History for ready reference, Volume 2, El Dorado to Greaves

by J. N. Larned

had extricated themselves.
{1328}
The town was at length entered, and a frightful carnage ensued
in the streets, in the midst of which the illustrious Lavater
was barbarously shot by a French soldier: while Korsakoff,
after losing 8,000 killed and wounded, 5,000 prisoners, 100
pieces of cannon, and all his ammunition, stores, and military
chest, succeeded in reaching Schaffhausen. The attack of Soult
above the lake (September 25) was equally triumphant. The
gallant Hotze, who commanded in that quarter, was killed in
the first encounter; and the Austrians, giving way in
consternation, were driven over the Thur, and at length over
the Rhine, with the loss of 20 guns and 3,000 prisoners.
Suwarroff in the meantime was gallantly performing his part of
the plan. On the 23d of September, the French posts at Airolo
and St. Gothard were carried, after a desperate resistance, by
the Russian main force, while their flank was turned by
Rosenberg; and Lecourbe, hastily retreating, broke down the
Devil's Bridge to check the advance of the enemy. A scene of
useless butchery followed, the two parties firing on each
other from the opposite brinks of the impassable abyss; but
the flank of the French was at length turned, the bridge
repaired, and the Russians, pressing on in triumph, joined the
Austrian division of Auffenberg, at Wasen, and repulsed the
French beyond Altdorf. But this was the limit of the old
marshal's success. After effecting with severe loss the
passage of the tremendous defiles and ridges of the
Schachenthal, between Altdorf and Mutten, he found that Linken
and Jellachich, who were to have moved from Coire to
co-operate with him, had again retreated on learning the
disaster at Zurich; and Suwarroff found himself in the midst
of the enemy, with Massena on one side and Molitor on the
other. With the utmost difficulty the veteran conqueror was
prevailed upon, for the first time in his life, to order a
retreat; which had become indispensable, and the heads of his
columns were turned towards Glarus and the Grisons. But though
the attack of Massena on their rear in the Muttenthal was
repulsed with the loss of 2,000 men, their onward route was
barred at Naefels by Molitor, who defied all the efforts of
Prince Bagrathion to dislodge him; and in the midst of a heavy
fall of snow, which obliterated the mountain paths, the
Russian army wound its way (October 5) in single file over the
rugged and sterile peaks of the Alps of Glarus. Numbers
perished of cold, or fell over the precipices; but nothing
could overcome the unconquerable spirit of the soldiers:
without fire or stores, and compelled to bivouac on the snow,
they still struggled on through incredible hardships, till the
dreadful march terminated (October 10) at Ilantz. Such was the
famous, passage of the Alps by Suwarroff. Korsakoff in the
meanwhile (October 1-7) had maintained a desperate conflict
near Constance, till the return of the Archduke checked the
efforts of the French; and the Allies, abandoning the St.
Gothard, and all the other posts they still held in
Switzerland, concentrated their forces on the Rhine, which
became the boundary of the two armies. ... In Italy, after the
disastrous battle of Novi, the Directory had given the
leadership of the armies, both of Italy and Savoy, to the
gallant Championnet, but he could muster only 54,000 troops
and 6,000 raw conscripts to oppose Melas, who had succeeded
Suwarroff in the command, and who had 68,000, besides his
garrisons and detachments. The proposition of Championnet had
been to fall back, with his army still entire, to the other
side of the Alps: but his orders were positive to attempt the
relief of Coni, then besieged by the Austrians; and after a
desultory warfare for several weeks, he commenced a decisive
movement for that purpose at the end of October, with 35,000
men. But before the different French columns could effect a
junction, they were separately assailed by Melas: the
divisions of Grenier and Victor were overwhelmed at Genola
(November 4), and defeated with the loss of 7,000 men; and
though St. Cyr repulsed the Imperialists (November 10) on the
plateau of Novi, Coni was left to its fate, and surrendered
with all its garrison (December 4). An epidemic disorder broke
out in the French army, to which Championnet himself, and
numerous soldiers, fell victims: the troops giving way to
despair, abandoned their standards by hundreds and returned to
France; and it was with difficulty that the eloquent
exhortations of St. Cyr succeeded in keeping together a
sufficient number to defend the Bochetta pass, in front of
Genoa, the loss of which would have entailed destruction on
the whole army. The discomfited Republicans were driven back
on their own frontiers; and, excepting Genoa, the tricolor
flag was everywhere expelled from Italy. At the same time the
campaign on the Rhine was drawing to a close. The army of
Massena was not strong enough to follow up the brilliant
success at Zurich, and the jealousies of the Austrians and
Russians, who mutually laid on each other the blame of the
late disasters, prevented their acting cordially in concert
against him. Suwarroff at length, in a fit of exasperation,
drew off his troops to winter quarters in Bavaria, and took no
further share in the war; and a fruitless attempt in November
against Philipsburg, by Lecourbe, who had been transferred to
the command on the lower Rhine, closed the operations in that
quarter."
Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
sections 245-251
(chapter 28, volume 7 of complete work).
Meantime, the French had been entirely expelled from southern
Italy. On the withdrawal of Macdonald, with most of his army,
from Naples, "Cardinal Ruffo, a soldier, churchman, and
politician, put himself at the head of a numerous body of
insurgents, and commenced war against such French troops as
had been left in the south and in the middle of Italy. This
movement was actively supported by the British fleet. Lord
Nelson recovered Naples; Rome surrendered to Commodore
Trowbridge. Thus the Parthenopean and Roman republics were
extinguished forever. The royal family returned to Naples, and
that fine city and country were once more a kingdom. Rome, the
capital of the world, was occupied by Neapolitan troops."
Sir W. Scott,
Life of Napoleon,
chapter 38.
ALSO IN:
L. M. P. de Laverne,
Life of Souvarof,
chapter 6.
H. Spalding,
Suvoroff.
P. Colletta,
History of the Kingdom of Naples,
book 4, chapter 2 and book 5,
chapters 1-2 (volume 1).
T. J. Pettigrew,
Memoirs of Lord Nelson,
volume 1, chapters 8-9.
{1329}
FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (September-October).
Disastrous ending of the Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland.
Capitulation of the Duke of York.
Dissolution of the Dutch East India Company.
"It is very obvious that the Duke of York was selected in an
unlucky hour to be the commander-in-chief of this
Anglo-Russian expedition, when we compare the time in which
Abercrombie was alone on the marshy promontory of the Helder
... with the subsequent period. On the 10th of September
Abercrombie successfully repulsed the attack of General Brune,
who had come for the purpose from Haarlem to Alkmar; on the
19th the Duke of York landed, and soon ruined everything. The
first division of the Russians had at length arrived on the
15th, under the command of General Herrmann, for whom it was
originally destined, although unhappily it afterwards came
into the hands of General Korsakoff. The duke therefore
thought he might venture on a general attack on the 19th. In
this attack Herrmann led the right wing, which was formed by
the Russians, and Abercrombie, with whom was the Prince of
Orange, the left, whilst the centre was left to the Duke of
York, the commander-in-chief. This decisive battle was fought
at Bergen, a place situated to the north of Alkmar. The
combined army was victorious on both wings; and Horn, on the
Zuyder Zee, was occupied; the Duke of York, who was only a
general for parades and reviews, merely indulged the centre
with a few manœuvres hither and thither. ... The Russians,
therefore, who were left alone in impassible marshes,
traversed by ditches, and unknown to their officers, lost many
men, and were at length surrounded, and even their general
taken prisoner. The duke concerned himself very little about
the Russians, and had long before prudently retired into his
trenches; and, as the Russians were lost, Abercrombie and the
Crown Prince were obliged to relinquish Horn." The incapacity
of the commander-in-chief held the army paralyzed during the
fortnight following, suffering from sickness and want, while
it would still have been practicable to push forward to South
Holland. "A series of bloody engagements took place from the
2nd till the 6th of October, and the object of the attack upon
the whole line of the French and Batavian army would have been
attained had Abercrombie alone commanded. The English and
Russians, who call this the battle of Alkmar, were
indisputably victorious in the engagements of the 2nd and 3rd
of October. They even drove the enemy before them to the
neighbourhood of Haarlem, after having taken possession of
Alkmar; but on the 6th, Brune, who owes his otherwise very
moderate military renown to this engagement alone, having
received a reinforcement of some thousands on the 4th and 5th,
renewed the battle. The fighting on this day took place at
Castricum, on a narrow strip of land between the sea and the
lake of Haarlem, a position favourable to the French. The
French report is, as usual, full of the boasts of a splendid
victory; the English, however, remained in possession of the
field, and did not retire to their trenches behind Alkmar and
to the marshes of Zyp till the 7th. ... In not more than eight
days afterwards, the want in the army and the anxiety of its
incapable commander-in-chief became so great, the number of
the sick increased so rapidly, and the fear of the
difficulties of embarkation in winter so grew and spread, that
the duke accepted the most shameful capitulation that had ever
been offered to an English general, except at Saratoga. This
capitulation, concluded on the 19th of October, was only
granted because the English, by destroying the dykes, had it
in their power to ruin the country."
F. C. Schlosser,
History of the Eighteenth Century,
volume 7, pages 149-151.
"For the failure in accomplishing the great objects of
emancipating Holland and restoring its legitimate ruler; for
the clamorous joy with which her enemies, foreign and
domestic, hailed the event; the government of Great Britain
had many consolations. ... The Dutch fleet, which, in the
hands of an enterprising enemy, might have been so injuriously
employed, was a capture of immense importance: if Holland was
ever to become a friend and ally, we had abundant means of
promoting her prosperity and re-establishing her greatness; if
an enemy, her means of injury and hopes of rivalship were
effectually suppressed. Her East-India Company, ... long the
rival of our own in power and prosperity, whose dividends in
some years had risen to the amount of 40 per cent., now
finally closed its career, making a paltry final payment in
part of the arrears of dividends for the present and three
preceding years."
J. Adolphus,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapter 109 (volume 7).
ALSO IN:
G. R. Gleig,
Life of General Sir R. Abercromby
(Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3).
FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (November).
Return of Bonaparte from Egypt.
The first Napoleonic Coup d'État.
Revolution of the 18th Brumaire.
End of the First Republic.
Creation of the Consulate.
"When Bonaparte, by means of the bundle of papers which Sidney
Smith caused to find their way through the French lines,
learned the condition of affairs in Europe, there was but one
course consistent with his character for him to pursue. There
was nothing more to be done in Egypt; there was everything to
be done in France. If he were to lead his army back, even in
case he should, by some miracle, elude the eager eyes of Lord
Nelson, the act would be generally regarded as a confession of
disaster. If he were to remain with the army, he could, at
best, do nothing but pursue a purely defensive policy; and if
the army were to be overwhelmed, it was no part of Napoleonism
to be involved in the disaster. ... It would be far shrewder
to throw the responsibility of the future of Egypt on another,
and to transfer himself to the field that was fast ripening
for the coveted harvest. Of course Bonaparte, under such
circumstances, did not hesitate as to which course to pursue.
Robbing the army of such good officers as survived, he left it
in command of the only one who had dared to raise his voice in
opposition to the work of the 18th Fructidor ... the heroic
but indignant Kléber. Was there ever a more exquisite revenge?
... On the arrival of Bonaparte in Paris everything seemed
ready to his hand. ... The policy which, in the seizure of
Switzerland and the Papal States, he had taken pains to
inaugurate before his departure for Egypt had borne its
natural fruit. As never before in the history of Europe,
England, Holland, Russia, Austria, Naples, and even Turkey had
joined hands in a common cause, and as a natural consequence
the Directory had been defeated at every point. Nor was it
unnatural for the people to attribute all these disasters to
the inefficiency of the government. The Directory had really
fallen into general contempt, and at the new election on the
30th Prairial it had been practically overthrown.
{1330}
Rewbell, who by his influence had stood at the head of
affairs, had been obliged to give way," and Sieyès had been
put in his place. "By the side of this fantastic statesman ...
Barras had been retained, probably for no other reason than
that he was sure to be found with the majority, while the
other members, Gohier, Moulins, and Roger-Ducos were men from
whose supposed mediocrity no very decided opposition could be
anticipated. Thus the popular party was not only revenged for
the outrages of Fructidor, but it had also made up the new
Directory of men who seemed likely to be nothing but clay in
the hands of Bonaparte. ... The manner in which the General
was received can have left no possible doubt remaining in his
mind as to the strength of his hold on the hearts of the
people. It must have been apparent to all that he needed but
to declare himself, in order to secure a well-nigh unanimous
support and following of the masses. But with the political
leaders the case, for obvious reasons, was far different. ...
His popularity was so overwhelming, that in his enmity the
leaders could anticipate nothing but annihilation, in his
friendship nothing but insignificance. ... The member of the
government who, at the time, wielded most influence, was
Sieyès, a man to whom personally the General had so
unconquerable an aversion, that Josephine was accustomed to
refer to him as her husband's béte noir. It was evident that
Sieyès was the most formidable obstacle to the General's
advance." As a first movement, Bonaparte endeavored to bring
about the removal of Sieyès from the Directory and his own
election to the place. Failing this, his party attempted the
immediate creation of a dictatorship. When that, too, was
found impracticable, Sieyès was persuaded to a reconciliation
and alliance with the ambitious soldier, and the two, at a
meeting, planned the proceedings "which led to that dark day
in French history known as the 18th Brumaire [November 9,
1799]. It remained only to get absolute control of the
military forces, a task at that time in no way difficult. The
officers who had returned with Bonaparte from Egypt were
impatient to follow wherever their master might lead. Moreau,
who, since the death of Hoche, was regarded as standing next
to Bonaparte in military ability, was not reluctant to cast in
his lot with the others, and Macdonald as well as Serurier
soon followed his example. Bernadotte alone would yield to
neither flattery nor intimidation. ... While Bonaparte was
thus marshalling his forces in the Rue de la Victoire, the way
was opening in the Councils. A commission of the Ancients,
made up of the leading conspirators, had worked all night
drawing up the proposed articles, in order that in the morning
the Council might have nothing to do but to vote them. The
meeting was called for seven o'clock, and care was taken not
to notify those members whose opposition there was reason to
fear. ... The articles were adopted without discussion. Those
present voted, first, to remove the sessions of the Councils
from Paris to Saint Cloud (a privilege which the constitution
conferred upon the Ancients alone), thus putting them at once
beyond the power of influencing the populace and of standing
in the way of Bonaparte. They then passed a decree giving to
Bonaparte the command of the military forces, at the same time
inviting him to come to the Assembly for the purpose of taking
the oath of allegiance to the Constitution." Bonaparte
appeared, accordingly, before the Council; but instead of
taking an oath of allegiance to the constitution, he made a
speech which he closed by declaring: "We want a Republic
founded on true liberty and national representation. We will
have it, I swear; I swear it in my own name and that of my
companions in arms." "Thus the mockery of the oath-taking in
the Council of Ancients was accomplished. The General had now
a more difficult part to perform in the Council of Five
Hundred. As the meeting of the Assembly was not to occur until
twelve o'clock of the following day, Bonaparte made use of the
intervening time in posting his forces and in disposing of the
Directory. ... There was one locality in the city where it was
probable aggressive force would be required. The Luxembourg
was the seat of the Directory, and the Directory must at all
hazards be crushed. ... Bonaparte knew well how to turn all
such ignominious service to account. In close imitation of
that policy which had left Kleber in Egypt, he placed the
Luxembourg in charge of the only man in the nation who could
now be regarded as his rival for popular favor. Moreau fell
into the snare, and by so doing lost a popularity which he was
never afterwards able to regain. Having thus placed his
military forces, Bonaparte turned his attention to the
Directors. The resignations of Sieyès and of Roger-Ducos he
already had upon his table. It remained only to procure the
others. Barras, without warning, was confronted by Talleyrand
and Bruix, who asked him without circumlocution to resign his
office," which he did, after slight hesitation. Gohier and
Moulins were addressed by Bonaparte in person, but firmly
resisted his importunities and his threats. They were then
made prisoners by Moreau. "The night of the 18th passed in
comparative tranquillity. The fact that there was no organized
resistance is accounted for by Lanfrey with a single mournful
statement, that 'nothing of the kind could be expected of a
nation that had been decapitated. All the men of rank in
France for the previous ten years, either by character or
genius or virtue, had been mown down, first by the scaffolds
and proscriptions, next by war.'" On the morrow, the 19th of
Brumaire (November 10) the sitting of the two councils began
at two o'clock. In the Council of Five Hundred the partisans
of Bonaparte were less numerous than in that of the Ancients,
and a powerful indignation at the doings of the previous day
began quickly to show itself. In the midst of a warm debate
upon the resignation of Barras, which had just been received,
"the door was opened, and Bonaparte, surrounded by his
grenadiers, entered the hall. A burst of indignation at once
arose. Every member sprang to his feet. 'What is this?' they
cried, 'swords here! armed men! Away! we will have no dictator
here.' Then some of the deputies, bolder than the others,
surrounded Bonaparte and overwhelmed him with invectives. 'You
are violating the sanctity of the laws; what are you doing,
rash man?' exclaimed Bigonnet. 'Is it for this that you have
conquered?' demanded Destrem, advancing towards him. Others
seized him by the collar of his coat, and, shaking him
violently, reproached him with treason. This reception, though
the General had come with the purpose of intimidating the
Assembly, fairly overwhelmed him.
{1331}
Eye-witnesses declare that he turned pale, and fell fainting
into the arms of his soldiers, who drew him out of the hall."
His brother Lucien, who was President of the Council, showed
better nerve. By refusing to put motions that were made to
vote, and finally by resigning his office and quitting the
chair, he threw the Council into confusion. Then, appearing to
the troops outside, who supposed him to be still President of
the Council, he harangued them and summoned them to clear the
chamber. "The grenadiers poured into the hall. A last cry of
'Vive la République' was raised, and a moment later the hall
was empty. Thus the crime of the conspirators was consummated,
and the First French Republic was at an end. After this action
it remained only to put into the hands of Bonaparte the
semblance of regular authority. ... A phantom of the Council
of Five Hundred--Cornet, one of them, says 30 members--met in
the evening and voted the measures which had been previously
agreed upon by the conspirators. Bonaparte, Sieyès, and
Roger-Ducos were appointed provisional consuls; 57 members of
the Council who had been most prominent in their opposition
were excluded from their seats; a list of proscriptions was
prepared; two commissioners chosen from the assemblies were
appointed to assist the consuls in their work of organization;
and, finally, ... they adjourned the legislative body until
the 20th of February."
C. K. Adams,
Democracy and Monarchy in France,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon I.
A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution
(American edition), volume 4, pages 407-430.
M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume l, chapter 24-27.
Count Miot de Melito,
Memoirs,
chapter 9.
FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (November-December).
The constitution of the consulate.
Bonaparte as First Consul.
"During the three months which followed the 18th Brumaire,
approbation and expectation were general. A provisional
government had been appointed, composed of three consuls,
Bonaparte, Siéyes, and Roger-Ducos, with two legislative
commissioners, entrusted to prepare the constitution and a
definitive order of things. The consuls and the two
commissioners were installed on the 21st Brumaire. This
provisional government abolished the law respecting hostages
and compulsory loans; it permitted the return of the priests
proscribed since the 18th Fructidor; it released from prison
and sent out of the republic the emigrants who had been
ship-wrecked on the coast of Calais, and who for four years
were captives in France, and were exposed to the heavy
punishment of the emigrant army. All these measures were very
favourably received. But public opinion revolted at a
proscription put in force against the extreme republicans.
Thirty-six of them were sentenced to transportation to Guiana,
and twenty-one were put under serveillance in the department
of Charante-Inférieure, merely by a decree of the consuls on
the report of Fouché, minister of police. The public viewed
unfavourably all who attacked the government, but at the same
time it exclaimed against an act so arbitrary and unjust. The
consuls, accordingly, recoiled before their own act; they
first commuted transportation into surveillance, and soon
withdrew surveillance itself. It was not long before a rupture
broke out between the authors of the 18th Brumaire. During
their provisional authority it did not create much noise,
because it took place in the legislative commissions. The new
constitution was the cause of it. Siéyes and Bonaparte could
not agree on this subject: the former wished to institute
France, the latter to govern it as a master. ... Bonaparte
took part in the deliberations of the constituent committee,
with his instinct of power, he seized upon everything in the
ideas of Siéyes which was calculated to serve his projects,
and caused the rest to be rejected. ... On the 24th of
December, 1799 (Nivose, year VIII.), forty-five days after the
18th Brumaire, was published the constitution of the year
VIII.; it was composed of the wrecks of that of Siéyes, now
become a constitution of servitude."
F. A. Mignet,
History of the French Revolution,
chapter 14.
"The new constitution was still republic in name and
appearance, but monarchical in fact, the latter concealed, by
the government being committed, not to the hand of one
individual, but of three. The three persons so fixed upon were
denominated consuls, and appointed for ten years;--one of
them, however, was really ruler, although he only obtained the
modest name of First Consul. The rights which Bonaparte caused
to be given to himself made all the rest nothing more than
mere deception. The First Consul was to invite the others
merely to consultation on affairs of state, whilst he himself,
either immediately or through the senate, was to appoint to
all places of trust and authority, to decide absolutely upon
questions of peace or war, and to be assisted by a council of
state. ... In order to cover and conceal the power of the
First Consul, especially in reference to the appointment of
persons to offices of trust and authority, a senate was
created, which neither belonged to the people nor to the
government, but immediately from the very beginning was an
assembly of courtiers and placemen, and at a later period
became the mere tool of every kind of despotism, by rendering
it easy to dispense with the legislative body. The senate
consisted of eighty members, a part of whom were to be
immediately nominated from the lists of notability, and the
senate to fill up its own body from persons submitted to them
by the First Consul, the tribunate, and the legislative body.
Each senator was to have a salary of 25,000 f.; their meetings
were not public, and their business very small. From the
national lists the senate was also to select consuls,
legislators, tribunes, and judges of the Court of Cassation.
Large lists were first presented to the communes, on which,
according to Roederer, there stood some 500,000 names, out of
which the communes selected 50,000 for the departmental lists,
from which again 5,000 were to be chosen for the national
list. From these 5,000 names, selected from the departmental
list, or from what was termed the national list, the senate
was afterwards to elect the members of the legislature and the
high officers of government. The legislature was to consist of
two chambers, the tribunate and the legislative body--the
former composed of 100, and the latter of 300 members. The
chambers had no power of taking the initiative, that is, they
were obliged to wait till bills were submitted to them, and
could of themselves originate nothing: they were, however,
permitted to express wishes of all kinds to the government.
Each bill (projet de loi) was introduced into the tribunate by
three members of the council of state, and there defended by
them, because the tribunate alone had the right of discussion,
whilst the mere power of saying Yea or Nay was conferred upon
the members of the legislative body.
{1332}
The tribunate, having accepted the bill, sent three of its
members, accompanied by the members from the council of state,
to defend the measure in the assembly of the legislative body.
Every year one-fifth of the members of the legislative body
was to retire from office, being, however, always re-eligible
as long as their names remained on the national list. The
sittings of the legislative body alone were public, because
they were only permitted to be silent listeners to the
addresses of the tribunes or councillors of state, and to
assent to, or dissent from, the proposed law. Not above 100
persons were, however, allowed to be present as auditors; the
sittings were not allowed to continue longer than four months;
both chambers, however, might be summoned to an extraordinary
sitting. ... When the constitution was ready to be brought
into operation, Sieyes terminated merely as he had begun, and
Bonaparte saw with pleasure that he showed himself both
contemptible and venal. He became a dumb senator, with a
yearly income of 25,000 f.; and obtained 800,000 f. from the
directorial treasury, whilst Roger Ducos was obliged to go
away contented with a douceur of 120,000 f.; and, last of all,
Sieyes condescended to accept from Bonaparte a present of the
national domain of Crosne, which he afterwards exchanged for
another estate. For colleagues in his new dignity Bonaparte
selected very able and skilful men, but wholly destitute of
all nobility of mind, and to whom it never once occurred to
offer him any opposition; these were Cambacérès and Lebrun.
The former, a celebrated lawyer, although formerly a vehement
Jacobin, impatiently waited till Bonaparte brought forth again
all the old plunder; and then, covered with orders, he
strutted up and down the Palais Royal like a peacock, and
exhibited himself as a show. Lebrun, who was afterwards
created a duke, at a later period distinguished himself by
being the first to revive the use of hair powder; in fact, he
was completely a child and partisan of the olden times,
although for a time he had played the part of a Girondist. ...
As early as the 25th and 26th of December the First Consul took
up his abode in the Tuileries. There the name of citizen
altogether disappeared, for the consul's wife caused herself
again to be addressed as Madame. Everything which concerned
the government now began to assume full activity, and the
adjourned legislative councils were summoned for the 1st of
January, in order that they might be dissolved."
F. C. Schlosser,
History of the Eighteenth Century,
volume 7, pages 189-192.
ALSO IN:
P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon I.,
volume 1, chapters 13-14.
A. Thiers,
History of the Consulate and Empire,
books 1-2 (volume 1).
H. C. Lockwood,
Constitutional History of France,
chapter 2 and appendix 4.
FRANCE: A. D. 1800.
Convention with the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.
FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (January-June).
Affairs in Egypt.
The repudiated Treaty of El Arish.
Kléber's victory at Heliopolis.
His assassination.
"Affairs in Egypt had been on the whole unfavourable to the
French, since that army had lost the presence of the
commander-in-chief. Kléber, on whom the command devolved, was
discontented both at the unceremonious and sudden manner in
which the duty had been imposed upon him, and with the
scarcity of means left to support his defence. Perceiving
himself threatened by a large Turkish force, which was
collecting for the purpose of avenging the defeat of the
vizier at Aboukir, he became desirous of giving up a
settlement which he despaired of maintaining. He signed
accordingly a convention with the Turkish plenipotentiaries,
and Sir Sidney Smith on the part of the British [at El Arish,
January 28, 1800], by which it was provided that the French
should evacuate Egypt, and that Kléber and his army should be
transported to France in safety, without being molested by the
British fleet. When the British government received advice of
this convention they refused to ratify it, on the ground that
Sir Sidney Smith had exceeded his powers in entering into it.
The Earl of Elgin having been sent out as plenipotentiary to
the Porte, it was asserted that Sir Sidney's ministerial
powers were superseded by his appointment. ... The truth was
that the arrival of Kléber and his army in the south of
France, at the very moment when the successes of Suwarrow gave
strong hopes of making some impression on her frontier, might
have had a most material effect upon the events of the war.
... The treaty of El Arish was in consequence broken off.
Kléber, disappointed of this mode of extricating himself, had
recourse to arms. The Vizier Jousseff Pacha, having crossed
the Desert and entered Egypt, received a bloody and decisive
defeat from the French general, near the ruins of the ancient
city of Heliopolis, on the 20th of March, 1800 [following
which Kléber crushed with great slaughter a revolt that had
broken out in Cairo]. The measures which Kléber adopted after
this victory were well calculated to maintain the possession
of the country, and reconcile the inhabitants to the French
government. ... While busied in these measures, he was cut
short by the blow of an assassin. A fanatic Turk, called
Soliman Haleby, a native of Aleppo, imagined he was inspired
by Heaven to slay the enemy of the Prophet and the Grand
Seignior. He concealed himself in a cistern, and springing out
on Kléber when there was only one man in company with him,
stabbed him dead [June 14]. ... The Baron Menou, on whom the
command now devolved, was an inferior person to Kléber. ...
Menou altered for the worse several of the regulations of
Kléber, and, carrying into literal execution what Buonaparte
had only written and spoken of, he became an actual
Mahommedan."
Sir W. Scott,
Life of Napoleon Buonaparte,
chapter 40.
ALSO IN:
A. Thiers,
History of the Consulate and Empire,
book 5 (volume 1).
{1333}
FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (May-February).
Bonaparte's second Italian campaign.
The crossing of the Alps.
The Battle of Marengo.
Moreau in Germany.
Hohenlinden.
Austrian siege of Genoa.
"Preparations for the new campaign in spring were completed.
Moreau was made commander-in-chief of the army of the Rhine,
150,000 strong. The plan of the campaign was concerted between
the First Consul and Carnot, who had superseded Berthier as
Minister at War. The operations were conducted with the utmost
secrecy. Napoleon had determined to strike the decisive blow
against Austria in Italy, and to command there in person. By
an article in the Constitution the First Consul was forbidden
to take command of an army. To this interdiction he cheerfully
assented; but he evaded it, as soon as the occasion was ripe,
by giving the nominal command of the army of Italy to
Berthier. He began to collect troops at Dijon, which were, he
publicly announced, intended to advance upon Italy. They
consisted chiefly of conscripts and invalids, with a numerous
staff, and were called 'the army of reserve.' Meantime, while
caricatures of some ancient men with wooden legs and little
boys of twelve years old, entitled 'Bonaparte's Army of
Reserve,' were amusing the Austrian public, the real army of
Italy was formed in the heart of France, and was marching by
various roads towards Switzerland. ... The artillery was sent
piecemeal from different arsenals; the provisions necessary to
an army about to cross barren mountains were forwarded to
Geneva, embarked on the lake, and landed at Villeneuve, near
the entrance to the valley of the Simplon. The situation of
the French army in Italy had become critical. Massena had
thrown himself into Genoa with 12,000 men, and was enduring
all the rigours of a siege, pressed by 30,000 Austrians under
General Ott, seconded by the British fleet. Suchet, with the
remainder of the French army, about 10,000 strong, completely
cut off from communication with Massena, had concentrated his
forces on the Var, was maintaining an unequal contest with
Melas, the Austrian commander-in-chief, and strenuously
defending the French frontier. Napoleon's plan was to
transport his army across the Alps, plant himself in the rear
of the Austrians, intercept their communications, then
manœuvre so as to place his own army and that of Massena on
the Austrian right and left flanks respectively, cut off their
retreat, and finally give them battle at the decisive moment.
While all Europe imagined that the multifarious concerns of
the Government held the First Consul at Paris, he was
travelling at a rapid rate towards Geneva, accompanied only by
his secretary. He left Paris on the 6th of May, at two in the
morning, leaving Cambacérès to preside until his return, and
ordering Fouché to announce that he was about to review the
army at Dijon, and might possibly go as far as Geneva, but
would return in a fortnight. 'Should anything happen,' he
significantly added, 'I shall be back like a thunderbolt.' ...
On the 13th the First Consul reviewed the vanguard of his
army, commanded by General Lannes, at Lausanne. The whole army
consisted of nearly 70,000 men. Two columns, each of about
6,000 men, were put in motion, one under Tureau, the other
under Chabran, to take the routes of Mont Cenis and the Little
St. Bernard. A division consisting of 15,000 men, under
Moncey, detached from the army of the Rhine, was to march by
St. Gothard. Moreau kept the Austrian army of the Rhine, under
General Kray, on the defensive before Ulm [to which he had
forced his way in a series of important engagements, at Engen,
May 2, at Moeskirch, May 4, at Biberach, May 9, and at
Hochstadt, June 19], and held himself in readiness to cover
the operations of the First Consul in Italy. The main body of
the French army, in numbers about 40,000, nominally commanded
by Berthier, but in fact by the First Consul himself, marched
on the 15th from Lausanne to the village of St. Pierre, at the
foot of the Great St. Bernard, at which all trace of a
practicable road entirely ceased. General Marescot, the
engineer who had been sent forward from Geneva to reconnoitre,
reported the paths to be 'barely passable.' 'Set forward
immediately!' wrote Napoleon. Field forges were established at
St. Pierre to dismount the guns, the carriages and wheels were
slung on poles, and the ammunition-boxes carried by mules. A
number of trees were felled, then hollowed out, and the
pieces, being jammed into these rough cases, 100 soldiers were
attached to each and ordered to drag them up the steeps. ...
The whole army effected the passage of the Great St. Bernard
in three days."
R. H. Horne,
History of Napoleon Bonaparte,
chapter 18.
"From May 16 to May 19, the solitudes of the vast mountain
track echoed to the din and tumult of war, as the French
soldiery swept over its heights to reach the valley of the Po
and the plains of Lombardy. A hill fort, for a time, stopped
the daring invaders, but the obstacle was passed by an
ingenious stratagem; and before long Bonaparte, exulting in
hope, was marching from the verge of Piedmont on Milan, having
made a demonstration against Turin, in order to hide his real
purpose. By June 2 the whole French army, joined by the
reinforcement sent by Moreau, was in possession of the Lombard
capital, and threatened the line of its enemy's retreat, having
successfully accomplished the first part of the brilliant
design of its great leader. While Bonaparte was thus
descending from the Alps, the Austrian commander had been
pressing forward the siege of Genoa and his operations on the
Var. Masséna, however, stubbornly held out in Genoa; and
Suchet had defended the defiles of Provence with a weak force
with such marked skill that his adversary had made little
progress. When first informed of the terrible apparition of a
hostile army gathering upon his rear, Melas disbelieved what
he thought impossible; and when he could no longer discredit
what he heard, the movements by Mont Cenis and against Turin,
intended to perplex him, had made him hesitate. As soon,
however, as the real design of the First Consul was fully
revealed, the brave Austrian chief resolved to force his way
to the Adige at any cost; and, directing Ott to raise the
siege of Genoa, and leaving a subordinate to hold Suchet in
check, he began to draw his divided army together, in order to
make a desperate attack on the audacious foe upon his line of
retreat. Ott, however, delayed some days to receive the keys
of Genoa, which fell [June 4] after a defence memorable in the
annals of war; and, as the Austrian forces had been widely
scattered, it was June 12 [after a severe defeat at
Montebello, on the 9th, by Lannes] before 50,000 men were
assembled for an offensive movement round the well-known
fortresses of Alessandria. Meanwhile, the First Consul had
broken up from Milan; and, whether ill-informed of his enemy's
operations, or apprehensive that, after the fall of Genoa,
Melas would escape by a march southwards, he had advanced from
a strong position he had taken between the Ticino, the Adda,
and the Po, and had crossed the Scrivia into the plains of
Marengo, with forces disseminated far too widely. Melas boldly
seized the opportunity to escape from the weakened meshes of
the net thrown round him; and attacked Bonaparte on the
morning of June 14 with a vigor and energy which did him
honor.
{1334}
The battle raged confusedly for several hours; but the French
had begun to give way and fly, when the arrival of an isolated
division on the field [that of Desaix, who had been sent
southward by Bonaparte, and who turned back, on his own
responsibility, when he heard the sounds of battle] and the
unexpected charge of a small body of horsemen, suddenly
changed defeat into a brilliant victory. The importance was
then seen of the commanding position of Bonaparte on the rear
of his foe; the Austrian army, its retreat cut off, was
obliged to come to terms after a single reverse; and within a
few days an armistice was signed by which Italy to the Mincio
was restored to the French, and the disasters of 1799 were
effaced. ... While Italy had been regained at one stroke, the
campaign in Germany had progressed slowly; and though Moreau
was largely superior in force, he had met more than one check
near Ulm, on the Danube. The stand, however, made ably by
Kray, could not lessen the effects of Marengo; and Austria,
after that terrible reverse, endeavored to negotiate with the
dreaded conqueror. Bonaparte, however, following out a purpose
which he had already made a maxim of policy, and resolved if
possible to divide the Coalition, refused to treat with
Austria jointly with England, except on conditions known to be
futile; and after a pause of a few weeks hostilities were
resumed with increased energy. By this time, however, the
French armies had acquired largely preponderating strength;
and while Brune advanced victoriously to the Adige--the First
Consul had returned to the seat of government--Moreau in
Bavaria marched on the rivers which, descending from the Alps
to the Danube, form one of the bulwarks of the Austrian
Monarchy. He was attacked incautiously by the Archduke
John--the Archduke Charles, who ought to have been in command,
was in temporary disgrace at the Court--and soon afterwards
[December 3] he won a great battle at Hohenlinden, between the
Iser and the Inn, the success of the French being complete and
decisive, though the conduct of their chief has not escaped
criticism. This last disaster proved overwhelming, and Austria
and the States of the Empire were forced to submit to the
terms of Bonaparte. After a brief delay peace was made at
Luneville in February 1801."
W. O'C. Morris,
The French Revolution and First Empire,
chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
C. Botta,
Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
chapters 1-2.
Baron Jomini,
Life of Napoleon,
chapter 6 (volume l).
C. Adams,
Great Campaigns in Europe
from 1796 to 1870, chapter 2.
Duke de Rovigo,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapters 19-20.
FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (June-February).
The King of Naples spared at the intercession of the Russian
Czar.
The Czar won away from the Coalition.
The Pope befriended.
"Replaced in his richest territories by the allies, the King
of Naples was bound by every tie to assist them in the
campaign of 1800. He accordingly sent an army into the march
of Ancona, under the command of Count Roger de Damas. ...
Undeterred by the battle of Marengo, the Count de Damas
marched against the French general Miollis, who commanded in
Tuscany, and sustained a defeat by him near Sienna. Retreat
became now necessary, the more especially as the armistice
which was entered into by General Melas deprived the
Neapolitans of any assistance from the Austrians, and rendered
their whole expedition utterly hopeless. They were not even
included by name in the armistice, and were thus left exposed
to the whole vengeance of the French. ... At this desperate
crisis, the Queen of the Two Sicilies took a resolution which
seemed almost as desperate, and could only have been adopted
by a woman of a bold and decisive character. She resolved,
notwithstanding the severity of the season, to repair in
person to the court of the Emperor Paul, and implore his
intercession with the First Consul, in behalf of her husband
and his territories." The Russian autocrat was more than ready
to accede to her request. Disgusted and enraged at the
discomfiture of Suwarrow in Switzerland, dissatisfied with the
conduct of Austria in that unfortunate campaign, and equally
dissatisfied with England in the joint invasion of the
Batavian republic, he made prompt preparations to quit the
coalition and to ally himself with the First Consul of France.
Bonaparte welcomed his overtures and gave them every
flattering encouragement, conceding instantly the grace which
he asked on behalf of the King and Queen of Naples. "The
respect paid by the First Consul to the wishes of Paul saved
for the present the royal family of Naples; but Murat [who
commanded the army sent to central and southern Italy],
nevertheless, made them experience a full portion of the
bitter cup which the vanquished are generally doomed to
swallow. General Damas was commanded in the haughtiest terms
to evacuate the Roman States, and not to presume to claim any
benefit from the armistice which had been extended to the
Austrians. At the same time, while the Neapolitans were thus
compelled hastily to evacuate the Roman territories, general
surprise was exhibited when, instead of marching to Rome, and
re-establishing the authority of the Roman Republic, Murat,
according to the orders which he had received from the First
Consul, carefully respected the territory of the Church, and
reinstalled the officers of the Pope in what had been long
termed the patrimony of St. Peter's. This unexpected turn of
circumstances originated in high policy on the part of
Buonaparte. ... Besides evacuating the Ecclesiastical States,
the Neapolitans were compelled by Murat to restore various
paintings, statues, and other objects of art, which they had,
in imitation of Buonaparte, taken forcibly from the
Romans,--so captivating is the influence of bad example. A
French army of about 18,000 men was to be quartered in
Calabria. ... The harbours of the Neapolitan dominions were of
course to be closed against the English. A cession of part of
the isle of Elba, and the relinquishment of all pretensions
upon Tuscany, summed up the sacrifices of the King of Naples
[stipulated in the treaty of Foligno, signed in February,
1801], who, considering how often he had braved Napoleon, had
great reason to thank the Emperor of Russia for his effectual
mediation."
Sir W. Scott,
Life of Napoleon,
chapter 38.
FRANCE: A. D. 1801 (February).
The Peace of Luneville.
The Rhine boundary confirmed.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
FRANCE: A. D. 1801 (March).
Recovery of Louisiana from Spain.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
FRANCE: A. D. 1801.
Expedition against the Blacks of Hayti.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
{1335}
FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
The import of the Peace of Luneville.
Bonaparte's preparations for conflict with England.
The Northern Maritime League.
English bombardment of Copenhagen and
summary crushing of the League.
Murder of the Russian Czar.
English expedition to Egypt.
Surrender of the French army.
Peace of Amiens.
"The treaty of Luneville was of far greater import than the
treaties which had ended the struggle of the first coalition.
... The significance then of the Peace of Luneville lay in
this, not only that it was the close of the earlier
revolutionary struggle for supremacy in Europe, the
abandonment by France of her effort to 'liberate the peoples,'
to force new institutions on the nations about her by sheer
dint of arms; but that it marked the concentration of all her
energies on a struggle with Britain for the supremacy of the
world. For England herself the event which accompanied it, the
sudden withdrawal of William Pitt from office, which took
place in the very month of the treaty, was hardly less
significant. ... The bulk of the old Ministry returned in a
few days to office with Mr. Addington at their head, and his
administration received the support of the whole Tory party in
Parliament. ... It was with anxiety that England found itself
guided by men like these. ... The country stood utterly alone;
while the peace of Luneville secured France from all hostility
on the Continent. ... To strike at England's wealth had been
among the projects of the Directory: it was now the dream of
the First Consul. It was in vain for England to produce, if he
shut her out of every market. Her carrying-trade must be
annihilated if he closed every port against her ships. It was
this gigantic project of a 'Continental System' that revealed
itself as soon as Buonaparte became finally master of France.
From France itself and its dependencies in Holland and the
Netherlands English trade was already excluded. But Italy also
was shut against her after the Peace of Luneville [and the
Treaty of Foligno with the King of Naples], and Spain not only
closed her own ports but forced Portugal to break with her
English ally. In the Baltic, Buonaparte was more active than
even in the Mediterranean. In a treaty with America, which was
destined to bring this power also in the end into his great
attack, he had formally recognized the rights of neutral
vessels which England was hourly disputing. ... The only
powers which now possessed naval resources were the powers of
the North. ... Both the Scandinavian states resented the
severity with which Britain enforced that right of search
which had brought about their armed neutrality at the close of
the American war; while Denmark was besides an old ally of
France; and her sympathies were still believed to be French.
The First Consul therefore had little trouble in enlisting
them in a league of Neutrals, which was in effect a
declaration of war against England, and which Prussia as
before showed herself ready to join. Russia indeed seemed
harder to gain." But Paul, the Czar, afraid of the opposition
of England to his designs upon Turkey, dissatisfied with the
operations of the coalition, and flattered by Bonaparte, gave
himself up to the influence of the latter. "It was to check
the action of Britain in the East that the Czar now turned to
the French Consul, and seconded his efforts for the formation
of a naval confederacy in the North, while his minister,
Rostopchin, planned a division of the Turkish Empire in Europe
between Russia and her allies. ... A squabble over Malta,
which had been blockaded since its capture by Buonaparte, and
which surrendered at last [September, 1800] to a British
fleet, but whose possession the Czar claimed as his own on the
ground of an alleged election as Grand Master of the Order of
St. John, served as a pretext for a quarrel with England; and
at the close of· 1800 Paul openly prepared for hostilities.
... The Danes, who throughout the year had been struggling to
evade the British right of search, at once joined this neutral
league, and were followed by Sweden in their course. ... But
dexterous as the combination was, it was shattered at a blow.
On the 1st of April, 1801, a British fleet of 18 men-of-war
[under Sir Hyde Parker, with Nelson second in command] forced
the passage of the Belt; appeared before Copenhagen, and at
once attacked the city and its fleet. In spite of a brave
resistance from the Danish batteries and gunboats six Danish
ships were taken, and the Crown Prince was forced to conclude
an armistice which enabled the English ships to enter the
Baltic. ... But their work was really over. The seizure of
English goods and the declaration of war had bitterly
irritated the Russian nobles, whose sole outlet for the sale
of the produce of their vast estates was thus closed to them;
and on the 24th of March, nine days before the battle of
Copenhagen, Paul fell in a midnight attack by conspirators in
his own palace. With Paul fell the Confederacy of the North.
... At the very moment of the attack on Copenhagen, a stroke
as effective wrecked his projects in the East. ... In March,
1801, a force of 15,000 men under General Abercrombie anchored
in Aboukir Bay. Deserted as they were by Buonaparte, the
French had firmly maintained their hold on Egypt. ... But
their army was foolishly scattered, and Abercrombie was able
to force a landing five days after his arrival on the coast.
The French however rapidly concentrated; and on the 21st of
March their general attacked the English army on the ground it
had won, with a force equal to its own. The battle [known as
the battle of Alexandria] was a stubborn one, and Abercrombie
fell mortally wounded ere its close; but after six hours'
fighting the French drew off with heavy loss; and their
retreat was followed by the investment of Alexandria and
Cairo. ... At the close of June the capitulation of the 13,000
soldiers who remained closed the French rule over Egypt."
Threatening preparations for an invasion of England were kept
up, and gunboats and flatboats collected at Boulogne, which
Nelson attacked unsuccessfully in August, 1801. "The First
Consul opened negotiations for peace at the close of 1801. His
offers were at once met by the English Government. ... The
negotiations which went on through the winter between England
and the three allied Powers of France, Spain, and the Dutch,
brought about in March, 1802, the Peace of Amiens." The treaty
secured "a pledge on the part of France to withdraw its forces
from Southern Italy, and to leave to themselves the republics
it had set up along its border in Holland, Switzerland, and
Piedmont. In exchange for this pledge, England recognized the
French government, restored all the colonies which they had
lost, save Ceylon and Trinidad, to France and its allies

[including the restoration to Holland of the Cape of Good Hope
and Dutch Guiana, and of Minorca and the citadel of Port Mahon
to Spain, while Turkey regained possession of Egypt],
acknowledged the Ionian Islands as a free republic, and
engaged to restore Malta within three months to its old
masters, the Knights of St. John."
J. R. Green,
History of the English People,
book 9, chapter 5 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
R. Southey,
Life of Nelson,
chapter 7 (volume 2).
J. Gifford,
Political Life of Pitt,
chapter 47 (volume 6).
C. Joyneville,
Life and Times of Alexander I.,
volume 1, chapter 4.
A. Rambaud,
History of Russia,
volume 2, chapter 11-12.
G. R. Gleig,
Life of General Sir R. Abercromby
(Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3).
{1336}
FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.
Domestic measures of Bonaparte.
His Legion of Honor.
His wretched educational scheme.
He is made First Consul for life.
His whittling away of the Constitution.
Revolutions instigated and dictated in the Dutch,
Swiss, and Cisalpine Republics.
Bonaparte president of the Italian Republic.
"The concordat was succeeded by the emigrants' recall, which
resolution was presented and passed April 26. The
irrevocability of the sale of national property was again
established, and amnesty granted to all emigrants but the
leaders of armed forces, and some few whose offences were
specially grave. The property of emigrants remaining unsold
was restored, excepting forests, which Bonaparte reserved to
be gradually returned as bribes to great families. ... Two
important projects were presented to the Tribunal and
Legislative Corps, the Legion of Honor, and free schools. The
Convention awarded prizes to the troops for special acts of
daring, and the First Consul increased and arranged the
distribution, but that was not enough: he wanted a vast system
of rewards, adapted to excite amour propre, repay service, and
give him a new and potent means of influencing civilians as
well as soldiers. He therefore conceived the idea of the
Legion of Honor, embracing all kinds of service and title to
public distinction. ... But this plan for forming an order of
chivalry was contested even by the Council of State as
offensive to that equality which its members were to defend
[under the oath prescribed to the Legion], and as a renewal of
aristocracy. It only passed the Tribunal and Legislative Corps
by a very small majority, and this after the removal of so
many of the opposition party. The institution of the Legion of
Honor was specious, and, despite the opposition it met within
its early days, suits a people who love distinction, despite
their passion for equality, provided it be not hereditary. As
for the educational scheme, it was wretched, doing absolutely
nothing for the primary schools. The state had no share in it.
The Commune was to provide the buildings when the pupils could
pay a teacher, thus forsaking the plans of the great
assemblies. The wisest statesmen desired to sustain in an
improved form the central schools founded by the Convention;
but Bonaparte meant to substitute barracks to educate young
men for his service. ... He diminished scientific study;
suppressed history and philosophy, which were incompatible
with despotism; and completed his system of secondary
instruction by creating 6,000 scholarships, to be used as
means of influence, like the ribbon of the Legion of Honor.
... All his measures succeeded, and yet he was not content: he
wanted to extend his power. ... Cambacérès ... , when the
Amiens treaty was presented to the Tribunal and Legislature,
... proposed, through the president of the former, that the
Senate should be invited to give the First Consul some token
of national gratitude (May 6, 1802). ... The Senate only voted
to prolong the First Consul's power for ten years (May 8),
with but one protesting voice, that of Lanjuinais, who
denounced the flagrant usurpation that threatened the
Republic. This was the last echo of the Gironde ringing
through the tame assemblies of the Consulate. Bonaparte was
very angry, having expected more; but Cambacérès' calmed him
and suggested a mode of evading the question, namely, to reply
that an extension of power could only be granted by the
people, and then to make the Council of State dictate the
formula to be submitted to the people, substituting a life
consulate for ten years. This was accordingly done. ... The
Council of State even added the First Consul's right to name
his successor. This he thought premature and likely to make
trouble, and therefore erased it. ... Registers were opened at
the record offices and mayoralties to receive votes, and there
were three million and a half votes in the affirmative; a few
thousand only daring to refuse, and many abstaining from
voting. La Fayette registered a 'no' ... and sent the First
Consul a noble letter. ... La Fayette then ceased the
relations he had hitherto maintained with the First Consul
since his return to France. ... The Senate counted the popular
vote on the proposal they did not make, and carried the result
to the Tuileries in a body, August 8, 1802; and the result was
proclaimed in the form of a Senatus-Consultum, in these terms:
'The French people name and the Senate proclaim Napoleon
Bonaparte First Consul for life.' This was the first official
use of the prenomen Napoleon, which was soon, in conformity
with royal custom, to be substituted for the family name of
Bonaparte. ... The next day various modifications of the
Constitution were offered to the Council of State. ... The
Senate were given the right to interpret and complete the
Constitution, to dissolve the Legislature and Tribunal, and,
what was even more, to break the judgment of tribunals, thus
subordinating justice to policy. But these extravagant
prerogatives could only be used at the request of the
government, The Senate was limited to 120 members, 40 of whom
the First Consul was to elect. The Tribunal was reduced to 50
members, and condemned to discuss with closed doors, divided
into sections. ... Despotism concentrated more and more.
Bonaparte took back his refusal to choose his successor, and
now claimed that right. He also formed a civil list of six
millions. ... The Senate agreed to everything, and the
Senatus-Consultum was published August 5. ... The Republic was
now but a name; ... Early in 1808 things grew dark on the
English shore," and "the loss of San Domingo [to which
Bonaparte had sent an expedition at the beginning of 1801]
seemed inevitable [see HAYTI: A. D. 1682-1808]. While making
this expedition, doomed to so fatal an end, Bonaparte
continued his haughty policy on the European continent. By
article second of the Luneville treaty France and Austria
mutually guaranteed the independence of the Dutch, Swiss,
Cisalpine, and Ligurian republics, and their freedom in the
adoption of whatever form of government they saw fit to
choose.
{1337}
Bonaparte interpreted this article by substituting for
independence his own more or less direct rule in those
republics. ... During the negotiations preceding the Amiens
treaty he stirred up a revolution in Holland. That country had
a Directory and two Chambers, as in the French Constitution of
year III., and he wished to impose a new constitution on the
Chambers, putting them more into his power; they refused, and
he expelled them by means of the Directory, whom he had won
over to his side. The Dutch Directory, in this imitation of
November 9, was sustained by French troops, occupying Holland
under Augereau, now reconciled to Bonaparte (September, 1801).
The new Constitution was put to popular vote. A certain number
voted against it. The majority did not vote. Silence was taken
for consent, and the new Constitution was proclaimed October
17, 1801. ... The English government protested, but did not
resist. At the same time he [Bonaparte] imposed on the
Cisalpine republic, but without conflict or opposition, a
constitution even more anti-liberal than the French one of
year VIII.; the president who there replaced the First Consul
having supreme power. But who was to be that President? The
Cisalpines for an instant were simple enough to think that
they could choose an Italian: they decided on Count Melzi,
well known in the Milanese. They were soon undeceived, when
Bonaparte called Cisalpine delegates to Lyons in midwinter.
These delegates were landowners, scholars, and merchants, some
hundreds in number, and his agents explained to them that none
but Bonaparte 'was worthy to govern their republic or able to
maintain it.' They eagerly offered him the presidency, which
he accepted in lofty terms, and took Melzi for vice-president
(January 25, 1802). Italian patriots were consoled for this
subjection by the change of name from Cisalpine to Italian
Republic, which seemed to promise the unity of Italy.
Bonaparte threw out this hope, never meaning to gratify it.
... He acted as master in Switzerland as well as Italy and
Holland. Since Switzerland had ceased to be the scene of war,
she had been given over to agitation, fluctuating between
revolutionary democracy and the old aristocracy joined to the
retrograde democracy of the small Catholic cantons. Modern
democracy was at strife with itself. ... Bonaparte encouraged
the strife, that Switzerland might call him in as arbiter.
Suddenly, late in July, 1802, he withdrew his troops, which
had occupied Switzerland ever since 1798. Civil war broke out
at once; the smaller Catholic cantons and the aristocrats of
Berne and Zurich overthrew the government established at Berne
by the moderate democrats. The government retired to Lausanne,
and the country was thus divided. Bonaparte then announced
that he would not suffer a Swiss counter-revolution, and that
if the parties could not agree he must mediate between them.
He summoned the insurrectional powers of Berne to dissolve,
and invited all citizens who had held office in the central
Swiss government within three years, to meet at Paris and
confer with him, announcing that 30,000 men under General Ney
were ready to support his mediation. The democratic government
at Lausanne were willing to receive the French; the
aristocratic government at Berne, anxious to restore the
Austrians, appealed to European powers, who replied by
silence, England only protesting against French interference.
... Bonaparte responded to the English protest by so
extraordinary a letter that his charge d'Affaires at London
dared not communicate it verbatim. It said that, if England
succeeded in drawing the continental powers into her cause,
the result would be to force France to 'conquer Europe! Who
knows how long it would take the First-Consul to revive the
Empire of the West?' (October 23, 1802). ... There was slight
resistance to Ney's troops in Switzerland. All the politicians
of the new democracy and some of the aristocrats went to Paris
at the First Consul's summons. He did not treat their country
as he had Holland and Italy, but gave her, instead, a vain
show of institutions, a constitution imposing on the different
parties a specious compromise. ... Switzerland was dependent
on France in regard to general policy, and was bound to
furnish her with troops; but, at least, she administered her
own affairs (January, 1803)."
H. Martin,
Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
volume 2, chapters 8-9.
ALSO IN:
F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
volume 7, pages 286-302.
Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
Story of Switzerland,
chapters 30-31.
C. Botta,
Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
chapter 3.
M. Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapters 20-26.
Duchess D' Abrantes,
Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 1, chapter 80.
Count M. Dumas,
Memoirs,
chapter 9 (volume 2).
H. A. Taine,
The Modern Regime,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 3.
FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.
The Civil Code and the Concordat.
"Four years of peace separated the Treaty of Luneville from
the next outbreak of war between France and any Continental
Power. They were years of the extension of French influence in
every neighbouring State; in France itself, years of the
consolidation of Bonaparte's power, and of the decline of
everything that checked his personal rule. ... Among the
institutions which date from this period, two, equally
associated with the name of Napoleon, have taken a prominent
place in history, the Civil Code and the Concordat. Since the
middle of the 18th century the codification of law had been
pursued with more or less success by almost every Government
in the western continent. The Constituent Assembly of 1789 had
ordered the statutes by which it superseded the variety of
local customs in France to be thus cast into a systematic
form. ... Bonaparte instinctively threw himself into a task so
congenial to his own systematizing spirit, and stimulated the
efforts of the best jurists in France by his own personal
interest and pride in the work of legislation. A Commission of
lawyers, appointed by the First Consul, presented the
successive chapters of a Civil Code to the Council of State.
In the discussions in the Council of State Bonaparte himself
took an active, though not always a beneficial, part. ... In
March, 1804, France received the Code which, with few
alterations, has formed from that time to the present the
basis of its civil rights. ... It is probable that a majority
of the inhabitants of Western Europe believe that Napoleon
actually invented the laws which bear his name. As a matter of
fact, the substance of these laws was fixed by the successive
Assemblies of the Revolution; and, in the final revision which
produced the Civil Code, Napoleon appears to have originated
neither more nor less than several of the members of his
Council whose names have long been forgotten.
{1338}
He is unquestionably entitled to the honour of a great
legislator, not, however, as one who, like Solon or like
Mahomet, himself created a new body of law. ... Four other
Codes, appearing at intervals from the year 1804 to the year
1810, embodied, in a corresponding form, the Law of Commerce,
the Criminal Law, and the Rules of Civil and of Criminal
Process. ... Far more distinctively the work of Napoleon
himself was the reconciliation with the Church of Rome
effected by the Concordat [July, 1801]. It was a restoration
of religion similar to that restoration of political order
which made the public service the engine of a single will. The
bishops and priests, whose appointment the Concordat
transferred from their congregations to the Government, were
as much instruments of the First Consul as his prefects and
his gensdarmes. ... An alliance with the Pope offered to
Bonaparte the means of supplanting the popular organisation of
the Constitutional Church by an imposing hierarchy, rigid in
its orthodoxy and unquestioning in its devotion to himself. In
return for the consecration of his own rule, Bonaparte did not
shrink from inviting the Pope to an exercise of authority such
as the Holy See had never even claimed in France. The whole of
the existing French Bishops, both the exiled non-jurors and
those of the Constitutional Church, were summoned to resign
their sees into the hands of the Pope; against all who refused
to do so sentence of deposition was pronounced by the Pontiff.
... The sees were reorganised, and filled up by nominees of the
First Consul. The position of the great body of the clergy was
substantially altered in its relation to the Bishops.
Episcopal power was made despotic, like all other powers in
France. ... In the greater cycle of religious change, the
Concordat of Bonaparte appears in another light. ... It
converted the Catholicism of France from a faith already far
more independent than that of Fénélon and Bossuet into the
Catholicism which in our day has outstripped the bigotry of
Spain and Austria in welcoming the dogma of Papal
infallibility."
C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 1, chapter 5.
"It is ... easy, from the official reports which have been
preserved, to see what part the First Consul took in the
framing of the Civil Code. While we recognise that his
intervention was advantageous on some minor points, ... we
must say that his views on the subjects of legislation in
which this intervention was most conspicuous, were most often
inspired by suggestions of personal interest, or by political
considerations which ought to have no weight with the
legislator. ... Bonaparte came by degrees to consider himself
the principal creator of a collective work to which he
contributed little more than his name, and which probably
would have been much better if the suggestions of a man of
action and executive authority had not been blended with the
views, necessarily more disinterested, larger and more humane,
of the eminent jurisconsults whose glory he tried to usurp."
P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
A. Thiers,
History of the Consulate and the Empire,
volume 1, books 12-14.
W. H. Jervis,
History of the Church of France,
volume 2, chapter 11.
J. E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church,
volume 4, pages 547-554.
The Code Napoleon, translated by Richards.
FRANCE: A. D. 1802.
Fourcroy's education law.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,
FRANCE: A. D. 1565-1802.
FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (August-September).
Annexation of Piedmont, Parma, and the Isle of Elba.
A "flagrant act of the First Consul's at this time was the
seizure and annexation of Piedmont. Although that country was
reconquered by the Austro-Russian army in 1799, the-King of
Sardinia had not been restored when, by the battle of Marengo,
it came again into the possession of the French. Bonaparte
then united part of it to the Cisalpine Republic, and promised
to erect the rest into a separate State; but he afterwards
changed his mind; and by a decree of April 20th 1801, ordered
that Piedmont should form a military division of France. ...
Charles Emanuel, disgusted with the injustice and insults to
which he was exposed, having abdicated his throne in favour of
his brother Victor Emanuel, Duke of Aosta, June 4th 1802,
Bonaparte ... caused that part of Piedmont which had not been
united to the Italian Republic to be annexed to France, as the
27th Military Department, by a formal Senatus-Consulte of
September 11th 1802. A little after, October 11th, on the
death of Ferdinand de Bourbon, Duke of Parma, father of the
King of Etruria, that duchy was also seized by the rapacious
French Republic. The isle of Elba had also been united to
France by a Senatus-Consulte of August 26th."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 7, chapter 11 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
A. Gallenga,
History of Piedmont,
volume 3, chapter 5.
FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.
Complaints against the English press.
The Peltier trial.
The First Consul's rage.
War declared by Great Britain.
Detention of all the English in France, Italy, Switzerland and
the Netherlands.
Occupation of Hanover.
"Mr. Addington was wont to say in after years that the ink was
scarcely dry, after the signature of the treaty of Amiens,
when discontents arose which perilled the new peace. On the
24th of May [1802], M. Otto told Lord Glenbervie that if the
English press were not controlled from censuring Napoleon,
there must be a war to the death: and in the course of the
summer, six requisitions were formally made to the British
government, the purport of which was that the press must be
controlled; the royal emigrants sent to Warsaw; the island of
Jersey cleared of persons disaffected to the French
government; and all Frenchmen dismissed from Great Britain who
wore the decorations of the old monarchy. The reply was, that
the press was free in England; and that if any of the
emigrants broke the laws, they should be punished; but that
otherwise they could not be molested. The government, however,
used its influence in remonstrance with the editors of
newspapers which were abusive of the French. Cobbet was
pointed out by name by Napoleon, as a libeller who must be
punished; and Peltier, a royalist emigrant, who had published
some incentives to the assassination of the French ruler, or
prophecies which might at such a crisis be fairly regarded as
incentives. M. Peltier's object was to use his knowledge of
the tools of Napoleon, and his great political and literary
experience, in laying bare the character and policy of
Napoleon; and he began, in the summer of 1802, a journal, the
first number of which occasioned the demand for his
punishment.
{1339}
He was prosecuted by the Attorney-General, and defended by Sir
James Mackintosh, in a speech which was translated into nearly
all the languages of Europe, and universally considered one of
the most prodigious efforts of oratory ever listened to in any
age. The Attorney-General, Mr. Percival, declared in Court,
that he could hardly hope for an impartial decision from a
jury whose faculties had been so roused, dazzled and charmed.
... M. Peltier was found guilty; but the Attorney-General did
not call for judgment on the instant. War was then--at the
close of February [1808]--imminent; and the matter was
dropped. M: Peltier was regarded as a martyr, and, as far as
public opinion went, was rather rewarded than punished in
England. He was wont to say that he was tried in England and
punished in France. His property was confiscated by the
consular agents; and his only near relations, his aged father
and his sister, died at Nantes, through terror at his trial.
By this time the merchants of Great Britain were thoroughly
disgusted with France. Not only had Napoleon prevented all
commercial intercourse between the nations throughout the
year, but he had begun to, confiscate English merchant
vessels, driven by stress of weather into his ports. By this
time, too, the Minister's mind was made up as to the
impossibility of avoiding war. ... Napoleon had published
[January 30, 1803] a Report of an official agent of his,
Sebastiani, who had explored the Levant, striving as he went
to rouse the Mediterranean States to a desertion of England
and an alliance with France. He, reported of the British force
at Alexandria, and of the means of attack and defence there;
and his employer put forth this statement in the 'Moniteur,'
his own paper, while complaining of the insults of the English
press towards himself. Our ambassador at Paris, Lord
Whitworth, desired an explanation: and the reception of his
demand by the First Consul ... was characteristic. ... He sent
for Lord Whitworth to wait on him at nine in the morning of
the 18th; made him sit down; and then poured out his wrath 'in
the style of an Italian bully,' as the record has it: and the
term is not too strong; for he would not allow Lord Whitworth
to speak. The first impression was, that it was his design to
terrify England: but Talleyrand's anxiety to smooth matters
afterwards, and to explain away what his master had said,
shows that the ebullition was one of mere temper. And this was
presently confirmed by his behaviour to Lord Whitworth at a
levee, when the saloon was crowded with foreign ambassadors
and their suites, as well as with French courtiers. The whole
scene was set forth in the newspapers of every country.
Napoleon walked about, transported with passion: asked Lord
Whitworth if he did not know that a terrible storm had arisen
between the two governments; declared that England was a
violator of treaties; took to witness the foreigners present
that if England did not immediately surrender Malta, war was
declared; and condescended to appeal to them whether the right
was not on his side; and, when Lord Whitworth would have
replied, silenced him by a gesture, and observed that, Lady
Whitworth being out of health, her native air would be of
service to her; and she should, have it, sooner than she
expected.--After this, there could be little hope of peace in
the most sanguine mind. ... Lord Whitworth left Paris on the
12th of May; and at Dover met General Andreossi, on his way to
Paris. On the 16th, it became publicly known that war was
declared: and on the same day Admiral Cornwallis received
telegraphic orders which caused him to appear before Brest on
the 18th. On the 17th, an Order in Council, directing
reprisals, was issued; and with it the proclamation of an
embargo being laid on all French and Dutch ships in British
ports. ... On the next day, May 18th, 1803, the Declaration of
War was laid before parliament, and the feverish state, called
peace, which had lasted for one year and sixteen days, passed
into one of open hostility. The reason why the vessels of the
Dutch were to be seized with those of the French was that
Napoleon had filled Holland with French troops, and was
virtually master of the country. ... In July, the militia
force amounted to 173,000 men; and the deficiency was in
officers to command them. The minister proposed, in addition
to all the forces actually in existence, the formation of an
army of reserve, amounting to 50,000 men: and this was
presently agreed to. There was little that the parliament and
people of England would not have agreed to at this moment,
under the provocation of Napoleon's treatment of the English
in France. His first act was to order the detention, as
prisoners of war, of all the English then in the country,
between the ages of 18 and 60. The exasperation caused by this
cruel measure was all that he could have expected or desired.
Many were the young men thus doomed to lose, in wearing
expectation or despair, twelve of the best years of their
lives, cut off from family, profession, marriage,
citizenship--everything that young men most value. Many were
the parents separated for twelve long years from the young
creatures at home, whom they had left for a mere pleasure
trip: and many were the grey-haired fathers and mothers at
home who went down to the grave during those twelve years
without another sight of the son or daughter who was pining in
some small provincial town in France, without natural
occupation, and well nigh without hope. In June, the English
in Rouen were removed to the neighbourhood of Amiens; those in
Calais to, Lisle; those at Brussels to Valenciennes. Before
the month was out, all the English in Italy and Switzerland,
in addition to those in Holland, were made prisoners. How many
the whole amounted to does not appear to have been
ascertained: but it was believed at the time that there were
11,000 in France, and 1,800 in Holland. The first pretence was
that these travellers were detained as hostages for the prizes
which Napoleon accused us of taking before the regular
declaration of war; but when proposals were made for an
exchange, he sent a savage answer that he would keep his
prisoners till the end of the war. It is difficult to conceive
how there could be two opinions about the nature of the man
after this act. The naval captures of which Napoleon
complained, as made prior to a declaration of war, were of two
merchant Ships taken by English frigates: and we find notices
of such being brought into port on the 25th of May. Whether
they were captured before the 18th, there is no record that we
can find. ... On the sea, our successes seemed a matter of
course; but meantime a blow was struck at Great Britain, and
especially at her sovereign, which proved that the national
exasperation against France was even yet capable of increase.
{1340}
On the breaking out of the war; George III. issued a
proclamation, as Elector of Hanover, declaring to Germany that
the Germanic states had nothing to fear in regard to the new
hostilities, as he was entering into war as King of Great
Britain, and not as Elector of Hanover. Whatever military
preparations were going forward in Hanover were merely of a
defensive character. Napoleon, however, set such defence at
defiance. On the 13th of June, news arrived of the total
surrender of Hanover to the French. ... Government resolved to
declare the Elbe and the Weser, and all the ports of Western
Germany, in a state of blockade; as the French had now command
over all the intermediate rivers. It was calculated that this
would annoy and injure Napoleon effectually, as it would cause
the ruin of foreign merchants trading from the whole series of
ports. English merchants would suffer deeply; but it was
calculated that English capital and stock would hold out
longer than those of foreign merchants. Thus was the sickening
process of private ruin, as a check to public aggression,
entered upon, before war had been declared a month."
H. Martineau,
History of England, 1800-1815,
book l, chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapters 28-30.
Sir J. Mackintosh,
Speech in Defense of Jean Peltier
(Miscellaneous Works).
J. Ashton,
English Caricature and Satire on Napoleon I.,
volume 1, chapters 24-87.
FRANCE: A. D. 1803 (April-May).
Sale or Louisiana to the United States of America.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1808;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803.
FRANCE: A. D. 1803.
Loss of San Domingo, or Hayti.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1682-1803.
FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
Royalist plots and Bonaparte's use or them.
The abduction and execution or the Duc d'Enghien.
The First Consul becomes Emperor.
His coronation by the Pope.
His acceptance of the crown or Italy.
Annexation of Genoa to France.
The rupture with England furnished Bonaparte "with the
occasion of throwing off the last disguise and openly
restoring monarchy. It was a step which required all his
audacity and cunning. He had crushed Jacobinism, but two great
parties remained. There was first the more moderate
republicanism, which might be called Girondism, and was widely
spread among all classes and particularly in the army.
Secondly, there was the old royalism, which after many years
of helpless weakness had revived since Brumaire. These two
parties, though hostile to each other, were forced into a sort
of alliance by the new attitude of Bonaparte, who was hurrying
France at once into a new revolution at home and into an abyss
of war abroad. England, too, after the rupture, favoured the
efforts of these parties. Royalism from England began to open
communications with moderate republicanism in France. Pichegru
acted for the former, and the great representative of the
latter was Moreau, who had helped to make Brumaire in the
tacit expectation probably of rising to the consulate in due
course when Bonaparte's term should have expired, and was
therefore hurt in his personal claims as well as in his
republican principles. Bonaparte watched the movement through
his ubiquitous police, and with characteristic strategy
determined not merely to defeat it but to make it his
stepping-stone to monarchy. He would ruin Moreau by fastening
on him the stigma of royalism; he would persuade France to
make him emperor in order to keep out the Bourbons. He
achieved this with the peculiar mastery which he always showed
in villainous intrigue. ... Pichegru [who had returned
secretly to France from England some time in January, 1804]
brought with him wilder partisans, such as Georges [Cadoudal]
the Chouan. No doubt Moreau would gladly have seen and gladly
have helped an insurrection against Bonaparte. ... But
Bonaparte succeeded in associating him with royalist schemes
and with schemes of assassination. Controlling the Senate, he
was able to suppress the jury; controlling every avenue of
publicity, he was able to suppress opinion; and the army,
Moreau's fortress, was won through its hatred of royalism. In
this way Bonaparte's last personal rival was removed. There
remained the royalists, and Bonaparte hoped to seize their
leader, the Comte d'Artois, who was expected, as the police
knew, soon to join Pichegru and Georges at Paris. What
Bonaparte would have done with him we may judge from the
course he took when the Comte did not come. On March 15, 1804,
the Duc d'Enghien, grandson of the Prince de Condé, residing
at Ettenheim in Baden, was seized at midnight by a party of
dragoons, brought to Paris, where he arrived on the 20th,
confined in the castle of Vincennes, brought before a military
commission at two o'clock the next morning, asked whether he had
not borne arms against the republic, which he acknowledged
himself to have done, conducted to a staircase above the moat,
and there shot and buried in the moat. ... That the Due
d'Enghien was innocent of the conspiracy, was nothing to the
purpose; the act was political, not judicial; accordingly he
was not even charged with complicity. That the execution would
strike horror into the cabinets, and perhaps bring about a new
Coalition, belonged to a class of considerations which at this
time Bonaparte systematically disregarded. This affair led
immediately to the thought of giving heredity to Bonaparte's
power. The thought seems to have commended itself irresistibly
even to strong republicans and to those who were most shocked
by the murder. To make Bonaparte's position more secure seemed
the only way of averting a new Reign of Terror or new
convulsions. He himself felt some embarrassment. Like
Cromwell, he was afraid of the republicanism of the army, and
heredity pure and simple brought him face to face with the
question of divorcing Josephine. To propitiate the army, he
chose from the titles suggested to him--consul, stadtholder,
&c.--that of emperor, undoubtedly the most accurate, and
having a sufficiently military sound. The other difficulty
after much furious dissension between the two families of
Bonaparte and Beauharnais, was evaded by giving Napoleon
himself (but none of his successors) a power of adoption, and
fixing the succession, in default of a direct heir, natural or
adoptive, first in Joseph and his descendants, then in Louis
and his descendants. Except abstaining from the regal title,
no attempt was made to conceal the abolition of republicanism.
... The change was made by the constituent power of the
Senate, and the Senatus-Consulte is dated May 18, 1804. The
title of Emperor had an ulterior meaning.
{1341}
Adopted at the moment when Napoleon began to feel himself
master both in Italy and Germany, it revived the memory of
Charles the Great. To himself it was the more satisfactory on
that account, and, strange to say, it gave satisfaction rather
than offence to the Head of the Holy Roman Empire, Francis II.
Since Joseph, the Habsburg Emperors had been tired of their
title, which, being elective, was precarious. They were
desirous of becoming hereditary emperors in Austria, and they
now took this title (though without as yet giving up the
other). Francis II. bartered his acknowledgement of Napoleon's
new title against Napoleon's acknowledgement of his own. It
required some impudence to condemn Moreau for royalism at the
very moment that his rival was re-establishing monarchy. Yet
his trial began on May 15th. The death of Pichegru, nominally
by suicide, on April 6th, had already furnished the rising
sultanism with its first dark mystery. Moreau was condemned to
two years' imprisonment, but was allowed to retire to the
United States."
J. R. Seeley,
Short History of Napoleon I.,
chapter 8, section 4.
C. C. Fauriel,
The Last Days of the Consulate.
Chancellor Pasquier, in his Memoirs, narrates the
circumstances of the seizure of the Duc d'Enghien at
considerable length, and says: "This is what really occurred,
according to what I have been told by those better situated to
know. A council was held on the 9th of March: It is almost
certain that previous to this council, which was a kind of
official affair, a more secret one had been held at the house
of Joseph Bonaparte. At the first council, to which were
convened only a few persons, all on a footing of family
intimacy, it was discussed by order of the First Consul, what
would be proper to do with a prince of the House of Bourbon,
in case one should have him in one's power, and the decision
reached was that if he was captured on French territory, one
had the right to take his life, but not otherwise. At the
council held on the 9th, and which was composed of the three
Consuls, the Chief Justice, the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
and M. Fouché, although the latter had not then resumed the
post of Minister of Police, the two men who expressed contrary
opinions were M. de Talleyrand and M. de Cambacérès. M. de
Talleyrand declared that the prince should be sent to his
death. M. Lebrun, the Third Consul, contented himself with
saying that such an event would have a terrible echo
throughout the world. M. de Cambacérès contended earnestly
that it would be sufficient to hold the prince as hostage for
the safety of the First Consul. The latter sided with M. de
Talleyrand, whose counsels then prevailed. The discussion was
a heated one, and when the meeting of the council was over, M.
de Cambacérès thought it his duty to make a last attempt, so
he followed Bonaparte into his study, and laid before him with
perhaps more strength than might be expected from his
character, the consequences of the deed he was about to
perpetrate, and the universal horror it would excite. ... He
spoke in vain. In the privacy of his study, Bonaparte
expressed himself even with greater violence than he had done
at the council. He answered that the death of the duke would
seem to the world but a just reprisal for what was being
attempted against him personally; that it was necessary to
teach the House of Bourbon that the blows struck with its
sanction were liable to recoil on its own head; that this was
the only way of compelling it to abstain from its dastardly
schemes, and lastly, that matters had gone too far to retrace
one's steps. M. de Talleyrand supplied this last argument."
Chancellor Pasquier,
Memoirs,
volume 1, pages 190-191.
"Bonaparte's accession to the Empire was proclaimed with the
greatest pomp, without waiting to inquire whether the people
approved of his promotion or otherwise. The proclamation was
coldly received, even by the populace, and excited little
enthusiasm. ... The Emperor was recognised by the soldiery
with more warmth. He visited the encampments at Boulogne,"
and, afterwards, "accompanied with his Empress, who bore her
honours both gracefully and meekly, visited Aix-la-Chapelle
and the frontiers of Germany. They received the
congratulations of all the powers of Europe, excepting
England, Russia, and Sweden, upon their new exaltation. ...
But the most splendid and public recognition of his new rank
was yet to be made, by the formal act of coronation, which,
therefore, Napoleon determined should take place with
circumstances of solemnity which had been beyond the reach of
any temporal prince, however powerful, for many ages. ...
Though Charlemagne had repaired to Rome to receive
inauguration from the hands of the Pontiff of that day,
Napoleon resolved that he who now owned the proud, and in
Protestant eyes profane, title of Vicar of Christ, should
travel to France to perform the coronation. ... The Pope, and
the cardinals whom he consulted, implored the illumination of
Heaven upon their councils; but it was the stern voice of
necessity which assured them that, except at the risk of
dividing the Church by a schism, they could not refuse to
comply with Buonaparte's requisition. The Pope left Rome on
the 5th November. ... On the 2d December [1804] the coronation
took place in the ancient cathedral of Notre Dame. ... The
crown having been blessed by the Pope, Napoleon took it from
the altar with his own hands, and placed it on his brows. He
then put the diadem on the head of his Empress, as if
determined to show that his authority was the child of his own
actions. ... The northern states of Italy had followed the
example of France through all her change of models. ... The
authorities of the Italian (late Cisalpine) Republic, had a
prescient guess of what was expected of them. A deputation
appeared at Paris to declare the absolute necessity which they
felt, that their government should assume a monarchical and
hereditary form. On the 17th March [1805], they obtained an
audience of the Emperor, to whom they intimated the unanimous
desire of their countrymen that Napoleon, founder of the
Italian Republic, should be monarch of the Italian Kingdom.
... Buonaparte granted the petition of the Italian States, and
... upon the 11th April, ... with his Empress, set off to go
through the form of coronation as King of Italy. ... The new
kingdom was, in all respects, modeled on the same plan with
the French Empire. An order, called 'of the Iron Crown,' was
established on the footing of that of the Legion of Honour. A
large French force was taken into Italian pay, and Eugene
Beauharnais, the son of Josephine by her former marriage, who
enjoyed and merited the confidence of his father-in-law, was
created viceroy, and appointed to represent, in that
character, the dignity of Napoleon. Napoleon did not leave
Italy without further extension of his empire. Genoa, once the
proud and the powerful, resigned her independence, and her
Doge presented to the Emperor a request that the Ligurian
Republic ... should be considered in future as a part of the
French nation."
Sir W. Scott,
Life of Napoleon,
chapter 48 (Paris edition, 1828).
{1342}
"Genoa and the Ligurian Republic were incorporated with
France, June 3d 1805. ... The Duchies of Parma and Piacenza,
which, together with Guastalla, had been already seized, were
declared dependencies of the French Empire by an imperial
decree of July 21st. The principality of Piombino was bestowed
on Napoleon's sister Eliza, wife of the Senator Bacciocchi,
but on conditions which retained it under the Emperor's
suzerainty: and the little state was increased by the addition
of the Republic of Lucca."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 1, chapter 11 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
C. Botta,
Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
chapters 3-4.
Memoirs dictated by Napoleon to his
Generals at St. Helena,
volume 6, pages 219-225.
J. Fouché,
Memoirs,
pages 260-274.
Count Miot de Melito,
Memoirs,
chapters 16-17.
W. Hazlitt,
Life of Napoleon,
chapters 38-34 (volume 2).
Madame de Rémusat,
Memoirs,
book 1, chapters 4-10 (volume 1).
P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapters 9-10.
M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 3, chapters 1-12.
FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (January-April).
The Third European Coalition.
"In England Pitt returned to office in May, 1804, and this in
itself was an evil omen for France. He enjoyed the confidence,
not only of his own nation but of Europe, and he at once set
to work to resume the threads of that coalition of which
England had formerly directed the resources. Alexander I. of
Russia had begun to see through the designs of Napoleon; he
found that he had been duped in the joint mediation in
Germany, he resented the occupation of Hanover and he ordered
his court to put on mourning for the duke of Enghien. Before
long he broke off diplomatic relations with France (September
1804), and a Russian war was now only a question of time.
Austria was the power most closely affected by Napoleon's
assumption of the imperial title. ... While hastening to
acknowledge Napoleon, Austria was busied in military
preparations and began to resume its old connection with
England. Prussia was the power on which France was accustomed
to rely with implicit confidence. But the occupation of
Hanover and the interference with the commerce of the Elbe had
weakened Frederick William III.'s belief in the advantages of
a neutral policy, and, though he could not make up his mind to
definite action, he began to open negotiations with Russia in
view of a rupture with France. The fluctuations of Prussian
policy may be followed in the alternating influence of the two
ministers of foreign affairs, Haugwitz and Hardenberg.
Meanwhile Napoleon, ignorant or reckless of the growing
hostility of the great powers, continued his aggressions at
the expense of the lesser states. ... These acts gave the
final impulse to the hostile powers, and before Napoleon
quitted Italy the Coalition had been formed. On the 11th of
April, 1805, a final treaty was signed between Russia and
England. The two powers pledged themselves to form an European
league against France, to conclude no peace without mutual
consent, to settle disputed points in a congress at the end of
the war, and to form a federal tribunal for the maintenance of
the system which should, then be established. The immediate
objects of the allies were the abolition of French rule in
Italy, Holland, Switzerland, and Hanover; the restoration of
Piedmont to the king of Sardinia; the protection of Naples;
and the erection of a permanent barrier against France by the
union of Holland and Belgium under the House of Orange. The
coalition was at once joined by Gustavus IV. of Sweden, who
inherited his father's devotion to the cause of legitimate
monarchy, and who hoped to recover power in Pomerania.
Austria, terrified for its Italian possessions by Bonaparte's
evident intention to subdue the whole peninsula, was driven
into the league. Prussia, in spite of the attraction of
recovering honour and independence, refused to listen to the
solicitations of England and Russia, and adhered to its feeble
neutrality. Of the other German states Bavaria, Baden, and
Wurtemberg were allies of France. As far as effective
operations were concerned, the coalition consisted only of
Austria and Russia. Sweden and Naples, which had joined
secretly, could not make efforts on a great scale, and England
was as yet content with providing subsidies and the invaluable
services of its fleet. It was arranged that, one Austrian army
under the archduke Charles should invade Lombardy, while Mack,
with a second army and the aid of Russia, should occupy
Bavaria and advance upon the Rhine."
R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 24, sections 13-15.
ALSO IN:
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 39 (volume 9).
FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (March-December).
Napoleon's plans and preparations for the invasion of England.
Nelson's long pursuit of the French fleets.
His victory and death at Trafalgar.
Napoleon's rapid march to the Danube.
Capitulation of Mack at Ulm.
The French in Vienna.
The great battle of Austerlitz.
"While the coalition was forming, and Napoleon seemed wantonly
to be insulting Europe and ignoring the danger of exciting
fresh enemies, he was in fact urging on with all rapidity his
schemes for the invasion of England, which he probably hoped
might be so successful as to paralyse all action on the part
of the European powers. The constantly repeated
representations of his naval officers had forced him, much
against his will, to believe that his descent upon England
would be impracticable unless secured by the presence of his
fleet. In spite of the general voice of those who knew the
condition of the French navy, he determined to act with his
fleet on the same principles as he would have acted with his
army; a gigantic combination of various squadrons was to be
effected, and a fleet great enough to destroy all hope of
opposition to sweep the Channel. For this purpose the 18 ships
of the line at Brest under Admiral Gantheaume, the squadron at
Rochefort under Villeneuve, and the Toulon fleet under
Latouche-Tréville, were to unite. The last mentioned admiral
was intrusted with the chief command. Sailing up the coast of
France, he was to liberate from their blockade the squadrons
of Rochefort and Brest, and with their combined fleets appear
before Boulogne. But Latouche-Tréville died, and Napoleon
intrusted his plans to Villeneuve.
{1343}
Those plans, all of them arranged without regard to the bad
condition of the French ships, or to the uncertainty of the
weather, were frequently changed; at one time Villeneuve from
Toulon, and Missiessy, his successor, at Rochefort, were to
proceed to the West Indies, drawing the English fleet thither;
then Gantheaume was to appear from Brest, throw troops into
Ireland, and thus cover the flotilla. At another time, all the
fleets were to assemble at the West Indies, and, joining with
the Spanish fleet at Ferrol, appear in the Straits of Calais.
To complete this last measure Villeneuve set sail from Toulon
on the 30th of March 1805, joined Gravina at Cadiz, and
reached Martinique on the 13th of May with 20 ships of the
line, and 7 frigates. His voyage was so slow that Missiessy
had returned from the West Indies to France, and the junction
failed. In hot pursuit of Villeneuve, Nelson, who had at
length found out his destination, had hurried. At Martinique
Gantheaume, with the Brest fleet, should have joined
Villeneuve; unfortunately for him, Admiral Cornwallis
blockaded his fleet. Villeneuve therefore had to return to
Europe alone, sailing for Ferrol to pick up a squadron of 15
ships. He was then, at the head of 35 ships, ordered to appear
before Brest, liberate Gantheaume, and appear in the Channel.
Back again in pursuit of him Nelson sailed, but supposed that
he would return to the Mediterranean and not to Ferrol; he
therefore again missed him; but as he had found means to
inform the English Government that Villeneuve was returning to
Europe, Calder, with a fleet of 15 ships, was sent to
intercept him. The fleets encountered off Cape Finisterre
[Northwest corner of Spain]. The French had 27 vessels, Calder
but 18, and after an indecisive battle, in which two Spanish
ships were taken, he was afraid to renew the engagement; and
Villeneuve was thus enabled to reach Ferrol in safety.
However, all the operations towards concentration had led to
absolutely nothing, and the English fleets, which the
movements towards the West Indies were to have decoyed from
the Channel, were either still off the coast of France or in
immediate pursuit of the fleet of Villeneuve. Nelson returned
to Gibralter, and as soon as he found out where Villeneuve
was, he joined his fleet to that of Cornwallis before Brest,
and himself returned to England. ... Meanwhile Villeneuve had
not been able to get ready for sea till the 11th of August.
... He was afraid to venture northwards, and with the full
approbation of his Spanish colleague Gravina, determined to
avail himself of a last alternative which Napoleon had
suggested, and sailed to Cadiz. This was a fatal blow to the
gigantic schemes of Napoleon. Up till the 22nd of August he
still believed that Villeneuve would make his appearance, and
in fact wrote to him that day at Brest, closing his letter
with the words, 'England is ours.' As the time for his great
stroke drew near he grew nervously anxious, constantly
watching the Channel for the approach of the fleet, and at
last, when his Minister of Marine, Decrès, told him that the
fleet had gone to Cadiz, he broke forth in bitter wrath
against both his Minister and Villeneuve, whom he accused of
the most shameful weakness. But Napoleon was not a man who let
his success be staked upon one plan alone. Though studiously
hiding from his people the existence of the coalition, and not
scrupling to have recourse to forged letters and fabricated
news for the purpose, he was fully aware of its existence. ...
Without much difficulty, therefore, he at once resigned his
great plans upon England, and directed his army towards the
eastern frontier."
J. F. Bright,
History of England, period 3,
pages 1261-1264.
"In the first days of September, 1805, Napoleon's great army
was in full march across France and Germany, to attain the
Danube. ... The Allies ... had projected four separate and
ill-combined attacks; the first on Hanover and Holland by a
Russian and British force; the second, on Lower Italy by a
similar body; the third, by a great Austrian army on Upper
Italy; and the fourth, by a United Austrian and Russian army,
moving across Southern Germany to the Rhine. ... By this time,
the Austrian Mack had drawn close to the Inn, in order to
compel Bavaria to join the Allies, and was even making his way
to the Iller, but his army was far distant from that of the
Russian chief, Kutusoff, and still further from that of
Buxhöwden, the one in Galicia, the other in Poland. ...
Napoleon had seized this position of affairs, with the
comprehensive knowledge of the theatre of war, and the skill
of arranging armies upon it, in which he has no equals among
modern captains. He opposed Masséna to the Archdukes, with a
much weaker force, confident that his great lieutenant could
hold them in check. He neglected the attacks from the North
Sea, and the South; but he resolved to strike down Mack, in
overwhelming strength, should he advance without his Russian
supports. ... The great mass of the Grand Army had reached the
Main and Rhine by the last week of September. The left wing,
joined by the Bavarian forces, and commanded by Bernadotte and
Marmont, had marched from Hanover and Holland, and was around
Würtzburg; the centre, the corps of Soult, and Davoust, moved
from the channel, was at Spire and Mannheim, and the right
wing, formed of the corps of Ney and Lannes, with the Imperial
Guard, and the horse of Murat, filled the region between
Carlsruhe and Strasburg, the extreme right under Augereau,
which had advanced from Brittany, being still behind but
drawing towards Huningen. By this time Mack was upon the
Iller, holding the fortress of Ulm on the upper Danube, and
extending his forces thence to Memmingen. ... By the first
days of October the great French masses ... were in full march
from the Rhine to the Main, across Würtemberg and the
Franconian plains; and cavalry filled the approaches to the
Black Forest, in order to deceive and perplex Mack. ... The
Danube ere long was reached and crossed, at Donauwörth,
Ingolstadt, and other points; and Napoleon already stood on
the rear of his enemy, interposing between him and Vienna, and

cut him off from the Russians, even now distant. The net was
quickly drawn round the ill-fated Mack. ... By the third week
of October, the Grand Army had encompassed the Austrians on
every side, and Napoleon held his quarry in his grasp. Mack
... had not the heart to strike a desperate stroke, and to
risk a battle; and he capitulated at Ulm on the 19th of
October. Two divisions of his army had contrived to break out;
but one was pursued and nearly destroyed by Murat, and the
other was compelled by Augereau to lay down its arms, as it
was on its way to the hills of the Tyrol. An army of 85,000
men had thus, so to speak, been well-nigh effaced; and not
20,000 had effected their escape. France meanwhile had met a
crushing disaster on the element which England had made her
own.
{1344}
We have seen how Villeneuve had put into Cadiz, afraid to face
the hostile fleets off Brest; and how this had baffled the
project of the descent. Napoleon was indignant with his
ill-fated admiral. ... At a hint of disgrace the susceptible
Frenchman made up his mind, at any risk, to fight. By this
time Nelson had left England, and was off Cadiz with a
powerful fleet; and he actually weakened his force by four
sail-of-the-line, in order to lure his adversary out. On the
20th of October, 1805, the allied fleet was in the open sea;
it had been declared at a council of war, that a lost battle
was almost certain, so bad was the condition of many of the
crews; but Villeneuve was bent on challenging Fate; and almost
courted defeat, in his despair. ... On the morning of the
21st, the allied fleet, 33 war ships, and a number of
frigates, was off Cape Trafalgar [25 miles west of Gibraltar
on the coast of Spain], making for the Straits. ... Nelson
advanced slowly against his doomed enemy, with 27 ships and
their attendant frigates; the famous signal floated from his
mast, 'England expects every man to do his duty'; and, at
about noon, Collingwood pierced Villeneuve's centre; nearly
destroying the Santa Anna with a single broadside. Ere long
Nelson had, broken Villeneuve's line, with the Victory,
causing frightful destruction; and as other British ships came
up by degrees they relieved the leading ships from the
pressure of their foes, and completed the ruin already begun.
At about one, Nelson met his death wound, struck by a shot
from the tops of the Redoutable. ... Pierced through and
through, the shattered allied centre was soon a collection of
captured wrecks. ... Only 11 ships out of 33 escaped; and the
burning Achille, like the Orient at the Nile, added to the
grandeur and horrors of an appalling scene. Villeneuve, who
had fought most honourably in the Bucentaure, was compelled to
strike his flag before the death of Nelson. The van of the
allies that had fled at Trafalgar, was soon afterwards
captured by a British squadron. Though dearly bought by the
death of Nelson, the victory may be compared to Lepanto; and
it blotted France out as a great Power on the ocean; Napoleon
... never tried afterwards to meet England at sea. ... His
success, at this moment, had been so wonderful, that what he
called 'the loss of a few ships at sea,' seemed a trifling and
passing rebuff of fortune. ... He had discomfitted the whole
plan of the Allies; and the failure of the attack on the main
scene of the theatre had caused all the secondary attacks to
fail. ... Napoleon, throwing out detachments to protect his
flanks, had entered Vienna on the 14th of November. ... The
House of Hapsburg and its chief had fled. ... Extraordinary as
his success had been, the position of the Emperor had, in a
few days, become grave. ... Napoleon had not one hundred
thousand men in hand--apart from the bodies that covered his
flanks--to make head against his converging enemies. Always
daring, however, he resolved to attack the Allies before they
could receive aid from Prussia; and he marched from Vienna
towards the close of November; having taken careful
precautions to guard his rear. ... By this time the Allies
were around Olmütz, the Archdukes were not many marches away,
and a Prussian army was nearly ready to move. Had the Russians
and Austrians fallen back from Olmütz and effected their
junction with the Archdukes, they could, therefore, have.
opposed the French with a force more than two-fold in numbers.
... But the folly and presumption which reigned among the young
nobles surrounding the Czar--Alexander was now at the head of
his army--brought on the Coalition deserved punishment, and
pedantry had its part in an immense disaster. The force of
Napoleon appeared small, his natural line of retreat was
exposed, and a theorist in the Austrian camp persuaded the
Czar and the Austrian Emperor, who was at the head of his
troops at Olmütz, to consent to a magnificent plan of
assailing Napoleon by the well-known method of Frederick the
Great, in the Seven Years' War, of turning his right wing, by
an attack made, in the oblique order, in great force, and of
cutting him off from his base at Vienna, and driving him,
routed, into, Bohemia. This grand project on paper, which
involved a march across the front of the hostile army within
reach of the greatest of masters of war, was hailed with
exultation. ... The Allies were soon in full march from
Olmütz, and preparations were made for the decisive movement
in the night of the 1st December, 1805. Napoleon had watched
the reckless false step being made by his foes with unfeigned
delight; 'that army is mine,' he proudly exclaimed. ... The
sun of Austerlitz rose on the 2nd, the light of victory often
invoked by Napoleon. ... The dawn of the winter's day revealed
three large columns, succeeded by a fourth at no great
distance, toiling through a tract of marshes and frozen lakes,
to outflank Napoleon's right on the Goldbach, the allied
centre, on the tableland of Prätzen, immediately before the
French front, having been dangerously weakened by this great
turning movement. The assailants were opposed by a small force
only, under Davoust, one of the best of the marshals. ... Ere
long Napoleon, who, like a beast of prey, had reserved his
strength until it was time to spring, launched Soult in force
against the Russian and Austrian centre, enfeebled by the
detachment against the French right and exposed to the whole
weight of Napoleon's attacks; and Prätzen was stormed after a
fierce struggle, in which Bernadotte gave the required aid to
Soult. The allied centre was thus rent asunder. Lannes
meanwhile had defeated the allied right. ... Napoleon now
turned with terrible energy and in overwhelming strength
against the four columns, that had assailed his right, but had
begun to retreat. His victorious centre was aided by his
right, now set free; the Russians and Austrians were struck
with panic, a horrible scene of destruction followed, the
flying troops were slain or captured in thousands; and
multitudes perished, engulfed in the lakes, the French
artillery shattering their icy surface. The rout was decisive,
complete, and appalling; about 80,000 of the Allies were
engaged; they lost all their guns and nearly half their
numbers, and the remains of their army were a worthless wreck.
Napoleon had only 60,000 men in the fight. ... The memorable
campaign of 1805 is, perhaps, the grandest of Napoleon's
exploits in war."
W. O'C. Morris,
Napoleon,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
A. Thiers,
History of the Consulate and Empire,
book 22 (volume 2).
R. Southey,
Life of Nelson,
chapters 8-9 (volume 2).
W. C. Russell,
Nelson and the Naval Supremacy of England,
chapters 17-20.
Lord Nelson,
Dispatches and Letters,
volumes 6-7.
Capt. E. J. de la Gravière,
Sketches of the last Naval War,
part 6 (volume 2).
C. Adams,
Great Campaigns in Europe, from 1796 to 1870,
chapter 3.
Baron de Marbot,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapters 20-23.
A. T. Mahan,
Influences of Sea Power upon the French Revolution,
chapters 15-16 (volume 2).
{1345}
FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (December-August).
The Peace of Presburg.
Humiliation of Austria.
Formation of the Confederation of the Rhine.
Extinction of the Holy Roman Empire.
The goading of Prussia to war.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806;
and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (December-September).
Dethronement of the dynasty of Naples.
Bestowal of the crown upon Joseph Bonaparte.
The treaty of Presburg was "immediately followed by a measure
hitherto unprecedented in European history--the pronouncing a
sentence of dethronement against an independent, sovereign,
for no other cause than his having contemplated hostilities
against the French Emperor; On the 26th December [1805] a
menacing proclamation proceeded from Presburg ... which
evidently bore marks of Napoleon's composition, against the
house of Naples. The conqueror announced that Marshal St. Cyr
would advance by rapid strides to Naples, 'to punish the
treason of a criminal queen, and precipitate her from the
throne. We have pardoned that infatuated king, who thrice has
done everything to ruin himself. Shall we pardon him a fourth
time? ... No! The dynasty of Naples has ceased to reign--its
existence is incompatible with the repose of Europe and the
honour of my crown.' ... The ominous announcement, made from
the depths of Moravia, that the dynasty of Naples had ceased
to reign, was not long allowed to remain a dead letter.
Massena was busily employed, in January, in collecting his
forces in the centre of Italy, and before the end of that
month 50,000 men, under the command of Joseph Buonaparte, had
crossed the Pontifical States and entered the Neapolitan
territory in three columns, which marched on Gaeta, Capua, and
Itri. Resistance was impossible; the feeble Russian and
English forces which had disembarked to support the Italian
levies, finding the whole weight of the war likely to be
directed against them, withdrew to Sicily; the court,
thunderstruck by the menacing proclamation of 27th December,
speedily followed their example. ... In vain the intrepid
Queen Caroline, who still remained at Naples, armed the
lazzaroni, and sought to infuse into the troops a portion of
her own indomitable courage; she was seconded by none; Capua
opened its gates; Gaeta was invested; the Campagna filled with
the invaders; she, vanquished but not subdued, compelled to
yield to necessity, followed her timid consort to Sicily; and,
on the 15th February, Naples beheld its future sovereign,
Joseph Buonaparte, enter its walls. ... During the first
tumult of invasion, the peasantry of Calabria ... submitted to
the enemy. ... But the protraction of the siege of Gaeta,
which occupied Massena with the principal army of the French,
gave them time to recover from their consternation. ... A
general insurrection took place in the beginning of March, and
the peasants stood firm in more than one position; but they
were unable to withstand the shock of the veterans of France,
and in a decisive action in the plain of Campo-Tenese their
tumultuary levies, though 15,000 strong, were entirely
dispersed. The victorious Reynier penetrated even to Reggio,
and the standards of Napoleon waved on its towers, in sight of
the English videtts on the shores of Sicily. When hostilities
had subsided, Joseph repaired in person to the theatre of war.
... He received at Savigliano, the principal town of the
province, the decree, by which Napoleon created him king of
the two Sicilies. By so doing, however, he was declared not to
lose his contingent right of succession to the throne of
France; but the two crowns were never to be united."
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 40, section 150,
and chapter 42, sections 21-23,(volume 9).
"Joseph's tenure of his new dominion was yet incomplete. The
fortress of Gaeta still held out, ... and the British in
Sicily (who had already taken the Isle of Capri, close to the
capital) sent 5,000 men to their aid under Sir John Stuart,
who encountered at Maida (July 6) a French corps of 7.500,
under Reynier. The battle presented one of the rare instances
in which French and British troops have actually crossed
bayonets; but French enthusiasm sank before British
intrepidity, and the enemy were driven from the field with the
loss of half their number. The victory of Maida had a
prodigious moral effect in raising the spirits and
self-confidence of the British soldiery; but its immediate
results were less considerable. The French were indeed driven
from Calabria, but the fall of Gaeta (July 18th), after the
loss of its brave governor, the Prince of Hesse-Philipsthal,
released the main army under Massena: the British exposed to
be attacked by overwhelming numbers, re-embarked (September 5)
for Palermo, and the Calabrian insurrection was suppressed with
great bloodshed. But an amnesty was at length ... published by
Joseph, who devoted himself with great zeal and admirable
judgment to heal the wounds of his distracted kingdom."
Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
section 398.
ALSO IN:
P. Colletta,
History of the Kingdom of Naples,
book 5, chapter 4, and book 6, chapters 1-3.
C. Botta,
Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
chapter 4.
FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (January-October).
Napoleon's triumphant return to Paris.
Death of Pitt.
Peace negotiations with England.
King making and prince making by the Corsican Cæsar.
ON the 27th of December, the day after the signing of the
Treaty of Presburg, Napoleon left Vienna for Paris. "En route
for Paris he remained a week at Munich to be present at the
marriage of Eugene Beauharnais to the Princess Augusta,
daughter of the King of Bavaria. Josephine joined him, and the
whole time was passed in fêtes and rejoicings. On this
occasion he proclaimed Eugene his adopted son, and, in default
of issue of his own, his successor in the kingdom of Italy.
Accompanied by Josephine, Napoleon re-entered Paris on the
26th of January, 1806, amidst the most enthusiastic
acclamations. The national vanity was raised to the highest
pitch by the glory and extent of territory he had acquired.
The Senate at a solemn audience besought him to accept the
title of 'the Great'; and public rejoicings lasting many days
attested his popularity. An important political event in
England opened new views of security and peace to the empire,
William Pitt, the implacable enemy of the Revolution, had died
on the 23rd of January, at the early age of 47; and the
Government was entrusted to the hands of his great opponent,
Charles James Fox.
{1346}
The disastrous results of the war of which Pitt had been the
mainstay probably hastened his death. After the capitulation
of Ulm he never rallied. The well-known friendship of Fox for
Napoleon, added to his avowed principles, afforded the
strongest hopes that England and France were at length
destined to cement the peace of the world by entering into
friendly relations. Aided by Talleyrand, who earnestly
counselled peace, Napoleon made overtures to the English
Government through Lord Yarmouth, who was among the détenus.
He offered to yield the long-contested point of
Malta--consenting to the continued possession of that island,
the Cape of Good Hope, and other conquests in the East and
West Indies by Great Britain, and proposing generally that the
treaty should be conducted on the uti possidetis principle:
that is, allowing each party to retain whatever it had
acquired in the course of the war. Turkey acknowledged
Napoleon as Emperor and entered into amicable relations with
the French nation; and what was still more important, Russia
signed a treaty of peace in July, influenced by the pacific
inclinations of the English Minister. Napoleon resolved to
surround his throne with an order of nobles, and to place
members of his family on the thrones of the conquered
countries adjoining France in order that they might become
parts of his system and co-operate in his plans. Two decrees
of the 31st of March declared Joseph Bonaparte King of Naples,
and Murat Grand Duke of Berg and Cleves. Louis Bonaparte was
made King of Holland a few months afterwards, and Jerome King
of Westphalia in the following year. The Princess Pauline
received the principality of Guastalla, and Talleyrand,
Bernadotte, and Berthier those of Benevento, Ponte-Corvo, and
Neufchâtel. Fifteen dukedoms were created and bestowed on the
most distinguished statesmen and generals of the empire, each
with an income amounting to a fifteenth part of the revenue of
the province attached to it. These became grand fiefs of the
empire. Cambacérès and Lebrun were made Dukes of Parma and
Placenza; Savary, Duke of Rovigo; Junot, of Abrantes; Lannes,
of Montebello, &c. The manners of some of these Republican
soldiers were ill adapted to courtly forms, and afforded
amusement to the members of the ancient and legitimate order.
... Napoleon's desire to conciliate and form alliances with
the established dynasties and aristocracies of Europe kept
pace with his daring encroachments on their hitherto exclusive
dignity. Besides the marriage of Eugene Beauharnais to a
Princess of Bavaria, an alliance was concluded between the
hereditary Prince of Baden and Mademoiselle Stephanie
Beauharnais, a niece of the Empress. The old French noblesse
were also encouraged to appear at the Tuileries. During the
Emperor's visit at Munich the Republican calendar was
abolished and the usual mode of computing time restored in
France. ... The negotiations with England went on tardily, and
the news of Fox's alarming state of health excited the gravest
fears in the French Government. Lord Lauderdale arrived in
Paris, on the part of England, in the month of August; but
difficulties were continually started, and before anything was
decided the death of Fox gave the finishing blow to all hope
of peace. Lord Lauderdale demanded his passports and left
Paris in October. Napoleon wished to add Sicily to his
brother's new kingdom of Naples; but British ships were able
to protect the King and Queen of Naples in that insular
position, and the English Government refused to desert their
allies on this occasion or to consent to any compensation or
adjustment offered. On this point principally turned the
failure of the attempt at peace as far as can be discovered
from the account of the negotiations."
R. H. Horne,
History of Napoleon,
chapter 26.
ALSO IN:
Madame de Rémusat,
Memoirs,
chapters 16-21 (volume 2).
Duke of Rovigo,
Memoirs,
volume 1, part 2, chapters 18-21.
P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapter 15.
FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (October).
The subjugation of Prussia at Jena.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).
FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1807.
Napoleon's campaign against the Russians.
Eylau and Friedland.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807;
and 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
FRANCE: A.D. 1806-1810.
Commercial warfare with England.
British Orders in Council and Napoleon's Berlin and Milan
Decrees.
The "Continental System."
"As the war advanced, after the Peace of Amiens, the neutrals
became bolder and more aggressive. "American ships were
constantly arriving at Dutch and French ports with sugar,
coffee, and other productions of the French and Spanish West
Indies. And East India goods were imported by them into Spain,
Holland, and France. ... By the rivers and canals of Germany
and Flanders goods were floated into the warehouses of the
enemy, or circulated far the supply of his customers in
neutral countries. ... It was a general complaint, therefore,
that the enemy carried on colonial commerce under the neutral
flag, cheaply as well as safely; that he was enabled not only
to elude British hostilities, but to rival British merchants
and planters in the European markets; that by the same means
the hostile treasuries were filled with a copious stream of
revenue; and that by this licentious use of the neutral flag,
the enemy was enabled to employ his whole military marine for
purposes of offensive war, without being obliged to maintain a
squadron or a ship for the defence of his colonial ports. ...
Such complaints made against neutral states found a powerful
exposition in a work entitled 'War in Disguise and the Frauds
of the Neutral Flag,' supposed to have been written by Mr.
James Stephen, the real author of the orders in Council. The
British Government did not see its way at once to proceed in
the direction of prohibiting to neutral ships the colonial
trade, which they had enjoyed for a considerable time; but the
first step was taken to paralyse the resources of the enemy,
and to restrict the trade of neutrals, by the issue of an
order in Council in May 1806, declaring that all the coasts,
ports, and rivers from the Elbe to Brest should be considered
blockaded, though the only portion of those coasts rigorously
blockaded was that included between the Ostend and the mouth
of the Seine, in the ports of which preparations were made for
the invasion of England. The northern ports of Germany and
Holland were left partly open, and the navigation of the
Baltic altogether free. Napoleon, then in the zenith of his
power, saw, in this order in Council, a fresh act of
wantonness, and he met it by the issue of the Berlin decree of
November 21, 1806. In that document, remarkable for its
boldness and vigour, Napoleon charged England with having set
at nought the dictates of international law, with having made
prisoners of war of private individuals, and with having taken
the crews out of merchant ships.
{1347}
He charged this country with having captured private property
at sea extended to commercial parts the restrictions of
blockade applicable only to fortified places, declared as
blockaded places which were not invested by naval forces, and
abused the right of blockade in order to benefit her own trade
at the expense of the commerce of Continental states. He
asserted the right of combating the enemy with the same arms
used against himself, especially when such enemy ignored all
ideas of justice and every liberal sentiment which
civilisation imposes. He announced his resolution to apply to
England the same usages which she had established in her
maritime legislation. He laid dawn the principles which France
was resolved to act upon until England should recognise that
the rights of war are the same on land as on sea. ... And upon
these premises the decree ordered,
1st, That the British islands should be declared in a state
of blockade.
2nd, That all commerce and correspondence with the British
islands should be prohibited; and that letters addressed to
England or Englishmen, written in the English language,
should be detained and taken.
3rd, That every British subject found in a country occupied
by French troops, or by those of their allies, should be
made a prisoner of war.
4th, That all merchandise and property belonging to British
subjects should be deemed a good prize.
5th, That all commerce in English merchandise should be
prohibited, and that all merchandise belonging to England
or her colonies, and of British manufacture, should be
deemed a good prize. And
6th, That no vessel coming direct from England or her
colonies be allowed to enter any French port, or any port
subject to French authority; and that every vessel which,
by means of a false declaration, should evade such
regulations, should at once be captured.
The British Government lost no time in retaliating against
France far so bald a course; and, on January 7, 1807, an order
in Council was issued, which, after reference to the orders
issued by France, enjoined that no vessel should be allowed to
trade from one enemy's port to another, or from one port to
another of a French ally's coast shut against English vessels;
and ordered the commanders of the ships of war and privateers
to warn every neutral vessel coming from any such port, and
destined to another such port, to discontinue her voyage, and
that any vessel, after being so warned, which should be found
proceeding to another such port should be captured and
considered as lawful prize. This order in Council having
reached Napoleon at Warsaw, he immediately ordered the
confiscation of all English merchandise and colonial produce
found in the Hanseatic Towns. ... But Britain, in return, went
a step further, and, by order in Council of November 11, 1807,
declared all the ports and places of France, and those of her
allies, and of all countries where the English flag was
excluded, even though they were not at war with Britain,
should be placed under the same restrictions for commerce and
navigation as if they were blockaded, and consequently that
ships destined to those ports should be liable to the visit of
British cruisers at a British station, and there subjected to
a tax to be imposed by the British Parliament. Napoleon was at
Milan when this order in Council was issued, and forthwith, on
December 17, the famous decree appeared, by which he imposed
on neutrals just the contrary of what was prescribed to them
by England, and further declared that every vessel, of
whatever nation, that submitted to the order in Council of
November 11, should by that very act become denationalised,
considered as British property, and condemned as a good prize.
The decree placed the British islands in a state of blockade,
and ordered that every ship, of whatever nation, and with
whatever cargo, proceeding from English ports or English
colonies to countries occupied by English troops, or going to
England, should be a good prize. This England answered by the
order in Council of April 26, 1809, which revoked the order of
1807 as regards America, but confirmed the blockade of all the
parts of France and Holland, their colonies and dependencies.
And then France, still further incensed against England,
issued the tariff of Trianon, dated August 5, 1810, completed
by the decree of St. Cloud of September 12, and of
Fontainebleau of October 19, which went the length of ordering
the seizure and burning of all British goods found in France,
Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, and in every place occupied by
French troops. ... The princes of the Rhenish Confederation
hastened to execute it, same for the purpose of enriching
themselves by the wicked deed, same out of hatred towards the
English, and some to show their devotion towards their master.
From Carlsruhe to Munich, from Cassel to Dresden and Hamburg,
everywhere, bonfires were made of English goods. And so
exacting were the French that when Frankfort exhibited the
least hesitation in carrying out the decree, French troops
were sent to execute the order. By means such as these [known
as the Continental System of Napoleon] the commerce of the
world was greatly deranged, if not destroyed altogether, and
none suffered more from them than England herself."
L. Levi,
History of British Commerce,
part 2, chapter 4
(with appended text of Orders and Decrees).
"The object of the Orders in Council was ... twofold: to
embarrass France and Napoleon by the prohibition of direct
import and export trade, of all external commerce, which for
them could only be carried on by neutrals; and at the same
time to force into the Continent all the British products or
manufactures that it could take. ... The whole system was
then, and has since been, roundly abused as being in no sense
a military measure, but merely a gigantic exhibition of
commercial greed; but this simply begs the question. To win
her fight Great Britain was obliged not only to weaken
Napoleon, but to increase her own strength. The battle between
the sea and the land was to be fought out on Commerce. England
had no army wherewith to meet Napo lean; Napoleon had no navy
to cope with that of his enemy. As in the case of an
impregnable fortress, the only alternative for either of these
contestants was to reduce the other by starvation. On the
common frontier, the coast line, they met in a deadly strife
in which no weapon was drawn. The imperial soldiers were
turned into coast-guards-men to shut out Great Britain from
her markets; the British ships became revenue cutters to
prohibit the trade of France. The neutral carrier, pocketing
his pride, offered his service to either for pay, and the
other then regarded him as taking part in hostilities.
{1348}
The ministry, in the exigencies of debate, betrayed some lack
of definite conviction as to their precise aim. Sometimes the
Orders were justified as a military measure of retaliation;
sometimes the need of supporting British commerce as essential
to her life and to her naval strength was alleged; and, their,
opponents in either case taunted them with inconsistency.
Napoleon, with despotic simplicity, announced clearly his
purpose of ruining England through her trade, and the ministry
really needed no other arguments than his avowals. 'Salus
civitatis suprema lex.' To call the measures of either not
military, is as inaccurate as it would be to call the ancient
practice of circumvallation, unmilitary, because the only
weapon used for it was the spade. ... The Orders in Council
received various modifications, due largely to the importance
to Great Britain of the American market, which absorbed a
great part of her manufactures; but these modifications,
though sensibly lightening the burden upon neutrals and
introducing some changes of form, in no sense departed from
the spirit of the originals. The entire series was finally
withdrawn in June, 1812, but too late to avert the war with
the United States, which was declared in the same month.
Napoleon never revoked his Berlin and Milan decrees, although
by a trick he induced an over-eager President of the United
States to believe that he had done so. ... The true function
of Great Britain in this long struggle can scarcely be
recognized unless there be a clear appreciation of the fact
that a really great national movement, like the French
Revolution, or a really great military power under an
incomparable general, like the French Empire under Napoleon,
is not to be brought to terms by ordinary military successes,
which simply destroy the organized force opposed. ... If the
course of aggression which Bonaparte had inherited from the
Revolution was to continue, there were needed, not the
resources of the Continent only, but of the world. There was
needed also a diminution of ultimate resistance below the
stored-up aggressive strength of France; otherwise, however
procrastinated, the time must come when the latter should
fail. On both these points Great Britain withstood Napoleon.
She shut him off from the world, and by the same act prolonged
her own powers of endurance beyond his power of aggression.
This in the retrospect of history was the function of Great
Britain, in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period; and that
the successive ministries of Pitt and his followers pursued
the course best fitted, upon the whole, to discharge that
function, is their justification to posterity."
Capt. A. T. Mahan,
The Influence of Sea Power upon the
French Revolution and Empire,
chapters 18-19 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
H. Adams,
History of the United States,
volume 3, chapters 4 and 16,
and volume 4, chapter 4.
Lord Brougham,
Life and Times, by himself,
chapter 10 (volume 2).
See also:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (February-September).
The Turkish alliance.
Ineffective attempts of England against Constantinople
and in Egypt.
See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (June-July).
The Treaties of Tilsit with Russia and Prussia.
The latter shorn of half her territory.
Formation of the kingdom of Westphalia.
Secret understandings between Napoleon and the Czar.
See GERMANY. A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (July-December).
The seeming power and real weakness of Napoleon's empire.
"The dangers ... that lay hid under the new arrangement of the
map of Europe [by, the Treaty of Tilsit], and in the results
of French conquests, were as yet withdrawn from almost every
eye; and the power of Napoleon was now at its height, though
his empire was afterwards somewhat enlarged. ... If England
still stood in arms against it, she was without an avowed ally
on the Continent; and, drawing to itself the great Power of
the North, it appeared to threaten the civilized world with
that universal and settled domination which had not been seen
since the fall of Rome. The Sovereign of France from the
Scheldt to the Pyrenees, and of Italy from the Alps to the
Tiber, Napoleon held under his immediate sway the fairest and
most favored part of the Continent; and yet this was only the
seat and centre of that far-spreading and immense authority.
One of his brothers, Louis, governed the Batavian Republic,
converted into the kingdom of Holland; another, Joseph wore
the old Crown of Naples; and a third, Jerome, sat on the new
throne of Westphalia; and he had reduced Spain to a simple
dependency, while, with Austria humbled and Prussia crushed,
he was supreme in Germany from the Rhine to the Vistula,
through his confederate, subject, or allied States. This
enormous Empire, with its vassal appendages, rested on great
and victorious armies in possession of every point of vantage
from the Niemen to the Adige and the Garonne, and proved as
yet to be irresistible; and as Germany, Holland, Poland, and
Italy swelled the forces of France with large contingents, the
whole fabric of conquest seemed firmly cemented. Nor was the
Empire the mere creation of brute force and the spoil of the
sword; its author endeavoured, in some measure, to consolidate
it through better and more lasting influences. Napoleon,
indeed, suppressed the ideas of 1789 everywhere, but he
introduced his Code and large social reforms into most of the
vassal or allied States; he completed the work of destroying
Feudalism which the Revolution had daringly begun and he left
a permanent mark on the face of Europe, far beyond the limit
of Republican France, in innumerable monuments of material
splendour. ... Nor did the Empire at this time appear more
firmly established abroad than within the limits of the
dominant State which had become mistress of Continental
Europe. The prosperity of the greater part of France was
immense; the finances, fed by the contributions of war, seemed
overflowing and on the increase; and if sounds of discontent
were occasionally heard, they were lost in the universal
acclaim which greeted the author of the national greatness,
and the restorer of social order and welfare. ... In the
splendour and success of the Imperial era, the animosities and
divisions of the past disappeared, and France seemed to form a
united people. If, too, the cost of conquest was great, and
exacted a tribute of French blood, the military power of the
Empire shone with the brightest radiance of martial renown;
Marengo, Austerlitz, Jena, and Friedland could in part console
even thinned households. ...
{1349}
The magnificent public works with which Napoleon adorned this
part of his reign increased this sentiment of national
grandeur; it was now that the Madeleine raised its front, and
the Column, moulded from captured cannon; ... and Paris,
decked out with triumphal arches, with temples of glory, and
with stately streets, put on the aspect of ancient Rome,
gathering into her lap the gorgeous spoils of subjugated and
dependent races. ... Yet, notwithstanding its apparent
strength, this structure of conquest and domination was
essentially weak, and liable to decay. The work of the sword,
and of new-made power, it was in opposition to the nature of
things. ... The material and even social benefits conferred by
the Code, and reform of abuses, could not compensate
vanquished but martial races for the misery and disgrace of
subjection; and, apart from the commercial oppression [of the
Continental System, which destroyed commerce in order to do
injury to England], ... the exasperating pressure of French
officials, the exactions of the victorious French armies, and
the severities of the conscription introduced among them,
provoked discontent in the vassal States on which the yoke of
the Empire weighed. ... The prostration, too, of Austria and
Prussia ... had a direct tendency to make these powers forget
their old discords in common suffering, and to bring to an end
the internal divisions through which France had become supreme
in Germany. ... The triumphant policy of Tilsit contained the
germs of a Coalition against France more formidable than she
had yet experienced. At the same time, the real strength of
the instrument by which Napoleon maintained his power was
being gradually but surely impaired; the imperial armies were
more and more filled with raw conscripts and ill-affected
allies, as their size increased with the extension of his
rule; and the French element in them, on which alone reliance
could be placed in possible defeat, was being dissipated,
exhausted, and wasted. ... Nor was the Empire, within France
itself, free from elements of instability and decline. The
finances, well administered as they were, were so burdened by
the charges of war that they were only sustained by conquest;
and flourishing as their condition seemed, they had been often
cruelly strained of late, and were unable to bear the shock of
disaster. The seaports were beginning to suffer from the
policy adopted to subdue England. ... Meanwhile, the continual
demands on the youth of the nation for never-ceasing wars were
gradually telling on its military power; Napoleon, after
Eylau, had had recourse to the ruinous expedient of taking
beforehand the levies which the conscription raised; and
though complaints were as yet rare, the anticipation of the
resources of France, which filled the armies with feeble boys,
unequal to the hardships of a rude campaign, had been noticed
at home as well as abroad. Nor were the moral ills of this
splendid despotism less certain than its bad material results.
... The inevitable tendency of the Empire, even at the time of
its highest glory, was to lessen manliness and self-reliance,
to fetter and demoralize the human mind, and to weaken
whatever public virtue and mental independence France
possessed; and its authority had already begun to disclose
some of the harsher features of Cæsarian despotism."
W. O'C. Morris,
The French Revolution and First Empire,
chapter 12.
"Notwithstanding so many brilliant and specious appearances,
France did not possess either true prosperity or true
greatness. She was not really prosperous; for not only was
there no feeling of security, a necessary condition for the
welfare of nations, but all the evils produced by so many
years of war still weighed heavily on her. ... She was not
really great, for all her great men had either been banished
or put to silence. She could still point with pride to her
generals and soldiers, although the army, which, if brave as
ever, had gradually sunk from the worship of the country and
liberty to that of glory, and from the worship of glory to
that of riches, was corrupt and degenerate; but where were her
great citizens? Where were her great orators, her great
politicians, her great philosophers, her great writers of
every kind? Where, at least, were their descendants? All who
had shown a spark of genius or pride had been sacrificed for
the benefit of a single man. They had disappeared; some
crushed under the wheels of his chariot, others forced to live
obscurely in some unknown retreat, and, what was graver still,
their race seemed extinct. ... France was imprisoned, as it
were, in an iron net, and the issues were closed to all the
generous and ardent youth that had either intellectual or
moral activity."
P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 3, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
H. A. Taine;
The Modern Regime,
book 1, chapter 2,
and book 3, chapter 3 (volume 1).
FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (September-November).
Forcible seizure of the Danish fleet by the English.
Frustration of Napoleon's plans.
Alliance with Denmark.
War with Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
FRANCE: A. D. 1807 (October-November).
French invasion and occupation of Portugal.
Flight of the royal family to Brazil.
Delusive treaty of partition with Spain.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.
FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.
Napoleon's alienation of Talleyrand and others.
Charles Maurice Talleyrand de Perigord, made Bishop of Autun
by King Louis XVI:, in 1789, and Prince of Benevento by
Napoleon, in 1806, had made his first appearance in public
life as one of the clerical deputies in the States-General of
1789, and had taken the popular side. He was the only bishop
having a benefice in France who took the new oath required of
the clergy, and he proposed the appropriation of church
property to the wants of the public treasury. He subsequently
consecrated the first French bishops appointed under the new
constitution, and was excommunicated therefor by the Pope. On
the approach of the Terror he escaped from France and took
refuge first in England, afterwards in the United States. In
1795 he was permitted to return to Paris, and he took an
important part in the revolution of the 18th Brumaire which
overthrew the Directory and made Napoleon First Consul. In the
new government he received the post of Minister of Foreign
Affairs, which he retained under the Empire, until 1807, when
he obtained permission to retire, with the title of
"vice-grand electeur." "M. de Talleyrand, the Empire once
established and fortunate, had attached himself to it with a
sort of enthusiasm. The poesy of victory, and the eloquence of
an exalted imagination, subdued for a time the usual
nonchalance and moderation of his character. He entered into
all Napoleon's plans for reconstituting an empire of the
Francs, and reviving the system of fiefs and feudal
dignitaries. ...
{1350}
'Any other system,' he said, 'but a military one, is in our
circumstances at present impossible. I am, then, for making
that system splendid, and compensating France for her liberty
by her grandeur.' The principality he enjoyed, though it by no
means satisfied him, was a link between him and the policy
under which he held it. ... But he had a strong instinct for
the practical; all governments, according to his theory, might
be made good, except an impossible one. A government depending
on constant success in difficult undertakings, at home and
abroad, was, according to his notions, impossible. This idea,
after the Peace of Tilsit, more or less haunted him. It made
him, in spite of himself, bitter against his chief--bitter at
first, more because he liked him than because he disliked him.
He would still have aided to save the Empire, but he was
irritated because he thought he saw the Empire drifting into a
system which would not admit of its being saved. A sentiment of
this kind, however, is as little likely to be pardoned by one
who is accustomed to consider that his will must be law, as a
sentiment of a more hostile nature. Napoleon began little by
little to hate the man for whom he had felt at one time a
predilection, and if he disliked anyone, he did that which it
is most dangerous to do, and most useless; that is, he wounded
his pride without diminishing his importance. It is true that
M. de Talleyrand never gave any visible sign of being
irritated. But few, whatever the philosophy with which they
forgive an injury, pardon an humiliation; and thus, stronger
and stronger grew by degrees that mutual dissatisfaction which
the one vented at times in furious reproaches, and the other
disguised under a studiously respectful indifference. This
carelessness as to the feelings of those whom it would have
been wiser not to offend, was one of the most fatal errors of
the conqueror. ... He had become at this time equally
indifferent to the hatred and affection of his adherents; and
... fancied that everything depended on his own merits, and
nothing on the merits of his agents. The victory of Wagram,
and the marriage with Marie-Louise, commenced, indeed, a new
era in his history. Fouché was dismissed, though not without
meriting a reprimand for his intrigues; and Talleyrand fell
into unequivocal disgrace, in some degree provoked by his
witticisms; whilst round these two men gathered a quiet and
observant opposition, descending with the clever adventurer to
the lowest classes, and ascending with the dissatisfied noble
to the highest. ... M. de Talleyrand's house then (the only
place, perhaps, open to all persons, where the government of
the day was treated without reserve) became a sort of
'rendezvous' for a circle which replied to a victory by a bon
mot, and confronted the borrowed ceremonies of a new court by
the natural graces and acknowledged fashions of an old one."
Sir H. L. Bulwer,
Historical Characters,
volume 1: Talleyrand, part 4, sections 9-10.
ALSO IN:
C. K. McHarg,
Life of Prince Talleyrand,
chapters 1-13.
Memoirs of Talleyrand,
volume 1.
FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.
Napoleon's over-ingenious plottings in Spain
for the theft of the crown.
The popular rising.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.
FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (November-February).
Napoleon in Italy.
His arbitrary changes in the Italian constitution.
His annexation of Tuscany to France.
His quarrel with the Pope and seizure of the Papal States.
"Napoleon ... set out for Italy, where great political changes
were in progress. Destined, like all the subordinate thrones
which surrounded the great nation, to share in the rapid
mutations which its government underwent, the kingdom of Italy
was soon called upon to accept a change in its constitution.
Napoleon, in consequence, suppressed the legislative body, and
substituted in its room a Senate, which was exclusively
intrusted with the power of submitting observations to
government on the public wants, and of superintending the
budget and public expenditure. As the members of this Senate
were nominated and paid by government; this last shadow of
representative institutions became a perfect mockery.
Nevertheless Napoleon was received with unbounded adulation by
all the towns of Italy; their deputies, who waited upon him at
Milan, vied with each other in elegant flattery. He was the
Redeemer of France, but the Creator of Italy: they had
supplicated heaven for his safety, for his victories; they
offered him the tribute of their eternal love and fidelity.
Napoleon received their adulation in the most gracious manner;
but he was careful not to lose sight of the main object of his
policy, the consolidation of his dominions, the rendering them
all dependent on his imperial crown, and the fostering of a
military spirit among his subjects. ... From Milan the Emperor
travelled by Verona and Padua to Venice; he there admired the
marble palaces, varied scenery, and gorgeous architecture of
the Queen of the Adriatic, which appeared to extraordinary
advantage amidst illuminations, fireworks, and rejoicings; and
returning to Milan, arranged, with an authoritative hand, all
the affairs of the peninsula. The discontent of Melzi, who
still retained a lingering partiality for the democratic
institutions which he had vainly hoped to see established in
his country, was stifled by the title of Duke of Lodi. Tuscany
was taken from the King of Etruria, on whom Napoleon had
settled it, and united to France by the title of the
department of Taro; while magnificent public works were set on
foot at Milan to dazzle the ardent imagination of the
Italians, and console them for the entire loss of their
national independence and civil liberty. The cathedral was
daily adorned with fresh works of sculpture; its exterior
decorated and restored to its original purity, while thousands
of pinnacles and statues rose on all sides, glittering in
spotless brilliancy in the blue vault of heaven. The Forum of
Buonaparte was rapidly advancing; the beautiful basso-relievos
of the arch of the Simplon already entranced the admiring gaze
of thousands; the roads of the Simplon and Mount Cenis were
kept in the finest order, and daily attracted fresh crowds of
strangers to the Italian plains. But in the midst of all this
external splendour, the remains of which still throw a halo
round the recollection of the French domination in Italy, the
finances of all the states were involved in hopeless
embarrassment, and suffering of the most grinding kind
pervaded all classes of the people. ... The encroachments thus
made on the Italian peninsula were not the only ones which
Napoleon effected, in consequence of the liberty to dispose of
western Europe acquired by him at the treaty of Tilsit. The
territory of the great nation was rounded also on the side of
Germany and Holland.
{1351}
On the 11th of November, the important town and territory of
Flushing were ceded to France by the King of Holland, who
obtained, in return, merely an elusory equivalent in East
Friesland. On the 21st of January following, a decree of the
senate united to the French empire, besides these places, the
important towns of Kehl Cassel, and Wesel, on the right bank
of the Rhine. Shortly after, the French troops, who had
already taken possession of the whole of Tuscany, in virtue of
the resignation forced upon the Queen of Etruria, invaded the
Roman territories, and made themselves masters of the ancient
capital of the world. They immediately occupied the castle of
St. Angelo, and the gates of the city, and entirely
dispossessed the papal troops [see PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814].
... France now, without disguise, assumed the right of
annexing neutral and independent states to its already
extensive dominions, by no other authority than the decree of
its own legislature."
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 51, sections 51-53 (volume 11).
ALSO IN:
C. Botta,
Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon,
chapter 5.
FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1809.
The American embargo and non-intercourse laws.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809, and 1808.
FRANCE: A.D. 1808 (May-September).
Bestowal of the Spanish crown on Joseph Bonaparte.
The national revolt.
French reverses.
Flight of Joseph Bonaparte from Madrid.
Landing of British forces in the Peninsula.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).
FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (September-October).
Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt.
The assemblage of kings.
"Napoleon's relations with the Court of Russia, at one time
very formal, became far more amicable, according as Spanish
affairs grew complicated. After the capitulation of Baylen
they became positively affectionate. The Czar was too
clear-sighted not to understand the meaning of this gradation.
He quickly understood that the more difficulties Napoleon
might create for himself in Spain, the more would he be forced
to make concessions to Russia. ... The Russian alliance, which
at Tilsit had only been an arrangement to flatter Napoleon's
ambition, had now become a necessity to him. Each side felt
this; hence the two sovereigns were equally impatient to meet
again; the one to strengthen an alliance so indispensable to
the success of his plans, the other to derive from it all the
promised advantages. It was settled, therefore, that the
desired interview should take place at Erfurt towards the end
of September, 1808. ... The two Emperors met on the 27th of
September, on the road between Weimar and Erfurt. They
embraced each other with that air of perfect cordiality of
which kings alone possess the secret, especially when their
intention is rather to stifle than to embrace. They made their
entry into the town on horseback together, amidst an immense
concourse of people. Napoleon had wished by its magnificence
to render the reception worthy of the illustrious guests who
had agreed to meet at Erfurt. He had sent thither from the
storehouses of the crown, bronzes, porcelain, the richest
hangings, and the most sumptuous furniture. He desired that
the Comédie-Française should heighten the brilliant effects of
these fêtes by performing the chief masterpieces of our stage,
from 'Cinna' down to 'La Mort de César,' before this royal
audience. ... All the natural adherents of Napoleon hastened
to answer his appeal by flocking to Erfurt, for he did not
lose sight of his principal object, and his desire was to
appear before Europe surrounded by a court composed of kings.
In this cortege were to be seen those of Bavaria, of
Wurtemburg, of Saxony, of Westphalia, and Prince William of
Prussia; and beside these stars of first magnitude twinkled
the obscure Pleiades of the Rhenish Confederation. The
reunion, almost exclusively German, was meant to prove to
German idealists the vanity of their dreams. Were not all
present who had any weight in Germany from their power, rank,
or riches? Was it not even hinted that the Emperor of Austria
had implored the favour, without being able to obtain it, of
admission to the conferences of Erfurt? This report was most
improbable. ... The kings of intellect came in their turn to
bow down before Cæsar. Goethe and Wieland were presented to
Napoleon; they appeared at his court, and by their glory
adorned his triumph. German patriotism was severely tried at
Erfurt; but it may be said that of all its humiliations the
one which the Germans most deeply resented was that of
beholding their greatest literary genius decking himself out
with Napoleon's favours [the decoration of the Legion of
Honour, which Goethe accepted]. ... The theatrical effect
which Napoleon had in view in this solemn show at Erfurt
having once been produced, his principal object was attained,
for the political questions which remained for settlement with
Alexander could not raise any serious difficulty. In view of

the immediate and certain session of two such important
provinces as those of Wallachia and Moldavia, the Czar,
without much trouble, renounced that division of the Ottoman
Empire with which he had been tantalised for more than a year.
... He bound himself ... by the Treaty of Erfurt to continue his
co-operation with Napoleon in the war against England (Article
2), and, should it so befall, also against Austria (Article
10); but the affairs in Spain threw every attack upon England
into the background. ... The only very distinct engagement
which the treaty imposed on Alexander was the recognition of
the new order of things established by France in Spain.'"
P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 3, chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
Prince Talleyrand,
Memoirs,
volume 1.
FRANCE: A. D. 1808-1809.
Reverses in Portugal.
Napoleon in the field.
French victories resumed.
The check at Corunna.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (January-September).
Reopened war with Austria.
Napoleon's advance to Vienna.
His defeat at Aspern and victory at Wagram.
The Peace of Schönbrunn.
Fresh acquisitions of territory.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE),
and (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (February-July).
Wellington's check to the French in Spain and Portugal.
His passage of the Douro.
Battle of Talavera.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (May).
Annexation of the States of the Church.
Removal of the Pope to Savona.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
FRANCE: A. D. 1809 (December).
Withdrawal of the English from Spain into Portugal.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
{1352}
FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (February-December).
Annexations of territory to the empire.
Holland, the Hanse Towns, and the Valais in Switzerland.
Other reconstructions of the map of Germany.
"It was not till December 10th 1810 [after the abdication of
King Louis--see NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1806-1810] that
Holland was united to France by a formal senatus-consulte. By
the first article of the same law, the Hanse Towns [Hamburg,
Bremen, and Lubeck], the Duchy of Lauenburg, and the countries
situated between the North Sea and a line drawn from the
confluence of the Lippe with the Rhine to Halteren, from
Halteren to the Ems above Telgte, from the Ems to the
confluence of the Werra with the Weser, and from Stolzenau on
that river to the Elbe, above the confluence of the Stecknitz,
were at the same time incorporated with the French Empire. ...
The line described would include the northern part of
Westphalia and Hanover, and the duchy of Oldenburg. ... The
Duke of Oldenburg having appealed to the Emperor of Russia,
the head of his house, against this spoliation, Napoleon
offered to compensate him with the town and territory of
Erfurt and the lordship of Blankenheim, which had remained
under French administration since the Peace of Tilsit. But
this offer was at once rejected, and Alexander reserved, by a
formal protest, the rights of his relative. This annexation
was only the complement of other incorporations with the
French Empire during the year 1810. Early in the year, the
Electorate of Hanover had been annexed to the Kingdom of
Westphalia. On February 16th Napoleon had erected the Grand
Duchy of Frankfort, and presented it to the Prince Primate of
the Confederation of the Rhine, with a reversal in favour of
Eugene Beauharnais. On November 12th the Valais in Switzerland
was also annexed to France, with the view of securing the road
over the Simplon. Of all these annexations, that of the Hanse
Towns and the districts on the North Sea was the most
important, and one of the principal causes of the war that
ensued between France and Russia. These annexations were made
without the slightest negociation with any European cabinet,
and it would be superfluous to add, without even a pretext of
right, though the necessity of them from the war with England
was alleged as the motive."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 7, chapter 15, with foot-note (volume 4).
"'The English,' said Napoleon, 'have torn asunder the public
rights of Europe; a new order of things governs the universe.
Fresh guarantees having become necessary to me, the annexation
of the mouths of the Scheldt, of the Meuse, of the Rhine, of
the Ems, of the Weser, and of the Elbe to the Empire appears
to me to be the first and the most important. ... The
annexation of the Valais is the anticipated result of the
immense works that I have been making for the past ten years
in that part of the Alps.' And this was all. To justify such
violence he did not condescend to allege any pretext--to urge
forward opportunities that were too long in developing, or to
make trickery subserve the use of force--he consulted nothing
but his policy; in other words, his good pleasure. To take
possession of a country, it was sufficient that the country
suited him: he said so openly, as the simplest thing in the
world, and thought proper to add that these new usurpations
were but a beginning, the first, according to his own
expression, of those which seemed to him still necessary. And
it was Europe, discontented, humbled, driven wild by the
barbarous follies of the continental system, that he thus
defied, as though he wished at any cost to convince every one
that no amicable arrangement or conciliation was possible; and
that there was but one course for governments or men of spirit
to adopt, that of fighting unto death."
P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 4, chapter 2.
FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
Continued hostile attitude towards
the United States of America.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.
FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
The War in the Peninsula.
Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.
French retreat from Portugal.
English advance into Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER),
and 1810-1812.
FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
Napoleon's divorce from Josephine and marriage to
Marie-Louise of Austria.
His rupture with the Czar and
preparations for war with Russia.
"Napoleon now revived the idea which he had often entertained
before, of allying himself with one of the great ruling
families. A compliant senate and a packed ecclesiastical
council pronounced his separation from Josephine Beauharnais,
who retired with a magnificent pension to Malmaison, where she
died. As previous marriage proposals to the Russian court had
not been cordially received, Napoleon now turned to Austria.
The matter was speedily arranged with Metternich, and in
March, 1810, the archduchess Maria Louisa arrived in France as
the emperor's wife. The great importance of the marriage was
that it broke the last links which bound Russia to France, and
thus overthrew the alliance of Tilsit. Alexander had been
exasperated by the addition of Western Galicia to the
grand-duchy of Warsaw, which he regarded as a step towards the
restoration of Poland, and therefore as a breach of the
engagement made at Tilsit. The annexation of Oldenburg, whose
duke was a relative of the Czar, was a distinct personal
insult. Alexander showed his irritation by formally deserting
the continental system, which was more ruinous to Russia than
to almost any other country, and by throwing his ports open to
British commerce (December 1810). ... The chief grievance to
Russia was the apparent intention of Napoleon to do something
for the Poles. The increase of the grand-duchy of Warsaw by
the treaty of Vienna was so annoying to Alexander, that he
began to meditate on the possibility of restoring Poland
himself, and making it a dependent kingdom for the Czar, in
the same way as Napoleon had treated Italy. He even went so
far as to sound the Poles on the subject; but he found that
they had not forgotten the three partitions of their country,
and that their sympathies were rather with France than with
Russia. At the same time Napoleon was convinced that until
Russia was subdued his empire was unsafe, and all hopes of
avenging himself upon England were at an end. All through the
year 1811 it was known that war was inevitable, but neither
power was in a hurry to take the initiative. Meanwhile the
various powers that retained nominal independence had to make
up their minds as to the policy they would pursue. For no
country was the decision harder than for Prussia. Neutrality
was out of the question, as the Prussian territories, lying
between the two combatants, must be occupied by one or the
other.
{1353}
The friends and former Colleagues of Stein were unanimous for
a Russian alliance and a desperate struggle for liberty. But
Hardenberg, who had become chancellor in 1810, was too prudent
to embark in a contest, which at the time was hopeless. The
Czar had not been so consistent in his policy as to be a very
desirable ally; and, even with Russian assistance, it was
certain that the Prussian frontiers could not be defended
against the French, who had already garrisons in the chief
fortresses. Hardenberg fully sympathised with the patriots,
but he sacrificed enthusiasm to prudence, and offered the
support of Prussia to France. The treaty was arranged on the
24th of February, 1812. Frederick William gave the French a
free passage through his territories, and undertook to furnish
20,000 men for service in the field, and as many more for
garrison duty. In return for this Napoleon guaranteed the
security of the Prussian kingdom as it stood, and held out the
prospect of additions to it. It was an unnatural and hollow
alliance, and was understood to be so by the Czar.
Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and other friends of Stein resigned
their posts, and many Prussian officers entered the service of
the Czar. Austria, actuated by similar motives, adopted the same
policy, but with less reluctance. After this example had been
set by the two great powers, none of the lesser states of
Germany dared to disobey the peremptory orders of Napoleon.
But Turkey and Sweden, both of them old allies of France, were
at this crisis in the opposition. ... The Swedes were
threatened with starvation by Napoleon's stern command to
close their ports not only against English, but against all
German vessels. Bernadotte, who had just been adopted as the
heir of the childless Charles XIII.; determined to throw in
his lot with his new country, rather than with his old
commander. He had also hopes of compensating Sweden for the
loss of Finland by wresting Norway from the Danes, and this
would never be agreed to by France. Accordingly Sweden
prepared to support the cause of Alexander."
R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 24, sections 88 and 41.
"Napoleon's Russian expedition should not be regarded as an
isolated freak of insane pride. He himself regarded it as the
unfortunate effect of a fatality, and he betrayed throughout
an unwonted reluctance and perplexity. 'The war must take
place,' he said, 'it lies in the nature of things.' That is,
it arose naturally, like the other Napoleonic wars, out of the
quarrel with England. Upon the Continental system he had
staked everything. He had united all Europe in the crusade
against England, and no state, least of all such a state as
Russia, could withdraw from the system without practically
joining England. Nevertheless, we may wonder that, if he felt
obliged to make war on Russia, he should have chosen to wage
it in the manner he did, by an overwhelming invasion. For an
ordinary war his resources were greatly superior to those of
Russia. A campaign on the Lithuanian frontier would no doubt
have been unfavourable to Alexander, and might have forced him
to concede the points at issue. Napoleon had already
experienced in Spain the danger of rousing national spirit. It
seems, however, that this lesson had been lost on him."
J. R. Seeley,
Short History of Napoleon,
chapter 5, section 3.
"Warnings and cautions were not ... wanting to him. He had
been at several different times informed of the desperate
plans of Russia and her savage resolve to destroy all around
him, provided he could be involved in the destruction of the
Empire. He was cautioned, with even more earnestness, of the
German conspiracies. Alquier transmitted to him from Stockholm
a significant remark of Alexander's: 'If the Emperor Napoleon
should experience a reverse, the whole of Germany will rise to
oppose his retreat, or to prevent the arrival of his
reinforcements.' His brother Jerome, who was still better
situated for knowing what was going on in Germany, informed
him, in the month of January, 1811, of the proposal that had
been made to him to enter into a secret league against France,
but the only thanks he received from Napoleon was reproach for
having encouraged such overtures by his equivocal conduct. ...
Marshal Davout and General Rapp transmitted him identically
the same information from Hamburg and Dantzig. But far from
encouraging such confidential communications, Napoleon was
irritated by them. ... 'I do not know why Rapp meddles in what
does not concern him [he wrote]. ... I beg you will not place
such rhapsodies under my eyes. My time is too precious to
waste on such twaddle.' ... In presence of such hallucination,
caused by pride and infatuation, we seem to hear Macbeth in
his delirium insulting the messengers who announced to him the
approach· of the enemy's armies."
P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 4, chapter 6.
"That period ought to have been esteemed the happiest of
Napoleon's life. What more could the wildest ambition desire?
... All obeyed him. Nothing was wanting to make him happy!
Nothing, if he could be happy who possessed not a love of
justice. ... The being never existed who possessed ampler
means for promoting the happiness of mankind. Nothing was
required but justice and prudence. The nation expected these
from him, and granted him that unlimited confidence which he
afterwards so cruelly abused. ... Instead of considering with
calmness and moderation how he might best employ his vast
resources, he ruminated on projects beyond the power of man to
execute; forgetting what innumerable victims must be
sacrificed in the vain attempt. ... He aspired at universal
despotism, for no other reason than because a nation, isolated
from the continent and profiting by its happy situation, had
refused to submit to his intolerable·yoke. ... In the hope of
conquering that invincible enemy, he vainly endeavoured to
grasp the extremities of Europe. ... Misled by his rash and
hasty temper, he adopted a false line of politics, and
converted in the north, as he had done before in the south,
the most useful and powerful of his allies into a dangerous
enemy."
E. Labaume,
Circumstantial Narrative of the Campaign in Russia,
part 1, book 1.
ALSO IN:
C. Joyneville,
Life and Times of Alexander I.,
volume 2, chapter 3.
Imbert de Saint Amand,
Memoirs of the Empress Marie Louise.
FRANCE: A. D. 1812 (June).
The captive Pope brought to Fontainebleau.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
FRANCE: A. D. 1812 (June-August).
Defeat by the English in Spain at Salamanca.
Abandonment of Madrid by King Joseph.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).
{1354}
FRANCE: A. D. 1812 (June-December).
Napoleon's Russian campaign.
The advance to Moscow.
The burning of the city.
The retreat and its horrors.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812.
FRANCE: A. D. 1812-1813 (December-March)
Napoleon's return from Russia.
His measures for creating a new army.
"Whilst Europe, agitated at once by hope, by fear, and by
hatred, was inquiring what had become of Napoleon, whether he
had perished or had been saved, he was crossing in a
sledge--accompanied by the Duke of Vicenza, the Grand Marshal
Duroc, Count Lobau, General Lefevre-Desnouettes, and the
Mameluke Rustan--the vast, plains of Lithuania, of Poland, and
of Saxony, concealed by thick furs; for if his name had been
imprudently uttered, or his countenance recognised, a tragical
catastrophe would have instantly ensued. The man who had so
greatly excited the admiration of nations, who was the object
of their ... superstition, would not at that moment have
escaped their fury. In two places only did he allow himself to
be known, Warsaw and Dresden. ... That he might not occasion
too great surprise, he caused himself to be preceded by an
officer with a few lines for the 'Moniteur,' saying that on
December 5 he had assembled his generals at Smorgoni, had
delegated the command to King Murat, only so long as military
operations were interrupted by the cold, that he had traversed
Warsaw and Dresden, and that he was about to arrive in Paris
to take in hand the affairs of the Empire. ... Napoleon
followed close on the steps of the officer who was to announce
his arrival. On December 18, at half-past 11 P. M., he entered
the Tuileries. ... On the next morning, the 19th, he received
the ministers and grandees of the court ... with extreme
hauteur, maintaining a tranquil but severe aspect, appearing
to expect explanations instead of affording them himself,
treating foreign affairs as of minor consequence, and those of
a domestic nature as of principal import, demanding some light
upon these last,--in short, questioning others in order to
avoid being questioned himself. ... On Sunday, the 20th of
December, the second day after his arrival, Napoleon received
the Senate, the Council of State, and the principal branches
of the administration," which severally addressed to him the
most fulsome flatteries and assurances of support. "After an
infuriated populace basely outraging vanquished princes,
nothing can be seen more melancholy than these great bodies
prostrating themselves at the feet of a power, bestowing upon
it a degree of admiration which increases with its errors,
speaking with ardour of their fidelity, already about to
expire, and swearing to die in its cause when they are on the
eve of hailing the accession of another. Happy are those
countries whose established Constitutions spare them these
humiliating spectacles!" As speedily as possible, Napoleon
applied himself to the recreation of his lost army, by
anticipating the conscription for 1814, and by making new
calls upon the classes which had already furnished their
contingents. All his measures were submissively sanctioned by
the obsequious Senate; but many murmurs of discontent were
heard among the people, and some movements of resistance
needed to be put down. "However, when the enlightened classes
of a country approve a measure, their support is extremely
efficacious. In France, all those classes perceiving that it
was necessary energetically to defend the country against a
foreign enemy, though the Government had been still more in
the wrong than they were, the levies were effected, and the
high functionaries, sustained by a moral acquiescence which
they had not always obtained, fulfilled their duty, though in
heart full of sad and sinister forebodings."
A. Thiers,
History of the Consulate and the Empire,
book 47 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
Duchess d'Abrantes, Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapter 43.
FRANCE: A. D. 1812-1813.
Germanic rising against Napoleon.
War of Liberation.
Lützen.
Bautzen.
Dresden.
Leipsic.
The retreat of the French from beyond the Rhine.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813,
to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
FRANCE: A. D. 1813 (February-March).
The new Concordat signed and retracted by the Pope.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
FRANCE: A. D. 1813 (June-November).
Defeat at Vittoria and in the Pyrenees.
Retreat from Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
FRANCE: A. D. 1813 (November-December).
Dutch independence regained.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1813.
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (January).
The Pope set free to return to Rome.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (January-March).
The allied invasion.
Napoleon's campaign of defense.
His cause lost.
Surrender of Paris.
"The battle of Leipzig was the overthrow of the French rule in
Germany; there only remained, as evidence of what they had
lost, 150,000 men, garrisons of the fortresses of the Vistula,
the Oder, and the Elbe. Each success of the allies had been
marked by the desertion of one of the peoples that had
furnished its contingent to the Grand Army of 1812: after
Prussia, Austria; at Leipzig the Saxons: the French had not
been able to regain the Rhine except by passing over the
bodies of the Bavarians at Hanau. Baden, Wurtemberg, Hesse,
and Darmstadt declared their defection at nearly the same
time; the sovereigns were still hesitating whether to separate
themselves from Napoleon, when their people and regiments,
worked upon by the German patriots, had already passed into
the allied camp. Jerome Bonaparte had again quitted Cassel;
Denmark found Itself forced to adhere to the Coalition.
Napoleon had retired to the left bank of the Rhine. Would
Alexander cross this natural frontier of revolutionary France?
'Convinced,' says M. Bogdanovitch, 'by the experience of many
years, that neither losses inflicted on Napoleon, nor treaties
concluded with him, could check his insatiable ambition,
Alexander would not stop at setting free the involuntary
allies of France, and resolved to pursue the war till he had
overthrown his enemy.' The allied sovereigns found themselves
reunited at Frankfort, and an immediate march to Paris was
discussed. Alexander, Stein. Blücher, Gneisenau, and all the
Prussians were on the side of decisive action. The Emperor
Francis and Metternich only desired Napoleon to be weakened,
as his downfall would expose Austria to another danger, the
preponderance of Russia on the Continent. Bernadotte insisted
on Napoleon's dethronement, with the ridiculous design of
appropriating the crown of France, traitor as he was to her
cause. England would have preferred a solid and immediate
peace to a war which would exhaust her in subsidies, and
augment her already enormous debt. These divergencies, these
hesitations, gave Napoleon time to strengthen his position.
{1355}
After Hanau, in the opinion of Ney, 'the allies might have
counted their stages to Paris.' Napoleon had re-opened the
negotiations. The relinquishment of Italy (when Murat on his
side negotiated the preservation of his kingdom of Naples), of
Holland, of Germany, and of Spain, and the confinement of
France between her natural boundaries of the Rhine and the
Alps; such were the 'Conditions of Frankfort.' Napoleon sent
an answer to Metternich, 'that he consented to the opening of
a congress at Mannheim: that the conclusion of a peace which
would insure the independence of all the nations of the earth
had always been the aim of his policy.' This reply seems
evasive, but could the proposals of the allies have been
serious? Encouraged by disloyal Frenchmen, they published the
declaration of Frankfort, by which they affirmed 'that they
did not make war with France, but against the preponderance
which Napoleon had long exercised beyond the limits of his
empire.' Deceitful assurance, too obvious snare, which could
only take in a nation weary of war, enervated by twenty-two
years of sterile victories, and at the end of its resources!
During this time Alexander, with the deputies of the Helvetian
Diet summoned at Frankfort, discussed the basis of a new Swiss
Confederation. Holland was already raised by the partisans of
the house of Orange, and entered by the Prussians. The
campaign of France began. Alexander issued at Freiburg a
proclamation to his troops. ... He refused to receive
Caulaincourt at Freiburg, declaring that he would only treat
in France. 'Let us spare the French negotiator the trouble of
the journey,' he said to Metternich. 'It does not seem to me a
matter of indifference to the allied sovereigns, whether the
peace with France is signed on this side of the Rhine, or on
the other, in the very heart of France. Such an historical
event is well worth a change of quarters.' Without counting
the armies of Italy and the Pyrenees, Napoleon had now a mere
handful of troops, 80,000 men, spread from Nimeguen to Bâle,
to resist 500,000 allies. The army of the North
(Wintzingerode) invaded Holland, Belgium, and the Rhenish
provinces; the army of Silesia (Blücher) crossed the Rhine
between Mannheim and Coblentz and entered Nancy; the army of
Bohemia (Schwartzenberg) passed through Switzerland, and
advanced on Troyes, where the Royalists demanded the
restoration of the Bourbons. Napoleon was still able to bar
for some time the way to his capital. He first attacked the
army of Silesia; he defeated the vanguard, the Russians of
Sacken, at St. Didier, and Blücher at Brienne; but at La
Rothière he encountered the formidable masses of the Silesian
and Bohemian armies, and after a fierce battle (1st February,
1814) had to fall back on Troyes. After this victory had
secured their junction, the two armies separated again, the
one to go down the Marne, the other the Seine, with the
intention of reuniting at Paris. Napoleon profited by this
mistake. He threw himself on the left flank of the army of
Silesia, near Champeaubert, where he dispersed the troops of
Olsoufief and Poltaratski, inflicting on them a loss of 2,500
men, and took the generals prisoners. At Montmirail, in spite
of the heroism of Zigrote and Lapoukhine, he defeated Sacken;
the Russians alone lost 2,800 men and five guns (11th
February). At Château Thierry, he defeated Sacken and York
reunited, and again the Russians lost 1,500 men and five guns.
At Vauchamp it was the turn of Blücher, who lost 2,000
Russians, 4,000 Prussians, and fifteen guns. The army of
Silesia was in terrible disorder. 'The peasants, exasperated
by the disorder inseparable from a retreat, and excited by
exaggerated rumours of French successes, took up arms, and
refused supplies. The soldiers suffered both from cold and
hunger, Champagne affording no wood for bivouac fires. When
the weather became milder, their shoes wore out, and the men,
obliged to make forced marches with bare feet, were carried by
hundreds into the hospitals of the country' (Bogdanovitch).
Whilst the army of Silesia retreated in disorder on the army
of the North, Napoleon, with 50,000 soldiers full of
enthusiasm, turned on that of Bohemia, crushed the Bavarians
and Russians at Mormans, the Wurtembergers at Montereau, the
Prussians at Méry: these Prussians made part of the army of
Blücher, who had detached a corps to hang on the rear of
Napoleon. This campaign made a profound impression on the
allies. Castlereagh expressed, in Alexander's presence, the
opinion that peace should be made before they were driven
across the Rhine. The military chiefs began to feel uneasy.
Sesslavine sent news from Joigny that Napoleon had 180,000 men
at Troyes. A general insurrection of the eastern provinces was
expected in the rear of the allies. It was the firmness of
Alexander which maintained the Coalition, it was the military
energy of Blücher which saved it. Soon after his disasters he
received reinforcements from the army of the North, and took
the offensive against the marshals; then, hearing of the
arrival of Napoleon at La Ferté Gaucher, he retreated in great
haste, finding an unexpected refuge at Soissons, which had
just been taken by the army of the North. At Craonne (March 7)
and at Laon (10th to 12th March), with 100,000 men against
80,000, and with strong positions, he managed to repulse all
the attacks of Napoleon. At Craonne, however, the Russian loss
amounted to 5,000 men, the third of their effective force. The
battle of Laon cost them 4,000 men. Meanwhile, De Saint
Priest, a general in Alexander's service, had taken Rheims by
assault, but was dislodged by Napoleon after a fierce
struggle, where the émigré commander was badly wounded, and
4,000 of his men were killed (13th, March). The Congress of
Châtillon-sur-Seine was opened on the 28th of February. Russia
was represented by Razoumovski and Nesselrode, Napoleon by
Caulaincourt, Austria by Stadion and Metternich. The
conditions proposed to Napoleon were the reduction of France
to its frontiers of 1792, and the right of the allies to
dispose, without reference to him, of the reconquered
countries. Germany was to be a confederation of independent
States, Italy to be divided into free States, Spain to be
restored to Ferdinand, and Holland to the house of Orange.
Leave France smaller than I found her? Never!' said Napoleon.
Alexander and the Prussians would not hear of a peace which
left Napoleon on the throne. Still, however, they negotiated.
Austria and England were both agreed not to push him to
extremities, and many times proposed to treat. After
Napoleon's great success against Blücher, Castlereagh declared
for peace. 'It would not be a peace,' cried the Emperor of
Russia; 'it would be a truce which would not allow us to
disarm one moment. I cannot come 400 leagues every day to your
assistance.
{1356}
No peace, as long as Napoleon is on the throne.' Napoleon, in
his turn, intoxicated by his success, enjoined Caulaincourt
only to treat on the basis of Frankfort--natural frontiers.
... As fortune returned· to the allies, the congress was
dissolved (19th of March). The Bourbon princes were already in
France; Louis XVIII. was on the point of being proclaimed.
Alexander, tired of seeing the armies of Bohemia and Silesia
fly in turn before thirty or forty thousand French, caused the
allies to adopt the fatal plan of a march on Paris, which was
executed in eight days. Blücher and Schwartzenberg united,
with 200,000 men, were to bear down all opposition on their
passage. The first act in the drama was the battle of
Arcissur-Aube, where the Russians took six guns from Napoleon.
The latter conceived a bold scheme, which perhaps might have
saved him if Paris could have resisted, but which was his
ruin. He threw himself on the rear of the allied army,
abandoning to them the route to Paris, but reckoning on
raising Eastern France, and cutting off their retreat to the
Rhine. The allies, uneasy for one moment, were reassured by an
intercepted letter of Napoleon's, and by the letters of the
Parisian royalists, which revealed to them the weakness of the
capital. 'Dare all!' writes Talleyrand to them. They, in their
turn, deceived Napoleon, by causing him to be followed by a
troop of cavalry, continued their march, defeated Marmont and
Mortier, crushed the National Guards of Pacthod (battle of La
Fère-Champenoise); and arrived in sight of Paris. Barclay de
Tolly, forming the centre, first attacked the plateau of
Romainville, defended by Marmont; on his left, the Prince of
Wurtemberg threatened Vincennes; and on his right, Blücher
deployed before Montmartre, which was defended by Mortier. The
heights of Chaumont and those of Montmartre were taken;
Marmont and Mortier with Moncey were thrown back on the
ramparts. Marmont obtained an armistice from Colonel Orlof, to
treat for the capitulation of Paris. King Joseph, the Empress
Marie-Louise, and all the Imperial Government had already fled
to the Loire. Paris was recommended to the generosity of the
allied monarchs'; the army could retire on the road to
Orleans. Such was the battle of Paris; it had cost, according
to M. Bogdanovitch, 8,400 men to the allies, and 4,000 to the
French (30th March). ... The allied troops maintained a
strict discipline, and were not quartered on the inhabitants.
Alexander had not come as a friend of the Bourbons--the
fiercest enemy of Napoleon, was least bitter against the
French; he intended leaving them the choice of their
government. He had not favoured any of the intrigues of the
émigrés, and had scornfully remarked to Jomini, 'What are the
Bourbons to me?'"
A. Rambaud,
History of Russia,
volume 2, chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
C. Joyneville,
Life and Times of Alexander I.,
volume 3, chapter 1.
M. de Beauchamp,
Narrative of the Invasions of France, 1814-15.
Duke de Rovigo,
Memoirs,
volume 3, part 2, chapters 20-32.
J. Philippart,
Campaign in Germany and France, 1818,
volume 1, pages 279 and after, and volume 2.
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (January-May).
Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.
Murat's treaty with the allies.
French evacuation of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1814.
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (February-April).
Reverses in the south.
Wellington's invasion.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (March-April).
Friendly reception of the Allies in Paris.
Collapse of the empire.
Abdication of Napoleon.
Treaty of Fontainebleau.
"At an early hour in the morning [of the 31st of March], the
Allied troops had taken possession of the barriers, and
occupied the principal avenues leading to the city. Picquets
of the Cossacks of the Guard were stationed at the corners of
the principal streets. Vast multitudes thronged the
Boulevards, in anxious and silent expectation of pending
events. The royalists alone were active. The leaders, a small
band indeed, had early assembled in the Place Louis XV.,
whence, with Bourbon banners displayed, they proceeded along
the principal streets, haranguing the people and National
Guard; but though not interfered with by the police,--for all
seemed to feel that the Imperial government was at an
end,--they were listened to with such perfect indifference,
that many began to think their cause absolutely hopeless. It
was between ten and eleven o'clock when the procession began
to enter the city. Light horsemen of the Russian Guard opened
the march; at the head of the main column rode the Emperor of
Russia and the King of Prussia. ... Then followed 35,000 men,
cavalry, infantry, and artillery, the elite of the armies, in
all the pride and circumstance of war and conquest. At first
the multitude looked on in silent amazement; but the
affability of the officers, above all, the condescending
manner of the Czar, dispelled any fear they might still
entertain; and shouts of 'Vive Alexander!' began to be heard;
cries of 'Vive le Roi de Prusse!' were soon added. ... The
shouts of welcome increased at every step. The conquerors were
now hailed as liberators; 'Vivent les Allies!' 'Vivent nos
liberateurs!' sounded through the air, mingled at last with
the long-forgotten cry of 'Vive le Roi!' 'Vivent les
Bourbons!' ... The Emperor Alexander had no sooner seen the
troops file past on the Place Louis XV., than he repaired to
the hôtel of Talleyrand, where in the evening, a council was
assembled to deliberate on the important step next to be
taken, and, on the best mode of turning the glorious victories
achieved to an honourable and beneficial account. ... The
points discussed were:
I. The possibility, on sufficient guarantees, of a peace
with Napoleon;
II. The plan of regency under Marie Louise; and,
III. The restoration of the Bourbons.
The choice was not without difficulties. The first plan was
easily dismissed; as the reception of the Allies proved
clearly that the power of Napoleon was broken. The second
seemed more likely to find favour, as promising to please the
Emperor of Austria; but was finally rejected, as being, in
fact, nothing more than a continuance of the Imperial reign
under a different title. Against the restoration of the
Bourbons, it was urged that the nation at large had evinced no
desire for their recall, and seemed to have almost forgotten
them. This, Talleyrand said, was owing entirely to the
Congress of Chatillon, and the negotiations carried on with
Napoleon; introducing at the same time, the Abbé de Pradt and
Baron Louis, who fully confirmed the assertion. On being asked
how he expected to obtain a declaration in favour of the
exiled family, Talleyrand replied, that he was certain of the
Senate; and that their vote would influence Paris, the example
of which would be followed by all France.
{1357}
Alexander having on this assurance taken the opinion of the
King of Prussia and Prince Schwarzenberg, signed a declaration
to the effect that 'the Allies would treat no more with
Napoleon Bonaparte, or with any member of his family.' A
proclamation was issued at the same time, calling on the
conservative Senate to assemble and form a provisional
government, for the purpose of drawing up a constitution
suitable to the wishes of the French people. This the Allies
promised to guarantee; as it was their wish, they said, to see
France 'powerful, happy, and prosperous.' A printer was ready
in attendance; and before dark, this memorable decree was seen
placarded in all the streets of Paris. The inconstant populace
had not even waited for such a sig nal, and had been already
engaged in destroying the emblems of the Imperial government; an
attempt had even been made to pull down the statue of Napoleon
from the summit of the column of Austerlitz, in the Place
Vendome! The decisive impulse thus given, events moved rapidly
forward. Caulaincourt's zealous efforts in favour of his
master could effect nothing after the declaration already
noticed. On the 2d, he took his departure for Fontainbleau;
having, however, received the assurance that Napoleon would be
suitably provided for. ... The funds rose five per cent., and all
other public securities in proportion, on the very day after
the occupation of the capital; and wherever the Allied
Sovereigns appeared in public, they were loudly cheered and
hailed as liberators. From the first, officers of the Allied
armies filled the public walks, theatres, and coffee-houses,
and mixed with the people as welcome guests rather than as
conquering invaders. The press, so long enslaved by Napoleon,
took the most decided part against its oppressor; and from
every quarter injurious pamphlets, epigrams, and satires, now
poured upon the fallen ruler. Madame de Staël had
characterised him as 'Robespierre on horseback'; De Pradt had
more wittily termed him 'Jupiter Scapin'; and these sayings
were not forgotten. But by far the most vivid sensation was
produced by Chateaubriand's tract of 'Bonaparte and the
Bourbons'; 30,000 copies of which are said to have been sold
in two days. In proportion as the popular hatred of the
Emperor evinced itself, grew the boldness of his adversaries.
On the first of April, the Municipal Council of Paris met and
already declared the throne vacant; on the next day, the
Conservative Senate formed a Provisional Government, and
issued a decree, declaring, first,'That Napoleon Bonaparte had
forfeited the throne and the right of inheritance established in
his family; 2d, That the people and army of France were
disengaged and freed from the oath of fidelity which they had
taken to him and his constitution.' ... The members of the
Legislative Assembly who happened to be in Paris, followed the
example of the Senate. The Assembly had been dissolved in
January, and could not meet constitutionally unless summoned
by the Sovereign; this objection was, however, set aside, and
the Assembly having met, ratified the act of deposition passed
by the Senate. All the public functionaries, authorities and
constituted bodies in and near Paris, hastened to send in
their submission to the new powers: it was a general race in
which honour was not always the prize of speed; for every
address, every act of submission sent in to the new
government, teemed with invectives against the deposed ruler.
... It was in the night between the 2d and 3d, that
Caulaincourt returned from his mission, and informed Napoleon
of the events which had passed. ... In what manner the Emperor
received these fatal tidings we are not told. ... At first it
would seem that he entertained, or affected to entertain,
thoughts of resorting to arms; for in the morning he reviewed
his Guard, and addressed them in the following
terms:--'Officers and soldiers of my Old Guard, the enemy has
gained three marches on us, and outstripped us at Paris. Some
factious men, emigrants whom I had pardoned, have surrounded
the Emperor Alexander; they have mounted the white cockade,
and would force us to do the same. In a few days I shall
attack the enemy, and force them to quit the capital. I rely
on you: am I right?' The troops readily replied with loud
cheers to this address, calling out 'To Paris! 'to Paris!' but
the Marshals and senior officers were by no means so zealous
in the cause. ... The Generals and Marshals ... followed the
Emperor to his apartments after the review; and having advised
him to negotiate with the Allies, on the principle of a
personal abdication, ended by informing him, that they would
not accompany him if he persisted in the proposed attack on
Paris. The scene which followed seems to have been of a very
undignified description. Napoleon was almost convulsed with
rage; he tore and trampled under foot the decree of the
Senate; vowed vengeance against the whole body, who should
yet, he said, be made to pay for their deed of 'felony'; but
ended, nevertheless, by ignobly signing the abdication
demanded of him. We say ignobly; for nothing can be more
debasing in character, than to sink down from a very tempest
of passion to tame submission. ... The act of abdication was
worded in the following terms: 'The Allied powers having
proclaimed that the Emperor Napoleon is the sole obstacle to
the re-establishment of peace in Europe, the Emperor Napoleon,
faithful to his oath, declares that he is ready to descend
from the throne, to quit France, and even to relinquish life,
for the good of the country, which is inseparable from the
rights of his son, from those of the regency in the person of
the Empress, and from the maintenance of the laws of the
empire. Done at our Palace of Fontainbleau, 4th April 1814.
Napoleon.' Caulaincourt, Marshals Ney and M'Donald, were
appointed to carry this conditional abdication to Paris. ...
The commissioners on returning to Fontainbleau found the
Emperor in his cabinet, impatiently awaiting the result of
their mission. Marshal Ney was the first to speak; and in that
abrupt, harsh and not very respectful tone which he had lately
assumed towards his falling sovereign, told him at once, that
'France, the army and the cause of peace, demanded his
unconditional abdication.' Caulaincourt added, that the full
sovereignty of the Isle of Elba, with a suitable
establishment, had been offered by the Emperor Alexander; and
Marshal M'Donald, who had so zealously defended the cause of
his master, confirmed the statement,--declaring also that, 'in
his opinion, the Imperial cause was completely lost, as they
had all three'--the commissioners--'failed against a
resolution irrevocably fixed.' 'What!' exclaimed Napoleon,
'not only my own abdication, but that of Marie Louise, and of
my son? This is rather too much at once.'
{1358}
And with these words he delayed the answer till next day,
intending, he said, to consider the subject, and consult the
army; ... Words ran high between the fallen chieftain and his
former subordinates; there were altercations, recriminations,
and painful scenes, and it was only when Napoleon had signed
the following unconditional abdication that perfect calm was
restored:--'The Allied Sovereigns having declared that the
Emperor Napoleon is the only obstacle to the re-establishment
of a general peace, the Emperor Napoleon, faithful to his
oath, declares, that he renounces, for himself and his heirs,
the throne of France and Italy; and that there is no personal
sacrifice, not even that of life itself, which he is not
willing to make for the interest of France. Napoleon.
Fontainbleau, 6th April 1814.' This deplorable document is
written in so agitated and faltering a hand as to be almost
illegible. ... According to the treaty signed at Paris on the
10th, and usually called the Treaty of Fontainbleau, Napoleon,
from being Emperor of France and King of Italy, became Emperor
of Elba! He was to have a guard and a navy suited to the
extent of his dominions, and to receive from France a pension
of six millions of francs annually. The Duchies of Parma,
Placentia and Guastala, were to be conferred in sovereignty on
Marie Louise and her heirs. Two millions and a half of francs
were further to be paid annually by the French government to
the Empress Josephine and other members of the Bonaparte
family. Splendid as these terms were for a dethroned and
defenceless monarch, Napoleon ratified the treaty with
reluctance, and delayed the signature as long as possible;
still clinging, it would seem, to some vague hope of returning
fortune. It is even related by Fain, Norvins, Constant, and in
the pretended Memoirs of Caulaincourt, that he attempted to
commit suicide by taking poison, 'and was only saved by the
weakness of the dose, and the remedies administered by his
attendants, who, hearing his groans, hastened to his bedside.
It is certain that he was very unwell on the following
morning, the 18th April, a circumstance easily accounted for
by the anxiety he had undergone; but there can be little
difficulty in rejecting the tale of poison, for, it is
mentioned in none of the St. Helena Memoirs."
Lieutenant-Colonel J. Mitchell,
The Fall of Napoleon,
book 8, chapter 8 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 4, chapters 20-23.
Duke of Rovigo,
Memoirs,
volume 4, part 1, chapters 4-10.
Prince Talleyrand,
Memoirs,
part 7 (volume 2).
FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (April-June).
Departure of Napoleon for Elba.
Louis XVIII. called to the throne.
Settlement of the constitution.
Evacuation of France by the Allies.
The Treaty of Paris.
Determination of the new boundaries of the kingdom.
"April 20, everything being ready for Napoleon's journey, and
the commissioners of the four great powers who were to
accompany him having arrived, the former drew up the imperial
guard in the grand courtyard at Fontainebleau to take leave of
them. 'Soldiers,' said he, 'I have one mission left to fulfil
in life,--to recount to posterity the glorious deeds we have
done together.' Would to Heaven he had kept his word and done
nothing else! He kissed the flag, and his brave soldiers, who
only saw the man who so often led them on to victory, burst
into tears. Seven or eight hundred of them were to form the
army left to him who had had a million soldiers at his
command, and they were sent in advance, Napoleon going by
another road, unescorted save by General Drouot, Bertrand, and
the four foreign commissioners with their people. In the first
departments through which they passed ... the people who had
been eye-witnesses of the invasion forgot the evil wrought by
Napoleon, and only saw the defender of his country. They
shouted 'Long live the Emperor! Down with foreigners!' But
beyond Lyons, where the foe never penetrated, the population
became hostile: old royalist and Catholic passions were
revived in proportion as they went farther south; the mob
cried 'Long live the King! down with the tyrant!' and others
howled 'Long live the allies!' At Avignon and Organ a furious
rabble attacked the carriages, demanding that the tyrant
should be handed over to them to be hung or thrown into the
Rhone. The man who braved the storm of shot and shell with
utter indifference gave way before these ignoble perils, and
disguised himself; otherwise the commissioners could scarcely
have saved his life at Orgon. The sad journey closed at the
Gulf of St. Raphael, on the coast of Provence. ... An English
frigate awaited him and bore him to Elba, where he landed at
Porto-Ferraio, May 4. While the Empire was crumbling to dust
... and the fallen Emperor went into exile, the new government
was working hard to hold its own at Paris. The royalists were
at sword's points with the national sovereignty party in the
commission chosen by the senate to draw up a constitution. The
pretender's agent, Abbé de Montesquiou, failed to win
acceptance of the principle that royal right is superior to
the nation's will; and the formula adopted was as follows:
'The French people freely call to the throne of France, Louis
Stanislas Xavier de France, brother of the late king, and,
after him, the other members of the house of Bourbon.' Thus
they did not recognize in the king whom they elected the title
of Louis XVIII., and did not admit that between him and his
brother, Louis XVI., there had been a rightful king, the poor
child who died in the Temple and whom royalists called Louis
XVII. The reign of Louis Stanislas Xavier was to date from the
day when he swore allegiance to the Constitution: the
executive power was vested in the king, who shared the
legislative power with the Senate and a Chamber of Deputies.
The Constitution sanctioned individual liberty, freedom of
worship and the press, the sale of national goods, the public
debt, and proclaimed oblivion of all acts committed since the
beginning of the Revolution. The principles of 1789 were
maintained, and in the sad state of France there was nothing
better to be done than to rally round this Constitution, which
was voted by the Senate, April 6, and accepted by the
Legislature. ... The Senate's lack of popularity gave the
royalist party hope that the act of April 6 might be
retracted, and at this time that party won a faint success in
a matter on which they laid great stress. Count d' Artois was
on his way to Paris, and declared that he would not lay aside
the white cockade on entering. The temporary government
ordered the national guard to assume the white cockade, and
let Count d'Artois in without conditions (April 12), He was
received in solemn state, the marshals marching before him,
still wearing their tri-colored cockades and plumes, which the
government dared not attack.
{1359}
The rabble was cold, but the middle classes received the
prince favorably and he proved gracious to every one. ...
D'Artois ... insisted on being recognized, unconditionally, as
lieutenant-general of the kingdom, as he had entered Paris
without making terms; but this time the Senate and temporary
government did not yield. They intended that the prince should
make a solemn promise, in his brother's name, in regard to the
Constitution. The czar interfered and explained to D' Artois
that the allies were pledged to the Senate and the nation, and
he was forced to submit and receive the lieutenant-generalcy
of the kingdom from the Senate, 'until Louis Stanislas Xavier
of France should accept the Constitutional Charter.' ... The
day after his proclamation as lieutenant-general, the white
cockade was finally adopted, and ... imposed upon the army and
various public buildings, though the national cockade was
still worn by many French soldiers from the Garonne to the
Elbe, and many warlike deeds still signalized the final
efforts of their arms, even after Napoleon had laid aside his
sword. ... By degrees the truce became universal, and the next
question was to fix the terms of peace. ... The enemy held
nothing but Paris and the unfortified towns, French garrisons
still occupying all the strongholds of France, old and new,
and several important places far beyond the Rhine. ... This
was a powerful means of gaining, not the preservation of the
natural frontiers, which could no longer be hoped for, but at
least an important advance on the limits of the ancient
monarchy. Unluckily a movement, natural but hasty, broke out
all over France, to claim the immediate evacuation of her soil
by foreign armies;"--an impatience which allowed no time for
bargaining in the matter, and which precipitated an agreement
(April 23) with the allied powers "to leave the French
dominion as it had been on the 1st of January, 1792, in
proportion as the places still occupied beyond those limits by
French troops should be evacuated and restored to the allies.
... This compact surrendered to the allies, without any
compensation, 58 strongholds, 12,600 pieces of ordnance,
arsenals and magazines filled with vast supplies." The new
king, calling himself Louis XVIII., arrived in Paris on the 3d
of May, from England, where he had latterly resided. He had
offended the czar, ruffled public feeling in France, even
before he arrived, by saying publicly to the English people
that he owed his restoration, under Providence, to them.
Negotiations for a definite treaty of peace were opened at
once. "At Metternich's suggestion, the allies decided to
conclude their arrangements with France in Paris, and to
reserve general arrangements with Europe for a congress at
Vienna.
See VIENNA: THE CONGRESS OF.
Talleyrand did not object, although this plan was evidently
unfavorable to France. ... The royal council directed
Talleyrand to try to win for the northern frontier those
million people promised beyond the old limits; but Louis X
VIII., by angering the czar, completed the sad work of April
23. Alexander thought of renewing with the Bourbons the
alliance that he had planned with Napoleon, and marrying to
the Duke de Berri, Louis's nephew, that one of his sisters to
whom Napoleon preferred Marie Louise. Louis ... responded
churlishly to the czar's advances. Accordingly, when France
demanded a solid frontier, including the South of Belgium, ...
Lord Castlereagh absolutely refused, and was supported by
Prussia, hostile to France, and by Austria, indifferent on
that score, but disposed to follow England in everything.
Russia did not side with France. ... The allies were willing
to grant, in place of the old dominion of the monarchy, on the
Rhine side, the line of the Queich, which opened communication

with Landau, and to the southeast the department of Vaucluse
(once County Venaissin) given up by the Pope, besides Chambéry
and a part of Savoy; finally, in the Jura region, Montbéliard.
This made nearly 600,000 people. As for the colonies, England
reluctantly returned Martinique, Guadeloupe, and the Isle of
Bourbon, but refused to restore the Isle de France [or
Mauritius, captured in 1810], that great military post which
is to the Indian Ocean what Malta is to the Mediterranean.
This island was bravely defended for some years by its
governor. ... The English declared that they would also keep
Malta, taken from France, and the Cape of Good Hope, wrested
from Holland, saying that all these belonged to them, being on
the road to India. ... Secret articles provided that Holland,
under the rule of the House of Orange, should be increased by
the countries ceded by France, between the sea, the French
frontier of 1790, and the Meuse (Austrian Netherlands and
Liége). The countries ceded by France on the left bank of the
Rhine were to be divided as 'compensation' among the German
states. Austria was to have the country bounded by the Po,
Ticino, and Lake Maggiore, that is, the old Venetian states,
Milan, and Mantua. The territory of the former Republic of
Genoa was to be given to the King of Sardinia. Such was the
end of the wars of the Empire. Republican France reached the
goal of the old monarchy, the natural limits of ancient Gaul;
the Empire lost them."
H. Martin,
Popular History of France,
volume 2, chapter 17.
"The Peace of Paris [signed May 30] was followed by some
subsidiary treaties. ... By a Convention of June 3rd between
Austria and Bavaria, Maximilian Joseph restored to Austria the
Tyrol with the Vorarlberg, the principality of Salzburg, the
district of the Inn and the Hausrück. During the visit of the
Emperor Alexander and the King of Prussia to London in June,
it was agreed that the Article of the Peace of Paris
stipulating the aggrandisement of Holland, should, be carried
out by the annexation of Belgium to that country, an
arrangement which was accepted by the Sovereign of the
Netherlands, July 21st 1814."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 7, chapter 16.
ALSO IN:
A. de Lamartine,
History of the Restoration,
books 13-14 and 16 (volumes 1-2).
E. E. Crowe,
History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and Charles X.,
volume 1, chapter 3.
{1360}
FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.
Ten months of Bourbon rule and its follies.
Return of Napoleon from Elba.
Flight of the King.
The Hundred Days.
Preparations for war.
"The peace of Paris did not endure a year. Ten months of
Bourbon rule, vengeful, implacable, stupid; alike violent in
act and in language; sufficed to bring France once more to the
brink of revolution. Two acts alone are sufficient to
demonstrate the folly of the royalists--the resumption of the
white flag, and the changing of the numbers of the regiments.
A prudent king would have adopted the tricolour when he agreed
to a constitutional charter, and would have refrained from
wounding military sensibility by destroying the numbers of the
regiments. But more stupid than these acts was the political
policy pursued, a policy which aroused on all sides suspicions
of what was worse than the grinding but gilded despotism of
Napoleon--namely, that the Government favoured a forcible
resumption of the confiscated lands, the restoration of
tithes, and of the abolished exactions and imposts of
feudalism. It has been surmised, and with much reason, that
had Napoleon not reappeared a popular movement would have
extorted from the king a really constitutional government. In
that case France might have taken some real steps towards a
free government, and the bases of liberty rather than of
equality might have been laid. But while the Powers were
wrangling at Vienna, and the Bourbons were irritating France,
Napoleon was watching from Elba for the opportunity of
resuming empire. It was not in the nature of the man to yield
passively to anything, even to the inevitable. So long as a
chance remained he looked out keenly for the propitious hour.
He selected Elba as a residence because thence 'he could keep
an eye upon France and upon the Bourbons.' It was his duty, he
said, to guard the throne of France for his family and for his
son. Thus, in making peace at Fontainebleau, he only bowed to
a storm he could not then resist, and cherished in his mind
the project of an imperial restoration. The hour for which he
waited came at length. February, 1815, he had arrived at the
conclusion that with the aid of the army he could overthrow
the Bourbons, whose government, he said, was good for priests,
nobles, and countesses of the old time, but worth nothing to
the living generation. The army, he knew, was still, and would
be always, devoted to him. ... He had weighed all the chances
for and against the success of his enterprise, and he had
arrived at the conclusion that he should succeed; for,
'Fortune had never deserted him on great occasions.' It has
been said that his departure was precipitated by a report of
the dissolution of the Congress of Vienna. ... It is possible,
indeed, that the rumour of an intention to confine him upon an
island in the Atlantic may have exercised some influence over
him; but the real reasons for the selection of the 26th of
February were that he was tired of inactivity, and convinced
that the favourable moment had arrived. Therefore, instructing
Murat to second him by assuming a strong position in front of
Ancona, he embarked his faithful Thousand, and set sail for
France. On the 1st of March he landed on the shores of the
Gulf of Juan, and on the 20th he entered the Tuileries. As he
had predicted, the army rallied to the tricolour; the generals
could neither restrain nor guide their soldiers; the Bourbon
dukes and princes, and the brave Duchess of Angoulême--'the
only man of the family'--were utterly powerless before the
universal military disaffection; and one after the other they
were chased out of France. The army had restored Napoleon.
Louis XVIII. drove out of Paris by the road to St. Denis on
the 19th, a few hours before Napoleon, on the 20th, drove in
by the Barrier of Italy; and on the 23rd, after a short stay
at Lille, the King was safe in Ghent. 'The great question is,'
wrote Lord Castlereagh to the Duke of Wellington three days
afterwards, while yet in ignorance of the event, 'can the
Bourbons get Frenchmen to fight for them against Frenchmen?'
The result showed that they could not. In the then state of
France the army was master of France. Louis and his ministers
had done nothing to conciliate, and almost everything to
irritate, the people; and even so early as November, 1814,
Wellington did not see what means the King had of resisting
the attack of a few hundred officers determined to risk
everything. During the period occupied by Napoleon in passing
from Elba to Paris, the conduct of' the sovereigns and
diplomatists assembled at Vienna offered a striking contrast
to the weakness and inaptitude of the Bourbons. ... That there
was fear in Vienna is manifest, but the acts of the Allied
Powers show that fear speedily gave place to resolution. For,
as early as the 12th of' March, before the Allies knew where
Napoleon was, or anything about him, except that he was
somewhere at large in France, they drew up that famous
declaration, and signed it the next day, in which they
declared that he had broken the sole legal tie to which his
existence was attached, and that it was possible to keep with
him 'neither peace nor truce.' 'The Powers, in consequence,'
so runs this document, 'declare that Napoleon Buonaparte is
placed beyond the pale of civil and social relations, and
that, as a common enemy and disturber of the peace of the
world, he has delivered himself over to public justice.' This
declaration, which has been the subject of vehement criticism,
was the natural consequence of the prevailing and correct
appreciation of Napoleon's character. There was not a nation
in Europe which felt the slightest particle of confidence or
trust in him. Hence this declaration, made so promptly, was
drawn up in ignorance of any professions he might make,
because, beforehand, Europe felt that no professions of his
could be relied on. The news of his success was followed by a
treaty, adopted on the 25th of March, renewing the alliance of
Chaumont, whereby Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia
bound themselves to provide each 150,000 men; to employ, in
addition, all their resources, and to work together for the
common end--the maintenance of the Treaty of Paris, and of the
stipulations determined on and signed at the Congress of
Vienna. Further, they engaged not to lay down their arms but
by common consent; nor before the object of the war should
have been attained; nor, continues the document, 'until
Buonaparte shall have been rendered absolutely unable to
create disturbance, and to renew attempts for possessing
himself of supreme power in France.' All the Powers of Europe
generally, and Louis XVIII. specially, were invited to accede
to the treaty; but, at the instance of Lord Castlereagh, the
Four Great Powers declared in the most solemn manner that,
although they desired to see his Most Christian Majesty
restored to the throne, and also to contribute to that
'auspicious result,' yet that their 'principles' would not
permit them to prosecute the war 'with a view of imposing any
particular Government on France.' With Napoleon they refused
to hold any communication whatever; and when he sent couriers
to announce that he intended to observe existing treaties,
they were stopped on the frontiers. ...
{1361}
Wellington, on his own responsibility, acted for England,
signed treaties, undertook heavy engagements in her name, and
agreed to command an army to be assembled in Belgium; and
having satisfied, as well as he could, the clamour of 'all'
for subsidies from England, he took his departure from Vienna
on the 29th of March, and arrived in Brussels on the 4th of
April. The British Parliament and nation confirmed readily the
proceedings of the Government and of the Duke of Wellington at
Vienna. ... Napoleon had formed a Ministry on the very evening
of his return to the Tuileries. ... He felt certain that war
would ensue. Knowing that at the moment when he returned from
Elba a large part of the best troops of England were in
America, that the German force on the Rhine was weak, and that
the Russian armies were in Poland, he calculated that the
Allied Powers would not be in a position to open the campaign,
at the earliest, until the middle of July; and, for a moment,
he hoped that, by working on the feelings of his
father-in-law, the Emperor of Austria, and by rousing the
anger of the Emperor Alexander against his allies, he would be
able, if not to reduce his enemies to two, England and
Prussia, at least to defer the period of hostilities until the
autumn. ... Before his great schemes of military preparation
were half complete he found himself compelled by events to
begin the war. What he actually did accomplish between March
and June has been the subject of fierce controversy. His
friends exaggerate, his enemies undervalue, his exertions and
their results. But no candid inquirer can fail to see, that if
his energetic activity during this period is far below that of
the Convention when threatened by Europe, it is far above the
standard fixed by his passionate crimes. The real reason why
he failed to raise a larger military force during the hundred
days was that his genius worked upon exhausted materials. The
nation, to use an expressive vulgarism, was 'used up.' ... The
proper conscription for 1815 had been levied in the autumn of
1813. The drafts on the rising generation had been
anticipated, and hence there remained little available except
the old soldiers. ... The result of Napoleon's prodigious
exertions to augment the military force of France appears to
be this: Napoleon found ready to his hand a force of 228,972
men of all arms, officers included, giving a disposable
effective of 155,000 men ready to take the field. By the 18th
of June he had raised this force to 276,982 men, officers
included: that is 247,609 of the line, and 29,373 of the
Imperial Guard. The number disposable for war was 198,180; and
it therefore follows that Napoleon had increased the general
effective by 53,010 men, and that part of it disposable for
war by 48, 180."
G. Hooper,
Waterloo,
book 1, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
Imbert de Saint-Amand,
The Duchess of Angouléme and the two Restorations,
part 1.
F. P. Guizot,
Memoirs of My Time,
volume 1, chapter 3.
J. C. Ropes,
The First Napoleon,
lecture 6.
E. E. Crowe,
History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and Charles X.,
volume 1, chapters 4-6.
R. H. Horne,
Life of Napoleon, chapters 41-42.
General Sir N. Campbell,
Napoleon at Fontainebleau and Elba.
FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.
The Congress of Vienna and the fruits of its labors.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (June).
Napoleon's last campaign.
His final defeat and overthrow at Waterloo.
"The nearest troops of the allies were the Prussian army in
the Rhenish provinces, and the army of British, Dutch,
Belgians, Bunswickers, and Hanoverians, occupying Belgium.
Napoleon's scheme, the best in his desperate circumstances,
was to expel the British and Prussians, who were moving west,
from Belgium, win the Rhine frontier--to arouse the enthusiasm
of all France--before the Austrians were ready, and carry the
war out of France. The Duke of Wellington proceeded to
Belgium, for the first and last time to measure his skill with
Napoleon's, and Marshal Blücher took over from Kleist the
command of the Prussians. The two armies, the Prussian and the
British, took up a line extending from Liege to the sea. The
country on this line was open along the west, affording by
nature little means of resisting an invasion, but most of the
fortresses commanding the roads had been put in a state of
moderate repair. The Prussians held the line of the Meuse and
Sambre to beyond Charleroi, the head-quarters being at Namur.
They numbered about 117,000 men ... with 312 guns. ... The
motley mass of the British and their allies numbered 106,000
men ... with 196 guns. ... So entirely ignorant were the
allies of Napoleon's movements, that on the very day on which
he burst across the frontier, Wellington wrote to the Czar,
who was at Vienna, respecting the general invasion of France.
At that time the frontier of France approached within six
miles of Charleroi (which is itself but 34 miles by the main
road from Brussels). The Charleroi road was not only the most
direct to Brussels, but was unprotected by fortresses; and the
line of the allied armies was weakest here at the point of
junction between them. ... It was against the central weak
point that Napoleon resolved to move, down the basins of the
Sambre and the Meuse. ... The mass of the troops was being
assembled within a league of the frontier, but behind some
small hills which completely screened them from the enemy's
outposts. To conceal his designs to the last moment, the line
of sentries along the frontier was tripled, and any attempt to
pass the line was forbidden under pain of death. The
arrangements were being carried out by Soult, who on the 2nd
June had been appointed chief of the staff. ... The army
concentrated on the frontier consisted (according to Colonel
Chesney) of 90,000 infantry and 22,000 cavalry--in all 112,000
men--344 guns. ... Napoleon, accompanied by his brother
Jerome, arrived in the camp, and in the evening of the 14th
his soldiers, already elated by his presence, were excited to
the highest pitch of enthusiasm by an address from Napoleon.
... A general order fixed the attack upon the allies' position
for three o'clock in the following morning (15th)." At the
appointed time "the French left was in motion, Reille
proceeding from Solre down the right bank of the Sambre. He
was soon brought into collision with the Prussian outposts
near Thuin: he drove them back and secured at ten o'clock the
bridge of Marchiennes." The movements of other corps were
delayed by various causes. Nevertheless, "of the Prussians
only Ziethen's corps, and of Wellington's army only
Perponcher's Dutch-Belgians, were as yet near the menaced
position; while 40,000 French had passed the Sambre at
Marchiennes and 70,000 more were entering Charleroi. When
Reille deployed in front of Gosselies, the Prussians called in
their detachments and retired from it, upon Fleurus, ...
leaving open the road through Quatre Bras to Brussels.
{1362}
Ney, who had just come up, then took command of the left, ...
which was now directed upon Quatre Bras; and Napoleon galloped
off to the road between Charleroi and Fleurus, where the
retiring Prussians were concentrating. ... At dark Ziethen
[with the First Prussian corps] still held Fleurus with his
advanced guard, and the wood on its south, the bulk of his
troops lay for the night upon the hill of Ligny, above the
village of Bry. His loss during the day's manœuvring has been
estimated at 2,000. On the French left, Ney... had come in
contact with the advance guard of Wellington's army, a
battalion of Nassauers and a light battery, in front of the
village of Frasnes, two miles from Quatre Bras, the name
applied to the farm-buildings at the intersection of the four
main roads,--Brussels, Nivelles, Charleroi, Namur. ... After a
few cannon-shots the outpost fell back from Frasnes to Quatre
Bras." Ney, after a reconnoissance, postponed attack until
morning. "It had been intended by Napoleon that the whole army
should have crossed the Sambre before noon; but from the
several delays ... when night fell on the 15th, half of the
cavalry of the guard, two of Grouchy's reserve divisions,
Lobau's corps, and one-half of Gérard's corps were still on
the south of the river. Apparently relying on secret
information from Paris--which contradicted the rumours that
Napoleon was about to join the army--Wellington had been
lulled into a false security, and the reports as to the
concentration had been neglected. News of the enemy's advance
across the Sambre did not reach him till three o'clock in the
afternoon of the 15th, when the Prince of Orange in person
reported the skirmish at Thuin. As he did not yet know the
point of concentration, the British general, 'never
precipitate or nervous' (Hooper), merely issued orders for all
the troops to be in readiness. ... At night intelligence was
received from Mons that the French concentration was at
Charleroi, and orders were issued for the immediate movement
of the troops. ... Wellington and the Prince of Orange, with
several of the staff' officers, went--it is said, to prevent a
panic in Brussels--to the Duchess of Richmond's ball, where
'Belgium's capital had gathered then her beauty and her
chivalry,' and, 'while all went merry as a marriage bell,' the
staff officers stole away one by one. The Duke himself,
'throwing away golden minutes' (Hamley), as if to show his
confidence in his fortunes, remained to a late hour to return
thanks after supper for the health of the Prince Regent of
Great Britain, which the Prince of Orange proposed. ...
Blücher had received, at his head-quarters at Namur, news on
the morning of the 14th of the French concentration, and he
had ordered forward the corps of Pirch and Thielemann. ...
Napoleon did not foresee Blücher's promptitude, and nothing
was done in the early morning of the 16th to proceed with the
execution of the intended surprise. . . .... No orders were
issued by the Emperor till eight, when Napoleon's resolution
was taken,--to strike at the Prussians, who would, he
believed, if defeated, retire upon their natural base of
communications, through Namur and Liege, and he would thus be
left to deal separately with the British, who could not move
from their base, the sea. The French army was to advance in
two wings, the left under Ney, the right under Grouchy, with
the reserve under the Emperor himself. Ney was to capture
Quatre Bras, reconnoitre the Brussels road, and hold himself
in readiness to march to Brussels, which Napoleon hoped to be
able to enter the following morning. ... Napoleon had 64,000
men to attack the position at Ligny; Ney on the left wing had
45,000 for Quatre Bras; Lobau had 10,000 to support either
wing of the Grand Army; 5,000 troops were in the rear; and the
victorious wing, whether Ney's or Grouchy's, was to wheel
round and manœuvre in the direction of the other. Thielemann
having come up before the French delivered their attack,
Blücher had 85,000 men on the field. Wellington arrived at
Quatre Bras (which is 20 miles from Brussels) at 11 o'clock in
the forenoon. As Marshal Ney gave no sign of an imminent
attack, Wellington galloped over, about seven miles, to confer
with Blücher. ... Wellington, after some discussion, in which
he expressed his disapproval of Blücher's position, agreed to
move to the rear of the Prussians, to act as a reserve, if his
own position at Quatre Bras were not attacked. ... He reached
Quatre Bras when his own position was being assailed, and no
help could be sent to Blücher. ... At about three o'clock,
when the heavy cannonade a few miles to the west intimated
that a desperate battle was in progress at Quatre Bras, the
signal for attack [on the Prussians, at Ligny] was given. The
French left sped forward with impetuosity; the resistance was
vigorous but futile, and the enemy streamed through the
village. Blücher immediately moved forward fresh troops and
re-took the village, but was unable to retain it. ... Thrice
the Grenadiers forced their way into and through the village,
but only to be driven back again." But "Blücher gradually
exhausted his reserves, and when, in the dusk, Napoleon saw
the last battalion moved forward and the ground behind Ligny
vacant, he exclaimed, 'they are lost!' The Guards and the
Cuirassiers were immediately ordered to attack," and the
wearied Prussian infantry were broken by their onset. "The
fugitives led precipitately over the fields and along the
roads to the east, and the order for the whole to retire was
immediately given. ... Blücher himself gathered a few of his
squadrons to check the hot pursuit near Sombreffe, and thrice
led them to the charge. His squadrons were broken, and after
the last charge his horse fell dead, and the veteran marshal
lay under it. His aid-de-camp, Nostitz, stood by him, and
covered him with a cloak; the Cuirassiers galloped past
without noticing him. ... Gneisenau, who took temporary
command from the accident to Blücher, ordered a retreat upon
Wavre, with the view of joining Bülow's corps and keeping open
the communications with Wellington. ... The loss on each side
has been very variously estimated. Napoleon put his own loss
at 7,000 men, Charras puts it at 11,000, and the loss of the
Prussians at 18,000. The retreat upon Wavre abandoned the
communications with Namur and Liege, through which the
Prussian supplies came from the lower Rhine, for a new line by
Louvain, but it kept the Prussians on a line parallel to the
road on which Wellington must retreat, and thus still enabled
the two armies to aid each other. 'This noble daring at once
snatched from Napoleon the hoped-for fruits of his victory,
and the danger Ligny had for a few hours averted was left
impending over him' (Chesney)."
H. R. Clinton,
The War in the Peninsula and Wellington's Campaigns
in France and Belgium, chapter 12.
{1363}
On Wellington's return to Quatre Bras from his interview with
Blücher, he found, as stated above, that the Prince of Orange
had already became desperately engaged with the superior
forces of Ney. "The Duke's presence gave new life to the
battle, and when Picton's division, followed by the
Brunswickers and Van Merle's Belgian horse, arrived, he took
the offensive, pushing forward right up to the edge of the
farm of Gemioncourt. Ney, reinforced by the rest of Reille's
corps and part of Kellerman's cavalry, violently retorted, and
in the charge, which partially broke into spray before the
squares, Wellington ran the risk of death or capture. But he
leaped his horse over the 92d Highlanders lining the ditch on
the Namur road, while his gallant pursuers, cut up by the
infantry fire, were killed or driven off. Ney was further
reinforced by more guns and cavalry, and Wellington's brigades
continued to arrive in parcels. The Marshal was always
superior in horsemen and cannon, but after 5 o'clock his
opponent had larger numbers of foot. Holding firmly to the
cross-roads and, the highway to Namur, Wellington became the
stronger as the day waned; and when the Guards emerged from
the Nivelles road and the Allies pressed forward, Ney, who had
no fresh troops, was driven back, and his antagonist remained
at sundown master of the whole field of battle. The position
was maintained, but the cost was great, for there were no
fewer than 4,600 killed and wounded, more than half being
British soldiers. The thunder of cannon to the eastward had
also died away, but none knew as yet at Quatre Bras how
Blücher had fared at the hands of his redoubtable foe.
Wellington, who slept at his head-quarters in Genappe, was on
the field and scrutinising his outposts at daybreak an the
17th. Soon after came a report, confirmed a little later, that
the Prussians had retreated on Wavre. ... Napoleon had a
belief that Blücher would retreat upon Liège, which caused him
at a late hour in the day to despatch Grouchy to that side,
and thus touch was lost. While the French were cooking and
Napoleon was pondering, definite intelligence was brought to
Wellington, who, learning for certain that Blücher was at
Wavre, promised to stand fast himself at Mont St. Jean and
fight, if Blücher would support him with two corps. The
intrepid Marshal replied that he would came with his whole
army, and Wellington got the famous answer before night. Thus
was made, between generals who thoroughly trusted each other,
that combination which led to the Battle of Waterloo. It was
no chance combat, but the result of a deliberate design,
rendered capable of execution, even when Blücher was wounded,
by his resolve to retreat upon Wavre, and by Napoleon, who
acted on conjecture that the Prussians would hurry towards
their base at Liege. The morning at Quatre Bras was peaceful;
the Allies cooked their food before starting rearward.
Wellington, it is said, lay down for a moment, and snatched
perhaps a little sleep. There was no stir in front or on the
exposed left flank; and, covered by a strong display of
horsemen, the Allied divisions tramped steadily towards Mont
St. Jean. ... The retreat continued all day. A thunderstorm,
so often a precursor of Wellington's battles, deluged the
fields with rain, and pursuer and pursued struggling through
the mire, were drenched to the skin by nightfall. ... The
results of two days' warfare may be thus summed up. Napoleon
had inflicted a defeat, yet not a decisive defeat, upon the
Prussians, who escaped from his ken to Wavre. He had then, at
a late hour on the 17th, detached Grouchy with 33,000 men to
follow them, and Grouchy at night from Gembloux reported that
they had retired in three directions. Moving himself in the
afternoon, Napoleon, uniting with Ney, had pursued Wellington
to Mont St. Jean, and slept in the comfortable belief that he
had separated the Allies. At that very time Wellington, who
had assembled his whole force except 17,000 men, ... was in
close communication with Blücher, and intended on the 18th to
stop Napoleon by delivering battle, and to hold him fast until
Blücher could cut in on his right flank and rear. Thus it was
the Allies who were united practically, and the French army
which was separated into two groups unable to support each
other. ... The tempest which burst over the retreating columns
on the 17th followed them to their bivouacs and raged all
night, and did not cease until late on the fateful Sunday.
Wellington, mounting his faithful Copenhagen at break of day,
rode from the village of Waterloo to the field, where the
armies on both sides, protected by watchful sentries, were
still contending with the mischiefs inflicted by the storm.
The position was the crest of a gentle slope stretching from
Smohain to the Nivelles road, having upon and in advance of
its right the château, garden, and wood of Hougoumont, and in
the centre, where the Charleroi road cut through the little
ridge, the farm of La Haye Sainte. Both these posts were
occupied, but the latter, unfortunately, not so solidly as
Hougoumont. ... The position was well filled by the 69,000 men
of all arms and 156 guns which were present that day.
Napoleon, who slept at the farm of Caillou, and who had been
out on foot to the front during the night, was also early in
the field, and glad of the gift which he thought fortune had
placed in his hands. When Reille had joined him from Genappe,
he had 72,000 men, all admirable soldiers, and 240 guns, with
which to engage in combat, and he reckoned that the chances
were ninety to ten in his favour. He mounted his charger,
reconnoitred his opponent's position, and then gave the orders
which, promptly and finely obeyed, disclosed the French array.
... It was now nearly eleven o'clock, and, although his
opponent knew it not, Wellington had got news of the march
from Wavre of Bulow, whose leading troops were actually, at
that time, close to the wood of St. Lambert on the French
right; while Grouchy was at Sart les Walhain, between Gembloux
and Wavre. It is not practicable here to give a full account of
the battle of Waterloo; we can only describe its broad
outlines. The first gun was fired about twenty or thirty
minutes past eleven, and preluded a dashing and sustained
attack an Hougoumont, which failed to carry the house, garden,
or orchard, but did gain the wood. It was probably intended to
divert attention from the attack on the left and centre, which
Ney, massing his guns opposite the British left, was preparing
to execute. Wellington watched and in some measure controlled
the fight for Hougoumont, and then rode off to the centre,
taking post at a solitary tree which grew near the Charleroi
road above La Haye Sainte.
{1364}
Ney at half past one sent forward the whole of D'Erlon's
corps, and although some of them pushed close up to and over
the Wavre road, stormed the orchard of La Haye Sainte and took
the Pappelotte farm, yet at the critical moment Sir William
Ponsonby's Union Brigade of horse charged into the French
infantry, already shattered by the fire of Picton's troops,
and the net result of the combined operation was that two
eagles and 3,000 prisoners were captured, while nearly that
number of killed and wounded remained on the ground. On the
other side of La Haye Sainte the Household Brigade, led by
Lord Anglesea in person, charged in upon and routed a large
body of French cuirassiers. The grand attack thus completely
failed, and the centre, like the right, remained intact. It
was just before this combat began that Napoleon saw something
like troops towards St. Lambert and despatched two brigades of
light cavalry to reconnoitre. A Prussian staff officer was
caught beyond Planchenoit, and from him came the unexpected
and unwelcome information that the whole Prussian army was
approaching. ... The signs of danger on his right flank, the
punishment of D'Erlon's corps, the ineffectual attempt upon
the British Guards in and about Hougoumont, were followed by a
kind of pause and the combat reverted to cannonading and
skirmishing. But towards four o'clock Napoleon, increasing the
fire of his artillery, threw forward a mass of cavalry, forty
squadrons, and then began that series of reiterated onsets of
horse which lasted for two hours. ... Twice they were driven
down the slope, and the third time, when they came on, they
were strengthened by Kellerman and Guyot until they reached a
force of 77 squadrons, or 12,000 men; but these also were
repulsed, the British horse, what remained of them, charging
when the French were entangled among the squares and
disordered by the musketry and guns. Four times these fine
troopers charged, yet utterly failed to penetrate or move a
single foot battalion. But some time before the final effort,
Ney by a fierce attack got possession of La Haye Sainte, and
thus, just as the cavalry were exhausted, the French infantry
were established within sixty yards of the Allied centre. And
although the Emperor was obliged to detach one-half of his
Guard to the right, because Blucher had brought into play
beyond Planchenoit against Lobau nearly 80,000 men, still the
capture of La Haye Sainte was justly regarded as a grave
event. Wellington during the cavalry fight had moved three
brigades on his right nearer to Hougoumont, and had called up
Chassé and his Belgians to support them; and it was a little
before this time that he cried out to Brigadier-General Adam,
'By G--, Adam, I think we shall beat them yet! ... The crisis
of the battle had come for Napoleon. Unable after eight hours'
conflict to do more than capture La Haye Sainte; hardly
pressed by the Prussians, now strong and aggressive; owing
such success as he had obtained to the valour and discipline
of his soldiers--the Emperor delivered his last stroke, not
for victory--he could no longer hope to win--but for safety.
He sent forward the last ten battalions of his Guard to assail
the British right, and directed the whole remaining infantry
force available to attack all along the line. The Guard
marched onward in two columns, which came successively in
contact with their opponents. Napier's guns and the British
Guards, who rising from the ground showed across the head of
the first column, fired heavily and charging drove them in
confusion back towards La Belle Alliance; and the second
column, struck in flank by the musketry of the 52nd and 95th
was next broken by a bayonet charge and pursued by Colonel
Colborne to and beyond the Charleroi road. As Ziethen's
Prussians were falling upon the French near Pappelotte, and
Pirch and Bulow wrestling with the Imperial Guard in
Planchenoit, Wellington ordered the whole of the British line
to advance. The cheers arising on the right where he was,
extended along the front and gave new strength to the wearied
soldiers. He led the way. As he neared the Charleroi road, the
riflemen, full of Peninsular memories, began to cheer him as
he galloped up, but he called out, 'No cheering, my lads;
forward and complete your victory.' He found that good
soldier, Colborne, halted for a moment before three squares of
the rallied Imperial Guard. 'Go on, Colborne,' he said;
'better attack them, they won't stand.' Nor did they.
Wellington then turned to the right, where Vivian's Light
Cavalry were active in the gloom, and we next find him once
more with the 52nd near Rossomme, the farthest point of the
advance, where that regiment halted after its grand march over
the battlefield. Somewhere on the highway he met Blucher, who had
so nobly kept his word, and it was then that Gneisenau
undertook to chase the fugitives over the frontier. The
French, or perhaps we should say the Napoleonic army, was
destroyed, and the power which its mighty leader had built up
on the basis of its astonishing successes was gone for ever."
G. Hooper,
Wellington,
chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
D. Gardner,
Quatre Bras, Ligny, and Waterloo.
Lieutenant Colonel C. C. Chesney,
Waterloo Lectures.
W. Siborne,
History of the War in France and Belgium in 1819.
General Sir J. S. Kennedy,
Notes on the Battle of Waterloo.
W. H. Maxwell,
Life of Wellington,
volume 8, chapters 28-32.
G. R. Gleig,
Story of the Battle of Waterloo.
W. O'C. Morris,
Great Commanders of Modern Times,
and the Campaign of 1815.
FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (June-August).
Napoleon's return to Paris.
His final abdication.
His surrender of himself to the English.
His captivity at St. Helena.
"The vanquished army had lost 200 pieces of ordnance, and
80,000 men hors de combat or prisoners; as many more remained,
independently of Grouchy's 85,000 men; but the difficulty was
to rally them in presence of an enemy, that had taken lessons
in audacity and activity from Napoleon himself. The loss of
the allies was not less considerable, but there remained to
them 150,000 men, the confidence of victory, and the certainty
of being seconded by 300,000 allies, who were crossing the
Rhine from Mentz to Bäle. Such was the issue of this struggle,
commenced under such happy auspices, and which resulted more
fatal to France than the battles of Poitiers and Azincourt. It
must be admitted, that this disaster was the work of a
multitude of unheard-of circumstances: if Napoleon can be
reproached for certain faults, it must be allowed that fortune
dealt cruelly with him in the lesser details, and that his
enemies, in return, were as fortunate as they showed
themselves skillful.
{1365}
However unjust be the spirit of party, we are forced to render
homage to the merits of two generals, who, unexpectedly
attacked in their cantonments extending from Dinant and Liège
to Renaix, near Tournay, had taken such wise measures as to be
in condition next morning for giving battle to equal forces,
and for afterwards conquering by an able concentration of the
two armies. ... In the very battle of Waterloo, the French
might be censured for having attempted the first attack in
masses too deep. This system was never successful against the
murderous fire of English infantry and artillery. ... There
were likewise extraordinary charges of cavalry, which, being
devoid of support, became heroic but useless struggles.
Notwithstanding all this, it is almost certain that Napoleon
would have remained master of the field of battle, but for the
arrival of 65,000 Prussians on his rear; a decisive and
disastrous circumstance, that to prevent was not entirely in
his power. As soon as the enemy led 130,000 men on the
battle-field, with scarcely 50,000 to oppose them, all was
lost. ... Napoleon had but one course left him, which was to
direct Grouchy through the Ardennes on Laon; to collect at
this point all that could be drawn from the interior, from
Metz and from Rapp's corps, leaving but garrisons in Lorraine
and Alsace. The imperial cause was very much shaken, put not
entirely lost; should all Frenchmen determine on opposing
Europe with the courage of the Spartans of Leonidas, the
energy of the Russians in 1812, or of the Spaniards of
Palafox. Unfortunately for them, as·for Napoleon, opinion was
very much divided on this subject, and the majority still
believing that the struggle interested only the power of the
emperor and his family, the fate of the country seemed of
little consequence. Prince Jerome had collected 25,000 men in
rear of Avesnes: he was ordered to lead them to Laon; there
remained 200 pieces of artillery, beside those of Grouchy. ...
Reaching Loon on the 19th, where he had at first resolved to
await the junction of Grouchy and Jerome, the emperor
discussed, with the small number of the trustworthy who had
followed him, the course he should adopt after this frightful
disaster. Should he repair to Paris, and concert with the
chambers and his ministers, or else remain with the army,
demanding of the chambers to invest him with dictatorial power
and an unlimited confidence, under the conviction that he
would obtain from them the most energetic measures, for saving
France and conquering her independence, on heaps of ruins? As
it always happens, his generals were divided in opinion; some
wished him to proceed to Paris, and deposit the crown into the
hands of the nation's delegates, or receive it from them a
second time, with the means of defending it. Others, with a
better appreciation of the views of the deputies, affirmed,
that far from sympathizing with Napoleon, and seconding him,
they would accuse him of having lost France, and would
endeavor to save the country by losing the emperor. ...
Lastly, the most prudent thought that Napoleon should not go
to Paris, but remain at the head of the army, in order to
treat with the sovereigns himself, by offering to abdicate in
favor of his son. It is said, that Napoleon inclined to the
idea of remaining at Laon with the army; but the advice of the
greatest number determined him, and he departed for Paris."
Baron de Jomini,
History of the Campaign of Waterloo,
pages 184-189.
"It was a moment of unrelieved despair for the public men who
gathered round him on his return to Paris, and among these
were several whose fame was of earlier date than his own. La
Fayette, the man of 1789; Carnot, organizer of victory to the
Convention; Lucien, who had decided the revolution of
Brumaire,--all these met in that comfortless deliberation.
Carnot was for a dictatorship of public safety, that is, for
renewing his great days of 1793; Lucien too liked the Roman
sound of the word dictator. 'Dare!' he said to his brother,
but the spring of that terrible will was broken at last. 'I
have dared too much already;' said Napoleon. Meanwhile, in the
Chamber of Representatives the, word was not dictatorship but
liberty. Here La Fayette caused the assembly to vote itself
permanent, and to declare guilty of high treason whoever
should attempt to dissolve it. He hinted that, if the word
abdication were not soon pronounced on the other side, he
would himself pronounce the word 'dechéance.' The second
abdication took place on June 22d. 'I offer myself a sacrifice
to the hatred of the enemies of France. My public life is
finished, and I proclaim my son, under the title of Napoleon
II., Emperor of the French.' On the 25th he retired to
Malmaison, where Josephine had died the year before. He had by
no means yet ceased to hope. When his son was passed over by
the Chamber of Representatives, who named an executive
commission of five, he protested that he had not intended to
make way for a new Directory. ... On the 27th he went so far
as to offer his services once more as general, 'regarding
myself still as the first soldier of the nation;' He was met
by a refusal, and left Malmaison on the 29th for Rochefort,
well furnished with books on the United States. France was by
this time entering upon another Reign of Terror. Massacre had
begun at Marseilles as early as the 25th. What should Napoleon
do? He had been formerly the enemy of every other nation, and
now he was the worst enemy, if not of France, yet of the
triumphant faction in France. He lingered some days at
Rochefort, where he had arrived on July 3d, and then, finding
it impossible to escape the vigilance of the English cruisers,
went on the 15th on board the 'Bellerophon' and surrendered
himself to Captain Maitland. It was explained to him that no
conditions could be accepted, but that he would be 'conveyed
to England to be received in such manner as the Prince Regent
should deem expedient:' He had written at the Île d'Aix the
following characteristic letter to the Prince Regent:--'Royal
Highness,--A prey to the factions which divide my country and
to the enmity of the powers of Europe, I have terminated my
public career, and I come, like Themistocles, to seat myself
at the hearth of the British people. I place myself under the
protection of its laws, which I claim from your Royal Highness
as the most powerful, the most constant, and the most generous
of my enemies.' It was perhaps the only course open to him. In
France his life could scarcely have been spared, and Blücher
talked of executing him on the spot where the Duc d'Enghien
had fallen. He therefore could do nothing but what he did. His
reference to Themistocles shows that he was conscious of
being the worst enemy that England had ever had.
{1366}
Perhaps he remembered that at the rupture of the treaty of
Amiens he had studied to envenom the contest by detaining the
English residents in France. Still he might reflect, on the
other hand, that England was the only great country which had
not been trampled down and covered with massacre by his
soldiers. It would have been inexcusable if the English
Government had given way to vindictive feelings, especially as
they could well afford to be magnanimous, having just won the
greatest of all victories. But it was necessary to deprive him
of the power of exciting new wars, and the experiment of Elba
had shown that this involved depriving him of his liberty. The
frenzy which had cost·the lives of millions must be checked. This
was the principle laid down in the declaration of March 15th,
by which he had been excommunicated as a public enemy. It was
therefore necessary to impose some restraint upon him. He must
be separated from his party and from all the revolutionary
party in Europe. So long as he remained in Europe this would
involve positive imprisonment. The only arrangement therefore
which would allow him tolerable personal comfort and enjoyment
of life, was to send him out of Europe. From these
considerations grew the decision of the Government to send him
to St. Helena. An Act of Parliament was passed 'for the better
detaining in custody Napoleon Bonaparte,' and another Act for
subjecting St. Helena to a special system of government. He
was kept on board the 'Bellerophon' till August 4th, when he
was transferred to the 'Northumberland.' On October 15th he
arrived at St. Helena, accompanied by Counts Montholon, Las
Cases, and Bertrand, with their families, General Gourgaud,
and a number of servants. In April, 1816, arrived Sir Hudson
Lowe, an officer who had been knighted for bringing the news
of the capture of Paris in 1814, as governor. The rest of his
life, which continued till May 5, 1821, was occupied partly in
quarrels with this governor, which have now lost their
interest, partly in the task he had undertaken at the time of
his first abdication, that of relating his past life. He did
not himself write this narrative, nor does it appear that he
even dictated it word for word. It is a report made partly by
General Gourgaud, partly by Count Montholon, of Napoleon's
impassioned recitals; but they assure us that this report, as
published, has been read and corrected throughout by him. It
gives a tolerably complete account of the period between the
siege of Toulon and the battle of Marengo. On the later period
there is little, except a memoir on the campaign of 1815, to
which the editors of the Correspondence have been able to add
another on Elba and the Hundred Days."
J. R. Seeley,
Short History of Napoleon I.,
chapter 6, section 5.
ALSO IN:
Count de Las Cases,
Life, Exile and Conversations of Napoleon.
General Count Montholon,
History of the Captivity of Napoleon.
W. Forsyth,
History of the Captivity of Napoleon.
B. E. O'Meara,
Napoleon in Exile.
Sir W. Scott,
Life of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapters 49-56.
A. Thiers,
History of the Consulate and the Empire,
chapters 61-62 (volume 5).
FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (July-November).
English and Prussian armies in Paris.
Return of Louis XVIII.
Restoration of the art-spoils or Napoleon.
Indemnities demanded.
Russian, Austrian and Spanish armies on French soil.
The second Treaty or Paris.
"The 7th of July was the proudest day in the annals of
England. On that day her victorious army, beaded by
Wellington, made their public entry, along with the Prussians,
into Paris, where an English drum had not been heard for
nearly four hundred years. ... The French regarded them with
melancholy hearts and anxious looks. Few persons were to be
seen in the streets. ... The English established themselves in
the Bois de Boulogne in a regular camp; the Prussians
bivouacked in the churches, on the quays, and in the principal
streets. On the following day Louis, who had followed in the
rear of the English army from Ghent, made his public entrance,
escorted by the national guard. But his entry was attended by
still more melancholy circumstances, and of sinister augury to
the future stability of his dynasty. Even the royalists were
downcast; their patriotic feelings were deeply wounded by the
defeat of France. ... There was something in the restoration
of the monarch by the arms of the old rivals and enemies of
France which added inexpressibly to its bitterness. ... The
reality of subjugation was before their eyes. Blucher kept
aloof from all intercourse with the court, and haughtily
demanded a contribution of 100,000,000 francs ... for the pay
of his troops, as Napoleon had done from the Prussians at
Berlin. Already the Prussian soldiers insisted with loud cries
that the pillar of Austerlitz should be pulled down, as
Napoleon had destroyed the pillar of Rosbach; and Blucher was
so resolute to destroy the bridge of Jena, that he had
actually begun operations by running mines under the arches
for blowing it up. ... Wellington as steadily resisted the
ruthless act, but he had great difficulty in maintaining his
point; and it was only by his placing a sentinel on the
bridge, and repeated and earnest remonstrances, that the
destruction of that beautiful monument was prevented. ... A
still more melancholy humiliation than they had yet
experienced ere long befell the French nation. The Allied
sovereigns now arrived in Paris, and insisted upon the
restoration of the objects of art in the museum of the Louvre,
which had been pillaged from their respective states by the
orders of Napoleon. The justice of this demand could not be
contested: it was only wresting the prey from the robber. ...
Nothing wounded the French so profoundly as this breaking up
of the trophies of the war. It told them, in language not to
be misunderstood, that conquest had now reached their doors:
the iron went into the soul of the nation. A memorial from all
the artists of Europe at Rome claimed for the Eternal City the
entire restoration of the immortal works of art which had once
adorned it. The Allied sovereigns acceded to the just demand;
and Canova, impassioned for the arts and the city of his
choice, hastened to Paris to superintend the removal. It was
most effectually done. The bronze horses ... [from Venice]
were restored to their old station in front of the Church of
St. Mark. The Transfiguration and the Last Communion of St.
Jerome resumed their place in the halls of the Vatican; the
Apollo and the Laocoon again adorned the precincts of St.
Peter's; the Venus was enshrined anew amidst beauty in the
Tribune of Florence; and the Descent from the Cross by Rubens
was restored to the devout worship of the Flemings in the
cathedral of Antwerp. ...
{1367}
The claims preferred by the different Allied powers for
restitution not merely of celebrated objects of art, but of
curiosities and valuable articles of all kinds, which had been
carried off by the French during their occupation of the
different countries of Europe, especially under Napoleon, were
immense, and demonstrated at once the almost incredible length
to which the system of spoliation and robbery had been carried
by the republican and imperial authorities. Their amount may
be estimated by one instance from an official list, prepared
by the Prussian authorities in 1815, It appears that, during
the years 1806 and 1807, there had been violently taken from
the Prussian states, on the requisition of M. Donore, and
brought to Paris,--statues, paintings, antiquities, cameos,
manuscripts, maps, gems, antiques, rarities, and other
valuable articles, the catalogue of which occupies 53 closely
printed pages of M. Schoell's valuable Recueil. Among them are
127 paintings, many of them of the very highest value, taken from
the palaces of Berlin and Potsdam alone; 187 statues, chiefly
antique, taken from the same palaces during the same period;
and 86 valuable manuscripts and documents seized in the city
of Aix-la-Chapelle, on the occupation of that city, then a
neutral power, in 1803, by the armies of the First Consul on
the invasion of Hanover. The total articles reclaimed by the
Prussians exceeded two thousand. ... The claims of states and
cities for indemnity on account of' the enormous exactions
made from them by the French generals, under the authority of
the Convention and the Emperor, were still more extraordinary.
... The vast amount of these claims for indemnities in money
or territories, and the angry feelings with which they were
urged, were of sinister augury to the French nation, and
augmented, in a most serious degree, the difficulties
experienced by those who were intrusted with the conduct of
the negotiations. But, be they what they may, the French had
no means of resisting them; all they could trust to was the
moderation or jealousies of their conquerors. The force which,
during the months of July and August, advanced from all
quarters into their devoted territory, was immense, and such
as demonstrated that, if Napoleon had not succeeded in
dissolving the alliance by an early victory in the
Netherlands, the contest, even without the battle of Waterloo,
would have been hopeless. The united armies of Russians and
Austrians, 350,000 strong, under Schwartzenberg and Barclay de
Tolly, crossed the Rhine in various places from Bâle to
Coblentz, and, pressing rapidly forward, soon occupied the
whole eastern provinces of France. The Austrians and
Piedmontese, a hundred thousand more; passed Mont Cenis, or
descended the Rhone, from Geneva to Lyons. The Spaniards made
their appearance in Bearn or Roussillon. The armies of Blucher
and Wellington, now reinforced to 200,000 effective men,
occupied Paris, its environs, Normandy, and Picardy. Eighty
thousand Prussians and Germans, in addition, were advancing
through the Rhenish provinces and Belgium. Before the Allied
sovereigns returned to Paris, in the middle of July, the
French territory was occupied by 800,000 men, to oppose which
no considerable force remained but the army beyond the Loire,
which mustered 65,000 combatants. ... Austria insisted upon
getting back Lorraine and Alsace; Spain put in a claim to the
Basque provinces; Prussia alleged that her security would be
incomplete unless Mayence, Luxembourg, and all the frontier
provinces of France adjoining her territory, were ceded to
her; and the King of the Netherlands claimed the whole of the
French fortresses of the Flemish barrier. The monarchy of
Louis seemed on the eve of dissolution; and so complete was
the prostration of the vanquished, that there appeared no
power capable of preventing it. It was with no small
difficulty, and more from the mutual jealousies of the
different powers than any other cause, that these natural
reprisals for French rapacity were prevented from taking
place. The negotiation was protracted at Paris till late in
autumn; Russia, which had nothing to gain by the proposed
partition, took part with France throughout its whole
continuance; and the different powers, to support their
pretensions in this debate, maintained their armies, who had
entered on all sides, on the French soil; so that above
800,000 foreign troops were quartered on its inhabitants for
several months. At length, however, by the persevering efforts
of Lord Castlereagh, M. Nesselrode, and M. Talleyrand, all

difficulties were adjusted, and the second treaty of Paris was
concluded in November 1815, between France and the whole
Allied powers. By this treaty, and the relative conventions
which were signed the same day, conditions of a very onerous
kind were imposed upon the restored government. The French
frontier was restored to the state in which it stood in 1790,
by which means the whole of the territory, far from
inconsiderable, gained by the treaty of 1814, was resumed by
the Allies. In consequence of this, France lost the fortresses
of Landau, Sarre-Louis, Philipville, and Marienburg, with the
adjacent territory of each. Versoix, with a small district
round it, was ceded to the canton of Geneva; the fortress of
Huningen was to be demolished; but the little country of the
Venaisin, the first conquest of the Revolution, was preserved
to France. Seven hundred millions of francs (£28,000,000
sterling) were to be paid to the Allied powers for the
expenses of the war; in addition to which it was stipulated
that an army of 150,000 men, composed of 80,000 from each of
the great powers of England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and
the lesser powers of Germany, was to occupy, for a period not
less than three, or more than five years, the whole frontier
fortresses of France; ... and this large force was to be
maintained entirely at the expense of the French government.
In addition to this, the different powers obtained indemnities
for the spoliations inflicted on them by France during the
Revolution, which amounted to the enormous sum of 735,000,000
of francs more (£29,400,000 sterling). A hundred millions of
francs were also provided to the smaller powers as an
indemnity for the expenses of the war; so that the total sums
which France had to pay, besides maintaining the army of
occupation, amounted to no less than fifteen hundred and
thirty-five millions of francs, or £61,400,000 sterling. ...
Great Britain, in a worthy spirit, surrendered the whole sum
falling to her out of the indemnity for the war, amounting to
nearly £5,000,000 sterling, to the King of the Netherlands, to
restore the famous barrier against France which Joseph II. had
so insanely demolished."
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 95 (volume 20).
ALSO IN:
Prince de Talleyrand,
Memoirs,
part 9 (volume 8).
E. Hertslet,
The Map of Europe by Treaty,
Number 40 (volume 1).
{1368}
FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (September).
The Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.
The restored monarchy.
Louis XVIII. and Charles X.
Career of the Reactionaries.
Conquest of Algiers.
Ordinances of July.
Revolution.
Abdication and exile of the king.
"France was defeated but not crushed. Indeed she had gained
Avignon and some districts of Alsace since 1792, and she had
gained social and political stability by having millions of
peasants as small proprietors in the soil; moreover, as
Napoleon always waged his wars at the expense of his conquered
foes, the French national debt was after all the wars only
one-sixth of the debt of Great Britain. So France soon rose to
a position of strength and prosperity hardly equalled in all
Europe, in spite of bad harvests, political unrest, and the
foreign occupation which ended in 1818. The royalists, after a
quarter of a century of repression, now revenged themselves
with truly French vehemence. In France a victorious party
generally crushes its opponents; and the elections, held
during the full swing of the royalist reaction, sent up to
Paris a Legislative Assembly 'more royalist than the king
himself.' Before it assembled, Louis XVIII., in spite of his
promise only to punish those who were declared by the Assembly
to be traitors, proscribed fifty-seven persons who had
deserted to Napoleon in the 'Hundred Days.' ... Of the
proscribed men thirty-eight were banished and a few were shot.
Among the latter the most illustrious was Marshal Ney, whose
past bravery did not shield him from the extreme penalty for
the betrayal of the military oath. ... This impolitic
execution rankled deep in the breasts of all Napoleon's old
soldiers, but for the present all opposition was swept away in
the furious tide of reaction. Brune, one of Napoleon's
marshals, was killed by the royalist populace of Avignon; and
the Protestants of the south, who were suspected of favouring
Napoleon's home policy, suffered terrible outrages at Nimes
and Uzès in this 'white terror.' The restored monarchy had far
stronger executive powers than the old system wielded before
1789, for it now drew into its hands the centralised powers
which, under the Directory and the Empire, had replaced the
old cumbrous provincial system; but even this gain of power
did not satisfy the hot-headed royalists of the Chamber. They
instituted judicial courts under a provost (prévôt), which
passed severe sentences without right of appeal. Dismissing
the comparatively Liberal ministers Talleyrand and Fouché,
Louis in September 1816 summoned a more royalist ministry
under the Duc de Richelieu, which was itself hurried on by the
reactionaries. Chateaubriand fanned the flames of royalist
passion by his writings, until the king even found it
necessary to dissolve this mischievous Chamber, and the new
deputies who assembled (February 1817) showed a more moderate
spirit. France was soon delivered from the foreign armies of
occupation, for the sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and
Prussia, meeting at Aix-la-Chapelle (September 1818), in order
to combat revolutionary attempts, decided that an early
evacuation of French territory would strengthen the Bourbon
rule in France; and they renewed the Quadruple Alliance, which
aimed at upholding existing treaties. The discontent in
Germany and Italy awakened a sympathetic echo in France, which
showed itself in the retirement of the Duc de Richelieu and
the accession of a more progressive minister, Decazes
(November 1819). This check to the royalist reaction was soon
swept away by an event of sinister import. The Duc de Berry,
second son of the Comte d'Artois, was assassinated (February
1820), as he was leaving the opera-house, by a fanatic who
aimed at cutting off the direct Bourbon line (February 1820).
His design utterly failed, for a posthumous son, the
celebrated Comte de Chambord, was born in September 1820; and
the only result was a new outburst of royalist fury. Liberty
of the press was suspended, and a new complicated electoral
system restricted the franchise to those who paid at least
1,000 francs a year in direct taxation: the, Chamber of
Deputies, a fifth part of which was renewed every year by an
electorate now representing only the wealthy, became every
year more reactionary, while the Left saw its numbers decline.
The Ultra-royalist ministry of Villèle soon in its turn
aroused secret conspiracies, for the death of Napoleon (May 5,
1821) was now awakening a feeling of regret for the
comparative liberty enjoyed in France during the Empire.
Military conspiracies were formed, only to be discovered and
crushed, and the veteran republican Lafayette was thought to
be concerned in a great attempt projected in the eastern
departments with its headquarters at Belfort; and the terrible
society of the Carbonari secretly spread its arms through the
south of France, where it found soil as favourable as in Italy
itself. ... A revolution in Spain held Ferdinand a prisoner in
his palace at Madrid. Louis determined to uphold the throne of
his Bourbon relative, and sent an army which quickly effected
its object (1823). 'The Pyrenees no longer exist,' exclaimed
Louis XVIII. In fact, everywhere in Europe absolutism seemed
to be triumphant, and the elections of December 1823 sent up a
further reinforcement to the royalist party; also the
approaching end of the sensible old king foreshadowed a period
of still more violent reaction under his hot-headed brother
Charles. Louis XVIII. died on September 16, 1824, At his death
the restoration seemed firmly established. ... France had
quickly recovered from twenty years of warfare, and was
thought to have the strongest government in Europe. Always the
chief of the reactionary nobles, Charles had said, 'It is only
Lafayette and I who have not changed since 1789.' Honest,
sincere, and affable as the new king was, yet his popularity
soon vanished when it was seen how entirely he was under the
control of his confessor; and the ceremonies of his coronation
at Rheims showed that he intended to revive the almost
forgotten past. In Guizot's words, 'Louis XVIII was a moderate
of the old system and a liberal-minded inheritor of the 18th
century: Charles X. was a true Émigré, and a submissive bigot'
Among the first bills which Charles proposed to the Chambers was
one to indemnify those who had lost their lands in the
Revolution. To give these lands back would have caused general
unsettlement among thousands of small cultivators; but the
former landowners received an indemnity of a milliard of
francs, which they exclaimed against for its insufficiency
just as loudly as the radicals did for its extravagance: by
this tardy act of justice the State endeavoured to repair some
of the unjust confiscations of the revolutionary era. ...
{1369}
The attempts made by the Jesuits to regain their legal status
in France, in spite of the prohibition dating from before the
fall of the old regime, aroused further hostility to the king,
who was well known to favour their cause. Nothing, however, so
strengthened the growing opposition in the Chambers and in the
country at large as a rigorous measure aimed at the
newspapers, pamphlets, and books which combated the clerical
reaction. These publications were to pay a stamp duty per
page, while crushing fines were devised to ruin the offending
critics. One of the leaders of the opposition, Casimir Périer,
exclaimed against this measure as ruinous to trade: 'Printing
would be suppressed in France and transferred to Belgium.' The
king persevered in his mad enterprise: he refused to receive a
petition from the most august literary society in Europe, the
Académie Française, and cashiered its promoters as if they
were clerks under his orders. Strange to say, the Chamber of
Deputies passed the measure, while that of the Peers rejected
it--an event greeted by illuminations all over Paris (April
1827). A few days afterwards, at a review of the National
Guards in Paris, the troops raised cries for the liberty of
the press and for the charter granted in 1815. The next day
they were disbanded by royal command, but were foolishly
allowed to retain their arms, which were soon to be used
against the government. Charles next created seventy-six new
peers to outvote his opponents in the Upper House. He also
dissolved the Chamber of Deputies, but found the new members
less pliable. Finally, Charles had to give way for the time,
and accept a more moderate ministry under Martignac in place
of the reactionary Villèle Cabinet. ... Charles was soon able
to dismiss this ministry, the last hope of conciliation, and
formed (August 1829) a ministry under Count Polignac, one of
whose colleagues was the General Bourmont who had deserted to
the allies the day before Waterloo. The king's speech at the
opening of the next session (March 1830) was curt and
threatening, and the Chamber was soon prorogued. Reform
banquets, a custom which the French borrowed from English
reformers, increased the agitation, which the Polignac
ministry vainly sought to divert by ambitious projects of
invasion and partition of some neighbouring States. The only
practical outcome of these projects was the conquest of the
pirate stronghold of Algiers. This powerful fortress had been
bombarded and reduced by Lord Exmouth with the British fleet
in 1816, and the captives, mostly Italians, were released from
that den of slave-dealers; but the Dey of Algiers had resumed
his old habits, complaints from the French were met by
defiance, and at last the French envoy quitted the harbor amid
a shower of bullets. A powerful expedition effected a landing
near the strongly-fortified harbour, and easily beat back the
native attack; and then from the land side soon battered down
the defences of the city.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.
Thus the city which had long been the terror of Mediterranean
sailors became the nucleus of the important French colony of
Algeria (July 4,1830). The design of Charles X. and of his
reactionary Polignac ministry to divert the French people from
domestic grievances to foreign conquest needed the genius and
strength of a Napoleon to ensure success. The mere fact of the
expedition being Under the command of the hated General
Bourmont had made it unpopular. ... So, although the victory
was triumphantly announced throughout France, yet the
elections sent up a majority hostile to the king.
Nevertheless, with his usual blind obstinacy, Charles on the
25th July 1830 issued the famous ordinances which brought
matters to a crisis. The first suspended the liberty of the
press, and placed books under a strict censorship; the second
dissolved the newly-elected Chamber of Deputies; the third
excluded licensed dealers (patentés) from the franchise; the
fourth summoned a new Chamber under the new conditions, every
one of which violated the charter granted by the late king.
The Parisians at once flew to arms, and raised barricades in
the many narrow streets which then favoured street-defence.
Marmont, hated by the people as being the first of Napoleon's
marshals who had treated with the allies, was to quell the
disturbances with some 20,000 troops of the line; but on the
second day's fighting (July 28) the insurgents, aided by the
disbanded National Guards, and veterans of the empire, beat
back the troops; and on the third day the royal troops, cut
off from food and supplies, and exhausted by the heat, gave
way before the tri-colour flag; the defection of two line
regiments left the Louvre unguarded; a panic spread among
other regiments, and soon the tri-colour floated above the
Tuileries. Charles thereupon set the undignified example, soon
to be followed by so many kings and, princes, of giving way
when it was too late. He offered to withdraw the hated
ordinances, but was forced to flee from St. Cloud. He then
tried the last expedient, also doomed to failure, of
abdicating in favour of his little grandson the Duc de
Bordeaux, since better known as the Comte de Chambord.
Retiring slowly with his family to Cherbourg, the baffled
monarch set out for a second and last exile, spent first at
Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh, and ended at Göritz in Bohemia.
More than 5,000 civilians and 700 soldiers were killed or
wounded in these terrible 'three days' of July 1830, which
ended all attempts to re-establish the tyranny of the old
régime. The victims were appropriately buried in the Place de
la Bastille. They freed not France alone, but dealt a fierce
blow at the system of Metternich."
J. H. Rose,
Century of Continental History,
chapter 23.
ALSO IN:
D. Turnbull,
The French Revolution of 1830.
A. de Lamartine,
The Restoration of Monarchy in France,
books 32-50 (volumes 3-4).
E. E. Crowe,
History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII.
and Charles X.
Prince de Talleyrand,
Memoirs,
part 10 (volumes 3-4).
G. L. Dickinson,
Revolution and Reaction in Modern France,
chapter 3.
FRANCE: A. D. 1822:
The Congress of Verona.
French intervention in Spain approved.
See VERONA: THE CONGRESS OF.
FRANCE: A. D. 1823-1827.
Interference in Spain to suppress the revolution and reinstate
King Ferdinand.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
FRANCE: A. D. 1827-1829.
Intervention on behalf of Greece.
Battle of Navarino.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
{1370}
FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.
The monarchy renewed under Louis Philippe.
Its steady drift from the constitutional course.
"The Constitutional party set their hopes on Louis Philippe,
Duke of Orleans. This prince, born in 1773, was the son of
that notorious 'Egalité' who during the revolution had ended
his checkered career under the guillotine. His grandmother was
the noble Elizabeth Charlotte, a native of the Palatinate, who
had the misfortune to be the wife of the effeminate Duke of
Orleans, brother of Louis XIV. Louis Philippe was a Bourbon,
like King Charles; but the opposition of several members of
this Orleans branch of the royal house had caused it to be
regarded as a separate family. From his youth up he had
displayed a great deal of popular spirit and common-sense. ...
Seemingly created by his nature and career to be a citizen
king, he had long since, as early as 1814, determined to
accept the throne in case it were offered him." The offer came
in 1830 with the revolution of July. On the 31st of that month
he accepted the office of lieutenant-general of the kingdom,
conferred by the vote of a meeting of fifty delegates. "The
'Society of the Friends of the People' [an organization of the
pronounced republicans], not very well pleased with this result
of the 'great week' [as the week of the revolution was
called], laid before Lafayette, on the following day," their
programme, "and commissioned him to make the duke guarantee
the popular rights therein set forth by his signature. With
this document in his pocket, Lafayette made his ... visit to
Louis Philippe in the Palais Royal. In the course of
conversation he said to him, 'You know that I am a republican,
and consider the American constitution the most perfect.' 'I
am of the same opinion,' replied the duke; 'no one could have
been two years in America and not share that view. But do you
think that that constitution could be adopted in France in its
present condition--with the present state of popular opinion?'
'No,' said Lafayette; 'what France needs is a popular monarchy
surrounded by republican--thoroughly
republican--institutions.' 'There I quite agree with you,'
rejoined Louis Philippe. Enchanted with this political
harmony, the old general considered it unnecessary to present
the programme, and went security to the republicans for the
duke, the patriot, of 1789. ... On the 3d of August the
Chamber was opened by the Duke of Orleans, and the abdication
of the king and dauphin announced. ... The question whether
the constitution was to be changed, and how, gave rise to an
animated contest between radicals and liberals. The confidence
in Louis Philippe was so great, that they were content with a
few improvements. The throne was declared vacant, and Louis
Philippe proclaimed king of the French. ... August 8th, Louis
Philippe appeared in the Palais Bourbon, took the oath to the
constitution, and was thereupon proclaimed king. ... None of
the great monarchs had so difficult a task as Louis Philippe.
If he attached himself to the majority of his people and
showed himself in earnest with 'the republican institutions
which ought to surround the throne,' he had all the
continental powers against him; if he inclined toward the
absolute system of the latter, then not alone the extreme
parties, but also the men of the constitutional monarchy, ...
rose against him. ... His system, which he himself named a
happy medium (juste milieu), would have been a happy medium if
he had struck the middle and kept it; but he gradually swerved
so much toward the right that the middle was far to his left.
From the outset he had three parties against him--Legitimists,
Bonapartists, and Republicans." At intervals, there were
demonstrations and insurrections undertaken in the interest of
each of these. In July, 1835, the assassination of the king
was attempted, by the explosion of an infernal machine, which
killed and wounded sixty people. "The whole Republican party
was unjustly made responsible for this attempt, and new blows
were struck at the juries and the Press. Every Press offence
involving a libel of the king or the administration was to be
tried from this time on before the Court of Peers, and the
composition of that body rendered conviction certain. With
these September laws' the reaction was complete, the power of
the Republicans was broken. Their activity did not cease,
however. Their numerous societies continued to exist in
secret, and to the political affiliated themselves the social
societies, which ... demanded, among other impossibilities,
the abolition of private property. It was these baleful
excrescences which deprived republicanism of all credit, and
outbreaks like that of May 12th, 1839, where a few hundred
members of the 'Society of the Seasons,' with Barbès and
Blanqui at their head, disarmed military posts and proclaimed
the republic, found not the slightest response. The repeated
attempts which were made on the king's life were also
unsuccessful." The relations of Louis Philippe "to foreign
powers became better the more he approximated to their system,
putting restraints upon societies, the Press, and juries, and
energetically crushing popular revolts. Naturally he was by
this very means constantly further estranging the mass of the
people. ... What the Legitimists and Republicans had not
effected--a change of government--the Napoleonids now took in
hand." Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, son of ex-king Louis of
Holland and Hortense Beauharnais, made his appearance among
the soldiers of the garrison at Strasburg, October 30, 1836,
with the expectation that they would proclaim him emperor and
set the example of a rising in his favor. But the attempt was
a wretched failure; Louis Napoleon was arrested and
contemptuously sent out of the country, to America, without
punishment. In 1840 he repeated his undertaking, at Boulogne,
more abortively than in the first instance; was again made
prisoner, and was consigned, this time, to the castle of Ham,
from which he escaped six years later. "All the world laughed
at his folly; but without the scenes of Strasburg and
Boulogne, and the martyrdom of a six years' imprisonment, his
name certainly would not have produced such an effect in the
year 1848."
W. Miller,
Political History of Recent Times,
sections 7 and 14.
ALSO IN:
L. Blanc,
History of Ten Years, 1830-1840.
F. P. Guizot,
Memoirs to Illustrate the History of My Own Time,
volumes 3-4.
FRANCE: A. D. 1831-1832.
Intervention in the Netherlands.
Siege of Antwerp.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
FRANCE: A. D. 1833-1840.
The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
FRANCE: A. D. 1833-1846.
The subjugation of Algeria.
War with Abd-el-Kader.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D.1830-1846.
{1371}
FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.
The limited electoral body and its corruption.
Agitation for reform.
The suppressed banquet at Paris and the
revolution which followed.
Abdication and flight of the king.
"The monarchy of Louis Philippe lasted for 18 years. But the
experiment was practicable only so long as the throne rested
on a small body of obedient electors. The qualification for
the franchise was so high that it was held only by 200,000
people. So small a constituency could, be 'managed' by the
skill of M. Guizot and M. Thiers [who were the chief rivals of
the time in political leadership]. It could be 'managed'
through gifts of places, bribes, the influence of local
magnates, and the pressure of public officials. There was
never perhaps so corrupt an electoral body. ... M. Guizot, who
was an austere puritan at home, and who has entered into a
competition with Saint Augustin as a writer of religious
meditations, raised many sneers to the lips of worldlings, not
only by lending his hand to the infamous intrigue of the
Spanish Marriages, but by allowing his subordinates to traffic
in places for the sake of getting votes. His own hands, of
course, were clean; no one spoke a whisper against his
personal purity. But he seemed to have much practical sympathy
with the advice which Pitt, in one of Landor's 'Imaginary
Conversations,' gives to his young disciple Canning. Pecuniary
corruption was the very breath of life to the constitutional
monarchy. The voters were bought as freely as if they had
stood in the market-place. The system admirably suited the
purpose of the little family party of princes and
parliamentary chiefs who ruled the country. But it was as
artificial and fleeting as the sand castles which a child
builds on the edge of the advancing tide."
J. Macdonell,
France since the First Empire,
pages 172-174.
"The population of France was then 34,000,000, and the
privilege of the political franchise was vested exclusively in
those who paid in direct taxes a sum not less than £8. This
class numbered little more than 200,000. ... The government
had 130,000 places at its disposal, and the use which was made
of these during the 18 years of Louis Philippe's reign was
productive of corruption more widespread and shameless than
France had known since the first revolution. In the scarcely
exaggerated language used by M. de Lamartine, the government
had 'succeeded in making of a nation of citizens a vile band
of beggars.' It was obvious to all who desired the
regeneration of France that reform must begin with the
representation of the people. To this end the liberals
directed much effort. They did not as yet propose universal
suffrage, and their leaders were divided between an extension
of the franchise to all who paid £2 of direct taxes and an
extension, which went no lower than £4. The demand for reform
was resisted by the government. ... Among the leaders of the
liberal party were men of high character and commanding
influence. Arago, Odillon Barrot, Louis Blanc, Thiers,
Lamartine, were formidable assailants for the strongest
government to encounter. Under their guidance the agitation
for reform assumed dimensions exceedingly embarrassing and
even alarming. For once France borrowed from England her
method of political agitation. Reform banquets, attended by
thousands of persons, were held in all the chief towns, and
the pressure of a peaceful public opinion was employed to
obtain the remedy of a great wrong. The police made feeble
attempts to prevent such gatherings, but were ordinarily
unsuccessful. But the king and M. Guizot, strong in the
support of the army and a purchased majority of the deputies,
and apparently little aware of the vehemence of the popular
desire, made no effort to satisfy or propitiate. Louis
Philippe had wisely set a high value on the maintenance of
cordial relations with England. ... The Queen of England
gratified him by a visit [1843], which he returned a few
months after. ... During these visits there was much
conversation regarding a Spanish matter which was then of some
interest. The Spanish government was looking around to find
suitable husbands for their young queen and her sister. The
hands of the princesses were offered to two sons of Louis
Philippe. But ... England looked with disfavour upon a close
alliance between the crowns of France and Spain. The king
would not offend England. He declined the hand of the Spanish
queen, but accepted that of her sister for his fourth son, the
Duc de Montpensier. Queen Victoria and her ministers approved
of that marriage on the condition voluntarily offered by King
Louis, that it should not take place till the Spanish queen
was married and had children. But in a few years the king
violated his pledge, and pressed upon Spain an arrangement
under which the two marriages were celebrated together [1846].
... To Louis Philippe himself the transaction was calamitous.
He had broken his kingly word, and he stood before Europe and
before his own people a dishonoured man. ... Circumstances
made it easy for the opposition to enhance the general
discontent. Many evidences of shameless corruption were at
this time brought to light. ... The crops failed in 1845 and
1846, and prices rose to a famine point. ... The demand for
parliamentary reform became constantly more urgent; but M.
Guizot heeded it not. The reformers took up again their work
of agitation. They announced a great procession and reform
banquet. The police, somewhat hesitatingly, interdicted the
demonstration, and its promoters resolved to submit; but the
people, insufficiently informed of these movements, gathered
for the procession in the early morning. All that day
[February 22, 1848] the streets were thronged, and the
excitement of the people increased from hour to hour; but few
soldiers were seen, and consequently no conflict occurred.
Next morning the strategic points of the city were garrisoned
by a strong force of soldiers and national guards, and the
people saw that the government feared them. Business was
suspended, and the constantly rising agitation foretold
irrepressible tumults. The men of the faubourgs appeared once
more. Towards evening a few barricades were thrown up, and a
few gunsmiths' shops were plundered. Worst of all, the
national guard appeared to sympathize with the people. ... To
appease the angry mob, no measure seemed so hopeful as the
sacrifice of the ministry. Guizot resigned. Thiers and Odillon
Barrot, chiefs of the liberal party, were received into the
cabinet. Marshal Bugeaud was appointed to command the troops.
But before the day closed a disaster had occurred which made
all concession vain. Before one of the public offices there
was stationed a battalion of infantry, around which there
surged an excited crowd. A shot came from the crowd, and was
promptly responded to by a volley which killed or wounded 50
persons.
{1372}
The bodies of the victims were placed on waggons and drawn
along the streets, that the fury of the people might be
excited to the highest pitch. During that sleepless night,
Marshal Bugeaud, skilfully directing the forces which he
commanded, had taken the barricades and effectively checked
the rioters. But in early morning the new ministers ordered
him to desist and withdraw his troops. They deemed it useless
to resist. Concession was, in their view, the only avenue to
tranquillity. The soldiers retired; the crowds pressed on to
the Tuileries." The king, terrified by their approach, was
persuaded to sign an abdication in favor of his grandson, the
Comte de Paris, and to fly in haste, with his family, from the
palace and from Paris. A week later the royal family "reached
the coast and embarked for England, ... their majesties
travelling under the lowly but well-chosen incognito of Mr.
and Mrs. Smith. ... Immediately on the departure of the king,
a provisional government was organized, with M. Lamartine at
its head."
R. Mackenzie,
The Nineteenth Century,
book 3, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
F. P. Guizot,
France under Louis Philippe.
M. Caussidière,
Memoirs,
volume 1.
FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (February-May).
The three months of Provisional Government.
Its extraordinary measures.
Its absolutism.
Creation or the Ateliers Nationaux.
The consequences.
On the morning of February 24th--the morning of the king's
flight--M. de Lamartine, entering the Palais Bourbon, where
the Chamber of Deputies held its meetings, found in the
vestibule seven or eight persons waiting for him. "Who they
were we are not told--or what they were, except that they
belonged to the newspaper press. Even the names of the papers
with which they were connected are not expressly
stated--though the 'National' and 'Réforme' are indicated.
They demanded a secret conference. Lamartine took them into a
distant apartment." There they "proposed to him to substitute
for Louis-Philippe the Comte de Paris as king, and the Duchess
of Orleans as regent, and to place him [Lamartine] over them
minister." "Lamartine does not appear to have been surprised
at the proposal. He does not appear to have doubted the power
of seven or eight journalists to dethrone a king, create a
regent, and appoint a minister! And he was right. The
'National' and the 'Réforme,' whose representatives stood
before him, did more than all this, a couple of hours after.
... He objected to their scheme that such an arrangement would
not last, and declared himself in favour of a republic, based
on universal suffrage; ... they expressed their conviction,
and separated, agreed, apparently, on the course of action to
be pursued.' A few hours later, the Chamber was invaded by a
body of rioters, fresh from the sack of the Tuileries. The
Duchess of Orleans, who had presented herself at the Chamber
with her two children, fled before them. "M. Sauzet, the
President, disappeared. Lamartine [who was speaking] remained
in the tribune, and desired Dupont de l'Eure to take the
vacant chair." Thereupon a Provisional Government was
appointed, in some fashion not clearly detailed. It underwent
certain changes, by unexplained additions, within the
following day or two, but "in the 'Moniteur' of February 27
(the third day of the existence of the Provisional
Government), its members are arranged thus:--MM. Arago, Dupont
de l'Eure, Albert (ouvrier), F. Marrast, F. Flocon, Lamartine,
Marie, L. Blanc, Crémieux, Ledru Rollin, Garnier Pagès. ...
Within two days after its formation it was on the brink of
ruin under an attack from the Terrorists [or Red Republicans,
who assumed the red flag as their standard]. ... The contest
had left the members of the government in a state of mind
which M. de Lamartine thinks peculiarly favourable to wise
legislation. ... 'Every member of the Council sought [he
says], in the depths of his heart and of his intellect, for
some great reform, some great legislative, political, or moral
improvement. Some proposed the instantaneous abolition of
negro slavery. Others, the abolition of the restrictions
imposed by the laws of September upon the press. Some, the
proclamation of fraternity among nations, in order to abolish
war by abolishing conquest. Some, the abolition of the
qualification of electors. And all, the principles of mutual
charity among all classes of citizens. As quickly as these
great democratic truths, rather felt than discussed, were
converted into decrees, they were printed in a press set up at
the door of the council-room, thrown from the windows to the
crowd, and despatched by couriers through the departments.'
... The important decrees, which actually bear date February
25 or 26, and which may therefore be referred to this evening
of instinct, inspiration, and enthusiasm, are these:--The
18th, which sets at liberty all persons detained on political
grounds. The 19th, by which the government--
1, Engages to secure the existence of the operative
(ouvrier) by employment:
2, Engages to secure employment (garantir du travail) to
all citizens:
3, Admits that operatives ought to combine in order to
enjoy the fruits of their labour:
4, And promises to return to the operatives, whose property
it is, the million which will fall in from the civil list.
The 22nd, which dissolves the Municipal Guards. The 26th,
which declares that the actual government of France is
republican, and that the nation will immediately be called on
to ratify by its votes this resolution of the government and
of the people of Paris. The 29th, which declares that Royalty,
under any name whatever, ... is abolished. ... And the 30th,
which directs the immediate establishment of national
workshops (ateliers natlonaux). We confess that, we agree with
Lamartine in thinking that they bear the stamp of instinct
much more than that of reason. ... The declaration that the
actual government of France was republican ... was palpably
untrue. The actual government of France at that time was as
far removed from republicanism as it was possible for a
government to be. It was a many-headed Dictatorship--a
despotic oligarchy. Eleven men--some appointed in the offices
of a newspaper, and the others by a mob which had broken into
the Chamber of Deputies--ruled France, during three months,
with an absoluteness of which there is no other example in
history. ... They dissolved the Chamber of Deputies; they
forbade the peers to meet; they added 200,000 men to the
regular army, and raised a new metropolitan army of 20,000
more at double the ordinary pay; to meet this expense they
added 45 centimes to the direct taxes; they restricted the
Bank from cash payments; they made its paper a legal tender,
and then required it to lend them fifty millions; ... they
altered the hours of labour throughout France, and, subjected
to heavy fines any master who should allow his operatives to
remain at work for the accustomed period. ...
{1373}
The necessary consequence of the 19th decree, promising
employment to all applicants, was the creation of the ateliers
nationaux by the 30th. These workshops were immediately opened
in the outskirts Of Paris. A person who wished to take
advantage of the offers of the Government took from the person
with whom he lodged a certificate that he was an inhabitant of
the Department de la Seine. This certificate he carried to the
mairie of his arrondissement, and obtained an order of
admission to an atelier. If he was received and employed
there, he obtained an order on his mairie for forty sous. If
he was not received, after having applied at all of them, and
found them all full, he received an order for thirty sous.
Thirty sous is not high pay; but it was to be had for doing
nothing; and hopes of advancement were held out. Every body of
eleven persons formed an escouade; and their head, the
escouadier, elected by his companions, got half a franc a day
extra. Five escouades formed a brigade; and the brigadier,
also elected by his subordinates, received three francs a day.
Above these again were the lieutenants, the chefs de
compagnie, the chefs de service, and the chefs
d'arrondissement, appointed by the Government, and receiving
progressively higher salaries. Besides this, bread was
distributed to their families in proportion to the number of
children. The hours supposed to be employed in labour were
nine and a half. ... This semi-military organisation, regular
payment, and nominal work produced results which we cannot
suppose to have been unexpected by the Government. M. Emile
Thomas tells us that in one mairie, that containing the
Faubourg St.-Antoine, a mere supplemental bureau enrolled,
from March 12 to 20, more than 1,000 new applicants every day.
We have before us a list of those who had been enrolled on May
19, and it amounts to 87,942. A month later it amounted to
125,000--representing, at 4 to a family, 600,000 persons--more
than one half of the population of Paris. To suppose that such
an army as this could be regularly organised, fed, and paid,
for months in idleness, and then quietly disbanded, was a
folly of which the Provisional Government was not long guilty.
They soon saw that the monster which they had created could
not be subdued, if it could be subdued at all, by any means
short of civil war. ... 'A thunder-cloud (says M. de
Lamartine) was always before our eyes. It was formed by the
ateliers nationaux; This army of 120,000 work-people, the
great part of whom were idlers and agitators, was the deposit
of the misery, the laziness, the vagrancy, the vice, and the
sedition which the flood of the revolution had cast up and
left on its shores.' ... As they were managed, the ateliers
nationaux, it is now admitted, produced or aggravated the very
evils which they professed to cure or to palliate. They
produced or continued the stagnation of business which they
were to remedy; and, when they became absolutely intolerable,
the attempt to put an end to them occasioned the civil war
which they were to prevent."
N. W. Senior,
Journals kept in France and Italy, 1848-1852,
volume 1, pages 14-59.
ALSO IN:
Marquis of Normandy,
A Year of Revolution,
chapters 8-11 (volume l).
L. Blanc,
Historical Revelations, 1848.
A. de Lamartine,
History of the Revolution of 1848.
J. P. Simpson,
Pictures from Revolutionary Paris.
FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (April-December).
The Constituent National Assembly, and the Constitution of the
Second Republic.
Savage and terrible insurrection of the workmen of the
Ateliers Nationaux.
Vigorous dictatorship of Cavaignac.
Appearance of Louis Napoleon.
His election to the Presidency of the Republic.
The election by universal suffrage of a Constituent National
Assembly, twice deferred on account of fears of popular
turbulence, took place on the 23d of April, and resulted in
the return of a very Conservative majority, largely composed
of Napoleonists, Legitimists and Orleanists. The meeting of
the Assembly was opened on the 7th of May. "The moderates were
anxious to invest M. de Lamartine with a dictatorial
authority," which he declined. "Eventually an executive
commission of five was appointed. ... The commission consisted
of Arago, Garnier Pagès, Marie, Lamartine, and Ledru Rollin.
... This conciliatory executive commission was elected by the
Assembly on the 10th of May. On the 15th, the 'concilliated'
mob broke into the chamber, insulted the deputies, turned them
out, proclaimed a provisional government, and then marched to
the Hôtel de Ville, where they were installed with due
revolutionary solemnity;" but the National Guard rallied to
the support of the government, and the insurrection was
promptly suppressed. "Eleven vacancies in the Assembly had to
be filled in the department of the Seine, on account of double
returns. These elections produced fresh uneasiness in Paris.
Eighth on the list stood Louis Napoleon Bonaparte; and among
the names mentioned as candidates was that of Prince de
Joinville, the most popular of the Orleans princes. The
executive commission appears to have been more afraid of the
latter than of the former; and to prevent the disagreeable
circumstance of France returning him to the Assembly as one of
her representatives, they thought themselves justified in
declaring the whole Orleans family incapable of serving France
in any capacity. ... Louis Napoleon, on the first proclamation
of the Republic, had at once offered his services; but was by
the Provisional Government requested to withdraw, as his great
name might trouble the republic. ... Two Bonapartes had been
elected members for Corsica, and three sat in the Assembly;
but, as the next heir of the Emperor, Louis Napoleon caused
them much uneasiness. ... Already mobs had gone about the
Boulevard crying 'Vive l'Empereur.' The name of Bonaparte was
not unpopular with the bourgeoisie; it was a guarantee of
united and strong government to all. On his election, Louis
Napoleon wrote to the President of the Assembly: a phrase in
his letter gave considerable offence. Some days before,
Lamartine had proposed his exclusion from the Assembly and the
country; but, as it appeared he was in no way implicated in
the seditious cries, they voted his admission by a large
majority. The phrase which gave umbrage was: 'If the country
imposes duties upon me, I shall know how to fulfill them.' ...
However, by a subsequent letter, dated the 15th, he restored
confidence by saying he would resign rather than be a cause of
tumult. But the real difficulties of the government arose from
a different cause.
{1374}
The National Assembly bore with impatience the expense of the
Ateliers Nationaux: It was enough to submit to the factious
spirit of those bodies; but it was too much to pay them for
keeping on foot an organized insurrection, ever ready to break
out and deluge the capital in blood. The executive commission
had been desirous of finding means gradually to lessen the
numbers receiving wages; and on the 12th of May, it was
resolved to close the lists. The commission foresaw that if
the Ateliers were at once abolished, it would produce a
rebellion in Paris; and they hoped, first, by preventing any
more being inscribed, and then by setting them to task-work,
that they should gradually get the numbers reduced. ... But
the Assembly would not wait; they ordered all the workmen
between 18 and 25 years old, and unmarried, to be drafted into
the army, or to be discharged; and they were breaking them up
so rapidly, that if the workmen wanted to fight it was evident
that it must be done at once or not at all. ... General
Cavaignac, who had been sent for from Africa, was on his
arrival in Paris named Minister at War, and had command of the
troops. ... Preparations for the conflict commenced on Thursday
the 22nd of June; but it was noon of the following day ere the
first shot was fired. It is said, that had the executive
commission known what they were about, the heads of the
insurrection might have been all arrested in the meantime, for
they were walking about all day, and at one time met in the
Jardin des Plantes. The fighting on the 23d continued all day,
with much slaughter, and little practical result. ... The
extent of the insurgent lines swallowed up the troops, so
that, though great numbers were in Paris, there appeared to be
a deficiency of them, and loud complaints were made against
the inefficiency of the executive commission. During the night
the fighting ceased, and both parties were occupied in
strengthening their positions. The Assembly was sitting in
permanence; they were highly incensed against the executive
commission, and wished them to send in their resignations; but
the latter refused, saying it was cowardly to do so in the face
of insurrection. The Assembly then formally deposed the
commission, and appointed Cavaignac dictator; to which
arrangement the executive commission at once assented. The
General instantly ordered the National Guards to prevent
assemblages in the streets, and that no one should go out
without a pass: anyone going about, out of uniform, without
permission, was walked home. In this manner many persons
carrying ammunition to the insurgents were arrested. At noon,
he sent a flag of truce with a proclamation, offering an
amnesty to the rebels, at the suggestion of the ex-prefect
Caussidière; but it was unhesitatingly rejected. This latter
personage, though he was not among the barricades, was by many
thought to be the head of the insurrection. The troops of the
insurgents were managed with great military skill, showing
that persons of military knowledge must have had the command;
though no one knew who were their leaders. ... During the
early part of the day, the fighting was mainly on the southern
side of the river. The church of St. Gervais and the bridges
were carried with great slaughter, as well as the church of
St. Severin, and their great head-quarters the Pantheon; and
by four o'clock, the troops had conquered the whole of the
south bank of the Seine. On the other side, a hot engagement
was going on in the Faubourgs Poissonnière and St. Denis:
these were carried with great loss at a late hour, whence the
insurrection was forced back to its great stronghold, the Clos
St. Lazare; which defied every effort of General Lamoricière
to take it on Saturday. An unfinished hospital served as a
citadel, and several churches and public buildings as
out-posts; while the old city wall, which they had loop-holed,
enabled them to fire on the troops in comparative security;
but the buildings were breached with cannon, and the
insurgents by four o'clock on Sunday were dispersed. ... A
desperate struggle was going on at a late hour in the Faubourg
du Temple; and on the Monday morning the insurgents made a
stand behind the Canal St. Martin, where they sent to treat on
condition of retaining their arms. But Cavaignac would hear of
no terms. It was thought, at one time, that they had
surrendered; when some soldiers, going within the lines, were
surprised and murdered. Hostilities at once began again, and
the insurgents were finally subdued by one o'clock on Monday
the 26th. The victory was dearly bought: 8,000 were
ascertained to have been killed or wounded; and, as many
bodies were thrown into the Seine unrecognised, this is much
under the number. Nearly 14,000 prisoners were taken, and
3,000 of these died of gaol fever. ... The excellent
Archbishop of Paris, Denis Auguste Affre, fell a sacrifice to
his Christian benevolence. Horrified at the slaughter, he,
attended by two of his vicars carrying the olive-branch of
peace, passed between the combatants. The firing ceased at his
appearance; but, from the discharge of a single musket, it
began again: he, nevertheless, mounted the barricade and
descended into the midst of the insurgents, and was, in the
act of addressing them, when some patriot, fearing the effect
of his exhortations, shot him from a window. ... General
Cavaignac, immediately after the pacification of Paris, laid
down the temporary dictatorship with which he had been
invested by the Assembly; but their gratitude for the
salvation of society led them to appoint him President of the
Council, with the power to name his own Ministry. He at once
sent adrift all the red republican party, and chose a Ministry
from among the moderate class of republicans; to which he
afterwards added some members of the old opposition. ...
Prince Louis Napoleon was again thrust upon the Assembly, by
being elected for Corsica; but he wrote a letter on the 8th of
July, saying, that though he did not renounce the honour of
one day sitting as a representative of the people, he would
wait till the time when his return to France could not in any
way serve as a pretext to the enemies of the republic. ... On
Tuesday, the 26th of September, shortly after the president
had taken his seat, Louis Napoleon appeared quietly in the
chamber, and placed himself on one of the back benches. ...
The discussion of the constitution, which had been referred to
a committee, was the only subject of interest, except the
important question of how the president should be elected. It
was proposed by some that the assembly itself should elect a
president, a proposition which was eventually negatived by a
large majority.
{1375}
The real object was to exclude Louis Napoleon, whose great
name gave him every chance of success, if an appeal were made
to the universal suffrage of the nation, which the republicans
distrusted. Another amendment was moved to exclude all
pretenders to the throne; on which, allusion being made to
Louis Napoleon, he mounted the rostrum, and denied that he was
a pretender. ... The red republicans were desirous of having
no president, and that the constituent assembly itself should
name the ministers. It was not the only constitutional point
in dispute: for weeks and months, the debate on the
constitution dragged its weary length along; amendments were
discussed, and the work when turned out was, as might have
been expected, a botch after all. ... It was eventually
agreed, that to give validity to the election of a president
it should be necessary that he should have more than a half of
all the votes given; that is to say, more votes than all the
other candidates put together; if not, the assembly was to
choose between the highest candidate on the list and his
competitors, by which means they hoped to be able to get rid
of Bonaparte. ... The constitution was proclaimed on the 10th
of November. ... The legitimist and Orleanist parties refused
to start a candidate for fear of weakening Bonaparte, and thus
throwing the choice into the hands of the assembly, who would
choose General Cavaignac. Both these parties gave the former
at least a negative support; and as M. Thiers declared that
nine-tenths of the country were opposed to the General as too
revolutionary, it was clear that in the country itself
reaction was going on faster than in the assembly. ... Louis
Napoleon's chief support was from the inhabitants of the
country districts, the peasantry. ... On the 10th of December,
5,534,520 votes were recorded for Louis Napoleon. General
Cavaignac had 1,448,302. Then came Ledru Rollin; then Raspail.
Lamartine got 17,914; 23,219 were disallowed, as being given
for some of the banished royal family. The total number of
voters was 7,449,471."
E. S. Cayley,
The European Revolution of 1848,
volume 1, chapters 4-5.
ALSO IN:
J. F. Corkran,
History of the Constituent
National Assembly from May, 1848.
Marquis of Normanby,
A Year of Revolution,
chapters 13-15(volume 2).
H. C. Lockwood,
Constitutional History of France,
chapter 5, and appendix 8.
FRANCE: A. D. 1849.
Intervention at Rome, to crush the revolutionary republic and
restore the Pope.
French capture and occupation of the city.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
FRANCE: A. D. 1849-1850.
Disagreement with England in Greece.
The Don Pacifico affair.
See GREECE: A. D.1846-1850.
FRANCE: A. D.1851.
The plot of the Coup d'État.
"In the beginning of the winter of 1851 France was still a
republic; but the Constitution of 1848 had struck no root.
There was a feeling that the country had been surprised and
coerced into the act of declaring itself a republic, and that
a monarchical system of government was the only one adapted
for France. The sense of instability which sprang from this
belief was connected with an agonising dread of insurrections.
... Moreover, to those who watched and feared, it seemed that
the shadow on the dial was moving on with a terrible
steadiness to the hour when a return to anarchy was, as it
were, pre-ordained by law; for the constitution requited that
a new president should be chosen in the spring of the
following year. ... In general, France thought it best that,
notwithstanding the Rule of the Constitution, which stood in
the way, the then President should be quietly re-elected; and
a large majority of the Assembly, faithfully representing this
opinion, had come to a vote which sought to give it effect;
but their desire was baffled by an unwise provision of the
Republican Charter which had laid it down that no
constitutional change should take place without the sanction
of three-fourths of the Assembly. By this clumsy bar the
action of the State system was hampered, and many whose minds
generally inclined them to respect legality were forced to
acknowledge that the Constitution wanted a wrench." The
President of the republic, Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte,

"had always wished to bring about a change in the
constitution, but, originally, he had hoped to be able to do
this with the aid and approval of some at least of the
statesmen and eminent generals of the country." But, "although
there were numbers in France who would have been heartily glad
to see the Republic crushed by some able dictator, there were
hardly any public men who believed that in the President of
the Republic they would find the man they wanted. Therefore
his overtures to the gentlemen of France were always rejected.
Every statesman to whom he applied refused to entertain his
proposals. Every general whom he urged always said that for
whatever he did he must have 'an order from the Minister of
War.' The President being thus rebuffed, his plan of changing
the form of government with the assent of some of the leading
statesmen and generals of the country degenerated into schemes
of a very different kind; and at length he fell into the hands
of persons of the quality of Persigny, Morny, and Fleury. ...
The President had been a promoter of the law of the 31st of
May, restricting the franchise, but he now became the champion
of universal suffrage. To minds versed in politics this change
might have sufficed to disclose the nature of the schemes upon
which the Chief of the State was brooding; but, from first to
last, words tending to allay suspicion had been used with
great industry and skill. From the moment of his coming before
the public in February 1848, the Prince laid hold of almost
every occasion he could find for vowing, again and again, that
he harbored no schemes against the Constitution. ... It was
natural that in looking at the operation which changed the
Republic into an Empire, the attention of the observer should
be concentrated upon the person who, already the Chief of the
State, was about to attain to the throne; and there seems to
be no doubt, that what may be called the literary part of the
transaction was performed by the President in person. He was
the lawyer of the confederacy. He no doubt wrote the
Proclamations, the Plebiscites, and the Constitutions, and all
such like things; but it seems that the propelling power which
brought the plot to bear was mainly supplied by Count de Morny,
and by a resolute Major, named Fleury. M. Morny was a man of
great daring, and gifted with more than common powers of
fascination. He had been a member of the Chamber of Deputies
in the time of the monarchy; but he was rather known to the
world as a speculator than as a politician. He was a buyer and
seller of those fractional and volatile interests in trading
adventures, which go by the name of 'Shares.' ...
{1376}
He knew how to found a 'company,' and he now undertook to
establish institutions which were destined to be more
lucrative to him than any of his former adventures; ... It
seems, however, that the man who was the most able to make the
President act, to drive him deep into his own plot, and
fiercely carry him through it, was Major Fleury. ... He was
daring and resolute, and his daring was of the kind which
holds good in the moment of danger. If Prince Louis Bonaparte
was bold and ingenious in designing, Fleury was the man to
execute. ... The language held by the generals who declared
that they would act under the authority of the Minister of War
and not without it, suggested the contrivance which was
resorted to. Fleury determined to find a military man capable
of command, capable of secrecy, and capable of a great
venture. The person chosen was to be properly sounded, and if
he seemed willing, was to be admitted into the plot. He was
then to be made Minister of War, in order that through him the
whole of the land forces should be at the disposal of the
plotters. Fleury went to Algeria to find the instrument
required, and he so well performed his task that he hit upon a
general officer who was christened, it seems, Jacques Arnaud
Le Roy, but was known at this time as Achille St. Arnaud. ...
He readily entered into the plot. From the moment that Prince
Louis Bonaparte and his associates had entrusted their secret
to the man of Fleury's selection, it was perhaps hardly
possible for them to flinch, for the exigencies of St. Arnaud,
formerly Le Roy, were not likely to be on so modest a scale as
to consist with the financial arrangements of a Republic
governed by law, and the discontent of a person of his quality
with a secret like that in his charge would plainly bring the
rest of the brethren into danger. He was made Minister of War.
This was on the 27th of October. At the same time M. Maupas or
de Maupas was brought into the Ministry. ... Persigny,
properly Fialin, was in the plot. He was descended on one side
of an ancient family, and disliking his father's name he seems
to have called himself for many years after the name of his
maternal grandfather. ... It was necessary to take measures
for paralyzing the National Guard, but the force was under the
command of General Perrot, a man whose honesty could not be
tampered with. To dismiss him suddenly would be to excite
suspicion. The following expedient was adopted: the President
appointed as Chief of the Staff of the National Guard, a
person named Vieyra. The past life and the then repute of this
person were of such a kind, that General Perrot, it seems,
conceived himself insulted by the nomination, and instantly
resigned. That was what the brethren of the Elysée wanted. On
Sunday, the 30th, General Lawæstine was appointed to the
command. ... His function was--not to lead the force of which
he took the command but--to prevent it from acting. ... Care
had been taken to bring into Paris and its neighborhood the
regiments most likely to serve the purpose of the Elysée, and
to give the command to generals who might be expected to act
without scruples. The forces in Paris and its neighborhood
were under the orders of General Magnan. ... From time to time
the, common soldiery were gratified with presents of food and
wine, as well, as with an abundance of flattering words, and
their exasperation against civilians was so well kept alive
that men used to African warfare were brought into the humor
for calling the Parisians 'Bedouins.' There was massacre in
the very sound. The army of Paris was in the temper required.
It was necessary for the plotters to have the concurrence of
M. St. Georges, the director Of the state printing-office. M.
St. Georges was suborned. Then all was ready. On the Monday
night between the 1st and 2d of December, the President had
his usual assembly at the Elysée. Ministers who were loyally
ignorant of what was going on were mingled with those who were
in the plot. ... At the usual hour the assembly began to
disperse, and by eleven o'clock there were only three guests
who remained. These were Morny (who had previously taken care
to show himself at one of the theatres), Maupas, and St.
Arnaud, formerly Le Roy. There was, besides, an orderly
officer of the President, called Colonel Beville, who was
initiated in the secret. ... They were to strike the blow that
night. ... By and by they were apprised that an order which had
been given for the movement of a battalion of gendarmerie, had
duly taken effect without exciting remark. ... The President
entrusted a packet of manuscripts to Colonel Beville, and
despatched him to the state printing office. It was in the
streets which surround this building that the battalion of
gendarmerie had been collected. When Paris was hushed in
sleep, the battalion came quietly out, and folded round the
state printing-office. From that moment until their work was
done the printers were all close captives, for no one of them
was suffered to go out. ... It is said that there was
something like resistance, but in the end, if not at first,
the printers obeyed. Each compositor stood whilst he worked
between two policemen, and, the manuscript being cut into many
pieces, no one could make out the sense of what he was
printing. By these proclamations the President asserted that
the Assembly was a hot-bed of plots; declared it dissolved;
pronounced for universal suffrage; proposed a new
constitution; vowed anew that his duty was to maintain the
Republic; and placed Paris and the twelve surrounding
departments under martial law. In one of the proclamations, he
appealed to the army, and strove to whet its enmity against
civilians, by reminding it of the defeats inflicted upon the
troops in 1830 and 1848. The President wrote letters
dismissing the members of the government who were not in the
plot; but he did not cause these letters to be delivered until
the following morning. He also signed a paper appointing Morny
to the Home Office. ... The order from the Minister of War was
probably signed by half-past two in the morning, for at three it
was in the hands of Magnan. At the same hour Maupas (assigning
for pretext the expected arrival of foreign refugees), caused
a number of Commissaries to be summoned in all haste to the
Prefecture of Police. At half-past three in the morning these
men were in attendance. ... It was then that, for the first
time, the main secret of the confederates passed into the
hands of a number of subordinate agents. During some hours of
that night every one of those humble Commissaries had the
destinies of France in his hands; for he might either obey the
Minister, and so place his country in the power of the Elysée,
or he might obey the law, denounce the plot, and bring its
contrivers to trial. Maupas gave orders for the seizure at the
same minute of the foremost Generals of France, and several of
her leading Statesmen.
{1377}
Parties of the police, each under the orders of a Commissary,
were to be at the doors of the persons to be arrested some
time beforehand, but the seizures were not to take place until
a quarter past six. ... At the appointed minute, and whilst it
was still dark, the designated houses were entered. The most
famous generals of France were seized. General Changarnier,
General Bedeau, General Lamoricière, General Cavaignac, and
General Leflô were taken from their beds, and carried away
through the sleeping city and thrown into prison. In the same
minute the like was done with some of the chief members and
officers of the Assembly, and amongst others with Thiers,
Miot, Baze, Colonel Charras, Roger du Nord, and several of the
democratic leaders. Some men believed to be the chiefs of
secret societies were also seized. The general object of these
night arrests was that, when morning broke, the army should be
without generals inclined to observe the law, that the
Assembly should be without the machinery for convoking it, and
that all the political parties in the State should be
paralyzed by the disappearance of their chiefs. The number of
men thus seized in the dark was seventy-eight. Eighteen of
these were members of the Assembly. Whilst it was still dark,
Morny, escorted by a body of infantry, took possession of the
Home Office, and prepared to touch the springs of that
wondrous machinery by which a clerk can dictate to a nation.
Already he began to tell 40,000 communes of the enthusiasm
with which the sleeping city had received the announcement of
measures not hitherto disclosed. When the light of the morning
dawned, people saw the Proclamations on the walls, and slowly
came to hear that numbers of the foremost men of France had
been seized in the night-time, and that every General to whom
the friends of law and order could look for help was lying in
one or other of the prisons. The newspapers, to which a man
might run in order to know truly what others thought and
intended, were all seized and stopped. The gates of the
Assembly were closed and guarded, but the Deputies, who began
to flock thither, found means to enter by passing through one
of the official residences which formed Part of the building.
They had assembled in the Chamber in large numbers, and some
of them having caught Dupin, their reluctant President, were
forcing him to come and take the chair, when a body of
infantry burst in and drove them out, striking some of them
with the butt-ends of their muskets. ... Driven from their
Chamber, the Deputies assembled at the Mayoralty of the 10th
arrondissement. There, upon the motion of the illustrious,
Berryer, they resolved that the act of Louis Bonaparte was a
forfeiture of the Presidency, and they directed the judges of
the Supreme Court to meet and proceed to the judgment of the
President and his accomplices. These resolutions had just been
voted, when a battalion of the Chasseurs de Vincennes entered
the courtyard. ... An aide-de-camp of General Magnan came with
a written order directing the officer in command of the
battalion to clear the hall, to do this if necessary by force,
and to carry off to the prison of Mazas any Deputies offering
resistance. ... The number of Deputies present at this moment
was 220. The whole Assembly declared that they resisted, and
would yield to nothing short of force. ... They were carried
off, some to the Fort of Mount Valerian, some to the fortress
of Vincennes, and some to the prison of Mazas. ... By the laws
of the Republic, the duty of taking cognizance of offences
against the Constitution was cast upon the Supreme Court. The
Court was sitting, when an armed force entered the hall, and
the judges were driven from the bench, but not until they had
made a judicial order for the impeachment of the President."
A. W. Kinglake,
The Invasion of the Crimea,
volume 1, chapter 14.
ALSO IN:
E. Tênot,
Paris in December, 1851,
chapters 1-4.
V. Hugo,
Napoleon the Little.
M. de Maupas,
The Story of the Coup d'État.
B. Jerrold,
Life of Napoleon III.,
book 8 (volume 3).
FRANCE: A. D. 1851.
The bloody Triumph of the Coup d'État.
Destruction of the Second Republic.
"The second part of the Coup d'État, which drenched the
boulevards with innocent blood, has cast a shade of horror
over the whole transaction that time has been unable to
efface. Paris is never so reduced in a crisis, whether the
cause be just or unjust, that she is bereft of hands to erect
and defend barricades in her streets. In the Faubourg St.
Antoine an incipient rising on the 2d was suppressed
immediately by the troops. The volcanic district from the
Hôtel de Ville northward to the boulevards also showed signs
of uneasiness, and throughout the morning of the 3d the
military were busy pulling down partially completed barricades
and dispersing small bodies of insurgents. There seems to be
little question that the army was embittered against the
populace. If this were so, the proclamation circulated by the
president through the ranks on the 2d was not calculated to
appease it. He styled the soldiers as the 'flower of the
nation.' He pointed out to them that his interests and theirs
were the same, and that they had suffered together in the past
from the course of the Assembly. He reminded them of the years
1830 and 1848, when the army had fought the people in the
streets of Paris, and concluded by an allusion to the military
grandeur of the Bonapartes. During the afternoon of the 3d and
morning of the 4th the troops remained inactive; pending
orders from the minister of war, and in this interval several
strong barricades were erected in the restless quarters. On
the afternoon of the 4th the boulevards, from the Madeleine to
the Rue du Sentier, were occupied by a great body of troops
awaiting orders to move east through the Boulevard Bonne
Nouvelle upon the barricaded district. The soldiers stood at
ease, and the officers lounged about, smoking their cigars.
The sidewalks, windows, and balconies were crowded with men,
women, and children, thoughtless onlookers of the great
military display. Suddenly a single shot was heard. It was
fired from a window near the Rue du Sentier. The troops at the
head of the column faced sharply to the south, and commenced a
deliberate fusillade upon the crowded walks and balconies. The
battalions farther west caught the murderous contagion, until
the line of fire extended into the Boulevard des Italiens. In
a few moments the beautiful boulevards were converted into a
bloody pandemonium. The sidewalks were strewn with corpses and
stained with blood. The air was rent with shrieks and groans
and the breaking of glass, while the steady, incessant
rattling of the musketry was intensified by an occasional
cannon-shot, that brought down with a crash the masonry from
some fine façade.
{1378}
This continued for nearly twenty minutes, when a lack of
people to kill seems to have restrained the mad volleys of the
troops. If any attempt was made by officers to check their
men, it was wholly unavailing, and in some cases miserable
fugitives were followed into buildings and massacred. Later in
the day the barricades were attacked, and their defenders
easily overcome. By night-fall insurgent Paris was thoroughly
cowed. These allegations, though conflicting with sworn
statements of Republicans and Imperialists, can hardly be
refuted. The efforts of the Napoleonic faction to portray the
thoughtless crowd of the boulevards as desperate and
bloody-minded rebels have never been successful, while the
opposition so brilliantly represented by the author of
'Histoire d'un Crime' have been too fierce and immoderate in
their accusations to win public credence. The questions as to
who fired the first shot, and whether it was fired as a signal
for, or a menace against the military, are points on which
Frenchmen of different political parties still debate. It is
charitable to accept M. Hugo's insinuation that the soldiery
were drunk with the president's wine, even though the fact
implies a low state of discipline in the service. To what
extent was the president responsible for the boulevard horror?
M. Victor Hugo and M. de Maupas do not agree upon this point,
and it seems useless to discuss it. Certain facts are
indisputable. We know the army bore small love toward the
Parisians, and we know it was in the streets by order of the
president. We know that the latter was in bad company, and
playing a dangerous game. We may discard M. Victor Hugo's
statement as to the orders issued by the president from the
Elysée on the fatal day, but we cannot disguise the fact that
the boulevard horror subdued Paris, and crowned his cause with
success. In other words, Louis Napoleon was the gainer by the
slaughter of unoffending men, women, and children, and in
after-years, when referring to the 4th of December, he found
it for his interest to distort facts, and make figures lie.
... Louis Napoleon had expressly stated in the proclamation
that astonished Paris on the 2d that he made the people judge
between him and the Assembly. The citizens of France were
called upon to vote on the 20th and 21st of December 'Yes' or
'No' to the question as to whether the president should be
sustained in the measures he had taken, should be empowered to
draw up a new constitution, and should retain the presidential
chair for a period of ten years."
H. Murdock,
The Reconstruction of Europe,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
V. Hugo,
History of a Crime.
E. Tênot,
Paris in December, 1851,
chapters 5-6.
M. de Maupas,
Story of the Coup d'État,
chapters 18-24 (volume 2).
Count H. de Viel Castel,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapter 4.
FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852.
Transportation and exile of republicans.
The dictator's constitution for France.
Rapid progress of despotism.
The Second Empire ordained.
Elevation of Napoleon III. to the throne.
"The struggle was over: terror of the victors followed.
Thirty-two departments were in a state of siege. More than
100,000 citizens were languishing in prison. Trial followed
trial in rapid succession, the cases being classed under three
heads: 1st, persons found armed, or against whom serious
charges existed; 2d, persons charged with minor offences; 3d,
dangerous persons. The first class was judged at once by a
council of war, the second sent to various tribunals, the
third transported without trial. Many prisoners were not even
questioned. Numbers were set free; but multitudes were still
held. Under these conditions the date of the plebiscite,
December 20 and 21, approached. Notices were posted to the
effect that 'any person seeking to disturb the polls or to
question the result of the ballot would be tried by a council
of war.' All liberty of choice was taken from the electors,
many of whom were arrested on suspicion of exciting others to
vote against the president of the republic. When the lists
were published it was found that the 'ayes' had carried the
day, although many did not vote at all. Indubitably the
figures were notably swelled by violence and fraud. ...
December 31, ex-Minister Baroche presented the result of the
ballots to the prince-president,--a strange title now given to
Louis Napoleon, for the time being, in lieu of another. ...
Next day, January 1, 1852, Archbishop Sibour celebrated a Te
Deum in Notre Dame, the prince-president sitting under a
canopy. ... While the man of December 2 lodged in the palace
of kings, the chief representatives of the republic were cast
into exile. The executors of the plot treated the captive
representatives very differently according as they were
conservative or republican. When the prisoners were told that
a distinction was to be made among them, they honorably
refused to give their names, but they were betrayed by an
usher of the Assembly. The republicans were then sent to
Mazas, and treated like common thieves, M. Thiers alone being
allowed a bed instead of the ordinary hammock. The other party
were soon set free, with but few exceptions, and on the 8th of
January the generals imprisoned at Ham, with their companion,
Questor Baze, were sent to Belgium. Next day a series of
proscriptions came out. All persons 'convicted of taking part
in the recent insurrections' were to be transported, some to
Guiana, some to Algiers. A second decree expelled from France,
Algiers, and the French colonies, 'as a measure of public
safety,' sixty representatives of the Left, including Victor
Hugo and certain others, for whom it was reserved to aid in
the foundation of a third republic. A third decree commanded
the temporary absence from France and Algiers of eighteen
other representatives, including the generals, with Thiers, De
Rémusat, and several members of the Left, among them Edgar
Quinet and Emile de Girardin. ... The next step was to
establish the famous 'mixed commissions' in every province.
These commissions were to try the numerous prisoners still
held captive. ... The mixed commissions of 1852, as the
historian of the coup d'état (M. Eugène Ténot) declares,
'decided, without legal proceedings, without hearing of
witnesses, without public trial, the fate of thousands and
thousands of republicans.' They have left the indelible memory
of one of the most monstrous events known in history. An act
equally extraordinary in another way was the promulgation of
the new constitution framed by the dictator alone (January 14,
1852). ... The constitution of 1852 began by a 'recognition,
confirmation, and guarantee of the great principles proclaimed
in 1789, which are the foundation of the public rights and
laws of France.'
{1379}
But it did not say one word about the freedom of the press,
nor about freedom of clubs and association. ... 'The
government of the French republic is intrusted to Prince Louis
Napoleon Bonaparte for the term of ten years.' In the preface
Louis Napoleon threw aside the fiction of irresponsibility
'which deceives public sentiment'; the constitution therefore
declares the leader of the state responsible to the French
people, but omits to say how this responsibility may be
realized; the French people have no resource save revolution.
... The legislative body was to consist of 262 members (one
for each 3,500 electors), chosen for five years by universal
suffrage. This body would vote upon the laws and taxes. Louis
Napoleon, having profited so largely by the repeal of the law
of May 31, could scarcely refuse to retain direct universal
suffrage, but he essentially altered its character by various
modifications. He also so reduced the importance of the only
great body still elective, that he had little or nothing to
fear from it. Another assembly, the Senate, was to be composed
of eighty members, which number might be increased to 150. The
senators were irremovable, and were to be chosen by the
president of the republic, with the exception of cardinals,
marshals, and admirals, who were senators by right. The
president might give each senator an income of 80,000 francs.
The Senate was the guardian of the constitution and of 'the
public liberty.' ... The executive power chose all mayors, and
was at liberty to select them outside the town council. In
fact, the constitution of 1852 surpassed the constitution of
the year VIII. as a piece of monarchic reaction. It entailed
no consulate, but an empire,--dictatorship and total
confiscation of public liberty. ... Despotism spread daily in
every direction. On the 17th of February the liberty of the
press was notably reduced, and severe penalties were affixed
to any infraction. In fact, the press was made dependent on
the good-will of the president. Education was next attacked, a
decree of March 9, 1852, stripping the professors of the
University of all the pledges and principles granted by the
First Empire. ... The new power, in 1852, labored to turn all
the forces of the country to material interests, while it
stifled all moral interests. It suppressed education and the
press, and constantly stimulated the financial and industrial
movement. ... Numberless railroad companies now sprang to
life, and roads were rapidly built upon a grand scale. The
government adopted the system of grants on a long term of
years,--say ninety-nine,--plus the guarantee of a small rate
of interest. In everything the cry was for instant success, at
any cost. Great financial operations followed on the heels of
the first grants to railroad companies. ... This year's
budget, like the constitution, was the work of a single man.
The dictator settled it by a decree; then, having ordered the
elections for his Chamber of Deputies, just before his
constitution went into operation, he raised the universal
state of siege (March 28). This was only a feint, for his
government was a permanent state of siege. ... The official
candidates presented, or rather imposed, were generally
elected; the republicans failed to vote throughout a great
part of the country. ... March 29, the prince-president
proceeded to install the great state bodies at the Tuileries.
It was thought that he would hint in his speech that he
expected the title of Emperor, but he left that point vague,
and still talked of preserving the republic. ... During the
session a rumor was current that Louis Napoleon was to be
proclaimed emperor on the 10th of May, after the distribution
of eagles to the army; but this was not carried out. The
dictator had no desire to be made emperor in this fashion. He
meant to do it more artfully, and to make it seem that the
nation forced the accomplishment of his wishes upon him. He
therefore undertook a fresh journey through the provinces. ...
The watchword was everywhere given by the authorities and
influential persons, whose example was imitated by the crowd,
irreconcilable opponents keeping silent. ... He returned to
Paris, October 16, and was received in state at the Orleans
station. The official bodies greeted him with shouts of 'Long
live the Emperor!' ... Next day, the following paragraph
appeared in the 'Moniteur': 'The tremendous desire for the
restoration of the empire manifested throughout France, makes
it incumbent upon the president to consult the Senate upon the
subject.' The Senate and Legislature were convened November 4;
the latter was to verify the votes, should the Senate decide
that the people must be consulted in regard to a change in the
form of government, which no one doubted would be the case.
... The Senate ... passed a decree for the submission of the
restoration of the hereditary empire for popular acceptance
(November 7); the senators then went in a body to St. Cloud to
inform the prince-president of this decision. ... The people
were then called upon to vote for the plebiscite decreed by
the Senate (November 20 and 21). Republican and legitimist
protests were circulated in despite of the police, the
government publishing them in the official organ, the
'Moniteur,' as if in defiance, thinking that the excessive
violence of the republican proscripts of London and Guernsey
would alarm the peace-loving public. The result of the vote
was even greater than that of December 20, 1851; the
authenticity of the figures may indeed be doubted, but there
is not a doubt that there was really a large majority in favor
of the plebiscite. France abandoned the struggle! On the
evening of December 1, the three great state bodies, the two
Chambers and the State Council, went to St. Cloud, and the
president of the Legislature presented the result of the
ballot to the new emperor, who sat enthroned, between his
uncle Jerome and his cousin Napoleon."
H. Martin,
Popular History of France,
1789-1878, volume 3, chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
H. C. Lockwood,
Constitutional History of France,
chapter 6, and appendix 9.
FRANCE: A. D. 1853-1856.
The Crimean war.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.
FRANCE: A. D. 1857-1860.
Allied operations with England in China.
See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.
FRANCE: A. D. 1858.
The Orsini attempt to assassinate Napoleon III.
Complaints against England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.
FRANCE: A. D. 1859.
Alliance with Sardinia and war with Austria.
Victories of Magenta and Solferino.
Liberation of Lombardy.
Peace of Villafranca.
Acquisition of Savoy and Nice.
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, and 1859-1861.
{1380}
FRANCE: A. D. 1860.
The Chevalier-Cobden commercial treaty with England.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1858-1860.
FRANCE: A. D.1860-1870.
Modifications of the imperial constitution.
"Originally ... the power of the Legislative Body was limited
to voting and rejecting as a whole the laws submitted to it by
the Executive; there was no such thing as criticism or control
of the general policy of the reign: but the year 1860 opened a
period of development in the direction of liberty; by a decree
of the November of that year the Emperor permitted the
Deputies to draw up an address in answer to his speech, giving
them thereby the opportunity to criticise his policy; by that
of December 1861 he allowed them to vote the budget by
sections, that is to say, to discuss and, if desirable, reject
its items; by that of January 1867 he substituted for the
Address the right of questioning the Ministers, who might be
delegated to the Chamber by the Emperor to take part in
certain definite discussions; lastly, by that of September
1869 he gave to the Legislative Body the right of initiating
laws, removed the restrictions hitherto retained on the right
of amendment and of questions, and made the Ministers
responsible to the Chamber. Thus the Constitution was
deliberately modified, by the initiative of the Emperor
himself, from the form of imperial despotism to that of
parliamentary monarchy: this modified Constitution was
submitted to a plebiscite in May 1870, and once more the
people ratified the Empire by over seven million votes against
a million and a half."
G. L. Dickinson,
Revolution and Reaction in Modern France,
chapter 7, section 8.
FRANCE: A. D.1861-1867.
Intervention in Mexico and its humiliating failure.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
FRANCE: A. D. 1862.
Commercial treaty with Germany.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.
FRANCE: A. D. 1866.
Withdrawal of troops from Rome.
See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
FRANCE: A. D. 1866-1870.
Territorial concessions demanded from Germany.
The Luxemburg question.
War temporarily averted.
See GERMANY. A.D. 1866-1870.
FRANCE: A. D. 1867.
Last defense of Papal sovereignty at Rome.
Defeat of Garibaldi at Mentana.
See ITALY: A.D. 1867-1870.
FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (June-July).
"The Hohenzollern incident."
Unjustifiable declaration of war against Prussia.
"Towards the last of June, 1870, there arose what is known as
the 'Hohenzollern incident,' which assumed so much importance,
as it led up to the Franco-German War. In June, 1868, Queen
Isabella had been chased from Spain, and had sought refuge in
France. The Spanish Cortes, maintaining the monarchical form,
offered the Crown of Spain to Prince Hohenzollern, a relation
of the King of Prussia.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1878.
The French Minister at Madrid telegraphed that Prince Leopold
Hohenzollern had been nominated to the throne of Spain, and
had accepted. This produced the utmost excitement and
indignation among the French people. The Paris press teemed
with articles more or less violent, calling on the government
to prevent this outrage, even at the cost of war. The journals
of all shades were unanimous in the matter, contending that it
was an insult and a peril to France, and could not be
tolerated. The Opposition in the Chamber made the incident an
occasion for attacking the government, alleging that it was
owing to its weak and vacillating policy that France was
indebted to her fresh humiliation. The government journals,
however, laid the whole blame upon the ambition of Count
Bismarck, who had become to them a bête noire. ... Both
parties vied with each other in showing the extent of their
dislike to the great Prussian Chancellor. Much pressure was
soon brought to bear in the proper quarters; the result of
this was the withdrawal of the Hohenzollern candidacy.
Explanations were made, better counsels seemed to prevail, and
all immediate trouble appeared averted. It seemed quite
certain that all danger of a war between France and Germany
was at an end, and all being quiet on the banks of the Seine,
on the 3d of July I left Paris in pursuit of health and
recreation at the healing waters of Carlsbad, of far-off
Bohemia. I was in excellent relations with the Duke de
Gramont, and everything appeared to be serene. I had hardly
reached Carlsbad, when scanty news was received of a somewhat
threatening character. I could hardly believe that anything
very serious was likely to result; yet I was somewhat uneasy.
Going to drink the water at one of the health-giving springs,
early in the morning of July 15th, my Alsatian valet brought
me the startling news, that a private telegram, received at
midnight, gave the intelligence that France had declared war
against Germany. The news fell upon the thousands of visitors
and the people of Carlsbad, like a clap of thunder in a
cloudless sky, and the most intense excitement prevailed. The
nearest railroad station to Carlsbad, at that time, was Eger.
... I rode all night from Carlsbad to Eger. Taking the
railroad from Eger to Paris, and passing through Bavaria,
Baden, Darmstadt and the valley of the Rhine, the excitement
was something prodigious, recalling to me the days at home of
the firing upon Sumter, in 1861. The troops were rushing to
the depots; the trains were all blocked, and confusion
everywhere reigned supreme. After great delays, and much
discomfort, and a journey of fifty-two hours, I reached Paris
at ten o'clock at night, July 18th. The great masses of
people, naturally so excitable and turbulent, had been
maddened by the false news so skilfully disseminated, that
King William, at Ems, had insulted the French nation through
its Ambassador. ... It soon turned out that all the reports
which had been spread over Paris, that King William had
insulted the French Ambassador were utterly false, and had not
the slightest foundation. The French Ambassador, M. Benedetti,
denied that he had received the least indignity from the
Emperor. The plain truth seemed to be that the French
Ambassador courteously approached the Emperor, while walking
in the garden of the Kursaal, and spoke to him in relation to
the pending difficulties then existing between the two
countries. The good old king was kind and polite, as he always
is to every one with whom he comes in contact, and when M.
Benedetti commenced talking in relation to matters of such a
grave character, he politely stated that he would have to talk
upon such questions with the German Foreign Office. All that
was very proper, and nobody thought of it, or supposed that
there was any indignity, as there was not the slightest
intended. ...
{1381}
The exaggerations in Paris and France of this simple incident
surpassed all bounds, and they were apparently made to inflame
the people still more. It really appeared that the Government
of France had determined to have war with Germany, coûte que
coûte [at all costs]. The alleged causes growing out of the
talk that Germany was to put a German prince on the throne of
Spain were but a mere pretext. The Hohenzollern candidature
had been withdrawn, and there was no necessity or sense in any
further trouble. But the truth was that, after eighteen years
of peace, the courtiers and adventurers who surrounded the
Emperor seemed to think that it was about time to have a war,
to awaken the martial spirit of the French people, to plant
the French eagles in triumph in the capital of some foreign
country, and, as a consequence, to fix firmly on the throne
the son of Napoleon the Third, and restore to the Imperial
crown the lustre it had lost."
E. B. Washburne,
Recollections of a Minister to France,
volume 1, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
W. Müller,
Political History of Recent Times,
section 25.
G. B. Malleson,
The Refounding of the German Empire,
chapter 11;
W. Rüstow,
The War for the Rhine Frontier, 1870,
chapter 6 (volume 1).
FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (July-August).
Disastrous opening of the war.
Defeats at Wörth, Spichern and Gravelotte.
Bazaine's army shut up in Metz.
"July 23d Napoleon intrusted the regency to the empress for
the period of his absence from Paris. ... On the 28th, ...
accompanied by his son, [he] left for Metz, to assume command
of the army. ... The army consisted of eight corps. Of these,
the 1st, under Marshal MacMahon, was stationed at Strasburg;
the 2d, under General Frossard, at St. Avold; the 3d, under
Marshal Bazaine, at Metz; the 4th, under General Ladmirault,
at Diedenhofen (Thionville); the 5th, under General Failly, at
Bitsch; the 6th, under Marshal Canrobert, in the camp at
Châlons; the 7th, under General Felix Douay, at Belfort; the
8th,--the Imperial Guard--under General Bourbaki, at Nancy.
Accordingly, the French forces were divided into two groups,
the larger stationed on the Moselle, and the smaller in
Alsace. To the latter belonged the 1st and 7th corps, both of
which were placed under the command of Marshal MacMahon, with
orders to prevent the crown prince's army from entering
Alsace. The larger group comprised the 2d, 3d, and 4th corps.
... The 6th and 8th were to have formed the reserve; but the
greatly superior numbers of Prince Frederic Charles and
Steinmetz, who were advancing against this larger group,
necessitated the immediate bringing of those corps to the
front. The connection between the two groups was to be
maintained by the 5th corps, stationed at Bitsch. Skirmishing
of the advanced posts and collisions between reconnoitering
parties began on the 19th of July. The most important of these
minor engagements was that at Saarbrücken, on the 2d of August
[the French claiming a victory]. ... August 4th the crown
prince crossed the French frontier and attacked the town of
Weissenburg, on the little river Lauter. ... Weissenburg was
successfully carried by Prussian and Bavarian battalions
combined, and the Geisberg by sixteen battalions of Prussians
alone. ... August 5th MacMahon with his corps took up his
position at Wörth, fortifying the heights westward from
Sauerbach, together with the villages of Froschweiler and
Elsasshausen, in the intention of meeting at that place the
advancing columns of the crown prince, whose attack he
expected on the 7th. To strengthen his army sufficiently for
the task required of it he endeavored to bring up General
Felix Douay's corps from Belfort and Mühlhausen, and that of
General Failly from Bitsch; but only one division of the
former arrived in time, and a division of the latter which was
sent to his support did not reach the neighborhood of the
battle-field until the evening of the 6th, in time to afford a
partial protection on the retreat. Consequently, MacMahon was
left with not more than 45,000 men to face the crown prince's
whole army. ... On the morning of the 6th the advance guard of
the 5th corps became involved in a sharp action with the
enemy," and "from a mere skirmish of the advance guard
resulted the decisive battle of Wörth. ... After Wörth itself
had been carried, the fighting was most severe around the
fortified village of Froschweiler. This was finally taken, and
a desperate charge of the French cuirassiers repulsed.
Thereupon MacMahon's army broke and fled in wild confusion,
some toward the passes of the Vosges, others to Strasburg or
Bitsch. ... The trophies of victory were numerous and
valuable: 200 officers and 9,000 men prisoners. ... The French
lost 6,000 dead and wounded; the German loss was 489 officers
and 10,153 men--a loss greater than that of Sadowa. ...
MacMahon, with about 15,000 of his defeated troops, reached
Zabern on the morning of the 7th, and set out thence for
Châlons, whither Generals Douay and Failly were also directed
to lead their forces. A new army was to be formed at that
point, and northern Alsace was abandoned to the crown prince's
victorious troops. The Badish division received orders to march
against Strasburg, and by the 9th the whole corps was
assembled before that city, Hagenau having been taken by the
cavalry on the way. ... Preparations for a siege were made, a
regular siege corps being formed ... and placed under the
command of General Werder. With the remainder of the third
army the crown prince left Wörth on the 8th of August, marched
through the unguarded passes of the Vosges, and entered Nancy
on the 16th. ... Detachments were left behind to blockade
Bitsch and Pfalzburg. At Nancy the prince rested for a few
days and waited for decisive news from the Saar and Moselle. A
second victory was won on the 6th of August at Spichern [or
Forbach]. Like the battle of Wörth, this action was not the
result of a strategical combination, but rather of a
misunderstanding. ... Frossard [whose corps was encountered at
Spichern] fell back on Metz by way of Saargemünd. Bazaine, who,
although not more than seven or eight miles from the field of
battle, had made no attempt to come to Frossard's assistance,
led his corps to the same place. In this battle, owing to the
unfavorable nature of the ground, the losses of the conquerors
were heavier than those of the conquered. The Germans had 223
officers and 4,648 men dead, wounded, and missing; while the
French, according to their own reports, lost 249 officers and
3,829 men, 2,000 of whom were taken prisoners. August 7th the
victors continued their forward march, capturing great stores
of provisions in Forbach. On the 9th St. Avold was taken, and
foraging parties advanced almost to Metz.
{1382}
Marching through the Rhenish Palatinate, part of Prince
Frederic Charles's army directed its course toward Metz by way
of Saarbrücken, and part through Saargemünd. ... In the
imperial head-quarters at Metz the greatest consternation
prevailed. ... It was [finally] decided to concentrate five
army corps on the right bank of the Moselle, at Metz, and to
form a second army, consisting of four corps, under MacMahon's
command, in the camp at Châlons. The first line of defence on
the Rhine and Saar had been abandoned, and France was to be
defended on the Moselle. By this decision Alsace and Lorraine
were surrendered to the foe at the very outset." On the 9th of
August the French emperor transferred the chief command from
himself to Marshal Bazaine, while Lebœuf at the same time
withdrew from the direction of the staff. Simultaneously, at
Paris, the Grammont-Ollivier ministry resigned, and was
succeeded by a cabinet formed under the presidency of Count
Palikao (General Montauban). "New levies were called into the
field, comprising all unmarried men between the ages of 25 and
30 not already enrolled in the 'garde mobile.' ... In the
German head-quarters ... it was resolved in some way to make
Bazaine's army harmless, either by shutting him up in Metz or
by pushing him northward to the Belgian frontier. ... The task
was a difficult one. ... All depended upon what course Bazaine
might conclude to pursue, and the energy with which he
executed his plans. It was his purpose to leave Metz with the
field army and join MacMahon at Châlons. There would then be
300,000 French at that place to block the German march to
Paris. In that event the Germans would have to leave 60,000
men before Metz ... and Diedenhofen, and would not have enough
left to venture an attack on the united and well-intrenched
armies at Châlons. Accordingly, the union of those two armies
must be prevented at any price, and Bazaine be attacked before
Metz. The execution of this plan led to the severe fighting
near that city--the battle of Colombey-Nouilly (Borny), on the
14th, Vionville on the 16th, and Gravelotte on the 18th." The
battle of Gravelotte was "the first battle in the war in which
a pre-arranged plan [Moltke's] was actually carried out. ... It
was a brilliant victory, and followed by important results.
Bazaine's army was shut up in the fortress and among the
outlying forts, and rendered unavailable for further service
in the field. The losses of the French amounted to about
13,000 men, including 600 officers; the German loss was 899
officers and 19,260 men, of whom 328 officers and 4,909 men
were killed outright. The number of combatants on the side of
the French was about 140,000, on the side of the Germans
178,818, the former having 550, and the latter 822 cannon. It
must be remembered, however, that the French occupied a
position very much of the nature of a fortress, which had to
be carried by storm."
W. Müller,
Political History of Recent Times,
section 25.
ALSO IN:
Count H. von Moltke,
The Franro-German War of 1870-71,
section 1.
Colonel A. Borbstaedt and Major F. Dwyer,
The Franco-German War,
chapters 10-29.
FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (August-September).
Investment of Metz by the Germans.
Disastrous attempt of MacMahon to rescue Bazaine.
The catastrophe at Sedan.
"The huge, stubborn, vehement and bloody conflict waged in the
rural tract between the northern edges of the Bois de Vaux and
the Forest of Jaumont, which the French Marshal called the
'Defence of the Lines of Amanvillers,' the French Army, 'the
Battle of St. Privat,' and the Germans the battle of
'Gravelotte--St. Privat,' established the mastery of the
latter over 'the Army of the Rhine.' Marshal Bazaine had not
proved strong enough to extricate the Army he was suddenly
appointed to command from the false position in which it had
been placed by the errors and hesitations of the Emperor and
Marshal Lebœuf. ... The German leaders forthwith resolved, and
acted on the resolve, to take the largest advantage of success.
When the broadening day showed that the French were encamped
under the guns of the fort, and that they did not betray the
faintest symptom of fighting for egress on any side, the place
was deliberately invested. ... Soon the blockade was so far
completed that only adventurous scouts were able at rare
intervals to work their way through the German lines. As early
as the forenoon of the 19th, the King had decided to form what
came to be called the 'Army of the Meuse' out of the Corps
which were not needed to uphold the investment of Metz, and
thus place himself in a condition to assail the French Army
collecting at Chalons. ... This formidable force was put under
the command of the Crown Prince of Saxony, who had shown
himself to be an able soldier. Consequently, there remained
behind to invest Bazaine, seven Corps d'Armée and a Division
of Reserve under General von Kummer. ... One Army had been
literally imprisoned, another remained at large, and behind it
were the vast resources of France. Three Marshals were cooped
up in the cage on the Moselle; one, MacMahon, and the Emperor
were still in the field; and upon the forces with them it was
resolved to advance at once, because prudence required that
they should be shattered before they could be completely
organized, and while the moral effect of the resounding blows
struck in Alsace and Lorraine had lost none of its terrible
power. Therefore the King and General von Moltke started on
the morrow of victory to march on Paris through the plains of
Champagne."
G. Hooper,
The Campaign of Sedan,
chapter 10.
"While the German invasion had thus been rolling from Lorraine
into the flats of Champagne, the shattered right wing of the
army of the Rhine, with reinforcements sent off from Paris,
had been drawn together in the well-known plains made
memorable by the defeat of Attila. By 20 August the first and
fifth French corps marched rapidly from the Upper Moselle to
the Marne, had been joined by the seventh corps from Belfort
and by the twelfth formed in and despatched from Paris; and
this force, numbering perhaps 130,000 men, with from 400 to
500 guns, had been concentrated round the great camp of
Châlons. Macmahon was given the supreme command, and the first
operations of the experienced chief showed that he understood
the present state of affairs, and were in accord with the
rules of strategy. Bazaine, he knew, was in peril near Metz,
and certainly had not attained the Meuse; and he was at the
head of the last army which France could assemble for the
defence of her capital.
{1383}
In these circumstances, impressed perhaps by the grand
memories of the campaign of 1814, he most properly resolved to
fall back towards Paris; but as Bazaine was possibly not far
distant, and a position on the flank of the German advance
might afford a favourable opportunity to strike, he withdrew
northwards on the 21st to Rheims, in the double hope that he
would approach his colleague and threaten the communications
of the advancing enemy. This, we repeat, was following the art
of war, and had Macmahon firmly adhered to his purpose, there
would have been no Sedan and no treaty of Frankfort. Unhappily
the marshal, a hero in the field, was deficient in real
strength of character, and at this critical moment evil
counsels and false information shook, and at last changed, a
resolve that ought to have never faltered. A new
administration had been formed in Paris, and Palikao, the
minister of war, devoted to the Empire, and especially bent on
satisfying the demands of the excited capital, which
passionately insisted on the relief of Bazaine, had conceived
a project by which he hoped that this great object would be
effected and the 'dynasty' be restored in popular opinion. The
army of the Meuse, he argued, was near that stream, round
Verdun; the third army was far away to the south; there was a
considerable interval between the two masses; and the army of
Châlons, then at Rheims, was not far from the Upper Meuse. In
those circumstances it was quite practicable, should Macmahon
rapidly advance to the Meuse, to overpower with his largely
superior force the army of the Meuse before support could be
sent from the distant third army; and the enemy in his path
being swept aside, the marshal could then descend on Metz,
fall with the collected strength of the army of Châlons on the
divided fragments of the investing force, and triumphantly
effect his junction with Bazaine, having routed, perhaps, the
first and second armies before the third could appear on the
scene. The defiles and woods of the Argonne and the Ardennes,
stretching between the French and the German armies, Palikao
insisted, would form a screen to conceal the advance of the
army of Chãlons, and would greatly facilitate the proposed
movement. This project reached Macmahon on 21 August, and may
be pronounced one of the most reckless ever designed by a
desperate gambler in war. ... Macmahon at first refused to
listen to what he condemned as a hopeless project; but bad
advisers found their way to him, and his resolution was
already yielding when a calamitous event fixed his shifting
purpose. A despatch from Bazaine, obscure and untrue,
announced that he was on his way northward. Macmahon inferred
that his beleaguered colleague had left Metz and eluded his
foes, and, thinking that he would reach Bazaine before long,
in an evil hour for France and for himself, he consented to
attempt the march to the Meuse."
W. O'C. Morris,
The Campaign of Sedan
(English Historical Review., April, 1888).
"It was not until the afternoon of August 23 that MacMahon's
army passed through Rheims. Anxious, and knowing that
everything depended on speed, he addressed some columns as
they toiled onwards, reminding them that French soldiers had
marched thirty miles a day under the sun of Africa. The
difference, however, was great between raids made by a few
light regiments and the advance of a raw unwieldy mass; and
though the marshal endeavoured to hurry them forward, he was
confronted with almost insurmountable obstacles. Scarcely had
the army made a march towards establishing itself at
Bethniville, on the Suippe, when commissariat difficulties
obliged him to re-approach the line of the railway. He made a
movement on his left, and reached Rethel on the 24th, in order
to obtain for his troops several days' subsistence. This
distribution occupied the whole of the 25th. ... As the
direction of the French movement could not now be concealed,
at this point MacMahon made arrangements for marching with all
possible rapidity. It may be doubted, however, whether
Napoleon himself, at the head of the grand army could have
made the haste which the marshal designed with his raw and
partly demoralized troops. ... His army was altogether unequal
to forced marches, and moved at this critical moment with the
sluggishness inherent in its defective organization.
Encumbered with stragglers, badly pioneered, and checked by
hindrances of every kind, it made hardly ten miles a day; and

it was the 27th of August before its right column, still far
from the Meuse, passed through Vouziers, and the left reached
Le Chêne. ... On the 27th it was openly boasted of in Paris
that MacMahon had gained at least forty-eight hours' start of
the Crown Prince, and his coming success was firmly counted on
by the imperialist cabinet, whereas, in reality, the whole
scheme was foiled beforehand by Von Moltke's and General
Blumenthal's prompt combination. ... If in fighting, in the
boldness of their cavalry, the activity of their staff, the
cool firing of their infantry, and the skilful tactical use of
their guns, the superiority of the Germans to their
antagonists had been already proved; it only required the
contrast now presented between the movements of the two armies
to show, that in no point had the difference of training and
moral feeling told more in favour of the invaders than in that
of the marching, on which the elder Napoleon so often relied
for his advantage over these very Germans. ... Between the
27th and the morning of the 29th, the right column of the
French army had only its outposts at Buzancy, while the left,
though its outposts touched Stenay, was only at Stonne and
Beaumont, both columns spreading a long way backward; in other
words, they were still a march from the Meuse, which they
ought to have passed three days before, and their rearward
divisions were yet distant. The German armies, from the 26th
to the 29th, made astonishing exertions to close on MacMahon
as he crossed towards the Meuse, and success was already
within their grasp. The force of the Crown Prince of Saxony,
in two columns, had reached the Meuse at Dun on the 27th, and
was thus in a position to arrest and retard the vanguard of
the French whenever it attempted to cross the river. Meanwhile
the army of the Crown Prince of Prussia, hastening forward by
Varennes and Grand Prè, and to the left by Senuc and Suippe,
had arrived close to the line of march of MacMahon's right
column, and by the evening of the 28th had occupied it about
Vouziers. A step farther, and this immense army would be upon
the positions of the luckless French, who, assailed in flank
and rear by superior numbers, could not fail to be involved in
terrible disaster. ... MacMahon [on the 27th], observing that
the enemy so completely surrounded him, felt more than ever
satisfied that it would be impossible to carry out the plan
which had been prescribed to him at Paris; and to save, if
possible, the sole army which France had at her disposal, he
accordingly resolved to turn back in a westerly direction. ...
{1384}
The same evening he sent ... [a] telegram to the Count
Palikao, at Paris. ... In reply to this, the government sent a
telegram to the emperor at eleven o'clock the same night,
telling him that if they abandoned Bazaine there would
certainly be a revolution in Paris, and they would themselves
be attacked by all the enemy's forces. ... The emperor admits
that he could unquestionably have set this order aside, but
'he was resolved not to oppose the decision of the regency,
and had resigned himself to submit to the consequences of the
fatality which attached itself to all the resolutions of the
government.' 'As for MacMahon, he again bowed to the decision
intimated to him from Paris, and once more turned towards
Metz. These orders and counter-orders naturally occasioned
further delay, and the French headquarters had reached no
farther than Stonne on the 28th. ... On Monday, August 29, De
Failly occupied the country between Beaumont and Stonne, on
the left bank of the Meuse; while the main body of the French
army, under MacMahon in person, had crossed the river, and
were encamped on the right bank at Vaux, between Mouzon and
Carignan, and on the morning of the 30th the emperor
telegraphed to Paris that a brilliant victory might be
expected. MacMahon's position was in a sharp wedge of country
formed by the confluence of the rivers Meuse and Chiers, and
it was his intention to advance towards Montmèdy. The other
part of his army was close to the river on its left bank. ...
The battle--or rather series of battles, for the fighting
extended over three days--which was to decide whether or not
he would reach Metz and liberate Bazaine, began in earnest a
little before noon on Tuesday, August 30."
H. M. Hozier,
The Franco-Prussian War,
volume 1, chapter 13.
"The retreating French were concentrated, or rather massed,
under the walls of Sedan, in a valley commonly called the Sink
of Givonne. The army consisted of twenty-nine brigades,
fifteen divisions, and four corps d'armée, numbering ninety
thousand men. 'It was there,' says Victor Hugo, 'no one could
guess what for, without order, without discipline, a mere
crowd of men, waiting, as it seemed, to be seized by an
immensely powerful hand. It seemed to be under no particular
anxiety. The men who composed it knew, or thought they knew,
that the enemy was far away. Calculating four leagues as a
day's march, they believed the Germans to be at three days'
distance. The commanders, however, towards nightfall, made
some preparations for safety. The whole army formed a sort of
horse-shoe, its point turning towards Sedan. This disposition
proved that its chiefs believed themselves in safety. The
valley was one of those which the Emperor Napoleon used to
call a "bowl," and which Admiral Van Tromp designated by a
less polite name. No place could have been better calculated
to shut in an army. Its very numbers were against it. Once in,
if the way out were blocked, it could never leave it again.
Some of the generals,--General Wimpfen among them--saw this,
and were uneasy; but the little court around the emperor was
confident of safety. "At worst," they said, "we can always
reach the Belgian frontier." The commonest military
precautions were neglected. The army slept soundly on the
night of August 31. At the worst they believed themselves to
have a line of retreat open to Mézières, a town on the
frontier of Belgium. No cavalry reconnoissance was made that
night; the guards were not doubled. The French believed
themselves more than forty miles from the German army. They
behaved as if they thought that army unconcentrated and
ill-informed, attempting vaguely several things at once, and
incapable of converging on one point, namely, Sedan. They
thought they knew that the column under the Prince of Saxony
was marching upon Châlons, and that the Crown Prince of
Prussia was marching upon Metz. But that night, while the
French army, in fancied security, was sleeping at Sedan, this
is what was passing among the enemy. By a quarter to two A. M.
the army of the Prince of Saxony was on its march eastward
with orders not to fire a shot till five o'clock, and to make
as little noise as possible. They marched without baggage of
any kind. At the same hour another division of the Prussian
army marched, with equal noiselessness, from another direction
on Sedan, while the Würtemburgers secured the road to
Mézières, thereby cutting off the possibility of a retreat
into Belgium. At the same moment, namely, five o'clock,--on
all the hills around Sedan, at all points of the compass,
appeared a dense dark mass of German troops, with their
commanders and artillery. Not one sound had been heard by the
French army, not even an order. Two hundred and fifty thousand
men were in a Circle on the heights round the Sink of Givonne.
They had come as stealthily and as silently as serpents. They
were there when the sun rose, and the French army were
prisoners.'
Victor Hugo,
Choses Vues.
The battle was one of artillery. The German guns commanded
every part of the crowded valley. Indeed the fight was simply
a massacre. There was no hope for the French, though they
fought bravely. Their best troops, the Garde Impériale, were
with Bazaine at Metz. Marshal MacMahon was wounded very early
in the day. The command passed first to General Ducrot, who
was also disabled, and afterwards to Wimpfen, a brave African
general who had hurried from Algeria just in time to take part
in this disastrous day. He told the emperor that the only hope
was for the troops to cut their way out of the valley; but the
army was too closely crowded, too disorganized, to make this
practicable. One Zouave regiment accomplished this feat, and
reached Belgium. That night--the night of September 1--an
aide-de-camp of the Emperor Napoleon carried this note to the
camp of the king of Prussia:--Monsieur Mon Frère,--Not having
been able to die in midst of my troops, it only remains for me
to place my sword in the hands of your Majesty. I am your
Majesty's good brother, Napoleon. ... With Napoleon III. fell
not only his own reputation as a ruler, but the glory of his
uncle and the prestige of his name. The fallen emperor and
Bismarck met in a little house upon the banks of the Meuse.
Chairs were brought out, and they talked in the open air. It
was a glorious autumn morning. The emperor looked care-worn,
as well he might. He wished to see the king of Prussia before
the articles of capitulation were drawn up: but King William
declined the interview. When the capitulation was signed,
however, he drove over to visit the captive emperor at a
château where the latter had taken refuge.
{1385}
Their interview was private; only the two sovereigns were
present. The French emperor afterwards expressed to the Crown
Prince of Prussia his deep sense of the courtesy shown him. He
was desirous of passing as unnoticed as possible through
French territory, where, indeed, exasperation against him, as
the first cause of the misfortunes of France, was so great
that his life would have been in peril. The next day he
proceeded to the beautiful palace at Cassel called
Wilhelmshöhe, or William's Rest. It had been built at ruinous
expense by Jerome Bonaparte while king of Westphalia, and was
then called Napoleon's Rest. ... Thus eighty thousand men
capitulated at Sedan, and were marched as prisoners into
Germany; one hundred and seventy-five thousand French soldiers
remained shut up in Metz, besides a few thousand more in
Strasburg, Phalsbourg, Toul, and Belfort. But the road was
open to Paris, and thither the various German armies marched,
leaving the Landwehr, which could not be ordered to serve
beyond the limits of Germany, to hold Alsace and Lorraine,
already considered a part of the Fatherland."
E. W. Latimer,
France in the Nineteenth Century,
chapter 12.
"The German army had lost in the battle of Sedan about 460
officers and 8,500 men killed and wounded. On the French side
the loss sustained in the battle and at the capitulation
amounted according to their returns to the following: Killed
3,000 men; wounded 14,000; prisoners (in the battle) 21,000;
prisoners (at the capitulation) 83,000; disarmed in Belgium
3,000; total 124,000."
The Franco-German War: German Official Account,
part 1, volume 2, page 408.
ALSO IN:
Capt. G. Fitz-George,
Plan of the battle of Sedan, with Memoir.
A. Forbes,
My Experiences of the War between France and Germany,
part 1, chapter 4 (volume l).
Colonel. A. Borbstaedt and Major F. Dwyer,
The Franco-German War,
chapters 30-40.
G. B. Malleson,
The Refounding of the German Empire,
chapter 14.
FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (September).
Revolution at Paris.
Collapse of the empire.
Self-constitution of the Government of National Defense.
At Paris, the whole truth of the tremendous disaster at Sedan
was but slowly learned. On the afternoon of Saturday,
September 3, Count de Palikao intimated a little part of it,
only, "in a statement to the Corps Législatif, announcing that
Marshal Bazaine, after a vigorous sally, had been obliged to
retire again under the walls of Metz, and that Macmahon, after
a series of combats, attended by reverses and successes--
having at the outset driven a part of the enemy's army into
the Meuse--had been compelled to retreat to Sedan and
Mézières, a portion of his army having taken refuge in
Belgium. The junction of the two armies had therefore not been
made. The situation was serious, calmly observed the Minister
of War, but not hopeless. Not hopeless! when the truth was
that one army was blockaded and the other prisoner, and that
there were no reserves. ... At a midnight sitting Count de
Palikao, still determined to conceal a portion of the truth,
intimated that part of Marshal Macmahon's army had been driven
back into Sedan, that the remainder had capitulated, and that
the Emperor had been made prisoner. M. Jules Favre met this
announcement of fresh disasters by a motion, declaring the
Emperor and his dynasty to have forfeited all rights conferred
by the Constitution, demanding the appointment of a
Parliamentary Committee invested with the governing power, and
having for its special mission the expulsion of the enemy from
French territory, and further maintaining General Trochu in
his post as Governor of Paris. The Chamber then adjourned till
the morrow. But Paris had touched one of those crises when, as
Pascal says, a grain of sand will give a turn to history and
change the life of nations, and the morrow brought with it the
downfall of the Ministry, of the dynasty, of the Empire, and of
that bizarre constitutional edifice which had been kept
waiting so long for its complemental crown. ... It had been
intimated that the Corps Législatif would reassemble at noon,
before which time numerous groups collected on the Place de la
Concorde, and eventually swelled to a considerable crowd. The
bridge leading to the Palais Bourbon was guarded by a
detachment of mounted gendarmes, and numerous
sergents-de-ville. ... Battalions of National Guards having,
however, arrived, the gendarmes, after flourishing their
swords, opened their ranks and allowed them to pass, followed
by a considerable portion of the crowd, shouting 'Vive la
République!' and singing the 'Chant du Départ.' The iron gates
of the Palais Bourbon having been opened to admit a deputation
of National Guards, the crowd precipitated itself forward, and
in a few minutes the steps and courtyard were alike invaded.
Cries of 'Vive la Garde Nationale!' 'Vive la Ligne!' 'Vive la
République!' resounded on all sides, and the soldiers who
occupied the court of the Palais Bourbon, after making a show
of resistance, ended by hoisting the butt ends of their rifles
in the air in sign of sympathy, joining at the same time in the
shouts of the crowd, while the latter, encountering no further
opposition, proceeded to invade the passages of the Chamber,
at the moment Count de Kératry was attacking the Ministry for
surrounding the Corps Législatif with troops and
sergents-de-ville, contrary to the orders of General Trochu.
Count de Palikao, having explained the relative positions of
the Governor of Paris and the Minister of War, introduced a
bill instituting a Council of Government and National Defence,
composed of five members elected by the Legislative Body, the
ministers to be appointed with the approval of the members of
this Council, and he, Count de Palikao, to occupy the post of
Lieutenant-General. M. Jules Favre having claimed priority for
the motion which he had introduced the day before, M. Thiers,
pleading the necessity for union, next moved that:--'In view
of existing circumstances, the Chamber appoints a Commission
of Government and National Defence. A Constituent Assembly
will be convoked as soon as circumstances permit.' The Chamber
having declared in favour of their urgency, these several
propositions were eventually referred to the Bureau, and the
sitting was suspended. It was during this period that the
crowd penetrated into the Salles des Quatre Colonnes and de la
Paix. ... At half-past two, when the sitting was resumed, the
galleries were crowded and very noisy. The members of the Left
only were in their places. It was in vain the President
attempted to obtain silence, in vain the solemn huissiers
commanded it. MM. Gambetta and Crémieux appeared together at
the tribune, and the former begged of the people to remain
quiet. ...
{1386}
A partial silence having been secured, Count de Palikao,
followed by a few members of the majority, entered the
Chamber, but did not essay to speak. ... A minute or two
afterwards, the clamour arose again, and a noisy multitude
commenced invading the floor of the hall. ... Nothing was left
to the President but to put on his hat and retire, which he
did, together with Count de Palikao and the members by whom
the latter had been accompanied. By this time the Chamber was
completely invaded by National and Mobile Guards, in company
with an excited crowd, whose advance it was in vain now to
attempt to repel. M. Jules Favre, having mounted the tribune,
obtained a moment's silence. 'No scenes of violence,' cried
he; 'let us reserve our arms for our enemies.' Finding it
utterly impossible to obtain any further hearing inside the
Chamber, M. Gambetta, accompanied by the members of the Left,
proceeded to the steps of the peristyle, and there announced
the dethronement of the Emperor to the people assembled
outside. Accompanied by one section of the crowd, they now
hurried to the Hôtel de Ville, and there installed themselves
as a Provisional Government, whilst another section took
possession of the Tuileries--whence the Empress had that
morning taken flight--as national property. A select band of
Republicans, mindful of what Count--now Citoyen--Henri
Rochefort had done to bring Imperialism into disrepute,
proceeded to the prison of Sainte Pélagie and conducted the
author of the Lanterne, and other political prisoners, in
triumph to the Hôtel de Ville. The deputies who quitted the
Chamber when it was invaded by the mob, met that same
afternoon at the President's residence, and sent a deputation
to the Hôtel de Ville, with a proposal to act in common with
the new Government. This proposition was, however, declined,
on the score of the Republic having been already proclaimed
and accepted by the population of Paris. At an evening meeting
of nearly two hundred deputies, held under the presidency of
M. Thiers, MM. Jules Favre and Simon attended on the part of
the Provisional Government to explain that they were anxious
to secure the support of the deputies, whom they hinted,
however, could best serve their country in the departments.
After this unequivocal rebuff, the deputies, who had in the
meantime been apprised that seals had been placed on the doors
of the Corps Législatif, saw that nothing remained to them but
to protest, and protest they accordingly did against the
events of the afternoon. ... Not one of the two hundred
deputies present so much as dared suggest the breaking of the
seals and the assembling in the Legislative Chamber. ... The
Government which grasped the reins of power on the utter
collapse of Imperial institutions was a mob-named one in the
fullest sense of the term, the names having been chalked by
the populace on the pillars of the portico of the Palais
Bourbon during that invasion of the Chamber on the Sunday
afternoon which resulted in the overthrow of the Imperial
regime. The list appears to have been accepted by the
principal members of the Left, who, although they would have
preferred disassociating themselves from M. Rochefort,
nevertheless felt that it was impossible to leave him out of
the combination, and therefore adroitly--and not
inappropriately, as the safety of Paris was especially in
their keeping--made it embrace all the deputies for Paris,
save, as M. Jules Simon observed, the most illustrious
--meaning M. Thiers, who refused to join it. ... The
Government of National Defence, as it elected to style itself,
on M. Rochefort's suggestion, was composed of the following
members:--General Trochu, president; Jules Favre, Vice
President and Minister for Foreign Affairs; Emanuel Arago;
Crémieux, Minister of Justice; Jules Ferry, Secretary; Leon
Gambetta, Minister of the Interior; Garnier-Pagès;
Glais-Bizoin; Eugene Pelletan; Ernest Picard, Minister of
Finance; Henri Rochefort; and Jules Simon, Minister of Public
Instruction. Subsequently it associated with it General Le
Flô, Minister of War; Admiral Fourichon, Minister of Marine;
M. Dorian, Minister of Public Works; and M. Magnin, Minister
of Agriculture and Commerce. These, with Count de Kératry,
charged with the Prefecture of Police, M. Etienne Arago,
appointed Mayor of Paris, composed altogether no less than
eighteen members, upwards of two-thirds of whom were Bretons,
advocates, or journalists. ... For some days the new
Government was prodigal of proclamations and decrees. Its
first acts were to close the doors of the Palais Bourbon and
the Palais du Luxembourg, and dissolve the Corps Législatif
and abolish the Senate as bouches inutiles politiques, to
issue proclamations to the army, or rather the debris of one,
justifying the Revolution and appealing to the troops to
continue their heroic efforts for the defence of the country,
and to the National Guard, thanking them for their past, and
asking for their future patriotism. It released all
functionaries from their oaths, dismissed the ambassadors at
foreign courts, appointed prefects in all the departments, and
new mayors in the twenty arrondissements of the capital,
proclaimed the complete liberty of the press, ordered all
Germans not provided with special permission to remain, to
quit the departments of the Seine and Seine-et-Oise within
four-and-twenty hours. ... It pressed forward the provisioning
of the city and its works of defence, increased the herds of
sheep and oxen and the stores of corn and flour, provisionally
abolished all local customs and octroi dues, and fixed the price
of butcher's meat, armed the outer forts and the enceinte,
blew up or mined all the bridges and fired all the woods in
the environs, razed thousands of houses to the ground, felled
roadside trees, and constructed huge barricades with them;
laid in fact all the beautiful suburbs in waste; listened to
the thousand and one wild schemes put forth by patriotic
madmen for exterminating the invaders, and launched a huge
captive balloon, which hovered daily over Paris to give timely
notice of their dreaded arrival."
H. Vizetelly, editor,
Paris in Peril,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
J. Favre,
The Government of the National Defence, June-October.
W. Rüstow,
The War for the Rhine Frontier,
chapter 22 (volume 2).
{1387}
FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (September-October).
Futile striving for allies and for peace without
territorial sacrifices.
Investment of Paris.
Gambetta's organization of defense in the provinces.
Bazaine's surrender at Metz.
"The Government of National Defence ... imagined that the fall
of the Empire would simplify the cruel position of France
towards the enemy. The Dynasty which had declared war being
reversed, and the men now in power having been throughout
opposed to war and in favour of German unity, and now
demanding nothing but peace, what motive could the King of
Prussia have to continue the invasion of France? It was
further to be considered that free France would defend her
integrity to the last drop of her blood; that she would
voluntarily give up neither an inch of her territory nor a
stone of her fortresses. Such were the ideas which the new
Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Jules Favre, expressed on the
6th of September, in a circular addressed to the French agents
in foreign countries. The Cabinet of Berlin was not slow in
disabusing him of these convictions. Far from accepting the
view that the Emperor Napoleon was the sole promoter of war,
Count Bismarck, in two despatches of the 13th and of the 16th
of September, threw the responsibility of the conflict on the
French nation. He stated that the vast majority of the
Chambers had voted for war, and that the Emperor was justified
in assuring the King that he had been forced into a war to
which he was personally averse. ... In order to be secure
against future aggression, Germany would ask for guarantees
from the French nation itself, and not from a transitory
Government. ... In any case, Germany would require Strasburg
and Metz. Thus the accession to power of the Republican
Government did not modify the reciprocal positions of the two
belligerents. Nevertheless, hope was entertained in Paris that
the friendly intervention of the great powers might induce the
victor to soften his rigour;" but intervention was declined by
the Berlin Cabinet and not undertaken. "On the 19th of
September the investment of Paris was completed. At the desire
of the French Government, the English Cabinet applied to the
German head-quarters, with the object of obtaining for M.
Jules Favre an interview with Count Bismarck. This request
having been granted, the two statesmen held conferences, on
the 19th and 20th of September, at Ferrières, a castle of
Baron Rothschild near Meaux. During these interviews the
French Minister was sentimental and the German Minister coldly
logical. They could not come to an agreement on any single
point. ... The Government of Paris ... again proclaimed that
France would not cede an inch of her territory. Meanwhile, in
consequence of the investment of Paris, the Government of
National Defence was divided into two parts; some of its
Delegates withdrew to Tours, forming a delegation of the
central Government which remained in Paris. The German armies
had continued their onward march, as well as their operations
against the fortresses. Toul capitulated on the 23rd and
Strasburg on the 28th of September. On the 5th of October,
King William had established his headquarters at Versailles."
Meantime "the Government of National Defence made a last
attempt to secure allies, or at least the help of powerful
mediators. With this object M. Thiers, who had placed himself
at the disposal of the Administration of the 4th of September,
was sent on a mission to the European Courts. From the 12th of
September till the 20th of October, the old statesman visited
in succession London, Vienna, St. Petersburg, and Florence. In
none of these cities were his measures attended with happy
results." At St. Petersburg and at London he was told--and he
was himself convinced--"that the King of Prussia was
compelled to consider the public opinion of Germany, and that
France would have to resign herself to territorial
sacrifices." He returned to France to advise, and to procure
authority for, a conference with the German Chancellor. But
events had already occurred which aggravated the forlorn
condition of France. "The youngest and most enterprising
member of the Government of Paris, M. Gambetta, had left the
Capital on the 8th of October in a balloon for Tours. It was
his intention to organise national defence in the Provinces.
The day after his arrival at Tours, he issued a fiery
Proclamation to the French people. ... With an energy that
called forth universal admiration, the Government of Tours,
over which Gambetta presided as Dictator, organised
resistance, formed a new army, and gathered together every
possible resource for defence both in men and in materials.
All these efforts could not arrest the progress of the
invasion. From the 11th to the 31st of October, the Germans
took successively Orleans, Soissons, Schlestadt and Dijon.
Round Paris they repulsed the sallies of Malmaison, Champigny,
and le Bourget. But all these defeats of heroic soldiers waned
when compared to the appalling and decisive catastrophe of
Metz. After the battle of Gravelotte, Marshal Bazaine had
unsuccessfully attempted several sallies. ... On the 7th of
October, after an unfortunate battle at Woippy, lasting nine
hours, Bazaine considered the situation desperate. His only
thought was to obtain the most favourable conditions he could,
and with this object he sent General Boyer to the headquarters
at Versailles." After two weeks of negotiation, "on the 21st
of October, the army encamped within the walls of Metz found
itself without provisions. ... Negotiations with Prince
Frederick Charles, nephew of the King and Commander-in-chief
of the besieging Army, were opened on the 25th, and terminated
on the 27th of October. The conditions were identical with
those of Sedan: capitulation of the town and its forts with
all the material of war, all the army of the Rhine to be
prisoners and the officers to be liberated on parole."
E. Simon,
The Emperor William and his Reign,
chapter 13 (volume 2).
"The French Army of the Rhine at the time of the surrender
still numbered 173,000 men, inclusive of 6,000 officers and
20,000 men remaining temporarily in Metz as sick or
convalescent."
The Franco-German War: German Official Account,
part 2, volume 1, page 201.
ALSO IN:
A. Forbes,
My Experiences of the War between France and Germany,
part 2 (volume 1).
FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
The war in the provinces.
Unsuccessful attempts to relieve the capital.
Distress in Paris.
Capitulation and armistice.
"The surrender of Metz and the release of the great army of
Prince Frederick Charles by which it was besieged fatally
changed the conditions of the French war of national defence.
Two hundred thousand of the victorious troops of Germany under
some of their ablest generals were set free to attack the
still untrained levies on the Loire and in the north of
France, which, with more time for organisation, might well
have forced the Germans to raise the siege of Paris. The army
once commanded by Steinmetz was now reconstituted, and
despatched under General Manteuffel towards Amiens; Prince
Frederick Charles moved with the remainder of his troops
towards the Loire. Aware that his approach could not long be
delayed, Gambetta insisted that Aurelle de Paladines should
begin the march on Paris.
{1388}
The general attacked Tann at Coulmiers on the 9th of November,
defeated him, and re-occupied Orleans, the first real success
that the French had gained in the war. There was great alarm
at the German headquarters at Versailles; the possibility of a
failure of the siege was discussed; and 40,000 troops were
sent southwards in haste to the support of the Bavarian
general. Aurelle, however, did not move upon the capital: his
troops were still unfit for the enterprise; and he remained
stationary on the north of Orleans, in order to improve his
organisation, to await reinforcements, and to meet the attack
of Frederick Charles in a strong position. In the third week
of November the leading divisions of the army of Metz
approached, and took post between Orleans and Paris. Gambetta
now insisted that the effort should be made to relieve the
capital. Aurelle resisted, but was forced to obey. The
garrison of Paris had already made several unsuccessful
attacks upon the lines of their besiegers, the most vigorous
being that of Le Bourget on the 30th of October, in which
bayonets were crossed. It was arranged that in the last days
of November General Trochu should endeavour to break out on
the southern side, and that simultaneously the army of the
Loire should fall upon the enemy in front of it and endeavour
to force its way to the capital. On the 28th the attack upon
the Germans on the north of Orleans began. For several days
the struggle was renewed by one division after another of the
armies of Aurelle and Prince Frederick Charles. Victory
remained at last with the Germans; the centre of the French
position was carried; the right and left wings of the army
were severed from one another and forced to retreat, the one
up the Loire, the other towards the west. Orleans on the 5th
of December passed back into the hands of the Germans. The
sortie from Paris, which began with a successful attack by
General Ducrot upon Champigny beyond the Marne, ended after
some days of combat in the recovery by the Germans of the
positions which they had lost, and in the retreat of Ducrot
into Paris. In the same week Manteuffel, moving against the
relieving army of the north, encountered it near Amiens,
defeated it after a hard struggle, and gained possession of
Amiens itself. After the fall of Amiens, Manteuffel moved upon
Rouen. This city fell into his hands without resistance. ...
But the Republican armies, unlike those which the Germans had
first encountered, were not to be crushed at a single blow.
Under the energetic command of Faidherbe the army of the north
advanced again upon Amiens. Goeben, who was left to defend the
line of the Somme, went out to meet him, defeated him on the
23rd of December, and drove him back to Arras. But again,
after a week's interval, Faidherbe pushed forward. On the 3rd
of January he fell upon Goeben's weak division at Bapaume, and
handled it so severely that the Germans would on the following
day have abandoned their position, if the French had not
themselves been the first to retire. Faidherbe, however, had
only fallen back to receive reinforcements. After some days'
rest he once more sought to gain the road to Paris, advancing
this time by the eastward line through St. Quentin. In front
of this town Goeben attacked him. The last battle of the army
of the North was fought on the 19th of January. The French
general endeavoured to disguise his defeat, but the German
commander had won all that he desired. Faidherbe's army was
compelled to retreat northwards in disorder; its part in the
war was at an end. During the last three weeks of December
there was a pause in the operations of the Germans on the
Loire. ... Gambetta ... had ... determined to throw the army
of Bourbaki, strengthened by reinforcements from the south,
upon Germany itself. The design was a daring one, and had the
... French armies been capable of performing the work which
Gambetta required of them, an inroad into Baden, or even the
reconquest of Alsace, would most seriously have affected the
position of the Germans before Paris. But Gambetta
miscalculated the power of young, untrained troops,
imperfectly armed, badly fed, against a veteran army. In a
series of hard-fought struggles the army of the Loire under
General Chanzy was driven back at the beginning of January
from Vendôme to Le Mans. On the 12th, Chanzy took post before
this city and fought his last battle. While he was making a
vigorous resistance in the centre of the line, the Breton
regiments stationed on his right gave way; the Germans pressed
round him, and gained possession of the town. Chanzy retreated
towards Laval, leaving thousands of prisoners in the hands of the
enemy, and saving only the debris of an army. Bourbaki in the
meantime, with a numerous but miserably equipped force, had
almost reached Belfort. ... Werder had evacuated Dijon and
fallen back upon Vesoul; part of his army was still occupied
in the siege of Belfort. As Bourbaki approached he fell back
with the greater part of his troops in order to cover the
besieging force, leaving one of his lieutenants to make a
flank attack upon Bourbaki at Villersexel. This attack, one of
the fiercest in the war, delayed the French for two days, and
gave Werder time to occupy the strong positions that he had
chosen about Montbéliard. Here, on the 15th of January, began
a struggle which lasted for three days. The French, starving
and perishing with cold, though far superior in number to
their enemy, were led with little effect against the German
entrenchments. On the 18th Bourbaki began his retreat. Werder
was unable to follow him; Manteuffel with a weak force was
still at some distance, and for a moment it seemed possible
that Bourbaki, by a rapid movement westwards, might crush this
isolated foe. Gambetta ordered Bourbaki to make the attempt:
the commander refused to court further disaster with troops
who were not fit to face an enemy, and retreated towards
Pontarlier in the hope of making his way to Lyons. But
Manteuffel now descended in front of him; divisions of
Werder's army pressed down from the north; the retreat was cut
off; and the unfortunate French general, whom a telegram from
Gambetta removed from his command, attempted to take his own
life. On the 1st of February, the wreck of his army, still
numbering 85,000 men, but reduced to the extremity of weakness
and misery, sought refuge beyond the Swiss frontier. The war
was now over. Two days after Bourbaki's repulse at Montbéliard
the last unsuccessful sortie was made from Paris. There now
remained provisions only for another fortnight; above 40,000
of the inhabitants had succumbed to the privations of the
siege; all hope of assistance from the relieving armies before
actual famine should begin disappeared.
{1389}
On the 23rd of January Favre sought the German Chancellor at
Versailles in order to discuss the conditions of a general
armistice and of the capitulation of Paris. The negotiations
lasted for several days; on the 28th an armistice was signed
with the declared object that elections might at once be
freely held for a National Assembly, which should decide
whether the war should be continued, or on what conditions
peace should be made. The conditions of the armistice were
that the forts of Paris and all their material of war should
be handed over to the German army; that the artillery of the
enceinte should be dismounted; and that the regular troops in
Paris should, as prisoners of war, surrender their arms. The
National Guard were permitted to retain their weapons and
their artillery. Immediately upon the fulfilment of the first
two conditions all facilities were to be given for the entry
of supplies of food into Paris. The articles of the armistice
were duly executed, and on the 30th of January the Prussian
flag waved over the forts of the French capital."
C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 3, chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
H. Murdock,
The Reconstruction of Europe,
chapters 29-30.
Daily News Correspondence of the War
chapters 13-21.
Cassell's History of the War,
volume 1, chapter 36,
volume 2; chapters 1-18.
Comte d'Herrison,
Journal of a Staff Officer in Paris.
E. B. Washburne,
Recollections of a Minister to France,
volume 1, chapters 5-10.
J. A. O'Shea,
An Iron-bound City.
F. T. Marzials,
Life of Gambetta,
chapter 5.
H. von Moltke,
The Franco-German War of 1870-71,
sections 3-7.
T. G. Bowles,
The Defence of Paris.
W. Rüstow,
The War for the Rhine Frontier, 1870,
volume 3.
FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (January-May).
Preliminaries of Peace signed at Versailles.
The Treaty of Frankfort.
Cession of Alsace and one-fifth of Lorraine.
Five milliards of indemnity.
"On the afternoon of January 28 [1871] the capitulation of
Paris was signed, and an armistice agreed upon to expire on
February 19 at noon. The provinces occupied by the armies of
Bourbaki and Munteuffel were alone excluded from this
agreement. On January 29 the German troops quietly took
possession of the Paris forts. The regulars and mobiles became
prisoners of war, with the exception of 12,000 men who were
left under arms to preserve order. At the earnest request of
Favre the National Guard were allowed to retain their arms. If
Favre urged this as a measure to counteract the imperialistic
ideas supposed to be still cherished by the prisoners
returning from Germany, it was a political crime as well as a
military folly. The National Guard became the armed Commune.
... While the armies withdrew to the lines stipulated in the
armistice, the elections went quietly forward. The assembly
convened at Bordeaux, and manifested a spirit that won for it
universal respect. On February 17 M. Thiers was appointed
chief of the executive power, and having named his ministry,
he repaired to Versailles to arrange the preliminaries of
peace. The conferences that followed with the German
chancellor were perhaps the most trying ordeals to which the
Frenchman had ever been subjected. No peace was possible save
on the basis of the cession of miles of territory and the
strongest of fortresses. France must also pay a war indemnity
of no less than five milliards of francs. Bismarck, it is
true, thought Thiers 'too sentimental for business, ... hardly
fit indeed to buy or sell a horse,' but no diplomatist,
however astute, could have made better terms for stricken
France. So thought the assembly at Bordeaux; and when Thiers
announced the result of his mission with a quivering lip, he
had its sympathy and support. On the 2d of March the assembly
formally ratified the peace preliminaries by a vote of 546 to
107. It had been stipulated in the armistice that the German
troops should not occupy Paris. The extension of time granted
by the Germans entitled them to some compensation, and the
entry of Paris was the compensation claimed. The troops
detailed for this purpose were not chosen at random. To the
Frenchman who on the 1st day of March beheld them pass along
the Avenue de Malakoff or the Champs Elysées it was an ominous
pageant. It was a German and not a Prussian army that he
beheld. ... That night the Hessians smoked their pipes on the
Trocadéro, and the Bavarians stacked their arms in the Place
de la Concorde, while the lights blazing from the palace of
the Elysée announced the German military headquarters. On the
third day of the month, the Bordeaux Assembly having ratified
the peace preliminaries, the German troops marched out, and
Paris was left to herself again. The war was over. Beyond the
Rhineland, in Bavaria and Würtemberg as well as in the north,
all was joy and enthusiasm over the return of the army that
had answered before the world the question, 'What is the
German Fatherland?' On the 10th of May the definite treaty of
peace was signed at Frankfort by which France ceded Alsace and
a portion of Lorraine, including the fortresses of Metz and
Strasburg, to her conqueror."
H. Murdock,
The Reconstruction of Europe,
chapter 30.
The following are the heads of the Preliminary Treaty
concluded at Versailles, to which the final Treaty of
Frankfort conformed:
"1. France renounces in favour of the German Empire the
following rights: the fifth part of Lorraine including Metz
and Thionville, and Alsace less Belfort.
2. France will pay the sum of five milliards of francs, of
which one milliard is to be paid in 1871 and the remaining
four milliards by instalments extending over three years.
3. The German troops will begin to evacuate the French
territory as soon as the Treaty is ratified. They will then
evacuate the interior of Paris and some departments lying in
the western region. The evacuation of the other departments
will take place gradually after payment of the first milliard,
and proportionately to the payment of the other four
milliards. Interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum
will be paid on the amount remaining due from the date of the
ratification of the Treaty.
4. The German troops will not levy any requisitions in the
departments occupied by them, but will be maintained at the
cost of France. A delay will be granted to the inhabitants of
the territories annexed to choose between the two
nationalities.
6. Prisoners of war will be immediately set at liberty.
7. Negotiations for a definitive Treaty of Peace will be
opened at Brussels after the ratification of this Treaty.
8. The administration of the departments occupied by the
German troops will be entrusted to French officials, but under
the control of the chiefs of the German Corps of occupation.
9. The present Treaty confers upon the Germans no rights
whatever in the portions of territories not occupied.
10. This Treaty will have to be ratified by the
National Assembly of France."
C. Lowe,
Prince Bismarck,
volume 1, chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
E. Hertslet,
The Map of Europe by Treaty,
volume 3, numbers 438 and 446.
{1390}
FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (March-May).
Insurrection of the Communists of Paris.
Second siege and reduction of the capital.
"On the 3d of March the German army of occupation--which had
been in the assigned part of the city since the 1st--marched
off through the Arc de Triomphe, and on the 7th the German
headquarters were moved from Versailles. The great
Franco-Prussian War was over. ... But before ... peace could
be attained, the country had yet to suffer from the so-called
patriots of the Red Republicans worse outrage than it had
endured at the hands of the German invaders. When the
negotiations for the capitulation of Paris were in progress,
Count Bismarck had warned M. Favre of the danger of allowing,
as he proposed, the National Guard to retain their arms; and
the members of the Government of National Defence might
themselves have seen the risk they were incurring, had they
calmly considered the various émeutes that had taken place
during the siege, and in which the National Guard had always
played such a conspicuous part on the side of disaffection.
Now, in the full consciousness of their strength--somewhere
about 100,000--and in their possession of a powerful
artillery,--for during the German occupation they had, on the
pretext of keeping them safe, got a large number of cannon
into their hands,--they seemed determined to attempt the
revival of the Reign of Terror. ... The appointment of General
d'Aurelle de Paladines as their commander gave great offence,
and on the 9th March an attempt to place the tricolor on the
column in the Place de la Bastille instead of the red flag of
revolution led to an outbreak. A promise in the event of the
cannon being given up, of the continuance of pay till
'ordinary work was resumed,' was disregarded, and the
dismissal of D'Aurelle and the full recognition of the right
of the National Guard to elect its own officers demanded. An
effort of the government to seize the cannon in the Place des
Vosges failed, and it was now clear enough that more energetic
action than negotiations must take place. On the morning of the
18th March a large force of regular troops under Generals
Vinoy and Lecomte proceeded to Montmarte and took possession
of the guns; but the want of horses for their immediate
removal gave time for the Reds to assemble and frustrate the
effort, while, worst of all, a large number of the regular
troops fraternized with the insurgents. General Lecomte and
General Clement Thomas were taken prisoners and almost
immediately shot. The outbreak, thus begun, spread rapidly;
for, through some unaccountable timidity of the government,
the government forces were withdrawn from the city, and the
insurgents left free to act as they pleased. They seized
General Chanzy at the Orleans railway station, took possession
of the Ministry of Justice and the Hôtel de Ville, and threw
up barricades round all the revolutionary quarters. The
Central Committee of the National Guard, the leading man of
which was Assi, ... summoned the people of Paris to meet 'in
their comitia for the communal elections,' and declared their
intention of resigning their power into the hands of the
Commune thus chosen. The National Assembly removed from
Bordeaux and held its sittings at Versailles: but bitter as
was the feeling of the majority of the Deputies against the
new turbulence, the position of affairs prevented any action
from being taken against the insurgents. The removal of
General d'Aurelle and the appointment of Admiral Saisset in
his place was of no avail. A number of the inhabitants of
Paris, styling themselves 'Men of Order,' attempted to
influence affairs by a display of moral force, but they were
fired on and dispersed. The Assembly was timid, and apparently
quite unable to bring its troops into play. ... Through
Admiral Saisset concessions were offered, but the demands of
the Communists increased with the prospect of obtaining
anything. They now modestly demanded that they should
supersede the Assembly wherever there was any prospect of
collision of power, and be allowed to control the finances;
and as a very natural consequence the negotiations were
abandoned. This was on the 25th of March, and on the 26th the
Commune was elected, the victory of the Reds being very easily
gained, as hardly any of those opposed to them voted. Two days
afterwards the Commune was proclaimed at the Hôtel de Ville,
the members who had been elected being seated on a platform in
red arm-chairs. The leading man of the new system was the
honest but hot-headed and utopian Deleseluze; Cluseret, a man
of considerable military genius, who had led a life of a very
wild nature in America, and who was the soul of the resistance
when the actual fighting began, was Delegate of War; Grousset,
of Foreign Affairs; and Rigault, of Public Safety. The new
government applied itself vigorously to changes; conscription
was abolished, and the authority of the Versailles government
declared 'null and void.' Seeing that a desperate struggle
must inevitably ensue, a very large number of the inhabitants
of Paris quitted the city, and the German authorities allowed
the prisoners from Metz and Sedan to return so as to swell the
forces at the disposal of M. Thiers. They also intimated that,
in view of the altered circumstances, it might again become
necessary for them to occupy the forts they had already
evacuated. The first shot in the second siege of Paris, in
which Frenchmen were arrayed against Frenchmen, was fired on
the 2d April, when a strong division of the Versailles army
advanced against the National Guards posted at Courbevoie, and
drove them into Paris across the Pont de Neuilly. During the
ensuing night a large force of insurgents gathered, and were
on the morning of the 3d led in three columns against
Versailles. Great hopes had been placed on the sympathy of the
regular troops, but they were doomed to disappointment. ...
The expedition ... not only failed, but it ... cost the
Commune two of its leading men,--Duval, and that Flourens who
had already made himself so conspicuous in connection with
revolutionary outbreaks under the Empire and the Government of
National Defence,--both of whom were taken and promptly shot
by the Versailles authorities. The failure and the executions
proved so exasperating that the 'Commune of Paris' issued a
proclamation denouncing the Versailles soldiers as banditti.
... They had ample means of gratifying their passion for
revenge, for they had in their hands a number of leading men,
including Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, and M. Bonjean,
President of the Court of Cassation, and these--two hundred in
all--they proclaimed their intention of holding as hostages.
{1391}
M. Thiers was still hesitating, and waiting for a force
sufficiently powerful to crush all opposition; and in this he
was no doubt right, for any success of the Communists, even of
the most temporary character, would have proved highly
dangerous. The Germans had granted permission to the
government to increase their original 30,000 troops to
150,000, and prisoners of Metz and Sedan had been pouring
steadily back from Germany for this purpose. On the 8th April
Marshal MacMahon took command of the forces at Versailles. A
premature attack on the forts of Issy, Vanves, and Montrouge
on the 11th failed, but on the 17th and 19th several of the
insurgent positions were carried; on the 25th the bombardment
of Issy and Vanves was begun, and from that time onwards
operations against the city were carried on with the greatest
activity, the insurgents being on all occasions put to the
sword in a most merciless manner. Issy was taken on the 8th
May, and Vanves on the 4th, and the enceinte laid bare. Inside
Paris all this time there was nothing but jealousy. ... First
one leader, and then another, was tried, found wanting, and
disgraced. ... On the 21st May the defenders of the wall at
the gate of St. Cloud were driven from their positions by the
heavy artillery fire, and the besieging army, having become
aware of the fact, pushed forward and secured this entrance to
the city; and by the evening of the 22d there were 80,000
Versaillists within the walls. Next day they gained fresh
ground, and were ready to re-occupy the Tuileries and the
Hôtel de Ville; but before this was possible the Communists,
mad with despair, had resolved on that series of outrages
against humanity that will make their names detested and their
cause distrusted as long as the story of their crimes stands
recorded in the annals of history. They had already
perpetrated more than one act of vandalism. ... On the 12th
May, in accordance with a public decree, they had destroyed
the private residence of M. Thiers with all its pictures and
books; on the 16th the magnificent column erected in the Place
Vendome in memory of Napoleon I., and crowned by his statue,
was undermined at one side and then pulled to the ground by
means of ropes and utterly destroyed; and now on the 24th, in
the last efforts of despairing rage, bands of men and women,
still more frantic and eager for blood than were those of the
Reign of Terror, rushed through the doomed city. Early in the
morning the Tuileries, the Hôtel de Ville, the Ministry of
Finance, the Palais d'Orsay, and other public and private
buildings were seen to be on fire. The Louvre, too, with all
its inestimable treasures, was in flames, and was saved with
the greatest difficulty. If the Commune was to perish, it had
clearly resolved that the city was to perish with it. Men and
women marched about in bands with petroleum, and aided the
spread of the conflagration by firing the city in different
places. Heedless of the flames, the Versailles troops pressed
on, eager, if possible, to save the lives of the 200 hostages,
but, alas, in vain. A passion for blood had seized on the
Commune, and its last expiring effort was to murder in cold
blood, not only a large number of the hostages, but also
batches of fresh victims, seized indiscriminately about the
streets by bands of men and women, and dragged off to instant
death. On the 26th Belleville was captured, and on the 27th
and 28th the Cemetery of Père la Chaise was the scene of the
final struggle,--a struggle of such a desperate nature--for
there was no quarter--that, for days after, the air of the
district was literally fraught with pestilence. Many of the
leaders of the Commune had fallen in the final contest, and
all the others who were captured by the Versailles troops
during the fighting were at once shot. Of the 30,000 prisoners
who had fallen into the hands of the government, a large
number, both men and women, were executed without mercy, and
the rest distributed in various prisons to await trial, as
also were Rossel, Assi, Grousset, and others, who were
captured after the resistance was at an end. Cluseret
succeeded in making good his escape. ... Of the prisoners,
about 10,000 were set free without trial, and the others were
sentenced by various courts-martial during the following
months and on through the coming year, either to death,
transportation or imprisonment."

H. Martin,
Popular History of France from the First Revolution,
volume 3, chapter 24.
ALSO IN:
E. B. Washburne,
Recollections of a Minister to France,
volume 2, chapters 5-7.
P. Vésinier,
History of the Commune of Paris.
P. O. Lissagaray,
History of the Commune of 1871.
W. P. Fetridge,
Rise and Fall of the Paris Commune.
J. Leighton,
Paris under the Commune.
FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (April-May).
The government of the Commune in Paris.
"For the conduct of affairs the Communal Council divided
itself into ten 'commissions,' of finance, war, public safety,
external relations, education, justice, labour and exchange,
provisions, the public service, and the general executive. Of
these the most efficient appears to have been that of finance;
by advances from the bank and by the revenues of the post, the
telegraph, the octrois, &c., means were found to provide for
the current expenditure. The other commissions were admittedly
inefficient, and especially the one which was most important
for the moment, that of war:--'as to a general plan,' says
Lissagaray, 'there never was one: the men were abandoned to
themselves, being neither cared for nor controlled;' 'at the
Ministry,' says Gastyne, 'no one is at his place. They pass
their time in running after one another. The most
insignificant Lieutenant will take orders from nobody, and
wants to give them to everybody. They smoke, chat and chaff.
They dispute with the contractors. They buy irresponsibly
right and left because the dealers give commissions or have
private relations with the officials;' 'in the army of
Versailles,' said a member of the Commune, 'they don't get
drunk: in ours they are never sober;' 'the administration of
war,' said another, 'is the organisation of disorganisation;'
'I feel myself,' said Rossel, on resigning his command,
'incapable of any longer bearing the responsibility of a
command where everyone deliberates and no one obeys. The
central committee of artillery has deliberated and prescribed
nothing. The Commune has deliberated and resolved upon
nothing. The Central Committee deliberates and has not yet
known how to act. ... My predecessor committed the fault of
struggling against this absurd situation. I retire, and have
the honour to ask you for a cell at Mazas.' The same
incompetence, leading to the same result of anarchy, was
displayed by the Executive Commission:--'in less than a
fortnight,' said Grosset, 'conflicts of every kind had arisen;
the Executive Commission gave orders which were not executed;
each particular commission, thinking itself sovereign in its
turn, gave orders too, so that the Executive Commission could
have no real responsibility.'
{1392}
On April 20 the Executive Commission was replaced by a
committee, composed of a delegate from each of the nine other
commissions; still efficiency could not be secured, and at the
end of the month it was proposed to establish a Committee of
Public Safety. This proposition was prompted by the traditions
of 1793, and brought into overt antagonism the two conflicting
tendencies of the Commune: there were some of its members who
were ready to save the movement by a despotism, to secure at
every cost a strong administration, and impose the Commune, if
need be by terror, upon Paris and the provinces. ... On the
other hand there was a strong minority which opposed the
proposal, on the ground that it was tantamount to an
abdication on the part of the Communal Council. ... The
appointment of the Committee was carried by forty-five votes
to twenty-three; many of those who voted for it regarded it as
merely another 'Executive Commission,' subordinate to, and at
any moment subject to dismissal by, the Commune; and so, in
effect, it proved; it was neither more terrible nor more
efficient than the body to which it succeeded; it came into
existence on the 1st of May, and on the 9th the complaint was
already advanced that 'your Committee of Public Safety has not
answered our expectations; it has been an obstacle, instead of a
stimulus;' on the 10th a new committee was appointed, with
similar results; all that the innovation achieved was to bring
into clear relief the fact that there existed in the Commune a
Jacobin element ready to recur to the traditions of 1793, and
to make Paris the mistress of France by the guillotine or its
modern equivalent."
G. L. Dickinson,
Revolution and Reaction in Modern France,
pages 267-270.
FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.
The Assembly at Bordeaux.
Thiers elected Chief of the Executive Power.
The founding of the Republic.
The recovery of order and prosperity.
Resignation of Thiers.
Election of Marshal MacMahon.
Plans of the Monarchists defeated.
Adoption of the Constitution of 1875.
"The elections passed off more quietly than was to be
expected, and the Assembly which came together at Bordeaux on
the 13th of February exactly represented the sentiment of the
nation at that particular moment. France being eager for
peace, the Assembly was pacific. It was also somewhat
unrepublican, for the Republic had been represented in the
provinces only by Gambetta, the promoter of war to the knife,
who had sacrificed the interests of the Republic to what he
conceived to be the interests of the national honor. Politics
had, in truth, been little thought of, and Thiers was elected
in 27 departments upon very diverse tickets, rather on account
of his opposition to the war and his efforts in favor of peace
than on account of his fame as a liberal orator and historian.
Moved by the same impulse, the Assembly almost unanimously
appointed him Chief of the Executive Power of the French
Republic, and intrusted to him the double task of governing
the country and of treating with the German Emperor. ... It
was apparently in the name of the Republic that peace was
negotiated and the Government gradually reconstructed. ... The
Assembly, however, which was all-powerful, held that to change
the form of government was one of its rights. It might have
been urged that the electors had scarcely contemplated this,
and that the Monarchists were in the majority simply because
they represented peace, while in the provinces the Republic
had meant nothing but war to the hilt. But these distinctions
were not thought of in the press of more urgent business,
namely, the treaty which was to check the shedding of blood,
and the rudiments of administrative reconstruction. No
monarchy would have been willing to assume the responsibility
of this Treaty. ... The Right accordingly consented to accept
the name of Republic as a makeshift, provided it should be
talked about as little as possible. Thiers had come to think,
especially since the beginning of the war, that the Republic
was the natural heir of Napoleon III. ... He had, however,
been struck with the circumstance that so many Legitimists had
been elected to the Assembly, and he was no more eager than
they to stop to discuss constitutions. ... He was the more
disposed to wait, inasmuch as he saw in the Chamber the very
rapid formation and growth of a group in which he had great
confidence. Of these deputies M. Jules Simon has given a
better definition than they could themselves formulate,--for
this political philosopher has written a masterly history of
these years. ... Here is what Simon says of this party in the
Assembly: 'There were in this body some five-score firm
spirits who were alike incapable either of forsaking the
principles whereon all society rests, or of giving up freedom.
Of all forms of government they would have preferred
constitutional monarchy, had they found it established, or
could they have restored it by a vote without resort to force.
But they quickly perceived that neither the Legitimists nor
the Bonapartists would consent to the constitutional form;
that such a monarchy could obtain a majority neither in the
Parliament nor among the people. ... Some of these men
entertained for the Republic a distrust which, at first,
amounted to aversion. Being persuaded, however, that they must
choose between the Republic and the Empire ... they did not
despair of forming a Republic at once liberal and
conservative. In a word, they thrust aside the Legitimate
Monarchy as chimerical, Republican and Cæsarian dictatorship
as alike hateful. ... Of this party M. Thiers was not merely
the head, but the body also.' ... But there was another party,
which, although the least numerous in the Assembly and split
into factions at that, was the most numerous in the
country,--the Republican party."
P. de Rémusat,
Thiers,
chapters 6-7.
{1393}
"In the wake of Thiers followed such men as Rémusat, Casimir
Périer, Leon Say, and Lafayette. This added strength made the
Republicans the almost equal rivals of the other parties
combined. So great was Thiers' influence that, despite his
conversion to Republicanism, he was still able to control the
Monarchical Assembly. A threat of resignation, so great was
the dread of what might follow it, and so jealous were the
Monarchists of two shades and the Imperialists of each other,
was enough to bring the majority to the President's terms. It
was under such political conditions that the infant Republic,
during its first year, undertook the tasks of preserving
peace, of maintaining internal order, of retrieving disaster,
of tempting back prosperity and thrift to the desolated land,
of relieving it of the burdens imposed by war, and, at the
same time, of acquiring for itself greater security and
permanency. The recovery of France was wonderfully rapid; her
people began once more to taste sweet draughts of liberty; the
indemnity was almost half diminished; and her industries, at
the end of the year, were once more in full career. But the
Republic was a long way from complete and unquestioned
recognition. The second year of the Republic (1872-73) was
passed amid constant conflicts between the rival parties.
Thiers still maintained his ascendency, and stoutly adhered to
his defence of Republican institutions; but the Assembly was
restive under him, and energetic attempts were made to bring
about a fusion between the Legitimists and the Orleanists.
These attempts were rendered futile by the obstinacy of the
Count of Chambord, who would yield nothing, either of
principle or even of symbol, to his cousin of Orleans. The
want of harmony among the Monarchists postponed the
consideration of what should be the permanent political
constitution of France until November of the year 1872, when a
committee of thirty was chosen to recommend constitutional
articles. Against this the Republicans protested. They
declared that the Assembly had only been elected to make peace
with Germany; ... that dissolution was the only further act
that the Assembly was competent to perform. This indicated the
confidence of the Republicans in their increased strength in
the country; and the fact that the Monarchists refused to
dissolve shows that they were not far from holding this
opinion of their opponents. Despite the rivalries and
bitterness of the factions, the Republic met with no serious
blow from the time of its provisional establishment in
February, 1871, until May, 1873. Up to the latter period two
thirds of the enormous indemnity had been paid, and the German
force of occupation had almost entirely retired from French
territory. ... But in Italy, 1873, a grave misfortune, alike
to France and to the Republican institutions, occurred. At
last the Monarchical reactionists of the Assembly had gathered
courage to make open war upon President Thiers. Perceiving
that his policy was having the effect of nourishing and adding
ever new strength to the Republican cause, and that every
month drifted them further from the opportunity and hope of
restoring Monarchy or Empire ... they now forgot their own
differences, and resolved, at all hazards, to get rid of the
Republic's most powerful protector. ... The Duc de Broglie,
the leader of the reactionary Monarchists, offered a
resolution in the Assembly which was tantamount to a
proposition of want of confidence in President Thiers. After
an acrimonious debate, in which Thiers himself took part, De
Broglie's motion was passed by a majority of fourteen. The
President had no alternative but to resign; and thus the
executive power, at a critical moment, passed out of
Republican into Monarchical hands. Marshal MacMahon was at
once chosen President. ... MacMahon was strongly Catholic in
religion; and so far as he was known to have any political
opinions, they wavered between Legitimism and
Imperialism--they were certainly as far as possible from
Republicanism. Now was formed and matured a deliberate project
to overthrow the young Republic, and to set up Monarchy in its
place. All circumstances combined to favor its success. The
new President was found to be at least willing that the thing
should, if it could, be done. His principal minister, De
Broglie, entered warmly into the plot. The Orleanist princes
agreed to waive their claims, and the Count of Paris was
persuaded to pay a visit to the Count of Chambord at his
retreat at Frohsdorf, to acknowledge the elder Bourbon's right
to the throne, and to abandon his own pretensions. The
Assembly was carefully canvassed, and it was found that a
majority could be relied upon to proclaim, at the ripe moment,
Chambord as king, with the title of Henry V. The Republic was
now, in the early autumn of 1873, in the most serious and real
peril. It needed but a word from the Bourbon pretender to
overthrow it, and to replace it by the throne of the Capets
and the Valois. Happily, the old leaven of Bourbon bigotry
existed in 'Henry V.' He conceded the point of reigning with
parliamentary institutions, but he would not accept the
tricolor as the flag of the restored monarchy. He insisted
upon returning to France under the white banner of his
ancestors. To him the throne was not worth a piece of cloth.
To his obstinacy in clinging to this trifle of symbolism the
Republic owed its salvation. The scheme to restore the
monarchy thus fell through. The result was that the two wings
of Monarchists flew apart again, and the Republicans, being
now united and patient under the splendid leadership of
Gambetta, once more began to wax in strength. It only remained
to the Conservatives to make the best of the situation--to
proceed to the forming of a Constitution, and to at least
postpone to as late a period as possible the permanent
establishment of the Republic. The first step was to confirm
MacMahon in the Presidency for a definite period; and 'the
Septennate,' giving him a lease of power for seven years--that
is, until the autumn of 1880--was voted. ... It was not until
late in the year 1875 that the Constitution which is now the
organic law of France was finally adopted.
See CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE.
The chief circumstance which impelled a majority of the
Assembly to take this decisive step was the alarming revival
of Imperialism in the country. This was shown in the success
of Bonapartists in isolated elections to fill vacancies. Much
as the Royalists distrusted a Republic, they dreaded yet more
the restoration of the Empire; and the rapid progress made by
the partisans of the Empire forced them to adopt what was
really a moderate Republican Constitution. This Constitution
provided that the President of the Republic should be elected
by a joint convention of the Senate and the Chamber of
Deputies; that the Senate should consist of 300 members, of
whom 75 were to be elected for life by the Assembly, and the
remaining 225 by electoral colleges, composed of the deputies,
the councillors-general, the members of the councils
d'arrondissement, and delegates chosen from municipal
councils; that the vacancies in the life senatorships should
be filled by the Senate itself, while the term of the Senators
elected by the colleges should be nine years, one third
retiring every three years; that the Chamber of Deputies
should consist of 533 members, and that the deputies should be
chosen by single districts, instead of, as formerly, in groups
by departments: that the President could only dissolve the
Chamber of Deputies with the consent of the Senate; that money
bills should originate in the Lower Chamber, and that the
President should have the right of veto.
{1394}
The 'Septennate' organized and the Constitution adopted, the
Assembly, which had clung to power for about five years, had
no reason for continued existence, and at last dissolved early
in 1876, having provided that the first general election under
the new order of things should take place in February. ... The
result of the elections proved three things--the remarkable
growth of Republican sentiment; the great progress made, in
spite of the memory of Sedan, by the Bonapartist propaganda;
and the utter hopelessness of any attempt at a Royalist
restoration."
G. M. Towle,
Modern France,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
J. Simon,
The Government of M. Thiers.
F. Le Goff,
Life of Thiers,
chapters 8-9.
FRANCE: A. D. 1872-1889.
Reform of Public Instruction.
See
EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1833-1889.
FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
Stable settlements of the Republic.
Presidencies of MacMahon and Grevy.
Military operations in Tunis, Madagascar and Tonquin.
Revision of the constitution.
Expulsion of the princes.
Boulangerism.
Election of M. Sadi Carnot to the presidency.
"The last day of the year 1875 saw a final prorogation of this
monarchist assembly which had established the Republic. It had
been in existence nearly five years. The elections to the
Senate gave a small majority to the Republicans. Those to the
Chamber of Deputies (February, 1876) gave about two-thirds of
its 532 seats to Republicans, mostly moderate Republicans. The
ministry to which the leadership of this assembly was soon
confided, was therefore naturally a ministry of moderate
Republicans. M. Dufaure was prime minister, and M. Léon Say
minister of finance. ... The Dufaure ministry was not
long-lived, being succeeded before the year 1876 closed, by a
ministry led by M. Jules Simon, a distinguished orator and
writer. The tenure of French cabinets in general has been so
little permanent under the Third Republic, that in the
nineteen years which have elapsed since the fall of the
Empire, twenty-five cabinets have had charge of the executive
government. ... Few events had marked the history of the Simon
ministry when, suddenly, in May, 1877, the President of the
Republic demanded its resignation. Much influenced of late by
Monarchist advisers, he had concluded that the moderate
Republican cabinets did not possess the confidence of the
chambers, and, feeling that the responsibility of maintaining
the repose and security of France rested upon him, had
resolved, rather than allow the management of the affairs of
the country to fall into the hands of M. Gambetta and the
Radicals, to appoint a ministry of conservatives, trusting
that the country would ratify the step. A ministry was
organized under the Duke of Broglie, and the Chamber of
Deputies was first prorogued, and then, with the consent of
the Senate, dissolved. The death of M. Thiers in September
caused a great national demonstration in honor of that
patriotic statesman, 'the liberator of the territory.' The
result of the ensuing elections was a complete victory for the
Republicans, who secured nearly three-fourths of the seats in
the new Chamber. The Marshal, appointing a ministry composed
of adherents of his policy who were not members of the
Assembly, attempted to make head against the majority, but was
forced in December to yield to the will of the people and of
their representatives, and to recall M. Dufaure and the
moderate Republicans to office. The year 1878 therefore passed
off quietly, being especially distinguished by the great
success of the universal exhibition held at Paris. ... At the
beginning of 1879 elections were held in pursuance of the
provisions of the constitution, for the renewal of a portion
of the Senate. ... Elections were held for the filling of 82
seats. Of these the Republicans won 66, the Monarchist groups
16. This was a loss of 42 seats on the part of the latter, and
assured to the Republicans a full control of the Senate. It
had also the effect of definitively establishing the Republic
as the permanent government of France. The Republican leaders
therefore resolved to insist upon extensive changes in the
personnel of the Council of State and the judiciary body. ...
When they also proposed to make extensive changes in other
departments, Marshal MacMahon, who foresaw the impossibility
of maintaining harmonious relations with the cabinets which
the Republican majority would now demand, took these new
measures as a pretext, and, on January 30, 1879, resigned the
office of President of the Republic. On the same day the
Senate and Chamber, united in National Assembly, elected as
his successor, for the constitutional term of seven years, M.
Jules Grevy, president of the Chamber of Deputies a moderate
Republican who enjoyed general respect. M. Grévy was 71 years
old. M. Gambetta was chosen to succeed him as president of the
Chamber. The cabinet was remodelled, M. Dufaure resigning his
office and being succeeded by M. Waddington. In the
reorganized ministry one of the most prominent of the new
members was M. Jules Ferry, its minister of education. He soon
brought forward two measures which excited violent discussion:
the one dealing with the regulation of superior education, the
other with the constitution of the Supreme Council of Public
Instruction. ... In March, 1880, the Senate rejected the bill
respecting universities. The ministry, now composed of members
of the 'pure Left' (instead of a mixture of these and the Left
Centre) under M. de Freycinet, resolved to enforce the
existing laws against non-authorized congregations. The
Jesuits were warned to close their establishments; the others,
to apply for authorization. Failing to carry out these
decrees, M. de Freycinet was forced to resign, and was
succeeded as prime minister by M. Ferry, under whose orders
the decrees were executed in October and November,
establishments of the Jesuits and others, to the number of
nearly 300, being forcibly closed and their inmates dispersed.
Laws were also passed in the same year and in 1881 for the
extension of public education, and a general amnesty
proclaimed for persons engaged in the insurrection of the
commune. In April and May, 1881, on pretext of chastising
tribes on the Tunisian frontier of Algeria, who had committed
depredations on the French territories in Northern Africa, a
military force from Algeria entered Tunis, occupied the
capital, and forced the Bey to sign a treaty by which he put
himself and his country under the protectorate of France. ...
{1395}
The elections, in August, resulted in a Chamber composed of
467 Republicans, 47 Bonapartists, and 43 Royalists, whereas
its predecessor had consisted of 387 Republicans, 81
Bonapartists, and 61 Royalists. In response to a general
demand, M. Gambetta became prime minister on the meeting of
the new Assembly in the autumn. ... But his measures failed to
receive the support of the Chamber, and he was forced to
resign after having held the office of prime minister but two
months and a half (January, 1882). On the last day of that
year M. Gambetta, still the most eminent French statesman of
the time, died at Paris, aged forty-four. ... The death of
Gambetta aroused the Monarchists to renewed activity. Prince
Napoleon issued a violent manifesto, and was arrested. Bills
were brought in which were designed to exclude from the soil
of France and of French possessions all members of families
formerly reigning in France. Finally, however, after a
prolonged contest, a decree suspending the dukes of Aumale,
Chartres, and Alençon from their functions in the army was
signed by the President. Some months later, August, 1883, the
Count of Chambord ('Henry V.') died at Frohsdorf; by this
event the elder branch of the house of Bourbon became extinct
and the claims urged by both Legitimists and Orleanists were
united in the person of the Count of Paris. During the year
1882 alleged encroachments upon French privileges and
interests in the northwestern portion of Madagascar had
embroiled France in conflict with the Hovas, the leading tribe
of that island. The French admiral commanding the squadron in
the Indian Ocean demanded in 1883 the placing of the
northwestern part of the island under a French protectorate,
and the payment of a large indemnity. These terms being
refused by the queen of the Hovas, Tamatave was bombarded and
occupied, and desultory operations continued until the summer
of 1883, when an expedition of the Hovas resulted in a signal
defeat of the French. A treaty was then negotiated, in
accordance with which the foreign relations of the island were
put under the control of France, while the queen of Madagascar
retained the control of internal affairs and paid certain
claims. A treaty executed in 1874 between the emperor of Annam
and the French had conceded to the latter a protectorate over
that country. His failure completely to carry out his
agreement, and the presence of Chinese troops in Tonquin, were
regarded as threatening the security of the French colony of
Cochin China. A small expedition sent out [1882] under
Commander Rivière to enforce the provision of the treaty was
destroyed at Hanoi. Reinforcements were sent out. But the
situation was complicated by the presence of bands of 'Black
Flags,' brigands said to be unauthorized by the Annam
government, and by claims on the part of China to a suzerainty
over Tonquin. A treaty was made with Annam in August, 1883,
providing for the cession of a province to France, and the
establishment of a French protectorate over Annam and Tonquin.
This, however, did not by any means wholly conclude
hostilities in that province. Sontay was taken from the Black
Flags in December, and Bacninh occupied in March, 1884. The
advance of the French into regions over which China claimed
suzerainty, and which were occupied by Chinese troops, brought
on hostilities with that empire. In August, 1884, Admiral
Courbet destroyed the Chinese fleet and arsenal at Foo-chow;
in October he seized points on the northern end of the island
of Formosa, and proclaimed a blockade of that portion of the
island. On the frontier between Tonquin and China the French
gained some successes, particularly in the capture of
Lang-Sön; yet the climate, and the numbers and determination
of the Chinese troops, rendered it impossible for them to
secure substantial results from victories. Finally, after a
desultory and destructive war, a treaty was signed in June,
1885, which arranged that Formosa should be evacuated, that
Annam should in future have no diplomatic relations except
through France, and that France should have virtually complete
control over both it and Tonquin, though the question of
Chinese suzerainty was left unsettled. ... It was not felt
that the expeditions against Madagascar, Annam, and China had
achieved brilliant success. They had, moreover, been a source
of much expense to France; at first popular, they finally
caused the downfall of the ministry which ordered them. That
ministry, the ministry of M. Jules Ferry, ... remained in
power an unusual length of time,--a little more than two
years. Its principal achievement in domestic affairs consisted
in bringing about the revision of the constitution, which,
framed by the Versailles Assembly in 1875, was felt by many to
contain an excessive number of Monarchical elements. ... In
1885, after the fall of the Ferry cabinet, a law was passed
providing for scrutin de liste; each department being entitled
to a number of deputies proportioned to the number of its
citizens, the deputies for each were to be chosen on a general
or departmental ticket. In the same year a law was passed
declaring ineligible to the office of President of the
Republic, senator or deputy, any prince of families formerly
reigning in France. ... In December the National Assembly
re-elected M. Grévy President of the Republic. In the ministry
led by M. de Freycinet, which held office during the year 1886,
great prominence was attained by the minister of war, General
Boulanger, whose management of his department and political
conduct won him great popularity. ... The increasing activity
of the agents of the Monarchist party, the strength which that
party had shown in the elections of the preceding year, and
the demonstrations which attended the marriage of the daughter
of the Count of Paris to the crown prince of Portugal, incited
the Republican leaders to more stringent measures against the
princes of houses formerly reigning in France. The government
was intrusted by law with discretionary power to expel them
all from France, and definitely charged to expel actual
Claimants of the throne and their direct heirs. The Count of
Paris and his son the Duke of Orleans, Prince Napoleon and his
son Prince Victor, were accordingly banished by presidential
decree in June, 1886. General Boulanger struck off from the
army-roll the names of all princes of the Bonaparte and
Bourbon families. The Duke of Aumale, indignantly protesting,
was also banished; in the spring of 1889 he was permitted to
return. Meanwhile, within the Republican ranks, dissensions
increased. The popularity of General Boulanger became more and
more threatening to the cabinets of which he was a member. An
agitation in his favor, conducted with much skill, caused fear
lest he were aspiring to a military dictatorship
of France. ...
{1396}
In the autumn of 1887, an inquiry into the conduct of General
Caffarel, deputy to the commander-in-chief, accused of selling
decorations, implicated by Daniel Wilson, son-in-law of M.
Grévy, who was alleged to have undertaken to obtain
appointments to office and lucrative contracts in return for
money. M. Grévy's unwise attempts to shield his son-in-law
brought about his own fall. The chambers, determined to force
his resignation, refused to accept any ministry proposed by
him. After much resistance and irritating delays he submitted,
and resigned the presidency of the Republic on December 2,
1887. On the next day the houses met in National Assembly at
Versailles to chose the successor of M. Grévy. ... The most
prominent candidates for the Republicans were M. Ferry and M.
de Freycinet; the former, however, was unpopular with the
country. The followers of both, finding their election
impossible, resolved to cast their votes for M. Sadi Carnot, a
Republican of the highest integrity and universally respected.
M. Carnot, a distinguished engineer, grandson of the Carnot
who had, as minister of war, organized the victories of the
armies of the Revolution, was accordingly elected President of
the French Republic. ... The chief difficulties encountered by
the cabinet arose out of the active propagandism exercised in
behalf of General Boulanger. ... His name ... became the
rallying-point of those who were hostile to the parliamentary
system, or to the Republican government in its present form.
Alarmed both by his singular popularity and by his political
intrigues, the government instituted a prosecution of him
before the High Court of Justice; upon this he fled from the
country, and the dangers of the agitation in his favor were,
for the time at least, quieted. On May 5, 1889, the
one-hundredth anniversary of the assembly of the
States-General was held at Versailles. On the next day,
President Carnot formally opened the Universal Exhibition at
Paris, the greatest of the world's fairs which have been held
in that city."
V. Duruy,
History of France,
pages 666-677.
ALSO IN:
H. C. Lockwood,
Constitutional History of France,
chapter 7, and appendix 10.
J. G. Scott,
France and Tonkin.
F. T. Marzials,
Life of Gambetta.
E. W. Latimer,
France in the 19th Century,
chapters 18-20.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, March, 1893, supplement.
FRANCE: A. D. 1877-1882.
Anglo-French control of Egyptian finances.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882 and 1882-1883.
FRANCE: A. D. 1884-1885.
Territorial claims in Africa.
The Berlin Conference.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.
FRANCE: A. D. 1892-1893.
The Panama Canal scandal.
See PANAMA CANAL.
FRANCE: A. D. 1893.
Election of Deputies.
Elections for a new Chamber of Deputies were held in France,
ending on Sunday, September 3, 1893. The resulting division of
parties in the Chamber is stated as follows: "Opportunists
[those, that is, who would shape political action by
circumstances--by opportunities--and not by hard and fast
principles], 292; Converted Monarchists [who accept the
Republic as a fixed fact], 35; Unconverted Monarchists, 58;
and Radicals, including Socialists, 187. As the Converted
Monarchists will vote with the Government, there will be a
heavy Government majority to begin with; but ... it is not
perfectly reliable, and is singularly deficient in marked
men."
Spectator, Sept. 9, 1893.
----------FRANCE: End----------
FRANCESCO MARIA, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1521-1535.
FRANCESCO SFORZA, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1450-1466.
FRANCHE COMTÉ.
In the dissolution of the last kingdom of Burgundy (see
BURGUNDY, THE LAST KINGDOM: A. D. 1032), its northern part
maintained a connection with the Empire, which had then become
Germanic, much longer than the southern. It became divided
into two chief states--the County Palatine of Burgundy, known
afterwards as Franche Comté, or the "free county," and Lesser
Burgundy, which embraced western Switzerland and northern
Savoy. "The County Palatine of Burgundy often passed from one
dynasty to another, and it is remarkable for the number of
times that it was held as a separate state by several of the
great princes of Europe. It was held by the Emperor Frederick
Barbarossa in right of his wife; the marriage of one of his
female descendants carried it to Philip the Fifth of France.
Then it became united with the French duchy of Burgundy under
the dukes of the House of Valois. Saving a momentary French
occupation after the death of Charles the Bold, it remained
with them and their Austrian and Spanish representatives. ...
But, through all these changes of dynasty, it remained an
acknowledged fief of the Empire, till its annexation to France
under Lewis the Fourteenth. The capital of this county, it
must be remembered, was Dole. The ecclesiastical metropolis of
Besançon, though surrounded by the county, remained a free
city of the Empire from the days of Frederick Barbarossa [A.
D. 1152-1190] to those of Ferdinand the Third [A. D.
1637-1657]. It was then merged in the county, and along with
the county it passed to France."
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 8, section 5.
FRANCHE COMTÉ: A. D. 1512.
Included in the Circle of Burgundy.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
FRANCHE COMTÉ: A. D. 1648.
Still held to form a part of the Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
FRANCHE COMTÉ: A. D. 1659.
Secured to Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
FRANCHE COMTÉ: A. D. 1674.
Final conquest by Louis XIV. and incorporation with France.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678;
also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
----------FRANCHE COMTÉ: End----------
FRANCHISE, Elective, in England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
FRANCIA, Doctor, The dictatorship of.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
FRANCIA.
See FRANCE: 9TH CENTURY.
also, GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
FRANCIS
(called Phœbus), King of Navarre, A. D. 1479-1503.
Francis I. (of Lorraine), Germanic Emperor, 1745-1765.
Francis I., King of France, 1515-1547.
Francis I., King of Naples or the Two Sicilies, 1825-1830.
Francis II.,
Germanic Emperor, 1792-1806;
Emperor of Austria, 1806-1835;
King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1792-1835.
Francis II., King of France, 1559-1560.
Francis II., King of Naples or the Two Sicilies,
A. D. 1859-18.61.
Francis Joseph I., Emperor of Austria, 1848;
King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1848-.
{1397}
FRANCISCANS.
See MENDICANT ORDERS,
also, BEGUINES, ETC.
FRANCO-GERMAN, OR FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR, The.
See FRANCE: A.. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY), to 1870-1871.
FRANCONIA: The Duchy and the Circle.
"Among the great duchies [of the old Germanic kingdom or
empire of the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries], that of
Eastern Francia, Franken, or Franconia, is of much less
importance in European history than that of Saxony. It gave
the ducal title to the bishops of Würzburg; but it cannot be
said to be in any sense continued in any modern state. Its
name gradually retreated, and the circle of Franken or
Franconia took in only the most eastern part of the ancient
duchy.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493--1519.
The western and northern part of the duchy, together with a
good deal of territory which was strictly Lotharingian, became
part of the two Rhenish circles. Thus Fulda, the greatest of
German abbeys, passed away from the Frankish name. In
north-eastern Francia, the Hessian principalities grew up to
the north-west. Within the Franconian circle lay Würzburg, the
see of the bishops who bore the ducal title, the other great
bishopric of Bamberg, together with the free city of Nürnberg,
and various smaller principalities. In the Rhenish lands, both
within and without the old Francia, one chief characteristic
is the predominance of the ecclesiastical principalities,
Mainz, Köln, Worms, Speyer, and Strassburg. The chief temporal
power which arose in this region was the Palatinate of the
Rhine, a power which, like others, went through many unions
and divisions, and spread into four circles, those of Upper
and Lower Rhine, Westfalia and Bavaria. This last district,
though united with the Palatine Electorate, was, from the
early part of the fourteenth century, distinguished from the
Palatinate of the Rhine as the Oberpfalz or Upper Palatinate."
E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 8, section 1.
See, also,
ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
FRANCONIA, The Electorate of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
FRANCONIAN OR SALIC IMPERIAL HOUSE.
The emperors, Conrad II., Henry III., Henry IV., and Henry V.,
who reigned from 1024 until 1125, over the Germanic-Roman or
Holy Roman Empire, were of the Salic or Franconian house.
See GERMANY: A. D. 973--1122.
FRANKALMOIGN.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
FRANKFORT, Treaty of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).
FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN, Origin of.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1287.
Declared an imperial city.
See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.
FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1525.
Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1744.
The "Union" formed by Frederick the Great.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.
FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1759.
Surprised by the French.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).
FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1801-1803.
One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1806.
Loss of municipal freedom.
Transfer, as a grand duchy, to the ancient Elector of Mayence.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.
FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1810.
Erected into a grand duchy by Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1810-1815.
Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."
See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1848-1849.
Meeting of the German National Assembly.
Its work, its failure, and its end.
Riotous outbreak in the city.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER)
and 1848-1850.
FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: A. D. 1866.
Absorption by Prussia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
----------FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN: End----------
FRANKLIN, Benjamin, and the early American Press.
See PRINTING: A. D. 1704-1729.
FRANKLIN, Benjamin: His plan of Union in 1754.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
FRANKLIN, Benjamin:
Colonial representative in England.
Return to America.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A.D. 1757-1762;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1765-1768, 1766, 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH),
and (APRIL-JUNE).
FRANKLIN, Benjamin: Signing of the Declaration of Independence.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).
FRANKLIN, Benjamin: Mission to France:
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776-1778, 1778 (FEBRUARY),
1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
FRANKLIN, Benjamin:
Framing of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.
FRANKLIN, The ephemeral state of.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785;
and 1785-1796.
FRANKLIN, Tennessee, Battles at and near.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE),
and 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
FRANKLIN, OR FRANKLEYN, The.
"'There is scarce a small village,' says Sir John Fortescue
[15th century] 'in which you may not find a knight, an
esquire, or some substantial householder (paterfamilias)
commonly called a frankleyn, possessed of considerable estate;
besides others who are called freeholders, and many yeomen of
estate sufficient to make a substantial jury.' ... By a
frankleyn in this place we are to understand what we call a
country squire, like the frankleyn of Chaucer; for the word
esquire in Fortescue's time was only used in its limited
sense, for the sons of peers and knights, or such as had
obtained the title by creation or some other legal means."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 8, part 3, with note (volume 3).
FRANKPLEDGE.
An old English law required all men to combine in associations
of ten, and to become standing sureties for one another,
--which was called "frankpledge."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5, section 41.
{1398}
FRANKS: Origin and earliest history.
"It is well known that the name of 'Frank' is not to be found
in the long list of German tribes preserved to us in the
'Germania' of Tacitus. Little or nothing is heard of them
before the reign of Gordian III. In A. D. 240 Aurelian, then a
tribune of the sixth legion stationed on the Rhine, encountered a
body of marauding Franks near Mayence and drove them back into
their marshes. The word 'Francia' is also found at a still
earlier date, in the old Roman chart called the 'Charta
Peutingeria,' and occupies on the map the right bank of the
Rhine from opposite Coblentz to the sea. The origin of the
Franks has been the subject of frequent debate, to which
French patriotism has occasionally lent some asperity. ... At
the present day, however, historians of every nation,
including the French, are unanimous in considering the Franks
as a powerful confederacy of German tribes, who in the time of
Tacitus inhabited the north-western parts of Germany bordering
on the Rhine. And this theory is so well supported by many
scattered notices, slight in themselves, but powerful when
combined, that we can only wonder that it should ever have
been called in question. Nor was this aggregation of tribes
under the new name of Franks a singular instance; the same
took place in the case of the Alemanni and Saxons. ... The
etymology of the name adopted by the new confederacy is also
uncertain. The conjecture which has most probability in its
favour is that adopted long ago by Gibbon, and confirmed in
recent times by the authority of Grimm, which connects it with
the German word Frank (free). ... Tacitus speaks of nearly all
the tribes, whose various appellations were afterwards merged
in that of Frank, as living in the neighbourhood of the Rhine.
Of these the principal were the Sicambri (the chief people of
the old Iscævonian tribe), who, as there is reason to believe,
were identical with the Salian Franks. The confederation
further comprised the Bructeri, the Chamavi, Ansibarii,
Tubantes, Marsi, and Chasuarii, of whom the five last had
formerly belonged to the celebrated Cheruscan league, which,
under the hero Arminius, destroyed three Roman legions in the
Teutoburgian Forest. The strongest evidence of the identity of
these tribes with the Franks, is the fact that, long after
their settlement in Gaul, the distinctive names of the
original people were still occasionally used as synonymous
with that of the confederation. ... The Franks advanced upon
Gaul from two different directions, and under the different
names of Salians, and Ripuarians, the former of whom we have
reason to connect more particularly with the Sicambrian tribe.
The origin of the words Salian and Ripuarian, which are first
used respectively by Ammianus Marcellinus and Jornandes, is
very obscure, and has served to exercise the ingenuity of
ethnographers. There are, however, no sufficient grounds for a
decided opinion. At the same time it is by no means improbable
that the river Yssel, Isala or Sal (for it has borne all these
appellations), may have given its name to that portion of the
Franks who lived along its course. With still greater
probability may the name Ripuarii, or Riparii, be derived from
'Ripa,' a term used by the Romans to signify the Rhine. These
dwellers on 'the Bank' were those that remained in their
ancient settlements while their Salian kinsmen were advancing
into the heart of Gaul."
W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapters 9 and 11.
T. Smith,
Arminius,
part 2, chapter 3.
FRANKS: A. D. 253.
First appearance in the Roman world.
"When in the year 253 the different generals of Rome were once
more fighting each other for the imperial dignity, and the
Rhine-legions marched to Italy to fight out the cause of their
emperor Valerianus against ... Aemilianus of the Danube-army,
this seems to have been the signal for the Germans pushing
forward, especially towards the lower Rhine. These Germans
were the Franks, who appear here for the first time, perhaps
new opponents only in name; for, although the identification
of them, already to be met with in later antiquity, with
tribes formerly named on the lower Rhine--partly, the Chamavi
settled beside the Bructeri, partly the Sugambri formerly
mentioned subject to the Romans--is uncertain and at least
inadequate, there is here greater probability than in the case
of the Alamanni that the Germans hitherto dependent on Rome, on
the right bank of the Rhine, and the Germanic tribes
previously dislodged from the Rhine, took at that time--under
the collective name of the 'Free'--the offensive in concert
against the Romans."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 4.
FRANKS: A. D. 277.
Repulse from Gaul, by Probus.
See GAUL: A. D. 277.
FRANKS: A. D. 279.
Escape from Pontus.
See SYRACUSE: A. D. 279.
FRANKS: A. D. 295-297.
In Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.
FRANKS: A. D. 306.
Defeat by Constantine.
Constantine the Great, A. D. 306, fought and defeated the
Salian Franks in a great battle and "carried off a large
number of captives to Treves, the chief residence of the
emperor, and a rival of Rome itself in the splendour of its
public buildings. It was in the circus of this city, and in
the presence of Constantine, that the notorious 'Ludi
Francici' were celebrated; at which several thousand Franks,
including their kings Regaisus and Ascaricus, were compelled
to fight with wild beasts, to the inexpressible delight of the
Christian spectators."
W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 2.
FRANKS: A. D. 355.
Settlement in Toxandria.
See GAUL: A. D. 355-361;
also, TOXANDRIA.
FRANKS: 5th-10th Centuries.
Barbarities of the conquest of Gaul.
State of society under the rule of the conquerors.
Evolution of Feudalism.
See GAUL: 5TH-8TH, and 5TH-10TH CENTURIES.
FRANKS: A. D. 406-409.
Defense of Roman Gaul.
See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.
FRANKS: A. D. 410-420.
The Franks join in the attack on Gaul.
After vainly opposing the entrance of Vandals, Burgundians and
Sueves into Gaul, A. D. 406, "the Franks, the valiant and
faithful allies of the Roman republic, were soon [about A. D.
410-420] tempted to imitate the invaders whom they had so
bravely resisted. Treves, the capital of Gaul, was pillaged by
their lawless bands; and the humble colony which they so long
maintained in the district of Toxandria, in Brabant,
insensibly multiplied along the banks of the Meuse and
Scheldt, till their independent power filled the whole extent
of the Second, or Lower, Germany. ... The ruin of the opulent
provinces of Gaul may be dated from the establishment of these
barbarians, whose alliance was dangerous and oppressive, and
who were capriciously impelled, by interest or passion, to
violate the public peace."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 31.
{1399}
"They [the Franks] resisted the great invasion of the Vandals
in the time of Stilicho, but did not scruple to take part in
the subsequent ravages. Among the confusions of that
disastrous period, indeed, it is not improbable that they
seized the cities of Spires, Strasburg, Amiens, Arras,
Therouane and Tournai, and by their assaults on Trèves
compelled the removal of the præfectural government to Arles.
Chroniclers who flourished two centuries later refer to the
year 418 large and permanent conquests in Gaul by a visionary
king called Pharamund, from whom the French monarchy is
usually dated. But history seeks in vain for any authentic
marks of his performances."
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 11, section 5.
FRANKS: A. D. 448-456.
Origin of the Merovingian dynasty.
The royal dynasty of the kingdom of the Franks as founded by
Clovis is called the Merovingian. "It is thought that the
kings of the different Frankish people were all of the same
family, of which the primitive ancestor was Meroveus
(Meer-wig, warrior of the sea). After him those princes were
called Merovingians (Meer-wings); they were distinguished by
their long hair, which they never cut. A Meroveus, grandfather
of Clovis, reigned, it is said, over the Franks between 448
and 456; but only his name remains, in some antient

historians, and we know absolutely nothing more either of his
family, his power, or of the tribe which obeyed him: so that
we see no reason why his descendants had taken his name. ...
The Franks appear in history for the first time in the year
241. Some great captain only could, at this period, unite
twenty different people in a new confederation; this chief
was, apparently, the Meroveus, whose name appeared for such a
long time as a title of glory for his descendants, although
tradition has not preserved any trace of his victories."
J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
The French under the Merovingians,
chapter 3.
FRANKS: A. D. 451.
At the battle of Châlons.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.
The kingdom of Clovis.
"The Salian Franks had ... associated a Roman or a Romanized
Gaul, Aegidius, with their native chief in the leadership of
the tribe. But, in the year 481, the native leadership passed
into the hands of a chief who would not endure a Roman
colleague, or the narrow limits within which, in the general
turmoil of the world, his tribe was cramped. He is known to
history by the name of Clovis, or Chlodvig, which through many
transformations, became the later Ludwig and Louis. Clovis
soon made himself feared as the most ambitious, the most
unscrupulous, and the most energetic of the new Teutonic
founders of states. Ten years after the fall of the Western
empire [which was in 476], seven years before the rise of the
Gothic kingdom of Theoderic, Clovis challenged the Roman
patrician, Syagrius of Soissons, who had succeeded to
Aegidius, defeated him in a pitched field, at Nogent, near
Soissons (486), and finally crushed Latin rivalry in northern
Gaul. Ten years later (496), in another famous battle, Tolbiac
(Zülpich), near Cologne, he also crushed Teutonic rivalry, and
established his supremacy over the kindred Alamanni of the
Upper Rhine. Then he turned himself with bitter hostility
against the Gothic power in Gaul. The Franks hated the Goths,
as the ruder and fiercer of the same stock hate those who are
a degree above them in the arts of peace, and are supposed to
be below them in courage and the pursuits of war. There was
another cause of antipathy. The Goths were zealous Arians; and
Clovis, under the influence of his wife Clotildis, the niece
of the Burgundian Gundobad, and in consequence, it is said, of
a vow made in battle at Tolbiac, had received Catholic baptism
from St. Remigius of Rheims.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.
The Frank king threw his sword into the scale against the
Arian cause, and became the champion and hope of the Catholic
population all over Gaul. Clovis was victorious. He crippled
the Burgundian kingdom (500), which was finally destroyed by
his sons (534). In a battle near Poitiers, he broke the power
of the West Goths in Gaul; he drove them out of Aquitaine,
leaving them but a narrow slip of coast, to seek their last
settlement and resting-place in Spain; and, when he died, he
was recognized by all the world, by Theoderic, by the Eastern
emperor, who honoured him with the title of the consulship, as
the master of Gaul. Nor was his a temporary conquest. The
kingdom of the West Goths and the Burgundians had become the
kingdom of the Franks. The invaders had at length arrived who
were to remain. It was decided that the Franks, and not the
Goths, were to direct the future destinies of Gaul and
Germany, and that the Catholic faith, and not Arianism, was to
be the religion of these great realms."
R. W. Church,
Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 2.
J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
The French under the Merovingians,
translated by Bellingham,
chapters 4-5.
See, also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.
FRANKS: A. D. 481-768.
Supremacy in Germany, before Charlemagne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.
FRANKS: A. D. 496.
Conversion to Christianity.
See above: A. D. 481-511;
also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
FRANKS: A. D. 496-504.
Overthrow of the Alemanni.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
also, SUEVI: A. D. 460-500.
FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
The house of Clovis.
Ascendancy of the Austrasian Mayors of the Palace.
On the death of Clovis, his dominion, or, speaking more
strictly, the kingly office in his dominion, was divided among
his four sons, who were lads, then, ranging in age from twelve
to eighteen. The eldest reigned in Metz, the second at
Orleans, the third in Paris, and the youngest at Soissons.
These princes extended the conquests of their father, subduing
the Thuringians (A. D. 515-528), overthrowing the kingdom of
the Burgundians (A. D. 523-534), diminishing the possessions
of the Visigoths in Gaul (A. D. 531-532), acquiring Provence
from the Ostrogoths of Italy and securing from the Emperor
Justinian a clear Roman-imperial title to the whole of Gaul.
The last survivor of the four brother-kings, Clotaire I.,
reunited the whole Frank empire under his own sceptre, and on
his death, A. D. 561, it was again divided among his four
sons. Six years later, on the death of the elder, it was
redivided among the three survivors. Neustria fell to
Chilperic, whose capital was at Soissons, Austrasia to
Sigebert, who reigned at Metz, and Burgundia to Guntram, who
had his seat of government at Orleans. Each of the kings took
additionally a third of Aquitaine, and Provence was shared
between Sigebert and Guntram. "It was agreed on this occasion
that Paris, which was rising into great importance, should be
held in common by all, but visited by none of the three kings
without the consent of the others." The reign of these three
brothers and their sons, from 561 to 613, was one long
revolting tragedy of civil war, murder, lust, and treachery,
made horribly interesting by the rival careers of the evil
Fredegunda and the great unfortunate Brunhilda, queens of
Neustria and Austrasia, respectively.
{1400}
In 613 a second Clotaire surviving his royal kin, united the
Frank monarchy once more under a single crown. But power was
fast slipping from the hands of the feeble creature who wore
the crown, and passing to that one of his ministers who
succeeded in making himself the representative of
royalty--namely, the Mayor of the Palace. There was a little
stir of energy in his son, Dagobert, but from generation to
generation, after him, the Merovingian kings sank lower into
that character which gave them the name of the fainéant kings
("rois fainéans")--the slothful or lazy kings--while the
mayors of the palace ruled vigorously in their name and
tumbled them, at last, from the throne. "While the Merovingian
race in its decline is notorious in history as having produced
an unexampled number of imbecile monarchs, the family which
was destined to supplant them was no less wonderfully prolific
in warriors and statesmen of the highest class. It is not
often that great endowments are transmitted even from father
to sou, but the line from which Charlemagne sprang presents to
our admiring gaze an almost uninterrupted succession of five
remarkable men, within little more than a single century. Of
these the first three held the mayoralty of Austrasia [Pepin
of Landen, Pepin of Heristal, and Carl, or Charles Martel, the
Hammer]; and it was they who prevented the permanent
establishment of absolute power on the Roman model, and
secured to the German population of Austrasia an abiding
victory over that amalgam of degraded Romans and corrupted
Gauls which threatened to leaven the European world. To them,
under Providence, we owe it that the centre of Europe is at
this day German, and not Gallo-Latin." Pepin of Heristal,
Mayor in Austrasia, broke the power of a rival Neustrian
family in a decisive battle fought near the village of Testri,
A. D. 687, and gathered the reins of the three kingdoms
(Burgundy included) into his own hands. His still more
vigorous son, Charles Martel, won the same ascendancy for
himself afresh, after a struggle which was signalized by three
sanguinary battles, at Amblève (A. D. 716), at Vinci, near
Cambrai (717) and at Soissons (718). When firm in power at
home, he turned his arms against the Frisians and the
Bavarians, whom he subdued, and against the obstinate Saxons,
whose country he harried six times without bringing them to
submission. His great exploit in war, however, was the repulse
of the invading Arabs and Moors, on the memorable battle-field
of Tours (A. D.732), where the wave of Mahommedan invasion was
rolled back in western Europe, never to advance beyond the
Pyrenees again. Karl died in 741, leaving three sons, among
whom his power was, in the Frank fashion, divided. But one of
them resigned, in a few years, his sovereignty, to become a
monk; another was deposed, and the third, Pepin, surnamed "The
Little," or "The Short," became supreme. He contented himself, as
his father, his grandfather, and his great grandfather had
done, with the title of Mayor of the Palace, until 752, when,
with the approval of the Pope and by the act of a great
assembly of leudes and bishops at Soissons, he was lifted on
the shield and crowned and anointed king of the Franks, while
the last of the Merovingians was shorn of his long royal locks
and placed in a monastery. The friendliness of the Pope in this
matter was the result and the cementation of an alliance which
bore important fruits. As the champion of the church, Pepin
made war on the Lombards and conquered for the Papacy the
first of its temporal dominions in Italy. In his own realm, he
completed the expulsion of the Moors from Septimania, crushed
an obstinate revolt in Aquitaine, and gave a firm footing to
the two thrones which, when he died in 768, he left to his
sons, Carl and Carloman, and which became in a few years the
single throne of one vast empire, under Carl--Carl the Great--
Charlemagne.
W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapters 3-6.
ALSO IN:
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapters 12-15.
J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
The French under the Merovingians,
chapters 6-13.
See, also,
AUSTRASIA AND NEUSTRIA, and MAYOR OF THE PALACE.
FRANKS: A. D. 528.
Conquest of Thuringia.
See THURINGIANS, THE.
FRANKS: A. D. 539-553.
Invasion of Italy.
Formal relinquishment of Gaul to them.
During the Gothic war in Italy,--when Belisarius was
reconquering the cradle of the Roman Empire for the Eastern
Empire which still called itself Roman, although its seat was
at Constantinople,--both sides solicited the help of the
Franks. Theudebert, who reigned at Metz, promised his aid to
both, and kept his word. "He advanced [A. D. 539, with 100,000
men] toward Pavia, where the Greeks and Goths were met, about
to encounter, and, with an unexpected impartiality, attacked
the astonished Goths, whom he drove to Ravenna, and then,
while the Greeks were yet rejoicing over his performance, fell
upon them with merciless fury, and dispersed them through
Tuscany." Theudebert now became fired with an ambition to
conquer all Italy; but his savage army destroyed everything in
its path so recklessly, and pursued so unbridled a course,
that famine and pestilence soon compelled a retreat and only
one-third of its original number recrossed the Alps.
Notwithstanding, this treachery, the emperor Justinian renewed
his offers of alliance with the Franks (A.D. 540), and
"pledged to them, as the price of their fidelity to his cause,
besides the usual subsidies, the relinquishment of every
lingering claim, real or pretended, which the empire might
assert to the sovereignty of the Gauls. The Franks accepted
the terms, and 'from that time,' say the Byzantine
authorities, 'the German chiefs presided at the games of the
circus, and struck money no longer, as usual, with the effigy
of the emperors, but with their own image and superscription.
Theudebert, who was the principal agent of these transactions,
if he ratified the provisions of the treaty, did not fulfill
them in person, but satisfied himself with sending a few
tributaries to the aid of his ally. But his first example
proved to be more powerful than his later, and large swarms of
Germans took advantage of the troubles in Italy to overrun the
country and plunder and slay at will. For twelve years, under
various leaders, but chiefly under two brothers of the
Alemans, Lutherr and Bukhelin, they continued to harass the
unhappy object of all barbaric resentments, till the sword of
Narses finally exterminated them [A. D. 553]."
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 41.
{1401}
FRANKS: A. D. 547.
Subjugation of Bavarians and Alemanni.
See BAVARIA: A. D. 547.
FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.
Charlemagne, Emperor of the Romans.
As a crowned dynasty, the Carlovingians or Carolingians or
Carlings begin their history with Pepin the Short. As an
established sovereign house, they find their founder in 'King
Pepin's father, the great palace mayor, Carl, or Charles
Martel, if not in his grandfather, Pepin Heristal. But the
imperial splendor of the house came to it from the second of
its kings, whom the French call 'Charlemagne,' but whom
English readers ought to know as Charles the Great. The French
form of the name has been always tending to represent
'Charlemagne' as a king of France, and modern historians
object to it for that reason. "France, as it was to be and as
we know it, had not come into existence in his [Charlemagne's]
days. What was to be the France of history was then but one
province of the Frank kingdom, and one with which Charles was
personally least connected. ... Charles, king of the Franks,
was, above all things, a German. ... It is entirely to mistake
his place and his work to consider him in the light of a
specially 'French' king, a predecessor of the kings who
reigned at Paris and brought glory upon France. ... Charles
did nothing to make modern France. The Frank power on which he
rose to the empire was in those days still mainly German; and
his characteristic work was to lay the foundations of modern
and civilized Germany, and, indirectly, of the new
commonwealth of nations, which was to arise in the West of
Europe."
R. W. Church,
The Beginnings of the Middle Ages,
chapter 7.
"At the death of King Pippin the kingdom of the Franks was
divided into two parts, or rather ... the government over the
kingdom was divided, for some large parts of the territory
seem to have been in the hands of the two brothers together.
The fact is, that we know next to nothing about this division,
and hardly more about the joint reign of the brothers. The
only thing really clear is, that they did not get along very
well together, that Karl was distinctly the more active and
capable of the two, and that after four years the younger
brother, Karlmann, died, leaving two sons. Here was a chance
for the old miseries of division to begin again; but
fortunately the Franks seem by this time to have had enough of
that, and to have seen that their greatest hope for the future
lay in a united government. The widow and children of Karlmann
went to the court of the Lombard king Desiderius and were
cared for by him. The whole Frankish people acknowledged
Charlemagne as their king. Of course he was not yet called
Charlemagne, but simply Karl, and he was yet to show himself
worthy of the addition 'Magnus.' ... The settlement of Saxony
went on, with occasional military episodes, by the slower, but
more certain, processes of education and religious conversion.
It appears to us to be anything but wise to force a religion
upon a people at the point of the sword; but the singular fact
is, that in two generations there was no more truly devout
Christian people, according to the standards of the time, than
just these same Saxons. A little more than a hundred years
from the time when Charlemagne had thrashed the nation into
unwilling acceptance of Frankish control, the crown of the
Empire he founded was set upon the head of a Saxon prince. The
progress in friendly relations between the two peoples is seen in
the second of the great ordinances by which Saxon affairs were
regulated. This edict, called the 'Capitulum Saxonicum,' was
published after a great diet at Aachen, in 797, at which, we
are told, there came together not only Franks, but also Saxon
leaders from all parts of their country, who gave their
approval to the new legislation. The general drift of these
new laws is in the direction of moderation. ... The object of
this legislation was, now that the armed resistance seemed to
be broken, to give the Saxons a government which should be as
nearly as possible like that of the Franks. The absolute
respect and subjection to the Christian Church is here, as it
was formerly, kept always in sight. The churches and
monasteries are still to be the centres from which every
effort at civilization is to go out. There can be no doubt
that the real agency in this whole process was the organized
Church. The fruit of the great alliance between Frankish
kingdom and Roman papacy was beginning to be seen. The papacy
was ready to sanction any act of her ally for the fair promise
of winning the great territory of North Germany to its
spiritual allegiance. The most solid result of the campaigns
of Charlemagne was the founding of the great bishoprics of
Minden, Paderborn, Verden, Bremen, Osnabrück, and Halberstadt.
... About these bishoprics, as, on the whole, the safest
places, men came to settle. Roads were built to connect them;
markets sprang up in their neighborhood; and thus gradually,
during a development of centuries, great cities grew up, which
came to be the homes of powerful and wealthy traders, and gave
shape to the whole politics of the North. Saxony was become a
part of the Frankish Empire, and all the more thoroughly so,
because there was no royal or ducal line there which had to be
kept in place."
E. Emerton,
Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,
chapter 13.
Between 768 and 800 Charlemagne extinguished the Lombard
kingdom and made himself master of Italy, as the ally and
patron of the Pope, bearing the old Roman title of Patrician;
he crossed the Pyrenees, drove the Saracens southward to the
Ebro, and added a "Spanish March" to his empire (see SPAIN: A.
D. 778); he broke the obstinate turbulence of the Saxons, in a
series of bloody campaigns which (see SAXONS: A. D. 772-804)
consumed a generation; he extirpated the troublesome Avars,
still entrenched along the Danube, and he held with an always
firm hand the whole dominion that came to him by inheritance
from his father. "He had won his victories with Frankish arms,
and he had taken possession of the conquered countries in the
name of the Frankish people. Every step which he had taken had
been with the advice and consent of the nation assembled in
the great meetings of the springtime, and his public documents
carefully express the share of the nation in his great
achievements. Saxony, Bavaria, Lombardy, Aquitaine, the
Spanish Mark, all these great countries, lying outside the
territory of Frankland proper, had been made a part of its
possession by the might of his arm and the wisdom of his
counsel. But when this had all been done, the question arose,
by what right he should hold all this power, and secure it so
that it should not fall apart as soon as he should be gone.
{1402}
As king of the Franks it was impossible that he should not
seem to the conquered peoples, however mild and beneficent his
rule might be, a foreign prince; and though he might be able
to force them to follow his banner in war, and submit to his
judgment in peace, there was still wanting the one common
interest which should bind all these peoples, strangers to the
Franks and to each other, into one united nation. About the
year 800 this problem seems to have been very much before the
mind of Charlemagne. If we look at the boundaries of his
kingdom, reaching from the Eider in the north to the Ebro and
the Garigliano in the south, and from the ocean in the west to
the Elbe and the Enns in the east, we shall say as the people
of his own time did, 'this power is Imperial.' That word may
mean little to us, but in fact it has often in history been
used to describe just the kind of power which Charlemagne in
the year 800 really had. ... The idea of empire includes under
this one term, kingdoms, duchies, or whatever powers might be
in existence; all, however, subject to some one higher force,
which they feel to be necessary for their support. ... But
where was the model upon which Charlemagne might build his new
empire? Surely nowhere but in that great Roman Empire whose
western representative had been finally allowed to disappear
by Odoacer the Herulian in the year 476. ... After Odoacer the
Eastern Empire, with its capital at Constantinople, still
lived on, and claimed for itself all the rights which had
belonged to both parts. That Eastern Empire was still alive at
the time of Charlemagne. We have met with it once or twice in
our study of the Franks. Even Clovis had been tickled with the
present of the title of Consul, sent him by the Eastern
Emperor; and from time to time, as the Franks had meddled with
the affairs of Italy, they had been reminded that Italy was in
name still a part of the Imperial lands. ... But now, when
Charlemagne himself was thinking of taking the title of
Emperor, he found himself forced to meet squarely the
question, whether there could be two independent Christian
Emperors at the same time. ... On Christmas Day, in the year
800, Charlemagne was at Rome. He had gone thither at the
request of the Pope Leo, who had been accused of dreadful
crimes by his enemies in the city, and had been for a time
deprived of his office. Charlemagne had acted as judge in the
case, and had decided in favor of Leo. According to good
Teutonic custom, the pope had purified himself of his charges
by a tremendous oath on the Holy Trinity, and had again
assumed the duties of the papacy. The Christmas service was
held in great state at St. Peter's. While Charlemagne was
kneeling in prayer at the grave of the Apostle, the pope
suddenly approached him, and, in the presence of all the
people, placed upon his head a golden crown. As he did so, the
people cried out with one voice, 'Long life and victory to
Charles Augustus, the mighty Emperor, the Peace-bringer,
crowned by God!' Einhard, who ought to have known, assures us
that Charles was totally surprised by the coronation, and
often said afterward that if he had known of the plan he would
not have gone into the church, even upon so high a festival.
It is altogether probable that the king had not meant to be
crowned at just that moment and in just that way; but that he
had never thought of such a possibility seems utterly
incredible. By this act Charlemagne was presented to the world
as the successor of the ancient Roman Emperors of the West,
and so far as power was concerned, he was that. But he was
more. His power rested, not upon any inherited ideas, but upon
two great facts: first, he was the head of the Germanic Race;
and second, he was the temporal head of the Christian Church.
The new empire which he founded rested on these two
foundations."
E. Emerton,
Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,
chapter 14.
The great empire which Charles labored, during all the
remainder of his life, to organize in this Roman imperial
character, was vast in its extent. "As an organized mass of
provinces, regularly governed by imperial officers, it seems
to have been nearly bounded, in Germany, by the Elbe, the
Saale, the Bohemian mountains, and a line drawn from thence
crossing the Danube above Vienna, and prolonged to the Gulf of
Istria. Part of Dalmatia was comprised in the duchy of Friuli.
In Italy the empire extended not much beyond the modern
frontier of Naples, if we exclude, as was the fact, the duchy
of Benevento from anything more than a titular subjection. The
Spanish boundary ... was the Ebro."
H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 1.
"The centre of his realm was the Rhine; his capitals Aachen
[or Aix-la-Chapelle] and Engilenheim [or Ingelheim]; his army
Frankish; his sympathies as they are shewn in the gathering of
the old hero-lays, the composition of a German grammar, ...
were all for the race from which he sprang. ... There were in
his Empire, as in his own mind, two elements; those two from
the union and mutual action and reaction of which modern
civilization has arisen. These vast domains, reaching from the
Ebro to the Carpathian mountains, from the Eyder to the Liris,
were all the conquests of the Frankish sword, and were still
governed almost exclusively by viceroys and officers of
Frankish blood. But the conception of the Empire, that which
made it a State and not a mere mass of subject tribes, ... was
inherited from an older and a grander system, was not Teutonic
but Roman--Roman in its ordered rule, in its uniformity and
precision, in its endeavour to subject the individual to the
system--Roman in its effort to realize a certain limited and
human perfection, whose very completeness shall exclude the
hope of further progress." With the death of Charles in 814
the territorial disruption of his great empire began. "The
returning wave of anarchy and barbarism swept up violent as
ever, yet it could not wholly obliterate the past: the Empire,
maimed and shattered though it was, had struck its roots too
deep to be overthrown by force." The Teutonic part and the
Romanized or Latinized part of the empire were broken in two,
never to unite again; but, in another century, it was on the
German and not the Gallo-Latin side of the line of its
disruption that the imperial ideas and the imperial titles of
Charlemagne came to life again, and his Teutonic Roman
Empire--the "Holy Roman Empire," as it came to be called--was
resurrected by Otto the Great, and established for eight
centuries and a half of enduring influence in the politics of
the world.
J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 5.
{1403}
"Gibbon has remarked, that of all the heroes to whom the title
of 'The Great' has been given, Charlemagne alone has retained
it as a permanent addition to his name. The reason may perhaps
be, that in no other man were ever united, in so large a
measure, and in such perfect harmony, the qualities which, in
their combination, constitute the heroic character, such as
energy, or the love of action; ambition, or the love of power;
curiosity, or the love of knowledge; and sensibility, or the
love of pleasure--not, indeed, the love of forbidden, of
unhallowed, or of enervating pleasure, but the keen relish for
those blameless delights by which the burdened mind and jaded
spirits recruit and renovate their powers. ... For the charms
of social intercourse, the play of a buoyant fancy, the
exhilaration of honest mirth, and even the refreshment of
athletic exercises, require for their perfect enjoyment that
robust and absolute health of body and of mind which none but
the noblest natures possess, and in the possession of which
Charlemagne exceeded all other men. His lofty stature, his
open countenance, his large and brilliant eyes, and the
dome-like structure of his head, imparted, as we learn from
Eginhard, to all his attitudes the dignity which becomes a
king, relieved by the graceful activity of a practiced
warrior. ... Whether he was engaged in a frolic or a chase--
composed verses or listened to homilies--fought or
negotiated--cast down thrones or built them up--studied,
conversed, or legislated, it seemed as if he, and he alone,
were the one wakeful and really living agent in the midst of
an inert, visionary, and somnolent generation. The rank held
by Charlemagne among great commanders was achieved far more by
this strange and almost superhuman activity than by any
pre-eminent proficiency in the art or science of war. He was
seldom engaged in any general action, and never undertook any
considerable siege, excepting that of Pavia, which, in fact,
was little more than a protracted blockade. But, during
forty-six years of almost unintermitted warfare, he swept over
the whole surface of Europe, from the Ebro to the Oder, from
Bretagne to Hungary, from Denmark to Capua, with such a
velocity of movement, and such a decision of purpose, that no
power, civilized or barbarous, ever provoked his resentment
without rapidly sinking beneath his prompt and irresistible
blows. And though it be true, as Gibbon has observed, that he
seldom, if ever, encountered in the field a really formidable
antagonist, it is not less true that, but for his military
skill, animated by his sleepless energy, the countless
assailants by whom he was encompassed must rapidly have become
too formidable for resistance. For to Charlemagne is due the
introduction into modern warfare of the art by which a general
compensates for the numerical inferiority of his own forces to
that of his antagonists--the art of moving detached bodies of
men along remote but converging lines with such mutual concert
as to throw their united forces at the same moment on any
meditated point of attack. Neither the Alpine marches of
Hannibal nor those of Napoleon were combined with greater
foresight, or executed with greater precision, than the
simultaneous passages of Charlemagne and Count Bernard across
the same mountain ranges, and their ultimate union in the
vicinity of their Lombard enemies."
Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 3.
ALSO IN:
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 49.
See, also,
GERMANY: A. D. 800.
FRANKS: A. D. 814-962.
Dissolution of the Carolingian Empire.
Charlemagne, at his death, was succeeded by his son Ludwig, or
Louis the Pious--the single survivor of three sons among whom
he had intended that his great empire should be shared. Mild
in temper, conscientious in character, Louis reigned with
success for sixteen years, and then lost all power of control,
through the turbulence of his family and the disorders of his
times. He "tried in vain to satisfy his sons (Lothar, Lewis,
and Charles) by dividing and redividing: they rebelled; he was
deposed, and forced by the bishops to do penance, again
restored, but without power, a tool in the hands of contending
factions. On his death the sons flew to arms, and the first of
the dynastic quarrels of modern Europe was fought out on the
field of Fontenay. In the partition treaty of Verdun [A. D.
843] which followed, the Teutonic principle of equal division
among heirs triumphed over the Roman one of the transmission
of an indivisible Empire: the practical sovereignty of all
three brothers was admitted in their respective territories, a
barren precedence only reserved to Lothar, with the imperial
title which he, as the eldest, already enjoyed. A more
important result was the separation of the Gaulish and German
nationalities. ... Modern Germany proclaims the era of A. D.
843 the beginning of her national existence and celebrated its
thousandth anniversary [in 1843]. To Charles the Bald was
given Francia Occidentalis; that is to say, Neustria and
Aquitaine; to Lothar, who as Emperor must possess the two
capitals, Rome and Aachen, a long and narrow kingdom
stretching from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, and
including the northern half of Italy; Lewis (surnamed, from
his kingdom, the German) received all east of the Rhine,
Franks, Saxons, Bavarians, Austria, Carinthia, with possible
supremacies over Czechs and Moravians beyond. Throughout these
regions German was spoken; through Charles's kingdom a corrupt
tongue, equally removed from Latin and from modern French.
Lothar's, being mixed and having no national basis, was the
weakest of the three, and soon dissolved into the separate
sovereignties of Italy, Burgundy and Lotharingia, or, as we
call it, Lorraine. On the tangled history of the period that
follows it is not possible to do more than touch. After
passing from one branch of the Carolingian line to another,
the imperial sceptre was at last possessed and disgraced by
Charles the Fat, who united all the dominions of his
great-grandfather. This unworthy heir could not avail himself
of recovered territory to strengthen or defend the expiring
monarchy. He was driven out of Italy in A. D. 887 and his
death in 888 has been usually taken as the date of the
extinction of the Carolingian Empire of the West. ... From all
sides the torrent of barbarism which Charles the Great had
stemmed was rushing down upon his empire. ... Under such
strokes the already loosened fabric swiftly dissolved. No one
thought of common defence or wide organization: the strong
built castles, the weak became their bondsmen, or took shelter
under the cowl: the governor--count, abbot, or
bishop--tightened his grasp, turned a delegated into an
independent, a personal into a territorial authority, and
hardly owned a distant and feeble suzerain. ... In Germany,
the greatness of the evil worked at last its cure.
[1404 moved to end of FRANKS.]
{1405}
When the male line of the eastern branch of the Carolingians
had ended in Lewis (surnamed the Child), son of Arnulf [A. D.
911], the chieftains chose and the people accepted Conrad the
Franconian, and after him Henry the Saxon duke, both
representing the female line of Charles. Henry laid the
foundations of a firm monarchy, driving back the Magyars and
Wends, recovering Lotharingia, founding towns to be centres of
orderly life and strongholds against Hungarian irruptions. He
had meant to claim at Rome his kingdom's rights, rights which
Conrad's weakness had at least asserted by the demand of
tribute; but death overtook him, and the plan was left to be
fulfilled by Otto his son."
J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 6.
"The division of 888 was really the beginning of the modern
states and the modern divisions of Europe. The Carolingian
Empire was broken up into four separate kingdoms: the Western
Kingdom, answering roughly to France, the Eastern Kingdom or
Germany, Italy, and Burgundy. Of these, the three first remain
as the greatest nations of the Continent: Burgundy, by that
name, has vanished; but its place as a European power is
occupied, far more worthily than by any King or Cæsar, by the
noble confederation of Switzerland."
E. A. Freeman,
The Franks and the Gauls.
(Historical Essays, 1st series, number 7.)
ALSO IN:
E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 2, numbers 3.
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 18.
R. W. Church,
The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 8.
F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
lecture 24.
Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and France,
volumes 1-2.
See, also,
GERMANY: A. D. 843-962;
and FRANCE: A. D. 843, and after.
FRANKS: A. D. 843-962.
Kingdom of the East Franks.
See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
----------End: FRANKS ----------