No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2009
It is nearly one hundred years since the Congress of Vienna met, yet there has not been produced a standard work to which we can turn with confidence for a complete and detailed exposition of transactions which rearranged the whole map of Europe. Often as its errors have been exposed and its principles criticised, the exact methods by which it sought to achieve its purposes are to a certain extent still unknown. The mass of evidence has slowly but surely accumulated, but since Sorel attempted to do once more what Thiers had already done, to write the history of the Congress from the French point of view, no historian has given us any considerable description of its work. By Treitschke and Oncken we have valuable but by no means complete accounts, and meanwhile much work has been done on parts of the Congress which makes it probable that the time has arrived for a reconsideration of its whole scope to be attempted, and perhaps some commonly accepted judgments to be revised. The fascinating articles, which Professor Fournier has given us, as preliminaries to his great work on the Congress, show how much new evidence is at the disposal of the historian.
page 51 note 1 In Das Zeitalter der Revolutionzeit, etc., vol. ii.Google Scholar
page 52 note 1 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , 11 11, 1814Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 8.Google Scholar
page 52 note 2 Fournier, , Congress von Chatillon, p. 372.Google Scholar
page 53 note 1 Fournier, , Congress von Chatillon, p. 317Google Scholar; Historische Studien und Skizzen, 2eGoogle Scholar Reihe, , pp. 297, 298.Google Scholar
page 53 note 2 Muenster, , Historical Sketches, pp. 159Google Scholar; Mémoire of Hardenberg, 04 29Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 4Google Scholar; cf. Oncken, , Das Zeitalter der Revolutionzeit etc. ii. 842.Google Scholar
page 54 note 1 Muenster, , op. cit. pp. 169, 170.Google Scholar
page 54 note 2 Memorandum of Gentz, , 08 18, 1814Google Scholar. Klinkowström, , Oesterreichs Theilnahme in der Befreiungskriege, p. 393.Google Scholar
page 54 note 3 See the extract from Princess Lie ven's Diary in ‘Correspondance de l'Empereur Alexandre I avec sa sœur Catherine,’ ed. the Grand-Duke Nicholas Michaïlowitch.
page 54 note 4 Castlereagh, to Hardenberg, , 08 8, 1814Google Scholar; Hardenberg, to Castlereagh, , 08 27, 1814Google Scholar. F.O. Congress, 20.Google Scholar
page 55 note 1 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , Basle, 01 22, 1814Google Scholar. F.O. Congress, 2.Google Scholar
page 55 note 2 SirStuart, Charles to Castlereagh, , 07 4, 1814Google Scholar. F.O. France, 97.Google Scholar
page 55 note 3 Castlereagh, to Stuart, , 07 16, 1814Google Scholar, F.O. France, 96.Google Scholar
page 55 note 4 Stuart, to Castlereagh, , 07 28, 1814Google Scholar. F.O. France, 96Google Scholar; later letters in Wellington Supplementary Despatches, ix. pp. 180–186.Google Scholar
page 56 note 1 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , Geneva, 09 3Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 7Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 22.
page 56 note 2 Ibid. Vienna, , 09 24Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 7.Google Scholar
page 56 note 3 Ibid. October 2 (No. 3). F.O. Continent, 7. Appendix, p. 23.Google Scholar
page 56 note 4 Ibid. October 2 (No. 4). F.O. Continent, 7Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 25.
page 56 note 5 Ibid. October 14. F.O. Continent 7Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 27.
page 57 note 1 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , 10 9Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 7Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 25.
page 57 note 2 Angeberg, , Congrès de Vienne.Google Scholar
page 57 note 3 Ibid. 274.
page 57 note 4 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , 10 24Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 7.Google Scholar
page 57 note 5 Angeberg, , 291Google Scholar. There wrongly dated.
page 57 note 6 See below, p. 14.
page 58 note 1 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , 11 11Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 8Google Scholar. Appendix, p, 30.
page 58 note 2 Ibid. November 21. F.O. Continent, 8.Google Scholar
page 58 note 3 Ibid. December 5. F.O. Continent, 8Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 33.
page 60 note 1 Liverpool, to Castlereagh, , 10 4Google Scholar. Yonge, , Life of Liverpool, ii. 35.Google Scholar
page 60 note 2 E.g. Liverpool, to Castlereagh, , 10 28Google Scholar. Wellington S.D. p. 382Google Scholar, with a memorandum from Vansittart, beginning: ‘I begin to apprehend that we are making ourselves too much principals in the disputes concerning Poland.’
page 61 note 1 It was believed at the Congress that Castlereagh had been ordered to give way on Saxony (cf. Muenster, , op. cit. p. 201Google Scholar; Gagern, , Mein Antheil an der Politik, iv. p. 81)Google Scholar, and historians have naturally been puzzled (e.g. Delbruck, , Historische Zeitschrift, xxvii. p. 249)Google Scholar. It is clear, however, I think from Liverpool's letter and Castlereagh's despatches that the decision rested with him and was a natural development of his policy. Both Alexander (Martens, , Recueil, xi. p. 211)Google Scholar and Talleyrand, (Sorel, viii. p. 375)Google Scholar were trying to influence the Congress from London. The timid attitude of the home government was of course known at the Congress. Gentz wrote on December 9: ‘Die englische Regierung, welche die Aufrechterhaltung des Friedens um jeden Preis wünscht.’ (Klinkowström, , op. cit. p. 470)Google Scholar. But though all this weakened Castlereagh's position it did not determine his course of action.
page 61 note 2 Bathurst, to Castlereagh, , 11 27Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 6Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 22.
page 61 note 3 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , 09 24Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 7.Google Scholar
page 62 note 1 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , 10 20Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 7Google Scholar. Cf. Cook, to Liverpool, , 10 25Google Scholar. Wellington S.D., ix. 375.Google Scholar
page 62 note 2 Ibid., October 24. Appendix, p. 28. It is possible that the incident narrated by Talleyrand, (Mémoires, ii. 394)Google Scholar was the actual occasion of this insinuation. Alexander tried to play the same game with Harden-berg concerning Metternich (cf. Delbruck, , op. cit. p. 256).Google Scholar
page 62 note 3 Ibid., October 25. F.O. Continent, 7Google Scholar. Wellington, to Castlereagh, , 11 5Google Scholar. Wellington S.D. ix. 417Google Scholar; Talleyrand, , Mémoires, ii. 435.Google Scholar
page 62 note 4 Castlereagh, to Wellington, , 11 21Google Scholar. Wellington S.D. ix. 447Google Scholar: ‘I have not deemed it prudent to disclose to him my operations in detail, finding that he was not always discreet, and that I should lose influence in other quarters if I was understood to be in close confidence with the French Minister. I have endeavoured, however, to treat him with all proper regard and to keep him generally informed of our endeavours to promote common objects. He is become infinitely more accommodating in our general conferences than at the outset.’
page 63 note 1 Castlereagh, to Wellington, , 12Google Scholar [circa 12]. Wellington S.D. ix. 459Google Scholar: ‘I consider the Polish question as settled. Prussia never contended it in earnest, and Austria consequently has yielded.’ Cf. Muenster, , p. 203.Google Scholar
page 64 note 1 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , 12 7Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 9Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 35.
page 64 note 2 Angeberg, , 505.Google Scholar
page 64 note 3 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , 12 17Google Scholar. Wellington S.D. ix. 483.Google Scholar
page 64 note 4 Ibid. December 18. F.O. Continent, 9Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 36; Cook, to Liverpool, , 12 18Google Scholar. Wellington S.D. ix. 493.Google Scholar
page 64 note 5 Ibid. December 18. Appendix, p. 36.
page 65 note 1 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , 12 24Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 9Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 37.
page 65 note 2 Ibid. December 24; Muenster, , op. cit. p. 216.Google Scholar
page 65 note 3 Talleyrand, , Mémoires, ii. 544.Google Scholar
page 65 note 4 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , 12 25Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 9.Google Scholar
page 65 note 5 Ibid. December 25. Wellington S.D. ix. 511Google Scholar: ‘He [Talleyrand] was urgent in his language to me two days since to begin with an engagement between France, Austria, and England. I told him that I thought we were already united in opinion, and that to form an alliance prematurely might augment the chances of war rather than an amicable settlement …’
page 66 note 1 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , 01 1 (No. 43)Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 10Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 39.
page 66 note 2 Ibid. January 1 (No. 44). F.O. Continent, 10Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 40.
page 66 note 3 Ibid. January 1 (No. 45). Appendix, p. 41.
page 67 note 1 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , 01 3Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 10.Google Scholar
page 67 note 2 Ibid. January 5. Wellington S.D. ix. 527Google Scholar. Cf. Lehmann, , Hist. Zeitschrift, N.S. 24, p. 466Google Scholar; and cf. Oncken, , Das Zeitalter etc. ii. p. 873 ff.Google Scholar
page 67 note 3 Ibid. January 8. F.O. Continent, 10. Appendix, p. 42.Google Scholar
page 67 note 4 Ibid. January 8. F.O. Continent, 10Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 43. Cf. Dorman, , History of the British Empire, ii. 180Google Scholar. It is interesting to compare this with Castlereagh, to Wellington, , 03 27, 1815Google Scholar, Wellington S.D. ix. 626Google Scholar. Castlereagh seems to have forgotten how much he told Alexander by implication. Cf. Martens, , Recueil, , xi. 246.Google Scholar
page 68 note 1 Cf. Klinkowström, , op. cit. p. 516Google Scholar: ‘Er [Castlereagh] entfaltete dabei einen ausserordentlichen Eifer und eine Ausdauer ohne Gleichen; er arbeitete Tag und Nacht.’
page 68 note 2 Talleyrand, to Castlereagh, , 01 8Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 10.Google Scholar
page 68 note 3 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , 01 22Google Scholar. F.O. Continent, 10Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 44.
page 68 note 4 Ibid. January 29. F.O. Continent, 11Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 46. Cf. Mettemich, to Schwartzenberg, , 01 27Google Scholar. Klinkowstrom, , p. 823Google Scholar, which shows the effect produced in the Austrian Cabinet.
page 69 note 1 Castlereagh, to Liverpool, , 02 6. Appendix, p. 50.Google Scholar
page 69 note 2 Ibid. February 6. F.O. Continent, 11Google Scholar. Appendix, p. 50. Cf. Delbruck, , op. cit. p. 252Google Scholar; but this despatch shows clearly that it was Castlereagh who secured the concession.
page 69 note 3 Ibid. February 6. Appendix, p. 51.
page 69 note 4 Ibid. January 29 (Private). F.O. Continent, 11Google Scholar. The permission of the Cabinet had arrived. Cf. Liverpool, to Wellington, , 01 11Google Scholar. Wellington S.D. ix. 533.Google Scholar
page 70 note 1 Cf. Oncken, , Das Zeitalter der Befreiungskriege etc. ii. 844.Google Scholar
page 73 note 1 Oncken, , ii. 845.Google Scholar
page 81 note 1 Cf. Angeberg, , Congrès de Vienne, p. 493.Google Scholar
page 88 note 1 Cf. Oncken, , ii. 873.Google Scholar
page 89 note 1 Cf. Oncken, , ii. 875.Google Scholar
page 90 note 1 Cf. Oncken, , ii. 878.Google Scholar
page 92 note 1 Cf. Oncken, , ii. 880.Google Scholar
page 94 note 1 Cf. Oncken, , ii. 882.Google Scholar