Chapter 21
CHAPTER III. Guizot was the father of what is called philosophical history, and all his historical writings show great research, accuracy, and breadth of views. His temperament made him calm and unimpassioned, and his knowledge made him profound. He was a great historical authority, like Ranka, but was more admired fifty years ago
than he is at the present day, when dramatic writings like those of Motley and Frauda have spoiled ordinary readers for profundity allied with the dullness. He resembles Hallam more than McCulley. But it is life rather than learning which gives immortality to historians. It is the life and the individuality of Gibbon which preserve his fame and popularity rather
than his marvelous learning. Voltaire lives for his style alone, the greatest of modern historical artists. Better it is for the fame of a writer to have a thousand faults with the single excellence of living power, than to have no faults and no remarkable excellences. Guizot is deficient in life, but is wonderful for research and philosophical deductions,
and hence is to be read by students rather than by the people. As a popular historian he is inferior to Thiers, but superior to him in general learning. Guizot became the favorite minister of Louis Philippe for his conservative policy and his love of peace rather than for his personal attractions. He was less independent than Thiers and equally ambitious of ruling, and was also more subservient
to the king, supporting him in measures which finally undermined his throne. But the purity of Guizot's private life in an age of corruption secured for him more respect than popularity, Mr. Fife, in his late scholarly history, sneers at him as a sanctimonious old puritan, almost a hypocrite. Guizot died before Thiers had won his greatest fame as the restorer of law and order after
the communistic riots which followed the siege of Paris in 1871, when, as president of the Republic, he rendered inestimable services to France. The great personal defect of Thiers was vanity, that of Guizot was austerity, but both were men of transcendent ability and unimpeached patriotism. With these two men began the mighty power of the French press in the formation of public
opinion. With them the reign of Louis Philippe was identified as much as that of Queen Victoria for twenty years has been with Gladstone and Disraeli. Between them the king reigned rather than governed. This was the period when statesmen began to monopolize the power of kings in Prussia and
Austria as well as in France and England. The king, the king alone of the great powers, was ruled by the will of a royal autocrat. In constitutional monarchies ministers enjoy the powers which were once given to the favorites of royalty. They rise and fall with majorities in legislative assemblies.
In such a country as America the president is king but only for a limited period. He descends from a position of transcendent dignity to the obscurity of private life. His ministers are his secretaries, without influence comparatively in the halls of Congress. They were made nor unmade by the legislature, although dependent on the Senate for confirmation, but once appointed independent of both houses and responsible only to the irremovable executive,
who can defy even public opinion unless he aims at re-election, a unique government in the political history of the world. The year 1841 opened auspiciously for Louis Philippe. He was at the summit of his power and his throne seemed to be solidly cemented. All the insurrections which had given him so much trouble were suppressed, and the country
was unusually prosperous. The enormous sum of 85 million pounds had been expended in six years on railways, one quarter more than England had spent. Population had increased over a million in ten years and the exports were 7 million pounds more than they were in 1830.
Paris was a city of shops and attractive boulevards. The fortification of the capital continued to be an engrossing matter with the ministry and legislature, and it was a question whether there should be built a wall around the city or a series of strong detached forts. The latter found the most favor with military men, but the press denounced it as nothing
less than a series of bastilles to overhaul the city. The result was the adoption of both systems, detached forts, each capable of sustaining a siege and preventing an enemy from effectually bombarding the city, and the anciente continuit, which proved an expensive mural de octroi. Had it not been for the detached forts, with their 2,000 pieces of cannon, Paris would
have been unable to sustain a siege in the Franco-Prussian War. The city must have surrendered immediately when once invested, or had been destroyed, but the distant forts prevented the Prussians from advancing near enough to bombard the center of the city. The war in Algeria was also continued with great vigor by the government of Guizot.
It required 60,000 troops to carry on the war, bring the Arabs to terms, and capture their cunning and heroic chieftain Abed El-Kader, which was done at last after a fast expenditure of money and men. Among the commanders who conducted this African war were Marshals Valais, Changarnier, Kavillignac, Conrobert, Bogarde, Saint-Arnaud, and the generals LaMauricière, Bosquet, Pellissiere.
Of these, Changarnier was the most distinguished, although from political reasons he took no part in the Crimean War. The result of the long contest in which were developed the talents of generals who afterward gained under Napoleon III so much distinction was the possession of a country 1,200 miles in length and 300 in breadth, many parts of which are exceedingly fertile and capable
of sustaining a large population. As a colony, however, Algeria has not been a profitable investment. It took 18 years to subdue it at a cost of 1 billion francs, and the annual expense of maintaining it exceeds 100 million francs. The condition of colonists there has generally been miserable, and while the imports in 1845
were 100 million francs, the exports were only about 10 millions. The great importance of the colony is as a school for war. It has no great material or political value. The English never had over 50,000 European troops aside from the native auxiliary army to hold India in subjection, with a population of nearly 300 millions, whereas it takes nearly
100,000 men to hold possession of a country of less than 2 million natives. This fact, however, suggests the immeasurable superiority of the Arabs over the inhabitants of India from a military point of view. The accidental death in 1842 of the D'Orline, heir to the throne, was attended with important political consequences.
He was a favorite of the nation and was both gifted and virtuous. His death left a frail infant, the Comte de Paris, as heir to the throne and led to great disputes in the chambers as to whom the regency should be entrusted in case of the death of the king. Indeed, this sad calamity, as it was felt by the nation, did much to shake the throne
of Louis-Philippe. The most important event during the ministry of Guizot, in view of its consequences on the fortunes of Louis-Philippe, was the Spanish marriages. The Salic law prohibited the succession of females to the throne of France, but the old laws of Spain permitted females as well as males to reign.
In consequence, it was a matter of dynastic ambition for the monarchs of Europe to marry their sons to those Spanish princesses who possibly might become sovereign of Spain. But as such marriages might result in the consolidation of powerful states and thus the balance of power, they were generally opposed by other countries, especially England. Indeed, the long and bloody war called the War of Spanish Succession, in which Marlborough
and Eugène were the heroes, was waged with Louis XIV to prevent the union of France and Spain as seemed probable when the bequest of the Spanish throne was made to the Duc d'Angers, grandson of Louis XIV, who had married a Spanish princess. The victories of Marlborough and Eugène prevented this union of the two most powerful monarchies of Europe at the time, and the Treaty of Utrecht permanently guarded against it.
The title of the Duc d'Angers to the Spanish throne was recognized, but only on the condition that he renounced for himself and his descendants all claim to the French crown, while the French monarch renounced on his part for his descendants all claim to the Spanish throne, which was to descend against ancient usages to the male heirs alone. The Spanish Cortes and the Parliament of Paris ratified this treaty, and it became incorporated
with the public law of Europe. Up to this time the relations between England and France had been most friendly. Louis-Philippe had visited Queen Victoria at Windsor, and the Queen of England had returned the visit to the French king with great pomp at his Chateau d'Eau in Normandy, where magnificent fetts followed.
Guizot and Lord Aberdeen, the English foreign minister, were also in accord, both statesmen adopting a peace policy. This Entente Cordiale between England and France had greatly strengthened the throne of Louis-Philippe, who thus had the moral support of England. But this moral support was withdrawn when the king in 1846, yielding to ambition and
dynastic interests, violated in substance the Treaty of Utrecht by marrying his son, the duke de Montpensier, to the Infanta, daughter of Christina, the queen of Spain and second wife of Fernande VII, the last of the Bourbon kings of Spain. Ferdinand left two daughters by Queen Christina, but no son. By the Salic law his younger brother Don Carlos was the legitimate heir to the throne, but
his ambitious wife, who controlled him, influenced him to alter the law of succession by which his eldest daughter became the heir. This bred a civil war, but as Don Carlos was a bigot and a tyrant, like all his family, the Liberal Party in France and England brought all their influence to secure the acknowledgement of the claims of Isabella, now queen, under the regency of her mother Christina.
But her younger sister, the Infanta, was also a great matrimonial prize, since on the failure of issue in case the young queen married, the Infanta would be the heir to the crown. By the intrigues of Louis-Philippe, aided by his astute, able but subservient minister Guizot, it was contrived to marry the young queen to the duke of Cadiz, one of the degenerate descendants of Philip V, since no issue from the marriage was expected, in which case the
heir of the Infanta, Donna Fernanda, married to the duke de Montpensier, would someday ascend to the throne of Spain. The English government, especially Lord Palmerston, who had succeeded Lord Aberdeen as foreign secretary, was exceedingly indignant at this royal trick, for Louis-Philippe had distinctly promised Queen Victoria, when he entertained her at his royal château in Normandy, that
this marriage of the duke de Montpensier should not take place until Queen Isabella was married and had children. Guizot also came in for a share of the obloquy and made a miserable defense. The result of the whole matter was that the Entente Cordiale between the governments of France and England was broken.
A great misfortune to Louis-Philippe, and the English government was not only indignant in view of this insincerity, treachery and ambition on the part of the French king, but was disappointed in not securing the hand of Queen Isabella for the Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg. Meanwhile, corruption became year by year more disgracefully flagrant.
It entered into every department of the government, and only by evident corruption did the king retain his power. The eyes of the whole nation were opened to his selfishness and grasping ambition to increase the power and wealth of his family. In seven years, a thousand million francs had been added to the national debt.
With the government works being completed, there was great distress among the laboring classes and government made no effort to relieve it. Consequently, there was an increasing disaffection among the people, restrained from open violence by a government becoming every day more despotic. Even the army was alienated, having reaped nothing but barren laurels in Algeria.
Socialistic theories were openly discussed, and so Abel and historian as Louis Blanc fanned the discontent. The press grew more and more hostile, seeing that the nation had been duped and mocked. But the most marked feature of the times was excessive venality. Talents, energy, and eloquence, says Louis Blanc, were alike devoted to making money.
Even literature and science were venal. All elevated sentiments were forgotten in the brutal materialism which followed the thirst for gold. The foundations of society were rapidly being undermined by dangerous theories and by general selfishness and luxury among the middle classes.
No reforms of importance took place. Jean-Guy Zot was as much opposed to electoral extension as the Duke of Wellington. The king in his old age became obstinate and callous and would not listen to his advisors. The Prince de Genve himself complained to his brother of the inflexibility of his father. His own will, said he, must prevail over everything.
There are no longer any ministers. Everything rests with the king. Added to these evils, there was a failure of the potato crop and a monetary crisis. The annual deficit was alarming. Loans were raised with difficulty.
No one came to the support of a throne which was felt to be tottering. The liberal press made the most of the difficulties to fan the general discontent. It saw no remedy for increasing evils but in parliamentary reform, and this of course was opposed by government. The chamber of deputies, composed of rich men, had lost the confidence of the nation.
The clergy were irrevocably hostile to the government. Yes, said La Martine, a revolution is approaching, and it is a revolution of contempt. The most alarming evil was the financial state of the country. The expenses for the year 1847 were over $1400 million, nearly $400 million above the receipts. Such a state of things made loans necessary, which impaired the national credit.
The universal discontent saw an event in reform banquets where inflammatory speeches were made and reported. These banquets extended over France, attended by a cotillion of hostile parties, the chiefs of which were Thiers, Orion Barreaux, de Tocqueville, Garnier Paget, La Martine, and Le Drew Royin, who pointed out the evils of the times.
At last, in 1848, the opposition resolved on a great banquet in Paris to defy the government. The radicals sounded an alarm in the newspapers. The power seized all classes and public business was suspended, for revolution was in the air. Men said to one another, they will be fighting in the streets soon. The place selected for the banquet was in one of the retired streets leading out the
Chambre Élysée, a large open space enclosed by walls capable of seating 6,000 people a table. The proposed banquet, however, was changed to a procession, extending from the place of the Bastille to the Maréline. The National Guard were invited to attend without their arms, but in uniform.
The government was justly alarmed, for no one could tell what would come of it, although the liberal chiefs declared that nothing hostile was meant. Louis Blanc, however, socialist, historian, journalist, agitator, leader among the working classes, meant blood. The more moderate now began to fear that a collision would take place between the people
and the military, and that they would all be put down or massacred. They were not prepared for an issue which would be the logical effect of the procession, and at the eleventh hour concluded to abandon it. The government, thinking that the crisis was past, settled into an unaccountable repose. There were only 20,000 regular troops in the city.
There ought to have been 80,000, but Guizot was not the man for the occasion. Meanwhile, the National Guard began to fraternize with the people. The popular agitation increased every hour. Soon matters again became serious. The crowds were erected.
There was consternation at the Toulier. A cabinet council was hastily called, with the few of a change of ministers, and Guizot retired from the helm. The crowd thickened in the streets with hostile intent, and an accidental shot precipitated the battle between the military and the mob.
Thiers was hastily sent for at the palace, and arrived at midnight. He refused office unless joined by the man the king most detested, Odion Baron. Both was Louis Philippe to accept this great opposition chief as minister of the interior, but there was no alternative between him and war. The command of the army was taken from Generals Sebastiani and Jacques Minot, and given to
Marshal Beaugaude, while General LaMaurice Siere took command of the National Guard. The insurgents were not intimidated. They seized the churches, rang the bells, sacked the gunsmith shops, and erected barricades. The old marshal was now hampered by the executive. He should have been made a dictator, but subordinate to the civil power, which was timid and vacillating,
he could not act with proper energy. Indeed, he had orders not to fire, and his troops were too few and scattered to oppose the surging mass. The Palais Royal was the first important place to be abandoned, and its pictures and statues were scattered by the triumphant mob.
Then followed the attack on the Louvre and the Toulier, then the abdication of the king, and then his inglorious flight. The monarchy had fallen. Had Louis-Philippe shown the courage and decision of his earlier years, he might have preserved his throne.
But he was now a timid old man, and perhaps did not care to prolong his reign by massacre of his people. He preferred dethronement and exile, rather than see his capital deluged in blood. Nor did he know whom to trust. Treachery and treason finished what selfishness and hypocrisy had begun.
Still, it is wonderful that he preserved his power for eighteen years. He must have had great tact and ability to have reigned so long amid the factions which divided France, and which made a throne surrounded with republican institutions at that time absurd and impossible. Authorities.
Louis Blanc's Six Hommes de Louis-Philippe. La Martine. Cabafigue's La Histoire de Louis-Philippe. Lives of Thiers and Guizot. Pfeife's Modern Europe.
Life of Lafayette. Annual Register. McKenzie's Nineteenth Century. Conversations with Thiers and Guizot. End of Section 21.
End of Beacon Lights of History Volume 9. European Statesman. By John Lord.
