Mr. Kinglake's "History of the Invasion of the Crimea." The peace signed at Paris in 1856 was the triumphant result of the emperor's policy. Among the signataries of that treaty of peace was Count Cavour, the able and sagacious minister of the king of Sardinia, who then began to influence the mind of the French sovereign in favour of the emancipation of Italy, and its consolidation into one kingdom. Hopes for the permanence of the Bonaparte dynasty were strengthened by the birth of the prince imperial in March, 1856, a month after the meeting of the congress of Paris. ln February, 1858, the world was startled by a reckless attempt to assassinate the emperor, made by an Italian conspirator, Félice Orsini, who assisted by accomplices threw three explosive bombs at the carriage which was conveying the emperor and empress to the opera house. The man was taken, tried, condemned, and executed; but from his prison he wrote a letter to the emperor as to an old carbonaro, calling upon him to make Italy free. The urgent promptings of Cavour were not wanting to deepen the influence of these events on the emperor's mind. War with Austria was resolved on, and intimated brusquely by the emperor to the Austrian ambassador at the reception of the diplomatic corps on New-Year's day of 1859. Magenta and Solferino were new victories for France, and the peace of Villafranca was the beginning of the transformation of the kingdom of Sardinia into the kingdom of Italy.
Meanwhile, the emperor's home policy was both wise and bold. In 1860 he entered into a treaty of commerce with England, which practically established the principles of free trade in France. He embellished Paris and other towns with new streets and splendid buildings. Canals, roads, and railways were extended and improved in various parts of the country. Efforts were made for the better education of the people, especially in rural districts; while measures were set on foot to correct the evils of the excessive division of land into small holdings, and to ameliorate the condition of the agricultural labourer. On the breaking out of the Austro-Prussian war, the Emperor Napoleon on the 11th June, 1866, expressed a desire to avoid participation in that contest, and stated his opinion that Austria for an equitable consideration should cede Venetia to Italy. The astounding results of that war, the prostration of Austria, and the aggrandisement of Prussia, made his majesty feel less neutral. On the 8th August, in the same year, he demanded a rectification of the French frontier in accordance with the treaty of 1814, and the cession by Prussia of territory that included Sarrelouis and Landau. Prussia promptly refused, and the French demand was withdrawn. The emperor had, however, the gratification of receiving Venetia from Austria, and of handing over the territory to Italy, so that she "should be free from the Alps to the Adriatic," as he had seven years before promised she should be. Napoleon, though well informed of the thorough state of preparedness of the Germans, was willingly deceived by Bismarck's sincere reluctance to war, and yielded to the eagerness of his ignorant and selfish advisers to strike a blow for his dynasty. It was not love for France that urged him to this step, but love for his son, and an overweening confidence in his prestige and power. Both these, unhappily for him, were well nigh gone. The duc de Gramont made light of his master's instructions at the critical moment, and while Ollivier was proclaiming in the lobby that the Hohenzollern difficulty was settled and peace determined on, Gramont read to the legislative chamber a despatch he had sent to the king of Prussia, which required of that monarch a guarantee that no Hohenzollern should become a candidate for the throne of Spain. The next day he read to the same chamber a telegraphic despatch, describing the interview between King William and the French ambassador as an insult to France. M. Benedetti, the ambassador in question, has since declared that "there was at Ems neither insulter nor insulted." Thus was war kindled and announced on the 15th July, 1870. No sooner was the fatal step taken than Napoleon and his ministers saw the horrible danger they incurred. On the side of France nothing was ready, while the Prussians were prepared at every point. Not only Prussia, but all Germany north and south, rose to a man in defiance of the vaunt of the French army that they would soon be in Berlin. The history of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 belongs to the general history of Europe. The French army was overwhelmed with disasters. The emperor was bewildered, his ministers filled with dismay, the whole nation paralyzed by the feeling that they were betrayed. The triumphant Germans drove the emperor and his army into Sedan, where to avoid absolute destruction Napoleon surrendered at discretion. The news of this humiliating defeat no sooner reached Paris than the republicans in the legislative chamber declared the second empire to be at an end, and a provisional republican government was set up on the 4th September, 1870. While Napoleon was conveyed to the palace of Wilhelmshöhe in Cassel, the Empress Eugenie escaped from the Tuileries and reached England in safety. On the surrender of Paris and conclusion of peace between France and Germany. Napoleon quilted Wilhelmshöhe and joined the empress and his son at Chiselhurst, in Kent, where he lived like an English country gentleman. A painful internal complaint, under which he had laboured for some years, terminated his existence on the 9th January, 1873, and his remains were interred in the little Roman Catholic chapel in the village in which he died.
When the provisional government of France in 1848 issued orders for the arrest of Prince Louis Napoleon, in case he set foot on French territory, they gave the following description of his person, which may be not without interest for posterity:—Born in Paris, forty years old, one mètre sixty-six centimètres high (about five feet five inches), chestnut hair and eyebrows, forehead middling, eyes small and gray, nose large, ordinary mouth, brown beard, pointed chin, oval face, pale complexion. Particular marks: head sunk between the shoulders, shoulders large and round, thick lips, some of the hair gray.—R. H.
NAPOLEON, Prince. See Bonaparte.
NARBOROUGH, Sir John, an able English seaman and brave commander in Charles II.'s reign, when able seamen rarely held important commands. He was one of a singular line of distinguished admirals who rose from the ranks, having been the cabin-boy of Sir Christopher Mings, who had himself entered the service as a cabin-boy, while Sir Cloudesley Shovel began his career in a like humble post under Sir John Narborough. Narborough's first commission was as lieutenant in the Portland in 1664. He signalized himself in the desperate action fought against the Dutch in June, 1664, and after the peace was sent on a voyage of discovery to the South Seas. A narrative of his voyages and discoveries was published in 8vo, 1694. In the second Dutch war he held a command immediately under the duke of York, the lord high admiral; and in the despatches relating to "Solebay fight," 1672, he is mentioned with especial commendation for his courage and promptitude in bringing the flag-ship Prince into action a second time after being grievously disabled. He was knighted in 1673, and made rear-admiral. The following year he was appointed to command a fleet in the Mediterranean sent against the rovers of Tripoli, of whom he gave such good account that he was immediately after despatched on an expedition against the Algerines, whom he succeeded in checking, but did not effectually subdue, though he carried captive into Cadiz five frigates which the dey had equipped to obtain satisfaction from the English In 1679 Sir John withdrew from active service, and the following year became a commissioner of the navy. He died in 1688.—R. H.
NARES, Edward, a divine of the Church of England and miscellaneous writer, the nephew of James Nares the composer, and son of Sir George Nares, a judge of the court of common pleas, was born in London in 1762, and after passing through Westminster school, entered at Christ chinch, Oxford. In 1788 he became fellow of Merton, and in 1792 took orders, and was appointed to St. Peter's-in-the-East. He married a daughter of the duke of Marlborough in 1797, and was in 1798 presented to the living of Biddenham. In 1805 he was Bampton lecturer, and in 1814 professor of modern history at Oxford. His published writings are numerous. He died in 1841.—B. H. C.
NARES, James, Mus. Doc, organist, composer, and master of the children of the chapel royal to George II. and III. He was born in 1715, and educated in the king's chapel, but completed his studies under Dr. Pepusch. While yet a youth he was chosen organist of York cathedral. In 1756 he succeeded Dr. Greene as organist and composer to George II., and in 1757 was made doctor in music by the university of Cambridge. In the same year he was appointed to the office of master of the children. He died in the year 1783.—E. F. R.
NARES, Robert, son of James Nares the composer, was born at York in 1753; studied at Westminster and Christ church, Oxford. He was tutor to the sons and brother of Sir
