Outlines of Universal History, Designed as a Text-book and for Private Reading

by George Park Fisher

CHAPTER II. EUROPE FROM THE REVOLUTION OF 1830 TO THE REVOLUTIONARY EPOCH OF 1848.

CHARLES X.—Louis XVIII. died in 1824. His brother, Charles X. (1824-30), dealt generously with the collateral branch of the Bourbons, the house of Orleans. He restored to Louis Philippe, the son of that Philip Egalite whose base career was ended by the guillotine (p. 512), the vast estates of the Orleans family, and gave him the title of "Royal Highness." But he failed to secure the cordial support of this ambitious relative. The Duke of Orleans stood well with the king, but was on good terms with the liberal leaders. The king sought to reinstate the ideas and ways of the old régime. He was specially zealous in behalf of ecclesiastics, and ceremonies of devotion. But liberal views in politics gained ground in the second Chamber, as well as in the army and among the people. A liberal ministry under Martignac was in power for a while; but in 1829 it was succeeded by a ministry the head of which was the unpopular Prince Polignac, and the other principal members of which were hardly less obnoxious. They represented the extreme reactionary and royalist party. Their active opponents—Guizot, Thiers, and Benjamin Constant among them—found that their assaults on the government were generally applauded. All of these were brilliant political writers. Constant (from 1825) had been the leader of the opposition. Thiers was a journalist of wide influence. Guizot had held office under the liberal ministers, and as lecturer on modern history, and by his writings, had laid the foundation of the great distinction which he deservedly gained, as one of the foremost students and expounders of history in recent times. Thiers and Guizot were at this time united in the advocacy of a constitutional system, as opposed to the reactionary policy and the personal government to which the king and his ministers were committed. Later we shall see that the paths of these two statesmen diverged. In 1830 Guizot was the opposition leader in the Chamber of Deputies. In the Chamber of Peers, the ministry was attacked by Chateaubriand, who had been a valuable supporter of the Bourbon cause, and by others. The Chambers were dissolved by the king. The capture of Algiers, in a war against the piratical power of which it was the seat, did not avail to lessen the growing hostility to his government. It found expression through the press and in speeches at a great banquet.

ORDINANCES OF ST. CLOUD.—Taking advantage of the provision in the charter which gave extraordinary powers to the king for special emergencies (p. 537), the ministry took the fatal step (July 25, 1830) of issuing the "ordinances of St. Cloud," dissolving the Chamber of Deputies, further restricting the suffrage so that many merchants and manufacturers lost this privilege, and reëstablishing the censorship of the press in a peculiarly burdensome form.

THE JULY REVOLUTION.—The ordinances were published on July 26. That evening Prince Polignac's windows were broken by a mob. The whole city of Paris was in a tumult. The liberal journals protested. There were collisions between the mob and the king's troops. A protest of the liberal deputies, who met at the house of Casimir Perier, was issued. In the night the people armed themselves. La Fayette arrived in Paris. On the 28th students, workmen, and all classes of citizens, armed themselves with whatever weapons they could lay hold of. The revolutionists took possession of the Hôtel de Ville. The cry was that the charter was violated. All efforts to induce the king to make concessions failed. Many of the soldiers in Paris fraternized with the people, who on the 29th had control of the whole city, except the vicinity of the Tuileries, which they gained possession of that evening. La Fayette, at the call of the deputies, assumed command of the National Guard. Finally, when it was too late, the king decided to withdraw the ordinances, and to change the ministry. Thiers and Mignet caused anonymous placards to be posted, proposing that the Duke of Orleans should take the crown from the people. On the 30th Louis Philippe entered Paris on foot: he had passed the summer at his country place at Neuilly. Talleyrand,—whose influence was great with foreign courts,—Lafitte, and Thiers were active in the effort to advance him to the throne. The deputies decided that he must be made lieutenant-general of the kingdom. Charles X., who still blindly confided in him, on the 31st appointed him to this office. What the intentions of Louis Philippe were, is not clear. He probably meant to be governed by circumstances. On the 29th a municipal commission was installed at the Hôtel de Ville, consisting of La Fayette and six other leading men. They selected several persons as officials whose authority was generally acknowledged. Louis Philippe, at the head of the deputies, went to the Hôtel de Ville. He was cordially received by La Fayette and his associates. It was agreed that there should be "a popular throne, with free institutions." On the balcony, under the tri-color flag, the Duke of Orleans was introduced as "the man of the people." La Fayette felt that a republic would be contrary to the national wish. Thiers was of the same mind. They feared complications and contests abroad, and what might be the results of general suffrage, in the existing state of the country, at home.

FLIGHT OF CHARLES X.—The desertion of Charles X. by his troops would have rendered an armed contest on his part impracticable. The dexterous management of Louis Philippe was made effectual by the favoring circumstances. On Aug. 2 the king abdicated in favor of his grandson, the Duke of Bordeaux, and was compelled to fly from the kingdom. The volunteer army had been stirred up to go out to Rambouillet to drive him away. The angry old king did not wait for their coming.

LOUIS PHILIPPE MADE KING.—The Chamber of Deputies declared the throne vacant. They altered the charter,—putting all religious bodies on a level, giving freedom to the press, limiting the powers of the king, and giving to the Chambers, as well as to him, the initiative in framing laws. They chose Louis Philippe "King of the French." He owed his elevation to the middle classes, and claimed to be the "citizen king."

SEPARATION OF BELGIUM.—The effect of the new revolution was to set in motion the elements of discontent in the other European countries. Belgium was the first to feel the shock. The Belgians were restless under the rule of William I., whose treatment of them aggravated the disaffection which their political relation to Holland constantly occasioned. A revolt broke out at Brussels. The offer of a legislative and administrative separation of Belgium from Holland, with one king over both, might have been accepted if it had been made earlier; but it followed unsuccessful efforts to quell the insurrection by force. A provisional government was created at Brussels, which proclaimed the independence of Belgium (Oct. 4), and convoked a national congress. France confined itself to preventing the interference of foreign powers. A conference of ministers at London (Jan., 1831) recognized the new state, which adopted a liberal constitution. Leopold I. of Saxe-Coburg was chosen king. He was aided by the forces of the French; but the war with Holland lasted until 1833, and it was not until 1839 that Holland definitely accepted the action of the London congress.

POLAND.—Poland was harshly ruled for the Czar by the Grand Duke Constantine. The revolution in France was the signal for a Polish rising, that began in an unsuccessful attempt of students and others to seize the person of the grand duke. The insurrection spread: men of talents and distinction, as well as Polish soldiers, joined the cause of the people. The Czar, Nicholas, would make no terms with the insurgents, and the Diet (Jan. 25, 1831) declared him to have forfeited the Polish crown. The Poles fought with desperate valor in a series of bloody battles, only to be overwhelmed by superiority of numbers. They were defeated at Ostrolenka by Diebitsch (May 26). After his death, Warsaw surrendered to Paskievitch (Sept. 8), and another Russian general entered Cracow. Poland was now reduced, as far as it could be, to a Russian province. The army was merged in the Russian forces; the university was suppressed; the Roman Catholic religion, the prevailing faith, was persecuted; and it was computed that in one year (1832) eighty thousand Poles were sent to Siberia.

GERMANY: HUNGARY.—In Saxony and in the minor states of Germany, disturbances were consequent on the tidings of the revolution at Paris. Prussia and Austria were little affected by it; but the demands of the Diet in Hungary, when Ferdinand, the son of Francis I. was crowned king of that country, were an augury of a far greater commotion to arise at a later day. In the Diet of 1832 Louis Kossuth first appeared as a member. Between the years 1828 and 1834, the German states (not including Austria), under the guidance of Prussia and Bavaria, formed a Zollverein, or customs-union, which was an important step in the direction of German unity, and one which Austria looked on with disfavor.

ITALY.—In 1831, there were signs of revolt in different states of Italy. At Modena, a provisional government was erected. The same thing was done at Bologna. Maria Louisa was driven out of Parma. Among those who joined the insurgents in the Papal Kingdom were Napoleon and his younger brother Louis Bonaparte, sons of Louis Bonaparte king of Holland. The elder of the sons died soon after at Forli. The Italians relied on the help of Louis Philippe, but the citizen king had no disposition to engage in war with Austria. The uprisings were put down with the assistance of Austrian troops. Charles Albert, after April, 1831, king of Sardinia, did a good work in the discipline of his army. Without any esteem for Austria, he refused to further the plans of the revolutionary party, and thus incurred the hostility of Mazzini, who was organizing the movement of "Young Italy" for independence and unity. Mazzini, a man of elevated spirit and disinterested aims, was long to be known as the head of the republican patriots and plotters.

ENGLAND.—In England, reform went forward peacefully. The middle class gradually obtained its demands. The national debt, at the close of the wars with Napoleon, amounted to nearly eight hundred millions of pounds. In 1823, with the accession of Mr. Huskisson to office, began the movement for a more free commercial policy, which led in the end to the repeal of the corn-laws. The question of "Catholic disabilities" was agitated from time to time, and something had been done to lighten them. Yet in 1828 Catholics were still shut out by law from almost every office of trust and distinction. They could not sit in either house of Parliament. The endeavors of liberal statesmen for their relief were defeated by the Tory majorities. The agitation was increased by the "Catholic Association" formed in Ireland by the Irish leader and orator, Daniel O'Connell. A Tory ministry was formed by the Duke of Wellington, with Mr. (afterwards Sir) Robert Peel for its chief supporter in the House of Commons (1829). Yet, to avert the danger of civil war, the ministry introduced, and with aid of the Whigs carried, the "Catholic Emancipation Bill."

THE REFORM BILL.—On the death of George IV., William IV., his brother (1830-1837), succeeded to the throne. He was favorable to parliamentary reform. The ferment on this subject caused the resignation of the Wellington ministry, which was succeeded by the ministry of Earl Grey. A bill for reform was presented to Parliament, depriving eighty-eight "rotten or decayed" boroughs, where there were very few inhabitants, of a hundred and forty-three members of the House of Commons, who were given to counties or to large towns, such as Birmingham and Manchester, which had no representation. At the same time the franchise was greatly extended. The bill was strenuously resisted by the Tories, who now began to be called Conservatives. Its repeated rejection by the House of Lords caused a violent agitation. Finally, in 1832, when it was understood that the king would create new peers enough to pass the measure, it was carried in the upper house, and became a law.

SLAVERY ABOLISHED.—In 1833 the system of slavery in the British colonies was abolished, twenty million pounds being paid as a compensation to the slave-owners. This measure was the result of an agitation in which Wilberforce, Clarkson, and Buxton had been foremost.

In the latter part of the eighteenth century, a strong feeling arose against the slave-trade. Granville Sharp (1734-1813) was one of the earliest promoters of its abolition. By his agency, in the case of a negro,—Somerset,—claimed as a slave, the decision was obtained from Lord Mansfield, that a slave could not be held in England, or carried out of it. The Quakers were early in the field in opposition to the traffic in slaves. In the House of Commons, Wilberforce, a man of earnest religious convictions and one of the most eloquent orators of his time, contended against it for years. His friend Pitt, and Fox, joined him in 1790. The measure of abolition was carried in 1807. Then followed the agitation for the abolition of slavery itself. The slave-trade was made illegal by France in 1819. It had been condemned by the Congress of Vienna. In the French colonies, slavery continued until 1848.

LEGAL REFORMS.—In the same year the monopoly of the East-India Company was abolished, and trade with the East was made free to all merchants. A new Poor Law (1834) checked the growth of pauperism. In 1835, by the Municipal Corporations Act, the ancient rights of self-government by the towns, which had been lost since the fourteenth century, were restored to them. Civil marriage was made legal, in compliance with a demand of the Dissenters, who were likewise relieved of other grounds of complaint (1836). Increased attention began to be paid to popular education.

CHARTISM.—Notwithstanding the constitutional changes in England, the distress and discontent of the poorer classes occasioned the riotous "Chartist" movement in 1839, when universal suffrage, annual parliaments, and other radical changes were in vain demanded. Mass meetings were held, and outbreakings of violence were feared; but order was preserved.

CHINA: AFGHANISTAN.—A war with China (1839) had no better ground than the refusal of the Chinese government to allow the importation of opium. The occupation of Kabul in 1839 caused a general revolt of the Afghans. A British army was destroyed in the Khyber Pass. The British then conquered, but did not care to retain, Afghanistan.

REPEAL OF THE CORN LAWS.—Victoria, the only child of the Duke of Kent, the brother of William IV., succeeded the latter in 1837. She married her cousin, Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1840). In 1846 the party which had long advocated free trade gained a triumph in the repeal of the Corn Laws, which had existed since 1815, imposing duties on imported grain. In the agitation which preceded the repeal, Richard Cobden was the leader: he was effectively aided by John Bright. But the measure was carried by Sir Robert Peel, who on this question abandoned his former views and those of the Conservatives, by whom he had been raised to power. He was bitterly assailed, especially by D'Israeli, who was rising to the position of a leader among them.

LOUIS PHILIPPE.—Louis Philippe made up his first ministry from the party which had raised him to the throne. Among its members were Broglie, Guizot, and Casimir Périer. The king aimed by shrewd management to maintain his popularity at home, and to keep the peace with foreign powers, by taking care to encourage liberal movements abroad, yet without taking any step in that direction which would bring on war. He did nothing for the Poles in their mortal struggle, and nothing really effectual for the Italians. Several abortive attempts upon his life were made by secret societies; one of a dangerous character, by Fieschi (1835), who fired "an infernal machine" from his window when the king was passing. This was followed by the "Laws of September," to curb the license of the press. They reminded the public of the royalist laws of 1820. They were opposed by the more liberal men: Royer-Collard and Villemain spoke against them. They went by the name of the "Fieschi laws." An effort to raise an insurrection among the French troops in Strasburg was made by Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (1836), who, after his flight from Italy, had resided in Switzerland, where he had busied himself in study, and had written several books. The enterprise proved a ridiculous failure: its author was allowed to go to America.

FRENCH POLICY IN THE EAST.—Various causes conspired to undermine Louis Philippe's government. One of these was its connection with the war of Mehemet Ali with the Sultan. In the former war with his over-lord, the Sultan, the viceroy of Egypt had been invested with Syria as a fief. He now sent an army into Syria, under his son Ibrahim, who overran that country, advanced victoriously into Asia Minor, and threatened Constantinople (1832). The European powers intervened, and obliged Mehemet Ali to content himself with Syria, together with the district of Adana in Asia Minor, and the island of Candia, which the Sultan had ceded to him before. In 1839 the Sultan tried to recover Syria, but encountered an overwhelming defeat, and lost the entire Turkish fleet. England now combined with Austria, Prussia, and Russia, and the Western powers once more saved the Turkish Empire; although France, under the ministry of Thiers, had strongly favored the cause of Mehemet Ali (1840). Contrary to the wish of the French, he had to give up Syria. He secured for himself and his descendants the pashalic of Egypt (1841). The failure of the French policy in the East, by this action of the Quadruple Alliance, caused indignation and chagrin in France. Even Thiers, who was in sympathy with the cause of Mehemet Ali, was loudly blamed. There was danger of a rupture with England. Thiers was a principal author of the plan for fortifying Paris by encircling the city with forts. The king judged that they might prove to be of use in putting down insurrections. Louis Napoleon thought the occasion favorable for another attempt to seize the crown. He landed from England at Boulogne with a few followers, and proclaimed himself emperor. He was captured, tried, and imprisoned in the fortress of Ham, where he spent six years. His time there was mostly given to study and writing. A few months before this attempt of Louis Napoleon, the French government had arranged for the bringing of the body of the first Napoleon from St. Helena to Paris. It was one of various impolitic measures, in which Thiers was actively concerned, for doing honor to the emperor and his military achievements. But at that time Louis Napoleon, who was known to be a man of slow mind, but whose capacity for intrigue was not understood, was regarded with contempt, and the Bonapartists excited no alarm. In 1841, in the presence of the royal family and of a vast concourse, the remains of Napoleon were deposited with great pomp in a magnificent tomb under the dome of the Church of the Invalides. Marshal Soult superseded Thiers at the head of the ministry (1840); but Guizot was the ruling spirit in the cabinet, and was associated with the king until his dethronement. The death of the Duke of Orleans, the eldest son of Louis Philippe, by a fall from his carriage (July 13, 1842), endangered the new dynasty. The duke's eldest son, the Count of Paris, was then only four years of age.

GUIZOT'S ADMINISTRATION.—From 1840 Guizot was the principal minister of Louis Philippe, and Thiers was in the opposition. They differed both as regards foreign and domestic policy. Thiers, who in his convictions was a decided liberal, and in full sympathy with the spirit of the French Revolution, was for the extension of suffrage, and for making the influence of France felt and respected in matters of European concern, even at the risk of war. Guizot, on the contrary, clung to the English alliance, and he considered that a foreign war—for example, in defense of Mehemet Ali,—would be to France a great and needless calamity. Claiming to be a fast friend of representative government, Guizot nevertheless inflexibly resisted movements for the extension of popular rights,—movements which he believed would lead, if they were not withstood, to revolution and anarchy. On the one hand were the legitimists, aiming at the restoration of the elder branch of the Bourbons; on the other hand there were the republicans, who wished to be rid of monarchy altogether. The government of Louis Philippe satisfied neither. It served as a transition, or temporary halting-place, in the progress of France towards the goal of rational and stable republicanism, to which the great Revolution tended. It was an "attempt to put new wine in old bottles." This inherent weakness of the Orleans rule, it would have been difficult by any means to neutralize in such a way as to avert, sooner or later, a catastrophe. The unbending conservatism of Guizot—as seen, for instance, in his refusal to extend suffrage—hastened this result. A government over which less than half a million of voters of the middle class alone had an influence, could not stand against the progressive feeling of the country. The middle class, on which the throne depended, became separated from the advanced party, to which the youth of France more and more rallied. Guizot was personally upright; but official corruption was suffered to spread in the last years of his administration, and bribery was used in the elections. These circumstances, added to the mortification of national pride from the little heed paid to France by the other powers, weakened the throne. The failure of the government to support the cause of liberty in Poland and Italy was another important source of its growing unpopularity.

Guizot, in the personal Memoirs written by him after the fall of Louis Philippe, has defended himself against the charge of a want of loyal support of Thiers, the head of the ministry, while he (Guizot) was ambassador to England (1840). There was a private understanding that he should go no farther than his sympathy with the views of Thiers extended. Guizot has undertaken, also, to show that a war in behalf of Mehemet Ali would have been most unwise; and that it was for the interest of France to regain its weight in European affairs, not by the renewal of the bloody and fruitless contests of the past, but by methods of peace. He deemed it his duty not to give way to the "warlike tastes and inclinations" of the French people. The effort, however, to tie down so spirited a nation to so tame a policy, proved to be futile. The recollections of the empire, which the government itself did so much to arouse, moved the people to compare the achievements of the past with the humiliating position of their country under the Orleans rule.

Guizot has left this interesting exposition of his principles and policy: "In the diplomatic complication which agitated Europe, I saw a brilliant opportunity of exercising and loudly proclaiming a foreign policy, extremely new and bold in fact, though moderate in appearance, the only foreign policy which in 1840 suited the peculiar position of France and her government, as also the only course in harmony with the guiding principles and permanent wants of the great scheme of civilization to which the world of to-day aspires and tends.

"The spirit of conquest, of propagandism, and of system, has hitherto been the moving cause and master of the foreign policy of states. The ambition of princes or peoples has sought its gratification in territorial aggrandizement. Religious or political faith has endeavored to expand by imposing itself. Great heads of government have attempted to regulate the destinies of nations according to profound combinations, the offspring rather of their own thought than the natural result of facts. Let us cast a glance over the history of international European relations. We shall see the spirit of conquest, or of armed propagandism, or of some systematic design upon the territorial organization of Europe, inspire and determine the foreign policy of governments. Let one or other of these impulses prevail, and governments have disposed arbitrarily of the fate of nations. War has ever been their indispensable mode of action.

"I know that this course of things has been the fatal result of men's passions; and that, in spite of those passions and the evils they have inflicted on nations, European civilization has continued to increase and prosper, and may increase and prosper still more. It is to the honor of the Christian world, that evil does not stifle good. I know that the progress of civilization and public reason will not abolish human passions, and that, under their impulse, the spirit of conquest, of armed propagandism, and of system, will ever maintain, in the foreign policy of states, their place and portion. But, at the same time, I hold for certain that these various incentives are no longer in harmony with the existing state of manners, ideas, interests, and social instincts; and that it is quite possible to-day to combat and restrain materially their empire. The extent and activity of industry and commerce; the necessity of consulting the general good; the habit of frequent, easy, prompt, and regular intercourse between peoples; the invincible bias for free association, inquiry, discussion, and publicity,—these characteristic features of great modern society already exercise, and will continue to exercise more and more, against the warlike or diplomatic fancies of foreign policy, a preponderating influence. People smile, not without reason, at the language and puerile confidence of the Friends of Peace, and of the Peace Societies. All the leading tendencies, all the most elevated hopes of humanity, have their dreams, and their idle, gaping advocates, as they have also their days of decline and defeat; but they no less pursue their course; and through all the chimeras of some, the doubts and mockeries of others, society becomes transformed, and policy, foreign and domestic, is compelled to transform itself with society. We have witnessed the most dazzling exploits of the spirit of conquest, the most impassioned efforts of the spirit of armed propagandism; we have seen territories and states molded and re-molded, unmade, re-made, and unmade again, at the pleasure of combinations more or less specious. What survives of all these violent and arbitrary works? They have fallen, like plants without roots, or edifices without foundation. And now, when analogous enterprises are attempted, scarcely have they made a few steps in advance when they pause and hesitate, as if embarrassed by, and doubtful of, themselves; so little are they in accord with the real wants, the profound instincts, of existing society, and with the persevering, though frequently disputed, tendencies of modern civilization…. I repeat, our history since 1789, our endless succession of shocks, revolutions, and wars, have left us in a state of leverish agitation which renders peace insipid, and teaches us to find a blind gratification in the unexpected strokes of a hazardous policy. We are a prey to two opposing currents,—one deep and regular, which carries towards the definite goal of our social state; the other superficial and disturbed, which throws us here and there in search of new adventures and unknown lands. Thus we float and alternate between these two opposing directions,—called towards the one by our sound sense and moral conviction, and enticed towards the other by our habits of routine and freaks of imagination." (Memoirs of a Minister of State, from the year 1840 pp. 7-9, 10.)

THE KING'S AVARICE.—The imputation of avarice to Louis Philippe was one source of his increasing unpopularity. On his accession he had handed over to his children the estates of the house of Orleans, in order that, as private property, they might not be forfeited with the loss of the crown. He was not content with increasing his wealth by adding to it all the possessions of Charles X. and of the Duke of Bourbon, but it was discovered that he was engaged in business ventures. In providing for ample marriage settlements for his children, he resorted to devices which gave offense to the Chamber of Deputies and to the public. Yet writers like Martin, who are strongly averse to his method of rule, clear him of blame in these particulars, if he is to be judged by what is usual in a monarchical system.

THE SPANISH MARRIAGES.—An event of consequence in relation to the fall of Louis Philippe from power was the affair of the Spanish marriages, which took place under the ministry of Guizot. The Duke de Montpensier, the youngest son of the king, was married to the sister of Isabella II. of Spain. The design, it was believed, was, in the anticipated childlessness of the queen, to secure for his heirs the Spanish crown.

Ferdinand VII. of Spain was an absolutist; but the extreme monarchical party there wished for a king of more energy, and desired to raise to the throne his brother Don Carlos. In 1830 Ferdinand, being then childless, was induced by his wife, the daughter of Ferdinand IV. of Naples, to abrogate the Salic law excluding females from the succession. Her daughter Isabella was born a few months later. After the death of the king (1833), the Carlists resisted the exclusion of their favorite from the throne. Don Carlos was proclaimed in the Basque provinces, and a civil war arose. The queen, Maria Christina, as regent, was supported by the moderados (moderates) and the liberals, and was allowed to recruit for her army in England and France. The leading constitutionalist general, Espartero, was successful; and Don Carlos fled into France (1839). The queen regent allied herself with the conservative wing of the progressive party (the moderados); but insurrections at Barcelona and Madrid, in the interest of the radical wing, obliged her to make Espartero, the head of the movement, prime minister (1840). His administration greatly promoted the prosperity of the country. But the conservatives and absolutists were against him; and, as the result of a counter-insurrection, Gen. Narvaez, the leader of the conservatives, became chief of the cabinet (1844); but he was dismissed two years later. The constitution was divested of some of its liberal features. The queen, Isabella II., had been declared of age by the Cortes, and placed on the throne (Nov. 10, 1843). Christina, her dissolute mother, returned from France, whither she had fled. In the hope of securing the Spanish throne to the Orleans family, Louis Philippe arranged with Christina to effect a marriage between Isabella and a weakling in body and mind, Francis de Assis; and, at the same time, a marriage of his son, the Duke de Montpensier, with her sister Maria Louisa (Oct. 10, 1846). An Orleans prince would not have acquired the crown, even if Louis Philippe had remained on the French throne, since a daughter was born to Isabella in 1851.

There was loud complaint in England against the king and Guizot, for the alleged violation of a promise in this affair. Their defense was that Lord Palmerston, who succeeded Aberdeen, took a very different position from that of this minister, which had been the condition of the engagement. It was from Palmerston's action previously in the affair of Egypt, that the French were embittered, the English alliance was weakened, and the policy of Guizot, who was sincerely desirous to maintain this friendly relation, was discredited at home.

FALL OF LOUIS PHILIPPE.—The scarcity of provisions in 1846 and 1847 provoked much discontent in France. "Bread riots" broke out in various places. The liberal party, composed of diverse elements, organized committees as one of their instruments of agitation in behalf of political reform. The democratic and socialistic journals published inflammatory discussions and appeals. The complaint of corruption among officials grew louder. Communism had numerous votaries; and M. Louis Blanc was an apostle of socialism,—the theory that the government should furnish work and maintenance to all of its subjects. Great reform banquets were held, where the spirit was inimical to Guizot,—who would yield nothing to the popular clamor,—and hostile to the reactionary policy of the Orleans monarchy. The spark that kindled the flames of revolution was the prohibition by Guizot of a great reform banquet appointed to be held on the 22d of February, 1848, in the Champs Elysées, in which a hundred thousand persons were expected to participate. On that day barricades were thrown up in the streets, and there were some conflicts with the municipal guard. These disturbances continued on the next day. The king, who did not lack physical courage, evinced no firmness or boldness in this crisis, dismissed Guizot as a peace-offering, and called upon Count Molé to form a cabinet. Molé declined; the riotous disturbances increased; and Thiers, on the promise of the king to consent to the reforms demanded, undertook, when it was too late, to take office, and try to pacify the people. Soldiers began to fraternize with the mob. The king showed no spirit, but abdicated in favor of his grandson, the Count of Paris. The Duchess of Orleans presented her two sons, the count and his brother, before the Chamber of Deputies. But the motion for a provisional government prevailed (Feb. 24). It consisted of Dupont de l'Eure, Lamartine the poet, Arago, Ledru-Rollin, and six associates. It established itself in the Hotel de Ville. This act, and the firmness and eloquence of Lamartine, prevented the establishment of an ultra-republican, socialistic Directory. The middle classes, alarmed on account of the displays of mob violence, rallied to the support of Lamartine and the party of order. Louis Philippe and his family were allowed to escape to England. There Guizot temporarily took up his abode. After a year, this "last of the Huguenots" returned to France, where he died in 1874.

CONTEST WITH SOCIALISTS.—A concession was made to the socialists in the establishment of government workshops, which turned out to be not workshops at all, but mere excavations. A mob of the Red Republicans was checked (April 16) by the National Guards. The National Assembly voted for a republic. Another mob of socialists and communists was suppressed (May 15). But the great contest came (June 23-26) when the government dismissed a part of those given employment on public works. The battle was severe; but the government troops under the command of a patriotic general, Cavaignac, who was made dictator during the struggle, subdued the insurgents. He was now appointed president of the council, or chief of the executive commission.

THE REPUBLIC: LOUIS NAPOLEON.—Fear of communism and of mob violence gave a new impetus to the conservative tendency. A republican constitution, however, with a president holding for a term of four years, was adopted. Louis Napoleon was elected a member of the assembly. He was chosen president of the republic, mainly by the votes of the peasantry and common soldiers, and with the help of Thiers and others who thought him incapable, and desired to bring about a restoration of the Orleans rule.

Thiers was a personal enemy of Cavaignac. "Thiers" says Martin, "did not feel the same repulsion for the consulate and the empire as does the present generation: he took Louis Napoleon for an inexperienced and somewhat narrow-minded man, whom he could easily restrain and direct, not guessing the determined obstinacy and prejudice hidden beneath his heavy and commonplace exterior." (Popular History of France [from 1789], iii. 200.)