Chapter XVIII: Appendix: I (2)

The French Government, on the other hand, has asserted that if Mehemet Ali were once assured of the permanent occupation of Egypt and Syria he would remain a faithful subject and become the strongest support of the Sultan; that the Sultan could not govern if the Pasha were not in possession of this province, the military and financial resources of which would then be of greater use to him than if they were in the hands of the Sultan himself; that every confidence might be placed in the sincerity with which Mehemet Ali had renounced all ulterior views, and in his protestations of faithful devotion to his Sovereign; that the Pasha is an old man, and upon his death, even if his rights are recognised as hereditary, the totality of his acquired power would revert to the Sultan, because all possessions in Mohammedan countries, of whatever nature, are in reality held only upon tenure for lifetime.

The French Government has also maintained that Mehemet Ali will never be willing to evacuate Syria of his own accord and that the only means by which European Powers could use force would be operations by sea which would be inadequate, or by land which would be dangerous; that these operations by sea would not expel the Egyptians from Syria and would merely rouse Mehemet Ali to begin an attack upon Constantinople; while the measures which might be taken in such a case to defend the capital and in particular any operations on land undertaken by the troops of the allied Powers to expel the army of Mehemet Ali from Syria, would be more fatal to the Turkish Empire than the state of things could possibly be which these measures would be intended to remedy.

To these objections Her Majesty's Government replied that no reliance could be placed upon the recent protestations of Mehemet Ali; that his ambition is insatiable and would only be increased by success; and that to provide him with the opportunity of invading, or to leave within his reach the objects of his desire would be to sow the seeds of inevitable collisions; that Syria is no further from Constantinople than a large number of well-administered provinces are from their capitals in other States and can be as well governed from Constantinople as from Alexandria; that it is impossible for the resources of this province to be of any use to the Sultan in the hands of a governor who might turn them against his master at any moment and that they would be more useful if they were in the hands or at the disposal of the Sultan himself; that, as Ibrahim had an army at his orders, he had also the means, upon the decease of Mehemet Ali, of securing his own succession to any power of which the latter might be possessed at his death; that it was not fit that the Great Powers should advise the Sultan to conclude a public arrangement with Mehemet Ali, with the secret intention of hereafter breaking the arrangement upon the first occasion that might seem opportune.

None the less the French Government maintained its opinion and refused to take part in an arrangement which included the use of coercive measures.

But the French Memorandum laid down that in the course of recent circumstances no positive proposal has been made to France upon which she was called to explain her attitude and that consequently the resolution which England communicated to her in the Memorandum of July 17, doubtless in the name of the four Powers, must not be considered as actuated by refusals which France has not made. This passage obliges me briefly to remind you of the general course of negotiations.

The original opinion conceived by Her Majesty's Government, of which the five Powers were informed, including France, in 1839, was that the arrangement between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali which might secure a permanent state of peace in the Levant, would be of a nature to confine the power delegated to Mehemet Ali to Egypt alone and would re-establish the direct authority of the Sultan throughout Syria, both in Candia and in all the towns of the Holy Land; thus interposing the desert between the direct power of the Sultan and the province of which the administration would be left to the Pasha. And Her Majesty's Government proposed that by way of compensation for the evacuation of Syria, Mehemet Ali should receive an assurance that his male descendants should succeed him as governors in Egypt, under the sovereignty of the Sultan.

To this proposal the French Government raised objections saying that such an arrangement would doubtless be the best if there were any means of executing it, but that Mehemet Ali would offer resistance and that any measures of violence which the allies might employ to reduce him, would produce effects which might be more dangerous to the peace of Europe and to the independence of the Porte, than the actual state of affairs between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali could possibly be; that although the French Government thus refused to agree to England's plan, during the long space of time which had subsequently elapsed, it had not proposed any plan of its own. Further, in September 1839, Comte Sébastiani, the French Ambassador at the Court of London, proposed to draw a line from the east to the west of the sea, nearly from Beyrout to the desert near Damascus and to declare that all the land to the south of this line should be administered by Mehemet Ali and that all to the north should be under the immediate authority of the Sultan. The French Ambassador then gave Her Majesty's Government to understand that if such an arrangement were admitted by the five Powers, France would unite with the four Powers, in case of need, for the use of coercive measures, with the object of forcing Mehemet Ali to submission.

I pointed out to Comte Sébastiani that such an arrangement was open, though in a less degree, to all the objections applicable to the present relative position of the two parties and that consequently Her Majesty's Government could not accede to it. I observed that it seemed inconsistent on the part of France to express her willingness to force Mehemet Ali to agree to an arrangement which would obviously be incomplete and inadequate to secure the proposed object, while objecting to coercive measures when they were proposed for the purpose of forcing consent to the arrangement desired by Her Majesty, the execution of which, as France admitted, would entirely fulfil the desired object.

To these arguments Comte Sébastiani replied that the objections advanced by the French Government to the employment of coercive measures against Mehemet Ali, were founded upon considerations of domestic government, and that these objections would be removed if the French Government was enabled to prove to the nation and to the Chambers that it had obtained the best possible conditions for Mehemet All and that he had refused to accept them.

As this insinuation was not admitted by Her Majesty's Government, the French Government communicated officially on September 27, 1839, its own plan, which was that Mehemet Ali should become a hereditary governor of Egypt and of all Syria, and governor for life of Candia, surrendering nothing but the district of Adana and Arabia. The French Government did not say a word as to its knowledge of Mehemet Ali's inclination to adhere to this arrangement, nor did it declare that if he refused to agree, France would take coercive measures to compel him.

Obviously Her Majesty's Government could not consent to this plan, which was open to more objections than the present state of things, the more so as the gift to Mehemet Ali of the legal and hereditary title to a third of the Ottoman Empire, which he now occupies only by force, would have been to begin the positive dismemberment of the Empire.

Her Majesty's Government, therefore, being desirous to show its readiness to come to an agreement with France upon these questions, stated that it would yield its well-founded objection to any extension of Mehemet Ali's power beyond Egypt and would join the French Government in recommending the Sultan to grant to Mehemet Ali, apart from the pashalik of Egypt, the administration of the lower part of Syria, to be bounded on the north by a line drawn from Cape Carmel to the southern extremity of the Lake of Tiberias, and by a line from this point to the Gulf of Akaba, provided that France would join the four Powers in coercive measures if Mehemet Ali refused this offer. This proposal, however, was not accepted by the French Government, which now declared its inability to join in coercive measures or to be a party to an arrangement to which Mehemet Ali would not consent.

While these discussions were proceeding with France, separate negotiations were in progress between England and Russia, of which full details and information have been sent to the French Government. Negotiations with France were suspended for a time at the outset of this year, firstly because a change of Ministry was expected, and secondly because a change of Ministry took place.

In the month of May, however, Baron von Neumann and myself resolved, upon the advice of our respective governments, to make a last effort with the object of inducing France to begin a treaty which was to be concluded with the other four Powers, and we submitted to the French Government, through M. Guizot, another proposal for an arrangement between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali. One objection put forward by the French Government to the last proposals of England was that although it was proposed to give Mehemet Ali the strong position extending from Mount Carmel to Mount Tabor, he would be deprived of the fortress of Acre.

To overcome this objection Baron von Neumann and myself proposed that the northern frontiers of the part of Syria to be administered by the Pasha should extend from Cape Nakhora to the furthest point of the Lake of Tiberias, thus including within the boundary the fortress of Acre; and that the eastern frontier should extend along the western coast of the Lake of Tiberias and thence to the Gulf of Akaba. We declared that the government of this part of Syria could be granted to Mehemet Ali for life only, and that neither England nor Austria would consent to grant Mehemet Ali hereditary rights over any part of Syria. I further declared to M. Guizot that I could go no further in the way of concessions in the hope of securing the co-operation of France, and that this was our last proposal. Baron von Neumann and myself communicated these facts separately to M. Guizot: Baron von Neumann first, and myself the next day. M. Guizot told me he would inform his Government of this proposal and of the facts which I had laid before him, and that he would let me know the answer as soon as he had received it. A short time afterwards the plenipotentiaries of Austria, Prussia, and Russia informed me that they had every reason to believe that the French Government, instead of deciding upon the proposal for themselves, had sent it to Alexandria to learn the decision of Mehemet Ali; that the four Powers who had undertaken the business were thus confronted, not with France, but with Mehemet Ali; that, apart from the inevitable delay, this was an action which their respective courts had never intended to take and one to which they would never consent; and that the French Government had thus placed the plenipotentiaries in a very embarrassing position. I agreed with them that their objections were justified with regard to the conduct which they attributed to the French Government, but that M. Guizot had said not a word to me of what would be done. Mehemet Ali had been informed that the French Government at that moment was fully occupied with parliamentary questions and could naturally ask for time before sending an answer to our proposals, and that in any case delay could do no great harm. About June 27, M. Guizot came to me and read me a letter addressed to him by M. Thiers, containing the answer of the French Government to our proposal. This answer was a formal refusal. M. Thiers said that _the French Government positively knew that Mehemet Ali would not consent to a division of Syria unless he were forced to do so; that France could not co-operate in coercive measures against Mehemet Ali under these conditions, and that therefore she could not become a party to the proposed arrangement_.

As France had thus refused to yield to England's ultimatum, the plenipotentiaries were bound to consider what steps should be adopted by their Governments. The position of the five Powers was this: the five had declared their conviction that in the interests of the balance of power and of the peace of Europe it was essential to preserve the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire under the reigning dynasty; all five had declared that they would use all their influence to maintain this integrity and this independence; but France, on the one hand, insisted that the best means to secure this result was to abandon the Sultan to the mercies of Mehemet Ali and to advise him to submit to the conditions which Mehemet might impose upon him in order to preserve peace _sine qua non_; while on the other side the four Powers regarded any further military occupation of the Sultan's provinces by Mehemet Ali as likely to destroy the integrity of the Turkish Empire and to be fatal to its independence; they therefore thought that it was advisable to confine Mehemet Ali within narrower limits.

After about two months of deliberations, France not only refused to consent to the plan proposed by the four Powers as an ultimatum upon their part, but further declared that she would not become a party to any arrangement to which Mehemet Ali did not voluntarily consent without the use of force. It only remained then for the four Great Powers to adopt as an alternative the principle laid down by France, which consisted in the complete submission of the Sultan to the demands of Mehemet Ali; or to act upon their principles and force Mehemet Ali to accept an arrangement compatible in form with the rights of the Sultan, and compatible in content with the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. If the former alternative were adopted, the co-operation of France would be secured; in the latter alternative the hope of that co-operation must be abandoned.

The keen desire of the four Powers to secure the co-operation of France has been shown by the fact that they have continued their efforts for several months in the course of negotiations. They are well aware of the value of French support, not only for the particular object which they have in view, but also with reference to the general and permanent interests of Europe. But what they failed to secure, and what they esteemed, was the co-operation of France in the maintenance of peace to secure the eventual safety of Europe and the practical execution of the principles to which the five Powers had declared their agreement. They desired the co-operation of France, not only for themselves and for the advantage and opportunity of the moment, but also for the good which it might have conferred, and for the future consequences which might have resulted from it. They wished to co-operate with France to do good, but they were not prepared to co-operate with her in doing evil.

Thinking, therefore, that the policy advised by France was unjust, and in no way judicious with regard to the Sultan; that it might become the cause of misfortunes in Europe; that it was inconsistent with the public engagement undertaken by the five Powers, and that it was incompatible with the principles which they had wisely emphasised, the four Powers felt that they could not make the sacrifice demanded of them, and buy the help of France at so high a price--if, indeed, that could be called co-operation which merely consisted in allowing events to follow their natural course. As the four Powers were thus unable to adopt the views of France, they determined to accomplish their mission.

This determination, however, was not unexpected and the probable eventualities had not been hidden from France. On the contrary, upon several occasions during the course of negotiations, and no later than October 1 last, I had pointed out to the French Ambassador that our desire to remain united with France must have a limit, that we were anxious to go forward with France but not disposed to come to a standstill with her, and that if she could not contrive to act in harmony with the four Powers, she must not be astonished if she saw them come to an understanding between themselves and acting apart from France.

Comte Sabastiani told me that he foresaw that we should thus act, and that he could predict the result; that we were bound to try and conclude our arrangements without the help of France, and that we should find that our means were inadequate; that France would be a passive spectator of events; that after a year or eighteen months of useless efforts we should recognise that we had been mistaken, and that we should then apply to France; that this Power would then co-operate to settle these matters upon a friendly basis with as much friendliness after our failure as she would have shown before our attempt, and that she would then probably persuade us to agree to conditions to which we refused our consent at the moment.

Similar indications were given to M. Guizot with regard to the line which would probably be taken by the four Powers if they were unsuccessful in coming to an arrangement with France. The French Government has therefore refused the ultimatum of the four Powers, and by the act of refusal has enounced afresh a principle of action which it knew could not be adopted by the four Powers: a principle which consisted in the idea that no settlement of the difficulties between the Sultan and his subject could take place except under conditions which the subject could accept voluntarily, or, in other terms, could dictate; hence, the French Government must have been prepared to see the four Powers determined to act apart from France; and when the four Powers had come to this determination, they could not be represented as breaking with France, or as excluding France from the arrangement of a war to be carried on by Europe. On the contrary, it was France who broke with the four Powers, for it was France who laid down for herself a principle of action which made co-operation with the other Powers impossible.

At this point, without attempting further controversial observations with reference to the past, I feel obliged to point out that the voluntary retirement on the part of France was not entirely due to the course of negotiations at London, but that, unless Her Majesty's Government has been strangely misled, it was decided even more definitely in the course of negotiations at Constantinople. The five Powers declared to the Sultan by a Collective Note, which was handed to the Porte on July 27, 1839, by their representatives at Constantinople, that their unanimity was complete, and these representatives requested the Porte to refrain from any direct negotiations with Mehemet Ali, and to make no arrangement with the Pasha without the concurrence of the five Powers. However, Her Majesty's Government has good reason to believe that during the last few months the French representative at Constantinople has decisively isolated France from the other four Powers, and has energetically and repeatedly pressed the Porte to negotiate directly with Mehemet Ali, and to conclude an arrangement with the Pasha, not only without the concurrence of the four great Powers, but under the mediation of France alone, and in accordance with the special views of the French Government.

As regards the line of conduct followed by Great Britain, the French Government must recognise that the views and opinions of Her Majesty's Government have never varied, from the outset of these negotiations, except in so far as Her Majesty's Government has offered to modify its views with the object of securing the co-operation of France. These views have been from time to time frankly expressed to the French Government, and have been continually supported in the most urgent manner by arguments which seemed conclusive to Her Majesty's Government. From the very outset of the negotiations, the declarations of principle made by the French Government induced Her Majesty's Government to believe that the two Governments had only to agree upon the means of carrying out their common principles. If the intentions of the French Government concerning these means differed from the views of England even at the outset of the negotiations, France has certainly not the right to refer to the difference between France and England as unexpected, seeing that the French Government recognised its existence a long time previously. If the intentions of the French Government with regard to the measures to be taken have undergone a change since the opening of negotiations, France certainly has not the right to impute to Great Britain a change of political intention which proceeds from France, and not from England.

But in any case, when four out of five Powers have agreed upon a definite line of conduct, and when the fifth has resolved to pursue an entirely different policy, it would be unreasonable to require the four to abandon, in deference to the fifth, opinions to which they are daily more resolved to adhere and which refer to a question of vital importance for the chief and future interests of Europe.

But as France continues to maintain the general principles which she laid down at the outset and continues to consider the maintenance of the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire as necessary to preserve the balance of power; as again France has never refused to admit that the arrangement which the four Powers wished to introduce between the Sultan and the Pasha would be the best solution if it could be secured, and as again the objections of France referred not to the object proposed but to the means by which it is to be gained, her opinion being that the end is good, but that the means are inadequate and dangerous; Her Majesty's Government is confident that the isolation of France, which no one regrets more than Her Majesty's Government, will not be of long duration.

When the four Powers, in concert with the Sultan, have succeeded in introducing an arrangement of this nature between the Porte and his subjects, there will then be no further point of disagreement between France and her allies, nor will there be any obstacle to prevent France from undertaking with the other Powers such engagements for the future as may seem necessary to secure the good results of an intervention by the four Powers in favour of the Sultan, and to preserve the Ottoman Empire from any recurrence of the dangers to which it is exposed.

Her Majesty's Government impatiently awaits the moment when France will be able to resume her position in the concert of the Powers and trusts that that moment will be accelerated in the interests of the full development of the moral influence of France. Although the French Government, for reasons of its own, has refused to participate in the coercive measures to be employed against Mehemet Ali, this Government certainly cannot object to the employment of such measures with the object of inducing the Pasha to submit to the arrangements which are to be placed before him, and it is obvious that more than one argument might be adduced and that more than one prudential consideration might be urged upon the Pasha with more efficacy by France as a neutral Power and a non-participant in this affair, than by the four Powers which are actively engaged in the prosecution of coercive measures.

In any case Her Majesty's Government is confident that Europe will recognise the justice of the proposal which has been put forward by the four Powers, for their purpose is just and disinterested. They are not seeking to gather any advantage for themselves or to establish any exclusive sphere of influence, or to acquire any territory, and the object which they have in view should be as profitable to France as to themselves, because France, like themselves, is interested in the maintenance of the balance of power and in the preservation of the general peace.

You will send officially to M. Thiers a copy of this despatch.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) PALMERSTON.

(From the _Journal des Débats_ of October 2.)

V

_Manifesto to the Spanish Nation._

SPANIARDS,

As I left the soil of Spain in a day of grief and bitterness for me, my streaming eyes were turned to heaven in prayer that the God of mercy would shed His grace and His blessing upon us.

When I reached a foreign land, the first need of my soul and the first thought of my heart was to raise my voice in friendship, the voice with which I have ever spoken to you with a sense of unspeakable tenderness, both in good and bad fortune.

Alone, abandoned, and a prey to the deepest grief, my only consolation in this great misfortune is to open my heart to God and to you, to my father and to my children.

Think not that I shall be satisfied with lamentations and barren recriminations, or that, to explain my conduct as Queen-Regent of the realm, I shall attempt to excite your passions; on the contrary, I have done everything to calm them and would gladly see them at rest. The language of self-restraint alone is consonant with my affection, my dignity, and my glory.

When I left my country to seek another home in Spanish hearts, rumour had informed me of your great exploits and your high qualities. I knew that in every age you had leaped forward to the combat with the noblest and most generous ardour to defend the throne of your Sovereigns; that you had defended it at the price of your blood, and that in days of glorious memory you had deserved well of your country and of Europe. I then swore to devote myself to the happiness of a nation which had shed its blood to break the captivity of its Kings. The Almighty heard my oath, your manifestations of joy showed me that you were conscious of it, and my conscience tells me that I have kept it.

When your King, upon the brink of the tomb, dropped the reins of State from his failing grasp and placed them in my hands, my gaze fell alternately upon my husband, my daughter's cradle, and the Spanish nation, thus uniting the three objects of my love in order to recommend them to the protection of heaven in one prayer. My painful experiences as mother and wife while my husband's life and my daughter's throne were endangered could not distract me from my duties as Queen: at my voice universities were opened; at my voice long-standing abuses disappeared and useful reforms, wisely considered, were brought forward; at my voice those who had sought in vain a home as exiles and wanderers in foreign lands, returned to their hearths and homes. Your joyous enthusiasm at these solemn acts of justice and mercy could only be compared to the extent of the grief and the depth of bitterness to which I was abandoned; for myself I reserved all sadness, and for you, Spaniards, all joy.

At a later date, when God had called my august husband to Himself, who left the government of the whole realm in my hands, I strove to guide the State as a merciful Queen-Regent (_justiciera_). During the short period which elapsed since my elevation to power until the convocation of the first Cortes, my power was unique, but it was not despotic, or absolute, or arbitrary, for it was limited by my will. The most dignified people in the realm and the Council of Government, which I was bound to consult by the last wishes of my august husband upon all matters of grave import, pointed out to me that public opinion demanded other guarantees from me as the repository of the sovereign power. I gave those guarantees, and freely and spontaneously convoked the chiefs of the nation and the procuradores of the realm.

I granted the royal statute and I have not infringed it. If others have trampled it under foot, they must be responsible for their actions before God, who holds laws sacred.

The Constitution of 1837 was accepted by me, and I took the oath to it; to avoid infringement of it, I then made the last and greatest of sacrifices--I laid down the sceptre and I was forced to abandon my daughters.

In referring to the events which have brought these cruel tribulations upon me, I shall speak to you as my dignity demands, with self-restraint and in words well weighed.

I was served by responsible Ministers, who were supported by the Cortes. I accepted their resignation, which was imperiously demanded by a revolt at Barcelona; then began a crisis which was only concluded by the renunciation which I signed at Valencia. During this deplorable period, the municipality of Madrid revolted against my authority, an example followed by other important towns. The rebels insisted that I should condemn the conduct of Ministers who had loyally served me; that I should recognise the movement as legitimate; that I should annul, or at any rate suspend, the law of municipalities which I had sanctioned, after it had been voted by the Cortes; and that I should endanger the unity of the Regency.

I could not accept the first of these conditions without entire loss of self-respect; I could not accede to the second without recognising the right of force, a right recognised neither by divine nor human laws, and the existence of which is incompatible with the Constitution, as it is incompatible with all Constitutions; I could not accept the third condition without infringing the Constitution, which regards as law any measure voted by the Cortes and sanctioned by the supreme head of the State, and which places a law once sanctioned beyond the sphere of the royal authority; I could not accept the fourth condition without accepting my own disgrace, passing condemnation upon myself and undermining the power which the King had left me and which the Chambers of the Cortes had afterwards confirmed, and which was preserved by me as a sacred possession which I had sworn never to surrender to the hands of factious men.

My firmness in resisting that which I could not accept in the face of my duty, my oaths and the dearest interests of the monarchy, has brought down upon the defenceless woman, whose voice now speaks to you, a series of griefs and sufferings which no human language could express. You will not have forgotten, Spaniards, how I carried my misfortunes from city to city, insulted and affronted everywhere, for one of those decrees of God which are a mystery to man, has permitted injustice and ingratitude to prevail. Doubtless for that reason the small number of those who hated me were emboldened to insult me, while the large number of those who loved me had so far lost courage as to offer me nothing but silent compassion as a testimony of their affection. There were some who offered me their swords, but I did not accept their offer, preferring martyrdom in isolation to the certain prospect of reading one day a new list of martyrs who had fallen victims to their loyalty. I might have stirred up a civil war, but civil war could not be aroused by myself, who have just given you the peace that my heart desired, a peace cemented by forgetfulness of the past; my mother's eyes turned away from so dreadful a prospect; I told myself that when children are ungrateful a mother must endure to death, but that she must not stir up war between them.

Days elapsed in this dreadful condition of affairs; I saw my sceptre become merely a useless reed and my diadem a crown of thorns. At length my strength failed; I laid aside my sceptre and my crown to breathe the air of freedom; an unhappy victim but with a calm brow, a clear conscience, and a soul without remorse.

Such, Spaniards, has been my conduct. I offer you this account of it that it may not be stained by calumny, and in so doing I have performed the last of my duties. She who was your Queen asks nothing more of you than that you will love her daughter and honour her memory.

Marseilles, November 8, 1840.

(Signed) MARIA CHRISTINA.

BIOGRAPHICAL INDEX

[The names followed by an asterisk (*) have been already noted in more detail in the Biographical Index of vol. I.]

A

ABD-EL-KADER (1807-1883). Celebrated Arab Emir, who maintained a
desperate struggle against the French in Algiers for fifteen
years. He was eventually captured in 1847 by General
Lamoricière, sent to France, and imprisoned at Pau, then at
Amboise. Napoleon III. set him at liberty, and he afterwards
remained loyal to France. He died in Syria, where he had
withdrawn.

ACERENZA, the Duchesse d' (1783-1876). Jeanne, Princesse de
Courlande, married in 1801 François Pignatelli of Belmonte, Duc
d'Acerenza. She was the third daughter of Pierre Duc de
Courlande, and sister of the Duchesse de Talleyrand.

ACTON, Lady. She was the daughter of the Duke of Dalberg, and
married Lord Acton as her first husband. Her second husband was
Mr. George Leveson, afterwards Lord Granville.

ADÉLAÏDE, Madame* (1777-1847). Sister of King Louis-Philippe, over
whom she exerted a great influence.

ADOLPHUS OF NASSAU (1250-1298). He was elected Emperor of Germany
in 1292 on the death of Rudolph of Hapsburg, to the exclusion of
Albert, son of this Prince. Germany revolted against him, and he
was conquered and killed by his rival, Albert of Austria, at the
battle of Göllheim.

AFFRE, Denis Auguste (1793-1848). Archbishop of Paris from 1840.
On June 25, 1848, Mgr. Affre went to the barricades in the
Faubourg Saint Antoine and was struck by a bullet while
beseeching the insurgents to surrender. He died two days later
in consequence of this wound.

AGNÈS SOREL (1409-1450). Lady of Honour to Isabelle de Lorraine.
Agnès Sorel attracted the notice of Charles VII. and became his
favourite. He gave her a castle at Loches, the comté of
Penthièvre, the manors of Roquessière, Issoudun, and
Vernon-sur-Seine, and finally the seat of Beauté in the Bois de
Vincennes, whence she took the name of Dame de Beauté.

ALAVA, Don Ricardo de* (1780-1843). Spanish officer and
diplomatist.

ALBUFÉRA, the Duchesse d' (1791-1884). Daughter of the Baron de
St. Joseph. She married in 1808 Marshal Suchet, Duc d'Albuféra,
who died in 1826.

ALDBOROUGH, Cornelia, Lady.* Daughter of Charles Landry.

ALFIERI, Count Victor* (1749-1803). Italian tragic poet. He
secretly married the Countess of Albany.

ALIBAUD (1810-1836). Assassin who attempted the life of King
Louis-Philippe on the evening of June 25, 1836, and was executed
on July 11 following.

ALTENSTEIN, Baron Karl of (1770-1840). Prussian statesman from
1808 to 1810. He was Financial Minister, and afterwards, under
King Frederick William III., became Minister of Religion and
Education.

ALTON-SHÉE DE LIGNIÉRES, Edmond, Comte d' (1810-1874). Peer of
France in 1836. At first closely attached to the Constitutional
Monarchy of July, he suddenly changed under the influence of the
ideas of 1848, and took part in the manifestations of the
advanced party. Under the Second Empire he abandoned his
political connections.

ALVANLEY, Lord* (1787-1849). A society figure and English officer,
known for his wit.

ANCILLON, Jean Pierre Frédéric (1766-1837). Of Swiss origin, he
became Minister of the Reformed Church of Berlin and Professor
at the Military Academy. In 1806 Frederick William III.
requested him to undertake the education of the Prince Royal,
afterwards Frederick William IV. Admitted to the court, Ancillon
was influential there until his death. He married three times:
in 1792, Marie Henriette Baudouin, who died in 1823; in 1824,
Louise Molière, who died in 1826; in 1836, Flore Tranouille
d'Harley and de Verquignieulle, of an old Belgian family.

ANDRAL, Madame. Daughter of M. Royer Collard. She married the
famous Dr. Andral.

ANGLONA, the Prince d' (1817-1871). Son of a General in the
Spanish Army. He married in 1837 the daughter of the Duke of
Frias and became Duke of Uceda, a title which belonged to his
wife's family.

ANGOULÊME, the Duc d' (1775-1844). Also known as the Dauphin,
after his father, King Charles X., had ascended the throne in
1824. In 1799, at Mitau, he married his cousin, Marie Thérèse
Charlotte, only daughter of King Louis XVI. He was
Commander-in-Chief of the French Army sent to Spain in 1823,
captured the fort of Trocadero, and showed his moderation by the
ordinance of Andujar. He died in exile at Goritz, and left no
children.

ANGOULÊME, the Duchesse d' (1778-1851). Marie Thérèse Charlotte of
France, only daughter of King Louis XVI. and of Marie
Antoinette. At her birth she received the title of Madame
Royale. She shared the captivity of her family, and in 1795 the
Directory consented to exchange her for the commissaries sent
back by Austria. She married her cousin, the Duc d'Angoulême,
and returned to Paris with him in 1815. Exiled once more in
1830, she never returned to France, and died at Frohsdorf.

ANNE OF AUSTRIA* (1602-1666). Queen of France and Regent during
the minority of Louis XIV.

ANNE DE BRETAGNE (1476-1514). Queen of France. Daughter of
François II. of Brittany, she married in succession Charles
VIII. and Louis XII., and brought to the Crown the Duchy of
Brittany, to which she was heiress.

APPONYI, Count Antony (1782-1852). Austrian diplomatist. He was
first Envoy Extraordinary to the court of Tuscany, then
Ambassador at Rome until 1825. Afterwards he was Ambassador at
London and then at Paris, where he remained until 1848. In 1808
he married Theresa, daughter of Count Nogarola of Verona.

ARGOUT, the Comte d' (1782-1858). French politician and financier,
he became Councillor of State in 1817, and then Peer of France.
From 1830 onwards he was a member of several Ministries, and
retained the post of Governor of the Bank of France until his
death.

ARNAULD D'ANDILLY (1588-1674). After a long life at court he
retired in 1644 to Port Royal des Champs. While in retirement
here he translated the Confessions of St. Augustine, wrote
memoirs, &c. His son was the Marquis de Pomponne, Minister of
Foreign Affairs, and his daughter the Mother Superior Angélique
de Saint Jean, Abbess of Port Royal.

ARNAULD, Antoine (1612-1694). Theologian and philosopher. He first
studied law and was then attracted by the rigid Christianity of
the Jansenistes, and became the militant theologian of Port
Royal. He composed in collaboration with Nicole the Logic of
Port Royal, and with Lancelot the Grammar. He was the brother of
Arnauld d'Andilly.

ARNAULD, Mother Superior Marie Angélique de Sainte Madeleine
(1591-1661). Sister of Arnauld d'Andilly and of A. Arnauld. She
was Abbess of Port Royal des Champs from the age of fourteen.
She introduced the Cistercian reforms and spirit.

ARNAULD, Mother Superior Angélique de Saint Jean (1624-1684). She
was the daughter of Arnauld d'Andilly and Abbess of Port Royal,
as was her aunt, the Mother Superior Angélique de Sainte
Madeleine. She has a large place in the records of Port Royal
worthies; she also wrote "Narratives," "Reflections," &c.

ARNIM, the Baron of (1789-1861). Prussian diplomatist. He was sent
to Brussels in 1836 and Paris from 1840 to 1848. After a short
time at Berlin as Minister of Foreign Affairs, in 1848, he
retired from politics.

ARSOLI, Camille, Prince Massimo and d' (1803-1873). Chief Minister
of the Pontifical posts. In 1827 he married Marie Gabrielle de
Villefranche-Carignan, and on her death he married the Comtesse
Hyacinthe de la Porta Rodiani.

ARSOLI, Princesse d' (1811-1837). Marie Gabrielle de Villefranche.
Daughter of the Baron de Villefranche, who married Mlle. de la
Vauguyon.

ATTHALIN, the Baron Louis Marie (1784-1856). A General of
Engineers in France. He served with distinction in the campaigns
of the Empire, and under the Restoration became _aide-de-camp_
to the Duc d'Orléans. Under the July monarchy he filled various
diplomatic posts, and became Peer of France in 1840. He retired
into private life after 1848.

AUBUSSON, the Comte Pierre d' (1793-1842). Colonel of Infantry. In
1823 he married Mlle. Rouillé du Boissy du Coudray, and died
insane in 1842.

AUBUSSON, Mlle. Noémi d'. Born in 1826. She was the daughter of
the Comte Pierre d'Aubusson. She married, in 1842, Prince
Gontran of Bauffremont.

AUGUSTA OF ENGLAND, Princess* (1797-1809). Duchess of Cambridge.
She was daughter of the Landgrave Frederick of Hesse Cassel.

AUMALE, Henri d'Orléans, duc d' (1822-1897). Fourth son of King
Louis-Philippe and of Queen Marie Amélie. He distinguished
himself by his brilliant military exploits in Algiers. He left
France in 1848 and returned after 1871. He again became an
exile, and did not return until 1889. His talents as historian
procured his entry to the French Academy. He bequeathed to the
Institute of France his beautiful estate of Chantilly.

AUSTIN, Sarah (1793-1867). An English writer who translated many
German books into English and wrote moral and educational works.

B

BADEN, Grand Duke Leopold of (1790-1858). Succeeded his brother
Louis in 1830. He married Princess Sophia, daughter of Gustavus
Adolphus IV., King of Sweden.

BADEN, Grand Duchess Stephanie of (1789-1860). Daughter of Claude
de Beauharnais, Chamberlain to the Empress Marie Louise. She
married in 1806 the Grand Duke Charles Louis Frederick of Baden,
who died in 1818.

BADEN, Princess Marie of (1817-1887). Daughter of the Grand Duke
Charles Louis of Baden and of Stéphanie de Beauharnais. She
married in 1842 the Duke of Hamilton, and was left a widow in
1863.

BAGRATION, Princess (1783-1857). Catherine Skavronska, married, in
1800, Prince Peter Bagration, who was killed at the Borodino in
1812. In 1830 the Princess married an English Colonel, Sir John
Hobart Caradoc, Lord Howden. The Princess was a friend of Prince
Metternich.

BALBI, the Comtesse de (1753-1839). Daughter of the Marquis de
Caumont La Force. She married the Comte de Balbi and became Lady
of Honour to the Comtesse de Provence. The Comte de Provence,
afterwards Louis XVIII., honoured him with his friendship. The
Comtesse de Balbi possessed every charm of beauty and mind.

BALLANCHE, Pierre Simon (1776-1847). A mystical writer who for
some time conducted at Lyons a large printing and publishing
establishment which he had inherited. He then settled at Paris,
where he became intimate with Madame de Staël, Chateaubriand,
Joubert, etc. He became a member of the French Academy in 1844.

BALZAC, Honoré de (1799-1850). One of the most fertile and
remarkable contemporary novelists, especially powerful in his
profound analysis of human passion.

BARANTE, the Baron Prosper de (1782-1866). He was successively
auditor to the State Council, entrusted with diplomatic
missions, Prefect of the Vendée and of the Loire-Inférieure,
then Deputy, Peer of France, and Ambassador at St. Petersburg.
As writer and historian he was most successful and his History
of the Dukes of Burgundy secured him a seat in the French
Academy.

BARANTE, the Baronne de. _Née_ d'Houdetot. Of Creole origin, she
was renowned for her beauty.

BENDEMANN, Edward (1811-1889). A German painter who acquired a
brilliant reputation at an early age. Professor at the Academy
of Fine Arts at Dresden, he executed the frescoes in the
throne-room of the royal castle of that town. In 1860 he became
director of the Academy of Düsseldorf in succession to Schadow
whose daughter he had married.

BARBET DE JOUY, Joseph Henri (1812-1896). Director of the Museum
of the Louvre and member of the Academy of Fine Arts.

BARROT, Odilon* (1791-1873). French politician.

BARTHE, Félix* (1795-1863). French magistrate and statesman.

BASTIDE, Jules (1800-1879). An ardent Liberal connected with the
Carbonari; he conducted a desperate opposition to Charles X.
Under Louis-Philippe he was Commander of the National Guard, was
compromised and condemned to death for his share in the outbreak
upon the funeral of General Lamarque; he escaped and fled to
London. Afterwards he returned to France and conducted the
_National_ after the death of Armand Carrel. In 1848 he was a
Deputy, and for a short time Minister of Foreign Affairs. Under
the Empire he held aloof from politics.

BATHURST, Lady Georgina. Wife of Lord Henry Bathurst, one of the
chief members of the Tory Party.

BATTHYANY, Countess* (1798-1840). _Née_ Baroness of Ahrennfeldt.

BAUDRAND, the General Comte* (1774-1848). _Aide-de-camp_ to the
Duc d'Orléans.

BAUDRAND, Madame. The great fashionable milliner at Paris in 1836.

BAUFFREMONT, the Duchesse de (born in 1771). Daughter of the Duc
de la Vauguyon. She married, in 1787, Alexandre, Duc de
Bauffremont. She was very intimate with the Prince de
Talleyrand.

BAUFFREMONT, the Princesse de (1802-1860). Laurence, daughter of
the Duc de Montmorency. She married, in 1819, Prince Théodore de
Bauffremont. She was the elder sister of the Duchesse de
Valençay.

BAUFFREMONT, the Prince Gontran de. Born in 1822. He married, in
1842, Mlle. d'Aubusson de La Feuillade.

BAUSSET, the Cardinal de (1748-1824). Bishop of Alais. He was made
a Peer at the Restoration and received his Cardinal's hat in
1817. The previous year he had entered the French Academy. He
wrote a Life of Fénelon and a Life of Bossuet.

BAUTAIN, the Abbé (1796-1867). A pupil of the Normal School, where
he studied under M. Cousin. He was appointed Professor of
Philosophy at the College of Strasburg in 1816, and took orders
in 1828. In 1849 Mgr. Sibour, Archbishop of Paris, appointed him
Vicar-General. The Abbé Bautain pursued almost every branch of
human knowledge.

BAVARIA, the Queen Dowager of (1776-1841). Princess Caroline of
Baden, daughter of Charles Louis, Hereditary Prince of Baden;
she married Maximilian of Bavaria in 1797, and became a widow in
1825.

BAVARIA, King Louis I. of (1786-1868). Ascended the throne of
Bavaria in 1825 on the death of his father, Maximilian I. King
Louis abdicated in 1848 after making Munich the Athens of
Germany.

BAVARIA, Queen Theresa of (1792-1854). Daughter of Duke Frederick
of Saxe-Hildburghausen, afterwards Saxony Altenburg.

BAVARIA, Prince Royal of (1811-1864). Maximilian II., son of King
Louis I., whom he succeeded in 1848. In 1842 he married Princess
Marie of Prussia.

BEAUVAU, the Prince Marc de (1816-1883). Married as his first
wife, in 1840, Mlle. Marie d'Aubusson de La Feuillade, and as
his second wife Mlle. Adèle de Gontaut-Biron.

BECKET, St. Thomas (1117-1170). Archbishop of Canterbury.
Assassinated at the foot of the altar by the courtiers of Henry
II., King of England. Pope Alexander III. canonised him as a
martyr.

BEGAS, Charles Joseph (1794-1854). German painter; pupil of Gros,
with whom he studied at Paris. In 1822 he went to Italy, and in
1825 he settled at Berlin, where he became painter to the King
of Prussia, Professor and Member of the Academy of Fine Arts.

BELGIANS, King of the, Leopold I. (1790-1865).

BELGIANS, Queen of the,* Louise, Princesse d'Orléans (1812-1850).
Second wife of Leopold I. of Belgium and daughter of
Louis-Philippe.

BELGIOJOSO, Princess (1808-1871). Christina Trivulzio, married, in
1824, the Prince Barbiano Belgiojoso. Her dislike of the
Austrians drove her to leave Milan and settle at Paris in 1831,
where she attracted attention by her beauty, her cleverness, and
her foreign ways. Princess Belgiojoso published in 1846, under
an obvious pseudonym, a work in four volumes, entitled _An Essay
on the Formation of Catholic Dogma_, which aroused much
discussion. When Piedmont declared war upon Austria in 1848 the
Princess hastened to Milan, fitted out and paid a battalion.
After the peace she was exiled, and returned to Paris, where she
gained a living for the most part with her pen, as her property
had been confiscated by the Austrian Government. It was not
restored to her until 1859, when she returned to Italy and
plunged eagerly into politics.

BENKENDORFF, Count Constantine of (1786-1858). Chief of the staff
of the Emperor Nicholas I. of Russia. He was for sometime
Minister at Stuttgart, where he died.

BERGERON, Louis.* Born in 1811. French journalist.

BERNARD, Simon, Baron (1779-1839). Peer of France and Minister of
War under Louis-Philippe, after serving under the Emperor
Napoleon I. and under the first Restoration.

BERRYER, Antoine* (1790-1868). French lawyer.

BERTIN DE VEAUX, M.* (1771-1842). French journalist.

BERTIN DE VEAUX, Madame, _née_ Bocquet. Daughter-in-law of M.
Merlin.

BERTIN L'AÎNÉ, Louis François (1766-1841). French publicist.
Founded the _Journal des Débats_ with his brother, Bertin de
Veaux.

BERTIN, Madame. Mlle. Boutard, sister of an art critic on the
_Journal des Débats_. She married M. Bertin the elder.

BERTRAND, the Comte (1773-1844). The faithful friend of Napoleon
I., whose _aide-de-camp_ he was, and whom he followed to Elba
and St. Helena.

BERWICK, Duchess of (1793-1863). Dona Rosalia Ventimighi Moncada
was born at Palermo, and was a daughter of the Count of Prado.
She was Lady of Honour to Queen Isabella and Chief Lady of the
Palace. Her son, the Duke of Berwick and of Alba, married the
eldest sister of the Empress Eugenie.

BILZ, Fräulein Margarete von (1792-1875). At first piano mistress
to Princess Marie of Baden (afterwards Lady Hamilton), and then
Lady of Honour to the Grand Duchess Stephanie of Baden.

BINZER, Frau von (1801-1891). _Née_ von Gerschau. She married, in
1822, Herr von Binzer, a German man of letters.

BIRON, Henri, Marquis de (1803-1883). He married Mlle. de Mun,
sister of the Marquis de Mun, who bore him no children. Left a
widower at an early age, he then lived with his brother, the
Comte Etienne de Biron.

BIRON-COURLANDE, Prince Charles of. Born in 1811. He married, in
1833, a Countess of Lippe-Biesterfeld.

BIRON-COURLANDE, the Princess Fanny of (1815-1883). Sister of the
Countess of Hohenthal and of Madame de Lazareff. Princess Fanny
married General von Boyen.

BJOERNSTJERNA, Countess of (1797-1865). Elizabeth Charlotte,
daughter of the Field-Marshal, the Count of Stedingk, Swedish
Ambassador in Russia, and sister of the Countess Ugglas. She
married, in 1815, the Baron of Bjoernstjerna, appointed Swedish
Minister at London in 1828. He died in 1847.

BLITTERSDORFF, Baron Frederick of (1792-1861). A statesman in
Baden. He was Diplomatic Minister at St. Petersburg in 1816, and
Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary Envoy to the Germanic
Confederation in 1821, Minister of Foreign Affairs at Carlsruhe
in 1835. In 1848 he retired from politics. He had married Mlle.
Brentano.

BONALD, the Vicomte de (1754-1840). The most famous representative
of the monarchical and religious doctrines of the Restoration.
He became an _émigré_ in 1791, and returned to France when the
Empire was proclaimed; from 1815 to 1822 he was a Deputy, and
became Peer of France in 1823, and afterwards member of the
French Academy. He laboured incessantly with pen and sword to
support the throne and the altar, and thus contributed to the
return of religious ideas to France.

BONAPARTE, Madame Lætitia (1750-1836). Lætitia Ramolino, of an
Italian family, was married at the age of sixteen to Charles
Bonaparte, by whom she had thirteen children. Napoleon I. was
her second son. In 1814, after the fall of the Empire, she
retired to Rome, where she lived in seclusion.

BONAPARTE, Joseph (1768-1844). Elder brother of Napoleon I.,
Joseph Bonaparte married, at Marseilles in 1794, the daughter of
a merchant, sister of the wife of Bernadotte, Marie Julie Clary.
He shared in the _coup d'état_ of the 18th Brumaire, and
several times governed France in the absence of Napoleon. In
1806 he was appointed King of Naples and transferred to the
throne of Spain in 1808, which he lost in 1813; after the
downfall of the Empire he withdrew, first to the United States,
and then to Florence, where he died.

BONAPARTE, Jérôme* (1784-1860). Youngest brother of Napoleon I.

BONAPARTE, Lucien* (1775-1840). Third brother of Napoleon I.

BONAPARTE, Prince Louis (1808-1873). Son of Louis Bonaparte, King
of Holland, and of Hortense de Beauharnais. Prince Louis had an
adventurous youth: in 1836, at Strasburg, and in 1840, at
Boulogne, he attempted to overthrow Louis-Philippe, and to
restore the Empire for his own purposes. Condemned to perpetual
confinement, he was imprisoned at Ham; thence he escaped, fled
to Belgium, and returned to France after the revolution of 1848.
He was elected President of the Republic on November 16 of the
same year. Four years later the Empire was proclaimed, and
Prince Louis reigned till 1870 under the name of Napoleon III.

BORDEAUX, the Duc de* (1820-1883). Son of the Duc de Berry and
grandson of King Charles X. He afterwards took the title of
Comte de Chambord.

BOSSUET, Jacques Bénigne (1627-1704). Of a magistrate's family, he
was brought up among the Jesuits and received Holy Orders in
1652. He was Bishop of Condom in 1669 and then Bishop of Meaux.
In 1670 he was appointed tutor to the Dauphin of France, and
composed for that prince several educational works (Discourses
upon Universal History, &c.) and showed himself a zealous
defender of French liberty.

BOURDOIS DE LA MOTTE, Edme Joachim (1754-1830). A doctor at the
Hospital of La Charity in Paris, he was detained at La Force
during the revolutionary disturbances and then followed the army
of Italy. In 1811 he was appointed Court doctor at Rome and was
also attached to the Court under the Restoration. He became
member of the Academy of Medicine in 1820.