Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

His journey was now made slowly, and under the delusion that all France would yet rise in his favour. Betrayed, and left by many of his courtiers, his hopes remained by him to the last ; and perhaps still remain-alone faithful in sorrow and in exile.

REVIEW OF THE REVOLUTION

OF 1830.

IV.

The two parties among the Royalists and the Liberals

-The wishes and ideas of each-Young Napoléon and a Republic, or Henry V. and the Monarchy, the two best combinations - Reasons why not adopted Having formed the existing Government, it is wise to maintain it-Astonishment to the hostility shown by those who put the present King on the throne to the natural consequences of his accession — What LouisPhilippe's system must be — title adopted by him. – Triumph over the more moderate party - Constitutional changes caused by the revolution.

To any one who has followed the events of this revolution, there will seem to have been on the side of the people, as on the side of the King, two factions. The Royalists were divided into the friends of the ordonnances and the ministry, and the friends of the monarchy without the ordonnances.

The liberal deputies also were divided. There were those who, without any personal affection for the reigning family, wished for the old form of government, popularly administered (M. Guizot and M. Sébastiani). There were those (MM. Lafitte, de Laborde, Mauguin) * who wished for a new dynasty and new institutions. M. C. Périer seems to have been between the two parties, and General Lafayette to have gone beyond them both. To M. Guizot, and those who thought like M. Guizot, Henry V. ought to have been more acceptable than the Duc d'Orléans; — by M. Lafitte the Duc d'Orléans, even if not personally recommended, would have been preferred to Henry V.;-to M. C. Périer the claims of the one whom circumstances most favoured were likely to appear the best ;- to General Lafayette the American republic was the dream of a long life.

In the nation, if it could have been polled, the liberal nobility would probably have been for Henry V.; the “bourgeoisie,' for the Duc d'Orléans; the old army, for young Napoléon ; the masses, for a republic. If the Duc d'Orléans was selected, it was because, while his accession promised the least to any particular party, it promised something to all, and was least likely to offend any one party. “The multitudes would have been passionately opposed,” say many, “to the legitimate line of the family they had been fighting against.” The army would have despised and the 'bourgeoisie' dreaded the red cap, which had presided over the confiscations and proscriptions of the Comité de Salut Public. M. Guizot and his friends accepted the Duc d'Orléans as a Bourbon ; M. Lafitte and M. Mauguin, as a member of the Opposition during the time of the Bourbons; General Lafayette, as the soldier of Jemmapes, as the aide-de-camp of Dumourier. Besides, Louis-Philippe was the first

* It is these two parties that have formed the Government and the Opposition of Louis-Philippe's reign.

.

person proposed, when everybody was uncertain. « Take the Duke of Orléans for your King,” said M. Lafitte. “ Liberty will be satisfied with the sacrifice of legitimacy ! Order will thank you for saving it from Robespierre! England, in your revolution, will recognize her own !”

All declared against Charles the Tenth. None spoke of young Napoléon ; none of Henry V. - and yet, if circumstances had favoured, a government might perhaps have been formed under the sanction of either of these names, more popular and more strong

than the one which was adopted. The Legitimate Monarchy and Henry V. ; the Republic and young Napoléon; these (I venture the opinion as an historical speculation) would have been the two great and most reasonable alternatives.

For the legitimate monarchy there was, the past ; for a republic, the future. The claims of the one were in the tombs of St. Denis; it was sanctioned by time, and it promised repose. A desire for new things could alone justify the pretensions of the other; and its existence could only have been an existence of action and glory, invasion, defence, conquest. As for a republic, with Lafayette it would have been the vision of an hour—for the title of a republic would have been a declaration of war; and, if war were to ensue, what name but that of.“ Napoléon” had a military prestige ?

Nor had young Bonaparte without a republic any chance of success. The soldier of France would have rallied round his cause the citizen of France would have shrunk from it. A name possessed by one, a boy in the Austrian capital, was not alone a sufficient basis for a government. If France were desirous of throwing herself at once into a new position-of braving Europe, and defying, the 'propagande’

« VorigeDoorgaan »