COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE METHODS BY WHICH LOUIS XVIII AND CHARLES X ATTEMPTED TO ENSURE THE CONTINUITY OF THE BOURBON MONARCHY. It was one thing for the triumphant European allies to decide upon the restoration to France in 1814 of the Bourbon Monarchy which the revolution had swept aside in 1792.It was quite another for the then sixty year old Louis XVIII to be accepted by a generally hostile populace who contemptuously felt that the Bourbons had been “brought back in the baggage of the allies”. Napoleon’s escape from Elba to begin his ‘hundred days’ swansong seemed just the signal the French had been awaiting to once again shake off the Bourbons. Restored once again in 1815 winning over the unrepentant French remained top of Louis XVIII’s ‘to do list’. Their chorus of scorn grew louder with claims that the Bourbons “owed their throne to the national humiliation at Waterloo.” Liberal historians like David Thomson claim that Louis managed that task so well such that when he died in 1824 he bequeathed to Charles X a regime resting on a much firmer footing. They also claim that his success was founded on his respect for the 1814 charter, on moderation, and in restoring national pride in European affairs. Contrastingly they regard Charles X as the villain-all he had to do was consolidate Louis XVIII’s work but he was unwilling and he certainly did not possess the right character even if he had wanted to. So much has been written about how different the two were and so little about their similarities. By analysing both aspects this essay seeks to advance the argument that there was in fact little to choose between the two. To begin with both premised their rule on the 1814 charter whose provisions for parliamentary government and individual rights were designed to win over liberal acceptance. Both held that the best way to ensure the continuity of the Bourbon monarchy was to make these liberal concessions to the politically temperamental liberals. Thus a chamber of deputies was established on a limited franchise of no more than a hundred thousand voters and various freedoms such as that of expression, association and legal equality were all guaranteed. Even the revolutionary and Napoleonic expropriations of church and aristocratic lands were upheld in that charter. The granting of the liberal charter did not in any way detract from the fact that both firmly believed in the doctrine of the ‘divine right of kings’ and intended to rule with absolute power. If anything, Louis XVIII still considered himself an absolute ruler but of the benevolent kind. As such the granting of the charter should be viewed in that context of a benevolent ruler exercising his absolute powers very much like tsar Alexander I when he granted Poles a liberal constitution in 1814.That is why Louis XVIII had it written into the charter’s preamble that he ruled by the “grace of God” not by the will of the nation (italics mine).He had also made it known that he had granted the same charter “voluntarily, and by the free exercise of our royal authority.” All this clearly implied that Bourbon power was absolute and a Bourbon ruler was not answerable to anybody except when he chose to be. It is also worth noting that Louis styled himself Louis XVIII and referred to 1814 as the “nineteenth year of our reign.” This implies that he did not legally recognise the revolutionary and Napoleonic as legitimate epochs in French history. In reality there had not been a Louis XVII and Louis XVIII’s rule only commenced in 1814: the nineteen years he claims for himself belonged to the revolutionary and Napoleonic governments. Similarly Charles X placed himself at the head of the ultra-royalist party and dismissed all talk of being a constitutional monarch although agreeing to abide by the 1814 charter. His reign commenced in 1824 with a colourful coronation ceremony at the Rheims cathedral which was full of the pomp and ritual reminiscent of the ancient absolute Bourbon monarchs. He followed that up with the flagrant declaration that he would “rather chop would than reign after the fashion of the king of England.” Thus as far both Louis XVIII and Charles X were concerned the Bourbon monarchy ought to continue in the same absolutist fashion although practical sense dictated the kind of benevolence that smacked of constitutionalism. Though desiring similar ends the character and temperament of the two was markedly different and this was evident in the sometimes contrasting governing policies. Louis XVIII was a more easygoing king who was even willing to accommodate political views different from his own. Perhaps this was also because he had that difficult responsibility of re-establishing Bourbon rule after all those years of revolutionary upheaval and the imperial rule of Napoleon. The Bourbon restoration had been imposed on France by a European consensus at Vienna in 1814.Louis was a man who had to negotiate the minefield of the conflicting interests of the recently defeated Bonapartists, radical and liberal revolutionaries as well as vengeful clerical and aristocratic elements of the ancient regime. In 1816 he dissolved the chamber of deputies to get rid of the ultra-royalists. It did not matter that they were his supporters for Louis was shrewd enough to appreciate that they could only sponsor the kind of vindictive laws that could spark off the kind of conflagration that would overthrow the Bourbons. He was even flexible enough to make provisions for the enjoyment of the individual freedoms already discussed. He also granted an amnesty pardoning all political actions and opinions prior to the 1814 restoration. Charles X was made of different, uncompromising and much more confrontational material. Where Louis had governed with the support of moderate royalists and liberals, the fire-eating Charles X decided that the future of the Bourbons lay with the time-tested alliance with conservative clergy and nobility of old. These were the vindictive ultra-royalists who had stubbornly “learnt nothing and forgot nothing” and wanted only the restoration of the political and social system of the ancien regime just to secure their own position. Where Louis had dissolved the chamber of deputies to weed out the ultra-royalists, Charles dissolved it so he could bring them in. Charles issued his (in) famous ordinances of St.Cloud to crush opposition through press censorship, dissolving the chamber of deputies and narrowing the franchise from 100 000 to just 25 000 voters. For all this Louis XVIII has been lavishly praised by historians with terms like ‘pleasant, affable’ and ‘easy-going’ being thrown about while Charles X has been vilified as ‘obstinate’ and ‘bigoted’ among other things. Yet again one can detect similarities in policy for Louis XVIII employed some of the very methods that earned for Charles X the enduring scorn of the liberals. Louis XVIII also dissolved the chamber of deputies when he considered it necessary to do so and took the further step of abolishing the annual elections and extended the life of the sitting chamber for a further seven years .Press censorship and court-martials were his other methods of repression. He even knuckled under to ultra royalists who won free latitude to unleash a vicious white terror which claimed liberal, Bonapartist and Protestant victims. The most famous victim was probably Marshal Ney the ex-officer in Napoleon’s army .He was executed for crossing back to Napoleon’s side during his one hundred days return from Elba .lt is easy to ignore or forget such repressive autocratic tendencies on Louis XVIII `s part and loudly proclaim those of Charles X .Liberal historiography has generally been kind to Louis XVIII perhaps because his measures did not lead to revolution .Perhaps they would have if he had not died too soon in 1824 and perhaps historians would have been less kinder. To their credit, both operated within the confines of the Constitution. It did not matter much that they huffed and puffed about absolute power and the charter being a gift which could be taken back, they did their best to observe it. When Louis XVIII dissolved the chamber of deputies in 1816 and even imposed censorship he was well within his rights of initiating and enacting legislation .Similarly there was nothing legally amiss about Charles X`s sacrilege laws or his 1830 ordinances which precipitated his overthrow .He simply used his constitutional right to issue ordinances –the fact that they were unpopular in some circles is neither here nor there. Even his opponents appreciated that fact. That is why they took care to amend the charter of Louis Philippe abolishing the king’s power of issuing ordinances. It is therefore clear that both considered it vital to operate within the charter irrespective of their true feelings about it if only to ensure the continuity of the Bourbon monarchy. Louis XVIII did not share the apparent religious fervour of Charles X. He did not seem to it vital to Bourbon rule to give the Catholic Church a greater stake in government through control of education among other things. Charles X on the other hand went all out to court the clergy. His coronation ceremony was held at the Rheims cathedral complete with all the religious ritual of pricking the body with needles and anointing holy oil. This symbolic gesture was followed up with more concrete measures such as giving back the church control over education, making sacrilege a capital crime and compensating the clergy for losses incurred during the revolutionary and Napoleonic episodes. Here was a man who believed that the church and Bourbon rule were inextricably bound up .If Louis XVIII had any such beliefs ,certainly did not manifest them in his policies. Both exhibited an active desire to restore France to its position of pre-eminence in Europe and on the world stage. This would not only enhance national pride but more crucially secure internal support and therefore continuity of the Bourbon monarchy. To that end Louis XVIII paid off the war indemnity imposed on France for the Napoleonic wars and rid his country of the European army of occupation. He also managed to secure France’s re-admission to the concert of European powers as an equal partner. That was at the congress of Aix la Chapelle in 1818. By 1822 France was actively participating in European affairs sending an army into Spain to crush the liberal revolt. Similarly Charles X took his place alongside other European powers such as Britain and Russia and intervened in the Greek and Belgian revolts of the late 1820s and early 1830s. Having said all this it can therefore be concluded that Charles X and Louis XVIII had much more in common than they were different.
Posted on: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 10:59:05 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015