The constitution intended for his son could have been very beneficially applied to some of the nations represented at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle by the allied sovereigns who declared him an outlaw, and spent their time in allocating slices of other people’s territory to each other.  The only nation that came badly out of the Congress was Great Britain.

This terrible despot, who was beloved by the common people and hated by the oligarchy, left behind him a constitution that might well be adopted by the most democratic countries.

The first article—­composed of six words:  “The sovereignty dwells in the nation”—­stamps the purpose of it with real democracy.  It might do no harm to embody some of its clauses into our own constitution at the present time.  We very tardily adopted some of its laws long after his death, and we might go on copying to our advantage.  He was a real progressor, but his team was difficult to guide.  Had he been conciliated and allowed to remain at peace, he would have democratised the whole of Europe, but the fear of that, or the legitimacy idea, was undoubtedly the great underlying cause of much of the trouble.  The mistrust and animus against the father was reflected upon the son, who was practically a State prisoner.

During childhood the Prince was strong and healthy, and his robust physique caused favourable comment.  It was not until 1819 that his health became affected by an attack of spotted fever.  This passed away in a few weeks, but the decline of his health, which was attributed to his rapid growth, dates from that period.  He died prematurely on July 22, 1832, at Schoenbrunn, and the accounts which may be relied upon indicate either wilfully careless or incompetent medical treatment.  It is even asserted that this heir to the throne of France, ushered in twenty-one years before as the herald of Peace, was to be regarded as a source of infinite danger, and for that barbaric reason his health was allowed to be slowly and surely undermined until death took him from the restraining influences and crimeful policy of the Courts of Europe.  Great efforts have been made to convince a sceptical public that his early death was the result of youthful indiscretions, but this is stoutly denied by Prokesch, who declares that he was a strictly moral youth, and Baron Obenaus, in his diary, justifies this opinion, if there was nothing else to support it.  Moreover the same Anton, Count Prokesch was asked by Napoleon III. to tell him the truth as to the alleged love affairs, and he averred that the rumours were without foundation.

The King of Rome died at Schoenbrunn in the same room that his father had occupied in 1809.  In Paris a report was put about that he had been poisoned by the Court of Vienna.  This opinion has been handed down, and there are many persons to-day who have a firm belief in its possibility.