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