years by an electoral college consisting of the members of the Senate
and of the Chamber of Deputies, meeting at Versailles in National
Assembly. The choice is by absolute majority of the combined body. The
constitutional law of July 16, 1875, stipulates that one month, at
least, before the expiration of his term the President shall call
together the National Assembly for the election of a successor. In
default of such summons, the meeting takes place automatically on the
fifteenth day before the expiration; and in the event of the death or
resignation of the President the Chambers are required to assemble
immediately without summons.[463] There is no vice-president, nor (p. 309)
any law of succession, so that whenever the presidential office falls
vacant there must be a new election; and, at whatever time and under
whatever circumstance begun, the term of the newly elected President
is regularly seven years. As upon the occasion of the assassination of
Sadi-Carnot in 1894, a vacancy may arise wholly unexpectedly. Under
even the most normal conditions, however, the election of a President
in France is attended by no period of campaigning comparable with that
which attends a similar event in the United States. The Assembly
habitually selects a man who has long been a member, and has perhaps
served as president, of one or the other of the chambers, who has had
experience in committee work and, as a rule, in one or more
ministerial offices, and who, above all things, is not too aggressive
or domineering. An election is likely to be carried through all stages
within the space of forty-eight hours. The qualifications requisite
for election are extremely broad. Until 1884 any male citizen,
regardless of age, affiliation, or circumstance, was eligible. In the
year mentioned members of families that have reigned in France were
debarred, and this remains the only formal disqualification. A
President is eligible indefinitely for re-election.[464]
[Footnote 463: Art. 3. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 291.]
[Footnote 464: A. Tridon, France's Way of Choosing
a President, in _Review of Reviews_, Dec., 1912.]
*333. Privileges.*--The President is paid the sum of 1,200,000 francs a
year, half as salary, half to cover travelling expenses and the
outlays incumbent upon him as the official representative of the
nation. He resides in the Palais de l'Élysée, where he maintains in a
measure the state and ceremony that ordinarily are associated only
with monarchy. His dignity is safeguarded by special and effective
penalties for insult and libel. Like the President of the United
States, during his term of office he is exempt from the processes of
the ordinary courts; but, like his American counterpart, he may be
tried by the Senate, on articles of impeachment presented by the lower
legislative chamber. The President of the United States may be
impeached for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and
misdemeanors"; the French President may be impeached for treason only.
On the other hand, whereas the penalty that may be imposed upon the
American President by the judgment of the Senate is confined to
removal from office and disqualification to hold office, the French
constitution fixes no limit to the penalty which may be visited upon a
President convicted of treason. So far as the law is concerned, he
might be condemned to death.
*334. Powers: Participation in Law-making.*--The President possesses
powers which are numerous and, on paper at least, formidable. A (p. 310)
first group pertains to the making of law. "The President of the
Republic," says the constitutional law of February 25, 1875, "shall
have the initiative of laws, concurrently with the members of the two
chambers. He shall promulgate the laws when they have been voted by
the two chambers; and he shall look after and secure their
execution."[465] The concurrent power of initiating legislation,
exercised through the Ministry, is something that is not possessed by
the American President, who can do no more than suggest and recommend
measures he deems desirable. The President of France, on the other
hand, possesses only a suspensive veto. He may remand a measure of
which he disapproves for fresh consideration by Parliament; but if it
is re-enacted, by even a simple majority, it is incumbent upon him to
promulgate it as law. If, however, the veto power is virtually
non-existent, the President possesses an important prerogative in the
right of issuing ordinances with the force of supplementary
legislation. These may be not merely executive orders in matters of
detail, such as are issued by the President of the United States, but
sweeping injunctions deemed essential to the enforcement of the laws
in general. The only limitation is that such ordinances must not
contravene the constitution or any enactment of the chambers. The
power is one which, rather curiously, rests upon no express
constitutional provision, but simply upon custom. The right which the
President possesses, with the consent of the Senate, to dissolve the
Chamber of Deputies before the expiration of its term, thereby
precipitating a general election, may also be made the means of
exercising considerable influence upon legislative processes and
achievements.
[Footnote 465: Art. 3. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 286.]
*335. Powers: Executive and Judicial.*--As the head of the national
administration, the President appoints to all civil and military
offices connected with the central government. His appointments do not
require ratification by the Senate, or by any other body. He may even
create, by decree, new offices. And his power of removal from office,
save in certain cases, is absolutely without restriction. Appointments
and removals, however, are in practice made through the Ministry, and
the President has no patronage at his immediate disposal other than
that of the posts in his own household. In respect to foreign affairs
the President's powers are more substantial. Like the American
President, he represents his country in the sending and receiving of
ambassadors, ministers, envoys, and consuls, and in the negotiation
and conclusion of treaties. Treaties affecting peace, commerce,
territorial possessions, finances, or the status of Frenchmen in
foreign countries, require the ratification of the chambers; others
call for no such action, and even a foreign alliance may be (p. 311)
concluded by the Executive working independently. On the military
side, the President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the
nation, military and naval. He may not declare war without the consent
of the chambers; but through the conduct of foreign affairs he may at
any time, very much as may the President of the United States, create
a situation by which war will be rendered inevitable. Finally, the
President is vested with the powers of pardon and reprieve, although
amnesty may be granted only by law.[466]
[Footnote 466: Dupriez, Les Ministres, II.,
358-372; J. Nadal, Attributions du président de la
république en France et aux États-Unis (Toulouse,
1909). For a brief American discussion of the same
subject see M. Smith, The French Presidency and the
American, in _Review of Reviews_, Feb., 1906. Cf.
A. Cohn, Why M. Fallières is an Ideal French
President, ibid., July, 1908.]
II. THE MINISTRY
*336. Importance in the Government.*--"There is," says an English writer
of the last generation, "no living functionary who occupies a more
pitiable position than a French President. The old kings of France
reigned and governed. The Constitutional King, according to M. Thiers,
reigns, but does not govern. The President of the United States
governs, but he does not reign. It has been reserved for the President
of the French Republic neither to reign nor yet to govern."[467] The
weakness of the French President's position arises specifically from
two clauses of the constitutional law of February 25, 1875. One of
them stipulates that "every act of the President of the Republic shall
be countersigned by a minister." The other provides that "the
ministers shall be collectively responsible to the chambers for the
general policy of the government, and individually for their personal
acts."[468] Under the operation of these principles the Ministry
becomes the real executive. Like the sovereign of Great Britain, the
President can do no wrong, because the acts that are officially his
are in reality performed by the ministers, who alone (save in the case
of treason) are responsible for them. Chosen by the members of
Parliament, the President belongs normally to the party group which is
at the time in the ascendant, and by it he is kept in tutelage. The
leaders of this group are the ministers, and, in a very large measure,
the President simply approves passively the policies of this body of
men and signs and promulgates the measures which it carries through
the chambers.
[Footnote 467: Henry Maine, Popular Government
(London, 1885), 250.]
[Footnote 468: Arts. 3 and 6. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 287.]
*337. Organization and Functions.*--Ministerial portfolios are created
by executive decree. Their number has been somewhat variable. In (p. 312)
1875 there were nine. In 1879 there was created a tenth. Between 1881
and 1887 there were eleven. To-day there are twelve, as follows: (1)
Interior; (2) Finance; (3) War; (4) Justice and Public Worship; (5)
Marine; (6) Colonies; (7) Public Instruction; (8) Foreign Affairs; (9)
Commerce; (10) Agriculture; (11) Public Works and Posts, Telegraphs,
and Telephones; and (12) Labor. Portfolios may be not only created but
rearranged by simple executive decree, though of course the necessary
financial provisions are conditioned upon the approval of the
chambers. The premier may occupy any one of the ministerial posts, or
even two of them at one time. He is named by the President, and he,
acting with the President, designates his colleagues and allots to
them their respective portfolios. Usually, though not necessarily, the
ministers are members of the Senate or of the Chamber of Deputies,
principally the latter.[469] Whether members or not, they have a right
to attend all sessions of both chambers and to take an especially
privileged part in debate. Ministers receive annual salaries of 60,000
francs and reside, as a rule, in the official mansions maintained for
the heads of the departments they control.
[Footnote 469: In earlier days the ministers of war
and of the marine were selected not infrequently
from outside Parliament, but this practice has been
discontinued.]
Collectively the ministers possess two sets of functions which are
essentially distinct. The one they fulfill as a "council"; the other
as a "cabinet." In the capacity of a council they exercise a general
supervision of the administration of the laws, to the end that there
may be efficiency and unity in the affairs of state. In the event of
the President's death, incapacitation, or resignation, the Council is
authorized to act as head of the state until the National Assembly
shall have chosen a successor. As a cabinet the ministers formulate
the fundamental policies of the Government and represent it in the
chambers. The Council is administrative and is expressly recognized by
law; the Cabinet is political and is not so recognized. In the
meetings of the Council the President of the Republic not only sits,
but presides; in those of the Cabinet he rarely even appears. Aside
from the President, however, the two bodies, in personnel, are
identical.[470]
[Footnote 470: Dupriez, Les ministres, II.,
332-357. A recent treatise of value is H. Noell,
L'Administration centrale; les ministères, leur
organisation, leur rôle (Paris, 1911). Mention may
be made of L. Rolland, Le Conseil d'État et les
réglements d'administration publique, in _Revue du
Droit Public_, April-June, 1911; J. Barthélemy, Les
sous-secrétaires d'état, ibid.; P. Ma,
L'organisation du Ministère des Colonies, in
_Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales_, Sept. 1,
1910.]
*338. The Parliamentary System: Multiplicity of Parties.*--On paper
France has to-day a parliamentary system of government substantially
like that which prevails in Great Britain. The President's (p. 313)
authority is but nominal. The real executive consists of the ministers.
These ministers are responsible, collectively in general matters and
individually in particular ones, to the chambers, in reality to the
Chamber of Deputies. When defeated on any important proposition, they
resign as a body. Parliamentary government in France means, however,
in practice, something very different from what it means across the
Channel. The principal reason why this is so is to be found in the
totally different status of political parties in the two countries. In
Great Britain, while in later years small political groups have sprung
up to complicate the situation, the political life of the nation is
still confined very largely to the two great rival parties, which
oppose to each other a fairly united front, and between which there is
not likely to be anything like fusion or affiliation. In France, on
the contrary, there is a multiplicity of parties and no one of them is
likely ever to be in a position to dominate the Government alone. The
election of 1910 sent to the Chamber of Deputies representatives of no
fewer than nine distinct political groups. No ministry can be made up
with any hope of its being able to command a working majority in the
Chamber unless it represents in its membership a coalition of several
parties. A Government so constituted, however, is almost inevitably
vacillating and short-lived. It is unable to please all of the groups
and interests upon which it relies; it dares displease none; it ends
not infrequently by displeasing all.
*339. Frequency of Ministerial Changes.*--It is from this condition of
things that there arises the remarkable frequency with which
ministerial crises and ministerial changes take place in France. The
ministry of M. Poincaré, established in January, 1912, was the
forty-fifth in the history of French parliamentarism since 1875--a
period of but thirty-seven years. Between 1875 and 1900 but four years
elapsed without at least one change of ministry. Since 1900 changes
have been somewhat less frequent. The Waldeck-Rousseau ministry of
1899-1902--the longest-lived since 1875--endured virtually three
years; the Combes ministry of 1902-1905 lasted more than two years and
a half; and the Clemenceau ministry of 1906-1909 fell but little short
of two years and nine months. None the less, a total of nine
ministries within the space of thirteen years means an average of but
one year and a half to the ministry. It is but fair to say that the
ordinary "crisis" is not likely to involve a complete ministerial
change. Defeated in the Chamber, or unable to make progress, the
ministry as a body resigns; but, as a rule, many of the members are
immediately reappointed, with perhaps a change of portfolios. A certain
continuity arises also from the fact that the subordinate (p. 314)
officials in the various departments enjoy a reasonable fixity of
tenure. Nevertheless the most obvious feature of parliamentary
government as it exists to-day in France, and in other continental
countries, is its instability. Only where, as in England, there are
two great parties, each possessing solidarity and sufficient strength,
if returned to power, to support a homogeneous and sympathetic
ministry, can the more desirable results of the parliamentary system
be realized in full. There is as yet no evidence that such parties are
in France in process of development.[471]
[Footnote 471: A French scholar writes: "Power
cannot pass alternately, as in England and the
United States, from the party on one side over to
the party in opposition. This alternation, this
game of see-saw between two opposing parties, which
certain theorists have declared to be the
indispensable condition of every parliamentary
régime, does not exist, and has never existed, in
France. The reason why is simple. If the party of
the Right, hostile to the Republic, should come
into power, the temptation would be too strong for
them to maintain themselves there by establishing
an autocratic government, which would put an end to
the parliamentary régime, as in 1851. The electors
are conscious of this tendency of the
Conservatives, and will not run the risk of
entrusting the Republic to them. When they are
discontented with the Republicans in power, they
vote for other Republicans. Thus, new Republican
groups are being ceaselessly formed, while the old
ones fall to pieces." C. Seignobos, The Political
Parties of France, in _International Monthly_,
Aug., 1901, 155. On the French parliamentary system
see Dupriez, Les Ministres, II., 345-357, 373-461;
E. Pierre, Principes du droit politique électoral
et parlementaire en France (Paris, 1893).]
*340. Interpellation.*--The precariousness of the position occupied by
French ministries is enhanced by the parliamentary device of
interpellation. As in Great Britain, every member of the two chambers
possesses the right at any time to put to an executive head a direct
question concerning any affair of state which, without impropriety,
may be made the subject of open discussion. A minister may not,
however, be questioned without his consent, and the incident
ordinarily passes without debate. In France, however, any member may
direct at a minister an interpellation, designed not to obtain
information, but to put the Government on the defensive and to
precipitate a debate which may end in the overthrow of the ministry on
some mere technicality or other matter in itself of but slight
importance. The interpellation is a challenge. It is made the special
order for a day fixed by the chamber, and it almost invariably results
in a vote of confidence, or want of confidence, in the ministers. As
employed in France, the interpellation lends itself too readily to the
ends of sheer factiousness to be adjudged a valuable feature of
parliamentary procedure.[472]
[Footnote 472: Dupriez, Les Ministres, II.,
432-461. L. Gozzi, L'Interpellation à l'assemblée
rationale (Marseilles, 1909); J. Poudra and E.
Pierre, Traité pratique de droit parlementaire, 8
vols. (Versailles, 1878-1880), VII., Chap. 4.]
III. PARLIAMENT: SENATE AND CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES (p. 315)
*341. The Bicameral System.*--With the dissolution of the States General
in 1789, France definitely abandoned a parliamentary system based upon
the mediæval principle of orders or estates. Throughout upwards of a
hundred years, however, the scheme of parliamentary organization which
was to take the place of that which had been cast aside continued
uncertain. During the Revolution ultra-democratic reformers very
generally favored the maintenance of a national assembly of but a
single house, and it was not until the promulgation of the
constitution of 1795 that a frame of government including provision
for a legislature of two houses was brought into operation. The
bicameral system of 1795-1799 was succeeded by the anomalous
legislative régime of Napoleon, but under the Constitutional Charter
of 1814 the two-house principle was revived and continuously applied
through a period of thirty-four years. The legislative organ of the
Second Republic was a unicameral assembly, but an incident of the
transition to the Second Empire was the revival of a Senate, and
throughout the reign of Napoleon III. the legislative chambers were
nominally two in number, although it was not until 1870 that the
Senate as a legislative body was made co-ordinate with the _Corps
législatif_. On the whole, it can be affirmed that at the period when
the constitution of the Third Republic was given form, the political
experience of the nation had demonstrated the bicameral system to be
the most natural, the safest, and the most effective. The opening
stipulation of the Constitutional Law on the Organization of the
Public Powers, adopted February 25, 1875, was that the law-making
power of France should be exercised by a national parliament
consisting of (1) a Chamber of Deputies and (2) a Senate. The one, it
was determined, should rest upon a broadly democratic basis. The other
was planned, as is customary with second chambers, to stand somewhat
further removed from the immediate control of the voters of the
country. But the two were intended to exist fundamentally to enact
into law the will of the people, in whom the sovereignty of the French
nation is clearly lodged. And even the most casual survey of the
French governmental system as it operates to-day will impress the fact
that the structure and organization of the parliamentary body have
lent themselves to the usages of a democratic state in a measure even
exceeding that intended by the founders of the existing order.
*342. The Senate as Originally Established.*--Having determined that the
parliament should consist of two branches, the National Assembly, in
1875, faced the difficult problem of constituting an upper chamber (p. 316)
that should not be a mere replica of the lower, and yet should not
inject into a democratic constitutional system an incongruous element
of aristocracy. The device hit upon was a chamber, seats in which
should be wholly elective, yet not at the immediate disposal of the
people. By the constitutional law of February 24, 1875, it was
provided that the Senate should consist of three hundred members, of
whom two hundred twenty-five should be elected by the departments and
colonies and seventy-five by the National Assembly itself.[473] The
departments of the Seine and of the Nord were authorized to elect five
senators each, the others four, three, or two, as specified in the
law. The senators of the departments and of the colonies were to be
elected by an absolute majority and by _scrutin de liste_, by a
college meeting at the capital of the department or colony, composed
of the deputies and general councillors and of delegates elected, one
by each municipal council, from among the voters of the communes.
Senators chosen by the Assembly were to be elected by _scrutin de
liste_ and by an absolute majority of votes. No one should be chosen
who had not attained the age of forty years, and who was not in
enjoyment of full civil and political rights. The seventy-five elected
by the Assembly were to retain their seats for life, vacancies that
should arise being filled by the Senate itself. All other members were
to be elected for nine years, being renewed by thirds every three
years.
[Footnote 473: Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I.,
288.]
*343. The Senate: Composition and Election To-day.*--The system thus
devised continues, in the main, in effect at the present day. The
principal variations from it are those introduced in a constitutional
law of December 9, 1884, whereby it was provided (1) that the
co-optative method of election should be abolished, and that, while
present life members should retain their seats as long as they should
live, all vacancies thereafter arising from the decease of such
members should be filled within the departments in the regular manner,
and (2) that the electoral college of the department should be
broadened to include not merely one delegate from each municipal
council, but from one to twenty-four (thirty in the case of Paris),
according to the number of members in the council.[474] By the same
law members of families that have reigned in France were declared
ineligible; and by act of July 20, 1895, no one may become a member of
either branch of Parliament unless he has complied with the law
regarding military service.
[Footnote 474: Ibid., I., 310.]
Few of the life members survive to-day. When they shall have
disappeared, the French Senate will comprise a compact body of three
hundred men apportioned among the departments in approximate (p. 317)
accordance with population and chosen in all cases by bodies of
electors all of whom have themselves been elected directly by the
people. The present apportionment gives to the department of the Seine
ten members; to that of the Nord, eight; to others, five four, three,
and two apiece, down to the territory of Belfort and the three
departments of Algeria, and the colonies of Martinique, Guadeloupe,
Réunion, and the French West Indies, which return one each. From
having long been viewed by republicans with suspicion, the Senate has
come to be regarded by Frenchmen generally as perhaps the most perfect
work of the Republic.[475] In these days its membership is recruited
very largely from the Deputies, so that it includes not only many men
of distinction in letters and science but an unusual proportion of
experienced debaters and parliamentarians. A leading American
authority has said that it is "composed of as impressive a body of men
as can be found in any legislative chamber the world over."[476] The
sittings of the Senate, since 1879, have been held in the Palais du
Luxembourg, a splendid structure on the left bank of the Seine dating
from the early seventeenth century.[477]
[Footnote 475: J. C. Bracq, France under the
Republic (New York, 1910), 8.]
[Footnote 476: Lowell, Governments and Parties, I.,
22. But compare the view set forth in J. S. C.
Bodley, France, 2 vols. (London, 1898), I., 46-60.]
[Footnote 477: O. Pyfferoen, Du sénat en France et
dans les Pays-Bas (Brussels, 1892).]
*344. The Chamber of Deputies: Composition.*--The 597 members of the
lower legislative branch are chosen directly by the people, under
conditions regulated by a series of electoral measures, principally
the organic law of November 30, 1875.[478] The franchise is extended
to all male inhabitants who have attained the age of twenty-one, and
who are not convicts, bankrupts, under guardianship, or in active
military or naval service. Of educational or property qualifications
there are none. The only requirements are that the voter shall have
his name inscribed on the electoral lists and shall be able to prove a
residence of six months in the commune in which he proposes to cast
his ballot. The conditions of the franchise are prescribed by the
state; but the keeping and the annual revision of the electoral lists
devolves upon the commune, and the lists are identical for communal,
district, departmental, and national elections. The French
registration system is notably effective and, as compared with the
British, inexpensive.
[Footnote 478: Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I.,
302-308.]
*345. Electoral Unit and Parliamentary Candidacies.*--The electoral area
in France is the arrondissement, an administrative subdivision of (p. 318)
the department. Each arrondissement returns one deputy, unless its
population exceeds 100,000, in which case it is divided into
single-member constituencies, one for each 100,000 or remaining
fraction thereof. A fresh apportionment is made after each
quinquennial census, when to each of the eighty-six departments is
allotted a quota of representatives proportioned to population. The
present method of election, under which the individual elector votes
within his arrondissement or district for one deputy only, is known as
the _scrutin d'arrondissement_. Established in 1876, the _scrutin
d'arrondissement_ was employed until 1885, when, at the behest of
Gambetta, a change was made to a system under which deputies for an
entire department were voted for on a general ticket, as, for example,
presidential electors are voted for in an American state. This
system--the so-called _scrutin de liste_--was maintained in operation
only until 1889, when the _scrutin d'arrondissement_ was
re-established.[479]
[Footnote 479: Laws of June 16, 1885, and February
13, 1889; Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 316-318.]
The full membership of the Chamber is elected simultaneously, for a
four-year term, save in the event that the Chamber shall be sooner
dissolved. No nomination, or similar formality, is required of the
candidate. To be eligible, however, he must be a qualified voter and
as much as twenty-five years of age. By law of November 30, 1875,
state officials are forbidden to become candidates in districts where
their position might enable them to influence elections, and by act of
June 16, 1885, members of families who have ever reigned in France are
debarred. All that is required of a person who, possessing the
requisite legal qualifications, wishes to be a candidate is that five
days before the election he shall deposit with the prefect of the
department within which the polling is to take place a declaration,
witnessed by a mayor, of the name of the constituency in which he
proposes to seek election. Even this trifling formality was introduced
only by the Multiple Candidature Act of 1889, by which it is
stipulated that no person shall be a candidate in more than one
district. The French electorate is proverbially indifferent concerning
the exercise of the suffrage, but the methods of campaigning which
have become familiar in other countries are employed systematically,
and no small measure of popular interest is occasionally aroused.[480]
[Footnote 480: "During the electoral period,
circulars and platforms signed by the candidates,
electoral placards and manifestoes signed by one or
more voters, may, after being deposited with the
public prosecutor, be posted and distributed
without previous authorization." Organic Law of
November 30, 1875, Art. 3.]
*346. The Conduct of Parliamentary Elections.*--The electoral (p. 319)
process is simple and inexpensive. Voting is by secret ballot, and the
balloting lasts one day only. As a rule, the polling takes place in
the _mairie_, or municipal building, of the commune, under the
immediate supervision of an electoral bureau consisting of a president
(usually the mayor), four assessors, and a secretary. The state does
not provide ballot-papers, but one or more of the candidates may be
depended upon to supply the deficiency. The count is public and the
result is announced without delay. If it is found that no candidate
within the district has polled an absolute majority of the votes cast,
and at the same time a fourth of the number which the registered
voters of the district are legally capable of casting, a second
balloting (the so-called _ballottage_) is ordered for one week from
the ensuing Sunday. No one of the candidates voted for drops out of
the contest, unless by voluntary withdrawal; new candidates, at even
so late a day, may enter the race; and whoever, at the second
balloting, secures a simple plurality is declared elected. By
observers generally it is considered that the principle of the second
ballot, in the form in which it is applied in France, possesses no
very decisive value. Through a variety of agencies the central
government is accustomed to exert substantial influence in
parliamentary elections; but all of the more important political
groups have profited at one time or another by the practice, and there
is to-day a very general acquiescence in it, save on the part of
unsuccessful candidates whose prospects have been injured by it.
IV. THE PROBLEM OF ELECTORAL REFORM
*347. Scrutin de liste and scrutin d'arrondissement.*--Within recent
years there has arisen, especially among the Republicans and
Socialists, an insistent demand for a thoroughgoing reform of the
electoral process. Those who criticise the present system are far from
agreed as to precisely what would be more desirable, but, in general,
there are two preponderating programmes. One of these calls simply for
abandonment of the _scrutin d'arrondissement_ and a return to the
_scrutin de liste_. The other involves both a return to the _scrutin
de liste_ and the adoption of a scheme of proportional representation.
The arrondissement, many maintain, is too small to be made to serve
satisfactorily as an electoral unit. Within a sphere so restricted the
larger interests of the nation are in danger of being lost to view and
political life is prone to be reduced to a wearisome round of compromise,
demagogy, and trivialities. If, it is contended, all deputies (p. 320)
from a department were to be elected on a single ticket, the elector
would value his privilege more highly, the candidate would be in a
position to make a more dignified campaign, and issues which are
national in their scope would less frequently be obscured by questions
and interests of a petty and purely local character. Professor Duguit,
of the University of Bordeaux, who is one of the abler exponents of
this proposed reform, contends (1) that the scheme of _scrutin de
liste_ harmonizes better than does that of _scrutin d'arrondissement_
with the fundamental theory of representation in France, which is that
the deputies who go to Paris do so as representatives of the nation as
a whole, not of a single locality; (2) that the _scrutin d'arrondissement_
facilitates corruption through the temptation which it affords
candidates to make to voters promises of favors, appointments, and
decorations, and (3) that the prevailing system augments materially
the more or less questionable influence which the Government is able
to bring to bear in the election of deputies.[481] It does not appear
that in the period 1885-1889 when the _scrutin de liste_ was in
operation the very desirable ends now expected to be attained by a
restoration of it were realized; indeed the system lent itself more
readily to the menacing operations of the ambitious Boulanger than the
_scrutin d'arrondissement_ could possibly have done. It is but fair,
however, to observe that the trial of the system was very brief and
that it fell in a period of unusual political unsettlement.
[Footnote 481: L. Duguit, Traité de droit
constitutionnel, I., 375-376.]
*348. Proportional Representation.*--In the judgment of many reformers a
simple enlarging of the electoral unit, however desirable in itself,
would be by no means adequate to place the national parliament upon a
thoroughly satisfactory basis. There is in France a growing demand for
the adoption of some scheme whereby minorities within the several
departments shall become entitled to a proportionate voice in the
Chamber at Paris. And hence a second programme of reform is that which
calls not merely for the _scrutin de liste_, but also for proportional
representation. Within the past two decades the spread of the
proportional representation idea in Europe has been rapid. Beginning
in 1891, the device has been adopted by one after another of the Swiss
cantons, until now it is in use in some measure in upwards of half of
them. Since 1899 Belgium has employed it in the election of all
members of both chambers of her parliament. In 1906 it was adopted by
Finland and by the German state of Württemberg. In 1908 Denmark, in
which country the system has been employed in the election of members
of the upper chamber since 1867, extended its use to elections in (p. 321)
the municipalities.[482] In 1907 an act of the Swedish parliament
(confirmed after a general election in 1909) applied it to elections
for both legislative chambers, all parliamentary committees, and
provincial and town councils. In France there was organized in 1909,
under the leadership of M. Charles Benoist, a Proportional
Representation League by which there has been carried on in recent
years a very vigorous and promising propaganda. The principal
arguments employed by the advocates of the proposed reform are (1)
that the effect of its adoption would be greatly to increase the
aggregate vote cast in parliamentary elections, since electors
belonging to minority parties would be assured of actual
representation; (2) that it would no longer be possible, as is now
regularly the case, for the number of voters unrepresented by deputies
of their own political faith to be in excess of the number of electors
so represented;[483] and (3) that a parliament in which the various
parties are represented in proportion to their voting strength can be
depended upon to know and to execute the will of the nation with more
precision than can a legislative body elected after the principle of
the majority system.[484]
[Footnote 482: The first English-speaking state to
adopt the system was Tasmania, where, after being
in partial operation in 1896-1901, it was brought
fully into effect in 1907. By an electoral law of
1900 Japan adopted it for the election of the
members of her House of Commons. The plan was put
in operation in Cuba April 1, 1908, and was adopted
in Oregon by a referendum of June 1, 1908.]
[Footnote 483: It is the assertion of M. Benoist
that this situation has existed unbrokenly since
1881. An interesting fact cited is that the notable
Separation Law of 1905 was adopted in the Chamber
by the votes of 341 deputies who represented in the
aggregate but 2,647,315 electors in a national
total of 10,967,000.]
[Footnote 484: Duguit, _op. cit._, argues
forcefully in behalf of the proposed change. For
adverse views, cogently stated by an equally
eminent French authority, see A. Esmein, Droit
Constitutionnel (5th ed., Paris, 1911), 253.]
*349. The Government and Reform.*--During upwards of a decade the
successive ministries of France have been committed to the cause of
electoral reform. In March, 1907, a special committee of the Chamber
of Deputies (the _Commission du Suffrage Universel_), appointed to
consider the various bills which had been submitted upon the subject,
reported a scheme of proportional representation whereby it was
believed certain disadvantages inherent in the "list system" of
Belgium might be obviated. Elections were to be by _scrutin de liste_
and the elector was to be allowed to cast as many votes as there were
places to be filled and to concentrate as many of these votes as he
might choose upon a single candidate.[485] In November, 1909, the
Chamber of Deputies passed a resolution favoring the establishment (p. 322)
of both _scrutin de liste_ and proportional representation, but no law
upon the subject was enacted, and at the elections of April-May, 1910,
the preponderating issue was unquestionably that of electoral reform.
According to a tabulation undertaken by the Ministry of the Interior,
of the 597 deputies chosen at this time 94 had not declared themselves
on electoral reform; 35 were in favor of no change from the existing
system; 32 were in favor of a slightly modified _scrutin
d'arrondissement_; 64 were partisans of the _scrutin de liste_ pure
and simple; 272 were on record in favor of the _scrutin de liste_
combined with proportional representation; and 88 were known to be in
favor of electoral reform, though not committed to any particular
programme. The majority favoring change of some kind was thus notably
large.
[Footnote 485: The text of the proposed measure, in
English translation, will be found in J. H.
Humphreys, Proportional Representation (London,
1911), 382-385.]
*350. The Briand Programme.*--June 30, 1910, the Briand ministry brought
forward a plan which was intended as an alternative to the proposals
of the Universal Suffrage Committee. The essential features of it
were: (1) a return to _scrutin de liste_, with the department as the
electoral area, save that a department entitled to more than fifteen
deputies should, for electoral purposes, be divided, and one entitled
to fewer than four should be united with another; (2) an allotment of
one deputy to every 70,000 inhabitants, or major fraction thereof; (3)
the division of the total number of electors on the register within a
department by the number of deputies to which the department should be
entitled, the quotient to supply the means by which to determine the
number of deputies returned to the Chamber from each competing ticket;
(4) the determination of this number by a division of the foregoing
quotient into the average number of votes obtained by the candidates
on each competing ticket, thus introducing the element of proportional
representation; (5) the making up of tickets in each department from
candidates nominated by one hundred electors; (6) the restriction of
each elector to a vote for but a single ticket; and (7) an extension
of the life of the Chamber from four to six years, one-third of the
members to be chosen biennially. In the ministerial declaration
accompanying the announcement of this scheme Premier Briand declared
that the effect of the _scrutin d'arrondissement_ had been to narrow
the political horizon of the deputies; that the electoral area must be
broadened so that the interests of the nation may be made to
predominate over those of the district; and that, while in a democracy
the majority must rule, the Government was favorable to proportional
representation in so far as the adoption of that principle can prevent
the suppression of really important minorities.
*351. The Electoral Reform Bill of 1912.*--In February, 1911, while the
Briand Electoral Reform Bill was pending, there occurred a change (p. 323)
of ministries. The Monis government which succeeded maintained, during
its brief tenure (March-June, 1911), the sympathetic attitude which
had been exhibited by its predecessor, and at the beginning of the
period the _Commission du Suffrage Universel_ laid before the Chamber
the draft of a new bill whereby the details of the proportional plan
were brought back into closer accord with those of the Belgian system.
During the period of the Caillaux ministry (June, 1911, to January,
1912) there was continued discussion, but meager progress. The
Poincaré ministry, established at the beginning of 1912, declared that
the nation had expressed forcefully its desire for far-reaching reform
and promised that, in pursuance of the work already accomplished by
the parliamentary commission, it would take steps to carry a measure
of reform which should "secure a more exact representation for
political parties and lend those who are elected the freedom that is
required for the subordination of local interests in all cases to the
national interest." During the earlier months of 1912 consideration of
the subject was pressed in the Chamber and July 10 the whole of the
Government's Electoral Reform Bill was adopted by a vote of 339 to
217. At the date of writing (October, 1912) the measure is pending in
the Senate. The bill as passed in the Chamber comprises essentially
the Briand proposals of 1910.[486] Through the revival of _scrutin de
liste_, with a large department or a group of small ones as the electoral
area, and with the device of representation of minorities added, (p. 324)
the measure, in the event of its probable final enactment, will
largely transform the conditions under which the parliamentary
elections of to-day are conducted.
[Footnote 486: The most systematic account of the
electoral franchise in France since 1789 is A.
Tecklenburg, Die Entwickelung des Wahlrechts in
Frankreich seit 1789 (Tübingen, 1911). The French
electoral system is described at length in E.
Pierre, Code des élections politiques (Paris,
1893); Chaute-Grellet, Traité des élections, 2
vols. (Paris, 1897); M. Block, Dictionnaire de
l'administration française (5th ed., Paris, 1905),
I., 1208-1244. The literature of the subject of
electoral reform is very extensive. Mention may be
made of C. Benoist, Pour la réforme électorale
(Paris, 1908); J. L. Chardon, La réforme électorale
en France (Paris, 1910); J. L. Breton, La réforme
électorale (Paris, 1910); C. Francois, La
représentation des intérêts dans les corps élus
(Paris, 1900); F. Faure, La législature qui finit
et la réforme électorale, in _Revue Politique et
Parlementaire_, Dec. 10, 1909; Marion, Comment
faire la réforme électorale; ibid., Feb. 10 and
March 10, 1910; M. Deslanders, La réforme
électorale, ibid., July 10, 1910; A. Varenne, La
réforme électorale d'abord, ibid., Nov. 10, 1910;
G. Lachapelle, La discussion du projet de réforme
électorale, ibid., May 10, 1912; F. Faure, Le vote
de la réforme électorale, ibid., Aug. 10, 1912
(contains the text of the Electoral Law); L.
Milhac, Les partis politiques français dans leur
programme et devant le suffrage, in _Annales des
Sciences Politiques_, July 15, 1910; G. Scelle, La
représentation politique, in _Revue du Droit
Public_, July-Sept., 1911; L. Marin, Le vote
personnel, in _La Grande Revue_, March 25, 1911;
and G. Trouillot, La réforme électorale au Sénat,
ibid., Sept. 25, 1912. The text of the bill of 1912
is to be found also in _Revue du Droit Public_,
July-Sept., 1912. On the question of proportional
representation see G. Tronqual, La représentation
proportionnelle devant le parlement français
(Poitiers, 1910); F. Lépine, La représentation
proportionnelle et sa solution (Paris, 1911); N.
Saripolos, La démocratie et l'élection
proportionnelle (Paris, 1900); G. Lachapelle, La
représentation proportionnelle (Paris, 1910);
ibid., Représentation proportionnelle, in _Revue de
Paris_, Nov. 15, 1910; ibid., L'Application de la
représentation proportionnelle, in _Revue Politique
et Parlementaire_, Dec. 10, 1910. See also Anon.,
La sophistication du suffrage universel, in
_Annales des Sciences Politiques_, July, 1909, and
May, 1910; E. Zevort, La France sous le régime du
suffrage universel (Paris, 1894). The subject of
proportional representation in France is fully
discussed in a Report of the British Royal
Commission on Electoral Systems (1910). Report, Cd.
5,163; Evidence, Cd. 5,352.]
CHAPTER XVII (p. 325)
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE--POLITICAL PARTIES
I. ORGANIZATION AND WORKINGS OF THE CHAMBERS
*352. Sessions.*--By the constitutional law of July 16, 1875, it is
required that the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate shall assemble
annually on the second Tuesday of January, unless convened at an
earlier date by the President of the Republic, and that they shall
continue in session through at least five months of each year. The
President may convene an extraordinary session, and is obligated to do
so if at any time during a recess an absolute majority of both
chambers request it. The President may adjourn the chambers, but not
more than twice during the same session, and never to exceed one
month. The sessions of the Deputies are held in the Palais Bourbon,
situated in the immediate neighborhood of a group of ministerial
buildings at the end of the Boulevard St. Germain, directly across the
Seine from the Place de la Concorde; those of the Senate, in the
Palais du Luxembourg. The sittings are by law required to be public,
though there is provision for occasional secret sessions. Since
January 1, 1907, deputies have received 15,000 francs a year
(increased by law of November, 1906, from 9,000); and they are
entitled, on payment of a nominal sum, to travel free on all French
railways. The emoluments of senators are identical with those of
deputies.
*353. Officers, Bureaus, and Committees.*--The presiding officer of the
Deputies is known as the president. He is elected by the Chamber and,
far from being a mere moderator, as is the Speaker of the British
House of Commons, he is ordinarily an aggressive party man, not
indisposed to quit the chair to participate in debate, and therefore
bearing an interesting resemblance to the Speaker of the American
House of Representatives. Besides the president, there are four
vice-presidents, eight secretaries, and three questors, all chosen by
the Chamber. The vice-presidents replace the president upon occasion;
the secretaries (of whom half must always be on duty when the Chamber
is in session) supervise the records of the meetings and count the
votes when there is a division; the questors have in charge the
Chamber's finances. Collectively, this group of sixteen officials
comprises what is known as the "bureau" of the Chamber. It manages (p. 326)
the business of the body during a session and, if need be, acts in its
name during a recess.
Every month during the course of a session the entire membership of
the Chamber is divided by lot into eleven other bureaus of equal size.
These bureaus meet from time to time separately to examine the
credentials of members, to give formal consideration to bills which
have not yet been referred to a committee, and, most important of all,
to select one of their number to serve on each of the committees of
the Chamber. In the case of very important committees, the bureaus may
be instructed by the Chamber to designate two members, or even three,
each. Thus, the Budget Committee contains three representatives of
each bureau. This committee and another constituted to audit the
accounts of the Government are created for a year. Others serve a
single month. Theoretically, indeed, every measure is referred to a
committee constituted specifically for the purpose; but practically
the consequence of such a procedure would be confusion so gross that
the greater committees, as those on labor, railways, and the army, are
allowed to acquire some substantial measure of permanence. Committee
positions are quite generally objects of barter on the part of party
groups and leaders.[487]
[Footnote 487: A. de la Berge, Les grands comités
parlementaires, in _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Dec. 1,
1889.]
*354. Procedure.*--Immediately upon assembling, each of the chambers
validates the elections of its own members, chooses its bureau of
president, vice-presidents, secretaries, and questors, and adopts its
own rules of procedure. At an early date the premier communicates
orally a "ministerial declaration," in which are outlined the policies
to which the Government is committed; and certain of the measures
therein proposed are likely to take precedence in the ensuing
deliberations. The hall in which each body sits is semi-circular, with
as many seats and desks as there are members to be accommodated. In
the centre stands a raised arm-chair for the use of the president, and
in front of it is a platform, or "tribune," which every member who
desires to speak is required to mount. On either side of the tribune
are stationed stenographers, whose reports of the proceedings are
printed each morning in the _Journal Officiel_. The first tier of
seats in the semi-circle, facing the tribune, is reserved for the
Government, i.e., the members of the ministry; behind are ranged the
remaining members of the Chamber, with the radicals on the president's
left and the conservatives on his right.
Of the bureaus into which, at the beginning of each month, the members
of each chamber are divided, there are, as has been said, eleven in
the Deputies; in the Senate there are nine. When a bill is (p. 327)
introduced it is referred first of all to these bureaus, each of which
designates one or more commissioners, who, acting together as a
committee, are expected to make a careful examination of the measure.
The report of this committee is printed and distributed, whereupon
general discussion begins in the chamber. Every measure must pass two
readings in each chamber, with an interval of five days, unless
otherwise ordered by a majority vote. A member wishing to take part in
the debate indicates his desire by inscribing his name on lists kept
by the secretaries. On the motion of any member, the closure may be
applied and a vote ordered. The division may be taken by a show of
hands, by rising, or by a ballot in which a white voting paper denotes
an affirmative, and a blue one a negative, vote. Voting by proxy, long
permitted, has been recently abolished. No decision is valid unless an
absolute majority of the members (151 in the Senate and 299 in the
Deputies) has participated in the vote. In the upper branch
proceedings are apt to be slow and dignified; in the lower they are
more animated, and not infrequently tempestuous. The duty of keeping
order at the sittings falls to the president. In aggravated cases he
is empowered, with the consent of a majority of the chamber, to
administer a reprimand carrying with it temporary exclusion from the
sessions.[488]
[Footnote 488: A. P. Usher, Procedure in the French
Chamber of Deputies, in _Political Science
Quarterly_, Sept., 1906; J. S. Crawford, A Day in
the Chamber of Deputies, in _Gunton's Magazine_,
Oct., 1901; M. R. Bonnard, Les modifications du
réglement de la Chambre des Députés, in _Revue du
Droit Public_, Oct.-Dec., 1911. The standard
treatise on French parliamentary procedure is J.
Poudra et E. Pierre, Traité pratique de droit
parlementaire, 8 vols. (Versailles, 1878-1880.)]
*355. Powers and Functions: the National Assembly.*--Speaking broadly,
the functions of the French chambers are three-fold--constituent,
elective, and legislative. The first two are required to be exercised
by the two houses conjointly. By the constitutional law of February
25, 1875, there is provided the only means whereby the constitution of
the Republic may be amended. "The chambers," it is stipulated, "shall
have the right by separate resolutions, taken in each by an absolute
majority of votes, either upon their own initiative or upon the
request of the President of the Republic, to declare a revision of the
constitutional laws necessary. After each of the two chambers shall
have come to this decision, they shall meet together in National
Assembly to proceed with the revision. The acts affecting revision of
the constitutional laws, in whole or in part, shall be passed by an
absolute majority of the members composing the National Assembly."[489]
The power of constitutional amendment is therefore vested absolutely
in the parliamentary chambers, under the requirement simply that (p. 328)
it be exercised in joint session. The only limitation that has been
imposed on parliamentary omnipotence in this direction is a clause
adopted in an amendment of August 13, 1884, to the effect that "the
republican form of government shall not be made the subject of a
proposed revision."[490] As in the British system, constituent and
legislative powers are lodged in the same body of men; and not merely
the powers of constitution-making, but the exclusive right to
pronounce upon the constitutionality or unconstitutionally of
legislation. The principal difference is that, whereas the British
Parliament exercises the sum total of its powers in an unvarying
manner, the French, when acting in its constituent capacity, follows a
specially designed procedure.
[Footnote 489: Art. 8. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 288.]
[Footnote 490: Art. 8. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 294.]
One other function the two chambers sitting conjointly possess, i.e.,
that of electing the President of the Republic. Under normal
conditions, the chambers are called together in National Assembly to
choose a President one month or more before the expiration of the
seven-year presidential term. In the event of vacancy by death, by
resignation, or by reason of any other unanticipated circumstance, the
meeting of the Assembly takes place forthwith, without summons.[491]
Election is by ballot, and by absolute majority of the members. All
meetings of the National Assembly are held, not in Paris, but in the
old royal palace at Versailles, which indeed was the sole seat of the
present republican government until 1879. No elective session may
exceed in length the five months allotted to an ordinary legislative
session.
[Footnote 491: Law of July 16, 1875, art. 3. Dodd,
Modern Constitutions, I., 291.]
*356. Legislation and Special Powers.*--The two chambers possess
concurrent powers in all that pertains to the initiation, the
enactment, and the amending of laws, save that money bills must be
introduced in and passed by the Chamber of Deputies before being
considered in the upper branch. Except for this limitation, measures
may be presented in either house, by the ministers in the name of the
President, or by private members. The vast fabric of Napoleonic law
which has survived to the present day in France has narrowed
perceptibly the range of legislative activity under the Republic.
During the first generation after 1871 few great statutes were
enacted, save those of a constitutional character. In our own day,
however, the phenomenal expansion of social and industrial
legislation, which has been a striking feature of the public life of
most European nations, has imparted a new vigor and productiveness to
French parliamentary activity.
Each of the chambers possesses certain functions peculiar to itself.
Aside from the initiation of money bills, the principal such function
of the Deputies is the bringing of charges of impeachment against (p. 329)
the President or ministers. The Senate possesses the exclusive power
to try cases of impeachment. It is given the right to assent or to
withhold its assent when the President proposes to dissolve the
Chamber of Deputies before the expiration of its term. And by decree
of the President, issued in the Council of Ministers, it may be
constituted a court of justice to try any person accused of attempts
upon the safety of the state.[492]
[Footnote 492: Y. Guyot, Relations between the
French Senate and Chamber of Deputies, in
_Contemporary Review_, Feb., 1910.]
II. POLITICAL PARTIES SINCE 1871
*357. Republicans and Conservatives.*--In its larger aspects the
alignment of political parties in France to-day dates from the middle
of the nineteenth century. In the National Assembly of 1848--the first
representative body elected in France by direct universal
suffrage--the line was sharply drawn between the republicans of the
Left, who wished to maintain the Republic and with it a liberal
measure of democracy, and the reactionaries of the Right, who began by
insisting upon a restoration of clerical privilege and bourgeois rule
and ended, in the days of the Legislative Assembly, by clamoring for a
restoration of monarchy itself. After the _coup d'état_ of 1851 both
groups were silenced, though even in the politically stagnant era of
the early Empire they did not lose altogether their identity. With the
revival, however, after 1860, of a vigorous political life the two
worked together, and with success, to accomplish the overthrow of the
personal government of Napoleon III. Upon the collapse of the Empire
in 1870 the original cleavage reappeared. The National Assembly
elected in 1871 was divided broadly into Republicans and Conservatives
(which name gradually replaced that of Reactionaries), and during the
five years covered by the life of this extremely important body these
two great groups struggled continuously over the supreme question of
the day, i.e., the style of government which should be adopted
permanently for France. Each of the groups comprised a variety of
elements. To the Republicans belonged the Radical Extreme Left of
Gambetta, the Left of Grévy, Freycînct, and Loubet, and the Centre
Left of Thiers and Jules Simon. To the Conservatives belonged the
Legitimate Extreme Right, an Orleanist Centre Right, and, eventually,
the Imperialists. Following the definite establishment, in 1875, of
the republican constitution, the lines by which these various elements
had been marked off grew less distinct, and Republicans and
Conservatives acquired in each case a more homogeneous character.
*358. Rise of the Radicals.*--After the first election under the (p. 330)
new constitution--that of 1876--the Senate remained in the control of
the Conservatives, but the Chamber of Deputies was found to contain a
Republican majority of more than two to one. From that day until the
present the Republican ascendancy in the lower house has been
maintained uninterruptedly; and since 1882 there has been likewise
always a Republican majority in the Senate. It is to be observed, of
course, that Republican control in both chambers has meant regularly
not the absolute dominance of a single compact party group, but the
preponderance of a coalition of two or more groups broadly to be
described as "republican." During the early eighties there sprang up a
flourishing group which, reviving the original programme of Gambetta,
assumed the name Radical, and in the elections of 1885 this group
acquired such a quota of seats in the Chamber (150) as to render it
impossible for the Republicans alone to retain control. Thereafter
there were three principal party groups--the Conservatives and the two
republican groups, the Republicans proper and the Radicals. No one of
the three being sufficiently strong to obtain a majority which would
enable it to rule alone, the politics of a long succession of years
turned upon the adoption of one or the other of two lines of
tactics--the coalition of the two republican divisions to the end that
they might rule as against a Conservative minority (the so-called
policy of "republican concentration"), and the allying of one of these
groups with the Right against the other Republican group (spoken of
commonly as a "pacification"). The first "concentration" ministry was
that of Brisson, formed in March, 1885; the first "pacification"
ministry was that of Rouvier, formed in 1887. In the middle of the
nineties some attempts were made to create and maintain homogeneous
ministries. The Bourgeois ministry of 1895-1896 was composed entirely
of Radicals and the Méline ministry of 1896-1898 of Moderate
Republicans. But at the elections of 1898 the Republican position in
the Chamber broke down and it was necessary to return, with the Dupuy
ministry, to the policy of concentration.
Meanwhile, in the early nineties, from the Conservative and Republican
extremes respectively had been detached two new party groups. From the
ranks of the Conservatives had sprung a body of Catholics who, under
papal injunction, had declared their purpose to rally to the support
of the Republicans; whence they acquired the designation of the
"Ralliés." And from the Radical party had broken off a body of
socialists of such consequence that in the elections of 1893 it
succeeded in carrying fifty seats.
*359. The Bloc.*--A new era in the history of French political (p. 331)
parties was marked by the elections of May, 1898. Some 250 seats, and
with them the effectual control of the Chamber, were acquired by the
Radicals, the Socialists, and an intermediary group of Radical-Socialists.
The Moderate Republicans, to whom had been given recently the name of
Progressives, were reduced to 200; while the Right retained but 100.
The Socialists alone polled nearly twenty per cent of the total
popular vote. The remarkable agitation by which the Dreyfus affair was
attended had the effect of consolidating further the parties of the
Left, and the _bloc_ which resulted not only has subsisted steadily
from that day to the present but has controlled very largely the
policies of the government. The first conspicuous leader and spokesman
of the coalition was Waldeck-Rousseau, premier from 1899 to 1902, and
its first great achievement was the separation of church and state,
accomplished through the means of the Law of Associations of July 1,
1901, the abrogation of the Concordat, December 9, 1905, and the law
of January 2, 1907, restricting further the privileges of the Roman
Catholic Church in France. A socialist now appeared for the first time
in the cabinet. At the elections of April, 1902, the policies of the
Government were vindicated by the return of 321 avowed "ministerialists"
and of but 268 representatives of the opposition.
*360. The Elections of 1906.*--June 3, 1902, the longest-lived ministry
since the Third Republic was established was brought to an end by the
voluntary retirement of Waldeck-Rousseau. The new premier, Combes, was
a member of the Radical party, and the anti-clerical, radical policies
of the preceding government were maintained throughout the ensuing two
and a half years, as also they were during the premiership of Rouvier
(1905-1906). In March, 1906, a new ministry, in which Clemenceau was
actual chief, was formed with the Radical Sarrien as premier, and at
the elections which came two months later the groups of the Left won
another signal victory. Prior to the balloting the majority in support
of the radical policy of the Government _bloc_ could muster in the
Chamber some 340 votes; afterwards, it could muster at least 400. The
Right retained its numerical strength (about 130), but the extreme
Left made decided gains at the expense of the moderates, or
Progressives. The number of Progressive seats, 120 prior to the
election, was reduced by half; while the aggregate of Socialist and
Radical-Socialist seats rose to 230. On all sides Moderate
Republicanism fell before the assaults of Socialism. At the same time
it was demonstrated unmistakably that the anti-clerical measures of
the recent governments were in substantial accord with the will (p. 332)
of the nation. October 25, 1906, Clemenceau assumed the premiership.
*361. The Elections of 1910.*--The Clemenceau ministry, which survived
until July, 1909, adopted a programme which was more frankly
socialistic than was that of any of its predecessors. It added to the
system of state-owned railways the Great Western Line; it inaugurated
a graduated income tax and put the measure in the way of enactment at
the hand of the Chamber; it carried fresh and more rigorous
legislation in hostility to clericalism; and, in general, it gave free
expression to the unquestionable trend of the France of to-day away
from the individualism of the Revolutionary period in the direction of
the ideals of collectivism. The Briand ministry by which it was
succeeded followed in the same lines, three of its members, indeed,
being active socialists. Prior to the elections of April-May, 1910,
there took place some readjustment of political forces, but, on the
whole, no change of large importance. The _bloc_, however, more than
once showed signs of breaking up, and the majority of the party groups
arrived at the electoral season devoid of harmony and paralyzed by
uncertainty of policy. The Radicals were divided upon the question of
the income-tax; the Socialists, upon the question of the party's
attitude toward trade-unions; and all parties, upon the issue of
proportional representation. That the voters were no less bewildered
than were the party leaders appeared from the fact that in 231
constituencies--almost an unprecedented number[493]--second ballotings
were required. With the issues so confused, the results could hardly
prove of large significance. The lines which separate party groups
to-day in France are not infrequently both ill-defined and shifting,
with the consequence that it is not possible to express party strength
by exact numbers, as may be done in the case of the parties of Great
Britain or of the United States. A deputy may even belong to two
groups at one time. The composition of the Chamber following the
elections of 1910 can be stated, therefore, only approximately.
Composing the Right were (1) the Right proper, 19; (2) the Action
Libérale Populaire--organized originally to combat the radicalism of
Waldeck-Rousseau, 34; (3) the Progressives, now to be identified with
the Right, 76--a total of 129. Identified with the Left were (1) the
Republicans, 73; (2) the Radicals, 112; and (3) the Radical-Socialists,
149--a total of 334. Comprising the Extreme Left were the Socialists
(Independent 30; Unified, 75), aggregating 105. Finally, of
Independents there were upwards of 20. The continued preponderance of
the Left was assured, although to prolong their mastery of the
situation the Radicals and Radical-Socialists fell under the (p. 333)
necessity of securing the support of either the Republicans or the
Independent Socialists.[494]
[Footnote 493: Absolutely so, save for the _scrutin
de liste_ election of 1885.]
[Footnote 494: The political history of the period
since the elections of 1910 has been remarkable by
reason chiefly of the absorption of public
attention by the issues of electoral reform and
labor legislation. Embarrassed by interpellations
with reference to its ecclesiastical policy, the
Briand ministry (reconstituted in November, 1910)
retired in February, 1911. The Monis government
which succeeded lacked coherence, as also did the
ministry of Caillaux (June, 1911 to January, 1912).
The cardinal achievement of the Poincaré ministry
has been the carrying of the Electoral Reform Bill
of 1912 in the lower chamber. See p. 323.]
*362. Changes since 1871.*--"The political history of France since the
beginning of the Republic," says a scholarly French observer,
"presents, instead of an alternation between two parties of opposing
programmes, like those of Belgium or England, a continual evolution
along one line, the constant growth of the strength of parties which
represent the democratic, anti-clerical tendency."[495] The
fundamental division of Conservative and Republican persists, but both
of these terms have long since lost their original definiteness of
meaning. The Conservatives have ceased, in large part, to be
"reactionaries." Few of them are even royalists, and the old
distinction of Legitimist, Orleanist, and Bonapartist has disappeared
entirely. The Right is essentially "republican," as is evidenced by
the further fact that the majority of its members in the Chamber are
Progressives, whose forerunners composed the real Republican party of
a generation ago. The Republican groups of to-day comprise simply
those numerous and formidable political elements which are _more_
republican--that is to say, more radical--than are the adherents of
the Right. Among themselves, however, they represent a very wide
gradation of radicalism.
[Footnote 495: C. Seignobos, The Political Parties
of France, in _International Monthly_, Aug., 1901,
155.]
*363. French Socialism.*--The history of socialism in France since 1871
has been stormy. During the seventies proselyting effort was directed
chiefly toward the influencing of the trade-unions to declare for
socialism. In 1879 the general trade-union congress at Marseilles took
the desired step, but in the congress of the following year at Havre
there arose a schism between the "collectivists" and the
"co-operatives" which in reality has never been healed. During the
eighties and nineties the process of disintegration continued, and
there came to be a half-dozen socialist parties, besides numerous
local groups of independents. During the years 1898-1901 continued
effort was made to bring the various socialist elements into some sort
of union, and in 1900 a national congress of all French socialist
parties and organizations was held at Paris. An incident of the (p. 334)
Dreyfus controversy was the elevation of an independent socialist,
Étienne Millerand, to a portfolio in the ministry of Waldeck-Rousseau,
and this event became the occasion of a new socialist breach. The
Parti Socialiste Français, led by the eloquent Jaurès, approved
Millerand's opportunism; the Parti Socialist de France opposed. In
1905, however, these two bodies were amalgamated in the Parti
Socialist of the present day, with a programme which calls for the
socializing of the means of production and exchange, i.e., the
transforming of the capitalistic organization of society into a
collectivist or communistic organization. The means by which the party
proposes to bring about the transformation is the industrial and
political organization of the working classes. In respect to its aim,
its ideals, and its means, the French Socialist party, while ready to
support the immediate reforms demanded by laboring people, is to a
greater degree than the German Social Democracy a party of class
struggle and revolution. In 1885, when the French socialists waged
their first campaign in a parliamentary election, the aggregate number
of socialist votes was but 30,000. By 1889 the number had been
increased to 120,000; by 1898 to 700,000; and by 1906 to 1,000,000. At
the election of 1910 the popular vote was increased by 200,000, and
the number of socialist deputies was raised to a total of 105. Within
recent years socialism, formerly confined almost wholly to the towns
and cities, has begun to take hold among the wage-earners, and even
the small proprietors, in the rural portions of the country.[496]
[Footnote 496: The best accounts in English of the
French parties and party system are Lowell,
Governments and Parties, I., Chap. 2; Bodley,
France, Book IV., Chaps. 1-8; and C. Seignobos, The
Political Parties of France, in _International
Monthly_, Aug., 1901. The last-mentioned is brief,
but excellent. A valuable work is P. Laffitte, Le
suffrage universel et la régime parlementaire (2d
ed., Paris, 1889). Among useful articles may be
mentioned: J. Méline, Les partis dans la
république, in _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_,
Jan., 1900; M. H. Doniol, Les idées politiques et
les partis en France durant le XIXe siècle, in
_Revue du Droit Public_, May-June, 1902; and A.
Charpentier, Radicaux et socialistes de 1902 à
1912, in _La Nouvelle Revue_, May 1, 1912. On
socialism in France see J. Peixotto, The French
Revolution and Modern French Socialism (New York,
1901); R. T. Ely, French and German Socialism in
Modern Times (New York, 1883); P. Louis, Histoire
du socialisme français (Paris, 1901); E. Villey,
Les périls de la démocratie française (Paris,
1910); and A. Fouillee, La démocratie politique et
sociale en France (Paris, 1910).]
CHAPTER XVIII (p. 335)
JUSTICE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
I. FRENCH LAW
The law of France is of highly composite origin. Its sources lie far
back in the Roman law, the canon law, and the Germanic law of the
Middle Ages. As late as 1789 there had been no attempt at a complete
codification of it. Under the operation of a succession of royal
ordinances, criminal law, civil and criminal procedure, and commercial
law, it is true, had been reduced by the opening of the Revolution to
a reasonable measure of uniformity. The civil law existed still,
however, in the form of "customs" (_coutumiers_), which varied widely
from province to province. A code of civil law which should be
established uniformly throughout the realm was very generally demanded
in the cahiers of 1789, and such a code was specifically promised in
the constitution of 1791.
*364. The Code Napoléon.*--Toward the work of codification some
beginnings were made by the first two Revolutionary assemblies, but
the development of a coherent plan began only with the Convention.[497]
In the period of the Consulate the task was continued and progress was
rapid. The governmental mechanism under the constitution of 1799 was
cumbersome enough, but it was not ill adapted to the prosecution of a
project of this particular character. To a special commission, appointed
by the First Consul, was intrusted the drafting of the codes, and the
ultimate decision of difficult or controverted questions fell to the
Council of State, over whose deliberations Napoleon not infrequently
presided in person. March 31, 1804,--less than two months before the
proclamation of the Empire,--the new _Code civil des Français_ was
promulgated in its entirety. September 3, 1807, the instrument was given
officially the name of the _Code Napoléon_. By a measure of 1818 the
original designation was restored; but a decree of March 27, 1852,
revived the Napoleonic nomenclature. Since September 4, 1870, the
instrument has been cited officially simply as the _Code Civil_. In
arrangement the Code resembles the Institutes of Justinian. In (p. 336)
content it represents a very successful combination of the two great
elements with which the framers had to deal, i.e., the ancient
heterogeneous law of the French provinces and the law which was
originated, or which was given shape, during the course of the
Revolution.
[Footnote 497: H. Cauvière, L'idée de codification
en France avant la rédaction du Code Civil (Paris,
1911).]
With the progress of time certain defects have appeared in the Code,
and since 1871 more than a hundred modifications, some important and
some otherwise, have been introduced in it. Upon the occasion of the
celebration, in 1904, of the centenary of its promulgation there was
created an extra-parliamentary commission charged with the task of
preparing a revision of the instrument.[498] In the main, the faults
to be corrected are those which have arisen inevitably from the growth
of new interests and the development of new conditions since 1804, in
respect, for example, to insurance and to labor. In Belgium the Code
Napoléon survives to this day, and the codes of Italy, Spain,
Portugal, Holland, and many of the Latin American states are modelled
upon it.
[Footnote 498: The task of revision has not yet
been accomplished. See La Code Civil, livre du
centenaire (Paris, 1904)--a volume of valuable
essays by French and foreign lawyers.]
*365. Other Codes.*--Aside from the Civil Code of 1804, containing an
aggregate of 2,281 articles, the larger part of the law of France
to-day is comprised in four great codes, all drawn up and promulgated
during the era of the Consulate and the Empire. These are: (1) the
Code of Civil Procedure, of 1,042 articles, in 1806; (2) the Code of
Commerce, of 648 articles, in 1807; (3) the Code of Criminal
Instruction, of 648 articles, in 1808; and (4) the Penal Code, of 484
articles, in 1810.[499] The last two codes were submitted to a general
revision in 1832, and various supplementary codes,--e.g., the Forest
Code, of 226 articles, in 1827,--have been promulgated. But the
modifications introduced since Napoleon's day have involved
principally mere details or the addition of subjects originally
omitted. No one of the codes represented at the time of its
promulgation a new body of law. On the contrary, all of them, and
especially the fundamental Civil Code of 1804, merely reduced existing
law to systematic, written form, introducing order and uniformity
where previously there had been diversity and even chaos. By the
process the law of France was given a measure of unity and precision
which it had never before possessed, with the disadvantage, however,
that it lost the flexibility and dynamic character that once had
belonged to it. Throughout the past hundred years the whole of France
has been a country of one written law--a law so comprehensive in (p. 337)
both principles and details that, until comparatively recently, there
has seemed to be small room or reason for its modification. The
history of French parliamentary assemblies has been affected
perceptibly by the narrowing of the field of legislation arising from
this circumstance.[500]
[Footnote 499: M. Leroy, Le centenaire du code
pénal, in _Revue de Paris_, Feb. 1, 1911.]
[Footnote 500: J. Brissaud, History of French
Private Law, trans. by R. Howell (Boston, 1912).]
II. THE COURTS
*366. The Ordinary Courts: Justice of the Peace.*--In French practice
the distinction which is drawn between private law and public law is
so sharp that there have been built up two hierarchies of courts--the
ordinary and the administrative--each of which maintains practically
exclusive jurisdiction within an independent field. The ordinary
courts comprise civil and criminal tribunals, together with certain
special tribunals, such as the _tribunaux de commerce_. At the bottom
stands the court of the justice of the peace (_juge de paix_) of the
canton. This tribunal was created by the first of the Revolutionary
assemblies and it has existed continuously to the present day. The
justice of the peace takes cognizance of disputes where the amount
involved does not exceed 600 francs, and of contraventions of law
punishable by a fine not exceeding fifteen francs or imprisonment not
beyond five days. In civil cases involving more than 300 francs, and
in criminal cases involving imprisonment or a fine exceeding five
francs, appeal lies to a higher tribunal.
*367. The Courts of First Instance.*--Next above the court of the
justice of the peace stands the _tribunal de première instance_, or
_tribunal d'arrondissement_. Of such courts there is, with a few
exceptions, one in each arrondissement or district. Each consists of a
president, at least one vice-president, and a variable number of
judges, three of whom form a court with full powers. To each is
attached a _procureur_, or public prosecutor. This tribunal takes
cognizance of all kinds of civil cases. In appeals from the justices
of the peace, actions relating to personal property to the value of
1500 francs, actions relating to land to the value of sixty francs per
year, and all cases of registration, there lies no appeal from its
decisions. The jurisdiction of the court in penal cases extends to all
offenses of the class known as _délits_ (misdemeanors), i.e., offenses
involving penalities which are heavier than those attached to the
contraventions dealt with by the justices of the peace, yet less
serious than those prescribed for crimes. When sitting as a criminal
court, the court of first instance is known as a _tribunal (p. 338)
correctionnel_, or "correctional court." All of its judgments in
criminal cases are subject to appeal.
*368. The Courts of Appeal and of Assize.*--Above the courts of first
instance are twenty-six _cours d'appel_, or courts of appeal, each of
which exercises jurisdiction within a territory comprising from one to
five departments. At the head of each is a president, and each
maintains an elaborate _parquet_, or permanent staff of officials, in
which are included several _procureurs-généraux_ and _avocats-généraux_.
For the transaction of business the court of appeal is divided into
chambers, or sections, each consisting of a president and four
_conseillers_, or judges. The primary function of the court is the
hearing of appeals, in both civil and criminal causes, from the courts
of first instance. Original jurisdiction is limited and incidental.
Closely related to the courts of appeal are the _cours d'assises_, or
courts of assize. These are not separate or permanent tribunals. Every
three months there is constituted in each department, ordinarily in
the chief town thereof, a court of assize consisting of a specially
designated member of the court of appeals within whose jurisdiction
the department lies and two other magistrates, who may be chosen
either from the remaining _conseillers_ of the court of appeals or
from the justices of the local court of first instance. The courts of
assize are occupied exclusively with serious offenses, such as in the
Penal Code are classified as crimes. In them, and in them only among
French tribunals, is the device of the jury regularly employed. A jury
consists of twelve men, whose verdict is rendered by simple majority.
As in Great Britain and some of the American states, the jurors
determine the fact but do not apply the law.
*369. The Court of Cassation.*--At the apex of the hierarchy of ordinary
tribunals is the Court of Cassation. This court sits at Paris, and in
all matters of ordinary private law it is the supreme tribunal of the
state. It consists of a first president, three sectional presidents,
and forty-five judges. Attached to it are a procurator-general and six
advocates-general. For working purposes it is divided into three
sections: the _Chambre des Requêtes_, or Court of Petitions, which
gives civil cases a preliminary hearing; the Civil Court, which gives
them a final consideration; and the Criminal Court, which disposes of
criminal cases on appeal. It is within the competence of the Court of
Cassation to review the decisions of any tribunal in France, save
those of an administrative character. It passes, not upon fact, but
upon the principles of law involved and upon the competence of the
court rendering the original decision. A decision which is overruled
is said to be _cassé_, i.e., annulled. The purpose of the Court of (p. 339)
Cassation is not alone to further the interests of justice, but also
to preserve the unity of French jurisprudence.
*370. Appointment and Tenure of Judges.*--All judges attached to the
ordinary tribunals are appointed by the President of the Republic, on
the recommendation, and under the responsibility, of the Minister of
Justice. With the exception of justices of the peace in France, and of
judges of all grades in Algeria and the colonies, tenure of judicial
office continues during good behavior; and, outside of the classes
mentioned, no judicial officer may be dismissed without the consent of
the Court of Cassation. There is, however, an age limit, varying with
the official grade, at which retirement is expected and virtually
required. Justices of the peace and Algerian and colonial judges maybe
dismissed by the President. Salaries range from 1,600 francs per year
in the case of the justice of the peace to 30,000 in that of the
President of the Court of Cassation.[501]
[Footnote 501: The best treatise upon the French
judicial system and upon proposed reforms of it is
J. Coumoul, Traité du pouvoir judiciaire; de son
rôle constitutionnel et de sa réforme organique (2d
ed., Paris, 1911). See Vicomte d'Avenel, La réforme
administrative--la justice, in _Revue des Deux
Mondes_, June 1, 1889; L. Irwell, The Judicial
System of France, _Green Bag_, Nov., 1902.]
*371. Administrative Law and Administrative Tribunals.*--Actions at law
arising out of the conduct of administration are brought, not in the
regular courts connected with the Ministry of Justice, but in special
administrative tribunals connected with the Ministry of the Interior.
Administrative courts exist for the application of administrative law,
and administrative law may be defined in brief as that body of legal
principles by which are determined the status and liabilities of
public officials, the rights and liabilities of private individuals in
their dealings with the official representatives of the state, and the
procedure by which these rights and liabilities may be enforced. The
idea underlying it is that the government, and every agent of the
government, possesses a body of rights, privileges, and prerogatives
which are sharply marked off from those of the private citizen, and
that the nature and extent of these rights and privileges are to be
determined on principles essentially distinct from those which govern
in the fixing of the rights and privileges of citizens in relation one
to another. This conception is foreign to the English-speaking world,
and neither Great Britain nor any nation of English origin possesses
more than here and there an accidental trace of administrative law.
Among continental European states, however, the maintenance of a body
of administrative legal principles--uncodified and flexible, but (p. 340)
fundamental--is all but universal. In some states, as Belgium, the
rules of administrative law are interpreted and enforced by the
ordinary courts; but in others, as in France, they are dealt with by
an entirely separate hierarchy of tribunals, made up of officials in
the service of the government and dismissable at any time by the head
of the state. "In France," as one writer puts it, "there is one law
for the citizen and another for the public official, and thus the
executive is really independent of the judiciary, for the government
has always a free hand, and can violate the law if it wants to do so
without having anything to fear from the ordinary courts."[502]
Although not without precedent in the Old Régime, the distinction
between ordinary and administrative law in France was first clearly
established by Napoleon in the constitution of 1799, and the system of
administrative courts erected under that instrument has survived in
large part to the present day.[503]
[Footnote 502: Lowell, Governments and Parties, I.,
58.]
[Footnote 503: It need hardly be explained that the
First Consul's intention was that the ordinary
judges should not be allowed to obstruct by their
decisions the policies of the government.]
*372. The Council of State.*--The most important of the administrative
tribunals is the _Conseil d'État_, or Council of State, a body which
once possessed large functions of an executive and legislative
character, but whose influence to-day arises almost exclusively from
its supreme administrative jurisdiction. The Council of State is
composed of 32 councillors _en service ordinaire_, 19 councillors _en
service extraordinaire_ (Government officials deputed to guard the
interests of the various executive departments), 32 _maîtres des
requêtes_, and 40 auditors. All members are appointed by, and
dismissable by, the President. For purposes of business the body is
divided into four sections, each corresponding to a group of two or
three ministerial departments, and a fifth section which deals more
directly with questions of administrative law. It is the function of
the Council to consider and make reply to all questions relating to
administrative affairs which the Government may lay before it; and in
all administrative cases at law it is the court of last resort. Below
it stands, in each department, a _conseil de préfecture_, or
prefectural council, which is the court of first instance in all
litigation arising out of the application of administrative law. A
specialized function of the prefectural council is the determining of
the validity of arrondissement and municipal elections.[504]
[Footnote 504: For an account of the administrative
law of France see A. V. Dicey, The Law of the
Constitution (7th ed., London, 1908), Chap. 12.
Important French works on the subject include H.
Barthélemy, Traité élémentaire de droit
administratif (5th ed., Paris, 1908); H. Chardon,
L'administration de la France, les fonctionnaires
(Paris, 1908); G. Jèze, Les principes généraux du
droit administratif (Paris, 1904); and J. L. Aucoc,
Conférences sur l'administration et le droit
administratif (3d ed., Paris, 1885). Mention may be
made also of E. J. Laferrière, Traité de la
jurisdiction administrative et des recours
contentieux (Paris, 1887-1888), and Varagnac, Le
Conseil d'État et les projets de réforme, in _Revue
des Deux Mondes_, Aug. 15, and Sept. 15, 1892.]
*373. Other Courts.*--Between the hierarchy of ordinary courts (p. 341)
and that of administrative tribunals stand a variety of courts of
special character--courts of commerce, courts of accounts, courts of
public instruction. There is a _Tribunal des Conflits_, or Court of
Conflicts, composed of the Minister of Justice, three members of the
Court of Cassation, three of the Council of State, and two elected by
these seven. Under the presidency of the Minister of Justice, it
determines, in the event of doubt or dispute, the competent
jurisdiction, ordinary or administrative, to be extended to a
particular case. Finally the fact may be recalled that to take
cognizance of attacks upon the safety of the state, as well as for the
trial of an impeachment proceeding, the Senate may be constituted a
high court of justice.
III. LOCAL GOVERNMENT: DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1789
*374. Stability of Local Institutions.*--Students of political science
are familiar with the fact that governmental systems are, as a rule,
less stable at the top than at the bottom. Local institutions,
embedded in the interests of the community and supported by the native
conservatism of the ordinary man, strike root deeply; the central,
national agencies of law-making and of administration are played upon
by larger, more unsettling forces, with the consequence of greatly
increased likelihood of change. Of this principle the history of
modern France affords notable illustration. Throughout a century of
the most remarkable instability in the organization of the central
government of the nation the scheme of local government which operates
at the present day has been preserved almost intact. The origins of
it, it is true, are to be traced to revolution. In most of its
essentials it was created by the National Assembly of 1789 and by
Napoleon, and it rose upon the wreckage of a system whose operation
had been extended through many centuries of Capetian and Bourbon rule.
Once established, however, it proved sufficiently workable to be
perpetuated under every one of the governmental régimes which, between
1800 and the present day, have filled their successive places in the
history of the nation.
*375. Local Government Under the Old Régime.*--Prior to the Revolution
the French administrative system was centralized and bureaucratic, but
heterogeneous and notoriously ineffective. The provinces had ceased
almost completely to be political units. In but few of them did (p. 342)
the ancient assembly of the estates survive, and nowhere did it
possess more than merely formal administrative powers. The "governments"
of later times, corresponding roughly to the provinces, had fallen
likewise into desuetude and the governors had become inactive
pensioners. Of political units possessing some vitality there were but
two--the _généralité_ and the commune. The _généralité_ was the
jurisdiction of a royal officer known as an _intendant_, to whom was
assigned the conduct of every kind of administrative business. The
number of _généralités_ in the kingdom varied from thirty to forty.
The commune was an irreducible local unit whose history was unbroken
from the era of Roman dominion in Gaul. Its constitution in the
eighteenth century was in appearance democratic. To the communal
assembly belonged all persons who were liable to the _taille_, and
this body elected communal officers, cared for communal property, and
regulated local affairs. In point of fact, however, the measure of
real independence which the assembly enjoyed was meager. The
_intendant_ dictated or controlled virtually its every act. Of true
local government it may be said that in pre-revolutionary France there
was little or none.[505]
[Footnote 505: A. Babeau, La ville sous l'ancien
régime (Paris, 1880); A. Luchaire, Les communes
françaises (Paris, 1890); H. Barthélemy, Traité de
droit administratif (5th ed., Paris, 1908); A.
Esmein, Histoire du droit français (8th ed., Paris,
1908).]
*376. The Reconstitution of 1789-1791.*--One of the earlier performances
of the National Assembly of 1789 was to sweep away relentlessly the
administrative system of the Old Régime and to substitute therefor an
order which was all but entirely new. The communes, to the number of
upwards of forty-four thousand, were retained. But the provinces and
the _généralités_ were abolished and in their places was erected a
system of departments, districts, and cantons. For historic boundary
lines, physical demarcations, and social cleavages only incidental
allowance was made. Eighty-three departments in all were created. In
each there were, on an average, six or seven districts, and in each of
these an average of eight or nine cantons. The cantons, in turn, were
made up of widely varying numbers of communes. The most striking
aspects of the system were its symmetry and its detachment from
history and tradition. Departments, districts, and cantons presented,
and were intended to present, a _tabula rasa_ upon which the
law-makers of France might impress any pattern whatsoever.
For the time being the ideal of democracy was predominant, and by the
measures of 1789, re-enforced by the constitution of 1791, the entire
administration of local affairs was transferred at a stroke from the
agents of the crown to the elected representatives of the new
governmental units. In the department was established an (p. 343)
administrative group consisting of thirty-six persons, elected for a
term of two years, and divided into an executive directory of nine and
a deliberative council of twenty-seven. In the district was
established a similar, but smaller, elective directory and council,
and in the commune provision was made for the election, under a
broadly democratic franchise, of a mayor and a council. The canton was
not employed for administrative purposes.[506]
[Footnote 506: For the text of the Décret sur les
Municipalités of December 14, 1789, see Hélie;
Constitutions, 59-72. An English version is in
Anderson, Constitutions, 24-33.]
*377. The Revival of Centralization, 1795-1800.*--Experience proved,
that in the direction both of democracy and of decentralization the
reformers had gone too far. With the re-establishment of order
following the close of the Revolution proper, in 1795, there was
revived the rule of official experts, together with the maintenance
over the local administrative organs of a highly centralized
supervision. The Constitution of the Year III. (1795), while
perpetuating the elective principle in respect to local officers,
replaced the commune by the canton as the basal administrative unit
and made provision in a variety of ways for the effective control of
local affairs by the national Directory.[507] Under the Napoleonic
régime, established in 1799-1800, the centralizing process was carried
yet further. The canton was reduced to the status of a judicial
district and the commune was restored as the basal administrative
unit;[508] but it was stipulated that the mayor, the _adjoints_, or
deputies, and the council of the commune should be no longer elective,
but should be appointed by the central government, directly or by its
departmental agents. By law of February 17, 1800, there was
established in each department a prefect, appointed by the First
Consul, responsible only to him, and endowed with functions scarcely
less comprehensive than, in the days of the Old Régime, had been those
exercised by the _intendant_. The general council of the department
was perpetuated, but its sixteen to twenty-four members were
henceforth to be named for a term of three years by the First Consul.
Each department, furthermore, was divided for administrative purposes
into _arrondissements_, within each, of which were established a
sub-prefect and a council of eleven members, likewise appointive. The
arrondissement represented substantially a revival of the district,
established by law of December 22, 1789, and extinguished by the
constitution of 1795. The sub-prefect served as a local deputy of the
prefect, and one of his principal duties was to assist in the (p. 344)
continuous and close supervision of the affairs of the communes within
his jurisdiction.[509]
[Footnote 507: Anderson, Constitutions, 233-236.
The canton, suppressed by law of June 26, 1793, was
now revived.]
[Footnote 508: The number of communes was reduced
at this time from 44,000 to 36,000.]
[Footnote 509: Anderson, Constitutions, 283-288. G.
Alix, Les origines du système administratif
français, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_,
July-Nov., 1899.]
*378. From Napoleon to the Third Republic.*--The Napoleonic
administrative system--simple, symmetrical, bureaucratic, and
absolutely centralized--has persisted in France, in a large measure,
to the present day.[510] The most important modifications that have
been introduced in it are those which have arisen from a cautious
revival of the elective principle in the constitution of the various
local governmental bodies. The fall of Napoleon brought no change of
consequence, and none ensued until after the revolution of 1830. In
the days of the Orleanist monarchy, however, the rigor of the
Napoleonic system was in some measure relaxed. A law of 1831 made the
municipal council elective, one of 1833 did the same thing for the
councils of the department and the arrondissement, and both measures
established a fairly liberal arrangement in respect to the local
franchise. In 1838 the powers of the two councils were materially
increased.[511]
[Footnote 510: Its influence upon the
administrative systems of other countries--Belgium,
Italy, Spain, and even Greece, Japan, and various
Latin American states--has been profound. "Judged
by its qualities of permanence and by its influence
abroad, the law of 1800 is one of the best examples
of Bonaparte's creative statesmanship, taking rank
with the Code and with the Concordat among his
enduring non-military achievements. If, in the
nineteenth century, England has been the mother of
parliaments and has exercised a dominant influence
upon the evolution of national governments, France
has had an equally important rôle in moulding
systems of local administration among the nations."
Munro, Government of European Cities, 7.]
[Footnote 511: The texts of these acts are in
Hélie, Constitutions, 1019-1050.]
At the establishment, in 1848, of the Second Republic, the essentials
of the administrative system then prevailing were retained. It was
enacted merely that the various councils should be elected on a basis
of manhood suffrage, and that in communes of fewer than six thousand
inhabitants the council should be permitted to elect the mayor and the
deputies, while in the larger ones appointment should be made as
heretofore by the central authorities. With the conversion, in
1851-52, of the Second Republic into the Second Empire, this
decentralizing tendency suffered a distinct check. Throughout the
reign of Napoleon III. the communal council continued to be elected,
at least nominally, upon the principle of manhood suffrage; but so
thoroughgoing was the prefectorial supervision that there remained to
the councils very little of initiative or independence of action. Even
the privilege which the smaller communes possessed of choosing their
own mayors was speedily lost, while by a decree of March 25, 1852, the
powers of the prefect in communal affairs were substantially (p. 345)
extended. Many matters pertaining to departmental and communal
interests which this official had been accustomed to refer to the
authorities at Paris he was now authorized to dispose of at his own
discretion. Throughout the Second Empire the prefect, more truly than
ever before, was the pivot of the administrative system. Despite the
survival of elective councils in the departments, the arrondissements,
and the communes, local autonomy all but disappeared.
*379. Changes Under the Third Republic.*--Upon the establishment of the
Third Republic the Napoleonic system was discontinued in only some of
its more arbitrary aspects. The National Assembly of 1871 revived
tentatively the scheme laid down in the constitution of 1848, save
that once again the councils of smaller communes were authorized to
elect the mayors and deputies. Even at such a time of unsettlement,
when the liberal elements were insistent upon changes that were
fundamental, there was slender indication of any real desire on the
part of the French people for an essentially decentralized
administrative régime. At the most, the demand was but for the
autonomy of the commune, while the canton, arrondissement, and
department should continue to be administered by, and largely in the
interest of, the national government. By law of March 28, 1882, the
demand in behalf of the communes was met. Upon every commune, large
and small (except Paris), was conferred the privilege of choosing
freely its entire quota of administrative officials; and in the great
municipal code of April 5, 1884, drafted by a commission of nine
constituted in the previous year, this privilege, with others, was
specifically guaranteed.[512] Departments and arrondissements,
however, continued to be primarily spheres within which the general
government, acting through its own agents, brought home immediately to
the people the reality and comprehensiveness of its authority. And to
this day France presents the curious spectacle of a nation broadly
democratic in respect to its constitution and central government, yet
more closely bound by a hard and fast administrative régime than any
other principal state of western Europe.[513]
[Footnote 512: Text in J. Duvergier, Collection
complète des lois, décrets, ordonnances,
réglements, avis du conseil d'état (Paris,
1834-1907), LXXXIV., 99-148.]
[Footnote 513: On the French administrative system
two admirable general works are H. Barthélemy,
Traité de droit administratif (5th ed., Paris,
1908), and A. Esmein, Histoire du droit français
(8th ed., Paris, 1908). An older treatise of value
is E. Monnet, Histoire de l'administration
provinciale, départementale et communale en France
(Paris, 1885). Three works in which the subject is
dealt with in a comparative fashion are P. P.
Leroy-Beaulieu, Administration locale en France et
en Angleterre (Paris, 1872); P. W. L. Ashley, Local
and Central Government (London, 1906); and F. J.
Goodnow, Comparative Administrative Law (2d ed.,
New York, 1903). A study of some value is J. T.
Young, Administrative Centralization and
Decentralization in France, in _Annals of Amer.
Acad. of Political and Social Science_, Jan.,
1898.]
IV. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO-DAY (p. 346)
*380. The Department: the Prefect.*--For administrative purposes, the
Republic is divided, first of all, into 86 departments, besides which
there is the "territory" of Belfort, a remnant of the department of
the Upper Rhine, most of which was acquired by Germany in 1871. Since
1881 the three departments of Algeria have been dealt with
substantially as if included within continental France.
At the head of each of the departments is a prefect, appointed and
removed nominally by the President of the Republic, but in reality by
the Minister of the Interior. The prefect, who is much the most
important of all local officials, is at the same time an agent of the
general government and the executive head of the department in the
administration of local affairs. As agent of the general government he
acts, in some instances, upon detailed instructions; in others, he
enjoys a wide range of discretion. His powers extend to virtually all
public matters affecting the department. He supervises the execution
of the laws; maintains a vigorous control over all administrative
officials of the department, upon occasion annulling their acts; gives
the authorities at Paris information and advice respecting the affairs
of the department; nominates to a variety of subordinate offices;
exercises an oversight of the communes, some of whose measures become
effective only after receiving his assent; and, in certain instances
indicated by law, acts as a judge. He is assisted by a secretary and a
_conseil de préfecture_, appointed by the President. This prefectorial
council, consisting of from three to nine members, advises the prefect
and, in certain cases, exercises jurisdiction as an administrative
tribunal. The prefect is essentially a political official. He owes his
appointment not infrequently to political considerations, and with the
fall of the ministry his tenure is apt to be terminated.
*381. The Department: the General Council.*--As executive head of the
department the prefect is required to work with a _conseil général_,
or representative assembly, elected by the inhabitants of the
department on a basis of manhood suffrage. This council comprises one
member chosen in each canton for a period of six years, half of the
number retiring every three years. The actual powers of the body are
not large. Aside from the apportioning of the direct taxes among the
arrondissements, they are restricted pretty generally to the
administration of highways, canals, schools, asylums, and similar
interests. Questions of a political nature or of a national (p. 347)
bearing are rigorously excluded from consideration. The council has
but two ordinary sessions a year--one extending through not more than
fifteen days, the other not more than a month. The longer begins
regularly in August and is devoted to the consideration of the budget.
During the intervals between sessions the council is represented by a
_commission départementale_, or permanent delegation, of from four to
seven members. Neither the council nor the delegation possesses any
considerable measure of control over the prefect. The council's acts
may be vetoed by the President of the Republic, and, except when the
national parliament is in session, the body may be dissolved by the
same power. The department is an essentially artificial political
unit. During the century and a quarter of its existence it has not
become--indeed has been prevented deliberately from becoming--a sphere
of forceful, independent governmental activity.[514]
[Footnote 514: An administrative reform which
appears not infrequently in current political
discussion in France is the grouping of the
departments into "regions" possessing a certain
community of character and interest. Each of a
score or more of regions might conceivably be made
to have an assembly of its own, and within each of
them one of the departmental prefects might be
given a certain superiority over his colleagues.
The principal purpose would be to offset somewhat
the nation's present excess of administrative
centralization. On this proposal see C. Beauquier,
Un projet de réforme administrative; l'organisation
régionale en France, in _Revue Politique et
Parlementaire_, Nov. 10, 1909. Cf. A. Brette, La
réforme des départements à propos d'une proposition
de loi, ibid. On the department as at present
constituted the monumental treatise is G. Bouffet
et L. Périer, Traité du départements 2 vols.
(Paris, 1894-1895). In M. Laferrière, Loi organique
départementale du 10 Août 1871 (Paris, 1871) is an
annotated copy of the organic statute of 1871. See
also G. Dethan, De l'organisation des conseils
généraux (Paris, 1889); A. Nectoux, Des
attributions des conseillers généraux (Paris,
1895); and P. Chardenet, Les élections
départementales (Paris, 1895). An excellent brief
statement will be found in M. Block, Dictionnaire
de l'administration française (5th ed., Paris and
Nancy, 1905), I., 933-948, 1101-1116.]
*382. The Arrondissement and the Canton.*--Next to the department stands
the arrondissement, or district, created originally in 1799. Within
the bounds of France there are to-day 362 of these districts. Except
those in the department of the Seine, and three containing the
capitals of departments elsewhere, each has in its chief town a
sub-prefect, who serves as a district representative of the prefect.
Every one has a _conseil d'arrondissement_, or arrondissement council,
consisting of at least nine members, elected by manhood suffrage for a
term of six years. But since the arrondissement has no corporate
personality, no property, and no budget, the council possesses but a
single function of importance, that, namely, of allotting among the
communes their quotas of the taxes assigned to the arrondissement by
the general council of the department. The arrondissement is, (p. 348)
however, the electoral district for the Chamber of Deputies, and also
normally the seat of a court of first instance.[515]
[Footnote 515: Block, Dictionnaire de
l'administration française, I., 256-260.]
The canton is an electoral and a judicial, but not strictly an
administrative, unit. It is the area from which are chosen the members
of both the departmental general council and the council of the
arrondissement, and it constitutes the jurisdiction of the justice of
the peace. The total number of cantons is 2,911. As a rule each
contains about a dozen communes, though a few of the larger communes
are so populous as to be divided into a number of cantons.
*383. The Commune.*--The most fundamental of the administrative
divisions of France, and the only one whose origins antedate the
Revolution, is the commune. The commune is at the same time a
territorial division and a corporate personality. "On the one hand,"
to employ the language of a recent writer, "it is a tract of territory
the precise limits of which were defined by the law of December 22,
1789, or by some subsequent law or decree; for by the law of 1789 all
local units which had a separate identity during the old régime were
authoritatively recognized as communes, and since that enactment there
have been a number of suppressions, divisions, consolidations, and
creations of communal units. On the other hand, the commune is an
agglomeration of citizens united by life in a common locality and
having a common interest in the communal property. A commune ranks as
a legal person: it may sue and be sued, may contract, acquire, or
convey property,--it may, in general, exercise all of the ordinary
rights of a corporation."[516]
[Footnote 516: Munro, Government of European
Cities, 15.]
Of communes there are, in all, under the territorial land survey of
1909, 36,229. In both size and population they vary enormously. Some
comprise but diminutive hamlets of two or three score people; others
comprise cities like Bordeaux, Lyons, and Marseilles, each with a
population in excess of a quarter of a million. At the last census
27,000 communes had a population of less than one thousand; 17,000, of
less than five hundred; 9,000, of less than three hundred; 137, of
less than fifty. On the other hand, 250 contained each a population of
more than ten thousand, and fourteen of more than one hundred
thousand. In area they vary all the way from a few acres to the
254,540 acres of the commune of Arles.[517]
[Footnote 517: A. Porche, La question des grandes
et des petits communes (Paris, 1900).]
*384. The Communal Council.*--Except Paris and Lyons, all communes are
organized and governed in the same manner. In each is a council, (p. 349)
whose members are elected by manhood suffrage and, normally, on the
principle of the _scrutin de liste_, for a term of four years. The
body is renewed integrally, on the first Sunday in May in every fourth
year. In communes whose population is under five hundred the number of
councillors is ten; in those whose population exceeds five hundred the
number is graduated on a basis such that a commune of sixty thousand
people has a council of thirty-six, which is the maximum. The council
holds annually four ordinary sessions--in February, May, August, and
November--besides which special meetings may be convoked at any time
by the prefect, the sub-prefect, or the mayor. Sessions are held in
the _mairie_, or municipal building, and are regularly open to the
public. Except the May session, during which the budget is considered,
a meeting may not be prolonged beyond fifteen days, save with the
consent of the sub-prefect. The normal maximum of the May sitting is
six weeks.
Speaking broadly, the functions of the council may be said to comprise
the administration of the purely local affairs of the commune and the
formulation and expression of local needs and demands. In the code of
1884 the powers of the body are defined with exceeding minuteness.
Some are purely advisory, to be exercised when the council is called
upon by the higher administrative authorities for an expression of
local interest or desire in respect to a particular question. Advice
thus tendered may or may not be heeded. Other powers involve the
initiation by the council of certain kinds of measures, which,
however, may be carried into effect only with the assent of the higher
authorities. Among the thirteen such measures which are enumerated in
the code the most important are those pertaining to the purchase,
sale, or other legal disposition of property belonging to the commune.
Finally, there is a group of powers--relating principally to the
various communal services, e.g., parks, fire-protection, etc.--which
are vested in the communal authorities (council and mayor)
independently. But the predominating fact is that even to-day the
autonomy of the commune is subject to numerous and important
limitations. Many communal measures become valid only upon receiving
the approval of the prefect, and virtually any one of them may be
suspended or annulled by that official. Some require the consent of
the departmental council, or even of the President of the Republic;
and by decree of the President the council itself may be dissolved at
any time.
*385. The Mayor and his Assistants.*--The executive head of the commune
is the _maire_, or mayor, who is elected by the municipal council, by
secret ballot, from its own membership, for a term of four years.
Associated with the mayor is, in communes of 2,500 inhabitants or
fewer, an _adjoint_, or assistant, similarly chosen. In communes (p. 350)
of 2,500 to 10,000 inhabitants there are two assistants, and in those
of over 10,000 there is an additional one for every 25,000 people in
excess of the figure named. Except in Lyons, however, where there are
seventeen, the number may not exceed twelve. The mayor plays the dual
rôle of executive head of the commune and representative (though not
the appointee) of the central government. The powers which he
exercises vary widely according to the size and importance of the
commune. But in general it may be said that he appoints to the
majority of municipal offices, publishes laws and decrees and issues
_arrêtés_, or ordinances, supervises finance, organizes and controls
the local police, executes measures for public health and safety,
safeguards the property interests of the commune, and represents the
commune in cases at law and on ceremonial occasions.
The functions of the mayoral office are in practice distributed by the
mayor among the assistants, to each of whom is assigned a specific
department, such as that of streets, of sanitation, or of
fire-protection. As a rule, the mayor reserves to himself the control
of police. For the acts of the assistants, however, the mayor is
directly responsible, and all acts, whether of the mayor or of the
assistants, which relate to the interests of the general government
are performed under the strictest surveillance of the prefectorial
authorities. The mayor may be suspended from office for a month by the
prefect, or for three months by the Minister of the Interior; and he
may be removed from office altogether by order of the President.
Despite the restrictions which are placed upon it, the commune remains
the true focus of local life in France.[518] Its activities, on a
sufficiently petty scale though they not infrequently are, run the (p. 351)
gamut of finance, commerce, industry, education, religion, and
politics. So strong is the communal spirit that public sentiment will
acquiesce but rarely in the suppression of a commune, or even in the
union of two or more diminutive ones; and, in truth, the code of 1884
recognized the fixity of communal identity by permitting changes of
communal boundaries to be undertaken by the departmental authorities
only after there shall have been held an _enquête_ and local
susceptibilities shall have been duly consulted. Save by special
decree of the President of the Republic, not even the name of a
commune may be altered.
[Footnote 518: Among general treatises on the
French commune may be mentioned M. Block,
Entretiens sur l'administration; la commune (Paris,
1884); L. Bequet, Traité de la commune (Paris,
1888); P. Andre and F. Marin, La loi sur
l'organisation municipale du 5 avril 1884 (Paris,
1884); and F. Grelot, Loi du 5 avril 1884 (Paris,
1889). The best and most recent extensive work is
L. Morgand, La loi municipale, 2 vols. (7th ed.,
Paris, 1907). The most convenient brief discussion
in French is in Block, Dictionnaire de
l'administration française, I., 738-852. In English
a good description is in A. Shaw, Municipal
Government in Continental Europe (New York, 1897),
and a fuller and more recent one in W. B. Munro,
The Government of European Cities, 1-108. On
municipal elections the best work is M. J.
Saint-Lager, Élections municipales (6th ed., Paris,
1904). Worthy of mention are Chardenet, Panhard,
and Gérard, Les élections municipales (Paris,
1896), and J. Dorlhac, De l'électorat politique:
étude sur la capacité électorale et les conditions
d'exercise du droit de vote (Paris, 1890). An
excellent study is P. Lavergne, Du pouvoir central
et des conseils municipaux, in _Revue Générale
d'Administration_, 1900. See also A. G. Desbats, Le
budget municipal (Paris, 1895); M. Peletant, De
l'organisation de la police (Dijon, 1899); and R.
Griffin, Les biens communaux en France (Paris,
1899). On the government of Paris the reader may be
referred to G. Artigues, Le régime municipal de la
ville de Paris (Paris, 1898), and M. Block,
L'Administration de la ville de Paris et du
département de la Seine (Paris, 1898). Excellent
bibliographies are printed in Munro, _op. cit._,
380-389, and in Block, Dictionnaire, I., 850-852.]
PART IV. ITALY (p. 353)
CHAPTER XIX
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
I. THE ERA OF NAPOLEON
*386. Italy in the Later Eighteenth Century.*--The dominant forces in
the politics of Europe since the French Revolution have been the twin
principles of nationality and democracy; and nowhere have the fruits
of these principles been more strikingly in evidence than in the long
disrupted and misgoverned peninsula of Italy. The awakening of the
Italian people to a new consciousness of unity, strength, and
aspiration may be said to date from the Napoleonic invasion of 1796,
and the first phase of the _Risorgimento_, or "resurrection," may,
therefore, be regarded as coincident with the era of French
domination, i.e., 1796-1814. At the opening of this period two
non-Italian dynasties shared the dominion of much the larger portion
of Italy. To the Austrian Hapsburgs belonged the rich duchies of Milan
(including Mantua) and Tuscany, together with a preponderating
influence in Modena. To the Spanish Bourbons belonged the duchy of
Parma and the important kingdom of Naples, including Sicily. Of
independent states there were six--the kingdom of Sardinia (comprising
Piedmont, the island of Sardinia, and, nominally, Savoy and Nice),
where alone in all Italy there lingered some measure of native
political vitality; the Papal States; the petty monarchies of Lucca
and San Marino; and the two ancient republics of Venice and Genoa,
long since shorn of their empires, their maritime power, and their
economic and political importance. All but universally absolutism held
sway, and in most of the states, especially those of the south,
absolutism was synonymous with corruption and oppression.
*387. The Cisalpine Republic, 1797.*--During the two decades which
comprehended the public career of Napoleon it was the part of the
French to overturn completely the long existing political arrangement
of Italy, to abolish altogether the dominion of Austria and to
substitute therefor that of France, to plant in Italy a wholly new and
revolutionizing set of political and legal institutions, and, quite
unintentionally, to fan to a blaze a patriotic zeal which through (p. 354)
generations had smouldered almost unobserved. The beginning of these
transformations came directly in consequence of the brilliant
Napoleonic incursion of 1796. One by one, upon the advance of the
victorious French, were detached the princes who, under English and
Austrian tutelage, had been allied hitherto against France. The king
of Naples sought an armistice; the Pope made peace; at Arcole and
Rivoli the Austrian power was shattered. October 16, 1796, there was
proclaimed, with the approval of the conqueror, a Cispadane Republic,
including Modena, Reggio, Ferrara, and Bologna; and March 27, 1797,
there was promulgated for the new state a constitution which, after
having been adopted by representatives of the four districts, had been
ratified by a vote of the people. This constitution--the first in the
history of modern Italy--was modelled immediately upon the French
instrument of 1795. It provided for a legislative council of sixty
members, with exclusive power to propose measures, another of thirty
members, with power to approve or reject measures, and an executive
directory of three, elected by the legislative bodies.