1830 Revolution in France

Since the 1789 revolution, France was plunged in a series of revolutions, of which the 1848 revolution arrogates a prominent place in the work of historians. But what has been a case of unjust treatment is the sheer negligence meted out to the revolution of 1830.Primarily the focus of political historians, the sociological and economic dimensions of the revolution has been grossly ignored. It’s identification as nothing more than a political movement leaves much room for speculation and further insight. True, the developments that ensued were “political” in nature, but the underlying socio-economic causes were indispensable catalysts in producing the revolution-one that was a prelude to the revolution of 1848, a step further in the walk towards a system of parliamentary democracy. The stepping down of Charles X, the French Bourbon monarch and the ascent of his cousin Louis-Philippe,the Duc d’Orleans marked a shift from one constitutional monarchy to another, that from the Bourbon restoration to the July Monarchy and most markedly the substitution of the principle of popular sovereignty for the tradition of hereditary rights. The denial of responsibility to the Parliament and the issue of the “Five Ordinances” led to a huge uproar which in turn led to the establishment of a new ruling house, the settlement being in favour of the Parliament. This, according to the republican historians, was a revolutionary development, although incomplete, a prelude to the 1848 revolution when they would accomplish their goal.

What actually impelled the workers of Paris to risk their lives and revolt??? Why was there a complete reversal of the pro-government stance of the limited electorate of substantial property-owners; a complete deflection in loyalty to the government???These questions make one wonder and ruminate over the probable multi-dimensional aspect of the revolution and not one as a unidirectional political movement. In a review of the 1830 revolution, David H.Pinkney, drawing on the works of Earnest Labrousse, Paul Gonnet and Louis Chevalier sought to look at the revolution from a new angle(1959)and five years later wrote a review article which questioned certain premises and convictions about the nature of the revolutionary crowd, held by fellow historians. Feeding on Ernest Labrousse’s work, the revolution has to be seen from an economic vantage point, against the backdrop of a festering recession

from 1826-32.during this period, France witnessed a reversal of prosperity that it had enjoyed after 1817, a recession that snowballed into a crippling depression. Rising prices, a nosedive in wages and alarming unemployment sabotaged the French economy. Bad harvests worsened the situation...(price of wheat rose by 60% and that of bread by a mind-boggling 125%).And the impact was felt in the industrial sector as well...With a meagre purchasing power, the textile industry fell into stagnations. Iron and coal industry suffered a similar fate due to a fall in demand. What prevailed was an atmosphere of immense economic distress-large scale poverty, unemployment and death by privation. Paul Gonnet’s study of the economic situation in the provinces confirmed the popular ferment that was brewing up with frequent food riots and violence. And this scenario had unmistakable political significance...The middle class bourgeois imputed the blame on the government which was held responsible for the troubles of the time and a reversal in the loyalty of the electorate was seen in the parliamentary elections. What Labrousse stressed on was the convergence of three forces that triggered the outburst-the economic fiasco coupled with the seething political resentment and the provocative act of Charles X. And what made it impossible to appeal to the masses was the prolonged distress that had widened the cleavage between the government and the public. From another angle of the prism, that of a sociological vantage point, Louis Chevalier has premised on the causal connection between social disorganisation and the insurrection that took place. A rising influx of immigrants with depleting resources and infrastructure to accommodate them gave rise to immeasurable social vices. So much so that the words” savage ”and “ barbarian ” was extended to all the poor working classes...mass crime was commonplace...homicides and suicides became more frequent and illegitimate births rose on an unprecedented scale...a socially unacceptable class came in to being. One that lived on the fringes of law, lost in crime and morals being submitted to such a life of abject poverty. Such brutal social conditions would have surely laid down a firm co-relation between societal misery and the upsurge of 1830,for most of the street fighters were dejected, anguished and agonized people who were driven to the brink of revolting, given their hideous living conditions and the indifference of the government to the same. Chevalier confirms this co-relation by drawing light on the fact that most of the fighting was done by the gamin, the homeless

and often abandoned urchins...What can be said in the affirmative is the undeniable link between social conditions and revolutionary sentiments...an aspect which unfortunately has been repeatedly missed out as regards to the revolution of 1830.Keeping in mind the dramatic changes a revolution ushers in...One would wonder if at all the events of 1830 can be denominated as a revolution. If one is on the lookout for sweeping fundamental changes, certainly there were none. To quote Casimir Perier,”............there has been no revolution in France. There has been simply a change in the person of the chief of the state. Indeed, the chief of the state still happens to be a Bourbon and although he was committed to respect the wishes of the majority in the chamber, he was as anxious as his predecessor for personal rule......”.To the Republicans’ response that the revolution was in essence a democratic movement, a prelude to the revolution of 1848,Pinkney challenges the chances of republican ideas having motivated the leaders. Pinkney certainly gives vent to the fact that the revolution was not essentially a “revolution”, for there was no pronounced change in the economy or the society...economic depression continued and the “les mise’rables” still remained the savages in the eyes of the middle class. Pinkney also refutes the assertions of the conventional historians who dole out a passive role to the provinces, considering the revolution to have been an “import from Paris”. Scarcely compatible with Gonnet’s picture of provinces reeling under unrest, the view that the revolution was primarily a work of Parisian workers cannot be accepted conclusively. Even Pinkney alludes to the fact that not all provinces were passive actors. One major change that was introduced with the events of 1830 was the replacement of office-holders. All the key administrative and military posts were purged of the existing holders and reassignments were made. All those who played a role in the July days demanded a job and replacements ensured that a certain class of landed aristocracy which dominated the system went out of office. To the question of who replaced these officials and what kind of political sentiments they were imbued with, Pinkney provides the reader with typical examples which apprise one of a Bonapartist revival...all the officials or more correctly, most of them ,belonged to the First Empire or sons of the officials serving under it and came forward to becoming the elite of the July Monarchy. Whether or not the individual members of the new elite belonged to a well-to-do middle class who governed France under the

Legislative Assembly in the 1790s cannot be deduced, for a definitive answer awaits further research, but David Pinkney’s argument that the revolution was a step further towards the Second Empire and not a prelude to 1848 as the Republicans assert can be considered to be thought-provoking. The constitutional struggle and Charles X’s controversial, inflammatory acts may have been the cornerstone of the revolution, but what pulled the trigger was the collision of the same with a background of social and economic misery which had breaded revolutionary sentiments in the people.

In the AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW,David H.Pinkney has offered an insight into the character of the crowd that spearheaded the French revolution of 1830.What the reader is made aware of is the plethora of misleading positions that historians of the revolution have taken. One can consider them guilty of looking at the revolution from above...the crowd for them was an abstraction...albeit with complex motives and interests. At the most naive level, the aspirations of the crowd have been treated as mere reflections of those of the journalists and opposition deputies. And the possibility of the crowd having purposes of their own, which some historians have suspected, remains largely unexplored. Works of Ernest Labrousse and Louis Chevalier have established similar stereotypes, for the crowd for both of them were largely comprised of economically distressed and the ”classes dangereuses” who were unconnected with the constitutional struggle between the king and the deputies. For them revolution was just a step ahead of expressing their resentment against the society. Pinkney can be seen to be critical of this view, for he sees no such proof to establish a plausible connection. Inspired by the works of Georges Lefevre, George Rude and Albert Soboul, he has sought to analyse the crowd behaviour from below. Drawing on the records and statistics of the Commission des Recompenses nationales, Pinkney gleans information sufficient enough to refute the conclusions drawn by Labrousse and Chevalier, for the maximum number of people enlisted were not servants or poverty-stricken labourers but skilled artisans and craftsmen hailing from well-established professions like blacksmiths, jewellery makers and printers. Perhaps the tradition of belonging to the same old established crafts gave them the zeal for collective violence. Moreover the records show no trace of the unemployed and the widows who claimed pensions (only with scant exceptions) seemed to be morally sound. Who had lived with their men for

years? Independent compilations also shed light on the conspicuous presence of skilled craftsmen. Masons, locksmiths, sawyers figure prominently in the statistics of the dead and wounded. Pinkney is also disapproving of the undue importance accorded to the bourgeois, the women and the gamins. The gamin, for Chevalier, was the centrifugal force of the revolution, a notion that, according to Pinkney lacks empirical evidence and is thus misleading. Equally misleading is the term ”Bourgeois Revolution” for there was hardly any bourgeois participation and the few deaths accorded were mere ‘accidents’ when they were venturing out on business or were just uninvolved bystanders. Certainly they did not deserve the conspicuous place in public imagery as has been the case. For Pinkney,”the presence of the gamin is as misleading as that of the cravated bourgeois and the bosomy lady”.....Admittedly,the crowd that had gathered on the day the Five Ordinances were issued,seemed to be idle spectators,visibly uninterested in the new publishes.However,there were certain individuals who were not random strollers but well-connected professionals.they were the printers,who,according to Pinkney,played a major role,that of provocation.Embittered by the censorship promulgated and the cancelling of pprinting orders,the printers searched for allies and paired with the stonemasons,carpenters and joiners.Also were present liberal journalists,among the so called “aimless’crowd,whose livlihoods were threatened.Even though their instigations with the crowd was not accessible,the protest publications by the journalists was purely political in nature.Even though the defense of a charter where they were bereft of the right to vote or hold office made no sense to them,the evening of the day saw them hurling bricks and pillaging shops and one would wonder what made the crowd react to a seemingly pure political crisis that did not concern them in any manner.perhaps the journalists’claims couched in purely political terms was imbibed as a means to protest against the economic crisis for which the government was to be blamed.Incidents that took place reveal that so acute was the need for money to buy basic necessities that any source that provided financial assistance in return for chanting the unified rallying cry”vive le Roi”was heartily accepted in return for crying aloud the slogan and merging with the crowd-a fact which hints that not all the people participating were combatants.On the assertion that the crowd was hardly interested in the political affairs(Labrousse),Pinkney provides an opposing view which shows

how many of the combatants were goaded by personal grievances against the regime.Dismissal from the army,political persecution,discrimination against their families and refusal of jobs in the cvil services had added to the pent-up anger.And this may have been the cause that brought out the patriotic resentment when the tricolourflew above the city.Further,the appointment of Ragusa had swelled up rage and fury.With the otherwise clandestine appearance,the now explicit showcase of the Tricolor was a symbol of hope to triumph over the unpopular house.Ideological motives may also have been aroused,for records speak of people fighting for their rights,for defending the nation from the assassins and fufilling their duties as citizens.,a development spurred by the hoisting of the tricolor.Pinkney also confirms the peripheral role of anti-clerical sentiments which did not produce any strong outcome.He goes on to question the so called leadership roles accorded to the students and the National Guard for most of them were chiefly concerned with guarding their property and reliance on the students would have ensured a defeat.What according to Pinkney made the crowd resilient and defeat the Royal Army was the support given by the armies of the republic and the Empire which had made warfare a “citizen’s business”.Most of the people fighting were veterans of Napoleon’s armies and most of the participants were well-to-do artisans who were untouched by financial misery.Industrialisation having made little progress then,the traditional crafts bound the workers in a bond of mutual loyalty and to the craft itself,a factor which induced them to take up arms together and which laid down strong links with the revolution of 1789,demanding reforms linked with the same and voicing personal grievances with the Bourbons,calling for restoration of the national prestige associated with the Empire and the revolution of 1789.David Pinkney in this review article has undeniably provided the reader with an additional insight-that of a strong link of the revolution of 1830 with the sentiments associated with the 1789 revolution and not just changes confined to the nineteenth century,as conventions would have it.Political aspirations to revive the ideals of the 1789 revolution combined with instinctive reactions by the masses reeling under economic stress was what defined the mood of the crowd.For no reason can we accept the singularly homogenous categorisation of the crowd as a single set,as many historians have erred in the past and still continue to do so.....

Another major erring is the tendency to employ the term”Bourgeois Revolution” to define the chain of events.Why and how the idea originated to use the term has been dealt with in Shirley Gruner’s article”THE REVOLUTION OF JULY 1830 AND THE EXPRESSION BOURGEOIS”.Gruner considers the 1830 revolution to be a watershed in the evolution of the term ‘bourgeois’,for after the revolution the term acquired a critical tone,in complete contrast to the meaning as envisaged by the liberals.The article gives an account of the liberal ideas,about how Thierry’s two-race theory gave an economic angle to it.For the liberals,there were just two classes-the idlers or the feudal lords and the industrial bourgeois which formed the bulk of the frenchmen,who would establish the peaceful system of industrialisation without war or conquest under the political system of liberalism.Liberal economists like Charles Comte,Dunoyer,Thierry and Mignet and to some extent Guizot and Constant have given views which provide a framework for liberal ideas and one can also see Saint-Simon’s ideas converging with them,for he too believed that the society comprised of two classes-the drones and the bees,i.e,the idlers and the industrialists.He differed in one fundamental aspect-the peaceful sysytem of industrialisation which was supposed to end oppression,war and misery by a social revolution(Adam Smith)was unlikely to be achieved under a political form of liberalism.And this sharp division was achieved over the years when unfulfillment of the new harmonious state of industrialism was seen to have occured due to abnormality in the political development since 1789.Gruner goes on to explain in the article how Saint-Simon makes a sharp distinction betwen the true revolutionaries of 1789 and their false help-mates or the legistes under whom the industrial class held sway.These legistes were the Gerondins,Jacobins and the Bonapartists who were also rooted in feudalasim,being advisers of the king and later deriving their existence from feudalism.The struggle hence was between two rival autocracies and the industrial class was falsely guided by these pseudo-liberals or the legisteswho were feudals in the veneer of liberal outlook,feeding on the outmoded philosophy of the 18th century.However,he accords them an intermediate place when the industrials were too weak to attack feudalism alone;a class placed between the nobles and the industrials,a parasitic class who had a non-noble status and who owed their origin to the invention of gunpowder.This bourgeois class had no intention of establishing industrialism...it was just” a

new branch on an old tree”,a by-product of feudalism aiming at ousting the old nobility and putting itself in place.And this bourgeois class was destined to disappear from the system it had stemmed,for there were only two systems-that of military feudalism and peaceful industrialisation and the realisation of the latter was destined,which the bourgeois could not suppress and at best could only delay it.What the reader also learns is the peculiar concept of Saint-Simon which is at loggerheads with what the liberals have to say.The bourgeois for him was a ‘three-pronged class’aiming to just end feudalism and which had nothing constructive to replace and can in no way be considered to have ushered in a new era.For Saint-Simon,the so called bourgeois of the 1789 revolution were just deceivers of the people and can be considered as nothing less than an aristocratic caste.This view of Saint-Simon,Gruner considers,seems to be the originator of the idea of a bourgeois revolution and gained popularity after 1830 by the followers who turned it into ‘slogans of the age”and who saw no difference between idle nobles and idle capitalists.This class saw no necessity of differentiating between the kinds of oppression and employed the term bourgeois to include all the exploiters.and it is at this point that the Saint-simonists start interpreting the revolution of july,a struggle between the old nobility and the new bourgeois in which the latter wins and hence the name”bourgeois revolution”,unrelated to the struggle of industrials.Gruner also argues that even though the bourgeois era owed some independence from the saint-Simon doctrine,it cannot be seen a an era in its own right.So when the revolution happened,the Saint-Simonsists saw the development as a completeion of the revolution of 1789 and hence a liberal,bouregeois revolution,for the social conditions remained the same.What changed was the coming to power of another usurping elite defined by the bourgeois.Needless to say,this sparked opposition in the liberal circles who viewed the class as a benevolent majority but the Saint-Simonist idea of the class as a small capitalist elite still prevails.But with the Fourierists and the writings of Buchez,the term has come to include even the Saint-Simonist elite,anybody who owns the instruments of labor.For Gruner,the term bourgeois subscribes to a scheme of thought and history and any reference to it hints at a pre coceived notion of the society.Any isolation from theories renders the term useless.Gruner at the end also expresses a desire to abandon the usage of the term which has undergone so many modifications and now can only remind

one of the theoretical conflicts of the eighteenth an d early ninteenth centuries.hence the term “bourgeois revolution”used to define the revolution of 1830 has ideoligical undertones which merely adheres to a prescibed mode of thought..one that divides the society into two classes(the idlers and the industrials)or three classes(the the old nobility,the bourgeois as an economic class and the proletariat).......

In the scenario after the revolution took place,Pamila Pilbeam has written extensively on the superbly active role played by the provinces as the hotbed of unrest and revolts,the responses by the government and the economic crisis of the said period which intensified the entire political scene.Till now the trend of reviewing the revolution was in the lines of conceiving it as an import from Paris and accounts of the same have been sparse.However the works of scholars like Paul Gonnet,supplemented by the national archives and private diaries adduce to the fact that provinces were active players and not entirely passive.The deteriorating economic conditions worsened by bad harvests specially that of potato,rise in bread prises,dying out of livestock,the poor quality of wine-growing resulting in price plummeting all added to a general mood of resentment.More so,since a large population depended on both agriculture and industry for survival,the industrial recession which had started before the revolution exacerbated a fear of unrest,political uncertainity and possible forign invasion.bankruptcies were common and the unrest usually stemmed from two kinds of demandsfair price for basic goods and increased wages(moral and market economy).Grain riots and forced sales were seen frequently ib the provinces and at times merged with anti clerical and nationalist responses.These riots also saw the active participation of the national guardsmen threatening the regime.The Guard reorganised in the july days now operated as an agent of law and order and not as a revolutionary force.however with due course it did acquire the status of a veritable weapon if France be attacked .The government response to such riots was on the lines of the Restoration governments by combining physical force with new legislation and charity....Also the Orleanist regime adopted a much more positive plan of alleviating povery by diverting the central government funds to root out the problems caused by extreme penury rather than relying on private charity.Republican clubs thrived as a potent source of opposition to the political structure and its meek policies and republicanism now posed as the

rival force.However in hindsight it seems to have had few links with th aims of the rioters.The army was reorganised, the National Guard turned into an “apathetic municipal police force”.and officials were purged.Conclusively,the riots were primarily concerned about immediate economic needs,a reason for their weakness and had little to do with republican ideals...rioters were mostly agitators and not criminals.the impact of these popular revolts was minimal and their failure makes Pilbeam opine that the revolution was a betrayal.In th views of left wing radicals,the work of the people in th revolution was taken away by the bourgeois and this alone paved the way for the revolution of 1848....and the provinces certainly conditioned the pattern of developments rather than tacitly receiving messages from Paris.

The role of provinces,which has always pushed to the brink of negligence,need to be looked at,for to abide by the popular view about the centrality of Paris in all the revolutions would be to possess a prejudiced view.Pamela Pilbeam in her article”The three glorious days:the revolution of 1830 in Provincial France” asserts that the revolution of 1830 was the last time “Paris lead and France followed”...However does that mean the provinces were altogether passive?This question cannot feed on assumptions...it needs to be backed by evidence.With Departmental and municipal archives and local newpapers it is certain that the the riots in the provinces had a political significance for the dual economic and financial crisis was accentuated by the apathy of the government,thus arousing a hostile approach to the ruling government.The issue of the Five ordinances which was a blow to the journalists saw them taking the lead in radicalising the revolutionary atmosphere and Pilbeam avers that the revolution actually lasted for fourteen days and the conflict between the elite prolonged the scene.Even after the ordinances were issued,violations were noted in Lyon and Dijon where the opposition newspaper was printed.morever sonce newspapers were barred from reaching the provinces,wild speculation teamed with silence of the government fanned the revolutionary flames.Lack of unity in the local authority and absence of orders made it seem wiser for the prefects to abdicate and their absence rendered even the judiciary useless.The troops have been reported to have displayed a lack of enthusiasm to sustain the Bourbon rule...”they just tagged along behind the revolution...”..in most places they fraternized with the rioters or backed out after being assailed by the crowd.In provinces like Dijon and

Besancon,their backing out has been evidenced.....In Eastern France,most vivdly in Dijon and Beasncon,street fighting had already begun before the actual revolution took place and later voilent noisy demonstations coincided with local liberals taking on the reins of power and forming provincial administrations.Eastern France,by this time,was already a liberal stronghold...anti-bourbon slogans became famous and in Besancon a climax was reached with the vandalising of the statue of Pichegru,a royal conspirator and a petition was sent to Paris for the establishment of a Republic in France.Even though the rioters in the provinces had little in common with the liberal leaders,reverence for the Tricolor and the National Guard and a spirit of patriotic nationalism instilled a semblance of unity....Pilbeam argues that admittedly the the inspiration came from paris to display the flag and revive the National Guard,but the timing of the departmental reconstructions was a product of local initiative...The provinces,specially Besancon and Nancy,expressed the deepest anti-clerial sentiments where the archbishop and the bishop were involved in ultra-royalist politics...Common sentiments of patriotism,republicanism,anti-clericalism and bonapartism permeated the crowd and the holders of the provincial offices and here its necessary to outline that their composition was entirely different from each other..Peasants,artisans,wine-producers and craftsmen constituted the bulk of the crowd as the industrial recession had crippled their livelihoods...In Chaumont,unemployed glove makers were prominent an Lyon,Mulhouse and Nancy reported violent killings...some provinces went out of control for several days,uncoordinated and anonymous...For the liberals,it was a perfect chance to seize power and this they did by exploiting the volatile conditions.Moved by local poltics and not national power,these liberals saw their interest in trying to curb further unrest...and Pilbeam argues that it was the total transfer of power to the liberal elite in the provinces and the rioters that ensured revolution in the provinces.She goes on to say that the revolution was “Parisian”till the point the journalistsled the protests..but the political decision to elect the Duke of Orleans as the King of the French was a decision taken by the whole of France....

Pamela Pilbeam also,in her work”The economic crisis of 1827-30 and the 1830 revolution in Provincial France”brings out the tussle between the Marxists and the revisionists as regards to the nature of the revolution.The

revisionists,Pilbeam says,mislead the vision of the liberal opposition to Charles X..for them social changes were occuring over centuries and that the revolutions in particular were mere political events...Stressing on the dominance of landowning notables in the elite of the Restoration and July Monarchy,the revisionists have been attacked by the marxists who attempt to restore the revolution of 1830 as a bougeois revolution...Labrousse’s findings which establish the connection between the economic debacle and the ongoing political crisis has been refuted by Gonnet who confers that the July revolution had happened before the recession reached its nadir.Historians have long since attempted to underestimate the economic crisis and its impact has not yet been adequately investigated..This article by Pilbeam seeks to explore the connection between the growth of liberalism and the economic depression,the presence or absence of political content in the grievances expressed and the difference in the aims of the popular and elite demands...with special focus on the Eastern France,where republican and bonapartist traditions were strong,a question arises as to whether the liberal opposition was a response to the economic depression....potato riots,demands for fair prices for bread conformed to age-old conventions...Grievances of viticulturalists came forward to unite both the fighting classes and their was disquiet over food supplies.Government monopoly over tobacco production brew anger and high indirect taxes on wine intensified the agony.This plight of the wine industry became politicized and the failure of the government to amend the taxes lead to wreckage of tax houses and other forms of physical assault.This wine issue gave the liberal parliamentary opposition a specific context and lead to radical political activities.,more so because now the rich and the poor shared common grievances.Harvest failure coincided with industrial stagnation...bankers,merchants and industrialists were all vulnerable.However,unlike wine-producers,the merchants could get a sanction from the government for protection of their commercial interests.all the economic issues of the workers who were bound to industry and agriculture alike were politicised by the liberal pressure group who were furious at the fact that nothing was being done by the government to alleviate the situation.With industrialisation at its infancy and stongly linked with the agricultural sector,the disruption of the factory system had its ripple effect felt in the rural industry as well.manufacturers were highly critical of the government

policies,specially that of the Polignac government whose tariffs lead to a crisis of overproduction while restricting the market.A core of liberal oppositional groups,of which the Alsatian manufacturers were dominant was growing,one that had its genesis long before the crisis of 1827-32,for they were at odds with the government as to how th industrial situation be dealt with.the liberals too the economic causes like that of the wine-producers and pursued the fight in a parliamentary manner.Favouring the Restoration Government,the liberals shared the same line of thinking in economic matters.Even though they ere elected all over France,they cannot be identified witha modernizing,industrial France.In no sense did the liberals seem to be at odds with the landowning class and popular unrest certainly made them all the more conservative to quell violence and establish order.If economic crisis coincided with a political one,it was only in the case of the workers of Paris.Elsewhere,notables resorted to suppressing the dissonance and their backing out can be seen as a continuation of Restoration and Orleanist social and economic principles.

The 1830 revolution ,however can be seen a watershed in the revolutionary history of France....Following the 1789 revolution and preceding the 1848 revolution,it has mostly been unfairly treated for the changes were not as “fundamental”as the two revolutions flanking it.Nevertheless its dimensions have been explored by historians like David Pinkney,Pamela Pilbeam and Shirley Gruner who give us an insight into the complexities that went into making of the revolution..it was definitely a push towards parliamentary republicanism that was to be accomplished in the revolution of 1848...the starting point from which the’bourgeois” term started being treated as pejorative and aquired a new meaning altogether...The leaning of the new King in favour of the Parliament was the first milestone crossed in the journey towrads republicanism.Not just an event centered around Paris,the Revolution of 1830 was the joint work of the workers of Paris,those of the Provinces,the liberal opposition operating at the local level,the national guard and the disgruntled industrial class who owing to financial distress and anti-bourbon sentiments decided to take up arms not just for their immediate needs but also for rallying to the cause of patriotic nationalism......