tinued throughout the year. (See POLAND.) In August 17th a Congress of the Princes and Representatives of the free towns of Germany met at Frankfort, upon the invitation of the Emperor of Austria, to consider a plan for the reformation of the Federal Constitution of Germany. The Austrian project was adopted by all but six votes; but the refusal of the Prussian Government to take part in the Congress, or to adhere to the Austrian project prevented, up to the end of the year, the introduction of any reforms. (See GERMANY.) In November, one of the standing European complications, that of Schleswig-Holstein, suddenly assumed a warlike aspect, in consequence of the disputed succession in those two duchies, after the death of King Frederic VII. of Denmark. The majority of the minor German governments and the German people generally sustained the claims of the Prince of Augustenburg to the succession. Austria and Prussia were willing to acknowledge the claims of King Christian IX. of Denmark, but agreed with the other German States in the opinion, that the Danish Government had in several essential points violated the existing international treaties and the rights of the two duchies. Though differing on the Succession question, the two Great German Powers, and the Federal Diet were in favor of a warlike demonstration against Denmark. The Federal Diet of Frankfort, in December, declared in favor of "Federal execution" (execution of the Federal laws) in the duchy of Holstein, and the new year opened with the certain prospect of war. (See SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN.)

For many years the progress of liberal and democratic tendencies has been steady and uninterrupted throughout Europe, and nearly every government finds it necessary to inaugurate or sanction some liberal reforms, and to make some concessions to the popular spirit. In September, the diet of the Grand Duchy of Finland was opened by the Emperor Alexander of Russia with a speech, in which he avowed a belief in the efficacy of a constitutional form of government, and which was therefore regarded as the inauguration of a constitutional era. (See RUSSIA). At the reëlection of the Corps Legislatif in France, the opposition parties gained considerably, electing together 34 members, against 5 in 1857. (See FRANCE.) In Prussia, at the reelection of the Second Chambers, the Party of Progress gained a signal triumph. (See PRUSSIA.) In Spain, at the reelection of the Cortes, the majority of the representative party resolved to take no part in the election. (See SPAIN.) In Austria, the Government had the satisfaction to see the diet of Transylvania elect, for the first time, deputies to the council of the empire, and to see the Croatians disposed to follow this example. (See AUSTRIA.) The crown of Greece, vacant by the expulsion of King Otho, was, after long negotiation, definitely accepted, on April 22d, by Prince Christian of Denmark (now King Christian IX.) for his son William, who as

cended the throne under the name of King George I.

The countries of Europe greatly differ as to density of population. While in England and Wales there were 352 inhabitants living in one English square mile, in Russia there are only 10; in Norway, 12; in Sweden, 22; in Greece, 56; in Spain, 89; in Poland, 91; in Moldavia, 100; in Portugal, 104; in Denmark, 119; in Switzerland, 161; in Prussia, 165; in France, 176; in Brunswick, 194; in Holland, 280; in Wurtemberg, 373; in Belgium, 393. However, if we take the population of England alone, leaving out the Principality of Wales, the density is one of 377 individuals to the square mile, and in this case Belgium is the only country in Europe more thickly crowded with inhabitants than England. In England, for the last few years, the proportion of marriages to the population has been one in 123, which is a higher rate than that of most European countries. In Norway the proportion is one in 124; in Hanover, one in 128; in Holland and Denmark, one in 129; in Sweden, one in 135; in Spain, one in 141; in Bavaria, one in 160; and in Greece, only one in 174. Proportionately more marriages than in England and Wales are made in France and Belgium; in both countries the rate is one in 122; in Austria, where it is one in 117; in Russia, where it is one in 111; and in Prussia, where it is one in 106. Rather more fixed is the proportion of births to population. It is one in 28 in England and Wales; one in 29 in Spain and Bavaria; one in 30 in Belgium, Holland, and Norway; one in 32 in Sweden; one in 33 in Hanover, the Hanse Towns, and Denmark; one in 34 in Greece; and one in 38 in France. Consequently the natural increase of population is lower in France, in spite of the high marriage rate, than in any other European State. More fertile than England are only Wurtemberg, where the proportion of births to population is one in 26; Russia, where it is one in 25; Austria, Saxony, and Prussia, where it is one in 24; and Poland, where the proportion is one in 23.

A French statistician, Mr. Blook, in a recent article of the Revue des deux Mondes, publishes the following estimates of the population of the principal States of Europe a century hence, if the present rate of increase should continue: At present. A century hence.

Millions. ...135

EUROPEAN CONGRESS. The speech with which the Emperor of France opened on November 5th the French Chambers, was looked upon by the European papers of all parties as

one of the memorable events in the recent history of Europe. The Emperor made to his fellow sovereigns of Europe the startling announcement, that in his opinion the entire European state system was resting on a decayed foundation, and that unless a new and more durable edifice be erected, the whole fabric must become a heap of ruins. He therefore proposed the assembling of a Congress which was to undertake the arduous task of solving all the great European complications, and, in particular, the redress of the grievances of the oppressed nationalities. The Emperor expressed himself as follows:

Russia has already declared that conferences in which all the other questions now agitating Europe should be debated, would in no wise wound her dignity. Let us note and act upon that declaration. Let it serve us to extinguish, once for all, the fermentings of discord, which are ready to burst out on all sides, and out of the very maladies of Europe, agitated everywhere by the elements of dissolution, let a new era of order and of peace be born. Has not the moment come for reconstructing on new bases the edifice shaken by time and destroyed bit by bit by revolutions? Is it not urgent to recognize, by our conventions, that which the peace of the world demands? The treaties of 1815 have ceased to exist. The force of things has overthrown them, or tends to overthrow them. Almost everywhere they have been violated; in Greece, in Belgium, in France, in Italy, and Germany on the Danube is endeavoring to change them. England has generously modified them by the cession of the Ionian Islands, and Russia tramples them under foot in War

saw.

In the midst of these excessive violations of the fundamental European pact, ardent passions have been excited, and in the South, as in the North, powerful interests demand a solution. What, then, more legitimate or more sensible than to invite the powers of Europe to a congress, in which self-interest (amour propre) and resistance would disappear before a supreme arbitration. What more conformable to the ideas of the epoch, to the will of the greater number, than to speak to the conscience and reason of the statesmen of every country and say to them,-Have not the prejudices and rancor which divide us lasted long enough? Shall the jealous rivalry of the great Powers unceasingly impede the progress of civilization? Are we still to maintain mutual distrust by exaggerated armaments? Must our most precious resources be indefinitely exhausted in a vain display of force? Must we eternally maintain a condition of things which is neither peace with its security nor war with its chances of success? Let us no longer attach a fictitious importance to the subversive spirit of extreme parties by opposing ourselves on narrow calculations to the legitimate aspirations of peoples. Let us have the courage to substitute for a sickly and precarious condition of things a situation solid and regular, even should it cost us sacrifices. Let us assemble without preconceived systems, without exclusive ambition, animated alone by the thought of establishing an order of things founded for the future on the wellunderstood interests of sovereigns and peoples. This appeal, I am happy to believe, will be listened to by all. A refusal would suggest the existence of secret projects which shun the light. But even should the proposal be not unanimously agreed to, it would produce the immense advantage of having pointed out to Europe where the danger lies, and where the safety. Two paths are open-the one conducts to progress by conciliation and peace; the other, sooner or later, leads fatally to war, from obstinacy in maintaining a course which is sinking beneath the feet.

The great significance of this language lies in the fact that the demands thus made upon

the college of European princes are the same which the progressive and revolutionary party of Europe have been for a long time making, and which the princes have hitherto rejected as an abominable political heresy. The democrats of Europe generally demand that the entire map of Europe be reconstructed on the ba sis of the principles of popular sovereignty, and of the right of every live nationality to an independent existence. The princes, on the cortrary, refused to make any concessions to these claims, and, in opposition, confined themselves to plead the rights conferred upon them by the treaty of 1815. The speech of Louis Napoleon is the first announcement on the part of one of the great powers of Europe, that the demands of the progressive party of Europe can no longer be successfully resisted. The proposed Congress had not been convoked at the close of the year 1863, but had led to an interesting diplomatic correspondence, which is of lasting importance in the history of our times, as it reveals the views of the several European governments on one of the greatest problems of the age-the reconstruc tion of the map of Europe.

The proposition of the Emperor for a con gress was at once followed, on his part, by an autograph letter addressed to the leading sov ereigns (altogether fifteen in number), urging the same views and showing, in the spirit of the speech, that only by such means can war be prevented, and the general stability of society firmly and satisfactorily established. The following is a specimen of these letters:

Most High and Most Illustrious Sovereigns, Princes and Free Towns which constitute the High German Confed

eration:

In presence of the events which every day arise and become urgent, I deem it indispensable to express my self without reserve to the sovereigns to whom the destiny of nations is confided.

Whenever severe shocks have shaken the bases and displaced the limits of States solemn transactions bare taken place to arrange the new elements, and to cosecrate by revision the accomplished transformations. Such was the object of the treaty of Westphalia in the seventeenth century, and of the negotiations at Vienna in 1815. It is on this latter foundation that now reposes the political edifice of Europe; and yet, as you are aware, it is crumbling away on all sides.

If the situation of the different countries be atten tively considered, it is impossible not to admit that the treaties of Vienna upon almost all points are de stroyed, modified, misunderstood, or menaced; hence, duties without rule, rights without title, and preten sions without restraint. The danger is so much the more formidable because the improvements brought about by civilization, which has bound nations together by the identity of material interests, would render war more destructive.

This is a subject for serious reflection; let us not wait before deciding on our course for sudden and irresistible events to disturb our judgment and carry us away despite ourselves in opposite directions.

I therefore propose to you to regulate the present and secure the future in a Congress.

Called to the throne by Providence and the will of the French people, but trained in the school of adver the rights of the sovereigns and the legitimate aspi sity, I am perhaps bound less than any other to ignore rations of nations.

Therefore I am ready, without any preconceived system, to bring to an International Council the spirit of moderation and justice, the usual portion of those who have endured so many various trials.

If I take the initiative in such an overture, I do not yield to an impulse of vanity; but as I am the sovereign to whom ambitious projects are most attributed, I have it at heart to prove by this frank and loyal step that my sole object is to arrive without a shock at the pacification of Europe. If this proposition be favorably received, I pray you to accept Paris as the place of meeting.

In case the princes, allies and friends of France, should think proper to heighten by their presence the authority of the deliberations, I shall be proud to offer them my cordial hospitality. Europe would see, perhaps, some advantage in the capital from which the signal for subversion has so often been given becoming the seat of the conferences destined to lay the basis of a general pacification.

I take advantage of this opportunity to renew to you the assurance of my sincere attachment and of the lively interest which I take in the prosperity of the States of the Confederation. Whereupon, most high and illustrious Sovereign Princes and Free States which constitute the most exalted German Confederation, I pray God to have you in His holy keeping.

Written at Paris on the 4th of November, in the year of grace 1863. NAPOLEON.

Countersigned, DROUYN DE L'HUYS.

The reception of the proposal of the Emperor in England was generally unfavorable. England could not expect any territorial aggrandizement from the Congress, but only the loss of her European dependencies, and, in particular, Gibraltar. The press almost unanimously discouraged the participation in a Congress. The formal acknowledgment of the imperial proposal was returned on November 11th by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and it was succeeded on the following day by another despatch addressed to Lord Cowley, the British minister at Paris. In this despatch Earl Russell states that in the view of the British Government the main provisions of the treaty of Vienna are in full force. As to those changes which have been made in Europe in disregard of the treaty of Vienna, and for which the sanction of the great powers has not been obtained, was it proposed by France to obtain that recognition? Again, other portions of the treaty of Vienna are menaced, and upon these the most important questions arise. The French Government was asked to state the nature of the proposals to be made on this subject by the Emperor, in what direction they would tend, and whether, if agreed to by a majority of the powers, they were to be enforced by arms. The practice of the Holy Alliance at the Congress of Vienna was recalled to mind, and the French Government was asked whether that example was to be followed at the present Congress in case of disagreement. "Upon all these points," Earl Russell wrote, "Her Majesty's Government must obtain satisfactory explanations before they can come to any decision upon the proposal made by the Emperor." At the same time it was observed that whatever doubts the Queen's Government entertained referred only

to the best means of attaining objects equally desired by both Governments.

The reply of M. Drouyn de l'Huys is dated November 23d. The French minister says; The Imperial Government have no intention either to apologize for or to criticise the treaties of Vienna. The Emperor declared on mounting the throne that he should consider himself bound by the engagements subscribed to by his predecessors. Lately again, in his letter to the sovereigns, His Majesty showed that the diplomatic acts of 1815 were the foundation on which rests to-day the political edifice of Europe. But this is, he considers, an additional reason for examining whether this foundation is not itself shaken to its base. Now, the Cabinet of London recognizes with us that several of these stipulations have been seriously infringed. Amongst the modifications which have taken place, some have been consecrated by the sanction of all the great powers, and at present constitute a part of international law; others, on the contrary, carried into execution, have not been recognized as law by all the cabinets. As regards the first, we cannot help calling attention to the irresistible power with which they have forced themselves on the acceptance of the governments. The eagerness of England herself to give them her adhesion proves how little the former combinations answered, according to the expression of Earl Russell, the require ments of the lapse of time, the progress of opinion, the shifting policy of governments, and the varying authorized in believing that changes so important exigencies of nations; on the other hand, are not we have diminished to some extent the harmony and equilibrium of the whole? We admit, with Earl Russell, that it is not absolutely necessary to give to these changes a more general and more solemn sanction; but we consider it would be an advantage to clear away the ruins, and re-unite in a single body all the living members. As regards the modifications to which the powers have not given an unanimous assent, they constitute so many causes of dispute which at any moment may divide Europe into two camps. Instead of leaving the decision of these to violence and chance, would it not be better to pursue their equitable solution to a common agreement, and sanction these changes by revising them?

M. Drouyn de l'Huys goes on to say that the Emperor must go into a Congress "free of every engagement." To preserve his impartiality toward the many sovereigns he has invited, he must decline offering previous explanations to any of them. He then briefly reviews the "deplorable struggle" in Poland, the "quarrel" between Denmark and Germany, the anarchy prevailing on the Lower Danube, the hostile attitude of Austria and Italy, the occupation of Rome by French troops, the burden imposed upon the nations of Europe by the disproportionate armaments occasioned by mutual distrust, and designates these as the principal questions which the powers would doubtless judge it useful to examine and decide. He adds, that in the eyes of France it would be illusory to pursue their solution through the labyrinth of diplomatic correspondence and separate negotiation, and that the way now proposed, so far from ending in war, is the only one which can lead to a durable pacification. M. Drouyn de l'Huys refers to the opinion expressed by the Earl of Clarendon at one of the last meetings of the Congress of Paris, and concurred in by the plenipotentiaries of all the courts, that states between

The final reply of the British Government is dated November 28th. In this despatch Earl Russell enters into a searching examination of the grounds for supposing a general Congress of European States likely to furnish a peaceful solution of the various matters in dispute. He expressed the opinion that at the present moment, after a continuance of long peace, no power is willing to give up any territory to which it has a title by treaty, or a claim by possession. This he thinks, in particular, to be the case with the questions of Poland and Italy; were all the European questions-those of Poland, Italy, Denmark, and the Danubian principalities-to be decided by the mere utterance of opinions, the views of the British Gov

ernment upon most of them might perhaps not materially differ from those of the Emperor

of the French. But the deliberations of a Congress would probably consist of demands and pretensions put forward by some and resisted by others; and, there being no supreme authority in such an assembly to enforce the decisions of a majority, the Congress would probably separate, leaving many of its members on worse terms with each other than they had been when they met. But if this would be the probable result, it follows that no decrease of armaments is likely to be effected by the proposed Congress. "Not being able, therefore, to discern the likelihood of those beneficial consequences which the Emperor of the French promised himself when proposing a Congress, Her Majesty's Government, following their own strong convictions, after mature deliberation, feel themselves unable to accept His Imperial Majesty's invitation."

Austria was as much displeased with the proposal of Louis Napoleon as England. Immediately upon the publication of the Emperor's speech, and the receipt of his letter, the official paper of Vienna contained a declaration that Austria had always respected the treaties of 1815, and still recognized them, so far as they were not modified by subsequent stipulations, as the public law of Europe. The Emperor of Austria, in his reply to Napoleon, dated November 15th, acknowledges the important objects of the Congress for the settlement of the political questions at present pending, and the security of the future, but wishes, before taking part therein, to learn with some accuracy the bases and programme of the deliberations of the Congress. Should the questions to be discussed be indicated beforehand,

and the powers agree upon the tendency of the deliberations of the Congress, unforeseen accidents which might overthrow everything would be less to be feared. The dangerous and insolvable problems which would create fresh instead of removing existing complica tions would then be set aside.

This idea is more minutely explained in a despatch of Count Rechberg to Prince Metter nich, the Austrian ambassador at Paris. It says:

It is not sufficient to put forward a programme of a negative character as the basis of such important dis cussions. The Austrian Government wishes to know to the treaties of 1815 is to be understood. how the declaration of the Emperor Napoleon relative

but so far as they have not been altered they These treaties have been partially modified, are considered as the foundation of public right Let the French Government point out those it in Europe. Some improvements are necessary. considers desirable. Certain remedies might be more dangerous than the evils themselves. The programme of the Congress must fulfil all which is the principal object to be attained. the conditions for the maintenance of peace,

The Emperor of Russia expressed a warm sympathy with the object Napoleon had the pacification of Europe, but regarded the view, that of attaining without disturbance consent of the other powers and the previous specifications of the questions to be discussed, views: necessary. The Emperor thus explained his

In describing the profound uneasiness of Europe and the utility of an understanding among the sov ereigns to whom is confided the destiny of the nations, your Majesty expresses a thought which has always been mine. I have made it more than the object of a desire, I have deduced from it the rule of my conduct. relations of confidence and concord to the state of All the acts of my reign attest my desire to substitute armed peace which weighs so heavily upon the peo ples. I took the initiative, too, as far as I was able, of a considerable reduction of my military forces. During six years I released my empire from the obligation of guarantees of a progressive development at home and the recruitment, and I undertook important reforms of a pacific policy abroad.

It is only in presence of eventualities which might threaten the security and even the integrity of my States, that I have been compelled to deviate from this course. My most ardent desire is to return to it, and to spare my people's sacrifices which their patriotism accepts, but from which their prosperity suffers. Nothing could better hasten this moment than a general settlement of the questions which agitate Europe. Experience proves that the real conditions of the peace of the world rest neither in an impossible immobility, nor in the instability of political combinations that each generation would be called upon to annul or to remodel, at the will of the passions or of the interests which imposes upon all the respect of established of the moment, but rather in the practical wisdom rights, and suggests to all the compromises necessary to conciliate history, which is an ineffaceable legacy of the past, with progress, which is a law of the pres

ent and the future.

Upon these conditions a loyal understanding be tween the sovereigns has always appeared desirable to me. I should be happy if the proposition emitted by your Majesty were to lead to it.

The King of Prussia declared himself ready

to participate in a Congress, the object of which would be to effect the modifications which might be considered necessary in the treaties of 1815, which, however, none the less continue the foundation upon which the political edifice of Europe at present rests. The ministers of the various countries should prepare the propositions which would be submitted to the Congress.

The most sympathetic reply was received from the King of Italy. The Government of Italy has fully and openly espoused the nationality principle, to which the new kingdom owes its origin, and from the exertion of which it expects the annexation to Italy of Venetia and Rome. The King of Italy, therefore, not only accepts an invitation, which seems to presuppose the truth of the nationality principle, but, in emphatic language, expresses his concurrence with the views of the French Emperor. He is even more outspoken on the rightful aspirations of the nations than Louis Napoleon, and looks upon congresses, like that proposed by Napoleon, as a great progress in the history of mankind. He says in his reply, dated November 22d:

A permanent struggle has been established in Europe between public opinion and the state of things created by the treaties of 1815. Hence has arisen a sickly state of things which will increase unless European order is placed upon the basis of the principles of nationality and of liberty, which are the very es

sence of the life of modern nations.

In presence of a situation so dangerous to the progress of civilization and to the peace of the world, your Imperial Majesty has become the interpreter of a general sentiment by proposing a Congress to settle the rights of sovereigns as well as those of nations. I adhere with pleasure to the proposal of your Imperial Majesty. My concurrence and that of my people are assured to the realization of this project, which will mark a great progress in the history of mankind. As soon as the international conferences take place, I shall take part in person, or at least send a representative.

Italy will appear at the Congress in a spirit of perfect equity and moderation. She is convinced that the justice and the respect of legitimate rights are the true foundations upon which a new balance of power of Europe can be founded.

The King of Portugal, the son-in-law of Victor Emanuel, fully agrees with the views of his father-in-law. In his reply (dated November 18th) he says:

It is an agreeable duty therefore to me to announce to your Imperial Majesty that I adhere without hesitation to your conciliatory proposition, and that I subscribe with all my heart to the sentiments which have inspired it.

Congresses after war are ordinarily the consecration of the advantages of the strongest, and the treaties which result, based upon facts rather than upon rights, create forced situations, the result of which is that general uneasiness which produces violent protestations and armed reclamations.

A Congress before war, with the view of averting war, is, in my opinion, a noble thought of progress. Whatever may be the issue, to France will always belong the glory of having laid the foundation of this new and highly philosophical principle.

The youthful King of Greece, who had so recently ascended a throne, which was erected

on the basis of "national aspirations" and upon the ruins of the historical rights of another dynasty, and of treaties, could not but applaud the idea of the Imperial Congress. Says King George, in his letter dated November 26th:

This appeal to conciliation which your Majesty has just made in the interest of European order has been inspired by views too generous and too elevated not to find in me the most sympathetic reception.

The noble thought which predominates therein could not be better enhanced than by the frank language and the judicious considerations with which your Majesty has accompanied your proposition. hopes which I find expressed in your Imperial MajesIn accepting it without reserve, I fully share the ty's letter. The meeting of the Congress will perhaps be the best solution of the grave questions which justly preoccupy all minds in Europe, and will contribute to develop the general prosperity by the maintenance of tranquillity. Every one feels, indeed, that it is necessary to take into account the spirit of the age, the legi timate aspirations of nations, the circumstances of the time, and to endeavor by all possible means to secure the future by regulating the present, so as to eliminate every element of trouble and discord.

The common work to which your Majesty invites the chiefs of the European States would be, beyond dispute, one of the greatest onward movements of our day. Its success would realize wishes long since formed by the friends of humanity and the noblest minds.

And, with a view to a future collapse of the Turkish empire, he, in conclusion, flatters himself with the hope that the interests and rights of the Christians in the East would find in the Emperor of the French a generous defender in the future International Congress.

The King of the Belgians, who received his own throne from a successful revolution, and expects another one for a son-in-law (Archduke Maximilian) from the arms of the French Emperor, is of course not opposed to the Congress. He assures Napoleon (November 20th) that his Government would be quite inclined, in so far as it could do so, to join in the attempt to settle the existing causes of anxiety in Europe by pacific agreement. The King of the Netherlands (November 29th) expresses himself likewise willing to join all the other sovereigns of poleon had in view. The King of Denmark Europe in realizing the noble object Louis Naeagerly embraced the invitation, as he hoped the Congress would "

assure the future of the Danish monarchy," and the Emperor would sustain the Danish claims, as Denmark had always been the constant ally of the Emperor. Switzerland also accepted with eagerness the overture made by Louis Napoleon, for says the letter of the President (November 23d):

The Swiss Confederation, to which nature as well as history and treaties has assigned a neutral position in the midst of Europe, knows how to appreciate all the benefits of peace. It understands the inestimable value of a free and reciprocal consecration of the rights and duties of each-the true base of a sincere and cordial understanding between the nations. We can only, therefore, accept with eagerness the overture your Majesty has deigned to make.

Spain hoped the Congress might aid her in the recovery of Gibraltar, and although her