The Europe of the Restoration (1815-1848)
Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo (June 18, 1815) marked the dawn of a period during which the European monarchies did all they could to restore absolutism, that is, the order which had prevailed prior to the outbreak of the French Revolution, thereby giving rise to what is known as the “Restoration”.
To achieve this aim, the powers which had vanquished Napoleon convened a general congress in Vienna which, in addition to politically reorganizing Europe, established a concerted system of armed interventions designed to abort any revolutionary outbreak endangering the restoration of the traditional order (Zamoyski 2007).16.2.1 The Congress of Vienna
The representatives of the states that had won the war over Napoleon: the United Kingdom, Austria, Prussia and Russia (later joined by France under Louis XVIII, represented by the very adept Talleyrand),[848] hosted by Austrian Chancellor Clemens von Metternich, convened in Vienna, for almost 7 months to reorganize Europe’s political order, which since 1792 had seen important transformations introduced by French imperialism, first revolutionary and later Napoleonic.
Although the term “congress” was used to designate these meetings, as in the United States of America, in Europe its meaning was substantially different, where the states were represented by sovereigns rather than delegates elected by the citizens.[849]
The outcome of the lengthy Congress of Vienna (November 1814-June 1815), was that the representatives of the victorious powers, the “Big Four” (King 2008, 44-52), restructured Europe, redefining borders and restoring to the throne most of the absolute monarchs who had been toppled by Napoleon, in what was called Metternich’s Europe (Walker 1968). Still pending was the implementation of the mechanisms necessary to prevent new “revolutionary” outbreaks which could upset the reinstated order.
16.2.2 The Holy Alliance or the Return of Divine Legitimacy
The first step in this direction was taken by establishing the “Holy Alliance” (Jarrett 2013, 173-177), an initiative of Tsar Alexander I Russia, who considered himself Europe’s savior since his victory over Napoleon in 1812. Beyond its mystical aspects, the Holy Alliance represented an attempt to rescue and affirm the legitimacy of the Ancien Regime and to eradicate the principles upon which the bourgeois revolution was based: that it is the citizens rather than the monarch who constitute a “nation”, it falls upon the people to create the constitutional framework governing the actions of the state, and that it is the nation which should govern, through its duly elected representatives. This constitutional model, termed the “nation-state”, clashed head-on with the traditional model of absolute monarchy. Thus, it was necessary to consolidate what had been agreed to in Vienna with a new ideology justifying a political system in which sovereignty, that is, the power of the state, was wrested from the nation and placed back in the hands of sovereigns.
On September 14, 1815, 3 months after the close of the Congress of Vienna, the Tsar of Russia, the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria joined in a “Holy Alliance”. This unique pact was based, as its name suggests, on the Christian religion professed by the three monarchs. In this way, it marked a resurfacing of the age-old principle that the established order had been determined by God, and that men could not alter it without endangering peace and justice:
In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity: Their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the Emperor of Russia, having, in consequence of the great events which have marked the course of the three last years in Europe, and especially of the blessings which it has pleased Divine Providence to shower down upon those States which place their confidence and their hope on it alone, acquired the intimate conviction of the necessity of settling the rules to be observed by the Powers, in their reciprocal relations, upon the sublime truths which the Holy Religion of our Saviour teaches.
They solemnly declare that the present Act has no other object than to publish, in the face of the whole world, their fixed resolution, both in the administration of their respective States and in their political relations with every other Government, to take for their sole guide the precepts of that Holy Religion, namely, the precepts of justice, Christian Charity, and Peace, which, far from being applicable only to private concerns, must have an immediate influence on the councils of princes, and guide all their steps, as being the only means of consolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections.To maintain this divine order, the signees agreed to provide each other aid and mutual support in the event anyone should attempt to alter it. The tone of the first article of the Holy Alliance is quite indicative of the spirit infusing the agreement:
Conformably to the words of the Holy Scriptures, which command all men to consider each other as brethren, the three contracting Monarchs will remain united by the bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity, and, considering each other as fellow-countrymen, they will, on all occasions and in all places, lend each other aid and assistance; and, regarding themselves towards their subjects and armies as fathers of families, they will lead them, in the same spirit of fraternity with which they are animated, to protect Religion, Peace, and justice.[850]
16.2.3 Metternich and the Counterrevolutionary Principle of Legitimate Intervention
Ironically, it was the pragmatic Metternich, the promoter of the Congress of Vienna, initially harboring a cynical disdain for the Holy Alliance (Ingle 1976, 14), who ultimately managed to most fully exploit its possibilities. Months after its establishment he realized the great utility of legitimizing the principle that the signatory powers could intervene to abort any revolutionary outbreaks. It was thus agreed that if a state broke Europe’s established order, morally or materially, it was the duty and the right of other rulers to reestablish the stability which had been disturbed.
Thus, this provision set the stage for concerted efforts by the powers to maintain the Old Regime.16.2.4 An Exception to the Principle of Nation-State Confrontation: The Metternich System
as a Forerunner of European Integration
At Metternich’s initiative, on November 20, 1815 the four victorious powers which had defeated Napoleon—England, Austria, Russia and Prussia—signed a Grand Alliance in France to maintain a “protectorate” over the country which would legitimize the occupation of French territory (Jarrett 2013, 183-186). In response to a proposal by the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Castlereagh, a clause (the sixth) was introduced in the pact according to which the signing powers pledged to meet regularly to discuss issues of common interest and to ensure the preservation of order and peace (Bew 2012, 409-418).
The Quadruple Alliance was forged to prevent any revolutionary movement from surfacing in France. Thus, when the monarchy under Louis XVIII seemed to be well established, the allies, meeting in Aachen in 1818, agreed to withdraw their troops from France, which was admitted into the Alliance. In an additional secret protocol Metternich succeeded in adding to the principle of legitimate intervention to prevent revolutionary disorders a call for regular “congresses” by which the powers were to examine the situation in Europe and make decisions, depending upon circumstances, regarding the adoption of appropriate measures to address them (Schroeder 1992, 683-706). The fear of revolution was the guiding principle of all monarchies after 1815 and not only of the Austria of Metternich (Sked 2008).
In the years that followed Napoleon’s fall, through 1823, the European powers acted jointly and in concert, though not to maintain a common economic policy, but to preserve the order established at the Congress of Vienna (Sked 1979, 98-121),[851] an action they had been forced to take to counter liberals from all over Europe anxious to promote the nation-state; this came to be called the “Metternich System”, which can be considered a kind of early attempt at European integration (Alison 2013).[852]
16.2.5 The Impossibility of Restoring Absolutism
The French Revolution and its Napoleonic aftermath ultimately failed to transform Europe, as after 1815 the entire Continent, save for England, reverted to absolute monarchy.
Nevertheless, this reestablishment of the Old Order was, in reality, not as absolute as it might seem at first. In France, Louis XVIII laid down the foundations for a parliamentary regime with the 1814 Charte. Although this was a unilateral concession, it is certainly telling that this astute monarch realized that a return to the outright, unrestrained monarchy of the era preceding the events of 1789 was simply not viable, as the privileged classes of the Ancien Regime, the nobility and clergy, had been supplanted by the ascendant bourgeoisie of businessmen and bankers. Since the Thermidorian Reaction, the most eminent members of the former “Third Estate” had become (from 1794) the dominant social power in France.Thus, Louis XVIII accepted that, following the model already firmly established in the United Kingdom, monarchies in the post-Napoleonic era were destined to function more as arbiters and intercessors, leaving political action in the hands of representative assemblies (parliaments). By no means was power to be given to the masses, as democracy based on universal suffrage was still unthinkable at this point. However, through censitary and indirect suffrage, the high bourgeoisie was able to monopolize representation of the “nation” in parliaments, thereby controlling states.
This said, the liberal bourgeoisie faced a tough task, having to tenaciously fight to impose its new model of the state, with waves of revolutionary struggle in 1820, 1830, and, above all, 1848, to spread the new order in countries with traditional monarchies, such as France and Spain, and in the new states spawned by the liberal revolution in Belgium, Italy and Prussia. The result was that, one by one, all the European states adopted constitutions and representative assemblies. Even tsarist Russia implemented a parliamentary system following the Revolution of 1905.
The consequence was that over the course of the nineteenth century, a new model of state came to prevail throughout the Continent in which power was clearly delimitated by written constitutions generally guaranteeing citizens’ fundamental rights and liberties—hence the term which came to describe these regimes: liberal. In them, government institutions’ scopes of power and authority were to be defined
and limited, while the nation, through its elected representatives, set the course of public policy.[853]
16.3