THE
RESTORED BOURBON MONARCHY (1815-48) NOTES
©
2017, Brian Maregedze (Masters of Arts in African History candidate, B. A
Special Honours in History [UZ], B.A major in History and Religious Studies
[UZ]),
Teaching
Assistant-Department of History, University of Zimbabwe,
High
School Consultant
Email;
bmaregedze@gmail.com
Soon after the downfall of Napoleon, European
statesmen from Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria met in Vienna the Austrian
capital with the main objectives of deciding various issues related to
restoration of peace in Europe, preventing the French aggression, redrawing the
map of Europe among others. Prince Metternich of Austria became the dominant
figure in deliberations which followed as far as the future of Europe was
concerned especially on the case of France which was accused of being trouble
makers in the European continent. A return to the old order in France that is
the 1789 era prior to Napoleonic wars, conquest was imposed upon France by the
victors that is the four major states who had formed, initiated the Vienna
settlement in 1814. Questions which are vital and in need of attention will not
only be focusing on the individuals who came to rule France by virtue of
decisions made by the deciding powers, the big four as they are sometimes
called but also to do challenges they encountered as a result of responses from
the people of France who had experienced the merits of the French revolutionary
ideals that is the tripartite of liberty, equality and fraternity. David
Thomson refers to the reign of the Bourbon monarchy during this era as new wine in old bottles[1].
There is however, the need to interrogate what D. Thomson meant by new wine in old bottles and to what
extent the Bourbon monarchy fit into this categorisation. These notes will also
equip readers with a necessary account of key aspects on the Restored Bourbons
(1815-1848), focusing on their background, successes and failures.
Louis
XVIII and the Charter
Just as in Italy and Spain the defeat of Napoleon at
Waterloo saw the resurrection of the Bourbon rule in France in the name of the
Louis XVIII. He was a brother to Louis XVI and in attempt to ignore the period
1795-1814 refereed to 1814 as “the 19th year of our reign”. He
implied that he had been ruling since 1795(the year in which Louis XVI’s son
died in prison). He was to rule France for ten years and succeeded by his
brother Charles X, who ruled until 1830.
Various groups of people in France felt that the
return of the bourbon monarchy in France meant that the gains of the revolution
and the Napoleonic period were under threat. The most important among then were
the following;
Royalists/ultra-royalists- made up of the catholic
clergy and the rich landed aristocracy and the émigrés. According Wilmont, the
royalists because were loyal to the monarchy were intent on reasserting their
former, authority and influence and regain their former status. They were led
by Comte de Artois (Charles X), a royalist of the deepest age (A. Ramm), a hard-core
royalist (Thomson), an ultra of the ultras (Richards), a royalist of the
highest forum.
Liberals-these sought to defend all liberal
concessions (constitutional rights, legal rights, all forms of liberties).
These had been gained during the revolution and napoleon. They also after 1815
sought to prevent by any means necessary to prevent a return to the monarchical
and absolutism rule in France.
Bonapartistes (the supporters of Napoleon and the
Empire) who sought to reassert the empire and therefore called for the return
of the empire. These had the nostalgic feeling of the Napoleonic Empire and the
laglore it had brought to France.
They were led by Louis Blanc and later Louis Napoleon later to become Napoleon
III. Napoleon III was the first to challenge the cornerstones of the Vienna
settlement in the 1860’s.
The republicans-like the liberals, republicans wanted
to secure the constitutional and legal rights from the revolution and Napoleon
I. on top of that and more importantly, they tasted republicanism during the
revolution. They thought a republic as the best form of government and called
for a return to republicanism.
Worrying characteristics of Louis XVIII
He was the king by the grace of the God. When he
stated that 1814 was the year of our reign the rest of the groups thought that
he was doing away with the gains of the revolution and napoleon. He said the
preamble of the constitution was granted, “Voluntarily and by the free exercise
of our royal authority”. This meant that he believed in the Divine rights of
the kings and absolute rule, what the revolution had tried to abolish.
He adopted the title of the king of the French and
Navarre thus he emphasized the traditional title and customs of his ancestors.
He regarded the constitutional charter as a concession to the French people and
not as a something that they so enjoy as a natural right.
He was faced with various groups with divergent
interests. His main task was to adopt a conciliatory approach in which he would
compromise the interest of these groups. In pursuing this middle of the road
approach, he kept his motives about Devine rule away from the public and at the
same time as a moderate constitutional monarchy hence breaking a new ground.
By ruling with a constitution, he represented a major
breakthrough from tradition and thus silencing his critiques who that the
return of the bourbon meant the return of the 18th century
absolutism.
Charter
of 1814
The policy document was drafted by the powers of
Europe as a means of preventing the rise of a dominant force in France. It was
enshrined with some of the very ideas that the revolution stood for amongst
them the following: Equality before the law; civil liberties; freedom of
conscience, arbitrary arrest and trial, worship and expression; political
opinions and actions prior to 1814 must not be investigated; taxation according
to wealth and not status, equality of opportunities in employment.
Parliament
It was bi-cameral having the chamber of deputies and
of peers. The deputies were elected by voters. For one to be a voter the
following were mandatory. One had to be over 39 years, pay 300 francs as direct
taxes thereby giving francs a total of 90,000 voters. In order to be candidate
one had to be forty years and above, pay 1000 francs as directly taxes and
12,000 citizens qualified. These provisions were heavily attacked by the
republicans who demanded universal suffrage. They attacked it for creating a
franchise which excluded the majority of the French out of political matters.
The
King
He was the head of the executive. He was the solitary
factor in proposing laws; chose ministers to form the government; could
dissolve the chamber of deputies; commander of the armed forces; appointed
judges; could declare war; could alter the electorate; could declare state of
emergency and could create peers. The vote was restricted for the wealthy
section of the populace. The king’s excessive executive powers were reduced
with. D Thomson observes that the major weakness of French democracy after 1814
was France’s relative inexperience with working parliamentary institutions.
This made France to be different from Britain. France parliamentary trades were
only 25 years old in 1815.
The
White Terror
When Napoleon escaped Elba in late 1815 and returned
to France, most people especially the Bonapartists supported him. After his
defeat in 1815 at Waterloo, the royalist carried a White Terror against those
who had supported Napoleon. This violence and reprisal continued into 1816.The
bourbon were really unable to restrain their supporters or even become part of
the violence. As a result of the white terror, there was 29 peers chased away
from the chamber, about 3.300 arrests without trial, 250 terror linked deaths
and 18 Bonaparte’s generals were shot. In Paris Marshal Ney one of Napoleon’s
generals “the bravest of the brave’’ was executed. In Avignon Marshal Bruce, another
Napoleon general was shot. At his funeral his coffin was smashed open and his
body was thrown into the river (Rhine) in France. In Marseilles, 50
Bonapartists were brutally butchered following news of Napoleon’s defeat at
Waterloo.
The Chamber was populated with extreme Royalists who
passed new press laws (November 1815) which made liberal newspapers liable
prosecution. In May 1816 there was a Bonapartistes outbreak in Grenoble against
these Ultra-excesses and Britain and Russia were concerned about events in
France. This is when Louis XVIII decided to act. He dissolved the chamber in
September 1816 and held fresh elections.
Between 1816 1nd 1820 the King with his Chief
Ministers Richelieu who had replaced Talleyrand and after 1818 Decazes, adopted
a moderate course between the subversive intentions of the Ultra Royalist (on
the right) and the Extreme Liberal on the left. He had seen that the policy of
the ultras of re-inventing the nation would lead the country into civil war and
unrest.
Achievements
of Louis XVIII
The handling of the nation’s finances was skilful and
it enabled France to pay, off indemnity. Because of this achievement, the army
of occupation was withdrawn. Under Decazes
censorships of the press was relaxed and the army was reformed along democratic
lines .in 1817 the number of people who could vote were increased and this
enabled the liberals to make electoral fanning. France was admitted into the
Quintuple alliance.1823- French troops successfully restored Ferdinand VII to
his throne.
The
death of Duc du Berry
In February 1820 Duc
de Berry a nephew of Louis XVIII, who was to succeed Louis XVII was stabbed
to death (by a lunatic outside the Opera House in Paris) the murderer Louvel, was a Bonapartists. The event
was an outrage to the ultras. They blamed Decazes
for his moderate policies. The king was forced to dismiss Decazes and recall Richelieu. With Richelieu in office, policies
moved once more from the left to the right as press censorship, political
suspects for more than three months went to trial, electoral laws were passed
in favour of the rich, secondary education was placed under the supervision of
the church.
Richelieu was forced to resign in 1821 and was replaced
by Villele who tightened press laws
further. For example, it was a criminal offence to write or publish any article
which had the chance of provoking public disturbance. In the election of 1824,
more seats in the chamber of deputies fell from 110 to 19.In 1824 Louis XVIII
died without fulfilling his desires of reconciling the royalists and liberal
opinion. He found it difficult to restrain Artois and the forces of reaction.
At least by the time of his death France had revived from the setbacks of the
settlement and the terror.
Charles
X, 1824-1830
Louis XVIII’s failure to contain the ultras
notwithstanding, his reign was a great success. The success was due to the good
sense when he appointed ministers in accord with their swings of opinion
reflected in the charter; while at the same time managing to avoid the extremes
of political emotion. He was succeeded by his brother Charles x who was 67
years old. He inherited a stable and prosperous country in which the immediate
difficulties of the bourbon had been effectively weathered.
D Thomson comments that he was succeeded by an ‘unstatesman like brother’ who relinquished the throne after a six year reign.
Charles was to fall in 1830 not only because of the revolution but also by a
combination of Ultra-Royalist principles and extreme religious policies which
violated the constitution. Charles X showed that he had learnt nothing from the
revolution and Napoleon. He was a catholic at heart and a well-known
reactionary. He insisted on being crowned at Rheims Cathedral for five hours in
1825. This was a traditional and medieval tradition which had not been employed
since in 1775. Thus he was recalling the ancient relationship between the crown
and the church, a tradition the revolution of 1789 had fought to destroy.
Unlike Louis XVIII who sought to compromise, he
adopted a conciliatory policy; Charles X was bent on repairing the “massive
damage done by the Revolution and Napoleon”. He is reported to have said that,
“It will never be my intention to compromise. Over my dead body, compromise
brought down my brother Louis XVI”.
His first task was to encourage Villele to start to restore the ancient tradition of authority of
the church. As a result sacrilege was a crime punishable by death. As a
contrast to Napoleon’s rule the church was given back its tight control of
education and the Jesuits.
Liberals critics were attacked and silenced;
publishers and journalists were prosecuted and imprisoned. The émigrés received
compensation for their lost lands and those who had gained the lands of the
nobilities and church were taken away. The middle class and liberals were angered
when Villele introduced the
censorship in 1827; the gaggling of the press. Again the fact that the émigrés
had been compensated with public money was outrageous to many French especially
the taxpayers. This influenced an inflationary environment angering the
middleclass businessmen and sacred away the investors.
The new elections resulted in a majority that was
hostile to Villele. Charles responded
by dismissing Villele in 1828 and
chose Martignac who was more moderate
and was dismissed before he could celebrate his first anniversary as chief
minister. He was replaced by Polignac
in 1829. This appointment meant that the king could overthrow the constitution.
He is reported to have said, “I would rather chop wood than rule in the fashion
of the king of England”.
According to Thomson and Watson not only was Polignac an ultra of the extravagant
type, therefore a natural enemy of the liberals, but he claimed to have seen
the visions of virgin Mary who guided his policy .this was strongly detested by the anti-clerical. In 1830 the
assembly decided that Polignac should
resign, Charles responded by dismissing the assembly and suspending the
constitution. Opposition against Charles and his government grew towards1830.
Liberal publication condemned catholic revival. Church buildings and
anti-clerical demos were widespread.
After suspending the constitution, Charles issued the
ordinance of St Cloud (July 1830) which was a set of his intended solutions to
the crisis. The ordinance spelt out even stricter censorship of the men. A new
assembly was to be elected by very few rich people. Only about 0.1% of the
population qualified to vote. Therefore got out of hand a few days after
issuing the ordinance and he abdicated the throne.
An
analysis of the Bourbon Monarchy
While Louis XVIII had the political; foresight, his
brother Charles lacked political imagination. Thomson has referred the bourbon
monarchy as an example of new wine in old bottles. Another cause for the
failure of the bourbon monarchy was the quality of the ministers who served
them. They were men of the old order for example Richelieu, Martignac, Polignac. While it is true to
a larger extent that the bourbon had learnt nothing and forgotten nothing,
though the statement is not wholly justifiable. To a larger extent Charles X
had learnt nothing. He had not learnt the lesson that in the 19th
century constitutional liberties and representative government was not to be
substituted with material progress. Louis VXIII had learnt that Napoleon was
popular.
Louis XVIII had learnt that Napoleon I was popular
because he comprised. He had also
learned that there was need to reconcile the monarchical rule/ royal power and
parliamentary/constitutional democracy. He thus chose able ministers who
brought economic recovery unlike Charles whose ministers destroyed it. Charles
had learned that sound policy was cemented with an advantageous foreign policy.
He completed the conquest of Algeria in 1830(the beginning of the colonial
empire in Africa).
The bourbon monarchy collapsed because it sought to
find comfort in nationalism and not liberalism. Charles X and his minister Polignac lacked the vision or capability
of the political requirements of their positions. His chief mistake was that he
alienated the traditional classes with his traditional coronation at Rheims and
his extreme pro-catholic policies and the compensation of the émigrés and the
gaggling if the press. His fatal error was to first create a reactionary
ministry with Polignac and secondly
to issue the Ordinance of Saint Claud which proved to be the last kicks of the
dying horse.
One historian, W Fortescue, Revolution and the Counter
Revolution in France (1988) states that, “through his political incompetence,
Charles X lost one of Europe’s most glorious throne and most beautiful
kingdom”.
Liberal
revolution of 1830
The year 1830 was the year of revolution in France,
Belgium, Italy, Poland, Spain and Portugal. They were different from the events
of the 1820’s which were merely national risings led by military groups while
the in the 1830’s were never liberal revolts led by broader elements of wealthy
middle class. They were directed towards the reactionary conservative policies
after 1815. They had two things in common, they sought to overthrow and bring
the government closer to the people.
Revision questions
i.
Compare
and contrast Louis xviii and Charles X’s policies between 1815 and 1830.
ii.
Why
was Louis xviii more successful that his Brother Charles X?
iii.
Examine
the reforms of Charles X between 1824 and 1830.
iv.
What
were the causes of the 1830 revolution in France?
The
July Revolution in France
The
1830 revolution in Paris
The major cause of the revolution in France was the
Ultra-Conservative government of Charles X.
The immediate cause was the issuing of the five Ordinances of Saint
Claud in July of that year. The Paris working class responded by erecting
barricades, waved the tri-0color of the revolution and sang revolutionary
songs. They were led by Adolph Thiers, Guizot and Lafitte. On 24 July
demonstrators seized the Hotel de Ville. The soldiers proved powerless and fell
to the revolutionaries.
At that time no-one wanted the Bourbon Monarchy
anymore. Many demanded the setting up of the Republic as they remembered the
republic of 1792 that disposed the monarchy of Louis VXI. Charles X abdicated
in favour of his grandson Comte de Chambord (King Henry V) but none wanted him.
According to Thomson the fall of the Bourbon Monarchy was achieved without the
shading any drops of blood. It was a bloodless revolution just like the
Glorious Revolution of 1688.
After the fall of the monarchy the revolutionaries
were divided as to what form of the government was to be adopted. The
bourgeoisie wanted to set up a constitutional monarchy. They did not want a
republic and the equality with the masses, under the leadership of Lafayette
(74 years). Liberals under Thiers wanted a liberal government and to make the
Duke of Orleans king. They feared that if France was to turn to Republicanism
the powers of Europe would intervene to restore the bourbon monarchy.
Louis Phillipe agreed to rule as a constitutional
monarchy. He was the descended from a young brother of Louis VXI. This would
mean that he would satisfy the republic ideas and the royalists. His background
also attracted the poor as he had known poverty and exile. He promised that he
would be a citizen king and observe the constitutional liberties. He was
proclaimed, “The king of the French by the Grace of God and the Will of the
Nation”. He was to compromise between royalist authority and republican ideas
and also divergent demands of various other political groups. The reign was
marked with contradictions from the start; on one hand as the citizen king as
promised while on the other hand professed royal authority (meaning that he would
require all his abilities to balance both tracts).
Revolution
in Belgium
The July revolution in France stimulated revolt in
Belgium. The Belgians revolted against the Dutch in a complete rejection of the
Vienna settlement. The revolt was driven by the national desire for self-rule
(independence) against the rule of William I. The Belgians main source of
discontent included’
a)
They
wanted equal representation in the parliament yet they outnumbered the Dutch by
2:1.
b)
Dutch
interest was given priority over the Belgian even though the Dutch were the
minority.
c)
The
Dutch were Protestants while the Belgians were Catholics.
The Dutch troops were driven away by the Belgians and
in October 1830 the provisional government was proclaimed with the independence
of Belgium. A new constitution was established in 1831(the most liberal in
Europe. the parliament was to choose the king who became Leopold I who ruled
for thirty four years with skill. The Dutch invaded Belgium in 1831 but were
repulsed by the forces of Louis Philippe.
Reign
of Louis Philippe
Why
Louis’ government was a benefit of the doubt
He was accepted because it was felt that he
represented the interests of the broad section of the French society. He had
true hereditary claim to the throne, monarchist found him to be a good
alternative to the bourbon monarchy. He was associated with the revolution
therefore pleasing the revolutionaries and the Bonapartist. He had participated
at the battle of Jemappes against the Austrians. He was a seasonal critic of
the appointment of Charles X and therefore a favourite of the liberals. He
retained his name Louis Philippe than being labelled Louis XIX or Philippe VII.
Historical habits and appearance associated him with the middle class a factor
that was to make his reign knotty.
Domestic
policy
In education the government did make some sound
achievements. In 1833, a law was passed by Guizot whereupon primary schools
were set up in every commune and colleges to train teachers. Schooling was made
free, but not compulsory so that by 1847, the number of primary schools
increased from 33,000 to 43,000. In order to please the Catholics could now
teach but secondary education was anti-clerical. It was a preserve of the
state.
The Constitution of 1830 was revised. In the new constitution
the king had the right to suspend laws taken and rule by decree, the parliament
could now propose laws. The number of voters was revised giving France a
franchise of 200 000 voters. However this change was not enough since only 3 %
of population could vote. Therefore Louis’ intention by increasing the
franchise was to please the liberals and republics, but failed to meet their
demands.
Freedom of worship was guaranteed and censorship of
the press was abolished. He wanted to do away with the old tradition of giving
Catholicism a privilege also wished to please anti clericals. This meant that
Catholicism was no longer the religion of the state as it used to be, but was
now merely taken as a religion “practiced by the majority of the Frenchmen”.
The advantage of Louis from the beginning was that he
tried to do away with absolutism and pro-clerical tendencies typical of the
Bourbon Monarchy. At the same time he guaranteed civic liberties and order. To
a reasonable extent his regime managed to hold a balance between liberty and
order on one hand and constitutionalism and authority on the other.
Like the ministers of Charles X, those who served
Louis were moved by malice, greed and self-interests. According to Watson, the
ministers showed little interests, if any, in the problem facing the Frenchmen.
The middle class and liberals were bitter that the vote was not extended to
reasonable levels.
Louis economic policy under Guizot was of lasses faire
(non interference with activists of employers and businessman). The factory law
(1841) had little ripple effects as the government was given no legal basis to
inspect factories. As a result most workers suffered (poor working conditions
and low wages). Lack of the government intervention resulted in extreme corruption,
graft, exploitation and political “chickenery”. While the laissez faire policy
pleased the middle class and businessman, it was a hell on earth to the working
class. In a period of prosperity the working suffered as proved by the poor
living standards. This gave an impetus to the ideas of socialism to thrive in
France.
Bored by the policies of Louis many political groups
rose against him. Following the footsteps of his predecessors, he thought that
repression was the best method, press censorship was re-introduced (1834) and
trade unionism was repressed. The Bonapartists strongly opposed him and drew
their inspiration from the Napoleonic legend. They looked back to the glorious
days of Napoleon I and contrasted it to the inactive and unadventurous foreign
policy. Louis lacked political insight when he brought back the remains of
napoleon back to France from St Helena. He thought this would please them but
reawakened Bonaparte’s in the country.
The legitimists regarded Louis as a sell-out who could
be replaced by a bourbon king. They tried but failed in 1832 to rise against
Louis. The republicanism received a wider appeal from the poorer classes. To
these people, it offered social justice and addressed labour problems which
Louis was failing to do. In 1831, workers demonstrated against Louis as
unemployment, inflation and poor working conditions. In Lyon, it was reported
that industrial workers were earning eating their shoes and work suits
according to T.K. Derry.
Frustration forced that people to act against the
king. No less than six attempts were made on his life. Wilmot observed that
political frustration was one of the factors which brought down Louis Philippe.
But to a smaller extent Guizot’s economic policy promoted some degree of
economic problems. Though there was vigorous railway construction and
industrial expansion.
Conclusion
Louis’ domestic policy reveals massive contradictions
which characterized his eighteen year reign. All French were bored by his
conduct and even his habits of lightening his own fire, shaving his own beard
and walking in the streets with nothing serve for his umbrella. His problems
were twofold; he tried to please various political groups but in the end failed
to please none. Secondly, he was unfortunate to have ruled during the era of
massive economic problems hence the people shouted that, “he was worse than
Charles X”.
Foreign
Policy
Like the domestic policy it was disastrous as it
failed to please anyone. Only in Algeria did he attempt to make a bid to bring
glory to France. The Bonapartists were thirsty for a ruler who would follow the
footsteps of Napoleon I and bring back military greatness. The inglorious
foreign policy led to his downfall. He followed a peaceful policy for the
benefit of the middleclass. It was also targeted at befriending the major
powers like Britain. In doing so his demise was spelt out.
Louis
and Algeria
The conquest of Algeria was started by Charles X. In
the 1830’s the French fought against the Byes of Algeria. Louis was to complete
the conquest. This adventure was meant to silence his critics who believed that
would not do what other countries were doing, the attainment colonies. Antony
Wood alludes to the effect that the conquest failed to awaken any patriotic or
nationalistic feeling. It actually fuelled opposition due to the war expenses,
the viciousness of the fighting i.e. the death of troops. In any event few had
any desire towards colonies at that time. Most people regarded colonies as
burdensome and expensive to maintain. Colonies were to be essential in 1880’s.
Lamartine a poet commented that, “France is bored”.
Louis
and Mahomet Ali of Egypt
For those who were hungry for foreign glory, the
Mahomet affair was another serious blow. Ali was ruling Egypt on behalf of the
Turks hence a vassal of Turkey. Ali stepped in to help his Turkish overlords on
condition that he would be given Syria as compensation. His army had been
trained by the French, who sought to protect Egypt. The French were fascinated
by Egypt since Napoleon I fought there in the 1790’s. So the French had common
interests in Egypt which was a traditional French sphere.
In 1839, war between Ali and Turkey broke out. Turkish
armies were defeated at Belen Pass and Konia. The British under Palmerstone
showed little interests in intervening in the near east. With no help coming
from the English Channel. The Sultan looked to Russian tsar Nicholas I who send
his troops to Turkey. Watson commented that Britain and France became too
worried about the Tsar’s intentions, pressed the sultan to come to terms with
Ali and send the Russians home. In the Kuala Treaty, Ali was given Syria but
Ali was to respect the Sultan’s over lordship. Ali was not pleased with the
treaty. He wanted complete independence from the Sultan. War broke out again, Turkey
was defeated, seeing that their interests were threatened Russia and Britain
stepped in to help. France refused to join the coalition and went ahead
supporting Ali. Theirs who was chief minister wanted war against the coalition
if they continue with their object ruining Ali. Palmerstone ignored this as an
empty threat and continued to work with tsar and defeated Ali.
The conflict was part of the ongoing Eastern Question.
It showed how much Louis was a feeble politician. At the height of the crisis
France was isolated and unable to act in defence of his interests and ally. He
went on to fire Thiers thus Wilmot stated that he burdened himself with the
communication of a resounding diplomatic defeat. He showed that he was too weak
to pursue a diplomatic policy and therefore played second fiddle to the British
and Russians.
Instead of pleasing those who wanted foreign glory he
annoyed them. The events served to illustrate how inconsistent and
contradictory Louis’ foreign policy was. Scholars are content that it was
shabby, boring, dull and unattractive. After encouraging Ali he withdrew from
Egypt when they needed help the most.
Louis
and Belgium
The Belgians were against the Dutch in 1830 in attack
of the reactionary policies of 1815. To the French thus was a splendid
opportunity for Louis to step in and help the Belgians especially the
Catholics. Besides the fact that the Belgians were Catholics, they were a
traditional sphere of influence after being conquered by Napoleon. Louis
refused to annex but sought British aid in working out the independence of
Belgium. He even refused to accept the invitation of his son to be the king.
Britain jumped in and Leopold I became the king.
It is clear that Louis was adopting a cautious policy,
always playing second to the English since he was afraid of annoying the great
powers who might work against him. This was to ruin and cost his throne.
Therefore he had been described as a little boy under the supervision of his
father. By accepting being a yes man he disappointed the French. He refused aid
to the polish and Italy in 1831.
Louis
and Tahiti
The July monarchy was good at quarrelling. But
according to one dictum, good things are better, done than said. In 1843 Louis
had a candid talk with the British over the island of Tahiti. He had sent a
group of French catholic missionaries and later declared Tahiti a French sphere
of influence (protectorate). It was a symbol of his frustration with the
English policy under Palmerstone. This led to the arrest of the British
missionaries and the consul. The British strongly condemned the act and forced
the French to release him as soon as possible and on top of that the payment of
damages.
The Tahiti
incident reflects how much Louis feared Britain and could do anything to please
them. He failed to please anyone except himself, even the intended
beneficiaries. Lovers of military glory complained bitterly and even asked the
question, who is ruling France, Britain or Louis?
The
Spanish marriages 1846
His activities in Spain showed that his foreign policy
had no strategy and ideas. Palmerstone had done everything to humiliate France
in general anytime he so wished. In 1848 a new government in London led to
improved relations between the two nations. Thiers was replaced by Guizot. Negotiations
were proceeding accordingly in search of a husband for the young Queen of
Spain. But in 1846 Palmerstone returned to office and intended to arrange the
marriage of Isabella and Infanta. Isabella was to marry someone directly linked
to the British crown, hence attempted to obstruct the French candidate.
In order to outmanoeuvre the English Louis arranged
that one of his twelve sons Antoine to marry the queen’s young sister Infanta
with Isabella marrying her cousin. The cousin was an ageing Spaniard believed
to be impotent. Louis hoped that in the future an Orleanist monarchy would rise
and rule Spain since Isabella was expected to have no children. At that time it
seemed as if Louis Phillipe had scored and French deserved the diplomatic
points. The marriages according to Watson, the marriages were the last activity
of Louis’ foreign policy. The diplomatic victory proved to be hollow as
Isabella wedded separately and was to have nine children including Alfonse XVI
who gained the throne in 1875 ensuring the continuation of her family line.
Louis
and Charles compared
Both lost due to failure to adhere to the wishes of
the masses hence lost out on their support and confidence of a significant
sector of the population mostly the middle class. They were caught off guard by
the strength of the outburst of opposition. But Charles had lees excuse since
he attempted a coup de tat, whereas Guizot had only forbidden the reform
banquets.
The two rulers had sought to escape in abdication in
favour of a grandchild, neither of who was to rule. However the working class
in1848 was more powerful and very articulate than they had been in 1830. The
economy was far more developed in the 1840’s that during the reign of Charles
X.
Collapse
of the July Monarchy
a)
Economic
conditions
Louis Phillipe had inherited a crumpling economy which
had been messed by the radical policies of Charles X. Economic recession had begun in 1826,
persisted till 1832 or later. There were grain shortages, rising inflation and
unemployment. For the commons transition from Bourbon rule to the Orleanist
rule did not bring any significant changes. Various groups failed to achieve
their aims hence were in consistent conflict with government of Phillipe for
example the workers strikes in La Vendee as they demanded reforms.
b)
Demands
of the working class
The working class was the most aggrieved by the
stagnant economic policies which satisfied the middle classes. The workers
called for lower prices, higher wages, and shorter working hours. The attempted
national workshops were half hearted as they ended in total failure. The
government responded by revoking oppressive laws which banned unlawful assembly
and unleashing the army and police on strikes and demonstrations. Instead the
government should have found ways of improving the plight of the worker. His
failure proved to be a fundamental point to his downfall.
c)
Growth
of Republicanism and Liberalism
They employed scathing propaganda to attack the
government of Louis and its supporters. Republicanism grew and gained support
mainly from workers suffering economic recession. But new repressive laws
silenced the republicans. The workers were inspired by the work of Louis Blanc
the editor of the L’Organisation du
Travail, a socialist newspaper which preached the need for reform. The
liberals were demanding the extension of the civil liberties while republicans
wanted increase in the franchise and a republican state. Other influential
socialist writers were St Simon and Proudhon who advocated for various means of
dealing with the increasing unemployment by the state taking control of the
means of production.
d)
Poor
harvests of 1846-7
The harvest failures showed how France was vulnerable
to economic recession. Hungry thugs and mobs demonstrated increasingly against
the government. The workers were the most active since their wages were no
longer able to sustain a decent lifestyle. So it was a period of economic
progress yet there was dwindling living standards. The poor harvests prove the
old adage that a hungry man is an angry man.
e)
Reform
banquets
During the 1840’s almost all the disgruntled groups
within France were now in favour of republicanism. In the streets people
gathered clamouring for a number of reforms.
The workers were driven by the failure of the national workshops
introduced following the ideas of Louis Blanc. The program led to increased
taxation thereby becoming unpopular. Richards sums up the situation as the
offering the working classes to join the revolution or form an army against the
government. Louis resorted to use repressive measures by unleashing the
National Guard under General Cavaignac
upon the reformers. This led to the outbreak of the 1848 Revolutions hence
Seaman concludes that, “the 1848 revolution in France began by incident and
elsewhere by excitement”.
Faced with these problems Louis abdicated in favour of
his cousin by the revolutionaries adopted a republican state. The Bonapartists
were affected by the inglorious foreign policy, Liberals wanted a further
extension of civil liberties, Republicans desired for the widening of the
electorate with the removal of voter qualifications, Monarchist and Legitimist
wanted a real bourbon leader and also argued that Louis was not the legitimate
ruler. All these factors and an unpopular foreign policy made his downfall
inevitable. A provisional government was put in place and drafted a new
constitution which made France a republican.
Revision
Questions
i.
How
liberal was the government of Louis Philippe?
ii.
Louis
Philippe had nothing but good intentions for France. If this was so, why did he
fell from power in 1848?
iii.
Evaluate
the domestic and foreign policies of Louis Philip end up to 1848?
iv.
It
was not what he did but what he failed to that brought about his end. Is this a
valid assessment of the downfall of the July monarchy in 1848?
v.
Examine
why all the opposition groups in France against Philippe voted for a republic
in 1848?
vi.
Discuss
the main causes of the revolution of 1848 in France?
this is good stuff keep it up. so helpful
ReplyDeleteThank you for the feedback.
ReplyDeleteExcellent 👌
ReplyDeleteThank you for the feedback!
DeleteHelpful
ReplyDeleteThank you for the humbling feedback.
Delete