PROFILES
P O W E P.
LOUIS-PHILIPPE
AND THE 1848
REVOLUTIONS
Robert Pearce ask why Louis-Philippe's 'July Monarchy'was overthrown.
Left: Louis XVIII, splendid in his coronation
robes. He was a firm believer in the divine
right of kings.
W
hat started out as a revolution, in 1789, became a
revolutionary tradition in
France the following century, after further revolutions in 1830 and 1848. The
1830 coup owed a good deal to factors
under no one's control, including widespread economic grievances, but a good
deal more to the actions of the restored
monarchs, Louis XVIIl and, especially,
Charles X. But that of 1848 occurred
despite the fact that the new monarch,
Louis Philippe, had consciously drawn
lessons from the failures of his predecessors. If they had been too reactionary, he in contrast was the 'Citizen King'.
Why therefore was he overthrown? To
what extent was Louis Philippe responsible for the 1848 revolution in France?
Louis XVIII
Louis XVIII was clearly in for a rough
time. The unparalleled upheavals of the
previous quarter century had spawned
opposition groups aplenty Furthermore, Napoleon's 'Hundred Days', and
the consequent necessity for tbe Allies
to bring about a second restoration,
made him seem the enemy's choice
as monarch; and the Second Treaty of
Paris was much harsher than the First.
The omens for a stable future were
inauspicious. 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, which
broke out in southern France in 1815,
was certainly not the only example oF
violent score-settling in these troubled
times. Perhaps survival was itselF some
sort oF success - and Louis XVIII did
manage to survive. He died in 1824
with his head Firmly attached to his
body, and the crown passed legitimately
to his younger brother.
Economically, there were undoubted
successes during Louis' reign. Gapable
ministers such as the king's Favourite
Élie Decazes reFormed government's
Finances, and despite bad harvests in
1816-17 the post-Waterloo war indemnity was paid oFF in 1818 and Foreign
troops withdrew. France began a period
oF quiet but real prosperity. Nevertheless Louis leFt Gharles X a diFFicult
political legacy.
* • Perhaps survival
was itself some sort
of success - and Louis
XVIII did manage
to survive
Louis accepted the Gharter oF 1814,
which gave him substantial powers but
did regulate his rule, so that France
was now a constitutional, though not a
parliamentary, monarchy The key issue
was whether he could convince the pays
légal (the 100,000 or so wealthy men
who elected the Ghamber oF Deputies) that he would make the Gharter a
working reality Many were immediately
suspicious that he could not. AFter all, he
believed in the divine right oF kings, court
ceremonial resumed its time-honoured
and elaborate course, and Louis insisted
that the white Bourbon flag should
replace the more popular Tricolour.
A major problem was the king's
inability to control the 'Ultra-royalists'.
For them, the Gharter was a temporary
expedient, parliamentary institutions
should be abolished, and the land taken
From Ghurch and aristocracy in the
1790s should be restored to its rightlul
owners. The king may have realised the
impracticality oF their programme, but
he lacked the will to quash all oF their
demands. 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 and
rallied to Napoleon were punished.
Many managed to escape, but others
- like the popular Marshal Ney, who
Faced a Firing squad - became martyrs to
the Bonapartist cause. In addition, thousands oF civil servants and other oFFicials
were dismissed to make way For royalists.
The situation became more extreme aFter
the assassination oF the king's nephew,
the due de Berry, in 1820.
Amidst widespread public outrage,
the Ultras - who included his own
brother, the Gomte d'Artois, the Father oF
the murder victim - managed to convince
Louis that his moderation had only
encouraged such revolutionary activity. A
new electoral law gave additional Deputies to the richest quarter oF the electorate, so that the Ultras dominated the
next Ghamber oF Deputies and the Ultra
parliamentary leader, the Gomte de
Villèle, became the king's chieF minister.
Now internment was allowed, French
Forces invaded Spain in support oF the
despotic Ferdinand VII, the Ghurch was
given Fresh powers over education, and
plans were laid to compensate the tens
oF thousands of émigrés whose lands had
been conFiscated. The years From 1821
to 1824 may have been a period oF prosperity, but the origins oF the 1830 revolution are clearly visible in the reign oF
Louis XVIII.
Charles X
i
Gharles X became king in 1824. At 67
he was certainly past his best, but he
seemed to have a charm and a vitality
that his elder brother had signally
lacked. Yet he promptly made a diFFicult
situation worse. Already the pays légal
harboured deep suspicious oF the new
king because oF his Ultra associations,
and now Gharles emphasised ancien
régime sympathies by being crowned at
Rheims with all the pomp and ceremony
oF an absolute monarch. It was all too
easy to believe that he was planning a
counter-revolution.
Perhaps there was an over-reaction
to a law passed in 1825 to compensate
the émigrés and their Families, but it
was an unwise measure nevertheless.
Émigrés did not get their land back,
and the amount oF money involved was
relatively small, but it was understandable that the pays légal did not judge
the measure on its merits. The money
was to be raised by lowering interest
payments to bourgeois bond holders,
so that many members oF the pays
légal thought they were being robbed
to pay worthless aristocrats. Similarly,
they were highly suspicious about
the clerical policies oF the new king.
Gharles's initiatives, which included
welcoming the Jesuits back to France
HISTORY REVIEW
DECEMBER 2 0 1 1
19
Ro F ILRs
I N P Cl W K H
hope of generating support for Polignac.
He made every effort to influence the
voters ('May you all rally around the
same flag! It is your King who is asking
you to do this; it is your father who is
calling upon you'). But two opposition
Deputies were elected for every one
government supporter.
The elections of June 1830 represented a defeat Gharles was not prepared
to tolerate. If things carried on like this,
he reasoned, he would sink to the lowly
status of the king of England. Monarchy
was under threat, and he would not
repeat the mistake of his brother, Louis
XVI. He told his ministers that he
remembered very clearly what had gone
wrong in 1789: 'the first retreat made
by my hapless brother led to his downfall'. Instead, he would act boldly using
royal edict to restrict the franchise to the
richest elements (about a quarter) of the
pays légal, at the same time instituting
press censorship. To some contemporaries and many historians, he was planning what was in effect a coup détat,
embodied in the four Ordinances of St
Gloudof25July 1830.
If Gharles had conducted the actions
efficiently, arresting potential leaders of
an uprising hefore the Ordinances were
published and stationing his own troops
at key positions in Paris, he could have
been successful, at least in the short
term. As it was, barricades were erected
28 and 29 July and the rioting was
strong enough to convince Gharles that
he must abdicate. He fled to England on
1 August.
Above: Louis-Philippe comes to power; August 1830. Well-known bankers Lafayette and
Lafrtte were keen to see him as king.
and appointing a bishop as Minister of
Education, were thought to presage a
return to the supreme position enjoyed
by the Ghurch before the Revolution.
Nor was his policy towards the press
enlightened. The Gharter of 1814 had
guaranteed freedom of the press, though
adding that laws might be passed to
check the abuse of this freedom. The
pays légal interpreted this to mean that
newspaper would be liable to legal
action if they printed illegal material.
Yet until 1822 the Government generally
insisted that no political news or opinion
should be published until vetted by the
censor; and after 1822, it attempted to
20
DECEMBER 2011
HISTORY REVIEW
use restrictive regulations, specifying
what could and could not be printed. In
1828 Gharles changed tack and virtually
abandoned censorship, but the damage
had been done.
Matters came to a head in March
1830. Elections at the end of 1827 had
left Villèle with only minority support in
the Ghamber, but instead of accepting
more liberal policies Gharles had
appointed his favourite and an extreme
Ultra, Prince Jules de Polignac, as chief
minister. What remained of moderate
support for the king then joined the opposition in a deadlocked Ghamber. Hence
Gharles now called fresh elections in the
The course of events does not fully
explain why Gharles fell. He had bad
luck in that the difficult economic situation from 1826, exacerbated by bad
harvests, created a revolutionary situation. The price of bread had risen sharply,
unemployment was high, and many Parisians were prepared to revolt. But it was
Gharles's unwisdom that transformed a
potential for violence into a true revolution. He had been too reactionary and
inflexible, too unaware of the need to
generate support. Gould his successor
act more moderately and intelligently
and provide political stability?
Louis-Philippe
The heady days of 1830 led some revolutionaries to call for a republic, but not so
the many bankers, traders and professional
R Ü FILES
men who, while welcoming the overthrow
of Charles X, were aghast at the prospect of
a revolution that did not respect the rights
of property and might be in the hands of
the 'masses'. Placards appeared in Paris
pleading the cause of Louis-Philippe, due
d'Orléans, as the next king, and he seemed
the obvious compromise candidate. His
father had supported the Revolution and
even the execution of the king in 1793.
Louis-Philippe himself, though a teenager
in 1789, had enthusiastically championed
the revolutionary cause and fought with
the revolutionary armies in the battles of
Valmy and Jemappes in 1792. He was
therefore acceptable to the more moderate
republicans, and even more so to the right,
since he was a direct descendant of Louis
XIVs brother.
• * He even waiiced
the streets of Paris
virtuaiiy unattended
and carrying that
symboi of bourgeois
respectability, a roiied
umbreiia
The new 56-year-old king was hardworking and energetic, good with people,
serious-minded, and determined to make
a success of his new role. Most important of all, he had no pretensions to absolutism. He did not claim to be king by
divine right, and indeed was proclaimed
not roi de France, a title suggesting
ownership of the country, but roi des
Français: in theory, he ruled because the
people wanted him to and on terms they
had agreed. Supporters compared him to
William III after the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688-9 in England. He restored
the Tricolour, symbolising his repudiation of the ancien régime, and insisted
that he would be bound by the Charter.
So far, so good.
Personally, he was unlike any
previous king. He was the bourgeois,
or Citizen, king. In sharp, and to some
shocking, contrast to his predecessors,
he scorned being waited on hand and
foot. He would get up unaided in the
morning, shave himself and make his
own fire. Rather than being remote and
inaccessible, he talked to visitors quite
informally. He even walked the streets of
Paris virtually unattended and carrying
that symbol of bourgeois respectability,
a rolled umbrella. His sons attended the
local lycée. He also bucked the trend by
having no mistresses or illegitimate children - much to the dismay of gossips.
In fact, the main charge laid against him
was that the Court was now rather dull
and that he personally — dressing without
splendour, overweight and with sagging
jowls - was just too ordinary to be a king.
To many critics, a 'Citizen King' was a
contradiction in terms.
He was also, in sharp contrast to
Charles X, a sincere reformer. Important changes were made, all designed
to remove the grievances that had led to
revolution in 1830. The Charter of 1814
was revised, so that the Chamber could
now initiate legislation, and gone was the
king's power to suspend laws and rule
by decree. The franchise was extended
to cover those over the age of 25 who
paid 200 francs in taxation a year. Still
fewer than three per cent could vote, but
at least it was an improvement, 94,000
becoming 166,000. In addition, the
minimum age for a Deputy was reduced
from 40 to 30; more locally elected councils were established; and units of the
National Guard could now elect their
own officers. Catholicism was no longer
the state religion but simply the religion
IN
P O VV E R
of the majority; the church could not
now control education; and the Jesuits
were expelled. There were also purges
of officials, many nobles being replaced
by members of the bourgeoisie. Similarly, the censorship laws were changed,
so that legal action could be taken only
after stories had been printed.
The overall effect of the reforms was
that the nobility had lost their preeminence, power passing to the haute bourgeoisie, the upper-middle classes. The key
question is whether the reforms went far
enough. The 1830 settlement certainly
did not satisfy everyone. Workers in
Paris were demanding guaranteed wage
levels and a fixed numher ol hours in
the working day, and several times barricades were erected in Paris and elsewhere in the early years of the decade.
There were even attempts on the king's
life, so that societies of the extreme left
and right were hanned in the September
Laws of 1835. Nevertheless it seemed
to many that Louis-Philippe had made a
good start to his regime. So what went
so badly wrong that another revolution
occurred in 1848?
Origins of 1848
The political question had been addressed
in 1830, but there could be no final
solution', not in a period of rapid socioeconomic change when newly wealthy
Above: In this lampoon of December 1831, Louis-Philippe - instantly recognisable from his
pear-shaped head - takes basket-loads of money from the people, which is then excreted as
rewards and honours to his fat supporters.
HISTORY REVIEW
DECEMBER 2 0 1 1
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 first
time. What seemed perfectly acceptable
to many in 1830 looked remarkably oldfashioned to most people in 1848.
After 1830 there were two main
groupings among politicians: the 'party
of movement', who wanted further
changes, and the party of resistance',
who continued to believe that ideal
arrangements had already been reached
- despite the fact the electoral system
took no account of social and economic
changes, so that growing cities, including
Paris itself, were more and more seriously
under-represented. Fatefully, the King
sided with the 'party of resistance', and
for eight years, after 1840, he worked
harmoniously with a chief minister,
22
UECEIMBEK 2011
HISTORY REVIEW
What seemed
perfectly acceptable
to many in 1830
looked remarkably
old-fashioned to most
people in 1848 | y
François Guizot, who had the same
ideas. The two men forged a cohesive,
but ultimately calamitous, partnership.
By this time, things were looking up
in France. The economy began to grow
and the standard of living to improve.
The development of railways was a
particularly important engine of growth
in the first half of the 1840s, and the
production of pig iron and the extraction
of coal forged ahead. Guizot said after
his appointment: 'Let us not talk about
our country having to conquer territory ... If France is prosperous, if she
remains free, rich, peaceful and wise, we
need not complain.'
Support for the regime should have
been high, but a time of prosperity is also
generally a time of aspiration. Guizot's
ideas were out of touch with those of the
reformers. He saw no reason to extend the
franchise - especially as he could use the
government's powers of patronage, and a
little bribery, to produce a majority in the
assembly He was also increasingly out
PROFILES
of touch with public opinion on foreign
affairs. No longer were Frenchmen
prepared to stand aside from the rest
of Europe. After licking their wounds
following Napoleon's defeat, they wanted
once again to be the leading Power in
Europe. Key elements of the public
would have liked at least a small war with
Britain. When trouble arose between the
two countries in 1842 over Tahiti and
Cuizot apologised to the British and paid
compensation, a debate in the Chamber
was won only with the votes of the government's 'placemen'. Tiiis led to vociferous
demands for parliamentary reform and
for the stamping out of corruption in high
places. Further criticisms arose in 1846
over the government's policies towards
Spain and its timid reaction to Austrias
annexation of Cracow.
To the mix of growing troubles should
be added the licence of the press. LouisPhilippe's reign saw the appearance of
some of the most subversive newspapers
that had ever been allowed to exist. The
press now had a much wider circulation
than before, and a number of talented
but sadistic cartoonists lampooned the
government and monarch. An atmosphere was created in which it was difficult to retain faith in the regime even
when it was doing well. Louis-Philippe
later complained that he was the victim
of the 'printed lie, a cowardly and
treacherous weapon ... which inflicts
wounds that never heal, because they
are poisoned.
Most important of all, prosperity
disappeared in 1846. There were falls
in share prices and an industrial slump.
Food prices rose steeply and there was
less to spend on industrial goods. A
vicious downward circle of decline was
formed. The government was blamed for
causing the trouble and also for failing to
help the poor. This discontent boosted
the campaign for parliamentary reform,
opposition groups organising banquets
from July 1847 to circumvent restrictions
on public assemblies. Timely concessions were in order, but Cuizot stubbornly refused reform. The government
was taken unawares on 22-24 February
1848. Once more the barricades went
up in Paris, and now the National Guard
refused to act. Finally Louis-Philippe
sacked Cuizot, but it was too late. Civilians were killed in the confusion, and the
revolt had become a revolution. Tbis king,
like his predecessor, fled the country.
Conclusion
No form of politics and no ruler would
have had an easy ride in the period from
1815 to 1848 - partly because of the
divisive events of tbe past and partly
because of the rapid change France was
undergoing. No king could have pleased
all the people all the time, nor even all of
the people some of the time.
Both Louis XVIII and Charles X were
reactionary If they did not both attempt to
return to the ancien régime (the good old
days from their point of view), they gave the
impression that they wanted to. The events
of 1830 were, in many ways, a revolution
waiting to happen at a time of economic
depression. Charles X might have kept his
throne if he had been far more flexible;
but, as it turned out, he precipitated revolution by an attempted coup.
It is easy - in fact all too easy - to
feel sorry for Louis-Philippe. Here was
no would-be absolutist but a genuine
'Citizen King', unfairly mocked by other
monarchs in Europe for his bourgeois
lifestyle. Coming to the throne at 56, he
seemed both intelligent and pragmatic.
Yet in fact he was as set in his ways as
either of his predecessors. 'They were true
to their vision of the legitimate rights,
duties and actions of a monarch, and he
was true to his. He genuinely believed in
the form of limited monarchy he estabIisbed around 1830: to him, this was the
'juste milieu. Perhaps it was too much
to expect that as he got older - and he
was 75 in 1848 — he would become more
flexible and intellectually adventurous.
He had no sympathy with the calls of
Adolphe Thiers and others that he should
extend the vote significantly and himself
become a figurehead. As with Charles
X, Louis-Philippe's resistance to reform
helped produce revolution.
Both monarchs had the bad luck to
be on the throne at a time of economic
dislocation. Problems were much
greater in 1848 than 1830. so much so
that depression helped unleash revolutions in almost all of Europe's major
cities. Furthermore the opposition
groups, bound by liberal or revolutionär)'
socialist ideology, were more potent than
in Charles X's day Nevertheless LouisPhilippe must take the responsibility for
banging on to Cuizot, instead of granting
parliamentary reform; and he did so not
because an evil minister was leading him
astray but because he wanted to.
IN
POWER
Louis-Philippe's monarchy was a sort
of half-way house between the French
tradition of a strong executive monarch
and the British parliamentary system,
with the monarch as a figurehead. British
monarchs might have no real political
power by the middle of the nineteenth
centur\', hut when prime ministers were
criticised and forced from office, they
were unaffected. Charles X had cast scorn
on the weakness of his opposite number in
United Kingdom: he said he would rather
chop wood than be a British monarch. Yet
had Louis-Philippe been less like William
111 and more like Victoria, he might well
have retained his crown.
The "July Monarchy' was inadequate
as a system of government in that it
revealed the flaws in the hereditary
principle much more clearly than did
the contemporary British system. When
Queen Victoria refused to play her full
role after the death of Prince Albert, it did
not much matter; and when she became
old and somewhat decrepit, a carefully
fostered aura of majesty prevented calls
for her abdication. Yet Louis-Philippe's
role did matter. He had real power and
he scorned other than a bourgeois image;
but in 1848 French citizens saw quite
clearly that the 'People's King' was old,
doddery, garrulous and out of touch. He
had to go.
Issues to Debate
• What were the key e\ents in France's
past that divided society in 1815?
• How ably did Louis W i 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.