:t^;X^^-- EUROPE 1789-1920 BY EDWARD RAYMOND TURNER, Ph.D. PROFESSOR OF EUROPEAN HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN { GARDEN CITY NEW YORK DOUBLEDAY, PAGE & COMPANY 1920 rs DOUBLEDAT, PAGE & COMPANY ALL RIGHTS RESEBVED, INCLUDING THAT OF TRANSLATION INTO FOREIGN LANGUAGES, INCLUDINQ THE SCANDINAVIAN HISTORIf I TO MY COUSIN KATHLEEN JANET RIORDAN COMPANION, PATRONESS, FRIEND IN MEMORIAM MCMXX ^47251, Digitized by tine Internet Arcinive in 2008 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.arcliive.org/details/europe1789192000turnrich PREFACE The author has attempted to write an account of Eu- rope since the French Revolution. The past few years have added much and brought considerable alteration in perspective. To people now living the epoch since 1789 is the most important and interesting in the history of mankind. It began with a revolution whose effects are not yet all measured; it ended with another whose consequences can scarcely yet even be guessed at. It was ushered in and completed by devastating wars which altered and may alter Europe for many generations. It was a period of mournful failures and mistakes, but it witnessed more progress than any epoch preceding. It was a period when for the first time the mass of the people got education, and some political power — which still they are learning to use. In the latter part of the period, amidst the infinite complexity of modern life, there was slowly unfolded a mighty sequence of things, ever more ominous and dread- ful, like the prologue to some ancient tragedy, or music which forebodes doom approaching, until at last a catas- trophe came which threatened to engulf civilization. As this book begins at the end of an old era, so it concludes with the ending of an era which already begins to seem old. The work has been partly a labor of love, based on studies undertaken for their own sake, then elaborated in the teaching of some years. My obligations to others are numerous and very great; but not a few of the con- clusions are based upon study and observation in Europe. viii PREFACE The bibliographies have been reduced from twice their present size, and in earlier version the text was a third longer than now. It seemed all-important, even at the cost of omissions, to make a text brief enough not to inter- fere with additional reading in the sources and best ac- counts of the masters. It is better for the student also to have examined some of the constitutions and state papers, some of the great biographies, and some books like the Reminiscences of Bismarck, than merely to have studied a text in which all the important information is assembled. The author is indebted to Professor W. A. Frayer, of the University of Michigan for reading critically all of the manuscript, and generously giving assistance and suggestions. Edward Raymond Turner. Ann Arbor, Michigan, August 1, 1920. CONTENTS PART I 1789-1871 CHAPTER PAGE I. The Old Europe 3 II. Separation of the Communities in America 22 III. The French Revolution 40 IV. Napoleon 67 ^^Cy The Congress of Vienna and the Con- ^^^ CERT OF Europe 93 VJVJ/ The Industrial Revolution .... 109 ^ VII. The United Kingdom, 1789-1832. . . 146 VIII. The United Kingdom, 1832-1867. . . 168 CT^ France Before 1870 188 X. Austria, the Germanies, and the Rise OF Prussia 212 ^^l) Italy 249 ^11. RussLV, 1789-1881 265 *^ XIII. The Lesser Peoples 291 PART II 1871-1920 CHAPTEB PAGE I. The Military Triumphs of Germany, y 1864-1871 313 II. The Growth of the New German Empire 329^ J X CONTENTS— Con/inwed( CHAPTER PAGE III. The Leadership of Germany — The Triple Alliance 352 IV. The Recovery of France — The Dual Alliance 377 Democratic Britain 400 Russia 419 Austria, Turkey, the Balkans . . . 439 Colonies and Imperial Expansion . . 473 I Triple Alliance and the Ententes . 494 The Causes of the Great War. . . 513 The Great War .534 The Settlement of 1920 576 The Russian Revolution 600 -/ I European Civilization Since the French Revolution 608 XV. Social and Intellectual Changes . . 63^ Appendix .......... 653 Index 663 MAPS . no. PAGE 1. Europe in 1789 (In colors) . . . Following 4 2. Relief Map of Europe .... " 20 3. Europe in 1810 " 68 4. Europe in 1815 " 100 5. The Coal, Iron, and Oil Resources of Europe Following 116 6. Africa in 1800 " 164 7. AsL^.iNl800 " 180 8. The Germanic Confederation . " 212 9. Racial Map of Austria-Hungary . . .221 10. Prussl^ in 1815 239 11. Italy in 1815 253 12. Map to Illustrate the History of Poland 271 13. The Russian Empire in 1914 . . Following 276 14. Ethnographic Map of Europe . " 292 15. Europe in 1871 " 324 16. Alsace-Lorraine , . . 327 17. The British Empire in 1914 . . Followi?i^ 404 18. Racial Map of Russia 423 19. The Treaty of San Stefano 453 20. The Balkans in 1878 454 21. The Balkans in 1913 461 22. Asia in 1914 Following 484 23. Africa in 1914 " 500 24. Supposed Pan-German Plan . . " 532 25. Thij Western Front in the Great War . 546 26. The Eastern Front in the Great War . 547 27. Africa IN 1920 Following 580 xii MAPS MO. PAOB 28. Czecho-Slovaeia 589 29. The Balkans in 1920 591 80. Jugo-Slavia 595 81. The British Empire est 1920 . . Following 596 82. Europe in 1920 (In colors) ..." 644 PART I 1789-1870 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Absence of things com- mon now Life in the country reared their children; and the principal occupation of most people was making their living, getting food and clothing and shelter. But a great many things, important and necessary now, and taken as a matter of course, had not been then brought to pass. There were no railroads, no steamboats, iio tclephojnes.or telegraphs, no electric cars or lights,' no moving pictures, and, except in England where the ^Indilstrial Keyoiu.tion had recently begun, no great mechanical appliances and no factories filled with machinery working for men. Newspapers were few and small and had small circulation. A great many books and pamphlets were published, but most men and women were not able either to read or to write. There were no systems of education for all the people, in what we call public schools nowadays. Compared with the times in which we live, life in those days was for most people simple and homely, bare, lowly, and coarse. In many respects conditions in the latter part of the eighteenth century were more like what they had been a hundred, or even a thousand, years before, than they were like those of the present. Europe about the end of the eighteenth century, like all parts of the civilized world down to that time, was predominantly agricultural. The majority of the inhab- itants were grouped in small villages set in the midst of plowland, meadow, grazing land, and wood. As is still so in less favored countries, the houses were lowly and small, with poor furniture and simple utensils. There were not many windows to give light by day, and after dark the inmates went to bed, for there was no gas, no electric bulb, oil was expensive, and often candles cost more than people could spend. The cots or the hovels of imnumbered peasants were dirty, and damp, and dark. The joyous seasons were spring and summer and early autumn, in a way not known to some of us now, for the warmth of the sun gave almost all the heating which the mass of the people could get. In winter there were f 1. EURO IN 1789 THE OLD EUROPE only a few in Europe who could have coal, and only a small number of the well-to-do who had fire-wood in ample supply. There was more joy in out-of-doors then than now. But work in the fields or on the wastes, in the past- ure or in the woods, was hard and the hours were long. Farming was rude and implements poor; crops were gen- erally not bountiful, or, if they were, a great part of them went to pay rent to the owner or the lord, and tithe to the Church. The center of life for the neighborhood was the parish church in a manner scarcely to be conceived of now, for then the church was the holy place of the community, in which people were baptized, married, and taught by the priest, and which received them at last in its con- secrated ground. It was also the social center of the neighborhood doing for people in some fashion what is now got from moving pictures or in theaters and schools. And often near by, hated or revered, was the fine dwelling of some great man, the manor-house of a lord, or even the castle of some proud noble. In them went on a life very different, but most of the people never saw it; and the tales of it were almost as remote to them as accounts of fairies or some faraway land. Lowly as was the condition of these people, in many parts of Europe it was better than it had been in earlier days. In antiquity a great number of the people were slaves, entirely unfree, often bought and sold exactly like chattels or things. It was a great advance upon this when in the later days of the Roman Empire, partly because of economic changes and partly through the influence of Christianity, slavery began to disappear and the great mass of the people after a while were in the higher condi- tion of serfdom. As serfs men and women were free in their personal relations, not to be bought and sold like chattel property; but none the less they were partly un- free, since they were bound to remain in the place of their birth, and were under obligation to give the lord of their The village church Serfdom EUROPE, 1789-1920 Decline of serfdom The rural population Slowness change of land part of what they raised and to work for him many of the days of the year. Then, like slavery before it, serfdom began to pass slowly away, due chiefly to the working of economic causes which made it more profitable for the lord to give wages than the use of his land, and collect rent rather than take a share or labor from his people. The disappearance of serfdom was a slow process. In England it had disappeared by the beginning of the seventeenth century; in Scotland there were traces of it until near the end of the eighteenth. By that time in some parts of the continent it was completely gone, but there were still thousands of serfs in France, while to the east in the German lands there were many more, and in Poland and Russia the great bulk of the population re- mained partly unfree. It was the results of the French Revolution, and the power of Napoleon, soon to come, which would abolish serfdom in central Europe, while in Russia it would linger on until 1861, about the very time when negro slavery was brought to an end in the southern part of the United States. So recent is the civil freedom of a great part of the population of the world. We have no reliable statistics before the nineteenth century, but it is probable that nine tenths of the people lived their lives in the small agricultural communities, though in England and parts of western Europe the pro- portion was less. Simple, lowly, ignorant folk they were, unlettered, narrow, oftentimes incredibly superstitious and dependent upon their parson or priest, filled with prejudice against outsiders, for traveling was difficult and most people seldom went far from their homes. These people had no part in the governing of their countries, except sometimes in the management of their humblest local affairs. History tells little about them. Governments heeded them scantily, except to take from them taxes and labor. Seldom did they rebel or stir against their masters. The peasants of Gaul gave trouble in the later centuries of THE OLD EUROPE 7 the Roman Empire; the Jacquerie rose agamst their lords in France during the Hundred Years' War; there was a memorable Peasant Revolt in England in 1381; and a more memorable rising of German peasants in 1525. These movements and a few others were always crushed merci- lessly by the upper classes, and came to nothing. The day of the great mass of the people, of the rights of man, had not come yet. In countless villages men and women lived little lives, with rude plenty at best, generally in meager existence, often in grinding poverty and toil. They lived and died and passed from recollection; and that is all, except that throughout this time they were most of the people of Europe, and made the nations ruled by great kings and led by commanders. History has almost nothing to say about women. — Position of beyond the fact that they were the fundamental part of ^^men society. (Through long generations they had been the | mothers of the human race^ and made the homes of the S>vA^^^^ ' men and the children. They did a large part of all the work and much of the most useful work. Almost always their condition was lower and worse than the men's. There had been empresses and queens, sometimes, and very few rulers in Europe had been greater than Elizabeth of England or Catherine of Russia. But almost always women were strictly subordinate to men — to their fathers Subordina- before they were married, afterward to their husbands. tio° of For them there was practically no calling but marriage, ^^^^^"^ and the law generally considered them to be part of their husbands, not persons or individuals, after marriage. They owed obedience to their husbands, who were respon- sible for them under the law. Most women, perhaps were treated well, as things then were, but many were sub- jected, without hope of relief, to petty tyrants in their homes. It was a man's world much more than it is now. Above the masses of the people was a much smaller The class which had arisen in the towns, the boroughs or burgs, ^°"''^®o'*'® 8 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Future importance Cities called in France the bourgeoisie^ which would now be better known as the middle class. It had been rising and increasing in numbers and power for some hundreds of years, as towns and cities developed and as commerce and industry increased. It was made up of the lawyers, the masters of the small industries which then existed, the merchants, and the traders. To a considerable extent it contained within its numbers the ablest and most pro- gressive men, and some of the wealthiest and most sub- stantial. They had much influence in the Germanics and in France, as once they had had in the Italian states; they had considerable part in the government of Great Britain, and were of large consequence in the Netherlands; but generally their influence was indirect and their power small, for they were looked down upon by the aristocracy, and debarred from the privileges and opportunities which were open to nobles and great men of the Church. After all, they represented the power of the cities and of indus- trial life, and most of Europe was still rural. Nevertheless the future was with these bourgeois. It was they who would guide the French Revolution and make the enduring changes of the Revolutionary period. They were to rise greater and greater as the Industrial Revolution slowly spread over Europe in the nineteenth century. Then political power, management of government, and greatest place in the state were all to be taken by this middle class, which in many respects would be the upper class, as nobles and princes were thrust into the background and deprived of old privilege and power. It would be the bourgeois whom socialists and others would regard as their worst opponents; and in the twentieth century, the middle class would be assailed by the Bolshevilci as arch-enemies to be overthrown in raising up the proletariat, or mass of the people. Although most of the people of Europe lived in villages in the country, there were towns and some cities great « THE OLD EUROPE 9 and important. London had more than a million inhab- itants, and Paris more than half a million. Amsterdam and other Dutch cities were mighty hives of industry and commerce. The Spanish cities were now slumbering in decay, and the places once renowned in the Spanish or Austrian Netherlands were enveloped in the hush and the quiet which come when progress and activity cease. So it was with the Italian cities, great in the Middle Ages, and the very cradles of the Renaissance : Venice was dying in the midst of that charm which travellers still love to see; and Genoa, Milan, and Rome were all greater in the memory of what they had been than for what they con- tinued to be. The seaports of the German states, Ham- burg, Lubeck, Bremen, and the others, thriving in the days of the glory of the Hanseatic League, were sunk now in the silence and decay which would last until the revival and unification of the Germanics awoke them once more. Vienna was the old, proud capital of the German countries. Far to the southeast on the Bosporus Constantinople con- tinued to be magnificent under the Turks. And in the distant eastern parts, little known to most of Europe, were holy Moscow and the new capital, St. Petersburg, which had only been founded in 1703. In the cities the principal occupations were manufac- Urban life turing and especially trade, for the greatest of all of them had grown mostly because of their commerce. Since there were no railroads yet, and not many canals, and since roads were poor, the most important communications were by water, and the greatest cities were by the sea, like Amster- dam and London and Marseilles, or on some river, like Paris, Nijni Novgorod, and Vienna. The manufacturing was then, for the most part, as the name implies, done by hand; and while by this time in the great towns of western Europe much of it was carried on in factories, a great deal more was still done according to the domestic system, in the homes of the workers themselves. Some of these cities 10 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Importance of some cities The nobility High posi- tion were important out of all proportion to their population, for they were the centers of financial power, of intellectual activity and progress, and often the seat of the government of the nation. By the end of the eighteenth century Paris was the very heart and center of France, and in England the course of London could usually be decisive. The English Civil Wars of the seventeenth century were de- cided against the king largely because parliament was sup- ported by London; in 1789 the French Revolution was made possible and begun by the citizens of Paris. The greatness of the middle class and the effects of the Industrial Revolution were for the future, and still most of the power and wealth in Europe was in the hands of an aristocracy which made the smallest and highest class. Long before, when the central authority of the Roman Empire broke up and Europe was scourged by barbarian invaders — Germans, Northmen, Hungarians — everywhere fortresses were built by strong and able men, who governed their districts, protected the inhabitants, lorded it over them, and exacted obedience and service from them. In the early Middle Ages the best of these feudal lords had saved such civilization as remained. But in course of time they were an encumbrance rather than a benefit wherever they were, and often the best hope of further progress lay in their being overthrown. To a considerable extent they had already been shorn of their political power in the progressive places, though in Poland their im- portance and ancient power remained nearly unabated. Everywhere they continued to have the social and eco- nomic advantages possessed in earlier times. In England, in France, in the German countries, in Russia, great lords and great ecclesiastics constituted a caste apart. For them oftentimes were reserved the important offices of state; frequently they directed the councils of the nation; everywhere, except in Switzerland and Holland, they held a great part of all of the land and the wealth; they were THE OLD EUROPE 11 generally exempt from heavy taxation; their blood was deemed better than that of the commoner; and usually no person outside the noble class could aspire to marry within it. An immeasurable gulf divided the members of this noble aristocracy from all the other classes beneath them; and even in England, where the division was not so deep, the distance was still very great. In Europe of this old regime the nobles, whether great lords or petty knights of the Empire, were the splendid top of a society which rested upon the toil and the support of the immense multi- tude of the people. But while they kept their wealth and their privileges, in Kings many lands now their independent political power was gone. Once they had ruled without interference from a higher authority, and still they continued to do so in Po- land; but a long time before, in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, their power had been broken in Spain, in France, in England, and elsewhere, and strong, powerful, centralized governments erected. By the time of Philip II (1556-1598) the knag of Spain had absolute power, and by the time of Louis XIV (1643-1715) the king of France could have made the declaration: "I am the State." And the tendency toward absolute power and belief in the divine right of rulers had spread all over Europe. It was so in Austria, in Russia, in the larger German states and also in the smaller. There were only a few exceptions. Venice, in name a republic, was ruled by an oligarchy of aristocrats. In Switzerland and in the Dutch Netherlands there were confederations of small states ruled by the citizens of their upper and middle classes. In Germany there were still a few free cities. But the notable exception was England. In England there was indeed an effective central government, and in in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there had been England strong tendency to make the power of the king absolute. But in England there survived what had once existed in IS EUROPE, 1789-1920 Primacy of the European states Spain and France and other places but had long since withered away, a parliament, or assembly of representa- tives of the upper classes. On the continent usually danger from foreign enemies had been so great that the repre- sentatives of the upper classes, the estates, had given power of taxation and military control to the king; but English- men, secure from invasion in their island, had not had to do this. In the seventeenth century this parliament had contested with the king for the principal power in the state; after 1688 it got to be definitely superior to the king; and it made of England, what no other great state then was: a limited, constitutional monarchy. But almost everywhere in Europe toward the end of the eighteenth century, political power was completely in the hands of great rulers or small princes, while around them were grouped the upper classes in possession of the high oflSces* the wealth and privileges of the land. In England the principal difference was that the power of the king was shared with the upper classes. This Europe of the end of the eighteenth century was the seat of the largest amount of the power and impor- tance of the world and of most of the world's civilization. There were in Europe more civilized men and women or- ganized under efficient governments, with powerful armies and ships of war, and directed by restless, enterprising rulers, than anywhere else in the world. They had for some time been expanding into other continents, and in great part Europeans had by this time taken North and South America. Already the Russians in Siberia and the English in India had got control of large portions of Asia. Australia and New Zealand had just been visited by the English. Africa, except for trading stations along the coast, was not yet taken, as it was to be completely In the next hundred years. There was a fine old culture among the warlike people of Japan, and a better and older civilization among the swarming millions of China; but Britain THE OLD EUROPE IS China and Japan were far off on the edge of the world. A strange and ancient culture endured also among the teeming myriads of India; but there was neither political greatness nor military power in India's people, and already they had come under the direction of the English East India Company. There was still a Persia, but all of her grandeur was gone. Greatness, progress, power, and wealth were mostly in Europe, especially in the western parts, or else in some portions of America, where men from Europe had gone. First of European states was Great Britain. The in- Great habitants had been fortunate in the greater part of the British Isles. Early in the Middle Ages, while other peoples were still divided among numerous feudal lords, the English had been brought together as one nation in a strongly organized, well administered state. Usually safe in their island from foreign foes, they were spared most of the horrors of invasion and devastation so frequent then. Wales was early united with England, and Scotland finally in 1707, so that all the people of the greatest of the British Isles were brought together. With their union came more and more prosperity and strength. The people of Britain had long been renowned for their boldness and skill on the sea. After the discovery of America, and as the northern part of Europe became what the southern part had pre- viously been, the wealthier and greater portion, it was seen that Britain had for commerce and trade the most advan- tageous position in Europe. Many of the best routes of trade lay so near as to be within her control. In the seven- teenth and eighteenth centuries she became the greatest commercial nation in the world, obtaining supremacy on the sea, with dominating positions upon the principal sea lanes of the world, and she was presently the greatest of the colonial powers, with the exception of decadent Spain. From the Dutch, from the Spaniards, and especially from the French, she took dominions in all parts of the earth. 14 EUROPE, 1789-1920 adding them to the colonies which her people had estab- Prosperity lished in eastern North America. Her shipping, her commerce, her colonies all brought riches, and the British became the wealthiest people in Europe. Then from the middle of the eighteenth century onward certain great mechanical inventions — like the steam engine, the power loom, better means of transportation within the island, and the utilization of great deposits of coal and iron — gradually brought about the Industrial Revolution, which by the end of the century had given to England and Scotland an industrial leadership almost as marked as the previous commercial greatness. The government of Britain was in the hands of the upper classes and administered mostly in their interests; but as things then were that government was enlightened and good; there was protection of the law for all men; and however lowly their condition the common people in England were apparently better off than any other people in Europe. This was not the case with Ireland, which had been conquered, confiscated, and oppressed. France On the continent the great state was France. The con- dition of most of her people was less good than that of the British, but better than elsewhere. The government of France was a strongly centralized monarchy, with all power in the hands of the king, who was assisted by coun- cillors and ministers chosen by himself. Because in France there were twice as many highly civilized people under one strong government as in any other state at that time, the French monarchy, when managed by capable administrators, towered above all its neighbors, just as ' after 1900 the German Empire was so threatening and great. But during the eighteenth century the affairs of France had not been well handled; she had fought costly wars and gained little from them, and in the prolonged duel with England had lost most of her colonial empire. She had just assisted the American rebels and this had ruined her finances. France was still the leading nation THE OLD EUROPE 15 on the continent of Europe, but she no longer had the vast preponderance which had once overshadowed all others. England was wealthier, and more successful. Yet France was still the leader of European civilization. Everywhere her language was known and used by edu- cated people; the letters of Horace Walpole contain num- erous French phrases, and most of the works of Frederick the Great were written in that tongue. The French style of writing simple, clear, and elegant prose, was everywhere admired, and in some other languages, like the English, successfully followed. The grandeur of the French court was imitated all over central and eastern Europe. The most liberal and progressive ideas of the age were being disseminated by French philosophical writers. The art, the styles, the taste of Paris, then as now set the standard for Europe. Spain, once so powerful, had withdrawn into the stillness of drowsy decay. She had been the greatest power in Europe during the sixteenth century, but unwise legislation had long before stifled her enterprise, religious narrowness had crushed intellectual activity, and her people, too proud to work, too ignorant and incompetent to succeed, had gone steadily down into lowly position. A hundred years before there had been a memorable contest to get posses- sion of the Spanish Empire, and the result of that War of the Spanish Succession (1702-1714) had been that a French prince succeeded to the crown of Spain, but that the Spanish possessions in Italy and the Netherlands passed to Austria. Spain still retained almost all of her wealthy colonial empire, but the inhabitants of these places, especially in Spanish America, were held in tutelage and subordination, and longed to imitate England's American colonies in breaking away and becoming inde- pendent. What is Belgium now was the Austrian Netherlands then, denied opportunity and backward, coveted by French civilization Spain The Nether- lands 16 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Italian lands The Scandi- navian coun- tries The Germanies France, and often the battle-ground for foreign armies. The other Netherlands, which are now Holland, were independent and powerful and wealthy. Their commerce was still lucrative and vast, and their colonies in the East Indies were rich; but they no longer did the carrying trade of Europe, their naval power had diminished before Eng- land's, and on land they had been exhausted in defending themselves against the French. They were no longer one of the great European powers. Italy was a land of splendid monuments and glorious memories; but glory, prosperity, and power had long since departed. There was much wealth, but it was in the hands of churchmen or great nobles. The masses were very miserable and poor, for commerce and industry had de- cayed. It was long since Italians had controlled their political affairs. Often they had been the prey of invad- ers; for a long time they had been ruled by foreign masters. Once Spain had controlled them; but now the states in the north were ruled under Austria; those in the southern part by Bourbon princes, of the house which ruled France and Spain; while across the central part of the peninsula ex- tended the dominions of the Pope. Outside the circle of grandeur and power were the Scan- dinavian countries. A great while before they had been the terror of the rest of Europe, and from them pirates, settlers, and conquerors had gone forth to Russia, to Italy, to France, to England, and even to America. But Den- mark, the most richly endowed, was small; the others had poor resources and no numerous population ; and long since their strength had declined before the growing greatness of more fortunate neighbors to the south. Sweden still had the relics of her old possessions, eastern Pomerania and the country of Finland; but she only looked on now at large affairs, as did Denmark, to whom Norway was subject. Central Europe was, as it long had been, in the hands of Germanic powers. All through the Middle Ages Ger- THE OLD EUROPE 17 Austria mans had contested with Slavic peoples coming westward, and in the long struggle German sovereigns had pushed their territories to the eastward, until in the north, in Prussia, perhaps the largest element of the population was Slavic, while in the south Austria had built up a great group of possessions mostly peopled by subject Slavs. The German states, the Germanics, were grouped together in the Holy Roman Empire, an agglomeration of more than The Empire three hundred separate, independent states, of which two, Austria and Prussia, were great European powers now; a few others, like Bavaria, were prominent; while altogether less than one hundred were large enough to have any im- portance, the rest being small free cities or territories of imperial knights. They were loosely held together by old custom, and by the common possession of German language and culture. According to the law of this cus- tom they were all part of a Reich ruled by a Kaiser whose oJQfice was virtually hereditary in the house of Austria. He was the object of much veneration and respect, but his authority was only nominal, except in his own numer- ous possessions. The rulers of the other states heeded the central government only as they wished, or not at all. In the War of the Spanish Succession Bavaria had been an ally of France, and the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) was partly a terrible struggle between Austria and Prussia. As the eighteenth century neared its close Austria still maintained such headship as there was, but in the north Prussia was rising as an ever mightier rival. Generally speaking the people of these German states were in lowly and humble condition. In the eastern and southern parts, especially, most of them were serfs; nowhere did they have any influence in the affairs of their governments, but were everywhere ruled by sovereigns whether great or petty who were the source of all govern- ment and law. Many of these lands had not yet recovered from the effects of the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), Conditions in the Ger- man lands 18 EUROPE, 1789-1920 German culture The Slavs Poland Russia which had once destroyed most of their wealth and the larger part of the population. Industry had declined, commerce lans^uished, the people were exceedingly poor, and far less well off than the inhabitants of England and of France. Some of the German states, however, were cen- ters of magnificent literary and intellectual activity. It was at Weimar about the close of the eighteenth century that Goethe and Schiller did the greatest writing which has ever been accomplished in German; and it was in the East Prussian city of Konigsberg that Immanuel Kant wrote the philosophical works which exhibit him as the foremost thinker since Aristotle's time. To the east and the south of the Germanic lands were the Slavic peoples. Some had long before been incorporated into the possessions of German rulers, like the peoples of Bohemia and Moravia, which were governed by the Aus- trian sovereign. In the Balkan peninsula, the South Slavs had long since been submerged beneath the power of the Turks. To the east of the Austrian and the Prussian possessions was Poland, greatest of the Slavic powers in the Middle Ages, but now near to her end. In Poland a strong central government had never been erected; the authority of the king was but nominal, and power con- tinued, as in medieval times, in the hands of numerous feudal lords, tenacious of old prerogative and extremely jealous of their rights. In the eighteenth century Poland was surrounded by great neighbors, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, who coveted her lands. Even in the midst of this threatening danger the central government could not be- come stronger nor did the internal weakness and jealousies end. Accordingly Poland was being destroyed. Already in 1772 the so-called First Partition had taken place, her outlying possessions being seized by her rivals. A little later she was destined to disappear completely. Half of Europe, in many respects the most backward part, was comprised in the great Empire of Russia. During THE OLD EUROPE 19 the Middle Ages the different Slavic peoples who lived up* on the great plain of eastern Europe had suffered terrible subjection and degradation from Tartar marauders and Mongol invaders. Gradually, later on, a strong inland state was built up by Russian rulers about Moscow. For a long time the connections of the people were with Asia rather than with the rest of Europe, but in course of time the waters of the Baltic Sea were reached, and after the time of Peter the Great (1682-1725) Russia was an im- portant European power. Afterward a succession of able rulers carried forward her boundaries to the south and the west, so that in the closing years of the eighteenth century she reached the north shore of the Black Sea, and, in another direction, the confines of Austria and Prussia. Her people, different in race from their neighbors to the The west, differed also in religion, the Greek Catholic faith. Russian The Tsar of the Russias was absolute in power; under him were great officials and numerous unimportant nobles; there were a few merchants and artisans in the widely scattered cities; but the immense number of the inhabitants of this great domain were debased and ignorant peasants, living in their lonely little villages on the plain or in the vast forests: dirty, stolid, ignorant, and dreamy, but brave as soldiers in defence of their right, and capable, if ever opportunity came, of rising to better things. The great movements of the French Revolution would not go far enough across Europe to reach them, and the Industrial Revolution was not to get to Russia until late in the nine- teenth century; so that for a hundred years more their condition was to change almost not at all. Finally, to the south there was the inert bulk of the The Otto- Ottoman Empire, which once had threatened all peoples man^Empire near by. From the capital at Constantinople, with its unrivalled position, the Turks ruled broad domains in Asia Minor and beyond, and, in Europe, Greece, all of the 20 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Balkan peninsula, and the country up to the Danube. The strength of their military organization had declined, and their ancient prowess had diminished. Like Spain at the other end of Europe their Empire was sunk in leth- argy and decadence. But they still had the power to hold their subject Christian population, and perhaps no other people in Europe lived under quite so degrading and brutal tyranny as the Southern Slavs of the Balkans. BIBLIOGRAPHY For additional general introductory reading : Arthur Hassall, The Balance of Pmoer, 1715-1789 (1896); A. H. Johnson, The Age of the Enlightened Despots, 1660-1789 (1910). Great Britain: C. G. Robertson, England under the Han- overians (1911); W. E. H. Lecky, A History of England in the Eighteenth Century , 8 vols. (1878-90), the best for this period; the best of the general histories of England is the cooperative work. The Political History of England, ed. by the Rev. William Hunt, R. L. Poole, 12 vols. (1905-10). France: A. J. Grant, The French Monarchy, U8S-1789, 2 vols. (1900) ; J. B. Perkins, France under Louis XV, 2 vols. (1897). The best and most important history of France is the great cooperative work edited by E. Lavisse, Histoire de France depuis les Origines jusqua la Revolution, 9 vols, in 18 (1900-10). Spain: G. D. du Dezert, VEspagne de VAncien Regime, 3 vols. (1897-1904); M. A. S. Hume, Spain: Its Greatness and Decay {U79-1788) (1898). Austria: Archdeacon William Coxe, History of the House of Austria frmn 1218 to 1792 (many editions); Franz Krones, Handbuch der Geschichte Oesterreichs, 5 vols. (1876-9); Henry Marczali, Hungary in the Eighteenth Century (1910). The Germanics: G. M. Priest, Germany since 17J^0 (1915); Karl Biedermann, Deutschland im Achtzehnten Jahrhundert, 2 vols. (1867-80) ; Norwood Young, The Life of Frederick the Great (1919), hostile and critical; Reinhold Koser, Geschichte Friedrichs des Grossen, 4 vols. (1912-14), the authoritative work. Russia: Alfred Rambaud, Histoire de la Russie depuis les Origines jusqu* a Nos Jours (6th ed. 1914), an English translation by Leonora B. Lang, 2 vols. (1879) ; V. O. Kliuchevsky, abridged and trans, by C. J. Hogarth, A History of Russia, 3 vols. (1911- 'I -J 2. RELIEF I I EUROPE THE OLD EUROPE 21 13), to the end of the seventeenth century, best account of the early period; E. A. B. Hodgetts, The Life of Catherine the Great of Russia (1914). For the Slavs generally: R. N. Bain, Slav- onic Europe (1912). The Ottoman Dominions: Stanley Lane-Poole, The Story of Turkey (1897) ; Nicolae Jorga, Geschichtedes Osmanischen Reiches, 5 vols. (1908-13), the best. CHAPTER II The Euro- pean frontier in America Separation SEPARATION OF THE COMMUNITIES IN AMERICA Thus at the beginning the American colonies formed but a part, and comparatively speaking but a small part, of that great western frontier of the European nations. . . . C. M. Andrews, The Colonial Period (1912), p. 11. The transmission of the heritage of European culture to the New World and its inhabitants, the great work of the colonial epoch. . . E. G. Bourne, Spain in America (1904), p. S0«. Just about the time when the new era of European his- tory begins, most of the outlying parts of the European world, in America then, broke away from the parent states, and began their separate careers. The populations of the French and English settlements in North America, the Spanish and Portuguese commimities of Mexico and the continent to the south, were in the days of the old era merely faraway frontiers of the European world. That later on some of them were to become nations of vast re- sources and greatness could not then be foreseen. The indifference which most Europeans then had for the dis- tant possessions over the seas was heightened about the end of the eighteenth century and during the generations that followed because those communities renounced their allegiance to the parent nations and for a long time went forward on separate courses, shrinking from participation in European affairs, aloof from the world. Just before the French Revolution most of the British colonies on the mainland of North America won independence. After 22 COMMUNITIES IN AMERICA 1810 the Spanish colonies began to gain independence. Since that time Americans have thought of their history and civiHzation as things apart from Europe; but in the long years before the separation took place the colonies were settlements of European people having as inher- itance the best things their fathers had worked out in the past; and even after the break, their civilization re- mained essentially what it had been from the first, the culture of Europe transplanted to new regions. The discovery and occupation of America are part of America an earlier age. The best-informed people of antiquity believed that the world was round, as did numerous thinkers and mariners of the Middle Ages. But they had no reason to believe that there was any large body of land lying between Europe and Asia, so when in 1492 Christo- pher Columbus set out from a Spanish port, it was toward Asia that he thought he was sailing, and it was India he expected to reach. He died believing that what he dis- covered was some part of India which travellers had not formerly reached. A few years more, however, and fur- ther explorations convinced geographers that a new land indeed had been found; and so in 1507 Martin Waldsee- miiller of St. Die proposed that the lands in the south re- cently described by Amerigo Vespucci be called America after his name. From the southern continent this was presently extended to all lands in the western hemisphere, as men realized that they were no part of Asia but a new portion of the surface of the earth. These new lands were claimed for Spain. Since it was believed in the beginning that another route to India had been discovered, and since the Portuguese had already opened up a route of their own to that part of the world, the Pope, in 1493 and 1494, divided the newly discovered countries between them, by a perpendicular line to the west of the Azores, Portugal getting what lay to the east, and Spain what lay to the west. Hence it was that the The Spanish colonial em- pire 24 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Early pre- eminence of Portugal and Spain New France The Dutch Portuguese obtained the eastern part of South America, soon known as Brazil. All the rest of South America and all the southern portion of North America were taken by the Spaniards and occupied for them by a company of navigators and explorers. By the end of the sixteenth century the Spaniards had acquired the largest and richest possessions that any colonial empire ever had contained. It was partly the geographical position of Portugal and Spain, partly the magnificent work of the able sailors who served them, partly a series of fortunate accidents which gave them their early advantage. The people of eastern and central Europe were too remote and too little skilled in maritime affairs to enter into any competition: Italy now decayed rapidly with the loss of her old trade routes and in her subjection to foreign masters; and England, France, and the Netherlands were throughout the six- teenth century absorbed in struggles growing out of the Reformation. But by 1600 Holland had practically won her independence from Spain, and the people of England and of France had largely settled their domestic difficulties and become strong and ambitious nations. All of them had been involved in hostilities with Spain, and they all struck back by attacking the Spanish treasure fleets and making raids on her settlements in America. Further- more, they were no longer willing to be bound by the edict of the Pope, which had given most of America and its seas exclusively to Spain. About the same time France and Holland began to make settlements in North America. In 1608 Frenchmen made a permanent settlement at Que- bec, and New France was founded. Then explorers and missionaries pushing up the St. Lawrence, along by the Great Lakes, down the vast central valley of the continent and down the Mississippi to the Gulf, laid out, at least in their plans, a magnificent empire, the holding of which would ultimately have made them masters of North America. The Dutch had been busier in taking away the COMMUNITIES IN AMERICA 25 rich possessions of the Portuguese in the Far East, but they also turned their attention to North America, and in 1614 founded the New Netherlands, in the finest situation on the Atlantic coast. In the service of England John Cabot had discovered North America in 1497, but a hundred years went by with little more progress. Toward the end of the sixteenth century the English established a claim upon Newfound- land, and made some unsuccessful attempts to establish plantations on the mainland. The first successful colony, however, was Virginia, founded in 1607 by a trading com- pany. It was followed shortly after by settlements, in 1620 and 1630, of Pilgrims and Puritans in Massachusetts. England was not overpopulated, but a variety of causes contributed now to the founding of a series of colonies along the middle part of the North American coast, and to the emigration thither of many people from England. Opportunities for making a fortune, which war and cru- sades had once offered to adventurous men, were now to be found in great commercial enterprises, and great new chartered trading companies were founded with a mo- nopoly of trade in some particular district or body of waters. Wondrous tales came to Europe of the silver of Mexico and the gold of Peru. It was thought that they were making the Spanish people wealthy; and speculators and investors were eager to take shares in companies to exploit the land which Cabot once found for the king. Thus Virginia and other colonies were founded. It was also a period when civil and religious strife was still very bitter. The Reformation in England had been a compromise be- tween Catholicism, the old faith, and the extreme changes which more radical reformers demanded. The Church of England, established in the sixteenth century, was accepted by most of the people, but a considerable body of men, Puritans, Presbyterians, Independents, strove to have the Episcopal Church "purified" and further "reformed." In The English Reasons for English ex- pansion Religious troubles 26 EUROPE. 1789-1920 Proprietary rights Remoteness from Europe the period before 1640 they were sternly repressed. Many lost heart, and resolved to go forth far away from the reach of prelates and king, to worship and be governed as they wished. Such was the origin of the most important settle- ments made in New England, some of the leaders organiz- ing themselves to act in corporate capacity and obtain charters. Finally, during the seventeenth century, while the king himself at no time undertook to colonize the do- minions which were legally^his, yet out of these faraway estates of the crown, he sometimes paid his debts or rewarded his followers and friends, giving them, as pro- prietors, broad American lands. Thus it was that Lord Baltimore got the province, indeed the palatinate, of Maryland; so Penn got his lands from Charles II; so was Carolina established, and afterward Georgia. These pro- prietary lords strove by every means in their power to encourage settlers to come, to increase the value of their lands and get greater revenue from them. Penn even had agents in the Low Countries and the German lands down the Rhine urging the poor and harassed to seek refuge by the Delaware with him. Accordingly, about the middle of the eighteenth century, English settlements and colonies stretched all down the Atlantic coast of North America from where Maine is in the north to the southern frontier of Georgia; and this extent was complete and unbroken, for in 1664 England had seized from the Dutch their pro- vince of New Netherlands, and called it New York. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries this Amer- ica was a distant land, almost as remote as Thule once had been, much farther from Europe then than Alaska seems now, as far, perhaps, as St. Helena or the Falk- land Islands. Many people in Europe, if they thought about the American countries, must have regarded them as vague, vast places, where great treasure was sometimes found, where strange savages and monsters dwelt, where fortune might await the bold and the hardy. Those COMMUNITIES IN AMERICA 27 who voyaged across the Atlantic to find new homes could seldom return. It took weeks to make the cross- ing, and cost of the passage was high. Yet it should be remembered that all traveling was difficult then, that it was easier by water than by land, and that New Spain, the West Indies, and the middle coast of North Amer- ica seemed nearer and were better known to western Europe than the country beyond Moscow or the Balkans. After a while it seemed to these folk of western Europe that the little ships which went sailing out from Seville, from Plymouth, or St. Malo were going across the waste of waters to a New Spain, a New England, a New France, where their kinsmen had made in the islands of the ocean or along the continental coast European outposts on the outer fringe of the mighty wilderness that stretched on be- yond them. European civilization and life soon came to predominate in the new world. In South America there was a con- siderable population of aborigines, especially in the Peru- vian Empire, but altogether the country was thinly settled. In parts of Central America and in Mexico also there were many Indians in that stage of culture which marks the beginning of civilization; but beyond, throughout the northern continent there were only meager tribes settled in some places and a handful of roaming nomads. So there was no difficulty in establishing in America the life and the customs which men had once known in Spain, in the marts of Holland, in the parishes and seaports of England, and the villages and cities of old France. The culture of Spanish America was that of Spain taken to new surroundings. The old regime of France was reproduced, as far as could be, in the bleak and wild St. Lawrence valley. The life of England was brought to Massachu- setts and Virginia, to Maryland, to Rhode Island, and Georgia. These people would no more have thought of themselves as Americans than Ovid would have declared The Atlantic World European ciyilization in America 28 EUROPE, 1789-1920 himself a man of the Chersonese; they were Spaniards, Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Portuguese, or men of England, living in the most outlying of the possessions of their coun- try, and conceiving the civilization and customs of their country as the most precious things carried along with them. To Peru and New Spain the Spanish colonists took their Spanish language, their Roman Catholic religion, their Roman law, and the local customs and peculiarities of character which had developed among their ancestors in Spain. After the age of the conquistadoresy the colonists settled down to find their fortune or make their living in the New World. Some of the bolder and more successful got great stretches of land or parts that had mines of silver and gold, with jurisdiction over the native Indians who lived on these lands much like that which the Spanish grandees had on estates in Andalusia or Castile. Other settlers gathered themselves together in towns, which they modelled after what existed in Spain, electing cabildos or town councils, consisting of regidores or aldermen, who chose their alcaldes or mayors themselves. As in Spain and also in England, these bodies came to be closed cor- porations, bodies which appointed their own members. Govern- In the Spanish kingdoms of the Middle Ages the cortes or ™®°* assembly of estates had been as flourishing as was the similar body, the parliament, in England. But this did not continue, for in Spain, as the sovereigns became stronger, they went the same way that the kings of France ' had gone, and made their state strong by taking all the powers of the government into their hands, to be exercised by themselves and the oflficials and councils appointed by them. It might have been thought that freer institutions would have developed in distant Spanish colonies, as they did among the English settlers, and we now know that there was considerable tendency toward this; nevertheless, Spanish colonial government was concentrated effectively COMMUNITIES IN AMERICA 29 and completely in the hands of great officers appointed by the king. By 1574 the Spanish possessions in America were divided into two parts, of which one, New Spain, embraced the West Indian islands, the territory in North America, and some in the northern part of the continent to the south. The other, Peru, comprised all of South America from the Isthmus of Panama to the southern extremity, except- ing what is now Venezuela and the Portuguese country of Brazil. These kingdoms, or viceroyalties, were governed by viceroys, the appointees and personal representatives of the king. The viceroyalties were divided into audiencias and smaller jurisdictions. Later on, in the eighteenth century, other viceroyalties and lesser divisions were established. Religion had, as always among Spanish people, a place of immense importance: religious orders established their branches in the New World; there were wealthy and flourishing monasteries and convents, and stately cathe- drals and churches. Particular care was taken to convert the Indians to Christianity. The Inquisition also .was set up, and a few heretics were condemned aifrf43tft*ftl^^ as late as 1776. Universities arose at Lima and in M^SfeJ^ City, where some of the teachers gained much distinction. The Spanish towns had their printing presses, their univer- sities, and their great church buildings long before such things appeared in the English colonies. The Spanish- Americans were debarred from much political activity, and political offices in their towns were bought and sold as was then the custom in Spain. The government was a paternal despotism, administered by viceroys and officials who were sometimes honest and efficient, sometimes in- capable and corrupt. But usually the rulers of Spain strove to extend to their American subjects the same laws and privileges that were possessed by the people of Spain; and in general the spirit of rule was enlightened and kindly. Special efforts were made by the Spanish author- The vice- royalties Spanish cul- ture in New Spain ifeilsna 9riT so EUROPE, 1789-1920 New France The English colonists Puritans and Cavaliers ities to protect the Indians; and although there were some barbarities and atrocities at first, it must always be remembered that the Spanish government did protect the natives so successfully, that they survived and in- creased in numbers, and made up the majority of the colonial population. In New France also the laws and customs of the old country were reproduced, the French language, the Catho- lic religion, the Roman law, along with feudal rights and seigniorial jurisdiction, which still survived in France. There was very little rule of the people by themselves. But the history of New France is of less importance than that of New Spain or of England in America, because so few Frenchmen came to settle in the valleys of the Missis- sippi and the St. Lawrence. So vast was the extent of territory which they endeavored to hold that most of the country was little affected by them; and about the middle of the eighteenth century, when the English and the French fought out a great struggle, the British easily took away the French colonies in America, and save for one district about Quebec, they have been possessed by English- speaking people ever since. Many of the settlers who came to the English colonies were the best that England could send. The Puritans and others who opposed Archbishop Laud and Charles I, made up a class of people far more important because of their prosperity and position than their mere numbers might show. They were strong, well-educated, often well-to-do people, the best of the middle class and lesser nobility, narrow in their outlook, but determined and in- dependent and willing to endure much in upholding their cause. It was from this class that Cromwell and Milton came, and it contained many lawyers, merchants, pro- prietors, and men of affairs. It was by them very largely that New England was founded. Then during the period of the Civil Wars somewhat later, when for a COMMUNITIES IN AMERICA 31 while the Puritans and Independents got control of affairs in England, some of their Cavalier opponents took refuge in American plantations like Maryland and Virginia. In New England and in all the other British colonies in America English law and custom were at once introduced; they took vigorous root, and entered upon a sturdy growth. Many of the settlers had had direct acquaintance with their government in England and taken part in its local administration. Not a few of them had been justices of the peace or county officials, and most of them, perhaps, knew the working of parish administration. Very natur- ally they at once set up townships or parishes and coun- ties, which were from the first the scene of vigorous political life. This took place, then, so readily in the English colonies, because the English people, unlike the population of Spain or France, were used to taking part in local gov- ernment. And in the freer circumstances of their new homes some of the English colonists carried government by the people themselves much further than it had devel- oped in England. Over there in the parish, which was the unit in which most of the people got their political exper- ience, only the pettiest things were determined, the more important parts of local government being in the counties, and all of the central government in the hands of the king and the upper classes. But when the Puritans, who had left England partly because they wanted more govern- ment by the people, set up their townships in New Eng- land, they made the town meeting an assembly of the citizens of the district, who thus governed themselves in democratic assembly. They chose their own officers for ex- ecutive and administrative work; and as the New England colonies grew, the town meetings elected their representa- tives to* sit in the assembly or parliament of the colony, thus organizing a self-government which was far in ad- vance of anything in England then, and which later on English cul" ture in America Self- government extended in America New England 32 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The other colonies Assimilative power of English culture Manage- ment by the colonizing countries became a model for the government of the United States. Outside of New England self-government was also devel- oped, though in less striking manner. In 1619 the London Company bade the governor whom they sent to Vir- ginia to call a legislature or assembly consisting of repre- sentatives elected by the freemen of that country; and in all the colonies representative assemblies were set up mod- eled roughly upon the House of Commons of England. The colonists brought into their new homes the English common law, which became thus the basis of the law of the United States. And they always considered that they shared in the rights which English citizens possessed, be- lieving that Magna Carta pertained to them as much as if they were living in England. Into the English colonies came a large number of emi- grants from other countries, oppressed people from Ger- many and France and also from Ireland, and some of them for a great while retained their own language, character- istics, and customs. But from the first the English in America showed a wonderful power of assimilation. The foreign immigrants were usually admitted to a share in the privileges and power of the commonwealths, and many of them after a while adopted the English language, law^ and customs of their own free will; so that the life of the country continued to be fundamentally English. There- fore, in these communities, houses and churches resembled those of England in the time of Anne or the Georges; and customs and class distinctions existed much like those in eighteenth-century England. Judging in respect of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, rather than the present, it must be said that the colonists, whether in New Spain or New England, were well treated. The British and the Spanish authorities both tried to give to them much the same government that they would have had in the mother countries. There were differences, indeed, but they resulted mostly «3^ I COMMUNITIES IN AMERICA 33 from the new circumstances in which the colonists were placed. The principal grievances were economic, mostly because of restrictions put upon colonial trade. It was the prevailing theory then that colonies should supply the mother country with raw materials in exchange for manu- factured goods, and that colonial trade should be confined to the country by which the colonies were possessed. Such commercial restrictions seemed natural and proper then, and there was long custom and precedent behind them. In the Middle Ages when England held Calais, that city was made the staple or place to which all ex- ported English wool must be sent. Many a town and many a guild had a monopoly of some trade, and the six- teenth and seventeenth centuries were a period in which many monopolies were granted. The East India Com- pany, founded in 1600, had the sole right of trading in the Far East, and some of the first English settlements made in America were planted by companies with similar rights. The Spanish government ordained that all the trading from Spanish America should be with Spain, tried to con- fine this trade entirely to the one Spanish city of Seville, and tried to prevent trade between the several Spanish colonies. Likewise the English government forbade its colonial subjects to carry on manufactures, and tried to restrict their trade through a series of Navigation Acts, the purpose of which was substantially to debar other nations from trading with the English colonies and compel the colonists to send most of their exports to England. To some extent the Spanish colonists evaded the law, and there was much smuggling, especially after English, Dutch, and French settlements were established in the West Indies. The English colonists, left much freer, paid little attention to the Navigation Acts at first, and when later on the mother country tried to enforce them, this attempt was one of the principal things which led to the war for separation and independence. Colonial trade Restrictions on trade S4 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Diftaace The English colonists It was natural that the colonists, far away from the old home and old conditions, should conceive new ideas and give up the old more quickly than the people in Europe, and that mere difference in circumstance and surroundings and mere distance would inevitably cause disagreements to develop, so that after a while the colonies could be held only by power and force or else through most skilful ad- justment in administration. Had they been very strongly held or very greatly oppressed it is probable that they would long have endured what they disliked; but since many of them were not closely bound and since they were on the whole well treated, they easily chafed at those things which displeased them. It was natural and proper that they should do so; but it should be remembered that they broke away from the mother countries because of distance and difference in surroundings rather than any oppression. The people of the English colonies in America were better treated than the inhabitants of any other colonial possessions ever had been. They had most of the privi- leges that people in England had. For a time they were left largely to themselves. The Navigation Acts were not strictly enforced and very little obeyed. The people who had settled New England were the most forward and pro- gressive of the English people in politics; now in their new homes they proceeded along the path of political develop- ment more rapidly than their kinsmen in England. They insisted upon all of the rights of Englishmen, and began to think of getting more. The upper classes, who con- trolled affairs in the middle and the southern colonies, were, many of them, in the position of the English gentry, and, like them, determined to uphold their legal and con- stitutional rights. The colonies were growing rapidly in prosperity and power, and the commercial and business leaders were ill disposed to endure restraints on their trade. There was, to be sure, the menace of France in America, COMMUNITIES IN AMERICA 35 but in 1763 the conquest of Canada was completed by England, and the menace was definitely removed. No longer were the colonies bound to England by fear or by need. Just about this time the British government was at- tempting to devise some more effective plan of imperial administration and control. Previously no well-organized scheme of governing the colonies had been constructed. Government was vested in the king and his privy council, but government had been slipping from royal management into the control of parliament and the ministers of the king. Important things were now performed only by those powerful members of the privy council who were of the cabinet, and the cabinet had the management of many important things besides the colonies, and accordingly gave them little attention. There had been, since 1696, the Board of Trade and Plantations, something like the Spanish Council of the Indies, though less powerful and organized less well; but it could not enforce its decisions, and its recommendations were often not attended to. Moreover, now that the principal power in the British government was parliament and not the king, parliament attempted to control the colonies itself. To British auth- orities it seemed most proper that the colonists should con- tribute to the expenses of the empire, but the colonists were not willing to pay taxes imposed upon them by the parlia- ment in London. It was undoubtedly a situation with much right and wrong on both sides, in which the quarrel developed be- cause there were properly two points of view. The prin- cipal trouble, doubtless, was that as yet no scheme had been devised for holding together the parts of a widely scattered empire, in days when no means of rapid com- munication existed. Accordingly, the two sides drifted farther apart, and presently the colonists acted together against the mother country. Then some whose discontent Colonial ad- ministration strengthened Board of Trade Estrange- ment and separation 86 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Indepen- dence Napoleon and the Spanish colonies Indepen- dence had led to the crisis drew back, but the more radical ele- ment got control and the movement went farther than was expected at first. In 1776 they declared independence. There had been little thought of such a thing at the start, and the upper and more prosperous classes and most of the conservative people were opposed to it strongly. JHad Great Britain blockaded the coast and tried to exhaust the resources of the revolutionaries, she might probably have driven them to submit; but she rashly undertook to carry on offensive campaigns too far from her base. Even so, she would probably have won in the end had not France, desiring revenge, joined in the contest. In 1783 the in- dependence of the United States was acknowledged, and they shortly after, triumphing over difficulties which probably seemed as great as the obstacles confronting a commonwealth of nations a hundred and thirty years later, combined in a strong federal union. The establishment by these Americans of a government which they believed would secure them liberty was not without effect upon France, and was among the causes which led to the French Revolution shortly after. Then came the mightiest changes that Europe had experienced for ages. Napoleon rose to power, and conquering much of Europe, disposed of it as seemed to him best. In the spring of 1808 French troops took possession of Spain. British command of the sea now separated Spain from her colonial possessions. During this period the colonists in Latin America had a freedom from commercial restrictions which made them more willing to follow the example of the United States, and in the period 1810-30 one after another they gained their independence. The trade re- strictions had previously been somewhat relaxed, but Spain had still tried to reserve her colonial trade mostly for her- self. During the Napoleonic struggle England had got a great share of this trade and she encouraged the colonists to get their independence. .^c^X^^' mm COMMUNITIES IN AMERICA 37 The Latin Americans modeled their governments for- mally after that of the United States. The people, how- ever, had had little training in self-government, and the populations were not predominantly European but con- tained a great number of Indians and negroes, so that suc- cess in self-government was scanty. • Nor were the people of Spanish America fortunate in their attempts to make a great federal union. Distances were too great, the elements of discord too large to be overcome, and the combinations whether in Central America or South Amer- ica speedily broke up into parts. The Americans, particularly the English-speaking people in the United States, went forward in freer and more splen- did development than would have been possible had the connection continued as of old. America, largely because of magnificent natural resources, became a land of oppor- tunity for people from all over Europe, and a haven for the aspiring and oppressed. The people of the new na- tions went on their way, far from the older world, glorying in their isolation and superior goodness. More and more they conceived of themselves as Americans, different from the people in Europe. There was much truth in this, and yet always, in a larger way, America seemed as an extension, an expansion, of Europe. Fot it was from the countries of western Europe, from Spain and Portugal, from France, from England, and to a lesser extent from Germany and Holland, that their population and culture had come in the first place. Small jealousies and points of difference for a long time caused the ties with Europe to. be little noticed; but at last the strength of these ties became evident enough. In the period 1914-18 a great war shook Europe to its very foun- dations. Into this war at length came the United States. She knew she had nothing to gain except saving, along with some of the nations of western Europe, the ideals and the civilization, which long before she had got principally Government in Latin America Independent development American culture fun damentally European 38 EUROPE, 1789-1920 from England and partly from France. It now seemed that a better world in the future was to be attained through a league of nations, which, however inclusive it might afterward be, must at first be founded by those nations of western Europe and the people of the United States, who had so much of ideals and civilization in common. BIBLIOGRAPHY Discovery and Conquest: John Fiske, The Discovery of Americay 2 vols. (1892), one of the most fascinating and in- structive of historical narratives; Sir Arthur Helps, The Spanish Conquest in Americay 4 vols. (ed. by M. Oppenheim, 1900-4), the best. Latin America: W. R. Shepherd, Laiin America (1914); E. G. Bourne, Spain in America (volume III of the Am,€rican Nation, 1904), excellent; Bernard Moses, The Establishment of Spanish Rule in America (1898); R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America (1884) ; A. Zimmermann, Die KoUmial- politik Portugals und Spaniens (1896). New France: John Fiske, New France and New England (1902) ; R. G. Thwaites, France in America^ U97-1763 (volume VII of The American NatioUy 1905); Francis Parkman, The Old RSgim£ in Canada (1874). The British settlements: C. M. Andrews, The Colonial Period (1912), excellent; Edward Channing, History of the United StateSy vols. I-III (1905-12), the best general account; volumes IV-VI of The American NatioUy namely, L. G. Tyler, England in America (1903), C. M. Andrews, Colonial Self Govern- ment (1904), E. B. Greene, Provincial America (1905); G. L. Beer, British Colonial Policy, 176^-1765 (1907), Origins of Brit- ish Colonial Policyy 1578-1660 (1908), The Old Colonial System, 1660-175^^, 2 vols. (1912) ; O. M. Dickerson, American Colonial Government, 1696-1765 (1912); H. L. Osgood, The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, 3 vols. (1904-7) best for the development of colonial government and institutions; A. M. Schlesinger, The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolu- tion, 1763-1776 (1918). Separation of the British colonies: S. G. Fisher, The Struggle for American Independencey 2 vols. (1908); C. H. Van Tyne, The American Revolution (volume IX of The American Nation, 1905), The Loyalists in the American Revolution (1902). COMMUNITIES IN AMERICA 39 Separation of the Latin- American colonies: F. L. Petre, Simon Bolivar (1910) ; Bernard Moses, South America on the Eve of Emancipation (1908); F. L. Paxson, The Independence of the South American Republics (1903). ' For government: J. I. Rodriguez, American Constitutions, 2 vols. (1906-8) which contains the constitutions in the original language and in translation. CHAPTER III THE FRENCH REVOLUTION Les representants du peuple francais constitu^s en assemblee na- tionale . . . declare . . . , Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et egaux en droits . . . Le but de toute association politique est la conservation des droits • naturels ... la liberte, la propriete, la surete et la resistance a I'oppression . . . Declaration of the Rights of Man, September 14, 1791, Archives Parlementaires, 1st. series, xxxii. 525. You may call this faction, which has eradicated the monarchy, — expelled the proprietary, persecuted religion, and trampled upon law, — you may call this France if you please: but of the ancient France nothing remains, but its central geography; its iron fron- tier; its spirit of ambition; its audacity of enterprise; its perplexing intrigue. Edmund Burke, Letters on a Regicide Peace, Letter, ii (1796). The great The great change which began in western Europe in changes in 1739 jg known as the Frehch Revolution. It is one of the ^jjjj^g four great events in the history of European civilization ^ since medieval times. The Renaissance in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries brought increased perception of beauty and the excellence of mankind; it broadened and deepened the minds of a vast number of men, and opened up the way for exploration of great new realms of thought. In the sixteenth century the Reformation attacked a religion which had stood for hundreds of years, led to the establishment of other faiths, and indirectly opened the 40 THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 41 way for freedom of thought and Hberty of mind. About the end of the eighteenth century the French Revolution brought profound changes in social and political affairs, sweeping away old institutions, and laying the foundation for self-government and democracy in Europe. About the same time, but much less noticed at the start, alterations still more profound began in England with the Industrial Revolution, in industrial and social affairs. The French Revolution began for reasons which are quite clear now. Except for the inhabitants of Great Britain, the French had risen to a higher state and to better conditions than any other people in Europe. It is not among those who are most downtrodden that revolu- tions usually begin, unless the oppressive government is completely overthrown by enemies from without, but among those who have got rid of their worst grievances, and are more impatient of those which remain. That the movement did not begin in the British Isles is probably because the English people had had their revolutions in 1641 and 1688. But if the condition of Frenchmen was generally far better than that of the people in German and Slavic lands, and also Italy and Spain, the condition of many of them was grievous enough. France of the Old Regime, was a land of established privilege for a few people, and of much misery for many of the rest. The contrast between con- ditions then and now is so great that the student is apt to think the old evils resulted from great tyranny and wicked- ness of rulers at the end of the eighteenth century; but, indeed, these conditions had come down through a long course of centuries in tenacious survival or natural develop- ment, and a hundred and fifty years ago they existed al- most everywhere in the world. In France, where the population was probably about twenty -five millions, most of the wealth and most of the power, the social importance and most of the political control French Rev- olution and Industrial Revolution Why the / Revolution began in France ^ Conditions under the Regime Churchmen and nobles [ 42 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Privileges of class Bourgeoisie Their position were in the hands of the nobility, perhaps a hundred thous- and in number, who were at an immeasurable distance above the rest of the people. They monopolized most of the high offices and salaries in the state, in the army, in the Church. It has been estimated that nobility and Church owned half of the soil of the kingdom, and that the great mass of the people paid to them a fourth of all they produced. They had many special privileges, which had come down from feudal times but now bore grievously on the peasants. Many of them received from the govern- ment huge salaries for doing little or nothing. In Britain also at this time a nobility controlled the government and owned a great part of the wealth and privilege of the king- dom; but it was the glory of the British aristocracy that they were usually the constructive leaders of their people, living among their tenants on their estates for part of the year. In France, however, the nobles were burdensome and not so useful, since it had for a long time been the policy of the kings of France to draw the nobles away from their districts and keep them about the royal court in subservience, magnificence, and glory. Next down in the scale was the French middle class, the bourgeoisie, less numerous and important than the middle class in England then, but greater than the bourgeoisie of any other European coimtry, and perhaps more impor- tant than the middle class recently in Russia. They were the merchants and traders, the manufacturers or masters in the guilds, the professional men, lawyers, physicians, and bankers; altogether less than two millions, perhaps. They and the members of the upper class had most of the brains and intelligence, and most of the capacity for leader- ship in the country. But whereas the nobles and greater clergy were relaxed from possession of special privilege, and were sinking deeper into sloth and splendid decay, the bourgeoisie to some extent made their position for them- selves and kept it by ability and hard work. They were THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 43 Town workers and peasants to be the principal leaders in the revolution approaching. But they also profited by special privilege and exclusive right. The "masters" of the guilds practically monopo- lized industry and trade, and were able to avoid changes and keep out the competition of others who wanted to share in their profits. In France, as in other Continental coun- tries then, the guild system lasted on long after its useful- ness was over, still able to prevent such changes as made the Industrial Revolution in England. The lowest class comprised more than nine tenths of all the French people, the peasants, and the workers in the towns. The town workers had no chance, as a rule, ever to rise in their trades or better their condition, but lived huddled in poverty and despair. From among them were to come some of the wildest and most terrible of the Revo- lutionary mobs. Worse was the state of most of the peasan- try, engaged in agriculture, almost all of them on the estates of great lords, to whom they paid heavy rent and many other obligations also. Serfdom had largely passed away in France, though there were still many thousands of peasants partly unfree, mostly in Alsace and Lorraine. But the French peasants had progressed upward more slowly than their brethren in England. They still owed many manorial dues and obligations. Crops must be sold in the lord's market, grain must be ground in his mill, bread baked only in his oven, and for all this they must pay heavy dues. In France as elsewhere the nobility had the sole right to hunt and kill game; the peasants must assist them, but were debarred by savage game laws from mterfering with rabbits or deer which often fattened on their crops. In some places the peasant labored under more restrictions and burdens than elsewhere, the obliga- tions varying according to old local customs come down from the time when France was a country of feudal divi- sions. \ The government of France had long been powerful and Taxes Manorial dues 44 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Poverty Misery Conditions relatively good ambitious and accordingly its expenses were very great. Its revenue was derived mostly from the middle and the lower classes. The clergy were largely exempt and many of the nobles evaded paying taxes. From the peasantry most of the taxation was wrung, half their income, some have said. The principal direct taxes were the taille, tax on land, or in some places a proportion of income, and the corvSe or labor on public works or the highways. The land tax was arbitrarily assessed by the government each year generally as high as the peasants could pay; and often they let their hovels go to ruin and went about in rags, conceal- ing such possessions as they had, since, as with the Irish tenants in the nineteenth century, any appearance of projS- perity was apt to be followed by an increase in the pay- ments demanded. About half of the revenue was raised by indirect taxes, of which the most celebrated was the gabelle upon salt. This and other indirect taxes were farmed out to speculators, who paid to the government a lump sum, and then tried to collect more than that amount for themselves. It is easy to exaggerate the depression of the French people. A great many were undoubtedly very wretched. Travellers, like Arthur Young, the Englishman, and Frenchmen like Rousseau and D'Argenson, have written accounts of misery and hunger and dull despair, which seem very horrible to modem readers and make the Revolution appear to have been inevitable. But it must constantly be remembered that such conditions and worse prevailed almost everywhere then, and usually had pre- vailed for most people. In the last years of the eighteenth century there were undoubtedly many prosperous peas- ants in France, and the national wealth and the population seem to have continued to increase. The government had been great and respected and feared a long while, and France had scarcely been invaded for three hundred years. It is true that most of the people had no part in THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 45 the government; that they paid heavy taxes, were subject to many vexatious restrictions; that they might be thrown into prison without any cause shown, without the remedy of habeas corpus which Englishmen considered their birth- right; that Protestants were sent to the galleys for heresy; that criminals were broken on the wheel and left to die in lingering torment: all this is true; yet it is very probable that people were happier and that life and property were safer in France than almost anywhere else in the world then. The upheaval soon to come was caused by abuses, not so terrible as to crush the spirit of the people, not so great as elsewhere in Europe, but sufficient to make much discon- tent. But the way was also prepared by enormous in- tellectual and moral changes. Slowly and almost imper- ceptibly there had developed in the most favored portions of Europe, and especially in France, a larger measure of humanity and kindness, of sympathy and desire for things to be better; and along with this went a spirit of scepticism, a questioning of things past and present, and attempts to examine them in the light of reason. Montesquieu and Voltaire both made a study of laws and institutions in France and elsewhere; both of them knew something of the English system; and both hoped that there might be en- lightened reforms in France. About the middle of the eighteenth century Diderot and a group of followers and companions began publishing the monumental Encyclo- pSdie^ in which they attempted to sum up the knowledge of their time, and give to the public the results of new science and thought arising about them. During the same period Voltaire became the intellectual leader of Europe. In his numerous writings, which fill nearly a hundred volumes, there is not much directly constructive. It was his mission to attack and make ridiculous and destroy the shams, superstitions, the ab- surdities, and the outworn things which hindered people Causes tending toward change Humanitar- ianism and reason Voltaire 46 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Rousseau Develop- ment of democratic ideas and harassed them. His writing, like that of the other French masters of this age, was clear and simple, in ad- mirable taste and very attractive; he was one of the greatest of all the masters of mockery, satire, and biting wit. Everywhere his writings were read and admired. For ages no one had done so much to prepare men for the sweeping away of existing obsolete institutions. Of greater importance was the work of Rousseau. He was a man with much weakness, often contemptible in character, yet of great moral strength and intellectual dar- ing. In the seventeenth century some Englishmen had taught the doctrine that men were equal and should gov- ern themselves. Their efforts soon failed and their writ- ings got little attention. But their doctrines were taken by Rousseau and others and stated with a brilliancy and an earnestness that everywhere attracted a following. " Man was bom free," he said; "he is everywhere now in chains." Civilization and the government which some men had imposed on others had in course of time reduced most people to misery and subjection. The remedy was a return to the state of nature. All men ought to be free, and government in the hands of the people. Rousseau was the first great exponent of democracy. His ideas were studied and mildly approved by many of the upper classes, who believed that it would be good if such things could be, but who felt very sure that they could not. At the same time, gradually reaching people in the lower classes, his teachings excited strange stirring and ambition. Most persons of consequence then believed that aristocracy must always exist; but more and more people now began to dream in some vague way that the world could be so bettered that there might be freedom and equality and happiness for all. In America men wrote Rousseau's ideas into the Declaration of Independence; and in France a few years later they came to be the basic THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 47 principles of the French Revolution. All through the nineteenth century there was steady growth of democracy, and one of the greatest of all the things in that wonderful hundred years was the effort to see whether doctrines of de- mocracy could be realized completely. During the French Revolution a little later men were to reform things with respect to ideas of liberty, fraternity, and equality; but after a little while much of their most radical work would be swept away in reaction. In the United States people were to hold even more steadfastly to their belief that democracy had succeeded completely and that it would be the portion of European people in happier times to come; but European thinkers would point out that democratic success in America was apparently owing in no small part to the free land which men might have who desired it, and that the real test would come in the twentieth century when this land had all been taken. None the less in 1917, when the United States entered the Great War, her people had come to believe that the struggle was a final contest between autocratic and democratic systems. Thus far had gone the old ideas which Rousseau had taught long before. If there were many things in France of the Old Regime which needed reform; if there were brilliant writers shaking the faith of people in that which was old, or teaching strange, revolutionary doctrines, none of these things would necessarily have brought on the French Revolution. As in so many other instances, it was an almost fortuitous combination of causes which brought the result. France saw the accession in 1774 of Louis XVI, a good and well-meaning man, but irresolute and without ability or force of character. During his predecessor's long reign there had been great and fruitless wars, much failure, and frequently incompetent administration. The old financial system had been slowly breaking down, and the country long been going toward bankruptcy, when in 1778, in order to get revenge upon England and curb her power, France In the nine- teenth cen- tury Revolution not a neces- sary conse- quence Louis XVI 48 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Financial The Etats Generaux summoned Meeting of the States General Organization undertook to assist the American colonies to obtain in- dependence. She won the war, but she was financially ruined for the time. Two great French ministers and masters of finance, Turgot and Necker, had seen clearly that only by thorough-going reforms could the monarchy become solvent, but the privileged classes had interfered and caused their dismissal. By 1786 there was a huge annual deficit, no additional taxes could be raised, and no more money could be borrowed. Accordingly, next year the king was compelled to summon the Notables, or prin- cipal ecclesiastics and nobles, but they could give little help, for they were unwilling to pay any considerable share of the taxes. In the Middle Ages, when the English parliament was developing, similar bodies were developing in France and in Spain. In Spain they had long since disappeared, and in France the States General, representative of the three great estates or classes, clergy, nobles, and bourgeoisie, had not been assembled since 1614. In 1788 Louis XVI was advised to have them come and give counsel. There was now hunger, discontent, and unrest. Had a great ruler guided the forces which were about to be moved in France and in western Europe, there might have been sub- stantial betterment and only moderate reform; but actually this event marked the end of the Old Regime. May 5, 1789 the States General met near the great palace of Versailles, and listened to a speech from the king. A fourth of the members were nobles, a fourth the clergy, and half represented the towns, in the Third Estate. The delegates, especially in the Third Estate, brought with them cahiers, or reports, which recounted evils and de- manded reforms, many of these cahiers reflecting the spirit of recent radical teaching. According to ancient practice the three orders voted separately as bodies, so that the privileged upper classes always had the majority in their two orders. But now fjiMi^^ THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 49 there was current the contention that States General should sit as one body, the members voting individually and rep- resenting the nation. This might result in the nobles and the higher clergy being in the minority, and they for the most part opposed it. A bitter struggle began. On June 17th the Third Estate proclaimed that the orders should organize as a national assembly, and soon after they were A National joined by the lower clergy and a few of the liberal nobles. Assembly Then the king prepared to interfere; whereupon the gath- ering followed Mirabeau and Sieyes, their leaders, to a neighboring tenniS-court where they solemnly swore that — as members of the National Assembly they would not separate till they had written a constitution for France. After this the nobles and upper clergy came to sit with them. Troops were now assembled about Versailles, and it The mob in seemed that the National Assembly might be overawed ^"^^ or dismissed. Suddenly the mob rose in Paris, and, after wild disorder and looting, forced the surrender of the Bastille, the old state prison, in the eyes of the people the very symbol of the Ancien Regime, While the Bastille was being destroyed the people of Paris set up a commune in the city, in which the government was put in the hands of representatives elected by the people of the different districts. They enrolled a citizen militia, the National Guard, and it was evident that a powerful champion had arisen to defend the Assembly. For a time the king acquiesced, but soon there was fur- Paris saves ther plotting to dismiss the Assembly. Rumors of this *^e National came to Paris, and on October 5th, a terrible and uncouth ^^^^"^"^y mob went streaming forth to Versailles. During the wild night that followed, the royal family was saved by Lafayette and the National Guard, but next day the mob and the Guard returned to the city bringing the king and his family, and shortly after the Assembly followed them. The National Assembly was now sitting in the midst of the most radical of the people of France. 50 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Disorders in the country Work of the National Assembly Reforms Meanwhile the old order was perishing in France. The mass of the people, rude and ignorant, hoped that the States General would amend all wrongs, and believed that all things for their betterment were possible. Disorders and discontent soon broke out, and in the provinces ad- ministration and government came to a standstill. The peasants rose up and drove out the lords or their stewards and sacked the magnificent chdteaux. Monasteries were plundered, officials driven away. In blind wrath the people began at once to pull down all the institutions which seemed to them hateful and oppressive. Until the spring of 1789 the government of France had been vested entirely in the king and his subordinate officials and councils. During the summer the Estates General, led by the Third Estate, became the National Assembly of France, and proposed to reform old abuses and make a new constitution. Like the Long Parliament of 1640 in England, they meant to effect great changes and make thorough-going reforms, but they were for the present led by comparatively moderate men, who desired no absolute break with the existing order of things. As was the case with the great parliament in England, the work now first done was the best, the wisest, and most lasting. Some of the great reforms begun in the period 1789-91 were destined to endure permanently for the good of France. In August 1789, after the uprisings in the country, the National Assembly abolished serfdom, and provided for the abolition of all the feudal or manorial payments and obligations, a work completed four years later. In No- vember, the Church property was confiscated, and a little later the monasteries were suppressed, thus taking from the Church, which was one of the greatest and firmest supports of the old order, its vast possessions comprising about a fifth of the soil of the kingdom. The property thus secularized was used as security upon which to issue THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 51 the paper money, or assignats, which were the basis of revolutionary finance. Another great change was made in proclaiming complete religious freedom; and in August 1790 the clergy were taken from the control of the Pope, made subject to the state, which was to pay their salaries, and their election provided for by the people. This ec- clesiastical legislation was carried through by the en- lightened sceptics, disciples of Voltaire and others like him, who controlled the Assembly; but it soon produced a great gulf between two sections of the people in France. The Pope protested against the taking of Church property and making the clergy a civil body. He forbade Catholics to obey the decrees; and the priests, who at the start had assisted so greatly in forwarding the Revolution, now began to oppose it, and to influence the peasants against it. The Revolution prevailed, and in France the Church never was restored to the position it held before 1789; but when the Revolutionary days were past the clergy and the religious orders long continued to support as much of the older order as they could. Many of the nobles had by this time left France, and as Emigres in foreign courts were striving to get foreign inter- vention. Meanwhile the Assembly went on with reforms and the task of writing a constitution. Often there was the utmost difficulty. The National Guard controlled Paris, but mobs frequently made their influence felt. Inside the chamber the Assembly was already divided into political parties: the very conservative, known as the Right from the part of the hall where they sat, and the very radical, the Left, disciples of Rousseau; between them the more important bodies of the Center, who wanted the monarchy preserved, though limited by a written constitu- tion. Some of them would have restricted power to the Wealthy and upper class, some would have extended it to the middle class, but not to the mass of the poor. In the center sat Lafayette, and Si^yes, and Mirabeau. But while Church and state Parties within the Assembly 52 EUROPE, 1789-1920 PoUtical Clubs The Consti- tution of 1791 Declaration of Rights The new government of France liberals and moderate conservatives controlled the body drawing up the constitution, and while the extremists were a small minority there, outside the Assembly political bodies or Clubs were growing up, of which the Jacobins were most famous, by means of which the radicals pres- ently swayed the multitude, and began to intimidate the members of the Assembly. In the spring of 1791 Mira- beau died, and with him passed away the greatest mod- erate leader of the Revolution. The king, terrified now by the Paris mobs and influenced by old associations, resolved to flee from the city to his friends. He was easily brought back, and the radicals and populace would have had him put from the throne, but the National Guard of the middle class prevented it, and in September presented to Louis the new constitution, which he swore to uphold. The Constitution of 1791 was the first written constitu- tion of importance which any European nation had ever got, and with the exception of the one adopted by the American states (1787-9), the first one of importance in the world. The preamble, the Declaration of Rights, had been drawn up some time before. Like the writings of Rousseau and the American Declaration of Independence it asserted that "Men are born in equal rights and remain so"; and that law, which should express the will of the people, must be made by the people and be the same for them all. It proclaimed freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. It declared that no one should be arrested or imprisoned except in accordance with the law. Thus at a stroke it attempted to assert for the French people those privileges which had so slowly grown up in England and been so zealously defended in America, and more than that it carried France forward further than any people so far had been taken. The constitution gave the principal power of the central government to a legislative assembly, of one chamber, elected for two years froni men of property, by indirect THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 53 election. The franchise, given to about three fourths of the men, was restricted to those who paid a certain amount of taxes. Actually this was a very wide extension of the right to vote, for nowhere in the world then was the fran- chise given to all the people or all of the men. The king was not to dismiss the assembly, nor prevent that body from passing laws, though he had a temporary veto, and he had no control over local government, army, or navy. Thus the executive was too weak. Local government had already been reformed. The old, overlapping, and confused divisions of France were done away with, along with the surviving remnants of provincial governments which had existed in them from older times, and instead now the country was divided into departments, which were divided into smaller subdivisions, arrondissements, cantons, and communes, which continue to exist in France at present. In these districts local government was estab- lished, consisting of representatives and officials elected by the people. Far too much power was vested in these local bodies, and this change did not endure. This system of limited constitutional monarchy in place of absolutism, and power of bourgeoisie and upper classes instead of the nobles alone, lasted less than two years. On the one hand it was detested by those who loved the old order, while on the other hand it fell far short of satisfying the radicals, who wanted more drastic changes, and a great body of the lower classes whose economic condition was not yet bettered and who were excluded from any real control. The moderate leaders who had so far guided reform had believed that it would be well for France to have limited monarchy similar to that of Great Britain; but now there arose teachers, like Marat, who pro- claimed that England was ruled by an upper class, that this was not what the French people should try to attain, and like Danton and Robespierre, who yearned to estab- lish a real democracy, with government and power vested Local government Weakness of the new con- stitutional system The radicals 54 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Jacobins The Legisla- tive Assem- bly Hostility abrbad in all of the people. They and men like them worked ceaselessly in their Clubs, stirred up the proletariat of Paris, published newspapers and pamphlets which spread wide the new thoughts and radical ideas, and carried on corres- pondence with men of like mind in the other cities of France. Foremost of these organizations in Paris was the club of the Jacobins, which had established branches in most of the towns of France. In the confusion which presently arose they were seen to have not merely the ablest and most daring leaders, but the only well-organized political machinery in France; and, just as long afterward happened in Russia, they soon got disproportionate strength, and presently supreme power in the country. The Legislative Assembly, elected in 1791 under the new constitution contained few members of political experience or statesmanlike ability, for the leaders who had just drafted the constitution were declared not eligible for election. Only a minority of the members were ardent supporters of the new constitution. Presently the ma- jority of the members followed the lead of the Girondists, whose leaders came from the Department of the Gironde, who represented the radical feeling of the country rather than of the capital, many of whom wished to establish a republic. More extreme than they were the Jacobin members, known as the "Mountain," from the higher seats where they sat in the chamber, who expressed the radical feeling of Paris, and hoped for a democracy in France. The EmigrSs abroad were preparing expeditions to return and win back the things they had lost, while the sovereigns of the old monarchies and empires of Europe looked with dismay upon what seemed to them wild and monstrous up- heaval in France, which might, if not checked soon, spread abroad to their lands also. Foremost in desiring to inter- vene was Leopold II, of Austria, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. He was brother of Marie Antoinette, Louis's queen, and champion of absolutism and divine I THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 55 right. August 1791, the Emperor and the King of Prussia •Issued the Declaration of Pillnitz, proclaiming that it was the common interest of European sovereigns to restore what the Revolutionists had overthrown. This aroused vast indignation in France; and in the passion and confu- sion that followed, the Girondists got control of the gov- ernment. They felt that safety of the reforms just won, and hope of getting further amendment, depended upon resisting the interference of foreign kings, and so they were eager to take up arms. In this they were supported by the moderate upholders of the constitution who believed that a successful war would firmly establish the new system. A great wave of emotion swept over the country. Men took up weapons and hastened toward the frontier, and began to sing the new Marseillaise as they went. But the French were ill-prepared for a war^ and dis- couraging failures followed. The royal family was in ^pecret communication with the enemy and hoping for the invaders' success. In July 1792 the Duke of Brunswick, leader of the allied invading armies, issued a manifesto, declaring that he came to end the anarchy and restore the king, and he threatened Paris with destruction if the royal family were harmed. In August the mob of Paris rose in violent insurrection and the constitutional govern- ment was overthrown. The Commune of Paris, controlled by the bourgeoisie, was supplanted by a commune based upon the mass of the people. The king sought refuge with the Assembly in terror for his life, and many of the Assem- bly fled from Paris. The remaining members now voted to suspend the king from his office and declared that a National Convention should at once be elected by man- hood suffrage to draft a new constitution. For some days anarchy reigned. All the while the invaders were pressing on into the country. The frontier fortresses fell and the invaders pushed on for Paris. Then began the horrible September massacres of the Royalists in Paris, for the Declaration of Pillnitz The French defeated The Com- mune of Paris 86 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Valmy, 1792 The National Convention 1792-5 The new order The Repub- lic triumph- ant and aggressive Feeling abroad deliberate purpose of striking terror into the hearts of enemies and traitors. Amidst shocking brutality som# hundreds of the best-born people in Paris were put to death. But the tide now turned. The Prussians were defeated at Valmy, in what was only a skirmish, yet in its effects one of the decisive battles in European history. "From this day commences a new era," wrote Goethe who was present on the field. It was felt now that France was saved and with it also the Revolution. In the midst of enormous enthusiasm the leaders went forward to new changes. On the day of the battle the National Conven- tion assembled. The members resolved to make a com- plete new beginning of things. September 22, 1792 was to be the beginning of the Year I of a new age. France was to be a republic. The king was deposed, imprisoned later put on trial, and in 1793 put to death. The Emigres were banished for ever from France. ^ Meanwhile the Prussians soon lost interest in the cam- paign, and the Austrians fought with no success. France was cleared of foes, and a republican army entering the Austrian Netherlands was welcomed by the people and quickly drove the Austrians out. The French people, wild with enthusiasm, now believed that they could carry the benefits of their revolution to the oppressed people of all the countries of Europe. In December 1792 the National Convention announced that it would treat as enemies any people who submitted to princes or privileged classes, but would fight to the end to establish in other lands equality and government by the people. Thus did the radicals and revolutionaries boldly challenge the old order in Europe, and rouse up against themselves one of the most powerful combinations ever brought upon France. In England some had greatly sympathized with the Revolution at first, and in the Low Countries, along the Rhine, and in Italy some of the inhabitants yearned THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 57 for the things which the French revolutionists had won; j»ut all the established governments, most of the people of Europe, and many in France, not only regarded the Revo- lution as hateful, but saw it as a very dangerous thing to be stamped out before it spread farther. The execution of Louis XVI filled with horror and aversion the upper classes and the conservative people of Europe, at the same time that formidable insurrections broke out in France itself. In 1793 a powerful coalition was formed of Austria and Prussia, already at war with France, and Great Britain, Spain, Holland, and the north Italian state. Savoy. Frenchmen were driven out of Belgium and the Rhine country, and the enemy again threatened to march on Paris. France and the Revolution were saved by splendid and suddenly provided military organization and by the grand- est outburst of national feeling which any people had ^hown since the Romans made war upon Hannibal. The spirit of nationality had its beginning on a grand scale in France during the dangers of Revolutionary times. Nationalism means the consciousness felt by people that they are bound together by common ties and interests, which make them a distinct group compared with other peoples. Often it is based on common language; some- times on racial characteristics, common religion and ideals; sometimes on enthusiasm and feeling which can scarce be explained. One of the most difficult things to arouse, when created it is one of the most powerful of all the feel- ings which can actuate large numbers of men. In antiquity people were held together by family or tribal ties, which can only bind a small number, or else by force from above in the old empires which so easily fell to pieces. The vast and long-enduring Roman Empire did in the end make many of its people feel that they were bound together by the tie of being Roman citizens, but after the fall of the Empire western Europe all through the Nationalism In earlier times 58 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Nations The Revolu- tion and na- tional feeling Middle Ages was divided into small feudal districts, or larger jurisdictions held together in groups by force at the^ top. The history of England all through the Anglo-Saxon period (449-1066) is the story of efforts, largely unsuccess- ful, to make the inhabitants of the different parts feel that they were Englishmen, members of one state. In Ireland this was not accomplished. Italy, the Germanics, Russia, all failed until very late to achieve unity and feeling of common interest, and Poland has only just attained it. The people of England, France, Spain, and some other lands had got unity and strength by the end of medieval times, and had so strong a feeling of common interest that nations appeared to have arisen. At first the word nation had denoted merely a group bound together by family tie, (nati, to be born). In medieval days it seems to have been used to designate groups of university students who came from the same district or country. Gradually it was given to all the people of a single state; but it could^ not yet connote the strength and feeling which later cir- cumstances were to give it. In the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries the people in France, Spain, or England had for the most part no share in government or the better things of life. They were ruled by upper classes or centralized governments. They could not in the nature of things have the feeling of mexi who themselves took part and had interest in the rule of the state. In 1793 many of the French people became conscious for the first time that they were the state. Now they could be roused to defend the new order which had given them so much; and could be made to rise up with an en- thusiasm never before shown by the mass of the people of any large country. When the invaders closed in on their land, they sprang forward in great bodies to hurl them back, and there was a wild spirit of exuberance and power which people had not felt before. That is what gives such enormous importance to the rally of the French people in THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 59 1793; it was a movement of the people themselves, act- uated by a new and more real consciousness of national feeling. For the first time was this force unloosed in Europe, and it was destined to overturn the old order. It was about to defeat all its enemies and save the Revolu- tion; it was the basis of the greatness of France when Na- poleon came to power. When the same spirit was still later aroused in the hearts of Spaniards and Russians and Germans, Napoleon was finally to be defeated. During the nineteenth century nationality made a united Italy and a united Germany. At the beginning of the twentieth century it was exaggerated and developed until it became one of the potent, indirect causes of the War of the Nations. But it was not merely the e;nthusiasm of national feeling which saved France from her enemies now. Before 1789 the French had had the best military organization and the ablest military teachers in Europe. They now had the old organization and the old tradition to build on. More- ever, they had in Carnot, one of the Jacobin radicals, a great genius for military administration. He and his associates planned campaigns, provided materials of war, and raised huge republican national armies, which pres- ently by sheer weight of numbers and because of the fiery ardor of their spirit overwhelmed all the enemies who opposed them. France was cleared of the foe, and again the Republicans went beyond the frontiers. In a short time Frenchmen had occupied territory as far as the Rhine and got for France the "natural" frontiers which her statesmen and generals during centuries had striven to obtain. All this was accomplished while France seemed in danger of falling to pieces. There was a great revolt of Catholics and Conservatives in La Vendee, in the west. Moreover the Girondists, who at first controlled the Convention, were overthrown by force; then the Jacobins getting con- trol proceeded to far more radical and democratic reforms. Nationalism in the nineteenth century Military organization Revolts France m 60 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Reign of Terror, 1793-4 Effects of the Terror Motives of the agents The result was that numerous revolts broke out in the provinces, where people were not willing to suffer the dic- tation of Paris or go as far as the Jacobins wished. Tou- lon, the great Mediterranean naval base, received a British fleet, and there were insurrections in Marseilles, Lyons, Nantes, Bordeaux, and other places. But all this was relentlessly crushed. The Jacobins in the Convention established a marvellously strong and efficient central government, and undertook deliberately to stamp out all treason and disaffection by terror and force. A Com- mittee of Public Safety including Carnot, Robespierre, and others, took supreme control of affairs, and the period from the summer of 1793 to that of the next year was afterward known as the Reign of Terror. In Paris the queen, all the nobles who could be reached, and all others suspected of disaffection, were beheaded by the guillotine, which had just been invented. Toulon was recaptured, and the rebellion stamped out in the other places. Fear- ful vengeance was taken. At Nantes boatloads of vic- tims were sunk in the Loire, and decree went forth that Lyons should be razed to the ground. Altogether many thousands of excellent people and high-born victims per- ished; and the Jacobins earned for themselves that terrible and hateful renown which is still, after more than a hun- dred years, so strongly associated with them. It was afterward as easy to praise them and apologize as now it is to advocate the leaders in Russia. There is no doubt that the best of the Jacobins sincerely wished to destroy old abuses and better the conditions of the masses. Marat and Danton were as filled with zeal for the people as Nicolai Lenine was for the proletariat in 1920. Robes- pierre yearned to bring to pass all the teachings of Rous- seau as Trotzky worked for extremest socialist doctrines. Carrier, who drowned the prisoners at Nantes, Collot and Fouche who mowed down the victims at Lyons with grape- shot, Freron at Toulon, and Le Bon at Cambrai, whatever .^mk THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 61 delight they took in this butchery, could all believe, and cause others afterward to repeat, that they took the short- est way to accomplish good ends. It is true that few people thus lost their lives in comparison with the unnumbered victims of great wars. Yet it is a sound instinct which causes men's minds to dwell much upon the destruction of the most prominent and highest. If it be said that it was really the most merciful way to end the divisions and re- volts in France, it must be remembered also that such reasoning was used by the Germans in Belgium and north- ern France, and the Bolsheviki in Russia. Louis Blanc, the socialist, afterward wrote: "It is a falsehood to say that the Terror saved France, it may be affirmed that it crippled the Revolution." France was saved from foreign invasion, and the Jaco- bins proceeded to establish a new democratic order. Supported by the workingmen of Paris, they had deposed the Girondists in May 1793, and afterward put the leaders to death. But the Jacobin leaders themselves, one after another, came to untimely end. In July a young woman stabbed Marat to death. Robespierre was now leader of the Convention and the Committee. On the one hand he overthrew Hebert, who led the Paris Commune and wished to establish atheism and divide property among all the people; but on the other he sent Danton to the guillo- tine because he advised moderation and a return to earlier conditions. For a short time in 1794 Robespierre was virtually dictator of France. He reopened the churches, which had been closed, and laid magnificent plans for the extension of education and democracy among the people. But these plans he meant to carry through, swiftly and despite all opposition, by relentless employment of Terror, and a great number of people were brought to their death. Actually now a reaction was beginning, and the more mod- erate members of the Convention, who disapproved his policy and at the same time trembled for their safety, sud- Jacobins control the Convention Robespierre Reaction 62 EUROPE, 1789-1920 denly got control of aflFairs, and put him to death. So ended the Reign of Terror, in July 1794. Then the Convention proceeded to finish its constructive work, which in after days came to be seen as the most important work that it did. Reforms The Constituent Assembly, 1789-91, representing the made by the bourgeois interests, had destroyed the old privileges of Convention aristocracy, and given political rights to most of the people. The work of the National Convention, 1792-5, was mostly in the interests of the great mass of the people, the lower classes, having to do principally with social and economic affairs. As the property of the Church had been taken already, so now the lands of the emigrant nobles were confiscated by the state, and sold. At first they passed largely into the hands of speculators and a new body of large proprietors who were rising in the confusion of the time, but after a while they were bought in small The peas- holdings by the peasants. Vast results came from this, ants and the For centuries the tendency in Europe had been for the consolidation of holdings into large estates. In the new world there was a notable exception: the people of the United States, with much free land, became a nation in which a great number of men owned their own farms. In France even before 1789 some of the land was being acquired in small holdings by the peasants; now after the beginning of the Revolution, a great deal more came into the possession of thrifty peasants, who presently became the very backbone of the nation and the basis of its great- ness in the nineteenth century. Thereafter they were the main conservative part of the nation. In 1789 they had risen up in wild rebellion against their lords; but the feudal burdens had been removed by the National Assem- bly, and in the following years they began getting the ownership of the land which they worked. After that radicalism was confined to the cities. So long as it seemed to the peasants ihsit Emigres or reactionaries might undo the Revolutionary work and cause them to lose their THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 63 land-holdings the peasants supported or endured the ad- ministration of Danton and Robespierre, just as in 1919 the Russian peasants rallied to some extent in support of the Bolsheviki. But the French country people soon turned away from the radicalism of Paris, and welcomed the more conservative rule of the Directory and the se- curity which Napoleon gave. The socialist schemes of the Paris workingmen in 1848 and the communism of Paris in 1871 were overthrown largely because of the hostility of the small proprietors in the country. A scheme of national education was prepared, as well as a plan for making a uniform code or collection of the laws, which later on led to the free public school system which has been built up in France, and to Napoleon's celebrated Code. At this time also the Metric System was adopted. Furthermore, certain great principles were established, that there should be no slavery, that children should inherit almost equally from their parents, and that men should not be imprisoned for debt. The extremists did in addition try to bring to pass many strange and absurd things which involved a complete break with the sentiment and tradition of the past. All this inevitably soon came to an end and was afterward remembered only with derision. Meanwhile, the reaction, already perceptible, con- tinued. After Robespierre, the Convention came pres- ently under control of the bourgeoisie again. A new constitution was drafted, and became effective in 1795. According to this Constitution of the Year III the execu- tive was to be the Directory, a committee of five, chosen by the legislature. The legislative consisted of two houses chosen by electors with property qualifications. Against this government the National Guard of Paris rose in the insurrection of the Thirteenth VendSmiaire, but was easily dispersed. The Directory, the government of the new middle-class republic, endured for four years. During this time France endeavored to hold off her enemies Reforms begun Extremist proposals Constitution of the Year III The Directory, 1795-1799 64 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Eighteenth Bnunaire The work of the Revolu- tion secure The great results and complete the work of reconstruction. At last in 1799 by the Coup d'Etat, or sudden stroke of state, of Brumaire 18th and 19th, it was overthrown by Napoleon Bonaparte and those ajssociated with him. Often it has been said that the French Revolution now came to an end. It did not seem so at the time, and mod- em scholars declare that Napoleon and his associates saved it from reaction and destruction, and made possible carrying it forward still further. The days of extreme social radicalism and the Terror had come definitely to an end, and already many of the most extreme changes had been undone. But the best work of the Revolution was secure. The worst abuses and obsolete things of the Old Regime had been permanently ended. Liberty, fraternity, and equality, the watchwords of the reformers, had been given to a great many of the people of France in larger measure than ever before in the history of the world. Against a host of enemies the Revolutionists had made their cause good and saved their work. Bloodshed, vio- lence, and horrible deeds had been done, but these things, if the most spectacular and longest remembered, were in the end seen to be the least of the work of the reformers. However mistaken some of their methods and ideals, they had honestly worked for the good of the mass of the people. That some of their work was impossible, and much of it too radical and far in advance of the time, and so destined soon to be overthrown by natural reaction, is evident. But they had brought about enormous gains for the middle and lower classes in France; their work would be carried into all lands adjacent and leave perma- nent results there; they would serve for ages as an encour- agement and a hope for men everywhere who wished for things better. The effects of the American Revolution, great as they were, are not to be compared with those of the movement in France. The one took place among a few millions of people far away on the world's frontier, THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 65 ^' . . the other in the midst of the most populous of the highly- civilized nations, in the center of the world's affairs. The French Revolution, which was the most important event in Europe in the eighteenth century, was also one of the greatest events in the history of civilized men. BIBLIOGRAPHY " The causes of the Revolution: E. J. Lowell, The Eve of the French Revolution (1892) ; Arthur Young, Travels in France and Italy during the Years 1787, 1788, and 1789 (numerous editions). For more extended study : Aime Cherest, La Chute de VAncien Regime, 1787-1789, 3 vols. (1884-6); Charles Gomel, Les Causes Financieres de la RSvolution Frangaise, 2 vols. (1892-3) ; Maxime Kovalevsky, La France Economique et Sociale a la Veille de la Revolution, 2 vols. (1909-11), excellent; Merrick Whitcomb, Typical Cahiers of 1789 (Translations and Reprints of the Univer- sity of Pennsylvania, 1898). For the great writers who assisted and interpreted the changes: John (Viscount) Morley, Diderot and the Encyclopaedists, 2 vols. (1891), Voltaire (1903), Critical Miscellanies, 4 vols. (1892-1908); Arthur Chuquet, J. J. Rous- seau (1901); and some of the writings themselves, as Montes- quieu, De r Esprit des Lois (1748), Rousseau, Contrat Social (1762), Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764). The Revolution: the best of the shorter works is Louis Made- lin. La Revolution (1911), trans. The French Revolution (1916); H. E. Bourne, The Revolutionary Period in Europe {17 68-1815) (1914); J. H. Rose, The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era, 1789-1815 (1898); H. M. Stephens, A History of the French Revolution, 2 vols. (1886-91). Of longer works the best is Alphonse Aulard, Histoire Poli- tique de la Revolution Frangaise, 1789-180J^, (3d ed. 1905), trans, by Bernard Miall, 4 vols. (1910) ; Albert Sorel, VEurope et la Revolution Frangaise, 8 vols. (1885-1904); Heinrich von Sybel, Geschichte der Revolutionzeit von 1789, 5 vols. (3d ed. 1865-79), trans, by W. C. Perry, 4 vols. (1867-9). For laws and constitutions : L. G. W. Legg, Select Documents Illustrative of the French Revolution, 2 vols. (1905); Henri Mon- nier, Les Constitutions et les Principales Lois Politiques de la France depuis 1789 (1898); Leon Cahen and Raymond Guyot, VCEuvre Legislative de la Revolution (1913), best on the subject. Of the sources there are two great collections: Archives Parle- 66 EUROPE, 1789-1920 mentaires de 1787 h 1860: Recueil Complet des Dihats LSgislatifs et Politiques des Chambres Frangaises, 127 vols. (2d ed. 1879- 1913), covering the period 1787 to 1839; and P. J. B. Buchez and P. C. Roux-Lavergne, Histoire Parlementaire de la RSvolu- tion FrangaisCy 1789-18 15 y 40 vols. (1834-8), containing extracts from debates, newspapers, and pamphlets of the time; also Le MoniteuTy 32 vols, (reprint of the most important newspaper). For the Jacobins: A. Aulard, La SociSte des JacobinSy 6 vols. (1889-97), a collection of documents. The Reign of Terror: H. A. Wallon, La TerreuVy 2 vols. (1881), Les ReprSsentants du Peuple en Missioriy 5 vols. (1889- 90), Le Tribunal RSvolutionairey 2 vols. (1900). Contemporary accounts: the memoirs of Bailly, Madame Campan, Ferrieres, Comte de Fersen, Lafayette, Mallet de Pan, and Malouet; Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), conservative but wise, and still the best com- mentary on the work of the National Assembly; Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1791-2); Gouverneur Morris, Diary and Letter Sy 2 vols. (1888). Biographies: E. B. Bax, Babeuf (1911); J. F. E. Robinet, Condorcet (1893); L. Madelin, Danton (1914); Jules Claretie, Camille Desmoulins (1875), trans.; A. Chuquet, Dumouriez (1914); Bernard Malley, Mallet du Pan and the French Revolu- tion (1902); F. M. Fling, The Youth of Mirabeau (1908); Louis Barthou, Mirabeau (1913); H. Belloc, Robespierre (1901). The wars of the Revolution: A. Chuquet, Les Guerres de la Revolutiony 11 vols. (1886-96), to 1793; A. T. Mahan, The In- fluence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and EmpirCy 1793-1812y 2 vols, (several editions). The church: A. Debidour, Histoire des Rapports de VEglise et de VEtat en France de 1789 a 1870 (1898); Pierre de la Gorce, Histoire Religieuse de la Revolution FranqaisCy vols. I, II (1909- 12), for the period 1789-93; Paul Pisani, VEglise de Paris et la Revolutiouy 4 vols. (1908-11). Republicanism: H. A. L. Fisher, The Republican Tradition in Europe (1911). For the history of France in this and subsequent periods, the student should always have in mind for further reference His- tmre SocialistCy 1789-1900 (ed. by Jean Jaures), 12 vols. (1901- 9), the different volumes written by prominent French socialists. .# I CHAPTER IV NAPOLEON Nous sommes maitres du monde. Napoleon to Roederer, December 1, 1800. . . . would sink me in final despair of ever living to see pros- perity or liberty again in any part of Europe. . . . the mili- tary empire might last ages, before its discipline degenerated; and ages more of darkness and idleness might protract the shame and misery of Europe." Letter of Francis Horner to James Loch, July 8, 1808. Sur un ecueil battu par la vague plaintive, Le nautonier, de loin, voit blanchir sur la rive Un tombeau pres du bord par les flots depose; Ici git . . . point de nom! demandez a la terre! Ce nom, il est inscrit en sanglant caractere Des bords du Tanais au sommet du Cedar. . . . Lamartine, "Bonaparte," Secondes MSditations PoStiques (1848) In 1769 Corsica, a mountainous island south of France, The rise of west from the Italian coast, long subject to Genoa, but Napoleon inhabited by Italian-speaking people who ardently wanted ®°^P^ ® Independence, became a possession of France. A little later that year was born there Napoleon Bonaparte (1769- 1821). His people were of good standing in the island and of noble descent; his mother a woman of strong character and remarkable ability. The boy was precocious and early showed promise of unusual qualities. He was sent to France for military education, and just before the Revolu- tion he was sub-lieutenant in an artillery regiment. He first gained distinction at Toulon in 1793, when his saga- city led to the capture of a dominating height and the 67 68 EUROPE, 1789-1920 France against the First Coalition Napoleon's Italian cam- paign, 1797 f/^ withdrawal of the British fleet. He became more important two years later when he took part in dispersing the crowd which had risen to overthrow the Convention. In 1796 he made an advantageous marriage, and about the same time was appointed to command the French armies in Italy. War was still going on with England, Austria and Sar- dinia (Savoy). The French had occupied Belgium, Ger- man territory to the Rhine, and Nice and Savoy in the south. Spain and Prussia had given up the conflict; Russia was far off and occupied with other affairs. But it was probable that England would not make peace while Belgium was in French possession, nor Austria while France kept her Netherlands and retained German and Italian territory which she considered herself bound to protect. The Directory found it no easy task to reduce such powerful foes. England could not be reached, but they planned to attack Austria by sending an army over the Rhine through the south German lands, while a second force was to defeat the Austrians in Italy and then strike northeastward toward Vienna. The latter plan was sug- gested by Napoleon himself. The efforts to crush Austria by crossing the Rhine came to nothing; but meanwhile the young commander, infusing wondrous spirit into his republican soldiers, and at once getting the respect and loyal assistance of the older generals beneath him, took his force into northwest Italy, and, estab- Jishing his communications firmly, moved on against the Au^triaalorces. The campaign which followed is one of the classics of military art, and one of Napoleon's fore- most achievements. He laid siege to Mantua, the great fortress which was the base of Austr ians power. Four times did Austrian armies try to^relieve^it With superior forces. Each time, moving with marvellous rapidity and superb judgment, he caught the hostile armies divided, and defeated the parts with his superior numbers, imtil at last Mantua surrendered. Then the French, after arranging .-jitrvt/iVTita: -v-ff niqm3 1 Empire of Napoleon (Direct Rule) l U li m Empire of Napoleon llllllll (Dependent States) rriyryrn AllieS Of li '•' ■ '• • ■ •' ■I Napoleon KINGDOM \ I ^ OF ' ' SARDINA ^M ED J T ERRAN E S. EUIi •/.\iyF WARSA" ^^ V^:---^^V::^Vieiiiiaiv:;;::vV>:v-X^ "^-v ^^lf^^8S$8$^ :• ^;^/ hVuVn.-g-a- r".y :•>: ' : • :\'/''' fiTiJ^"^°^'^^ ;^- •'•'"•'* '•'•*■•' •* ' ■''•"."* *'■ ''' •'■• "• . NAPOLEON matters in Italy to suit them, crossed the mountains into Austrian territory, and soon came within a hundred miles of Vienna. In October 1797 the Peace of ^mpo-Formio was made. France kept Belgium and organized part of north Italy as a republic; in exchange Bonaparte gave to the Austrians the old and independent state of Venice. The war on the continent thus came to a close. Except for England the great coalition had been dissolved by vic- torious France. Her "natural" frontiers had been estab- lished, and she had partly displaced Austria as dominant power in the Italian peninsula. In the next few years Bonaparte was to establish his reputation as one of the greatest of all generals and one of the most eminent rulers and administrators in the annals of the world. He was small of stature, pale of counte- nance, not handsome, but with splendid forehead, nose, and mouth, and with eyes that looked into the depths of things and awed the souls of men. He had marvellous strength of intellect, vast will-power and force of character. He was possessed of amazing endurance, could do with little sleep, and quickly accomplish results which took or- dinary people a long time. He was infinitely laborious and careful and able to get entire mastery of great masses of detail; but he had in addition those qualities of mind by which some men read the heart of a matter and know the real meaning of things. While not without passion and emotion, he lived much in a world of his own, apart from and above ordinary men and the morality and the law which ruled them. He regarded himself as superior to mankind, and could play with the lives and destinies of innumerable men, without thought of their sufferings or desire, intent only on the grand schemes which he had in his mind. He was a wonderful organizer and administra- tor, great in civil affairs and in matters of government and law; but it was by means of his military greatness that he raised himself, and it was always because of his ex- Treaty of Campo- Formio Bonaparte's appearance and character Superiority and aloofness 70 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Military greatness Develop- ment of the art of war In the eigh- teenth cen- tury ploits in war that he was best known to the men of his time. Bonaparte's military eminence arose from clearly under- standing and first making useof new factors which had slow- ly developed in the art of war. He did not himself originate vast changes in military art ; nor did he, like Julius Caesar, in- vent new methods and devices for the different crises which developed ; so that in the end when his enemies had mastered his methods, they overpowered him with superior resources. Military methods and devices had long been changing. In the sixteenth century slow moving bodies of infantry, armed with pikes, and cavalry made up the armies. Dur- ing the seventeenth century cavalry long continued to be the principal force, though infantry was always indispens- able; but at last infantry came to be the more important arm of the two. By that time foot soldiers fought with firearms, but these weapons were clumsy and slowly dis- charged, and artillery was unwieldy and ineffective. Therefore armies marched slowly; maneuvers were de- liberate; strategy was usually cautious; the forces were drawn up in intricate and difficult arrangement; battles were often indecisive; and wars long drawn out. During the eighteenth century a series of changes was bringing about fundamental alteration. Firearms were so per- fected that a shot could be fired a minute, and later on field artillery was made much lighter and far more effec- tive. The result of this was that whereas formerly all parts of the army had been kept close together in one great body for protection, since the musketeers of Wallenstein's time with their ineffective muskets had to be protected from charging cavalry by dense masses of pikemen, now it was found that smaller bodies of infantry with their much more deadly guns could protect themselves or safely retreat from superior numbers, while artillery assumed an importance in offence never known before. In all of these changes Frenchmen led the way; and by NAPOLEON 71 the latter part of the eighteenth century French military writers were advising, what some commanders were try- ing, that the old solid formations be broken up into smaller bodies to be moved more easily and quickly; that the old, slow, indecisive campaigns give way to rapid, daring, de- cisive action ; that armies live on the country rather than go slowly in order to be accompanied by great supply trains; and that campaigns be won by strategy, by effec- tive movements and combination, rather than the older device of slowly bringing up cumbersome forces. All of these things had been done by the Prussian commander^ Frederick the Great; for the most part, however, the old system lingered on among the commanders. But Bona- parte grasped clearly the enormous importance of artillery, he understood thoroughly the possibilities of infantry equipped with the modern arms, he studied the campaigns of the great captains, and mastered and elaborated their plans. Hejmderstood and applied the old and unchanging principles of strategy: to strike with superior force at the enemy where he is weakest, or to hold a position with in- ferior force while a crushing attack was being prepared for the enemy's flank or rear. He moved so rapidly that he could bring masses of men over different routes and con- centrate them in overwhelming force upon an enemy who scarcely believed that his presence was possible. In the greater campaigns he was wont to leave tactics and local arrangements to subordinates, he himself working out the splendid moves and vast combinations of which great strategy consists. He was, in short, heir to the military excellence of France under the Old Regime and to the im- provements which Frenchmen and others had long been working out; and he used this inheritance with the meth- ods of the great captains and with the skill of a genius. But there were other things too which enabled him in the course of the next few years to build up an empire that threatened to subdue all of Europe. He was heir to the Frenchmen and military art Bonaparte Assisted by the spirit of the Revolu- tion 72 EUROPE, 1789-1920 French Revolution also. That change had swept away old encumbrances from France, aroused within her people intense loyalty and national spirit, and given to them an al- most unconquerable enthusiasm and ardor. Against him were the old monarchies and empires, still clinging to out- worn methods, with people not roused by any strong national spirit, and often without much spirit of resistance. When the Revolution had spent its force, and when Na- poleon had established despotic rule, when nationality and patriotism and desire for a new order of their own had been put into the hearts of other peoples also, then they rose to make themselves free and Napoleon was soon overthrown. In 1798, after Austria had yielded, Bonaparte struck an indirect blow at England. The Directory allowed him to take a powerful army to Egypt in order to conquer that country and then aim a stroke at India beyond. His great fleet of transports crossed the length of the Mediter- ranean, just missed by the British fleet under Nelson, and his army overran Egypt with ease. But Nelson returned, and the French fleet was destroyed at Aboukir, in the Battle of the Nile. With communications completely severed now. Napoleon gained further triumphs with dwindling forces; but knowing that all chance of real success was gone, he abandoned his army and returned to France. There people thought more of the glory of his deeds than the failure of his expedition, and he continued to be the most popular person in the Republic. The Directory was not able to steer the state through the diflSculties of the troublous time. There were royalists who wished to restore monarchy, and radicals who wished to equalize wealth and abolish poverty. Finances were dishonestly managed and corrupt politicians amassed sudden wealth, while the wars took great sums of money, until presently the issues of paper money became so vast as to make the paper worthless, and the state was bank- rupt. Moreover, the policy of extending the power of NAPOLEON 73 France and the Influence of the Revolution was continued. Along the frontiers of France, from Holland down through Switzerland and on into Italy, was founded a series of re- publics, modelled on France and allied with her, so that again the fears and dislike of the great powers were aroused. In J799 the Second Coalition w as formed, consistin g of Great Britain, Austria, Russ jax-^i d lesser s tates. That year the Coalition was almost everywhere triumphant, and when Bonaparte returned the French had been driven from Italy and the dependent republics had fallen to pieces. France was defeated and seemingly at the end of her resources. For the feeble Directory now the people had only contempt. Therefore, in November Napoleon, supported by troops, easily overthrew it by a coup d'etat. He and two men controlled by him were appointed consuls and given the task pf„makiiag. a new constitution. Then he struck the enemies abroad. A powerful army under Moreau crossed the Rhine and won the great battle of Hohenlinden in Bavaria. Meanwhile Bonaparte had descended into Italy again and overwhelmed the Austrians at Marengo, one of the most splendid of his triumphs. Accordingly, Austria made the peace of Luneville early in 1801. She recognized the French conquests in Belgium and along the Rhine, as well as the dependent republics. Russia also dropped out of the war, and on the continent the Coalition now dissolved. Great Britain, left alone, could not greatly harm France, and the French could not attack the English until they had built up a powerful new fleet. Both sides were weary of the conflict. So, early in 1802j^ peace was made by the Treaty of Amiens, by which England gave up many of the conquests she had made in the colonies, while France made some small con- cessions. The arrangement was not satisfactory, and was afterward seen to have given merely a breathing-spell while a mightier duel was prepared for. T^fi__|econd Coalition overthrown Treaty of Amiens 74 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Constitution of the Year vm Financial reforms Meanwhile in 1800, the Constitution of the Year VIII had been put into effect. A strong government was erected. The executive was vested in a First Consul assisted by two others. The First Consul was not only at the head of administrative work, foreign affairs, and the army, but he was in effect to initiate legislation as well, and appoint all the principal oflScials. The legislative branch was only a shadow. There was to be manhood suffrage, but the voters were to choose one tenth of their number, who were to choose a tenth of themselves, and those so chosen were then to choose a tenth; by which time there would be some five thousand "National Notables" chosen indirectly out of the 5,000,000 Frenchmen who had the franchise. From the list thus obtained a senate, appointed by the First Consul, was to choose members of two lower branches, a tribunate and a legislative body. Actually, the legislature was to consist of four parts: a council of state to prepare legislation proposed by the executive; a tribunate to discuss; a legislative body to vote thereupon; and a senate with power of veto. As a result of this arrangement Bonaparte, the First Cori^ sul, became almost complete master of France. Local self=^^^ government, which had been established by the Constitu--. tion of 1791, but which made administration less effective, was now made entirely subordina.te to the central author- ity; for all the local executives were to be appointed by the First Consul. The result was an exceedingly eflScient gov- ernment, but Frenchmen, who had been attempting to estab- lish self-government, and who had first to learn it really in the smaller units where they lived, now lost the opportunity to put it on a firm and real foundation in their local affairs. In the midst of the war Bonaparte had turned to great constructive tasks, in some of which he completed the work of the French Revolution, while in others he estab- lished firmly his despotic rule. The finances, whose evil condition had done so much to make possible the Revolu- NAPOLEON 75 tion and afterward brought the Directory to its end, were put on a sound basis; expenditures were reduced, care and economy practised, and in 1800 the Bank of France founded to be the center of French finance. Next year, after most skilful negotiation, an arrangement, or concor- dat, was made between the Pope and the Republic, the Pope concurring in the suppression of the monasteries and the taking of Church property, Bonaparte agreeing that the priests should be paid by the state; the priests were to be appointed by the bishops, the bishops being appointed by the state but confirmed by the Pope. B^this. Cimcor-^ dat of 1801, which lasted until 1905, the Catholic Church in France became a subordinate part of the government of the land. Important also was the codification of the law. Under the Old Regime there had been many legal systems in dif- ferent parts of France, discrepant and confusing. There were, moreover, numerous laws, many of them now ob- solete. It was very desirable to reduce what was best and most important into one collection, simple enough to be easily used and understood, and uniform for all the country. This had been undertaken in the time of the Convention; now it was carried forward to completion. With the help of legal experts and advisers Napoleon mastered the sub- ject himself, and impelled them on to reduce to simple form the vast mass of detail, so that in four months the thing was largely done. In 1804 appeared the Civil Code, which was afterward followed by others. Altogether they are known as the Code NapolSon. They were not only simple enough to be easily used and useful, but attractive in form. Based on the Civil Law of Rome, which had been the foundation of the French legal system, they embodied also much of the best work of the Revolution, such as equality of inheritance and equality before the law, arrest only for cause, trial by jury, and personal freedom. Sanctity of private property, power of the father, in- The Concor- dat of 1801 with Rome The law Code Napoleon 76 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Education Internal im- provements The position of France feriority of woman, were all recognized, and the Code has accordingly been condemned in later days by socialist and feminist advocates. But it^embodied the best of what the Revolution had brought, along with the excellence of the Roman Law; and therefore it endured in France, and was soon adopted in most of those parts of Europe where the Roman Law previously had prevailed. Finally, the system of education which had been planned under the Convention was carried into effect. Avowedly, elementary schools were to be established in every part of the country, though Bonaparte seems to have cared little about educating the great body of the people. Higher up were grammar schools, high schools or lycees, technical and other schools, and finally at the top was the University of France. This system was entirely under the control of the government, for Bonaparte wished that the schools should teach only what the government desired. In this he was largely successful, so far as his system of education was established; but actually he could not bring about much of what he planned because it was difficult to get the teachers. Accordingly, instruction of most of the children continued for a long time to be given in private schools controlled by the Church. He was zealous in developing the resources of France and constructing great public works. Harbors were im- proved, naval bases fortified and enlarged, highways constructed and great military roads prepared, canals bettered and extended, and marshes drained. The great palaces built in the Old Regime were beautified and restored, and in Paris splendid avenues and fine buildings were constructed. Hitherto Venice and Rome had been the pleasure-capitals of Europe, but now they began to be displaced by Paris, which gradually attained a suprem- acy never afterward lost. This constructive and peaceful work was Bonaparte's greatest achievement, but while he lived, certainly outside NAPOLEON 77 of France, it was almost lost to sight amid the continued and terrible wars which marked his era. In 1802 France / was the mightiest power in the world. All of her enemies had been defeated or forced to make peace, and she had got territory which she had been striving to obtain for hundreds of years. It wouldjbe now the work of a great statesman to keep peace, above all things, and try to re- tain what had been so fortunately won. That was what^ Frederick of Prussia had achieved in the later portion of his reign, and it was afterward the achievement of Bis- marck. In this task Bonaparte failed. In 1803 France V Bonaparte's and England were at war again. During the next twelve , t*sk years with scarcely any intermission, French armies swept V I'Cu^ * " over Europe, the European Powers rose against France in | , SaJIav^ one coalition after another, some miUions of men were sh^ttime to lay In the dust all the structure which Napoleon had reared. But in 1809 contemporaries, perhaps, could discern nothing of all this, and the outlook seems to have appeared hopeless. Only Great Britain, behind her barrier of war- ships, remained unconquered and not despairing, though often, as her people sustained the unending struggle, they must have reflected that across the Channel was the mili- tary despotism which had defeated all the enemies it had reached, and that some day, perhaps, with the re- sources of the Continent, Napoleon might assemble over- whelming sea-power, after which nothing could save them. But always they fought on unyielding,'and in the end it was found that their resources, based on commercial supremacy and their new industrial development, were equal to the task set before them. The da^nfall of Napoleon was due very largely to the efforts he made to conquer England. Her navy protected her from military subjugation, but he believed that destruction of her commerce would entail her defeat, and he endeavored to shut her off from trading with Europe. He had tried to do this in 1801, but it was defin- itely carried out in the Berlin Decree (1806) and the Milan Decree (1807) and the Decree of Fontainebleau (1810), by which successively he ordered that British ships should not be permitted to trade with the Continent, that neutral Maintained bjT force Apparently not to be overthrown Attempted^ blockade _ of Great Britain 84 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Disastrous results Conquest of Spain The Peninsular War ships bringing British goods should be seized, and that imported British goods should be publicly burned. To this policy Britain replied with the Orders in Council of 1807, declaring liable to capture all ships trading with France and her allies. Thus the two tried to blockade each other. British sea-power ruined the commerce of France and those countries that followed French dictates. Napo- leon's decrees wrought enormous loss to British trade, but they never caused her to break down, and indeed they could only be partly enforced. Numerous exceptions were authorized by Napoleon himself, so great was the need of things which could only be bought from Britain. In the end the principal result of Napoleon's attempts was to alienate profoundly some of the European people whose commerce he ruined, and then involve him in ruinous en- terprises — as with Spain and with Russia — to enforce his blockade. In 1807 Napolepn. proposed to debar England from Portugal and the harbors of Spain. For some years Spain had acted as a vassal of France, but Portugal had long been bound closely to England by the Methuen trade agreement. He now demanded that Portugal adhere to his Continental System, and, when she refu sed, got per- mission from Spain to send an army through that country to Lisbon. Portugal was easily overrun, but it then be- came apparent that he was determined to acquire Spain also. French troops filled the country, the king and his son were made to abandon their rights to the Emperor, and Napoleon thereupon put his brother Joseph on the throne. But now there began a rising of the proud Span- ish people^ in whom the insolent taking of their country awakened the fiercest spirit of national resistance. Eng- land came to their aid, and under a great commander. Sir Arthur Wellesley, the small British army found in the restricted field of Portugal and Spain a chance for success- NAPOLEON 85 ful operations. The French were unable to destroy the British in Portugal, who stood behind strong fortifications and were based upon the British fleet. In Spain the mountains and the rivers, as well as scantiness of resources for the invader to live on, made it exceedingly difficult for the French to carry on such campaigns as they were accus- tomed to wage. Some 300,000 of Napoleon's best troops were locked up in the peninsula and largely destroyed in the heart-breaking struggle which followed. Elsewhere for a while Napoleon's power seemed to in- crease. In 1809 Austria again declared war. Napoleon hurried from Spain, through which he had just swept in triumph, and, striking with terrible swiftness, drove back the Austrians from Bavaria and again took their capital, Vienna. But he had not destroyed the Austrian army, and attempting to cross the Danube at Aspern he came near to suffering a total defeat. In July, however, he won the battle of Wagram, and again Austria made peace. By the Treaty of Vienna she lost more of her territory and popula- tion, and promised not to maintain an army of more than 150,000 men. Shortly after. Napoleon annulled his mar- riage with his wife Josephine, who had borne him no heir, and in 1810 married a daughter of the Emperor of Austria. In 1810 Napoleon's Empire-was at its zenith. Spain did not yet seem dangerous, and Russia was friendly. On the Continent all his enemies had been defeated. TojVance had been annexed the Netherlands, German territory to the Rhine, northwestern Italy, and Austria's Adriatic coast. The remainder of Italy, Spain, all western and central Germany in the Confederation of the Rhine, and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw were under Napoleon's pro- tection. Austria and Prussia remained humbled and diminished. But in this vast empire, which controlled all western and central Europe, the forces of decay were at work. The national revival which was making Spaniards give up all Austria de- feated again The Empire at its zenith Foi:ces of decay and destruction 86 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Decline of Revolution- ary ardor Discord be- tween Russia and France rather than surrender, was stirring also in the German countries. In Prussia they were making reforms and schooling themselves for the day of deliverance hoped for. Indeed circumstances now were doing for the German people the wondrous work which some years before had been accomplished in France, and this was taking place at a time when among the French in the midst of prosperity and greatness the Revolutionary feelings were losing their force. Once France had defended herself from Europe by a national rising of her people, but now with her yoke heavy on others the armies of Napoleon were composed largely of conscript soldiers, whom other peoples were com- pelled to provide. These levies were wonderfully disci- plined and drilled, and they won great victories for him, but no longer was it possible for his armies to be animated by the feelings that once filled the people of France. Moreover, Napoleon was not as before. He had raised up many a man of ability to be a marshal or great assistant, and thus surrounded himself with very capable assistants; but in these later years he was much less inclined to take their advice, and came at last to rely almost altogether on himself. The accord with Russia was slowly breaking to pieces. Russia was almost entirely an agricultural state, dependent for industrial products and foreign wares upon-commerce with others, especially England. The Continental Sys- tem, which Napoleon had persuaded the Tsar to uphoU, worked increasing hardship on the Russian pepple,^^d as the years passed ifc^'M partly abandoned. TctNapoleon enforcement of the blockade against Britain^ was_still all- important, and at the beginning of 1812 he prepared to conquer Russia and thus definitely complete hislystem in Europe. For this mighty task he collected the greatest army brought together in Europe for ages, and the most powerful force, perhaps, which up to that time had ever been assembled. To his French veterans were added NAPOLEON 87 contingents from the subject and vassal states, until he had ready for the adventure 600,000 men and more than 1,000 cannon. In June a great part of Napoleon's forces, the Grande ArmSey crossed the Niemen River into Russia. He hoped to meet the Muscovite hosts and destroy them on some memorable field. But Kutusov, the cautious Russian commander, steadily retreated, avoiding^battle, ever luring his enemy forward^ liTSeptember Napoleon gained the terrible, empty victory of Borodino. Both sides suffered fearful Tosses, but the Russian army retreated undestroyed. A month later he entered Moscow, the old capital of Russia, in triumph; but the enemy did not sue for peace as he hoped, and Napoleon now found himself far in the depths of a hostile country, separated from his base of operations by a thousand miles, half of it the dreary plain of Lithuania and Great Russia. Furthermore, on the night of the entry, Moscow was burned and partly destroyed. Then while the Russian army watched from near by the peasants rose up in wrath to harass what remained of Napoleon's forces, and soon he had to withdraw. The retreat which followed was one of the most awful episodes in military history. The greater part of the Grand Arniy had been dissipated before Moscow was reached, but most of what was left perished horribly in the fearful march through the snows and the storms of the Russian winter which soon came on. Not more than 50,000 of all the host which had set forth came back to the German frontier, and they came as miserable, stricken men. It was evident that the best and greatest part of Napoleon's strength had been lost in the vastness of Russia^. In December Russia, Great Britain, Sweden, and Prussia began the Sixth Coalition against France. In January, 1813 the Emperor of Russia crossed his frontier and prom- ised liberation to the European peoples. At once the Prussians rose in a great national movement, and the Invasion of Russia, 1812 The retreat The Sixth CoaTifioa 88 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Napoleon defeated Refuses any compromise Napoleon at bay other German states began to waver. Napoleon assem- bled another army, but the forces being gathered against his own dwindling strength were too great to be over- thrown, and the victories which he gained at LUtzen and Bautzen were not decisive. Austria now tried to inter- vene, suggesting that Napoleon abandon his arrangements in central Europe, but he would hear of no compromise, and when the armistice came to an end Austria joined the coalition against him. In August__the_j5-Lis^^iajis were badly defeated^afDresdelirHit again Napoleon failed to destroy his foe. Then in October the issue was decided at the great "Battle of the N a^onsILatj^eipzig, where at last he was completely defe ated. He struggled across^EFe Rhine with' a remnant of his^army, and Germany was free. He might still have got terms that now seem very good. He might have kept the "natural boundaries" of France, the Rhine, the Alps, the Pyrenees, if. elsewhere lie had abandoned his system. This would have left France with more than Louis XIV had ever been able to keep, but Na- poleon refused. Afterward historians condemned him as a desperate gambler in scorning such terms and staking all on trial by combat. But in truth, since his power had been reared on military triumph, the acceptance of such terms, whatever benefit France might have got, would certainly have involved his own ruin. So he refused, and made ready to defend France with such scanty forces as he still could assemble, for not only was France weakened, but there >yas now no great rising of the French people as there had been in Revolutionary days. The campaigns of 1814 showed Napoleon still at the height of his military skill, but against the overwhelming forces brought upon France nothing could avail. When he rejected harder terms than had been offered previously. Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, and Austria made the Treaty of Chaumont (March 1814), by which they con- cluded an alliance and promised not to halt until Napoleon NAPOLEON 89 was completely overthrown. In the end they overwhelmed his forces and got to Pans. At last he abdicated, and was given the little island of Elba, near Italy, in the Mediterranean. — The Allies re stored the BourbqnsjtoJFrance, and soon The "Hun- there was some discontent. Then Napoleon, restless in dred Dijrs" his insignificant state, and believing that his enemies were now too divided to act in unison against him, suddenly, in March 1815, re turned to France, and with his matchless magnetism, and through the old renown which still re- mained to him, won all who were sent to oppose him. He would for the moment have chosen peace, but the Great Powers, whose representatives were wrangling at the Con- gress of Vienna recently assembled, at once forgot all their differences, and assembled their forces to destroy him. Napoleon got together a superb army of 200,000 men — largely his old veterans, who, until the peace, had been cap- tive in other lands — and at once took the field. In June, after some brilliant but indecisive strokes, the matter came_ to final decision at Waterloo, not far from Brussels in Bel- Waterloo gium. There throughout a long day the French artillery wrought havoc in the ranks of an army of Englishmen, Dutchmen, and others under Wellington, and the French horsemen dashed themselves again and again at the enemy's lines. About evening the Prussians came up to assist, and then the French army, which had been terribly shattered in the struggle, fled from the field in total rout, and Napoleon's power was definitely ended. He surrendered to the British, and was presently sent to st. Helena the remote, lonely island of St. Helena, off the soutHwest African coast, a thousand miles out in the ocean. There for six years he lived on, eating his heart out in^exile, and appearing, when men could forget the misery he had caused, one of the most pathetic figures in history. He had put himself above mankind, and they put him forth from among them. 90 EUROPE, 1879-1920 Estimate of his career The evil Napoleon and the French Revolution It is still diflScult to pass judgment. • During his life- time, he appeared as a mighty hero in France and to many people elsewhere, while in Prussia and in England men felt that he was a monstrous and terrible being. Not less than fourjaullion men in Europe were lost in the wars caused by his needs or ambitions. In his own day he was Tike the reincafiiation o! some war-god of old. Afterward Taine saw in him the last and greatest of the condottieri, those captains in Italy who made war their ambition and trade. For a while he was hated by those who had overthrown him; but presently with the lapse of time there was a gla- mour of romance about his name, and often his statecraft and milita'fy methods were studied and admired. No- where was this done more than in Germany, where a school of Prussian generals and writers openly proclaimed his greatness and their purpose of following his steps. When after 1914 they did this the world was horrified, and once more understood the real meaning of some of his deeds. There is another side to his achievements, which may be more, may be less than the evil, but is none the less of supreme importance. Whether without him the French Revolution could have maintained itself against hostile and conservative Europe suflSciently to fulfil its great mission we cannot now know. But certain it is that Napoleon helped to preserve Jt and spreadjtswork over the central and southern lands. When he was gone, his conquerors could no longer undo the best that the Revolu- tion had accomplished. They did try to reestablish an old order, biil it was very different from what prevailed in the previous era. After the reaction, revolutionary and progressive spirit flamed out successfully again, a nd t he prin ciples that men should more and more^govern them- selves, and that there should be an increasing, measure of soci^l^ politipal, and civil equality, were in the next^Eun- dred years^yery largely establisKed over part of Europe. These were not things which Napoleon had begun, and NAPOLEON 91 he had sympathized Httle with some of them; but after all he was a "child of the Revolution," and he had de- fended and saved it. "■" ■ ^ "~ BIBLIOGRAPHY The life of Napoleon Bonaparte: H. A. L. Fisher, Napoleon (1912), the best brief study in EngHsh; R. M. Johnston, Na- poleon, a Short Biography (1910). Of longer works: August Fournier, Napoleon I: eine Biographie, 3 vols. (3d ed. 1914), trans, by A. E. Adams (1912), is the best. F. M. Kircheisen, Napoleon I: Sein Lehen und Seine Zeit, vols. I-III (1912-14); Arthur Levy, Napoleon Intime (7th ed. 1893), trans. The Private Life of Napoleon, 2 vols. (1894), NapoUon et la iPaix (1902); Frederic Masson, Napoleon et Sa Famille, 12 vols. (5th ed. 1897-1915), Napoleon a Sainte-HSlene (1912); J. C. Ropes, The First Napoleon (1900); J. H. Rose, The Life of Napoleon I (ed. 1907), The Personality of Napoleon (1912); W. M. Sloane, The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte, 4 vols. (ed. 1910). For particular periods or subjects: Edouard Driault, La Politique ExtSrieure du Premier Consul,, 1800-1803 (1910), La Politique Orientale de NapoUon (1904); L. de Lanzac de Laborie, Paris sous Napoleon, 8 vols. (1905-13); L. Sciout, Le Directoire, 2 vols. (1895-6); L. A. Thiers, Histoire du Consulat el de V Empire, 20 vols. (1844-62), laudatory; Albert Vandal, NapoUon et Alexandre P\ 3vols. (3d ed. 1893-6), VAvenement de Bonaparte, 2 vols. (ed. 1911). There are several collections of the letters of Napoleon, the most important being: Correspondance de Napoleon P^ (pub- ished by order of Napoleon III), 32 vols. (1858-70); Correspon- dance Inedite de NapoUon P" (from the War Archives, ed. by E. Picard and L. Tuety), 4 vols. (1912-13). Contemporary accounts: the memoirs of Bourrienne (trans.) Chaptal, Gourgaud (trans.), Miot de Melito (trans.), Madame de Remusat (trans.), Roederer, Segur (trans.), Talleyrand- Perigord (trans.), Thibaudeau, Thiebault (trans.), Villemain. F. J. Maccunn, The Contemporary English View of Napoleon (1914) contains much rare and curious contemporary informa- tion. Wars : A. Chuquet, La Guerre de Russie (1912) ; J. S. Corbett, The Campaign of Trafalgar (1913); T. A. Dodge, Napoleon: a History of the Art of War, 4 vols. (1904-7); A. T. Mahan, The 92 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Life of Nelson, 2 vols. (1897), best; Sea Power in Its Relation to the War of 1812, 2 vols. (1905); F. W. O. Maycock, The Invasion of France, 1814 (1915); F. L. Petre, Napoleon's Campaign in Poland, 1806-1807 (1906), Napoleon* s Conquest of Prussia, 1806 (1907), Napoleon and the Archduke Charles (1908), Napo- leons Last Campaign in Germany, 1813 (1912), Napoleon at Bay (1914); Charles Oman, History of the Peninsular War, 5 vols. (1902-19), Wellingtons Army, 1809-18U (1912); J. C. Ropes, The Campaign of Waterloo (2d ed. (1893). w CHAPTER V THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA AND THE CONCERT OF EUROPE Leurs Majestes I'Empereur d'Autrlche, le Roi de Prusse, et TEm- pereur de Russie . . . ayant acquis la conviction intime, qu'il est necessaire d'asseoir la marche a adopter par les Puissances dans leurs rapports mutuels sur les verites sublimes que nous en- seigne I'eternelle Religion du Dieu Sauveur: Declarent solonnellement, que le present Acte n'a pour objet que de manifester, a la face de I'llnivers, leur determination inebranlable de ne prendre pour regie de leur conduite . . . que les pre- ceptes de cette Religion Sainte — preceptes de justice, de charite et de paix qui, loin d'etre uniquement applicables a la vie privee, doivent au contraire influer directement sur les resolutions des Princes, et guider toutes leurs d-marches. . . . The Holy Alliance, 14-26 September, 1815: State Papers, iii. 211. British and Foreign The long struggle of the Revolution and Napoleonic Wars was followed by a general settlement, as the Thirty Years' War had been, and just as the World War which ended in 1918 afterward was to be. Enormous social and political changes had come to a great part of Europe, and the map of the Continent had been completely changed. Now with the Revolution subsided and the French Empire fallen to pieces the conquerors of Napoleon assembled to restore and rearrange and decid«eJ It was a token of Aus- tria's recovered power that the meeting was held in Vienna. / Peace had already been made, May 30, 1814, by the Treaty of Paris. This treaty provided that within two months all the powers engaged on either side of the war 93 The settle- ment of 1814-15 The Congress of Vienna 94 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Procedure Position of France just concluded should send plenipotentiaries to Vienna "to settle at a general Congress the arrangements which are to complete the provisions of the present treaty." In September, 1814, there was the greatest and most gorgeous gathering held in Europe up to that time. The Tsar of Russia, the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prus- sia, and the kings of Bavaria, WUrtemberg, and Denmark were present, along with the princes and rulers of smaller states, and the representatives of France and of England. ( Most important of all was Metternich, Austria's minister^ There was in 1814, as in 1918, much feeling that the old era had come to an end, that vast changes had been made and were still to be made, that the world was to be better, that a golden era was near, and that after the horrible wars which had devastated Europe, there would now be per- petual peace. Strictly speaking no congress was ever opened, and oflS- cially none existed. Actually, in the midst of long and magnificent festivities at Vienna, representatives of the various powers waited, while four great powers began to arrange in private meetings what was to be done, and there make the important decisions. Not only were the dele- gates of the lesser states thus excluded from the "Con- gress," but of the eight powers which had been parties to the Treaty of Paris, because of which the Congress assem- bled, two of them, Portugal and Sweden, were in the first place not invited to come to a preparatory meeting held at Metternich's house, while Spain was never permitted to participate in anything important. But France — ^because of the very dexterous diplomacy of her representative, Talleyrand, who took advantage of disputes between the four principal members — was soon admitted, and thereafter (the work at Vienna was done by five powers: Great Bri- tain, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and France! In 1814 and 1815 at Vienna, as in 1918 and 1919 at Paris, those who wished the settlement made by all the powers interested / THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 95 were obliged to see the decisions made in small secret meetings and determined only by the most powerful states. In both cases, perhaps, the work could have been done in no other way. ( The most important part of the work had to do with Territorial territorial arrangements. The proper or "legitimate" arrange- sovereigns, who had been dethroned by Napoleon^ were restored in Spain, in Holland, in southern Italy (the Two Sicilies), and in north Italy (Sardinia-Piedmont); while the Pope and various German princes got back their lands, most of what Napoleon had taken away from Austria was restored to her, and Poland partitioned again. Great Britain kept various colonial possessions which she had taken4-Malta, islands in the West Indies, Trinidad, British Honduras — and three possessions which had been taken from the Dutch: Ceylon, South Africa, and Dutch Guiana. In compensation, (Holland had Belgium joined to her to form the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.^ Before the Revolution Belgium had belonged to Austria^J that power now got in compensation Lombardy and Venetia, while other small states in north Italy were left indirectly under her control. From Sweden Prussia got eastern Pomerania, last relic of Swedish conquests in the days of Gustavus Adolphus, while already Russia had taken the Duchy of Finland. In compensation Sweden got Norway, up to that time under Denmark's rule. /The Holding arbiters of Vienna deemed it well that France should have France in strong states adjoining her boundaries, so that she might not easily break forth again J It was partly for this reason that Holland had been enlarged by the addition of Belgium; it was for the same reason that Prussia, enlarged by a portion of Saxony, was given provinces west of the Rhine, as was Bavaria also. |ln these arrangqj^ats the national- ism aroused since 1789 was not so much as considered./ Generally speaking, the diplomats at Vienna, like those at Berlin in 1878, altogether disregarded aspirations of the check ( 9e EUROPE, 1789-1920 Nationality disregarded Constructive achievement Disagree^ ment peoplg*.! Norwegians and Swedes spoke different languages and had long gone diflFerent ways. Belgians and Dutch had been separate since the time of the struggle against Spain. The people of Italy were beginning to yearn for a united Italian nation, and the people of the German states, after their magnificent struggle against Napoleon, were more conscious than ever before of their German national- ity and the miserable weakness of their age-long disunion. But (the Italians were left separated, put under Bour- bons and Hapsburgs, and Metternich exerted all his skill to keep the Germanics separate so that Austria might still rule by having them divided. J Some excellent and lasting work was accomplished. The Swiss Confederation was reestablished with a guaran- tee of permanent neutrality, an agreement that thereafter European powers would not attack Switzerland or send their troops through her territory This was the beginning of a series of neutralizations of small states which seemed to promise well, and did work well for a long time, until the violation of Belgian neutrality by the German Empire in 1914. f Furthermore the navigation of rivers flowing through or between several European countries was declared free to all these countries. And finally the Congress declared that the slave trade should be abol- ished ^.J This work was accomplished in the midst of disputes almost certain to break out during a general conference of nations; and it was in the midst of them that Napoleon returned from Elba and began his career of the "Hundred Days." /The bitterest quarrel concerned what Russia and Prussia should have in Saxony and Poland. ,' Russia came to an understanding with Prussia by which she agreed to assist her in tl||||ig to obtain Saxony, on condition that Russia have that part of Poland which Napoleon had set up as the Duchy of Warsaw. Austria resisted the ar- rangement, and was supported by England. \ She was THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 97 Russia supported also by France, for it was largely by taking advantage of the dissensions growing out of this dispute that the skilful Talleyrand was able to get France admitted as one of the great powers in the inner deliberations at Vienna, i In January 1815 Talleyrand brought about a Talleyrand secret alliance between Great Britain, Austria, and France to resist, if necessary, the plan of Prussia and Russia. Presently a compromise was made. Prussia got about two fifths of Saxony, and gave up all her Polish territory except the province of Posen, Russia obtained nearly all that she asked for. What Austria had received in the old partitions of Poland, she kept; but Russia now got most of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, to which was added some Polish territory already in her possession, all of which she erected into a kingdom of Poland under the TsarJ She now extended farther into central Europe than pre- viously, and during the course of the nineteenth century she was to exert more influence upon her neighbors and be a greater factor in European affairs than ever before. Her Polish territory protruded henceforth like a great salient or bastion in between the lands of Austria and Prussia, her neighbors and rivals. As long as she was dreaded for what was believed to be her mighty military power, her neighbors would always have to fear her Polish position; but when at last the matter was put to the test of war it would be seen that this protruding possession made it possible for them to deal her a mortal thrust. Meanwhile the Poles, mostly under Russia, but partly in Prussia and partly in Austria, were to yearn fondly for the old days when Poland had been independent, and look forward wistfully to some future day when independence might be restored. These arrangements being concluded and presently ratified in the Final Act (June 9, 1815), the leaders of the Congress proceeded to more general and more important considerations. Some of them desired that such measures Efforts for a lasting settlement \ /xhe Holy Alliance, 1815 Earlier ^ schemes for perpet- ual peace C 98 EUROPE, 1789-19^6 should now be taken that there might be no more war; some believed that, the disorder of the Revolution being largely at an end, the desirable conditions that had just been established ought to be preserved by united action of the powers. Out of all this grew the attempts to have European affairs thereafter controlled by a Concert of Europe. The sincerest and most far-reaching attempt to estab- lish justice and maintain peace in European affairs was made by Alexander, Tsar of the Russias. /^This was the project, derided at the time and suspected afterward, which was known as the Holy Alliance^^ Circumstances had made the Tsar appear as the savior of Europe, and he wished now to be the regenerator of the nations of his time. He loved to think of himself as a liberal, though he did not make, and doubtless could not make, much effort to apply liberalism in Russia. He dreamed much also of being able to abolish all war. In 1814 and 1815 many people hoped for this. It had been so before, after long and exhausting wars, and a century later it would be so again. Philanthropists like William Penn and philosophers like Emmanuel Kant had proposed plans by which war might be avoided, and from time to time statesmen and political writers had drawn up schemes. Two centuries before, during a lull in the long wars of religion, Queen Elizabeth of England had pondered upon such things, and her con- temporary Henry IV had conceived of the "Grand De- sign," whereby, a general council of delegates from the powers of Europe should peaceably settle disputes. A century later in 1713, after the exhausting struggle of the War of the Spanish Succession, a Frenchman, the Abbe de Saint-Pierre, suggested a league of nations whose members should settle their disputes by the arbitration of a general congress. Now in 1814 came the Tsar Alexander, filled with mystical yearning to make the world better and es- tablish a lasting peace. THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 99 For some years he had been attempting to win adherence to his ideas. Then, as afterward, men perceived the almost insuperable diflSculties, and looked at the matter from the point of view of the old order, which the reform was designed to make better. Nevertheless, after Water- loo, when the triumphant Allies were in Paris, and when they were imposing upon France new and severer terms of peace, Alexander submitted to his particular allies, Aus- tria and Prussia, a document containing his ideas, which they accepted. So, in the name of "the very holy and indivisible Trinity'* the rulers of these three countries now proclaimed their fixed resolution to act solely in accord- ance with the precepts of justice. Christian charity, and peace, both in their own internal affairs and in their rela- tions with other rulers. To this agreement the British government was unwilling to assent, since British states- men considered the scheme to be visionary and vague, and because they objected to an agreement which would bind the contracting parties always to give each other aid and assistance, and which would establish things as they were, and obstruct desirable changes in the future. This Holy Alliance, as it was called, embodied rather the dream of the Tsar than anything in the practical poli- tics of the age. y In the popular mind it was soon confused with the Quadruple Alliance, also concluded about that time. 3 This latter, as will be seen, stood for perpetuating the status quo, the settlement made at Vienna, and uphold- ing as much of the old order as had there been established; in short, for repression and reaction. So the Holy Alliance — which at the start received some sort of adherence from all the governments of Europe, except the Vatican and the Porte, but which was nevertheless derided by some and not seriously considered by others, and which from the start had almost no force — -was regarded for a generation after that time as a symbol of tyranny, a device, hidden under religious guise, to keep European peoples from Alexander's design Great Britain refuses assent Effects of the Holy Alliance 100 EUROPE, 1789-1920 r The Quad- ruple Alliance 1815 Purpose f\ Spirit of reaction in Europe attaining the liberty and national development which they desired. ' And yet, we can see now that some of the objections made in 1815 were curiously like those made to the League of Nations in 1919; and that a hundred years ago a/project for the betterment of relations between gov- ernments and applying better principles of morality to the conduct of states, failed largely because of the selfishness of diplomats and the imperfection of peoples^ { An alliance of Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prus- sia had been made at Chaumont in 1814, by which the parties had pledged themselves to cooperate until Napo- leon was completely overthrown. This union, had been threatened with dissolution at Vienna because of the quarrels over Saxony and Poland, but the reappearance of Napoleon had strengthened it again, and there seemed to be much necessity of retaining it to deal with any other effort which the French people might make against Europe. / Accordingly, at Paris, November 20, 1815, the four powers signed a new treaty of alliance. Its avowed purpose was to employ concerted action against any further outbreak of Revolutionary principles, to secure the tranquillity of Europe by maintaining the settlement just made in France, and in the future to uphold the arrangements which its members had made/i From the point of view of those who had made the arrangements it was most proper that they should do this. But since they represented the past much more than the future, and because their work, had it succeeded, would have fatally checked some of the most important movements of the nineteenth century in after days when these great movements were accomplished, then the work of the statesmen who framed this alliance seemed baleful and inauspicious. In 1814 and 1815, as might have been expected, a full tide of reaction set in. Some small and dull leaders w^ould have liked to put back things where they had been in 1789. ^ Indeed, some ridiculous things were done, though M 11 GEMtRAL DRAFTING CO INC N Y 4. EUR & ^•N o Moscow R U S S I arsaw est y ^« Odessa RY \ 1^ Bucharest IJ 1815 THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 101 they had but small, temporary effect. Little princes came back to their petty domains to set up what had been there before the Revolution and Napoleon drove them away. It was said of them and some others that they had "learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Vaccination and other "French improvements" made in late \ years were put aside; in north Italy serfdom was reestablished; and in Spain and Rome the Inquisition once'raore ajU' peared. The statesmen and important rulers did not busy them- selves with the accomplishing of such things, but they fully concurred in trying to set up firmly again what seemed wise, and normal and proper. All of them represented conservatism and a desire that there should be no further revolution and no more great change. They had long struggled against the French ideas, which had originally involved such innovations as equality of the people and government based on the people themselves, but which had degenerated into wild excesses, which had presently failed, which had then seemed to prepare the way for the rise of a great military despotism, and presently changed into a danger which had threatened to overthrow the rights of all the established governments in Europe. Now these governments had triumphed after a long and exhausting struggle, and they meant to make safe that which they regarded as best. Russia, Austria, and Prussia were autocracies in which the sovereign still ruled by divine right with unlimited power. France now had a constitu- tion, but divine right remained and the spirit of the rulers was very conservative. England had long been a limited monarchy, but her government was in the hands of aristocracy and upper class, conservative, and very cau- tious, by instinct. : It was therefore the desire of the leaders who made the Quadruple Alliance, and of France who was presently admitted into their councils, that the Revolutionary era be definitely ended, and that a great Conserva- tism of the leaders Desire to conserve the old order 102 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Concert of Europe part of the previous order of things being now restored, no further revolutionary change should be allowedtJ / In this way developed the Concert of Europe, an agree- ment of the principal powers to work together for the management of European affairs> The sixth article of the , treaty of aUir^nce had provided that the high contracting . parties siiould thereafter hold meetings from time to tim^J : 'tO; cj6nsjder measures salutary for "the peace and pros- perity of the nations, and for the maintenance of the peace of Europe." Four such meetings were held in the next eight years, and during the period 1815 to 1823 Europe was directed by the great powers acting in concert. First was the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818.] Little as the lesser powers liked a dictatorship and suprem- acy of the greater ones, this Congress was generally looked upon as the supreme council of Europe, and they brought many things before it for decision. Little difficulty was caused by what they submitted. Nor was there disagree- ment about evacuating France, nor admitting France into the Alliance, after which five great powers controlled Europe. But real differences soon developed. In order to break up the slave trade Great Britain proposed that the different states should have the right to search one another's ships at sea; this failed because the others were jealous of England's superior sea-power. On the other hand Great Britain successfully resisted Russia's proposal to maintain an international fleet to stamp out the Barbary pirates, since she had no trouble with them now herself, and wished to see no new naval power in the Mediterra- The European states were no more willing to sacri- nean. fice their particular interests in 1818 than the United States in 1918 was willing to give up her Monroe Doctrine for the sake of a league of nations. ^ Two years later, a second congress was held at Troppau, in Austria, which was adjourned in the following year to Laibach, near by. In 1820 revolutions had broken out in THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 103 Spain and then in Naples against the reactionary sov- ereigns there. 1 Ferdinand of Naples appealed for assis- tance, and Austria wished not only to intervene, but to have the sanction of the Allies in doing it. Metternich was greatly strengthened at this time by the adhesion of Alexander of Russia, who had formerly desired to be a liberal, but who was influenced now by certain events to join the forces of reaction. At Troppau, Great Britain, France, Russia, Austria, and Prussia were represented. {There Metternich proposed his doctrine that the great powers should refuse to recognize as legal any changes brought about in a state by revolution, and should inter- vene to restore conditions which had been altered by revo- lutionary changes. Great Britain opposed this doctrine, but it was accepted by Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and embodied in the Protocol of Troppau ; States which have Revolution undergone a change of Government due to revolution, the proscribed results of which threaten other States, ipso facto cease to be members of the European Alliance. ... If , owing to such alterations, immediate danger threatens other States, the Powers bind themselves, by peaceful means, or if need be by arms, to bring back the guilty State into the bosom of the Great Alliance." To such intervention England was strongly opposed, for conservative as her government was then, it was liberal compared with those of central and eastern Europe. Actually she was about to separate from the European Concert, and go her own course, while France, also comparatively liberal, was shortly to drift away from the Alliance also. But for the. time being Metternich's ideas were carried out, for in 1821, j after Ferdinand had been summoned to the Congress at Laibach, he was restored to his throne despite the opposi- tion of his Neapolitan subjects. In that year also there was a revolution against absolutism in Piedmont, but Russia and Austria made ready to stamp it out, and soon it collapsed. 104 EUROPE, 1789-1920 In 1822 the last of the congresses met at Verona. In Spain revolutionists had extorted a constitution from Ferdinand VII, their weak and odious king.] He had appealed to the rulers of the Allied Powers, and now at Verona France, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, demanded that the king's prerogatives be restored. The Spaniards . refused, and though England strongly protested, the other allies prepared to coerce the king's disobedient subjects. [ France, temporarily directed by reactionaries, was com- missioned to do the work, and a French army entering Spain, easily overcame all resistance, after which there was a cruel and shameful proscription and reign of terror. It is well known that the "Holy Alliance," desired also to re- store to reactionary Spain her revolted American colonies. But England, in command of the sea, was able to interpose effectual resistance, and the government of the United States also announced unalterable opposition in the so- called Monroe Doctrine; and the project was quietly dropped. The collapse of the European Concert began with the withdrawal of England in 1823. After the Revolution of 1830 France also drew far away from the policy which had dictated intervention in Piedmont and Spain. The scheme had begun in 1814 with the desire to preserve from another outburst of the French people what the Allies had so far saved by a great deal of effort and fighting. It had broadened into the design of maintaining order and tran- quillity in a Europe where peace and quiet were sorely needed. But as the forces of reaction and extreme con- servatism presently attempted to use the Alliance for the purpose of preventing all revolution and change, funda- mental differences developed between England and France on the one hand and on the other the conservative and stationary central and eastern powers, where the influence of the French Revolution had been felt not so much or not at all. Moreover, 'none of the powers were willing to THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 105 make any substantial sacrifice of their peculiar interests for the good of all Europe. Therefore the Alliance or Concert soon broke up; England dropped out and pres- ently France. After a while there was no longer any great alliance dominating all Europe as in the years from 1815 to 1823, though Russia, Austria, and Prussia long acted in much unison, based on the similarity of their governments, their proximity to each other, and often their identity of interests, which to a considerable extent persisted throughout the first half of the nineteenth cen- tury. But even though this Concert of the Powers was broken up, the example remained, and from time to time there- after, affairs of general concern were settled at meetings of representatives of some of the powers. Twice more during the nineteenth century great congresses were held, at Paris in 1856, and at Berlin in 1878, to settle European affairs; and there were several others less important. In the closing years of the century there was an informal association of the Great Powers, in a European Concert, to deal with the dangerous and perplexing affairs of Turkey and the Balkans. In 1913 such a meeting was held at London to deal with the Balkan troubles, and such a conference was proposed by England in the days just before the World War, in a last vain effort to avert the conflict. / For some time after the Congress of Vienna the dominat- ing and guiding spirit in Continental affairs was the Aus- trian minister, Prince Metternich. His influence was so powerful and persistent that to a great extent the period from 1815 to 1848 is Metternich's era. He stood for what he believed was a sane, wise, and proper condition of affairs. He had lived through the violence and fluctua- tions of the Revolutionary period, and risen to greatness during the years of Napoleon's power. When the Corsi- can had been sent to Elba, Metternich appeared at Vienna Later Concert of the Powers The age of Metternich 106 EUROPE, 1789-1920 A Metternich' spirit and s At the Congress of Vienna His system in central Europe ^ National aspirations disregarded desiring restoration of most of what had been and resis- tance to any further change. He was descended from an ancient and noble family, and, both by temperament and training, represented aristocracy in social arrangements and the Old Regime in governmental affairs. He was too astute a statesman to believe, as did some lesser men, that things could everywhere be restored to what they once had been ; but now/that the Revolution was over and Napoleon put out of the way, he hoped that no further innovations would be made, and that political arrangements decided at Vienna would be upheld by the masters who had made them. / He desired very much to maintain Austria as the leader of Euroge^ (In the arrangements at Vienna, he and his associates thought it well to abandon Belgium, which was far away and hard to defend, as well as Austrian possessions in western Germany, so that nowhere should Austria be in contact with France. He opposed the ac- quisition of Saxony by Prussia, lest that state become too great a rival; and to preserve the leadership of Austria among the German states, he successfully opposed all at- tempts to make any real German union. Prussia, under a weak ruler was no serious rival. After a while Russia also acted in harmony with Metternich's wishes^ ( But his greatest efforts were expended in preserving the order of things now established. He believed, as he said, that sovereigns ought to guide the destinies of their people, and that they were responsible to God alonej^ ' " Govern- ment is no more a subject for debate than religion is." CHc had no sympathy with ideas of nationality, democracy, and civil equalityj, which he believed to be pernicious and wrong, and he determined to keep them, now that they existed in Europe, within as narrow bounds as could be. The national risings of the people of Spain and Prussia had just made it possible for Austria to escape from sub- jection( but Spain was put back under the despotic rule of the Bourbons; (the German people were not allowed to THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA 107 unite, but were left under the absolute rule of their princes; while the Italians were kept disunited, and put under the yoke of native despots or foreign masters. Austria had scarcely been affected by the French Revolution, as the German states had been,; and it was easy now for Metter- nich, by mea'ns of repressive laws, drastic censorship of the press^ and far-reaching espionage, to prevent any more new ideas getting across the frontier. His influence brought it about that this repressive and reactionary system was also maintained in the neighboring German states; and for some time his ideas were successfully upheld in the Italian lands. ,. ' ( Metternich*s system was shaken by the events in Spain Fall of his and in Italy in 1820, and much more by the revolutions in ^y^*®"* France in 1830, and in Belgium, in Poland, and in various parts of Germany and of Italy about the same time. On each occasion the revolution was crushed, excepting in Belgium and in France, which now broke definitely with the old system.y But all the time, everywhere in Europe, save in Russia and the southeastern lands, progress of the Industrial Revolution and the rise of a middle class were undermining the system of things which he loved. ^ Finally came the Year of Revolutions, 1848, when all through Revolutions western and central Europe the order which he had sup- ported went crashing down, and he himself fled from Vienna to England, j Times had greatly changed, but he was too much identified with the older days to alter him- self. "My mind has never entertained error," he said in 1848. In after times his memory was execrated, and he was condemned, too harshly, perhaps. Partly because of his efforts most of Europe had peace for a generation after Napoleon's wars, and peace she then needed even more than political progress. Metternich represented, moreover, the instincts of conservatism, of law and order, and of natural reaction against the too-great changes of the revolutionary epoch! But his system made improve- of 1848 108 EUROPE, 1789-1920 ment impossible, and its downfall was necessary for the progress of Europe. BIBLIOGRAPHY C. K. Webster, The Congress of Vienna^ 18U-1815 (19J8), excellent; Three Peace Congresses of the Nineteenth Century (1917), in which the Congresses of Vienna, Paris, and Berlin are de- scribed respectively by C. D. Hazen, W. R. Thayer, and R. H. Lord. Aden des Wiener Kongr esses (ed. by J. L. Kluber), 8 vols. (2d ed. 1817-35); W. A. Phillips, The Confederation of Europe (2d ed. 1919); G. B. Malleson, Life of Prince Metter- nich (1895); Prince Metternich-Winneburg, MSmoires, 8 vols. (1880-4), also in Enghsh; Memoirs cf Prince Clemens Metter- nich (ed. by Prince R. Metternich, trans, by Mrs. A. Napier), 5 vols. (1881-2); C. M. de Talleyrand-Perigord, MSmmres, 5 vols. (1891-2), also translation of; Correspondance Inedite de Talleyrand et du Roi Louis XVIII pendant le Congres de Vienne (ed. by G. Pallain, 3d ed. 1881); Friedrich von Gentz, Tage- biicher, 4 vols. (1873-4); Lord Castlereagh, Memmrs and Corres- pondence, 12 vols. (1848-53); Duke of Wellington, DespatcheSy 12 vols. (1837-9) ; A. Sorel, Essais d'Histoire et de Critique, 12th ed. (1884) contains accounts of Metternich and Talleyrand. m :..#^^*.? m^-^:^^ CHAPTER VI THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION CThe essence of the Industrial Revolution is the substitution of com- petition for the mediaeval regulations which had previously con- trolled the production and distribution of wealth. On this account it is not only one of the most important facts of English history, but Europe owes to it the growth of two great systems of thought. — Economic Science, and its antithesis. Socialism. ) Arnold Toynbee, Lectures on the Industrial Revolution, p. 85. (1884). De la revolution economique operee en Angleterre. . . . Tandis que la revolution frangaise faisait ses grandes experiences sociales sur un volcan, 1' Angleterre commengait les siennes sur le terrain de I'industrie. La fin du dix-huitieme siecle y etait signa- lee par des decouvertes admirables, destinees a changer la face du monde et a accroltre d'une maniere inesperee la puissance de leurs inventeurs. Les conditions du travail subissaient la plus profonde modification qu'elles aient eprouvee depuis I'origine des societes. Adolphe Blanqui, Histoire de I'Economie Politique en Europe, ii. 207 (1837). " Life in many parts of Europe and elsewhere at the be- slowness of ginning of the nineteenth century was strikingly different change in from what it was a hundred years later. ^'^There was no *^® P^^* such enormous difference between the eighteenth century and the seventeenth, or between the seventeenth and the sixteenth, or even between the sixteenth and the tenth or the fifth. In the slow course of these centuries there had been vast changes in political and governmental affairs,') states had risen and fallen, old religions had changed and new ones appeared, great literatures had flowered, philos- 109 change 110 EUROPE, 1789-1920 ophies had been explained and discarded, and men had come to think of the universe in a w,ay their ancestors would scarcely have conceived of; yet during all the time of the Christian Era, and for a great while before, there had been few changes in the way that most people lived their lives. Previous ^ The Renaissance, slowly maturing for some hundreds of ^Ko««« ° years, had stirred and quickened men's minds, and in the wonderful fifteenth and sixteenth centuries opened up immense new realms of enjoyment and thoughtj There seemed to be lovelier things in the world now, the great- ness and charm of the past were known better to some, and new writings of strange and wondrous beauty appeared; but most men and women found the ordinary conditions of life scarcely altered. (The period of the Reformation — when ideas of religion and church, of Pope and bishops, of Bible and church ceremonies were altered or retained^- brought to the people of western and central Europe for more than a hundred years a time of mental uncertainty and stress scarcely to be conceived of now, and people presently found their mental and religious world so much altered that things could never be again as before.. But still men made their living and spent most of their lives much the same way as in the past. The French Revolu- tion brought enormous changes; but the men who now spoke of democracy, believed in liberty, fraternity, and equality, and whose laws were passed by elected legisla- tures, continued to make their living and spend their lives much as men had done before. ) ' ^ At the beginning of the nineteenth century, most people in Europe made their living in agriculture, by long, hard work, using plows and tools like those which had served for a thousand years^^ They dwelt in small, ill-heated, poorly ventilated houses. They did some manufacturing, or work with their hands, spinning, weaving, and the many things that go to supply men and women with what they must INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 111 have. Much manufacturing and trading were carried on in the cities and towns, where Hving conditions were better for more people; but still the manufacturing was usually done in the midst of the family, in little houses, or in a few rooms of some tenement, with simple tools and by pro- cesses which had come down scarcely changed through generations. The conditions in which most of these people lived can best be realized now by going to some small village, isolated and off from the currents of modern progress, to which the changes of the past hundred years have scarcely come yet. In village or in town then people got their water from spring or pump, and there could be little washing and cleanliness of person. In winter the diet was monotonous and meager, for there was yet no canning and preserving, and usually meat could be kept only by salting. Most people never had coal for heating; there was no steam heat; people wrapped up in their warmest clothes to keep warm at night or else went early to bed. There was no electric illumination; streets in the cities were generally dangerous and ill-lighted at night, and houses were shrouded in gloom unless the inhabitants could afford to buy lamps or candles. There were no railroads, no steamships, no telegraphs, no telephones. Travel by horse or by stage-coach and communication by messenger or dilatory post were so slow and uncertain that most people never traveled far, and outside of the few large cities people remained ignorant of what went on at a distance, or only learned of passing events a long while after they happened. There was, indeed, not a little of comfortable, splendid living, with so much beauty and grace, that we love to look back upon it now and try to recall it; but this was only for the few. Most people had no share in it, and never could hope to have. Not only did they have few of the things now taken as a matter of course, but, however they strove, they could not hope greatly to better themselves, for, working as they did then Things now common then wantmg 112 EUROPE, 1789-1920 with rude appliances and without machines, alone in their homes, with little cooperation or division of labor, it was not possible ever to produce much more than was needed for a bare subsistence.^ So it had been in ancient times; so it continued to be down to the beginning of the nine- teenth century. Then at last began changes so profound that for many people conditions of living were altogether altered; and presently began immense social changes and new problems, enormous and baffling! /At the end of the eighteenth century in Great Britain, and during the course of the next hundred years in much of the rest of Europe, there began a change, which after- ward men saw as the most important revolution in his- torical times. A series of great inventions came, which presently resulted in most things being made by machinery instead of by hand, so that the word "manufacturing" came to have a meaning fundamentally different from before.,^ These machines, which did the work better and more quickly than had ever been possible by hand, were pres- ently operated by power of water or steam, after which they produced manufactured things in immensely greater quantities than before, so that presently there was a larger quantity and surplus of things than ever previously in the history of the world. All this would have involved im- mense change in the condition of people, but other circum- stances which immediately arose altered the very structure and organization of society. ( Previously men and women had labored in their own homes or the fields about them; now they went out to do industrial work in large numbers together. Then they had worked for themselves; now they worked for wages which some capitalist paid. Once manufacturing and conditions of labor had beeH-t5arefully regulated by governments or guilds; now the conditions were left to adjust themselves. The changes brought about by all this were for a long time only partly under- stood. /But when a hundred years had gone by and men INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 113 appraised the alterations which had slowly taken place, they began to understand clearly that the nineteenth century marked off, more than any which had gone before it, an old world from anew, and that the Industrial Revolu- tion still promised changes which might affect all govern- ment and social life. /^ It was in Great Britain that the most important changes of the Industrial Revolution began. The seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries were for all of western Europe a period of great intellectual and scientific activity, i Ger- mans, Frenchmen, Italians, Dutchmen, as well as men of Scotland and England, busied themselves with study of the world about them, and there were many great scien- tific discoveries and inventions. During this period many men understood that the earth revolved about the sun, that the blood circulated through the body, and believed that all things attracted each other in proportion to their mass and their nearness; it was also in this period that telescopes, microscopes, clocks with pendulums, and not a few rude machines first came into use. Some peoples necessarily lagged behind. German lands were ruined and long blighted by the wars of religion, while the various German states were not able to unite and give their people the prosperity of union and strength. Italians remained disunited and under the yoke of foreign masters, and then, as later, they lacked the material resources for considerable advance. Holland was small and her citizens gave them- selves above all to commerce and colonial development. There was notable progress in France, but Frenchmen were involved in continuous and costly wars with the neighbors who touched their frontiers, while they too were seen after a while to lack some of the basic resources. None the less, France and Holland especially were slowly going along the same road the British people were traversing. P But it was especially in Great Britain that conditions favored large change. There a strong and settled govern- Beginning of the Industrial Revolution in western Europe I France In Great Britain 114 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Mechanical invention Inventions in the textile industry ment had long existed together with greater freedom for the individual and less of the old restrictions made by guild officials or lords of the manor. For more than a hundred years British commerce had developed, bringing much wealth into the country, and creating a large class of eager, ambitious leaders and adventurous men with keen minds. The habits and temperament of the people had disposed men to apply themselves more to making things work in actual practice than to speculative philosophy and ar- tistic creation. Though English poetry and prose writing had developed into the greatest of modem literatures, the people of Britain had failed to make any signal contribution to music or sculpture and had not made much to painting; but some devoted themselves eagerly to scientific study, especially to the practical application of science. Men, whose names are forgotten now, labored to make machines that would pump water from mines or dredge the bottoms of swamps or rivers, boats to sail faster, or devices for doing work more quickly or more cheaply. In the Public Record Office in London are many manuscripts with rude drawings of machines upon which the inventor desired to take a patent or for which he wanted government help. So, after many failures and by slow degrees were perfected the engines that ran by steam and the machines that took the work from men's hands; for neither the steam engine, the railway train, the steamboat, nor numerous other things, were suddenly perfected, but were often the prod- ucts of long and painful evolution. [ In the eighteenth century a series of inventions brought about a great change in England. The first of them con- cerned the clothing industry,^ which up to that time had depended upon slow, patient, laborious work. Most cloth then was made of wool, though silk had long been used for the wealthy, and for some time cotton, brought from Asia and the new American lands, had been growing in favor. Wool, silk, or cotton, the fibers had to be slowly arranged INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 115 and patiently spun into thread, and the threads woven by hand into cloth. By such devices there could never be much cloth produced, and the generality of men wore what clothes they had as long as they could. In 1738 a certain John Kay invented the " jfly-shuttle " with which weavers could make cloth more quickly than before. But as the thread was still produced largely by women working at the old spinning-wheels, with one wheel turned by mo- tion of the foot, not enough thread could be spun to let the weaviers work faster. C A generation later, about 1770, James Hargreaves, a weaver of Lancashire, completed an invention, the spinning jenny or engine, by which a num- ber of wheels could be turned by revolving a crank, so that one person could now spin out eight threads at once. Up to this point in the textile industry simple machines had been perfected enabling laborers to accomplish more with the work of their hands. But already in 1769 Richard Arkwright, a successful business man, began applying water power to spinning devices 1 His machines were large and costly, and there now began one of the most significant things in the revolution. Only rich men could afford to have the machines, and once having them could dispense with a great part of the labor of employees, while those whom they did require had to work for them in fac- tories under their authority and direction. Z' Then in 1779 Samuel Crompton, using the inventions of Hargreaves and Arkwright, produced the "spinning-mule, '3 by which much more thread could be spun than ever before; and in 1785, Edmund Cartwright succeeded in applying water- power to a weaving-machine, and it was soon possible for a boy, scantily paid, to do more with such an appliance than three skilled weavers without it. In America, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin or engine in 1792, by which cotton could be separated from its seeds much more quickly than ever before. The result was that huge supplies of cotton were soon raised and picked and sent Application of power to machines 116 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Pre- eminence Britain of Coal The age of steam to England, where already enormous quantities of wool were being spun and woven, and Britain became beyond all question the center of the world's spinning and weav- ing. One might think that these inventions would have been studied and then copied in other lands, and so they pres- ently were; but generally foreigners were slow to interest themselves, the old regulations of trade and industry ham- pered the adoption of new devices on the Continent, and very soon came the Wars of the Revolution and Napoleon, when for more than twenty years, outside of Britain, Euro- peans gave little thought to industrial development. Bri- tain had also another advantage in great deposits of coal and iron, lying near to each other, easily got and used, pres- ently applied to run the machines, and make vaster in- dustrial progress. For a long time men had dug the black stones of north England about Newcastle, and sold them as sea-coal to be burned in the winter. But down to this time not much had been mined and it had generally been used as fuel in houses. The forges and small furnaces burned wood, until a great part of the English forests had been consumed and the woods of Ireland nearly ruined. In the eighteenth century, however, coal began to be used for the smelting of metals and to get power for running machines, and soon the age of steam began. Rude steam engines for pumping water from mines were invented at the end of the seventeenth century, and there are traditions of devices much earlier. Improvements were made by many who worked upon them, especially by Thomas Newcomen in 1705, and above all by James Watt, who in 1769 began making improvements which are prac- tically the basis of the modern steam-engines. Before his time they had been used only for pumping, but as a result of his improvements they were applied to the driving of machines. To make these large, heavy engines and ma- INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 117 chines much iron was needed and it could not be got without a great quantity of fuel. In the central and northern parts of the island large iron deposits existed, with vast coal fields in south Wales and northern England. So in the vicinity of the coal deposits blast-furnaces ap- peared, and huge forges and rolling mills, beyond anything ever seen before. Great quantities of powerful tools and machines now came into use, making possible the produc- tion of a still greater quantity of manufactured goods. Not only industry but communication was altogether changed. In the eighteenth century in England and in France roads and canals had been improved and extended. In the early part of the nineteenth century many efforts were made to use steam engines to drive boats forward, and this culminated with the work of the American, Robert Fulton, in 1807, Steamboats now moved up and down rivers and along coasts, defying current and tides, and after the voyage of the steamship Great Western in 1838, the ocean could be crossed in two weeks instead of a month. Meanwhile efforts were being made to have engines drive coaches or cars. A hundred years later it was done very differently when automobiles were invented. The appli- ances developed at the beginning of the nineteenth century were far clumsier and much less powerful, and the problem was solved then by making an engine drag cars along rails laid for the purpose. Such was the origin of the railway. In 1808 Richard Trevithick ran the first steam engine along a railway in London, and in 1825 George Stephenson perfected a more powerful locomotive.) The history of the Industrial Revolution in Continental Europe is a story of the adoption, imitation, and later per- fection of these appliances and methods. For a long time Britain remained far ahead. She was in the earlier part of her industrial transformation when the French Revolu- tion began. When the final victory over Napoleon came she was the workshop of the world, and as supreme in Commtini- cation and transporta- tion Steamships and railways Great Britain out- strips other cotmtries 118 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Industrial Revolution in France In central Europe In the Gennan Empire industrialism as she was in commercial power. For a time Europe, exhausted and shaken, found it easier to buy from her than attempt any industrial development, but pres- ently the Industrial Revolution spread from England to lands near by^' /^French industry, developing more slowly, had been greatly checked by the wars; but now it went on with its expansion after the time of the Congress of Vienna, and presently a new generation had brought into France the machines and the methods of England. In Great Britain the new industrialism had brought such profits and success that agriculture was partly abandoned, and by the latter part of the nineteenth century most of the people were employed in making manufactured goods. <;^But there was never anything like this in France, where the greater part of the population continued to be engaged in agriculture, since in France there were no such great deposits of coal and iron) and the temperament of the people did not so readilytend toward large-scale production with machines. Nevertheless, by the middle of the century the Industrial r^' Revolution had done its work and brought about in France the problems which England was facing. It had already spread also to Belgium. More slowly it moved across central and eastern Europe. In Austria for a long time it made little progress. In the German lands to the north also it developed somewhat later. After the Congress of Vienna the Germanics re- mained separated. It was not until 1834 that they went so far as to form a customs union. After this had been achieved the old barriers obstructing commerce were re- moved, and wealth and manufacturing increased. After the establishment of the North German Confederation (1866), and especially after the Franco-Prussian War and the founding of the Empire (1871), industrial development went forward with giant strides^and the vast alteration and the problems which had revolutionized Britain half INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 119 a century before were now seen in Germany also. The Germans, adopting the devices which others had invented to do new work or 'save labor, perfected them by patient endeavor, accomplished with them new results, and pres- ently worked upon large-scale production more cheaply and successfully than any other people in Europe. Spain and Italy, lacking coal and iron, none the less developed modern industrialism in some places in the later years of the century,) and about Barcelona and Genoa and Milan appeared the great factories, the slums, and the socialism, long before seen in Birmingham and Paris. In Switzerland a great deal of manufacturing continued to be done, as before, in houses or small shops; but the abun- dant power of numerous swiftly descending streams was also employed for Industrial development in place of coal, which was lacking. Utilization of water power for factory development seemed to promise greater industrialism in northern Italy, and it did actually make possible a large amount of manufacturing in Norway in the early years of the twentieth century. To the Balkan countries except Rumania — a very striking exception — backward, and but recently escaped from the debasing tyranny of the Turk, little of the Industrial Revolution ever came, and these people remained what their fathers had been before them, mountaineers or shepherds or farmers. ^ In Russia, all the eastern half of Europe, the Industrial Revolution began a hundred years after it commenced in Great Britain.' This was not because the Russians lacked the materials for industrial development, since they, like the Chinese, had abundance of coal and iron and they had one of the largest supplies of petroleum in the world. Their backwardness was owing to comparatively low civi- lization, their unwillingness to take up manufacturing, and their lack of aptitude and skill. In Russia almost all the people, generation after generation, had done little more than carry on a rude agriculture; few of them had In other lands The Industrial Revolution in Russia 120 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Imped> iments General results in Europe / Industry and agriculture in Great Britain any education or any industrial training, so that it was not easy for Russian capitalists to find skilled and industrious workmen, and what they could produce was often not to be made so cheaply or well as it could be in Great Britain or the German Empire. They were also immensely ham- pered by vast distances and lack of railroads and good transportation. Nevertheless, in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution began in Russia. Factories were established and artisans trained and gathered together, mostly in the western parts border- ing on Germany and Austria-Hungary, and the center of Russian industrial life was in what had been the old King- dom of Poland. In the early years of the twentieth cen- tury Petrograd, Lodz, and Warsaw had their tall chimneys their slums, their proletariat, together with the dark, strange problems which the Industrial Revolution had brought to western Europe long before. ' Some of the consequences of the Industrial Revolution in Europe were temporary, some were lasting. Europe, and especially the western part, obtained still greater su- premacy and wealth. There was an enormous increase of population throughout Europe in the nineteenth cen- tuiyj Levasseur, the French statistician, reckoned the numoer of inhabitants in 1801 at one hundred and seventy- five millions. By 1900 the population was about four hundred millions. This was partly due to the increasing numbers of people on the wide Russian plain; but^in some countries, like Great Britain and the German Empire, it was principally the result of industrial growthj^ In 1801 the population of England was only about eight millions five hundred thousand; in 1901 it was more than thirty -two millions, having very nearly quadrupled. Dur- ing that period agriculture in Britain fell back, and it would have been impossible to feed the increasing multitudes except for increasing importations of food bought with man- ufactured goods. At last three fourths of all the people INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 121 were occupied in industry and commerce. Britain, being first in the field, found it easy enough to support growing numbers by selling manufactures to other peoples still mostly engaged in agriculture, and she had, moreover, an immense colonial empire, in many parts of which the great- est opportunities for a long time would be in agriculture, in grazing, or in mining. But obviously, in course of time, each country would desire to develop its own manufactures, and when this came to pass, the older industrial communi- ties would no longer be able so easily to get their own living. Germany afforded some evidence of this. Her popula- in the tion also greatly increased as a result of the Industrial German Revolution. In 1837 the population of the lands later on °^^^® contained in the Empire was a little more than thirty-three millions; by 1910 there were sixty-five millions, the popula- tion having almost doubled. Three fifths of these people were now engaged in manufactures and commerce ; and many of them got their living by making goods to be exchanged abroad for food. But the Germans had no great colonial empire to buy manufactured articles from them, and were obliged to compete in a field, largely taken by the British before them, which was now slowly diminishing as other countries established their own industrial systems. In the latter part of the nineteenth century Germany could well Prospect support her population by expanding manufactures and otihe selling at lower cost; but many of her people believed that later on this could not be done unless they obtained great colonial dominions. At the present time the United States has become industrially self-sufficient, and other countries are on the way to achieving such state. Japan aspires to become the workshop of the Orient until such time as industrialism develops in China. Probably countries like Great Britain and Germany are not destined to con- tinue indefinitely their expansion in population and wealth, in so far as that expansion is based on making and selling to other peoples the manufactured goods which they need. future m EUROPE, 1789-1920 r Great develop- ment of cities /^Shifting of centers of population / There was a change from rural to city life in many parts of Europ^J Down to the end of the eighteenth century, there was no large community in Europe in which the great majority of the people did not make their living by agriculture and live in villages in the country. Afterward, however, in those countries like Great Britain, Belgium, and the German Empire, (^where the new industrialism most flourished, in course of time most of the people were gathered together around factories in cities or towns. So most of these people were cut off from contact with the soil, and in some of the larger places almost removed from knowledge and acquaintance with the country, from which their forefathers had developed character and derived their principal thoughts. In this manner arose not only a new set of problems, but also a different character and a new way of looking at things. Furthermore, the Industrial Revolution brought about a shifting of population, with alteration in the relative importance of different parts of the same country, or in- deed of different countries^ Down to the middle of the eighteenth century the rich and important parts of Eng- land were the east and the south, containing the best agri- cultural lands and the principal seaports. After 1760 this was gradually changed until the greater part of the people lived about the new industrial centers of the west and the north. Scotland's larger prosperity dates from the latter part of the eighteenth century when industrial life devel- oped on the banks of the Clyde. In the early Middle Ages Flanders and the western Netherlands contained splendid cities with flourishing small manufactures, but after the sixteenth century, those parts which freed themselves from Spain and which are nowadays known as Holland, be- ginning a great commercial development became far richer and more powerful than the parts which remained under the Spanish rule, known as the Spanish Netherlands, and which later as Belgium were made subordinate to Holland. I INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 123 But with the industrial development which followed sep- aration from Holland in 1830, Belgium, with her coal and iron and huge factories in the valley of the Meuse, went forward in wealth and population faster than Holland. Until the middle of the nineteenth century France con- tinued to be as populous as Germany and stronger, but after that time, when German unity was accompanied by mighty industrial growth, Germany went forward so much more rapidly that in 1914 she had half again as much wealth as France and nearly twice the population. Industrial development also brought great changes in military strength. As the Industrial Revolution pro- gressed, machines and tools of all sorts became so much more complicated and powerful that a great change took place which was ill understood before the events of 1914- 15. By the time of the outbreak of the Great War, the power of cannon and rapid-fite guns had become so im- measurably great, and so enormous the disparity between men supplied with modern death-dealing instruments and the very bravest not so equipped, that a nation's military strength was no longer in any direct proportion to the num- ber of its warriors, but to the size of its armies equipped with modern weapons and supplied with the ammunition which they needed. Therefore, states possessing abun- dant iron and coal with developed industrial systems, numerous factories and machines, and multitudes of skilful workmen able to produce vast quantities of pig-iron and steel to be worked up into mighty weapons of precision and other implements without number, were the only powers that could fight a great war with any chance of ultimate suc- cess. Russia — which a hundred years before had appeared a colossus and still had by far the greatest number of fight- ing men to call into service, but which had as yet few rail- roads and factories and trained industrial workers — was found to possess slight military power compared with Germany. The industrial strength of Germany was then Industrial basis of new military strength Downfall of Russia 124 EUROPE, 1789-1920 General changes New industrial organization The domestic system seen to be the basis of military power so enormous that at first she easily defeated all her opponents. The war presently became fundamentally a great duel between Germany and England, the other great European indus- trial nation; and was finally decided, after Russia with her millions had been completely crushed, by the entrance of the United States, the greatest industrial power in the world. ( The problems, the ideas, the beliefs which arose out of the Industrial Revolution, varied in different places, and, also, in some parts of Europe they appeared much sooner than in others, since, generally speaking, the Revolution reached from the western part of Europe to the east in about a hundred years. But in all places there were cer- tain conditions of primary importance, and in almost all places similar results followed from them. The Industrial Revolution involved a fundamental change in manufacturing methods, in living conditions, and in relations between employer and employees. Machines came to be more important than workmen. Factories became larger and larger. Independent workingmen dis- appeared before capitalist employers, small capitalists before large ones; and in the end industry was more and more organized in stupendous corporations, in' which there was no longer any personal relation between em- ployer and employees, and often no understanding between them. ^ Under the old system of industry manufacturing was carried on mostly in houses of the workmen themselves. There the man of the house made his shoes, wove his cloth, or worked with his leather or iron, assisted by wife and children, or, where the guild system still survived, the mas- ter worked in the midst of apprentices who were learning their trades. Most of the work they did with their hands, or with small and simple machines. Personal, intimate relations existed between all these workers. The father INDUSTRIAL RjEVOJLUTION 125 might be a little of a tyrant; a bad master might abuse or overwork his apprentices; but an honest and kindly man watched out for the welfare of those around him, and was able to do it because he lived with them and knew of the thuigs which concerned them. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries this system was being partly superseded by small factories and capitalism. None the less most of the manufacturing continued to be done as before by the domestic system, in the houses of the workers, and many of them worked for themselves. At first the new inventions made no great change. Not every successful workman could afford to buy Har- greaves's spinning-jenny, yet this machine was not very cumbersome or costly. But the heavy-power spinning machines of Arkwright could be got only by the few who had considerable capital to buy them and put up buildings in which to instal them. And when presently power- looms and spinning appliances were run by steam engines, then only capitalists could buy them. This involved hardship in the time of adjustment, and entire change in the way manufacturing was done. In all countries where the large machines were brought into use most of the domestic industry was slowly crushed out. For a while the workers would strive desperately to com- pete, working longer hours and selling their products more cheaply than before; but almost always in the end they failed completely. Hence the old system passed away. Most of the workers drifted to the towns where the fac- tories were rising. Some could find no place in the new system; and it seemed to them very wrong that through no fault of theirs they could no longer make a living, be- cause machines took away all their chance. Sometimes they resisted desperately, and mobs of weavers smashed the new looms or tried to prevent other workers from using them. When the law was invoked all this came to an end, and, more and more, men and women who had Changed by the large machines The old system passes 126 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Factory towns Working conditions I /a Laissez- faire marks the Industrial Revolution worked in their cottages with wheels and hand-looms gave up their efforts and asked for factory employment. In Britain in the early part of the nineteenth century and in the German Empire in the latter part, it was less easy to make a living in agriculture, because grain and meat could be produced so much more cheaply on a large scale in Argentina, Australia, and the United States. German agriculture after 1879 always held its own because it was protected, but in Britain after the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, when such protection was abandoned, Brit- ish agriculture declined, and people were not only at- tracted to the factories but to a considerable extent almost driven away from the farms. Long before this there had been a steady drift of workers to industrial towns, where they were crowded and huddled together in the miserable tenements of squalid parts newly built. There was wretched overcrowding, with much dirt and unhappiness and disease. Many people now spent their lives working in factories, living in narrow streets, blackened and soiled with smoke from the chimneys, after a while so far away from the country that many lost all love for nature. Formerly, life had often been hard enough, and living very meager, but many of the workers had been their own masters. Now they worked very largely at the mercy of employers who owned the indispensable machines, and whose principal consideration was usually the getting of wealth, not the employees' welfare. Generally there were more laborers seeking work than were needed, so that the employer had great, even cruel advantage. { In all places the beginning of Industrial Revolution brought as much misery as benefit to the workers. This resulted very largely because certain principles and ideas were applied to conditions for which they were not adapted. The Industrial Revolution resulted not merely from great mechanical inventions, from power-looms, en- gines, and steamboats, but also because of the rise of the I INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 127 doctrine of laissez-faire and the abandoning of previous restrictions by which industry had been regulated and employers and employees protected. ) Formerly in England and in Continental states there had been elaborate regula- tions, which, notwithstanding that they were made by the upper classes, yet gave some protection to the workers. But in course of time, as the older system decayed, those who favored new methods believed that these regulations interfered with industry more than they helped it; and Cduring the latter part of the eighteenth century the whole tendency had been to remove restrictions and let things take their own course. Hence arose the doctrine of laissez-faire, taught by Turgot and other French writers and brought by Adam Smith into England. At this time also Rousseau and his contemporaries were teaching that men had natural rights which had been obstructed or taken away by interference of the government above them. This doctrine developed in one direction toward equality, democracy, and self-government; in another direction it led to the belief that men should have freedom of contract, freedom to work in such conditions as they chose, or liberty to manage their business without governmental regulation. Experience was to show that the freedom of laissez-faire would give more power to the strong and put the mass of the laborers in more lowly and hopeless subjection. J /" One effect of the Revolution was to establish a new upper class. "Aristocracy always exists," said Napoleon on one occasion. ■ "Destroy it in the nobility, it removes itself immediately to the rich and powerful houses of the middle class. Destroy it in these, it survives and takes refuge with the leaders of the workshops and people." Napoleon could little understand the forces of democracy then rising, and he could not foresee that perhaps the greatest move- ment of the next hundred years would be the attempt really to improve the condition of the masses by giving them control of their governments and bettering their economic Regulation abandoned The new upper class 128 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Power of the capitalist owners Wages /^Depression of the mass of the workers , position. Neither he nor his contemporaries could know, perhaps, that the Industrial Revolution then progressing in England would be the most powerful factor in bringing this change. But contemporaries must have seen then that one of its first great effects was to make a powerful new upper class. /" Owners and managers were an upper industrial class, since only the rich and successful could buy the machines and develop the great new industrial arrangements.. In medieval times the barons and lords of the manor had held much power over the villeins who worked their estates; scarcely less great was the power now of manufacturers over their employees. There was frequently a surplus of labor; so they could get as many workmen as they wanted, decide which ones to employ, and dictate to them the terms and the wages. The government ceased interven- ing to protect the workers, and it was moreover controlled by the upper classes who considered their own interests first. The belief was held that poverty and suffering re- sulted from operation of natural laws, which kindness could never remove, and that best results were always obtained by each man seeking his own selfish interest. It was often said then, as later, that larger wages would only result in larger numbers of children, after which the families would be no better off than before. So, the pre- dominating doctrine in England was that capitalists should make as great profits and take from the workers as much labor as possible, and pay as low wages as they could. / And this was done'in Britain, and at other times in almost all places where industrialism was being established. Great prosperity came to some, and the nation seemed rapidly growing rich, but actually there were horrible results. Workers with their families crowded into the factory towns because they could no longer make a living in their cottages or out in the country. The throngs of laborers bid against each other for work, and wages were i^imk .'? INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 129 easily driven down. Often the man alone could not sup- port his family. This had frequently been so under the older system, for in the home industries often the man was helped by his wife and his children. Now they also must go to the mills and get scanty wages. This depressed men's wages still more, for frequently capitalists found that their machines could be run just as well by the cheap labor of women and children. Not all of the picture should be dark; but in the mill towns of Britain there were presently many idle men and many more who got insuffi- cient wages. There were also women working long, hard hours, and so weakening themselves that often their babies died soon after birth, or lived to grow up weak and sickly. There were also in the factories many small children, who should have been at play or in school, but who at the worst should never been have made to toil the long hours of drudgery given them. In England there had been for generations a sturdy agricultural population which sup- plied the fighting men who won England's wars; now a considerable part of the population degenerated, and the factory towns contained many poor, ill-nourished, over-worked men, women, and children, pale and weak and disheartened. ^ It was scarcely realized at first how much power the concentration of wealth was giving to the industrial mag- nates who possessed it, and how helpless the individual worker was before them. It is clear enough now that whereas in the Middle Ages aristocrats or the strong and able men either went into the Church and rose to be powerful ecclesiastics, or got to be captains in the wars or noblemen with castles, men-at-arms, and manorial rights over their fellows, now the able or the privileged went into industry and commerce and won for themselves power and position with their gold or with their machines. Only by uniting could the workers hope to oppose them success- fully. Long before the Industrial Revolution English Degenera- tion Combina- tions of workmen forbidden 130 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Conditions worse, not better r Ameliora- tion The state intervenes workingmen had attempted to form combinations, but these eJ0Forts were frustrated and forbidden by laws, and at the beginning of the nineteenth century it was a well- recognized principle that unions of workmen were harmful to industry and also dangerous to the state. The result was that for a great number of people condi- tions became worse and not better, SpJendid new ideas about equality had come into vogue, and there had even been some attempts to let men govern themselves; but the mass of the people found that they could not get their living any easier than before and some found it harder than ever. The French Revolution had affected civil and legal affairs, rather than economic, and moreover new economic conditions were now being cre- ated by the Industrial Revolution which only new reforms could amend. There was no simple remedy. In some respects a new world was being made, and for a long time the utmost to be accomplished would be the gradual bringing about of new and better conditions as the result of long work and patient endeavor. After a while some things were done. / In England, where the Revolution first went far, the doc- trine of laissez-faire was presently abandoned. In course of time people, becoming more enlightened and humane, could not believe that " enlightened self-interest" did bring the best results. ( The government began to intervene and pass laws limiting the hours of labor for women and children, specifying the age under which children might not be employed, and presently allowing working- men to combine in unions for their advantage and protec- tion. Progress was slow, for legislators hesitated to curtail the rights of individuals or let the state intervene in industrial affairs, so that often the early laws did little to regulate conditions and brought small relief. Moreover restrictions were generally evaded at first and ill-enforced. ( But in course of time the protection given workers by the ■.^t^' I INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 131 government was greater, and much good followed. Mean- while combinations of workingmen, which had been specifically forbidden in 1799 and 1800 but legalized in 1824 and 1825, slowly went forward. They were very weak at first and usually lost their contests with em- ployers. It could scarcely be foreseen then that less than a hundred years later labor unions would have got so much power as to be threatening governments and in some places making their members a specially favored industrial class. For the present, however, the condition of the industrial workers, or the proletariat, as they were getting to be called, was generally low, and improving so slowly that impatient or radical thinkers believed the whole existing system to be wrong, and that new conditions demanded a new and different system. This led to the rise of new doctrines, some of which were among the most im- portant contributions of the nineteenth century, especially socialism, which, as Toynbee said, was one of the para- mount results of the Industrial Revolution.) c A long time before there were people who believed the economic system of their times to be wrong, that some had too much and most had too little; but generally their teachings made little headway, for the old system was based upon control of government and property by a small upper class, and generally the Church, the most powerful factor in European civilization, gave to this system its sanction^ In 1360 John Ball and others preached to English villeins that in the beginning men were equal, and that serfdom ought to be abolished. During the Puritan Revolution in England, in the middle of the seventeenth century, certain Levelers arose to preach that men should have equal posi- tion. During the French Revolution radical leaders sought social and economic equality after civil and politi- cal inequalities had been abolished. In 1794 Babeuf de- clared that without economic opportunity there could be little social or political equality^ and that still the few were Working- men combine Social radicals before socialism began In the French Revolution Babeuf 132 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Robert Owen — sharing of profits Communism or socialism lording it over the many. Reformers then had to do with agricultural France, and the sale on easy terms to the peasants of the lands of the nobles and the Church presently brought better chance than the mass of the people of any nation ever had had. But now the Industrial Revolution was creating a new proletariat, for whom other measures were needed. {^' Early in the nineteenth century Robert Owen, a Scotch- man, instituted at New Lanark a model factory com- munity, where the workers shared in the profits of their labor. He believed that it would be possible for industrial and agricultural life so to be arranged everywhere. Under his enthusiastic and able leadership the enterprise at New Lanark was very successful; but attempts to set up similar communities elsewhere usually failed. Generally it was found that a man with the enterprise and skill necessary to make such a scheme succeed would only work for him- self, and also that the workers, while greatly pleased to have part of the profits, were unwilling or unable to share in the losses if the enterprise was not successful. Never- theless, in course of time, cooperative stores and enter- prises were established successfully not only in Great Britain but in many other countries, though their working has not yet had fundamental effect upon the condition of many of the workers. Owen's idea, that profits should be shared by those who worked together to produce them, was easily developed into the idea that there should be no profits, but that in- dustry should be regulated by people working together for their common advantage* Communism had been taught by some of the old religious societies, and in the Middle Ages the houses of the friars had been established upon this plan. Some people now taught that laborers should work as comrades together, for their common advantage. In 1835 a disciple of Robert Owen used the word "socialist" (socius, comrade or ally). INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 133 Meanwhile the Industrial Revolution was developing in France; factories, slums, and proletariat were attracting more and more attention, and great-hearted men arose to advocate the workingman's cause. Saint Simon, the foun- der of French socialism, proposed that all property should be owned by the state and that industry should be regulated by men of science. Nothing came of this, nor of the pro- posals of Fourier, who wished to see the establishment of industrial communities in which profits should be divided between labor, capital, and talent. Somewhat later ap- peared Louis Blanc, who condemned industrial competi- tion, and taught that the state should institute "social" workshops, in which the workingmen would choose their managers and divide the gains. His plan for national workshops was soon espoused by many workingmen in Paris. In the Revolution of 1848 a provisional govern- ment was established in which Blanc and other leaders of the socialists were represented. National workshops were established but soon abolished. Then the socialists and workmen rose in revolt, but after three days of fighting in the streets they were mercilessly crushed, and the ex- periment came to an end. Nevertheless, the idea persisted that enterprises sh^jild be owned by the state and managed for the workers within them. In the following decades many of the great public utilities were bought by the governments of European • countries, and public ownership was widely extended^y In France, in Prussia, in Italy, in England, railways, tramways, telephones, telegraphs, were bought by the central government or by the governments of th^)^ cities; but the benefits of this public ownership were \ for all the people and not merely for the particular em- ployees in question. After 1914 especially, the doctrine was spread about that capitalists must disappear, that industries, like transportation and the mining of coal, must be purchased by the state, and then operated and Beginning of socialism in France Public ownership and nation- alization 134 EUROPE, 1789-1920 managed by their workers who would share such profits as arose. /' In after days the rise of socialism was remembered es- pecially in connection with the work of Karl Marx (1818- 1883). Of Jewish descent, and of a middle-class family in Rhenish Prussia, Marx was at first a bourgeois liberal, but after a while, through study of the teachings of Owen and through acquaintance with Blanc in Paris, he became a socialist and an advocate of the workingmen's cause. In 1848 he and his colleague, Friedrich Engels, published the Communist Manifesto, a small pamphlet containing in brief form the socialist doctrines. " Let the ruling classes trem- ble," they said. "Workmen of all lands, unite." Forced to leave the Continent soon after, he took refuge in Eng- land, where he lived until his death. During these years, in the midst of poverty, discouragement, and meager living, writing in his rooms often among his tumbling and shouting small children, he prepared his books, especially his great study of political economy. Das Kapitaly which, like Darwin's Origin of the Species, was destined to be one of the most important, and least read, books of the nine- teenth century. ^According to Marx there had always been a few at the top ruling and exploiting the many at the bottom. In ancient times the contest was between masters and slaves; slavery had gradually disappeared, but then society was divided into lords above and the serfs beneath them; grad- ually serfdom had disappeared in most places, as nobles and lords lost their power, but the age-long struggle was still being fought, now between capitalists and the indus- trial workers. In the end the bourgeoisie, the workingmen's enemy and master, would be overthrown completely. Now the workers toiled for their masters in factories and were huddled together in tenements and slums, but their number was great and, if they could unite with the workers in the country, they might some day get the government INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 135 within their control. Capital and wealth were held by a few; they were destined to be concentrated in still fewer hands; then finally, when the people got control, all would be taken over by the state for the people. Marx declared that middle-class capitalists largely owned as private prop- erty the wealth which had been created by the workers, and that with the destruction of the bourgeoisie, this should be brought to an end and capital be the common property of the people. He urged that all should be made to labor, that inheritance and rent be abolished, that all means of transportation should be owned by the state, and that industrial and agricultural work should be directed and controlled by the government. "The proletarians," said the Manifesto, "have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.") ^^^ocialism, or communism, as he called it at first, re- ceived vast impetus and new meaning from his teachings/ Das Kapital never directly influenced many, but the teach- ings of the master were reduced to simple form, popular- ized and spread broadcast, as new teachings and great doctrines usually are, by numerous disciples who told and retold them, until presently they became one of the great factors in the intellectual and economic life of the world; and after some time had gone by it was seen that the teachings of Marx, like the exhortations of Luther and the theories of Rousseau, and like the doctrine of evolution taught by Darwin, had profoundly affected the i^inds of great numbers of men. ^ "In 1862 he took the lead in founding the International Working Men's Association, often known as the Inter- nationale, which brought together in one organization of comrades the socialist organizations of different countries. This soon broke down, though international meetings came together from time to time later on. National feelings silently but constantly grew stronger, and it was impossible to hold together the workingmen of all countries in one Effect of the teachings of Marx Further progress 136 EUROPE, 1789-1920 international organization. In 1914, at the outbreak of the Great War, German and Austrian socialists, then the socialists of France and Great Britain, were swept onward by national and patriotic feelings to give their governments very full support; so that again the Internationale, which had preached the brotherhood of the workmen of all nations, was fatally shattered. In 1871 socialism received a setback in the overthrow of the Commune of Paris, which Marx had hoped would succeed. Moreover, the social- ists, in the presence of their own vast doctrines, began to split up into different creeds, so that by the end of the nineteenth century it was often difficult to tell what social- ism meant. None the less, in the meantime it had con- tinued to gain strength in England and Germany and France; it entered Russia and the United States; and after a while was felt in almost every country in the world. In Germany socialism was carried forward under the inspiring leadership of Ferdinand Lasalle, disciple of Marx. In 1 869 the S ocial Democratic Party was founded by Wil- helm Liebknecht and August BebeL Socialists were re- garded with suspicion and dislike by the government of the new German Empire, stem laws were passed against them, and presently some of the things they demanded were done by the state itself; nevertheless their organiza- tion grew rapidly until at last it had the largest following of any party in the country; though it got its support from many who were not strictly socialists but merely liberals and progressives. In Austria-Hungary also socialism made some progress; but not till the beginning of the twentieth century did a socialist political party attain any importance there. This was partly because the country was backward, and partly because in no other great state was the population less homogeneous and more divided by race and religion. In France also socialism went rapidly forward, though with violent upheavals, which were followed by such re- INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 137 action and repression that development was retarded for a while. The socialist rising in Paris in 1848 was crushed after terrible fighting. The capture of Paris by the Germans in 1871 was almost immediately followed by the establishment there by socialists, anarchists, and radi- cals of a commune, which, had it been maintained, might have been a socialist community only loosely connected with the rest of France. But the conservative people and the peasants overthrew it. There was much destruction of property and life, followed by great and merciless ven- geance. For the time the socialists and anarchists were completely crushed, and radical doctrines were entirely discredited with most of the people of the country. But gradually socialism gained strength again. For some time French socialists were divided into parties, especially under Jules Guesde, a follower of Marx, and Jean Jaures, the greatest and most accomplished orator of his age, who advocated gradually socializing the means of production. In 1904 the different factions were united, and ten years later the Socialist Party received 1,500,000 votes in France. In Italy and in Spain also socialist doctrines made consid- erable progress. In Great Britain socialism advanced more slowly than in Germany or France. This was due very largely to the temperament of the British people, long accustomed to slow change and improvement, and always distrustful of the usefulness of theories and general ideas. In 1880 William Morris, the poet, and other followers of the teach- ings of Marx, organized the Social Democratic Federation. Three years later the Fabian Society was founded by a group of intellectual leaders, including the Anglo-Irish dramatist, G. B. Shaw. They proposed to follow the "Fabian" policy of gradually getting political parties to accept and carry through social reforms. Presently social- ism began to affect the labor organizations, and in 1893 a trade union leader organized the Independent Labor Party, Progress after 1871 In Great Britain The Fabian Society 138 EUROPE, 1789-1920 whose members hoped that socialism might ultimately be brought to prevail. In Russia industrialism made only a small part of the life of a nation whose people were mostly agricultural workers. Nevertheless, it was in Russia that the most thorough-going experiment in socialism was tried. During the misery and confusion which overwhelmed that country in the latter part of the Great War, the old system com- pletely collapsed. In 1918, after a revolution had over- thrown the government, certain socialists forming a group called the Bolsheviki, seized power and maintained them- selves, while they decreed some of the sweeping changes which Marx had long before hoped would come to pass. Private property and inheritance were abol- ished; land, capital, transportation were nationalized; and it was decreed that all people should work. By this time all over the world radical leaders were proclaim- ing that socialism was the hope of the future, and des- tined shortly to overthrow what they called the out-worn systems. No teachings in the nineteenth century aroused stronger opposition and greater dread than the socialist doctrines. They were boldly aimed at existing political and social organization, so that governments, churches, and the great body of conservative and propertied people everywhere were almost always hostile and suspicious, in so far as they knew anything about them. Twice did the French gov- ernment suppress French socialists by force; and under Bismarck's leadership the government of the German Em- pire passed drastic laws against them. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, however, socialists became more moderate and also began to exert wider influence. Ac- cordingly, governments themselves undertook to carry out some of the socialist ideas. This state socialism was begun by Bismarck in Germany in the years 1883-9. Thence it spread into France; and largely as a result of the influence INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 139 of the Fabian Society was undertaken by the Liberal Party in the United Kingdom. More determined was the opposition of the churches. In England, in France, in Germany, and elsewhere, it is true. Christian Socialists, like Charles Kingsley and the Abbe Lamennais, had striven to amend the condition of the poorer classes through legislation by the state, but they were usually altogether opposed to the ideas of Marx; and most churchmen were against all socialist teachings. Greatest of all was the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church. Its authorities condemned the new teachings completely. In 1864 Pope Pius IX denounced socialism and communism in the Syllabus of Errors, and in 1891 Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum declared that socialist teachings violated the natural right of prop- erty, though he deplored the greed of employers and urged that the condition of workers be improved. On no occa- sion was this hostility abated. "The last great fight," said a socialist leader, "will be between the Blacks and the Reds;" meaning the Catholic Church, with its black-robed priests, and the socialists who had taken for their standard the red flag. Socialists refused to follow the dictates of the Church; while conservative people looked on the churches as a bulwark against radical teachings. Extremer social doctrines had long been preached. About the time when Marx began doing his work a French- man, Proudhon, revived and extended the teachings of predecessors in France, that government interfered with the liberties and thwarted the happiness of most of the people, and he declared that the best condition would be one of absence of government, anarchy ('avapx^a), free- dom from interference by the state. He also said that property was got by plundering the mass of the people. His most famous work, Qu'est-ce que la Propriete? (What is Property.?), published in 1840, declared that property was theft. Proudhon was a theorist, kindly and humane; but Hostility of the chiirches Anarchism 140 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Anarchism opposed by socialists Syndicalism his doctrines were taken up by bolder and more violent persons, who undertook to accomplish great reforms by getting rid of existing governments, and who strove to destroy governments by murdering their principal oflScials. Under Bakunin, a Russian, and his followers, anarchism not only made progress among radical workmen in some places, but it spread horror and dread throughout Europe. In the course of a single generation a Tsar of Russia, an empress of Austria, a king of Italy, a President of France, and even a President of the United States, fell victims to anarchist assassins. Marx was almost from the first bitterly opposed to the teachings of Proudhon. Socialism and anarchism repre- sent very different theories of organization. The anar- chists would destroy all authority above, so as to establish complete and extreme individual freedom; the ideal of the socialists was that the state, reorganized, should control all for the common welfare of all the people. Upon the great body of men anarchism never had any more effect than to excite wondering curiosity or terror; and it never did much to affect socialist theories or methods. But socialism was affected by a radical movement from within. In France, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, appeared leaders who asserted that the great goal of socialism was to be reached not through slow, patient work and persuasion but through violence and force; not through efforts in legislatures, which were the creation of the middle classes, who always controlled them, but through direct action of the workers themselves. As parliaments had been devised by the middle class, so had the working people created an institution peculiarly their own, the trade union, which they really controlled, and which should be their particular means of bringing desired changes to pass. The new movement was soon known as syndicalism (syndicate trade union). It spread rapidly into other countries, and across the ocean into the United INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 141 States, where its adherents styled themselves Industrial Workers of the World (I. W. W.). Syndicalists proposed to make the workingmen's unions more powerful by making them larger and more compre- hensive, organizing into one big union all the workers employed in a single industry, and then making powerful alliance "of the large groups, so that in time of need workers who resisted their employers could be supported by their brethren in gigantic strikes or even general strikes which would paralyze the transportation and industrial life of the nation. It was in France that these ideas were most strikingly carried out, though they were tried also in Russia and England and elsewhere. In the years 1906-9 several efforts only partly successful were made by French workers to paralyze opposition by means of great strikes, and in 1910 an attempt was made to stop all railway traffic. But the railway strike failed when the government mobil- ized the strikers for military service on the railways, thus putting them in effect under martial law; and on other occasions not all the workingmen joined, and many citizen volunteers took the place of the strikers. Syndicalist workmen were taught that there must be no real peace even in the time when strikes were not going on, but that capitalism must be damaged and diminished by secret, continual destruction; that laborers must do less work than they were paid for, and that they must injure the product and hurt the machinery whenever they could. Since on one occasion certain French workmen beginning a strike had thrown their wooden shoes (sabots) into the machinery to ruin it, this destruction was often spoken of as sabotage. The extremeness and often the violence of the syndical- ists not only awakened the greatest apprehension wherever they made themselves known, but aroused much suspicion among socialists themselves. In the early years of the twentieth century the syndicalist leaders in Liverpool, in Objects of syndicalists Sabotage Socialism and syndicalism 142 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Further eflfects of the Industrial Revolution Education Dublin, in Paris, in Barcelona, and elsewhere, hoped to bring about the suppression of capitalism and the taking over by workmen of property and the means of production, so that the railways, factories, and mines should be owned and managed by the laborers who worked in them, for their profit and advantage; and some of them hoped for a new organization of the state, which should be but a group of industries or unions of workers, controlled completely by the laborers within them. V Mea nwhile prof ound chang es had been brough t about in the jharacter and position of tlip grpgt hrAy of the people through consequences which followed thp TnHnstrifll Revolution. Nothing else was so potent jn advancing de- mocracy and self-g overnment, education, the emancipa- tion of women, and the spread of numerous liberal i deas. Greafnumbers of people were brought together, and mere association with one another gave them the quicker, more open, more radical minds which come in city life, the power of numbers, and the habit of acting together^ However wretched their condition often might be, factory workers in the towns were soon mentally more alert, more apt to question existing conditions, better able to comprehend changes, and more insistent that changes should be made, than the inhabitants of farms or little villages had been. During the course of the nineteenth century the great ideas which had first been formulated in England, worked out in the United States, and afterward more grandly stated in France, were followed by the masses of the people in western Europe. Gradually in Great Britain, in France, in Italy, in Belgium, and to a less extent in the German states, workingmen and rural laborers were admitted to the franchise; after which, because they were the majority of the people, they tended to get control of the govern- ments as Marx had foretold. They themselves, and the upper classes as well, saw that this power could not be gained, and certainly not well used, unless they got educa- INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 143 tion/and in the nineteenth century, for the first time in the history of the world, it became a great purpose to see that all men and women should be able to read and to writel Then when most of the people had got some education and some political experience, they began to demand reforms in government and life which would make their lot better, and after a while to agitate for thorough changes to bring this about., By the beginning of the twentieth century it was plain to almost all that the future of the world lay in democracy, even though as yet de- mocracy had not always learned to act wisely. Finally, it was because of the Industrial Revolution probably more than anything else that the position of women was changed so profoundly in the last hundred years. The Renaissance, the Reformation, even the French Revolution, which carried some men so far for- ward, left women much as they always had been, inferior and subordinate to men. Down to the time of the new factories and the large machines, most of women's work was always done in the home, under control and super- vision of the nien, whose authority was recognized by law. But one of the results of the Industrial Revolution was that much of all the work formerly done in the home, spinning, weaving, making of clothes, preserving food and a part of the work of preparing it to be eaten, were taken away to be done by factory workers. A large part of such labor had formerly been done by women in their homes; now they went outside to work for wages, which, after a while, they considered to be theirs and kept for themselves. In this way gradually some economic independence was achieved. About the same time began the great extension of education to women as well as to men, and presently the movement for allowing women as well as men to vote. Moreover, the socialist and labor leaders almost always insisted on the equality of women with men. During the nineteenth century, therefore, the Industrial Revolution, Position of women altered 144 EUROPE, 1789-1920 with accompanying factors, made a greater change in the rights and position of women than had been effected by all the movements of the centuries before it. J BIBLIOGRAPHY General : Johannes Conrad, Handworterbuch der Staatswissen- schafU 8 vols. (3d ed. 1909-11); R. H. I. Palgrave, Diciimiary of Political Economy, 3 vols. (1910-13); Benjamin Rand, Selections Illustrating Economic History since the Seven Years* War (5th ed. 1911). The new system: J. A. Hobson, The EvoliUion of Modem Capitalism: a Study of Machine Production (ed. 1912) exceUent; Charles Gide and Charles Rist, Histoire des Doctrines Econo- miques depuis les Physiocrates jusqu* a Nos Jours (1919), trans. A History of Economic Doctrines (1915), for the doctrine of laissez- faire; Werner Sombart, Der Moderne Capitalismu^, 2 vols. (1902), The great changes: D. H. Macgregor, The Evolution of In- dustry (1912); H. de B. Gibbins, Economic and Industrial Pro- gress of the Century (1903) best; Paul Mantoux, La Involution Industrielle au XVII P Siecle (1906), best account of the Indus- trial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution in England: W. W. Cunningham, The Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modem Times, 3 vols. (5th ed. 1910-12), volume III covers the period 1776- 1850; G. H. Perris, The Industrial History of Modern England (1914) ; Arnold Toynbee, Lectures on the Industrial Revolution of the 18th Century in England (1884), the classic exposition in English; A. P. Usher, An Introduction to the Industrial History of England (1920); G. T. Warner, Landmarks in English Indus- trial History (11th ed. 1912). Trade unions: L. T. Hobhouse, The Labour Movement (3d ed. 1912); Sidney and Beatrice Webb, The History of Trade Unionism (ed. 1920), Industrial Democracy (1902). Socialism: R. C. K. Ensor, Modern Socialism, as Set Forth by Socialists in Their Speeches, Writings, and Programmes (3d ed. 1910), a convenient collection of sources; Alfred Fouillee, Le Socicdisme et la Sociologie Riformiste (1909); Morris Hillquit, Socialism in Theory arid Practice (1909); Thomas Kirkup, A History of Socialism (5th. ed. 1913); J. R. Macdonald, Socialism and Government, 2 vols. (1909), The Socialist Movement (1911); W. H. Mallock, A Critical Examinati(m of Socialism (1907); INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 145 O. D. Skelton, Socialism: a Critical Analysis (1911), excellent criticism of; John Spargo, Socialism: a Summary and Interpreta- tion of Socialist Principles (ed. 1909) ; and EncyclopSdie Socialiste (ed. by Compere-Morel), 8 vols. (1912-13); Josef Stammham- mer, Bibliographie des Socialismus und Communismus, 3 vols. (1893-1909). In France: W. D. Guthrie, Socialism before the French Revo- lution (1907) ; Gaston Isambert, Les Idees Socialistes en France de 1815 a 1848 (1905) ; E. Levasseur, Histoire des Classes Ouvireres et de rindustrie en France de 1789 a 1870, 2 vols. (1903) ; Georges Weill, Histoire du Mouvement Social en France y 1852-1910 (2d ed. 1911). In Germany: Franz Mehring, Geschichte der Deutschen Sozialdemokratie (1904), best, by a socialist; Edgard Milhaud, La Democratie Socialiste Allemande (1903). In Great Britain: M. Beer, Geschichte des Sozialismus in England (1913), ^ History of British Socialism, 2 vols. (1919-20), an improved English version by the author; C. W. Stubbs, Charles Kingsley and the Christian Social Movement (1900). Socialist leaders: J. Tchemoff, Louis Blanc (1904); Ferdi- nand Lasalle, Reden und Schriften, 3 vols. (1892-5) ; John Spargo, Karl Marx, His Life and Work (1910) ; Karl Marx, Das Kapital (1867), trans, by S. Moore, E. B. Aveling, and E. Untermann, Capital, a Critique of Political Economy, 3 vols. (1907-9) ; Frank Podmore, Robert Owen, a Biography, 2 vols. (1906). Social problems: J. G. Brooks, The Social Unrest (1913); F. A. Ogg, Social Progress in Contemporary Europe (1912); E. Levasseur, Questions Ouvrieres et Industrielles en France sous la Troisieme Republique (1907); S. and B. Webb, Problems of Modern Industry (1898). Anarchism: P. J. Proudhon, Qu^est-ce que la Propriety? (1840), trans, by B. R. Tucker, What Is Property ?, 2 vols. (1902); E. A. Vizetelly, The Anarchists (ed. 1916); E. V. Zenker, Anarchism (Eng. trans. 1898). Syndicalism: Robert Hunter, Violence and the Labor Move- ment (1914) ; Louis Levine, The Labor Movement in France (1912), best; Paul Louis, Histoire du Mouvement Syndical en France, 1789-1910 (2d ed. 1911), Le Syndicalisme EuropSen (1914); Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism (1918); Georges Sorel, RSflexions sur la Violence (1909), trans, by T. E. Huime, Reflections on Violence (1916); J. Spargo, Syndicalism, Industrial Unionism, and Socialism{191^ . The old r6- gime yielded slowly in Britain CHAPTER VII THE UNITED KINGDOM, 1789-1832 And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under neces- sary restraints : restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear, upon farther inquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) book i, chapter i. The higher and middling orders are the natural representatives of the human race. Macaulay, in the Edinburgh Review^ March 1829. The history of Great Britain differs from that of other western European lands in that the French Revolution made no sharp break or beginning of a new era there. In France and some of the neighboring countries 1789 marks the end of an old regime. In England, where the Revolution had no profound immediate effects, the old system of things never ended abruptly, and was not ser- iously disturbed until 1832, when, indeed, there was no revolution. It was always by gradual changes ^that Eng- land of the eighteenth century was transformed into the democratic nation which existed just before the War. The English people are so conservative that for a long time they have had no violent revolutions or changes very abrupt. At the same time they are so wisely liberal and constructive, that, continuously making changes as changes seem needed, they have often advanced along the 146 UNITED KINGDOM, 1789-1832 147 pathway of reform more quickly than any other people. Others, like the Americans and the French, have at times established a new order of things, recording the change in a new constitution. The Americans, adopting their con- stitution 1787-9, for a long while scarcely altered it at all. The French making several complete changes about the same time, several times afterward discarded their work and returned to an older form. But the British people have no constitution in any single document, and their constitution shows better than anything else how their government has been a gradual growth. It consists of great statutes from Magna Carta to the Electoral Law of 1918, of all of the lesser laws which continue in force, the great decisions of courts, and a body of precedent and custom. The elementary student finds the American Constitution in a few pages near the end of his text-book; only gradually is he able to discover the British constitu- tion. In spite of such gradual alteration, the changes in the British Isles since 1789, seen from a distance, are enor- mous. Britain of the twentieth century is a liberal demo- cracy with government vested in representatives of the people, with men and women taking ever more decisive part in ordering the affairs that affect them, and con- stantly striving to direct affairs in the interests of the body of the people. The Britain of the eighteenth century, though the lot of its inhabitants was better than that of any others in Europe, was a land of privilege and wealth for the few, with power in the hands of a small number at the top, a land of class distinctions and class privilege, of vested interests and subordination of the many. It was still an age of established religion. At the time of the Reformation most Englishmen became Protestants, adherents of the Church of England. This Church, estab- lished by the government, took for its use the old cathe- drals and churches, and administered the religion which English govermnent slowly changed Eighteenth century England Discrimina- tion against Roman Cathohcs 148 EUROPE, 1789-1920 all the people were to have. But some adhered to the Roman Catholic faith. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries these English Catholics were put under penalties, which, if enforced, made them outlaws. They might not sit in parliament or hold public oflSce, or practise their religion openly, nor might they have priests in private, while the law compelled them to attend services of the Church of England. Some of the regulations were com- monly not enforced, but always they could be an instru- ment of oppression in enemies' hands. There were also many Protestants who had desired reformatipn different from that established by the Anglican Church. Such were the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, and at a later time the Methodists. For a long while now these dissenters had been allowed to worship as they wished, but they also were subject to discrimination and debarred from holding office by the Test and Corporation Acts passed in the seventeenth century, though they were now regularly relieved from the operation of these statutes by annual indemnity acts. The government was a limited monarchy, with parlia- ment the principal power. The king, who as late as the sixteenth century had almost all the functions of govern- ment in his hands, afterward lost to parliament his most important powers: making laws and levying taxes. During the eighteenth century his executive power and control of foreign affairs were taken over by the ministers of his cabinet council. According to the law the king still appointed officials, commanded the army and navy, exe- cuted the laws, which could only be passed when he ap- proved them, and presided over the administration of affairs. And it should be noticed that it was partly be- cause the statesmen who drafted the American Constitution believed that the king of England was really an executive that such powers as these were given to the president of the United States. Actually, however, in Britain almost all UNITED KINGDOM, 1789-1832 149 of these powers had been completely lost to the ministers of the cabinet. The cabinet form of government arose in England. From of old English kings had had a council of assistants and advisers to help them in governing their kingdom. In the sixteenth century this body was known as the Privy Council. In the course of the seventeenth century the Privy Council became too large, and kings caused a few of its ablest and most trusted members to meet privately for important business. This followed contemporary usage in France, where the meeting was often held in one of the cabinets or smaller rooms of the king. Gradually in Eng- land the small body came to be known as the Cabinet Council. It was strictly subordinate to the king, who always presided at its meetings. The king's power had long been declining, but in 1714 a dynasty of German princes was called to the throne. The first of them was not only dependent on the great leaders who gave him support, but could not speak English and knew little about the government of his kingdom. Ac- cordingly, he soon stayed away from cabinet meetings, and in his place a first minister or prime minister presided. In the period 1714-1760 the cabinet ministers, who were the leaders of parliament, gradually took away the king's power. In 1760 George III began a long effort to get back what his predecessors had lost, and for a while he had much success. But in reality he tried it too late. After a while he gave up the struggle, and since about 1783 the executive power in the British government has been in the hands of the prime minister and the cabinet. Gradually it was established that these ministers were to be the leaders of the houses of parliament, and dependent on a majority of the representatives in the House of Commons. In the British system now the executive, the cabinet a committee or part of the legislative, the House of Com mons, whereas in the American form of government execu is Cabinet government Cabinet displaces the king George HI 150 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Parliament once not controlled by the people Parliament in the eighteenth century Many towns not represented live and legislative are separate completely. In the Amer- ican system the president is indeed dependent upon the people who elect him, but afterward, throughout his term, he is practically uncontrolled, save by public opinion. In Britain under the cabinet system the executive depends directly upon the approval of a majority of the representa- tives in the Commons. When it no longer has this sup- port, it quickly passes from power. In 1789 this had by no means completely developed. The ministry or cabinet was largely dependent upon par- liament, but in no modern sense did parliament represent the people of England. Less than one man out of ten could vote; representation was not in proportion to population; and the franchise was dependent on property or old right to vote. Parliament consisted of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The Lords were hereditary noble members. The House of Commons was composed of members elected from the counties and from some of the boroughs or towns. From the counties members were elected by property-owners in accordance with a law passed in 1430. Most of the members of the Commons came from the boroughs. By no means did all of the towns have representation — only those which kings had formerly invited to send members. For a long time no new ones had been invited. Now in the industrial regions large cities were growing, which had no representation whatever, while places once given the right continued to have it even though their population was small, or, as in some cases, it had disappeared altogether. In the boroughs the franchise was generally restricted to a very few voters, who were property owners or had inherited their right to vote. Wealthy men were easily able to buy up the "decayed'* or "pocket" boroughs and manage their representation as they pleased. Hence the principal members of the House of Lords, wealthy nobles and landlords, got control of a UNITED KINGDOM, 1789-1832 151 great part of the Commons; and when George III tried to regain the lost power of the crown he began his efforts by buying members of the House of Commons. Only indirectly and faintly did such a parliament repre- sent the people. Perhaps this could not be helped, for most of the people could not read or write, and there were not any very effectual means of informing the people about politics or of making their influence felt. Long before, Cromwell had tried to reform the electoral system, basing representation on population, in the modern way; but this plan failed almost at once. At the end of the eighteenth century many Englishmen wanted parliamentary reform, but their projects had to do with giving representation to the larger places and taking it from some of the small ones. Not many advocated representatives in proportion to numbers, because very few believed that most men should vote. As yet there was little of democratic ideals. The de- mocracy of Athens and other classical places had been for free citizens supported by a much larger number of slaves; and in the city communities of the Middle Ages power and privilege of government were generally limited to only a few. Some teachings of the Christian religion seemed to imply equality, but some of its precepts also proclaimed the subordination of the many to the few. From time to time there had been teachers who asserted the equality of men, but their schemes had failed and their teachings were regarded as false and misleading. Just before the French Revolution Rousseau and others had declared that govern- ment should rest on the consent of its people. Soon after, the Americans wrote in their Declaration of Independence "All men are created equal," and a little later the French Revolutionists asserted that men are born and continue equal and free. But the French soon went back to mon- archy and kings; and the Americans had in their midst black men whom they did not consider, and according to Representa- tion not based on population Democracy Uttle developed anywhere then The Ameri- can and the French Revolutions 152 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The masses obey, not make laws Relatively good condi- tions in Britain the state constitutions which they drafted only a small proportion of their men had the vote. In Great Britain at this time there were only a few people, regarded as radicals or dangerous dreamers, who believed that men were equal or that government should be a democracy based on the votes of its men. "I do not know," said an English bishop, " what the mass of people in any country have to do with the laws but to obey them"; and there were few, even in the lower classes, at this time who would not have acquiesced in his doctrine. There was then much reason why the people of England should consider themselves well off as things were then. Most of the land and much of the property were in the hands of a small class of arist^Mits at the top, but there was much simple well-being am^^ the people. They did not control their government, and it was often directed in the interests of the upper classes, but the aristocracy did on the whole give good rule. Furthermore, there had long been limitations on the power of king and great lords. Men were entitled to trial by a jury of their neighbors, they could not be imprisoned without some cause being shown, and they were not put to torture; while until the days of the French Revolution, on the Continent men and women had little security against being imprisoned with- out trial or accusation, and against being put to torture to make them confess or to punish them. In Great Bri- tain for some time it had been well established that no taxation could be levied by the government unless allowed by representatives in the Commons, and little though these members really stood for the people, this was a limitation upon arbitrary government which down to 1789 existed in no other great country of Europe. Hence Englishmen rejoiced in their country. "It requires no proof," said one, "to show that the British Constitution is the best that ever was since the creation of the world, and it is not possible to make it better." mr UNITED KINGDOM, 1789-1832 153 Most of the people were still engaged in agriculture, though more and more now made their living in the expanding industries of the time. Usually the body of the rural population had little part in the government, and, even in local government, offices were almost always held by the gentry from whom came the justices of the peace. The rural inhabitants were generally rude, ignor- ant, and simple; their work was long and hard; they were frankly regarded as inferior to the upper classes who lived in their midst. In the towns there were throngs of cheap laborers, almost entirely at the mercy of employers. Com- binations or trade-unions were forbidden by law, and many laborers worked in the midst of bad conditions and long hours for low wages. Three out of four children, perhaps, never got education. As late as 1843 it seems probable that one third of the men and one half of all the women could not even sign their own names. The position of women was inferior to that of men. There had until recently been little work that a woman could do except about the home. Usually they were not supposed to have any learning except what pertained to home duties; and if they had education in other things they were often advised to keep their knowledge a secret, since female erudition was thought unwomanly and im- proper, and liable to be disliked by the men. In 1792 Mary Grodwin thought that " women ought to have representa- tives, instead of being arbitrarily governed," but she was aware that this would be laughed at. Women were not allowed to vote or permitted to hold office, though it should be remembered that most men also were debarred. They might not serve on juries, and they were sometimes punished with harder punishments than men. Otherwise, if they remained unmarried — which few women wished — they had the same legal status as men. But married women, the great majority, were put on a distinctly differ- ent footing. The laws had been made in an earlier time The life of the people Position of women Married women 154 EUROPE, 1789-1920 JEffect of the French Revolution Reaction in England when women were very dependent on men for protection. Accordingly, women were expected to obey their men. A married woman had no separate existence according to the law, but was a part of her husband, who was respon- sible for her, and had entire authority over her. Upon marriage the husband became the owner of the wife's property, and the children were legally his. If he saw fit, he might chastise his wife. Finally, it should be noticed that in earlier times families were generally larger than now, and that a great part of all the energy and mental activity of most women was given entirely to the bearing and raising of children. In British life of the eighteenth century there was much apathy and also much contentment and disposition to believe that things were well enough as they were. There were some who strove zealously to remove the disabilities from Catholics and Dissenters, and effect parliamentary reform; and just before the French Revolution it seemed that there was fair prospect of chai^ges being made. The Revolution in France, however, actually delayed such a movement. The conservative temper of the British people was shocked by the execution of nobles and king, the confiscation of property, the f&daiHental alteration in the life of the state. Moreover, Britain was soon involved in a long and terrible struggle with France and with Napoleon, and this made the reaction far greater. Most of those who had at first hailed the Revolution with delight very soon came to abhor it, or else were regarded by their fellows with suspicion. Hence in England the era of reform was postponed for many a year, and reaction caine in its stead. A whole series of repressive laws was passed. Those who spoke or printed what the government considered to be harmful were sternly prosecuted, and in 1794 the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended. There were failures in the war and harvests were bad in England. So there was much dis- UNITED KINGDOM, 1789-1832 155 content, and radical reformers, urged on by the example of Frenchmen and by the suffering at home, asked for peace and for parliaments elected every year by the votes of all the men. Then two measures were passed which made it treason to speak or write against the govern- ment, and practically took away the right to hold political meetings except under government supervision. Peace came after a while, but soon there began the giant struggle with Napoleon, and the long years when Britain held out against most of Europe. During these years there were not only the hardship and exhaustion and waste which always bring much discontent, but the changes of the Industrial Revolution were proceeding with a great deal of misery, unrest, and agitation. There were not wanting men who thought more of altering conditions which they disliked at home than of standing together against the enemy abroad. For the most part, however, the British people understood that the first of all tasks was that of saving their country; and so they turned away from reform for the time. The government kept sternly on at its task, until at last Napoleon was overthrown and the Revolutionary period ended. Britain in 1815 confronted conditions in many respects like those in 1918, after Germany had been overthrown. The war had been very expensive. It had been necessary to purchase huge quantities of provisions and obtain supplies at a time when labor was scarce and prices were high, while large sums had been loaned to Britain's allies on the Continent; so that the end of the struggle found the national debt amounting to £840,000,000 with annual interest of £32,000,000 — sums which formerly would have been regarded as ruinous. There had been inevitable dislocation of business, with heavy losses. Prices had been high and there was much inflation. Now prices began to fall, business slackened, trade with other countries was poor, and many who had served in the army The war engrosses attention Difficulties after the war 156 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Unrest and discontent Changes demanded Stricter repression The Six Acts of 1819 or the navy were dismissed and found it difficult to get employment. Added to this was the general spirit of unrest and agitation which inevitably comes after long war. It was not only a time of slackened industry, but the new labor-saving machines made it harder for all to have work. Agitators found it easy to get men and women to hearken to new doctrines which often people did not understand but which they hoped would bring better conditions. There was much misery and distress; hence men were eager for changes. All sorts of doctrines were taught. Some thought that parliaments should be elected every year; some demanded universal suffrage; some would have repudiated the national debt. In 1816 men were calling for the destruction of British com- merce and the putting of workmen back on to the land, as in 1918 men wanted capitalism ended, and the mines and factories given to those who toiled in them. Alarmed at these radical demands, the government and the upper classes, guided by conservative and re- actionary leaders, carried through .repressive measures. In 1817 another law was passed to prevent seditious meetings, and the Habeas Corpus Act again was sus- pended. Bad harvests caused distress and increased unrest. There was some disturbance, but the govern- ment sternly prosecuted those who took part. In 1819 the so-called "Six Acts" were passed. Magistrates were instructed to seize arms and prevent unlawful drilling; those who offended were to be tried at once; those who published seditious libels were to be punished; a prohibi- tive tax was put upon the cheap pamphlets which cir- culated about among the masses; and meetings, in town or in country, were prohibited unless summoned by the local official. These laws, though at the time they seemed justified by prevailing and dangerous conditions, seriously infringed upon Englishmen's rights. But they were only of temporary duration. The unrest of the years after UNITED KINGDOM, 1789-1832 157 the war largely disappeared. Economic conditions had been bad. As soon as conditions improved, popular dis- content and repressive measures both passed away. The men who were guiding the destinies of England considered things from the point of view of their class, and often, perhaps, of their own selfish interests; but it must also be remembered that they were facing difficult problems in the most difficult times that men had known for generations. In a brief span of years one of the mightiest of all revolutions had arisen across the Channel, overturning old systems and kingdoms, and going like a storm over Europe; then came the greatest of military commanders, and Europe was tormented with fire and with sword, with the march of armies and rush of events, year after year, until at last the disturbers were cast down and a mighty reaction began. In Britain, as in other countries, there was much unhappiness and justifiable discontent, and reforms were sought which ought to have been made. But many of the things that brought dis- content were inevitable results of the war, and could only be cured slowly by operation of time. To the rulers and the upper classes, and generally to conservative people, the principal task seemed to be conserving the institutions just fought for; and they were determined to oppose the reformers and agitators who clamored for radical change. Actually at this time Britain was more liberal than any of the other countries near by. This was best shown in foreign relations. England soon withdrew from alliance with the powers who were trying partly to restore and perpetuate the things which had existed before the Revolution. In 1822 she dis- approved of intervention to restore absolutism in Spain, though she did not resist French occupation. A British fleet prevented complete triumph of the reactionary party in Portugal. Meanwhile Britain had seen the Continental nations, urged on by France, consider undertaking the The task of the rulers Time needed for amendment Foreign affairs 158 EUROPE, 1789-1920 TheSpAnish- American countries Death of George m His failtires reconquest of Spain's revolted colonies in America. The British government invited the United States to join in action to prevent this. The American government re- fused to join Britain, but proclaimed by itself the "Mon- roe Doctrine," which announced that intervention by a European power against an independent American state would be regarded as an unfriendly act. In reality there was little that the United States could have done to prevent any European action. Far more eflFectual was the opposition of Great Britain, because she had complete command of the sea. In reality the independence of the Spanish-American countries was maintained by the sea power of Britain. Changing times were now marked by the passing of statesmen and rulers identified with the old order. George III died in 1820. Sixty years before he had come to the throne a young man of much promise. He was brave, of good appearance, dignified, simple, and excellent in family life. But he had neither a large mind nor any of the qualities of a statesman; he was obstinate, often sullen, narrow-minded, not able to change with the changing times; and he was determined to maintain that which existed and win back the lost powers of the crown. His failures and even his success had both cost his coun- try dear. He had striven to make the American colonies subservient, and in the end the most important were lost. A little later, in 1800, his minister Pitt had brought about the union of Ireland and Great Britain. Had the Irish acquiesced in this union, it would have been the best thing for the people of both islands, and it seems now that they might have acquiesced had the Roman Catho- lics, three fourths of the Irish population, received the civil and political rights denied them because of their religion. Pitt, the prime minister, favored enfranchise- ment of these Catholics, and perhaps promised it to the Irish leaders; but George HI opposed such inflexible I UNITED KINGDOM, 1789-^1832 159 resistance that at last the minister yielded. More than a quarter of a century then elapsed before the Irish Catho- lics received what they wanted, and then it was too late to make them loyal and grateful. Since then Irishmen have so often opposed the Union that men have sometimes thought George III lost Ireland to the British crown al- most as completely as he lost the United States. In the later years of his reign the old king was insane, but so long as he had influence it was thrown against reform or any change, and reformers saw clearly that little was to be expected so long as he lived. George IV (1820-1830) had neither character nor at- tainments to inspire respect or assist any constructive effort; but during the decade of his reign there was con- stant movement of great forces tending toward a change, and presently the diflficult beginning of a series of great reforms. The movement was more rapid in the years of the next king, the simple, democratic, and rather foolish Wil- liam IV (1830-1837). Indeed the electoral reform law passed in 1832 was to mark the beginning of a new era in British political life; and the first years of the reign of the next monarch, Victoria (1837-1901), may be taken de- finitely as the beginning of the new age. Great forces had been operating for some time to bring about change. The existing political system had come down from a time when nobles, great landowners, and political leaders had taken away the power of the king; but now the wealth of the nation was held not only by aristocratic landlords but by manufacturers and merchants also and they insisted upon a share in the government. Parliamentary representation also was based on conditions largely passed away. Once the people of England had been mostly engaged in agriculture, with the best farming lands in the east and the south. Then it had been very proper for political power and representation to be in those districts. But the Industrial Revolution had altered His successors Forces tending toward change 160 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Desire for parliamen- tary reform Jeremy Bentham conditions. The coal was in south Wales, or the west or the north, and the chief iron deposits not far away from them. Therefore, as the British population grew now most rapidly in connection with industrial development, people went to the west or the midlands or the north, and by 1820 the larger part of the population was in these districts. There had been a powerful and growing movement in Britain for parliamentary and political reform before the time of the French Revolution, but the excesses in France, the wars, and the violence of some leaders in England caused most people to look upon all projects of reform with suspicion and dislike. But at last this time was gone. By 1820 the generation that remembered the Revolution was passing, and by 1830 men were coming to power who thought less about Napoleon than prob- lems of the present, and who no longer had to think of change and reform as things dangerous, or perhaps help- ful to the foe. Therefore, the reform movement which had been left to violent writers and agitators of lowly station, was now taken up by people of higher position, and be- came rather a movement of the middle class than of the lower classes, as it had been. Some of this change was owing to the writings of a group of celebrated men, of whom the most important was Jeremy Bentham. He had expounded the idea that the end for which men should strive was always the "greatest happiness of the greatest number"; and declar- ing that the British political system mostly served the interests of the upper class who controlled it, he ad-' vocated extension of political power to the people. The influence of his teaching was spread abroad by friends and disciples, and presently had great influence with statesmen like Durham and Peel. After all, reforms are usually brought about by leaders who carry them forward, not by urging from the mass of the people. UNITED KINGDOM, 1789-1832 161 Several important reforms were now made while the government was still controlled by conservatives and "Tories." First came the reform of the criminal law. In the Middle Ages, in England as elsewhere, suppression of crime had been a diflScult matter. There were many rude and lawless people, to whom might meant right; there was no effective system of police; and there were not enough jails and prisons. To offset this, great severity was used and numerous offences were punished with death. This system, like many other things, had lingered on down to the beginning of the nineteenth century, and, while to some liberal reformers it seemed barbarous and absurd, to a great many it seemed right because it had so long been. As late as 1819 there were about 200 felonies punished by hanging. Death was the penalty for picking a pocket of twelve pence; it was also the penalty for mur- der. It should be said that the savage harshness of this code was somewhat mitigated by a practice which had gradually grown up. In the Middle Ages, ecclesiastics had had the right to be tried in separate courts, where they were punished less severely than they would have been in civil courts, since the Church was not willing to put criminals to death. This right was known as "bene- fit of clergy." It was greatly desired by criminals, and when tried they were apt to assert that they were clergy- men. It early came to be a custom to allow this claim to all who could read; and by a statute of 1705 the privilege was allowed, in the case of a great many crimes, to any one who wished to have .it on the occasion of his first offence. That is to say, while the criminal code ordained death for a great number of crimes, actually the delinquent might in many instances escape severe punishment by asking for benefit of clergy. Even so, however, the exist- ence of such ferocious laws was a grievous thing, and brought about much suffering and debasement of char- acter; so that reform of the criminal law was sought by Reform of the criminal law Benefit of clergy 162 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Sir Samuel Romilly and Sir Robert Peel Discrimina- tions against Dissenters removed, 1828 Catholic Emancipa- tion, 1829 many liberal spirits of the time. The work taken up especially by Sir Samuel Romilly, was carried forward by Sir Robert Peel. In 1823 a law was passed which abolished one hundred capital offences; by 1837 the number of crimes punished by death was only six. Benefit of clergy was abolished in 1827, and a modern police force established in London ten years later . Meanwhile other improvements were made. In 1815 punishment of offenders by putting them in the pillory was done away with, and the whipping of women a few years later. A more humane spirit was evident also in 1824 in the found- ing of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Ten years later the baiting of bulls and cock- fighting were forbidden. At this time also religious discriminations were re- moved. In England the majority of the people were of the Church of England. After 1660 the triumph of the Anglican Church had been complete, and a code of laws was passed against all who dissented from it. The Tolera- tion Act of 1689 had in effect given freedom of worship to Protestant Dissenters, but there continued to hang over them the Corporation Act of 1661 and the Test Act of 1673, by which they were debarred from holding political oflSce, since this was conditional on taking the sacrament according to the Church of England. These laws were not stringently enforced, and were indeed made ineffectual through frequent acts of indemnity; yet they remained on the books. Now at last in 1828 they were repealed, and all Protestants given equality in the state. This brought no relief to the Catholics. Roman Catholics were not numerous in England, but they con- stituted most of the population of Ireland, and there for a hundred years religious disabilities had kept them in a degraded and inferior station. Irish Catholics had been allowed to vote in elections since 1793, but they were not permitted to hold oflSce. Complete enfranchisement ;V- UNITED KINGDOM, 1789-1832 163 had been hoped for and expected at the time of the Union with Great Britain, but nothing had been accomplished. Now the movement was taken up by the Irish leader, Daniel O'Connell, who founded the Catholic Association in 1823 and soon caused such vast excitement among the Irish that the British ministry thought it best to yield. In 1829 a bill for Roman Catholic Emancipation was passed, by the terms of which the oaths of abjuration, allegiance, and supremacy, as well as denial of belief in transubstantiation, by which Catholics had been kept from office, were done away with, and civil and political equality given to Catholics for the first time in the British Isles since the sixteenth century. These great changes marked the formal ending of an old era of religious pre- judice and political discrimination. In spite of these reforms, however, most of the inhabi- tants were still debarred from political rights, and parlia- ment, which controlled the government, very poorly repre- sented the people. The next great amendment, therefore, lay in reforming parliament and extending the franchise. This was only gradually accomplished in the course of the nineteenth century, but the beginning made in 1832 seemed so momentous a thing as to mark a turning-point in the history of England. In the House of Commons there were 658 members. Those returned from the counties were generally de- pendent upon the great landed proprietors there. By far the greater number came from the parliamentary boroughs, and in them the old system was particularly bad. Originally, perhaps, there had been some idea of making the system roughly representative, by hav- ing those places return members which were best able to give money to the king; though always, it would seem, some places were given representation not because of population and importance but since it was believed that their members would vote as the sovereign desired. Daniel O'Connell Reform of parliament The imre- formed House of Commons 164 EUROPE, 1789-1920 In course of time the inequalities became more striking, as places which sent members to the Commons stood still or declined in population, while other places, rapidly growing, had no representation whatever. Neither Leeds nor Birmingham nor Manchester nor SheflBeld returned any members, though they were coming to be the very center of England; but there continued to be representa- tion for Old Sarum, which had almost no people, for Gatton, a gentleman's park, and for Dunwich almost completely under the waters of the North Sea. In most of the boroughs there were only a few voters, entirely under the influence of some great man near by, or else very willing to be purchased. In some of the larger places there were spirited election contests, but usually candidates were regularly chosen at the order of the mag- nate who owned the borough or controlled it. It was well known that electors could be bribed, and on one oc- casion a borough advertised itself for sale to the highest bidder. In 1793, it was said that 309 members were re- turned by private patrons, 163 of them by members of the House of Lords; and just before the reform, that 487 came into the House through the influence of 144 peers Control of and 123 powerful commoners. That is to say, the House the House of Commons was controlled by members of the House of Lords or other wealthy men who desired influence and power. And much power could be secured thus, since the government of the realm now rested upon the House of Commons. Great men who controlled votes in the Commons could not only help to pass measures which they wished, but were apt to get bribes, pensions, lucrative oflBces, contracts, and shares in government loans on very favorable terms. Altogether, it was a system under which most of the people had no vote, in which the repre- sentation was not apportioned according to the population, and in which the great aristocrats and political managers controlled the government of England and Scotland. -^^ >8 t -■■5 M V a D o ^ y I a M t 8 3 § o En f 111 I o UNITED KINGDOM, 1789-1832 165 The long effort to get all this changed received great impetus when it got the support of the powerful middle classes, whom the Industrial Revolution had made im- portant, but who remained with almost no part in govern- ment affairs. The movement was led by Lord John Russell, of one of the great Whig houses; and under his wise and moderate leadership it gained strength year after year. The Tories, under the Duke of Wellington, re- sisted; but in the general election of 1830, at the beginning of the reign of William IV, the Whigs triumphed. Immediately parliamentary reform was undertaken. In 1831 a bill was brought into the Commons, but defeated there. The ministers then had the king dissolve parlia- ment. In the general election that followed there was enormous popular excitement. The Whigs again won a majority, and immediately a second bill was brought in, which passed the Commons by a handsome majority; but again the Lords threw it out. Then there were riots in the cities and violence by mobs, and such an outburst of popular feeling that the Peers were terrified at it. When in the spring of 1832 a third bill was passed in the Commons, the Lords dared not openly reject it but tried to destroy it by amendments. Ex- citement now became furious, and people refused to pay taxes. England, indeed, was at the brink of revolution. After a period of great confusion the king agreed that a sufficient number of new Peers should be created to pass the bill in the Lords, an old device, which had been used before and was to be threatened again. But this was not needed, for some of the Lords abstained from voting, and in 1832 the bill was made law. The Parliamentary Reform Law of 1832 is one of the great landmarks in English constitutional history. It altered a system which had been little changed for four hundred years, and ended the old political arrangement. But it seems a less complete change now than then. By Stronger movement for reform Passing of the Reform Law The Reform Law of 1832 166 EUROPE, 1789-1920 no means did the leaders believe in universal suffrage nor did they design to make representation strictly propor- tional to numbers. These things were not brought about until another half century had passed. The law of 1832 increased the county representation, disfranchised the "rotten" boroughs, deprived some of the small ones of one of their members, and gave representation to large places previously without it. The franchise was somewhat extended in the counties, and in the boroughs the vote was given to householders paying a rental of ten pounds a year. Previously in the British Isles one person out of forty-eight might vote, and the franchise was con- trolled by the upper classes; now the electorate was doubled, from half a million to a million, and the franchise was controlled by the middle class as well as the upper. The significance of this change is not that it made England a democracy, for no country in the world was one at this time, except the United States of America which had just been greatly extending the franchise, but that it began the process which, after many years, was to establish democracy in the British Isles also. BIBLIOGRAPHY General histories: A. L. Cross, A History of England and Greater Britain (1914), the best short history for reference, A Shorter History of England and Greater Britain (1920), con- taining additional excellent chapters down to 1920; and more particularly about this period : J. A. R. Marriott, England since Waterloo (1913); The Political History of Englandy volume X: 1760 to 1801, by the Rev. W. Hunt (1905), volume XI: 1801 to 1837, by G. C. Brodrick and J. Fotheringham (1906); J. F. Bright, History of England, 5 vols. (1884-1904) ; and best of all, Sir Spencer Walpole, History of jj^ngland since 1815, 6 vols, (revised ed. 1902-5), based on thorough study of contemporary accounts. Biographies: A. G. Stapleton, The Political Life of George Canning, 3 vols. (1831) ; J. F. Bagot (editor), George Canning and UNITED KINGDOM, 1789-1832 167 His Friends, 2 vols. (1909) ; G. M. TrevelyMi, Lord Grey of the Reform Bill (1920) ; Sir G. O. Trevelyan, The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay, 2 vols. (1876), most fascinating and instructive; J. H. Rose, William Pitt and National Revival (1911), William Pitt and the Great War (1911); Spencer Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, 2 vols. (1879) ; Sir Herbert Maxwell, The Life of Wellington, 2 vols. (3d ed. 1900). Political conditions and parliamentary reform: Sir T. E. May, Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George III (edited and continued by Francis Holland), 3 vols. (1912); E. and A. G. Porritt, The Unreformed House of Com- mons, 2 vols. (ed. 1909) ; J. R. M. Butler, The Passing of the Great Reform Bill (1914), best study of the subject. The government of the United Kingdom : A. L. Lowell, The Government of England, 2 vols. (ed. 1912), best; Sir William An- son, The Law and Custom of the Constitution, 3 vols, (ed., 1907- 9); Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution (ed. 1911); A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th ed. 1915); Sidney Low, The Governance of England (ed. 1914); Sir Courtney Ilbert, Parliament (1911). Conservatism and change : W. L. Blease, A Short History of English Liberalism (1913), very informing; T. E. Kebbel, History of Toryism (1886), for the period 1783-1881. Liberal and radical thinkers: P. A. Brown, The French Revolution in English History (1918); W. L. Davidson, Political Thought in England: the Utilitarians from Bentham to J. S. Mill (1915); Sir Leslie Stephen, The English Utilitarians (1900); C. M. Atkinson, Life of Jeremy Bentham (1905) ; E. I. Carlyle, William Cobbett (1904); Graham Wallas, The Life of Francis Place (1898). Catholic Emancipation: Bernard Ward, The Dawn of the Catholic Revival, 1781-1803 (1909), The Eve of Catholic Eman- cipation, 1803-1829, 3 vols. (1912), The Sequel to Catholic Eman- cipation, 1830-1850, 2 vols. (1915); W. E. H. Lecky, Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland, 2 vols. (ed. 1903). The law: Edward Jenks, A Short History of the English Law (1912), excellent; Sir J. F. Stephens, History of the Criminal Law of England, 3 vols. (1883). Abolition of slavery in the colonies, 1833 CHAPTER VIII THE UNITED KINGDOM, 1832-1867 I consider the reform bill a final and irrevocable settlement of a great constitutional question — a settlement which no friend to the peace and welfare of this country would attempt to disturb. . . . Address of Sir Robert Peel to his constituents at Tamworth, 1834: Annual Register^ 183^ (Chronicle), p. 341. That any form of Government which fails to effect the purposes for which it was designed, and does not fully and completely represent the whole people, who are compelled to pay taxes to its support and obey the laws resolved upon by it, is unconstitutional, tyranni- cal, and ought to be amended or resisted. Chartist Petition, 1842, Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 3d ser. Ixii, 1373. In the Winter of 1833 the first reformed parliament assembled, and at once proceeded to memorable tasks. For a long time leaders like Wilberforce and the father of the historian Macaulay had denounced slavery in lands subject to Great Britain and had striven to have it done away with. In 1807 the slave trade had been stopped, but slavery continued to exist in the West Indies. Now it was brought to an end. The planters were compensated with £20,000,000 of public money. The negroes were no longer to be slaves, but they were to remain bound as apprentices for seven more years. It was only where slavery was violently overthrown, as it was in the Ameri- can South by the Civil War, that servitude was abolished completely at once. In earlier times there had always been a great deal of 168 UNITED KINGDOM, 1832-1867 169 labor by children, but while manufacturing was done in the home, this had seemed proper enough. Now as workers were brought into factories, the condition of the children employed there attracted more attention. Chil- dren, as young as six years, were made to work for long hours under conditions ruinous to health and not allowing development of body and mind. Protest against this had been made in Manchester fifty years before, and factory legislation in 1802 and 1819 had done a little to remedy the evils. It was difficult to accomplish anything that would really better conditions, for the powerful body of capitalist manufacturers were against any interference, and it was a cardinal policy of the Whigs themselves that the government should let such things alone. But not only were people now coming to be less willing to dis- regard suffering and wrong, but there was more feeling that the state should not permit things which were harm- ful to some of its people. Therefore in 1833 a law was passed which for the textile industry prohibited the employment of children under nine years of age, and limited and regulated the hours for older children. This was the first instance of general state interference in economic conditions since the Industrial Revolution, and while it accomplished little enough, for it applied only to one kind of labor and still permitted a child of ten to be worked sixty-nine hours a week, it was the fore- runner of many other laws, and the real beginning of factory legislation in Great Britain. In the next year another sweeping reform dealt with the problem of poor relief. In days of old and in the Middle Ages alms were given to the needy by the charitable or the religious. After the dissolution of the monasteries in England (1536-9), much of this kind of poor relief came to an end. But the need for assistance was so great that shortly after, in the time of Henry VIII and Eliza- beth, a series of laws had been passed by which contribu- Factory legislation The policy of laissez- faire Reform of poor relief, 1834 170 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Reform of town govemment, 1835 tions for the needy were levied upon property-owners in the parishes where the poor were to be supported. The sick and the aged were to be kept in poorhouses, and the able-bodied idlers put to work. As time went on this legislation had been badly enforced. Idlers were not compelled to work, and almshouses for the needy were in- suflScient. The changes of the Industrial Revolution had brought great hardship to many who could not adapt themselves to the times, and there seemed to be greater need for assistance. About the end of the eighteenth century began the practice of giving money allowances to those whose wages were not enough. The intention was good, but employers who paid as low wages as they could, now made them lower, expecting the state to help, while the idle and the shiftless, feeling sure of some support, were more willing than before to be paupers. This created an intolerable situation; one out of every seven persons in Great Britain came to be dependent on state support, and the contributions or "poor rates" which had to be levied increased in amount until thrifty people moved away to avoid having to pay them. Now by the Poor Law of 1834 the organization of relief was improved, and the principle was adopted of not supplementing wages, and of assisting people outside of almshouses only with medical aid. Next year the system of town government was re- formed. A long time before the government of the cities and the towns had been established by charters. In most of these places only a small number of people might vote, the franchise being confined either to persons descended from those originally allowed to vote, or to those who owned certain property. By the time of the parliamentary reform there were many populous places with a few voters each, and they often poor and lowly men, quite dependent on political managers. In effect, the government of these places was often in the hands of bodies of men who elected UNITED KINGDOM, 1832-1867 171 themselves to offices and to the council. Now by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 most of the boroughs and cities were to have a government vested in a council elected by the taxpayers, and a mayor and aldermen chosen by the councillors from their own number. In this period of change began the reign of Queen Vic- toria, granddaughter of George III, and daughter of his fourth son, the Duke of Kent. In her nineteenth year she was awakened early one morning, in June, 1837, to meet the great officials who came to say that she was sovereign of Britain. She was not beautiful, and she was entirely without the dominating and brilliant qualities of an Elizabeth of England or a Catherine of Russia; but she was a sweet, simple girl, who had been well brought up by her mother; and afterward her personal qualities as a woman and a mother, and a good, if not a forceful character, were to endear her to her subjects beyond al- most any other sovereign who ever ruled England. Her reign of sixty-four years, the longest in the annals of the country, was to see such enormous changes, such mighty extension of empire and power, such greatness and pros- perity, that long before it was over the Victorian Age would seem one of the most important of all the epochs in the history of England. Victoria was to take little part in the government of the realm, partly because the sovereign was no longer the real executive, partly because she lacked aptitude and ability for such work. In 1840 she married Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, who thus be- came the Prince Consort. It was a real love match, and their marriage was exceedingly happy. The Prince had an excellent influence upon his wife, and because of his wisdom and ability he was often able to assist the minis- ters of the cabinet, without ever intruding his advice or assistance upon them. Reforms and improvements continued to be made. Of large importance was the beginning of "penny postage" Accession of Queen Victoria The Prince Consort Penny postage, 1840 172 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Rowland HiU Continued discontetat in 1840, which did more to revolutionize communication between persons than anything else in the nineteenth century. Long before, a system of post had been de- veloped by the kings for sending their own communica- tions, and later on some men made a business of carrying letters and parcels. In the seventeenth century a monop- oly of carrying letters in England was granted first to private individuals, but presently- taken over by the government itself; and then the post office became a department of the central government. In those days of poor communications, bad roads, and comparatively small business, the charges varied according to the size and weight of the package and the distance it was to be car- ried. Generally the service was poor, the charges high, and letters were apt to be opened or lost on the way. In 1840, following the work of Rowland Hill, it was decreed that any letter not more than half an ounce in weight having on it an adhesive postage stamp costing a penny, might be sent anywhere in the United Kingdom. Op- ponents had declared the scheme to be impracticable, and that it would overwhelm the post office with too many letters. Business did increase enormously, but the officials were always able to handle it; and seldom has anything brought greater assistance to business or more happiness and consolation to people. But the tendency of the times was such that discontent continued to increase. There were many bad harvests, a succession of them in the early years of Victoria's reign, with the hunger and misery, the political and social unrest always attendant. People were crowding to the factories, in a movement which gradually transferred most of the population from the farms to the towns, a movement which was proceeding too rapidly, and resulted now in bringing together great numbers of men and women in competition which lowered their wages. The poor law reform was an excellent thing, but scarcely any reform of UNITED KINGDOM, 1832-1867 173 an evil can be made without causing some temporary distress, which comes not from the reform but the evil before it. The old poor relief had indeed pauperized part of the people and encouraged them not to work; but now many found themselves with nothing at all unless they went to the poorhouse. Excellent reforms had been made, but they were not sufficient, and they had not yet had time to produce such betterment as they would later on. To many people, poor and discontented, the government seemed selfish and corrupt, the queen under the influence of evil ministers, and the reforms just obtained mostly made for the upper classes. The Reform Law of 1832 had only extended political power to the manufacturing and mid- dle classes, and given nothing to most of the people. It was in these years that Chartism began. In 1836 was founded in London a Workingman's As- sociation to better the conditions of the employed. The socialists who were beginning their work at this time did not believe that much good could come from the existing system of government, but the Workingman's Association immediately began to strive for political reform. In 1837 they formulated a petition — which was by some called a Charter, after which they were known as Chartists — which contained the things that they sought for. They demanded that property qualifications for members of parliament should be abolished and that the members should be paid, thus making it possible for representatives of the people to be chosen; that all men should be allowed to vote, and that the voting should be by ballot, so that the people might have part in the govern- ment over them; and that the parliament should be com- posed of members elected each year from equal electoral districts. These things had been demanded in England by radical reformers for many years; they were to be sought during many years to come; and as times changed most of them would no longer seem to be dangerous. By Misery among the lower class Chartism Demands of the Chartists 174 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Further industrial legislation The Com Laws 1918 Great Britain was, in effect, to have all these things with the exception of annual parliaments, which still seemed unwise. But at the beginning of Victoria's reign, when there was yet almost no democracy in Europe, the idea of putting the government into the control of representatives of all the inhabitants seemed to conserva- tive people dangerous and absurd. Moreover, when the movement was halted by obstacles encountered, it got into the guidance of extremists who preached violent ac- tion. In 1839 a great convention was held, from which the moderate leaders withdrew. Riots soon broke out, and then certain small insurrections. The government dealt severely with the leaders, and for a while the move- ment collapsed. This was partly because things were made better. In 1842 appeared the famous report of the Parliamentary Commission appointed to investigate the mines. The result was a law which forbade women to work in the mines, and excluded children under ten. In 1844 a law was passed which limited the hours of employment for factory women to twelve and regulated the hours of children. Six years later hours for women and children were reduced to ten. Far more important at the time was the repeal of the Corn (grain) Laws. These laws effected a tariff for the protection of the agricultural interests. In 1815 a law had been passed to prohibit the importation of wheat until the price at home had risen to a certain height. This was in order that agriculture might not be crushed out by foreign competition. The purpose was excellent, but with the increasing industrial population it worked greatly for the interests of landed proprietors, assuring them high prices without competition, at the same time that it imposed on the industrial population a grievous tax of high prices. Repeal of the laws had often been urged, but the agricultural interests were always suflS- UNITED KINGDOM, 1832-1867 175 ciently strong in parliament to prevent anything being done. As time went on, reformers who desired to help the poor, and the manufacturing interest which desired cheap food to make possible lower wages, under the lead of Richard Cobden and John Bright, strongly supported the movement and the agitation became greater every year. In 1841 a general election went against the move- ment, but shortly after a terrible famine began in Ireland, which before long swept away a considerable part of the Irish population. During the awful time of the famine was seen the spectacle of food being kept out by a tariff. Presently Peel, the prime minister, became a convert; and despite furious outcry that he was betraying the Conservative Party, he carried through the repeal of the Corn Laws. Profound changes followed. Cheap food now greatly stimulated industrial development, and Great Britain continued to be the most marvellous workshop in the world. Much distress was removed, and there was a greater amount of material prosperity for all classes than there had been before. Nevertheless, English agriculture, now brought into competition with the grain fields of America, passed partly away. As time went on farming was largely abandoned, and Britain with con- stantly increasing population became ever less able to feed her people. The island was a vast industrial hive and at the same time a place of gentlemen's estates and great parks. When, during the Great War, long afterward, the submarines nearly cut England's sea-routes over which the imported food came, for a moment England was in danger of complete destruction. In 1848 Chartism appeared for the last time. It was the year of revolutions, in Austria, in Italy, in France, and in Germany, when governments were falling or being threatened with destruction. In Britain the Chartists circulated a petition upon which they got an enormous number of signatures, and planned a procession to carry Repeal of the Corn Laws, 1846 Last effort of the Chartists 176 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Further parliamen- tary reform The Reform Law of 1867 the petition to parliament. The government made elaborate arrangements to prevent insurrection or out- break, the middle class rallied to its support, and a great number of special constables were sworn in to help to keep order. The petition was presented to parliament, but the affair ended in ridicule and contempt. Chartism failed, but the progress of amendment con- tinued. The next great step was taken in 1867 when the second great Parliamentary Reform Law was passed. Ever since 1832 there had been demand for extension of the franchise and a new arrangement of electoral dis- tricts. Again population had stood still or diminished in some places and grown amazingly in others; small boroughs returned as many members as great new in- dustrial cities; while out of all the men of voting age only one in six had the franchise. The demands for further reform, which had slowly been gathering force, became stronger by 1865, when the American Civil War ended with the triumph of the North, and the feeling that democracy had gained dignity and strength. Accordingly, in 1866 the Liberals introduced a reform bill, which would have added 400,000 voters to the existing electorate; but this was defeated, and the Conservatives soon came into power. But now suddenly there was a great awakening of the workingmen and disfranchised, and some violence which made a profound impression. At this point Disraeli, the brilliant and versatile leader of the Conservatives in the House of Commons, concluding that extension of the franchise was inevitable, resolved that it should be the work of his party, even though they had just come into power opposed to such a measure. Once beginning, he soon went farther than the Liberals themselves, and the result was a veritable revolution in the government of Great Britain. It is true that all men were not en- franchised, and the famous proposal of John Stuart Mill UNITED KINGDOM, 1832-1867 177 that women be allowed to vote was ignored and almost forgotten until many years later; but the Parliamentary Reform Act of 1867 not only made a new and better distribution of representation, but the franchise, far more widely extended than in 1832, was granted to part of the lower class, especially the artisans of the towns. Al- together, 1,000,000 new voters were added, so that the franchise was now possessed by 2,500,000 people, or one out of every twelve of the entire population. This was the greatest step toward democracy that had ever been taken in Britain or in Europe. That same year the constitution of the North German Confederation, which later became the basis of the constitution of the German Empire, provided for an assembly, the Reichstag, to be elected by universal manhood suffrage. But it was after- wards seen that the Reichstag had little real power, while the government of the United Kingdom was now almost entirely controlled by the House of Commons. Meanwhile momentous changes were begun in the character and organization of the British Empire. For the first time in the history of the world, self-government and equal privileges were extended to outlying and sub- ordinate dominions over the sea. Previously colonies had been allowed to drift away when they pleased, as was often the case with the Greeks, or else kept in strict sub- ordination for the benefit of the country which ruled them. It was the glory of Great Britain in the nineteenth century to begin the reorganization of her empire into a common- wealth of self-governing communities with such privileges as they cared to have, and united with her at last only by common interests and affection. Just before the French Revolution Britain's possessions on the mainland of North America were almost all lost. A third of the English-speaking people separated from the home land, and it almost seemed that the end of her imperial greatness had come. It also seemed to the peo- Wide extension of franchise The British Empire Beginnings of the Empire 178 EUROPE. 1789-1920 Canada Lord Durham's mission pie of Britain in those days that the lost colonies had been ungrateful, unwilling to bear their just share of the bur- dens of the empire, and eager to depart as soon as they could. Far from taking to heart, therefore, the lesson which some proclaimed — that the American colonists might have been held in loyal connection if what they considered their rights as English freemen had not been infringed — people in their bitterness believed that colonies would in any event try to break away, and that mean- while they should be ruled for the benefit of the colonizing power. After the establishment of the United States, Canada, which had been held in spite of the American Revolution- ary War, remained Britain's largest possession peopled by Europeans. In 1791 a constitution had been granted and the country divided into Upper Canada, later On- tario, containing English-speaking colonists, and Lower Canada, or Quebec, with French people. In each province the government was actually in the hands of officials not responsible to the people, who managed affairs as they pleased. In the French portion discontent became so great that in 1832 the legislature refused to appropriate money, and continued this refusal for five years, until a rebelHon broke out under a certain Joseph Papineau. The disaffection spread to Upper Canada, where the discontented felt that the government was very different from that in the American commonwealths south of the Lakes. Actually the rebellion of 1837 was easily put down, but a crisis had arisen much like that in Massa- chusetts in 1775. This was a turning-point in the history of the British Empire. In 1838 the Liberals sent out as High Com- missioner Lord Durham, a man of advanced ideas and great energy and courage; and full power was given him to deal with the situation. His high-handed, energetic measures aroused much opposition and presently brought UNITED KINGDOM, 1832-1867 179 about his recall. But in the following year he delivered his famous Report. He did not believe that self-govern- ment would cause the inhabitants to wish to abandon connection with Great Britain. Rather the tie would become "more durable and advantageous, by having more of equality, of freedom, and of local independence." And he added, with much nobility, that if in the future Canada was not to be part of the British Empire, none the less it was Britain's first duty to secure the well being of the Canadian people. He advised that, except for relations between Canada and the mother country and foreign af- fairs, matters affecting the colonists should be left alto- gether to themselves. With the exception of the governor and his secretary, all the officials should be responsible to an elected legislature. His suggestions were embodied in the Canada Government Act of 1840. The Canadians now settled down in content, and began working out the destiny before them. In 1867 the British North American Act united the two Canadas together with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia into the Dominion of Canada, to which in after years were added all the territories in the northern part of the continent, with the exception of Newfoundland, which still remains a separate commonwealth, and Alaska. The government of this federation was entirely in the hands of the people, except that the nominal executive, the Governor General, was appointed from London; but he had in Canada much the same position as that of the king in England. In course of time, as Canada increased in population and resources, the tie between the Dominion and the United Kingdom was little more than the security which the mother country gave to the colony and the loyalty and affection which the colonists felt for the old land. But the policy of Lord Durham was seen to be abundantly justified, for despite the fact that commercial and economic forces seemed to draw the Dominion ever closer to the United States, with His advice Success of the new policy Loyalty and affection 180 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Failure with Ireland Originof the Irish Question Conquest of Ireland the possibility that at last the two would be joined to- gether, yet in 1912 the Canadians rejected a reciprocity treaty which might have begun this; and during the Great War against Germany the Canadian people showed their love for the Empire by sacrifices and magnificent efforts when the government at London never could have compelled them. Furthermore, the system established in Canada was later on to be worked out in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa, and elsewhere, the parts mostly inhabited by white people, until at last an English- man could boast that the Empire was a "living home of divine freedom" in which the ends of the earth were united **in the name and the hope of self-government." In the midst of this success there was one great failure. Close beside England lies Ireland. Since 1800 it had been part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but it had usually had the position of a colony or subordinate possession. Ireland had for a long time been the most perplexing problem in British adminstration, and in the nineteenth century it was more and more evident that here England had not succeeded. From long before, Ireland had been possessed by a branch of the Celtic race, the people who continued to live also in the Scottish Highlands and in Wales. A fine culture and literature had arisen among the Irish, but the country remained divided among warring tribes who failed to unite and make an Irish nation. Accordingly they failed to prevent Normans and Englishmen from conquering the east coast, establishing themselves in Dublin, and harassing the rest of the country all through the Middle Ages. Had Irishmen been able to free their country they might have become a prosperous, united nation. But they could not do this, nor could England make her domination complete until almost too late. The conquest was effected in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, during the Reformation and the period of '-^\ K) rr* k Ik .1! UNITED KINGDOM, 1832-1867 181 colonial expansion. After several vain rebellions the Catholic Irish were completely subdued. From part of the northeast country the Celtic Catholics were largely driven out, and Protestants brought over to make the Plantation of Ulster. In the rest of the island most of the Catholics were deprived of their land, they were left with no means of livelihood but working on the estates of the conquerors, forbidden to enter the learned pro- fessions, forbidden to worship under their own priests, taxed to support the Church of England, and practically reduced to serfdom. They were treated immeasurably worse than the American colonists ever were, and had they been far away from England they would undoubtedly have risked all to get their freedom. But they were close at hand, and resistance was hopeless. Therefore the eight- eenth century was passed in despair, with all the best young men leaving the country. It can only be said that these things were done in an age of religious discrimination or persecution, when everywhere conquerors imposed harsh will on the conquered, and that most Englishmen then were in inferior and lowly position, and had no con- trol over their government and little knowledge of the condition of the Irish. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Ire. land had been entirely subordinate to the government of England. During the period 1782-1800 she was allowed to have an independent parliament; but not- withstanding some prosperity, there was such confusion finally in Ireland and such danger during the struggle with Napoleon, that in 1800 an Act of Union was passed joining Ireland with Great Britain. Wales had long been united with England, and Scotland had joined in an Act of Union passed in 1707. In both instances the union had been of great advantage to all. But in the case of Ireland there were obstacles which would have to be removed before any union could be a success, and unfortunately the Subjection and despair Union with Great Britain 182 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Continued misery and unrest Some Irish- men desire separation India defects were not for some time amended. The Catholics had expected to see the discriminations against them removed, but this was not done until 1829. The land had once been taken away from the Irish proprietors, and the Irish population, constantly increasing, lived on little patches of ground rented at high price, even in best years scarcely suflScient for support. During the years when in Great Britain evil conditions were being slowly removed by the enlightened legislation of reformers, the Irish people continued to live on in ignor- ance, misery, hunger, and filth. The climax of their sufferings came 1846-9. The main support of the peas- ants, their potato crop, failed, and there was a terrible famine, followed by a plague. These frightful years left an abiding mark upon Ireland. The best of the peo- ple left the stricken land, coming to America in a great migration. For a long time this continued. During the nineteenth century the population of England rose from 8,500,000 to 32,000,000, but that of Ireland, which in- creased from less than 5,000,000 to more than 8,000,000 by 1846, declined during the remainder of the century to about 4,000,000. During this time most of the Irish were discontented, and the country could only be ruled imder coercion acts and by force, while there was a great deal of lawlessness and brutal crime. Many Irishmen wished to separate completely from Britain, and about 1865 the Fenians, a revolutionary organization, tried to bring this about by creating a reign of terror. It was not until the later years of the nineteenth century that a series of great and liberal reforms for a time brought quietness and better conditions. Britain did not attempt to extend self-government to possessions not peopled by white men. Of these the most important was India, which during the eighteenth century had been won for the English East India Company by a succession of great captains and merchants. Under this UNITED KINGDOM, 1832-1867 183 commercial organization a huge Indian empire was gradually acquired, and ruled in such manner that the natives were in some ways better off than ever before, but entirely subject to Englishmen and Scotchmen, who amassed great fortunes among them. India, while ruled by the Company, was yet indirectly controlled by the British government, which regarded her as the greatest possession in the empire, and one of the foundations of the empire's commercial importance. Suddenly in 1857 a terrible mutiny broke out among the Sepoys, or native troops, who made the largest part of the Company's army. The causes were many — reforms which had recently been made, hatred of the aliens who ruled India, belief that religious prejudices were being violated by the British. There were terrible massacres at Cawn- pore and other places, for which the English afterward took sternest vengeance. The few English soldiers in India were able to do little at first, but they behaved with great bravery, and, soon reinforced, they crushed the mutiny completely. The principal results were that English domination was more firmly established than before, and that in 1858 the powers of the East India Company were transferred to the British government, which now added directly to its dominions 800,000 square miles of land and 200,000,000 people. Generally speaking, during this period Britain sought to be aloof from European affairs, taking little part in them, but meanwhile developing her commerce, her in- dustry, and her empire. She had a small army, and wished to avoid being drawn into great wars. She was moreover paying off part of her gigantic national debt. Her navy was by far the greatest in the world, and after Tra- falgar her command of the seas was at no time disputed. With the United States relations slowly improved. During the struggle with Napoleon, the Americans had objected to the measures by which Britain enforced hejc The Indian Mutiny Foreign relations Relations with the United States 184 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The British and the American peoples blockade, giving less consideration to the difficulties of England than they were disposed to give a hundred years later when Britain was trying to blockade the German Empire. There were causes for exasperation on both sides, though, it was afterward agreed, no real cause for war. In the contest, which Americans called the War of 1812, in which England used a little of her strength, while most of her resources were being employed against France, neither party won triumph. In the treaty of Ghent (1814), which concluded the contest, Britain did not renounce the right of search, which had aroused so much American opposition. Seen in larger perspective since then this war is a landmark in the history of the English- speaking peoples, for it was the last struggle between the two great branches. Later on there were often disputes between the United States and Great Britain, but always they were settled by diplomatic negotiation and agree- ment, until at the end of a hundred years it was found that most people in the two countries regarded the idea of war between the two as utterly criminal and absurd, and not to be thought of. The relations between the governments improved sooner than those between the people themselves. The Americans were a new nation, proud and sensitive, con- vinced of superiority to any other people, yet sensitive about their crudeness and defects. Englishmen, with more narrowness of spirit and insular pride then than now, looked down upon them as rough settlers in a distant land; and travelers, such as Charles Dickens, wrote about them with a contempt which was bitterly resented. More- over, there were the memories of the Revolutionary period : the British recalled that the colonists had broken away; the Americans believed they had been abused by a tyrant, and had escaped from subjection to become freemen. Most important, perhaps, was the fact that for a long time Americans advanced more rapidly to democratic control I UNITED KINGDOM, 1832-1867 185 of their government than the British. Down to 1867 the government of the United Kingdom was still controlled by the upper and middle classes, and there was always an aristocratic character about it. The American Civil War (1861-5) marked an epoch. During that contest the British government would have been pleased to recog- nize the Southern Confederacy, and hoped that the Southern slave-holders and aristocrats would triumph. On the other hand, great numbers of the plain people in England, most of them not yet enfranchised, admired Lincoln, hoped that he would be able to abolish slavery, and believed that in the end the North would triumph. They continued to maintain this attitude, with magnifi- cent patience, though some of them, the Lancashire weavers, nearly starved when the Northern blockade cut off the export of cotton from the South. In 1865 the North was completely victorious. Two years later a great extension of the franchise made Britain far more demo- cratic than ever before; and in the following years with the continued extension of democracy, the foundation was laid for real fellowship between these parts of the English- speaking people. On both sides of the water some continued to oppose better understanding, especially Irish-Americans in the United States, but after the Spanish-American War (1898), in which Britain showed unmistakable friendship for the American people, good ac- cord rapidly developed. Then at last came the Great War to complete the work. In the dread hour when England seemed in mortal danger with all that England represented, most ot the American people realized as never before how much the two nations stood for the same civilization and ideals, and this realization was one of the important fac- tors in bringing America to the aid of the Allies. With Continental peoples the relations of England were generally good. There was some rivalry with France over colonial projects and position in the Mediterranean. The The two democracies friendly Relations with European powers 186 EUROPE, 1789-1920 establishment of the Italian nation was watched with sympathy as was the progress of the Germanies toward union. Englishmen had helped the Greeks to get in- dependence; but they maintained their friendship with Turkey. Often during this period there was fear that Russia, expanding steadily through Asia, might strike south against India, and also that she might destroy the Sultan's power and take Constantinople for herself. In 1853 a dispute arose between France and Russia and between Russia and Turkey. Into this dispute England was drawn, though the government was most anxious not to go to war. None the less, when Russian troops attacked Turkey there was great popular feeling in Eng- Xhe land, and with a light heart the country went quickly into Crimean the contest unprepared. In the earlier part of the war the ^" British fleet failed to accomplish what had been expected of it in the Baltic, but an English and French army, after a siege in which there was horrible privation and suffer- ing, captured the fortress of Sevastopol in the Crimea. In 1856 the Crimean War came to an end with the Treaty of Paris, which guaranteed the independence and integrity of Turkey . BIBLIOGRAPHY General accounts: in addition to the works previously cited, The Political History of England, volume XII; 1837 to 1901, ^ by Sidney Low and L. C. Sanders (1907). Biographies: Sir Sidney Lee, Queen Victoria: a Biography (1903); The Letters of Queen Vidoriay edited by A. C. Benson and Viscount Esher, 3 vols. (1907), for the period fe37-61; Sir T. Martin, Life of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort, 5 vols. (1875-80); G. M. Trevelyan, The Life of John Bright (1913); John Morley, Life of Richard Cobden (1881); W. F. Monypenny, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfieldy 2 vols. (1910-12), continued by G. E. Buckle, 4 vols. (1914- 20) ; the Earl of Rosebery, Sir Robert Peel (1899). Local government: Sidney and Beatrice Webb, English UNITED KINGDOM, 1832-1867 187 Local Government, 1688-1835, 3 vols. (1906) ; Sir George NichoUs A History of the English Poor Law, 2 vols. (ed. 1898), to 1834, continued in a third volume by Thomas Mackay (1904), carry* ing the subject down to 1899. Social reform: H. de B. Gibbins, English Social Reformers (1902) ; Edwin Hodder, Life and Work of the 7th Earl of Shaftes- bury, 3 vols. (1888). The Corn Laws: J. S. Nicholson, The History of the English Corn Laws (1904); B. H. Holland, The Fall of Protection, ISJ^O- 1850 (1913), best for the free-trade movement in England. Industry and commerce : Leone Levi, History of British Com- merce and of the Economic Progress of the British Nation, 1763- 1870 (1872); G. H. Perns, The Industrial History of Modem England (1914). Chartism: Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England in 184-^ (ed. 1892); Thomas Carlyle, Chartism (1839); Edouard DoUeans, Le Chartisme, 2 vols. (1912-13); R. G. Gammage, History of Chartism (1854, new ed. 1894), the author was a leader in the movement; Mark Ho veil, The Chartist Movement (1918), the best account. Canada and Greater Britain: Sir J. G. Bourinot, Canada under British Rule, 1760-1900 (1900); William Kingsford, History of Canada, 10 vols. (1887-97), the fullest account, to 1841; S. J. Reid, Life and Letters of the First Earl of Durham, 2 vols. (1906); Lord Durham's Report on the Affairs of British North America, edited by Sir C. P. Lucas, 3 vols. (1912); Selected Speeches and Documents on British Colonial Policy, 1763-1917, edited by A. B. Keith, 2 vols. (1918). The British Empire and the United States: G. L. Beer, The English-Speaking Peoples, Their Future Relations and Joint International Obligations (1917). CHAPTER IX FRANCE BEFORE 1870 Quand je considere cette nation en elle-meme, je la trouve plus ex- traordinaire qu 'aucun des evenements de son histoire ... la plus brillante et la plus dangereuse des nations de I'Europe, et la mieux faite pour y devenir tour a tour un objet d'admiration, de haine, de pitie, de terreur, mais jamais d'indifT6rence. Alexis de Tocqueville, L'Ancien RSgime et la Revolution (1856), Chapter XX. France The position of France in 1815 was in some respects after like that of Germany in 1918. After long and exhausting Napoleon I ^^j,g France had been overwhelmed, and the memories of the struggle had left much bitterness and fear. Some believed the French people should be placed under such restraint that it would be out of their power to make an- other aggression upon Europe, that they should be forced to make good the damage they had done, and surrender provinces which would leave them weak for the future. But apparently there was then less belief that outrages, atrocities, and violations of the law of war had been com- mitted. Moreover, it was widely felt that a considerable section of the French people had not supported Napoleon, and that at worst they had been misled and compelled to obey him. There were French exiles who had always sought help from the Allies to return and restore whatever could be reestablished, and after the abdication of Na- poleon, the Bourbon heir was brought back and put upon the throne as Louis XVIII (1814-1824). So, there was much disposition to deal with France mildly, and even 188 FRANCE BEFORE 1870 189 after the Hundred Days of the Waterloo campaign, though a heavy indemnity was imposed and some territory taken away, yet lenient terms were still granted. / The Congress of Vienna, which disposed things after Napoleon's fall, proceeded to put an end to his arrange- ments. The incomparable skill of Talleyrand, the French representative, was able to effect much in reestablishing his country's position; nevertheless, what Frenchmen had been doing in Europ>e for a score of years was now largely undone, and the settlement of Vienna was made by the conquerors of France. To a proud, warlike, high-spirited people like the French, who had just passed through such wonderful experiences and glory, this was an intolerable situation, and they would long chafe at that which the Allies had decreed; and for a long while the other powers would continue on guard against them. Hence for many years it would be diflScult for any French government, which desired to keep peace and restore the prosperity of the coun- try, to adopt such a foreign policy as would please foreign powers and yet please the people of France; while on more than one occasion weak or unscrupulous leaders would find it easy to divert attention from troublesome domestic questions by engaging in war or bold policy abroad. Moreover it was a long time before the government of France could be settled on a solid foundation. In 1789 the intellectuals and the middle classes of France, knowing that the country was bankrupt and that the government was slowly breaking down, and looking with disfavor upon the oppressive remains of the feudal system in France, had been able to abolish serfdom and feudal privileges, secure equality in matters of justice and taxation, and make the government a limited monarchy. This was as far as the great mass of the people cared to go. Most Frenchmen strongly desired that a king should continue to rule them. In July 1789, almost accidentally the Revolution entered upon a more radical phase, and all sorts of changes The settle- ment of Vienna The work of the Revolution unfinished The radicals in the French Revolution 190 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Reaction In France the work of 1789 carried forward in 1830 followed in swift succession, J It was not long before the Church, which in spite of its faults was still dear to a great many people, was attacked and its property taken. The king was deprived of his power, presently he was put to death, and a republic established. These changes were wrought by a well-organized body of bold, able rad- icals, who were only a small part of the population, and who soon had to maintain themselves by military despotism and a reign of terror. ( Shortly after there was so much confusion and discontent, that presently what the people most wanted was the strong rule of some capable man, and Napoleon Bonaparte easily ^ot supreme power ten years after the Revolution began. He did not become king, but as First Consul and emperor he wielded far greater power than Louis XVI ever had.^ Very wisely he restored as much of the old system of government and religion as the people desired; and yet he maintained the great reforms of the beginning of the Revolution and the best work of the Convention, which had the sanction of the majority of the population. ^ In 1814 the Allies brought back to Paris the younger brother of Louis XVI, and put him on the throne. Louis XVIII was not popular, and for a short time Napoleon easily dispossessed him; but supported as he was by the Allies, the people of France were willing to accept him, provided he did not try to undo the Revolutionary changes which the people appro v^ J He was sagacious enough to understand thi&; /but he was accompanied by supporters, who, as a contemporary said, had learned nothing and forgotten nothing. They wanted venge- ance, and restoration of nobles and Church to the privileges and the position which had formerly been theirs. In a little while their policy prevailed; then they were over- thrown; and the work of the French Revolution was continued by the Revolution of 1830; after which other revolution and reaction followed. \ FRANCE BEFORE 1870 191 When Louis XVIII came to the throne he assumed The Charter that he held his title by divine right, but he granted to the French people a Charter. According to this Charter, the government was to be carried on by the king; but there was also to be a legislative assembly, consisting of two chambers, one composed of peers, hereditary or named for life by the crown, the other chosen by a small number of the people, the franchise being restricted to men, thirty years of age, who paid 300 francs a year in direct taxes, while only those who paid 1,000 francs taxes might be elected as members. In this way, out of a population of 29,000,000 there were less than 100,000 voters, and not more than 12,000 eligible to be elected to the Chamber. Only the executive could initiate legisla- tion, but the lower, representative chamber had control of taxation. Such a system was not greatly unlike the government of Great Britain at this time. It was ap- proved by a considerable body of the nation. The reactionaries and the returned Emigres were by no Further means content with this.' They hoped to bring back the Progress old order completely. Their plan was first to restore the Church, and give it great power, especially over education, and thus pave the way for a return of other things, which the Church would advocate and teach. In the beginning they could not get the approbation of Louis, guided first by the Due de Richelieu and then by Decazes, who leaned upon moderate and liberal support. Altogether the years from 1816 to 1820 were marked by wise management and sound progress. Much greater freedom of the press was given; the confidence of the country was gained, if not its enthusiasm; and loans were easily floated. Meanwhile the Due de Richelieu gained the confidence of the Allies, and in 1818 the great powers decided at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle to withdraw the soldiers still occupying parts of France. This period came to an end when in 1820 a fanatic as- Reaction 192 EUROPE, 1789-1920 sassinated the nephew of the king. The great indignation aroused by this enabled the reactionaries to restore censor- ship of the press and suspend the safeguards of personal liberty which had been guaranteed by the Charter. A new electoral law was passed to give them control of the legislature. It did away with the secret ballot, which conduced so greatly to the elector's freedom of choice, narrowed the franchise, and gave a double vote to citizens who paid 1,000 francs in taxes, substantially the landed interest. In the election held now the royalist reaction- aries got control of the Chamber, and the Comte de Villele was put at the head of the ministry. Villele, thoroughly reactionary, was yet patient, subtle, and very able. He went about the work of restoring the old regime with great skill. He remained in power for six years (1822-8), to the death of Louis XVIII in 1824, and after the accession of Louis's brother, Charles X. In the end he had nearly complete success. His plan was to proceed slowly, meanwhile curbing the headstrong zeal of his companions who would have re- stored old conditions at once. He believed that if he had on his side the vast influence of the Church strengthened and restored, he might be able with the assistance thus given to go on a great deal further. ^ And he believed that the middle classes and people of substance and importance would make little opposition to political and constitu- tional changes if business were good and if wealth in- creased. In the mean time, stage by stage, the power and privileges of the nobles could be won back again. Therefore in 1822 the censorship of the press was tight- ened, and education was put almost entirely under the control of the Church. At the same time high protective tariffs were levied on imports, to the great satisfaction of manufacturers and owners of land. : To strengthen his hold on the legislative assembly, reactionary peers were added to the upper chamber, and, the lower chamber being FRANCE BEFORE 1870 193 already filled with his supporters, the duration of parlia- ment was extended to seven years. Secure of the body which made the laws, he proceeded to bring forward the measures toward which he had been working. He had now the added support of the new king, Charles X, (1824-1830), who from the first had been the leader of the reactionaries, and who was at the head of the noblemen and churchmen who wished the confiscated property to be restored. For the present, at any rate, it was impossible to get away the lands which were in possession of pro- prietors who had bought them. This was recognized by all, and the Charter of 1814 had explicitly promised that the titles of land so purchased should not be disturbed. Accordingly, it was proposed not to restore the confiscated lands, but to compensate the former owners with money appropriated by the state, and a law for this purpose was passed in 1825. Then religious bodies were established again, and the Jesuits allowed to return. It was even proposed to alter the law of succession, so that property need no longer be divided equally among the children, and so that the eldest son might receive the largest portion, thus making it possible to build up great estates once more. In 1827 Villele, who had hitherto had eminent success, was overthrown by a combination of the reac- tionaries, who thought he was doing too little, and the liberals, thoroughly alarmed about what he Jiad done. A more bitter struggle soon followed. By 1829 the issues were clearly drawn. It was apparent that a very real struggle had developed between the liberals, who feared that the benefits of the Revolution were being lost, and the reactionaries bent on restoring the old condi- tions in France. The royalists were already trying to divert the attention of the people to foreign affairs. In 1823 an army had been sent into Spain, and the French people rejoiced, for it seemed that again they were taking a great part in Europe's affairs. In 1830 the conquest of Compensa- tion for appropriated lands Charles X 194 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Algeria was begun, an operation destined finally to put an end to the depredations of the Barbary pirates and also to lay the foundations of a new French colonial empire. Revolution (^ In 1829, despite the opposition of the Chambers, of 1830 Charles appointed a ministry made up of ultra-royalists headed by the Prince de Polignac. This minister an- nounced that the government would soon restore aristoc- racy and give the clergy their old position and power. A struggle followed with the Chamber of Deputies. Then elections were held which returned an assembly still more hostile* In July 1830 Charles proclaimed three The July Ordinances by which the press was shackled, the franchise Ordinances narrowed, and the recent elections set aside as invalid while new elections were proclaimed for September. /^Immediately an insurrection broke out in Paris. The printers and publishers urged on the others; the working- men threw up barricades in the streets; all classes fell away from the king; and Charles, having sought in vain to appease the people by revoking the Ordinances, fled into exile to England. The Revolution of 1830 carried forward the work of the French Revolution. Like the English Revolution of 1688 it involved no radical changes. In neither case were parliamentary or economic reforms brought about. In both instances a dynasty was changed, but little altera- tion was made in the system. In each case the great ( achievement was that reaction was prevented and the way left open for progress in the future. In France now the government was put into the hands of another king, Louis Philippe, of the younger, the Orleans branch of the House of Bourbon. The insurrection had been made by men who wanted a republic, but the French people understood that the European powers were not willing yet to tolerate another republic in France, so monarchy was preserved The new for a time. A new constitution was made by revising Constitution the Charter of 1814. It took away the power of the king c FRANCE BEFORE 1870 195 to proclaim ordinances for the good of the state, which had been the basis of the July Ordinances of Charles X. ] The Catholic religion was no longer to be the state religion, j though it was described as the religion of the majority of the people. The censorship of the press was abolished./ And, above all, the theory of divine right, expressed in the preamble of the Charter, was now omitted. A law passed in 1831, which remained in force until 1848, regulated the franchise. The double vote was abolished. The franchise was now extended to those who paid 200 francs a year in direct taxes, and to professional men who paid 100 francs. As a result of this there were about two hundred thousand voters in a population of thirty-two millions. The important results of the Revolution were that the French people had now firmly established the great prin- ciples of the generation preceding — equality of individuals and constitutional liberty.] They had established them firmly because their king was no longer one imposed by the Allies and ruling, as he said, by divine right, but a king who had received his throne from them, whose power rested on the will of the nation. / Louis Philippe (1830-48) was now a middle aged man. In his youth he had taken part in the liberal movements of the French Revolution, and had served in the Revolu- tionary armies. After the Restoration he had lived in Paris as a simple gentleman, winning the regard of work- men and bourgeoisie. -After the flight of Charles X, when some wanted a republic and others a limited monarchy, he had been invited to be king by that Chamber of De- puties which his predecessor dissolved just before the outbreak. The people of France accepted him, and so long as he pleased them he might reign; but when he was seen to be essentially autocratic in his nature, and when in the course of time he could no longer please most of the people, then he was to be overthrov/n as easily as he now was set up. * 'Divine right" overthrown Results of the Revolution Louis Philippe 196 EUROPE, 1789-1920 PoUtical parties Troubles under the July Monarchy Attempts to kill Louis Philippe There was no longer a struggle between reactionaries who would restore the old regime, and liberals who would preserve what the Revolution had given. Politics were complicated and confused; there were several parties and numerous leaders; but generally speaking, the conserva- tives, led after awhile by Guizot, and the liberals, pre- sently led by Thiers, both accepted the government established by the July Revolution. The difference was that the conservatives believed enough had been ac- complished, while the liberals wished to go on with reforms which they thought had only been begun.. Generally speaking, the period was one in which the bourgeoisie was in control; and it was upon the middle class that the power of the king was founded.' There was much unrest and confusion at the start. Ad- vocates of a republic continued troublesome, and although the government had declared that censorship of the press should never be renewed, there were repeated prosecutions of republican newspapers for attacking the government. There were several small republican insurrections. More- over, the Legitimists, who supported the heir of Charles X, regarded Louis Philippe as a usurper, and tried to create disaffection. The government took measures against its enemies sufficient to make many believe that liberty was in danger, yet not drastic enough to quell the spirit of its opponents. Six times attempts were made to assassinate Louis Philippe, the most notable being the Fieschi Plot of 1835, in which a Corsican tried to kill the king with an infernal machine. But in the reaction and horror that followed, the government was able to pass the September Laws of 1835, by which special courts were established to try conspirators against the state, and a system of penalties provided which practically established again censorship of the press. For a while the government was made stronger than ever, but these laws really weak- ened it by alienating liberal and moderate people. FRANCE BEFORE 1870 197 Actually the king's position was never very strong. He had been put upon the throne not because he was popular, like Napoleon, nor because he had the best title to the crown, but since, in a difficult time, when opposing fac- tions were compelled to make a compromise, he seemed the most available candidate. At no time was he really popular, nor was his bearing or appearance such as ever to inspire reverence and admiration. The caricaturists loved to display his corpulency, his umbrella, his bourgeois manners. He could and he did give France a stjible government for many years, and during that time his foreign policy was such that the enmity and suspicion of other countries were generally avoided, and France en- joyed long years of peace in which to recover her strength. It was during this time that the Industrial Revolution, which had for more than half a century been developing so mightily across the Channel, also began a great develop- ment in France. The new industrialism was managed by the middle class, whose interests the king specially cared for, and who got great prosperity and wealth. ■ But the temper of most of the French people then was such that no mere material success, no career merely prosperous and quiet, would be enough. .'There was still an older generation which could remember the glorious days when Napoleon dominated Europe and when France was indis- putably leader of the world. Great battles had been won, great triumphs achieved, with resplendent gloryand renown. Now this was past; France was ruled by a king who never seemed kingly; his policy led to nothing spectacular or showy. Furthermore, although manufactures and wealth were rapidly increasing, yet there were now in France the same disquieting problems — the miserable condition of some of the workmen, the widening gap between employers and employees, great factories with machines and numer- ous workers largely at the mercy of capitalist masters—^ which had long troubled England; so that even though the Position of the king Industrial Revolution Discontent 198 EUROPE, 1789-1920 c C ^foreign policy Peace but no dazzling success itent with the government system king's policy pleased the middle class and got for him their steady support, it seemed to do little for other classes. Therefore socialist and revolutionary agitation constantly increased.^ It was^fterward thought that Louis Philippe might have got the support and enthusiasm of most of the people had he embarked with success in adventurous foreign relations. There was much sentiment in the country that France should intervene to assist oppressed peoples in Europe, as once she had done; and there was always the desire to undo the settlement of 1815 and get for France her old position again. At the very beginning of his reign France did take a stand against Russia and Prussia who proposed to force the revolted Belgians back under the rule of Holland; but Louis Philippe declined the Belgian crown for his son, and he did nothing to assist the Italian and the Polish people when they also rose against their mastersl. ^ Steadily he refused to get entangled in war, or act in such manner that the eastern and central powers would combine against France. ; More and more the king himself guided foreign policy, along with his most trusted minister, Guizot; and foreign affairs were managed safely with skill and finesse, but never so as to bring the dazzling splendor or excitement which so many French- men wished for. And so, as Lamartine said. La France s'mnuyait. There was no glory to make the throne secure, / In course of time the management of internal affairs pleased the majority of the people no better. The govern- ment was completely in the hands of the king and the bourgeoisie. The July Revolution had made no sweeping reforms and had not extended democracy or control of the government by the people. /The middle class supported the king; he and they directed policy; and measures were passed in their interests. Louis Philippe and the leaders whom he most trusted believed that suflScient reform had been made in 1830; they took their stand FRANCE BEFORE 1870 199 firmly by the arrangement made then and resolved to resist further change. Only those who paid 500 francs taxes might be elected to the Chamber, and substantially the franchise was confined to those who paid 200 francs. During the period 1840-48 the government of France was constitutional and parliamentary, the ministry depending on a majority of the Chamber; but since, as in England in the eighteenth century, the government could give appointments or rewards to members who supported it, it was usually not diflScult to control about half the assembly, and since the franchise was confined to the mid- dle and upper classes, and the electorate contained only about two hundred thousand voters, it was easy by means of bribery or manipulation of elections to get all the addi- tional votes that were needed. Accordingly, it was no more possible for the French people to control their govern- ment at this time than it was for the people of the United Kingdom to control theirs before the electoral reform laws. ) /furthermore, in western Europe at this time, economic aevelopment and the continued influence of the French Revolution were stirring up greater numbers of people to demand an industrial reform and such change in the government that the people could control their rulers. Socialism was rising and radical reforms were being preached. All the time French republicans were hoping that a republic might be reestablished, and an ever larger number of discontented liberals were demanding that office-holders be excluded from the Chamber of Deputies and that the franchise be considerably widened. ^ But Louis Philippe and Guizot were resolute against any such changes. Laws were passed in the interest of the bour- geoisie; unrest grew among the masses, i By 1847 the situation in France was much like that in England in 1831: a system too strong to be changed by ordinary means, popular opposition ominously increasing. In England the controlling class had yielded and constitu- Legislative controlled by the King Discontent of the j > masses / The Revolu- tion of 1848' 800 EUROPE, 1789-1920 /* The Second Republic 1848-1852 tional change was made; in France the government would not yield and a violent outbreak followed. The crisis came in February, 1848, after the government had for- bidden political meetings, when it resolved to prevent the opposition leaders from holding a banquet in Paris. Great crowds collected; barricades were thrown up in the streets; the National Guard refused to put down the insurgents. /The king would now have made great concessions, but the " republicans were determined to destroy the monarchy completely. It was easy to do this, for the king had long since lost the support of the nation, and now in his hour of need only a few rallied to support him. He abdicated, and fled to England. Some would have chosen Louis's grandson as king, but the mob of socialists and republicans would have none of it, and presently the Second French Republic was pro- claimed. This Republic, which came so suddenly, and, at first, with so little bloodshed, lasted nominally until December 1852. But all this period is extraordinary and confused. First, for a week a provisional government managed affairs; then the Constituent Assembly for a year, while a constitution was being drawn up; thereafter, the president and the assembly which th^ new constitution provided. ) At the start the Provisional Government was composed of two parties: republicans^-followers of Lamartine and others, who believed a republic the best system of govern- ment for France^and socialists, led by Louis Blanc and others, who favored a republic, but only because they believed that with such government they could more easily bring about the social reforms that they favored. /^Their great object was to effect changes which would improve the lot of the great mass of the people. "The revolution made by the people ought to be made fcyr Louis Blanc them," it was said. Louis Blanc maintained that for all there should be the right to work, that private property The socialists FRANCE BEFORE 1870 201 must be replaced by public, and that industry should be organized not under capitalists but in cooperative so- cieties, under control of the workmen themselves, who should share the profits among themselves, as was urged by the French syndicalists half a century later. The great majority of the people of France then, as afterward, were opposed to such schemes. Some great reforms were made at once. Universal suffrage was established, so that the electorate was in- creased to nine millions. Freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the right to form associations were pro- claimed, and all citizens had the right to enroll in the National Guard, the military force of the state. Thus democracy was vastly extended, newspapers and cheap pamphlets multiplied, political clubs were formed, and some of the activity seen during the first years of the French Revolution was now seen again. The government would not adopt the red flag of the socialists for the state, as the workingmen demanded, but a commission was established under Blanc to sit apart and consider the reforms which socialists thought necessary to be made. They had advocated cooperative workshops, for which at the beginning the necessary capital was to be advanced by the state, and in which the enterprise would be con- trolled by the workmen. But while the socialist leaders were planning the changes which they wished, the Provi- sional Government itself set up National Workshops, in which the state was the employer. Such workshops were not favored by Blanc, and it was at once apparent that their management was in the hands of men opposed to socialist doctrines. Actually, the government had established a poor-relief system, putting men to work, irrespective of their training, at digging and similar tasks, and paying them the uniform wage of two francs a day. There was much unemployment and great throngs applied for the work, until there was not enough to go around. Reforms National workshops Not co- operative workshops 202 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The June uprising in Paris f Significance of the in- surrection in Paris Among those left idle great dissatisfaction arose, and meanwhile the entire scheme, with which the authorities associated Blanc's name, was brought into disrepute. In April, elections were held by universal suffrage and the following month the National Assembly met to draw up a constitution. The socialists were in a hopeless minority in this body. At once the Assembly proceeded to oppose the socialist efforts, whereupon the Paris workingmen rose and tried to dissolve the Assembly. But the National Guard up- held the Assembly, which then abolished the National Workshops. The socialist workingmen, seeing the things they had hoped for about to be set aside entirely, rose in furious insurrection. A military dictator was appointed, and for four days in June 1848 there was terrible street fighting in Paris. Many thousands were killed or wounded; but the socialists were completely defeated, and eleven thousand prisoners who were taken were at once con- demned to be deported. In 1848, as during the first French Revolution, the radicals were crushed by the bourgeoisie. It is this episode of the aspirations of Louis Blanc, the Ateliers Nationaux, the disappointment of the socialists, and the death-struggle that followed in Paris, which now give greatest interest to this Revolution in France. A generation later, historians looked back upon 1848 as a year in which revolutions, beginning in Paris, spread to all central Europe, overturning established governments in Italy, Austria, Prussia, and other German states. Very properly it seemed that this year of revolutions broke down the system of Metternich, and continued the French Revolution. But when another generation had passed, when an extreme socialist system was established in Russia by force, and when such forcible establishment everywhere was preached as desirable by advocates all over the world, then the June revolt of the workingmen in Paris in 1848 — like the Commune afterward in 1871, and FRANCE BEFORE 1870 203 more dimly like the efforts of certain radicals in Paris in 1793 — was seen as a distinct step in a movement which might do no more than express discontent and cause trouble, but which might one day everywhere challenge the system that existed. / It was difficult for the National Assembly to begin its work. It was forced to increase taxation very greatly, thus alienating the propertied classes and the peasants as it had just alienated the socialists whom it suppressed. / A republic was proclaimed, and a constitution drafted in which the government was to be exercised by a legislative assembly of one chamber elected by universal suffrage, and a president elected in like manner, with extensive powers similar to those of a president of the United States. ^ When the election for president was held in December 1848 the great majority of the people voted for Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, nephew of the great Napoleon, and now head of the Bonaparte house.) He received 5,400,000 votes, nearly three times as many as were given to all his competitors combined. When, the following May, elec- tions were held for the Assembly, monarchists were two- thirds of the entire number chosen. Apparently there was not yet firm basis for a republic in France. Louis Napoleon, who had long cherished ambition to revive the glories of his house, had respectable abilities and attainments, but his principal fortune was the name that his uncle had made great. The misery of France during the later period of the Napoleonic Wars, and the humiliation of 1815 had been passing from recollection, and almost all classes of Frenchmen now remembered with pride the glory and splendor of the Empire. The kings who came after the Restoration seemed little crea- tures beside the legendary figure looming each year now vaster and more grand. A new literature arose concerning the Emperor. Napoleon had loved France well, it was The Con- stituent Assembly of 1848 President elected Louis Napoleon Bonaparte 204 EUROPE , 1789-1920 / Lotiig Napoleon overthrows the As- sembly Coup d'etat Napoleon m, 1852- 1870 said; he had fought victoriously against a world in arms; he had meant to bring justice to all; he had been the guardian of the French Revolution; and he had died at last an exile far from France. No one believed in the Napoleonic legend more implicitly than Louis Napoleon; no one profited by it so greatly. Twice he had attempted to seize power, but each time was easily overthrown. He spent some time as an exile in America, and six years imprisoned in a fortress in France. He had escaped to England, and then returned when the Revolution of 1848 began. Now suddenly by the gift of fortune he was head of the French Republic. Neither president nor Assembly was prepared to sup- port loyally the republic which they served. In the sum- mer of 1849 a republican uprising against the government was followed by repressive measures. Next year the Assembly passed a law restoring indirectly the property qualification for the franchise, thus debarring a third of the electorate from voting. But the president now went beyond the Assembly. According to the Constitution he might not be reelected at the end of his four-year term. Therefore Napoleon secretly prepared a bold stroke. December 2, 1851 he arrested many important leaders and dissolved the Assembly. Then he appealed to the people to judge between himself and the legislature, and asked them to sanction a government in which he should be president for ten years. The opposition was without leaders and in confusion, and resistance was sternly re- pressed. Three weeks later the people of France approved what he asked for by an enormous majority, and in Novem- ber of the year following, when the question was put be- fore the people whether the Empire should be reestab- lished, he again obtained an overwhelming majority. Shortly after, the Second Empire was proclaimed with Napoleon III as ruler. These elections, or plebiscites, had been skilfully manipulated and controlled by the govern- FRANCE BEFORE 1870 205 ment; yet it is probable that most Frenchmen were quite willing to have an empire with a Napoleon again. This Empire lasted from 1852 to 1870. At first the government was much like what had. existed under the Consulate at the beginning of the century in France. Universal suffrage was indeed preserved, as it was kept in Germany when the German Empire was established some years later; but Napoleon III so arranged things that the people of France had as little control as was left by Bismarck to the people in imperial Germany. The voters were to elect a legislative assembly, but it was to have little control over legislation and not much control of taxation. The power of the state was almost entirely concentrated in the hands of the emperor and the officials whom he appointed, as was largely the case with the Ger- man Empire before the Great War. Furthermore, the emperor could easily control the elections through his numerous officials and through the army, and he com- pletely shackled the press. ^ In the midst of annihilation of freedom and the political repression that Napoleon had brought, he strove to govern France well. His court in Paris became the center of a gay and splendid life. In 1855 a great international exposition was held in the city, and throughout his reign a vast scheme of improvement was carried forward which made Paris the most beautiful city in the world. Rail- roads were rapidly extended, canals constructed, and shipping increased. In all ways he strove to increase the material prosperity of the country, and since it happened to be a period of great prosperity and expansion, his efforts seemed to achieve great success. Furthermore, he tried to assist and conciliate all classes of the people. Many things were done by the government to aid the poor and the needy, and the right of laborers to strike was con- ceded in 1864. All this was at first followed by much satisfaction. Business flourished, the finances were put The Second Empire Success at first 206 EUROPE, 1789-1920 His position not secure , Crimean War, 1854-6 Treaty of Paris, 1856 on sound footing, the army was made strong, and his government was presently recognized by all the other governments of Europe. None the less Napoleon III, like Napoleon I, held his position without a good title; and as the years went on he understood that his position was not secure, and that after he had given prosperity and order, he could remain in power only by gratifying the people with glory, and by diverting their attention from domestic problems to matters abroad. Thus he was driven on to take a lead- ing part in European affairs and to try to give France a commanding position in Europe. For a while he was greatly successful, and France again became the leading Continental power. To please the Catholics he had, while still president, laid claim to the holy places in Jerusalem. Because of this he came into conflict with Russia, since the Tsar resolutely upheld the claims of the Greek Catholic Church. This dispute dragged on obscure and involved from 1850 to 1854. By this time Napoleon was able to get the cooperation of Eng- land, since British statesmen were alarmed at the prospect of the destruction of Turkey by Russia. Presently the Crimean War was begun. French soldiers took the lead- ing part in capturing Sevastopol, and it was at Paris that the conference assembled which made the treaty of peace. The Treaty of Paris was the first great European settle- ment made since the arrangements completed at Vienna. It was concerned mostly with Russia, whom it thwarted and checked, and with Turkey, whom it protected and admitted to the concert of European Powers. But it also seemed to mark the end of an era which had begun with the downfall of France in 1814 and the treaties that followed. Now in a new era France was the leader of Europe. L'Empire, c^est la paix, Napoleon had said, but the Crimean War was the first great struggle in Europe since 1815. England as well as France, and also Piedmont FRANCE BEFORE 1870 207 which had joined them, gained satisfaction and prestige from the conflict; but the terms of the treaty were soon set at naught, and England and France were both of them afterward to regret the part they had taken. This success strengthened Napoleon's position, and also awakened the French people to a desire for further glory and greatness. The emperor now began to cherish a magnificent foreign policy. Grandly but not clearly he seems to have conceived the idea of extending France again to her "natural frontier" of the Rhine, and aiding the oppressed and submerged nationalities of Europe to obtain their freedom. Soon he awakened such uneasiness and suspicion in Europe that in the end he was left without a friend; and his policy after a while involved him in perplexities from which his moderate ability as a states- man could never extricate him entirely. Encouraged by Napoleon, the inhabitants of the two Danubian Principalities elected the same ruler in 1859, thus paving the way for the establishment of the Ruman- ian nation. In that same year he intervened to assist Piedmont against Austria. The Austrians were defeated in great battles at Magneta and Solferino, and all Lom- bardy taken from them. Much to the disappointment of the Italians, Napoleon then ended the war with the truce of Villafranca, which was followed by the Treaty of Zurich. However, the Italians gained Lombardy, and thus achieved the first great stage in the unification of their country. In return for the services rendered, France got the Italian provinces of Nice and Savoy. But all too successfully Napoleon had carried forward this national- ist movement. In a short time all Italy except for Rome had been brought into a great new state, and Rome was saved for the Pope only because Napoleon occupied it with his troops. This he did to conciliate the French Catholics, but at the same time he lost the friendship of Italians. ) Schemes of Napoleon III Assists the Rumanians and the i Italians ) "$ 208 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Failures Mexico Relations with Prussia After 18^9 Napoleon's foreign policy resulted in a series of failures. In 1863 when the Poles rose against their Russian masters and appealed to the western peoples for help, there was immense sympathy for them in France, but the emperor could do no more than make a diplomatic protest, which helped the Poles not at all, while it alienated the government of Russia. From this occurrence came disastrous results at the time of the war with Prussia; but the misfortune lay hidden in the future. Two years before, in 1861, France, Great Britain, and Spain had sent an expedition to Mexico to protect their citizens and ensure the payment of debts. But Napoleon had greater designs, and when, the next year, Spain and Great Britain w^ith- drew, his forces overran the country. ( By 1864 he had established an empire in Mexico, maintained by French troops and ruled by Maximilian, brother of the Emperor of Austria, to whom he had offered the crown. This proceeding violated the Monroe Doctrine of the United States, and in 1866, after the Southern Confederacy had collapsed, and the Union was completely restored, the f American government protested, and France was com- pelled to yield. The French army was withdrawn, and Maximilian, who would not desert his followers, was left to his fate. He was soon captured and shot, dying with chivalrous bravery in a land far away from his home. His wife, who had gone to Europe to plead for assistance, went mad when the news was brought to her; and Napoleon's government, which had sent Maximilian to his throne and his death, never recovered from the disgrace of the oc- currence. More terrible disaster was approaching. Prussia under Bismarck was strengthening her army so that she might soon thrust Austria outside, of German affairs, and her- self bring the German peoples together^ This was in accord with Napoleon's ideas of nationality, but it was no more to his liking that a strong Germany should be I FRANCE BEFORE 1870 209 created under Prussia than that united Italy had been established under Piedmont. In either case the rise of a new strong power near by would make France rela- tively less great in Europe. Napoleon had no desire to see a Prussia too strong, yet he was willing to see a strong Prussia balance Austria's power. Bismarck, who was directing Prussian affairs, could never hope to carry through his greater designs if Napoleon gave Austria assistance against him. Accordingly he played a game of diplomacy and intrigue, in which Napoleon was com- pletely outwitted. He held out to the emperor hope that France might obtain compensations along the Rhine, so that France remained neutral in the war between Austria and Prussia. Napoleon would nevertheless have inter- vened, but the war, which lasted only seven weeks, was over before he could move. When he tried to get Ger- man land by the Rhine, Bismarck resisted, and was able to arouse German sentiment strongly against French ag- gression. Napoleon was then led to propose that he be allowed to take Belgium, but Bismarck was able after- ward to use this proposal as a means cf inflaming Eng- land against France. Accordingly, when in 1870 France declared war upon Prussia, Napoleon's statecraft had brought it about that every power of any importance was alienated from France, and that when France was over- thrown and dismembered, not a government would come to her assistance. In the early part of this war Napoleon III was captured by the Germans, and at the same time the enraged people cast down his empire and proclaimed another republic. During the latter part of his reign, the power of Na- poleon had much diminished, and he strove to support it not only by more adventurous policy abroad, but also by making concessions at home. He put into practice the ideas which he had earlier proclaimed: that after order and security were established the people should be Napoleon thwarted by Bismarck The Liberal Empire I «10 EUROPE, 1789-1920 admitted to greater share in the government of the state. Year by year the legislature was given larger powers, and in 1868 freedom of the press was restored. In 1870 the government was completely transformed, the legislature being given such power as Parliament had in England, and the ministry being made responsible to it. In May of that year these changes were approved by a great ma- jority of the people, and it seemed that at last France had in the "Liberal Empire" a government strong yet resting on the people. In a few months this was all swept away by the disasters of the Franco-Prussian War. BIBLIOGRAPHY For an excellent brief account: G. L. Dickinson, Revolution and Reaction in Modem France (1892), essays on the period 1789-1871. Also F. M. Anderson, Constitutions and Other Select Documents Illustrative of the History of France y 1789- 1901 (ed. 1909). The Restoration: Henry Houssaye, 1815, 3 vols. (1896- 1905); L. Michon, Le Gouvemement Parlementaire sous la Restauration (1905) ; Pierre Rain, U Europe et la Restauration des Bourbons (1908). The July Monarchy: Paul Thureau-Dangin, Histoire de la Monarchic de Juillet, 7 vols. (2d ed. 1888-92), Roman Catholic and conservative, the principal work on the subject; Louis Blanc, Histoire des Dix Ans, 1830-181^0 translated, History of Ten Years, 1830-18^0, 2 vols. (1844-5); Georges Weill, Histoire du Parti RSpublicain en France de 1814 ct 1870 (1900), La France sous la Monarchic ConstitutionellCy 1814-18^8 (1912); Agenor Bardoux, Guizot (1894). The Revolution of 1848: Albert Cremieux, La Revolution de Fevrier (1912), the best account of; J. A. R. Marriott, editor. The French Revolution in 184-8 in Its Economic Aspects, 2 vols. (1913)^ contains Louis Blanc's Organisation du Travail (1839) and Emile Thomas's Histoire des Ateliers Nationaux (1848); Octave Festy, Le Mouvement Ouvrier au Debut de la Monarchic de Juillety 2 vols. (1908) ; H. R. Wbitehouse, The Life of Lamartine, 2 vols. (1918). The Second Republic: Pierre de la Gorce, Histoire de la Seconde RSpublique Frangaise, 2 vols. (7th ed., 1914). FRANCE BEFORE 1870 211 The Second Empire : P. de la Gorce, Histoire du Second Em- pirCy 7 vols. (4th ed., 1896-1905), the best account, clerical sympathies;^ Albert Thomas, Le Second Empire^ (1907); Henri Berton, ^Evolution Constitutionelle du Second Empire (1900); Maurice (Comte) Fleury, La SocietS du Second Empire, 3 vols. (1911); Blanchard Jerrold, The Life of Napoleon Illy 4 vols. (1874-82), best in EngHsh, favorable; P. K Fournier, Le Second Empire et la Legislation Ouvriere (1911); E. OUivier, L* Empire Liberaly 17 vols. (1895-1914). The .Crimean War: Diplomatic Study on the Crimean War, 2 vols. (1882), Russian oflBcial publication; H. Friedjung, Der Krimkrieg und die Osterreichische Politik (1907); A. W. King- lake, Invasion of the Crimea, 9 vols. (1863-1901). Congress of Paris: Comte d'Angeberg [L. Chodzko], Le Traits de Paris, du 30 Mars 1856 (2d ed., 1877); E. Gourdon, Histoire du Congres de Paris (1857); Sir Francis Piggott, The Declaration of Paris (1919). Mexico: P. F. Martin, Maximilian in Mexico (1914). CHAPTER X AUSTRIA, THE GERMANIES, AND THE RISE OF PRUSSIA Germany in the eighteenth century People not united Das liebe heilge romsiche Reich Wie halts nur noch zusammen? Goethe, Urfaust (1775). Les diversites de ce pay sont telles, qu'on ne sait comment reunir sous un m^me point de vue des religions, des gouvernements, des climats, des peuples m€mes si diflerents. . . . L'Allemagne 6tait une federation aristocratique; cet empire n'avait point un centre commun de lumieres et d'esprit public; il ne formait pas ime nation compacte, et le lien manquait au faisceau. Madame de Stael, De L'Allemagne (written in 1810), chap. ii. Nicht durch Reden und Mehrheitsbeschlusse werden die grossen Fragen der Zeit entschieden — das ist der grosse Fehler von 1848 und 1849 gewesen — sondern durch Eisen und Blut. Speech of Bismarck before the Budget Committee of the Prussian House of Delegates, 1862: Hans Blum, Fiirst Bismarck und Seine Zeit, ii. 351. During the eighteenth century and down to Napoleon's time "Germany," like "Italy," was merely an expression. It was not the name of a state, and it scarcely signified a nation. During the Reformation, in the sixteenth cen- tury, Luther had addressed an appeal to the nobility of the German nation, but he was using terms vague and not clearly defined. There was not such uniformity of character and manners that the Germans could think of themselves as one. The people of the Rhine provinces and Bavaria were much unlike the inhabitants of northern Germany and Prussia, the two being as dissimilar as the inhabitants of north and south France, or the people of 212 8. THE GERMAN ONFEDERATION AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA 213 Aragon and Castile. But whereas in Spain and in France long ago there had arisen a strong central government, able in the course of time to weld together diverse pop- ulations and make them feel that they were part of one whole, in Germany this did not exist. At the time of the French Revolution there were three hundred and thirty or more German States — the number is differently estimated, and diflScult to ascertain exactly — some of them powerful and important, some of them large, the greater number insignificant and small, but most of them completely independent. Least important were the territories of the Knights of the Empire, some of whom ruled with despotic power and complete independence over little territories a few miles square. Next and more impor- tant were the free cities, fifty in number, survivals from early medieval time when cities and towns had complete independence or almost independent power, which after a while they had lost in most countries as strong central government arose. In Germany this had never arisen and such cities as Hamburg, Bremen, Frankfort, Liibeck, Augsburg, and others, continued with the political power and privileges which once they had had. More important were the other states, some insignificant enough, some like Bavaria and Saxony strong and important, and at the very top Austria and Prussia, greatest of them all. Aus- tria had long been the leader; but for a hundred years Prussia had been steadily rising in importance, her power being based upon careful administration and the best army in any of the German lands. All of these jurisdictions were in some manner bound together in the Holy Roman Empire, which meant nothing very simple or exact, and which is neither easily under- stood nor defined. In the fifth century the Roman Empire in western Europe collapsed from internal decay and the attacks of barbarians from without; but the down- fall had been gradual and slow, and the Empire had lasted The Germanies The Holy Roman Empire 214 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Karl the Great No Real German Empire established The rulers of the parts virtually independent SO long that men would not believe it could ever end, and afterward believed that in some way it was still living on. As a matter of fact, it was never restored, but because of the mighty impression it had made on men's minds it was not difficult for Charlemagne, a great Germanic conqueror, to revive something of it. The power of Karl the Great was established about the Rhine, in what are now western Germany and France, extending thence to Spain, in an- other direction down the valley of the Danube, and also down the Italian peninsula. On Christmas Day, a. d. 800, he was crowned at St. Peter's, in Rome, Emperor of the Roman Empire, which he seemed to restore; and this empire came to be called Holy because it had been established under sanction of the Church. After Charle- magne it soon fell to pieces; but in the tenth century it was revived by German rulers, and thereafter, so far as it meant anything, it signified the dominions of the German rulers who had themselves crowned emperors in Rome, a custom which they continued until 1452. No real empire ever developed. While the kings of England and of France were slowly building up out of the feudal fragments around them strong kingdoms and the beginnings of nations, the German rulers, trying to ac- complish too much and uphold a great empire, lost all control over the outlying parts, and wasted their strength in the vain attempt to rule Italy and Germany together. Therefore the German people continued to be divided imder princes and feudal lords, like France in the early Middle Ages, even though the name and the outward dignity of the Holy Roman Empire lingered on. For a long time emperors were elected by the greater princes of the German lands, but after 1438 the imperial dignity remained in the House of Hapsburg. The rulers of the separate parts did much as they pleased. They owed allegiance to the emperor, but this was largely a form. The various cities and states sent representatives to an AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA 215 imperial assembly, the Diet, but this assembly was not a body which passed laws to govern the whole, for it had neither revenues to spend nor any armed forces to support its decisions; rather it was like a congress of ambassadors from the several states. Sometimes, indeed, the decisions of the Diet were carried out by the Kaiser, but generally he lacked the power and resources to enforce them. The real basis of his power was in the resources of the territory over which he ruled directly: Austria, and possessions like Hungary, Bohemia, and other territories which had been acquired through conquest or marriage. Usually he devoted himself for the most part to the care and in- crease of his own possessions, extending his power south- ward and eastward, until after a while Austria ruled more Slavic subjects than Germans. Some Germans, from time to time, seeing the weakness of division, and knowing how their weakness made it possible for foreigners to despoil them and bring war and ruin to their country, dreamed of a day when all of them might be truly one nation; but the mass of the people were inert, and all attempts at closer union were thwarted by the selfish interests of princes who wished no lessening of their independent power. So the Holy Roman Em- pire remained a curious relic survived from old times, pompous, weak, meaning little. It was not holy, said Voltaire, not Roman, not an empire. Yet it would be a mistake to believe that the witty remarks of intellectuals in the eighteenth century exactly represented the truth. Little as the empire meant to the German people in any substantial way, it was yet revered as an inheritance from their past, it vaguely represented former greatness, and it was the symbol of their nationality in the present. There was small chance, however, of bringing the Ger- man people together in a better union while the Holy Roman Empire continued, and there could be little hope of making a great German nation so long as local interests Ths Hapsburg dominions Weakncss^ of the Empire Failure to achieve xmity 216 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Napoleon Small states absorbed End of the Holy Roman Empire or the "particularism** of various states continued to be dominant. The eighteenth century came to an end with no progress by the Germans toward union or real nation- ality, and it seemed that fate was denying to their land the unity and strength which long before had come to French- men and Englishmen and Spaniards. The first great step forward came at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the victories of Napoleon brought the time-worn fabric of the empire down into ruins. Ruthlessly, but with the constructive ideas of a great statesman, Napoleon swept the old system away. In accordance with the Treaty of Campo-Formio (1797) and with following arrangements, German princes com- pensated themselves for the territory lost when France extended her frontier to the Rhine by taking possession of the ecclesiastical states and many of the free cities of the empire, and this was, indeed, ordered by the Reichsde- putationshauptschluss (decree of the imperial delegates), in 1803. Then when Austria had been completely conquered at Austerlitz and Prussia overthrown at Jena, not only did Napoleon take much of their territory away, but, to counterbalance them, he strengthened certain states of the second rank dependent on himself, by giving them much of this appropriated territory and at the same time encouraging them to absorb the little states within their borders. In this way the small jurisdictions of the knights of the empire were abolished, and altogether the number of parts into which the German people had been divided was reduced from about three hundred and thirty to thirty- eight. Furthermore, in 1806, when Napoleon established the Confederation of the Rhine, dependent on himself, he declared that he no longer recognized the empire. A few days after, the Hapsburg emperor resigned his title, and the venerable organization came to an end, its ruler becoming now the first emperor of Austria, his hereditary dominions. Napoleon did all this for himself, not for the German people. — AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA 217-- None the less, what a long line of German heroes and emperors had failed to bring about he succeeded in doing; and he is entitled to rank as the first and one of the greatest workers in unifying the German people. The influence of the French and their very nearness had brought the best work of the Revolution into western Germany, abolishing serfdom and feudal survivals, intro- ducing civil equality and the excellent, simple law of Napoleon's Code. Similar reforms were brought about in Prussia by the minister, von Stein, assisted by others who labored to regenerate the people. There also serfdom was abolished and civil equality introduced, while educa- tion and the military system were reorganized and greatly improved. During this time the yoke of France was so heavy on Prussians and other Germans, and they so hated the foreign tyrant, that their common German nationality seemed more precious than ever before. For a while there seemed no hope of deliverance, but after the Grand Army had perished in Russia, the Prussians first, then other Germans, rose in a splendid national effort and completed the destruction of Napoleon's empire. The War of Liberation in 1813 was the work of the people of Germany, not of their sovereigns. It is true that most of them had risen up in their wrath to turn the invader out, and that as yet it was only the intellectuals and a few others who were filled with strong national feeling. Yet many of the German liberals and leaders hoped that now their sover- eigns would willingly offer better governments, and that the German peoples might be brought together in one strong union . Like the Italians, the German people were soon disap- pointed. The leaders at the Congress of Vienna were little inclined to take account of new aspirations and passions. They were striving to reconstitute the old Europe, as far as they could. Alexander I, Tsar of Rus- sia, for the moment liberal leader of Europe, sympathized Reform in the Ger- manies Rise of national spirit The Con- gress of Vienna 218 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Deutschea Bund, 1815-1866 Character of the Confedera- tion with the wish of Germans for a better arrangement, and tried to assist them; but with respect to German matters Prince Mettemich dominated the Congress, and he had no desire to see the German states bound in a closer union, since in such organization, he clearly foresaw, Austria could not remain leader. His eflForts were successful, and no further unification was achieved. Yet the work of Napoleon in this respect was not now undone, for the Germans remained in thirty-eight states as he left them. Out of these states the Congress of Vienna established the German Confederation. It was to be governed by an assembly or diet to meet at Frankfort. As in the Holy Roman Empire, the delegates were to be appointed by the sovereigns of the states. In the Diet no fundamental change of any sort could be made without a unanimous vote, probably as diflBcult to obtain as had once been the case in Poland, thus precluding from the start any change toward better government or closer unity of the parts. This body was to legislate for the general concerns of the German people, but neither its power nor the scope of its work was ever defined, and it had no capacity to enforce its decrees. Metternich had planned this assembly; and Austria had the presidency in it. Evidently no progress had been made toward the bet- terment or unification of Germany. No nation had been formed; there was no national flag; no strong state had been founded, nor any closely knit league. As political scientists said, it was a Staatenbund, or league of States, not a Bundesstaat or federal state. Its princes had kept almost complete independence for themselves. Each one might have his own diplomatic representatives abroad and conduct his foreign relations as he pleased, even mak- ing alliances with other countries, except that no member was ever to make war upon another. Furthermore, the Confederation was not only loosely formed, but it con- tained members whose principal interests were outside. AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA 219 A great part of Prussia, the non-Germanic portion, was not in the Confederation, and two thirds of Austria was left out. Austria would certainly place her particular in- terests before those of the Confederation, or " Germany." For the next generation German patriots and liberals Lack of lived on with hope deferred. Most of the people were P'^'^sress occupied principally with reconstruction after the long wars through which Europe had passed; they were en- grossed in the simple problem of making their living under new diflBculties, and could give scant heed to reformers. The recent territorial changes in German lands, the enlargement of Prussia and the absorption of the small German states, engaged the attention of the princes. Most of the rulers desired to restore former conditions or prevent further change, if they could. And those who strove so hard to unite the Germanics were themselves not decided about that which was best to do. Above all, Austria continued to be leader of the Germanic countries, and Austria, under Metternich, continued to desire that the old system of things should remain. In spite of the defeats of the Napoleonic Wars, and Austria despite the large changes which had taken place on her borders, Austria was much as before. She had changed almost as little as Russia. For her the French Revolu- tion had not occurred. In her domains no great altera- tion took place until about the middle of the century. Like Russia, Austria was a strange and conglomerate empire, formed of many pieces. The basis of her power, what linked Austria with the German peoples, was the territory around Vienna, bordering on the south German lands, the old possessions of the Hapsburg House. Here, and scat- tered about in other parts, dwelt the Austrian Germans, pleasant and agreeable folk, but politically more backward and conservative in character than most of the other Ger- man peoples. They remained as the Germans elsewhere had been before the spread of the Revolutionary ideas. 220 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Peoples of the Austrian Empire The old regime in the Haps- burgdo-. minions The Germans of the Austrian Empire, because of higher culture and the greater wealth and position they had for a long time possessed, dominated the other peoples, but they were only about a third of the entire population. For three hundred years the House of Hapsburg had been extending its dominions, at first by a series of fortunate marriages, then by conquest at the expense of the Turkish power which for a long while had been receding southward toward the Balkans. The other two thirds of her subjects lived in these additions. There were West Slavs in Bohemia and Moravia; Poles and Ruthenians in Galicia; there were South Slavs in Carniola, and Dalmatia, along the Adriatic, and in Croatia and Slavonia inland, with more just across the empire's borders in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which Austria would acquire in the future; in Transylvania were more Rumans than lived in the adjacent Turkish prov- inces which later on were to be Rumania; and above all there were the Hungarians, who with Transylvanians, Slovaks and South Slavs composed Hungary, the other half of the empire. In this aggregation the peoples were divided from one another by race, religion, and speech. Towards the end of the eighteenth century attempts had been made to Germanize the non-Germanic populations, and had these attempts borne fruit Austria might later on have become a powerful and unified state; but they had signally failed, and Bohemians, Hungarians, Rumanians, and South Slavs, remained quiescent, indeed, for they lived, most of them, in ignorance and serfdom, ruled by nobles or their German masters, but they continued un- assimilated, with no love and little loyalty for the empire. Such an empire could be held together most surely in the old manner. So long as education and industrial progress could be kept away, so long as most of the people were in lowly servitude under nobles attached to the Austrian government, that long, most likely, would there be no rebellions for Hungarian or Bohemian independence. m g22 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Mettemich's system in central Europe It would be expedient to cheek all progress in neighbor- ing German lands; since probably, as conditions there became better, the German peoples or their rulers, bring- ing about real union, would make Germany prosperous and great; and when that time came there would be no more of Austrian leadership in central Europe, for in a Germany really unified and progressive there could be no place for an Austria most of whose territory even now lay outside the Germanic Confederation, and most of whose peoples were of races alien and subject. The Austria of Metternich and the Germanic Confedera- tion continued to a great extent to be lands of the old regime. In Austria serfdom and special privilege lasted on as before. Throughout the Germanic Confederation were reaction and repression. The object of Metternich and those who followed his system was to keep out all ideas foreign or new, which were thought to be dangerous, and to prevent all change. Education was carefully super- vised and controlled. Austrians were forbidden to travel abroad, and foreigners were kept out as much as could be. There was strict censorship of the press, and of the theater, and government spies everywhere prowled about to listen at lectures, to watch students, to report conversations, to discover what might be dangerous to the state. In Austria it was not difficult to accomplish what was de- sired; the mass of the people remained in their lowly condi- tion, paid their crushing taxes, and hardly stirred against the German masters above them; while the government remained unreformed, corrupt, inejQBcient. But in the German countries near by it was far less easy to maintain the old system, for into western Germany the spirit of France had entered profoundly; for a while French in- fluence had been the guiding force, and Prussia had raised herself from humiliation and defeat by enacting some of the reforms which the French Revolution brought else- where. Nevertheless, for the time the Congress of Vienna AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA 223 left things much as before, and the German princes, for- getting the promises made in their need, followed where Metternich led them. Some of the German states — Wei- mar, Bavaria, Wurtemberg, Baden — got constitutions, but most of them did not; and the government of Prussia was reactionary and strongly repressive. Accordingly there was much discontent among the upper intellectual classes in Prussia and the smaller German states, particularly around the universities. In Prussia, moreover, there still remained patriotic societies, like the BursckenschafU which had done so much to arouse the young men against Napoleon's rule. Great suspicion was shown now by the governments toward these societies and toward the university students. In 1817 members of the Burschenschaft from various universities celebrated at the Wartburg Castle the anniversary of Luther's theses and also of the battle of Leipzig, and there they burned certain reactionary writings. This was magnified as a most dangerous event. Two years later a student stabbed to death a certain Kotzebue, known then as a dramatist of some little importance but still better as a spy serving Russia. As a result of these occurrences Frederick Wil- liam III of Prussia gave full support to Metternich's ideas, and, some of the other states consenting, Metternich had passed through the Diet of the Confederation the Carlsbad Decrees of 1819. These decrees established drastic super- vision of universities and strict censorship of the press, student societies were prohibited, and a declaration was made against constitutional reforms like those which had been brought to pass in England and France. It was about this time that the Tsar of Russia, who had inclined toward liberalism before, became the strongest advocate of Metternich's principles. "Tell me what you desire," he said, "I will do it." Therefore from this time, the "Holy Alliance," which had been established in the first place from the best of motives, and for the one great pur- Discontent in the Ger- man coun- tries The Carlsbad Decrees 224 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Reaction and political stagnation Repression The Indus- trial Revolu- tion pose of maintaining the settlement of 1815, now became also the great engine of oppressive reaction, and thus got the reputation which made it so hateful to men in after days. In the Germanic Confederation the Carlsbad Decrees remained to dominate the life of the people for the next thirty years. There was to be no further political prog- ress and little betterment of conditions until the Revolu- tion of 1848 swept over central Europe. It is true that the Revolution of 1830, which produced such important changes in Belgium and France, had effects in some of the lesser German states, but in Germany, as in Italy, 1830 produced no great alteration. Durmg the remainder of Metternich's age, there appeared to be almost no progress at all, and in the long years of this stagnation the hopes of German liberals almost died. Spies and oflScials of the governments persecuted the men who had helped to liberate Germany from Napoleon, and who now looked forward to still better things. Jahn, who had founded the Prussian gymnastic societies, was thrust into prison. Amdt, whose poems had so stirred the German youth in the glorious days of the uprising, was persecuted and driven out of his profession. Emissaries listened to the words of the greatest preachers and professors. Some books were kept out of Germany, and some were sup- pressed. Most of the old governments continued as conservative as ever, and the Diet of the Confederation held the Germanic states together with as little effect as before. But during these long, slow years, changes were taking place which silently brought enormous consequences. Dur- ing the period from 1815 to 1848 economic causes were gradually eating away the very foundations of the old order; the Industrial Revolution began its work in central Europe as in Belgium and France. Hitherto, as from time inmaemorial, most of the people had been engaged in AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA 225 agricultural work, and there were now little commerce and manufacturing, and few big cities, except the capitals and political centers. But during the second quarter of the nineteenth century machines and manufacturing on a large scale began to appear in Germany and Austria, and slowly railroads were developed. Workmen were assem- bled together in large numbers, means of communication were improved, and a prosperous middle class developed. There was not so much of all this as had appeared in France and much less than in England, but altogether a consider- able amount. The rise of a bourgeoisie presently pro- duced an important class out of sympathy with the old system of politics and government, and radical feelings were presently disseminated among a larger and larger number of the industrial workers. The reactionaries would have liked to keep out railroads and the new in- dustrialism, but here they were working against forces which they could neither control nor understand. For many years Metternich's police and spies seemed to pre- vent all progress and change, but after a while his regime was left almost without a foundation. This was evident in 1848. In that year the Orleans Monarchy was overthrown by a sudden revolution in Paris. At once the movement spread far outside of France; and all through central Europe the existing ar- rangement went down in ruins. When the news of the uprising in Paris arrived at Vienna, the government at once lost control, and Met- ternich was compelled to flee from the city. The govern- ment found itself helpless, and immediately promised far-reaching reforms. Freedom of the press was estab- lished, and a National Guard of the citizens. April 25th, a new constitution was issued for the Austrian dominions. It established civil and religious freedom, and instituted a legislature, a Reichstag, of two chambers, to which the ministers were to be responsible; and a little later, a legisla- Middle Class The Revolu- tion of 1848 Reforms in Austria 226 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Revolution of 1848 in Prussia Reaction Attempt to make a united Ger- many ture of a single chamber with universal manhood suffrage. The Imperial Court, already deeply affronted at having to make concessions which it granted merely to save it- self, now withdrew from Vienna to Innsbruck, which shortly afterward became the center of the forces of aristocracy and reaction. Meanwhile there had been revolutions in Prussia and other German states, where the people demanded religi- ous freedom, freedom of the press, trial by jury, and governments responsible to representatives elected by the people. In March, the people of Berlin rose in insurrec- tion and made barricades in the streets. The king, Frederick William IV, at whose accession there had been hope of reform, but who had made no liberal changes, was compelled to proceed through the streets of his city ac- knowledging the changes brought about. In Prussia, however, as in France at the same time, the revolution was followed almost immediately by reaction, and for the same reason. As soon as the middle class had achieved the reforms that it wished, it became alarmed at what the workingmen of the lower class proposed to get, and pre- sently the Prussian bourgeoisie rallied to support the king, so as to get his support against the workmen. This made it easier for the conservative forces in the kingdom to recover their power. An assembly had been called to draw up a constitution for Prussia. Presently the reactionaries caused this assembly to be dismissed, and the king, of his own will and grace, granted to the people a constitution destined long to remain in force and long to be regarded as one of the least liberal constitutions in Europe. While reform was dying in Prussia and while Austria was also preparing for reaction, German progressives were attempting the still grander scheme of making a liberal, united Germany. For a long time there had been desire for a real imion of the German states, though this had been successfully opposed during Metternich's years. In AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA 227 1847 certain liberals had met to declare that there ought to be a national parliament for the German people. To this feeling the Paris revolution now gave a powerful im- pulse, and March 5, 1848, a group of leaders meeting at Heidelberg, proposed that a parliament be summoned. The Diet of the Confederation was forced to agree; and a German parliament, elected by manhood suffrage, as- sembled at Frankfort. May 13, 1848, the Frankfort Parliament opened its sessions. Unfortunately, its members were not fitted for the work imdertaken. They had grand general ideas about the nobility of man and democratic rights, but they lacked practical experience with government itself. In Germany, as in France, the great mass of the people had never had any part in the government of their country, and now they were found unequal to the task when they attempted to make constitutions. The Parliament of Frankfort was only possible because for the moment Austria, who would surely have prevented such a gather- ing if she could, was in the throes of revolution, and be- cause temporarily the princes of the other states had to bow to the will of their people. This condition would almost certainly not long endure: either there would be more complete revolution, or reaction to the old state of affairs. But the members of the Frankfort Parliament, which Karl Marx afterward described as an "assembly of old women," spent long time in debating the funda- mental ideas of their system. At the end of the year they were, indeed, able to proclaim equality before the law, and freedom of press, petition, and meeting, but they had not yet formed a strong government or got for their system the strength and support without which it could never be established. The great problem confronting them at the outset was what to do with respect to Austria. The entire Hapsburg state might be embodied in a new Germanic union, but The Frank- fort Parlia- ment Failure The Prob- lem of Austria 228 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Austria excluded from the proposed German Empire Prussia refuses to accept leadership that seemed not desirable, and moreover the Austrian dominions seemed about to fall into fragments. It was also proposed to exclude Austria altogether, but as yet this conflicted too much with old associations and long- settled opinion to be accepted. Accordingly, a com- promise was adopted, the constitution providing that no part of the "German Empire" might contain non-German lands. In the case of such a state as Austria, provided that the German parts were taken into the new German federa- tion, the Slavic and Hungarian parts might thereafter be connected only through personal union under the Austrian ruler. Since in any strong union this would mean the partition of Austria, she refused to accept the arrangement, and thereupon was excluded altogether. This being settled, the members proceeded to arrange the form of the government. At the end of March, 1849. they decided that the new Germany should be an empire, with the king of Prussia as hereditary ruler. The scheme was accepted by a large number of the smaller German states, but Austria announcing that she would not sufiFer herself to be expelled from the Confederation, the outcome of the affair now hinged altogether upon what action Prussia would take. Prussia was more and more looming up as the natural leader of the Germanics, though it was still hard for many people to turn their hearts from the old allegiance to Austria. German unity was some years later to be achieved under Prussian leadership; but now Frederick William IV shrank from an undertaking which would surely involve him in conflict with Austrian power, and possibly with that of Russia, who had come to Aus- tria's assistance. Moreover, he had no sympathy with the revolutionary movement which had brought the Frankfort Parliament into being. As Bismarck after- ward declared, the king looked upon this assembly as a revolutionary body. He would only accept the crown of a German Empire if the princes of the various states asked AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA him. Therefore he refused to take the leadership that was offered. Then, when not only Austria but Prussia had refused to accept the Constitution of Frankfort, Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, and Wiirtemberg likewise declined, and the work of the Parliament, accepted only by the smaller states, came to an ignominious end. The failure at Frankfort in 1849 was afterward seen to have been a turning point in the history of the German people, and, indeed, in the history of Europe in the nine- teenth century. The two great forces in the life of European peoples during that hundred years were the tendency toward democracy and self-government and the tendency to realize nationality. Slowly and with normal development democracy was going forward in the British Isles, and more slowly, in face of greater obstacles, in France and other countries of western Europe. Hitherto it had made little progress in central Europe, but in 1848 came the great effort of the German liberals. Had they been able to cope more successfully with the difficulties which lay in their way, had they been able to erect limited constitutional monarchy, had they been able to bring about the unification of the German peoples, then it may well be that the entire political history of Germany in the years following would have been very different. There might have been no battles of Sadowa and Sedan, nor the terrible struggles of 1914-18. But actually, after the liberals had stirred the hearts of the people, they got nothing done and the failing system of a loose Germanic Confederation and rule by sovereigns in the old way con- tinued. The German peoples turned from republicans and liberals with contempt. Profound conviction grew that the great work still to be done must be done not by parliaments and the people, but by power and force and under the auspices of the princes and upper class. Some- what later it was brought about through the military power of Prussia; its development went forward upon the Significance of the failure at Frankfort 230 EUROPE, 1789-1920 battle-field; united Germany was made by the sword; and the government then established was left in the hands of princes and nobles. Then the military might which had accomplished so much was glorified by the German people, and their leaders made them hope for still greater power through greater armies led by their princes. All Europe became an armed camp, with Germany an ever greater danger and menace to other nations. It was the failure of 1848 and 1849 which definitively caused the German people to leave the path along which their western neigh- bors were then going forward. Not until after their Empire, which had been established on the battle-field, had been shattered on the field of battle was there pos- sibility of erecting again a German government based on the German people themselves. The failure of Prussia to accept leadership, and the collapse of the Parliament of Frankfort, were largely owing to the recovery of Austrian power. In 1848 that power had been broken to pieces; the subject peoples, so long bowed low, had risen and broken away from her Empire. While the liberals and the lower classes of Vienna were extorting a constitution and universal suf- frage in Austria proper, the Hungarians, the Bohemians, the Italians all shook off the Austrian yoke, and the numer- ous other peoples in the empire were aroused into wild excitement. The northern Italians, subject to Austria or under her influence, hated their masters as alien tyrants, and longed for the day of their deliverance. Now in the midst of Austria's necessities they rose and declared their inde- pendence; and it seemed that under the lead of Piedmont a united, free Italy might be begun. In Bohemia a strong nationalist movement had long been developing. Since 1526 she had been united with Austria by personal imion, the emperor being king of Bohemia. In course of time, a German minority of the AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA 231 population had become the upper class, in possession of much of the power and the wealth of the country. But always the great majority of the people were the Czechs, with their own Slavic language. During the nineteenth century there took place in Bohemia what had occurred in Greece and afterward in Hungary, and what was later on to be so prominent in Ireland, a consistent effort to revive nationality, and especially use of the language and a love for the old literature and traditions. In June, 1848, a congress of many of the Slavic peoples was held at the capital, Prague. The leaders were dreaming of a day when their peoples would have freedom and independence, and perhaps enter into a great Slavic union for their mutual advantage. But they found now that there was no Slavic language which all the delegates could understand, and German was used at the Congress. Almost immediately the old and deep-seated antagonism between Teutons and Slavs was aroused. At first the Bohemians protested loyalty to the Austrian government. Presently they proclaimed independence. In Hungary meanwhile a more important nationalist movement had taken place. When the power of the Hungarians had been broken in 1526 by the Turks at the battle of Mohacs, part of the country had passed under Turkish dominion, but the remainder had been united in personal union with Austria. Since that time, all of Hungary, along with other dependent lands, had been reconquered from the Turks by the emperor, who was king of the Hungarian lands. In Hungary the most im- portant element of the population was the Hungarians or Magyars, but they were exceeded in numbers by Rumanians and Slavs, just as the Germans of Austria were outnumbered by South Slavs, Czechs, and Poles. Croatia and Transylvania had some measure of autonomy, but ever since the Magyars had come into this region a thousand years before they had acted as superiors and In Himgary 232 EUROPE, 1789-1920 masters. Yet the mass of the Hungarian people were in as lowly condition as the other races about them. Hungary had an old constitution, according to which the power of the nobles was supreme. The greater nobles sat in the Diet, and had nearly all the political power. There were some five hundred of these magnates or great men, but there were in addition about seven hundred thousand petty nobles, unimportant in the government, but raised far above the mass of the people. The nobles paid no taxes. They were supported by the labor of peasants, the great mass of the people, who continued in the lowliest serfdom, for Hungary was still a land of manorial, feudal, medieval customs. During Metternich's time the pro- gress of western Europe had hardly reached into the country, though in recent years there had been some who had foreseen a change and tried to bring it about. Count Szechenyi, one of the most prominent of the magnates, endeavored to effect economic improvement; Louis Kossuth and Francis Deak labored for political reform. In 1847 their party had demanded liberty of the press, taxation of the nobles, and other changes. Along with this was going forward a nationalist awakening like that which had been developing in Bohemia. Hungarian leaders desired not merely reform, but a Hungary in which the Magyar people and language should completely pre- vail. In 1844 they had succeeded in getting their tongue declared the language of the government instead of Latin, though this was opposed by the Slavic peoples. Such was the condition of affairs when news came of the Revolution in France and the outbreak in Vienna. At once the effect was felt in Hungary, and in the midst of enormous enthusiasm and excitement the Hungarian Diet passed the March Laws, which were reforms like those made in 1789 by the National Assembly in France. Serfdom and manorial dues were at last abolished, and the nobles deprived of their monopoly of political offices ^ AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA and power. The Diet was thereafter to be elected by Hungarians owning a stipulated amount of property. Freedom of the press, trial by jury, and religious freedom were also proclaimed. Furthermore, Hungary was now to have its own ministry and its own separate govern- ment, remaining connected with Austria only through the person of their common monarch. As a result of all these movements Austria's power seemed for the moment to be gone. Austria proper, the center of Hapsburg power, was torn by revolution, and the dependencies and outlying possessions, Italy, Bohemia, Hungary, had effected virtual separation. But now was witnessed a phenomenon, frequently seen again with sur- prise in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Down to the very beginning of the Great War outsiders often predicted the breaking up of the Hapsburg dominions. But they usually forgot that the Hapsburg power had developed because it held together diverse elements not strong enough to stand alone, and generally too jealous of one another and too different to unite in any other com- bination. Because of these factors Austria-Hungary remained one of the great powers of Europe long after the middle of the century, and, indeed, seemed to grow stronger with time. Now after 1848 it was the jealousies of the different parts and the incompatibility of the racial elements that made it possible for Austria to recover. In Italy, indeed, her power was only shaken a little. The aged but able veteran Radetzky, driven out of Milan, retired merely to the position of the Quadrilateral, the four strong fortresses of the north, and shortly after re- established Austrian authority as a result of his victory at Custozza. Almost at the same time an Austrian army under Prince Windischgratz reconquered Bohemia where the Germans and the conservatives had arrayed them- selves against the Czechs, the mass of the people. The forces of reaction were rapidly getting new strength. The The power of Austria revives The Italians defeated The Bohemians reconquered 234 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Austrian Slavs, now rendered submissive, were used by the government to help in defeating the German insur- gents in Austria. Racial jealousies were aroused, and dislike and suspicion fostered. July 22nd, a Constituent Diet for Austria assembled at Vienna. The gathering was torn by racial dissensions between Germans and Slavs, and made no important reform except the abolition of serfdom. Soon the democrats and liberals became alarmed at the signs of growing reaction; a new insurrec- tion broke out; and the emperor, who had returned to the capital, again fled. But Windischgratz now marched on Vienna; it was soon invested and captured; and by the end of October the power of the government was very largely restored in Austria. It was at this point, indeed, that Austria began effective resistance to the Parliament of Frankfort. Reaction now held full sway. March 4, 1849, a new constitution was granted by imperial author- ity, which proclaimed the unity of the Austrian dominions and organized them under central bureaucratic rule. Only the Hungarians remained to be dealt with. By this time they had virtually established their indepen- dence, and their position seemed strong, but actually they were near to their fall. The Magyars did, indeed, want reform and liberal change, but they also wanted to preserve their own supremacy, and to make Magyar things everywhere supreme in the state. In this they were opposed by the Slavic and German and Rumanian popula- tions who were unwilling to abandon their own nationalist aspirations. The Hungarians were less than half of the population of Hungary, and were only one among the seven peoples who inhabited it; but they were now de- termined that the Magyar tongue should be the language of the government in all parts, and, as far as possible, that the non-Magyar parts of the population should be slowly fused into the Hungarian race. But the Slovaks, the Croatians, and also the Rumanians of Transylvania, were AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA 235 strongly opposed to any attempt to incorporate them in a unified Hungarian state. As the Magyars themselves wanted complete autonomy if they were to remain con- nected with Austria, so the Rumanians and Slavs of Hungary wanted some measure of autonomy for them- selves, and this the Hungarians were unwilling to grant. Kossuth told the South Slavs that before there could be any equality of the Slavonian tongue with the Magyar, appeal must be made to the sword. The result was that almost from the first the majority of the people in Hungary were against the revolutionary party. Of this situation the Austrian authorities took easy advantage. The South Slavs tried to set up a kingdom, separate from Hungary and under Hapsburg rule, and presently the inhabitants of Transylvania also tried to separate themselves. For a time Austria waited, but as she recovered her strength she encouraged Jellacic, ban or viceroy of Croatia, to invade Hungary, and in January, 1849, Windischgratz took Budapest. Just when the cause of the Hungarians seemed desperate, however, they rallied and regained almost all they had lost. But in April, at this last moment of their triumph, they separated completely from Austria and proclaimed a Hungarian republic. This was a fatal step, for at once it brought Russia into the confiict. Now when the Austrians and the Croatians advanced from the west, the Russians entered the country through the passes of the Carpathian mountains, and, overwhelmed on all sides, the Hungarian republic collapsed. Austria, triumphant, took savage vengeance. The leaders, who had not escaped, were put to death or cast into prison; Hungary's autonomy was suppressed and her constitution annulled; the country was divided into provinces, and in all of them German was made the language of the state instead of Magyar. Of the Hungarian movement all that remained was the social reforms; feudalism and serfdom had disappeared. Hungary at bay The Magyars over- whelmed 236 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Just before the Frankfort Assembly melted away, German radicals, disgusted with its failure, had tried to set up republics in some of the German states, like the one just established in Hungary, but these republics did not last beyond the spring and summer of 1849. In central Europe the revolutionary movement for the pre- sent had spent its force. The restoration of Germany was now attempted; first by Prussia, and then by Austria. The Prussian plan was to establish a German union from which Austria would be excluded, with a government, much like what was afterward adopted, in which Prussia should have the leading part. The Austrian leaders proposed to revive the Germanic Confederation, in which now all of the Austrian dominions were to be included. Prussia did attempt to establish a union, in which the smaller states entered, along with Saxony and Hanover, though these two states almost at once tried to withdraw. Austria began to establish a revived Confederation. Thus Ger- many was divided. Soon the matter came to issue over a dispute about Hesse-Cassel. Then Austria and the south German states put into the field an army of 200,000 men against Prussia, who was not prepared to make effective resistance. In November, 1S50, by the Convention of Olmutz, Prussia yielded. Then the Germanic Confedera- tion was revived; and Austria was once more, as previ- ously, the leader among t)#e German states. For a few years more the ascendancy of Austria con- tinued, but it is evident now that forces had long been silently at work which had brought about a great altera- tion. Ever since 1815 Prussia, despite reactionary politicians and weak kings, had been developing into the strongest state in central Europe. The leadership of Austria, which had come down from olden times, had been owing to the fact that she was the most powerful state in the old empire, and hence it had seemed very natural for AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA 237 her to be predominant in the Confederation. In older times south Germany and the lands in the Danube valley were more favored than the countries in the north. In Prussia and along the Baltic and the North seas the lands were poor and barren, but in the south agriculture flour- ished wherever it was developed. Moreover, in earlier times south Germany was the center of German commerce and industry and many of the trade routes led to the Mediterranean or down the Danube through Austrian lands. But gradually as time went on the great trade routes of Europe were in the north instead of the south, and presently Prussia and the north German lands lay not only along one line of communication from Russia to western Europe but across the routes from the south German lands out on to the Baltic and the North seas and thence to the Atlantic; and Austria and the south fell behind. Meanwhile Prussia had been carefully developed by a dynasty of sovereigns who built up Prus- sian power by their armies, it is true, but who also fostered commerce and industry to the utmost. Then in 1815 the Congress of Vienna had added greatly to Prussia's territory, giving her not only part of Saxony but also the Rhine lands to defend against France. She had now, after Austria, by far the largest population and territory of any state in the Confederation, and, since Austrian possessions were mostly non-Germanic, she appeared in- creasingly the natural leader of the German peoples. During the period of subjection to France, the great minister von Stein had worked to make the land strong and prosperous so that the people might escape from the yoke of Napoleon. In 1807 serfdom was abolished, forty years before it was done in Austria; trade in land between the classes was permitted; occupations were thrown open to members of all classes; and trade barriers between country and town were removed. Previous to this time commerce had been fatally hampered by payments which Austria falls behind Reforms in Prussia ^8 EUROPE, 1789-1920 had to be made on goods taken through the German towns. Customs duties were, however, still levied at the frontier, and each of the states into which Germany remained divided after 1815 levied its own customs, the multiplicity and number of them greatly hindering German commerce. A great step forward was taken when in 1818 Prussia established a uniform rate for all parts of her widely scat- tered domain, with freedom of trade between all of these several parts and then invited other states near by to enter into the same regulations with her. The project of a customs union, or Zollverein, was an old one in Ger- many, and long before, clear thinkers had seen the ad- vantage which would come to German commerce and also to the German people if such commercial unity were brought about. Great difficulties and local particular interests stood in the way, but gradually Prussia won over some of the other states to join her. In the process of forming a Zollverein she was greatly favored by her geographical position. As she won some of her neighbors to join her, others, like Saxony, presently found them- selves cut off from easy access to the great trade routes and at such a disadvantage in commerce that presently they were compelled through self-interest also to join. In 1834 the Zollverein was established between Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, and fourteen of the lesser states; and by 1842 the only important states remaining out were Han- . over and Austria. Thus, as the result 'of the working of economic forces, nearly all the German states were brought together in a commercial union, while Austria was left completely out- side. It might Very well seem to those who judged cir- cumstances from politics and diplomatic relations that Austria was the leader of the German states bound to- gether only in the loose Germanic Confederation ruled by the ineffective Diet at Frankfort; and as late as 1850, when Prussia yielded so completely at Olmutz, Austria's 239 240 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The economic unification of Germany position might seem unimpaired. But the shadow not the substance of her former power among the German states remained ; and what she still had she would presently be able to keep only through upholding it by force. More and more did north Germany and Austria draw farther apart in interests and importance. The Industrial Revolu- tion came into central Europe at the time that Prussia was establishing the customs union, and developed in Prussia and the neighboring states far more greatly than in Aus- tria and the lands of the south. The abolition of customs barriers fostered trade and industry greatly, and presently the countries of the Zollverein entered upon a splendid period of prosperity and economic advancement. The significance of this work was afterward obscured by the apparent splendor and the success of the military achievements by which the political unification of Ger- many was brought about when the German Empire was established. But looking back now with altered perspective, it seems that it would have been better for Germany and the rest of Europe had it not been necessary for the work of Bismarck and his companions to be done, for it is evident now that while it was through their successes that German unity was really achieved, yet the foundations were laid and the more important part of the task accom- plished through the constructive and peaceful work of Prussian statesmen who established the Zollverein and with it the real beginning of German federation. Unfortun- ately, by the middle of the century it began to seem that they would not be able to finish the work of peacefully drawing together the Germans in one great nation. Then the task of unification was taken up by Bismarck, and by force, by strength, by military might suddenly and magnificently completed. But what Bismarck and von Moltke did has since been undone; while what re- mains of Germany now and gives hope to the German people for the future is the work which was peacefully AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA 241 wrought out in the first half of the nineteenth century. In the years which followed OlmUtz the affairs of Prussia came into the keeping of leaders who resolved to increase the military power of their country so greatly that they might later on give Austria defiance. In spite of all the commercial and industrial progress which Prussia had made, she remained politically far behind England and France, and even when a constitution was granted in 1850 the government continued to be controlled entirely by the king and by the aristocracy and nobles. For generations the instinct of these men had been warlike; their fathers before them had won their possessions by the sword and kept them by strength and by force. Much of the power of Prussia had come from the armies which former rulers had built up, and from the victories won by Frederick the Great. To the Prussian upper class force and power seemed the means of successful government and advance- ment. In 1857 the brilliant but erratic and weak Frederick William IV, being afflicted with a mental disease, the administration of Prussia was put into the hands of his brother William as regent, who, four years later, in 1861, ascended the throne as William I (1861-1888). The new sovereign was a soldier by long training, and he resolved at once to increase the Prussian army. For this it was necessary to have additional revenue, which must be got from the Prussian parliament. But in the Landtag the liberals were in control and they looked with disfavor on increasing the army. In 1862, by a great majority, they refused the money which the king required. In the bitter disappointment of this moment, William was prepared to abdicate his crown, but as a last resort beforehand he entrusted the administration of affairs to one who was destined now to guide Prussia through the greatest period of her career and profoundly alter the history of Germany and of Europe. Thi^ was Count Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck (1815-1898), was a Prussian Junker or nohle- The new leaders of Prussia William I Bismarck 242 EUROPE, 1789-1920 His ambition Bismarck and the Prussian representa- tives . man who had already gained some notoriety as a reac- tionary in the lower chamber of the Prussian Landtag. He had served as Prussian representative at the Frankfort Diet, where he had stanchly upheld the dignity of his country; then, as ambassador to Russia and, for a few months in 1862, as ambassador to France, gaining in- valuable experience in diplomatic affairs and much knowl- edge of the politics of Europe. His political tastes and instincts were thoroughly those of the conservatives and the nobility of central Europe. He had no patience with parliaments, and scant respect for representatives of the people. In his mind the king ruled by divine right, as the Prussian Constitution declared. His principal desire was to uphold the power of his sovereign and his class, to increase the strength of Prussia, and effect the unification of Germany by grouping the other German states in union about Prussia. He was a thorough patriot and his motives, from his own point of view, were the highest and the best. He had great strength of character, iron resolution, dauntless courage, and the highest ability in conducting diplomacy and foreign relations. There was no one who dealt with him whom he did not overreach in the end. All the tasks he set out to accomplish he suc- ceeded in effecting as he desired, and all that he gained for Prussia and Germany he kept as long as he remained in power. His success, indeed, was so immense that for a long time contemporaries and those who followed after him believed that he had been the greatest statesman of his century and the greatest one his country had ever produced. But afterward it was seen more clearly that some of his work was not based upon the moral foun- dations which give worth and permanence to achievement. Bismarck at once warned the lower chamber not to rely too much upon its power. When it persisted in its refusal to grant the money, he boldly continued for 1863 the appropriation which had been passed the year pre- AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA 243 ceding. Then the chamber asked the king to dismiss him, but the monarch supported his minister, prorogued the Diet, and announced a strict censorship of the press. The Prussians, who had not behind them a long history of constitutional progress, and most of whom as yet cared little for representative government, made no strong protest, and such discontent as there was soon diminished in the midst of the great economic prosperity through which the country was passing. So, reorganization and strengthening of the army went forward until Prussia was by far the strongest military power in Europe, Mean- while, with the greatest skill, Bismarck so conducted Prussia's foreign affairs as to make it certain that when the day came of contest with Austria, she would not be assisted by some other great power. After the brief war of 1864 — in which Prussia and Austria together overcame Denmark — Austria and Prussia drifted steadily apart, as Bismarck so managed things as to make a contest between them inevitable. In 1866 the struggle came, and then, to the astonishment of the world, the Prussian army laid prostrate the power of Austria in the brief Seven Weeks* War. The king and some of the Prussian leaders wished to continue the war and take away from Austria a part of her territory, but Bismarck opposed them, for he desired only to thrust Austria outside of German affairs, to make a united Germany under Prussia's leadership, and hoped when this was accomplished to have Austria's friendship. By the Treaty of Prague much of the work which had so long been going forward in central Europe was now for- mally completed. Austria, paying to Prussia a small indemnity, but losing no territory except Venetia — which she ceded to Prussia's ally, the Italian kingdom — withdrew now from any part in German affairs; the old Germanic Confederation was dissolved; and Prussia prepared to establish a new confederation of the north German states. Prussia's army strength- ened Austria overthrows 244 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The North Gennan Confedera- Hon, 1867 Govern- ment The German Empire established, 1871 When the war began every German state of any im- portance had ranged itself on Austria's side. Now all of them were conquered. From the south German states little was taken, but elsewhere Prussia did her will. She annexed Schleswig-Holstein, the subject of the dispute with Austria, all of the kingdom of Hanover, the duchies of Hesse-Cassel and Nassau, and also the free city of Frankfort. Thus was her territory rounded out, and her population increased by four millions and a half. She then formed the North German Confederation, a strong federal union of all the German states north of the river Main. Local affairs were to be regulated by the members, but there was now also a strong central government. In this central government the executive, an hereditary pres- ident, was the Prussian king, who commanded the armed forces of the union and managed its foreign affairs. There was also to be a Bundesraih, or federal council, made up of representatives of the governments of the various mem- ber states, and a parliamentary assembly, Reichstag, of which the members were to be elected by manhood suffrage. What remained to be done was soon accomplished. The states south of the Main — Bavaria, WUrtemberg, part of Hesse-Darmstadt, and Baden — feared France, and con- sidered themselves too weak to stand alone. Accordingly they formed an offensive and defensive alliance with Prussia. Bismarck believed that France would not will- ingly acquiesce in the creation of such a great new state on her border, and he saw clearly that triumph over France would create such enthusiasm everywhere among Ger- mans that most probably the south German states would enter the imion also. Therefore he skilfully led France on, as he had done with Austria, assisted however in this case by a rash and foolish war party in Paris. In 1870-71 France was completely crushed on the battlefield. Then amidst immense enthusiasm a German empire, including AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA 245 all the German states, south as well as north of the Main, was proclaimed, with a constitution much like that which the North German Confederation had possessed. To this new empire France was compelled to cede Alsace- Lorraine. In their rejoicing Germans thought of Bis- marck as the unifier of their country after leaders had failed during a thousand years before his time. Austria meanwhile had gone forward on her separate way. No longer absorbed in keeping her leadership of the German states, she turned to consider her domestic problems. In 1851, after the Magyars and the Slavs were reduced, she had entered upon a course of absolutism and reaction. The constitution which had been granted in 1849 was annulled; there was henceforth no constitu- tional government whatever; and in Austria, as in Russia, the will of the prince was law. The government, however, did go forward vigorously with reforms at the same time that it tried to Germanize all the various elements of the population. Had Austria continued to be successful in her foreign relations, she might have continued to rule despotically and try to Germanize all of her subjects, but soon began a period of great disasters. The Italians, striving to win freedom and unity, got the assistance of France, and in 1859 the Austrians were defeated, and forced to surrender a part of their Italian possessions. Austria weakened, now felt it necessary to make concessions, and the period of reaction ended in the following year. The liberals, who were influencing the government's course, hoped to preserve a unified state, and advocated a parliament in which all the races of the empire would have part. But national divisions were too strong for this, and neither Hungarians nor Slavs were willing to be merged even in a liberal Germanized empire. The Hungarians, who were the strongest of the dissenters, now got back again the status which their country had had before the Revolution Austria outside of Germany A period of disaster Unwilling subjects 246 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Francis Defik The Dual Monarchy Success of the Ausgleich of 1848. But they were in no wise satisfied with this, and demanded the restoration of the March Laws, which had given them greater independence. Then Hungary was again made a province of the empire, and allowed to send representatives to its Diet. The Hungarians refused to accept this position and began a vigorous opposition. Their leader now was Francis Deak, noble in character and wise and construc- tive as a leader. Patiently he tried to attain his ends by constitutional means, declaring that he did not wish to separate Hungary from Austria and break up the empire. His opportunity came when Austria was overthrown in 1866 in the Austro-Prussian War. The Hungarians had stood aloof while the Prussians gained their victories, and it was feared that they might now break away in complete independence. The result was that Austria readily yielded what Deak had been striving to obtain. In 1867 an arrangement was made known as the Ausgleich or com- promise, by which the relations between Austria and Hun- gary were regulated, and the Dual Monarchy of Austria- Hungary established. By this arrangement Hungary was put on a footing of complete equality with Austria, and given entire control over her internal affairs, as had been the case under the March Laws. There were now two states, each with its own ministry, its own parliament, and its own oflBcials. They were to have one flag and a single ruler, who was to be Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary. They were also to be united with respect to affairs concerning them jointly, such as war, finance, and foreign affairs, by a joint ministry of three parts, these ministries to be supervised by "delegations," or committees of the two parliaments, meeting together alternately in Vienna and Buda-Pest. This remarkable system of dual government, which seemed strange enough to peoples more uniform and united, lasted successfully for half a century, and was not m AUSTRIA, GERMANY, PRUSSIA 247 destroyed until the Great War broke it to pieces. It was, indeed, a very successful solution of the diflScult problem of holding together under one government two peoples not alike enough to unite completely, and not strong enough to go their own separate ways. Its greatest defect, as was afterward clearly seen, was that it erected a system of dualism in an empire where there were three important races, not two. Hungarians and Germans were now contented, but the more numerous Slavs were not. In- deed, the Ausgleich was an arrangement whereby a minority, the Germans, in Austria, allied themselves with a minority, the Hungarians, in Hungary to hold down in subjection the more numerous Slavs whom they ruled. And in after years it was to be seen that the Slovaks, the Jugo-Slavs, and the Rumanians were just as discontented with the Dual Monarchy as ever the Magyars had been before the Ausgleich was granted. , BIBLIOGRAPHY General: for an introduction — W. H. Dawson, The German Empire: 1867-19U, 2 vols. (1919); Sir A. W. Ward, Germany, 1815-1890, 3 vols. (1916-19). Ernst Berner, Geschichte des Preussischen Staates, (2d ed. 1896); K. T. von Heigel, Deutsche Geschichte vom Tode Friedrichs des Grossen his zur Auflosung des Alien ReicheSy 2 vols. (1899-1911); P. M. Leger, Histoire de rAvMriche-Hongrie, depuis les Origines jusqua VAnnSe 1878 (1879), English trans, by Mrs. B. Hill (1889) ; Heinrich von Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im Neunzehnten Jahrhunderty 5 vols. (3d ed. 1895), from the period of the French Revolution, brilliantly written, strongly nationalist, hostile to the liberals, English trans, by E. and C. Paul, volumes I-VII (1915-19); H. von Zwiedineck-Siidenhorst, Deutsche Geschichte von der Auflosung des Alien bis zur Errichtung des Neuen Kaiserreiches (1806-1871)y 3 vols. (1897-1905). Biographies: Charles de Mazade, Un Chancelier de VAnden RSgime: le Regne Diplomatique de M. de Metternich (1889); J. R. Seeley, Life and Times of StetUy 2 vols. (1879.) Particular periods: G. P. (xooch, Germany and the French «4S EUROPE, 1789-1920 Revolution (1920); J. von Pflug-Hartung, editor, Das Befreiungs- jahr, 1813 (1913), oflficial documents; H. A. L. Fisher, Studies in Napoleonic Statesmanship: Germany (1903), brilliant and admirable. The Revolution of 1848: Hans Blum, Die Deutsche Revolution, 18^8-1849 (1897), best study of, in German; Karl Marx, Revolu- tion and Counter-Revolution^ or Germany in 184^, ed. by Eleanor Marx Aveling (1896), consisting of articles written by Marx for the New York Tribune, 1852-3; Paul Matter, La Prusse et la Revolution de 1848 (1903); Charles Sproxton, Pal- mer ston and the Hungarian Revolution (1919); also The Remin- iscences of Carl SchurZy ed. by Frederic Bancroft and W. A. Dunning, 2 vols. (1907). Austria and Prussia: Heinrich Fried jung, Oesterreich von 1848 bis 1860, 2 vols. (1908-12), best study of, Der Kampf um die Varherrschaft in DeiUschland, 1869 bis 1866, 2 vols. (6th ed. 1904-5). Prussia and the founding of the German Empire: E. Denis, La Fcmdaiian de VEmpire Allemand, 1852-1871 (1906) ; Colonel G. B. Malleson, The Refounding of the German Empire, 184-8- 1871 (1893); Heinrich von Sybel, Die Begrundung des Deuischen Reiches durch Wilhelm I, 7 vols. (1889-90), trans, by M. L. Perrin and Gamahel Bradford, 7 vols. (1890-8). Austria-Hungary: C. M. Knatchbull-Hugessen, The Poli- tical Evolution of the Hungarian Nation (1908); Louis Eisen- mann, Le Compromis Austro-Hongrois de 1867 (1904), excellent. CHAPTER XI ITALY O Rome! my country! city of the soul! ... Lone mother of dead empires! Byron, Childe Harold, canto iv (1818). Che in Italia la condizione miserissima delle cose sia giunta a quel punto, in cui non v'e salute che in una intera e generale rivoluzione, non e oggimai chi ne dubiti. . . . Perche dunque la servitil dura tuttavia in Italia? ... a questo non v'e che una ri- sposta: I'austriaco . . . lo stupido, lento, pesante austri- aco — . . . Mazzini, La Giovine Italia, 1833. Sono celebri le parole pronunziate da Bismarck al 1879, che Tltalia non era una potenza militare temibile . . . Oggi tutto e mutato in nostro vantaggio ed io non permetter6 che I'ltalia ritorni in quello stato di umiliazione. . . . Francesco Crispi to Commendatore Ressman, September, 2, 1890. At the end of the eighteenth century even the most Italy ignorant Italian peasant must have known dimly some- ^^^I^®^.* "* thing of the glory and excellence of his people in the past. Italy, long before, had been the center of the greatest of empires; later on the seat of noble cities, whose monu- ments and beauty still fascinated beholders; and later still the Renaissance had risen in these cities and thence spread outward to inform and stimulate other parts of Europe. For ages Italians had been leaders in the thought and the knowledge and the artistic work of mankind. And yet after the Congress of Vienna, as Mazzini said a genera- tion later, they had no standing among the nations of Europe, no flag, and no common center, but their country 249 subjection 250 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Earlier history /^The French ^-^evolution and Napoleon 3 was dismembered into parts, some ruled by foreigners, some by tyrants, and some by princelings subservient to a foreign master. (^ When the Roman Empire broke up in the west the invaders of Italy were unable to found strong lasting states, and the only great jurisdiction which arose there in the end was the religious power of the Popes J i,^ After a while the German emperors carried on a long struggle to unite Italy and Germany in one strong large domain; but it was an impossible task, and their failure left Italy divided in parts. . Meanwhile the Popes were able to do no more than found a small state lying across the middle of the peninsula and cutting it in two, thus effectually contributing to keep Italy from being united. Splendid and prosperous cities arose, seats of the highest civiliza- tion in Europe, and small prosperous states were founded, but they could never be brought to unite, and, like the communities of ancient Greece, expended much of their energy in interminable contests with each other. Mean- while strong nation states had slowly been made in France and in Spain. Before them at the end of the medieval time Italy lay as a helpless prize. At the end of the fif- teenth century France entered the peninsula to conquer it, but she was speedily expelled by the power of Spain, after which for a long time Spain ruled the southern part of the land, Sicily and Naples, and made her influence predominant in the rest. Slowly Spain sank in weakness and decay, and at the beginning of the eighteenth century, her possessions in Italy went to the Empire; though in course of time, Sicily and Naples, passed under Bourbon power, and, like Spain, were ruled by relatives of the kings of France. /At the time of the French Revolution a great change began, for the Italians, stirred at the mighty changes taking place beyond the Alps, began to dream of better things for themselves. "\ Soon, on the north Italian plains, ITALY 251 Napoleon shattered Austria's power, and laid the founda- tions of his military renown. Later on, when he had be- come First Consul and Emperor, changes were made which brought more benefit to the Italians than anything which had happened for ages.) It is true that they were treated as a conquered population, works of art were carried off into France, soldiers lived on the country, and generals amassed fortunes for themselves; none the less, here, as in Germany, sweeping reforms were brought in. Feudalism and the remains of serfdom were abolished, the Code Napoleon introduced, laws were made uniform, and civil equality proclaimed, at the same time that industry was fostered and opportunity opened to all.y The small republics recently set up when the French came into the peninsula were abolished along with the old and wornout states^ and Italy was consolidated into three large divisions:) the territory down the west coast from Genoa to Rome was joined with France; the land to the east, in north Italy and along the Adriatic was made into the Kingdom of Italy and joined with France under Napoleon who was its king; the southern part, almost half of the whole, was made into the Kingdom of Naples. The Italian mainland had been largely united by the French; and what they had done could not afterward be entirely forgotten even though it was largely undone. When the Congress of Vienna settled Europe's affairs congress the feelings of the 17,000,000 Italians counted for little; of Vienna they were again divided up among many masters; and a period of reaction, which immediately began, restored as many as possible of the things which the Revolution had removed. Austria got in Italy once more the position she had so long had:i Lombardy and Venetia, the best and richest parts, were included in the Austrian dominions, and the neighboring districts of Tuscany and Lucca, Parma and Modena, were put under Austrian princes, and made practically dependent on her. To the south, and straight 252 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Condition of the Italian people The foreigner's yoke across Italy as of old, were the States of the Church, while the southern half including the island was again made the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, under the Bourbons, in close alliance with Austria. ( Only in the northwestern corner — the Kingdom of Sardinia, containing Savoy, Piedmont, the island of Sardinia, and Genoa, recently given to it at Vienna — was there an Italian state with any degree of independence and strength. In this Italy, divided in ten parts, reaction for a time held full sway. In the Papal States as in Spain, the Inquisition was set up again, and the King of Sardinia, for a time even restored serfdom. As in other coimtries during this period the outlook for the people was dark. In Lombardy and Venetia the Austrian government tried to carry out its policy of Germanizing, as far as possible, the populations of the different provinces of its empire, political activity on the part of Italians was suppressed, the offices and the courts were filled with German officials, and the people burdened with taxes far heavier than in other provinces of the Haps- burg dominions. In the neighboring duchies the rulers imitated Austrian methods, though sometimes conditions were better. In the Papal States a burdensome and ineffective government was entirely in the hands of ec- clesiastics. The people of the Two Sicilies were subject to a corrupt and ignorant despotism which succeeded less in governing than oppressing. In none of these states were there parliaments or constitutions or any limitation on the despotic rule of the princes; there was no freedom of speech or of the press, and little education. It is true that such conditions prevailed generally over Europe then, except only in England and France, and that the German people also were divided among despots at this time. But it was the misfbrtune of Italians that they, almost as much as the Poles and Huiigarians then, suffered op- pression largely from foreign masters. Throughout Italy, except in the Kingdom of Sardinia, the power or influence I 7 7 / oBerne "^'s^u r' SWITZERLAND I Toulon ^%l AN EMPIRE \ OTTOMAN enoa ^.^ M P I R £ \ m^Bm ^ «* o ^i^^>s T T B B HE N I A N Gulf of Tara-nio 8 B 4 OF THE> E:/^v?-l Austrian, under separate administration^ AFRICA SEA S ^ A GENERAL DRAFTING CO.INCW.Y. 11. ITALY IN 1815 85S 254 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Hopeless outlook The Carbonari Mazzini of Austria was supreme. (LMettemich declared Italy to be only a geographical expression, and it was his policy to keep her divided in fragments and within the parts uphold the rule of the petty, subordinate princes. It seemed hopeless to strive for an Italy free and united. The Italians had been so long divided among numerous city states and princes that now local differences made it diflScult to bring them under one government. Moreover, so long as Austrian power continued in Italy, there could be small hope of improvement in political conditions, since the most reactionary rulers in the peninsula were encouraged by Austria to resist all change and supported by the overwhelming Hapsburg power. And there seemed small chance of removing Austrian influence and domina- tion, since Austria was now leader in Europe. In Italy there was no sta^e which could for a moment have success- fully challenged her. Accordingly, for some years political and social discontent in Italy took the only form that was possible.; A secret society, whose members called them- selves Carbonari (or charcoal burners), was formed in the Kingdom of Naples and thence spread all over the penin- sula, until it numbered several hundred thousand mem- bers. ; The purpose of the Carbonari was to drive the foreigner out of Italy and make things better, but working furtively and without good general organization they did little, and Metternich never considered them very formid- able. They had much to do in bringing about revolution- ary movements in 1820, 1821, 1831, and 1832, but these uprisings were easily suppressed by Austrian troops. The principal work of the Carbonari was to keep alive the spirit of nationality and patriotism, which the years of the Revolution and Napoleon had awakened. ( That work was carried forward in the following years, in the period known as the Risorgimento or era of resur- rectioji^ Gradually a great many of the most active, eager,- and intelligent Italians were aroused until the deliverance ITALY ^55 and reform of their country became a great passion. First and chief among the leaders of this period was Giuseppe Mazzini, father and prophet of the movement. In his youth he felt strongly the woes and degradation of his country, and, dreaming of her freedom, joined the secret society, for which he was arrested and imprisoned. After his release, almost all of a long life he lived as an exile in England, Switzerland, and France. In 1831 he founded the Society of Young Italy, believing that successful revolution could only be made by the people and that the people were most easily led forward by their youth. At a time when most Italians still desired only to drive Austria away or to bring about reform, Mazzini believed that the The Italians must be one nation, and he taught this with burn- ^^^^^'' ing eloquence to the followers who gathered about him. He tried to make them remember their common language and their culture and the glory of their fathers in the past. But he was an enthusiast and a splendid dreamer much more than a practical statesman. He believed that the deliverance of Italy must come through an uprising of the ) people and the establishment of democracy by them. Actually, however, this idea took little hold on the minds of most Italians, and the liberation and unification of Italy were to be brought about by others who followed. Mazzini and his followers advocated a republic. But Italian the patriots who worked for the Risorgimento were not ^*^**y agreed as to the methods by which the unification of Italy should be brought about. Many believed that a republic was impracticable. Some, like the priest Gioberti, thought that the utmost to be hoped for was a federation under the leadership of the Pope. Others believed that the hope of Italy lay in accepting as leader the one strong Italian state, Piedmont or Sardinia, ruled by the House of Savoy. In 1846 Pius IX, a liberal Pope, began his pontificate, jhe He was believed to be opposed to the Austrians^ and it Revolution was known that he had been much influenced by XJioberti's ^^ ^®*® 356 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Roman Republic writings. At once he proclaimed a pardon for political offenders, and instituted reforms in the States of the Church. Such was the eflPect of this upon Italians else- where that in the following month the Sicilians rose in revolt and set up a constitutional government, and this led Ferdinand II, King of the Two Sicilies, to grant a constitution in Naples. What had been done in the southern districts now influenced the states farther north, and constitutions were soon proclaimed, by the Pope in Tus- cany , and finally by the government of Piedmont. Metter- nich was not able to intervene, for in the spring of 1848 he was driven from power. The end of the Austrian Empire seemed to have come. In Lombardy the Austrian troops were driven out of Milan, and the Republic of St. Mark was established in Venice. Tl^e rebels sought \he Assist- ance of Charles Albert, King of Piedmont, and when now he accepted leadership, Italians from all over the penin- sula joined him. But Radetzky, the Austrian commander took refuge in the Quadrilateral, and the Italians failed to follow up their first triumphs and cut him off from his base and reinforcements. Then the Pope, who regarded Catholic Austria as one of the main supports of the church, withdrew from the contest, and was followed by the King of Naples. The people of some of the north Italian states now voted for union with Piedmont, and that power continued the contest; but the Piedmontese were de- feated in the battle of Custozza, and the Austrians, cap- turing Milan, were masters of north Italy again. A revolution now breaking out in Rome, a republic was pro- claimed under Mazzini. Early in 1849, Piedmont, which had made an armistice with Austria, began the war again, but was soon totally defeated at Novara, after which Charles Albert abdicated in favor of his son Victor Em- manuel II, and went into exile. Venice was still holding out, but she also was overcome, and once more the power of Austria was completely restored. Meanwhile France, ITALY 257 wishing to forestall intervention by Austria, had sent troops into Italy and brought the Roman Republic to an end. ^ Thus the Risorgimento seemed to have failed. In the xhe new course of another decade, however, most of the work of era unification was achieved, and the foreign master almost driven completely out. This was the work of Piedmont, and it was brought about very largely through Count Camillo di Cavour (1810-1861), the greatest and most successful statesman of the nineteenth century. In the midst of the humiliation of the years after Cavour ^ Novara, Cavour came to the head of the government of Piedmont. First he gave himself to remarkable construc- tive work in reforming the finances and developing the prosperity "of his country, at the same time that he strength- ened its army. This was the prelude and foundation of his greater work later on. From the beginning he planned to expel the Austrians from Italy. He knew very well that Sardinia could never hope to oppose Austria unaided, and yet that the great powers would be more apt to side with Austria in preserving the status quo than assist a part of Italy against her. Nevertheless, he went to work with patience and consummate skill, first to raise Piedmont in the estimation of Europe by strengthening her power and enhancing her prestige; to get her some powerful friend; then, to isolate Austria so that she would have to stand alone against his combination, and finally to provoke^Austria to be the aggressor. He assumed the direction of the Sardinian government Austria in 1852. Three years later he brought Piedmont into the '^^^^^^^^ Crimean War along with France and Great Britain, thus getting the gratitude and esteem of these powers. He had his reward in 1856, when he represented Piedmont at the Congress of Paris, and succeeded in bringing to the atten- tion of Europe his protest against misrule by the Austrians in Italy. He had now got the friendship of two great governments, and increasing sympathy for Italian aspira- 258 EUROPE, 1789-1920 tions among the people of France and especially of Eng- land.^ On the other hand Austria was finding herself more and more friendless and alone. Prussia was getting ready to challenge her leadership in Germany, and she had just lost the friendship of Russia, from having failed to give assistance in the Crimean War to repay Russian help in 1849 in suppressing the Hungarian revolt. Napoleon III Cavour now gained a great and powerful ally. Na- poleon in of France desired to strengthen his position by successful policy abroad. Moreover he sympathized with Italian aspirations. He understood also that his people would rejoice at any overthrow of the settlement of 1815, imposed on Europe when France had been de- feated. So Cavour was gradually able to win him over, and in 1858, at the Conference of Plombieres, Napoleon promised to give assistance in return for the cession to France of Savoy. War with It was soon evident that great events were impending. Austria, The statesmen of Europe suggested ^ congress of the powers for settling the Italian matter. In 1859 Austria rashly declared war. The forces of the allies under Napoleon and Victor Emmanuel encountered the Aus- trians on the Lombardy plains and gained the great vic- tories of Magenta and Solferino, as a result of which Milan was taken and the Austrians driven into Venetia. Sol- ferino was the greatest battle which had been fought since the time of Napoleon 1, 260,000 men being engaged and the losses very heavy. Neither the French nor the Austrians had spent their force yet; nevertheless the war went no further. Austria had a strong position behind the Vene- tian fortresses, but Hungary was restless behind her. In France the clericals were now in bitter opposition to the Emperor's Italian policy, while the Prussians were mak- ing ominous preparations along the Rhine. Furthermore, in Italy events were fast running beyond what Napoleon had expected. As the Austrian garrisons were withdrawn 1859 ITALY 259 from northern Italy, the people of Tuscany, Parma, Modena, and the Papal States, rose in an enthusiasm that could not be restrained and asked to be joined to Pied- mont. Napoleon had gone to war to win the Austrian provinces for Piedmont, but he had no more intention of erecting to the south of France a powerful nation embracing all Italy than somewhat later he had welcome for the unification of the German peoples. Therefore, hastily now and without the knowledge of Cavour, he concluded the armistice of Villafranca. By the terms of this arrangement, which were afterward embodied in the Peace of Zurich (1859), Lombardy was ceded to Piedmont, Venetia remained with the Hapsburgs, and it was arranged that the Pope and the deposed princes in northern and central Italy should be restored. But the Italian people now went forward with the work themselves, those who had obtained freedom from their Austrian princelings refusing to acknowledge them again. ) Napoleon was in a dilemma: he had never planned to let things go so far, yet he wished to support the principle of nationality which so often before he had proclaimed. Therefore he would not allow Austria to intervene with force, and agreed to the proposal of Great Britain that plebiscites should be held to determine the wishes of the inhabitants themselves. The people voted by huge majorities to join the Kingdom of Sardinia. For his support which had made this possible Napoleon got from Piedmont her province of Nice as well as Savoy; but Pied- mont had now become the most important and powerful of all the Italian states. Within a year her territory had been greatly enlarged and her population increased from five millions to eleven millions. Since the time of the Con- gress of Vienna there had been no lasting political change such as this. / Italy's expansion was now carried much farther forward by the impulses of the people and the leadership of an Enthusiasm among the Italians Unification of northern Italy Garibaldi 260 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Italian patriot whose splendid and picturesque exploits revived the deeds of the time of old romance. All the southern part of Italy was still included in the corrupt and worthless Bourbon monarchy of the Two Sicilies, estab- lished on the ignorance and wretchedness of its people. Now, men who had once been inspired by Mazzini planned to overthrow it. Soon they came under the lead of the bold and dashing Giuseppe Garibaldi, a native of Nice, who had served the Roman Republic, then fled from Italy to serve in South American wars and live in exile abroad. In the spring of 1860 he suddenly landed with his followers, the "Thousand," in Sicily. At once the eflFete Bourbon power tottered and fell to the groimd, and in September the Garibaldians also took possession of Naples. Then they planned to march northward and occupy Rome, still garrisoned by soldiers of France. The papal government collected a force of mercenaries from catholic countries to resist, and there was grave danger that some of the European powers might intervene and undo much of what Southern Cavour and the Italian leaders had accomplished. But Italy joined again Cavour managed the situation with the greatest skill and good fortune. The government of Piedmont called upon Rome to disband its new forces, and, when this was refused, declared war. Almost at once the forces of the Pope were routed at Castelfidardo, and the States of the Church were occupied. Then the victors marched southward across the frontier of the Kingdom of Naples, and, meeting the King, Garibaldi surrendered to him the au- thority which his arms had just gained. Again the device of the plebiscite was tried. In the autumn the people of the Two Sicilies, and about the same time the people of the Papal States, voted for annexation to the Sardinian Kingdom by such overwhelming majorities that men could say the unification of Italy had been achieved by the will of the people as well as by diplomacy and fortunate battles and the march of events. In Feb- to the north, 1860 ITALY 261 ruary, 1861, an assembly representing all Italy — except Venetia, still in Austria's hands; Rome, still kept by the Pope; and Nice and Savoy, now ceded to France — met in Turin, where, a month later, the Kingdom of Italy was proclaimed, under the King of Sardinia, and the names of Sardinia, of Piedmont, of Savoy, receded as glorious memories into the past. A few months later Cavour passed away, his death brought on by the excessive burdens he had carried. He died just before his work was completely accomplished, but when the indispensable part had been fully achieved. What remained to be done could be brought about by successors when opportunity arose. He seems now to have been the greatest and most truly successful states- man of the century in which he lived. Shortly after, Germany was united and a far greater power built up by another statesman, whose mighty success for a while made Cavour 's accomplishment seem small. But a great part of what Bismarck did was done by violence, and, after two generations, by violence much of it was undone. On the other hand Cavour throughout his career believed in constitutional government based on the will of the people; what he helped so greatly to bring about was made possible largely by the will of the people affected, and so was based solidly on their affection and desires. When he died his work was virtually done; it has needed no great wars to maintain it; and it did not violently disturb European politics or afterward make Europe an armed camp. In 1866 Italy joined Prussia against Austria, and shared in the Prussian success. She now got Venetia, rounding out her kingdom in the northeast. Unfortun- ately not all the Italian population, of this part of Europe was then given to her, a considerable number remaining under Austrian rule across the Alps in the Trentino, and at the head of the Adriatic about Trieste. Furthermore, the frontier was so drawn that Austria kept all the heights The King- dom of Italy* 1861 The greatness of Cavour Venetia obtained, 1866 262 EUROPE, 1789-1920 of the mountains and places of strength. All through the nineteenth century the Italian districts which Italy had not yet got were known as Italia Irredenta, and they re- mained unredeemed until Italy's great triumph over Austria in 1918. Meanwhile, what was then more important had been brought about. Before his death Cavour had declared that Rome was the natural capital of Italy. So long as French soldiers held it for the Pope it was not to be won; but when the Franco-Prussian war broke out in 1870 the French garrison was withdrawn, Rome was occupied by the Italian government, and became the capital instead of Florence which had recently replaced Turin. Thus the Popes lost the last part of their territory, some of which they had held for more than a thousand years. For time beyond memory, it seemed, Rome had been the capital of the Catholic world and the city of the Pope, and many Catholics regarded the taking of the city as desecration and insult to God. The Italian government strove to make some compromise, and in 1871 passed the Law of the Papal Guarantees, by which the Popes were to have the Vatican and certain other places, and their gar- dens adjoining, in full sovereignty. They were to retain complete independence and have their own court, the Curia Romana, from which they might deal with other powers as sovereign rulers. From the Italian government, moreover, they were to receive an annual income. But the Popes refused to accept the settlement; they have not taken the payments; and, as "prisoners of the Vatican," have so far remained within the tiny jurisdiction left them. The new Italian Kingdom was a constitutional mon- archy, having with some changes the constitution given to Piedmont in 1848. Like the constitutions of France, it was modelled largely on the British system. The executive was to be the king and his ministers. The legislative body was a parliament consisting of two houses. 46i.. ITALY 26S Upon a majority in the lower chamber the ministry de- pended for its power. The franchise, as elsewhere in most places then, was restricted by a high property qualifica- tion. Afterward, in 1882, the franchise was given not only to those who paid a certain amount in taxes but also to those able to read and write; and in 1912 the electorate was greatly extended by the introduction of manhood suffrage. Illiteracy, an inheritance common to most countries from older times, lingered on, especially in southern Italy, and disappeared very slowly, largely because of the great poverty of the people. By the end of the nineteenth century more than half of them were still unable to read and write. For a long time they had been plundered by foreign masters or held in subjec- tion by small tyrants. Now population was increasing rapidly until after a while it was as large as that of France, but the territory was much smaller and the soil far less rich. The Italian people gained their freedom at a time when western and central Europe was being transformed by the industrial revolution, as Great Britain had pre- viously been; but Italy had no stores of iron and oil, and was completely lacking in coal. Accordingly, while there was splendid industrial development in the north, Italy could not be one of the great industrial countries. More- over, partly through ambition to play a great part in Europe, partly through a feeling that it was necessary, Italy embarked upon an ambitious course in foreign af- fairs, and presently, joining the Triple Alliance, found it necessary to maintain an army and a navy far beyond her proper resources. Therefore, notwithstanding that taxa- tion was so crushing as to bow down the people and ham- per development, almost all of the public revenue was long devoted to paying for the army, the navy, and the interest on the public debt. That the Italians, in spite of these disadvantages, went steadily though slowly for- ward on the road of real improvement and made them- Impedi- ments to progress 864 EUROPE, 1789-1920 selves, one of the great powers of Europe was due, above all, to the strength and character of the people themselves. BIBLIOGRAPHY General accounts: for the student who reads Italian the best is P. L. Orsi, Vltalia Modema: Storia degli UUimi 150 Anni (2d ed. 1902); Bolton King, History of Italian Unity y 2 vols. (1899), best account in English; Evelyn (Countess) Martinengo- Cesaresco, The Liberation of Italy ^ 1815-1870 (1895); W. J. Stillman, The Union of Italy y 1815-1895 (1898). Particular periods: R. M. Johnston, The Napoleonic Empire in Southern Italy and the Rise of the Secret Societies, 2 vols. (1904) , The Roman Theocracy and the Republic, 18^6-1849 (1901); Ernesto Masi, II Risorgimento Italiano, 2 vols. (1918); H. R. Whitehouse, Collapse of the Kingdom of Naples (1899); ]6. Bourgeois and E. Clermont, Rome et NapoUon III (1907); Ernest Lemonon, V Italic Economique et Sociale, 1861-1912 (1913); A. Pingaud, Vltalie depuis 1870 (1915); Bolton King and Thomas Okey, Italy To-day (2d ed. 1909); F. M. Under- wood, United Italy (1912); W. K. Wallace, Greater Italy (1917), for colonial expansion. The States of the Church: M. Brah, Geschichte des Kirchen- stoats, 3 vols. (1897-1900). Biographies: R. S. Holland, Builders of United Italy (1908); Massimo D'Azeglio, / Miei Ricordi, 3 vols. (ed. 1899) ; W. R. Thayer, The Life and Times of Cavour, 2 vols. (1911), the best; Luigi Chiala, Letter e Edite ed Inedite di Camillo Cavour, 10 vols. (2d ed. 1883-7); W. J. Stillman, Francesco Crisjri (1899); Francesco Crispi, Politica Estera; Memorie e Documenti ed. by T. Palamenghi-Crispi (1914), Memoirs of Francesco Crispi, 3 vols. (1912-14); G. M. Trevelyan, Garibaldi's Defense of the Roman Republic (1907), Garibaldi and the Thousand (1909), Garibaldi and the Making of Italy (1911), brilliantly written; Giuseppe Garibaldi, Memorie Autobiograflche (1888); Bolton King, Joseph Mazzini (1902); Scritti Editi ed Inediti di Giu- seppe Mazzini, 27 vols. (1906-18); A. Pougeois, Histoire de Pie IX et de Son Pontifical, 6 vols. (1877— 88); G. S. Godkin, Life of Victor Emmanuel II, 2 vols. (1879); G. Massari, La Vita ed il Regno di Vittorio Emanuele IL 2 vols. (1901). ^ CHAPTER XII RUSSIA, 1789-1881 What man ever thought that Moscow would one day be accounted an Empire? Once by the river Moskva stood only the hamletg erf the worthy boyar, Stephen Kutchak, son of Ivan. — Russian tale of the seventeenth century. Th h yOoraa, tbi h oSnjibHaji, Tbi h Moryqaji, th h 6e3CHJibHaH, MaiyniKa Pycb! [Thou art destitute, yet abounding. Thou art powerful, thou art weak, O beloved Mother Russia!] Nekrasov (1821-1878) It was not until the eighteenth century that Russia Russia really became a factor in European politics, not until the ^^ nineteenth that she became an important factor, and she Europe did not greatly affect the western world until only a short while ago. In old times her land and her inhabitants were little known to other European peoples. Scarcely any of what now is Russia was ever a part of the Roman Empire. When the poet Ovid was sent an exile to Tomi near the mouth of the Danube, it seemed to him that he went forth into the farthest region of the world. In the Middle Ages Spaniards, Frenchmen, Italians, Englishmen, knew little of the Slavs who would one day possess all the eastern half of the continent. The Roman Empire had been divided into two portions, a Latin half in the west and an eastern half essentially Greek, which little under- ;stood each other and easily fell apart. Then Europe for 265 266 EUROPE, 1789-1920 many hundreds of years was divided into a western half, with peoples having the Roman Catholic religion and Romano-Teutonic civilization, and an eastern half, held by the expiring Eastern Roman Empire at Constantinople, and after a great while by the intruding Turks, and also by Slavonic people, who had taken the Eastern Christ- ianity of Constantinople. These two parts had little intercourse and knew little of each other, except that throughout the Middle Ages the Germans of central Europe were pushing eastward, slowly but steadily driv- ing back their Slavic neighbors, and founding Austria and Prussia. During this time the Poles, a part of the Slavic people, were founding a great state in east central Europe. The Russians, another branch, were laying the foundations of a state in what is now southern Russia, about Kiev. On their southern and eastern frontiers they were harassed by Tartar nomads whose cruelty and rapine long hindered the development of better culture among them; and in the twelfth century all of eastern Europe was scourged by a more terrible and lasting barbarian invasion than had ever come to the west. The Mongols from central Asia, brave and skilful warriors but merely horsemen and shepherds, who had already spread their conquests and desolation across to the Pacific and down into China, came also into eastern Europe, and the rising Russian state was broken to pieces. The people long remained under debas- ing tyranny, ruled by their own princes, but compelled to pay tribute to the Mongols, whose capital was at Serai' on the Volga. For some centuries they remained subject with no chance for the development of free institutions like those emerging in western Europe. Russian princes fawned upon their Mongol lord and sought his favor, and so long as they paid tribute they had his protection. Of all who paid court the princes of Moscow gained greatest favor. In course of time they became strong enough to ( RUSSIA, 1789-1881 267 throw off the conquerors' yoke and in Muscovy made the beginning of modern Russia, taking for themselves, in imitation of the Roman emperors, the title of Tsar (Caesar). So the medieval period came to a close. These Slavs, with their rude culture and little prosperity, were scarcely thought about in England and France. As late as the time of Queen Elizabeth the Russians were not so well known to the English as the people of India and China, and traders and explorers were just beginning to cross the vast distances and reach them. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Russians of the country about Moscow, increasing in numbers, spread steadily forth to the south and the east, gradually getting for themselves a huge inland empire. Geographical conditions were very potent, just as they always have been. The Russians were placed in the greatest of all the plains in the world. From the Car- pathian Mountains, to the east of Hungary, a great level stretch of land runs eastward over the remaining half of Europe, spreading out to the north and south as it goes, until it is partly bounded by the low Ural Mountains. But they afford scarcely an obstacle, and through them men easily cross into Asia where the plain continues intermin- ably all across the breadth of the continent, until at last, seven thousand miles from where it began, it ends north of China on the Pacific. It is vast, monotonous, seldom rising high or sloping much, not often divided by moun- tains, nowhere broken off into distinct parts, traversed by broad, slowly moving rivers — always its best avenues of communication. This plain is the mother of the Slavic peoples. In the sixteenth century the teeming Russians from the district about Moscow began spreading out over it. In the course of two hundred years they had occupied most of it, and by the latter part of the nineteenth century they had brought almost all of it within one great Russian empire. Muscovy The Russian Plain 968 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Th« •xpanaion of Russia Rusgia a European power Peter the Great The Russian colonists went forth along their rivers and into new stretches of the plain somewhat as the American colonists and pioneers took the middle part of North America in the nineteenth century. The extension of power was carried forward by the vigorous and able ruler Ivan (John) III, the Great, in the latter part of the six- teenth century. In his reign, Russian colonists went east and began to conquer the tribes of Sibir. In the period 1581-1700 all northern Siberia was taken. Until the end of the sixteenth century the Poles had been the principal Slavic power in Europe, and had sometimes held many of the eastern peoples in subjection, but under the new Romanov Dynasty , which began to reign in 1613, the Poles were checked, and in 1667, by the Treaty of Andrussovo, the Russians obtained Kiev, part of the Ukraine, and got the frontier of the Dnieper river. Down to this time Muscovy had been a state with in- terests and ambitions to the east rather than the west, essentially eastern and even Asiatic in character; but the Romanov rulers began to cherish the ambition of extending their territory to get an outlet on the western seas. This work, begun in the seventeenth century, was the great task of the century that followed. When it had been brought to completion Russia's three western neighbors, Sweden, Poland, and Turkey, had been destroyed or much reduced, and Russia was one of the greatest of the powers of Europe. The third of the Romanovs, Peter I (1682-1725), sumamed "The Great,":; was regarded afterward as the founder of modem Russia. He centralized his govern- ment like that of Louis XIV who was reigning then; re- formed his army so as to make it like that which the Prussian rulers were developing; and completely sub- ordinated the Russian Church to his authority, organizing it imder the control of the Holy Synod, afterward one of the principal means of upholding the autocracy of the RUSSIA, 1789-1881 tsars. Furthermore, he studied the civilization of western Europe, and strove to introduce it into his dominions. Since he ruled over a vast population composed mostly of superstitious and ignorant peasants, he was able to influence only the upper classes, his nobles and officials; and after his time foreigners could note how in Russia most of the population had the uncut hair and long beards, the eastern dress and the eastern customs which had long prevailed, while the upper class resembled in dress and habits the people of Germany and France. It was Peter who began the triumphant march of Russian arms to the west. Much of his reign was spent in suc- cessful war against the Swedes. By the Treaty of Nystad, in 1721, Russia acquired provinces from Sweden on the south shore of the Baltic. There already, in 1703, the Tsar had founded St. Petersburg, to which he moved the capital from Moscow. Russia now extended to the Gulf of Riga, and she had her first good outlet on the sea and her first good opening for communication with west- ern Europe. The forward progress was continued a generation later under the able Tsarina, Catherine II (1762-1796), the Great. First she attacked the crumbling power of the Turks, and, after many victories, forced them, in the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji, in 1774, to give up territory on the northern shore of the Black Sea and allow Russians free navigation there and in other waters under Turkish con- trol. All the country to the north of the Black Sea was soon after acquired by Russia. Next Poland was destroyed. The Poles were a brave, warlike people, but they had made little political or economic progress for ages. At the top were a few power- ful nobles; beneath them the bulk of the population in abject serfdom. In Poland the worst evils and abuses of the old feudal system continued. The nobles had prac- tically independent power, and the liberum veto, by which Russia reaches the Baltic Catherine the Great The Partitions of Poland 270 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Alexander I The Down- fall of Napoleon no law could be put into eflFect if any noble disapproved it, paralyzed the weak central government. At the end of the eighteenth century, surrounded by the powerful states of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, she could go on in the old way no longer. Under the leadership of Russia the three powers conspired to divide Poland among them. In 1772 they cut off its outlying provinces. This First Partition was followed by a Second (1793) and a Third (1795), so that at the time when the French Revolu- tion was bringing a new era to the peoples of western Europe, the unhappy Poles lost their country and their government, and passed under the yoke of strangers. Most of what had been Poland now became part of Russia, so that Russia extended as far as the boundaries of the German people. Russia, now one of the principal European powers, took an important part against France, under the Direc- tory, and then against the Empire of Napoleon. For a while after the defeat of the Russians at Austerlitz Tsar Alexander I (1801-1825) entered into a friendly under- standing with Napoleon, and for a few years the Con- tinent was practically divided between Russia and France. With Napoleon's consent, in 1809 the Russians took Fin- land from Sweden. But the two rulers soon drifted apart. The Russians wished to continue their expansion to the southwest, at the expense of the Turks, and although in 1812, by the Treaty of Bucharest, they obtained Bes- sarabia, they were hampered by Napoleon, who did not want them near Constantinople, the most important posi- tion, so he thought, in the world. And nowhere were the effects of his Continental System more onerous than they were in Russia, almost entirely an agricultural country, and compelled to buy manufactures abroad. Accord- ingly, Alexander partially abandoned the Continental System, and war followed with France. It was in this war that Napoleon, compelled to retreat, lost nearly all %'v. 1-2. MAP TO ILLUSTRATE THE HISTORY OF POLAND 871 «72 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Character of Alexander I Serfdom in Russia of his army. His power, now seriously shaken, was destroyed by the peoples of central Europe, helped by the Russians. In 1814-15 Russia, farthest removed from the theater of the war, took minor part in the fighting, and at the end of the struggle was less exhausted than any of the other contestants. It was because she thus had such a powerful army available, and because of her reputa- tion for invincibility after Napoleon's retreat, that Alexan- der had so commanding a position at the Congress of Vienna. There he was able to launch his Holy Alliance, and he got not only Finland and Bessarabia, taken in Napoleon's time, but the greater part of Poland, including Warsaw, formerly in the portion held by Prussia. Alexander I desired to be generous and enlightened; in his thoughts and his theories he was liberal and, for a while at least, in his foreign policy progressive. It was owing to his desire to make the world better that he proposed the Holy Alliance, to bring improved relations between the sovereigns and avoid future wars. At the Congress of Vienna he seemed the most liberal statesman in Europe. He it was who insisted that moderate terms should be granted after Waterloo, when some Prussians wanted the French killed off like mad dogs and their country partitioned. For a while he seemed to wish to continue the liberal work of the French Revolution. In this spirit he insisted that Louis XVIII, the restored Bourbon king of France, should give to his subjects some measure of constitutional government; and he himself allowed independent constitutions to his Finnish and his Polish subjects. In his vast and backward realm there were mighty problems to be dealt with. First and greatest was the question of serfdom. In 1815 the population of the em- pire was about forty-five millions. Of these less than a mill- ion were nobles; substantially there was no bourgeoisie or middle class; nearly all the rest were peasants, engaged RUSSIA, 1789-1881 273 in agriculture. Most of the peasants, as in Austria, and the Hungarian and the Polish lands, were serfs. Like their ancestors had been for hundreds of years, they were partly unfree, compelled to remain on the estates where they were born, there to till the land or render other services, making payments to the noble of the district or the Tsar, and working for him some of the days of the week. This serfdom had arisen quite naturally, in olden times and had then seemed the most natural and proper status for most of the people. It had prevailed almost universally over Europe, and had lasted in central Europe as well as in Russia down into the nineteenth century. In some parts of western Europe it had long since passed away, and as the conditions which had brought it to an end there — the rise of the cities, new industrial and economic methods, and a different spirit — gradually extended to Austria and Russia, serfdom was more and more felt to be no longer in accordance with the things which were right and best. The Russian peasants were organized in their little agricultural communities much as the English villeins had lived on the manors of the twelfth and the thirteenth centuries. In primitive times almost everywhere the large mass of the people had been grouped together in village communities. In Russia such a village, or mir (miru — union, peace) was the unit of peasant life. In it the peasants chose a village council through which they regulated their local concerns. The land of the district was divided into two parts, one for the Tsar or noble, who was lord of the district, one for the peasants. The land of the peasants was held by them in common, and was ad- ministered by the mir; for it they made payments to the lord. The other part they cultivated for the lord, working for him a certain number of days in the week. This was the old system of the manor, once the basis of economic organization throughout Eurt)pe, but now gone in the Condition of the peasants 274 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Tsar and reform Alexander consenratiye Discontent in Russia western portion. The serfs on the Tsar's domain, like the villeins long before on the King's estates in England, were not badly treated, and, considering the low civiliza- tion of the country, their life was not hard. But the nobles, frequently spendthrift or bankrupt, often took from their serfs the uttermost penny, or sold them off like cattle, or put upon them exhausting and inhuman labor, caring nothing about them. Nor had these ser- vants and peasants any redress. In 1767 Catharine II had taken from them all legal rights, and proclaimed the harshest punishment for those who complained against their masters. After that time, if the master chose so to treat them, they were no more than chattels or things. One of the foremost principles of the French Revolu- tion had been the equality of men, and one of the great Revolutionary reforms had been the abolition of such serfdom as remained. But Alexander, who had just attempted to abolish all war, and who had striven to effect the immediate abolition of the slave trade, found, as is often the case, that an actual reform in his own coun- try, was more diflScult than enouncing general principles for mankind. Furthermore, after a short time he ceased to champion liberalism and entered on a course of reac- tion. Before the time of the Congress of Vienna he had un- dertaken some small reforms, planned a system of general education, and considered the best means of abolishing serfdom; but as he confronted the enormous mass of prejudice and ignorance with which he had neces- sarily to deal, he gradually became less ardent; and when a series of assassinations and uprisings by radicals alarmed him, he fell under Metternich's influence. A few of the serfs in the Baltic provinces were set free, but this was all, and liberal progress in Russia came to an end about 1818. The later years of Alexander's reign were clouded with gloom and disappointment. Some of the Russians were RUSSIA, 1789-1881 275 hoping for better things. Soldiers, especially oflScers, who had served against France, had come in actual con- tact with French civilization and the liberal ideas of western Europe, and when they returned at the end of the wars they were disheartened because of the conditions in their country. At first there were high hopes of reforms to be made by the Tsar, but when presently it was seen that he would do little and that he had joined forces with the leading reactionaries of Europe, the Russian reformers, like radicals in other parts of Europe then, formed secret revolutionary societies and plotted to overturn the government. In 1825 Alexander died, and for a short time it was uncertain who would succeed him. After three weeks his brother, Nicholas, ascended the throne, but mean- while the discontented had planned a revolt, which now broke out. It was almost immediately suppressed, for it was only the work of a handful of liberal reformers influenced by the life of western Europe, and had no support from the great body of the Russian people. This outbreak took place in December, and it was as Decern- brists that the leaders were afterward remembered. Nicholas I (1825-1855), who ruled Russia now for a generation, was not only prejudiced against liberalism and reform by the events at the beginning of his reign, but he was by temperament obstinately and narrowly conservative, and throughout the time of his power was resolutely opposed to all change. In his opinion, things in Russia were better than anywhere else in Europe. He believed that autocracy was better than the constitu- tional movements which had led to change and dissolution in other countries, and he determined that he would un- flinchingly uphold the old system. So far as possible he would keep out of his dominions every trace of western influence and thought. Therefore, he became in Russia the steadfast supporter of autocracy and the age-old The Decem- brist re- bellion, 1825 Nicholas I 276 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Supports the old order in Europe Repression in Russia system, which the French Revolution had scarcely af- fected, but which its influence now threatened to disturb. Outside of Russia he was the great champion of conserva- tism, of reaction, of the old order, of resistance to any reform, revolution or change. This period was after- ward known as Metternich's Age, and the Austrian statesman was the foremost leader in preventing change and upholding things as they were; but his position of leadership resulted less from what he was able to do than from the influence of his character upon the sovereigns of his time. Actually the principal instrument in preventing progress and causing revolutions to fail was Nicholas I of Russia, not only during Metternich's greatness, but for some years after 1848 when the Austrian leader had been driven from power. When Charles X fled from France in 1830, Nicholas would have intervened to restore him had a revolution not broken out in Poland about the same time; and in 1848 when the old system was finally overthrown in western Europe and seemed about to disappear in central Europe also, Nicholas hast- ened to give assistance to Austria. It was his intervention which crushed the Hungarian rebels. The government of Nicholas was the most reactionary in Europe. Continuously and without remorse did he suppress every attempt of his subjects to have any freedom of action or thought. To effect this purpose an organiza- tion of terrible eflBcacy was set up. In 1826 he organized a secret police service under the direction of the Third Section of the Tsar's Private Chancellery ^ which after a while got, in and outside of Russia, as ominous and evil a renown as the Spanish Inquisition so long had. At the head of the Third Section, and responsible only to the Tsar, was a chief of police, with unlimited power to arrest, imprison, send out of the country, or even get rid of, any one, without any hindrance except for his own dis- cretion. This device was accompanied by severe regula- hne 13. THE PIRE IN 1914 } ,^-.^._,^. i mi RUSSIA, 1789-1881 277 tions. Few Russians were allowed to travel abroad, so the people were kept from the contaminating influence of other countries; a strict censorship excluded nearly all foreign publications and made it impossible to publish in the Russian press foreign ideas for the few Russians who could read; attendance at universities was discouraged, and part of the teaching was put altogether under control of the Church. All this was enforced by the activities of the secret police, who hunted down those who would take and spread about liberal and foreign doctrines, putting them out of the way or sending them to Siberia without trial. For a while what was sought was attained. Western ideas did not come in. There was the vast, immobile calm of China; things went on as before. There was al- most no effort to get reform or even to preach it; the peo- ple were without leaders, and remained in lethargy and dullness. When the Revolution of 1848 overturned European governments from Paris to Vienna, Russia went through the year unaffected In one part, indeed, there was a despairing effort at revolution. In 1815, at the Congress of Vienna, Alexan- der I had succeeded in getting most of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, which Napoleon had constructed out of the Polish territory which he took from Austria and Prussia. This territory Alexander had made into the Kingdom of Poland, not to be a part of Russia, but united with Russia in that the Tsar was to be its king. It embraced only a sixth of the former Polish kingdom and contained but three million inhabitants; but it was the most visible relic of the former state and did contain the old capital, War- saw. In this country Alexander had begun with some of the reforms which he seemed desirous of introducing into Russia later on. In 1815 he granted the Poles a constitution, by which they were to have a legislature, or Diet, with considerable powers, the members being chosen The Old Regime continues in Russia The King- dom of Poland 278 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Privileges withdrawn The Polish Rebellion of 1830 by an electorate wider than either England or France then had. Pohsh was to be the official language, and there was to be liberty of press and religion. The result of all this was that the Poles got freer institutions than the surround- ing peoples of Russia, Prussia, or Austria had at this time. But this did not last long. When the Poles attempted to make use of the powers which Alexander had so freely granted, he was alarmed. Events elsewhere in Europe were steadily bringing him under Metternich's influence. Moreover, the freedom given to the Poles was regarded with disfavor by Russians, some of whom disapproved it, while the rest repined because more had been given to the Poles than to themselves. Accordingly, in 1820, when the Polish Diet rejected a measure proposed by the govern- ment, Alexander changed the constitution and took away much of the freedom given five years before. The Poles now yearned to throw off the Russian yoke. Under Nicholas I the weight of oppression increased. Then came the Revolution of 1830 in France, with its influence on peoples more remote. Particularly did this influence react upon the Poles, between whom and the French there were traditional and long-standing sympathy and attachment. Therefore, in November 1830 a mutiny broke out in Warsaw, and the Poles rising in rebellion, appealed to other peoples for aid. But the rebellion was hopeless from the start. No aid came from outside, and the country, which is part of the far-extending plain, had no strong natural frontiers and made no obstacle to the invader's advance. The revolutionists fought bravely, but were soon crushed, and the Russian government, in taking its revenge, resolved to make another revolution impossible. The constitution was abolished, and Poland was made part of Russia. Many of the leaders were put to death or sent into exile, and the country was occupied with a Russian army. After that year throughout the Tsar's dominions there RUSSIA, 1789-1881 279 was the quietness which he so greatly cherished. Those who were troublesome or restless were suppressed silently and at once. The censorship was constantly made more severe. Punishments became harder. The activity of the secret police never waned. In the course of twenty years, it is thought, about a hundred and fifty thousand persons were dispatched to Siberia. It was diflScult to get passports for foreign travel; it was difficult for foreigners to travel in Russia. So there were in all parts of the vast domain what Nicholas thought were the goodness and the order that Heaven had ordained, but what really were stagnation and decay. Actually the administration and the government be- came constantly more corrupt and inefficient, successful only in holding down the people. All initiative was crushed, all progress made impossible. While the rest of Europe was being slowly transformed, Russia remained unaffected. The people had no control over any part of their government, except the smallest local concerns, and the officials who governed them, and who were ap- pointed from above, usually got their positions by pur- chase, and, being paid no salaries, lived upon bribes and exa^ctions. Sometimes they made fortunes by wringing money from the wretched people, much like the procon- suls of the later Roman Republic. The public funds were constantly stolen. It was impossible to get justice in any court without bribing the judges. There was no one to whom the people could complain. The Russian people themselves understood something of the miserable condi- tion of affairs, but they were sunk in apathy and ignor- ance, and knew no means of redress. Furthermore, the prestige for military greatness, which had come from the long career of success against Sweden, Poland and Turkey, and especially from the destruction of Napo- leon's power, remained undiminished. Abroad the Rus- sian army was believed to be far stronger than it actually Nicholas long suc- cessful in Russia Inefficiency and corruption 280 EUROPE, 1789-1920 was; at home the people thought with much pride of the power and majesty of their ruler. Actually, however, the military organization was as poor and corrupt as the civil government. All this became evident in the disasters of the Crimean War, and the results brought disillusionment and discontent which could not any longer be ignored. Russia and Hitherto Russia's progress westward had been attended Turkey ^j^-j^ great success. The Swedes had been driven across the Baltic back to the Scandinavian peninsula; Poland had disappeared. In these directions, however, not much further advance could be expected, since Russia's frontiers now touched the powerful states of Austria and Prussia. To the southwest it was different. Already much gain had been made from the Turk, and the decaying power of the Ottoman Empire seemed to invite further aggress- ion. Russian rulers had long hoped that some day they might annex the Balkan provinces, largely inhabited by kindred Slavs, and then, pressing on, take Constantinople. Even in the minds of the simple and ignorant Russian pea- sants there was some idea of getting this city from which their religion once had come, and some yearning for the greatness which they believed would follow. Alexander I had hoped to obtain it when he made the secret treaty with Napoleon at Tilsit; but Napoleon had answered, "Never! That would be the mastery of the world." Nicholas II cherished the same purpose, and tried to come "The Sick to an understanding with the British government. "We Man of the have on our hands a sick man," he told the British am- bassador in 1853, "a very sick man. It will be a great misfortune if, one of these days, he should slip away from us before the necessary arrangements have been made." And he suggested that the powers agree about the division of Turkish possessions. Nothing came of the proposal, for Britain, always fearful of the appearance on the Mediterranean of a strong state which might threaten her own power there, stood by Turkey, as she did later on. East" RUSSIA, 1789-1881 281 in 1878. Nicholas, however, went on with his designs, and presently raised up against him both England and France. The fundamental cause of the Crimean War was fear that Russia might seize the territory and possessions of the Turk. In June 1853, Russia demanded that the Sul- tan recognize her right to protect all the Greek Christians in the Ottoman Empire. When this was refused, she sent troops into the Danubian principalities, afterward Rumania, and war began between Russia and Turkey. A far greater conflict followed with Great Britain and France. The war was very disastrous to the reputation of all the contestants, but especially to that of Russia. The principal effort of the allies was against Russia's great naval base at Sevastopol, in the Crimea, her most im- portant position on the Black Sea. They effected a land- ing, and won some battles, and began the investment of the fortress, but there had been too much delay and the defences had been wonderfully strengthened by the great Russian military engineer, Todleben. The English and the French battered the fortifications with powerful artillery, but their forces were insuflScient to surround the city, and scarcely enough even for the work of the siege, so that during the winter of 1854-5 they suffered horribly and accomplished little. But meanwhile the Russians suffered no less. Their great armies, assembled to drive the invader into the sea, fell to pieces on the march, and most of those who struggled on were without supplies and equipment. The people were patriotic, and militia regiments were everywhere raised, but the funds to support the soldiers were shamelessly stolen. In September 1855, after a memorable siege, Sevastopol was taken. Soon after, Russia, approaching, as it seemed then, near to her ruin, made peace. For the present her military reputation was gone; and the wrath of the people at the Causes of the Crimean War The Crimean War, 1854-6 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Alexander n Abolition serfdom, 1859-66 maladministration and repression in their country, now burst forth the more wildly because it had slumbered so long. In the midst of the struggle Nicholas I had died, broken in spirit at the collapse of his greatness. His successor was a man of very different character and inten- tions, and evidently a new era was at hand. Alexander II (1855-1881) was a man of humane and liberal disposition. At once he reversed the policy of his father. He allowed such of the exiled Decembrists as were still alive to return to Russia, and pardoned other political offenders. The universities were given freedom again, and Russians allowed to travel abroad. Ardent and enthusiastic people now believed that all the ills of Russia would be cured, of At once Alexander turned to the great problem waiting to be solved. Serfdom had already been abolished in Poland, and there were many free peasants in the north and the Cossacks in the south, but over most of the Rus- sian Empire serfdom prevailed. He began by freeing the twenty-three million serfs on the royal domain or crown lands. They had a much better position than any of the others, being practically free and merely owing to the Tsar payments which were the equivalent of rent. Whenever he wished, he could declare them free, proclaim that they were the owners of the lands they had formerly cul- tivated under the crown, and abolish the dues they had previously paid. In 1859 this was begun and the process was complete seven years later. Meanwhile he was busy persuading the nobles not to resist the freeing of their serfs also. The change was bound to come to pass, he told them, and it was much better that it be granted from above than forced by revolution from below. The noble- men made no determined resistance, and in March 1861 an Edict of Emancipation was proclaimed which abolished all serfdom in the empire, thus emancipating the twenty- six million serfs of private owners. This edict was of lak.. RUSSIA, 1789-1881 283 immense importance in the history of the freedom of the human race. By no legislation had so many people ever before been made free. It brought serfdom in Europe to an end. Thereafter of the status of servitude there was very little left anywhere in the world, except for the four million negroes held as slaves in the southern common- wealths of the United States. In England serfdom had disappeared gradually, as the result of the working of economic causes. This was mostly the case also in France, for when serfdom was formally abolished there in 1789, most of the peasants were already free. In Russia now, as was the case in the United States two years later, the unfree population was being freed almost at a stroke. In Russia this would be very apt to bring about considerable dislocation and confusion, a$ indeed it did in the United States, for society was being altered not by gradual development, but artificially, by law. In the Southern States of America the enfranchised negroes, made completely free, sank back after a while, many of them, into a condition of economic servitude, from which the utmost efforts of their Northern friends could not save them, and from which they have only gradually and in part escaped after many years when they have been able to get the ownership of some of the land. In England the decline of serfdom had made many villeins free, then driven them away from the land which they had cultivated, and often reduced them to a worse economic position than before. This the Russian government now strove to avert. Not only were the old services abolished, but to the free peasants was given that portion of the land which formerly they had cultivated, that is to say, a part of what had belonged to the nobles or the crown. For the most part the ownership of this property was vested not in the individual peasants, but, in accordance with communal ideas which had long prevailed in Russia, in the village communities or mirs. The former owners were Method of the emanci- pation 284 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Results of emancipa- tion Judicial system reformed to be paid by the communes, to whom the government would advance the money necessary for this, the com- munes for forty-nine years to pay back to the government six per cent of the amount thus advanced. Emancipation involved less alteration than might have been expected. It conferred on the peasants the status of free men and women; but it did not make much change in the condition of most of the peasants, and doubtless nothing could have produced much difference in any short time. They had formerly cultivated land, for which they made payments and rendered service; now they cultivated the same land, of which they collectively were owners, but for which they had to make yearly payments never- theless. The peasants were bitterly disappointed. They had long hoped that some day the lands on which they lived would be given to them free of any encumbrance. Furthermore, with the rapidly increasing population of Russia it became more and more evident in the years which followed that not enough land had been given. Most of them continued to live in very abject pov- erty, and in ignorance and filth. The peasants now began to hope for a day when more of the lands that remained to the nobles and the crown might be given to them. Only so would such benefits result as gradually came to the peasantry of France from the French Revo- lution. Other great reforms followed. In 1864 the Russian judicial system was radically changed, in accordance with principles long before gradually developed in western Europe. Judges were made independent; jury trial was introduced; judicial and administrative powers were separated, and a system of courts established, with appeal from the lower to the higher. The vast mass of petty cases, which in all countries always make up the bulk of judicial business, were now to be handled in Russia by justices, elected by the people of the locality. RUSSIA, 1789-1881 ^85 In the same year also a decree of the Tsar established a greater measure of local self-government. In their pet- tiest concerns the peasants had some self-government in the village commmiities or mirs, but this was all. Rus- sia was already divided into thirty -four "governments" which were composed of provinces and districts. Self- government was now given in these larger administrative divisions, the provinces and districts. Each of these sub-divisions was to have an assembly, zemstvo, made up of the large landed proprietors of the district, and of delegates indirectly elected by the peasants and people of the towns. Substantially, the nobles, the peasants, and the bourgeoisie were represented in the zemstvos. The district council or zemstvo, was to be elected by the people of the locality; the district councils themselves were to choose the members of the provincial zemstvos. These coimcils were to impose the local taxes and make the local regulations, which were to be carried out by standing com- mittees. In 1870 dumasy or councils, were established in the Russian cities, the members being elected according to the Prussian three class system, by the citizens in pro- portion to their wealth. Other changes were made, and it seemed that much improvement must result, but disappointment and re- action soon clouded the prospect. The Russian liberals were at first filled with all sorts of pent-up hopes. Some of them were idealists and enthusiasts who had no real conception of the difficulties besetting any program of reform in the country, weighed down as it must be by the dead hand of centuries of ignorance and oppression gone before. Only very gradually could the lot of the Russian people be changed by any reforms. Hence the first boundless hopes were soon disappointed. The peasants saw little difference between their former position and that in which emancipation now placed them. The liberals and the radicals were grieved that conditions Local government reformed Disappoint- ment in Russia ^86 EUROPE, 1789-1920 iUezander tecomes conservative Rebellion of the Poles, 1863 in Russia were not speedily made like what they knew of in England and France. Furthermore, the reforms which had been made could not be well administered at first. Local government could not be very efficient until there had been a time of training and experience, and the new courts could not give fair and cheap justice until upright and capable judges could be procured. Alexander himself changed also. It is said that he was not really a liberal, but one who believed that changes were inevitable, and preferred to make them while there was time. Furthermore, he was surrounded by re- actionary officials, who had grown up in the reign pre- ceding. In course of time their influence was felt. And finally, in 1863, came another rebellion of the Poles, after which the Tsar soon ceased making changes. It was another, despairing effort of the Poles to win freedom. The spirit of nationality, which was rising again strongly in Europe, had reached certain classes of this people. The Italians had just achieved their imity, and the Germans were about to make a united nation. Now Polish patriots began to dream of a free Polish nation once more. Moreover, the Tsar had made some conces- sions, enough to raise expectations, but less than what they desired. Suddenly an insurrection broke out. The Poles appealed to the free nations of Europe for assistance, and much sympathy was aroused in England and France, and elsewhere. But actually the movement was never formidable. The Prussian government offered help to the Tsar, but this was not needed. The Polish population generally remained passive. Through long previous centuries this peasantry had been bowed under the most degrading serfdom, in hopeless poverty, without attach- ment to the masters who oppressed them, and without any feeling of patriotism for a state which did nothing for them. Therefore now they looked on with indifference, having not yet learned to care enough for Poland, and RUSSIA, 1789-^1881 287 caring little who were their masters. When rebeUion was crushed the Russian government took measures to crush permanently the power of those who had made it. The monasteries of the religious orders were suppressed and their lands taken away from them. About half of the lands of the nobility was taken and given to the peasants, so as to make them friendly to the Russian government. These lands were to be paid for, but by a tax not only on the possessions of the peasants but on those of the nobles as well. The results of this were important. The. in- fluence of the upper classes, among whom the spirit of Polish nationality had been strongest, was crippled. Furthermore the condition of the Polish lower classes was improved, and, contrary to what was sometimes believed in other parts of the world, the economic condition of most of the Polish people under Russia was better than in Galicia, where the Austrian government had done little to interfere with the privileges of the Polish nobles but where the peasants continued in low degradation. On the other hand, the Russian government, resolving to make a Russian province out of Poland, now forbade the use of the Polish language in any government business, in university lec- tures, in newspapers, in theaters, in schools, and in churches. Against this the Polish people made vigorous resistance, and in the struggle that ensued the spirit of nationality was strongly awakened at last in the hearts of the people. Some of Alexander's reforms were put into effect after Discontent this time, but he now became conservative and suspicious, for he had begun to feel that autocracy might be weak- ened by further concessions. Discontent increased. Not enough had been done, and expectation was aroused by what had been granted. Moreover, the mere passage of time and the changes going on elsewhere created greater de- mands. So, in the despair that now came to the liberals, violence and extreme radicalism took the place of a pro- mcreases 288 EUROPE, 1789-1920 gressive liberal movement. Nihilists, extreme socialists, and terrorists supplanted the liberal reformers. The The term nihilist {nihil, nothing) is said to have been '**^^^** first used by Turgeniev in his novel. Fathers and Sons, published in 1862, to signify one who accepted nothing without critical examination, nothing on authority merely. It was soon applied in Russia to intellectuals who accepted nothing in Russia as good, contrasting what they saw there with conditions in other countries. They accepted neither the autocratic government, nor the Greek Catholic faith of their fathers. Turgeniev described his character as one who beUeved that there was no institution which ought not to be destroyed completely and at once. What was, ought to be overthrown, in order to construct society anew. At first all this was merely held by intellectuals, who talked about it, but were not prepared to go further. After a few years, however, it was translated into action. About 1871 there was a great stirring in the minds of economic radicals in Europe. The Commune of Paris had just attempted to institute a new social and political order, and even its failure had attracted much atten- tion. The socialism of western Europe was beginning to have its effect upon Russian thinkers, and, more impor- tant still, the doctrines of violence which the anarchists taught. The Active anarchism had been largely developed by the anarchists Russian Bakunin. He believed that capitalism and autocratic government ought to be destroyed through violence, and, where this was not possible, through secret assassination and terror. Now in Russia, when the efforts of the peaceful radicals were checked by the government, and many were punished or sent into exile, the move- ment of reform and oppositipn — after changing into ni- hilism, a doctrine held by philosophers and students, and then into socialist propaganda — got into the hands of the anarchists, who attempted to create a reign of terror, and RUSSIA, 1789-1881 ^89 paralyze the government, or at least take vengeance on their oppressors. An attempt had been made to assassinate the Tsar in 1866. Thereafter he hearkened more than ever to the reactionaries, and in the ten years after the Polish revolt a great number of people were sent to Siberia. In 1878 a secret committee was established at St. Petersburg to carry on war against the government. Literature was printed for secret distribution, and bombs were manu- factured for the assassination of oflScials. In a short time prominent oflScials were done to death by members of the society, and renewed attempts had been made to kill the Tsar. Martial law was proclaimed, and a minister was appointed with the fullest powers of a dictator. In 1881 the Tsar, yielding somewhat, gave his consent that a general commission, partly representative, should be summoned to consult about reforms. But on the day that this decree was signed, a fourth attempt was made to assassinate him, and he was blown to pieces by a bomb hurled as he was passing through the streets. Thus per- ished the Tsar Liberator, author of the most important reform made in Russia for generations, victim very largely of the conditions which older times had bequeathed to him. The Terrorists at once published a manifesto in which they promised to cease their activities, if freedom of speech, of the press, and of meeting, was allowed in Russia, and if a national assembly was elected by man- hood suffrage. But their deed was about to usher in a period of sterner and more terrible reaction, and when at last changes were made in Russia, they were to come, as in France, not through constitutional amendment but through destruction of the old system, by revolution. Assassina- tion of Alexander II «90 EUROPE, 1789-1920 BIBLIOGRAPHY General r it is more difficult to make a satisfactory bibliogra- phy about Russia because a great part of the best historical writing about her is in the Russian language, and many of the works have not been translated — R. J. Kerner, Slavic Europe: a Selected Bibliography in the Western European Languages (1919) ; Sir D. M. Wallace, Russia (ed. 1912), the best to give the begin- ner an acquaintance with the Russian people and their life. For the history : Raymond Beazley, Nevill Forbes, and G. A. Birkett, Russia, from the Varangians to the Bolsheviks (1918), the best recent account in English; Alfred Rambaud, Histoire de la Russie depuis les Origines jusqu a Nos Jours (6th ed. completed to 1913 by E. Haumant), 3 vols. (1914), English translation, 8 vols. (1881), the best history of Russia; A. Kornilov (English trans, by A. S. Kaun), Modern Russian History, % vols. (1917); James Mavor, An Economic History of Russia, 2 vols. (1914), best economic history; W. R. A. MorfiU, History of Russia from the Birth of Peter the Great to the Death of Alexander II (1902); F. H. Skrine, The Expansion of Russia (3d ed., 1915). Particular periods: Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhallovitch, VEmpereur Alexandre I'\ 2 vols. (1913); T. Schiemann, Geschichte Russlands unter Kaiser Nikolaus I, 4 vols. (1904-19); H. G. Samson von Himmelstjerna (English trans, by J. Morri- son), Russia under Alexander III and in the Preceding Period (1893) ; Alphons Thun, Geschichte der Revolutiondren Bewegungen in Russland (1883). Russian government and institutions: Wiatscheslaw Gribow- ski. Das Staatsrecht des Russischen Reiches (1912); Maxime Kovalevsky, Modem Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia (1891), Russian Political Institutions (1902), excellent, scholarly ac- counts. Poland: E. H. Lewinski-Corwin, The Political History of Poland (1917), best account in English; W. A. Phillips, Poland (1915). CHAPTER XIII THE LESSER PEOPLES K this is the day of great Empires it is also preeminently the day of little nations. . . . Their destiny is interwoven with that of humanity. Speech of Mr. Lloyd George at Birkenhead, September 6, 1917 In any brief account of Europe since 1789 attention can be given only to the most important things which affected the European peoples, or else to the history of the greater powers. But the student should remember that during all the time that mightier events were transpiring, there were lesser nations living their lives, taking part in the great things around them or beholding them from aside, as spectators. All through the nineteenth century Portugal and Spain, Switzerland, Belgium, and Holland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, and the peoples of the Balkans, were making a history of their own, important to themselves and interesting enough. The history of the Balkans can be told better in the second part of this book, since in the latter part of the period, the destiny of the Balkan peoples was intertwined with greater affairs, and with the causes leading to the gigantic struggle which brought the period to an end. What is to be told about the other small countries, whether in the earlier or the later part of the period, can be told and concluded in this place. It was rather through accident than otherwise that Portugal was ever important. She was the only one of the small states in the peninsula not incorporated into the 291 The lesser states Portugal in the past 292 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Spanish monarchy, but while she retained her indepen- dence, she was too small to become powerful and great in Europe. Yet, the daring of her sailors and the advan- tages of geographical position raised her for a short while to a splendid position. In the fifteenth century her sea- men slowly explored the west coast of Africa, and at last got to the Cape of Good Hope. In 1498 Vasco Da Gama reached India, and afterward the Portuguese built up a colonial trade and a colonial empire which made them important and wealthy. But the grand age soon passed. It was beyond the resources of the nation to hold such possessions. In 1580 Portugal was conquered by Spain. During the period of subjection the Dutch, who were at war with the Spaniards, took away the Portuguese pos- sessions in India and especially in the wealthy Spice Islands, thus laying the foundations of their own prosper- ous colonial empire. Encouraged by France Portugal became independent again in 1640, but her greatness and her power were gone. In 1703 by the Methuen Treaty, she entered into intimate commercial relatiqns with England, and after that time she became more and more a satellite of Britain. In 1807 Napoleon sent an army to occupy the country. British troops sent to the rescue, however, under Sir Arthur Wellesley, soon drove the invader out. The British continued to occupy the coun- try for a while after 1814, but presently they withdrew, y and Portugal like the other countries of western Europe was the scene of a struggle between progress and reaction. ^^^ No great advance was made and not much was pos- century sible, for the country had no large national wealth and no great industries or trade. Its finances were hopelessly tangled, taxes were very high, and the debt of the na- tion was large. Brazil had piroclaimed independence in 1822, but Portugal still possessed a colonial empire, mostly in Africa, much beyond her resources to maintain. Her debt increased and her affairs became more embarrassed. 14. ETHNOGRAI ^m. 'W ^ -9 'l^'^S S^^-^;m^"" ^;^ts^?i^^ pkholm MAP OF EUROPE THE LESSER PEOPLES 293 Therefore it was not possible to improve education or economic conditions, and most of the people remained poor and illiterate, with small understanding of political matters and no experience in self-government. So the Portuguese people, in their out-of-the way corner of Europe, lived on in the quiet decay of their country, in the midst of monuments of old grandeur, attracting little foreign attention, except when other countries, like Ger- many or England, hoped some day to inherit their colonial possessions. It is believed that in 1898 Great Britain and Germany did make a secret agreement about how these possessions might be divided between them later on, if Portugal were persuaded to sell. In 1910, when the reigning dynasty had sunk into com- plete disrepute, the young king was driven from the throne and a republic proclaimed. A constitution modelled on that of France was adopted, providing for a legislature, Cortes, with a ministry responsible to it, and a president. But it was evident from the start that it would take gen- erations of education and training in self-government before the Portuguese people could make it work success- fully, and the new government was compelled to sustain itself by force. Furthermore, there were violent disputes between the clericals and friends of the republic, for not- withstanding that the entire population was Roman Catholic, the republican government at once proceeded to separate Church from State, suppress the wealthy re- ligious orders, and confiscate their possessions. In the sixteenth century Spain was the leading power in Europe and she had attained such greatness that she was dangerous to all of her neighbors. Then, for a while, she was mistress of the entire Iberian peninsula; she held the southern part of Italy and controlled the rest; she had the rich provinces of the Low Countries, and had got great influence throughout German lands; and she was mistress of mighty colonial possessions. Seldom had The Portuguese Republic Greatness of Spain in the past 294 EUROPE, 1789-1920 any empire in the past been more powerful or extensive. Her soldiers were the best in Europe; she was a strong naval power; she drew great revenue from the industrial districts of the Netherlands; from Mexico and Peru she received the greatest quantity of gold and silver that had ever come to any people in the world; while her poets, her dramatists, and her generals made this era her golden age. Decadence Much of this was lost in the seventeenth century; it of Spain was mostly gone in the eighteenth; and in the nineteenth, Spain, shorn of nearly all her colonies, had sunk far below the rank of the first-rate powers. The causes of this terrible decline have often been explained, but they still continue to be instructive. Spain, like Portugal and Sweden, undertook far more than her strength permitted. She had neither population nor natural resources enough to enable her to hold a great empire; and the parts of her empire in Europe were so scattered that it would have been very hard to hold them in any event. She exhausted her resources trying to win back the revolted Netherlands, and in 1588 she lost a great fleet in the waters about England. From this time her decline is often dated, but actually it resulted from far greater causes. Much of her soil is not rich or well watered, and could only be made to yield by irrigation and intensive agriculture. The best places were in the south, where agriculture and industry \ had been developed by the Moors and the Jews. The Christians, who had during some hundreds of years slowly reconquered the country from the Moors, had come to love fighting for its own sake, and now they scorned any labor. It was, indeed, their skill and aptitude in fighting that enabled them to make their conquests in Italy, but mean- while they left the work of the country largely to the Moors and the Jews. Unfortunately the Spaniards had become the most bigoted people in Europe. Their leaders determined to stamp out all heresy, and soon they drove ^•^:S'^^ THE LESSER PEOPLES 295 out the Jews and the Moors, thus giving a death-blow to the basic industries of the country. The Inquisition made such war upon freedom of thought that all the bolder and more enterprising intellects were suppressed or com- pelled to conform. There was indeed no heresy, but there was also no more of activity and progress. Mean- while Spain constantly lost the best and most vigorous of her people, who went out as emigrants to America. Vast amounts of treasure in silver and gold continued to come from the American mines; but it went out of the country almost as soon as it entered, for there was little industry, and the people of Spain, no longer able to win wars and disdaining to work, sank further and further into economic stagnation, using their money to buy, at high prices, what others, who worked, could provide. All the seventeenth century was a period of slow, fatal decline. At the end of that time the old dynasty came to an end, and the great powers quarrelled about how the Spanish Empire should be partitioned among them. This led to the War of the Spanish Succession, concluded by the Treaty of Utrecht (1713). By this treaty the out- lying dominions of Spain in Europe went to Austria and Holland; and Spain, now under a line of French Bourbon kings kept only her colonial dominions. After this time there were some fitful attempts at revival, but they all came to nothing, and for another hundred years she settled down further and further into torpor and decay. When the French Revolution came, it affected the Spaniards but little. But the French under Napoleon conquered the country and brought the reforms which they were spreading over Europe. It was in this moment that the Spanish people had their awakening. They re- mained, even in their poverty and loss of power, a people of high and strong character. Now when their position seemed hopeless they rose fiercely, and fell upon the invader to save their country. They were greatly Partition of the Spanish Empire, 1713 Revival of national spirit 296 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Reaction and con- fusion The Spanish Republic assisted by the topography of their country and also by a British army, and gradually their guerilla fighting wore the invaders out. In 1812 the liberals among the revolu- tionists proclaimed a constitution, patterned after the French constitution of 1791, and for a long time after- wards a model for the liberals of southern Europe. Two years later the reactionary king, Ferdinand VII, returned. He set aside the constitution and abolished the Cortes, or national legislature. He was able to do this be- cause the constitution was hated by the conservatives and nobles and not supported by the peasants. There was now a period of reaction as in France and other Euro- pean countries, but in 1820 a revolution suddenly broke out and Ferdinand had to accept the constitution again. This was contrary to the wishes of the Continental powers in the Quadruple Alliance, and in 1822, at the Congress of Verona, they resolved that France should intervene to restore the absolute rule of the king. The reign of terror which followed was long afterward described in a terrible denunciation by Castelar, the greatest orator of Spain. For the next ten years the king ruled with power un- checked. In 1833 his daughter, Isabel II, came to the throne. Three years before, at the time of her birth, the Salic law, which forbade the succession of women, had been set aside so that she might succeed; but this brought it about that Don Carlos, the king's brother, previously heir presumptive, was debarred. He refused to give up his claim, and for the next forty years the coimtry was plagued by uprisings and attempts of his partisans, the Carlists. During the long reign of Isabella the Bourbon reputa- tion sank lower and lower, until in 1868 she was driven away by a liberal uprising, and a provisional government was set up while the revolutionists sought a new monarch. It was during this search for a sovereign that the crown was offered to a relative of the King of Prussia, thus cans- THE LESSER PEOPLES 297 ing the tension between Prussia and France, the immedi- ate occasion of the Franco-Prussian War. In 1871 Ama- deo of Savoy accepted the throne, but after two years he abandoned his attempt to rule the country. Then in 1873 the Hberals set up a republic, but Spain now fell into the greatest confusion, from which she was saved only by the stern rule and the military despotism of the president, Emilio Castelar. Most of the Spanish people cared noth- ing for a republic, and in 1874 the Bourbon line was re- stored, when the son of Isabella was made king. A period of improvement and reform now began, which Slow slowly produced good results. In 1876 a constitution P'^g^^ss was adopted which in form gave the people a government like that of Italy or Belgium, vested in a parliament or cortes, elected by the people. In 1890 the principle of manhood suffrage was adopted for electing members to the lower house of the Cortes, As in Great Britain, the ministry is dependent upon a majority in the Cortes \ and as in France, this majority is formed by a combination of political parties willing to act together. Parliamentary majorities were made by the ministry, and a government could always control the elections. The extension of the suffrage to the mass of the people strengthened the con- servative and reactionary elements in the State, especially the Church, since many of the voters, who were illiterate as well as inexperienced, voted entirely at the dictation of the priests. Nevertheless, after 1880 a period of reform began, in which jury trial was introduced, taxation re- formed, and obstacles removed from industry and trade, obstacles which had survived in Spain longer than almost anywhere else in Europe. The liberal leader, Sagasta, wished also to improve education and take it out of the hands of the clergy, and effect such a separation of Church and State as was afterward brought about in France; but notwithstanding considerable hostility to the religious orders because of their wealth and possessions, the body 298 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Recent conditions The Netherlands of the people supported the clericals and enabled them to prevent all such changes. The decline of centuries was not easily to be made up. The country was poor, agriculture languished, there was little industry and not much trade. Most of the people were ignorant and superstitious, and more than half of them could not read or write. Taxation was heavy and the national debt almost too great to be borne. None the less, gradually there has been an improvement in the last generation. What seemed at first like a great disaster, the loss of the remaining Spanish colonies to the United States in 1898, soon proved to be a blessing, since it re- moved great trouble and expense. Of late the population has been increasing more and more rapidly, and some wealth and prosperity with it. The land has been getting more and more into the hands of peasant proprietors, and manufacturing and commerce have once more begun to flourish. The country remains poor, and in the midst of their splendid cathedrals and lonely palaces the people have memories of the past more than possessions in the present. Nevertheless, there may still be a prosperous future before them. In the sixteenth century the Low Countries, which for centuries had been the seat of the most thriving industry and the richest burghers in Europe, were provinces of the king of Spain. During the Reformation many of the people became Protestants. Philip II of Spain, then the leader of Catholicism in Europe, tried to stamp all heresy out; and, partly because of the persecutions, partly be- cause of oppressive exactions, the people rose in revolt. A terrible struggle followed, in the course of which the western provinces, which long after became the kingdom of Belgium, went back to the Spanish allegiance; but the eastern and northern provinces, the greatest of which was Holland, persisted in rebellion, and, aided by England, at last achieved independence. This was got after the death THE LESSER PEOPLES 299 of Philip II, though not formally acknowledged until 1648 by the general European settlement in the Treaty of West- phalia. From this struggle the Dutch emerged as the greatest sea power in Europe. They had obtained a splendid col- onial empire in the Far East; during the earlier part of the seventeenth century they did a great part of the carrying trade of Europe; and they so developed the herring fish- eries of the North Sea that the waters yielded them greater wealth than Spain got from her mines in Peru. But Eng- land now began to rise as a great commercial power, and her geographical position was more favorable than that of the Dutch, since she lay across the routes of the Dutch to the outside world, and could, if she desired, always close them. Sea wars followed, resulting largely from commercial and colonial competition, in which the Dutch failed to hold their own. Worse still they were exposed to attacks from France — then, under Louis XIV, the greatest military power in Europe — and they were not, like England, protected by the sea. The Dutch did save themselves, and afterward together with England they checked the aggressions of France; but by 1713 when this was achieved, they were exhausted by a task which had been far beyond their strength, and from being one of the principal Euro- pean powers, in the eighteenth century they sank to the second class and no longer played a great part. The Dutch still possessed a large colonial dominion, mostly in the Far East; and they continued to be industrious and successful workers. They played a lesser part now be- cause neighboring powers had grown far greater and more rapidly than themselves, so that relatively they were much less than before. During the French Revolution Holland was overrun, and in 1795 it was made into the Batavian Republic. In 1800 this was superseded by the Kingdom of Holland under Louis Bonaparte, Napoleon's brother, which four The United Provinces The King- dom of the Netherlands 800 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Separation of Belgium from Hol- land Liberal progress years later was annexed directly to France. But when Napoleon's power was falling, and when the Dutch saw departing the French soldiers who had so long ruled and plundered their country, they rose and proclaimed a king- dom under William I, son of the last Stadholder who had ruled before the Frenchmen came. The Congress of Vienna determined to strengthen Holland against possible aggression from France in the future, and in 1815 what had, before the French Revolution, been the Austrian Netherlands was joined to the new Dutch kingdom, now called the Kingdom of the Netherlands. This union was not destined to last. The Dutch were mostly Protestant and Germanic, while the population of the Belgic provinces was Catholic and influenced by France. The Belgian population was more numerous than the Dutch, but while Belgium was compelled to contribute the larger part of the taxation, the places and power in the government were reserved for Dutch oflScials. William I outraged the feelings of his Belgian subjects by trying to impose on them the Dutch language and laws. In 1830, after the revolution in Paris, the Belgians rose against their masters, and demanded a separate legisla- ture. William refused any concessions, so they pro- claimed their complete independence. The Dutch people, inflamed by strong national feeling, supported their mon- arch, and he would have easily reconquered the rebels, had it not been that England and France intervened. Thus Belgium got independence. Western Europe slowly became more liberal and pro- gressive. William himself did not change, but becoming more and more unpopular he abdicated in 1840. His son shared his feelings, but was wise enough to yield to the tendencies around him. In 1848, when the revolutionary movements were overturning so much in Europe, he quietly granted a more liberal constitution, which with slight changes satisfied his people thereafter. The minis- THE LESSER PEOPLES 301 try now became responsible to the States General, the Dutch parliament, though the representatives in the lower chamber were still elected by a small number of voters. In 1887 and in 1896, the franchise was extended to larger number of voters, but as late as 1914 more than a third of the men were not yet permitted to vote. The political history of the country was now unevent- Political ful. The Dutch were intensely conscious of their na- ^^^tory tionality, and passionately resolved to keep their inde- pendence. They had no great love for England, who had once beaten them in great trade wars, and taken some of their possessions; but France had been the great enemy, and they had only been saved by assistance from Britain. During the nineteenth century these conditions no longer existed, but at the beginning of the twentieth, a new danger appeared. Some German writers asserted that the Dutch were closely related to the Germans, and could properly be citizens of a Germanic federal union, and that Holland, lying across the mouths of Germany's great river, the Rhine, ought to be brought into such un- ion. More and more did the Dutch come to dread incor- poration with their powerful neighbor. In 1890 Queen Wilhelmina, a girl of ten, came to the throne, and for a while her subjects feared that the dynasty might die out, and their country lose its independence. After the birth of an heir, however, this fear abated; though the Dutch continued to guard with great jealousy against any in- fringement on their freedom, and, after the beginning of the Great War, they guarded their neutrality likewise. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Nether- The Dutch lands lost some of their colonies to England, and as a re- Colonies suit of the Napoleonic Wars, Ceylon and South Africa also, but they still continued to retain one of the wealthiest of colonial empires, especially in the Spice Islands off southeast Asia. This empire was until recently admin- istered with less consideration for the welfare of the 80« EUROPE, 1789-1920 natives than for the development and advancement of commerce. The The history of the Belgian people is a long record of Belgian prosperity and misfortune. In the Middle Ages they P®**P * had the most thriving industry in Europe, and the splendid guildhalls and bell-towers still attest the magnificence of that era. But the country was also the battleground in many wars now long forgotten. The sovereigns of France strove to add these provinces to their dominions, as they built up the Kingdom of France; but they got only part of what they tried for, since England in the four- teenth century — as in the sixteenth and the seventeenth, the nineteenth and the twentieth — dreaded to see the country right across the narrow waters from her, and al- most at the mouth of the Thames, in the hands of some powerful rival. The Belgian provinces joined the other Netherlands in the revolt against Philip II, but the pop- ulation, being almost entirely Roman Catholic, accepted the overtures of Spain, and in 1579 abandoned the con- test. Under the languishing rule of Spain, and after- ward under the ineffective administration of Austria, these provinces suffered decline. By the Treaty of Utrecht the port of Antwerp was closed, so that its com- merce was ruined, in order to promote the interests of Holland. During the Revolutionary period the Austrian Netherlands were easily occupied by the French and presently annexed to France. In 1815 Austria preferred resigning her Belgian possessions, since they were too distant to be easily defended, and in exchange for them she took territory in the northern part of Italy. Belgium was then added to the Dutch Netherlands, partly to make a strong state on the French frontier, partly to compensate Holland for the colonies she had lost to Eng- land. In 1830 the Belgian people rebelled, and, by the assistance of Great Britain and France, got their inde- pendence. In 1831 Belgium was established as a state THE LESSER PEOPLES 303 independent and perpetually neutral; and when in 1839 Holland at last accepted Belgian independence, the provi- sion of neutralization was again confirmed by the five great powers, Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia. Thus Belgium was made a neutralized state as Switzerland had been in 1815. The country now went forward with its development in safety. Shortly before the Franco-Prussian War, it is true. Napoleon HI entered into secret negotiations with Prussia, apparently in hope that he might be able to add Belgium to France; but this came to nothing; and when later, in 1870, Bismarck revealed the proposal, the British government made treaties with France and with Prussia, engaging to join forces with either one if the other violated Belgian neutrality. After 1831 the little country went forward in great industrial development, its population and prosperity increasing. Unlike Holland, which remained an agricul- tural and a commercial country, Belgium possessed great resources of coal and iron, and became one of the greatest industrial regions of Europe. The constitution, adopted in 1831, was the most liberal at the time in continental Europe. As in Great Britain the ministry was responsi- ble to a parliament. As elsewhere then the franchise was narrow, being allowed only to those who paid a consid- erable tax. In 1848 it was extended a little, but there- after for nearly half a century no change was made. Meanwhile great industrial populations had been assem-' bled in the cities, and after the franchise had been widely extended in all the neighboring countries, still in Belgium only one man in ten could vote. At last, in 1893, the labor leaders called a general strike, and the legislature, soon yielding J provided for manhood suffrage, though with double votes or even triple votes to men of property and at the head of a family or with unusual educational attain- ments or experience in public oflSce. Progress and pros- perity S04 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Switzerland Sonderbund and union The Swiss in the midst of their mountains got their freedom from Austria in the Middle Ages, and after first defending themselves successfully, presently became re- nowned as the best mercenaries in Europe, fighting in most of the great wars for pay. The government was a federation of smaller units, or cantons. In the seven- teenth and eighteenth centuries Switzerland and the United Provinces (.Holland) were the only two important republics in the world. They were also two of the prin- cipal places of refuge for the oppressed and those who sought religious freedom. During the French Revolution Switzerland was first penetrated by the new ideas and then overrun by French soldiers, and in 1798 the Helvetic Republic was established. During the Napoleonic period other cantons were added, and still more were joined to the Confederation in 1815 when the Congress of Vienna re-established it and guaranteed its neutrality. The can- tons remained, as before the French Revolution, united in a loose confederacy, each with complete local autonomy, much as were the American commonwealths before the Constitution of the United States. In the first half of the nineteenth century the cantons which had so long remained in partnership began to develop a division which after a while threatened to dis- rupt the Confederation. Some of the cantons were agri- cultural and Catholic and under clerical influence; others were Protestant, and contained large cities, and in 1830 they liberalized their governments and tended toward radical ideas. Thus Switzerland, like the United States of America about the same time, was split into two parts, in which the people had different ideals and purposes, and seemed unwilling to continue in the old association. In 1843 the Roman Catholic cantons formed a Sonder- bund, or separate league, to protect clerical interests wher- ever they should be attacked. In 1847 the Federal Diet of the Confederation ordered the Sonderbund to dissolve. THE LESSER PEOPLES 305 Metternich and the governments which he influenced would have intervened, but the separatist movement was soon crushed, and, shortly after the Revolution of 1848, made it impossible for them to interfere. The tri- umphant party now remodelled the constitution, and what had before been a loose confederation became a federal republic. By this constitution of 1848 a federal assembly of two houses was established, an upper house, the Council of States, consisting of two delegates from each canton, chosen by the legislature of the canton; the lower house, the National Council, consisting of repre- sentatives elected by voters in electoral districts, all adult males having the franchise. The executive was vested in a federal council of seven members and a president, chosen by the Federal Assembly. The cantons, like the states of the American union, had their own constitutions and governments. The Swiss people continued, as for a long time before, to show that it was possible for men of different races and religions to live under the same government, each having large measure of freedom, unmolested by the others. Most of the population was German, but considerable portions were French and Italian. Some were Protestants and some were Catholics. There was no attempt to en- force uniformity of language or customs, as in Russia and Austria-Hungary, but so much freedom was left to all that the Swiss Confederation was reckoned to be the most successful democracy in the world. And while its people perfected their educational system until their schools were as good as any in Europe, and while they were devel- oping great industrial prosperity, they continued to teach other nations the art of self-government. In attempting to work out devices by which the people might more di- rectly control their government they perfected the rejer- endum and originated the initiative. The Referendum, or referring back for popular vote measures already Progress in self-govern- ment 306 EUROPE, 1789-1920 passed by the legislature, had been employed by some of the American states in the latter part of the eighteenth century, and afterward was put into one of the provi- sions of the French Revolutionary Constitution of the Year I; but its use was extended by the Swiss Constitu- tion of 1848 and it has since been frequently employed. The Initiative, by which legislation or an amendment is brought forward by petition of a certain number of voters, was invented in Switzerland, then established in their constitution of 1848, and since widely extended. Scandinavia The Scandinavian countries were usually outside the great currents of European history, though twice they greatly afiFected neighboring countries. In the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, sailors and pirates from Nor- way and Denmark spread terror of the Northmen's name all over Western Europe, and some of them established themselves on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. The Danes ravaged Ireland, and conquered England for a while; the Northmen sailed to Iceland, Greenland, and even Vineland or America, and established themselves in northern France and afterward in southern Italy. Meanwhile bands of Swedes entered Russia. After these great Scandinavian wanderings came to an end, the north- ern peoples for a long time affected the rest of Europe but little, for neither their population nor their resources made it possible for them to take a great part among wealthy and powerful peoples. In 1397 the three coun- tries were loosely united under the headship of Denmark, but from this union Sweden broke away in 1523, and pres- ently rose to a position of considerable greatness. The highest point of her eminence came during the seventeenth century. When central Europe was torn to pieces by the Thirty Years' War, Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, saved Protestantism from the counter-reformation. He also established the greatness of his country, for the settle- ment made in 1648 left the shores of the Baltic under THE LESSER PEOPLES 307 Swedish control. But during the eighteenth century greater neighbors, like Russia and Prussia, rose up against her, and Sweden's resources were wasted in vain struggles to keep her possessions. In 1814 Denmark, to which Norway was still joined, was an unimportant country, and Sweden had lost her possessions outside the Scandinavian peninsula. The Congress of Vienna took Norway from Denmark Sweden and joined it to Sweden. The Norwegian people de- *^^ Norway clared their country a sovereign state, but they yielded to the great powers, and the two countries were loosely joined each having its own constitution, but united under one king. This arrangement lasted throughout the nineteenth century, because of the moderation and prudence of the rulers, but the two peoples were incompatible and diver- gent in their interests. Sweden was larger and more populous; she was also richer, but wealth and power were concentrated in the hands of nobles and aristocracy, leaving the mass of the people without property or political power. The government was vested entirely in the hands of the king, checked, when at all, only by an assembly of estates, something like those which had disappeared in England and Spain long before, and like those resurrected in France in 1789. In Norway, while the resources of the country were small and the soil was poor, the land had become divided among a large number of small farmers; there was much democratic feeling; and the constitution adopted in 1814 put the government in the hands of a Storthing or legislature, in which the representatives were elected by voters whose franchise depended upon a low property qualification. In the nineteenth century the Industrial Revolution gradually became important in Sweden, and then manufacturing was added to her agri- culture; in Norway commerce was developed until the Norwegian merchant marine was the fourth largest in the world. In foreign relations Norway was drawn more and 808 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Separation of Norway from Sweden Denmark more toward England and France, while Sweden, resenting the Russian seizure of Finland, and always fearing further Russian expansion toward the sea, more and more imi- tated Germany's methods and sympathized with her pur- pose and desires. So the two peoples drew increasingly apart. In 1863 a Swedish constitution was granted, with a parliament like those of western Europe, but great power was left to the king and also to the wealthy upper classes. Meanwhile Norway became increasingly liberal and democratic. In 1884 manhood suffrage was established. In 1901* she gave the municipal franchise to women tax-payers, and six years later followed this by granting the parliamentary franchise to women and allowing them to sit in the Stor- thing. Moreover, in Norway a great literary national re- vival was carried on, so that the people became more conscious of their nationality and more eager for complete independence. For a long time tension increased, though there was never a resort to arms, and finally, in 1905, the Storthing declared the independence of Norway. The Swedes, more powerful though they were, wisely decided not to try to force their neighbors back into a distasteful allegiance of no use to themselves, and so they acceded to the separation. A Danish prince was invited to be king, but the monarchy was as limited and as democratic as in England. In 1907 Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia signed a treaty with Norwegian representatives guaranteeing the integrity and the neutrality of Norway. Good relations with Sweden were soon resumed, and the two countries proceeded on their separate ways. Denmark had gradually become the least important of the northern nations. Norway had been taken from her in 1814; Schleswig-Holstein, containing some Danish population, had been lost in 1864. Across the base of the Jutland peninsula, which had previously been hers, the great German Kiel Canal was cut, and through it went THE LESSER PEOPLES 309 ships which would formerly have gone around through the Danish channels. She still had Iceland and Greenland, far away and unimportant, and a few islands in the West Indies, which she finally sold to the United States. Fur- thermore, her territory seemed to some of the ambitious German leaders to be properly a German outpost like Holland or Belgium; and increasingly the people of the country lived under the shadow of their mighty neighbor to the south. Meanwhile democracy and constitutional government made progress, though much less rapidly than among the Norwegians. In 1849 a constitution was granted, establishing a Rigsdag or parliament, but actually government remained in the hands of the king and the upper class, and the ministry was not responsible to representatives of the people any more than it was in Russia. In the latter part of the nineteenth century money was frequently collected as a result of royal decree, and not because appropriation was made by the Folkething or lower chamber. But the people developed their inten- sive agriculture and their dairy farming, and established a remarkably successful system of cooperative enterprise, by which middlemen were largely eliminated, and so far improved their economic position that they really became more and more important. Accordingly in 1901 the king granted what he knew they desired, that the ministry should be dependent upon the majority elected to the Folkething by the people. BIBLIOGRAPHY Portugal: Gustav Diercks, Das Modeme Portugal (1918); Angel Marvaud, Le Portugal et Ses Colonies (1912). Spain: C. E. Chapman, A History of Spain (1919), based mostly on Don Rafael Altamira, Historia de Espana y de la Civilizacion Espanola, 4 vols. (1900-11), the best general work; for the more recent period: Butler Clarke, Modern Spain, 1815- 1898 (1906); Gustave Hubbard, Histoire Contemporaine de 810 EUROPE, 1789-1920 VEspagne, 6 vols. (1869-83), best work on the period 1814- 1868; Yves Guyot, L* Evolution Politique et Sociale de VEspagne (1899); Angel Marvaud, La Question Sociale en Espagne (1910), VEspagne au XX" Si^cle (1913); E. H. Strobel, The Spanish Revolution, 1868-1876 (1898); David Hannay, Don Emilio Castelar (1896) ; J. W. Root, Spain and Its Colonies (1898). Holland: P. J. Blok, Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Volk 4 vols. (2d ed. 1912-15) trans, by Ruth Putnam and others. History of the People of the Netherlands, 5 vols. (1898-1912), the work of a great scholar, the best; H. W. van Loon, The Rise of the Dutch Kingdom, 1796-1813 (1915); CHve Day, The Policy and Administration of the Dutch in Java (1904). Belgium: R. C. K. Ensor, Belgium (1915); Leon van der Essen, A Short History of Belgium (1916). Switzerland: W. D. McCrackan, Rise of the Svdss Republic (2d ed., 1901); Wilhelm Oechsli, Geschichte der Schweiz im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert, vols. I, II (1903-13), covering the period 1798-1830; La Suisse au Dixneuvieme Steele, a coopera- tive work edited by Paul Seippel, 3 vols. (1899-1901). The Scandinavian countries: R. N. Bain, Scandinavia, a Political History of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, from 1613 to 1900 (1905); C. N. Starke, Le Danemarck (1900); Sweden. Its People and Industries, published by order of the Swedish govern- ment, edited by Gustav Sundbarg (1904); A. A. F. Aall, Die Norwegisch-Swedische Union, Ihr Bestehen und Ihr Losung (1912); L. Jordan, La Separation de la Subde et de la Norvege (1906). I PART II 1871—1920 BIBLIOGRAPHY In addition to the works mentioned at the beginning of Part I, the following may be consulted : F. M. Anderson and A. S. Hershey, Hand- hook for the Diplomaiic History of Europe, Asiay and Africa, 1870-1914 (1918), a cooperative work which contains excellent summaries and up-to-date bibliographical lists; CM. Andrews, Contemporary Europe, Ada, and Africa, 1871-1901 (1902); A. Debidour, Histoire Diplo- matique de V Europe depuis le Congres de Berlin jusqu'd Nos Jours, 2 vols. (1916), the best account of recent French diplomatic history; W. M. Fullerton, Problems of Power: a Study of International Politics from Sadowa to Kirk-Kilisse (1913); H. A. Gibbons, The New Map of Europe (1914)); L. H. Holt and A. W. Chilton, The History of Europe from 1862 to 19 U (1917); J. H. Rose, The DevelojymerU of the Euro- pean Nations, 1870-19U, 2 vols, in one (5th ed. 1916); Charles Sey- mour, The Diplomatic Background of the War, 1870-19U (1916). Nothwithstanding that a great part of the most important diplomatic papers remain unpublished and inaccessible in the various archives of Europe, yet a large number have been published, and may be used in such storehouses of information as Archives Diplomatiques, 129 vols. (1863-1914) covering the period 1862 to 1913; and British and Foreign State Papers, 108 vols. (1841-1918) covering the years 1812 to 1914. For information about governments: W. F. Dodd, Modem Constitu- tions, 2 vols. (1909); F. A. Ogg, The Governments of Europe (1913); Percy Ashley, Local and Central Government: a Comparative Study of England, France, Prussia, and the United States (1906); Handhuch des Offentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart in Monographien (ed. by Heinrich Marquardsen and others, 1883 — ); W. B. Munro, The Government of European Cities (1909). For current information the following annual publications: The Annual Register (1758 — ); L Annie Politique (1874-1905, continued as) La Vie Politique dans les Deux Mondes (1906 — ); Europaischer Ge- schichtskalender (1861—); The Statesman's Year Book (1864—); The New International Year Book (1907 — ). The student with a taste for recent history will find a fascinating field for exploration in the volumes of the more imj>ortant j>eriodicals, such as. The (London) Nation, The National Review, The Quarterly Review, The (New York) Weekly Review, Revu£ des Deux Mondes, and many others. He will also find much instruction and amusement in the cartoons of such publications as Die Jugend and Punch. * 812 CHAPTER I THE MILITARY TRIUMPHS OF GERMANY, 1864-1871 The old political science was mistaken when it regarded the Army as nothing but the servant of diplomacy. . . . Such a con- ception . . . has vanished from our age of universal military service; for we all feel nowadays. . . that the very constitu- tion of the State reposes upon the nation's share in bearing arms. Treitschke, Politics (trans. 1916), ii 389 The military becomes the true type of human society; some pitiless strategist is a hero; some unscrupulous conspirator is a statesman; and the nation which is the best drilled and the best armed in Europe is to go to the van of modern civilization. . . this we owe to Prussia. Frederic Harrison in The Fortnighily Review, December, 1870. Und Trommeln und Pfeifen, das war mein Klang, Und Trommeln und Pfeifen, Soldatengesang, Ihr Trommeln und Pfeifen, mein Leben lang, Hoch Kaiser und Heer! LiLiENCRON (who scFved as an oflficer in 1866 and 1870-1) Shortly after the middle of the nineteenth century The German there was a succession of wars which seemed important triumphs in connection with the unification of Germany and the founding of the German Empire; but seen now, in longer perspective, they have a greater importance, because they shifted the center of power in European affairs, and be- cause the conditions which decided their outcome soon affected the life of every great people in the world. They were the Danish War (1864), the Austro-Prussian War (1866), and the Franco-German War (1870-1). The SIS 314 EUROPE, 1789-1920 German military reputation The armies of an earlier age first is relatively unimportant now, but the second marked a new era in the history of modern Europe, and the third made the definite ending of an old one. Prus- sia was seen invincible in battle and of matchless military might. Afterward the reputation of German military power was held almost as the legend of something strange, un- canny, superhuman. But actually, after it had risen to the height of its power and then been broken to pieces, it was seen to have been the carefully wrought work of men who introduced a new principle into military usage and then perfected their work with wondrous organization and care. In the Middle Ages, when the "feudal system" flour- ished, armies were composed largely of tenants who held land partly on terms of service in war. As the feudal system decayed, armies came to be composed much more of mercenaries or paid soldiers, hired by the ruler of a country, or assembled by some captain who made war a business. Such mercenaries served in the Hundred Years' War between England and France; they did most of the fighting in the wars between the Italian states; and they played a great part in ruining Germany in the Thirty Years' War. As great national governments arose these mercenary soldiers were gathered together under direct authority of the central government. In t^e seventeenth century Louis XIV of France had a numerous army of paid soldiers; the German princes had smaller ones; and a very small force was maintained in England. It was by building up the largest and best army of this kind in central Europe that Prussia laid the foundations of her greatness. In this system, which continued in effect until the period of the French Revolution, the armies were small in num- bers, compared with the total number of people in the country; the soldiers made war their profession, and they were paid for their military service. TRIUMPHS OF GERMANY 315 An innovation came during the Revolution, when the republic was saved by great new armies drawn from all of the nation. "All France and whatsoever it contains of men and resources is put under requisition," said the decree. In so far as this was carried out it substituted the idea of the men of the nation in arms for the older idea of a small force of hired soldiers. It was the Prussians who really effected this revolution in the organization of war. By the terms of the treaty which followed Jena, Napoleon, desiring permanently to cripple Prussia's military power, limited her army to 42,000 men. But in the years from 1807 to 1813, while Stein and Hardenberg were freeing the serfs and abolish- ing class distinctions, the army was reorganized by Schamhorst and Gneisenau, who in order to evade Na- poleon's restriction, kept under arms the 42,000 men only long enough to give them the proper military training, and then summoned in succession other forces of equal size. The result of this was that when, in 1813, Prussia rose against the French Empire in the War of Liberation, she was able to put into the field 270,000 well-trained soldiers. In 1814 the principle that military service was the obligation of the citizen and that the army should be a national force, was embodied in the Military Law of Boyen, which, proclaiming that "Every citizen is bound to defend his Ifatherland," provided for universal military service. Every man in Prussia was liable, on becoming twenty years old. He was to serve for three years in the standing army and two years in the reserve; then for four- teen years afterward he might be called to serve in the Landwehr, and for eleven years thereafter in the Land- sturm. That is to say, there was now organized in Prussia an army of the men of the nation, part of whom were in active service and ready for sudden emergency, while the rest might be mobilized or called out from the various reserves, if the country should need them. The Na- tional army in the French Revolution Developed by Prussia Boyen* s Law, 1814 S16 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Prussian army in- creased Von Moltke and Von Roon For a long time the importance of this system was not realized outside of Prussia. Even there it was not fully applied, for not all the young men were called to the colors when they came to be twenty years old, and as numbers increased, the proportion of those not called grew steadily larger. In 1860, when the population of Prussia was 18,000,000, with 150,000 young men reaching military age each year, she called into service only 40,000, as had been arranged in 1814 when the population was about 11,000,000. The bitter struggle in 1862, between the king and the Prussian parliament, had to do with en- larging the army by calling each year 65,000 youths. Bis- marck was brought into the ministry, and under his guidance the desired reforms were made: the standing army was now increased to 400,000, with double that number of trained reserves in the Landwehr. In 1857 Von Moltke was appointed chief of staff of the Prussian army and two years later Von Roon became minister of war. They were the greatest masters of military organization and preparation since Napoleon. During the nineteenth century European railway systems had grown up and communications had been much altered and improved. Von Moltke realized clearly the im- portance and the military meaning of these changes and began training the commanders of the Prussian armies in great schemes of maneuver, mobilization, and attack worked out in advance. Not only were plans elaborated in minutest detail for the carrying on of possible wars with other great powers near by, but under Von Roon the most careful arrangements for rapid mobilization were pre- pared, so that when the hour came each man might quickly know what to do. Military stores and equipment were got together, a splendid artillery was provided, and the "needle-gun," a breech-loading rifle, was adopted for infantry use. By 1864 Prussia had the largest and best- equipped army in the world. Much of this was little TRIUMPHS OF GERMANY 317 noticed or understood at the time. France was still regarded as the greatest power on the Continent, and most people considered Austria more important than Prussia. But a series of wars now changed all opinion and altered the history of Europe. The first contest, the Danish War, needs little atten- tion. South of Denmark were the two duchies of Schles- wig and Holstein, peopled largely by Germans, but joined with Denmark by a personal union, since the Danish king was also Duke of Schleswig and of Holstein. Holstein was a member of the Germanic Confederation. Many people in the provinces preferred some connection with their kinsmen in the German Confederation, but the Danish kings desired to attach the provinces more closely to their kingdom. In 1852, the so-called London Protocol provided that while the King of Denmark might be Duke of Schles- wig, the duchy should not be made part of Denmark. In 1863, however, the Danish government attempted to do this very thing. The Germanic Diet protested, and, indeed, the Germans desired that Schleswig be admitted to the Confederation. Bismarck began now to plan, as he afterward declared, to annex the duchies to Prussia. He contrived to bring it about that Austria, whose meas- ures he had just been opposing, acted with Prussia, and in January 1864, the governments sent an ultimatum demanding that within forty-eight hours the Danish government repeal the constitution which decreed that the provinces be annexed. This demand was purposely so contrived that it could not be accepted, and war was begun. The armies brought against Denmark were more than sufficient to overwhelm her. The Danes attempted to defend themselves behind the Dannevirke, a fortified line of defence across the narrowest part of Jutland, but this was soon forced, and the entire peninsula overrun. The Danes soon lost command of the sea, and the in- vaders carried the war into the islands, which are such Schleswig- Holstein War with Denmark, 1864 818 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The contest with Austria The Austro- Prussian War, 1866 an important a part of the kingdom. In August the contest was abandoned; in October the Treaty of Vienna sealed the surrender of Denmark; and Schleswig and Holstein were yielded to the joint possession of Austria and Prussia. Bismarck was about to bring to a crisis the long contest between Austria and his country for leadership among the German peoples. He now plotted to get the duchies for Prussia, and rapidly the relations between Austria and Prussia were strained to the breaking-point. Austria was not well prepared to maintain her contentions, so she agreed to the Convention of Gastein, by which Prussia was to administer Schleswig and she would administer Holstein. Bismarck regarded this merely as a temporary measure, and busied himself so that when the conflict began Austria would be obliged to fight single-handed. He knew that Russia was friendly, and that Great Britain was not disposed to interfere in Continental matters. With France he carried on secret negotiations, which have never been fully revealed but which may have seemed to promise Napoleon territorial gains on the Rhine, and so he made it probable that France would be neutral. With Italy he concluded an alliance early in 1866. This was a dangerous period in Bismarck's career, for his war policy was not popular in Germany; and Austria might make terms with Italy, or else France might intervene. But the hazard passed, as the crisis moved swiftly forward. Aus- tria mobilizing her forces, demanded that the disposition of Schleswig and Holstein be referred to the Diet of the Confederation. Bismarck declared this a breach of the Convention and seized Holstein. Almost all the German states supported Austria, the members voting in the Diet that the federal forces should be used against Prussia, and the Austro-Prussian War began in June, 1866. The available Prussian army numbered 660,000 men, well trained. The infantry was armed with the needle- gun, which could be fired three times as rapidly as any TRIUMPHS OF GERMANY 319 other gun then in use. The artillery numbered 1,000 guns. Opposed to this the Austrians could bring into the field 600,000 men. Their army was based not on universal service like the Prussian, but on the conscript system, in which men could hire substitutes if they wished. Their infantry was armed with muzzle-loading rifles, inferior to the Prussian, though with longer range. Their artillery, 800 guns, also had longer range. Actually, in the con- test that followed, the Austrian artillery was effectively handled, but the campaign was decided by infantry fighting. The Prussians had to use part of their forces against the smaller German states, but the Austrians were compelled to detach part of their army to act against the Italians in the south. The great contest was fought between Austria and Prussia. The Austrians might have taken the offensive, but they resolved to await the attack. What followed astonished the world. With great skill the Prussian armies were moved through the mountain passes into Bohemia, and despite all the efforts which the enemy could make they were united at Koniggratz. There, after stubborn resistance, the Austrians were totally de- feated. A few days more and Vienna was at the mercy of the invaders. In less than six weeks Prussia had over- come all the smaller states and destroyed Austria's military power completely. Not since Napoleon's time had such rapidity of movement and such appalling strength been shown. In reality Prussia was now the first military power in the world. As a result of the Treaty of Prague which followed, the old Confederation was dissolved. Prussia became the head of a new confederation of the north German states, she annexed Schleswig and Hol- stein, and various other territories from those who had opposed her, and Venetia was acquired by Italy. Out of this war presently emerged the causes of a third great struggle, this time between Germany and France. Koniggtatz Prussia and France 820 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Such a war ought never to have come between civilized peoples; but such were conditions that it is hard to see how it could have been avoided. Among the French there was growing uneasiness that their leadership in Europe was being taken by a new, upstart state. The govern- ment of Napoleon III had passed the days of its popularity, and Bonapartist leaders believed that only some great success in foreign policy or in war could restore it in the people's estimation. Napoleon and French statesmen had expected Austria to win in 1866, and had probably never intended to allow her to be so badly defeated that the political balance in Europe would be altered; but the struggle ended before they could intervene or protest. They were bitterly disappointed that France was not allowed to get territorial compensations, when Prussia had just made such gains; for not only did France get no German territory along the Rhine, but when Napoleon strove to acquire Luxemburg, Bismarck opposed it and assisted in bringing about the neutralization of that coun- try in 1867. The position of France in Europe had dimin- ished through mere change of circumstances elsewhere, and the French people felt instinctively that something was wrong. Among them, therefore, arose the idea that there must be " Revenge for Sadowa ' ' (Koniggratz) . It is probably true that the great majority of the French people had no desire for war with Prussia, but the demand for action was skilfully cried about by the press which was controlled and cleverly manipulated by those who pre- ferred to have war. Actually the French leaders tried to form an alliance with Austria and Italy, and some arrange- ments were made for cooperation between Austrian and French armies against Prussia, to take place in 1871. The The machinations of Bismarck were more culpable and plotting of far more cold-blooded. Desiring the completer union of the German states, he believed that a successful war, par- ticularly against France the traditional enemy, would serve Bismarck TRIUMPHS OF GERMANY SU to bring them together in a burst of patriotic ardor. He afterward said he had not believed the unification of Ger- many would be accomplished so long as France could prevent it, and that it would be necessary first to over- throw her in battle. He felt certain, moreover, that Prus- sia would win, and so be raised higher in Europe than ever before. So, he desired war with France, and plotted with all his craft and sldll to bring it about. These feelings were not yet shared by most of the German people; but in Germany also the press was so controlled and manipulated as to hasten on the contest as much as could be. The direct cause was not an important matter. The The throne of Spain becoming vacant was offered to a member ^^^ of the Hohenzollern family. France fearing Prussian ^^^^ ^ influence in Spain, when it was elsewhere growing so rapidly, dispatched an arrogant note demanding Prince Leopold's withdrawal. Bismarck believed that this was the opportunity which he had been seeking to get war with France, but the King of Prussia caused his relative's name to be withdrawn. The leaders of the French war party now gave Bismarck the opportunity he sought. The French government demanded that under no circum- stances should Leopold be a candidate in the future. The King of Prussia, then at the village of Ems, rejected this demand, firmly but courteously enough, and then tele- graphed to Bismarck an account of what he had done, authorizing him to publish the news. Bismarck deliber- ately, as he afterward boasted, condensed the king's words so cunningly that the result was certain to seem in- sulting to the French, while at the same time the Prussian people would believe that their sovereign had been insulted by the insolence of the ambassador of France. The French people easily fell into the trap, for immediately on publication of what seemed to them such an affront, war was declared. And so well had the thing been contrived that the war was very popular in Germany. All the 322 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Franco- Prussian War, 1870-1 France not pre- pared North German Confederation immediately gave support to Prussia, and the south German states followed after them also. It was war between France and a Germany united. Seldom has any country ever been so quickly triumphant as Prussia, and seldom has any people been humbled and overthrown as were the French. In after days nothing so convinced men that German armies were unconquerable as memory of their victories in the Franco-Prussian War. Not until the Battle of the Marne, forty-five years later, was the legend of German invincibility disturbed, and not till the very end of the Great War could it be com- pletely destroyed. Actually, however, it is evident that the German military organization, with its system of uni- versal training, had been developed with the most careful arrangement for the contest, while France went into the struggle almost unprepared. Although a new law had just been passed to some extent adopting the Prussian system, yet the French army, like the Austrian, was still based on the old principle of con- scription and hiring of soldiers, which produced a standing army without the great mass of reserves behind it which came from the Prussian method. The total force was supposed to be about 600,000 men. The French did, in- deed, have a better rifle than the Germans; and they were beginning to use the mitrailleuse, an early type of the ma- chine or rapid-fire gun, but this weapon was not yet generally eflFective nor a decisive factor in war. The entire French military organization at this time was suffering from decay and poor administration. Plans of mobilization had not been effectively worked out, and supplies and munitions were lacking. Actually when the war began France was able to move down to the frontier 270,000 men with 925 cannon; and during the first phase of the war not many more were ever put into the field. These forces were moved quickly, in the hope of taking the TRIUMPHS OF GERMANY 323 offensive, but there was considerable confusion, in which troops were moved without supplies and oflScers could not find their detachments. A slight offensive into Germany was begun, but in face of the ominous movements of Ger- man troops, it was at once abandoned, and the French troops prepared to try to repel the German invaders. The French leaders had mistakenly boasted that their Prussia army was ready "to the last button," but the Prussians '^^^y were completely ready. Everything apparently had been thought out beforehand, and every emergency provided for. The entire plan was ready, and all details of the mo- bilization worked out. It was well known that a French advance must take place along the railroad through Alsace and the railroad through Lorraine. With extraordinary accuracy the German staff predicted in its calculations just how far the French could be by a certain time. Cal- culations about their own movements were made no less truly. While the French were beginning to discover how little ready they were for the war into which they had gone so rashly, the German troops were brought down to the frontier with speed and precision almost never seen before. The Germans had, all told, a million well-trained troops. Of this number they moved forward nearly 500,000 with 1,584 guns, and had them across into France in little more than two weeks. The way had been prepared by an army of spies, who did all they could to confuse the French movements and collected information for the Germans. Outnumbered two to one in men and in cannons, and ^"^^ fighting against an enemy as brave and resourceful as ^g war themselves, the French were overwhelmed from the start. They were in two armies, one under the Emperor in Lor- raine, the other, under MacMahon in Alsace. The ad- vancing Germans fell upon them both, to keep them from uniting, and on the same day won two victories, at Worth in Alsace and at Spicheren in Lorraine. The French fought bravely, though they were not led with aggressive- 8«4 EUROPE, 1789-1920 ness and skill, but they were smothered by the superior artillery, and crushed by the masses of German infantry. Their northern army now retreated toward the fortress of Metz, while the southern one abandoned Alsace, the Germans following with little delay. August 18, the northern army, now commanded by Bazaine, was de- feated in the battle of Gravelotte-St. Privat, and took refuge within the fortifications of Metz. A smaller army was left to surround it, while all the rest of the German forces hastened after the other French command. By a series of magnificent strategic moves Moltke presently drove MacMahon into the town of Sedan on the Meuse, where he was pushed back until his huddled troops were commanded by the German artillery, placed on the sur- rounding hills. Vainly the French strove to break through the ring so swiftly put about them. September 1st, their entire army surrendered, and the emperor was among the captives. France was now completely defeated, and, had the con- second ditions of modern warfare been more clearly understood phase then, the French people might have abandoned the strug- gle. One of their armies had just surrendered. The other was surrounded; and the event was to prove that Bazaine's army could not escape. The German armament and equipment were so powerful that, as in the Great War, it was found almost impossible to break their lines when they occupied entrenched positions. Accordingly, the ' regular army of France was now lost, and she had no trained reserves like the Germans, because she had had nothing like the Prussian system of universal military training. None the less she had not lost her courage. In 1918, when the German armies were tottering, but not yet completely beaten, Germany did not prolong the struggle, but drew back her soldiers and surrendered her ships with- out any further attempt. In 1870 it was not so with the French. The government of Napoleon was overturned. The \ I 15. ^t.Petersbursr ^ cfStockhrfiiii <(5^ i ■Jeriia \ ^^\ R U S S I A N 'EMPIRE ■^ Warsaw e ^ o Cracow \ nna TKIAM EMPIRE ^^ -^— .-^ ^ -"^ WALLA.CHIA PfeC """"^^ Belgrade ^^N TURKISH IRE £:^:i::ib GENERAL DRAFTING CO.INC.M.Y. IN 1871 I k'Jii?. TRIUMPHS OF GERMANY 325 a republic established, and the new government sought peace; but it refused to cede a stone of the fortresses or an inch of the soil of France. Bismarck was resolved to have conquests in France, and so the struggle continued. The German armies closed in upon Paris, while detachments spread conquest wide over the country. The effort made by the French people was amazing. The rising They called out the manhood of the nation, and raised °^ *^® armies of 1,800,000 men. But they were armies only in people name. The men had had no military training. It was impossible to get enough capable officers and commanders, and most of the military stores and equipment had been lost. In vain did they try to purchase supplies and munitions abroad; they got inferior goods at outrageous prices, and there was not sufficient time to get enough of anything, even so. Such was their energy that they did put large forces in the field; but during the awful winter of 1870-1, while France suffered fearfully and her soldiers endured terrible losses, the new armies never gained against the inferior numbers of the German troops a single sub- stantial victory. It was not even necessary for the Ger- mans to draw to any extent on their reserves across the Rhine. They held the fortresses, Belfort, Strassburg, Metz, and the fortified camp of Paris in grip of iron; and directed their principal effort to the taking of Paris. For four months that great city held out through a dreadful siege, and finally a heavy bombardment. Provisions gave out and there was appalling suffering from the cold of winter and increasing famine. The old people and the young children died, as is ever the case. One by one, save for Belfort, the other fortresses surrendered. In Paris a great citizen army was raised, but it was ill-trained and insubordinate, and not able to break the lines of the be- siegers. Gradually all hope of deliverance from outside was abandoned. The Germans everywhere defeated and scattered the raw levies raised against them, and occupied 326 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The lesson of their riting The Treaty of Frankfort more and more of the country. They acted with much harshness and severity, attempting to discourage the for- mation of the new armies, shooting down as franc-tireurs those who tried to defend their country without uniform or part in regular military organization, taking hostages, imposing fines and ransoms, and burning some places in reprisal; not so hardly and so terribly as when they re- entered France in 1914, but in manner that was ominous of the future. The Germans had won the victory in the first two months. The heroic efforts of the French people prolonged the agony for four months longer. Nothing in those four months altered the outcome, and they merely imposed additional suffering on the nation. And yet, this heroism was not, perhaps, useless. It gave stern warning that these people held high their honor, and would not yield until the uttermost was endured. The events of 1918 showed that the Germans might yield when they were badly de- feated; but what happened in France in the cold, horrible first months of 1871, showed that France did not surrender until her strength was annihilated and her people com- pletely prostrate. January 28, 1871 Paris surrendered, and the war was brought to an -eim. l The triumph of the Germans was complete. By the Treaty of Frankfort (1871), France ceded Alsace and most of Lorraine, agreed to pay an in- demnity of $1,000,000,000, and granted favorable commer- cial terms to her foe. The result was that France lost for the next two generations the primacy in Europe she had so long enjoyed; that her frontier was now weaker and Paris the capital left much more exposed than before; that she was to crouch in fear before an all-powerful and arro- gant Germany for the next forty years; that German manufactures, because of the favorable terms which were granted, were to make it impossible for France to enter upon great commercial development; that Germany would Mainz GENERAL DRAFTING CO.INC.N.r, 16. ALSACE-LORRAINE 327 328 EUROPE, 1789-1920 thereafter feel invincible and superior and so behave; and that since the entire cost of the war, at the utmost, had been to her not so much as $500,000,000, she, receiving double that sum, would believe in the future that all her wars would bring conquests, and that the defeated enemy would always pay and reward her with booty. BIBLIOGRAPHY The Austro-Prussian War: H. M. Hozier, The Seven Weeks* fTar, 2 vols. (1867). The Franco-Prussian War, origin; Hans Delbriick, Der Ur sprung des Krieges von 1870 (1893); Edmond Palat [Pierre Lehautcourt], Les Origines de la Guerre de 1870 (1912). The Wslt: Der Deutsch-Franzosische Krieg, 1870-71 (ed. by the Historical Section of the Great General Staff), 5 cols, and 2 vols, of maps (1874-81); Arthur Chuquet, La Guerre de 1870-1871 (1895); Hellmuth von Moltke, Geschichte des Deutsch-Franzo- sischen Krieges von 1870-71 (1891), trans, by Clara Bell and H. W. Fischer, 2 vols. (1891) ; E. Palat, Histmre de la Guerre de 1870, 7 vols. (1901-8), to the surrender of Metz, Guerre de 1870-1871, 2 vols. (1910); Krieg und Sieg, 1870-71, ed. by J. A. von Pflugk- Harttung (1895), trans, ed. by Major-General Sir F. Maurice (1914); A. Sorel, Histoire Diplomatique de la Guerre Franco- Allemande, 2 vols. (1875), based on accounts of participants. Special studies on the military operations: Fritz Honig, Der Volkskrieg an der Loire im Herbst 1870, 8 vols. (1893-7); George Hooper, The Campaign of Sedan (1914). The Treaty of Frankfort: Jules Favre, Le Gouvernement de la DSfense Nationale, 1871-1872, 3 vols. (1871-5); G. May, Le Traits de Francfort (1909), best, based on studies in the archives. Contemporary accounts: Dr. Moritz Busch, Bismarck in the Franco-German War, 1870-1871, authorized trans., 2 vols. (1879); Eduard Engel, Kaiser Friedrich's Tagebuch (1919); Lord Augustus Loftus, Diplomatic Reminiscences, 1862-1879, 2 vols. (1894); Lord Newton, Lord Lyons, a Record of British Diplo- macy, 2 vols. (1913), the British ambassador to France during the period of the Franco-Prussian War; E. B. Washburne, Recollections of a Minister to France, 1869-1877, 2 vols (1883), the American minister. CHAPTER THE GROWTH OF GERMAN EMPIRE II THE NEW Die deutsche Nation ist trotz ihrer alten Geschichte das jimgste unter den grossen Volkern Westeuropas. Heinrich von Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert (1879), i. 1. Seldom, if ever, has a country experienced such a tremendous econ- omic development in such a short time as the German Empire. . . . Prince Bernhard von Bui^ow, Imperial Germany (translated by M. A. Lewenz, 1914), pp. 248, 249. To THE people of the new German Empire the period following their military triumphs brought unparalleled prosperity and power. The years from 1871 to 1914 were like a mighty epic, or a paean of triumph, grander and more splendid in time's progress. Such increase had probably never been seen anywhere else before. In mod- ern times it was rivalled only by the rise of Japan, and the growth of the United States. Sometimes there comes in a people's life vast quickening of spirit and hope, when it seems that youth will never depart, and boundless confidence and boundless ambition accompany limitless strength. Such a time had come to Italians in the days of the Renaissance; Englishmen had it under Elizabeth and Pitt; Frenchmen in the French Revolution. It came to Germans after 1870. In industry, in commerce, in popu- lation, in wealth, and in power they went forward with amazing strides, until they believed that before them lay the destiny of men who would rule all of the world. 329 Greatness of the German Empire 330 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Causes of success The govern- ment of the Empire Ministerial government The German system The Roichatai This success came from many causes: from the union at last achieved ; from the splendid qualities of the people themselves; from the excellence of their educational sys- tem; from altered conditions respecting industry and trade which were working now in their favor; and from the Ger- man genius for organization, applied now to winning triumphs in peace as it had been used to get victory in war. The system of government established was very in- teresting. Apparently control was vested in representa- tives of the people, but in reality the constitution was carefully devised to retain actual power for the upper class supporting an autocratic ruler at the top. Like most nineteenth-century constitutions in Europe, it followed the- form of the English system of ministry and elected legislature. Generally speaking, wherever the cabinet system prevails in any form, the test of the govern- ment being controlled by the people is that the executive shall depend upon the support of the majority of represen- tatives elected by the voters, and that these representa- tives shall really make the laws, grant the taxes, and control the spending of public money. In respect of these things it is interesting to study the government of the German Empire established in 1871, which was substantially the government of the preced- ing North German Confederation made in 1867. The Deutsckes Reich was a federation consisting of twenty-five states and the Reichsland, Alsace-Lorraine. It was ruled by the Kaiser (emperor), who was the King of Prussia, the Bundesrai (council of the federation), and the Reichstag (representative assembly of the Empire). The only part of this system which was directly or indirectly controlled by the people was the Reichstag-, and the effect of the con- stitution was to concentrate a great part of all the power in the hands of the Kaiser. The Reichstag was elected by the voters, men of twenty- five years or older. Its functions were to assist in making THE GERMAN EMPIRE 331 the laws and to pass appropriations of money. But it was defective in its representation and it had not very much real power. There was no reapportionment of representa- tion as population shifted from one district to another, notably from country to the cities, so that after a while there were as scandalous inequalities in representation as had prevailed in England before electoral reform. More- over, appropriations of money were often made by the Reichstag for periods of years, so that it lost much of the power which comes from steady control of the purse; and no important piece of legislation could be passed without the Bundesrafs consent. The Bundesrat was not, properly speaking, an upper house of the legislature. It was composed of members sent by the various states of the Federation, representing not the people but the rulers and governments of these states, bound to vote in accordance with instructions given by these governments, and acting really as ambassadors of the princes who sent them. No law could be passed without the assent of the Bundesrat^ and as laws usually originated there, legislative power was in the Bundesrat, not in the Reichstag. But as Prussia could always control enough votes in the Bundesrat to prevent the passage of a measure, government was really in the keeping of Prussia, which had, indeed, three fifths of the population and two thirds of the territory of the empire. Prussia had the most backward government in the em- pire. The legislative power was vested in the Landtag (assembly) of two chambers or houses. The upper con- sisted of princes and others appointed by the king as hered- itary members or for life. The lower contained members elected by the voters under the famous system of three- class voting. "The primary voters," said the Prussian Constitution of 1850, "shall be divided into three classes in proportion to the amount of direct taxes they pay, and in such a manner as that each class shall represent a third of The Bundesrat The government ■ of Prussia. 332 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Junkers and Kaiaer WiUiaml 1871-1888 the sum total of the taxes paid by the primary voters." The result of this was that two thirds of the representation and the control of the lower house were given to one sixth of the voters, who composed the upper and wealthiest class. In Berlin it came to be that a rich man's vote was worth the votes of fifty poor ones. Moreover, the king of Prussia had an absolute veto upon legislation, and, in prac- tice, initiated such laws as were passed. That is to say, the government of Prussia, which in effect controlled the government of the empire, was in the hands of the king of Prussia and the upper class. This class was made up of the industrial magnates and especially of the nobles and great landowners, the Junkers. The Junkers were among the most aristocratic and con- servative people in Europe. They constituted an upper class apart from the people, having the social superiority of the aristocracy in England, but much more influence and power. If they could retain their privileges, they would support the king without flinching. Accordingly, in last resort the real power in the government of Prussia was in the hands of the king, and the real government of the empire was also in his hands as emperor. The Prus- sian Constitution implied the doctrine of divine right, which the emperor often asserted. "Looking upon my- self as the instrument of the Lord,*' he said in 1910, "with- out regard to contemporary opinions and intentions, I go my way." He possessed the executive power, he ap- pointed the important oflScials, he controlled in effect the Bundesrat, and his ministers were not responsible to the Reichstag, In 1913 the chancellor told the members of the Reichstag explicitly that he was responsible to the emperor, not to them. In 1871, William I, already for ten years King of Prussia, became first emperor of the new state. He was an elderly man when he came to Prussia's throne, already conserva- tive with age, but always he had been slow, steady, and THE GERMAN EMPIRE 333 strong, honorable and just as he saw the right. He had served against Napoleon in the War of Liberation, and all through his life he was fond of his army and delighted in military things. He was filled with the old Prussian idea of the high position of kings, and believed thoroughly in divine right of monarchs. "The kings of Prussia receive their crowns from God," he said. The gigantic success of Germany during his years threw a halo about his person and added to the prestige of the crown. Actually during his reign the destinies of the empire were guided by his trusted servant, Bismarck, whose ideas about government were always much like his own. During the long, splendid reign of William I, then, there could be little tendency toward a parliamentary system of government or greater control by the people. It seemed that this might come about in the time of his son, Fred- erick III, who disliked Bismarck, and was disposed to alter the Prussian conception of kingship, and favor parliamen- tary control. But he had long been suffering from cancer in the throat, and when at last, in 1888, he came to the throne he reigned only three months, and his ideas left no permanent trace. The third and last of the sovereigns of the German Empire was William II. He had been a great admirer of Bismarck and his system and he cherished the olden ideas. "The king's will is the supreme law," he declared on one occasion. Strong in mind, vigorous and aggressive, he tried to take part in all things. It is difficult to estimate his ability, and his character remains an enigma. So brilliant was his success for a time that some considered him a genius, while there were not a few who whispered that he was headstrong, irresponsible, and rash. There can be no doubt, however, that like his grandfather, he tolerated the Reichstag, looked upon the ministers as his ministers, and was resolved to abate his prerogative not a bit. He loved to conceive of himself as medieval lord or Frederick III, 1883 William II, 1888-1918 334 EUROPE, 1789-1920 strong knight. Accordingly, during his time there was little change in the German Constitution, or in the spirit of administering it, which tended to bring greater participa- tion or control by the German people. Origin of the The German system had developed from circumstances German very different from those which prevailed in England and system ^j^^ United States. The English-speaking peoples, pro- tected by the sea, were generally safe from the atl acks of their foes; and in this favorable condition slowly they de- veloped government controlled by the people. It was very different in Germany and in Prussia. Prussia had no nat- ural frontiers to protect her. For ages Germany was despised by her enemies because she was weak and divided, and in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries her people endured almost everything that invading armies and law- less soldiery could inflict upon them. Small wonder that at last they desired above all things the strength of union, and prized much more the security which a strong ruler could give than a system of parliamentary self-government. It had been so in France before the Hundred Years' War was over, and in England after the fifteenth century. In both countries strong, centralized, and despotic government arose and flourished for a long time, and divine right was cherished by many of the people. Evil conditions had con- tinued longer in Germany, and the consequences had persisted longer. At the end of the nineteenth century there were many who desired the greater liberalization of \ their government, and hoped that soon there might be a system more like that of England, with ministers respon- sible to the will of the people; but there were a great many who declared that the German system was not only better for the German people but really superior to the other. They said that the personal liberty of the Anglo-Saxon peoples was only license, that jmrliamentary control could never make Germany so strong or well fitted for the great- ness before her; that while their government might be THE GERMAN EMPIRE 335 "autocratic," it was far more efficient than the "demo- cratic" systems of America and Britain; and that it was able to give to its subjects far greater happiness and good. They were governed from the top, but they were governed well and were better off, so they said, than any other people in the world. Many things were forbidden {verhoten) but this was only restricting the behavior of individuals for the greater good of them all. It should be said that in one respect the Germans un- doubtedly had more success than Americans, though not more than the British. The government of their cities was clean, efficient, and well-administered, as British municipal government came to be. It is well known that the people of the United States have been far less successful, and that especially since the Civil War the government of their cities has frequently been characterized by poor manage- ment, corruption, graft, and wasting of public money. The unification of Germany brought wonderful pros- perity, and this strengthened and justified the government which had been set up. After the Zollverein was formed, and especially after the North German Confederation and Empire, in almost every form of endeavor the German people went forward so far, that it seemed at last only a matter of time when they would be first in whatever they attempted. In the middle of the nineteenth century Germany was mainly an agricultural country. For most people living was hard, since the soil was poor; and accordingly in spite of the industry of the people the wealth of the country was low. All through the following period, however, the most careful fertilizing and the best methods which science de- vised were applied, so that as time went on yields were increased. Moreover, Germany imposed protective duties to aid the agricultural classes. This was done not only because of the political influence of the Junkers, but be- cause the government desired that the country continue Excellent municipal government Economic advance Agriculture 336 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Industrial growth Coal and iron Causes of industrial success to raise as much of its food as could be. The result was well seen when the Great War came. Germany, block- aded though she was, held out for more than four years. Far more important was industrial growth. In the second half of the nineteenth century the German people left their hamlets and towns, and went to the cities, which increased so wondrously that whereas in 1871 half of the population had been engaged in agriculture, in 1914 it was less than a third. Berlin grew as fast as Chicago in the New World, and cities which had been quiet places since the Thirty Years' War awaked and expanded and became vast emporiums in a lifetime. Up and down the valley of the Rhine, in Saxony, and in Prussia, there were huge factories and forests of chimneys as in central England, or in Pittsburgh, or Detroit. The Germans were fortunate in having the basis of great industrial development in great stores of coal and iron. After 1871 coal production was prodigiously increased; and in course of time Germany came to be the greatest producer, except for the United States, of pig-iron and steel. Before the Franco-Prussian War the German state had no great supply of iron ore, but in Lorraine the new empire acquired a part of the Briey Basin, the greatest deposit of ore in Europe. The deposit, which is "low- grade" was not deemed very valuable until the later dis- covery of a new process of extraction of iron from the ore. In 1910 the German Empire drew from the Lorraine fields some 4,870,000 metric tons out of 7,000,000. It was after- ward said, with some reason, perhaps, that had the Ger- mans realized the value of this possession, they would have taken all of it when they made the Treaty of Frankfort. The Germans entered upon their industrial revolution later than the English or the French, but they could thus profit by the experience of those who had gone before; and it was soon found that the genius of the German for or- ganization and study of details was admirably adapted THE GERMAN EMPIRE 337 for the large-scale production of the later stages of the Industrial Revolution. German workmen were accus- tomed to work for low wages industriously for long hours. The rapidly increasing population furnished an abundant supply of labor, while the excellent system of education, particularly of technical instruction, made these workmen able to sustain any competition. In no other country was there such immense scientific activity and especially such successful adaptation of science to practical uses. The Germans made few brilliant discoveries, but by enormous industry and patient research they greatly ex- tended scientific knowledge and then used it in furthering their industry and arts. Soon German goods were being sold all over the world. At first they were sold because of their cheapness rather than their worth, but presently they were so much improved that their reputation was everywhere known. The result of this was that in in- dustrial output Germany finally exceeded every one of her rivals save only the United States. The rising industry was protected by high customs duties. This device had been common in the Middle Ages and later, and was well-known in the United States. Eng- land somewhat earlier had adopted the policy of free trade, but Bismarck was convinced that laissez-jaire was wrong and that industry and commerce should be regulated and fostered by the state. In 1879 he abandoned free trade and caused the adoption of a protective tariff. The result was tremendous stimulation of the industries of the em- pire. Along with this industrial expansion went enormous increases in commerce. Some Germans in the Middle Ages had been great mariners and merchants, and masters of the Hanseatic League were long renowned. But with the discovery of America, the change of trade routes, and the decline of German power all of this completely dis- appeared, and in the early part of the nineteenth century Protection Commercial development 838 EUROPE, 1789-1920 German ships were seldom seen in foreign ports. After the middle of the century came a change. Gradually a vast fleet of ships was created, the government assisting by subsidies and state supervision. After 1900 the Hamburg- America and the North German Lloyd steamship com- panies had few rivals anywhere in the world. Hamburg was the greatest sea-port on the continent, and from a lowly position Germany had in shipping and commerce passed all her competitors except England. Trade As a consequence of this development great quantities expansion of German goods were sold all over the world. Gradually the Russian market came largely under German control, immense progress was made in South America, and there was no part of the world where German merchants and traders were not seen. They displayed great ingenuity and skill in opening new markets. They not only tried to make cheaper goods, and sometimes better goods, but they took great pains to study their customers' desires and then suit their wishes. The attitude of the English and others was that the customer, if he bought, must buy the goods as the manufacturer made them. The Germans sent out commercial representatives to study the markets, find what customers wanted, and offer them easy terms. As the most enterprising young men of Britain went out to govern or work in the colonial possessions, so from Ger- many they went out to reside in other countries, learn the language of the inhabitants, their customs, and wishes, and ^ establish business connections with them. Not all the success that followed came merely from the care of Ger- man merchants and their representatives abroad. Not a little of it was because the government constantly lent powerful assistance to forwarding and increasing German trade; and some of the methods by which this was accom- plished afterward seemed insidious and unfair, not unlike those by which "trusts" and monopolies were built up in the United States. THE GERMAN EMPIRE 339 This making and selling of goods was accompanied by tremendous growth in population and wealth. Before the empire the Germans were a poor people. The wealthy states were Great Britain and France, with the United States of America rising up like a giant and presently sur- passing them both. But in the two generations after 1871 Germany accumulated vast stores of wealth until she over- took and passed older rivals. Just before the Great War it was estimated that the wealth of France was perhaps more than 50 billion dollars, that of Great Britain between 80 and 90, that of the German Empire between 80 and 90, that of the United States about 200 billions. By that time indeed, it was believed that Germany had passed every rival except the United States, though she always re- mained at immeasurable distance behind that wealthy and fortunate country. Marvellous achievement and increasing wealth were partly the cause and partly the result of increase in number of people. In 1816 there were within the limits of what afterward became the empire 24,000,000 people. In 1837 the number had risen to 31,000,000; the German Empire began in 1871 with 41,000,000; by 1890 there were 49,000,000; in 1900, 56,000,000; in 1910, 65,000,000; and in 1914 the number was believed to be little short of 70,000,000. By that time the increase was nearly a million a year. During the nineteenth century the popu- lation of Great Britain had risen from 10,500,000 to 40,000,000; that of France from 27,000,000 to barely 40,000,000. At the beginning of that century France had been the most populous of the highly civilized states of Europe; but just before the war she had been so far displaced that Germany had nearly twice as many people. This increase made Germany more powerful, and also richer, since it constantly gave her a larger number of workingmen who labored and produced goods and wealth. The country seemed well able to support them. Once National wealth Growth of popula- tion 340 EUROPE, 1789-1920 BeUef in need for more territory Contest with the Church there had been a large emigration of Germans to America and other places, but this had come altogether to an end, and all her people now found employment. None the less it was increasingly apparent that so large a number, as was the case with England, could not be fed from the Father- land's resources, and that they could be maintained only so long as Germany made goods which she was able to sell in other countries. As time went on this was more diffi- cult, and, as will be seen, there was increasing belief that she must have more territory to accommodate her enlarging population, that she required colonies, and ought to have her own sources of supply of raw materials. The first of the great domestic problems which con- fronted the new empire was a struggle with its catholic subjects. The Reformation made Germany protestant, but the counter-reformation won many of the people back to the older faith, and a little later the result of the Thirty Years' War left the German people partly in protes- tant and partly in catholic states. After 1648 there was little trouble, since with respect to religion the different states went their own way, unhampered by the weak gov- ernment of the Holy Roman Empire which bound them together so loosely. But the empire founded in 1871 bound firmly together protestant north Germany and the Catholics of the Rhine and the south, and brought them all under a strong central power. It is said that Bismarck wished to assert the supremacy of the state power over the Church. The occasion was ready at hand. In 1870 the Vatican Council affirmed the doctrine that the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, or in the capacity of pontiff, was infallible, not able to err. This doctrine, so counter to many of the tendencies of the time, was not assented to by some of the German Catholics. Accordingly, they were excommunicated, attacked by the orthodox catholic clergy, deprived of positions, and denied participation in the rites of the Church. They appealed to the government THE GERMAN EMPIRE 341 for protection, and at this point Bismarck intervened. It seemed to him and to others that the doctrine of papal infalhbility implied superiority of the Church over the State. Accordingly a religious conflict began^famous then and since as the Kulturkampf (struggle for civilization). Strong measures were taken: religious orders were forbid- den to teach and Jesuits were expelled from Germany. Then in the Falk Laws, passed in Prussia, 1873-5, the State was given control over the education and appointment of clergy, and some control over the dismissal of priests; a law was passed making civil marriage compulsory; and all religious orders were suppressed. A bitter conflict ensued. Catholics protested; the Pope declared the laws of no effect; the clergy refused to obey them and were supported by the strict Catholics in their congregations. Those who disobeyed were punished by fine and imprisonment, and the most recalcitrant were expelled from the country. Soon many bishoprics were vacant; everywhere churches were closed and religious services suspended; and presently there was the trouble and disturbance of life that had used to follow conflict be- tween Church and State in the Middle Ages. The contest was bitter and prolonged. "We shall not go to Canossa,'* said Bismarck, recalling the old-time victory of Pope Greg- ory VII. But Bismarck could not win complete triumph. Under persecution the Catholics rallied and strengthened their resistance. In 1871 a Catholic Party had been or- ganized, and, as the party of the Center, had become im- portant in the Reichstag. Now it became the largest one in that body. The policy of sternness accomplished but little. Bismarck antagonized one of the most conservative elements in the empire, and presently he needed the assis- tance of conservatives against what seemed to him the rising tide of socialist and radical agitation. Accordingly most of the anti-clerical laws were repealed, though civil marriage and state regulation of schools were retained. By The Kultur- kampf Bismarck retreats 342 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The socialists Repression of the socialists 1887 the conflict was at an end, the Catholic Party aban- doned opposition and gave Bismarck the support which he needed for a policy which it approved. After that time the Center Party, the strongest and most solid in the empire, remained on guard, ever watchful of its own pe- culiar interests. The conflict to which Bismarck and German conserva- tives now turned was with socialism, which had lately been making rapid progress. The socialists were considered dangerous and unpatriotic. These were the first glorious years of the new empire, when Germans were aglow with patriotic pride; but Liebknecht and Bebel and others had opposed the North German Confederation, the empire, the war with France, and the taking of Alsace-Lorraine. They cared not for military glory and greatness of domin- ion but the rise and betterment of men and women. They^ had no admiration for Bismarck or Moltke and not much for the emperor and his court. As these radicals got to be better known they became more hated and feared. The governing and conservative classes dreaded the un- doing of the great work just accomplished; the emperoi looked upon socialists as enemies of himself, and Bismarck longed for a chance to repress them completely. It was largely for this reason, because he regarded socialists as more dangerous than clericals, that he ended the Kultur- kampf. In 1878, in swift succession, two attempts to assassinate William were made by socialist adherents. Socialists denounced these deeds and disclaimed all re- sponsibility for them; but there was a great wave of anger, and it seemed that the time was at hand for crushing so- cialism in Geroiany completely. Bismarck now entered upon another campaign of perse- cution and repression, like that against the Catholics, from which he was just drawing back. In 1878 a drastic law forbade all publications, all gatherings, all associations having "socialistic tendencies." Martial law might be THE GERMAN EMPIRE 343 used so that the government could easily get rid of social- ists by removing them from the protection of the civil courts. This legislation re-enacted remained in force un- til 1890. During that time it was sternly applied, a great number of socialist publications were stopped, and many socialists imprisoned or expelled from the country. But again this whole policy of repression was a failure. Under persecution, leaders and their disciples became bolder and more active; and their doctrines, now brought to the atten- tion of more people, won many new converts. The Social- ist Party grew steadily in this time of degradation, and by 1890 was thrice as large as in the year when the perse- cution began. By that time it was so clear that Bismarck's policy was a failure that the repressive measures were dropped. Yet he was largely successful because he employed an- state other method against them. He himself became one of the socialism foremost leaders in social reform in Europe, and undertook to have the state do the best of what he thought the social- ists were striving to bring about. In effect he went further than any statesman before him in establishing state social- ism and so leaving the socialists with nothing to fight for. He and the emperor strongly believed that the best inter- ests of the state lay in advancing the welfare of the work- ing class, that the state should interest itself more than previously in assisting those who needed help, and that then the workingmen would cease to go after socialist leaders. ^ The measures which Bismarck proposed encoun- tered almost as much opposition as, thirty years later, the reforms of Mr. Lloyd George in England; conservatives were alarmed at such innovation, and socialists denounced them as not touching the root of the evils which they prom- ised to cure. Gradually, however, the program was carried through. In 1883 a Sickness Insurance Law was passed, the employer to pay a part and the employee a larger part of the necessary premiums. In 1884 and 1885 Accident 844 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Government and people Slow prog- ress of democracy in the Empire Insurance Laws were passed, the employer to insure all his employees entirely at his own expense. In 1889 came an Old Age Insurance Law, the premiums to be paid by the employers, the employees, and the state. This legislation was revolutionary in the nineteenth cen- tury. It was afterward widely studied, and was being more and more followed before the Great War temporarily ended social amendment. In Germany it had great suc- cess. The Socialist Party, it is true, constantly increased the number of its adherents. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that by 1914 a great many Germans considered themselves better taken care of by their government than any other people in the world; and it is probably true that nowhere else had the state been so successful in getting rid of the worst forms of misery and distress. There were many poor people in Germany, toiling for scanty. wages and working for very long hours, but nowhere the fear- ful poverty and physical deterioration to be seen in the slums of the English cities or the worst places in the United States. The German government was guarantee- ing a certain minimum to its people, to make them content, and to provide that the state might not be weakened by losing their service. All this contributed, moreover, to the centralization of the powers of the government and the greater supremacy of the state. Usually the progress of industrialism, which caused large numbers of people to come together in manufacturing cen- ters, and the spread of education, which made the masses of the people more capable of self-government and also more interested in governing themselves, had brought about larger participation by the people in their govern- ment and increasing desire for more share. So it had been for a long time in England and in France, in the Scandinavian countries, in Belgium and Holland, and there had long been persistent efforts made by a few people in Russia. In Germany, where one of the widest and most THE GERMAN EMPIRE 345 effective systems of education had prevailed throughout the nineteenth century, and where for the past fifty years there had been unceasing drift of people from the farms to the cities, the progress of democracy always seemed very slow before the disasters of the Great War. This was partly because of old associations and tradi- Causes tions. In England self-government and democracy grew up slowly and painfully through a long course of time; they were inherited by the English colonists of America and there developed under still more favorable conditions; in France they were violently begun during the time of the French Revolution, and then after repeated failures they were gradually established. Germans, too, had sought these things and tried to bring them about, but they were always confronted with the more pressing problem of uni- fication, which England and France had long before achieved. When finally German unity was effected, it was brought about under the leadership of Prussia, always less influenced by democratic tendencies than the south and the west. It was the ideas of Bismarck and the con- servatives which predominated in making the constitution of the empire. It was a pity that the unification could not have been accomplished by liberal and peaceful Ger- mans instead of through conquest and force. In 1870 Emile Ollivier, French premier, who strove so hard to avert war with Prussia, urged his countrymen not to oppose "the natural movement of German unity." "If," he said, "we allow it to complete itself quietly by successive stages, it will not give supremacy to the barbarous and sophistical Germany, it will assure it to the Germany of intellect and culture. War, on the other hand, would establish, during a time impossible to calculate, the domination . . . of the Junkers and the pedants." So it was. Great suc- cess in the wars strengthened the conservatives who had brought them about and disarmed their opponents. Afterward it seemed to many Germans that their country, 846 EUROPE, 1789-1920 surrounded by older powers and, perhaps, by enemies, could only keep her position by being strong and ever on guard. All through Bismarck's period, therefore, the central government retained its power and its hold on the aflFection of most of the people. As conditions altered and a larger number desired some change, it was always possi- ble for the ruling class to divert their attention or thwart their wishes. So long as the immense prosperity and ex- pansion of the German Empire continued, there were not a great many who would resolutely oppose the rulers; and generally the prosperity continued. The govern- Moreover, Germany of the twentieth century had ment resists mighty ambitions, constantly taught to her people, which alarmed other European powers, and in the years 1904-7 a combination of France, Russia, and England was effected. To the inhabitants of these countries this agreement seemed necessary because of probable danger from the German Empire; but German leaders easily persuaded the people that neighboring powers had combined to encircle and crush the Fatherland, which could be saved only if the army remained powerful and the government strong. These arguments were ridiculed by socialists and they became less effective in time. It was partly because of the increasing demand for more democratic control that the Social-Democratic party increased so greatly. In 1912 it received more than four million votes, getting its support not only from socialists but from liberals who did not greatly favor socialist doctrines. Nevertheless, little was really accomplished. The movement to make minis- ters responsible to the Reichstag came to nothing; the de- mand that representation be reapportioned in accordance with changes of population went unheeded year after year; and the antiquated Prussian Constitution continued to keep power and privilege for the few. In the midst of the Great War, when the government, failing in its design of getting a grand victory quickly, was compelled to seek the THE GERMAN EMPIRE 347 utmost assistance from its people in a long and exhausting contest, the beginning of reform was made at last, and promise was given that after the war something more would be done. But all this came too late; for presently Ger- many went down in defeat, and the old system crumbled to pieces. Whether the Germans really desire to establish a democracy, can only be known in the future. It was so with the army. By war, it seemed, Prussia had risen; the army had been the foundation of the em- pire. Furthermore, Prussian universal military service had created a national army, in which most of the young men had some part. For these reasons the army was cherished and generally high in esteem. And it was so entrenched in the organization of the state that it seemed to have impregnable position. Its officers and leaders, drawn mostly from the aristocratic class, constituted a military caste, who on occasion assumed such privileges that they seemed to be above the law. Officers sometimes treated civilians with violence or with the utmost con- tempt, and it was always difficult in such affairs to get any redress from the courts. In 1913 a certain Lieutenant von Forstner at Zabern in Alsace declared that instead of pun- ishing a soldier who had stabbed an Alsatian he would have given him a reward for his trouble; and he himself struck a lame cobbler on the forehead with his sword. The mat- ter went to the Reichstag , where it was bitterly condemned. Von Forstner was tried by court martial but no punish- ment followed. There were mass meetings in Germany to protest and much feeling was aroused; but that year the government was teaching the people that great danger threatened the country, especially from the Russians, and the German army was increased to greater size than ever before. Essentially autocratic rule associated with militarism caused the treatment accorded to the alien subjects in the empire. The British Empire had grown great largely 848 EUROPE, 1789-1920 through generous toleration. French Canadians were never troubled about their religion or their language, and the Boers within the British Empire kept all the rights which they had fought to defend. Even in Ireland, where England's greatest failure had been. Irishmen were never coerced into abandoning the Gaelic language, though in the course of time most of them of their own accord adopted English. But in countries like Russia and Ger- many, of the regime before the Great War, it seemed to the rulers all-important that all their subjects should be Rus- sian or German. Accordingly, in Russia the Poles and the Finns were subjected to grievous persecution. In the German Empire Frenchmen in Alsace-Lorraine, Danes in Schleswig, and the Poles of Posen, were treated as inferiors and subjected to great discrimination. Alsace- When in 1871 Alsace-Lorraine was annexed to the em- Lorraine pjj.g ^jjg inhabitants protested at the forcible separation from France. Bismarck believed that, with the passing away of the generation that had known French rule, attach- ment to France would disappear. The strongest French sympathizers left the country, and their places were taken by emigrants from the German states of the Empire. But Alsace-Lorraine was given a dependent and inferior status, as the Reichsland, or imperial territory. It had neither influence in the empire nor sufficient self-government for itself. Therefore, as time passed the feeling of discontent did not wane, love for the old memories of France did not die, and German immigrants themselves denounced the position of the Reichsland, The German authorities strove to compel obedience and contentment; but they only increased the irritation. Then they added to the garrisons and subjected the provinces to very strict mili- tary rule. This was resented still further. As far as possible French things were proscribed, and one boy of twelve was imprisoned for whistling the tune of the Marseillaise. German rulers did not realize as clearly as THE GERMAN EMPIRE 349 some foreigners that what the inhabitants of the Reichsland wanted most of all was not return to France, but self- government. In 1911 a new constitution was granted, but it was not satisfactory to the people. After forty years nothing, aside from force, really held the population to the empire except their increasingly prosperous industrial life, which was closely connected with German industry and mostly dependent upon it. The German authorities so dealt with these provinces The Poles largely from strategic considerations, and they would have felt safer if the Reichsland had been inhabited entirely by Germans. The same reason had much to do with their treatment of the Poles in West Prussia and Posen. The Polish districts of Prussia lay right where Russian invaders might strike deep into the empire. Their country, which had once been taken from Poland, had contained many people who spoke German, and with good treatment in time all of them might have been made loyal subjects. It was considered necessary, however, to make them thor- oughly German. Bismarck wished to prevent the use of Polish in their public schools, and he desired to populate the country with German peasants; but presently more lenient treatment was accorded. Repressive measures were undertaken in earnest, however, after a while, when it was seen clearly that the Poles were not giving up their own national feeling. As in Alsace-Lorraine, newspapers were suppressed and many people fined and imprisoned. In 1901 it was ordered that religious instruction in the schools should be given in German. Polish teachers were taken from their positions, school children were forbidden to pray in Polish, and Poles were forbidden to use their language in public assemblies. In 1907 the Prussian gov- ernment passed a law by which Polish owners might be compelled to sell their land, so that their estates might get into German possession; and in 1913 a great sum of money was appropriated for the purpose of colonizing Prussian 350 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Poland with Germans. Polish peasants were even forbid- den to build houses upon their own land. Little more was accomplished, however, than making the Poles burn with hatred and desire to be free from the masters who oppressed them. BIBLIOGRAPHY General accounts: J. E. Barker, Modem Germany (1905, last ed. 1919); H. Blum, Das Deutsche Reich zur Zeit Bismarcks (1893) ; W. H. Dawson, The Evolution of Modem Germany (ed. 1919); R. H. Fife, jr.. The German Empire between Two Wars (1916); Karl Lamprecht, Deutsche Geschichte der Jungsten Ver- gangenheit und Gegenwart, % vols. /1912-13); Henri Lichten- berger, VAllemagne Modeme; Son Evolution (1907), trans, by A. M. Ludovici (1913); H. von Sybel, Die Begriindung des Deutschen Reichs durch Wilhelm 7, 7 vols. (5th ed. revised, 1889- 94), biassed, but based upon the sources; Charles Tower, Ger- many of To-day (1913). Bismarck: the best biography in English is C. G. Robertson, Bismarck (1919); in German the best is Erich Marcks, Otto von Bismarck: ein Lehenshild (1918), a masterly study, and a larger work, Bismarck: eine Biographicy vol. I (1909); G. Egel- haaf, Bismarck^ Sein Leben und Sein Werk (1911); J. W. Head- lam, Bismarck and the Foundation of the German Empire (1899); H. Kohl, Fiirst Bismarck: Regesten zu einer Wissenschaftlichen BiographiCy 2 vols. (1891-2), containing important parts of let- ters and speeches; Moritz Busch (English trans.), Bismarck — Some Secret Pages of His History y 2 vols. (1898), the diary of one who had official and private intercourse with Bismarck; Max Lenz, Geschichte Bismarcks (1902) ; Paul Matter, Bismarck et son Temps, 3 vols. (1905-8), perhaps the best of the longer biogra- phies at present; J. Penzler, Fiirst Bismarck nach Seiner Ent- lassung (1897-8); Munroe Smith, Bismarck and German Unity (2d ed. 1910). Bismarck's utterances and writings: Otto, Fiirst von Bis- marck, Gedanken und ErinnerungeUy 2 vols. (1898), trans, by A. J. Butler, Reflections and Reminiscences, 2 vols. (1899); L. Hahn, Fiirst Bismarck, Sein Politisches Leben und Wirken, 5 vols (1878-91), for speeches, dispatches, and political letters; H. Kohl, Die PolUischen Reden des Fiirsten Bismarck, 14 vols. (1892- THE GERMAN EMPIRE 351 1905) ; Hermann Hofmann, Furst Bismarck, 1890-1898, 2 vols. (1913), contains Bismarck's important critical contributions to the Hamburger Nachrichten. Other biographies: Erich Marcks, Kaiser Wilhelm I (5th ed. 1905), excellent. Government : if the student finds it desirable and convenient, he will obtain a vast amount of curious and interesting informa- tion from the proceedings of the Reichstag, Stenographische Berichte ilber die Verhandlungen des Reichstags (1871- ); B E. Howard, The German Empire (1906); Paul Laband, Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reiches, 4 vols. (4th ed. 1901), the standard treatise, Deutsches Reichstaatsrecht (6th ed. 1912) ; H. G. James, Principles of Prussian Administration (1913); Gaetan (Vicomte) Combes de Lestrade, Les Monarchies de VEmpire Allemand, Organisation Constitutionelle et Administrative (1904), excellent; Oskar Stillich, Die Politischen Parteien in Deutschland, vols. I, II (1908, 1911); W. H. Dawson, Municipal Life and Government in Germany (1914). The Kulturkampf; Georges Goyau, Bismarck et VEglise: le Culturkampf, 1870-1887, 4 vols. (1911-13), best on the sub- ject. Socialism and the state: Charles Andler, Les Origines du Socialisme d'Etat en Allemagne (ed. 1911); W. H. Dawson, Bis- marck and State Socialism (1891), The German Workman (1906), Social Insurance in Germany, 1883-1911 (1912), all ex- cellent; August Bebel, Aus Meinem Leben, 3 vols. (1910-14), abridged trans. My Life (1912). Alsace-Lorraine: Barry Cerf, Alsace-Lorraine since 1870 (1919). Position of the new Empire CHAPTER III THE LEADERSHIP OF GERMANY — THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE Wir liegen mitten in Europa. Wir haben mindestens drei AngriflFs- fronten . . . Gott hat uns in eine Situation gesetzt, in welcher wir durch unsere Nachbarn daran verhindert werden, irgendwie in Tragheit oder Versumpfung zu gerathen. Er hat uns die krieg- erischste und unruhigste Nation, die Franzosen, an die Seite gesetzt, und er hat in Russland kriegerische Neigungen gross werden lassen . . . Wir Deutschen fiirchten Gott, aber sonst nichts in der Welt. Bismarck in the Rdchstagy February 6, 1888: Stenographische Berichte, 1887-1888, pp. 727, 728, 733. After 1871 Bismarck's greater tasks were still with foreign affairs. The new German Empire was a powerful state of 41,000,000 people; it was larger than France, in strong military position, flushed with victory and the prestige of enormous success. But it was, indeed, a new state, a newcomer among old neighbors, apt to be regarded as intruder and upstart. It had completely upset the old balance of power, and there was bound to be diflSculty in adjusting equilibrium again. The German Empire had risen on the downfall of Austria and of France. The Aus- trians might try to regain the position they had lost, and the French proclaimed, some Germans now declare, that they will have their revenge. The position of Germany was very strong, for in between other great powers she could strike out, if necessary, at one or the other; but the converse of this was that a hostile alliance of surround- ing powers might be able to crush her completely. 852 THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 353 It was the task of Bismarck now to keep what had been gained, to prevent the formation of an unfriendly alHance, to isolate Germany's foes, to make new friends and keep the old ones. He succeeded magnificently in all this. Great as had been his success in the unifying of Germany, his success in keeping the unity, prosperity, and command- ing position of the German Empire was still more striking. When he retired in 1890, the foundations of the Empire seemed impregnable; Germany was the center of a powerful alliance, and on friendly terms with the other great powers; while France continued in the ^onely isolation in which her disaster had left her. • The friendship of Italy and Russia had already been obtained. At once Bismarck proceeded to grander de- signs. He desired to draw together in close friendship and alliance the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, and Rus- sia. He had had something of this in mind in 1866, when terms were made with Austria defeated. By the Peace of Prague Austria lost no territory, except Venetia to Italy, and paid almost no indemnity, while everything possible was done to soothe the feelings of the vanquished. Accord- ingly, it was not difficult to bring about good understanding again. In 1872, after skilful arranging, the emperors of Russia, Austria, and the German Empire met in Berlin, where they arrived at a cordial agreement. No alliance was concluded, but this League of Three Emperors (Dreikaiserbund) effected Bismarck's plan of a new group of powers Which would include the new German Empire. For six years this continued, and Bismarck had little to fear, with Italy friendly, and England holding aloof. But it was soon evident that intimate connection with Austria- Hungary and Russia at the same time was impossible. They were rivals for the same thing, and by 1878 could no longer be good friends, since they could not each have what both of them wanted. The Russian people had long been extending westward 854 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Rivalry in the Balkans The Con- gress of Berlin, 1878 and southward. From the Turk they had already taken much land north of the Black Sea, and now it seemed to them that ambition and destiny both called them forward down the western shore, to free the Christian Slavic peoples in the Balkan peninsula, and drive the Turk out of Con- stantinople. But meanwhile Austria was reviving her ambitions to take Balkan territory. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when Ottoman power in Europe was at its zenith, Austria had been the bulwark of Chris- tian Europe against the Turk; it was to her that the sub- merged Christian peoples to the south looked for their future deliverance; and she did enlarge her dominions by southward expansion when the power of the Turk began to wane. After a while her ambitions were turned in this direction more than ever before. Once she had had great influence in northern Europe. But the wars of the French Revolution took away her Austrian Netherlands, and in 1866 she was thrust out of the community of the German peoples. At the same time she had just lost her hold on the Italian peninsula. Her ambitions, however, quickly rose again. As soon as the Austrians and the Hungarians reached agreement, and good relations began with the new German Empire, her hopes turned to new expansion, and it seemed now that the best chance for this was down the Adriatic, perhaps, through the Balkan peninsula to the iEgean. So it happened that in this period the ambitions of Russia and Austria-Hungary thwarted each other. In 1877 a great crisis came, when Russia began the Russo- Turkish War, and after a hard and fierce struggle shattered the enemy and forced the signing of a treaty which de- stroyed the power of Turkey in Europe. Turkey's sub- ject peoples were set free; and most of the Ottoman terri- tory in Europe was given to a new large Bulgarian state. But this treaty was not allowed to stand. Great Britain and also Austria-Hungary let it be known that such a set- tlement was not satisfactory. Therefore Russia consented THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 355 to submit the treaty to a congress of the powers. June 13 such a congress met at BerUn. Bismarck, who declared that Germany had no territorial claims in the Balkans, and that he would be glad to act as an "honest broker" between the others, was elected president the first day. By the Treaty of Berlin which followed, Russia suffered a great diplomatic defeat. What she had done in the Bal- kans was largely undone; for the Bulgaria she proposed to establish was greatly reduced, while Austria-Hungary, who had taken no part, in defeating the Turks, got the right to administer the two Turkish provinces of Bosnia and Herze- govina, which lay contiguous to her and now extended her dominion far southward. Great consequences followed these decisions but one of the first important results was the ending of the close friendship which since 1863 had existed between Russia and Prussia. Gortchakov, the Russian chancellor, who already disliked Bismarck, be- Heved that such humiliation would not have come to his country, had he received any German support. In 1866 Russia had been friendly to Prussia, and in 1870 she had even done something to keep Austria from assisting France; now in her time of need the German Empire had done nothing for her; Bismarck had chosen Austria rather than Russia. Perhaps he feared that, since Russia was opposing most of the principal European powers, Germany in alli- ance with hfer would have to oppose them also, and would thus i)e made too dependent on Russia's good will. For the moment Germany was isolated, and there was danger that Russia might seek alliance with either Austria or France. But the danger soon passed. In October 1879 after brief negotiations, an alliance was concluded between the German Empire and Austria-Hungary. By the terms of this agreement, kept secret then but afterward pub- Hshed, "the two High Contracting Parties" were bound to stand by each other with all their armed forces if either one was attacked by Russia; in case either was attacked by Alliance with Austria- Hungary, 1879 856 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Triple Alliance Italy and France some other power than Russia "the other High Contract- ing Party*' would observe "at least an attitude of benevo- lent neutrality" toward the partner in the treaty; but if the power attacking was supported by Russia, then the two High Contracting Parties would wage war jointly until peace was concluded. Scarcely had this Dual Alliance given the security which Bismarck desired, when he extended it to the well-known Triple Alliance which endured until the Great War. This was done by drawing Italy to the two central powers. The general interests of Italy did not seem to lie in such company. Austria-Hungary, long Italy's ruler and op- pressor, still held many Italians as unwilling subjects. The spirit of the Italian people and the ties of language, law, and custom, bound them rather to France than the German Empire. None the less, there were then, as there were later on, reasons why the Italians should feel hostile to France. In 1915 they joined France and the Allies against Aus- tria and Germany, and during the course of the war it seemed to observers that Italy and France were drawn together by common sufferings and efforts as never before. But scarcely was the struggle at an end when bitter causes of difference arose. Italy wished to have the opposite coast of the Adriatic and become the controlling power in what had been the Southern Slavic dominions of the Austro-Hungarian state. France hoped that upon the ruins of the fallen Dual Monarchy would rise new Slavic commonwealths partly dependent on herself. Accord- ingly, there was immediate conflict of ambition and de- sires. So it was when Bismarck sought to draw Italy into his schemes. Only a few years before, Italy's unity had been forwarded through the powerful assistance of France. But Napoleon III had supported the Pope in maintaining his temporal power, and unification was completed only in 1870 when France could no longer interfere. After the THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 357 Franco-Prussian War there was some fear that French intervention might restore to the Pope what he had lost. Furthermore, Italy was a young and ambitious state, and wished ardently to appear as one of the greater powers. This was beyond her resources, but it seemed then more possible if she were associated with great companions. Finally, the direct motive was craftily supplied by Bis- marck himself. In Algeria, France had already begun the foundations of her North African Empire. It was evident that she would be glad to expand into the neighboring coun- try of Tunis, but it was also apparent that Italy had high hopes of getting Tunis for herself. At the Congress of Berlin Bismarck secretly encouraged France to take Tunis, wishing her to be engrossed in distant enterprises, and probably foreseeing that such action would enrage the Italians and drive them into Germany's arms. In 1881 France established a protectorate over Tunis. The Immediately there was an outburst of indignation in Italy, ^^^^^,?^. and the statesmen of Rome, falling in with the schemes ^382 * of Bismarck, joined Germany and Austria in alliance. No little gain came to her. She was now freed from dan- ger of Austrian attack by being associated with Austria as an ally, and by being in some sort under German pro- tection. More and more did she come under German in- fluence, and in the following years German merchants and financiers almost got economic control of the country. In course of time, however, as Italy grew stronger and less afraid of Austria-Hungary, she hoped to get more control of the Adriatic for herself. Thus she came into conflict with Austria and in the end it was almost as diflicult for Germany to reconcile her partners in the Triple Alliance as once it had been for Bismarck to hold Austria and Rus- sia together. The Alliance was renewed again and again each five years, and it lasted long beyond Bismarck's time; but before the Great War began Italy was not a zealous member; and the war broke the alliance to pieces. 358 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Effects of the Alliance Further ambitions of Bismarck Renewed understand- ing with Russia, 1881-7 The Triple Alliance was based fundamentally on the alli- ance between the German Empire and Austria-Hungary, to which now the alliance of Italy was added; just as afterward Rumania and still later Turkey were bound to it also. It was defensive, but by means of it Bismarck had raised the German Empire to a marvellous pitch of greatness. It controlled all the central part of Europe, extending from the northern waters to the Mediterranean, separating eastern Europe completely from the west, and thus occupying an impregnable position. Within this territory were more than a hundred million people, and armies of two million well-trained soldiers. It would have been the sheerest madness for any other state to come into conflict with it. In this combination the Ger- man Empire was the most powerful member and the con- trolling force. Accordingly, after 1882, Germany had overlordship or hegemony in Europe, and Bismarck was the most powerful man in the world. But high as was now the position of Germany, Bismarck enhanced it still further. During all the remaining years of his power he succeeded in keeping the other great European states from forming a counter alliance, and thus kept France in the lonely isolation in which he had placed her; at the same time he tried to avoid misunderstand- ing with Great Britain, and renewed the connection with Russia. Scarcely had the Alliance of 1879 been made between Austria-Hungary and Germany when Bismarck tried to draw Russia into another understanding. He had little confidence at first in the stability of the alliance with Austria. He wished, moreover, to prevent an alliance between Russia and France. Therefore, in 1881 he suc- ceeded in bringing about an agreement between the three emperors of Russia, Austria, and the German Empire, that if one of these three powers was at war with a fourth, the two other parties would preserve a "benevolent neu- THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 359 trality." This stipulation was also to apply in case of a war between one of the three parties and Turkey, in ease an imderstanding about such a war had already been reached between the parties. The a^eement made spec- ial allowance for the alliance between Austria-Hungary and Germany, and was thus more advantageous to Germany than to Russia. None the less in 1884 it was renewed with slight modification. Three years later, however, this was not done, for Austria had been steadily acquiring a more dominating influence in the Balkans, therefore^ Russia was ngt willing to renew the agreement of 1881, but sought instead an alliance or agreement with Germany alone. Bismarck let it be understood that the alliance with Austria must stand. But the two signed an agree- ment nevertheless. It provided that if one of the two contracting parties was at war with a third power, the other contracting party should maintain benevolent neutrality, though this provision was not to apply in case of an attack made by one of the contracting powers on Austria or France, thus preserving the alliance with Aus- tria, and safeguarding Russia's relations with France. Other articles provided that Germany should recognize Russia's rights in the Balkan peninsula and assist her in maintaining them there. This agreement has been known as the "Reinsurance Treaty." In 1879 Bismarck had in- sured Germany against attack by Russia. Now he got, as it were, insurance from the other side, for by this very secret "agreement" he provided that France would not be supported by Russia if she attacked the German Empire. Seldom has there been diplomacy more astute. Bis- marck succeeded in keeping all he had won. Since 1871 not once had France been able to make alliance with some other European power so as to dare to begin war on her foe; while Germany was seldom without close friends, and usually the center of a powerful alliance. But in spite The "Rein- Burance Treaty," 1887 Bismarck's great success 860 EUROPE, 1789-1020 The new generation The passing of Bismarck of his vast success the time of the chancellor was nearing its end. His era was passing; other men and other meas- ures were appearing. By 1887 he was still a mighty figure, but a new generation was coming forward with ideals which he had never cherished, which, indeed, he could scarce understand. It had been his purpose to unite the German states, then make Germany the greatest European power. These tasks filled his mind and the world of diplomacy which he knew. But meanwhile Great Britain had been acquiring an ever larger colonial empire, and France had gone be- yond the seas and won for herself new possessions. None of this had appealed to Bismarck. But all around him were growing up young Germans who saw a new world which could not be clear to his eyes. They would try to make Germany a great naval power, which would bring her into conflict with Britain, have Germany get colonies and markets all over the world, and join Austria in pushing forward in the Balkans. During the lifetime of his master, the emperor whom he had made, his power continued unshaken, but after 1888 came marked change. The new ruler embodied new ideas and the new ambitions which were to carry Germany on so much further and at last bring her down to destruc- tion. He regarded Bismarck with respect, but gave him none of the affectionate confidence so long bestowed by William I. Bismarck soon found the management of affairs no longer entirely in his hands, while the young emperor, himself full of vigor and spirit, grew more and more impatient at the domination of one who had so long been first in Europe that he was unable to take second place. For more than a year relations between the two grew more strained. The actual government of the em- pire was in the hands of Bismarck, who had under him, in important places, members of his own family or friends he had raised up to obey him. But the new emperor pres- THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 361 ently insisted that his ideas be followed. In 1890, Bis- marck resigned after being told he was in the way. It seemed strange to the older generation that this could take place; as a famous cartoon in Punch declared, to them it was "Dropping the Pilot." Of Bismarck's work it was long difficult to give proper estimate. So gigantic had been his success that for some time it seemed he was the greatest statesman for genera- tions. His accomplishment had been vast, and his success seemed so complete as to justify almost all he had done. He found Prussia second among the German states, and the German people divided. In a brief span of years he had made Prussia the greatest state on the continent, defeated every one of her rivals, achieved the unification of Germany, and made his country the center and founda- tion thereof. Then he had kept the new empire safe in its exalted position, surrounded by friends, head and leader of the strongest alliance in the world. Justly he was regarded as the father and founder of his country. And yet, there was another side of it all, which would be more apparent in the future. The unification of Ger- many had not been brought about through liberal develop- ment and respect for the rights of others, but partly by force, chicane, and fraud, by contempt for the rights of people, and cynical disregard of obligations and honor. All of this seemed good to Germans who saw it through the glamor of success, and a generation of Germans was about to grow up which would admire above all things the force and the lack of scruple which Bismarck had employed and so brilliantly taught. The leaders of Germany in the early part of the twentieth century, who had learned in the school of Bismarck as he had learned from that of Frederick the Great, would worship force and strength, just as he had once discarded all policy but the rule of "blood and iron;" and as he had altered the Ems dis- patch, so would they tear up the treaty about Belgian Greatness of Bismarck's work EvU conse- quences thereof 862 EUROPE, 1789-1920 HiUtarism and French resentment The new. era neutrality as a mere worthless "scrap of paper." This would array the world against them, and the empire, over- whelmed in defeat, would at last lie prostrate and dis- membered. Since his work was effected and maintained by military power, in another generation all the great states of Europe had striven to make themselves strong military powers on the Prussian model; by the end of the century Europe was groaning under intolerable military burdens; and a few years after was divided into two great military camps. His treatment of France the French never forgave, and thereafter the empire was encumbered with the mortgage of the hatred of the French, who might despair of being able to take vengeance, but whose hatred nevertheless lived on. Bismarck does not seem to have looked into the future, beyond his own age. He scarcely realized the importance of a colonial empire, nor did he conceive how soon a great deal of German ambition would go beyond Europe, to the oceans and to lands far away. It would have been better in all respects, some have thought, had he not taken from France territory in Europe, but taken of her colonies instead. So it was that some years before the Great War an author wrote, without being much heeded, that it was still too soon to know whether the chancellor's policy was successful. With the passing of Bismarck began the second stage in the development of the new German nation. Between 1864 and 1888 the empire had been created and made the greatest of the European powers. From about 1890 on to 1914 it went forward to greater things; and at last its leaders strove to make it beyond doubt the greatest power in the world. The outlook of German leaders became wider, their ambition vaster and grander, they played for great stakes higher and more boldly, until in the end, as one of them said, they sought "World Dominion or Down- fall" THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 363 It was feared at first that the young emperor was rash and might easily plunge into a war, for he spoke with stem pride of his army. But for more than a quarter of a cen- tury in his reign there was no great conflict in Europe, and often he boasted that he had striven to keep peace. Doubtless he had. This desire for peace, however, seems always to have been on condition that Germany keep her superiority in Europe, and that her policy should not be thwarted. When there rose up against the alliance headed by Germany another great group of powers and it was no longer so easy for Germany's word to be law, one great crisis followed another in Europe for the space of ten years, after which time the nations were plunged into the greatest of all their wars. When in 1890 William II took control of the govern- ment and its foreign policy, there followed at once a great altering of political relations. Bismarck had kept France isolated ; as she now became partner in a great alliance. He had tried by all means to retain Russia's friendship, and he had succeeded almost all of the time. But Russia was allowed to draw away now, and she became the ally of France. Bismarck had desired not to antagonize Great Britain, and during his time no dangerous misunderstand- ing had arisen, but in less than ten years Germany entered upon a policy which profoundly alarmed England, and shortly caused her to stand beside Russia and France. The secret agreement between Russia and Germany in 1887 had been made for three years. In 1890, the Tsar tried to have it renewed, but Germany would not consent. A great deal relating to all this is not known yet, but it has been conjectured that one of the important causes of disagreement between Bismarck and William II concerned the relations with Russia: that Bismarck would have had the understanding renewed; that the young emperor now had other plans which ran counter to continuing this friendship; that this was the time when the German gov- Policy of WiUiam n Diplomatic revolution End of the "Rein- surance" 364 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Germany and England Germany and Turkey Extension to the east and the south eminent began to cherish ambitions in the Balkans and Turkey. "My foreign policy remains and will remain the same as it was in the time of my grandfather," was the message William sent to the Tsar. But the Russian am- bassador believed that Germany in the future would have greater regard than ever for the alliance with Austria- Hungary. It also seemed to the Russian ambassador, who wrote of these changes, that Germany now counted on getting the friendship of Great Britain to replace that of Russia, and even that Great Britain might be added to the Triple Alliance. Friendly relations with England were a tradi- tion; the mother of the German Emperor was a daughter of Queen Victoria, whose husband, Albert, had been a Ger- man; there were many people in England at this time who learned from the school of Freeman and Carlyle how ex- cellent were German things, and how much that was good in England had been inherited from Germany of old; while Lord Salisbury, prime minister, believed strongly in best possible relations with the German Empire. Good rela- tions with Britain were, accordingly, easy to maintain for the present, though England would almost certainly not have entered into any alliance. The attention of men was still fastened mostly on older issues, the feeling between France and Germany, the riv- alry between England and France, and between England and Russia. But a very significant event occurred the year before Bismarck retired. In 1889 William II went to Con- stantinople and visited Abdul Hamid, the Sultan of Tur- key. As men afterward saw this event it seemed the beginning of an epoch in the politics of Europe. In the Middle Ages the German people had fought against the Slavs to the east, subduing or pressing them back, extending their German dominion. In the course of this movement to the east and the south some Germans had pushed beyond the mass of their fellows and made THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 365 isolated settlements, which in the nineteenth century were still flourishing in Hungary, and in Poland, in the western and southern parts of Russia, and even as far off as the Balkans. For a long while some Germans had dreamed of a day when these detached groups, and the aliens sur- rounding, might be incorporated in a greater German Empire. Heinrich Heine prophesied that Germans would some day possess lands as far off as the Ukraine; and in the earlier half of the nineteenth century other Germans advised colonization in the valley of the Danube and be- yond, saying that here was the best of fields for German expansion. After the Franco-Prussian War colonization of Asia Minor and Mesopotamia was suggested, in the dominions of the Sultan of Turkey. About 1880 a certain one urged his fellows not to emigrate to America: "We must create a Central Europe by conquering for German colonization large spaces to the east of our fron- tiers." Now in the generation which followed that of Bismarck Drang nach such thoughts constantly gained greater importance, until Osten gradually the idea of Drang nach Osten or pressure by Germans to the east, came to be the underlying motive in German foreign affairs, and at last principal among the causes leading to the Great European War. William II was now seeking the friendship of Turkey. England had previously been friend and protector of the Turks, but events like the British occupation of Egypt had caused her influence to wane. In 1898 William went to Constanti- nople again, and, going on to Jerusalem and Damascus, proclaimed himself the protector of Turkey and an- noimced that he was the friend of Mohammedans all over the world. Year after year German representatives es- tablished the influence of their country more strongly. Most people had no conception how far they were succeed- ing, but in 1914 it was suddenly found that Turkey was more closely bound to Germany and Austria than was 866 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Bagdad lUilway Importance of the Bagdad Railway Italy, and that she was actually a vassal of the German Empire. As early as 1875 German engineers had built for the Turkish government a railway across Anatolia, connecting Konia with Skutari, opposite Constantinople. Thirteen years later this railway was transferred to a German com- pany. In 1899, the year after the Emperor's second visit, the Sultan granted him a concession to extend this railroad across Asiatic Turkey down to the Persian Gulf. At the head of the Gulf, and controlling the outlet to its waters, was the district of Koweit, ruled by a sheik who gave little obedience to the Sultan. With this sheik the British made a treaty, so as to block the future completion of the rail- road, which they conceived might be dangerous to them. None the less, work was taken up and continued at inter- vals until, just before 1914, the road had been taken al- most completely through to Bagdad and the control and development of Asiatic Turkey had been put into German hands. If the road were ever completed and Germany got con- trol of the intervening territory in Europe, she would be mistress of the most important line of communication in the world. It was in Europe and in Asia that most of the world's inhabitants lived. Communication between them had hitherto been mostly by water. Of the water routes there were two. The long one ran down to the south of Africa then up toward India and China; for some time it had been dominated by the British, who Jield India and South Africa, and numerous stations on the way. The better and the shorter route was through the Mediterra- nean Sea; and this also was even more securely in the hands of the British, who held Gibraltar and the Suez Canal. But the end of the nineteenth century was an era of rail- road development, which furnished transportation swifter and easier than any by water. If the Germans controlled railroad lines leading down from their own northern ports THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 367 across Austria-Hungary and the Balkans to Constanti- nople, and connected them with the Bagdad Railway hav- ing a terminus on the Persian Gulf, then Germany would control the shortest and the best route between Europe and Asia, and might in time get control of a great part of all the world's trade. Even more important were the strategic advantages involved. Not only would the Ger- mans and their friends, lying between their possible ene- mies, separate them and have them at a disadvantage, but they would have incomparably the best line of interior communications for moving troops swiftly, a route more- over capable of being rendered invulnerable to attacks by sea-power. Some Germans boasted that a branch of this railway system would lead down near to Egypt and always be a threat to British power there, while on the Persian Gulf they could at any time put masses of troops, to strike over at India, more quickly than the British could ever bring reinforcements. In short they would have an instrument for making Germany the greatest power in the world. Because of this policy the politics of continental Europe Austria- were altered completely. Russia, first dropped from close Hungary friendship by Germany, then antagonized by German pol- ^^ *^® icy in Turkey and in the Balkans, had entered into the Empire Dual Alliance with France, opposing not only Austria- Hungary but Germany as well. And gradually the Triple Alliance changed. So far as Italy was concerned it was evident that no strong tie remained. Very different was it with Austria-Hungary. When the alliance with Ger- many was made in 1879 Bismarck believed that the con- nection might not endure. Nevertheless, during his time it grew stronger; and now, with the development of the new German policy, connection with Austria became firmer each year, since that connection was indispensable to the success of the German schemes. The empire planned in Middle Europe and nearer Asia had at one of its ends Asiatic Turkey and at the other the great German state; 368 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Rivalry of Germany and England Earlier relations but the scheme could never be fulfilled unless Austria- Hungary and the Balkans, which lay in between, were kept in close alliance or controlled. Therefore, firm alliance with the Dual Monarchy came to be the very corner-stone of German foreign policy. It was more and more evident that Germany would never fail to give Austria support. And the attachment of Austria-Hungary to the German Empire became equally strong. Not only did she require the support of her powerful neighbor against Russia, but the ambitions of Austria coincided largely with German plans, for she wished to be the greatest power in the west- ern Balkans, rule all the eastern shore of the Adriatic, and, perhaps, extend her control down to the Mediterra- nean at Salonica. Meanwhile another change in international affairs brought another vast alteration. So immense was the development of the German Empire, so colossal her strength as she grew, that her ambitions developed in every direction — not only in eastern and central Europe, in sharper rivalry with Russia, but also on the seas and in distant places, with England and the British Empire. As this came about, it was very evident that two of Bis- marck's axioms had been discarded. He had always striven to keep Russia as a friend and avoid any estrange- ment with Britain; but the Germany of William II hesi- tated not to challenge and contend with them both. Between Englishmen and Germans there had long been friendship with Httle memory of wars or old wrong, and there was often a certain feehng of kinship because of blood and common inheritance and speech. Spain, France, and Russia had been the rivals of England, not the Germans. Englishmen viewed the establishment of Ger- man imity with sympathy and admiration. For some time after 1871 the interests of Britain and the German Empire did not conflict. Great Britain was a sea power and her chief interests were outside of Europe; Germany THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 369 was not a naval power during Bismarck's time, and her interest was altogether in keeping what she had just achieved: first place in Continental affairs. Presently, the immense maritime and industrial development of Germany- brought keen competition and aroused some unpleasant feeling. But all this awakened no hostility in Britain, and as time went on it was seen that England could well hold her own. The great change came with the new school of German statesmen, who looked beyond Europe and would make Germany the greatest of the great. The German army was incomparably the strongest in the world, but they began to cherish the plan of making Germany a great naval power and a seeker for colonies also. Hitherto Britain had been on her guard against France and Russia, both of them strong naval powers and active rivals in Africa or Asia. For some years it had been her purpose to maintain the "two-power standard," or keep her fleet stronger than the two next greatest navies combined, and in 1889 she had undertaken a comprehensive scheme of naval increase. Britain had no large army, and so could not defend herself against the great standing armies of European states if ever they could invade her. Her sole reliance was on command of the sea, and it was justly felt that if this were ever lost, then all would be gone beyond hope. The British people accordingly were resolved at all costs to maintain their superiority on the ocean, and would probably come to regard with much dread any na- tion which challenged their sea power. Suddenly and in dramatic way the German government did do this. Germans were building up a great commerce, which was not interfered with by Britain, but which they knew could be stopped or destroyed by British sea-power. They desired colonies and markets abroad, and they felt that they had better chance of being considered in distant places if they had a great war fleet of their own. They Rivalry on the sea Gennan ambition the sea on r. 370 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Naval Laws of 1898 and 1900 Effects of German naval increase England seeks new friends considered that the British Empire, as well as the new French colonial empire, had been made possible by naval power, and the leaders felt that Germany was incomplete so long as she had no strong navy. The lead was taken by Admiral von Tirpitz and the emperor himself. There was opposition among the older school of thinkers in Germany, but after much effort a law was passed by the Reichstag in 1898 providing for a great naval increase. This law provided for expending, during a course of years, 1,000,000,000 marks, and was considered to be the most ambitious naval program under- taken by any state in the memory of man. That same year the Flottenverein (Navy League) was established. A vast amount of educational work and propaganda was done by this organization, and it was most successful in arousing the German people. In 1900 a vaster sum was appropriated, and plans made for a navy twice as powerful as that provided two years before. Such startling naval increase affected other powers at once and profoundly. But of all Germany's neighbors none saw herself threatened so greatly as England. As this new German navy was built up Great Britain would be threatened, perhaps, by the German Empire more than by France. The very preamble of the law of 1900 seemed directed against England. " Germany must have a battle fleet so strong that even for an adversary with the greatest sea power a war against her would . . . imperil his own position in the world." "The ocean is indispensable to the greatness of Germany," said the emperor about this time. And in 1901 : "Our future lies upon the water." There was indeed a great turning point about 1898. In that year occurred the crisis between Britain and France, in which the French yielded, but remained filled with hatred and anger. On the other hand Germany was still well liked in Great Britain. But during the Boer War, which began in 1899, Germans gave to the Boers such THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 371 sympathy and encouragement as they could, and might perhaps have intervened if England had not controlled the sea. Next year when German naval plans were so greatly enlarged, Englishmen pondered upon the situation. It was difficult for most of them to conceive that Britain could be in any danger, for British supremacy on the seas was a tradition, and British control had been unquestioned since the day of Trafalgar. None the less a new generation was coming into public life which believed that recently Germany had increased much more greatly than England; that this greater Germany now bade fair to be so powerful on the sea that Britain was no longer safe, as before, aloof in her "splendid isolation"; that she could no longer wisely stand alone; and that she should enter into closer relations with friends in Europe and everywhere else in the world. Apparently the leader of this group in England was King Edward VII, who came to the throne in 1901. He had sincere admiration for France, and he took the lead in seeking her friendship. In 1904 England and France set- tled all their differences, and entered into the Entente Cordiale friendly understanding. Three years later, under what seemed increasing menace of German naval expan- sion, Britain and Russia settled their differences also. Accordingly, by 1907 the new naval policy of Germany had brought England out of her long aloofness from European affairs into close and friendly relations with France, and cordial relations with Russia. The statesmen of Britain settled outstanding differences. Her not only with France and with Russia, but with Italy and supremacy the United States, and they had already made alliance with Japan. British naval forces, once scattered all over the world, were silently drawn in and concentrated in the wa- ters about Britain and Ireland. But the uneasiness was felt rather for the future than for the immediate present, because it was believed that for a long while Germany's utmost efforts could not really challenge the British navy. on the sea 372 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Dread- naught An English- Home A great change presently occurred. In 1904-5, during the Russo-Japanese War, modern warships were really tested for the first time; and many lessons were learned then. After the great battle of Tsushima it was seen, as some experts had before pointed out, that high speed, which would enable a warship to take such position as it wished, heavy armor, and great guns of long range, conferred im- mense superiority. But these principles could only be applied at their best on a ship of very great size. In 1907 the British launched the Dreadnaught, a battleship which was the largest, the swiftest, and most heavily armored warship that had ever been put afloat, and it had also the largest number of giant guns of long range. This monster, it was believed, would be invulnerable to the attacks of ordinary warships, able to overtake or outrange an an- tagonist, always able to choose its own range, and beyond the enemy's range batter the enemy to pieces. For a mo- ment Britain seemed to have got great superiority over all other rivals, but it was she who had the greatest number of the older vessels, and it was possession of them which gave her such lead over the German navy. Germany, with her new naval program, was building the greatest number of new ships, and immediately she altered the plans and began making new vessels of the Dreadnaught type. It was evident to the thinking that all unexpectedly she had a chance to overcome England's naval preponder- ance and threaten her command of the seas. Most of the English people did not quickly understand the great changes occurring, or the altered position of affairs. But in 1909 appeared the play. An Englishman's Home, It portrayed a nation so ignorant as to be without fear, when it was really without means of defence. It told of England suddenly invaded, unable to resist. It stirred the English people to their depths, and aroused them at last more than the warnings of statesmen and writers. There was profound alarm and depression, during what THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 373 was known as the Naval Panic of 1909. Some Englishmen felt hopeless, some wanted a great army, but most cried for huge naval increase, and this was swiftly undertaken. Eight great battleships were proposed for that year, and actually construction was so rapidly advanced that Britain after a short time of anxiety found herself, not indeed with a fleet greater than the two next most powerful navies, but with one considerably stronger than the battle fleet of the German Empire. Many people in both countries declared there was no reason for conflict between the two nations, and sincerely deplored the growing suspicion and ill-will, but uneasiness and anger increased. In both countries newspapers and periodicals did not cease to point out how the foe threat- ened vital interests, and that preparations must be hast- ened so as to be ready for inevitable conflict. In England men recalled what had once been done to France. In Germany the Flottenverein taught that England had ever been the enemy in Germany's way, and that real greatness could come only after another war of liberation. Some Germans believed that the British might try to destroy their fleet. Some Englishmen feared that Germans might suddenly try to dash across into England, and, once there, annihilate their empire. Thus the force of events ranged Great Britain ever more closely with Germany's opponents. It may be that most people in both countries abhorred the thought of war between them. Englishmen felt that their preparations were merely defensive. But the great danger in the situa- tion arose from the very fact that conflict seemed inevita- ble to so many. Englishmen often believed that the ambitions of the German Empire could only be fulfilled by sweeping the British Empire away, and taking the best parts for a greater Germany; many Germans were taught that while England ruled the seas Germany could develop only on sufferance. More and more were Germans told Increasing suspicion Drifting toward danger 874 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Efforts for an under- standing Lord Haldane's mission that England had joined their enemies in an Einkreisung, an effort to encircle and crush them. Year by year it came to be better understood that Englishmen must not make again the mistake of 1870, not again allow France to be crushed, for then afterward they might have to fight alone against Germany in a hopeless struggle. Before the last evil days of July 1914 there was some effort to clear away the hostility and suspicion. Germans often said they desired the friendship of England, and that the two powers working together could ensure the peace of the world. Many Englishmen wished that a friendly understanding could be reached, and would have given much to win the true friendship of the German people. They were not, however, willing to let their naval super- iority be impaired. A British statesman speaking in 1912 declared that naval power was a necessity to Englishmen, but not to Germans: to them it meant expansion, to Eng- land existence. Already in 1907, at the Second Hague Conference, England had proposed limitation of arma- ments, but Germany refused. Indeed, Germans boasted that they could keep up the race, while England must presently fall behind. English leaders announced that their naval construction would be regulated by whatever Germany did. They were most anxious to make an arrangement by which both powers would cease the con- struction of so many warships, but a decisive supremacy over the German Empire they were firmly resolved to maintain. Germans were not willing to grant a "naval holiday," but in 1913, at a time when great changes in the Balkans caused them to desire increase of the army above all things, there appeared to be some slackening in their building of warships, and peaceful men in both countries hoped that better things would result. In 1912 Lord Haldane, lord chancellor, one who loved and respected German things, went to Berlin on the em- peror's invitation, to try to bring about an understanding. THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE 375 Germany proposed a treaty between the two countries by which each would engage not to attack the other; in event of either being involved in war, the otjher should ob- serve toward the party involved a benevolent neutrality, though this agreement was not to affect existing engage- ments. England refused, for the result would have been to permit Germany to support her allies in the Triple Alli- ance, while Britain would have been debarred from sup- porting against German attack her friends, with whom she was not allied. The negotiation, therefore, failed but it seemed to smooth the way for a settlement later. Indeed, in the earlier part of 1914 an Anglo-German The agreement was drawn up, by which all the principal differ- projected ences between England and Germany, with respect to the ^^ ^^^^ Bagdad Railway and Asiatic Turkey were arranged, and it almost seemed that Sir Edward Grey had at last done with Germany what he had accomplished with France in 1904. This treaty, it is said, was to have been signed in the autumn, but before that time the Great War had begun and Germany and th§ British Empire were locked in a mor- tal struggle. This is one of the tragedies in the history of Europe. The two great antagonists seem almost to have reached a settlement just before it was too late. But it was too late. It is probable that Great Britain was sincere in wishing for peaceable settlement of the issues between Germany and herself. What were the real German in- tentions cannot yet be known. Doubtless many Germans sincerely desired to have friendship and good understand- ing with Britain. But some critics have seen good reason to believe that Germany entered into the negotiations of 1912 and 1914 not so much because she wished lasting peace with Great Britain but because the military leaders hoped to keep her inactive until they had first dealt with Russia and France. Many secrets yet lie hid in state pa- pers, or the breasts of the men who were leaders. 876 EUROPE, 1789-1920 BIBLIOGRAPHY Greneral accounts: G. Egelhaaf, Geschichie der Neuesten Zeit (4th ed. 1912); G. W. Prothero, German Policy before the War (1916) ; Graf Ernst zu Reventlow, Deutschland*s Auswdrtige PoU itik, 1883-1913 (ed. 1914), strongly nationalist and Pan-Ger- man; T. Schiemann, Deutschland und die Grosse PolUik, anno 1901-19U (1902-15); Graf Bernhard von Bulow, Deutschland urder Kaiser WUhelm II (1914), trans, by Marie A. Lewenz Imperial Germany^ (1914). Treaty of Berlin: G. B. Guarini, La Germania e la Questione d'Oriente fino al Congresso di Berlino, 2 vols. (1898); A. Avril, NSgociations Relatives au TraitS de Berlin, 1876-1886 (1886), documented, best account, by a diplomat. The Triple Alliance: A. C. Coolidge, The Origins of the Triple Alliance (1917); A. Singer, Geschichte des Dreihundes (1904); A. N. Stieglitz, Vltalie et la Triple Alliance (1906) ; and above all, Politische Geheimvertrdge Oesterreich-Ungarns von 1879-1914* volume I (1919), edited by Dr. A. F. Pribram from the archives of Vienna, constituting one of the most important contributions to the history of diplomacy for some time, English trans, by D. P. Myers and J. G. D'A. Paul, ed. by A. C. Coolidge (1920). Relations with Russia: S. Goriainov, "The End of the Alliance of the Emperors," American Historical Review, January 1918, based on papers in the Russian archives made accessible by the Russian Revolution, and explaining certain important matters for the first time. Germany and England : Charles Sarolea, The Anglo-German Prohlmi (1915) ; B. E. Schmitt, England and Germany, 1740-19U (1916); Archibald Hurd and Henry Castle, German Sea-Power (1913). The Bagdad Railway: Andre Cheradame, Le Chemin de Per de Bagdad (1903); D. Eraser, The Short Cut to India (1909); Morris Jastrow, The War and the Bagdad Railway (1917) ; Paul Rohrbach, Die Bagdadbahn (1902). Biographies and memoirs: H. Welschinger, VEmpereur FrSdSric III, 1831-1888 (1917); A. H. Fried, The German Em- peror and the Peace of the World (1912) ; The German Emperor as Shovm in his Public Utterances, edited by Christian Gauss (1915); Furst Chlodwig zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst, DenTcwilrdigkeiten, 2 vols. ed. (1907), trans, by G. W. Chrystal (1906). CHAPTER IV THE RECOVERY OF FRANCE — THE DUAL ALLIANCE Francais! Le peuple a devance la Chambre, qui hesitait. Pour sauver la patrie en danger, il a demande la Republique. Proclamation du Gouvernment de la Defense Nationale aux Francais, Septembre 4, 1870; Archives DiplomatiqneSy 1871-1872, ii. 503. Si la France est attaquee par TAllemagne, ou par I'ltalie soutenue par TAllemagne, la Russie emploiera toutes ses forces disponibles pour attaquer rAllemagne. Si la Russie est attaquee par I'Allemagne, ou par TAutriche soutenue par rAllemagne, la France emploiera toutes ses forces disponibles pour combattre I'Allemagne. Military Convention, August 1892 (Basis of the Dual Alliance) : Documents Diplomatiques, U Alliance Franco-Russe (1918). If the rise of the German Empire is the most memorable example of swift growth of a European power, France after 1871 affords the best instance of the recovery of a people crushed down by fearful defeat. Before 1870 France was the leading power on the Continent; but the events of the Franco-Prussian War changed all this suddenly and com- pletely. The months between July 1870 and June 1871 were afterward remembered by the French as L'AnnSe Terrible, the Terrible Year. In the course of that time France had been crushed to the dust by the enemy, then torn by the uprising of the Commune in Paris. She had lost two important frontier provinces with 1,600,000 inhabitants; in the war itself she had suffered casualties 377 The down- fall of France 378 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Quick recovery Further disaster Sttifering in Paris of almost half a million; her war materials had been cap- tured; the Germans had carried destruction and suffering over a wide extent of the country; there had been an in- demnity of five milliards of francs to pay the victors; while the cost of the war had been ten milliards more. Germans believed that France was so far crushed that she could not recover or be dangerous to them for a long time again, and the friends of France could only look to the future with a hope they could not yet feel. I Actually, she began to recover almost at once. No na- tion in the world has ever had the qualities of greatness more thoroughly than France. From the ruin of the Hundred Years' War, from the losses of her wars of religion, from the disasters of the last years of Louis XIV, and from the complete overthrow when Napoleon was defeated by Europe, always she recovered easily and well, because of the excellence and strength, the vitality, the brave charac- ter, the inexhaustible courage of French men and women. At present, after the long exhaustion of the Great War in which she bore the brunt, the best augury of the recovery of France from her grievous weakness is the memory of what she has done in other times. And for Germany in this time of humiliation and ruin the example of France may be, perhaps, the best encouragement she can have. Before the recovery began, however, there was one more terrible disaster. A period of great change and disorder ever gives opportunity to the violent and radical among men. Some of the French people had just suffered so terribly that they were like those whom long suffering has made mad. Such things have been often before: during the Hundred Years' War when the Jacquerie rose in France; on a great scale in Russia, after the awful disasters of 1916 and 1917; and in many parts of Germany, after the empire had fallen. The Commune of Paris came at the end of the war, while confusion still reigned in France. Paris had long been a THE DUAL ALLIANCE 379 stronghold of republican, radical, and socialist sentiment. Many of the workmen of the city had listened to doctrines opposed to the existing social system, and they had been taught that very sweeping changes would be necessary to bring happiness to the mass of the people. The siege of Paris was just over, and Paris had greatly suffered. Many of the workingmen had no employment in the general pros- tration of business. They had until recently been mem- bers of the National Guard which undertook the defence of the city, but the Assembly which had been elected to make peace with the Germans dissolved the Guard. The people of Paris had proclaimed a republic in 1870; the As- sembly was monarchist and conservative; and the liberals and radicals of the cities distrusted what it might do. Moreover, payment of obligations, which had been sus- pended by a moratorium during the siege, was now ordered, and immense hardship resulted to a large number of people who had no employment or business and so could not pay their debts. Hence a great number of poor, hungry, sav- age people, who still had the arms with which they had fought against the Germans, stood in idleness distrusting their government, and very ready to follow new leaders. In France the government was strongly centralized. The The radicals believed that improvement could come only Commune through decentralization of the state into small parts or Jgyi"*^* communes, with the management of affairs in these parts. Thus the different communes, which had different interests, would be able to manage affairs to their best advantage; and the cities, more liberal than the rural districts, would be able to develop without interference from a govern- ment based largely on the country. This scheme' was supported by some republicans who feared that monarchy would be restored by the central government, and by so- cialists, who believed that in communes they could effect the reforms which they sought for. In Paris the idea was taken up by the discontented. After some conflict with SJBO EUROPE, 1789-1920 The indemnity paid Local gov- ernment and the army the Assembly, a commune was established in March 1871, and the red flag of the socialists adopted. The men of the Commune appealed to the people of France to follow them in their revolution, and for a moment it seemed to observers that France, just defeated by the Germans, was now about to split up into pieces. But the people were against such innovation. As the French prisoners returned from Germany, the Assembly made ready to overthrow the Commune, and this was done after a second terrible siege during April and May, and a fearful week of fighting in the streets. The city suffered far more terribly from the bom- bardment of the French armies and the incendiarism of the Communalists than it had from the Germans; and the government showed no mercy in the vengeance which it took. France now proceeded to the work of restoration and building for the future. May 10, 1871 the Treaty of Frankfort was ratified by the National Assembly. The first task was now to set free the occupied districts from the Germans by paying the indemnity. The French people responded magnificently to the government's appeals, and far more money was subscribed to loans than was needed. In the autumn of 1873, six months be- fore the terms allowed by the Treaty, all the indemnity had been paid, and the last German soldiers were out of the country. Financiers all over the world were surprised at the money which French peasants and workmen brought forth; and there were not wanting Germans who declared that if France were ever conquered by Germany again, the indemnity would be vastly greater. For two years the executive power was wielded by Thiers, whom the Assembly had chosen. During his time two important reforms were made. In 1871 the excessive centralization of the government, which had prevailed since Napoleon I, was partly undone. A considerable amount of local government was established: local voters THE DUAL ALLIANCE 381 were to elect the council of the Commune, and in the smaller communes the mayor was to be chosen by the council, the central government appointing the mayors only in the principal towns. In 1872 the army system was reorgan- ized, by a law which in effect introduced the military system of Prussia. As the work of reconstruction proceeded the most im- portant problem was to settle the government. The As- sembly had been elected for the purpose of making peace with the Germans. When this was done it did not dis- solve itself, and in the existing state of things there was no power able to dismiss it. In September 1870 the re- volutionists in Paris, who overthrew the Imperial govern- ment, had proclaimed a republic. This republic had been promptly acknowledged by the United States, and, after a little delay, by the principal governments of Europe. Such a government had not been constituted by the people. In August 1871, however, the Assembly accepted for the time being the government existing, and gave to the execu- tive the title of " President of the French Republic." The Rivet Law by which this was done asserted also that the Assembly had constituent powers. Accordingly, the Assembly undertook to decide what form of government should be permanently established. Most of the members of the Assembly wished a restora- tion of the monarchy, while some hoped for a Bonapartist Empire again. Perhaps monarchy might have been re- stored now, except that its advocates were divided in two parties, the Legitimists and those who supported the House of Orleans. It was hoped that the two branches of the Bourbon family could unite, but it proved impossible to bring this about. Thus time drifted on, with no perma- nent government established, and the people showing more and more that they desired a republic. AjFter a while those who wished for a monarchy, but believed it unwise to insist on their wishes, combined with those who wanted The National Assembly The Republic established 882 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The French government: the executive The legislative a republic, and agreed to establish a conservative arrange- ment. In 1875 a series of "organic laws" in effect consti- tuted a republican government, and are often referred to as the Constitution of 1875. A republic was not formally set up. It was, indeed, merely recognized in the phrase "President of the Republic," in a provision which could only be carried by one vote in a chamber of 705. The French Republic, therefore, was established unwillingly and with great hesitation, and it was not formally proclaimed. The government of the French Republic was based on models which the English-speaking people had worked out in the experience of a long time. In some respects it re- sembles the American form, but substantially the British system was followed. The executive power is apparently vested in a president, who is elected for seven years by the two chambers of the legislative body meeting together as a National Assembly. An outsider might think that he really is head of the army and navy and that he really car- ries out the laws and appoints the officials. Actually, .however, as in England, the executive and administrative powers are in the hands of the ministry. As in Great Britain, the ministry is entirely dependent upon a majority in the Chambers, the legislative body. The legislature is composed of two houses, a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies. The Senate consists of 300 mem- bers elected indirectly by electoral colleges for a term of nine years, one third renewed every three years. By the Constitution of 1875 some of the members were to be elected for life, but this was done away with in 1884. The more important«branch is the Chamber of Deputies, whose members are elected by universal suffrage for a term of four years. The ministry is responsible to this parliament, practically to the Chamber of Deputies, which is all-power- ful in the making of laws and passing appropriations. Actually, the ministry is a committee of the Chamber, as the cabinet in Britain is of the House of Commons. THE DUAL ALLIANCE 383 This system of government which makes France a par- liamentary repubHc, differs in one very important respect from the British system. In Great Britain, as in the United States, there have usually been two important parties, opposing each other, and contending in elections for con- trol of the government. This system tends to make political stability in Great Britain, since the ministry often rests on the solid support of the majority party. But in France, as in most Continental countries, there are many parties, often differing from each other only a little. No one of them is large enough to control a majority of the votes in the legislative assembly, and support for a minis- try can be obtained only by effecting a combination, or, as it is called in France, a bloc, of those parties which are willing to make common cause. Often this brings insta- bility and shortness of tenure, since the fall of a ministry can easily be brought about by some of the parties with- drawing from the bloc to enter into new combinations. Therefore ministries in France, as in Italy, may change with bewildering rapidity, causing outsiders uninformed to believe that the French are fickle in politics and not yet trained in governing themselves. Such is, of course, not the case. Foreign critics declare that such insecurity of ministries tends to weaken administration and hamper France in her dealings with other countries; Frenchmen, admitting this, assert that their system represents more delicately than the British, different shades of political thought. Generally speaking, since the establishment of the Republic in 1875, Frenchmen have gone steadily forward on the way of learning real self-government. They tried to estabHsh it suddenly in 1791. In a few years it was evident they had failed. Again in 1848 a republic was established, but this again was easily and quickly over- thrown. When a third republic was proclaimed in 1870, it might seem that it also had little chance to survive; Political parties The bloc Self- government in France 884 EUROPE, 1789-1920 many were opposed to it, and many believed it must soon disappear. The Third Republic, however, acquired sta- bility year after year, and by 1920 it was so thoroughly established that its overthrow seemed outside of proper calculation. This was partly because the people of France got more and more acquaintance with self-government in the latter part of the nineteenth century. It is not suffi- cient that a constitution be written and adopted providing that the people have certain institutions. Such constitu- tions in Portugal and in Spain and in some of the South American countries result in little more than that the elections are controlled by the army and the government by a few politicians; for most of the people have little education, little interest in political affairs, and almost no training in them. Great Britain has no written constitu- tion in any single document, and yet her government con- tinues stable and firm, and at the same time flexible and increasingly democratic; for it rests now on the support of a great number of men and)^omen who have considerable acquaintance with the management of their government, and who have inherited this knowledge from ancestors who had interest in the government before them. Local self- The continued success of self-government among the government people of England is in great measure due to the training which English people long had in the affairs of county and parish, to the vigorous local self-government which has existed for generations in England. In France this had once existed also, but it withered away and disappeared when the strongly centralized monarchy of the old regime was made by the kings. Matters, which in England would have been attended to by the leading men of the county or the parish, were directed from Paris or managed by officials sent out from the central government. This tended to produce, as it always does for a while, a very efficient government machine; but in course of time the people in the localities, having very little to do in manag- THE DUAL ALLIANCE 385 ing their affairs, to a great extent lost their capacity for self-government. Therefore, the first French republics were made at the top rather than the bottom, and soon fell for lack of strong foundation in the political experience of the people themselves. This was, perhaps, apparent to the republican leaders as time went on. By the Constitu- tion of 1875 a greater measure of local government was provided for; this was extended in 1882, when the elected councils of municipalities were permitted to elect the mayors; and in 1884 when localities were given still larger powers of self-government. Since then the French people have been slowly learning to some extent the art of govern- ing themselves, in the places where they live and carry on their affairs. It was well understood by the republican leaders in Education France that if there was to be universal suffrage for men, there must be general education of the children. In 1881 a law was passed to make primary education free of cost to parents, and next year it was made compulsory for child- ren from six to thirteen. Previous to this time a quarter of the men and more than a third of the women of the country were illiterate, and education was to a considerable extent, as it had long been, in the hands of religious orders and teachers. Gradually education was extended until very few men and women were unable to read and write, , though the percentage of illiteracy was never reduced so low as in Germany, which had long led the world in the thoroughness and extent of its educational work, though not, perhaps, in the excellence of its character. Gradually also, education was made entirely secular, and withdrawn completely from religious teachers. And along with this, went splendid development of higher education, in upper schools and universities. Technical and industrial teach- ing were not neglected, though they never attained the prominence or the reputation abroad that the German system got. Foreigners who went abroad for their edu- 886 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Reputation abroad Prosperity and im- provement Difficulties cation went almost always to the German Empire rather than to England or France; and this was especially true of students from the United States, who went to Germany and then developed in America the German system of higher education. This was due not only to the merits of German universities but to the prestige of Germany from her mighty development and successful wars, from adver- tising and clever propaganda. But critics realized more clearly after a time, that the English system, and especially the French, not only produced erudition, but trained the character, cultivated spirit and taste, fineness of soul and good judgment, in a way which the more mechanically regulated, state-supervised system of Germany never could do. Bismarck, it is said, favored a French republic since he believed such a government would be unstable and weak, and because it would keep France isolated and without friends among the monarchies and empires of Europe. For a long time she was without allies, but the Republic held its own steadily, and while it was disliked by a con- siderable and powerful portion of the population who were anxiously awaiting its overthrow, it was able to weather each crisis that developed. Business became settled; the government undertook vast and expensive schemes of material development, improving railroads and canals, and presently the French people found themselves in the midst of the greatest prosperity which had come to them in the nineteenth century. Taxes were high and there was a huge national debt, but this debt was held almost entirely^ in France, and interest payments on it, derived from taxes taken from the- people, went back to them again. But however fair the picture may seem now, there was much trouble while the improvement was taking place, and often it seemed that the Republic would endure little longer. There was constant though diminishing danger in the relations with Germany, and there were internal THE DUAL ALLIANCE 387 problems of the greatest difficulty resulting from opposi- tion of the monarchists and clericals and the relations between Church and State. The English have altered their monarchy so far that of the kingship little remains but the name of king, and actually their government is far more democratic than most republics. They have clung to king and some monar- chical forms, however, because of attachment to the past, and will probably for some time to come be reluc- tant to part with scepter and crown. The French, who are more logical and direct in processes of thought, did away with monarchy abruptly, though in their case also the pro- cess could not be achieved at once, and restorations, of king or emperor followed the establishment of two re- publics. The more conservative and those who loved to venerate the past, who preferred monarchy to republic, distrusted government by the people, and did not believe that France could be strong and respected until she had a king once more. These men and women looked confidently for the fall of the republic after a while through incapacity and weakness; and when the course of time disappointed them, they plotted and hoped for an opportunity to bring this about. When the hazards of the first few years after 1871 had been successfully passed, the most dangerous crisis came in 1888. General Boulanger, a handsome, striking figure, whose very appearance excited the admiration and attach- ment of the unthinking, had made himself popular among the soldiers by his measures while Minister of War. He took advantage of some scandals of the time, and of certain grievances which always exist, and presently let it be known that the government needed reforming. It was also told among his friends that if he were at the head of affairs, France might get revenge on the Germans. He soon had supporting him, besides the undiscriminating multitude, monarchists, clericals, and others; and friends of the The monarchists General Boulanger 888 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Dreyfus Case Church , and State Republic feared that if he tried a coup (TStat as Louis Na- poleon once had, he might indeed be able to seize power. But the government was firm, and at the critical moment he hesitated to act, and presently fled to Belgium. Then he was condemned for plotting against the state. His party fell to pieces almost at once, and he died by his own hand in exile. Other disquieting times followed, but never one so serious again. In 1896 began the scandal of the Dreyfus Case, which continued to disrupt French society and disturb the gov- ernment for the next ten years. Dreyfus, an Alsatian Jew, a captain of artillery in the French army, had been ar- rested very secretly and condemned to be imprisoned for life in French Guiana for selling military information. He protested his innocence. Soon his cause was taken up by friends and others, and a bitter and sensational con- troversy arose. After many vicissitudes, it was demon- strated that the accused man was innocent and that scandalous conditions existed in military circles. In the end the French government gave Dreyfus and his associates complete and honorable vindication; but during the years of passionate struggle, while this was being attained, the government was attacked and undermined by monarchists and reactionaries, by clericals, and by many who desired France to be a military power more than a democratic state. Finally all this came to naught. As the years went on, with France prospering greatly and the Republic growing constantly stronger, the govern- ment proceeded to deal with the diflacult matter of the relations between Church and State. In the Middle Ages the Church had claimed superiority over all earthly things, and immunity from interference by the civil power. As stronger secular governments developed, their oflScials re- fused to accept the supremacy of the Church in the State, and attempted, while not interfering with religious mat- ters, to subject ecclesiastical matters, or the things which THE DUAL ALLIANCE 389 concerned Church regulation, to the civil authority of the State. Thus arose some of the greatest and most memor- able struggles in medieval times. Li the period of the Reformation and of the development of strong-nation states, the matter was settled differently in various places. In Lutheran countries the Church was made strictly sub- ordinate to the State, and in England the Church became part of the government itself. In Catholic countries var- ious arrangements had been worked out. In France the settlement now was based on the Concor- dat of 1801. This arrangement provided that the churches and buildings, which were in 1801 the property of the people, should be granted to the use of the clergy; the higher ecclesiastics, the archbishops and bishops, were to be appointed by the French government with the consent of the Pope; the lower ecclesiastics, the priests, were to be appointed by the bishops, with the consent of the govern- ment of France. The Church was thus controlled to a considerable extent by the State, and supported by it as part of the State, for the salaries of the ecclesiastics were paid by the government; on the other hand in the govern- ment the Church had much influence and power. This condition of affairs continued on through the nineteenth century, with the clericals looking back fondly to the times before the Revolution, detesting the republicans, and supporting and teaching monarchical principles and hop- ing for a restoration of kings. The bishops and priests did not hesitate to use their influence against the Republic. Meanwhile the government removed all clerical influence from the national system of education, allowing no re- ligious exercises in the schools and not permitting clergy- men to teach in them. Almost all of the population was Roman Catholic, but a great part of the men were held lightly by religious ties, and decided matters affecting the country from the point of view of politics rather than religion. Accordingly they now proceeded to measures The Concordat of 1801 The Church hostile to the Republic 890 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The SUte takes measures against religious orders Separation of Church and State, 1905 which had never before been brought about in a Roman Catholic country except in violent change or upheaval. The republican leaders declared that there could not be national unity while the religious orders, which had in recent years increased enormously in influence and wealth, engaged in teaching hostile to the government. Accord- ingly, in 1901 the government passed the so-called Law of Associations, by which religious orders were not allowed to exist unless authorized by the State. Many of the religious orders were Aot willing to ask the government for per- mission to exist, the law was vigorously enforced, and large numbers of monks and nuns were driven out of their es- tabhshments. In 1904 the government went further, passing an act which forbade even the authorized orders to do any teaching after 1914. All this was denounced by the faithful, who supported the orders, and who believed that their own liberty was infringed when they were deprived of the right to have their children taught by the instructors they most preferred. ' The State, however, was now resolved to have a monopoly of the education of its children. Matters went much further. Many Frenchmen re- garded Roman Catholicism, as well as other religions, as something to be cherished by those who wished it, but not imposed by the State or supported by government taxes; reasoning thus with the tolerant or contemptuous feeling which Voltaire and Diderot had long before them. Many others believed that clericalism was hostile to the Republic, that the priests as well as the members of the teaching orders aroused opposition to the government and made division and weakness in the nation. They sup- ported the principle, therefore, that Church and State should be separate, and that while the Church in its reli- gious capacity was not to be interfered with by the govern- ment, it was not any longer to be supported by the govern- ment, but by voluntary contributions from its members. THE DUAL ALLIANCE 391 In 1905 this was effected by a law which annulled the Con- cordat. Something was to be done for aged clergymen and for those who had just become priests, but the State was no longer to pay the salaries of churchmen, nor was it any longer to control their appointments. The church buildings, still national property, might be used freely by members of the Roman Catholic Church, or of other sects, provided the members of a congregation formed an associa- tion cultuelle (association of worship). This arrangement, which seemed proper to Frenchmen who were without strong religious ties, violated a great deal that was deeply rooted in a venerable past and loved and respected by many men and most women in France. There had been a great deal of sympathy for the members of religious orders, who seemed dispossessed of their prop- erty and driven forth from their homes; now there were riotous scenes about some of the churches. Not a few Catholics, however, believed that the trend of modern conditions made separation best for the Church; and some of the ecclesiastics were willing at last to compromise with the authorities of the State. But the Pope condemned the law, and good Catholics had then to oppose it. In 1907 the government passed a further law by which the churches might be used, provided the priest or minister made a con- tract therefor with the local oflScial. The Republic was stirred to its depths during the years that followed, but the authorities, supported by socialists, progressives, radicals, and others, were firm, and in the end seemed to have the support of most of the nation. Nevertheless it was truly felt that there was now between the Roman Catholic Church, which was the faith at least nominally of almost all of the French people, and the government of the Republic a breach which only time could heal. Act- ually the division continued until the beginning of the Great War, when in the fearful danger and suffering of the time churchmen rallied loyally to the patrie, and many of Troxibles enstiing Division in France 392 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Economic prosperity Property and birth-rate Smaller families the people came back to the Church more than for a great while before. During all the latter part of the nineteenth century! wealth increased in France beyond what Frenchmen had ever had before. The total amount of this wealth was much less than in England or the United States, and the standard of living was lower than in the English-speaking countries; but there was a high average prosperity and wide distribution of property. This arose especially from two causes : the land was distributed among a large number of proprietors, and the size of families was small. In France one of the most important results of the Revo- lution was that the lands previously owned by nobles or Church were taken from their owners and sold by the State to the people. In this way a great deal of landed property formerly in possession of a few wealthy proprie- tors — as was the case in Russia until the Revolution of 1917, and as was largely the case in Britain until the terri- ble taxation of the War — changed hands, and in course of time was sold to peasant farmers. The result of this was to create a great body of small owners, having the means of achieving more prosperity and well-being than ever before. Some observers who lived then believed that this amelioration was only for the time, that the lands would soon pass out of the possession of the new owners, or else that they, having more children because they could sup- port them, would be no better off, and that when the hold- ings were divided up among these larger families of the next generation, there would again be miserable cultivators living upon scanty patches of ground. Previous to this time the birth rate in France had been high. Now Arthur Young, the celebrated traveler, predicted that the country would become a veritable rabbit-warren, so fast would the population breed. But this did not take place. About the middle of the nineteenth century the English econo- mist, John Stuart Mill, noticed that the French birth rate THE DUAL ALLIANCE 393 had fallen, and that families were smaller. He explained this by saying that the new body of proprietors accustomed to a higher standard of living, refused to lower it by having more children than they could properly support; that they were unwilling to lower the standard of the next generation by dividing their property among so many children that the amount for each would be insuflScient. All through the century this tendency continued with ever greater force. By the time of the Franco-Prussian War the population of the country was no longer increasing rapidly, and since that time it has scarcely increased at all. The results have seemed good and bad. On the one hand there has been a generally high standard of living. For many Frenchmen there has been a great amount of leisure and comfort, which has enabled them to be the foremost leaders of civilization and thought, and to enjoy deeply, in their manner, the civilization of their era. On the other hand the population of France has stood still while that of England has overtaken it, and while that of Germany threatened to become twice as large. Hence, there was always the danger that France might be overwhelmed by superior numbers. Vainly the government tried to en- courage larger families, offering to exempt the fathers of several children from taxation, and even offering prizes to the mothers of large families. There were a few large fam- ilies, but generally the birth rate remained so low that in the latter part of the nineteenth century there was much fear that the population might even be declining. Ene- mies of France declared that this stationary or declining population and small birth-rate showed that the French were a decadent people, and that, as in the dying Roman Empire long before, there was no longer enough vigor to produce the men and women to carry on the destiny of the nation. On the other hand, it was insistently maintained that what was taking place in France had always charac- terized highly civilized people who had risen to better Stationary population in France 894 EUROPE, 1789-1920 intelligence and standard of living; and that in France well-being and high intelligence were so universally dif- fused, that what existed only among the upper classes else- where prevailed generally in France among the people. Germany The recovery of France was beset with diflficulties that and France seemed very disheartening at the time. Not only did she have to pay the indenmity, and repair the losses caused by her defeat, but when once the money had been paid to Germany and recovery was going well forward, she was watched with jealous suspicion by the Germans, who, having overthrown and plundered her, wished her to re- main weak and friendless, so that she could not possibly take vengeance. At first the French, smarting under their humiliation and the sense of their wrongs, declared openly that they would have revenge as soon as they could. Bis- marck and his military colleagues had believed that the terms of the treaty were such that France would remain weak for some time; but when the indemnity was paid off sooner than had been considered possible, the French people went onward in marvelously swift recuperation. The Germans did not doubt that they could defeat France again, but some of the leaders taught that if there must be another war it would be easier and wiser to strike the enemy down before full strength was recovered. The Affair In this manner arose the once-renowned Affair of 1875. of 1875 France had adopted the Prussian system of universal mili- tary training, and in that year passed a law to complete the \ reorganization of her army. What followed is still en- veloped in obscurity, but it would seem that German leaders beheved it would be well to strike before the new law produced its effects, and that Bismarck desired to impose a new treaty by which France would not be per- mitted to maintain a large army. There was a great war scare, and the French feared they were about to be at- tacked. If such was the German intention, it speedily brought from Russia and from Great Britain intimation THE DUAL ALLIANCE 395 that they would not this time stand aside and see France first attacked and then crushed; and the crisis soon passed. France now passed definitely out of her position of hopeless inferiority, and gained steadily in strength and assurance. But however swift and splendid her recovery was, it came too late to enable her to settle her account with the Germans. As the years passed France grew stronger and greater than before, but meanwhile Germany was growing more rapidly still in population, wealth, and military power. Furthermore, the German Empire was the center and head of the greatest military alliance in the world, and all through Bismarck's time France remained in isolation. But as time went on Russia drew away from Germany and it seemed to Frenchmen that their chance might some day come if Germany were involved in war with Russia or if Russia formed an alliance with France. In 1887 rela- tions between the two countries were strained as a result of Boulanger's activities, and also because of the arrest by the German government of M. Schnaebele, a French oflScial, near the frontier. During the crisis Russia moved troops toward the German border, showing clearly her attitude toward Germany and France. Bismarck speak- ing in the Reichstag had said that if France again at- tacked Germany "we should endeavor to make France incapable of attacking us for thirty years . . . each would seek to bleed the other white." But Schnaebele was released, and Boulanger's efforts came to nothing. With the passing of Bismarck and the beginning of a new policy by William II, a great change came swiftly to pass: Russia and France drew together in the Dual Alliance. There had been obstacles enough in the way without the skilful manipulation of Bismarck. Napoleon I had in- vaded Russia and brought about the burning of Moscow, and Napoleon III had been the leader of the combination which crushed Russia in the Crimean War. On the other hand Frenchmen remembered the terrible retreat of the The SchnaebeI6 affair The entente between Russia and France 396 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Military Convention of 1892-3 Result of the alliance Grand Army in 1812, and they had recently seen Russia the firm friend of Prussia while they were being trampled in the dust. Moreover Frenchmen had been the leaders in political reform in Europe, and now constituted the largest body of self-governing freemen on the Continent; while in Russia, conservative autocrats ruled a people in lowly condition. But the mere fact that they were sep- arated and some distance apart served to remove evil causes of friction. Now they were both isolated as a result of German statecraft, France in the west, Russia in the east; they both needed allies; both felt insecure without the support of some powerful friend; and Russia badly needed money for internal development, which could be obtained in France better than anywhere else. These causes operated swiftly, once the influence of Bismarck was removed. Even before his fall the Russian govern- ment, which had previously borrowed in Germany, began placing huge loans in France and seeking an agreement. Negotiations and friendly visits began in 1890. Then in 1892 the two powers entered into an entente or friendly understanding, and in the next year a military convention was arranged. It was believed then and for a long time afterward that a treaty of alliance had been signed, but in 1918 the publication of a French Yellow Book made it plain that no treaty had been signed, and that what had long popularly been designated as the Dual Alliance rested upon the entente and the Military Convention of 1892-3. The agreement stipulated that in case one of the parties to the treaty was attacked by Germany, the other would stand by its partner with all of its power. The result of the Dual Alliance of 1893 was in some sense to restore the balance of power in Europe, to take France out of her position of loneliness and inferiority, and to shake the hegemony of the German Empire. But actually it did little beyond making France feel more se- cure. The Triple Alliance was believed by competent THE DUAL ALLIANCE 397 observers to be stronger than its rival, and France and Russia were, moreover, in active rivalry with Great Bri- tain. Therefore, after 1893, as before, France found that it was hopeless to think of attacking Germany to get back the lost provinces and restore her position; and in course of time desire and expectation of doing this so far died out that they cannot be reckoned as important causes of the war of 1914. During the generation after the Franco-Prussian War France came into dangerous and increasing rivalry with Great Britain. This resulted from colonial expansion and the naval expansion which went with it. Once her recov- ery was well begun, France turned her eyes beyond Europe with the purpose of building up a new colonial empire and retrieving abroad her losses. She had great success in north Africa, in southeastern Asia, and in some of the is- lands, especially Madagascar; and it was no long time be- fore she had built up the second largest colonial empire in the world. Along with this went naval expansion, which awakened the ever-watchful jealousy of Britain, particu- larly after the formation of the Dual Alliance, for England was apprehensive of Russian expansion in Asia down toward India, just as she was of French naval in- crease and French expansion in north Africa toward the Nile. Great tension and much hostility developed year by year, and in the latter part of the century the situation seemed fraught with the ominous possibilities of conflict which a decade later made so dangerous the relations be- tween Germany and England. The crisis came in 1898, when British forces, which had moved up from Egypt and just conquered the Sudan, came in contact with French forces which had moved eastward across Africa to Fashoda on the upper Nile. England demanded that France withdraw, and this was at first refused. But it was as hopeless for France to contend with the over- whelming sea power of Britain as it was for her to contest France Great Britain and 398 EUROPE, 1789-1920 with Germany on the Rhine, and so she yielded com- pletely. The episode left great bitterness in the hearts of Frenchmen. At this time some of them believed that they had best forget the recent past and join with Germany against England, their traditional foe. Until this time, however, Germany had seemed drawing closer and closer to England. But in reality a turning point had been reached. Germany and England were to begin drawing apart now in bitterest rivalry, which would one day lead to war, while after a few years England and France were to enter on a friendship which would later be the salvation of them both. BIBLIOGRAPHY Greneral accounts: Gabriel Hanotaux, Histoire de la France Contemporainey 4i vols. (1903-5), trans, by J. C. Tarver, Con- temporary France, 4 vols. (1903-9), best, covers the period 1870- 1882; the most recent work of importance is Emile Bourgeois, Modem France, 2 vols. (1919); J. C. Bracq, France under the Republic (1910); F. Despagnet, La Diplomatic de la Trodsieme RSpublique et le Droit des Gens (1904); Frederick Lawton, The Third Republic (1909); Emile Simond, Histoire de la Troisieme RSpublique de 1887 h 1894 (1913); Edgar Zevort, Histoire de la Troisieme RSpublique, 4 vols. (2d ed. 1898-1901), covers the period 1870-94. The Commune: Maxime Du Camp, Les Convulsions de Paris, 4 vols. (5th ed. 1881), conservative; Edmond Lepelletier, Histoire de la Commune de 1871, 2 vols. (1911-12), best. The beginning of the restoration of France : Paul Deschanel, Gambetta (1919); Jules Simon, Le Gouvemement de M. Thiers, 8 FSwi&r 1871-24^ Mai 1873, 2 vols. (1879), trans., 2 vols. (1879) ; L. A. Thiers, Notes et Souvenirs de M. Thiers^ 1870-1873 (1903), trans, by F. M. Atkinson (1915); E. Zevort, Thiers (1892); J. Valfrey, Histoire de la Diplomatic du Gouvernement de la DS- fense Nationale, 3 vols. (1871-3), Histoi/rt du TraitS de Francfort etdela LibSration du Territoire, 2 vols. (1874-5), the latter con- tains valuable materials not elsewhere published. Church and State : Aristide Briand, La Separation des Eglises et de VEtat (1905) ; E. Lecannet, VEglise de France sous la Trois- THE DUAL ALLIANCE ieme Republiquey 2 vols. (1907-10), Catholic, covers the period to 1894; Paul Sabatier, A Propos de la Separation des Eglises et de VEtat (4th ed. 1906), trans. Disestablishment in France (1906). The Dreyfus Affair: Joseph Reinach, Histoire de V Affaire Dreyfus, 7 vols. (1898-1911), best, sympathetic. The Dual Alliance: the all-important source is Documents Diplomatiques, V Alliance Franco-Russe, published by the French government (1918); C. de S. de Freycinet, Souvenirs, 1878-93 (1913), valuable, by one of the principal participants; V. de Gorloff, Origines et Bases de V Alliance Franco-Russe (1913) ; J. J. Hansen, V Alliance Franco-Russe (1897), by a participant; A. Tardieu, La France ei les Alliances (1904), English trans. (1908), excellent. Foreign politics: H. G. de Blowitz, Memoirs (1903); G. Hanotaux, Fachoda (1909); R. Pinon, VEmpire de la Medi- terranee (1904), France et Allemagne, 1870-1913 (1913). Government and customs: Raymond Poincare, trans, by B. Miall, How France Is Governed (1914), excellent brief treatise; Barrett Wendell, The France of To-day (1907). CHAPTER V DEMOCRATIC BRITAIN Methinks I see in my mind a noble and puissant nation rousing her- self like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks; methinks I see her as an eagle mewing her mighty youth, and kind- ling her undazzled eyes at the full midday beam. . . . Milton, Areopagitica (1644). There is no country so interested in the maintenance of peace as Eng- land. . . . She is not an aggressive Power, for there is nothing that she desires. . . . What she wishes is to maintain and to enjoy the unexampled Empire which she has built up, and which it is her pride to remember exists as much upon sympathy as upon force. Speech of the Earl of Beaconsfield at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, London Times, November 10, 1876. The history of Great Britain in the later period has to do largely with the magnificent growth of the British Em- pire. In most respects it is a record of prosperity and power. But it is also a story of increasing control of gov- ernment by the people, until at last the British have be- ^ come one of the most democratic nations in the world. The Repre- By the Electoral Reform Law of 1867 only a part of the sentation of lower class was allowed to vote, but seventeen years later Ar^ iftftA^ the franchise was extended also to the agricultural workers and the laborers in the mines. By this reform law of 1884 two million men were added to the electorate, so that five million persons had the franchise, or one out of every seven of the population. Manhood suffrage was not yet established, as it had been in France and in the Ger- man Empire, though actually almost every man was now 400 Act, 1884 DEMOCRATIC BRITAIN 401 allowed to vote, and the representatives elected by them to the House of Commons held the principal powers of the government and directly controlled the excutive organ of the state. Meanwhile, the year before, a Corrupt Prac- tices Act limited the amount of money which a candidate might spend for election, and provided such severe penal- ties for bribery and corruption as to bring them virtually to an end in Great Britain. The year after the Electoral Reform Law, the Redistribution Act of 1885, practically divided Great Britain into electoral districts, bringing representation into accord with population. Previously representation had been by counties and by boroughs. Now the small boroughs were merged into their counties, most of the larger ones were made one-member constituen- cies, the counties were divided into one-member con- stituencies on the basis of the population within them, and the larger cities were given representation in accordance with the number of their inhabitants. This extension of the electorate in England was accom- panied by persistent demand that women be admitted to share in the government. The women's movement in Great Britain, as in the United States, went on for a con- siderable time before it got much attention. During the Puritan Revolution, and also in France during the French Revolution, women had demanded their "rights" as equals with men. Nevertheless, the feminist movement is essentially a thing of the nineteenth century, following the effects of the French Revolution, and more particu- larly of the Industrial Revolution. In New Jersey, one of the American states, in the period 1797-1807, women were permitted to vote; but this was an isolated case, and in both of the great English-speaking countries during the first half of the nineteenth century the advocates of woman's suffrage, principally Quakers, were considered to be proposing something impracticable and immoral, and contrary to the laws of God. But in England especially. Representa- tion re- formed, 1885 The women's movement 402 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The woman's suffrage movement Progress of the movement where the Industrial Revolution first made such great headway, conditions changed profoundly, and with them the position of women, so that it was no longer possible to apply the old arguments with as much effect as before. Formerly woman's place had been the home, and it was supposed that almost all would marry; but now a great number worked in factories, and more and more men emi- grated to the colonies of the empire. By the middle of the nineteenth century there were 365,000 more women than men in England, and over a million more in 1900. It was obviously impossible for a large number of these women to marry, and it was evident that many were sup- porting themselves. Often they were paying taxes, with- out voice in the government, or control over those who made the laws. At the same time women were steadily having their minds broadened by more education than women had ever had before; they were developing a stronger feeling of individuality, and greater sense of their dignity and power. It seemed to them that the doctrines established by their forefathers, and proclaimed so grandly during the French Revolution, applied to women as well as to men. For a long time both in England and the United States, they got some ridicule but not much attention. Most of the women, conservative and timid, had no interest in the movement, and most men were opposed to it because it ran counter to a vast mass of old custom and established ideas. But in 1866 John Stuart Mill moved in the House of Commons to include women in the provisions of the bill then pending to extend the franchise. His proposal was easily defeated, but thereafter almost every year a bill was proposed for the enfranchisement of women. After a while women in England were allowed to vote, and be voted for in local elections, and it was generally believed that they had a higher position than the women of any other country except, probably, the United States. V DEMOCRATIC BRITAIN 40S One by one, the old legal inequalities were abolished, until scarcely any of them remained, and women's economic opportunities became constantly better. Nevertheless they were still subject to some discriminations, and con- stantly a larger number of them, who desired complete equality with men, believed that this could never be at- tained; nor could women take their proper part in the commonwealth until they were admitted to vote for mem- bers of parliament upon the same conditions as men. The movement continued to make slow but certain _ 2. progress, though the majority of the people, both men and women, continued against it. Finally, about 1905, a small number of more radical women, under the leadership of Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst, tiring at impediments and delay, at lack of public interest and attention, undertook to get votes for women by force and compulsion, which, they said, was the method that men had employed. Then for a few years "wild women," as they were called, screamed and interrupted public meetings, harassed public officials, tried to interfere with the carrying on of the gov- ernment in which they had no part, and perpetrated all sorts of violence and outrage. When arrested and im- prisoned they tried the "hunger strike," previously employed by political prisoners in Russia, starving them- selves so that the government, which desired that no woman should be killed in this contest, always released them. These suffragettes did get a large amount of atten- tion for their cause, but they aroused great hostility and dislike. Moreover, they had set the dangerous precedent of women employing force, when the whole tendency of civilization had been for force not to be employed against women. But when the war began in 1914, they imme- diately ceased their campaign and rallied to the support of the country. The women now performed indispensable and tremendous service, and it was generally recognized that the suffrage should be given if they desired it. suffragettes 404 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Extension of the franchise, 1918 Improve- ment of education The great expansion of democratic feeling during the war led to further extending of the suffrage. In 1918 all men over twenty-one with fixed residence or business premises for six months, all women over thirty years of age already entitled to vote in local elections, and women whose husbands were so entitled, were given the parlia- mentary franchise. The electorate was thus increased by two million more men and six million women, so that now one out of every three of the entire population could vote. The government of the United Kingdom had been put into the hands of its people about as far as was possible under the existing system, and the people had more complete control and were able to make their wishes felt more im- mediately and directly than any other great nation in the world. With the extension of the franchise in 1867 Robert Lowe had said: "We must now educate our masters." This was soon undertaken, and a great change was made in 1870. Down to this time English education, except for a very few of the wealthy, was far behind what existed in Germany or the United States. There were the two old universities of Oxford and Cambridge, unrivalled in beauty and ancient charm, but giving only the culture which befitted the child- ren of the ruling classes. Beneath them were certain "public schools" like Eton and Rugby, where also the sons of the aristocrats might get splendid teaching of the hu- manities and fine training in the development of character. But this was by far the best part of a system which had been devised principally for the upper classes. In 1870 there were thought to be about four million children of school age, of whom only half attended any school. Of these two million, half attended schools poorly organized and often not well conducted, while the rest went to schools un- der government inspection and partly supported by it, but managed by the Church of England, so that in England as in France and in Spain, a considerable part of the education Jtrvit I. Or.) '»,T/"-) .^^„T,„'vfri> :,M.,pu„..h. ^mo^ Of 5«,i^ ,. .: '. '^•/s*- _ Tuirootu or Low ArchipoUgo ;ta?^r Socirty I,. TTongi Of . Cook Tj ' " 4" -• t tnamtffl ta: Ooujheriy f. (fr.) BrHish Efflpin Mwm. omrniic co mc».r. . 17. THE DEMOCRATIC BRITAIN 405 remained in the hands of the Church. Some believed that it was well for religious teaching to be given; others that education ought to be entirely without religious influence, and compulsory and free. The Education Act of 1870 was a compromise, as has usually been the case in England. Existing voluntary schools doing good work were to be retained and get more assistance from the government, and might continue their religious instruction. Elsewhere "board schools" were to be established, supported by the government, by the local rates (taxes), and partly by fees paid by the parents of the children attending; in them no religious denominational instruction was to be allowed. This reform by no means brought the educational system of Great Britain up to the standards of Switzerland and the German Empire; it did not make education entirely free and compulsory, and it left it partly under denomina- tional control. None the less it greatly bettered condi- tions, and before the end of the century four fifths of the children went to school. The work was completed in 1918 by one of the great reforms of the period of the war, when a law was passed providing that all children between five and fourteen years must go to school, and providing that the expense of education should be divided equally between the central government and the local authorities. The admission of the lower classes to the electorate and to a share in the government in 1867 and 1884 was not fol- lowed by an overturning of the government, such as the upper classes had feared, nor by any exceedingly radical demands. Nevertheless, as in the earlier part of the cen- tury, a whole series of reforms was gradually carried out. The Liberals believed they ought to be made; the Conser- vatives considered it better for the government to grant them than for the mass of the people to compel them. In 1870 the civil service was reformed. Next year the University Tests Act practically completed the removal of the religious tests which before had restricted the priv- Social and economic reforms 406 EUROPE, 1789-1920 ileges of the great universities mostly to members of the Church of England. In the period 1878 to 1901 factory legislation was extended and simplified, and during the same time laws were passed to better regulate the condi- tions in the mines. The state socialism of Bismarck had put the German Empire ahead of other countries for a while in the improvement of social and economic condi- tions, but similar work was undertaken also in the United Kingdom when the Liberal Party came into power under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Asquith, and Mr. Lloyd George in 1905. In the course of the years im- mediately following, the Workingmen's Compensation Act (1906) made employers liable to pay compensation to em- ployees injured by accident. The Old Age Pension Act (1909) provided that every person over seventy years of age with an annual income of less than £31 10s. should receive a pension from the state. Long effort had been needed to secure this law, since while its advocates asserted that it would make happier the last years of deserving unfor- tunates, opponents declared that all such legislation was ruinous since it tended to make people rely on assistance from the state rather than on their own efforts. In 1911 the National Insurance Act provided insurance for sickness and loss of employment, the funds to be subscribed gener- ally, though not always, by the employees, the employers, and the state. Trade Beginning with 1824 a series of statutes, especially the unions^ great statute of 1871, gradually legalized trades unions, which workingmen had already formed, but which the state long continued to oppose. In 1901, the House of Lords declared in the Toff -Vale Case that members of trades unions were liable singly and collectively for the acts of their union, thus adding corporate responsibility to the corporate privileges which unions had acquired; but five years later the Trades Dispute Act gave immunity to trade-union funds. Actually trades unions were becoming DEMOCRATIC BRI'TAIN 407 exceedingly powerful in Great Britain. More and more they were able to deal as equals or superiors with the em- ployers and make the government itself heed their wishes. Memories of long oppression and tyranny on the part of capitalists and employers caused many leaders of the workingmen to regard all employers with dislike and sus- picion; and gradually they adopted socialist ideas and began to hope that a day might come when capitalism and middle-class employers would be done away with com- pletely. Numerous strikes were called, it sometimes seemed, more for the purpose of harassing the employers than anything else. The doctrine spread that working- men were made to labor too many hours for the benefit of employers, that thus numerous people could find no work to do, and that if hours were short and production re- stricted there would be work enough for them all. As Britain became a completely industrialized country, with its artirans composing so great a portion of the people, leaders aspired to get control of the government some day for organized labor. In 1893 an Independent Labor Party was founded, which proposed to have the government bring about an eight-hour day of labor, col- lective ownership, and state control of railways, shipping, and banks. Most of the British laborers were not yet ready to accept socialist doctrines, and so they did not give support. Another Labor Party, founded in 1906, became one of the smaller groups in the House of Commons. Its power increased as time went on, its advocates expecting it to be the dominant party in the future. Labor disputes became constantly more bitter and labor leaders more aggressive in the years just before the war. It was often believed that the numerous harassing strikes and refusal to work more than a certain amount were seriously hindering production and putting Britain behind in industrial competition with Germany and the United States. During the Great War British labor gave Employees and employers The Labor Party Labor powerful and aggressive 408 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Report of the Labor Committee PoTerty splendid response to the needs of the country, the unions consenting to put aside their rules. But it was evident that they expected reward to come after their country had triumphed. Some of them declared that then the state must take over the mines and the railways and other great instruments and sources of production to be used for the people. In 1917 the British Labor Committee issued a report in which it declared that there must be democra- tic control of all the machinery of the state, and that the system of private capitalists must yield to common owner- ship of land and capital by the people. At the end of the struggle the powerful "Triple Alliance" of miners, trans- port workers, and railwaymen was strengthened, and the organized laborers of the country drew up in powerful ar- ray threatening to enforce their wishes by ** direct action " of paralyzing strikes. Social betterment had lagged far behind the wishes of enlightened leaders like Mr. Lloyd George, and the desires of the socialist and radical teachers. The condition of a great part of the people seemed far less good than that of the Germans, protected by their paternal government, or of the inhabitants of the United States and some of the British dominions, where new lands were being opened up and great natural resources made use of. The evils of industrialism had by no means disappeared. For its size Britain was the wealthiest country in the world, but this wealth was largely concentrated in the hands of a few. It was estimated that half the national income went to 12 per cent, of the population, that all the rest of the people were poor, and that in some communities a third of them were always on the verge of starvation. Before 1914 travellers were struck by the appalling misery of the slums of Glasgow and the dreadful poverty of wide areas about the Whitechapel district in London. To some extent it was against such conditions that the British trades unions were struggling; and their ignorant, obstinate, and ar- DEMOCRATIC BRITAIN 409 bitrary methods were often to be explained and excused because of the ancient and terrible evils which they con- fronted. Most of the land had long since come into the possession of a few great owners. In England two thirds of the soil was owned by 10,000 persons, and almost all of Scotland by 1,700 persons; many of the large estates being entailed, so that they could not easily be alienated or divided, and so that they passed intact from one generation to another. To a considerable extent Britain was a country of beautiful parks and estates, with picturesque old villages delightful to the tourist's eye, though often antiquated, unsanitary, and not sufficient for the needs of the rural population. The agricultural laborers were crowded off the land, or else entirely at the mercy of powerful landowners. At the other extreme were the great landed proprietors, with large fortunes and extensive investments, taxed lightly on their lands, wealthy, powerful, constituting — far more than in France, and as much as in Germany — an aristocratic caste above the other inhabitants. They completely dominated fashionable and social life, they filled many of the important places in the government, and some of them composed the House of Lords. Generally they had been wise and careful, and had contributed not a little to the welfare of the country, and it was for this reason that they continued to retain so much of their position and power. But many Englishmen had long thought it a misfortune that their agriculture should so far decline and their rural population diminish; there had long been agitation, which increased during the war, for the government in some way to compel the breaking up of the great estates and to settle part of the population upon them. For the increased expenses of the government caused by the social legislation which was being carried through, more money was needed, and Mr. Lloyd George, chan- cellor of the exchequer, now proposed to increase the Aristocracy and great estates The House of Lords and the budget 410 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The House of Lords and the House of Commons budget partly by increased income taxes and also by heavy taxation on the unearned increment of land values, that is, where the value of unoccupied or unimproved land was increased not through anything done by the owner but by the mere increase in population or surrounding values. Thus he proposed to get the larger amounts of money needed by higher taxes on the possessions of the wealthy, but his scheme was denounced as striking at the very se- curity of property, and when the provision passed the House of Commons at the end of 1909 it was at once re- jected by the Lords. Parliament was now dissolved, and a new election held in which the great issue before the country was the "veto power" of the upper house. Parliament had long been a body of two houses, whose principal business was the pass- ing of laws and the appropriation of money. In the pass- ing of bills it was necessary that both houses give their consent, nor could a bill become law if either the Lords or the Commons refused. During the eighteenth century the principle had been equally well established that bills for the appropriation of money were to originate in the Commons and not to be altered by the Lords. In other respects, however, the House of Lords continued to have the veto power and used it not infrequently. On several important occasions there had been bitter disputes between the two houses, and on two memorable occasions — when new peers were created, in 1711, to get the approval of a majority of the Lords for the Treaty of Utrecht, and in 1832, when new creations were threatened to pass the electoral reform law through the upper House — the govern- ment had employed a special device to overcome the Lords' veto. Now in 1910, after the Lords had rejected the Finance Bill, parliament was dissolved and elections held on the issue of abolishing altogether the veto power of the Lords. The Liberals won and brought forward such a bill, which the Lords rejected. Again parliament was dissolved DEMOCRATIC BRITAIN 411 and the issue bitterly contested in general elections, and again the Liberals triumphed. Early in 1911 it was an- nounced that a sufficient number of new peers would be created to carry the bill. Then the House of Lords yielded and the bill was enacted into law. This Parliament Law of 1911 provided that the Lords should have no power whatever to reject any money bill, and that any other measure passing the Commons in three successive sessions in a period of not less than two years should become law despite the veto of the Lords. Thus was the constitution of parliament fundamentally altered. For a long time the Lords had been more powerful and im- portant than the Commons, but since the eighteenth century the Commons had been getting an ascendancy greater and greater. None the less the Lords might still oppose and successfully obstruct. Now substantially this power was taken away from them, and only that part of parliament which was elected by the people remained with great influence in the state. It is probable that the upper House of the English parliament will be reconstituted on a more modern basis. At present its power is far less than that of the American Senate, which, since 1913, has been made directly dependent on the people. As of old, legally the king still possessed the right to veto a bill, but actually no sovereign had done this since 1707, and this prerogative had been completely lost. In 1911 also by this same law the maximum duration of a parliament was fixed at five years, instead of seven, as previously since 1716. In the same year the Commons voted to pay their members, something once done, but long discontinued. Meanwhile earnest efforts were being made to settle the Irish question, and it began to seem that at last success was nearly at hand. During much of the nineteenth century Ireland had been governed by coercion acts and military rule, against which the secret societies retaliated again and again with outrage, destruction, and terror. Bad as condi- The Parliament Law of 1911 The Irish Question 412 EUROPE, 1789-1920 tions in Ireland were, they had arisen not from any special wickedness of Englishmen but as a result of methods which were everywhere applied in times past, and because of circumstances particularly unhappy. These conditions were changed all too slowly. But in the latter part of the nineteenth century a great alteration came to pass. Stead- ily the people of Britain had become more sensitive to wrong and the suffering about them. Moreover Britain was slowly being transformed into a democracy, with the power of the government more and more in the hands of the people. And just as in the nineteenth century a great series of reforms had been carried out to better the lot of the mass of the people in Britain, so after a while, as the British people and their leaders understood better the conditions in Ireland, they turned themselves to the long and diflScult task of improving them and undoing the wrongs once committed. Reforms Roman Catholics had already been emancipated, but the removal of religious discrimination was completed in 1869 by the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland, which was the Protestant Church long before established by the British government and endowed with property, and which had until recently been supported with tithes paid by the Catholic Irish. Next, urged on by violent agitation and the savage lawlessness of some of the Irish, the government gave its attention to the question of the land. Beginning with 1870 a series of acts was passed by which Irish tenants were protected in their tenures; their right was established to compensation for improvements on the land while it was in their possession; and presently the government itself took measures to see that they were not made to pay excessive rents. More important still, another series of laws, passed in the last quarter of the century, gave gov- ernment assistance to the peasants so that they might buy their lands and become owners themselves, they repaying the government, with moderate interest, in small payments DEMOCRATIC BRITAIN 413' over a long period of time, the terms being so generously arranged that presently it was cheaper for an Irishman to buy his land than it was to pay rent. By 1910 half of the island was in possession of small holders, who were slowly paying the government; and it was evident that in the course of time Ireland would be owned by peas- ant proprietors more than almost any other country. Further progress would lie in setting up again, if modern conditions permitted, the old commerce and industry of ^^^ the island. ^-^^f^^"'^ Irishmen were far from being satisfied, however. They Home remained discontented with the government which made ^"^® them part of the United Kingdom. Some of them wished complete independence and separation, like the adherents of Young Ireland who arose about 1840, and like the Fen- ians who were active after 1860; but most of the people followed more conservative leaders. About 1870 the Home Rule movement began under Isaac Butt, and was soon carried forward by Parnell. This was designed to secure Irish self-government for an Ireland which would nevertheless continue in the United Kingdom, joined with Great Britain. Most of the people in Britain, however, were opposed even to this partial separation. Home Rule was advocated by the Liberal Party under Gladstone in 1886 and in 1893, but both times the bill which was intro- duced into parliament failed to be enacted as a law. For some years nothing further was accomplished, but the Irish under their new leader, John Redmond, continued their efforts. The great opportunity came when the Liberal Party under Asquith and Lloyd George were trying to bring about their social reforms. The Irish Nationalist members were willing to vote with them on condition that in return a Home Rule law should be passed. The Lib- erals were the more willing to do this since many of them favored Irish self-government. Thus, it was by Irish support that the Parliament Act of 1911 was finally put 414 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Th« Third Home Rule Bill passed, 1914 Ultttr Sinn Fmin Ireland and Britain through; and in the following year a third Home Rule Bill was brought in. A memorable struggle followed. It was known that the House of Lords would refuse to sanction such a measure, but no longer could the Lords do more than delay such a statute. The Home Rule Bill of 1912, which satisfied many of the Irish people, was passed again by the Com- mons in 1913 and 1914, in spite of the veto of the Lords, and was on the point of becoming law when the Great War broke out. Meanwhile, however, very serious opposition had de- veloped from a large part of the inhabitants of Ulster, who declared that they would under no circumstances permit themselves to be separated from the government of the United Kingdom, since they feared religious and economic oppression from the Catholic majority in Ireland, if Home Rule were established over them; and they declared that they would resist such separation by force. The Great War put an end to the question for a while, the Home Rule Bill being passed, but the law suspended for the duration of the war. It was most unfortunate that this question had not been settled long before, since events were now to show that it was almost too late to undertake any settlement at all. For some time there had been coming into greater promi- nence a group of Irishmen who desired to revive the Celtic literature and character of the past; from this had come a great deal of excellent writing in the so-called Irish Literary Revival, and also some attempt to revive the use of the Celtic tongue, which by the beginning of the twentieth century had almost come to an end in the island. This movement went further under the leadership of men whose motto was Sinn Fein (We ourselves), who presently wished to get complete political independence for Ireland. The spirit of these people, and of other radicals in Ireland was greatly stirred by the mighty changes of the war, and DEMOCRATIC BRITAIN 415 in April 1916 some of them suddenly rose in rebellion in Dublin. The insurrection was quickly crushed and sternly punished, but large results followed from it. The Irish people had not yet received the Home Rule and self- government which they had so long sought, and they felt now little disposed to make allowance for the diflBcul- ties in which the British government found itself during the struggle of the nations. When the government ruled with firmness it alienated most of the people; when it tried leniency they merely turned to Sinn Fein. Many of them now lost their desire for Home Rule, and hoped that soon imder Sinn Fein they would get complete independence. This the people of Britain would in no wise consider, since for hundreds of years rulers and statesmen had been trying to bring about the union of the British Isles, and also because the geographical position of Ireland was such that she could control the principal lines of communication from Great Britain over the seas to the sources of Britain's raw materials and her food. If an independent Ireland were ever hostile to Great Britain in war, or if she got into the enemy's hands, then the British might be starved into surrender and their empire destroyed. By 1917 the people of Britain were quite willing to have An Irish Irishmen govern themselves in domestic matters, but they Republic insisted that Ireland should continue to be united with iqiq Great Britain and under the control of a central govern- ment in the matters which affected them all. Mr. Lloyd George, who had become the prime minister, called an Irish Convention to settle a scheme of Irish self-govern- ment, but no agreement could be reached that was satisfactory to either of the extreme parties, Ulster and Sinn Fein. Most of the Protestants of Ulster wanted no Home Rule, and the adherents of Sinn Fein sought inde- pendence. At the end of the war, when general elections .were held in the United Kingdom, Sinn Fein won a sweep- ing victory in Ireland, electing three fourths of the repre- 1919 416 EUROPE, 1789-1920 sentatives chosen. They announced that they would not sit in the parliament at Westminster, and early in 1919 proclaimed a republic, appealing to America and the Peace Conference at Paris to give them assistance. After the extreme passions of the period have subsided it is pro- bable that the Irish will have self-government satisfactory to them, and yet, in outside affairs, remain in their union with Great Britain. Foreign The foreign relations of Great Britain during this period relations are best related in other connections. Down to about 1900 she strove to stand aloof as much as she could from Continental affairs. Her interests were principally im- perial and colonial: the protection of the colonies already acquired, and, from time to time, the acquiring of new ones. For this a strong navy rather than a strong army was necessary, and so Britain did not usually come into rivalry with such great military powers as Austria-Hungary and the German Empire. With France, however, whose interests were also colonial and naval, and with Russia, whose ambition it was to acquire territorial possessions near her own, she had not a few bitter disputes. So, in 1878, during the Russo-Turkish War, Britain made ready to oppose Russia as she had done before in the Crimean War; and at the Congress of Berlin, as before at the Congress of Paris, succeeded in holding her back. The rivalry with France became even more acute. With France generally there had been good relations after the ' overthrow of Napoleon I, but following the establishment of the Third Republic, when Frenchmen turned from Europe to build up a great colonial empire again, and in furthering this developed strong naval power, Britain became cold and suspicious. The rivalry culminated in 1898, when British moving southward from Egypt met Frenchmen moving eastward in the Sudan, at Fashoda. The two nations came to the very brink of war, which was only avoided through surrender by France. Thereafter DEMOCRATIC BRITAIN 417 conditions became better, and in less than a decade Brit- ain, regarding the German Empire as her most dangerous rival, entered into the Triple Entente with Russia and France. BIBLIOGRAPHY General: R. H. Gretton, A Modern History of the English People, 1880-1910, 2 vols. (2d ed. 1913), liberal; Sir Spencer Walpole, History of Twenty-Five Years, 185^6-1880, 4 vols. (1904-8), moderate Liberal; Paul Mantoux, A travers VAngle- terre Contemporaine (1909). Biographies and memoirs: Edward Legge, King Edward in His True Colors (1913), More about King Edward (1913); Alexander Mackintosh, Joseph Chamberlain (ed. 1914); Winston Churchill, Lord Randolph Churchill, 2 vols. (1906); Stephen Gwynn and Gertrude M. Tuckwell, The Life of the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles W. Dilke, 2 vols. (1917); John (Viscount) Morley, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone, 3 vols. (1903), admirable; John (Viscount) Morley, Recollections, 2 vols. (1917) ; R. B. O'Brien, Life of Charles Stewart Parnell, 3 vols. (1898); H. D. Traill, Marquis of Salisbury (1891); Lytton Strachey, Eminent Victor- ians (1919), briUiant and striking studies. Social and economic: C. J. H. Hayes, British Social Politics (1913), documents; Graham Balfour, The Educational System of Great Britain and Ireland (2d ed. 1903) ; W. L. Blease, The Emancipation of English Women (ed. 1913); Charles Booth, editor. Life and Labour of the People in London, 17 vols. (1892- 1903), containing a vast amount of information about poverty and the condition of the working class; R. E. Prothero, English Farming Past and Present (1912) ; The Report of the Land Enquiry Committee, A. H. Dyke Acland (chairman), 2 vols. (1914); A. R. Wallace, Land Nationalization (1882). The Irish Question: for a general account, E. R. Turner, Ireland and England, in the Past and at Present (1919); P. W. Joyce, A Concise History of Ireland from the Earliest Times to 1908 (20th ed. 1914) ; Ernest Barker, Ireland in the Last Fifty Years (1866-1916) (1917); Sir Horace Plunkett, Ireland in the New Century (1904); for critical and hostile accounts, T. D. In- gram, A History of the Legislative Union of Great Britain and Ireland (1887), A Critical Examination of Irish History, 2 vols. (1900), from the Elizabethan conquest to 1800; on Irish condi- 418 EUROPE, 1789-1920 tions, Louis Paul-Dubois, VIrlande Contemporaine et la Question Irlandaise (1907). Home Rule: The A B C Home Ride Handbook, ed. by C. R. Buxton (1912); Against Home Rule: the Case for the Unions edited by S. Rosenbaum (1912). The Rebellion of 1916: The Irish Rebellion of 1916, edited by Maurice Joy (1916); W. B. Wells and N. Marlowe, A History of the Irish Rebellion of 1916 (1917). Sinn Fein: R. M. Henry, The Evoluiion of Sinn Fein (1919); P. S. 0*Hegarty, Sinn Fein, an Illumination (1919). For the student who cares to go further afield in his studies there is an immense amoimt of important and interesting information concerning a vast variety of matters about Great Britain and the United Kingdom in the Parliamentary History, the Parliamentary Debates, and the numerous Parliamentary Papers. i CHAPTER VI RUSSIA For ever extending its base, the new Democracy now aspires to uni- versal suffrage — a fatal error, and one of the most remarkable in the history of mankind. . . . We may well ask in what con- sists the superiority of Democracy. Everywhere the strongest man becomes master of the State. . . . Among the falsest of political principles is the principle of the sov- ereignty of the people ... a principle which has unhappily become more firmly established since the time of the French Revo- lution. Were we to attempt a true definition of Parliament, we should say that Parliament is an institution serving for the satisfaction of the personal ambition, vanity, and self-interest of its members. The institution of Parliament is indeed one of the greatest illustrations of human delusion. KoNSTANTiN PoBiEDONOSTSEV, Reflections of a Russian States- man (trans. R. C. Long, 1898), pp. 26, 27, 32, 34, 35. Alexander III (1881-1894), son of the murdered Alex- Alexander ander II, was determined to avenge the death of his father, m and crush all elements of disorder. The voice of God, he said, bade him strengthen and preserve his autocratic power. In temperament he was a reactionary like his grandfather, Nicholas I. And in the efforts which now he made he was constantly abetted by Pobiedonostsev, Pro- curator of the Holy Synod, a minister who at the end of the century stood for what Metternich had upheld at the beginning. Alexander believed that the good of the Russian state would be obtained if autocracy was strengthened and new ideas kept out, and he set himself to the task of undoing what the reactionaries thought were 419 420 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Pobiedon- ostsey Reaction Land Captains Repression his father's mistakes. Pobiedonostsev developed with sincerity a philosophical basis for the ideas which he strove to apply, and, like Metternich, he afterward explained them in his Reflections. He believed that autocratic gov- ernment was not only best for the Russians, but best in itself, and that democracy was a cumbersome thing which had arisen in the errors of the western peoples. In the parliamentary system he not only saw the defects which others have seen, but believed it to be altogether useless. In a short time the great reforms of Alexander II were largely undone. The peasants were put back under the control of the local upper classes as much as possible. In 1886 it was decreed that breach of contract by a Russian laborer should be a criminal offence, thus binding the lower classes with stricter economic control. More im- portant still, in 1889 the local elected magistrates were replaced by oflScials known as Land Captains, to be ap- pointed by the provincial governor from among the upper classes of the neighborhood, and they were given not only judicial but also administrative functions, so that they had practically unlimited authority over the peasants, ruling them at the behest of the central government. In this way the administration of justice sank back into the evil state of a generation before. About the same time the character of the zemstvos, or provincial assemblies, and the dumas, or councils of the cities, was changed, by increasing the representation of the upper classes and diminishing that of the lower, and then taking from the assemblies thus altered much of their power. In upholding their system the methods of Metternich 's age were employed. There was stern regulation of the press, and many newspapers were stopped. The univer- sities were put under strictest control. A great part of all the Russian people were illiterate, but pernicious west- em ideas were to be kept from those who got an education in Russia. The radicals and nihilists were remorselessly RUSSIA 421 pursued by the secret police; and the police of Russia under the direction of Von Plehve, reached a terrible efficiency previously not attained. For a long time all this seemed to succeed well enough. The Tsar spent the thirteen years of his reign apart from his people, apart from his ministers even, guarded by the secret police and by innumerable sentries, safe from the enemies who continued to threaten his life as they had threatened his father's. The old system of government and Church remained unaltered and un- shaken. The Nihilists lost influence after the assassina- tion of Alexander II, and presently lost heart. The great mass of the people, an ignorant peasantry devoted to the old Russian system and traditions even in the midst of misery which they endured but did not understand how to cure, remained passive and loyal. There was no powerful middle class yet, and the central government with its vast organization of officials seemed to hold unassailable position. Alexander ardently wished to bring about greater unity and strength by obliterating the local differences which divided the peoples of his domain. Such an ideal was no new thing. It had been cherished by the rulers of Austria half a century before, by the Hungarians when they got power to govern, and it was a policy which the rulers of Germany were vigorously carrying out in Schleswig and Posen. Most of the great states of Europe had once been formed by bringing together different peoples; and though long time had obliterated most of the differences, some of them still remained. Such divisions were marked and important in Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire. In the Dual Monarchy Germans and Magyars often worked together with utmost difficulty, while a great num- ber of Bohemians, Rumanians, Poles, and South Slavs were held together largely by force. In the western world it was not generally realized that the Russian Empire con- tained peoples as diverse and forces almost as disruptive Russifica- tion Subject peoples t 422 EUROPE, 1789-1920 as those within Austria-Hungary. There was indeed a great difference: the power of the Dual Monarchy was based upon a minority made up of Germans and Magyars, while the power of Russia was founded upon the Great Russians the largest, the strongest, and the most important element in the state. None the less the vast expanse of the empire contained other elements of much importance which had not yet been welded together, while in the out- lying portions were large districts containing non-Russian peoples who had lost their freedom and were held in un- willing subjection. The peoples All of central and most of northern Russia were held by o uss a ^Y^^ Great Russians, but to the south in the Ukraine, the rich- est district of the empire and one of the chief sources of the wheat supply of the world, the people, while Slavic in race and adherents of the Eastern Catholic faith, spoke a dialect which differed from that of the Great Russians as much as Low German was unlike High German, and they had developed a literature of their own. To the west lay the White Russians, also Slavs and also belonging to the Orthodox Church, but speaking yet another dialect of Slavic, and the Lithuanians, an Indo-European people closely related to the Slavs, with their own distinct speech, and adhering to the Roman Catholic religion. Over Lithuania and to a less extent the Ukraine, Polish culture prevailed and some of the upper classes were Polish, for in the days of her greatness the Kingdom of Poland had ' included these outlying dominions. To the east of Euro- j>ean Russia the vast reaches of her Asiatic empire con- tained a sparse population of many diverse peoples but also, as the principal class, Russian immigrants from Europe. All of these parts, Great Russia, the Ukraine, Lithuania, Siberia, were sufficiently alike to unite natur- ally, and the local differences which persisted would, under good administration, do no harm or else disappear in time. ARCTIC^ V///A Great Russians t^^^^ Caucasians UTTTTTTin Little Russians ^^ Rumanians \%=-=-£i White Russians ■■ Germans ; Poles W^^ Uthuanians Letts flUTIHi!!? Esthonlans ^^ Tatars flnmni Cheremiss \^^^y^-:h Finns Y'^'/^/^i Armenians PS^?^ Kalmaks GENERAL DRAFTING CO.I 18. RACIAL MAP OF RUSSIA 423 424 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Outi3niig parts of th« £mpir« This was not so in some of the outlying parts which brought Russia down to the sea or into contact with cen- tral Europe. In the far north were the Lapps, a Mon- golian people, unimportant in their distant frozen plains. To the south of them, and by the sea, were the Finns, also an Asiatic f)eople, whose country had long been possessed by Sweden, so that not only was the civilization Swedish and the religion Lutheran but the people of the upper class were Swedish. Finland had long been a distinct state, as Poland had been at first, orga/uzed as a grand duchy, and connected with Russia through the person of the Tsar. These people had been taken by conquest, had no real bond of union with the Russian people, they were greatly jealous of any encroachment on their priv- ileges, and determined to maintain their identity and character. To the south of the Gulf of Finland, on the Gulf of Riga, and down the coast of the Baltic, were pro- vinces — Esthonia, Livonia, Courland — taken from Sweden or Poland as Russia won her outlets here on the sea. Their people were Finns or Letts, a branch of the Lithuan- ian people, completely dominated by a German upper class, the "Baltic Barons." Farther to the west and the south, and thrusting itself in between Prussia and Austria- Hungary, was Poland, formerly the Kingdom of Poland which Russia had organized and united with herself under the Tsar, and a part of the independent Poland of earlier days. The Poles were Roman Catholic in religion, and while Slavic in race, were a distinct branch of the Slavic people, speaking a tongue as different from Russian as Swedish was from the German. For a long time they had been the leading branch of the Slavs in Europe; they con- tinued to feel that their civilization was higher than that of the Russians; they clung to their nationality and Roman Catholic faith with passionate devotion; and longed vainly, it seemed, for freedom and independence once more. Far to the southeast, between the Black and the Caspian seas. RUSSIA 425 was Caucasia, comprising a great number of little peoples of different races and religions, strongly conscious of sep- arate nationality. The great diversity of peoples in the Russian Empire was strikingly seen in some of the cities on the Volga, where the market places were thronged with multitudes of strange peoples speaking a babble of different tongues. Nor was this all. In European Russia the larger num- ber of the Jews of the world long continued to live, clinging to their faith, their customs and their racial consciousness as the Jews have generally done. More important but less striking was the German element. For a long time Germans had been penetrating the lands of the Russian Empire, where, by their superior culture and efficiency, they were able to exploit the natives. In the Baltic Provinces the upper class was German; in other places were isolated colonies preserving language and racial character; almost everywhere were German business men and skilled arti- sans, who controlled or directed a great part of the econo- mic life of the state; while for a century and a half the Tsars had usually married German princesses, and been attended by German favorites and assistants. Russia with a vast population of backward people, with illimitable resources and raw materials to be exploited and used, lying right to the east of the German Empire with its intelligent, highly developed, and aggressive people, was for Germans the best field for economic expansion. It had long been the ambition and the proper policy of states to achieve as complete unity as possible. In the United States of America, where the population had been increased by emigration from all parts of Europe, an English-speaking nation, with much coherence and unity, had been easily achieved because of an excellent system of education and as a result of liberal institutions. The children of immigrants in the United States of their own accord gave up the alien speech and the foreign customs Jewg and Germans Unification 426 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Methods of RussificA- Uon Extreme Slavic nationalism which their parents had brought. But in Russia, where there was no general system of education, and where the government was oppressive and inefficient, such unification could only be brought about by force, and this the Russian government tried to do in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Under Alexander III continued attempt was made to Russianize all the people. The Jews, the most evidently alien part of the population and greatly disliked, were sub- jected to such persecution as to deprive them of "the most common rights of citizens." They were concentrated to- gether in the west, in what was known as the Jewish Pale, forbidden to own land, debarred to a great extent from schools and the professions, and often left to the mercy of mobs. The Poles continued to be excluded from the government, and Russian was to be taught in their schools. In the next reign the particular privileges of Finland were withdrawn, and the government put in the hands of Rus- sian officials; while in the Baltic Provinces Russian was proclaimed as the official tongue. The Russian Church, as always, cooperating with the government, forwarded the work. The Holy Synod persecuted the members of other sects and forcibly converted some of them to the Orthodox Church. This policy of Russification was also an aspect of the extreme nationalism which grew constantly so much stronger in Germany, in Russia, and other places. During the latter part of the nineteenth century there rose up among the Slavs, and especially among the Great Russians, a host of writers who asserted that almost all of the in- habitants of the Russian Empire, and many peoples of central Europe and the Balkans, were of the great Slavic race, best of all races in character and institutions, and destined to have the most glorious future of any of the peoples of the earth. The Russian autocracy, the Ortho- dox Church, the village community of the Slavs, were all RUSSIA 427 the best things of their kind. These nationalists incul- cated the doctrine of Pan-Slavism, just as in central Europe Pan-Germanism was similarly taught. It was their object to unify the peoples within Russia and so make her stronger, ready to undertake the mission of protecting all the other Slavs, perhaps some day of uniting them all together. Under Alexander III the Russian government was able to maintain itself and resist all progress. The Tsar and some of his principal oflScials believed sincerely that the system they upheld was for the best interests of the people, and they labored hard to make Russia strong and great. But such government — above the influence and criticism of the mass of the people, controlled entirely by the Autocrat of all the Russias yet largely administered by a vast num- ber of officials with whom he rarely if ever came in contact, and who therefore did much as they pleased — contained the causes of its own destruction. Many of the officials were corrupt and inefficient, powerful only in oppressing the people beneath them, not able to rule honestly or well. After a while the Russian government came to be some- thing like the systems which had endured so long in west- ern Europe and then fell almost of their own weight about the time of the French Revolution. It might long main- tain itself in ordinary times over the great multitude of passive Russian peasants, but most probably it would be silently undermined by imperceptible forces, and if some great disaster came it might suddenly fall into ruins. During the last part of the nineteenth century the old Russian system in reality was being shaken by the In- dustrial Revolution. Then in 1905 the disasters of the Russo-Japanese War sHook it to its base, and the greater calamities of the War of the Nations at last destroyed it altogether. The policy of Alexander III was continued by his son Nicholas II (1894-1918). Like the last French ruler of Strength and weak- ness of the system Nicholas II 428 EUROPE, 1789-1920 The Indus- trial Revolution in Russia Social con- sequences in Russia the old regime, he was amiable in character, but also weak and easily swayed, whether by the German Emperor in foreign affairs or by his wife and his ministers at home. He took what he found, and he upheld it because he believed it was good. To diminish his autocratic power would be most foolish, he thought. For a long time his most trusted adviser was Pobiedonostsev. Von Plehve was made Minister of the Interior and given enormous power for the continuance of his work. Nicholas approved the policy of Russianizing all the parts of his dominions. The forerunner of the great changes soon to take place was the Industrial Revolution, after the emancipation of the serfs the most important thing in the history of Russia in the nineteenth century. Especially under the guidance of Count Sergyey Witte, who became Minister of Finance in 1893, a large industrial development went forward. The Dual Alliance had just been made between Russia and France, and a great amount of capital was loaned by the French. Rapid increase of the Russian agricultural population, obliged to support itself upon holdings of land not sufficiently large, drove increasing numbers of Russian peasants to the cities in search of work. Tariffs were levied to protect new industries, factories multiplied, and the population of the cities rapidly increased. Railroads were constructed or extended, until Russian mileage ex- ceeded that of any European country; though, because of the large distances within the empire, railway facilities continued to be more inadequate than in any other great country of Europe. About the middle of the nineteenth century more than nine tenths of the people of the Russian Empire lived scat- tered in the country. Upon this rural population, ignor- ant and extremely conservative, the earlier reformers and radicals had been unable to make any impression; and so the Nihilist movement had come to an end largely because it remained a movement with leaders but without many RUSSIA 429 followers among the people. Now there grew up a larger urban population, an industrial proletariat which re- sponded more quickly to the ideas of leaders who wished to change the government and the system that existed. In Moscow, in St. Petersburg, in the Polish cities, increasing crowds of overworked, ill-paid workingmen, were very will- ing to think of changes in the state. There now rose up the party of the Social Democrats, who hoped that later on the existing system would be overthrown, after which, in a re- generated Russia, socialism might be established . The new leaders obtained adherents more easily than the old, yet the urban population of Russia at the end of the century was still less than 14 per cent, of the whole. But now the new ideas began to affect the peasants, hitherto inert. The Social Democratic Party of the workmen organized the factory operatives of the towns, who tried to better their condition and get their reforms by strikes. Among the peasants, who had no land or who had not enough land to support them, the Socialist Revolutionary Party rose up, these peasants desiring to take from the great proprietors their estates, which were then to be di- vided in small holdings. The great changes which now took place resulted directly from terrible disasters which affected all of the people. For some time in the latter part of the nineteenth century Russian foreign policy continued as it had been in the ear- lier part; friendship was maintained with Prussia and the German Empire, and Russia continued to try to expand to the sea. Her efforts to dominate the Balkans and, per- haps, control Constantinople were frustrated by Great Britain after the Russo-Turkish War in 1878, and there- after by the opposition of Austria-Hungary. Germany drew closer in alliance with the Dual Monarchy, but under Bismarck's masterly handling of foreign relations Russia was bound to Germany by a secret treaty. In 1890, how- ever, the new German Emperor refused to prolong this. Socialism Foreign affairs 4S0 EUROPE, 1789-1920 and Russia soon joined France in the Dual Alliance, changing her foreign policy completely. She now had increasingly the opposition of Germany as well as of Aus- tria in the Balkans, and while continuing to take great interest in affairs there she turned her attention more and more to expanding her dominions in Asia. All of northern Asia, or Siberia, had been taken as far as the Pacific, but the Russians hoped to go southward and reach ports on the warmer seas. Much progress was made, but always in western Asia the power of Great Britain in the end blocked the way. Russia ^^ ^^^ eastern half of the continent Russia's southern China, and neighbor was China, and here the prospect of success was Japan greater, for at the end of the century China seemed just about to fall to pieces. Still farther to the east, it is true, the Japanese, in their island empire, had just taken up western civilization and methods with amazing capacity, and in 1894-5 gained a complete triumph in the Chinese- Japanese War; but Japan was not yet regarded as a match for any great European power, and at once Japan was by Russia, Germany, and France compelled to give up most of the fruits of her victory. The so-called Trans- Siberian railway, which had been begun in 1891, and which was to run from Moscow to Vladivostok on the Pacific, was being pushed steadily forward, and Russian expansionists dreamed of splendid possessions soon to be ^ got from the dying Chinese Empire and the acquisition at last of an ice-free ocean port. This was a time when apparently China was about to be divided up among preda- tory European powers. In 1897 the Germans seized Kiao-Chau. Next year France got concessions in south- em China; and at the same time Russia obtained much greater ones in the north. In 1898 she obtained from the Chinese government the right to build the Siberian railway across Manchuria; she was soon in possession of that pro- vince, and she got a lease of the great stronghold, Port RUSSIA 431 Arthur, at the end of the Liao-tung peninsula, from which Japan had shortly before been compelled to go, and which she now joined with her railway by a branch line, and converted into one of the strongest positions in the world. After the Boxer outbreak in 1900, the Russians took com- plete possession of Manchuria, and, in the years that followed, threatened to advance farther and absorb Korea, which lay on the flank of their communication between Manchuria and Liao-tung. Not only had Japan long wished to obtain Korea, but such was its geographical posi- tion, pointed directly at the heart of Japan, that in the hands of Russia it might be as dangerous as Belgium, in the possession of Napoleon or the German Empire, would have been to Great Britain. In February 1904 the Japan- ese suddenly struck and then declared war. Japan was greatly inferior in resourses, but she had a splendid modern army of brave, hardy, and devoted soldiers, and an excellent fleet. Russia, far stronger, with greater army and fleet, was badly organized and poorly prepared, and fought moreover far from her base. Japan was close to the area of conflict. The beginning of the struggle found the Russian fleet in the east divided, part at Port Arthur, part at Vladivostok. At once, before declaration of war had been made, the warships in Port Arthur were attacked and greatly dam- aged. When at last, some months later this fleet came forth to give battle, it sustained a terrible defeat. The squadron at Vladivostok was destroyed ; and the Japanese got undisputed control of the sea. Meanwhile they had sent a great army over into Korea, from which an inferior force of Russians was quickly driven. Then one Japanese army advanced into Man- churia, while another went down the Liao-tung peninsula to lay siege to Port Arthur. Everywhere the Russians were defeated. In September at Liao-yang was fought the first great battle in which the fearful new devices of The Russo- Japanese War, 1904-5 Japan gets control of tbe sea Japanese victories on land 432 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Mukden Tsushima, the decisive victory war were used by large armies. The Russians were en- trenched in a wonderfully fortified position, but after terrible slaughter the Japanese drove them out. Mean- while the Japanese attempted to carry the impregnable fortress of Port Arthur by storm. Hideous slaughter re- sulted, but in January 1905, after a long siege, the fortress was taken. At the end of February the main Japanese army, reinforced by the army which had captured Port Arthur and now amounting to about three hundred thou- sand men, attacked the Russians who had about the same number. In the next two weeks, in a great struggle known as the Battle of Mukden, the Russians were driven back in complete defeat, losing a third of their number. In all the principal engagements thus far the Russians had been beaten, but they might still hope for victory in the end, for whereas the Japanese had brought into play nearly all their force the Russians, who were not yet vitally wounded, had used only a part of theirs. If they could get control of the sea, the Japanese armies would at once be cut off from their base and quickly forced to yield; and if this failed, then in a contest of resources Japan might first be worn out. The Baltic fleet, what remained of Russia's power on the sea, was aheady on its way around the world, superior to the enemy in numbers, but inferior in equipment and personnel. May 27, 1905, it encoun- tered the Japanese fleet under Admiral Togo in the Battle of Tsushima, near Japan, by far the greatest sea fight since Trafalgar, and one of the most decisive in history. There the Japanese ships, with superior speed and range of fire, got the position which they desired and performed the maneuver of "capping the line"; for as the Russian ships advanced in column formation, they at their own distance steamed across the path of the approaching enemy and destroyed his ships in succession. The Russian fleet was annihilated, and Japanese control of the sea finally as^ sured. RUSSIA The war was not yet won, however. Japan was almost completely exhausted. If the Russians persisted, time was probably on their side. But domestic considerations now caused them to lose heart and abandon the struggle. President Roosevelt of the United States attempted to mediate, and plenipotentiaries met at Portsmouth, where a treaty was signed September 5th. By the terms of the Treaty of Portsmouth, Russia abandoned to Japan Port Arthur and her rights in the Liao-tung peninsula, gave over her attempts upon Manchuria and Korea, and ceded to Japan the southern part of Sakhalin, an island to the north of the Japanese group, and, indeed, forming an ex- tension of the archipelago of Japan. In the Far East Japan became now the dominant power, and presently seemed to threaten China. Russia had yielded principally because such internal unrest and confusion had arisen that the whole structure of her government seemed near to the point of collapse. The system which the government had upheld by force, by arbitrary arrests, by secret trial, by banishment to Siberia, through the power of the secret police and the army, could be maintained only so long as Russia was at peace. Now the government was deeply mvolved in a distant war, which was never popular, which most of the people ill understood, in which patriotic fervor was never aroused. Had there been a great success, the military glory abroad might have stilled discontent at home, but when news came of repeated and shameful defeats in Man- churia and on the seas about China, popular fury burst out, and the radicals among the workingmen of the towns, the radical peasants in the country, the liberals of the upper and middle classes, and all the oppressed peoples — the Jews, the Poles, the Finns, and others — turned against the author- ities, and it was no longer possible to resist them. In July 1904 Von Plehve was blown to pieces by a bomb; in the following February the Grand Duke Serzei, The Treaty of Ports- mouth, 1905 Discontent and disorder in Russia' Terror and uprising 484 EUROPE, 1789-1920 Sunday** The first Duma proclaimed, 1905 The October Manifesto reactionary uncle of the Tsar, was assassinated; and after that a great many murders of officials took place. In the cities workingmen declared great strikes, and presently a general strike brought widespread demoralization. In the country districts angry and ignorant peasants drove away country gentlemen and noble landlords, burning their houses and taking their lands as peasants in France had done a century before. In some parts of the country it was difficult to operate the railways, and in outlying provinces armed insurrections broke out. On "Red Sunday," January 22, 1905 a great procession of strikers in St. Petersburg followed a priest to present a petition to the Tsar, but the troops fired upon them, and the blood- shed aroused wild indignation and horror. During all this time the liberals of the upper classes were demanding re- forms, and they along with many others insisted that the war should be ended. Nicholas II soon yielded to the general clamor. He tried at first to give satisfaction with small reform. Some concessions were made to the Poles, the Lithuanians and the Jews, and presently Finland got back her constitution, while the arrears due from the Russian peasants were remitted. But he was urged to summon a national assem- bly, and in August 1905 proclaimed a law establishing an Imperial Duma, or assembly, to advise him in legislative work. He dismissed Pobiedonostsev and other reaction- aries previously all-powerful, and appointed Witte to be prime minister in the cabinet now to be set up. Then he issued the October Manifesto which established freedom of religion, of speech, and of association, and promised that thereafter no law should be made without the Duma^s consent. A series of decrees provided that the members of the Duma should be elected practically by universal suffrage. The old Council of State, which had been much like a king's council in the Middle Ages, was now changed so that part of its members were indirectly elected, and it RUSSIA 435 was made the upper house of the National Assembly with the Duma as the lower. These reforms had been yielded in a period of great weakness. The bureaucracy of officials and most of the powerful upper class were sternly against such concession. Moreover, the reformers almost immediately began to fall apart. To the radicals it seemed that little had been accomplished, and they desired to bring about much more fundamental changes. The liberals divided into two par- ties: the "Octobrists'* were content with what had been granted by the Tsar in the October Manifesto, and they wanted a strong united Russia now under his rule; the "Constitutional Democrats" or "Cadets" under their well known leader. Professor Miliukov, wanted a constitutional government like that of England or France, with respon- sible ministers completely controlled by elected represen- tatives of the people, and they advocated a federal union for the different parts of the Empire. In September, 1905, the war with Japan was ended; the government was immediately relieved from much of its embarrassment, while it had now a far greater military force to be used at home. It was not long before the no- bles, great landlords, and reactionaries generally united, and becoming stronger, by means of armed forces known as the "Black Hundreds" began to drive away the radicals and undo the changes which they had accomplished. During the same time the Tsar began to withdraw the powers given to the Duma. In the decree of March, 1906, he proclaimed that the fundamental laws of the Empire were not to be within the power of the Duma, and declared that foreign affairs, the army, the navy were exclusively within his own jurisdiction. In May, 1906, the first Duma assembled, but it w^as unable to control the ministers, and after a bitter struggle it was dissolved in July. The Cadets, who had made up the majority of the body, would not accept the dismissal, and retiring to Viborg in Finland, Speedy reaction The "Black Hundreds" The first DumSf 190