[Footnote 1: Vide Binder's Prince Metternich.]
[Footnote 2: Official report of the Russian ambassador, Count Pozzo diBorgo, from Paris, of the 14th of December, 1828.]
CCLXVII. The Belgian Revolution
A nation's self-forgetfulness is ever productive of national disgrace. The Netherlands were torn from the empire and placed partly beneath the tyranny of Spain, partly beneath the aegis of France; the dominion of Austria, at a later period, merely served to rouse their provincial spirit, and, during their subsequent annexation to France, the French element decidedly gained the ascendency among the population. When, in 1815, these provinces fell under the rule of Holland, it was hoped that the German element would again rise. But Holland is not Germany. Estranged provinces are alone to be regained by means of their incorporation with an empire imbued with one distinct national spirit; the subordination of one province to another but increases national antipathy and estrangement. Holland, by an ungrateful, inimical policy, unfortunately strove to separate herself from Germany.[1] And yet Holland owes her whole prosperity to Germany. There is her market; thence does she draw her immense wealth; the loss of that market for her colonial productions would prove her irredeemable ruin. Her sovereign, driven into distant exile, was restored to her by the arms of Germany and generously endowed with royalty. Holland, in return for all these benefits, deceitfully deprived Germany of the free navigation of the Rhine to the sea guaranteed to her by the federal act and assumed the right of fixing the price of all goods, whether imported to or exported from Germany. The whole of Germany was, in this unprecedented manner, rendered doubly tributary to the petty state of Holland.
Belgium, annexed to this secondary state instead of being incorporated with great and liberal Germany, necessarily remained a stranger to any influence calculated to excite her sympathy with the general interests of Germany. Cut off, as heretofore, from German influence, she retained, in opposition to the Dutch, a preponderance of the old Spanish and modern French element in her population. Priests and liberals, belonging to the French school, formed an opposition party against the king, who, on his side, rested his sole support upon the Dutch, whom he favored in every respect. Count Broglio, archbishop of Ghent, first began the contest by refusing to take the oath on the constitution. Violence was resorted to and he fled the country. The impolicy of the government in affixing his name to the pillory merely served to increase the exasperation of the Catholics. Hence their acquiescence with the designs of the Jesuits, their opposition to the foundation of a philosophical academy, independent of the clergy, at Louvain. The fact of the population of Belgium being to that of Holland as three to two and the number of its representatives in the states-general being as four to seven, of few, if any, Belgians being allowed to enter the service of the state, the army, or the navy, still further added to the popular discontent. The gross manners of the minister, Van Maanen, also increased the evil. As early as January, 1830, eight liberal Belgian deputies were deprived of their offices, and De Potter, with some others, who had ventured to defend them by means of the press, were banished the kingdom under a charge of high treason.
The Dutch majority in the states-general, notwithstanding its devotion to the king, rejected the ten years' budget on the ground of its affording too long a respite to ministerial responsibility, and protested against the levy of Swiss troops. Slave-trade in the colonies was also abolished in 1818.
The position of the Netherlands, which, Luxemburg excepted, did not appertain to the German confederation, continually exposed her, on account of Belgium, to be attacked on the land side by France, on that of the sea by her ancient commercial foe, England, and had induced the king to form a close alliance with Russia. His son, William of Orange, married a sister of the emperor Alexander.
The colonies did not regain their former prosperity. The Dutch settlement at Batavia with difficulty defended itself against the rebellious natives of Sumatra and Java.
The revolution in Paris had an electric effect upon the irritated Belgians. On the 25th of August, 1830, Auber's opera, "The Dumb Girl of Portici," the revolt of Masaniello in Naples, was performed at the Brussels theatre and inflamed the passions of the audience to such a degree, that, on quitting the theatre, they proceeded to the house of Libry, the servile newspaper editor, and entirely destroyed it: the palace of the minister, Van Maanen, shared the same fate. The citizens placed themselves under arms, and sent a deputation to The Hague to lay their grievances before the king. The entire population meanwhile rose in open insurrection, and the whole of the fortresses, Maestricht and the citadel of Antwerp alone excepted, fell into their hands. William of Orange, the crown prince, ventured unattended among the insurgents at Brussels and proposed, as a medium of peace, the separation of Belgium from Holland in a legislative and administrative sense. The king also made an apparent concession to the wishes of the people by the dismissal of Van Maanen, but shortly afterward declared his intention not to yield, disavowed the step taken by his son, and allowed some Belgian deputies to be insulted at The Hague. A fanatical commotion instantly took place at Brussels; the moderate party in the civic guard was disarmed, and the populace made preparations for desperate resistance. On the 25th of September, Prince Frederick, second son to the king of Holland, entered Brussels with a large body of troops, but encountered barricades and a heavy fire in the Park, the Place Royal, and along the Boulevards. An immense crowd, chiefly composed of the people of Liege and of peasants dressed in the blue smock of the country, had assembled for the purpose of aiding in the defence of the city. The contest, accompanied by destruction of the dwelling-houses and by pillage, lasted five days. The Dutch were accused of practicing the most horrid cruelties upon the defenceless inhabitants and of thereby heightening the popular exasperation. At length, on the 27th of September, the prince was compelled to abandon the city. On the 5th of October, Belgium declared herself independent. De Potter returned and placed himself at the head of the provisional government. The Prince of Orange recognized the absolute separation of Belgium from Holland in a proclamation published at Antwerp, but was, nevertheless, constrained to quit the country. Antwerp fell into the hands of the insurgents; the citadel, however, refused to surrender, and Chassé, the Dutch commandant, caused the magnificent city to be bombarded, and the well-stored entrepot, the arsenal, and about sixty or seventy houses, to be set on fire, during the night of the 27th of October, 1830.[2] The cruelties perpetrated by the Dutch were bitterly retaliated upon them by the Belgian populace. On the 10th of November, however, a national Belgian congress met, in which the moderate party gained the upper hand, principally owing to the influence of the clergy. De Potter's plan for the formation of a Belgian commonwealth fell to the ground. The congress decided in favor of the maintenance of the kingdom, drew up a new constitution, and offered the crown to the Prince de Nemours, second son of the king of the French. It was, however, refused by Louis Philippe in the name of his son, in order to avoid war with the other great European powers. Surlet de Chokier, the leader of the liberal party, hereupon undertook the provisional government of the country, and negotiations were entered into with Prince Leopold of Coburg.
On the 4th of November, a congress, composed of the ministers of England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, met at London for the purpose of settling the Belgian question without disturbing the peace of Europe, and it was decided that Prince Leopold of Coburg, the widower of the princess royal of England, a man entirely under British influence, and who had refused the throne of Greece, should accept that of Belgium. Eighteen articles favorable to Belgium were granted to him by the London congress. Scarcely, however, had he reached Brussels, on the 31st July, 1831, than the fetes given upon that occasion were disturbed by the unexpected invasion of Belgium by a numerous and powerful Dutch force. At Hasselt, the Prince of Orange defeated the Belgians under General Daine, and, immediately advancing against Leopold, utterly routed him at Tirlemont, on the 12th August. The threats of France and England, and the appearance of a French army in Belgium, saved Brussels and compelled the Dutch to withdraw. The eighteen articles in favor of Belgium were, on the other hand, replaced by twenty-four others, more favorable to the Dutch, which Leopold was compelled to accept. The king of Holland, however, refusing to accept these twenty-four articles, with which, notwithstanding the concessions therein contained, he was dissatisfied, the Belgian government took advantage of the undecided state of the question not to undertake, for the time being, half of the public debt of Holland, which, by the twenty-four articles, was laid upon Belgium.
Negotiations dragged on their weary length, and protocol after protocol followed in endless succession from London. In 1832, Leopold espoused Louisa, one of the daughters of the king of the French, and was not only finally recognized by the northern powers, but, by means of the intervention of England, being backed by a fleet, and by means of that of France, being backed by an army, compelled Holland to accept of terms of peace. The French troops under Gerard, unassisted by the Belgians and watched by a Prussian army stationed on the Meuse, regularly besieged and took the citadel of Antwerp, on Christmas eve, 1832, gave it up to the Belgians as pertaining to their territory, and evacuated the country. King William, however, again rejecting the twenty-four articles, all the other points, the division of the public debt, the navigation of the Scheldt, and, more than all, the future destiny of the province of Luxemburg, which formed part of the confederated states of Germany, had been declared hereditary in the house of Nassau-Orange, and which, by its geographical position and the character of its inhabitants, was more nearly connected with Belgium, remained for the present unsettled. In 1839, Holland was induced by a fresh demonstration on the part of the great powers to accept the twenty-four articles, against which Belgium in her turn protested on the ground of the procrastination on the part of Holland having rendered her earlier accession to these terms null and void. Belgium was, however, also compelled to yield. By this fresh agreement it was settled that the western part of Luxemburg, which had in the interim fallen away from the German confederation, should be annexed to Belgium, and that Holland (and the German confederation) should receive the eastern part of Limburg in indemnity; and that Belgium, instead of taking upon herself one-half of the public debt of the Netherlands, should annually pay the sum of five million Dutch guldens toward defraying the interest of that debt.
The period of the independence of Belgium, brief as it was, was made use of, particularly under the Nothomb ministry, for the development of great industrial activity, and, more especially, for the creation of a system of railroads, until now without its parallel on the continent. Unfortunately but little was done in favor of the interests of Germany. The French language had already become so prevalent throughout Belgium that, in 1840, the provincial councillors of Ghent were constrained to pass a resolution to the effect that the offices dependent upon them should, at all events, solely be intrusted to persons acquainted with the Flemish dialect, and that their rescripts should be drawn up in that language.—Holland immensely increased her public debt in consequence of her extraordinary exertions. In 1841, the king, William I., voluntarily abdicated the throne and retired into private life, in the enjoyment of an enormous revenue, with a Catholic countess whom he had wedded. He was succeeded by his son, William II.
[Footnote 1: "The Netherlands formed, nevertheless, but a weak bulwark to Germany. Internal disunion, superfluous fortresses, a weak army. On the one side, a witless, wealthy, haughty aristocracy, an influential and ignorant clergy; on the other, civic pride, capelocratic pettiness, Calvinisticbrusquerie. The policy pursued by the king was inimical to Germany."—Stein's Letters.]
[Footnote 2: So bitter was the enmity existing between the Belgians and the Dutch that the Dutch lieutenant, Van Speyk, when driven by a storm before Antwerp, blew up his gunboat in the middle of the Scheldt rather than allow it to fall into the hands of the Belgians.]
CCLXVIII. The Swiss Revolution
The restoration of 1814 had replaced the ancient aristocracy more or less on their former footing throughout Switzerland. In this country the greatest tranquillity prevailed; the oppression of the aristocracy was felt, but not so heavily as to be insupportable. Many benefits, as, for instance, the draining of the swampy Linththal by Escher of Zurich, were, moreover, conferred upon the country. Mercenaries were also continually furnished to the king of France, to the pope, and, for some time, to the king of the Netherlands. France, nevertheless, imposed such heavy commercial duties that several of the cantons leagued together for the purpose of taking reprisals. This misunderstanding between Switzerland and France unfortunately did not teach wisdom to the states belonging to the German confederation, and the Rhine was also barricaded with custom-houses, those graves of commerce. The Jesuits settled at Freiburg in the Uechtland, where they founded a large seminary and whence they finally succeeded in expelling Peter Girard, a man of high merit, noted for the liberality of his views on education.[1]
The Paris revolution of July also gave rise to a democratic reaction throughout Switzerland. Berne, by a circular, published September 22, 1830, called upon the other Swiss governments to suppress the revolutionary spirit by force, and, by so doing, fired the train. The government of Zurich wisely opposed the circular and made a voluntary reform. In all the other cantons popular societies sprang up, and, either by violence or by threats, subverted the ancient governments. New constitutions were everywhere granted. The immense majority of the people was in favor of reform, and the aristocracy offered but faint resistance. Little towns or villages became the centre of the movements against the capitals. Fischer, an innkeeper from Merischwanden, seized the city of Aarau; the village of Burgdorf revolutionized the canton of Berne, the village of Murten the canton of Freiburg, the village of Weinfelden the canton of Constance; this example was followed by the peasantry of Solothurn and Vaud; the government of St. Gall imitated that of Zurich.
Basel was also attempted to be revolutionized by Liestal, but the wealthy and haughty citizens, principally at the instigation of the family of Wieland, made head against the peasantry, who were led by one Gutzwyler. The contest that had taken place in Belgium was here reacted on a smaller scale. A dispute concerning privileges commencing between the citizens and the peasantry, bloody excesses ensued and a complete separation was the result. The peasantry, superior in number, asserted their right to send a greater number of deputies to the great council than the cities, and the latter, dreading the danger to which their civic interests would be thereby exposed, obstinately refused to comply. Party rage ran high; the Baselese insulted some of the deputies sent by the peasantry, and the latter, in retaliation, began to blockade the town. Colonel Wieland made some sallies; the federal diet interfered, and the peasantry, being dispersed by the federal troops, revenged themselves during their retreat by plundering the vale of Reigoldswyler, which had remained true to Basel. In Schwyz, the Old-Schwyzers and the inhabitants of the outer circles, who, although for centuries in possession of the rights of citizenship, were still regarded by the former as their vassals, also fell at variance, and the latter demanded equal rights or complete separation. In Neufchatel, Bourguin attempted a revolution against the Prussian party and took the city, but succumbed to the vigorous measures adopted by General Pfuel, 1831.
The conduct of the federal diet, which followed in the footsteps of European policy, and which, by winking at the opposing party and checking that in favor of progression, sought to preserve the balance, but served to increase party spirit. In September, 1831, the Radicals founded at Langenthal, theSchutzvereinor protective union, which embraced all the liberal clubs throughout Switzerland and was intended to counteract the impending aristocratic counterrevolution. Men like Schnell of Berne, Troxler the philosopher, etc., stood at its head. They demanded the abolition of the constitution of 1815 as too aristocratic and federal, and the foundation of a new one in a democratic and independent sense for the increase of the external power and unity of Switzerland, and for her internal security from petty aristocratic and local views and intrigues. In March, 1832, Lucerne, Zurich, Berne, Solothurn, St. Gall, Aargau, and Constance formed aConcordatfor the mutual maintenance of their democratic constitutions until the completion of the revisal of the confederation. The aristocratic party, Schwyz, Uri, Unterwalden (actuated by ancient pride and led by the clergy), Basel, and Neufchatel meanwhile formed the Sarner confederation. In August, the deposed Bernese aristocracy, headed by Major Fischer, made a futile attempt to produce a counter-revolution. In the federal diet, the envoys of theConcordatand the threatening language of the clubs compelled the members to bring a new federal constitution under deliberation, but opinions were too divided, and the constitution projected in 1833 fell to the ground for want of sufficient support. At the moment of this defeat of the liberal party, Alt-Schwyz, led by Abyberg, took up arms, took possession of Küssnacht, and threatened theConcordat, the Baselese at the same time taking the field with one thousand two hundred men and fourteen pieces of ordnance. The people were, however, inimical to their cause; Abyberg fled; the Baselese were encountered by the peasantry in the Hartwald and repulsed with considerable loss. The federal diet demonstrated the greatest energy in order to prevent theConcordatand theSchutzvereinfrom acting in its stead. Schwyz and Basel were occupied with soldiery; the former was compelled to accept a new constitution drawn up with a view of pacifying both parties, the latter to accede to a complete separation between the town and country. The Sarner confederation was dissolved, and all discontented cantons were compelled, under pain of the infliction of martial law, to send envoys to the federal diet. Intrigues, having for object the alienation of the city of Basel, of Neufchatel, and Valais from the confederation, were discovered and frustrated by the diet, not without the approbation of France, the Valais and the road over the Simplon being thereby prevented from falling beneath the influence of Austria.
In 1833, five hundred Polish refugees, suspected of supporting the Frankfort attempt in Germany, quitted France for Switzerland, and soon afterward unsuccessfully invaded Savoy in conjunction with some Italian refugees. Crowds of refugees from every quarter joined them and formed a central association, Young Europe, whence branched others, Young France, Young Poland, Young Germany, and Young Italy. The principal object of this association was to draw the German journeymen apprentices (Handwerks-bursche) into its interests, and for this purpose a banquet was given by it to these apprentices in the Steinbrölzle near Berne. These intrigues produced serious threats on the side of the great powers, and Switzerland yielded. The greater part of the refugees were compelled to emigrate through France to England and America. Napoleon's nephew was, at a later period, also expelled Switzerland. His mother, Queen Hortense, consort to Louis, ex-king of Holland, daughter to Josephine Beauharnais, consequently both stepdaughter and sister-in-law to Napoleon, possessed the beautiful estate of Arenenberg on the Lake of Constance. On her death it was inherited by her son, Louis, who, during his residence there, occupied himself with intrigues directed against the throne of Louis Philippe. In concert with a couple of military madmen, he introduced himself into Strasburg, where, with a little hat, in imitation of that worn by Napoleon, on his head, he proclaimed himself emperor in the open streets. He was easily arrested. This act was generously viewed by Louis Philippe as that of a senseless boy, and he was restored to liberty upon condition of emigrating to America. No sooner, however, was he once more free, than, returning to Switzerland, he set fresh intrigues on foot. Louis Philippe, upon this, demanded his expulsion. Constance would willingly have extended to him the protection due to one of her citizens, but how were the claims of a Swiss citizen to be rendered compatible with those of a pretender to the throne of France? French troops already threatened the frontiers of Switzerland, where, as in 1793, the people, instead of making preparations for defence, were at strife among themselves. Louis at length voluntarily abandoned the country in 1838.
In the beginning of 1839, Dr. Strauss, who, in 1835, had, in his work entitled "The Life of Jesus," declared the Gospels a cleverly devised fable, and had, at great pains, sought to refute the historical proofs of the truth of Christianity, was, on that account, appointed, by the council of education and of government at Zurich, professor of divinity to the new Zurich academy. Burgomaster Hirzel (nicknamed "the tree of liberty" on account of his uncommon height) stood at the head of the enthusiastic government party by which this extraordinary appointment had been effected; the people, however, roseen masse, the great council was compelled to meet, and the anti-Christian party suffered a most disgraceful defeat. Strauss, who had not ventured to appear in person on the scene of action, was offered and accepted a pension. The Christian party, concentrated into a committee of faith, under the presidency of Hurliman, behaved with extreme moderation, although greatly superior in number to their opponents. The radical government, ashamed and perplexed, committed blunder after blunder, and at length threatened violence. Upon this, Hirzel, the youthful priest of Pfäffikon, rang the alarm from his parish church, and, on the 6th of September, 1839, led his parishioners into the city of Zurich. This example was imitated by another crowd of peasantry, headed by a physician named Rahn. The government troops attacked the people and killed nine men. On the fall of the tenth, Hegetschwiler, the councillor of state, a distinguished savant and physician, while attempting to restore harmony between the contending parties, the civic guard turned against the troops and dispersed them. The radical government and the Strauss faction also fled. Immense masses of peasantry from around the lake entered the city. A provisional government, headed by Hiesz and Muralt, and a fresh election, insured tranquillity.
In the canton of Schwyz, a lengthy dispute, similar to that between the Vettkoper and Schieringer in Friesland, was carried on between the Horn and Hoof-men (the wealthy in possession of cattle and the poor who only possessed a cow or two) concerning their privileges. In 1839, a violent opposition, similar in nature, was made by the people of Vaud against the oligarchical power assumed by a few families.
The closing of the monasteries in the Aargau in 1840 gave rise to a dispute of such importance as to disturb the whole of the confederation. In the Aargau the church and state had long and strenuously battled, when the monastery of Muri was suddenly invested as the seat of a conspiracy, and, on symptoms of uneasiness becoming perceptible among the Catholic population, the whole country was flooded with twenty thousand militia raised on the spur of the moment, and the closing of the monastery of Muri and of all the monasteries in the Aargau was proclaimed and carried into execution. The rest of the Catholic cantons and Rome vehemently protested against this measure, and even some of the Reformed cantons, for the sake of peace, voted at the diet for the maintenance of the monasteries: the Aargau, nevertheless, steadily refused compliance.
[Footnote 1: In Lucerne, the disorderly trial of a numerous band of robbers, which had been headed by an extremely beautiful and talented girl, named Clara Wendel, made the more noise on account of its bringing the bandit-like murder of Keller, the aged mayor, and intrigues, in which the name of the nuncio was mixed up, before the public. 1825.]
CCLXIX. The Revolution in Brunswick, Saxony, Hesse, Etc.
The Belgian revolution spread into Germany. Liege infected her neighbor, Aix-la-Chapelle, where, on the 30th of August, 1830, the workmen belonging to the manufactories raised a senseless tumult which was a few days afterward repeated by their fellow-workmen at Elberfeld, Wetzlar, and even by the populace of Berlin and Breslau, but which solely took a serious character in Brunswick, Saxony, Hanover, and Hesse.
Charles, duke of Brunswick, was at Paris, squandering the revenue derived from his territories, on the outburst of the July revolution, which drove him back to his native country, where he behaved with increased insolence. His obstinate refusal to abolish the heavy taxes, to refrain from disgraceful sales, to recommence the erection of public buildings, and to recognize the provincial Estates, added to his threat to fire upon the people and his boast that he knew how to defend his throne better than Charles X. of France, so maddened the excitable blood of his subjects that, after throwing stones at the duke's carriage and at an actress on whom he publicly bestowed his favors, they stormed his palace and set fire to it over his head, September 7, 1830. Charles escaped through the garden. His brother, William, supported by Hanover and Prussia, replaced him, recognized the provincial Estates, granted a new constitution, built a new palace, and re-established tranquillity. The conduct of the expelled duke, who, from his asylum in the Harzgebirge, made a futile attempt to regain possession of Brunswick by means of popular agitation and by the proclamation of democratical opinions, added to the contempt with which he treated the admonitions of his superiors, induced the federal diet to recognize his brother's authority. The ex-duke has, since this period, wandered over England, France, and Spain, sometimes engaged in intrigues with Carlists, at others with republicans. In 1836, he accompanied a celebrated female aeronaut in one of her excursions from London. The balloon accidentally upset and the duke and his companion fell to the ground. He was, however, as in his other adventures, more frightened than hurt.
In Saxony, the progress of enlightenment had long rendered the people sensible of the errors committed by the old and etiquettish aristocracy of the court and diet. As early as 1829, all the grievances had been recapitulated in an anonymous printed address, and, in the beginning of 1830, on the venerable king, Antony (brother to Frederick Augustus, deceased 1827), declaring invalid the settlement of his affairs by the Estates, which evinced a more liberal spirit than they had hitherto done, and on the prohibition of the festivities on the 25th of June, the anniversary of the Augsburg Confession, by the town council of Dresden and by the government commissioner of the university of Leipzig from devotion to the Catholic court, a popular tumult ensued in both cities, which was quelled but to be, a few weeks later, after the revolution of July, more disastrously renewed. The tumult commenced at Leipzig on the 2d of September and lasted several days, and, during the night of the 9th, Dresden was stormed from without by two immense crowds of populace, by whom the police buildings and the town-house were ransacked and set on fire. Disturbances of a similar nature broke out at Chemnitz and Bautzen. The king, upon this, nominated his nephew, Prince Frederick, who was greatly beloved by the people, co-regent; the civic guard restored tranquillity, the most crying abuses, particularly those in the city administration, were abolished, and the constitution was revised. The popular minister, Lindenan, replaced Einsiedel, who had excited universal detestation.
In the electorate of Hesse, the period of terror occasioned by the threatening letters addressed to the elector was succeeded by the agitation characteristic of the times. On the 6th of September, 1830, a tumultuous rising took place at Cassel; on the 24th, the people of Hanau destroyed every custom-house stationed on the frontier. The public was so unanimous and decided in opinion that the elector not only agreed to abolish the abuses, to convoke the Estates, and to grant a new constitution, but even placed the reins of government provisionally in the hands of his son, Prince William, in order to follow the Countess Reichenbach, who had been driven from Cassel by the insults of the populace. Prince William was, however, as little as his father inclined to make concessions; and violent collisions speedily ensued. He wedded Madame Lehmann, the wife of a Prussian officer, under the name of the Countess von Schaumburg, and closed the theatre against his mother, the electress, for refusing to place herself at her side in public. The citizens sided with the electress, and when, after some time had elapsed, she again ventured to visit the theatre, the doors were no longer closed against her, and, on her entrance, she found the house completely filled. On the close of the evening's entertainment, however, while the audience were peaceably dispersing, they were charged by a troop of cavalry, who cut down the defenceless multitude without distinction of age or sex, December 7, 1830. The Estates, headed by Professor Jordan, vainly demanded redress; Giesler, the head of the police, was alone designated as the criminal; the scrutiny was drawn to an interminable length and produced no other result than Giesler's decoration with an order by the prince.
In Hesse-Darmstadt, where the poll-tax amounted to 6_fls_. 12_krs_. (10_s_. 4_d_.) a head, the Estates ventured, even prior to the revolution of July, to refuse to vote 2,000,000_fls_. (£166,666 13_s_. 4_d_.) to the new grandduke, Louis II. (who had just succeeded his aged father, the patron of the arts), for the defrayment of debts contracted by him before his accession to the ducal chair. In September, the peasantry of Upper Hesse roseen masseon account of the imposition of the sum of 100,000_fls_. (£8,333 6_s_. 8_d_.) upon the poverty-stricken communes in order to meet the outlay occasioned by the festivities given in the grandduke's honor on his route through the country; the burdens laid upon the peasantry in the mediatized principalities, more particularly in that of Ysenburg, had also become unbearable. The insurgents took Budingen by storm and were guilty of some excesses toward the public officers and the foresters, but deprived no one of life. Ere long convinced of their utter impotence, they dispersed before the arrival of Prince Emilius at the head of a body of military, who, blinded by rage, unfortunately killed a number of persons in the village of Södel, whom they mistook for insurgents owing to the circumstance of their being armed, but who had in reality been assembled by a forester for the purpose of keeping the insurgents in check.
In this month, September, 1830, popular disturbances, but of minor import, broke out also at Jena and Kahla, Altenburg, and Gera.
In Hanover, the first symptoms of revolution appeared in January, 1831. Dr. König was at that time at the head of the university of Osterode, Dr. Rauschenplatt of that of Göttingen.[1] The abolition of the glaring ancient abuses and the removal of the minister, Count Munster, the sole object of whose policy appeared to be the eternalization of every administrative and juridical antiquity in the state, were demanded. The petty insurrections were quelled by the military. König was taken prisoner; most of the other demagogues escaped to France. The Duke of Cambridge, the king's brother, mediated. Count Munster was dismissed, and Hanover received a new and more liberal constitution.
While these events were passing in Germany, the Poles carried on a contest against the whole power of Russia as glorious and as unfortunate as their former one under their leader, Kosciuszko. Louis Philippe, king of the French, in the hope of gaining favor with the northern powers by the abandonment of the Polish cause, dealt not a stroke in their aid. Austria, notwithstanding her natural rivalry to Russia, beheld the Polish revolution merely through the veil of legitimacy and refused her aid to rebels. A Hungarian address in favor of Poland produced no result. Prussia was closely united by family ties to Russia. The Poles were consequently left without external aid, and their spirit was internally damped by diplomatic arts. Aid was promised by France, if they would wait. They accordingly waited: and in the interim, after the failure of Diebitsch's attempt upon Warsaw and his sudden death, Paskewitch, the Russian general, unexpectedly crossed the Vistula close to the Prussian fortress of Thorn and seized the city of Warsaw while each party was still in a state of indecision. Immense masses of fugitive Polish soldiery sought shelter in Austria and Prussia. The officers and a few thousand private soldiers were permitted to pass onward to France: they found a warm welcome in Southern Germany, whence they had during the campaign been supplied with surgeons and every necessary for the supply of the hospitals. The rest were compelled to return to Russia.
The Russian troops drawn from the distant provinces, the same that had been employed in the war with Persia, overran Poland as far as the Prussian frontier, bringing with them a fearful pestilence, Asiatic cholera. This dire malady, which had, since 1817, crept steadily onward from the banks of the Ganges, reached Russia in 1830, and, in the autumn of 1831, spread across the frontiers of Germany. It chiefly visited populous cities and generally spared districts less densely populated, passing from one great city to another whither infection could not have been communicated.Cordons de santéand quarantine regulations were of no avail. The pestilence appeared to spread like miasma through the air and to kindle like gas wherever the assemblage of numbers disposed the atmosphere to its reception. The patients were seized with vomiting and diarrhoea, accompanied with violent convulsions, and often expired instantaneously or after an agony of a few hours' duration. Medicinal art was powerless against this disease, and, as in the 14th century, the ignorant populace ascribed its prevalence to poison. Suspicion fell this time upon the physicians and the public authorities and spread in the most incredible manner from St. Petersburg to Paris. The idea that the physicians had been charged to poison the peopleen masseoccasioned dreadful tumults, in which numbers of physicians fell victims and every drug used in medicine was destroyed as poisonous. Similar scenes occurred in Russia and in Hungary. In the latter country a great insurrection of the peasants took place, in August, 1831, in which not only the physicians, but also numbers of the nobility and public officers who had provided themselves with drugs fell victims, and the most inhuman atrocities were perpetrated. In Vienna, where the cholera raged with extreme virulence, the people behaved more reasonably.
In Prussia, the cholera occasioned several disturbances at Koenigsberg, Stettin, and Breslau. At Koenigsberg the movement was not occasioned by the disease being attributed to poison. The strict quarantine regulations enforced by the government had produced a complete commercial stagnation, notwithstanding which permission had been given to the Russian troops, when hard pushed by the insurgent Poles, to provide themselves with provisions and ammunition from Prussia, so that not only Russian agents and commissaries, but whole convoys from Russia crossed the Prussian frontier. The appearance of cholera was ascribed to this circumstance, and the public discontent was evinced both by a popular outbreak and in an address from the chief magistrate of Koenigsberg to the throne. The Prussian army, under the command of Field-Marshal Gneisenau, stationed in Posen for the purpose of watching the movements of the Poles, was also attacked by the cholera, to which the field-marshal fell victim. It speedily reached Berlin, spread through the north of Germany to France, England, and North America, returned thence to the south of Europe, and, in 1836, crept steadily on from Italy through the Tyrol to Bavaria.
The veil had been torn from many an old and deep-rooted evil by the disturbances of 1830. The press now emulated the provincial diets and some of the governments that sought to meet the demands of the age in exposing to public view all the political wants of Germany. Party spirit, however, still ran too high, and the moderate constitutionalists, who aimed at the gradual introduction of reforms by legal means, found themselves ere long outflanked by two extreme parties. While Gentz at Vienna, Jarcke at Berlin, etc., refused to make the slightest concession and in that spirit conducted the press, Rotteck's petty constitutional reforms in Baden were treated with contempt by Wirth and Siebenpfeiffer, by whom a German republic was with tolerable publicity proclaimed in Rhenish Bavaria. Nor were attempts at mediation wanting. In Darmstadt, Schulz proposed the retention of the present distribution of the states of Germany and the association of a second chamber, composed of deputies elected by the people from every part of the German confederation, with the federal assembly at Frankfort.
The Tribune, edited by Dr. Wirth, and the Westboten, edited by Dr. Siebenpfeiffer, were prohibited by the federal diet, March 2, 1832. Schuler, Savoie, and Geib opposed this measure by the foundation of a club in Rhenish Bavaria for the promotion of liberty of the press, ramifications of which were intended by the founders to be extended throughout Germany. The approaching celebration of the festival in commemoration of the Bavarian constitution afforded the malcontents a long-wished-for opportunity for the convocation of a monster meeting at the ancient castle of Hambach, on the 27th of May. Although the black, red and gold flag waved on this occasion high above the rest, the tendency to French liberalism predominated over that to German patriotism. Numbers of French being also present, Dr. Wirth deemed himself called upon to observe that the festival they had met to celebrate was intrinsically German, that he despised liberty as a French boon, and that the patriot's first thoughts were for his country, his second for liberty. These observations greatly displeased the numerous advocates for French republicanism among his audience, and one Rey, a Strasburg citizen, read him a severe lecture in the Mayence style of 1793.[2] There were also a number of Poles present, toward whom no demonstrations of jealousy were evinced. This meeting peaceably dissolved, but no means were for the future neglected for the purpose of crushing the spirit manifested by it. Marshal Wrede occupied Spires, Landau, Neustadt, etc., with Bavarian troops; the clubs for the promotion of liberty of the press were strictly prohibited, their original founders, as well as the orators of Hambach and the boldest of the newspaper editors, were either arrested or compelled to quit the country. Siebenpfeiffer took refuge in Switzerland; Wirth might have effected his escape, but refused. Some provocations in Neustadt, on the anniversary of the Hambach festival in 1833, were brought by the military to a tragical close. Some newspaper editors, printers, etc., were also arrested at Munich, Wurzburg, Augsburg, etc. The most celebrated among the accused was Professor Behr, court-councillor of Wurzburg, the burgomaster and former deputy of that city, who at the time of the meeting at Hambach made a public speech at Gaibach. On account of the revolutionary tendency manifested in it he was arrested, and, in 1886, sentenced to ask pardon on his knees before the king's portrait and to imprisonment, a punishment to which the greater part of the political offenders were condemned.
The federal diet had for some time been occupied with measures for the internal tranquillity of Germany. The Hambach festival both brought them to a conclusion and increased their severity. Under the date of the 28th of June, 1832, the resolutions of the federal assembly, by which first of all the provincial Estates, then the popular clubs, and finally the press, were to be deprived of every means of opposing in any the slightest degree the joint will of the princes, were published. The governments were bound not to tolerate within their jurisdiction aught contrary to the resolutions passed by the federal assembly, and to call the whole power of the confederation to their aid if unable to enforce obedience; nay, in cases of urgency, the confederation reserved to itself the right of armed intervention, undemanded by the governments. Taxes, to meet the expenses of the confederation, were to be voted submissively by the provincial Estates. Finally, all popular associations and assemblies were also prohibited, and all newspapers, still remaining, of a liberal tendency, were suppressed.
The youthful revolutionists, principally students, assembled secretly at Frankfort on the Maine, during the night of the 3d of April, 1833, attacked the town-watch for the purpose of liberating some political prisoners, and possibly intended to have carried the federal assembly by acoup-de-mainhad they not been dispersed. These excesses had merely the effect of increasing the severity of the scrutiny and of crowding the prisons with suspected persons.
[Footnote 1: Also the unfortunate Dr. Plath, to whom science is indebted for an excellent historical work upon China. He became implicated in this affair and remained in confinement until 1836, when he was sentenced to fifteen years' further imprisonment.]
[Footnote 2: All national distinctions must cease and be fused in universal liberty and equality; this was the sole aim of the noble French people, and for this cause should we meet them with a fraternal embrace, etc. Paul Pfizer well observed in a pamphlet on German liberalism, published at that period, "What epithet would the majority of the French people bestow upon a liberty which a part of their nation would purchase by placing themselves beneath the protection of a foreign and superior power, called to their aid against their fellow-citizens? If the cause of German liberalism is to remain pure and unspotted, we must not, like Coriolanus, arm the foreign foe against our country. The egotistical tendency of the age is, unhappily, too much inclined (by a coalition with France) to prefer personal liberty and independence to the liberty and independence (thereby infallibly forfeited) of the whole community. The supposed fellowship with France would be subjection to her. France will support the German liberals as Richelien did the German Protestants."]
CCLXX. The Struggles of the Provincial Diets
The Estates of the different constitutional states sought for constitutional reform by legal means and separated themselves from the revolutionists. But, during periods of great political agitation, it is difficult to draw a distinctive line, and any opposition, however moderate, appears as dangerous as the most intemperate rebellion. It was, consequently, impossible for the governments and the Estates to come to an understanding during these stormy times. The result of the deliberations, whenever the opposition was in the majority, was protestations on both sides in defence of right; and, whenever the opposition was or fell in the minority, the chambers were the mere echo of the minister.
In Bavaria, in 1831, the second chamber raised a violent storm against the minister, von Schenk, principally on account of the restoration of some monasteries and of the enormous expense attending the erection of the splendid public buildings at Munich. A law of censorship had, moreover, been published, and a number of civil officers elected by the people been refused permission to take their seats in the chamber. Schwindel, von Closen, Cullmann, Seyffert, etc., were the leaders of the opposition. Schenk resigned office; the law of censorship was repealed, and the Estates struck two millions from the civil list. The first chamber, however, refused its assent to these resolutions, the law of censorship was retained, and the saving in the expenditure of the crown was reduced to an extremely insignificant amount. In the autumn of 1832, Prince Otto, the king's second son, was, with the consent of the sultan, elected king of Greece by the great maritime powers intrusted with the decision of the Greek question, and Count Armansperg, formerly minister of Bavaria, was placed at the head of the regency during the minority of the youthful monarch. Steps having to be taken for the levy of troops for the Greek service, some regiments were sent into Greece in order to carry the new regulations into effect. The Bavarian chambers were at a later period almost entirely purged from the opposition and granted every demand made by the government. The appearance of the Bavarians in ancient Greece forms one of the most interesting episodes in modern history. The jealousy of the great powers explains the election of a sovereign independent of them all: the noble sympathy displayed for the Grecian cause by King Louis, who, shortly after the congress of Verona, sent considerable sums of money and Colonel von Heideck to the aid of the Greeks, and, it may be, also the wish to bring the first among the second-rate powers of Germany into closer connection with the common interests of the first-rate powers, more particularly explains that of the youthful Otto.[1] The task of organizing a nation, noble, indeed, but debased by long slavery and still reeking with the blood of late rebellion, under the influence of a powerful and mutually jealous diplomacy, on a European and German footing, was, however, extremely difficult. Hence the opposite views entertained by the regency, the resignation of the councillors of state, von Maurer and von Abel, who were more inclined to administrate, and the retention of office by Count Armansperg, who was more inclined to diplomatize. Hence the ceaseless intrigues of party, the daily increasing contumacy, and the revolts, sometimes quenched in blood, of the wild mountain tribes and ancient robber-chiefs, to whom European institutions were still an insupportable yoke. King Otto received, on his accession to the throne, in 1835, a visit from his royal parent; and, in the ensuing year, conducted the Princess of Oldenburg to Athens as his bride.
In Wurtemberg, the chambers first met in 1833, and were, two months later, again dissolved on account of the refusal of the second chamber to reject "with indignation" Pfizer's protestation against the resolutions of the confederation. In the newly-elected second chamber, the opposition, at whose head stood the celebrated poet, Uhland, brought forward numerous propositions for reform, but remained in the minority, and it was not until the new diet, held in 1836, that the aristocratic first chamber was induced to diminish socage service and other feudal dues twenty-two and one-half per cent in amount. The literary piracy that had hitherto continued to exist solely in Wurtemberg was also provisionally abolished, the system of national education was improved, and several other useful projects were carried into execution or prepared. A new criminal code, published in 1838, again bore traces of political caution. The old opposition lost power.
In Baden, the venerable grandduke, Louis, expired in 1830, and was succeeded by Leopold, a descendant of the collateral branch of the counts of Hochberg. Bavaria had, at an earlier period, stipulated, in case of the extinction of the elder and legitimate line, for the restoration of the Pfalz (Heidelberg and Mannheim), which had, in 1816, been secured to her by a treaty with Austria. The grandduke, Louis, had protested against this measure and had, in 1817, declared Baden indivisible. Bavaria finally relinquished her claims on the payment of two million florins (£166,666 13_s_. 4_d_.) and the cession of the bailiwick of Steinfeld, to which Austria moreover added the county of Geroldseck. The new grandduke, who was surnamed "the citizen's friend," behaved with extreme liberality and consequently went hand in hand with the first chamber, of which Wessenberg and Prince von Furstenberg were active members, and with the second, at the head of which stood Professors Rotteck, Welcker, and von Itzstein. Rotteck proposed and carried through the abolition of capital punishment as alone worthy of feudal times, and, on Welcker's motion, censorship was abolished and a law for the press was passed. The federal assembly, however, speedily checked these reforms. The grandduke was compelled to repeal the law for the press, the Freiburg university was for some time closed, Professors Rotteck and Welcker were suspended, and their newspaper, the "Freisinnige" or liberal, was suppressed in 1832. Rotteck was, notwithstanding, at feud with the Hambachers, and had raised the Baden flag above that of Germany at a national fete at Badenweiler. This extremely popular deputy, who had been presented with thirteen silver cups in testimony of the affection with which he was regarded by the people, afterward protested against the resolutions of the confederation, but his motion was violently suppressed by the minister, Winter. The Baden chamber, nevertheless, still retained a good deal of energy, and, after the death of Rotteck, in 1841, a violent contest was carried on concerning the rights of election.
In Hesse-Darmstadt, the Estates again met in 1832; the liberal majority in the second chamber, led by von Gagern, E. E. Hoffmann, Hallwachs, etc., protested against the resolutions of the confederation, and the chamber was dissolved. A fresh election took place, notwithstanding which the chamber was again dissolved in 1834, on account of the government being charged with party spirit by von Gagern and the refusal of the chamber to call him to order. The people afterward elected a majority of submissive members.
In Hesse-Cassel the popular demonstrations were instantly followed by the convocation of the Estates and the proposal of a new and stipulated constitution, which received the sanction of the chambers as early as January, 1831; but, amid the continual disturbances, and on account of the disinclination of the prince co-regent to the liberal reforms, the chamber, of which the talented professor, Jordan of Marburg, was the most distinguished member, yielded, notwithstanding its perseverance, after two rapidly successive dissolutions, in 1832 and 1833, to the influence of the (once liberal) minister, Hassenpflug, and Jordan quitted the scene of contest. Hassenpflug's tyrannical behavior and the lapse of Hesse-Rotenburg (the mediatized collateral line, which became extinct with the Landgrave Victor in 1834), the revenues of which were appropriated as personal property by the prince elector instead of being declared state property, fed the opposition in the chambers, which was, notwithstanding the menaces of the prince elector, carried on until 1838. Hassenpflug threw up office.
In Nassau, the duke, William, fell into a violent dispute with the Estates. The second chamber, after vainly soliciting the restitution of the rich demesnes, appropriated by the duke as private property, on the ground of their being state property, and the application of their revenue to the payment of the state debts, refused, in the autumn of 1831, to vote the taxes. The first chamber, in which the duke had the power of raising at will a majority in his favor by the creation of fresh members, protested against the conduct of the second, which in return protested against that of the first and suspended its proceedings until their constitutional rights should have received full recognition; five of the deputies, however, again protested against the suspension of the proceedings of the chamber and voted the taxes during the absence of the majority. The majority again protested, but became entangled in a political lawsuit, and Herber, the gray-headed president, was confined in the fortress of Marxburg.
In Brunswick, a good understanding prevailed between William the new duke, and the Estates, which were, however, accused of having an aristocratic tendency by the democratic party. Their sittings continued to be held in secret.
In Saxony, the long-wished-for reforms, above all, the grant of a new constitution, were realized, owing to the influence of the popular co-regent, added to that of Lindenau, the highly-esteemed minister, and of the newly-elected Estates, in 1831. The law of censorship, nevertheless, continued to be enforced with extreme severity, which also marked the treatment of the political prisoners. Count Hohenthal and Baron Watzdorf, who seized every opportunity to put in protestations, even against the resolutions of the confederation, evinced the most liberal spirit. On the demise of the aged king, Antony, in 1835, and the accession of the co-regent, Frederick, to the throne, the political movements totally ceased.
Holstein and Schleswig had also, as early as 1823, solicited the restitution of their ancient constitutional rights, which the king, Frederick IV., delayed to grant. Lornsen, the councillor of chancery, was arrested in 1830, for attempting to agitate the people. Separate provincial diets were, notwithstanding, decreed, in 1831, for Holstein and Schleswig, although both provinces urgently demanded their union. Frederick IV. expired in 1839 and was succeeded by his cousin, Christian.
Immediately after the revolution of July, the princes of Oldenburg, Altenburg, Coburg, Meiningen, and Schwarzburg-Sondershausen made a public appeal to the confidence of their subjects, whom they called upon to lay before them their grievances, etc. Augustus, duke of Oldenburg, who had assumed the title of grandduke, proclaimed a constitution, but shortly afterward withdrew his promise and strictly forbade his subjects to annoy him by recalling it to his remembrance. The prince von Sondershausen also refused the hoped-for constitution. In Sigmaringen, Altenburg, and Meiningen the constitutional movement was, on the contrary, countenanced and encouraged by the princes. Pauline, the liberal-minded princess of Lippe-Detmold, had already drawn up a constitution for her petty territory with her own hand, when the nobility rose against it, and, aided by the federal assembly, compelled her to withdraw it.
In the autumn of 1833, the emperor of Russia held a conference with the king of Prussia at Munchen-Gratz, whither the emperor of Austria also repaired. A German ministerial congress assembled immediately afterward at Vienna, and the first of its resolutions was made public late in the autumn of 1834. It announced the establishment of a court of arbitration, empowered, as the highest court of appeal, to decide all disputes between the governments and their provincial Estates. The whole of the members of this court were to be nominated by the governments, but the disputing parties were free to select their arbitrators from among the number.
A fresh and violent constitutional battle was, notwithstanding these precautions, fought in Hanover, where Adolphus Frederick, duke of Cambridge, had, in the name of his brother, William IV., king of England, established a new constitution, which had received many ameliorations notwithstanding the inefficiency of the liberals, Christiani, Luntzel, etc., to counteract the overpowering influence of the monarchical and aristocratic party. William IV., king of England and Hanover, expired in 1837, and was succeeded on the throne of Great Britain by Victoria Alexandrina, the daughter of his younger and deceased brother, Edward, duke of Kent, and of the Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg; and on that of Hanover, which was solely heritable in the male line, by his second brother, Ernest, duke of Cumberland, the leader of the Tory party in England. No sooner had this new sovereign set his foot on German soil[2] than he repealed the constitution granted to Hanover in 1833 and ordained the restoration of the former one of 1819, drawn up in a less liberal but more monarchical and aristocratic spirit. Among the protestations made against thiscoup d'état, that of the seven Göttingen professors, the two brothers, Grimm, to whom the German language and antiquarian research are so deeply indebted, Dahlmann, Gervinus, Ewald, Weber, and Albrecht, is most worthy of record. Their instant dismission produced an insurrection among the students, which was, after a good deal of bloodshed, quelled by the military. In the beginning of 1838, the Estates were convoked according to the articles of the constitution of 1819 for the purpose of taking a constitution, drawn up under the dictation of the king, under deliberation. Many of the towns refused to elect deputies, and some of those elected were not permitted to take their seats. The city of Osnabruck protested in the federal assembly. Notwithstanding this, the Estates meanwhile assembled, but declared themselves incompetent, regarding themselves simply in the light of an arbitrative committee, and, as such, threw out the constitution presented by the king, June, 1838. The federal assembly remained passive.[3] In 1839, Schele, the minister, finally succeeded, by means of menaces and bribery, and by arbitrarily calling into the chamber the ministerial candidates who had received the minority of votes during the elections, in collecting so many deputies devoted to his party as were requisite in order to form the chamber and to pass resolutions. The city of Hanover hereupon brought before the federal assembly a petition for redress and a list of grievances in which Schele's chamber was described as "unworthy of the name of a constitutional representative assembly, void of confidence, unpossessed of the public esteem, and unrecognized by the country." The king instantly divested Rumann, the city director, of his office, but so far yielded to the magistrate, to whom he gave audience in the palace and who was followed by crowds of the populace, as to revoke the nomination, already declared illegal, of Rumann's successor, and to promise that the matter at issue should be brought before the common tribunal instead of the council of state, July 17th. Numerous other cities, corporations of landed proprietors, etc., also followed the example set by Hanover and laid their complaints before the federal assembly, which hereupon declared that, according to the laws of the confederation, it found no cause for interference, but at the same time advised the king to come to an understanding consistent with the rights of the crown and of the Estates, with the "present" Estates (unrecognized by the democratic party), concerning the form of the constitution. In the federal assembly, Wurtemberg and Bavaria, most particularly, voted in favor of the Hanoverians. Professor Ewald was appointed to the university of Tubingen; Albrecht, at a later period, to that of Leipzig; the brothers Grimm, to that of Berlin; Dahlmann, to that of Bonn. Among the assembled Estates, those of Baden, Wurtemberg, and Saxony most warmly espoused the cause of the people of Hanover, but, as was natural, without result.[4]
In 1840, the king convoked a fresh diet. The people refused to elect members, and it was solely by means of intrigue that a small number of deputies (not half the number fixed by law) were assembled, creatures of the minister, Schele, who were disowned by the people in addresses couched in the most energetic terms (the address presented by the citizens of Osnabruck was the most remarkable) and their proceedings were protested against. This petty assembly, nevertheless, took under deliberation and passed a new constitution, against which the cities and the country again protested. The king also declared his only son, George, who was afflicted with blindness, capable of governing and of succeeding to the throne.
[Footnote 1: Thiersch, the Bavarian court-councillor, one of the most distinguished connoisseurs of Grecian antiquity, who visited Greece shortly after Heideck and before the arrival of the king, was received by the modern Greeks with touching demonstrations of delight. No nation has so deeply studied, so deeply become imbued with Grecian lore, as that of Germany, and the close connection formed, on the accession of the Bavarian Otto to the throne of Greece, between her sons and the children of that classic land, justifies the proudest expectations.]
[Footnote 2: He did not restore the whole of the crown property that had, at an earlier period, been carried away to England. A considerable portion of the crown jewels had been taken away by George I., and when, in 1802, the French occupied Hanover, the whole of the movable crown property, even the great stud, was sent to England. On the demise of George III., the crown jewels were divided among the princes of the English house.—Copied from the Courier of August, 1838.]
[Footnote 3: The Darmstadt government declared to the second chamber, on its bringing forward a motion for the intercession of Darmstadt with the federal assembly in favor of the legality of the ancient constitution then in force in Hanover, that the grandduke would never tolerate any cooperation on the part of the Estates with his vote in the federal assembly.]
[Footnote 4: "This defeat is, however, not to be lamented: the battle for the separate constitutions has not been fought in vain if German nationality spring from the wreck of German separatism, if we are taught that without a liberal federal constitution liberal provincial constitutions are impossible in Germany."—Pfizer.]
CCLXXI. Austria and Prince Mettenich
Austria might, on the fall of Napoleon, have maintained Alsace, Lorraine, the Breisgau, and the whole of the territory of the Upper Rhine in the same manner in which Prussia had maintained that of the Lower Rhine, had she not preferred the preservation of her rule in Italy and rendered her position in Germany subordinate to her station as a European power. This policy is explained by the peculiar circumstances of the Austrian state, which had for centuries comprised within itself nations of the most distinct character, and the population of whose provinces were by far the greater part Slavonian, Hungarian, and Italian, the great minority German. By this policy she lost, as the Prussian Customs' Union has also again proved, much of her influence over Germany, while, on the other hand, she secured it the more firmly in Southern and Eastern Europe. Austria has long made a gradual and almost unperceived advance from the northwest in a southeasterly direction. In Germany she has continually lost ground. Switzerland, the Netherlands, Alsace, Lorraine, the Swabian counties, Lusatia, Silesia, have one by one been severed from her, while her non-German possessions have as continually been increased, by the addition of Hungary, Transylvania, Galicia, Dalmatia, and Upper Italy.
The contest carried on between Austria, the French Revolution, and Napoleon, has at all events left deep and still visible traces; the characters of the emperor Francis and of his chancellor of state, Prince Metternich, that perfect representative of the aristocracy of Europe, sympathize also as closely with the Austrian system as the character of the emperor Joseph was antipathetical to it. This system dates, however, earlier than those revolutionary struggles, and has already outlived at least one of its supporters.
Austria is the only great state in Europe that comprises so many diverse but well-poised nationalities within its bosom; in all the other great states, one nation bears the preponderance. To this circumstance may be ascribed her peaceful policy, every great war threatening her with the revolt of some one of the foreign nations subordinate to her sceptre. To this may, moreover, be ascribed the tenacity with which she upholds the principle of legitimacy. The historical hereditary right of the reigning dynasty forms the sole but ideal tie by which the diverse and naturally inimical nations beneath her rule are linked together. For the same reason, the concentration of talent in the government contrasts, in Austria, more violently with the obscurantism of the provinces than in any other state. Not only does the overpowering intelligence of the chancery of state awe the nations beneath its rule, but the proverbial good nature and patriarchal cordiality of the imperial family win every heart. The army is a mere machine in the hands of the government; a standing army, in which the soldier serves for life or for the period of twenty years, during which he necessarily loses all sympathy with his fellow-citizens, and which is solely reintegrated from militia whom this privilege renders still more devoted to the government. The pretorian spirit usually prevalent in standing armies has been guarded against in Austria by there being no guards, and all sympathy between the military and the citizens of the various provinces whence they were drawn is at once prevented by the Hungarian troops being sent into Italy, the Italian troops into Galicia, etc., etc. The nationality of the private soldier is checked by the Germanism of the subalterns and by the Austrianism of the staff. Besides the power thus everywhere visible, there exists another partially invisible, that of the police, in connection with a censorship of the severest description, which keeps a guard over the inadvertencies of the tongue as well as over those of the press. The people are, on the other hand, closely bound up with the government and interested in the maintenance of the existing state of affairs by the paper currency, on the value of which the welfare of every subject in the state depends.
To a government thus strong in concentrated power and intelligence stands opposed the mass of nations subject to the Austrian sceptre whose natural antipathies have been artfully fostered and strengthened. In Austria the distinctions of class, characteristic of the Middle Ages, are still preserved. The aristocracy and the clergy possess an influence almost unknown in Germany, but solely over the people, not over the government. As corporative bodies they still are, as in the days of Charles VI., convoked for the purpose of holding postulate diets, whose power, with the exception of that of the Hungarian diet, is merely nominal. The nobility, even in Hungary, as everywhere else throughout the Austrian states (more particularly since the Spanish system adopted by Ferdinand II.), is split into two inimical classes, those of the higher and lower aristocracy. Even in Galicia, where the Polish nobility formed, at an earlier period and according to earlier usage, but one body, the distinction of a higher and lower class has been introduced since the occupation of that country by Austria. The high aristocracy are either bound by favors, coincident with their origin, to the court, the great majority among them consisting of families on whom nobility was conferred by Ferdinand II., or they are, if families belonging to the more powerful and more ancient national aristocracy, as, for instance, that of Esterhazy in Hungary, brought by the bestowal of fresh favors into closer affinity with the court and drawn within its sphere. The greater proportion of the aristocracy consequently reside at Vienna. The lower nobility make their way chiefly by talent and perseverance in the army and the civil offices, and are therefore naturally devoted to the government, on which all their hopes in life depend. The clergy, although permitted to retain the whole of their ancient pomp and their influence over the minds of the people, have been rendered dependent upon the government, a point easily gained, the pope being principally protected by Austria.
The care of the government for the material welfare of the people cannot be denied; it is, however, frustrated by two obstacles raised by its own system. The maintenance of the high aristocracy is, for instance, antipathetic to the welfare of the subject, and, although comfort and plenty abound in the immediate vicinity of Vienna, the population on the enormous estates of the magnates in the provinces often present a lamentable contrast. The Austrian government moreover prohibits all free intercourse with foreign parts, and the old- fashioned system of taxation, senseless as many other existing regulations, entirely puts a stop to all free trade between Hungary and Austria. Consequently, the new and grand modes of communication, the Franzen Canal, that unites the Danube and the Thiess, the Louisenstrasse, between Carlstadt and Fiume, the magnificent road to Trieste, the admirable road across the rocks of the Stilfser Jock, and, more than all, the steam navigation as far as the mouths of the Danube and the railroads, will be unavailing to scatter the blessings of commerce and industry so long as these wretched prohibitions continue to be enforced.
Austria has, in regard to her foreign policy, left the increasing influence of Russia in Poland, Persia, and Turkey unopposed, and even allowed the mouths of the Danube to be guarded by Russian fortresses, while she has, on the other hand, energetically repelled the interference of France in the affairs of Italy. The July revolution induced a popular insurrection in the dominions of the Church, and the French threw a garrison into the citadel of Ancona; the Austrians, however, instantly entered the country and enforced the restoration of theançien régime. In Lombardy, many ameliorations were introduced and the prosperity of the country promoted by the Austrian administration, notwithstanding the national jealousy of the inhabitants. Venice, with her choked-up harbor, could, it is true, no longer compete with Trieste. The German element has gained ground in Galicia by means of the public authorities and the immigration of agriculturists and artificers. The Hungarians endeavored to render their language the common medium throughout Hungary, and to expel the German element, but their apprehension of the numerous Slavonian population of Hungary, whom religious sympathy renders subject to Russian influence, has speedily reconciled them with the Germans. Slavonism has, on the other hand, also gained ground in Bohemia.
The emperor, Francis I., expired in 1835, and was succeeded by his son, Ferdinand I., without a change taking place in the system of the government, of which Prince Metternich continued to be the directing principle.
The decease of some of the heads of foreign royal families and the marriages of their successors again placed several German princes on foreign thrones. The last of the Guelphs on the throne of Great Britain expired with William IV., whose niece and successor, Victoria Alexandrina, wedded, 1840, Albert of Saxe-Coburg, second son of Ernest, the reigning duke. That the descendant of the steadfast elector should, after such adverse fortune, be thus destined to occupy the highest position in the reformed world, is of itself remarkable. One of this prince's uncles, Leopold, is seated on the throne of Belgium, and one of his cousins, Ferdinand, on that of Portugal, in right of his consort, Donna Maria da Gloria, the daughter of Dom Pedro, king of Portugal and emperor of the Brazils, to whom, on the expulsion of the usurper, Dom Miguel, he was wedded in 1835. These princes of Coburg are remarkable for manly beauty.
The antipathy with which the new dynasty on the throne of France was generally viewed rendered Ferdinand, Duke of Orleans, Louis Philippe's eldest son, for some time an unsuccessful suitor for the hand of a German princess; he at length conducted Helena, princess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, although against the consent of her stepfather, Paul Frederick, the reigning duke, to Paris in 1837, as future queen of the French. He was killed in 1842, by a fall from his carriage, and left two infant sons, the Count of Paris and the Duke of Chartres. The Czarowitz, Alexander, espoused Maria, Princess of Darmstadt.
The French chambers and journals have reassumed toward Germany the tone formerly affected by Napoleon, and, with incessant cries for war, in which, in 1840, the voice of the prime minister Thiers joined, demand the restoration of the left bank of the Rhine. Thiers was, however, compelled to resign office, and the close alliance between Austria, Prussia, and the whole of the confederated princes, as well as the feeling universally displayed throughout Germany, demonstrated the energy with which an attack on the side of France would be repelled. The erection of the long-forgotten federal fortresses on the Upper Rhine was also taken at length under consideration, and it was resolved to fortify both Rastadt and Ulm without further delay.
Nor have the statesmen of France failed to threaten Germany with a Russo-Gallic alliance in the spirit of the Erfurt congress of 1808; while Russia perseveres in the prohibitory system so prejudicial to German commerce, attempts to suppress every spark of German nationality in Livonia, Courland, and Esthonia, and fosters Panslavism, or the union of all the Slavonic nations for the subjection of the world, among the Slavonian subjects of Austria in Hungaria and Bohemia. The extension of the Greek church is also connected with this idea. "The European Pentarchy," a work that attracted much attention in 1839, insolently boasts how Russia, in defiance of Austria, has seized the mouths of the Danube, has wedged herself, as it were, by means of Poland, between Austria and Prussia, in a position equally threatening to both, recommends the minor states of Germany to seek the protection of Russia, and darkly hints at the alliance between that power and France.
Nor are the prospects of Germany alone threatened by France and Russia; disturbances, like a fantastic renewal of the horrors of the Middle Age, are ready to burst forth on the other side of the Alps, as though, according to the ancient saga of Germany, the dead were about to rise in order to mingle in the last great contest between the gods and mankind.
CCLXXII. Prussia and Rome
While Austria remains stationary, Prussia progresses. While Austria relies for support upon the aristocracy of the Estates, Prussia relies for hers upon the people, that is to say, upon the public officers taken from the mass of the population, upon the citizens emancipated by the city regulation, upon the peasantry emancipated by the abolition of servitude, of all the other agricultural imposts, and by the division of property, and upon the enrolment of both classes in the Landwehr. While Austria, in fine, renders her German policy subordinate to her European diplomacy, the influence exercised by Prussia upon Europe depends, on the contrary, solely upon that possessed by her in Germany.
Prussia's leading principle appears to be, "All for the people, nothing through the people!" Hence the greatest solicitude for the instruction of the people, whether in the meanest schools or the universities, but under strict political control, under the severest censorship; hence the emancipation of the peasantry, civic self- administration, freedom of trade, the general arming of the people, and, with all these, mere nameless provincial diets, the most complete popular liberty on the widest basis without a representation worthy of the name; hence, finally, the greatest solicitude for the promotion of trade on a grand scale, for the revival of the commerce of Germany, which has lain prostrate since the great wars of the Reformation, for the mercantile unity of Germany, while it is exactly in Prussia that political Unitarians are the most severely punished.