Assassination, Politics and Miracles: France and the Royalist Reaction of 1820 (review)

In this monograph based upon a doctoral dissertation, David Skuy takes issue with historians such as Pierre Rosanvallon and Cheryl Kroen, who have allegedly viewed the fall of the Bourbon Restoration (1814-30) as inevitable from its onset. By way of alternative, Skuy proposes that the Royalist Reaction of 1820 marked a watershed between a previous period wherein the monarchy had successfully established the legitimacy of its rule through moderate policies designed to promote unity, and a subsequent phase wherein ultra (extreme) royalists pursued policies that ultimately would trigger revolution. Although the author does devote a fair amount of effort to placing the developments of 1820 in their broader historical context, most of Assassination, Politics and Miracles consists of examination of the Royalist Reaction. The latter began with the murder of the Duke of Berry (the sole member of the royal family capable of producing an heir to the throne) in February, included passage of laws that suspended habeas corpus, tightened censorship, and altered the electoral regime to favour royalists, saw the birth of the Duke's 'miracle' son in October, and culminated in royalist triumph in the elections of November.

Skuy's study is particularly valuable in its analysis of the means by which royalists sought to exploit the assassination. Although the perpetrator (Louvel) acted in isolation, moderate and ultra royalists alike charged their political opponents with revolutionary conspiracy in parliamentary speeches, newspapers, and pamphlets. Complementary to such negative propaganda was a more positive drive, especially apparent in lithographs, to improve the image of the Berrys and associate the fate of the dynasty to that of France. Especially in his examination of response to subscriptions for a commemorative statue of the Duke and purchase of the chateau of Chambord for his 'miracle' son, the author demonstrates that the Reaction stirred a strong wave of support for the royal family. Whether such response proves that the regime had taken root is, however, less clear. Did such expressions of sympathy necessarily extend to enduring loyalty to the regime? Taking Skuy's own evidence, one can note, for example, that while the Grenoble municipal council drew up an address expressing sorrow at the death of Berry, it also subsequently honoured General Ledru des Essarts, who was involved in an attempt to overthrow the regime in August 1820. Did the November election results reveal growing royalism, manipulation of the electoral regime, or public disapproval of Liberal recourse to violence? One way or another, Skuy does provide a strong account of how legal repression and propaganda prepared the way for ultra royalist desire for revenge to triumph over moderate royalism.

Insightful as his analysis of the Reaction is, the broader elements of Skuy's interpretation are problematic. Political reaction began in November 1819, when electoral results revealed that Liberals might well gain a majority in the Chamber of Deputies in the next annual renewal of one fifth of the seats in the lower house. As Rosanvallon argues, Liberals and royalists differed over whether sovereignty rested with the monarchy or the nation, an issue which would surely be put to the test in the event of Liberal control over the Chamber of Deputies. Well before the assassination of Berry, the government had decided to present legislation to revise the electoral law as a pre-emptive strike against this potential crisis. Alarm over the assassination did help to secure passage of the Law of the Double Vote, but this simply postponed resolution of the issue of sovereignty until 1830. What ultimately was at issue was less the fate of the dynasty than the nature of the regime, and Louis XVIII was no more willing than his successor Charles X to recognize national sovereignty. Similarly, Skuy largely overlooks Kroen's points about the way in which the Catholic missionary movement polarized politics, raising fear over close ties between throne and altar. It is true that division over this issue became more pronounced after 1820, but its...