nnected it with the loss of Alsace and Lorraine. The tsar took
this line from the first, and Wellington won for it the adhesion first
of his own government and then of Austria. Prussia had finally to be
contented with a provision for the cession of the outlying districts,
which the treaty of Paris of 1814 had left to France. The second treaty
of Paris, which embodied this stipulation, also provided for an
indemnity of L40,000,000 to be paid by France to the allies, and for the
temporary occupation of Northern France by the allied armies. On the
same day Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia signed a treaty
pledging themselves to act together in case fresh revolution and
usurpation in France should endanger the repose of other states, and
providing for frequent meetings of congresses to preserve the peace of
Europe.

In addition to the formal treaties of alliance signed at Chaumont,
Vienna, and Paris, an attempt was made by the Tsar Alexander to bind
together the European sovereigns in an union based on the principles of
Christian brotherhood. A form of treaty was accordingly drawn up which
gave expression to these motives, dealt with all Christians as one
nation, and committed their sovereigns to mutual affection and
reciprocal service. This treaty of the holy alliance was signed on
September 26, by Austria, Prussia, and Russia. All European princes
except the sultan were invited to adhere to it, and all except the pope
and the sultan ultimately either accepted it or expressed their sympathy
with its principles. But in England there was hardly a statesman who
regarded the treaty seriously, Wellington avowed his distrust of it, the
prince regent declined to join it, and its effective value in promoting
the subsequent concert of the powers was less than nothing. Still,
however visionary and extravagantly worded, it remains as an unique
record embodying the deliberate adoption of the principle of
international brotherhood, and the sacrifice of separate national
interests for the sake of European peace.

[Pageheading: _NAPOLEON AT ST. HELENA._]

It is remarkable that so little public discussion took place on two
questions which have since been so hotly debated--the legal _status_ of
Napoleon after he surrendered himself, and the moral right of Great
Britain to banish him to St. Helena. One reason for this apparent
indifference to the fate of one who had overawed all Europe may be found
in the fact that parliament w