P R O F I L E S P O W E P.

LOUIS-PHILIPPEAND THE 1848REVOLUTIONSRobert Pearce ask why Louis-Philippe's 'July Monarchy'was overthrown.

Left: Louis XVIII, splendid in his coronationrobes. He was a firm believer in the divineright of kings.

What started out as a revo-lution, in 1789, became arevolutionary tradition in

France the following century, after fur-ther revolutions in 1830 and 1848. The1830 coup owed a good deal to factorsunder no one's control, including wide-spread economic grievances, but a gooddeal more to the actions of the restoredmonarchs, Louis XVIIl and, especially,Charles X. But that of 1848 occurreddespite the fact that the new monarch,Louis Philippe, had consciously drawnlessons from the failures of his prede-cessors. If they had been too reaction-ary, he in contrast was the 'Citizen King'.Why therefore was he overthrown? Towhat extent was Louis Philippe respon-sible for the 1848 revolution in France?

Louis XVIII

Louis XVIII was clearly in for a roughtime. The unparalleled upheavals of theprevious quarter century had spawnedopposition groups aplenty Further-more, Napoleon's 'Hundred Days', andthe consequent necessity for tbe Alliesto bring about a second restoration,made him seem the enemy's choiceas monarch; and the Second Treaty ofParis was much harsher than the First.The omens for a stable future wereinauspicious. A 'White Terror' against

18 DECEMBER 2011 HISTORY REVIEW

R o 1- I I I' S IN I 'd W F R

the supporters oF Napoleon, whichbroke out in southern France in 1815,was certainly not the only example oFviolent score-settling in these troubledtimes. Perhaps survival was itselF somesort oF success - and Louis XVIII didmanage to survive. He died in 1824with his head Firmly attached to hisbody, and the crown passed legitimatelyto his younger brother.

Economically, there were undoubtedsuccesses during Louis' reign. Gapableministers such as the king's FavouriteÉlie Decazes reFormed government'sFinances, and despite bad harvests in1816-17 the post-Waterloo war indem-nity was paid oFF in 1818 and Foreigntroops withdrew. France began a periodoF quiet but real prosperity. Neverthe-less Louis leFt Gharles X a diFFicultpolitical legacy.

* • Perhaps survivalwas itself some sort

of success - and LouisXVIII did manage

to survive

Louis accepted the Gharter oF 1814,which gave him substantial powers butdid regulate his rule, so that Francewas now a constitutional, though not aparliamentary, monarchy The key issuewas whether he could convince the payslégal (the 100,000 or so wealthy menwho elected the Ghamber oF Depu-ties) that he would make the Gharter aworking reality Many were immediatelysuspicious that he could not. AFter all, hebelieved in the divine right oF kings, courtceremonial resumed its time-honouredand elaborate course, and Louis insistedthat the white Bourbon flag shouldreplace the more popular Tricolour.

A major problem was the king'sinability to control the 'Ultra-royalists'.For them, the Gharter was a temporaryexpedient, parliamentary institutionsshould be abolished, and the land takenFrom Ghurch and aristocracy in the1790s should be restored to its rightlulowners. The king may have realised theimpracticality oF their programme, buthe lacked the will to quash all oF theirdemands. As a result, leading Figures

Above: 'Liberty Leading the People, July 28th, 1830': a highly romantic depiction of the 1830

Revolution by Delacroix. How far were the hopes of those who overthrew Charles X fulfilled?

who had deserted the Bourbons andrallied to Napoleon were punished.Many managed to escape, but others- like the popular Marshal Ney, whoFaced a Firing squad - became martyrs tothe Bonapartist cause. In addition, thou-sands oF civil servants and other oFFicialswere dismissed to make way For royalists.The situation became more extreme aFterthe assassination oF the king's nephew,the due de Berry, in 1820.

Amidst widespread public outrage,the Ultras - who included his ownbrother, the Gomte d'Artois, the Father oFthe murder victim - managed to convinceLouis that his moderation had onlyencouraged such revolutionary activity. Anew electoral law gave additional Depu-ties to the richest quarter oF the elec-torate, so that the Ultras dominated thenext Ghamber oF Deputies and the Ultraparliamentary leader, the Gomte deVillèle, became the king's chieF minister.Now internment was allowed, FrenchForces invaded Spain in support oF thedespotic Ferdinand VII, the Ghurch wasgiven Fresh powers over education, andplans were laid to compensate the tensoF thousands of émigrés whose lands hadbeen conFiscated. The years From 1821to 1824 may have been a period oF pros-perity, but the origins oF the 1830 revo-lution are clearly visible in the reign oFLouis XVIII.

Charles X i

Gharles X became king in 1824. At 67he was certainly past his best, but heseemed to have a charm and a vitalitythat his elder brother had signallylacked. Yet he promptly made a diFFicultsituation worse. Already the pays légalharboured deep suspicious oF the newking because oF his Ultra associations,and now Gharles emphasised ancienrégime sympathies by being crowned atRheims with all the pomp and ceremonyoF an absolute monarch. It was all tooeasy to believe that he was planning acounter-revolution.

Perhaps there was an over-reactionto a law passed in 1825 to compensatethe émigrés and their Families, but itwas an unwise measure nevertheless.Émigrés did not get their land back,and the amount oF money involved wasrelatively small, but it was understand-able that the pays légal did not judgethe measure on its merits. The moneywas to be raised by lowering interestpayments to bourgeois bond holders,so that many members oF the payslégal thought they were being robbedto pay worthless aristocrats. Similarly,they were highly suspicious aboutthe clerical policies oF the new king.Gharles's initiatives, which includedwelcoming the Jesuits back to France

HISTORY REVIEW DECEMBER 2011 19

R o F I L R s I N P Cl W K H

Above: Louis-Philippe comes to power; August 1830. Well-known bankers Lafayette andLafrtte were keen to see him as king.

and appointing a bishop as Minister ofEducation, were thought to presage areturn to the supreme position enjoyedby the Ghurch before the Revolution.

Nor was his policy towards the pressenlightened. The Gharter of 1814 hadguaranteed freedom of the press, thoughadding that laws might be passed tocheck the abuse of this freedom. Thepays légal interpreted this to mean thatnewspaper would be liable to legalaction if they printed illegal material.Yet until 1822 the Government generallyinsisted that no political news or opinionshould be published until vetted by thecensor; and after 1822, it attempted to

use restrictive regulations, specifyingwhat could and could not be printed. In1828 Gharles changed tack and virtuallyabandoned censorship, but the damagehad been done.

Matters came to a head in March1830. Elections at the end of 1827 hadleft Villèle with only minority support inthe Ghamber, but instead of acceptingmore liberal policies Gharles hadappointed his favourite and an extremeUltra, Prince Jules de Polignac, as chiefminister. What remained of moderatesupport for the king then joined the oppo-sition in a deadlocked Ghamber. HenceGharles now called fresh elections in the

hope of generating support for Polignac.He made every effort to influence thevoters ('May you all rally around thesame flag! It is your King who is askingyou to do this; it is your father who iscalling upon you'). But two oppositionDeputies were elected for every onegovernment supporter.

The elections of June 1830 repre-sented a defeat Gharles was not preparedto tolerate. If things carried on like this,he reasoned, he would sink to the lowlystatus of the king of England. Monarchywas under threat, and he would notrepeat the mistake of his brother, LouisXVI. He told his ministers that heremembered very clearly what had gonewrong in 1789: 'the first retreat madeby my hapless brother led to his down-fall'. Instead, he would act boldly usingroyal edict to restrict the franchise to therichest elements (about a quarter) of thepays légal, at the same time institutingpress censorship. To some contempo-raries and many historians, he was plan-ning what was in effect a coup détat,embodied in the four Ordinances of StGloudof25July 1830.

If Gharles had conducted the actionsefficiently, arresting potential leaders ofan uprising hefore the Ordinances werepublished and stationing his own troopsat key positions in Paris, he could havebeen successful, at least in the shortterm. As it was, barricades were erected28 and 29 July and the rioting wasstrong enough to convince Gharles thathe must abdicate. He fled to England on1 August.

The course of events does not fullyexplain why Gharles fell. He had badluck in that the difficult economic situ-ation from 1826, exacerbated by badharvests, created a revolutionary situa-tion. The price of bread had risen sharply,unemployment was high, and many Pari-sians were prepared to revolt. But it wasGharles's unwisdom that transformed apotential for violence into a true revolu-tion. He had been too reactionary andinflexible, too unaware of the need togenerate support. Gould his successoract more moderately and intelligentlyand provide political stability?

Louis-Philippe

The heady days of 1830 led some revolu-tionaries to call for a republic, but not sothe many bankers, traders and professional

20 DECEMBER 2011 HISTORY REVIEW

R Ü F I L E S IN P O VV E R

men who, while welcoming the overthrowof Charles X, were aghast at the prospect ofa revolution that did not respect the rightsof property and might be in the hands ofthe 'masses'. Placards appeared in Parispleading the cause of Louis-Philippe, dued'Orléans, as the next king, and he seemedthe obvious compromise candidate. Hisfather had supported the Revolution andeven the execution of the king in 1793.Louis-Philippe himself, though a teenagerin 1789, had enthusiastically championedthe revolutionary cause and fought withthe revolutionary armies in the battles ofValmy and Jemappes in 1792. He wastherefore acceptable to the more moderaterepublicans, and even more so to the right,since he was a direct descendant of LouisXIVs brother.

• * He even waiicedthe streets of Paris

virtuaiiy unattendedand carrying that

symboi of bourgeoisrespectability, a roiied

umbreiia

The new 56-year-old king was hard-working and energetic, good with people,serious-minded, and determined to makea success of his new role. Most impor-tant of all, he had no pretensions to abso-lutism. He did not claim to be king bydivine right, and indeed was proclaimednot roi de France, a title suggestingownership of the country, but roi desFrançais: in theory, he ruled because thepeople wanted him to and on terms theyhad agreed. Supporters compared him toWilliam III after the 'Glorious Revolu-tion' of 1688-9 in England. He restoredthe Tricolour, symbolising his repudia-tion of the ancien régime, and insistedthat he would be bound by the Charter.So far, so good.

Personally, he was unlike anyprevious king. He was the bourgeois,or Citizen, king. In sharp, and to someshocking, contrast to his predecessors,he scorned being waited on hand andfoot. He would get up unaided in themorning, shave himself and make hisown fire. Rather than being remote and

inaccessible, he talked to visitors quiteinformally. He even walked the streets ofParis virtually unattended and carryingthat symbol of bourgeois respectability,a rolled umbrella. His sons attended thelocal lycée. He also bucked the trend byhaving no mistresses or illegitimate chil-dren - much to the dismay of gossips.In fact, the main charge laid against himwas that the Court was now rather dulland that he personally — dressing withoutsplendour, overweight and with saggingjowls - was just too ordinary to be a king.To many critics, a 'Citizen King' was acontradiction in terms.

He was also, in sharp contrast toCharles X, a sincere reformer. Impor-tant changes were made, all designedto remove the grievances that had led torevolution in 1830. The Charter of 1814was revised, so that the Chamber couldnow initiate legislation, and gone was theking's power to suspend laws and ruleby decree. The franchise was extendedto cover those over the age of 25 whopaid 200 francs in taxation a year. Stillfewer than three per cent could vote, butat least it was an improvement, 94,000becoming 166,000. In addition, theminimum age for a Deputy was reducedfrom 40 to 30; more locally elected coun-cils were established; and units of theNational Guard could now elect theirown officers. Catholicism was no longerthe state religion but simply the religion

of the majority; the church could notnow control education; and the Jesuitswere expelled. There were also purgesof officials, many nobles being replacedby members of the bourgeoisie. Simi-larly, the censorship laws were changed,so that legal action could be taken onlyafter stories had been printed.

The overall effect of the reforms wasthat the nobility had lost their preemi-nence, power passing to the haute bour-geoisie, the upper-middle classes. The keyquestion is whether the reforms went farenough. The 1830 settlement certainlydid not satisfy everyone. Workers inParis were demanding guaranteed wagelevels and a fixed numher ol hours inthe working day, and several times barri-cades were erected in Paris and else-where in the early years of the decade.There were even attempts on the king'slife, so that societies of the extreme leftand right were hanned in the SeptemberLaws of 1835. Nevertheless it seemedto many that Louis-Philippe had made agood start to his regime. So what wentso badly wrong that another revolutionoccurred in 1848?

Origins of 1848

The political question had been addressedin 1830, but there could be no finalsolution', not in a period of rapid socio-economic change when newly wealthy

Above: In this lampoon of December 1831, Louis-Philippe - instantly recognisable from hispear-shaped head - takes basket-loads of money from the people, which is then excreted asrewards and honours to his fat supporters.

HISTORY REVIEW DECEMBER 2011 21

Above: A depiction of fighting at the Chateau d'Eau, 24 February 1848. Louis-Philippe fled to England, where he died in 1850.

men wanted a say in politics for the firsttime. What seemed perfectly acceptableto many in 1830 looked remarkably old-fashioned to most people in 1848.

After 1830 there were two maingroupings among politicians: the 'partyof movement', who wanted furtherchanges, and the party of resistance',who continued to believe that idealarrangements had already been reached- despite the fact the electoral systemtook no account of social and economicchanges, so that growing cities, includingParis itself, were more and more seriouslyunder-represented. Fatefully, the Kingsided with the 'party of resistance', andfor eight years, after 1840, he workedharmoniously with a chief minister,

What seemedperfectly acceptable

to many in 1830looked remarkably

old-fashioned to mostpeople in 1848 | y

François Guizot, who had the sameideas. The two men forged a cohesive,but ultimately calamitous, partnership.

By this time, things were looking upin France. The economy began to growand the standard of living to improve.The development of railways was a

particularly important engine of growthin the first half of the 1840s, and theproduction of pig iron and the extractionof coal forged ahead. Guizot said afterhis appointment: 'Let us not talk aboutour country having to conquer terri-tory ... If France is prosperous, if sheremains free, rich, peaceful and wise, weneed not complain.'

Support for the regime should havebeen high, but a time of prosperity is alsogenerally a time of aspiration. Guizot'sideas were out of touch with those of thereformers. He saw no reason to extend thefranchise - especially as he could use thegovernment's powers of patronage, and alittle bribery, to produce a majority in theassembly He was also increasingly out

22 UECEIMBEK 2011 HISTORY REVIEW

of touch with public opinion on foreignaffairs. No longer were Frenchmenprepared to stand aside from the restof Europe. After licking their woundsfollowing Napoleon's defeat, they wantedonce again to be the leading Power inEurope. Key elements of the publicwould have liked at least a small war withBritain. When trouble arose between thetwo countries in 1842 over Tahiti andCuizot apologised to the British and paidcompensation, a debate in the Chamberwas won only with the votes of the govern-ment's 'placemen'. Tiiis led to vociferousdemands for parliamentary reform andfor the stamping out of corruption in highplaces. Further criticisms arose in 1846over the government's policies towardsSpain and its timid reaction to Austriasannexation of Cracow.

To the mix of growing troubles shouldbe added the licence of the press. Louis-Philippe's reign saw the appearance ofsome of the most subversive newspapersthat had ever been allowed to exist. Thepress now had a much wider circulationthan before, and a number of talentedbut sadistic cartoonists lampooned thegovernment and monarch. An atmo-sphere was created in which it was diffi-cult to retain faith in the regime evenwhen it was doing well. Louis-Philippelater complained that he was the victimof the 'printed lie, a cowardly andtreacherous weapon ... which inflictswounds that never heal, because theyare poisoned.

Most important of all, prosperitydisappeared in 1846. There were fallsin share prices and an industrial slump.Food prices rose steeply and there wasless to spend on industrial goods. Avicious downward circle of decline wasformed. The government was blamed forcausing the trouble and also for failing tohelp the poor. This discontent boostedthe campaign for parliamentary reform,opposition groups organising banquetsfrom July 1847 to circumvent restrictionson public assemblies. Timely conces-sions were in order, but Cuizot stub-bornly refused reform. The governmentwas taken unawares on 22-24 February1848. Once more the barricades wentup in Paris, and now the National Guardrefused to act. Finally Louis-Philippesacked Cuizot, but it was too late. Civil-ians were killed in the confusion, and therevolt had become a revolution. Tbis king,like his predecessor, fled the country.

Conclusion

No form of politics and no ruler wouldhave had an easy ride in the period from1815 to 1848 - partly because of thedivisive events of tbe past and partlybecause of the rapid change France wasundergoing. No king could have pleasedall the people all the time, nor even all ofthe people some of the time.

Both Louis XVIII and Charles X werereactionary If they did not both attempt toreturn to the ancien régime (the good olddays from their point of view), they gave theimpression that they wanted to. The eventsof 1830 were, in many ways, a revolutionwaiting to happen at a time of economicdepression. Charles X might have kept histhrone if he had been far more flexible;but, as it turned out, he precipitated revo-lution by an attempted coup.

It is easy - in fact all too easy - tofeel sorry for Louis-Philippe. Here wasno would-be absolutist but a genuine'Citizen King', unfairly mocked by othermonarchs in Europe for his bourgeoislifestyle. Coming to the throne at 56, heseemed both intelligent and pragmatic.Yet in fact he was as set in his ways aseither of his predecessors. 'They were trueto their vision of the legitimate rights,duties and actions of a monarch, and hewas true to his. He genuinely believed inthe form of limited monarchy he estab-Iisbed around 1830: to him, this was the'juste milieu. Perhaps it was too muchto expect that as he got older - and hewas 75 in 1848 — he would become moreflexible and intellectually adventurous.He had no sympathy with the calls ofAdolphe Thiers and others that he shouldextend the vote significantly and himselfbecome a figurehead. As with CharlesX, Louis-Philippe's resistance to reformhelped produce revolution.

Both monarchs had the bad luck tobe on the throne at a time of economicdislocation. Problems were muchgreater in 1848 than 1830. so much sothat depression helped unleash revo-lutions in almost all of Europe's majorcities. Furthermore the oppositiongroups, bound by liberal or revolutionär)'socialist ideology, were more potent thanin Charles X's day Nevertheless Louis-Philippe must take the responsibility forbanging on to Cuizot, instead of grantingparliamentary reform; and he did so notbecause an evil minister was leading himastray but because he wanted to.

P R O F I L E S IN P O W E R

Louis-Philippe's monarchy was a sortof half-way house between the Frenchtradition of a strong executive monarchand the British parliamentary system,with the monarch as a figurehead. Britishmonarchs might have no real politicalpower by the middle of the nineteenthcentur\', hut when prime ministers werecriticised and forced from office, theywere unaffected. Charles X had cast scornon the weakness of his opposite number inUnited Kingdom: he said he would ratherchop wood than be a British monarch. Yethad Louis-Philippe been less like William111 and more like Victoria, he might wellhave retained his crown.

The "July Monarchy' was inadequateas a system of government in that itrevealed the flaws in the hereditaryprinciple much more clearly than didthe contemporary British system. WhenQueen Victoria refused to play her fullrole after the death of Prince Albert, it didnot much matter; and when she becameold and somewhat decrepit, a carefullyfostered aura of majesty prevented callsfor her abdication. Yet Louis-Philippe'srole did matter. He had real power andhe scorned other than a bourgeois image;but in 1848 French citizens saw quiteclearly that the 'People's King' was old,doddery, garrulous and out of touch. Hehad to go.

Issues to Debate• What were the key e\ents in France's

past that divided society in 1815?• How ably did Louis Wi l l , Charles X

and Louis-Philippe function ¡is kings?• Did the constitutional reforms of

1830 amount to much?• Might the king have prevented

revolution in 1848?

1 11 r i h c I" W (-• a cl i n ^

William Fortescue, France and 1848

(Routledge, 2005)

Andrew Matthews, Revolution and

Reaction: Europe 1789-1849 (CUR 2001 )

Pamela Pilbeam, The Constitutional

Monarchy in France 1814-48

(Longman, 2000)

Munro Price, The Perilous Crown: France

between Revolutions (Macmillan, 2007)

Robert Tombs, France 1814-1914(Longman, 1996)

Robert Pearce is the editor of History Review.

HISTORY REVIEW OUCEMBKR 2011 23

Copyright of History Review is the property of History Today Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed

to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,

users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.