THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE 2 J;Edru-r0Llin and the second french republic STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Volume CIII] [Number 2 Whole Number 234 LEDRU'ROLLIN AND THE SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC BY ALVIN R. CALMAN, Ph.D. I^eteur de I' Universite de Paris COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SELLING AGENTS New York; Longmans, Green & Co. LoNDOM: P. S. King & Son Ltd. 1922 Copyright, BY ALVIN R. CAl L S MY UNCLE HENRY CALMAN ITHOSE UNFAILING GENEROSITY HAS BEEN FELT BY EVEKY MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY PREFACE The material on Ledru-Rollin is rather extensive. Among the printed documents, newspapers, and books, which give voluminous information about his part in the Second Republic, particularly valuable are two histories of the revolution of February, one written by Delvau, Ledru's private secretary, the other by Regnault, his chief of cabinet. Besides, there are in the Bibliotheque de la Ville de Paris a few thousand letters by or concerning Ledru-Rollin; most of these, however, deal with the period posterior to June 13, 1849, and therefore lie outside the range of this study. This thesis, the reader will find, is filled with quotations. 1 have adopted the method of rendering them all into Eng- lish. Some words are almost incapable of translation and I apologize in advance for the equivalents I have used; thus repiihlicains de la veille I render old-line republicans; chef de cabinet, chief of cabinet; emeute, uprising or riot; con- ciliabules, cabals; procureiir-general, attorney-general. One word I have even left in the original form : rappel. The abbreviation ** LR Papers " used in the foot notes re- fers to the Ledru-Rollin manuscript material in the Biblio- theque de la Ville de Paris. I wish to give thanks to Professor Hazen of Columbia University for his invaluable advice, to Professor Renard of the College de France for his counsel, to Miss Mudge of Columbia University Library for her aid in locating material, to M. Stiegler of the Bibliotheque de la Ville de Paris for his assistance in deciphering manuscripts, and to Professor Hayes of Columbia University, Mr. S. W. Drenan of Middletown High School, and Professor J. B. Stearns of Princeton for their valuable help in work of revision. 161] 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS rAGs Dedication S Preface 7 Table of Contents 9 CHAPTER I Introduction Literature on second republic— Ancestors — Youth — Ledru as a lawyer— Chamber of Deputies under July Monarchy — La Ri- /(jrwtf— Marriage — Home life IS CHAPTER II The Banquets France in 1847 — Parties in the legislature — Republicans— The first banquets —Lille, Dijon, and Chalon— Ledru in 1847 — Republican- ization of France— A visit by Melun— The sessions of 1847-8— Banquet of the twelith arrondissement 22 CHAPTER III The February Days February 21-22-23 — Morning of February 24 — At the Chamber of Deputies — Speeches to the crowds— Good-will— Distribution of ministries— Proclamation of the republic— General Bedeau — Minor matters 35 CHAPTER IV The Minister of the Interior Descriptions of Ledru — Calumnies — Expenditures— Subordinates at the ministry — Extent of the work — Charity — Fine arts — Free dramatic performances 57 163] 9 lO TABLE OF CONTENTS [164 PACE CHAPTER V The Provincial Government Parties in the government— The Individual members — The minis- ters— Cavaignac — Dissension — Police department— Caussidiere . 7i CHAPTER VI Finances and Foreign Affairs Financial conditions— Ledru's policies— Tax of 45 centimes— State bankruptcy— Legislative investigations— Lamartine's manifesto — Ledru's policy— Foreign workingmen — Germans and Savo- yards—Belgian democrats — Quievrain expedition — Blervacq at Paris — Polytechnical students— Delescluze's dilemma — Risquons- tout — Ledru's responsibility 86 CHAPTER VII Father of Universal Suffrage February 2q— Tricolor v. red flag— Dissensions within the govern- ment—Organization of universal suffrage— First commissioners — Deschamps—Riancourt— Circular of March 8— of March 12 — Conciliation v. republicanization— Panic 104 CHAPTER VIII The Seventeenth of March National Guard— March 15— Bear-skin cap fiasco— Postponement of the elections— Manifestation of March 17 — Results— New com- missioners and commissioners-general — Circular of April 7 — Postponement of the elections— Army 120 CHAPTER IX Clubs and Cabals Clubs — Club leaders — Sobrier — Blanqui — Taschereau document— Leroux— George Ss^nA— Bulletins of the /^efiudlic— Sixteenth bulletin— Cabals at the ministry of the interior— Meetings of April 14 and May 3 137 CHAPTER X The Sixteenth of April Attacks on the government— Preparations for a manifestation — Complicity of Ledru — Ledru's views— Government attitude- Beating the rappel — Tht manifestation— Results— Following days — F^ig de la Fraterniti 150 165] TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1 CHAPTER XI The Election of April Twentv-third Conflict with Marrast — Clubs' delegates— Non-commissioned offi- cers as delegates — Candidates— The election — Riot at Rouen — Opening of the Assembly— Account of provisional administration. 161 CHAPTER XII The Executive Commission Lamartine — Formation of the new executive — Choice of ministers — Unity of the commission— Parties in the Assembly I7« CHAPTER XIII The Fifteenth of May Causes of the uprising— Longepied visit— Measures of defense— In- vasion of the Assembly— Pandemonium— Recapture of the Hotel de Ville — Resignation of Caussidiere— Prosecution of Louis Blanc— Split in the government — Commission and assembly — Public meetings — Press 181 CHAPTER XIV The June Days Pire DuchSne banquet— National workshops— Louis Napoleon — Proposed resignation — Plots to overthrow the commission — Causes of the June Days— Measures of defense — Offers toCavaig- nac— Outbreak of the insurrection— Hours of agony— The As- sembly — Overthrow of the commission— Its resignation— Con- clusions— Aftermath - 192 CHAPTER XV The Committee of Investigation Quiet — First reports of the committee — Printing of the documents — Bonding of newspapers — Finances of the provisional govern- ment — The printed report — The debate— Prosecutions — The re- action 213 CHAPTER XVI The Constitution of 1848 State of siege — Right to labor— The constitution — New ministers — Chalet banquet— Finances again— Louis Napoleon— Depart- mental counsellor in the Sarthe 23a 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS [i66 rACB CHAPTER XVII A Presidential Candidate Candidates— Radicals and Socialists— Cavaignac in June— Support- ers of Ledru—SoliJariiere/>uf)licaine— Fosters— PuhMc meetings — Banquets— Closing of the clubs— The election 243 CHAPTER XVIII The Barrot Cabinet Louis Napoleon — Barrot — Changarnier's double command— The High Court at Bourges— Cbsing of the clubs— First impeach- ment — January 26 — Solidariti ripublicaine — Commemorative banquet— Banquets of the schools— Closing of the clubs .... 262 CHAPTER XIX End of the Constituent Assembly The Mountain— Other parties— Changarnier again — Finances of the provisional government — Police interferince in elections — Duel with Denjoy — Second impeachment — Changarnier once more— End of the Constituent Assembly 280 CHAPTER XX The Legislative Assembly Bourges trial — Trials of Delescluze— Mountain manifesto— The three parties — The provinces— Le Mans banquet — Chateauroux banquet — Moulins banquet — Moulins attack— At the Assembly — Riom trial— The election— Parties in the Legislative Assembly — The Mountain— Change in officials — Keratry's remark 295 CHAPTER XXI Italian Affairs Foreign affairs under the provisional government and executive commission— October 2— Rome in 1848— November 30 — Parties on the Roman question — January 8 — February 20— March 8— March 30 and 31 315 CHAPTER XXII The Roman Expedition Despatch of the Roman expedition— April 16— Oudinot's orders — Mountain letter — First attack on Rome — May 7— Louis Napo- leon's congratulations— May 3— Changarnier's disobedience- Fall of Fauchet— Czar's manifesto— Lessep's mission— Cabinet changes— Fall of the Roman republic 337 167] TABLE OF CONTENTS I3 PAG« CHAPTER XXIII On the Eve of an Uprising Forces of the opposition — Demands for interpellations — Proclama- tions—June 11: meetings— Assembly— The defiance — More meet- ings — June 12: National Guard — Editorials -Assembly — Moun- tain 355 CHAPTER XXIV The Grand Fiasco Interpretations of June 13— Newspapers and proclamations — The manifestation — At the Rue du Hasard — Guinard at the Palais National— The Conservatory — The conference— The proclama- tion — Barricades — Forestier — The attack — Flight — vasistos — Escape— Responsibility of the Mountain— Assembly 374 CHAPTER XXV Aftermath Escape to Belgium and England — Departments — Newspapers — Assembly — Domiciliary visits— Ledru and the trial — Versailles Trial — Assembly — Solidariti rtpublicaine trial — Last years of Ledru 397 CHAPTER XXVI Conclusion Virtues of Ledru — Faults— Characteristics— First revolution— Ideas — Socialism — Open means— Moderation — Danton and Gambetta — Mirabeau— Character — Place in history 411 Appendix— French Versions of Unpublished Manuscripts. . 419 Critical Bibliography 427 Index 446 CHAPTER I Introduction Of all the periods of modem French history probably the least studied is that of the second republic; particularly in Great Britain and America it is remarkable how few books have been published about it. Except Curtis's extremely clear work on the constitution of 1848 and Whitehouse's life of Lamartine, far better as a literary biography than as a political study of the eminent poet-politician, there exist in English no secondary works of real value. Even in France the field of biography has been left un- developed. There are scores of books on the literary men — Lamartine, Victor Hugo, Lamennais — a few of which treat adequately their political views.^ The career of Louis Napoleon has been dealt with by many writers, but by none in a satisfactory manner. The conservative statesmen — I Berryer, Falloux, Montalembert — ^and the socialists — Cabet, Leroux, Proudhon — have received ample treatment, but the great mass of radicals and liberals have so far found no chronicler.* Alone of the eleven members of the provi- sional government, Lamartine, Marie, and Louis Blanc have been competently handled. A striking lacuna is a biography of Ledru-Rollin; it is remarkable that the father of univer- sal suffrage has received no comprehensive treatment.* Alexandre Auguste Ledru was born on February 2, 1807 'Notably Quentin-Bauchart on Lamartine and Garsou on Hugo. 'Only Barbds, Blanqui, and Jules Favre have foiuid an adequate biographer. 'See bibliography for critical list of biographies. J6f)) IS 1 6 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [lyro in Paris near the church of St. Gervais. His grandfather was Ledru-Comus, a prominent physician and physicist, who, owing to his love for spectacular experiments, earned the reputation of a prestidigitator. Ledru-Comus accumulated a considerable fortune which ultimately descended to his grandson. He had two sons; Jacques Philippe Ledru, a successful doctor, a member of the Antiquarian Society and of the Academy of Medicine; and Jacques Auguste Ledru, inspector of pawn-shops. The latter married Marie Honor- ine Gay, and from this union resulted two children, Emilie and Alexandre Auguste. The son took a classical course at the Lycee Charlemagne and then proceeded to the law school of the University of Paris. His record as a student, if not brilliant, was at least full of promise. In 1828 Ledru was admitted to the bar. To distinguish himself from a well-known colleague, he added to his surname that of Rollin, the maiden-name of his maternal great-grand- mother.* By his eloquence in court, Ledru made a rapid success at the bar. Already his quickness in mastering a subject made itself apparent. He usually studied the case which he was to argue, on the morning of the trial, often on the way to the court-room, " nevertheless developing his case with that audacity of thought and that clearness of expression which made him one of the most distinguished lawyers of the supreme court." - He took part in the editing of two lead- ing legal periodicals. But this work did not satisfy his ambition. He threw himself into the liberal movement in politics. In 1832, he drew up a brief on the state of siege, which Odilon Barrot, one of the most distinguished lawyers of the day and leader 'For the period of childhood and youth see Hartmann in La Citi 4:3-10. sRegnault. Histoirc de la Revolution de Fibrin; 153. I^i] INTRODUCTION 1 7 of the liberal monarchic party in the legislature, utilized in his successful plea before the court of appeals. In 1834, Ledru published a pamphlet on the Transnonain Affair (an insurrection put down with great vigor and cruelty by the government), a pamphlet which created a great sensation. Thereafter he was frequently called upon to defend liberal newspapers and persecuted republicans.^ Odilon Barrot was acquainted with the promising young lawyer and supported him in his candidacy for the legislature in 1839, but Ledru's platform was too radical for the constituency of St. Valery, '.y.na his conservative opponent won by eleven votes. Two years later, Ledru was successful at Le Mans. The death of Garnier- Pages the elder had left vacant that seat, and there was much discussion as to who should replace that leading liberal orator. Trouve-Chauvel, a republican and a former mayor of Le Mans, finally lent his support to Ledru-Rollin, and this all-powerful advocacy gained him the seat.^ Ledru's profession of faith in the meeting that preceded the election merits particular attention, for it portrays his views at the outset of his political career. After lamenting the miser}' of the poor, the candidate enunciated the sov- ereignty of the people as the chief principle of government. The first step towards this goal, he said, ought to be electoral reform, that is, universal suffrage, for the entire existing political system was absurd and dishonest. The dynasty of Louis Philippe was a sickly compromise resting firmly neither on divine right nor on popular sovereignty. As to the political parties, that of Thiers really desired few changes, and that of Barrot was merely a slightly better nuance of the same party. The legitimists were only pre- tending to be liberal. Alone the republicans like himself be- 'Caussidiere was among those defended by him. 'For manuscripts on the election see IJ?. Papers 4: Part 2; for letters of Regnault see op. cit., i : 106-118. 1 8 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [172 lieved in the people and advocated for them serious reforms. Meanwhile what did the Chamber do? It wasted time over the address from the throne and inspired hopes that never matured. In foreign affairs France vacillated and allowed England to triumph; for Algeria no satisfactory measures were taken; the fortifications of Paris were built to subdue the faubourgs, not the foreigner; nothing was done for the people as the deputies were busy logrolling. Fear and venality dominated the legislators. As for himself, Ledru- Rollin promised not to follow the lead of the deputies; he would fight for democracy. In this speech the beliefs to which the orator adhered throughout his lifetime were clearly enunciated: popular sovereignty as the goal, universal suffrage as the means thereto; detestation of constitutional monarchy; desire for a bold foreign policy; a domestic program for the ameliora- tion of the condition of the poor. This speech marks the appearance of Ledru as a leader. There were men of position who, like Odilon Barrot, opposed the conservative tendency of Louis Philippe's ministers; there were others who, like Dupont de I'Eure, went so far as to state their ideal preference for a republic; but Ledru was the first representative elected under the July monarchy who openly declared that the constitutional form of mon- archy was fundamentally bad. This meant necessarily a rupture with the statesmen who headed the parliamentary opposition, with Odilon Barrot w^ho had supported him in 1839- It took courage to attack Louis Philippe and his government so audaciously, and Ledru was prosecuted for his electoral speeches. This merely gave him a new" platform from which to preach republicanism. Ledru was acquitted on a technicality and in December 1841 took his seat in the Chamber. He was reelected with ease to the 173] INTRODUCTION ■ 19 legislature that sat from 1842 to 1846 and spoke therein fairly frequently. Repeatedly he attacked the government on various phases of its policy, domestic, colonial, and for- eign, but only in one field was he listened to with attention : in discussions concerning the abolition of negro slavery. It was not what Ledru said that created his importance; it was his presence as an irreconcilable republican in a monar- chist assembly that attracted attention. In 1846 he was still opposed to the entire policy of the government. On January 19, Ledru delivered a violent attack on all the dynastic parties, speaking of the illusory glory of France abroad and the illusory prosperity of France at home. Bankruptcy was approaching, he said. The working class was in a deplor- able condition. In the recent union of the left centre and the left ^ the latter had abandoned nearly its entire program. Although the foreign policy advocated by Thiers was laud- ible, that statesman was not sincere in his advocac}^ of it, and his internal policy was essentially the same as that of Guizot and the existing ministry. There was no use in appealing to the Chamber; it was to the country that he appealed.^ Ledru-Rollin sorely felt the need of a republican organ to propagate his advanced ideas. The National, although edited by republicans, was not sufficiently radical for him and Godefroy Cavaignac; accordingly they founded the Rcforme. At first Cavaignac controlled the newspaper, but when after his death Flocon became editor-in-chief. Ledru's influence became more keenly felt.'' Ledru's connection 'In France and other continental countries the parties are often called after their position in the legislative chamber, the liberals sitting on the left side. "^ Discotirs politiques 1:217-231. * In 184s, other members of the directing board were Etienne and Frangois Arago, Louis Blanc, Pascal Duprat, Guinard, Recurt, and Schoelcher. 20 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [174 with the journal was fourfold : he was its representative in the Giamber of Deputies and received from it unqualified support and fulsome praise ; he was on the directing board and helped determine the general policy of the newspaper; he wrote articles for it — of course all his utterances in or out of the Chamber were published verbatim, but he was also the author of many unsigned essays and of several manifestoes ; he was its banker, for the periodical never was a financial success and Ledru-Rollin impoverished himself supplying funds to maintain its propaganda. It was during this period, in 1843, that I^edru married Henriette Sharpe, a rich young Irishwoman and protestant."" Mgr. Affre, later Archbishop of Paris, performed the cere- mony, and the groom's future colleagues, Frangois Arago and Lamartine, acted as witnesses. It is interesting to speculate on the influence of Ledru's wife in his dislike for England. It is notable that in the same vear as his marriage Ledru-Rollin went to Ireland as the representative of the French republicans and was present nt O'Connell's gigantic meeting at Tara. Ledru was happy in his married life. Henriette held the same political opinions as her husband. She helped him in his work, wrote letters for him when he was sick, gave him money for political propaganda when his considerable for- tune was exhausted," and while he was minister took her place as patroness of various public charities.^ The couole occupied a large house, 4 Rue de Tournon. which had a ^For marriage contract see LR Papers 4: 12. For permission to make a mixed marriage see ibid., 4: 10. * In 1848 Ledru transferred to his wife all his remaining possessions, consisting of real estate in Paris and Le Mans, and his share in the family mansion at Fontenay-aux-Roses, a house built by the Scarroi\s. •Melun 2: 12-19 praises her work for his Fraternites, an organization in which each wealthy lady acted as guardian of one poor family. 175] INTRODUCTION 21 garden with trees and a small pond. Across the street they rented a carriage house and a stable. For this they paid four thousand francs a year.^ They kept four servants and their total household expenses, carefully kept to the smallest item by Henriette Ledru-Rollin, amounted to about ten thousand francs a year.^ 'For contract see LR-B55. •LR-J7 for expenses for 1848. CHAPTER II I The Banquets In 1847 Louis Philippe was reigning in France; for seventeen years he had maintained himself on the throne and felt himself at last strongly established. Guizot, his min- ister for the last seven years, had just received a new and large majority in the Chamber of Deputies; ^ the opposition was broken up into fragments. France had passed through an era of prosperity, for the citizen king favored the bour- geoisie. The era of prosperity, however, was clearly ended. The government's finances were in a lamentable condition. Many prominent business firms were on the verge of failure. In the legislature the king and Guizot had a majority, but a majority composed of officials and place-hunters elected by a small minority of the population. The great majority of non-voters were dissatisfied with the government, and the proletariat was even antagonistic to the existing social system. Some advocated socialism, for the theories ofi Fourier and St. Simon had penetrated into the working classes, but the greater part had no clear idea of what they desired in place of the existing system; any catchword might rally them to revolt. In the Chamber the monarchical opposition, composed of the left centre under Thiers and Dufaure and the left headed by Odilon Barrot, was stronger in ability than in numbers. In the government ranks only Guizot and his 'Ledru had, however, been reelected at Le Mans without difficulty. 22 [176 177] THE BANQUETS 23 minister of the interior, Duchatel, stood out, whereas the opposition inchided many effective orators and prominent statesmen. At this time Thiers probably differed Uttle from Guizot except that the latter was in, the former out of power, but he had joined Odilon Barrot with the avowed aim of parliamentary and electoral reform. Lamartine, though cooperating with them, was a member of no party, but a free lance, already headed towards republicanism. The irreconcilable parties were the legitimists, supporters of the principle of the divine right of monarchy, and the republicans. The latter were divided into two groups. The National coterie, the moderate wing, was far more powerful in the Chamber where Bethmont, Carnot, Dupont de I'Eure, Garnier-Pages, Marie, and Pagnerre had seats. They wished for a republic but accepted the constitutional monarchy as a pis aller. They were interested in wide political reforms, but they ignored social questions. Above all they opposed with all their strength violent methods. This attitude did not satisfy the more ardent republicans of the Reforme, whose sole spokesman in the legislature was Ledru-Rollin, though FranQois Arago was mildly sympathetic. For them monarchy was fundamentally bad and the dynasty of Louis Phillippe an unmitigated evil. Moreover, they desired social as well as political transfor- mations. Peaceful means for overthrowing the monarchy, mere propaganda, were insufficient ; when the moment was ripe, violent measures, a revolution must be resorted to.' Between these two sections of the republican party, between these two newspapers, l^etween Garnier-Pages and Ledru- Rollin, between Armand Marrast and Flocon, a violent feud existed; duels were even threatened. The final goal was ' The leader of this party, Ledru-Rollin, however, although theoretically he saw the need of resorting to violence, was averse to an insurrection unless success would be almost certain. 24 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [178 the same, but their methods of reaching it differed funda- mentally.' Thus, whereas the National republicans joined the coalition of the lefts, Ledru-Rollin, although he usually- voted with them, took no part in their councils and their conferences. The opposition decided to show its strength in the country by a series of banquets. The ballot box had given a majority to the government, but the lefts wished to show that the majority of citizens were on their side. Public meetings would have attracted large crowds, but it would have been difficult to count those present and many persons, merely curious to hear prominent speakers, might have at- tended. On the contrary, the buying of a seat at a banquet was a formal adherence to the principles of the organizers, and the toasts at the close of the feast gave an excellent op- portunity for expounding doctrines. Guizot and Diichatel had each had a banquet in his own honor, and the opposition leaders felt that the government could not reasonably object to the adoption of the same tactics by others. All shades of opinion from Dufaure to Gamier-Pages were represented at the first banquet, held at Chateaurouge on July 9, 1847. Thiers, however, the most conservative adversary of the government, although evincing sympathy, refused to take part; and Ledru-Rollin, the most radical, did not attend. " At the banquet of Chateaurouge, which commenced that series of reform demonstrations which had such a sad re- sult," says Barrot in his memoirs, " M. Ledru-Rollin had been left out, and that not as an oversight, but as an exclu- sion premeditated and decided on by a committee in w^hich the moderate republicans were the most eager to repulse him." "" In fact at first Ledru-Rollin and the Rcforme ^ For a good discussion by a contemporary see Gamier-Pages 4: 67. * Barrot 2 : 25. 179] '^^^ BANQUETS 25 adopted a rather contemptuous attitude towards the move- ment/ But finally, realizing the great influence of the banquets, and possibly influenced by Lamartine's speech at Macon, ^ the radicals determined to enter the combat and chose in November 1847 the friendly city of Lille for their first appearance.^ A committee composed of liberal monarchists and of radical republicans, the latter headed by Delescluze of the Impartial du Nord and Bianchi of the Messager,* had in- vited to the banquet which was to be held in Lille on Nov- ember 7, Barrot, Cremieux, and the deputies from the de- partment of the North, Gamier- Pages and Ledru-RoUin, pro- minent republicans like Louis Blanc and Recurt, and jour- nalists like Etienne Arago, Domes, and Flocon. Barrot was extremely irritated when he heard that Ledru-RoUin was to attend; he feared that the presence of this radical would give to the banquet a tone too revolutionary. To counteract this he demanded the insertion of a toast to the king. Only once before had this been demanded and then at Cosne it had caused the retirement of Gambon. Imme- diately Ledru and Testelin withdrew their acceptance. This was not to the taste of the organizing committee and it re- fused absolutely the toast to the king. Barrot tried to im- pose his will. Now he in his turn refused to Ije present, expecting that the committee would submit to his demand rather than lose his presence. But only his fellow-deputies, ^ Reformc passim; Alton-Shee 61. For good study of position of Ledru at this time see Levy-eech is interesting as showing three cardinal features of Ledru's policy: admiration for the Convention of 1793, dislike of England, belief in the fraternity of all democratic peoples.' After the public l>anquet there was a private dinner at which Lacratelle met Ledru, " this j>owerful instrument in democratic ranks. . . . He had made a splendid speech but did not seem at all exhausted. That great chest had breath enough for twenty speeches, but there were ladies present, and he did not impose on them longer than to satisfy curios- ity. He proved himself a temperate and attractive speaker and left the impression of being a thorough man of the world. . . . Flocon abandoned himself to his theories and frightened the ladies." In a private conversation with Lacratelle during the dinner, Ledru-Rollin declared : " The great serice that Lamartine has rendered to the public is that now one may discuss Robespierre without l>eing con- sidered a cannibal." ^ Lamartine praised Ledru's Chalon speech as " bold, eloquent, significant." * 'Lacratelle 120. ^Discours politiques 1:351-360. For details on banquet see Alton- Shee 7%. •Lacratelle 123. *Bien Public, quoted by Lacratelle 124-5. 183] THE BANQUETS 29 Although Ledru-Rollin was the recognized leader of the radical republicans, he had not as yet achieved much reputa- tion as an orator. Remusat in 1874 told Gambetta : " Tt was after February 24 that Ledru-Rollin surprised us; pre- viously he had always spoken in a mediocre manner as a good lawyer, but in a very prosy way." ^ A conservative even claimed : " He brought to the Chamber neither ability nor distinction nor urbanit}'. He took his seat but not his position; a lawyer without a name, without depth, he had in his head not the spirit but the scenes of the Revolution." ^ Lamartine asserts that " In the eyes of the materialistic government M. Odilon Barrot was only honest eloquence without will-power. M. Ledru-Rollin only sonorous popu- larity, sounding the clarion of the republic without believing in it, in order to disconcert and mislead the opposition." '' In their action within the Chamber as well as in the ban- quet campaign, the left (party of Thiers, partv of Dufaure, dynastic liberals, National republicans) formed a single united group at the end of 1847. Only Ledru-Rollin was not invited to their councils.* He spoke frequently, jxirti- cullarly on colonial matters, but he made little impression. The session as a whole was unproductive. The govern- ment opposed all attempts at reform, and the mild proposals of Duvergier de Hauranne for an extension of the suffrage, and of Remusat to exclude office-holders from the 1e;^nsla- ture were defeated by the obedient majority. * Scheurer-Kestner 103. 'Granier de Cassagnac i: 117. The .same writer, speaking of Lcdrii later in his career, declared: "He was not violent, he was extravagant. The glare, the noise, the sudden blows of the Convention went to his head." — Ihid., i : 317. * lamartine 1:31. Cf. .Adam 279. ^Garnier-Pagcs 4:89 mention-, one mcfting of the extreme left which Ledru attended. -.0 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [184 Ledrii-Rollin's devotion to the ideas of 1793 and his ad- miration for the members of the Convention were manifest in all his speeches. Other persons were now instilling love of the first republic into the country. The lectures of Michelet, Mickiewicz, and Quinet spread republicanism among the eager students of the colleges. On the continent, especially during the first half of the nineteenth century, the universities were the hot-bed of liberal thought, the soil where the ideas of the future germinated. Equally im- portant were the historians of the Revolution. Even Thiers' work stirred people to enthusiasm, but of greater influence were Lamartine's poetic (for it cannot be called historical) panegyric on the Girondins and Louis Blanc's eloquent eulog}'- of which he dared to make Robespierre the hero. The effect of these two books was widespread. Everybody read them, and many began to feel that perhaps the republic had been maligned. Interesting light on Ledru-Rollin during this period is thrown by the philanthropist, Melun, one of the leaders of The Society of St. Vincent de Paul : A few days before the revolution I visited him ; he lived in the Rue de Tournon in a rather fine house . . . for the popular demagogue was rich and did not affect the austerity of a Cato or of a Diogenes. He received me politely; the conversation without being political concerned popular education and the institutions best fitted for boys. I profited, by the bye, in mak- ing him take lottery tickets for the benefit of my apprentices, a thing he did gladly. There was nothing in the interview that could irritate me ; only he reproached the friars as having an air too vulgar and too unintelligent. Finally while seeing me to the door, he said: M. de Melun, %vc are both interested in the people although undoubtedly in a slightly different manner. Well, you can be certain that if ever it becomes master, 7ve shall be the first to be hanged. I laughingly threw myself, to 185] THE BANQUETS 3 1 escape his prediction, on my obscurity and on the little noise my work aroused, but he more than once in his political vicissitudes was very near seeing his prophesy realized/ The legislature reassembled in December 2y, 1847,^ and immediately hostilities began. The King in his address from the throne spoke of the banquets as " an agitation due to blind and hostile passions." The phrase could not be overlooked by the opposition and all efforts at conciliation were fruitless. Orator succeeded orator, and on February 9 Ledru entered the debate. He treated the right of meeting, the right to hold public political assemblies. He com- menced by refuting four claims of Hebert, the Keeper of ihe Seals. This government spokesman had claimed that there was no law authorizing the meetings ; Ledru protested that it was for the cabinet to find a text forbidding them; and moreover, the constitution of 1793 did specifically per- mit them. H6bert had maintained that whereas all other liberties were enumerated in the Charter, liberty of meet- ing was not included and hence did not exist; Ledru con- troverted this : there were many things not in the Charter that were generally recognized, such as the sovereignty of the people and the right to speak in the legislature. The Keeper of the Seals had stated that the right of meeting was the same as the right of association, the right to form political organizations; Ledru asserted that his adversary know the difference very well. Lastly Hebert had contended that the right of meeting engendered the right of association expressly prohibited; Ledru affirmed that as a matter of fact the right of association came first historically. How- ever, continued Ledru-Rollin, the entire question is one of justice not politics. By denying all unwritten rights, the 'Melun I : 262-3. *For official notice of the opcninjTof the Chamber see LR Papers i : 197. -^2 LEDRU-ROLUN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [i86 authorities deny fundamental liberties. Remember the ban- quets of 1829 and the fall of Charles X! In an eloquent peroration the orator turned to the left and begged that it cease all recriminations and unite on this question/ Ledru's sf)eech was a great success. '' For the first time per- haps since he sat in the Chamber, he was listened to wuth serious attention; for the first time also did he rise to the hights of the orators of the great assembly. His argument was logical, his speech passionate but restrained; his eloquence borrowed, for the sacred cause he defended, a vital force." " Odilon Barrot had feared that Ledru " would bring the government a useful diversion by his revolution- ary exaggerations ; such was not the case ; he confined him- self to treating with elevation and even w'ith relative moderation the legal and constitutional question of the right of public meeting." ^ All the newspapers of the left praised the speech. The Reforme, naturally, was eulogistic. The Kationul declared : " M. Ledru-Rollin in a discourse justly applauded completely overturned the poor scaffolding of M. Hebert." The Siecle wrote : " He profited very skillfully from the mistakes of M. Hebert. . . . His argument was concise .... and caused a real sensation on the ministerial benches." Even the governmental D chats admitted his " real ability." When Ledru's oration w^as discussed in the pre- sence of the King, one of the courtiers feared that such a speech might intimidate the majority, but Louis Philippe re- plied that possibly there were " fifteen or so capable of being thus influenced, but that the government would none the less have a majority." * ' Discours poliiiqites I : 361-371. * Stem 1 : 76. * Barrot i : 492. *Marnay 301. 187] THE BANQUETS 33 The left took up the challenge of the government and decided to close the series of banquets with a monster de- monstration in Paris. Eighty deputies were to attend at the hall in the twelfth arrondissement (I^tin quarter), but on condition that Ledru should not take part. Eight hun- dred students petitioned that Ledru be allowed to speak at the banquet, even if that should cause the absence of all the other deputies. The extreme democrats of the organizing committee desired Ledru's attendance, and the legitimists supported them, but the members of the dynastic opposition and the moderate republicans preferred the presence of eighty deputies to that of one. Ledru made matters easy; he told the organizers of the banquet that if his colleagues in the Chamber objected to his presence, he would not be ofifended at being told so. " I am very much flattered by the honor you do me," he said, " but it is preferable that eighty deputies attend rather than one. I advise you to take the greatest precautions to maintain order at the ban- quet, to authorize no republican or legitimist toast, to keep within legal bounds, so that the authorities cannot make capital out of any irregularities which would serve it ad- mirably, for it has decided to use violence in order to streng- then its position since legality is contrary to its existence." ^ The government exerted itself to the utmost to prevent the banquet, threatening a direct prohibition. Finally Thiers and others brought al>out a compromise between Guizot and Barrot. All the guests were to appear at the meeting, Odilon Barrot was to take the chair, a police com- missioner was to appear and order the guests to disperse, Barrot was to make a formal protest, the banquet was to dissolve, and the case should then be submitted to the courts. February 22 was the date agreed upon, but on the twentieth 'Roinville 23-4, Castillc i : 384-7; Alton-Shre 84-8; Cremicux 55. 34 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [i88 complications arose. The Reforme announced that Ledru- RolHn would attend the banquet. Probably Ledru was dis- satisfied with the compromise and wished to precipitate mat- ters. His presence would mean the attendance of the ex- tremists and the men of the secret societies ; ^ it would threaten the control of the banquet by the monarchists.' More important than Ledru's proposed attendance w^as the manifesto drawn up by Armand IMarrast, editor-in-chief of the National and the most prominent member of the com- mittee in charge of arrangements. As the banquet was to be a mere simulacrum, the demonstration would consist largely of the procession to the banquet hall. Marrast published in all the liberal newspapers on February 21 an order of march in which the National Guard was to march as a unit. This would constitute an act of defiance of the government, for the National Guard was not supposed to assemble except at the order of its leaders. When Guizot heard of this on February 21, he repudiated his compro- mise with Barrot and definitely forbade the banquet. Was the left mildly to give up the contest or boldly to defy the government ? 'The republicans under the July monarchy organized in secret so- cieties to overthrow the King. 'See Alton-Shee 208. CHAPTER III The February Days February 21 was a crucial day. The opposition depu- ties gathered at Odilon Barrot's house. The timid liberal monarchists wished to draw back. In spite of the opposi- tion of Lamartine and of Alton-Shee, the liberal peer/ it was decided that the members of the Chamber should not attend the banquet in the twelfth arrondissement. Emile de Girardin suggested that the deputies of the left should hand in at the Chamber a collective resignation, but the idea was rejected." All that these deputies could agree on was an impeachment of the ministry. All hope of action now depended on the radicals. Flocon invited his colleagues on the Rcforme to meet at 8 p. m. at the office of the newspaper to consider the financial situation of that journal. This summons deceived no one; all knew that the question of a revolution would be discussed. At the appointed time there asserrtbled under Flocon's presi- ' Alton-Shee was an anomaly, a republican peer. The followinR is his opinion of Ledru-Rollin : " He was a fine man, pleasing and attractive, light-hearted, rich among democrats, open, generous, impressionable, credulous in his desires and as to his capacity as a statesman, dreaming of Danton as M. Thiers of Napoleon. Unfortunately he lacked the qualities for which he was most ambitious : firmness, character. A well- informed jurist, he knew lx;ttcr than any one his Constituent, and par- ticularly his Convention. . , . His natural eloquence acquired an argu- mentative force, an audacious form, well-calculated to deceive others and himself. . . . For want of a lx.'ttcr man, the weak leader of the Mountain." — 'Alton-Shee 52. * The Reforme of February 22 made the same suggestion. 189] 35 36 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [iqq dency over sixty of the most ardent republicans : collabora- tors on the Rcfonne, delegates of the National Guard, leaders of the secret societies. Alton-Shee, Caussidiere, and others wanted the radicals to start an uprising, but Louis Blanc declared for inaction/ Then Ledru-Rollin took the floor. This was the supreme moment of the meet- ing, for his influence was sufficient to turn the scale in either direction. If we look at Ledru's antecedents, we wonder how any one could have doubted that he would oppose an uprising. Emile Ollivier later declared : " At this time I was well acqainted with Ledru-Rollin and his friends. There is not one of them I have not often heard repeat that before the death of Ledru-Rollin nothing could be attempted toward establish- ing a republic." ' Ledru had never been a member of any secret society; he had never taken part in nor abetted any conspiracy. "Consult all my friends," he himself said later, " all those who have fought with me, behind me ; never under the old government did I wish to belong to a secret society, to a conspiracy. Conspiracies produce riots ; open discussion produces revolutions." ^ Always extremely violent in words, Ledru showed himself circumspect if not timid when it came to action.* Yet by Alton-Shee and others his moderation was unexpected.^ * Alton-Shee 223-4; Sarrans 1:282-5; Castille 1:137-8; Delvau 127; La Hodde : Naissance 40-49 ; Nougarede 46. Others present were Albert, Etienne Arago, Guinard, Quinet. and Thore. 'Ollivier i : 470. 'Speech of August 3, 1848, in Discotirs politiqucs 2:44. *" Impetuous in his speech, but weak in his acts." says Babaud- Laribiere 1:17. 'lAn artist in revolutions. He loved fine gestures and sonorous words. . . . Danton thundering at the Convention was his model He loved splendor and enjoyed life. The sight of blood troubled him. ... A man of the tribune, he was incapable of action. Weak in character, he was ruined by his friendships." So speaks the conservative Breynat 15-6. Cf. N. Gallois 105. 'Alton-Shee 225. Cf. praise of his moderation in Sarrans r : 295. j^l] THE FEBRUARY DAYS 37 Ledru in the speeech which he now dehvered said : " During the first revolution, when our fathers appointed a day for an insurrection, they organized for it long in advance. Are there enough of us? Have we arms, munitions, a plan of battle? The government is well prepared. It has a numerous army, a formidible artillery; its troops merely wait a word to overwhelm us. I believe a battle begun under these conditions is utter folly." As Rey insisted on action, Ledru resumed : " Let us not take our desires for realities. For several months we have been gaining ground; by precipitate action we shall compromise the future, we shall risk the annihilation of our party."' * This speech decided the assembly. The police spy and agent provocateur, La Hodde,' tried to revive the sentiment for revolt. But the meeting favored Ledru-Rollin. Quinet supported him, and Flocon, in closing the conference, ad- vised that those present preserve a quiet attitude unless a special occasion offer itself. Thus the meeting dissolved, having determined on no course of action. The next day the Reforme deprecated violence. When dawn broke on the twenty-second the leaders were still undecided ; not so the people. They paraded the streets shouting Down with Guizot or Hurrah for reform, cheering 'Alton-Shee 225-6. ' When the republicans came into power in February, they discovered that La Hodde and another member of the secret societies named Chenu were police spies. Caussidiere, then prefect of police, called toircther his friends, tried the spies secretly, and would have sentenced them to death had not Albert intervened. Caussidiere had apologized' for Lcdru's absence, but it is uncertain how much Ledru knew of this irregular trial. — See Chenu 150-8; Stern 181-3. — Naturally La Hodde had a low opinion of I^dru. ... In his Naissance de la Rcpublique 30, 381-6, La Hodde belittles Ledru's ability as an orator, saying: "his chief characteristics are redundacy and' boasting," and describes him as "simply a lover of noise, fame and enjoyment ... a man of intellect but without broad comprehension, of varied but superficial attainments." 38 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRBNCH REPUBLIC [192 for Barrot or Marrast or Ledru-Rollin. They erected bar- ricades here and there, but with no definite system. Al- though the banquet had been called off, the students and the workingmen who were to march to it assembled at the Madeleine and added to the uproar. Clearly all Paris was against Guizot. Fortunately for the revolution the King was as undecided as his adversaries. Had he adopted at that moment a policy of vigor, the uprising could have been suppressed; had he adopted a policy of conciliation and dis- missed his obnoxious ministry, the excitement would have subsided. But Louis Philippe and Guizot espoused the tactics of watchful waiting, taking no effective measures of any sort. Liberal monarchists and radicals continued to hold meetings. A group of republicans assembled in the Rue St. Honore in the afternoon. Caussidiere declared that affairs were progressing well ; such was also the opinion of Flocon, Ledru, and Louis Blanc. In the evening they met again in the Palais Royal. No definite measures were taken, but they agreed that in case of need the secret socie- ties should assemble in the Boulevard S. Martin.^ The twenty-second closed in a quiet manner. The agita- tion seemed to be subsiding. About 4:30 in the morning of February 23 Ledru-Rollin met his confreres in a small restaurant and the general opinion was that there was little hope of a revolution. Ledru, who had never believed in the success of the uprising and who feared arrest, manifested his satisfaction. Flocon was in an angry mood; only a few did not despair.- Although the republicans were despondent, Louis Philippe was equally so. Now the terrified king tried a compro- mise. Had he abdicated at this moment in favor of his ^ Nougarede 85-6. 'Nougarede 149: La Hodde Naissance 65-6. 1^3] THE FEBRUARY DAYS 39 grandson or had he even called Odilon Barrot to the premier- ship, all would have been well ; but from now ®n he yielded step by step, but always just too late. What would have satisfied the mob a little earlier Louis Philippe granted only when the propitious moment was passed. Thus the king on February 23 dismissed Guizot and called on the colorless Mole to form a cabinet. The Chamber met amid general agitation. The impeach- ment of the ministers was moved and merely aroused a sneer on Guizot's lips. At last Guizot took the floor. All wondered what he could say; how great was the stupefac- tion when he calmly announced that the king had summoned Count Mole. The left broke out into open cheers which were calmed with difficulty by Barrot. The right and centre were dumbfounded at seeing themselves abandoned with such pusillanimity by the king they had defended through thick and thin. February 23 had passed without bloodshed, and it looked as though the threatening uprising might subside. But suddenly conditions altered. Someone fired a stray shot in the Boule- vard des Capucines. Thereupon the troops replied with a vol- ley and scores of innocent bystanders fell dead or wounded. This spark ignited the smouldering insurrection. The people raised barricades in every part of the city. A torch- light procession bearing the victims of the massacre paraded the streets, leaving behind a trail of indignation and en- thusiasm. The National Guard, which till now had main- tained a benevolent neutrality, threw in its lot with the people; the bourgeoisie had joined the proletariat. ft was now that Ledru-Rollin changed his ideas as to a revolt. Until the resignation of ilie prime minister and the events of the Boulevard des Capucines he had considered an insurrection foolish. Now he said to his friends : " Even if we do not succeed, it will habituate the people to street- 40 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [194 fighting, and if blood is shed, it is on Barrot that the re- sponsibiHty will fall." ^ Ledrn-Rollin and Alton-Shee went to the offices of the Reforme. The leaders assembled there were congratulating each other on the course of events when the sound of an approaching crowd was heard. The Parisians loved to hear patriotic addresses and this group had come " to get the password from the Reforme." After Flocon had told the news of Guizot's fall, Ledru-Rollin praised the energy of the people who had broken the will of a despot and urged them not to lay down their arms till they had gathered the fruits of victory. The concessions they should demand were : amnesty, liberation of all political prisoners, recognition of the right of meeting, and suppres- sion of the property qualification in voting. After the de- puty, the peer; Alton-Shee reiterated Ledru's four demands. - The day closed with the people in open revolt clamoring for Barrot and reform, Ledru-Rollin committed to the cause of revolution, the king terrified and yielding slowly. On the morning of the twenty-fourth the tumult con- tinued, and the demands of the people increased. They had at first demanded merely electoral reform, then the dismissal of Guizot. Later no one less than Odilon Barrot would be accepted as premier ; now the abdication of the King and the regency of the Duchess of Orleans was the minimum demand. Some even w^ent so far as to urge a provisional government during the minority of the Count of Paris, the grandson of Louis Philippe. The King yielded inch by inch, but always wdien it was too late. Mole had been unable to form a ministry, and Thiers, to whom the King next turned, insisted on the inclusion of Barrot; but this advance toward liberalism had been neutralized by the appointment of Marshal Bugeaud, a cold-blooded general and confirmed 'Nougarede 156. Cf. Barrot 2:304. ^Alton-Shee 253-4; Sarrans 1:364-5. IQ5] THE FEBRUARY DAYS 4I reactionary, to the command of all the military forces. The uprising was gaining ground. Even the soldiers of the line wavered in their devotion and showed a repugnance to firing on the revolutionists. At last the King made his final sacrifice; he abdicated in favor of his grandson with the Duchess of Orleans as regent and Barrot as premier. Again he had waited too long; even this did not now quiet the people; they were demanding a provisional government. The idea of a provisional government which should rule in the name of the Count of Paris was slowly growing, for no one had yet dared to propose a republic. Numerous pro- posals for membership in the new executive were circulated through the crowds that thronged the streets. Of twenty- five different combinations, Arago's name appears on all but one, Ledru-RoUin's on twenty-one, Lamartine's on nine- teen; then in order of popularity came ]\Iarie, Louis Blanc, Garnier-Pages, Marrast, Flocon, Albert, Dupont de I'Eure, Barrot, Recurt, Cremieux, and Lamennais. The centres of agitation were the two republican newspapers. At the of- ficers of the National a coalition with Odilon Barrot was preferred to one with Ledru-Rollin. There the idea of a provisional government was not new, for several days be- fore at Goudchaux's house the project had been discussed and it had been determined to eliminate Ledru as well as Louis Blanc. ^ Now the names of Francois Arago, Garnier- Pages, Lamartine, and Marie were accepted unanimously by the moderates, assembled at the National offices, those of Marrast and Barrot with difficulty. Carnot and Cre- mieux were rejected. The name of Ledru-Rollin caused the longest discussion. It was finally rejected, as those pre- sent felt his time had not yet come.* Louis Blanc and his 'Goudchaux in Quentin-Dauchart Report i :288; Stern 2: m. 'Sarrans 1:412-6, Cremieux 370. 42 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [196 brother arrived from the Rcforme, but the Natio^ial would as yet make no compact with its rival. At the offices of the Rcforme Barrot, of course, was rejected, but many moderate republicans were included. The accepted list consisted of Ledru-Rollin, Albert, Arago, Louis Blanc, Flocon, Marrast, aid Marie. Later in the morning Martin de Strasbourg in- duced the National to compromise, and in a conference with Louis Blanc a list of nine, the same as that finally adopted plus the names of Albert and Cremieux, was agreed on and was approved by the two newspapers.^ Of Ledru-Rollin during the morning we have two glimpses. At ten o'clock he met General Bedeau in the Place de la Concorde. The general declares : About ten everybody seemed disposed for peace. I was ac- costed at that hour by a large fine looking man, accompanied by a younger and slighter friend, as pale as the first was red. General, the former said to me, / see you are making sincere efforts toward conciliation; I assure you we also desire it. I am Ledru-Rollin, and I am actively employed on that mission. The friend was M. Jules Favre. Was M. Ledru-Rollin then thinking of revolution and did he seek to put my vigilance to sleep by his words? I doubt it, and several persons of the revolutionary party have told me since that at ten o'clock he did not even desire it.- At noon Ledru told some conservative deputies : " You have no time to lose; if in an hour the abdication of the King and the regency are not proclaimed, the sections will come here, disperse the Assembly, and there will be a complete revolu- tion.'* ^ As yet Ledru had not come out for a republic or even for a provisional government. 'Martin in Reforme June 2, 1848; Sarrans i : 422-3. ^ Revue de Paris for 1898. 3 : 463. Cf. Ledru at Barbes trial. Moniteur for 1849, p. 948. 'Gamier- Pages 5:112. 197] THE FEBRUARY DAYS 43 Another incident too commonly accepted is probably with- out foundation. Regnault declares : "In a morning con- ference between M. Caussidiere and M. Ledru-Rollin, it was decided that the former should unite about him the armed squadrons of the secret societies and march on the Cham- ber." ^ However, this would not fit in with the other two incidents of the morning. Note especially the unlikelihood of Jules Favre, who was accompanying Ledru, being a party to deceiving General Bedeau. Secondly several persons seem to have believed in Ledru's pacific intentions. Thirdly Caussidiere did not go to the Chamber but to the prefecture of police. Fourthly the latter did not mention the incident in his memoirs and he is not usually reticent about such mat- ters. Fifthly Regnault has a tendency to see plots every- where; we shall come across this trend of his again. As to the other accounts they are either brief and vague or they have a flavor of absurdity and improbability.^ The centre of interest now shifts to the Chamber. Ledru-Rollin was not yet ready to declare for a republic; when the extreme left held a meeting, he with the other members voted for a regency.^ His colleagues overwhelmed him with questions and begged him to use his influence to put an end to the struggle. " No," he told some deputies of the centre, " not until the people had obtained all the satisfaction they have the right to demand." * The session of the Chamber began a1>out one o'clock ;i ^Regnault 56. Cf. Nougarede 224; Sarrans 12: 15; Gallois 68. 'Cremicux 367 accepts the story. Stern 1:223 1)elievcs it "devoid of all foundation." ^ Spcctateur de Londres July i; Lamartine 1:134, lUind in Frascr's Magazine 91 : 243-4 declares that Ledru told him personally that he, Ledru, had won Lamartine over to the idea of a republic. But there is no corroboration for this statement and Blind often makes mistakes. * Carnot in Revolution dc 18486: 24^; Sarrans 1:456. 44 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [igg half an hour later the Duchess of Orleans entered the hall, accompanied by the Duke of Nemours, her two sons, and several deputies. One of the latter, Dupin, was forced into the tribune and in a woefully weak speech proposed the re- gency of the Duchess/ Lamartine demanded that the ses- sion be suspended till the members of the royal family had retired, and Sauzet, the conservative president, with char- acteristic weakness agreed, thereby abandoning the only hope of obtaining the regency. x-Vfter Oudinot had de- fended the claims of the Duchess, Marie of the National openly demanded a provisional government. He was sup- ported by Cremieux ; this was important, for it was the nrst defection from the ranks of the liberal monarchists. A' legitimist, Genoude, declared that only an appeal to the people could decide the future form of government. Barrot now appeared in the tribune and made a final appeal in be- half of the Duchess : " As for me, I cannot take the respon- sibility of civil war. The regency of the Duchess of Orleans with a ministry of the most reliable men will give a more certain guarantee of liberty, and an appeal to the countr}' .... can then be made, and made without leading to civil war." Barrot closed with the declaration that he was in favor of true liberty.^ A legitimist, La Rochejaquelin, was the next speaker; he was interrupted by the entrance of a small band of armed men, whose leader advanced and planted the tricolor in the tribune in spite of the resistance of the president. Many deputies left the hall. Tumult reigned. Many 'By the law of 184:2 the Chamber had granted the regency to the Duke of Nemours, uncle of the Count of Paris, but he was unpopular; accordingly the King in abdicating had named as regent the new king's mother, thus illegally by his own authority abrogating a formal law of the legislature. " Afoniieur, February 25. When no reference for parliamentary de- bates is given, the Moniieur of the following day is meant. jgg] THE FEBRUARY DAYS 45 orators crowded to the tribune. Cremieux, Lamartine, and Ledru-Rollin pushed to the front. The latter succeeded in attracting the attention of the mob. This was the moment for which Ledru had been waiting- for years. Lamartine says concerning it : Almost the only republican in the Chamber, inspirer of the republican press, orator of democratic banquets, declared opponent of all compromises, of all reservations, of all half- hearted movements by the dynastic left, a man who carried his opposition inside the Chamber to the point where factious- ness began, and outside to the point where it became sedition, M. Ledru-Rollin, young, well-built, with a full-blooded coun- tenance, impetuous in voice and gesture, but preserving the deliberate coolness of a politician under the apparent frenzy of an orator, seemed the man prepared for and demanded by the occasion. His words, strongly affected by a study of the forms of popular eloquence, possessed the slightly posthumous accents of the Convention. The language of Danton breathed again in his orations. His facile and rich imagination seemed to turn to the past for a model for the future, and he seemed to regret the lost opportunity for struggle, for glory, for immortal death in the vanished drama of the great revolution. Isolated at the extreme left of the Chamber in a premature republican- ism, M. Ledru-Rollin was remarked only for his ability. His colleagues had up to that time listened to him rather with curiosity than with terror ; in their eyes he was merely a revolu- tionary ghost; to their ears he was only the sonorous echo of a time forever silent and buried. Suddenly the roles had changed. It was his colleagues who were in tli'.- past ; it was the impossible that had become the reality.^ " In the name of the people you represent, I demand silence," cried Ledru-Rollin in his stentorian voice; the mob caught up the cry: "In the name of M. Ledru-Rollin, ' Lamartine i : 132. 46 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [200 silence!" In relative quiet, but amid numerous interrup- tions the orator continued : In the name if the people everywhere in arms, master of Paris ... I come to protest against the kind of government just advocated from this tribune. And this is not the first time I have protested, for in 1842 during the discussion of the regency law I alone in the chamber declared it could not be passed without an appeal to the people. (La Rochcjaquelin: I also.) You have been told of the glorious constitution of 1789; see to it that the people who speak of it understand its true spirit. ... In 1791 in the very text of the constitution it was declared that the Constituent Assembly, the Constituent As- sembl}^ you understand, with its special powers, did not have the right to pass a regency law, but that an appeal to the people was necessary. . . . Well, gentlemen, for two days we have been fighting for that right. If you resist, if you dare assert that a government by acclamation, an ephemeral government . . . exists, we shall fight on in the name of that constitution of 1791 which soars above our history. . . . Suddenly, without due deliberation, you break the law you passed in spite of our opposition in 1842. You do not desire it. That expedient would gain no adherents in the country. In the name of justice, which must be respected even in revolutions. ... I protest against your new usurpation. . . . The shedding of blood aflfects us, it can cease only when principles of justice are satisfied. ... In the name of the people which is everything, I ask you . . . what guarantee your law gives us. At this point one of the few deputies of the centre who remained protested. One of the mob menaced the interrupter with a sabre, but he was restrained and the interlocutor removed by the deputies themselves.^ The Chamber was tiring of this oratory which seemed to ^Siecle, February 25. 201 ] THE FEBRUARY DAYS 47 come to no conclusion and Berryer, a legitimist member cried: "Conclude! The provisional government!" Reg- nault and others claim that Ledru was merely trying to gain time till Caussidiere should arrive with his legions; we have seen the improbability of this theory. In their opinion Ledru only stopped when he felt sure that Lamartine would hold forth at his usual length. It is far more likely that the novelty of the situation to the orator caused the vacuity of his speech; he was at last playing a leading part in the history of France, and this overpowered him for the only rime in his career. "In 1815," Ledru continued, "Napoleon wished to abdicate in favor of the King of Rome. The country was opposed, the country refused. In 1830 Charles X wished to abdicate in favor of his grandson. The country was opposed, the country refused." Again Berryer interrupted him: "We know our history, conclude!" Then at last Ledru-Rollin arrived at the point for which everyone had been waiting since the beginning his speech: "Today the country is opposed and you can do nothing without con- sulting it. To sum up, therefore, I demand a provisional government, named not by the Chamber but by the people, a provisional government and the immediate calling of a convention to establish the rights of the people." ^ This oration was not highly thought of at the time and certainly is inferior to the later addresses of the popular tribune. Lamartine followed Ledru and also advocated a provisional government ; it was the weakest of the poet's discourses during these trying days. By this time only a handful of deputies were left in the Chamber, meml)ers of the extreme left and the extreme right. Dupont de I'Eure, the patriarch of republicanism, ' Discours poUtiqucs i : 372-4. ^8 LEDRV-ROLLIN AXD SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [202 was forced into the chair. He read ^ a Hst of seven names as the provisional government. His own and those of Lam- artine, Ledru, and Arago met with universal approval, those of Gamier-Pages, Marie, and Cremieux with slight opposi- tion. Diipont and Lamartine then left to go to the Hotel de Ville. Ledru-Rollin was almost the only deputy re- maining in the Chamber. He seemed to think it wise to have the provisional government more formally proclaimed by the populace present. He made a brief speech and the seven names were again approved, though there were a few noes against Gamier- Pages and Marie". It was now about four o'clock and Ledru in his turn set out for the city hall. He soon caught up with his colleagues. The processsion proceeded amid the cheering throngs with drum beating and colors fl}'ing. A shabby public hack had been found for Dupont. The other members walked arm in arm with their friends. Jules Favre and Felix Pyat accompanied Ledru. The people took off their hats out of respect for the newly chosen executives. Finally the members of the provisional government reach the square in front of the Hotel de Ville. In vain those who accompanied them tried to force a way through the dense masses. Individually the new governors of France had to push on to the city hall.' It was during this journey that Ledru made his celebrated remark to Lamartine " We are marching to Calvary." * * There is much doubt as to who read the names; the Monitcur is here followed. Alton-Shee 143 and Louis Blanc i : 71 attribute the reading to Ledru, but they probably had in mind the second reading a little later. Still other writers assert that Cremieux read the list, taking occasion to insert his own name. ^Monitcur for 1848, p. 501. => Gamier- Pages 5:295; Sarrans 2:43; La Hodde : Societes secretes 486 ; Robin i : 343. * Speech of August 3. 1848 — Discours politiqitrs 2:43. 203] THE FEBRUARY DAYS 49 At the Hotel de Ville Garnier- Pages had just been pro- claimed mayor.' As soon as the crowd recognized Ledru they opened a passage for him amid cheers. Placed on a platform, he made a speech, asserting the sovereignty of the people but avoiding the question of the proclamation of the republic. From there he was carried by the crowd into a room of the city hall. Here the people insisted on ratify- ing the election of all the members of the provisional gov- ernment. Dupont was accepted without a speech. Ledru mounted a wobbly table, told of the naming of the pro- visional government, and praised the populace for asserting its sovereignty. He hoped that the people would decide in favor of a republic, but he did not suggest that it be im- mediately proclaimed." He and Lamartine were greatly cheered. Arago, Garnier-Pages, Marie, and the absent Cremieux were also accepted, although with less enthusiasm. After these seven members had retired from this room, Flocon and Louis Blanc spoke, openly advocating a republic, and they were acclaimed members of the government. No deliberation could be held amid the crowd, and ac- cordingly Ledru and his colleagues had withdrawn to the chamber of the municipal council. When the crowd in- vaded this room, they moved to an office adjourning that of the prefect of the Seine, then to that of the secretary- general. '"^ Once more the government had to interrupt its discussion ' Leon de Malevillc had refused to act as his assistant ; for a letter of Maleville on this subject sec appendix. 'Sarrans 2:42; Reaumont-Vas.sy 4:11.}: .Stern 1:245; ^-ii Flodde: Socictes secretes 486-7; Blanc 71-2; r.)rcvet 22; Lavarenne 26-7. All these state or imply that Ix;dru did not proclaim the republic. Hut Robin I : 243 quotes a letter to himself from I'elix Pyat : " f found you .standing beside Lcdru-Rollin who was pr(x:laiming tlie republic," and Delvau 249 makes a similar .statement. * Stern i : 247 ; Sarrans 2 : 44 ; Drevet 22. 50 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [204 to appear before the people. The cheering was so loud that Dupont de TEure could not make himself heard. But at the sound of Ledru's voice silence was established. Ledru related the proceedings at the Chamber of Deputies, the nomination by the people of a provisional government which recognized that its rights and powers came from the populace. The crowd confirmed by acclamation the acts of the Chamber. Still it was not completely satisfied. The pre- sence of Ledru in a government with six moderates did not seem a sufficient guarantee of advanced sentiments, and the ultra-revolutionary followers of Blanqui declared that the ideas of Ledru-Rollin must prevail. The mob shouted Pro- claim the Republic! and a workingman waved a scroll on which could be read : Three Cheers for the Republic! Ac- cordingly Ledru replied that the republic was the unanimous desire of the provisional government, and that the govern- ment would summon all France to a constituent assembly which could found the republic. He asserted that he shared the desire of the people, that the popular will was for him law, and that he would retire with his colleagures to deli- berate on the form of the proclamation of the republic. This declaration was received with wild enthusiasm. Ledru's spech, which Garnier-Pages called " wise, opportune, full of enthusiasm and energy," had not absolutely satisfied the crowd, though it had put it in a better humor; Lam- artine followed and his magic eloquence carried away those who heard him as it was to do again and again during the next few days.^ Several outsiders were present while the provisional gov- ernment deliberated. A feeling of brotherhood pervaded all who were gathered together. There had been disagree- ments between the radicals like Ledru and Flocon and the 'Garnier-Pages 5:302-3; Stern 1:247; Laviron 13-14; Robin 1:344-5. 205] THE FEBRUARY DAYS 5 1 moderates like Garnier-Pages and Carnot, but their com- mon victory was a bond. As soon as Garnier-Pages saw Ledru-Rollin, he held out his hand and said: " Let us for- get our quarrels. Let us have only one wish, one desire, that of consecrating ourselves to the safety of our country, to the success of democracy, to the definite triumph of the republic." Ledru warmly shook the proffered hand and said : " Those are my sentiments ; I was looking for you to tell you so." Carnot also, who had been repeatedly attacked in the Reforme, embraced Flocon and Ledru-Rjollin.^ It was now seven o'clock in the evening and Lamartine was busy drawing up a draft proclamation which contained the phrase : " The provisional government declares that the republican form is adopted provisionally." On Ledru's suggestion republic replaced republican form. All agreed and the manifesto was sent off to the printer.* The pro- visional government next turned to the distribution of min- istries. Dupont de I'Eure was unanimously chosen president of the council. He was too old to take a portfolio. No opposition was made when Marie chose for his ministry that of public works and Lamartine that of foreign affairs. Garnier-Pages was fully occupied with the mayoralty of Paris. Cremieux wrote his name down opposite commerce and then asked Ledru to choose that which suited him best, *' Whichever you wish," was the modest reply. Garnier- Pages, supported by Marie and Pagnerre, pointed out Ledru's aptitude for the ministry of justice and the need in that post of a strong man capable of carrying through lasting reforms. Ledru accepted, but when Cremieux 'Garnier-Pages 5:302; Carnot 67. * Garnier-Pages 5:305-6; Delvau 250; Sarrans J: 44; St. Aniant 7; Hugo 1 : 319-320. It was never published as a later manifesto replaced it. For the proceedings at the Hotel dc Ville the account of Garnier- Pages is followed; his account is the fullest and most sequacious. ^2 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [206 pointed out the desirability of having the interior depart- ment in the hands of a popular figure, a man who should re- present the active element of the revolution, Ledru after a brief consultation with his friends, changed his mind and accepted the ministry of the interior/ Cremieux was then forced to take the ministry of justice. The navy went to Frangois Arago. This provided for the seven members of the government. The remaining portfolios were given to Carnot (education), Bethmont (commerce and agricul- ture), Goudchaux (finances), and Bedeau (war)."^ Pag- nerre became secretary-general of the government. Cav- aignac was made governor of Algeria. Now the council, at the suggestion of Bixio and Pagnerre and despite the protests of Ledru and Cremieux, decided to reconsider their proclamation of a republic. But before they could decide on the manifesto to replace it, there came a new interruption. Louis Blanc, accompanied by Flocon and Marrast, entered and demanded that they three and the workingman Albert l^e admitted to a place in the govern- ment. He based his claim to this place on the lists in the re- publican newspapers and on the acclamations he had received in the streets and in the city hall. This addition was strongly opposed. The ex-deputies felt that the government was al- ready overlarge. The admission of even Cremieux had been contested by Marie and Garnier-Pages. The inclusion of these four new men would bring the council up to the un- wieldy number of eleven. Moreover, as three of them be- longed to the Rcforme group, the moderates felt that their power would be thereby decreased. Arago showed himself the most energetic in opposing them, and the quarrel became so ' Garnicr-Pages 5:312-3. Carnot declares: "I was offered the min- istry of the interior, I refused " ; but there is no other evidence to sup- port this assertion. — Revolution dc 1848, 6:29. 2 Later in the day Bedeau refused ; see infra, p. 54. 207] THE FEBRUARY DAYS 53 heated that Louis Blanc was on the point of appeahng to the mob when Ledru-RoUin intervened and urged him in the name of patriotism not to sow discord in the ranks of the new re- public. Flocon and Marrast immediately agreed and ac- cepted Garnier-Pages's suggestion that the four new can- didates be included as secretaries only. Louis Blanc, un- supported, was obliged to yield/ This inferior rank, howr ever, was soon forgotten, and within three days they were treated as regular members of the provisional government. The council now took up again the question of the pro- clamation of the republic. " The scene is worth describ- ing " says Louis Blanc " M. de Lamartine appeared radiant, M. Ledru-RoUin resolute, M. Cremieux excited, M. Marie suspicious and sombre. The face of M. Dupont de I'Eure showed noble resignation. M. Marrast's lips had their customary smile, a smile of light and mocking scepticism. M. Garnier-Pages seemed to be surprised at our presence. As to M. Arago, how little like himself I found him! " ^ The question before the council admitted of three solu- tions. Flocon, Louis Blanc, and Ledru-Rollin demanded the immediate and unconditional proclamation of the re- public. Dupont de I'Eure, Arago, and Marie asserted that they had no authority to make such an assertion. Lamar- tine, Garnier-Pages, and Cremieux held a middle ground favoring proclamation subject to ratification by a constituent assembly. Marrast was silent. The argument waxed fierce. Louis Blanc was particularly violent. Ledru- Rollin spoke in a spirit of conciliation; the victory had calmed him and the responsibility of office already weighed '.Stern 1:249-250; Garnier-Pag-es 5:318-321; Robin 1:348. Blanc i: 76 insists that the four were admitted immediately as full-fledged mem- bers, but on the decree summoning a constituent assembly he himself signed Louis Blanc, secretary. For a facsimile of this document see Stern, end of volume i. * Blanc 1 : 75. 54 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [208 on him. Finally a version by Lamartine was accepted: " Although the provisional government acts solely in the name of the French people and although it prefers the re- publican form of government, neither the people of Paris nor the provisional government pretends to substitute its opinion for the opinion of the citizens who will be consulted on the definitive form of government which the sovereignty of the people will proclaim." Although this statements " did not suit *' Louis Blanc and although he found it " singularly equivocal," he accepted it after prefers had been changed to believes in} But Ledru refused to sign so ambiguous a proclamation, and Flocon struck out his signature on finding that Ledru would not add his." Ax this point the provisional government interrupted its proceedings in order to receive General Bedeau, who refused the ministry of war, but who accepted the command of the first military division (Paris). The General insisted that discipline must be maintained, that the officers must be up- held, that no attention must be paid to denunciations of military leaders. Garnier-Pages and Lamartine promised him their support. " I also promise you what you ask, for I understand its importance," said Ledru-Rollin.^ He never swerved from this assurance. The war department was now given to General Subervie. The failure to receive the signatures of Ledru and Flocon caused a reconsideration of the proclamation of the republic, and each member now spoke in turn. Ledru-Rollin began. He told how the people clearly wished for a republic. " Whether the members of the provisional government wish 'Blanc 1:85. ' Stern i : 253 ; Carnot in Revolution de 1848, 6 : 32. For facsimile with signatures, see Stern, end of volume i. The entire manifesto was very long ; only the vital phrase has been quoted. ' Bedeau in Rczmc de Paris for 1896, 3 : 477. 209] '^HE FEBRUARY DAYS 55 it or not, the republic is proclaimed," he said. " How can you hesitate to confirm the wishes of the people, which is the law? " Flocon seconded this speech in almost identical words. Louis Blanc declared that the republic was the only form of government by the people. Garnier-Pages desired its immediate proclamation. " Well, the affair is settled," said Ledru, but Garnier-Pages insisted that the others be heard. Marie opposed haste. Dupont and Arago repeated that a provisional government had no right to initiate a republic. Cremieux then proposed that Lamartine's para- graph be replaced by : " The provisional government pro- claims the republic subject to ratification by the people who will be immediately consulted." Lamartine, Carnot, and Marrast approved this version. Garnier-Pages suggested the substitution of wishes for proclaims, and this modifica- tion was accepted. Then all signed; a happy solution had been found.^ But these important affairs were not the only matters which the government had to decide. Numerous decrees and appointments took up much time.' The question of the royal family was brought up. " Bah," said Ledru-Rollin " let them go ; " and no order for their arrest was issued."'' Already prominent officers began sending in their adhesion to the republic* 'Garnier-Pages 5:339-347. For proclamation, see Monitcur for 1848, p. 499. ' Most appropriately the first decree that Ledru signed proclaimed the abolition of slavery. The second repealed the taxes on salt and wood. The third, which he had great difficulty in obtaining from the govern- ment, established a home for old and infirm workingmcn. — iDelvau 297-9- •Garnier-Pages 5:349-350. Later Ledru opposed the confiscation of the Orleanist property; he destroyed several projects of confiscation drawn up by Jules Favrc. — Stern 3 : 78. * Later the reading of these letters of devotion took up so much time in council meetings that Ledru asked what value there was in these declarations "on the part of men ever ready to swear new oaths," and the government no longer troubled itself with them. — Rcgnault 91. ^6 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [210 Soon after the proclamation of the repubhc, about mid- night of February 24, Ledru left the Hotel de Ville for the ministry of the interior, but he did not go there directly. He wandered through the capital, pacifying the street- fighters. He visited the prefecture of police, heard from Caussidiere and Sobrier how they had taken possession of the prefecture, conferred with them on the situation, and received from them the keys to the secret funds of the treasury/ Thus on February 24 the revolution of 1848 was com- pleted. Four days earlier hardly any one had expected an uprising; few had desired one; no one had dreamed of the immediate proclamation of the republic. But now, to the great surprise of all. and not least of the chief actors in the drama, the republic was an actuality and all France acclaimed it. The King and all the members of the royal family were in flight, a provisional government composed of republicans had been installed and was now ruling the country with Ledru-Rollin as a member and as minister of the interior. 1 Lamartine i : 182. 204-5 ; Garnier-Pages 6 : 29. CHAPTER IV The Minister of the Interior Ledru-Rollin was what the French call un bel homme, but his personal appearance would not appeal to Anglo- Saxon tastes. He was a large man with a powerful frame but too fat. Good nature was reflected in his features, and the strength of his jaws and of his eyes was contradicted by the flabbiness of his cheeks. Contemporaries naturally differed in their descriptions of him. Jules Favre says : Ledru-Rollin belonged to that race of privileged beings whom the hand of God has marked with the seal of their predestin- ation. He was born an orator, an athletic tribune. A large, well-set . . . chest, a massive head attached to robust shoulders by a neck both ample and graceful, a firm and cadenced walk, gravity and decision in each of his movements, the natural authority of his features made of him a type of physical force and intellectual superiority.^ Audebrand is less laudatory : A sort of giant, a kind of modern Danton with a bourgeois figure. A large chest, a voice of fine quality. Enough natural gifts, enough knowledge also, so that there was in him a natural orator. . . . He had a countenance of insipid beauty. Some of his friends said in a whisper: that is not a Brutus; he has the rosy figure of a Dolabclla. His paunch was Rabelaisian. . . . His sybarite traits never let him lose sight of the interests of the cause to which he was devoted; perhaps he might even be accused of being too zealous.^ ' Favre 345-6. ^ Revue Bleue 46: 179. 211] 57 ^8 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [212 Estimates of his character differed equally. Louis Blanc writes : A very keen and nervous temperament, a political energy tem- pered by fresh and engaging manners, zealous will-power, integrity, a violent desire to insure the triumph of the revolu- tion, an oratorical talent of the first order . . . were set off by a good figure, an imposing form, and a certain magnetism. . . . M. Ledru-Rollin, a generous and confiding character with the nature of an artist, was less capable of offending a friend than of courageously holding his own against an adversary, a fact which made him too accessible to the influence if his en- vironment. . . . He was haunted by glorious visions of the first republic, and he would gladly at one stroke have revived the past. He did not pay sufficient attention to the thinkers of the nineteenth century.^ On the other hand, Persigny, the friend of Louis Napoleon, declares : In person he was a big fellow, a jovial voluptuary, of whom nature wished to make an honest lx>urgeois . . . but whom flattery and vanity pushed to ambition for popular honours. An able lawyer, but with few brains and little courage, made to be dominated by the violence of his party and not to guide it, puffed up with pride, filled with chimeras.- ^ Blanc 1:280-1. Similarly Castille 2:39 says: "He is too honest, too good-hearted, too affectionate to resemble Danton. . . . There is much of the artist in his frankness, generosity, and sweet and friendly manners. ... He is not a thinker or a philosopher but a true orator." * Persigny 72-3. The Orleanist, Ernest Charles, writes in the Rczuc Bleue 12:519. "Ledru-Rollin far surpassed Barrot in lack of fore- sight, in stupidity, and in vanity." The extreme revolutionist, Lavarenne, 80, 144 describes Ledru as follows : " Popular tribune and marvellous agitator, he felt boiling in his veins the blood of the old Mountain ; but he lacked the means or the force to bring about his desires. ... He was a demagogue . . . totally lacking in political capacity." Mirecourt 5-13. 52-4, 68-70, 77 describes Ledru as "a supenb orator but a mediocre 213] THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR 59 The best estimate of Ledru-Rollin is probably that of Daniel Stern, the Countess d'Agoult, whose republican salon became well-known under the second empire : Ledru-Rollin was an indolent but able lawyer ... a man of easy habits and nonchalant humor, fond of comfort, even luxury. . . . The natural weakness of his character and his inexperience in political matters led him into errors from which the republic suffered. He allowed himself to be led by sub- ordinates. . . . Neither his sincere but emphatic patriotism, nor his open and generous but unstable character, nor even his natural uprightness, too often perverted by his love of popu- larity, fitted him for leadership. He realized this incapacity . . . and fearing lest he should not impose success, he wished to inspire terror. . . . This man whom the provinces consid- ered a terrorist . . , this children's bogy . . . has the best of hearts, is without hatred, is the most easily influenced of men. An optimistic conspirator, a lazy minister, above all a pleasant political comrade ... a man of entrancing eloquence and no evil passions . . . but of no lofty statesmanlike conceptions. . . . M. Ledru-Rollin belonged to that class of republicans who have a mediocre idea of the reasoning power of the people and preserve even in their search for popularity a certain air of condescension.^ politician, resembling the grotesque and pleasant hero of Cervantes whose head was turned by books of chivalry ... in that his reason was perverted by wretched revolutionary literature. . . . He was am- bitious and unintelligent . . . extravagant ... a devil of a Lovelace . . . self-seeking." 1 Stern 1:27-8, 62, 65-6; 2:41; Lcttrcs rcpublicaines No. 16, pp. 9- 11. This last statement is born out by other writers, Marx 13 calls him the representative not of the proletariat but of the small traders. Herzen 2:298 makes a similar remark. The conservative Chamier 1:212-3 writes : " His personal appearance is highly favorable . . . but marks a haughty aristocrat rather than a leveling republican. . . . He speaks with great force and fluency. . . . }Ie is a man of unquestionable ability, of great perseverance." Napoleon Gallois 105-7 describes his friend, Ledru, as an aristocrat by fortune, a democrat by heart, a clever conversation- 6o LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [214 Perhaps this description is too severe, but it does indicate Ledru's outstanding characteristics. Naturally a man in Ledru's position was the target of numerous calumnies. Pamphlets against him were hawked about in the streets; songs ridiculing him were sung in aristocratic salons. The press, Orleanist and Bonapartist, clerical and ultra-revolutionary, made every kind of wild accusation. " One member of the provisional government," says John Stuart Mill, has been a mark for greater inveteracy of assault than the rest : M. Ledru-Rollin. Everybody has heard scandalous stories con- cerning him ; and in his case some of these were specific and accompanied by name and circumstances. If those that did not enter into particulars had no better foundation than those that did, M. Ledru-Rollin as to personal integrity is the states- man of most unimpeachable character in Europe.^ Ledru declared in the Constituent Assembly : In the period of trouble and anguish, day and night I watched without slacking. It was by an absolute devotion to my duties that I replied to the infamous calumnies of which I have been the object. I have never seen in this unexampled outburst anything except an additional reason to defend with greater intrepidity a cause which the fury of certain fanatics wished to injure by attacking me. I have trusted in the good sense of the nation, in the justice of the Assembly, and I thought that as a soldier of the revolution I should suffer all for it and not lose in refuting odious calumnies the precious time that its services claimed of me.- alist of artistic tastes, lazy except when aroused by a sense of duty. Bouton, an extreme revolutionist, says of Ledru: "Insincere, without virtues, he has no stability at all. Vain, the fool of popularity, loving the people only at a distance, he does not possess the true revolutionary force." 1 Mill 367-8. Cf. Delvau 366-8; Audebrand in Rcz-uc Blcuc 46: 179. 2 Speech of May 6, 1848, Discours politiques 2 : 25. 215] THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR 6 1 He was accused of wild extravagance and licentiousness, exorbitant luxury and drunkenness. In the provinces the story was spread that Le Due Rollin indulged in orgies with two courtesans, La Marline and La Marie } Garnier-Pages and Pagnerre took a day's holiday to hunt in the forest of Chantilly. The account was changed and elaborated by the royalist press and the Constitutionnel printed : " News of the court : Yesterday there was a luncheon at the Petit Trianon. There were women. M. Ledru-Rollin was host. There was also a hunt at Chantilly." This was the only calumny to which Ledru-Rollin deigned to reply. He denied the statement categorically and added : " Since February 24 I have not left Paris for a moment; out of twenty- four hours, I devote twenty to work." " A drunken man abused the National Guard; an officer of that body without any investigation spread the story that the drunkard was Ledru.^ The commonest form of vilification consisted of attacks on Ledru's abuse of his ministerial position. It was claimed that he insisted on the release from Brest prison of a dangerous forger, that he gave the position of director of the Opera Comiqiie to pay an old debt, that he gave public positions to his valet, to the husband of his wife's maid, to ' Caussidiere 2:6; St. Ferreol : Proscrits 1:326; Blanc 2:50-1. For amusing story of an actress, see Regnault t6o-i ; Blanc 2:34; Robin 148-9. ^ Constitufioiuicl. April 27, 28; Blanc 2:33; Regnault 159-160. In answer to Ledru the Constitutionnel declared the whole affair a joke. It said: "If Ledru-Rollin has not done for the pcoi)le ail the good he desires, it is not because he has not been wide enough awake, but be- cause he has not slept enough." ' Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:244; 2:272-4. In October Lcdru sued this officer for libel. The court decided that malice had not !>ccn proved and assigned costs to the plaintiff. .At the same time I^edru had sued several other persons for calumny, but the court held that it was incom- petent as Ledru was a public official. — Monitcur for 1S4S, 2732. 2812-4. 62 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [216 a cousin, to a revolutionist as a reward for killing a stable boy who was defending Louis Philippe's horses, that he had taken £14,000 from the public funds and placed them to his credit in an English bank, that Goudchaux, minister of finances, resigned because he would not agree to Ledru's financial extravagance/ Fulsome laudation was equally common. Songs were written in praise of him. Medals were struck in his honor.^ A citizen of Roubaix wanted to call his son Ledru-Rollin Victor.^ The father of Juliette Adam was of the opinion that : " A Ledru-Rollin, a Louis Blanc is the continuator of Christianity." * That Ledru-Rollin was scrupulously honest and not even over-extravagant there seems to be little doubt. On August 21, 1848 Ledru defended in the Assembly his expyenditures : What do you have at the ministry of the interior ? Two things. Those expenses that were ordered for general services : these the minister merely signs, as you know ; the chief accountant distributes to the employees the sums indicated in the budget. . . . Besides these there are the secret funds. . . . Well, these secret funds . . . remained below the abnormal average exist- ing under the late monarchy. . . . The budget of 1847 could not foresee the establishment of the Garde Mobile, of the Guar- dians of Paris, of the commissioners sent into the departments, the organisation of universal suffrage, the men who sought aid from the ministry of the interior. ... All this was taken from the secret funds. * Quentin-Bauchart iReport i : 232, 297, 334-5, 347 ; Monitcur for 1848, 2732; Constitutxonnel, May 18, 1848, January i, 1849; Courier dc Lyon, March 25, 1851 ; Voix du Proscrit 1:348-350; Lantcrne, May 4, 1848; Tirel 60-63; Mirecourt 72; Bonde 48. * For letter about one such medal, see appendix. 3 Archives departementales of Lille M 134/24. *Adam 256. 217] ^^^ MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR 63 Ledru gives further details as to expenses and ends with a declaration of the impossibility of concealing misuse of funds.^ A through examination was made by the hostile and conservative Ducos commission. Agreeing with an earlier report, Roger Ducos declared to the Constituent Assembly that the great expenditure was justified by the extraordinary times and that there were no irregularities. Though entitled to two hundred thousand francs, M. Ledru-Rollin took no salary as minister of the interior . . . As under the administration of his predecessors, M. Ledru- Rollin delivered a great number of orders to bearer, l3Ut we must recognize that he took great care to stipulate on each one, except five or six for sums of no great importance, either mention of its destination or the initials of the person for whom it was destined. Thanks to this precaution, which the previous ministers did not think necessary to take because they were accountable to no one but the king ... it has been possible for us ... to obtain explanations about each one from M. Ledru-Rollin. Various economies were pointed out. A few expenses were blamed: expenditures by some of the commissioners, rail- road-fare to foreign workingmen returning to their own country, money to watch his colleagues in the government. But Ducos admitted that every single outlay was regular." A more complete justification of the minister would be difficult to find. Most of the strictures on T^dru's administration of the home department were the result of the personnel of the min- ' Discours politiqucs 2 : 59-64. ' Ducos report, presented April 14, 1849, published Mottiicur 1552-9, 1532. For excellent discussions of the subject of expenditures, sec Antony and La Place de Chauvac. 64 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [218 istry. But this was more the resuh of the situation than the fault of the minister. All the trained official were monarch- ists ; so choice had to be made between retaining experienced men who were not in sympathy with the reforms to be insti- tuted or leaving the work to friendly but inexperienced repub- licans. In his circular of March 8 Ledru gaye his solution : " Political offices is no matter what degree of the hierarchy must be filled with tried republicans. . . . Less rigor need be used in regard to officials whose role is purely administra- tive. Those may be maintained who, strangers to all poli- tical action, have reached their position by useful services." ^ ^lost of the higher offices were filled with competent men. When Ledru-Rollin arrived at the ministry of the interior, he found it occupied by Andryane, a former prisoner of Austria who had passed some time in the dungeons of the Spielberg, and whom the provisional government had ap- pointed under-secretary of the interior department without consulting Ledru. Andryane had already on his own authority signed the liberation of Teste, an ex-minister of Louis Philippe, who had been condemned for bribery. Ledru insisted on the retirement of Andryane and obtained his resignation, but not without difficulty.' For a time Flocon acted as under-secretary, but either he felt that a subordinate position did not become a fellow-member of the government or believed that he could be of more service by representing the radicals at council meetings instead of de- voting himself to the details of administration. No one succeeded him as under-secretary. Jules Favre was secretary-general and, after Ledru, un- doubtedly the most important person in the department. His position in politics is almost inexplicable. At heart cer- tainly a republican and seemingly a radical, in the Con- ^ Discours poUHqucs 2:2-3. See also Regnault 151-2. * Stern 2:66-7; Regnault 151, 154; Constltutionncl. February 25. 219] THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR 65 stituent Assembly he was to exert his eloquence to over- throw a ministry of his party. One of Ledru's closest friends and partisans in February, Favre later in the year violently attacked him. In his relations with George Sand, Favre seeined to be leading Ledru toward socialism; yet generally he was a moderating force. Regnault calls atten- tion to Favre's respect for legality in contrast to Ledru who cared little for it.^ In spite of their differences, throughout his term of office, Ledru-Rollin placed the greatest reliance upon Jules Favre. Ledru-Rollin's chief of cabinet was Elias Regnault, a moderate of the National group, but a loyal supporter of the minister in all his reforms. He was a newspaper man from Le Mans and had aided the election of Ledru in that city. Although always ready with counsels of moderation (and therefore the hete noir of the extreme revolutionists), he was by no means a conservative but an advocate of slow progress and reform. He was not a man of extraordinary ability, but a painstaking and reliable official. Regnault's opinion of his chief was as follows : In taking under his direction the ministry of the interior M. Ledru-Rollin did not deceive himself as to the weight of the task on which the success of the repu])Hc depended. With an ardent desire to develop new institutions, to awaken republican sentiments in the departments, he judged himself proper for the role he had chosen and boldly took his place in the ministry of the interior, that centre of the most reactionary traditions and most hostile passions. Audacious by temperament and naturally progressive, he was not frightened by obstacles or ill- will, and for the mission which he accepted he had no need of apprenticeship, or rather he had served his apprenticeship in the struggles of the tribune and the press. Tn purely admin- istrative matters, experience has its value ; in ix>litical matters, 'Regnault 155. 66 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [220 it is routine that is called experience, and M. Ledru-Rollin knew that it was against routine that he would have to fight. . . . Prompt in action and quick in thought, he was unequalled in the facility with which he seized on the different phases of a question. . . . When a new subject was presented for discus- sion, he needed only to provoke a short argument, and at the end of a rapid conversation he could mount the tribune, full of his subject and able to throw light on a question to which he had hitherto given little thought . . . Without having the brilliance or grandeur of M. Lamartine, M. Ledru-Rollin made a deeper impression on the hearts of the masses, and with less diffuseness went straight to the point ; with less poetry he had more fire.^ The direction of the police department was in the hands of Carteret, who, like Regnault, was a hard-working official, a moderate, loyal to Ledru-Rollin. The prefect of police was that colossal revolutionary Caussidiere, of whom we shall hear more later. The head of the political police was Carlier, one of those clever weathercocks who violently advocate the doctrines of whatever party is in power or soon will be. When the reaction set in during July 1848, we shall find him turning against his former chief. Later still he was to become one of Louis Napoleon's notorious prefects of police. The private secretar}'- of Ledru was Delvau, an extreme revolutionist. Delvau regretted that his leader had accepted a cabinet position, believing that he would have better served the interests of the country as leader of the opposition. In support of this position he mentioned the case of Mirabeau and called Danton's acceptance of a portfolio the cause of his overthrow. He continually bewailed the fact that the minister was not sufficiently revolutionary. At the same time he absolutely w^orshipped his chief and believed him f * Regnault 152-3, 22 1 ] THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR 67 " the man of the hour " and one of the greatest men of all the ages. Describing him more in detail, Delvau said : He was the man of the masses, the popular tribune par excel- lence. . . . He had a strong and resonant voice which pro- foundly stirred those who heard it. He had a sanguine tem- perament combined with ardor, impatience, anger. . . . His countenance was lighted up by a smile of irresistible kindness . . . and his glance revealed power and nobility. . . . Ledru- Rollin led a life overfilled with work. Ardent in the task he had undertaken, desirous to prove his devotion to the people by his acts and by his words, he laboriously filled the hours of each day so well that it took all the energy of his will, re- enforced by the energy of his robust temperament to resist fatigue and sickness. He arose at six in the morning and went to bed regularly at two hours after midnight. Twenty hours of work, ye chroniclers who calumniate him so freely.^ Constantly at Ledru's elbow, Delvau continually urged him on to action and probably to a break with his moderate col- leagues in the provisional government.' Very likely the private secretary was the centre of these intrigues with Caus- sidiere, Sobrier, Blanqui, Flotte, and other extremists, which are supposed to have issued from the ministry of the interior. For head of the division of Beaux-Arts Ledru's first choice was Etienne Arago, the dramatist. Arago would have been glad to accept, but he was already director of posts or, as we call it, postmaster-general, and his subor- dinates insisted on his retaining this position.'' In spite of this refusal, Etienne Arago remained an influence at the ministry of the interior; like Ledru-Rollin himself, he was * Delvau 285-304, 367. ' The moderate, Cuvillier-Fleury i : 267-283 jiictures Lcdru as a weak man, subject alternately to the good influence of Rcgnault and the bad influence of Delvau. ' Arapo 42-3. 68 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [222 a radical but co^ciliator^^ Finally the office was given to the painter Jeanron. This choice was universally applauded. Lockroy, the dramatist, was appointed head of the bureau of theatres ; he played no part in political affairs. The minor officials in the department were less satisfac- tory. The men connected with the Reforme, the men of the secret societies, all those who were ultra-revolutionary through self-interest, hastened to the ministry controlled by a radical, and many obtained positions. Their chief con- cern was not their work but the revolutionizing of the country. Some of these men were undoubtedly adven- turers, but most were probably fanatics with a love for almost anarchic liberty.^ Many of the old professonal bureaucrats were also retained in the ministry. Between these two classes of men, the one trying to urge the minister on too rapidly, the other unwilling to aid in any change, there was constant antagonism. Ledru-Rollin simplified the administration to a slight extent and made some changes in order to do away with monarchical practices or to intro- duce economy. Too radical measures he dared not under- take. His loyalty to the government of which he was a member was unimpeachable and he knew that the controll- ing moderates would not support him in a thorough pro- gram of reform. On May 6, 1848 he told the Assembly: I would have preferred to introduce into the mechanism of the department changes destined to make it more simple and more democratic. I thought that these reforms should not be isolated and partial and that they could be more wisely accomplished by him who would receive definite authority from your hands. I feared to stir up trouble in the department at the moment ^ The non-political bureau of fine arts was an exception : " Ledru- Rollin had separated art from the passion of parties," says Garnier- Pages 8 : 85. 223] ^^^ MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR 69 when it was most essential to preserve its smooth and regular operation.^ Whenever any definite case of abuse of their position on the part of the radicals was discovered, it was immediately rectified. For instance, Carlier recruited some ex-political prisoners to act as a guard for the ministry. Some of these men composed over-revolutionary placards and issued them from the ministry of the interior. As soon as Carteret pointed out this action, Ledru dismissed the culprits." The labor of the minister was enormous. He had to re- ceive numerous deputations and grant a never-ending series of interviews; people came who desired places for them- selves, or maybe for their wives' relations; others came merely to give advice or to gain protection for some organi- zation. Life-long monarchists did not hesitate to come to the radical minister, assure him of their devotion to the re- public, and l>eg favors.^ Melun came to ask protection for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. " As soon as we ar- rived," says this conservative philanthropist, " he ordered us to be admitted, listened to our observations, and assured us that the republic and its ministers had no such hostile in- tentions as we supposed, that it was a calumny to say so. We felt more satisfied with his reception than with his com- panions, and he kept his word to us." * ^ Discours politiqucs 2:25-6. See also Lavarcnne 146; Regiiault 156. The few changes made were abolished by Senard and his successors in the ministry. * Carteret in Qucntin-Cauchart Report 1:252. * Regnault 153 writes: "Every day deputations presented themselves at the ministry . . . some bringing congratulations, others complaints. To both M. Ledru-ecame a prominent demo- cratic journalist. Let me say immediately that it seemed insufficient. Ledru- Rollin put the paper under his elbow so as not to confuse it with more serious papers. I was received and dismissed with an encouraging smile; that was all. As I entered the min- ister's office, a lady was leaving. I recognized George Sand. ... I found in the office one of my compatriots . . . this was a pretext to remain. . . . The office of the minister was filled with people. Ledru-Rollin was smiling affably, speaking in a loud voice to those he could salute with the name of combattant or martyr and defending himself in a low voice against the un- known solicitors who surrounded him. ... I have never seen a finer head, exhibiting more contentment, radiating more serenity than the head of M. Ledru-Rollin. His great fore- head, his eyes, his mouth, his quivering nostrils, all indicated the orator. ... On the slightest pretext he raised his voice. ... I retain a precise recollection of that morning, the tumult of the audience, and even a procession of several prefects of Louis Philippe who came to offer Ledru-Rollin their devotion.' Such was the man Ledru-Rollin; such were some of his assistants; and such were the conditions under which he worked. The tasks to which he was compelled to apply himself were most varied. Some of the most important we shall consider later, such as the organization of universal suffrage, the commissioners to the departments, the famous circulars, the Bulletins of the Republic, the reorganization of the National Guard. The minor topics are too numerous * Ulbach 41-2; Revue Bleue 25: 263. 225] ^^^ MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR yi to mention ; they include such matters as the reorganization of the government pawn-shops, the appointment of com- mittees to study reforms, even in agriculture, and the im- provement of highways and byways.^ Public charity also fell within the jurisdiction of the de- partment of the interior. Ledru-Rollin deplored the small amount of money at his disposal, but did the best he could. Particular aid was given to those who had been wounded in the street fighting of the February Days. The minister made repeated visits to the hospitals where these unfortun- ates were treated, spoke to them individually in his affable manner, and distributed relief to their families." Ledru gave particular attention to the bureau of fine arts. He reorganized its admistration. In spite of his political occupations he presided at the meeting of the committee charged with the question of the transportation to the Tuil- eries of the National Library, and the union at the Louvre of all the museums then widely dispersed. His democrat- izing tendency was felt even in this field; he granted to the artists themselves the election of the hanging committee for the annual exhibition.^ Above all Ledru interested himself in the theatres. He was charged with wasting much of his time in them.* On ' Debats, March 25, 26; Garnier-Pagts 8:80. -Monitcur for 1848, pp. 534, <562, 683. Ami du Peuplc, March 36; Debats, Pettple Constituant, March 3. For a detailed consideration of philanthropy under the second republic, see Dreyfus. 'Blanc 1:286; Stern 2:347-8; Garnier-Pages 8:85; Reforme, March 23 ; Moniteur for 18.18, pp. 503, 524, 777. Houssaye 2 : 347 declares : " We artists did not despair of art in France with Lamartinc, T.edru- RoUin, Sand, and Arago. . . . Lcdru-RoIIin loves art and buys pictures." * He was accused of being the lover of Judith of the Palais Royal and of the celebrated Rachel. The accusations had no foundation. Rachel visited him twice at the ministry to consult with him on her project of arousing enthusiasm for the republic by reciting the Marseil- laise In the provinces and also to give him pointers on elocution. — Reg- nault T58-9; Rri'ril, November 5, 1868; Ronde i: 104. 72 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [226 April 2. Caussidiere, Ledru and a priest spoke at the plant- ing of a liberty tree near the Opera. The minister of the interior aroused enthusiasm by a warm speech in which he enumerated the titles to glory of the Opera and recalled the great effects produced by singers and by masterpieces.' The most important work of Ledru in the dramatic field was the production of several free performances. He first obtained the consent of the provisional government - and on March 24 signed a decree announcing them : Whereas the state owes it to the people ... to encourage their participation in the moral pleasures that elevate the soul . . . the government commissioner of theatres is authorized to give free national representations. . . . The tickets shall be sent in equal parts to the city hall and to the prefecture of police to be distributed in the factories, clubs, and schools to the poorest citizens ; the tickets shall be drawn by lot.^ On April 6 occurred the first of these free performances. It included Corneille's Les Horaces, Moliere's Malade im~ aginaire, a prologue by George Sand called Le Roi attend, the singing of the Chant du Depart, and the recitation by Rachel of the Marseillaise.* The next day there was a free performance at the Opera, and on April 9 Auber's La Mnette de Portici and the ballet from Griseldis were given, followed by a patriotic tableau and the singing of the Mar- seillaise. Ledru-Rollin was present on all three occasions, accompanied by various members of the government; to show their democratic spirit they sat in the orchestra and not in a reserved box.^ ^Revolution dc 1848, 10:480-1; Caussidiere i: 186. * Garnier- Pages 8 : 87-9. * Moniteur for 1848, p. 682. * Ibid., 768, 780. Got 1 : 235 calls Le Roi attend " an appropriate pro- logue which Ledru-Rollin had ordered of George Sand as a simple Bulletin of the Republic." 'Gamier-Pages 8:89; Constitutionnel, April 12. CHAPTER V The Provisional Government Besides being minister of the interior, Ledru-RoUin was a member of the provisional government. Council meetings were held every day, but Ledru's multifarious duties kept him from coming unless important matters were to be dis- cussed. In ordinary cases the minutes of the session were sent to him at his ministry.^ When Ledru did appear, he took a prominent part and talked much. " Speeches were the great arm, the great force of the provisional govern- ment," says Marie. " Through them the crowd was ruled. .... But in the council itself, they were an obstacle, I almost said a plague. Two men especially allowed them- selves to be carried away to oratory on any and every subject : Lamartine and Ledru-Rollin, both endowed with a great and lively imagination, differing in form and quality, iden- tical in result." ^ The provisional government contained three elements : socialists (Blanc and Albert), radicals (Ledru and Flocon), and moderates (the remaining seven). All were devoted to the republic, but the minority, that is the radicals and social- ists, wished to encourage the revolutionary spirit, to crush opposition, and to shelve the liberal monarchists whose con- version to republicanism they distrusted, whereas the majority desired to restrain the revolutionary spirit, con- ' Lavarenne 145-6, who himself carried the minutes to Ledru several times. * Cherest : Marie 144. 227] 73 74 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [228 ciliate opposition, and cooperate with those dynastic liberals who accepted the republic/ The moderates wished to wait for the Constituent Assembly l^e fore instituting fundamental reforms; the socialists wished to republicanize French institutions completely before the legislature met ; the radicals occupied a middle ground, anxious for reform, but desirous of conciliating the moderates and of working harmoniously with them. One might think that the moderate party of seven members could easily defeat either other party or the two combined. But there were several things to be considered. Lamartine (particularly after April 16), Arago, and Cre- mieux sometimes sided with the minority, and then natur- ally they carried the day. But more important was the fact that the council could not afford to allow any member to resign; a popular tumult might result." The presence of the four members of the minority restrained the people, prevented a successful uprising. The presence of the majority conciliated the bourgeoisie. Each element relied on powerful groups outside the government, but each also feared that their adherents would drag them further than they desired, the one toward anarchy, the other toward reaction.^ The radicals found as aids the audacious club- leaders who were the advocates not only of progress and ^ Regnault 8-13 says : " M. Ledru-Rollin believed the republic com- promised by too much weakness. ... His colleagues believed it com- promised by too much audacity." Proudhon. Letters, 2:315 describes the three parties : the doctrinaires of the National who oppose progress, the honest and devoted radicals who do not understand the century and too frequently look back to 1793, and the socialists who have false ideas as to reforms. See also Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 224, 278, 321, 330. testimony of Arago. Dupont. Marrast, and Pagnerre. * Goudchaux declared that he alone would have been glad of the resignation of Ledru and Blanc— Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 289. ' See Regnault 15. 229] PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 75 energetic action but also of anarchy and disorder. To un- chain these tumultuous elements would be to provoke a movement of which Ledru and his friends might no longer be masters, which might ruin the republic through its ex- cesses. The moderates were supported by the business and financial interests of the country, the former supporters of the monarchy, and they rightly feared that a break with the radicals would deliver them into the hands of these reac- tionary forces. The relations of the radicals and socialists with each other must be noted. Sometimes they were united, some- times separated.^ Ledru-RoUin never shared the socialist principles of Louis Blanc. Throughout the second re- public he remained merely a social reformer, what the French would call today a radical-socialist. Communism was utterly repugnant to him." He always declared against the idealistic theories and Utopian schemes of Fourier and St. Simon, of Cabet and Leroux, but he was always in- terested in practicable social reforms. He believed that the social system needed renovation, but he advocated no specific panacea to make it perfect ; he believed in gradual evolution by pacific means. Later we shall find Ledru call- ing himself a socialist and Mathieu de la Drome declaring that Ledru had always been one, but really there was no change in his ideas ; in order to unite with the socialist party Ledru was willing to call socialistic those ideas which he had always held, the same ones he had formally considered non-socialistic." Thus there were certain similarities not of doctrine, but of practice between L^dru and Louis Blanc. ' See Arago in Qucntin-Bauchart Report i : 225. * See Delvau 448; Cabet 36. ' Regnault 116 declares that I^dru who wor.sliii)ped the conz'ention- nels. was irritated at meeting a coinph'cation that they did not know, although he was not appalled by the audacity of the socialist schemes. 76 LEDKU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [230 The reforms that the latter desired were far more profound, but Ledru went far beyond his moderate antagonists. Con- sequently the place of the two socialists was usually beside the radicals and they in return usually received the support of Ledru and Flocon/ The leader of the socialist group, Louis Blanc, although still a young man, being only thirty-six, had already made a name for himself. His Organisation dii Travail had set forth in a brilliant manner the faults of the competitive system. To replace this system the young author advocated cooperation. In each trade the workingmen were to unite and form companies, financed at the outset by the govern- ment, which would ultimately drive out the capitalistic con- cerns and bring the artisans into their own. Equality of wages ^ and election of directing officials were important items of his program. Confident that the adoption of his ideas would bring about a millennium, he tried to impose them on the government, but never with success. A far more ardent revolutionary than Ledru-Rollin, he was willing to break with the moderates (especially on April 16), but he realized that alone he had not sufficient backing, that a change in the government could be successful only if Ledru- Rollin joined forces with him. Advanced as he v^as, he was not an exponent of terrorism; he hoped to gain over the bourgeoisie by argument, not by the guillotine. Dog- matic, ultra-revolutionary, he was at the same time loyal, generous, kind-hearted, sincere. In the provisional government Blanc was steadily sup- ported by Albert, workingman. The latter had no quali- fication whatever for his place in the government except the epithet of workingman, without which his name never 'Sec Regnault 117-8. * In some of the editions of his book, pay according to needs, that is, a salary proportionate to the size of the wage-earner's family. 231] PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT yy appeared. The proletariat was delighted to have one of its members in the government and that purpose Albert served. He had been one of the secondary leaders in the secret societies and to that fact, but more to chance, he owed his place on the council. Honest and sincere he was, but he never displayed the slightest sign of originality or ability. He followed Louis Blanc blindly, always acquiesc- ing in his leader's assertions. Ledru received the steady support of Flocon. The latter had succeeded Godefroy Cavaignac as editor of the Re- form e, and for years had with Ledru-Rollin guided the radical republicans. An independent thinker, at times he seemed more moderate, at times more advanced than his col- league. He was less easily swayed by his associates than was Ledru, but he had not the other's ability to sway his audience. To his advice and counsel more than to that of anyone else Ledru turned in times of unrest. Dupont de I'Eure, the president of the provisional gov- ernment, was eighty-one years old; he was known as the patriarch of republicanism. Since 1798 he had served in the legislatures of France and had constantly advocated liberal measures. He was now too feeble to take on active part in the government, but he threw the full weight of his authority against all radical innovations. Always kindly, he was ever anxious to maintain harmony in the council. Respected throughout France by all parties, he was an ideal figure to place at the head of the provisional government. Marie was the legal counsel for the National. A con- sistent advocate of republicanism, his tendencies were rather conservative. A man of keen intellect, this hard worker had the steely coldness of the legalist. Holding the same opinions, Armand Marrast was a dis- tinct contrast in character. A hot-headed Gascon, he was continually quarreling with the radicals. Editor of the 78 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [232 National, he had combined a love for the repubHc and a steady HberaHsm with a fear of extreme measures and a dis- Hke of ultra-revolutionists. Louis-Antoine Garnier- Pages, known as " the younger," owed his position more to the reputation of his deceased elder brother than to his own qualities. A lawyer, a supporter of the National, an old-line republican, he brought to the gov- ernment a capacity for hard labor, courage in times of crisis, and considerable financial ability. Holding the same opinions as Marie and Marrast he was far more ready than were they to reconcile his view-point w^ith that of the radicals and far more willing to recognize the ability and usefulness of Ledru-Rollin. Frangois Arago, another member of the provisional gov- ernment, was probably the greatest French scientist of the day, but since 1830 he had devoted much of his time to political matters. He had formerly been a radical repub- lican and had been connected wnth the Reforme, but he was not so extreme as Ledru-Rollin and had latterly cooperated in the Chamber wath the moderates. In Paris, however, he was still frequently considered as an advanced republican, but the politicians realized his conservatism, and when the executive commission w^as formed later, he received the largest number of votes. Brave and loyal, quick to anger, easily influenced by his environment, indefatigable in labor, he was an able assistant, but he lacked the moral strength to be a leader in a time of crisis. Cremieux was the only member of the government who was undoubtedly a new republican. He had long been a prominent member of the dynastic left but hardly one of us leaders. His place on the council he owed to the fact that he alone of the supporters of the July monarchy had advo- cated a provisional government on February 24. His ideas were fluid rather than fixed. He had been a sincere con- 233] PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT yg stitutional monarchist ; he suddenly became a sincere repub- lican. Later, when reaction set in, it swept him with it at first, but finally it went too far for him, and in the Legisla- tive Assembly he became the leader of the moderate re- publicans of the left. From his antecedents one would ex- pect that he would be the least advanced of the members of the council. Such was not the case. He was not con- nected by earlier ties with the National group and in conse- quence frequently sided with its opponents. The facility with which he absorbed new ideas made him more easily accept the reforms advocated by Ledru-Rollin and Louis Blanc. Undoubtedly the most prominent member of the pro- visional government was Alphonse de Lamartine. He was recognized as one of the greatest poets of the day, but his ambition was to shine as well in the realm of politics. Under the Bourbons he had l^een a staunch legitimist, but already showed some liberal ideas. Under the July Mon- archy his evolution was gradual. He joined no party in the legislature and had no followers, but the aid of his eloquence was sought by all. Once in support of a Mole cabinet, he maintained the field almost alone against all the brilliant ora- tors of the Chamber. He had been repeatedly offered minor ministries, but he was unwilling to abandon his independ- ent position unless he could obtain one of the chief cabinet portfolios. Exactly when he l^ecame a republican is a mooted question. Some claim it was not until February 24, but it is more probable that before the revolution he had ac- cepted the republic as the ideal form of government. His first step in that direction was the glorification of the first republic in Les Girondins. When the decisive moment came on February 24, when he arose in the legislature and his words would probably wreck the monarchy or give it a chance, he declared for a provisional government. 8o LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [234 He was the person who represented the provisional gov- ernment at all crises; time after time his was the voice that quelled the mob by its miraculous eloquence and made it change from hisses to acclamations. In the council he was at first the leader of the moderates; he and Ledru-Rollin were considered by France as the protagonists of the two opposing tendencies. But he was the mildest of the majority and, though their leader, constantly moderated their conservatism. Above all, relying on his eloquence, he was the advocate of harmony. His powers of persuasion he tried on the mob, on the extremist leaders (Blanqui, Sobrier, for instance), and on Ledru-Rollin. After April 16 we shall see a change in Lamartine's attitude. He re- alized more clearly the power of the extremists and believed that the republic could sail on its course successfully only by tacking somewhat in their direction. With this purpose he tried hard to conciliate the radical leader; Ledru-Rollin, delighted to find a supporter in the majority, willingly abandoned half his desires, restrained his ardour, and w^hole- heartedly joined forces with Lamartine. Such were the members of the provisional government. As assistants they had chosen principally moderates. The secretary of the council, Pagnerre, and the minister of finances, Goudchaux, both connected with the National, were bitter opponents of the radicals. Carnot, minister of education, resembled Garnier-Pages in his attitude. Beth- mont of the department of commerce and agriculture, a moderate, mixed little in the squabbles. General Subervie, for a brief period minister of war, seems to have held opinions similar to Ledru's, as is show^^ by the following letter written to the minister of the interior on March 19: " My dear colleague, your enemies are also mine. They torment you, they torment me, because they know that our opinions are the same. I must talk with vou. I shall come 235] PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 8 1 to see you tomorrow morning. Yours sincerely, General Subervie." ^ The general had just been removed from his office through the influence of Marrast. This had been done in the absence of Ledru, Flocon, Cremieux, and Lamartine, and only the insistance of Subervie kept them from pro- testing. Cremieux maintained that, to prove the removal was no slight, the ex-minister should be appointed chancellor of the legion or honour. The council agreed.^ Arago accepted the ministry of war ad interim. The per- manent appointee was to be Cavaignac, who had already })een created lieutenant-general and Governor of Algeria. The latter refused in a letter in which he almost questioned the authority of the provisional government. Ledru, to- gether with Arago, Blanc, and Marrast, demanded his re- call, 1>ut it was finally decided to leave him in his African command and merely to send a letter of reprimand.^ Ledru in 1850 gave what is probably an inexact account : Cavaignac aspired to power . . . since February, for from Africa ... he was meditating the overthrow of those who promoted him in memory of his brother's services. The letter in which he refused the ministry of war . . . almost put in question the legitimacy of the government. . . . This refusal, which took the form of an insolent protest against the revolu- tion, should have caused his dismissal. This I demanded, and the government was on the point of accepting it, but my efforts were neutralized by MM. Flocon and I>ouis Blanc* The family of Cavaignac was on good terms with the minister of the interior. The commissioner of the Drome had been named at the suggestion of Mme. Cavaignac."^ On ' LR Papers i : 213. For original text, see appendix. ' Sarrans 307-8. * Gamier- Pages 7: 320; Rcgnault 325-r); Sarrans i : 309. * Voix du Proscrit 2 : 45. 'Archives Nationales, F, iB — II, 60 (12). 82 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [236 March 7 General Jacques Cavaignac had written Ledru a letter: ". . . . You assure me of the appointment of my son to the ministry, of which everyone was speaking yester- day. Recalling our conversation, I would say that I now believe that my son would refuse. To appoint him minister would be merely to remove him from the governorship. You forbid me to thank you, but you cannot forbid me to be grateful. I assure you, no one thinks more than I do of the burden which weighs on you, or is more reassured in seeing you carry it.' ' ^ There was much dissension within the ranks of the pro- visional government, but this has been greatly exaggerated. That there was constant friction is unquestionable, but each difference of opinion was amicably settled. Both sides fre- quently threatened to resign, but no one carried out this threat. Again and again Louis Blanc and Ledru-Rollin, after being defeated in the council, came before the crowd and declared their adhesion to the government decision. - Ledru had some trouble with Arago and with Cremieux as to the authority of the commissioners over the army officers and the judges. He had slight disputes with other members, but only with Armand Marrast did the dissension become bitter. The latter had succeeded Garnier-Pages as mayor of Paris and as such should have been subordinate to the minister of the interior, but his pride would not allow him to receive orders from a fellow-member of the gov- ernment. The position was anomalous. A big man would have realized that the mayor must take orders from the minister; a tactful minister would have induced the mayor ' LR Papers i : 201. See appendix for original document. This letter would indicate that Eugene Cavaignac was the son of Jacques, not of the latter's brother, the convcntionnel, Jean-Baptiste. * Arago and Dupont belittle the dissensions ; Garnier-Pages claims that outside influences envenomed the struggle. — Quentin-Bauchart Re- port 1 : 224, 276, 284. 237] PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 83 to take a subordinate position. But both men had disliked each other long before the revolution of February, and the smouldering irritation broke out at the first op- portunity. So far did they go in mistrust of each other that they had police agents to watch each other's action.^ What caused the most irritation was the police depart- ment. Caussidiere had seized the prefecture of police on February 24, and the provisional government had given a silent consent but had not regularly appointed him or rati- fied his position. The desire of the council was to give the place to Recurt, but Caussidiere refused to surrender his power and was given a provisional appointment." On March 2 trouble broke out. Garnier- Pages, who was still mayor of Paris, declared that he was the equal of the minister of the interior and would hold office only from the council. Ledru-Rollin replied with precedents. Garnier-Pages re- torted that as a member of the government Ledru-Rollin would be permitted to intervene in the affairs of the mayoralty. An agreement was reached by which the mayor was declared independent of the minister but was to inform him of all matters of police. Disagreements should be re- ferred to the entire council.^ After this quarrel Garnier- Pages assured his opponent that he had acted in good faith and merely desired to have their spheres clearly distin- guished. "If your intention is harmony," replied Ledru, " I cannot but applaud and approve it." Again as on February 24 the minister and the mayor shook hands.'' On ' Stern 2: 154-5. The Ducos commission blamed flic expenditure for this purpose. — Monitcur for 1849, p. IS57. RcRuault 182. Bouton 5 claims: "It was a question of replacing not only Caussidiere by Recurt but I^dru-Rollin by Cormenin as min- ister of the interior. . . . Ledru-Rollin was to remain in the provisional government." At the trial of Barbes, Ledru declared : " The police of Caussidiere was badly organized ; it was composed of patriots who acted voluntarily." — Monitcur for 184Q, p. 947. * Monitcur for 184S. p. 529. * Garnier-Pages 6:226. 84 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [238 March 6 Caussidiere appeared before the council; he made a good impression, but no resokition was taken.^ On March 10, the day after Marrast became mayor, Ledru demanded that the prefecture of poHce should 1>e an adjunct of the ministry of the interior. He emphasized the need of having the police of the provinces and that of the capital under the same government department. Garnier- Pages insisted on the unity of the prefectures of police and of the Seine. A violent discussion arose and 2^Iarrast yielded. " I am not anxious to have daily work with M. Caussidiere," he told his predecessor." ' On March 17 Caussidiere received his definite appointment." Friction between the mayor of Paris and the minister of the interior continued. Ledru obtained the consent of the government to the creation of a special additional force of police. Caussidiere immediately started enrolling men, but he was informed that Marrast was doing likewise. The latter stopped only when the prefect threatened to arrest anyone wearing the uniform of the police without his authorisation. When the affair was explained to the mayor by Ledru-Rollin, Marrast pleaded ignorance and said that he had believed the force was under his jurisdiction.* To put an end to these discussions a new committee composed of Marie, Flocon, and Bethmont was charged on April 3 with revising and limiting the respective attributes of the two authorities.^ One of Ledru's duties was to draw up police reports for the council. These reports told of the state of Paris and the preparations for uprisings. " Every day I read to the ' Ibid., 6 : 345-6. ^ Ibid., 2:345-6; Blanc 1:295; Moniteur for 1848. p. 601. * Moniteur for 1848, pp. 636, 643. * Caussidiere i : 267-8. * Garnier-Pages 7 : 27. 239] PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 85 government," said Ledru a year later, " the report of the police, and each member, particularly citizen Marie, took note." ^ It was Caussidiere, the prefect of police, who in person brought the information to Ledru.^ Caussidiere is the most picturesque figure thrown up by the revolution of 1848. Large and imposing in stature, he dressed like a brigand and bragged like a bully. He seemed like a conspirator in a comic opera. What his relations with Ledru were is not at all clear. Many writers insist that in spite of his declared devotion to the minister, he was merely using his superior in order to climb into power over him.^ It is certain that Caussidiere had considerable influence over the minister, but it is doubt- ful whether he ever wished to overthrow him or even in- trigued with him to overthrow the moderates. Caussidiere was a born conspirator and probably was aware of, if he did not tacitly encourage, many of the attempts to overthrow the provisional government. At times of crisis he main- tained a neutral position so that he seemed ready to join the uprising if it should prove successful or to remain true to the government if it should win the day. But it must be rememl)ered to his credit that in these troublesome times he actually kept Paris safe. ' Barbes trial, Monitcur for 1849, p. 947. Arago claims that Ledru was badly informed and that his reports were biased in favor of the clubs. — Ibid., 932. * Caussidiere 2:2-3. One time when Caussidiere desired the creation of a special force, he proposed as an inducement that it should wear the workingmen's garb. " But," cried Ledru, " I cannot accept these distinctions. To be with the people, must one be clad in a blouse?" • Lamartine 2:89; 73arrot 2:119; Rojfnauit 262-4. Favre in Quentin- T'auchart Report 1:279 says: "Ledru-Roilin considered Caussidiere as a prefect of police impossible in ordinary times but necessary in times of revolution. He flattered himself that he dominated him, whereas Ciussidiere on his side said: 'Oh, Lcdru-RoUin! I shall kick him out when I wish.' " Caussidiere, of course, denied this allegation. — Speeches in National Assembly, August 25, 1848, .Monitcur for i8.fS, p. 2172. CHAPTER VI Finances and Foreign Affairs When the new government came into power, the finances were in a deplorable condition. Goudchaux, the first minister of the treasury, handed in his resignation on March 5 in spite of the unanimous regret of the provisional govern- ment; he declared that he could not take charge of the finances at a time when anarchic doctrines were openly preached. Garnier-Pages bravely took up the burden. Conditions were becoming worse and worse. The bour- geoisie took fright and stocks fell off. The circular issued by Ledru-Rollin on March 12 frightened the bankers and there was a panic on the stock exchange. Duclerc, under- secretary of finances, even went so far as to assert in the Assembly a year later that Ledru was responsible for the need of increasing the taxes on account of his incendiary propaganda.^ Ledru replied : If I had expected this discussion, I should have brought here the long list of financial houses which became bankrupt be- tween February 24 and March 12, and you would see by the dates that it was not the circular that brought about so universal and so profound a disturbance. I even declare that the heads of several of the chief banks came to the ministry'' of the interior a few days after the revolution of February. long before March 12, to tell me that their condition was des- perate, that they could no longer satisfy their engagements. 1 Speech of April 12, 1849. Moniteur for 1840, p. 1355. 86 [240 241 ] FINANCES AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS 8/ Remember that the distress of most of these estabhshments antedated even February.^ Ledru's revolutionary activities probably aggravated the dis- tress, but it is absurd to say that they caused it. Various methods of alleviating the distress were sug- gested. Ledru-Rollin favored the issue of paper money since the time was unpropitious for the immediate establish- ment of a progressive tax on capital. Some time later he told the Assembly: Like all the government I wished that the republic should establish a proportional and progressive tax on all property, real as well as personal. That was the thought, the principle of the provisional government .... but times were not ripe for this new tax; we could only discuss the principle and we established another tax .... I proposed two things; first, banknotes guaranteed by state property. It was said : the state property is not worth as much as is thought but that is of little importance ; that property was always worth as much as the bullion in the cellars of the Bank of France, and I wished it to be issued only in reasonable proportion to the real property of the state. I also asked that bonds be issued which should have a forced currency equal to half the taxes. It was an excellent and fruitful measure which would im- mediately have created an immense resource to subsidize capital and laljor, a measure so little revolutionary that it had been proposed by M. Lafitte in 1831.- Before the committee of investigation Ledru declared : " I believed that if prompt measures were not taken, the * Discours politiques 2: 272. * Speech of April 12, 1849, Discours politiques 2:278-9. Duclcrc re- plied' that Lcdru estimated the state property at four billions whereas the state had only thirteen hundred millions, and that it would have been dangerous to raise a billion on this depreciating security. — Moniteur for 184^, p. 1355. 88 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [242 Struggle would commence; credit had to l>e revived, also work and industry. I held that opinion in the provisional government in which I was in a minority. M. Garnier- Pages was an obstacle; he believed the finances of the gov- ernment should be administered as in ordinary times." Ledru continued with details, citing the measures of the first re- public, and insisting that paper money was the sole means of saving the finances of France.^ The government preferred the scheme of their minister of finance. Garnier-Pages proposed the tax of forty-five cen- times which was destined to arouse so much hostile com- ment. For every franc of direct taxes, the citizens were to pay this year an additional forty-five centimes. As the tax was only on real property, the farmers were particularly hard hit. As the regular tax lists were used, those com- munities that expended money on local improvements had to pay more than their share. Above all the tax weighed down the poorer agriculturists. The last consideration especially impressed Ledru-Rollin. He told the Assembly a year later : I proposed one franc fift}' on the rich, and that idea of exempting the poor was not a passing thought with me; I constantly and perseveringly returned to it. Every day I read to the government reports of the commissioners saying: the forty-five centimes will ruin the republic .... I proposed it should no longer be left to a tax-collector to decide what small proprietors should be exempted from the tax. ( Gamier- Pages: It was I who demanded it.) We demanded it together, if you wish, but as a result of the reports that I read daily. Two weeks later we decided that a circular with the force of law should exempt all overburdened or poor proprietors, all the small farmers. Nor is this all. I considered the tax of forty five centimes so fatal to the republic that several times * Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 313. 243] FINANCES AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS 89 I asked that other financial means be substituted for it. . . . Let me be blamed for advocating paper money, but not for the tax of forty-five centimes.^ Though preferring other measures. Ledru had acquiesced in the tax of forty-five centitnes. He desired that a larger amount be asked, but imposed only on the rich; Garnier- Pages agreed to an informal exemption of the poor. The minister of the interior rightly dreaded the effects of the tax of forty-five centimes, but he loyally defended his colleague of the treasury. Tw^o Bulletins of the Republic, the seventh and fourteenth, were devoted to a defense of Garnier-Pages's financial policy. Conservatives accused the provisional government, and particularly Ledru-Rollin, of favoring state bankrupcy. This is absolutely false. Dupont de I'Eure, Goudchaux, Duclerc deny the charge and exonerate the minister of the interior.^ In fact no one suggested actual bankruptcy, but a suspension of payments was proposed, not by the members of the government, but by two conservative bankers. One was the Bonapartist Fould. ^ The other was the Orleanist Delamarre. The latter, according to Ledru, also suggested that the government impose a forced loan and offered to assist in assessing the quotas on the leading bankers. The minister indignantly rejected the offer.* Delamarre denied 'Speech of April 12, 1849, in Discours politiqucs 2:275-6. He adds: " Citizens, a certain member tires us with his cries of ' What is a poor man?' ... A poor man is one who can pay only a small tax. It is not a question of class-distinctions, but of shares in the tax-schedule." Cf. Gamier-Pages 7:58; Antony 160 1 ; Delvau 413-417; Blanc 1:271. For a detailed financial article by Ledru, sec a letter in the 1850 Almanach dcs Proscrils, 30-33. ^Monitcur for 1849. pp. 1355, 1479. ^See page 284 in the debate of April 21, 1849. * Speech of .\pril 21, 1849, Mon'dcur for iS.fcj, p. T480. go LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [244 that he had suggested a forced loan and insisted that his scheme was the creation of a large discounting house, the money to be furnished by the government, the Bank of France, and the leading bankers, that Ledru and several of his colleagues endorsed the project, but that Gamier- Pages's opposition killed the proposal/ Etienne Arago and Delvau support the statements of Ledru-Rollin," whereas none of the statesmen to whom Delamarre appealed made statements in his favor; consequently Ledru's account is probably nearer the truth." The financial integrity of the provisional government was frequently investigated by its opponents. The Constituent Assembly appointed two committees of investigation. The hostile Ducos completely exonerated of dishonesty every member of the government. He questioned only the money given to certain delegates of the clubs and a few expendi- tures by certain commissioners.* Ducos at first wished to make Ledru personally responsible for these, but the com- mittee decided that that would l^e unfair.^ Other investiga- tions made by the Legislative Assembly in 1849, by the court of accounts in 1850, by the council of state and by the legislature in 1852, all completely absolved the pro- visional government of malversation or extravagance." In foreign afTairs as w^ell as in finances Ledru took his part, although here too his suggestions were not adopted. The foreign minister, Lamartine, had announced his attitude in a circular of March 4 : ^ Patrie, April 23, 1849; Debats, Constitutionnel, April 24. * Re for me, April 22, 1849; Delvau 393-4. * Antony 46 believes Ledru's statements, but it is not clear whether he ever saw Delamarre's defense. * Ducos Report, Moniteur for 1849, p. 1557. * Antony 250-7. For the entire subject, see this work. * Gamier- Pages 8: 368-370. 245] FINANCES AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS 91 France is a republic. The French republic does not have to be recognized in order to exist. It is based alike on national and on natural law. . . . The proclamation of the republic is not an act of aggression against any existing form of gov- ernment War, therefore, is not now the principle of the French republic as it was the fatal and glorious necessity of the republic of 1792. . . . The differences existing between that period of history and the present time explain the necessity of peace. . . . The French republic will not declare war against any state. ... It will accept war should conditions incompatible with peace be offered to the French people. . . . The treaties of 181 5 have no longer any lawful existence in the eyes of the French republic ; nevertheless the existing territorial frontiers are facts which the republic admits as a basis .... in her relations with foreign powers. ... If Switzerland should be menaced in the progressive movement which she has undertaken .... if the independent states of Italy should be invaded, if limits or obstacles should be placed in the making of internal changes .... the French republic would consider itself entitled to take up arms. . . . She is determined never to curtail liberty within her territory. . . . She proclaims herself .... the ally of popular rights and progress. . . . ^ Lamartine thus maintained that France desired peace, would accept the treaties of 181 5 as existing de facto if not de jure, would not republicanize by the sword, Init would not permit other nations to prevent internal democratic changes in Europe, particulariy In Switzerland and in Italy. Ledru-Rollin would have adopted most of this j)olicy gladly; only he emphasized the mission of France to spread republican ideas, if not by the sword, at least by propaganda and by active alliance with any people that should desire to throw off the yoke of their ruler. This difference between the two men first manifested itself in connection with Italian ^ * Moniteur for 18^8, pp. 444-5. 92 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [246 relations. When Austria attempted to repress the demo- cratic movement in that peninsula, Ledru desired to inter- vene immediately; Lamartine wished to wait for the call of the Italian people, and Lamartine had his way/ In one field the department of foreign affairs touched the work of the department of the interior. There were many foreign workingmen in France. As there was not enough work in the country for the native artisans, the provisional government decided to give to the foreigners free transporta- tion to their fatherland ; Flocon was authorized to distribute sixty thousand francs for this purpose.^ Unfortunately many of these workingmen tried to revolutionize their native countries but the purpose of the provisional govern- ment in sending them home w^as not that of spreading pro- paganda. In western Germany there was fear of an invasion from France, and Gagern, a leader of the democratic movement, spoke openly in the Hessian legislature of the menace of an invasion from German workingmen in France, and of the belligerent speeches of Ledru-Rollin. The government for- mally denied any hostile intentions in these speeches : " M. Ledru-Rollin would indeed be astonished were such an in- terpretation given to his words," it said.^ There was a small and unsuccessful expedition into Baden, headed by the poet, Herwegh, but the government had refused any assistance, and Ledru had written to the officials at Stras- ' Barrot 2:84; Regnault 243-4; Mazzini, Scritfi, 8:63, in a letter to Cavour in June, 1858, says : " The tendencies represented by Ledru- Rollin were not sufficiently seconded by his colleagues, but I affirm that the French republic wished to aid in the emancipation of Italy with arms and that the -Sardinian government did not." ^ Discours poUtiques 2:63; Garnier-Pag^s 7:275; Ducos report, Moni- teur for 1849, p. 1554. ' Moniteur for 1848, pp. 744, 761. 247] FINANCES AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS 93 bourg to prevent the expedition/ The government even dissolved all meetings of Germans in the eastern depart- ments.'^ Some Savoyard workingmen residing in or near Lyons made an abortive expedition against Chambery in Savoy, but they were easily repelled by the native mountaineers. The government removed all the refugees from the frontier, and Ledru, Lamartine, and Emmanuel Arago, commissioner at Lyons, worked together to prevent a second attack. The expedition against Chambery was attributed to the minister of the interior, but there is no foundation for the charge.^ By far the most serious of these invasions of foreign territory from France was the affair of Risquons-tout in Belgium. Secret societies in that country had long con- spired for a republic, and one of their agents had approached Ledru-Rollin, but apparently with no satisfactory result.* The chief organizers of the plot in Paris were two Belgian refugees, Blervacq and Fosse, both of whom were sus^^ected of being agents provocateurs.^ These two agitators acted separately; this is a fact that has not been sufficiently ap- preciated by historians and which clears up most of the seemingly contradictory testimony. Fosse's group was aided by Marrast and the municipal authorities." From de- ' Letter of Lamartine in Circourt 1:155; Stern 3:311. Circourt 1: 251, 312; 2:40 charges Ledru with complicity l)ut gives no proofs. He also speaks of trouble over Savoye, charge d'affaires at Frankfort and a friend of Ledru. — Ibid., i : 336. ' Mo nit cur for 1 8 48, p. 891. 'Lamartine 2:167-8; Regnault 274; Stern 2:310; Monitcttr for JS48, p. 795- * Bertrand i : 356. Bertrand i : t,t,6-t^ gives a full account of the connection of the Risquons-tout affair with Belgian history, but he gives little space to the French ramifications of the plot. * Regnault 291. * Garnier-Pages 7:287; Dclvau 421. ^^ LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [248 puty-maj'-or Buchez Fosse received the money to pay the expenses of those who should take part in the projected ex- pedition. Caussidiere heard of the preparations for de- parture at the last moment. He sought the minister of the interior to gain his approval or disapproval of the ex- pedition, but Ledru was occupied all day. The prefect of police did not dare stop the Belgians on his own respon- sibility and sorely against his will let the band enter their special train. The workingman reached Valenciennes safely. Thence they were sent off in Belgian trains by the commissioner of the North, Delescluze, who had received no orders. The train did not stop at the frontier, and the insurgents were surrounded by troops w^hen they reached the first station in Belgium, Quievrain. They were then quietly sent to their homes.^ It is evident that Ledru- Rollin, Caussidiere, and Delescluze gave no surreptitious aid to this group; if there was a plot — and this is more than doubtful — it was hatched not at the ministry of the interior but at the mayoralty of Paris. Caussidiere was in constant communication with the other set of Belgians. Blervacq. their leader, had collected two thousand men in Paris and pressed the prefect of police for money and arms. Caussidiere proposed to Ledru- Rollin that the ministry of the interior should supply the expedition with all that was needed for an armed invasion, should give it an appropriation of one hundred thousand francs, and should add to the expedition two thousand dis- banded municipal guards." Ledru-Rollin refused absolutely to make any irregular expenditure or to take any action without the full knowledge of the provisional government; but he promised to use his influence with his colleagues to ^Caussidiere 2:280-2; Monitcur for 1848, p. 744. * This was a part of the police of Louis Philippe which had been dis- solved by the republican administration. 249] FINANCES AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS 95 gain free transportation for the Belgians. At a meeting of these eleven members Ledru-RoUin made his request, and his colleagues voted a sum of money for this purpose.^ In his account of this affair Caussidiere explains away the chief points in the charges which are usually brought against Ledru-Rollin for complicity. Caussidiere himself favored the expedition, desired to abet the conspiracy and suggested this to his superior, but Ledru-Rollin refused absolutely to aid in the plot. The minister furnished funds to transport the Belgian refugees to the frontier, just as he had furnished them to all foreign workingmen, openly and with the consent of his colleagues, but he refused, to Caus- sidiere's regret, to go further. Garnier-Pages well said of the expedition : " M. Ledru-Rollin desired it, but felt that he ought not aid it ; M. Caussidiere desired it, but dared not aid it." ^ Besides furnishing free transportation Ledru ordered several students of the Ecole Poly technique to accompany the Belgians, partly to take charge of the distribution of supplies, partly to keep an eye on the expedition. Frey- cinet, the future premier, then a student at the school and, like many of his companions, acting as a guard to the gov- ernment, asserts in his memoirs : On March 22 Ledru-Rollin made an appointment with me for that evening in his office, Place Beauvau. I found there three of my companions. . . . The minister proposed our joining the expedition known under the name of Risquons- tnut. He has been severely blamed for this enterprise. Many I)eople have believed that he [)rcmc(litalc(l it with the idea of having a republic proclaimed in Belgium, even at the risk of 'Caussidiere 2:198-200; Delvau 42; Rcgnault 270-1; Garnicr-l'aRcs 7:287; Stern 2:307-8; Dupont and Blervacq in Quentin-Bauchart Re- port 1 : 278, 241. ' Gamier- Pages 7 : 287. g6 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [250 bringing about diplomatic complications. The conference at which I took part left on me an entirely different impression. Ledru-Rollin appeared to tolerate this expedition rather than to desire it. Not daring to stop it, he wished to restain it, keep it within limits. He hoped that having prudent men at its head, it would abstain from excesses on the route and per- haps would not even cross the frontier. The detailed in- structions which he gave for its repatriation, the insistence on avoiding all collisions seemed to indicate that in his mind the expedition would reduce itself to a mere promenade in the department of the North. My companions understood it in this sense and agreed to go along. As for myself, incapable for the moment of enduring a long march on foot, I was obliged to refuse.^ At a second interview on March 24 Ledru-Rollin gave to those who were to accompany the expedition money for transportation and for food, and oral instructions. This time he seems to have more clearly indicated his unofficial approval. One of the students testified later: '' M. Ledru- Rollin gave us absolutely no authorization; I understood from the tenor of his remarks, however, that it would be well if we succeeded." Another declared: "I remember that M. Ledru-Rollin said that as minister he could not take part in the expedition, but that as a citizen he approved it." ^ The expedition, eighteen hundred strong, arrived safely at Lille. The polytechnicians immediately reported to Com- missioner Delescluze. Delescluze was without definite orders and did not like to do an\i;hing on his own respon- sibility.^ He provided food and lodgings for the troops at 1 Freycinet 31-2. ' Quentin-Bauchart Report 2:17-9; 1:271. Other students made similar depositions. One said : " We thought an expedition into Belgium should be made to proclaim a republic there." * On these two facts the testimony of the students is uniform, but some say that Delescluze signified his approval, others his disapproval of the expedition. — Ibid., i : 271 ; 2: 17-9. 251] FINANCES AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS 97 Seclin near the border; that was clearly what the minister of the interior desired. The question of arms was more difficult. Delescluze had received through Ledru-Rollin an order for fifteen hundred rifles for the Lille National Guard. The Belgians asked him for these arms, and after hesitating he sent them to Seclin. General Negrier, in command at Lille, objected to this transfer, but the order was regularly- signed by the minister of war. Negrier informed his chief, Frangois Arago, of the proceedings, and the latter tele- graphed to him to prevent the Belgians from crossing the frontier and to order the pol)1;echnical students home. This order arrived too late to be of any avail. ^ In his perplexity Delescluze wrote to Ledru on March 27 the following letter, marked urgent: My dear minister, My perplexity increases ; the Belgian division stationed at Seclin, two leagues from Lille, is still there; it numbers fifteen hundred men. Its discipline is per- fect and I believe its morale is excellent ; but the chiefs, who have all finally arrived, do not inspire me with great con- fidence. I believe them at least incapable, and for the leaders of partisans incapacity is fatal. The situation is difficult for me. The Belgians do not wish to depart without arms ; I I believe that they should not receive arms unless success is ! almost sure. But success is more than doubtful. Belgium I has 55,000 men under arms ; 20.000 — perhaps even 25,000 — \ to patrol the frontier between Menin and Maubevige. Scat- tered as are the Belgian troops, naturally with their organiza- I tion they could repel the invasion of 1500 men armed and I manoeuvred in a mediocre manner. My advice is that the f Belgians return to their homes singly and peacefully to engage ' in propaganda. As to the Parisians, let tlicin also return j home. j i The leaders of the Belgian expedition coutit on an insur- I ' Ibid., I : 274-5; 2: 12-7. C^ LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [252 rection this evening, March 2y, at Ghent and at Bruges. Ac- cording to the information I receive, I am far from sharing their opinion. The army, the bourgeoisie, and all officialdom are in general hostile to ideas coming from France, even when there is no question of annexation. They have been preach- ing during the past two weeks against the Belgian volunteers, whom they represent as brigands preparing to pillage. There are great difficulties and, I confess, I hesitate to launch this mass of 1500 badly organized men, even if they were ac- companied by 3 or 4000 artisans recruited in the manufactur- ing towns near Lille. I found a smuggler who made me the offer of serving as guide to the expedition and promised me to conduct it with- out striking a blow as far as Ghent, the centre of republican and French ideas, because nowhere else do the people suffer so much. I spoke of it to the leaders ; they seem to be sus- picious, the misunderstanding of Quievrain leaving them in doubt as to the intentions of the government. They are con- tinually thinking of betrayal, and in vain have I explained to them that the Quievrain affair occurred due to an error ; they pretend to believe in that fable so as to pose as victims. I have just received your telegram and I take it as a purely official communication to cover your responsibility in case of failure. Send me another tomorrow without fail. If I should arm and launch the Belgians, reply by the single word : yes. If the contrary by: no. I shall act accordingly. But I must decide by tomorrow at latest. The chief of the Belgian police came to Lille yesterday to see me. I did not show my cards. I made him understand that nothing would please me more than to be delivered of the disturbing presence of the Belgian legion, but that I could not deliver it over to the Belgian government, etc. The Parisians are, I am told, quite ready to leave, but without them the affair is hopeless. I signified to the students of the School that they could not march at the head of the legion in their uniform. The Belgian police manifested to me 253] FINANCES AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS gg certain apprehensions in that respect. I made it understood that the young men had come only to maintain order in the convoys and to protect pubHc safety. The indiscretions of Degouve-Denunque's press add to my perplexities ; to listen to the Journal de la Somme and other correspondents of this man, the Belgian legion is marching to victory. Why did you not warn me of the band which passed through Valenciennes? All the newspapers will pounce on me, and I see myself in advance sacrificed. After all, what difiference does it make? I shall leave the position you gave me and rest a little. Whatever happens, I do not wish to risk the blood of these men in a ridiculous failure, for the affair may not succeed. No other news. Reply, reply by yes or wo. Let me have your telegraphic answer by noon at the latest. Your devoted subordinate. Ch. Delescluze. In the torn margin of the letter is the note : " Your students of the School are not as temeritous as they seem .... They have quite a tendency towards peace and civil pursuits." On the back of the letter in the handwriting of Elias Regnault are the words : " This letter was not received till the morning of the twenty-ninth. Immediately the minister replied no by telegraph. The despatch left at 10:30. E. R." ' Thus the answer arrived too late, and Delescluze remained without instructions. The commissioner still hesitated. Fsifles had 1>een sent to Seclin and distributed among the ^Revolution de 1848. 16:46-8; oritfinal in LR Papers 1:247-^. The ordinary version, that Lcdru's answer was delayed by a stupid subordi- nate who believed the single-word messape a mistake and did not for- ward it, is disproved by this note of ReRnault, the very man responsible for the false version. Sec 'Regnault 271-2. Lamartine 2: 166-7 claims that he intervened in the affair. Sec also Stern 2:308-310; Garnier- Pagcs 7 : 291-5. lOO LEDRU-ROLUN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [254 Belgians; then most of them were taken back. Finally Delescluze decided to let the legion proceed. The Belgians crossed the frontier at Risquons-tout, near Mouscron. Here they were met by a strong body of Belgian regulars and after an hour's fighting were driven back across the French frontier with seven killed and twenty-five wounded. Their opponents lost an equal number.^ In a leter on March 28 Delescluze explains his acts and his hopes : My dear minister, The die is cast; this evening the expedi- tion enters Belgium ; tomorrow news. I shall send you by telegraph a line to tell you how Belgium has received her children. I cannot foresee the outcome, as I am not completely reas- sured as to the leaders. Let us hope that the fortune of France is with them, and that the sun of the republic begins to rise. But, for God's sake ! Do not be diplomatic with me. I am ready to do whatever you tell me. I believe that I can at need take any initiative required by the case, but do not send me ambiguous communications. In any case I count on a bill of indemnity. If the ex- pedition turns out a failure, I do not know how I shall ex- tricate myself. You must aid me. I have not time to tell you more. During the night at two o'clock, Courtrai will be in the hands of the legion, if it is not wiped out beforehand on the road. I confess that it is with anguish that I see the young col- legians prepare for this struggle as for a mortal combat, and besides they cannot fight in their uniforms. At any rate I have furnished them with passports. May France watch over them. In case of failure there will be a violent reaction against you and me. We must hold out against the storm, but I shall * Moniteur for 1848, p. 744. 255] FINANCES AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS loi have need of more patience than I feel capable of to endure the avalanche that menaces me. Yours sincerely, Ch. Delescluze.^ The fiasco of Risquons-tout caused agitation everywhere. Foreign powers, particularly England, feared the chauvinist tendencies of the new republic. In France the conserva- tives thundered against the government and especially against Ledru-Rollin for thus violating the national honor by plotting against a friendly power, while the extreme re- volutionists denounced the betrayal of the unfortunate de- mocrats." The provisional government publicly disavowed the expedition. It would have liked to remove Delescluze, but Ledru insisted on the retention of his friend. On August 25, 1848 'before the Assembly Ledru made a defense of the part he had played in this affair. It is pro- Ijably the only time he discussed the affairs publicly. In Belgium assembled most of the ministers of the late monarchy, and they conspired without hindrance by the authorities. In the waters of the Scheldt lay some British ships ready to take Antwerp at the first movement made by this country. Well, a Belgian legion, which you all saw, which you applauded when it traversed the Boulevards .... departed. I did for it what I had done for the Germans, for the .Savoyards. That there might be no disorder I had them accompanied by pupils of the Ecole Polytechniquc and the Ecolc Centrale. ... I sent arms for the National Guard wha feared disorder on the frontier from these scattered legions. These arms were taken, some say they were distributed. . . . But there is no deposition that says that they were distributed. ^ Rcvoluliov dc iS.fS, 16:49; original in LR P.'ipcr.s 1:249, marked very urgent and personal. It is doubtful whether the collegians accom- panied the Belgians across the frontier. In view of this letter one can no longer absolve Delescluze of complicity as docs Proles 16-8. ' See Rcgnault 277. 1 02 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [256 Moreover here is a telegram which .... should have been reported. The commissioner of the North said to me : These men wish to cross the frontier armed; shall I let them pass? I replied no. The minister of war said: Let the students be recalled. They were recalled. My telegram was not delivered in time ; I removed the operator. Blervacq was arrested ; he was at the head of those legions which wished to enter Belgium arms in hand. I ask whether the Belgian expedition, which seems so inexplicable, is not thus explained ; I ask whether the Belgian government, perfectly aware of the facts, ever ad- dressed to our govermnent any protest at all? ... I knew that the policy of France was not in opposition to the manifesto* of M. de Lamartine.^ Considering the letter of March 28 quoted above at length, the complicity of Delescluze is clear. He had not premediated the expedition; he had not even approved it. But he frankly admits that after hesitation he aided it with his advice and furnished it with help. The assistance was secret, but that fact does not absolve him. As to Ledru- Rollin his complicity is less direct. He did not wish the expedition, he refused to aid it w^hen Caussidiere asked for aid. He supplied food and transportation, but that was to remove foreign workingmen from France and was done with the consent of his colleagues and the knowledge of the Belgian minister at Paris. He sent along Pohtechnical students, but for the purpose of watching the expedition and seeing to the commisariat. That he would have been de- lighted to see a Belgian republic is undoubted, that he would not have been displeased at the success of the expedition was obvious to many people to whom he spoke, but from start to finish as a government official he refused anything that could be called official sanction. Ledru, however, did ^ Discours politiqucs 2:71-3. Gossez 129-134 believes Ledru favored but did not help the expedition. The conservative historians believe in Ledru's complicity. 257] FINANCES AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS 103 not take adequate measures to prevent the invasion. He gave definite orders to his subordinate, Delescluze, only when it was too late. Besides, he insisted on the retention of the compromised commissioner, thus covering the latter with his own authority. It is notable that the two letters of Delescluze were not left in the archives of the ministry of the interior, but were placed among the private papers of Ledru. Summing up, Caussidiere had the desire but not the power to aid the expedition. Delescluze gave it a direct and surreptitious but no premeditated assistance. Ledru-RoUin gave no official assistance, but his conduct was ambiguous and he accepted after the fact a part of the responsibility. Besides these foreign workingmen, Germans, Savoyards, Belgians, who made armed invasions, other foreigners, who remained in Paris caused trouble. The Poles threatened to exert pressure on the government to force it to aid their native country.^ The Irish publicly urged that France attack England, and placarded on white paj>er * old speeches of Ledru-Rollin promising the aid of French republicans against the oppressors of Ireland. When the English ambassador, Lord Normanby, protested, the government sent him a reply which he admitted was " unobjectionable in spirit." Ledru repudiated the inference that as minister he maintained language he had formerly used. Normanby expressed himself as satisfied.^ At Rouen too, foreign laborers created trouble Normanby complained about dis- crimination against English artisans in that city. Ledru in- vestigated the matter, and the ambassador declared himself content.* ' Garnicr-Pages 7:275. * Only official posters could lawfully be printed on white paper. * Normanby i : 362-6. * Ibid.. I : 230-2, 266-7; Monitcur for 1S48, p. 932. CHAPTER VII Father of Universal Suffrage As we have seen, the July Monarchy had been overthrown on the twenty-fourth of February, and a provisional gov- ernment had been formed. But still the mob did not im- mediately disperse. On February 25 a band of insurgents went to the ministry of the interior, and there were a fewj moments of anxiety for the public archives. Ledru-Rollin tried to calm the insurgents. He dissuaded them from rushing to Vincennes to occupy the arsenal by assuring them that Flocon had already taken possession of that fort. He urged them to go to the JNIilitary School to await the early reorganization of the National Guard. Meanwhile another and larger group had marched to the city hall and had de- manded that the red flag be proclaimed the flag of the re- public. Only six members of the provisional government were there at the time. Louis Blanc defended the red ban- ner, but he finally yielded to the arguments of his colleagues. Lamartine then went out on the balcony, and in one of his most effective speeches persuaded the crowd to accept the tricolor. Ledru had arrived during the tumult, but all his efforts to get through the crowd were fruitless, and he had been obliged to sit in a concierge's lodge for three hours listening to the rumbling of the riot of which he did not know the cause. ^ Soon after Ledru had finally rejoined his colleagues, a 1 Stern 2:17-8; Garnier-Pages 6:62; Castille 1:329-330; Constifu- tionnel, Debats, February 26, 1848; Times, February 29. 104 [258 259] FATHER OF UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE 105 second invasion arrived demanding the Right of Labor. The Droit an Travail was a catch-word drawn from such sociaHst writers as Louis Blanc and was most popular at this period. It meant the right of every citizen to be guar- anteed remunerative work by the government. Lamartine again successfully exerted his inexhaustible eloquence, and the workingmen abandoned their demand. But Louis Blanc hastily drew up a decree that granted them exactly what they had renounced, that guaranteed work to all citizens, and Ledru added the clause: "The provisional government re- turned to the workingmen, to whom it belongs, the million which fell due on the civil lists." After this the members of the provisional government were obliged to appear once more before the crowd and be acclaimed anew.'^ On the next day the provisional government were again forced to appear before the people. On February 27 the republic was formally proclaimed at the column of July.' There were also disputes within the council. On Feb- ruary 26 the question of the red flag versus the tricolor was discussed. Ledru disployed the design for a tricolor flag which had been painted by David at the demand of Robespierre, and said : " The tricolor is the flag of the Convention, the flag of '93 and of '94. What more is desired?" Naturally the moderates spoke on the same side although giving different arguments. Louis Blanc alone oi)posed the tricolor, but he was forced to give way after his colleagues had yielded so far as to order officials to ' Stern 2:40-1 ; Blanc i : 127; Frcycinct 23; Moniicur jar iS.jS, p. 1503. * Monitcvr for 18^8, p. 507; Lamartine 1:293. At tlic TiiikTics the rioters who had captured it refused to evacuate the Ijuilding and were ready to oppose by force the police under Caussidierc. The new gov- ernor of the Tuileries was oblipfed to promise a public dinner and re- ception, and Ledru and several of his colleagues were forced to come in person to confirm this promise before the insurgents would retire. — 'St. Amant 25-6; Garnicr-Pagcs 6:301-2; Stern- 2:179. I06 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [260 wear a red rosette in their button-hole as an emblem of the republic/ Again when Louis Blanc demanded the creation of a ministry of labor, Ledru-Rollin joined the majority in opposing the suggestion." Some writers claim that the members of the majority were considering the advisability of ousting the radicals and soc- ialists from the council. On the night of February 27-28 the moderates were to meet at 2 A. M. at the house of Marie. Marrast and Pagnerre arrived on time, and Beth- mont and Carnot made a tardy appearance. But Garnier- Pages, exhausted, sent his excuses. It was necessary to get Marie out of bed as he had forgotten the appointment. Lamartine thought the meeting was for the next day. Arago had been informed too late. The absence of the last two made the conference useless.^ It is difficult to be- lieve that this conference was a very serious attempt to change the personnel of the government. But all was not discord within the provisional government. The abolition of the death penalty for political offenses re- ceived unanimous approval. Above all, Ledru-Rollin's decree on the elections was hailed with JQy. Ever since Ledru-Rollin had entered the field of politics, he had been preaching universal suffrage, advocating it as the sole means of expressing the popular will. When at last he came into power, as minister of the interior, he was entrusted with the duty of preparing the decree that should realize this aspiration. The importance of the organization of univer- sal suffrage cannot be overestimated. It is the one vital re- form of the provisional government, nay more, of the second republic, that has endured to the present day. When ' Garnier-Pages 6: 101-3. ' Stern 2 : 44. ' Regnault 184; 6tern 2: 149-150; Sarrans 180-1. 26l] FATHER OF UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE 107 everything else about Ledru-Rollin is forgotten, he will still be remembered in France as the Father of Universal Suf- frage. From February 25 to March 5 he devoted his ener- gies to the task of preparing a workable scheme. Cormenin and Isambert, who had published essays on universal suf- frage, were largely responsible for details, but the guiding force came from the minister of the interior. On March 5 the decree was submitted to the council and the following day it appeared in the Moniteur. Elections to a constituent assembly were to take place April 9. The total number of representatives was to be nine hundred, apportioned among the departments, Algeria, and the colonies on the basis of population. The suffrage was to be direct and universal. All Frenchmen aged twenty-one who had resided for six months in the commune were given the vote provided they had not been judicially deprived of or suspended from the exercise of all civil rights. All Frenchmen aged twenty-five were eligible for the Chamber. Balloting was to be secret. Elections were to take place in the chief town of the canton and the votes were to be counted there, but were to be verified in the capital of the department. Each ballot was to contain as many names as there were candidates in the department (scrutin de liste) and two thousand votes were needed for election. The representatives were to receive as pay twenty-five francs a day. The legislature was to assemble April 20.^ On March 8 a supplementary circular gave further de- tails. The first part dealt with the drawing up of the re- gistration lists and included such subjects as age, nation- ality, incapacities, residence, and so forth. The second part was concerned with electoral assemblies : the work of the ' Moniteur for 1848, p. 549. The nearest equivalent.s in the United States to communes, cantons, and departments are villages, counties, and states. 1 08 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [262 mayor, advice to be given electors, composition of the board of elections, form of the ballot, duration of the election, counting of the ballots, the army vote, the proclamation of the result.^ Special regulations for Paris, Algeria, and the colonies, and further explanations to electors, mayors, and commissioners were issued later.^ The work of preparing for the elections was entrusted to the commissioners of the departments. Under Louis Philippe these officials had been called prefects, but the re- publican regime changed the name, partly because it was desired to indicate a break with monarchical administration, partly because the new officials would accept only a tem- porary appointment and the position of prefect signified a semi-permanent office. The revolution of 1848 had been a purely Parisian affair, and the prefects had learned of the progress of the insurrection only by five successive tele- grams. The last of these despatches was from Ledru- Rollin, informing them of the installation of the provi- sional government, and adding; " You will take immediately all measures necessary to insure to the new government pop- ular support and public tranquility." The prefects, accus- tomed to obey any orders received from the central authori- ties, acquiesced in the change, but in at least thirty of the eighty-five departments local revolutions took place and de- partmental republican committees replaced the prefects.^ It was the duty of the minister of the interior to pro- vide a regularly constituted administration. Officials who had been appointed by Guizot could not be left to carry out 1 Monifeur for 1848. p. 579. ^Ibid., 579, 605-6, 658, 722, 726, 762, 777-8, 786. ' Most of the facts concerning the commissioners are drawn from the admirable article of Haury in the Revolution frangaise 57:438-475. My account generally gives a brief resume of his article, though several additions and occasional slight differences in deductions are made. 263] FATHER OF UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE 109 republican measures. At an early date Ledru-Rollin con- vened at his office his colleagues in the government and sub- mitted to them his choices as commissioners. All were approved, only two having been strongly contested. Deles- cluze at Lille and Deschamps at Rouen were confirmed in their functions only upon the insistance of Ledru-Rollin. We have already seen how Delescluze was later compro- mised in the fiasco of the Belgian democrats at Risquons- tout. Only the friendship of Ledru-Rollin maintained him in his office.^ Deschamps also met with difficulties as com- missioner. He was the leader of the radical republicans of Rouen, but the moderate republicans, who probably had a majority in the department of the Lower Seine, desired his replacement by their leader. Senard. The matter was brought before the provisional government. Ledru declared that the removal of the commissioner would weaken the hands of authority, that the Rouen republicans should all unite and forget old feuds as the members of the council had done, that the attack on a subordinate holding the same opinions as himself was really directed against him, that he would yield to his colleagues on most choices, but that he would resign rather than abandon j^rsonal friends such as Deschamps and Delescluze. In the presence of such a de- claration all objections disappeared, but Senard went to the legislature two months later with a decided prejudice against Ledru-Rollin.' Of the thirty departments that had had local revolutions in only twelve were the provincial leaders appointed commis- sioners, but in five others they were associated with the new appointee sent from Paris. Tn the fifty-five other depart- * For details as to Delescluze, sec Gosscz. I^ter, after Delcscluzc's check in the April elections, Ledru wrote him a puhh'c letter, begging him to remain as commissioner. ' Gamier- Pages 6: 299-301, 351-2. 1 1 o LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [264 ments commissioners came from the capital ; thirty-six of these remained in office until at least March 15, thirteen had other commissioners associated with them in their func- tions, and six resigned or were removed. All the appointees, with the single exception of Emmanuel Arago, and he was not named at Ledru's initiative, were natives of the district to which were sent. Twenty-two had been deputies, ten mayors, eighteen the recognized republican leaders of the de- partment.^ " The first commissioners," says Haury, " were not selected without deliberation as has been believed ; neither were they fierce revolutionists." ' Of the eighty whose party affiliations Haury knew, fourteen belonged to the dynastic left, twenty-two were moderates like Lamartine, twenty-two belonged to the National group, and only twenty- two followed the banner of the Rcforme. The commissioners were not named in a hurry, for it was March 9 before the last of them were appointed." By their characters and by their past records most of them seem to have justified their appointment. Of the one hundred and ten commissioners, sixty-seven were later elected to the Assembly, while eleven others who could have been elected were restrained by conscientious scruples from becoming candidates. In sixty of the departments the commissioners ' Statistics are available for only sixty-one departments. * Rez-olution frangaise 57 : 499. ^ Melun 1 : 263-4 speaks of Ledrii marching around in his office on February 25, wearing a tricolor scarf and a great cavalry sword and hastening the departure of the commissioners who looked like traveling salesmen. One need only point out that on February 25 practically no appointments had been made. Muller 117-8 claims that Struck, a dy- nastic liberal, was appointed commissioner of the Upper Rhine merely because he happened to come to the ministry for a passport. The only serious bit of evidence is that of Jules Favre in the Quentin-Rauchart Report 1:289: "The commissioners were named without discernment, first come, first served." 265] FATHER OF UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE m appointed before March 15 were popular; in twenty others they seem to have been satisfactory. In only four were their serious difficulties. We have already seen the troubles of Delescluze and of Deschamps. In the Aube there was friction between the two original joint commissioners, easily adjusted when a third one arrived. At Lyons the extremist workingmen broke out in a riot. From the start torrents of abuse were leveled against the commissioners.^ The most definite accusation was that brought against a certain ex-convict named Riancourt, who was not a commissioner at all. The conservatives charged that Ledru-RoUin, knowing of this man's past, selected him as commissioner, and that he even believed in appointing assassins to high positions. As a matter of fact, Riancourt was merely a police superintendent ; he was appointed not by the minister but by a subordinate; he had been recommended by deputy-mayor Buchez at the suggestion of Mgr. Affre, Archbishop of Paris. Riancourt's case does not require serious consideration when inquiring into the qualities of Ledru's appointees. At first the commissioners were left largely to their own resources, but when Ledru had completed the decree apply- ing universal suffrage, he turned his attention to giving definite instructions to the commissioners. Jules Favre was entrusted with the work of preparing the first draft. Ledru- Rollin found this too mild. The minister, the secretary- general, and the chief of cabinet, Elias Regnault, discussed modifications and drew up the final form of the instructions to the commissioners. On March 8 it was sent to all the departments.' ' Sc-e Beaumont- Vassy 4:146; Capctiguc 2:215-221; Castillc 2:40-1; Chamicr i : 153-9; Corkran 335; Lavarennc 149-159; Normanby 2: 154-51 preface to the edition of Bulletins of the Republic, viii-ix, etc. For de- fense, see Blanc i : 383-6; Lamartine 2:85-6; Mill 362-4; Regnault 305-7. * Regnault 155, 193; Favre in Qucnlin-Bauchart Report i : 2RS. 1 12 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [266 It declared : The republic which we have inaugurated is not the chance result of a moment of passion. ... It was slowly constituted by the progress of popular reason. . . . That is why no hesita- tion or dissent was manifest ; France had but one voice be- cause it had but one soul. . . . Your first duty should be to make it understood that the republic has no thought of ven- geance, at least so long as this generosity does not degenerate into weakness. In abstaining from all prosecutions for earlier political acts or opinions, take as your general rule that all political functions can be entrusted .... only to tried repub- licans. . . . Do not bind the officials by instructions; animate them by your zeal. Through the elections they hold in their hands the destinies of France ; let them work for a National Assembly capable of understanding and achieving the work of the people; in a word, all old-line, not netv republicans.^ Less rigor in regard to officials whose role is purely ad- ministrative. . . . Seeking thus to remain firm and just to- wards agents placed under your orders, you will demand active and devoted assistance. This aid should tend to reas- sure the timid and calm the impatient. The former take fright at vain phantoms, the latter wish to precipitate events in accordance with their ardent hopes. . . . Moreover, do not forget that you are acting provisionably. . . . There will be numerous and diverse protests ; note them carefully. ... It is suppression which alters and corrupts public thought ; liberty purifies and expands it. Nevertheless if temerity of language .... instead of applying itself to general ideas .... attacks persons, it is your duty to require judicial intervention to stop such an abuse .... Upon your arrival at your posts you should make friends with the influential patriots ; their counsel should always have great value with you. . . . There is no ^ This is the inadequate translation of Jwnuncs de la vcille. pas du lendemain. These two terms distinguish those who were avowed repub- licans before February 24 and those who accepted the republic after the revolution. 267] FATHER OF UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE 113 need of telling you to give special attention to the organiza- tion of the National Guard. . . . Finally, devote yourself .... to whatever concerns the laboring class. ... It is by and through it that the republic was founded, the mission of which is to end its sufferings and assure its rights. If urgent necessity appears to demand exceptional measures, refer them to me immediately. . . . Do not disquiet respectable vested interests, for their troubles might injure the very persons you wish to protect. ... By destroying machinery the working- men injure their own cause. ... A little longer and these marvels of human genius .... will enrich all those who now denounce them. . . . The future is ours if we are frankly re- volutionary, if ... . our acts conform to the spirit of fra- ternity. . . .To us belongs the duty of reassuring the public .... To give the world an example of self-control after a brilliant victory .... is the goal of our common efforts. In order that mine may be efificacious I need your aid. . . P- As a whole the effect of this circular was good. Liberal and radical newspapers praised it mildly; conservatives re- sented only the exclusion of the new republicans. Gamier- Pages, a typical moderate, writes : " This language is true and noble. It is that of a statesman, firm and at the same time conciliatory." ^ The idea of propagating republican doctrines is contained in the circular, which, however, is do- minated by the idea of conciliation. Workingmen were at last to receive attention, but vested interests were to be reassured and coaxed rather than frightened into a loyal acceptance of democracy. There was but one phrase that could arouse opposition, the italicized words advising that the work of constructing a republican government be left in the hands of old and tried advocates of republicanism, a doctrine sup- 1 Discours politiqucs 2: 1-7; Monitciir for 1S48, p. 564. This circular was supplemented by a similar one to the mayors the following day. — Monitcur, 572. ' Garnier-Pages 6 : 358. 1 1 4 LEDR U-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REP UBLIC [268 ported by the National as well as by the Reforme, and at first accepted by many conservative newspapers. But former parliamentarians, particularly the members of the dynastic left, were unwilling to be left out and resented this exclusion. Many of Barrot's partisans had loyally accepted the February revolution (Cremieux, for instance, was a member of the government) and felt that they were entitled to a voice in the new regime. The futility of demanding from the fourteen commissioners who has been members of the dynastic left that they work against their own party is apparent. A far more vigorous note was struck in the famous cir- cular sent out on March 12: . . . . What are your powers? They are unlimited. Agents of a revolutionary authority, you are also revolution- ary. The victory of the people has imposed on you the duty of proclaiming, of consolidating its work. For the accomplish- ment of this duty, you are bound only by your conscience, you should act for the public welfare as circumstances may re- quire. Thanks to our customs, this mission is not a terrible one. Up to now you have had no serious resistance to com- bat. . . . Republican sentiment should be aroused and for that purpose it is necessary to confine all political functions to sure and sympathetic men. Everywhere prefects and sub- prefects must be changed. ... If is for you to make the people understand that we cannot maintain those whose ever}'- act was corrupt. The appointment of sub-commissioners re- placing these officials belongs to you. You may refer to me whenever you have any doubts. Preferably choose men from the capital of the department. Do not avoid young men .... Superintend the replacement of mayors and their deputies. Designate them provisionally. ... If the municipal councils are hostile, dissolve them. . . . but have recourse to this measure only in cases of dire necessity. I believe that the great majority of municipal councils can be maintained if new men are placed at their head. 269] FATHER OF UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE 115 The armed force is under your orders . . . but you should use great care in this part of your functions. . . . Above all win it over by showing your esteem for it. .... Demand loyal support from the magistracy; when- ever you do not receive it, inform me. ... I shall immediately lay the matter before the minister of justice. As to the ir- removable magistracy, watch it, and if any member of it shows himself openly hositle, use your right of suspension. You will receive from me detailed instructions as to the organization of the National Guard. . . . The elections are our great duty. On the composition of the National Assembly depend our destinies. The Assembly must be animated by a revolutionary spirit; otherwise we march toward anarchy and civil war. Be on guard against the intrigues of double-faced men who having served royalty now call themselves the servants of the people. . . . You must realize that to win the honor of sitting in the National As- sembly one must be free from the traditions of the past. . . . The workingmen, who are the vital force of the nation, should choose from among themselves those who are recom- mended by their intelligence, their devotion, their morality .... Enlighten the electors and repeat to them incessantly that the reign of the monarchists is finished. . . . The educa- tion of the country is not completed. It is for you to guide it. Encourage .... the meeting of electoral committees. Ex- amine carefully the titles of candidates. Support only those who appear to present the best guarantees of republican opinion. . . . Let election day be a triumph for the revolution.^ This circular of March 12 marked the first step in a change of policy, but not a long step. It was rather a change in emphasis than in substance. The idea of con- ciliation still existed, but had become subordinate to that of republicanization. More importance was given to the duty of commissioners to educate the people in ideas of demo- ' Discours politiques 2 : 8-12. 1 16 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [270 cracy and to guide the voters in their choice of candidates. The commissioners, however, were not given exorbitant powers. The real meaning of the words unlimited powers is explained in the text itself. As agents of the revolution- ary authority their powers were undefined and were to be guided by the general laws of equity. There were specific recommendations not to use their full authority with the army and there were definite restrictions as to their power over the judiciary. It was clearly the idea of Ledru and Favre that intimidation was to be used only in those places where reaction had set in. Favre declared a few months later : " The words unlimited pozuers were merely the exact repetition of the verbal orders originally given to the com- missioners The aim of the circular was to limit the powers of the latter while proclaiming their great extent " ^ And Ledru told the Assembly : " Do not misinterpret words. I used the phrase unlimited powers while telling the commissioners that the limit was the customs of the country .... Tell me if a single of these commissioners was guilty of any misdeed." " There were three ways of dealing with the attempts at reaction. The first was that of conciliation. This was the method the minister seemed to adopt in the circular of March 8 ; this was the method desired by the minority of the pro- visional government.^ Probably it would have been the ^ Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 280-1. * Speech of August 25, 184S, Discours politiques 2:70. On April 12, 1849, Ledru denied that the circulars gave rise to the reaction ; he asserted that the reaction began the very day after the revolution. — Ibid., 2 : 272-4. ^ On March 6 Carnot had issued a circular warning the teachers that in choosing representatives education was not everything. This was hailed as an appeal to hand the government over to the illiterate. It was considered as the complement of the circulars of Ledru-Rollin, but, as Carnot was a moderate, naturally there was no connection with Ledru's circulars. 271] FATHER OF UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE ny best method, but it might have made the monarchists too audacious and it might have cooled the ardor of the loyal republicans. The second method was that of repression, the method of the reign of terror, of the deputies on mission, of Carrier at Nantes. This was the system which the con- servatives attributed to Ledru-Rollin, the system they de- nounced in the press, the system of truly unlimited powers. Such a method is justified only by overpowering circum- stances and Ledru was not so bloodthirsty or so fanatically devoted to the precedents of the Convention as to desire the resurrection of the reign of terror. But there was a middle course, the policy of threats. Such a policy was particularly suited to Ledru-Rollin's temperament. It meant making large threats, but not acting on them, frightening the con- servatives from open resistance, but not following up these menaces by actions. It meant conferring unlimited powers, but refraining from the use of them. In another country than France such a procedure might have worked, but Frenchmen are not terrified by words. The reactionaries quickly realized that the radicals would remain within the bounds of the law, but they realized also that the words would give them a weapon with which to belabor the minister of the interior. These phrases published through- out the country would drown the true message of the re- publicans, the message of fraternity. There is some truth in the satirical judgment of Tocque- ville : Ledru-Rollin was merely a fat boy, very sanguine and very sensual, devoid of principles and almost of ideas, with no audacity of mind or heart, and even without naughtiness, for he naturally wished good to very one and was incapable of cutting off the head of any of his opponents, unless perhaps as an historical reminiscence or as a favor to a friend.^ * Tocqucvillc 169. Il8 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [^2^2 Ledru had never expected the circular of J\Iarch 12 to have any effect on the general public; it was meant for the commissioners alone. Great was his surprise when he re- ceived on the followng day a police report from Carlier, sa3nng : " The circular has given rise to alarm and almost to panic among the middle classes. The small traders and the small capitalists are persuaded that the government wishes to exclude from the legislature the ex-deputies who had been in continual opposition to the late government, and they conclude that only extreme republicans are w^anted in order to arrive at communism and the ruin of all who possess anything." ^ The circular also seriously affected the financial market.^ The British ambassador rushed off to Lamartine to demand explanations.^ The conservative newspapers grasped at the circular as the first tangible act of the new government which they could safely attack, and after the troubles of March 16 and 17 their attacks increased in violence.'* The Reforme, the National, and the other governmental journals explained the meaning of the circular.* but their utterances passed unheeded. The extreme re- volutionists accepted the interpretation of the conserv^atives and defended the minister.^ Ledru' s colleagues in the government were completely taken by surprise; they learned of the circular first by the Moniteiir and the general excitement. Garnier-Pages brought up the subject at a council meeting on March 13. The minister of the interior expressed his surprise and re- * Quentin-Bauchart Report 2 : 216. 'Garnier-Pages 6:2)7^; Constittttionnel, March 13. * Normanby i : 216-9. * The claim that they did not attack until after !\rarch 17 will not hold water, as numerous tirades could be cited in the papers of ]\Iarch 13-15. ^Reforme, March 15, 1848; National, March 14. ^ E. g. Delvau 371-2, 402-3. 273] FATHER OF UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE ng gret at the impression made which to him was strange and incomprehensible. The circular was read phrase by phrase and in the eyes of the council did not appear to warrant the wave of hostile criticism. Cremieux approved all of the document except the words unlimited pozvers. Garnier- Pages considered that it was a mistake to utter threats. " You should have acted, not talked," he told Ledru. The council did not wish to be silent ; that would mean approval of the circular. Neither would it disavow it; that would weaken its authority. On the advice of the minister of the interior himself it was decided to publish no declaration that day, but at the first opportunity to issue a proclamation tending to soften the effect of the expressions which had gone beyond the objects and intentions of the minister. The provisional government also decided that in future all important circulars should be discussed by the entire gov- ernment before publication.^ 1 Gamier- Pages 6 : 377-8. The account of Lamartine 2 : 121-8 differs slightly. False rumors of this meeting circulated. Normanby i : 239 relates that Ledru tried to intimidate the majority of the government, that he threatened to appeal to the crowd from a window of the council room, and that he was only deterred by Garnier-Pages threatening to shoot him if he moved toward the window. CHAPTER VIII The Se\^nteenth of March In Paris both extreme parties were dissatisfied with the provisional government. The ultra-revolutionists were dis- pleased that Louis Blanc had not been made minister of labor, and they demanded loudly the right to work. They also desired that the elections be postponed in order that there might be time to republicanize the country. Within the government their spokesmen on the postponement of the elections were the radicals and the socialists, but as the moderate members remained firm, no action was taken. The conserv^atives, on the other hand, were particularly aroused by the democratization of the National Guard. Under Louis Philippe the National Guard had been com- posed solely of the bourgeoisie; the provisional government opened the ranks to all citizens and urged them to join. Ledru considered this a most important part of his work: " In a few days I armed and equipped the National Guard of Paris and tried, though less successfully than I wished, to have that of the departments armed, for I was persuaded that a gun under discipline was an instrument of order be- cause it was the symbol of the dignity of the citizen." ^ All officers except the highest were to receive their commissions through the ballot box. Ledru was opposed to all privileges in the National Guard. The law and medical students asked a special battalion of the colleges, but Ledru refused this absolutely. " Join the ranks if you wish to serve the 'Speech of May 6, 1848 in Discours politiques 2:24-5. 120 [274 275] '^^^ SEVENTEENTH OF MARCH 121 republic," he told them/ On March 14 Ledru obtained the consent of the provisional government to the abolition of the existing special companies, including some distinguished by wearing bear-skin caps. " There were several reasons for that," said Ledru later. " First the members of these companies were considered, rightly or wrongly, as aristo- crats, and we feared that in case of a popular tumult they would not fire. Secondly as these companies were scattered, it was hard to collect them." * On the evening of March 15a numerous deputation from the elite companies came to the ministry of the interior. Ledru-Rollin refused to receive it. A few delegates were admitted to the office of the chief of cabinet. They ex- posed their grievances with great arrogance and received a severe lecture in return from Elias Regnault, who told them that privileged companies formed eighteen years before could not survive the monarchy of eighteen years standing. The delegates retired, threatening a demonstration for the mor- row. When Ledru-Rollin was informed of this threat he said, " If they have a demonstration tomorrow, I promise them one for the day after tomorrow that will serve as a lesson." ^ The delegation then proceeded to the ministry of foreign affairs. Lamartine rejected the demand to preserve special companies but added some remarks that constituted a partial disavowal of the circulars : " The provisional government has charged no one to speak in the name of the nation, and above all to speak a language superior to the laws. ... In ^Ulbach in Revue Bleue 25:263; Ulbach 41-2. For decrees on the National Guard see Moniteur for 1848 March 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 28, April 2, 3. 10. * Trial of Barbes, Moniteur for 1849, p. 947. * Regnault 21 1-3; Barrot 2:107-9. 1 22 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [276 a few days the provisional government itself will speak and will explain whatever in the wording and not in the intention of the circulars could wound or alarm the liberty and con- science of the country. . . . This thought is not mine alone ; it is held by the entire government and by the minister of the interior himself." ^ This speech w^as hailed with joy by the conservatives. Normanby felt sure that it would necessitate the resignation of Ledru-Rollin, and the rumor of the minister of the interior's fall caused a rise on the stock exchange." The conservatives, ever ready to foment trouble, read more moderation into the speech than was there, just as they had read more radicalism into the circular of March 12 than was in it. Lamartine had merely stated that the intentions at- tributed to the minister of the interior were neither those of the government nor of the minister himself. The speech did not mean that the government would tolerate no further revolutionary propaganda. It followed out the plan suggested by Ledru himself at a council meeting. On March 16 the demonstration occurred as promised. It is called the manifestation of the bear-skin caps (bonnets d, poil). The abolition of the special companies was the pre- text; the expulsion of Ledru from the government was the real object aimed at. An officer of the National Guard frankly admitted this to Weill, an editor of the Pressed A police report asserted that those who were to take part in the manifestation wished to force Ledru to resign.* Most of the conservatives, however, paraded as a vague protest ^Moniteur for 1848, p. 619; Regnault 208-9; Stern 214-6. This was the second delegation of the National Guard that Lamartine addressed that day. ^Normanby 1:232; Reforme March 15, 18; Consiitntionnd March 15. Limoges threatened an uprising if the rumor was confirmed. 'Weill 1 19. * Quentin-Bauchart Report 2:218. 277] -^-^^ SEVENTEENTH OF MARCH 123 against the radicals. Typical was the essayist, Maxime Du Camp, who later said : " I took part in the expedition. I don't know why, for I was just a simple rifleman and had no right to a bear-skin cap. . . . For us M. Ledru-RoUin, who wished to establish the terror without the guillotine, was the representative of a dictatorial policy which only the influence of M. de Lamartine could hold in check." ^ On March 16 Ledru drove to the city hall with Frangois Arago. The demonstrators shouted Down with Ledru- Rollin and threatened the minister of the interior, but Arago warned them of the dangers into which they were running. " Don't you know that Foulon was killed on this spot and that you may cause a similar disaster? " he said. By the time Arago and Ledru reached the Hotel de Ville cries of Hurrah for Ledru-Rollin had succeeded to the con- trary cries. All together about nine or ten thousand men had collected for the parade. Most were dispersed by the crowds of workingmen before they reached their destina- tion. A delegation penetrated to the square in front of the city hall and was ungraciously received by the provisional government. Marrast declared that the entire government approved the dissolution of the bear-skin cap brigades. Arago made the same statement and added : " Tomorrow we shall have another manifestation in answer to that of the National Guard, a manifestation of the working classes." The deputation departed declaring that it relied on the wis- dom of the provisional government." The demonstration had been an utter failure thanks to the firmness of the mod- erates in the council and the supi)ort of the government by 'Du Camp 133-7. Cf. Bondc 52-3; Normanby 1:234-6. 'Arago in Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:225; Ledru at Barbes trial in Refonnc, March 21, 1849; Moniicur for 1848, p. 627; Stern 2:216-9; Rcgnault 213-224; Chercst : Marie 155-6; Dclvau 399; Garnicr-Pages 6: 207-213. 124 i-EDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [278 the proletariat gathered in the square. It was even worse than a failure; it was a joke, and all France laughed at the parade of the bear-skin caps. The government held its usual afternoon meeting. It is- sued a manifesto in which it declared that the abolition of special companies was the work of the entire government.^ This was clear sailing, but a tempest raged when the vital question of postponing the elections came up. Louis Blanc declared that France was not yet republicanized by educa- tion. Cremieux asserted that there were not enough old- line republicans and that therefore it was all-important to keep the good-will of the former dynastic liberals. Marie spoke in favor of immediate elections, but was willing to listen to arguments. Ledru said that he had asked the com- missioners to inform him as to how a postponement would affect their departments and that he wished to await these reports. Lamartine urged the necessity of ending the pro- visional regime. Louis Blanc again insisted on the danger of the republic falling into the hands of its enemies in case the elections were held as planned. Garnier-Pages wisely declared that it was best to hold the elections during the early period of enthusiasm; to wait meant to let obstacles arise. Ledru did not find Garnier-Pages's reasoning de- cisive; he thought time was needed to prove to Frenchmen that " the republic is their right, their law, their interest, their very life." Louis Blanc suggested a month's post- ponent. " Then we retire," declared Lamartine and Du- pont. No decision on the matter was reached that day. The government merely approved a proclamation in which its good-will and the beauties of popular sovereignty were extolled.^ ^Moniteur for 1848, p. 626. 'Garnier-Pages 6:420-9; Lamartine 2:132-4; Blanc 1:309; Arago in Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 225. 279] -^^^ SEVENTEENTH OF MARCH 125 It is commonly stated that the great workingmen's de- monstration of the following day, March 17, was a reply to the bear-skin cap fiasco. This is not exact. The parade of the workingmen had been planned long beforehand. On March 13 it had been proposed at Blanqui's club.^ That it received an immense impetus by the abortive manifesta- tion of the previous day is indubitable. The desire of the majority of those who paraded was probably to express confidence in the government and particularly in its radical- socialist minority, and to impress on the council the strength of the sentiment in favor of postponing the elections, of sending the army away from Paris, and of creating a ministry of labor. Carteret, director of the police depart- ment, asserts the pacific character of the paraders, and even Barrot admits that there was as yet no idea of modifying the government by the elimination of the National group." That Caussidiere and Louis Blanc, if they did not aid directly in the organization of the demonstration, plainly indicated their approval beforehand to the club-leaders, seems unquestionable. That Ledru approved of the demonstration is also clear, but that he aided in its organization or encouraged it before- hand is doubtful. Carteret probably judged correctly when he said : " The minister knew nothing of the demonstration. He took no preventative measures; neither did I. The movement was irresistible." * At noon on March 17 all eleven members of the pro- visional government collected at the Hotel de Ville. The procession of workingmen soon arrived from the Place de la *Wassermann 65-9. *Quentin-P>auchart Report 1:249; Barrot 2:110-2. Wassermann 70-6 declares that Blanqui was not plotting a change in the government, but that his partisans may have had hostile intentions. Cf. Longepied 28. Only Lefrangais 32 insists on the desire to eliminate the moderates. •Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:249. Cf. Ledru at Barbes trial in Rcformc, March 21, 1&49. 126 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [280 Revolution, and a deputation of about forty prominent ex- treme revolutionists was allowed to see the government. One of its members read a petition asking the postpone- ment till April 5 of the National Guard elections and till May 31 of the general elections. Louis Blanc replied that the government would deliberate on these questions but could not decide them under the pressure of force. Im- mediately both Sobrier and Cabet expressed their confidence in the government. Ledru said that the desires of the de- putation would be duly weighed as expressing the will of Paris but that he was awaiting reports from the commis- sioners to learn the wishes of the provinces and to discover whether a postponement would be really beneficial to the establishment of a republic. A Blanquist refused to retire until the demands were granted. But Louis Blanc, this time in an angry tone, refused to deliberate under pressure. He was seconded by Sobrier, Cabet, Raspail, and Barbes. Lamartine closed the interview with a long and eloquent plea for harmony and confidence. Then the provisional government was obliged to appear on a balcony and be cheered by the assembled throng. Again Louis Blanc made a brief address.^ Ledru later described the demonstration of March 17 as follows: " If I were back at that time, I would act as I did act. . . . The delegation spoke in a very suitable and very restrained language. ... I replied first; Louis Blanc then made a superb speech; Lamartine also spoke, but it w^as rather a discourse of tempered eloquence which was very fine like all the orations of M. de Lamartine but which did not bear on the subject.' ^Moniteur for 1848, p. 62;2; Constitutionnel, March 18; Lamartine 2: 134-149; Gamier-Pages 6:429-447; Regnaiilt 234-9; Stem 2:219-232; Parent de Rosan 174. 2 Barbes trial in Rcfonne, March 21, 1849. About three o'clock Lamartine wrote to his w-ife : " Everj-thing is going splendidly. Ledru- Rollin is conducting himself very well. The people are passing quietly." — Journees Illustrees 86. 28i] THE SEVENTEENTH OF MARCH 127 The crowd filed past the city hall for hours. Some of the paraders carried off Louis Blanc. A larger section, which may have numbered ten thousand, accompanied Ledru-Rollin to his ministry. There Ledru addressed those assembled as follows : You demand the withdrawal of the army! Doubtless when the army was the instrument of tyranny, it merited the hatred of honorable men. . . . None of you doubt the bravery of our soldiers .... but during the February Days the army did not want to fight. . . . The army, my friends, is the people .... Would you expel your brothers? ... It is the army which in days of humiliation guarded Algeria. . . . Cease your miserable mistrust .... and cry with me Three Cheers for the Army! And the volatile crowd departed peacefully, shouting Hurrah for tlie Army! Hurrah for the Republic! Hurrah for Ledru-Rollin!^ In the evening the provisional government met again and after long deliberation decided by seven to three not to postpone the elections of the National Guard. The other matters were not even discussed. Louis Blanc and Albert offered their resignations but withdrew them at the urgent solicitation of Ledru-Rollin who had voted with them." For Ledru-Rollin March 17 was a glorious day. As the Reforme said : " The applause of the people has amply re- paid him for the calumnies and the blind rage of the counter-revolutionists." ^ Ledru had shown to the moder- ates his power over the mob. He had shown the extremists that they could not impose their desires on him, for Cabet, Sobrier, Barbes, even Raspail had supported him against an ^Moniteur for 1848, p. 62,:^; Delvau 408. "Garnier- Pages 6:446. ^Reforme, March 18. 1 28 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [282 importunate Blanquist. The mob could not dictate to the council. Its three demands were laid aside. Ledru almost persuaded them to give up one of them, the removal from Paris of the army. The postponement of the elections in the National Guard was refused; that of those to the As- sembly was not voted until later. But the proletariat had achieved part of its desire; the influence of the minority in the council was undoubtedly increased and this became ap- parent in the republicanization of the commissioners. Ledru-Rollin had also slightly diminished the ill-will of the conservatives. Even Normanby gave him grudging praise for his speech at the ministry.^ For the republic, however, there was one bad sign. The most revolutionary section of the population, the followers of Blanqui, had indicated their desire to overthrow the government. We shall see this idea spread. Within the provisional government the demonstration of March 17 produced certain effects. On the one hand Cremieux, Lamartine, and even Garnier-Pages, feeling the need of conciliating the controller of the mob, voted with Ledru more frequently.' But at the same time the moder- ates tried to build up a counter-organization. Lamartine was ready to work with Ledru, but he wished to have a force at hand in case their entente did not succeed. He ar- ranged with Negrier. commander at Lille, to attack Paris with his army of twenty-five thousand soldiers in case the radicals should seize the capital. The support of Changar- nier, Bedeau, and other prominent generals was also secured. Marie bent all his efforts to obtain the allegiance of the National Workshops. Marrast counted on the support of * Normanby 1:243. * Weill 124 claims : " Lamartine assured me that Ledru-Rollin was in complete accord with him, that the only dissentient was Louis Blanc." Cf. Thomas 98 ; Stern 2 : 230-1 ; Times, March 27, 1848. 283] THE SEVENTEENTH OF MARCH 129 the National Guard. The moderates also reUed on the militia under General Duvivier, angry at the delay in the equipment of his troops, a delay which Duvivier attributed to the wilful interposition of the minister of the interior.^ Ledru was emboldened by the manifestation of March 17 to make a change in the personnel of the commissioners. Already in the circular of IMarch 12 republicanization had been more emphasized than conciliation. The storm of abuse which had followed the publication of that document made the minister of the interior increasingly doubtful of the liberals of the former dynastic left. For Ledru even the National group was too luke-warm. More than ever he felt the need that those whom he considered the true re- publicans, the radicals, should control the coming assembly, and with that purpose in view he tried to add a more active element to the personnel of his subordinates. The change was made in two ways. First certain dynastic liberals were superseded or associated with radicals. Secondly commis- sioners-general were appointed whose duty was to busy them- selves with propaganda and surveillance rather than with details of local administration, the latter being left to the ordinary commissioners, their subordinates.^ Although the new officials were not appointed until after the circular of March 12, this circular was really addressed to them. Ledru had made a great mistake. First he had entrusted the duty of propaganda to ordinary commissioners, although twenty- two of them were dynastic liberals and therefore evidently incapable of republicanizing a country; then almost im- mediately he took away from them this duty and gave it to the new officials. Such action could not fail to irritate those to whom the duty was originally assigned. 'Regnault 260. The conservatives speak of Ledru's increased feeling of importance; see Barrot 2: 115; Normanby 1:247-8; Thomas 99-100. 'Some times an ordinary commissioner was appointed commissioner- general of several departments. I'.O LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [284 At the beginning of April in the midst of the electoral campaign, there were twenty-four commissioners-general, ten of them being taken from the original commissioners; under their rule were sixty departments. In the remaining twenty-four departments six had received an additional, four a new commissioner/ At this time we find forty-eight de- partments under a radical commissioner-general and sixteen others with at least one radical commissioner. Thus sixty- four departments were in April under the at least partial control of the radicals. On the other hand, only five were under the full control and four under the partial control of the dynastic liberals. The policy of conciliation was replaced by a vigorous policy of republicanization. But the result was unsatisfactory. The commissioners-general did little to spread democratic propaganda. On the contrary, the cliange in system streng- thened the reactionary feeling, for the new appointees were as a whole unpopular. Was this unpopularity merited? From the outset the commissioners-general were detested as proconsuls. The old incumbents disliked them as superiors ; the population, as tyrants. Inevitably there were clashes be- tween the old and the new officials. Some of the outbreaks were the result of Ledru's revolutionizing policy, such as the riots at Bordeaux, Bourg, and Perigueux.- Other dis- turbances were due to the popularity of the old commis- sioner or the unpopularity of the new one; such was the case at Marseilles, Besangon, and Troyes, and in the de- partments of Aveyron, Drome, Somme, and Yonne.^ As ^In two others to which a new commissioner was sent the original appointee had to be reappointed after trouble had broken out. ^For details on Bourg see Constitutionncl, April 10, 1848. For details on Bordeaux see ibid., March 24. ^For details on the Drome and for troubles of Ledru later in life due to his removal of the new commissioner when he discovered that that official had a bad m.oral reputation see Caiman : Lcdru-RoUin apres 1848, pp. 149-157. 285] THE SEVENTEENTH OF MARCH 131 a matter of fact, in only fifteen departments did active dis- satisfaction show itself; there was a feeling against the new commissioners in general rather than against the single one with whom the department came into contact. Haury says: The new commissioners were just as well acquainted as were the first ones with the provinces where they exercised their authority; apparently Ledru-RoUin insisted that the commissioner should have a thorough knowledge of the popu- lation under his administration. Ledru-Rollin's choices were called deplorable; they were so only for those who did not wish a radical administration, for most of the commissioners were elected to the legislature by the department concerned. The acts of the commissioners, called revolting, did not revolt the population except in about ten departments. But some imprudent choices which the minister of the interior himself had to revoke, some injurious acts of extreme intolerance gave almost daily opportunities for attacks. If these circum- stances explain the impression on people predetermined against Ledru-RolHn, his acts, and his agents, they do not justify the judgment they have imposed on history.^ Doubtless the commissioners intervened in the elections, but rather as republican leaders than as commissioners, and probably less than did the officials of Leon Faucher a 3^ear later. Their influence consisted chiefly of harmless propa- ganda. Many of them were elected to the Assembly and none of these elections were invalidated. Their position as ofiicials was for the commissioners a source of weakness rather than of strength." ^Revolution frangaise 57:469. Haury has again been my authority on the work of the commissioners, ^The hostile Ducos commission admitted their absolute probity and censured only extraordinary election expenses in thirteen of the departments. 1 32 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [286 Ledru defends his subordinates thus : To judge the question we must consider the situation at that time .... and we shall understand that on the morrow of the revolution, surrounded by victors who had come from the barricades, I could confide the defense of liberty to no other hands but those of the successful republicans. Full of ardour, of devotion, of civic faith, they could fill the country with the idea the triumph of which they had brought about. Doubtless some of them were not administrators ; who will deny it? That is not the question. Soldiers were needed to organize and extend the victory, above all to make it peaceful and durable. That faults were committed is possible. When I learned of them, I did not hesitate to order their correction. But let any one cite to me in this great and rapid movement a single serious attack on the rights of citizens by these courage- ous and firm men whom people have dared to call pro-consuls I The people expressed their opinion by casting their ballots for the great number of them that now sit in the legislature.^ Some of the commissioners undoubtedly pushed their own candidacy too vigorously. On ]\Iarch 29 Louis Blanc explained with regret how such officials injured the republic and compromised its authority. Ledru-Rollin replied with vivacity that the accusations w^re much exaggerated, that he had dismissed the one or two commissioners who had abused their position, and that the sending out of the com- missioners-general w^ould end further procedure of this sort. On April i the discussion was renew^ed and the government determined that the commissioners should be warned in a special circular against pushing their own candidacy. Note that the chief promoter of this suggestion was Louis Blanc, a socialist, the most advanced member of the provisional government.^ ^Speech of May 6, 1848 in Discours politiques 2: 23. * Garnier-Pages 8 : 220-3. 2Sy] THE SEVENTEENTH OF MARCH 133 Accordingly on April 5 Ledru-Rollin read to his col- leagues a circular in which this subject was treated together with other matters. The document was approved with slight modifications, and two days later it was sent to the commissioners. Ledru had learned his lesson in connection with the previous circular of March 12 and this one was written in a conciliatory tone. It read as follows : The elections are approaching. . . . On the eve of this great act of the supreme power it is well for the government born of the revolution .... to e,3cpose its ideas for a last time. . . . On the elections depend the future of the country. Sincerely republican, they open up a brilliant era of progress and peace; reactionary or even doubtful, they condemn it to terrible trials. Your constant effort, therefore, has been, still should be, to send to the National Assembly honest and courageous men, willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause of the people. . . . The government cannot reduce its func- tions to merely registering the results. It must enlighten France and openly labor to foil the intrigues of the counter- revolution. Does this mean that we are to imitate the faults of those whom we have overthrown? Far from it! They were dominated by corruption and falsehood; we wish to make truth triumphant. . . . They extinguished independ- ence; we give it full play. . . . What is there in common be- tween us? . . . Thus deeply and peacefully influenced, the country will be able to distinguish those who merit the honour of representing it. . . . Can those who accepted the old dynasty and its treachery be elected by a victorious and sov- ereign people? . . . Let them enter the ranks, but let them not aspire to command. . . . Liberty is the exercise of all the faculties we receive from nature, governed by reason. Equality is the participation of all citizens in the social ad- vantages with no distinction between individuals except virtue and ability. Fraternity is the law of love, uniting men and 1 34 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [288 making them members of one family. From these three prin- ciples result: the abolition of all privileges, the reassessment of taxes in proportion to fortune, a proportional and progres- sive tax on inheritances, a magistracy freely elected and the most complete development possible of the jury system, military service weighing equally on all, free, universal, equal education, the instruments of labor assured to all, the demo- cratic reconstruction of credit and industry, voluntar}'- asso- ciation everywhere substituted for the disordered impulses of selfishness. ... I venture to believe, citizen commissioner, that these thoughts are yours. ... It would be lowering your mission to devote yourselves to the success of your own candidacy. . . . But if your citizens come to you, accept their mandate as the noblest confirmation of your work. . . . Re- member that we give our all to the country, which expects great things from us, and the hour has arrived to rise above mere private interest.^ This circular is an able defense and a clear explanation of the influence the commissioners were to exert in the im- pending elections. The rejection of the members of the dynastic left was still urged as emphatically as ever, but pacific means were indicated to achieve this result. Two new points now appeared. A definite program for the as- sembly was enunciated, and the commissioners w^ere urged not to press their own candidacy.^ The newspapers all ap- proved the latter idea, but the conservatives still deplored the exclusion of liberal monarchists and were greatly surprised that the minister of the interior should have traced a com- plete plan of a constitution in advance. The circular obtained general approval but had little effect. ^Discours politiques 2:16-21. This circular was supplemented by eleven further decrees or details. — Moniteur for 1848, pp. 799, 835, 842, 860, 865, 883, 887, 897, 910, 929. ^The Refonne of April 3 even urged that the commissioners should not present themselves in their own departments. 289] THE SEVENTEENTH OF MARCH 135 Those who took part in the manifestation of March 17 had made several demands. The government had rejected a postponement of the elections in the National Guard. It did not take up the subject of the postponement of the general elections to the Assembly until March 26. Louis Blanc and Albert, favorable to a dictatorship for one year, were not present, being occupied at the Luxembourg, but had promised their adhesion to the decision of the majority. Ledru-Rollin admitted to his colleagues that he had been mis- taken in desiring a delay, that the reports from the commis- sioners convinced him that the elections should be held as soon as possible. However, he declared, the details of ad- ministration in preparing for universal suffrage were so great that his subordinates could not have their work com- pleted at the day assigned. These observations were con- clusive, and Cremieux proposed a delay of two weeks. Someone objected that this would make elections fall on April 23, Easter Sunday. " Day of social regeneration," replied a member of the government, and April 23 was ad- opted. ]\Iay 4 was appointed for the meeting of the as- sembly.'- The account just given should dissipate two myths. The postponement of the election was not caused by the mani- festation of March 17." It was not imposed by the minority on the majority. It was passed in universal agreement, due to absolute necessity, in the absence of the only two members who desired the postponement for its own sake. Only the socialists desired a ministry of labor, and the government never reconsidered its refusal. Even Louis Blanc and Albert joined their colleagues in opposing the other demand of the manifestation of March 17, the removal 'Gamier-Pages 7:68-9; Lamartiiic 2: 190-1 ; Monitcur for 1848, p. 693. 'The government pointed this out in a special decree. — Monitcur for 1848, p. 693. I -5 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [290 of the army from Paris. Five days after that demonstra- tion, on March 22, Ledru had an opportunity to defend the army. A Hberty tree was to be planted in front of the MiHtary School, and the minister of the interior was asked to speak. Recalling the federation of 1790, he announced that the mission of France was to spread liberty. Then he turned toward the Ecole Militaire and lauded the bravery and patriotism of the soldiers. He protested against the mistrust of the army : " The army has no need of being amnestied. The army, you are the army. Between you and the army let there be complete fraternity." ^ The crowd was swept away with enthusiasm. A veteran seized the hand of the minister without being able to say a word. A witness of the scene, not often friendly to the minister, writes : " No orator since the first republic had pro- duced by his gestures, by his attitude, by the animation of his features, by all his figure, a more truly popular appeal. M. Ledru-Rollin is a demogogue, he has all the correspond- ing faults and virtues : muscular force, vibrating chest, ex- altation, anger, exaggeration. He produced on the surg- ing masses an enormous effect." ^ ^Discours politiques 2: 13-5. ^Journees Illustrees 88-9; Cf. Moniteur for 1848, pp. 662-3; Constitu- tionnel, Liberie, March 23; Commune de Paris, March 24; Bulletin de la Repuhlique, no. 7. CHAPTER IX Clubs and Cabals After the revolution clubs sprang up like mushrooms, for everybody wished to have a place to expose his views. There were philosophical, literary, social clubs, women's clubs, German, Irish, Polish clubs, but above all political clubs. There were legitimist, Bonapartist, Orleanist, mod- erate, radical, socialist, ultra-revolutionary clubs. The widest influence was achieved by the last named; in fact when the clubs are mentioned in connection with 1848, the ultra-revolutionary societies are meant. Ledru-Rollin was not affiliated with any club,^ but many supported his policy. The Central Republican Society announced its in- tention of supporting Ledru. Grandmesnil's Club of Rights and Duties was supposed to have as object the dic- tatorship of the minister of the interior. The Club of the R^evolution, Barbes's club, encouraged Ledru to appoint more radical commissioners.^ With one club the minister had close relations; the Club des Clubs, according to Raspail, " belonged to Ledru-Rollin." ' This was a central associa- tion composed of delegates from most of the radical and ultra-revolutionary societies. Huber was president, and 'Ledru in Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:311. Wassermann 20 denies that he was a member of the Qub of the Revolution. Ledru in a letter to the Patrie denied the accusation that he belonged to the Club of Militant Democracy. — Monitnir for j8.}8, p. 1449. *Regnault 180; Menand 75; Stern 2: 168; Gamier-Pages 7:77-8. 'Barbes trial, Monitcur for / Regnault 157-8. 1^8 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [302 George Sand and Barbes, who attended rarely, were extreme revolutionists and private individuals. Some of these meetings were devoted to political discus- sion. All manner of subjects were brought up. Revision of the personnel of the government, postponement of the general elections, annulment of monarchical elections — all were discussed freely and frankly, and the arguments for and against were weighed. But never was any plot hatched in these midnight gatherings. The minister of the interior cannot be blamed for discussing politics with his personal friends. The prevailing opinions were undoubtedly moder- ate, for such was the tendency of those present. Landrin wrote to Ledru : " Whatever happens I am with you. But I admit that I should profoundly regret an appeal to arms at this moment, in which a name I love and esteem would be found necessarily coupled to names without a future and without a reputation." ^ Ledru himself said a few months later in the Assembly when he had been accused of plotting at these midnight cabals : " Cabals ! That word signifies something guilty. There existed .... business meetings that lasted at times till two or three o'clock in the morning. .... Very frequently, since I was bound by the most in- timate ties of friendship to the two citizens [Portalis and Landrin] .... we talked not as public officials but as citizens." ^ Two meetings are most frequently cited against him by the opponents of Ledru, and both meetings were, as a matter of fact, never held. It is supposed that Ledru had been in- 'LR Papers 1:214. For entire letter see appendix. "Speech of August 25, Moniteur for 1848, p. 2158. See also Favre, Landrin, and Portalis in ibid., 2158-2161 and in Quentin-Bauchart Report 1 : 280, 308, 334 ; Regnault 264-6 ; Blanc 2 : 34-5 ; Stern 2 : 316. Thus there is no truth in the elaborate accounts of debates in Gamier-Pages 7:346-353; Trouve-^Chauvel in Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:362-4. See also Chenu in ibid., i : 184 ; Barrot 2 : 149. 303] CLUBS AND CABALS I49 duced by Caussidiere to consider joining the movement against the moderates, and that Carteret, Favre, and Lan- drin visited the minister on the night of April 14-15 and extracted from him a promise to oppose the plans to disrupt the government. Even Regnault believed this story/ The truth is that the minister had never considered abandoning his colleagues. Favre explained a few months later : " The night before the sixteenth M. Carteret and I saw M. Ledru- Rollin. He gave us his word of honor that he had no part in the movement." ' As to the second of the supposititious meetings, Frangois Arago is responsible for the story that on May 3 in a meet- ing held in the absence of Ledru-Rollin under the presidency of Jules Favre, Landrin and Portalis declared in favor of the dissolution of the Assembly if it rejected their plans. Arago claimed to have heard this story from Duclerc and Ledru. Duclerc denied having told Arago such a tale, and Ledru explained that Arago had misinterpreted him. Moreover, on May 3 Landrin was far from Paris, Favre was in the suburbs, and Portalis did not enter the ministry of the interior.^ Thus the only meetings on which the accusations were specific did not take place. ^Regnault 290-3; Garnier-Pages 7:351-3; Barrot 1:129. ^Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:279-280. The demonstration of April 16 is meant. •Speeches on August 25 by Ledru, Arago, Duclerc, Favre, Landrin, and Portalis in Moniteur for 1848, p. 2158; Quentin-Bauchart Report 1 : 230, 308, 334. Arago was completely defeated on this point, but he had the better of Ledru in a long argument as to whether he had committed a breach of confidence in making public his statements. CHAPTER X The Sixteenth of April Between the two manifestations of March 17 and April 16 comparative quiet prevailed. The conservatives, to be sure, took every opportunity to attack or ridicule their op- ponents. They called the government le gouvernement derisoire, Lamartine La Tartine, Ledru-RoUin Le dur Coquin, Louis Blanc Louis Blague} The newspapers never tired of attacking Ledru.^ The most violent were the Orleanist Constitiitionnel, the legitimist Assemhlee Nation- ale, and the independent Presse of Emile de Girardin. The attacks of the last-named journal so irritated the people of Paris that they attacked the newspaper offices. Ledru and Landrin, the district-attorney, hastened to the scene of disorder, but Caussidiere had already restored quiet. The minister remained till all danger was past and returned again the next day when renewed disturbances were reported. Girardin adopted a petty attitude, refusing to thank Ledru and denied that he had asked for aid or needed aid.^ Preparations were made long ahead for a new and great demonstration to be held on April 16. It is very likely that the purpose of the demonstration was pacific like the earlier one of March 17. People are always too willing to read *Bonde 104. On the other hand the vvorkingmen called their friend Lc dm, that is, the hardy. — St. Ferreol, Proscrits i : 327. '^ Among other things they attacked his acceptance of the unpaid professorship of French and foreign administration at the College de France. Even the governmental National of April 11 did not approve the appointment of Ledru and three of his colleagues. None of the appointees ever availed himself of his privilege to give lectures. ^Moniteur for 1848, pp. 726, 739; Presse, March 28-31; Girardin 305; Garnier-Pages 7 : 210-5 ; Lemer 48-9. 150 [304 203] THE SIXTEENTH OF APRIL 151 plots into the actions of tlieir opponents. That the leaders wished a great manifestation to show their force, that a few subordinates, particularly among the Blanquists, desired to use the demonstration to overthrow the government, that the mob could easily have been induced to demand a change in the persons composing the executive, — this seems the most likely hypothesis to explain the actions of this "Day". Proof of this hypothesis cannot be found, but neither is there any proof of plotting. Wassermann has made out a good case for the innocence of both Barbes and Blanqui,^ and they were the two believed to be most deeply involved. Many groups took part in the parade and probably the wishes of most were pacific. Louis Blanc and Albert undoubtedly favored the movement. All the club leaders supported it. Caussidiere did not disapprove and merely feared the in- fluence of the extremists, Blanqui and his followers. Ledru-Rollin took no part in organizing this affair. It is commonly asserted that he experienced a severe attack of indecision. Urged on by Caussidiere, Blanc, Albert, and Barbes, restrained by Flocon, Landrin, Portalis, Favre, and Carteret, he is supposed alternately to have agreed with the former to accept a dictatorship and with the latter to sup- press the movement. It is claimed that he knew of the movement, encouraged it, was ready to take part in it, but drew back at the last moment, fearing that, if the existing' government were overthrown, the new one might get beyond his control." If Ledru-Rollin hesitated it was merely as to 'Wassermann 121-131. 'Even Regnault 260-277 believes this. It is inexplicable that Wasser- mann after absolving Barbes and Blanqui should still believe the minister of the interior implicated, for with whom could he have plotted? See also Barrot 2: 123-130; Beaumont-Vassy 4:215-7; Du Camp 142; Sand, Lettrcs 2:17-27; Carlier in Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:244-5; Gradis 1:302-7; La Gorce 1:189-203; Pierre 1:204-218. Only Hamel 114-8 takes the view that there was no plotting beforehand. I ^2 LEDRU-ROLLIX AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [306 whether he should let the demonstration take place or whether he should take repressive measures. That his friendly at- attitude toward some of the extremists may have encouraged them is likely, but that he plotted to overthrow his colleagues is without foundation. As soon as he was certain of the danger of violence, he took measures to restrain the paraders. The chief items in the indictment against Ledru in con- nection with this affair may be briefly dismissed. The six- teenth bulletin was not issued by him on April 1 5 in order to stir up the people, for he had nothing to do with its appear- ance. The conspiracy was not hatched in the midnight cabals, for these were innocuous meetings. Ledru's name was retained on the lists for a proposed new government drawn up by extreme revolutionists, but he could not be blamed for that.'- 'Marie said in this connection: "The banner of the revolt bore the names of MM. Ledru-Rollin, Louis Blanc, Flocon, and Albert. But I declare that two of them protested emphatically against this accusation. Those who protested were M. Ledru-Rollin and particularly M. Flocon, who expressed himself with great indignation. .... The minister of the interior was to be retained in the government but refused the proposition energetically." " On May 6, 1848 Ledru explained to the Assembly his own attitude at this time : I was above all anxious to save the revolution and main- tain order. I wished to preserve for the popular victory its grandeur, its purity, its social significance. I wished while ^ Marrast and Trouve-Chauvel in Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 322, 2:321; Stern 2:320-2; and Lamartine 2:206 claim that meetings were held at the ministry of the interior to consider new lists, but their ac- counts are either absurd or vague, and they contradict each other on details. ^Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:319. Cf. Carteret and Favre in ihid. 1 : 250, 279. 307] ^^£ SIXTEENTH OF APRIL 1 53 defending it against all the assaults and attacks of the reaction, to oppose also all violent ambition or dangerous impatience. Accordingly when in reply to an imprudent step the entire population came without arms to assure the provisional gov- ernment of its pacific tendencies, I took part without reserve in this solemn demonstration; but the day when certain fools tried to pervert the nature and spirit of a similar demonstra- tion, I did not hesitate to oppose it.^ Again he said on August 3 : April 16 has been mentioned and it has been said: You were a conspirator! I ! But it would be for the first time in my life. Consult all my friends. I never took part in any secret! society or conspiracy. And after having acted thus for twenty years, I conspired while in power! But that would be too inane! Yet, after all, if I had wished to conspire against some of my colleagues on April 16 — I did not do so, but allow me the hypothesis ; I might have done so — I would have been within my rights and you could not accuse me today. What was February 24? An act. And if I had let myself be de- ceived but had risked my life, if I had ever thought that I could save the country by governing it with other men than my colleagues, could not the people undo on April 16 what they had done on February 24 ? - In 1849 Leclru declared that Reports indicated that the manifestation was partly organ- ized by advocates of the regency and of the elder royalist line. Certain reports said it was for the benefit of the regency ; others for that of legitimacy ; still others that Blanqui was mixed up in the movement. . . . We were informed that certain men wished to overturn all or a part of the provisional ^Discours polUiqucs 2: 26. In last sentence references are to Marcli 16, March 17, and April 16. *Ihid. 2 : 44-5. I r^ LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [30S government. The police reports stated that the manifesta- tion was to take place for the benefit of the regency or legiti- macy. It has been said that he who would have pronounced the name of regency or legitimacy would have been torn to pieces. But when one wishes to overturn a government, one does not cry Long live the King. First, the existing govern- ment is overturned, and then by a sleight of hand the govern- ment desired is established. Finally, the reports asserted that the factions, the usurpers of the sovereignty of the people, wished to divert the manifestation from its primary aim. I heard that at the Champ de Mars leaflets were distributed to this end. What proves that this is true is that all sincere re- publicans were frightened, as I was, and offered their services for the protection of the republic.^ It is doubtful whether Ledru at the time believed the re- ports as to monarchical intrigues; that was probably an after-thought or a political move.' At the midday meeting of the government on the fifteenth, Ledru-Rollin told of the manifestation prepared for the morrow. He asserted that the demonstration would be directed only against the moderates in the government, but he assured his colleagues of his loyalty, and of his solidarity with them. The council decided not to go to the Hotel de Ville the next day but to assemble at the ministry of finance in order not to be compelled by the clubs to yield to their demands. In the evening Louis Blanc and Albert declared themselves pow^erless against the uprising while Flocon strongly insisted on his loyalty to the government.^ Ledru passed the night in examining Paris, in traversing the ^ Barbes Trial, Moniteur for 1849, pp. 947-8, 962. *At the Barbes trial Blanqui ridiculed the idea and Marie denied that Ledru believed it. — Ibid., pp. 947, 1079. 'Garnier-Pages 7:260-7; Regnault 287-9; Arago in Quentin-Bauchart Report 1 : 226 ; Marie at Barbes trial, Moniteur for 1849, PP- 107S-9. 309] THE SIXTEENTH OF APRIL 155 Streets, and did not go to bed till four in the morning to snatch three hours' sleep/ On the sixteenth Ledru was at his desk by seven-thirty in the morning. Every quarter of an hour he received a police report. All manner of rumors were rife. The story spread that Ledru-Rollin and Louis Blanc had been murdered. The workingmen had gathered at an early hour at the Cliamp de Mars to elect fourteen officers to the staff of the National Guard. The crowd was peaceful, but was being affected by the rumors that were flying about. Ledru feared lest some extremists should cause disorder and decided to beat the rappcl, that is, call out the National Guard. At nine thirty he left his office to consult with Lamartine; as he went out, Carlier heard him mutter : " This must be drowned in a movement of the National Guard, and the rappel must be sounded." " Lamartine strongly urged Ledru to call out the Parisian militia, and Ledru returned to his office more firmly convinced of the need of this measure.^ At eleven the min- ister of the interior was handed a police report which finally decided him. He set out for the Esplanade des Invalides where General Courtais, commander of the National Guard, was reviewing some of his troops, and in the presence of Marrast gave Courtais the order to call out the entire 'Ledru in speech of August 3, 1848, Discours poUtiqucs 2:45; and at Barbes trial 1849, Moniteur, 947. •Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:244-5. 'Lamartine claims that Ledru was overwhehned by his responsibility and did not know what to do, that he, Lamartine, advised the beating of the rappel, and that Ledru eagerly leaped at this suggestion. — Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 305 ; Lamartine 2 : 207-9, Blanc in Pcuple, December 7, 1848, Stern 2 : 334-9, and Rcgnault 293-303 attribute the original idea to Lamartine. But Ledru on August 3, 1848 specifically denied this: "I did not ask M. Lamartine: shall I beat the rappel'? I had it beaten." — Discours poUtiques 2 : 45-6. — Cf. Ledru at Barbes trial, Moniteur for 1849, p. 947. Carteret bears out Ledru. — ^Quentin-Bauchart Report 1 : 250. 156 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [310 National Guard. The General objected that he had suffi- cient trops to quell a tumult, but Ledru declared that he wished to engulf the demonstration, that partial forces would suffice to overpower but not to prevent an attempt at civil war, and that a riot must be above all avoided/ The order to beat the rappel met with difficulties at headquarters and at one o'clock Marrast had to repeat the command.^ Ledru returned to his ministry and received the congratu- lations of Jules Favre. Soon the sound of drums was heard. Louis Blanc and Albert arrived and criticized the minister for his order to beat the rappel. Ledru-Rollin replied to this : " Blanqui wished to exploit the manifesta- tion to his advantage. I do not wish to deliver the republic and France to Blanqui." Ledru joined his colleagues at the ministry of finance, as had been decided. Albert and Louis Blanc, frankly disappointed, came also, but when the other members of the government refused to expose themselves to the rioters, these two socialists set out alone for the Hotel de Ville.' At the city hall Marrast and Lamartine alone represented the government. General Changarnier had offered his ser- vices and was put in charge of the troops. The officials were worried. Which would arrive first, the crowd or the National Guard? It was the latter which came first; even the twelfth legion under Colonel Barbes responded to the call. The procession of clubbists and workingmen, when they arrived, had to pass between the serried ranks of these armed forces. When it was certain that the demonstration ^Gamier- Pages 7: 379-80; Marrast an August 3, 1848, Monitcur. p. 1874- ^This gave rise to the story of Changarnier that Ledru never ordered the beating of the rappel. — Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:260; Moniteur for 1848, p. 1874. iSee Marrast's refutation of Changarnier, Moniteur, p. 1874. ' Garnier-Pages 7: 383-4, 391 ; Blanc in Penple, December 7, 1848. 21 1] THE SIXTEENTH OF APRIL 1 57 was under control, Ledru and his colleagues set out for the Hotel de Ville. They arrived there at four-thirty, an hour and a half after the procession had begun to defile. Ledru sent off a note to Favre : " Everything is quiet ; the people are marching past without disorder." All the members of the provisional government appeared in the square and listened to delegates from the clubs. Louis Blanc and deputy-mayor Adam answered them. Lamartine had made a speech before the arrival of his colleagues, but long after the others retired, he continued haranguing parts of the pro- cession. It was not till ten-thirty that the parade was over.^ Ledru's actions throughout the day were irreproachable. Such persons as Louis Blanc and Delvau blamed him for beating the rappel, but that was his duty. Ledru-Rollin was the minister of the interior, responsible for the maintenance of order. It is possible that even if the National Guard had not been called out, the day would have passed peaceably; that, as Blanqui claimed, the only desire of the manifestants was to demand a ministry of labor and to proclaim their devotion to the republic. But it is certain that there was possible danger, and it was the duty of the minister of the interior to take all proper precautions. As long as Ledru expected the demonstration to be pacific, he let the preparations go on unheeded; when he feared violence, he called out the National Guard to prevent it. The results of April 16 were on the whole good. Fear of the extremists decreased, for it was seen that they had been controlled. Fear of Ledru-Rollin also slightly diminished. The reactionaries still believed him a Jacobin and a con- spirator, but sensible men realized that he had definitely aligned himself on the side of order. In the government too there was a change. The leaders of the majority and ^Moniteur for 1848, p. 849; Favre in Quentin-Bauchart Report 1 : 280. 1 38 LEDRU-ROLLIX AND SECOXD FRENCH REPUBLIC [312 the minority drew close together. The beating of the rappel had caused bitter feeling in the hearts of Louis Blanc and Albert, and they drew further and further away from Ledru- Rollin and Flocon. These two radicals had seen the danger from the extreme revolutionists and were ready to postpone their revolutionary innovations. The responsi- bility of office had its effect on Ledru, and the period be- tween April 16 and June 24 (the day of his fall from power) was the most conservative period of his political career. Lamartine, on the other hand, had realized two facts, namely, the power of the extremists and the real moderation of his radical colleagues. He was ready to ad- mit that a slightly more advanced program might be desir- able. The union of himself and Ledru steadily grew firmer as the date for the meeting of the new legislature ap- proached. Ledru was frequently seen at his colleague's house where hitherto he had not gone.^ The provisional government met on the seventeenth. It caused to be published an account of the demonstration in which both the National Guard and the people were praised, and only the few extremists who incited to disorder were blamed." The minister of the interior told his colleagues of the plans for a committee of public safety and of the in- trigues of Blanqui the previous day. Attorney-General Portalis called for an investigation of the plots. Only Cremieux protested, on account of the difficulty of framing an indictment. The member of the provisional government ^Des Cognets, Lamartine 410. Cf. Times, April 21. However, Carteret asserts that the disagreement did not disappear till a few days before the legislature met and Landrin tells how Favre made an unsuc- cessful attempt at reconciliation. — Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 253, 309. ^Moniteur for 1848, p. 849. Pierre Leroux visited Ledru on the seventeenth. "What did you do yesterday?" asked the socialist. " We killed the sectaries," replied the minister. " You killed the re- public," retorted Leroux. — ^Leroux 229. 313] THE SIXTEENTH OF APRIL 1 59 most anxious for an inquiry was Louis Blanc ; Ledru warmly seconded him. A judicial investigation was ordered/ The city had not yet quieted down completely after the demonstration. On the eighteenth all Paris was agitated by the renewed beating of the rappel. There was great excite- ment and many arrests were made, but it all proved a false alarm. The next day trouble was still feared, and on Albert's warning, Ledru urged Caussidiere to take precau- tions; nothing, however, occurred." On the nineteenth, on the advice of the prefect of police, Ledru demanded the arrest of Blanqui and his lieutenants. Only Lamartine and Albert opposed this; even Louis Blanc sided with the majority.^ A year later Ledru explained: "There were some members of the government who believed that Blanqui had a great influence; others, and I was of that number, believed that he had few supporters and that his only in- fluence was due to his activity. Blanqui continually dis- quieted us. On the eve of the Fete de la Fraternite an order for his arrest was issued after a lively discussion. The order was signed because it was feared that the distur- bances were not yet over ; when I saw the magnificent man- oevres of the National Guard, I said : A man is nothing\ against an entire people, and I gave a counter-order." ■* ^ Garnier-Pages 8:24-6; Blanc 2:48; Stern 2:343; Moniteur for JS48, pp. 859, 954. Landrin had already asked Ledru for permission to make an inquiry, threatening to resign if he were not allowed to do so. " Go as far as you like ; proceed and the government will do its duty," had replied the minister. — ^Landrin on August 25, 1848, Moniteur, p. 1857 and in Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 308. 2 Caussidiere 2:29-35, 59; Bonde 103. On the nineteenth George Sand wrote to her son: "I have just left portly Lcdru-Rollin trying to haul 'himself onto a horse for a ride through Paris, laughing and not caring a fig for what is going on." — Lettres 2 : 29. 3 Gamier- Pages 8:37-41; Faure 220. *Barbes trial, Moniteur for 1849, p. 947. l6o LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [314 This Fete de la Fraternite, held on April 20, was a grand review of the National Guard. Ledru arrived early to superintend the arrangements and caused considerable irrita- tion because he occasionally forgot to bow to the audience or to a passing officer/ He was obliged to adjust a dispute be- tween the men of the Luxembourg and those of the National Workshops, who were assigned to the same place; the two groups almost came to blows, but Ledru induced them to mix together.' At ten-thirty the other members of the gov- ernment arrived and took places in a semi-circle under the Arc de Triomphe. Arago made a speech and then each of his colleagues gave a flag to the commander of this corps or that.^ A part of the crowd followed Ledru back to his ministry and forced him to make a speech. Ledru-Rollin preached peace, fraternity, and confidence in the legislature that was to meet.* Due to a misunderstanding part of the third legion had not taken part in the celebration. Accord- ingly it was reviewed two days later. At nine-thirty in spite of the rain, Ledru, surrounded by several of his colleagues, made a speech. He explained the mistake and lauded fraternity and the republic.^ ^Assemhlee Nationale, April 21; Times, April 24. 'Thomas 210. ^Moniteur for 1848, p. 871 ; Times, April 24. *Monitenr for 1848, p. 878; Delvau 474-5; Caussidiere 2:71-2. ^Moniteur for 1848, p. 878; Garnier- Pages 8: 64-6. CHAPTER XI The Elections of April Twenty-third During the period after April i6 the chief preoccupation of the provisional government was the coming elections to the Constituent Assembly. In Paris Ledru-Rollin entrusted to a subordinate the duty of watching the elections at the mayoralties/ but Marrast ordered his officials not to permit any supervision by the interior department. On April 24 Ledru brought up the matter in a council meeting. He was in the right — even Garnier-Pages admitted that — but he used such unusually severe language that a rupture with his colleagues resulted, and he tendered his resignation. Lam- artine, who had not been present at the discussion, offered his mediation. He showed the minister of the interior how a break would encourage the extremists and induced him to withdraw his resignation. Ledru returned to the meeting in a conciliatory spirit, and his colleagues passed a decree giv- ing him complete right of surveillance over the elections of Paris. Marrast yielded, but he formed the resolution never to take part in another administration of which Ledru-Rollin was a member. This was the only time the minister of the interior ever resigned.^ Ledru-Rollin tried to influence the elections by propa- zin Paris there was not only a mayor of the entire city, but there was under him a mayor for each arrondissemcnt. ' Minutes of the council, April 24, Marrast, and Pagnerre in Quentin- Bauchart Report 2:38; 1:322, 330; Garnicr-Pagcs 8:281; Lamartine 2 : 225 : Normanby i : 245 ; Constitutionnel, April 23, 1848; Times, April 27. 315] 161 1 62 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [3 1 6 ganda, by moral suasion/ The commissioners, mayors, and other officials were urged to spread republican ideas. In some cases they busied themselves with opposing conserva- tive candidates, and sometimes, notably in the case of Thiers, with success. But in general it may be said that the elec- tions were exceedingly free, more free than any other of the times. To aid the commissioners, the Bulletins of the Republic were distributed throughout the rural districts for the purpose of instilling democratic principles. Another means of influencing the electorate adopted by Ledru-Rollin was the sending of workingmen from Paris to preach republican- doctrines to their brothers in the pro- vinces. This caused more scandal than any other single act of the minister. The Club des Clubs, composed of delegates from other clubs, chose a committee whose duty was to send to the departments workingmen who should aid the election of designated candidates. Longepied was president of the committee; Laugier, Francois Arago's nephew, was treas- urer. The committee did not have sufficient funds and ap- plied to the secretary of the interior for aid. Ledru re- fused to commit himself without consulting his colleagues. Accordingly, one day in his daily report to the council the minister of the interior commented on the activity of the reactionaries in the provinces and showed how the clubs were becoming more loyal to the government. Then he spoke of the proposal of the Club des Clubs. He supported it on two main grounds; the emissaries would be able to spread republican ideas through the backward country dis- tricts, and the adoption of the proposition would propitiate the clubs whereas to reject it would tend to make them re- volt. The government saw the force of these arguments and appropriated 123,000 francs for this purpose, but on ^The charges of intimidation and bribery are baseless; for charges see Chamier i : 156-9, 186-8. 317] THE ELECTIONS OF APRIL TWENTY-THIRD 163 condition, first that the delegates should not be regarded as official agents, should confine themselves to disseminating' doctrines, should not aid individual candidates ; and secondly that the minister of the interior should himself superintend carefully the selection of the delegates. Unfortunately these two conditions were not carried out. The delegates be- lieved that one of their chief duties was to designate worthy candidates. Ledru believed that he could rely on the choices made by Longepied, Laugier, and their colleagues. The committee of the Club des Clubs met every day and kept a careful account of expenditures. In the evening it went to the ministry of the interior and gave to Ledru- Rollin, or in his absence to Carteret, a list of the agents and a memorandum of the sums given to each of these agents. The committee also submitted extracts from the reports of its emissaries. Sometimes Longepied and his friends re- mained to discuss politics with Ledru, for they enjoyed his confidence. Once, when they told him of their fears of reaction, the minister sent them to Lamartine, but their in- terview with the minister of foreign affairs was unsatisfac- tory, as the latter did not share their fears. Over four hundred delegates were despatched to the de- partments between the end of March and the twentieth of April. They received six, eight, or ten francs a day, ac- cording to the locality to which they were sent. Most of the agents were satisfactory, but some extremists among* them preached anarchistic doctrines. Longepied and Laugier claim that the committee gave conciliatory advice to their emissaries and that the delegates had a moderating effect and were not inciters to violence. As a matter of fact, at the time, their actions were little noticed; it was later, when arguments against the radicals were sought, that these club-delegates came into prominence. The project certainly was foolish; it was another extreme example of the popular 1 6_j. LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [318 movement to exhalt the position of the oiivrier. It was an- other bad road to democracy, paved with good intentions.^ Ledru-Rolhn defended his conduct before the Assembly on x\ugust 21, 1848 : The men sent into the provinces were paid from a fund de- temiined by the government. Xow, at that time you were reposing at leisure in your departments. But in Paris the exuberant forces of the revolution were boiling over. But in Paris the men who had been kings on the barricades wished to impose conditions which at times were unreasonable. Paris could not like an immense furnace contain the exuberant force; an outlet was needed, assistance in regaining their homes for numerous citizens. Moreover, there were de- partments where the working people misinterpreted the re- volution, wished even after the revolution of February 24 to proceed to insurrection. There were great cities like Lyons and Lille to which it was necessary to send workingmen to speak the fraternal language which would not have been listened to from our lips, as we were mere bourgeois. That is why it was necessary. - Besides sending out these civilians, the Club des Clubs despatched non-commissioned officers to the armies in order to influence the soldiers and to point out to them the com- manders whose influence was feared in the elections. Ac- cordingly a member of the directing committee, provided with ■'Instructions to and reports by delegates, testimony of Delaire and Longepied in Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:171, 210, 232-3, 315-6; 2:79, 116-132; Longepied 49-51, 59, 63-109, 131; Gamier-Pages 7:233-9; Ducos Report in Moniteur for 1849, pp. 1553-4; Sand in Vie de Paris, 1904, pp. 388-9 ; Regnault 352-3 ; Lamartine 2 : 192-3 ; Wassermann 87-9 ; Antony 250-267. The Ducos commission examined the affair thoroughly and exonerated Ledru from the charges of dishonesty or misuse of secret funds, but it rejected "the 123,000 francs by the use of which popular sovereignty seems to have been violated." For absurd accounts by conservatives see Barrot 2:61; Times, August 26, 1848. ^Discours politiques 2:62-3. 319] THE ELECTIONS OF APRIL TWENTY-THIRD 165 a letter from Ledru, went to see an aide of Frangois Arago ; he desired a furlough for nineteen non-commissioned officers who were to go to different regiments and develop republi- can sentiments among them. The matter was referred to the minister of war who hesitated several days. Finally permission was granted, but the military delegates were to report to the colonel of the regiment to which they were sent. Some of these emissaries failed to do this and them- selves distributed inflammatory articles among the soldiers. As there were many complaints, the non-commissioned of- ficers were recalled on April 16, eight days after their de- parture. That they caused much disturbance in the army is untrue, for there was less disturbance after April 8 than before. This was another of those well-meaning attempts of the minister of the interior which had no good results, but which was not in itself reprehensible.^ In Paris election lists were numerous. Everyone had a slate of his own and almost every prominent man was a candidate. In general there were three types of lists. Those of the socialists were headed by Louis Blanc and Albert, those of the radicals by Ledru-Rollin and Flocon, those of the moderates by the other seven members of the pro- visional government. Frequently the socialists and radicals were included in one list. Occasionally all eleven members were inserted together, or a selection was made among them. The Peuple Constituant of Lamennais advised the election of Lamartine and Ledru, and Sobrier followed suit. In general the moderates tried to exclude their more revo- lutionary colleagues. The most industrious were Marrast and Marie, who used their influence particularly in the National Workshops. Ledru himself took little part in the 'Dcuzy, Longcpicd, and Larabit in Qucntin-Bauchart Report 1:273, 316, appendix; Larabit on August 25, 1848, Moniteur, p. 2160. Larabit was the aide of Arago. 1 66 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [320 campaigning, but his partisans waxed virulent against the moderates. Besides being a candidate in Paris, Ledru also ran in six departments and in Algeria.^ In Saone and Loire he received the support of Lamartine. In Sarthe the influential Trouve-Chauvel broke with the party of Ledru and ruined the minister's chance of election." Everywhere the clergy worked against him. The elections passed off smoothly; except at Limoges and Rouen there were no disturbances. The voting took place on April 23, Easter day. At first the Catholics had com- plained of this, but they soon realized how they could turn it to their own account. Entire villages marched to the polls headed by their curates. In one way the election was a great triumph for the minister of the interior ; eighty-two per cent of those entitled to vote cast their ballots.^ But in the general character of the candidates elected Ledru was grieviously disappointed. The elections were overwhelm- ingly in favor of the moderates. Ledru-Rollin himself, al- though elected in three places, could derive no pleasure from the result. In Paris thirty-four representatives were chosen. Lamartine came first with 259,800 vote out of 314,986 voters. The other six members of the government majority followed. Ledru stood only twenty-fourth with 131,587 votes, immediately after Albert and just ahead of Flocon and Louis Blanc. In Saone and Loire Ledru was elected thirteenth out of fourteen; in distant Algeria third out of four. EveryAvhere else he was defeated; in the Sarthe twelve deputies were elected and he was fourteenth; in Cote ^National, Constitutionnel, April 10, 11, 12, 1848. The departments ■were Cote d'Or, Lower Loire, North, Saone and Loire, Sarthe, and Lower Seine. *Guyon 2: 49-92. 'Curtis 50. 321 ] THE ELECTIONS OF APRIL TWENTY-THIRD 167 d'Or ten, and he was seventeenth ; in the North twenty-eight, and he was sixty-first/ In Rouen the elections turned out badly for the proletariat, and accordingly on April 27 there was an insurrection which the generals in command ruthlessly put down. Little force would have been needed to end this petty fiare-up, but the generals exerted their full authority, killing and wounding far more than was necessary. Ledru read to the council a report which was unfavorable to the military commanders, and Louis Blanc asked that they be sent before a council of war. Frangois Arago, minister of war, opposed this pro- posal and completely defeated his adversaries, for an investi- gator of the affair was appointed, w^ho was hostile to the radicals." Except for this difference of opinion the time between the elections and the meeting of the new legislature passed peaceably for the government. The National Constituent Assembly met on May 4. The provisional government attended as a body and relinquished its powers. During this first session the republic was ac- claimed seventeen times. Most of the session was spent in verifying the credentials of the members. Certain conser- vatives tried to throw the blame for the absence of a few election returns upon the minister of the interior, but the 1 Saone and Loire : ist name 129J879 last name 67,178 Ledru 68,462 Algeria: istname 5,255 last name 3,335 Ledru 3.412 Sarthe: istname 113,016 last name 55,535 Ledru 46,806 Cote d'Or: istname 75,916 last name 41,629 Ledru 24,445 North: istname 227,765 last name 93,666 Ledru 42,173 No statistics are available for Lower Seine or Lower Loire. Figures taken from Moniteur, National, Commune dc Paris. For election in the North see Gossez 141, in the Sarthe see Guyon 2:91-2. 'Arago in Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:225; Blanc 2:48; Stern 2:364. Ledru and his commissioner, Deschamps, were accused of being impli- cated in the riot. The truth is that arms had been sent to the National Guard of Rouen on the order of the minister of the interior, and that these arms were seized by the rioters. 1 68 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [322 Assembly would not listen to them. The extreme left met later in the day under the presidency of Flocon and arranged a slate for the officers of the assembly. Its list headed by Trelat included many moderates. Fifty or sixty delegates were present, such as Ledru-Rollin, Etienne Arago, Louis Blanc, and Barbes.^ The next session, May 5, was taken up with further verification of credentials and with matters of organization. Buchez, the Catholic socialist, was elected president of the Assembly. A deputy wished to interpellate Ledru on the post-election riot at Limoges, but the Chamber, desiring to preserv^e harmony, passed to the order of the day. On May 6 the provisional government began a series of reports on its conduct in office. First came Dupont de I'Eure's general account. Then the others followed, one after another. The first was Ledru-Rollin, who explained that he could give only a brief account of his acts, that he had tried to reconcile in his ministry the development of re- publican institutions and the preservation of orderly admin- istration. He defended his various activities: the com- missioners, the circulars, the cwganization of the National Guard and of the electoral machinery, the detailed work of the ministry, his conduct on April 16. Ledru blamed any resort to plotting. He closed as follows : Nothing can be founded that is not based upon ideas. True superiority^ consists in discerning the reforms which can reasonably be brought about. Today the hand of the people has torn away the curtain ; doubt is no longer possible for any one. Alost imprudent and most culpable is he who wishes to stop the revolution at the sterile conquest of political forms. These forms are merely the instruments of liberty placed in the hands of the people now called on to rule itself. But for 1 Debats, May 6. Trelat was not elected, but six of the other fifteen candidates were. After the legislative session Ledru had a demonstra- tion from a portion of the National Guard. — Reforme, May 5. 323] ^^^ ELECTIONS OF APRIL TWENTY-THIRD 169 us the path is traced; the goal is indicated. It is to realize in the social order the dogmas of equality and fraternity which should guide all our steps. Sustained by this noble cause, we shall be worthy of our mission; if we accept it in its entirety, we shall not only have given to man his natural dignity, but we shall have assured the glory and happiness of our fatherland and shall have aided the emancipation of the world.^ This brief speech exactly ser\'ed its purpose. On the one hand it was the discourse of a minister, advocate of law and order; on the other hand it was the oration of a pro- gressive, anxious to give to his country what was best in the new ideas. The speech was well received by the Constituent Assembly, and the applause was greater than that given to any one except Lamartine.^ The newspapers were divided. Whereas the Debats thought that Ledru-Rollin made too many complaints, and the Presse considered the speech worse than the ministerial harangues of Guizot and Duchatel, some of the journals, such as the Ere nouvelle, were well pleased and declared Ledru's language better than his re- putation. The radical newspapers, of course, thought the discourse a masterpiece. 1 Discours politiques 2 : 22-7. For extracts see pp. 60, 68-9, 120, 132, 152-3. For notes in preparation see LR Papers 5 : 1-9. *Garnier-Pages 8:419; Spuller 64; Stern 2:376; Journees illustrees 127-9. However, two witnesses claim that the speech was received with coldness: Beaumont-Vassy 4:258; Corkran s^- CHAPTER XII . The Executive Commission The question that dominated all minds in the Assembly was the composition of the new executive. The contest centred about Ledru-Rollin. The moderates, who controlled the legislature, had definitely decided to reject Louis Blanc, Albert, and the socialist element. But there were two opin- ions concerning Ledru. Some of the deputies desired a homogeneous government composed solely of moderates; others desired to include a radical in order to conciliate the extreme left. The former would probably have carried the day had it not been for Lamartine. The poet-statesman refused to enter any combination in which Ledru was not included. Much ink has been wasted in trying to account for this action of Lamartine. The simplest explanation is that Lamartine's one idea throughout this period was con- ciliation. By his speeches he had tried to conciliate the mob, and he had succeeded. By private conferences he had tried to conciliate the club leaders, and he believed that he had done much to put them in a better humor with the govern- ment. By his tact he had tried to conciliate the warring elements in the provisional government, and he had suc- ceeded in patching up quarrels between Francois Arago and Louis Blanc, between Marrast and Ledru-Rollin. For over two months he had dominated France by this policy of conciliation; the conservatives looked to him as the bulwark against anarchy, the moderates regarded him as their leader, the radicals believed that he alone could obtain from the 170 [324 225] THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 171 National Assembly the reforms which they advocated. Had he desired it, he could have been elected president of the re- public by an almost unanimous vote. But ambitious as Lamartine was, he placed first the good of the country. He felt that the policy of conciliation which had worked so happily until now must be continued, must be maintained at least until the constitution was completed. He believed, and he was right, that if the extreme revolutionists were not con- ciliated, they would rise in revolt. To obtain their support the government must include at least one radical, and Ledru- Rollin was the natural choice as the most prominent member of that party. Besides, Ledru was willing to adopt Lamar- tine's policy of conciliation. We have seen how these two men had gradually come closer and closer together in the provisional government. Were Ledru in the new executive, he would restrain his friends and yet would not irritate the conservatives by bringing forward absurd demands. How correct Lamartine was, the history of the next few months shows. Had the party of Ledru-Rollin joined the revolu- tionists on May 15 or during the June Days, probably it would have turned the balance against the Assembly. Lam- artine was right when he said to a friend on June 23 : " Re- member this and repeat it. I lost my popularity and pained all of you when I asked you to include Ledru-Rollin in the executive commission. It was important that the force re- presented by him should be with us on account of the crisis I saw approaching. It is here. The republic will triumph in the end, I shall have preserved it intact." ^ So great was Lamartine's influence that he imposed his choice on the Assembly, but this body was at heart filled with the exclu- sive spirit of Marrast and never forgave Lamartine for forcing Ledru upon it. Lamartine lost his popularity, the *Lacratelle 153. For discussion of Lamartine's decision see Corkran •€9-72; Falloux 1 : 315; Normanby i : 370-1 ; Tocqucville 168-172. 1 72 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [326 Constituent Assembly entered upon a reactionary course and, dropping the policy of conciliation, never stopped until the way was open for the Caesarism of Napoleon III. A frank adoption by the moderates of Lamartine's policy (for Ledru and Flocon were ready to cooperate) might have established the republic solidly; its rejection and the con- sequent bickerings between the various shades of republicans certainly opened the road to the second empire/ Even before the Constituent Assembly met there had been numerous plans for an executive. Among the radicals the idea of a triumvirate consisting of Lamartine, Ledru-Rollin, and Flocon was popular. Naturally Lamartine was not willing to serve alone with two radicals." Garnier-Pages claims that there were five general schemes: 1° a temporary president (this would be Lamartine), 2° Ministers dir- ectly elected by the legislature (plan of the conservatives). 3° President of the council, choosing ministers, 4° Com- mission of three or five (if three Ledru would probably not be included, if five he would). 5° Continuance in office of the entire provisional government (desired by the extreme left). It was the second and fourth of these plans that gradually attracted most support.^ All the groups in the legislature held meetings at least once every day. On May 4 the moderates debated from ten to midnight without reaching any decision. Garnier-Pages was for the inclusion of Ledru in the government; Marie, *A great deal of scandal was told of the connection between Ledru and Lamartine. Ledru was supposed to have Lamartine in his power be- cause he had discovered that the poet had accepted from Louis Philippe a monetary reward for literary merit. — Alison i : 588-9. It was said that Mme. Ledru-iRoUin was the mistress of Lamartine whom she had met only once. — ^Circourt Papers 516. ^Caussidiere 2:87-8; Quentin-Bauchart, Lamartine 312. * Garnier-Pages 9:8. 027] THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1 73 Marrast, and Dupont de I'Eure were violently opposed. The next morning Lamartine received two delegates from this meeting; he plainly indicated that he insisted on the pre- sence of Ledru in the executive. Nevertheless in the after- noon the moderates practically decided to leave out their radical colleague. On May sixth they held three successive meetings and definitely agreed to exclude Ledru-Rollin. A commission of Lamartine, Arago, and Garnier-Pages was to be supported; if Lamartine would not accept this com- bination, Arago was to be proposed as temporary president.^ In the meantime the radicals were equally uncertain. Landrin wrote to Ledru two letters from which may be in- ferred the hesitation of the minister of the interior. He strongly urged Ledru to enter the government with Lamar- tine and he regretted that Ledru appeared uncertain as to what course to take. Landrin saw only good from a union to which Ledru could bring the support of the populace and Lamartine that of the legislative majority. Even if Ledru were not accepted as a member of the the government which was to be formed, Landrin desired that Ledru should adopt a conciliatory policy; only a threat against the republican form would justly a resort to violent means of opposition. From the two letters it seems that Favre and Cremieux were active in arranging a union between Ledru-Rollin and Lam- artine.^ ' On May 7 more than four hundred deputies took part in meetings of their groups. Sixty to eighty deputies of the extreme left gathered in a room of the Palais Bourbon, the building where the Constituent Assembly held its sessions. They favored union and peace, and they proposed the main- 1 Notes of Barlhelemy-St. Hilaire in Rcvuc politique ct parlcmcntaire 51:318-320; Garnier-Pages 9:8-17; Circourt 138-140. 'LR Papers 1:217-9. LeUers were probably written May 7. For complete versions see appendix. 174 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [328 tenance of the entire provisional government. The moder- ates, who had the previous day decided on the exclusion of Ledru from the government, were again thrown into a state of indecision when they learned that Lamartine had defi- nitely refused to join any combination in which Ledru- Rollin Avas not included. Opinion tended to a commission of Arago, Dupont, and Garnier-Pages. Meanwhile Ledru visited Lamartine and the two had a long conversation. The morning of the eighth two large groups assembled, the extreme left imder Trelat and the moderates under Martin de Strassbourg. The two parties agreed to an executive composed of Arago, Garnier-Pages, iMarie, Lamartine, and Ledru-Rollin. A committee headed by Domes was to pro- pose this combination to the Constituent Assembly.^ On May 8 the legislature turned to the question of the new executive. As had been agreed upon in the morning, Domes mounted the platform and moved that the provi- sional government deserved well of the republic and that the National Assembly delegated its powers to a commission of five members. Amid a great uproar he read the names of the five men selected by the extreme left and the moderates. The entire right protested against adding to a general measure concerning the formation of an executive the names of those who should compose it. Everybody was excited and expressed his opinion at the top of his voice. Finally Pre- sident Buchez was obliged to suspend the sitting for half an hour. Then Domes resumed, adding that the executive commission should have the right to appoint the ministers. A vote was taken on the first part of the proposal, that " the provisional government deserved well of the country." Only Barbes and four of his friends voted in the negative. On May 9 the discussion was resumed. The conserva- '^Reznie politique ct parlementaire 51:320-1; Debats, May 8, 1848; Gamier-Pages 9: 20-1. 329] ^^^ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 175 tives realized that if the Domes scheme were accepted, Ledru-Rollin would be elected as a member of the govern- ment. Accordingly they bent all their energies to having the legislature elect the ministers directly. After a long debate their proposal was defeated 411 to 385. Before the discussion could precede further, a deputy demanded whether there had been any unity in the provisional government and made a particular attack on Ledru-Rollin. Flocon and others protested against this interruption, but Ledru insisted on replying : Citizens. ... A charge has been made against me. . . . You are told that the provisional government was not united. In the sense that men, all animated by excellent intentions, by absolute loyalty, still in certain respects entertained dif- ferent ideas as to progress, in that sense alone the provisional government was not united. . . . What gave us our strength? Our very diversity. . . . Which of our official acts did not receive the signature of one and all of us? Not once was there the least bitterness, not once the least rancour, not once a personal attack. There was complete devotion to our task .... for we were bound together by the myriads of men without bread who forgot their needs to cheer the republic. . . . On the question of means we were not in accord, but when a decision had been made, when the majority had said its last word, the minority acquiesced and signed the decree. . . . Does not this assembly consist of a majority and a minority? . . . That very diversity, which represents all the theories of the moment, makes the power, the strength, the life of the assembly. It is in the name of independence and liberty of conscience that I protest against the accusation. It is only among those who desire to retain power for power's sake .... that systematic unity is found, allied to baseness .... Our consciences feel satisfied at having remained good colleagues, at having remained brothers. I do not fear being contradicted when I say this; it is to that union that I invite 1 76 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [330 you. . . . Like us, forget your shades of difference; consider only the fatherland, the sufferings of the people, their intoler- able misery. Be neither majority nor minority, but a single assembly animated by a single sentiment; for the sake of the good that remains to be done, do not lose time in useless oratory ! Do as we did ; do better than we did ! Work, work for the sake of the people ! " The Assembly applauded Ledru vigorously and the friends of the orator crowded around him congratulating him.^ Ledru' s speech had an excellent effect and threw on the conservatives the burden of a desire for dissension. It was eloquent and well-timed, but it was special pleading. It was well to forget the internal disagreements in the government, but was it justifiable to deny them? The oration is filled with exaggerations if not prevarications. The right tried hard to continue the interpellation, but twice the Assembly by overwhelming votes refused to listen to attacks. Most of the representatives still desired harmony. A modified version of the Domes resolution, entrusting the government to an executive commission, but not stating the number of members who should compose it was now passed. A proposition that the number should be eleven w^as rejected. Finally it was decided that the executive should be composed of five members. It looked now as though the question were finally settled and Ledru w^ould be in the government with Lamartine, Arago, Garnier-Pages, and Marie, as Domes and his friends had arranged; but still the moderates debated. In the evening they favored the substitution of Dupont for Ledru. Conversations con- tinued throughout the night. Everything depended on Du- pont, the head of the late provisional government, who still hesitated. It was not till ten the next morning that Dupont ^Moniteur for 1848, p. 999; Garnier-Pages 9: 37-40. 23 1 ] THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1 77 refused to serve in the new executive, and announced his decision in a gathering of moderates. The success of the Domes Hst of five was now assured/ W^hen the Assembly met on May 10, it immediately set about electing the executive commission. Senard of the left centre declared that the list of conciliation was accepted by all five of its members. After a brief debate, Arago, Garnier- Pages, and Marie were overwhelmingly elected; out of 796 votes cast they received respectively 725, 715, and 702. Lamartine had lost much of his popularity by his liaison with Ledru-Rollin ; he received only 643 ballots. Ledru himself trailed behind with 458 (398 were needed to elect). It was a thorough success for the moderates and a great rebuke to Lamartine, who a week before had been hailed as the saviour of France." Immediately after their election the members of the ex- ecutive commission retired to discuss the appointment of ministers. Ledru desired to give the interior department to Trelat, agriculture to Flocon, and to retain Jules Favre and Carteret. He was opposed to giving offices to Marrast, Recurt, and Pagnerre. No decision was reached that day though the discussion was renewed in the evening in the presence of prominent members of the left. The next morning at ten there was another meeting of the executive commission. Ledru obtained the ministry of agriculture for Flocon and the positions of under-secretaries of foreign ^ Revue politique et parlementairc 51:322-3; Garnier-Pages 9:40-1; Bar rot 2: 177. 'Most of the newspapers approved the choice made for the executive commission. On the eleventh the Reforme declared its confidence in the five, and the Constitutionnel asserted that it had opposed many of Ledru's acts but was willing to give him its confidence now. During the session of the tenth Louis Blanc's suggestion of a ministry of labor was overwhelmingly rejected; of the eleven members of the provisional gov- ernment only Albert supported Blanc. I yS LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [332 affairs and the interior for Favre and Carteret respectively. Caussidiere remained prefect of police, Etienne Arago post- master-general. Trelat, instead of the department of the interior, received that of public works. On other selections Ledru was obliged to yield. Pagnerre was made secretary of the commission. Marrast retained the mayoralty of Paris. Recurt received the interior department. An agree- ment had been reached, and the new government set to work in harmony. Over the distribution of other offices there was no trouble. Cremieux, Bethmont, and Carnot retained portfolios as ministers of justice, religion, and education. In the departments of foreign affairs and finances the former assistants Bastide and Duclerc became ministers. The ministry of the navy went to Admiral Casy and that of war to General Cavaignac.^ The executive commission seems to have worked in far greater harmony than had the provisional government. Albert and Louis Blanc were not there to advocate extreme measures. Absent also was the fiery Marrast. Ledru- Rollin grew more conservative the longer he remained in power. Lamartine and Garnier- Pages were always anxious to be conciliatory. Arago was testy but easily placated. •Marie never flared into a passion. It was commonly as- serted that there were two parties in the commission, Lam- artine and Ledru forming one. It is undoubtedly true that these two men were more radical than their colleagues, but there is nothing to show that differences of opinion ever went beyond amicable discussion.^ Arago was elected president of the executive commission, for the first month and was retained in that position as ^ Revue politique et parlcmcntaire 51:323-4; Garnier- Pages 9:42-4. Barthelemy-St. Hilaire speaks of the insolent demands of Ledru. 'See Garnier-Pages in Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:284; Gamier- Pages 10 : 2, 29-30; II : 282-3. 333] THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1 79 long as the executive commission remained in power. Every clay from nine to eleven the members of the commission worked with the ministers ; from twelve to two they devoted themselves to police reports ; in the evening they held a gov- ernment council. The question arose as to their attitude towards the legislature. They wished to act as a unit. Lamartine and Ledru desired that they should all be pre- sent at every meeting of the Assembly ; the other three over- ruled them. On May 17 they agreed not to take part in votes in the Assembly.^ The executive commission was confronted by a legislature in which at the start there were no definite parties. France had elected prominent individuals rather than representa- tives of definite opinions. Everyone was a republican, everyone was for progress. But soon the members began to split up into groups. The conservatives met in the Rue de Poitiers under the presidency of General Baraguey d' Hilliers, but their guiding spirit was the Count de Falloux. There collected the entire right : Barrot, Thiers, and the old monarchists who had formed the parliamentary opposition against Guizot ; Montalembert and the ultramontane Cath- olics ; Berryer and the legitimists ; Bugeaud and other gener- als. The centre and left assembled in the Palais National to the number of some three hundred. Buchez, Marrast, and Dupont de I'Eure worked in unison here with Landrin, Portalis, Etienne Arago, and other supporters of Ledru- Rollin. Lastly there were about sixty members of the extreme left who met first in the Rue des Pyramides, later in the Rue de Castiglione. This group was composed of socialists and such supporters of Ledru-Rollin as Lamennais and Mathieu de la Drome." The Rue de Poitiers group * Gamier-Pages 9 : 79 ; 10:29; Constitulionncl, May 14; Rcprcscntant ]du Peuple, May 15. *For accounts of these groups and lists of members see Quentin- l8o LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [334 was steadily in opposition to the executive commission; the Pyramides-Castiglione group, due to the presence of Ledru and Flocon in the government, generally supported it but maintained an independent position; the Palais National deputies were the mainstay of the commission throughout May and the first half of June, and when they abandoned it, the government fell. In July, after this fall, there was a regrouping. The moderates seceded from the Palais National and founded a club of their own at the Institute. Landrin and his friends united with the deputies of the Rue de Castiglione to form a new club in the Rue de Taitbout, commonly known as the Mountain. Ledru became a member of this group; like the other members of the executive commission dur- ing their tenure of office, he had previously belonged to none.^ Bauchart Report 2:250-260; Constitutionnel, July 16, 1848; Debats, July 13, 16, 25; Gamier-Pages 10:44-50; Babaud-Laribiere 1:44-9; Stern 3:67-8; Castille 3:8-9; Spuller 104-5; Journees ilhistrees 167; Curtis 65; Bouniols 298; Gradis 2: 53-5; 167-8, 176. ' Still later Landrin and his friends abandoned the Rue de Taitbout when that group became too revolutionary; they composed the left proper of the Assembly. Again, some time after this, Flocon and a few followers also resigned ; they were the independent members of the extreme left. In the organization of committees in the legislature Ledru-Rollin chose that for Algeria. — Debats, May 26, 1848. CHAPTER XIII The Fifteenth of May On May 15 a mob invaded the Assembly and tried to dis- solve it. It is hard to decide who were responsible for this attack upon the legislature. A crowd had gathered with the ostensible aim of holding a peaceable demonstration and presenting a petition to the deputies in favor of aid to Poland. Probably a few club leaders like Huber desired an insurrection and carried the mob, and finally even Barbes and Albert, with them. Ledru believed that " most of the people who invaded the legislative hall had as their purpose to bring there a petition and read it at the bar." He claimed that the chief organizers of the demonstration and the sole instigators to insurrection were the monarchists, particularly the Bonapartists ; that Blanqui and Raspail, leaders of the extreme revolutionists, had desired a forcible entry into the Palais Bourbon but no uprising; that Barbes had taken no part in the organization of the demonstration but was carried away by the force of events, deeply moved at the sight of the poverty-stricken crowd.'^ Ledru himself has been ac- cused of plotting the overthrow of his colleagues, but this is absurd. The radical orator might have striven to over- throw a provisional government, but it was contrary to his every belief and theory to take measures against the elect of the people unless a fundamental right were violated. The * Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 311 ; Barbes trial in R6forme, March 21, 1849; Voix du Proscrit 2:43; speech of June 3, 1874, in Dlscnurs poUtiques 2: 480-1. 335] 181 1 82 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOXD FRENCH REPUBLIC [336 sole basis for the charge is that his name was on various hsts for a new government, but that was not his fault. His conduct throughout the day was unimpeachable/ At nine in the morning of May 15 the members of the executive commission assembled at the Luxembourg. They had been informed the previous day of what was coming, but they believed that the demonstration would be a peace- ful one. Nevertheless, orders that all needful precautions be taken were given to Caussidiere and to General Courtais, commander of the National Guard, who was given supreme control." About ten-thirty Longepied and some fellow- members of the Club des Clubs called at the Luxembourg; they feared that the manifestation might become hostile to the government and invade the Palais Bourbon, and they offered to circulate through the crowd and do their best to restrain it. Francois Arago encouraged them in their pur- pose, and Ledru-Rollin gave them a pass to the Assembly building. Longepied arrived there too late to stop the in- vasion and proceeded to the Hotel de Ville in order to tr}^ to prevent the recognition of an insurrectionar}^ government. There he was arrested, but he was soon set at liberty by Ledru-Rollin.^ The five members of the executive commission then in session at the Luxembourg decided to separate, Arago and ^ For accusations, see Falloux i : 322-3 ; Chamier 267-298. ^ Momteur for 1848, p. 1051 ; Ledru at Barbes trial in Moniteur for 1849, pp. 947-8 ; Caussidiere in Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 144. Dupoty, an editor of the Re forme, had written to Ledru and Landrin urging the arrest of Blanqui. — Reforme, November 13, 1848. ^ Ledru in speech of August 3, 1848. Discours politiques 2:46-7; Longepied, Delaire, and police-agent Picot in Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:316, 272, 133; Longepied 129; Wassermann 173-185; Garnier-Pages 9: 147; Dupoty in Reforme, November 13, 1848. The only reason that the Quentin-Bauchart Committee of Investigation gave to reject Longe- pied's p^icific motives was that after his interview with Arago and Ledru he ate lunch before proceeding to the Palais Bourbon. 237] THE FIFTEEXTH OF MAY 183 Garnier-Pages remaining at the Luxembourg, the other three setting out for the National Assembly. They had already given the command to beat the rappel, and they had ordered General Courtais to guard the vital Pont de la Con- corde which separated the Palais Bourbon from the Made- leine where the procession of petitioners was gathered. The General had failed to carry out this order and thus the mob was able to approach the building where the legislature sat. When Marie and Ledru arrived at the Pont de la Concorde to insist on its occupation, the bridge had already been crossed.^ The Assembly had met at noon as usual, and there was a large attendance as the ministers were to be interpellated concerning foreign affairs. Bastide and Lamartine had de- fended their Italian policy, and Wolowski had just brought up the Polish question when the noise of an approaching crowd was heard. Lamartine, Ledru, and Marie hastened to the courtyard. The building was surrounded by a huge crowd which refused to listen to Lamartine and listened without enthusiasm to Ledru who tried to calm it. The deputies returned to the Assembly hall. Albert declared that if delegates of the mob were not admitted, a calamity would occur. On the advice of Ledru and Marrast this was agreed to. Ledru and Lamartine returned to the gate with President Buchez, but the mob had already climbed over. Nothing could be done to stop them." Ledru's account is as follows : " During this time the people grew impatient and when I returned, twenty-five or thirty persons had climbed the gate. There was a cry to let the delegates enter; the gate was opened and the people rushed in. I do not know ^ Moniteur for 1848, p. 1051; Barjaud, Garnicr-Pagcs, and Marie at Barbes trial in Monitetir for 1849, pp. 986, 1078; Garnier-Pages 9: 151. ' Euchez, and Garnier-Pages at Barbes trial, Monitcur for 1S4Q, pp. -829, 1079; Lamartine 2:278; Malludc in Qucntin-Bauchart Report 1:82. 1 §4 LEDRU-ROLLIN AXD SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [338 whether you have ever seen the people take a mihtary pc^t by assault ; iron bars are playthings in their hands ; nothing can resist them." ^ The mob invaded the assembly hall. The deputies were indignant. Ledru-Rollin, Louis Blanc, Barbes showed by their countenances and their gestures as much affliction as the members of the right. Louis Blanc demanded silence out of respect for the right of petition. Raspail, encour- aged by some representatives, amid the protests of others, read the plea for Poland. Then President Buchez told the mob that now that their petition had been heard they should retire. Raspail shouted energetically " Those who do not retire are not good republicans." But Huber insisted on the procession marching past through the assembly hall. Barbes now mounted the platform. Amid cheers he spoke in favor of Poland, but urged the people to leave the hall. His words were having some effect when the sound of the rappel was heard outside. The mob became frantic. To gain time Buchez sent a counter-order to stop the rappel, knowing that this counter-order would arrive too late to have any effect. Blanqui made a plea for Poland, but soon began a series of violent digressions which had no bearing on the subject. Ledru-Rollin had been exerting himself to reach the tri- bune, and at last (it was about half past two) he achieved his object. He said : Citizens, I speak here not as a member oof the executive power, for I have not consulted with my colleagues ; I speak as a citizen, as a deputy. . . . You have expressed your desire .... that swayed by the feeling of fraternity France should extend its hand to the people of Poland. {Hurrah for Poland!) Certainly the chord that stirs your heart stirs ^/fei(f., 947-8. See also Quentin-Bauchart Report 1 : 311. For Ledru's exculpation of Albert, see Barbes trial in Reforme, March 21, 1849. 339] ^^-E FIFTEENTH OF MAY 185 ours also. . . . You have asked that measures be taken so that the people may live by labor. (A ministry of labor!) Finally you ask that the rappcl should not be beaten. {Yes, yes! On April 16, you betrayed the people! You have boasted of having sounded the rap pel!) In the revolution of February you gave a proof of your wisdom, of your prudence. {Inter- ruptions.) With that admirable good sense that characterizes the people of Paris who will not be deceived, {A ministry of labor!) With that admirable good sense that characterizes the people of Paris who wish guarantees and who at the same time perfectly comprehend the sentiments of justice and ex- pediency, you can understand that it is impossible for an as- sembly to deliberate in your presence; to deliberate thus would ruin its authority. {It deliberated February 24!) I demand that the Assembly decree a permanent session, but at the same time I demand that you retire beyond the threshold. {Yes, yes! No, no!) ^ This address was hardly heard beyond the radius of a few yards, and even where it was heard, as the interruptions show, it was badly received. The insurrection had passed far beyond the radicalism of Ledru-Rollin. Pandemonium reigned. Several proletarians threatened the president. One tried to clear out the tribune with the staff of his flag, but Raspail seized it and broke it, slightly injuring Ledru who was standing beside him." Two representatives even urged Ledru to " take the presidency if only to save us from anarchy." But Ledru replied : "I would rather die for right and duty, would rather let myself be cut in pieces than violate for one instant the rights of the National As- sembly." ^ President Buchez declared the session at an end. ' Moniteur 1060. * Ledru at Barbes trial, Moniteur for lS4(), pp. 947-8, and Reforinc, March 21, 1849. There are several variant versions of this incident. ^ Speech of Ledru on August 3, 1848, Discours foUtiqucs 2 : 47. Cf. Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:311. l86 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [340 Raspail and others still tried to induce the mob to retire, but Huber and his friends continued the disorder. Huber even declared the legislature dissolved. Finally the cry arose: To the Hotel de Ville! Barbes, Albert, and a large part of the crowd set out to go thither; Louis Blanc was carried off in the arms of the people, but he escaped at the first op- portunity. Ledru, seeing that he could do nothing in the assembly hall and fearing lest the mob should try and force him to join them, had gone into the courtyard. There, he says, " I was met and surrounded by men who wished to conduct me to the city hall. I declared that I would never be carried there alive. I even drew a pistol with which to shoot myself in case the violence towards me did not cease." ^ Ledru retired to the apartment of the concierge. There he was found by a group of a hundred loyal citizens who wished him to head them in an attack on the insurgents. He was in a state of extreme agitation and explained the necessity of awaiting at least one of his colleagues before acting. But Ledru despatched one of the citizens to the Hotel de Ville with the following verbal message : " Order the commandant to hold firm, to maintain order as best he can, to avoid the shedding of blood. Inform him that, dead or alive, the executive commission will arrive at the Hotel de Ville at exactly half past five. H it is impossible for me to join any of my colleagues, I shall go alone, I give you my word of honour." AVith great difficulty the messenger delivered this promise." Another similar communication was sent to the headquarters of the National Guard.^ ^ Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:311. Cf. Ledru at Barbes trial, Moni- teur for 1849, p. 947; Garnier-Pages 9:238; Barrot 2:195; Robin 2: 295 ; Lamartine 2 : 286. Stern 3 : 46-8 gives an elaborate but improbable account of this adventure. * Franqois, who vv^as the messenger, in Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 209-210. ' Hutheau d'Orign}' at Barbes trial, Momteur for 1849, p. 986. I 241 ] THE FIFTEENTH OF MAY 1 8/ Meanwhile the assembly hall was cleared of insurgents by the National Guard, who had collected at the sound of the rappel, and a little before five o'clock the session was re- sumed. Lamartine entered and was received with cheers. He mounted the tribune and declared that it was time to act, not talk, that the entire county was with him in putting down this revolt of a small faction. Ledru had been standing near the orator; he was asked to speak but remarked: " It is not worth while." ^ The two members of the executive commission then set off for the Hotel de Ville accompanied by several deputies and by a part of the National Guard." The escort grew as it proceeded, cheering frantically for the government When they got near the city hall, says Ledru, " M. de Lamartine was separated from me by a group and at that instant the National Guard shouted: There will he Uring from the zvindoivs. I advanced and cried : All the better; I shall die for right and the republic." ^ The insurgents, after leaving the Palais Bourbon, had marched to the Hotel de Ville and had entered it. They had ordered Mayor Marrast to surrender his power to them, but the latter had refused, and therefore two antagonistic governments existed side by side in different halves of the city hall. When Lamartine and Ledru arrived with their troops, they easily overpowered the insurrection and arrested the revolutionists. After taking all necessary measures for the safety of Paris in concert with Marrast, Ledru and Lamartine returned to the Assembly through crowds that impeded their progress.* ' Lagrange, ibid., 828. 2 " I mounted on horseback with M. dc Lamartine ; I did not even have a hat," says Ledru in Qucntin-Bauchart Report i : 311. 'Speech of August 3 in Discours politiques 2:47. Cf. Quentin- Bauchart Report 1:311; Republique, May 18. * Ledru at Barbes trial, Moniteur for 1849, p. 947; Huthcau d'Origny, ibid., 986; Lamartine 2:292-3; Garnier-Pagcs 9:261. 1 88 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [342 ^Meanwhile the Assembly had continued its session, Usten- ing to reports as to the quelling of the insurrection and arrest of the leaders, proposing drastic mesures against all who were suspected of a part in the revolt. It refused to listen to Louis Blanc, who desired to prove his own in- nocence. Garnier-Pages gave an account of how the ex- ecutive commission had conducted itself. Lamartine re- turned Avith Ledru and told what they had done. Marie declared that the government must retire and the session was closed after voting that the National Guard had de- served well of the country. During the evening of this crowded day Ledru, Lamar- tine, and some companions went to see General Courtais who had been imprisoned, for they believed him merely in- capable not culpable.^ At two o'clock in the morning Caus- sidiere appeared before the provisional government. He made a bold defence of his conduct during the day and, enumerated his services to the republic. First, all the members of the executive commission had been inclined to dismiss the prefect of police, but after Caussidiere had spoken, only Arago and Marie cast their ballots for dis- missal." But Caussidiere soon realized that it would after all be best to resign, and the next day his resignation was accepted. In his place was appointed Trouve-Chauvel, the prominent citizen of Le Mans who had obtained Ledru's election under the July monarchy and his rejection in the recent election. The Liberte declared that Ledru showed his colleagues a letter which he had received from Trouve- Chauvel, in which the latter had explained that he could no longer support the author of the March circular and of the * Ledru at Barbes trial, Moniteur for i84g, p. 947; Garnier-Pages 9: 298. 'Caussidiere 2: 140, 150-1; Favre in Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:280; Garnier-Pages 9 : 290-3 ; Stern 3 : 60-1. 243] THE FIFTEENTH OF MAY 1 89 policies it represented. " This letter .... caused the ap- pointment of M. Trouve-Chauvel .... if this incident is true, M. Ledru-Rollin has nobly avenged himself .... and shown the moderate tendencies of his ideas." ^ Many revolutionists had been arrested on May 15 and many others were suspected of having abetted the move- ment. Portalis, the attorney-general, and Landrin, the district-attorney, desired to have Louis Blanc and Caussi- diere prosecuted, and they believed that they had received the consent of the executive commission for this through Cremieux, minister of justice. In this they were mistaken; Ledru had strenuously opposed such action. " When the arrest of Louis Blanc and Caussidiere was demanded," he said later, " I examined the evidence carefully. Speaking as a jurist, I must say that nothing could justify in my eyes a condemnation which I also opposed for political reasons. As Portalis and Landrin insisted, I asked the dismissal of the attorney-general. The authority to prosecute was re- fused." " On May 31 the formal demand for permission to prosecute was made in the legislature, all the members of the executive commission being present except Ledru. On June 3 Favre reported for the committee to whom the re- quest had been submitted, in favor of prosecution. But many oratfDrs spoke for the accused. Marrast made one of his belated explanations; he admitted his mistake in be- lieving that he had seen Louis Blanc at the Hotel de Ville. The government did not support the demand for permission to prosecute. Accordingly the Assembly by a small majority rejected the motion. Two days later there were violent ac- cusations and counter-accusations in the legislature ; Landrin, Portalis, and Favre vs. Cremieux and Flocon. The first ' Liberie, May 20. ' Barbc-s trial in Reformc, March 21, 1849. No deputy could be prose- cuted without permission from the .Assembly. igo LEDRU-ROLLIX AXD SECOND FREXCH REPUBLIC [344 three named resigned their positions and became the deter- mined opponents of the government. Cremieux, though supported by his superiors, also felt it necessary to hand in his resignation. The events of May 15 had been the first blow to the executive commission, for it had shown its in- capacity in defending the capital. This dispute was the second blow, revealing a split in the government itself. For daA's baseless rumors circulated that Ledru, Lamartine, even Garnier-Pages had resigned.^ The weakness of the executive on May 15 made clear the necessity for a definition of its powers so that it might know Avhat action it could take in case another riot were threatened. The government had drawn up a bill defining the relations of the executive to the legislature. The committee to whom the government draft had been submitted had made a few modifications and there Avas much discussion on these minor points. The greatest difference of opinion arose over the question as to whether the commision should have the right to sound the rap pel or whether this privilege should be en- trusted only to the president of the Assembly. Ledru was the government spokesman. He declared that he saw no fundamental changes in the modifications. He insisted that the executive power must be strong; he blamed the con- servatives for wishing to refuse the commission a necessary power because they disliked those who would exercise it. " Distinguish between men and the offices they hold. I have attacked men; I have never attacked their offices. What I wished as a member of the opposition, I wish today as a member of the government. ... I repeat : What is necessary is a strong government that it may arouse the ^Police report in Quentin-Bauchart Report 2:199; Constitutionnel, Opinion piihlique, Organisation du Travail, Prcsse, June 7; Courier de la Chambre, Esprit national, Organisation du Travail, June 8; Bonnet Rouge, June 11. 245] T^^ FIFTEEXTH OF MAY I91 country and be effective abroad/' Ledru accepted the modifications of the committee as they did not weaken the government; were it otherwise, he and his colleagues could not remain in power/ This speech was will received. ]Marie made a similar oration, emphasizing the need for unity in command, and Lamartine supported his colleagues the next day. The executive commission was granted the right to sound the rappel and the amended draft was passed almost unanimously. It was neither a victory nor a defeat for the government. To prevent further riots the executive commission in- troduced a stringent law against public meetings, which Marie guided through the legislature and in favor of which he obtained an overwhelming vote. It was rumored that Lamartine and Ledru did not approve this law," but as a matter of fact the draft had been approved unanimously by the government.^ The executive commission also con- sidered measures for regulating the press. Ledru later said : " On June 22 I presented to the executive commission a bill that rejected financial deposits (caufionnement) by news- papers and which established moral responsibility by signa- ture; it was accepted by all the members .... and had it not been for the events of June 24 it would have been pre- sented to the legislature." * ' Disc ours politiqiics 2 : 28-32. ' Corkran 141. ' Corkran 141. * Garnier-Pages in Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 284. ■• Speech of August 3, Discours politiques 2 : 54. CHAPTER XIV The June Days After May 15 monarchists and ultra-revolutionists con- tinued their public agitation. The scurrilous newspaper of the extremists, the Pere Duchene, planned a great demon- stration for Sunday, June 11, in the form of a banquet under the walls of Vincennes prison where were incarcerated those arrested on May 15. Lamartine and Ledru desired to remove the prisoners; Arago, Marie, and Garnier- Pages considered a concentration of troops in the vicinity the wisest measure. All precautions were needless, for the banquet was abandoned.^ Trouble was feared from the National Workshops. When the establishment of a ministry of labor had been refused to Louis Blanc, Marie, minister of public works, had opened up workshops where manual labor was given to all work- ingmen out of a position. The scheme was fundamentally opposed to Louis Blanc's principles, and neither he nor Ledru-Rollin had any direct connection with the Workshops. Their head, Emile Thomas, was an avowed partisans of the moderates." Under the provisional government Marie had tried to use the Workshops as a force against the radicals. But so large had they grown that it was impossible to find '^Esprit national, June 8; Organisation du Travail, June 9, 1848. - Thomas i : 352-3. Higonnet, the organizer of the first attempt at National Workshops, was " imposed on us by Ledru-Rollin," says Thomas 40; this was the only mention of Ledru's connection made by Thomas in his volume on the Workshops. 192 [346 347] 'I'HE JUNE DAYS 193 any work for most of those enrolled and the financial burden upon the state was becoming oppressive. Trelat, who suc- ceeded Marie as tiinister, planned out carefully the dissolu- tion of the huge establishment at Paris, and he urged that the government undertake various enterprises in the depart- ments as a way of giving employment to a good many laborers. Trelat was a philanthropic physician but not an able statesman, and his measures for closing the Workshops were not of the wisest; but they were vastly better than those of the wily legitimist, Falloux, chairman of the legis- lative committee on labor. Falloux during June urged on the premature closing of the Workshops and prevented any adequate measures of relief. Ledru believed that Falloux wilfully fomented disorder in the working classes in order to overthrow the republic.^ Falloux was quite capable of this, but it is more likely that the conservatives were simply anxious above all to close the Workshops, which they feared as centres of disorder, and that they were willing to face any consequences that might result from such action. Cer- tainly the rumors of the premature dissolution were the occasion for the bloody June Days, and the act dissolving them was passed at Falloux's suggestion during the insurrec- tion. The following was Ledru's opinion on Trelat's schemes : " The National Workshops were the most serious preoccupation of the government. About May 20 the deci- sion was taken to close them. In that respect all the measures which human prudence demanded were taken, but all the orders were not strictly executed." " In 1849 he said : " The National Workshops existed. The executive commission planned to dissolve them; but while avoiding the danger of their existence, it did not wish to expose men * Voix du Proscrit 2 : 43-4. * Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 312. I Q^. LEDR U-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH RE ? UBLIC [ 348 to Starvation. Accordingly the workingmen were to be sent to various parts of the country where they might find bread and work." ^ The monarchists also were scheming {or the return of their various candidates to the throne. Most active were the Bonapartists. According to Garnier-Pages, they even approached Ledru-Rollin. A follower of Louis Napoleon, who was grateful to Ledru for some past actions, urged him to join the party which would soon grasp power. Ledru replied : " If I did not know you and if I were not restrained by the confidential character of your proceeding, I should have you arrested immediately as a plotter." - The question of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte was one that vexed the executive commission sorely. Twice under Louis Philippe this pretender had attempted to seize the crown. To the republic he had sent an offer of service, but his sup- porters were constantly weaving plots in his behalf. His complicity in them cannot be proved, but it is not unlikely that he favored them even if he did not actually take part in their preparation. He had been elected to the Constituent Assembly in four departments, but there was a law upon the statute books exiling all members of the Bonaparte family from France. The government had not enforced this law in the case of three of his cousins, but they were not pretenders. What was to be the official attitude toward the head of the family? The government was unanimous against allowing him to return to France, and it had sent orders for his arrest if he should attempt to cross the fron- tier.^ His colleagues approved when Ledru-Rollin said at a council meeting : ^ Delescluze trial in Revolution detnocratiqtie et sociale, IMarch 13, 1849. * Gamier-Pages 11 : 95. 3 Garnier-Pages 10: 191-3. Castellane 4: 179 writes: "In June, 1848, a 349] THE JUNE DAYS 195 We must be energetic or all will be lost. All information I have received shows the hand of Louis Napoleon at the bottom of these demagogic conspiracies. Do not have such contempt for the little man with the half-closed eyes. . . . An incurable Catiline, he makes a small group of conservatives believe that he is the friend of order. , . . Question even his cousins . . . and if they are in a frank mood, they will tell you that in matters of rascality he can always find a new twist. I ask to be allowed to arrest him.^ The Bonapartist question came before the Assembly first on June 12 in connection with an appropriation for 100,000 francs. Lamartine took the floor to debate the financial question, but soon a few scattered shots were heard outside the building. Lamartine went out to inquire what had happened; w^hen he returned, he launched forth upon a dra- matic account of a Bonapartist uprising in which Clement Thomas, the commander of the National Guard, had been fired upon. He demanded a decree specifically exiling the Napoleonic pretender. This was the last of Lamartine's great oratorical triumphs. The house was swept by enthu- siasm. In vain various orators rose to speak in opposition to Lamartine. The appropriation was passed by 569 votes to 112. Lamartine had gained a glorious vote of confidence for the executive commission." When the question of the admission of the pretender to the Constituent Assembly came up for discussion the next day, the intoxication of Lamartine's eloquence had vanished. certain prefect received a telegram : Arrest, with all the means in your power, Citiscn Louis Napoleon, if he appears in your department, signed Ledru-Rollin ; ii year later the same prefect received an iden- tical order to arrest Lcdru-Rollin, signed Dufaure, minister of Louis Napoleon." ^ Audebrand 213-6. 'Ledru did not take the floor, but he repeatedly interrupted with effective remarks the conservative orators. 1 ^6 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [350 Jules Favre spoke first; he claimed that the government through its usual mouthpiece, Cremieux, had agreed to the election of Prince Louis. When Ledru denied this, a violent altercation ensued in which Favre made a scathing attack on the government, and particularly on Ledru and Cremieux. Favre then ridiculed the fear of this Bonaparte and ended by advocating his admission to the Assembly. Buchez was against admission. " It is not a mere citizen who presents himself, but Prince Louis Napoleon," he said. Various orators spoke pro and con on the subject. One ridiculed Lamartine's account of the previous day, for the uprising turned out to be a very small riot. A letter from the absent prince was read, supposed to reveal the disinter- estedness of that individual who did not wish to trouble the republic by forcing himself on it as a deputy. At last Ledru obtained the floor. He spoke in the name of the government which must enforce an existing law. The very fact that the Assembly was discussing its abroga- tion or suspension proved its existence. Popular sovereignty was not in question, for the vote of three departments was not the vote of France. So had declared the authors of the constitution of 1793. To admit Louis Napoleon was to permit a single department to elect Henry V or the Count of Paris ; ^ this would be absurd. The law was not abro- gated by the admittance of other members of the Bonaparte family; that was an act of magnanimity to individuals who were not conspirators. Even if Louis Napoleon had not conspired himself, much had been done in his name. Ledru then gave various details as to Bonapartist intrigues. In the presence of these facts, he continued, the executive com- mission desired the enforcement of the law. The admit- tance of the pretender would not cause the death of the re- ^ The legitimist and Orleanist pretenders. 35i] THE JUNE DAYS 197 public, but it might lead to bloodshed. The government joined in wishing to abolish the law against the Bonapartes, but it asked that meanwhile it be maintained. It was claimed, the orator said, that Louis Napoleon was a stranger to these intrigues; everyone said so but he. Let him de- clare so plainly. The law should not be repealed for fear of an uprising. The agitators should be fought to the cry of Hurrah for the Republic! ^ At the end of Ledru's speech the session was suspended for several minutes while the partisans of the orator gave vent to their enthusiasm. The newspapers the next day were unanimous in declaring the speech a fine one. The conservative Dehats declared : " Our readers will easily un- derstand how little we like agreeing with M. Ledru-Rollin, but in this instance we cannot do otherwise. M. Ledru- Rollin is the only person who showed true political sense in the discussion, and we willingly admit that at times he even rose to true eloquence." " The speech certainly stands among* the best that Ledru ever delivered. It has his customary warmth, but it possesses in addition a quality in which he was usually deficient, a clear well-developed argument. The speech swept a hostile audience off its feet, and yet it did ^ Discours politiqucs, 2 : 33-9. * Debats, June 14. The Courier and the Constitutionnel, while dis- agreeing with Ledru's conclusions, call the speech respectively "the event of the session " and the " only speech worth discussing." Corkran 143-9, who was present in the gallery, writes: "Notwithstanding that I was under a prejudice against this gentleman ... his oratorical pow^ers took me by surprise. . . . There could be no doubt of the sincerity of his love for the republic. ... A jovial, restless fellow, full of animal spirits, who while aspiring to lead was likely to become an instrument in the hands of astute schemers. . . . Ledru-Rollin desires to pass for the Danton of February, and he has so far succeeded that he is to Danton what 1848 is to 1793. ... He wants the lion-like roar of his awful prototype, and affecting it . . . obtains the croaking of a gigantic frog. . . . Not being a moderate rcijublican and not being a socialist^ he is nothing." 1^8 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [352 not convince, for after a few more speeches and the read- ing of a letter in which Louis Napoleon declared his loyalty to the republic, the Assembly voted in favor of the admittance of the Bonapartist pretender to his seat. The majority was composed of various elements. Many wished to show their hostility to the executive commission. Some were in- fluenced by Louis Napoleon's letters. A few members of the extreme left, such as Louis Blanc, were opposed to all laws of banishment. Thus the future emperor obtained his entry into the Assembly, but three days later that wily poli- tician sent in his resignation. Ledru-Rollin and Napoleon had come into conflict for the first time on June 13, 1848. Exactly one year later to the day they came into conflict again, and that was practically the end of Ledru-Rollin' s legislative career. After the vote adverse to the executive commission was announced, the rumor spread that Ledru, even that the whole government had resigned/ For once rumor had a certain foundation. At the evening meeting of the execu- tive commission on June 13 Ledru and Lamartine expressed their desire to resign. x\rago and Marie were willing to do the same, but Garnier-Pages opposed a withdrawal in a time of danger. Ledru explained that his resignation would not be the abandonment of the republic, but on the contrary, a most efficacious way of devoting himself to it; in opposi- tion he could join his friends of the Mountain in a war on all reactionaries and pretenders." On June 14 the executive commission held a meeting with the ministers and other prominent officials like Mayor Marrast. A deputation appeared from the Palais National, the headquarters of the club of the moderates. Glais- ^ Constitutionnel, Patric, Penple Constitiiant, June 14; Lampion, June 15. * Garnier-Pages 10 : 294-5. 353] ^^^ JU^'^ D^ys 199 Bizoin, its spokesman, contended that the vote of the pre- vious day was not a vote of lack of confidence, that he and his friends feared that it might cause the resignation of the government, and that they had come to prevent that. After a general discussion in which Cavaignac, minister of w^ar, showed himself the most opposed to the idea of resign- ing, the government and its ministers decided by a vote of thirteen to five to remain/ Beside the extreme revolutionists and the conservatives, many moderates were dissatisfied with the executive com- mission, and there were many rumors of plans to overthrow it.- One real attempt to divide the government there was. On the morning of June 20 before the arrival of their two colleagues, Garnier-Pages, Marie, and Arago discussed a proposal made to the latter by some deputies. They were to form a more homogeneous government by separating from themselves their two absent associates. The three members of the government were in perfect accord as to giving an absolute refusal. Lamartine, they knew, desired to resign, and Ledru-Rollin would be delighted to become once more the leader of the extreme left; but they felt that it would rather weaken than strengthen the prestige of the govern- ment if they agreed. They did not mention the incident to Lamartine and Ledru in order not to cause them useless vexation and just indignation.^ ' Garnicr-Pages 10:295-301; Barthelemy-St. Hilaire on November 2^, 1848, in Monitcur for 1848, p. 3351. The five in favor of resigning were Lamartine, Ledru, Jean Reynaud, and probably Flocon and Bastide. ' The Landrin-Portalis attempt to institute proceedings against Louis Blanc and Caussidiere was supposed to be an attempt by Marrast to reach Ledru through Blanc. — Stern 3:70; Organisation dti Travail, June 12. It is also claimed that Marrast tried to make Arago dictator. — Stern 3 : 69. Ledru believed in 1850 that Marrast and Cavaignac had tried to form a triumvirate with Scnard or Bergcr to replace the execu- tive commission. — Voix du Proscrit 2 : 45-6. 'Garnier-Pages 11:54-6. 200 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [354 Meanwhile an insurrection was threatened and the execu- tive commission was aware of this. The poHce brought in continual reports of the probability of an uprising. The five chiefs of the government had done their utmost to collect sufiicient troops at Paris, It is difficult to ascertain the size of the army in and about Paris or to determine whether more troops could have been stationed there with- out too much weakening the frontier. But one fact stands out clearly. Whereas Cavaignac, minister of war, may have done the best he could or may have shown incapacity, no blame can fall on the members of the executive commission. They were constantly urging that more troops be brought to Paris. If this was not done, it was due either to the necessity of maintaining the forces elsewhere or to the incapacity of the minister of war, the agent of the govern- ment in such matters. When he discussed this matter later, Ledru-Rollin went too far in his accusations. He placed the " insatiable ambi- tion of General Cavaignac " beside the intrigues of the monarchists and the sufferings of the proletariat as one of the chief causes of the insurrection of June. On this charge Ledru is unconvincing. The only evidence that he gave was certain doubtful plots to overthrow the executive commis- sion in favor of the general and the small number of troops in Paris. As to the intrigues of the monarchists, Ledru proved that partisans of the three pretenders took part in the uprising. But he exaggerates the part of these con- servatives and understimates the share of the ultra-revolu- tionaries. " The unfortunate people," he claims, " were unconsciously the puppet of the old parties and the insane ambition of a soldier." ^ ^ Voix du Proscrit 2 : 43-8. See also ibid., i : 191-2 ; speeches on August 3, 1848 and on June 3, 1874, Discours poUtiqucs 2:47-8, 481-2; and at the Delescluze trial, Revolution deinocratique et sociale, March 255] THE JUNE DAYS 201 The terrible June Days were rightly called the insurrec- tion of hunger. The ultra-revolutionary leaders had been involved in the uprising of May 15 and were in prison or in hiding. Men like Louis Blanc and Caussidiere deplored the insurrection. Ledru-Rollin and Flocon cooperated actively in suppressing it; they favored Trelat's plans for closing the Workshops. It was a spontaneous movement caused by the utter despair of the working classes and oc- casioned by the rumors of the closing of the National Work- shops. The proletariat saw no chance of getting money by work and in its desperation turned to the barricades as the only hope. Bonapartist, legitimist, and Orleanist agitators undoubtedly egged on the people ; they may have encouraged the movement, but they did not cause it. The uprising was without leaders, without cohesion, without definite object. It was an insurrection of hunger. The dissolution of the National Workshops was begun by the government on June 21 when some of the laborers were ordered to the provinces where work would be given them. A committee headed by Pujol, a Bonapartist, came to the executive commission to protest against this action. It was received by Marie who showed great firmness and re- fused to yield to the insolent demands of Pujol. The com- mittee left, breathing vengeance and threatening a revolt. Marie ordered the arrest of the delegates, but the order was not carried out. On June 22 the executive commission met at eight o'clock in the morning. Orders had already been given to guard the capital, but due to the fault either of General Cavaignac or of one of his aides they were not carried out. Rccurt, minister of the interior, desired to stop the insurrection im- 12, 1849. Gamier- Pages, in a pamphlet of February 23, 1874, also gives details that the June days were a Bonapartist conspiracy. — LR Papers 3 : 264. 202 LEDRU-ROLLIK AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [356 mediately, but the two military men present, Cavaignac, the minister of war, and Clement Thomas the commander of the National Guard, opposed this measure. The executive commission itself was unanimous in desiring to occupy the streets to prevent bloodshed. Ledru remarked that bar- ricades were contagious and that the first had to be pre- vented if the}^ were not to be multiplied indefinitely. General Cavaignac, on the other hand, asserted that it was a great military mistake to divide the forces. " Let the barricades be built and then retake them with superior forces," he said. Vainly the five chief executives evoked the experience of the past. The council separated w^ithout coming to a decision. The two rival methods, that of prevention and that of con- centration had clashed for the first time.^ During the morning the left and the extreme left of the Assembly met together. It was decided that they could not eliminate one or two of the members of the executive com- mission for all were selected from the left ; they must either maintain the commission intact or replace it by an entirely new government, for to eliminate any member would be to blame him and thereby weaken the left. The general feel- ing at the meeting was that the situation demanded a dic- tatorship. The names of Dupont de I'Eure, Arago, Lam- artine and even Ledru-Rollin were successively proposed as dictator and rejected. Finally the name of Cavaignac was accepted.' A committee was appointed composed of Ducoux, Landrin, and Latrade; the two latter were friends of Ledru-Rollin but had broken with the government over 1 Barthelemy-St. Hilaire in speech of November 25, 1848 (quoted as B.-St. H.), Moniteur 3352. For rival statements as to troops, see Quen- tin-Bauchart Report i : 312 for Ledru ; speech of November 25. 1848, Moniteur 3355, for Cavaignac. Later in the morning Lamartine and Ledru wandered through Paris to judge for themselves the true char- acter of the public meetings. — Garnier-Pages 1 1 : 109. * Stern 2 : 201-2. 227] THE JUNE DAYS 20$ the prosecution of Louis Blanc and Caussidiere. The three delegates went to see General Cavaignac, but the General refused to discuss a dictatorship officially until the executive commission had been informed. During an ensuing in- formal conversation the General declared that he would accept power if given the authority to appoint his own ministers. The committee then went to see the executive commission, but when they reached the Luxembourg about eleven o'clock only Marie and Arago were present. On hearing their proposition the testy Arago flared into a pas- sion, declaring that the resignation of Ledru would cause trouble among the working people. Marie, who had kept his temper under control, put off the delegates till the next day. About this time the conservatives in the Rue de Poitiers had also come to the decision to work for the dictatorship of Cavaignac.^ E^rly on the morning of June 23 the executive commis- sion met. They ordered that the rap pel be sounded in three arrondissements and also ordered various arrests. Cavaignac now entered and after a heated explanation as to why he had not carried out orders by sending troops to the Pantheon, the two rival plans were again debated. The General advocated that the army be placed under his control, massed, then launched at the centres of revolt. The com- mission thought it best to attack each barricade as soon as it was built or even commenced. For a long time the com- mission maintained its opinion and only yielded with re- gret, leaving to General Cavaignac the determination and execution of military operations." The executive commis- * Garnier-Pages 11 : 107-117. 2 Lcdru in Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 312. In the Voix du Proscrit 2 : 47 Ledru says : " It was urgent to subdue the insurrection, in which as yet could be found only counter-revolutionary and provocative ele- ments, in order to prevent the true workingincn from being deceived as to the banner and joining the revolt." 204 LEDRU-ROLLIX AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [338 sion had seen on May 15 the need for unity of command and therefore gave Cavaignac complete control. Although disagreeing with him as to tactics, its members felt that the military commander must be allowed his own plan of cam- paign. They were neither soldiers nor military experts and so they yielded to the minister of war. They thought wisely as statesmen who took into consideration mob psychology while Cavaignac acted as a general who saw only an armed force to be defeated.'' After the early meeting Cavaignac, Lamartine, Ledru, and Marie set out for the Assembly. Arago went to the twelfth arrondissement where with the help of the National Guard he prevented any insurrection. Ledru claims that he had distributed food in this section, thus " contenting the arti- sans of the twelfth arrondissement who had come to me under the leadership of their mayor and had declared that they did not wish to take part in the revolt but that they were hungry." ^ Garni er- Pages, left alone at the Luxem- bourg, thought that insufficient troops had been sent to protect the city hall, the Palais Bourbon, and the Luxem- bourg; he therefore gave orders that fresh regiments be sent to these places, but Cavaignac on his return counter- manded these orders. Later in the morning the executive commission held another meeting. Numerous demands for troops had ar- rived, for serious fighting had begun at ten o'clock. Cav- aignac adhered strictly to his plan and rejected all such re- quests. Ledru-Rollin insisted Avarmly on furnishing the troops demanded by the commandant at the Porte St. Denis. The general was immovable in his decision; in an irritated ' For discussion of this meeting, see minutes of the executive commis- sion in Quentin-Bauchart Report 3:247; B.-St. H., Moniteur 3353; Gar- nier- Pages 11 : 125-134. * Voix du Proscrii 2 : 47. 0^9] THE JUNE DAYS 205 manner he declared that he did not care to expose the reg- ular army, that it was for the National Guard to prevent the erection of barricades/ About three in the afternoon Latrade, one of the delegates appointed by the lefts on June 22, visited the executive commission to suggest its resignation. Lamartine showed irritation but Ledru-Rollin was most affable. " My friend," he said, " You come in the name of mutual friends. It is in their name that you advised me to accept membership in the executive commission, and I then told you that you were making a mistake. It is in their name today that you ask my resignation. I wish to be with my friends even when they are wrong. There is my resignation, but my opinion is that if my friends made a mistake in making me enter the executive commission, they commit another in destroying that commission." Latrade refused the signed resignation, replying that if a collective resignation was a mistake, an isolated withdrawal would be an even greater one, and that it was best to wait and see what was decided. The conversation became general and only stopped when Garnier-Pages cried: " We discuss^the form of government when we should be acting against the insurrection that menaces us; our place is facing the uprising." Latrade was obliged to leave without having achieved his object." The commission now divided its work among the various members. Garnier-Pages went to the Assembly and then visited the various mayoralties. Lamartine went to the bar- ricades. Arago remained at the Luxembourg and kept an eye on the left bank. Only Ledru and Marie stayed at the combined military and civil headquarters, now situated in the Palais Bourbon. Ledru later told the story of the next few hours: ' B.-St. H., Monitcur 3353; Garnier-Pages 11:134-152. ' Garnier-Pages 11 : 19G. 2o6 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [360 About three-thirty General Cavaignac left headquarters to see how affairs were proceeding; he said that he would be absent not more than an hour. He did not return till nine in the evening, and I can never describe the tortures I underwent during his absence. All the mayors of Paris sent to me for reinforcements, all complained of not having troops, the National Guard cried treason, and there was I alone at head- quarters in a mortal anxiety beyond description. In the absence of my colleagues I took it on myself to write to the prefects and to demand all their forces that were near Paris. I hastened to send the order to Admiral Casy that he should immediately send troops from Brest and Cherbourg. On the return of General Cavaignac I admit that I showed great wrath.^ Again on November 25, 1848 Ledru told the Assembly : At half past three the general departed and went to the barricades ; he declared that he would return in half an hour. I know how his time was employed, but I shall not discuss that as that is not the question. Note carefully what passed. The executive commission was meeting in a room of the Palais Bourbon, All Paris, all the faubourgs without exception, came to the two members present, M. ]\Iarie and me, came to us for orders. For hours, from three-thirty to nine o'clock, the general, then fighting at the barricades .... was supreme commander, and it was his duty to be at the seat of authority, for the barricades could be bravely defended by others, and there were sufficient brave and illustrious generals, but the ^ Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:312; cf. B.-St. H., Monitcur 3353. It was at five o'clock that Ledru and iVIarie sent the following order to the prefect of the Lower Seine (Rouen) : " Citizen prefect. The fac- tions have thrown Paris into an extreme agitation. The aid of the National Guard of your department would be useful. Send it imme- diately to Paris as well as whatever battalions of the army are at your disposal. The minister of war should give the necessary orders to- night. If by chance they do not arrive, let these take their place." — Lille Library, No. 985, p. 683. See appendix. 361] THE JUNE DAYS 20/ seat of authority could not be filled by another. Now as the demands for troops came in, what could we reply? We were obliged to answer : The General is absent. To this the answer came: You are betraying us! The National Guard shouted: Treason; down with the Executive Commission! Then turning toward Cavaignac Ledru continued : You arrived at half past eight and you left again at nine. Here is, I said to you, a long list of demands. I have not been able to reply to them. I do not know where a single one of your battalions is. I cannot conflict with your orders. You left at nine o'clock, and you returned at two in the morn- ing. From nine to two I was again in the same situation. I make no accusations, but I say this : You acted in such a way that the National Guard could accuse me, for as people came in and could not find you, I could not answer. It was said : Ledru-Rollin is conspiring; Ledru-Rollin is betraying us! ^ About two in the morning of June 23-24 Cavaignac re- turned for the second time to headquarters. Ledru later said: Having asked General Cavaignac how many troops there were in Paris, I was told in reply that he did not know. I believed in beginning the attack again at the break of day and in sending two batallions to General Damesne. This was not the opinion of the general .... Cavaignac said: The honor of the army demands that I persist in my system. If even one of my companions were disarmed, I should cut my throat; let the National Guard attack the barricades. If it ' Discours politiques 2 : 135-6. Cf. at Delescluze trial, Revolution demo- cratique et socialc, March 13, 1849. At ten P. M. Ledru and his col- leagues sent off a second order to Rouen : " The commission of the ex- ecutive power asks the prefect of the Lower Seine to send to Paris immediately all the troops of the National Guard and of the line at his disposal. . . . Requisition the railroads to transport the troops." — Lille Library, No. 985, p. d&Z- Sec appendix. 2o8 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [362 is defeated, I zvould rather retire to the plain of St. Denis and there offer battle to the uprising.^ Cavaignac wished to leave again and go to bed at the ministry of war. Ledru-Rollin opposed this; he declared that the members of the executive commission were worn out and yet remained at their post, that a moment of negli- gence might mean a calamity, and that the General ought not to leave. Cavaignac deigned no reply, but instead of leaving he went into an adjoining room and threw himself- upon a couch. The soldier slept while the civilian, Ledru- Rollin, kept watch. About three o'clock firing began again, and at half -past four headquarters were aroused by a staff officer. The officer was told that Cavaignac was sleeping but he insisted on seeing him. The officer with difficulty was induced to let Ledru-Rollin take his place in awakening the commander-in-chief. Cavaignac merely repeated his orders to keep the regulars massed and inactive. Thus the night wore slowly on. At seven o'clock the executive commission held a short meeting and then Garnier-Pages started for another tour of the mayoralties.' The Assembly had passed an exciting day on the twenty- third. A permanent session had been decreed early in the sitting. The Assembly disregarded the suggestion of issuing a circular to appease those insurgents who were sincere and had no ulterior motives. It listened to reports as to the progress of the insurrection and the measures of the government ; it heard the accounts of Lamartine, Cavaignac, and Garnier-Pages. The session was suspended at mid- night. ^ Quentin-Bauchart Report 1:312-3. Cf. B.-St. H., Moniteur 3354; Etex 247-8. Ledru also accused Cavaignac of causing a delay in the arrival of cannon which he, Ledru, had ordered up from Vincennes. — See Ledru in Quentin-Bauchart Report i : 312-3 and Cavaignac on No- vember 25, 1848, Moniteur 3356-3360, 3364. ' B.-St. H., Moniteur 3354-5. 363] THE JUXE DAYS 209 By the morning of June 24, as the insurrection spread and no measures were taken to prevent the building of barri- cades, the majority of the Assembly began openly to ex- press its desire for a concentration of power. Latrade and his colleagues had already tried unsuccessfully to induce Cavaignac to accept the dictatorship. The conservatives of the Rue de Poitiers had expressed the same desire. In this we can now see one of the ironies of history, although it did not become known until November. The executive com- mission which had desired to stop the building of the bar- ricades and to attack the insurgents, was to be removed be- cause its advice had not been accepted, and it was to be re- placed by the minister of war, the very man on whose in- sistence the plan of prevention had been abandoned. Thus the Assembly entirely approving the policy of the executive commission, wished to overthrow the commission and put the dictatorship in the hands of that member of the cabinet whose policy is distrusted. It certainly was the height of irony to entrust the sole power to the chief advocate of the system of concentration. Senard, who had succeeded Buchez as president of the Assembly, came to discuss with Cavaignac a new executive. The general declared that he would make no efforts to be- come dictator, but if it were the wish of the Assembly, he would accept the responsibility of government; he left the matter entirely to the Assembly. Senard saw also the ex- ecutive commission. Garnier-Pagcs declared that the good of the country was his first thought and that the government could not resign in a time of danger. His colleagues agreed with him and refused to abdicate. Senard left, determined to do his best to overthrow the executive commission in spite of its opposition.* i 1 B.-St. H., Moniicur 3355. 2IO LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [364 The meeting of the Assembly on June 24 opened at eight o'clock in the morning. After President Senard had re- ported on the progress of the uprising and after a motion for a secret session had been rejected, the Assembly passed three motions. A permanent session was decreed by un- animous vote; a state of siege, by a decided majority; and by a small majority " all power is entrusted to General Cavaignac." Three members of the extreme left protested against the state of siege. Quentin-Bauchart and Jules Favre desired to remove the executive commission by a specific decree, but the Chamber wished to spare the five members this humiliation and merely implied their removal by appointing Cavaignac over their heads. In the meantime a new discussion had opened at head- quarters in the Palais Bourbon. It was too late to pre- vent the building of barricades, but they might be attacked immediately. This was the advice of Ledru and his col- leagues. But the General was inflexible and the insistence irritated him. He refused.^ Finally the news of the ap- pointment of Cavaignac as dictator arrived. According to Garni er- Pages, he and Lamartine were glad of the deliver- ance. IMarie felt the injustice of their removal. Arago smiled. " AI. Ledru-Rollin found it bizarre to be thus re- jected by the national representatives whom he had defended so energetically against a Bonapartist insurrection which he could have transformed into an ultra-democratic revolu- tion by taking its leadership and accepting the dictatorship." ^ 1 Ibid., 3355. Barthelenij^-St. Hilaire places at this point the remark of Cavaignac about cutting his throat if one of his companies were dis- armed and preferring to fight on the plains of St. Denis. ' Gamier- Pages 11:276. Cf. Hugo 1:356-9, who says: " M. Ledru- Rollin, very rei\, was sitting on the edge of the table. M. Garnier-Pages, very pale and lying in an armchair, made a great contrast to him. The antithesis was complete. Gamier- Pages, spare and long-haired; Ledru- Rollin, stout and bald." 365] THE JUNE DAYS 211 The commission, considering a formal resignation necessary, signed the following declaration : " The com- mission of the executive power would fail in duty and hon- our by retiring before a public peril ; it retires only because of a vote of the Assembly. In returning the powers with which you invested it, it rejoins the ranks of the Assembly to devote itself with you to the common dangers and to the safety of the republic." ^ Lamartine remarked to Victor Hugo on this same day of June 24: "Do not judge me too quickly; I was not minister of war." - This remark sums up the situation. If the government is to be blamed for its actions during the June Days, it is the minister of war who was responsible. If there were insufficient troops, it was due to Cavaignac; as to the reinforcements they were all ordered up, not by the commander-in-chief, but by Ledru-Rollin and Marie. If the barricades were not attacked in time, it was owing to- the opposition of Cavaignac; it was his policy of concentra- tion that allowed the insurrection to spread. If there was not unity of command, again on the General falls the whole onus; the executive commission did all that it could; it gave him sole command; it was his absence from the head- quarters that caused the lack of coordination. If devotion to duty is considered, recall the picture of Ledru-Rollin on duty while Cavaignac slept. Cavaignac may be charged with incapacity. He showed no ability in quelling the revolt. His plan of concentra- tion has generally been blamed. He seems to have lost his head and his temper repeatedly during the first day. He spared the army at the expense of the National Guard. On the other band, of treachery to the government, the minister of war should be acquitted. He showed his loyalty to it ' Monitcur 1490. " Hugo 1 : 359. o 12 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [366 by rejecting the first offers of a dictatorship, and on the twenty-fourth he openly avowed his position before the com- mission. However, he never admitted until the following November that he was responsible for the failure to attack the barricades; it is quite possible that, if he had made a declaration to that effect to Senard, he would never have received the dictatorship. To sum up, the executive commission showed energ}^ and ability in facing the insurrection and there was no good reason for removing it at that time. Cavaignac had few qualifications for the position thrust upon him; he was a competent soldier, an honest man, and the brother of a great republican, Godefroy Cavaignac. For several days the legislature met, merely to listen to reports of the progress of the insurrection. Cavaignac had at last concentrated his troops, and after frightful carnage the uprising was finally suppressed. On June 26 the As- sembly voted a commission of inquiry into the affairs of May 15 and June 23; the next day it decreed the deporta- tion of the rebels; on the twenty-eighth it voted that Cav- aignac, Senard, and Mgr. Affre, Archbishop of Paris, who had been killed during the revolt, had deserved well of France. The old ministry of course fell with the executive commission and on June 18 the new ministry was announced. Senard was minister of the interior and the other members of the cabinet were all moderates, chiefly men connected with the National. The assembly showed that it did not withdraw its favor from all the members of the fallen gov- ernment, for it elected Marie as its president, and Arago became chairman of the seventh bureau. But is viewed with disfavour Ledru-Rollin, Lamartine, even Garnier- Pages. Rumors were even current that the two former would be arrested.^ ' Times, June 29; Normanby 2:80-1; Bondc 212. CHAPTER XV The Committee of Investigation Ledru-Rollin was now able to assume the position of leader of the Mountain or the extreme left of the Assembly. During the month after his fall he spent little time in Paris but remained mostly at his home in the country at Fon- tenay-aux-Roses. On July i Ledru and Lamartine defi- nitely severed their connection. Dargaud, the alter ego of the poet, relates : On July I I arrived at Lamartine's house in time to learn of his breals: with Ledru-Rollin. It was noon. . . . On the stairway I met M. Ledru-Rollin, who was leaving as I entered. He had the proud air of a bully. Curious, I entered the office of M. de Lamartine, who hastened to tell me the con- versation with the former minister of the interior. The con- versation was summed up in the phrase of Lamartine : JVe are not separating, for if zve agreed on politics, our natures never agreed.^ Lamartine's last phrase explains the break. He and Ledru might temporarily work together, but the moderate and idealist, Lamartine, could not remain long in harness with the practical radical, Ledru, who would advocate extreme measures in intemperate language when no longer restrained by a ministerial position. On June 26, as already stated, the Assembly had appointed a committee to investigate the events of May 15 and the 1 Cognets : Lamartine 422-3. Z67] 213 214 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [368 June Days. This committee was composed almost solely of conservatives. It chose as its president the veteran Odilon Barrot, as reporter the young but equally unfair Ouentin-Bauchart. The committee summoned a large number of witnesses. Ledru, for instance, was questioned July 5.^ The committee soon showed that it was deter- mined to do everything it could to discredit the provisional government. It extended its investigations far beyond the limits prescribed and inquired into everything that could be found against the members of the provisional government, and in particular against Ledru-Rollin and Louis Blanc, and also Caussidiere. Rumors of its work spread abroad, and it was frequently stated that Louis Blanc, Caussidiere, Ledru, and even Lamartine, would soon join Barbes and Blanqui at Vincennes." On August 3 the committee of investigation was ready to report. Ouentin-Bauchart was its spokesman. He be- gan with the causes of May 15 and June 23; he dwelt on the actions of certain members of the provisional govern- ment, on the circulars of Ledru-Rollin and the Bulletins of the Republic, read parts of the notorious sixteenth bulletin, mentioned the dissensions in the government, ascribed the Belgian fiasco to the minister of the interior, dwelt upon the unrest caused by the activities of the Luxembourg ^ and of the National Workshops. He then considered the crises that had occurred under the provisional government. He 1 For account of fictitious and absurd visit of Quentin-Bauchart to Ledru, see Ganlois, February 28, 1S74. 2 London Morning Post, July i, 2, quoted in Reformc, July 7, 1848; Normanby 2:80-1, 89; Bonde 212, 220, 243-4. The last-named passage states : " I know for certain that Senard applied for leave to take pro- ceedings against Lamartine and Ledru-Rollin, and that it has been refused for fear it would shake the republic." ^ A commission presided over by Louis Blanc and concerned with dis- cussion of labor questions. 369] 'THE COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION 215 claimed that Caiissidiere had published insurrectionary plac- ards and that Ledru-Rollin had aided the uprising of April 16. In connection with May 15, the actions of the Club des Clubs and of Barbes' club were emphasized, and Quentin-Bauchart stated that Louis Blanc and Caussidiere were implicated in the insurrection. As to June 23, the government was blamed for lack of diligence, Caussidiere for being named as a leader in a placard of June 17 and for being hailed as such by the insurgents on June 25, Louis Blanc for using his influence on the National Workshops to aid the insurrection, Proudhon for praising the defenders of the barricades, Quentin-Bauchart then spoke of the ramifications of these revolts in the departments. He ended with the phrase: March 17 was a popular manifesta- tion, April 16 a conspiracy, May 15 an assault, June 23 civil war. Amid constant interruptions Quentin-Bauchart fi^nished his report and it was clear to all that it was an attack upon the provisional government, but particularly an attack upon Ledru and Louis Blanc, together with Caus- sidiere. Barrot asked that confi.rmatory documents be published, and the Assembly agreed. Ledru-Rollin rose immediately to reply : I hear some of my honorable friends say: Wait for the printed documents. . . . But what need of them have I to defend a principle? For it is not to defend myself that I am here; it is to make respected a sacred principle which can be violated against me today, against you later. What is the investigation anyway? I have been heard by it once, and not one of the facts with which my name is con- nected, not one was mentioned before me. . . . {Turning to^ wards Barrot) . You look at me and laugh ; instead of laughing, consult your memory. I appeal to your recollections, to your honour. Was I questioned on one of the facts with which I am reproached? . . . And do you believe that to refute you 21 6 LEDRU-ROLLIN AXD SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [370 I have need of printed documents ? . . . I appeal to all shades of opinion. I say that the Assembly should be astounded at the report it has heard. Yes, astounded ; for such a precedent has not existed in the worst days of legislative assemblies .... Whenever there have been tribunals, whenever there have been general investigations by legislatures, there have been individuals accused, castigated, but nothing, nothing, like this. Once only .... after the Ninth of Thermidor ; there is no other example. And you know how that report which tried to stain the reputation of the great incorruptible of the Revolution, has been despised by history ! Do you wish that reputation ? Shall I speak of the revolutionary tribunal ? Oh there to be sure the accused was brought before the court, he gave his name, he was condemned. But in what a situation were the judges! In the presence of foreigners and of fac- tions agitating within! . . . Are we today in the same situa- tion? And yet what have you done? You have accused some, you have attacked others, and you have not confronted them with a single witness, not one! You kept no minutes, and yet you say that that does not matter, for later the courts of justice will intervene. And what is your justice to me? A material penalty ! The loss of my liberty ! What do I care for that? Did not I sacrifice all such considerations on February 24? ... In marching to the Hotel de Ville I said to the friend the people had just given me, I said to Lamartine : We are marching to Calvary. ... I have no fear of your material penalties. . . . What does affect me is the opinion of the country, is calumny. . . . For three months attempts have been made to kill me morally. But out of respect for this revolution in peril I have kept silent; I have remained mute. And I am still to wait four mortal days. You must allow me to explain without waiting for the printing of your report and your confirmatory documents. I shall do so briefly without hatred, without anger. At this point Ledru disavowed responsibility for the six- teenth bulletin, denied that he had had any part in conspiracies 371 ] THE COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION 217 prior to April 16 or in any other plots, explained his actions on May 15, and asserted his energy during the June Days. I made a record of the facts in case a ball should hit me ; I did not wish odious accusations to weigh on my memory, but I had to be silent for a month, overwhelmed by calumnies. . . . Do not bear me ill-will for the heat of improvisation; one thought lies deep in my heart; it must come to my lips. You who formed the committee are not my friends, you do not think as I do. I respect your consciences. I alone in the old Chamber thought it possible to pass without transition front the monarchy to the republic; is not that my crime? Well, search your hearts ; are you sure that you like me have for- gotten all bitterness? Are you sure that you like me have forgotten all anger? Are you sure that in spite of yourselves some of that rancour has not gone into your report? You cannot be sure, for you are human beings ; and I firmly believe that political commissions, no matter how instituted, are not courts of justice ; they kill but they do not judge. You speak of concord, and Great God ! your report is filled with dis- sension and hatred. . . . Your report is not a work of justice ; it is a piece of partisanship. Parties ! The republic should have but one: the grandeur of France and the happiness of the people. We dispute while it is starving. One policy alone can save us : union, concord ; yes, save us from perils at home and coalitions abroad.^ The orator's success was complete. General Cavaignac, who had shown his hostility to Ledru during the past month, left his place and puljlicly shook his hand. Changarnier tried to refute part of this speech by denying that T.cdru had caused the rappel to be sounded on April \f\ but l.cdru appealed to Marrast, the newly-elected president of the Assembly. Marrast in one of his belated explanations com- pletely upheld the former minister of the interior. I.cdru ^ Discours poUl'tques 2:40-9. For extracts, .sec pp. 2,6, MSA 153, i8s, 187, 191- 2i8 LEDRU-ROLLIX AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [372 urged that the date for the real discussion on the report be fixed, but no decision was made that day. After short protests by Caussidiere and Louis Blanc the session closed. The committee of investigation had gone too far. The Assembly was willing to take a few steps backwards on the road to reaction, but it was not as yet willing to retreat as far as had the committee. It still possessed some of that feeling of general good-fellowship with which in the open- ing session it had hailed the republic. Ledru-Rollin had exactly gaged the sentiment of his audience ; he did not once strike a false note. His plea for fairness, his plea for con- cord was received with sympathy. Cavaignac had responded to it when he held out his hand. Marrast had responded to it when he gave Ledru credit for his part on April 16. Ledru had the country with him. Only the Dehats, the Constifutinncl, and the Avenir National had a good word to say for the committee, and their praise was not unalloyed.^ The Dehats, while blaming the provisional government and saying : " Ledru-Rollin in particular governed as a party man," added : " Ledru-Rollin defended himself with true warmth and with accents by which it was hard not to be affected." The Constitut'wnnel suspended its judgment, admitted that the charges against Ledru were purely political, and declared : " He spoke with conviction. The warmth of his speech, which sometimes sins by excess, was today in perfect harmony with the case." The republican papers were emphatic. The governmental National wrote: " France will learn with sorrow what happened today. . . . The report threatens to sow new germs of division and discord. . . . M. Ledru-Rollin's truly eloquent speech pro- duced a profound impression." ^ ' ^ Gradis I : 213. ^ Debats, Conslitutionnel, National, August 4. 373] THE COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION 219 So effective was Ledru's attack on the committee that even among the conservatives, only two deputies dared to ■congratulate Quentin-Bauchart on this, his maiden speech/ An unimportant conservative named Carton wrote on August 6 : My dear Ledru, I have just read the report of M. lUiuchart and your oration. I have kept aloof from politics, but I can- not now resist the desire to congratulate you. I found in your fervid words that sincerity and that elevation of senti- ment which has long attracted me to you, and they are enough to justify, if there were any need of justification, the purity of your intentions and of your conduct in the eyes of all sensible people. In my opinion the case the commission made against you is judged. I should not have allowed myself to trouble you about an emotion which, although deep, has no importance as an element of public opinion, had I not found among my friends, old conservatives like myself, the same opinions which I hold. This small testimonial of sympathy will, I hope, be of some pleasure to you amidst the bitterness of public life.'- " Whatever results flow from this investigation," re- marked Marrast, " it need not be regretted since it gave us the speech of Ledru-Rollin." ^ Daniel Stern wrote on August 14: The acclamations drawn from an audience which, if not hostile, was at least unfriendly, constitute one of the most * Quentin-Bauchart i : 80. Neither he nor Barrot 2 : 292-5 made a satisfactory reply to the accusations of partiality and unfairness. Bar- rot's inordinate vanity appears humorously when lie implies that he gained a success on August 3 because Ix-dru in spite of his attacks was unable to make him reply. It should Ix; noted, on the other liaiid, that Quentin-Bauchart severely blames Barrot ffir this very silence. * LR Papers i : 244. See appendix. ■'' Quentin-Bauchart i : 79. 220 LEDRU-ROLLIX AXD SECOXD FRENCH REPUBLIC [374 astounding triumphs of revolutionary eloquence. That session, left with the Assembly the impression that if Ledru-Rollin while in power did not show himself as prudent, as moderate as possible, if he sometimes swerved regrettably from the path of duty, he remains by his temperament, by his ability, a powerful defender of liberty, who exercises a decisive and salutary action upon the country at critical moments. The enemies of Ledru-Rollin gave him a chance for a good defense by their outrageous severity and have aided him against their wishes in reestablishing himself in public opinion.^ Even Lord Normanby admitted : " The feeling of unfair- ness at the proceedings was very general. . . . The manner of Ledru-Rollin was for the first time very favorable to him. . . . His whole bearing was that of an honest man." ' The accusations of the committee of investigation w^re unfair, almost absurd, and Ledru-Rollin's eloquent rebuttal united an admirable refutation of the charges with pleas for harmony. He had thrown back the imputation of party feeling on his accusers. The report was not a bludgeon but a boomerang. The efforts of the extreme left were now^ directed to- ward securing an early discussion of the report. Ledru demanded on August 5 that a day be set by the Assembly for that purpose. Barrot explained that the committee was doing its best to have the testimony printed, but he added : " I declare that the details of the report are merely a weak expression of the testimony." Again it was Ledru who replied. He once more pleaded for haste, and then scath- ingly rebuked Barrot for the unjustifiable remark which embittered the discussion. Ouentin-Bauchart promised to do his best to expedite the printing. " You are interested ^ Stern : Lettres repubUcaines, No. 9, pp. 5-6. * Xormanby 2 : 134-6. 375] 'THE COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION 221 in delay, we in hastening the discussion," interjected Ledru. For this remark President Marrast mildly rebuked him. Caussidiere supported the leader of the Mountain, but Barrot insisted that it was as yet impossible to fix a day for the debate, and the Assembly agreed with him. Again the honours of the day lay with the left. They had shown their desire that the truth be revealed whereas the right through Barrot's remark had even more clearly displayed unjust partisanship.^ On August 9 Louis Blanc renewed the discussion. Mornay, a conservative member of the investigating com- mittee, now gave the radicals a new ground for complaint; he resigned from the committee because not all the testi- mony collected was to be printed. Bauchart protested that only a few documents had been omitted as unessential. Louis Blanc seized the point and developed it. Bauchart, on whom Barrot let fall the brunt of the debate, again re- plied amid numerous interruptions from Ledru and his friends. Nothing was decided. On August 12 the matter was again brought up. The twenty-first was suggested for the discussion of the report. " Too late," declared Ledru, but the Assembly decided on that or the following day. Ledru extracted a promise from President Marrast that all the testimony should be printed. Meanwhile the Assembly had taken up the question of the press and a law had been proposed for the bonding {cautionnement) of newspapers. This meant that every newspaper must deposit with the authorities a certain sum of money on which the government could draw for any fines inflicted. Louis Blanc opposed the law, declaring that the liberty of the press was the corollary of universal suf- frage and that a deposit of money was no guarantee against ^ Monileur for jSjS, pp. 1895-6. For distorted version, sec Barrot 2: 295-6. 222 LEDRU-ROLUN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [376. abuse of the right of free sprech. Fehx Pyat protested against any restrictions upon the press. Mathieu de la Drome asserted that requiring a bond was equivalent to re- establishing ihe censorship. Other orators suggested as substitutes jury trials for infraction of the law or the in- fliction of fines without a preliminary deposit, or they denounced the plan as monarchical or illiberal. The de- fenders of the proposal were of two types. Some, like Leon Faucher, pointed out the troubles which had been caused by the newspapers during Alay and June and insisted on a permanent law controlling them. Others, like the chief government orator, the new minister of justice, Marie, de- fended the project as temporary and as necessary during" the disturbed times. Ledru's opinions were as follows : First let me define clearly what we want: liberty of thought — all the world is in accord on that; respect for authority — * without this, society is impossible. It is the solution of this problem which now presents itself .... to harmonize liberty and authority. ... If it is a penalty that you wish, 24,000 francs are not sufficient. . . . Rich people can easily find that amount. It must then be a preventative that your are seek- ing so that poor people who have thoughts cannot freely ex- press them. The argument that this law is merely transitory is that of all bad causes. A better guarantee would be the compulsory- signing of all articles; the vehement journalist would be restrained by the moral responsibility of his printed signature. This is not a new idea. Do not follow the example of monarchical England but that of republican America which invented new methods of maintaining liberty. In America, that great countn,- which is worthy to set an example, there are no stamps, no bonding; there is absolute 2yy] THE COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION 223 liberty. . . . What I am saying to you is not a passing thought with me ; I supported this idea when in opposition ; I supported it on February 24; I supported it on June 22 when I was in the government. . . . Let me quote the advice of the great American statesmen, ... of one of its presidents from whose mouth I had the honour of hearing it ; it is to decentralize the press instead of centraHzing, strengthening it. . . . Let the newspapers multiply so that they may neutralize one another. Under a monarchy the press takes the place of universal suf- frage and acts as a counterbalance to the king. Under a republic it should be merely an austere censor, the messenger of new truths. These principles may not be those of the Assembly, but they are neither disorganizing nor anarchical. I am delighted to defend you, gentlemen of the press, you who have so outrageously, so odiously attacked me. Ledru- Rollin, who speaks on your behalf, is, according to you, Ledru- Rollin the thief, the libertine. It is thus that you have re- paid my devotion to the republic. ... 1 could not reply to these attacks, but I comforted myself with the words of our master, Franklin: If these are vices for which they criticize me, their censure will cause me to reform ; if they are calumnies, perhaps some day history in its turn will expose them. . . . I believe that what is proposed to you with a good purpose is bad. . . . To enchain, to attack liberty under any pretext what- soever is some day to kill the government you wish to found .... Refer the examination of this plan back to the com- mittee, and you will reconcile the two principles of authority and liberty, by which societies should be founded and with- out which they cannot live.^ This speech made a deep impression and was admittedly the great oration in opposition to the uieasurr. It was re- strained and elocjuent. The general structure was logical, 1 Discours poliliqucs 2: 50-7- 224 LEDRU-ROLLIX AXD SECOXD FRENCH REPUBLIC [378 but at times the orator's emotion carried him to splendid outbursts that wandered slightly from the argument but en- hanced the effect. Note the admiration of America and the dislike of aristocratic England. Senard, minister of the interior, made what the National called a '' clever reply," paying tribute to Ledru-Rollin's pro- ject for signed articles, but insisting that it was better to await a revision of the code before adopting it. The next day Faucher attempted a complete refutation, ridiculing Ledru's proposed substitute and praising the government scheme as permanently desirable. An amendment embody- ing the idea of signed articles and the personal responsibili- ity of the author was defeated 407 to 342 by a combination of the government and the right, and the bonding law was then passed. The way in which Quentin-Bauchart's speech of August 3 had been received did not discourage the conservatives. Creton, the most inveterate personal opponent of Ledru in the legislature, desired to make an interpellation on the expenses of the provisional government, and President IMarrast reluctantly appointed August 21 for the interpella- tion.^ Creton wished to know how much money had been spent in abetting civil war, how much had been given to those birds of prey, the clubs' delegates sent into the pro- vinces, how much had been expended on armed propaganda in Belgium and Savoy. The entire left and centre of the Assembly protested against Creton's attack. Naturally Ledru replied. He expostulated against this attempt to stir up ill-feeling. He explained how impossible were any irregularities, how every cent of expenditure had been ap- proved by the entire provisional government; accordingly " its eleven members must have been my accomplices ; in * For letters of Marrast to Creton and of Creton to Ledru, see ap- pendix. 379] THE COMMITTEE OF IXl'ESTIGATIOX that case the dispute descends from the odious to the absurd." Ledru gave details as to all the expenses that might be questioned. He declared himself willing to aid in any further investigations. This plain explanation might have cleared the air if Ledru had not been carried away, as he was so frequently, into accusing his enemies. *' There has been a revolution,'' he said in closing; "before it you belonged to the party of the blind, and you have not yet opened your eyes. You are one of its incurable enemies." ^ Creton resumed his attack, dwelling upon the irruptions into Belgium and Savoy. Ledru-Rollin interrupted him with details, and President jMarrast reminded the disputants that they were wandering from the subject before the house. Goudchaux and Duclere, former ministers of the treasury, repelled Creton's accusations. Finally the subject was dropped, but a few days later a committee was appointed to examine into the expenditures of the provisional govern- ment. By the seventeenth of August the first volume of the Quentin-Bauchart report was in the hands of Marrast. who, amid the lively interest of the Assembly, pointed out pri- vately certain passages to Ledru-Rollin." .\ few days later the two other volumes appeared. Karcly has a committee of investigation shown such unfairness. It had liccn told to investigate the events of May 15 and of the June Days, and yet it had devoted but little of its attention to those events. It had obviously neglected evidence that would im- plicate monarchists and had mafic a painstaking research into ever}'thing that might discredit their oppoiu'iits. Some justification might l:>e found for investigating the earlier manifestations of March 17 and .\pril 16, and the committee ' Discours poliliqucs 2:58-64. I'nr extracts, .sec pp. (u-^. \(\.\. * Journal dcs Villcs ct Camfagnes, August 18, 184X. 226 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [380 cannot be seriously blamed for inquiring into the dissen- sion within the provisional government or the so-called cabals at the ministry of the interior. But no fair-minded individual can find any reason for making elaborate re- searches into so unrelated a matter as the complicity of the government in the Belgian fiasco of Risquons-tout, and no words can sufficiently condemn the inexcusable broadening of the sphere of inquiry to include the personal honesty of Ledru-RoUin. The committee seemed to take great pleasure in inserting in their report every calumny they could unearth against Ledru-Rollin. Unfortunately for it, however, the evidence when sifted only proved his unimpeachable in- tegrity. The committee had summoned all the prominent men of the republic but had arbitrarily questioned them on a few matters, never on the matters of which they were accused. Ledru, for instance, had been asked about the manifestation of May 15, Sobrier, the National Workshops, the June Days, the finances of the provisional goverrmient,. but never a W'Ord as to the Risquons-tout affair, never a word as to the cabals at his ministry, never a word as to his relations with the Club des Clubs. Yet these were all matters into which the committee had inquired and con- cerning which Ledru's statements in defense of his actions should certainly have been considered of importance. Finally, all the calumnies not explicitly refuted (and the committee had been careful to avoid questioning those who might have refuted them) had been included as truths in the report. To sum up, the committee had devoted most of its energ>' to fields far out of its jurisdiction and had made investiga- tions with the deliberate purpose of collecting everything it could find unfavorable to its opponents. Particularly had it aimed at Ledru-Rollin, Louis Blanc, and Caussidiere. And yet Barrot had the audacity to maintain in his memoirs that the committee acted impartially and that Ledru was im- 381] THE COMMITTEE OF IXFESTIGATIOX 227 plicated in plots in April and was morally responsible for the insurrections in ISIay and June/ Nearly all the second- ary writers as well as most of the contemporaries who have investigated the matter unite in condemning the unfairness of the report. The extremely conservative Victor Pierre is forced to call it "insufficient and exaggerated"; Gradis finds it extreme; only La Gorce defends its " great revela- tions." " In fact the Ouentin-Bauchart report makes great revelations and is invalua1:)le to historians of the epoch. When glanced at superficially it seems to contain many ac- cusations against the prominent republicans; when examined carefully, it constitutes their best defense. Unfortunately the members of the Assembly could not make a detailed analysis of this voluminous report and there- fore believed many of its implications. Still, on most of them was made the same impression of unfairness and party hatred that had been made by the speech of Ouentin- Bauchart. Ledru-Rollin apparently spent a couple of days studying the report and was fully prepared to give vent to his indignation when the great debate opened on August Ledru's speech on this occasion was largely a repetition of his speech of August 3.' He gave an account of the 1 Barrot 2:275-292. Cf. the sliRhtly but only slightly fairer dcl'disc of Qucntin-Bauchart in his memoirs i : 67-70. For a just contcmiiorary opinion, see C-arnicr Pages 11:440-454- I'or extracts from report, sec chapters iii-xiv, passiut. 'Pierre 1:457-8; Gradis 2:208-9; La Gorce 1:416-4^6. Liberal writ- ers are unanimous in strong disapproval. I^)r instance. Ilauu-I -.•<>*<-Q calls it an " odious report ". • He did not take part in two votes of the twenty-second nor in one of the twenty-third. * Before Ledru's speech there had been a discussion on various minor matters. For instance, Frangois Arago had testified as to se«linotis meetings, cabals at the ministry of the interior, and he had to defend himself against the combined attacks of Ix-rlrn, Pi.rtalis, Landrin, and I'avre. For details, see p. 149. 228 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [382 various political investigations under the first republic and the tribulations which had followed from them. He at- tacked the committee headed by Barrot and Quentin- Bauchart as surpassing all previous committees in unfair- ness, and he accused it of wishing to ruin the men of February. He defended his actions in connection with the circulars, the commissioners, the Belgian fiasco. He violently attacked the men who had founded the July Monarchy and who, when control of it had slipped from their hands, had attacked its foundations and had undermined it without hav- ing had any new ideas with which to replace it. He ac- cused these liberal monarchists of a similar purpose of des- troying the republic without having any substitute. He refuted the idea that the republic had caused the financial crisis and the misery of the people, for both had antedated it. He digressed to advocate the creation of banks that should lend money to farmers on mortgages. He denied that there was a red republic. The red republic is a phantom. ... It does not frighten me, and this is why: It emphasizes a fact to which my heart and my eyes have long been open, the profound sufferings of society. Now, that it is mistaken as to the remedy is my be- lief. But the means of proving that it is mistaken is to do something to aid the country. The remedy is not in a con- stitution, I assure you ; that is not the remedy. Constitutions ! We have had a sufficient number to make us the laughing stock of the world. It is social reforms that we need. Let me tell you that there is no red republic; there are only de- luded men who, due to their sufferings, may be carried away ; but there is no doubt that the great majority, the unanimity of the country, is attached to the true republic. . . . vShall I tell you what the true republic is ? It is not the word republic, it is not merely universal suffrage ; it is respect for the family, respect for property. . . . The family! We do not wish its 383] THE COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION 229 benefits to extend to the few, we wish them to extend to all. To make this possible there must be work for all. Is there any family for the child brought up in an orphan asylum? Is there any family for the girl who cannot earn her living and becomes a prostitute? ... Is there any family for the aged workingman forced to die in a public hospital? We wish the family to be universal .... we do not wish to restrain it, but to extend and multiply it. . . . Let me say that those people are fools who do not understand that property is the basis of liberty. We also wish it, for we ask that the workingman be given either credit or the instruments of labor. . . . May the spirit of liberty inspire you in this solemn moment. . . . Noth- ing comes from talking incessantly of union and concord ; these sentiments must be implanted in your hearts. Remember that in beginning a series of proscriptions, all parties, one after another may be subjected to them, and the result will be not only the loss of liberty in France and Europe, but the loss of liberty throughout the world. ^ I^dru's speech made a good impression but, as the Dchats and the Constitiitionnel declared, it was far more studied than that of August 3 and had not the spontaneous sincerity nor the eloquent warmth of the earlier utterance. The most effective part was that devoted to making clear the basic principles of the radicals. The Assembly was with Ledru before he started, and his unaccustomed restraint kept it with him to the end whether he denounced his opj>onents, defended himself, or pleaded for harmony. The oration was well-timed, but it cannot Ije considered one of Lcdru's greatest.^ ^ Discours pnliliqucs 2:65-81. I'Or extracts, sec pp. 101-2, 116, 14R. * Only SpuIIer 193 consiflcrs tliis sjicccli lx.-ttcr than the one of the third. For interesting accounts of the session, sec Normanhy 2:173- 183; Caussidiere 2: 273-285. Qucntin-Hauchart i : 85-104 hcHeves I-cdru's speech was fairly good but based on false accusations of the committee. Barret 2:300-313 makes a violent but inefTectual refutation of the arguments. 2^0 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [384 The next speaker was Louis Blanc. He contrasted the clemency of the republicans after February with the action of the conser\^atives, and he defended his own words and actions since February 24. Other members of the extreme left spoke briefly. Finally Caussidiere closed the debate, abandoning his customary picturesque improvisations for a labored, written defense. The hostile house, bored, was unmoved. But now Corne, the attorney-general, demanded permis- sion to prosecute Louis Blanc and Caussidiere for their parts in the uprisings of May and June. The prosecution of Ledru-Rollin was not asked; it would have been doomed to failure as Ledru had won the approval of the Assembly. Corne stated that the request was due to researches inde- pendent of the committee of investigation, but this state- ment deceived no one as to the connection between the de- mand and the Ouentin-Bauchart report. Several members of the Mountain defended the accused deputies. Ledru took part in the debate only to oppose a vote of urgency and to interrupt conservative orators. The efforts of the extreme left were in vain; first urgency was voted, then permission to prosecute Louis Blanc and Caussidiere for their part in the uprising of May 15.^ The reaction had strongly set in. The first political pro- secutions had begun. The minor individuals implicated^ in the affairs of May and June had been tried by military courts and deported. But the leaders in these insurrections were to 'be given a civil trial. Some of these were in prison : Blanqui, Barbes, Raspail, Albert. Others succeeded in escaping, Louis Blanc and Caussidiere among them. They settled in England and founded the colony of exiles, ^ Permission to prosecute Caussidiere for his part in the June Days •was refused; that to prosecute Blanc in connection with the June Days was not asked. 385] THE COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION 23 1 which fulminated against the moderate and conservative governments of the repubHc, and later against the empire. Thus the legislature of the republic had proscribed the ex- tremists. Whose turn would be next? The republic was henceforth to be a republic of the bourgeoisie as the pre- vious regime had been a monarchy of the bourgeoisie. February had aroused the hope of a social transformation; August had ended this hope. Not only were no new re- forms to l3e established, but many of those established by the provisional government were to be abolished. The re- public had become conservative. CHAPTER XVI The Constitution of 1848 The chief duty of the Constituent Assembly was to draw a constitution for the republic. On September 2 Liechten- berger, a member of the left, presented a bill which pro- vided that the state of siege should be raised before the con- stitution was discussed. Ledru defended this proposal. He declared that the path which the Assembly was entering was a baneful one, that not physical but moral force would main- tain a constitution. He cited the evil results that flowed from constitutions composed under extraordinary condi- tions, as notably in the cases of the Spanish constitutions and of the French charters of 18 14 and 1830. He showed how the press, restrained from criticizing during the period of drawing up the constitution, would attack it relentlessly when completed. He ridiculed the idea that the state of siege was necessary; sufficient forces, he said, could be kept at the capital to insure quiet without maintaining the state of siege. He closed with the words : " Inaugurate your con- stitution with what is most venerable, most fertile, most in- destrucible in the word, the immortal principle of liberty." ^ This speech is to be praised for its restraint ; it is adequate to the occasion but is remarkable neither for eloquence nor for clear logic of argumentation. After a few other speeches, the motion to raise the state of siege was defeated 529 to 140, only the extreme left and a few scattered votes supporting it. '^ Disc ours poUtiques 2:82-9, 232 [386 387] ^^^ COXSTITUTIOX OF 1848 233 Numerous attempts were now made to incorporate in the constitution an amendment guaranteeing the right to labor, thus to fulfill the promise of the provisional government. A final effort in this direction was made by ]Mathieu de la Drome. Many orators spoke for or against his amendment. The most effective speech in opposition was that of Thiers. Of those who spoke for the amendment the most conspi- cuous were Cremieux, Lamartine, a Catholic socialist named Arnaud de I'Ariege, and Ledru-Rollin. On September 12 Ledru addressed the Assembly. He said. The orator who has just quitted the tribune [Tocqueville] has referred to the great principles of our glorious French Re- volution. There I agree with him. He has declared that the right to labor is a socialist invention. Socialism is the worst thing in the entire world, he cried, for it is communism. ... I no more desire communism than does he. . . . The right to labor was a favorite thought with the statesmen of the Convention. Of Robespierre for instance. Two things are needed : for the strong the right to work, and for the infirm the right to assistance; of these the Assembly wishes to guarantee only the latter. Ledru drew a pitiful picture of the man who could not find work, and he showed how society woukl do nothing for such a person but send him to jail. The prin- ciple of the right to lal)or, he declared, would not lead to a socialist Utopia; it was a principle of the great revolution. What precisely did the word socialist signify? If any one who desired social changes was meant, Tocqueville and his friends were wrong to fulminate against such an inrovisional ' Of the 121 deputies mcntioncfl by name amoMR the jfucsls. ?r; I*- longed to the Mountain, 19 to the independent extreme left, 43 to the left. — Democratic pacifiquc, October 9; Cotnlilutiottncl, October 11. 240 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [394 government, have been reestablished. The repubhc moves in the old monarchic grooves. Money is not lacking with which beneficent institutions may be founded. It was pro- cured for Louis XIV and for the first republic; after thirty years of peace it should be more plentiful than then. No, money is merely hiding itself ; it is not lacking. Even Eng- land was able to find money for the Napoleonic wars. The real trouble today is the lack of work, and that must be re- medied. It is not money that is lacking but leadership. Our fathers of the first revolution lived by expedients, a necessity in all revolutions. The audacity of Cambon saved France. A remedy must be found for all these difficulties. We must act. But the primal need is that of union, union of all types of republicans. Hail to the men of February ! ^ The chief object of this banquet was to reconcile the socialists, the Mountain, and the deputies of the left. In this respect it was an utter failure. It only succeeded in alarming the conservatives. They interpellated the govern- ment because it gave permission to hold the banquet. In the newspapers they denounced Ledru's speech as incen- diary, probably because he blamed the lack of progressive legislation. This criticism is unfair; in fact Ledru's pur- pose in the first part of his speech was to show that socialism was not necessarily incendiary. The second part of the speech, declaring that money could be found, is rather quixotic and laid itself open to ridicule; the periodicals naturally asked how the money was to be found. The D chats even printed an article in refutation by the prominent econ- omist, Michel Chevalier.^ ^ Discours politiques 2: 104-113. ' Debats, October 10. The Constitutionnel, September 26-27, declared that Ledru had never before been so violent and that his type caused class warfare. Cf. Faucher i : 405-9 and an amusing article in the Times, September 26. 395] ^^^ COXSTITUTIOX OF 184S 24I In the legislature the conservatives continued their attacks on Ledru. On September 9 a report approving the expen- ditures of the provisional government had been presented to the Assembly. Nevertheless on October 24 Creton, the inveterate opponent of Ledru-Rollin, again brought up this question. Garnier-Pages declared that the financial dis- turbance of February was due not to the ministry of the treasury but to the ministry of the interior. The govern- ment of Cavaignac opposed further investigation. Ledru declared that although one committee had already investi- gated the accounts, he would welcome one, two, three more committees to prove his absolute integrity.^ An investiga- tion was ordered." Trouble was still feared from Louis Napoleon. On October 26 Antony Thouret, member of the left, proposed to banish him. The Prince had at last taken his seat in the legislature after a second election, and he rose to speak in his own defense. " The oratorical failure was complete," says Emile Ollivier, the last prime minister appointed by Napoleon III, " It was l)elievcd that nothing need l)e feared from a man who spoke so poorly. I heard Ix^dru-Rollin remark as he left the room: What an idiot! He is mined. Anthony Thouret withdrew his resolution in contemptuous terms." ^ In one province at least, attempts were made to revive the credit of Ledru-Rollin. He had been defeated in the election to the Constituent Assembly in his old constituency of Le Mans. Trouvc-Chauvel had exerted his powerful in- fluence against him, and the conservatives had s|)re.'i(l lies and calumnies, picturing him as desiring wholesale pillage ' Afonitcur 2969. * This resulted in the Ducos report. ' Ollivier 2: loi. 242 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [396 and a new reign of terror. Ledru's friends in the depart- ment of the Sarthe determined to avenge his defeat by hav- ing him elected to the departmental council. A doctor who had expected to be counsellor for La Fresnaye gladly retired in favor of the leader of the Mountain. The two prime movers in the enterprise requested Ledru's consent and they received the answer : " My confidence in you is such that I cannot refuse you." The reaction had been delighted be- cause no republican candidate had come forward at La Fres- naye, but great was their consternation when one week be- fore the election the name of the popular radical was pro- posed. Legitimists, Bonapartists, Orleanists, and the offi- cials of the prefecture took part in the campaign against Ledru-Rollin. Disgraceful calumnies were spread; noth- ing was neglected to insure the success of the Orleanist and clerical candidates. A sub-prefect even threatened to arrest one of the radical campaign managers. The vote took place on October 29 and Ledru received 610 votes whereas his opponents had only 542 and 163. Ledru immediately wrote his managers a letter of thanks: It as a particularly sweet consolation to me after all the cal- umnies from which I have suffered to find a new bond con- necting me with that department whose ideas and principles I represented for eight years. . . . Give my thanks to all those fine rural electors. . . . My name pronounced with sympathy by all these simple and good men is a precious re- compense for my small services to the republic of February. Ledru was never able to take his place at the meetings of the general council of the Sarthe.^ 1 Guyon 2:119-126; reprinted in Revolution de 1848, 2:257-265. CHAPTER XVII A Presidential Candidate The Assembly had decided that the election of the pre- sident of the republic should take place on December lo, and all parties girded themselves for the struggle. The conser- vatives did not dare to put forward a candidate of their own. Changarnier insisted on running, but no one paid any at- tention to him. Attempts were made to start candidacies for Thiers and Bugeaud, but they came to naught. The reactionary centre, the club of the Rue de Poitiers, deter- mined to support Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, for that wily intriguer had presented himself with a program that might mean anything and that might satisfy anybody. Beside the Bonapartists and the conservatives, numerous sincere re- publicans such as Cremieux supported the prince. The other nominees were all old-line republicans. The most prominent was the head of the existing government, (a-ncrai Eugene Cavaignac, candidate of the moderates and of the National. Cavaignac, however, by his ruthlessness in June and by his alliance with the conservatives of the Dufaurc group, had alienated the entire radical party, l-nmartinc had been in May the almr)St universal choice for the olTicc of chief magistrate, but by the end of June he was no longer considered for president, and in December no one except himself believed that he could attract many votes. It had long been known that the canrlidatc of the Moun- tain would Ix? Ixdru-RolHn. lie might have had a chance of election if the socialists and extreme republicans had 3971 243 244 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [398 supported him. In October an attempt at bringing together the various elements had been made. A banquet of sociahst deputies was to take place at the Barriere Poissoniere. Proudhon declined the chairmanship and proposed that it be offered to Ledru-Rollin, for he hoped thus to draw the extreme left of the Assembly into the field of socialism. But the organizers of the banquet were opposed to the name of Ledru-Rollin. Thereupon Proudhon put forward Lam- ennais, president of the INlountain, and this choice was ac- cepted. However, when Proudhon refused to join the ex- treme left in its attack on Dufaure, Mathieu de la Drome and five fellow-Montagnards signified their intention of being absent from the banquet if Proudhon should attend. Of course the organizers refused to expel the socialist, and so when the banquet took place on October 17, the chairman of the banquet and the other members of the ^Mountain were absent. Two thousand guests assembled, but among them only three deputies, Proudhon, his follower Greppo, and Pierre Leroux.^ On October 22 another socialist banquet was held, this time at the Barriere du Trone. The entire ]\Ioun- tain was again invited, but only six Montagnards accepted.' The socialists desired to leave the choice of a presidential candidate to a joint committee of socialists and radicals, all to abide by the decision of the committee. Ledru-Rollin, who had promised the Mountain that he would run, would not agree to retire if he were not nominated by the joint com- mittee. Accordingly the socialists put forward Raspail, one of the leaders of the extreme revolutionists now a prisoner at Vincennes. He was to run merely as a protest ; the bal- iDarimon 82-3; Mulberger, Proudhon 123-5; Debats, October 18, n 2 Debats, October 23, 25. It had been announced that Ledru, Laurent, and Considerant were on the directing committee. Ledru and Laurent denied this in letters to the Republiquc. 399] ^ PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE j^3 lots cast for him should show France the strength of the extreme revolutionists/ Alton-Shee issued an electoral cir- cular declaring : " Raspail is the candidate proposed by the central council of the democratic-socialist electors of all France. ... In voting for a president all true socialists want to destroy the presidency. For this work we want a revolutionist who has no illusions, one who does not com- promise; but Ledru-Rollin is not such a revolutionist. Hurrah for the democratic and social republic!"" In general the socialists were very fair to Ledru, declaring their admiration for him. but asserting that they preferred to re- gister their own strength by voting for a socialist."' There were a few individuals who were very violent against Ledru ; one extremist called him a traitor, who had betrayed the people on Alarch 17 and on April 16, who had betrayed the Belgians at Risquons-tout, who had forged the Taschercau document against Blanqui, and who had bribed the Club dcs Clubs.'' In one case the partisans oi Ledru and Raspail came to blows. On November 26 in the lobby of the Palais Bourbon, Proudhon and Felix Pyat had an altercation wiiich ended in an exchange of fisticuffs. A duel resulted. .'\ little later Proudhon refused to fight another duel, this time with Delescluze."' Some extreme revolutionists had great difficulty in crs of a small group lli.it vacillated between the left and the governmental left center. j^S LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [402 Lamartine and Marie, as their evidence was necessary on certain matters and as the subject should be threshed out once for all.' Cavaignac pleaded for an immediate debate, saying that if he was willing to proceed in the absence of Marie, the opposition might forego the presence of Lamar- tine. The Assembly fixed on the following Saturday for the debate. The next day Jules Favre was talking with Ledru as to interpellations of the government on using pressure in the elections.- Favre made his attack two days later, and a bitter attack it was. There was much hilarity in which Ledru joined when the orator asserted that he had always been a friend of Ledru-Rollin, for all remembered Favre's assaults on the executive commission. Jules Favre com- pared the use of influence by Cavaignac and Dufaure with his own conduct and that of his superior, the minister of the interior, in refraining from such use in the elections of the previous April. On November 25 Cavaignac took the floor and declared that he did not desire a contest wuth the members of the executive commission, but merely information as to an at- tack on himself. Barthelemy-St. Hilaire, professor at the Sorbonne, thereupon declared that it was time that the truth about the June Days were known; up to now he and his friends had kept silent for patriotic reasons. He then read a fragment of history written by himself and his three col- leagues whom Cavaignac had mentioned on November 21. This historical sketch gave a clear account of the actions of the executive commission during the June Days and for the first time revealed to the public that it was Cavaignac who had caused the delay in attacking the insurgents. At ^ Moniteur 3297. ^ Patrie, November 22, 1848. ^03] ^ PRESIDENTIAL C AX DID ATE 249 times St. Hilaire even hinted that the general had plotted to overthrow the executive commission. The Assembly was hostile and the dull academic manner of the orator did not impress it. Cavaignac made a brilliant defense, singling out a few specific accusations and refuting them; he did not, however, attempt to disprove the general account. Bixio, a member of the left centre, objected to the insinuation that Cavaignac had incited the insurrection in order to repress it. St. Hilaire denied that he had implied this, and he re- newed his attack on Cavaignac on certain military points. The general replied, explaining his tactics. Then Garnier- Pages spoke, charging Cavaignac not with betraying France but with committing great faults. He accused the General of ingratitude, for Cavaignac had let the Assembly blame the executive commission for the lack of troops and had not come forward to tell the truth and exonerate it. Garnier- Pages added a few words in appreciation of the activity of Ledru-Rollin during the June Days. Cavaignac again took the floor. He evaded the main charges, said nothing as to his silence as to who was responsible for the delay in at- tacking the barricades, but contented himself with denying that he sought the dictatorship and with stating that he had not known the true opinions of the executive commission when he accepted a ministry from it. Gamier-Pages had summoned his four colleagues of the executive commission to corroborate his stati-nu-nts, but only Ledru-Rollin responded to this appeal. lie- had no desire, said Ledru-Rollin, to make accusations; he only wi.shed to defend himself against unjust calumnies, lie then entered into an account of the military disjKxsitions in June, combated the system of concentration, denied that Cavaignac had carried out even that system adcfjualcly. He declared that his sole desire was to undeceive the prople and the National Guard. He wished to sliow the people that 250 LEDRU-ROLLIK AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [404 the executive commission's plan was to prevent the upris- ing instead of repressing it ; he wished to show the National Guard that he had not acted as a coward or a traitor on June 23. Ledru closed by saying that on all sides there had been misunderstandings, that the people in particular had been led astray by monarchical conspirators, and that therefore they should be pardoned; an amnesty should be proclaimed/ Ledru-Rollin was not favorably regarded by the deputies, but he made a stronger impression than the other opponents of Cavaignac. His accusations were not extravagant and his arguments were telling. " All together he disturbed Cavaignac," said Victor Hugo, at that time still a con- servative." i After General Bedeau had defended the plan of concen- tration and its execution, Cavaignac spoke for a fourth time. He claimed that he had concentrated his troops, but that he had not had time to tell the executive commission what he had done. He added : " Ledru-Rollin claims that he broke with me; I do not know which of us broke with the other, but I hope the break will continue forever." Thereupon the right and centre applauded frantically. Dupont de I'Eure pro- '^ Discours poUtiqiies 2: 131-7. For extracts, see chapter xiv. - Hugo 1 : 396. Hugo adds : " Ledru-Rollin, a sort of bastard Dan- ton, leaning with his great buttoned chest against the tribune, had the hoarse voice of a Petion and the rocking of the shoulders of a Mirabeau without the latter's eloquence . . . Avithal a certain lawyer's tact mixed with the violence of a demagogue. . . . When Ledru-Rollin returned to his seat beside Pierre Leroux and Lamennais, a man with long hair turning grey and a white vest, walked across the chamber and shook Ledru- Rollin's hand. It was Lagrange," the eternal advocate of am- nesty. About this time, Thiers remarked to Falloux and Mole : " One may differ from the political views of 'M. Ledru-Rollin, but if one wishes to be just it is impossible to deny him great ability and a thor- ough appreciation of the situation. You will see how he will embarrass ministers who are not of his stature." — Peuplc, December 3. quoting Republicain de Lot et Garonne. ^^05] ^ PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 25 1 posed an order of the day, saying that Cavaignac had de- served well of the republic. This was passed by 503 votes to 34. Even Flocon and David d' Angers joined the major- ity. Most of the left and almost all the Mountain refrained from voting. This day was a glorious parliamentary success for Cavaignac; the general had outdebated the politicians; the dictator had received a magnificent vote of confidence. But he had ruined his chances of election to the presidency. He had only half gained the conservatives of the Rue de Poitiers and he had utterly lost the radicals of the Rue de Taitbout. In other words he had permanently split the party of the old republicans. The Mountain was cast out by the National moderates and the only path left for the Montagnards was violent opposition, and union with the socialists. After this rupture there was no chance that the radicals would vote for Cavaignac as against Louis Napo- leon; by them Cavaignac was held as the worse of two evils. In the eyes of history too he had ruined himself, for Garnier-Pages had shown his failure to give the executive commission its due, and Ledru-Rollin had shown his in- capacity. Lord Normanby judged correctly when he .said : " Upon the whole, in spite of General Cavaignac's un- doubted parliamentary triumph, I am inclined to think that the permanent effect of this discussion will be rather to diminish the amount of merit posterity will accord him for the events of June." ' Meanwhile the friends f)f Lcdru-i'JolJin were working hard for his election as president. They wrote to their departments urging his candidacy.- C)f course many news- J Normanby 2:320-4. ICvcn tlic linsfi!,- Ch.nmicr 2:^42 wa.* im- pressed by the arguments of Lcdrii. 'For letters of I^-imcnnais. sec L;inunii.iis j. ^.i-.s. For electoral de- tails as to the North, sec Gosscz 328-330; as to the Sarthc, sec Guyon 2: I3.V4- 2 -2 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [406 papers exerted their influence in favor of Ledru-Rollin. In the departments they were most numerous in the Loire valley and in south-west France/ ,In Paris the most promi- nent were the Rcforme, now edited by Ribeyrolles, the Rcz'olution democratiqiie et sociale of Delescluze, semi- official organ of the Mountain, the Democratie pacifique of Considerant, who though a socialist allied himself closely with the ]\Iontagnards, the Pciiplc constitiiant of Lamennais, the Travail of the Alontagnard Baune, and the Montague of Gaily, devoted admirer of Ledru-Rollin. Under the inspiration of Delescluze a campaign organiza- tion called the Solidarite repiiblicaine had been founded and, as the law required, registered on November 4. In the pre- amble to its constitution it declared that in times of danger all republicans should unite, that the purpose of the society was " to assure by all legal means the pacific and regular development of social reforms, development which should be the goal and consequence of democratic institutions." At the trial of Ledru-Rollin and his colleagues in 1849, the prosecution claimed that this society had been started with the purpose of preparing armed resistance to the govern- ment, but no evidence was produced to support this state- ment. The Solidarite repiiblicaine was clearly established as a piece of electoral machinery and maintained as the party organization of the Mountain. It had a central office at 50 Rue Faubourg St. Honore, Paris, and branches throughout the departments. The original members were all well-known radicals, and new^ members could only be introduced by two associates. The president was ]Martin Bernard, one of the chief leaders of the secret societies under the July Monarchy; the treasurer was Deville, a prominent Montagnard; the secretary was Delescluze. The executive committee was composed of sixty-four republic- ^ Revolution democratique ct sociale, Rcforme, passim. 407] A PRESIDEXTIAL C AX DID ATE ans, over half of whom were deputies of the Mountain, such as Ledru-RolHn, Lamennais, Mathieu, and Fehx Pyat. Its duties were to encourage the founding of newspapers, to enhghten the voters, to distribute pamphlets, and to find positions for workingmen.^ All the members of the execu- tive committee except Martin Nadaud ' had voted to sup- port Ledru, and Nadaud had been begged not to retire on that account. Nevertheless Nadaud publicly declared his dissent, and the Revolution dcmocratiqiie ct social c had to explain Nadaud's isolation in the Solidarite rcpublicainc.^ In this campaign much use was made of political posters. The Mountain issued three. On October ly it declared that the republic had retrograded far from the glorious period of February, but that the people ought to remain calm, for the deputies of the left would successfully defend it.* Early in November the executive committee of the clul) in the Rue de Taitbout issued the widely-discussed manifesto of the Mountain. The Montagnards, said the manifesto, had voted against the existence of a presidency, but they ac- cepted the verdict of the legislative majority and they pro- posed a candidate who would work for the realization of their principles. To guide the republic the people must have not a mere name nor a man who had given pledges to the reaction," but a true republican. The Mountain there- 1 These details come from Ledru's trial in 1&49, Monitrur y^. One of the newspapers founded by the society was the Revolution d^mo- cratique et socialc. For lists of members, sec Rcfnrmc, Novi-mbcr 7; Revolution dcmocratique et sociale, December 7; Lucas 24p. For letter showing intimacy of Dclcscluze and Lcdru, sec appendix. * Nadaud !x:came one of leaders of the Mountain after Ledru's fliRht in 1849. * Revolution dcmocratique et sociale. December 4. * RCforme, Debats, October 19. Sisrncd by Lcdru and 42 other Mon- tap:nards. * Louis Napoleon and Cavaignac were here indicated. 254 LEDRU-ROLLIX AXD SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [408 fore proposed Ledru-Rollin, the organizer of universal suf- rage, who had always stood for truly republican principles even if he had failed to obtain the application of his ideas by the governments of which he was a member/ In a third poster the executive committee gave the program of the extreme left : unit}- of power ; reform of the administra- tion, the legal system, the army, and the finances ; free edu- cation; liberty of public meeting and association; repur- chase by the state of railroads, canals, mines, etc. ; the right of labor ; " government of all and for all ; the republic, one and indivisible, democratic and social." As Ledru-Rollin had supported all these ideas, the Mountain believed that he should be elected president.^ The conserv^ative newspapers found these posters surprisingly restrained in tone, but they objected to the demand for the right to labor.^ These were not the only posters in support of Ledru- Rollin. In December the democratic-socialist committee, a variant of the Solidarite republicaine, told how the national electoral congress of workingmen and soldiers of Paris had cast all their votes except three for Ledru-Rollin ; the poster emphasized the need for unity among republicans and as- serted that Ledru had always fought for the welfare of the ^Rejorme, November 9, 10; Revolution democratique et sociale, No- vember II. Approved by the seven members of the executive com- mittee, Theodore Bac, Martin Bernard, Buvignier, Deville, Lamennais, Mathieu, and Felix Pyat, and by 49 other deputies including Ledru. ^AMches rouges 310-2. On December 15, after the election. Ledru- Rollin and sixty of his colleagues issued a statement, reasserting their hostility to the institution of a presidency, their confidence in the people, and their devotion to the republic— i?^/or?;ie, Rez'olutiort democratique et sociale, December 15, 1848; Debats, December 16. * Assemhlee Nationale, Debats, Evenement, Steele, Univcrs, November II, 1848. The Evenement claims that the posters were partly composed by Ledru himself. 409] ^ PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 255 people.^ A group of tailors, plumbers, and so forth issued a poster comparing the people who supported Louis Napoleon with those who supported Ledru. Some other persons con- trasted the services of the three leading candidates, summing up thus; "Cavaignac: all for power. Louis Napoleon: extension of power. Ledru-Rollin : all for the people and by the people. Compare, judge, and vote." A combina- tion of professors, sculptors, and artisans supported Ledru as the champion of the republic, labor, liberty, and equality. The day before the election twenty-three workingmen issued a supreme appeal for the union of all republicans on the name of Ledru-Rollin. - Of course numerous public meetings were held both in Paris and in the provinces during the progress of the cam- paign. Various Montagnards made speeches for their can- didate in the capital or in their own departments. Ledru himself addressed only one public gathering. On Nov- ember 20 he made a speech in Paris devoting himself to re- futing the charges which had been made against him. Electoral banquets were also frequent in the campaign. In the provinces many were held in Ledru's honor."' In Paris banquets were held every day, but T^dru attended only three of them.* ^ Reforme, Revolution dcmocratiquc ct socialc, December 4; Drhats, December 5. 2 All these posters may be found in AfTichcs rouges 305-.116. Sec also Democratic pacifique, Reforme. R&volution dSmocraiique cl sncialr. passim. ' Democratic pacifiquc, Reforme, Rh-olulion dcmocratiquc et soci>ilc, passim. For letters of repret to banf|iieters at Lyotis .ind Marseilles, see Resolution dcmocratiquc ct socialc. December .1. 5. * Ledru had accepted the chairmanship of a fourtli. calle/ On November 24 at the Barriere du Roule a banquet was given by the wine merchants, and the entire ^Mountain was invited, but only Ledru and six colleagues attended. Ledru apologized for the absence of the other Montagnards, nec- essary " inasmuch as from today's session may be obtained the proof that when a party attains power by inexplicable conduct, by means of acts or influences that cannot be avowed, it may have recourse to scandalous measures to re- tain this power." ^ A guest here interrupted: " That is not true." For a quarter of an hour vociferations and menaces were heard. The stewards of the banquet tried to restore order and finally succeeded in expelling the man who had started the disturbance and a friend who aided him in con- tinuing it. Then Ledru, who had been standing calmly on the platform throughout this tumult, resumed. He ex- plained that the Mountain was with the wine merchants in desiring the abolition of excise duties on meats and light liquors; he entered into statistical details to show the hard- ships entailed on the poor by the imposition of the.se taxes. At this point some one else tried to cause a new disturbance but was easily silenced. Ledru asserted that it was the radical party alone that had consistently advocated the repeal of the tax on wines, that the provisional government had on the multituflc like a Rrcat artist. . . . When Diiprez during his prime appeared at the Opera, he produced an impression no deeper than tliat produced by this tall, broad-shouldered man of the ruddy countenance. . . . This elaborate speech clothed in the finest lanKUaRC was uttered and listened to with a fervor difficult to dcscriln:. ... I i)crccivcd that each gesture with which M. Ledru-Rollin .ncccntuatcd his state- ments imparted to his cheeks, already ruddy and purple with Rcncrous blood, a ircmolo which involuntarily made me say: There is an amiable man who iviU not found a republic. Ix-dru-RolIin reminded me of those great whig lords." — Castillc: Ledru-Rollin 4-7. * This remark was made the day before the discussion lictwccn Cavain- nac and the members of the executive commission concerning the June Days. 258 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FREXCH REPUBLIC [412 carried out this reform, whereas the conservatives had re- stored the tax. After two more speeches the members of the ]\Iountain retired, and the wine merchants turned to private affairs/ The various educational institutions of Paris, always pro- minent in democratic movements, organized a banquet at the Barriere de Sevres and invited the members of the extreme left, many of whom accepted. From noon to four o'clock on December 3 two thousand guests listened to speeches. The government sent a policeman to watch the proceedings. The organizers of the banquet protested against the super- vision but were willing to let the police officer remain as a private citizen. Ledru and a few other deputies left the hall in order to visit the prefect of police and to make their protest to him. In the meanwhile the speeches began. Several students made fiery addresses and several poets re- cited socialistic songs. Challemel-Lacour, later Gambetta's assistant under the third republic, made his maiden speech; lies, he declared, were the arms of the royalists, faith the weapon of the republicans. At this point Ledru returned to the hall; amid universal applause he told of the success of his mission to the prefect of police and showed the policeman an order to retire. Then Ledru toasted the re- public, pleaded for union among democrats, proclaimed that the institution of a president in the constitution was merely another form of monarchy, prophesied the triumph of liberty after the tribulations through which it was passing, defended his own Italian policy, namely support of the Italian people against the pope and the princes of the minor states. " Let us abolish the privileges of the past," he said, " and prepare ^ Debats, Xovember 25; Reforme, November 26; Times, Xovember 27. The conservatives frequently cited the disturbances at this banquet to prove the disorderly conduct of radicals, but as conservative guests were the originators of the tumult, the Montagnards can hardly be blamed for it. 413] A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 259 for the equality and happiness of the future; let us be re- volutionary, and let us not stop until the revolution has made the tour of the world." Proudhon spoke next. He made a long explanation of the different schools of socialism. A few more orators made brief speeches, and the banquet closed peacefully.^ Deles- cluze in his newspaper tried to make it appear that this ban- quet was a tribute to Ledru-Rollin's candidacy, but the schools that had organized the banquet denied this; it was a union of all republicans, they said, followers of Raspail as well as of Ledru-Rollin. Delescluze was forced to publish a similar statement.' During the electoral campaign rumors had spread that the government feared troubles from the reds and that it be- lieved that the radical deputies were implicated. On De- cember 9 Joly, a member of the Mountain, interpellated the cabinet on these rumors and asked whether the government intended to close the clubs. Dufaure, minister of the in- terior, admitted that he had feared a riot ; he declared that he would ask for a law against the clubs when the need for such a law should arise; he urged that all parties work for peace. '^ Reformc; Revolution democratique cl socialc, Dcbats, Decem- ber 4; Pcuplc, Reforme, December 5, 1848; Fonvielle in NouvcUc Revue 110:472-487; Sarccy 47-9. Sarccy writes: "It was there that for the first time I heard an eloquent man, Lcdru-RoIlin. IK- has a whiff of popular eloquence that carries one away." ' Nouvelle Rcruc 110:486; Resolution di^mocratiiiuc cl sihkiu-. De- cember 6, 8; Pcuplc, December 7. A little later, on Deccmlwr 26, Deles- cluze wrote to a friend : " You are severe on Ixidru ; I assure you no one leads a. busier life than docs he. If he does not reply to cvcrythinn, do not accuse his lack of knowledRC or his couraRc. lie is perfectly capable of undcrstantiing any situation, I am convinced ; only he is not a man given to details. As to his attitude in the .Assembly, is he free? In order to be listened to, he is obliged not to cheapen his utterances, but he is as revolutionary and as devoted as anyone." — Quoted at I>cdru trial, Monitcur for iS.fQ, p. 3099, 26o LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [414 Ledru spoke next. He asserted that a law closing the clubs would be unconstitutional, for the constitution re- cognized the right of public meeting. He protested against Dufaure's misquotation of the speech he had made at the Banquet of the Schools. The minister of the interior had declared that Ledru-Rollin had advocated taking up arms in Paris whereas Ledru had merely stated that it would be necessary for France to take up arms if Austria invaded the Legations. The misrepresentation resulted, Ledru said, from the reports of a contemptible police agent.^ " I pro- tested no such provocative words were ever uttered either in the clubs or in the electoral assemblies. We have only one thought, that of union. ... As long as the constitution is not violated, no uprising whatever can turn to the advan- tage of true friends of the republic." He closed with a de- claration of loyalty to the republic. " We are not trying to ruin it by dissensions, for after all it is our work, not years." " This speech is a clear defense against the calum- nies spread abroad; its importance consists in Ledru's de- claration that only a violation of the constitution would justify an uprising. On December 10 and 11 the presidential election was held. Most people foresaw that Louis Napoleon would win, but few expected the overwhelming triumph he received. The votes stood : ^ ^ This accusation of a police agent caused much talk. Two days later Ledru publicly told the Assembly that he did not mean the prefect of police, Gervais de Caen. — Moniteur 3540. Everj^body was now sure that he meant Carlier. Carlier himself thought so too and wrote a public letter in which he denied the accusations and accused Ledru-Rollin of being double-faced.— D^'ftof.?, December 13. Ledru took no notice of the letter. ^Moniteur 3522. '^ Moniteur for 184S, p. 3640. Other accounts give sHghtlv different figures. 415] A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 261 France Bonaparte 5,534.520 74^S7o Cavaignac 1,448,302 19.5 % Ledru-Rollin 37i,43i 5 % Raspail 36,963 0.5 % Lamartine 17,914 0.25% Changarnier 4.687 0.05% Scattered 12,434 0.15% Votes lost 23,219 0.30% Pa fis 157,000 55% 83,000 30% 24,500 97o 14.000 s7o 3,200 1% Total 7,449,471 This was a brilliant victory for Louis Napoleon but did not represent his real strength in the country, for the con- servatives who had feared to put up a candidate of tlicir own. discontented moderates such as Cremieux, radicals willing to vote for anyone to defeat Cavaignac, socialists seduced by the vague socialistic ideas in some of the books which bore the name of Louis Napoleon — all voted for the prince. There w^ere therefore more radicals than were shown by the vote for Ledru-Rollin but nevertheless the small amount of ballots cast for him was a bitter pill. Tn only eight depart- ments did Ledru receive more than ten thousand votes. In nine departments he ran .second, ahead of Cavaignac; of these nine, six were in the south-west corner of bVance. three in the Loire valley.^ ' Debats, December 18, 22, 1848. The nine departments were Allicr, Correze, Dordogne, Upper Garonne, Gcrs, Indrc, l^jt ct Garonne, Kast- ern Pyrenees, Saone ct Loire. CHAPTER XVIII The Barrot Cabinet On December 20 Louis Napoleon Bonaparte was installed as president of the republic, and the same day he announced that he had formed a ministry with Odilon Barrot as pre- sident of the council of ministers.^ The contrast between the president and the premier was striking; the former was unscrupulous and wily; the latter was honest and credulous. The future emperor is one of the hardest characters in his- tor)^ to fathom. Certainly up to the day that he was crowned emperor one thought dominated his actions, the idea that he was the successor of his uncle. Under Louis Philippe he had made two ignominious attempts to gain the throne, but from these failures he had learned wisdom. It is hard to believe that the foolhardy pretender of the July Monarchy is the same man who picked his way care- fully through the republic, letting his enemies destroy each other. When there was plotting to be done, Louis Napo- leon left it to his subordinates so that he could disavow them if they were unsuccessful. He allied himself now with one party, now with another, and for each he had his appeal. The workingmen were attracted by the vague doctrines of benevolence and good-will, which could be read in the books which bore his name. To the bourgeoisie he promised en- couragement of trade and commerce. The clerical conserva- ^ So little was known of the new president's tendencies that there had been rumors that Ledru-Rollin had been asked to join the cabinet.— Pot-aux-Roses, December 18. 262 [416 417] THE BARROT CABINET 263 tives relied on his devotion to the church. Now, when he had been elected president, he looked for a premier who would be neither conservative nor republican. Odilon Barrot was the choice made. He had been a mon- archist under Louis Philippe, but as leader of the opposition he had never entered a cabinet/ and unconsciously he had helped to prepare the way for the overthrow of the Orleanist king. He had accepted the republic and was on good terms with the moderates. His chief virtue was his loyalty. Even when he differed from his colleagues in the cabinet, he defended them bravely in the Assembly, but so unstable were his ideas that he was willing to become the advocate of what he had denounced a year earlier. Few public men have equalled him in his ability to be deceived. He helped Louis Philippe to the throne only to discover that their ideas were too wide apart to be reconciled. In the l)ain|uet cam- paign of 1847 and 1848 Barrot tried to obtain slight re- forms and the monarchy was overthrown. He worked loyally to support the Prince-President, and the day came when he was to his great surprise shown the door to make way for his own brother. And in spite of all this Odilon Barrot w^ould never admit that he was or hnd l)een wrong. In his apologia pro I'ita sua otherwise called rostUutnoits Memoirs, he tried to prove that every single measure he ever took was the wisest j)Ossible under the circumstances. Another phase of his blindness was his unfairness to opjK)- nents. Calumnies he remembered, refutations he forgot or overlooked. He misread statements to ilt his own pre- conceptions. A more unfit statesman rarely ruled I'Vancc. Of this honest chameleon now in a conservative atmos- phere, Ledru-Rollin, the consistent democrat and rejiublican. was the hctc noir. In February Ixvlru liad snatched the 1 The ephemeral ministry of February. 184S, which lasted barely twenty-four hours, need not be counted. 264 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [418 reform movement out of his hands ; in August he had roused the Assembly against the investigating committee of which Barrot was president. From then on imtil the fiasco of June 13 Ledru-Rollin was to seize every opening given him to attack the Barrot government. The following is Barrot's estimate of his opponent: j\I. Ledru-Rollin was a vehement orator in whom the de- magogue and the statesman combined in such a way as to make him a redoubtable adversary. . . . He belonged to that class of men in whom ambition and pride are restrained neither by the brain nor by the heart. Place such a man in private life, and he will fill his existence with foolish enter- prises and end with a catastrophe; throw him into the midst of a revolutionary crisis, and he will be Danton or Robespierre according to his temperament, sanguine or choleric. AI. Ledru-Rollin was of the type of Danton, full of audacity and faith in his own powers; but sensual and pleasure-loving he united in his person .... the requirements for a demagogue but not for an apostle. Hence his vacillation and irresolu- tion. In him ambition replaced fanaticism. He could menace society, disturb it profoundly, utter the most temeritous ideas . . . work with the agents of disorder, undertake and abandon conspiracies in company with them ; we do not believe that he would have consented to a bloody reign of terror.^ The first occasion for a conflict between Barrot and Ledru came on December 26, 1848 less than a week after the in- auguration of the new ministry. Barrot addressed the As- sembly, telling how the unanimity of the country was shown by the vote of December 10. He said that the government desired order and hoped to usher in a period of security after that of unrest, tliat order meant liberty and progress. This had an attractive sound, but several days earlier General Changamier had been appointed both commander-in-chief 1 Barrot 2 : 25, 40- r. 419] ^^£ BARROT CABINET 265 of the National Guard of the Seine and commander of the first miHtary division, that is the regular army stationed in and about Paris. These two offices, accordingly to the law, could not be held by the same individual. Ledru-Rollic rose and protested against this independent chieftain who, according to the decree investing him with power, could for twenty-four hours issue commands without consulting the minister of war, against this dictator who " on his own responsibility could take all the measures inspired by reason, interest, caprice." The basis of the constitution, Ledru said, was the responsibility of all officials; yet here was an official who for twenty-four hours would be responsible to no one. Moreover this double command violated the law of 1 83 1 which forbade an officer holding an active command both in the army and in the National Guard. Paris was now quiet ; so there was not even the excuse of abnormal times. " The situation is perilous, for here is liberty, here is the republic under the formidable menace of a forest of bayonets. It ought to be sufficient, merely to point out these considerations; they must impress all sincere republi- cans and all serious minds." ^ This speech differs from Ledru's orations earlier in the year; it is the clear, dispas- sionate pleading of a lawyer, proving the violation of the spirit of the constitution and the k-tti-r «»f the law of i«^3i. Ledru-Rollin had a remarkable faculty for making legal ex- position clear to laymen. Rarrot admits in his Memoirs that in this debate Ledru had right on his side: " We had hardly taken possession of our ministries wlicn M. Ledru-Rolliti began that scries of interpellations which filled and tormented all our ministerial existence. Pie chose for his first attack an excellent ground .... I refrained from denying the violation ot' the law of 1 Discours poUtiqucs 2: 149-154. 266 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [420 1831 ; the violation was evident. But I armed myself with the exigencies of the situation." ^ In fact Barrot now' started out well on his career of apologizing for manifest infractions of the law, infractions of which he himself did not approve. He declared that he was glad to reply to all scruples based on the high ground of constitutionality, but he insisted that the ministers were still responsible for any acts of Changarnier as they had the power of revoking the general's command. These were not ordinary times, Barrot said; the period of uprisings had scarcely ended, and unity of command was necessity; the chief aim of the cabinet was to maintain order. Ledru again took the floor to rebut the minister. He stated correctly : " I have put as clearly as possible a con- stitutional question; the minister, being unable to reply to the texts I have cited, has merely uttered fine words." He reiterated that the ministers were not truly responsible for the acts of Changarnier, for of what avail was the revoking of his command if in the meanwhile the general — this was a mere hypothesis — should dissolve the Assembly. Deputies protested against such a suggestion, but Laissac, a member of the left, shouted : " The Eighteenth Brumaire was some- thing like that." When quiet was restored Ledru-Rollin continued to his second point, the violation of the law of 1 83 1, and he showed how extraordinary times were explic- itly defined in that law in such a way that the term could not be applied to the existing state of affairs. Ledru con- trasted the contradictory pictures drawn by Barrot, on the one hand the revival of commerce and the return of con- fidence, on the other hand the fear of unrest. " You have been unconstitutional," Ledru-Rollin said in closing, ''' ac- cording to yourselves through lightheadedness, according to * Barrot 3 : 49-50. 42 1 ] THE BARROT CABINET 267 us deliberately; but whichever way you take it, you are from this day on nothing but an arbitrar}^ ministry; a sad, a very sad beginning." ^ This rebuttal strongly reenforced Ledru's first speech. ]\Ialeville, minister of the interior, made the best of a bad case. He declared that the best guarantee of order was the concentration of command, and that the twenty- four hour limit was a sufficient guarantee of the respon- sibility of the cabinet. He ridiculed the solicitude for the constitution shown by the former minister of the interior who had sent out the commissioners, and he warned Ledru not to talk so lightly of infractions of the constitution. After another member of the Mountain, Dain, had rejxiated the arguments of his leader, the Assembly, unwilling to censure the cabinet, passed to the order of the day. Barrot had successfully passed through the ordeal of the session, but the honours of the debate went to the extreme left. Victor Hugo judged correctly: " It was sui)crlicially a success, fundamentally a check. One was astonished to see Odilon Barrot, an old jurist, stumble at his first step over the text of a law. The lawyer used a (juibble at his debut, and Ledru-Rollin was for Odilon Barrot in 1S48 what Barrot had 1)een for Guizot in 1R30." - During the remaining life of the Constituent .Assembly Ledru's speeches may be divided into two classes, lie ex- pounded the foreign policy of the Mi»iint;iiii (this subject ' Discours politiques 2: 155-9. • Hugo I : 416. Corkran 356-7 Iwlicvcd that Ix;dru had dcfc.itrd Ilarrot in the debate but was routed in turn by NT.ik-villc. As to the ncw-tpapcrs of December 27, the DiHmts declared that T>cdru had l)ecn most re- strained and that he occupiefl the place of Harrot under the July mon- archy, but it asserted tliat Ix-dru's texts paled before Harrot's rcasoninR, The National was gradually coming over to the side of the radicals; it considered Ledru profound and Rarrot weak. The Prupir began a period of fulsome praise of all Ledru's speeches. 268 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [422 will be treated separately) ; he delivered a series of attacks on the arbitrary acts of the Barrot cabinet. The next op- portunity for a conflict with the government occurred on January 20, 1849. The legislature had created a high court for the trial of treason, and the ministry desired to send before such a special court at Bourges the leaders involved in the affair of INIay 15. Eugene Raspail, a member of the Mountain and the nephew of the prisoner of V'incennes, pro- tested that the law creating this tribunal had not been enacted until after May 15, and that it was not retroactive. After Bonjean, a dertiit^- of the right, had denied re- troactivity, Ledru-Rollin obtained the floor. He declared that he would speak clearly and avoid legal hair-splitting. It was a commonly accepted principle, he said, that when a malefactor committed a crime, he should know the penalty attached. It was unfair to say that there were two distinct matters, the penal law and the law of procedure, and that the latter could be modified after the crime, for there were cases where a man might prefer a Draconian law and a jury to a milder law administered by a court sure to condemn him. The only two exceptions to the principle of change of venue did not apply in this case under discussion. Besides, when once a certain court had taken charge of a matter, as had occurred in this case, the jurisdiction could under no circumstances be changed. In the constitution the executive, legislative, and judicial powers had been clearly separated; now the legislature was tr^nng to encroach on the judiciary. Ledru-Rollin next considered the question of non-retroac- tivity. He quoted ]\Ierlin de Douai on the Cadoudal case which, he showed, presented an identical situation. He quoted Solicitor-General Dupin, the chief advocate for the law under discussion, and also Odilon Barrot on the Trans- nonian affair of 1834. Ledru claimed that the rejection by the Assembly of the Deville amendment that crimes com- 423] THE BARROT CABINET 269 mitted before the promulgation of the constitution should not be submitted to extraordinary courts did not imply that the Assembly adopted the contrary policy, for it might have believed that it was unnecessary to insert this amendment in the constitution. Ledru admitted Dupin's claim that when a court had been destroyed, it was necessary that a new court should take over its jurisdiction, but he showed how this principle of law did not apply in the present case since the court of sessions, before which the prisoners taken May 15 should ht sent, was still in existence. He closed with an ap- peal to beware of arbitrary power.^ This speech is another example of Ledru's clear exposition for lay minds of a com- plicated legal question. It is also an example of his habit of refuting his opponents by quoting from their earlier orations. Dupin, the solicitor-general, replied with a lawyer's plea, emphasizing the refusal of the accused insurgents to accept any jurisdiction. When the discussion was continued two days later Baroche, the district-attorney, and Barrot sjwke for the government; Jules Favre, Crcmieux, and Dupont de Bussac, all members of the left, for the opposition. The ministers obtained a majority in favor of sending the ac- cused before the high court at IVnirgcs, but the entire k-ft was in the opposition.' On January 26, I^-on Fauchcr, the minister of the in- terior,'' declared the intention of the governnient to !)ring 1 Discours politiqucs 2: 171-184. 'The Peuplc of January 23 said: "To ^vc you .m i.ci <>i Juica Favrc's speech we need rmly repeat the words of Lcrlru-Kolh'n to those who interrupted Jules Favre: There is tint one of you capahlr of mak- ing a similar speech." f)n January 20 the Mountain had not taken part in the vote for vice-president, and 44 MontaRnardn. inchidinR Ixdru- Rollin, published a letter declaring this fact. — AV/orwr. Rhohttion democratique et socialc, January 2I, 1849. ' Maleville had quarreled with I^uis Napoleon and. fo^irthcr with Bixio, the only old-line republican in the cabinet, had resigned. 270 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [424 in a bill closing the clubs ; he requested urgency for the bill. A committee was to be chosen by the bureaus to consider the question of urgency/ In the first bureau Ledru op- posed urgency. He declared that he spoke in a bureau for the first time in his parliamentary career. The bill violated the constitution, he said ; the danger of public security seemed to him a joke; the government would next demand the suppression of the press. The ministry should respect the right of association as had the executive commission. The vote for a member of the committee from the first bureau was close; only on the third ballot was Bavoux, a member of the right, chosen by 25 votes to 24 for Ledru- Rollin." On Januar}'- 27 Senard, member of the left centre and reporter for the committee to which the demand for urgency had been submitted, declared that the subject of closing the clubs was too important for a hurried discussion and that the existing law was sufficient for all needs. Barrot asserted that the idea of closing the clubs had long been in people's minds and that there would be no hurry if urgency were agreed to; that a definite decision must be reached and that the government preferred defeat to uncertainty. Ledru- Rollin replied that the entire responsibility for the existing agitation about the clubs lay with the government, and that to consider closing the clubs was a violation of the consti- tution, for that document guaranteed right of public meet- ing, liberty of petition, and freedom of the press. " Only the exercise of these rights can be limited in order to main- tain public security." Urgency should not be voted to mutilate the constitution. Barrot asked why delay was ^ The French legislature is divided by lot into bureaus which discuss any bills before the official debate in the united assembly and which elect members of committees to consider bills. ' Constitiitionnel, Debats, January 28, 1S49. 425] THE BARROT CABINET 27 1 necessary if the question was a constitutional one. Senard declared that it was a question of expediency as well as of constitutionality. The question was put, and urgency was rejected by a majority consisting of the lefts and the centre combined.^ After this vote Ledru presented an impeachment of the ministers for considering the closing of the clubs. It was signed by Ledru-Rollin and forty eight other Montagnards.- This action was a mistake in policy, for the Mountain fell into the error against which Alaleville had warned them, that of declaring at too slight a pretext that the constitution had been violated. It was a debatable point whether the con- stitution would have been violated by this law. l)ut the con- sequence was that, when in June 1849 the ^Mountain had a far better case, the country felt that the extreme left had already cried ivolf too often. A period of agitation now followed. Thiers remarked to Persigny, the confidant of the Prince-President ; " The country is lost. . . . We are tumbling into anarchy. The Assembly is dominated by the clubs of Paris; Ledru-Rollin is master of the situation. In a week we shall have the terror and the scaffold. . . . Tell the Prince that 1 can do nothing for him."'' According to Victor Hugo. Marrast made the remark: "This l)rute of a l.i-(lni-lM»Iliii will end by throwing us to that brute of a I'laiKiui." * As a matter of fact real danger was threatened rather by the 15oiia- * Lcdru was again a candidate for mcmbcrsliip on the committee for the discussion of the bill, but he received on the first bureau only 8 votes out of 42. — Dcbats, January 30. 18^9. ^Reformc, Rh'olulion dcmncraliquc ft socialc. January ^), lS4«}; Times, January .31. Five newspapers and the prcsirlcnts of varioiiH clubs also asked the impeachment of the c.\h\nc\. — RhoUtlion dfmo- cratiqtie et socialc, January 27. * Persigny 39-40. *Hugo 2: 13. oyo LEDRU-ROLLIX AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [426 partists. On January 29 an uprising was feared. The events of this " day '' are very obscure. Marrast, president of the Assembly, ordered certain troops to approach the Palais Bourbon and protect it. General Changarnier, neglected, overlooked, or disobeyed the order, and assuming dictatorial powers, told the troops to listen only to his commands. But times were not ripe for a change, and on the thirtieth Paris awoke to find that neither the threatened popular uprising nor the Bonapartist coup d'etat had materialized. The day had, however, shown the insubordination of General Changarnier. As nothing was done about the impeachment of the min- isters, on January 31, Vezin, a member of the right, asked whether it had been withdrawn, and if not why it had not been referred to the bureaus. Ledru replied that he himself had been instructed by the signatories to make the same demand ; not only was the impeachment not withdrawn but further accusations would be added to it.^ In fact the extreme left published a protest against the events of January 29.- On Februar}^ 3 Baze, a member of the extreme right, asked wh}^ the further accusations had not been produced and demanded urgency for the discussion of the impeachment. The As- sembly rejected this demand, and that was the last heard of the entire matter. One of the clubs which the government most feared was the Solidarite repiiblicaine. On January 10 Leon Faucher had written to the prefects that there existed such a club with central offices at Paris and branches in the departments, that this was a state within a state and therefore a menace, that it was an unauthorized society and a secret club, and the law of July 23, 1847 forbade both secret clubs and cor- ^ Monitetir 331. ^Reforme, February 3; Dcbats, February i. The signatories were almost the same as those to the impeachment. 427] ^^-E BARROT CABINET 273 respondence between clubs, that the government had not used its authority during the electoral period, but that it had closed the central club on December 12 with the approval of the Assembly, that the association did not consider itself dissolved, and that therefore the prefects were to prevent its meetings/ The officers of the Solidaritc rcf>iiblicaine replied that their club had never l^een dissolved, and that it could not be since it had complied with all legal restric- tions.' Leon Faucher admitted that it was not the Solidarite rcpuhlicaine that had been raided on December 12 but another club using the same rooms, but he maintained his earlier instructions since the Solidarite rcpublicaine was a club with branches and since its failure to declare itself before the authorities and its clandestine work constituted it a secret society.^ Thus Faucher admitted that he had given incor- rect information in his first circular, but declared that he did not care if he had, and he made new accusations for which he produced no evidence and which were partly false.* One of the government's actions on January 29 was an- other raid on the rooms of the Solidarite rrpiiblicainc. On the thirty-first ]Martin Bernard, ])resident of the society, in- terpellated the government on this high-handed pr(H-edure. Barrot replied that the raid was a purely legal inattrr. I-^dru desired to know whether the government claimed that there had been a plot or whether it was bringing charge>; 1 Moiiilcur 273, January 27. ^ Ibid., 303; Revolution dniiocraliquc ct socialr. January -jo. SiKiird by Lcdru, 13 other deputies, and 14 non-deputies. Sec also Cmzcttc dfs Tribunaux, Dcccml^cr 14, 1849. ' Monitciir for 1849, p. 303, * The clul) which was closed on DeccmlKT 12 may have Ihth tlio Friends of Political Democracy, formed for purposes of discussion by the Mountain and the memlK-rs of the h-ft. Lcdrti, l-'loron, I-«ndrin. Glais-Bizoin, and Lamartine were all meml)crs. l'"or details, sec AV- forme, December 28. 274 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [42S asrainst an association: in the former case it was a matter for the judiciary, in the latter for the legislature. He warned the Assembly that all kinds of associations might be attacked, conservative as well as radical. Baroche, the attorney-general, interrupted to declare that it made no dif- ference whether there had been a plot or an accusation against an association, that the government had turned the matter over to the courts, and that the previous orator should defend himself there. Ledru resumed : The associa- tion had been attacked, for twenty-seven of its members had been arrested at its headquarters. The courts were slow and it had always been the practice to bring such matters before the legislature. The raid was not a mere isolated occurrence but part of the general high-handed proceedings of January 29. The Solidarite repuhlicaine was not the only associa- tion with branches ; for instance, there existed the conserva- tive Friends of the Constitution. The matter concerned a violation of the right of public meetings. The SolidaritS. republicaine was not a secret society; its constitution had been published and its placards had been openly posted. It was a society founded for electoral purposes and to give aid to workingmen. It had been registered as prescribed by the law. It had none of the characteristics of a secret society as defined by Solicitor-General Dupin. All parties ought to side with the Mountain on this question, as all clubs existed by the same right as this one. " The Solidarite republicaine has its roots in the constitution and you cannot close it without violating the constitution." ^ This speech made out a good case for the association, but rambled more than Ledru's better orations. The Assembly was tired of the discussion and passed to the order of the day. A few days later the radical deputies complained to the attorney-general of the slanders against the association in ^ Moniteur for 1849, pp. 331-2. 429] ^^^ BARROT CABINET 275 the legitimist Assemblce nationale. Of course no action was taken against this newspaper/ When the first anniversary of the foundation of the re- public arrived the republicans could not let it pass without notice. On February 24 Ledru was toasted at various ban- quets in the provinces and even in England." At Paris on the twenty-third fifty-six members of the Mountain, includ- ing Ledru, eight radical or socialist newspapers, and various associations which supported the policies of the extreme left issued a proclamation exalting the republic but urging the people to be quiet. ^ On February 25 a great banquet was held in the Rue Martel. Twelve hundred guests, including many members of the Mountain, sat down to table, and the galleries were filled with spectators. Special tables were reserved for the families of the prisoners at Vincennes and of the deported revolutionists. Several speeches were made. A certain Brice-Bar from the United States declared that the republics of the new world considered France as a sister. Ledru- Rollin replied. He thanked the American, but declared that homage was due particularly to their al)sent brothers, tiio martyrs in the prisons, and the revolutionists (U'ljorted to the colonies. Republicans might feel bitter, I^dru said, when they looked at the existing condition of affairs, but a glorious future awaited them. The revolutionary movenieut had three forms: the movement (A nationality, the jM)litical re- volution, and the social transformation which was the final goal. All started from the revolution of I^'cbruary, and no reactionary government in the world could slop tluni. ' Revolution democratiquc et socialc, Pcuple. February .^ These papers published the names of 47 sijfnatorics inchidinf; I.cdrii, " liut others will sign tomorrow." * Revolution democratiquc ct socinlr, Nfarch 15. 'Ibid.. Reforme, Fcuple, February 24. 276 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [430 The force of the democratic idea was invincible; the army was powerless against it. " The army! But it is composed of our brothers. Let it remain but a month in Paris and it becomes socialist. Do you know what is done then? The authorities send from the capital the diseased regiments, as they call them, and these diseased regiments carry to the provinces the disease of socialism."' Ledru said that his party demanded not merely universal suffrage but the organ- ization of labor and that this demand would be obtained ; that his opponents might as well oppose the course of a mountain torrent as the will of the people.^ Of the speeches made at this banquet of February 25 the most remarked were those of Pierre Leroux, Felix Pyat, and Ledru-Rollin. Ledru's discourse is very important as it marks the point where he proclaimed himself a socialist. The significance of this has rarely been grasped by histor- ians. Not a single belief did the leader of the Mountain change. He had always advocated social reforms, but he had denied that he was a socialist since he thought that that meant accepting communism. Now he accepted neither communism nor Utopianism, but he changed his opinion as to the meaning of the word socialism, and he was willing to let his ideas be called socialist, the same ideas, as Mathieu de la Drome had pointed out, that he had held in 1 84 1. This attitude of Ledru meant a union of the radicals and socialists in the democratic and social party, an alliance which lasted through the second empire. Ledru-Rollin's speech, especially the part on the socialist propaganda in the army, caused much alarm in conservative ranks. Mole desired that Ledru's assertion as to the army be publicly denied in the Assembly,^ and General Bugeaud ^Revolution democratique et socialc, February 26; Reforme, Peuple, February 27. * Castellane 4 : 140. 43 1 ] THE BARROT CABIXET 2yy wrote to Faucher that Ledru ought to be prosecuted for his utterances.^ The government printed in the Monitcur a statement that Ledru-Rolhn's words were " an insult to the army. . . . France is not sociahst; M. Ledru-RolHn and his friends know that perfectly well." " Ledru wrote to the Moniteur, asserting that Faucher was evidently the author of this notice and, that deputies ought not to be attacked in an official publication. He denied the rumor that any one had cheered the guillotine. He maintained that the army was attached to democratic principles and he mentioned a banquet of non-commissioned officers in which the Alountain and the democratic and social republic were toasted, but he declared that this was not an insurrectionary gathering as Bugeaud and Changarnier had been similarly honored.^ The Moniteur acknowledged receipt of this com- munication but refused to publish it '* Ijecause it rectified nothing and there is nothing to rectify." * On March i, 1849, the schools held a banquet, but it was closed by the police. On the third Martin Bernard inter- pellated the minister of the interior on this subject. I le de- clared that the schools held these banquets every Thursday, that on March i the prefect of police had interfered and that he himself had argued with the prefect as to the right to intervene, that the police had made a sudden and brutal attack, and Bernard asked wlu-tlicr the ininisk-r of ilu- in- terior approved this action. Ix-on I'auchcr rei)lied that the radical banqueters did not care for i)ublicity a?; did the liberal monarchists under the July mojiarchy, that tlu- very periodicity of the school baiKjuets proved their political character, that the red ribbf>ns on the platform and on the 'Letter of .March 3 in Rnolulion ilr iS.iS. 3: m,^. * Monitcur 679, March 2. * Refonnc, March 3; Pcu(>le, March ). * Moniteur 693. 278 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [432 orators proved the desire for disorder, that by the law of 1790 the prefect of pohce had the right to enter, that no violence had been used. Pierre Leroux claimed that the banquet was a friendly affair. Victor Grandin, member of the right, asserted that the ministry was not sufficiently severe, that the terrible poverty was caused by the doctrines enunciated in the clubs, by such statements as those of Ledru at the banquet of February 25. Of course this challenge brought Ledru-Rollin to his feet. He ridiculed the fear of the radicals as " a pitiful phantasmagoria employed by the late monarchy against M. Grandin himself when he was in opposition." He quoted Duvergier de Hauranne, Maleville, and Barrot in connection with the banquet agitation in 1847. Ledru asserted that it was foolish to blame the misery of the people on those who were constantly working for the amelioration of the lot of the proletariat by social reforms. Turning to the legal as- pects of the matter Ledru showed that the law of 1790 as interpreted by the constitution of 1791 did not apply to such interference as had just occurred. He ended brilliantly. He told how Guizot had warned Barrot when the latter was defending the right of public meeting: "Take care, for if you are ever on the same benches as we, pursued by the same exigencies, you will act as we are acting ; " how Barrot had cried : " I guarantee that I shall not, I take a formal engagement to that effect ; " how Guizot had disdainfully re- torted: "I do not accept M. Barrot's guarantee." Then Ledru concluded ; " When the head of the present govern- ment thus verified M. Guizot's suspicions to the letter, he underwent in my eyes the cruellest of all punishments." ^ 1 Discours poUtiqiics 2 : 198-205. On Dklarch 4 the National, now a whole-hearted supporter of the radicals, considered Ledru's speech "concise, nervous, extremely logical." Th^ Rh'olution dSniocratique ct 433] '^^^ BARROT CABIXET 2'j() It is no wonder that Odilon Barrot did not like the con- sistent Ledru-RolHn who over and over again refuted him out of his own mouth. Barrot was the kind of lawyer who could argue equally well on either side of a question. He now made an attempt to defend himself. He declared that the government stood for liberty against license, that his party had always welcomed the presence of the authorities at the banquets, that his duty was to defend the public. Berard, a member of the right, tried to turn against the leader of the Mountain Ledru's own device of proving the inconsistency of his opponents ; he asked whether the radical leader who had just spoken was the same man who had gloried in suppressing the insurrections of April i6 and May 15. Denjoy, bitterest of conservatives, protested against the partiality of President Marrast, who had al- lowed the left to interrupt Barrot but who had silenced the right while Ledru-Rollin spoke. The .Assembly, glad to end a discussion in which the conservative majority did not shine, passed to the order of the day. At last the bill on the closing of the clubs came up for discussion, and against the strenuous opposition of the en- tire left, joined by part of the centre, article one was passed by 404 votes to 303. On the law it.self the extreme left refrained from voting. One hundred and nine (K'i)utios signed a protest: "Article one of the law on clubs is a violation of the constitution. We have ])rotc.sted by our vote; we have protested by refraining from voting." ' socialc said: "It is generally aclmittccl>arillicr, Ix:fraii- Qois, Alphonse Marie. Medal. Millarcl, Pascal een bad Ijefore February 1848 and how consequently the circular of March 12 could not have caused the lamentable state of affairs. Ledru said that he had advocated a tax of one franc fifty but only on the rich, and also paper money and proportional taxes, but that he had opposed state bankruptcy.^ Duclerc now ad- mitted that neither Ledru nor Flocon had advcxated bank- ruptcy, and he stated that he had not mentioned the tax on the rich alone as it was an undemocratic measure. Goud- chaux, the first finance minister of the republic, asserted the absolute sanity of all Ledru's financial suggestions and de- clared that no member of the provisional government had advocated bankruptcy. Dupont de I'Furc made a similar statement. The amendment to repay the money collected on the tax of forty-five centimes was nf>\v rciciMcd, only (he left favoring it.' The subject of the financial policies of the provisional government was resumed on April 21. Goudchaux ex- plained that bankruptcy had never been proj)osc(l but that suspension of payments bad been suggested to several innn- bers of the provisional government and to their ministers. He then asked the author of the suggestion to arise, but no one moved. Ledru asserted that it was all-imi)ortant that 1 Discours poliliqucs 2:271-8. For extracts, sec pp. 86-9. * On April 14 the Ducos commission prcscntcrl its report exonerating the financial administration of the provisional Rovcrnment. Sec pp. 6j, 83- 90. 13I1 164, 241. Ledru had Inren heard Iwforc it on March i^». 284 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOXD FRENCH REPUBLIC [43S the person who had advocated the suspension be named, that this person could defend his idea as he was a deputy. Ledru then related how Delamarre ^ had proposed a forced loan. He explained that calumnies had been circulated against his own personal integrity and that the courts had declared that they had no jurisdiction in such a case.' Thus it was his duty, Ledru said, when the opportunity offered, to tear the mask from one of his opponents.' Goudchaux maintained that he was in honor bound not to violate the confidence reposed in him and that therefore he could not name the man who had proposed to him sus- pension of payments. He told how Fould, a Bonapartist banker, had criticized him for paying out money as obliga- tions came due. Ledru and a fellow-]\Iontagnard inter- rupted to say that Fould then must be the man who had suggested suspension of payments. " I say no," replied the Bonapartist banker. " I say yes," shouted Goudchaux. Imagine the sensation. Fould tried explanations and denials, but his defense was overthrown by Goudchaux, supported by ]\Iarrast and Cremieux. Even Barrot was con- vinced that Fould was prevaricating.* This debate was a triumph for the republicans. The onus of shady financial suggestions was thrown back on a pro- minent Bonapartist, Fould, and on a prominent Orleanist, Delamarre. The latter sent a letter to the Assembly ask- ing for authorization to prosecute Ledru-Rollin for his * Ledru did not name him, but members of the extreme left shouted his name from their benches. See pp. 89-90. 2 See page 61. ^ Moniteur 1480. *Barrot 3: 188-9. Barrot admits that Ledru was cleared of the charge of advocating bankruptcy, but unable to be just to an adversary, he adds : " When M. Ledru-RoIlin proposed paper money ... did he not render bankruptcy inevitable?" 439] ^-^'-^ OF THE COXSTITUEXT ASSEMBLY 285 calumnies. On April 25 at Ledru-Rollin's own request the letter was read. The accused deputy maintained his state- ments. The Assembly on the motion of Barraguey d'Hilliers, president of the Rue de Poitiers group, voted the previous question, as representatives could not be prosecuted for statements made in the Assembly. Meanwhile Ledru had found a new opportunity to attack the government. Preparations were being made for the elections to the new legislature and the various parties were holding campaign meetings. On April 10 Ledru-Rollin in- terpellated the minister of the interior on the intervention of the police in these meetings. Pie explained that many large cities were irritated at this intervention and that in some cases the municipal authorities had even handed in their resignations in consequence. He asked how the govern- ment justified this interference.' Faucher replied that many clubs had transformed themselves into electoral assemblies and that it was necessary to discover which were true cam- paign meetings and which were clubs. Rither the meetings were secret, he said, and therefore forbidden, or they were public and then the police merely looked on. 1 le gave ex- amples of anarchistic doctrines uttered by extreme revolution- ists. Faucher ended by declaring that he wished coinjiletc liberty in the elections and he asked whether the issuing of Bulletins of llic Ri'l^uhlic had k-en cf>nsistcnt with such liberty. Then Txdru spoke again, lie began by saying that the minister of the interior had. according to custom, tried ti> envenom the debate, but that he himself would remain calm, whereupon a terrible ujiroar arose during which Ix^dru and a mcmljer of the exircinc right indulged in n-criminatious. ^ Discnurs politiques 2:340-9. I-<erty of elections to a mere police question. He ended by saying : '" The government must be ol^eyed when it is not arbitrary, but when the gov- ernment violates the law, only the right of resistance re- mains." ^ This was the first time that Ledru had spoken openly of resistance to the government. Barrot again took the floor. He declared that I.edru re- produced other people's words to satiety, that Ledru was bold in confounding the right of prevention and arbitrary prohibition, that it was time that accusations against the ministry should cease since they affected the ignorant masses if not the deputies, that the authorities must have the right to preserve order. Barrot asserted that the single case of Dax had been cited against the government's contention whereas many ca.ses might l)e cited in favor of it, but he took good care not to specify any of those. Ixit tlic (juestion be submitted to the judiciary, he .said. After this weak reply of Barrr;t, Ix-dru jjroposed an order of the day denouncing the intervention of (he police, but the Assembly passed to ' Disrnurx (ynlitiqucs 2:2(^-27^. 288 ^^DR U-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [442 the order of the day pure and simple against the opposition of the entire left and of a part of the left centre. The altercation between Den joy and Ledru resulted in a duel. Duels between deputies were common in 1848 and 1849.^ Reports of duels by Ledru-Rollin had been circu- lated " but his affair with Denjoy was the only one in which the leader of the Mountain took part. On April 13 at five in the evening the opponents met near the Pont de Neuilly. It was raining torrents, but the adversaries were placed at twenty paces with pistols. Ledru fired and missed, but only the cap of Denjoy's cartridge exploded. Ledru-Rollin in- sisted that his antagonist shoot again, but the latter re- fused. Denjoy offered his hand, saying he had always had a high opinion of Ledru-Rollin personally. Ledru replied that no agreement was possible between persons who held such different view^s, but Denjoy still persisted and the two shook hands. At the Assembly Considerant was lecturing on socialism, and over two-hundred deputies escaped to the lobby to discuss the duel. When Denjoy arrived, Faucher shook him effusively by the hand.^ The Mountain continued its attack on the ministry. The Assembly had sent an expedition to Italy to prevent an Austrian attack on Rome. The troops had attacked the ^ For other duels, see Arcay 252. ^ On November 9, 1848, the Re for me denied that Ledru had been wounded. On December 19 the Resolution democratiqiie et sociale de- nied that he had been killed in a duel with a fellow-deputy. 'Gallois 89-90; Dix Decemhre, April 14; Times, x\pril 16. For offi- cial declarations of the seconds, see Reforme, April 14; National, April 15. Ledru's seconds were two Montagnards. Pyat and Joly St.; Den- joy's were Baraguey d'Hilliers and Laussat, two deputies of the ex- treme right. For clever satire see Lampion, May. 10. The following couplet is given : "€e grand represent, n'etant qu'un palloquet, Ses temoins sont partis, mais pas son pistolet." 443] EXD OF THE COXSTITUEXT ASSEMBLY 289 Roman republic and on May 7 the deputies voted their dis- approval of this attack. Nevertheless Louis Napoleon con- gratulated the troops and the cabinet did not disavow this action/ Thereupon on May 1 1 sixty members of the Moun- tain, including Ledru, proposed the impeachment of the president and his ministers." A motion to send the im- peachment to the bureaus was rejected, the lefts mustering only 128 votes against 388, and the subject was referred to the committee on justice where it died a peaceful death. The adverse vote of May 7 on the Italian expedition had occurred on the eve of the elections, and Ix'on h^iucher telegraphed to the departments a list of those who had voted against the government, advising the electors not to vote for these deputies. The Assembly was angered by this abuse of power and in an order of the da)^ the minister of the in- terior was censured. Only Den joy and four other members of the extreme right opposed this vote of lack of confidence. Of course after this Faucher was obliged to resign. On May 22 Changarnier again showed his insubordina- tion. This was the fourth time that this general had mani- fested his contempt for the Assembly. First of all he held an illegal double command. Then 011 January 29 he had disregardcfl the orders of Marrast. president of the .\s- sembly. Thirdly, after the Assembly had manifested its disapproval of Louis Napoleon's congratulalif>ns to the army near Rome, Changarnier had ])OStcd these congratulations in all the barrack rooms by military command. l*"inally on May 22 when Marrast feared trouble on account of a legis- lative deafllfK-k over Italian affairs '' and ordered fleneral Forest to bring his regiments to the Palais I'otirbon. Chan- garnier wrote to his subordinates to obey no orders l)nt his 1 For details, sec p. .^49. ^ Monilcur jar iS.ff^. p. 17.9); Ri^fnrmr, Nf;iy 10. " See p. .150. ooo LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [444 own, and no troops responded to Marrast's command. The deadlock was broken, but Changamier had again shown his insubordination. On the next day, May 23 Cremieux interpellated the gov- ernment on the rumors of attempts to reestablish the empire. He told how there was talk of an agreement between Louis Napoleon and the northern monarchs to destroy democracy in Europe and also rumors of the replacement of the honest Barrot cabinet by a Thiers-Bugeaud-Falloux combination which would carry out a coup d'etat. Considerant and St. Romme, another deputy of the extreme left, supported these accusations. Ledru then obtained the floor. He asserted that the events of the previous day were circumstantial evidence of a plot. He told how President Marrast had informed the premier of the deadlock. Barrot shouted a denial, but Marrast vouched for the truth of this fact. Ledru-Rollin continued, waxing wroth at the denial of Barrot. At the very time, he said, when the troops should have been ready to obey the commands of the officers of the Assembly, Changarnier had written to the colonels of the army to obey only orders given by himself. " He did well," cried Ouen- tin-Bauchart, whereupon Anton}" Thouret, a member of the left, made an angry retort. Marrast had great diffi- culty in quieting these two disputants. Ledru resumed, say- ing that if the Assembly required proof of a plot, it should name a commission to interrogate Changarnier and the colonels. He gave examples of earlier defiances of the legislature by Louis Napoleon and Changarnier, and he asked what clearer proof of conspiracy could be wanted than the repeated disobedience of the general. He said that the Mon- tagnards desired an investigation so that it would be clear to all that if anyone were violating the constitution, it was not they but their opponents.^ ^ Discours poUtiques 2:316-321. ^_I3] E^'D ^P T^i^ COXSTITUEKT ASSEMBLY 29 1 Barrot asserted that the army would never betray the constitution. A member of the extreme left supported Ledru's accusations as to the disobedience of Changarnier. Michot, a Montagnard, declared that certain soldiers had been instructed to shout : Three Cheers for the Emperor; Lagrange, another Montagnard, said that the army was loyal to France but not to its leaders. Barrot declared that all the charges were absurd and trivial, that not a coup d'etat but an uprising was to be feared, that Changarnier had written no letter to the colonels as Ledru had stated. Here Ledru handed a copy of the letter to President Marrast, and Barrot had to change his line of argument. He said that Ledru ought to have given him the letter earlier, that he could not imagine when the order to bring troops to the Palais Bourbon the previous day could have l)een delivered, that he was sure that Changarnier did not know of the order and had not wilfully disobeyed the Assembly. Lcdru- Rollin asked that the discussion he. postponed so that the head of the cabinet might have time to learn the facts.' The Assembly agreed to continue the debate the ne.xt day. Accordingly on IMay 24 the subject was renewed, liarrot declared that General Changarnier had no intention of in- .sulting the Assembly, but his explanation of this statement is difficult to understand. Considcrant expressed his belief that Barrot and Louis Napoleon were honest, but that cnii- spirators existed who were making use f>t' the president's name. Then l-x;dru spoke again. He showed how the ministry was constantly shifting its line of defense. " What is the .sense," he said, "of declaring for Crcneral rhangarnicr on five or six occasions: Yes, he actually violated the con- stitution, he issued commands in contravention of the l.iw. ' Monitcur 1879. 292 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [446 he disobeyed the orders of the Assembly, he wished to fight against it in behalf of the government — all that is true, but his intentions are excellent, he profoundly respects the As- sembly? " Ledru observed that it was absurd to plead ignor- ance of events in Changarnier's behalf, that the general could not have written his letter to the colonels except to cancel Marrast's orders, that Changarnier even thought the letter so important that he had written it with his own hand. Here Barrot interrupted to explain that Changarnier had not written but had dictated the letter. Colonel Charras, a member of the extreme left, denied this, and General Clement Thomas asked why Changarnier, who had a seat in the legislature, did not explain matters himself. Ledru continued, asking for an investigation into the affair and repeating his former arguments. Although an investiga- tion might prove merely that a folly had been committed, what, he asked, were Louis Napoleon's attempts to gain the throne in 1836 and in 1840 but follies? ^ There had been excitement all through Ledru's speech but nothing to equal the outburst of indignation at this last question. Emile de Girardin, the influential free-lance journalist, declared that it was not permissible to call the elect of six millions a fool. Etienne Arago and Martin Bernard had an angry colloquy with Barrot. The latter de- clared that the president of the republic could be attacked by constitutional methods, but that it was illegal to attack a man who could not answer. President Marrast mildly re- buked Ledru-Rollin for the words he had used. Finally Ledru resumed. He declared that his statement was not an insult but history. He believed in the absolute honesty of Barrot and he did not accuse the president of the republic, but there were many conspirators in Louis Napo- ^ Discours politiqucs 2 : 322-9. 447] E^'D OF THE COXSTITUEXT ASSEMBLY 293 Icon's entourage. He said that he did not accuse Barret of dishonesty or even of inordinate love of power. " If I had to quaUfy you, I would never call you a conspirator ; I would say what has already been said of you, that you are blind." Barrot retorted : " I did not know that it was in my destiny to be treated as blind by both M. Guizot and M. Ledru- Rollin." Ledru-Rollin concluded, asserting tliat he did not fear a successful coup d'etat, but that he did fear a Bona- partist uprising and consequent bloodshed.^ Falloux, the legitimist member of the cabinet, undertook: to answer Ledru. He maintained that there was no urgent need of a committee of investigation, that the minister of war could do all the investigating necessary. Since Teb- ruary 24, he said, there had been no danger from Bonapar- tist agents. It was foolish to threaten the country with an August 10, a Septeml^er 2, a May 31, or a tenth Ther- midor. " You stop before the eighteenth Brumaire," shouted Ledru. Falloux continued, inveighing against all disturl:)ers of the peace, and then swinging off to the sub- ject of the National workshops. On the following day May 25, the debate was continueil, but most of the discussion dealt with the National Work- shops, Falloux's opinions on the liistory of the sixteenth century, the opinions of the Monlagnard Joly in 1831, and what Considerant had recently said to P>arrot in a conver- sation between the two. Ledru-Rollin had movcni the A\t- pointment of a committee of investigation, but otily the left and the left centre su])j)ortcd him. and accordingly the As- sembly passed to the order of the day by a vole of 30H to 260. The next day. May 2C}, was the last of the Constituent Assembly. A final attempt at obtaining an amnesty for ' Discours politique^ 2 : 329-333. 294 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [448 political prisoners was lost by four votes, most of the centre abstaining from voting. There was a brief discussion in which Ledru took part as to the powers of the officials of the Assembly in the period before the new legislature should meet, but an harmonious agreement was reached/ Armand Marrast read his president's address, and the Assembly passed into history. 1 Moniteur 1910. CHAPTER XX The Legislative Assembly The trial of Barbes, Blanqui, and the other revolutionary chiefs involved in the affair of May 15 began at P>ourges on March 6, 1849. Most of the prominent statesmen were summoned as witnesses, including the members of the pro- visional government. On March 18 Ledru arrived in the city. He was feted by the inhabitants and in the evening he spoke at a banquet held in his honor.' During the after- noon he had given his evidence; he had shown a friendly feeling towards most of the accused, but with Blanqui he had quarreled.^ One of Ledru's remarks attracted atten- tion: " When a revolt in behalf of the regency is attempted, one does not cheer the regency. When a revolt in behalf of legitimacy is attempted, one does not cheer legitimacy. One makes use of the feeling animating the people, one de- stroys the existing administration, and by a sleight of liand one obtains the goal desired." '' Beaumont- Vassy, a con- servative onlooker, said: "The pantomine with which M. Ledru-Rollin accompanied these words impressed tiicm on the memory of all present." * ^ Revolution democratiquc ct socialf, Cnnstiluliointt-l, Nfarch Ji ; Breton, Boissy 2: 124. 2 For evidence, see Monitcur for iS.fQ. pp. 947-*, 962; Reform f. March 21, 1849. For extracts, see pp. 8.1, 121. 126. 139, 15.1-4. 159. \^). ^ Reforme, March 21. Cf. Hcamont-Vassy .4:485; Breton, Boissy 2:126; Moniteur 947; Constitutionnel, March 23. * Beaumont-Vassy 4 : 485. 449] 295 2o6 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [450 The court was unfair to the prisoners but not so unfair as the one that sat later at Versailles to try Ledru-Rollin and his friends on account of the fiasco of June 13. Finally on April 13 sentence was pronounced. General Courtais was acquitted. All the other prisoners were found guilty of sedition, A peculiarity of the sentence was that Blanqui, un- doubtedly more involved in the affair of May 1 5 than Barbes or Raspail or Albert, received a lighter penalty. Louis Blanc and Caussidiere had escaped to England; the prosecution produced no evidence against them but condemned them in their absence. This was the first of these political con- demnations by the judiciary, with which the government of Louis Napoleon was continually busy. In another trial Ledru-Rollin acted as lawyer for the ac- cused. Delescluze was prosecuted for inciting to hatred and for attacking the Constituent Assembly in his articles in the Rct'oluHon deniocratique et sociale. On March 12, 1849 the case was tried. ^ Ledru deplored the revival of animosities which had begun to die out. He claimed that it was absurd to accuse Delescluze of hatred for the re- public, as for twenty years he had been advocating a republic. He defended the truth of Delescluze' s newspaper accounts of the National Workshops, of the June Days, and of January 29, and asked why republicans only, never royalists, were brought to trial. He declared that attacking Cavaignac was not attacking the Assembly. He maintained that it was unjust to protest against newspaper discussion of the June Days. He compared the prosecution with the refusal of the courts to hear cases of calumnies against conservative ' It had been postponed from February 13 on account of the iUness of Ledru-jRollin. Delescluze had told the court : " The sickness of Citizen Ledru-Rollin is serious. For several days he has been spitting blood plentifully. . . . This morning when I left him, he was about to be bled." — Rez'oluiion democraiique et sociale, February 14. On the twen- tieth Ledru had completely recovered.— /fcjff., February 20. ^^ I ] THE LEG 1 SLA TI I '£ A SSEMBL Y 297 newspapers. The jury, however, brought in a verdict of guilty on both counts, and Delesclu2e was sentenced to a year's imprisonment and a thousand francs' fine.^ The radical and socialist newspapers helped pay the fine. On April 10 Delescluze was again condemned, this time to three year's imprisonment, 1 1 ,000 francs' fine, and costs. At the same time, Darimon, his colleague of the Peiiple, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and a fine of 6,000 francs. The Mountain published a letter declaring its support of the two newspapers and contributing 500 francs to each journal. The Frcsse, the National, the Rcforme, the Rcpiihliquc, and the Vraic Rcpubliqiic declared their moral solidarity with the condemned newspapers and con- tributed towards the payment of the fines." Delescluze never served his term, though the reason for this cannot l)e discovered. Meanwhile the electoral campaign was in full swing. Early in April the Mountain thought it necessary to issue a declaration of principles. " We accept the constitution even though it does not include the right to labor or the a1x)lition of the death penalty; we accej)! it in spite of its imperfections because it is the result of universal suffrage and because it can be revised." The work of the Consti- tuent Assembly, the Mountain declared, had been illogical because the monarchists who composed a large part of it were incapable of establishing a republican regime. The time had now arrived when the voters could rcjat those deputies who had voted for tlic maintenance of the state of siege, the deportation of pf)litioal prisoners, the bonding of newspapers, the law against clubs, internal duties on meats ^ Rh-olution dcmocraliquc it socialc, .March 13; .\f(>mt,-ur for /.SV9, p. 827. For extract sec pp. I0.V4- 'Revolution dniiocratiiiuc ct socialc, April 11, 12. 298 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [452 and wines, the eleven-hour day; they could elect those who had voted for the reduction of postage rates, the abolition of the salt tax, the budget, and the preamble to the constitu- tion. The foreign policy of the Mountain was that all nations should be free and should be given aid to liberate themselves when they asked for it, that France was pledged to succor Poland, Italy, Germany, Hungary. The internal policy of the Mountain was to improve the condition of the people and to enlighten them ; to follow up the expulsion of the monarch with the expulsion of misery and ignorance. Property was the basis of the family and of society, but that involved the right to labor. The state should extend aid, that is instruments of labor, to all. Taxes should be pro- gressive. The size of the army and the length of service should be reduced, a reserve should be organized, and pen- sions should be granted. Education should be free and ad- ministered by the state, and the salaries of teachers ought to be increased. The emacipation of the lower clergy, judi- cial reform, state administration of such natural monopolies as railroads and mines were other items in the program of the Mountain. In the sphere of political organization it advocated universal and direct suffrage ; unity of power and division of functions; an executive revocable by the legisla- ture and subordinate to it. " Finally, all the consequences of the three great principles of the revolution ; that is, gov- ernment of all, by all, and for all ; the republic one and in- divisible; the democratic and social republic." ^ This pro- clamation is the best summary of what the radicals of 1848-9 advocated. Half of what they demanded has since become law; the other half occupies a prominent place in the programs of the progressive parties of today. All these ideas are reasonable : none are impracticable. ^Ibid., April 5, 1849; Refonne, April 6; Peiiple. April 7. The seven most important radical and socialist newspapers and 56 deputies, in- cluding Ledru, signed this declaration. 453] ^^^ LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 299 In Paris the Democratic-Socialist Committee, the electoral machine of the Mountain, met about April 25 and chose its candidates for the new assembly. In the balloting the first four names and the votes they received were as follows : Pierre Leroux 179, Felix Pyat 177, Ledru-Rollin 173, Greppo 165.'- There were twenty-eight deputies to be chosen for Paris, and the Democratic-Socialist Committee filled out its list with such names as Cabet, Proudhon, Lamennais, Considerant, Alton-Shee, and two sergeants pro- minent in the democratic movement in the army. These twenty-eight candidates united in a declaration to the effect that the republic stood for " the rejuvenation of society dying of corruption; the control of the state by the people; liberty, equality, and fraternity." They promised that with the aid of the people they would save the political and social revolution in France and in Europe.* The conservatives, on the other hand, drew up a list of candidates headed by Barrot, Bugeaud, Cavaignac, Chan- garnier, Falloux, Marie, and Thiers.^ This was a combina- tion of conservatives, Bonapartists, and the right wing of the moderates. An association called The l'>iends of the Constitution put forward a list which took from each of the others the less extreme names, such as Lcdru-Uollin and Cavaignac, and composed the rest from the centre and left of the old legislature.* These were the three pruininent lists in Paris. The campaign was unlike that of April 1848, which had ^Peuple, Reformc, Revolution dcmocratviue ct xocuili', Xational, Aptil 26; Times, April 27. 'Revolution dcmocratiquc ct socialc, .May 9; I'cuplr. May 14, iH4<;. ' Constitutionncl, May 9; Atelier, May. * National, May 7, 1849; Constitutionncl, Times, May 9. This list coji- tained seven mcmlK-rs of the provisional government and ten other officials of that government or of the executive commission. ,00 LliDRl'-ROLLI\' .-IXD SECOXD FRENCH REPUBLIC [45^ ]xxMi :i campaign of iiulivicluals. Now three distinct parties were bringing forward their candidates. On one side were the radicals and sociahsts headed by Ledru. On the other side was the combination of all types of conserva- tives : Bonapartists, Orleanists, legitimists, clericals. Be- tween these two and attracting little attention was the great parliamentary group of the left and the centre, the moderates of the provisional government, the supporters of Cavaignac. Besides being a candidate in Paris, Ledru also ran in at least fourteen departments.^ The government worked against Ledru-Rollin. At Val- enciemies the authorities tried to stop men from wearing his picture. At Cherbourg the prefect spoke openly against him. At ^Marmande the sub-prefect persecuted all officials who supported him.^ " The departments were full of rumors published by the anarchists," said an English traveler. " One country paper announced that Louis Napoleon had been deposed, another that Ledru-Rollin and Marrast had been appointed dictators, and another that Napoleon had proclaimed himself em- peror." ^ The friends of Ledru thought that it would be advisable for him to tour the provinces. He could not accept all the invitations he received. To Bordeaux he sent a friend in 1 Allien, Eure, Gard, Upper Garonne, Gers, Gironde, Herault, Indre, North, Bouches du Rhone, Saone et Loire, Sarthe, Lower Seine, Var^ Besides, his name was proposed in Ain, Aisne, Creuse, Mayenne, and Pas de Calais, but his name was not on the official socialist list. In Ardennes, Eastern Pyrenees, and Somme Ledru withdrew his name. For Upper Alps, He et Vilaine, Landes, Maine et Loire, and Tarn no statistics are available. In the Sarthe when the departmental committee balloted, Ledru came first with 801 out of 820 votes. — Guyon 151; Courier of Le Mans, April 29, 1849. * Constitutiomiel, May 29; Re forme, April 14, March 11. * Senior i : 133, May 15, 1849. 455] ^^^ LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 301 his place.^ There were rumors at various times that Ledru would visit the Midi, but he never found time. The citizens of Le Mans invited Ledru, Pyat, and Joig- neaux to a banquet in their city. Pyat refused, dishking a night in the dihgence, but the other two Montagnards ac- cepted. They set out on April 21. Ledru made a brief speech on the way at La Ferte.^ Early on the following' morning the two deputies reached Le Mans, both tired. A reception of two hundred delegates was scheduled for ten o'clock. " Ledru was not in a state to receive them," says Joigneaux; " he was spitting blood, which happened to him often. He told me that he needed two hours of absolute re- pose and that I would oblige him by making his excuses." Joigneaux spent a pleasant two hours. A j>easant asked permission to shake Ledru's hand. Joigneaux brought him to Ledru, and Ledru discovered that the peasant had come on foot over ten miles just to shake his hand, and that he was obliged to return immediately to his sick wife. " Hardly had the peasant left," continues Joigneaux, " when Ledru, deeply affected, threw his arms around my neck, leaned his head on my shoulder, and with eyes filled with tears exclaimed : Oh, my dear friend, what devotion, what a heart zve liave seen! Anyone who zuould deceive him must be a great villain." Then Ledru graciously received the delegates.^ The rain was pouring when, a little after noon, Ledru set out for the banquet. On an island in the Sarthe several thousand democrats had assembled from all the villages in the neighborhood. The conservatives had paid certain men two francs apiece to hiss Ledru. One of them admitted this ' Reformc, May 10. * Joigneaux 2:9. Union of Lc Mans quoted in Dcbats, April 29; Reforme, April 26. ^ Joigneaux 2 : g-12. -^02 LEDRV-ROI.LIS AND SECOXD FRENCH REPUBLIC [436 to Joigiieaux, who said to him: "Here are three francs ; now be quiet." Joigneaiix spoke on progress, and various local politicians made addresses.^ The guests were pro- tected l)v canvass, but the speaker's platform was in the open air, and for three quarters of an hour Ledru spoke with the rain beating upon him. He glorified the demo- cratic idea and prophesied its eventual triumph. He ex- plained his fiscal and foreign policies. He supported the right to labor. He denied that the Mountain advocated aboli- tion of property, destruction of the church, or sanguinary measures. He said that success was assured to the people, not by violence, but by the peaceful method of the ballot box." After this speech Ledru attended the meeting where the candidates were selected and made another brief ad- dress. The crowd escorted him back to his hotel and stood under his window cheering him. Joigneaux says : " Ledru did not like these demonstrations and told me the pain he felt at this crowd insisting on standing under his w'indow in spite of the pouring rain." Accordingly the two deputies caused the rumor to be spread abroad that they had de- parted, and the crow^d dispersed.'^ Ledru and Joigneaux received no one during the evening* as both needed rest. The latter relates : " I had a fever and Ledru was more worried than was necessary. He made me leave the door between our rooms open, and five or six: times during the night he rose to inquire how I was. I had great difficulty in reassuring him. He hardly slept that night in spite of his need of rest." At five the next morning the two deputies left the city quietly. They took 'Joigneaux 2:11-15. See also Revolution democratique et sociale, April 26; Reforme, Times, April 28; Dehats, April 29; Courier of Le Mans, April 25. * Reforme, April 27; Revolution democratique ct sociale, April 30. * Joigneaux 2 : 15-16. 457] THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 303 a carriage and reached Tours without being recognized. There they took a train for Paris/ Another city visited by Ledru during the campaign was Chateauroux.^ He went via Bourges and Issoudun, and while the train stopped at the latter station, he addressed a few hundred people gathered there. ^ At half past five o'clock on April 28 he arrived at Chateauroux accompanied by three deputies of the extreme left. He was received by a committee and walked to his hotel through cheering' crowds.* He took dinner with twenty five delegates of the cantons and afterwards received a group of workingmen. He retired early. The next day a thousand pounds of bread were distributed to the poor by the democratic-socialist party. In the after- noon Ledru started out for the banquet hall, accompanied by forty committee-men and by twelve young girls dressed in white with red sashes. One of these girls presented Ledru with a bouquet; he thanked her, speaking of the interest of the Mountain in the lot of working girls. At the banquet his fellow deputies and local celebrities made speeches.^ Ledru himself toasted the democratic and social republic; he explained the policies of the Mountain. ° 1 ^ Ibid., 2: 16-18; Journal de I'Indre et Loire, April 25. *For acceptance, see Journal de I'Indre, April 25; Republique de 1848 of Bourges, April 27. ^ Droit Comntun of Bourges, May i. * Revolution deniocratique et sociale, May 3; Journal de I'Indre, May 1, 2. The conservative papers claim the reception was chilling: Times, May 3; Constitutionnel of Chateauroux quoted by Debats, May 2; Representant de I'Indre, May 2. * Revolution deniocratique et sociale, May 3 ; Journal de I'Indre, May 2. The conservative accounts try to make the affair as ludicrous as possible with the damsels munching gingerbread and forgetting to ap- plaud when the signal was given. * Journal de I'Indre, May 2. .04 LEDKU-ROLLl.W AXD SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [458 At seven o'clock that evening he left Chateauroux. He stopjx^d off at Issoudun to make a second address there. Late at night he arrived at Bourges and was again forced to speak. The next morning he left for Moulins/ So far his trip had been a great success," but it was to end with some unfortunate occurrences. Ledru-Rollin reached Moulins in the evening of April 30 and was accompanied by a crowd of several thousand citizens from the barrier to the house of the Montagnard Mathe, where he was to lodge. ^ The next day a banquet of five thousand radicals and socialists took place in a closed garden. On a boulevard from which this garden could be overlooked conservatives had collected to hiss the orators and drown their speeches. Nevertheless the banquet passed off smoothly. Ledru enunciated the principles of his party,* and other orators gave voice to their opinions. The ban- queters intended to march out from the garden, but they were attacked by the conservatives on the boulevard. Ledru and his friends restrained their followers and a violent col- lision was avoided. The moderate newspaper, the Con- stitution observed : " A quarrel arose between those leaving ^Revolution deviocratique ct sociale, May 3; Droit Commun of Bourges, May i ; Rcpuhliquc de 184S of Bourges, May 2. * See Spuller 249, and for the attitude of a conservative, see Breton, Boissy 2: 131. * Throughout the account of the occurrences at Le Mans, the narrative of Ledru in Disconrs politiqucs 2 : 292-6 is closely followed. It is con- firmed by the account in ^fauve 68-74 and by the testimony at the Riom trial which followed these events; also by the radical Repuhlicain de I'Allier quoted in the Revolution democratique et sociale, May 3, and by the moderate Constitution de I'Allier quoted in the Peuple, May S. The conservative papers, the Memorial de I'Allier and the Echo de I'Allier, differ somewhat; they insist that Moulins was hostile to the radicals and that the faction of Ledru started each of the disturbances. *For speech, see Repuhlicain. The conservative newspapers falsely claimed that the speech was incendiary, an appeal against the priests and the rich. 459] ^^^ LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 305 the garden and the crowd outside ; the provocation evidently came from the latter. Fortunately the restraining influence of the republican leaders at the banquet prevented any serious disorder." The banqueters reconducted Ledru to Mathe's house. The prefect of the department had had the rap pel beaten, and the National Guard prevented any further disorder. Ledru remained at Mathe's from four o'clock until seven, and the city seemed to have quieted down during this time. Accordingly the prefect dismissed the National Guard. In order to avoid any occasion for a demonstration and a riot, Ledru advanced the hour of his departure. He left in a carriage with Mathe and four other friends. Unfor- tunately some workingmen recognized the leader of the Mountain and cheered him. Ledru induced them to with- draw, but not before the crowd in the chief square had become aware of his presence. This crowd was composed of conservatives and was led by members of the National Guard. Ledru's carriage was stopped and its inmates were threatened by swords, rifles, and bayonets. The glass win- dows were shattered by stones. Bayonets were thrust through the rear of the carriage. A sabre blow was directed at Ledru, which he parried with his cloak. Mathe threw himself in front of his leader to prevent a repetition of this danger. The brutality of the assailants saved the day, for one of them struck the postilion with a violent blow on the hands; the horses felt the reins quiver and started off like lightning. Ledru and his friends were quickly carried beyond the pale of danger,^ The night was peaceful at 1 Ledru, Mauve, the Republicain, and the Constitution all claim that the attack was premeditated. The prosecution at iRiom admitted the attack, but claimed that it was not premeditated and that Ledru's death was not desired. The Memorial and the Echo belittled the violence, denied premeditation, and claimed that the riot was suppressed by offi- cers of the National Guard. :.0(S LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [460 Moulins while Ledru and Mathe sped on to Paris, making- no stop at Bourges where they caught a train. On May 2 the Constituent Assembly was in session when Ledru and Mathe rushed in. Ledru was given the floor im- mediately. He related his adventures and declared that the insult of Moulins concerned the entire Assembly as some of its members had been attacked. He feared reprisals and hoped the Assembly would order an immediate investigation and the trial of those who had assailed him. As a jury in the department of the Allier would be prejudiced in favor of the National Guard, he asked that the trial take place elsewhere. Ledru declared that he himself believed that the affair was the work of a few conspirators.^ Barrot re- plied that in spite of differences with Ledru-Rollin he deeply felt the insult, that violence led to violence and must be punished, that the Assembly might rely on the government to order a judicial investigation immediately. Mathe presented a formal demand that the trial should not take place in Moulins; he added that a royalist agent had tried to stir up trouble at Sangoins, but that fortunately he and Ledru had not passed through that town.^ A pre- liminary report of the attorney-general maintained that there was provocation at the banquet, that there was no pre- meditation in the attack.^ The government transferred the trial to Riom in the department of Puy de Dome. Fourteen individuals were arrested, but all but three were released before the trial began on August 19. The prosecution proved the attack, and apparently identified the accused as assailants, but it showed no energy in its arraignment and claimed that the attack was unpremeditated. The defense ' Discours politiques 2: 292-8. * National, May 7, 1849 ; Peuple, May 9. ^Archives Nationales BB30-361, quoted Lebey, Ministere 304. 461] THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 307 asserted that the members of the National Guard were the defenders of the peace against agitators. The three prisoners were acquitted.^ This trial took place after the pseudo-uprising of June 13 and the flight of Ledru-RoUin, and the government was not anxious to convict those who had attacked one of its enemies, no matter how unjust the attack. On May 13 the elections to the Legislative Assembly took place quietly. Everywhere the moderates were defeated. Besides Ledru, only Cremieux of all the provisional gov- erment was returned; the others with most of the former moderate ministers suffered defeat. The conservatives ob- tained an overwhelming majority, but the democratic-social- ist ticket was successful in many departments. In Paris the outcome was a mixed one. A Bonapartist came first, then Ledru-Rollin. Nine others from the socialist ticket were returned among the twenty-eight deputies from Paris. Ledru was elected in five departments; in the other nine in which he ran he was defeated. However, it was a splendid tribute to receive a fivefold election; no one else was re- turned by more than three constituencies. The people of Allier, the department in which Ledru had been attacked showed their sympathy for Ledru. Seventy- four officers and soldiers resigned from the National Guard,^ and the de- partment returned the entire radical-socialist ticket. Ledru's total vote was about half a million, more than he had received for president. 1 The Courier dc la Limogne, August 26, and the Gazette dcs Tribu- naux, August 28, both give incomplete stenographic reports. Mauve 91-3 gives an excellent secondary account. ^ Mauve 71 ; Peuple, May 9, 1849. 3o8 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [462 Number Department of votes Seine 129,459 Saone ct Loire 75.510 Allier 40,407 Herault 31,202 Var 27,751 Lower Seine 39.837 Sarthe 39,127 — Gironde 33,045 — Upper Garonne 30,622 — Bouches du Rhone 25,266 13th Eure 11,131 — Gers 10,099 — Place Number of in list deputies elected 2nd 28 1st 12 5th 7 8th 8 3rd 7 i8th 16 Total 492,556 * In the Legislative Assembly which had just been elected parties were clearly defined. The conservatives formed a solid phalanx, the Mountain another. The independent members of the extreme left always and the left usually acted with the Mountain. The left centre headed by Cav- aignac swayed between the left and the right. The relative strength of the three groups was shown in the vote for pre- sident on June i : Dupin, candidate of the right 336 Ledru-Rollin, candidate of the lefts 182 Lamoriciere, candidate of the left center 76 Scattered 11 f The left was probably divided as follows : * This total does not include Gard, Indre, and North, nor the depart- ments where Ledru may have had a few scattered votes. In Indre, where nine deputies were elected, Ledru-Rollin was tenth on the list. t All the other candidates of the left were also defeated. For Mon- tagnard candidates, see Debats, May 30. On May 29 Ledru-Rollin was defeated for the chairmanship of the first bureau; he received only 9 out of 24 votes. — Ibid., May 30. 463] THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 309 Undoubted members of the Mountain 129 Doubtful members of the Mountain 27 Independent members of the extreme left 19 Total members of the extreme left 175 Total members of the left proper 45 Doubtful members of the left 6 Total members of the combined lefts 226 * Thus almost one third of the legislature of 750 belonged to the lefts. So strict were party lines than on votes as to the verification of powers only thirty-one members of the assembly switched from the majority or vice versa. Ledru-Rollin was the undoubted leader of the Mountain. There was no one else in the party who was nearly as pro- minent, no one else who could compare with him as an orator. It was to him that the new members looked for advice.^ Before the Legislative Assembly opened, the new members had gathered at the club in the Rue de Hasard and had listened to the debates." This was an exception to the rules of the club, for ordinarily all persons who were not deputies were strictly excluded except the paid secretary. During the Constituent Assembly the caucus system had * The undoubted members of the Mountain were the signers of the appeal to German democracy, those who had belonged to the Mountain in the Constituent Assembly, or those included in a list in the Re- forme, August 15. The doubtful members of the Mountain are those additional deputies whose names were appended to the poster of June 13, and four deputies absent in May and June. The independent mem- bers of the extreme left are additional deputies who signed the im- peachment of the ministry. The left proper are those who voted with the extreme left on votes as to verifications of power. The doubtful members of the left are those who changed sides more than once on these votes. For later membership of the extreme left, see Durand- Savoyat manuscripts at Library of the Chamber of Deputies, ms. 1440. * Nadaud 329 wrote a special letter requesting an interview, * Commissaire i : 224. >lO LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [464 Ik'cii used, but early in June this was abolished at the suggestion of Michel de Bourges, and each deputy remained free after the Alountain had voted on any question/ Be- sides Ledru the most prominent members of the Mountain were Michel de Bourges, the leader of the party of action; the fiery Felix Pyat, ever ready to fight; Martin Bernard, the former leader of secret societies, now grown less ex- treme; Considerant, socialist editor of the Democratic paci- tique, opponent of all violent precedure; Lamennais, whose liberal religious views had caused him to adopt radical political opinions, but who opposed appeals to force; De- ville, who usually acted as chairman; Gambon, who attended to the business of the club; Pierre Leroux, the pacifist- socialist. Certain Montagnards, like Michel and Pyat, were for violent action; others like Considerant and Lamennais opposed any appeal to arms. Between these two groups were Bernard, and the great mass of deputies, all undecided and looking to Ledru-Rollin to declare whether an uprising* was necessary. The Mountain was proud of the size of the minority in the Legislative Assembly. The Presse of Emile de Girardin even suggested that Louis Napoleon form a red cabinet under Ledru." The Emancipation of Toulouse advocated the dic- tatorship of Ledru-Rollin.^ Caussidiere wrote: "Ledru- Rollin is one of the most progressive representatives of February. He rallies about him a section of the bourgeoisie whose tendencies are not sufficiently revolutionary but who 1 St. Ferreol, Memoires 2:161, 187-8. Prosecution at trial of Ledru, Moniteur 3100; Laulerie, the paid secretary, in ibid., 3208-9, 3220. On May 27 officers of the Mountain were chosen. Ledru, Baune, Deville and Lamennais were elected presidents. — Refornie, May 29; Debats, May 30. * Revolution democratique et sociale, May 23, which was disgusted at the idea, as it wished no compromise with the prince-president. ' Vraie Republique, June 6. 465] THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 31I frankly accept all the consequences of socialism. Elected anew by the people, Ledru-RoUin owes to it all his hopes and the most absolute devotion, for it has forgotten the official to remember only the eloquent tribune whose sympathies are truly popular. Ledru-Rollin must now adopt a vigorous policy; better surrounded than in the past, the great artist must be more persistent and obtain a practical result in the matters with which he concerns himself. That is what his friends desire from the foremost orator of the legislature."^ Except for interpellations on Italian affairs, there oc- curred but one important debate in the Legislative Assembly during its first week's sittings. On May 30, during the third session, Keratry of the extreme right was presiding as the oldest member of the Assembly. Chavoix, an inde- pendent member of the extreme left, interpellated the min- istry on the removal of the officers apointed by the pre- vious legislature to defend the Palais Bourbon. Lacrosse, who had succeeded Faucher as minister of the interior, made a weak explanation. Chavoix returned to the attack. A tumult arose. When it had quieted down. President Keratry explained that he had authorized the change of officials in writing. Ledru at last obtained the floor. " Chavoix? had merely skimmed the surface of the question," says Quentin-Bauchart ; " Ledru-Rollin plumbed its depths." " Ledru-Rollin admitted that organization was the first duty of the Assembly, but he declared that even before that it must learn whether it had the right to exist. He told how* the orders of the Constituent Assembly had been disobeyed repeatedly, how twenty- four hours before the Legislative Assembly met, the officers had been transferred whereas only ^ Letter in ibid., June 7. ^ Quentin-Bauchart i : 258. . I J LllDRU-ROLUN AXD SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [466 the presidcMit of the legislature had the right to change those (.>rticials. how President Alarrast had protested to the min- istry- and had forced General Changarnier to delay the re- moval. " Thus," Ledru said, " you see that it was a most tlngrant violation of the orders and wishes of the Assembly .... Vou cannot overlook the question without being un- fair to yourselves; you cannot overlook the question with- out violating your own law of sovereignty, without your own room being violated against your orders." Giairman Keratry here interrupted the orator to say: " It is not we who violate the rights of the Assembly, but you and your friends." This remark was delivered in a low voice, loud enough to be heard in the tribune though not in the body of the hall. Ledru in his loud voice told Keratry that he (Keratry) did not have the floor; thereupon the right got angry. Ledru told the deputies what Keratry's remark was. The president repeated it. Ledru asserted that he had been insulted by the president, that the tribune was not free, that he would not reenter it as long as Keratry was in the chair. The left exploded with wrath. Barrot rose to calm it, but members of the extreme left drowned his voice with demands for an apology. The six youngest members of the Assembly were acting as secretaries, and four of them who were Montagnards resigned in protest and were replaced by the next youngest. Barrot admits : " The fault of the president was so evident that it was difficult for the majority to uphold him. The disorder was at its height. I mounted the tribune and urged M. Keratry to withdraw his remark." ' Accordingly Keratry finally mumbled : " I am sorry to have excited such a tumult. ... If M. Ledru- Rollin heard words displeasing to him, I am sorry." Ledru said that he understood the president had withdrawn his re- 1 Barrot 3:285-6. Here for once he is more just than Quentin- Bauchart i : 258-9, who justifies Keratry. ^^y] THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 313 mark (Keratty did not deny this) and that he was satisfied. The trouble should have been over now, but the confusion as to the secretaries had to be adjusted. The four Mon- tagnards went to resume their places, but the new officials refused to vacate their positions. The tumult raged as fiercely as ever. Ledru pleaded that the incident be closed by the restoration of the old order, that an act of justice be done by permitting those to return to their posts who had resigned only because they thought him insulted. Then a remarkable thing happened. Bugeaud, the arch-conserva- tive general — ^Bugeaud, the most bitter opponent of all liberals, entered the tribune; he hoped that " he would often agree with M. Ledru-Rollin or rather Citizen Ledru-RoUin." Majorities, he said, more than minorities needed to practice moderation. Thereupon the entire left applauded one of its chief adversaries, and the Assembly ordered the original secretaries to resume their posts. Ledru now continued his interrupted address. He en- umerated the protests of the Constituent Assembly against Changarnier's double command and also the general's re- peated refusals to obey Marrast's orders. Now, he said, the command of the forces of the legislature was given to that very General Forest who had a week earlier disobeyed Pre- sident Marrast.^ As to the ratification of the appointment by Keratry, that was given on May 30 whereas the change was made on May 28 ; thus Keratry had not authorized the transfer, he had merely agreed by complacency to an illegal act. Ledru ended by demanding an inquiry into the sub- ject.* Barrot, as usual, made the best defense possible. He as- serted that he had insisted on the retention of those excellent 1 See page 289. ^Moniteur 1941-3. T^ I ^ LEDRU-ROLUS AXD SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [468 olTicers who guarded the Palais Bourbon, until the president of the new Assembly could sanction the transfer, that the whole question was whether Keratry ratified the change or merely agreed to it, that he was willing to have an inquiry on that point. But the partisan Assembly, ready to uphold the ministry right or wrong against the left, passed to the order of the day. There were too many interruptions to make Ledru's speech remarkable, but in the eyes of history the honors of the day should go to the left. The insult of Keratry, the attempt to change officials during the forty-eight hours when there was no legislature, the appointment of Forest known to be more friendly to Changamier than to the body he was to defend, all were striking evidences of the contempt for justice and legality of the government of Louis Napoleon and of the party for which Odilon Barrot was the continual apologist. CHAPTER XXI ; Italian Affairs Ledru Rollings connection with foreign affairs is so im- portant that it is best treated separately; it has therefore been omitted from the account of his parhamentary career. It will be remembered that under the provisional govern- ment there was a slight difference in policy between the radicals and the moderates. Both were friendly to the cause of republicanism in Italy and elsewhere, but Lamartine de- sired to wait until the help of France was asked before send- ing troops against the reactionary monarchs whereas Ledru wished to send troops without awaiting a formal request. Lamartine issued a manifesto expressing his views. The executive commission continued the foreign policy of Lamartine, and on May 24, 1848 the Constituent As- sembly expressed its approval in an order of the day : " The National Assembly invites the executive commission to con- tinue to follow the wishes of the Assembly summed up as follows : a fraternal pact with Germany, the reconstruction of a free and independent Poland, the liberation of Italy." The February RIevolution in Paris had set the spark to revolutions all over central Europe. In Germany a liberal parliament composed of delegates from all the German states met at Frankfort; in the Hapslmrg dominions the various nationalities revolted; in Italy the minor states forced their rulers to grant liberal constitutions. The Austrians had been expelled from Lombardy-Venetia with the exception of the famous quadrilateral where General Radetzky was 469] 31S .JO LEDRU-ROLLIN AXD SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [4^0 l)eing besieged by the troops of the King of Sardinia and by small auxiliary forces from the other states of Italy. The policy of the executive commission was to send an army to Italy only at the request of the inhabitants of the penin- sula, but Italy's slogan in 1848 was Italia fara da se, and no request came. Bixio, the French minister at Turin warned his government that even a friendly army would be badly received. Nevertheless Ledru wished to send some troops, and he won Lamartine over to this policy. Frangois Arago was strongly opposed, and persuaded his colleagues to await a formal request.^ Perhaps the executive commission modified its decision, for Ledru-Rollin claimed in a speech of the following year that " a fraternal entrance under the name of sequestration into the County of Nice and the states of Savoy " had been decided upon, and that only the fall of the executive commission had prevented orders being sent to the Army of the Alps to enter the Piedmontese dominions." By the end of September 1848 reaction had commenced throughout southern and central Europe as well as in France. The Frankfort Parliament had been unable to work its will in Schleswig-Holstein where Russia had intervened; Austria had quelled the insurrection in Bohemia; General Radetzky had inflicted a crushing defeat at Custozza on the combined forces of Sardinia and of the revolting provinces of Lom- bardy-Venetia. ^Meanwhile the government of Cavaignac in France had offered mediation and had done nothing. On September 29 the ]Montagnard Buvignier asked leave to interpellate the minister of foreign affairs. Lamoriciere, minister of war, tried to show that an interpellation was inopportune. Ledru-Rollin spoke next. ' Speech of March 30, 1849, in Discours politiques 2 : 226-7. * Gamier-Pages 10:5-9. 47 1 ] ITALIAN AFFAIRS 317 There has been a decided deviation, [he said,] from the foreign poHcy of the provisional government. . , . That de- viation should receive our serious attention .... and we must know what is the policy of the government, and whether it is one we are likely to regret. . . . We are told: the ques- tion is pending. Oh, how I have suffered from hearing such language ; I have heard it for so long. Every time that under a former administration we asked for information as to the progress of diplomacy, we were told that silence was impera- tive, that the question was pending. And later, when the administration had entered on a false course, we were told that the affair was settled. Pending questions and settled affairs are the two points between which we have been fruit- lessly tossed for eighteen years. Such conduct might be ap- propriate to a monarchy; it is not appropriate to a republic. .... The newspapers announce that Russia and Prussia .... insist upon a European congress for the settlement of all questions. A congress! What would be its bases? The treaties of 181 5, the principles of which have been declared abrogated in the manifesto issued by the honourable M. de Lamartine. . . . The government might commit you against your wishes. No matter how pure, how patriotic, how hon- ourable, its intentions, it might be badly advised, it might adopt an unfortunate policy. . . . The horizon of Europe is charged with heavy clouds. . . . Under such conditions it would be abdicating, abdicating the dignity, the greatness of France for the government not to explain its intentions clearly.^ After some further debate President Marrast fixed a day for the interpellations. On the appointed day, October 2, Buvignier asked for information on foreign affairs. Cavaignac declared that it was inopportune to reply. Then Ledru spoke. It would indeed be most extraordinary [he said], that under a republican government based on publicity, this Assembly 1 Discoiirs politiqucs 2 : 114-7. ,lS LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [472 slioukl know less of diplomatic questions than under the monarcliv. . . . How can we aid with our advice an admin- istration that tells us nothing? You remain obstinately silent, not concerning questions of detail — that would be comprehen- sible — not concerning diplomatic correspondence — that also would be comprehensible — but concerning questions of prin- ciple you do not reply; you do not say on what bases you are negotiating. . . . Our policy should consist not in inciting peoples to revolt but in encouraging the spread of our doc- trines, and in supporting, by force if necessary, those nations which proclaim them spontaneously. That was not only the policy of the provisional government and of the executive commission, but of the Assembly itself. . . . The existing gov- ernment understood for a while the wishes of France on this subject. . . . The minister of foreign affairs says that we can undertake no mediation which does not have as its object the complete freedom of Italy. . , . Now Russia and Prussia desire to intervene .... and we hear that the European powers wish to unite in a congress to deliberate ; do you not recognize in this suggestion a revival of the Holy Alliance, a return to the treaties of 181 5! . . . I understand that the government believes that it can enter a European congress and yet escape the application of the treaties of 181 5, but that is an utter mistake; inevitably the majority of the countries represented will carry our government with them or there will be a disadvantageous war, that is, a war undertaken after a failure to obtain a compromise. In Germany the same weak policy is maintained. France should encourage the sole hope of that land, a union of all the minor states without Austria or Prussia. See how Prussia has already abandoned the interests of Germany in Schleswig-Holstein, and France supports her policy. Thus you can see, citizens, in Italy and Germany the abandon- ment of hopes, of promises. Is the revolution of Februar>^ to be compelled, as was that of July, to let the movement it had 472] ITALIAN AFFAIRS 319 communicated to other nations subside? . . . Our only true policy is not an alliance with kings, it is solidarity with peoples, so that on the day of battle we shall have on our side not twenty-five million soldiers, but, as M. de Lamartine once said, all Italy and Germany. . . . We members of the Moun- tain do not desire war; the democratic party has rarel}? gained thereby. . . . No one in this hall wants the calamities of war for the sake of war. . . . But if owing to the weak- ness of our government war is inevitable, I ask under what conditions we can best wage it, whether it is not better to carry it on in foreign countries rather than suffer it in our own territory. The monarchs wish to repress republicanism forever, and once they have extinguished it in their own dominions they will try to extinguish it in France, the cradle of liberty. To remain isolated and threatening in her isolation has long been the policy of France and America. The situation of the two countries is doubtless not the same, but when Washing- ton was counselled to make alliances he replied: No alliance with the continental monarchies. . . . Therefore I ask that the government pursue no more negotiations, . . . that it declare firmly that what it wished in February, it still wishes, that it desires freedom, complete independence, that it will insist on this by force of arms. And let it do this as soon as possible, for before long it will be too late. The peoples that you can still have as auxiliaries, as a vanguard, as advanced sentinels, will soon be enslaved anew and used against you. Confiding in your own resources, you would still be victorious, I swear it by the genius of France, but only after bloody efforts, after the fatherland, which can still be preserved, has been ravished.^ This speech presents eloquently the fundamental ideas o£ Ledru's foreign policy, namely the union of the democratic 1 Discours politiqucs 2: 1 18-130. 320 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [474 nationalities of Europe under the leadership of France? against the Holy Alliance of Russia, Prussia, and Austria and the consequent overthrow of the reactionary dynasties which would inevitably attack France, the source of pro- gressive ideas, after they had restored the old regime else- where. These ideas are not as wild as is generally believed; they embodied the only hope of preventing a reaction in Europe. Ledru clearly saw what would happen if France did not intervene. Perhaps he was too optimistic in believ- ing that even with French aid the forces of progress would have been victorious. But if France could have united in a single group the various liberal elements, the Frankfort Parliament, Mazzini, Charles Albert, Kossuth, and possibly Poland and Rumania, then perhaps the reign of republican- ism in Europe would have begun in 1848-9 instead of in 1 91 7-9. These ideas haunted Ledru throughout his life. He advocated them consistently in his parliamentary speeches ; during his exile they constituted the guiding spirit in the formation of the Central European Democratic Com- mittee.^ In 1850 it was too late; early in 1849 there was still a chance of success. After Ledru, Creton spoke. Instead of replying to Ledru, he attacked his attitude in the Risqouns-tout fiasco. Cav- aignac declared that the government would not interfere in the internal affairs of foreign countries, that it had no love for the treaties of 1S15 and would not accept them as a basis for negotiation in Italy. Buvignier proposed an order of the day approving intervention in Italy, Flocon one ap- proving the ideas formulated on May 24, namely Italian independence. The latter attracted much approval among the members of the left and left centre, but the order of the day pure and simple was carried 441 to 336. ^ See Caiman, Ledni-RoIIin apres 1848, Chapters VI and VII. 475] ITALIAN AFFAIRS 321 The Pope at this time was Pius IX. Elected in 1846, he had started out upon what seemed a Hberal policy and had carried through a few mild reforms. The news of the February Revolution had excited the Roman population and Pius had been hurried along rapidly on the road of de- mocracy. He finally decided, however, that affairs had gone too far and he started to beat a retreat. He had seemingly promised aid to the provinces of Lombardy-Venetia in their revolt against Austria, and many volunteers had left the papal dominions to swell the armies of Charles Albert of Sardinia, but at the eleventh hour Pius evaded his promise and proclaimed neutrality. A little later he replaced his liberal cabinet by a more conservative one under Rossi, former minister of Guizot to the Vatican. Then the inhabi- tants of the Eternal City took matters into their own hands. On November 15, 1848 some fanatics murdered Rossi, and the newly assembled popular legislature heard of this un- moved. Disorder broke out in the streets, armed bands threatened the palace of the Pope. Pius IX yielded, called a radical ministry, and proclaimed many reforms. But he felt himself a prisoner. The Roman populace maintained the greatest respect for the pontiff, but indicated its deter- mination to impose its will on him as a temporal ruler. The French government of Cavaignac sent a small force to in- sure the safety of the Pope and to invite him to France. On November 28 Bixio, member of the left centre and former minister of the provisional government at Turin, interpellated the government on its attitude toward Lom- bardy oppressed by Austria and toward Rome oppressed by anarchy. Cavaignac replied that Lombard affairs had made little progress and that an envoy had been sent to Rome to investigate conditions and to restore liberty to the Pope if he were under restraint. He told of the French expedition sent to insure liberty to the Pope, but declared that it ,j_. LEDRU-ROLLI.\ AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [476 woukl use force only as a last resource. He demanded a postponement of the debate. Ledru preferred an immediate discussion but acquiesced in a two days' postponement.^ On November 30 accordingly, Ledru told of the murder of Rossi, the quiet that prevailed in Rome, the unanimity with which the Roman army and people had demanded a change of ministry, the uncertainty of the diplomatic corps in the Eternal City as to what attitude to assume, the des- patch of the French expedition. He declared that he was in no way opposed to protecting the Pope, w^hom he reverenced as the head of Christianity, but that he considered the ex- pedition foolish, for the cry of the Roman revolutionists had been Down zi'ith the foreigner, and it was as il fuorestiere that Rossi had been slain. The Pope was no longer in danger, Ledru said, but the 3500 French troops were sure to be attacked and overwhelmed as foreigners, and then the anger of the Roman population might turn even against the Pope. Ledru did not believe that Pius himself desired the inter\'ention. He asked how the spiritual prince w^ho w^as to be protected could be distinguished from the temporal lord, and why the government intervened so hastily in be- half of the Pope while it did nothing for oppressed Lom- bardy, for Robert Blum, the patriot murdered by the Austrian authorities, or for the Danubian provinces oc- cupied by Russia. He insisted that the sending of so small a force was either a folly or an act done with the consent of Austria, and that the executive should have consulted the legislature before sending the expedition, for it w^as an in- fraction of the constitution to aid a prince against his people.^ This last point Ledru just touched on in this speech; we shall see it grow in prominence in later utterances. ' Moniteur 3387. 'Discours politiques 2: 138-148. 477] ITALIAN AFFAIRS 323 Montalembert declared that he hoped that Venice would defeat Radetzky, but that that was a purely Italian question, whereas France as a Catholic country had an interest in pro- tecting the Pope who was a universal sovereign; that the spiritual and temporal powers of the Pope were inseparable; that Rome was not a democracy but a mobocracy. Other conservatives desired France to continue her habitual policy of protecting the papacy, or declared that the Assembly was still supreme as it could recall the expedition if it so desired. On the other hand, Ouinet favored moral aid only to the Pope and material aid to the Italian people. Jules Favre maintained that from Jesus Christ to Char- lemagne the Pope had not been a temporal lord, and that Ledru-Rollin was therefore right in distinguishing the spiritual and temporal powers of the papacy, that the execu- tive had no right practically to declare war by despatching an expeditionary force, that Rome was quiet and the Pope had accepted the new cabinet, that there were far more reasons for intervention in Lombardy. Minister Dufaure claimed that the government had been forced to suspend offers of mediation in Lombardy where there was no need for immediate action, that the troops had been sent to Rome merely as a preventative measure. Cavaignac de- clared that the Assembly could have stopped the expedition when it was first announced. At the close of this discussion five orders of the day were proposed varying from complete approval to complete disap- proval of the expedition, this last signed by Jules Favre and eleven Montagnards. Complete approval was voted 480 to 6^. The left centre and most of the left refrained from voting, but Favre and Lamartine joined the Mountain in the minority. The Pope had not waited for the French expeditionary force to reach Rome. He had preferred a refuge in a nearer 324 LEDRU-ROLLIX AXD SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [478 and less democratic country than France, and had fled to the NeapoHtan border-town of Gaeta. When the Roman legislature appointed a provisional junta and called a con- stituent assembly, Pius refused to recognize the new gov- ermnent and called on the countries of Europe to reinstate him. Soon after this Louis Napoleon became president of France with Odilon Barrot as premier and Drouyn de Lhuys as foreign minister. It is worth while stopping here to indicate the different shades of opinion in the French legislature on the question of intervention. They are very hard to distinguish, but pro- bably they w^ere somewhat as follows. Ledru-Rollin and the extreme left desired the recognition of the Roman re- public soon to be proclaimed. Favre, Lamartine, and the left did not wash to recognize the republic, but neither did they wish France to exert even moral pressure on the internal affairs of Rome. Senard and the left centre desired to give Rome an opportunity to decide freely what it wanted, believing that a liberal constitution under the Pope would be accepted, and that moral pressure might be exerted in favor of the Pope. Cavaignac and the centre w^ished to liberate Rome from the tyranny of a few revolutionists and give it an opportunity to restore the Pope peaceably. Barrot and the rl^ht centre differed from Cavaignac in emphasizing the desirability of expelling the anarchists, and in refusing to consider the possibility that Rome might not desire the restoration of the Pope. Drouyn de Lhuys, Thiers, and the right desired the restoration of the Pope by France, if it could be done without antagonizing the French legislature. Falloux and the extreme right desired the restoration of the Pope by France by no matter what means. Montalem- bert and the particularly zealous Catholics desired the re- storation by France or by any other country. All parties except the clericals favored armed interv^en- 479] ITALIAN AFFAIRS 325 tion against Austria if she invaded the Roman dominions. The extreme left wished cooperation with the forces of the Roman repubhc, but it knew the Constituent Assembly would not consent to this and it feared that an expeditionary force would restore the Pope by force; therefore it op- posed the despatch of French troops to Rome by the gov- ernment of Louis Napoleon. The left, the left centre, and the centre favored the sending of a force to the Eternal City to oppose Austrian aggression, but they were against the use of this force to attack the Roman republic. The right centre did not desire to authorize an attack on the Roman republic, but it was willing to accept a fait accompli. The right favored an attack, the extreme right insisted on it, and the clericals regarded it as the sole advantage to be derived from an expedition to the Roman States. The position of the Prince-President is hard to determine. His antecedents would have placed him with the Mountain, for in 183 1 he had fought for Roman independence. But he was now posing as a good Catholic. Probably he cared little about the subject except as it might be used to streng- then his position in France; accordingly to gain the adher- ence of the clericals he worked for the restoration of Pius. Moreover Falloux was the member of the cabinet who had the greatest influence over Louis Napoleon. On January 8, 1849 Baune, a member of the Mountain, interpellated the ministry on its Italian policy. He declared that it was time for France to send aid to Rome and Venice, that joint intervention with England should be abandoned as the interests of the two countries were different. Drouyn de Lhuys, the new minister of foreign affairs, as- serted that the Italian question was still too delicate to be discussed, that the government stood for the official policy of peace instead of the subterranean policy of war. Lam- artine contrasted the attitude of the existing administration ^26 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [480 with his own open diplomacy under the provisional govern- ment. At this point Ledru-Rollin intervened in the discussion. He declared that he took the floor because of the minister's assertion of two policies. If by subterranean policy, he said, anyone meant the Belgian affair of Risquons-tout, let him declare so openly, and an answer would be given once for all. (No one replied to this challenge.) The provisional government, Ledru continued, had adopted a policy of peaceful propaganda alone. The existing government had abandoned this line of conduct. Ledru offered three in- stances. In connection with Sicily the administration had had to abandon its mediation. In connection with Rome it had acquiesced in a joint restoration w^ith Naples and Aus- tria of the Pope. However, the revolution at Rome had as legitimate an origin as that at Paris. The Pope as a spiritual lord was different from the Pope as a temporal prince, and the right of the Roman people to overthrow the latter should be recognized. In connection with Lombardy the French government was foolishly entering into negotiations, since Austria had not accepted as a pre-condition the independence of that province. Ledru spoke of the solid line of reaction- ary armies from Holstein to the Adriatic and of the Russian fleet in that sea. He claimed that the reactionary armies threatened France and that a horrible conflict between civi- lization and barbarism would soon begin, that France must act.^ Again Ledru had clearly indicated his policy and with more precision. Drouyn de Lhuys made a weak reply to Ledru, saying* that all these affairs were matter for negotiation not war. A Montagnard, Bouvet, protested against a dishonorable state ^ Ibid., 2:160-170. The Steele of January 9 compared the speeches of I-edru-Rollin to balloons filled with hot air; the Peuple of January 10 retorted by comparing Barrot to a wheezy bagpipe. 481] ITALIAN AFFAIRS 327 of peace. The legitimist, La Rochejaquelin, demanded that the ministers reply to the facts given by Ledru-Rollin and which he believed were false. He declared that the Roman revolution differed from the French Revolution since in Paris there were no assassins; that in Rome the Pope was liberal and the existing government composed of foreigners. Drouyn took the floor again to declare that the Sicilian negotiations were still open, that there never had been any idea of attacking Rome in company with Austria and Naples, that there was little danger of an attack on France and no need of ultimatums. Ledru-Rollin reasserted his former declarations and main- tained that the government was badly informed by its official envoys, for he had been privately informed that the Belgian government had been told that the concentration of troops near her border was aimed not at her but at France.^ Here we have the first indication of the fact that Ledru was the recipient of private information through letters. The leader of the Mountain had a large foreign correspondence, particularly with acquaintances at Rome. Drouyn replied that Ledru should have confidence in the embassies, as they were filled largely by appointees of Lam- artine and Bastide, that there was no need for further justi- fying his own foreign policy. The minister of the navy, Tracy, ridiculed Ledru's assertion that there was a Russian fleet in the Adriatic. The Assembly closed the discussion by passing to the order of the day. Soon after this the Roman legislature established a re- public, passed some anti-clerical laws, and tried to unite all Italy in a league. Mazzini became the leading figure in Rome and other persons came from all parts of Italy to aid * Moniteur 6y. Ledru and La Rochejaquelin had a dispute over the offer of the Turkish embassy to the latter by the provisional government. .jS / / •7>/v'r-A'('/././A- .ixnsi'.coNi) i-ri'.ncii Ki-rcni n • | .|Sj ill till" ^uMMimu'iit ol llu- iK'w ii'i>iil)lic, hut llic overwhelm ing majority kI (hi- iiu-mhcrs ol' iho lo<;isl.ilmr, ol" ihc }?ov- crmiKMit. of iho army wore iialivi's ol' \\\v T.Tpal Stales. I'lorc'iKC also proclaimed itself a repiihhe. On hi'hruary J4 the Moiiiilaiii sent eotii;ratttIatit)iis to Kome, aiul on March i.| lo I'lori'iux-.' The Koman i'epnl)lic si'ut hrapolh to Paris as its envoy. I'hc hrench government refnsi-d to reco^iii/e him, hut he was well received hy Ledrn." On hVhrnary jo i«^.|.<) Ledrn-Kollin interpellated the min istry on foreii;n allairs. i li- proclaimed the glorious ni'ws of the declaration of a ri-pnhlic at Uome, and he denomiccd a riimorcii plan to ri'slore the I'ope hy Sardini.ni troops while I'Vance and haii^Iand patrolled the coasts." 1 )ronyii de Lhuys re|)lied that the U'onian repnhlic nnist |)rove its stability and absolute ability lo maintain order before l''r;mcc could send it aid, that the intervention of Piedmont was not: as easy as Ledin implied sinci- ihert' were intermediate states between it and Kome, that the spiritual character of the Pope made the Koman (pieslion a special out- and I'raniH- was interested in it like all Catholic countries, that the desire ol tin- !^M\c'i nnu'iil was to si'i- orcK-r reestablished at Konie and that many plans had been discussed, that the Assembly would be informed wlu'nev(M- anylhin<:^ was decidctl. i ' Rdformi-, M;mli .?. ji. "FcURiTc: l.diiiiiituils ,|i.|. i'HVdvs liiMii .illicf (icmiHTiits also came to Paris. Karl I'.liiid, wjio latrr hiTainc .lu intimat*' Iririi.l ol l.dliii, am! Scluicl/. who traiislalcd iiilo (KTiiian I ('(iiii's l)t\-(utrii,r roiiyii ',c, who lalci lnTaiiu- one ol" l.cdrii's collcaKiifS in the Central I'.nro)HMn Dcinocratic roiimiillcc, and Sliiivc cauic (o I'aiis cm iK'li.-df of ihr Ccmiaii i cpiiMti-aiis lo in;d-HX). 'I'lie pirvi.ms day lie li.i.l asked ikt- missinii to make interpellalioiis.— M,>iiil,iir sf-Ji. ^S^l ir.ll.lAN Ain'AlKS 329 Then lA'dni spoke a.i;aiii. Amid numerous interruptions he (listin^uislied hetwxru the temporal and spiritual lord- slii[)S of the Pope separated even recently in the cases of ritis VI and Pius VII without disturbance to the church, 'i'lie government, he continued, should follow the line of conduct traced hy the Assembly on May 24, J84S in favor of the liberation of Italy. Ledru acknowledged his respect for the spiritual prince, but he also declared his resi^ect for the judgment of the Roman people against the temporal ruler. I le observed that the Roman republic had proved its stability contrary to the hopes of the I'rench ministry, and he de- manded that it bi- recogni/.ed. Ledru protested against a war of religion in the nineteenth century. I le repeated his (|uery as to the intervention of Piedmont. He declared his conlidence that the Roman republic would triumph in spite of the intrigues of reactionary diplomats.' This speech is rather rambling, but it does drive home some strong arguments. Again Ledru gave information based on private letters. Frequently the government denied the in- formation thus obtained, but in the majority of cases his- tory has proved that Ledru was right. In this case it is certain that there were negotiations with Sardinia, though the cabinet would never admit this to the Assembly. After a few more speeches, the discussion ended. On IVlarch 8 there were more interpellations. lUivignier was again chosen by the Mountain to begin the discussion. Me spoke of the new Holy Alliance against Italy, asserted that tlie government seemed to accept the treaties of 18 [5, ,'md asked the recognition of the Ivoman and Tuscan re- publics .and an ap])roval of the voti- of May 2.| in favor of the liberation of Italy. I )ronyn dc Llni\s inadi- no real ' Discours poliliciucs 2 : i<)0-7. BcRinniiiK ;il this point, tlie chief src- ondary work is (MtTiiiont and Bourgeois: Rome ct Najiulcnn III, a work that becomes dct.iiled after May 7. 330 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [484 reply ; he inerclv declared that the Assembly had ratified the government's Italian policy. Then Ledru spoke. The government does not wish to declare its policy; I siiall try to reply for it ... . well, what does that govern- ment reply? The Roman republic! We cannot recognize it. The Roman republic! It is contrary to the wishes of all the great powers of Europe. The Roman republic! If it is threatened by foreign intervention, zve cannot prevent it. That is what the government says. It cannot contradict me. . . . In spite of such a liberticidal, such a reprehensible policy the minister of foreign affairs dares to say that his policy is the logical consequence of the order of the day of May 24. . . . Is such a statement serious? If it is serious, it is disgraceful and unworthy of France. Ledru declared that not only had France pledged her sup- port to the liberation of Italy, but that the past utterances and actions of those in power ought to be a guarantee for Rome. Drouyn de Lhuys was the chairman of the com- mittee that proposed the order of the day of May 24. Barrot was the statesman who has said in 183 1 : " If a neighboring power should proclaim the right to forbid a people .... to establish another social order than that existing, if that power should intervene in Italy .... to stop an insurrection and to condemn the peninsula to re- main .... under the arbitrary rule of some petty despot or of some government half theocratic, half despotic, we could not permit such action." Ledru said that the only condition Barrot had imposed was that the time for a change of regime in Italy should be ripe, that in 1831 the moment might not have been opportune but that no one could deny that the present moment was. " To deny at Rome," Ledru insisted, "the right to expel the temporal I 485] ITALIAN AFFAIRS 33 1 prince is to deny to France the right to expel Louis Philippe. M. Guizot was accustomed to speak in that vein. Give place to M. Guizot." As for the president of the French republic, Ledru continued, he had fought for Rome in 1831. Yes, Rome has the right to count on you. Well, what are you going to do? Intervene? Intervene to extinguish liberty? You cannot do so without violating the French constitution .... What is said in article 5 ? This, that France respects foreign nationalities; its forces shall never he used against the liberties of any people. . . . To intervene directly by force of arms, to intervene directly by patrolling the coasts of Italy, or to intervene merely by lending moral support, by giving counsel, by entering into negotiations ... all these methods are forms of intervention, and the constitution prohibits them with its inflexible phrase. ... If anybody wishes to take the floor, and defend the indissolubility of the temporal and spiritual powers, I am ready to reply to him. My reasons are good .... for during fourteen years Napoleon distin- guished the spiritual from the temporal power, and yet he was not an irreligious man for he reopened the churches. . . . Let not the Pope, a priest of Christ, provoke bloodshed for the worldly goods condemned by Christ. . . . The considera- tions which I have developed are not party considerations ; they are considerations of national honour. . . . Our word is pledged to Italy; any vote which will lead to intervention is a vote which will dishonor him who gives it.^ This is one of Ledru's most effective speeches on the Roman question. Most of his arguments were unanswer- able and the ministers merely evaded replying to them. His quotation from Barrot was admirable. Barrot could always find eloquent words for any cause that he espoused. He frequently convinced his audience, but he never sO 1 Discours politiques 2 : 206-218. , ._. LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [486 thoroughly convinced himself but that he could argue on the other side on a later occasion. Unfortunately for him in 1 83 1 he had a good cause, in 1849 a weak one to defend. Ledru had declared that all the members of the pro- visional government except himself had abandoned the foreign policy of that government. This challenge brought Lamartine to his feet. Lamartine asserted that three policies were possible toward Rome: that of the Catholics, intervention; that of the radicals, indifference as to the Pope; that of statesmen, guarantee of the independence of the Pope but political power in the hands of the Roman People. (The latter policy would undoubtedly have re- ceived the whole-hearted approval of the radicals though Lamartine put their policy in a different category.) Cav- aignac maintained that the policy of May 24 would have led to war and that his government tried to avoid war. Lamartine and Emmanuel Arago observed that the pro- visional government had prevented the invasion of Savoy. Sarans, a member of the left, asked three pertinent questions : What would the Barrot government do if Austria invaded Savoy? If the Catholic countries came to the aid of the Pope? If Austria invaded Tuscany? Drouyn de Lhuys made his favorite reply : it is too dangerous to answer. The order of the day pure and simple was then passed by 438 votes to 341, but the left centre joined the lefts in the minority. In 1849 Sardinia, against the advice of the French cabinet, renewed hostilities with Austria, but on March 23 it suffered a second overwhelming defeat at Novara. Austrian troops even crossed the frontier into Piedmont. On the same day as the battle of Novara the government of Rome was en- trusted to three triumvirs, Mazzini and two natives. On ^March 30 Bixio, former minister of France to Turin, asserted that France must prevent an Austrian occupation of 487] ITALIAN AFFAIRS 333 Piedmont. Mole, a member of the right, saw no necessity for this. Clement Thomas, a member of the left, called on the ministry to explain its position. Drouyn de Lhuys declared that France would safeguard the integrity of Piedmont. Another member of the left, Billault, demanded a clearer ex- planation. Drouyn de Lhuys began his reply by attacking the provisional government for its unacknowledged assist- ance of the expeditions against Savoy, Belgium, and Baden, for its promise of aid to Italy and its failure to intervene when the time was propitious. He declared that it was more difficult to intervene now against a victorious Austria, that the government nevertheless still demanded the independence of Lombardy but felt forced to modify to autonomy, its demands for Venetia. Drouyn maintained that three policies were possible : that of chance or leaving Italy alone ; that of individual action, which meant war with other nations : that of cooperation with the other great powers, the policy which the government was following. Ledru-Rollin replied to the minister of foreign affairs. He belittled the promise to maintain the integrity of Pied- mont since Austria had declared she did not menace that integrity. He declared that the question was a deeper one, for the Austrian army, supported in the rear by the Russians, was approaching the border of France and threatened her; that agreements with oligarchic powers were valueless and that France must support her own cause at Rome, Florence, Turin; that the provisional government had been ready to intervene in Italy whenever its aid was asked, and that now that situation had arisen since Italy had called on France for aid and there were legitimate republics to be protected at Rome and Florence. Ledru quoted Barrot and other conservatives who had desired to defend Italy in 1831 and who had sent an expedition to occupy Ancona. He quoted those who in 1838 had opposed the recall of the French , ._^ LllDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [488 trcx)ps from Ancona : Barrot, Duvergier de Hauranne, and Thiers. " For the concert to be complete only one man is missing, jM. Guizot," he said. He called on these men either to defend their former opinions or to admit that in 1838I the whole affair was merely " a war of miserable ambitions." Ledru closed by insisting that if the Assembly did not favor the liberation of Italy, the people of France did.^ Droin-n de Lhuys asserted that the cabinet had substituted for a policy of agreement with England one of agreement with all the great powers. Jules Favre spoke in favor of energetic action. The centre united with the lefts to re- ject the order of the day which would have closed the dis- cussion. On March 31 the first speaker was Cavaignac. He ad- mitted that the order of the day of May 24 was definite, but he claimed that it carried in it the germ of war and that his policy was to maintain peace, that his system of mediation had achieved this result and had carried out the wishes o£ the legislature. Thiers declared that France w-as not pledged to give aid to Italy, that isolated intervention would mean war with too many countries, that the wisest policy would be to wait until Italy w^as united and in the meanwhile merely to prevent other nations from intervening, that the manifesto of Lamartine has guaranteed the freedom only of the independent states, that Ledru-Rollin, inspired by good intentions, had desired to invade Italy under the provisional government but that at that time the army was unprepared, that it was too late now to fight a victorious Austria, that France should protect only Piedmont and aid only those states where order was maintained. Ledru-RolHn replied to Cavaignac and Thiers. He in- sisted that the provisional government had been ready to ^ Discours politiqucs 2:219-231; for extract see p. 316, 489] ITALIAN AFFAIRS 335 intervene whenever asked, that Cavaignac had been asked but had not sent aid. He denied that Cavaignac had followed the wishes of the legislature, for he had always kept it in the dark as to negotiations and had never asked its opinion. He declared that the speech of Thiers was most convincing, and that the only thing that gave him strength to reply was Thiers' equally convincing argu- ment in 1840 in favor of war, Ledru spoke of the three policies mentioned by Drouyn, that of war, that of negotia- tions, and that of doing nothing at all, and he asserted that the last seemed to be that of the ministry. He declared that if the Mountain wished war, certainly the conservatives wished peace at any price, that the cause of Italy was not yet lost in spite of Novara, that he had letters from various places stating that the inhabitants of the peninsula were still ready to fight Austria. Ledru said that a failure to guar- antee the independence of Italy now in 1849 would dishonor France far more that it would have in 1840 when Thiers and his friends spoke so much about dishonor. Ledru was sure that France would prefer war to dishonor.^ Barrot made a reply abounding in attacks on Ledru, apro- pos or malapropos of the subject in hand. The gist of his speech was that the cabinet preferred armed mediation to war, that to occupy Savoy would be premature, that Ledru-Rollin did not realize the force of a conciliatory policy. Dupont de Bussac, a member of the extreme left, closed the debate; he ridiculed the idea of a congress in which eleven monarchies and the republic of France should take part, and from which republican and French ideas should come out victorious, and he asked that the policy of May 24 be maintained. An order of the day was passed by 444 votes to 320 approving the occupation of Piedmont if the government should think ^ Discours politiqucs 2:232-247. . .6 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [490 it necessary. The lefts and most of the left centre voted in the negative, not because they opposed aid to Savoy, but because they wished to show their disapproval of the general government policy. Thus the vote of March 31 was a victory for the govern- ment. Up to this time, the ministries of France had negotiated, had offered mediation, but had taken no active part in Italian affairs. Emboldened by this vote, the Barrot cabinet clearly indicated to Austria that it would permit no invasion of Piedmont, and Austria acquiesced. This suc- cess gave the ministry the courage to pursue a vigorous policy, and it determined to intervene at Rome. CHAPTER XXII The Roman Expedition France had prevented the invasion of Piedmont by Aus- tria. Emboldened by this success, the cabinet formed the plan of sending a body of troops to the Roman dominions with the avowed purpose of preventing an invasion of them by Austria. The cabinet had sent two conservative diplo- mats to a conference at Gaeta, where the Pope was staying, and it knew that Austria, the Two Sicilies, and Spain in- tended to restore the Pope by arms. It decided to forestall these countries. Confident that the presence of French troops would encourage the Roman moderates to recall the Pope, the cabinet hoped that it would get all the credit for restoring a regime both papal and liberal. Accordingly the ministers came before the legislature with a proposal to send a military expedition to Civita Vecchia, the port of Rome, and they asked for an appropriation. The Assembly appointed a commission which showed itself doubtful as to the advisability of despatching troops. Bar- rot and Drouyn de Lhuys assured the commission that any action taken would be independent of Austria, that force might be used at Civita Vecchia, but that it was impossible to think of using force against Rome. After this apparent promise not to attack the Roman republic, the commission decided to approve the government project.^ On April i6 Jules Favre in the name of the commission 1 Clermont i6. 491] 337 .jS LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [492 approved the expeditoii which, he said, was to be sent to Kome to guard I'Vench interests, not to overthrow the re- public. Barrot stated his position as follows. " The policy of the French government is not to allow a restoration in the Roman state in defiance of our principles." " Then it is a restoration that you wish," cried the left. Barrot con- tinued, saying that the government denied solidarity with the republics of Rome and Tuscany, that it did not wish changes to occur in Italy without the participation of France, that the cabinet would not allow itself to be drawn into a war in behalf of the Italian republics, that it merely desired to safeguard French interests, real liberty, and good govern- ment. This was hardly an explanation to satisfy the left. After Ducoux, a deputy of the left, had suggested doubling the appropriation and using the second half to aid Venetia, Ledru obtained the floor. " One phrase," Ledru-Rollin said, " struck me. ... It was the restoration of the Pope." He declared that on one side were papal pretensions, on the other the sovereignty of the people; that the government policy was one entirely of expedients. He told how the cabinet had refused to recog- nize the ambassador of the Roman republic, but had sent an embassy to Gaeta and intrigued there with the other powers. He maintained that the ministers were confident of a kind reception at Rome only because they themselves had sown dissension there, that the sending of a military expedition violated the sovereignty of Rome and therefore the French constitution, wdiich forbade attacks on the liberty of nations, that if the government intervened in the aflfairs of the Eternal City, it ought to be with the consent of the Roman republic. He asserted that the government policy meant either the forcible restoration of the Pope or war with Austria who desired this restoration, that in the latter case war would be waged under unfavorable conditions, for 493] THE ROMAN EXPEDITION 339 Italy would not support France. Ledru said that it was a serious matter to extinguish the liberty of a nation. He asked what the government would do if Italy poured forth men to defend the Roman republic. He requested a plain statement as to whether the cabinet desired the restoration of the Pope, and issued a warning against such an action, for it would cause war and would amount to a betrayal of Italy.^ The minister of war, Lamoriciere, declared that the French troops would not save the Roman republic but would save Roman liberty. The Montagnard, Victor Schoelcher, asked what the French troops would do if the Romans should not receive the Pope back. That was the crux of the question and the ministers remained silent. Article one of the bill granting an appropriation was passed 395 to 283, against the vote of the lefts and parts of the centre. The next day the entire law was passed. The Mountain and the left voted in the negative ; most of the left centre and centre did not vote. The Assembly had now agreed to let the troops of France enter the Roman territory to keep out Austria and give moral support to the restoration of a liberal Pope. Late in April, 1849, the French troops sailed from Mar- seilles and after a little parleying landed peacefully at Civita Vecchia, the port of Rome. The command of the expedi- tion had been entrusted to General Oudinot. He should have combined military and diplomatic ability, but unfor- tunately he was a mediocre soldier and no diplomat at all. It would have been difficult to make a worse choice. From the minister of war Oudinot received instructions to land at Civita Vecchia and to make arrangements to oppose any Austrian force that might invade the Roman state. From the minister of foreign affairs he also received orders ; these ■■ Discours politiques 2:278-291. For Ledru's description of events of this day, see his 13 Juin, reprinted in Discours politiques 2 : 369-370. . ,0 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [494 (!»rders the cabinet had not seen, and many of its members, including Barrot, would not have approved them. So strongly did these orders emphasize the fact that Oudinot should not recognize the Roman republic that the idea of opposition to Austria was almost forgotten, and that a blunt soldier like Oudinot could only conclude that he was to undertake military operations against the Roman triumvirs if he thought it necessary. In the meanwhile the Pope had issued an allocution that should have dissipated forever all hopes of a liberal papal regime; Cardinal Antonelli had replaced the liberals as adviser to Pius IX. However, the French cabinet continued its old policy toward Rome as though this reactionary allocution had not been uttered. On April 24 the Mountain expressed its feelings in a letter that has never been printed, and which gives an excellent picture of its standpoint : Our troops have left our ports. The soldiers of the republic are sent to Italy to lend the support of their presence, the prestige of their name, the power of their arms if necessary, to the restoration of the Pope to his temporal throne against the will of the Roman people. The French republic is thus to serve the monarchic principle against the democratic, prin- cely legitimacy against popular sovereignty. Liberated Rome is not strong enough to resist the coalition of kings and royalist conspirators. It will succumb, but it will leave behind the memory of a government which has not com- mitted a single act of violence, which has always conducted itself with admirable dignity. Pained as we are, we do not abandon hope. Force may temporarily repress the development of liberty, but liberty is immortal; it will conquer force as spirit will conquer matter. Pius IX after having betrayed the cause of Italian liberty by his anathema against the war of independence has fled from Rome. He may reenter it in the baggage-train of foreigners 495] THE ROMAN EXPEDITION 34I as the Bourbons reentered France, but the same destiny is in store for him as was in store for them. The hatred and scorn of the Roinans will hang over the Catholic pontiff who, in order to reconquer a vain throne by the force of arms and at the price of bloodshed, addressed himself to all the kings of the earth, even schismatic Prussia and Protestant England. French democrats should protest against this act of liber- ticidal violence which is about to take place on the banks of the Tiber. The deputies of the Mountain have decided to give the Italians a proof of their active sympathy by forming a committee specially charged with the interests of Italian in- dependence and of which two patriots present at Paris shall always be members. This committee is composed of Citizens Lamennais, Ledru- Rollin, Baune, Felix Pyat, and Victor Schoelcher. It has just organized with Cit. Lamennais as president and Cit. V. Schoelcher as secretary. Its purpose is the liberation of the entire peninsula; its motto is solidarity between the French and Italian republics.^ At Rome Mazzini, who preferred a glorious fall to a compromise, had been strengthened by the arrival of the great Italian patriot. Garibaldi, and he had sent a message to Oudinot protesting against the French intervention. The French general replied that " he was resolved to enter Rome as a friend or as an enemy." The advisers of Oudinot told him that the French troops would be joyfully received by the inhabitants of the Eternal City, that they would be opposed only by a few anarchists and strangers. On April 29 Oudinot attacked Rome, but practically the entire city marched out against him and inflicted on him a humiliating defeat. Drouyn de Lhuys had given him instructions that did not comply with the desires of the French cabinet and ^ Schoelcher Papers 2: 172-4. In handwriting of Schoelcher. See ap- pendix. There is a similar but shorter article in the Reforme, April 29, 342 Ll-DRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [496 still less with those of the legislature, and Oudinot had gone beyond these instructions. After revealing his diplomatic incapacity. Oudinot had displayed his lack of military skill/ It was on May 3 that the French cabinet heard of this defeat, but it kept silent, and only on May 7 did the news become generally known. Then the Assembly made a strong protest. Jules Favre, who had advocated the expedi- tion, opened the discussion. Blood had flowed in Italy, he said : France had not carried out her promise to aid Italy, but had attempted to overthrow the Roman republic. Barrot, Avho felt that he was in the wrong, could merely babble in reply that France could not let Austria impose her will, that Oudinot had proclaimed his good intentions to- ward Italy, that the cabinet would not disavow the general. Lamoriciere, a member of the centre, asked for the ap- pointment of an investigating committee. Flocon read a letter which he had received and which stated the almost universal resistance of the Romans. Drouyn de Lhuys said that he knew nothing of any universal resistance, that he too desired an investigating committee. Favre made a fiery speech. What will the ministers do now? he asked. So far they have acted stupidly. A committee of investigation was appointed and the ses- sion was suspended while the committee listened for hours to the ministers." Ferdinand de Lesseps, soon to become a ' Clermont 20-43. In the account of affairs at Rome, Clermont is rather closely followed, tempered slightly by other narratives, particu- larly those of Thayer and Gaillard. Barrot 3 : 205 admits that Oudinot was deceived as to the wishes of the Romans, that Oudinot made mili- tary blunders, and that Drouyn's instructions did not express accurately the wishes of the French ministers. ' On the committee were Schoelcher of the Mountain ; Grevy and two other deputies of the left; Senard, Goudchaux, and one other member of the left center; two deputies of the center; two of the right center; four of the right. 497] THE ROMAN EXPEDITION 343 leading actor at Rome, was watching the scene from the galleries. In his memoirs he says : " The irritation in the Assembly was great; M. Ledru-Rollin and the extreme left were shaking their fists at the ministers and a free-for-all fight was imminent when. . . . M. Senard quieted his friends." ^ Senard of the left centre was chosen as reporter by the investigating committee. In a calm manner he showed how the expedition to Rome had not carried out the purpose for which it was sent, and he asked an order of the day urging the government " to take measures without delay* so that the Italian expedition be no longer kept from the purpose assigned it." Drouyn de Lhuys, minister of foreign affairs, tried to prove that Oudinot had had the right to expect no resistance, that the general had been received joyfully by the inhabitants of the Roman States, that it was only foreign adventurers who had opposed him, and that the Assembly had practically authorized an attack on the Roman republic by giving permission for the occupation of Civita Vecchia. This speech is capable of two explanations; either the minister was inexcusably blind or he was wilfully lying. Senard replied that the Assembly had definitely insisted that the Roman republic should not be attacked and that the orders given to Oudinot had laid too strong an emphasis on the non-recognition of that republic. Goudchaux declared that even the French consul at Civita Vecchia had stated that there was strong opposition to the French. Drouyn de Lhuys asserted that other reports declared the contrary. The Senard order of the day which blamed the assault on Rome was carried 328 to 241. The centre joined the lefts in the majority." This was a crushing defeat for th0 Barrot ministry, a real vote of lack of confidence, but the ' Lesseps i : 130-1. * For events of May 7, see Clermont 44-52. Ledru demanded the floor but did not speak. ..^ LEDRU-ROLLIX AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [498 French constitution unfortunately did not make the cabinet responsible to the legislature, and Barrot and his colleagues continued in office. President Louis Napoleon aggravated matters. On May* 8 he wrote a letter to Oudinot, congratulating him on the bravery of his soldiers and asserting that the stain on French honor would be avenged. A clearer defiance of the express wishes of the legislature would be difficult to find. Even P^alloux, the member of the cabinet most favorable to the restoration of the Pope, admits in his l\Iemoirs : " Most of the ministers would have refused to sign this letter, but they dared not disown it, and even M. Barrot defended it warml}'." ^ This letter was entrusted to Ferdinand de Les- seps, the future builder of the Suez Canal, whom the cabinet had appointed as envoy to arrange an understanding with the Roman triumvirs. Lesseps' instructions were to nego- ciate with Mazzini and his colleagues and to make some ar- rangement with them for the French protection of Rome, but in no way to recognize them as a government de jure nor to offend the papal court at Gaeta. On May 9 Jules Grevy interpellated the government on Louis Napoleon's letter. Barrot, who did not approve the epistle, wriggled cleverly out of his difficult position. He claimed that the letter was not an official document but a message of personal sympathy, and that in it there was noth- ing to conflict with the desire of the Assembly. He told of the mission of Lesseps and he asserted that the government merely desired to anticipate the Austrians and Neapolitans at Rome. He praised the investigating committee for the freedom it had left to the ministers. Barrot ended by de- claring that he wished further information before giving a fuller explanation. This reply satisfied Jules Grevy but not the Mountain. ' Falloux 1:451. The letter was published by the government organ, the Patrie, but it was not inserted in the Moniteur. 499] ^^^ ROMAN EXPEDITION 345 Ledru-Rollin opposed a postponement of the discussion. " Let me express my astonishment," he said, " that such a despatch is called private and confidential. . . . The com- mander-in-chief must place the letter of the president on the order of the day, and yet you claim that it is a personal act, one that has not the official character of an act counter- signed by the cabinet ! " Ledru admitted his realization that the Assembly did not share the desire of the Mountain to recognize the Roman republic, but he insisted that an entry into Rome had been authorized only if the inhabitants wel- comed the expeditionary force or if the Austrians ap- proached the city, that Oudinot had marched against Rome without either of these two conditions arising and against the advice of the French consul at Civita Vecchia and the protest of the Roman assembly. He asked why the presi- dent had waited five days after hearing of the assault and had chosen to write his letter the very day after the adverse vote in the legislature. Ledru declared that the check before Rome was no disgrace. " A battle is not gained," he said, "because one remains master of the field; in our opinion it is gained when one's cause is just and sacred in the eyes of the people." Ledru asserted that the French soldiers could no longer claim to act as liberators since the Romans had clearly expressed approval of their re- public, that the ministers had given equivocal explanations, that they might delay their decision but must disavow Louis Napoleon's letter.^ This is one of Ledru's best speeches; it is restrained, sincere, clear. An impartial secondary writer says : " Ledru-Rollin's eloquence, usually declama- tory, was more dispassionate, and if he had had a little more finesse, he would have been the foremost orator of the Assembly." ^ ^ Discours poUtiques 2 : 298-306, with hiatus. For complete ver- sion, see Moniteur 1735. ^ Clermont 65. -.^0 IJ-.DRU-ROLLIN AXD SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [500 Barrot was utterly unable to make a satisfactory reply, and he had recourse to the contemptible expedient to which he resorted too frequently — he accused Ledru of envenom- ing the debate and called Ledru's conduct outrageous. He reasserted that the presidential letter was not a political manifesto but a kindly personal message. Flocon proposed and Grevy seconded a motion to declare the letter null and void. Barrot announced the arrival of despatches, and the discussion was adjourned. On May 10 Favre demanded what the despatches con- tained. Barrot said that the information in them was in- sufficient. Ledru requested that nevertheless they be read so that the Assembly could judge of their importance. He told the news he himself had received from private sources : There were 442 French casualties and 350 French prisoners taken in the battle near Rome. The troops had been en- couraged to fight by being told they were attacking the Neapolitans. The Roman triumvirs had sent out doctors and medicine to help the French wounded. General Bedeau declared that these facts were impossible; unfortunately for him, whatever as a brave general he might think of the French arm}^, most of the facts have been proved true by history. Against the protests of the ministers the As- sembly insisted on hearing the contents of the despatches. The ministers of war and foreign affairs read the letters in which Oudinot gave his distorted version of the fight near Rome and of conditions within the city. The two ministers claimed that Ledru's statements must be false; really, how- ever, it was Oudinot's despatches that were filled with mani- fest prevarications. The discussion was adjourned to the following day. Meanwhile the hostility of the president's party to the legislature was plainly shown. Marrast, fearing trouble, had ordered General Forest to come to the Palais Bourbon 5oi] THE ROMAN EXPEDITION 347 with his two regiments. The general's duty was to obey the command, but he sent only one regiment and told Mar- rast that he obeyed only the orders of his superior, General Changarnier. The latter was summoned by Marrast but sent only an aide-de-camp who expressed Changarnier's re- grets and requested that in the future all military orders be transmitted through the commander-in-chief. " It was clear," says Clermont, " that General Changarnier was violating the law, that he was ready to violate it always; it was also clear that he acted at the instigation of the presi- dent." Barrot, who certainly condemned this action, de- fended the General and expressed regret for the misunder- standing. But, as if that were not enough, after the As- sembly had shown its disapproval of Louis Napoleon's letter to Oudinot, after the ministry had declared it unofficial, Changarnier had this very letter posted in all the barracks of Paris with a few commendatory words of his own ap- pended. It would be difficult to excuse so flagrant a trans- gression of the wishes and rights of the legislature.^ And Barrot, who talked incessantly of respect for the wishes of the Assembly, did not insist on the removal of Changarnier. Barrot can only be acquitted of an inordinate desire to re- main in office by admitting his superabundant stupidity. On May 11, fortified by the occurrences of the past four days, Ledru-Rollin renewed his attack on the government. He asserted that the coordination of the events at Paris and at Rome proved that there was a desire to extinguish the Roman republic. He retraced the events of Oudinot's ex- pedition and read new letters confirming his information of the previous day. He recapitulated his arguments on the letter of Louis Napoleon and denounced Changarnier's in- solent actions. " You are characterized," Ledru told the Assembly, "as the enemies of the army ! You are designated ' Clermont 67-9. .,^8 LEDRU-ROLLIX AXD SECOXD FREXCH REPUBLIC [502 as prey for its bayonets! And to whose profit? To the profit of the pretended head of the government, that is, an imperial and royal simulacrum." Ledru spoke of how he himself had defended the army under the provisional gov- ernment while the royalists lay in hiding. He continued, reiterating his belief in the existence of a counter-revolu- tionary plot and demanding an impeachment of the ministers for violation of the constitution, since they seemed to be in league with Oudinot, Changarnier, and Louis Napoleon. Even Barrot in his Memoirs admits " Had M. Ledru-Rollin ended here, he would have carried a new vote of censure against us, and he would have made our position increasingly difiicult." ^ But Ledru went too far and ended with an appeal to recognize the Roman republic, something the Assembly was unwilling to do.^ Odilon Barrot profited by Ledru's mistake and launched into an oration about the inadvisability of recognizing the Roman republic. He claimed that the real purpose of those who magnified the importance of the skirmish near Rome was to reject the result of universal suffrage ' and to cause civil war. Again Barrot had used the expedient of envenoming the debate, and this time his manoeuvre was suc- cessful, for an angry clash arose between the left and the 1 Barrot 3 : 226. Cf. Clermont 69. 2 Discours politiques 2 : 307-315. The conservative Whig, Senior i : 22 describes the scene : '" Ledru-Rollin was speaking, or rather screaming, from the tribune. He is a large red-faced man with an enormous voice and violent action. His speech, and in fact that of every speaker on that day, was not a continuous discourse; it was a series of short sen- tences, each of which was interrupted or followed by an explosion of fierce denial and furious abuse from the other side of the chamber. His voice, I have said, was powerful, but he mouthed his words in order to give them emphasis and dropped his voice at the end of each sentence." 3 The vote for members of the Legislative Assembly was two days off. _503] THE ROMAN EXPEDITION 349 right, in which the centre forgot the real subject of dis- cussion, forgot the inexplicable conduct of the cabinet, and sided with the ministers. Barrot then proceeded to the lame explanation that Changarnier had merely wished to encour- age the soldiers, that Changarnier had committed neither a political act nor one defiant of the Assembly. Clement Thomas, a member of the left, expressed the fear that Bar- rot himself by his actions was preparing for civil war, Favre made the same statement with his customary vehe- mence ; unfortunately, he read a letter in which some French prisoners of the Romans were said to have offered to fight with the Romans against the Austrians. This was exactly what they were sent to Italy to do, but Tracy, minister of the navy, declared that then these French soldiers were willing to fight against France if necessary, and the centre was further alienated from the left. After some more discussion the order of the day pure and simple was passed by a small majority. The parties in the Assembly were hopelessly split on this vote.^ Leon Faucher, minister of the interior, telegraphed to the departments the result of the vote and advised the electors to cast their ballots in the coming election only for those who had voted with the majority. This abuse of his position caused his fall from office. Ledru-Rollin and the Mountain proposed an impeachment of the ministry, but the proposal was buried in the committee of justice." The ministry had emerged successfully from this series of arbitrary acts and clumsy subterfuges. The end of the Constituent Assembly was now near, and Barrot hoped soon for clear sailing with a subservient majority. But in the opinion of a prominent French historian the events and de- ' Thus Lamartine voted with the government, Cavaignac with the lefts. 2 On both subjects see p. 289. - -o LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [504 bates of tlie past few days had made only too clear *' the duplicity and brutality of French policy toward the Roman republic." ^ On !May 22, Sarrans, a member of the left, interpellated the government. He spoke of a manifesto against free peoples issued by the Czar, claimed that that monarch would invade Italv when he had subdued Hungary, and inconse- quentially concluded that Oudinot's advance on Rome ought to cease. Drouyn de Lhuys declared that the Italian ques- tion had been sufificiently debated. A desultory discussion followed. Ledru spoke of the danger of an attack on France by Russia when she had snuffed out the revolutionary con- flagrations in Germany and Italy. He compared the Czar's manifesto to that of Brunswick in 1792, and he declared that France ought to answer the Emperor of Russia as she had answered the Emperor of Austria." Barrot asserted that Russia was friendly to France and that there was no danger ; he again accused Ledru of trying to arouse the passion of the Assembly. Cremieux and other orators came to the support of the leader of the Mountain. On the order of the day there was no quorum. President Marrast feared trouble and ordered up some regiments, but Changarnier again instructed his subordinates to obey no orders but his own. Barrot prevented trouble by inducing a few^ members of the right to vote and the order of the day was rejected 459 to 53. The crisis was past, but Chan- garnier had once more shown his insubordination.^ The discussion was continued on the following day. The extreme left had proposed an order of the day protesting ' Monod in introduction to Clermont v. * Motiitettr 1866. 2 For debate on this act of insubordination see page 2S9. ^05] THE ROMAN EXPEDITION 35 1 against the actions of Austria, Prussia, and Russia; the centre had proposed one calling the attention of the ministry to Russian affairs. An attempt to reconcile these two points of view failed. The cabinet adopted the vague order of the day proposed by the centre, and it was passed against the vote of the lefts. The debate was of little importance; it did, however give Ledru an opportunity to emphasize once more his fear of an alliance against France among the reactionary monarchs. Meanwhile in Rome all manner of rumors were rife. On May 12 it was even announced that there had been a revo- lution in Paris which had carried Ledru to the presidency of the French republic.^ After the battle near Rome on April 30 the Roman party which favored conciliation had lost all power. Mazzini was in complete control of the reins of government. He still hoped to negotiate with Oudinot, but an attempt through the liberal Father Ventura came to naught. Mazzini tried to touch French sympathies by releasing his prisoners, but Oudinot did not even inform the French government of this act. Although the General refused to turn Civita Vecchia over to the Pope, he still ex- pected to attack Rome and still entertained the illusion that a large part of the city was friendly. To Oudinot's great regret Lesseps now arrived and sup- erseded him as negotiator. The new envoy soon grasped the situation and all its difficulties. He first arranged an armistice. Then he began negotiations. Unfortunately Mazzini was unwilling to make any concessions and lost precious time when an agreement permitting the French troops to enter Rome and guarantee her independence against Austrian attacks might have been attained at the price of his own resignation and the entrusting of the ' Debais, May 22. 352 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [506 government to native Romans. This would have been a slight blow to the sovereignty of Rome, but it was the only chance of safety and had Mazzini been less of an egotist, he would have agreed to it. In the meanwhile Garibaldi had defeated the invading Neapolitans, the court at Gaeta had refused to issue a liberal manifesto, and the French elections had given an overwhelming majority to the conservatives in the new legislature which would replace that which had passed the order of the day of May 7 adverse to the attack en Rome. Lesseps continued his negotiations. Oudinot consented to abandon his demand for the resignation of the triumvirs but insisted upon an entrance into Rome by the French troops. It was Mazzini who was implacable and refused to treat unless the Roman republic was recognized. Oudinot as a further sign of amity consented to send some ambul- ances to Rome. INIazzini, confident that the French elec- tions would return a radical majority, had dragged the nego- tiations out until Lesseps was on the point of breaking them off. Oudinot had become convinced that force should re- place diplomacy, and it was with the greatest difficulty that Lesseps induced him to wait a little longer. Finally, con- vinced that Mazzini was playing with him, the French envoy left Rome. But Lesseps had succeeded in building up a strong anti- Mazzini party in the city and when he finally sent, with the approval of Oudinot, a project which he declared was an ultimatum, Mazzini was forced to give in and to agree to a similar project with immaterial changes except that instead of protection France should give friendship to Rome. Un- fortunately in the interim Oudinot had been completely won over by reactionary influences, and when Lesseps returned from a visit to Rome with the conditions which the General had approved Oudinot declared that the new treaty was con- ^07] THE ROMAN EXPEDITION 353 trary to everything that France desired. Yet the new treaty was an agreement almost identical to the one he himself had authorized. The ministry in Paris had meanwhile been slightly altered, and the Constituent Assembly which had been hostile to the cabinet policy had dissolved. Accordingly despatches ar- rived recalling Lesseps and authorizing Oudinot to attack Rome. Thus just at the moment when the plenipotentiary of the French republic had succeeded in carrying out the instructions given him, when he had overcome insuperable difficulties to reach the precise result which the Constituent Assembly on April 16 and May 7 had favored, he was dis- avowed. There is but one explanation of this action. The cabinet had not wished him to succeed; it had merely sent him to gain time. In other words it had deceived the As- sembly and its own envoy into believing that it wished to carry out the desires of the Assembly, whereas at heart it had determined to attack Rome, to do exactly that for which it had been blamed on May 7, The cabinet, as has just been said, had undergone a change. The president of the republic had desired to form a more conservative ministry, but Bugeaud, to whom he turned, had asserted that this was inopportune, and Louis Napoleon had then turned to Barrot. The latter wished to strengthen his own party in the cabinet and insisted on the admission of three friends. This would have made the ministry too liberal for Falloux. Probably in order to conciliate him the attack on Rome was decided on. Thereupon Drouyn de Lhuys resigned, either because he did not approve the disavowal of the agent who had carried out his instructions or because it was better to have at the foreign office a man who could claim that he had had no part in giving the in- structions. Thus when then new Assembly met, it was con- 354 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [50S fronted bv a changed Barrot ministry with Tocqueville as foreign minister.^ At Rome Oiidinot announced the end of the truce, and contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the armistice, he immediately occupied a few advanced points. Fighting be- gan on June 3, and for a month the Romans, united under Garibaldi, made a brilliant defense, but the force of numbers and the ability of Vaillant, who acted as adviser to Oudinot, brought about the final and inevitable success of the French. The Roman assembly surrendered and on July 3 the at- tackers entered Rome. A little later the Pope was restored, not the liberal pope the French had hailed but a reactionary pontiff dominated by Cardinal Antonelli. After using all manner of subterfuges to gain their end, the Barrot cabinet discovered that it would have to be satisfied with something none of its members, except Falloux, desired. 1 Clermont 73-174. CHAPTER XXIII On the Eve of an Uprising The Legislative Assembly met on May 28, 1849. In the Assembly ready to combat the government at every step was the Mountain, a well-organized group of socialists and radicals. Besides its own forces, this group could rely always on the support of the independent members of the extreme left, and when it did not become too violent, on the left proper. Outside the Assembly the opposition was com- posed of various elements. There still remained some rem- nants of the clubs, and these were ready to raise a riot at a sign of the Mountain. The most important of these secret associations was the Society of the Rights of Man.^ Then there was the so-called committee of twenty-five, which had been appointed by the democratic-socialist party to take charge of the elections to the Legislative Assembly and which continued to hold meetings after the elections were over; this committee seemed to favor the use of violence. Thirdly, in the National Guard there were still liberal elements, headed by such persons as Etienne Arago, Schmitz, and Forestier.^ A fourth element was the press. The radical, Delescluze, editor of the Revolution demo- cratique et sociale, was the chief organizer of the opposi- 1 On June 11 this society held a permanent session awaiting orders from the Mountain. — Accusation at Ledru trial, Moniteur for 1849, p. 3101. 2 For letter of Arago, see Liesville collection ; it was published in Pcuple, Vraie Republiquc, June 13; Monitciir for 1849, p. 3103. Reply by commanding officer is in Liesville Collection. 509] 355 3:56 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [510 tion to the government outside the Assembly. Besides his journal the legislative opposition was supported not only by the great radical and socialist newspapers, the Democratie pacifiqiic, the Pcuplc, the Reforme, the Repiiblique, the Travail affranchi, and the Vraie Repiiblique, but also by such moderate journals as the Credit, the Lihertc, the National, the Temps, and the Tribune du Peuple, and even by the Siecle, with which Barrot had formerly been con- nected, and by the Presse of Emile de Girardin, a free lance always in opposition. The opposition relied upon three articles of the constitu- tion when it declared that that document had been violated by the government in authorizing an attack on Rome. These were the following. Article 5 of the preamble? " The French Republic respects foreign nationalities as it intends its own to be respected : it does not undertake any war for the purpose of conquest and it never employs its forces against the liberty of any people." Article 54 of the constitution itself : " The president watches over the de- fense of the state, but he cannot undertake any war without the consent of the National Assembly." Article no: " The National Assembly assigns the safe-keeping of the present constitution and the rights which it consecrates to the guar- dianship and patriotism of all the French." ^ On June 4, a week after the sessions of the Legislative Assembly had opened, Ledru-Rollin demanded permission to interpellate the government on Italian affairs. Although Tracy, minister of the navy, insisted that the time was in- opportune, the Assembly appointed the seventh for the de- bate. On June 7 the president of the Assembly read a letter from Ledru, who was ill, having been confined to his bed since the fifth. The letter requested the adjournment ^ Anderson 533-7. 51 1 ] ON THE EVE OF AN UPRISING 357 of the interpellation, and the Assembly consented to an ad- journment until June 11/ Nevertheless Emmanuel Arago, an independent member of the extreme left, insisted on tell- ing of the agreement made by Lesseps, and Bac, a member of the Mountain, asked whether the agreement had been re- jected. Tocqueville, the new minister of foreign affairs, refused to make any declaration until June 11, and Barrot claimed that no satisfactory agreement had been proposed; neither Barrot nor Tocqueville, however, made any mention of the attack on Rome, which had already been ordered. When the news of this attack became public, liberals ^ as well as radicals were wild with rage. On June 10 an at- tempt was made to bring these elements together. A meet- ing of the former members of the Constituent Assembly was held at the Palais National, and an executive committee was constituted with the moderate Goudchaux as chairman. A few conservatives had attended the meeting but had quickly withdra\Vn. The rest of those present signed a statement declaring their interpretation of the three violated articles of the constitution, an interpretation which coincided with, that of the Mountain.^ On the same day one hundred and twenty-three members of the Mountain drew up a proclamation to the German de- mocracy. Although the affairs of Italy were more serious, they said, their brothers across the Rhine ought not to be neglected; the proclamation was merely a word of encour- agement. This manifesto was published on June 11 in the radical newspapers.* A little before noon on June 11 a meeting of the radical ' Moniteur 2017. ^ By liberals are meant such persons as Cavaignac and the members of the left center of the Legislative Assembly. ' Gent at Ledru trial, Moniteur 3206. * Moniteur 3101. The Rcforme gives 124 signatories. - -8 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [512 and liberal press was held at the offices of the Dcmocratie pacitiquc. Considerant occupied the chair at first but soon ceded it to Girardin. Considerant proposed that if the Assembly should reject the impeachment which was to be moved, the deputies of the opposition should announce that the constitution had been distinctly violated, that they should declare the people, the officials, the National Guard, and the army released from their oath to the executive power, that these deputies should proclaim themselves the only legal representatives of the people and should form themselves into a rump assembly by right of article 68 which provided for such a contingency. A desultory discussion followed, and finally Girardin spoke. He declared that the freedom of the press and universal suffrage must be de- fended, that the best means of defending them was for the minority of the Assembly to declare the majority outside the law, but he opposed any rioting, any insurrection in Paris. This was an approval of Considerant' s scheme for a rump parliament. The meeting voted unanimously in favor of the adoption of this plan of action, and it charged Considerant and the two other deputies present to inform Ledru-RoUin and the Mountain of its decision.^ Considerant went immediately from this meeting to a gathering of the jNIountain. He presented his propositions for a rump parliament and urged that they be published directly after the legislative session.^ Apparently the Alon- tagnards came to no decision at this time. As soon as the Assembly met on that day, June 11, Ledru- Rollin brought forward a motion for the impeachment of ^Accusation at Leclru trial, Monitcur 3108; Toussenel, Brunier, Cha- tard, and Vidal, ibid., 3160-4. The latter testified that Girardin opposed Considerant, but the other authorities say the contrary. See also Dari- mon 155; Considerant 25-7. * Considerant 27. 513] ON THE EVE OF AN UPRISING 359 the ministry, signed by one-hundred and forty-eight deputies, Montagnards and independent members of the extreme left. The ministry was accused of violating the constitution/ Ledru said that there were supreme moments when phrases were useless. He told of the attack on Rome made on June 3 and of the repulse of the French cavalry. Barrot and Tocqueville denied the repulse, but Ledru read detailed ac- counts from a Marseilles newspaper and from a letter he had received. The leader of the ^Mountain told how a sus- pension of hostilities had been asked by and granted to Oudinot in order that the dead might be buried. He pointed out how the constitution guaranteed protection to the republic of Rome, how the vote of May 7 in the Constituent As- sembly had disapproved attacks on the Roman republic, how* Oudinot had transgressed the wishes of that Assembly while the ministers were professing obedience to them. " Inter- pellations," said Ledru, " are worse than useless. . . . The truth is that the government has failed in the most sacred of its duties, that it has violated the constitution ; the truth is that an impeachment is the only act that can be directed against it." Ledru explained his definition of French honor, not the capture of a city by a nation of thirty-six millions, but the support of right and justice. He repeated his demand for an impeachment of the president and the ministers.^ After leaving the tribune Ledru added a request for urgency."'* Barrot began his reply by doubting the news in Ledru's letter. (This was simply tactics, for he knew that every word in it was true. ) He declared that impeachment was a ' The Moniteiir 3102 states that there were 148 signatories but men- tions by name only 146. The radical papers of June 12 published the list of signatories giving 142 to 146 names. "^ Discours politiques 2 : 334-9. Cf. Clermont 181-2. *Moniteur 2044. •.6o LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [514 serious matter and asked the Mountain whether it would re- main within the bounds of legaHty ; Ledru and others nodded assent. Barrot then entered upon explanations which ex- plained nothing and statements which were lies or half-truths. He claimed that Rome had been attacked only when French honor demanded it. (Yet he had refused to support the president's letter to Oudinot a month earlier.) He asserted that the recall of Lesseps was due to the dishonorable terms of the revised treaty made by that envoy. (But Lesseps's recall antedated by a week the treaty.) He delivered a eulogy on the liberalism of the Pope. (Pius had just re- jected the few liberal concessions requested by the French envoys at his court.) Barrot declared that Oudinot had come to Rome as a friend and had encountered war. He compared the two agreements of Lesseps and read into the revised one all manner of interpretations which no sane man could find there. He emphasized the need of enter- ing Rome before the Austrians and maintained that France was defending liberty at Rome. The Assembly would have backed Barrot no matter what he said; so Barrot deserves little of the praise frequently given him for the persuasive- ness of this speech. If he had come out plainly, with the intention of changing the policy towards Rome, the As- sembly would have agreed, and all which could be charged against him would have been a violation of the constitution. Instead he misrepresented facts and gave false reasons. This is the same Barrot who had stigmatized with his burn- ing eloquence the far less flagrant insincerity of Louis Philippe's ministers. Human psychology is peculiar; how could Barrot, who was undoubtedly honest, reconcile him- self to this hodge-podge of lies and misrepresentations? ^ Of course this tissue of subterfuges called Ledru back to the tribune, but he was no longer the calm, dispassionate 1 Cf. Clermont 182-7. ^I^] ON THE EVE OF AN UPRISING 36 1 orator who had dehvered an unanswerable indictment of the cabinet; he was the leader of the extreme opposition, boiling over with unrestrainable rage. During the earlier part of his speech he controlled himself slightly, but as the majority remained impervious to his irrefutable arguments, his passion was too much for him and he let himself utter phrases that seemed an incitement to civil war. Ledru said : " There is something profoundly sad in see- ing to what a point the most solemn acts are forgotten or disfigured by verbal jugglery." He quoted the decrees of the Constituent Assembly, the words of Jules Favre on April 16 and on May 7 and those of Senard on the latter date. " I declared to you," Ledru said, " that there are times when one is overcome by despair. I do not know of any power of words that can struggle against such passages and such re- solutions as I have quoted. . . . You asserted that you had the right to go to the heart of Rome and make French blood flow ; I deny that right. You said to the members who did not belong to the National Constituent Assembly that it gave you the right; I say that it did not." Ledru showed the duplicity of the government in the Lesseps mission; he asked what act of the Romans had caused the sudden rupture of negotiations and the attack on their sovereignty; he ac- cused the government of subservience to the Pope. Sum- ming up his arguments, he declared the government's state- ments false. So far his indignation had only made his argu- ments the more forceful, but now he was carried away. " You said to us in the beginning as if to intimidate us. . . . Are you sure of remaining within the limits of the law? You are most insolent : you have violated the constitution and you address such a question to us. Our answer is simple; The constitution has been violated; we zuill defend it by all means possible, even by arms." ^ -^ 1 Discours poUtiqucs 2 : 340-9. Cf. Clermont 187-8. 362 LEDRU-ROLLIX AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [516 An eye-witness thus described the scene at this point ; I can again see M. Ledrii-Rolhn at the tribune on June 11. His thundering voice filled the entire hall. . . . All at once these words — I can hear them still after twenty years — were heard. . . . There was an explosion. . . . Every one was on his feet shouting. The entire Mountain clapped its hands. The conservatives glared at the left of the Assembly, and the Montagnards replied by shaking their fists at their adversaries. In the midst of the tumult M. Ledru-Rollin never left the tribune. His provocative attitude was striking; his arm was raised in a menacing manner, and his head was thrown back defiantly. He replied with a disdainful smile to the call to order of the president, and anew his sonorous voice rang out.^ For twenty-five minutes disorder reigned. The president was forced to suspend the sitting. The Mountain reechoed the defiance of its leader. The right trembled with rage at the audacity of the phrase. Were Ledru's words justified? They were unfortunate as they gave support to the conserva- tive claim that Ledru-Rollin advocated an uprising. But there was no such intention in the speaker's mind. Ledru always tended to extremes in his oratory, and this was the strongest phrase he could find to express the devotion of the Mountain to the constitution. Arms might be used as a last extremity, but he had pledged his word to Barrot to ex- haust all legal means first. ^ ^ Achard 229-230. ' In general the extreme left approved what Ledru had said. Thus Xadaud 333 wrote : " It was amid the applause of the extreme left that Ledru-Rollin declared ... in a discourse that would suffice to immor- talize his name that we would oppose that monstrous war [against Rome] even with arms in our hands." But a few Montagnards felt that Ledru had gone too far. Among them was Commissaire 1 : 232, who declared : " These words were extremely serious ; pronounced by Ledru- Rollin they amounted to a declaration of war. . . . The ^Mountain, how- ever, had not authorized the great orator to compromise it imprudently 517] ON THE EVE OF AN UPRISING 363 Finally the disorder subsided, and President Dupin re- opened the session. He called the orator to order severely. Ledru retorted by invoking article no of the constitution and reiterating his final words. General Bedeau declared that all cherished the constitution, but that it was for the entire Assembly rather than for the minority to decide whether it had been violated. Segur d'Aguesseau protested against the anarchical doctrines which had been uttered; he accused Rome of treachery and asserted that the vote of May 7 was self -contradictory. Emmanuel Arago showed the inconsistencies of the government and asked for a state- ment of its policy. Larabit expressed the opinion of the left centre when he disapproved of the wild words from the tribune but at the same time censured the Italian policy of the cabinet, Cremieux of the left and Adelsward of the left centre proposed orders of the day approving respectively the policy of May 7 and of the Constituent Assembly, but the right passed the order of the day pure and simple by 361 to 201 votes. Thus ended the eventful session of June il. On the evening of this day there was another meeting of the liberal and radical journalists, this time at the office of the Peuple. Ledru and other Montagnards were present. Darimon, an editor of the Peuple, spoke to Ledru and was surprised to find that after his words at the Assembly the leader of the Mountain was still opposed to an uprising.^ Considerant renewed his proposal for a rump parliament. Girardin insisted on the right of the press to criticize. Then he and the editor of the National retired while the radical and audaciously. The deputies of the Mountain could have refused to accept the responsibility of this declaration as did the other republicans of the Assembly. M. Ledru-Rollin would have lost a little prestige, but the republic vi^ould have been spared all the harm done by June 13." ^ Darimon 155. ..(34 LEDRU-ROLLIN AS D SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [518 newspaper men went to the headquarters of the Mountain in the Rue cle Hasard to inform the deputies, who were hold- ing a meeting there, of the position of the press/ On June 12 Paris arose fearing trouble. The National Guard under the leadership of Schmitz held meetings to plan a great demonstration." The radical press printed three pro- clamations. One from the Mountain said : " We presented an impeachment against the executive. We shall sustain it tomorrow. We wish to try every means which the con- stitution places in our hands. Let the people continue to have faith in its representatives as its representatives have faith in them." A second proclamation was from the democratic-socialist committee (committee of twenty-five) ;• it pledged support to the Mountain. The third was an ap- peal from the schools that all Frenchmen join in the protest against the violation of the constitution. The editorials in the radical and lilDcral newspapers o£ June 12 supported the extreme left. The Peuple "hoped that the Mountain would hold to the oath pronounced by its leader." The Democratie paciiique insisted that it was time to appeal to the country. The Vraie Repiihlique went into ecstacies over Ledru's oratory. The Rcpuhlique said that there was no longer a constitution. The Revolution democratique et sociale urged the Mountain to march for- ward since the National Guard and the army were with it. The Re forme desired the defense of the constitution even by arms. The National insisted that Ledru had made no appeal to violence, and it ridiculed the attitude of Barrot and Thiers. The Presse asserted that the right of inter- ^ Darimon 155; Considerant 27; Laulerie, Girardin, and Toussenel at Ledru trial, Monitcur for 1849, pp. 3168. 3208, 3220, 3262. There is na evidence as to the deliberations of the Mountain on the evening of June II. * Accusation at Ledru trial, Moniteur 3102. 519] ON THE EVE OF AN UPRISING 365 pretaton of the constitution by the legislative majority was the negation of that document; it praised the oratorical tri- umph of Ledru ; and it violently attacked the Roman expedi- tion. The Credit maintained that the majority in the Legis- lative Assembly was playing with the constitution. The Temps considered the constitution violated. The Steele de- clared that the entry into Rome would be similar to that of the Vandals. On the other hand, the incapacity of the Mountain, its inevitable defeat, and its desire for civil war were the points emphasized by the conservative newspapers.'' The members of the Legislative Assembly met on June 12 expecting further developments. A member of the right, more frank than his colleagues, said to the Montagnard Commissaire : " We know as well as you that the con- stitution has been violated, but it has been violated in the interests of the great party of order which desires the re- establishment of the monarchy, and we do not wish the con- stitution to be violated in the eyes of the country." " About noon the extreme left held a caucus. Considerant again proposed his idea of a rump parliament. Many of the de- puties feared that the government would seize the occasion of the peaceful demonstration planned for the morrow in order to provoke the semblance of an insurrection. Ledru in particular was anxious to take precautions to prevent such an occurrence.^ Lacrosse, one of the ministers, demanded urgency for the discussion of the impeachment, and it was granted unani- mously. A committee of fifteen was appointed to consider the advisability of an indictment, but the Assembly showed its utter lack of fairness by appointing to it fifteen members ^ Thus Assemblec Nationalc, Constitutioinicl, Courier Prani^ais, Di.v Dcccrnbre, Gazette de France, Patric, Pays, Union, Univers. * Commissaire I : 236. * Vcrsigny at Ledru trial, Moniteur for 1849, p. 3168. .66 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [ 52a of the right ; not even the left centre was given a place on the committee. Among the members were Thiers, leader of the right proper, Segur d'Aguesseau, who had distin- guished himself on the previous day by a violent attack on Ledru, Daru, a prominent member of the Rue de Poitiers group, Attorney-General Baroche, Bedeau, who had several times contradicted the orators of the left on the Roman question. In fact, the committee was composed of men who had so compromised themselves that a recommendation for impeachment would have been a self-accusation. Grandin asked whether the left accepted responsibility for the appeal to arms. Pierre Leroux replied that he and his friends ap- pealed to reason, not to arms.^ Dufaure, minister of the interior, expressed himself as pleased with this answer, Now the committee had finished its deliberations and Daru spoke for it. Naturally he completely acquitted the gov- ernment and claimed that it had faithfully carried out the wishes of the Constituent Assembly. Canet, a Alontagnard, inquired what government France intended to give to Rome. Barrot avoided the question and talked banalities about doing his duty. Laclaudure, a member of the extreme left, wanted to see the documents on which the committee's report was based. Tocqueville was willing to produce them since, he said, they were favorable to the ministers, but he claimed that it would prolong the debate, for all the im- portant ones had been published in the Moniteur. Ledru-Rollin now spoke. There has been much comment on the mild tone of his speech delivered after the fiery word of the previous day. Barrot repeated in his memoirs the common account that within the ranks of the Mountain there was indecision as to the advisability of an uprising, and ' Many writers emphasize the fact that Ledru was silent, but there was no reason why he should have answered that question rather than one of his colleagues. ^21] ON THE EVE OF AN UPRISING 367 that the party of quiet had the advantage on the twelfth.^ Clermont beheves that the moderation was caused by the advise of Rusconi, an envoy of the Roman repubhc, who considered that an uprising at Paris would ruin the hopes that Rome still retained in the French government.' But Clermont looks too much to Rome and too little to the psychology of Ledru and the Mountain. The explanation is probably simpler. When Ledru had declared that he would defend the constitution with arms, he was not making an appeal to insurrection, he had no desire for using violence, he was merely carried away by the heat of a moment to forceful expression, he was emphasizing defend the con- st! tuft 07i and not even with arms. Therefore it was natural that the next day, when his anger had cooled, he should adopt a tone which clearly implied a desire for a peaceful solution. Ledru spoke in favor of the communication of documents. After protesting that the Mountain had no desire for agita- tion he insisted that always between the demand for impeach- ment and the final decision the documents in the case must by produced. He claimed that there were certain vital ones, notably the contradictory orders given to Oudinot and to Lesseps, which had not yet been made public. He asked how the Assembly could know that the indictment was frivo- lous if it did not know the facts in the case. " You can render a decision," he said; " you have the majority, I know — ^M. Guizot always acted with a majority." The right shouted that this was an insult to universal suffrage. Ledru replied : " I believe in universal suffrage, it is my faith, but I also believe that there is something superior to universal suffrage, for the electors may be deceived. That ^ Barrot 3 : 291-2. * Clermont 189. ,(->§ LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [522 superior something is eternal right and justice, that inde- finable thing called human conscience." Ledru-RoUin ended with an explanation of his words of the previous day. " All pacific means to defend the constitution, but if it is violated .... as I said, it must be defended by each of us with arms in his hands." ^ It is remarkable how peaceful these words now sounded when divested of the air of defiance with which they had previously been uttered. President Dupin desired to put the vote whether they should proceed to the discussion of the question of the im- peachment. Coralli, a member of the left centre, wanted the matter referred to the bureaus. Laclaudure, a member of the extreme left, again insisted on seeing the documents. But the president persisted in putting the question. The in- dignant left refrained from voting, and the motion was passed 377 to 7. And still Pascal Duprat, an orator of the extreme left, insisted on seeing the documents. Barrot declared this un- necessary. Cremieux maintained that the signers of the impeachment might be convinced of the guilt of the min- isters, the majority of their innocence, but that there were some members of the Assembly whose minds were open and who needed documentary proof. Then Thiers rose and made the great speech for the defense. He asserted that Cremieux had the right to ask for the documents but not the signers, who had asserted the previous day that the case was clear without them ; ^ that the committee had ex- amined ever}1;hing and had seen no basis for impeachment ; that the Assembly had realized, when troops had been sent to Civita Vecchia, that force might be needed; and that these troops had defended liberty as well as order. All the facts were known, Thiers claimed, and there was no attack ' Discoiirs politiques 2 : 350-7. ' This was a hit at Ledru, Laclaudure, and Duprat. 523] ON THE EVE OF AN UPRISING 369 on liberty. The government had tried negotiations and had been compelled to use force. " We think that the country must know two facts; that the government did not violate the fundamental pact, and that a government which knows how to make the law respected has us behind her to aid her in her task." Thiers did not have a promising cause to defend, but he made a remarkably eloquent and convincing argument. He was the only orator in the Assembly who could defeat Ledru in the forum. Of course the leader of the Mountain was compelled to reply. He insisted that he was convinced of the guilt of the ministers but that he needed the documents to convince the country. Thiers claimed, Ledru continued, that this was a struggle between demagogy and order. But the demagogy at Rome was a republic. Thiers had twisted the intentions of the Constituent Assembly; why did he not reply to Senard and Favre on May 7 with his distorted ver- sion? Why all this energy to repulse the Austrians when all Rome asked was permission to repulse them herself as she had repulsed the Neapolitans? As to the declaration that this was a struggle between demogogy and order, this was not the declaration of Thiers but of the Emperor of Russia in a manifesto. It is a question of monarchy or republic, said Ledru. The Roman republic could not be reproached with the murder of Rossi, for that occurred five months before its proclamation. The Roman republic was not a demagogy, for it was based on universal suffrage and the approval of the population. " It is order that is advanc- ing throughout Germany," Ledru said; " it is the order of Prussia that is advancing to our borders, to Kehl. It is order that menaces our frontiers. You belong to the party of the Cossacks ; you are not republicans." ^ Again we have 1 Discours politiques 2 : 358-364. . -O LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [324 a convincing if slightly rambling discourse, in general moderate in tone but ending defiantly. President Dupin was about to call the orator to order when Thiers rose to reply. Thiers insisted that he took; the words just uttered as applying to himself. Ledru in- terrupted from the floor to say that the word Cossack was merely a retort to the word demagogue. Thiers responded that he had used the word demagogue in a general sense and that it was Ledru-Rollin's fault if he thought that the shoe pinched him. Let the country chose between the two parties, Thiers continued. His party desired order as well as a re- public, in Italy as well as in France. It desired order and therefore fought Ledru's influence. Again Pascal Duprat, supported by Cremieux, Pyat, and Latrade, insisted on a vote on the question of the production of the documents, but Dupin asserted that the question had been decided and that the Assembly should now vote on the committee's re- port. This was accepted 377 to 8, for again the entire left refrained from voting. The left centre voted with the majority. Thus ended the session. June 12 was a mere lull in the struggle and brought no permanent results. Ledru had made able speeches, but had added nothing to what he had said the previous day. The reader should notice the emphasis given to that higher law which was declared superior to universal suffrage, the old theory of natural law. Thiers had shown himself a re- markable defender of a bad cause and with him resided the honours of the debate; but he had employed the favorite device of the right, to turn the question from the subject in hand to a general accusation of the extreme left. The right had conspiciously shown its unfairness. The impeachment had been submitted to a committee composed wholly of the right. The production of the documents, demanded by the most elementary rules of equity, had been refused by the C25] ON THE EVE OF AN UPRISING 2,7^ majority. The discussion had been closed before the sub- ject had really been debated, for all the speeches had been on the question of the production of the documents. It was manifest that the conservatives would give the opposi- tion no chance to establish its case. Meanwhile the committee of republican journalists and the committee of twenty-five had each sat all day June 12 in permanent session at the offices of the Democratic paci- iique. No member of the Mountain was present. '^ The Mountain held no meeting in the Rue du Hasard that day although members ran in and out of the headquarters." The Montagnards considered that place unsafe and went to the offices of the Democratic paciilque where a room was placed at their disposal. Various independent members of the extreme left were present at their meeting but no non- deputies. Considerant still insisted on his plan for a peace- ful protest and a rump parliament. No one was prepared for an insurrection, and Baudin and Nadaud declared that the people would not rise. There was fear that the authori- ties would fire on the peaceful demonstration planned for the morrow. The general feeling of the meeting was that they should definitely declare themselves as opposed to violent action. But Michel de Bourges rose and favored an insurrection. Baudin changed his opinions and a former member of the Constituent Assembly promised six thousand men. This was not believed, but the question of appealing to force remained open.^ Commissaire declares in his memoirs : " If Michel de Bourges had not come and had not spoke at this meeting, it is probable that June 13 would have been merely a peaceful demonstration." * This state- 1 Ledru trial, Moniteur for 1849, pp. 3102, 3134-6. 2 Ibid., 3208, 3220-4, 3408. Ledru went there about 10 A. M. ^Commissaire 1:236-9; Ledru trial, Moniteur 3142, 3168, 3220. * Commissaire i : 239. '^'ro LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [ C26 ment is an exaggeration, for it will be seen that on the morning of June 13 the ]\Iountain was still opposed to any- thing like an uprising. Ruge, a German democrat and a friend of Ledru, wrote on June 12: "There will be no fighting, merely a peaceful demonstration." ^ A committee composed of Ledru-Rollin, Pyat, and Con- siderant withdrew from this meeting to draw up a pro- clamation. They asserted that the people alone was sov- ereign, and they declared that article 5 of the preamble and article 54 of the constitution had been violated. The only method left was to confide in the people, the National Guard, and the army in accord with article no of the constitution. " People, this is the supreme moment," declared the pro- clamation; "the government has ranged itself on the side of kings against peoples. . . . Liberty is order, is the con- stitution, is the republic. Rally to the cry of Hurrah for the Republic! Hurrah for the Constitution! " ' The deputies all approved this manifesto, but some thought that it was not strong enough. A declaration of the Friends of the Con- stitution was read, which quoted article no and added: " Let a creat manifestation, calm as justice itself, as the sacred cause of nationalities, proclaim boldly the protest of the French people against the audacious enterprises of the authorities, and let it thereby assure the triumph of the constitution." This declaration was also approved by the meeting.^ About three o'clock in the morning of June 13 the deputies of the extreme left separated after handing to ^ Ruge 2: loi. ^ Moniteur 3102-3; radical papers of June 13. Pyat 103 declared apropos of this proclamation : " Neither Ledru-Rollin nor Considerant nor I drew it up; we only looked it over with its author"; unfortu- nately he does not say who the author was. Was he perhaps Michel de Bourges? All other accounts attribute the composition of the proclama- tion to the three deputies. ' Ledru trial, Moniteur 3103, 3168, 527] ON THE EVE OF AN UPRISING 373 the press the declaration which they had drawn up. It was unsigned ; so the newspapers appended at the end the names of those deputies who had signed the proclamation to Ger- man democracy.^ It is clear that at the end of this meeting no plans for in- surrection had been made. Michel de Bourges had pre- vented a decision against an appeal to violence, but that was all. One declaration had been drawn up, another approved, both of which declared that the constitution had been vio- lated and that the last appeal was to the people, but both of which advocated the use of merely peaceful means of opposi- tion. ^ Moniteiir 3168; Commissaire 1:239. CHAPTER XXIV The Grand Fiasco The events of June 13 have rarely been correctly inter- pretated. The common account is that Ledru-Rollin did not desire to head an uprising but was forced by his fol- lowers to organize long beforehand a definite insurrection. He is supposed to have declared : " I am their chief; I must follow them." ^ This explanation of the events of June 13 is untenable, for every shred of evidence indicates that there was no premeditated conspiracy. A more reasonable explanation of June 13 is that Ledru and the Mountain were undecided as late as June 12, but that they finally declared in favor of an insurrection and worked with that end in view on the thirteenth." Thus jMaz- 1 This is the account given by Ledru's contemporaries : Ambes i : 204-9; Barrot 3:297-312; Falloux 1:481-2; Freycinet 56-7; Granier de Cassagnac 2 : 89-94 ; Maupas i : 60-2 ; Melun 2 : 39 ; Persigny 72-4 ; Quentin-Bauchart 1:266-274; and by such secondary writers as Forster 250-1; Gradis 2:375; Jerrold 3:89-96; La Gorce 2:167-180; Pierre Quentin-Bauchart in Nouvelle Revue N. S. 16:538; Weill 323-6. This is the thesis adopted by the prosecution at Versailles. Calumnious ac- counts also exist. Vielcastel i: 114 declares that Ledru was induced to revolt by his mistress, Judith, an actress and police spy. Lavarenne, Rouges 61-2, and Mirecourt 88-90 claim that Ledru was forced at the point of a pistol to support an uprising. ... As to the phrase " I am their chief; I must follow them," it is probably apocryphal. The only definite testimony on this point is by Pressense in Revue Bleue ig- : 549. who declares that Ledru made this remark to Maleville. * Among contemporaries, Beaumont -Vassy 4 : 496-7 and Castille 4 : 96- 122; among secondary writers, Lebey, Ministere 444-509; Martin 3:220; Pierre 2: 156-214; Renard 151-2. 374 [528 ^29] THE GRAND FIASCO 375 zini says in his Note autohiografe: " On June 13 our friends in the French assembly under Ledru-RoUin's leadership at- tempted to arouse Paris against the infamous actions which had been committed, but they were unsuccessful. Their attempt was a summons to insurrection without the prepara- tions necessary to initiate it." ^ The nephew of Jaeger, a disciple of Fourier, gives a peculiar piece of testimony: " Ledru-Rollin had promised to Considerant, that he would establish a phalanstery if he arrived in power. Considerant and Cantagrel supported Ledru-Rollin at Paris in the hope of obtaining this. Jaeger was informed by them of their hopes and obeyed their order to join the uprising." " This narrative does not fit in which the testimony of other con- temporaries as to the actions of Considerant. Far nearer the truth than the idea either of a premeditated plot or of an unpremeditated uprising is the version, preju- diced to be sure, adopted by those contemporaries who took part in the movement against the government. They in- .sist that there was no insurrection at all.^ This was also Ledru-Rollin's opinion. In 1874 he declared in a speech: " There was an attempt at a peaceful manifestation which was intended merely to take the form of a declaration be- fore the National Assembly, but there was no appeal to ' Mazzini 5 : 192. ^ Muller 182. Cf. Revolution de 1848, 5 : 711. 3 Comrtiissaire 239-245 ; Considerant, passim ; Guinard in Messager du Nord, June 26, 1849; Nadaud 334-5; St. Ferreol; Menioires 2:190-7; various persons at Ledru trial. Also all those who knew the radicals, Blind in Eraser's Magazine 91 : 246-8; Proles, Delescluze, 26-8. Also all the radical newspapers of 1849 jind many liberal ones such as the National. Among secondary writers the only ones who accept this view are Hamel 343-8, who accepts it on faith, and Raoul de Felice in Revo- lution de 1848, 6: 133-157, 243-252, who accepts it after a long investi- gation. Felice gives the only satisfactory account of June 13; he be- lieves that the supposed uprising was a Bonapartist plot. Seignobos 138-9 is non-committal as to the responsibility of the Mountain. .-6 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [530 amis and indeed not a shot was fired." ^ Late in 1849 Ledru-Rollin wrote a pamphlet called Le JJ Jidn; in it we would naturally expect to find a good deal of evidence con- cerning the events of that day, but it contains only generali- ties. Ledru demolished many of the arguments of his op- ponents, but he gave no definite account of his actions in June 1849.- It is difficult completely to absolve the Mountain from the charge of taking part in an insurrection. Certainly before June 13 the Mountain engaged in no conspiracy. A few of its members, notably Michel de Bourges, desired to resort to violence, but most of the Montagnards up to and through June 12 were opposed to any sort of uprising. On the thirteenth the deputies of the Mountain did not know what course to take when they heard that the manifestation had been dispersed. Embarrassed by the unrealisable scheme for a rump parliament advocated by the pacific Considerant, the leaders of the Mountain seem finally to have decided to use force to defend themselves. Before they had time to draw up any definite plan of action, they were routed. The Mountain should, therefore, be absolved from the charge of a premeditated plot, but should be found guilty of a half- hearted appeal to arms at the eleventh hour for the purpose of an armed resistance to the authorities. As to the De- mocratic-Socialist Committee, otherwise called the Com- mittee of Twenty-five, and the Society of the Rights of Man, probably some of their members had been preparing for an insurrection, but the evidence on this point is incon- clusive. Certainly the government made use of the re- sistance which it knew was slight and unexpected to pretend ' Speech of June 3, 1874, in Discours politiques 2 : 481. ' Discours politiques 2:2,79-387. For details see Caiman, Ledru-Rollin apres 1848, 41-3. ^3l] THE GRAND FIASCO 2>77 that there had been a great insurrection; certainly it mag- nified the undecided policy of the Mountain into a wide- spread conspiracy. The police may have built the few bar- ricades that were erected and may have defended them by means of agents provocateurs, but that is uncertain. The radical and liberal newspapers, all of which had shown their hostility to the attack on Rome, continued their pro- gram of opposition to the government. On the morning of June 13 the seven great radical journals published the pro- clamation drawn up the previous evening by the Mountain as well as one signed by the Committee of the Republican Press, the Democratic-Socialist Committee, the delegates of the Luxembourg, and the Committee of the Schools. They also published a circular signed by Schmitz and other mem- bers of the fifth legion of the National Guard and a letter of Etienne Arago approving the stand of the parliamentary opposition. The editorials in these newspapers violently denounced the actions of the majority in the Assembly and vaguely advocated peaceful opposition. About half past nine on the morning of the thirteenth crowds began to gather at the Chateau d'Eau whence the projected procession was to start. Changarnier in a public letter a little later claimed that as early as June 10 he had known that trouble was brewing. If that was so, his logical course should have been to prevent the assembling of the crowd, but he desired a personal triumph over an insurrection and so allowed the procession to form. La- crosse, one of the ministers, crossed the square in front of the Chateau d'Eau and was jostled by the hostile crowd, but Gent, a radical who had been a member of the Constituent Assembly, prevented any violence being used against him. It was half past eleven before the procession started, headed by Etienne Arago, Schmitz, and Perrier of the National Guard, by Bastide, Gent, and Raynal, former deputies. ^^8 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [532 The Mountain took no part in this manifestation. The people were quiet or harmlessly cheered the Mountain, the constitution, and the Roman republic. All the evidence points to the peaceful character of the procession; the pre- sence of former deputies of the left centre, such as Bastide and Perrier, was not compatible with an uprising. The procession was marching along laughing when sud- denly about one o'clock Changarnier issued from a side street at the head of his troops and charged the procession. His soldiers and gendarmes slashed right and left in an unnecessarily cruel manner. The people could not disperse as all the side streets were thronged w^ith spectators. Then and then only, amid the disorder, an officer in a low voice read the riot act. The policemen and soldiers again jostled the unresisting crowd with their horses and attacked it with bayonets, sabres, clubs. The people offered no resistance and dispersed as quickly as they could. A few extremists cried: To Arms! They are massacring our brothers! But such cries were few and scattered. The attack of Chan- garnier was illegal as he made his assault before reading the riot act. It was unnecessary as the manifestation was peaceful and might have been dispersed before it formed in marching array. The attack was cruel and brutal ; this was evidenced particularly in the actions of a gendarme named Petit. When a youth thrown down by the onrush of the troops bared his breast and in a melodramatic frenzy cried : " Kill me," Petit slashed at the boy with his sabre. For this action the gendarme was not dismissed or even repri- manded; in fact a little later he even received promotion.'- The procession was not the work of the Mountain. The ^ For accounts of the procession see Ledru in Disconrs politiques 2 : 385-6; Changarnier in Moniteur for 1849, p. 2103; Ledru trial in ibid., 3115, 3206, 3163; Herzen 60; Ruge 2: 103. Seze in Revolution de 1848, 10: 21-2; Fonvielle in ihid., 8: 469-475. ^23] THE GRAND FIASCO 379 Mountain approved of it but took no part in it. Some of the deputies had gathered during the morning at the head- quarters in the Rue du Hasard. Ledru had arrived there a Httle after eleven o'clock/ Contradictory news was con- tinually brought in during the morning and the deputies de- cided that half of them should go to the Assembly, the other half should remain in the Rue du Hasard. Many of them were out at lunch when crowds of fugitives were heard rushing down the neighboring Rue de Richelieu with oc- casional cries of To arms! - The feelings of Ledru at this stage he himself described in a pamphlet : " At the sight of these bloody acts carried out under the very window of our meeting-place, I remembered the words of General Chan- garnier spoken the previous day : / shall set fire to the city; I remembered clearly the two decrees already issued against the press and the artillery. I had but one idea, that of de- fending the consititution in the midst of the people." " Thus apparently, at this point Ledru decided to throw in his lot with the people; as yet he had no thought of armed resist- ance — ^probably Considerant's plan for a rump parliament was uppermost in his mind. This meant a defiance of the existing authorities but neither the use of force nor a secret conspiracy, an impossible position. One thing was decided on by the Mountain; the Rue du ^Affaire du 13 Juin i : 551. A lieutenant in the National Guard who was collecting contributions for one of his injured soldiers had been told that Ledru would be sure to contribute. On the evening of June 12 he called at Ledru's home in the Rue de Tournon, but a valet told him that his master was out. The lieutenant returned at half-past ten the next morning and was told that Ledru was busy. The neighbors were surprised that he had failed to receive a donation from Ledru. — Ihid., i : 520. 2 St. Ferreol : Mcmoircs 2:191; Commissaire 244-5; Ledru trial in Moniteur for 1849, pp. 3209, 3222. ^ Discours politiques 2 : 386. Cf. Commissaire 245. -^So LEDRU-ROLLIX AXD SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [534 Hasard was not a safe place in which to dehberate. " To the Conservatory of Arts and Trades!" cried some one. Ledru took up the cry, and the Montagnards started off for the Conservatory in order to have amid the people a refuge in which to deliberate. Common sense told them that it was not a stronghold to defend.^ They wished, however, to have some protection against the attack they expected, and accordingly they went to the neighboring Palais National ^ where the National Guard artillery under Guinard was quartered. Guinard was a con- vinced republican, a Montagnard member of the Constituent, but an opponent of violence. He had been adjutant to Courtais, former commander of the National Guard, and w^as now head of the National Guard artillery. This artillery had been disbanded that morning, but Guinard, fearing a coup d'etat, had disregarded the order. Ledru and ten col- leagues entered the garden of the Palais National about two o'clock in the afternoon. " As soon as I heard that Ledru was in the garden," said Guinard later, I took him by the arm and entered my office. We talked together for a very short time. I felt as he did, that there was an attempt to violate the constitution. No more than I did he need to decide on his part. ... I thought that Ledru- Rollin went to the Conserv^atory because he was convinced .... that the constitution had been violated, that the authorities themselves, by charging a body of citizens without having first legally summoned them to disperse, began the insurrection. The first idea was to remain at the Palais National, but near by was a large division of the regular army. All defense was impossible at the Palais National. We feared the possibility of having to defend the republic. We wished ^ Discoiirs poUtiques 2:386; Boch at Ledru trial, Monitcur for 1849, PP- 3143, 3239- * Now the Palais Royal. ^35] THE GRAND FIASCO 381 to place ourselves in the midst of a population whose loyalty to the republic had been proved. . . . We went to the Con- servatory to consult and to learn what would result from the events that had already happened. I say with all frankness that we did not intend to incite an insurrection. Thus there was as yet no intention to cause an uprising al- though there was the intention of resisting the illegal acts of the legal authorities. There was to be no offensive war on the government, but there might be a defensive one.^ Guinard and the deputies of the Mountain entered the garden of the Palais National. " I assembled the few artillerymen who were in the garden," continued Guinard in his account. " I explained to them the situation as it was known to me, and I asked them whether they wished to take under their protection the members of the National Assembly. On their replying in the affirmative I gave the sign for departure. I declare in the most positive way that nobody but myself made a speech. Ledru-RoUin said noth- ing. ... I deny that I urged the artillerymen to overturn the government. I merely took under my protection the members of the National Assembly who appeared to be threatened." ^ A proof that the artillerymen left with no intention of taking part in an insurrection is the fact that they did not arm the mob that accompanied them with the weapons in the Palais National.^ The artillerymen formed a line on each side of the street and between them marched the representatives four abreast. 1 Guinard at Ledru trial, Monitcur for 1849, pp. 3143-4. Cf. other witnesses, ibid., 3229, 3239-3241, 3325; Affaire du 13 Juin 1:15; Ranc 46-7. * Monitcur for 1849, pp. 3143-4. Cf. other witnesses, ibid., 322^, 3240-2. The government declared that Ledru made a speech in the garden but it produced no witnesses to this fact at his trial and those heard at the preliminary examinations had only second-hand information. ^ Guinard in Monitcur for 1849, p. 3228. .Sj LEDRU-ROLLIN and second FRENCH REPUBLIC [536 In front were Guinard, Ledru and Deville, arm in arm. They passed several small military posts without paying any attention to them. There were continual shouts for the constitution and the republic, interspersed with some for the Roman republic, the Mountain, and Ledru-Rollin, and an occasional Down with Changarnier! or To Arms! Probably about sixty representatives, three hundred artillerymen, and a mob of a thousand civilians left the Palais National, but their numbers decreased as they marched along.^ On the way, said Considerant later in a pamphlet, " we repeated to each other that out role was traced, that it was no time to deliberate, that we should avoid a call to arms, that we should place ourselves at the head of the manifestation and re- ceive there, if necessary, the charge of bayonets and the rifle fire." ' When the deputies reached the Conservatory, they de- clared : " We are representatives and we wish to enter." ' The few soldiers in this public building were not numerous enough to resist, and they permitted the deputies to enter with their escort. Ledru and Guinard went into the second courtyard where they met Pouillet, the director of the Con- servatory, who had left his office as soon as he heard of their arrival. Pouillet's story is as follows; " Arrived there, I saw before me .... a group of deputies in scarfs and full insignia, and behind them in the first court- yard, the red plumes of the National Guard artillery, hats and caps bearing the level card, symbol of the Society of the Rights of Man, and above all a forest of bayonets, disorder, and great agitation." There were four hundred who entered and were 'Guinard and other witnesses, ibid., 3225, 3238-3246; Ranc 46-7; St. Ferreol, Memoires 2 : 192-3. ' Considerant 33. ' Ledru trial, Moniteur for 1849, pp. 3247, 3278. ^37] ^^S GRAND FIASCO 383 in the Boulevard St. Martin. " I arrived before the group of deputies and soon by his attitude, by his lofty stature, I re- cognized the leader of the Mountain. ... It was to him that I addressed myself. . . . " ' What do you want? ' " ' An asylum.' " ' This establishment is the asylum of science and peace, not of war. Go elsewhere with your banner.' " ' We are being tracked and sabred in the boulevards and in the streets.' " ' The Conservatory will not save you ; it will be fatal to you.' " 'In the streets we would be massacred.' " ' Here you will be enveloped, assailed from all sides with- out possible defense.' " ' Time presses, we wish to deliberate ; have you a room for us ? ' " You have forced your way in. Alone against you and your army I have only my words with which to oppose you. If you do not believe them, if you will not see your peril, come and I will open up a room for you.' " ^ Guinard and Ledru returned to the first court. A corporal who was stationed there testified later : " A man of fine appearance with a black beard put his hand on my shoulder and said : Do no be afraid, corporal; no harm will come to you. . .It is Ledru-Rollin zvho is talking to you." ~ Other deputies had gone in search of a plan of the building."'' Pouillet had opened up the old amphitheatre for the de- puties, but this room did not suit them. The new am- 1 Pouillet 5-6. Cf. Considerant 33-6; Guinard and Pouillet in Moni- tcur for 1849, pp. 3144, 3277, 3544. For good secondary account of events at the Conservatory, see Castille 4: 109-118. The account in Barrot 3 : 200-2 is naturally inexact. * Crance in Monitcur 3277. ^ Ibid., 3277. 384 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [538 phitheatre was refused them ; consequently after the director had left, they forced their way into the Spinning Room {Salle des Filatures) } " Near the entrance to this room," testified Dupin, Pouillet's secretary, " was a small table which was being used by various people, secretaries who were writing, others who were giving orders. M. Ledru-Rollin was very close to this table. He gesticulated, he seemed quite worried, he looked like a sick man." - There were at least fifty-seven deputies present at the Conserv^atory. Of these Ledru-Rollin, Martin Bernard, Considerant, and twenty-five others were later prosecuted for insurrection; the presence of Michel de Bourges and the others was unknown to the government.^ h. proclamation was later produced supposed to have been drawn up at this meeting. It said : " To the French people, the National Guard, and the army : The constitution has been violated, the people are rising to defend it, the Mountain is at its post. Hurrah for the constitution ! " The proclamation was dated : " At the Conserv^atorv^ of Arts and Trades at two o'clock." The authenticity of this document is doubtful. The reasons for considering it authentic are various. Commissaire, one of the deputies present, says in his memoirs : Ledru-Rollin, Michel and Considerant were the three most influential persons present; they formed a group apart. A little later they decided to post a call to arms. Ledru-Rollin wrote the appeal with a pencil. The paper was placed inside his hat. . . . Most of those who were at the 'Consen^atory were ignorant of the call to arms; no one signed it. Ledru- ^ Pouillet 7-10. * Moniteur 3279. * For lists of those present, see St. Ferreol, Proscrits i : 46-7 ; St. Fer- reol, Memoires 2 : 197. Gambon and Pyat, although not present, were also prosecuted. 539] ^^^ GRAND FIASCO 385 Rollin told the person who was to print it that the names of those who had signed the impeachment of the ministers should be affixed.^ St. Ferreol, another deputy present, says in his memoirs : Michel de Bourges drew up a proclamation on a page torn from Jules Maigne's note-book, and this proclamation at the foot of which were placed the names of all the deputies pre- sent — who did not need to sign it — was sent to the newspapers which it reached too late.- In a letter seized later Rolland and five other deputies told the people of Chalon-sur-Saone of the events at Paris and added : " We are drawing up a proclamation to call the people to arms." Three deputies wrote to Chalon and to Grenoble calling on the citizens to rise in revolt.' There are, however, several reasons for doubting the authenticity of this proclamation. First, the account of Com- missaire and St. Ferreol do not agree as to who wrote it and as to whose names were affixed. In fact, as regards the latter point, neither was right. The names of twenty- six of those who had signed the impeachment petition were not appended, and the name of one man who had not signed was added. The list of signatories included many who were not present at the Conservatory. As to Rolland, he as well as many other deputies, denied having signed the pro- clamation, although in this he may have quibbled, for no one claimed that he wrote his signature. Again the pro- clamation is dated " at two o'clock," but the deputies did not arrive at the Conservatory until nearly three o'clock. Of course this may have been an oversight on the part of whoever drew up the document. Then the " insurgents " ' Commissaire i : 245-6. ' St. Ferreol, Memoires 2 : 194. * Ledru trial, Moniteur for 1849, p. 3145. ^35 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REP UBLIC [ 540 did not act in conformity with the proclamation; they op- posed firing on the government forces when they arrived. Still there is the possibility that they acted thus because there was no chance of a successful defense or because they wished the good will of the army. The strongest evidence against the authenticity of the proclamation is the statement made a few months later by Considerant ; " I did not see the pro- clamation said to have been seized, and I swear, as I was beside Ledru-Rollin or near him all the time, that he did not see it either." ^ This would seem decisive, but Considerant may have lied to save his friends who were in prison or he may have been absent a moment while the proclamation was being written. Thus the evidence is conflicting as to the authenticity of the proclamation. It may be — although this is a pure hypo- thesis — that a proclamation calling on the people to defend the Mountain but not inciting them to insurrection was drawn up b}^ the leaders, a proclamation different from that seized by the government. Such a proceeding would have been in line with the peculiar policy of a defensive war against the authorities, the policy earlier adopted by the Mountain. Whether or not a proclamation had been drawn up, the deputies in the Conservatory took no actual measures of defense. In times of revolt it was the common practice in Paris to build barricades. But to this the Montagnard leaders were opposed. Guinard asserted later: "I had given the most positive orders to prevent the construction of barricades. I told my officers to treat as enemies of the republic all who tried to erect any." In fact he prevented the raising of several.^ There were no barricades within ' Considerant 36. -Moniteur 3144-5. Cf. ibid., 3140, 3310. 241 ] THE GRAND FIASCO 387 the Conservatory. Outside in the Rue St. Martin a group of workingmen built one, but the artillerymen did not aid them. In the Rue des Gravilliers, some distance off, the workingmen had been persuaded to demolish the one they were in process of constructing.^ Ledru had hoped that a part of the National Guard would demonstrate in his favor, and he relied particularly on a certain Colonel Forestier. He became impatient and re- marked: " Why doesn't Forestier come? " Suchet, a deputy, offered to go to the office of the colonel and induce him to parade with his troops. Suchet was arrested before he reached Forestier. The colonel himself had hestitated as to what course to take. Finally he decided to march through the streets with his troops. Before he had gone far he was arrested without difficulty. The government later claimed that Suchet had wished to urge an attack on the army, but all the evidence points to a desire on his part, as well as on that of Forestier and Ledru, for a mere show of force to prevent Louis Napoleon from making a coup d'etat. The Colonel was acquitted of the charge of insurrection; conse- quently the government's claim that beforehand Ledru- Rollin and the Mountain had planned an uprising with Forestier as military commander falls to the ground.' Pouillet, director of the Conservatory, had been wander- ing about, watching the National Guardsmen, the people, and the unarmed leaders of the Society for the Rights of Man. At last he accosted Guinard and urged him to leave the Conservatory since it was untenable ; he pointed out its lack of strategic importance as well as the facts that it was dominated by the buildings opposite and that its walls were weak. Guinard consented to accompany him to Ledru, 1 Moniteur 3145-6, 3158. * Ledru trial, Moniteur for 184Q, pp. 31 17, 3158, 3278-9, 3309, 3325, 3455 ; Changarnier in Moniteur 2103, -.gS LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [542 whom they found in the Spinning Room. " I accosted M. Ledru-Rolhn." said Pouillet in his account, and in a loud voice repeated to him and to the group around him the same thought and perhaps the same words that I had just used to Colonel Guinard. . . . My conviction was as strong as ever; in fact from minute to minute the likelihood of an outbreak of hostilities seemed to me to be growing greater. ... I can affirm that the deputies began immediately to deliberate on the question as to whether they should leave the Conservatory or remain there. . . . The deliberation was neither regular nor solemn. It was a conflict of opinions and contradictory assertions, an indescribable confusion. Nobody demanded the floor, everybody took it. Pouillet himself tried to convince individual deputies of the advantage of quitting the Conservatory, and he won Con- siderant over to his side. A quarter of an hour was wasted in debate while a committee of five deliberated in secret as to whether or not a government should be formed at the Con- servatory. All was still undecided when shots were heard outside. '^ Changarnier had sent two regiments against the Conserva- tor}^ A few scattered shots were fired at them, but the deputies tried to prevent all resistance. The ]\Iontagnard, Boch, cried: "Don't fire." The artillerymen held the stocks of their muskets in the air. But the regular troops steadily advanced and entered the Conservatory. There was no organized defense on the part of those inside and no attempt to make one." Neither did the deputies wish to flee. " There was so little thought of flight," said Deville, a deputy, later, " that we all went up to the troops, Ledru- ^ Pouillet 10-16. * Moniteur for 1849, pp. 2103, 3 141, 3143, 322^. Commissaire 249 claims that there was no resistance onlj^ because there was no time to organize ^43] THE GRAND FIASCO 389 Rollin at our head. The Artillery held their muskets re- versed and were cheering the republic and the constitu- tion." ^ When the first detachment of troops entered the Con- servatory, Ledru left Guinard to whom he was talking and advanced a few steps. He addressed a few words to the captain in command, but the captain was angry or drunk. He disregarded Ledru and said to the deputies : " Line your- selves against the wall; we are going to shoot you with your arms in your hands." One of the the deputies mounted a table and wished to make an address to prevent the firing. The captain seized him by his official scarf and pulled him down, saying that he did not recognize that badge." Ledru in a pamphlet thus described the scene : " We saw death very close, I and my friends. Lined up against a wall without arms or means of defense, we were placed six paces from the muskets of a half -company which had already taken aim and awaited only the final command. The of- ficer, drunk with passion and with wine (say several witnes- ses), lifted his sword to give the death order when a superior officer galloped up and had barely time to order the guns to be lowered. They arc prisoners he said; if they move, Hre on them immediately. A moment more and we should have fallen, assassinated without provocation, without warning, without explanation, without trial, like a herd butchered in a slaughter house. Well, at that supreme and tragic moment did a single one of those men flinch? Did any one of them traffic for his life by supplications or buy his body with his honour? Who then are the cowards, those who did not pale under the shadow of death or those who insulted them the next day, prudently protected behind the bulwark of a state of siege? No, no, during that day of sacrifices I did ^ Monitcur 3280. Cf. ibid., 3279 ; Considerant 2Q. ^ Monitetir 3145, 3280, 3304. ,gO LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [544 not forget for one moment that of all the deputies I was the one that France had honoured with the most votes." ^ Thus the deputies of the Mountain were saved from being shot by the timely arrival of a superior officer. Ledru said to him : " Major, is it possible that orders have been given to shoot unarmed men?" The major ordered the threatening guns to be lowered.^ At this point Colonel Alphonse arrived; Guinard and Ledru spoke to him. Guinard said " You can regard us as your prisoners. Ledru-Rollin and I answer for all the citizens here." Al- phonse nodded assent. Was this a promise to remain in the Conservatory? Alphonse so conceived it, but Guinard did not,^ and Ledru said later : " I did not give my parole." * The leader of the Mountain can hardly be blamed for not considering that this speech by Guinard bound him not to escape. At this juncture for some unexplained reason the soldiers withdrew from the Conservatory; the Mountain and it de- fenders had absolute control within. Already many of the deputies and citizens had escaped by breaking the windows, jumping out of them, and then departing through the garden and the unguarded rear gates. Deville insisted on staying in the first courtyard; others agreed with him. " We will all stay," said Ledru. The importance of his escape was pointed out, but still Ledru resisted. Then Pilhes seized him by the arm and forced him bodily into the building; further Ledru would not flee.^ Soon the first courtyard ^ Discours politiques 2 : 367-8. ' Moniteur for 1849, pp. 3310, 3323. ' Ibid., 3222-3. Cf. Guinard in Messager du Nord, June 26. * Discours politiques 2: 368. '^Revolution de 1848, 17:48; cf. Moniteur 3279; Pouillet 16-9; St. Ferreol, Memoires 2 : 194. 545] THE GRAND FIASCO 391 was reoccupied by the troops. Deville and five other de- puties, who had remained there, were made prisoners. " Here we are, absolute prisoners," said Considerant who was wandering through the building with Ledru-Rollin, Martin Bernard, and Guinard. " Let us wait and talk; we have nothing better to do," re- plied Ledru. " Do you understand why they let everyone go out and why they leave us alone and masters of the interior ? " " I understand nothing. We heard some further gun- shots. Perhaps they expect an attack from outside." By this time the four men were alone. " Truly," re- marked Considerant, " the building has other exits and we are masters in it. Why not leave? Let us look at the rear exits." And he and Martin Bernard departed.'- Soon after Ledru also left. Guinard conducted him through various passages to a side door which led to the garden. There they separated.^ " Ledru did not escape through a window as was falsely reported, but he left by a door opening on the garden. . . . That door was opened by a laboratory boy named Peugnot, who later became con- cierge of that famous establishment." ^ Dupin, the secre- tary of Pouillet, is responsible for the famous story of how Ledru squeezed through a casement window (vasistas), dropped to the ground, and was then guided by himself, Dupin, to the gate.* This story should be put to sleep ^ Considerant 44. ^ Guinard in Moniteur 3278-9 and in Messager du Nord, June 26 ; St. Ferreol, Memoires 2 : 195. ^ Fonvielle in Revolution de 184S, 8 : 473. ■* Moniteur 2279. Corroboratory statement by Coeur Desvoy in ibid., 3545. Dupin's chief point in upholding his story against the denial of Guinard and others was that the door to the garden was locked, but we have seen that it was opened by Peugnot. ,Q2 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [546 forever by the following statement : " Signard escaped by tJie famous z'asistas of which there was so much talk on the occasion of the flight of Ledru-Rollin. Signard was mistaken for Ledru, owing to the fact that they had similar figures and were both stout. Now, the truth is that Ledru left only at the end of the manifestation and by a door under the very eyes of the officials, "who let him pass, whereas Signard and others got away as best they could by a broken window." Ledru-Rollin, who knew the truth, let the reactionary papers calumniate him,^ probably because he did not wish to reveal to the government the presence of Signard at the Conservatory. The matter in itself is not of great importance, but the picture of the fat orator squeez- ing through a small opening was long a mine of satire for the conserv^atives, who dubbed the members of the Mountain Compirateurs du Hasard - and Ledru-Rollin Vasistas I, King of Window-panes.^ The ridicule also affected the republicans. Thus Lamber, the father of Juliette Adam, was disgusted not at the failure but at the " hesitating and ridiculous role played by the last two champions of his ideas." ^ As soon as Ledru emerged from the garden of the Con- servatory he was recognized and surrounded by a crowd who shouted: " Here is our leader; here is Ledru-Rollin." Ledru tried to silence them. A short deliberation was held and then Ledru, together with Considerant and Martin Ber- nard who had joined him, walked off in the direction of the Madelonettes prison, accompanied by five or six civilians. The director of the prison had received favors in the past ^ Joigneaux 2 : 2^. * Conspirators of Fortune. Remember the Mountain headquarters were in the Rue du Hasard. * Seurre 2: 321. * Adam ZZZ- 247] THE GRAND FIASCO 393 from Ledru-Rollin and therefore came up to express his sympathy and to give advice as to how to avoid the govern- ment patrols. He strongly urged Ledru-R^oUin and his friends to proceed along the unguarded Rue Vertbois. He later testified: " M. Ledru-Rollin had his coat on his arm; his clothes were not in disorder, and he wore a black felt hat." ' Considerant later thus described the flight : We had not gone sixty yards before we were recognized at every step and saluted by spontaneous and enthusiastic vivats. Three times I was obliged to dismiss a compromising escort, and twice we had to change our direction or retrace our steps in order not to run into the cordon of troops. IVe must seek shelter in some house, said Ledru-Rollin to me. Within five minutes we would have run into some patrol and could have been arrested and a conflict would have resulted. The un- known friends who were with us saw that it was necessary to act. Our tranquil gait and composed features had so far de- ceived everyone as to our situation. We took counsel together. While our friends were talking with Ledru .... a youth of fifteen or sixteen approached me. The youth took Considerant to a place of safety.' As a result of the discussion between Ledru and his com- panions, Martin Bernard went up to a woman and asked permission to use her rooms temporarily. The woman consulted with her husband and then refused. The husband had recognized Ledru whom he later described: " He had a package under his arm and wore a large brim hat; he was an imposing figure." ^ According to the Evcnement, the wife of an insurgent who had been transported after the ^Moniteur for 1849, p. 3341. Cf. ibid., 3343, 3345. * Considerant 44. * Moniteur for 1849, p. 3324. .,t)4 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [548 June Days offered Ledru a refuge, but Ledru declined it and continued on down the Rue Vertbois. He was not dis- guised and walked along tranquilly.'^ After this we lose sight of him. Somewhere or other in Paris he found a safe hiding place for that night. Thus without any resistance the so-called headquarters of the insurrection were captured. Colonel Guinard had remained some time after Ledru's departure, had conversed quietly with Pouillet, and had finally gone home where he was arrested the next morning. In all Paris only three barricades had been constructed and three more started; these had been easily captured. Colonel Forestier had of- fered no resistance when he was arrested." It is thus clear that there was no organized resistance to the government on June 13, The leaders of the Mountain had no intention of causing an uprising and had made no plans for one. The few arms that were within reach were not even taken. The arms at the Palais National remained in the armory. A small amount of ammunition for hunting was left at Ledru's country house, not brought to Paris. On the other hand, the conduct of General Changarnier on this day should sully his name foreover. He attacked an unarmed procession for no cause, illegally, and with useless cruelty. He talked much about putting down a great revolt whereas nowhere did he meet resistance. The Bonapartists exaggerated this little disturbance and lied about its size. Very possibly they instigated what little fighting there was. As to the leaders of the Mountain, it is hard to decide whether or not to blame them for their actions on June 13. They saw that the executive was ready to defy the constitu- tion in its own interest. They saw that the legislative ^ Evenement, June 21, 1849. ^ 'Ledru trial, Moniteur for 1849, p. 3117; Changarnier's account in ibid., 2103. r^o] THE GRAND FIASCO 395 majority, partly accomplice, partly blind, would acquiesce in. any measures against its opponents. They were unwilling to revolt but desired to protest. Now this middle course is almost impossible to hold. Step by step they were driven on. First protests from the tribune, then impeachment, then Considerant's idea of a rump parliament, then willing- ness to defend themselves by arms against the illegal attacks of the legal authorities. The difference between this last attitude and insurrection is difficult to show although there certainly is a theoretical difference. Possibly at the Con- servatory the leaders of the Mountain decided on insurrec- tion although it seems more likely that they did not ; without doubt they had no intention to revolt when they left the Rue du Hasard, and if they did come to such a decision later in the day, they had no time to carry it out in the slightest de- gree. Not a shot did they fire against the troops of the legal authorities. The Mountain was forever ruined on that day, but it is doubtful whether it could have done any prac- tical good if it had not openly protested. After its de- nunciations of the Roman policy of the government, it would have looked like timidity to submit to the will of the majority. The force of events, the duplicity of the cabinet, the wiles of Louis Napoleon made the defeat of the Moun- tain inevitable. Its members may be blamed for lack of wisdom; their courage, honesty, and loyalty are unquestion- able. •' And what did the Assembly do on June 13 ? It met amid general excitement. Of the extreme left only a few mem- bers were present. Barrot announced that a conspiracy was on foot and read a message from the president of the republic asking for a state of siege. Lagrange, a Montag- nard, protested against bloody methods of repression. A permanent session was decreed. Dufaure demanded a state of siege. The committee to which the question had been 396 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [550 referred approved. In spite of an eloquent protest by Pierre I^roux the state of siege was decreed 394 to 82, the left vot- ing in the negative. A proclamation was adopted calling on the people to rally to the support of the Assembly. The arrest of Suchet was announced. Cremieux and the Mon- tagnard, Canet, protested; but attorney-general Baroche de- fended the arrest and the Assembly voted the previous ques- tion 328 to 97. After the arrest of the six deputies in the courtyard of the Conservatory had been announced, the members of the Assembly separated.^ ^ For good account of the session, see Barrot 3 : 302-312. CHAPTER XXV Aftermath During the latter half of June 1849 Ledru-Rollin was in hiding somewhere in France. The police were most anxious to arrest him, " for they believed his capture would be a sort of guarantee to Europe for the peace of the capital and the suppression of turbulence elsewhere." ^ Even after the fugitive had reached London, the police continued their search; French gendarmes ran up and down the banks of the river which separated Piedmont from France, looking' for Ledru-Rollin or at least Felix Pyat.^ From everywhere came reports of the presence of the fugitive. He was sup- posed to have escaped to Geneva, to Belgium, to England, to be in hiding in Cambrai, to be captured in Lyons. Actually no one knew anything of his whereabouts. The most likely story is that he passed the first night at Luciennes near St. Germain and then went on to Poissy or La Chartre.^ The first positive information comes from two letters written by Martin Bernard to his brothers on July 6 : I crossed the frontier of Belgium this morning at 3:20, and at 5 I was threading the streets of Brussels Our escape was crowned by insolent good fortune. Three of us left to- gether, Ledru-Rollin, Etienne Arago, and L . . . We entered our railroad carriage a few minutes before eight at the Gare du Nord. As you may well imagine, to reach our wagon with- 1 Times, June 21, 1849. 2 Herzen 2 : 66. " For references and details see Caiman, Ledru-Rollin aprcs 1848, p. 19. 551] 397 3o8 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [552 out being obliged to undergo the inspection of the men of tlie Rue de Jerusalem [policemen] the mysterious intervention of devoted friends was needed. As for me, I almost doubted of success. . . . Once on the train, I considered our operation as crowned with success. We were asked for our passports at the Quievrain station. I shall always regard the inspector as a brave and loyal official. ... In brief, at five o'clock we got out at the station in Brussels.^ Ledru remained in Belgium only a short time, for the Belgian liberal ministry asked most of the French proscripts residing there to leave the country. Accordingly he pro- ceeded to England and settled in London. As soon as his wife was assured of his escape, she followed him." In the French departments rumors were current that the government had been overthrown. As a result there was a serious uprising at Lyons on June 15 which was finally put down ^ and another at Colmar and Strasbourg in Alsace.* There were minor uprisings at Amiens, Bordeaux, Dijon, Grenoble, Montpellier, Rheims and Riom.^ Order was soon restored in the provinces. There the authorities spread calumnies against Ledru. The peasants were told : " Ledru-Rollin was a thief. There were forty thousand people in Paris who paid him forty sous a day apiece. He intended to make himself king. It was the money he carried off that made the republic poor." ® The radical newspapers continued to defend the Mon- tagnard refugees, but most of these journals were either ^ Bernard, 73-5. ' For details see Caiman, Ledru-Rollin aprcs 1848, pp. 20-1. * Moniteur for 1849, p. 2091. * Muller 64-5, 1807. ^ Dufaure in Assembly, June 16, Moniteur for 1849, p. 2084; Ledru trial, ibid., 31 18. ® Senior i : 181. 523] AFTERMATH 399 suppressed directly by the government or failed as a result of the fines imposed/ The liberal papers hesitated to de- fend the Mountain; the National complained that in Paris only the radical newspapers, the Liberie, and the Temps aided in the defense of Guinard.^ In the Legislative Assembly the deputies embarked upon their task of enacting reactionary legislation and began with a stringent law concerning the clubs. On June 14 permis- sion to prosecute Ledru-Rollin, Considerant, and two other deputies for conspiracy and insurrection was demanded by Attorney-General Baroche. A committee composed of fourteen conservatives and one member of the left centre brought in a unanimous report in favor of granting the permission to prosecute. Tamisier, a member of the ex- treme left, pleaded for Considerant, and the Montagnard, Bac, appealed for moderation after victory. But the iVssembly granted the desired permission. Demands were also made for permission to prosecute other deputies, and permission was granted in all but two cases. ^ On August 19 by a special decree the accused were to be tried by a high court at Ver- sailles. Meanwhile domicilary visits were being made. At four in the afternoon of June 15 a policeman visited Fontenay- aux-Rloses. Ledru's gardener declared that his master had left on June 11 and had not returned since, but the police- man believed that this was a He as in one of the rooms he found grouped about a sofa six or seven chairs which still bore the imprint of occupants, and in the park he saw the footprints of several men and one woman. He seized a box ' For details on the Reforme, see (Caiman, Ledru-Rollin aprcs 1848, p. 24. ' National, June 15, 1849. ^ However, three of these deputies were never brought to trial. ^OO LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [554 of cartridges and some powder as well as five letters relative to political matters/ The first policeman that visited Ledru's Parisian home in the Rue de Tournon was told that Ledru had not re- turned since the morning of June 13. Berthe Leroux, the maid of j\Ime. Ledru-Rollin, admitted him to the deputy's study. There he found a quantity of pamphlets, books, and manuscripts, but a rapid survey showed nothing relative to a plot. A few days later another official arrived and found M. and Mme. David d' Angers with Henriette Ledru-Rollin in her bedroom ; nothing was discovered there. In the study was ^lathis, the private secretary, who declared that he had just entered; a stack of papers before him proved the truth of this assertion. The papers were in great disorder, but the policeman collected all those relative to political affairs. Mathis insisted they were of no importance, for Ledru was in the habit of destroying all his political correspondence. The official told him that this was his affair and went away with these papers as well as some letters in Italian and German. This appeared to disturb Mathis.^ As these letters were not produced at the subsequent trial they must indeed have been innocuous. Still later, on October 13, a third visit was made by the police, but this was only to look for Ledru, who was sus- pected of having returned. The cause of this visit is amus- ing. A neighbor thought that she heard a cat jumping about in the deserted apartments. She told her friends, and the story grew until it was asserted that the Montagnard chieftain was there. ^ During July a search for the fugitive ^ Affaire du 13 Juin i : 516. ^Ihid., 1:517-8. ^ LR Papers i : 563, letter of Mathis. For details see Caiman, Ledru- Rollin apres, pp. 18-9. 255] AFTERMATH 4OI had also been made at the home of Babaud, Ledru's notary, near Pontoise/ On June 21 the Mountain headquarters in the Rue du Hasard were visited by a poHceman. Sixteen deputies were present, and they signed a protest against the invasion of their rooms. ^ Most of the members of the Mountain were called before the judges charged to investigate the affair of June 13 but they refused to give information; they de- clared that they could not testify as they were half witnesses, half accused; besides, as deputies they were exempt from the obligation of testifying. Many, however, denied that they had signed the proclamation dated from the Conservatory.^ Of all the deputies only one, Versigny, consented to be a witness at the trial. Ledru returned to Paris from London whither he had fled after June 13; he wished to surrender himself so as to lend his testimony to his friends at the impending trial, but influential members of the Mountain prevented him and induced him to leave France.* Ledru-Rollin, Etienne Arago, Martin Bernard, and four other fugitives excused their absence from the prisoners' bench in a letter. In the first place, they said, they could not accept as accusers the very men whom they had declared violators of the constitu- tion. Moreover, they did not recognize the jurisdiction of the special court. Thirdly they would fall into a judicial trap, for discussion of the violation of the constitution ^ Affaire du 13 Juin i : 5i9- •Ibid., 1:4. ' Tbid., 1 : 344-382. All but six of those whose signatures were ap- pended either to the proclamation of the Mountain drawn up on the evening of June 12 or the one dated from the Conservatory were sum- moned. Two deputies of the left who were summoned, also refused information. * Nation of Brussels, August 25, 1849. ^02 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [556 Avould be refused. Lastly, they could do more useful work at liberty abroad than in prison/ On October 13 the trial opened at Versailles. There were sixty-seven persons accused of whom twenty-nine were present. They were divided into four catagories. i'' Socialist-Democratic Committee of twenty-five. 14 accused; 5 present. 2° Committee of the press. 7 accused including Delescluze; 3 present. 3° Deputies. 31 accused, including* Ledru, Martin Bernard, and Considerant; 11 present. 4" Miscellaneous. 15 accused including Etienne Arago, Fore- stier, Guinard, and Schmitz; 10 present." Prominent mem- bers of the radical and moderate parties acted as lawyers for the defense. Thirteen of them were deputies or ex- deputies, such as Buvignier, Cremieux, Jules Favre, and jMichel de Bourges. Of the ten others, two were leaders of the bar: Madier de ]\Iontjau, Sr. and Thourel. As soon as the trial began, all the accused present except two declared that the constitution had been violated and that therefore the court had no jurisdiction. Madier and Michel tried to argue the question, but the court refused to hear them. The general accusation was then read. The first point brought up was the formation of the Solidarite repuh- licaine as a means of rousing revolt, but so weak was this point that it disappeared after the accusation had been read. Then letters of Martin Bernard and Delescluze were pro- duced. Those of the former were decidedly peaceful, those of the latter could be interpreted as pacific or warlike. It is noteworthy that not a letter of Ledru was brought for- ward as evidence although his entire correspondence had been seized. The first proposal on the part of the Mountain ^ Ibid., October 4; Tribune du Peuple, October 3, 1849. ' Moniteur for 1849, 3193-9. For excellent, full account of the trial, showing unfairness of the judges, see Felice in Revolution de 1848, 6: 314-325- 557] AFTERMATH 403 for the impeachment of the ministers was mentioned ; it was claimed without proof that this had been a pretext. It was asserted that January 29 was a radical uprising, but in sup- port of this absurdity only a vague letter by one of the accused was produced. The fusion of the radicals and socialists was claimed to be for the purpose of insurrection- ary agitation, but all that was shown was that a certain abbe was in April 1849 contemplating insurrection. It was as- serted that in the original draft of the constitution of the Mountain the pledge to defend the constitution if violated contained also the words with arms. The proof of this allegation was not clear, and certainly all Frenchmen ad- mitted that citizens were bound to defend the constitution by any means when violated. Next was produced an article which had appeared in several newspapers, declaring that if sacred rights were denied to the people, they had the right to defend themselves; this was considered as a clear incite- •ment to war, but this very article included the phrase: " We do not wish to be accused of preferring the victory of blood to the victory of the ballot box." Such vague doctrines were hardly fit for a serious accusation. Next was dis- cussed the transformation of the democratic-socialist elec- tion committee into the committee of twenty-five, but all that could be proved against it was that one of the members had desired to adopt the policy of Blanqui, that the com- mittee had worked with the journalists, and that there were constant complaints in the press against the legislative majority. The solidarity of the Mountain was the next point in the indictment. It was claimed but not proved that the Roman question was a mere pretext to cause an insur- rection and that I^dru was not sick when he asked for a postponement of the interpellations on June 7. It was as- serted that the Montagnards were always declaring the con- stitution violated. This was true but had nothing to do _^0^ UIDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [558 with the subject. Nor had the assertion that at a banquet of Alsatian cooks attended by none of the accused a toast was drunk to the cholera that killed Marshal Bugeaud. Neither was it a crime on Ledru-Rollin's part to receive from Italy letters abusing Oudinot and the policy of the cabinet. The meetings of June 11 were mentioned and they were stated dogmatically to be warlike, but every shred of evidence produced showed that they were pacific. It was asserted that the Society for the Rights of Man had de- clared for an appeal to arms if peaceful measures should fail. This was probably true, but note that peaceful meas- ures were preferred. The speeches and manifestoes of June II and 12 were called a summons to arms, but it has been shown that they were really a peaceful protest. Then came the " military outbreak " of the thirteenth and the uprisings in the provinces ; of course a biased version was given.^ Altogether the prosecution had proved nothing. It had asserted that there was a conspiracy but had brought for- ward no proof. It had shown that the deputies of the Mountain had been at the Conservatory and it had charged them with insurrection, but again it had given no clear proof. It had hunted into the most obscure corners and all it had shown was that the accused believed that the constitution had been violated and that a few other men not among the accused had clearly advocated a revolt. It had twisted innocent facts into incriminating evidence, and, when even that had been impossible, it had made a bare assertion that there had been a conspiracy. After the general accusation had been completed the in- dividual accusations were taken up. That of Ledru-Rollin told of his presence at the various meetings, but it falsely stated that he had made a speech at the Palais National. It added that fifty cartridges, two cases of gunpowder, and ^Moniteur for 1849, pp. 3099-3103, 31 15-8. 559] AFTERMATH 405 balls of a small calibre had been found at Fontenay. In the first place, all the ammunition might have been intended for hunting. Secondly, it was a small amount for a revolt. Lastly, the fact that the ammunition had been found in the country instead of in Paris was presumptive evidence that no revolt was intended on June 13/ After the accusation was finished the prisoners were ex- amined, but most refused to answer. Then the witnesses were put on the stand. One of the first persons to testify was Girardin, and he was a doughty adversary for the pro- secution. He showed how a lawyer for the prosecution had interfered unwarrantably in his preliminary examina- tion. President Berenger, the presiding judge, refused to listen to his complaint. Girardin then wanted to explain the justice of the remarks on the constitution made in his and other newspapers, but the court refused to hear him. Thereupon Girardin declared the liberty of witnesses vio- lated and declined to give further testimony.^ This is but one of the cases where the court stretched its powers to the utmost to aid the prosecution. The worst incident oc- curred later. The court was hearing evidence on the pro- cession and policeman Petit was on the stand. He ed- mitted that he had slashed a kneeling youth ^ and he seemed to take pride in having done so. A lawyer, Thourel, calmly rebuked him for this action, unworthy of a Frenchman. There :pon Petit shouted: *' Your're all sons of . . . all of you." The prisoners rose in protest. Two lawyers for the defense retired from the case. Then President Berenger declared both sides equally at fault, asserted that the rebuke of Thourel was as unjustifiable as the exclamation of Petit.* ^ Moniteur for 1849, pp 3119-24. * Ihid., zi^^y. 2 See page 378. * Moniteur 3186. 4o6 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [560 It is fraiueiitly stated ^ that the prisoners were insulting to the soldiers who testified. This is not true. To such an officer as Colonel Alphonse the accused were anxious to extend thanks for his courtesy. It was only when officers insulted them that they became angry. Once Daniel Lama- ziere. one of the accused deputies, even gave the lie to a captain, whereupon he was fined by the court." On October 25, 1849 the review of the general facts was completed; from then on until November 7 witnesses were heard relative to the individual cases of those present. On November 7 District Attorney Rpyer summed up for the prosecution. He repeated the arguments used in the opening accusation. He gave the usual biased lawyer's plea. When analyzed, his speech offered no evidence of a precon- certed plot and was not convincing on the charge of insur- rection.' November 1 1 was appointed for the final argument of the defense. iMichel de Bourges began by saying that if the constitution had been violated, insurrection would have been permissible. Royer interrupted to maintain that only the Assembly had the right to judge violations of the con- stitution. But this was precisely the point which the Moun- tain denied. President Berenger refused to let ^Michel pro- ceed. ]\Iadier de ^lontjau, thereupon, in behalf of all the law\-ers for the defense, declared that as the bench was ex- ceeding its authority, none of them would plead.* On the twelfth the presiding judge summed up, clearly in favor of the prosecution,'^ and the next day was read the verdict ' E. g. Beaumont- Vassy 4 : 549-550. ' Monifeur 3305. ' Ibid., 3546-3557. * Ibid., 3612-5. ^Ibid., 3642. 56 1] AFTERMATH 407 against those present. Fifteen of the accused, including Guinard and nine deputies, were sentenced to transporta- tion; three, including one deputy, Suchet, were to be im- prisoned for five years; eleven, including Forestier and one deputy, were acquitted. Five deputies were found guilty of conspiracy and insurrection; five deputies, as well as Guinard, were found guilty only of insurrection. In ad- dition, the lawyers for the defense were told that their pro- test on the Petit incident would not be heard, and Madier de Montjau was admonished for asserting that the bench had exceeded its authority.^ On November 15 all the accused who had succeeded in escaping were found guilty of both insurrection and conspiracy, and were sentenced to trans- portation. ' Was the conviction justified? The condemnation on a charge of conspiracy was absurd, for who conspired? It could not have been the Committee of Twenty-five, the Com- mittee of the Press, the Mountain, or the fifth legion of the National Guard, for half of the members of each of these organizations were acquitted. Where then was the con- spiracy? The government offered no solution to this ques- tion. As to the condemnation for insurrection, there was considerable evidence to support this charge, but if the benefit of the doubt had been given to the accused — such is not the custom in France — they should have been acquitted. But one thing stands out in this trial above everything else: the gross unfairness of the bench. On January 30, 1850 Rouher, who had become attorney- general, reported the verdict to the Assembly, and on the next day the seats of the convicted Montagnards were de- clared vacant. On February 8 Michel de Bourges protested ^ Moniteur 3659-62. ^ Ibid., 3686-7. ^o8 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [ 562 against the judgment of the Versailles tribunal. President Dupin called him to order, but Michel continued. The president maintained his censure and the Assembly approved. Pascal Duprat, a member of the left, had a hot debate with Dupin on this point, but the right and centre paid no at- tention to Duprat and proceeded to other business. The government had not yet attacked all the prominent democrats. It decided to prosecute the leaders of the Solidarite repuhUcaine. Many of these were already in exile or in the penal colonies, but on October 26, 1849 de- puty Sarrut,^ ex-deputy Buvignier, Delescluze, and six other civilians were charged with conspiracy. Although all except Buvignier and one civilian succeeded in escaping, a trial was held and on April 12, 1850 a verdict of guilty was found against them and penalties of one or two years' imprison- ment were inflicted." The Mountain, thus reduced in size, was now under the leadership of Michel de Bourges. It is one of the ironies of history that the only leader who had openly advocated an uprising should be the one who was not arrested and should have succeeded as head of the party the far more pacific Ledru-Rollin. To replace the Montagnards who had been convicted, new elections were held in 1850, and in the main those who were chosen were radicals. Thereupon the frightened Assembly passed the law of May 31 mutilating universal suffrage. The following year it passed the well- known Falloux law giving education into the hand of the clergy. The ]\Iontagnard deputies protested but did noth- ing. Ledru in England wanted a more active policy. He helped organize various associations, such as the Nouvelle Montagne and the Marianne, which tried to stir up active ' The Assembly refused permission to prosecute three other deputies. ^Gazette des Tribunaux, December 14, 1849; April 13, 1850. \ 1 263] AFTERMATH 409 resistance. With Delescluze he founded the Voir du Pro- scrit in which they preached their poUcies. Ledru's most important articles were a defense of the referendum and an advocacy of abstention from elections as a protest against the policies of the French government. With Mazzini, Darasz, and Ruge he founded a Central European Democratic Com- mittee, which attempted to unite all the democratic move- ments in Europe in one organization. The Central Com- mittee founded sub-committees, sent out a few emissaries, issued many proclamations — and accomplished nothing ex- cept to frighten conservative governments. In France the Mountain and the bourgeoisie could not unite, and Louis Napoleon played them against each other until he was ready to be rid of both; on December 2, 185 1 by a coup d'etat he made himself ruler of France. A year later he was pro- claimed emperor. Ledru in England had to work for a living. The government, probably illegally, had confiscated even his wife's fortune. He supported himself by writing. His most important work was the Decadence d'Angleterre, a biassed and worthless study of English economic conditions. During the first decade of the second empire, Ledru was comparatively inactive in political affairs. He wrote a few articles. He continued to aid in republican propaganda by correspondence with the departments of France and through the Central Committee, reorganized in the form of a triumvirate consisting of himself, Kossuth, and Mazzini. The French government tried to implicate him in several conspiracies and even condemned him for participation in the Tibaldi plot of 1857, but his innocence is unquestionable. During the sixties Ledru-Rollin was even less active. He devoted himself to astronomy, philosophy, and social studies. Fie came closer than before to a socialistic position in a letter to the Association, the organ of the society spon- ^ I o LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [564 sored by Mvirx and ^lazzini in 1864; he openly declared his adhesion to the movement for the association of labor and capital, for workingmen's combinations. The French gov- ernment, due to his alleged part in the Tibaldi conspiracy, excluded him, and him alone of all the exiles, from the two general amnesties of 1859 and 1869. This together with the fact that he was one of the chief protagonists of the republican cause rendered him most popular in France. In the supplementary elections of November 1869 all Paris ac- claimed his candidacy to the legislature. But Ledru re- fused to take the preliminary oath to the empire or to come to Paris for fear of arrest, and at the last moment he with- drew his candidacy. One of the first acts of the Ollivier ministry was to declare the amnesties applicable to him, and early in 1870 he returned to France. Ledru took practically no part in the founding of the third republic although it was he who suggested to Gambetta the idea of forming the Government of National Defense from the Paris deputies. During the last months of 1870 he played a decidedly secondary part in the radical party, and early in 1871 he abandoned it because it seemed to be be- coming too revolutionary, to be falling under the influence of his old opponent, Blanqui. Elected to the National As- sembly in 1 87 1 by three departments, he resigned his seat, stating that the election had been based on universal suf- frage. The commune so disgusted him that he retired to England for two years. In 1874 he reentered public life. He defended universal suffrage on June 3 in a speech be- fore the Chamber of Deputies, but that was his swan song, for on December 31, 1874 Ledru-Rollin expired at Fontenay- aux-Roses.^ ^ For details 3S to his later life, see Caiman, Lcdru-Rollin apres 1848. CHAPTER XXVI i Conclusion With the possible exception of Thiers and Lamartine, Ledru-RolHn is admitted to be the greatest orator of the second repubHc. One day Thiers was asked by a sovereign : " Who, after yourself, is the greatest orator of the As- sembly?" He replied: "After me, Sire, comes Ledru- Rollin." ^ Ledru's ability lay rather in the field of eloquence than of logic. His chief quality was chaleur, which might be translated warmth and earnestness. No matter on what subject Ledru spoke, the depth and sincerity of his con- victions were convincing. Closely allied to these was his sympathy, sympathy for the workingmen suffering from misery, sympathy for the Romans oppressed by the Pope, sympathy for the victims of an uprising he himself had helped to suppress. He lacked logic but he replaced it by a remarkable technical clarity; there were few orators who could equal this lawyer in his presentation of erudite legal or complicated financial problems in a form clear to lay minds. Honesty was another outstanding characteristic. Ledru never went off into tortuous quibbles as did Thiers; he never deceived himself into defending something con- trary to his basic principles as did Barrot. Under the second republic when so many prominent statesmen changed their ideas frequently, Ledru stands out for his consistency. 1 Bulletin Municipal de Paris pour 1908, p. 786. See also opinions of Delord i : 81-3 and Babaud-Laribiere 2: 15. 56s] 411 4 1 2 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [566 Differences in tactics we ma}- find, but his fundamental beliefs remained the same throughout his life. Still Ledru-RoUin had many faults. He could present ideas clearly, but he rarely presented facts plainly. That he could give an explicit narrative was shown by his account of the Moulins outrage. But usually he preferred to in- dulge in vague diatribes and hazy indications instead of in a simple exposition of the facts. In his pamphlet on June 13 he weakened his effect considerably by adopting this method. In the matter of arrangement he was not adept. Too often his lively temperament caused him to pass be- yond his subject, and then he w^as forced to return to it in order to mention a forgotten argument. From this, re- sult many useless repetitions. He also lacked the power of conciseness; most of his speeches would be improved by being reduced to half their length. His command of humor was slight. His nearest approach consisted of irony and of bitter, short replies to interruptors. But it must be remembered that most of his contemporaries had the same failing. He was egocentric; this was revealed clearly in his speeches. Usually the result w^as effective, but at times, as in his attack on Cavaignac on November 25, 1848, he weakened his oration by this tendency. Certain minor characteristics of style should be noted. He had an effective habit, most irritating to his opponents, especially to chameleon Barrot, of quoting their own earlier words against themselves. Unfortunately for them they could not return the complement. Ledru's speeches were filled with certain phrases : en effet, par hasard, encore un coup, fen siiis convaincu, je ne saurais trop repeter, per- mettez-moi de vous le dire. He was overfond of appealing to the consciences of the deputies. The form of rhetorical question was a favorite with him. We can notice various styles employed by Ledru in ad- 267] CONCLUSION 413 dressing the Assembly. First there was the purely emo- tional appeal. Secondly there was the technical argument. Then there was the passionate but vague denunciation. Also there was the jerky series of replies to interrupters. Lastly (the sole example is the speech on the Moulins in- cident) there was the straightforward narrative. Above all else in Ledru's speeches was apparent his love for the first revolution. " The key to all his strength and all his weakness is his devotion to the first republic," said a republican publicist under the second empire.^ He con- stantly wished to revive its institutions. He quoted Robes- pierre and Rousseau on every available occasion. The minor figures found their places, thus Herault de Sechelles on constitutional, Cambon on financial matters. On all suitable occasions and on many others he dragged in re- ferences to the Constituent Assembly of 1789, to the Com- mune, above all to the Convention. With the exception of Machiavelli, he rarely quoted any one except the men of 1789 or 1792. In the minds of many of his contemporaries Ledru was merely an unthinking admirer of the first revolu- tion, a man who desired the return of the terror imthont the guillotine. But they themselves admitted by the phrase without the guillotine that it was not the terror but the Montagnard institutions that he supported. By education Ledru was a devotee of the Mountain of 1792, and by con- viction he had accepted its ideas. But he was sagacious enough not to adhere blindly to its entire creed. A few of its principles he rejected ; some he adapted to the times ; the majority he accepted as the best existing formulae. His ideas of government were based on the constitution of 1793. During the first part of his life he emphasized 1 Vermorel 151. He adds : " His constant dignity in words and actions made of M. Ledru-Rollin a great and honourable revolutionary- figure." ^ 1 4 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [568 universal suffrage; after 1849 during the period of exile he gave more prominence to the referendum. Here v^as the chief change in his ideas. Up to 1848 he considered the Avill of the people as the supreme arbiter : later he declared that there were certain rights superior even to the popular will. This was a revival of the the old, old theory of natural rights, a favorite theory with Rousseau. In financial matters Cambon was largely Ledru's master; from him he received the ideas of assignats and of the refusal of a salary to the clergy. But his fundamental beliefs were those that are steadily gaining ground today; taxation of luxuries, not necessities; a progressive and proportional income tax. It was with Cambon rather than with Robespierre that he sided on religious matters, for he advocated a complete separation of church and state. On education he accepted the prin- ciples of the Convention, of Lakanal and Robespierre : free, universal, secular, state education. In foreign affairs Ledru combined the intense patriotism and the idealistic internationalism of the first republic. He was as touchy on French honor as any general, as proud of France as any chauvinist. For him France was the foun- tain-head of republicanism, bound to conquer the world by her ideas. Unlike the Girondins, he did not advocate an offensive war with arms to spread these principles; that was unnecessary. He advocated a defensive warfare of all the European democracies, headed by France, against the Holy Alliance of reactionary monarchs. From this war he hoped to see emerge a United States of Europe, a sort of League of Nations. Of foreign countries there was one that he abused until he learned by a long residence to know it, namely England; there was another for which he al- ways expressed the greatest admiration although he did not reveal profound knowledge of it, namely the United States. In judicial matters his two chief desires \vere the abolition 569] CONCLUSION 415 of the death penalty and the establishment of an elective magistracy. In military affairs he advocated the militia system in place of a standing army and the election of all but the highest ofihcers. The inspiration for his ideas Ledru obtained from the conventionnels, but he was not a blind follower of the early Montagnards. In one important matter his views were somewhat fluid. In 1792 social problems had not played an important part; by 1848 they had come into prominence. Ledru was always a social reformer, never a thorough socialist. Repeatedly he declared that the political revolution was merely a step to- wards the great goal of social reorganization. But he was an opportunist not a theorist, and he desired gradual evolu- tion by mild experiments. With the Utopian theories of the French socialists he had no sympathy. The anarchism of Proudhon and the class-revolution idea of Karl Marx he abhorred. He accepted successively two ideas : farmers' loan banks and cooperative associations. He was also in favor of the extension of state ownership to railroads, canals, mines, insurance companies, and such organizations. 1 f the acceptance of these ideas makes a socialist, he was one; prob- ably it is preferable to call him merely a social reformer. To the end he remained faithful to his dictum of 1841 : " I hate communism," even when he called himself officially a socialist. Property and the family were for him two basic principles that must not be touched; it was the unjust distribution of wealth and the difficulty of family life for the poor to which he objected. To overthrow monarchies Ledru consistently advocated open means. He was never a conspirator. Under Louis Philippe no one accused him of plotting. All accusations that he took part in plots while he was in power are base- less. The pacific manifestation of March 17 he openly ap- proved. When he believed that the demonstration of April ^l6 LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [570 \(^ miglit l)ecome a riot, he took measures to prevent it. Tlie movement of May 15 and of June he helped suppress. Later, when he saw the Bonapartists and the reactionaries trying to undermine the repubhc, he insisted on the right of revolution as a final weapon in the hands of the people, but he desired to use every peaceable means first. Even on June 13 he would have preferred not to come to blows. Under the empire he took no part in conspiracies; he felt confident that the mere force of pacific opposition, the emeiite of uni- versal suffrage, would be sufficient to undermine the rotten structure of a reactionary government. Ledru-Rollin was not a great party leader. He was too easily swayed by his companions. He was too confident of an ultimate victory for his cause, and he did not clearly enough see the forces of his adversaries. He appealed to such measures as impeacliment for too slight a cause. When he held the Assembly enthralled and might have obtained a vote adverse to the government, he frequently demanded too much and antagonized the moderates. The most notable example was on May 11, 1849 when he could have had Barrot severely censured and he asked for recognition of the Roman republic. But under the second republic he showed more wisdom than any other of the republican leaders. He was an opportunist and a man of comparative moderation. He saw clearly that the prime necessity for the true re- publicans was the union of all factions against the extreme revolutionists and the conservatives. Only one other pro- minent statesman saw this also; this was Lamartine. (Flocon and Cremieux can be considered merely as fol- lowers of Ledru and Lamartine.) Unfortunately neither the socialist theorists like Louis Blanc nor the timid moderates like Alarrast would agree to this program. When this union became impossible, Ledru tried another, a union of all radicals and socialists on a platform of practicable reforms. ^71 ] CONCLUSION 417 This was the Mountain, whose manifestoes were revolu- tionary but in no way uhra-revolutionary. But the moder- ates did not reahze until too late how closely their ideas resembled those of Ledru. When Cremieux joined forces with the Mountain in the Legislative Assembly, the con- servatives had already gained the victory. Opportunist Ledru ever was, ready to work with any one to obtain di- sirable reforms. Minor matters he would put aside for the moment, but basic beliefs he never abandoned. To obtain his desires he attempted Danton's policy of audacity, but here again he failed. He was always extreme in words, but he hesitated when it came to action. For him the motto of the Cordelier leader would have to be modified to: Audacity, more audacity, and then no more audacity. Still he was the Danton of the second republic as Gambetta was of the third. Of the three men Ledru was probably the least great, but all had the same general policy and posi- tion. All three were opportunists, opposing the uncom- promising attitude of a Robespierre, a Louis Blanc, a Madier de Montjau. All three were ready to unite with the more moderate party of a Brissot, of a Lamartine, of a Thiers, and disliked the extreme policies of the Hebertists, the Blanquists, the communards. In private life all three were generous in financial matters and fond of good living. All three, finally, were great orators, intense patriots, ardent democrats, leaders of the sane wing of the radical party. Another leader whom Ledru resembled was Mirabeau. His oratorical style and gestures were so similar that he was accused of imitating Mirabeau consciously. Like the earlier tribune Ledru had the peculiar ability of assimilating a vast quantity of erudition at a moment's notice and of present- ing it to an assembly in a fashion so marvelously clear and with a grasp of the subject so great that it would seem as though he had studied it for years. ^iS LEDRU-ROLLIN AND SECOND FRENCH REPUBLIC [572 Ledru-Rollin was always an optimist ; the triumph of his ideas he saw ahva}^s at hand. He was generous and ex- pended his entire fortune and, with his wife's consent, a large part of her fortune in republican propaganda and aid to unfortunate companions. He was fond of luxury and the good things of life; in Paris he kept a fine house. He was fond of the fine arts, frequenting the theatre and pur- chasing the works of such artists as his friend, David d'Angers. He was loyal to his friends and their attachment to him never faltered. He was vain; in later life he even dyed his hair. He was conceited and because of this some- times wounded his friends. He was superficial ; he quickly mastered what he read, but he usually read only one side of a question. This appeared most clearly in his work written in exile, La Decadence d'Angleterre. His honest}/- has remained without a stain in spite of the innumerable attacks on it by his adversaries. His consistency has al- ready been mentioned. In what does Ledru-Rollin's importance in history consist? In the first place he was one of the greatest French orators of the nineteenth century. Louis Blanc, Caussidiere, Deles- cluze, Remusat, Thiers, all his contemporaries admitted his eloquence. In the second place he was the chief advocate of those radical reforms which have since gained general ac- ceptance. Thirdly under the second empire he was the centre of one of those rare groups which maintained in its purity the republican tradition. Lastly he was the most consistent proposer of universal suffrage under the July monarchy, its organizer in a practical form under the second republic, its ardent defender against modifications under Louis Napoleon; when all else is forgotten about him, he will still live in France as the Father of Universal Suffrage. APPENDIX French Versions of Unpublished Manuscripts Chapter III, Page 49. Leon de Maleville to Garnier-Pages, February 24, 1848; 7 P. M. " Mon cher Garnier-Pages, " Nommez a I'instant meme un delegue au gotivernement provisoire au ministere de la guerre et au ministere de Tinterieur, Les ordres de M. Odilon Barrot ne sont plus suivis de personne. " Je ne puis me charger de cette mission pour I'interieur; ne songez pas a moi. Je vous le repete pour le vingtieme f ois : Quetez des noms connus et eminemment populaires. " Tout a vous. Leon de Maleville." ^ Chapter IV, Page 62. Ledru to Dudont aine, February 20, 1849. " Je vous remercie mille fois de I'exemplaire de ma medaille que vous avez bien voulu me faire remettre. " On se congoit mal soi-meme ; mais mes amis et toutes les personnes qui I'ont vue trouvent que c'est le portrait le plus ressemblant qui ait ete fait de moi. II est d'une exactitude parfaite. " Dites bien a I'artiste combien je lui suis reconnaissant d'avoir bien voulu me consacrer I'experience d'un talent aussi eprouve que le sien. " Croyez, Monsieur, a toute la gratitude de votre bien devoue, Ledru-Rollin." ^ 1 LR Papers i : 240. 2 At Bagnol-sur-Ceze, No. 105. 573] 419 4JO APPENDIX [574 Chapter V, Page 81. Subervie to Ledru, Alarch 19, 1848. " Mon cher collegiie, " Vos ennemis sont aussi les miens. On vous travaille, on me travaille, parce qu'on sait que nos principes sont les memes. J'ai besoin de causer avec vous. J'irai vous trouver demain matin. " Tout a vous, General Subervie." ^ Chapter V, Page 82. Jacques Cavaignac to Ledru, March 7, 1848. " Voici, Monsieur, le nom de I'enfant dont je vous ai parle avant-hier: Charles Victor Peter, age de sept ans et quelques mois. Fils d'ouvrier, ce qui lui convient le mieux c'est I'education qui le mettra en mesure de gagner sa vie, d'avoir son pain au bout de ses doigts, ce que le temps 6u nous vivons doit nous faire apprecier plus que jamais. " Vous m'assurez de la nomination au ministere de mon fils, dont chacun me parlait hier; j'avais besoin de me rappeler notre conversation. J'ai d'ailleurs, maintenant, la conviction que mon fils refuserait. Le nommer ministre ne serait done que le renvoyer comme gouverneur. " Vous m'interdisez les remerciements. Monsieur, sans m'interdire les obligations de la reconnaissance. Croyez que personne ne songe plus que moi au fardeau dont vous devez etre ecrase, et n'est pourtant plus rassure en vous le voyant porter. " Veuillez croire aussi a tous mes sentiments, J. Cavaignac. " Je cherche sans les trouver ces pauvres gens auxquels mon fils s'interessait, et dont vous m'avez parle." - Chapter IX, Page 141. Taschereau to Ledru, undated but probably March, 1848. " Mon cher ami, ' LR Papers i : 212. *LR Papers i : 201. eye"] APPENDIX 42 1 " J'ai absolument, absolumeiit besoin de vous parler im- mediamment. Je ne serai pas long, mais je serai instructif. " T. a. v., J. Taschereau." ^ Chapter IX, Page 148. Landrin to Ledru, April 18, 1848, II P. M. " Mon cher ami, " Je suis si souffrant ce soir que je ne puis aller, comme j'en avais le projet, te serrer le main; j'aurai bien voulu aller me recorder aupres de toi. Ici nous avons passe une triste journee et pleine d'incertitudes. Si tu avais a me faire dire un mot, je suis toujours a ta disposition. " Je voulais enfin te parler d'une affaire particuliere a toi, dont Calon (?) m'a dit un mot. J'irai demain mercredi soir ; je te trouverai, n'est-ce pas? Si tu n'y es pas, fais moi dire par un des tiens, Elias [Regnault] ou autre, quand je pourrai te voir. " Je n'ai pas regu de billets d'invitation pour la fete de jeudi ; je le reg-rette ne fut ce que parce que je ne serais pas aupres de vous autres en cas d'alerte. Si tu le peux, fais m'en envoyer ou au parquet ou chez moi Rue d'Enfer 37. On m'a dit qu'il y aura des dames. Est-ce vrai ? " Le Moniteur de ce matin a commence a parler. Mais ce n'est pas assez, pour Dieu. Que tes collegues t'ecoutent ou tout se gatera. Quoi qu'il en soit, je suis a toi. Mais j'avoue que je regretterais profondement en ce moment une levee de boucliers ou un nom que j'aime et j'estime se trouverait force- ment accole a des noms sans avenir et sans portee. " A toi, bien devoue, Landrin." - Chapter XII, Page 173. Landrin to Ledru, undated but probably May 7, 1848. " Mon cher ami, "J'ai vainement attendu Jules Favre chez le ministre de la ^ LR Papers i : 199. * LR Papers i : 214. 422 APPENDIX [576 justice. J 'en conclus que tu n'as pas ecrit a Favre ou que tu as change d'avis. '* Permettez-moi de te le dire, mon vieux camarade, je serais desole que tu prisses ce dernier parti. Tu dois, si on t'accepte sur le pied d'egalite, entrer au pouvoir et y porter ton drapeau, ta signification. Refuser, c'est declarer la guerre, et declarer la guerre, c'est t'insurger contre le principe avant qu'on I'ait meconnu et viole et precisement au moment 6u on te convie a participer a son application, a concourir a nous donner les consequences. II faut etre net et logique. Si M. de Lamartine et toi formez les elements du pouvoir nouveau, tout est sauve, tout pour I'ete au moins. Ceci dit, il faut que M. de Lamartine pese de son poids sur la chambre et determine son choix. Toi, il faut que le peuple sache de suite cette alliance et qu'ainsi les defiances soient desarmees, au moins celles des hommes honnetes et devoues qui craignent pour le salut de la cause du peuple et qui croient en toi qui les represente. Quant aux autres, ils peuvent bien prendre ton nom pour pretexte. Mais ils ne veulent de toi ni des autres ; il ne veulent que d'eux et leur sanglante dictature. " J'ajoute que si, ce qu'a Dieu ne plaise, cela n'etait pas compris par la chambre et qu'elle n'acceptait pas cette com- binaison, tu rentrerais dans Topposition, mais alors encore je n'accepte que I'opposition avec ses moyens reguliers, sa presse, ses societes fonctionnant regulierement et pesant sur la chambre de toute I'autorite morale de la raison. Quant a un autre genre d'opposition, celle armee et menaqante, meme en ce cas, je ne I'admets pas; je ne I'admets que si la chambre veut renverser la forme repuhlicaine. C'est un droit que je ne lui reconnais pas; le people lui-meme tout entier n'a pas ce droit. II ne pent pas plus ne pas etre republicain qu'on n'a le droit de renoncer a sa liberte individuelle. "A toi. A demain matin, Landrin." ^ ^ LR Papers l : 217. 577] APPENDIX 423 Chapter XII, Page 173. Landrin to Ledru, date indistinct but probably Alay 7, 1848. *' Mon ami, " Je te serre mille fois les mains pour ce que tu as bien voulu penser a faire pour mon brave et pauvre artiste et beau-frere; ce que tu lui donnes est au-dessus de mes esperances. — Merci encore pour nous tons, mon vieil ami. " Tu sais, et je t'ai dit, je n'ai pu voir Jules Favre. Je I'ai attendu jusqu'a midi chez Cremieux. Ne le voyant pas venir, j'ai craint que tu n'eusses change d'avis, et je n'ai pas ose parler a Lamartine que j'ai cependant vu. Je suis si ecrase de ma journee et ai la tete si malade que je n'irai pas ce soir au ministere, au moins que tu n'aies besoin de moi. S'il en est ainsi, a quelle qu'heure que ce soit, envoie moi prevenir si tu desires que je fasse une demarche quelquonque. 'Cette nuit, deniain, je suis ton homme. " J'espere que la fameuse combinaison est arretee. Je serai bien heureux de I'apprendre. Mais de toute maniere je suis a toi. " Je te serre les mains, Landrin." ^ Chapter XIV, Page 206. Marie and Ledru to the Prefect of Lower Seine, June 27,, 1848, 5 P. M. " Citoyen prefet, Des factieux ont jete Paris dans une ex- treme agitation. Le concours de la Garde Nationale de votre departement pent ctre utile. Dirigez-la en toute hate sur Paris, ainsi que les bataillons de I'armee dont vous pourrez disposer. Le ministre de la guerre a du donner des ordres en consequence cette nuit. Si par hasard ils n'etaient point arrives, que ceux-ci en tiennent lieu. Salut et fraternite, Ledru-Rollin, Marie," ^ Chapter XIV, Page 207. Executive commission to Prefect of Lower Seine, June 23, 1848, 10 P. M. " La commission du pouvoir executif invite le prefet de la ' LR Papers i : 219. * Lille Library Ms. 985, No. 683. 424 APPENDIX [57g Seine Inferieure a envoyer de suite sur Paris toutes les troupes de la Garde Nationale et la ligne dont il pourra disposer. Ledru-Rollin, Garnier-Pages, Lamartine, Marie. Requerez le chemin de fer pour transporter les troupes." ^ Chapter XV, Page 219. Carton ( ?) to Ledru, August 6, 1848. *' Mon cher Ledru, " Je viens seulement de lire le rapport de M. Bauchart et votre discours; je me suis toujours tenu a distance de la vie politique, mais je ne puis en ce moment resister au desir de vous feliciter. J'ai retrouve dans vos paroles chaleureuses cette sincerite et cette elevation de sentiment que depuis si long- temps m'ont attache a vous, elles suffirant aux gens de coeur pour justifier, s'il en etait besoin, la purete de vos intentions et de votre conduite. A mes yeux le proces que vous fait la commission est juge. " Je ne me serais pas permis de m'entretenir d'une emotion qui, bienque profonde en moi, a peu d'importance comme element de I'opinion publique, si je n'avais trouve chez mes amis, anciens conservateurs comme moi, les sentiments que j'ai moi-meme eprouves. " Ce petit temoignage de sympathie vraie vous sera peut- etre de quelque douceur au milieu des amertumes de la vie publique. " Tout a vous de bien, A. Carton." ^ Chapter XV, Page 224. Marrast to Creton, August 20, 1848. " Le president de TAssemblee Nationale a I'honneur de pre- venir son honorable collegue, M. Creton, que s'il persiste a vouloir adresser des interpellations au ministre des finances, il aura la parole immediamment apres la lecture du proces- verbal." ^ ^ Lille Library Ms. 985, No. 6&Z- * LR Papers i : 244. * LR Papers i : 227. 579] APPENDIX 425 Chapter XV, Page 224. Creton to Ledru, August 20, 1848. " M. Creton reqoit a I'instant la lettre ci-inclus de M. le President de I'Assemblee. II s'empresse de la transmettre a M. Ledru-Rollin, afin qu'il veuille bien se trouver a Touverture de la seance. Salut et f raternite, Creton." ^ Chapter XVII, Page 253. Ledru to Delescluze, October, 1848. " Citoyen, " II me semble que vous devenez diablement rare depuis le fameux banquet. Je ne vous vois plus. " Nous avons besoin de vous ce soir Rue Taitbout a 8^ du soir. N'y manquez pas, je vous en prie. " A vous. Ledru-Rollin. Le lundi, deux heures." Note in the margin : " Le banquet du Fauborg Poissiniere " which took place October 17.^ Chapter XXII, Page 341. Minutes of committee of Moun- tain in Schoelcher's handwriting, April 24, 1849. " Nos troupes ont quitte le port. Les soldats de la republique sont envoyes en Italic pour y preter I'appui de leur presence, le prestige de leur nom, et au besoin la puissance de leurs armes a la restauration du pape sur son trone temporel malgre la volonte du peuple romain. La republique frangaise va servir ainsi le principe monarchique contre le principe democratique, la legitimite princiere contre la souverainete populaire. " Rome affranchie n'est pas assez forte pour resister a la coalition des rois et des royalistes conjures. Elle succombera, mais en laissant le souvenir d'un gouvernement qui n'a pas commis un seul exces, qui s'est toujours conduit avec une dignite admirable. " Si affliges que nous soyons, I'esperance nc nous abandonne pas. La force pent comprimer un jour le developpement de la liberte, mais la liberte est immortelle ; elle est au-dessus de la force comme I'esprit est au-dessus de la matiere. Pie IX apres ' LR Papers i : 225. * Lille Library, Delescluze Papers. ^26 APPENDIX [580 avoir trahi la cause de la nationalite italienne en lan(;ant Tanathenie sur la guerre de rindependance s'etait enfui de Rome. II pourra bien y rentrer dans les fourgons de I'etranger, comme les Bourbons rentrerent en France, mais il n'aura d'autre destin que celui des Bourbons. La haine et le mepris des Romains peseront toujours sur le pontif catholique qui s'est adresse a tous les rois de la terre, meme a la Prusse schismatique et a I'Angleterre protestante, pour reconquerir a main armee au prix du sang un trone de vanite. " Les democrates f rangais devaient protester contre I'acte de violence liberticide qui va se consommer sur les bords du Tibre. Les representants de la Montague ont decide qu'ils donneraient aux Italiens un temoignage de leur vive sympathie en formant un comite specialement charge des interets de rindependance italienne et dont feront toujours partie deux des patriotes ici presents a Paris. '* Ce comite est compose des Citoyens Lamennais, Ledru- Rollin, Baune, Felix Pyat, et Victor Schoelcher. II vient de se constituer en nommant pour president le Cit. Lamennais et pour secretaire le Cit. V. Schoelcher. II a pour but I'affran- chissement de la peninsule entiere, pour devise : solidarite entre la republique frangaise et la republique italienne." ^ ^ Schoelcher Papers 2 : 172-4. CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY All the works mentioned below may be found in the library of Co- lumbia University unless some other place is indicated in parentheses. They may also be found in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris except the following: Argay, Bertrand, Freycinet, Garnier-Pages Volume ii, and Vielcastel (to be found in the Bibliotheque de la Ville de Paris) ; Gossez, and Leroux (to be found at the Sorbonne library) ; Curtis, Foster and English, Lorand, and Holyoake (to be found in no French library). Sometimes, however, the French library contains only a dif- ferent edition from that mentioned in this list. The following abbrevia- tions are used in this bibliography: PL for New York Public Library, Wash, for Congressional Library at Washington, HCL for Harvard College Library, BN for Bibliotheque Nationale, VP for Bibliotheque de la Ville de Paris. PART I. LEDRU-ROLLIANA (A) Biographies Audebrand, Philippe: Cam^s et Croquis. In Revue Bleue 46: 179-180. Brief and favorable. Blind, Karl : Personal Reminiscences of Ledru-Rollin. In Fraser's Magazine 91 : 243-253. Inexact and unreliable. Some first-hand information, including some that contradicts other sources. Bouton, Victor: Profils revolutionnaires No. 3. Paris, 1849. Valueless account by extreme revolutionist. Castille, Hippolyte : Portraits historiques No. 7 : Ledru-^RoUin. Paris, 1863. Sartorius. Good, brief account. Likes Ledru but considers him, a mediocre statesman although superior to his contemporaries. Charles, Ernest: Les Hommes de 1848: Ledru-Rollin. In Revue Bleue, 4* Serie, 10 : 225-230. Unfavorable and inexact. Courmeaux, Eugene: Ledru-Rollin. Chalons, 1885, Leroy (BN). Best biography thus far published. Laudatory, praises Ledru in comparison with Gambetta. Clear and complete for so brief an account. 581] 427 ,3 CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY [582 Cuvillicr-Fleury: Portraits politiques et revolutionnaires. Paris, 1852, Levy. Portrays Ledru as influenced alternately by Regnault and Delvau. Favre, Jules : Conferences et Melanges. Paris, 1880, Hetzel. Laudatory, filled with extracts from speeches; no first-hand in- formation. Gallois, Napoleon : Vie politique de Ledru-Rollin. Paris, 1850, Dutertre (Wash.). Extremely laudatory. Ends with June 13, 1840. Filled with ex- tracts from speeches; little original material. Believes that Ledru was not sufficiently revolutionary. Hartmann, Georges: LedrunRollin. In La Cite 4: 3-10 (BN). Best account for period of childhood and youth. Ledru-Rollin, Henrietta: Introduction to Discours politiques. Brief and naturally laudatory. Mirecourt, Eugene de : Les Contemporains No. 84 : Ledru-Rollin. Paris, 1853, Mirecourt (Society Library, New York). Absolutely false impressions and numerous false facts. Only value is as a collection of calumnies. Quentin-Bauchart, Pierre: Silhouettes de 1848: Ledru-Rollin. In Nou- velle Revue 16: 514-540. Conservative but fair. Too brief to have great value. Ulbach, Louis : Nos Contemporains No. 6 : Ledru-Rollin. Paris, 1869 (BN). Highly eulogistic. Lacks balance. Contains interview with min- ister of the interior. Vermorel, A.: Les Hommes de 1848 (pp. 146-185). Paris, 1869, Allo- nier (Wash.). Fair, full of quotations. Gaulois, February 28, 1874 (BN). interview with Ledru, elaborated if not false. Caiman, Alvin: Ledru-Rollin apres 1848. Paris, 1921, Rieder. Only full account of life after June 13, 1849. Levy-Guenot, Roger: We hope to see appear soon a book on the life of Ledru-Rollin up to March 5. 184S. The erudite part on the banquet campaign of 1847 has already been published in the Revolution de 1848, 16 : ir- 28, 58-75. Various unimportant articles, two anonymous, others by Audebrand, Blind, Breynat, Merzer, Pressense. Also articles by C. E., Bourget, Delvau, Loudun, Montepin and Calonne, Normand (BN). .Another by Lorand (Bibliotheque Royale. Brussels). Another by Holyoake c83] CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 429 (Bishopsgate Library, London). For details see Caiman: Ledru- Rollin apres 1848. Divers encyclopedia articles. Divers electoral pamphlets, absolutely valueless. (Mostly BN.) (B) Printed Writings of Ledru-Rollin Discours politiques et Ecrits divers. Paris, 1879, Germer-Bailliere. An incomplete collection of his speeches and essays, edited by Madame Ledru-Rollin. Omits most of the interruptions in the orations. Letters and speeches in divers newspapers. Speeches in Moniteur and in Comptes rendus des Seances de I'Assemblee. Voix du Proscrit: divers articles. Almanach des Proscrits pour 1850, edited by Magen (BN). Contains a letter in defense of his financial policy. Various other letters and articles previous to 1848. Various other letters and articles after June 13, 1849. For details see Caiman : Lcdru-Rollin apres 1848. (C) Manuscripts of Ledru-zRollin Bibliotheque de la Ville de Paris : 5 volumes donated by Madame Ledru- Rollin. (In notes cited as LR Papers. The numbering of the vol- umes is arbitrary.) Volumes i, 2 and 3 contain letters of, to, or concerning Ledru. Volume 4 contains family papers ; volume 5, manuscripts of books, speeches, etc. Bibliotheque de la Ville de Paris : 14 other cartons and 7 journals of domestic expenses. Library of Bagnol-sur-iCeze : No. 105 : Letter of Dudont, 1849. Library of Lille: Ms. 985, No. 683: Two official letters of executive commission, 1848. Library of Lille : Delescluze Papers : Letter to Delescluze, 1848. Bibliotheque de la Ohambre des Deputes; Bibliotheque de la 16® arron- dissement de Paris; libraries of Angers, Lille, Rhcims, Versailles, and Brussels; British Museum Library; Collection of Mr. Charles Feleky : Miscellaneous letters. All these deal with the periods before or after that contained in this thesis. For details see Caiman : Ledru-Rollin apres 1848. ^^O CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY [584 PART II. OTHER MATERIAL (A) Official and Semi-Official Documents, etc. Monitcur Univcrsel The official newspaper of the government, containing parliamen- tary debates, reports of parliamentary commissions, laws, decrees, political trials, and official versions of news. Compte rendu des Seances de I'Assemblee Nationale. Paris, 1849, Im- primerie Nationale. Compte rendu des Seances de I'Assemblee Legislative. Paris, 1849, Pankoucke. Quentin-Bauchart, Alexandre: Rapport de la Commission d'Enquete sur ITnsurrection qui a eclatee dans la Journee du 23 Juin et sur les Evenements du 15 Mai 1848. Paris, 1848, Henry. See Chapter XV. Affaire du 13 Juin 1849, Seant a Versailles ; Complot, Attentat. Volume I contains the preliminary depositions ; volume 2, the stenographic report of the trial as found in the Moniteur; volume 3, the documents seized. The first two volumes can be found only at the French ministry of justice; the invaluable third volume can be located nowhere. Anderson, Frank: Constitutions and other selected Documents illustra- tive of the History of France. Minneapolis, 1908, Wilson. Bulletins de la Repuhlique. Paris, 1848, Bureau Central (BN). See Chapter IX. French Revolution of 1848. A collection of newspapers, broadsides, and popular songs in Columbia University Library. Similar and more complete collec- tions may be found BN and VP. Murailles Revolutionnaires. Edited by A. Delvau. Paris, 1868, Picard. Collection of revolutionary placards. Affiches Rouges : Curiosites Revolutionnaires. Edited by Bernard. Paris, 1851, Giraud and Gegnea. Similar to Murailles Revolutionnaires but not as complete. Vie de Paris. Annual edited by Passerieu. Paris, 1898-1922, Lemerre. Collection of miscellaneous facts dealing with Paris past and present. Saulcey, L. F. S. C. : Souvenirs numismatiques de la Revolution de 1848. Paris, 1859, Ruisseau. Replicas of medals made in 1848. 285] CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 431 Lirieux, A.: Assemblee Nationale Comique. Paris, 1850, Levy (BN). Best collection of cartoons dealing with period. Bulletin Municipal Officiel de Paris. (B) Unpublished Manuscripts Archives departementales du Nord: Dossier on Ledru-Rollin. Archives Nationales : Documents on prefects. Bibliotheque Nationale: Schoelcher Papers, NAF 22134-5. Circourt Papers, NAF 21684. Bibliotheque de la Chambre des Deputes : Durand-Savoyat Papers, Ms. 1440. Bibliotheque Parent de Rosan (i6th arrondissement of Paris) : Parent de Rosan: Memoires sur la Revolution de 1848, 67: 167-187. Bibliotheque de la Ville de Paris : Liesville Collection : Revolution de 1848. ( C) Letters Arago, Etienne: Letter in Reveil, 1868 (B,N). Barthelemy-St. Hilaire : Papiers. In Revue politique et parlenientaire, 51 : 318-324. Originals at Victor Cousin Library in the Sorbonne. Contains valuable information as to the choosing of the executive commission. Bernard, Martin : Un Commissaire-General de la Republique a Lyon. Edited by L. Levy- Schneider. Lyons, 1913. Rey. Originals at St. Etienne Library (BN). Contains account of flight to Belgium by Montagnard companion of Ledru. Bonde, Baroness : Paris in 1848. London, 1904, Fisher, Unvvin. Letters of clever but superficial English Orleanist, reflecting ab- surdities of conservative opinion. Ledru is her hete noir. Bugeaud, Marshal : Letter. In Revolution de 1848, 3 : 193. Among Faucher documents. Cremieux, Adolphe: En 1848, Discours et Lettres. Paris, 1883, Levy (BN). Faucher, Leon : Biographic et Correspondence. Paris, 1888, Thomas. Lamennais, Felicite : Oeuvres Inedites. Paris, 1866, Dentu. Mazzini, Giuseppe: Scritti. Rome, 1906, Galeatti (Wash.). Proudhon, Pierre- Joseph : Correspondence. Paris, 1875, Lacroix. Ruge, Arnold : Briefwechsel und Tagebuchbliitter. Berlin, 1886, Weid- mann (PL). ^.o CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY [586 Sand, George : Letters. London, 1886, Ward and Downey. Seze, Aurelian de: La Journee du 13 Juin. In Revolution de 1848, 10: 19-22. Legitimist standpoint. Stern, Daniel: Lettres republicaines. Paris, 1848, Proux. Brief, discursive, declamatory, fair-minded, philosophical. (D) Diaries and Memoirs Achard, Amadee : Souvenirs personnels d'Emeutes et de Revolutions. Paris, 1872, Levy (PL). Adam, Juliette : Roman de mon Enfance et de ma Jeunesse. Paris, 1902, Lemerre. Alison, Sir A. : Some Account of my Life and Writings. Edinburgh, 1883, Blackwood. Alton-Shee, Comte d': Souvenirs de 1847 et de 1848. Paris, 1879, Drey- fous (HCL). Ambes, Baron: Intimate Memoirs of Napoleon III. London, 1912, Paul (PL). Barrot, C. H. Odilon : Memoires Posthumes. Paris, 1874-6, Charpentier. Extremely cold, unfair, tortuous, conceited, dry account by politi- cal adversary of Ledru. Filled with extracts from speeches. Al- ways considered himself right and never admitted that he had committed a mistake. Many untrue rumors wilfully stated as true facts ; many facts distorted. An apologia pro vita sua badly done. Castellane, Comte de : Journal. Paris, 1895-7, Plon-Nourrit. Reactionary general, usually sensible but sometimes absurd. Deals chiefly with military life. Caussidiere, Marc : Memoirs. London, 1848, Bentley. Fairly reliable, moderately partial memoirs by prefect of police. Circourt, Adolphe de: Souvenirs d'une Mission a Berlin. Paris, 1909, Picard. Conservative diplomat, friend of Lamartine. Commissaire, Sebastien: Memoires et Souvenirs. Lyons, 1888, Meton (Wash.). Disappointingly little on Legislative Assembly by Montagnard. Du Camp, Maxime: Souvenirs de I'Annee 1848. Paris, 1876. Hachette (HCL). Chiefly military experiences of conservative. Etex, A.: Souvenirs d'un Artiste. Paris, 1877 Dentu (PL). Artist and friend of Ledru. ■587] CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 433 Falloux, Frederic A. P. de: Memoires d'un Royaliste, Paris, 1888, Perrin. Wily legitimist presents only half the facts.. Freycinet, Charles de: Souvenirs 1848-1878. Paris, 1912, Delagrave. [Reminiscences of Polytechnician, later premier of third republic. Got, Edmond : Journal 1822-1901. Paris, 1910, Plon. Deals chiefly with matters of iine arts. Herzen, Alexandre: Erinnerungen. Berlin, 1907, Wiegand and Grieben (BN). Russian revolutionist, later friend of Ledru. Houssaye, Arsene: Confessions. Paris, 1885-91, Dentu. Deals chiefly with artistic questions. Hugo, Victor: iChoses Vues. Paris, 1913, Imprimerie Nationale. Interesting and instructive first-hand information is overwhelmed by badly-digested second-hand information. Joigneaux, Pierre : Souvenirs historiques. Paris, 1891, Flammarion (BN). Interesting memoirs of Montagnard, revealing some new facts. Good account of electoral trip to Le Mans ; little else on Ledru. Lefrangais, Gustave : !Souvenirs d'un Revolutionnaire. Brussels, 1902, Admer. Ultra-revolutionary socialist; dislikes Ledru. Difficult and ob- scure style. Lesseps, Ferdinand de : Recollections of Forty Years. London, 1887, Chapman and Hall. Includes defense of his actions as envoy at Rome. Marnay, A. J. de : Memoires secretes et Temoignages authentiques. Paris, 187s, Librairie des Bibliophiles (BN). 'Conservative deputy. Maupas, C. E. de : Memoires sur le Second Empire. Paris, 1885, Dentu. Unfair account by friend of Louis Napoleon. Melun, Vicomte Armand de: Memoires. Paris, 1891, Leday (PL). Prominent philanthropist, fair-minded conservative. Nadaud, Martin : Memoires de Leonard, ancien Gargon-Ma<;on. Bour- ganeuf, 1895, Duboueix (Wash.). Normanby, Marquess of : A Year of Revolution. London, 1857, Longman. Diary of British ambassador. Extremely prejudiced conservative whig with little insight into the French spirit. Ledru is his bete noir; he considers him a cowardly demagogue. Persigny, Due de: Memoires. Paris, 1896, Plon-Nourrit. Violently prejudiced Bonapartist; distorts facts outrageously. 434 CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY [588 Poumies de la Siboutie, Dr.: Souvenirs. Paris, 1918, Plon (PL). Prejudiced partisan of Guizot gives little information. Quentin-Bauchart, Alexandre: Etudes et Souvenirs sur la Deuxieme Republique et le Second Empire. Paris, igoi, Plon-Nourrit (Wash.). Extreme conservative deputy, but usually fair. Admires few- people except himself; admires neither Ledru nor Barrot. Ranc, Arthur: Souvenirs, Correspondence. Paris, 1913, Comely. St. Ferreol, Amadee: Mes Memoires. Brioude, 1887-1892, Chauvet (BN). Les Proscrits en Belgique. Brussels, 1870, Mouc- quart (HCL). iMontagnard gives little information prior to June 13, 1849. Sand, George: Souvenirs de 1848. Paris, 1882, Calmann-Levy (PL). Reflective rather than historical. Sarcey, Francisque : Journal de Jeunesse. Paris, 1903, Bibliotheque des Annales (Wash.). iScheurer-Kestner, A. : Souvenirs de ma Jeunesse. Paris, 1905, Charpen- tier (Wash.). Senior, Nassau William : Journals kept in France and Italy. London, 1871, King. Conservative whig; writes light but not superficial account." Tocqueville, Alexandre de : Souvenirs. Paris, 1893, Calmann-Levy. Bitterly satirical, brilliant, self-confident. Veron, L. : Memoires d'un Bourgeois de Paris. Paris, 1853-5, Martinon. Unfair supporter of Thiers. Vielcastel, Comte Horace de : Memoires 1851-1864. Berne, 1880-4, Haller. Malicious, slanderous gossip. (E) Histories by Contempor,\ries Anonymous : Journees illustrees de la Revolution de 1848. Paris, 1848. Plon (PL). Detailed, colorless account to accompany illustrations. Anonymous : Le Risquons-tout en 1848. Mouscron, 1848, Lerouge-Benoit (BN). Very prejudiced against the affair, superficial, emphasizes result- ing trial. Arago, Etienne: Les Postes en 1848. Paris,, 1867, Dentu (BN). Personal account relating almost solely to his own ministry. Arcay, Joseph de : Indiscretions Contemporaines. Paris, 1884, Calmann- Levy (VP). 289] CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 435 Babaud-Laribiere, L. : Histoire de I'Assemblee Nationale Constituante. Paris, 1850, Levy (BN). Brightly-written, just account by moderate deputy, emphasizing events in which he took part. Friendly to many, including Ledru and Cavaignac. Dislikes Marrast, Garnier-Pages, and Louis Napo- leon. Beaumont- Vassy, E. F. : Histoire de mon Temps. Paris, 1855-7, Per- rotin(PL). Extremely conservative but fairly just. Bedeau, General M. A. : 24 Fevrier 1848. In Revue de Paris i8g8, 3 : 449-478. Blanc, Louis : Histoire de la Revolution de 1848. Paris, 1870, Librairie Internationale. Just, socialist account of his own conduct. Blanqui, Auguste: Reponse. Paris, 1848 (BN). Brief and passionate defense against Taschereau accusations. Bouton, Victor : Attentat de la Police centre la Souverainete du Peuple. Paris, 1848 (BN). Absurd account by ultra-Blanquist. Brougham and Vaux, Henry, Lord : Letter to the Marquess of Lans- downe on the late Revolution in France. London, 1848, Ridgeway. A generalizing essay showing little knowledge and less political foresight. A stupid indictment of the radicals. Cabet, Etienne: Insurrection du 23 Juin. Paris, 1848, Librairie du Populaire. Hasty and partial account by leader of Utopian socialists. Capefigue, J. B. H. R. : La Societe et les Gouvernements de I'Europe. Paris, 1849, Amyot. Biased conservative. Carnot, Hippolyte: Le Ministere de I'lnstruction Publique et des Cultes depuis le 24 Fevrier jusqu'au 5 Juin 1848. Paris, 1848, Pagnerre (B.N). Good account of ministry of education by its head. Carnot, Hippolyte : Recit du 24 Fevrier. In Revolution de 1848, 6 : 20-33. Castille, Hippolyte: Histoire de la Seconde Republique Frangaisc. Paris, 1855, Lecou (Wash.). Fair-minded, liberal Bonapartist. Sympathetic to I^dru; dislikes Barrot and Marrast. Chamier, Frederick : Review of the French Revolution of 1848. London, 1849, Reeves, Benham. Typically conservative account, sometimes fair, more often ab- surd. Almost wholly secondary. ,-,5 CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY [590 Chenu, Adolphe: Les Conspirateurs. Paris, 1850, Gamier. One of several pamphlets by unmasked police spy. Unreliable, malicious, probably to a large extent invented. Considerant, Victor: Journee du 13 Juin. Paris, 1849, Levy. Moderately clear apology for fiasco by one of its leaders. More rhetoric than facts. Corkran, J. F. : History of the National Constituent Assembly. New- York, 1849, Harper. Rather superficial, fairly unbiased, but with conservative ten- dency. Thinks Ledru was a bluffer. Darimon, Alfred : A travers une Revolution. Paris, 1884, Dentu. Largely a biography of Proudhon. Delord, Taxile: Histoire du Second Empire. Paris, 1875, Germer- Bailliere. Delvau, Alfred : Histoire de la Revolution de Fevrier. Paris, 1850, Garnier. Poor partisan account by Ledru's private secretary. More dis- cussion than history. Socialist and Blanquist who worships Ledru but thinks he was not sufficiently revolutionary. Diffuse and philo- sophical but not deep. Poor style. Drevet, Pere: Mysteres de I'Hotel de Vilne. Paris, 1850, Garnier. Account by radical. Disliked Garnier-Pages but liked Ledru and Lamartine. Faure, Philippe: Journal d'un Combattant de Fevrier. Jersey, 1859, Le Feuvre (BN). Fonvielle, Wilfred de: Banquet des Ecoles. In Nouvelle Revue no: 470-487. Le 13 Juin 1849. In Revolution de 1848, 8 : 459- 475. One of the minor radical leaders. Forster, K. : Du Royaume a I'Empire. Paris, 1854, Firmin-Didot (PL). Foster, G. G., and English, T. D. : The French Revolution of 1848. Philadelphia, 1848, Zieber (PL). Gallois, Leonard : Histoire de la Revolution de 1848. Paris, 1849-50, Naud (BN). Fair-minded radical ; admires Ledru. Wholly secondary material. Gamier-Pages, Louis- Antoine : Histoire de la Revolution de 1848. Paris, 1864-1872, Pagnerre (Volumes 9- 11 in HCL). Remarkably impartial though it naturally over-emphasizes his own part. Best source on meetings of the provisional government, less full on those of the executive commission. Most detailed of 2C)i] CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 437 the contemporary accounts. Too fond of imagining arguments at conferences whereof he knew only by hearsay {e. g. cabals). In last volumes relies less on his own experiences and more on existing printed material. Girardin, Emile de : Bon Sens, Bonne Foi. Paris, 1848, Levy. Eulogy on himself by well-known journalist; accompanied by a few general facts. Granier de Cassagnac, A. B. : Histoire de la Chute du Roi Louis Phil- ippe L Paris, 1857, Plon. Conservative account, chiefly secondary, by bigoted Bonapartist. Guyon, Leon : L'Odysee d'un Candidat, Charles Granger. Le Mans 1893 Drouin (BN). Invaluable for Ledru's relations with the Sarthe. An extract was reprinted in the Revolution de 1848, 2 : 257-265. Lacratelle, Henri de : Lamartine and his Friends. New York, 1880, Putnam, Christian democrat a la Buchez relates experiences with Lamar- tine and others. Probably the account is slightly touched up in view of later events. La Hodde, Lucien de : Histoire des Societes secretes. Paris, 1850, Ju- lien, Lanier. Distorted account by unmasked agent provocateur who was inti- mate with leading republicans. Full of gall and venom. La Hodde, Lucien de: Naissance de la Republique. Paris, 1850, Beaule. Even worse than the preceding work. Lamartine, Alphonse de : Histoire de la Revolution de 1848. Leipzig, 1849, Brockhaus and Avenarius. Excessively conceited and inaccurate, declamatory, eloquent. Lavarenne, P. C. M. de : Le Gouvernement Provisoire et I'Hotel de Ville devoilles. Paris, 1850, Garnier. Violent Blanquist; gives detailed and confused account; full of calumnies. Lavarenne, P. C. M. de: Les Rouges peints par Eux-memes. Paris, 1850, Allouard. (In John Crerar Library, Chicago.) Unbelievably absurd collection of calumnies ; much worse than the preceding work. Laviron, P. E. : Recit authentique de la Seance revolutionnaire tenue a I'Hotel de Ville la Nuit du 24 au 25 Fevrier 1848. Paris, 1848, Col- libert (BN). Lemer, Julien : Les Gouvernements provisoires en France. Paris, 1886, Simon (BN). ^^8 CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY [592 Leroux, Pierre: La Greve de Samarez. Paris, 1866, Dentu. (In Sor- bonne Library.) Longepied and Laugier : Comite Revolutionnaire ; Club des Clubs. Paris, 1850, Gamier (BN). Declamatory recital by two prominent members of the Club des Clubs, enunciating evolutionary and radical doctrines. Lucas, Alphonse: Les Clubs et les Clubbistes. Paris, 1851, Dentu. Descriptive list of clubs. Strong reactionary tries to be fair but remains unreliable. Marx, Karl : Dix-huit Brumaire. Paris, 1900, Schleicher. Opinions of great socialist on Louis Napoleon, his friends, and. his enemies. Menand, Louis : Prologue d'une Revolution. Paris, 1849, Librairie du Peuple. A Montagnard defends Caussidiere. Mill, John Stuart : Vindication of the French Revolution of February, 1848. In his Works 2 : 335-410. London, 1859, Parker. Brilliant defense of the revolution. Annihilates Brougham's flimsy tirade. Nougarede de Fayet, Auguste : La Verite sur la Revolution de Fevrier 1848. Paris, 1850, Amyot (HCL). Fair-minded account, details on February Days. Ollivier, Emile : L'Empire liberal. Paris, 1897, Garnier. Volumes i and 2 of this apologia pro vita sua deal with the second republic. Pouillet, Claude : La Conservatoire des Arts et Metiers pendant la Jour- nee du 13 Juin 1849. Paris, 1849, Garnier (BN). Invaluable account by director of the conservatory. Gives facts in small compass followed by long defense of his own conduct. Pyat, Felix: Lettres d'un Proscrit. Paris, 1851, Magen. Regnault, Elias : Histoire du Gouvernement provisoire. Paris, 1850, Lecou. Fair-minded account by Ledru's chief of cabinet. Chief fault is tendency to see plots where none existed. After Stern best contem- porary account. Robin, Charles : Hisoire de la 'Revolution f ranqaise de 1848. Paris, 1850, Penaud (BN). Good republican account, chiefly secondary, detailed on February Days. 293] CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 439 Roinville: Histoire du Banquet reformiste du Douzieme Arrondissement. Paris, 1848 (BN). Details by the chairman of the organizing committee. St. Amant : Le Drame des Tuilleries apres la iRevolution du 24 Fevrier. Paris, 1848, Feret (BN). Account by governor of the Tuilleries. Sarrans, Bernard: Histoire de la Revolution de Fevrier 1848. Paris, 1850-1, Administration des Librairies (BN). Moderate; sees faults in friends. Some primary material and much secondary material including some pure nonsense (e.^. cabals). Seurre, Jules: La derniere Republique. Paris, i860, Garnier (Wash.). Facts on the department of the 'Saone and Loire. Stern, Daniel (Comtesse d'Agoult) : 'Histoire de la 'Revolution de 1848. Paris, 1878, Calmann-Levy. Best contemporary account ; by a moderate. Rather philosophical but not too much so. Detailed through Jime Days. High opinion of Lamartine ; finds Ledru weak. Thomas, Emile : Histoire des Ateliers Nationaux. Oxford, 1918, Qa- rendon Press. Fully documented account of Workshops by their head. Unsatis- factory on other matters. Heavy, tiresome style. Impassioned and envenomed. Tirel, L. : La Republique dans les Carosses du Roi. Paris, 1850, Garnier, Orleanist collects calumnies and pretends to document them. Ulbach, Louis : Souvenirs de Fevrier a Mars 1848. In Revue Bleue 25 : 262-4. Weill, Alexandre : Six Mois de Revolution. Paris, 1868, Dentu. Just but unreliable moderate, collaborator of Girardin. (F) Secondary General Accounts Audebrand, Philibert : iNos iRevolutionnaires. Paris, 1886, Frinzine (Wash.). Radical tendency. Bouniols, Gaston : Histoire de la IRevolution de 1848. Paris, 1918, Dela- grave (PL). Good account of Assembly, following debates closely. Unpreju- diced and placid. Charlety, S. : La Monarchic de Juillet. Paris, 1921, Hachette (Vol. 5 of Lavisse: Histoire Contemporaine). Good account of February Days. , ,(3 CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY [594 Gradis. Henri : Histoire de la Revolution de i849- Paris, 1872, Levy. Conservative tries to be fair but fails. Good analyses of speeches. Sometimes unclear. Hamel, L. A. : Histoire illustree de la Seconde Republique. Paris, 1891, Jouvet. Rather fair-minded but poorly informed radical sometimes stum- bles on the truth. Hillebrand, Karl: Geschichte Frankreichs. Gotha, 1879, Perthes. Dramatic and just but with superficial information. Jerrold, Blanchard: Life of Napoleon IH. London, 1882, Longman, Green. Violent Bonapartist prejudice; little value. La Gorce, Pierre de : Histoire de la Seconde Republique Frangaise. Paris, 1914, Plon-Nourrit. Very conservative and clerical, moderately fair on provisional government. Gets more and more unjust, reaching a climax of prejudice on the Roman question (natural tendency of a clerical). Lebey, Andre : Louis Napoleon Bonaparte et le Ministere Odilon Barrot. Paris, 1912, Comely (PL). The most detailed and the most unprejudiced account of this period. Filled with extracts from speeches. Very long-winded and dull. Lebey, Andre : Louis Napoleon et la Revolution de 1848. Paris, 1907-8, Juven (Wash.). Neither so dull nor so unprejudiced nor so detailed as the pre- ceding work. Shows clearly liking for Louis Napoleon and dislike for Ledru. Makes some bad mistakes {e. g., credits Ledru with publishing the sixteenth bulletin). Martin, Henri : Popular History of France. Boston, 1882, Dana, Estes, and Lauriat. Volume 3 contains clear, popular, superficial, anti-Bonapartist account. Pierre, Victor : Histoire de la Republique de 1848. Paris, 1878, Plon. Most violent and unjust of conservative accounts. Tells the truth, nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth. Renard, Georges : La Republique de 1848. Paris, 1906, RouflF. (Volume 9 of Jaures : Histoire Socialiste.) Excellent account. Unfortunately quite brief except on social phases. Philosophic treatment. Superdemocratic and socialist lean- ings but no such prejudice or distortion as in the conservative ac- counts. ^^2] CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 44 1 Rittiez, F. : Histoire du Gouvernement Provisoire de 1848. Paris, 18S6-7, Librairie Internationale (Wash.). Fair-minded, commonplace account. Seignobos, Charles: La Revolution de 1848. Paris, 1921, Hachette. (Vol. 6 of Lavisse: Histoire Contemporaine.) Fills a much-needed want for a good, impartial history of the second republic. Selects important topics rather than gives a flow- ing narrative. Some faults, such as accusing Ledru too freely of plotting. Spuller, Eugene : Histoire parlementaire de la Seconde Republique. Paris, 1891, Mean (PL). Brief, commonplace, radical account. TchernofF, L : Associations et Societes Secretes sous la Deuxieme Re- publique. Paris, 1905, Alcan. Weill, Georges : Histoire du Parti Republicain en France de 1814 a 1870. Paris, 1900, Alcan. Two standard accounts on history of the republican party. (G) Secondary Accounts on Special Subjects Antony, Alfred : La Politique Financiere du Gouvernement Provisoire. Paris, 1909, Rousseau. Standard work on ministerial expenses. Bertrand, Louis : Histoire de la Democratic et du Socialisme en Bel- gique. Brussels, 1906-7, Dechenne. Standard work on democrats of and in Belgium. Caiman, Alvin : Delescluze, Ledru-Rollin, et I'Echaufouree de Risquons- toue. In Revolution de 1848, 16 : 44-50. Contains two important letters of Delescluze. Clermont, F., and Bourgeois, Emile: Rome et Napoleon III. Paris, 1907, Colin. (Clermont wrote part dealing with 1848-9.) Standard work on the diplomacy of the Roman expedition. Good on Assembly debates and cabinet troubles in France, but less good on internal workings of the Mountain. Cremieux, Albert: La Revolution de Fevrier. Paris, 1912, Cornely. Standard work on February Days. Curtis, E. N. : French Assembly of 1848 and American Constitutional Doctrines. New York, 1907, Columbia Press. Best work on the constitution. Clear account of the composition of the Assembly. ^2 CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY [596 Dreyfus, C. Ferdinand: L' Assistance sous la Seconde Republique. Paris, 1907, Comely. Standard work on philanthropy under the second republic. Felice, iRaoul de: La Journee du 13 Juin a Paris. In Revolution de 1848, 6 : 133-325. Only good account of June 13 and of the Versailles trial. Gaillard, Leopold de: L'Expedition de Rome en 1849. Paris, 1861, Le- coffre (PL). Good account of affairs at Rome. Genique, Gaston: L^Election de I'Assemblee Legislative en 1849. Paris, Rieder, 1921. Gossez, A. M. : Le Departement du Nord sous la Deuxieme Republique. Lille, 1904, Leleu. (In the Sorbonne Library.) Nephew of Bianchi gives some new material. Clear and fair- minded account with radical tendencies. Haury, P.: Les Commissaires de Ledru-Rollin 1848. In Ret'olution Frangaise $7 • 438-475- Standard account concerning the commissioners, although con- taining some errors. La Place de Chauvac, Gaston de : Crises dans les Finances Publiques en 1848. Toulouse, 1916, Marqueste. Standard work on general financial policies. Lousteau, Pierre : Louis Blanc et la Commission du Luxembourg. Paris, 1908, Bonvalet-Jouve. Standard work on the Luxembourg Commission. Mauve, E. : Le Bourbonnais sous la Seconde 'Republique. Moulins, 1909, Progres Social (BN). Standard work on Allier and neighboring departments. Monin, Georges : George Sand et la Republique de Fevrier 1848. In Revolution Frangaise 37:428-38: 185. Valuable information on the Bulletins of the Republic. Muller, Paul: La Revolution de 1848 en Alsace. Paris, 1912, Fisch- backer. Standard work on departments of Lower and Upper Rhine. Prod'homme, J. G. : Le Musique et les Alusiciens en 1848. In Revolu- tion de 1848, 10:471-493. Thayer, William Roscoe: The Dawn of Italian Independence. Boston, 1893, Houghton, Mifflin. Very good account of affairs at Rome, though partial to Mazzini. 2^7] CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 443 Wassermann, Suzanne: Les Clubs de Barbes et de Blanqui en 1848. Paris, 1913, Cornely (PL). Standard work on these clubs, though partial to Barbes and Blanqui. (H) Biographies Breton, P. : Memoires du Marquis de Boissy. Paris, 1870, Dentu. Pierrot, Alfred : Charles Buvignier a Montmedy. Montmedy, 1907, Pierrot (BN). Proles, Charles : Charles Delescluze. Paris, 1893, Chamuel. Des Cognets, Jean : Vie Interieure de Lamartine. Paris, 1913, Mercure de France. Quentin-Bauchart, Pierre: Lamartine, Homme Politique. Paris, 1903, Plon-Nourrit. Best biography as to political career of Lamartine. Whitehouse, R. Remsen : Life of Lamartine. Boston, 1918, Houghton, Mifflin. Better on literary than on political side. Many errors. Appre- ciates character of Lamartine and his evolution in 1848 but has little grasp of general events. Feugere, Anatole : Lamennais. Paris, 1906, Bloude. Pressense, E. : Leon de Maleville. In Revue Bleue 192 : 549. Cherest, Aime: Vie de A. T. Marie. Paris, 1872, Durandet Redone (BN). Includes many letters of Marie. Morere, P.: Un Revolutionnaire ariegeois, Victor Pithes in Revolution de 1848 17:43-54. Mulberger, Arthur: Proudhon, Leben und Werke. Stuttgart, 1899, Frommann. (J) Newspapers Consulted for Entire Period (The names in ordinary type in parentheses following the newspapers indicate the editors; those in italics, the patrons.) Orleanist: Constitutionnel (Veron, Thiers) (Wash.); Journal des Debats (PL); Siecle (Barrot) (Wash.); Times of London (PL). Moderate: Atelier (Buchez) (PL); National (Cavaignac, Marrast, etc.) (Wash.). Radical: People Constituant (Lamennais) (PL); Reforme (Ledru, Flocon, etc.) (BN) ; Revolution democratique et sociale (Deles- cluze) (BN); Nation of Brussels (in Bibliothcque Royale, Brus- sels). ^^. CRITICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY [598 Socialist: Commune de Paris (Sobrier) (PL); Democratic Pacifique (Considerant) (BN) ; Peuple, or Representant du Peuple (Proud- hon) (PL); Vraie Republique, or Journal de la Vraie Republique (Barbes, Sand, etc.) (PL). Ultra-revolutionary: Ami du Peuple (Raspail) (PL); Republique (Blanqui) (Wash.). (K) Newspapers Mentioned or Partly Read (Extracts from most of these may be found in PL) Catholic: Ere Nouvelle (Lacordairc) ; Univers (Veillot). Legitimist : Courier de la Chambre ; Esprit National ; France Nouvelle (Dumas); Gazette de France (Genoude) ; Lampion; Liberte (Du- mas); Opinion Publique; Union. Bonapartist : Dix Decembre. Orleanist : Assemblee Constituante (Giiisot) ; Assemblee Nationale; Gazette des Tribunaux ; Journal de Villes et Campagnes ; Patrie (Girardin, Delamarrc) ; Pays; Spectateur de Londres (Guisot). Moderate: Avenir National; Bien Public (Pelletan, Laniartiiie) ; Com- merce ; Courier ; Credit ; Journal ; Langue du Vipere, or Pot-aux- Roses. Radical: Courier Frangais (Xavier Durrieu) ; Ecole Politique des Peu- ples; Montagne; Temps (X. Durrieu); Travail (Baune) ; Tribune du Peuple. Socialist: Organisation du Travail; Populaire (Cabet) ; Travail af- franchi (Vidal). L' Itra-revolutionary : Aimable Faubourgien (Delvau) ; Bonnet Rouge; Lanterne; Pere Duchene. Personal: Evenement (Hugo); Presse (Girardin). (L) Departmental Newspapers Mentioned or Consulted (All BN) Orleanist: Representant of Chateauroux; Echo of Moulins ; Memorial of Moulins ; Union of Le Mans ; Courier de la Limogne of Riom. Moderate: Courier of Lyons; Constitution of Moulins; Journal of Tours; Constitutionnel of Chateauroux. Radical: Journal of Chateauroux; Droit Commun of Bourges; Re- publique de 1848 of Bourges; Journal de la Somme; Impartial of Lille (Delescluze) ; Messager of Lille (Bianchi) ; Republicain of Moulins; Emancipation of Toulouse; Courier of Le Mans (Reg- nault). Socialist : Peuple Souverain of Lyons. INDEX Abbatucci, 287 Adam, Edmond, IS7 Adam, Juliette, 62, 392 Adelsward, 363 Affre, 20, III, 212 Agoult, see Stern Aguesseau, see Segur d'Aguesseat^ Albert, 36-7, 41-2, 49, 52, IZ, 7^7, 127, 135, 151-9, 165-6, 177-8, 181, 183, 186, 230, 246, 296 Algeria, 18, 52, 81, 107-S, 127, 166, 180, 234, 420 Alphonse, 390, 406 Alton-Shee, 35-6, 40, 245, 299 Amnesty, 40, 238, 250, 293-4, 297, 410 Andryane, 64 Antoine, 281 Antonelli, 340, 354 Arago, Emmanuel, 93, no, 281, 331. 355, 357 Arago, Etienne, 19, 25, 36, 67, 90, 140, 142, 147, 168, 178-9, 239, 279, 281, 292, z'^z, Z77, 397-8, 401-2 Arago, Francois, 19-20, 23, 27, 41- 2, 48-9, 52-5, 71, 74, 78, 81-2, 85, 97, 102, 106, 123, 138, 143, 149, 160, 162, 165, 167, 170, 173-8, i8c2, 188. 192, 198-9, 202-S, 210, 212, 227, 281, 316 Army, 41, 52, 54, 81-2, 97, 1 15-6, 127-8, 134. 136, 164-7, 178, 192, 200-12, 248-50, 254, 265-7, 272, 276-7, 281-2, 289-93, 298, 31 1-6, 337-50, 358-9, 364, 372, 378, 382- 90. 393. 415, 419-20, 423-6 Arnaud de I'Ariege, 233, 281 Arnaud du Var, 280 Astaix, 280 Audebrand, 57 Audry de Puyravault, 281 Austria, 62, 92, 256, 260, 289, 315- -27, 333-45, 349-51, 360 Azerm, 281 599] Babaud, 401 Bac, 254, 2&», 357, 399 Baden, see Germany Bajard, 281 Banquets, 24-8, 31-5, 2>^, 192, 239- 40, 244, 255-60, 275-9, 295, 301-6, 404, 425 Baraguey d' Hilliers, 179, 285, 288 Barbes, 15, 126-7, 137, 140, 146-8, 151, 156, 168, 174, 181, 184, 186, 214-5, 230, 246, 295-6 Baroche, 269, 366, 396, 399 Barret, Ferdinand, 263 Barrot, Odilon, 16-8, 22-35, 38-44, 58, 114, 125, 143, 179, 214-5, 219- 21, 226, 228, 238, 262-70, 273, 278-93, 299, 312-4, 324, 326, 330- 68. 395, 41 1-2, 416, 419 Barthelemy-St. Hilaire, 247-9 Bastide, 178, 183, 199, 327, 377-8 Bauchart, see Quentin-Bauchart Baudin, 371 Baume, 281 Baune, 252, 280, 310, 325, 341, 419 Bavoux, 270 Baze, 272 Beaumont-Vassy, 295 Bedeau, 42-3, 52, 54, 128, 250, 346, 363, 366 Belgium, 93-103, 109, 214, 224-8, 245, 320, 326-7, 333, 397-8 Benoit, 280 Beranger, 27 Berard, 279 Berenger, 405-6 Berger, 199 Bernard, Martin, 140, 246, 252, 254, 273, 277, 280, 292, 310, 384, 391-3, 397-8, 401-2 Eerryer, 15, 47, 179 Bertholon, 280 I'cthinont, 23, 52, 80, 84, 106, 178 I'ianchi, 25 Billault, 333 Bixio, 52, 249, 269, 316, 321, i2>2 445 446 INDEX [600 Bizoin, see Glais-Bizoin Blanc, Charles, 42 Blanc, Louis, 15, 19. 25. 30, 33, 35, 41-2. 49. 5-2-5, 58, 62, 73-82, 104- 6, 120, 124-7, 132, T35, 141, 150- 9. 165-70. 177-8, 184-9, 192, 198- 203, 214-S, 218, 221, 226, 230, 246, 296, 416-8 Blanqui, 15, 50. ^7, 80, 125-8, 138- 41, 146, 151-8, 181, 184, 214, 230, 245, 271, 295-6, 403, 410, 417 Blervacq, 93-4, 102 Blind, 328 Blum, 256, 322 Boch, 388 Bochard, 281 Bonaparte. Louis Napoleon, 15, 58, 66. 172, 194-8, 241, 243, 246- 7. 251. 253, 255, 260-3, 2^, 271, 289-93, 296, 300, 310, 314, 324-5, 331, 344-5, 353, 395, 409, 4i8 Bonaparte. Napoleon, see Napo- leon I Bonaparte, Pierre, 281 Bon jean, 268 Bordeaux, Duke of, 196 Bourzat, 281 Bouvet, Francisque, 281, 326 Brard, 281 Bravard-Toussaint, 280 Breymand, 281 Brice-Bar, 275 Brissot, 417 Brives, 281 Bruckner, 281 Bruys, 281 Buchez. 44, no, 168, 174. 179, 183- 5. 196, 209 Buffet, 287 Bugeaud, 40, 179, 243, 2rj6-7, 290, 299. 313. 353, 404 Bulletins of the Republic, 70, 89, 142-6, 152, 162, 214, 216, 285 Buvignier, 254. 281, 316-7, 320, 329, 402, 408 Cabet, 15, 80, 126-7, 299 Cadoudal, 268 Cales, 281 Calon, 421 Cambon, 240, 413-4 ■Canel, 281 Canet, 2^^, 396 •Cantagrel, 375 Carlier, 66, 69, 118, 155, 260 Carnot. 23, 41, 51-2. 55, 80, 106, 116, 178 Carrier, 117 Carteret, 66, 69, 125, 145, 147, 149, 151, 155, 158, 163, 177-8 Carton, 219, 424 Cassagnac, see Granier de Cas- sagnac Castille, 256 Casy, 178, 206 Caussidiere, 17, 25, 35-8, 43, 47, 56, 66, 72, 83-5, 94-5, 102-5, 125, 138-41, 146, 150-1, 158, 178, 182, 188-9, 199, 201, 203, 214-S, 218, 221, 226, 230, 296, 310-1, 418 Cavaignac, Eugene, 55, 81-2, 178, 199-212, 217-8, 22(>, 238, 241, 243, 246-57, 261, 281, 296, 299- 300, 308. 316-7, 320-4, 331, 334- 5, 349, 357, 412, 420 Cavaignac, Godefroy, 19, 76, 81, 212 Cavaignac, Jacques, 82, 420 Cavaignac, Jean-Baptiste, 82 Cavaignac, Mme, 81 Cavour, 92 Challemel-Lacour, 258 Chambord, Count of, see Bor- deaux, Duke of Champy, 281 Changarnier, 128, 156, 217, 243, 261, 264-6, 272, 277, 281-2, 289- 92, 299, 312-3, 347-50, 377-9, 382. 388, 394 Charity, 20, 30, 71, 379 Charles Albert, 316, 320-1 Charles X, 2>2, 47 Charras, 292 Chateaubriand, 27 Chauffeur, 281 Chauvel. see Trouve-iChauvel Chauvelot, 256 Chavoix, 281-2, 311 Chenu. 2)7 Chevalier, 240 Cholat, 281 Clement, 281 Clubs. 74. 85, 125. 137-8, 151, 157, 162, 170, 181, 215, 246, 259-60, 270-3, 278-9. 285-7. 297, 355, see also Club des Gubs, Secret Societies, Solidarite Republic- aine Club des Clubs, 90. 137-8, 162-5, 182, 215, 224, 226, 245 6oi] INDEX 447 Commissaire, 362-5, 371, 384, 388 •Consider ant, 244-51, 252, 281, 288- 93, 299, 310-1, 358, 363, 365, 371, 375-6, 379, 382; 388, 391-5, iConstitution, 15, 228, 232-6, 258, 260, 265-71, 274, 290-1, 297, 331, 344. 356-73, 378-84, 394-S, 403-S Coralli, 368 Cormenin, 83, 107 Corne, 230 Courtais, 155-6, 182-3, 188, 296, 380 Cremieux, 25, 41-5, 48-55, 74, 78- 82, 114, 119, 124, 128, 135, 158, 173, 178, 189-90, 196, 233, 243, 261, 269, 281, 284, 290, 307, 350, 362, 368, 370, 396, 402, 416-7, 422-3 Creton, 224-5^ 241, 320, 424-5 Curnier, 281 Dain, 267, 281 Damesne, 207 Danton, 35-6, 45, 57-8, 66, 197, 250, 264, 417 Danubian Provinces, see Rou- mania Darasz, 409 Dargaud, 213 Darimon, 297, 2(>2) Daru, 366 David, Louis, 105 David d' Angers, 27, 22,6, 251, 281, 400, 418 Degouve-Denunques, 99 Delamarre, 89-90, 284-5 Delbetz, 281 Delbrel, 281 Delescluze, 25, 94-103, 109, in, 245, 252-3, 259, 296-7, 355, 402, 408, 418, 425 Deludre, 281-2 Delvau. 66-7, 90, 142, 157 Demontry, 2S1 'Demortreux, 281 Den joy, 279, 286-9 'Deschamps, 109, iii, 167 Detours, 281 Deville, 2=;2, 254, 268, 281, 310, 382,^ 388-91 Domes, 25, 174-7 Doutre, 281 Drouyn de Lhuys, 324-43, 350, 353 Dubarry, 281 Du Camp, 123 Duchatel, 23-4, 169 Duclerc, 86-9, 149, 178, 225, 2^7. 282-3 Ducluzeau, 281 Ducos, ^z, 90, 131, 138, 164, 283 Ducoux, 202, 238, 281, 338 Dudont, 419 Dudouy, 281 Duels, 23, 245, 288 Dufaure, 22, 24, 29, 195, 236-8, 243-4, 248, 259, 281, 323, 366, 395 Dupin, Sr, 44, 268-9, 274, 308, 363, 368, 370, 408 Dupin, 384, 391 Dupont de Bussac, 236, 269, 335 Dupont de I'Eure, 18, 23, 41-2, 47- 55, 77, 82, 89, 124, 143, 168-79, 202, 250 Dupoty, 182 Duprat, Pascal, 19, 368, 370, 408 Duprez, 257 Durand-Savoyat, 281 Durrieu, Paulin, 281 Durrieu, Xavier, 140, 281 Duvergier de Hauranne, 29, 278, 334. Duvivier, 129 Education, 30, 52, 69, 116, 134, 150, 178, 254, 298, 408, 414 England, 18, 20, 28, lOi, 103, 222, 224, 230, 240, 275, 296, 325, 328, 341, 2197 < 409-10, 414, 426 Espagne, 281 Falloux, 15, 179, 193, 250, 281, 290, 292, 299, 325, 344, 353-4, 408 Fargin-Fayolle, 281 Faucher, 131, 143, 222, 224, 269, 272-3, 277, 282, 285-9, 311, 349 Favre, Jules, 15, 42-3, 48, 55, 57. 64-5, 85, iio-i, 116, 142, 145, 147, 149, 151, 156-8, 173. 177-8, 189, 196, 210, 227, 238-9, 248, 269, 280-1, 323-4. 334, 337, 342, 346, 349, 361, 369, 402, 421-3 Fawticr, 281 Fayolle, sec Fargin-Fayolle Finances, 19, 22, 52, 55, 61-3, 78, 86-90, 105, 118, 122, 134, 143, 162-3, 178, 193', ^95, 224-8, 234- Ai, 254, 257-8, 281-4, 297-8, 302, 413-5, 424-5 448 INDEX [602 Fine Arts, 67-8. 71-2, 418 First Republic. 28, 30, 35-7, 45-6, 5S-9. 74-5, 91, 105, 117, 123, 136, 197, 216, 228, 233, 239-40, 250, 264, 413-5 Flocon, 19. 23, 25, 28, 35-42, 49-55, 64. 73, 76, 81, 84, 92, 109, 147, 151-4, 158, 165-8, 172, 175, 177, 180. 199, 201, 235-6, 239, 251, 273, 279-83, 320, 342, 346, 416 Flotte, 67, 140- 1 Forel. Carlos, 281 Forest. 289. 313-4. 346-7 Forestier, 355, 3S7, 394, 402, 407 Fosse. 93-4 Fould, 89. 284 Foulon. 123 Fourier, 22. 75, 375 Franklin, 223 Frapolli, 328, 338 French Revolution, see First Re^ public Freslon. 237 Freycinet, 95-6 Gagern, 92 Gaily, 252 Gambetta. 29, 258, 410, 417 Gambon, 25, 2S1, 310, 384 Garibaldi, 341, 352, 354 Garnier, Pages, Sr, 17, 78 Garnier-Pages, Jr, 23-5, 41-2, 48- 55, 60, 78-90, 95, 106, 113, 1 18-9, 124, 128, 143, 161. 172-8, 183, 188, 190, 192, 194, 198-201, 204- 5, 208-12, 241, 247, 249, 251, 281, 419, 424 Gay, 16 Genoude. 44 Gent, 281, S77 Germany, 92-3, loi, 103, 137, 256, 298, 309, 315-20, 333, 341, 350-1, 357,. 369, 373, 426 Gervais de Caen, 260 Girardin, 35, 150, 292, 310, 356, 358, 363, 405 Glais-Bizoin, 199, 235, 273, 281 Gloxin, 281 Goudchaux, 41, 52, 62, 74, 80, 86, 89, 139, 225, 283-4, 343, 357 Gran din, 278, 366 Grandmesnil, 139 Granier de Cassagnac, 29 Great Britain, see England Greppo, 244, 281, 298 Grevy, Jules, 235, 344, 346 Guinard, 19, 36, 281, 380-91, 394, 399, 402, 407 Guiter, 281 Guizot, 19, 22-4, 33-4, 37-40, 108, 169, 179, 267, 278, 293, 321, 331, 334, 367 Hauranne, see Duvergier de Hauranne Hebert, 31-2 Herault de Sechelles, 413 Herve, 246 Herwegh. 90 Higonnet, 192 Hilliers, see Baraguey d'Hilliers Hingray, 281 Hodde, see La Hodde Huber, 137, 139, 181. 184, 186 Hugo, 15, 211. 250, 267, 271 Hungary, 298, 350 Impeachment, 35, 39. 271-2, 289, 349, 358-71, 377, 382, 395, 403, 416 Initiative and Referendum, see Referendum Internationalism, 91, 275, 315, 320, 409, 414 Ireland, 20, 103, 137 Isambert, 107 Italy, 27, 91-3, loi, 103, 183, 224-5, 256, 258, 260. 288-9, 298, 311, 31S-71, 377, 382, 395. 397, 403, 409, 411, 416, 425-6 Jaeger, 375 Jandeau, 281 Jean-Reynaud, see RejTiaud Jeanron, 68, 147 Joigneaux, 281, 301-3 Tolv, Sr, 2^9, 281, 288, 293 Jol'y, Jr, 281 Judiciary. 16, 52, 82, 1 12, 1 1 5-6, 134, 158-9, 178, 189, 216, 222-4, 230, 254, 268-9, 274. 284, 295-8, 306-7, 399-408, 414-5 Judith. 71. 374 Keratry, 31 1-4 Kestner, 281 Koenig, 281 Kossuth, 320. 409 Labrousse, 281 6o3] INDEX 449 Laclaudure, ^^, 368 Lacratelle, 2S> Lacrosse, 311, 365, ^ Laffitte, 87 Laflize, 281 Lagarde, 281 Lagrange, 250, 281, 291, 395 La Hodde, 2,7 Laissac, 267 Lakanal, 414 Lamartine. 15, 20, 23-30, 35, 41- 55, 61, 66, 71-4, 79-81, 90-3, 102- 6, no, 118, 121 -8, 13S-9, 143, ISO, 155-65, 169-79, 183, 187-216, 233, 238, 243, 247-8, 261, 273, 280, 31S-9, 323-7, 332, 334, 349, 411, 416-7, 422-4 Lamaziere, Daniel, 406 Lamber, 62, 392 Lamennais, 15, 27, 41, 165, 179, 235, 244, 250-6, 280-1, 2991, 310, 341, .426 Lamoriciere, 308, 316, 339, 342 Landrin, 147-51, 158-9, I73v i79- 82, 189, 199, 202, 227, 236, 238, 273, 280-1, 421-3 Larabit, 165, 2^2 La Rochejaquelin, 44, 46, 2^7 Lasteyras, 281 Latrade, 202, 205, 209, 370 Laugier, 138, 162-3 Laulerie, 310 Laurent de I'Ardeche, 244, 2S1 Laussat, 288 Laussedat, 281 Lebarillier, 281 Leblanc, 235 Lecointe, 142 Ledru, Charles, 16 Ledru Family, 16, 20 Ledru-Rollin, Henriette, 20-1, 70, 172, 398. 400 Ledru-iRolIin, Opinions on, 28-9, 22, 35-7. 45. 57-60, 65, 67, 70, 72, 117, 136, 139-42, 197, 210, 220, 250, 256-9, 264, 310-1, 345, 348, 411-8 Le franc, Pierre, 281 Lefrangois, 281 Leroux, Berthe, 400 Leroux, Pierre, 15, 75, 141, 158, 244, 250, 276, 278, 281, 299, 310, 2(^, 396 Lesseps, 342-4, 351-3, 357, 360-1, z^ Liberty Trees, 72, 136 Liechtenberger, 232 Lockroy, 68 Lombardy, see Italy Longepied, 138, 162-3, 182 Louis Philippe, 17-8, 22-6, 31-4, 38-44, 56, 62, 64, 70, 94, 108, 120, 172, 194, 236, 238, 262-2, 331, 360, 415 'Luxembourg Commassion, 135, 160, 214, 377 Machiavelli, 413 Madet, 281 Madier de Montjau, Sr, 402, 406-7 Madier de Montjau, Jr, 246, 417 Maichain, 281 Maigne, 385 Maleville, 49, 267, 269, 271, 278, 286, 374, 419 Marie, Aimable, 15, 23, 41-4, 48- 55. 61, 72, 77-^, 84-5, 106, 124, 128, 152, 154, 165, 172-8, 183, 188, 191 -3, 198-206, 210-2, 222, 236, 248, 281, 299, 423-4 Marie, Alphonse, 281 Marrast, Armand, 23, 34, 38, 41-2, 52-5, 77-84, 93. 106, 123, 128, 155-6, 161, 165, 170-3, 177-9, 183, 187, 189, 198-9, 217-21, 224- 5, 237, 271-2, 279, 281, 284, 289- 94, 300, 312-3, 317, 346-7, 350, 416, 424-5 Martin de Strasbourg, 42, 174 Marx, 410, 415 Mathe, 281, 304-6 Mathieu, 75, 179, 221, 233, 235,, 244-7, 253-4, 276, 281 Mathis, 400 Mazzini, 92, 320, 227, 332, 341, 344, 346, 351-2, 375, 409-10 Medal. 281 Meetings, see Public Meetings Melun, 20, 30-1, 69 Menand, 281 Merlin de Douai, 268 Michel de Bourges, 310, 371-3, 27^, 384, 402, 406-8 Michelet, 30 Michot-Boutet, 281, 291 Mickicwicz, 30 Mie, Auguste, 281 Mill, 60 Millard, 281 Mirabeau, 66, 250, 417 Mole, 39-40, 79, 250, 276, 333 45° Montalembert, 15, 179, 323-4 Morhery, 281 Morny, 221 Mule, 281 Nadaud. Martin, 251, 362, 371 Naples, see Italy Napoleon I, 26, 35, 47, 262, 324 Napoleon II, 47 Napoleon III, see Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon National Guard, 34, 36, 39, 62, 70, 97, loi, 104, 113, 115, 120-9, 135, 141, 155-60, 167-8, 182-91, 195, 202-7, 211, 217, 249-50, 265- 7, 281-2, 289, 305-7, 355, 358, 364, ZI2, 377-89. 407, 423-4 National Workshops, 128, 160, 165, 192-4, 201, 214, 225-6, 292, 296 Negrier, 97, 128 Negro Slavery, 19, 55 Nemours, Duke of, 44 Newspapers, see Press Normanby, 103, 118, 122, 128, 220, 253 O'Connell, 20 Ollivier, Demosthene, 281 Ollivier, Emile, 36, 241, 410 Orleans, Duchess of, 40-1, 44 Orleans Family, see Louis Phil- ippe ; Nemours, Duke of ; Paris, Count of Oudinot, 44, 339-54, 359-6o, z^T, 404 Pagnerre, 23, 51-2, 60, 80, 106, 177-8, 241 Paris, Archbishop of, see Aflfre Paris, Count of, 39-41, 44, 196 Pascal d'Aix, 281 Pegot-Ogier, 281 Pelletier, 281 Penieres, 281 Perdiguier. 281 Perrier, 377-8 Persigny, 58, 271 Petetin, 142 Petion, 250 Petit, zi^, 405, 407 Peugnot, 391 Philanthropy, see Charity Picard, 281 Pietri, 281 Pilhes, 390 INDEX [604 Pin, 281 Pius VI, 329 Pius VII, 329 Pius IX, 321-32, 337-40, 344, 351- 4. 360-1, 411, 425 Point. 286 Poland, 27, 103, 137, 181-4, 298, 315. 320 Police, zz, Z7, 56, 66, 83-5, 105, 118, 138-9, 154-5, 178-9. 200, 258- 60, 277-9, 285-7, 377-S, 397-401, 409 Pope, see Pius VI, Pius VII, Pius IX Portalis, 138, 147-51, 158, 179, 189, 190, 22"/, 236, 239 Pouillet, 382-4, 387-8, 394 Press, 19-20, 61, 150, 191-2, 221-4, 245-6, 251-3, 270, 296-7, 355-8, 363-4. 371, 2,77. 379, 399, 402-3, 407 Proudhon, 15, 74, 215, 244-7, 259, 281, 299. 415 Prussia, see Germany Public Meetings, 24, 191, 255, see also Right of Public Meeting Pujol, 201 Puyravault, see Audry de Puyra- vault Pyat, Felix, 48-9, 222, 22,6, 245, 253-4, 276, 281, :^&, 299, 301, 310^ 341, 360-1, 384, 397, 426 Quentin-Bauchart, -zip, 214-5, 219^ 21, 224-30, 290, 311, 424 Quinet, 30, 36-7, 281, 323 Rachel, 71-2 Radetzky, 315-6, 323 Raspail, Eugene, 268, 281, 286 Raspail Frangois, 126-7, 137-9, 181, 184-6, 230, 244-7, 259, 261, 268, 296 Raynal, 281, 277 Recurt, 19, 25, 41, 83, 177-8, 201, 281 Referendum, 409, 4I4 Regnault, 17, 43. 65-7, 74, 99, in, 121, 138. 142-8, 199, 421 Remusat, 29, 418 Renaud, 281 Renou, 281 Reverchon, 281 Rev, Colonel, 27 Rev, General, 281 6o5] INDEX 451 Rey, Martin, 281 Reynaud, 199, 281 Riancourt, iii Ribeyrolles, 252 Richard, 281 Right of Public Meeting, 31-2, 40, 254, 259-60, 270, 274, 278, 286-7 Right to Work, 105-6, 120, 134, 229, 233^5, 239, 254, 297-8, 3,02 Risquons-tout Affair, see Belgium .Robert de Yonne, 267 Robespierre, 28, 30, 105, 216, 233, 264, 413-4, 417 Robin, 49 Rochejaquelin, see La Rocheja- quelin RoUand, 385 Rome, see Italy Ron j at, 281 Rossi, 321-2, 369 Rouher, 407 Roumania, see Rumania Rousseau, 418 Royer, 406 Ruge, 328, 272, 409 Rumania, 256, 320, 322 Rusconi, 367 Russia, 316-8, 322, 326-7, 333, 350- I, 369 St. Ferreol, 385 St. Gaudens, 281 St. Hilaire, see Barthelemy-St. Hilaire St. Romme, 290 St. Simon, 22, 76 Sand, George, 65, 70-2, 141-S, 159, 246 Sarrans. 331, 350 Sarcey. 259 Sardinia, see Italy Sarrut, Germain, 281, 408 Sauzet. 44 Savoy, see Italy Savoye, 93, 328 Schlosser, 281 Schmitz, 355, 364, 377, 402 Schoelcher, 19, 281, 339, 341, 425-6 Schuetz, 328 Schools, 30, 33, 95-103, 120-1, 258- 60, 277-8._ 364, 377 Secret Societies, 34, 36, 38, 43, 68, 153. 252, 272-4, 28s, 310, 376, 382, 387, 404, 408 Segur d'Aguesseau, 363, 366 Senard, 64, 109, 176, 199, 209-14, 224, 236-8, 270-1, 281, 324, 343, 361, 369 Signard, 281, 392 Slavery, see Negro Slavery Sobrier, 56, 67, 80, 126-7, 138-9, 165, 226 Socialism, 18, 22-3, 65, 73-6, 105, 120, 137, 143, 165, 168-70, 228-9, 233-4, 239-40, 244-6, 254, 259, 275-7, 289, 298, 302, 3101. 375, 409-10, 415 Solidarite Republicaine, 252-4, 272- 5, 402, 408 Spain, 232, 256, 337 Stern, Daniel, 59, 219-20 Struck, no Struve, 328 Subervie, 54, 8O-1, 420 Suchet, 387, 396, 407 Switzerland, 27, 91, 397 Tamisier, 399 Target, 281 Taschereau, 140-1, 245, 420-1 Terrier, 2S1 Teste, 63 Testelin, 25 Thiers, 17, 19, 23-4, 29-30, 33, 35. 40, 162, 179, 233, 243, 250, 271, 281, 290, 299, 324, 334-5, 364-70. 411, 417-8 Thomas, Clement, 195, 202, 292, 333, 349 Thomas, Emile, 192 Thore, 36 Thourel, 402, 405 Thouret, Antony, 241, 290 Tibaldi, 409-10 Tocqueville, 117, 23I3, 354, 357, 359, 366 ToussaintnBravard, see Bravard- Toussaint Tracy, 3^7, 349. 356 Transnonain Affair, 17. 268 Trelat, 168, 174, 177-8, I93, 201, 281 Trouve-Cliauvel, 17, 166, 188-9, 241 Turkey, 327 Tuscany, see Italy Tw^o Sicilies, see Italy Ulbach, 70 452 INDEX [606 United States, 222-4, 275, 319, 414 Universities, see Schools Vaillant, 354 Venetia. see Italy Ventura, 351 Versigny, 401 Vezin, 272 Vignerte, 281 Vilain, 138 Viox, 281 Vivien, 236 Washington, 319 Weill, 122 Westercamp, 281 Wolowski, 183 Workshops, see National Work- shops Yves, 281 STUDIES IN HISTORY ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY VOLUME ONE HUNDRED AND THREE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., AGENTS London: P. S. King & Son, Ltd. 1922 CONTENTS The Relation of British Policy to the Declaration of THE Monroe Doctrine — Leojiard Axel Lawson, Ph.D. i Ledru-Rollin and the Second French Republic — Alvin R. Caiman, Ph.D 155 ! ;> in tte Citg iCif Sjew ^0t:U The Univ^ersity includes tlie following : Columbia College, founded in 17o4, and B&rnard College, founded in 1889, otlering to men and women, respectively, programs of study which may be begun either in September or February and which lead normally in from three to four years to the degree of Bachelor of Arts. The program of study in Co- lumbia College makes it possible for a well qualified student to satisfy the require- ments for both the bachelor's degree and a professional degree in law, medicine, technology or education in five to seven years according to the course. The Faculties of Political Science, PhiiIosoph3' and Pure Science, offerii>g advanced progi'ams of study and investigation leading to the degrees of Master of xlrts and Doctor of Philosophy. The Professional Schools of Law, established in 1858, ofiering courses of three years leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws and of one year leading to the degree of Sf aster of Laws. Medicine. The College of Physicians and Surgeons, established in 1807, offering two-year courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science and four- year courses leading to the degree of Doctor of Medicine. Mines, founded in l.'^Go, ofiering courses of tliree years leading to the degrees of Engineer of Mines and of Metallurgical Engineer. Chemistry and Engineering, set apart from School of Mines in 1896, offerin" three-year courses leading to degrees in Civil, Electrical, Mechanical and Chemical Engineering. Teachers College, founded in 1888, offering in its School of Education courses in the history and philosophy of education and the theory and practice of teaching, leading to appropriate diplomas and the degree of Bachelor of Science in Education ; and in its School of Practical Arts founded in 1912, courses in household and industrial arts, fine arts, music, and physical train- ing leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science in Practical Arts All the courses in Teachers College are open to men and women. These faculties offer courses leading to the degree of Master of Arts and Master of Science. Architecture, offering a program of indeterminate length leading to the degree of Bachelor of Arcliitecture and Master of Science. Journalism, I'ounded in 1912, offering a two-year course leading to the degree of Bachelor of Literature in Journalism. The regular requirement for ad- mission to this course is two years of college work. Business, founded in 1916, offering two and three-year courses in business train- ing leading to appropi'iate degrees. Dentistry, founded in 1917, offering four-year courses leading to appropriate degrees. Pharmacy. The New York College of Pharmacy, founded in 18^1, ofiering courses of two, three and four years leading to appropriate certificates and degrees. In the Summer Session the University offers courses giving both general and professional training which may be taken either with or without regard to an academic degree or diploma. Through its system of University Extension the Univprsily oilers many courses of study to persons unable otiierwise to receive academic training. Home Study courses carrying no academic credit are offered to persons imable to attend courses conducted at the University. The Institute of Arts and Sciences firovides lectures, concerts, readings and recitals — approximately two liundred and fifty in niunber — in a single season. The price of the University Catalogue is twenty-five cents postitaid. Detailed information regarding the work in any department will be furnished without charge upon application to tlie Secretary of Columbia Universiiy, Kew York, N. Y. Columbia ^nm^tjslh^ FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE Nicholas Murray Butler, LL.D., President. Munroe Smith, LL.D., Piofessoi of Roman Law. E. R. A. Seligman, LL.D., Professor of Political Economy. J. B. Moore, LL.D., Piolessor of International Law. W. A. Dunning, LL.D., Professor of History. F. H. Giddings, LL.D., Professor of Sociology. J. B. Clark, LL.D., Professor of Political Economy. H. R. Seager, Ph.D., professor of Political Economy. H. L. Moore, Ph. D., Professor of Political Economy. F, J. E. Woodbridge, LL.D., Dean. W. R. Shepherd, Ph.D., Professor of History. J. T. Shotwell, Ph.D., Professor oi History. V. G. Simkhovitch, Ph.D., Professor of Economic History. H. Johnson, A. yi.. Professor of History. S. McC. Lindsay, LL.D., Professor of Social Legislation. C." J. H. Hayes, Ph.D., Professor of History. A. A. Tenney, Ph.D., Assistant Pro- fessor of Sociology. R. L. Schuyler, Ph.D., Associate Professor of History. R. E. Chaddock, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Statistics. D. S. Muzzey, Ph.D., Professor of Histor}''. T. R. Powell, Ph.D., Professor of Constitutional Law. H. L. McBain, Ph.D., Professor of Municipal Science. B- B. Kendrick, Ph.D., Associate Professor of History. C- D. Hazen, Ph.D., Professor of History. W. F. Ogburn, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology. Dixon R. Fox, Ph.D., Associate Professor of History. W. W. Rock- well Ph.D., Associate Professor of Church Histoiy in Union Theological Seminary. F. J. Foakes Jackson, D. D., Professor of Christian Institutions in Union Theological Seminary. Roswell C. McCrea, Ph.D., Professor of Economics. Henry Parker Willis Ph.D., Professor of Banking. Lindsay Rogers, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Government. Austin P. Evans, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of History. SCHEME OF INSTRUCTION Courses are offered under the following departments: (i) History, (2) Public Law and Comparative Jurisprudence, (3) Economics, (4) Social Science. The Faculty does not aim to offer courses that cover comprehensively all of the sub- jects that are included within the fields of its interests. GENERAL COURSES General courses involve on the part of the student work outside of the classroom ; but no such course involves extensive investigation to be presented in essay or other form. History, twenty-one general courses. Public Law and Comparative Jurisprudence^ twelve general courses. Economics, thirteen general courses. Social Science, seven general courses. RESEARCH COURSES Research courses vary widely in method and content; but every such course involves on the part of the student extensive work outside the classroom. History, thirteen research courses. Public Law and Comparative Jurisprudence, eight research courses. Economics, ten research courses. Social Science, ten research courses. The degrees of A.M. and Ph.D. are given to students who fulfill the requirements pre- scribed. (For particulars, see Columbia University Bulletins of Information, Faculty of Political Science.) Any person not a candidate for a degree may attend any of the courses at anytime by payment of a proportional fee. Ten or more Cutting fellowships of 1 1000 each or more, four University fellowships of $650 each, two or three Gilder fellow- Bhips of I650— |8oo each, the Schiff fellowship of |6oo, the Curtis fellowship of $600, the Garth fellowship of $650 and a number of University scholarships of ^150 each are awarded to applicants who give evidence of special fitness to pursue advanced studies. Several prizes of from ^50 to $250 are awarded. The library contains over 700,000 volumes and students have access to other great collections in the city. in Historical and Political Science THIETY-FOURTH SERIES.— 1916.— ?4.00 (Complete in four numbers) I. The Boycott in American Trade Unions. By Leo Wolman. $1 .00: cloth, $1.25. IT. The Postal Power of Congress. By Lixdsay Rogers. ^1.00; cloth, $1.25. III. The Control of Strikes in American Trade Unions. By G. M. Janes. 75 cents; cloth, $1.00. IV. State Administration in Maryland. By Johx L. Donaldson. ^1.00; cloth, $1.25. THIRTY-FIFTH SERIES.— 1917. -$4.00 (Complete in three numbers) I. The Virginia Committee System and the American Revolution. By J. M. Leake. $1.00; cloth, $1.25. II. The Organizability of Labor. By W. O. Weyporth. $1.50. III. Party Organization and Machinery in Michigan since 1890. By A. C. MiLLSPAUGH. $1.00; cloth, $1.25. THIRTY-SIXTH SERIES,— 1918.— 14. 00 (Complete in four numbers) I. The Standard of Living in Japan. By K. Morimoto. $1.25; cloth, $1.50. II. Sumptuary Law in Nurnburg. By K. R. Greenfield. $1.25; clothj $1.50, HI. The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship. By R. Howell. $1.00; cloth, $1.25. IV. French Protestantism, 1559-1562. By C. G. Kelly. $1.25; cloth, $1.50. THIRTY-SEVENTH SERIES.- 1919.— $4.25 (Complete in four numbers) I. Unemployment and American Trade Unions. By D. P. Smelser, Jr. $1.25. II. The Labor Law of Maryland. By M. H. Lauchheimer. $1.25; cloth, $1.50. III. The American Colonization Society, 1817-1840. E. L. Fox. $2.00; cloth, S2.25. IV. The Obligation of Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution. By W. B. Hunting. $1.00; cloth, $1.25. THIRTY-EIGHTH SERIES.— 1920— $4.25 (Complete in three numbers) I. The United States Department of Agriculture. By W. L. Wanlasb. $1.25; cloth, $1.75. II. The Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers. By J. S. Robinson. $1.50; cloth, $2.00. III. The Employment of the Plebiscite in the Determination of Sovereignty^ By J. Mattern. $1.50. THIRTY-NINTH SERIES.— 1921.— $5.75 (Complete in three numbers) I. The Capitalization of Goodwill. By Kiompek Simpson. $1.00. II. The Rise of the Cotton Mills in the South. By Broadus Mitchell, $2.50. III. The International Molders' Union of North America. By Frank T. Stocktun. $1.50. THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS, : : : : Baltimore, Md. Published May 1, 1922 China at the Conference BY ^IV, W. WILLOUGHBY Professor of Political Science at The Johns Hopkins University Octavo. 435 pages. Price $3.00 This volume, in the form of a semi-official report, will take its place along side the author's well-known work "Foreign Rights and Interests in China," and will give the reader an accurate statement of the results of the recent Conference at Washington. Besides chapters explaining the reasons for the discus - sion by the Powers of the political and international situa- 'tion in the Far East, describing the organization and pro- cedure of the Conference, and estimating its results, there are chapters dealing severally with each of the important subjects discussed in the Conference and regarding which Treaties or Resolutions were adopted. In an Appendix the texts are given of these important documents. Inasmuch as, with the exception of a part of a single session which was devoted to the situation in Siberia, the entire work of the Conference so far as it dealt with polit- ical questions in the Pacific and Far East, was concerned v/ith the affairs of China, the present volume gives, in effect, a comprehensive account of the work of that Con- ference. In order that it may be quite complete in this respect there is given in the Appendix the statements made — there were no discussions — with reference to the Siberian situation. The Johns Hopkins Press Baltimore, Maryland, U. S. A. COWSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES. By WOODROW Wilson, LL.D , President ot the United Siales. Pp. vii + J36. OUR CHIEF MAGISTRATE AND HIS POWERS. By William Howard Taft, Tvventy-seventti President of tire United States. Pp. vii. -(- 165. CONSTITUTION.'IL POWER AND WORLD AFFAIRS. By George Suth- erland, former United Stales Senator fro'n Utah. Pp. vii -|- 202. WORLD ORGANIZATION AS AFFECTED BY THE NATURE OF THE MODERN STATE. By David Jayne Hill, LL.D., late .Vmerican Ambas- sador to Germany. Pp. ix -I-214. Reprinted with new Preface. THE GENIUS OF THE COMMON LAW. By the Right Honorable Sir Fred- erick Pollock, Bart., D.C.L., LL.D. Pp. vii-j- 141. THOMAS JEFFERSON. His Permanent Influence on American Institutions, By John Sharp Williams, L^. S. Senator from Mississippi. Pp. ix + 330. THE MECHANICS OF LAW MAKING. By Courtenay Ilbert, G. C. B., CierK of the House of Commons. Pp. viii -f- 209. LAW AND ITS ADMINISTRATION. By Harlan F. Stone, LL.D., Dean of the School of Law, Columbia University, Pp. vii -(- 232. AMERICAN CITY PROGRESS AND THE LAW. By Howard Lee Mc- Bain, Ph.D., Eaton Professor of Municipal Science and Administration, Co- lumbia University. Pp. viii -f 269. Uniformly boand, 12mo, cloth. Each, $2.00 net. THE LAW AND THE PRACTICE OF MUNICIPAL HOME RULE. By How- ard Lee McB viN, Eaton Proles.sor of .Muuicipal Science and Administration in Columbia University. 8vo, cloth, pp. xviii -|- 724. Price, )?5.oo nei, STUDIES IN SOUTHERN HISTORY AND POLITICS. In.scribed to William Arclnbald Dunning, Lieber Professor of History and Political Philosophy in Columbia University, by his former pupils, the autiiors. A collection of lifteen essays. 8vo, cloth, pp. viii -(- 294. $j 00 net. THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING BROTHERHOOD AND THE LEAGUE OP NATIONS. By Sir Charles Walston (Walustein), M, \ , Litt. D., for- merly Professor in the University of Cambridge. i2mo, boavds, pp. xx-iii-224, $1.60 net. RECORDS OF CIVILISATION: SOURCES AND STUDIES HELLENIC CIVILIZATION. By G. W. Boisford, Ph.D. and E. G. Sihler, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. 719. .^4.00 ne/. THE HISTORY OF THE FRANKS BY GREGORY BISHOP OF TOURS. Selections, translated with notes. By Ernest Breuaut, Pti.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. XXV -j- 284. Map. ^3.00 nei. THE BOOK OF THE POPES (LIBER PONTIFICxlLIS). Translated with an introduction. By LouiSE RoPES Loomis, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. xxii + 169. ^2.50 ne/. AH INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF HISTORY. By James T. SHtrrWELL, Professor of History in Columbia University. 8vo, cloth, pp. xii-f 339. $4 00 net THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN ITS HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT. By JULiu.s A. Bkwicr, Prof.-s-;or of Old Testament Ex- egesis in Union Theological Seminary. 8vo, clolh, pp. xiv -f- 452. $5.00 «(■/. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS Columbia University, New York Oity LONGMANS, GREEN & CO. THE VILLAGE LABOURRR. 1760-1832: A Study in the Government of Eng- land before the Reform Bill. By J. L. and Barbara Hammond. 8vo. $2.25 mt. " There is not a chapter in Mr. and Mrs. Hammond's book which fails to throw- new light on enclosures or on the administration of the poor laws and the game laws, and on the economic and social conditions of the period. ... A few other studies of governing class rule before 1867 as searchin^ly analytical as Mr. and Mrs. Hammond's book will do much to weaken this tradition and to make imperative much recasting of English History from 1688."— — Am. Political Science Review. THE TOWN LABOURER, 1760-1832 : The New Civilization. By J. L. Ham- mond and Barbara Hammond, Authors of " The Village Labourer. 1760-1832 : A Study in the Government of England before the Reform Bill." 8vo. $3.25 tut. This volume is the first part of a study of the Industrial Revolution. It will be completed by another volume giving in detail the history of the work- people in various industries, with a full account of the t^uddite rising and of the disturbances connected with the adventures of the a^-ent provocateur Oliver . " Never has the story been told with such masterly precision, or with such illuminating reference to the original sources of the time, as in this book .... The perspective and proportion are so perfect that the life of a whole era, analyzed searchingly and profoundly, passes before your eyes as you read." — The mat. " A brilliant and important achievement. ' The Town Labourer ' will rank as an indispensable source of revelation and of inspiration."— 7%« Nation (London). EN3LISH PRISONS UNDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT. By Sidney and Bea- trice Webb. With Preface by Bernard Shaw. 8vo. $5.00 net. This detailed history of Prison Administration from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century, uniform with the authors' other books on English Local Government, supplies the historical background for the companion volume, English Prisons To-day, being the Report of the Prison System Inquiry Commit- tee, The characteristic Preface by Bernard Shaw, extendins to over 70 pages, discusses the Theory of Punishment and propounds a revolutionary change in the treatment of criminals. EM3LI3H PRISONS TO-DAY: Being the Report of the Prison System Inquiry Committee. Edited by Stephen Haohouse, M.A., and A. Fenner Brockway. With 6 Illustrations. 8vo. $8.50 net. In the First part of the Report a detailed description is given of the Eng- lish Prison System as it is operating to-day. In the Second Part a description is given of the mental and moral effects of imprisonment. The conclusions of the Committee are based upon evidence received from prison officials, work- ers among discharged prisoners, and ex-prisoners of many types, supple- mented by a study of official and unofficial literature. THE HUMAN FACTOR IN BUSINESS By B. Seebohm Rowntree, Author of "Industrial Unrest: A Way Out," "Poverty: A Study of Town Life," "How the Labourer Lives," "The Human Needs of Labour," etc. Crown 8vo. $2.00 net. " Seebohm Rowntree's Human Factor in Business is a good example of the attitude taken by the benevolent employer of high moral integrity ; it un- derstands the whole human problem —except the humanity. It is better, I think, than most American employers' accounts of their workers' needs ; but it is a purely external view of the workers' psychology."— Harold J. Laski in Tk; Survey. Fifty-five Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK LONGMANS, GREEN & CO. THE ADMINISTRATION OF INDUSTRIAL iiNTERPRISES. With Special Reference to Factory Practice. By Edward D. Jones, PhD , Professor of Coaimerce and Industry, University of Mich- igan. Witli Illustrations and Bibliographies. Large i2mo. $2.35 net. {^Seventh Impression). "To the head of any industrial organization, and especially to the executives of those which have not long been created and are 5f.U faced with many of the problems dis- cussed in the volume, i: should be particularly useful." — Wall Street yournal. THE WORKS MANAGER TO-DAY: An Address Prepared for a Series of Private Gatherings of Works Managers. By Sidney Wecb, Professor of Public Administration in the University of London (School of Economic and Political Scieice). Crown 8vo. $1.35 net An examination, in easy lecture form, of the problems of management of any considerable industrial enterprise, especially in relation to the or- ganization of labor, methods of remuneration, " .Scientific Management" and " Welf;\re Work," piecework and premium bonus systems, restriction of output and increase of production, the maintenance of discipline, etc. THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. By Ernest Ludlow Bogart, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics in the University of Illinois. With 26 Maps and 95 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. i?2.oo. READINGS IN THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. By E. L. Bogart, Ph.D., and C. M. Thompson, Ph.D., of the University of Illinois, 8vo. $3-20. A source book which collects in one volume contemporary material illustrating the most important economic developments in the country's history. The material is arranged as follows : Eight chapters deal with the United States before 180S; nine with the period of 1S0S-1860; and si-x with the period since i860. RAILROADS. In two volumes. By William Z. Ripley, Ph.D. Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Economics in Harvard University, author of " Railway Problems," etc. Vol. I. RATES AND REGULATION, with 41 maps and diagrams. 8vo. s4 00 net Vol. 11. FINANCE AND ORGANIZATION, with 29 maps and diagrams. 8vo. ^4.00 net. PRINCIPLES OF ECONOMICS: with Special Reference to Amer- ican Conditions. By Edwin R. A. Seligman, LL.D. McVickar Professor of Political Economy in Columbia University. Ninth Edi- tion, Revised (1921). $3.00 net. AN ESSAY ON MEDIEVAL ECONOMIC TEACHING. By George O'Brien, L-itt.D., author of " The Economic History of Ireland in the Seventeenth Century," "The Economic History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century, etc." $4.75 net. It is the aim of this essay to examine and present in as concise a form as possible the principles and rules which guided and regalued men in tlieir economic and social relations during the period known as tiie Middle Ages. Fifty-five Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK p. S. KING & SON, Ltd. WEALTH AND TAXABLE CAPACITY Bv Sir JosiAH Stamp, K.B.E., D.Sc. Being the Newmarch Lectures of 1920-2L 10s. 6d. Postage yd. In the House of Commons during the Debate on the Budget, April, 1922, these Lectures were referred to. Mominn Pofl : " The book should be read, and read carefully, by all who are concerned in post-war financial problems. . . . When the book has been mastered the reader will be able to consider most of the current financial problems without being taken in by the many »peeious and ingenious remedies which are put forward." S0CL4LISATI0N IN THEORY AND PRACTICE By Heineich Steobel, Finance Alinistei* in the Prussian Revolutionary Government of November, 1918. Tmnslated from the original by H. J. Stenning. 1 Os. 6d. Postage 9d. New f^tatesmnn : " Herr Strobel has written an exceeding valuable book . . . brings out clearly many problems and difficulties which have hardly begun to be appreciated here. Above all, he stresses the almost inevitable failure of atternpts to devise plans of Socialisa- tion on the spur of the moment. ... It would do every believer in Socialisation good to read Herr Strobel's book and to endeavour to think out its applications to the situation in this countr>\" THE TRADE CYCLE An Account of the Causes Producing Rhythmical Changes in the Activity of Business. By F. Lavinc4T0X, M.A., Girdler's Lecturer in the University of Cambridge. 3s. 6d. Postage 4d. Economist: "Mr. Lavington has performed a difficult and very useful task extremely ■well in the volume in which he explains in terms capable of being understood by all and sundrv. provided they are prerared to concentrate their attention, the workings and prog- ress of Trade Cycles ... at once the best and simplest account of the fluctuations of indus- try that has been published." A HISTORY OF THE CANADIAN RAILWAY By Haeold a. Ixxis, Ph.D., Chicago. 123. 6d. Postage 9d. In this Study an attempt has been made to trace the HLstory of the Canadian Pacific Railway from *n Evolutionary and Scientific point of view. Contp;nts :— Introduction : The Pacific Coast; The Hudson Bay Drainage Basin ; On the St. Lawrence From National to Economic Union (18TO-1SS0)— Fulfilment of the Contract— Expan.sion of the Road and the Development of Freight Traffic — The Freight Rate Situa- tion—Passenger Traffic— Earnings from Operations— Expenses— Total Receipts— Capital— < 'ODclusion— Aopendix. THE PRINCIPLE OF OFFICIAL INDEPENDENCE. WITH PARTIC- ULAR REFERENCE TO THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF CANADA By R. MacGregor Dawson, M. A., D.Sc. (Econ.). With Introduction by Prof. Graham Wallas, M.A. 10s. 6d. Postage 9d. This book is an attempt to analyse the conception of independence in the Modern State— an idea which, though it finds expression in a multitude of practical forms, has been ig- nored by the majority of writers on Politics. In order to make the discussion more con- crete, the author has thought it "rriser to confine himself to Canadian Government, and has only enlarged this sphere when comparison with some Other country demanded it. Orchard House, 2-4 Great Smith Street Westminster, England The Academy of Political Science in the City of New York The Academy of Political Science, founded in 1880, is com- posed of men and women interested in political, economic and social questions. Members receive the Political Science Quar- terly and the Proceedings of the Academy, and are entitled to admission to all meetings, lectures and receptions under the auspices of the Academy, The annual dues are five dollars. Address the Secretary of the Academy of Political Science, Columbia University, New York. POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY Managing Editor PARKER T. MOON The Quarterly is devoted to the historical, statistical and comparative study of politics, economics, sociology and public law. Every article is signed and expresses simply the personal view of the writer. Each issue contains scholarly reviews and brief book notes. A valuable Record of Political Events throughout the v/orld is printed as a supplement to the Sep- tember issue. Address editorial communications to the Politi- cal Science Quarterly; business communications to the Acad- emy of Political Science, Columbia University, New York. PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE The Proceedings are issued by the Academy as a record of its activities and as a means of giving detailed treatment to special subjects of importance. Recent issues arc : National Expenditures and Public Economy, 208 pp., Industrial Co- operation, 256 pp., Railroads and Business Prosperity, 130 pp. Price $1.50 each in paper covers. A full list of the numbers thus far issued will be sent on request. Address Academy of Political Science, Columbia University, New York. Sliiaics in History, Economies and Public Law edited by Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University VOLinilE I, 1891-92. 2nd Ed., 1897. 396 pp. Price, clot'tt, $3.50. 1. Tlie DIvoi'ce Problem. AStudy In Statistics. By Walter F. Willcox, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. a. The TTIstory of Tni'iff Administration in the United States, Irom Colonial Times to tlio McJilnley Administrative Bill. By John Dean Goss, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 3. History of Municipal Land O-wnersliip on Manhattan Island. By GsoRCK AsHTON Black, Ph.D. Price, ^i.oo. 4. Financial History of Massaclinsetts. By Charles H, J. Douglas, Ph.D. Price, |i.oo. VOLUME II, 1892-93. (See note on last page.) 1. [5] The Economics of the Russian Tillage. By Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph.D. {Out of prints. 2. [6] Bankruptcy. A Study in Comparative Legislation. By Samuel W. DuNscoMB, Jr., Ph.D. {I^oi sold separately.) 3. [7J Special Assessments ; A Study in Municipal Finance. By Victor Rosewater, Ph.D. Second Edition, 1898. Price, $1.00. VOLUME III, 1893. 465 pp. (See note on last page.) 1. [8] ♦History of Elections in American Colonies. By Cortland F Bishop, Ph.D. {A'ot sold separately.) 2. [9] The Commercial Policy of England toAvard the American Colonies. By George L. Beer, A. M. (Out of print.) VOLUME IV, 1893-94. 438 pp. (See note on last page.) 1. [10] Financial Histoi-y of Virginia. By William Z. Ripley, Pk.D. (Not sold separately.) 2. [ I 11* The Inheritance Tax. ByMAX West, Ph.D. Second Edition. 1908 Price. |2oo. 5. [1»J Histo''v of Taxation in Vermont. By Frederick .\. Wood, Ph D.(Oa^ of print.) VOLUME V, 1895-96. 498 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 1. [131 Double Taxation in the United States. By Francis Walkbr, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 3. [14] The Separation of Governmental Po'wers. By William Bondy. LL.B., Ph.D. Price, ^i.oo. 8. [15] Municipal Government in Michigan and Ohio. By Delos F. Wilcox. Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. VOLUME VI, 1896. 601 pp. Price, cloth. $4.50 ; Paper covers, $4.00. [16] History of Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania. By William Robert Shepherd, Ph.D. VOLUIIE VII, 1896. 512 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 1. [17] History of the Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth Gov- ernment In Massachusetts. By Harrv A. Gushing, Ph.D. Price, jjz.co. %. [18]*Speculation on the StoclcandProduce Exchanges of the United States By Henry Crosby Emery, Ph.D. Price, J1.50. VOLUME Vni, 1896-98. 551 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [19] The Struggle between President Johnson and Congress over Recon- struction. By Gharlbs Ernest Ghadsky, Ph.D. Price, gi.oo. 2. [20] Recent Centralizing Tendencies in State Educational Administra- tion. By William Clarence Webster, i-h.D. Price, 75 cents. 8. [8 1] The Abolition of Privateering and the Declaration of Paris. By Francis R. Stark, LL.B., Ph.D. Price, Ji 00. 4. [29] Public Administration In Massachusetts. The Relation of Central to Local Activity. By Robert Harvey Whittek, Ph.D. Price, ^i.oo, VOLUME IS, 1897-98. 617 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [23] *English Local Government of To-day. A Study of the Relations of Central and Local Government. By Milo Roy Maltbie, Ph.D. Price, j,2.oo. 2. [24] German TVage Theories. A History of their Development. „ ,__ , By James W. Crook, Ph.D. Price, ^i.oo. 8. [25] Tne Centralization of Administration in New York State. By John Archibald Fairlib, Ph.D. Price, ^i.oo^ VOLUME X, 1898-99. 409 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 1. [S6] Sympatlietie Strikes and Sympatlietio Lockouts. By Frud S. Hall, Ph.D. Price^ $i.oa 2. [37] *KIiode Island and tlie Formation of ihe IJnion. By FnANK Oreenb Bates, Ph.D. Price, iSt.so. 3. [S8]. Centralized Administration of Liquor La-ws in the American Com^ nionwealtlis. By Clement Moore Lacey Sites, Ph.D. Price, gi.oo. VOLUME XI, 1899. 495 pp. Price, clotli, 4.00; paper covers, $3.50. ■ f 9] Tlie Growtli of Cities. By Adna Ferrin Wbbhr Ph.D. VOLUME XII, 1899-1900. 586 pp. Price, clotli, $4.00. i't^ [30] History and Functions of Central Labor Unions. By William Maxwell Burke, Ph.D. Price, ^i.oo. ^, [31.] Colonial Imniiaration Laws. By Edward Emerson Proper, A.M. Price, 75 cents. S» [38] History of Military Pension Legislation in the United States. By William Henry Glasson, Ph.D. Price, ^i.oo. 4. [33] History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau. By Charles h,. Mekriam, Jr., Ph.D. Price, $1.50. VOLUME XIII, 1901. 570 pp. Price, clotli, $4.00. 1. [34] The Legal Property Kelations of Married Parties. By IsiDOR LoKE, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 2. [35] Political Nativlsm in New York State. By Louis Dow Scisco, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. 8. [38] The Reconstruction of Georgia. By Edwin C. Woollky, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. VOLUME XIV, 1901-1902. 576 pp. Price, clotli, $4.00. i. [37] Loyallsm in Nevr York during the American Revolution. By Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph.D. Price. J2.oo. 2. [38] The Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance. By Allan H. Willett, Ph.D. Price, Ji.so. 3. [39] The Eastern Question: A Study In Diplomacy. By Stephen P. H. Duggan, Ph.D. Price, $i.oo. VOLUME XV, 1902. 427 pp. Price, clotli, $3.50; Paper covers, $3.00. [40] Crime in Its Relation to Social Progress. By Arthur Cleveland Hall, Ph.D. VOLUME XVI, 1202-1903. 547 pp. Price, clotli, $4.00. 1, [41] The Past and Present of Commerce In Japan. By Yktaro Kinosit.\, Ph.D. Price, ^1.50. 5. [43] The Employment of Women in the Clothins; Trade. By Mabel Huro Willbt, Ph.D. Price, $1,50. 3. [43] The Centralization of Administration in Ohio. By Samuel P. Orth, Ph.D. Price, J1.50. VOLUME XVII, 1903. 635 pp. Price, clotli, $4.00. 1. [44] *Centralizing Tendencies in the Administration of Indiana. By William A. Rawlks, Ph.D. Price, fa. so. S. [45] Principles of Justice in Taxation, By Stephen F. Weston, Ph.D. Price, S82.00. VOLUME XVIII, 1903. 753 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 3. [46] The Administration of lowo. By Harold Martin Bowman, Ph.D. Price, ^1.50. 3. [47] Turgot and the Sis Edicts. By Robert P. Shepherd, Ph.D. Price, J1.50. 3. [48] Hanover and Prussia, 1795-1803. By Guy Stanton Ford, Ph.D. Price, i2.cx>. VOLUME XIX, 1903-1905. 588 pp. Price, clotli, $4.00. a. [4 9] .TosialiTucker, Eccnomist. By Waltpr Ernest Clahk PhD. Price, $1.50. 2. 150] History and Criticism of the Labor Theory of Vnltio Ju 3':ngllsU Polit- ical Economy. By Albekx C. WmrAKUK, Ph.l'. Price, Jt. 50. 3. [51] Trade Unions and the Law In New York. t«. t^ r> • .. By Gbokgk Gorham Croat, Ph.D. Price, ^i.oo. VOLUME XX, 1904. 514 pp. Price, clotli. $3.50. VOLUME XXI, 1904. 746 pp. Price, clotli, .?4.50. 1. [54] *TreatIes, their Making and Enforcement. t,u r. ti * '■ * By Samuel B. Crandall, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 3. [55] The Sociology of a New Tork City inock. nu t^ d ^ * ' ' By Thomas jESsnJoNKS, Ph.D. Price, $1.00. 3. [56] Pre-Maithnslan Doctrines of Popii atJon . t,u r> o • . «- *- ^ By Charles E. Stangeland, Ph.D. Price, Ja. 50. VOLUME XXII. 1905. 520 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50; paper covers, $3.00. (57] The Historical Development of the Poor L.aw of Connecticut. By Kdwakd W. Catbn, Ph. D. VOLUME XXin, 1905. 594 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [58J The Economics of Land Tenure In Georgia. Hy Enoch Marvin Banks, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 'i. [59] Mistake In Contract. A Study In Comparative .Inrisprndonce. By Edwin C. IMcKeag, Ph.D. Price, |i.oo. ;}. [60] Combination In the Mlnlner Industry. Ily Henry R. Mussky, Ph.D. Price. Ji.oo. 4. [01] The English Craft Guilds and the Governnient. By Stella Kramer. Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo, VOLUME XXIV, 1905. 521 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [62] The Place of Magic in the Intellectual History of Europe. By Lynn Tkorndike, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo, 2. [G3] The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code. By William K. Boyd, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. 3. [64] *The International Position of Japan as a Great Power. By Skiji G. Hishida, Ph.D. Price, $2.oo, VOLUME XXV, 1906-07. 600 pp. (Sold only in Sets.) 1. [65] *MunicIpal Control of Public Utilities. By O. L. Pond, Ph.D. {JVot sold separate!^.) 2. [6G] The Budget in the American Common w^ealths. By Eugene E. Agger, Ph.D. Price, ^1.50. 3. [67] The Finances ol Cleveland. By Charles C. Williamson, Ph.D. Price, 52.00. VOLUME XXVI . 1007.. 559 pp. Pi-ice, cloth, $4.00. 1. [6S] Trade and Currency in Early Oregon. By James H. Gilbert, Ph.D. Price, gi.oo. 2. [69] LiUther's Table Talk. By Preserved Smith, Ph.D. Price, ;^i.oo. 3. [70] The Tobacco Industry in the United States. By ilEYER Jagobstbin, Ph.D. Price, $z 50. 4. [7 1] Social Democracy and Population. Py Alvan a. Tenney, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents, VOLUME XXVII, 1907. 578 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [72] The Economic Policy of Kobert "VValpole. By NoRRis A. Bkisco, Ph.D. Price, J1.50, 2. [73] The United States Steel Corporation. By Abraham Berglund, Ph.D. Price, Ji 50. 3. [74] The Taxation of Corporations in Massachusetts. By Harrv G. Friedman, Ph.D. Price, J1.50. VOLUME XXVin. 1907. 554 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [75] DeWltt Clinton and the Origin of the Spoils System in New^ York. By Howard Lee McBain, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 5. [76] The Development of the Legislature of Colonial Virginia. By Elmer I. Miller, Ph.D. Price, J1.50, 3. [7 7] The Distribution of Ownership. By Joseph Harding Underwood, Ph.D. Price, Ji. 50. VOLUME XXIX, 1908. 703 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [78] Early Xew England To"wns. By Annb Bush MacLear, Ph.D. Price, Ji. 50. S. [79] 2s ev7 Hampshire as a lioyal Province. By William H. Fry, Ph.D. Price, $3.00. VOLUME XXX, 1S08. 712 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50 ; Paper covers, $4.00. [80] The Province of New Jersey, 1664—1738. By Edwin P. Tanner, Ph.D. VOLUME ZXXI, 1808. 575 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [81] Private Freight Cars and American Railroads. By L. D. H. Weld, Ph.D. Price, . t^ c i a-.- t. . ,, By Louis Lhvink, Ph.D. Second edition. 1914. Price, ffr.50. 4. [117] A HooRler Village. By Nkwbll Lhkov Sims, Ph.U. Price. f,i.yx. VOLUME XLVII, 1912. 544 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1, [lis] The Politics of Mlcblgan, 1865-1878, By Harriettk M. Dilla, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. a. [1 19] •The United States Beet Sugar Industry and the Tariff. By Roy G, Blakky, Ph.D. Price, Ja. 00. VOLUME SLVni, 1912. 493 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [190] Isldor of Seville. By Ernest Brbhaut, Ph. D. Price, J2.00. %. [121] Progress and Uniformity In ChIld-r,abor L,effIslRtion. By William Fielding Ogburn, Ph.D. Price, f 1.75. VOLUME ZLIX, 1912. 592 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [1S51 British Radicalism 1791=1797. By Walter Phelps Hall. Price,$2.oo. S. L123J A. Comparative Study of the Lavy of Corporations. By Arthur K. Kuhn, Ph.D. Price, S1.50. S. [124] rChe Negro at Work in New Tork City. By GhorgkE. Hatnes, Ph.D. Price, J1.25. VOLUME L, 1911. 481 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [125] 'The Spirit of Chinese Philanthropy. By Yai Yue Tsu, Ph.D. Price, ^i.oo. S. [12UJ *The Alien in China. By Vi. Kyuin Wellington Koo, Ph.D. Price, 552.50. VOLUME LI, 1912. 4to. Atlas. Price: cloth, $1.50; paper covers, $1.00. 1. [1S7] The Sale of Liquor in the South. By Leonard S. Blakky, Ph.D. VOLUME LII, 1912. 489 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [1281 *Provincial and tioeal Taxation in Canada. Bv Solomon Vinbberg, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. S. [129] *The Distribution of Income. By Frank Hatch Streightofp, Ph.D. Price, ^1,50. S. [130] *The Finances of Vermont. By Frederick A. Wood, Ph.D. Price, ^i.oo. VOLUME LIII, 1913. 789 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; paper, $4.00. [131] The Civil War and Reconstruction in Tlorida. By W. W. Davis, Ph.D. VOLUME LIV, 1913. 604 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [133] * Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States. By Arnold Johnson Lieh, Ph.D. Price, 75 cents. 9. [133] The Supreme Court and Unconstitutional Legislation. By Blaine Free Moore, Ph.D. Price, ^i.oo. S. [134] *Indian Slavery in Colonial Times ^within the Present liimits of the United States. By Almon Wheeler Lauber, Ph.D. Price, I3.00. VOLUIVIE LV, 1913. 665 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [135] *A Political History of the State of Xew Tork. By Homer A. Stebbins, Ph.D. Price, J4.00. S. [136] *The EarlyPersecutionsof the Christians. By Leon H. Cani'ibld, Ph.D. Price, J1.50. VOLUME LVI, 1913. 406 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. 1. [137] Speculation on the New York Stock Exchange, 1904-1907. By Algernon Ashbuknek Osborne. Price, $1.50. S. [138] The Policy of the United States towards Industrial Monopoly. By Osw.vLD Whitman Knauth, Ph.D. Price, ;Soo. VOLUME LVII, 1914. 670 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [139] *The Civil Service of Great Britain. By Robert Moses, Ph.D. Price, J2.00. S. [140] The Financial History of New York State. By Don C. Sowers. Price, J2.S0, VOLUME LVIII, 1914. 684 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50; paper, $4.00. [141] Reconstruction in North Carolina. By J. G. DB RouLHAC Hamilton, Ph.D. VOLUME LIX, 1914. 625 pp. Pries, cloth, $4.50. 1. [148] The Development of Modern Turkey by means of Its Press. By Ahmed Emin, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. S. [143] The System of Taxation In China, 1614-1911. By Shao-Kwan Chen, Ph. D. Price, ;gi.oo. 8. [144] The Currency Problem in China. By Wen Pin Wei, Ph.D. Price, 31.25. 4. 1 146] *Jewish Immigration to the United States. By Samuel Joseph, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. VOLUME LX. 1914. 516 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [146] *Constantine tlie Great and Christianity. By Christopher Bush Coleman, Ph.D. Price, Ji.oo. S. [1471 Tlie Establishment of Christianity and the Proscription of Pa- ganism. By Maud Aline HuTTMAN, Ph.D. Price, J2.00. VOLUME LXI. 1914. 496 pp. Price, cloth, $4-00. 1. [148] *The Kallway Conductors: A Study In Organized Labor. By Edwin Clyde Robbins. Price, Si.S". S. [149] *The Finances of the City of New Yoi-k. By Yin-Ch'u Ma, Ph.D. Price, $2.50. VOLUME LXII. 1914. 414 pp. Price, cloth, $3.50. [150] The Journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction. 39th Congress, 1865 — 1867. By Benjamin B. Kendrick, Ph.D. Price, I3.00. VOLUME LXIII. 1914. 661 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [151] Emlle Durkheim's Contributions to Sociological Theory. By Charles Elmer Gehlke, Ph.D. Price, Ji. 30. 8. [15S] The Nationalization of Eailyrays in Japan. By TosHiHARU Watarai, Ph.D. Price, Ji.as. 3. [153] Population: A Stud.y In Malthusianism. By Warren S. Thompson, Ph.D. Price, J1.7S. VOLUME LXIV. 1815. 646 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [154] *Reconstruction in Georgia. By C. Mildred Thompson, Ph.D. Price, 3.00. a. [155] *The Kevlew of American Colonial Legislation by the Klnsr In Council. By Elmer Beecher Russell, Ph.D. Price, $1.75. VOLUME LXV. 1915. 624 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [156] *The Sovereign Council of Ne-w France By Raymond Du Bois Cahall, Ph.D. Price, $2.35, 3. [157] *Sclentiflc Management (3rd. ed. 193S). By Horace B. Drury, Ph.D. Price, fa.oo. VOLUME LXVI. 1915. 655 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [158] *The Recognition Policy of the United States. By Julius Goebel, Jr., Ph.D. Price. ^3.00. 8. [159] Railway Problems in China. By Chih Hsu, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 3. [160] *The Boxer Rebellion. By Paul H. Clements, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. VOLUME LXVII. 1916. 5S8 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [161] ^Russian Sociology. By Julius F. Heckkr, Ph.D. Price, $2.50. 8. 116'3J State Regulation of Railroads in the South. By Maxwell Fekguson, A. M., LL.B. Price, Jr. 75. VOLUME LXVIIL 1916. 518 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. [168] The Origins of the Islamic State. By Philip K. Hitti, Ph.D. Price, I4.00. VOLUME LXIX. 1916. 489 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [164] Railway Monopoly and Rate Regulation. , „ ^ r,u ,^ r. • .. By Robert J. McFall, Ph.D. Price, Ja oo. S. [165] The Butter Industry in the United States. „u t^ „ • .. By Edward WiBST, PhD. Price, ^2.00. VOLUME LXX. 1916. 540 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. [166] Mohammedan Theories of Flnance^^ ^ , r.u .-. t> • .. By Nicolas P. Aghnidbs, Ph.D. Price, I4.00. VOLUME LXXI. 1916. 476 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [167] The Commerce of Louisiana during the French Kogime, 1699—1768. By N. M. Miller bURKEY, Ph.D. Price, $3.50. VOLUME LXXIL 1916. 542 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. "168] American Men of Letters: Their Nature and Nurture. By Edwin LcAvnT Clakkh, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. 8. [169] The Tariff Problem In China. l!y Chin Chu, Ph.D. Price, I1.30. 8. fl70l The Marketing of Perishable Food Produc^ts^^^^^^ p^^^ PHce, $1.50. VOLUME LXXIII. 1917. 616 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. 1171] •The Social aud Economic Aspects of the Chartist Movement. By Frank F. Rosenblatt, Ph.l). Price, (2.00. 8. [178] •The Decline of the Chartist Movement. By Preston William Slosson, Ph.D. Price, ^2.00. 3. (1731 Chartism and the Churches. By H. U. Faulkner, Ph.D. Price, ji.zs. VOLUME LXXIV. 1917. 548 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [1741 The Rise of JEcclesiastlcal Control in Quebec. By Walter A. Riddell, Ph.D. Price, $1.75. 3. [1751 Political Opinion In Massacliusetts during the Civil War and Re- ooustructlou. By Editk Ellen Warf, Ph.D. Price, $1.75. 3. [170] Collective Harealnlng: In the liithogrraphic Industry. By H. E. HoAGLAND, Ph.D. Price, gi.oo VOLUME LXXV. 1917. 410 pp. Price, cloth, J?4.00. An extra-illustrated and bound volume is publislied at S5.00. 1. [177] ^'eve York as an Eighteenth Century Municipality. Priorto 1731. By Arthur Everett Peterson, Ph.D. Price, $2 oo 2. [178J 2^ev7 Toi-k as an Eighteenth Centui-y Municipality. 1731-1776. By George William Edwards, Ph.D. Price, $2.00. VOLUME LXXVI. 1917. 489 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [179] *Economlc and Social History of Chovran County, Xortli Carolina. By W. Scott Bovce, Ph.D. Price, $2.50. 8. [180] Separation of State and Local Kevenues in the LTnited States. By Mabel Newcomer, Ph.D. Price, J1.7S. VOLUME LXXVII. 1917. 473 pp. Pries, clcth, $4.00. [181] American Civil Cliurcli Law. By Carl Zollmann, LL.B. Price, $3.50. VOLUME LXXVIII. 1917. 647 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. [183] Tbe Colonial Mereliants a.nd the American Revolution. By Arthur Meier Schlesikger, Ph.D. Price, ]!4.oo. VOLUME LXXIX. 1317-1818. 635 pp. Pries, cloth, ?4.50. 1. [183] Contemporary Theories of Unemployment and Unemployment Relief. By Frederick C. Mills, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. a. [184] The French Assembly of 1848 and American Constitutional Doc- trine. By Eugene Newton Curtis, Ph.D. Price, ^^3. 00. VOLUME LXXX. 1818. 448 pp. Price, cloth, $4-00. 1. [185] *"ValuatIon and Rate Making. By Robsrt L. Hale, Ph.D. Price, fi.50. 8. [186] Tbe Enclosure of Open Fields In Eng-iand. By Harriet Bradley, Ph.D. Price, $1.25, 3. [187] Tiie Land Tax in Cliina. By H. L. Huang, Ph.D. Price, 51.30. VOLUME LXXXL 1918. 601pp. Price, cloth $4.50. 1. [1S8] Social Life In Rome in the Time of Plautus and Terence. By Georgia W. Leffingwell, Ph.D. Price, $1.35. 2. [189] *Australian Social Development. By Clarence H. Northcott, Ph.D. Price, $2.50. 3. [190] *Factory Statistics and Industrial Fatigue. By Philip S. Florence, Ph.D. Price, 51.25. VOLUME LXXXIL 1918-1919. 576 pp. Price, cloth, $4.50. 1. [191] Nev?- England and the Bavarian Illuminati. By Vernon Stauffsr, Ph.D. Price, $3.00. 3. [193] Resale Price Maintenance. By Claudius T. Murchison, Ph.D. Price, $1.50. VOLUME LXXXIII. 1919. 432 pp. Price, cloth, $400. [193] The I. W. W. Second Edition, 1920. By Paul F. Brissendkn, Ph.D. Price, $3,50. VOLUME LXXXIV. 1919. 534 pp. Price, cloth, $4.60 1. [1941 The Royal Government in Virginia, 1684-1775. By Pkrcy Scott Flippin, Ph.D. Price, 53-oo. S. [195] Hellenic Conceptions of Peace. ByWALLACE E.Caldwell, Ph.D. Price,5i.a5. VOLUME LXXXV. 1919. 450 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00. 1. [196] The Religious Policy of the Bavarian Government during the NapoJeonic Period. By Chester P. Higby, Ph.D. Price, J3.00. 3. [197] Public Debts of China. By F. H. Huang, Ph.D. Price, fi.oo. UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY AA 001339 413 5 H IVEBSlTY^Qf;, fill RJV^RS'D.^,\ •'[i'i?!i^li'iii « -loirv rMQiR '^R75