The Tenth of April, 1848, is a noted day in our political calendar, from its presenting a remarkable instance of nipping in the bud apparent danger to the peace of the country by means at once constitutional and reassuring public safety. It was on this day that the Chartists, as they were called, from developing their proposed alterations in the representative system, through “the People’s Charter,” made in the metropolis a great demonstration of their numbers: thus hinting at the physical force which they possessed, but probably without any serious design against the public peace. On this day the Chartists met, about 25,000 in number, on Kennington Common, whence it had been intended to march in procession to the House of Commons with the Charter petition; but the authorities having intimated that the procession would be prevented by force if attempted, it was abandoned. Nevertheless, the assembling of the quasi politicians from the north, by marching through the streets to the place of meeting, had an imposing effect. Great preparations were made to guard against any mischief; the shops were shut in the principal thoroughfares; bodies of horse and foot police, assisted by masses of special constables, were posted at the approaches to the Thames bridges; a large force of the regular troops was stationed out of sight in convenient spots; two regiments of the line were kept ready at Millbank Penitentiary; 1200 infantry at Deptford, and 30 pieces of heavy field ordnance were ready at the Tower, to be transported by hired steamers to any required point. The Meeting was held, but was brought to “a ridiculous issue, by the unity and resolution of the Metropolis, backed by the judicious measures of the Government, and the masterly military precautions of the Duke of Wellington.”
“On our famous 10th of April, his peculiar genius was exerted to the unspeakable advantage of peace and order. So effective were his preparations that the most serious insurrection could have been successfully encountered, and yet every source of provocation and alarm was removed by the dispositions adopted. No military display was anywhere to be seen. The troops and the cannon were all at their posts, but neither shako nor bayonet was visible; and for all that met the eye, it might have been concluded that the peace of the metropolis was still entrusted to the keeping of its own citizens. As an instance, however, of his forecast against the worst, on this memorable occasion, it may be observed that orders were given to the commissioned officers of artillery to take the discharge of their pieces on themselves. The Duke knew that a cannon-shot too much or too little might change the aspect of the day; and he provided by these remarkable instructions, both for imperturbable forbearance as long as forbearance was best, and for unshrinking action when the moment for action came.”—Memoir; Times, Sept. 15-16, 1852.
The Chartists’ Petition was presented to the Commons, on the above day, signed, it was stated, by 5,706,000 persons. The principal points of the Charter were universal suffrage, vote by ballot, annual parliaments, the division of the country into equal electoral districts, the abolition of property qualification in members, and paying them for their services. Chartism and the People’s Charter grew out of the shortcomings of the Reform Act. The Chartists then divided into the Physical Force and the Moral Force Chartists; and then arose the Complete Suffragists; the latter principally from the Middle Classes, the former from the working-classes; though their objects were very similar.
Revival of the French Emperorship.
Soon after the breaking-out of the French Revolution, in 1848, the Count d’Orsay called at the office of the Lady’s Newspaper, in the Strand, and besought the proprietor, Mr. Landells, to engrave in that journal a portrait which he (the Count) had sketched of Louis Napoleon. The proprietor hesitated, when the Count told him it was the Prince’s intention to go over to France; and he added, emphatically, “the English people do not understand him; but, take my word for it, if he once goes over to France, the French people will never get rid of him.” This prediction has been strictly verified: the assertion was equally correct, that the English people did not understand the Emperor.
Mr. B. Ferrey, in a communication to Notes and Queries, 3rd S., remarks:—“For a considerable time, Napoleon was held up to ridicule by the Press of England; yet there were some who then foretold his coming greatness, while the multitude charged him with folly and rashness. Mr. William Brockedon, author of Passes of the Alps, who was well acquainted with the Prince’s habits, used to say, at the period when the Prince, amidst much derision, was aspiring to become the President of the French Republic,—‘Mark my words, that man is not the fool people take him for: he only waits an opportunity to show himself one of the most able men in Europe;’ justifying this prediction by relating a discussion he had heard at a public meeting, between the Prince and some civil engineers, respecting a projected railway across the Isthmus of Panama, in which the former displayed great ability, showing an amount of scientific knowledge which amazed everybody present; not only stating his case with clearness, but combating all objections in a most masterly way.”
The newspapers of London, with one “base exception,” condemned the French choice; and after Louis Napoleon had taken the first step towards the establishment of his rule, the journalists foretold his speedy failure: the “base exception,” the Morning Post, predicted the reverse, and maintained Louis Napoleon to be the only man capable of rescuing France from the throes of revolution. We happen to know that for another journal of very extensive circulation, chiefly among the influential classes, a leading article of similar tone and confidence to that of the Morning Post, was written by the Editor, but omitted by desire of the Proprietor, and an article of opposite tone substituted: the advocacy would have been too bold a step for the time.
The career of Louis Napoleon has been well described as a great revival in the fortunes of France, the accomplishment of which has been the result of a far-seeing estimate of the French character; thus sketched by a master hand:
“Louis Bonaparte seems to have had the key of the mystery. It may be that, as in the human subject, one part of the system acts upon another, so that a disorder of the brain may affect other seemingly unconnected organs, so political discontent, even though without any just cause, may deaden the enterprise of a people. How else could it be that France, with a citizen King, a philosophical Minister, and the alliance of a nation of shopkeepers, could not be made to feel that her greatness must henceforth be dependent on her mercantile enterprise? While she saw not only England and America, but the German States, making long strides to the attainment of wealth, she lagged behind, and encouraged among the rising generation the delusion that business was unworthy of a warlike and gifted people. That this generation has thoroughly unlearnt the doctrines which were fashionable in its youth, is certainly among the achievements of Napoleon III. If we look back to the days of Louis Philippe, when, though even Germany had its railways and its electric telegraph, we jolted out of Paris in the diligence and saw the old semaphores at work, we shall be able to appreciate the change which ten years of Imperialism have made.”—Times, Jan. 29, 1862.