Last updated: Nov 8, 2015

 

 

 

The Last Years of the Ancient Empire

 

 

The French Revolution

 

            The French Revolution began in 1789. The abolition of the seigneurial rights of the nobility by National Constituent Assembly affected the Imperial immediate noble families who possessed lands in Alsace (e.g., the Duke of Württemberg possessed Harbourg, the Count-Palatine of Zweibrücken – Rappoltstein, the Landgrave Hesse-Darmstadt – Lichtenberg, etc.) [7: p.94-95]. The nationalization of Church property dispossessed some ecclesiastical Imperial Estates.

            " ... Early offers of compensation made to individual German nobles were never honoured, and in December 1792 the National Assembly declared all such agreements invalid. " [6: volume II; p.566].

 

"... Two problems were making some confrontation between France and the Reich increasingly likely: first, the confiscation of German property in Alsace, and second, the activities of the French émigrés in Germany. The confiscation by the French of the property and jurisdictions of German rulers in Alsace created pressure from the German side. After all, the Treaty of Münster in 1648 had guaranteed the ownership of these properties in perpetuity, as did the religious clauses of the Treaty of Osnabrück." [6: volume II; p.565].

            In 1792, tensions between the revolutionary France and European monarchical powers led to the War of the First Coalition. "By September 1793, reforms in the French military system were beginning to become effective. A successful offensive against a British force at Hondeschoote on the Belgian coast on 8 September initiated another run of French successes. The same pattern was repeated in 1794. The Austrians and Prussians achieved early victories on the Belgian frontier and on the Middle Rhine, but then systematic French counter-offensives followed. By the end of 1794, the left bank of the Rhine was firmly in French hands." [6: volume II; p.573-574].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Territorial Changes

 

            "The Empire suffered substantial losses as a result of its defeat in the French Revolutionary Wars" [2: p.24]. France annexed possessions of the Imperial immediate rulers located on the left bank of the Rhine [4: p.71-75].  Several High Noble families lost all of their Imperial immediate territories and the status of territorial rulers (Appendix 1).

 

            In February 1801, the Treaty of Lunéville recognized territorial losses of the Holy Roman Empire and promised to compensate the secular rulers with new possessions. The Imperial Assembly / Diet (Reichstag) created a special Imperial deputation to distribute the compensation.

 

            "The compensation for those losses could only be achieved if all the ecclesiastical territories were seized, a principle which had been surreptitiously initiated after the Peace of Westphalia and openly advocated and accepted at the Congress of Rastadt. In order to bring about this painful operation, a delegation of four Catholics and four Protestants was named by the Emperor on November 7, 1801. But the situation had become so confused and the Empire had grown so weak that the decisive negotiations were carried out, not in Regensburg, but in Paris. Napoleon had concluded a secret treaty with Russia on October 10, 1801, according to which France and Russia together should redistribute the Imperial territories. Paris was, therefore, flooded with envoys of the dispossessed Princes, all trying hard to ingratiate themselves with the omnipotent French dictator. Several secret conventions were signed even before the Delegates of the Empire had gone into action. France and Russia, finally agreed on the general plan of compensation on June 3, 1802; it was submitted to the Delegation of the Empire on August 18, 1802. This delegation, made up of the plenipotentiaries of Mainz, Bohemia, Saxony, Bavaria, Württemberg, Hesse-Cassel and the Teutonic Order, approved it on September 8. Several objections were, however, raised from various sides, the most important being the objection of the Emperor, himself, who was dissatisfied with the solution proposed for the Grand Duke of Tuscany. This obstacle, however, was removed after Napoleon and Francis II had found an amicable solution in the convention of December 26, 1802. Finally, after several minor changes, a decision was reached by the Delegates of the Empire, on February 25, 1803. The famous document, which was published and became the basis for the reorganization of the Empire, is known as Reichsdeputationshauptschluss. The Diet ratified that decision on March 24, and the Emperor on April 27, 1803, except Para.32 which dealt with the redistribution of the votes in the Imperial Diet. The Emperor objected to this provision because it increased the single votes in the Diet, bringing them to 131 in the Council of Secular Princes. The Protestant votes would have greatly outnumbered the Catholic." [1: p.57-59].

 

            In February 1803, by the provision of the Final Recess of the Imperial Deputation the  rulers were compensated with secularized ecclesiastical territories [5: Abtheilung II; Band I; p.256-355] [4: p.75-77] . Another source of the compensation was territories of the Imperial free cities [4: p.77-78]. Of the 48 free cities that still existed, only six preserved their Imperial immediate status: Lübeck, Hamburg, Bremen, Nuremberg, Augsburg, Frankfurt. Of ecclesiastical territorial rulers only three, Karl-Theodor of Dalberg, Elector and Archbishop of Mainz (Note 1), the Grand Prior of Malta St John Knights, and the High-Master of the Teutonic Order, preserved their position.

 

            The secular rulers, whose former lands provided the representation in the Imperial Assembly and Assemblies of the Imperial Circles, were compensated with new Imperial immediate territories (Note 2). For other territorial losses, noble families received monetary compensation (Note 3).

            The new Imperial immediate territories were to provide their owners with the same position in the Imperial institutions. All High Noble Houses, who lost all of their Imperial immediate territories on the left bank of the Rhine, restored their status of territorial rulers.

            "… The transfer of territories and secularization of Church property represented a major opportunity and challenge for the secular territories entitled to receive compensation. Most moved swiftly to take possession of their new property. Many sent in their troops and commissioners in the early months of 1802, almost a year before the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss was formally promulgated. Speed and thoroughness were of the essence. No one knew whether the political situation would change; being in possession would guarantee bargaining power at least, or permanent ownership at best " [6: volume II; p.624].

 

Notes:

1. a. Karl-Theodor of Dalberg exchanged Mainz for Regensburg, Wetzlar and Aschaffenburg, and retained his position of Imperial Arch-chancellor and Elector.

b. The Prince of Dietrichstein exchanged his Lordship of Tarasp surrounded by the Swiss territories for Neu-Ravensberg in Swabia.

 

2. Several persons whose former lands did not provide the representation in the Imperial Assembly, received Imperial immediate territories.

a. Hercules (Ercole), the disposed Duke of Modena, received the former Austrian Imperial immediate lands of Breisgau and Ortenau. Hercules was the last representative of the ancient Italian House of Este. However, his son-in-law and heir was Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, a member of the Ancient Princely House of Lorraine [5: Abtheilung II; Band I; p.171,191].

Another disposed Italian ruler, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, who received secularized Imperial immediate territories (Salzburg, Eichstaedt, Berchtesgaden) was Emperor Franz II's brother, Ferdinand [5: Abtheilung II; Band I; p.191].

The Duke of Savoy, who formally retained an individual voice in the Council of Princes of the Imperial Assembly and used to have a vote in the Assembly of the Imperial Circle of the Upper Rhine, was not compensated [4: p.4, 19, 162-163].

 

b. Members of the House of Croÿ did possess some Imperial immediate territories in the past. However, the Duke of Croÿ, from the Solre branch, who received the Imperial immediate land of Dülmen, had neither Imperial immediate territories nor the status of the Imperial Estate [5: Abtheilung II; Band I; p.278-279].

 

c. The Duke of Looz-Corswarem had had neither Imperial immediate territories nor the status of the Imperial Estate by 1793. However, the Imperial Deputation took in account the allodial status of the Duke's former territory of Nyel and gave him the newly created Imperial immediate Principality of Rheina-Wolbeck with the representation in the Imperial Assembly [5: Abtheilung II; Band I; p.279].

 

3. Several comital families received monetary compensation for their territorial losses:

- the Count of Salm-Reifferscheidt had a voice in the College of the of Westphalian Counts of the Imperial Assembly for Dyck, a territory without representation in assemblies of Imperial Circles  [4: p.32];

- the Count of Limburg-Styrum as owner of Oberstein, a territory that was represented in neither Imperial Assembly nor assemblies of Imperial Circles [4: p.33];

- the Countess of Hillesheim and the Countess of Parkstein (the widow of Prince of Isenburg-Birstein) shared a voice of Reipoltskirchen in the Assembly of the Circle of the Upper Rhine [4: p.22];

- the Countess of Öttingen (the wife of the Count of Colloredo-Mansfeld) had a voice of Dachstuhl in the Assembly of the Circle of the Upper Rhine [4: p.67];

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Composition of the Imperial Assembly

 

            The Final Recess of the Imperial Deputation changed the composition of the Councils of the Imperial Assembly / Diet. The voices of the annexed free cities were removed from the Council of the Imperial Cities (Reichsstädte) of the Imperial Assembly. In the Council of Electors Karl-Theodor of Dalberg, Archbishop, who exchanged Mainz for Regensburg, remained a sole ecclesiastical Prince-Elector. Other two ecclesiastical Electoral voices, ones of the Archbishops of Trier and Cologne, disappeared from the Council. Bohemia, Saxony, Brandenburg, Bavaria and Brunswick-Hanover retained their positions. The Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, the Margrave of Baden, the Duke of Württemberg and the Duke of Salzburg (Note 1) joined the Council of Electors [5: Abtheilung II; Band I; p.356-357]. 

 

            The Final Recess of the Imperial Deputation changed the list of individual voices (Virilstimmen) in the Council of Princes [5: Abtheilung II; Band I; p.358-362] [3: tome I; p.323-324]. The Final Recess removed the voices of the territories annexed by France (Note 2), and gave the voices of the secularized ecclesiastical territories passed to their new owners. The Duke of Savoy had no representation in the Imperial Assembly anymore. Several persons, who were never represented in the Imperial Assembly in the past, received individual voices in the Council of Princes (Note 3). Some Ancient Princely Houses received new individual voices for their old territories (Note 4). Some of the New Princely Houses received additional voices (Note 5). The Final Recess of the Imperial Deputation created 15 individual voices for persons who had the title of Imperial Prince and used to vote in the Colleges of Imperial Counts (Reichsgrafenkollegium) of the Imperial Council (Note 6). "Although … the composition of the new Diet cannot, in view of the refusal of the Emperor to ratify that provision, be considered to have become a law, a tentative list of seats was drafted and whatever little business was carried on by the Diet since 1803 was done on the basis of that list." [1: p.59].

 

Notes:

1. The former Grand Duke of Tuscany, who became Duke of Salzburg and a member of the Council of Electors in 1803, exchanged Salzburg for Würzburg in 1805.

 

2. The individual voices of the territories annexed by France were excluded in 1803: Burgundy, Savoy, Mömpelgard (Montbeliard), Palatinate-Zweibrücken, Palatinate-Lautern, Palatinate-Veldenz, etc.

 

4. a. The Final Recess gave individual voices in the Council of Princes to some persons, who were never represented in the Imperial Assembly in the past:

- the former Duke of Modena received two voices (for Breisgau and Ortenau);

- the former Grand Duke of Tuscany received two voices (for Eichstaedt and Berchtesgaden);

- the Duke of Looz-Corswarem received one individual voice (for Rheina-Wolbeck).

 

4. The Final Recess gave new individual voices to some Ancient Princely Houses for their old territories:

- Bavaria for Sulzbach, the Lower Bavaria, and Berg;

- Austria for Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Tyrol;

- Brunswick-Hanover for Göttingen;

- Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel for Blankenburg;

- Electoral Saxony for Meissen (the Margraviate), Meissen (the Burgraviate), Thuringia and Querfurt;

- Holstein for Plön;

- Hesse-Kassel for Hanau;

- Württemberg for Tübingen and Teck;

 

5. The Final Recess gave new additional individual voices to some New Princely Houses.

- the Prince of Salm-Kyrburg, which had shared an individual voice with the Prince of Salm-Salm, received his own individual voice.

- the Prince of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen received a separate individual voice.

- the Prince of Fürstenberg, the Prince of Schwarzenberg, and the Prince of Thurn-Taxis received the second voice.

 

6. The Final Recess created individual voices for persons who had the title of Imperial Prince and used to vote in the Colleges of Imperial Counts:

- Nassau-Usingen,

- Nassau-Weilburg,

- Waldeck,

- Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg (former Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rochefort),

- Öttingen-Spielberg ,

- Öttingen-Wallerstein,

- Solms-Braunfels,

- Hohenlohe-Neuenstein,

- Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst,

- Hohenlohe-Bartenstein,

- Isenburg-Birnstein,

- Kaunitz-Rietberg,

- Reuss-Greiz,

- Leiningen-Hartenburg,

- Ligne.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Title of Emperor Franz

 

            In 1803-1804, most German territorial rulers, whose possessions were affected by the Final Recess of the Imperial Deputation, changed their titles. In August 1804, Emperor Franz II also assumed a new version of his title. Besides additions and removals that reflected territorial changes occurred since 1794, this version included "Hereditary Emperor of Austria". The innovation was a response to concerns about the future of the Ancient Empire and the new Imperial title given to Napoleon Bonaparte by the French Senate in May 1804. As a head of the Holy Roman Empire Franz had been an elected emperor, and this change was needed to avoid any claim of precedence by the hereditary emperors of Russia and France (Note 1). Franz’s patent, which introduced the new version, did not create a new empire; it made no changes in the structure of the Austrian possessions, and the relations of Bohemia, Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Tyrol, and other hereditary lands to the Holy Roman Empire remained unchanged (Note 2). Franz’s new title also included references to several territories the House of Austria acquired after the Final Recess. "... The Habsburgs tried to create a consolidated territory out of a fragmented scatter of lordships by purchasing additional properties from various Imperial Counts and by land exchanges. In April 1803, for example, they acquired Lindau from the Prince of Bretzenheim in exchange for the northern Hungarian lordships of Sárospatak and Regéc; the Count of Königsegg-Rothenfels also agreed to exchange his German lands for the Hungarian lordships ..." [6: volume II; p.625]. In July 1804, the Austrian government acquired the Imperial immediate territories of Blumenegg and Hofen in Vorarlberg from the House of Nassau-Orange [10: tome II (1856); p.93; Doc.# 137].

 

Notes:

1. "To establish, in a durable manner, this perfect equality of rank, we have determined, and think ourselves authorized, after the example which has been given us in the preceding century by the Imperial Court of Russia, and that which is now given to us by the new Sovereign of France, to confer also on the House of Austria" [11: volume 46 (1804); p.234].

2. "As all our kingdoms and other possessions must retain, without restriction, their present denominations and relations, this is understood in particular of our kingdom of Hungary, and of the countries which are united to it, and also of such of our hereditary states as have hitherto been in immediate relation with the Germanic Empire, which ought in future to preserve the same relations with it, agreeably to the privileges granted to our House by the Emperors our predecessors" [11: volume 46 (1804); p.234].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Political Activities of the Lesser Imperial Estates

 

            "Although the reorganization of the Empire in 1803 had benefited a number of Princes … a general feeling of uneasiness continued to prevail among them and particularly among the younger houses, which were aware that their position was more than insecure. What had happened to the ecclesiastical territories could easily happen to their own. They knew that Napoleon’s benevolence was only a matter of temporary expediency, and that the old Princely Houses, especially those whose territories had already reached a considerable size, were waiting for an opportunity to absorb the smaller ones among themselves. The Count of Solms-Laubach, member of the Council of Counts of the Wetterau, realizing, better than anyone else does, the impending danger to the lesser States, believed that they should unite to safeguard and protect their interests. He rightly held that it was most important to have a permanent ambassador in Paris, where the fate of Europe would be decided. He, therefore, began negotiations with one of the officials of the Prince of Loewenstein-Wertheim and with the Prince of Isenburg’s Counsellor, von Goldener. Others were brought in, and on August 28, 1803, a union was established among several of the smaller States, which came to be known as the Union of Frankfort. The act of union was signed by, altogether, 28 Princes and Counts of the Wetterau and of the surrounding areas, the Prince of Wied being the only one who remained outside. The Union of Frankfort elected as president, Prince Charles of Isenburg, a man who proved to be particularly agreeable to Napoleon. The spiritual rector of the union was and remained the Count of Solms-Laubach. Their main aim was reached when Napoleon permitted them to have an ambassador in Paris. The example of the States of the Wetterau was imitated, a few months later, when the Princes of Öttingen, Fürstenberg and Hohenzollern formed a similar union of the States of Suabia." [1: p.79-81].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attacks on Imperial Knights

 

            "How well founded the fears of the States of Suabia and the Wetterau were, was quickly demonstrated when some of the larger States began to mediatize the Knights of the Empire. These Knights … were the weakest group among the feudal lords. … Since the 17th century, they had become more and more independent and had formed organizations of their own, trying to expand their rights ..." [1: p.82]. "From 1802, Bavaria, Württemberg, and Kassel tried to take over the territories of the Imperial Knights, in contravention of the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss, which

expressly guaranteed their continuing independence. Just like the monasteries, the Knights were the target of deliberate military operations, though the fragmented

territorial boundaries in some areas led to considerable confusion. At the end of 1803, Freiherr von Massenbach in the Kraichgau found his estates invaded by the forces of no fewer than four neighbouring rulers (Leiningen, Baden, Hessen-Darmstadt, and Bavaria), each of whom claimed overlordship" [6: volume II; p.626]. "The Elector of Bavaria … invited the 400 immediate nobles of Franconia, particularly those of the former Bishoprics of Bamberg and Würzburg which he had just incorporated into his realm, to recognize his sovereignty. But only 20 ceded to the pressure. Thereupon Bavarian officials seized their estates, houses, furniture and everything which they could hold of. The legal basis for this action was a decree of the Elector dated October 9, 1803. Other States like, Hesse-Kassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Nassau-Orange, Württemberg, Leiningen, Isenburg, Hohenlohe and Saxe-Meiningen, followed suit. Even such houses as von der Leyen and Salm-Reifferscheidt … participated in the action. This feverish occupation of the possessions of the Knights of the Empire … led to numerous quarrels among the occupants themselves." [1: p.82-83].

"A storm of protest and a flurry of appeals to the Reichshofrat led Francis II to

intervene ... " [6: volume II; p.626]. "A Conservatorium of the Imperial Aulic Council (Reichshofrat), dated January 1, 1804, ordered to restore the rights of the Knights, as they had existed on December 1, 1802. This was the last attempt of the Emperor to exercise his influence." [1: p.83].  "Here too, Vienna’s policy was ambivalent. Austria herself had considered taking over the territories of Imperial Knights in her attempts to build up a coherent Swabian territory .... Saving the Knights in January 1804 seemed to show the emperor standing up for the imperial constitution again, as well as supporting a group of imperial clients who had contributed 5.7 million gulden to Austria’s war costs. On the other hand, it also served two purposes that were less honourable. First, it was a useful opportunity to block the consolidation of Bavaria and Württemberg. Second, Francis’s ministers calculated that it was only a matter of time before the Knights lost their independence anyway and that if the emperor moved now to evict those who had occupied seven-eighths of the Knights’ Swabian lands, Austria might ultimately gain more land from a final distribution." [6: volume II; p.626]. "... Bavaria and Württemberg, against whom the Conservatorium was particularly directed, made more or less common cause with France against the Emperor... France and Russia interfered in the Diet when the Emperor insisted on the execution of the Conservatorium, and the affair dragged on until 1805. On March 3, of this year, the Imperial Aulic Council issued an Exitatorium which led to a resolution of the Imperial Diet, on June 1, 1805, admonishing the Imperial States to carry out the Conservatorium  of 1804. Now France put an abrupt end to the quarrel: Talleyrand addressed a note to the Diet claiming that the Knights had been restored to their former possessions and that the Emperor Napoleon wished to have this case dropped" [1: p.85; 8: Band I; p.816-817].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Treaty of Pressburg

 

            The War of the Third Coalition against France in 1805 led to the defeat of Austria. In December 1805, the Treaty of Pressburg rewarded German allies of Napoleon I with new territories and titles. Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, the heir to the House of Modena-Este (see above) was dispossessed, and his lands, Breisgau and Ortenau, were gived to Baden. Emperor Franz II lost his lands in Southwest Germany (Note 1). "Most importantly, Bavaria and Württemberg were declared sovereign kingdoms. Furthermore, France would henceforth guarantee that the rulers of Bavaria, Württemberg, and Baden would enjoy the same ‘plénitude de la souveraineté et de tous les droits qui en dérivent’ as the emperor and the King of Prussia did over their lands in the Reich ... " [6: volume II; p.634]. However, the new kingdoms would continue to belong to the Holy Roman Empire. The King of Prussia "had no option but to sign the Treaty of Schönbrunn on 15 December. Against the offer of Hanover, Prussia was obliged to cede Ansbach to Bavaria and Neuchâtel to France. Napoleon also took the Duchy of Kleve from Prussia, as well as the Duchy of Berg from the Palatinate-Bavaria (in exchange for Ansbach)" [6: volume II; p.635] (Note 2).

            After the Peace of Pressburg, the Holy Roman Empire continued to exist. " ... Most of the Imperial Counts and Imperial Knights, key elements of the traditional feudal hierarchical structure of the Reich, remained in place, as did the Teutonic Order. The Reichskammergericht continued to function, though the Reichstag was paralysed by the lack of agreement over the question of the votes of the princes. Francis II remained as Holy Roman Emperor, though the extent of his authority was unclear. The major problem of the Peace of Pressburg for the Reich was the lack of clarity over the meaning of the term ‘plénitude de la souveraineté’. How did it relate to the German term ‘Landeshoheit’, which meant powers limited by the laws of the Reich? As far as Napoleon was concerned, this was deliberate." [6: volume II; p.636]. "... Württemberg and Bavarian representatives at Wetzlar still advised their governments that they remained in some respects subject to the jurisdiction of the Reichskammergericht. At the Reichstag, the Austrian envoy, Egid von Fahnenberg, never tired of pointing out that the new sovereigns were still members of the Reich, and hence subject to the authority of the emperor. The Reichskammergericht judge, Heinrich Aloys von Reigersberg, expressed a common view when he wrote in an anonymous pamphlet that Germany’s constitution was and ‘remains, for as long as the state is not wholly overturned, monarchical’. The Peace of Pressburg merely used the word ‘souveraineté’, he explained, because the French did not have a word for ‘Landeshoheit’." [6: volume II; p.637].

 

Notes:

1. The Emperor Franz lost Hohenberg, Nellenburg, Burgau,Tyrol, Hohenems, Lindau, Rothenfels, etc.

2. Hanover, a possession of the King of Great Britain in his quality of the Elector-Duke of Brunswick-Hanover, had been occupied by the French since 1803.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Duchies of Berg and Kleve

 

            In January 1806, Emperor Napoleon I of France acquired the Imperial immediate duchies Kleve and Berg for Joachim Murat, his brother-in-law. "In March 1806 Napoleon installed a French marshal, Murat, as duke of Cleves and Berg, territories that had belonged until Pressburg to Prussia and Bavaria respectively. While the Emperor deliberately left it vague whether his marshal was to have the status of an imperial prince (Reichsfürst), Murat publicly declared that he acknowledged no master other than Napoleon" [2: p.12]. Napoleon "informed Talleyrand that he had not yet decided what relationship the Duchy of Kleve ... that he had just granted to Murat would have to the Reich. He needed time to resolve whether Berg would be a fief of the Reich or part of his own empire." [6: volume II; p.636].

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Confederation of the Rhine and End of the Empire

 

            In July 1806, several rulers of South and West Germany (including Joachim Murat), encouraged by Napoleon, left the Holy Roman Empire. "By the Act of the Confederation of the Rhine signed at Paris, July 12th 1806, Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, and several other states, sixteen in all, withdrew from the body and repudiated the laws of the Empire ..." [9: p.153]. The sixteen rulers of the Confederation of the Rhine acquired the unlimited sovereignty. These rulers mediatized, i.e. submitted to their Territorial Supremacy (Landeshoheit), all neighboring Imperial immediate territories [3: tome I; p.326-329].  This event was the beginning of the end for the Holy Roman Empire. ".. On August 1st the French envoy at Regensburg announced to the Diet that his master, who had consented to become Protector of the Confederate princes, no longer recognized the existence of the Empire. Francis II … by a declaration, dated August 6th, 1806, resigned the imperial dignity. His deed states that finding it impossible, in the altered state of things, to fulfil the obligations imposed by his “capitulation,” he considers as dissolved the bonds which attached him to the Germanic body, releases from their allegiance the states who formed it..." [9: p.153]. After Emperor Franz II laid down the crown of the Holy Roman Empire, all former Imperial immediate territories, which were not mediatized by the Act of Confederation, became completely independent.

 

 

 

Appendix 1.

 

1. The list of secular rulers who had the right to vote in both the Imperial Assembly and in Assemblies of the Imperial Circles, and who lost all of their Imperial immediate territories as a result of the French invasion in the Imperial lands on the left bank of the Rhine:

- the Duke of Arenberg;

- the Count of Aspremont-Lynden (Reckheim);

- the Prince of Bretzenheim;

- the Prince of Leiningen-Hartenburg;

- the Count of Leiningen-Güntersblum;

- the Count of Leiningen-Heidesheim;

- the Prince of Ligne (Fagnolles);

- the Countess of Manderscheid the widow of the Count of Sternberg (Blankenheim and Gerolstein);

- the Countess of The Mark-Lumman, the widow of Duke of Arenberg (Schleiden and Saffenburg);

- the Count of Metternich (Winneburg and Beilstein);

- the Count of Ostein (Mylendonk);

- the Count of Plettenberg (Wittem and Eyss);

- the Count of Quadt (Wykradt);

- the Count of Salm-Grumbach;

- the Prince of Salm-Kyrburg;

- the Count of Schäsberg (Kerpen and Lommersum);

- the Count of Sinzendorf (Winterrieden);

- the Count of Törring-Jettenbach (Gronsfeld);

- the Count of Waldbott of Bassenheim (Ollbrück);

- the Count of Wallmoden (Neustadt and Gimborn);

- the Count of Wartenberg.

 

2. The Count of Salm-Reifferscheidt-Bedbur lost his only Imperial immediate territory of Reifferscheidt, and the Count of Salm-Reifferscheidt-Dyck lost his only Imperial immediate territory of Dyck. The House of Salm-Reifferscheidt had the right to vote in the Westphalian College of the Imperial Assembly.

 

3. The Countess of Hillesheim and the Countess of Parkstein (the wife of Prince of Isenburg-Birstein), who did not vote in the Imperial Assembly, lost Reipoltskirchen, the Imperial immediate territory that gave the right to vote in the Assembly of the Circle of the Upper Rhine for Reipoltskirchen [4: p.22, 83].

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

1. Arenberg, Jean Engelbert d’. The Lesser Princes of the Holy Roman Empire in the Napoleonic Era. Columbia University Dissertation (Washington, DC :  Georgetown University, 1950).

2. Forrest, Alan; Peter H. Wilson. The Bee and the Eagle. Napoleonic France and the End of the Holy Roman Empire, 1806 (Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) [War, Culture and Society, 1750–1850].

3. Himly, Auguste. Histoire de la formation territoriale des etats de l'Europe centrale (Paris : Hachette, 1876).

4. Lancizolle, Carl Wilhelm von. Uebersicht der deutschen Reichsstandschafts- und Territorial-Verhältnisse : vor dem französischen Revolutionskriege, der seitdem eingetretenen Veränderungen und der gegenwärtigen Bestandtheile des deutschen Bundes und der Bundesstaaten (Berlin : Dümmler, 1830).

5. Berghaus, Heinrich. Deutschland seit hundert Jahren. Geschichte der Gebiets-Eintheilung und der politischen Verfassung des Vaterlandes (Leipzig : 1859-1862) < I.Abt. Bd. 1-2: Deutschland vor hundert Jahren 1859/1860. 2. Abt. Bd. 1-3: Deutschland vor fünfzig Jahren, 1861/1862 >.

6. Whaley, Joachim. Germany and the Holy Roman Empire (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2012) [Oxford History of Early Modern Europe].

7. Hölzle, Erwin. Der deutsche Südwesten am Ende des alten Reiches (Stuttgart : Württembergischen Statistischen Landesamt, 1938).

8. Bitterauf, Theodor. Geschichte des Rheinbundes (München : Beck, 1905-).

9. Bryce, James. The Holy Roman Empire (Oxford : T. & G. Shrimpton, 1864) [Arnold Prize Essay. 1863].

10. Neumann, Léopold. Recueil des traités et conventions conclus par l'Autriche avec les puissances étrangères, depuis 1763 jusqu'à nos jours (Leipzig : Brockhaus, 1855-).

11. European Magazine, and London Review (London : 1782-).