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.)