What do you think?
Rate this book
Mémoires de Talleyrand #3
Mémoires Du Prince De Talleyrand, Volume 3...
This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. This book may have occasional imperfections
such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact,
or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections,
have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works
worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.
++++
The below data was compiled from various identification fields in the bibliographic record of this title. This data is provided as an additional tool in helping to ensure edition
++++
Mémoires Du Prince De Talleyrand, Volume 3; Mémoires Du Prince De Talleyrand; Albert De Broglie
Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (prince de Bénévent), Albert de Broglie
Calmann Lévy, 1891
History; Europe; France; France; History / Europe / France
such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact,
or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections,
have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works
worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.
++++
The below data was compiled from various identification fields in the bibliographic record of this title. This data is provided as an additional tool in helping to ensure edition
++++
Mémoires Du Prince De Talleyrand, Volume 3; Mémoires Du Prince De Talleyrand; Albert De Broglie
Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (prince de Bénévent), Albert de Broglie
Calmann Lévy, 1891
History; Europe; France; France; History / Europe / France
- GenresFrance
484 pages, Paperback
First published July 30, 1967
29 people want to read
About the author
Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord
165 books41 followersCharles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, prince de Bénévent, then prince de Talleyrand (French: [ʃaʁl moʁis də tal(ɛ)ʁɑ̃ peʁiɡɔʁ]; 1754–1838) was a French diplomat. He worked successfully at the highest level (usually as foreign minister) for the regime of Louis XVI, through several governments of the French Revolution and then for Napoleon, Louis XVIII, Charles X, and Louis-Philippe. Most of them distrusted Talleyrand but, like Napoleon, found him indispensable. He was known simply as Talleyrand, which has become a synonym for crafty, cynical diplomacy.
He was Napoleon's chief diplomatic aide in the conquest of Europe. Most of the time, however, he worked for peace so as to consolidate France's gains. He succeeded in obtaining peace with Austria in the 1801 Treaty of Luneville and with Britain in the 1802 Treaty of Amiens. He could not stop the renewal of war in 1803. By 1805 he opposed his emperor's renewed wars against Austria, Prussia, and Russia in 1805-1806; he resigned as foreign minister in August 1807 but Napoleon still trusted him. Talleyrand connived to undermine Napoleon's plans and secretly dealt with Tsar Alexander of Russia and the Austrian minister Metternich. He was seeking a negotiated secure peace so as to perpetuate the gains of the French revolution. But Napoleon rejected peace and when he fell in 1814 Talleyrand took charge of the Bourbon restoration based on the principle of legitimacy. He played a major role at the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815, where he negotiated a favourable settlement for France while undoing Napoleon's conquests.
Talleyrand polarizes scholarly opinion. Some regard him as one of the most versatile, skilled and influential diplomats in European history, and some believe that he was a traitor, betraying in turn, the Ancien Régime, the French Revolution, Napoleon, and the Restoration.
He was the uncle of Alexandre-Edmond de Talleyrand-Périgord and the granduncle of Alexandre-Edmond de Talleyrand-Périgord.
He was Napoleon's chief diplomatic aide in the conquest of Europe. Most of the time, however, he worked for peace so as to consolidate France's gains. He succeeded in obtaining peace with Austria in the 1801 Treaty of Luneville and with Britain in the 1802 Treaty of Amiens. He could not stop the renewal of war in 1803. By 1805 he opposed his emperor's renewed wars against Austria, Prussia, and Russia in 1805-1806; he resigned as foreign minister in August 1807 but Napoleon still trusted him. Talleyrand connived to undermine Napoleon's plans and secretly dealt with Tsar Alexander of Russia and the Austrian minister Metternich. He was seeking a negotiated secure peace so as to perpetuate the gains of the French revolution. But Napoleon rejected peace and when he fell in 1814 Talleyrand took charge of the Bourbon restoration based on the principle of legitimacy. He played a major role at the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815, where he negotiated a favourable settlement for France while undoing Napoleon's conquests.
Talleyrand polarizes scholarly opinion. Some regard him as one of the most versatile, skilled and influential diplomats in European history, and some believe that he was a traitor, betraying in turn, the Ancien Régime, the French Revolution, Napoleon, and the Restoration.
He was the uncle of Alexandre-Edmond de Talleyrand-Périgord and the granduncle of Alexandre-Edmond de Talleyrand-Périgord.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 24, 2026
This is rather interesting, we finish with the letters about 1/3rd into the book and...
Napoleon, who disembarked at three o'clock on the 1st of March in the Gulf of Juan, immediately sent a detachment of twenty-five men to secure the batteries on the coast. The company arrived at Antibes, the Commandant, Colonel Cuneo- d'Ornano allowed them to enter and then made prisoners of them, despite the ferment among his own soldiers. This was the sum total of the affray at Antibes. Not a single cannon was fired.
Hundred Days after his escape from exile on Elba. On March 1, 1815, at approximately 3:00 PM, Napoleon disembarked at Golfe-Juan with a force of roughly 1,000 to 1,200 men.
Colonel Cuneo d'Ornano , remained loyal to King Louis XVIII. He allowed the soldiers to enter the gates and promptly took them prisoner. Later became a supporter of the Second Empire, serving as Governor of Les Invalides and Grand Chancellor of the Legion of Honour.
Wounded in a duel just before Waterloo, he later married Napoleon's former mistress, Marie Walewska, and became a Marshal of France under Napoléon III.
After 1815, Philippe-Antoine d'Ornano was arrested and exiled, living in Liège, where he married Marie Walewska in 1816 before returning to France in 1818. He later served in the military and politics, becoming a trusted ally of Napoleon III, who named him Governor of Les Invalides (1853), a Senator, and Marshal of France in 1861, becoming known as "Napoleon's last soldier".
Maria Walewska (1786–1817) was born Maria Łączyńska
Marie was previously married in 1804 to the Polish count Anastazy (Athenasius) Colonna-Walewski, a man over 50 years her senior. She divorced him in 1812 and he died in 1815. He was elector of Stanisław August Poniatowski from the Łęczyca Voivodeship in 1764.
Countess Marie Walewska (1786–1817) was a Polish noblewoman and widely considered Napoleon Bonaparte’s most significant mistress. Starting in 1807, she became a devoted lover to Napoleon, hoping to influence him to restore Polish independence. The couple had a son, Alexandre Joseph Colonna-Walewski, born in 1810.
You will see that this statement fully confirms the arrange- ments come to by the Powers in the declaration of March 13th( Congress of Vienna); that the sophistry of Buonaparte is refuted, and his impostures brought to light. But you will specially notice that Europe does not appear as if making war for your Majesty, and at your request, but that she does so for herself, because her interests require it, and because her safety demands it. Not only is this view of the war alone accurate, but every one thinks it is the only one suited to your Majesty. It is the only one that does not place you in a false position, as regards your own subjects, for nothing might contribute more towards alienating their affection, than if they were left in any doubt as to the cause of the war. They must never be able to attribute to your Majesty the evils which it will bring upon them.
I have the honour to be....
P.S.-I have according to your Majesty's orders, written to the sovereigns and archdukes who are here, asking for permission to take my leave.
I have sent to M. de Jaucourt the letters from M. de la Tour du Pin, which may interest your Majesty. That of M. d'Osmond1 which encloses them, gives the latest details respecting Italian affairs.
---
Louis, Chevalier de Jaucourt (1704–1779), writing approximately 17,000 articles (about 25% of the total). Known as the "slave to the Encyclopédie," he was a champion of Enlightenment ideals, contributing extensive work on medicine, botany, politics, and human rights, specifically opposing slavery and promoting religious tolerance.
Correspondence involving M. de La Tour du Pin
and Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand primarily centers on the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815), where Frédéric-Séraphin, Marquis de La Tour du Pin, served as one of Talleyrand's three subordinate ambassadors. Madame de La Tour du Pin famously referred to Talleyrand as "that ironical devil"/"Lame Devil" (le Diable Boiteux) in her celebrated memoirs, which detail her eyewitness experiences of the French Revolution and Napoleon. The nickname reflects his cynical, witty, and maneuvering nature during the turbulent political era.
Moreau de St. Méry: They often gathered at his bookstore in Philadelphia. Talleyrand, who arrived in Philadelphia in May 1794, was a frequent visitor to their farm and a regular fixture in their social circle.
Frédéric-Séraphin de La Tour du Pin Gouvernet was part of the Lafayette expedition, aimed at supporting American revolutionaries, and was active in the early diplomatic and military efforts in the United States, including Philadelphia.
French Emigré Elite or specifically as the "eminent"
Talleyrand-Périgord
François Alexandre Frédéric de La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt
Frédéric-Séraphin de La Tour du Pin Gouvernet
Louis-Marie, Vicomte de Noailles
Constantin-François Chasseboeuf, Comte de Volney
Médéric Louis Élie Moreau de Saint-Méry
French Azilum was a planned 1793 settlement in Bradford County, Pennsylvania, designed as a refuge for French aristocrats and elite émigrés fleeing the radical phase of the French Revolution and the subsequent Reign of Terror. Unlike the militant Armée des Émigrés (Army of the Princes) concentrated in Europe, which sought to restore the Ancien Régime through armed conflict, the Pennsylvania group consisted largely of constitutional monarchists, moderates, and liberals who had fallen out of favor with Jacobin radicalism.
Primarily to French refugees fleeing the French Revolution and slave uprisings in Saint-Domingue (Haiti). The company was founded by high-profile American financiers, including Robert Morris and John Nicholson, who aimed to profit from the displacement of wealthy French .
"La Grande Maison": The most notable structure was a massive log house built as a potential refuge for Queen Marie Antoinette and her children. Although she was executed before reaching America, the house served as a social hub for other distinguished guests, including the future King Louis-Philippe.
It was a planned, voluntary utopian refuge and settlement created for French aristocrats and colonists fleeing the French Revolution and slave uprisings in Saint-Domingue, intended to provide safety, liberty, and a possible home for Queen Marie Antoinette
Lucie de la Tour du Pin returned to France in 1796, around the same time as Talleyrand, following their respective periods of exile in the United States. A renowned diarist and member of the high aristocracy, she observed and participated in social circles that included Talleyrand, Madame de Staël, and other prominent figures throughout the rise of Napoleon and the Bourbon Restoration.
This letter is a masterclass in pragmatic diplomacy. Writing shortly after the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815, the Duke of Wellington is essentially laying out the roadmap for the Bourbon Restoration.
His primary goal is to get Louis XVIII back on the throne in a way that looks like a French choice rather than a "gift" forced upon them by foreign bayonets.
---
This is the letter written to me by the Duke of Wellington on the subject. I retain all the faults of style in this letter, recollecting that the commander-in-chief of the British army was not bound to write French like a member of the Academy.
PRINCE,
M. Boissy d'Anglas and General Valence, General Andréossy, M. de la Besnardière, and M. de Flaugergues, have been sent to me from Paris to ask for a suspension of hostilities, and I have had an interview with them of so much interest to the king, that I think it advisable to write to you without loss of time.
I explained to them that in my opinion the abdication of Napoleon does not offer such security to the allied powers as would justify a suspension of hostilities; and after some further discussion I said to them that I could only look upon our object as secured, if Napoleon was delivered up to the allies, and Paris occupied by our out- posts; and if such a government was established as would give confidence not only to France but to Europe.
After some hesitation these gentlemen requested me to explain what I meant by such a government. I told them I had no authority to speak on this subject, but my private advice would be, to recall the king without any conditions, and that the honour of France demanded this step, before anyone could suppose that the intervention of the powers had been the sole occasion of his recall.
All these gentlemen agreed with me, and though apparently they think that some changes in the constitution would be necessary, especially as regards the ministry and the framing of the laws, they admitted it would be better to let the king make these changes rather than impose them upon him as conditions.
M. de Flaugergues said he did not believe that the two chambers would agree to the king's recall without conditions. Our conversation then turned upon the manner of bringing about what everyone desired, without infringing the principles respecting the quiet, natural and unconditional restoration of the king. During the discussion we received the king's declaration, dated the 28th, and countersigned by your high- ness, and these gentlemen consider it admirably fitted to fulfil all our intentions, if the two articles herewith appended are withdrawn, or at any rate made clearer.
The individuals indicated in article No. I. are the persons included in the late conspiracy; but this not being sufficiently explained, it is thought, or it might be thought, that you therein include the regicides. I opposed this view, because the king having consented, before his departure, to the principle of employing Fouché, could not actually refuse to employ either him or any other minister, and the preceding sentence explains this clearly enough. Nevertheless it would be well to explain it, or to withdraw it altogether.
Article II. is displeasing to these gentlemen, because it contains a threat. It appears useless to them because it comprises too many persons, and above all, because the expressions are stronger than becomes the king, and their opinion is that it should be suppressed.
They strongly feel as to the words marked in No. III., and they are of opinion that the recall of the king will not be effected in the manner most advantageous to his majesty, and the public welfare, if the chambers learn that they are to be dismissed at once. I therefore recommend that the words underlined be omitted; the king will then have the means of summoning a new assembly or of continuing the present chambers if he thinks proper. He could not admit, à priori, that the present chambers constitute a lawful assembly, but there is no necessity for his informing them to begin with, that they are to be dismissed. Your highness will perceive from all that has passed, that my wish is to restore the king-1st, unconditionally, 2nd, in such a manner that it may not appear to be the effect of compulsion by the allies, and probably you will agree with me that such a result is well worth a few sacrifices.
I am about to see General Blücher, and will try to persuade him to agree to the armistice on the conditions stated below. I earnestly hope to receive your reply early to-morrow, Meanwhile I think the king should come to Roze, leaving a garrison in Cambray,
WELLINGTON.
This despatch plainly shows Russia's disposition towards us at this period, and whether M. Molé had grounds for congratu- lating himself on the footing on which he should leave, as he said, our foreign relations! It is very plain to me that the Emperor Nicholas would never have consented to empower M. Pozzo to deal with Belgian affairs in Paris; and that even while authorizing Prince Lieven and Comte Matusiewicz to deal with them in London, in conference with the five Powers, he by no means made the road smooth for the French plenipotentiaries.
Nicholas I viewed Louis-Philippe as a "Usurper King" born of revolution and was determined to make the road as "unsmooth" as possible to protect the conservative Vienna System.
The revolution sparked a major diplomatic crisis that "dominated the minds of European statesmen". British leaders, including Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston, were under immense pressure to prevent France from annexing Belgium, which would have threatened the international balance of power established after Napoleon’s defeat.
The London Conference (1830–1831) is often called a "middle-path" settlement because it carefully balanced the revolutionary demands of the Belgians against the conservative fears of the Great Powers, avoiding a massive European war.
Nicholas I was the most aggressive opponent of the Belgian Revolution among the Great Powers.
He was personally furious because his sister, Anna Pavlovna, was married to the Dutch Prince of Orange (the son of King William I), making the revolt a personal affront to his family.
Planned Intervention: He prepared an army to march across Europe to restore Dutch rule. However, this was famously derailed by the November Uprising in Poland (1830), which forced him to use his troops to maintain control of his own empire instead.
By tying down the Russian army in the East, the Poles "immobilized" the only Great Power willing to use immediate force. This delay gave the London Conference the necessary time to recognize Belgian independence and establish its permanent neutrality through diplomacy.
Matuszewicz, while on the ground in London, convinced St. Petersburg that Russia's armed intervention would lead to a major war with England and France. It was his reports that cooled the Tsar's enthusiasm for sending troops to the West even before the uprising broke out in Poland.
Palmerston also had to "bully" the French. He successfully pressured King Louis-Philippe to withdraw French troops from Belgium and reject the offer of the Belgian throne for his own son. This proved to the Tsar that the "buffer" worked against the French as well. Palmerston bridged the Whig and Liberal parties, prioritizing an assertive, nationalistic foreign policy ("Civis Romanus sum") to promote British interests and constitutional liberalism worldwide. Domestically, he was a moderate reformer, favoring social improvements like the 1853 Factory Act over radical political change.
I love to know now that our upsing in Warsaw in 1830 was like gravity charge to prevent evil. Like, we took demage to save others.
Napoleon, who disembarked at three o'clock on the 1st of March in the Gulf of Juan, immediately sent a detachment of twenty-five men to secure the batteries on the coast. The company arrived at Antibes, the Commandant, Colonel Cuneo- d'Ornano allowed them to enter and then made prisoners of them, despite the ferment among his own soldiers. This was the sum total of the affray at Antibes. Not a single cannon was fired.
Hundred Days after his escape from exile on Elba. On March 1, 1815, at approximately 3:00 PM, Napoleon disembarked at Golfe-Juan with a force of roughly 1,000 to 1,200 men.
Colonel Cuneo d'Ornano , remained loyal to King Louis XVIII. He allowed the soldiers to enter the gates and promptly took them prisoner. Later became a supporter of the Second Empire, serving as Governor of Les Invalides and Grand Chancellor of the Legion of Honour.
Wounded in a duel just before Waterloo, he later married Napoleon's former mistress, Marie Walewska, and became a Marshal of France under Napoléon III.
After 1815, Philippe-Antoine d'Ornano was arrested and exiled, living in Liège, where he married Marie Walewska in 1816 before returning to France in 1818. He later served in the military and politics, becoming a trusted ally of Napoleon III, who named him Governor of Les Invalides (1853), a Senator, and Marshal of France in 1861, becoming known as "Napoleon's last soldier".
Maria Walewska (1786–1817) was born Maria Łączyńska
Marie was previously married in 1804 to the Polish count Anastazy (Athenasius) Colonna-Walewski, a man over 50 years her senior. She divorced him in 1812 and he died in 1815. He was elector of Stanisław August Poniatowski from the Łęczyca Voivodeship in 1764.
Countess Marie Walewska (1786–1817) was a Polish noblewoman and widely considered Napoleon Bonaparte’s most significant mistress. Starting in 1807, she became a devoted lover to Napoleon, hoping to influence him to restore Polish independence. The couple had a son, Alexandre Joseph Colonna-Walewski, born in 1810.
You will see that this statement fully confirms the arrange- ments come to by the Powers in the declaration of March 13th( Congress of Vienna); that the sophistry of Buonaparte is refuted, and his impostures brought to light. But you will specially notice that Europe does not appear as if making war for your Majesty, and at your request, but that she does so for herself, because her interests require it, and because her safety demands it. Not only is this view of the war alone accurate, but every one thinks it is the only one suited to your Majesty. It is the only one that does not place you in a false position, as regards your own subjects, for nothing might contribute more towards alienating their affection, than if they were left in any doubt as to the cause of the war. They must never be able to attribute to your Majesty the evils which it will bring upon them.
I have the honour to be....
P.S.-I have according to your Majesty's orders, written to the sovereigns and archdukes who are here, asking for permission to take my leave.
I have sent to M. de Jaucourt the letters from M. de la Tour du Pin, which may interest your Majesty. That of M. d'Osmond1 which encloses them, gives the latest details respecting Italian affairs.
---
Louis, Chevalier de Jaucourt (1704–1779), writing approximately 17,000 articles (about 25% of the total). Known as the "slave to the Encyclopédie," he was a champion of Enlightenment ideals, contributing extensive work on medicine, botany, politics, and human rights, specifically opposing slavery and promoting religious tolerance.
Correspondence involving M. de La Tour du Pin
and Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand primarily centers on the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815), where Frédéric-Séraphin, Marquis de La Tour du Pin, served as one of Talleyrand's three subordinate ambassadors. Madame de La Tour du Pin famously referred to Talleyrand as "that ironical devil"/"Lame Devil" (le Diable Boiteux) in her celebrated memoirs, which detail her eyewitness experiences of the French Revolution and Napoleon. The nickname reflects his cynical, witty, and maneuvering nature during the turbulent political era.
Moreau de St. Méry: They often gathered at his bookstore in Philadelphia. Talleyrand, who arrived in Philadelphia in May 1794, was a frequent visitor to their farm and a regular fixture in their social circle.
Frédéric-Séraphin de La Tour du Pin Gouvernet was part of the Lafayette expedition, aimed at supporting American revolutionaries, and was active in the early diplomatic and military efforts in the United States, including Philadelphia.
French Emigré Elite or specifically as the "eminent"
Talleyrand-Périgord
François Alexandre Frédéric de La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt
Frédéric-Séraphin de La Tour du Pin Gouvernet
Louis-Marie, Vicomte de Noailles
Constantin-François Chasseboeuf, Comte de Volney
Médéric Louis Élie Moreau de Saint-Méry
French Azilum was a planned 1793 settlement in Bradford County, Pennsylvania, designed as a refuge for French aristocrats and elite émigrés fleeing the radical phase of the French Revolution and the subsequent Reign of Terror. Unlike the militant Armée des Émigrés (Army of the Princes) concentrated in Europe, which sought to restore the Ancien Régime through armed conflict, the Pennsylvania group consisted largely of constitutional monarchists, moderates, and liberals who had fallen out of favor with Jacobin radicalism.
Primarily to French refugees fleeing the French Revolution and slave uprisings in Saint-Domingue (Haiti). The company was founded by high-profile American financiers, including Robert Morris and John Nicholson, who aimed to profit from the displacement of wealthy French .
"La Grande Maison": The most notable structure was a massive log house built as a potential refuge for Queen Marie Antoinette and her children. Although she was executed before reaching America, the house served as a social hub for other distinguished guests, including the future King Louis-Philippe.
It was a planned, voluntary utopian refuge and settlement created for French aristocrats and colonists fleeing the French Revolution and slave uprisings in Saint-Domingue, intended to provide safety, liberty, and a possible home for Queen Marie Antoinette
Lucie de la Tour du Pin returned to France in 1796, around the same time as Talleyrand, following their respective periods of exile in the United States. A renowned diarist and member of the high aristocracy, she observed and participated in social circles that included Talleyrand, Madame de Staël, and other prominent figures throughout the rise of Napoleon and the Bourbon Restoration.
This letter is a masterclass in pragmatic diplomacy. Writing shortly after the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815, the Duke of Wellington is essentially laying out the roadmap for the Bourbon Restoration.
His primary goal is to get Louis XVIII back on the throne in a way that looks like a French choice rather than a "gift" forced upon them by foreign bayonets.
---
This is the letter written to me by the Duke of Wellington on the subject. I retain all the faults of style in this letter, recollecting that the commander-in-chief of the British army was not bound to write French like a member of the Academy.
PRINCE,
M. Boissy d'Anglas and General Valence, General Andréossy, M. de la Besnardière, and M. de Flaugergues, have been sent to me from Paris to ask for a suspension of hostilities, and I have had an interview with them of so much interest to the king, that I think it advisable to write to you without loss of time.
I explained to them that in my opinion the abdication of Napoleon does not offer such security to the allied powers as would justify a suspension of hostilities; and after some further discussion I said to them that I could only look upon our object as secured, if Napoleon was delivered up to the allies, and Paris occupied by our out- posts; and if such a government was established as would give confidence not only to France but to Europe.
After some hesitation these gentlemen requested me to explain what I meant by such a government. I told them I had no authority to speak on this subject, but my private advice would be, to recall the king without any conditions, and that the honour of France demanded this step, before anyone could suppose that the intervention of the powers had been the sole occasion of his recall.
All these gentlemen agreed with me, and though apparently they think that some changes in the constitution would be necessary, especially as regards the ministry and the framing of the laws, they admitted it would be better to let the king make these changes rather than impose them upon him as conditions.
M. de Flaugergues said he did not believe that the two chambers would agree to the king's recall without conditions. Our conversation then turned upon the manner of bringing about what everyone desired, without infringing the principles respecting the quiet, natural and unconditional restoration of the king. During the discussion we received the king's declaration, dated the 28th, and countersigned by your high- ness, and these gentlemen consider it admirably fitted to fulfil all our intentions, if the two articles herewith appended are withdrawn, or at any rate made clearer.
The individuals indicated in article No. I. are the persons included in the late conspiracy; but this not being sufficiently explained, it is thought, or it might be thought, that you therein include the regicides. I opposed this view, because the king having consented, before his departure, to the principle of employing Fouché, could not actually refuse to employ either him or any other minister, and the preceding sentence explains this clearly enough. Nevertheless it would be well to explain it, or to withdraw it altogether.
Article II. is displeasing to these gentlemen, because it contains a threat. It appears useless to them because it comprises too many persons, and above all, because the expressions are stronger than becomes the king, and their opinion is that it should be suppressed.
They strongly feel as to the words marked in No. III., and they are of opinion that the recall of the king will not be effected in the manner most advantageous to his majesty, and the public welfare, if the chambers learn that they are to be dismissed at once. I therefore recommend that the words underlined be omitted; the king will then have the means of summoning a new assembly or of continuing the present chambers if he thinks proper. He could not admit, à priori, that the present chambers constitute a lawful assembly, but there is no necessity for his informing them to begin with, that they are to be dismissed. Your highness will perceive from all that has passed, that my wish is to restore the king-1st, unconditionally, 2nd, in such a manner that it may not appear to be the effect of compulsion by the allies, and probably you will agree with me that such a result is well worth a few sacrifices.
I am about to see General Blücher, and will try to persuade him to agree to the armistice on the conditions stated below. I earnestly hope to receive your reply early to-morrow, Meanwhile I think the king should come to Roze, leaving a garrison in Cambray,
WELLINGTON.
This despatch plainly shows Russia's disposition towards us at this period, and whether M. Molé had grounds for congratu- lating himself on the footing on which he should leave, as he said, our foreign relations! It is very plain to me that the Emperor Nicholas would never have consented to empower M. Pozzo to deal with Belgian affairs in Paris; and that even while authorizing Prince Lieven and Comte Matusiewicz to deal with them in London, in conference with the five Powers, he by no means made the road smooth for the French plenipotentiaries.
Nicholas I viewed Louis-Philippe as a "Usurper King" born of revolution and was determined to make the road as "unsmooth" as possible to protect the conservative Vienna System.
The revolution sparked a major diplomatic crisis that "dominated the minds of European statesmen". British leaders, including Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston, were under immense pressure to prevent France from annexing Belgium, which would have threatened the international balance of power established after Napoleon’s defeat.
The London Conference (1830–1831) is often called a "middle-path" settlement because it carefully balanced the revolutionary demands of the Belgians against the conservative fears of the Great Powers, avoiding a massive European war.
Nicholas I was the most aggressive opponent of the Belgian Revolution among the Great Powers.
He was personally furious because his sister, Anna Pavlovna, was married to the Dutch Prince of Orange (the son of King William I), making the revolt a personal affront to his family.
Planned Intervention: He prepared an army to march across Europe to restore Dutch rule. However, this was famously derailed by the November Uprising in Poland (1830), which forced him to use his troops to maintain control of his own empire instead.
By tying down the Russian army in the East, the Poles "immobilized" the only Great Power willing to use immediate force. This delay gave the London Conference the necessary time to recognize Belgian independence and establish its permanent neutrality through diplomacy.
Matuszewicz, while on the ground in London, convinced St. Petersburg that Russia's armed intervention would lead to a major war with England and France. It was his reports that cooled the Tsar's enthusiasm for sending troops to the West even before the uprising broke out in Poland.
Palmerston also had to "bully" the French. He successfully pressured King Louis-Philippe to withdraw French troops from Belgium and reject the offer of the Belgian throne for his own son. This proved to the Tsar that the "buffer" worked against the French as well. Palmerston bridged the Whig and Liberal parties, prioritizing an assertive, nationalistic foreign policy ("Civis Romanus sum") to promote British interests and constitutional liberalism worldwide. Domestically, he was a moderate reformer, favoring social improvements like the 1853 Factory Act over radical political change.
I love to know now that our upsing in Warsaw in 1830 was like gravity charge to prevent evil. Like, we took demage to save others.
Displaying 1 of 1 review