as merely a temporary immobility produced by exhaustion. after long wars.' Diplomacy was corrupt, and international immorality was universal. The principles of Frederick the Great and of Catherine II. were practised by other governments which had not the audacity to avow them. The invasion of Silesia, the partition of Poland, the attempted dismemberments of Turkey and Sweden, and the suggested dismemberment of Prussia, are well-known illustrations of the contempt for established rights, and the determination of powerful states to enrich themselves at the expense of their weaker neighbours. No consideration was paid to race limits or to national boundaries. Large portions of Italy were, at the Peace of Utrecht, taken from Spain and given to Austria; while the Spanish Netherlands was handed over to the care of the distant House of Hapsburg. Till 1789 the supremacy of dynastic interests remained practically unquestioned, and it was not till the nineteenth century that the idea of nationality became generally recognised. 'They cut and pare states and kingdoms,' wrote Alberoni of the ministers of his day, 'as if they were Dutch cheeses.' And this statement accurately describes the policy pursued with a brutal consistency by all the great Powers from the Treaty of Utrecht to that of Vienna in 1815.

Nevertheless, the idea of a balance of power is founded on reason, has been a living force in European politics since the struggles of the Italian towns with each other in the Middle Ages, and exists in the minds of all European statesmen at the present day. In 1717 Lord Stair, the English envoy, explained to the Regent that Stanhope's foreign policy was based on the principle of a balance of forces; that it was England's object to make Austria as far as possible equal in power to France, and to prevent either country from becoming superior in strength and influence to the other. And he frankly stated that if France endeavoured to become more powerful than the Emperor she would lose her allies. Alberoni, too, was, from the beginning of his career in Spain, firmly resolved to annul the Treaties of Utrecht and Rastadt, as being subversive to the

balance of power, and disastrous to Spain and Italy. Though this principle was often enunciated, its mere existence could not prevent acts of aggression on the part of the great states; and Europe has been described as committing suicide by allowing the War of the Austrian Succession and the Partition of Poland. 'These iniquitous acts,' says Albert Sorel, are the testament of old Europe, having signed which it could not but die.' Anarchic principles were abroad, morality and religion were at a low ebb, treaties were lightly broken, most European states were, at the time of the French Revolution, either ruined or worn out; and the system of the balance of power was grossly perverted by the cynical and immoral policy of the rulers of Austria, Russia, and Prussia. In 1788 the wisdom of maintaining within certain limits a balance of power was appreciated by English statesmen. By their efforts Turkey and Sweden were saved from dismemberment, and Europe from a serious territorial readjustment.1

lightened Govern

ments.

Side by side with this disregard of the rights of nationalities, it must be observed that the responsibilities of rulers within their own territories were fully grasped. The modern The Enidea of the state begins to appear. During the century, the conception that governments exist for the promotion of the security and prosperity of the governed was adequately appreciated. The eighteenth century was an age of enlightenment; it has been termed the age of reason. But the idea of the sovereignty of the people was not recognised. It was held from England to Russia that a government, while it existed for the good of the people, must not be administered by them. The eighteenth century was the period of administrative despotism. The state was everything, the people nothing. Benevolent despots governed their countries on humanitarian principles. Though, theoretically, freedom of individual thought and action was allowed to be a good thing, in practice the principle of personal liberty was not recognised. 1 Sorel, L'Europe et la Révolution Française, vol. i. chap. i. Lecky, History of England in the Eighteenth Century, vol. v. pp. 229, 230.

Feudalism still existed in many parts of Europe, and the poorer classes were kept in bondage.

Another characteristic, the importance of which cannot be over-estimated, was the immense interest taken in commercial

Commerce and the Colonies.

and colonial questions. Commerce was recognised as being the road to wealth and power, and it became the policy of every European prince to increase the wealth of his country by advancing its trade. The study of political economy had definitely arisen in the seventeenth century, though it had only reached a very rudimentary stage - the prevalent belief being that the wealth of a nation consisted in the amount of specie which it possessed, and that the prosperity of one country was only attained at the expense of others. Consequently, each nation endeavoured to prohibit the exportation of coin, and commercial jealousy grew apace. One man's gain is another's loss' became a recognised principle, and the mercantile theory, as it was called, established itself firmly in Europe.

During the latter half of the seventeenth century the great value of colonial trade was almost universally recognised. The unpopularity, in England, of the Partition Treaties of 1698 and 1700 was largely due to the fact that, had they been carried out, the western basin of the Mediterranean would have become a French lake, and the English trade there and in the Levant would have been endangered. The coolness which existed after the conclusion of the Spanish Succession War between England and Peter the Great was caused in great measure by the apprehension that the appearance in the Baltic of a Russian fleet would endanger the interests of British commerce in the north. This lively appreciation shared with England by Spain, France, and Austria― of the value of trade brought with it important results. The possession of strong navies became necessary for the work of colonial expansion and the development of commerce; and already, in the later years of the seventeenth century, the fleets of Holland, England, and France had been engaged in a brill

Class.

iant rivalry, not only in European waters, but in the distant American and Indian seas. By the beginning of the eighteenth century Holland had dropped out of the race, but the struggle was continued between England and the navies of France and Spain. Already the contests for supremacy in America and India had begun, and it was not till the century was more than half over that it was decided that England, not France, should be supreme in India, and that the Teutonic and not the Latin element was to control the destinies and development of North America. This growth of the commercial and colonial interests of European states brought with it the increased importance, more particularly in Growth of France, in England, and in western Germany, of the Middle the middle class. The eighteenth century was the age of great civilians — the age of Walpole and of Pitt, of Alberoni and of Turgot. Wherever trade developed, the condition of the agricultural classes improved, and an independent, wealthy, and intelligent middle class grew up, which supplied to the various countries many admirable financiers, administrators, and soldiers. The increased interest taken in commerce tended to break down barriers between nations, and Europe became more united. Insulation was, Insulation indeed, impossible when Spain had an Italian gov- impossible. ernment, England a German, Italy an Austrian, Russia everything but a Russian government. That the eighteenth century was the age of political adventurers is evident from a very cursory acquaintance with the history of the various states. Scepticism increased, and the religious sentiment was weakened. Bossuet and Pascal were succeeded by Voltaire and Diderot; and the influence of Catholicism steadily declined.

These characteristics of the European history in the eighteenth century which have been briefly touched upon do not form a pleasant picture. Territorial aggrandisement was the principal object of the greater Powers, and any means were considered justifiable in order to secure their aims. Diplomacy, which had taken the place of religion

Conclusion.

in the councils of Europe, was unscrupulous; while the secret diplomacy of the middle of the eighteenth century marks the lowest depths arrived at in the history of the relations of European states to each other.

Two principal facts sum up in themselves the character of the period: The War of the Austrian Succession, and the Partition of Poland. The one showed the amount of faith which could be put in the solemn engagements of European Powers, the other illustrated the amount of respect which states, if weak, could expect from their stronger neighbours. When Napoleon overran and conquered the greater part of Europe, he was merely carrying out fully and successfully the policy pursued by the great European Powers before 1789. In this respect Napoleon belongs to the same category as Frederick the Great, Catherine II., and Joseph II., and may be classed with the despots of the eighteenth century.

The Euro

tion breaks

out in

As the century advanced, it became evident that the overthrow of the old European system was at hand. The middle classes, richer and better educated than before, felt pean Revolu- themselves to be fit for the exercise of political functions which the theory of benevolent despotism France. denied them. The people who provided from their own ranks the soldiers who were the instruments of the royal tyranny, were driven to desperation by feudal exaction and social privilege. On the other hand, monarchy had lost its dignity and leadership, the nobility was extravagant, the Church corrupt, politicians unblushingly selfish. The old props of society were giving way. A catastrophe was inevitable. But from what quarter the first shock of the earthquake would make itself felt no one could say.

What then were the causes of the revolution which burst out almost simultaneously in Belgium, Poland, and France, and

The Causes of the Revolutionary Epoch.

found the rest of Europe in a condition of weakness and collapse? The answer to the question may partly be found in the political condition of Europe as settled by the terms of the Treaties of Utrecht and