, [368];
policy of in Modena, [note to 380];
treachery of in Lombardy, [426];
final struggle against Venice, [490].
Ragusa, [98].
Rainieri, [182], [184], [188], [198].
Rajaciç, timidity, [286];
summons Serb Assembly, [287];
conduct in Serb Assembly, [311];
elected Patriarch, [312];
attitude to Croats, [319];
struggle with Stratimiroviç, [385]-[6];
checks opposition to Austria, [457].
Rakoczi, [281]-[2]. See [note] also.
Ramorino, [70]-[1], [428].
Recsey, [388]-[9].
Regis, Colonel, in 1821, [43];
in 1831, [60].
Renzi, Pietro, his insurrection, [125]-[8].
Republicans, Italian, in Lombard war, [342];
attitude of in Milan, [356]-[8], [365];
government of Rome by, [464]-[6];
defence of Rome by, [473]-[87].
Republicans, South German, [232]-[3], [361], [376]-[8], [485].
Reichenberg, rivalry with Prague, [291].
Restelli, [366].
Rhine Province, Prussian tyranny in, [12];
in March rising, [248];
Socialism in, [403];
relations of with France, [404].
Ridolfi, [148].
Rieger, summons Slav Congress, [301];
accused of plot, [332];
treatment of in Vienna Parliament, [379];
at Kremsier, [416].
Riego, Raphael, his insurrection, [30]-[1].
Rilliet, General, [161].
Rimini, insurrection of, [127]-[8].
Rodbertus, [407].
Rollin, Ledru, warns Mazzini, [470];
opposes expedition to Rome, [476];
his insurrection, [484].
Romagna, insurrection in, [128].
Roman States, movement in for Constituent Assembly, [422]-[3];
government of by Triumvirate, [464]-[7];
reconquest of by Austrians, [485].
See also [Pius VII.], [Gregory XVI.], [Saffi], [Ciceruacchio].
Rome, opening of Parliament in, [417];
rising in after Rossi's death, [421];
Mazzini in, [427];
Triumvirate in, [464]-[7];
relations of with Tuscany, [467]-[8];
French expedition against, [470]-[3];
siege of, [473]-[7], [481]-[4];
fall of, [486]-[8].
See also [Pius IX.], [Mazzini], [Ciceruacchio].
Ronge, [94]-[5], [221].
Roselli, [481]-[2].
Rossi, influence at Paris, [122];
share in election of Pius IX., [140];
relations of with Guizot, [159];
appointed Minister, [418];
policy, [419];
death, [420]-[1].
Roth, Stephen, his pamphlet, [113]-[14];
emigration scheme, [115]-[16];
government in Transylvania, [445];
death, [450]-[2].
Roumanians, conquered by Szekler, [108];
position in Transylvania, [110];
effect on of Joseph II.'s reforms, [110]-[11];
Libellus Wallachorum, [111]-[12];
treatment of by Schaguna, [113];
defence of by Roth, [114];
May meeting, [312]-[15];
growing sympathy with Saxons, [316];
insurrection of, [317]-[18];
struggles of in September and October, [439]-[46], [448];
feelings of to Constitution of 1849, [456];
Kossuth's concessions to, [457].
Rovigo, relations of with Venice, [344].
Ruffini, Jacopo, his suicide, [69].
Ruggiero, Settimo, [176], [469]-[70].
Russia, position of in Europe, [7], [10];
policy of to Cracow, [130];
hatred of in Vienna, [238];
feeling of German Liberals to, [296];
of Palacky to, [297];
fear of in Berlin, [404];
invades Transylvania, [448];
defeat of by Bem, [449];
conquers Transylvania, [491]-[2].
---- Czar of. See [Alexander], [Nicholas].
Ruthenians, demands of in Slav Congress, [323].
S.
St. Gallen, [152], [158].
Saaz, rivalry with Prague, [291].
Saffi, Aurelio, action in time of Gregory XVI., [138];
appeal for a Constituent Assembly, [432];
made Triumvir, [464];
helps in preserving order, [464]-[5].
Salmen, [315].
Salvotti, [46].
Sand, Ludwig, [15].
Santa Rosa, Santorre di, his policy in 1821, [36];
relations with Charles Albert, [40];
policy, [42]-[3];
final defeat, [43].
---- Pietro di, [181].
Sardinia, King of. See [Victor Amadeus], [Victor Emmanuel], [Charles Felix], [Charles Albert].
Sardinia, position of. See [Piedmont].
Sarner Bund, [152]-[3].
Savelli, [139].
Savoy, invasion of in 1834, [69]-[71];
House of, see [Victor Amadeus], &c.
Saxons, position of in Transylvania, [108]-[10], [441];
relations of to Roumanians, [110], [112], [444]-[5];
treatment of by Magyars, [114]-[15];
protest against absorption, [315]-[16];
vote on that subject, [317];
relations of with Puchner, [445];
application of to Russia, [448];
treatment of by Csanyi, [449]-[52].
Saxony, King of, in 1815, [2].
---- Prussian claim to, [3];
position of in 1837, [92];
reform movement in, [95]-[6];
revolution of 1848 in, [223]-[5].
Schaguna, his work for Roumanians, [113];
share in May meeting, [314]-[15];
attempt to check Roumans, [318];
relations with Puchner, [445];
appeal to Russia, [448].
Scharnhorst, [11].
Schauffer, [398].
Schill, [11].
Schiller, on German literature, [89].
Schilling, insults Bohemians, [298]-[9].
Schleswig-Holstein, question of in 1846, [163]-[5];
in 1848, [371]-[5];
effect of in Prussia, [404]-[7].
Schmalz, his pamphlet, [11];
his honours, [12].
Schmerling, [317], [496].
Schuselka, his pamphlet, [208];
demand for his expulsion, [208];
appeal against Press law, [304];
tries to reconcile Germans and Bohemians, [325];
speech to Magyar deputation, [387]-[8].
Schütte, organizes April demonstration, [304]-[5].
Schwarzenberg, [268]-[9].
Schwytz, [152]-[3].
Sciva, [171]-[2].
Sedlnitzky, [185], [204], [207], [212], [214];
his fall, [247].
Serbs, effect of their entry into Hungary, [97]-[8];
in Buda-Pesth, [277];
demands of in March 1848, [278], [280], [284];
treatment of in March and April 1848, [284]-[5];
movement for independence, [286]-[7];
May meeting of, [311]-[12];
May insurrection, [319], [320];
demands of in Slav Congress, [323];
Metternich's opinion of, [382];
changed character of movement, [85]-[6];
feeling of to Constitution of 1849, [455]-[6];
influence of Rajaciç over, [457].
Sicily, constitution destroyed, [2];
attitude of in 1820, [33]-[4];
reconquest of, [44];
effect of insurrection, [167];
Neapolitan government of, [168]-[70];
insurrection in January 1848, [171]-[7];
offers throne to Duke of Genoa, [346]-[52];
fall of, [468]-[70].
Sigel, [485].
Silesia, Prussian, effect of famine in, [166];
March rising in, [248];
general condition of, [402]-[3];
Roman Catholics in, [412].
---- Austrian, relations of with Bohemia, [258], [289], [290].
Silvio Pellico, [26].
Simon of Breslau, action in Frankfort riots, [375]-[6].
Sismondi, [26], [69].
Sladkowsky, [323], [328].
Slavonia, relations of with Croatia, [97]-[8];
centre of Serb movement, [280]-[4].
Slavs, their position in Hungary, [101];
attempts to Magyarise, [101]-[2];
in March 1848, [276];
relations of with Germany, [296];
Congress of, [300]-[1], [320]-[8].
---- Southern, connection between, [98]-[9].
Slovaks, relations of with Bohemia, [254];
demands of in March 1848, [276];
in Slav Congress, [326];
relations of with Ferdinand, [461].
Slovenes, demands of in March 1848, [276];
in Slav Congress, [327].
Smolka, tries to save Latour, [391].
Socialism, at Frankfort, [294]-[5];
at Vienna, [305], [389];
at Berlin, [403];
later rise of, [496].
Solothurn, [152].
Sommaruga, [207].
Sonderbund, [155], [159], [160];
war of, [160]-[3].
Sophia, Arch Duchess. See [Arch Duchess].
Spain, popular feeling in, [4], [5];
rule of in Lombardy, [20];
rising in 1820, [30]-[1];
French invasion of in 1822, [48].
Spaur, [182], [188]-[9], [261].
Speri, Tito, [428].
Stabile, Mariano, [176].
Stände. See [Estates].

Statella, General, [354].
Stein, influence on Czar, [4];
opposition to Metternich, [8]-[10];
loss of power, [10];
attitude towards Wartburg demonstration, [15];
zeal for constitution, [16].
Stephen. See [Arch Dukes].
Sterbini, denounces Rossi, [419];
Rossi's feeling to, [420];
appointed Minister, [421];
in provisional government, [423];
opposition to Roselli, [482].
Stratimiroviç, character and position, [286];
burns Crnojeviç's letter, [311];
finds allies for Serbs, [312], [319];
overthrow by Rajaciç, [385]-[6];
counteracted by Rajaciç, [482].
Strobach, [323], [392].
Struve, early efforts of, [219]-[21];
at Heidelberg, [233];
his fifteen proposals, [294]-[5];
heads September rising, [377]-[8].
Stuttgart, [485]. See also [Würtemberg].
Suplikaç, [312], [386].
Switzerland, struggles in, [151]-[63];
attacks of Austria on, [214];
effect of on Baden, [220].
Swornost, [308]-[9], [321], [323], [328].
Szabò, [491].
Szaffarik, work for Slovaks, [254];
effect on Serbs, [283];
summons Slav Congress, [301];
in Slav Congress, [321];
action in June rising, [330].
Szechenyi, in 1825, [75]-[6];
political position, [77];
quarrel with Metternich, [78];
effect of his movement in Croatia, [98];
championship of Slavs, [102]-[3];
relations with Batthyanyi, [202];
opposition to Kossuth, [203], [246], [279];
madness, [462].
Szegedin, [316].
Szeklers, position in Transylvania, [108]-[9];
attitude to Roumanians, [110];
appealed to by Magyars, [316];
collision of with Roumans, [317]-[18], [440];
opposition to Puchner, [441];
appealed to by Roumans, [442];
cruelties, [444];
Bem's relations with, [447];
resistance of to Russians, [491]-[2].
Szemere, his Press law, [280].
Szent-Tomas, [385].
T.
Taaffe, opposition to Pillersdorf, [304].
Tatischeff, [47].
Teleki, Governor of Transylvania, [315].
Thun, Count Leo, controversy with Pulszky, [254];
joins National Committee, [301];
threatens Swornost, [323];
appeals to Windischgrätz, [324];
imprisoned, [329]-[30].
---- Count Matthias, summons Slavonic Congress, [301].
Thurgau, [152], [155].
Thurn, General, [490].
Ticino, Canton, relations with Piedmont, [135]-[7], [342];
for free trade, [144];
attacked by Uri, [160].
Tommaseo, his petitions, [193]-[4];
early career, [194];
arrest and release, [270]-[1];
tries to help Vicenza, [358];
opposes fusion, [359]-[60].
Torres, [337].
Torresani, [182]-[3], [188], [197], [244], [265], [267].
Transylvania, position of its Diet, [79];
Diet dissolved in 1832, [83];
Diet restored in 1839, [86];
geographical position of, [107]-[8];
ethnology of, [108]-[9];
Roth's view of, [114];
effect on Hungary, [281]-[2];
position of Roumanians in, [313];
loss of independence, [316]-[17];
later struggles in, [439]-[52];
conquest of by Russians, [491]-[2].
Treviso, [344], [359].
Trieste, Italian attack on, [360].
Trojan, [255], [260].
Tugend Bund, [11], [129].
Turansky, [327], [332].
Turin, in February 1848, [181]-[2].
See [Santa Rosa], [University].
Turkey, hostility of House of Austria to, [281];
flight of Hungarian leaders to, [494].
Tuscany, special position of, [52]-[4];
Guerrazzi's hopes for, [423]-[4];
rising in 1849, [424]-[5];
failure of movement in, [467]-[8].
Tyrol, Italian, [341], [343], [345], [363].
---- German, [266], [267].
See [Innspruck].
Tyssowsky, [132].
U.
Udine, relations of with Venice, [344];
fall of, [348].
Universities, their effect on revolutionary movement, [38].
---- of Germany, [14]-[16].
University, of Berlin, [404].
---- of Göttingen, in 1837, [92].
---- of Heidelberg, [164]-[5].
---- of Leipzig, Slavonic feeling in, [98].
---- of Munich, [222], [259].
---- of Padua, closing of, [199].
---- of Pavia, closing of, [199].
---- of Pisa, [148], [355].
---- of Prague, [258]-[9], [308]-[9], [321], [324], [328], [330].
---- of Turin, in 1821, [38]-[9];
in 1848, [337].
University, of Vienna, [212], [230], [233]-[5], [302]-[4], [305], [307].
---- of Zurich, [153].
Unruh, von, struggle with Brandenburg, [409]-[10];
attitude at Brandenburg, [413];
effect of his action, [413].
Urban, [440].
Urbarium, [81].
Urbino, [356]-[7].
Uri, [160].
Utrecht, Peace of, its effect in Lombardy, [20].
V.
Varga, Catherine, [113].
Vay, [441].
Velika Kikinda, effect of riot at, [285]-[6].
Venetia, compared with Lombardy, [192];
relations with Venice, [344]-[5];
struggle in, [348]-[9], [359];
fusion of with Piedmont, [359]-[60].
Venice, influence in Dalmatia and Istria, [97];
trade of with Piedmont, [135];
character of before revolution, [192];
movements in, [193]-[6];
March rising in, [270]-[4], [343];
contrasted with Milan, [343]-[4];
relations with other cities, [343]-[5];
Pepe welcomed at, [354]-[5];
vote of fusion at, [359]-[60];
recalls Manin, [367];
sympathy of with Bologna, [369];
feeling in towards Pius IX., [464];
towards Louis Napoleon, [470];
final struggle of, [488]-[90];
surrender of, [494].
See also [Buonaparte (Charles Lucien)], [Manin].
Verona, transference of Viceroy to, [199];
Radetzky's relations with, [341], [355], [364].
See also [Congress].
Vetter, [454].
Vicenza, relations of with Venice, [344];
defence of, [349];
fall of, [359];
Austrian treachery in, [426].
Victor Amadeus, King of Sardinia, his relations with Austria, [26]-[7].
Victor Emmanuel I., King of Sardinia, protest in 1815, [3];
his relations with Austria, [27];
his despotism, [27]-[8];
attitude in 1820, [35]-[6];
abdication, [41].
Victor Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy, afterwards King of Italy, wounded at Goito, [356];
accession to throne of Piedmont, [429].
Vienna, effect of on Lombardy, [189]-[90];
Metternich's government of, [204]-[8];
effect on of Ferdinand's accession, [206]-[8];
double position of, [209];
movements in, [210]-[14], [225]-[6];
March rising in, [229]-[47];
its effect in Bohemia, [259];
in Milan, [262];
in Venice, [271];
relations of with Prague, [325]-[6];
July Parliament in, [378]-[80];
relations of with Hungary, [380], [384], [387];
with Bohemia, [379], [392];
with Italy, [379]-[80], [387];
October rising in, [390]-[7];
fall of, [397]-[9];
effect of fall on Prussia, [408].
---- Concluding Act of, [17]-[18].
---- Decrees of 1834, [90], [221].
---- Treaty of, [3], [8], [17], [130], [146], [149], [151], [155], [160], [164]. See also [Congress].
Vilagos, [493]-[4].
Villamarina, [135].
W.
Waizen, declaration of, [438]-[9].
Wallachia, rising in in 1821, [46]-[7].
Wallacks. See [Roumanians].
Warsaw, trade with Cracow, [130];
insurrection in, [131].
Wartburg, Feast of, [14]-[15].
Weimar, Duke of, his policy, [13]-[16].
Welden, General, besieges Bologna, [368]-[9];
cruelty of in Pavia, [426].
Wellington, his opinion of Navarino, [49];
small effect of his rule, [50].
Wesselenyi, position and influence, [79];
speech at Presburg, [83];
imprisonment and its results, [85]-[6];
appeal to Szeklers, [316];
joins deputation to Vienna, [387];
retirement from politics, [462].
Willisen, General von, [370].
Wimpffen, General, [478].
Windischgrätz, made commandant of Vienna, [240];
proposed Dictatorship of, [240]-[1], [244]-[5];
protest against deposition of Metternich, [243];
announcement on March 22nd, [247];
irritation of Bohemians with, [323]-[4], [328];
attitude in June rising in Prague, [329]-[32];
besieges Vienna, [395]-[7];
defeats Görgei, [437]-[8];
his offer to Görgei, [438];
rejects mediation in Hungary, [462];
military opinion of his generalship, [463].
Workmen's movements, in Vienna, [239]-[40], [305], [389]-[90];
in Berlin, [247], [402], [403], [405]-[6], [408];
in Prague, [323], [328];
in Silesia, [402], [405], [406].
Wrangel, [410]-[11].
Würtemberg, first two Kings of, [13];
protest of against Concluding Act, [18];
Roth's relations with, [115];
resistance of to Metternich, [218];
March rising in, [221]-[2];
quarrel with Baden, [377]. See also [Stuttgart].
Y.
Ypsilanti, [40].
Z.
Zay, his circular, [101]-[2].
Zichy, Governor of Venice, [272], [273].
---- Hungarian Count, his execution, [434].
Zitz, action of in Frankfort riots, [375].
Zollverein, [93], [210].
Zucchi, recalled to Milan, [366];
treatment of Garibaldi, [419];
defeated by Garibaldi, [464].
Zug, Canton, [162].
Zurich, [152], [154], [156]. See also [University].

CHISWICK PRESS:—C. WHITTINGHAM AND CO., TOOKS COURT,
CHANCERY LANE.

---