(W. B.)

CONGRESS, in diplomacy, a term applied to an assemblage of sovereigns or ambassadors of the highest rank, convoked for the purpose of concluding a general peace, or of treating the general political interests of Europe. In this latter sense a modern congress may be regarded as a representative council of states or nations, by which differences may be adjusted, and the rules of international law determined and enforced. The greatest progress yet made in the relations of sovereign states is, that disputes, which in former times would have led to immediate war, may now be resolved, in many instances, by the common deliberations of the European powers. The term CONGRESS, however, is only strictly applicable to meetings of this nature on the most important occasions, and when all the powers are represented. The term CONFERENCE is used to describe diplomatic meetings of ministers of the first or second rank, called together for a special purpose, either to modify existing treaties by consent, or to suggest means of dealing with a critical state of affairs. Meetings of this kind have become in modern times very frequent, and are the recognized mode of dealing with the questions arising between sovereign states, and sometimes even between states and their subjects. The proceedings of these conferences are recorded in protocols, agreed to and signed by the plenipotentiaries. These documents have not always the form of treaties or conventions, but they establish the principles on which the powers agree to act, and the rules by which they are bound in honor and good faith. The number of Congresses which have been held in the last two centuries is not very large, and we shall proceed briefly to pass them in review. Conferences have occurred so frequently that it would be impossible to describe them in detail. The most important examples are, perhaps, the Conference of Petersburg in 1825, which led to the independence of Greece; the Conference of London, in 1831, which separated the kingdom of Belgium from Holland; the Conference of Paris on the affairs of Crete; the Conference of 1871 for the modification of the Treaty of Paris of 1856; and the abortive Conference of Constantinople in 1877, when the six powers vainly endeavored to obtain from the Porte guarantees for the better government of its Christian subjects. These two forms of diplomatic council differ more, however, in form and degree than in kind. Their object is the same, namely, to determine and enforce the mutual obligations of states; and they may therefore be treated under one head.

The first time we have been able to trace the use of the term Congress, in its modern sense, is in 1636, when the Pope attempted to open negotiations for peace at Cologne, under his own mediation; but the attempt failed, and the Thirty Years' War continued for twelve years more to devastate the world. At length, however, it was agreed by the preliminaries of Hamburg, signed on the 25th December, 1641, that a Congress should be held at Munster and at Osnaburgh, in Westphalia, meeting simultaneously in both those towns; the French mediating minister, representing the Catholic party, being at Munster, and the Swedish minister, representing the Protestants, at Osnaburgh. The opening of the Congress was fixed for the 11th July, 1643; but the proceedings were delayed by numerous formalities, by questions of rank and precedence, by questions of neutrality and safe-conduct, and by the death of Richelieu and Louis XIII. The negotiations began in earnest in June, 1645. Never before had so august an assembly met in Europe for the termination of a sanguinary war, for the establishment of peace between two hostile creeds, and for the regulation of territorial questions by common agreement. The Empire was represented by Count Maximilian von Trautmansdorf; France by Count d'Avaux; Sweden by John Oxenstiern, a son of the great chancellor; the Pope by Cardinal Chigi, afterwards himself Pope Alexander VII.; Spain by Count Peñaranda, and by two of her subjects from Franche Comté, not to mention lesser names. England had no representative at the Congress of Westphalia. The questions in dispute and the result of these long deliberations (which were not terminated until the 24th October, 1648, by the signature of the two great treaties of Munster and Osnaburgh) were worthy of the statesmien engaged in them and of the time spent in the negotiations; for the Congress of Westphalia laid the foundations of modern Europe, and its leading principles

The term Congress was applied to the diplomatic meetings which negotiated the Peace of Nimeguen in 1678 and the Peace of Ryswick (so called from a castle near the Hague) in 1697. A contemporary French author, De Rouille, remarked that these meetings ought to be termed assemblies, not congresses, since the latter word was coarse and inappropriate. The term has since entirely lost its improper meaning, derived from an obsolete form of ecclesiastical procedure, and the diplomatic signification has triumphed. At Nimeguen England appeared for the first time at a Continental Congress, from the interest she took in the fate of Holland, and was worthily represented by Sir William Temple; France by Colbert de Croissy, D'Estrades, and D'Avaux; Spain by Don Pedro Ronquillo, governor of the Lower Countries; and Holland by the count of Nassau and Beverning. Separate treaties were signed between the various parties. The Congress of Ryswick was of still greater importance to England, for it terminated the war in which we had long been engaged with France, and extorted from Louis XIV. the recognition of the right of William and Mary to the British crown. The peace was of short duration, for the War of Succession broke out in 1701; the grand alliance was formed between England, Holland, and Austria; France was defeated; peace was nearly restored in 1709 at the conferences of Gertruydenberg, which were privately carried on between the marquis de Torcy and the Grand Pensionary, but not finally concluded till 1712, when a Congress of all the belligerent powers (except the king of Spain) assembled at Utrecht. France was represented by the marshal d'Huxelles, England by the bishop of Bristol (it was the last time an English bishop acted in a civil and diplomatic capacity), the emperor by Count Sinzendorf. The decisive negotiation for peace was, however, carried on secretly and separately between London and Versailles, and whilst the Congress was occupied with formalities, Bolingbroke came to an agreement with France, which broke up the alliance and compelled the other powers to terminate the war. The other Congresses of the 18th century are those of Soissons in 1727, remarkable for the fact that Cardinal Fleury, then prime minister of Louis XV., attended it in person, and of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, which terminated a general war. By each of these Congresses the treaties of Westphalia, Nimeguen, Ryswick, and Utrecht were renewed and confirmed; so that their labors formed a continuous series and identical body of international legislation. No Congress was held at the termination either of the Seven Years' War in 1763 or of the American war in 1783, but the style of a Congress was assumed by the German plenipotentiaries who met at Teschen in 1779 to end the war of the Bavarian succession. It hardly deserved the name.

The French Revolution and the wars of the Empire swept away the entire political fabric of continental Europe and the treaties on which it was based. No attempt was made during that period to convoke a Congress for the purpose of a general pacification and territorial settlement; for the Congress of Rastadt, which met in December, 1797, and sat till April, 1799, was designed mainly to re-establish amicable relations between France and the German empire, and was not attended by the representatives of England, Russia, or Spain. These negotiations proved abortive; war was renewed; the Congress was broken up; and the ministers of the French DirectoryBonnier and Roberjot—were massacred by a party of Aus

trian Szeklers as they quitted the town. The Austrian Government never entirely cleared itself of complicity in this crime against the rights and usages of nations; and the event aggravated the hostility existing between France and Germany.

Upon the fall of Napoleon, it was agreed by the 32d Article of the Peace of Paris, signed on the 30th May, 1814, between France and the allied powers, that "within two months all the powers which had been engaged in the war on either side should send plenipotentiaries to Vienna to settle, at a general Congress, the arrangements required to complete the provisions of the Treaty of Peace." The Congress of Vienna, which met, with some allowance for delays early in November of the same year, was by far the most splendid and important assembly ever convoked to discuss and determine the affairs of Europe. The emperor of Russia, the king of Prussia, the kings of Bavaria, Denmark, and Wurtemberg, were present in person in the Austrian capital at the court of the Emperor Francis. Prince Metternich presided over the Congress. Prince Talleyrand represented France. Great Britain sent the secretary of state for foreign affairs-Lord Castlereagh, besides the duke of Wellington, Lord Clancarty, and Lord Cathcart. Mr. Stratford Canning, now the sole survivor of that illustrious assembly, took part in the discussion of the affairs of Switzerland, where he was then minister. Prussia was represented by Prince Hardenberg and Baron Humboldt. A hundred sovereigns and ministers were collected in Vienna, all animated by a general desire for peace and a lively sense of their own interests. Chevalier Gentz, who was named protocolist to the Congress, and who in fact drafted the treaties which were ultimately signed by all the powers, has left us a curious account of the secret proceedings of this prodigious assembly. Strange to say, the Congress itself, that is to say, the representatives of all these principalities and powers, never met in council; nor did any formal exchange of their respective credentials take place. The business was entirely transacted by committees of the five great powers-Austria, England, France, Prussia, and Russia; to whom, for certain purposes, the ministers of Spain, Sweden, and Portugal were added. Even with this arrangement the progress of the negotiations was extremely slow. For three months nothing was done. It was said, "Le Congrés danse, mais ne marche pas." Serious differences arose; the pretensions of Russia and Prussia, acting in concert, seemed even to threaten a renewal of war; and a secret treaty was concluded on the 3d December between England, France, and Austria, in view of that contingency. The return of Napoleon from Elba in March, 1815, roused the Congress from its lethargy and terminated its disputes, by the necessity for common action; and at length the great treaties of Vienna were signed on the 7th June, 1815-eleven days before the battle of Waterloo-by the plenipotentiaries of the eight powers. It is acknowledged by the draftsmen of these treaties that, after all, this work was somewhat hastily and imperfectly done. Yet upon the whole, that Congress succeeded in restoring peace to Europe, which was not seriously disturbed for forty years; and it laid the foundation of a system of public law, which was long held sacred, as the common basis of the rights of every member of the European family. At the present time, after the changes which have taken place in Poland, in Italy, in Germany, in Denmark, and in France, it can hardly be said that any fragments of the work of the Congress of Vienna retain their authority, or that any similar general compact has taken its place.

The intimate relations which had sprung up during the war gave rise to a mystical union of the northern sovereigns, projected and prepared by the emperor of Russia, under the name of the Holy Alliance; and the intention of the authors of that agreement was that the powers should meet and act together in the event of fresh disturbances occurring in Europe. The practical result of this policy was seen in 1823 when another Congress met at Verona, not for the purpose of restoring peace, but in order to crush the signs of freedom and independence then beginning to display themselves in Europe. In Spain the nation demanded a constitution-she was invaded by France; in Naples a popular movement took place Naples was occupied by Austrian troops, and the king fled to Laybach; in Germany, the people were irritated by the breach of all the liberal promises made during the

war. The Congress of Verona was the source and centre of the most violent reactionary policy; and although the duke of Wellington attended it on behalf of England, it was chiefly to protest against its system of despotic intervention in the affairs of other states. M. de Chateaubriand has left an account of this, the darkest hour of the politics of Europe, in which he took an active and inglorious part. On this occasion, however, England renewed her protest against the slave trade, and obtained a declaration of the Powers condemning it.

The last Congress held in Europe was that of 1856, which met in Paris to terminate the Crimean war. Austria and Prussia, though not actual belligerents, were admitted to take part in the deliberations and general acts of the Congress, and for the first time in history the ambassadors of the Ottoman Porte appeared at a European Congress, and were formally received into the concert of the great powers. Count Walewski presided over this Congress, as minister of foreign affairs of France; Lord Clarendon, British secretary of state, and Lord Cowley were the representatives of England. In this Congress it was remarkable that France, eager for peace and anxious to court the good-will of Russia, sided with her recent adversary, and that the concessions obtained by the victorious allies were due mainly to the firmness of the British plenipotentiaries. After the conclusion of the negotiations for peace, the question of the maritime rights of belligerents and neutrals was formally brought before the Congress, as a body representing all the great powers of Europe; and a declaration was signed, which has been discussed more fully in another place. (See DECLARATION OF PARIS.) But this is an important example of the authority which may be fitly assumed and exercised by a Congress, to determine controverted questions of public law by a species of declaratory enactment. In the autumn of 1863, the Emperor Napoleon formally proposed to the other great Powers that a Congress should assemble in Paris for the purpose of settling various questions, which appeared to threaten the future peace of Europe. To this proposal the Continental States assented; but England gave a positive refusal, on the ground, stated by Lord Russell, that such measures of prospective legislation were more likely to embroil the several Powers than to establish peace. The project was therefore abandoned; but the wars which ensued in Denmark, in Austria, and in France, within the next seven years, justified the views taken by Napoleon III. as to the dangers that threatened the peace of the world.

The most convenient summary of the Acts of the various Congresses which have been held from 1645 to 1815 is to be found in Koch Schöle's Histoire Abrégée des Traités de Paix. The Acts of the Congress of Vienna were published at great length by Kluber in his Geschichte des Wiener Congresses. The proceedings of the Congresses and Conferences in which Great Britain has taken part have invariably been laid before Par(H. R.)

liament.

CONGREVE, WILLIAM (1670-1729), the greatest English master of pure comedy, was born, according to the latest and likeliest accounts, in 1670, according to the inscription on his monument, in 1672; and whether in England or in Ireland, at Bardsey near Leeds or at some place unknown beyond St. George's Channel, has likewise been matter of doubt and dispute; but we may presumably accept the authority of Lord Macaulay, who decides against Dr. Johnson in favor of the later date, and dismisses without notice the tradition of an Irish birthplace. To Ireland, at all events, is due the credit of his education, as a schoolboy at Kilkenny, as an undergraduate at Dublin. From college he came to London, and was entered as a student of law at the Middle Temple. The first fruits of his studies appeared under the boyish pseudonym of "Cleophil," in the form of a novel, whose existence is now remembered only through the unabashed avowal of so austere a moralist as Dr. Johnson, that he "would rather praise it than read it." In 1693 Congreve's real career began, and early enough by the latest computation, with the brilliant appearance and instant success of his first comedy, The Old Bachelor, under the generous auspices of Dryden, then as ever a living and immortal witness to the falsehood of the vulgar charge which taxes the greater among poets with jealousy or envy, the natural badge and brand of the smallest that would claim a place among their kind. The discrowned laureate had never, he said, seen such a first play; and indeed the