§§§§§
...'...} :
· · · · · · · ·:·o·：·o·:·º·：·º·---···… ~~~~…，xºs….…. ···---···---···---···）， （±3，±，±，±，±，±，±-º-º-º-º-º-º-º
*-p:3:*（?
•**w. •
、、、、、、、、、）
:::：:::::：：:::：::::
§§§4）， （Ě, ë
ĢĒ№ž）;
¿№
:：:：:：:：::：:*№，→
¿≡::：：:：：::：::::=≡:

، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ،
ĖÈ*****¿¿.***
li
‘AMOE
|UšičUSUNü
p
ſº-
ºilº PENINsuuº
§ º
º
iſſºliº
ĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪ
5：
'-—
,, . "








YG
* 3 Q
. C. § {
LOUIS NAPO LEON
AND THE GENESIS OF THE
S E CO N D E M PIRE
|-
-
Louis NAPOLEoN IN 1836
ºront a cºrazving ºy Sºewart engrazed by Aſ. 5. Hazz






LOUIS NAPOLEON
AND THE GENESIS OF THE

SECON D E M PIR. E.
BY Fr'H"CHEETHAM × < 2.
BEING A LIFE OF THE EMPEROR
NAPOLE ON III TO THE TIME OF
HIS ELECTION TO THE PRESIDENCY
OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC ºf .2% ºt
WITH NU MEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS
REPRODUCED FROM CONTEMPORARY
PORTRAITS, PRINTS AND LITHOGRAPHS
LONDON : JOHN LANE THE BODLEY HEAD
NEw YORK : JOHN LANE COMPANY MCMIX
RICHARD CLAY & Sons, LIMITED, London AND BUNGAY.
INSCRIBED
To THE MEMORY OF
GEORGE RUSSELL EVANS
1879–1908
Dear, near, and true—no truer Time himself
Can prove you, though he make you evermore
Dearer and nearer.
INTRODUCTION

HE hundred years that now separate us from
the birth of Napoleon III, and the thirty-
five years which have intervened since his
death, ought to make it possible to arrive at
something like an impartial and fair estimate of that
remarkable man’s personality and character. The fierce
light that beats upon a throne has perhaps never beaten
so fiercely as it did on that of the last sovereign who
ruled over France. Compared with it, the gentle beam
that fell on the throne shared by him to whom the words
were addressed by the late Laureate was but a feeble
and kindly ray. But long before the throne was
reached Louis Napoleon had courted the strong light
of publicity, and in its glare all his many faults and
failings were relentlessly and conspicuously revealed.
Such a light is hardly calculated to throw into relief
those balancing good qualities which are perhaps the
real basis of most men’s characters, and in the case of
Louis Napoleon many of his public acts before his
advent to power were scarcely of a kind to win him the
admiration or confidence of a public who knew him only
by what may be termed his appearances on the stage.
No public man, perhaps, has been the object of so much
calumny and misrepresentation, and few public men
have met calumny with so much dignity. The campaign
of abuse directed upon him during the days of the
Presidency was more than surpassed when the Empire
collapsed at Sedan. The Emperor was then made the
Scapegoat of a maddened nation, and the measure of
~~~, -> * , , … º. ** ** 5xº
t . . . * - * ;:
vii
viii INTRODUCTION
detraction to which he was subjected can scarcely be
realized except by those who have read the pamphlets
and newspapers of the time. At Chislehurst one of his
faithful partisans was waxing indignant over the cam-
paign of calumny then raging, when the fallen Emperor
interrupted him with the remark, “What could you
expect, my dear X. P. After such misfortunes it is im-
possible to be just.” But it may now be asked whether
this right of injustice to his memory, which he seemed
to recognize and allow to the French people in the hour
of their tribulation, has not been abused.
A new generation is growing up in France to which
the Emperor is but a name, and which is therefore able
to regard him without personal prejudice, and with
something of the historic sense with which it is possible
to regard his uncle. More than fifteen years ago M.
Emile Ollivier expressed the opinion that the historic
hour had not then struck for the Second Empire and its
men, but that he had absolute confidence in the future
judgment of history. Since then M. Ollivier has
brought out thirteen volumes of his great and yet un-
completed work, L'Empire Libéral. Other historians,
such as M. Pierre de la Gorce and M. Lamy, have
written the history, or contributed studies to the better
understanding, of the Second Empire. M. André Lebey
has given us the first volumes of his important and
exhaustive study of Les Trois Coups d'État, while a
host of writers have dealt with the more personal aspect of
Napoleon III’s life, both in relation to the time in which
he lived, and the government of which he was the chief.
M. Fernand Giraudeau's Napoléon III Intime (1895)
is a very interesting study of the Emperor both as a
man and ruler, and discusses his attitude in the latter
capacity towards the great questions with which he was
confronted. M. Thirria’s remarkable work, Napoléon III
avant l'Empire, shows the forces which were at work
INTRODUCTION ix
between 1815 and 1848, and which brought Louis
Napoleon to power. The book is really a history of the
genesis of the restoration of the Empire, and it is the
idea thus made use of by M. Thirria which has been
the main motive of the present volume. Two main
forces, neither of which acting alone would have
brought about the Second Empire, led to its establish-
ment, indeed made it almost inevitable—the sentiment
of the country, and the personality of Louis Napoleon
himself. M. Thirria pays special attention in his book
to the opinions of the press during the early events in
Louis Napoleon's life, and the long-forgotten news-
paper articles which he quotes are certainly illuminating
and interesting. They do not show, however, that there
was any really well-organized opinion on behalf of the
restoration of the Bonaparte family in France between
1815 and 1848. The sentiment of the country was in a
large measure inarticulate in the press, and came out in
other ways, such as are mentioned in Chapter VII.
Other writers have dealt, at greater or less length, with
one or more aspects of the Emperor's life and policy.
With the policy of the Second Empire, however, the
present volume has nothing to do. What brought Louis
Napoleon to power, and what he himself was, it is the
object of the following pages to tell. In attempting to
do this a sacrifice must, perhaps, be made to historic
sense. “Historic sense,” says Viscount Morley, “for-
bids us to judge results by motive, or real consequences
by the ideals and intentions of the actor who produced
them.” On the other hand, the same writer tells us that
history is only intelligible if we place ourselves at the
point of view of the actor who makes it. No one can
deny that in a very large measure Napoleon III did
make history. He was certainly a great actor on the
European stage, whatever view we may take of his
appearances there. But as we are not writing the history
X INTRODUCTION
of his completed life, or of the system of government
which he in a large measure created, the historic sense
does not stand in the way to forbid us dealing with
our subject from the close and personal point of view
of the chief actor, rather than from the safer distance of
historic retrospect. These pages should therefore be
Considered rather as a biographical study, than as an
attempt at a contribution to history. The tendency in
nearly all historical writing of the present day is to argue
back from a fact to a cause which may or may not be
the right one, and to draw a conclusion or moral from
an event as though all that is past were inevitable.
Yet those who hold the theory of the inevitableness
of events can, as a rule, find no words strong enough
to describe their dissent from that view of “destiny ”
in human affairs such as is always ascribed to the
object of the present study. Napoleon III, it can
hardly be denied, believed in destiny. “No one can
escape his destiny,” he wrote from the castle of Ham;
“if a government is doomed to destruction, it perishes
by the very means it uses to save itself.” These words
sound strangely prophetic, but perhaps mean less
than they imply. What Louis Napoleon called “des-
tiny ” and his “star,” other men would call Provi-
dence. At any rate his belief in destiny was no mere
vulgar fatalism. Faith is the key to the understanding
of Louis Napoleon's early life. Faith in himself and
the part he had to play. Faith in the face of immense
obstacles, of great failures and of exasperating ridicule."
He could “fight down contempt and ridicule and as
long a record of failures as ever fell to the lot of human
being, and could persist, as though against the will of
God Himself, in his struggle for an ideal.” If there
* “I have the faith which makes me support everything with resigna-
tion, which makes one spurn domestic joys, which almost every one
desires; that faith, in fine, which alone is able to move mountains.”—
Louis Napoleon to M. Vieillard, 1842.
INTRODUCTION xi
seems to be a contradiction between his struggle against
what a weaker man might have thought to be fate, and
his belief in “destiny,” it is only when we attach an un-
worthy and narrow meaning to that word. Had Louis
Napoleon been better understood, had his early educa-
tion accustomed him to work with men in real sympathy
with his political and social convictions, the course of
history would very likely have been quite other than
it was when he came to power. He was thought to
be a plotter and schemer at a time when really his
chief characteristic was a boyish ingenuousness. A
writer of fiction (one of the very few who has seen the
possibilities for the novelist in the career of Louis
Napoleon) has summed up this characteristic of the
Emperor very well: “Until after the event of Ham
(i. e. the escape) he was as boyish as any school-lad—
his imagination ran riot with adventures. Many and
remarkable as his adventures were in actuality, they
were as nothing compared with the experiences which
he underwent through the instrumentality of his vivid
imagination. He was serious, but his seriousness was
the seriousness of a boy who can play at soldiers with
the dignity of an emperor at one moment, and for the
next few seconds be plunged in an outburst of irrespon-
sible vivacity. His imagination carried him to the
bitter end. The strength of his imagination erected the
Second Empire—his ingenuousness destroyed it. For,
as he found that men who fawned on him, men who
were ever ready with their disinterested advice, were
but tricksters, this strange characteristic of his developed
into distrust. He became a cynic, his faith in men was
shattered, and the gloom of a wrecked belief gathered
round him.” 1
* The Mantle of the Emperor, by Ladbrooke Black and Robert Lynd,
1906. Perhaps the dark side of the picture is somewhat exaggerated in
the final sentence.
xii INTRODUCTION
But all this came much later than the period we are
dealing with here. The point of the passage lies in
Louis Napoleon’s ingenuousness and his belief in man.
He believed everything said to him in the guise of
friendship. He believed all men as sincere as himself
until he found they were not, and then he retreated into
himself. If this had been understood by the politicians
of 1848 the Prince might have lived and died faithful
to the Republic. He was not trusted, perhaps naturally,
and seeing that all his protestations and long holding
back availed nothing, he at length played the part that
popular opinion and the mistrust of his opponents
seemed almost to thrust upon him. Through all his
early life of plotting and thinking, two conflicting prin-
ciples, the representative and the hereditary, seemed
always to be fighting for Supremacy in Louis Napoleon's
mind. He never acknowledged any contradiction be-
tween them; to him the Napoleonic Idea was a com-
promise between the old and the new, between authority
and liberty, between monarchy and the Republic. But
the principles of representation and heredity were really
at variance, and he was bound sooner or later to aban-
don one or the other. There is nothing to show that his
devotion to republican ideas was not real and genuine,
and that if he had been taken at his word and trusted
by the republican party, that his faith to them would
not have been loyally kept.
“Since his entry into active life,” says M. Ollivier,
“before as after Strasburg and Boulogne, before his
friends as before his judges, in his addresses to the
electors and in those of the tribune, Louis Napoleon had
always repudiated the rôle of Pretender. He never de-
manded his hereditary rights. He wished to owe
nothing save to the sovereignty of the people. At Ham
he had, it is true, shown some aversion to the Republic,
but since 1848, in agreement with his friends, he an-
y
INTRODUCTION xiii
nounced, and quite seriously, his intention to consolidate
its existence. Why were not his promises received as
sincere, and he not helped to fulfil them 2 Why was
he not encouraged in placing those ideas which were
his own above those of the tradition of his family P
Why was his good-will answered by hostility and sus-
picion ? Confidence embarrasses more than defiance.
It is imprudent to impute to any one arrière pensées
which he dares neither confess nor avow. To do so pro-
vokes and encourages and even imposes on us the very
thoughts that we want to conjure or dismiss.” +
In other words Louis Napoleon was sincere, and
this sincerity is now more and more recognized. At
the time of his death The Times wrote: “It can hardly
be doubted that his contemporaries will do him in-
justice and that his memory will be, in a measure,
rehabilitated by posterity.” This measured rehabilita-
tion has for some years been in progress, and at the
present time most writers, while dealing severely,
perhaps, with the statesmanship of the Emperor and
the policy of the Empire, allow that the man himself
was disinterested and sincere. He aimed at noble ends,
and the sympathy which Macaulay tells us is so often
accorded to great men who, so aiming, leave to pos-
terity a doubtful or chequered fame, should surely not
be withheld from Napoleon III. The promises he made
to the nation he honestly endeavoured to fulfil. If his
government was an adventure it was an adventure for
which every party in France was as much responsible
as he. He never forgot the ideas of his youth, and
lived to realize many of them on the throne. “If he
strangled the constitution,” says the grandson of one
of the former republican friends of the Emperor, “the
constitution held its throat to him.”” “While judging
* L’Empire Libéral, Vol. II, p. 120.
* Louis-Napoléon, prisonnier au Fort de Ham, par Pierre Hachet-
Souplet, 1893.
xiv INTRODUCTION
the coup d'état severely,” says another writer, “history
will give Louis Napoleon the benefit of extenuating
circumstances, in that the majority of the people com-
bined to urge him in the path of illegality.” "
There is really no difference between the so-called
adventurer Louis Napoleon and the Emperor Napo-
leon III. The term adventurer, usually applied to him
by his enemies, we may perhaps allow to be not
unjustly bestowed. But it is the name given, before
they have succeeded, to all who have dared.” It implies
breadth of view, audacity, intrepidity, and heroism.
The causes which were dear to the exile and the prisoner
of Ham, were likewise dear to the ruler of France.
Belief in the people, and in the Principle of Nationalities,
devotion to the cause of Italy, and in social and in-
dustrial questions, are all things belonging as much to
the Emperor as to the Prince. His devotion to the
Principle of Nationalities, which the historic sense makes
some condemn as the greatest political fault of the
Emperor's reign, whatever view we may take of it is
a tribute to his sincerity and great-mindedness. He
was the only ruler of France,” some one has said, who
has sincerely desired and deliberately furthered the
interests of other countries. But however disastrous
the theory of Nationalities proved to France in the
nineteenth century, the time may yet come when that
principle will be acknowledged to be a true and sound
one. It may be that in the future the statesman who
takes fullest account of this doctrine, will be the ablest
to maintain enduring and improving political systems.”
But historians, judging from results and taking no
account of intentions, have pronounced this policy of
* France since 1814, by Pierre de Coubertin.
* Ollivier, L'Empire Libéral, II, p. 84.
* It might perhaps be said, “ruler of any country.”
* Ollivier, I, pp. 166–7. Lebey, Louis-Mapoléon Bonaparte et la Révolution
de 1843, II, p. 359 seq.
INTRODUCTION XV
the theory of Nationalities to have been disastrous to
France. “He had elevated and generous ideas,” says
M. Thirria, speaking of the Emperor, “he dreamed of
the happiness of others, not only of his own country,
but of Europe and of mankind. But he was not made
to be the Chief of a State, and his reign was a great
misfortune for France.” The future, according to
M. de la Gorce, will be severe in judging the monarch,
but will not fail to recall the attenuating balance of the
good qualities of the man.” The chief quality in his
character was what the French call bonté, which though
scarcely “goodness,” in the usual English sense of the
word, is certainly something more than kindness or
even good-heartedness. He was extremely generous,
and practised the forgetting of injuries and insults with
extraordinary philosophy of mind. He was a devoted
and faithful friend, and won all who came into personal
contact with him by his charm of manner. His dis-
position was essentially gentle, and he was never known
to lose his temper or to show anger. This gentleness
and equanimity was at once his strength and his weak-
ness. It contributed to the happiness of those around
him, but it often prevented him from saying No. His
good-nature made him dislike to give offence or to
cause trouble. This is what made him often appear to
be a dissembler, and suggested the mot attributed to
Lord Cowley, “He never speaks, but he always lies.”
His silence was really the silence of good-nature, a
way Out of a difficulty when he did not wish to commit
himself. Though greatly inferior to his uncle he was
a man of Superior intelligence, and had he not been a
Prince and a Bonaparte he would still have been in the
front rank of the men of his time. In generosity of
* “Above all he loved the people; not specially his own (for he was
even more humanitarian than patriot), but all people—the poor, the
feeble, and disinherited.”—La Gorce, Hist, du Second Empire, I, preface.
b
xvi INTRODUCTION
ideas and largeness of heart he was superior to his uncle,
and in adversity and defeat showed himself greater than
on the throne. The same cannot be said of Napoleon I.
M. Anatole France has made one of his characters
say that the third Napoleon appealed to him more than
the first, and that he thought him “more human.” "
There are many who share this opinion.
In the following pages the works of M. Emile
Ollivier, M. Thirria, and M. André Lebey are largely
drawn upon, in many cases their narratives being closely
followed. Other sources of information are set out
in the footnotes. In English nothing has yet taken
the place of Blanchard Jerrold’s Life of Napoleon III,
unsatisfactory as in some respects that biography is.
In regard to the Prince's early life, with which alone
we are concerned here, it is, however, on the whole true
and trustworthy. Mr. Archibald Forbes's Life of
Napoleon the Third (1898) adds nothing to our know-
ledge either of the Prince or the Emperor, and the
popular works of M. I. de Saint-Amand, some of which
have been translated, are rather anecdotal and personal
than of historical value. There should be room, there-
fore, for a study in English of the early years of the
life of the Emperor Napoleon III and of the genesis of
the Second Empire.
* Ze Zys Rouge, chap. xxvi. Dechartre is also made to speak of the
Emperor as a “man lacking genius, but with a heart kind and good,
who, amid all life's vicissitudes, conducted himself with a simple courage
and good-tempered fatalism.”
CHAPTER
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BIRTH AND CHILDHooD .
THE BONAPARTEs AFTER 1815
YoUTH (1815–1830)
Louis NAPoleoN AND His PARENTs
THE Italian INSURRECTION
EARLY MANHooD (1831—1836)
BonAPARTISM UNDER THE JULY MoMARCHY
Louis NAPOLEoN’s PoliticAL OPINIONS BE-
. Io9
Fore 1836
Strasburg
BETWEEN STRASBURG AND BouloGNE
THE NAPOLEONIC IDEA .
BOULOGNE
HAM
THE ESCAPE FROM HAM.
The WRITINGs of the PRINCE
FIRST ELECTION TO THE CHAMBER.
SEconD ELECTION To THE CHAMBER
PAGE
vii
119
I4O
18O
2O3
22 I
24O
26o
28O
xvii
xviii
CONTENTS
CHAPTER
XVIII.
XIX.
XX.
THE Constitution of 1848 . *
ELECTION TO THE PRESIDENCY
CoNCLUSION . tº te
APPENDICES :
PAGE
292
3OO
32O
329
340
357
365
370
373
376
A. LOUIS NAPOLEON's Own ACCOUNT OF THE
ATTEMPT AT STRASBURG
B. LOUIS NAPOLEON IN AMERICA *
C. HIS OPINIONS OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONs .
D. THE BOULOGNE PROCLAMATIONs. e tº
E. LOUIS NAPOLEON's Own ACCOUNT OF THE
ESCAPE FROM HAM tº is g * >
F. HIS ADDRESS As CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESI-
DENCY OF THE REPUBLIC * tº tº
G. CHRONOLOGY
POSTSCRIPT te c . 378A
INDEx
tº sº © & wº * t
379
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
To face
Louis Napoleon in 1836 . g © º Arontispiece Aage
Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland . º º - ‘e 8
Queen Hortense o e º - g * e . 46
The Duke of Reichstadt . te - º e º . 52
Napoleon Louis Bonaparte, elder brother of Louis Napoleon 62
Fenton's Hotel in St. James's Street . e º º . 74
Louis Napoleon's Visiting Card - e - tº . 74
Louis Napoleon in 1832 . se º º º e . 8o
Princess Mathilde . º e º e - • . I 2 O
Dr. Conneau . º º s - * º e . I 2.2
Louis Napoleon in London (1840) . o - e . I 56
Autographs of Louis Napoleon, Vaudrey, Persigny, and
Conneau . g • º - e º e . I 61
Louis Napoleon in 1839 . g - º º e . I 76
Prince Louis Napoleon, the Victim of Louis Philippe . I 9o
Louis Napoleon before the Court of Peers (1840) . . I 96
The Prince's Lodgings in the Château of Ham . º . 2 O4
The Château of Ham from the Canal o - e . 2 I 2
Plan of the Citadel of Ham . - * - e . 224
Io, King Street, St. James's . e e e º . 23O
xix
XX ILLUSTRATIONS
To face
fage
Title-page of the Manuel d’Artillerie. © o e . 243
The Four Nephews of the Emperor Napoleon (1848):
Louis Napoleon—Napoleon—Pierre—Lucien Murat . 268
Louis Napoleon in 1848 . § § • - te . 276
Louis Napoleon in 1848, Representative of the People . 284
Louis Napoleon in 1848, Candidate for the Presidency .. 308
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, President of the Republic - 3I4
LOUIS NAPO LEON
AND THE GENESIS OF THE
SEC O N D E M PIR E

LOUIS NAPOLEON
AND THE GENESIS OF THE

SE COND EMPIRE
CHAPTER I
BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD

HE future Napoleon III was born in Paris
on Wednesday, April 20, 1808, about one
o'clock a.m., in his mother’s hotel, No. 8
Rue Cerutti (now Rue Lafitte)." He was the
third son of Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland, brother
of the Emperor Napoleon I and of Hortense de Beau-
harnais, daughter of the Empress Josephine by her first
husband. Louis and Hortense had at this time been
married more than six years. Their first child, born in
October 1802, died in 1807. Their second son, born
October 1804, was now three-and-a-half years old.
There was, perhaps, no more unfortunate marriage
in the annals of the Bonaparte family (and fortunate and
happy marriages were not frequent) than that of Louis
Bonaparte to Hortense de Beauharnais. Never was there
a more ill-assorted couple. Both had many good quali-
ties, but their temperaments were wholly dissimilar, and
the only thing they had in common was obstinacy. Both
had, moreover, given their hearts elsewhere, Louis to his
The house, then No. 17, was pulled down in 1902, after having served
as the Turkish Embassy. *
B
2 LOUIS NAPOLEON
future wife's cousin, Emilie de Beauharnais, Hortense to
Duroc. Napoleon and Josephine, however, were both
anxious for the match, and exerted all their influence to
bring about this union of the brother of the one to the
daughter of the other. It was more than a mariage de
convenance; it was a mariage forcé. To Josephine
the match was all important. She had no children of
her own by Napoleon, and if she could marry her
daughter to one of Napoleon's brothers there was the
probability of an heir who would be at once the
Emperor's nephew and grandson. Josephine already
foresaw her own divorce, and wished to get on her side
the support of at least one of the Bonaparte family,
whose relations at that time with the Beauharnais were
the reverse of friendly. Both Louis and Hortense at
first resisted the marriage, but both eventually gave way,
he to his masterful brother, she to her anxious mother
and masterful step-father. The ceremony took place in
January 1802, Louis being then aged twenty-three, and
Hortense eighteen. From the first there was mutual dis-
content, and from January 1802 to September 1807 they
remained together for a period of hardly four months,
at three epochs divided by long intervals. The char-
acters of both Louis and Hortense we shall have to
consider later when we discuss the influence of each upon
the future Emperor. It is enough to say here that Hor-
tense was gay, brilliant, superficial, full of caprice, eager
for movement and distraction of all sorts, with a love
of painting, music, dress, conversation, parties, and fêtes,
while Louis was serious, morose, and subject to a malady
(rheumatism) which affected his disposition and made
him full of whims, irascible, meddling, and harsh. Hor-
tense was kind to everybody and full of an amiability
which won her almost universal sympathy. Her good
Spirits, however, seem only to have aggravated her hus-
band, who was disagreeable to all who came in contact
BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD 3
with him, changed his mind three times a day, and
found fault with everybody with ill-tempered peevish-
Il62.SS.
King Louis was not present at the birth of his third
son. He had parted from his wife seven months before,
and was at this time in Holland. His absence, however,
need not imply a disavowal of paternity, as has often
been suggested. King Louis, indeed, always recognized
Louis Napoleon as his son, and were it not for the fact
that calumny has so continually repeated the slander
there would be little object in dwelling on the matter.
Calumny pursued Hortense from the beginning of her
married life, and even imputed the paternity of her first
son to the Emperor himself. But this story seems to
have been the invention of Madame Murat and the Bona-
partes, who disliked the marriage of Hortense and Louis,
and did all they could to throw discredit upon the young
wife. Hortense's first child was certainly the object of
an excessive affection on the part of Napoleon, but such
an affection is easy to understand when we consider that
Napoleon at this time placed upon the boy his hopes of
the hereditary succession. Towards her step-father
Hortense displayed nothing but the qualities of a tender
and devoted daughter. The paternity of the third son
(Charles Louis Napoleon) has been attributed to the
Dutch Admiral Verhuel, who was actually King Louis’
ambassador in Paris, and who was present when the
Prince's acte de naissance was drawn up. It is true
that the admiral was in the Pyrenees in the autumn of
the previous year, where the Queen was staying. But
King Louis was there also, reconciled for the time being
to his wife by the death of their eldest son, and living
with her in complete marital intimacy. Admiral Ver-
huel, who was at Barégès, is only known to have visited
the Queen once at Cauterets, when he went to dine with
her; but he went as a courtier seeking her favour, not
4 LOUIS NAPOLEON
as one who already enjoyed it. If King Louis did not
come to Paris either before, during, or immediately after
his wife’s accouchement, it was probably because he
was very much annoyed that the event had not been
arranged to take place at The Hague." The statement
that the future Emperor was the son of Admiral Ver-
huel was repeated by a writer named W. Graham in the
Fortnightly Review as late as August 1894. Mr.
Graham states that King Louis wrote to the Pope about
1832 that Prince Louis Napoleon was not his son, but
he brings no evidence to support this statement. Even
if such a letter does exist, it would, of itself, prove nothing.
King Louis was notoriously given to fits of temper and
suspicion, and at such a time was capable of doing or
saying anything. On the other hand there are
numbers of his letters in existence written to the Prince
in which he treats him unquestionably as his son, and
the final word of the Verhuel legend is surely to be
found in the terms of the ex-King of Holland’s will
(see page 229).”
At the time when Queen Hortense’s liaison with the
Dutch admiral is supposed to have taken place she was
prostrate with grief over the loss of her eldest and much-
adored son. She had been sent to take the waters of the
Pyrenees in order to re-establish her health, which had
greatly suffered. She would therefore at that time be
hardly likely to be either physically or morally disposed
1 Thirria: Napoléon III avant l'Empire, Vol. I.
* The question of Louis Bonaparte's paternity is discussed at length
by M. André Lebey (Les trois coups d'état de Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte.
Strasbourg et Boulogne, pp. 2–14). In addition to Verhuel, the paternity
of Louis Napoleon has been attributed to Flahaut, and to the Comte de
Rylan, chamberlain at the Dutch Court, and even to the Duc Decazes.
The two first appear to be easily dismissed, but Decazes, then a widower,
was with Hortense in the Pyrenees in the late summer of 1807. He,
however, denied the story, and according to Thiers said: “Moi seul je
peux étre soupconné d'être le père de l'empereur, et je ne le suis pas;
c'est véritablement Louis Bonaparte.”
BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD 5
to take a lover, however passionate and languorous her
nature was. That Hortense was no saint is of course well
known, but her becoming three years later the mother
of M. de Morny is no argument against the recognized
paternity of M. de Morny’s half-brother. King Louis
was with his wife in the Pyrenees, and the misunder-
standing between them did not begin again till their
return to Paris, when Hortense refused to go to Holland
for the accouchement.
The future Emperor was the first prince of the new
dynasty to be born in the purple, and his name is the
first to be inscribed on the register of the Imperial family
which had been deposited with the Senate as the book
of the right of succession to the Empire, and in which
the names of all children born to the Napoleon dynasty
were to be inscribed. Cannon announced the birth of the
Prince to the city of Paris, and Napoleon, then at Bay-
onne, had salutes fired all along the Spanish frontier. It
has been said that one hundred and twenty millions of
people celebrated in twenty different tongues and dialects
the birth of Hortense’s child. The Queen announced the
news to her husband through her chamberlain, and
King Louis replied from Amsterdam, “I should like
the little one to be only christened, so that he may be
Solemnly baptized here; but I subordinate my wishes
to yours and to those of the Emperor.”
Josephine wrote announcing the news in characteristic
fashion to Louis : “It is a prince. He is beautiful,
charming; he will be a great man like his uncle; let
us hope he won’t be a sulker like his father.” Napoleon
hoped the boy would “be worthy of his name and his
destiny.” The word “destiny ” is thus pronounced
over the child’s cradle by Napoleon himself.
The father’s wish as to the baptism in Holland was
not to be fulfilled, for the child was baptized in Fon-
tainebleau in 1810. Josephine was then no longer
6 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Empress, and the boy had as his godmother Marie-
Louise. The Emperor was of course his godfather, and
the ceremony was performed by Cardinal Fesch, his
father’s mother’s brother. Napoleon had desired that
the boy should be called Charles Napoleon. He was
accordingly named Charles Louis Napoleon. Louis
was, however, the name by which he was usually known
both to his relatives and friends. His early letters are
signed “Charles Louis Napoleon,” and “Louis Napo-
leon.” After the death of his brother in 1831 he signed
“Napoleon Louis,” and continued to do so till 1848.
From that time till the Empire was established he again
signed “Louis Napoleon.”
The boy was born while the triumphs of Austerlitz,
Jena, and Friedland were yet undimmed. Prussia lay
prostrate, the troubles in Spain had scarcely begun.
Tilsit, not yet a year old, was the opening of a new
stage in Napoleon’s career. A Russo-French alliance—
the danger so much dreaded by Europe—was real-
ized, and seemed to secure the Emperor's position more
firmly than ever. There were yet years of apparent
success ahead, and the future looked all golden. Yet
this very year, 1808, may be said to have seen the be-
ginning of two movements which perhaps more than
anything else brought about Napoleon’s fall. In
Prussia the national spirit had already begun to stir.
It is curious to consider that in the very year of Napo-
leon III’s birth, Fichte was lecturing on the Principle
of Nationality in Berlin, and before the boy was many
weeks old the rising in Spain had begun. This Prin-
ciple of Nationality, which was so great a part of the
political faith of the future Emperor, seems to have
been with him almost in his cradle, though arrayed both
in north and South against the power and policy of the
man whose political ideas he was to inherit. How far
the Principle of Nationalities is contained in the Napo-
BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD 7
leonic Idea we shall later on have occasion to inquire.
But the power of both uncle and nephew crumbled
away when the principle which had been at first on their
side was directed against them.
Prince Louis was born a weakly infant, and it was
thought that he would die directly after his birth. He
had at first to be wrapped up in cotton wool, and
throughout his early childhood had very weak health.
King Louis had reigned two years over Holland at the
time of the boy’s birth, and was to reign two years
more. After her confinement Hortense implored Napo-
leon not to force her to return to The Hague, where
her eldest son had died, and where a thousand sorrows
awaited her. She wished to enter a convent, and even
begged the Emperor to allow her to demand a divorce;
but Napoleon refused to listen to any such ideas, and
insisted on Hortense's rejoining her husband. After
remaining as long as possible in Paris, the Queen
obeyed. Napoleon so constantly remonstrated with his
brother, both on political and domestic affairs, that
Louis at last tired of all this criticism and interference,
and, unable to satisfy the Emperor either as king or
father, rid himself both of wife and kingdom. He
abdicated in favour of his second (and now eldest) son
in 1810, and fled to Toeplitz, near Dresden. Here, under
the title of Comte de St. Leu, he consoled himself for a
time with books, and discussions with Goethe on French
literature. “One can well enough see,” Goethe is re-
ported to have said, “that the causes of his abdication
were born with him.” Napoleon replied to his brother’s
abdication by decreeing that the kingdom of Holland
no longer existed (July 10, 1810). Louis had fled,
leaving his second son, created in 1807 by Napoleon
Grand Duke of Berg, behind him." Napoleon at once
* The Duchy of Berg had been Murat’s before he was made King of
Naples.
8 LOUIS NAPOLEON
had the young prince, then six years of age, brought to
Paris with the promise that he would be a father to
him, and that the boy should lose nothing by the
change. “The conduct of your father,” he said,
afflicts my heart.” The abdication indeed appeared to
him a fortunate event, as it would “set free the Queen,
and the unfortunate girl can now come to Paris with
her son the Grand Duke of Berg, which will make her
perfectly happy.” There were no doubt other reasons,
not quite so domestic in nature, which would make the
Emperor little regret Louis’ act.
Louis went from Toeplitz to Gratz in Styria, where
for a couple of years he devoted himself to art and
literature. By way of indemnity for the loss of Holland
he was accorded a large addition to his property at St.
Leu, and Queen Hortense was granted a separation and
allowed eighty thousand pounds a year. Louis in 1813,
when hostilities were on the eve of breaking out between
France and Austria, took refuge in Switzerland, and
in January 1814 ventured back to Paris, where he took
up his residence with Madame Mère. But he took no
prominent part in the defence of Paris, and at the capitu-
lation accompanied his brother and Marie Louise to
Blois. After the abdication he went to Rome, and after-
wards to Florence, in which city he spent the greater
part of the remainder of his days. He held aloof alto-
gether from the Emperor during the Hundred Days.
Hortense, living alone in Paris, contracted a liaison,
since well known to history, with General de Flahaut.
Flahaut’s father, like Hortense’s, perished on the scaffold
in the Revolution, and his mother, still a young woman,
gave herself up to the education of her child. She was
the author of several romances, and in 1802 married a
M. de Souza. Her son, General Flahaut, Hortense
wrote, “was a man of distinguished appearance, quick
wit, agreeable, and brilliant; but superficial and more
LOUIS BONAPARTE, KING or Holl AND
** a drawing ºy Bºard ºthographed by Depech


BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD 9
ready to please than wishful to make himself beloved.”
From this liaison was born (October 1811) a child who
was registered as the legitimate son of the Sieur De-
morny, property owner in San Domingo, and his wife
Louise Fleury. Later on the name Demorny was
divided and became De Morny. The child was given
Over to the Care of his grandmother-in-law, Madame de
Souza, and owed to her his exquisite manners, good
breeding, delicacy of wit, and literary taste. It was
not till after the dead of Queen Hortense in 1837 that
Louis Napoleon knew of the existence of his half-brother,
and heard for the first time of his mother's frailty. He
was much distressed by the discovery.
In support of the contention that Louis Napoleon was
not the Son of the King of Holland, it has been said that
he had little or nothing of the Bonaparte about him. If
the phrase is made to read, as sometimes it is, “little or
nothing of the Emperor about him,” it would be hard to
deny its truth. There was nothing in Napoleon III that
recalled the first Emperor, either physically or mentally."
* Notwithstanding Persigny's efforts to prove the contrary in the
Lettres de Zondres. Louis Napoleon was very conscious of this lack of
physical resemblance, and his “setting-out” of his face seems to show
that, as far as features were concerned, he made no attempt to copy his
uncle. But he was anxious to find points of resemblance. In the third
edition of Mrs. Abell's Recollections of the Emperor Napoleon on the Island of
St. Helena (1873) are some interesting additions from the pen of her
daughter, Mrs. Charles Johnstone, in which her recollections of the third
Emperor are given. Louis Napoleon, when he resided at King Street,
St. James's, used to visit Mrs. Abell at her house near Portman Square.
“In one topic,” says Mrs. Johnstone, “Prince Louis was engrossed even
more than in the tiniest and most trivial incidents which marked the
sojourn at St. Helena. This was the personal appearance of his great
illustrious uncle. Did he resemble him in any point P Was not his
general style the same—if not his features, at least the mould of them P
Had he not the same manner, the same type, if not the same air 2
Questions like these were, I fear, mutually unsatisfactory, for they only
embarrassed the one and failed to content the other. All who knew my
mother will remember that she spoke out resolutely when she thought
honestly, never sparing herself, and only grieved when compelled to
disappoint others. She, however, could only reply in the negative by
IO LOUIS NAPOLEON
But what law of heredity is there which should make
us expect a child to inherit the qualities of his uncle?
Two of Napoleon’s brothers, Joseph and Jerome, bore a
strong facial resemblance to him, and Jerome's son, the
late Prince Napoleon, perpetuated this resemblance to
the head of the family in a second generation. But in
nearly every other way Joseph and Jerome were unlike
the Emperor, and his two other brothers, Lucien and
Louis, cannot be said to have resembled him any more
in appearance than in ability and energy. Lucien, it is
true, had a decided and powerful individuality, but it
can hardly be held to have been of the true Bonaparte
type if by that phrase we mean to imply the character-
istics found in the person of Napoleon I. Louis Bona-
parte was a disciple of Rousseau and a friend of Ber-
nardin de St. Pierre. He declared war to be “organ-
ized barbarism.” He was a calm, silent, and modest
man by nature, an enemy of all noise and pomp. Cir-
cumstances threw him into situations which were alto-
gether uncongenial to his real nature, and which gave
it a fatal warp. He had many good qualities, but they
were such as could only have appeared in their true
value under other conditions. Napoleon said he had
been spoiled by reading Rousseau, and Josephine de-
clared that if his digestion had been better he would
have been much more amiable. The point is, however,
telling him plainly that in no respect did he resemble his illustrious
uncle. He always seemed to be disappointed, yet always recurred to
the subject after a short time. If his eyes were not like, was not his
figure, his height, well, his hair? To this last query alone could my
mother reply in the affirmative, for the hair, which was in the first
Emperor's case remarkably fine and silky, to a degree that caused it to
look thin, was with Prince Louis really so. By brushing it up high from
his forehead the latter succeeded in obtaining some slight resemblance
to his uncle, and so my mother told him. Prince Louis always seemed
pleased with even this slight likeness, and my mother was only sorry to
be unable to tell him more without sacrificing the truth.”—Mrs. Abell's
A'ecollections, 3rd ed., 1873, pp. 319–20.
BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD II
that Napoleon III's father was a man of secluded habits,
fond of retirement and study, and with little or nothing
of the Emperor about him. Similar qualities it is not
difficult to discover in the son, and, far from his unlike-
ness to his uncle being an argument against the legiti-
macy of Louis Napoleon’s birth, it is rather its proof.
The vein of melancholy that undoubtedly ran through
the Prince's character he inherited from his father, and
if, later on, when he reached manhood, he united to
this a real strength of will and energy of character, it
was his mother’s inheritance that was able, from time
to time, to gain the upper hand. All through his life,
however, Napoleon III showed himself the victim of
the opposing qualities which he inherited from his father
and mother. It might almost be said that his most
manly qualities he owed to his mother, and his effemin-
acy to his father. As in friendship and attachments we
so often find opposite qualities seeking each other, it
seems rather to have been the gentle and effeminate side
of the young man that attached him so warmly to his
energetic mother, and his very resemblance to his father
that made their understanding of each other so difficult
and impossible.
Louis Napoleon, therefore, had the blood of the Bona-
partes in him, if not the blood of Napoleon. He was,
however, as much Beauharnais as Bonaparte, and by
education and upbringing more so. M. Hanotaux has
called attention to this. “Napoleon III,” he says,
“belonged to the branch of the Bonapartes of Holland,
that branch which history sees unrolling the long labour
of its ambitions during the whole of the first half of the
nineteenth century; they are the Beauharnais–Bona-
partes, the fair Bonapartes. They are contrasted with
the dark Bonapartes, the Corsican Bonapartes who
claimed to be the more direct heirs of the great Emperor,
but who, in spite of their intelligence, their vigour and
I 2 LOUIS NAPOLEON
their furious charges, have been in the end tricked and
set aside by the scientific and aristocratic intrigues of
the first.” 1
The desertion of their father left the two sons of
Hortense entirely to the care of their mother. This
was to some extent a misfortune, as they missed the
steadying and sterner influence which a father’s presence
should ensure. Hortense, however, seconded by the
Abbé Bertrand, paid great attention to the education of
her children. She looked after the slightest details of
their diet, accustomed them to sobriety, took away from
them everything which could enfeeble them or flatter
their vanity, and set herself to give them a natural,
simple and polished bearing. She inspired in them a
full confidence, of which they never took advantage, and
which in later days made her the companion and friend
of her only son. The two boys, equally attractive, were
much attached to each other, but differed in their dis-
positions. The elder was vigorous, expansive, noisy,
and full of play; the younger silent and pensive. Jose-
phine, who idolized him, because of his gentle disposi-
tion called him “Oui, out.”
He was often taken, along with his brother, to dé-
jeuner at the Tuileries. When the Emperor entered the
room he would come up to the boys, take them by the
head between his hands and lift them, standing upright,
on to the table. Dr. Corvisart had warned Hortense
that this manner of lifting children was very dangerous,
and this action of the Emperor's always terrified her.
Before the birth of the King of Rome Napoleon’s inter-
est in his two nephews, whom he regarded as his prob-
able heirs, was naturally great. He expressed his anger
to Hortense in 1809 because she had taken the boys to
Baden without his consent, and ordered her at once to
send them to Strasburg, where they would be on French
* Contemporary France, Vol. I, pp. 2–3.
BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD I3
soil. Afterwards he ordered that they should never
leave France.
When the disaster of 1814 came to the Bonaparte
dynasty Louis Napoleon was only six years old. He
was too young to understand its meaning; and he has
himself related how delighted he and his brother were
when they were smuggled out of Queen Hortense’s
hotel in the Rue Cerutti to an attic on the boulevards.
Hortense, against her own will, had to leave Paris
before the entry of the Allies, and departed with her sons
to join her mother at Navarre. There they remained
throughout the negotiations which landed Napoleon at
Elba. Afterwards she joined Josephine at Malmaison,
and there and at St. Leu, Hortense and her sons passed
the troublous and eventful period between the banish-
ment to Elba and the Hundred Days. These first seven
years of his life passed in France must have had some
formative influence on Napoleon III’s mind. The
image of the Emperor was no doubt embedded there in
those early days, and the almost idolatrous worship of
the great man, which afterwards was part of his religion,
no doubt sprang from the early impressions of child-
hood. Study of his uncle's life, conversations with
those who had played their part in the Imperial drama,
and the influence of his mother, afterwards made the
Prince the interpreter of the Napoleonic tradition, but
his childish memory of the great man must have always
recurred to him to brace and strengthen him when his
courage flagged or his energies grew weak. A story is
told of him during the Hundred Days which may or
may not be true, but which has often been repeated."
His mother brought him to see Napoleon on the eve
of his rejoining the army. The little Prince, intro-
* M. Lebey says of this story: “Ce récit sentimental et tendancieux
me plait médiocrement: je doute fort de son authenticité" (Strasbourg et
Boulogne, p. 15).
I4 LOUIS NAPOLEON
duced by Marshal Bertrand, approached his uncle and
began to sob. “What is the matter, Louis, and why
do you weep?” Napoleon is reported to have said. For
some moments the child could not reply, but at last he
answered: “Sire, my governess has been telling me
that you are going to the war. Don't go, don’t go.”
“And why don’t you want me to go?” replied Napoleon;
“it is not the first time I have had to go to the war.
Don’t cry. I shall soon be back.” “Dear uncle,” cried
the child, “those wicked Allies will kill you; let me go
with you.” The Emperor was much moved, and lifting
the boy on his knee, pressed him to his heart. Then,
when he had restored him to his mother, he turned to
Bertrand and said, “Kiss him, Marshal, he will have a
good heart and a lofty soul. Who knows, perhaps
some day he will be the hope of my race.”
The story + is without exact historic value, Napo-
leon’s phrase, “perhaps some day he will be the hope
of my race,” being probably a late invention, but the im-
pression made on the child by his uncle is all summed
up in it. Napoleon embraced the boy again after Water-
loo, before his departure for Rochefort.”
Another early experience which affected him greatly
was his separation from his elder brother, whom he
adored. In 1813, when King Louis left Austria, he
asked that Hortense should make over to him the
custody of one of his children. Hortense refused.
After the fall of the Empire, however, Louis addressed
himself to the Tribunal of the Seine to compel his wife
to do as he wished. The case was debated with much
skill by two of the most illustrious advocates of the
day. The tribunal, notwithstanding the solicitude of
Hortense for the education of her children, directed that
* It dates back at least to 1853, when it appeared in De Barins'
Aistoire populaire de Napoléon ZIZ.
* H. Houssaye, 1815, Vol. III.
BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD I5
the elder boy, Napoleon Louis, should be sent, within
three months, to his father or to an agent appointed
by him acting under power of attorney. The return
from Elba, however, prevented the execution of the
judgment. The ex-King pursued the case under the
second Restoration and obtained judgment again.
Louis Napoleon, who had never left his brother’s side,
was in despair, a despair only equalled by that of his
mother. The boy was plunged for the first time into
a cruel solitude, which was to be his lot, more or less,
during the whole period of his youth and early man-
hood. The two brothers met afterwards only at long
intervals. The elder lived with his father at Florence,
married his cousin Charlotte, the daughter of Joseph
Bonaparte, and died at Forli, in Italy, in 1831, in his
brother’s arms.
CHAPTER II
THE BONAPARTES AFTER 1815

HE situation of the Bonaparte family after
the second Restoration was a hard one. A
draconian law (January 12, 1816) pro-
nounced against them a perpetual decree of
exile. All were alike affected, whatever their degree of
relationship to the Emperor, and the decree even passed
in some cases to their friends and allies. They were
deprived of their civil rights, Imperial titles and pen-
sions, and were obliged to sell within six months all
the property which they had acquired by purchase. In
their exile all the members of the proscribed family had
to submit to a surveillance de haute police, which was
exercised in the name of the Holy Alliance by the
Government of the territory in which they resided.
They could not move from one place to another without
a passport signed by the four Great Powers.
After the first Restoration their position had been
much more tolerable. By the Treaty of Fontainebleau
(1814) Napoleon abandoned a private estate valued at
two hundred million francs (68,000,000), but there was
guaranteed to the Imperial family a yearly income of
two and a half million francs (4, Ioo,000), distributed
between Madame Mère, Joseph and his wife, Louis,
Hortense and her children, Jerome and his wife, Elisa,
and Pauline.
The return from Elba, however, apparently made this
Treaty of none effect. At any rate it was never observed.
Austria, Russia, Prussia, and England signed the
I6
THE BONAPARTES AFTER 1815 17
Treaty, and during the Congress of Vienna the Allies
reproached the Government of Louis XVIII with not
having fulfilled its terms with regard to the Bonaparte
family. “With us,” said the Tsar to Talleyrand, “it
is an affair of honour.” But Talleyrand excused his
Government on grounds of political interest. “In the
state of public feeling in the countries adjacent to
France,” he said, “and particularly in Italy, it would
be dangerous for us to furnish means of intriguing to
those who would be so disposed to use them.” From this
it would appear that even had there been no return from
Elba it is more than doubtful whether the Bonapartes
would ever have received the incomes guaranteed them.
After Waterloo, however, there seems to have been no
question at all of the Treaty of Fontainebleau, and the
allied Sovereigns resigned themselves with easy grace
to the non-fulfilment of the Treaty which their repre-
Sentatives had signed. By it Hortense and her sons
would have enjoyed an income of 4, 16,000, and King
Louis of 268,000. At the time of his candidature for
the Presidency, when money was sorely wanted by the
Prince, and was not easy to come by, it is said he
Seriously contemplated claiming from the Government
the arrears of money due to his mother under the
Fontainebleau Treaty. Such a claim at such a
time would have been a mortal blow to his can-
didature, and the idea, if ever entertained, was speedily
abandoned.
By the final fall of the Empire the Bonapartes were
Condemned to live a rather precarious and unnatural
life. “There is no justice in France for the Bona-
partes,” Louis XVIII is reported to have replied to the
Duc de Richelieu, who was supporting certain demands
made by Queen Catherine, wife of Jerome. They were
far from being penniless, however, and the stories of
Louis Napoleon's poverty at any time of his years of
C
18 1.OUIS NAPOLEON
exile have been absurdly exaggerated. The surveillance
by the Governments of Europe, however, was a con-
tinual source of worry and annoyance to the proscribed
family. They were not allowed to live where they liked
even outside France, but the permission of the French
government had to be obtained before a choice of resi-
dence was allowed them. When they wanted to go and
See one another they had to obtain the formal authoriza-
tion of five Governments, and it was always possible
that this might be refused. At that time travelling was
only possible by passports, and it was difficult to elude
their obligation. The Bonapartes had not only to sub-
mit to these obligations, but in a highly aggravated
form.
Chateaubriand, writing about the position in Europe
of the Imperial family, said: “Diplomatic conventions,
formal treaties, pronouncing the exile of the Bonapartes,
prescribed even where they had to live, and did not
permit the ambassador of any one of the five Powers
alone to grant a passport to any relative of the Emperor
Napoleon. The visa of the ministers or ambassadors of
the four other Powers was necessary. So greatly did
the blood of Napoleon trouble the Allies, even when it
flowed in other veins than his.” "
When Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chateaubriand, in
spite of treaties, sent a passport with his signature alone
to Queen Julie (wife of Joseph Bonaparte), who wanted
to go to see one of her sick relatives, and later when he
was ambassador at Rome he showed his independence
by inviting Cardinal Fesch to his table along with the
other cardinals. But his conduct was quite exceptional.
No other minister or ambassador cared, or dared, to
imitate him. His predecessor at Rome had even
ordered his servants to throw Cardinal Fesch down the
stairs if he presented himself at the Embassy.
1 Mémoires d’Outre Zombe.
THE BONAPARTES AFTER 1815 19
The Bonapartes found endless difficulties in their way
when they wanted to travel from one place to another.
They could never all meet together at one place, their
residences being purposely widely distributed. If they
had a rendezvous it was Rome, where Madame Mère,
“the mother of all the Bonapartes,” resided. She had
been received kindly by the Pope, Pius VII, and most of
her children were allowed to go and see her from time
to time. But when she was dying and she desired to
See the four children who remained to her, only one
was able to be present. Louis, it is true, was ill at
Florence, but neither Joseph nor Caroline, in spite of
reiterated demands and prayers, could obtain the
requisite authorization. At her death, even the Court of
Rome, friendly as it was to her, exacted that the funeral
ceremony should be of extreme simplicity, in deference
to the French Government, and would not allow the
Imperial arms to be displayed on the outside of the
church. Not only were the places of residence of the
members of the family watched, and their journeys and
travels superintended, but their least acts were under
control. The five Powers had to deliberate when Elisa
wanted a new tutor for her son, and she was not allowed
a second box at the theatre at Trieste when she asked
permission. Louis was not allowed to put an inscription
on his son’s tomb. Joseph, in 1832, was allowed to go
and live in England, but nowhere else. Italy was specially
forbidden him because of his facial resemblance to
Napoleon. Indeed, the young Louis Napoleon was not
far wrong when he wrote to his father from Augsburg, .
where he had been delayed for a fortnight waiting for
a passport: “Soon it will be necessary to hold a
Congress when we want to change from one place to
another.” --
These humiliating conditions, though applying to the
whole Bonaparte family, were even more strictly en-
20 LOUIS NAPOLEON
forced in regard to Hortense than to any of the others.
The justification for such severe measures was the
apprehension of the French Government, and indeed
of the Holy Alliance, that the family of the Emperor
would foment and stir up insurrection in Europe, and
would leave no stone unturned to win back the Imperial
power they had lost. There was some justification for
this attitude of the Powers, but the members of the
family as a whole hardly merited the disquieting sus-
picion with which they were regarded. Hortense
especially was looked upon as a dangerous woman, and
she was said to have been at the bottom of all the plots
and conspiracies against the Bourbons in France be-
tween 1816 and 1830. The meetings of the Bonaparte
family in Rome caused endless anxiety to the Powers.
But the attitude of the Holy Alliance towards the
Bonapartes was probably in itself the cause of much
of their restlessness. It was a galling situation which
they could not but desire ardently to change, and when,
to the personal grievance which was common to all,
there was added, as in the case of Hortense and her
Sons, a Sense of political injustice, and a spirited
resolve to be worthy of the high name they bore, it is
not to be wondered at that a timorous Government went
to the extremes it did in covering Hortense with its
surveillance.
But this surveillance of the ex-Queen of Holland was
carried to such extremes that it roused in her the very
thing that it was meant to combat—the spirit of
antagonism and plot. Her reader, Mademoiselle
Cochelet, visiting Paris on private business in 1816,
was watched as if she were a dangerous personage of
political importance. The same year the minister at
Berne informed the Duc de Richelieu, who in his turn
informed Decazes, that a tailor who had worked for
Madame Hortense's son went from time to time to
THE BONAPARTES AFTER 1815 2 I
Paris, and that, being fond of money and a great talker,
perhaps some use might be made of him. In 1822 on a
van filled with furniture and objects of art for Queen
Hortense going through Vesoul to Arenenberg, word
was sent to the authorities, who ordered it to go by
Belfort and Colmar. There the contents were
thoroughly overhauled, but nothing incriminating
being found, the van was allowed to proceed to Switzer-
land.
That the Bonapartes did become to a certain extent a
rallying point for liberal ideas in some parts of Europe,
perhaps more particularly in Italy, in the days of the
Holy Alliance we shall see in a subsequent chapter.
But this was in a large measure in spite of, rather
than because of, the members of the Emperor's family.
Even Queen Hortense, full of spirit and action and
never forgetting that her son bore the name of Napo-
leon—even Hortense never showed herself ready to
take any resolute action for the restoration of the
family’s political greatness. She knew too well the
Small value of what she had lost, but the endeavour to
break down the cruel laws of proscription and to force
from the Government of France the recognition of the
rights of the Bonapartes to be free citizens in their
native land, was never lost sight of, and this, probably
more than anything else, was accountable for the reputa-
tion of the Queen as a plotter and conspirator.
But it was the blood of the Beauharnais that kept the
Napoleonic tradition alive. Left to the Bonapartes
alone it would have sunk and died. To Napoleon’s
brothers and sisters the principal thought, after 1815,
was how they might save the wreckage of their fortunes.
They desired more than anything else to settle down to
a life of comfort or pleasure. They were wishful not to
compromise themselves. They only asked to be for-
gotten. If the Powers had dared to forget them they
22 LOUIS NAPOLEON
would have been as harmless as it was desired they
should be. All through his youth and early manhood
Louis Napoleon found his relatives a ponderous and
heavy obstacle in the way of his ambitious dreams.
They were, in his own words, “bodies without Souls,
petrified mummies, or imponderous phantoms.”
Joseph went first to the United States, whilst his wife
and daughters lived at Brussels, not being allowed to
retire to their own estate at Prangins in Switzerland.
In America he was received with respect and took up his
residence at Point Breeze on the Delaware River, under
the name of the Comte de Survilliers, where he busied
himself with his estate. In 1832 he returned to Europe
and went to live in England.
Lucien, who wished to go and join his brother in
America, was not allowed to do so. As a Roman
prince, however, he had no difficulty in establishing
himself in Rome, where he had a villa at Ruffinella, near
Frascati.
All the members of the family appear to have had the
ulterior intention of getting near to the centre of the
family, Madame Mère, at Rome. Louis took up his
residence at Florence with his eldest son, where he
amused himself with literature. Jerome, after having
been kept a prisoner for a year at Elwangen by his
father-in-law, the King of Wurtemberg, settled first of
all at Trieste. There were born two of his children, the
Princess Mathilde and Prince Napoleon. He only
settled at Rome in 1823, but shortly afterwards he
was obliged to abandon and sell the handsome house
which he had built near Fermo, because the King of
Naples found it too close to his territory. Caroline and
Elisa, too, were located near Trieste without being able
to get away.
They were not a very formidable band of conspirators
—these brothers and sisters of Napoleon. Joseph was
THE BONAPARTES AFTER 1815 23
immersed in business affairs, Lucien with his studies
and excavations, Louis with poetry, and Jerome with
his pleasures. There seemed to be little of the spirit of
the Emperor in any of them, and their apathy wrung
from the son of Hortense the cry, “All the Bonapartes
are dead.”
The humiliations imposed upon the Imperial family
after Waterloo must have made an ineffaceable impres–
sion on the mind of the young Louis Napoleon. He
grew up under the eyes of the police of Europe. The
contrast between the days of exile and the incomparable
days of glory of his childhood must have exercised a
powerful influence on the formation of his ideas, and
had its effect on the actions of his youth.
CHAPTER III
YOUTH : 1815–1830

ORTENSE, now Duchess of St. Leu, left
France on July 14, 1815. She had orders
to quit Paris at very short notice, because
she was supposed to be concerned in a plot
to poison the allied Sovereigns. This was probably
little more than a fiction concocted as an excuse to get
rid of her. She went first of all with her two sons to
Geneva, but was told she could not stay. She then made
her way to Aix in Savoy, in the territory of Sardinia,
and there resolved to wait until her place of residence
should be fixed upon by the Powers. There she re-
mained till November. Towards the end of August a
conference of ministers of the allied courts decided that
the ex-Queen of Holland should be authorized to live in
Switzerland under the surveillance of the representatives
of the five Great Powers, and the canton of St. Gall was
specially chosen as most suitable for her future resi-
dence. But the Swiss Diet, which had not been con-
sulted in the matter, refused to allow any member of the
Bonaparte family to live within the territory of the
Republic, and Hortense found herself in the predica-
ment of being unable to enter either France or Switzer-
land, while the Sardinian Government, whose guest she
was, reminded her of the impossibility of a prolonged
stay at Aix. The decision of the Swiss Diet, however,
did not prevent her from crossing Switzerland on her
way to Constance, in the Duchy of Baden, where she
24
YOUTH 25
hoped to enjoy the hospitality of her cousin the Grand
Duchess Stephanie. Here she arrived at the end of
November, with her youngest son, Louis Napoleon, the
elder boy having left her at Aix to join his father. The
Grand Duke, however, presumably in obedience to the
wishes of the allied Sovereigns, intimated to her that
he was unable to afford her the satisfaction of residing
within his territories. Notwithstanding this, she seems
to have taken a house in the town of Constance and lived
there for more than a year. Some months of this
period, however, she spent in a visit to her brother
Eugène, at Berg, in Bavaria, and also at Geiss in the
Canton of Appenzell, where she went for her health in
I816. This seems to show that the law of residence con-
cerning members of the Bonaparte family was not too
harshly applied, and that as long as she did not settle
down permanently in their territories, neither the Swiss
nor Baden Governments were disposed to be too hard
on Hortense. Louis Napoleon, now aged eight, accom-
panied his mother to Berg, and indeed it seems to have
been in some degree on his account that this visit was
arranged. Eugène, who had married the daughter of
the King of Bavaria, was the father of five children, and
he was glad to be able to welcome Hortense’s son,
whose childhood seemed now destined to be a lonely
one, among his own family. Berg was a summer resi-
dence on the shores of the Wurmsee, four leagues from
Munich, and there Louis Napoleon is said to have spent
some of the happiest months of his boyhood in the com-
pany of his cousins, with whom he very soon made
friends. Hortense and her son seem to have returned
again to Constance after their stay in Bavaria, and it
was not till May 1817 that they finally left the Baden
town to take up their residence in Augsburg. Here
Hortense bought a house, which she made her head-
quarters for the next four years, during which time
26 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Louis studied at the St. Anna Gymnasium, where he
was placed fifty-fourth among a total of ninety-four."
Previous to this the Prince’s education had been en-
tirely under the direction of private tutors and pro-
fessors. His first tutor was the Abbé Bertrand, a mild
and well-meaning man; later M. Philippe Lebas, Son of
the Conventionist Lebas, took charge of the Prince's
studies. Lebas at first found him slow and inattentive,
but recognized his goodness of heart. But the boy ac-
cepted the tutor’s influence “with indifference.” It was
under Lebas' direction that Louis Napoleon followed
the course at the Augsburg Gymnasium, a course of
study which was the only definite scholastic instruction
which the Prince received during his life. He is said
to have applied himself during this time more especially
to living languages and the exact sciences, and to have
been considered by the professors at the gymnasium a
very intelligent pupil. The remainder of his education
was carried on, not exactly desultorily, for he studied
systematically and to good purpose, but along lines
dictated more by his own and his mother’s fancy than
by any accepted standards of education. It is rather
interesting in the light of after events to remember that
the only real academic education of Napoleon III was a
German education, and that during four of the most
impressionable years of his life he lived in Germany,
breathed a German atmosphere, and spoke the German
language.” To his latest day he spoke French with a
German accent, a fact which was used to good effect by
the lampooners and critics in the days of the Presidential
Campaign, and indeed for many years after.” It was
* When he left he was twenty-fourth.
* The Prince-President, speaking of Bavaria to Prince Hohenlohe in
1850, said: “J”y ai passé ma jeunesse à Augsbourg, et j'en conserve
toujours un très bon souvenir” (Memoirs of Prince Hohenlohe, I, 66).
* Sometimes the accent is spoken of as English, and sometimes as
partly German and partly English. The Charčvari, in 1848, represented
YOUTH 27
also at Augsburg that he made his first communion,
receiving the sacrament at the hands of the Bishop of
the diocese (Augsburg), under the patronage of his
uncle, Prince Eugène.
These four years were not spent by Hortense entirely
in Bavaria. She passed her time between Augsburg,
Arenenberg, Geneva, and Italy, and the Prince during
the vacations accompanied his mother on her journeys
and visits. Hortense purchased the château of Arenen-
berg, in the canton of Thurgau, in 1817, for thirty-one
thousand florins, an old, neglected, and abandoned
building, which she set about converting into a pleasant
dwelling-house. It was whilst this work was in progress
that she lived in Augsburg, and indeed for some time
after the new house was finished. She seems to have
kept up her house in Augsburg till the death of her
brother in 1824, and Mr. Blanchard Jerrold has stated
that the four years which his biographers usually allot
to the Prince's studies in the Bavarian town were really
more like seven or eight, and he prints a letter from Louis
Napoleon to his father dated from Augsburg in Novem-
ber 1825. There is, however, in this letter no mention
of his studying at the gymnasium, though we may sup-
pose such was the case. Clearly the Prince’s connection
with South Germany, in Baden and in Bavaria, was one of
some length, extending in all from his eighth to about
his seventeenth year, and it must have had a consider-
able influence on his character. Madame Cornu always
said that he caught the romantic fever which was pass-
ing over intellectual Germany in those days, and never
shook it off."
M. Vieillard giving the Prince lessons in pronunciation, in one of which
he asks him to repeat the words, “Rien n'est changé en France, il n'y a
qu'un Suisse de plus; ” but the Prince persists in saying, “Rien n'est
chanché en Suisse, il n'y'avre qu'un Vranzais de blus.”
* Queen Victoria, contrasting Louis-Philippe with Napoleon III, wrote
in 1855 : “The King was thoroughly French in character, possessing all
28 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Hortense's purchase of Arenenberg had been dictated
by the proximity of the house to the Lake of Constance,
near which both her brother and the Grand Duchess
Stephanie had summer residences, but more especially
by reason of the council of the canton of Thurgau
having decided to offer her the hospitality of their terri-
tory. She replied to their chivalry by buying an estate
within the canton; but, though visiting there from time
to time during her residence in Augsburg, she did not
finally settle down at Arenenberg till 1821.
Arenenberg, called originally Narrenberg (Montagne
des fous), is magnificently situated on a wooded hill
458 metres (1,502 feet) above the level of the sea, and
overlooking what is called the lower Lake of Constance
between the towns of Constance and Schaffhausen, a
kind of widening of the Rhine as it leaves the lake
proper. The house is on the left bank of the river, on
a charming site opposite the Isle of Reichenau, in Baden.
Chateaubriand described the château as “situated on a
kind of promontory at the extremity of a chain of steep
hills,” and speaks of the “extensive but rather melan-
choly (triste) view ‘’ over the lake from its windows.
Here Hortense made her home till her death in 1837,
and here, under rather dull and monotonous conditions,
Prince Louis Napoleon’s early manhood was principally
spent.
Mademoiselle Cochelet, reader to the Queen (whose
acquaintance she made at Madame Campan’s school at
St. Germain-en-Laye) bought the neighbouring château
of Sandegg, and when afterwards she married Colonel
Parquin, one of the many devoted friends of the exiled
the liveliness and talkativeness of that people, whereas the Emperor is
as unlike a Frenchman as possible, being much more German than
French in character.” She also states that the Emperor was “very
well read in German literature, to which he seems to be very partial”
(Letters of Queen Victoria, III, 155).
YOUTH 29
Prince, she took up her residence not far away in the
Castle of Wolfsberg.
On learning of the Queen’s acquisition of Arenen-
berg, Talleyrand was not a little alarmed, and had
Serious thoughts of sending a representation on the sub-
ject to the council of the canton. Pasquier, too, was
of the same opinion, but Decazes persuaded them that
on her hill at Arenenberg it would be easier to watch
over “Madame de St. Leu ’’ than anywhere else. She
was therefore permitted to remain.
The climate being very cold in winter, it became
Hortense's custom to pass that season of the year in
Rome, where she would be near Madame Mère, stop-
ping on the way at Florence to see her husband, to
whom she had become formally reconciled. When
Prince Louis Napoleon accompanied his mother, the two
brothers, separated by family differences, were able to
taste the joy of each other’s company for a brief moment.
Hortense, notwithstanding her worldly and artistic
preoccupations, kept watch over the education of her
son with much intelligence and with a tender solicitude.
His early instruction had been almost entirely in her
hands, and later, when his more regular education was
undertaken by M. Lebas and M. Vieillard, he never
ceased to be her principal and almost exclusive preoccu-
pation. She herself gave him lessons in drawing and
dancing. In the evening, before retiring to bed, she
would read to him; usually something appropriate to
his studies—travels in some part of the world of which
he had been learning, or some memorable act in that
portion of history which he had been studying. Satur-
days she gave up to him entirely, and he then had to
recapitulate all he had learnt during the week. She
used to question him in Latin, for, without herself being
a good Latinist, she knew enough of the language to
tell whether the boy answered well or ill.
30 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Louis never gave his mother any trouble, and he
made her life of exile happy. She was yet a compara-
tively young woman, being only thirty-eight when she
finally settled at Arenenberg. She was thus able to be
a companion to her son. The boy had a precocious
intelligence. His mind was active, and he was ever
ready with a reply. He was fond of asking questions,
and would not do anything he was told unless he was
given the reason. But he was timid and reserved with
those he did not know, and he inherited from his mother
(perhaps from both his parents) an obstinacy which won
for him from Hortense herself the name of the doux
emtété. He always preserved this quiet obstinacy in
after life, and it contributed both to his success and his
ruin. He spoke little, but his words were usually well
chosen, Sensible, and to the point.
Hortense was a woman of very decided character,
and in imparting to her son many of her own quali-
ties, she gave to him a gift which, like the obstinacy
which was his by inheritance of birth, was to work
both to his doing and undoing. “Intrepid herself she
made him so; proud, she gave him a heart which was
above all littlenesses; a worshipper of Napoleon, she
inspired in him the cult of the great man; convinced of
the future of her race, she communicated to him her
faith.” + She was, in spite of all, the good genius of his
destiny, as Josephine had been of his uncle’s. One
small incident will show the manner of her influence
over him. Like all imaginative children he was afraid
of the dark. Hortense cured him by taking from his
bedroom all the portraits of the Emperor. “I cannot
let them remain,” she said, “in the room of a coward.”
The child knew no fear after that. She gave him the
letter written on the occasion of his birth by the
Emperor, and it became the habit of the young Prince
* Ollivier, Z'Empire Zibéral, II, 19.
YOUTH 31
to carry it always on his person. She put on his finger
the wedding-ring of Josephine.
At Augsburg, at the age of thirteen, he had heard
of the death of Napoleon, and a touching letter to his
mother, at the moment away on one of her summer
visits, shows what a powerful influence the remem-
brance of his uncle had on his mind even at that youth-
ful age. “What grieves me very much,” he writes,
“is not to have seen him once more before his death,
for in Paris I was so young that it is almost my heart
only that holds a remembrance of him. When I do
wrong I think of this great man, and I seem to feel
his shade within me telling me to keep myself worthy
of the name of Napoleon.”
In developing in her son the noble ambition of
being worthy of his name, Hortense did not, how-
ever, nourish in him regret for the power which was
lost. She had profited by the uses of adversity, and
though she preserved her aristocratic nature, she had
learnt by misfortune to regard life with philosophical
simplicity. She repeated to the boy at every oppor-
tunity that it was necessary to be a man before being
a prince, and that there was greatness in misfortune if
supported with dignity. Far from preaching to him a
blind dynastic doctrine based on heredity, she saturated
him with the idea that the highest places the world has
to bestow do not assure happiness, and that his only
aim should be to recover the fatherland to the family
and to acquire personal distinction. She recommended
him always to recognize the right of the French people
to give itself a head, even if that right was exercised
to his own detriment. This lofty sentiment of detach-
ment, counselled by the mother, became a definite re-
publican doctrine in the historical teaching of his tutor,
M. Lebas, who was naturally an admirer of the French
Revolution.
32 LOUIS NAPOLEON
His more academic studies the Prince continued
almost alone, or only with tutors. The daily com-
panionship of brother or friends of his own age was
missing from the Prince's youth, and this lack of sym-
pathy in his everyday pursuits was a retarding influence
in the youth's development, which left its mark upon
him in after life. At the gymnasium at Augsburg he
had studied more particularly modern languages and
exact science. He had learnt to read Latin without
difficulty, but his real classical studies came later. At
Arenenberg he studied poetry (especially Schiller and
Corneille), history, and military science. Corneille had
been Napoleon’s favourite poet, and Schiller seems to
have had a strong fascination for the young man.
Military history, however, could not be learnt from
books, and wishing to acquire something of the art of
war he entered the camp at Thun, like any other
young Swiss citizen, and was soon marked out for his
assiduity and intelligence. His desire to engage in
the profession of arms in some foreign army was
denied him, and in 1829, when he wished to volunteer
with the Russians in their campaign against the Turks,
though Hortense was reluctantly persuaded to give her
Consent, his father absolutely refused permission for a
child of his to serve a foreign country. Madame Mère,
on hearing that her grandson was desirous of wearing
the uniform of one of the sovereigns who had sent her
son to St. Helena, became indignant and called the
Prince before her. “What is your name?” she cried,
rising from her couch. “Napoleon,” was the
answer. “Enough 1 now go.”
The charge brought against him in later years that
his only military experience was with the Swiss militia
was therefore true, but entirely unworthy and beside the
mark. What military training the Prince could
honourably obtain he did not hesitate to avail himself
YOUTH 33
of. He had indeed for a short time followed the exer-
cises of a Baden regiment in garrison at Constance, but
he seriously took up arms for the first time in the
federal camp at Thun, under the direction of Colonel
Dufour. He directed his military studies more especially
to the branch which had been his uncle’s in his early
days, and in 1836 Prince Louis Napoleon was captain
of a regiment of artillery in the Helvetic Republic, and
author of a Manuel d’Artillerie for the use of the officers
of that citizen army.
Though gentle and reserved in disposition, and
with the nervous temperament of a woman, Prince
Louis applied himself with assiduity to physical
exercises, and excelled more especially in Swimming
and riding. He swam across Lake Constance, and was
a good gymnast and an excellent shot. But to arrive
at these results he had to fight against a naturally
effeminate disposition and exercise an energy and will
power quite out of the common. Indeed, the story of
his life may be said to have been the struggle between
these two conflicting elements in his nature. He had
already manifested those qualities of courage and Sang-
froid of which he afterwards gave so many proofs.
Once he stopped some runaway horses at the risk of
his life, and another time, at Mannheim, when he was
staying with his aunt, the Grand Duchess of Baden, he
was out walking with his two cousins, Josephine and
Marie, and the Princess Wasa, when a flower fell from
the hair of one of the ladies into the waters of the
Necker. On a chance observation from one of the
Princesses about the chivalry of days gone by, the
Prince immediately threw himself into the river dressed
as he was, and notwithstanding the rapidity of the
current, after swimming about for some minutes,
brought back the flower. Stories of his kindness of
heart are no less abundant than of his courage. One
D
34 LOUIS NAPOLEON
afternoon in midwinter his mother saw him come home
without coat or shoes. He had met a family in rags
and shivering with cold, and having no money, and not
admitting that he could pass by these poor people with-
out giving them something, he had not hesitated to
divest himself of his coat and shoes for their sakes.
This kindness—the quality bonté of which mention has
already been made—won for him in these years of exile
many faithful and devoted friends, and was a quality
of his nature that resisted all the strains and trials of
his life and ennobled all his existence.
As a child Prince Louis is said to have been amiable
and attractive to a degree, and as a youth and after-
wards as a man he exercised the same power of attrac-
tion upon those who came ‘into familiar contact with
him. In appearance he was not so handsome as his
elder brother, who is said to have presented the picture
of a “hero of romance.” Every day took away some-
thing of his childhood’s beauty. He was agile and
muscular, but small in stature, his head and shoulders
long in proportion to his body, and he only appeared
to advantage on horseback. His forehead was wide
and lofty, but the features underneath were those of a
Beauharnais, though the serious melancholy which he
inherited from his father took more and more, as time
went on, the place of his mother’s pleasant smile which
had been his as a child. He cultivated a military air
in letting his moustaches grow, along with a small
imperial, which in later years developed into the well-
known goatee beard. But the grave and almost severe
expression of his features was softened by a gentle
voice and a clear accent; by the benevolent expression of
his blue-grey eyes, and by the charm, insinuation, and
noble but cordial politeness of his manner. He was
more of a questioner than a talker, caring more to learn
than to shine in conversation, and he might at times
YOUTH 35
have appeared slow of intelligence had it not been for
the quickness of his happy repartees, which always hit
the mark and indicated an active and reflective mind.
It was often difficult, from the quiet manner in which
he spoke, to divine the obstinate intrepidity of his
character. He made himself beloved without an effort
because of his simplicity and sympathy.
One thing only was lacking in his education—that
austerity of manners and bracing discipline from without
which doubles the strength of a man’s will, elevates
and dignifies his character, and gives the supreme value
to his life. Hortense, running after pleasure and love,
living in the atmosphere of sentiment and affection,
could neither teach him this by counsel nor by example.
He was conscious of his loss, and did all he could to
correct the error. But self-imposed discipline, though
invaluable as a moral factor, presupposes a certain
moral strength already existing, and in many ways can
never take the place of an external authority imposed
at an early age. For, by the nature of things, it must
begin at an age when the value of early discipline should
be already felt in growingly fixed mental and moral
habits of life. At the age of nineteen, when Louis
Napoleon woke to the lack of this bracing discipline,
too much ground had already been lost for him ever
really to make good what his mother’s upbringing had
left out of his life.
On the eve of the Revolution of 1830 Prince Louis
was a young man of fashion, gently respectful to his
father, tender to his mother, hard-working, modest,
active, and devoured with the desire to give himself to
some great cause and make his name famous. The
dull, monotonous life of Arenenberg choked him, and he
found in the camp at Thun an outlet for his activities.
His brother, Napoleon Louis, living with his father at
Florence, also shared in this desire for action and
36 LOUIS NAPOLEON
adventure. He had wished to take part in the insur-
rection in Greece, and had only been restrained by the
picture of the grief into which his father would be
plunged by his departure. But on his marriage to his
cousin Charlotte, daughter of Joseph, he settled down
to a peaceable existence with an establishment of his
own under his father’s roof, and occupied himself with
business and science.
The two brothers, though meeting seldom, had for
one another a tender affection, and held many ideas in
common. Both were republicans and at the same time
fanatical in their admiration for their great uncle.
Both were fervent patriots and devoted to the cause of
oppressed peoples. This sentiment of sympathy for
down-trodden peoples had not been taught to Louis
Napoleon. It was drawn from his own sufferings, for
like himself these peoples were the victims of the
reaction of 1815, and their common misfortune seemed
to the Prince almost to predestine him to dedicate him-
self to their cause. At one time, as a boy, he sent all
the pocket-money his mother gave him to the Phil-
hellenic Committee. After visiting Italy he felt the
cause of the Italian people to be his, and from these
earliest years of exile sprang his devotion to the cause
of Italian liberty and independence, which was so
dominant a note in his policy of after years.
In considering the formative influences of the early
years of Louis Napoleon’s life it will be well to remem-
ber—I. His infancy, till the age of seven, passed in
France, in all the glory and splendour of the Imperial
Era, with vivid and lasting remembrances of the
Emperor himself. 2. The separation of his parents,
and loss of a father's directing influence and discipline.
3. The dominating influence of a romantic but strong-
minded mother. 4. A South German education and
atmosphere extending over Some of the most impres-
YOUTH 37
Sionable years of his life. 5. His loneliness, and con-
Sequent retirement into himself. 6. The contrast of
his life of exile with the free and happy days of his
childhood, and the Supervening atmosphere of suspicion
and surveillance with which he was surrounded.
The formation of his subsequent political ideas during
this period are considered in a later chapter, but it may
here be stated that the position held by the Bonaparte
family after 1815 naturally inclined them towards the
side of the people, rather than towards that of the
monarchical governments of Europe, whose victims both
Were.
At the time of the Revolution of 1830 Prince Louis
Napoleon was twenty-two years of age, his brother
twenty-six. The Duc de Reichstadt (Napoleon’s son)
was still living, though a “prisoner'’ in Austria, and,
if the hereditary principle still prevailed, was the
Emperor's heir. The official head of the family was
Joseph Bonaparte, who, without his brother’s superior-
ity of intellect, was an excellent and noble man, with
lofty, patriotic, and disinterested intentions and ideas.
Louis Napoleon’s ambitions at this time, therefore,
can only have been of the vaguest kind. If the
hereditary Empire were to be revived, and the claims of
Joseph, Louis, and Jerome set aside, as they very easily
could have been by the rather ambiguous wording of
the decree of Napoleon establishing the line of succes-
sion, there were two lives between the Prince and the
throne—those of the Duc de Reichstadt and his own
brother, and Napoleon Louis was lately married and was
likely to have heirs. The call to the young man was
less that of reviving the Imperial glory of his uncle than
of distinguishing himself in Some way—of living up to
the high name which he bore, and of being the champion
of those liberties which he honestly believed it had been
his uncle’s mission to give to Europe.
CHAPTER IV
LOUIS NAPOLEON AND HIS PARENTS

HE influence of Queen Hortense on her
younger son has already been referred to,
but the subject can hardly be dismissed
without, induiring what would have been
the effect on Louis Napoleon if he had felt more than
he did the severer influence of his father. We know
so little of the life and character of the elder brother
who lived with King Louis at Florence, that
it is impossible from that analogy to assume anything
concerning the younger. The natures of the two young
men are said to have been widely different, and the
effect of the father's influence on the one might have
been by no means the same on the other.
Hortense would have been the best of mothers if
there had been a counteracting, restraining, and at the
same time sympathetic, father’s influence to balance
hers. But we may well question whether King Louis
was the man to exert such an influence. It was clearly
impossible for the husband and wife to live together,
and a father and mother at the same time being therefore
denied him, the real question simply resolves itself into
whether it would have been better for the Prince to
have lived with his father in Florence than with his
mother in Arenenberg. There is nothing to show that
such a change would have been beneficial to the youth’s
character. Louis Napoleon’s was one of those natures
that demanded sympathy before it could develop along
38
LOUIS NAPOLEON AND HIS PARENTS 39
natural lines. If sympathy was withheld, or if it was
not present in those with whom he came into contact,
the Prince retired into himself and appeared reserved,
constrained, and awkward. Hortense understood him,
ańd in consequence he gave her his full confidence.
She believed in him, and made him believe in himself,
and, to one of his nature, such a belief makes one
worthy of the confidence which gives it birth. On the
whole, Hortense was the good genius of the young man’s
life. King Louis had a considerable influence on the
Prince’s youth and manhood, but it cannot be said that
his influence was in any way for good. Louis Bona-
parte’s morose and defiant character led him to exercise
a petty and annoying surveillance over everything and
everybody around him. He is said to have made even
those who loved him best as miserable as he was him-
self. And certainly this seems to have been the case
with his younger son. Louis was a dutiful son, as all
his actions testify, and there can be little doubt that he
loved his father, but it was difficult to feel any warm
affection for a testy valetudinarian who could only
criticize and scold. The father loved the son in his
own way, but his way was never to show the least sign
of affection or sympathy, and to express curiosity rather
than interest in his son’s affairs. To a sensitive nature
like Louis Napoleon’s, his father’s attitude was a source
of continued distress and unhappiness.
King Louis lived at Florence in a very narrow circle,
and as the years went by withdrew more and more
from the world and tried to make it forget him. His
“cruel infirmity '' increased with time, and rendered
him less and less sociable. His ill-health accounted in
Some measure for his ill-humour, but many men before
and since his time have suffered more than he and yet
have lived cheerful and useful lives. Louis, it must be
confessed, was rather a poor creature in these days of
40 LOUIS NAPOLEON
exile, whatever he may at one time have been. His
whims and his irascibility made him disagreeable to
all who came in contact with him. At Florence he is
said to have had two cords in his carriage communicat-
ing on the outside with the coachman, so that he could
indicate to him without speaking in which direction to
drive. But he would pull first one string and then the
other, so that the coachman would literally not know
which way to turn. Once, when he had gone to Rome
to spend some days with Madame Mère, and had
returned to Florence sooner than had been expected,
he wrote to excuse himself with the statement that he
had left his mother unceremoniously because he felt
that he really needed rest and quiet for his head and
brain, the noise of women’s voices and the agitation
which children caused him being too much for him.
Napoleon Louis, as we have seen, had been entrusted
to his father’s care by the award of the court, and
the supposed preference of the father for his elder son,
which is sometimes remarked on by those who cast
doubt on the parentage of the younger, if it existed,
was the result rather, than the cause, of the elder son
living with him." But each year Louis Napoleon went
to Florence to see his father, and each year Napoleon
Louis went to Arenenberg to see his mother, but as
neither parent liked to be left alone, the brothers took
each other's place, and therefore did not see each other.
King Louis followed and watched over his younger
son’s studies from a distance, though he could not pre-
tend to direct them, and hoped to model his mind and
make him adopt his own opinions on men and things.
But as the Prince grew up he began to think for him-
self, and in a direction which his father deplored. Be-
tween the disenchanted, ailing old man, passing in
unhappy isolation the end of a life which had been so
* See also A. Lebey, Strasbourg et Boulogne, p. 13.
LOUIS NAPOLEON AND HIS PARENTS 41
brilliant, and a young man full of life and vigour, and
impatient to have, also, his share of glories and adven-
tures, the antagonism was as great as that between
Horténse and her husband. The gulf which separated
them grew by nature wider every day. The Prince,
while redoubling his dutiful deference to his father,
endeavoured in vain to excuse himself. The King could
not see things from his son’s point of view, and the
excuses appearing to the father to be meant to deceive
him added to his exasperation, which found expression
in his letters.
The letters were nearly always hard and dry and
Sometimes unkind and cruel, and were often a source
of no little unhappiness to the Prince. His nature had
need of affection, above all of domestic affection. It
Occupied a large place in his life, and he was always
as ready to give as to receive it. He felt very vividly
the rare joys and numberless sufferings of his family.
His love for his father he would not let be discouraged
or chilled by scoldings which he knew to be unjustified,
and he longed to see it returned with an effusion equal
to his own. But effusion was altogether against the
nature of King Louis, although he was steeped in the
sentiment of Rousseau and Bernardin de St. Pierre.
He was the possessor of one of those closed-up natures,
inwardly, it may be, full of passion and feeling, but
hating to see these things in others. He hated anything
in the nature of a “scene,” and would far rather write
his complaints in letters than explain himself in words.
He was the same to every one, and his letters to his
eldest son, as well as to his brothers Joseph and Jerome,
are as hard and full of ill-humour as those to Prince
Louis. On rare occasions, however, he seems to have
let himself go, as at the time of the boy’s first com-
munion at Augsburg (1821), when the King wrote: “I
give thee my blessing with all my heart. I pray God,
42 LOUIS NAPOLEON
who is the giver of all good, that He will give thee a
pure and grateful heart, and the guidance necessary to
fulfil all the duties which thy country and thy family
may impose on thee. . . . Adieu, cher ami, I embrace
thee again, and on this solemn occasion I renew with
thee the solemn paternal benediction which I give thee
each morning and evening in my thoughts and at every
moment when my imagination goes out to thee,” and
he signs himself, “Thy affectionate father, Louis.”
He did not, however, often show his feelings of real
affection in this manner, though such a letter as this
is enough to refute the famous legend as to the Prince's
birth. He more often found fault, and when he had
nothing more serious to complain of, he reproached his
Son (aged 29) for his bad writing, though he wrote
wretchedly himself.
Everything, indeed, was a matter of disagreement
between father and son. The father thought only of
the past, the son dreamed of the future. The father
sought obscurity and to be forgotten, the son how
to make himself known. The father was suspicious of
everybody, the son gave his confidence too easily. The
father, though his family owed everything to the
people, saw only in democracy its vices and mistakes—
the son exaggerated its wisdom and generosity. The
father, disillusioned, wished that his son would think
a little less of glory and a little more of his material
interests. He wished that he would try to secure his
future by an advantageous marriage. This, however,
was the last of all the father’s counsels that the son
would have followed, for he thought little of money,
and what he had he scarcely knew how to keep. He
had no luxurious and expensive tastes. Giving was
his chief pleasure. It was an instinct that had been his
from his earliest years, and was encouraged by his
mother. But his attitude towards money affairs
LOUIS NAPOLEON AND HIS PARENTS 43
brought him into collision with his father, to whom
material interests were of greater concern than the ideas
held by his son, which he considered impracticable and
visionary. King Louis in his middle age was an
eminently conventional person, while his son had
always in his nature a strain of bohemianism which per-
haps he inherited from his mother. Like Disraeli, he
would probably have confessed he was not “respect-
able '' in the conventional sense, and in these early
days material interests troubled him little. He knew
that he would always be assured of a competence. His
mother’s fortune would be his, and if this was hardly
sufficient to keep up the state which other members of
the family appear to have thought their dignity required,
Louis Napoleon was content to live a life of Compara-
tive obscurity and be free in his actions. A wealthy
marriage, such as his father desired him to contract,
was repugnant to him. A social position gained at the
cost of saddling himself with convention and restraints
would have been a bar to future action, and he put all
idea of it on one side. Perhaps his father had some
grounds for dissatisfaction at the lack of business apti-
tude in the young man, for all subjects connected with
moneys and family settlements seem to have been repug-
nant to him. After the death of his brother in 1831,
his father wrote to him concerning the disposition of
the elder son’s estate. The Prince made no reply, and
on his father asking for one, he wrote: “Since it is
necessary to concern myself with so sad a subject as
my brother's heritage, I can only say that I agree
entirely with everything you have done. Naturally
one’s first care should be to carry out all his intentions
in paying all his debts. As for me I will have nothing
to do with money coming to me from such an unhappy
source.” An attitude like this, which took so little
account of material interests, irritated his father, who
44 LOUIS NAPOLEON
could in no way appreciate the high idealism of his
younger Son.
King Louis exercised his habit of fault-finding to the
end of his days. The duty of a father as head of the
family, notwithstanding his separation from his wife,
Seems ever to have been present with him. He never
realized that his sons were men. He always treated
them as children, and it was only their strict and at
bottom affectionate sense of duty to him which kept
them from a course which many another high-spirited
young man has taken. They never broke off relations
with their father, although at times the King would
remain silent for long periods in his correspondence
with Louis Napoleon, as a sign of his displeasure. He
objected to his son’s choice of a friend in Count Arèse,
and to their going together to London, and when Louis
replied that where he himself alone was concerned he
would always submit to his father, but that where his
friends were concerned the case was different, the father,
unaccustomed to such language, was offended, and
being reminded by the Prince that he was now twenty-
five years of age, he showed his displeasure by not
writing to him again for three months.
These silences of his father, however, hurt the sensi-
tive young man, and made him very unhappy; and
when at last a letter came he replied with an effusion
of thanks, which probably was as little acceptable to
the irritable old man as the previous stubborn refusal
to do his bidding. “I implore you, dear father,” wrote
the Prince, “do not ever be angry with me; it causes
me too much pain. . . . Pardon me if sometimes I
differ from you in opinion and reproach me if you will,
but do not punish me by not writing to me.” (July
9, 1833.) -
On the outbreak of an epidemic of cholera at Florence,
Louis Napoleon, fearing that his father, then worn out
LOUIS NAPOLEON AND HIS PARENTS 45
by illness, would be especially liable to the disease,
wished to go over and take care of the old man, now
living alone after the death of his elder son. The King
did not accept his son’s offer, but instead wrote him a
letter Setting forth the dispositions to be taken if he
should die. It is not certain whether he really regarded
Louis Napoleon’s projected journey in the light which
the Prince read into his father’s words, but it is not
difficult to believe that King Louis did really suspect
his son of Self-interest in the proposal, and at any rate
he made him feel that he so suspected him. Men of
the nature of King Louis, however, often say more
than they mean, and forget the pain which their
words may cause if taken too seriously, as they
invariably are by people of sensitive temperament.
However that may be, Louis Napoleon was stung by
such a suspicion on his father’s part, and the wound
occasioned by what he regarded as not only the repulse
of his affection but the want of all confidence in his
character by his father, did not heal for a very long
time. More than ten years afterwards, when he was
at Ham, he wrote in reference to this incident : “I can
never forget it; it was so opposed to my real intention
that I could scarcely even understand such an idea.
Am I not unfortunate to have been so misunderstood P
I, act by interest l To-day, when I have spent nearly
all my fortune in sustaining the misfortunes of the men
whose existence I have compromised, I would give all
my inheritance for one embrace from my father. Let
him leave his fortune to Peter or Paul—it matters little
to me, I can work for my living, but let him give me
his affection. . . . There are numbers of men who live
very well with an empty heart and a full stomach, but
with me it is different; my heart must be full whatever
else I may lack.”
He did not, however, let his father know the extent
46 LOUIS NAPOLEON
of his unhappiness. He may have carried considera-
tion for his father’s feelings too far. If he had dared
to rebel and risk the danger of a real quarrel the rela-
tions of father and son might have been happier.
Sometimes men of King Louis’ nature will surrender
affection to force, but there is always the danger that
they may do nothing of the sort, and then bad may be
made worse. When force is the remedy, it is more a
matter of who applies it than the nature of the force
itself, and a sensitive person is not likely to take the
Kingdom of Heaven by violence, however unselfish and
generous he may be.
There was a fundamental choc de caractères, as Balzac
calls it, between Louis Napoleon and his father, the
result both of the similarity and the differences of their
dispositions. The Prince, distressed, and tired of the
continual reproaches of King Louis, and desiring as
far as possible to escape them, was always constrained
in his father's presence. He only opened out his mind
to him with precaution. He would try to think first
just how much of his real ideas, sentiments, or pro-
jects he could avow without opening a flood-gate of
recriminations. But it is true in conversation as in
everything else that he who hesitates is lost, and this
turning over in his mind of what he should say, and
what he should not say, usually resulted in his keeping
back from his father what he would willingly have
spoken out could he have felt he would have been
understood. It was the same in his letters. It is
therefore not in his correspondence with his father that
the real nature of Louis Napoleon is seen.
His son’s political ideas were a source of much
trouble to King Louis, who had shown all through his
life a great aversion to political strife. He viewed with
apprehension and alarm the exploits of Louis Napo-
leon in stirring up strife again in Europe. Literary
ENSE
QUEEN HORT

LOUIS NAPOLEON AND HIS PARENTS 47
pursuits were his favourite craving, and all he desired
was to be left alone in the dulness and monotony of
retirement. But the old man in his saner moments
recognized his son’s good qualities and disinterested-
ness. He thought, however, that the young man
pushed these qualities too far, and wished to see him
more practical. For in spite of all his unconscious
rudeness and seeming lack of affection he never ceased
to love his son, and he professed that to see him happy
was all that he asked for to console his old age. Yet
the sad fact is that he did nothing to contribute to the
very happiness that he professed so much to desire to
promote.
“I would give all my inheritance for one embrace
from my father.” The words are infinitely pathetic,
coming as they did from a man of thirty-seven years
of age. They were written many years after the Prince
had lost his mother, and when more than ever he
craved for some expression from the only parent left
to him of that affection which was so necessary to his
existence. There was never, perhaps, a better example
of crabbed age and youth than that of Louis Napoleon
and his father, and the pity of it all is that loving each
other, as no doubt they did, that they made each other
so unhappy. The same tragedy has been enacted before
and since, not once, but many times, between parent and
child, and perhaps oftener between husband and wife.
The story of Mr. and Mrs. Carlyle is only one of many
instances.
What was denied the young man by his father was
amply compensated for, however, by his mother. We
have already said much about Queen Hortense's influ-
ence over her youngest son. There was no constraint
between Louis Napoleon and his mother. All his
affection went out to her and hers to him, and there was
perfect understanding between them. They always
48 LOUIS NAPOLEON
tutoi-ed each other, and their letters are rather those of
loving friendship and trust than the parental and duti-
ful letters of mother and son. Without “spoiling ”
him in the usual sense of that word when used in
regard to children, she made him feel that he was all in
all to her, and he in his turn made his mother more than
happy in her exile. “Soigne-toi bien, mon enfant,”
she writes to him when he is aged thirteen, “pour
menager ta Santé et aime-moi toujours pour consoler
ma vie.” And years after, when she had lost her eldest
son after the events in Italy, she wrote to Louis, now
aged twenty-four : “Thou knowest, dear child, that
everything which gives thee pleasure and happiness
makes me glad and happy also; I can no longer enjoy
life except for thee.” Language such as this was the
breath of life to the young man, whose stomach could
brook starvation though his heart could not. Yet
Hortense too could correct him, and tell him his faults.
“Your fault,” she wrote, “is too much confidence. I
must play the part of cold reason and often repeat
Beware.” The tenderness of Queen Hortense is seen
in nearly all her letters to him. She wrote to him in
1832 : “My only wish is to keep you by me and to
See you married to a bonne petite femme, young and
well educated, whom you can mould to your own
character, and who will look after your little ones. This
is the only happiness one can hope for in this world.
To desire more is to wish to poison your life with all
possible torments. . . . Those who judge me to be
ambitious, do not know how greatly I pity them for
buying so dearly the power which they suppose I regret.
All I desire is you and the sun. I no longer even
regret France. I loved it too well to be hurt by its
ingratitude.”
Language such as this, so different from the tone of
his father’s letters, charmed the timid nature of Louis
LOUIS NAPOLEON AND HIS PARENTS 49
Napoleon and encouraged him to open his heart. The
real man is, therefore, to be seen at this time in his
letters to his mother, so different from the constrained
epistles which he wrote in all dutifulness to his father
at Florence.
“In all you say to me,” he wrote at the age of twenty-
four, “I see the heart of a mother and the interest of
a friend. When one is unhappy, one finds great relief
in simply speaking out one’s vexations. Unfortunately,
it is a fault of my character to concentrate everything
I feel in such a way that my confidences only occur in
explosions.” He could never have written thus to
King Louis, and it is a piece of self-criticism that shows
how well he knew his own faults, and how ready he was
to acknowledge them.
A fortnight later he writes again to Hortense: “How
happy I am to have so tender and indulgent a mother
as you ! If only you knew how much you have touched
me, in thus wishing to go down for a moment to the
bottom of my heart to excuse its torments l’’
As he felt at twenty-four, he had always felt towards
his mother. From his childhood, sure of never being
scolded by her, though she was strict in correcting his
faults, he fell into the habit of thinking aloud before
her, and of confiding to her, without hesitation or
reticence, everything which occupied his mind and
filled his heart. This combination of frankness and
reticence in the same person, of unasked confidence on
the one hand and excessive reserve on the other, is no
uncommon thing. Louis Napoleon possessed it in a
marked degree. He was peculiarly susceptible to influ-
ences of personality, and unless he felt himself in
sympathy with those with whom he came in contact he
preserved an almost impenetrable reserve. With his
friends and with those towards whom he was drawn
by natural affinity his tendency was towards an un-
E
50 LOUIS NAPOLEON
restrained confidence, though this tendency was often
checked, especially in later life, by motives which
prompted him to keep his own counsel.
The very qualities that Louis Napoleon inherited
alike from his father and mother, kept him from the one
and drew him towards the other. The father’s reserve
called out the same quality in the son, the mother’s
frankness was met by a corresponding frankness. “I
have always followed the impulse of my heart,” wrote
Hortense in her memoirs, “and I shall always continue
to do so.” Louis Napoleon could, in a very large
measure, have said the same thing. Prudence, he
might have said with his mother, seemed to him to be
Selfishness, and he might well have echoed her words,
“Happiness alone, of which I never think, will find me
perhaps without courage.”
The influence of his parents both helped on and
kept back the development of the young man’s character.
The sunshine of his mother’s affection brought out all
that was best in his nature. It also prevented the
growth of some of the hardier qualities with which it
is well a man should be equipped if he is to play as
important a part in the affairs of the world as was
to fall to the lot of Louis Napoleon. The cold winds
and rain which are as necessary as sunshine to growth,
were scarcely supplied by the exile of Florence. His
part was rather that of an untrained gardener, who
continually disturbs the earth to see how the seed is
getting on, and who, when the tree has grown, cuts
and prunes it as he pleases without regard to its needs
and welfare. Though the tree may survive and bear
fruit, the effects of such treatment will ever afterwards
be felt and seen. His father’s attitude, however, if it
restrained the free growth of the son’s best natural
qualities, may be said to have had a certain disciplinary
value on the young man’s character. It taught him
LOUIS NAPOLEON AND HIS PARENTS 51
from his earliest youth the value of restraining and
curbing his own feelings and passions, and of subor-
dinating his own will to that of others. But such
discipline if continuous and unrelaxed is apt to defeat
itself.
In after days, when Louis Napoleon was a father, he
gave out to his son all that strength of affection and
confidence which his own father had denied him. But
the Prince Imperial, hardly less fortunate than his
father, was denied the kindly confidence and true en-
couragement of his mother’s affection. Her love for
her son showed itself more like that of King Louis for
Louis Napoleon forty years before, and it was the
unhappy fate of both Emperor and Prince to be deprived
first of the parent whose affection they could least
Spare.
CHAPTER V
THE ITALIAN INSURRECTION

HE Revolution of 1830 filled the two brothers
with enthusiasm. They believed that they
would be allowed to enter their own country
and enjoy their rights as French citizens.
The news of the Revolution came to Prince Louis at
Thun whilst he was performing his military duties,
marching twelve leagues a day, knapsack on back.
His first impulse was to start at once for France, but
his mother’s prudence kept him back by reminding him
that it was impossible that he should be allowed to
reside there, as the law of 1816 was still in force. “We
are very quiet in our little corner,” the Prince wrote to
his mother, “whilst over there they are fighting for the
cause which is most dear to me.” Hortense describes
both her sons as animated with the same spirit on the
arrival of the news from Paris. The elder son was at
Florence occupying his time with industrial inventions,
but, though separated, the feelings of the young men
were the same—regret at not being able to fight with
the Parisians, enthusiasm for the Revolution, and hope
that they would yet be permitted to serve their country.
They expected that the law of proscription would be
rescinded, and that the Bonaparte family would be
allowed to return to France with their rights as citizens
restored to them. The men who had fought and won
the battle for liberty could scarcely keep the door shut
against the family of the Emperor. But Hortense and
52
THE LU - E OF REICHSTADT
From a painting, Arvº by Daffinger. In the fossession of
Dr. Angºst ºn of ſienna

THE ITALIAN INSURRECTION 53
her sons were soon to be undeceived. Any lurking
hopes of a Bonapartist restoration under Napoleon II
were soon dispelled. On August 9 Louis Philippe was
declared King of the French, and a month later (Sept-
ember 2) the Chamber of Deputies decided by a
majority of one hundred and six votes (three hundred
and twenty-seven voting) that the law of 1816 against
the Bonaparte family be maintained. Joseph Bona-
parte, as head of the family, protested in a letter to the
Chamber, but the letter was not even read. He did
not dispute the right of a nation to govern itself, but
the French nation by three million suffrages had given
the Crown to the Napoleon family, and until that act
was revoked by another universal vote (plébiscite)
Napoleon II was the legitimate Sovereign of France by
reason of the people's will, and without the necessity of
a further election. He was ready to obey the will of
the people, but he asked that it should be formally and
directly manifested. All the members of the Bonaparte
family, with the exception of Jerome, approved of this
declaration and protest, though the “Napoleonic Idea”
here set out is not at all identical with that put forward
a few years later by Prince Louis Napoleon. At this
time, however, he seems to have approved. But the
same argument that made Napoleon II ruler of France
de jure in 1830 would have allowed the Prince to
claim the Crown as his right in 1836—which he did
not do. -
Napoleon II, the Duc de Reichstadt, was still living
with his grandfather the Emperor Francis at Vienna
under the watch and care of the Austrian Court and of
Metternich, and was little less than , a prisoner in the
hands of his father’s enemies and his mother’s friends.
He had no liberty of action and no communication with
the members of the family of which nominally he was
the chief. But the sad history of the Eaglet scarcely
54 LOUIS NAPOLEON
enters into the more romantic story of the man of
December.
Not being able to return to France, and with all his
bright hopes crushed, Prince Louis set out in October
with his mother for Rome. They spent two weeks at
Florence on the way. King Louis had gone on to
Rome, and Hortense had the unusual joy of having
both her sons by her side for Something more than a
brief period. In the middle of November she left
Florence with her youngest Son, saying what proved
to be a last good-bye to Napoleon Louis, and on her
way to Rome passed her husband at Viterbo on his way
back to Florence. Louis Napoleon waited on his
father, but Hortense was satisfied to know of her hus-
band’s presence without seeking it.
Hortense's intention was to settle in Rome for the
winter with her son. They found a papal interregnum
consequent on the death of Pius VIII and the city in
a state of secret fermentation. Whether on going to
Rome the Prince had any deliberate intentions of taking
part in political agitations it is impossible to declare.
His enthusiasm for the liberal cause ran high, his hopes
of serving his country had been frustrated, his love for
Italy, already very strong, might seem to call him to
give her his help. His brother, with whom he had just
spent a fortnight at Florence, through long residence
in Italy, was enthusiastic in his devotion to his adopted
country. All pointed to the Prince being drawn into
political agitation if not into actual insurrection. Yet
it is not at all certain that at this time his participation
in the events of the following year had taken shape in
his mind. The whole of this Italian episode in the
history of the Bonaparte family is rather obscure. On
the one hand they are charged with fomenting insur-
rection and plotting at Rome to take advantage in some
way of the impending troubles in the peninsula.
THE ITALIAN INSURRECTION 55
Nearly all the members of the family either lived, or
had some interest in Italy, either in Tuscany or the
Roman States; and Rome, where Madame Mère
resided, was a kind of head-quarters where from time to
time they assembled together. But Louis Napoleon
never at any time seems to have taken the family into
his confidence, and at the age of twenty-two he was
looked upon by them rather in the guise of an enfant
terrible who might upset the more subtle plans of the
elder members of the family, whose scheming brains
preferred the tortuous ways of diplomacy to the more
straight and direct methods which the Prince was more
likely to take.
Queen Hortense, however, in her Memoirs 1 pro-
fesses a perfect and naïve innocence of anything in the
nature of plot or conspiracy on the part of the Bona-
parte family. The truth would seem to be that their
machinations and secret schemings were rather for the
furtherance of their own personal interests than for any
definite political ends. All through his early career we
find the members of his family blaming Louis Napoleon
for taking upon himself political action which may
endanger their personal comfort or disturb their enjoy-
ment of the good things of life. This is not to say
that they were innocent of intrigue and conspiracy.
But if the intrigue was continuous, the conspiracy was
not of a very serious nature, for they lacked that one
quality of boldness which the Prince possessed and
which, in despite of failures, brought him at last to the
throne. The methods employed by any other of the
members of the family would never have accomplished
more than those in our own day of the Comte de Paris
or the present head of the Bonapartes.
Hortense says that when she arrived in Rome unrest
* La Reine Hortense en Italie, en France et en Angleterre pendant l’année
1831 : Paris, 1861.
56 LOUIS NAPOLEON
was in the air and that insurrection was too openly dis-
cussed not to make her apprehensive. “But I saw
nothing in all that,” she adds, “which need cause me
anxiety on account of my son.” Nevertheless, they
were hardly installed in Rome when the Prince had
orders to leave.
The governor of Rome first addressed himself to
Cardinal Fesch expressing the desire of the Government
that the Prince should leave the city. The Cardinal
was vexed, regarding the act as intentionally annoying
to the Bonaparte family, and on learning that the only
complaint against the Prince was that he had ridden
through the streets with a tricoloured saddle-cloth on
his horse, declared roundly that his nephew had done
nothing he need reproach himself with, and that he
should not quit the city. The real danger was, how-
ever, that in the event of disorders in Rome the Prince
would attract attention and become dangerous to the
Government. Hortense professes to believe there was
a plot in Rome in which it was sought to involve her
son. “If the Government were afraid of him, others
were thinking about him,” she says. But she gives no
hint as to the nature of her fears or as to whether or not
the Prince himself was in the plot. She was only con-
cerned for his safety, and when her palace was sur-
rounded by soldiers and the order of the three Cardinals
who were charged with the Government was notified
to the Prince that he must leave immediately, Hortense
acquiesced, thinking he would be safer out of the way.
He returned accordingly to Florence to his father and
brother, but if this action of the Cardinals at Rome
saved the Prince from danger in the Eternal City it
was probably the cause of his being involved in the
movement in Romagna at the beginning of the follow-
ing year. With his brother in Florence Louis Napoleon
was in many ways more free for action on behalf of the
THE ITALIAN INSURRECTION 57
Italian cause than in Rome. The fermentation then
goin on throughout the country was felt even on the
banks of the Arno, though tempered with Tuscan
placidity. Both young men, denied return to their own
country, burned to serve the land of their adoption.
Their devotion to Italy was the spontaneous, generous
sentiment common to the youth of the time. It is said
that both the Princes were attached to the Carbonari.
M. Ollivier denies this, and says that Carbonarism,
originating in the State of Naples, was very little known
in Tuscany. Count Orsi, however, who was the personal
friend at this time of Prince Napoleon Louis and later
of Louis Napoleon, expressly states that the latter de-
clared that they were both members of the secret Society
of the Carbonari, and the statement has been repeatedly
made in other places. M. Lebey, while expressing his
belief in the Carbonarism of the Prince, admits that
there are no proofs establishing the fact, and cites the
declaration of Count Arèse, who was the constant com-
panion of Louis Napoleon, as perhaps the last word On
the subject. Arèse said that if Napoleon did not be-
long to the Carbonari in reality, he did so in intention,”
which leaves the question an open one. Cavour is
credited with using the knowledge of this supposed
fact in influencing Napoleon III at the meeting at
Plombières in 1858. The point, however, is not one
of any very real historic importance, though it is given
as the reason of the Princes’ having joined the insur-
rection in Romagna in 1831.” According to M. Ollivier
“it was the generous sentiment of youth, rather than
any promise to a secret society that decided them to
* “S'il n'avait pas €té carbonaro en réalité, il l'avait été de coeur.”
* M. Lebey thinks the Prince's rôle in Romagna is difficult to explain
unless we accept the view that he was a Carbonaro; and adds: “It is
even probable that he was a free-mason '' (Strasbourg et Boulogne, p. 35
seq., where the whole question of the influence of secret societies in the
work of the Bonapartist revival is discussed).
58 LOUIS NAPOLEON
promise Ciro Menotti of Modena to attach the prestige
of their name to the approaching insurrection.”
In Rome Hortense had warning of the coming events
and wrote to her sons urging them to take no part in
the insurrection (January 8). Like many others she
had no faith in the Italians being able to effect their
own deliverance without the help of France, and she
urged this view upon her sons. They apparently
agreed, and she was calmed. Whether they kept back
from her at this time their real opinions and deceived
her as to their actions is not very certain. The Queen’s
own words would lead one to think so, and that they
did not take her into their confidence is clear enough.
But she guessed what they did not tell her, and all her
letters preached prudence. The young men were ap-
parently hesitating between these counsels and their
impatience of action when an unexpected occurrence put
an end to their uncertainty.
Disturbances broke out in Rome, and the Princes,
now uneasy in their turn for their mother's safety,
pressed her to join them in Florence, promising to meet
her half way. When they reached Spoleto, however,
they were received with demonstrations of joy by the
populace, and the same reception waited them at Terni.
They were urged to join the insurgents, and such was
the strength of the temptation to the young men, aflame
with the enthusiasm of the hour, that they allowed
themselves to be carried away. The painter Leopold
Robert, who was a personal friend of Napoleon Louis
and his wife, in a letter written at this time states that
the elder brother yielded because he was too weak to
refuse. “I could see at Terni,” he writes, “how pre-
Occupied he was with the position in which he had
placed his family and he spoke to me about it. But the
die was cast.” ". This, however, may not be the whole
* Quoted by Ollivier, II, 29.
THE ITALIAN INSURRECTION 59
truth, and it is probable that from the beginning the
Princes were compromised in the movement, and acted
deliberately from the first."
Hortense in the meantime had arrived at Florence,
where she expected to find her sons, not having met
them on the way. Instead she found a letter from
Louis stating that they had “accepted engagements
from which they could not depart.” “The name which
we bear obliges us to help a suffering people that calls
upon us,” he wrote. He prayed his mother to tell his
sister-in-law Charlotte (Napoleon Louis’ wife) that he
was responsible for the action of her husband, who was
much concerned at the idea that he had hidden any-
thing from her. This certainly looks almost as if the
step had been more premeditated than Robert's letter
would lead one to suppose.
Indeed, Orsi’s account of the Princes’ meeting with
Menotti in Florence, if it be accepted as true, would
leave little doubt but that they intended to join the
insurrection in Bologna from the first, and that they
put absolute trust in the good faith of the Duke of
Modena. What happened at Terni we may therefore
suppose to have been merely an ante-dating of what
would have happened in any case. But to Hortense,
who was in ignorance of all that had been going on in
Florence while she had been enjoying herself in Rome
(“on dansait tous les jours à Rome''), the blow was a
cruel one. She wrote to her sons imploring them to
return, and King Louis, who came next day in a great
state of fright to see his wife, sent out couriers after
them. Cardinal Fesch and King Jerome did the same,
writing letters to the insurrectionary Government of
Bologna demanding the young men’s recall, and the
whole of the Bonaparte family then in Rome was in a
* Orsi, Recollections of the last Half-Century; Lebey, Strasbourg et
Boulogne, p. 48.
6O LOUIS NAPOLEON
State of ferment. A friend of King Louis’ went to seek
out the two Princes, and returned with the news that
they were taking part in the defence from Foligno and
Civita Castellana, that all the young men were obeying
them, and that they were preparing to take the latter
town, after which the way would be open to Rome.
The two Princes were in the thick of the Bologna
insurrection, into which they had been drawn by Ciro
Menotti. The Duke of Modena had proved faithless,
and the rising was doomed to failure from the first.
But the enthusiasm of youth which had carried them
into the movement, and perhaps that want of “prac-
tical ’’ qualities which his father deplored in his younger
son, shut the young men’s eyes to the ultimate and
inevitable result. Prayers, menaces, and refusals of
money had no effect on them. To the imploring
appeals of their mother and relatives they replied with
the exaltation of youth, “We are experiencing the great
joy of finding ourselves among men intoxicated with
patriotism.” For the first time they felt what it was
to be alive. The past years seemed only a dull exist-
ence; the new life of vigorous enthusiasm, where re-
pression was no longer needed, held them captive.
“Our position is an honourable and happy one,” Louis
Napoleon wrote to his mother. “The enthusiasm
grows. Our only grief is to know that you are uneasy;
but rest assured you will see us again soon with our
laurels, or rather Olive branch, in our hands.”
Prince Louis, ‘‘ with the skill and experience of an old
captain,” took Civita Castellana." Rome seemed now
to be at the mercy of the insurgents. They warned the
new Pope, Gregory XVI, calling upon him to accord
such reforms in his dominions as would alone stay their
victorious march. “We wish,” said they, “for the
* Among the killed on this day was Count Felix Orsini, father of the
would-be assassin of the Emperor.
THE ITALIAN INSURRECTION 6I
separation of the spiritual and temporal power. Let
Gregory XVI renounce the temporal power, and all the
youth of the country, even the least moderate, will
adore him, and will become the strongest supporters of
a religion purified by a great pope and which has at its
basis the most liberal book in the world—the Holy
Gospel.”
But the Pope returned no answer. Just as they were
going to march on Rome the Princes were recalled by
the Revolutionary Government of Bologna and replaced
by General Sercognani, who was instructed not to take
the city. The Bologna Government acceded the more
readily to the request of the family in that it feared
that the name of Napoleon might give umbrage to
the Government of Louis Philippe, whose help,
on the assurance of Lafayette, they still hoped to
obtain.
The Princes were much annoyed by this recall, but
they obeyed orders and returned to Bologna, where they
hoped they would be allowed to serve as volunteers.
But they were made to understand that the recall was
final. To go back to Florence was impossible. They
would be held to be cowards, and would merit the
reproach. Feeling very bitterly against those members
of their family who had put so much pressure on the
Bologna Government, they replied to King Louis, who
had written expressing his annoyance that they did not
come home, that if they were tormented any more they
would go to Poland.
As soon as the Princes had left the army the Govern-
ments became more severe. Tuscany raised difficulties
about their return and Austria declared she would not
allow them to reside in Switzerland. Cardinal Fesch
and Jerome wrote from Rome that if the Austrians took
them they were lost. They retired accordingly to Forli,
where they fell victims to an epidemic of measles, and
62 LOUIS NAPOLEON
there the elder, Napoleon Louis, succumbed to the
disease on March 27, 1831, dying, as Lamartine said,
without having attained the glory for which he was
born."
During all this time Hortense, though urged to go to
them by her husband and bring them back, refused to
do so. “If they return,” she said, “it must be of
their own free-will.” Indeed, all through this trying
time the Queen played the man’s part, while the King
showed something less than the spirit of a woman. To
keep him quiet Hortense had to deceive him, and in-
stead of helping her in her distress the maladroit and
blundering husband added to the misery and anxiety of
the woman who had already so much to bear.
In a time of danger like this the best qualities of
Hortense showed themselves. Without knowing exactly
the whereabouts of her sons she set out, on hearing that
Austrian troops were in Bologna, to try and save them.
Her first idea was to get them out of Italy by Ancona
and take refuge in Turkey, but before she had gone far
she heard that the Austrian fleet was in the Adriatic
and all her plans were disarranged. She had told her
husband of her project of flying to Turkey, and during
all the subsequent events, up to the time of her arrival
in France with her youngest son, allowed him to con-
tinue in the belief that she was carrying out her original
intention. Only by this means, she thought, could he
be kept from interfering. The bold plan of taking her
sons to France, where they would be looked for least,
then occurred to her, and she resolved to execute it. But
she told nobody, and let every one think her object was
to get to Corfu, on her way to Turkey. At Florence,
however, an English friend procured her a passport for
* The stories as to his having been assassinated seem to be without
foundation. It has also been stated that he died from wounds. Lebey,
Srasbourg et Boulogne, p. 51, note.
*****, *-*.
P. de Foºterº-ººrºo
NAPOLEON LOUIS BONAPARTE, ELDER BROTHER OF LOUIS NAPOLEON.
Bok N 1804, DIED 1831
From the Coºſection of A. M. Broad/ey, Esq.

THE ITALIAN INSURRECTION 63
an English lady and her two sons going to London by
way of France, and armed with this, and not without
some difficulty and danger, she left Florence on March
Io, and made her way to Perugia and Foligno. Here
she met General Sercognani, who spoke to her of the
conduct of her sons in terms of praise, and sending off
a courier to discover their whereabouts she 1earnt for the
first time they were at Forli. But hardly had Hortense
left Foligno, with the intention of pushing on to Ancona
than a messenger met her and informed her of Napoleon
Louis’ death. Once more her immediate plans were
changed, and she thought only of running to the side
of the only son who was left to her. She must now save
Louis. “For a day and a night I no longer knew
where they were taking me. Everything seemed to me
indifferent,” she wrote. At Pesaro, where one of the
Bonaparte family had a residence, the only son now left
to her threw himself in her arms and related to her the
story of his brother's death. But the knowledge of the
danger which threatened them made her courage revive.
The Austrians were advancing. The Bolognese were
retreating on Ancona, and Hortense, without waiting at
Pesaro, set off almost immediately with her son for the
Seaport town.
At Ancona she established herself in another Bona-
parte palace (her nephew's), and here Louis Napoleon,
whom the death of his brother had plunged into a
gloomy dejection, fell ill. The position of Hortense was
full of danger, but her courage and resource were equal
to all emergencies. Still letting it be thought that it
was her object to effect her son’s escape to Corfu, she
procured a passport and took a place for him on a ship
which was shortly to sail. By sending servants down
to the boat with luggage, and by means of a false em-
barkation, the public was deceived into thinking the
Prince had escaped. As the ship evaded the Austrian
64 LOUIS NAPOLEON
fleet the ruse was not discovered, and the presence of the
Prince in the palace at Ancona was not suspected. Not
to rouse suspicion Hortense gave it out she was ill, and
the medical needs of the Prince and the attendance of a
physician were thought to be occasioned by the illness
of Hortense herself.
The fugitive Bolognese army was now in Ancona.
The revolt had collapsed, and the Austrians were on
the heels of the insurgents. Before many days were
over the Austrians entered the city and Hortense's
anxieties and difficulties were increased by the Austrian
general taking up his residence in the palace where she
was living.
At the end of eight days the doctor pronounced Louis
Napoleon to be in a fit state to be moved, and early on
Easter Day she left Ancona announcing she was going
first to hear Mass at Loreto and afterwards to Leghorn,
from where she would travel to Malta to join her son.
To keep up the deception she made Louis Napoleon
write a letter to his father, dated Corfu, announcing his
arrival there.
The difficulties of Hortense’s journey across Italy to
France with her son in the disguise of a servant need
not be described at length." The Prince had scarcely
recovered from his illness, and after all he had passed
through preserved little of his late enthusiasm. Hor-
tense made use of the second passport for the Marquis
Zappi, who had been compromised by carrying
dispatches to Paris for the Government of Bologna,
and who had been useful to her in Ancona. Disguised
as servants, Louis Napoleon on the box of the Queen’s
carriage and Zappi behind that of the femme de chambre,
* The journey is described with much detail in Hortense's memoirs,
La Reine Hortense en 1831, already cited. It has been conjectured that the
Austrian general at Ancona shut his eyes, but if so, the adventure,
as far as the Queen and Prince were concerned, was none the less
hazardous.
THE ITALIAN INSURRECTION 65
the two young men got safely out of Ancona in the face
of the Austrian soldiers. Their route lay through
Loreto, Tolentino, Foligno, Perugia, Siena, Pisa,
Lucca, Pietra-Santa, Massa, and Genoa, to Nice. The
journey was not without difficulties, and at Carnoscia
Hortense had to spend the night in the carriage, Prince
Louis, in order to preserve his disguise as a servant,
being obliged to sleep in the street of the village. The
English passport served its purpose, though the neces-
sity of passing as English people when none of them
could speak English except Louis Napoleon (and he
with a strong French accent) was one more difficulty
added to many others. From Genoa Hortense wrote to
her husband as if from Leghorn, stating that she was
going from there to Malta to join her son. The letter
she sent on to her bankers to be posted. From begin-
ning to end King Louis, for the sake of his own peace of
mind, as well as to allow Hortense carrying out her
plans, was deceived, but never was a deception better
justified.
From Nice the fugitives passed into France by Antibes
and Cannes, and Louis Napoleon felt his spirits revive
on touching once more the soil of his country. They
crossed France in easy stages, enjoying the happiness
of breathing once more their native air and hearing
their own tongue, and after visiting Fontainebleau,
where Hortense showed her son the baptismal font over
which he had been held, they arrived in Paris at the end
of April. Sixteen years had elapsed since Hortense and
her son had left the capital, and the eyes of the child
of six which had looked upon Paris in the days of his
uncle’s glory were now those of a young man of twenty-
three, looking on the same scene after having tasted all
the bitterness of exile and loneliness.
Louis Napoleon’s participation in the revolt in
Romagna had little or no political significance. It is
F
66 LOUIS NAPOLEON
only interesting at this time of day in the light of after
events. It was the first picturesque episode in the
career of the future ruler of France, whose whole life
has been called an adventure. But the “adventure '’
of 1831 was rather personal than political, and what
political significance it did possess was a matter of con-
cern to Italy rather than to France. What it does show,
however, is the genuine love of the Prince for the
Italian cause at this early date. At the age of twenty-
three he was on the side of young Italy, and the love
he then evinced for the country of the cradle of his race
never left him, and indeed in after years became one of
the most potent factors of his foreign policy. Italy
stands at the beginning of his career, marking his entry
in the active life on the side of liberalism. He never
lost that first love of liberty and faith in the destiny of
the Italian people. There can be no doubt as to the
genuineness of his motive in those early years. The
motive of later years has, of course, been assailed and
is admittedly more difficult to comprehend. But when
Louis Napoleon is understood as a man of two main
ideas and principles, one of which seems to contradict
the other and yet which he saw no difficulty in recon-
ciling, he will be found to be substantially the same man
throughout his career—what he was in 1831 he was in
1861, and the enthusiasm of the youth of 1831 on the
plains of Romagna is only a precursor of the “great
deed ‘’ of 1859. Indeed, Napoleon III, as Mrs. Brown-
ing aptly put it, “ risked everything for the Italians
except their cause.” In his youth he risked his life, as
Emperor he risked his throne as well as his reputation,
and it is perhaps not far from the truth to say that the
loss of his throne may be traced to his Italian policy.
But disastrous as that policy proved to France and fatal
as it has been to Napoleon’s reputation as a statesman
(to whom the interests of his own country should ever
THE ITALIAN INSURRECTION 67
come first), it exalts the moral character of the man
and shows the magnanimous spectacle of a powerful
sovereign sincerely desiring and deliberately furthering
the interests of another country. Italian liberty was one
of the earliest of those generous ideas of his youth, and
it was one to which he was ever faithful.
At the time of the Romagna insurrection it is probable
the Prince had no very definite conceptions of the
political question involved. His action was the result
of the generous emotion then so powerful among the
youth of Italy. He was at this time without any pro-
gramme of political action. His faith in his future was
strong and ardent, but as Napoleon II lived it was im-
possible for him to entertain the idea of playing the
part of pretender on his own account. It is true that
Lord Malmesbury has put it on record in his memoirs 1
that Louis Napoleon was in 1829 “apparently without
serious thought of any kind, although even then he was
possessed with the conviction that he would some day
rule over France.” But these words occur not in that
portion of the memoirs written as a diary, but in the
opening pages, which presumably the Earl wrote in after
years to fill up the space between the time of his birth
and the days in which he began to chronicle his daily
actions. They therefore have not the authority of con-
temporary evidence, and may be coloured with know-
ledge of after events. But even if literally true they do
not indicate that at that time the Prince was acting
politically in furtherance of his own interests in France.
They only show him to be already the possessor of that
fixed idea, which became stronger as the years went on,
that some day he would rule over France. And there is
plenty of evidence of that from other sources. But how
this was to come about he had probably no very clear
* Memoirs of an ex-Minister, I, 33. Lord Malmesbury calls him at that
time “a wild, harum-scarum youth, or what the French call un cráne.”
68 LOUIS NAPOLEON
conception. His own Republican ideas, as well as the
life of his cousin, might stand in the way, but these
things could not stifle or kill his faith in his own future.
It was Destiny that called him forward, and he was ready
to tread wherever she led him.
CHAPTER VI
EARLY MANHOOD (1831–1836)
ROBABLY if Louis Napoleon had been
asked definitely in 1831 what he expected
his political rôle would be, he would have
replied that he was intended to be the instru-
ment of a Napoleonic restoration in France. Pressed
further he would have perhaps admitted that while the
Duc de Reichstadt was the Emperor’s legitimate heir,
it was impossible for him to ascend the throne merely
as the hereditary successor of Napoleon. It was the
Napoleonic system that was to be given back to France,
and he was the instrument by which this restoration
was to be effected. The absolute right to choose its
own ruler being given to the French people, Louis
Napoleon never doubted for one moment but that the
people would choose a Bonaparte to govern them. The
hereditary principle may have been lying somewhere
at the back of his mind, but Republican ideas had
entered there and taken up their abode, and for many
years to come held the first place.
But as yet he had not formulated the Napoleonic
Idea, and this is hardly the place to discuss it. When
he trod the soil of France once more in 1831, the
Prince's first thought was simply how he might serve
his country. He wrote a letter to the King asking to
be allowed to enter the ranks of the army as a private
soldier, but when he was told that this could only be
possible if he changed his name, he indignantly refused
69
7o LOUIS NAPOLEON
to sacrifice the glory of his inheritance to his sense of
duty to his country.
In Paris Hortense and her son took up their lodging
at the Hôtel de Hollande in the Rue de la Paix, from
the windows of which they could see the Vendôme
Column and the boulevard. The Queen had faith in
the generosity of Louis Philippe. In 1815 she had
helped to obtain for his mother, the Duchess of
Orleans, a pension of 400,000 francs and one of 200,000
for his aunt, the Duchess of Bourbon, mother of the
Duc d'Enghien. It was, therefore, with confidence
that she made her presence known to the King’s aide-
de-camp, M. d’Houdetot. Louis Philippe’s first feel-
ing was naturally one of vexation. He had been on
the throne less than a year. The public mind was
excited, and the shop windows were displaying portraits
of the Bonaparte family. The anniversary of the
Emperor's death day was close at hand. The arrival of
Queen Hortense and her son increased the King's diffi-
culties. He immediately informed M. Casimir Perier,
the Prime Minister, who presented himself at the Hôtel
de Hollande. At first the minister’s attitude was stiff
and formal, but on hearing that the Queen’s intention
was only to pass through France on her way to London
and then on to Arenenberg he gradually relented. The
next day Hortense was waited upon by d’Houdetot and
conducted by him rather mysteriously to the Palais
Royal, where she was shown into a small room (chambre
de service) furnished with a bed and two chairs. Here
the King joined her, and showed himself polite and
amiable. He spoke freely, without ceremony, and
almost with affection. He knew the griefs of exile, and
if it depended on himself alone, he would spare them to
others; he hoped that the time would soon come when
there would be no exiles under his rule. But that time
was not yet, and he recommended Hortense not to make
EARLY MANHOOD 7I
her presence known, and expressed a desire to help her.
The King then withdrew and went to fetch his wife and
sister, and having done so left the three ladies together
for a moment. Coming back with M. d’Houdetot a
general conversation ensued, the two queens sitting on
the bed, the King and Madame Adelaide on the two
chairs, while M. d’Houdetot stood guard at the door
to see that no one entered. The talk was intimate,
familiar, and full of sympathy, and Hortense felt almost
as if she were in the midst of her own family. She
spoke to the King about her son, whom she said she
had left lying ill at the hotel, and mentioned the letter
that he had addressed to him, which the King made
her promise to have delivered.
The royal ladies and Louis Philippe heaped kind-
nesses and attentions on Hortense, and there is no
reason to suppose their personal good-will was in any
way assumed. But Louis Philippe had no intention of
permitting either Hortense or her son to remain in
France, and his attentions to the Queen probably lost
nothing in his desire to satisfy and please her and thus
to expedite her departure. Her intention had been to
leave Paris almost immediately, but the Prince having
fallen ill with a fever, she had to remain until he was
well enough to travel. It has often been stated that
during these days which he and his mother spent in
Paris, Prince Louis Napoleon was in conference with
the chiefs of the Republican party seeking means to
overturn the throne. M. Casimir Perier is reported to
have informed the King of this the day following Queen
Hortense's visit to the Palais Royal. The story was
told by Louis Blanc and by the Duc d'Aumale in his
Letter on the History of France (1860), and has often
been repeated. M. Lebey speaks of the Prince's put-
ting himself in touch with the principal chiefs of the
Republican party in Paris as beyond doubt, and is even
72 LOUIS NAPOLEON
of the opinion that the visit to Paris itself had been
long prepared beforehand, the rôle of the two brothers
in the insurrection in Romagna having been undertaken
So as to give their words more authority on their arrival
in the capital. There is, however, no evidence to sup-
port such a view, and it is rather difficult to believe
that the Prince at this date, tired in mind and body
from the fatigues and disappointments of the last few
weeks, and with his brother’s death still fresh in his
memory, was engaged in any active negotiations against
Louis Philippe's throne. That the Prince had relations
with the Republicans during Louis Philippe’s reign is,
of course, well known, but they had hardly begun
at this date. They were, perhaps, most active during
the early forties and subsisted down to 1848, but this
is no reason for believing that any serious negotiations
were in hand in 1831. M. Ollivier denies the truth of
the story, and says that the Prime Minister should
have been able to convince himself of the falseness of
the report on the following day when he carried the
King’s reply to Queen Hortense to the requests she
had put forward. She had spoken to him about her
claim to St. Leu, which had been guaranteed to her by
the Great Powers in 1815, and he promised to look into
the matter, in the meantime offering her pecuniary help.
She would be granted passports for England, but as
for the request made by the Prince that he might serve
in the army it could not be granted unless he changed
his name. “The Government could not run the risk
of making foreign Powers uneasy, for party feeling
was running high, and war would mean its overthrow.”
The Queen thanked him for the kind expressions and
refused the help. The Prince was indignant at the
answer given him, and said, “You were right, mother,
let us return to our retreat.”
The 5th of May, the anniversary of the death of the
EARLY MANHOOD 73
Emperor, approached, and a popular demonstration was
announced at the foot of the Vendôme Column. The
presence of the Prince in Paris had begun to be whis-
pered about. His enterprise in Romagna had made his
name known and brought some measure of popularity.
On May 4 d’Houdetot came to notify the Queen that
unless the life of her son were in danger they must
leave France immediately. Hortense showed the aide-
de-camp the Prince with leeches on his neck, and he
went away. The demonstration at the Column came
off on the following day, and Hortense confesses her
pleasure at being able to witness so touching a ceremony.
The cries of “Vive Napoléon ’’ could be heard by the
Prince in his chamber in the hotel. But there was no
attempt on his part or on that of Queen Hortense to
make their presence known. The next day, May 6,
they left for Calais, which it took them four days to
reach. They crossed the Channel in a storm, and when
London was reached the Prince's health gave way and
he took to his bed again with jaundice.
The accounts of Queen Hortense's passage through
Paris with her son in 1831 vary a good deal in detail,
but the main facts of their twelve days’ stay in the
capital, and the Queen's interview with Louis Philippe
are common to all. But the account given by Guizot
in his Memoirs differs from that given by Hortense
herself. Hortense says Casimir Perier waited on her
before her interview with the King. Guizot says the
King saw Hortense without taking Casimir Perier into
his confidence, and there are other discrepancies. M.
Georges Duval 1 says that Hortense and the Prince
remained in Paris till May 12, and took six days to
reach Calais. But there is no reason to think that the
story as told by Hortense herself is not to be relied on
in the main, and matters such as those just mentioned
1 Mapoléon III, Enfance, Jeunesse, par Georges Duval.
74 LOUIS NAPOLEON
are of little importance. Hortense's account of these
events is dated 1832, and so was written while they
were fresh in her memory, and though she is hardly to
be relied on as a serious historian it is possible to
read the truth through the peculiar medium of her
temperament, and in the case of a narrative of events
such as those of Italy in 1831 and the subsequent flight
to France, there is no reason to suppose that Hortense
did not tell the truth. In her narrative her only solici-
tude is for her surviving son. The political plotting
attributed to her finds no place in her pages, and would
hardly be likely to occupy her mind after the loss of her
eldest son at Forli and the dangers that surrounded and
threatened the only child left to her. She had, perhaps,
expected something more from Louis Philippe's Govern-
ment than kind words, but she herself nowhere says
that her object in going to France was to obtain permis-
sion to remain there. All through she affirms her only
concern was to save her son, and the best was to take
him where he would least be sought. She threw herself
on the mercy of the French King, who had the right
to arrest her and the Prince, and asked his help in
reaching England. Her son’s determination to ask
the King for permission to serve in the army was
spontaneous and not dictated by her. He states it to
be “the only end of his ambition ” to live in France,
and was probably at the time he wrote it quite sincere
in his profession. But the request only showed once
more the want of that practical spirit in the man that
his father deplored. Hortense must have known per-
fectly well that it would be impossible for him to serve
as a “simple soldier’’ under Louis Philippe, but she
humoured his desire. He was ill and overcharged with
emotion on returning once more to his native land.
It is difficult to see how Louis Philippe could have acted
otherwise than he did. It was his first duty to look
Fenton's Hotel
FENTox’s Hotel. IN ST. JAM Es’s street
Reproduced by permission of Mr. Francis Harvey, 4 St. James's Street, S.M.
| º żºcº º */º.
::..
|- FENT tº Nºs 11-1-1-1. -**.
- - ----
- º “:
Louis Napoleox's visiting cARn
Rºrofºed by permission of C. Lawrence ºorº, Esq., ºf ºath

EARLY MANHOOD 75
after his own Government and to consolidate it. The
law of exile has been consistently used by all govern-
ments in France against their opponents, or the holders
of names which, though the possessors may be harm-
less enough, may serve to incite discontent and stir up
unrest. Monarchy, Empire, and Republic, in face of
all the theories of liberty or fraternity or equality which
they have preached, have had first of all to think of self-
preservation, and sink, or put on one side, the more
enlightened views that an opposition can always safely
hold. Louis Philippe, indeed, acted generously
enough to Hortense and her son, both at this and at a
later date, though he had everything to fear from them,
or from the name they bore.
Louis Napoleon's first visit to England lasted from
May IO to August 7, 1831. On arriving at London
Hortense and her son put up at Fenton’s Hotel on
the west side of St. James's Street, between Park Place
and St. James’s Place,” where for some days the Prince
lay ill. They afterwards took up their residence at a
house in Holles Street, and from there visited the
“sights '' of London, and mixed a good deal in society,
meeting amongst others Lord and Lady Holland, Lady
Grey, the Duchess of Bedford, the Countess of Gengall,
General Wilson and Mr. Bruce. Hortense says, writing
with her accustomed exaggeration, “I did nothing but
refuse invitations, and never went out.” From London
Louis Napoleon wrote to his father, whose annoyance
at his son’s taking part in the insurrection in Italy
1 Fenton's Hotel was No. 63, St. James's Street, and occupied the
house of the once-noted Weltzie's Club. It was a rambling old building,
or collection of buildings, a portion of it looking upon (and entering
from) Park Place, although the building at the corner of the Place and
St. James's Street did not form part of the hotel. Fenton’s Hotel was
pulled down a good many years ago, the Meistersingers' Club being
built on part of the site (Notes and Queries, Io S. IX, 371–2). Louis
Napoleon stayed again at Fenton's Hotel in 1838 (see p. 156).
76 LOUIS NAPOLEON
was acute, “I am now in a neutral country, and not
concerning myself with politics except in reading the
newspapers. Indeed, what can I do henceforth, and
what has any one to fear from me? If there is a new
revolution in Italy, I shall take no part in it. If there
is another in France what will happen? It will be
either the Republic, or Henri V, or Napoleon II. In
case of either of the two first, it will be no concern
of mine. If the last, as the chief of our family is at
Vienna I could do nothing but follow what steps he
might take and wait till he declared his intentions. So
my present rôle is easy to play. I remain a quiet
spectator of the drama which is being enacted under
my eyes.” This is not the language of a conspirator,
though it must be remembered the Prince is writing to
his father, whom it would be his object at this time
to reassure and tranquillize. Still there is no reason to
suppose that either Hortense or her son were “con-
spiring ” during this first visit of the Prince to London.
But they lived in an atmosphere of plot, intrigue, and
jealousy. Talleyrand, who had been present at the
Prince’s birth, was Louis Philippe’s ambassador in
London, and he had them watched carefully. Hortense
was the centre of diplomatic fears and anxieties, which
were increased when the Duchess of Berri arrived in
town from Bath. Hortense herself expresses her weari-
ness at this continual atmosphere of suspicion in which
she seemed doomed to live, and writes as if she was
only desirous of a quiet and unobserved domestic life
with her son. People naturally ambitious often deceive
themselves into believing that their real desire is to
efface themselves and put ambition aside. There is no
deceit or hypocrisy in the words, but their natural
disposition is stronger than their more reasoned thought.
This seems to have been the case both with Hortense
and her son. And perhaps in spite of their wish to
EARLY MANHOOD 77
be left in peace, the French Government knew them
better than they knew themselves. They were credited,
however, with ambitions which were quite foreign to
them, and Louis Napoleon was accused of coming to
England to keep his eye on the Crown of Belgium
which was them going begging. He felt himself
obliged to deny this publicly, and did so in a letter to
the Press, in which he stated that his only desire was
to serve either his own country or the cause of liberty
elsewhere. He would have gone to fight with the Bel-
gians or Poles as a volunteer if it had not been for the
fear the people would attribute such action to personal
interest. This letter had the effect of bringing him an
invitation from some liberals in France to put himself
at the head of a movement. The Queen was alarmed,
and dissuaded him from any such project. She wished
to leave London, but was not able to do so without
passports, and endless difficulties were put in her way
before they were forthcoming.
Hortense let Talleyrand know that she would like to
see him, but Talleyrand with scant courtesy refused,
and sent his niece, Madame de Dino, to inquire in what
manner he could serve her. The Queen explained that
what she wanted was a passport visé by the five Great
Powers, without which no Bonaparte could travel, SO
that she could return to Switzerland through France.
Talleyrand, not knowing that she had seen the King in
Paris nor of his promise to let her return that way,
offered her a passport through the north of France under
an assumed name. Hortense, embarrassed, wrote to
the King direct, and he replied that Talleyrand should
receive instructions. When the instructions came,
however, the ambassador was directed not to grant her
a passport at that time because of the June disturbances
in Paris, and she was given to understand that her
good faith would be doubted if she passed through
78 LOUIS NAPOLEON
France before the anniversary of the July revolution.
The French Government trusted in her loyalty to remain
in England till after the end of July. Hortense con-
sequently went in July to Tunbridge Wells, where she
found herself surrounded with “ces jeunes filles
anglaises qui disposent seules de leur vie, de leur con-
duite, toutes remplies de talents, d'instruction, parlant
parfaitement le français,” to whom she was an object
of curiosity and interest. From the baths at Tunbridge
she derived much benefit, and she chronicles the fact
that here for the first time since the death of her son
in Italy she was able to shed tears. The passport came
On August I, made out in the name of “Madame
Arenenberg.” Six days later Hortense and Prince
Louis embarked for Calais. The Queen had been
anxious to get her son out of England, for, as she puts
it, “So many persons kept arriving to see the Prince
and urge him to put himself at the head of a political
movement,” that her “fear of intrigue '’ urged her to
return home to Switzerland as soon as possible. She
even gave up her intention of returning by way of Paris
as she had originally meant to do. The Prince had
declared that if he saw people being slaughtered in
the streets he would place himself on their side.
His mind was excited, the times were disturbed, and
Hortense judged it better to run no risks. Her real
desire seems at this time only to get back to peace and
quietness in her home on Lake Constance. The travel-
lers, preserving an absolute incognito, therefore went
round Paris without entering the city. They visited
together the tomb of Rousseau at Ermenonville, and
that of Josephine at Rueil. Hortense did not feel equal
to visiting St. Leu. But in the dusk of evening she went
with her son to the gates of Malmaison, now closed to
her, and looked through them on to that silent garden and
closed house where so many happy days had been spent.
EARLY MANHOOD 79
Concerning this first visit of Louis Napoleon to Eng-
land not very much has been put on record. It lasted
only three months, and during a portion of this time
the Prince was ill. He is said to have visited Some of
the industrial houses of the capital as well as mixed
in polite society. We find him going with his mother
to Woburn Abbey on a visit to the Duchess of Bed-
ford; he accompanied her to Tunbridge Wells, and in
company with Queen Hortense and one of her friends
from France he visited the Tower, Woolwich, Rich-
mond, the Thames Tunnel, and Hampton Court. But
it was only as the son of Queen Hortense that he made
his first acquaintance with London Society, and on his
own account he probably attracted little notice. He
was only twenty-three, and was not likely to be taken
very seriously. Hortense, on the other hand, was the
centre of much attention and the recipient of much sym-
pathy, and appears to have made many friends in
London. At that time London was apparently much in
advance of Paris in many ways. Hortense was struck
with its wide pavements, the lighting of its streets, and
its well-kept gardens. She remarks that though there
are ‘‘ no palaces or public monuments '' there is a
“certain luxury which all seem to enjoy,” and which
makes her believe that ease and equality are to be found
there.”
Prince Louis came again to London under freer con-
ditions a year later, to see his uncle Joseph, who was
then living in England. He was in town from Novem-
ber 1832 to some time in the spring of 1833, and was
* Curiously enough, six days after the arrival of Hortense and Louis
Napoleon in London, there was produced in the Theatre Royal, Covent
Garden, “a new grand Historical and Military Spectacle (in seven parts),
called AWapoleon Buonaparte.” The piece was, according to the Gentleman’s
Magazine, comparatively destitute of plot, its chief recommendation being
the splendid and diversified scenery. It ran continuously for about three
weeks, and occupied the bill, with other plays, for some time longer.
8O LOUIS NAPOLEON
accompanied by his friend Count Arèse, who afterwards
became a senator of the kingdom of Italy. It was on
the occasion of this visit to England that his father
took objection to his choice of friends and of his going
to London, and when the Prince for the first time held
his own, and reminded him that he was a man. Of
this second visit we know even less than of the first.
The Duc de Reichstadt had died in July of that year,
and Joseph, who was now nominally chief of the family
and resident in England, apparently desired to confer
with his nephew. The only human glimpses we have
of Louis Napoleon at this period in London are his
visiting the shops in Regent Street with his sister-in-
law Charlotte, daughter of Joseph and wife of his much-
loved brother, and his reading Victor Hugo's Notre
Dame de Paris, when he was ill in bed, and finding it
rather calculated to give an invalid fever than to soothe
him." But Louis Napoleon’s real London life and
English connection does not begin till after Strasburg,
with his third visit, which lasted from October 1838 to
August 1840.
The years between the Italian insurrection and Stras-
burg (1831 to 1836) were spent by the Prince with his
mother at Arenenberg, with visits to Rome in the
winter. The return had been a sad one. The Prince
found himself a prey to black thoughts which the excite-
ment of the journey and the novelty of life in England
had kept at bay.” He refused to have anything to do
with the inheritance of his brother, and would only
accept Some personal mementoes. His first idea was
* The place of his residence at this time in England is not known—or
at least I have not been able to ascertain it. Possibly he stayed with
his uncle Joseph, though that is not likely. More probably he resided in
Fenton's Hotel, though there is no evidence of this.
* Besides the personal loss in the death of his brother, the failure of
the Bolognese insurrection depressed him. Ciro Menotti was executed
May 27.
Louis NApoleon IN 1832
* Lorrºre, ºeſ.
From a lithograph in the Collection of A. M. Broadley, Esº.

EARLY MANHOOD 81
to forget himself by joining the insurgents in Poland.
M. Ollivier says that he actually left Arenenberg
clandestinely under an assumed name, and was only
stopped on the way by the news of the fall of Warsaw
(September 7). But he seems to have had no intention
of compromising the name of Napoleon in the Polish
cause, for when in August a deputation from Poland
waited upon him to ask him to put himself at the head
of the nation he refused. His excuse was that by con-
necting his name with the Polish Revolution, Louis
Philippe would therein find excuse for non-intervention.
What hopes the Poles had from Louis Philippe, how-
ever, were frail enough, and probably the deputation
knew their value as well as that of the Prince’s excuse.
Probably he himself hardly knew the exact reason of
such a refusal. His motives were mixed. His parents
implored him not to compromise himself. The failure
of the Italian insurrection was fresh in his mind. His
passage through France and the representations and
offers he had received in London from discontented
Frenchmen probably confirmed him in the opinion that
his destiny was bound up with that of his own country
and that the interests of France must henceforth occupy
his first thoughts. At any rate he refused to lend the
name of Napoleon to the insurrection, whatever he may
have done afterwards privately and in the obscurity of
an assumed name.
But France was shut to him, and any hopes of being
allowed to return once more to his own country were
soon dispelled (April 1832) when the former law of exile
against the Bonapartes was affirmed, and Bourbon and
Bonaparte alike found themselves under the same pro-
scription. The statue of the Emperor was replaced on
the Vendôme Column, but his family were not allowed
to see it.
A11 active life seemed denied the Prince, and he fell
G
82 LOUIS NAPOLEON
back sadly upon himself. He had arrived at that age
when a mother's love alone no longer suffices to Satisfy
the heart. “I have so great a need for affection,” he
wrote at this time to his father (December 15, 1831),
“that if I found a woman who pleased me, and who
was agreeable to my family, I should not think twice
about marrying.” But King Louis, in giving the
advice his son asked for, was hardly encouraging. He
replied that the essential thing in marriage in order to
avoid misfortune was not to be in love. The advice of
a philosopher, perhaps, but hardly what would have
been expected from the lover of Emilie de Beauharnais
and the forced husband of Hortense.
The effect of his father’s advice seems to have been
to make the Prince try and forget such thoughts in
work and study, and his days and part of his nights
were passed with books and maps. He published
Réveries politiques in 1832, Considerations poli-
tiques et militaires Sur la Suisse in 1833, and a
Manuel d’Artillerie in 1836.” These and other writ-
ings of the Prince's are noticed in another chapter
and need be no more than mentioned here. They are
evidence of the activity of mind and industry of Louis
Napoleon during the dull and monotonous years at
Arenenberg. At the back of his mind we can always
see the firm conviction that somehow and at some time
he will be called upon to fill a rôle as chief of the govern-
ment of France. Politics, therefore, became the object
of his studies and meditations, and he sought, more-
Over, to give expression to his political ideas in private
letters. He established relations with well-known men
of the time. He saw Lafayette, who counselled him to
return to France, where the Government would not be
able to stand against the popularity of the name he
* There was also a brochure entitled Deux mots à M. de Chateaubriand
sur la duchesse de Berry.
EARLY MANHOOD 83
bore. Chateaubriand and Dumas, amongst others,
found their way to Arenenberg and lightened the tedium
of exile. The chief events of the day at the château
were the passing of the steamer on the lake, and the
arrival of the postman. It was a happy moment when
letters came from France, but those from Florence were
scarcely so welcome. The Prince having praised his
father’s conduct as King of Holland in the Considera-
tions, and consequently called in question that of the
Emperor, King Louis was furious. “The policy of a
man like the Emperor,” he wrote, “ought not to be
judged severely by a young man of twenty-four, espe-
cially when that young man is his nephew.” He also
found fault with his son for saying that the Bonapartes
owed their power to the people, and that the people was
the most just of all parties. “The people,” wrote
King Louis on the contrary, “is the most unjust of all
parties.”
The fête days at the château were such as saw the
arrival of distinguished visitors and intimate friends.
Besides Chateaubriand and Dumas, Madame Récamier
and Delphine Gay sought out Hortense in her retreat.
Vieillard * became the friend of his late pupil’s brother
and stayed many weeks. Madame de Dino also made
her appearance, but perhaps as much in the capacity of
a spy of Talleyrand’s as a personal friend of the
Queen’s. Madame de Dino, however, misjudged the
Prince. “He is no more dangerous to the Monarchy
of July,” she wrote, “than a pupil of the Polytechnic
School. He is a good mathematician and a good horse-
* Vieillard, who from this time forward became the friend and adviser
of the Prince, had been one of his “professors” at an earlier date, but
had subsequently acted as tutor to Napoleon Louis. Vieillard had
spoken of Louis Napoleon when first he came in contact with the boy
as very backward for his age, as knowing little, and what he did know,
knowing badly: “Attention fatigued him.”—Stéphane-Pol, La jeunesse de
AWapoléon III.
84 LOUIS NAPOLEON
man, but as timid and silent as a girl.” Chateaubriand,
not concerned with the stability of the July Monarchy,
was content to describe him as “a studious young man,
well read, honourable, and naturally grave.” The
Prince, living more and more in himself, was becoming
more and more reserved and taciturn, and inspired
respect rather than enthusiasm among the visitors to the
château. Hortense, however, could see beneath the sur-
face, and wrote to M. Belmontet, “His courage and
strength of character are equal to his unfortunate and
sad destiny. What a generous nature l What a good
and worthy young man l How I should admire him if
I were not his mother l’’ (December 10, 1834.)
As the result of the Réveries the Prince received the
title of Citizen of the Canton of Thurgau, and on the
publication of the Considerations the more honourable
distinction of Citizen of the Helvetic Republic was con-
ferred upon him, a title which some years later led to
much discussion when the expulsion of the Prince from
Swiss territory was demanded by the French Govern-
ment." In 1834, on the proposal of the vice-president
of the Executive Council at Berne, the Prince was nomin-
ated captain of a cantonal regiment of artillery. These
honours strengthened his Republican sentiments. “All
this proves to me,” he wrote, “that my name will find
sympathy only where democracy reigns.” (July 17,
1834.) “It is not in gilded salons that justice will be
rendered me, but in the street. It is there that I must
address myself to find any exalted sentiments.”
(February 28, 1834.)
In the solitude of Switzerland and of his own mind
the Napoleonic Idea was slowly developing, and the
opposing elements of which it is made up were being
gradually brought together to form a positive whole.
But he was far from being blind to the difficulties of
* See pp. 149-155.
EARLY MANHOOD 85
his position. “As to my position,” he writes, “I
understand it well enough, although it is very com-
plicated. I know that by reason of my name I am
much, by myself nothing. An aristocrat by birth, a
democrat by nature and opinion. Owing everything
to heredity and asking for everything by election. It is
because I know all the difficulties that beset me in my
first steps in any career I may adopt, that I have taken
as my principle only to follow the inspiration of my
heart, my reason, and my conscience.” (January 30,
1835.) The later certainty of the Napoleonic faith in
which the two incompatibles, heredity and election, are
reconciled is scarcely to be found in these words. They
rather suggest that the Prince himself was not a little
troubled by the inconsistency of his own position, and
that he could only satisfy himself by a somewhat vague
trust in heart, reason, and conscience. But what if heart
and reason were not in agreement?
The monotonous life of these days was relieved by
military duties in the camp at Thun, and in the winter
by a visit to Rome. Gregory XVI, pardoning the
offence of 1831, authorized the Prince to accompany his
mother. There Hortense attached to her salon the
greater number of artists and travellers of all nations
who made old Papal Rome a universal city even down
to our own day, and there her son came again into con-
tact with Europe and with men, and escaped for a time
from his solitary thoughts.
In 1834 monetary embarrassments constrained Hor-
tense to forgo this beneficial excursion. Her settle-
ment had left her nearly three million francs (4,120,000),
which was being diminished each year. She often found
herself in difficulties. Louis Napoleon, though not ex-
travagant where he himself alone was concerned, was
liberal in giving, and his mother seems to have put no
restraint on his generosity. She asked the permission
86 LOUIS NAPOLEON
of her international guardians to pass two months at
Geneva. A Swiss officer, one of her friends, approached
Louis Philippe on her behalf. “The Queen,” he said,
“wanted to be where she could hear French spoken,
and the winter at Arenenberg was very long.” “You
are a simple Arcadian shepherd,” replied the King
laughing; “it is to conspire that they want to go there.
But they are not dangerous, and I shall not offer any
objection.” They were therefore permitted to reside at
Geneva during the winter of 1834–1835. Geneva, how-
ever, was hardly a good basis of operation for con-
spiracy, and there is no reason to think that there was
any political motive in the visit.
But, though the visit to Geneva has no significance,
the idea of definite political action, or from the point of
view of the French Government “conspiracy,” was
growing from day to day in the Prince’s mind. As long
as the Duc de Reichstadt was alive Louis Napoleon re-
mained faithful to the captive head of his dynasty and
what aspirations he had were undefined and hardly
formulated. He understood that it was only by a real
union among its members that the proscribed family
could survive events. But on the death of the Duke
(July 22, 1832) everything had been changed. Joseph,
the eldest of the family, had no sons. Louis was in-
firm, and neither of the Emperor's brothers had any
intention of taking up the lost cause. Lucien had been
excluded from the succession, and his family were there-
fore of no account. Prince Louis considered that this
tacit renunciation on the part of his uncle and father con-
stituted him the representative of Napoleon, and from
that moment he resolved on action. Convinced that the
cause of Napoleon was the only one popular in France,
the only civilizing one in Europe, and weary of exile,
he took the resolution, even though he should become
the victim of the attempt, to call the people to him. But
EARLY MANHOOD 87
he did not take his mother into his confidence. Though
it has been hinted that she was not entirely innocent of
a knowledge of the preliminaries of Strasburg there is
nothing to show that Hortense was conversant with her
son’s intentions when he decided on action. Though
she had instilled into his mind the duty of living up to
the name which he bore, she had consistently discouraged
him trying to force events, and with a kind of resigned
melancholy had descanted on the ingratitude of men and
on her own personal happiness in having her son always
by her. He had always gently and lovingly protested.
“You complain of the injustice of men, but I venture
to say you are wrong to complain. How should French-
men remember us when for fifteen years we have done
everything to make them forget us; when for fifteen
years the only motive for action on the part of our family
has been the fear of compromising themselves; when
they have avoided every opportunity of showing them-
selves, and every means of recalling their name to the
remembrance of the people P”
He knew that his mother would oppose him if he
opened out his mind to her on the course he meant to
pursue. He knew it would trouble her and cause her
endless anxiety. He knew too that if he succeeded she
would rejoice in his success. Failure he had to risk,
and the idea of failure troubled him more for her sake
than for his own. The impulse came from within and
was the result of long and Solitary thought, and the
companions the Prince grouped around him were rather
influenced by him than he by them. He had the power
of making friends and attaching to himself devoted dis-
ciples. And amongst the little band that took part in
the attempt on Strasburg were some who, whatever we
may think of them, stuck to his fortunes through thick
and thin. Others no doubt followed him in hope of
future rewards and for the sake of present favour, for the
88 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Prince was generous to all who served him and never
forgetful of those who had suffered in his cause or by
his fault. Prince Louis was badly informed as to public
opinion in France. He mistook for public opinion what
was really a generous sentiment, and for devotion to the
Napoleonic system what was rather a personal hero
worship. The cult of Napoleon encouraged by Louis
Philippe found expression over the length and breadth
of France, but in itself augured little more than the
revived Napoleonic cult of fifteen years ago. Louis
Napoleon’s conspiracies were not primarily the work of
Bonapartist committees and organizations in France,
but were made possible only by the effort and determina-
tion of the leader himself and a handful of friends. All
that the latent Bonapartist feeling of Louis Philippe's
reign did for the Prince was to encourage him to action.
And by that action, though failure met him twice, he
made the people remember his name, and kept alive
the flame which he himself imagined to be burning with
a healthy vigour which it had never possessed. This
Bonapartist Sentiment, it is true, was galvanized again
into life, and was accountable in its way for the
Napoleonic restoration. Without it Louis Napoleon
could have done nothing, but without him it would have
achieved no more than Bonapartist or Royalist sentiment
in France has done under the Third Republic. Louis
Napoleon, unlike latter-day pretenders, was never con-
tent to sit down and wait for events, declaring that at
the decisive hour he would be ready. He tried to
accelerate that hour, and perhaps did so, though his
two attempts to seize the kingdom by violence were
doomed to ignominious failure.
CHAPTER VII
BONAPARTISM IN FRANCE UNDER THE RESTORA-
TION AND THE MONARCHY OF JULY

HIS is perhaps the most convenient place to
notice at greater length the remarkable
recrudescence of Bonapartist feeling in
France after the banishment and death of
the Emperor, and the beginning of what has since been
known as the Napoleonic Legend. It is impossible to
understand the career of Louis Napoleon without keep-
ing in mind this movement in France, a movement at
once popular and intellectual, and although the inquiry
will take us chronologically far beyond the point of
the Prince’s career which we have now reached, it is
better to regard the movement as a whole from the
time of the Restoration down to the end of Louis
Philippe's reign, than to refer to it here and there
in its bearing on particular events in the Prince’s
life.
The Napoleonic Legend is something distinct from
the Napoleonic Idea, which we shall have to consider
in a later chapter. The Napoleonic Idea is entirely
political, and is concerned rather with the system than
with the personality of the Emperor; with his theory of
government and with his political and administrative
system, rather than with the Emperor himself. It has
little or nothing to do with war, or battle, or the glory
89
QO LOUIS NAPOLEON
of arms, which contribute so much to the vitality of the
Legend. Yet these two things, the Napoleonic Idea
and the Napoleonic Legend, though distinct and in
Some aspects even antagonistic, are intimately bound
up with one another, and it is almost impossible to
speak of one without in some way referring to the
other.
The Napoleonic Legend is a sentiment, a poetic
imagination based principally upon the marvellous
fascination of the story of the stirring life and lonely
death of a popular hero. There is nothing very sub-
stantial in it if taken by itself. It has been called an
illusion. Yet it is an illusion that has supplied energy
and power to a nation’s history throughout the
greater part of a century. It may be argued that the
Napoleonic Idea gives the motive force to the
Legend, but the Legend in its turn serves to keep
the Idea from becoming a merely academic and
dead thing.
The Napoleonic Legend derives its influence from
the belief that Napoleon stood for the cause of the
peoples against their oppressors. It represents Napo-
leon “a hero of national independence and modern ideas
together ’’ as the champion of nationality. The military
despotism of his manhood is forgotten for the Repub-
licanism of his youth. Liberalism is at the bottom of
the Napoleonic Legend. In the campaign of Waterloo
Napoleon had succeeded, in the opinion of many
people, in putting Europe morally in the wrong, and
the Government of the Restoration, which followed the
second downfall of the Emperor, only served to confirm
the liberal character of the Legend then springing up.
“All that was remembered was the fact that Napoleon
was the child of the Revolution, who had humbled and
mutilated the old dynasties of Europe. To the people
he stood for the Revolution, and to the army for glory.
BONAPARTISM 9I
His death in lonely captivity cancelled all his errors and
shortcomings.” +
France had only abandoned the Emperor when she
realized that a nation should not be sacrificed to the
ambition of one man. After his fall, till the last day
of the captivity of St. Helena, there was hardly a
Frenchman who was not hypnotized by the story of the
martyr on the lonely rock washed by the Atlantic waves.
Old soldiers of the type of Goguelat in Balzac's
Médecin de Campagne excited and exalted the imagin-
ation of the people with their enthusiastic recitals of the
marvellous deeds and prodigious campaigns of the
Emperor. All over the country the hearts of the people
were inflamed by the tales told by these veterans, till
the name of Napoleon became almost an object of adora-
tion, and the story of his death was hardly credited.
“They say that he's dead,” cries old Goguelat.
“Dead 1 'Tis easy to see that they do not know Him.
They tell that lie to deceive the people and feel safe in
their hovel of a government.” ”
Napoleon died on May 5, 1821. But his death, far
from putting an end to the worship of his name, was
rather the true beginning of the Legend. The dead
Emperor became a god. The Bonapartist cult, far from
dying, was rather revived by this grand and tragic end-
ing in a far-away island, and the story of the martyr
of St. Helena appealed both to the heart and the
imagination of the people. Hatreds died down. The
Emperor's faults and errors were forgotten. Before his
1 Lord Rosebery, Mapoleon : the Last Phase.
* Balzac, better than any one else, has put into his Histoire de l’Empereur
raconide dams un grange far zenz 22eux soldat (the chapter from the novel
was separately published in 1842 under this title) all the popular senti-
ment and passion of the time regarding the Emperor, which manifested
itself in something very like a Napoleonic religion. Goguelat and his
peasant auditors were types of what could be found all over France
during the Restoration and days of the July Monarchy.
92 LOUIS NAPOLEON
tomb the country bowed its head, wept, and pardoned.
More than ever his name was on the people's lips. Even
in the humblest cottages they talked of his triumphs
and misfortunes.
“On parlera de sa gloire, Sous le chaume bien longtemps.”
Everywhere his image was to be seen side by side
with that of Our Lord or the Blessed Virgin. His name
became unforgettable. Béranger consecrated the date
of his death in his ode, entitled “Le Cinq Mai,” and in
Italy Manzoni did the same.
“Grand de génie et grand de caractère
Pourquoi du sceptre arma-t-il son orgueil P
Bien au-dessus des trônes de la terre
Il apparait, brillant, Sur cet écueil.
Sa glorie est là, comme la phare immense
D'un nouveau monde et d'un monde trop vieux.””
Under the Restoration Béranger and Victor Hugo
sang of the Emperor's glory and prepared the way for
the Napoleonic revival under Louis Philippe, and the
re-establishment of the Empire under Louis Napoleon.
The songs of Béranger and the poems of Hugo on
Napoleon were not, of course, Bonapartist in the politi-
cal sense of the word. What the two poets celebrated
in the man—who dazzled their imagination—was his
genius, never his system. They sang and wrote always
as liberals, and the Napoleon of their verses is the
Napoleon of the Revolution and the peoples. In later
days Victor Hugo, in Les Misérables, analyzed and
condemned this alliance of liberal ideas with the worship
of Napoleon, a cult to which in his youth he had been
* Béranger, Le Cing Mai. “Béranger,” said Lamartine, “allait valoir
un peuple au bonapartisme.” Mr. Gladstone's rendering of Manzoni's
ode is, in the opinion of his biographer, perhaps his best single piece of
poetic translation. Morley, Zife of Gladstone, III, 549, where three
stanzas are quoted.
BONAPARTISM 93
a devoted adherent, but in 1825 he could write “Les
Deux Iles '' with its splendid acclamation—
“Gloire à Napoléon 1 gloire au maitre Suprême!
Dieu mème a sur son front posé le diadème.”
The truth was that under the Restored Monarchy the
Republicans, having no longer the Empire to fear,
allowed themselves to sing the praises and the genius
of the Emperor in order to bring home to the army
and the nation how vastly things had changed for the
worse. There seemed no prospect of there ever being
a restoration of the Empire. The only alternative to
the Monarchy was the Republic, and the men of the
Revolution (representatives of liberty) could join with
the men of the Empire (representatives of despotism)
in a united hatred against the Bourbons.
“By means of this alliance with the Republicans and
the liberals, Bonapartism, instead of sinking out of
sight and becoming but a memory in the imagination
of the people, established itself without having any real
organization or leader, or indeed any precise object in
view.” ". There was hardly such a thing as a Bona-
partist party. Bonapartism under the Restoration was
a kind of aspiration towards a more popular order of
things, a protest against a policy which lacked prestige
and dignity. The adherents of the absolute Empire
counted for little in all this, except as in so far they
kept alive the memory of the Emperor. But politically
they were powerless. The future belonged only to
liberal ideas, and Bonapartism could live only by its
alliance with the liberals. Thus the supposed alliance
between the “men of liberty" and “the men of Napo-
leon ’’ is less strange than at first sight it might appear.
The result was that during the period of the Restor-
* Thirria, Wapoléon ZZZ avant 2'Aºmpire, I, 15.
94 LOUIS NAPOLEON
ation and the July Monarchy the memory of the
Emperor was one of the most living influences in
France. “Napoleon, Liberator,” writes Professor
Seeley, “remained a poetical idea, transforming his
past life into legend, and endowing French politics with
a new illusion.” It was perhaps not altogether an
illusion, for if, as a modern writer has said, “The
instinct of the people is in the long run mainly right
about those whom they make their heroes,” we may well
hesitate to condemn as utterly wrong this popular esti-
mate of Napoleon. The people see in broad lines, and
often with an insight denied to critics. But that is
rather a matter for discussion when we consider the
Napoleonic Idea.
The Revolution of 1830 was the work of the liberal-
Bonapartist alliance. Logically, it should have been
followed either by the Republic or by Napoleon II.
It was followed by neither. Louis Philippe crept in
between the two and held the throne for eighteen years.
He hoped to reconcile all Frenchmen, and nourished
the illusion of bringing together all parties. For the
Royalists, was he not a Prince of the Blood? For the
Republicans, was not the Monarchy of July the best
of Republics? For the Bonapartists was he not, like
Napoleon, a monarch who owed his throne to the Revo-
lution ? Why should he not be the Napoleon of Peace?
Would it not be good policy on his part to satisfy
the chauvinistic sentiment of the country by honouring
the imperishable glories of the Imperial reign, which
had been ignored and neglected by the restored Bour-
bons 2 There was nothing to be feared from the family
of the Emperor. The Duc de Reichstadt was scarcely
more than a lad, and far away. Educated in the
reactionary Court of Vienna, he was a stranger to the
new liberal principles and his health was known to be
far from robust. As for the other Bonapartes, they
BONAPARTISM 95
were at this time, in the words of Louis Napoleon him-
Self at a later date, “all dead.”
Louis Philippe from the beginning of his reign,
therefore, seized every occasion to celebrate the memory
of the Emperor. He manifested a veritable Napoleonic
enthusiasm which, in the knowledge of his past career,
it is very difficult to believe was other than assumed.
He had called Napoleon a monster in 1814, and assured
Louis XVIII that he hated and despised him and
prayed every day for his downfall. Louis Philippe’s
Napoleonic enthusiasm was part of the policy of his
reign to attach the French people to his throne. He
reckoned, however, without the son of Queen Hortense.
His policy was, perhaps, not so shortsighted as it
appears to us now. No one in the early days of the
July Monarchy could be expected to have formed a
correct estimate of the young man whose only public
act was his escapade in Italy. The private information
which Louis Philippe's spies brought him did not lead
him to think that there was anything very formidable
in the character of Louis Napoleon. Even after Stras-
burg, the King could afford to be generous, and it is
probable that only Boulogne opened his eyes to a real
danger.
Writing in 1838, however, Metternich stated his
opinion that Louis Philippe’s Government had itself to
blame to some extent for the recrudescence of Bona-
partist feeling. The King himself, commented that
shrewd old diplomat, fell into the error of accommodat-
ing himself to Bonapartist sentiment, and sentiment
was a thing that was fatal to politics.
The combatants of 1830 were partly led by old
soldiers of the Empire, and during the three glorious
days numbers of placards were to be seen, especially
in the workmen’s quarters, recommending the name
of Napoleon II to the people. It was only fifteen years
96 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Since the Emperor's fall, only nine since his death.
There were many faithful adherents of the fallen dynasty
both in the faubourgs and amongst the bourgeois, but
there was no organized Bonapartist movement at all in
the proper sense of that word. What organized opinion
there was carried the Duke of Orleans to the throne.
The prefect of police at this time says that there
were many people whose sympathies were with the
young Napoleon. “If the Duc de Reichstadt had had
the ambition and energetic resolution of his father, if
he had been able to act, he would without doubt have
rallied all that was left of the men of the Empire. But
he did not lend his partisans any active co-operation.” "
There were, of course, intrigues and “conspiracies ''
and a certain amount of propaganda carried on, but
the only people really won over to anything like a
definite political “cause ’’ appear to have been political
refugees.
Louis Philippe, far from uniting all three sections
of France in support of his throne, only succeeded in
throwing them together to oppose him. As early as
1831 we hear of a Republican deputation, at the instance
of Godefroy Cavaignac, going over to London to dis-
cuss with Joseph Bonaparte plans for common action
against the July Government. What came of this,
however, does not transpire. Towards the end of
November 1831, the prefect of police in Paris learnt
of a Bonapartist plot in the eastern departments, with
numerous ramifications in Paris, the idea of which
was to win over the regiments and upset the throne by
means of the army. Men of letters, merchants, landed
proprietors, Polish and Italian refugees, and several
officers, some of them superior officers on the active
list, are said to have been involved in this plot, and a
Pole and an Italian, who were said to be emissaries
* Mémoires de M. Gisquet, préfet de police, 1840, I, 26o.
BONAPARTISM 97
of Queen Hortense, were arrested in Paris. They were
tried and acquitted. It was thought politic on the part
of the Government to take no further measures, and to
throw a veil over the whole affair. These, however,
were affairs the importance of which has been exagger-
ated; such action goes on more or less continually
wherever there are fallen dynasties who can command
the devotion of even a handful of followers and whose
exchequer is not empty.
But if there were few Bonapartists in a political sense,
the existence of a great public devoted to the name
of Napoleon was hardly doubtful. As early as 1822
Victor Hugo had begun to celebrate Napoleon in verse,
and at the beginning of 1829 appeared the volume
entitled Les Orientales, containing the poem “Lui,”
with its opening line, “Toujours Lui ! Lui Partout.”
“Tu domines notre age; ange ou demon, qu'importe?
Toujours Napoléon, êblouissant ou sombre
Sur le seuil du siècle est debout.”
As far back as the autumn of 1830 the movement had
begun for the transference of the Emperor's remains to
France. A petition was examined by the Chamber in
October, but it was yet too soon to ask for the return
of the ashes, and the apotheosis was delayed for a whole
decade. But the proposition gave rise to speeches in the
Chamber that reflected the popular feeling in favour
of the Emperor. This feeling found further expres-
sion in Victor Hugo’s “Ode à la Colonne '' (October
1830).
“Dors Nous tirons chercher Ce jour viendra peut-être.
Car nous tavons pour dieu Sans tavoir eu pour maitre.”
And Béranger stirred a whole nation with “Le Vieux
Sergeint,” and the “Souvenirs du Peuple.”
H
98 LOUIS NAPOLEON
“On parlera de sa gloire
Sous le chaume bien longtemps :
L'humble toit, dans cinquante ans,
Ne connaitra plus d'autre histoire.
La, viendront les villageois
Dire alors a quelque vieille :
‘Par des récits d'autrefois,
Mère, abregez notre veille.
Bien, dit-on, qu'il nous ait nui,
Le peuple encore le révère,
Oui, le révère.
Parlez-nous de lui, grand’mère,
Parlez-nous de lui.’”!
The death of the Duc de Reichstadt in 1832 was the
occasion of another remarkable manifestation of popular
feeling. Heinrich Heine, writing from Dieppe in
August of that year, says, “It is not possible to give
an idea of the impression produced upon the lower
classes of the French people by the death of young
Napoleon. I have seen even young Republicans weep-
ing. In country places the Emperor is venerated with-
out reserve. There a portrait of the Man hangs in every
cottage. I traversed the greater portion of the neigh-
bourhood of the northern coasts of France while the
news of the death of the young Napoleon spread through
it. Wherever I went I found universal mourning among
the people. Their grief was sincere; its source was not
in the self-interests of the day, but in the cherished
memories of a glorious past. In every cottage hangs
the portrait of the Emperor. Everywhere I found it
crowned with a wreath of immortelles. Many old
soldiers wore crape. One old wooden-leg held a hand
out to me and said, “A présent, tout est fini.’”
Heine goes on to say, with a curious mixture of per-
spicacity and shortsightedness, that for those Bonapart-
ists who believed in a resurrection of the flesh of the
Emperor, all was certainly at an end. But for those
Ales Souzenirs du Peuple.
BONAPARTISM 99
who believed in a resurrection of the Napoleonic spirit
there was a future full of high hope. “Their Bona-
partism is now purified of all animal admixture.” It is
the idea of a monarchism of the highest power employed
for profit of the people.
Heine saw in the portrait of Napoleon in the peasant’s
cottage a tribute to the system of the Emperor who ruled
less in the interests of any particular class than in that
of the men “whose riches are in their heart and in their
hand.” In his army the meanest son of a peasant
could, equally with the heir of the most ancient race,
obtain the highest dignities and win gold and stars of
honour. And that is why the portrait of the son of the
house, sacrificed perhaps by this very man on one of
his hundred battlefields, hung alongside his. “Most
frequently I have found in these peasant huts,” says the
German poet, “the picture of the Emperor visiting the
sick at Jaffa, or that of him lying on his death-bed at
St. Helena. These two representations bear a striking
resemblance to the most holy pictures of the Christian
religion. In the one Napoleon appears in the character
of a Saviour who heals the sick, and in the other he dies
the death of expiation.”
The death of the Duc de Reichstadt drew from Victor
Hugo the magnificent lines in which for the first time
the son of the Emperor is referred to as L’Aiglon.
“L’Angleterre prit l'aigle, et l'Autriche l'aiglon.”
“Tout deux sont morts. Seigneur, votre droit est terrible !
Vous avez commencé par le maître invincible,
Par l'homme triomphante.
Puis vous avez enfin completé l'ossuaire
Dix ans vous ont suffi pour filer le Suaire
Du père et de l'enfant.”
The Napoleon of Victor Hugo and Béranger was the
* Mapoléon ZZ, August 1832.
*
§
º
§
;
IOO LOUIS NAPOLEON
Napoleon of glory and great deeds, he who had “crossed
the Rhine like Caesar, made the Alps to disappear like
Charlemagne, and the Pyrenees like Louis XIV.” The
Napoleon of Edgar Quinet and Pierre Leroux, on the
other hand, was the Napoleon of St. Helena, the eman-
cipator from feudalism, the apostle of the Revolution and
of Democracy, he who had everywhere made the people
King, the national chief whose defeat was the defeat
of the France of 1789. Democratic thinkers like Quinet
and Leroux gave the Napoleonic cult a more formulated
expression than the mere lyric enthusiasm of a Hugo or
Béranger could do. From them spread the idea of a
democratic Napoleon, the redeemer and Messiah of the
peoples, the regenerator of Europe, and it seized upon
the imagination of the adoring masses."
“If one doubted any longer,” says Quinet, “that the
cause of the democracy was represented by Napoleon,
one has only to consider what became of the first when
the second fell. Under the Restoration had not demo-
cracy, as well as its chief, its rock of St. Helena also 2
When one sees everywhere the cause of the people fallen
at the same time as that of its chief, does it not become
evident that the people and the chief represent one and
the same principle P”
And in his poem ‘‘Napoléon,” published the same
year (1836), Quinet exalts the destroyer of the old régime,
the man who is the incarnation of the Revolution.
But it was not only in literature that the popular feel-
ing in regard to Napoleon found expression. The
theatre also had its share. Between August 1830 and
the end of 1831 theatrical pieces in which Napoleon was
represented were enormously popular. M. Thirria has
given a list of these between the dates mentioned which
* The messianic side of the Napoleonic cult is ably discussed by M.
André Lebey, Louis Mapoléon Bonaparte et le Révolution de 1848, II, 252–
28I.
e © e
E::: •:: • *e e
• * : • E • * * * º
© • *, * *, *
&
BONAPARTISM IOI
shows that at ten theatres twenty-five different Napoleonic
pieces (plays, revues, spectacles, tableaux, etc.) were
given. The name of Napoleon on a theatre bill acted
like a talisman. At the Porte St. Martin an actor named
Gobert had a prodigious success as Napoleon in a piece
called St. Helena, and at the Cirque another actor
named Edmond won almost equal celebrity in the same
part in a piece styled L’Empereur. At the theatre du
Luxembourg there was presented Fourteen Years of the
Life of Napoleon in fourteen acts and seventeen tableaux.
One wonders at what hour of the night the perform-
ance began and ended. During these seventeen months
the theatres gave themselves up to a veritable Napo-
leonic epopée. In his Histoire par le Théâtre M. Theo.
Muret states that at this time at every theatre pro-
perties were sought out and actions, personal traits,
etc., studied, which, with the aid of a little art, made
Some approach to the historic appearance of the Emperor.
There were a certain number of recognized gestures and
poses; the hands behind the back, the use of field-
glasses, the taking of snuff, etc., which, with the grey
redingote and the “petit chapeau ’’ were certain to pro-
duce a sufficiently recognizable Napoleon.
There was also a diorama representing the Tomb of
Napoleon at St. Helena, which was visited in April 1831
by the King himself, accompanied by the Queen and
royal family.
Everything contributed to perpetuate the Legend and
to help towards the triumph of the Idea, which in the
end was to be master all along the line.
Louis Philippe, believing that this popular tribute
would not go further than to increase his own popularity
and to add to the prestige of the new Monarchy, con-
sented in April 1831 to the re-establishment of the
Emperor’s statue on the top of the Vendôme Column.
This was done in 1833 when the statue of Napoleon in
G * * e
º tº
e
I O2 LOUIS NAPOLEON
his popular costume (“redingote grise ’’ and “petit
chapeau ’’) by Serure was erected." Every year on May
5, the anniversary of the Emperor's death, a demonstra-
tion was held in the Place Vendôme at the base of the
column. Louis Philippe also carried to completion the
Arc de Triomphe de l'Etoile, which was finished in 1836,
and issued a series of one hundred and sixty-five medals
representing memorable events of the reign of the
Emperor.
During all this time, however, the family of the
Emperor was excluded from France. Nearly every year
Bonapartist petitions were presented to the Chambers in
favour of the repeal of the law of proscription, but it was
not till 1847 that the King made the slightest concession,
and that only by allowing the ex-King of Westphalia
and his son, afterwards known as Prince Napoleon, to
take up their residence “momentarily ” in France.
After Strasburg and Boulogne it can very well be under-
stood that the inclination of the Government to repeal
the law of proscription, if it ever existed, would be very
faint indeed.
The attempts of Strasburg and Boulogne and the
trials that followed them, together with the trial of Laity
in 1838, and the attempt to get Louis Napoleon expelled
from Switzerland, helped to keep the name of Napoleon
continually before the people, though these things
scarcely attracted the attention at the time that is now
paid to them.
The apotheosis of Napoleon under the Monarchy of
July, however, took place with the transference of the
Emperor's remains to France in 1840 and their burial in
the church of the Invalides.
The translation of the remains had become a fixed idea
of Thiers, and the King was in hearty agreement with
* This statue was taken to Courbevoie in 1864, and replaced by one of
the Emperor in Roman costume.
• * * &
& te
BONAPARTISM IO3
it. The English Government had given its consent to
the removal of the body from St. Helena, and the
Chamber on May 26, 1840, had voted a credit of two
million francs for the purpose, though only a million
had been asked for. It was in the ministerial message
to the Chamber giving the reasons for the Government’s
action in thus honouring the dead that the phrase was
used referring to the Emperor, “He was the legitimate
sovereign of our country.” The Press showed itself
divided in opinion, the National newspaper expressing
the view that it was a political move on the part of the
Government to “flatter a national sentiment in order to
make the country forget the baseness of the past ten
years.” This was only putting what was not far from
being the truth into the language of the partisan and
political opponent. Thiers’ own paper the Temps pro-
phesied that the second funeral of the Emperor would
be an apotheosis, and such it proved to be. The Belle
Poule, carrying the remains of the Emperor, arrived at
Cherbourg on November 30, 1840. The body was taken
to Courbevoie, and from there was drawn on December
15, in procession, down the magnificent avenue formed
by the Route de Neuilly, the Avenue de la Grande
Armée, and the Avenue des Champs Elysees, to the
Invalides. It was an exceptionally cold day, the thermo-
meter marking 14° of frost, but such was the enthusiasm,
or one might call it deep reverence, of the crowds that
no notice would have been taken of cold or heat, rain
or snow. The people stood bareheaded as the body of
the Emperor passed, and an Englishman, remaining
covered, had his hat knocked off amidst the plaudits
of the crowd. Many accounts have been written of
that day. The best known in this country is that of
Thackeray, which, however, is of small value except as
showing how little an outsider could comprehend the
deep emotion of a people. Thackeray looked upon it all
IO4 LOUIS NAPOLEON
with a cynical good humour, and saw only the tinsel and
the make-believe. But with all his knowledge of Paris
it may be questioned whether Thackeray ever really
understood the French character. He could scarcely
comprehend the emotion which produced Victor Hugo’s
magnificent “Retour de l’Empereur.”
“Sire, vous reviendrez dans votre capitale,
Sans tocsin, sans combat, Sans lutte et Sans fureur,
Trainé pour huit chevaux sous l'arche triomphale,
En habit d’Empereur !
Par cette même porte, où Dieu vous accompagne
Sire, vous reviendrez Sur un sublime char,
Glorieux, couronné, Saint comme Charlemagne,
Et grand comme César.
Si bien qu’en vous voyant glacé, dans son délire,
Et tel qu'un dieu muet qui se laisse adorer,
Ce peuple, ivre d'amour, venu pour vous sourire,
Ne pourra que pleurer | *
M. Legouvé, the aged Academician who died only in
1903, at a later time wrote, “Those who witnessed that
day will never forget it. It was a second return from
Elba. One would have said it was a monarch entering
his capital in triumph. Heaven itself seemed to join in
the fête. In the sky shone the sun of Austerlitz. Thou-
sands of little crystals falling through the air caught the
rays of the sun and fell glittering on to the funeral car.
For entrance, the Arc de Triomphe; for cortège, the
remnants of his old army mingled with the glories of
the new. Everywhere an immense crowd, seated on
stands and greeting the car with passionate acclamations
as it slowly advanced. . . . When silence and the night
again took possession of the city there were two Kings
of France in Paris, one at the Tuileries, the other at the
Invalides.”
M. Ollivier, then aged fifteen, has related how he was
taken by his father, along with his brothers, to witness
BONAPARTISM IO5
the funeral procession, near to Neuilly. They had to
wait for hours, suffering horribly from the cold, “but at
last a great cry arose, like the noise of the ocean : ‘Le
voilà l’ And at once all our sufferings and the long
waiting were forgotten, heads were uncovered and an
immense acclamation rose to the heavens: ‘Vive
1’Empereur !’” Another spectator tells how he wept
when he heard that cry which for so long had been
forgotten.
The seven years between the funeral of Napoleon at
the Invalides and the Revolution of 1848 saw no diminu-
tion of the power of the Napoleonic Legend. There
were, as Legouvé puts it, two Kings in Paris, one at
the Tuileries and the other at the Invalides. Louis
Philippe lived to know that the dry bones he had brought
back from St. Helena could live again. At the very
time of the Emperor's apotheosis his nephew lay in
prison at Ham, and from there addressed his invocation
“to the manes of the Emperor.” But that belongs to
the story of the Prince’s life. The exaltation produced
in the popular mind by the name and memory of
Napoleon was a living and real thing, and endeavour
was made to take advantage of it by all parties from the
King downwards. It was, however, a sentiment above
and beyond party, and the feeling of the day is perhaps
nowhere better expressed than in the oft-quoted words
of Victor Hugo in the Chamber in 1847: “As for me,
when I look round and see conscience degraded, money
governing everything, corruption spreading, the highest
positions not free from the basest passions; when I
regard the misery of the present time, I think of the
great events of past days, and for the moment I am
tempted to say to the Chamber, to the Press, and to the
whole of France, ‘Come, let us speak a little of the
Emperor; that will make us better men.’” +
* “Tenez, parlons un peu de l'Empereur, cela nous fera du bien.”
IO6 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Thiers published his History of the Consulate and
Empire towards the close of Louis Philippe's reign, and
helped to fan the Napoleonic flame. It was hardly
possible to separate the legend of Napoleon from that of
the Revolution. The armies of the Convention and the
grand army of the Empire were one and the same thing
in the popular imagination. Under the Restoration
Béranger sang of Napoleon and Thiers wrote the history
of the Revolution. At the end of Louis Philippe's reign
Thiers wrote the history of Napoleon, and Lamartine in
his History of the Girondins sang in lyric prose the story
of the Revolution. Admiration for the Revolution and
Napoleon grew side by side. The books of Thiers and
Lamartine were read and applauded by the same people,
and everywhere it was felt that the gospel of material-
ism, of personal enrichment, and political Selfishness was
ignoble and unworthy of a great nation. It is easy to
call this movement chauvinistic. But it may well be
asked if the Napoleonic Legend did not supply that
“something ” to the soul of a nation without which it
would be a dead or lifeless thing. “The ennui of the
people was cured,” says M. Ollivier, “once more they
began to live again, and to think of something more
than getting rich.”
The souvenir of Napoleon had helped to make the
Revolution of 1830. Louis Philippe, without under-
standing or really sympathizing with the traditions of
the Empire, had tried to exploit them for his own advan-
tage. It was not enough, however, to bring back the
ashes of the Emperor. It was his spirit and genius that
the nation wanted and was blindly seeking. But Louis
Philippe's policy helped towards a realization of the
event which at first he believed to be impossible and
afterwards feared, and if the election of December Io,
1848, is to be rightly understood we must keep in mind
not only the popular sentiment concerning the Emperor
BONAPARTISM Io'7
during the days of the Monarchy of July, but the policy
of the Government itself.
This popular sentiment, helped by the King’s short-
sighted policy, was the foundation on which Louis
Napoleon had to build to attain the end which was ever
in his mind.
CHAPTER VIII
THE PRINCE's POLITICAL OPINIONS BEFORE 1836

EFORE the attempt at Strasburg Louis
Napoleon had written two works in order to
set forth his political opinions. The first,
Réveries politiques, was published in 1832,
when the Prince was twenty-four. It differs in many
respects from the better known book Des Idées Napo-
leoniennes, published seven years later, and as the later
opinions may naturally be taken to be the more mature
thought of the writer, it would be a mistake to regard
this first expression of the Prince’s mind as the real
policy of the Napoleonic Idea. In the Réveries poli-
tiques the Prince indicates the main lines of a constitu-
tion, and formulates some of the main ideas of Napo-
leon’s policy as he understood it. He begins by
criticizing the existing state of things, and excuses
himself for writing down his thoughts by pleading an
ardent desire to ameliorate the condition of mankind.
It is to be noted that this first publication of Louis
Napoleon’s, though dated the year of the death of the
Duc de Reichstadt, when he definitely felt himself called
upon to play a part in the politics of the day, must
have been written before that event, and, therefore,
before the Prince was actually the head of his party.
The pamphlet, if it does nothing more, shows at any
rate that at this early date Louis Napoleon was some-
thing more than un crâne. It shows a reflective mind,
and a knowledge and use of the French language far
Io8
EARLY POLITICAL OPINIONS IO9
beyond that of the ordinary man. If to the man of
the world Louis Napoleon only appeared a man of the
world, it was probably because he kept the reflective
and studious side of his nature for those whom he knew
to be in sympathy with it. The life of pleasure was real
enough in its way, but it was not expressive of the real
man. “Cards, love, and all the rest of it,” his
fictional biographer makes him say, “my God, man,
can’t you see they mean nothing at all to me? Did
you never dream a dream P. A dream that almost
seemed too much for you, that you needed some escape
from ? If I do not get some distraction I shall go
mad.” 1 There is probably more truth in such
imaginary words than in much that has been written
about the Emperor; but these early writings, his works
during the monotonous days at Arenenberg, testify to
the activity of mind, the elevation of thought, and the
power of imagination of the Prince. They also reveal
his political opinions so frankly (like the Idées at a
later date) that it seems incredible that he should have
gained the reputation of being an indecipherable
sphinx. With the literary value of his work we shall
deal in another chapter.
In the Réveries, written in the shelter of the hospi-
tality of the Helvetic Republic, the Prince does not
disguise his sympathy for the republican form of
government. But the constitution he maps out for
France is that of the Empire. What he would have is
a republican monarchy, and that he conceives the
Empire to be. His sovereign, like Napoleon I at the
time of the Senatus Consultum of the year XII, and
on the early coins of the Empire, is Emperor of the
French Republic, and the monarchy, if not hereditary
in right, is so in fact. The people does not elect the
Emperor, but only approves him, and we are left to
* The Mantle of the Emperor.
I IO LOUIS NAPOLEON
judge for ourselves that the first Emperor can be no
other than Napoleon II, though this is not stated. The
writer, however, omits to say from where, if a break
has been made, the first of the new Emperors is to come.
The Prince's general political opinions at the age
of twenty-four, as set out in this pamphlet, may be
summarized thus: The nature of the government of
the French Republic which issued from the Revolu-
tion consisted in the desire to establish the reign of
equality and liberty, that of the Empire to consolidate
a throne based on the principles of the Revolution.
The only way to bring to an end the general uneasi-
ness then prevailing in Europe was by a combina-
tion of the two popular causes of the day, that of
Napoleon and that of the Republic, which repre-
sented respectively glory and liberty. The first wants
of a nation are independence, liberty, stability, the
supremacy of merit, and the enjoyments of life equally
diffused. The best form of government would be
that under which every abuse of power might in any
case be corrected; under which, without social dis-
turbance and without bloodshed, not only laws but
the head of the state might be susceptible of change. . . .
In order that the independence of a nation be secure,
it is necessary that the government be strong, and that
the government be strong it must enjoy the confidence
of the people. The whole people should take part in
the election of the representatives of the nation. The
masses should be the constant source from which all
power should emanate. Merit should be the only pass-
port to success, and services rendered to the country
the only ground for rewards.
Having got thus far the Prince says, “From the
opinions which I here advance, it will be seen that my
principles are entirely republican. If, in my scheme
of a constitution, I give preference to the monarchical
EARLY POLITICAL OPINIONS I I I
form of government, it is because I consider that such
a government would be best adapted for France as it
would give more guarantees of tranquillity, greater
strength, and greater liberty than any other. If the
Rhine were a sea—if virtue were the sole motive of
human actions, if merit alone attained to authority—
then would I have a pure and simple Republic. But
surrounded as we are by formidable enemies . . . I
apprehend that a Republic would not be able to repulse
foreign aggression and repress civil troubles, unless by
having recourse to rigorous steps which would be pre-
judicial to liberty. . . . I should wish to see established
a government which should ensure all the advantages
of a Republic without its inconveniences; in a word,
a constitution which should be strong without despot-
ism, free without anarchy, independent without recourse
to conquest.”
In his scheme of a constitution he begins with the
People, the Legislative Body, and the Emperor, as the
basis. The people with the power of election and sanc-
tion, the legislature with the power to deliberate, and
the executive power vested in the Emperor. Under such
a constitution authority must always exercise its power
according to the desires of the people, because the two
Legislative Chambers will be chosen by the people.
“The sovereignty of the people will be guaranteed,
because at the accession of each new Emperor the sanc-
tion of the people will be required. If the popular
Sanction is refused, the two Chambers will propose
another Sovereign in his place. As the people will not
have the right of election of the Emperor, but only that
of approval, this law will not present the inconveniences
of an elective monarchy, which have always been a
Source of dissension.”
The writer here shows that the difficulties of the situa-
tion have not escaped him, but if elective monarchy is
II 2 LOUIS NAPOLEON
replete with danger, it might well be asked whether such
a system as that proposed by the Prince, with the
Chambers given the power to propose whom they liked as
Emperor, and the people only the power to give or with-
hold approval, would not lead to the very political Con-
vulsions against which it was supposed to be a security.
Without saying it in so many words it seems to be taken
for granted by the writer that the first Emperor is to be
Napoleon II, by right, presumably, of the plebiscite of
1804. We see here the same mind that put in motion
the machinery of the plebiscite of 1870. And the same
argument can be brought to bear against this first idea
of Louis Napoleon’s in politics as against what was
almost his last act. In voting Yes or No, merely to
approve or disapprove, you have no alternative before
you. It is either Yes, or anarchy.
We need not, however, stop to discuss seriously these
first essays of Louis Napoleon’s in politics. They were,
after all, only “reveries '' even in the author’s own
estimation, and his own words of apology for them have
a simple dignity which does honour to the writer:
“Having hitherto chiefly occupied myself with military
affairs, and being in no wise versed in legislative
matters, I hope that my friends, for whose hands only
I have written it, will peruse with indulgence this im-
perfect essay, in which I have set forth the ideas which
my reason approves, which my heart feels, but which
experience has not yet matured.”
The year following (1833), Louis Napoleon published
another brochure entitled, Considerations politiques et
militaires sur la Suisse. The pamphlet is more than
double the length of the Réveries, and is dated from
Arenenberg, July 6, 1833. The actual interest of the
work has now, of course, altogether evaporated. The
state of things in Switzerland which the Prince criti-
cizes has long been consigned to the oblivion of history,
EARLY POLITICAL OPINIONS II3
and the long lists of figures concerning the military
organization of the Helvetic Republic are of no more
interest to us now than those of an obsolete blue-book.
But into the discussion of Swiss affairs there obtrudes
the figure of Napoleon and the principle of the
Sovereignty of the people. In this second pamphlet the
writer develops his theory of the elective systems in
its relation to national security and popular sove-
reignty. It may be summarized thus:
In the Senatus Consultum of the year XII, which
established the duties of the Bonaparte family towards
the French people, the principle of national sovereignty
was recognized, for the obligation of an appeal to the
people after a certain time was established. If it is said
that in a great country the elective system may be the
Source of disorder, we may reply that everything has
its good and evil side. The enemies of popular sove-
reignty will tell you that the elective system has every-
where been productive of trouble and confusion, and
can point to Rome, to the Empire, and to Poland as
examples. Others will reply that the elective system
governed Rome for four hundred and fifty years when
she was mistress of the world, and that the hereditary
system has been no bar against revolutions and dis-
orders. Stability alone constitutes the happiness of a
people; without confidence in the future there is no
vital spirit in society. But stability and confidence can
only be attained by leaving the way open to progress,
while preserving all that is good in the past. The first
principle of every institution is generally good, because
it is based on the wants of the moment; it degenerates
as soon as those wants are changed. Change is neces-
sary to destroy abuses and to reconstruct the laws in
conformity to the wants of the day. If irremovable
barriers prevent progress, the change instead of being
gentle and easy will be marked by an explosion which
I
II4 LOUIS NAPOLEON
will overturn the social edifice. In these critical
moments of transition the people alone can decide upon
the new necessities for changes. But can the people
exercise their power indefinitely 2 And here we are
brought to the parting of the ways between what is
usually understood by Democracy and Republicanism,
and the Napoleonic reading of those terms.
“Ought not the people’’ (we must now use the
Prince's own words), “to limit themselves to the
approving or rejecting of the proposals made by the
enlightened part of the nation which already represents
their interests? If the people were not to limit them-
selves to the right of sanction, but chose its rulers and
its laws indifferently from among an infinity of indivi-
duals and codes, troubles would be incessantly arising,
for to choose is to possess the right of initiative. Now,
the initiative can only be given to the deliberative power,
and numerous masses cannot deliberate. Thus, then,
to reconcile at once popular sovereignty with the
principle of order, it becomes necessary in elections that
the enlightened bodies having that special mission
should propose and that the people should only accept
or reject their proposals.”
There is nothing ambiguous in this language. The
Republicans, who afterwards established relations with
the Prince, must have been aware of his opinions. But
he was young, and opinions are always subject to
change. In his later writings Louis Napoleon shows
many minor changes of view, but in the main the
great principle of his early writings is preserved to the
end. In these earlier writings we seem to see the young
man feeling his way towards a working compromise
between the two ideas, equally necessary yet seemingly
antagonistic, of liberty and authority. In these two
pamphlets written in Switzerland the Prince is, as it
were, thinking aloud. The thought is not fully de-
EARLY POLITICAL OPINIONS II5
veloped, but it gives an indication of what is to come
later. It is not yet the fully formulated Napoleonic
Idea, but it is more than mere verbiage and rhetoric.
Written, no doubt, both as manifestoes and as a test
of feeling, these pamphlets have their place in the
history of the genesis of the Second Empire. They did
not perhaps attract much notice at the time, and seem
scarcely to have been known by many who, in later
years, regarded the writer with a profound contempt
as a mere empty-headed and rather stupid poseur.
The Considerations strike a rather more thoughtful
note than the Réveries. There is less about glory and
more about equality and order. The false note of the
Réveries is the “love of glory,” which to the writer
seems to be synonymous with love of native land.
“The son of Napoleon,” the Prince writes, “is the
sole representative of the highest amount of glory, as
the Republic is the embodiment of the greatest amount
of natural liberty.” In the Considerations, however,
the merit of the Government of Napoleon, “the
Emperor of the people,” is that it presents the first
instance of a government where all classes are received,
none excluded. “Thus it is that we should understand
equality.” But the glory of the Empire is reflected in
the last page of the little book in a peroration of
almost lyric beauty which, even in translation, shows
how well the Prince knew the use and value of his
mother tongue.
“What spot in Europe can we visit without seeing
there traces of French glory? Do we pass a bridge;
the name recalls to you that our battalions carried it at
the point of the bayonet ! Traverse the Alps and the
Apennines, the paths which facilitate your passage were
cut in the footsteps of our soldiers, who first opened
the way. Whatever ground we tread, from Moscow to
the Pyramids, has been a field of battle on which the
116 LOUIS NAPOLEON
sons of the Republic and the Empire have given a new
lustre to the French name. And what is perhaps still
more glorious is, that among all foreign nations, if we
find improvements in their laws, useful and lasting
public works, beneficial institutions, it is the young
battalions of the Republic who prepared the way for
these changes by overthrowing all that opposed their
march. It is the old cohorts of the Empire who con-
firmed them by laying the first foundations of a new
edifice, which the revolution of July was invoked to
finish.”
These are the political ideas of the Prince as expressed
in print for the public to read—his first manifestoes.
That they are his genuine opinions there is scarcely
room for doubt. His private letters of these early days
give evidence of the sincerity of his publicly expressed
views. Writing in January 1836 he says: “I look
upon the people as a landlord, and upon governments,
whatever they may be, as farmers. If the farmer farms
the land with skill and honesty, the landlord, happy
in seeing his revenue increase day by day, will leave
the farmer in peaceful possession of all the property
he has confided to him. On the death of the farmer the
landlord will put in the same place the children of the
man whom he loved and who had done him good
service. Here is monarchy l But if, on the contrary,
the farmer betrays the confidence of his master—reduces
his revenue and ruins his land—then the master will,
with reason, dismiss him, manage his own affairs, and
appoint over his domains men to whom he will give
less authority, and whom he will change year by year,
so that they may not regard the place he accords them
as an irrevocable right. Here is a republic l I do not
perceive in these two different administrations contrary
fundamental principles; the one and the other may,
according to circumstances, produce good results.”
EARLY POLITICAL OPINIONS I 17
Mr. Blanchard Jerrold has remarked that the style of
the Réveries is not that in which an Englishman would
present the articles of his political faith to his country-
men. The language is certainly what to-day is popu-
larly called “high flown.” At the present moment it
would, perhaps, be scarcely less out of place in France
than in England. But to some extent it was the poli-
tical language of the time. On all sides there was
what has been called “a recrudescence of democratic
idealism.” There was much talk about “humanity,”
and a perplexing confusing of that term with that of
the “people,” and the age that could read Pierre Leroux
and Lamennais was not likely to laugh at the high
flights of the nephew of the Emperor. It was an age
of ideals, and all who preached reform,-those belong-
ing both to the constitutional and to the republican
oppositions under the Monarchy of July,–were equally
subject to the enthusiasm of the time, in looking for-
ward not only to political changes but to a social
millennium when brotherhood should be more than a
phrase and the “people’’ should be supreme. The
confusion of political ideals, and the perplexity of the
language used, which at one time meant one thing and
at another another, has been admirably summarized for
English readers by Mr. Lowes Dickinson." In an
excellent analysis of the reign of Louis Philippe he
draws attention to the underlying difference between
the Government and the liberal opposition; a difference
not only of policy but of sentiment. “The Government
of July,” he writes, “was essentially undramatic; it
had no brilliance, no dash, no pose; the nation was
enamoured of victories, surprises, appeals to the heart,
millennial vistas; but all this found no place in the policy
of the reign. Instead of liberty it offered order, instead
of glory prosperity; the passion of loyalty was dead, the
* Revolution and Reaction in Modern France, 1892.
II.8 LOUIS NAPOLEON
tumult of democracy suppressed. Nations in rebellion
called in vain to the ancient champion of freedom.
Italy succumbed, Warsaw fell, and France did not stir
a hand.” The Government seemed only to represent
the financial interests of the middle class, and such an
attitude, dealing as it did with facts and showing a
contempt for ideas, was repugnant at that time to the
French imagination. Prince Louis was full of imagin-
ation and ideas, and he expressed himself in a language
which was understood by the people.
CHAPTER IX
STRASBURG

OWARDS the end of 1835 the newspapers
announced the approaching marriage of
Louis Napoleon with Doña Maria, Queen
of Portugal, widow of his cousin Auguste de
Beauharnais. The report was a false one, and the Prince
took the opportunity of using it as an occasion for a
further public manifesto. The Prince was never slow
at seizing any means to keep his name before the public.
The hope of serving France would prevent him for ever
sharing a foreign throne, and was worth all the thrones
of the world. He said nothing, however, as to whether
or not there was any truth in the report of his approach-
ing marriage. We have already seen that he had spoken
on the subject to his father and expressed his wish to
find a wife, and that King Louis had been unsympathetic
as usual and the Prince had retired to his studies.” It
has been stated that somewhere about this time, when
he was a captain of artillery in Switzerland, that he fell
in love with the widow of a Mauritius planter and asked
for her hand, but was refused.” If the story is true,
* In a later letter of the Prince to his father, however, he mentioned a
certain Mdlle. de Padoue as a lady of whom it might be well to think of
were King Louis' matrimonial intentions on his son's behalf to be per-
sisted in. The Prince showed no particular interest in the matter, and
apparently it was allowed to drop. A marriage was shortly afterwards
talked of between the Prince and one of his cousins, a daughter of Prince
Eugène, but the girl’s delicate health caused the idea to be abandoned
before any propositions were made.
* Le Figaro, April 13, 1894.
II9
I 20 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Madame S. is only one of several ladies who might
have shared the hearth, if not the throne, of Louis
Napoleon. There is no doubt, however, at all about the
truth of his proposed marriage with his cousin, Princess
Mathilde, a union which, had it taken place, might have
had a great influence on the subsequent history of
Europe. It is possible that had Princess Mathilde been
Empress of the French the Franco-German War would
not have taken place, and many of the lesser errors of
the Empire would probably have been avoided. She
understood her cousin in a way that it was never given
to the Empress Eugénie to do, and she united in her
person nearly all the good qualities of the Bonapartes
and very few of their bad ones. She would have made
an admirable Empress, and the greatest misfortune
arising from the Strasburg insurrection is that it pre-
vented the union of Louis Napoleon and Princess
Mathilde. That the Prince loved his cousin there is
little doubt. Knowing the peculiarity of his father’s
temper he never confessed so much to him while the
parents were managing the preliminaries of the marriage.
But afterwards, when all was over and he could make
known his feelings without offending the old man,
whose idea was that there should not be love between
husband and wife, he wrote, “I loved Mathilde very
much.” 1
King Jerome's wife, Princess Catherine of Wurtem-
berg, had died in Lausanne in November 1835, and the
King brought his two children (Prince Napoleon and
* “I have just heard from Ferdinand Barrot, an eye-witness, an
anecdote which is not known, and perhaps never will be. When Prince
Louis Napoleon learned at Ham, where he was a prisoner, the marriage
of his cousin with Anatole Demidoff, all the affection, or, better, the
love, which he had for the Princess awoke in him ; he began to weep
bitterly, and said to Barrot, ‘This is the last and heaviest blow that
fortune had in store for me.'” (Memoirs of Count Horace de Viel Castel,
1888). The entry is dated July 15, 1856. Princess Mathilde married
Anatole Demidoff, November 1, 1840.
PRINCESS MATHILI) F.

STRASBURG I 2 I
Princess Mathilde) to stay with Queen Hortense at
Arenenberg. Hortense was enchanted with the young
girl (then aged seventeen), and a project of marriage
between the two cousins suggested itself quite naturally.
Mathilde was accomplished and beautiful, with a warm,
loyal and devoted nature that made her affection a
cherished thing to those who had the good fortune to
obtain it. There were some difficulties about settlements,
but these had practically been overcome when the attack
on Strasburg altered the whole complexion of affairs,
and Jerome declared that he would rather give his
daughter to a peasant than to a man so ambitious and
Selfish as Louis Napoleon.
M. Charles Bocher states in his Memoirs that during
the period of Louis Napoleon’s residence at Arenenberg
the Prince fell in love with his sister, Mdlle. Bocher, then
on a visit with her mother and brother to Queen Hortense
during a tour in Germany. Louis Napoleon is said to
have ridden with the girl to the French frontier, after-
wards asking her mother for her hand, but Madame
Bocher saw only a young man’s caprice in the Prince’s
request and refused it. Louis Napoleon is stated to have
always remembered his solitary and sad ride back to
Arenenberg, and years after, when he was Emperor, he
did not forget Midlle. Bocher, whose husband, M. de
Thorigny, he made Minister of the Interior."
At Arenenberg the Prince had grouped around him
a little band of faithful friends, ready to follow him any-
where. Amongst these was Doctor Conneau (born in
1803 at Milan), a young Corsican, who had been
secretary to King Louis at Florence. He had after-
wards practised as a physician in Rome, where he had
the clientèle of the Bonaparte family. Filled with
enthusiasm for the Italian cause he associated himself
with Queen Hortense’s sons in the Romagna insurrec-
* Charles Bocher, Mémoires, 1907. But no date is given.
I 22 LOUIS NAPOLEON
tion, and after its abortive ending fled alone to Paris,
from where he wrote to the Queen. She replied by invit-
ing him to Arenenberg, and there he took up his resid-
ence, remaining till the Queen’s death. He was one
of many who, having suffered in the Bonapartes’ cause,
was made the object of the Queen’s generosity and
bounty. In her will she charged him to never leave her
son, a charge to which he remained ever faithful in evil
fortune as well as in good. He was a simple, good,
honest man, not attempting to push himself or make for
himself a name, full of devotion and self-sacrifice.
Persigny (born 1808) is said to have been introduced to
the Prince about this time by M. Belmontet, who brought
him to Arenenberg for the purpose. He was only three
months older than Louis Napoleon, and his real name
is generally given as Jean Gilbert Victor Fialin. A
great deal has been written about Persigny, usually to
his discredit. But he was a remarkable man, and put
at the service of the Napoleonic cause an unparalleled de-
votion, a faith without equal, and an extraordinary spirit
of resolution. “He was in fact,” says M. Thirria, “an
illuminé, his strength came from something outside
himself. It would be too much to say that Louis Bona-
parte would never have fulfilled his destiny but for
Persigny, but he owed very much to him.” Fialin
claimed to be the Vicomte de Persigny, but he was very
poor. He had been educated at the college at Limoges,
and entering the army as a common soldier he had come
out at the top of the Saumar Cavalry School. He be-
came violently attached to the Napoleonic Legend, and
abandoned both the army and the Legitimist opinions
which, as a man of birth, he had at first adopted.
After having contributed to the Courrier Français and
Le Temps, he founded a Bonapartist review, the
Revue de l'Occident, of which there was only one num-
ber, written by Persigny himself. It seems to have
be ºf
º, tºº, nº.
In R. CONNEAU
From the A’erºe ºre, 1846

STRASBURG I 23
brought him to the knowledge of Louis Napoleon, how-
ever, and he succeeded in attaching himself to the
Prince’s person as secretary. Henceforth his motto, as
well as the rule of his life, was, “I serve.” Persigny
was far more Imperialist than his master. “The time
is come to announce to all Europe the Imperial Gospel,”
he wrote in his review. He brought to the Prince’s
Service warmness of heart, courage, spontaneity, tenacity
and a wide view of things. He was an adventurer, it
may readily be admitted; perhaps like the Prince he
was hardly “respectable,” but “respectability’’ was
Scarcely possible for men in the position of Louis
Napoleon and those who were ready to act with him in
propagating so revolutionary a gospel as that which
was enshrined by the Napoleonic Idea."
It has often been remarked that Louis Napoleon did
not attract the best men to work under him. To a
large extent the criticism is true, though the men of the
Second Empire were not so universally second rate as
it has lately become the fashion to regard them. The
type of minister evolved by the democratic Republic is
scarcely such as to make the reproach of the Emperor
not attracting the best men of much account. But men
of the type of Louis Napoleon are often the victims of
their own singleness of aim, and of their capacity to
think in broad measures. And if, as is often the case,
they arrive at their conclusions in the solitude of their
own minds and outside the active sphere of political
life, they become unfitted, when plunged into the con-
* According to M. Hippolyte Castille, Persigny first saw the Prince by
accident. Travelling in the Grand Duchy of Baden, he one day met a
calèche drawn by four horses, in which was a young man of about his
own age. Persigny, seeing his coachman rise, and, hat in hand, cry
“Vive Napoléon 1 ° inquired who the young man was, and was informed
that he was Prince Louis Napoleon. But there the story stops. There
seems to have been no meeting till 1835, when Persigny came to
Arenenberg. H. Castille, Le Comte de Persigny, Paris, 1857.
I 24 LOUIS NAPOLEON
flict of opinions, to convince others by argument or
persuasion, and so retreat further into themselves and
only give their confidence to such men as they think
can understand them. A great man, by virtue of the
very qualities which make him great, is often forced to
rely on the service of very inferior instruments to carry
out his purposes. Mazzini was a case in point, and in
our own day Cecil Rhodes; and much the same may be
said of both as of Louis Napoleon. Rhodes was un-
conventional and unable to adapt his own ideas to the
conventions of ordinary political life. The men he
employed probably neither understood his real aims
nor comprehended his imaginative nature. And those
who did come near to such understanding were wholly
unable to accommodate themselves to his immediate
actions. Great natures like these, wherever they are
found, and their number is not small, are ever the prey
of unprincipled and selfish adventurers. Believing all
men to be as sincere as themselves they are unable to
understand that they are the victims of their own
credulity, and if the truth is brought home to them they
are either apt to dismiss it if all is going well, or, if
disaster overtakes them, to doubt the nobility of human
nature altogether. Such, to a large extent, was Louis
Napoleon. Many of those who followed his fortunes
did so only for what they could obtain from him. He
was generous to a fault, and always made provision for
those who had suffered in his cause. But when all this
has been allowed, there remains a closer body of personal
friends, of whom Conneau and Persigny were the chief,
who stuck to the Prince through all fortune and whose
good faith cannot be questioned. He exercised some-
thing of that strange personal influence " which is always
* Queen Victoria speaks of his power of fascination, “the effect of
which upon all those who become more intimately acquainted with him
is most sensibly felt.” Cetters, III, 155.
STRASBURG I25
attributed to the Young Pretender, and those who fell
under the spell of his personality rarely regretted what
they suffered for his sake.
The Prince had the profound conviction that so long
as a general vote had sanctioned no form of govern-
ment in France, divers factions would constantly agitate
the country. The people, he believed, were Bonapart-
ist, but they had no legal means of declaring their will
as long as universal suffrage was denied them. The
electorate under the Monarchy of July numbered only
some 200,000 people, and the cry for electoral reform,
which began almost with the reign, was resisted by the
King and his ministers till at last Revolution pulled
down what Revolution had put up. But this was yet a
far distant day.
By his writings the Prince had tried to show to the
people that there was no way of Salvation except in an
alliance of Democracy and Authority. But the spoken
and written word was not enough. There must be
action. He must go to the people and strike off with
a bold hand the muzzle which prevented their voice
being heard. The army must be won over, the country
aroused, and Louis Philippe's throne, resting neither on
divine nor popular right, must be overthrown. He had
profound faith in the name of Napoleon. He knew that
of himself he was nothing. But with the name of
Napoleon all things were possible. The time was ripe.
His idea was to present himself unexpectedly in the
midst of some fortified town, rally the people and the
garrison by the prestige of his name and the influence
of his audacity, and move on to Paris with all the force
at his disposal, winning over the troops and national
guards on the way. It would be another return from
Elba, only without the Emperor. But the Emperor's
name would electrify the people and win them over to
the cause.
I 26 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Strasburg appeared to be the town most favourable
for the enterprise as it was easily gained from Switzer-
land, by way of Baden, where the Prince was well
known and where he frequently visited. The national
guard had been disbanded. The garrison consisted of
some 8,000 to Io,000 men, and if it could be won over
the nucleus of a little army might be formed which, in
its march to Paris, would grow larger and larger, setting
a train of powder across the whole of north-east France.
It is not necessary to tell over again in detail the
story of the abortive attempt of Louis Napoleon at
Strasburg. The facts are well known and are set out
at considerable length in more than one history of the
Emperor’s life. In itself the event was not of great
importance, and if the Prince had died before the end
of Louis Philippe's reign Strasburg would have been
forgotten long ago. But in the light of subsequent
events it preserves for us a certain interest. It reflects
the mind of the Prince at the time better than any of his
writings could do, and the trial of the prisoners that
took place afterwards showed how great was the in-
fluence which Louis Napoleon could exercise over his
fellow-men even at that early date.
It was necessary to have friends in Strasburg, and
among the garrison. The only officer of any distinction
who was won over was Colonel Vaudrey, the commander
of the 4th Regiment of Artillery. But the Prince de-
sired to gain over an officer of higher rank than Vaudrey
and wrote to the Commander of Strasburg himself
(General Voirol) from Baden in August. Voirol, in-
stead of replying, showed the letter to the prefect, telling
him to watch the movements of the Prince, and then sent
it on to the Minister of War. The Government, there-
fore, had definite warning of what was going on and
probably took certain measures. Disappointed in Voirol
the Prince then wrote to Marshal Excelmans in Paris,
STRASBURG I27
but Excelmans replied that if the Prince nourished any
idea of a project on France he was deceived or was de-
ceiving himself. He had no following. There was a
great veneration, a profound admiration for the memory
of the Emperor, but that was all."
The Prince had therefore to be content with Vaudrey.
Vaudrey had been disappointed in not being appointed
aide-de-camp to the Duc d’Orléans, and consequently
had no very kindly feeling for the Government. He
was fond of women and a man of pleasure. He is far
from being a heroic figure, and is a good example of the
inferior type of man whom the Prince so often used.
It has been said of Mazzini (a man of noble ideals and
of strict virtue if ever there was one) that long years
of plots and intrigue weakened his sense of honour and
led him into unnecessary deceptions. Such is almost
bound to be the lot of any man forced by the nature of
his position into conspiracy and intrigue. The noblest
man in his private capacity finds himself stooping to
destroy the “petite morale ’’ of public life if he believes
it to be the enemy of the “grande.” Louis Napoleon
corrupting the officers of the army of the nation he was
about to save is not a pleasant picture, and in later
times he recognized the worth of those men who had
done their duty in resisting the temptation he put in
their way. Vaudrey was gained over by female in-
fluence, and it has been stated, and probably with
truth, that Madame Gordon, along with Laity (whose
1 M. Lebey, who discusses the preliminaries of Strasburg at great
length, throws doubt on the complete innocence of both Voirol and
Excelmans. The Prince seems to have had faith that Voirol would join
him, and the bungling of De Bruc in approaching Excelmans in Paris
with the Prince's letter may have had some influence on that officer's
treatment of the proposal. But M. Lebey's disposition is to find the
ramifications of plot and conspiracy everywhere, though he admits
finally that Louis Napoleon's ultimate triumph was due more to his
own personality and the popular will than to any organized opinion.
Strasbourg et Boulogne, IO2 seq.
I28 LOUIS NAPOLEON
pamphlet afterwards was the occasion of a prosecution
by the Government), was the Soul of the Strasburg
conspiracy. Madame Gordon, who played a part be-
hind the scenes in the Bonapartist restoration down to
1848, was a singer and a friend of Persigny’s, born in
the same year as both Persigny and the Prince, and was
therefore twenty-eight years of age. Her name was
Eléonore Brault, and she was the daughter of a captain
of the Imperial Guard, who brought up his child with
an almost religious veneration for the Emperor. She
studied at the conservatoires of Paris and Milan, and
made her début in Paris in 1831. She sang at the
Théâtre des Italiens, and in the same year went to
London, where she is said to have obtained a “certain
success,” and to have married “Sir Gordon-Archer,
commissaire des guerres à la légion franco-espagnol.” "
She was soon left a widow, her husband, from whom
she had previously been separated, dying of typhus in
Italy a few years later. She is described as a very
amiable but very singular woman—“une sorte de
femme-homme '’—and there is no suggestion of scandal
in the part she played in the Strasburg affair. She was
in want of money, and she was devoted to the Napoleonic
cause, and the two things fitted into one another in a
way that made conspiracy at once pleasant and profit-
able. Asked at the trial if she loved the Prince, she
replied, “Yes, politically,” and then added, “to tell
the truth he produced on me the effect of a woman.””
Madame Gordon came probably on Persigny’s sug-
gestion to sing in Strasburg at the beginning of June
1836, and made a great impression on Vaudrey.
Shortly after he met her at the Baden Casino with the
Prince, and the rest was comparatively easy. The
* Lebey, Strasbourg et Boulogne, p. 108, note.
* This feminine side to the Prince's nature we have already noticed in
the Introduction.
STRASBURG I29
Strasburg authorities knew perfectly well of Vaudrey’s
going to see Louis Napoleon at Baden, and General
Voirol questioned him about it. He acknowledged
having seen the Prince, but denied that there had been
any overtures.
Throughout the summer the preparations went on.
Towards the middle of August the Prince came one
night secretly to Strasburg and met some twenty officers
of the garrison at the house of Laity, who received him
with sympathy when he addressed them. By the begin-
ning of October Madame Gordon had completely won
over Vaudrey, and the Prince resolved to delay no
longer. He recalled Persigny, who was in London on
a “mission,” and set out from Arenenberg on October
25, without telling his mother of his real intentions,”
and passing through Freiburg and Lahr arrived at
Strasburg on October 28.
M. Ollivier says that the attack had originally been
fixed for the 31st, but Persigny’s confidence and pre-
cipitation brought it about a day earlier. This mistake
contributed largely to the failure of the enterprise,
which according to Louis Blanc had been well thought
out and was a bold and well-conceived plan. The
historian of the Liberal Empire puts the actual story
of the Strasburg attack into the space of a page. “The
Prince had explained his intentions in a proclamation
to the people and to the army,” he writes. “He did
not come before them as the representative of the
Empire, but as the representative of the National
sovereignty. The eagle was the emblem of the rights
of the people and not of the rights of a family. In
1830 a government was imposed on France without con-
sulting either the people of Paris, the people of the
* He told her he was going for a few days' shooting in the principality
of Elchingen.
* At Freiburg he met Vaudrey and Madame Gordon.
K
I3O LOUIS NAPOLEON
provinces, or the mighty voice of the army. A national
Congress elected by all the citizens could alone have the
right to choose what best befits France. His proclama-
tions in his hand he crossed the streets of Strasburg
and presented himself at the barracks of the 4th Regi-
ment of Artillery. Some of his confederates went off to
make the commander and the prefect prisoners. The
4th Artillery following the example of their colonel
received the Prince with cries of ‘Vive 1°Empereur !’
The 46th Regiment of Infantry resisted. The Prince was
arrested in the barrack square with all his companions,
except Persigny, who succeeded in making good his
escape. The whole affair had lasted hardly three hours
and was over by eight o’clock a.m.” +
Such is, in briefest form, the story of the echauffourée
of Strasburg. The details of that day we are not here
concerned with. They may be read in Mr. Blanchard
Jerrold’s Life and in other places, notably in M.
Thirria’s Napoléon III avant l'Empire, where they are
given at considerable length, and in M. André Lebey’s
Strasbourg et Boulogne.”
The enterprise having failed, it was naturally turned
into ridicule, and pronounced a piece of madness which
by no possible chance could have succeeded. How
much the Government really knew beforehand is uncer-
tain, but that the King and Court took it seriously and
were considerably alarmed there is not the slightest
doubt. Those were the days before the electric tele-
graph, and the dispatch sent by the Commander at
Strasburg to the Minister of War by the “télégraphe
aérien '' only arrived in Paris on the afternoon of the
following day (October 31), some thirty hours after the
event, and was interrupted by fog. The ministers did
not know, therefore, whether the attempt had succeeded
* Ollivier, II, 51.
* See Appendix A. Louis Napoleon's own account of the attempt.
STRASBURG I3 I
or not till the following morning (November 1), two
days after the occurrence, when General Voirol's aide-
de-camp arrived in Paris with the completion of the
dispatch announcing the failure of the attempt and the
arrest of the Prince. The news was kept back by the
Government till late in the day (November 1), when a
special supplement of the Moniteur was issued giving a
detailed account of the affair, along with the whole of
the dispatch. The Duc d'Orléans writing to his brother
Nemours speaks of the “frightful uncertainty” that
reigned at the Tuileries on the night of October 31 after
the receipt of the first portion of the dispatch, and he
had decided to start himself for Strasburg when the
commander’s messenger arrived. Guizot has also put
on record the anguish of that night at the Court.
After his arrest the Prince had been questioned and
asked, “Did he wish to establish a military govern-
ment?” He replied, “My wish was to establish a
government founded on popular election.” Asked
what he would have done had he succeeded, he replied,
“I should have called together a National Congress.”
He took upon himself the whole of the blame, declared
that he had organized everything, that his friends had
been led away by him, and that he alone ought to suffer
the rigour of the law. The Prince remained in prison
at Strasburg for ten days, from October 30 to November
9. From prison he wrote to his mother announcing the
news of his attempt and of his failure, telling her not
to be troubled, but not in any way asking pardon for his
action. “I am the victim of a noble cause—a French
cause; hereafter, justice will be rendered to me, and I
shall be pitied.” Of all those who were associated with
Louis Napoleon only Persigny escaped. The others
were arrested at the same time as the Prince, and
eventually (January 1837) put on their trial. The
charge, however, was withdrawn against seven of them,
I32 LOUIS NAPOLEON
and the accused who took their trial were only twelve
in number. Of these, with three exceptions, all were
young men under thirty years of age. The exceptions
were Colonel Vaudrey, who was fifty-two; Colonel
Parquin, forty-nine; and Madame Gordon. It is stated
that something like twenty officers of the Strasburg
garrison were involved in the affair, but that only those
who were immediately compromised were proceeded
against, as the Government did not wish to make the
Napoleonic propaganda appear of importance. To have
punished all the officers involved would have made too
great a sensation.
After much hesitation on the part of the King it was
decided to treat the Prince differently from the other
prisoners, and on November 9 he was taken to Paris
alone, where he arrived the next day. He protested
vigorously against not being allowed to share the fate
of his companions, and wrote to the King expressing
his chagrin at thus being treated in an exceptional
manner, and asking pardon for the friends whom he
had involved.
Louis Philippe showed himself clement. Without
waiting for the entreaties of Queen Hortense, who had
come to Paris to plead for her son, he thought (in the
words of M. Guizot) “that the regard due to such a
man as Napoleon did not altogether descend with him
to the tomb.” By deciding to put the Prince on board
a frigate bound for New York he professed to treat him
as one of royal race, and after a short stay in Paris the
prisoner was taken to L’Orient, where he arrived on
November 15. There he remained for nearly a week
waiting for favourable weather, and it was not till
November 21 that Louis Napoleon left Europe on board
the Androměde bound for the new world.
Before leaving France he wrote to M. Odilon Barrot
asking him to defend Colonel Vaudrey, and to his
STRASBURG I33
mother praying her not to follow him to America, and
asking her to see that nothing should be wanting to the
prisoners of Strasburg.
No promise was asked of him either at Strasburg or
Paris that he should not return to Europe. It was too
well known that he would refuse. He set sail, there-
fore, quite free from any pledge. At the time of his
arrest at Strasburg a sum of 200,000 francs had been
found on him and confiscated, and when he stepped on
board the Androméde the sub-prefect gave him back
I5,000. This was afterwards represented to have been
a gift of the King's. The voyage to New York was a
long one. At the 23rd degree of latitude the commander
of the frigate opened his sealed orders and found they
enjoined him to take the route by Rio de Janeiro, but
not to allow the Prince to disembark. This detour of
3,000 leagues was probably made with the purpose of
preventing Louis Napoleon from corresponding with his
friends before the close of the Strasburg trial. During
the long days at sea he often wrote to his mother, and
in these letters he gives a very full account of the Stras-
burg adventure and the motives that impelled him to it."
Rio de Janeiro was reached early in January, and it was
not till the end of March, after four months at sea, that
Prince Louis landed on the shores of North America, at
Norfolk in Virginia, and made his way to New York.”
The chief sources of information concerning the attack
on Strasburg are the letters of Louis Napoleon himself,
the evidence of the prisoners at the trial of January
1837, and Laity’s account published in June 1838. The
evidence at the trial is valuable as giving the facts,
but the Prince’s letters have an interest even greater,
for they show the mind of the chief actor in the drama.
* Appendix A.
* Lebey says he landed at New York in January, but this is an error.
I34 LOUIS NAPOLEON
And the Prince after all was the only factor of any
importance. The rest of the conspirators, with the ex-
ception perhaps of Persigny," who escaped, were not a
very formidable company, and Louis Philippe's policy
of clemency was not without a touch of that wisdom
which is usually attributed to the serpent. The
acquittal of the Strasburg prisoners was as astonishing
as it was wise. Their guilt was clear. They had taken
up arms against the throne, and yet a jury of their
countrymen pronounced them innocent. But to have
condemned the disciples while the master escaped with-
out punishment would have been against the sentiment
of the nation and a true sense of justice; and senti-
ment, even yet, is not without its effect on a French
jury. The acquittal of January 1837 was, therefore,
almost the only logical outcome of the royal policy of
November 1836.
It is impossible to speak of the affair of Strasburg
without using the term “conspiracy.” Yet conspiracy
seems almost too important a word to use of an attempt
to overthrow a throne which had little real political
Organization, no connection with Bonapartist com-
mittees in Paris or anywhere else, and which trusted to
a mere handful of soldiers at a frontier town to bring
about a revolution." Had Louis Napoleon wished to make
himself Emperor, had he merely wished to upset the
throne of Louis Philippe in order to place himself upon
it, he would have gone about things in quite another
way. His proclamations, as well as all his subsequent
letters, show that he had no such intention. He
* M. Lebey's exhaustive search into the under-workings of Bonapartist
intrigue would appear to contradict this assertion, but when considered
in their true proportions the preparations of the Prince and his friends
were not very far-reaching. At both Strasburg and Boulogne Louis
Napoleon relied far more on the unorganized help of the people than on
a skilfully worked out plan. What he did plan and organize was the
striking of the first blow. After that he trusted to Providence.
STRASBURG I35
presented himself as “the representative of the sove-
reignty of the people.” The mission of the army was
to “protect the rights of the people.” “With a great
people, one can do great things. I have entire faith
in the French people.” In the long letter he wrote to
his mother from Strasburg, he says, “I take God to
witness that it was not to satisfy any personal ambition,
but because I had a mission to fulfil, that I risked what
to me is dearer than life—the esteem of my fellow-
citizens.” Convinced that only the institutions founded
by the Emperor could assure the peace, prosperity and
greatness of his country, convinced moreover that the
people thought as he did, and would so express them-
Selves if they were allowed to do so, he believed it was
the duty of the Bonapartes to give back to the people
that freedom of voice which had been so long denied
to them. In deciding on so perilous an enterprise the
Prince weighed all the consequences, and saw clearly
what he had to lose if he failed, and how little even he
might gain if successful. But he was ready to risk
all. If he did not lose his life, he would very likely
lose his liberty, and to lose his liberty was to be
separated from the much-loved mother whose happiness
was so near his heart. Even if he succeeded, there was
no guarantee that the popular voice would acclaim him
as ruler. There were other Bonapartes ready, in case'
of success, to step into high places. His only desire
was to give the people the right of choosing its ruler,
and to remind the nation that there were still Bona-
partes on whom they could count. He knew that in
case of failure he would be accounted a fool or a self-
seeker, and knowing this he did not hesitate to take
the risk. He assured his mother that nothing in the
world would have made him put off till another time
an attempt which seemed to have so many chances of
success. A secret voice drew him on. He acted from
I36 LOUIS NAPOLEON
conviction and not by impulse. If successful he would
have carried out in a day the work of ten years." He
would have spared France the struggles and disorders
of an overthrow that he believed to be inevitable Sooner
or later. To prevent anarchy was easier than to repress
it.” To direct the masses was easier than to follow
their passions. Making a revolution with fifteen
persons he would, if he had arrived at Paris, have owed
his success to the people and not to a party. He would
have laid his sword on the altar of the country, and
people would then have had faith in him.
Such in brief is his own explanation of the motives
that impelled him, and the line of conduct he meant
to follow. “In entering France I never thought of
the part which defeat would make me play. I relied,
in case of misfortune, on my proclamations as my last
will, and upon death as a blessing.”
The Strasburg affair was, therefore, hardly a Bona-
partist conspiracy. There was little that was “Bona-
partist’’ in it in a purely political sense. The Prince,
like all exiles, overestimated the forces on his side,
and miscalculated the strength of a sentiment. The
conspiracy may be reduced to a comparatively unim-
portant intrigue, and here once and for all we may say
that all the Prince's subsequent intriguing and con-
spiring was along the same lines. It had compara-
tively little to do with Bonapartist committees and
organizations in France or in Paris. He was served
by men here and there, from motives of devotion and
self-interest; but without the Prince on the one hand,
and the general mass of feeling moving in the direction
of the Napoleonic Idea on the other, there would have
been no revival of the Empire. “Every party that is
1 Later, in the Idées, he attributes the failure of Napoleon to trying to
do in a few years the work of many.
* Here is the same idea as that upon which he acted in 1851.
STRASBURG I37
compelled to act in the shade,” says Thiers, “is reduced
to steps which are intrigues when they are not success-
ful,” and by these words the Prince justified his actions.
From all the members of his family, with the excep-
tion of his mother, came expressions of blame and
reproach for the mad attempt against the Government
of July. Hortense alone did not reproach him, and
she was promptly accused by the other members of the
family for having suggested her son’s ambitious
Schemes. King Louis was at first enraged, but ended
by sending his blessing. His nature was to grumble
and be severe in small matters, and quietly to accept
the inevitable when important affairs were concerned.
But the other members of the family were less gener-
ous. They were greatly irritated against the Prince,
and publicly reproached him with compromising their
cause. In reality their complaint with him was that
he had upset the tranquillity which they were now
gradually coming to enjoy. After Strasburg the suspi-
cions of the Powers were revived against them.
Hortense was angered at this attitude of the family,
and wrote to her son, “The more I think of the conduct
of your family the more I am confounded.” Jerome
as we have seen, promptly broke off the match with
his daughter. Joseph did not answer his nephew’s
letter, and upon the latter’s arrival in America he
wrote to his uncle expressing astonishment at his anger.
Joseph had been the one member of the family on whom
Louis Napoleon had relied to uphold the Napoleonic
cause. He writes pointedly enough, “I venture to
say public opinion cannot admit a Schism between you
and me. Nobody will understand why you should
discard your nephew because he exposed himself for
your cause. My enterprise has failed, it is true, but
it has made known to France that the family of the
Emperor is not dead, and that it can still reckon upon
I38 LOUIS NAPOLEON
devoted friends; nay more, that its pretensions are not
limited to demands of pittances from the Government,
but that it seeks to re-establish in favour of the people
what foreigners and the Bourbons had destroyed.”
This is pretty straight talk from a young man of
twenty-eight to a nearly Septuagenarian uncle, who was,
moreover, head of the family. But it strikes a higher
note than any other Bonaparte could have attained to at
that time.
The press, both French and foreign, was unanimous
in condemning the enterprise, and overwhelmed the
Prince with reproaches. Everything seemed to indi-
cate that instead of furthering the Napoleonic cause
he had retarded it by his action. The Journal des
Débats expressed surprise and stupefaction at the in-
credible folly of a handful of men, and spoke of the
insensate presumption and mad folly of the Prince.
His act was enough to disconcert even those who had
for so long lived in the midst of political revolutions.
In England the Times characterized the attempt as
ridiculous and imprudent, and the Standard was satis-
fied that it would have no other effect but to strengthen
the Government.
Such appears to have been the almost universal feel-
ing, and it was shared in by the Court itself. Writing
to her brother the sailor Prince de Joinville, a few
days after the attempt at Strasburg, Princess Clemen-
tine (then a girl of nineteen) says, “Louis Bonaparte,
son of the Duchess of St. Leu, has attempted to bring
over to his cause the Strasburg garrison. . . . Now
that it is ended, and happily ended, without a single
man wounded, I am not displeased with this attempt.
It shows the impotence of the Bonaparte party, since
the presence of a Prince Napoleon and the cries of
‘Vive 1’Empereur' have not affected our gallant
soldiers.” But the Princess at the same time confesses
STRASBURG I39
that there had been great anxiety at the Tuileries.
“It is a long while since we have had such a time: ”
and the royal family’s estimate of the son of Queen
Hortense is contained in her description of him as a
“marplot and a bad character.” + More than half-a-
century after this event Princess Clementine was
destined to play a part behind the scenes of European
politics, which for intrigue and plot makes us regard
Queen Hortense and her son as mere amateurs in the
Conspirator’s art.
Paris, however, concerned itself very little in the
autumn of 1836 with Louis Napoleon or with the
prisoners of Strasburg. The Prince obtained a “succès
de curiosité,” and was speedily forgiven. Yet only
three months before, the Arc de Triomphe, begun by
Napoleon and dedicated to his glory, had been in-
augurated amid the enthusiasm of the populace. It was
the year of Fieschi’s trial and execution, of the attempt
and execution of Alibaud, of the death of Armand
Carrel in a duel by the hand of Emile de Girardin, of
the production of Les Huguenots, and of the erec-
tion of the obelisk of Luxor in the Place de la Concorde.
Paris amused itself and lived from one sensation to
another. Yet, over all, as a writer has well said of this
year: “The echoes of a long distant epopée resounded.
The sun of the legend cast over Paris a shadow, indis-
tinct at first, but which little by little became clearer,
till at last the outline detached itself—the ‘petit
chapeau,’ the ‘redingote grise,’ the great boots with
the golden spurs. The form of Napoleon the Great,
the Conqueror of the world, the vanquished of Fortune,
gradually appeared, and held over the city his glittering
sword, seeming to demand reparation.””
* Morning Post, April 27, 1907, quoting Za Revue Bleu.
* Jacques de Nouvion in Paris de 1890 à 1909, edited by Charles
Simond.
CHAPTER X
BETWEEN STRASBURG AND BOULOGNE
THE PRINCE IN AMERICA—HIS EXPULSION FROM SWITZER-
LAND–ENGLAND
RINCE LOUIS told his mother, on his de-
parture for America, that he intended to ask
his uncle Joseph to sell him some land
there, with the idea of his becoming a
farmer. Needless to say he never carried out this
intention. At the moment he probably thought that
he could settle down to such a life, but it is only
one more example of the truth of Falloux’s saying that
he did not know the difference between “penser '' and
“réver.” It is, of course, useless to speculate upon
what he would have done in America, had his mother’s
serious illness not recalled him to Europe at the end
of less than three months. But even if he really had
wished to buy land from Joseph, he would probably
have found a difficulty at that time in obtaining it
owing to the state of mind and temper in which the
attempt at Strasburg had plunged the ex-King of Spain.
Of the Prince’s life in America we probably know all
that we are likely to know from the pages of Mr. Blan-
chard Jerrold's and Mr. Abbott’s biographies. There is
ample evidence, as shown by Mr. Jerrold, that the
stories about his dissipated life in the United States are
calumnies, or the result of attributing to him the conduct
of his cousin Pierre Bonaparte, who was in New York
at the same time, and for whose behaviour at a later
I40
AMERICA I4 I
date the Emperor Napoleon III had to suffer in a still
greater degree. The Prince spent most of his time in
New York, where he lived at the Washington Hotel,
Broadway, but visited Niagara and other places of
interest. He made the acquaintance of General Watson
Webb, General Scott, and others, and by Webb was
introduced to his brother-in-law, the Rev. C. S. Stewart,
chaplain in the navy, who saw a great deal of the
Prince and was his almost constant companion. Stewart
subsequently wrote a vindication of the Emperor when
the nature of his life in America was attacked, in which
he speaks of the frankness and ingenuousness of the
Prince’s manner, his amiability, and his warm affec-
tions." He tells us that he visited amongst the first
families of social position in New York, the Hamiltons,
Clintons, Livingstones and others, and if he did not
mix with what is called Society it was from his own
choice. He chose to make the acquaintance of such
men as Washington Irving, whom he visited at his
residence at Sunnyside,” and Chancellor Kent, whose
* See Appendix B. Letters of the Rev. C. S. Stewart and General
Watson Webb in the National Antelligencer, Washington, April 1856.
* “Among the memorable events of this season at the college was a
visit from the present Emperor of France, then simple Louis Napoleon,
who, after having been a prisoner of State for some months on board of
a French man-of-war, was set at liberty on our shores at Norfolk early
in the spring of 1837. From Norfolk he came immediately to New York,
where he remained about two months, and then returned to Europe.
It was during this interval that he made his visit to the ‘Roost,’
accompanied by a young French count and escorted by a neighbour,
Mr. Anthony Constant, with whom he had been passing a day or two,
and who had previously announced to Mr. Irving his intention of bring-
ing him to breakfast. Mr. Irving enjoyed the visit, and was much
interested in the peculiar position of his somewhat quiet guest, though
little anticipating the dazzling career which awaited him” (Life and
Letters of Washington Irving, by his nephew, Pierre E. Irving, 1864, III,
116). Irving had also met Mdlle. de Montijo. On the occasion of the
Emperor's marriage, in 1853, he wrote: “Louis Napoleon and Eugénie
Montijo, Emperor and Empress of France 1 one of whom I have had a
guest at my cottage on the Hudson, and the other whom, when a child,
I have had on my knee at Granada | . . . The last I saw of Eugénie
I42 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Commentaries he had read. He was introduced to the
“Grand Order of Owls,” whose esoteric sittings were
held at Holt's Hotel. He was also a good deal in the
company of the poet Fitz-Greene Hallack, who after-
wards described him as “a rather dull man of the order
of Washington.” The Prince was a frequent visitor
at the house of Mrs. Roosevelt, the wife of Judge James
Roosevelt, great-uncle of President Roosevelt, who, as
the daughter of General Van Ness, had accompanied
her father to Spain, where he was American Minister
from 1829 to 1836, and where she had met Madame de
Montijo and her two daughters, the youngest of whom,
then a little girl some years from her teens, was named
Eugénie. This junction of the names of the future
Emperor and Empress of the French, in which the
connecting link is furnished by the name of Roose-
velt, is not without interest.
Abbott, in his History of Napoleon III, speaking of
the Prince's visit to America, says that in New York the
Prince devoted himself with great energy to the study
of American institutions. “He was specially interested
in the actual state of the arts and sciences, in the pro-
gress of inventions, in our system of education and our
penitentiary institutions. There were at that time some
very curious experiments being made in the develop-
ment of electro-magnetism. He visited the rooms where
these experiments were going On, in Company with
several of our most distinguished citizens.””
The same writer also quotes from an article published
in the Home Journal a few years before 1868, in which
de Montijo she was one of the reigning belles of Madrid.” Mr. Kirk-
patrick, the grandfather of the future Empress, had been American consul
at Malaga, and Washington Irving spent a night at his house in 1827,
afterwards making the acquaintance of his son-in-law, the Count Teba,
who “had a family of little girls, mere children, about him.”
* Jerrold, II, 21.
* History of Wapoleon III, by John S. C. Abbott, Boston, 1868.
AMERICA I43
it is stated that few enjoyed the acquaintance of Prince
Louis in New York, as his naturally reserved disposi-
tion, enhanced by the circumstances of his exile, made
him averse to general society. “He was, however,”
says the writer, “an object of peculiar regard and inter-
est wherever presented. He is regarded as a quiet,
melancholy man, winning esteem rather by the un-
affected modesty of his demeanour than by éclat of
lineage or the romantic incidents which had befallen
him. Where best known he was endeared. His per-
Sonal character was above reproach.”
In addition to American society in New York, the
Prince met a number of French people more or less
Connected or in sympathy with the Bonapartist cause,
including Lieutenant Lacoste, who had followed Joseph
to America in 1815, and the brothers Peugnier. His
Italian friend Count Arèse, and his valet, Charles
Thélin, had left Europe for New York soon after the
Prince had sailed, and were there to meet him with letters
and supplies. Joseph Bonaparte, who had lived at
Point Breeze, near Bordentown, New Jersey, on the
banks of the Delaware, from 1815 to 1832, was at this
time in England, although he returned to America dur-
ing the course of the year (1837) and remained there till
1839.1 The Prince’s cousins, Achille and Lucien
Murat, were also then in America; his cousin, Jerome
Bonaparte, son of the ex-King of Westphalia by his
American wife, Elizabeth Patterson, was living at his
country seat near Baltimore. The Prince, however,
does not appear to have seen any of his cousins, though
it was his intention to visit both Achille Murat in
Florida, and Jerome Bonaparte at Baltimore. With
1 The history of Joseph Bonaparte in America has been written by
Georges Bertin : 1815–1832 : Joseph Bonaparte en Amerique, Paris, 1892.
An interesting résumé of the book, by Mr. F. Marion Crawford, appeared
in the Century Magazine, May 1893.
I44 LOUIS NAPOLEON
the latter he had maintained very cordial relations ever
since their first meeting in Rome in 1826, and wrote
to him that the first thing he should do when he
commenced his travels in the interior would be to visit
his cousin.” Achille Murat, the eldest son of the King
of Naples, had gone to the United States in 1822 at
the age of twenty-one, and resided near Tallahassee in
Florida, acting as director of posts. He married in
1826 a niece of Washington, and was the author of
three works on American institutions.” His brother
Lucien followed him to America in 1825, and two years
later married Miss Fraser, a lady of fortune. At the
time of Louis Napoleon's visit, however, Lucien Murat
and his wife had been reduced by financial losses to
supporting themselves by keeping a girls’ School.”
With Pierre Bonaparte, already mentioned as being in
New York at this time, was his brother Antoine, so
that during the short period of the Prince's stay in
America, no less than five of his cousins were also
enjoying the hospitality or living as citizens of the
Republic.
It had been Louis Napoleon’s intention to spend a
year in making a tour of the United States, and for
this he was preparing when his mother’s letter with the
news of her illness, and Conneau’s accompanying
“Venez, venez,” reached him. His opinion of the
* The Zife and Letters of Madame Bonaparte, by E. L. Didier, 1879, p. 263.
* These are (1) Lettres d'un citoyen des Ätats-Unis a ten de ses amis en
Europe, Paris, 1830, part of which first appeared in the Revue trimestrielle
and which contains curious and interesting details about the parties
then dividing the Republic and of the new States of the Union. (2)
Esquisse morale et politique des Etats-Unis, Paris, 1832. (3) Exposition des
principes du gouvernement républicain, tel qu'il a €té perfectionnée en Amerique,
Paris, 1833. An interesting article, entitled “The Prince and Princess
Achille Murat in Florida,” by Matilda L. McConnell, appeared in the
Century Magazine, August 1893. Achille Murat died in America in 1847.
* Lucien Murat returned to France for a short time in 1839 and in
1844, and finally in 1848, when he was elected a representative of the
people (see p. 269). &
AMERICA I45
United States at that early period of their history is
expressed in an extract from one of his letters. “The
United States believe themselves to be a nation,” he
wrote to M. Vieillard. “They are still only an indepen-
dent colony. The transition is going on daily . . .
but I do not think the transition will be completed
without crises and convulsions.” Louis Napoleon did
not always judge badly or prophesy falsely."
Before leaving the United States he addressed a
letter to the President, Martin van Buren, stating the
reason of his sudden departure and expressing his regret
at not having been able to pay a visit to Washington.
“My mother being dangerously ill, and no political
consideration binding me here, I am going to England,
from where I shall endeavour to repair to Switzerland.”
He set sail on June 8 from New York, in the steamer
George Washington, and arrived at Liverpool a month
later. It was afterwards represented by the Govern-
ment of July that the Prince had given a promise to
remain in America for ten years. Such a promise was
never given. Louis Philippe’s Government addressed
Queen Hortense, asking her to obtain such a promise
from her son. But she refused, and the Prince him-
self was never approached on the subject. That no
such word was given was afterwards admitted when,
in the trial of the Boulogne prisoner in 1840, M.
Franck–Carré, the public prosecutor, referred to the
Prince as having been “pardoned unconditionally ”
in 1836. He was, therefore, perfectly within his right
to return to Europe immediately, but seeing that legally
Louis Philippe might have had him shot after the
Strasburg affair, it remains a question whether there
was not a moral obligation to remain in America at
least for Some years.
Probably the Prince felt some such obligation. But
* See Appendix C. Louis Napoleon's opinions on American institutions.
L
I46 LOUIS NAPOLEON
the State of his mother’s health was a sufficient and
imperious reason for his return. She wrote at the be-
ginning of April announcing an approaching operation
which might prove fatal. Louis Napoleon, whose devo-
tion to his mother it is not necessary here to emphasize
again, departed immediately on receipt of this letter.
On the voyage he wrote in the album of one of the lady
passengers a line from the poet Thomson—
“Still to employ
The mind's best ardour in heroic aims.”
The failure of Strasburg was left behind. There was
no looking back. He had acted too soon. This first
failure was due to “the will of God through a direct
interposition of His providence.” These are his own
words as quoted by the Rev. C. S. Stewart. Had he
oftener used such phraseology, Louis Napoleon might
have been accounted by the world a profoundly reli-
giòus man instead of a fatalist.
The Prince was in London from July 1o to July 30,
1837.1 The funeral of William IV had taken place a
few days before his arrival. On July 13 Queen Victoria
left Kensington for Buckingham Palace, and four days
later she prorogued Parliament in person. This was
Queen Victoria’s first visit to Parliament, and there
was a great pageant. Amongst the spectators was
Louis Napoleon. In London the Prince heard that
his mother's health was better. But he had difficulty
in obtaining a passport to go and see her. He had
expected to find his uncle Joseph in London, but Joseph
seems to have left immediately he heard of his nephew’s
* There is again no record of where the Prince lodged in London
during his third visit, but it was probably at Fenton's Hotel. On his
arrival in London a year later, October 1838, the French ambassador
wrote that he was stopping, “as he did before,” at Fenton’s Hotel.
This probably refers to the visit of 1837.
LONDON I47
arrival. The Prince was very mortified, and attributed
Joseph’s continued irritation against him to his uncle
Lucien. He wrote to his father two days after his
arrival, “If you could know how sad I am in the midst
of this London tumult, and near relations who shun
me and of enemies who fear me ! My mother is dying,
and I cannot carry her a son's consolations; my father
is sick, I may not hope to go and be with him. What,
then, have I done to be pariah of Europe and of my
family P” The Prince was unable to obtain a pass-
port, and it was only by using one made out in the
name of an American named Robinson, that he was
able to go and rejoin his mother. The knowledge that
his actions caused so much concern to the French
ministry was some consolation to the young man, for,
though the world might laugh, he began from this
time to measure his strength with that of Louis
Philippe's Government by the strength and activity of
their enmity to him.
The Prince’s movements appear to have been watched
by the London police on behalf of the French Govern-
ment, for a dispatch from the French ambassador,
General Sébastiani, to M. Molé on July 21 stated that
the former had put himself in communication with Lord
John Russell to obtain the surveillance of the London
police over the proceedings of the Prince, and that he
had been promised that he should be informed of what-
ever might be of interest in that particular. “None the
less,” says the General, “I must remark to your Excel-
lency that police action in this country is insufficient,
and that nothing is easier than to withdraw one's self
from all investigation.” Ten days later (July 31) M.
Bourgueney, chargé d'affaires in the absence of General
Sébastiani, wrote that “Sir F. Roe, chief of the London
police, has just announced that he has lost all traces of
Louis Bonaparte.” He was stated to have left the hotel
I48 LOUIS NAPOLEON
where he was staying on Saturday, July 29, and gone to
Richmond, where he passed the night, returning next
day (Sunday) to London in a post-chaise, from which
he alighted “at the first barrier,” and mounted an
omnibus. After this all trace of the Prince seems to
have been lost, and it was not known from what port
he embarked.”
Reaching Arenenberg at the beginning of August, by
way of Rotterdam and the Rhine, the Prince passed
the remaining two months of his mother's life by her
side. She died on October 5, 1837, at five o’clock in
the morning, in the arms of her son. The same day
the Prince wrote to his father at Florence to tell him
the sad news. The only reference in Hortense’s will
to her husband was contained in a single clause: “Let
my husband give a thought to my memory, and let
him know that my greatest regret has been that I was
not able to make him happy.”
By Hortense's death Louis Napoleon succeeded to
his mother's inheritance, which he found to be nearly
120,000 francs (4,4,800) a year. “My mother has left
me many obligations and responsibilities,” he wrote to
his father on October 31, “ and an old castle half
restored, which I must finish in order to realize some-
thing by it. This work will be my only distraction
during the winter.” The castle was the château of
Gottlieben, on the arm of the Rhine which connects
the Untersee with Lake Constance. Here the Prince
spent the early part of the year of 1838, after having
* Lebey, Strasbourg et Boulogne, p. 199, note ; quoting I. de St. Amand
and A. Morel. His departure was not generally known till some days
later. The Examiner of August 6 states that “Prince Louis Napoleon
Bonaparte, it is believed, intends to take up his residence in the neigh-
bourhood of Richmond, in one of the beautiful villas on the banks of the
Thames, until he may be able to obtain a passport to go and visit his
dying mother in Switzerland, for which purpose he has already made an
application to a foreign Power through its ambassador at the English
Court.”
SWITZERLAND I49
passed the first part of the winter at Arenenberg, and
here he arranged with Laity for the writing and publi-
cation of the pamphlet which afterwards bore Laity’s
name and led to his prosecution and imprisonment.
Hortense also left her son a jewel containing a portion
of the true cross found on the neck of Charlemagne
when his tomb was opened, and sent to Napoleon at
the time of the coronation. This jewel was a talisman
in the Bonaparte family, and to it was attached a
promise of divine protection. Josephine, not without
difficulty, became its possessor, and Napoleon gener-
ously left it in her keeping after the divorce. From
her it had passed to Hortense. The Queen left behind
her a paper for her son by Count Flahaut, and it was
on seeing this that the Prince heard for the first time
of the existence of his half-brother, De Morny.
Arenenberg seemed empty and cold to the Prince
when the gracious spirit of his mother no longer dwelt
there. He told his grief to his father, and King Louis
was touched by his wife's last message, and addressed
the Prince as “my dear son.” The presence of death
softened him. But the only consolation he could offer
the Prince, now a young man of nearly thirty, whose
soul (to use his own phrase) had been illuminated by a
ray from the dying sun of St. Helena, was to counsel
him “to renounce the deceptions of this life, place
himself in the hands of God, and become a hermit ’’
(November 11, 1837).
The French Government were greatly irritated at the
Prince's return to Switzerland. They believed them-
selves well rid of him, if not for ever, at least for some
years. They represented to the Federal Diet their
displeasure at learning that Louis Bonaparte had re-
turned to Arenenberg. But no action was taken. In
Switzerland, however, and especially in the canton of
Thurgau, the Prince was popular and had many friends.
I5O LOUIS NAPOLEON
It was perhaps better to wait and let him compromise
himself again before taking proceedings against him.
Laity’s book served as an excuse. Later, writing
from Ham, Louis Napoleon stated that he caused the
Laity pamphlet to be published not only to defend
himself, but to afford the Government an excuse for
getting him expelled from Switzerland. It is doubt-
ful, however, whether any such actual intention was
in the Prince's mind at this time. The pamphlet was
nothing more than a manifesto. It was styled an
“Historical account of the events of October 30, 1836,”
and was a defence of the Prince's action in the attempt
on Strasburg. Most of the subsequently published
accounts of the Strasburg affair have been taken from
Laity’s pamphlet. But it was something more than an
“historical account.” It included an apology for the
Napoleonic Idea, and also a strong criticism of the
Orleanist system. The book was published in June
1838. It seemed to the Government to give them an
opportunity of striking at the pretender through one
of his most devoted friends. The book was seized, and
Laity arrested and charged with an attempt against the
safety of the State. The case was tried before the
Court of Peers in July. The public prosecutor (Franck-
Carré) declared that the only thought of the writer
was to incite to conspiracy and insurrection, and
announced that Orleanism was the natural development
of the Empire. “The Empire has accomplished its
mission,” he said, ‘‘the time has changed, other
destinies call us. The Emperor has no heirs.” The
result of the trial was that Laity was condemned to
five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 4,400 (Io,000
francs). The Court declared the pamphlet to contain
a provocation to crime and an attack on the principle
of the form of Government established by the charter
of 1830, and ordered its suppression.
SWITZERLAND I5 I
Laity naturally pleaded that after the verdict of the
Strasburg jury his prosecution was iniquitous and inad-
missible. He had been acquitted of the crime, and then
condemned for writing an account of it. He affirmed
that the real truth of Strasburg had been kept back,
and that actually the army had been far more com-
promised than had been admitted. He made a
panegyric of the Prince, and pleaded the cause of the
Sovereignty of the people.
The prosecution and condemnation of Laity was a
political blunder on the part of Louis Philippe’s
Government. It brought once more into prominence
the name of the Prince, which otherwise might soon
again have been forgotten. Laity became a hero and
a martyr, and the Bonapartist cause was again brought
before the notice of Europe in a way scarcely inferior
to that of Strasburg itself.
Fatality, however, seemed to push the Government
on from one mistake to another. Having blundered
first by prosecuting Laity, and secondly by inflicting
upon him a punishment out of all proportion to the
offence, they blundered a third time by demanding the
expulsion of Louis Napoleon from Switzerland. If,
as the Prince avers, the object of the pamphlet had
been to afford the Government an exercise for this
action, it admirably fulfilled its purpose.
On August 1, 1838, M. de Montebello, the French
ambassador at Berne, handed a note from M. Molé,
supported by Austria and Prussia, to the President of
the Federal Diet demanding the expulsion of the Prince
from the territory of the Republic. The wording of the
note made it clear that officious (non-official) negotia-
tions had been going on between the French and Swiss
Governments previous to this date, but without any
result. It was not claimed that the Prince was actually
plotting at the time, but he was there to do so and
I52 LOUIS NAPOLEON
that he was a dangerous person. As a matter of fact
Louis Napoleon was not conspiring in 1838. He no
doubt preserved his hopes and convictions, and perhaps
had taken the resolution some day to make another
attempt, but for the present he remained quiet.
A quarrel arose between the two Governments as to
the Prince’s nationality. France naturally claimed him
as wholly French, Switzerland contended that he was
a Swiss citizen and could not be considered a foreigner.
“This quarrel about the Prince's nationality,” says M.
Thirria, “is not one of the least strange things in a
life full of adventures and incidents, each one of which
seemed to be stranger than the other.”
As a matter of fact there should have been no ques-
tion as to the Prince’s nationality. With the name he
bore and the faith he held, Louis Napoleon could never
have renounced his French citizenship. He would have
sacrificed everything rather than cease to be a French-
man. But Switzerland was angered at what she con-
sidered to be the interference of France in her internal
affairs. She felt humiliated by the demand made on
her, and was too proud to give way without delay and
discussion.
Thé Prince might have ended matters at once, but
it was to his personal advantage to let his position be
discussed for him, and become once more a person of
mark in 'European politics. The dispute, therefore,
dragged on. What constituted the Prince's Swiss
citizenship was the “droit de bourgeoisie ’’ accorded
to him years before by the commune of Sallenstein,
and his recognition as a citizen of the canton of
Thurgau," in whose territory Arenenberg was situated.
* “Nous, president et Petit Conseil du canton de Thurgovie, déclarons
que—(la commune de Sallenstein ayant offert le droit de bourgeoisie
communal au prince Louis-Napoléon par reconnaissance pour les bien-
faits nombreux qu’elle avait regus de la famille de la duchesse de Saint-
Leu, depuis son séjour à Arenenberg, et le Grand Conseil ayant ensuite
SWITZERLAND I53
But the title was merely an honorary one, and the
Prince in accepting it had declared himself a French-
man. There was nothing unusual in this “droit de
bourgeoisie ’’ being extended to foreigners. Mazzini
also held it in Switzerland, and Lafayette was a “citi-
zen º’ of the United States. To show their sympathy
with the Prince and as a kind of protest, the commune
of Hochstrass, in canton Zurich, accorded this honour
to him while the negotiations with France were going
on (August 13, 1838). He accepted it as hospitality to
a foreigner.
His connections with Switzerland, however, were of
a very intimate nature. He was an officer in the army
of the Republic, he was President of the Federal Society
of Thurgovian Carabineers, and a member of the
Grand Council of the Canton of Thurgau. But both
by French and Swiss law he remained a Frenchman.
A Frenchman only forfeits his nationality if he estab-
lishes himself in a foreign country without the inten-
tion of returning, which was very decidedly not the
case with Louis Napoleon. The constitution of
Thurgau only admitted foreigners to naturalization
after they had renounced their former nationality. The
Prince, of course, had never done so.
The question of the expulsion of Louis Napoleon
was brought before the Federal Diet on August 6, but
the matter was referred to the canton of Thurgau. In
par sa décision unanime du 14 avril sanctionné cedon de la commune et
decerné à l'unanimité le droit de bourgeoisie HONORAIRE du canton dans
le désir de prouver combien il honore l'esprit de générosité de cette
famille et combien il apprécie son attachement au canton)—le prince
Louis-Napoléon, fils du duc et de la duchesse de Saint-Leu, est reconnu
citoyen du canton de Thurgovie. En vertu de quoi nous avons fait le
présent acte de bourgeoisie revétu de notre signature et du sceau de
l'état.
“Le président du Petit Conseil.
“Signé, ANDERwert.
“Donné à Frauenfeld, le 3o avril, 1832.”
I54 LOUIS NAPOLEON
the meantime (August 14) another note was presented
by the French Government, supported this time by
Baden, Wurtemberg, Prussia, and Austria. The
Grand Council of the Canton of Thurgau unanimously
declared the French demand to be inadmissible. This
decision had to go before the Federal Diet, which
appointed a Commission to consider it. The report of
the Commission admitted the Prince’s French citizen-
ship, but practically said, “With us the right of asylum
is sacred, and we do not admit that we ought to expel
a foreigner from our territory simply because the
country of which he is a citizen asks us to do so.” The
Diet discussed the report, and debated whether the
canton of Thurgau should be made to extract from the
Prince a renunciation of his French nationality. The
dispute had been going on now more than a month.
The French Government mobilized troops at Lyons,
and issued an order of the day to the soldiers, which
said, “Our turbulent neighbours will perhaps perceive
too late that instead of declamations and injuries it
would be more to their advantage to satsify the just
demands of France.”
War seemed inevitable if the Federal Council per-
sisted in its attitude." Switzerland put its contingents
in a state of readiness. Then, the Prince, not wishing
to embarrass a people who had shown him so many
marks of esteem and affection, and having drawn to
himself the attention of France and of the whole of
Europe,” announced that he would voluntarily withdraw
* “Louis Napoleon promised to quit on the 14th, 40,000 French troops
having marched to serve the ejectment. The Swiss on their part called
out the volunteers, but the only result of the affair hitherto has been the
establishment of well-ſrequented balls at Ferney, where Genevese
damsels and French military drew up against each other at contredanses
whilst tarrying for the mortal fray.”—Examiner, October 21, 1838.
* “It is very remarkable that during and after his attempt to surprise
the garrison of Strasburg the French press and public showed them-
selves by no means Bonapartist or inclined to treat the young scion of
SWITZERLAND I55
from the territory of the Republic (September 22, 1838).
He left Arenenberg on October 14, and travelling by
way of Constance, Mannheim, and Dusseldorf, em-
barked at Rotterdam nine days later (October 23) for
England, “more decided than ever either to triumph or
die.’’
The whole result of this pitiable campaign against
a small country that could not possibly have really
resisted had matters been pushed to a conclusion, was
a humiliation for the French Government, for the
Prince established himself in London under conditions
which were more favourable for plotting than those
existing in Switzerland. M. Molé and Louis Philippe
were hardly likely to sleep any more soundly with
Louis Napoleon in London than in Arenenberg. They
could perhaps keep themselves better informed of his
movements, but they could not send menacing notes to
Lord Melbourne asking for the Prince's expulsion.
The affair had shown, too, to the whole of Europe that
the French Government held the Emperor's nephew in
fear.
All this was very far from the hermit’s life which
his father had advised the Prince to follow. The old
man was exasperated. His letters lost the more familiar
tone they had assumed after Hortense's death. He
counselled his son, if action was necessary to him, to
solicit permission to go to St. Helena on the vessel
which it was proposed to send out to bring back the
Napoleon's house as anything more than a common adventurer. It is
otherwise now. The young Prince has become an object of interest and
sympathy, and has risen, by degrees, ſrom the low position of a crack-
brained youth to that of a serious and worthy competitor for the French
throne. He has been not only an object of jealousy and suspicion to the
French Government, but to the Austrian and even to the Russian. All
this has greatly enhanced the merit of Louis Napoleon in French eyes,
so that Louis Philippe has actually succeeded, by dint of effects, in
raising up a second to none competitor for his crown.”—Examiner, Paris
correspondent, October 7, 1838.
156 LOUIS NAPOLEON
ashes of the Emperor The Prince gently pointed
out to his father that such a pilgrimage would not be
permitted him, and announced his intention of going
to London. Upon hearing this the old King’s wrath
exploded, and he declared he had nothing more to Say.
“C'est fini pour toujours,” he wrote, and advised his
son to throw himself into the arms of the Emperor of
Austrial M. Ollivier, after citing some portions of
this letter, remarks that it “completes the picture of
his piteous character, and explains why his son on
nearly every occasion, while listening to his father’s
words, disobeyed them.” M. Georges Duval is respon-
sible for a statement which, if true, shows us the old
King in a still less favourable light. The body of
Queen Hortense was scarcely yet cold, he says, when
her husband married at Florence the young Marquise
de Strozzi."
Louis Napoleon’s fourth visit to London lasted from
October 1838 to August 1840. He arrived on October
25, 1838, with a suite of seven persons, including
Persigny, Conneau, Vaudrey, and Buffet de Montau-
ban. He lived first of all at Fenton’s Hotel, removing
after a short time to an hotel in Waterloo Place. He
afterwards rented Lord Cardigan’s house, 17, Carlton
Terrace, and remained there till December 1839.
Finally he removed to the Earl of Ripon's house, 1,
Carlton Gardens, which he only quitted to make his
attempt on Boulogne. His establishment consisted of
seventeen persons, and five horses—two carriage horses,
two saddle horses, and a horse for his cabriolet. The
Prince was well received during the first months of
his residence, but he seems to have excited the atten-
tion of London society for a short time only, and rather
as a “lion ” than a welcome guest. His vogue hardly
lasted till the spring of 1839, when the arrival of an
* Georges Duval, Mapoléon III, Enfance-Jeunesse.
aeſ， Ay º paewae
ºsº ººvae aerº， wozyºrya： ‹‹ ›
ºwº ºſv ºsºyoowa （， ， ， ， ， ， ， ，zººaeae
of 81 ‘Nooixo！ Ni Noºitoſivº sinoči
7

LONDON I57
imperial prince from Russia diverted attention from
him. Louis Napoleon cared little for this eclipse, how-
ever, and still frequented the more intimate circles that
were open to him. It is stated that his presence at a
fancy ball in Hanover Square during the week in which
he received the news of the death of Cardinal Fesch,
his granduncle, and his aunt, Madame Murat, pro-
duced a very bad effect in London Society, and con-
tributed to his fall from popularity." Of his life in
London during this period a great deal has been
written and more has been said. Between the ful-
Some adulation of Persigny’s anonymous Lettres de
Londres, published in 1840, on the one side, and
the Scandal and gossip concerning the Prince, which
writers like Mr. J. A. St. John hint at rather than
relate, on the other, there is probably a middle
path of sober truth which will leave the Prince neither
so black nor so white as he has been painted. Mr.
St. John wrote, “His star, his secret voice, his
faith, the religion of his blood, were forgotten amid
the too powerful charms of pleasure.”” But the false-
ness of such a statement is proved by the Prince's
having written the Idées Napoléoniennes while in Lon-
don during the year 1839. In that book, more than in
anything he ever wrote, the faith and religion of his
blood are manifested. Mr. Blanchard Jerrold has
admitted his weaknesses, but put them into their proper
perspective. “Prince Louis,” he says, “was no saint,
either before, during, or after his residence in London.
He had his full share of some of the fashionable vices.
He kept a mistress. He was fond of sports; he de-
lighted in racing; he was expert in all manly exercises.
He fell in with the fashionable young men of the day,
* Lebey, Strasbourg et Boulogne, p. 263.
* Louis Mapoleon, Emperor of the French, by James Augustus St. John,
1857, p. 225.
158 LOUIS NAPOLEON
and if, as one of his most distinguished friends has
observed to us, he was dissipated, it was amongst
gentlemen.”’’ His friends and acquaintances, after he
had settled down in his own residence in 1839, included
the Dukes of Bedford, Somerset, Beaufort, Montrose,
and Hamilton, the Marquis of Londonderry, the Earls
of Eglinton, Erroll, Scarborough, Durham, and
Chesterfield, Lord Fitzharris (afterwards the Earl of
Malmesbury), and others of the nobility. He was a
frequenter of Gore House under the reign of Lady
Blessington and Count d'Orsay, and there he met
Bulwer Lytton, Disraeli,” Walter Savage Landor,
Albany Fonblanque, and indeed all the gorgeous Lady
Blessington's brilliant circle.* Alfred de Vigny was
invited to meet him at Gore House on one occasion.
His life in London, in short, was pretty much that
of the fashionable men about town, but with something
added. “Neither the field nor the turf nor the attrac-
tions of Society ever had power to wean him from daily
preparation for his destiny,” writes Mr. Jerrold, and
Sir William Fraser, who knew him well, had no doubt
that Napoleon III “separated pleasure and business
with the exact line of demarcation made by every wise
man.” Walter Bagehot at a later date (1852) 4 referred
to stories of Louis Napoleon's London life in regard
to his betting and gambling habits, and advanced a
somewhat new theory, which rather scandalized his
friends, that it was better for the future ruler of France
to devote his “ heures perdues '' to the Oaks and St.
* Jerrold, II, 84.
* Disraeli has drawn a portrait of Louis Napoleon in Endymion, where
he figures as Prince Florestan.
* He had first met Lady Blessington in Rome in 1824 in his mother's
salon. He probably also met Miss Howard for the first time at Gore
House at this time.—Lebey, Strasbourg et Boulogne, p. 263.
* Walter Bagehot. Letters to The Inquirer on the French Coup d'État,
January 1852. Reprinted in Literary Studies, 1879, I, 309 seq.
LONDON I59
Leger than to the judicious study of the principles of
political economy, or to the editing of Adam Smith or
John Mill. How was a man, by circumstances excluded
from military and political life, and by birth from
Commercial pursuits, really and effectually to learn
administration ? At Newmarket he might learn “the
instructive habit of applied character, which is essential
to a merchant and extremely useful to a statesman.”
Bagehot, however, was only twenty-six when he ex-
pressed such an opinion. But that there is more
than a modicum of truth in it may very well be
conceded.”
The writing of Des Idées Napoléoniennes indicates,
however, that the Prince was far from idle. The book
was published at the end of July, 1839, being dated from
Carlton Terrace.” At the beginning of 1840 appeared the
Lettres de Londres, written by Persigny, but inspired
* The Prince's relations with London society may, perhaps, be summed
up in the words of Disraeli : “Prince Florestan had arrived in town, and
was now settled in his mansion in Carlton Terrace. It was the fashion
among the crème de la crème to keep aloof from him. The Tories did not
love revolutionary dynasties, and the Whigs, being in office, could not
sanction a pretender, and one who, they significantly intimated, with a
charitable shrug of the shoulders, was not a very scrupulous one. The
Prince himself, though he was not insensible to the charms of society—
and especially of agreeable women—was not much chagrined by this.
The world thought that he had fitted up his fine house, and bought his
fine horses, merely for the enjoyment of life. His purposes were very
different. Though his acquaintances were limited, they were not un-
distinguished, and he lived with them in intimacy. . . . The Duke of
St. Angelo controlled the household at Carlton Gardens with skill. The
appointments were finished and the cuisine refined. There was a dinner
twice a week. . . . It was an interesting and useful house for a young
man, and especially a young politician, to frequent. The Prince en-
couraged conversation, though himself inclined to taciturnity. When
he did speak his terse remarks and condensed views were striking, and
were remembered.”—Endymion, chap. lv.
* It is reviewed in the Athenaeum, August 3, and in the Examiner,
September 22. This is the edition published by Mr. Colburn, the price
of which was Ios. 6d. The Paris edition was a “roughly printed work,
stitched in a green paper cover, and sold at a price within the means of
the people (50 centimes).”—Jerrold, II, 93.
I6O LOUIS NAPOLEON
(and probably paid for) by the Prince. The letters are
dated August 1839, and were supposed to be addressed
by the writer to a French general. The author
describes what he has seen and heard in London, and
gives an account of the life of Louis Napoleon there.
The book was, of course, meant to direct public atten-
tion to the Prince, to revive Bonapartist sentiment and
to prepare people for a new attempt against the
Monarchy of July. Another pamphlet inspired by the
Prince appeared in the same year entitled L’Avenir des
Idees Impériales, in which the parliamentary régime
in France was represented as killing the nation.
Authority alone could assure the well-being of the
working classes. There must be a return to the
Napoleonic system. Glory was now in mourning, the
army humiliated, France held in contempt.
When the Prince took up his residence in England
he considered himself as entirely freed from all obliga-
tions to the French Government, and as owing them
no further gratitude. Switzerland had wiped out the
debt of mercy after Strasburg. He was free once more
to take the offensive. “As long as I felt that honour
forbade me undertaking anything against the Govern-
ment I remained quiet,” he afterwards said, “but when
they began to persecute me in Switzerland, under the
pretext that I was conspiring, I began to Occupy my-
self again with my own projects.” He surrendered
himself once more to the faith that was in him, and set
about a new propaganda which should prepare the way
for renewed action.
Two newspapers, the Commerce and the Capitole, saw
light in 1839, and two Bonapartist clubs were estab-
lished in Paris the same year. All this cost money,
and was a serious drain on the Prince’s fortune. His
debts were occasioned by political “ conspiracy,” rather
than by fast living. Something like 4,5,600 (140,000
“uvaevaeņ27 **ðszy ºzdoņnS' AM ‘O fò ſcoţsszu.cºž 4，7
“…apsºņpupA， “AÇev.«q27 99u9.cº/ºy øy, uz ozotz ºgreſ?qszzy 45222，042277 zºgsºyºte oſv ºº/, /ð șoog „s.co.zęszĄ øq, tao 4，7
nvāNNOO CINw ‘ANĐIs Hºa ‘Ā'IRĪGIOVA ‘NOHTOHVN. SIno'I HO SHà vàºoLmv
º ºzº， º zº，

LONDON I6I
francs)" went to the founding of the Capitole—and yet
this sum only kept the paper going for six months.
During the two years the Prince was in England
he visited Leamington,” and made a tour of the manu-
facturing districts, calling at Birmingham, Manchester,”
and Liverpool. It was also at this time (August 1839)
that he figured at the celebrated Eglinton tourna-
ment, and almost fought a duel with Count Léon, a
reputed natural son of Napoleon I, at Wimbledon Com-
mon (March 3, 1840). He talked freely enough to his
English friends about his star, and of the time when he
should be ruler of France, but seems never to have
been taken seriously. His faith was regarded as weak-
neSS or vanity, and the man himself as harmless and
dull. Some of those who knew him, however, could
* This was the sum paid to M. Crouy-Chanel for that purpose. Con-
cerning the Prince's connection with Crouy-Chanel in the winter of
1839–40, and the latter's still mysterious mission, see Strasbourg et Boulogne,
p. 286 seq.
* At Leamington there lived a Count Duport, a Polish military refugee,
with whom the Prince seems to have been on terms of intimacy. He
paid flying visits to Leamington from time to time at this period and in
1846–48, but whether he stayed any length of time is not certain. Count
Duport lived at Io, Russell Street. The Prince was in Leamington in
the autumn of 1838, and on Sunday, November 25, attended service at
the Catholic chapel in St. George Street. He was entertained at dinner
on the following Wednesday “to meet the local nobility and gentry.”
Previously he had attended the first winter ball in Leamington, and he
dined with Lord Teynham on December 17. – Warwickshire Advertiser,
November 24, December 1, 22, 1838.
* The Prince visited Manchester on January 29, 1839, staying the
night at the Royal Hotel (pulled down in 1908). He was accompanied
by Colonel Vaudrey, Persigny, and Dr. Conneau, and was received by
the mayor (Thomas Potter) and some of the principal merchants and
manufacturers. The town had only been incorporated in the previous
autumn, so that the reception of the Prince would be one of the earliest
mayoral functions in the annals of Manchester. Louis Napoleon visited
the Exchange and an Industrial Exhibition then being held in the
Mechanics' Institute, where he and his friends, including Captain Hyde
Clarke, a local gentleman, who was in charge of the party, signed their
names in the visitors' book (see illustration). In the evening he witnessed
a performance of AWicholas AWickleby at the Theatre Royal,—Manchester
Guardian, January 30, 1839.
M
I62 LOUIS NAPOLEON
See beneath the surface. “Very much depreciated at
this day by the critics of a drawing-room,” wrote Sir
Lytton Bulwer in 1839, “Prince Louis Napoleon has
qualities that may render him a remarkable man if he
ever returns to France.”
At the time of the Emperor's death (the Prince then
being thirteen years old) he had sworn an eternal hatred
against the English. If he ever did cherish such a
hatred, except in his boyhood, it had probably long
died away. His visits to London in 1831 and 1832 had
gained him numerous friends in this country. His love
of liberty and authority made him able to appreciate
much that was good in the English constitution and
government. In this fourth and longer sojourn in
England he strengthened the ties he had previously
formed, and it is not too much to say that the rela-
tions which he established at this time as well as after-
wards (1846–1848) in the political world of London,
helped in no small measure to bring about that better
understanding between the two countries which marked
the earlier years of Napoleon III’s reign, and which
it was the Emperor's constant desire should always be
maintained. The English alliance, for which he sacri-
ficed much, and which his later critics have blamed
him for preferring to that of Russia, had its founda-
tions in the better knowledge and understanding of the
English people which the Prince acquired during this
first long residence in London.
CHAPTER XI
THE NAPOLEONIC IDEA
N the preface to Des Idées Napoléoniennes (1839)
Prince Louis Napoleon states that, “to en-
lighten public opinion by developing the thought
which presided over his [Napoleon’s] high Con-
ception, to recall the memory of his vast projects, is a
task which still gladdens my heart and consoles me in
my exile.” He proclaims himself an enemy of all mere
abstract theories and bound to no party. The
Napoleonic Idea, we may therefore gather from these
introductory words, is something more than a political
philosophy. It is that, but before all else it is meant
to be practical. The appeal of the Prince's book is to
the masses and to practical politicians, rather than to
academic thinkers and doctrinaires. It is both a mani-
festo and an apology, a philosophic essay and a Con-
tribution to practical politics It is “at once a tribute
to the First and an advertisement to the Second Em-
pire.” + The Prince's political thoughts are here pro-
perly formulated for the first time, and there is a pre-
cision about them which is absent in the early writings
already noticed.
It may, of course, be questioned whether the Ideas
here set forth are really those of Napoleon I. But
however that may be, they are certainly those of
Napoleon III. Mr. Jerrold says, probably correctly
enough, that “the genius of the interpreter is of a
* Lowes Dickinson, Revolution and Reaction in Modern France,
163
164 LOUIS NAPOLEON
more liberal caste than that of the creator.” But it is
worth while remembering that Joseph Bonaparte, who
had been the friend and confidant of the Emperor as
well as his brother, declared that his nephew’s book was
an exact résumé of Napoleon’s pensée intime, and its
publication was the cause of his uncle’s reconciliation
with the erring conspirator of Strasburg. Joseph came
back from America in 1839 and confessed that he had
formed his bad opinion of Louis Napoleon without
sufficient cause.
This pensée intime of the Emperor, kept from the
world while he was covering Europe with his battalions,
became known after his death in the remarkable succes-
sion of books which one after another described his life
and conversations at St. Helena. The works of O’Meara
(1822), Las Cases (1823), Montholon (1823), and Antom-
marchi (1825), showed a Napoleon who, behind all the
despotic and arbitrary methods he had adopted, had,
according to his own word, always kept in mind one
great purpose, One great humanitarian ideal. He ad-
mitted his faults and reproached himself with often
having acted wrongly—he became, in fact, his own
sternest critic. He deplored the campaign in Russia,
acknowledged his error in undertaking the expedition in
Spain, and regretted the Austrian marriage. He showed
interest in and sympathy for the German nation, he
celebrated the power of Russia, acknowledged his esteem
for England, and manifested a special predilection for
Italy and Poland. His wish had been to carry every-
where the standard of liberal ideas, to be the messiah
of peace and the emancipator of the peoples, the up-
holder of their rights. His government had been a
dictatorship only on account of the extraordinary cir-
cumstances under which he found France after the
Revolution. His object everywhere had been the
regeneration of Europe by the independence of its
THE NAPOLEONIC IDEA I65
peoples, and the development of reason. His desire
had been not to destroy the principles of the Revolution
but to regulate and guide them. Henceforth, thanks to
him, they were unassailable. Louis XVIII himself had
been forced to respect his laws. A counter revolution
was now impossible. It was true he had not been
always able to act in apparent conformity with these
ideas. But his main principle—that the peoples of
Europe constituted one big family, whose different
elements ought to be brought together by common inter-
est, was ever the inspiration of both words and acts.
The old royalty of Europe opposed this civilizing idea
of unity by war. The amalgamation of the peoples of
Europe being apparently impossible—for where he had
failed Napoleon could not conceive any one else suc-
ceeding—the Emperor, in Counselling future generations
not to renounce the goal at which he had been aiming,
recommended a confederation of the different great
peoples of Europe, which had been dissolved or broken
up by revolution or political action. Spread over the
different parts of Europe were something like thirty
million Frenchmen, fifteen million Spaniards, fifteen
million Italians, and thirty million Germans. His
dream was to see each one of these peoples a single
great nation. Then and only then might one realize
the conception of a United States of Europe. “Quelle
perspective alors de force, de grandeur de jouissances,
de prosperité; quel magnifique spectacle !” Napoleon
seems really to have believed in the realization of such
a vision. It was the cause of the people against that of
kings and rulers and princes. It was the Principle of
Nationality.
The Napoleonic Idea is European as well as French,
but the internal question must take precedence of the
external policy; there must be first the fusion of con-
tending parties at home before the confederation of the
I66 LOUIS NAPOLEON
peoples based on nationality could be realized. Louis
Napoleon’s position as an exile and pretender to power
in France gave him no right yet to speak to Europe.
That would come later when power was achieved. But
he indicated what Europe might expect, if ever he should
arrive at power, and the campaign of 1859 is but a
logical conclusion of the manifesto of twenty years
before.
The conception that Louis Napoleon forms of his
uncle is neither that of a military chauvinist nor of a
despotic bureaucrat. It is rather that of a democratic
thinker. He defines him, like Quinet and Pierre Leroux,
as the “testamentary executor of the Revolution.” On
the title-page of the first edition of the book in 1839 he
placed these words of the Emperor: “The old system
is at an end; the new is not yet established.” He might
also have quoted as his text the saying of the Emperor
that he was “a bridge between the old and the new
alliance, the natural mediator between the old and new
order of things,” for this idea of reconciling two differ-
ent, and even opposing, elements is at the basis of the
Napoleonic Idea.
“Napoleon had utilized the ancient traditions of
centralization to organize the anarchy of the moment in
the interest of the revolutionary ideal. . . . The Re-
storation had failed because its spirit as well as its form
was that of the past; the Monarchy of July because it
had existed for the present, without tradition and with-
out ideal; the Republic because, in its zeal for the
future, it had ignored both the present and the past.
The Empire alone represented the reconciliation of order
and progress, the tradition of the past, the facts of the
present, and the inspiration of the future.” +
“The Napoleonic Idea,” says the Prince, “consists
in reconstructing French Society ruined by fifty years
* Lowes Dickinson, op. cit., 224.
THE NAPOLEONIC IDEA 167
of Revolution, in reconciling order with liberty, the
rights of the people with the principles of authority.”
“Standing between two parties, one of which sees
only the past and the other only the future, it adopts old
forms but new principles.”
“It recognizes equality, recompenses merit, and
guarantees order.”
“It finds an element of power and stability in a
democracy, because it disciplines the masses.”
“It finds an element of strength in liberty because it
wisely prepares its reign by establishing widespread
foundations before constructing the edifice.”
“The influence which it believes it exercises upon the
masses, it would employ, not to overthrow society, but
on the contrary, to resettle and organize it. The
Napoleonic Idea is therefore in the very nature of it an
idea of peace rather than of war, an idea of order and
reconstruction rather than an idea of overthrow. It
develops the great principles of justice, authority and
liberty, too often forgotten in these troublous times.”
“The Napoleonic Idea is not one of war, but a social
industrial, commercial idea. If to some it appears
always surrounded by the thunder of combats, that is
because it was, in fact, for too long a time veiled by the
smoke of cannon and the dust of battles. But the clouds
are now dispersed and we can see, beyond the glory of
arms, a civil glory greater and more enduring” +
It is in fact Napoleon the legislator and statesman
rather than Napoleon the warrior that the Prince holds
up to the admiration of his readers. Far from being
the enemy of liberty Napoleon had everywhere prepared
the way for it, but in preparing for future possibilities
he had always taken into account present difficulties.
Hatred and faction must be quenched before liberty
could become practicable. The Emperor fell, not as a
* Des Idées Wapoléoniemmes.
I68 LOUIS NAPOLEON
victim to the falseness of his system, but because of the
precipitation with which he applied it. He tried to do
in ten years the work of centuries.
In the quotations here given two main ideas will be
readily distinguished—Democracy and Authority, and
authoritative democracy, as Lord Rosebery has said,
may, in two words, be described as the Napoleonic
Idea.1
By the Revolution France had broken with her ab-
Solutist past. Ideas of liberty and equality had taken
root in the life of the nation. Yet the danger of un-
bridled licence and anarchy lay ahead, and beyond this
again, by inevitable reaction, the further danger of a
return to the old order of things. The French people
had had no training in parliamentary government. The
break had been sudden. A new constitution had im-
mediately to be devised. The first experiments ended
in disorder and chaos. In such a state so disorganized
authority was the pressing need of the moment. Yet
the will of the people must be paramount. Hence we
got that strange union of radicalism and conservatism
which constituted Napoleon’s system of government.
The union is only strange, however, if we put a very
restricted interpretation upon the term Democracy. The
commonly accepted meaning attached to the word would
seem to make the word “people '’ synonymous with
“working classes,” using the latter term in its usually
received sense, and excluding the peer on the one side
and the peasant on the other. The “people’’ according
to this view can only show its power by each man
personally exercising, or having the opportunity to
exercise, some share in the government of his country,
either locally or in a larger sense. Theoretically demo-
cracy of this description must end in republicanism.
But theoretically it may be argued all men are
1 Mapoleon : the Last Phase.
THE NAPOLEONIC IDEA I69
republicans. Bismarck was by nature disposed to be
a republican,” and Napoleon was himself a republican in
theory. But Napoleon saw the past history of France
extending back through a long line of monarchs who
had built up the national existence, and from whose in-
fluence it was impossible to escape. He saw monarchies
all around the France of his day, he knew the value of
a monarch if he be a strong man, and, moreover, he
recognized that there was nothing incompatible between
the idea of monarchy and the ideas of liberty, and the
power of the people—in a word of democracy. He
therefore re-established the monarchical form and
organized democracy. If the people knows itself in-
capable of taking upon itself the task of government, it
is not for that reason abdicating its democratic rights in
electing to a supreme position in the State the man in
whom it reposes most confidence. “The ideal demo-
cracy,” said Heine, “is that in which one individual
heads the state, representing the popular will incarnate,
even as God rules the world.” Mrs. Browning wrote
in 1855, “I approve of him [the Emperor] exactly
because I am a democrat. I hold that the most demo-
cratic government in Europe is out and out the French
Government—but who in England understands this?—
and that the representative man of France, the incarnate
republic, is the man Louis Napoleon.””
Napoleon I is often represented as strangling the
Republic. But what he did was to consolidate it and
give it a strong head. On the establishment of the
Empire in 1804 it was promulgated that “the Govern-
ment of the Republic is confided to an Emperor,” and
on the pieces of money between 1804 and 1807 may still
be read the legend, “République Française—Napoléon
* Busch's Bismarck: Secret Pages, I, 218.
* The Zetters of Elizabeth Barrett Browning, II, 219. Letter to John
Ruskin, November 5, 1855.
170 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Empereur.” The legend on these coins, says Mr.
Bodley, with all its inconsistency, seems to indicate the
form of government which France needs."
It is the need of France as a whole which is the first
consideration of the Napoleonic Idea. “Attending only
to the public good,” writes the Prince, “it attaches im-
portance to facts only, it abhors useless words. The
measures which others have been discussing for ten
years it executes in a single year.” In a word it is
practical. As it works for the people so must it draw
its authority from the people. It will, therefore, have
nothing to do with constitutions or heads of state that
are not sanctioned or elected directly by the people them-
selves. And by the people is meant the whole of the
people voting by manhood suffrage.
Arguing in this way it was easy for the Prince to
prove that the only occasions on which the French
people had had the opportunity to use the plébiscite they
had done so in the interest of Napoleon, who, in return,
had used his power in the best interests of the people
as a whole. Napoleon, in the words of Edgar Quinet,
“was not acquainted with the unholy distinction be-
tween the bourgeoisie and the people. His law, if
strong, had been equal for all.”
The government which emerged out of the French
Revolution by popular vote was that of Authoritative
Democracy.
The Napoleonic system consisted of two organizations
—the administrative and the political. When Napoleon
fell only the political organization fell with him. The
administrative remained, and it was the divorce of the
two and the attempt to graft on to the Napoleonic ad-
ministrative system the altogether different political
systems of the Restoration and the Monarchy of July,
that in the opinion of the author of Des Idées Napo-
* Bodley, France, I, 45.
THE NAPOLEONIC IDEA I7 I
léoniennes was the cause of all the unrest and uneasiness
in France since the fall of the Empire. “A system of
government,” he says, “ comprises an administrative
organization and a political organization. In a demo-
cratic state like France the administrative organization
is of more importance than every other, because it con-
trols up to a certain point political organization.” The
two, however, must be in perfect accord to ensure smooth
working and entirely satisfactory results.
But the administrative organization with its highly
centralized system must not be regarded as unchange-
able. It had a temporary object to fulfil and a distant
aim to attain. “Centralization was then the only means
of constituting France, of establishing there a firm rule,
a compact whole, capable at once of resisting Europe,
and of ultimately supporting liberty. The excess of
centralization under the Empire must not be regarded
as a definite and settled system, but rather as a means
to an end.” The Napoleonic Idea, in other words,
adapts itself to the altered condition of the times, and it
might be as much against its spirit rigidly to preserve
on the one hand administrative detail which was neces-
sary under the Empire, as entirely to sweep away the
political system of the Emperor. “In all institutions it
is the predominant idea and the general tendency which
should be sought and comprehended.”
The Prince does not actually suggest any modification
of the centralized system, and as it was preserved during
his subsequent reign and has survived up to the present
day, it may be assumed that there is still reason for pre-
serving a definite system of centralization in France.
But that is quite independent of the Napoleonic Idea.
Centralization, not only in France, but in most con-
tinental countries, is imposed on the nation largely by
having a frontier or frontiers to defend. An exposed
frontier means a great military system, and a military
I72 LOUIS NAPOLEON
system to be of use must be controlled from a centre.
In France, moreover, the old tradition of government in
the days of the monarchy was one of centralization. The
people looked to the King for protection against the
nobles, whereas in England the nobles stood between the
people and the power of the Crown. In France govern-
ment decentralized would have meant the setting up of
Some form of oligarchy in the provinces, and apart from
the difficulties and dangers of such a system in time of
war, the dislike of the French character for oligarchy
largely explained the preference for centralization. The
centralized system is, therefore, something like a habit
of thought amongst the French, and nothing is so diffi-
cult to change as the habits of a people. Although
decentralization has been freely discussed in France
during a whole century, and treatises on the subject
abound, yet, “in all the years that the Republicans
have been masters of France, they have made no effort
to decentralize or weaken the administrative machinery
which Napoleon constructed.” +
The parliamentary system as tried in France under
the Restoration and Louis Philippe was an experiment,
and in 1839 did not seem to be a great success. This
system gained admission into France in the overthrow
of 1814, when the Allies were in Paris. The English
Parliament was much admired by a number of thinking
men, and the new constitution, in the words of Mr.
Bodley, was improvised in five days amid the wild
agitations of the time.
From an English point of view it might not be diffi-
cult to prove that France enjoyed the best government
of all time under the restored Bourbons and the Mon-
archy of July. Louis Philippe’s Government was vastly
admired by many Englishmen. It was the triumph of
“Liberalism,” and yet the end of it was, that after a
* Bodley, France.
THE NAPOLEONIC IDEA I73
revolution and half a year of anarchy, France returned
to the Napoleonic system pure and simple. During all
these years of Liberalism the suffrage was restricted. It
was the reign of the middle class, and the Liberalism of
the day was steeped in fancies of exclusion and class
distinction. The truth is the French people, democratic
in the general, is conservative in the particular, and
between these two forces, Democracy and Conservatism
—in no sense incompatible—“Liberalism ‘’ falls to the
ground.” Its vitality in France has always been found
among lawyers and the professional class in Paris, never
among the peasantry. “French democracy has always
had a taste for despotism,” says Mr. Bodley, “Liberal-
ism has always been repugnant to the masses.” The
Third Republic is now radical and socialist, but it was
created by the conservatives, faute de mieux. It has
never been merely “Liberal.”
“An Englishman has an ingrained difficulty,” says
Mrs. Browning, “ in conceiving of a free community
unblessed by parliamentary institutions. Constitutional
forms and essential principles of liberty are so associated
in England that they are apt to be confounded.”” Yet
our constitutional forms and representative system are yet
far from standing on a truly democratic basis. To the
French democrat the English system seems based on ex-
clusiveness, and seemed so essentially in the days before
the Reform Bill. It is said that Napoleon, when he
contemplated the invasion of England, was under the
impression that, their pride once conquered, the English
people would have been on his side, as they were groan-
ing under the yoke of oligarchy. And after reading Some
of the radical literature of the day Napoleon’s mis-
1 There is of course a difference implied between Liberalism and
liberalism. The former indicates a definite political party, the latter a
rather indefinite aspiration. There may be liberals in all parties.
* Life and Letters of Elizabeth Barrett Browning,
I74 LOUIS NAPOLEON
take seems almost pardonable. The English freedom
and liberty we so much boast of is regarded with no
particular envy by the average Frenchman. He may
even think of us as an oligarchical aristocracy, just as
we regarded the Empire in France as a reign of tyranny
and oppression.
All this is not to be found in Prince Louis’ book, but
we may be allowed to comment on and develop the argu-
ment. He recognizes, however, that it is possible to
bring this charge of tyranny against the Empire, but
replies substantially that if the Napoleonic system
brought despotism with it, that despotism, if levelling
and sometimes oppressive, swept away abuses and
placed the humbler orders of men on a higher level. If
perfect liberty were not granted, democratic principles
were saved. These principles once rooted would in
time render perfect liberty possible. The despotism was
not essential to the system, but was called forth by the
exigencies of the time. Many years later, when Napoleon
III had been on the throne of France more than a dozen
years, Walter Bagehot wrote, “Louis Napoleon is a
Benthamite despot. He is for the ‘greatest happiness
of the greatest number.” He is not the Lord's anointed,
but the people's agent. The French Empire is the best
finished democracy which the world has ever seen.
What the many at the moment desire is embodied with
a readiness and efficiency, and a completeness which has
no parallel either in past history or present experience.”
The theory of Louis Napoleon was that before liberty
was possible social order must be established and Social
well-being organized, so that its future development
should be secured. “J’aime la liberté,” he wrote in his
preface to the Idées Napoléoniennes, but liberty must
not be regarded as a fetish and everything Sacrificed to
it. Liberty uncontrolled and allowed to turn to licence
would only create social evils, and men must be pre-
THE NAPOLEONIC IDEA I75
pared to have their liberty curtailed if that liberty should
become a hindrance to Social progress.
In a country like England where liberty seems to have
been the means of righting political evils, this attitude
towards political freedom is too often apt to be regarded
as impossible in a democracy. Yet we are slowly awak-
ing to the fact that the absolute licence to do as we
please, so long enjoyed by Englishmen, has led us to the
brink of a social precipice, which all those who are con-
cerned with the people’s welfare are striving with might
and main to keep the nation from blindly walking over.
Housing, the land question, rural depopulation, the un-
employed, and a thousand other questions fill our news-
papers to-day, and we turn with half-envious eyes to
well-regulated nations like Germany, and even Re-
publican France, which possess less liberty but seem to
enjoy more Social prosperity.
The Napoleonic Idea puts prosperity first and liberty
after, while basing everything on democracy. And not-
withstanding the opposition of the absolutist party under
the Second Empire the Government of Napoleon III was
slowly and surely working towards the idea of the
Liberal Empire, in which well-being and liberty should
go hand in hand.
Mr. Lowes Dickinson has thus summed up Louis
Napoleon's Idea of the Empire as set forth in the Idées
Napoléoniennes: “It would not be sufficient simply to
restore what the first Napoleon had established; forty
years had modified both circumstances and men; the
nation had become accustomed to parliamentary liberties,
it was tormented and perplexed by new industrial and
social problems, above all it was no longer aggressive
in arms against the coalition of Europe; it followed
that the policy of the third Napoleon must be peace and
industrial progress, and ultimately an extension of
political liberty in accordance with the modern demo-
176 LOUIS NAPOLEON
cratic ideals. It was not, then, as a military despotism
that Napoleon III conceived the Empire; rather, the
Emperor was the elect of the people, a democratic chief,
appointed by the unity of France to control and harmon-
ize her divisions: the Restoration had been the govern-
ment of the nobles, the Monarchy of July of the middle
classes; he alone represented the nation as a whole;
the plebiscites to which he had recourse were a reality
to Louis Napoleon : he regarded them as conferring on
his government a legitimacy which could be claimed
by no other régime since that of the First Empire; it
was in the name of the people that he had suppressed
the Republic, in their name that he established
his own authority, and in their name that he trans-
formed it, in the end, into that of a constitutional
monarch.” 1
The Idées Napoléoniennes was meant by the Prince
to show that he was something more than an adventurer,
and had more attention been paid to it there would per-
haps have been fewer mistakes and less surprise in the
future course of events in France. The writer did not
in this book formulate any definite idea of a constitution
as he had done in 1832. He merely puts forward general
principles and leaves the door open for a Napoleonic
republic. There is reason to suppose, as we shall see
later, that if he had been trusted by the Republicans,
that very trust would have built up a wall around his
actions which would have made necessity of a return to
the Empire unnecessary. Though everything in this
manifesto centres round the Emperor, though Napoleon
explains and resolves everything, though his message
is as truth and wisdom come down from above, still
there is no harking back to obsolete forms, no mere call
to the country to return once more to the constitution of
the year XII. The Prince quotes the words of his uncle,
* Revolution and Reaction in Modern France, p, 225.
º/224. 4.
Louis NAPOLEoN IN 1839
From a drawing by Count d'Orsay
:
º

THE NAPOLEONIC IDEA I77
“In contemporary, as in historical facts, we may find
lessons, but seldom models;” and adds, “There is no
need now to reconstruct the system of the Emperor: it
will reconstruct itself . . . one should not merely copy
that which has already been done, for imitations do not
always produce resemblances. In fact, to copy in its
details, instead of copying in its spirit, a government
that is past, would be to act as a general would who,
finding himself on the same battlefield where Napoleon
or Frederick had conquered, should think to secure
success by merely repeating the same manoeuvres.”
The Napoleonic Idea is, in other words, fluid. While
the essential idea ever remains the same its outward
manifestations vary from time to time according to the
changed conditions of the period. At home its mission
is to reconcile parties, to bring democratic theories into
line with the party of authority. Abroad it preaches the
doctrine of the Principles of Nationality as the found-
ation of successful and prosperous government. There
is nothing heroic in the Napoleonic Idea. It is emin-
ently practical. It puts trust in the people, but dis-
tinguishes between liberty and licence. It is a kind of
via media between the old ideas of absolutism and the
new idea of revolutionary socialism. It seeks to steer
clear of the mistakes of both by taking the good from
each. It is a possible way to political Salvation based
on compromise. It seeks to harmonize forces which
are usually found opposed to each other—authority and
democracy, and to recognize as a principle what is
usually regarded as an experiment. “Authoritative
democracy, or in other words democratic dictatorship,”
says Lord Rosebery, “is the political legacy, perhaps
the final message of Napoleon.” Whether such a com-
promise can prove effectual, whether authoritative demo-
cracy is possible as a permanent system of government,
whether authority and liberty can ever lie peacefully
N
178 LOUIS NAPOLEON
side by side, and work hand in hand, the future has yet
to show. -
In a later edition of the book, which appeared at the
beginning of 1840, the motto on the title-page was
altered. Referring to the coming removal of Napoleon’s
body from St. Helena the Prince printed there the words,
“Not only the ashes, but the ideas of the Emperor must
be brought back.” The ideas he had tried to explain
to the world, and if it laughed at him in future it was
with a full knowledge, or should have been, of the trend
of his political thought. If Boulogne was an adven-
ture, it was an adventure inspired by a principle. From
that principle the Prince never swerved, and face to face
with obstacles, with success, and with ultimate failure,
his faith in it never faltered. It may even yet be that,
modified to suit the new conditions of the time, the
Napoleonic system has a future. Internally it would
Seem the national recourse of a nation which has given
up the older form of monarchy and in which parlia-
mentary government is not successful. Its weaknesses
are those which attend on all compromises; in trying
to conciliate all, it may wholly satisfy none. And
though in theory the way is left open to democratic and
liberal development, in practice the danger is that the
door is kept fast too long. Abroad, the theory of nation-
ality, though it brought misfortune to its apostle in the
nineteenth century, is, nevertheless, a Sound and moral
doctrine. Its morality, however, opposed to the Bis-
marckian policy of force, availed it nothing as preached
to Europe by Napoleon III. Politically, it proved mis-
chievous to France, while benefiting the two great
nations on the eastern frontier.
A system, however, based on the principle of the
absolute sovereignty of the people and on that of
monarchy—two principles which seem contradictory and
impossible—and which pretends to create outside of
THE NAPOLEONIC IDEA I79
legitimate monarchy and republicanism a third form of
government made up of portions of both, is a system
more likely to prove acceptable to philosophic thinkers
on the one hand and to the unthinking peasantry on the
other, than to the half-educated middle and working
class, who usually make up the majority in a nation.
To the man or party whose cry is, “All or nothing,”
the Napoleonic system has nothing to offer.
CHAPTER XII
BOULOGNE

{{ FTER the manifesto,” says M. Ollivier,
‘‘ came the coup de main.” An interval
of twelve months, however, separated the
two. The Prince began to take measures
for the realization of his projects early in 1840. All
who had taken part with him at Strasburg were ready
to follow him blindly a second time. This faithfulness
and devotion to one who was looked upon by London
Society as a dull or foolish visionary is worthy of
remark, and indicates how strong a hold the Prince
had on those to whom he gave his confidence. His
first intention was to strike at France through Lille,
and for that purpose he tried to win over to his cause
General Magnan, who commanded the garrison there.
In fact he began again the tactics of Strasburg. But
he was no more successful with Magnan than with
Voirol.” Investigations and the “establishment of
* M. Lebey, however, no more believes in the complete innocence of
Magnan in the Boulogne affair than in Voirol's in that of Strasburg,
and casts doubts on the general's disavowal at the trial of the Prince.
The Prince sent a letter to the general in June by Mésonan, but the only
version we have of the way the advances were received is that of
Magnan himself. M. Lebey thinks it inadmissible that Magnan could
have received Mésonan at his table unless he had had some arrière-
fensée, and adds: “The rôle of Magnan is still more strange than that of
Voirol at Strasburg.” But the chief reason of his doubting Magnan's
disavowal seems to be that the support of the general, who commanded
the northern division of the army, was relied on by the Prince, his name
being on the list kept in London of those faithful to the Imperial cause.
Louis Napoleon, however, was always prone to mistake a benevolent
I8o
BOULOGNE I81
friendly relations” went on from March to June, but
a letter expressed in definite terms at that date from
the Prince to Magnan brought them to a speedy and
sudden conclusion. The idea of striking his blow at
Lille was, therefore, abandoned by the Prince, and he
decided for his purpose on Boulogne, where there was
only a small garrison and which it was easy to reach
from England. At Boulogne he could count on the
help of a certain officer, Lieutenant Aladenize, who
belonged to the 42nd regiment of the line, two com-
panies of which formed part of the garrison. A great
deal depended on Aladenize and also in the absence
of the commander of the battalion at Boulogne, Cap-
tain Col-Puygellier. The arrangements were elaborate
and well made, and but for a hitch at the end might
have resulted in something far different from the fiasco
that actually occurred. Real success, such as the
Prince desired, was scarcely possible. Nevertheless
the Boulogne affair was a rather more serious matter
than it has often been represented. If the expedition
had landed on the morning of August 5, as it had been
arranged, instead of the following morning, the
garrison at least might have been gained over.
The story of the Boulogne expedition has been often
told, and it is hardly possible now to say anything
3.
sentiment for active sympathy. Probably, if the attempt had succeeded,
Magnan, along with many others, would soon have rallied to the Prince's
cause, but that is a different matter from promising to help. The whole
of the preliminaries of Boulogne are discussed in great detail by M.
Lebey, who sees ramifications of the Bonapartist plot everywhere: “La
conspiration avait, en realité, de plus grandes proportions qu'il n'en a
paru dans l'instruction et les débats.” The dispositions thus taken,
however, seem to have been concerned rather with following up the
Prince's “coup” when it was successful than with the “coup” itself, the
details of which were known to very few. The conspiracy, like that of
Strasburg, was not concerned at all with the setting up of a new govern-
ment—only with giving the French people the opportunity of choosing
the form of government it desired.—A. Lebey, Strasbourg et Boulogne,
chap. vi., pp. 270–322.
I82 LOUIS NAPOLEON
fresh on the subject. The whole tale was related in
detail at the trial which followed, and from the reports
of that trial most of the subsequent narrations have
been compiled. M. Thirria and M. Lebey have retold
the story at some length, with facts admirably mar-
shalled and with much wealth of detail." Count
Orsi, who was one of the Boulogne adventurers, has
given what is, perhaps, the best and most graphic
account of the expedition in his Recollections of the
last Half-Century.” There is no reason to doubt Orsi’s
general accuracy or his good faith, for though writing
forty years after the event he tells us that he trusted
not so much to his memory as to a diary in which he
had recorded from day to day accounts of important
occurrences and of the conversations which passed be-
tween various persons of note and himself. The very
length of time which lay between the event and his
narrative may, too, be regarded as more likely to con-
duce to truth and impartiality than otherwise. Nearly
all the actors in the drama had passed away; there
were no political or personal issues involved; no reason
to keep back facts. This was not so at the time of
the trial in 1840, at which Thirria goes so far as to
say that “nobody spoke the truth.”
Fifty-five persons in addition to the Prince took part
in the Boulogne expedition. Of these twenty-four were
what may be termed gentlemen, and the rest (thirty-
one in number) servants. The “gentlemen,” how-
ever, were rather a mixed company, and included the
Prince's professor of fencing, his secretary, and a
“Polish captain.” The more prominent members of
1 Thirria's narrative, somewhat condensed, but with certain additions,
forms Mr. Archibald Forbes' chapter on the “Descent on Boulogne.”
(Life of Napoleon the Third, by Archibald Forbes, 1898. It appeared first
in the Idler magazine.)
* Published in 1881. The greater part, however, had appeared first
in Fraser’s Magazine.
BOULOGNE 183
the expedition were General Montholon, then aged
fifty-eight, who had been aide-de-camp to Napoleon in
I815, and was one of his executors, Persigny, Con-
neau, Mésonan, Orsi, Forestier, Colonel Voisin, Colonel
Parquin, and Buffet de Montauban. The thirty-one fol-
lowers are variously described as domestics, valets, and
ex-soldiers, and they were mostly young men, their
average age being thirty. Forestier, who is described
as a merchant and who was only twenty-five, had been
charged by the Prince with a double mission in France,
first to engage as the rank and file of the expedition a
Certain number of old soldiers, and then to buy some
Second-hand uniforms, which he would find at a certain
shop, and to send them over to England. On to these
uniforms were sewn buttons especially made in England
with the number of the regiment (42nd) in garrison
at Boulogne. Rifles were ordered from Birmingham.
The ex-soldiers were engaged by Forestier as gentle-
men’s servants, and were sent over to England. They
subsequently made up more than half of the expedi-
tion, but had no idea of its object. As to the others,
they only knew that the Prince proposed to renew the
Strasburg project. Most of them had no knowledge
till the very last moment of the shape that the expedi-
tion was to take. Forestier and a young civil engineer
named Bataille had gone over previously to Boulogne
to see Aladenize about the disembarkment, and Bataille
had been left there. According to the evidence at the
trial and to Thirria’s narrative (which is based upon it),
in addition to these two, only Persigny and Conneau,
the Prince’s most intimate friends, knew beforehand of
his intentions. The others, including Orsi, stated that
they only knew the object of the expedition when they
were on board the boat. This, however, is only a
confirmation of Thirria’s statement that nobody was
speaking the truth at the trial. For Orsi, according to
I84 LOUIS NAPOLEON
his own later narrative, took a very active part in carry-
ing out the preliminaries of the expedition, negotiating
a loan in June for £20,000 and suggesting the hiring
of a steamer. According to Orsi only Persigny, Con-
neau, Voisin, and Thélin (the Prince's valet), in addition
to himself, were in the secret of the expedition. These,
with Forestier and Bataille, were probably all who
actually were aware of the Prince's intentions before
they embarked on the Edinburgh Castle –seven out of
fifty-five.
The Prince alone thought out and arranged his plan.
Orsi says he first confided to him his resolve to make
another attempt against the French Government in May
1840, and that he strongly dissuaded him from it, and
advised him to bide his time. The Prince replied that
had his uncle followed such advice there would have
been no 18th Brumaire, “which saved the country.”
Persigny, however, had been in the Prince's confidence
all along, and told Orsi the next day that a coup de
main had been preparing for the last twelve months.
But if he gave his confidence, the Prince does not seem
to have asked counsel of Persigny or any one else.
Having an invincible faith in his star, why should
he submit his ideas, hopes, and projects to discus-
Sion ? It was not his habit to discuss; he arrived at his
own conclusions, and then announced them to his
friends. He had resolved to act deliberately and after
much reflection, and it was his custom to pronounce
rather than to reason. He would listen and pay atten-
tion to what was advanced in opposition to his own
views, but he would take time to consider criticism and
* The steamer is sometimes called the City of Edinburgh, and is so
styled in a letter written by the agent of the Commercial Steam Packet
Company at Boulogne, detailing how the vessel was chartered (see
Examiner, August 16, 1840, quoting the Boulogne Gazette). At the inter-
rogation of the captain, however, he calls his ship the Edinburgh Castle,
and in most narratives it is so designated.
BOULOGNE 185
never commit himself in conversation till his mind
was made up.” d .
The plan of the descent on Boulogne, as written
down by Conneau at the dictation of the Prince, was
very simple, and briefly as follows: The disembarkation
was to take place at Wimereux at high tide early in the
morning of August 5, and from there an advance was
to be made on to Boulogne. The castle, town-hall, and
more especially the barracks were to be seized, and
the troops won over. Possession was to be taken of
all the public monuments, all the gates of the town
were to be guarded, and a military force was to be
rapidly organized which, in a march on Paris, would
become a veritable army carried irresistibly forward
by a wave of popular feeling.
Three proclamations” and a decree were printed before-
hand in London ready for distribution in Boulogne.
The first proclamation was to the army, the second
to the inhabitants of the department of the Pas de
Calais and Boulogne, the third to the French people.
The proclamation to the people was more bitter in its
tone against Louis Philippe and his Government than
were those at Strasburg. The King and Government
* The financial side of the Boulogne expedition is explained in Elias
Regnault's Histoire de Huit Ans (1851), a book which Madame Gordon
pronounced to be “le plus véridique pour tout ce qui concerne Louis-
Napoléon.” The passage in question is quoted by Lebey (Strasbourg et
Boulogne, p. 313). The Prince had to raise a loan, and fell into the
hands, probably through Orsi, of unscrupulous speculators. Orsi hired
the steamer through Rapallo, a member of the Royal Exchange, and
the money for the expedition was procured by him and Beaumont Smith.
Smith held office in the Exchequer, and was the utterer of forged bills,
which he circulated through Rapallo. Smith was arrested in 1841, and
condemned to transportation for life: Rapallo turned Queen's evidence.
The enemies of Napoleon III have not failed to make the most of these
facts, crediting him with a knowledge of the details of these financial
transactions which he certainly never possessed. How much Orsi knew
of the character of Rapallo in 1840 can never be known. Orsi died in
poverty in England in June 1899.
* See Appendix D.
I86 LOUIS NAPOLEON
y
are styled “traitors to the country,” and they “reign
only by corruption.” In France there is only violence
On one side and licence on the other. Louis Napoleon’s
desire is to establish order and liberty; it is time that
an end should be put to so much iniquity. The decree
(the date of which was left blank) pronounced the down-
fall of the Orleans dynasty and the convocation of a
national assembly with M. Thiers as head of a pro-
visional government.
The steamer Edinburgh Castle 1 arrived at Deptford
on Saturday, August I, and on the two following days
was getting ready for Sea. On Tuesday, August 4,
she came up the river and moored alongside the wharf
facing the Custom House. The boat had been hired
by Orsi for a “pleasure trip,” and early in the morn-
ing of Tuesday horses and carriages were shipped,
along with the rifles purchased from Birmingham. At
six o'clock the Edinburgh Castle left the wharf and
took thirteen men on board at London Bridge. At
seven o’clock she was at Greenwich, where a further
embarkation took place, an hour later Blackwall was
reached, and here Persigny, Conneau, and others joined
the company. The Prince was expected to be waiting
at Gravesend, but when the steamer reached there at
two o'clock he had not arrived. All afternoon the
Edinburgh Castle lay off Gravesend, exciting not a
little comment and Some suspicion. It was not till a
* The Edinburgh Castle belonged to the Commercial Steam Navigation
Company. After the failure of the expedition the Company wrote to the
mayor of Boulogne : “The directors are anxious to formally and publicly
declare that not one member of their Company could even surmise the
criminal and insensate object, the vile and treacherous attempt, for
which the boat was freighted. The application for the use of the boat
was made by Mr. Rapallo, a member of the Royal Exchange, for the
alleged purpose of taking several friends on an excursion along the
coasts of England. The Company think it a duty towards themselves
to manifest their abhorrence for an enterprise which might have given
up to plunder and slaughter a peaceful and flourishing city.”
BOULOGNE 187
very late hour at night that the Prince was able to
reach Gravesend, having been delayed in London by
reason of the close watch the police had kept on
him. That they had knowledge of a fresh attempt
is quite certain from Guizot's memoirs, but that they
were aware of the form it was to take is not at all sure,
though afterwards it was said that the Prince had fallen
into a trap prepared for him. He had, however, found
himself closely watched in London in the afternoon,
and he had been to no little trouble in putting his
watchers off the scent. Thus a day was lost. For by
the time Louis Napoleon had joined the Edinburgh
Castle at Gravesend, it was too late to reach Wimereux
by three o’clock next morning, as had been arranged.
The last batch of the conspirators, including Montho-
lon, was picked up at Ramsgate early in the morning
of August 5, and a council of war was held on board
the steamer at the very hour when the party ought to
have been landing. It was resolved to go on and risk
all rather than to court ridicule by returning to London.
Forestier, however, was sent over to Boulogne in a hired
boat to advise Aladenize and Bataille of the delay. The
danger and the difficulty of the attempt were now
doubled, for Captain Col-Puygellier, whose absence
from his post on the morning of August 5 had been
the key of the situation, would have returned to his
duties by the morning of the next day. The attempt
would, therefore, have to be made in face of his opposi-
tion, for he was known as a strict disciplinarian and
a Republican.
The Prince now for the first time revealed to all the
object of the expedition, and the day was spent tacking
in the Channel, but at a considerable distance from the
English coast. After a day and half at sea in August
weather, during which time a good deal was drunk 1
* At the trial the captain of the vessel, James Crow, said that the
I 88 LOUIS NAPOLEON
and the qualms of sea-sickness were not entirely absent,
the members of the expedition, who in the dark had
donned the uniforms provided for them, landed on the
beach at Wimereux at three o’clock in the morning of
August 6. The attempt came off pretty much like that
at Strasburg. Welcomed on the beach by Aladenize,
and his two friends, and deceiving the customs officers
by the uniforms they wore, the Prince and his com-
panions made their way to Boulogne. It was five
o'clock in the morning when the little company entered
the town, and made their way to the barracks. They
fell in with the officer of the garrison and invited him to
join them. The officer, taken by surprise, was
presented to the Prince before he realized what was
taking place; but a few minutes later, under some pre-
text or other, detached himself from the conspirators
and ran to his chief, Captain Col-Puygellier, to acquaint
him with the extraordinary occurrence that was taking
place. When the expeditionary column arrived at the
barracks, Aladenize ordered the sentries to present
passengers “drank enormously,” and gave the number of bottles of
wine as sixteen dozen, without counting brandy and liqueurs. Some
of the soldiers of the 42nd regiment stated that the conspirators were
nearly all drunk (deposition of the prefect). But the orderly way
in which the landing was effected and the march on Boulogne carried
out would hardly substantiate this. The conspirators were probably
excited enough. There is no evidence in any documents that any of the
men, when arrested, were drunk. Buffet de Montauban afterwards denied
the drinking, and Orsi does not mention it; but negative testimony goes
for nothing. When the boat was seized there were found on board
about two dozen cases of wine, beer, ginger-beer, soda-water, and
brandy. But when it is remembered that some of the conspirators were
forty-eight hours on board the steamer, and all of them thirty-six hours,
that the weather was hot, that at least four meals must have been taken,
and that there were fifty-six men whose hunger and thirst had to be
satisfied, the quantity of liquor consumed does not appear to be exces-
sive. Sixteen dozen bottles among fifty-six persons works out at less
than four a head. There was probably excessive drinking among some
of the men, but the story of the folle orgie is most likely an exaggeration
due to political passion. See Thirria, I, p. 172, note.
BOULOGNE 189
arms; the guard came out, presented arms, and the
Prince and his companions entered the barrack yard
without difficulty. Aladenize, who as an army officer
was in command, ordered the two companies stationed
there to the barrack yard and formed them into a
square, and the Prince placing himself in the midst of
the soldiers addressed them in a long and rousing
speech. At first there was some enthusiasm and cries
of “Vive 1’Empereur.” But Captain Col-Puygellier
arriving a little later a different complexion was put
upon things. The partisans of the Prince surrounded
the captain. There was a scuffle, and the Prince, be-
wildered, believing his life to be in danger, fired his
pistol and wounded a grenadier in the face. Order
was soon restored, and the Prince and his companions
were driven outside the barracks and the gates shut
on them. The conspirators, baffled and in some dis-
order, still kept together and made their way to the
castle, distributing proclamations and money on the
way. They attempted to break into the arsenal at the
castle, but without success; and having no longer any
fixed plan or particular object in view, their plans up-
set, vanquished without having engaged in a combat,
they decided to repair to the column of the Grande
Armée a little distance out of the town. The National
Guard, called together by the alarm bell and the beat-
ing of drums, now set out in pursuit and advanced
towards the column, on which the Imperial flag now
waved. As soon as the conspirators saw the National
Guard advancing they precipitately broke up and fled
in all directions, some (including Aladenize) across
country, others into neighbouring cottages, the greater
number towards the shore, where they shouted to the
captain of the steamer to send off a boat. The Prince,
in despair, had at first wished to kill himself at the
column's base, but his friends prevented him, and he
I90 LOUIS NAPOLEON
made his way with Persigny and Conneau to the shore.
Throwing himself into the water with his companions,
he swam out towards a boat which happened to be
anchored by chance not far away. It was at that
moment that the National Guards commenced to fire on
the unfortunate and defenceless men. The Prince was
struck by a ball which lodged in his uniform, Voisin
was hit twice, one of the domestics was grievously
wounded, another was killed, and the Polish captain
was drowned. The Prince was rescued from the water,
wet and shivering, and was taken prisoner and sent off
to the castle, where he remained till midnight of the
following day. All the conspirators were arrested, and
the Edinburgh Castle, on which was found a live eagle,”
1 The legend of the Boulogne Eagle had been exploded many times,
but it seems to renew its youth from year to year. It has been repeated
by the editors of Queen Victoria’s Letters, I, 287. The eagle (vulture)
was bought by Colonel Parquin at Gravesend on the spur of the moment,
and brought by him on board the steamer. It was fastened to the
mast, and there left when the conspirators landed. The Prince probably
knew nothing about it. The story is told in detail by Orsi (Recollec-
tions of the Last Half-Century), who relates the after-history of the bird.
Mr. Sutherland Edwards, however, in Old and Mezºy Paris, corrects Orsi
as to the ultimate fate of the Boulogne eagle. The whole matter, of
course, is absolutely without importance, but the persistency with which
the story that the bird was trained by the Prince to play a part in
the expedition, and that it was carried by the conspirators to the foot
of the Napoleon Column, is repeated, is only one more proof, if any
were needed, of the vitality of a picturesque fabrication when once it is
well started. The story was contradicted as early as 1849 by Mr. Henry
Wikoff (Biographical Sketches of Louis AWapoleon Bonaparte, 1849). Wikoff
says Prince Louis never heard of the “joke” until he saw it afterwards
in the papers. Wikoff had the story from Count d'Orsay, who had
it from one of the actors in the expedition. There seems to be absolutely
no reason at all to doubt the truth of the story as told by Orsi. It is
similar in every way to that related by Wikoff. But the vitality of the
legend is perhaps accounted for by the fact that it was reported in
London that the Prince kept a live eagle in the cellar of his house at
Carlton Gardens, and that he fed it with his own hands. This story was
told by a servant left in the house by Lord Ripon, from whom the Prince
rented it. It may be true. But it is easy to see how the eagle found on
board the Edinburgh Castle has become identified with the one said to
have been kept by the Prince at Carlton Gardens. But there is nothing
º -- -
º º
º
- - - -
º º zºº º :
º
Promº an English Arinz Aºshed after Bowloºne, 1849


BOULOGNE IOI
bought by Colonel Parquin at Gravesend, was taken
possession of, and ordered to put into Boulogne. The
Conspirators had entered the town at five o’clock; at
eight all was over, the affair, like that of Strasburg,
having lasted hardly three hours. At nine-fifteen the
sub-prefect addressed a dispatch to the Minister of the
Interior, announcing that “ Louis Bonaparte ” had been
arrested in making an attempt on Boulogne, and that
the conduct of the population, of the National Guard,
and of the troops had been admirable."
at all to show the two birds to be one and the same. If the “Boulogne
eagle” had been intended by the Prince to play a part in the expedition
it would hardly have been left on board when the party landed. Yet
there is no doubt that it was so.
Other “legends” have clustered round the Prince. At Strasburg he
is said to have been dressed in a green uniform and with the historic hat
of Napoleon on his head. As a matter of fact he wore an artillery
uniform—blue coat with red facings, colonel's epaulettes, and the
insignia of the Legion of Honour. The “chapeau d'état-major" which
he wore had a vague resemblance to the “petit chapeau" of the
Emperor, which may account for the legend.
The story of his having been a “policeman’’ in London is, of course,
accounted for by reason of his having been sworn as a special constable,
along with other well-known gentlemen in London, on the day of the
expected Chartist demonstration, April Io, 1848.
* Lord Melbourne wrote to Queen Victoria on the evening of August
7 : “Your Majesty will probably have seen by this time the report from
your Majesty's consul at Boulogne of the mad attempt of Louis Bonaparte.
It is rather unfortunate that it should have taken place at this moment,
as the violent and excited temper of the French nation will certainly lead
them to attribute it to England. It will be also highly embarrassing to
the King of the French to have in his possession a member of the family
of Bonaparte and so many of the Bonapartists who have certainly
deserved death, but whom it may not be prudent or politic to execute ’’
(Letters of Queen Victoria, I, 287). Lord Melbourne had received Louis
Napoleon in London, but probably without any political motive. M.
Lebey repeats the statement (often contradicted) that Lord Palmerston
had paid a secret visit to the Prince, and suggests that as the enzemż
particulier of Louis Philippe, he had some satisfaction in causing fresh
embarrassments to that monarch by detaching from the shores of Britain
an audacious pretender 1 (Strasbourg et Boulogne, 286.) Disraeli's opinion
of the Boulogne adventure is not without interest. “Louis Napoleon,”
he wrote, “who last year at Bulwer's nearly drowned us by his bad
rowing, upset himself at Boulogne. Never was anything so rash and
I92 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Once more the Prince had risked all and failed, and
Once more disdain, contempt, and ridicule were his lot.
The Journal des Débats characterized Boulogne as
“more foolish and blamable than Strasburg,” and
spoke of the Prince as dishonouring the name he bore.
The Constitutionnel struck the same note, declaring that
though he talked so much about his name the Prince
had little notion of the duties that such a name imposed.
The Presse described the attempt as “odious and
ridiculous,” and the English newspapers were no less
Severe. The Sun was of the opinion that the French
Government should put the Prince in a lunatic asylum.
A correspondent in the Times said, “Had Bonaparte
been shot, it would have been the proper end of so
mischievous a blockhead.” The Examiner thought that
the ridicule of the attempt must destroy whatever chance
the Prince might otherwise have had, and remarked
that his bearing appeared as faulty as his discretion.
Public opinion, as embodied in the press, was against
Louis Napoleon, and yet if he read the criticism
showered upon him it is probable it had as little effect
on him as that of his father had ever had. The public,
like Old King Louis, disliked anything that was not
“practical,” and the Boulogne expedition was so far
removed from the regions of common-sense and ordered
respectability, as to array nearly all sections of society
against the unfortunate idealist whose dreams brought
him into such strange situations and surrounded him
with such companions." -
Louis Philippe received the news of the attempt at Eu,
and saw in it, according to Guizot, ‘‘the explosion and
the end of Bonapartist intrigues.” But notwithstanding
crude to all appearances as this ‘invasion,' for he was joined by none.”
(Letter in possession of A. M. Broadley, Esq., dated August 7, 1840.)
* It has been suggested that there was a traitor in the affair of
Boulogne, and that...Montholon was that traitor. M. Lebey speaks of it
as “almost a certainty.” -
BOULOGNE I93
this expression of opinion, the emotion at the Court had
been profound. The King himself went down to
Boulogne on August 17, accompanied by the Queen and
the royal dukes, and there reviewed the National Guard
and Customs officers, thanking them for the zeal
they had displayed in repressing an insensate attempt,
and distributing amongst them rewards and recom-
penses. The Government publicly congratulated the
42nd regiment on the fidelity with which they had sup-
pressed the insurrection, but three months later the
Minister of the Interior complained to the Minister of
War of the disaffection which seemed to animate many
officers of the 42nd regiment, and suggested that it
would be prudent to transfer it to another district.
Clearly the Government was not so easy in mind as it
pretended to be."
Mindful of his former clemency the King determined
this time to have done once and for all with his trouble-
some prisoner. There was no “grace ’’ accorded to the
Prince, no different treatment for him and his followers.
The conspirators must take their trial together. But the
Government which owed its existence to a revolution,
and was supposed to be founded on the will of the
people, dared not send the Prince and his companions
before a jury of their fellow-countrymen. As the Débats
said, to do so would be to court another Strasburg
verdict, and that would be fatal. It was decided to try
the case before the Court of Peers, the composition
of which was peculiar, consisting as it did of generals,
prefects, counsellors of state, ambassadors, and func-
tionaries. The decision of the Government was criti-
cized by nearly all the newspapers, the question being
naturally asked whether the Court of Peers possessed
* “All sorts of rumours are rife. It is said that the troops of the line
are favourable to the Prince, and that those quartered in the environs
will attempt to rescue the captives.” (Letter in the Times, dated August 6.)
O
I94 LOUIS NAPOLEON
that impartiality and independence required by the law.
The peers were placed in an awkward position, for if
they absented themselves they would be said to fail in
their duty to the Government, while to condemn the
prisoners was hard for men who, as many of them did,
owed much to Napoleon I. They had to choose between
desertion and ingratitude. When the trial came, only
half the peers took their places."
The Prince, very cast down, was removed from the
château of Boulogne at midnight on August 7 to Ham,
where he arrived at 2.30 a.m. on August 9. The two
carriages containing him and his guards were escorted
by dragoons, and sentinels were stationed at intervals
along the whole length of the route. This first sojourn
of the Prince at Ham was not of long duration, and on
August 12, at midnight, he arrived at Paris and was
taken to the Conciergerie, where he occupied the room
used five years before by Fieschi. This supposed
indignity had really no significance, but it called forth
a letter of protest from the Comte de St. Leu at Florence,
the contents of which were not wholly calculated to
afford comfort to the Prince. “My son, Napoleon Louis,
has fallen for the third time into the most fearful snare,
into the most frightful trap, since it is impossible that
a man not utterly devoid of common sense should have
thrown himself with a light heart over such a precipice,”
wrote the old King. This letter was published in the
Paris papers, but its authenticity has been called into
question, as the writer refers to himself as a “pupil''
as well as a brother of the Emperor. Its general tone,
however, is characteristic of the ex-King of Holland.
The Prince was in the Conciergerie for about six weeks,
* In 1846 the Chamber of Peers was composed of 312 members—
306 peers and 6 princes of the blood. Of these 167 sat at the trial,
and only 152 pronounced sentence. The Prince, therefore, was not
condemned by half the members of the Chamber, even if the princes
of the blood are excluded.
BOULOGNE I95
where he was visited, amongst others, by Madame
Récamier, 1 and where he made a prose translation of
Schiller’s ode, Die Ideale, falling back during these days
of failure and discouragement into the romantic reverie
of his early German days. The trial, which was held
under the presidency of Pasquier at the Luxembourg
Palace, began on September 28 and lasted till October 2.
Of the fifty-four arrested at Boulogne only twenty-two
were put on trial, the soldiers and domestics being
recognized as irresponsible agents. The Prince's advo-
cate was the famous Berryer, and associated with him
were Marie and Ferdinand Barrot. Six other advocates,
among whom was Jules Favre, defended the other pris-
oners. Berryer’s fee was 15,000 francs (4,600), and
amongst the other fees was £60 to M. Favre. This
money (31,000 francs in all) was paid by the Prince.
After reading the Act of Accusation (“attempt against
the safety of the State ’’) Pasquier was going to proceed
with the interrogation of the Prince when the latter
asked to be allowed to speak. Permission being granted,
Louis Napoleon addressed the Court of Peers in a
speech which he had prepared and written down before-
hand. In it he took upon himself, as at Strasburg, the
whole responsibility of the enterprise, and declared if he
had wronged any one it was only his friends. He pro-
tested against his trial by the Court of Peers, which he
declared to be a political body; and once more he pro-
claimed the Napoleonic Idea. “For the first time in
my life,” he said, “I am at last able to make my voice
heard in France. . . . Do not let yourselves believe that,
yielding to a personal ambition, I wished to attempt in
France and against the nation’s will the restoration of
the Empire. . . . I have thought that the vote of four
millions of citizens which elevated my family imposed
* Madame Récamier was called as a witness at the trial, but her
evidence was of no importance.
196 LOUIS NAPOLEON
upon us the duty of making an appeal to the nation
and of consulting the popular will. . . . The nation
would have replied: republic or monarchy, empire or
royalty. On her free decision depends the end of our
troubles, the close of our misunderstandings. . . . I
represent before you a principle, a cause, a defeat. The
principle is the sovereignty of the people; the cause is
that of the Empire; the defeat, Waterloo. The principle
you have admitted, the cause you have served, the
defeat you wish to avenge. There is no difference
between you and me.”
The form of the speech was good, and it made a pro-
found impression. It could not have been more worthy
of the occasion, more nobly proud, more eloquent. The
case for the Napoleonic Idea had been put to the Court,
and if it did not carry conviction to Louis Philippe’s
peers, the argument, in face of the claim of the July
Monarchy to represent both the Revolution and “Le
Droit,” to be at one and the same time Legitimacy,
Republic, and Empire, was very effective. When
Berryer’s turn came to speak two days later he made an
eloquent appeal on behalf of the Prince, which was at
one and the same time an attack on the Government’s
pusillanimous policy of the last ten years and a denuncia-
tion of the King’s playing with the name of Napoleon
for the promotion of his own interests. Berryer, in a
few words, related the facts of the enterprise. “All
these deeds,” he said, “are acknowledged; you are
called upon to judge them. But I ask you, in the
personal position of Prince Napoleon, after the great
events which have happened in France and which are
your own work, in presence of the principles which you
have proclaimed and which you have made the laws of
the country, do the acts, the enterprise of Prince
Napoleon, his resolve, wear a criminal character which
it is possible for you to punish judicially P. . . . The
tºta-ºer, ºeſ. Day & Son, Lºha.
Louis NAPOLEON BEFORE THE court of PEERs (1840)
*rom the Collection of A. M. Broadley, Esq.

BOULOGNE I97
Prince has done more than attack the territory. He is
not only guilty of having invaded the soil of France,
he came to contest the sovereignty of the House of
Orleans. He did this by the same title and in virtue of
the same political principle as that on which you have
grounded the royalty of to-day. . . . If crime there has
been it is you who have provoked it by the principles
which you have laid down, by the solemn acts of the
Government. It is you who have inspired it by the
sentiments with which you have animated Frenchmen,
and among all Frenchmen, the heir of Napoleon him-
self. . . . You allude to the feebleness of the means, to
the poverty of the expedition, and the absurdity of the
hope of success. If success be everything to you . . .
say to yourselves, without weighing the feebleness of
the means or the rights, ‘My hand on my conscience,
before God and my country, if he had succeeded, if he
had triumphed, I would have denied his right, I would
have refused to participate in his power, I would have
disdained, I would have repulsed him.’ Whosoever
before God and before the country will say to me, ‘If
he had succeeded I would have still denied his right,”
that man will I accept as his judge.”
The Court pronounced judgment four days after the
last sitting (October 6). The proceedings of the peers
at the secret sitting were not published, but it was
understood that Marshal Oudinot made strenuous exer-
tions to save not only the Prince, but his followers also,
from punishment." The Prince was condemned to
perpetual imprisonment in a fortress situated within the
continental territory of the kingdom, Aladenize was
* According to the prevailing reports, Oudinot went so far as to say
that had Louis Napoleon succeeded in his attempt, he could not say that
he would not have joined the Prince ; and General Pajol, commander of
the Paris military division, on being appealed to by the marshal, made,
it was said, a similar declaration.—Axaminer, October 11, 1840.
198 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Sentenced to transportation, and the others to terms of
imprisonment varying from twenty to two years. Four
of the accused were acquitted. “How long does per-
petuity last in France?” the Prince is reported to have
Said on being informed of the sentence, but other
versions of these often quoted words are given.” A few
hours after the sentence Louis Napoleon left for Ham,
where he arrived at noon the next day, October 7 (the
same day that the Belle Poule arrived in view of St.
Helena), there to be incarcerated with Montholon and
Conneau. The rest of the prisoners, with the exception
of two who had been wounded and who were sent to a
maison de Santé on parole, were taken to the citadel of
Doullens, and there Colonel Parquin, who had been the
Prince’s neighbour at Arenenberg, died in 1845. Mr.
Jerrold states that Louis Philippe liberated the Prince’s
accomplices after his visit to the English Court (1844),
but this is not borne out by Orsi, who states that he was
only liberated at the expiration of his five years. Orsi
has given some account of the imprisonment at Doul-
lens of nine of the conspirators, including Persigny and
Aladenize, who for some reason or other does not seem
to have been transported.
The devotion to the Prince of all who took part in the
expedition of Boulogne was no less marked than that
shown after the affair at Strasburg. No one thought of
deserting him in the hour of failure, and at the trial his
companions were proud to share his misfortune. This
should be remembered to the credit of these men who are
often spoken of as a raffish and drunken crew. Such
terms, at any rate, could hardly be applied to men like
Montholon or Conneau. The Prince never forgot those
who had suffered in his cause, and as it has already been
said bore the whole cost of the trial out of his own
1 “It has been often said that the word impossible is not French : rest
assured the same may be said of the word perpetuity.”
BOULOGNE I99
Crippled fortune. To the wife of the man who had been
killed at Boulogne he gave 6,000 francs (£240), and to
Madame Parquin, his mother’s old friend, to whom he
felt responsible for destroying her happiness by depriv-
ing her (for ever as it turned out) of her husband, he
sent 25,000 francs. To others of his accomplices he was
hardly less generous. He could never keep money, and
both his mother’s fortune and the loans he raised were
insufficient to meet the demands which he felt called
upon to satisfy. They were demands of which a less
generous and sensitive nature would never have been
Conscious.
The attempt at Boulogne, though differing in many
respects from that of Strasburg, has at the same time a
great deal in common with it. As a constructive political
conspiracy it had even less organization, for after all
attempts to win over Magnan at Lille had been abandoned
there seems to have been no endeavour to gain adherents
among the officers at Boulogne. Aladenize was but a
lieutenant and had little or no influence. He could help
in effecting a landing and could give certain information
to the Prince beforehand. And he could, as we have
seen, be useful in effecting an entrance for the expedition
to the barracks. At Strasburg the Prince was certain of
Vaudrey and a few other officers, but there had been little
real or effective previous organization or preparation.
There was practically none at all at Boulogne. Appear-
ing again at a corner of the territory, the Prince, like his
uncle at Fréjus, counted only on moral force. He came
to provoke a revolution of opinion. He knew himself to
be nothing, but he believed his name and his cause to be
powerful enough to take him triumphantly to Paris. In
neither of these attempts to upset the throne of Louis
Philippe and to “restore its rights to the nation ” was
there much possibility of an ultimate success. But there
might, in both cases, have been a measure of success
2OO LOUIS NAPOLEON
achieved had the blow been struck at the time arranged.
Strasburg took place a day too soon, Boulogne a day
too late. It is possible that but for this the course of
events would have been very different. Both attacks
were, of course, entirely unjustifiable and illegal, and
were so recognized in after years by the Prince. Speak-
ing at Ham in 1849 (July 22), when he was President
of the Republic, he said, “I can now find no glory in a
captivity which had for its cause an attack against a
regular government. When one has seen what evils
even the most just resolution brings in its train one can
hardly comprehend the audacity of the man who
assumes the terrible responsibility of bringing about
such a change. I do not complain, therefore, of having
expiated here, by an imprisonment of six years, my
rashness against the laws of my country.”
Such a condemnation of his own action by Louis
Napoleon renders no further words necessary to em-
phasize the utter illegality of the attempt at Boulogne.
But in after days he used a phrase which he might
well have applied to the events of 1836 and 1840 : “Je
sortais de la légalité pour rentrer dans le droit.” That,
at any rate, was the idea at the back of his mind. Mad
and foolish as Boulogne appeared at the time, mad and
foolish as it appears now, it was the foolishness of a
man of persevering faith, of one who believed in heroic
measures for deadly diseases.
The opinion of the higher and governing classes,
according to Napoleon I, is always in inverse ratio to
that of the people. Politicians smiled at Strasburg and
could not sufficiently express their contempt at Boulogne.
The public seemed apathetic and apparently took little
interest in the affair. Paris, in the autumn of 1840,
troubled itself far more about the trial of Madame Lafarge
than it did about Louis Napoleon. The Parisians knew
Scarcely anything about the Prince personally. He did
BOULOGNE 2O I
not represent anything to their mind at that period of
the picturesque side of the Napoleonic Legend. The
portraits of him which were circulated depicted a dull,
lethargic, unsympathetic face with an exaggerated
aquiline nose, half-closed eyes, and a heavy moustache.
Yet, though they did not realize it, the blundering
attempts which hid the man from the superior classes
revealed him to the people. Dissatisfaction with the
July Monarchy was crystallizing into shape, and when
the crash came a Bonaparte was ready whose name was
already known. Eighteen months after his incarcera-
tion in Ham the Prince could look back with satisfaction
on the past ten years. “In 1833,” he wrote, “the
Emperor and his son were dead. A few Bonapartes
appeared, it is true, here and there in the background
as bodies without souls. But for the people the line was
broken. I retied the thread. I raised myself alone, and
by my own efforts I am to-day, within twenty leagues of
Paris, a sword of Damocles over the head of the Govern-
ment.” He did not deceive himself. The two enter-
prises of Strasburg and Boulogne, wildly conceived as
they were, and seeming as they did at the time to injure
the very object they were meant to serve, helped in no
inconsiderable way to keep the Prince's name before the
country.
In the meantime two powerful causes were working in
France to bring about at once the fall of the Government
which Louis Napoleon had attacked and to prepare the
way for his own advance to power. The Reform Move-
ment, begun in 1838, was making rapid progress
throughout the country, and at the review of the National
Guard by the King in June 1840, Louis Philippe had
been greeted with cries of “Vive la Réforme.” The
Treaty of London (July 1840), by which France was
excluded from any participation in the affairs of the
East, roused public feeling to a high pitch of indigna-
2O2 LOUIS NAPOLEON
tion against the Government. France isolated from the
concert of Europe by the policy of the “Napoleon of
Peace ’’ was scarcely a fitting picture in this year which
was to see the remains of the great Emperor brought to
Paris. The movement for reform once set going was
to end only in February 1848. Towards that goal, too,
was steadily and silently working the mysterious in-
fluence which we have called the Napoleonic Legend.
“In this same year,” says a French writer, “before
depositing the remains of the uncle at the Invalides,
Louis Philippe had caged the nephew in the citadel at
Ham. All seemed to smile on the dynasty of July. It
had borrowed the glory of the great man and had got
rid of his heir. But all this was only an appearance.
The Idea was making its way among the people, and
weary of a repose which was not without its charms,
but which they only appreciated when too late, French-
men were sighing after the dazzling glories of the
Imperial epopée.” +
* M. Charles Normand in Paris de 1800 & 1900, edited by Chas.
Simond.
CHAPTER XIII
HAM

HE captivity of Ham lasted five years and
Seven months. During that time a great
change was wrought in the Prince. The
years spent in confinement turned his
thoughts more than ever upon himself. Yet it was at
Ham that he emerged from the period of illusions into
that of reality. Up to now he had lived in an atmo-
sphere which was largely the creation of his own
imagination. At the time of his imprisonment he was
thirty-two years of age, and the five years he spent
at Ham were those that are usually the best years of
a man’s life. He did not regret his past actions. He
was satisfied with the position he had created for him-
self, and resigned himself completely to it. He would
rather be captive on the soil of France than at liberty
abroad. In prison he was in his place. With the
name he bore, the gloom of a cell or the light of power
seemed the only alternatives. Up to now, however,
something of the spirit of Don Quixote had permeated
his actions and obscured his vision. But the day of
tilting at windmills was over. Twice he had tried by
violent means to bring about a revolution while the
country was at peace. In the days that lay before him,
when revolution broke out without his expecting it,
he bided his time, and for six months let events shape
themselves without an attempt to participate in them."
* “The captivity of St. Helena is an epilogue, that of Ham a prologue.”
—Imbert de Saint Amand.
2O3
2O4 LOUIS NAPOLEON
At first the imprisonment was severe, and for Some
months nobody was allowed access to him. General
Montholon and Dr. Conneau were allowed to share
his confinement, and in May his valet, Charles Thélin,
was permitted to join him. But everything belonging
to the Prince was examined daily, and he was closely
watched both in his rooms and on the ramparts, where
he was allowed to take exercise. The rooms he occu-
pied were those formerly used by some of the ministers
of Charles X imprisoned here after 1830. The citadel
of Ham had been a State prison for many years.
It was built round a great square, and flanked with
four round towers, connected by ramparts. The South
and east walls were washed by the waters of the St.
Quentin canal; the west side faced the town, and was
protected by a moat and drawbridge. Two brick build-
ings in the centre of the square served as a barrack, and .
at the extremity of one of these was the State prison.
The Prince occupied two rooms on the first floor, and
Conneau had a room adjoining. Three other rooms
were entered from the corridor, one of which was sub-
sequently used by the Prince as a laboratory. The
other two were not used. The study, or salon, of the
Prince was very simply furnished, but from time to
time he added some Napoleonic prints and other
mementoes, a portrait of his mother, a bust of the
Emperor, and a certain number of books, including
fifty volumes of the Journal des Débats. When he
had been a week in his prison he professed to have all
that he required. But as time went on and the winter
advanced he discovered that the doors and windows
fitted badly, that the place was damp, and that the
humid air from the marshy ground outside the castle
walls was affecting his health. The strictness of the
supervision exercised over him drew a protest from
the Prince, and the Government ordered some repairs
wvae ao nvaellyho ahu. Ni soxipcio， saeſoxiae ſaill
aetae aerosae º， , ，
º:
-
-





HAM 2O5
to the prison and accorded measures of relaxation which
made the imprisonment as little irksome as possible."
Indeed, on the whole, it must be admitted he was treated
very well. The presence of Montholon, Conneau, and
Thélin must have done much to lighten his captivity,
the more so as they had all great affection for him.
Conneau, moreover, who was amnestied in 1844, was
allowed on his own request to remain with the Prince
and voluntarily share his captivity. It was to this
generosity of the Government’s that the Prince ultimately
owed his escape, for without the assistance of Conneau
and Thélin he could hardly have carried out his plans.
After some months nearly every one who wished to
see the Prince was allowed to do so, and he had a great
number of visitors. These consisted of personal friends,
like Vieillard, Laity, Larrey, and Lord Malmesbury,
and also of politicians and publicists, like Louis Blanc,
Capo de Feuillade, Degeorge,” Souplet, and Peauger.
One of his personal friends, living near Ham (M.
Fouquier d’Herouel) was allowed to come and see the
Prince on the first Friday of every month, and to pass
the whole of the afternoon with him. He held rela-
tions with many of the inhabitants of Ham, one of
them, a chemist, frequently visiting the Prince to study
chemistry with him and help him with his experiments.
He was allowed a garden of forty metres on the ram-
parts in which he cultivated flowers, he was permitted
to take horse exercise in the courtyard, and his vaiet
had permission to go into the town and execute his
commissions. He was now less closely watched when
friends came to see him, and many other favours were
1 Dr. Véron says that a proposal was made to the Prince at the end
of 1840 to effect his escape disguised as a soldier, but that he rejected
it.—Mouzeaux mèmoires d’un bourgeois de Paris.
* Degeorge had seen the Prince in London, but the meeting led to no
agreementat that time with the chiefs of the Republican party.—Regnault,
Histoire de Huit Ans.
2O6 LOUIS NAPOLEON
accorded him. He could have what books he desired,
and full advantage was taken of the liberality of the
Government in placing the contents of the royal
libraries at his disposal. But notwithstanding all these
relaxations of discipline and the kindness of the Govern-
ment, existence pressed heavily on the Prince. His
health was sensibly affected. Accustomed from his
infancy to an active outdoor life, the enforced physical
inaction of Ham soon told on him. The dampness of
the air and lack of exercise soon brought on rheuma-
tism, and to the end of his days Napoleon III always
carried with him the mark of his imprisonment in a
weakened bodily frame. But he kept off mental and
moral deterioration by a resolute determination to
make the best use of his time in systematic study. The
man of the world became the student, and Gore House
and the clubs of London gave way to the “University
of Ham.” There was no violent dislocation in such
a change. The Prince was always a student, and the
real man is as much seen in writings on the English
Revolution, beetroot sugar, or pauperism, as in bear-
ing a spear at the Eglinton tournament, or in paying
court to the gorgeous Lady Blessington. He worked for
many hours daily, from six to ten in the morning, and
after déjeńner and such exercise as was necessary, all
afternoon until dinner. The evening was usually spent
with cards or in other social relaxation in company with
Montholon and Conneau, and oftentimes with the com-
mandant of the fortress. “I cannot say I am dull,”
he wrote, after three months’ imprisonment, “because
I have created occupations for myself that interest me.”
He had numerous correspondents, and wrote an
enormous number of letters; letters which show the
state of his mind fluctuating between high courage and
despair. Many of these letters have been published,
and seem almost to indicate two distinct personalities
HAM 2O7
—the Prince and the Man. The Prince is never dis-
Couraged, the man often. Letters which were written
with the knowledge that they would be made more or
less public, breathe hope and courage for the future.
“Awakened from the illusions of youth, I find in the
air of my native land, in study, in the repose of my
prison, a charm I never felt when I shared the pleasures
of those amongst whom I was a stranger '' (April
1843). But study occupied the mind without filling the
heart. He suffered from the stifling of his affections
and his natural desires. The indifference and contempt
that his father’s obstinate silence implied was a sharp
grief, and wrung from him at this time the cry, “I
would give all I have for a caress from my father.”
The story of La Belle Sabotière is now well known,
and may briefly be referred to here. The heart-hunger
from which the Prince suffered was relieved by the rare
visits of female friends, among whom was Miss Howard,
and possibly Madame Gordon." There was also a
Mdlle. Badinguet, in whose name M. Lebey sees still
another possible explanation of the soubriquet after-
wards given to Napoleon III,” but the Prince's chief
consolation in his days of captivity was a girl named
Alexandrine Vergeot, who was known as “La Belle
Sabotière,” because her father was a shoemaker. She
is described as being very intelligent, and the Prince
found pleasure in giving her lessons, in which she made
great progress. The episode is told at Some length by
M. Hachet-Souplet,” who states that two Sons were
1 Lebey, Strasbourg et Boulogne, p. 416. But this is purely a supposition.
* Ibid., p. 416. The true source of the nickname will probably never be
known. There are too many explanations to make any one of them
certain. But Badinguet was certainly not the name of the workman for
whom the Prince was mistaken in his escape.
* Pierre Hachet-Souplet, Zouis AWapoléon prisonnier au fort de Ham, 1893,
where a portrait of La Belle Sabotière is given. The door through
which she passed in and out of the citadel is now pointed out to visitors.
208 LOUIS NAPOLEON
born of the liaison, whom the Prince entrusted to the
care of his nurse, Madame Bure. Malle. Vergeot sub-
sequently married Louis Napoleon’s foster-brother,
M. Bure, who held the position of treasurer in the
Emperor's household, and she survived till 1886.
That the Prince worked hard is proved by the writ-
ings which came from his pen during these five and
a half years. He published first the Fragments histori-
ques (1841), in which he compares the House of Orleans
with that of Stuart, and by means of English history
addresses an “acte d’accusation ” against the Govern-
ment of July. The following year he wrote a treatise
on the beetroot sugar question (Analyse de la question
des Sucres). In 1844 he studied social problems, and
published his pamphlet on the Extinction of Pauper-
ism, in which he puts forward a highly organized
scheme of dealing with the unemployed on the land.
He also wrote on the subject of the Nicaragua Canal,
and was waited on by a deputation to lend his name
to that undertaking. He projected a “Life of Charle-
magne,” and worked for some time on it before finally
abandoning the idea. The subject of artillery occupied
a great portion of his time. Not content with being
the author of the Manuel (published in 1836), he now
turned to writing an elaborate history (Du Passé et de
l'Avenir de l’Artillerie), the first volume of which was
only published after his escape. The second volume
he had almost completed at that date, and he left the
sheets behind him in the castle at Ham. He made
experiments with Volta's pile, and in 1843 sent a com-
munication on the subject to the Academy of Sciences,
which was read by M. Arago. He refuted a severe
judgment by Lamartine on his uncle, and to the years
at Ham belong those sentimental and almost lyric frag-
ments which are published in his works under the titles
of “L’Exile ’’ and “La Captivité.” But his most
HAM 209
voluminous output was in the form of journalism,
and to this period, rather than to the year 1831, be-
longs the Prince’s real connection with the Republican
party.
It seems almost inconceivable that the Government
of July should have allowed the Prince freedom to print
and publish broadcast his political ideas. The Frag-
ments historiques was little less than an attack on the
reigning dynasty, but no obstacle was placed in his
way either in printing or distributing it. He sent his
books and pamphlets to conspicuous men in the Repub-
lican party, and his advanced Opinions on Social ques-
tions won him many sympathizers. In the pamphlet
on the extinction of pauperism he went as far as the
most advanced socialist, declaring that only the triumph
of the democratic idea could destroy pauperism. He
defended Napoleon and his work by arguments based
on republican and revolutionary theories. He made
excuses for the 18th Brumaire and the brutal manner in
which it was achieved. An insurrection against an
established power might sometimes be a necessity, but
should never be held up as an example lest it be con-
verted into a principle. The 18th Brumaire was a
violation of the constitution, but the constitution had
been already three times infringed. The only question
was whether the 18th Brumaire was beneficial, and he
claimed that the Consulate had saved the Republic from
complete ruin. He regretted certain acts of violence
of Napoleon’s as superfluous on the part of a power
founded on the will of the people.
In the spring of 1843 he became a contributor to two
newspapers—the Guetteur de St. Quentin and the Pro-
grès du Pas de Calais, edited respectively by two
Republicans named Calixte Souplet and Frédéric
Degeorge. The grandson of the former of these two
men has told the story of Louis Napoleon’s connection
P
2 IO LOUIS NAPOLEON
with the Guetteur de St. Quentin,” and probably the
Prince's dealings with M. Degeorge were not very
different from those with M. Souplet. The Prince had
sent Souplet a copy of his pamphlet on the Sugar ques-
tion in September 1842, and this seems to have led
to some correspondence, for in November the Prince
wrote to Souplet asking if he would come and see him
at Ham. There is no record that he did so, but the
permission would not be difficult to obtain, and shortly
after this date regular relations were established between
the two men. All the Prince's contributions were
gratuitous. The publication of his books and pamph-
lets had cost him money. Souplet’s grandson seems
to think his grandfather was acting generously to the
Prince by printing his contributions for nothing, “la
publicité du Guetteur ne couta jamais rien a Louis
Napoleon.” He wrote anonymously (over the signa-
ture “XX ’’) at irregular intervals between April and
December 1843, but the incognito was dropped in
January 1844. M. Hachet-Souplet gives a list of
articles written by the Prince during 1843 for the
Guetteur de St. Quentin, which embraced his views
on a great number of subjects, including army and
parliamentary reform, and on the clergy. All these,
however, are stated in another place as having been
contributed to the Progrès du Pas de Calais. The point
is immaterial. What is important is that the Prince
had free access to the columns of two provincial news-
papers in which to propagate his views. He also wrote
Occasionally for other papers, including Le Commerce,
La Paix, and the Revue de l'Empire. The power of
the press in the forties was perhaps greater upon
educated opinion in France than at any time since. The
men who directed the newspapers of the day were
well-known publicists of high standing, and their
* Pierre Hachet-Souplet, Louis Napoléon prisonnier au fort de Ham, 1893.
HAM 2 I I
opinions and those of their contributors were not the
hastily formed judgments of a moment, but the deliber-
ate thought of minds attuned to study and reflection.
According to Jules Simon the Guetteur de St. Quentin
was one of the best informed and courageous repub-
lican newspapers of the day, and its influence was far
greater than that of any provincial journal in France
at the present time. Its articles were frequently copied
into the Paris newspapers, and Souplet seems to have
been held in the highest esteem by men of all shades
of opinion. The Government, officially unaware of the
Prince's journalistic writings, did not interfere with
either of the two provincial newspapers, but after a time
let it be known unofficially through the public prose-
cutor that if the suspected collaboration continued the
printers’ licence would be withdrawn. The Prince,
therefore, discontinued his contributions in 1844 and
confined himself to letters, books, and pamphlets. The
interest of this episode lies in the friendly relations
that existed between the Prince and the Republican
party, represented by men like Souplet, Degeorge, and
Peauger. M. Ollivier described these men as “repub-
lican formalists, honourable men who were only influ-
enced by patriotic motives, and without any ambitions
of their own.” They believed that the Republican
party was in a state of dislocation and shrinkage, and
that being without any prestige of its own would profit
by putting itself under the shadow of the great name,
whose power with the people seemed to be growing
from day to day. France was in no mood yet to
abandon herself to a purely republican experiment. A
compromise with the name of Bonaparte seemed to them
to be wise. Nobody united in himself the conditions
which appeared to be required by the exigencies of the
time to the same extent as the prisoner of Ham.
The Prince on his side had come to the conclusion
2 I 2 LOUIS NAPOLEON
that a frankly Napoleonic newspaper, such as he at
first had wished to found in Paris, would not succeed.
He had engaged in active correspondence with M.
Peauger with the object of buying one of the Paris
journals, but the negotiations had come to nothing. He
was glad, therefore, to have the hospitality offered to
him by Souplet and Degeorge, where he could give
free and consistent expression to his principles of
authoritative democracy. In this first understanding
between the Prince and the Republicans may be fore-
shadowed the Liberal Empire. The diagnosis of the
political state of the country made by Souplet and
Degeorge was in every sense a more correct one than
that of the radical and socialistic members of the Repub-
lican party, who afterwards (in 1848) threw France by
their violence into the arms of the absolutist Empire.
Had these honourable republican formalists been in a
majority in the party, and had their counsels prevailed,
the Prince might have been kept from straying away
from the path of liberalism by their very trust in his
democratic and republican programme. But the number
of the Republican party who had the wisdom to wish for
such an alliance was very small. The real “formal-
ists,” however, were not men like Souplet and Degeorge,
who were ready to subordinate the letter of their faith
to its spirit, but those who made a shibboleth of cer-
tain democratic institutions and ideas with which
authority, as understood by the Napoleonic Idea, was
hardly compatible. George Sand, who corresponded
a good deal with the Prince, stated the fact to him
plainly enough, and her words foreshadowed the dis-
trust with which he was later regarded by the Repub-
lican party, when power had been put into his hands
through the democratic principles which all professed.
Souplet, like the Republican Capo de Feuillade before
him, had fallen under the personal attraction that the
"I'v'， v'， '11：11, 1\！\！\!\! 1\ºv H -10nvºllyHo ſihi
maeſ ）， ， , ，

HAM 2 I3
Prince exercised over so many of those who came in
contact with him. George Sand, knowing Something
of this attraction, put herself on her guard. “You must
not mind (sachez-nous gré),” she wrote, “if we defend
ourselves against the attraction that your character, your
intelligence, and your situation exercise over us. We
can never recognize any other sovereignty but that of
the people, but this sovereignty appears to us incom-
patible with that of one man. No miracle, no personifi-
cation of the popular genius will persuade us of the
right of one man. You could not sit amongst us with-
out having to combat our arguments and to subdue
us ” (December 1844). The middle-class Republicans
represented by Godefroy Cavaignac and Ledru-Rollin,
saw only in a Napoleon the defeat of Jacobinism and
the restoration of the hereditary principle. Nothing
would satisfy them but a complete surrender to the
“principles of the Revolution.” The Prince offered a
compromise, declaring that he claimed no hereditary
right, but only the right of the people to assert their
will. He did not hide from the Republicans, however,
that in his opinion the people would re-establish the
Empire, and that it would be a wise choice. But he
was ready to take the risk. Were they 2 He would
abide by the decision of the people freely expressed.
If it went against him, and the nation wanted the
Republican form of government as understood by the
men of 1793, then he was bound by his own principles
to abide by the decision of the country. They would
have the right to call upon him to do so. But if, on
the other hand, he was right and the people wanted the
Empire, then must the Republicans, if they were true
to their democratic principles, be willing to acquiesce
in a form of government where liberty was of less
account than prosperity. To Louis Blanc, when he
visited the Prince at Ham, the latter did not disguise
2I4 LOUIS NAPOLEON
his thought. “My creed is the Empire,” he said; and
on Louis Blanc’s protesting that this meant the heredi-
tary principle, he replied, “Without doubt. But the
important thing is that the Government should con-
cern itself with the well-being of the people.” To
George Sand he wrote (1845), “I believe the Republic
impossible to-day face to face with a monarchic Europe
and the division of parties.”
As time went on the prison became to him more and
more a death in life. His studies helped him to endur-
ance, but did not satisfy him. In winter, above all,
when the cold fogs made the walks on the ramparts
impossible, discouragement would seize upon him.
“There are in me two beings,” he wrote in 1844, “the
politician and the private man. The politician is and
will remain unshaken, hatred, calumny, captivity will
not wrench from him one complaint, one sigh; but the
private man when his turn comes is very unhappy.
Abandoned by everybody, by his old friends, by his
family, even by his father, he often succumbs to his
memories and his regrets, he sees himself buried alive
while still young; he would like to go out, to act, to
love, and all is forbidden him save thought, hence he
uses, he abuses even, his sole remaining faculty.” And
a year later he cries, “I have lost my fortune and my
friends; those I love have given themselves to others,
and I remain here without other support than a vague
and uncertain hope.” Nine months later he is again in
the deeps, “I am drifting at hazard, without knowing
where I am going to.” But such moments of depres-
sion were not continuous, and even in the midst of his
discouragement his resolution and faith in the future
were undimmed. “I believe in fatality,” he confessed
in 1845, “and if my body has escaped miraculously
from So many dangers, and if my soul has risen above
so many forms of discouragement, it is because I am
called to do something.”
HAM r 215
While the Government lightened in many ways the
rigours of the Prince's confinement, the measures taken
were in one respect extremely severe. Strasburg and
Boulogne had shown that the Prince was able to exer-
cise considerable influence over the soldiers, and it was
feared he might be led to new attempts if he were
allowed too great a freedom of intercourse with the garri-
son. It was also feared he might attempt to escape,
and that he would find help in the blind devotions which
he was able to inspire. All the soldiers comprising the
garrison were, therefore, forbidden to speak to the
Prince or to present arms to him. Not only was he
never let out of sight, but he was always followed at a
short distance. The Prince suffered much from this
close and incessant watch. He complained to the Com-
mandant of the citadel, who replied that he must carry
out the orders given him. He then wrote to the Minister
of War (May 1844) complaining that he was made the
victim of vexatious measures, which were not at all
necessary to his proper surveillance. “Such a system
of terror has been put in force in the garrison and
among the employés of the château, that nobody
dares to lift his eyes to me, and it requires no little
courage here for a man to be simply polite. I am
treated like one excommunicated in the thirteenth cen-
tury. Every one gets out of my way as I approach,
and I am shunned as if my breath itself were con-
tagious.”
The Government allowed itself to be impressed by
these complaints, and the orders became less severe
and the measures of surveillance less rigorous. It was
at this time that the Prince's valet was allowed per-
mission to go into the town whenever he pleased. But
the prisoner's sufferings were only lightened, not
removed. The motto which he had written in big letters
on the wall of his room (Pour les peuples comme pour
216 LOUIS NAPOLEON
les individus, la Souffrance n'est pas toujours perdue) *
was yet full of meaning to him, and it brought with it
fresh hope and consolation. “Before he gained a
throne,” says M. Giraudeau, “suffering furnished to
Louis Napoleon the means of being worthy of it.” The
days went by with a despairing uniformity, and it was
only by his strength of will, “in his conscience and in
his heart,’’ that the Prince was able to resist “the
atmosphere of lead '’ which surrounded and stifled
him.
He prayed Lord Malmesbury, one of his old English
friends whom he had known since 1829, to come and
visit him. Recalling to his mind the intervention of
Lord Grey in favour of Polignac, he asked him if he
could not secure the intercession of Sir Robert Peel
with Louis Philippe on his behalf. He confessed he
could no longer endure the air of the prison, and that
he saw no possible chance of escaping. At the end of
three hours’ conversation Lord Malmesbury left him,
admiring the spirit which had kept the intellect so well
braced by constant study. Sir Robert Peel did not
show any hostility to taking some measures, but Lord
Aberdeen, then Foreign Secretary, would not hear
of it, and the prisoner, renouncing all hope, turned
once more to his books.
In the meanwhile his uncle Joseph had died (1844)
without leaving him the pecuniary compensation which
he had promised. The Prince's fortune inherited from
his mother was much impaired by the establishment
of the two newspapers already named (p. 160) during
his sojourn in London, and the expedition to Boulogne
had made yet further inroads in it. He felt it his duty
to help all those who had suffered for his cause, and at
Ham he gave generous sums for the alleviation of
poverty and for the encouragement of education in the
* Guizot.
HAM 217
town. Joseph, recognizing at length what his nephew
had sacrificed for the Napoleonic cause, had promised
to recompense him after his death. But the promise
was not fulfilled. The Prince did not complain, but
wrote a generous tribute to his uncle's memory. Jerome
Bonaparte, who was to die in the odour of sanctity
under the Second Empire and be buried in the Invalides,
had become an ardent Orleanist and had solicited per-
mission of Louis Philippe to go and reside in France,
where his daughter Mathilde was now established. It
was not granted, but his son (Prince Napoleon) was
allowed to go and reside there provisionally (July
I845).
Lastly, King Louis, still living at Florence and now a
prematurely aged man of sixty-seven, had fallen seri-
ously ill, and by a sudden change, for which his son
had looked for a long time, feeling his end to be
approaching, desired to see the Prince. At the same
time he took steps to obtain permission from the Govern-
ment for his son to visit him at Florence, and prayed
the Prince to second him in his efforts (August 1845).
The Prince replied to his father immediately: “Only
the day before yesterday I had resolved to do nothing
at all towards getting free from my prison. . . . But
now a new hope shines on my horizon, and a new object
stimulates my efforts.” He thanked his father for the
steps he had taken on his behalf, and promised to do
everything consistent with his dignity to obtain a result
which both equally desired. King Louis had addressed
three letters to the ministers in Paris, and sent them
by the hand of one Poggioli, but nothing came of his
efforts.”
* The bona fides of Poggioli as an agent of King Louis has been
questioned by M. Hachet-Souplet, he being represented by that writer
as an emissary of Louis Napoleon's, and the whole of this episode of
King Louis' illness and the desire of his son to visit his death-bed, is
treated as a “pretext for the escape.” M. Hachet-Souplet’s book,
218 LOUIS NAPOLEON
The Prince, therefore, wrote direct to the Minister of
the Interior in December (1845), promising that if the
Government would consent to permit him to go to
Florence to fulfil a sacred duty, he would engage on
his honour to return and constitute himself a prisoner
as soon as the Government should require him to do so.
The minister replied that such a liberation would be a
pardon in disguise, and a pardon could only be obtained
by the clemency of the King. It was an indirect invita-
tion to the Prince to address himself to Louis Philippe.
He did so in a letter in which he repeated the promise
made to the minister, and expressed confidence that his
Majesty would appreciate as it deserved a step that
would engage his gratitude beforehand, and that he
would be “touched by the isolation in a foreign land of
a man who, on a throne, won the esteem of Europe ’’
(January 14, 1846). The ministry was opposed to a
favourable reply from the King, on the ground that it
would be a pardon by indirect means, and that a pardon,
to be merited, should be frankly asked for. To the
Prince the reply came as a great shock. He felt he had
been deceived. “I shall leave Ham only for the
Tuileries or the cemetery,” he wrote in his discourage-
ment to Madame Cornu, and went on with his work on
artillery, which had been interrupted during the nego-
tiations. He wrote, however, at the same time to some
of the more influential deputies, and M. Odilon Barrot
took upon himself to draw up the draft of a letter to the
King, which the Minister of the Interior promised would
procure the Prince's liberty if he would sign it. The
letter, however, seemed to the Prince to involve a request
for a pardon, and he refused to sign. “If I did so,”
he wrote, “I should in reality ask for pardon without
however, is full of errors and mistakes, and his argument respecting
the Poggioli incident has been demolished by M. Fernand Giraudeau,
pp. IO7–9.
HAM 2I9
avowing the fact. I should be taking shelter behind
the request of my father, like the coward who covers
himself with a tree to escape the enemy’s fire. I con-
sider such a course unworthy of me. If I thought it
consistent with my condition and honour merely and
simply to invoke the royal clemency, I would write to
the King, “Sire, I ask pardon.' But such is not my
intention ” (February 2, 1846).
The Prince was annoyed at M. Barrot's action, con-
sidering that it would divide the deputies and deprive
him (the Prince) of the moral support it was so neces-
sary to preserve. He did not, however, express this in
his reply, and M. Barrot made further efforts on his
behalf. He saw the King, but Louis Philippe, while
denying that he wished to impose any humiliation on
the Prince, declared he could not accept as serious his
promise to reconstitute himself a prisoner. He wished
for nothing better than to give the Prince his liberty,
but the Prince ought at least to recognize that it was
to him that he owed it. Barrot says, in his memoirs,
that he pleaded with the King that from his own point
of view it would be better to end the imprisonment, but
that Louis Philippe ended the interview by referring
him again to his ministers. Barrot, on his return to the
Chamber, related to Guizot and Duchatel (Minister of
the Interior) the refusal of the prisoner to sign, and his
own conversation with Louis Philippe. They treated
the Prince's susceptibilities as folly, and said, “Leave
us alone for awhile, and we will give him his liberty.”
But the Prince, tired out and angry, broke off the
negotiations.” This was at the beginning of February.
On the last day of the month he wrote to Madame
Cornu that he had long since ceased to think of his
1 Lord Malmesbury and Lord Londonderry also intervened fruitlessly
in the matter at this time, the former promising, in the Prince's name,
that after a year in Italy he would leave for America.—Thirria.
220 LOUIS NAPOLEON
liberation. His letters from this time on to May 24
are concerned almost entirely with his Studies on
Artillery and proofs of the first volume of which he
was correcting, and a note written to Madame Cornu
on this latter date speaks of a dilatation of the pupil
of one of his eyes, which will mean his ceasing work
for some days
CHAPTER XIV
THE ESCAPE FROM HAM 1
RESIDENCE IN LONDON 1846–1848
T is not at all certain when the Prince actually first
conceived the idea of effecting his escape. His
letters to Madame Cornu prove nothing. He
wrote them knowing the Government would prob-
ably read all that he there gave expression to. Even
the phrase that he would leave Ham only for the
Tuileries or the cemetery could mean just what one
liked to read into it. What he actually did was to go
to the Tuileries by way of London. The failure of the
negotiations, the real desire to see his father, and the
hope in which he had lived for more than a month pro-
* There is a large literature on the subject of the imprisonment and
escape from Ham. In 1842 M. Capo de Feuillade, in Le Château de Ham,
gave an account of a visit paid there to the Prince. The Prisoner of
Ham (1846), by F. T. Briffault, is said to have been largely the work of
the Prince himself, or inspired by him. Briffault was a French man of
letters living in London. He carried the Prince's letter to the President
of the Assembly in June 1848. The chief interest of Henry Wikoff's
Biographical Sketches of Zouis AWapoleon Bonaparte (1849) is in his account
of “A Visit to the Prince at the Castle of Ham.” This account has
been much quoted by subsequent writers on the subject. Count Orsi's
Recollections, previously cited, deal both with the preliminaries of the
escape from Ham and with the escape itself. Sir Henry Drummond-
Wolff's Memoirs, afterwards published as Some Notes of the Past (1891),
reopened the question of the escape, and provoked much correspondence
in the Standard, the Æclair, and the Paris. Resulting from this was M.
Hachet-Souplet’s book called Louis AWapoléon au fort de Ham : Ze Verité
sur l'évasion de 1846 (1893), an interesting volume, but not one on which
much reliance can be placed. It is anything but the “Truth about the
Escape.”
22 I
222 LOUIS NAPOLEON
duced collectively upon him an imperious desire to get
out of prison above all things. It was only towards
the middle of May that he first mentioned the matter to
Dr. Conneau. Conneau was astonished and combated
the idea. He considered it almost impracticable. The
surveillance was severe and the commandant never
omitted to lock up the prisoner every night with his own
hands. But Louis Napoleon, says Thirria, was a man
who never allowed himself to be influenced by others.
He was a seer, and he had seen his escape. He had
nothing to reply to Conneau's objections. Nobody was
ever able to make him change his mind once a resolution
had been taken. The resolution, however, was prob-
ably not arrived at hurriedly. Orsi, who after his re-
lease from Doullens, had repaired to London, states
that he had kept up a secret correspondence with the
Prince at Ham through his valet Thélin, and that no
sooner did the Prince hear of his presence in England
than he wrote him about his intention of making an
escape from Ham at any price and at any risk, as he
had been refused leave by the King to go and see his
dying father. There is some discrepancy of dates in Orsi’s
story, but the chief point of it lies in the fact that the
Prince, as soon as he had made up his mind to recover
his liberty, charged Orsi to find some one willing to
advance him £5,000 or 46,000, and for that purpose sent
him letters of introduction to several of his former friends
in London. Orsi, after many disappointments, obtained
the money from the Duke of Brunswick, then living in
London, on condition of an alliance between the Duke
and the Prince, in which each pledged himself to help
the other to power in their respective countries. Orsi
was to go over to Ham to see the Prince in company
with a Mr. G. T. Smith, whose object was to ascertain
on the part of the Duke whether the Prince was the real
borrower of the money, and if so to sign the bills. Orsi
THE ESCAPE FROM HAM 223
Says that after many difficulties he obtained permission
for himself and Mr. Smith to visit the prisoner at Ham,
and that they set out on December 25, 1845. “From
the day the Prince received the information,” he writes,
“that the sum of £6,000 had been paid to his account
at Messrs. Baring Brothers there was a lull in our
mutual correspondence, lest it should give a clue, how-
ever slight, to what was being planned at Ham.” If
the dates here given by Orsi are correct 1 it proves that
the Prince had decided to attempt an escape even before
he had addressed his letter to the King. But Orsi's dates
are confused, and we can only accept his evidence for
the main fact that the idea of escape was in the Prince's
mind from the beginning, if the negotiation broke
down. He quotes a letter from the Prince, dated March
2, in which he expresses satisfaction at the way he is
being served by his enemies. Politically speaking
nothing could be more advantageous to him than what
had taken place. Conneau was apparently kept in the
dark till his services could be of use. Montholon was
equally kept in the dark by both the Prince and
Conneau, and only knew of the attempt when it had
succeeded. Orsi, who could help at a distance, was,
according to his own account, the only confidant of the
Prince prior to the middle of May.”
* Interview with the Duke of Brunswick, December 3: interview with
the Prince at Ham, December 26.
* Orsi can scarcely have kept a diary at this period. He states that
he was set at liberty at the expiration of five years, which would bring
us to October 1845, and that the Prince began negotiations with him at
once for the loan. He has already told us that the Prince had been
peremptorily refused leave by the King to go and see his father. Now
the first refusal of Louis Philippe to the request of King Louis was in
November 1845, and the categorical refusal to Louis Napoleon himself
not till January 1846. Yet Orsi says that “twelve months of unceasing
exertions had nearly exhausted and discouraged me.” This may be a
misprint, for in a letter to the Standard (December 16, 1892), in which he
tells the story very briefly, the length of time is stated to have been
“several weeks.” If the first refusal of Louis Philippe to King Louis
224 LOUIS NAPOLEON
The plan of escape as conceived by the Prince was
well thought out, if bold to rashness. Some repairs
were being carried out in the building which he
occupied. Numbers of workmen were passing to and
fro. The idea of disguising himself as a workman and
thus walking out of the fortress in broad daylight
occurred to him. This project he resolved to realize
with an unheard of audacity and simplicity which in the
issue overcame all precautions. The administration of
the fort had taken all kinds of measures to prevent the
comings and goings of the workmen being made the
means of an attempt by the Prince, but the presence of
these workmen created unusual opportunities which
Louis Napoleon was quick to seize. In addition the
commandant, Demarle, became indisposed at this time
and, instead of being up and at duty by daybreak, as
was his custom, only appeared at seven o’clock, when
the gates were already open and the men at work.
Never would such an occasion offer itself again. Thélin
went into the town to procure the necessary articles of
representation is meant, then the “several weeks” would bring us to
December 3, when Orsi saw the Duke. Mr. G. T. Smith, who accom-
panied Orsi to Ham, was private secretary to Mr. T. Duncombe, M.P.,
and is the mysterious Mr. S- referred to by Sir Henry Drummond-
Wolff in his Some Notes of the Past. M. Hachet-Souplet chose to see in
Sir Henry Drummond-Wolff's Mr. S his grandfather, Calixte Souplet,
and filled a large part of his book in defending Souplet's memory from
what he considered to be the imputations cast on it. Smith received
many favours from Louis Napoleon when he became Emperor, and
Souplet's grandson was indignant that the director of the Guetteur de
St. Quentin should have been accused of receiving anything at the
hands of Napoleon III | There was really no necessity for Sir H.
Drummond-Wolff to keep back Mr. Smith's name. The whole story
had been told by Orsi years before, but in some correspondence the
present writer had with Sir Henry Drummond-Wolff in 1895, the latter
admitted not having seen Orsi's book. His account of the preliminaries
of the escape from Ham is, therefore, less accurate than it might other-
wise have been. The version of the preliminaries of the escape as given
in The Life and Letters of Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, M.P. (1868) was
shown to be of little historical value by Blanchard Jerrold. No reliance
can be placed on it.
E-º-º-L a w A D =
illan
º º 1, …
* * A * * 3 y
º, * >
ºr Miam.
\""
- -
-
-
º
-
-
- -
-
- º
------------- 1. ºutcºtt at-gaanitºs
cou-ne a rounatar - *natiºn consume
------ 3, as and aaaar
--------------- - comes be canne
------------------ 5, runtons.
---------- 5, sextºnius
------
------------
------------------------exis ºr Lawruzat
---------------
s
Aº ‘‘ ºne Pºoner of ºf wº
PLAN OF THE CITADEL OF HAM
























THE ESCAPE FROM HAM 225
disguise and the escape was fixed for the early morning
of May 25.
The question for the Prince was how to make his way
out of a fortress guarded by sixty sentinels, to cross a
threshold watched by three jailers, to walk across a
Courtyard Overlooked by the windows of the command-
ant's house, and to pass a wicket under the guard of an
orderly and a Sergeant, a turnkey, a sentinel, and a
guard of thirty men. For the carrying out of his design
Louis Napoleon required as much sagacity and courage
as for his attempts at Strasburg and Boulogne, perhaps
more, for here he was to act alone.
At 6.30 on the morning of May 25 he dressed himself
in his disguise. Over his clothes he put on the dress
provided by Thélin—a working carpenter’s costume con-
sisting of trousers, a shirt, and a blue blouse, rouged
his face to disguise its usual pallor, increased his height
by putting on sabots over his shoes, and cut off his
moustache. He provided himself with a poignard, for
he resolved to ‘‘ kill himself rather than fall into the
hands of his jailers and undergo the ridicule which
attaches itself to those who are arrested in disguise.”
He carried with him his mother’s last letter, and that
of the Emperor's in which Napoleon had expressed the
hope that the little Louis would be worthy of his
destiny. These letters never left his person, and were
considered by him as talismans. He put a pipe in his
mouth and a plank over his shoulder and descended the
stairs. Thélin kept the workmen in an adjoining room,
treating them to a “petit verre.” The Prince’s features
were almost completely hidden from the guards by the
plank. They took him to be one of the workmen. In
the centre of the courtyard he had to pass one of the
engineers and the contractor examining a plan. They
took no notice of him. A drummer came close up to
him, but the Prince avoided him. He dropped his pipe
Q
226 LOUIS NAPOLEON
and it broke in pieces, but he had presence of mind
enough to stop and pick the pieces up and put them in
his pocket. Gaining the drawbridge he passed a non-
commissioned officer reading a letter, then the porter,
and lastly the sentinel. He was now outside, but he
had hardly taken two steps when he met two workmen.
They looked hard at him and he thought he was dis-
covered; but one of them remarked, “Oh, it’s Ber-
thou,” and they passed on into the fort. The Prince,
pretending not to notice them, continued his steps along
the road to St. Quentin, where at a given point he had
arranged to meet Thélin. Thélin had followed his
master from the fortress, overtaken him, and gone on
to the town. At the end of half-an-hour he came back
with a carriage, into which the Prince jumped, and to-
gether they drove to St. Quentin. Before arriving at
the town Louis Napoleon threw away his blouse,
trousers, and sabots, depositing them in a ditch, and in
his ordinary attire, but scarcely recognizable from the
loss of his moustache" and his heightened complexion,
he left the carriage in order to make the circuit of the
town on foot so as to avoid being seen in its streets. He
met Thélin again on the road to Valenciennes, and
together they proceeded to that town, where they arrived
at two o'clock. There was no train to Brussels till four,
and these two hours, which they passed at the railway
station, were full of anxiety and danger. Thélin was
recognized by one of the employés of the railway who
lived in Ham, and was asked for news of the Prince.
Brussels was reached the same afternoon, then Ostende,
* Forster, who met the Prince at Gore House on the first day of his
arrival in London, afterwards wrote to Landor: “Before or since I have
never seen his face as it was then, for he had shaved his moustaches as
part of his disguise, and his lower and least pleasing features were
completely exposed under the straggling stubble of hair beginning again
to show itself.” Forster says the Prince told the story of his escape in
his “usual un-French way, without warmth or excitement.”—Walter
Saziage Zandor: A Biography, II, 469.
THE ESCAPE FROM HAM 227
and within twenty-four hours from the time he had left
his prison the Prince was once more in England."
At Ham it was Conneau's duty to keep the knowledge
of the Prince's escape from the commandant as long as
possible. The story is well known how he placed a
dummy figure in the Prince’s bed and feigned illness on
his behalf. When Demarle presented himself and
asked to see his prisoner the doctor explained that
it was impossible, as he was ill and asleep. Conneau
was able in this manner to put off the commandant till
dinner time, when the truth was discovered. The
Prince, however, had then had twelve hours’ start and
was well over the frontier. Conneau was afterwards
sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for his part in
the affair.
The news of the escape was received in France with
general satisfaction, the common opinion being ex-
pressed in the phrase “c'est bien joué.” The Govern-
ment hardly shared this satisfaction, at any rate officially,
though it may be more than suspected that they were not
altogether displeased.
Soult, however, who in 1840 had been responsible for
organizing the measures of surveillance of the prisoner
of Ham, expressed his annoyance and asked how could
the Prince have eluded so many soldiers and police if
he had not been aided by the commandant. Demarle
in his subsequent defence pleaded that he had done all
it was possible to do, and that if he had shown regard
for his prisoner he had been recommended to do so by
the Marshal himself.
Whether the Government had any foreknowledge of
the Prince's intentions will perhaps never be known.
From the remarks made by the ministers at the time the
negotiations for the Prince’s release were in progress it
seems pretty certain that they were prepared at an early
* See Appendix E. The Prince's own account of the evasion.
228 LOUIS NAPOLEON
date to throw open the prison gates. Probably the
Secret police suspected what was going on and had
instructions to put no obstacles in the way. It is
Scarcely conceivable that the officials at Ham had any
knowledge of the Prince’s actual intentions and allowed
him to “escape.” Yet Sir William Fraser relates that
the Prince afterwards told a friend of his in England
that Louis Philippe had given him ten days to escape
from Ham—that, in fact, he was liberated by the sanc-
tion of the King.” If there is any truth in such a state-
ment it can only mean that the secret police had know-
ledge of what was going on and allowed it to do so.
To believe anything else would be to reduce the escape
from Ham to a solemn farce, and would render so many
things inexplicable and unnecessary that we are forced
either to this explanation of a rather sensational state-
ment or to rejecting it altogether.
Louis Napoleon arrived in London on Wednesday,
May 27, and put up at the Brunswick Hotel, Jermyn
Street, under the name of Count d’Arenenberg. In
the street he ran against his English friend and visitor
at Ham, Lord Malmesbury. Malmesbury, that same
night, met one of the attachés of the French Embassy
at dinner. “Have you seen him 2’’ he asked. “Who?”
“Louis Napoleon ; he has just arrived in London.”
The attaché left the table in a hurry and went to an-
nounce the news to his chief. The Prince himself, how-
ever, hastened to inform the ambassador of his presence,
assuring him that he had left his prison neither to
occupy himself with politics nor to attempt to disturb
the peace of Europe. His sole object was to visit his
father and fulfil his duty as a son. He also wrote to
Sir Robert Peel (Prime Minister) and to Lord Aberdeen
(Foreign Secretary) assuring them of his peaceable
intentions.
* Sir William Fraser, Wapoleon III: My Recollections, p. 4.
LONDON 229
Though it has been asserted that the wish to see his
father was only a pretext there is nothing whatever to
prove that the Prince was not sincere in his intention.
Other motives, no doubt, impelled him to the act, but
that he really intended to repair to Florence to see King
Louis before he died there seems to be no substantial
reason to question. But his endeavours to obtain pass-
ports for Florence were opposed in every direction.
When he approached the Austrian ambassador, who
was charged with the affairs of Tuscany in London, the
reply was that the Prince was neither an Austrian nor a
Tuscan subject. Moreover, he was not only a foreigner,
but a “suspect,” and the ambassador would have
nothing to do with the matter. Thus repulsed the Prince
appealed to the Grand Duke direct, but Leopold of
Tuscany roundly declared that he would not tolerate
the Prince in Florence for twenty-four hours. Two
months thus quickly went by, till July 25, when King
Louis died, and the Prince was deprived of the consola-
tion of closing the eyes of his father, who up to the last
moment awaited him anxiously. Had the relations be-
tween father and son been as affectionate and close as
those between Louis Napoleon and Queen Hortense, the
Prince would doubtless have found his way to Florence
in face of all obstacles and regardless of all risks. But
this is the only thing that can be urged against him.
Political prudence overweighed filial duty, and under
the circumstances few will blame him. The will of King
Louis was expressed in such terms as exclude definitely
the supposition that he had any doubts about the
paternity of his son. After declaring his wish to be
buried at St. Leu and leaving souvenirs to his nephews
and friends, he proceeds, “I leave all my other posses-
sions, my palace at Florence, my territory of Civita
Nuova, furniture and fixtures, shares and moneys
owing, in short all that constitutes my fortune, with the
230 LOUIS NAPOLEON
exception only of the above named legacies, to my sole
heir, Napoleon Louis, my only remaining Son, to which
son and heir I give as a particular witness of my affec-
tion (tendresse) my Dunkerque which is in the library,
with all the decorations (medals) and souvenirs which
it contains; and as a still more peculiar mark of my
affection I leave to him all the objects in my possession
which formerly belonged to my brother the Emperor
Napoleon.”
Thus possessed of his patrimony Louis Napoleon was
in some measure able to repair his mother’s fortune,
shattered by his political action and the consequences
which to his generous nature followed naturally in its
train. Yet, according to Mr. Blanchard Jerrold, these
two years in London (1846–1848) were the poorest of his
life. His so-called “poverty,’” however, was only com-
parative, and the house he occupied during 1847–1848 in
King Street, St. James's, though smaller than either of
his previous residences in London, was neither poor nor
shabby. It was one of a block then newly erected," and
the Prince paid a yearly rent of 4,300 for it. Moreover,
his landlord afterwards declared that the Prince was
the best tenant he ever had. He did not settle down
there, however, till February 1847,” and during the
1 The house, now numbered IC, King Street, bears a commemorative
tablet. The Prince lived there until his departure for Paris in September
1848, but the house was kept on till the following spring. There was a
sale of furniture in May 1849.
* His residence prior to this date is not certain. Several houses in
London have been associated with the Prince's name—some wrongly—
and it may be that during the period between his arrival in London, in
May 1846, and his taking up his residence in King Street the following
February, he lived in one or more of the houses attributed to him. One
of these was Rockingham House, Circus Road, St. John's Wood, formerly
numbered 23, now 52 (Wheatley and Cunningham, London, Past and
Present, I, 4oo), but the evidence of his ever having lived there is al-
together wanting. In 1846 the Prince bought the house No. 9, Berkeley
Street, Piccadilly, probably for Miss Howard, who lived there from 1846
to 1848, but whether Louis Napoleon ever resided there himself is
- - -
:---- *
1o kixo street, st. JAMEs's
Louis Vapoleon's London residence, 1847-1848

LONDON 23 I
Summer of 1846 visited Bath, where he stayed two
months, and where he met, among other people, Walter
Savage Landor." Bath and the neighbourhood of Clifton
and Bristol he described as the finest country in Eng-
land. He occupied himself with the turf, and was an
honorary member of the Carlton and the Army and Navy
Clubs. He frequented the same Society as in former days,
dined at Gore House, visited Sir Bulwer Lytton at
Craven Cottage, played whist with Lord Eglinton, rode
in Rotten Row, and was received by Lady Londonderry
and snubbed by the Countess of Jersey. He studied
England and conceived for this country a quiet but
steady attachment. But, as before, while living the life
of the man of fashion in his own semi-bohemian way,”
mingling in two entirely different sets, neither of which
uncertain. The house was the property of John Harrison, builder and
architect, grandfather of Mr. Frederic Harrison, who has kindly com-
municated the above information.
* Landor wrote to Forster on August 28, 1846: “Colonel Lewis
[master of the ceremonies at Bath] told me yesterday that Prince Louis
Napoleon was in Bath, and had done me the favour to mention me, and
I shall therefore leave my card at his house.” Three or four days later
Landor wrote : “Yesterday I had a visit from the Prince Louis Bona-
parte, who told me he had completed his military work and would give
me a copy. In return for this civility I told him I should certainly have
requested his acceptance of my works, only that they contained some
severe strictures on his uncle the Emperor. He said he knew perfectly
well my opinions, and admired the honesty with which I expressed them
on all occasions. He came on purpose to invite me to meet Lady
Blessington to-morrow. He had called once before. I told him in the
course of our interview that he had escaped two great curses—a prison
and a throne. He smiled at this, but made no remark.” The Prince
gave Landor a copy of his book on Artillery, on the flyleaf of which he
inserted : “A Monsieur W. S. Landor témoigne d'estime de la part du
Pºe Napoléon Louis B. qui apprécie le vrai měrite quelque opposé qu'il
soit à ses sentiments et à son opinion. Bath, 6 Sept., 1846.”—Forster,
Walter Savage Landor: A Biography, 1869, II, 466 seq.
* “Living in London in a somewhat mesquine society, there were those
who hung about him because he was a Prince, though only titular;
persons who could never creep into really good society; and a good
many who were not fit for any society bearing the name.”—Sir William
Fraser, Mapoleon ///, p. 108.
232 LOUIS NAPOLEON
knew the other, he kept his mind detached from both,
and, preserving his mental activity, never abandoned
his faith in the future. The first volume of the Studies
on Artillery was published while he was in London, and
the second volume, which he had left behind him at
Ham, was now completed. He also wrote a brochure
on the Nicaragua Canal. But while thus employed he
remained true to the promise he had made spontaneously
to the French ambassador in London. He conspired
no more. He passed his time between society and
study, and only showed himself a pretender by the
profusion with which, in making away with his patri-
mony and even in running into debt, he provided for the
maintenance of those friends and partisans who had
been deprived by his means and for his sake of their
resources. He had accepted devotion with all its burdens
and drawbacks, and he bore these cheerfully and as a
matter of course. He was a friend à toute éprouwe, and
in after days not an act of kindness shown to the pre-
tender in adversity was ever forgotten by the sovereign
in his prosperity. But he paid heavily for his own
kindness, and like all men of generous and believing
nature was easily duped. Mr. Jerrold, however, has dis-
cussed this aspect of the Prince’s life in London once
and for all and we need not dwell further upon it.”
Sir William Fraser has left it on record that, as
regards money matters, the Prince showed the greatest
* “The means which the Prince had at his disposal on the death of
his father, although far short of the fortune he possessed on the death of
his mother, were respectable, as his transactions with the Rothschilds,
the Lafittes, the Barings, and others plainly indicate. He was a borrower
for his political purposes and for his friends, but seldom, if ever, for his
personal wants. The borrowings extended from 1840 to 1848, and were
of the most extensive and complicated character. . . . That all this
time the Prince was able to command money in the usual way on his
property is proved by his transactions with the Marquis Pallavicino in
1848. In this year the Marquis lent the Prince 4 13,000, taking a
mortgage on the estate of Civita Nuova as security.”—Jerrold, II, 384.
LONDON 233
punctilio, and “had he perished in any of his unsuc-
cessful attempts he would have left no debts behind
him.” The same writer has given an account of the
Prince’s appearance at this time in London. His
clothes were not those of a man who knew how to dress,
but were not careless. He dressed rather after the
fashion of books, and with considerable tightness. He
was “got up,” yet not neat, rather what the French call
“appreté.” He usually wore clothes of sombre colours,
with trousers strapped down, and with a frock coat
always buttoned. He looked best on horseback, where
his short legs were not noticed, and riding in the Row
horse and man made a good ensemble, the effect being
“picturesque without being studied.” +
During these two years in London Louis Napoleon is
said to have proposed marriage three times. It might
be interesting to speculate what would have happened
if, when he attained to the supreme power in France,
he had been a married man with an English lady of the
middle class as his wife. His faith in his destiny would
seem almost to have been justified by the way in which
fate dealt with him in these matrimonial advances. His
first proposal, however, at this time was not rejected.
Miss Emily Rowles, whose parents, curiously enough,
were the proprietors of Camden House, Chislehurst,
where the Prince frequently visited, as well as of a house
in town, is said to have only broken off the match with
the Prince on hearing of his liaison with Miss Howard.
Everything had been arranged for the marriage, accord-
ing to Captain Bingham,” and the bride-elect had already
received from the Prince many valuable presents, in-
cluding furs and other objects which had once belonged
to the Empress Josephine. The liaison with Miss
Howard, which afterwards became well known, had
* Fraser, Mapoleon ZZZ, p. 7.
* The Marriages of the Bonapartes, Vol. II, p. 327.
234 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Other consequences. That lady was the cause of a
quarrel between the Prince and Mr. Kinglake, and the
Prince’s unsuccessful rival afterwards took a revenge
which was a tribute to his power of vindictiveness and
his unforgiving nature rather than to his veracity and
impartiality as an historian.”
Miss Howard is a somewhat nebulous figure in the
history of the Prince's political life, though a great deal
has from time to time been written about her. However
great her fascination for the man may have been she
does not appear to have exercised any very serious
influence upon him politically, though she assisted him
financially and was his almost constant companion
during his second long term of residence in London
(1846–1848). The stories told concerning her and her
relations with the Prince are, however, often contra-
dictory and confusing, those probably who could have
told the truth not caring to do so. When and where
Louis Napoleon first met Miss Howard is not even
certain. M. Lebey says they probably met before 1840
in the salon of Lady Blessington, and this is likely
enough, though Griscelli de Vezzani in his Memoirs”
gives a more romantic version of the first meeting, and
puts it subsequent to the escape from Ham. Griscelli’s
Memoirs, however, are of so little value and so entirely
untrustworthy that his story may be disregarded. Miss
Howard is said to have accompanied the Prince to the
steamer when he embarked for Boulogne * and to have
* Kinglake's portrait of Louis Napoleon in the fourteenth chapter of
the Inzasion of the Crimea is well known. The key to the spirit in which
it is written may be found in the following passage from the biography
of A. W. Kinglake, by the Rev. W. Tuckwell: “Kinglake had quarrelled
with him (Louis Napoleon) finally and lastingly over rivalry in the good
graces of a woman.” And in a note the lady's name is given as Miss or
Mrs. Howard.
* Memoirs of the Baron de Rimini. Remington & Co., 1888.
* Lebey, Strasbourg et Boulogne, p. 327, note, quoting De Beaumont
Vassy, Mémoires secrets du XXX* siècle, 1874.
LONDON & 235
visited him at Ham. She was an Englishwoman, her
real name being Elizabeth Ann Haryett, or Hargett, and
her London house was the resort of many fashionable
men of the time, the Duke of Beaufort, the Earl of
Chesterfield, the Earl of Malmesbury, and Count d'Orsay
being mentioned amongst others as her admirers.” She
is described as a woman of exquisite proportions and
classic beauty, with the regular features of a Greek
statue, and with magnificent shoulders. Early in life,
for some reason which does not transpire, she had taken
the name of Howard, and became the mistress of a
famous steeple-chase rider in London and afterwards
of Major Mountjoy Martin of the 2nd Life Guards. She
was wealthy, and, believing in the Prince’s “star,” was
desirous of playing the part of a queen behind the
scenes, with the ultimate object, perhaps, of obtaining
a higher position. She is said not only to have financed
the Prince in 1848 before his election to the Presidency,
but for some years after when she lived in Paris, and
was the frequent companion of the President on his
journeys.”
The Prince is said also to have proposed marriage to
* Lebey, Strasbourg et Boulogne, p. 416.
* There was also A. W. Kinglake (see previous page).
* When Louis Napoleon married Eugénie de Montijo in 1853, Miss
Howard was created Comtesse de Beauregard. In 1854 she married
Mr. Clarence Trelawney, an officer in the Austrian army, youngest son
of Mr. Brereton Trelawney, of an old Cornish family, and lived at the
château of Beauregard, near Versailles. Her marriage, however, ended
in a divorce. She died in 1865. Her son, Martin Howard, was created
Comte de Béchevet by Napoleon III, the new title being due to the
protests of the ancient family of Beauregard, who strongly objected to
their name being conferred on Miss Howard. The Comte de Béchevet,
who died in August 1907, married Mdlle. de Cruzy, of a noble Hungarian
house, by whom he had a son—now Count Richard de Béchevet—and
two daughters. M. Odilon Barrot, in his Memoirs (III, 361), quotes a letter
addressed by Louis Napoleon, as President, to himself, as Prime
Minister, defending his connection with Miss Howard, in which he says,
‘‘I may be forgiven, I think, for an affection which harms nobody and
which I do not seek to make conspicuous.”
236 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Miss Seymour, whose mother was an adopted daughter
of Mrs. Fitzherbert, who acted as guardian to the girl
and who bequeathed to her a large town house. Miss
Seymour “subsequently married a nobleman holding a
high position in the west of England, and Prince Louis
attended the wedding.” 1 The Prince's third offer of mar-
riage was to Miss Burdett-Coutts,” but that great lady's
heart had been lost to another of the frequenters of
Gore House,” and many long years were to elapse before
she gave her hand in marriage. It requires a strong
effort of imagination to see the Baroness Burdett-Coutts
as Empress of the French. Yet such a thing might
very well have been.
But this social and personal side of the Prince's life
has very little to do with his public career. The first
part of that career, that of conspiracy, was now over.
So far he had failed in all his enterprises. He had been
styled an adventurer and a madman. He was said to
be a dreamer and subject to hallucinations. And in a
certain sense he was all that he was said to be. To
those who only waited on events he was a madman and
an adventurer. To those whose thoughts and ideas were
cast in conventional and unchanging moulds he was a
dreamer. But his hallucinations and his dreams were
often the divination of things which others could not
see, and events in the long run proved him to have been
a clear-sighted and sane observer. The real man merits
neither scorn nor denunciation—Some meed rather of
admiration. Full of affection and generosity and the
* Sir William Fraser, Napoleon III: My Recollections, p. 3.
* “At one time a marriage between Miss Burdett and the Iron Duke
was considered probable. Louis Napoleon, then an exile on these
shores, also wished to marry her. It can be said of few women that
they have refused a Wellington and a Napoleon.”—“Lady Burdett-Coutts,
by One Who Knew Her Well”: Blackwood’s Magazine, clzxxi, 3oo
(February 1907).
* Count d'Orsay.
LONDON 237
hardihood of faith, he had subordinated his own
pleasures to his work and what he conceived to be his
duty. And all this was done in the face of the opposi-
tion of his father, his uncles, and indeed of the whole
Bonaparte family, with one exception. They would
have plunged him, had they been able, into that hope-
less inertia which to them had become a habit, and of
which he was the avowed antagonist. His only support
had been his mother’s affection, and this had now been
taken from him. The memory of it alone remained.
He had always been ready to sacrifice his future and even
his life for the sake of the cause which he had at heart,
the cause of the French people, who in his eyes were
always the “conquered of 1815.” Nationality, social
progress, the plebiscitary right of the Revolution, these
things were to him the shibboleth that all must pro-
nounce, and over all was the overshadowing genius of
the Emperor his uncle, by whose spirit alone these dead
things could be vivified into life.
In his writings during this first period of his career
one can find the germ of most of his maturer acts. On
one point only is he uncertain and seeking for a solution.
He has not yet been able to escape from the contradiction
between his own political ideas and the traditions of his
family. His own opinions attach him firmly to the
absolute sovereignty of the people and make him a
Republican, his traditions involve him in the reconstruc-
tion of an hereditary monarchy. At this time he
appears to incline towards the latter course. But as
regards liberty his opinions have stood in the way of his
traditions. He is convinced that the re-established
Empire should accord as much liberty as the fallen
Empire, by force of circumstances, had been constrained
to accord little. Only his liberty was not to be the false
liberty of unchecked political discussion and licence. It
was to be a true liberty, a liberty that would bear fruit;
238 LOUIS NAPOLEON
which, in addition to its strictly social objects, would
assure to each citizen without any oppressive obliga-
tions, the entire control of his own person, family, and
interests.
Watching the course of events in France, now head-
ing on through Reform Banquets to the Revolution of
February, the Prince bided his time. Never, to out-
siders, had the cause of the Bonapartes appeared more
hopeless than on the eve of the day on which it was
about to triumph. More and more convinced of the
stability of the Government of July the last surviving
brother of the Emperor (Jerome) thought only of making
terms with it. Finding it useless to wait longer for a
general abrogation of the law of banishment Jerome, on
the advice of his son, sent to the Chamber a request for
a partial abrogation in favour of himself and his children
(July 1847). Such a course appeared to him quite
natural, but even in these modified terms Jerome's
request raised an embarrassing objection. An excep-
tional law made in favour of any one member of the
Bonaparte family would be a renewal of the proscription
against all the others. The ministry refused to intro-
duce a bill on such lines, but promised administratively
to reopen the gates of France to the ex-King of West-
phalia. In September 1847 Jerome therefore received
permission to live in France with his family for three
months, and as soon as he had taken up his residence
there he entered into negotiations with Louis Philippe
and obtained from him the promise of a pension of
100,000 francs. The Government knew Jerome to be
harmless, and no question was raised at the end of the
appointed time of his leaving the country. There were
two Bonapartes, therefore, in Paris at the time of the
Revolution which was ultimately to put the power into
the hands of a third. Both these members of the family
—father and Son—bore the features as well as the blood
LONDON 239
and the name of the Emperor, yet they achieved
nothing. No slur was ever cast on their birth, yet the
distinction they afterwards achieved in the days of the
Empire was none of their own making. The true spirit
of the Emperor was not to be measured by physical
characteristics or close and near relationship. The
mere name of Napoleon alone, without other qualities
behind it, could do little. And these qualities, if not
such as the Emperor himself possessed, must at least
include courage, tenacity, and set purpose. Prince
Napoleon, in many ways a man superior to his cousin
in ability and intellect, had none of these moral attri-
butes, and always fell short either of distinction or
greatness. Louis Napoleon possessed them to a remark-
able degree. They had carried him through years of
exile and disappointment, they had helped him to bear
failure and ridicule, they had made him act. His name
was known, not simply as the name of his uncle, but as
his own. His readiness to serve his country had been
shown not merely by his waiting to be called. He had
asked to be called. Yet when the day for which he had
waited so long at last dawned, it took the Prince by
surprise and found him unprepared.
CHAPTER XV
THE WRITINGS OF THE PRINCE
OMETHING has already been said of two
of Louis Napoleon’s earlier writings (the
Réveries politiques and the Considerations
politiques et militaires sur la Suisse), as well
as of Des Idées Napoléoniennes, but it was rather the
ideas expressed by the writer than the style of his ex-
pression that we were then concerned with. It would
be doing an injustice, however, to the Prince to pass
over in silence the merit of his literary style, although
it is of course quite true that the chief interest of his
writings lies in what he said rather than how he said
it. The prejudice which has gathered about the name
of Louis Napoleon has extended even to his written
words, and while his style is exalted on the one hand
as full of grandeur, poetry, and lyrism, it is decried on
the other as being only a passable imitation of good
writing, and is declared to be theatrical and vulgar.
Some amongst those in his own day, who were best
competent to judge, however, praised the Prince’s style,
and nearly all that can be said against it on the score
of theatricality can equally well be urged of So great a
writer as Victor Hugo. Béranger once said that he
regarded Napoleon III as the “first writer of the age,”
and Tocqueville was of the opinion that the Emperor
was the only man living who could write “monu-
mental French.” Cobden spoke of the “absolute per-
240
THE WRITINGS OF THE PRINCE 241
fection of the style of his occasional addresses,” and
thought his composition a model worth studying.
“He had a literary rather than a political way of look-
ing at public affairs,” says one of his severest critics.
“The merit of his state papers lay in the phrases, the
allusions, the form of the expression—in a word, the
literary qualities rather than the ideas.” + This is the
judgment of an adversary who thought very little of the
ideas, but who nevertheless had been struck by the force
with which they were expressed. Allowing for this,
there is much truth in the criticisms. Louis Napoleon,
it must be recognized, was a remarkable prose writer,
and, had it been his lot to be born a private citizen,
might have been counted amongst the most illustrious
writers of his country and age. His phrasing is easy
and harmonious. His style is sometimes after the grand
style of his uncle, and sometimes after the easy flowing
manner of the leisurely days of our grandfathers, the
chief merit of which is that one reads it without fatigue.
But the easy flowing periods never became monotonous,
for here and there a terse, vigorous, nervous sentence
breaks their even course, or an unexpected flight of
imagination lifts the thoughts of the reader to a region
higher than the smooth and even plains he has been
travelling over. Imagination, it has been said, was
Louis Napoleon’s mastering quality, and it is every-
where apparent, together with elevated thought and
clearness of expression, in his literary work. Many of
his political writings, of course, allow no scope for these
higher qualities of literary style, yet here and there a
living phrase finds its way into the discussion, and the
author rarely leaves his subject without an appeal to
Something more than the reader’s mind and judg-
ment. He knows the value of a peroration to round off
a discourse, and the final phrases of his addresses
* France since the First Empire, by James Macdonel.
R
242 LOUIS NAPOLEON
and manifestoes often show something like a touch
of genius.
The first of his published writings was the Réveries
politiques, written when he was twenty-four. After stat-
ing his opinions he makes his appeal : “The consequence
of the establishment of the principles of liberty is to
acknowledge that presiding over all partial convictions
there is a supreme judge, which is the People. This
is the point at which all good Frenchmen, of whatever
party they may be, ought to meet : all good French-
men who would rather behold the well-being of their
common country than the triumph of their particular
doctrines. . . . Let all unite before the altar of the
country to ascertain the will of the people. Then shall
we present before Europe the imposing spectacle of a
great people forming their own constitution without
falling into any excess, and marching on to liberty
without disorder. And then if foreign powers who wish
to divide France among them, were to make war upon
us, they would behold a free people arousing itself like a
giant amid the pigmies who would fain have attacked it.”
The pamphlet on Switzerland (Considerations politi-
ques et militaires sur la Suisse) is lit up with passages
like that already quoted on page I I5, with its tribute
to the old soldiers of the Republic and the Empire,
whose glory was to be found in every part of Europe.
“And since 1815,” continues the Prince, “what has
become of these glorious relics of our grand armies?
Let me do them justice. Except some few notabilities
of the Empire, all the rest have shown themselves, at
all times and in all countries, eager to second every
noble enterprise. In France they have reddened with
their blood the scaffolds of the Restoration. In Greece
they have assisted slaves to recover their independence.
In Italy they are at the head of that unfortunate youth
who are aspiring to liberty. They have filled the
MANUEL

# DºAER'ETHELÉLÉE REI3E
AA LºUSAGE
DES 0FFICIERS D'AR'TILLERlE
DE LA
REPUBLIQUE HELvÉTIQUE.
P A R
lt |)rinrt llapoléon-ſ ouis 6onaparte,
CA 91T A I N E. â U R # (;.m" D'a Rt1I.LE RIE DU CANToN D & B E n N E.
La guerre est devenue plébéienne
par l'emploi des armes à feu.
, Gen. Foy, Guerre de la Pén. P. b.
1 8 3 6.
A ZURICH, cHEz ORELL FUssLI ET Comr.º
A STRASBOURG, cHEz l.EvRAULT , rue des Juifs.
A PARIS, cHEz ANSELIN , rue Dauphine , n° 36 .
TITLE-PAGE OF THE * MANUEL D'ARTILLERIE.'
©
Gº º e º,. s e e . • •,
© C e * »º ， «
ſ， * e o ? 6, #
4 © © ſ ! 6
THE WRITINGS OF THE PRINCE 243
prisons with their mutilated bodies. Finally, in Poland,
who were the chiefs of that heroic people? Soldiers of
Napoleon. Everywhere you still find soldiers of that
great man, whenever honour, liberty or patriotism is
concerned. . . . Patriotism and liberty often render
men invincible, or, if conquered, to the patriot the
cypress is as beautiful as the laurel.”
The Prince’s third volume was the Manuel d’Artillerie,
published at Zurich in 1836 and dedicated to the officers
of the Ecole d’Application at Thun, as “a souvenir of
the time we have passed together.” Naturally in a
technical work of this description there is no opportunity
for literary style or intrusion of the author’s person-
ality. But in his dedication, which he signs “Napoleon
Louis Bonaparte, son of Louis Napoleon, ex-King of
Holland,” he strikes a personal note. “Up to the
present Fate has refused me the happiness of serving
my country; but there remains to me at least the con-
solation of being the citizen of a country which has
known how to conquer its independence and preserve
its liberty. And besides, the destinies of all civilized
nations are so closely bound together that to be of use
to a free people is still to serve France.” The Manuel
d’Artillerie, a closely printed book of over five hundred
pages, is a tribute to the industry and knowledge of the
Prince, and in itself a sufficient answer to those who
only see in the exile of Arenenberg an unpractical
visionary and a disciple of Werther. Louis Blanc said
of the Manuel that it was a work in which the result of
learned studies was put forth in a fine, clear, and precise
style. The journal of the Institut Historique spoke in
high terms of the book, and the National newspaper
called attention to the fact that it took the highest
artillery authorities seven years to produce an octavo
volume of five hundred pages, while a simple captain
of artillery in Switzerland had written in two years a
244 LOUIS NAPOLEON
book which in every way compared worthily with the
official French one. “The parts devoted to field
artillery constitute a real treatise, the most complete
and at the same time the most succinct that has yet been
written on the subject . . . the paragraph entitled
“Service et tactique ' is especially a model of clearness
and precision, and teaches more than many a big
volume.”
Des Idées Napoléoniennes was published in 1839, and
has already been sufficiently noticed. The book has
been called an “act of adoration.” It is also a profes-
sion of faith. Whether the views there expressed are
those of a far-sighted Statesman or a utopist and a
visionary is another matter. They are certainly not
expressed in the language of a statesman, but, then, no
statesman, as such, should be guilty of writing litera-
ture. The language of literature and politics is not the
same. It is possible for one man to speak both, but not
at the same time, and Louis Napoleon perhaps made the
mistake of writing of the one subject in the language of
the other. It was this which made politicians and
literary men refuse to recognize in him either a states-
man or a writer, and which made his style to be re-
garded by many as turgid and vulgar. Read as plat-
form eloquence, as an appeal to the people, the merits
of the style of the Idées Napoléoniennes may be
seen to be those of the popular orator, whose words,
read in the Cold light of reason and criticism, may pro-
duce little or no effect. But the simple diction and
Sonorous phrases convey exactly to the mind of the
reader what the writer intended them to do. The book
is not a text-book of Napoleonic policy as the Manuel
was of artillery, but a manifesto meant to stir men’s
imaginations and quicken their pulses. “Let the Manes
of the Emperor repose in peace l’’ concludes the Prince.
“His memory spreads wider and wider every passing
THE WRITINGS OF THE PRINCE 245
day. Each wave that breaks on the rock of St. Helena
brings with the breath of Europe a homage to his
memory, a regret to his ashes; and the echo of Long-
wood repeats over his tomb, ‘The Free Nations of the
Earth will labour throughout the world to reconstruct
thy work.’”
In the Fragments Historiques, 1688–1830, written at
Ham in 1841, the Prince by means of English history
addressed an “acte d’accusation ” against the Govern-
ment of July. The book was in some measure a reply
to M. Guizot's recently written History of the English
Revolution, in which the eminent statesman sought to
establish a parallel between the revolution of 1688 and
that in Paris in 1830, and tried to show that the conduct
of a constitutional sovereign should be rather that of a
moderator or manager of diverse active influences in the
State than that of a leader of public opinion. The Prince
on the other hand proclaimed that the history of Eng-
land called loudly to monarchs, “March at the head of
the ideas of your age, and then these ideas will follow
and support you; if you march behind them they will
drag you on ; and if you march against them they will
certainly cause your downfall.” The Prince admired
the English Revolution and its hero, William III, but
is reluctant to admit the similarity between 1688 and
1830. “It would be easy,” he says, “on the prima-
facie view of the subject to reject any comparison of the
events which took place in the two countries, to show
that it was only the shadows of the two histories which
resembled each other, and to prove that, in the begin-
ning of the two first revolutions, English society differed
widely from the French. It would not be difficult to
prove that the Empire—that immortal monument of
civil and military glory—could not be compared, on any
point, with the sanguinary and bigoted Commonwealth;
and that the restoration of the Bourbons differs on many
246 LOUIS NAPOLEON
points from the return of the Stuarts.” After a brief
recital of the principal acts of William III's reign the
Prince comes to the point of his indictment against
Louis Philippe's Government, of which Guizot was now
head. “The policy of 1830 is not that of 1688: it is
totally opposed to it. It is not the system of William
III, but that of the Stuarts, which has been taken for a
model. The events of the eleven years which have
elapsed since 1830 are more like those which have pre-
ceded revolutions than those which have terminated
them.” These words seem now to be almost prophetic.
At any rate they indicate that the Prince's judgment
was not at fault, and that he read the signs of the times
better than his adversaries. In his preface to these
Fragments, dated from Ham, May 1841, he complains
of the Calumnies and false accusations that have been
made against him. “It is not my intention to renew
an argument in which the passions have always the
advantage over reason; I only wish to prove, in defence
of my honour, that if I rashly embarked on a stormy
ocean it was after having reflected seriously on the
causes and effects of revolutions, alike on the instability
of success and on the yawning abyss of shipwreck.
While in Paris the Emperor's mortal remains are deified,
his nephew is buried alive in a narrow cell. But I
smile at the inconsistency of man, and I thank Heaven
that, after such bitter trials, I am allowed an asylum
on French soil, even though that refuge be a prison.
Supported by an ardent faith and a pure conscience I
am resigned to my misfortunes, and I derive consola-
tion at the present moment from anticipating the future
fate of my enemies, which is written in indelible
characters in the history of nations.”
The Analysis of the Sugar Question (1842) was written
at a time when the advantages and disadvantages of the
manufacture of beetroot sugar in France were being
THE WRITINGS OF THE PRINCE 247
warmly discussed. The manufacture of beetroot sugar,
Supported by a high protective tariff, had been created
by Napoleon I. His nephew warmly espoused the
cause of the beetroot sugar makers, and they were so
grateful to the Prince for his help that they distributed
three thousand copies of his pamphlet amongst the
members of the Government, the Assembly, and the
general public. The main point of interest now lies in
the fact that at this time the Prince showed himself a
decided protectionist and the resolute adversary of the
liberal ideas which he afterwards carried out in the
Commercial Treaty of 1860. The pamphlet is indeed
an absolute contradiction of the commercial policy of
the Second Empire." The Napoleonic Idea again,
therefore, is no rigid principle based on the acts of the
first Emperor, and if the Prince is not blamed for chang-
ing his opinions in one direction neither should he be
for modifying them in another. For the closing words
of his preface to this pamphlet read rather strangely in
the light of what happened four years later. “How-
ever imperfect this treatise may be,” wrote the Prince,
“if it contributes to throw any light on discussion . . .
I will thank Heaven that it has allowed me, even in
captivity, to be useful to my country, as I thank it every
day for permitting me to be on French soil, the object
of all my affection, and which I would not quit for any
consideration, not even for that of liberty.”
In 1843 Lamartine having maligned the Emperor in
a letter to a deputy who proposed to publish a “French
Plutarch,” Louis Napoleon addressed a letter to the
* M. G. de Molinari, however, in his Wapoléon III, publiciste, Brussels,
1861, saw in the policy of 1860 no contradiction of the principles of the
author of L’Analyse de la Question des Sucres. The Prince had been a
“Progressive Protectionist,” and the Emperor's policy only substituted
moderate Protection, and not Free Trade, for Prohibition. Compare,
however, Cobden's views on Napoleon's “conversion” to Free Trade
principles.
248 LOUIS NAPOLEON
deputy in question (August 23, 1843) in which he vigor-
ously replied to the poet’s words, and which gave him
the opportunity for a fresh statement of his Napoleonic
faith. “Napoleon, by controlling the passions of the
people, made the truths of the French Revolution every-
where triumphant. . . . Napoleon had his faults and
his passions, but he will be for ever distinguished from
other sovereigns in the eyes of the masses because he
was the king of the people, while the others were the
kings of the nobles and the privileged classes. . . . As
Consul he established the principal blessings of the
Revolution in France; as Emperor he established them
all over Europe. His mission, which was at first purely
French, afterwards became universal.” Here, as in all
his writings, Napoleon stands out as the champion of
democratic interests in the struggle between the
European aristocracies and the principles of the
Revolution.
The chief interest of the pamphlet on The Extinction
of Pauperism (1844) is that it shows the Prince to have
had a real concern for social questions, and that he had
given them more than a casual or superficial attention.
His plan for extinguishing pauperism consisted in a
kind of marshalling of the working classes under the
guidance of the State : “a vast and colossal organiza-
tion du genre phalanstèrien, in which all personal liberty
and individual initiative would disappear.” ". Like most
schemes which seek to settle once and for all the ques-
tion of the unemployed it was a modification of socialist
or communist principles. The waste lands of France
were to be cultivated by an association of unemployed
labourers, the lands so occupied being formed into
agricultural colonies. The same problems are being dis-
cussed to-day and similar remedies put forward and tried,
but pauperism is not yet extinct. When on the throne the
* Thirria, I, 265.
THE WRITINGS OF THE PRINCE 249
Emperor never attempted to carry out the proposals put
forward in this pamphlet. The preface is dated from “the
fortress of Ham, May 1844,” and concludes with the
words, “I give my reflections to the public in the hope
that, if they are developed and put into practice, they
may tend to the relief of mankind. It is natural for
the unfortunate to think of those who suffer.” His
aspirations as a Social reformer are found in his conclud-
ing sentences: “Every man really endowed with love
for his fellow-creatures is desirous that justice should
at length be done to the working classes, who seem
deprived of all the advantages which civilization pro-
cures. . . . At present the reward of labour is a matter
of chance if not of oppression. The master oppresses
the workman, who revolts. By our method salaries
are fixed, as all human affairs should be regulated,
not by force, but by a just equilibrium between the
wants of those who work and the requirements of their
employers. Everything now centres in Paris, which
absorbs the whole industry of the country; our system,
without injuring the centre, reanimates the extremi-
ties, by setting in operation eighty-six new bodies
of workmen under the high protection of Government,
in the hope of constant improvement. . . . Let the
Government take a deep interest in all the great national
concerns, establish the welfare of the multitude on a
firm basis, and its own position will be firm. Poverty
will no longer be seditious when opulence is no longer
oppressive. . . . How great and holy is the mission,
and how worthy of inspiring man’s ambition, that con-
sists in mitigating evil passions, in healing wounds, in
calming the sufferings of humanity, in uniting the
citizens of one country in a common cause, and in
hastening a project which civilization must sooner or
later accomplish. . . . The object of all enlightened
governments should be to hasten the period when men
25O LOUIS NAPOLEON
may exclaim, ‘The triumph of Christianity has de-
stroyed slavery, the triumph of the French Revolution
has put an end to bondage, the triumph of democratic
ideas has caused the extinction of pauperism.’”
There is nothing very remarkable in the newspaper
articles which the Prince wrote during his captivity at
Ham. He discussed the questions of the day, and dealt
with problems of political, social economic interest, and
with military organization. Many of the views he then
held he later came to modify, but there is no reason to
doubt his sincerity at the time. A list of the articles
contributed to the Progrès du Pas de Calais and the
Guetteur de St. Quentin include such subjects as “The
Slave Trade and the Right of Search,” “The Relation
of France with the European Powers,” “The Parlia-
mentary Opposition,” “Army Reform,” “The French
Colonies in the Pacific Ocean,” “Peace or War,”
“Improvements in Parliamentary Manners and Cus-
toms,” “Church and State,” “The Nobility,” etc.,
etc. In electoral matters at this time he advocated
election in two degrees. It gave a people political
rights without the dangers and inconveniences of what
was usually termed universal suffrage. The two stages
in an election did not make the election the less demo-
cratic, because the people formed the base of the organ-
ization. These views he modified later on, however,
though for some time he was uncertain about the direct
application of universal suffrage. He was against a
policy of colonial expansion. “France cannot extend
its Empire to isolated points situated at the extreme
ends of the globe without serious inconvenience. In-
stead of scattering her forces she ought to concentrate
them; instead of lavishing her treasures she ought to
economize them, for the day may come when she will
want all her children and all her resources.” (June 14,
1841.) In discussing changes in parliamentary manners
THE WRITINGS OF THE PRINCE 251
and customs, he advocated the abolition of the tribune.
“In the English Parliament every one speaks from his
seat, and the custom permits the most humble talents
to make themselves heard without forcing them to make
a Set speech. The great disadvantage of the tribune is
that it only allows accomplished orators to speak, and
great orators are not often the most logical men, nor
do they best appreciate the merits of a question. With
a tribune lawyers generally carry off the palm. With-
out one every sensible man may exercise that influence
over his equals which an upright feeling, a just thought
expressed without Ostentation or superfluous phrase-
ology, always gives.” He also advocated the reading
of a bill three times in the Chamber before its passing
into law, and recommended the English custom of
“ pairing.” But though he admires many details of
English parliamentary government he combats its
general application to France as practised under the
Restoration and the Government of July. He con-
demned the system of recruiting the ministry only from
the Chamber, believing that it led to a struggle for
portfolios among the deputies. Parliament, to be
master, had no need to have the ministers recruited
solely from her own ranks. Ministers should be chosen
irrespective of their politics and for their official apti-
tude. “The political opinions of men are now every-
thing, their intrinsic worth, their special aptitude,
nothing. This is the great fault of our constitutional
organization.” In a word he advocated efficiency of ad-
ministration, even at the expense of political “liberty.”
The Prince's views on Church and State are interesting
in the light of recent events. He naturally believed in
the Concordat, but was fully cognizant of the diverg-
ing opinions, ideas and feeling between the Church and
State. The Church claimed the right of teaching the
young, yet the State claimed the sole right of directing
252 LOUIS NAPOLEON
public instruction. Each wished to influence the
coming generation in a different direction. But the
rupture of the ties which bound the clergy to the civil
power would not put an end to the discord. The
ministers of religion in France were, unfortunately, for
the most part opposed to democratic Opinions; and to
give them uncontrolled authority over the schools would
be to permit them to teach the people hatred of liberty
and of the Revolution. On the other hand, taking from
them their salaries would throw them all on to the
people again, and would force them again to exact the
tithes for their maintenance, to traffic in holy things,
and to leave the poor without that spiritual direction
which is to them a consolation in their misery." To
take from the clergy the support of the State would be
to exclude the poor from the Church. He saw in South
Germany a model of what he would have the French
clergy to be. If the University would cease to be
atheistic, the clergy would cease to be ultramontane.
If the most able and virtuous men were appointed to
preside over tuition irrespective of creed, the clergy
would mix with the people by receiving their education
from the same sources as the generality of the citizens.
“The south of Germany is unquestionably the place
where the Catholic clergy is the best instructed, the
most tolerant, and the most liberal, because the young
men of Germany destined for the pulpit learn theology
at the Universities in common with the students of
other professions. . . . The German clergy are, there-
fore, ready to sacrifice everything for the triumph of
liberty, for the independence of Germany. . . . Let,
then, religious education in France be conducted as
in Germany, and the same evangelical principles will
* The “democratic” policy of the Third Republic in both abolishing
the Concordat and forbidding the clergy to teach, does not appear to
have ever occurred to the mind of the future “destroyer of liberty.”
THE WRITINGS OF THE PRINCE 253
produce the same happy results.” (December 13,
I843.)
But if Germany was held up as an example in the
matter of the relation between the clergy and education,
it was even more so in regard to army reform.
Prince Louis Napoleon, says M. Thirria, “shows some-
thing like genius when he speaks of the reform of the
military organization.” More than a quarter of a century
before 1870 he sets up Prussia as a model to France.
Was not his responsibility, therefore, all the greater
when he was master in not having his ideas carried out 2
But in these opinions he stood almost, if not absolutely,
alone. He was not sufficiently powerful as Emperor to
carry out his own ideas in face of both the Chamber
and the nation. And in the days preceding the débâcle
scarcely anybody even admitted the necessity of
universal military service. Had the Emperor been
more absolute, perhaps the tale of 1870 would have been
something different from that which history has in-
scribed upon her pages. “One of the gravest re-
proaches which can be made against the Government,”
wrote the Prince (1843), “is that it has not taken ad-
vantage of the last twelve years of peace to institute a
military organization of the country so that France need
never fear an invasion. . . . It is not enough to-day for
a nation to have a few hundred knights clad in steel, or
thousands of mercenaries, in order to uphold its rank or
support its independence; it needs millions of armed
men. For when a war breaks out the nations struggle
with each other in masses, and when the fight has com-
menced the genius of the leader and the bravery of the
troops gain the victory; but organization alone resists
a defeat and saves the country. . . . It is our duty to
organize our forces, that we may be protected for ever
against invasion. We ought to profit by our misfor-
tunes and by the examples of other nations. . . . The
254 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Prussians knew how to profit by their reverses, and in
order that another Jena should not again ruin their
country in a day, they established the most perfect
military organization which has ever existed among
civilized nations. We also are living upon Our past
glory . . . we are defenceless. . . . This is a question
of our very existence; the problem to be resolved is
this : to resist a coalition France needs an immense
army of trained men; it needs, further, a reserve of
trained men in case of reverse. But as no state in the
world can, without exhausting its resources, constantly
maintain hundreds of thousands of men in active service,
a system ought to be invented which should offer the
greatest possible advantages in time of war, without
causing too heavy an expense in time of peace. . . . If
the Government be anxious to maintain the great inter-
ests of the country, it will endeavour to reduce the
expenditure by diminishing the number of the standing
army, and by considerably augmenting the reserve
forces; it will establish an arsenal in every great
territorial division, in order to arm the population in
case of invasion instead of placing all the military stores
and depôts of arms on the frontier. It will organize an
army in such a manner that it can in a short time, and
without expense, be placed on a war footing. . . . We
have an army, brave and efficient, no doubt, but which
consists only of 344,000 men, an insufficient number in
time of war and a ruinous burden to the country in time
of peace. . . . We need more than a year to place our
army on a war footing. . . . General Préval, who
revised the report of the commission [on the new law
on the recruiting of the army], has declared himself
opposed to any organization of a reserve. How can a
man so enlightened and So practical oppose a system
which presents so many advantages 2 When he speaks
of the military institutions of Prussia he takes care to
THE WRITINGS OF THE PRINCE 255
represent them as a yoke of iron Oppressing the popula-
tion, and as being opposed to French manners and
institutions, forgetting that the French nation is better
fitted than any other for supporting such institutions.
For the Prussian system is based on the most perfect
equality, and even on principles of democracy. It is,
no doubt, tyrannic, as all laws are which, adopting
great principles, inflict the same tax on all men, and
force rich and poor alike to pay their debt to their
country; but this tyranny of the law is the veritable
offspring (doit étre 1'apanage) of a democratic Society,
and in it consists true equality. . . . In democratic
France the Government is not sure enough of general
support to adopt such equalizing institutions (institu-
tions égalitaires) as those which have for thirty years
been the glory of monarchical Prussia. . . . Prussia,
with a population two and a half times less numerous
than that of France, can bring 530,000 trained soldiers
to defend the country in case of attack, and a beat of
the drum is sufficient to bring the troops together.
This system affords such immense advantages that they
outweigh all the errors of detail which may perhaps be
found. . . . The Prussian system merits our admiration
from a philosophical as well as a military point of view,
for it destroys all barriers between the citizen and the
soldier, and exalts the sentiments of every man by
making him feel that the defence of his country is his
first duty. . . . In Prussia the entire nation is armed
to defend the country . . . there are no substitutes.
The Prussian organization is the only one which suits
our democratic tendencies, our equalizing manners
(moeurs égalitaires) and our political situation, for it is
based on justice, equality, and economy, and has for
its object not conquest, but independence.”
On the subject of war the Prince wrote (November
1843): “War is often a necessity when one has a great
256 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Cause to defend, but on the contrary it is a crime to
wage it for a whim, without aiming at a great result,
without hoping for a great advantage. . . . Humanity
may permit the lives of millions of men to be staked on
the field of battle to defend national independence, but
it curses and condemns immoral wars, which kill men
with the object only of influencing public opinion
and of supporting an insecure government by futile
expedients.”
The future Emperor Napoleon III criticizing the
Government of Louis Philippe on account of its “unpro-
fitable expeditions '' is one of the ironies of history, and
his remarks on the Nobility (December 1843) read
strangely in the light of subsequent events. “We con-
sider it as inconsistent to create dukes without duchies,”
he wrote in the Progrès du Pas de Calais, “as to ap-
point colonels without regiments. For if nobility with
privileges is repugnant to our ideas, without privileges
it becomes ridiculous.”
The real mind of the Prince is to be found in his
written works, and it is strange that they should have
been so little known to the politicians of 1848, who
regarded him either as dull and wanting in intellect, or
as an indecipherable sphinx. He was neither the one
nor the other; but only here and there could any one
be found to read through that “triste mine'' of Louis
Napoleon’s to the real man beneath. A Swiss officer
addressed a letter to the Gazette de France in favour of
the Prince in December 1848, and spoke of his person-
ality and writings: “He has written on military
science, on politics, on history, on economic and in-
dustrial questions, and always with a marked superiority.
I am surprised that all this is so little known in France.”
But the more general attitude was that of Jules Simon,
who attacked the Prince in the press while confessing
that he had never read his works.
THE WRITINGS OF THE PRINCE 257
The more intimate and personal thought of Louis
Napoleon, together with what has been called the lyrism
of his nature, is, however, to be found in such pieces as
those entitled, “L’Exile,” “Aux mánes de l’Empereur,”
“La Captivité,” and “Le Credo.” “To you whom
happiness has made selfish,” writes the Prince in
“1’Exile,” “who have never suffered the torments of exile,
you think it is a light thing to rob men of their country !
Know then that exile is a continual martyrdom; it is
death, but not the glorious death of those who fall for
their country, nor the sweeter death of those whose life
was spent amid the charms of their domestic hearth, but
a consuming death, slow and terrible, which undermines
you and leads you noiselessly and unnoticed to a desert
tomb. In exile the air you breathe suffocates you, and
you live only on the faint breeze which comes from the
distant shores of the land of your birth. . . . O exile,
true pariah of modern Societies, if thou wouldst not
have thy heart broken every moment, thou must, as
Horace says, enfold thyself in thy virtues, and, thy
breast covered with triple brass, must be inaccessible to
all emotions. . . . Happy are they whose life is spent
among their fellow-citizens, and who, having served
their country with glory, die on the spot where they
were cradled. But woe to those who, beaten by the
waves of fate, are condemned to a wandering, aimless
life, and who, after having been everywhere in the way,
die in a foreign land, without a friend to weep over
their tomb.”
The “Credo ’’ is a long and fervent paraphrase of the
Catholic Creed, whilst the piece entitled “Captivité” is a
cry from the heart from his prison at Ham. “Love of
my country chases from my heart my human weak-
nesses, and even as I have regretted those who banished
me, and excused those who calumniated me, I now thank
those who have struck at me with a condemnation which
S
258 LOUIS NAPOLEON.
has brought my exile to a close. . . . Yet many times
when, after walking fifty steps in a straight line, a man
bars my passage, or when a letter which brings to me
expressions of sympathy arrives torn and open, I find
myself regretting the lake and the mountains where I
passed my childhood, the banks of the Arno where my
aged father lives, and the banks of the Thames where
for the first time I felt my liberty. . . . But I am
awakened from these remembrances and dreams by one
thought—I am in France. Then everything is changed.
I no longer see bars, or walls, or police; I only see the
Sun, and the people of my own country, and I pity all
those who cannot feel as I.”
“Louis Napoleon,” says one of his biographers,
“when he writes of his own feelings and opinions writes
well. He appears to have always been accustomed to
reflect upon the movements of his own mind, upon his
sensations, upon his hopes and fears. He is a reader of
Chateaubriand and of Jean Jacques Rousseau, and some-
times writes in the manner of one and sometimes in that
of the other.” Chateaubriand, indeed, had a great in-
fluence over the Prince, whose admiration for him both
as a writer and as a man was not ungrudgingly be-
stowed. But his style, if unconsciously influenced by
these or other writers, was his own, as his private corre-
spondence testifies. He was an excellent letter writer,
and expressed himself forcibly and naturally. The
short, terse, vigorous manner which he adopted in his
proclamations, manifestoes and speeches, and which he
borrowed no doubt from his uncle, gives place in his
intimate correspondence to an easy flow of language
and an abandonment of self, which are the essentials of
all good letter writing. He always had the exact word
to express the thought which was in his mind. He was
at one and the same time positive in his thought and
poetical in its expression. It has been truly said of him
THE writings OF THE PRINCE 250
that he was less a philosopher than an observer and a
thinker. Thought and observation are everywhere pre-
sent in his writings, but here, as in everything else, the
two sides of his nature show separately and distinctly,
yet ever trying to blend themselves in one conciliating
compromise. The writer of the Manual of Artillery in
exile was also the translator of Schiller in a prison cell.
Such works, however, as the Idees Napoléoniennes show
a commingling of both the practical and the ideal, and are
therefore little likely to wholly satisfy either the politician
on the one hand or the artist on the other.
CHAPTER XVI
THE FEBRUARY REVOLUTION.—THE PRINCE'S
FIRST ELECTION TO THE CHAMBER
(FEBRUARY-JUNE 1848)

HE several influences which had been
separately at work during the Restoration and
the Monarchy of July, tending towards a re-
establishment of the Napoleonic system,
began rapidly to approach each other in February 1848.
They did not, however, yet meet. The men who
actually made the Revolution did so almost uncon-
Sciously and with strange lack of foresight. Reform
and a change of ministry was all that they aimed at.
Electoral reform, indeed, was urged on the King with
the object of averting revolution. For beyond elec-
toral reform lay social reform, a different and far more
difficult thing. Electoral reform would make the way
clear for social reform without resort to violent and
revolutionary methods, a course which all but a hand-
ful of Jacobins and Republican enthusiasts, desired.
Guizot, who at the end of 1847 had been in power for
seven years, while opposed to the reformers, recognized
that they were a power with whom it would be politic
to deal. He could not consistently give way to their
demands, but he advised the King to change the
ministry and to adopt a new policy with fresh men. The
King, however, refused, and Guizot remained in office.
To read the history of the Revolution of February
26o
THE FEBRUARY REVOLUTION 261
hardly convinces one that the overthrow of the
Monarchy was in any way inevitable. Had Louis
Philippe had a statesman's grasp of the situation and
realized the way things were moving, had he been
firmer when the insurrection began, the revolutionary
elements need never have triumphed. Panic, however,
gave the victory to the mob, and, almost without the
nation being aware of it, the whole structure of the
July Monarchy collapsed, a Provisional Government
seized the reins of power, and a Republic was pro-
claimed. Nobody was prepared, and in the general
unpreparedness the Social Revolution, whose adherents
perhaps numbered less than those of any of the recog-
nized political parties, lifted up its head and for four
months dominated Paris and the provinces, till the
days of June brought the experiment to a bloody close.
The Second Republic, it has been truly said, lasted
really only for these four months. The days of June
gave back the power to the party of reaction, and
though nominally the Republic remained, the real need
and the manifest wish of the people was for order,
security, and a strong government.
The Provisional Government had proclaimed the
Republic, but under condition of approval by the
people. At the same time they declared that Monarchy
under every form was abolished “without possibility
of return.” Thus almost from the first something
very like an impossible situation was created. The
people were to be consulted as to whether the Republic
should be perpetuated, and yet what seemed its only
alternative was declared to be “abolished.” The
Republicans and socialists, indeed, feared the result of
an appeal to the country, and tried to put off the elec-
tions as long as possible. The elections, at first
arranged for April 9, were put forward to April 23,
but not before serious disturbances had taken place in
262 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Paris, the object of which was to delay as long as
possible this inevitable appeal to the country. The
Provisional Government was overawed and dominated
by the workmen of Paris. The “right of labour" had
been acknowledged, and the national workshops set
up. A labour commission was sitting at the Luxem-
bourg under the presidency of Louis Blanc, and labour
bureaux had been established at all the mairies in
Paris. The Government, according to its own declar-
ation, “belonged to the workmen.” The labour ques-
tion, in fact, dominated the situation, and the workers'
millennium then seemed to many of the visionary
socialists and revolutionary politicians of the day to
be within measurable distance of attainment. But the
cleavage between the political and the social revolution,
for a moment hardly visible, soon showed itself, and
from day to day grew wider. Socialism was confronted
with order. There were other questions to be con-
sidered than those which immediately concerned the
workmen of Paris. The Republicans who composed the
government, while fearing the appeal to the people,
knew it to be inevitable. The Revolution of February
had brought back to life the principle of the national
sovereignty, and had given it an extension which it
had never had before. It admitted direct election by
the people, while the first Revolution had only estab-
lished election in two degrees. It did not subordinate
the electorate, or eligibility of election, to any qualifi-
cation, either as ratepayer or property owner. Every
Frenchman of the age of twenty-one, who had not been
deprived of his civil rights, was an elector. This abrupt
change from the electoral system under Louis Philippe
threw the whole weight of political power in a single
moment from the middle class to the peasants and
workers. Instead of 200,000 voters there were now
eight millions, the greater number of whom lived on
THE FEBRUARY REVOLUTION 263
the land. It was the appeal to this vast body of unin-
Structed electors, who were known to be conservative
in thought and habit, that the socialists of the capital
dreaded. Yet the Republicans dared not but be true
to their own principles, even though they knew that
such fidelity would logically mean the death-blow of all
their hopes. They hoped for some door of escape from
a position in which everything was really contradictory
and chaotic, and in which rigid principles seemed only
to lead to results opposite to those that they desired.
It is not, however, the object of these pages to trace
the history of the Second French Republic, but rather
the part played during the year 1848 by Prince Louis
Napoleon in the drama which was to end with his
election as President, and the influences which helped
him, and indeed made his elevation to that position
nearly inevitable. The almost anarchical condition of
France, or at any rate of the French Government,
during that strange year, however, must be realized
before the Prince’s actions can be fully understood.
All was in flux, all was in transition. Nobody knew
whither they were going, and how the adventure would
end. For no greater political adventure has there ever
been than the February Revolution and the Provisional
Government of 1848. The Republicans were com-
promised from the very first by the party of revolution
that had helped them to power, and by the party of
reaction whose support was necessary to them if they
were to continue in power. The Monarchy had been
overturned against the will of the nation, but it was not
easy to set it up again. The party of reaction, triumph-
ant at the elections in April, hardly knew itself to be
such. Generally speaking it was pledged to the
Republic, but at heart most of its members were
Monarchists of one shade or another. M. Pierre de
Coubertin has pointed out the extreme interest of this
264 LOUIS NAPOLEON
election in the political history of nineteenth-century
France. “This brief period * (February to June 1848),
he writes, “is perhaps the only one which enables us
to judge the French citizen in his complete independ-
ence, and see of what stuff he is made. In 1830, when
he accepted Royalism in the person of Louis Philippe;
in 1852, when he signified his approval of the restora-
tion of the Empire, he was not a free agent, for he
found himself confronted by the accomplished fact, and
nothing was required of him but his formal sanction.
In 1814, again in 1815, and in 1870, when he helped
to bring new governments to birth, it was in the face
of the enemy; he saw his fatherland invaded; the pres-
sure of circumstances was too great for him. But in
1848 all was changed; there was no foreign danger on
his frontiers, and within the way was clear. True, the
Republic already existed, but it existed only in name;
the French citizen was absolutely free to organize that
republic after his own fashion, to steer the ship accord-
ing to his good will and pleasure; and from the very
beginning his first duty was to restore order and safety,
as it was his first care. He proved it by the singular
eclecticism he displayed in his electoral preferences;
everything was done that could be done to make him
waver in his resolution. The dangers of a return of
the Monarchy were perpetually dinned into his ears;
attempts were made to corrupt his good faith by dis-
playing before him the most seductive pictures of the
delights of Communism; when seduction failed intimi-
dation was tried, but he knew what he wanted too well.
What he wanted was to restore order, and for this work
he sought out men whom he knew, whose past his-
tory or whose social position offered him sufficient
guarantees.” "
To restore order, that was the need of the hour.
Pierre de Coubertin, France since 1814, pp. 156–157.
THE FEBRUARY REVOLUTION 265
Democracy was triumphant, but without authority and
order all the mistakes of the first Revolution would be
likely to be repeated again. The nation, almost with-
out knowing it, was giving expression to the first article
of the Napoleonic creed—liberty and authority. A
strong and, if possible, a free government must be
founded, but above all the way must be barred against
the revolution. The Napoleonic Idea seemed to
emerge naturally from the chaos of the Revolution of
February.
Yet during these first two months of disorder and
unrest, Prince Louis Napoleon, who in quieter times
had attempted forcibly to put his name before the
people, remained singularly quiet and inactive." His
unpreparedness in February at least attested his fidelity
to the promise he had given to engage in no further
plots or conspiracies. Both Strasburg and Boulogne
had had for their object the giving back to France the
right to choose her own form of government. That
right was now to be given to the country without
the Prince so much as lifting his finger to bring it
about. The cause to which he had devoted himself was
triumphant. He could afford to wait.
But to wait is a singularly difficult game to play,
and it is always a moot point whether the success or
failure which comes to a man by reason of his having
adopted the policy of inaction is due really to his
wisdom or foolishness, or to something which may be
styled Providence or Fate. Louis Napoleon thought
1 The “propaganda” of M. Aristide Ferrère had no doubt a certain
importance, but scarcely that attributed to it by its author, who, in after
years, feeling that his services had not been sufficiently valued, wrote a
book entitled, Révélations sur la propagande napoléonienne faite en 1848 et
1849 pour servir à l'histoire secrète des élections du prince Mapoléon-Louis
Bonaparte (Turin, 1863). Ferrère was a banker. He first established
relations with the Prince in London in 1846.—Lebey, Louis AWapoléon et la
Révolution de 1848, I, I49–152.
266 LOUIS NAPOLEON
he read the signs of the times in 1848, and was pre-
pared to bide his hour. Events justified his inaction.
General Boulanger thought too that he could read the
signs of the times in 1889, and by his scrupulous con-
duct in seeking only legal means to arrive at power lost
all. Power to read the signs of the times aright is,
then, the first quality needed to achieve success in such
paths as Louis Napoleon was now treading, and that
power can only be gauged and tested by the ultimate
result. Had a stronger personality than his own
arisen out of the chaos of that revolutionary spring
and summer in France, the public career of the Prince
might then and there have ended, at the moment when
really it was only just to begin.
Though the Prince, then residing in London, was
overwhelmed with letters from all parts of France as
soon as the Republic was proclaimed, there does not
seem to have been any seriously organized Bonapartist
movement in Paris at the time, and Odilon Barrot states
in his Memoirs that there was never a cry or a mani-
festation made in the capital in favour of Napoleon.
Nevertheless, as soon as the news of the fall of the July
Monarchy reached London, the Prince started for Paris
immediately,” and arrived there on the day after the
Revolution, putting up at the house of his friend
Vieillard in the Rue Sentier.” From there he wrote to
the Provisional Government, announcing that “he
hastened back to place himself under the flag of the
* The details of the Prince's journey to Paris are given by Orsi, who
accompanied him. Another version, by Persigny, is given in An
Anglishman in Paris, but the two narratives disagree in many particulars.
Orsi makes the Prince travel by Calais, and Persigny by Boulogne.
Yet both writers profess to have accompanied the Prince. Orsi's
narrative is probably the more to be relied on, as it is first-hand, while
that of Persigny comes to us through the rather doubtful channel of the
Mr. Vandam's Dutch uncles.
* Ollivier, II, 89. Orsi says the Prince went to the Hôtel des Princes,
in the Rue de Richelieu.
THE FEBRUARY REVOLUTION 267
Republic.” The Government replied by ordering him
to leave the territory within twenty-four hours. He
offered no resistance. “You think,” he wrote in reply
(February 29), “that my presence in Paris at this
time would be an embarrassment; I, therefore, retire for
the present. You will see in this sacrifice the purity
of my intentions and of my patriotism.” Crossing to
Folkestone on March 2, he returned to England and
remained there till September. With consummate
wisdom, he left to time the task of overcoming all his
difficulties, and his very withdrawal, by its removing him
from all possible connection with the troubles which
gathered round the head of the Provisional Govern-
ment in its policy in regard to labour and their ultimate
consummation in the days of June, helped rather than
damaged his cause. He did not even present himself
as a candidate for the Constituent Assembly on April
23. So long as the constitution remained unfixed his
rôle would be difficult, if not actually dangerous. For
good or ill his antecedents seemed to make him the
chief of a party, and exposed him to intrigues. He
himself had intrigued at other times, but now, when
he might have been expected to plunge once more
into that troubled sea, he kept himself aloof from
anything like conspiracy or action of any kind other
than what was perfectly in order and practised by all
parties. His friends, however, were at work in Paris.
In April a Bonapartist committee was formed by
Persigny, Laity, and others who had been with the
Prince at Strasburg and Boulogne. Still, they were
only a handful of men, and their influence cannot have
been very great. The Prince conceived it best to pro-
long his exile for a few more months, an exile which,
now it was voluntary and events were marching in
France, was no longer painful to him." But he felt it
1 It was during this time of waiting in London that he fulfilled, on
268 LOUIS NAPOLEON
necessary to prepare a way for his reappearance, and
between the General Election of April 23 and the sup-
plementary elections on June 4, he addressed a letter,
intended for publication, to M. Vieillard, setting forth
his reasons, as given above, for not presenting himself
to the electors.
In his letter to the Provisional Government he had
spoken of his desire to place himself under the flag
of the Republic. He accepted that form of government
together with the rest of the nation. His devotion to
the republican form of government we have seen to
be sincere enough in theory. His own personal politi-
cal opinions were entirely in accord with Republican
ideas, but the Republic that he desired and hoped for
was a republic founded on Napoleonic ideas, with
himself as president, or consul; better still under the
form of a second Empire of which he would be the
chief. He spoke of being without other ambition than
that of serving his country, and was probably sincere
in so doing. Yet in his soul he must have felt some-
thing stirring which marked him out for a part other
than that of a “simple soldier of the Republican army.”
But like all the other democratic thinkers of the time,
whether Republican or Monarchist at heart, he was
pledged to abide by the declared will of the people,
and there is nothing to prove that had that will declared
itself strongly against his theory of government, he
would not have adapted himself to the new situation.
Towards the middle of May the rumour was circu-
lated of a decree to banish the Orleans family and
possibly the Bonapartes—at any rate Prince Louis
April 10 (the day of the threatened Chartist insurrection), the duties of a
special constable, along with many of the principal inhabitants and even
members of the aristocracy. His “beat” was in Piccadilly, from Park
Lane corner to Dover Street. This incident, as before stated, has given
rise to the legend that Prince Louis Napoleon, in the days of his
adversity, was a policeman in the streets of London.
---L--APC----
NA-L-E.--- PLE-RE 1-UC-1-N. M. Lº-
THE FOUR NEPHEws of THE EMPER or NApoleon, 1848
* * *tºgraph ºr A. Carrºre in the Coºcºon of M. M. Broad/ey, Esq.

FIRST ELECTION TO THE CHAMBER 269
Napoleon. This drew from him a letter of protest to
the Assembly (May 24), for only by such means could
he keep his name before the people. Banishment was
decreed against Louis Philippe and his family, but
not against the Bonapartes. “The Bonaparte family,”
said one speaker in a debate in the Chamber, “ has
to-day only the signification of an historic value '' (n'a
plus que la signification d’une valeur historique). But
the laws of proscription of 1816 and 1832 still remained
unabrogated. It was true they were disregarded.
Already under Louis Philippe, as we have seen, King
Jerome and his son had been allowed to take up their
residence in Paris—but only as a matter of grace.
After February, however, the Bonapartes were free to
return, and on April 23, three members of the family,
cousins of Louis Napoleon (Prince Napoleon,” son of
Jerome, Pierre Bonaparte,” son of Lucien, and Lucien
Murat 9), had been elected representatives of the people.
But the Bonapartes were not satisfied, and demanding
the abrogation of the laws of proscription, the Chamber
which had just decreed the exile of one royal family,
On June 2 opened the doors of France to another. After
thirty-two years of exile and proscription, the Bona-
parte family was allowed to enjoy the rights of French
citizens.
Two days after the Chamber had taken this course,
Prince Louis Napoleon was elected in three depart-
ments to sit among its members. His election was
quite spontaneous. He had not offered himself in any
department, but in the Seine (Paris), Charente-Infé-
rieure, and Yonne, he was returned with a plurality of
* Born September 9, 1822. His baptismal name was Joseph Charles
Paul Bonaparte, but he was always known as Prince Napoleon.
* Born 1815. He was nominated chef de bataillon in the Foreign Legion
on April 19.
* Son of Murat, King of Naples, and Caroline Bonaparte, Napoleon s
youngest sister. Born 1803.
27o LOUIS NAPOLEON
votes, and he polled a considerable number in two
other departments." The Chamber probably knew of
his candidature, at any rate that in Paris, when they
decreed the abrogation of the law of proscription, but did
not regard it as serious. The effect of the election of
June 4 was, however, the greater for its being quite
spontaneous. “A week ago,” said Proudhon, “the
citizen Bonaparte was only a spot in the flaming
heavens; to-day he is a cloud charged with lightning
and tempest.” In Paris the Prince was elected by
84,420 votes, though he was fifth on the poll and last
but one on the list of elected deputies. Victor Hugo
and Thiers stood above him with 86,960 and 97,394
votes respectively.”
Yet this result had been achieved in the capital by
little more than a few indifferent, small-sized placards,
and an intelligent distribution of bills near to the
polling places. Not a single newspaper mentioned his
candidature. But the unanimous silence of the press
was powerless to prevent the Prince’s name coming
triumphantly from the urns. It was not till June 8
that the results of the elections were publicly proclaimed
in Paris though the figures were previously known, and
then the Prince's name was in every one's mouth. It
was received with acclamation by the crowd in front
of the Hôtel de Ville. The press had said very little
about the Prince immediately after the election. The
Gazette de France almost alone had mentioned him.
But with the public proclamation all was changed, and
his name ran like a fired train of powder through Paris.
His election, about which nothing at first had been
* Eure and Sarthe.
* Seine election, June 4, 1848: Caussidière, 157,000; Changarnier,
Io5,539; Thiers, 97,394 ; Victor Hugo, 86,960 ; Louis Bonaparte, 84,420;
Pierre Leroux, 67,000. (Thirria, I, 278.) The figures are given differently
by Lord Normanby : A Year of Revolution, I, 454.
FIRST ELECTION TO THE CHAMBER 271
said, became the object of all conversation. The name
of Napoleon flew from mouth to mouth. Hencefor-
ward it filled the press. In a moment the Prince had
achieved a position in the provinces, where before he
was almost unknown. It is difficult to explain the
reason of this sudden change in the attitude of the
nation. Greatness seemed literally to be thrust upon
the man who before had apparently striven for it in
vain. The importance he had achieved in a few hours
has been described by one of his biographers as “one
of the most curious, striking, and unbelievable pheno-
mena in our history.” +
The enthusiasm shown by the people at the Hôtel
de Ville when the success of Louis Napoleon was
announced, made a great impression on the Assembly.
Crowds waited outside on June Io with the object of
seeing the Prince, whose absence from Paris was not
generally known. Troops were massed in the Place
de la Concorde and before the Chamber. The crowd
waited till late in the afternoon, but there was no dis-
turbance. No one was sure where the Prince was; but
his appearance, expected by many, would not have
surprised any one.
On June Io the Executive Commission, which had
been appointed in May after the election of the
Assembly, met at the Luxembourg and decided that
measures of urgency should be presented to the
Chamber against the election of the Prince. When
the matter was discussed two days later (June 12), in
face of repeated manifestations in the street in the
Prince’s favour, the Government decided to enforce the
law of banishment against Louis Napoleon, as a
measure of precaution, but it was generally under-
stood that such a proscription would be temporary.
Prince Napoleon protested against coupling the name
* Thirria, I, 279.
272 LOUIS NAPOLEON
of his cousin with the disturbances in the streets, and
indeed these seem to have been the work of socialists
and other revolutionaries who merely used the Prince's
name as an incitement to the working-men of Paris
to insurrection. The Bonapartist Committee put out a
proclamation calling on the workmen not to be misled
by those who were thus using the name of Napoleon.
Nevertheless, the manifestations continued. Crowds
formed before the Chamber and on the Place de la
Concorde, and there were cries of “Vive Napoléon.”
Placards and biographies of Louis Napoleon were cir-
culated freely. The Prince himself remained a perfect
stranger to all these proceedings. He watched from
London the progress of events. His name and the
activity of his little band of friends were enough for the
present. The attention of the people had been caught.
The resolution and faith of past years was being
justified.
On June 13, however, the Chamber voted by a large
majority the validity of the Prince's election. In the
debate that preceded the vote, the conflict of opinion
was between what may be called the ideal Republicans
and the practical statesmen. Every one recognized the
possible danger to the Republic of the presence in the
Chamber of the heir of the Emperor, and men like
Ledru Rollin boldly said, “It is better to prevent
troubles; we cannot allow ourselves to be influenced by
sentiment.” Louis Blanc and Jules Favre, however,
were for admitting the Prince. To Louis Blanc the
time for Emperors and Kings had gone for ever.
Jules Favre, who was the reporter on the Charente
Inférieure election (where the Prince had been elected
by 23,022 votes), maintained that the law of 1832 was
abrogated by this vote. “The Prince,” he said, “is
no longer a simple citizen, or a pretender, he is a repre-
sentative of the people.” The importance of the
FIRST ELECTION TO THE CHAMBER 273
Prince's name, he urged, had been much overestimated.
The State could not be overturned by the “breath of
a pigmy.” Louis Bonaparte in France would be a
private citizen, Louis Bonaparte sent back into exile
would take with him the suffrages of thousands of
electors. It was less dangerous to admit him.
This view of Favre's was very commonly held. The
press was divided, but there was an almost complete
unanimity as to the personal insignificance of the
Prince. The Siècle thought that a pretender seen at
near view would be less dangerous than one at a dis-
tance. The Patrie thought the same, and relied on
the poor appearance that the Prince would make if once
in the Chamber. He was generally represented as
something near to an imbecile, and was judged from
the standard of Strasburg and Boulogne. The
Charivari pronounced that he had done nothing, and
was known only as a Swiss captain. Nobody in Paris
at this date seemed in the least degree to recognize
Louis Napoleon’s really exceptional abilities. The
strength of his name among the workmen was admitted,
but it was believed that once he appeared before them
the people would be disillusioned. There was much
talk about the Empire, but very little belief in it.
“The Empire,” said one newspaper, “is a great
poem.” The recent vote had been given to an idea,
not to a man. The strength of the Napoleonic Idea was
unconsciously admitted in such words, but there was
no belief that the Prince had any power to transform
the idea into a concrete reality.
Those who opposed the admission of the Prince to
sit in the Assembly relied simply on the argument of
expediency. They were opportunists, but their vision
was clear and they saw far. Honest opponents of any-
thing like the Napoleonic Idea or a Napoleonic restor-
ation, their one object was to bar the way to the advent
T
274 LOUIS NAPOLEON
of either. They gauged the feeling of the nation per-
haps as accurately as the Prince himself, but feared it,
and believed it would lead to all that they held to be harm-
ful to the State. The Prince was a pretender, and if he
was admitted to the Chamber he would be accompanied
by the acclamations of the people, which would grow
from day to day. Despite such warnings, however,
with its eyes open and fully cognizant of the “danger,”
the Assembly voted the admission of the Prince.
The decision of the Executive Commissioners the
previous day to enforce the law of exile had been
accompanied with an order for the Prince’s arrest if
he set foot in France. At the very moment, therefore,
that the Chamber admitted the validity of his election,
he was proscribed by the very Government which
opened the door for his return. The Executive had,
therefore, no other course open to it but to withdraw the
ofder for arrest. Warrants were also out for the arrest
of Persigny, Laity, and other Bonapartists at this time,
but no prosecutions were instituted, doubtless because
of the decision of the Assembly regarding the Prince.”
A few days after the elections of June 4, Bonapartist
newspapers began to appear. Being spread broadcast
over the country they had a certain influence, though
this has probably been exaggerated, and they were
either subsequently suppressed or died a quiet and
natural death. Crowds still waited daily in hopes to
see the Prince, who, of course, never came. But his
very absence created a great and growing interest.
Everywhere there was suppressed agitation and nervous
excitement. Louis Napoleon began more and more to
take a place of importance in the public mind. The
* An official description of the Prince at this time, as given on the
order for his arrest, is interesting. His height is stated to be 1 m. 70.
Other characteristics were : “chestnut hair and eyebrows, small grey
eyes, large nose, medium mouth, thick lips, brown beard, light moustache,
pointed chin, oval face, pale complexion.”
FIRST ELECTION TO THE CHAMBER 275
Débats spoke of the possibility of France's falling under
the “dictatorship of a souvenir,” a phrase which in the
light of the Napoleonic enthusiasm of the days of Louis
Philippe was full of meaning and conveyed both a
prophecy and a warning.
In the midst of this agitation, produced without any
effort on his part, the Prince addressed a letter to the
National Assembly. He had already once before
addressed them (May 23), protesting against the pro-
posed retention of the law of exile, but his letter had
been refused a hearing. On June 14, however, he
wrote from London a letter little calculated to lay
the fears which had been roused, although it
pretended to do so. It was menacing rather than
submissive. “I have not sought the honour of being
elected a representative of the people,” wrote the
Prince, “because I was aware of the injurious suspi-
cions of which I was the object. Still less should I
seek for power. Should the people impose duties
upon me, I should know how to fulfil them. But I
disavow all those who attribute to me intentions which
I do not hold. My name is a symbol of order, or
nationality, of glory, and it would be with the liveliest
grief that I should see it made use of in augmenting
the troubles and dissensions of my country. In order
to avoid such a misfortune I shall prefer remaining in
exile. I am ready to make any sacrifice for the happi-
ness of France.” + This letter produced a very bad
impression. Cavaignac was indignant because the word
Republic did not occur in it. At the phrase “Should
the people impose duties upon me I should know how
to fulfil them,” there were cries of anger and protesta-
tion. If the friends of the Prince had not obtained an
adjournment of the debate, some violent measure would
1 This letter is the first signed “Louis Napoleon Bonaparte” since
the death of his brother in 1831. See p. 6.
27 LOUIS NAPOLEON
have been decreed against him. Made aware of the
bad effect of this letter, the Prince without hesitation
repaired his error by a second (June 15), in which sacri-
ficing the present to the future and to prevent a new
proscription, he resigned his seats while expressing his
regret at being obliged to do so. By the reading of
this second letter, in which, as a reply to Cavaignac
he had made special mention of his desire for a “wise,
great, and enlightened Republic,” the storm was
calmed, and the Assembly passed on to the order of
the day. This second letter was a master stroke on the
Prince’s part. If it did not actually inspire confidence
in him it allayed fears, and, what was perhaps better
for him, made the Chamber forget him."
1. It has been said that Louis Napoleon was in Paris at this time, and
that he stayed first at a house in the Rue Basse du Rempart, afterwards
in the Rue de Varennes. M. Thirria asks how could a letter from the
Prince be read in the Chamber on June 16, referring to one read there
the day before, if the Prince were in London 2 M. Thirria and M.
Lebey date the first of these letters June 14 and the second June 15.
But Jerrold and other writers (Works, I, 90) date the first letter June 11,
the same day as the address of thanks to the electors of Paris, which
was placarded on the walls. If the first letter was read only on June
15, it seems impossible that the Prince in London could have written
the second letter the same day; and yet it is said to have been delivered
to the President of the Assembly on June 16 by M. Frédéric Briffault,
the author of Zhe Prisoner of Ham, who arrived in Paris from London
only two hours before. Lord Normanby also gives June 16 as the day
the second letter was read, and the date of it June 15. But the news of
the debate on June 15 could not have reached the Prince in London the
same day. Were his letters written from Paris? The story as given by
M. Aristide Ferrère would make the second letter to have been read on
June 17. He tells how he left Paris in the evening of the day the first
letter was read, saw the Prince in London the next morning, and per-
suaded him to write a second letter, which Briffault carried back to
Paris, leaving the same night at 8.30 and arriving in Paris the next
morning. This leaves a whole day between the reading of the two
letters. M. Lebey, who quotes Ferrère's account, says, in a note, that
Briffault delivered the second letter to the President of the Assembly on
June 16. But this could not be unless the first was read on June 14.
Unless there is a confusion of dates, there seems to have been sufficient
reason for the belief that the Prince was in Paris. There is, however,
another explanation. It is possible, and has, indeed, been so averred,
-----
5. R. Sºon, ºº, H. T. Ryº, sº
Louis NApoleon IN 1848
**on an ºngºish ºrthograph in the Collection of A. M. Broad/ey, Esq.

FIRST ELECTION TO THE CHAMBER 277
Notwithstanding the Prince's resignation of his seats
in the Chamber the Bonapartist campaign continued.
The Bonapartist papers began to talk of Louis Napoleon
as a candidate for the Presidency of the Republic.
“The French people want neither King nor Emperor,
but they want at the head of the government a citizen
with an immense popularity.” The Prince, they said,
was marked out by Providence to be the Chief of the
State. As yet, however, the constitution was in the
melting-pot. A commission of eighteen members,
which included Tocqueville, Lamennais, Odilon Barrot,
and Armand Marrast, had already decided to recom-
mend that the President of the Republic should be
elected directly by the people, but it was by no means
certain that the Chamber would adopt the recommend-
ation of the commission. The decision of the com-
mission was arrived at some days before the election
of the Prince in June. The day after (June 5) some
one more clear-sighted than the rest brought up the
matter again, but it had been voted and it was passed
Over. The report of the commission on the constitu-
tion, however, did not come before the Assembly till
August 29, and the discussion belongs to a later date
in the autumn. In the first half of June Paris had
Other things to think about. People were in a nervous
state. A social revolution was feared, and not without
reason. The policy of the national workshops had
broken down. It was the eve of the “days of June,”
and there was only one idea in people’s minds: to put
a strong man at the head of the Republic as soon as
possible. It was this nervous fear that made this first
half of the month a time of Napoleonic recrudescence.
Crowds on the boulevards and in front of the Hôtel de
that the Prince wrote the second letter spontaneously the day after the
first, foreseeing the bad impression it would produce. The incident is
not at all clear, as the accounts of it differ.
278 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Ville cried “Vive Napoléon,” and even “Vive 1’Empe-
reur.” The Prince's portrait appeared in the shop win-
dows with the legend LUI l It was He who was needed."
People felt that there was no government. They were
afraid. Louis Napoleon appeared suddenly as a plank
of Safety, and the only one. The Empire was spoken
of as a possible, and in some places even a probable,
event.” The name of Napoleon had restored hope, if
not confidence. But it is a mistake to think that the
name alone could do this. Ledru Rollin, in the debate
On the law of proscription, had drawn a distinction be-
tween the three members of the Bonaparte family then
in the Chamber and the son of Hortense. The others,
he said, were “without antecedents,” and in that phrase
lay now the secret of the Prince's power. The mere
name of Napoleon could have achieved nothing without
a man to bear it who was the inheritor not only of the
Emperor’s blood, but of his spirit.
A further election of the Prince for the department
of Corsica drew from him a second letter of resignation,
in which, without renouncing the idea of the honour
of being one day a representative of the people, he
considered it his duty to wait before returning to France
till his presence there might not in any way serve as a
pretext for the enemies of the Republic. This was on
July 8. But before that date, all these things had been
forgotten in the terrible days of June. For a moment—
and for much more than a moment—the Bonapartist
agitation ceases. The Prince is no more talked about.
It is not till August 15 that the name of Napoleon is
* Orsi, Recollections of the Last Half-Century, p. 241.
* Lord John Russell wrote to Queen Victoria on June 14: “An
Emperor with a National Constitution might be a fair termination of the
French follies; but Louis Napoleon, with the Communists, will probably
destroy the last chance of order and tranquillity. A despotism must be
the end. May Heaven preserve us in peace l"—Letters of Queen Victoria,
II, 211.
FIRST ELECTION TO THE CHAMBER 279
found mentioned again in the newspapers, when refer-
ence is made to the service at the Invalides in honour of
the Emperor."
* Thirria, I, 333. In London, however, where Louis Napoleon was
living, Punch found space during this period for jokes at the Prince's ex-
pense. On July 1, under the title “The Brummagem French Emperor,”
it is announced that arrangements have been made for a new expedition
to France. But ‘‘some difficulty has been experienced in finding an
Imperial eagle warranted not to be sick at sea.” In the same number
appears this jeu d'esprit: “WANT PLACES, etc. As Emperor or President,
in a place where a large standing army is kept, by a young man of
Imperial principles, who can be well recommended—by himself. Is
willing to revive the glories of the Empire, and to make Europe
generally uncomfortable. References to respectable conspirators in
Boulogne and Strasburg. Was six years in his last situation—the
fortress of Ham. Letters, post paid, to be addressed to Louis Napoleon,
Poste Restante, London.’
CHAPTER XVII
THE PRINCE'S SECOND ELECTION TO THE
CHAMBER
(SEPTEMBER 1848)

MONTH after the Fête Of Concord had been
celebrated, Paris was in the throes of a civil
war. The decree which practically abol-
ished the national workshops was the signal
of insurrection. A deputation of workmen was told
that if the labourers did not voluntarily submit to the
decree they would be expelled from Paris. The
Assembly was now face to face with the men of the
Social Revolution, and for four days blood flowed in
the streets of the capital. “The days of June were the
natural, not to say the legitimate explosion of a people
misled and duped by the most fallacious promises and
illusions.” 1 But the men who had made these promises
were the Republican and socialist leaders whom the
events of February had brought into political promin-
ence, not the men elected by the nation in April. The
result of the appeal to the country had beyond all doubt
shown what were the real sentiments of the French
people. The Assembly included all the principal
statesmen of the last reign, with the exception of Guizot
and Thiers.” The majority of the representatives were
united in a patriotic resolution to defend society and
* Coubertin, France since 1814, p. 162.
* “Cette petite république,” a lady is reported to have said, “est
bien respectable.”
28o
SECOND ELECTION TO THE CHAMBER 281
Save the country. There was no running away from
the battle, no surrender to the mob. The struggle was
fought out to the bitter end and the victory dearly
bought. Among the troops were counted 900 killed
and 2,000 wounded; no estimate could be formed of the
losses of the insurgents. Some Io,000 to 12,000 persons
were transported without trial to the colonies.
The Republic was killed by the Republicans. Had
there been no insurrection of June, had the Republicans
been content to bide their time and profit by the mis-
takes of their adversaries, the Republic might have
been founded by conservatives and Monarchists in the
years following 1848, as later it was in the seventies.
The Royalist party had thrown its strength at this
time on the side of a conservative Republic, but the
rebellion of June marked in the public mind the begin-
ning of a rapid reaction which had its effect on the
Assembly itself. A commission was appointed to
examine into the acts of the Provisional Government,
and all that had been done since February 24. The
result of the inquiry threw great discredit on the
Republic. “The great mass of the French nation was
ripe for a prompt restoration of the Monarchy—a modi-
fied monarchy, which would be neither that of the
ancien régime nor that which France had overturned
but four months ago.”.” No one as yet, however, dared
to propose a return to monarchy. The Republican
Constitution must be proceeded with. In the meantime
General Cavaignac was called to the Supreme power,
and had he been more ambitious and less scrupulous
could at that moment have held France in the hollow
of his hand. Later, when pity for the vanquished
followed on a sense of happier security, he was remem-
bered as the victor in the bloody days of June, and the
severity with which the bourgeois Republic had treated
* Coubertin, op. cit., p. 166.
282 LOUIS NAPOLEON
the insurgents, produced even among those who had
taken no part in the rebellion a feeling of compassion
and revolt. It is curious to remember that the state
of siege established for the dictatorship of General
Cavaignac was maintained during nearly the whole
time in which the new Republican Constitution was
being discussed and voted by the Assembly." The
liberties of the country, it has been truly said, were
thus at the mercy of a military authority.
The Bonapartist recrudescence of June, as we have
already stated, seemed to sink as suddenly as it had
flared up. The elections of June 4 were almost forgot-
ten.” Prince Louis Napoleon remained in London at
his house in King Street, in a state of inaction. His
reserve made his friends in Paris impatient. “They
want to see you,” wrote Persigny, “they are asking
for you, calling for you, and we are waiting for you.”
Had he been simply a personally ambitious man, he
would have thrown himself at once into the current of
affairs, and presented himself to the country with the
ensign of reaction in his hands. But the country was
probably more reactionary than he, and a coup de
main at this early date was far from his thoughts.
A series of supplementary elections to the Assembly
were to take place in September. After his former
* The state of siege was raised on October 19. The debate on the
Constitution began on September 4 and ended November 4.
* On August 14 Lord Normanby wrote: “On the first of June who
would have supposed that before the middle of that month he [Louis
Napoleon] could become a future hope for many, an imminent danger
for others? And who, after all this had been realized, would have
dreamt that before the end of the month the dreadful events with which
his enemies so cruelly attempted, though in vain, to connect him, would
obliterate, for the time, all recollection of his existence, so that his
repeated resignation of another seat to which he had been elected
[Corsical passed almost without observation? Whether he may again
appear among the probable contingencies of the future must much
depend upon the manner and the moment of his first appearance here.”
—A Year of Revolution, II, 159.
SECOND ELECTION TO THE CHAMBER 283
resignation and his two months’ subsequent voluntary
exile, the Prince thought that he might once again
appear on the political scene. But the way must first
be prepared. At the end of August he wrote a letter
to his uncle Jerome and another to General Piat, one
of his supporters in Paris, both of which letters were
inserted in the néwspapers. In those letters he refers to
his name having been made the pretext for agitation.
But it must not be made so any longer. He must now,
therefore, return to France and take his seat amongst
the representatives of the people, “whose desire it is to
organize the Republic on wide and solid foundations.”
Far from it being his desire to associate himself with
the party of reaction, the Prince seems to have wished
to assure himself of the help of the democratic party
and even of the socialists. At the beginning of Septem-
ber, he paid a visit to Louis Blanc, then living in
London at the Brunswick Hotel, Jermyn Street," and
tried to convince him that his only desire, his unique
ambition, was to serve the Republic, that he was entirely
devoted to the cause of the people, and that on Social
questions his views were not unlike those of the radical
leader. Louis Blanc afterwards declared that the lan-
guage which the Prince used on this occasion so little
suggested the idea of the Empire, that looking back he
could only regard this London visit of the Prince’s
as a dream. Louis Napoleon’s absence from Paris
during the days of June was an advantage to him, the
value of which the Prince fully recognized.
The supplementary elections were to take place on
September 17. The Prince’s candidature was brought
forward in many places. There was not the same silence
concerning him as there had been three months pre-
viously, but even yet the newspapers did little more than
1 Louis Blanc, Révélations historiques, and Histoire de la République de
1848; quoted by Lebey, Louis Mapoléon et la révolution de 1848, II, 17.
284 LOUIS NAPOLEON
mention the fact of his seeking election. Their atti-
tude was strictly non-committal. One or two papers
spoke of Louis Napoleon’s candidature as a danger to
the Republic, and a pamphlet, called Débarquement de
Louis Bonaparte di Boulogne, was issued purporting to
give a proclamation of the Prince to the people and to
announce his arrival on French soil. The Prince, how-
ever, had not left England, and his “electoral cam-
paign º’ was not of much importance. A few circulars
were issued on his behalf by his friends, and in Paris
five different placards were posted on the walls a few
days before the election. One of these was signed by
General Montholon and made a very favourable impres-
Sion, and a second was put forward by a number of
workmen.” No addresses were issued to the electors
by Louis Napoleon himself.
The Prince's candidature had been brought forward
in the Seine (Paris), and in seven other departments.
He was elected in Paris by IIo,752 votes out of a total
of 262,000. He was also elected in the departments of
the Moselle, Yonne, Charente Inférieure, and in Corsica.
In three other departments he failed to secure election.”
* Of the other three, one was addressed to citizens, workers, and
soldiers, and recommended the Prince as “cet enfant de Paris”; another
was signed by a number of property owners, manufacturers, and work-
men ; and the third bore no signature. All three were unimportant.
* ELECTIONs of SEPTEMBER 17–18, 1848
Votes for
Louis Napoleon Votes polled On register
Seine ſº e tº º tº ... IIo,752 262,000 406,896
Moselle . ſº e e g ... I'7,813 36,489 104,006
Yonne tº e tº e tº . 42,086 Io8,470
Charente-Inférieure . © g . 39,82O 47,332 I37, I74
Corsica . © Q tº & • 30, IQ3 32,968
It will be seen from these figures that the percentage of electors who
did not vote at all was very large. In the department of the Nord the
Prince polled 19,685 votes, in the Orne 9,734, and in the Gironde 3,426.
LOUIS NAPOLLON IN 1848, RI. - RESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE
Aºom a ſizhograph ºy Cattier

SECOND ELECTION TO THE CHAMBER 285
When the result of the election was made known in
Paris from the Hôtel de Ville, the name of Louis
Napoleon was received with great enthusiasm. The
band of the National Guard struck up the air known
as Veillons au salut de I’Empire, and there were cries
of “Vive Napoléon 1’’ and “Vive 1’Empereur !” The
Government, being advised that the demonstration
would be repeated on the boulevards at night, took
adequate measures for the maintenance of order in the
capital. The press was puzzled at this second success
of the Prince in Paris. He was not yet taken seriously.
The Journal des Débats, while confessing that it did
not understand what had taken place, expressed its
regret at the election. In England the Times saw no
future for the Bonapartist party and treated Louis
Napoleon as a “marionette,” and Punch continued its
jokes at his expense.
The Prince left London on September 23, and travel-
ling vid Holland, arrived at Paris on the evening of
the following day. One reason, perhaps, for his in-
action during the summer of 1848 may be found in the
fact that he was then in great want of money. He
knew that his presence in Paris as a member of the
National Assembly would attract great attention and
compel him to incur heavy expenses. He endeavoured
to effect a further loan from the Duke of Brunswick,
but without success." The refusal made the Prince
very angry, and is said to have been the main cause of
his never being afterwards reconciled to the Duke when
the latter was in Paris. Mr. Blanchard Jerrold states ?
that the two years 1846–1848 were the poorest of the
Prince’s life, and that when he arrived in Paris he was
almost moneyless. This doubtless refers to the visit in
February. For the sums he raised during this time he
gave the security of his property. It is said that he
* Orsi, p. 246. * Vol. II, 38o.
286 LOUIS NAPOLEON
asked for assistance from the Emperor of Russia, and
it was at this time, too, that the idea occurred to him
(to be almost immediately abandoned) of claiming from
the French Government the arrears of payment due to
his mother and himself by the Treaty of Fontainebleau
(see p. 17). His poverty was, of course, only relative,
as the fortune left him by his father was respectable,
as is attested by transactions with some of the principal
banking houses.
The Prince, after staying awhile with M. Bassano
at 27, Boulevard des Italiens, took up his residence in
Paris at the Hôtel du Rhin in the Place Vendôme,
where a kind of official head-quarters was established,
and had a private house in Auteuil, where he spent
much of his time. Before going to take his seat, before
seeing any of his old friends in fact, he received Proud-
hon and two other socialists, followers of Ledru Rollin.
The Prince showed himself friendly, listened “avec
bienveillance,” talked little, and appeared to agree with
Proudhon in everything. He declared his belief that
the socialists were calumniated. He blamed the policy
of Cavaignac, the suspension of the newspapers, and the
state of siege. He protested against the calumnies
spread abroad concerning himself, but without stating
his exact meaning. Proudhon and his friends were
persuaded that the Prince had now nothing in common
with the conspirator of Strasburg and Boulogne, and
believed that as the Republic had once perished at the
hand of one Bonaparte it might now be founded by the
hand of another. He appeared to them to be well-
intentioned, chivalrous, and more full of his uncle’s
glory than of any great ambition of his own. Though
mistrusting him they accounted him somewhat common-
place, and did not think that by himself he would be
able to accomplish anything. Proudhon failed to take
the real measure of the Prince, who probably under-
SECOND ELECTION TO THE CHAMBER 287
stood Proudhon far better than Proudhon did him.
Proudhon believed, though quite wrongly, that he
agreed with the Prince. Did Louis Napoleon really
believe that he agreed with Proudhon P. It is easy to
say the meeting was merely a part of the Prince's
tactics, by which he was to gain a number of socialist
votes. But that does not necessarily imply Louis
Napoleon's deliberate insincerity. The Prince, though
ever watchful of the main issue, probably deceived him-
self as regards his attitude towards the Socialists. He
believed himself to be, and was in some measure, a
socialist. But no definition of the word socialist has
yet been found which all who call themselves by that
name will accept. The ends aimed at may be the same,
but the means by which that end is to be reached differ
profoundly.
After seeing Proudhon the Prince went with M.
Vieillard. to take his place in the Assembly (September
26). He entered after the sitting had opened, and took
his seat on the Left. He attracted universal attention ;
all eyes were turned on him. “He entered incognito,”
said a newspaper next day, “without drum or trumpet,
supporting with perfect impassibility the inquisitorial
avidity of all those eyes.” To the same observer he
appeared modest and gentle, but with no resemblance
to the Emperor." His election in the Yonne, the report
of which was read, was not contested. He then asked
to be allowed to speak, and stood up in his seat as if
to address the Chamber in the English fashion, which at
one time he had advocated. The unanimous voice of
the Chamber, however, called him to the tribune, and
mounting its steps without hesitation, and taking a
* Lord Normanby wrote the same day: “I have just returned from
witnessing the admission of Louis Bonaparte into the Assembly. He
came quietly in at a side door, and took his seat (at first unperceived)
upon a back bench during a dull speech, which his presence tended to
shorten.”—A Year of Revolution, II, 215.
288 LOUIS NAPOLEON
piece of paper from his pocket, Prince Louis Napoleon,
in the midst of a profound silence and in a firm voice
in which a slight German accent was discernible, read
the following declaration : “I cannot longer remain
silent after the calumnies directed against me. I feel
it incumbent on me to declare openly on the first day I
am allowed to sit in this place the real sentiments which
animate and have always animated me. After thirty-
four years of proscription I return at last to my country
and to my rights as a citizen. The Republic has given
me this happiness; let the Republic here receive my vow
of gratitude and devotion, and let my generous fellow-
countrymen who have sent me to this place be certain
that I shall always endeavour to justify their suffrages
in working with you for the maintenance of tranquillity,
that first of our country’s needs, and for the develop-
ment of those democratic institutions which the public
has a right to demand. For a long time I have been
able to give my country only the meditations of exile
and captivity. To-day the career which you pursue is
open to me also. Receive me into your ranks, dear
colleagues, with the same sentiment of affectionate con-
fidence which I myself feel. My conduct, always in-
spired by duty and animated by respect for the law,
will prove to all who have endeavoured to blacken me
so as to proscribe me again, that no person here is more
devoted than I to the defence of order and to the con-
solidation of the Republic.”
This declaration was received with a kind of approval
and approbation, but without any sign of enthusiasm
or real confidence and trust in the speaker. His lan-
guage seemed vague, his thought slow, his actions
vacillating. He caused a smile. A large crowd awaited
the Prince outside the Chamber, but he, not desiring
to give umbrage to the Government, avoided the people
who wished to acclaim him both in going to and return-
SECOND ELECTION TO THE CHAMBER 289
ing from the Assembly. The newspapers showed more
curiosity than interest in the first appearance of the
Prince as a representative of the people. They had as
yet no perception of any latent Bonapartist force, and
one of them went so far as to say that the “pretended
Imperialist party' had that day been dissolved. Elected
in five departments the Prince chose to sit for Paris
(Seine), his native city.
Louis Napoleon's first appeal to his Republican col-
leagues in the Chamber had met with no response.
“With reaction master everywhere,” says M. Ollivier,
“face to face with a state of siege, wholesale transporta-
tions, the suspension of newspapers and the clamour
raised against socialism, this appeal for an affectionate
confidence, this affirmation that the people had the right
to ask for democratic institutions, this promise to work
for the consolidation of the Republic, was a confirma-
tion of the language he had held in private with Proud-
hon, an invitation to an understanding with the van-
quished and persecuted party of the Assembly. Far
from rallying to the conservative union, he showed
distinctly that he differed from them. He affirmed
order, but an order of a certain kind, order in and for
the Revolution, not outside and against it; order to the
advantage of the new régime, not an order which would
bring back the old or any portion of it. If the Repub-
licans and Socialists had understood him, and if, as it
would have followed, the two forces of Napoleon and
the Republic had been fraternally united in agreeing
to work together, what complications and what violence
we should have been spared. But the men were narrow-
minded sectarians, the slaves of empty formulas. They
wrapped themselves up in their aloofness (morgue) and
Suspicion, and rejected the powerful ally who would
have preserved them from the coming shipwreck. . . .
Mistrust was not long in changing to violent hostility.
U
290 LOUIS NAPOLEON
As he left the tribune not one of the Republicans whose
affectionate confidence he had asked for came up to
him. When he took his seat again on their benches he
was the recipient of mocking smiles and unfriendly
attentions. But he was neither irritated nor discour-
aged. From time to time he showed himself in the
Assembly, even in one of its committees. He preserved
a quiet and silent attitude, equally unmoved, before
flattering deference or tactless hostility.” "
During all this time (August to September) the Con-
stitution of the Republic was still in embryo. The
Report of the Commission had been read the week
before the insurrection in June, but its propositions had
yet to be confirmed by the Assembly. On August 29,
it was presented to that body, and on September 4 the
discussion on its recommendations began. It was pro-
posed to elect the President of the Republic by the
direct votes of the people, and in this lay the hope of
the Prince. Though he had as yet not declared his
intention of coming forward as a candidate, his five-
fold election on September 17, in which he polled more
than a quarter of a million votes, made his prospective
candidature henceforth a recognized thing. Every-
where he was spoken of as the opponent of General
Cavaignac. His popularity, helped by the able organ-
ization of Persigny and his friends, increased from day
to day. But there was the danger to the Prince that
this very growth of his popularity among the people
might have the effect of making the Assembly reject
the proposition of the commission for the direct elec-
tion of the President of the nation. The future was as
yet uncertain.
Outside the Assembly and a knot of political thinkers
in the capital, however, the mass of the people cared
little about the form of the new Constitution. What
* L’Ampère Libéral, Vol. II, p. 95.
SECOND ELECTION TO THE CHAMBER 291
they wanted was tranquillity and order. Revolution
and insurrection are all very well for politicians and
people who have nothing to lose, but to the man of
business and affairs they spell ruin. Paris itself was
getting sick of wondering what the next day would
bring forth. She had seen changes enough and wanted
to settle down again. The discontent under Louis
Philippe had overreached itself. The Revolution had
come before its time. Proudhon afterwards acknow-
ledged it, and confessed to wearing mourning for the
Republic before it was born. “This Revolution,” he
wrote, “was the point of departure of a social revolu-
tion of which no one possessed the password. Con-
trary to all experience, contrary to the order of historic
development hitherto invariably followed, the fact was
to come before the idea.” The ideal republic con-
ceived by the Republicans was as far off as ever.
Uncertainty and confusion prevailed everywhere. “On
the One hand were a minority of idealists insatiable in
their demands, unlimited in their faith, unpracticable
in their proposals; on the other, a complex mass of
conflicting interests and ideas, unprepared for decisive
action, unintelligent of the new issues, unaware of a
Common aim, but ready to unite, in defiance of principle,
under the stress of a single negative passion—the terror
of anarchy.” ". The forces which at the end of the year
combined to place Louis Napoleon at the head of the
nation are to be found in this complex mass of con-
flicting interests uniting in a common desire for the
preservation of the country from further conflict and
for the restoration of confidence and order. A “Saviour
of Society'' was indeed the need of the hour.
* G. Lowes Dickinson, Revolution and Reaction in Modern France, p. 173.
CHAPTER XVIII
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1848

HE debates on the Constitution began on
September 4. The election of President,
which was dealt with in Article 43, did not,
however, come before the Assembly till
October 5, a week after the Prince had taken his seat.
Eventually the Assembly voted the Constitution as re-
commended by the commission by a majority of over
seven hundred, but this was not till November 4. This
Constitution, which was the ninth since 1792, vested the
government in a single legislative Chamber and a
President. There was little difference of opinion as to
the Chamber being thus elected; the battle-royal was
to be fought over the method of electing the Presid-
ent. The commission had not been unanimous in re-
commending election by the whole nation, and Armand
Marrast drew attention to this. Were the people's
representatives to use their powers as delegates to
prevent the people expressing their will 2 That was
the real question. It was generally felt, though perhaps
not acknowledged, that if the choice lay with the As-
sembly Cavaignac would be elected, if with the people
Louis Napoleon would triumph. Yet the Assembly
itself had been returned by the nation in complete ignor-
ance of the nature of the Constitution that was to be
framed. And there was no question of submitting the
Constitution itself to the approval of the electors. A
proposition to do so, when raised, was hardly treated
292
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1848 293
seriously. The question could be regarded either from
the point of view of theoretic principle or that of prac-
tical statesmanship. But the two ideas represented by
these points of view overlapped in a most confusing
manner. Many who could see the danger to the As-
sembly of the election of the President by the people
were also perfectly cognizant of the fact that a President
elected by the Assembly itself would be only a
“phantom.” The country was crying for a man, and
was ready to put that man in the Presidential chair.
But if the chair was filled by the votes of the Assembly
itself the majority could not be great, and the elected of
this small majority would never have the influence and
prestige which should belong to the truly elected head
of a great nation. The press discussed the matter from
both points of view, and although later on it almost
unanimously attacked the Prince's candidature, there
were not a few newspapers which at this time upheld the
election of the President by the people." The chief sup-
port, however, came from the conservative press, but
even there it was not very enthusiastic. “Of two
evils,” said the Union, “we must choose the less.”
“The abolition of royalty,” said another paper, “ has
left an immense vide.”
When the discussion took place in the Assembly Felix
Pyat declared that the office of President was a super-
fluity and therefore unnecessary, and a President elected
by the people would be specially dangerous if his
majority were great. An amendment by M. Grévy to
the effect that the executive power should be placed in
the hands of a Council of Ministers was, however, re-
jected by 643 votes to 158. The chief argument in
favour of the election of the President by the Assembly
* The Siècle, l'Union (Legitimist), le Bien Public (Conservative), l'Univers,
and the Gazette de France. The advanced Republican journals upheld
election by the Assembly.
294 LOUIS NAPOLEON
was that he was only needed, as the chief magistrate of
the Republic, to execute laws. It was some such con-
ception of his duties as President that M. Grévy enter-
tained in later years and which helped to keep France
for So long outside the comity of nations in Europe.
From the point of view of the ideal Republicans of 1848,
however, the conception is logical and easy to under-
stand. But the majority of the Assembly was conserv-
ative and “bien respectable,” and the fear of demagogy
and the necessity for a strong executive eventually
carried all before it. Tocqueville held that election by
the people was the only way in which the individuality
of the legislative power could be preserved. “Can you
guard the Republic from peril,” he said, “by proclaim-
ing officially that you doubt the republican sentiment of
the people?”
That was the dilemma in which the Assembly found
itself. The majority, though pledged to the Republic faute
de mieux, were not Republicans at heart, and knew that
the country was not. The minority of Republicans knew it
too and strove with might and main to save this sickly
Republic, brought into being before its time, from dis-
solution by a denial of their own principles. A certain
fear of Louis Napoleon was at the back of men’s minds,
but found no expression. The Assembly was hesitat-
ing when Lamartine appeared in the tribune. There
was a hushed silence. Which side would he take 2 He
was known to be hostile to Bonapartism, and his
republicanism was above reproach. The rôle he had
played in February was yet fresh in men’s minds. He
now went straight to the point, and declared that the
hesitation of the Assembly to trust to popular election
was because of the name of those “whose crime is their
glory.” He expressed himself as of the same mind as
Tocqueville. His eloquence bore down all opposition.
Rarely in the history of the tribune has there been an
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1848 295
example of so great and complete a fascination as the
poet then exercised. “Even should the people choose
one whom a perhaps unenlightened foresight dreads,
what matter l Alea jacta est! Let God and the people
pronounce Something must be left to Providence 1”
It was as if he had said “If the people wishes to go
back to Monarchy, to leave the reality of the Republic,
well ! the people is King and its own sovereign.”
Lamartine’s discourse made a profound sensation, and
by it the cause of direct election of the people was won.
An amendment in favour of election by the Assembly
was defeated by 602 votes to 2 II, and the original
recommendation of the commission agreed to by 627
votes to 130. (October 6, 1848.)
“Alea jacta est,” wrote the Journal des Débats, “the
words are in everybody’s mouth. By the mouth of its
prophet the French Republic has chosen for tutelary
deity, Chance.” It was felt by many that the decision
of the Assembly left the destinies of the country to the
hazard of a throw. So different are men’s conceptions
of the word Providence.
A last effort was made to prevent the inevitable result.
An amendment was proposed that princes belonging to
families that had reigned in France should be ineligible
for election as President of the Republic. (October 9.)
Cavaignac was chivalrous enough to oppose this. It
would be said, he argued, that the Assembly wished to
put an obstacle in the way of the choice that the nation
was ready to make; that having promised entire liberty
to the vote of the people they now wished to restrict
it. “Where is your confidence in the nation ?” he
cried. But a speech by the Prince himself helped, even
more than this declaration of Cavaignac's, towards the
rejection of the proposal. Called upon explicitly to
explain himself as to his policy and line of action he
was obliged to go into the tribune. Nothing of an
296 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Orator, and caught unawares, he spoke feebly and
falteringly. “I do not rise to speak against the amend-
ment,” he said; “I have been already sufficiently re-
Compensed in recovering once more my rights as a
citizen. In the name of 300,000 electors, who twice
have honoured me by their suffrages, I disown the
name of pretender which is always being thrown at
me.” His failure as an orator was complete. Nobody
could conceive that there was anything to be feared from
a man who spoke so badly. The proposer of the amend-
ment remounted the tribune and announced in disdain-
ful terms that after what they had just seen and heard
he would withdraw his resolution. The Prince's very
faults thus stood him in good stead at this critical
moment." No one thought any longer of excluding him,
and two days later the law of proscription (1832) against
the Bonapartes was formally abrogated without a dis-
cussion. (October II.)
The minority were not yet, entirely satisfied, however.
On October 12 a further amendment permitting the
Assembly to suspend the President by a majority of
two-thirds of the votes was proposed, but this too was
rejected, and lastly a proposal to adjourn the Presidential
Election, which had been fixed for December Io, was
defeated by 587 votes to 232. “France,” said one of
the newspapers, “is thirsting for a government ’’ (La
France a Soif d'un gouvernement), and this was un-
doubtedly the feeling of the country. The Provisional
Government, the dictatorship, the state of siege, of all
these things the people were heartily tired, and far from
postponing the day of the election the nation, had it
been asked, would have advanced it to the earliest
possible date.
* Lord Normanby records that the Prince showed self-possession and
sang-froid, and appeared neither irritated nor disconcerted at this incident.
—A Year of Æezſolution, II, 242.
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1848 297
“It is easy for those who did not live in those days,”
Says M. Ollivier, “to blame as unpardonable faults these
decisions of the Constituent Assembly which permitted the
election of a Napoleon. But had they felt, as did those
who lived at the time, the growing force of public opinion
they would have known that no violent action on the
Assembly’s part would have been of any use. The name
of the Prince would have been at the head of the list in
spite of all declarations of ineligibility. Everywhere he
would have obtained a majority. Cavaignac would have
been powerless. It would have been necessary either to
Suppress universal suffrage or to muzzle it. But at that
time no one dared to propose such a course. Tocqueville
and Lamartine held their opinions, not simply as honest
men—they showed themselves to be far-sighted poli-
ticians. An Assembly rarely carries to an extreme logical
end the principles which it adopts. The people, allowed
to be masters by the direct vote at the election, should
have been permitted if they so willed to re-elect the man
they chose as ruler. The Assembly, however, decreed the
President not to be re-eligible. If the new Constitution
was found to be defective in the working, it should have
been made easy to revise it. But to do so was made
almost impossible, by only allowing revision to be
enacted by a majority of three-quarters of the votes of
the whole Assembly. These decisions at least should
have been ratified by the constituent power (i. e. the
people). But that was not done. It was feared that
the people would, by a negative vote, declare their wish
to be ruled by a Napoleon in some form or another.
When, therefore, the deputy Puységur proposed, in
conformity with democratic principles, to submit the
Constitution to the national sanction, only forty-four
members supported him, amidst the laughter of the
majority. According to a decree of the Convention,
many times confirmed, a constitution can only exist if it
298 LOUIS NAPOLEON
is accepted by the people. It follows that the Constitu-
tion of 1848 never really existed in right: it was a
usurpation. This Constitution, legal but illegitimate,
put a single Assembly nominating responsible ministers
in conflict with a responsible President elected for four
years. Neither the ministers nor the President were
allowed the right of dissolution. This irrational arrange-
ment opened up a conflict apparently without end.
There was, besides, in this Constitution a still more
organic fault. It instituted a Parliamentary Republic.
Now parliamentarism and the republic are mutually
exclusive terms, for the chief condition of the parlia-
mentary régime is the irresponsibility of the head of the
State, and his responsibility is the very essence of the
republican régime. It was no doubt difficult to make a
responsible President and a single Assembly exist to-
gether : less difficult, however, than to make two re-
sponsibilities so exacting as those of a president and a
council of ministers act in agreement. This explains
why the right of dissolution was not established. To
whom would it have been confided ? To the President?
A dissolution exercised by the chief of the State has
always the appearance, false as it may be, of a coup
d'état. The right of dissolution can only be defended
when it is a purely ministerial attribute; but in this case
the ministers would have annihilated the President by
imposing on him, in the name of the majority, an appeal
to the nation. On every side there were contradictions,
incoherences, impossibilities.””
The main difficulty lay in the fact that both authorities,
Chamber and President, derived their mandate directly
from the people, and the absence of anything in the
nature of a Second Chamber accentuated the difficulty of
the position. The whole Constitution, as a matter of
fact, was in the nature of a makeshift. In its general
1 Emile Ollivier, l’Empire Liberal, II, IoI-IO4.
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1848 299
articles it guaranteed in detail a number of rights and
liberties, but it left untouched the Napoleonic fabric of
centralized administration which had survived so many
changes and was to survive so many more. But it was
above all things democratic in that it based all power
on the will of the people. Those who framed it were
democrats before they were Republicans, and they had
faith in their own principles. If, while constituting the
Republic, their work destroyed it, that was perhaps be-
cause a Republic in France was impossible of foundation
on the basis of a universal vote freely expressed.
CHAPTER XIX
ELECTION TO THE PRESIDENCY

N November 12 the Constitution voted a week
previously was formally promulgated. Dur-
ing the debates the Prince did not attend the
sittings of the Assembly. He felt that a
certain aloofness from his fellow representatives would
be to his future advantage. They had hoped to see him
take part in interpellations and attacks, which would
have reduced him to the level of one of themselves. But
he felt himself to be a man apart, and came very rarely
to the sittings. Even when he was present and when
any subject arose bearing upon his own position one of
his cousins, Prince Napoleon or Pierre Bonaparte, would
reply on his behalf. He knew that he did not shine in
the tribune and that his influence lay elsewhere.
On October 24 Prince Napoleon sent a note to the
press protesting against the imputation that Louis
Napoleon was again stirring up strife in Paris. Next
day there was a discussion in the Assembly on this letter.
Prince Napoleon rose to reply, but there were cries for
“Louis,” “the other one.” Louis Napoleon, however,
was not present, and his continued absence was ad-
versely remarked upon. His title as a candidate for the
Presidency was challenged, and the press next day spoke
of the “cloud and mystery '' in which he hid “the
prestige of his name and the majesty of his secret
hopes.” The growing tide of Bonapartism was begin-
ning to be felt, though as yet Scarcely acknowledged.
300
THE PRESIDENCY 3OI
As soon as the question of the Presidency had been
decided there had been another recrudescence of Bona-
partist feeling. The Prince's friends were once more
busy in his behalf. A Bonapartist press now again made
itself heard, and this renewed agitation gave rise to the
imputations which Prince Napoleon had thought neces-
Sary to contradict. Louis Napoleon felt that he could
no longer keep silent. On October 26 he went down to
the Assembly and read a speech from the tribune in
which he formally declared his candidature. “As re-
gards my parliamentary conduct,” he said, “just as I
should never permit myself to ask any of my colleagues
for an account of his, I do not admit the right of any
of them to question me on mine. I am accountable only
to my constituents. Of what am I accused ? Of accept-
ing from the popular sentiment a candidature which I
did not seek and which does me honour? Well, yes |
I accept this candidature because three successive elec-
tions and the unanimous decrees of the National As-
sembly against the proscription of my family warrant
me in believing that France regards my name as one that
may serve to consolidate Society. . . . I know that it is
sought to encumber my path with rocks and pitfalls. I
shall not fall over or into them. I declare to those who
would organize against me a system of provocation that,
for the future, I shall answer no charge, no appeal,
intended to make me speak when I wish to remain silent.
I shall remain firm against all attacks, impassible in the
face of every kind of calumny.”
This reply of the Prince's was bold and able, and
showed much political wisdom. It might have dis-
covered to the deputies that this man was not the in-
capable nonentity that he was generally held to be. But
as yet few realized that the reputation he had acquired
among the conservative majority in the Assembly was
a false one. His speeches might show wisdom and
3O2 LOUIS NAPOLEON
sense, but they were believed to be written for him by
M. Vieillard. As for his candidature it was little likely
after having fought for liberty Frenchmen would find the
guarantee of a name sufficient.
The Paris press almost without exception attacked the
Prince and passionately fought against his candidature,
and the calumnies which Louis Napoleon had foreseen
were not spared him. In the midst of this violence he
maintained an impassive calm, and gradually brought
round to his side the leaders of the Conservative and
Monarchist parties. At first they showed little sympathy
for him. He had never hesitated in the past to deny the
legitimacy of their governments and even to take up
arms against them. His advances to the Republicans
and Socialists made him an object of their suspicion.
They saw in him but an authoritative variant of the
democrat or even of the socialist. After the days of
June they had thought of rallying round General
Cavaignac, hoping that necessity would drive him into
their hands; but the General refused, protesting that
he would regard as enemies of the Republic all those
who attacked it. The Prince de Joinville was impos-
sible. Marshal Bugeaud was thought of, but refused to
engage himself in a struggle which he felt was hopeless.
There remained M. Thiers. Thiers was willing to stand
for the Presidency though no one in former days had
pronounced so categorically against the Republic. The
Conservatives, however, did not decide at once to adopt
him as he was not considered sure enough. Moreover,
from day to day the current of popular opinion in favour
of Louis Napoleon became more and more evident. The
Republicans had definitely put themselves in opposition
to the new force. Would it not be wiser for the Conser-
vatives to go with the tide and try to direct it? Unless
they did, it would probably overwhelm them. Defeat
would hardly be defeat if they were on the side of the
THE PRESIDENCY 3O3
victor. He was not their choice, but if they helped him
he would show them consideration : if on the one hand
they had to fear concessions to ideas which they ab-
horred, they would obtain on the other serious guarantees
for really essential principles. They were men of ex-
perience, used to politics, and would easily finish by
getting the upper hand. Louis Napoleon had not the
stuff in him to struggle against them. They would do
with him as they liked, and throw him over when they
thought it necessary, or manoeuvre in such a way as to
make him play the game of the Monarchists. M. Thiers,
who seeing the trend of public opinion no longer insisted
On his own candidature, was willing to support that of
Louis Napoleon. He thought that he knew the heir of
Napoleon through and through. He was an honest man
inclined to illusions and nearer to dreams than realities.
Brought up in exile, a stranger to the manner and tem-
perament of the country, he possessed none of the
necessary qualities required in an authoritative head of
the State. He knew nothing of the science of govern-
ment, and would soon find it out. He would then have
to rely on men of experience. He appeared accessible
to Counsel, and so influence could soon be acquired over
him, and he could easily be made this instrument. Thus
misled, all the really considerable men of the day, the
chiefs of the party of order and the most influential of
the Legitimists and the Orleanists, were prepared, after
a time, to accept the Prince’s candidature. Profoundly
underrating his abilities and character they agreed in
thinking the name of Louis Napoleon a plank of safety
sent to them in the shipwreck of their hopes.
The Prince's writings and his past career told these
men nothing. Even Strasburg and Boulogne might
have shown them that he was resolute, audacious, and
full of courage. His whole life so far had indicated a
man strong in a fixed idea, animated with an irremovable
3O4. LOUIS NAPOLEON
faith, believing in a providential mission. But this was,
either not known or forgotten. They saw only the
silent deputy, the fumbling and hesitating speaker; and
when they established relations with him and tried to
understand and penetrate his ideas and views their
illusions were not dispelled. Still feeling his way he
could not give these politicians his full confidence. He
felt perhaps less in sympathy personally with them than
with the Socialists and Republicans whom he had tried
to win over. Those with whom he had wished to cast
his lot rejected him. Those to whom he had always
been more or less opposed courted him. Democracy
and authority were not to be found together in any
political group or party. Yet he inclined to one as much
as to the other, and believing that his justification
lay in the great body of the people, was ready to use
either party to place him in the position where the
great work of pacification and reorganization could be
effected.
Léon Faucher almost alone among public men at this
time estimated the true strength of the Prince’s character.
“He is in no way the ridiculous being which it pleases
official calumniators to paint him,” he wrote a month
before the election (November 18), when the press was
lampooning him daily and while the boulevards were
flooded with caricatures and comic Songs turning the
nephew of the Emperor into unmerited ridicule. But
his opinion was almost a Solitary one.
The Prince's German accent was not forgotten; he was
dubbed an “ancien constable anglais,” and was repre-
sented as having guarded the very monuments erected to
perpetuate the memory of Waterloo ! His private life
was attacked and in default of acts, his intentions were
calumniated. No public man, perhaps, has had to bear
so fierce and so long an assault on his good name as
Louis Napoleon. The uncle's glory was used only to
THE PRESIDENCY 305
turn the nephew into ridicule. The contrast between
the victor of Austerlitz and the adventurer of Boulogne
was too great not to be made the most of, and the general
feeling of articulate Paris seemed to be expressed in the
words of the National newspaper, “the election of M.
Louis Bonaparte would be nonsensical and dangerous,”
and many of those who supported the Prince thought
that he could only bring a name as a solution of the
problems of the moment. The Empire without the arms
and genius of Napoleon was deemed impossible. While
ever ready to talk of the Legend the publicists of Paris
had very little notion of the meaning of the Napoleonic
Idea.
The only good reason for noticing this newspaper
campaign against the Prince at this hour of day, of
remembering all these lampoons and caricatures, is that
they prove conclusively that Louis Napoleon’s cause and
his titles to the suffrage of the electors were freely dis-
cussed and debated, and all that could be urged against
him was shouted from the housetops. The nation did
not vote for him blindly, but in perfect knowledge of his
cause and of the causes arrayed against him.
The Prince, however, found a powerful auxiliary in
Emile de Girardin, who supported him with re-
markable energy in his paper La Presse. “Louis
Napoleon,” said Girardin, “is the future. He simplifies
everything and excludes nothing.” The Legitimist
Gazette de France was also on the side of the Prince,
and regarded his nomination to the Presidency as saving
the country from an executive power born of insurrec-
tion. Towards the middle of November the Constitu-
tionnel, the organ of moderate opinion, went over to the
Prince. It was felt more and more that he represented
“order and the future,” while Cavaignac's name re-
minded people too much of insurrection and the state of
siege. The provincial press was on the whole more
X
306 LOUIS NAPOLEON
favourable, but opinion as thus represented seemed
about evenly balanced. The press in England was
almost entirely against this “Adonis of forty,’’ as
the Morning Herald politely called him, and the Observ-
ateur belge remarked that he had against him two things,
himself and good sense.
To counteract this torrent of abuse and criticism the
Bonapartist committees, more Bonapartist than the
Prince himself, and avowedly conservative and authorit-
ative while he was authoritative only, poured out over
Paris and France brochures and literature of all sorts
exalting the glory of the Napoleonic Legend. This
literature was not of a very high order, but it served
its purpose in keeping the Prince's name before the
people. He, even yet, took little part in the fray.
Committees were formed to support his candidature,
and as the election came nearer and the struggle became
fiercer he was forced to show his hand more and more,
and to give some expression to his political sentiments.
The Republican leaders of all shades agreed in re-
jecting his candidature. Proudhon, whose alliance he
had sought, fulminated against him. Without his
having indicated in any way that he had changed his
political views since the days of his imprisonment in
Ham, nearly all his Republican correspondents and
visitors of those days now expressed their distrust of
him. Perhaps they knew him better than he knew him-
self, but their want of faith in his word threw him inevit-
ably into the hands of their opponents. The clergy and
Catholics, much divided, hesitated long, and when, on
November II, the Bishop of Orleans wrote to all the
bishops and archbishops of France that it was the
unanimous decision of the clergy in the National As-
sembly to support General Cavaignac, the Bishop of
Langres replied that such an expression of opinion was
only that of the individual persons concerned, and
THE PRESIDENCY 3O7
himself declared for the Prince. Sibour, Archbishop of
Paris, remained neutral. Montalembert, uncertain,
visited the Prince to assure himself of his intention. He
was favourably impressed, and was astonished to find
the man whom he had heard almost universally spoken
of as a fool express himself straightforwardly and with
good sense. The Prince, however, refused to give any
absolute promise in reply to the questions put to him.
He told Montalembert that he would not give a promise
that he could not keep even if it cost him three million
votes, but expressed himself in favour of liberty of in-
struction. The Republic could only be saved by liberty.
The absolutism of many of those who called themselves
Republicans was more despotic than that of any partisan
of the Monarchy, and would kill the Republic and make
the country disgusted with it. The Prince spoke as if
he believed he could save the Republic from being de-
stroyed by the Republicans. The Army, too, like the
Church, was divided, though the name of Napoleon was .
popular. But some of the officers were Republicans, and
the name of General Cavaignac was one that commanded
respect if not enthusiasm. Particular adhesion of men
and groups in Paris had, however, very little effect on
the decisive issue. They were only important to those
who gave them. The Prince would have been elected
in spite of the opposition even of men like Thiers and
Montalembert. The popular passion was such that it
was not necessary to stimulate it, nor possible to hold it
back. The Prince's strength lay with the whole body
of enfranchised citizens. They longed for order and
security; his ambition was to “snatch France from the
chaos of anarchy.” +
With popular feeling at such a pitch there was no
obligation on the Prince to issue a manifesto. It would
have been sufficient to have placarded his name. This
* Reply to letter from Troyes workmen, November 16.
308 LOUIS NAPOLEON
name, beside standing as the symbol of national glory,
made certain two things, in appearance mutually con-
tradictory but equally necessary : attachment to demo-
cratic principles, and the maintenance of social security.
Nevertheless, the Prince believed himself obliged to
issue a candidate’s manifesto. Thiers, Molé, Berryer,
and others used frequently to see him at this period
(the end of November) and hint at the kind of lan-
guage he should use. They suggested the precise terms
in which he should address the nation, and finally
arrived one morning with the draft of a manifesto drawn
up by M. Thiers. The Prince took it and promised to
examine it. The next day he went to the house of his
uncle Jerome, where he was accustomed to meet his
friends, and there read the manifesto prepared for him,
along with one of his own. The first was well developed,
careful in style, and slightly pompous; the second was
simpler, clearer, shorter, and written in a less ornate
style, and was judged to be the better of the two. When
Thiers, Molé, and their friends came again to see the
Prince, he took his own manifesto from a drawer and
with a slow, grave and calm voice proceeded to read it
to them. Their surprise was great, and for the first
time they recognized in the man before them a thinker
and a politician—a force to be taken seriously. The
form of the document was praised, though Thiers, unac-
customed to language so different from his own, did not
approve. One or two passages provoked some criti-
cism, but the word “moreover '' (d'ailleurs) at the be-
ginning of the last paragraph was alone seriously
challenged. The Prince retained the word, and proceed-
ing to shut up the document again in his drawer,
indicated that the discussion was at an end.
The address, which was issued on November 27, was
well balanced and had in it a word of hope for every
one. He promised to the timid to shrink from no
.
:
-- -
LOUIS NAPOLEON. CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY, 1848
A rom a lithograph in the Collection of A. M. Broadley, Esq.


THE PRESIDENCY 309
Sacrifice to defend society, to re-establish order, to bring
back confidence, and to restore credit to the finances.
To the Catholics he promised to protect religion and to
establish freedom of education. To the Liberals, to
restrain within proper limits the employments which de-
pend on the State, to avoid the tendency which leads the
State to undertake works which private enterprise could
do as well, and to preserve the liberty of the press from
tyranny and licence. To the lovers of peace he showed
peace to be the most cherished of his desires. France
during the Revolution had been warlike only because
she was forced to be so. She could now apply her
resources to pacific improvements, and while main-
taining the fundamental laws which constituted the
strength of the military organization, the burden of con-
scription must rather be lightened than aggravated. To
patriots he gave the assurance that while being pacific
his policy would be resolute—a great nation should be
silent or never speak in vain. To the Army he promised
to keep watch on the present and future, not only of the
officers, but also of the non-commissioned officers and
men, and to prepare for those who had seen long service
an assured retreat in their old age. To the workers he
gave hope of a reduction of the taxes which pressed
hardest, of the encouragement of undertakings which
would give work to those who wanted it, of establishing
benefit societies for old age, of introducing improvements
tending not to ruin the rich for the profit of the poor,
but which would base the well-being of each on the
prosperity of all. To the proscribed he gave hopes of
clemency. His Republic would be generous and would
have faith in the future. He had known exile and
captivity, and prayed for the day when the country
could, without danger, put an end to all proscriptions
to wipe away the last traces of civil discord. Finally he
appealed without distinction of party to all men whose
3IO LOUIS NAPOLEON
high intelligence and probity recommended them to
public opinion."
The manifesto, if little less than a pious expression of
Sentiments, was clever, well-calculated, and well-timed.
It produced a great effect. Its essential point lay in the
views expressed by the Prince for the future. “I should
devote myself entirely,” he said, “without afterthought,
to the consolidation of a republic wise in its laws, honest
in its intentions, great and strong by its acts. I should
engage my honour to leave to my successor at the end
of four years’ authority (pouvoir) strengthened, liberty
intact, a real progress accomplished.” When the Prince
read these words to his conservative friends, some of
them took exception to the phrase concerning the hand-
ing over of his power after four years. They wished
him to strike it out. Why make promises? The Prince
asked Girardin what he thought of it. “If you mean
to do as you say,” said Girardin, “leave it in ; if not,
strike it out.” The passage was allowed to remain.
The concluding paragraph of the manifesto had the
true Napoleonic ring, and in its admirable brevity showed
at once the masterfulness of the man who could pen it
and his absolute command of the French language.
“Moreover,” concluded the Prince, “when one has the
honour to be at the head of the French people, there is
an infallible way of doing good : it is to will it.” ”
General Cavaignac in the meanwhile was not inactive
in promoting his candidature. Though master of the
Government his attitude was scrupulously correct; at
the same time the whole Government machinery was
used in his favour, and its influence was by no means
small. Eighty-six prefects, twenty-one sub-prefects and
* See Appendix F.
* “D'ailleurs quand on a l'honneur d'être à la tête du peuple francais, il
y a un moyen infaillible de faire le bien : c’est de le vouloir.” He had
used a similar phrase in one of his proclamations at Boulogne.
THE PRESIDENCY 3r
a host of functionaries all over the country did all they
could to discredit the candidature of Louis Napoleon.
Many of the ministers openly supported the General,
and M. Dufaure, Minister of the Interior, addressed a
letter to all the prefects which, while professing to be in
favour of no particular candidate, was really an inter-
vention in his favour. The country was flooded with
biographies, apologies, and recommendations, and the
General’s portraits were scattered all over France.
Cavaignac himself did not hesitate to use all legitimate
means to further his candidature, and was confident of
Success." He desired the Presidency, though he pre-
ferred not to have it rather than gain it by means which
he considered would diminish his reputation. He
showed himself continually in Paris, however. He
attended a great banquet in the Hôtel de Ville, he
reviewed the garde mobile, he visited the prisons and
the public establishments, he was present at the de-
parture of colonists to Algeria. He made full use of
his right of pardon in favour of the insurgents of June
and of ordinary condemned prisoners; he dined with
the Archbishop of Paris. He neglected none of the
advantages which he derived from being in power and
from the support of the official world. He might have
used the means at hand with greater ability, but he
could not be reproached for not having used them. He
violated no one’s liberty, nor menaced any one’s inde-
pendence. The outrages lavished on the Prince were
the work of an ardent but unscrupulous party devoted
to his candidature but not under his control. In the
same way it would be unfair to attribute to the Prince
the unworthy attacks which were made on the General.
* Normanby, A Year of Revolution. Lord Normanby, however, believed
Cavaignac to be almost alone in holding this opinion. He speaks of
Cavaignac's “irresolution of mind,” which he sought to cover by “an
assumed stern demeanour.”—Op. cit., II, 370.
3 I2 LOUIS NAPOLEON
It is related that a workman brought a lithographic
Stone to the Prince on which Cavaignac was represented
as an executioner butchering his victims. “How much
do you want for it?” said Louis Napoleon. The work-
man named his price. The Prince gave him the money,
and taking up a hammer broke the stone in pieces. But
Cavaignac's name was too much associated in the public
mind with the suppression of the June insurrection, with
the state of siege and with the restrictions on the liberty
of the press for it to become popular. The country
received his biographies without reading them, and heard
the speeches of his supporters without listening to them,
and though, had the election of President been left to
the Assembly, Cavaignac would probably have obtained
more than two-thirds of the votes, it was generally felt
some time before December IO that he had little chance
of being the elected of the nation."
By the middle of November the Bonapartist current
was so pronounced that the Prince’s success appeared
certain. Besides Cavaignac there were no other serious
opponents. Ledru Rollin stood as the choice of the
Radicals, Raspail of the Revolutionary party. Neither
had really any chance, but they split the Republican
vote and showed the impotence of “the men of '48 ° to
face the situation. Lamartine too was to go to the poll,
but the election of December was his final appearance
on the political stage. The promulgation of the new
Constitution had been received in some parts of the
country with cries of “Vive Napoléon ’’ and even of
“Vive l'Empereur.” In Paris there were Bonapartist
demonstrations almost daily before the Hôtel du Rhin
in the Place Vendôme where the Prince was living. .
There was nearly always a crowd in front of his windows,
1 “October 29. The great probability is that within two months the
affairs of this country will be in the hands of Louis Napoleon.”—Nor-
manby, op. cit., II, 273.
THE PRESIDENCY 3I.3
and at certain times it overflowed into the neighbouring
streets. Crowds also took up their stations in the Place
de la Concorde and before the Assembly, and acclaimed
the Prince whenever he appeared. During the second
week of November he was so sure of his election that
he began to consider the composition of his first ministry,
and it was announced in the Univers that he had offered
the Ministry of Public Instruction to M. Falloux and to
M. Faucher the Ministry of Public Works.
Though the activity of the Prince's friends during all
this time was unwearied, and no efforts were spared to
further his candidature, there was no definitely organ-
ized electoral propaganda in his favour over the whole
of France. But such a propaganda, however powerfully
organized, would have been useless, or at any rate super-
fluous. The people longed for quiet and feared a return
of the Terror. The old soldiers of the Empire, still
numerous throughout the country, were the best of
election agents for the Prince. All the faulf of the old
days were now forgotten, and only the glory of the
incomparable Legend remained. The glamour of their
Souvenirs was upon the people, all the stronger perhaps
for the months of disorder and bloodshed which had
followed Louis Philippe's fall. On December Io France,
in the words of Berryer, was to manifest her need of
order and repose and her repulsion for the monstrous
doctrines which had alarmed her for the last ten months.
The vote of December Io was a national acclamation.
Out of seven and a half million of votes registered, over
five and a half were given in favour of Louis Napoleon
Bonaparte. Cavaignac received barely a million and a
half, and Ledru Rollin and Raspail less than half a
million between them.”
* The exact figures of the election, as given by different writers, vary.
Those quoted by Thirria, Ollivier, and Jerrold are slightly different, but
substantially Ollivier and Jerrold agree, and the votes they give to Louis
3I4 LOUIS NAPOLEON
“France had given herself a master, and she did it
with her eyes open and of her own free will.” 1 The
people had put authority into the hands of a Napoleon,
and if on the morrow he had taken the crown he would
only have been executing the wishes of the majority of
his countrymen.
A coup d’état was talked of as soon as the result of
the election was known. As early as December 17, a
radical newspaper prophesied that this would occur
during the week. The Prince would go to the Assembly
and declare he could not go back on the will of the
people, who desired him to be Emperor. This point of
view was common both among his friends and enemies.
The people felt that in naming Louis Napoleon they did
not name an ordinary President; a Napoleon, the moment
he was head of the State must inevitably, by the force
of things, become Emperor. There were even rumours
that he would be proclaimed Emperor at once, and an
Imperialist agitation, for which the Prince was not him-
Self personally responsible, gave some colour to the
story.” Armand Marrast, President of the Assembly,
asked General Changarnier if he could be depended on
Napoleon are the same (5,434,226). These are the figures as announced
on December 20. They are exclusive, however, of Algiers and Corsica.
Thirria’s figures, which are in all cases higher than the others, probably
include these extra votes. Thirria gives the Prince 5,572,834 suffrages.
Lebey quotes the figures as declared on December 20 as follows—
Louis Bonaparte . º e º e e . 5,434,226
General Cavaignac . e º * © • I,444, IO7
Ledru Rollin. © & º ſº te tº º 370, II9
Raspail . © º & © º º º © 36,920
Lamartine . º e º g & e º I7,219
General Changarnier . e º © e º 4,690
* Coubertin, France since 1814, p. 173.
* Persigny had counselled him not to go to the Chamber, but to take
possession of the Elysée, and from there address a message to the
Assembly declaring his resolution to only take the oath to the Constitu-
tion when it had been ratified by the people. Persigny’s advice, if
logically sound, was hardly politic, and was disregarded.
-
Tifº Ep
-
, 1850, in the Aossession of the author
ESIDENT of
, PR
APARTE
Arºnt
LOUIS NAIPOLEON BON
Aroºr a contemporary

THE PRESIDENCY 3 I5
for the defence of the Republic. “Yes,” Changarnier
is reported to have said, “but it would be as easy for
me to make an Emperor as to make up a packet of Sweets
(un cornet de dragées).” + Granier de Cassagnac re-
lates that Changarnier offered to lead the Prince
to the Tuileries and make him Emperor, but that the
Prince refused. Whichever of the stories is true, or
if both are false, the truth of Changarnier's words
remains—the people had elected not a President but
an Emperor.
Yet the election had been profoundly democratic.
The Republicans themselves had to acknowledge it.
“If you want to know whose was the fault,” said Louis
Blanc afterwards (1849), “the offender is before you—
universal suffrage.” The mass of the nation was con-
servative, but although the Prince owed his election
primarily to the party of order, he was also supported
by great numbers of democratic socialists whose watch-
word was “anything rather than Cavaignac,” and who,
to assure themselves of a candidate having a good
chance of election, abandoned the candidatures of Ledru
Rollin and Raspail. But above all things the vote of
December 1848 showed that Democracy and Repub-
licanism, far from being one and the same thing, may
be, and often are, things widely apart. The people
were ready to delegate their powers, and universal
Suffrage, which the Revolution had given them, they
used to protest emphatically against the very form of
government which the new Constitution was supposed
to have secured.
Cavaignac, too, was tempted to effect a coup d’état.
When the news of his defeat was made known, it was
suggested to him that he should resist. He not only
refused, but threatened to prevent the resistance of his
* There are other versions of this story, but the sense of Changarnier's
reply is the same.
316 LOUIS NAPOLEON
friends if they persisted in their determination. “But
the Republic will be lost,” they cried. “It is possible
that it may succumb,” the General replied, “but it will
rise again, and it would be lost for ever if he who repre-
Sents it revolted against the will of the people.”
The effect of the election in Paris was immediate, and
marked by a great change in the temper of the inhabit-
ants. The capital took on itself an unaccustomed air of
joy, and the funds went up from eight to one hundred.
The press recognized the new order of things, and
acknowledged the success of the Prince was due to the
need of order and calm of which the country was so
desirous.
On December 20, Louis Napoleon went to the
Assembly accompanied by some of his friends. As soon
as the report of the election had been formally read he
mounted the tribune. He was dressed in black, and
wore the Grand Cordon of the Legion of Honour.
There “in the presence of God and before the French
people represented by the National Assembly,” he
swore to remain faithful to the democratic Republic one
and indivisible, and to fulfil all the duties imposed upon
him by the Constitution. The oath was obligatory, but
the Prince gave it a voluntary character by his spon-
taneous and explicit declarations. “The suffrages of
the nation and the oath I have just sworn command my
future conduct. My duty lies straight before me, and I
shall fulfil it as a man of honour. I shall regard as
enemies of the country all who may endeavour by illegal
means to change what the whole of France has estab-
lished.” He would re-establish order, he would develop
democratic institutions; he would assure peace; he
would act in a broad spirit of conciliation. Lastly, he
rendered homage to his predecessor, and concluded with
words of hope and confidence in the future. “God
helping us,” he cried, “we will at least accomplish
THE PRESIDENCY 3 I 7
Some good, even if we are unable to do great
things.” +
With these words he descended from the tribune and
advanced towards the bench where General Cavaignac
was seated and stretched out his hand. The General,
surprised, allowed the Prince to take his hand without
offering it.” In the evening the President sent one of
his friends to offer the Grand Cordon of the Legion of
Honour to the General. He refused it. The hostility
of the Republicans to the Prince was not appeased by
the popular vote. Moderate and extreme Republicans
alike declared themselves the enemies of the Prince,
and thus threw him into the arms of the Conservatives.
Yet he was more true to the spirit of democracy than
they, and had his promises been received with the
sincerity in which they were given, he might have
fulfilled them.
But were his promises sincere? Did he forswear
himself when he so solemnly took the oath before the
Assembly 2 Häd he at this moment taken a deliberate
resolution to restore the Empire P There is nothing that
in any way leads one to think that from the very first
moment he had taken the resolution to suppress the
Republic. The oath was honestly taken, without any
mental reservation. He expressed himself too explicitly,
with too much freedom and honesty, to be deliberately
deceiving the nation. He was by nature frank and
willing to give his confidence to those who understood
him, and feeling that he was understood by the French
people he gave expression openly to his real thoughts.
Perhaps he was deceiving himself. The contradictory
elements in his creed he had never yet frankly faced.
* “Dieu aidant, nous ferons du moins le bien, si nous ne pouvons
faire de grandes choses.’
* A great deal has been made of this incident, and Lebey gives seven
different versions, most of them by eye-witnesses, which all vary.
Cavaignac's conduct, however, produced an unfortunate impression.
3.18 LOUIS NAPOLEON
His mind at this moment did not dare to take him as
far as the Empire, though the idea of the Empire might
be found scattered over the pages of his books. But
the Republic in itself did not exclude the Napoleonic
Idea, and nothing was final in France. No doubt he
intended to be head of the Government. It would not
be denied him to solicit and obtain a prolongation of
his powers. It might be with the Presidency for life,
or the national will might even free him from the oath
by placing the crown on his head. Such an eventuality
was not unlikely. But in the meantime his duty was
to be faithful to the Republic during such time as the
Constitution remained intact.
It was, however, almost impossible that the Constitu-
tion so recently voted could work smoothly. It invoked
the national sovereignty, yet crippled it by limiting .
the President's powers to a period of four years. It
provoked conflicts between the Executive and the
Chamber, yet indicated no way out of the difficulties
it created. While purporting to trust the people, its
framers took precautions against the results which they
feared their own confidence would bring about. As
revision was rendered so difficult it seemed almost in-
evitable from the outset that sooner or later the Con-
stitution would be violated. The question was hardly
so much one of a possible violation, as when, how, and
by whom this violation would come about. When,
three years afterwards, Louis Napoleon forestalled the
Assembly in breaking through this mesh of difficulties
he frankly admitted the illegality of his act, and pleaded
that he had violated legality in order to preserve right
(j’ai sorti de la légalité pour rentrer dans le droit). The
Assembly had, however, before this, in the Parliamen-
tary coup d'état of May 31, 1850, in which three million
electors were deprived of their rights, practically torn
up their own Constitution by destroying universal
THE PRESIDENCY 3 IQ
suffrage, and had thus removed the very foundation of
the edifice which they themselves had built.
Had Prince Louis Napoleon been the vulgar adven-
turer he is often represented to have been, had he aimed
simply at the crown of France from the beginning, he
would scarcely have hesitated to take it the first time it
was in his grasp. Had he gone to the Tuileries instead
of the Elysée in 1848, the great majority of the French
people would have only felt that he was carrying out
their wishes. He had received a mandate from them
which being interpreted said simply : “We place power
in your hands; you will know how to use it and to keep
it. Your name is Napoleon.” But just because his
name only was Napoleon, he first wished to show the
nation that he was worthy of the confidence they had
put in him. When he had done something, then he
could hope for a further renewal of that confidence,
and he had faith in himself to know that he would “at
least do some good, if he could not do great things.”
He hoped that with the aid of the Chamber he would
soon be able to justify the mandate of the nation. He
wrongly believed that the great manifestation of uni-
versal suffrage in his favour would disarm the Assembly.
Its effect was not to make the Assembly trust the Prince,
but to distrust the most democratic of all institutions—
universal suffrage. Strong in his principle of com-
promise, in his desire for conciliation, and in his faith
in the good intentions of others, the President did not
at first see the barrier which stood between himself and
the people, to whom alone he owed his power. He
took up his duties with the intention of discharging
them, and the oath he pronounced was pronounced with-
out mental reserve.
CHAPTER XX
CONCLUSION

ITH his election to the Presidency of the
Republic the reign of Louis Napoleon
virtually began, though the Empire was
not re-established till 1852. The origins
of the Second Empire, however, lay not so much in the
events of 1848 as in the whole course of years that filled
the space between St. Helena and the February Revo-
lution. The sentiment of the country which had made
Napoleon the representative of liberal and democratic
opinion, made also a revival of the Empire more than
possible. Experiments in government, which seemed
to pass over the supreme achievement of the Revolution
—universal suffrage—could satisfy parties but not the
nation. Yet the people hardly knew what they wanted.
That sentiment which we have examined under the
name of the Napoleonic Legend, was a vague aspiration
towards something higher and better in the way of
government, though crudely expressed. Of itself it
could have done little or nothing. But as a background
for the more definite ideas of Napoleonic policy, as
held by those who drew their inspiration from the
Emperor's political and administrative system, this
indefinite sentiment, which on the surface might appear
only a vulgar form of hero-worship, became a potent
factor in the stream of tendencies which led to the re-
establishment of the Empire in the person of Louis
Napoleon. The Revolution of February opened the
32O
CONCLUSION 32 I
door to both the nation’s and the Prince's aspirations.
Political discontent, which demanded only electoral
reform; social discontent, which desired a total sub-
version of the state of society—these two, combining,
had cleared the way to universal suffrage, and had
accomplished all that Louis Napoleon had attempted to
do by his apparently mad acts at Strasburg and Bou-
logne. Its voice had been given back to the people.
But liberalism and socialism, which together had made
the Revolution of February, could not stand long to-
gether. Liberalism, frightened at its own work, and
feeling that it had been made the cat's-paw of the revolu-
tionary party, Sought to crush the power that had helped
it to its victory. The task was not difficult, but the
struggle left the victors damaged in reputation and the
way more than ever open to the growing forces, every
day becoming more and more articulate, of democratic
conservatism. In the national need for a strong
government which should at once secure liberty and
order, all the influences which had been silently and
steadily working towards a re-establishment of the Napo-
leonic system at last met at the close of the year 1848.
By the vote of December Io, the Prince felt that his
past life had been justified and his faith in himself and
in the French people had not been misplaced. The
nation when questioned had replied as he had always
said it would. His vision had been the true one all
along. Henceforward thought must be translated into
action. His government, under whatever title it might
be known, must be inspired by the idée napoléonienne.
All the world knew it, or should have known it. He
had proclaimed it all his life, and the people had shown
its adherence to the principle he had always professed
by acclaiming him the chief of the nation.
All the days of exile, of adversity, and of struggle
had been but a prelude to this. And yet they too
y
322 LOUIS NAPOLEON
had made this possible. The various tendencies which
made towards the Napoleonic restoration could of them-
selves never have brought it about had not the man
been ready to take advantage of them and use them.
His name, which went for so much, was not in itself
sufficient. And when everything has been done and
Said to explain away the success of Louis Napoleon,
the tale is not complete until the remarkable qualities
of the man himself are acknowledged. The times do
not always bring forth the man, and it takes something
more than a mere adventurer so to understand them as
not only to raise himself to supreme power, but to
justify his former career by so doing.
One quality above all others led to this triumph of
the Prince over all obstacles and over all difficulties—
self-control. It was because he could govern himself
that he was able to exercise so great an in. ‘ence over
others. It was his habit of self-mastery that gave him
the advantage over his adversaries. His strength and
energy were the greater by reason of this patience and
mastery of self. The February Revolution which threw
the doors of his country open to him, at the same time
left him face to face with all the well-known men of
the day as his adversaries—either declared or possible.
The ground was open to them as to him, and they had
a hundred advantages over him in actual knowledge of
the situation and in personal prestige. Yet before the
end of the year he had either defeated them or enlisted
them amongst his supporters.
He was forty years of age when elected to the Presi-
dency. Only thirteen out of these forty years had been
passed in France, and of these again six had been spent
in prison and the remaining seven were the days of his
childhood. Twenty-seven years he had passed in exile
—in South Germany, Switzerland, Italy, England, and
even in America. Yet all the time his heart was in
CONCLUSION 323
France, and he never ceased to be a Frenchman. But it
may well be believed that this coming into contact with
foreign countries and foreign peoples in his youth and
early manhood, gave him that almost cosmopolitan view
of life and politics which has found such scant favour
in the eyes of his later critics. He neglected the interests
of his own country, it is said, for those of others. Yet
it may on the other hand be truly said that Napoleon
III was “the only ruler of France who has sincerely
desired and deliberately furthered the interests of other
countries.” He was a Frenchman, but he was also a
good European. Brought up in exile, the foe of abso-
lutist governments, his early sympathies were all with
the cause of oppressed nationalities and liberalism. And
thése first generous ideas of his youth, though afterwards
necessarily modified, he never forgot, and realized some
of them on the throne. His political faith ever remained
the same—the reconciliation of authority with demo-
cracy, and the man himself such as we have seen him
in these pages, self-contained, tenacious and generous
in sentiment, was the same, whether in exile or on the
throne, from the monotonous days of Arenenberg to
those of splendour at the Tuileries. He has been said
to have been a modern Augustus under the outer
semblance of a Werther. Doubtless his early training
in Germany suggested the latter comparison, and it
may be conceded that a semblance of German réverie
was to be found in Louis Napoleon and went far to
justify M. de Falloux's mot. But the Prince was a
practical man as well as a dreamer. The two things,
indeed, often go together. Action loses nothing by being
preceded by dreams. The dreams of his early manhood
led him to action, and later they were realized in a way
that put his adversaries to silence. He believed that he
“marched at the head of the ideas of his time.” He
thought to make France into the head of the Latin race,
324 LOUIS NAPOLEON
and believed in the steady progress of enlightened ideas.
His great mistake was not to recognize the power of
reaction in Europe in the rising power of Prussia. Yet
his very mistakes were generous, and it may even yet
be that Europe will return in some measure to ideas
which he held to be practicable fifty years ago. “Hav-
ing succeeded in making recognized in Europe the great
principle of the national will, he believed he had estab-
lished it there. He hoped to assure it definitely by the
jurisdiction of congresses, substituting their equitable
arbitration in place of the caprices of Force.” 1 Europe
hesitated, but would not follow, but it would be prema-
ture to say that she showed wisdom in refusing to do so.
The early writings of the Prince, as well as his later
acts, are concerned with very practical subjects. Artil-
lery, beetroot sugar, the Nicaragua canal, pauperism,
the military organization of Prussia—all these and many
Other questions occupied his mind in no indefinite or
vague fashion. The representatives of the sugar industry
circulated his pamphlet as the most solid contribution
to the literature of the subject that had appeared. The
book on artillery is minutely detailed and practical.
And indeed the charge of being only a visionary and
chimerical dreamer breaks down all along the line if
too closely pressed. Yet there is an element of truth
in the popular idea. For all the long years of his early
manhood were in a sense to the Prince a dream—a
dream of great things to be accomplished, a dream of
a golden future in which he might be the chosen instru-
ment of Providence to bridge over for ever in France
and in Europe the gulf between the opposing forces
of absolutism and revolution, of liberty and authority,
of anarchy and order. Such was the dream. Not an
ignoble, or even an unpractical one. How far it was
realized is not for these pages to Say. Judged by the
* Giraudeau, Napoléon ZZZ /ntime, p. 482.
CONCLUSION 325
Standard of political history the Second Empire may
have been a failure, but judged from the standard of
intention a quite different verdict would have to be
pronounced.
Whether it is possible to reconcile true democracy
with authoritative government the future alone can
decide. Authority would seem always to be liable to
the danger of producing a disease in the body politic
which is worse than that which it seeks to remedy.
Democracy is too often only allowed to be the expres-
Sion of the popular will if exercised or shown in a
particular direction. The power of the people, how-
ever, if it means anything, should mean the power of the
whole of the people, not of one or two classes. There
may even be room in the England of the future for that
Tory democracy which is sometimes supposed to have
perished with Lord Randolph Churchill. In 1907 Sir
Henry Campbell-Bannerman in introducing his Resolu-
tion on the House of Lords, repudiated on behalf of the
Liberal Party all idea of a referendum, plebiscite, or
“any other way of getting behind the backs of the
elected to the electors themselves, such as was advised
by the first and third Napoleon.” English Liberalism
stands committed to the fetish of Parliamentary Govern-
ment as vested in the authority of the House of Com-
mons. On the other hand the referendum was openly
advocated by the leaders of the Conservative party and
in the Tory press, and a former Conservative Prime
Minister himself declared the democratic theory of
government to be “that those who are concerned with
the decision should be the people who make it.” + Neither
in France nor in England is the problem yet solved.
To the Frenchman the English government seems to
be no democracy at all. In France universal suffrage
* Times, June 25, 1907. Speeches of the Prime Minister and Mr. A. J.
Balfour in House of Commons, June 24.
326 LOUIS NAPOLEON
gives a more apparent semblance of the nation’s will
than in England; but parliamentarism, as established
under the Third Republic, limits the expression of that
will, and does not dare, any more than English Liberal-
ism, to appeal from the elected to the electors, for fear of
destroying the authority of a Chamber which may, or
may not, represent the real wishes of the nation.
The Prince, after the election of December Io, felt
himself to be the head of the nation. The people had
acclaimed him, and in so doing had practically offered
him the Empire. Yet between him and the people stood
the Assembly, which was yet blind to the personal
capacity of the President, and refused to believe the
Empire possible without the Emperor. Quite truly was
it pointed out in the press three months after the elec-
tion, that the old Bonapartist party had ceased to exist.
It had been merged during Louis Philippe’s reign into
the other parties. How then could the Empire be re-
made without it? But the determination of the people
to have a strong ruler was not taken into account, and
the very thing which was the Prince’s real strength
—his reliance on no party for his triumph—was thought
to be the fatal obstacle in his path. All along he had
relied mainly on moral force, and now it did not fail
him. The moral force of the country supported him
throughout the years of his struggle with the Assembly,
and emphatically endorsed his action when he put
legality on one side in order to re-establish right. And
when he wore the purple, that purple was lined with the
democracy.
APPENDICES
A. LOUIS NAPOLEON'S OWN ACCOUNT OF THE ATTEMPT
AT STRASBURG.
B. LOUIS NAPOLEON IN AMERICA.
(a) Article in the Mational Antelligencer, Washington, March 28,
1856.
(b) Letter of the Rev. C. S. Stewart in the AVational Intelligencer,
April II, 1856.
(c) Letter of L. W. Tinelli quoted in the Wational Intelligencer,
April II, 1856.
(d) Letter of General Watson Webb in the Mational Intelligencer,
April 14, 1856.
(e) From Abbott's History of Mapoleon III.
C. LOUIS NAPOLEON'S OPINIONS ON AMERICA AND AMERI-
CAN INSTITUTIONS.
(a) In conversation with Henry Wikoff.
(b) In a letter to M. Vieillard.
D. THE BOULOGNE PROCLAMATIONS.
LOUIS NAPOLEON'S OWN ACCOUNT OF THE ESCAPE
FROM HAM.
F. LOUIS NAPOLEON'S MANIFESTO AS CANDIDATE FOR THE
PRESIDENCY.
G. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
APPENDIX A
LOUIS NAPOLEON'S OWN ACCOUNT OF THE
ATTEMPT AT STRASBURG
From a letter to his mother, written at sea,
November 1836.

O give you a detailed recital of my misfortunes
will be to renew your sorrows and mine; but,
at the same time, it will be a consolation both
for you and for me to put you in possession
of all the impressions which were on my mind, of all
the emotions which have agitated me since the close of
last October. You know what was the pretext which I
held out on my departure from Arenenberg; but what
you do not know is that which was then passing in my
heart. Strong in my conviction, which had long made
me look upon the Napoleonic cause as the cause of the
nation in France, and as the only civilizing cause in
Europe; proud of the nobleness and the purity of my
intentions, I had become firmly resolved to elevate again
the imperial eagle or to fall a victim to my political belief.
I set out accordingly in my carriage, taking the same
road which I had followed three months before when
proceeding to Neukirch and Baden. Everything around
me bore the same aspect as then ; but what a difference
in the impressions which animated me ! Then I was
gay and cheerful as the day which smiled around me;
to-day, sad and gloomy, my spirit had taken the infection
of the cold and cloudy atmosphere which encompassed
me. I shall be asked what it was that forced me to
329
33O LOUIS NAPOLEON
abandon a happy existence, to run all the risks of a
hazardous enterprise. I will answer that a secret voice
led me on, and that for no consideration upon earth
would I have postponed to another time an attempt which
seemed to present so many chances of a successful issue.
And the most distressing consideration for me in the
matter is, that now experience has taken the place of
Supposition, and that instead of merely imagining I have
actually witnessed the circumstances of the case, I am
enabled to form a judgment on the matter; and the result
is, that I remain only the more convinced in my belief,
that if I could have followed the plan which I had traced
out for myself in the first instance, instead of now being
an exile beyond the equator I should be still in my native
country. What care I for the cries of the common multi-
tude, who will call me mad because I have not succeeded,
and who would have exaggerated my merit if I had
triumphed 2 I take upon myself all the responsibility of
the event, for I have acted upon conviction, and not by
inducement of others. Alas! if I had been the only
victim of my act I should have nothing to regret. I
have experienced from my friends a devotedness without
limit, and I have nothing to reproach against any one.
On the 27th I arrived at Lahr, a small town in the
grand duchy of Baden, where I waited for intelligence;
the axle of my calèche having broken down near this
point of the road, I was compelled to remain a day in
this town. On the morning of the 28th I quitted Lahr,
and retracing my steps, I passed through Freiburg, Neu
Breisach, Colmar, and arrived at eleven o’clock at night
at Strasburg, without experiencing the slightest diffi-
culty. My carriage was put up at the Hôtel de la Fleur,
whilst I proceeded to locate myself in a small room
which had been engaged for me in the Rue de la
Fontaine.
Here, on the following day, I saw Colonel Vaudrey,
APPENDIX A 33 I
and submitted to him the plan of operations which I had
drawn up; but the colonel, whose noble and generous
Sentiments merited a better fate, said, “It is not here a
question of a conflict of arms; your cause is too French,
and too pure to be soiled by spilling French blood.
There is only one course to pursue which is worthy of
you, because it will avoid all collision : when you are at
the head of my regiment we will march together to
General Voirol : an old soldier will not be able to resist
the sight of you and that of the imperial eagle when
he knows that the garrison is with you.” I approved
of his arguments, and everything was arranged for the
following morning. A house had been engaged near
the quartier d’Austerlitz, where we were all to assemble
preparatory to repairing to the barracks as soon as the
regiment of artillery was assembled.
On the 29th, at eleven o’clock at night, one of my
friends came to seek me in the Rue de la Fontaine to
conduct me to the place of rendezvous. We walked
across the town together; a magnificent moonlight was
spread over the streets, and I accepted this fine atmo-
sphere as a favourable augury for the morrow. I care-
fully observed all the parts through which I passed; the
silence which everywhere reigned made a deep impres-
Sion on me. What, thought I, may reign in place of
this calm to-morrow? “However,” I remarked to my
companion, “there will be no disorder if I succeed, for
it is chiefly in order to prevent the troubles which often
accompany popular movements that I wished to accom-
plish this revolution by means of the army. But,” I
added, “what confidence, what a profound conviction
One must have of the nobleness of a cause, to face, not
the dangers which we are going to meet, but public
opinion, which will tear us to pieces, which will load us
with reproaches if we do not succeed Nevertheless, I
call God to witness, that it is not to gratify a personal
332 LOUIS NAPOLEON
ambition, but because I believe I have a mission to fulfil, 1
that I risk that which is more dear to me than life—the
esteem of my fellow citizens.”
On arriving at the house in the Rue des Orphelins, I
found my friends assembled in two rooms on the base-
ment floor. I thanked them for the devotion which they
had shown for my cause, and told them that from that
moment we should share together whatever might come
of good or evil fortune. One of the officers had brought
an eagle : it was that which had belonged to the 7th regi-
ment of the line. “The eagle of Labédoyère l’’ we
exclaimed, and every one pressed it to his heart with
lively emotion. All the officers were in full regimental
uniform, and I wore the artillery uniform and a general
officer’s hat. •
The night seemed very long. I occupied the time in
writing my proclamations, which I did not think it
advisable to print beforehand, for fear of any indiscre-
tion. It had been agreed that we should remain in this
house until the colonel should have sent me a message
to repair to the barracks. We counted the hours, the
minutes, the seconds. Six o'clock in the morning was
the hour appointed. How difficult it is to describe what
one feels on such occasions as this : in one second one
lives more than in ten years—for to live is to make use
of our organs, of our senses, of our faculties, of all the
parts of our entity which produce the idea of existence;
and in such critical moments as these our faculties, our
organs, our senses, excited to the highest pitch, are con-
centrated upon a single point; we are arrived at an hour
which is to decide all our future destiny. One feels a
moral strength when one can say, “To-morrow I shall
be the deliverer of my country, or I shall be in the
grave.” One is much to be pitied when the circum-
1 The words are not in italics in the original, but they sum up in a
phrase the whole of the Prince's life.
APPENDIX A 333
stances have so turned out that one has not been able to
realize either alternative.
In spite of my precautions, the noise which must
unavoidably be occasioned by a considerable number of
persons assembled together, disturbed the occupants of
the first floor; we heard them get up and open their
window. This was at five o’clock; and we then became
doubly circumspect, and they returned to rest. At
length it struck six o'clock. Never did the strokes of a
clock re-echo with such force through my heart; and in
a moment’s time the sound of the bugle at the quartier
d’Austerlitz accelerated still further its beatings. Yes,
the all-important hour had arrived. At this moment a
considerable tumult was heard in the street; this was
occasioned by some soldiers who passed by raising cries,
whilst some horsemen came full gallop before our win-
dows. I sent an officer to inquire into the cause of this
disturbance. Could it be the staff of the place already
apprized of our projects P Had we been discovered P
The officer speedily returned, and informed me that the
noise proceeded from some soldiers whom the colonel
had sent to fetch home their horses, which had been out
of headquarters.
Some minutes more passed away, when it was
announced to me that the colonel was waiting for me.
Full of hope, I rushed into the street; M. Parquin, in
the uniform of a general of brigade, and a commander
of battalion bearing the eagle in his hand, were one
on either side of me. About a dozen officers followed
II].62,
The distance we had to go was not far : it was soon
accomplished. The regiment was drawn up in order of
battle in the court of their barracks inside the gates.
Upon the grass were stationed forty of the horse
artillery.
Oh, my mother l judge of the happiness which I
334 LOUIS NAPOLEON
enjoyed at that moment. After twenty years of exile I
at length touched the sacred soil of my native land;
I found myself surrounded by Frenchmen, whom the
memory of the Emperor was about again to warm with
electric heat.
Colonel Vaudrey was alone in the middle of the court.
I was advancing towards him, when the colonel, whose
noble countenance and figure had, at the moment, some-
thing of the sublime about them, drew his sword and
exclaimed : “Soldiers of the Ioth regiment of artillery !
A great revolution is in course of accomplishment at
this moment. You behold here before you the nephew
of the Emperor Napoleon. He comes to reconquer the
rights of the people; the people and the army may place
full dependence in him. It is around him that all who
love the glory and the liberty of France ought to gather
themselves. Soldiers l you will feel, as does your com-
mander, all the grandeur of the enterprise which you are
about to undertake, all the sanctity of the cause which
you are about to defend. Soldiers 1 may the nephew of
the Emperor Napoleon count upon you?”
His voice was drowned in an instant with unanimous
cries of “Vive Napoléon I Vive 1°Empereur !”
I then spoke in the following terms: “Resolved to
conquer or to die in the cause of the French nation, it
was before you that I wished to present myself in the
first instance, because between you and me exist some
great recollections in common. It was in your regiment
that the Emperor Napoleon, my uncle, served as a
captain; it was in your company that he distinguished
himself at the siege of Toulon; and it was also your
brave regiment which opened the gates of Grenoble to
him on his return from Elba. Soldiers l new destinies
are in store for you. To you is accorded the glory of
commencing a great enterprise—to you it is given first
to salute the eagle of Austerlitz and Wagram I?’
APPENDIX A 335
I then snatched the eagle which had been borne by
one of my officers, M. de Querelles, and presenting it to
them, continued : “Soldiers 1 behold the symbol of the
glory of France, destined also to become the emblem of
liberty l During fifteen years it led our fathers to
victory, it has glittered upon every field of battle, it has
traversed all the capitals of Europe. Soldiers l will you
not rally round this noble standard, which I confide to
your honour and your courage 2 Will you refuse to
march with me against the betrayers and oppressors of
our country to the cry of ‘Vive la France I Vive la
Liberté P”
A thousand affirmative cries replied to my appeal. We
then set out in marching order, the band playing before
us. Joy and hope beamed on every face. The plan of
operations was, to rush to the general’s quarters; to
hold—not a pistol at his head—but the eagle before his
eyes, in order to lead him with us. In order to arrive
at his hotel we had to march all across the town. On
the way I had to send an officer with a file of men to a
printer’s to publish my proclamations; another to the
prefect to put him under arrest; and others, in all six in
number, were despatched upon special missions; so that,
by the time I arrived at the general’s I had thus volun-
tarily parted with a portion of my forces. But, I
thought, had I any occasion to surround myself with so
many soldiers? Did I not count upon the participation
of the people? And, in truth, whatever may now be
said of the matter, throughout the whole of my road I
received the most unequivocal testimonies of the sym-
pathy of the population. All I had to do was to defend
myself against the vehemence of the marks of interest
which were lavished upon me; and the various cries
which greeted me showed me that there was not a single
party which did not sympathize with the feelings of my
heart,
336 LOUIS NAPOLEON
When we had arrived at the hotel of the general I
ascended to his room, followed by MM. Vaudrey, Par-
quin, and two officers. The general was not yet dressed.
I addressed him thus: “General, I come to you as a
friend. I should be much grieved to raise our old tri-
coloured flag without having with me a brave soldier
like yourself. The garrison is on my side; therefore
make up your mind and follow me.” The eagle was
then presented to him : he repulsed it, saying, “Prince,
you have been deceived; the army knows its duties, and
I will go at once to prove it to you.” Upon this I
retired, giving orders to leave a piquet to guard him.
The general afterwards presented himself before his
soldiers in order to induce them to return to obedience;
the men, however, under the orders of M. Parquin,
defied his authority, and answered him only with reiter-
ated cries of “Vive 1°Empereur !” Eventually the
general succeeded in making his escape from his hotel
by a secret door.
When I came out from the general’s I was greeted
with the same acclamations of “Vive 1’Empereur !” but
already this first check had very deeply affected me. 1
was not prepared for it, convinced as I was that the mere
sight of the eagle ought to have awakened in the general
old souvenirs of glory, and carried him along with us.
We now again put ourselves on the march; we quitted
the high street and entered the Finkmatt barrack by
the narrow lane which leads to it from the Faubourg de
Pierre. This barrack is a spacious building built at the
end of an alley, having no thoroughfare through it; and
the ground in front of it is too narrow to allow a regi-
ment to draw up in order of battle. Upon discovering
myself to be thus hemmed in between the rampart and
the military quarters, I perceived that the plan agreed
upon had not been followed. On our arrival at the
barrack the soldiers crowded around me, and I harangued
APPENDIX A 337
them. The greater part of them then went for their
arms and returned, rallying around me, testifying their
sympathy by their acclamations. Upon perceiving,
however, that some hesitation began suddenly to mani-
fest itself amongst them, occasioned by rumours spread
by some of the officers, who strove to inspire them with
doubts as to my identity, and as, moreover, we were
losing valuable time in an unfavourable position, instead
of making the best of our speed to the other regiments
who were expecting us, I told the colonel that we ought
to quit the place. He, however, urged me to remain; I
listened to his advice, and some minutes afterwards it
was too late. Some officers of infantry now arrived, who
caused the gates to be closed, and severely rebuked their
men. But still they hesitated, and I made an attempt
to arrest the officers. Their soldiers, however, rescued
them, and then a general confusion prevailed on every
side. The space was so confined that all our party were
scattered and lost in the crowd; meanwhile the people
who had mounted upon the wall began throwing stones
at the infantry. The gunners began to make use of
their cannon, but we prevented their doing so; for we at
once saw that it would occasion a great destruction of
life. I now saw the colonel alternately arrested by the
infantry and rescued by his own men. As for myself, I
was on the point of succumbing in the midst of a multi-
tude of men, who, recognizing me, aimed their bayonets
at me. I continued parrying their blows with my Sword,
endeavouring at the same time to appease them, when
the artillerymen came and dragged me from amongst
their muskets and placed me in the midst of themselves.
I then, with some non-commissioned officers, rushed
towards the mounted artillerymen in order to get posses-
sion of a horse, but the whole body of infantry followed
me, and I found myself pent up between the horses and
the wall without possibility of moving. After this the
Z
338 LOUIS NAPOLEON
troops began to arrive from all parts, and seizing me,
conducted me to the guard-house. On entering, I found
M. Parquin, to whom I extended my hand. Addressing
me with a calm and resigned demeanour, he said,
“Prince, we shall be shot, but we will die nobly.”
“Yes,” I replied, “we have fallen in a grand and noble
enterprise.”
Shortly afterwards General Voirol arrived. On enter-
ing he said to me, “Prince, you have found only one
traitor in the French army.” I replied, “Say rather,
general, that I have found one Labédoyère.” Some
vehicles were now brought, and we were conveyed to the
new prison. Behold me then here, between four walls,
with grated windows, in the abode of criminals l Ahl
those who know what it is to pass in an instant from that
excess of happiness which is procured by grand and
noble illusions to the excess of misery which leaves no
opening for hope; those who have passed through such
an immense interval of transition without having one
moment to prepare for the change, will comprehend
what was then passing in my heart.
At the lodge we all met one another again. M. Quer-
elles, pressing my hand, said to me in a loud voice,
“Prince, notwithstanding our defeat, I am still proud of
what I have done.”
I was then subjected to an examination, during which
I was calm and resigned : my course was fixed. They
put to me such questions as the following: “What was
it that drove you to act as you have done?” “My
political opinions,” I replied, “and my desire again to
See my country free, which I have been prevented doing
by foreign invaders. In 1830 I demanded to be treated
as a simple citizen; they treated me as a pretender.
Well, I have since conducted myself as a pretender.”
“You wanted to establish a military government?” “I
wanted to establish a government founded upon popular
APPENDIX A 339
election.” “What would you have done if you had
succeeded ?” “I should have assembled a national
congress.”
I afterwards declared that as I alone had organized the
whole affair, I alone having led on and involved the
others, so also I alone ought to take upon my head the
whole responsibility.”
APPENDIX B
PRINCE LOUIS NAPOLEON IN AMERICA
(a) From the “Daily National Intelligencer,”
Washington, D.C., March 28, 1856.

BSERVING in the newspaper press frequent
remarks concerning Louis Napoleon of
France, which, if they come before himself
or his friends, are calculated to produce ill-
will in their minds towards our country, and knowing
with what filial care you watch the springs of opinion,
foreign as well as domestic, to do good to the country,
wherever it can be done with truth and honour, I have
thought that some facts concerning the sojourn of the
present Emperor of France in America, which prove that
he was not during that time the profligate he is supposed
by some to have been, would be acceptable to you
for your paper, especially as the source from which the
information is derived is of the very highest reliability.
The Rev. Chas. Stewart, chaplain in the Navy, and
author of the well-known work on the Sandwich Islands,
told the writer of this article last summer the facts alluded
to. I then expressed to him an opinion that it would be
but justice to Louis Napoleon to make them public. He
thought with me, but seemed to feel Some repugnance
to coming out himself on the subject, which, as I sup-
posed, proceeded from a delicacy in speaking publicly
of himself as the chosen friend and confidant of the
fugitive Prince. I then suggested to Mr. Stewart that I
might possibly, at Some leisure moment, “Supply his
340
APPENDIX B 341
lack of service ’’ to the public, which I now take this
method of doing.
Mr. Stewart had called with other gentlemen on Louis
Napoleon immediately on his arrival," not supposing that
anything but a mere formal acquaintance would be the
result. But the stranger was heavy-hearted and felt the
need of a friend, and he so attached himself (a mark of
his good judgment) to Mr. Stewart that a mutual friend-
ship grew up between them. They spent many hours
together. Louis Napoleon was not, during his resi-
dence in America, either intemperate or dissolute in his
habits; but in the meantime there was in the city a
young Prince of the Bonaparte family who was. This
was his cousin, the son, I believe, of Lucien Bonaparte,”
and it is his errors of conduct which are to this day
ascribed to the present Emperor of France. While in
America, however Louis Napoleon might appear in
public, he was in private in deep dejection. The dis-
grace of his failure at Strasburg preyed upon his spirits.
Were he at liberty, he said, to show letters in his posses-
sion, containing the unfulfilled promises and delusive
assurances of those of the highest rank and influence
whom he had with reason relied on to aid him, he should
stand acquitted before the world of foolish temerity. As
it was, he could never retrieve himself from the igno-
miny of his position, as casting a slur upon his under-
standing.
Mr. Stewart could not answer for Louis Napoleon
since he left this country, nor did I understand him to
deny that he might, while here, have made debts which
at the time he was unable to discharge. Since his
elevation he has shown an honourable recollection of his
former friendship to Mr. Stewart.
E. W.
* In New York, I believe, but cannot be certain that this was the
place of their first meeting.—E. W.
* Prince Pierre Bonaparte, b. 1815.
342 LOUIS NAPOLEON
(b) Letter of the Rev. C. S. Stewart in the “Daily
National Intelligencer,” April II, 1856.
To the Editors of the National Intelligencer.
Gentlemen,
My attention has been called to an article in
your journal of the 28th ultimo, in which my name is
introduced in connection with the sojourn in this city,
in 1837, of the present Emperor of the French, and state-
ments and opinions of mine in regard to the character
he sustained here placed in antagonism to a prevailing
impression on the subject. The publicity thus given to
me as a defender of the reputation of this gentleman at
that period must be my apology for this communication,
and for the request that, in justice to the personage most
concerned, the National Intelligencer may become the
channel of a brief rehearsal of the opportunities I had of
correct knowledge in the case, and of the belief, based
upon them, which I entertain.
Louis Napoleon, after having been a prisoner of State
for some months on board a French man-of-war, was
set at liberty on our shores at Norfolk in the early spring
of 1837. He came immediately to New York, as the
point at which he could be put most speedily in com-
munication with his friends in Europe. Either on the
day or the day but one after his arrival I was led to call
upon him, not as the bearer of an illustrious name or the
inheritor of an imperial title, but as a stranger and an
exile without a personal friend in the country or a letter
of introduction. I was the more readily induced to this
from representations made to me by a near relative, in
whose family he had already passed an evening, of the
deep interest his appearance and whole manner had
excited in those who then met him. The call was recip-
rocated with a promptness and cordiality I had not
APPENDIX B 343
anticipated, and in a very brief period led to an inter-
course which was almost daily for some two months,
and which ended only when we parted from each other
off Sandy Hook, on board the packet which returned him
to Europe.
The association was not that of hours only, but of
days, and on one occasion at least of days in succession,
and was characterized by a freedom of conversation on
a great variety of topics that could scarce fail, under the
ingenuousness and frankness of his manner, to put me
in possession of his views, principles, and feelings upon
most points that give insight to character. I never heard
a sentiment from him and never witnessed a feeling that
could detract from his honour and purity as a man or
his dignity as a prince; on the contrary, I often had
occasion to admire the lofty thoughts and exalted con-
ceptions which seemed most to occupy his mind.
His favourite topics when we were alone were his
uncle the Emperor, his mother, and others of his imme-
diate family, in whom he had been deeply interested;
his own relations to France by birth and imperial
registry; the inducements which led to the attempted
revolution at Strasburg, the causes of its failure, and his
chief support under the mortification of the result—
“the will of God’’ (to use his own words), “through a
direct interposition of His providence; the time had not
yet come !”
He seemed ever to feel that his personal destiny was
indissolubly linked with France; or, as his mother,
Hortense, expressed it in her will, “to know his posi-
tion ”; and the enthusiasm with which at times he gave
utterance to his aspirations for the prosperity, the hap-
piness, and the honour of his country, and to the high
purposes which he designed to accomplish for her as a
ruler, amounted, in words, voice, and manner, to posi-
tive eloquence. Had I taken notes of Some of these
344 LOUIS NAPOLEON
conversations they would be considered now, when his
visions of power and earthly glory are realized, scarcely
less epigrammatic and elevated in thought, or, as related
to himself, less prophetic, than many which have been
recorded from the lips of the exile of St. Helena.
He was winning in the invariableness of his amiability,
often playful in spirits and manner, and warm in his
affections. He was a most fondly attached son, and
seemed to idolize his mother. When speaking of her
the intonations of his voice and his whole manner were
often as gentle and feminine as those of a woman. It
had been his purpose to spend a year in making the
tour of the United States, that he might have a better
knowledge of our institutions and observe for himself
the practical workings of our political system. With
this expectation, he consulted me and others as to the
arrangement of the route of travel, so as to visit the
different sections of the Union at the most desirable
seasons. But his plans were suddenly changed by intel-
ligence of the serious illness of Queen Hortense, or, as
then styled, the Duchess of St. Leu, at her castle in
Switzerland. I was dining with him the day the letter
conveying this information was received. Recognizing
the writing on the envelope as it was handed to him at
table, he hastily broke the seal, and had scarce glanced
over half a page before he exclaimed, “My mother is
ill; I must see her. Instead of a tour of the States I
shall take the next packet for England. I will apply for
passports for the Continent at every embassy in London,
and, if unsuccessful, will make my way to her without
them.” This he did, and reached Arenenberg in time
to console by his presence the dying hours of the
ex-Queen and to receive in his bosom her last sigh.
After such opportunities of knowing much of the mind
and heart and general character of Louis Napoleon, it
was with great surprise that I for the first time read, in
APPENDIX B 345
a distant part of the world, when he had become an
Emperor, representations in the public journals of his
life in New York (and in New Orleans too, though he
was never there), which would induce a belief that he
had been when here little better than a vagabond—low
in his associations, intemperate in his indulgences, and
dissipated in his habits. In both eating and drinking he
was, so far as I observed, abstemious rather than self-
indulgent. I repeatedly breakfasted, dined, and supped
in his company, and never knew him to partake of any-
thing stronger in drink than the light wines of France
and Germany, and of these in great moderation. I have
been with him early and late, unexpectedly as well as
by appointment, and never saw reason for the slightest
suspicion of any irregularity in his habits.
It has been said, notwithstanding, that his character
was so notorious that he was not received in Society and
made no respectable acquaintances. If during his brief
stay in the city, at a period of the year when general
entertainments are not usual, he was not met in the self-
constituted beau-monde of the metropolis, it was from
his own choice. Within the week of his arrival cards
and invitations were left for him at his hotel. As a
reason for declining to accept the last, he told me he
had no wish to appear in what is called Society, but
added, “There are, however, individuals resident in
New York whose acquaintance I should be happy to
make. Mr. Washington Irving is one. I have read
his works, and admire him both as a writer and a man,
and would take great pleasure in meeting him. Chan-
cellor Kent is another. I have studied his Comment-
aries, think highly of them, and regard him as the first
of your jurists. I would be happy to know him
personally.”
He did make the acquaintance of Mr. Irving and the
Chancellor, and enjoyed the hospitality of the one at
346 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Sunnyside and of the other at his residence in town.
He saw some of the best French society of the city; and,
familiar with the historic names of New York, availed
himself of the proffered civilities of such families as the
Hamiltons, the Clintons, the Livingstones, and others
of like position. It is not true, therefore, that he was
not received in society and had no acquaintances of
respectability. He visited in some of our first families
in social position, and was entertained by some of our
most distinguished citizens.
It is said that he was without means, and lived on
loans which he never repaid. This is simply absurd. I
am under the impression that his private fortune was
then unimpaired, and beyond the reach of the French
Government; but, if this were not the case, his mother’s
wealth was ample, and his drafts upon her for any
amount would have been promptly honoured. I doubt
not that funds were waiting his arrival, or, if not, were
readily at his command.
Louis Napoleon may have had some associations in
New York of which I was ignorant; and he, like Dickens
and other distinguished foreigners, may have carried
his observations, under the protection of the police, to
scenes in which I would not have accompanied him. If
he did, I never heard of it, and have now no reason to
suppose such was the fact. But that he was an habitué,
as has been publicly reported, of drinking-Saloons and
oyster-cellars, gambling-houses, and places of worse
repute I do not believe. I can recall to my recollection
no young man of the world whom I have ever met who,
in what seemed an habitual elevation of mind and an
invariable dignity of bearing, would have been less at
home than he in such associations.
There was, however, in New York, at the same time
and for about the same period, a Prince Bonaparte who
was, I have reason to think, of a very different character.
APPENDIX B 347
His antecedents in Europe had not been favourable, and
his reputation here was not good. He, too, was in
exile, but not for a political offence. He may not have
been received in Society and may have had low associa-
tions. I met him, but, from this impression, formed no
acquaintance with him. For the same reason the inter-
course between him and his cousin was infrequent and
formal. All that has been said and published of the
one may be true of the other; and, in the search for
reminiscences of the sojourn in New York of Louis
Napoleon, on his elevation to a throne fifteen years
afterwards, it is not difficult to believe that those ignor-
ant of the presence here at the same time of two persons
of the same name and same title may have confounded
the acts and character of the one with the other. This, I
doubt not, is the fact, and that, however general and
firmly established the impression to the contrary may
be, the reproach of a disreputable life here does not
justly attach itself to him, who is now confessedly the
most able, the most fortunate, and the most remarkable
Sovereign in Europe.
C. S. STEwART, U.S. Navy.
(c) From the “Daily National Intelligencer,”
April 11, 1856.
. Meeting yesterday with a letter in the Courrier des
Etats Unis, of New York, on the above subject, it
appeared to us that it might be appropriately appended
to the Rev. Mr. Stewart’s communication as independ-
ent corroborative testimony from another respectable
Source, and we accordingly translate and subjoin it, as
follows:–
BROOKLYN, April 7, 1856.
Mr. Editor,
When Prince Louis Napoleon was in New York
in the year 1837 I was of the small number whom he
348 LOUIS NAPOLEON
admitted to his society and even to his confidence. My
former relations with him and the proofs of friendship
which he kindly gave me at that period lay upon me the
duty of refuting the silly imputations, the insinuations,
at once malevolent and absurd, put in circulation relative
to the short sojourn of the Prince in New York.
Certain persons have pretended that Louis Napoleon
passed quite a long time in a French hotel at Hoboken,
where he led a most extravagant life, and which he left
without paying his bill.
On another hand a fourth-rate lawyer has thought it
proper to earn a little notoriety by recounting that he
extricated Louis Napoleon from the prison of the
Tombs, and that his fee for this service, after being long
forgotten, had been paid by his client since his accession
to power. To this assertion there is but a single reply
to make—it is that in 1837 the Tombs did not exist.
The Sunday Dispatch of yesterday, in a short and
superficial refutation of these rumours, says that the
exiled Prince, during his sojourn in New York, was
“ the guest of a rich citizen.” This, too, is a mistake.
From the day of his arrival to that of his embarkment
on the packet-boat Independence 1 (June 23, 1837),
Louis Napoleon had lodgings at the Washington Hotel,
situated on Broadway, where to-day the magnificent
store of Stewart rises to the view. There he received
and sometimes entertained at his table—in company with
Count Arèse, who had remained one of his most intimate
confidants—a very small number of friends—Messieurs
Confalonieri, Foresti, Maroncelli, Hackett, Peugnier,
* This is a mistake. The boat was the George Washington, and the
date of sailing June 8. “Among the gentlemen who have taken
passage in the George Washington for Liverpool is Prince Napoleon Louis
Bonaparte, who returns to Europe in consequence of the illness of his
mother, the ex-Queen of Holland.”—New York Commercial Advertiser,
June 9, 1837. “Sailed in the ship George Washington for Liverpool, Prince
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte of France.”—Ibid., June 9, 1837.
APPENDIX B 349
Lacoste, the Rev. Mr. Stewart, and some others. He
led a very retired and remarkably regular life, accepting
none of the invitations with which he was unremittingly
besieged. The only exception he made was for the
soirées of Madame Mathurin Livingston, whose family
he particularly esteemed, and of Madame Pannon, who
gathered around her once a week the élite of French
society in New York.
Far from leading the life which is ascribed to him,
the Prince, on the contrary, was occupied with serious
labours and projects. Shortly after his arrival he
applied to me for a plan of a grand agricultural estab-
lishment, since he purposed to buy land and settle on it
a little French colony. This design was frustrated only
by his precipitate departure, occasioned by the alarm-
ing intelligence he received respecting the health of his
mother.
This, Mr. Editor, is the simple truth concerning the
short residence of Louis Napoleon in New York.
Yours, etc.,
L. W. T.INELLI.
(d) From the “Daily National Intelligencer,”
April 15, 1856.
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 14, 1856.
To the Editors of the National Intelligencer.
In your paper of the IIth instant I notice a com-
munication from the Rev. Charles S. Stewart in rela-
tion to the life of the present Emperor Napoleon when
in New York, in which he says:
“Either on the day or the day but one after his arrival
I was led to call upon him, not as the bearer of an illus-
trious name or the inheritor of an imperial title, but as
350 LOUIS NAPOLEON
a stranger and an exile without a personal friend in the
Country or a letter of introduction. I was the more
readily induced to this from the representations made to
me by a near relative, in whose family he had already
passed an evening, of the deep interest his appearance and
whole manner had excited in those who then met him.”
I am the “near relative ’’ referred to; and, believing
with you that, “considering the relations in which the
present Emperor of the French stands to the nation over
which he presides, and the influence he exerts over affairs
of Europe, his personal character and antecedents be-
come not only subjects of lawful curiosity, but of grave
historical value,” I desire to add my testimony to that
of the Rev. Mr. Stewart against the charges of intem-
perance and dissolute conduct preferred against him
during his sojourn in New York.
I was spending the winter of 1836–7 at the City Hotel
in New York, and it so happened that on the evening of
Louis Napoleon’s arrival several friends were dining
with me. The landlord reported his arrival, and, with
the approbation of my guests, I waited upon him and
informed him that some friends, including one of the
most distinguished men in the country, were then dining
with me, and invited him to join our circle. He did so,
and was welcomed by those present in a manner which,
I am sure, made him feel that he was among a people
who sympathized with him in his exile. Under the
auspices of those present he was introduced into all the
old families of the city whom he desired to know; and
during the winter visited familiarly in the circle into
which he had been introduced, without any apparent
desire to mix in what is known as the merely fashionable
Society, representing chiefly the moneyed aristocracy of
the city. I saw a good deal of the Prince during the
winter," and was generally familiar with his mode of
* A mistake, He only arrived in America on March 30.
APPENDIX B 35 I
passing his time, his associates, etc. And in the spring,
when I returned to my country residence, he made me
a visit there. Subsequently, in the summer of 1839, I
met him in London, where our intercourse was renewed.
I have noticed the charges made from time to time
against the habits of the Prince while in New York;
and, from my own knowledge of his associations while
there, I have never entertained a doubt but the stories
in circulation with regard to his low associations and his
being the habitué of gaming and drinking houses, etc.,
arose from confounding him with his cousin, who bore
a very striking resemblance to the great Napoleon, and,
in consequence, was very generally mistaken for Prince
Louis, who is now Napoleon III.
I am quite safe in saying that those who knew the
present Emperor best when in this country, as also those
in whose houses he was an inmate while in England,
entertain the highest opinion of his talents and of his
generally correct bearing. Certain it is that no part of
his conduct during his brief stay in the United States
gives any warrant for the slanderous stories which have
been put in circulation under a misapprehension of the
party to whom they are applicable. I doubt greatly
whether the Prince contracted any debts while in this
country, and I know the fact that immediately upon his
being elected President of France he invited our country-
man, Mr. Bates, of the firm of Baring Brothers, who
had always been kind to him, to bring Mrs. Bates with
him to the Palace of Elysée on a friendly visit, and to
be careful to ascertain the particulars of his indebtedness
in England, in order that all Outstanding demands
against him might be liquidated. Mr. and Mrs. Bates
made the visit accordingly, and were received with grati-
tude and kindness; and on his return to London Mr.
Bates paid off every debt or claim which existed in Eng-
land against his friend Louis Napoleon. In short, the
352 LOUIS NAPOLEON
present Emperor has never forgotten any little act of
kindness or attention which was extended to the exiled
Prince; and even the slight attentions which I had the
pleasure of showing him when a stranger and an exile
among us have been remembered and acknowledged in
an autograph letter from the Emperor Napoleon, in
which he gracefully, and in the spirit of true greatness,
expresses his “grateful recollections of kindnesses ex-
tended towards him in the days of his adversity.”
It is no part of the duty, and certainly not the interest,
of the American people to give credit or currency to the
falsehoods which have been so industriously circulated
against one who, I have reason to believe, retains a
pleasant recollection of his sojourn in the United States,
and is desirous of cultivating the most friendly relations
with us; and therefore I have troubled you with this
communication.
Yours, etc.,
J. WATSON WEBB.
(e) From “The History of Napoleon III,” by John
S. C. Abbott, Boston, 1868, chap. viii., p. 125 seq.
There have been conflicting accounts with regard to
the conduct of the Prince while in the United States. He
has been described as dissipated, frequenting disreput-
able society, and as involving himself in debts which are
left yet unpaid. No one can read the foregoing nar-
rative and believe that the Prince—a thoughtful, Sorrow-
ing man, who was conscious that imperial blood flowed
in his veins, and who felt that an unseen, resistless power
was leading him, through clouds and darkness, to the
throne of France—could possibly take pleasure in the
companionship of low and vulgar men.
An article published in the Home Journal a few years
ago, from a writer whose reliability was indorsed by the
APPENDIX B 353
editors, gives a very pleasing account of the habits of
the Prince while here :–
“So much mere scandal,” says the Home Journal,
“concerning the character of Louis Napoleon during
his brief residence in this city in the year 1837, has been
presented through the press to the public, that we are
glad of an opportunity to give it, from authentic Sources,
distinct and emphatic refutation.
“The fact is, that few enjoyed the acquaintance of
Prince Louis when among us at the period referred to,
and but a small number of those remain to speak of him.
A naturally reserved disposition, enhanced by the cir-
cumstances of his exile, made him averse to general
society. He was, however, an object of peculiar regard
and interest wherever presented. He is remembered as a
quiet, melancholy man, winning esteem rather by the
unaffected modesty of his demeanour than by éclat of
lineage or the romantic incidents which had befallen
him. Where best known, he was endeared. His per-
sonal character was above reproach. In the words of a
distinguished writer who well knew him at that day, ‘So
unostentatious was his deportment, SO correct, SO pure
his life, that even the ripple of scandal cannot plausibly
appear upon its surface.”
“We have inquired of those who entertained him as
their guest, of those who tended at his sick-bed, of the
artist who painted his miniature, of his lady friends (and
he was known to some who yet adorn Society), of poli-
ticians, clergymen, editors, gentlemen of leisure—and
we have gathered but accumulated testimonials to his
intrinsic worth and fair fame.
“His career was unobtrusive, and affords any incident
wherewith to illustrate it. Firm faith in destiny—a
ruling star that would some day lead him to the throne
of France—was his striking peculiarity. He often
avowed it, and always with confidence, Allusion to his
A A
354 LOUIS NAPOLEON
attempt at Strasburg evidently annoyed him. It was at
that time the great event of his life; it was the cause of
his then unfortunate exile, and had been the Source to
him of much misrepresentation and injustice.
“To-day he is, by the voice of millions, Emperor of
the French. The same man who quietly drove a pair
of horses up Broadway every afternoon was seen by me
surrounded by a brilliant staff, reviewing thousands of
troops in the Champ de Mars in Paris.
“I remember well a dinner-party was given to him
at Delmonico's by a set of young men, some of whom
were then figures in the political world, and have since
become conspicuous. At the dinner, Louis Napoleon
was seated next to a prominent democrat, when the con-
versation turned on the subject of politics. In reply to
a remark, made in badinage, that the democratic party
in every country was made up of the uneducated and
restless spirits of the nation, this gentleman answered
that, from the time of Caesar to the present day, the
most accomplished men, and men of the highest intellect,
were, in every country, the leaders of the popular party.
“This observation attracted the attention of Louis
Napoleon, who instantly turned to the speaker, and in-
quired if he had ever seen the remark that Caesar was
the head of the democratic party of Rome. The gentle-
man said that he had not.
“‘My uncle, the Emperor,” added Louis Napoleon,
‘made the same remark which you have made. With
your permission, I will send you a book, in which you
may take some interest, relating to Caesar.” That book
was sent, with this written in the Prince’s own hand-
writing on one of the pages: ‘A Monsieur - SOU!-
venir de la parte de Pe. Napoléon Louis Bonaparte.” The
book is entitled Précis des Guerres de César, par Napo-
léon, êcrit par M. Marchand, a l’Île Sainte Hélène, sous
la Dictee de l’Empereur.”
APPENDIX B 355
Professor Samuel F. B. Morse has kindly furnished
me with the following narrative of an interview he
chanced to have with the Prince at that time:–
“In the year 1837 I was one of a club of gentlemen
in New York who were associated for social and in-
formal intellectual converse, which held weekly meet-
ings at each other's houses in rotation. Mose of these
distinguished men are now deceased. The club con-
sisted of such men as Chancellor Kent, Albert Gallatin,
Peter Augustus Jay, Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Wain-
wright, the presidents and professors of Columbia Col-
lege, the chancellor and professors of the New York
City University, etc.
“Among the rules of the club was one permitting any
member to introduce to the meeting distinguished
strangers visiting the city. At one of the reunions of
the club, the place of meeting was at Chancellor Kent’s.
On assembling, the chancellor introduced us to Louis
Napoleon Bonaparte, a young man, pale, contemplative,
and somewhat reserved. This reserve we generally
attributed to a supposed imperfect acquaintance with
our language.
“At supper he sat on the right of the chancellor, at
the head of the table. Mr. Gallatin was opposite the
chancellor, at the foot of the table, and I was on his
right. In the course of the evening, when the con-
versation was general, I drew the attention of Mr. Gal-
latin to the stranger, observing that I did not trace any
resemblance in his features to his world-renowned uncle,
yet that his forehead indicated great intellect.
“‘Yes,’ replied Mr. Gallatin, touching his own fore-
head with his finger, “there is a great deal in that head
of his; but he has a strange fancy. Can you believe it?
He has the impression that he will one day be Emperor
of the French l Can you conceive of anything more
absurd P’
356 $ LOUIS NAPOLEON
“Certainly at that period, even to the sagacious mind
of Mr. Gallatin, such an idea would naturally seem too
improbable to be entertained for a moment; but in the
light of later events, and the actual state of things at
present, does not the fact show that, even in his darkest
hour, there was in this extraordinary man that unabated
faith in his future which was a harbinger of success—
a faith which pierced the dark clouds that enshrouded
him, and realized to him in marvellous prophetic vision
that which we see at this day and hour fully accom-
plished ”
APPENDIX C
LOUIS NAPOLEON'S OPINIONS ON AMERICA AND
AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS
(a) As recorded by Henry Wikoff in conversation with
the Prince at Ham.1

OTHING can be more incongruous than
to hurry to conclusions relative to the
effects of your institutions, or the dis-
positions of your people. Both, it may
be said, are new and untried, and it is the business of
philosophy to look calmly down and weigh every result
in the scale of investigation. We know positively
nothing about you in Europe, either of your system or
of your character. Our reasonings are all founded in
the events of our own history; whereas your political
and social career, proceeding from premises wholly
different, must lead to far other and most novel con-
sequences. I regret with all my heart that I had not
time to travel extensively over the United States, and
scrutinize, as far as a foreigner may, the workings of
your political machinery; but more especially the peculi-
arities of your people. The great secret lies here; the
same government in Europe, were it possible, would
produce altogether different results; and from the little
* Biographical Sketches of Louis AWapoleon Bonaparte, First President of
France, 1849, p. 89 seq. By Henry Wikoff. The words are not to be
taken literally as those of the Prince, the conversation being written
down afterwards, but they may be regarded substantially as expressing
the Prince's ideas and opinions at the time.
357
358 LOUIS NAPOLEON
I saw of the United States, there was far more to study
in the habits, tastes, and opinions of the people them-
selves than in the structure even of your institutions,
though so ingenious and original. There was, in the
first place, a latitude of liberty which confounded me,
and which, perhaps, is less comprehensible to a French-
man than to any other nation; for the peculiarity with
us is the excess of governmental interference in every-
thing. . . . The politician who is sincere in his desires
for the regeneration of France will earnestly set to work
to curtail governmental sway. Almost the first step in
this true path remains to be taken, and that the people
are sufficiently ripe for making a beginning I do most
conscientiously believe. It was just the opposite state
of things that riveted my attention in America. The
people there are not only accustomed to think for them-
selves, but i observed they were keenly jealous of the
smallest interference with their actions. They cannot
be too vigilant in this respect; for so long as public
men are prevented from sacrificing the public weal to
their personal aggrandizement, the condition of the State
must remain sound. There was one feature, however,
of your social system which greatly interested, and, I
may say, perplexed me. A European, habituated to a
society of castes, where artificial distinctions are per-
petuated by law and privilege, comes to America, the
only land where equality is not a dogma of the schools,
prepared to find society flowing over one smooth,
unbroken level; where all individuals of good repute,
without reference to fortune or occupation, are seen to
mingle freely and harmoniously together. Judge his
surprise, therefore, to meet with the same arbitrary dis-
tinctions between classes which he is accustomed to
behold in Europe; to hear the same conventional terms
in use as to quality, and to perceive the same struggle
going on between cliques and coteries for the ascend-
APPENDIX C 359
ency which he reasonably thought were the natural pro-
duction of an aristocratic soil, and hardly expected to
find transplanted and flourishing on a democratic
ground. With us, you know, social rank is broadly
marked and easily recognized; but amongst you, where
title is not worn and fortunes are not perpetuated, con-
fess that a foreigner is likely to be puzzled as to the
nature of the distinctions which exist, and to marvel
Somewhat at their existing at all. I soon became aware
of these shades and differences, but had not time enough
to come to any accurate conclusions on the subject. I
readily accepted the numerous civilities proffered me
from every side, as I was anxious to judge for myself of
the various shades of your society. I remember very
well on one occasion receiving the visit at my hotel of a
gentlemanly person who introduced himself, frankly
saying that he was a simple citizen of New York, but
being desirous of the honour of entertaining so near a
relative of the Emperor Napoleon, had come to invite
me to an evening party at his house. I thanked him
cordially for his flattering invitation, and cheerfully
accepted it. I failed not at the appointed time, and was
highly gratified with my reception. The house was
spacious and elegant, the guests well dressed and agree-
able, and the entertainment in all respects luxurious.
There was all the ease and self-possession of good
Society (which, by the bye, is singularly characteristic of
Americans); nothing uncouth or vulgar that I saw, and
my evening passed off with great relish. I should not
omit to say that the fairer portion of the company con-
firmed my previous impressions of American beauty.
The next day, in relating the circumstance to Some of
my visitors, I mentioned the name of my affable host,
and great was the indignation thereat. A most imper-
tinent liberty had been taken with me, was their remark.
Somewhat startled at this information, I inquired in
360 LOUIS NAPOLEON
haste as to the character of the party. There was nothing
to be alleged against that, it was admitted. To his in-
telligence and civility I can bear witness, I replied; then
pray tell me what it is which renders his house so unfit
a place for me? “Oh,” was the response, “he does
not belong to the best society.” I attempted with great
earnestness to trace the nature of such distinctions, but
their subtlety completely foiled me. I could obtain no
Satisfactory clue to these mystical ramifications, and was
left to conclude that they were wholly capricious and
unreasonable. Without yielding to prejudices that were
evidently local, I remarked to my friend that New York
was fortunate in possessing a class in any degree
superior to the one in question. And really, there seems
to me something illogical in refusing to associate with
one man who may, perchance, trade in oil, whilst
another is courted because he owns the ship which trans-
ports it abroad. . . .
I was but a little while amongst your countrymen
before I discovered that the many amiable attentions
offered me were dictated by respect for the name I bore
rather than from any regard to my titular rank. It was
in this spirit that I received a compliment that touched
me nearly. I was on my way back to my hotel from
a pleasant dinner at the country house on Long Island of
one of your leading journalists," whose hospitality laid
me under much obligation, when in driving through the
streets of Brooklyn, I found several military companies
drawn up in anticipation of my return, and who paid
me the honour of a passing salute. Judge of my sur-
prise, only equalled by my pleasure, to find myself, a
stranger in exile and misfortune, the object of such a
demonstration. Its value was infinitely enhanced by the
fact that it was not the formal display of an official
body, nor yet partook of that conventional courtesy
1 General Watson Webb.
APPENDIX C 361
which prompts a monarchical government to honour the
representative of royal pretensions, but was clearly the
spontaneous act of a people entirely free, and meant
solely to express in a dignified manner their respect for
the memory of Napoleon and their regard for the land
of my birth. In Europe the civility of any functionary
might have procured me this honour, but in the United
States I felt that such a manifestation could not proceed
from any individual source, and that unless the impulse
came from the people, no commander, civil or military,
would presume to suggest it. This, and many other
incidents during my stay, soon taught me where the
real power amongst you resided, and it was so totally
unlike anything I had ever before seen, that it opened
a new and curious view of reflection in my mind. No
foreigner who can raise himself above the prejudices of
his country or station can pass a single day in the
United States without profit to his heart and under-
standing.
That your countrymen should regard the distinctions
of rank with such supreme indifference is natural from
not having grown up under their influence, and from
their habit of employing their reason only in estimat-
ing men and things. Your institutions rest upon this
foundation only, whilst ours constantly appeal to the
imagination. Your view of French society is correct,
for rank, in losing its wealth, is diminished in import-
ance, and, to the unspeakable honour of my country,
intellect holds pre-eminence. So sensible am I of the
fact that capacity in French esteem takes precedence of
all illusion, that I writhe under the cruel and unneces-
Sary expatriation of my family. . . .
You quite overlook my claims to republican ideas and
habits by forgetting that I was educated for the most
part in a republican country. Bred among the single-
minded and pure-hearted mountaineers of Switzerland;
362 LOUIS NAPOLEON
early inured to their unaffected manners and simple
tastes, where should I contract the arrogant bearing and
dissembling selfishness of the habitué of a court 2 The
truth is, I have learned, after many rude lessons, that a
republican school is not exactly the sort of training that
fits a man best to cope with the artifice of designing
men. Were we to enter on a discussion of politics, it
might turn out that our views were not altogether dis-
similar; though, perchance, I might not agree with you
that because republican truths were the soundest, they
must necessarily succeed on a premature trial.
(b) From a letter addressed to M. Vieillard, dated New
York, April 30, 1837.
All the States of America formerly European colonies
were formed under more or less favourable auspices. In
their own interest, which could only be commercial, they
have separated themselves from the mother country.
But a minor who declares himself to be of age at six-
teen, let his physical strength be what it may, is only a
child. We are men only when we have reached the full
development of our physical and moral forces. Now,
this country possesses immense material forces, but it is
entirely deficient in moral force. The United States
believed themselves to be a nation as soon as they had a
government elected by themselves, a president and
chambers. They were, and are still, only an independent
colony. The transition is going on daily; the caterpillar
is casting his skin and taking to wings that will raise
him. But I do not think the transition will be com-
pleted without crises and convulsions.
In principle every colony is a real republic. It is an
association of men who all, with equal rights, have
agreed together to develop the products of a certain
APPENDIX C 363
country. It matters little whether they have a governor
or a president for chief. They require, for their govern-
ment, only a few police regulations. This is so true
that North Carolina (I think), having asked the cele-
brated Locke for a constitution, received from him a
series of laws in which all the powers were balanced as
in a European society, where, in a confined space,
thousands of men must be held to one point, although
they have conflicting interests. Locke’s constitution
could not be used. The population were all equal in
manners, ideas, and interests. It was one wheel that
had to be turned, and the necessary mechanism was so
simple that it required neither genius nor complicated
forces.
But now the population has thickened. It is composed
of an American type that is sharply defined, and of daily
arriving immigrants who have no education, no popular
traditions, and mostly no patriotism. Industry and
commerce have now destroyed equality in fortunes.
Great cities have been raised, in which man has not to
contend against the soil, but the man, his neighbour.
In short, the moral world now begins to rise upon the
physical world. To-day we find, here and there, that
the reign of ideas is opening on this side the Atlantic.
In the midst of this world of traders, where there is not
a man who is not a speculator, it has entered the heads
of a few honest men that slavery is a bad thing, although
it is highly profitable; and, for the first time, the heart
of America has vibrated for an interest that is not a
money one. It has entered into the head of a party,
whether right or wrong, that the bank is trenching on
the rights of democracy, and for a principle has upset
the altar of commerce. In short, the same men who,
with their European traditions, had never thought of
obtaining guarantees except against authority are now
seeking for some against the tyranny of the crowd. For
364 LOUIS NAPOLEON
here there is liberty to acquire, but not liberty to enjoy;
there is the right to act, but not to think; in fine—who
would believe it?—there is in many things licence and
absolutism. So true is it, as Montesquieu says, that the
laws which have made a little people a great one weigh
heavily upon them when they have become great.
APPENDIX D
THE BOULOGNE PROCLAMATIONS
(a) To the French people.
RENCHMEN, the ashes of the Emperor
shall reach only a regenerated France. The
manes of the great man should not be soiled
by impure or hypocritical honours. Glory
and liberty must stand by the bier of Napoleon. The
traitors to the country must have disappeared.
Banished from my country, if I alone were unhappy,
I should not complain; but the glory and honour of the
country are exiled as well as I; Frenchmen, we will
return together. To-day, as three years ago, I come to
devote myself to the popular cause. If chance made me
fail at Strasburg, an Alsacien jury proved to me that I
had not deceived myself
What have those who rule over you done to have
claims on your love 2 They promised you peace, and
they brought civil war and the disastrous war of Africa;
they promised you diminished taxes, and all the gold
you possess could not quench their avidity; they prom-
ised you an honest administration, and they reign only
by corruption; they promised you liberty, and they pro-
tect only privileges and abuses; they oppose all reform;
they produce (ils n'enfantent) only what is arbitrary
and anarchic; they promised stability, and in ten years
they have established nothing. In short, they promised
they would conscientiously defend our honour, our
rights, our interests, and they have everywhere sold our
honour, abandoned our rights, and betrayed our in-
365
366 LOUIS NAPOLEON
terests. It is time that an end should be put to so much
iniquity; it is time to go and ask them what they have
done with the great, generous, and unanimous France
of 1830.
Agriculturists, they have left you in time of peace
with heavier taxes than Napoleon raised in time of war.
Merchants and tradesmen, your interests are sacrificed
to foreign exigencies; the money which the Emperor
used to encourage your efforts and to enrich you is
employed to corrupt.
Lastly, all of you poor and laborious classes, who are
in France the refuge of all noble sentiments, remember
that it was from among you that Napoleon chose his
lieutenants, his marshals, his ministers, his princes, his
friends. Support me with your help, and let us show the
world that neither you nor I have degenerated.
I had hoped with you that we should be able to correct
the bad influences of the government without revolution,
but to-day there is no longer any hope. In ten years
the ministry has been changed ten times. If it were
changed ten times more the evils under which the
country suffers would remain the same.
When one has the honour to be at the head of a
people like the French, there is an infallible way of
doing great things, and that is to will them.
To-day there is in France only violence on one side
and licence on the other. I desire to establish order and
liberty. I desire, by surrounding myself with all the
great men of the country without exception, and by rest-
ing on the will and interests of the masses, to lay the
basis of an unassailable edifice.
I desire to give to France real alliances and a solid
peace, and not to throw her into the hazards of a general
War.
Frenchmen, I see before me the brilliant future of the
country; I feel behind me, impelling me forward, the
APPENDIX D 367
shade of the Emperor; I shall pause only when I have
taken back the sword of Austerlitz, replaced the eagles
upon our standards, and reinstated the people in their
rights.
Vive la France 1
NAPOLEON.
(b) To the army.
Soldiers, France is made to command, and she obeys.
You are the élite of the people, and you are treated like
a vile flock; you are made to protect the national honour,
and your arms are turned against your brothers. Those
who govern you would degrade the noble profession of a
Soldier. You were indignant, and you sought to know
what had become of the eagles of Arcole, of Austerlitz,
and of Jena. The eagles are here—I bring them back
to you; take them. With them you will know glory,
honour, fortune, and, what is more than all, the grati-
tude and esteem of your fellow-countrymen.
Soldiers, your acclamations when I presented myself
before you at Strasburg have not been forgotten by me;
I have not forgotten the regrets you manifested at my
defeat.
Between you and me there are indissoluble ties; we
have the same hates and the same affections, the same
interests and the same enemies.
Soldiers, the great shade of the Emperor speaks to
you with my voice. Hasten, while it is crossing the
ocean, to drive away the traitors and oppressors. Show
him when he comes that you are the worthy sons of the
Grand Army, and that you have taken back those sacred
emblems which, during forty years, made the enemies of
France tremble, amongst whom were the men who
govern you to-day.
Soldiers, to arms 1 Vive la France 1
NAPOLEON.
368 LOUIS NAPOLEON
(c) To the inhabitants of the Pas-de-Calais.
Inhabitants of the department of the Pas-de-Calais
and of Boulogne !
Followed by a handful of brave men, I have set foot
on the soil of France, to enter which is forbidden me by
an unjust law. Do not fear my rashness; I come to
reassure the destinies of France and not to compromise
them. I have powerful friends both without and within
the country who have promised to help me. The signal
is given, and soon all France, and Paris the first, will
rise en masse to tread underfoot ten years of lying, usur-
pation and ignominy, for all the towns as well as all the
villages will demand an account of the Government of
the particular interests which it has betrayed.
See your ports almost deserted; see your ships lying
idle on the strand; see your labouring population which
has not the wherewithal to nourish its children because
the Government has not dared to protect its commerce;
and then cry with me, “Traitors, disappear; the spirit
of Napoleon, which thinks only of the well-being of the
people, advances to confound you.”
Inhabitants of the department of the Pas-de-Calais ! Do
not fear that the links which bind you to your neigh-
bours across the Channel will be broken. The mortal
remains of the Emperor and the Imperial eagle come
back from exile only with sentiments of love and recon-
ciliation. Two great peoples are made to understand
each other, and the glorious column which stands so
proudly on your coast as a souvenir of war will become
an expiatory monument when all our former hatreds
shall be forgotten.
Town of Boulogne, which Napoleon so much loved,
you are about to be the first link of a chain which will
reunite all civilized peoples; your glory will be imperish-
APPENDIX D 369
able, and France will render thanksgivings to those
generous men who were the first to salute with their
acclamations our flag of Austerlitz.
Inhabitants of Boulogne, rally to me, and have Con-
fidence in the providential mission bequeathed to me by
the martyr of St. Helena. From the top of the column
of the Grand Army the genius of the Emperor watches
over us and applauds our efforts because they have but
one object, the happiness of France.
NAPOLEON.
B B
APPENDIX E
LOUIS NAPOLEON'S OWN ACCOUNT OF THE
ESCAPE FROM HAM

Y dear Degeorge, The desire of once more
seeing my father in this world has prompted
me to undertake an enterprise, the boldest
which I have yet attempted, and for which
more resolution and courage were necessary than for
those of Strasburg and Boulogne; for I had determined
not to endure the ridicule which is the lot of those
arrested under a disguise, and a failure would have been
insupportable. But here are the details of my escape.
You know that the fort was guarded by four hundred
men who furnished daily a guard of sixty soldiers placed
as sentries within and without the fort. Moreover, the
principal gate of the prison was guarded by three
gaolers, two of whom were constantly on duty.
It was therefore necessary first to pass them, next to
traverse the whole interior court in front of the com-
mandant’s windows; having arrived at the gate, it was
necessary to pass the wicket kept by a soldier de planton
and a sergeant, a turnkey, a sentinel, and last of all a
post of thirty men.
Being desirous of avoiding all understandings with
the garrison, it was of course necessary to assume a
disguise; and as considerable repairs were being made
in the rooms which I used, it was easy to adopt a work-
man’s dress. My good and faithful Charles Thélin pro-
cured me a blouse and sabots. I cut off my moustaches
370
APPENDIX E 37I
and took a plank upon my shoulder. At half-past six
on Monday morning I saw the workmen enter. As soon
as they came to their work Charles took them into a
room to drink in order to get them out of the way. One
of the keepers had to be called up-stairs, whilst Dr.
Conneau conversed with the others. Scarcely, however,
was I out of my room than I was accosted by a workman
who took me for one of his comrades; at the bottom
of the stairs I found myself face to face with the
keeper.
Luckily I screened myself with the plank which I
carried, and I reached the court, always contriving to
keep the plank towards the sentinels and those whom I
Inet.
As I passed in front of the first sentinel I let my pipe
fall; I stopped, however, to pick up the fragments.
I next met the officer of the guard, but he was reading
a letter and did not remark me. The soldiers at the
wicket seemed surprised at my figure; the drummer
especially turned to look at me several times.
In the meantime, however, the planton of the guard
opened the gate, and I found myself outside the fortress.
Then I met two workmen who were approaching me,
and looked at me with attention. I put the plank on the
side towards them; they appeared, however, so curious,
that I thought I should not be able to escape them, when
I heard them say, “Oh, it’s Berthaud.”
Once beyond the walls I walked rapidly towards the
road to St. Quentin. Shortly after, Charles, who the
evening before had engaged a carriage for himself,
joined me, and we made our way to St. Quentin. I
crossed the town on foot, after having got rid of my
blouse.
Charles, having procured a post-chaise under pretence
of a drive to Cambrai, we arrived without hindrance at
Valenciennes, from where I took the railroad.
372 LOUIS NAPOLEON
I was provided with a Belgian passport, but it was
never asked for.
During this time Conneau, always so devoted to me,
remained in prison, and made believe I was ill in order
to give me time to gain the frontier. I trust he will not
be maltreated. It would be a great grief to me.
But if, my dear Degeorge, I felt a lively sentiment of
joy when I found myself outside the fortress, I had a
very sad feeling as I crossed the frontier.
It was necessary for me to determine to quit France,
being certain the Government would never set me at
liberty unless I consented to dishonour myself. And
finally I needed to be urged by the desire of trying all
possible means in order to console my father in his old
age.
Adieu, my dear M. Degeorge; although free, I am
very unhappy. Receive the assurance of my warm
friendship, and if you can, endeavour to be useful to my
good Conneau.
NAPOLEON-LOUIS.
APPENDIX F
LOUIS NAPOLEON'S MANIFESTO AS CANDIDATE
FOR THE PRESIDENCY
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte to his fellow-citizens.
N order to recall me from exile you elected me a
representative of the people: on the eve of
electing the first magistrate of the Republic my
name comes before you as a symbol of order and
Security.
These testimonies of a confidence so flattering are
addressed rather to a name than to myself, who have as
yet done nothing for my country; but the more the
memory of the Emperor protects me, and inspires your
suffrages, the more I feel compelled to make known to
you my sentiments and my principles. There must be
nothing equivocal between you and me.
I am not a man of ambition who dreams at one time
of empire and war, at another of the application of
subversive theories. Brought up in countries that are
free, in the school of misfortune, I shall always remain
faithful to the duties which your suffrages and the wishes
of the Assembly impose upon me.
If I were to be nominated President I would shrink
from no danger, from no sacrifice, to defend society, now
so audaciously attacked; I should devote myself entirely,
without afterthought, to the consolidation of a republic
wise in its laws, honest in its intentions, great and strong
by its acts. I should engage my honour to leave to my
successor, at the end of four years, authority strength-
ened, liberty intact, a real progress accomplished.
373
374 LOUIS NAPOLEON
Whatever may be the result of the election, I shall
bow to the will of the people, and my co-operation is
promised beforehand to any just and firm government
that shall re-establish order in the public mind as well
as in things; that shall efficaciously protect religion, the
family, property—the eternal bases of every social state;
that shall undertake reasonable reforms, calm hatreds,
reconcile parties, and thus permit our anxious country
to rely on a to-morrow.
To re-establish order is to bring back confidence, to
provide by credit the passing lack of resources, and to
restore the finances.
To protect religion and the family is to establish
liberty of worship and freedom of education.
To protect property is to maintain the inviolability of
the product of every description of labour; it is to guar-
antee the independence and the security of possession—
indispensable foundations of civil liberty.
As regards practicable reforms, here are those which
appear to me to be most urgent: To admit every
economy that, without disorganizing the public service,
will allow the reduction of the taxes which press the
hardest on the people; to encourage undertakings which,
by developing agriculture in France and Algeria, will give
work to those who want it; to provide for the old age
of working men by establishing benefit societies (institu-
tions de prévoyance); to introduce into our industrial
legislation modifications tending not to ruin the rich for
the profit of the poor, but to base the prosperity of each
on that of all. To restrain within proper limits the
employments which depend on the State, and which
often make of a free people a nation of mendicants. To
avoid that shameful tendency which leads the State to
undertake works which private enterprise can do as well,
or even better. The centralization of interests and enter-
prises is of the essence of despotism. The nature of the
republic abhors monopoly. Finally, to preserve the
APPENDIX F 375
liberty of the press from the two excesses which always
compromise it—tyranny (l'arbitraire) and its own licence.
With war there can be no comfort for our sufferings.
Peace, then, would be the dearest of my desires. France
during the first Revolution was warlike because she was
forced to be so. She answered invasion by conquest.
Now that she is not provoked she can apply her resources
to pacific improvements without foregoing a loyal and
resolute policy. A great nation should be silent or
never speak in vain.
To have a care for the national dignity is to think of
the army, the noble and disinterested patriotism of which
has been often misunderstood. While maintaining the
fundamental laws which make the strength of our
military organization, the burden of the conscription
must be lightened, not aggravated. The present and
future, not only of the officers, but also of the non-
commissioned officers and soldiers, must be watched, so
that a retreat may be assured to all men who have seen
long service.
The Republic should be generous and have faith in
the future. I, who have known exile and captivity, pray
heartily for the day when the country can, without
danger, put an end to all proScription, and wipe away
the last traces of our civil discords.
These are, my dear fellow-citizens, the ideas I should
bring to the exercise of my power, should you call me
to the Presidency of the Republic.
The task is a difficult one, the mission is immense, I
know it; but I should not despair of accomplishing it
by calling to the work, without distinction of party, the
men whose high intelligence and probity recommend
them to public opinion.
Moreover, when one has the honour to be at the head
of the French people, there is an infallible way of doing
good : it is to will it.
LOUIS NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.
APPENDIX G
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE CHIEF EVENTS
IN THE LIFE OF LOUIS NAPOLEON, 1808–1848
I8o3
I8IO
181 I
I814
1814–15
1815
1815
1817
1817
1817–21
1819
I821–36
I82I
1830
1831
April 20
July I
Nov. Io
Mar. 20
Mar. 31
April 4
May 28
Mar. 20
Mar.—June
June I
\
June 18
July 17
July–Nov.
Nov.–Dec.
Dec. }
May
February
May 6
May 5
July 26–29
Aug. 9
October
November
Feb.-March
Mar. 17
Birth at Paris.
Abdication of King Louis of Holland.
Baptism at Fontainebleau.
Birth of the King of Rome.
Allies enter Paris.
Abdication of Napoleon.
Death of Josephine.
Hortense and her sons remain in Paris.
Napoleon re-enters Paris.
“The Hundred Days.”
Louis Napoleon present at the Champ de
Mai.
Waterloo.
Hortense and her sons leave Paris for Geneva,
proceeding afterwards to Aix in Savoy.
At Aix.
Parts from his elder brother, who joins King
Louis at Florence.
Through Switzerland to Constance.
At Constance with his mother. Visits Berg,
in Bavaria.
Hortense buys the château at Arenenberg.
Leaves Constance for Augsburg.
At Augsburg (St. Anna Gymnasium).
Hortense takes up her residence at Arenen-
berg.
During this period his home is at Arenen-
berg.
Death of Napoleon.
Revolution in Paris.
Louis Philippe King of the French.
Goes to Florence and Rome with his mother.
Expelled from Rome.
The Italian Insurrection.
Death of Napoleon Louis at Forli.
Hortense and Louis Napoleon flee to Ancona.
376
APPENDIX G
1831
1832
I832-33
I833
I834–35
1836
1837
1838
1838
I84o
1838
1839
I84o
1840
1846
1841
I841–43
Mar.—Ap.
April 24
May 6
May 1o
Aug 7.
August
}
April 30
July 22
Winter
Winter
Oct. 30
Nov. 2 I
Jan. 6–18
Mar. 30
April–June
June 8
July II-3o
July 30
Oct. 5
Jan.-May
June
July–Sept.
Oct. I4
Oct. 25
October }
August
Nov.–Dec.
Jan.-Feb.
July
August
Aug. 4-6
Aug.—Oct.
Sept. 28
Oct. 6
Dec. 15
º; )
Flight to France from Ancona.
In Paris.
First visit to London, with his mother.
Returns to Switzerland through France.
Réveries politiques.
Rights of citizenship conferred by Canton of
Thurgau. -
Death of the Ducde Reichstadt (Napoleon II.)
Second visit to London.
Considérations politiques et militaires sur la
Suisse.
At Geneva with his mother.
Manuel d'Azrtillerie.
The attempt at Strasburg.
Sails for America.
Trial of the Strasburg prisoners.
Lands at Norfolk, Virginia.
At New York.
Sails for England.
Third visit to London.
Leaves London for Switzerland.
Death of Queen Hortense.
At the château of Gottlieben.
Laity's pamphlet published.
French endeavour at expulsion from Switzer-
land.
Leaves Switzerland.
Arrives in London.
In London (fourth visit): resides first at
Carlton Terrace and afterwards at Carl-
ton Gardens.
Visits Leamington.
Visits Birmingham, Manchester, and Liver-
pool.
Des Idées Wapoléoniennes.
The Eglington tournament.
Founds Le Commerce and Le Capitole.
Persigny’s Lettres de Zondres published.
The attempt at Boulogne.
In the Conciergerie.
Trial of the Boulogne prisoners; sentence
of perpetual imprisonment.
Funeral of Napoleon at Paris.
In prison at Ham.
Fragments historiques.
Articles in the Progrès du Pas de Calais and
the Guetteur de Saint Quentin.
378
LOUIS NAPOLEON
1842
1844
1845
1846
1846
1848
1846
1847
1848
1848
August
May
October
May 26
May }
Sept.
July 25
Aug.—Sept.
February
Feb. 22–24
Feb. 28
Mar. I
April Io
April 23
June 8
June 22–26
June 24
Sept. 17
Sept. 24
Oct. 19
Nov. 22
Dec. IO
Dec. 20
Analyse de la guestion des sucres.
L’extinction du pauperisme.
Negotiations for release begun.
Etudes sur le passé et l'avenir de l'artillerie.
The escape from Ham.
In London (fifth visit).
Death of King Louis of Holland.
At Bath. -
Takes up residence in King Street, St.
James's.
Revolution in Paris.
Arrives in Paris.
Returns to London.
Acts as special constable in London.
At the elections for the Constituent Assembly
Louis Napoleon is not a candidate.
Elected in three departments at supple-
mentary elections.
“The Days of June.”
State of siege declared in Paris.
Elected in five departments at supplementary
elections.
Arrives in Paris and takes his seat in the
Assembly (Sept. 25).
State of siege suspended.
Promulgation of the Constitution.
Elected President of the Republic.
Proclaimed President of the Republic.
POSTSCRIPT

T the moment of going to press the follow-
ing interesting anecdote has reached me
from Mr. Thomas Hardy; it seems far
too interesting to omit altogether, and is
Consequently printed as a postScript, being
too belated to take its proper place in the text or to be
included in the index.
“When the Rev. William Barnes, the Dorset poet, was
a Schoolmaster in Dorchester, he had as usher a certain
Mr. Hann, a fair and rather choleric young man from
the Vale of Blackmoor. It was during the year that
Louis Napoleon, afterwards the Emperor Napoleon III,
was residing in London; and at this time he paid a visit
to the Damers, who then lived at Carne House near the
town. On Sundays after service it was the custom of the
burghers of Dorchester to promenade in ‘The Walks,'
as the boulevards are called that then, as now, encircle
the older part of the town; and on one fine Sunday after-
noon Barnes and his usher Hann promenaded with the
rest. In the stream of people moving in the opposite
direction was a party of gay strollers from Carne House,
which included among others Louis Napoleon. The
latter, in a sort of freak, just as he was passing the afore-
said Mr. Hann, put out his walking-cane between Hann’s
legs so unexpectedly that the latter staggered and nearly
fell, which caused laughter among the other promen-
aders. Barnes (who told the story to me) said that the
POSTSCRIPT
next thing of which he was conscious was of having
Hann’s coat tossed into his arms by his furious usher,
and of Seeing Hann in his shirt-sleeves spring in a pugi-
listic attitude in front of Louis Napoleon, and call upon
him to defend himself before he was laid flat on the
gravel. The gaiety around turned to consternation;
Louis Napoleon, who realized by this time that he had
mistaken his man, apologized profusely, and declared
that the intrusion of the cane between Hann’s legs had
been a pure accident (though Mr. Barnes said that he
had seen, without doubt, that it was wilfully done).
Hann by degrees cooled down under the politeness of the
gentleman (whom he did not know), resumed his coat,
and there the matter ended, to the great relief of the
nervous ladies who were crowded near with their Prayer-
books and Bibles, and the disappointment of the boys
and the less genteel of the townsmen.”
T. H.
INDEX
ABBOTT, J. S. C., I40, 352–356
Abell, Mrs. 9, Io
Aberdeen, Earl of, 216, 228
Adelaide, Madame, 71
Adriatic, 62
Aix (Savoy) 24, 25
Aladenize, Lieut., 181, 183, 187—189,
I97–199
Alexander I, 17
Alibaud, 139
America, Joseph Bonaparte in, 22,
I4O, I43
America, Louis Napoleon’s visit to :
lands at Norfolk, Virg., 133; his stay
in New York, I40–145; his ac-
quaintances, I4I ; visits Washington
Irving, I41 ; at the Grand Order
of Owls, I42; at Mrs. Roosevelt's,
I42; studies American institutions,
I42; five of his cousins also in
America at the time of his visit,
I43-I44; proposed tour, I44; re-
called to Europe, I44; letter to
the President, I45; sails for Eng-
land, I45; his life in New York,
34o seg. : his opinions on American
institutions, 357 seq.
Amsterdam, 5
Analyse dela question des sucres, 208,
246—247
Ancona, 62–64
Anderwert, M., 153
Andromede, frigate, I32–133
Antibes, 65
Antom marchi, F., I64
Appenzell, 25
Arago, M., 208
Arc de Triomphe, IO2, 139
Arenenberg, 21 ; château purchased
by Queen Hortense, 27; descrip-
tion of, 28; Hortense’s life at, 83 ;
Louis Napoleon finally leaves, 155
Arèse, Count, 44, 57, 8o, I43, 348
Army reform, Louis Napoleon on,
253–255
Army and Navy Club, 231
Artillery, Manual of (see Manuel
d’Artillerie)
— Studies of (see Passé et l'avenir de
/*Artillerie)
Athenaeum, The, 159
Augsburg, 19; Louis Napoleon takes
up residence at, 25; at the St.
Anna Gymnasium, 26; 27, 31, 32,
4I
Aumale, Duc d’, 71
Austerlitz, 6, 305, 334
Austria, signs Treaty of Fontainebleau,
I6; refuses to allow Louis Napo-
leon to reside in Switzerland after
the Italian insurrection, 61 ; sup-
ports France in demand for expul-
sion of Louis Napoleon from Swit-
zerland in 1838, 151, 154
Austrian troops in Bologna, 62; in
Ancona, 64
Auteuil, Louis Napoleon's residence
at, 286
Azemir des Idées Imperiales, 160
BADEN, supports France in demand
for expulsion of Louis. Napoleon
from Switzerland, I54; I2, 128,
329–33O
Badinguet, Mdlle. , 207; the nick-
name, 207
Bagehot, Walter, 158–159, 174
Balfour, A. J., 325
Baltimore, I43
Balzac, Honoré de, 46, 91
Barégès, 3
Baring Brothers, 223, 232, 351
Barins’ Histoire de Napoléon III, 14
Barrot, Ferdinand, I2O, Ig5
— Odilon, 132, 218, 219, 235, 266,
277
Bassano, M. de, 286
Bataille, M., 183, 184, 187
Bates, Mr., 351
Bath, 76; Louis Napoleon at, 231
379
38o
INDEX
Beaufort, Duke of, 158, 235
Beauharnais, Auguste de, 119
— Emilie de, 2, 82
— Eugène, 25, 119
— Hortense (see Hortense)
— Josephine (see Josephine)
Beauharnais Bonapartes contrasted
with the Corsican Bonapartes, II ;
the Beauharnais blood keeps alive
the Napoleonic tradition, 21
Beaumont Vassy, M. de, 234
Beauregard, Miss Howard created
Countess of, 235
Béchevet, Comte de, 235
Bedford, Duke of, 158
— Duchess of, 75
Beetroot sugar question, Louis
Napoleon's pamphlet on, 208, 246
Belfort, 21
Belgium, crown of, 77
Belle Poule, frigate, IO3, 198
Belle Sabotière, La, 207
Belmontet, M., 84, I22
Béranger, P. J., 92, 97, IO6, 240
Berg, 25 ; Grand Duke of, 7, 8
Berkeley Street, houses in, bought by
Louis Napoleon, 230
Bernardin de St. Pierre, Io, 41
Berne, 84
Berri, Duchess of, 76, 82
Berryer, P. A., counsel for Louis
Napoleon after Boulogne, 195; his
speech at Boulogne trial, 196–197;
3O8, 313
Berthou (Berthaud), 226
Bertin, Georges, I43
Bertrand, Abbé, I2, 26
— Marshall, I4
Bien Public, Ze (newspaper), 293
Bingham, A. D., 233
Birmingham, Louis Napoleon visits,
161 ; 183, 186
Bismarck, Prince, 169
Black, Ladbrooke, xi
Alackwood’s Magazine, 236
Blanc, Louis, 71, 129; visits Louis
Napoleon at Ham, 2O5, 213–2I4;
on the Manuel d’Artillerie, 243;
presides at Labour Commission,
262; 272 ; sees Louis Napoleon in
London, 283 ; on the election of
Louis Napoleon to the Presidency,
3I5
Blessington, Countess of, I58, 206,
23 I, 234
Blois, 8
Bocher, Charles, 121 ; Louis Napo-
leon's offer of marriage to his sister,
I2][
Bodley, J. E. C., 170, 172–173
Bologna, 59, 61, 62
Bonaparte family after 1815, 16–23;
the Beauharnais and Corsican
Bonapartes contrasted, II
— Antoine, 144
— Caroline (see Murat, Madame)
— Charlette (daughter of Joseph and
wife of Napoleon Louis), 15, 36,
59, 80
— Eliza, 19, 22
– Jerome (King of Westphalia), Io,
I7, 22, 37, 53, 59, 61, IO2, I2O-
I21, 137, I43, 217, 238, 269, 283,
308
– Jerome (see Napoleon, Prince)
– Jerome (of Baltimore), 143
– Joseph (King of Spain), Io, I5,
I9, 22, 36, 37, 53, 79, 80, 86, 96,
I37, I4O, I43, I46, I64, 216
– Letitia (see Mère, Madame)
– Louis (King of Holland, father of
Louis Napoleon): unhappy mar-
riage with Hortense de Beauhar-
nais, I, 2 ; attachment to Emilie
de Beauharnais, 2 ; character, 2.;
not present at birth of Louis
Napoleon, 3 ; reported letter to
the Pope denying his paternity, 4;
his wishes as to Louis Napoleon's
baptism, 5; abdicates throne of
Holland, 7; goes to Toeplitz, 7 ;
Goethe's opinion of, 7 ; goes to
Gratz, 8; and to Switzerland, 8 ;
in Paris with Madame Mère in
1814, 8; goes to Rome, 1814, 8;
holds aloof from Napoleon during
the Hundred Days, 8 ; character,
IO-II ; obtains custody of his
eldest son, I4–15 ; takes up his
residence at Florence, 22 ; his re-
lations with and influence on Louis
Napoleon, 38–47 ; letter from
Louis Napoleon after Italian insur-
rection, 75; advice to Louis Napo-
leon on marriage, 82; letter from
Louis Napoleonto, I47; reference
to, in Queen Hortense's will, 148 ;
letter to Louis Napoleon on death
of Queen Hortense, 149; anger
with Louis Napoleon over his ex-
INDEX
381
pulsion from Switzerland, 155 ;
advises Louis Napoleon to ask
permission to go to St. Helena,
I55; and to throw himself on the
mercy of the Emperor of Austria,
I56; marries the Marquise de
Strozzi, 156 ; letter on the attempt
at Boulogne, 194; illness, 217 ;
tries to obtain Louis Napoleon's
release from Ham, 217; death,
229 ; other references, 9, 16, 17,
I9, 23, 54, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 83,
II9, IQ2
Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon (see Louis
Napoleon)
— Lucien, Io, 22, 86, 269
– Napoleon (see Napoleon)
– Napoleon Louis (see Napoleon
Louis)
— Pierre, I40, I44, 269, 300, 341,
346–347, 351
Bonapartism under the Restoration
and the Monarchy of July, 88–
Io'7
Bordentown, Joseph Bonaparte at,
I43
Boulanger, General, 266
Boulogne, Louis Napoleon’s attempt
at: preliminaries, 180–181 ; per-
sonnel, 182—183; plan, 185; finan-
cial aspect, 185; expedition leaves
London, 186; the “orgie,” 188;
landing at Wimereux, 188; failure
of the enterprise, 189 seq.; the
“Boulogne eagle,” 190 ; attitude
of the Press, 192 ; reception of the
news by Louis Philippe, 192 ;
Louis Napoleon removed to Paris,
I94 ; trial of the prisoners, 195;
Berryer's defence of the Prince,
I96–197; sentence, 197; contrast-
ed with Strasburg, 199 ; public
opinion on, 2O0; the proclamations,
365–369; other references, 95,
IO2, 145, I56, 178, 215, 216, 225,
265, 267, 273, 286, 303, 305, 3Io,
32I
Bourbon, Duchess of, 70
Bourgueney, M. de, 147
Brault, Eléonore (see Gordon, Ma-
dame)
Briffault, F. T., 221, 276
Bristol, 231
Broadley, A. M., 192
Browning, Mrs., 66, 169, 173
Bruc, M. de, 127
Bruce, Mr., 7
Brumaire, the 18th, Louis Napoleon’s
opinion of, 209
Brunswick, Duke of, 222–223, 285
– Hotel, London, 228, 283
Brussels, 22, 226
B. de Montauban, M., 156, 183,
I8
Bugeaud, Marshal, 302
Burdett-Coutts, Miss, 236
Bure, M., 208
Busch, Dr. Moritz, 169
CAESAR, 354
Calais, 73, 78, 266
Camden House, Chislehurst, 233
Campan, Madame, 28
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H., 325
Cannes, 65
Capitole, Le, newspaper, started, 16o
Capo de Feuillade, M., 205, 212,
22I
Captizité, Za, 208, 257
Carbonari, Louis Napoleon's connec-
tion with the, 57
Cardigan, Lord, I56
Carlton Club, 231
Carlton Gardens, Louis Napoleon's
residence at, I56, 190
Carlton Terrace, Louis Napoleon's
residence at, I56, I59
Carlyle, Thomas, 47
Carnoscia, 65
Carrell, Armand, I39
Casimir-Périer, M., 70–73
Castille, Hippolyte, I23
Catherine of Wurtemberg (wife of
King Jerome), I7, I2O
Caussidière, M., 270
Cauterets, 3
Cavaignac, General Eugène, indigna-
tion of, at Louis Napoleon’s letter to
the Assembly, 275; called to sup
reme power, 281 ; opposes resolu
tion debarring members of families
that have reigned in France from
eligibility for election as President,
295; his attitude to Conservative and
Monarchist parties, 3O2; supported
by the clergy in candidature for
Presidency, 306; attitude of army
to, 307; promotes his candida-
ture, 3Io; confidence in his elec-
tion, 3II ; his name popularly
382
INDEX
associated with the suppression of
June insurrection, 312 ; defeat of,
312-313; refuses to effect a coup
d'état, 315–316; refuses the hand
of Louis Napoleon, 317 ; other
references to, 276, 282, 286, 290,
292, 297, 305
Cavaignac, Godefroy, 96, 213
Cavour, Count, 57
Centralization in France, 166; not
essential to the Napoleonic Idea,
I7I ; imposed by nature on coun-
tries with frontiers to defend, 171 ;
old tradition, 172
Century Magazine, I43, I44
Cerutti, Rue, I, 13
Chamber of Peers, decision to try
Louis Napoleon before, 193; com-
position of, 194; pronounces judg-
ment, IQ7
Changarnier, General, 270, 3I4–315
Charente-Inférieure, Department of,
Louis Napoleon elected in, 269–
27O, 272; second election, 284
Charivari, Le, 26, 273
Charlemagne, I49, 208
Charles X, 204
Chateaubriand, M. de, 18, 28, 82,
83, 84, 258
Château de Ham, Ze, by Capo de
Feuillade, 221
Cherbourg, IO3
Chesterfield, Earl of, I58, 235
Chislehurst, viii, 233
Church and State, Louis Napoleon
on, 25I
Churchill, Lord Randolph, 325
Cinq Mai, Ze, 92
Civita Castellana, I60
Civita Nuova, 229, 232
Clarke, Captain Hyde, 161
Clementine, Princess, on the Stras-
burg insurrection, 138
Clifton, 231
Clintons, the (American family), 141,
346
Cobden, Richard, 240, 247
Cochelet, Mdlle., 28, 199
Colburn, Mr., I59
Colmar, 21
Col-Puygellier, Captain, 181, 187—189
Commerce, Ze, newspaper, started,
160, 2Io
cºercial Steam Navigation Co.,
I
Commercial Treaty of 1860, 247
Compromise, the Napoleonic Idea
based on, 177
Conciergerie, the, Louis Napoleon in,
I94
Confalonieri, M., 348
Conneau, Dr. H., 121, 124, I44, 156,
I61, 183–186, 190, 198, 204–206,
222–223
Considérations politiques et militaires
sur la Suisse, 82, 83, 84; summary
of, II2 seq. ; II5, 240, 242
Constance, 24, 25, 28, 33, I55
— Lake, 28, 33, 78, I48
Constitution, Louis Napoleon's ideas
of a, as set out in Revéries politiques,
Io9 seq.; in Considérations poli-
tigues, II3 seq.
Constitution of 1848, 292–299; its
faults, 297–298; promulgated, 300;
impossibility of working, 318
Constitutionnel, Le, 192, 305
Consulate and Empire (Thiers), IO6
Contemporary France (Hanotaux), I2
Corfu, 62, 63, 64
Corneille, 32
Cornu, Madame, 27, 218, 219, 22O,
22I
Corsica, Louis Napoleon elected in,
278; second election, 284
Corsican Bonapartes contrasted with
Beauharnais Bonapartes, II
Corvisart, Dr., 12
Coubertin, Pierre de, xiv, 263-266,
280–281, 314
Courbevoie, IO2, Iog
Courrier des Atats-Unis, 347
Courrier français, I22
Covent Garden theatre, 79
Cowley, Lord, xv
Craven Cottage, 231
Crawford, F. Marion, I43.
Crêdo, Le, 257
Crouy-Chanel, M., 16I
Crow, James, 187
Cruzy, Mdlle. de, 235
Débarquement de Louis-Napoléon à
Boulogne, pamphlet (1848), 284
Decazes, Duc, 4, 29
Degeorge, Frédéric, visits Louis
Napoleon in Ham, 205; relations
with Louis Napoleon, 209–212;
Louis Napoleon’s letter to, on the
escape from Ham, 370
INDEX
383
Demarle, Commandant, 224, 227
Demidoff, Anatole, I2O
Democracy allied with authority the
only way to political salvation,
125; restricted interpretation of
the term as generally used, 168;
Heine's definition of the ideal
democracy, I69 ; authoritative
democracy is the Napoleonic Idea,
168–169; the Napoleonic system
democratic, 17o; the French people
only democratic in the general, not
in the particular, I73; parliament-
arism not fundamentally democra-
tic, 173; democracy triumphant in
February Revolution, but without
authority, 265; democratic nature
of Louis Napoleon's election as
President acknowledged by the
Republicans, 315; difficulties of
reconciling authority with, 325;
Tory democracy, 325
Demorny, 9 (see also Morny, de)
Destiny, Louis Napoleon's idea of, x
Deux Iles, Les (Victor Hugo), 93
Deux Mots d M. de Chateaubrzand, 82
Dickens, Charles, 346
Dickinson, G. Lowes, II 7, 163, 166,
I75–176, 291
Didier, E. L., I44
Dino, Madame de, 77, 83
Disraeli, Benjamin, 43; meets Louis
Napoleon, 158; his description of
Louis Napoleon as Prince Florestan,
I59; on the Boulogne expedition,
I9I
Doullens, 198, 222
Dresden, 7
Drummond-Wolff, Sir Henry, 221,
224
Duchatel, M., 218, 219
Dufaure, M., 3II
Dufour, Colonel, 33
Dumas, Alexandre, 83
Duncombe, T. S., 224
Duport, Count, I61
Durham, Earl of, 158
Duroc, General, 2
Dusseldorf, I54
Duval, Georges, 73, I56
EAGLE, the Boulogne, 190
Eclair, Z’, newspaper, 221
Edinburgh Castle, steamboat, 184—
186, 187, 190
Edmond, actor, IoI
Edwards, H. Sutherland, 190
Eglington, Earl of, 158, 231
— Tournament, 161, 206
Elba, return from, mentioned, 13, 15,
I6, 17, 125, 334
Elchingen, 129
Election of Louis Napoleon in three
departments, June 1848, 269 ; in
Corsica, 278; in five departments,
September 1848, 284 ; as President
of the Republic, 313
Elective monarchy, Louis Napoleon's
opinions on, III, II3
Elwangen, 22
Empire Libéral, Z” (Emile Ollivier),
quoted, viii, xiii, xiv, 30, 57, 58,
72, 81, IO4, IO6
Endymion, 158, 159
Enghien, Duc d’, 70
England, Louis Napoleon’s first visit
to, 1831, 75–79; second visit, 79–
8o; third visit, 146–148; fourth
visit, I 56–162; fifth visit, 228–
229; Louis Napoleon leaves for
Paris, 1848, 266; returns, 267;
finally leaves, 285
English Revolution of 1688, Louis
Napoleon's admiration for, 245
Anglishman in Paris, An, 266
Ermenonville, 78
Erroll, Earl of, 158
Escape from Ham, preliminaries of,
222–223; plan of, 224; carried
out, 225–226; reception of news
in France, 227; knowledge of
the French Government, 227–228;
Louis Napoleon’s own account of,
370
Eugène, Prince (see
Eugène)
Eugénie, Empress, 51, I2O, I41, 142,
Beauharnais,
235
Fxaminer, Zhe, I48, I54, I55, I59,
184, 192, 197
AExile, Z’, 208, 257
Axtinction of Pauperism, The, 208,
248
FAITH, a dominating quality of Louis
Napoleon's character, x
Falloux, M. de, 140, 313, 323
Fatalism of Louis Napoleon, x, xvi,
2I4.
Faucher, Léon, 3O4, 313
384
INDEX
Favre, Jules, 195, 272, 273
February Revolution, 260 seq.
Fº's Hotel, London, 75, 80, I46,
I5
Fermo, 22
Ferney, I54
Ferrère, Aristide, 265, 276
Fesch, Cardinal, 6, 18, 56, 59, 61,
F # (see Persigny)
Ialln (Søø PerSl
Fichte, J. G., jºy
Fieschi, I39, 194
Aºgaro, Le, II9
Fitzharris, Lord, 158
Malmesbury)
Fitzherbert, Mrs., 236
Flahaut, Count, 4, 8, 149
Fleury, Louise, 9
Florence, King Louis takes up his
residence at, 8; Louis Napoleon
spends two weeks at,54; mentioned,
19, 22, 35, 39, 40, 44, 56, 58, 59,
61, 62, 63, 194, 217, 229
Florestan, Prince (“Endymion’’),
I58–159
Foligno, 60, 63, 65
Folkestone, 267
Fonblanque, Albany de, 158
Fontainebleau, Treaty of, 16, 17, 286
Forbes, Archibald, xvi, 182
Foresti, M., 348
Forestier, M., 183, 184, 187
Forli, I5, 61, 62
Formative influences in Louis Na-
poleon's character, 36
Forster, John, 226, 23.I
Aºragments historiques,
245 te
France, Anatole, xvi
Aºrance (J. E. C. Bodley), 170, 172–
I73
Aºrance since 1814 (Coubertin), xiv,
264, 3I4
France since the First Empire (Mac-
donel), 24I
Francis, Emperor of Austria, 53
Franck-Carré, M., 145, I5o
Fraser, Miss, I44
Fraser, Sir William, I 58, 228, 231,
232, 233, 236
Fraser’s Magazine, 182
Frascati, 22
Frauenfeld, 153
Freiburg, I29
Fréjus, 199
(see also
208, 209,
Friedland, 6
Funeral of Napoleon, second, Io2–105
GALLATIN, Albert, 355–356
Gay, Delphine, 83
Gazette de France, 256, 270, 293, 305
Geiss, 25
Geneva, 24, 86,
Gengall, Countess of, 75
Genoa, 65
* Washington, steamship, 145,
34
German influence on Louis Napoleon,
26–27 ; literature, Louis Napo-
leon’s fondness of, 28
Germany, South, Church and State in,
252
Girardin, Emile de, 139, 305, 310
Giraudeau, Fernand, viii, 216, 218,
324.
Girondins, History of the (Lamar-
tine), IO6
Gisquet, M., 96
Gladstone, W. E., 92
Gobert, actor, IoI
Goethe, 7
Goguelat, 91
Gorce, Pierre de la, viii, xv.
Gordon, , Madame, 127, 128, 129,
I32, 185, 207
Gore House, 158, 206, 226, 231,
236
Gottlieben, 148
Graham, W., 4
Gratz, 8
Gravesend, I86, 187, 190, 191
Greenwich, 186
Gregory XVI, 60, 61, 85
Grenoble, 334
Grévy, Jules, 293, 294
Grey, Earl, 216
Grey, Lady, I75
Griscelli, M., 234
Guizot, M., 73, 132, 187, 192, 219,
245, 260, 280
HACHET-SOUPLET, PIERRE, x, 207,
2IO, 217, 22I
Hackett, Mr., 348
Hague, The, 4, 7
Hallack, Fitz-Greene, 142
Ham, Louis Napoleon taken to after
Boulogne, I94; imprisonment of
Louis Napoleon at, 198; captivity
at, 203–220; preliminaries of escape,
INDEX
385
222–223 ; plan of escape, 224;
escape of Louis Napoleon from,
225–226, 370
Hamilton, Duke of, 158
Hamiltons, the (American family),
I41, 346
Hampton Court, 79
Hanotaux, Gabriel, II
Harrison, Frederic, 231
—, John, 231
Harryett, Elizabeth Anne (see Howard,
Miss)
Heine, Heinrich, 98–99, 169
Henri V, 76
Herouel, Fouquier d’, 205
#r. de Huit Ans (Regnault),
I85
History of the English Rezolution
(Guizot), 245
History of Napoleon ZZZ (Abbott),
I42, 352–356
Hoboken, 348
Hohenlohe, Prince, 26
Holland, King of (see Bonaparte,
Louis)
Holland, Lord and Lady, 75
Holles Street, London, 75
Holt’s Hotel, New York, 142
Holy Alliance, attitude to Bonapartes,
I5, 20
Aſome Journal, I42, 354
Hortense, Queen, unhappy marriage
with Louis Bonaparte, I-2; char-
acter, 2.; calumnies concerning, 3 ;
supposed liaison with Verhuel, 3 ;
begs for a divorce, 7; granted a
separation, 8; liaison with Flahaut,
8; mother of Morny, 9; her bring-
ing up of her two sons, 12 ; leaves
Paris in 1814, 13 ; returns to Mal-
maison and St. Leu during the first
Restoration, 13; deprived of cus-
tody of eldest son, I4; surveillance
by the Powers, 20–21; leaves
France, 24; goes to Geneva, Aix,
and Switzerland, 24; at Constance,
25; visits Eugène at Berg, 25; resi-
dence at Augsburg, 25; travels, 27;
purchases Arenenberg, 27; takes up
her residence at Arenenberg, 28;
visits to Rome, 29; her educa-
tion of Louis Napoleon, 29 ;
character, and influence of, on Louis
Napoleon, 30–31, 38–39; the weak-
ness of her system, 35 ; goes to
C C
Rome with Louis Napoleon, 54;
denies having conspired in Rome,
55; her belief in a plot to involve
Louis Napoleon, 56; urges her
sons not to take part in the Italian
insurrection, 58; goes to Florence
and learns of their participation,
59; urges their return, 59; goes
out to join them, 62; meets Louis
Napoleon at Pesaro and takes him
to Ancona, 63; flies with him from
Ancona to France, 64–65; in Paris,
70; interview with Louis Philippe,
70–71; leaves Paris for London, 73;
her narrative of these events, 74 ;
in London, 75–76; visits Tunbridge
Wells, 78; returns through France
to Switzerland, 78; her impressions
of London, 79 ; life in Arenenberg,
83; her opinion of her son, 84 ; in
Rome, 85 ; monetary embarrass-
ments, 85; visits Geneva, 86; her
ignorance of the preliminaries of
Strasburg, 87; her affection for
Princess Mathilde, 121 ; her gene-
rosity to Conneau, 122; goes to
Paris after the attempt at Strasburg
to plead for her son, I32 ; her anger
at the attitude of the Bonaparte
family after Strasburg, I37; illness,
I44; death, I48; other references,
4, 5, I6, I7, 47–5I, 52, I39, 343-
344
Houdetot, M. d’, 70–71, 73
Houssaye, Henri, I4
Howard, Martin, 235
Howard, Miss, I58, 207, 230, 233;
her relations with Louis Napoleon,
234–235; created Countess of Beau-
regard, 235 ; marriage, 235
Hugo, Victor, 8O, 92, 97, 99, IO4,
IO5, 24O, 27O
Idées AWapoléonieſznes, Des, Io9, 136,
I57, 159; résumé of, I63-179; 240,
244, 259
Idler, The, magazine, 182
Inquirer, Zhe, Walter
letters in, I 58
Irving, Washington, I41, 345
Italy, the Bonapartes a rallying
point for liberal ideas in, 21 ;
Louis Napoleon goes to Italy with
his mother in 1830, 54; expelled
from Rome, 56; his devotion to
Bagehot’s
386
INDEX
Italy, 57 ; takes part in the insur-
rection in the Romagna, 58–61 ;
collapse of the insurrection, 64;
Louis Napoleon's flight from,64–65;
significance of his participation in
the insurrection, 65 ; his interest
in the Italian cause, 66
JAY, P. A., 355
Jena, 6
Jerome (see Bonaparte, Jerome)
Jerrold, Blanchard, xvi, 27, II 7, 130,
I40, I57, I58, I59, 163, 224, 230,
232, 276, 285, 313
Jersey, Countess of, 231
Johnstone, Mrs. Charles, 9
Joinville, Prince de, I 38, 302
Joseph (see Bonaparte, Joseph)
Joseph Bonaparte enz Amerique, 143
Josephine, Empress, I, 2, 5, Io, 30,
78, 233
Journal des Débats on Strasburg,
I38; on Boulogne, 192–193; 204,
275, 285, 295
Journalism, Louis Napoleon's con-
tributions to, while at Ham, 209
seq., 25O seq.
Julie, Queen (wife of Joseph), 18
KENT, Chancellor, I41, 345, 355
Kinglake, A. W., 234, 235
King Street, St. James’s, 230
LABEDOY#RE, 332, 338
Lacoste, Lieut., I43, 349
Lafarge, Madame, 200
Lafayette, General, 61, 82, 153
Lafittes (bankers), 232
Lahr, I29, 330
Laity, Armand, his account of the
Strasburg trial, I.33 ; pamphlet,
I50; prosecution and condemnation,
I51, 205, 267, 274
Lamartine, A. de, 92, IO6, 208, 247,
294, 297, 312, 3I4
Lamennais, Abbé, II 7, 277
Lamy, M., viii
Las Cases, M., 164
Leamington, Louis Napoleon in, 161
Lebas, Philippe, 26, 29, 3.I
Lebey, André, viii, xiv, xvi, 4, 13,
4O, 57, 59, 62, 7I, IOO, I27, I28,
I30, 133, 134, I48, 157, 158, 161,
I80, 182, 185, 192, 207, 234, 265,
276, 283, 314, 317
Ledru-Rollin, M., 213, 272, 278, 312,
3I3-315 g
Legend, the Napoleonic (see Na-
poleonic Legend)
Legends concerning Louis Napoleon:
the Boulogne eagle, 190 ; the Stras-
burg costume, 191 ; a policeman in
London, 191
Legouvé, Ernest, IO4–105
Léon, Count, 161
Leopold of Tuscany, 229
Leroux, Pierre, Ioo, I 17, 166, 270
Aletter on the History of France (Duc
d'Aumale), 71
Lettres de Zondres, 9, 157, I59
Lewis, Colonel, 231
Liberalism, the basis of the Napoleonic
Legend, 90 ; its triumph under the
July Monarchy, 172; suffrage re-
stricted under Liberalism, 173; falls
to the ground between Democracy
and Conservatism, 173; not neces-
sarily democratic, 173
Lille, 180, 181, 199
Ziterary Studies (Bagehot), 158
Literary style of Louis Napoleon, 240–
24I
Liverpool, 145, 161
Livingston, Madame Mathurin, 349
Livingstones, the (American family),
I41, 346
Locke, John, 363
London, 44; Louis Napoleon's first
visit, 75–79 ; Queen Hortense's
opinion of, 79 ; second visit, 79–
80; third visit, 146–148; fourth
visit, I 56–162; fifth visit, 228–
239; his residences during 1846–
47, 230 ; leaves for Paris, 266;
returns to, 267; special constable
in, 191, 267; finally leaves for
Paris, 285
— Past and Present, 230
— Treaty of, 201
Londonderry, Marquis of, 158, 220
Loreto, 64, 65
Lorient, I 32
Louis XVIII, 17, 95, 165
Louis Napoleon: birth, 1 ; disputed
paternity, 3-4; baptism, 5; in-
fancy, 7 ; lack of resemblance to
Napoleon, 9; qualities inherited
from his father, II ; from his
mother and the Beauharnais family,
II ; at the Tuileries, 12 ; early
INDEX 387
impressions of Napoleon, 13–14;
separation from his brother, I4;
leaves France with his mother, 25;
visits Berg, 25; at Constance, 25;
at Augsburg gymnasium, 26; early
education, 26; German influence
upon, 26; residence at Arenenberg,
28; character as a child, 30; his
letter on the death of Napoleon,
31 ; his mother's part in his early
education, 31 ; academic studies,
32 ; military duties in Switzerland,
32 ; wishes to serve with Russians
against Turks, 32; his application
to physical exercises, 33 ; con-
flicting elements in his disposition,
33; his kindness, 33 ; appearance
as a young man, 34 ; want of early
discipline, 35; formative influences
on his character, 36; influence of
his parents on the development of
his character, 38 seq. ; relations
with his father, 39–47; and with
his mother, 47–51 ; disappointment
at Revolution of July, 54; at Rome
in 1830, 54; expelled from Rome,
56; joins the Italian insurgents in
Romagna, 57 seq. ; his relations
with the Carbonari, 57; takes
Civita Castellana, 60 ; recalled by
Bologna Government, 61 ; illness,
61 ; death of his brother, 62 ; at
Ancona, 63; flight from Ancona to
France, 64–65; letter to Louis-
Philippe, 69; in Paris, 70; goes to
England, 73 ; first visit to London
(1831), 75 seq.; leaves England, 78;
journey through France to Arenen-
berg, 78; second visit to London
(1832–33), 79 ; at Arenenberg, 80
seq. ; intention to join insurgents
in Poland, 81 ; need of affection,
82; first writings, 82; Madame de
Dino's opinion of,83; and Chateau-
briand's, 84 ; a citizen of the
Canton of Thurgau, 84; visits
Geneva, 86; first political resolu-
tions, 86; early political opinions,
Io8, seq. ; as set out in A'éveries
folitigues, Io& ; and in Considéra-
tions politiques, II2 ; rumours of
marriage with Dona Maria, II9 ;
projected marriage with daughter
of Prince Eugène, I 19 ; reported
offer of marriage to Madame S.,
I 19 ; proposed marriage with
Princess Mathilde, I2O ; proposal
of marriage to Mdlle. Bocher, 121 ;
his friends at Arenenberg, 121 ; his
failure to attract the best men to
his cause, 123; preliminaries of
the attempt at Strasbnrg, 126 seq.;
the attempt at Strasburg, 129;
failure of the enterprise, 130 ; in
prison at Strasburg, I31 ; taken to
Paris, I32 ; sent to America, I32 ;
lands at Norfolk, Virginia, 133 ;
his own explanation of his motives
at Strasburg, 135; in America,
140-145; visits Washington Irving,
141 ; his opinion of the United
States, 145; leaves America, I45 ;
in London, July 1837, 146; diffi-
culty of obtaining a passport, I47 ;
leaves London for Arenenberg,
148 ; death of his mother, I48 ;
he succeeds to her inheritance,
148 ; at Gottlieben, 148 ; French
demands for his expulsion from
Switzerland, I5O seq. ; question of
his Swiss citizenship, I52; leaves
Switzerland for England, I55;
fourth visit to London (1838–1840),
I56 seq. ; his life in London, I57;
his friends, 158; publishes Des
Idées Napoléoniennes, 159 ; Dis-
raeli's account of, I 59 ; founds two
newspapers, 16o ; visits Leaming-
ton, Birmingham, Manchester, and
Liverpool, 161 ; his conception of
the Napoleonic Idea, 162–179;
preliminaries of the Boulogne ex-
pedition, 18o ; preparations for
Boulogne, 182; plan and financial
aspect of the expedition, 185; the
attempt at Boulogne, I86 seq. ;
failure of the attempt, 190 ; arrest,
190 ; removal to Ham and to
Paris, 194; in the Conciergerie,
194; trial by the Court of Peers,
I95, seq. ; condemned to perpetual
imprisonment, I97; taken to
Ham, 198; the imprisonment at
Ham, 203–220 ; close surveillance,
2O4; strictness relaxed, 205 ;
visitors at Ham, 205; the “Uni-
versity of Ham,” 206; disposal
of his time in prison, 206; la
Belle Sabotière, 207 ; his work at
Ham, 208; publishes Fragments
388
INDEX
historiques and Analyse de la ques-
tion des sucres, 208; projects a Life
of Charlemagne, 208; writes a his-
tory of artillery, 208; contribu-
tions to the Republican press, 209
seq. ; discouragement, 2I4; com-
plaints to the government, 215;
further relaxation of surveillance,
215; illness of his father, 217 ;
negotiations for release, 218; their
failure, 219; preliminaries of the
escape from Ham, 22 I seq. ; the
escape, 225; arrival in London,
228 ; death of his father, 229 ;
life in London (1846–1848), 230 ;
visits Bath and meets Landor, 231 ;
engagement to Miss Rowles, 233;
relations with Miss Howard, 234 ;
proposal of marriage to Miss
Seymour, 236; and to Miss
Burdett-Coutts, 236; his later
works, 240–259; Réveries politigues,
242 ; Considérations politiques et
militaires sur la Suisse, 242; Ma-
nuel d'Artillerie, 243; Des Jaées
AWapoléoniennes, 244 ; Fragments
historiques, 245; pamphlet on the
sugar question, 246; on the Ex-
tinction of Pauperism, 248; con-
tributions to newspapers, 250 ;
views on elective reform, 250 ; on
colonial expansion, 25o ; on par-
liamentary manners, 250; on
Church and State, 251 ; on army
reform and the Prussian military
system, 253–255; on war, 255;
on the nobility, 256; /'Aºxile, 257;
Captiz'zté, 257; his literary style,
240, 258; his unpreparedness for
the February Revolution, 265; his
inaction in the spring of 1848, 265;
goes to Paris, 266; letter to the
Provisional government, 266; re-
turns to England, 267; elected in
three departments, 269 ; validity of
election voted, 272; general belief
in his personal insignificance, 273;
order for arrest and its withdrawal,
274; letter to the President of the
Chamber, 275; second letter and
resignation of his seat, 276; elected
in Corsica and resignation, 278;
elected in five departments, 284;
enthusiasm provoked by the result,
285; leaves London for Paris, 285;
meets Proudhon, 286; takes his
seat in and addresses the Assembly,
287, 288; appeal to Republicans
meets with no response, 289; avows
his candidature for the Presidency
of the Republic, 301 ; attacked by
Paris press, 3O2; attitude of Con-
servative and Monarchist parties
to, 3O2; his abilities underrated by
the leading men of the day, 303;
supported by Conservative parties,
303; attacked and calumniated by
the press, 3O4; supported by Emile
de Girardin, 305; his candidature
rejected by Republican leaders,
306; visited by Montalembert,
307; manifesto as candidate for
the Presidency, 308-310 ; elected
President of the Republic, 313;
meaning of the election, 315; its
effect in Paris, 316; takes the oath
to the Constitution, 316; his sin-
cerity, 317–319; his election the
justification of his past life, 321.
Appendices: his own account of
the attempt at Strasburg, 329 seq. ;
in America, 34o seq. ; opinions on
American institutions, 357 seq.;
the Boulogne proclamations, 365;
his own account of the escape from
Ham, 370 ; manifesto as candi-
date for Presidency, 373 ; chrono-
logy, 376
Louis Mapoleon, Emperor of the
French (St. John), 157
Alouis Mapoléon prisonnier au fort de
Aam (Hachet-Souplet), xiii, 207,
2IO, 221
Louis Philippe proclaimed King of
the French, 53; Louis Napoleon's
letter to, in 1831, 69; receives
Queen Hortense in Paris, 70–71;
generosity to Hortense and Louis
Napoleon in 1831, 75; and Poland,
81 ; on Queen Hortense's visit to
Geneva, 86; encourages cult of
Napoleon, 88, 95; failure to unite
parties in support of his throne,
96; visits diorama and tomb of
Napoleon, IOI ; consents to re-
storation of Napoleon’s statue on
Vendôme column, IOI ; completes
Arc de Triomphe, IO2; agrees
to transference of Napoleon’s re-
mains to France, IO2; analysis of
INDEX
389
reign, 117; reception of news of
attempt at Strasburg, 130; clem-
ency to Louis Napoleon after
Strasburg, 132, 134; reception of
the news at Boulogne, 192 ; goes
to Boulogne, 193; attitude to
Louis Napoleon after Boulogne, 193;
letter of Louis Napoleon to, from
Ham, 218; attitude towards the
question of granting Louis Na-
poleon's liberty, 219; refuses re-
form in 1847, 260; fall of, 261 ;
decree of banishment against, 269
Lucca, 65
Luxor, obelisk of, I39
Lynd, Robert, xi
Lyons, I54
Lys Rouge, Le, xvi
Lytton, Bulwer, I58, 162, 231
MACAULAY, Lord, xiii
Macdonel, James, 24.I
Magnan, General, his rôle in the
Boulogne affair, 180–181, 199
Malmaison, 13, 78
Malmesbury, Earl of, 67, 158, 205,
216, 220, 228, 235
Malta, 64, 65
Manchester, Louis Napoleon at, I6 I
Manchester Guardian, Zhe, 161
Mannheim, 33, 155
Mantle of the Emperor, The, xi, Io9
Manuel d'Artillerie, 33, 82, 208, 243
Manzoni, Alessandro, 92
Maria, Dona, Queen of Portugal, I I9
Marie, M., 195
Marie Amélie, 71, IOI
Marie Louise, 6, 8
Maroncelli, M., 348
Marrast, Armand, 277, 292, 3I4
Marriage: Louis Napoleon advised
by his father to secure an advan-
tageous marriage, 42 ; his mother's
advice regarding, 48; writes to his
father concerning, 82; reported
impending marriage with Queen
of Portugal contradicted, II9 ;
Mdlle. de Padoue, I 19 ; projected
marriage with daughter of Eugène
Beauharnais, I 19 ; reported pro-
posal of marriage to Madame S.,
119; proposes to Princess Mathilde,
12o ; to Mdlle. Bocher, 121 ; to
Miss Rowles, 233; to Miss Seymour,
236; to Miss Burdett-Coutts, 236
Marriages of the Bonapartes, The
(Bingham), 233
Martin, Major Mountjoy, 235
Massa, 65
Mathilde, Princess, 22, 120–121, 217
Mazzini, Joseph, 124, 127, 153
Médecin de Campagne, Le (Balzac),
9I
Melbourne, Viscount, 155, 191
Mémoires d’Outre Zombe, 18
Menotti, Ciro, 58, 59, 60, 80
Mésonan, Le Duff de, 180, 183
Messianic aspect of the Napoleonic
cult, IOO
Metternich, Prince, 53, 95
Military training of Louis Napoleon,
32
Mill, John, 159
Misérables, Les, 92
Modena, Duke of 59, 6o
Molé, Count, I47, 155, 308
Molinari, G. de, 247
Montalembert, Count de, 307
Montebello, Duc de, I 51
Montholon, General, I64; takes part
in Boulogne expedition, 183, 187;
was he a traitor at Boulogne, 192;
I98, 204, 205, 216, 223, 284
Montrose, Duke of, 158
Morel, A., 148
Morley, Wiscount, ix, 92
Morning Herald, The, 306
Morning Post, The, 139
Morny, M. de, 5, 9, 149
Morse, Professor Samuel, 355
Moselle, Department of the, election
of Louis Napoleon in, 284
Munich, 25
Murat, Achille, in America, I43–144
— Joachim (King of Naples), 7, 269
— Lucien, in America, I43-I44; a
representative of the people, 269
— Madame (Caroline Bonaparte), 3,
I9, 22, 157, 269
Muret's Histoire par le Théâtre, Ior
NAPOLEON I, mentioned, xv, 1, 2,
3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Io, I2, 13, I4, 16,
18, 19, 30, 31 (death), 61, 86, 88,
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 99, IOO,
IOI, IO2–IOS (second funeral), Iof,
IO7, Io9, II 3, 139, I49, 161, 164–
I73, 175-178, 194, 248, 334
AWapoleon : the Zast Phase (Rosebery),
I68, 177
390
INDEX
Napoleon II (see also Reichstadt,
Rome), 12, 37, 53, 67, 69, 76, 8o,
86, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, IoS, IIo,
II 2
AWapoléon II (Victor Hugo), 99
Napoleon Louis (brother of Louis
Napoleon), I, 7, 8, I4, I5, 25, 35,
36, 37; takes part in Italian insur-
rection, 54—61 ; death, 62
Napoleon III (see Louis Napoleon)
Mapoléon ZZZ avant l'Empire (Thir-
ria), viii, 93, 130
AWapoléon ZZZ, Enfance, Jeunesse
(Duval), 73, 156
AWapoléon ZZZ Intime (Giraudeau),
viii, 324
AWapoleon //Z: my Recollections
(Fraser), 228, 231, 233, 236
Mapoléon ZIZ, Publiciste (Molinari),
247
Napoleon, Prince (son of Jerome) IO,
22, IO2, 217, 238, 269, 271, 300,
3OI
Napoleonic Idea, the, not at first
formulated by Louis Napoleon, 69;
development of, in his mind, 84;
points of resemblance and differ-
ence between it and Napoleonic
Legend, 90 ; its nature, 163; its
international aspect, 165; its
foundation, authoritative demo-
cracy, 168 ; administrative and
political aspects of, 17o ; centraliza-
tion not essential to, 171 ; nor
despotism, 174; puts prosperity
first and liberty after, 175; its
adaptability, 177; a way of salva-
tion based on compromise, I77;
its weakness, 178; emerges ma-
turally from the Revolution of
February, 265
Napoleonic Legend, the, encouraged
by Louis Philippe, 88 ; its nature,
89 seq.; points of resemblance and
difference between it and Na-
poleonic Idea, 90 ; other references
to, 2O2, 3I3, 320
AVational, Ze (newspaper), 243,305
AVational Intelligencer, The (U.S.A.),
340, 342, 347, 349
INational Workshops, 262, 280
Nationalities, Principle of, xiv, 6;
part of the Napoleonic Idea, 177 ;
a moral doctrine, 178
Navarre, Château of, 13
Nemours, Duc de, 131
Neukirch, 329
Newmarket, 159
New Orleans, 345
New York, 132, 133; Louis Napoleon
in, I4I-I45; 342, 345-347, 350–35 I
W. York Commercial Advertiser,
34
Niagara, I4I
Nicaragua Canal, 232
Nice, 6
Nobility, the, Louis Napoleon on,
256
Norfolk, Virginia, Louis Napoleon
lands in America at, 133, 342
Normanby, Marquess of, 270, 282,
287, 296, 3II, 312
Normand, Charles, 202
North Carolina, 363
AVotre Dame de Paris, 8o
Nouvion, Jacques de, 139
Observateur belge, 306
Ode à la Colonne (Victor Hugo), 97
Old and Mew Paris, 190
Ollivier, Emile, º viii, xii, xiv,
xvi, 30, 57, 58, 72, 81, IO4, IOG,
I29, 130, I56, 2II,
297–298, 313
O'Meara, Barry, 164
“Orgie,” the (Boulogne Expedi-
tion), 188
Orientales, Zes (Victor Hugo), 97
Orleans, Bishop of, 306
Orleans, Duke of, 96 (see Louis
Philippe)
Orleans, Duke of (son of Louis
Philippe), 127, 131
Orleans, Duchess of, 70
Orsay, Count d', 158, 190, 235, 236
Orsi, Count, 57, 59, 182, 183, 184,
I85, 186, 188, 190, 198, 222, 223,
224, 266, 278, 285
Orsini, Felix, 6o
Ostende, 226
Oudinot, Marshal, I97
Owls, Order of, 142
266, 289,
PADoue, Mdlle. de, 119
Paix, La (newspaper), 2 IO
Pajol, General, 197
Pallavicino, Marquis, 232
Palmerston, Lord, 191
Pannon, Madame, 349
Paris: July Revolution, in, 52 ; Louis
INDEX
391
Napoleon in, after Italian insurrec-
tion, 70–73; Napoleonic cult in,
under Louis Philippe, IoI ; second
funeral of Napoleon, Io9–IOS ;
Louis Napoleon taken to, after
Strasburg, I32 ; in autumn of 1836,
139; Louis Napoleon taken to,
after Boulogne, 194; February
Revolution in, 201 ; Louis Napo-
leon's arrival at, in February, 1848,
266; his departure, 267 ; his ulti-
mate arrival in, 285
Paris, Comte de, 55
Paris de 1800 & 1900, 139, 20I
Paris (newspaper), 221
Parliamentary manners, Louis Napo-
leon on, 251
Parliamentary system : an experi-
ment under the Restoration and
Louis Philippe, 172 ; Englishman’s
difficulty of conceiving of liberty
without parliamentary institutions,
173; not fundamentally democratic,
I73 ; parliamentarism not com-
patible with republicanism, 298;
English Liberalism committed to
parliamentary system, 325; limits
the expression of the national will,
326
Parquin, Colonel, 28, 132, 183, 190,
191, 198, 336, 338
Pasquier, Chancellor, 29, 195
Passé et l’azenir de l'Artillerie, ZXu,
2O8, 219, 232
Patrie, La (newspaper), 273
Patterson, Elizabeth, 143
Pauperism, Extinction of 208, 248
Peauger, M., 205, 2II–212
Peel, Sir Robert, 216, 228
Persigny, Vicomte de, 9, 122–124,
I28–129, 131, 156, 159, I61, 183–
184, 186, 190, 266, 267, 274, 281,
29O, 314
Perugia, 63, 65
Pesaro, 63
Peugnier, the brothers, I43, 348
Piat, General, 283
Pietra-Santa, 65
Pisa, 65
Pius VII, 19
Pius VIII, 54
Plebiscite, I I2
Plombierés, 57
Poggioli, Sylvestre, 217
Point Breeze, 22, I43
Poland, 61, 77, 81
“Policeman,” in London,
Napoleon a, 191, 267, 3O4
Polignac, Prince, 216
Portugal, Queen of, rumoured mar-
riage with Louis Napoleon, II9
Potter, Thomas, I61
Press, the ; on the attempt at Stras-
burg, 138; on Boulogne, 192 ;
Louis Napoleon's connection with
the provincial Press while at Ham,
209 seq. ; silence of, concerning
Louis Napoleon before his first
election to the Assembly, 27o;
afterwards his name is freely men-
tioned in, 271 ; on the validity of
the Prince's election, 273 ; on his
second election to the Assembly,
285; on the method of election of
President of the Republic, 293;
attacks the Prince and opposes his
candidature for the Presidency, 302;
the Prince’s supporters in, 305;
English Press against the Prince,
306; recognizes a new order of
things after his election as President
of the Republic, 316
Presse, Za (newspaper), I92, 305
Préval, General, 254
Prince Imperial, 51
Prisoner of Ham, The, 221, 276
Proclamations, Louis Napoleon’s, at
Boulogne, 185, 365
Progrès du Pas de Calais, Louis
Napoleon's contributions to, 209,
2IO, 250, 256
Protection, Louis Napoleon and, 247
Proudhon, P. J., 270, 286, 287, 291,
306
Provisional Government seizes power
in February, 1848, 261 ; proclaims
the Republic, 261 ; letter of Louis
Napoleon to, 266; orders him to
leave France, 267
Prussia signs treaty of Fontainebleau,
16; supports France in demand for
expulsion of Louis Napoleon from
Switzerland, 154; Louis Napoleon's
admiration for Prussian military
system, 253–255; 6, 37, I5 I
Punch, 279, 285
Puységur, M., 297
Louis
QUERELLES, M. de, 338
Quinet, Edgar, IOO, I66, 170
392
INDEX
RAMSGATE, 187
Rapallo, Mr., 185, 186
Raspail, M., 312-313, 314, 315
Récamier, Madame, 83, 195
A'ecollections of the Emperor Napoleon,
(Mrs. Abell), 9
A'ecollections of the Last Half Century
(Orsi), 59, 182, 278
Reform movement under
Philippe, spread of, 201
Regent Street, London, 8o
Regnault, Elias, 185, 205
Reichenau, Isle of, 28
Reichstadt, Duc de, 37, 53, 67, 69, 80,
86, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, IoS, IIo
Republic, Second, proclaimed, 261 ;
“days of June,” 28o; killed by
the Republicans, 281 ; Cavaignac
called to supreme power, 281
Republicanism : taught to Louis
Napoleon by his tutor Lebas,
31 ; Louis Napoleon's youthful
sympathy for, Io9–I Io; difficulties
of, in practice, III ; contrast be-
tween monarchy and republic, II6
Republican Party, the : Louis Napo-
leon's supposed relations with, in
1831, 71; his relations with, during
imprisonment at Ham, 2II–214;
compromised by the February Revo-
lution, 263; the Second Republic
killed by, 281 ; Louis Napoleon's
appeal to, in the Assembly, 289; re-
jects the Prince's candidature for the
Presidency, 306; hostility of, to
Louis Napoleon not appeased by
popular vote of December Io, 317
Aºetour de l'Ampereur, Ze, IO4
Révélations sur la propagande napo-
Jeonienne (Ferrère), 265
Acázſeries politiques, analysis of, Io9 ;
82, 84, IoS, II2, II.5, II 7, 240, 242
Revolution of 1830, 52, 94
— 1848, 261
A'ezvolution and Reaction in Modern
Aºrance (Dickinson), I 17, 163, 166,
I75–176, 291
Æezue Bleu, 139
A'evue de l’Empire, 210
A'evue de l'Occident, 122
Rhodes, Cecil, 124
Richelieu, Duc de, 17
Richmond, 79, 148
Riº, of Labour proclaimed in 1848,
202
Louis
Rimini, Baron de (Griscelli), 234
Rio de Janeiro, 133
Ripon, Earl of, I56, 190
Robert, Leopold, 58, 59
Rochefort, 14
Rockingham House, St. John's Wood,
23O
Roe, Sir F., 147
Romagna, 56, 57, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73
Rome, rendezvous of the Bonapartes
after 1815, 19; residence of
Madame Mère, 19 ; Louis Napo-
leon at, in November 1830, 54–
56; expelled by Roman Govern-
ment, 56; other references, 8, 18,
20, 22, 40, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 80
Rome, King of, 12 (see Reichstadt,
Duc de).
Roosevelt, Mrs., 142
Rosebery, Earl of 91, 168, 177
Rotterdam, 148
Rousseau, J. J., Io, 41, 78, 258
Rowles, Emily, Louis Napoleon's
engagement to, 233
Ruskin, John, 169
Russell, Lord John, 147, 278
Russia signs Treaty of Fontainebleau,
6
I
Rylan, Comte de, 4
S., MADAME, I2O
Saint-Amand, Imbert de, xvi, I48,
2O3
St. Gall, 24
St. Leu, 13, 72,78, 229
St. Quentin, 204, 226
Sallenstein, 152
Sand, George, 212, 213, 2I4
Sandegg, 28
San Domingo, 9
Sandy Hook, 343
“Saviour of Society " needed, 291
Scarborough, Earl of, 158
Schaffhausen, 28
Schiller, Friedrich, 32, 195
Scott, General, I4I
Sebastiani, General, I47
Secret Societies and the Bonapartist
revival, 57
Sedan, vii
Seine, department of, Louis Napo-
leon’s first election for, 269-270 ;
second election, 284
Sercognani, General, 61, 63
Serure, M., IO2
INDEX
393
Seymour, Miss, Louis Napoleon’s
proposal to, 236
Sibour, Archbishop, 307, 3II
Szècle, Ze (newspaper), 273, 293
Siena, 65
Simon, Jules, 2II, 256
Simond, Charles, 139, 201
Slavery in the United States, Louis
Napoleon on, 363
Smith, Adam, I59
— Beaumont, 185
— George Thomas, 222, 223, 224
Socialist party, the, dominates Paris
for four months after Revolution
of February, 261 ; confronted with
order, 262 ; last effort of in the
days of June, 28o ; Louis Napo-
leon's desire for help of, 283, 286 ;
his socialistic sympathies, 287; his
advances to the socialists make
him an object of suspicion, 3O2;
rejection of his candidature by,
306; inability of, to stand with
liberalism, 321
Some Motes of the Past (Drummond
Wolff), 221, 224
Somerset, Duke of, 158
Soult, Marshal, 227
Souplet, Calixte, 2O5, 209–212, 224
Souzemirs du Peuple, Les, 97–98
Souza, M. de, 8
— Madame de, 9
Spain, 6
Spoleto, 58
Standard, The (newspaper), 138, 221,
223
State of Siege in Paris in 1848,
282
Stéphane-Pol, M., 83
Stéphanie, Grand Duchess of Baden,
25, 28
Stewart, Rev. C. S., J41, 146, 340–
34I, 342, 347, 349, 350
Strasburg, Louis Napoleon's attempt
on : first idea of, 125; prelimin-
aries, I26 seq. ; the attack, I29 ;
its failure, 130; reception of the
news by the King, I30 ; Louis
Napoleon's intentions at, I31 ;
trial of the prisoners, 134; reflec-
tions on, 135; condemned by the
Press, 138; Princess Clementine’s
account of, 138; legend of the
Prince's costume, 191 ; Louis
Napoleon's own account of, 329
seq. ; mentioned I2, 87, 95, IO2,
IoS, I2O, I21, 140, 145, 146, 154,
I60, 164, 18O, 185, 188, 192, 198,
I99, 200, 2I5, 225, 265, 267, 273,
286, 393, 321, 341, 343
Strozzi, Marquise, de, 156
Stuarts, the, Louis Napoleon on,
246
Style, literary, of Louis Napoleon,
24O-24I
Sugar, beetroot, Louis Napoleon on,
208, 246
Sun, The (newspaper), 192
Sunday Dispatch, The, 348
Switzerland, Louis Napoleon takes
up his residence in, with his
mother, 28; his military duties in,
32 ; honorary citizenship of the
Canton of Thurgau conferred on
the Prince, 84; his book on, II2;
his return to Switzerland in 1837,
148; invitation of sIFrench Govern-
ment, I49; Laity’s pamphlet serves
as an excuse for demanding the
Prince's expulsion, 150 ; expulsion
demanded, 151 ; quarrel between
the French and Swiss Govern-
ments, 152; question of Louis
Napoleon’s nationality, I52; action
of the Federal Diet, 153; troops
mobilized by the French Govern-
ment, I54; Louis Napoleon leaves
voluntarily, 155; result of the de-
mand for his expulsion favourable
to the Prince, 155
TALLEYRAND, PRINCE DE, 17, 29, 76,
97
Temps, Ze, I22
Terni, 58, 59
Teynham, Lord, 161
Thackeray, W. M., Iog, IO4
Thames Tunnel, 79
Theatre: Napoleonic plays, IOO–IoI
Thélin, Charles, I43, 184, 204, 205,
2I 5, 222, 225
Thiers, M., 4, Ioë, I37, 186, 270,
280, 302, 303, 308
Thirria, H., quoted, viii, ix, xv,
xvi, 93, IOO, 122, 130, 152, 182,
183, 220, 222, 248, 253, 270, 271,
276, 279, 313
Thomson, James, I46
Thorigny, M. de, 121
Thun, camp at, 32, 35
394
INDEX
Thurgau, Canton of, confers right of
citizenship on Louis Napoleon, 84;
27, 28, I52–154
Tilsit, 6
Times, The, xiii, 138, 192, 193, 285
Tinelli, L. W., on Louis Napoleon
in America, 347–349
Tocqueville, A. de, 240, 277, 294
Toeplitz, 7, 8
Tolentino, 65
Tory democracy: its resemblance to
the Napoleonic Idea, 325
Toulon, 334
Tower of London, 79
Trelawney, Clarence, 235
Trieste, 19, 22
Tuileries, the, I2, IO4
Tunbridge Wells, Queen Hortense
at, 78, 79
Turkey, Hortense's intended flight
to, 62
Tuscany, Carbonarism little known
in, 57 ; raises difficulties to Louis
Napoleon’s return after Italian in-
surrection, 61 ; Louis Napoleon
refused admittance to in 1846,
229
CWnion, L' (newspaper), 293
United States of America (see
America)
United States of Europe, Napo-
leon I's idea of, I65
Onivers, L' (newspaper), 293, 313
“ University of Ham,” the, 20
VALENCIENNES, 226
Van Buren, Martin, I45
Van Ness, General, I42
Vaudrey, Colonel, 126, 127, 128-129,
132, 156, 161, 199, 330, 334, 336
Vendôme column, 70, 73, 81, IOI
Vergeot, Alexandrine, 2O7, 208
Verhuel, Admiral, 3, 4
Véron, Dr., 205
Vesoul, 2I
Victoria, Queen, contrasts Louis
Philippe with Louis Napoleon, 27 ;
on Louis Napoleon’s power of
fascination, I24; prorogues Par-
liament, 146; receives news of the
attempt at Boulogne, 191 ; Lord
John Russell’s letter to, on “the
French follies,” 278
Vieillard, M., x, 27, 29, 83, 145,
2O5, 266, 268, 302, 362
Viel Castel, Count H. de, I2O
Vienna, Congress of, 17.
Vieux Sergeant, Ze, 97
Vigny, Alfred de, 158
Viterbo, 54
Voirol, General, 126, 127, 129, 18O,
331, 338
Voisin, Colonel, 183, 184, 190
Volta's pile, 208
WAINwRIGHT, Bishop, 355
War, Louis Napoleon On, 255
Warsaw, 81, 118
Wasa, Princess, 33
Washington, George, I44
— Hotel, New York, 141
Waterloo, 17, 196
— Place, London, 156
Webb, General Watson, I41, 349–
352, 360
Werther, 243, 323
Wheatley and Cunningham, 230
Wikoff, Henry, 190, 221, 357
William III, Louis Napoleon on, 245
William IV., 146
Wilson, General, 75
Wimbledon Common, 161
Wimereux, 185, 187, 188
Woburn Abbey, 79
Wolfsburg, 29
Woolwich, 79
Wurmsee, 25
Wurtemberg, supports France in
demand for expulsion of Louis
Napoleon from Switzerland in
1838, I54
— King of, 22
— Catherine of (see Catherine)
Year of Revolution, A (Normanby),
270, 282, 287, 296, 3II, 312
Yonne, department of, Louis Napo-
leon elected in, 269-270; second
election, 284, 287
ZAPPI, Marquis, 64
Zurich, 243
... NON
(CIRCULATING j
-----------ºf-


|
|
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
ſiliili
3 9015 051159856
... --
•
.*
2"
.”
sº
.*
...”
-*
2.
*
,”
.."
*
4.-
,”
..?'
…'
.”
*
r
*
*









§ i.
§
§ §§
#
ºš
§
ºś
*ś
* -
. #:
§
ºš
-;::
;
§
Ǻ §§
ãº.
º
º § †º.
º º
º }
§§
§§§
§. º
f
º: #