Wealth, Knowledge, and Interest : Logic of Restricted Suffrage under the French July Monarchy

ODANAKA, Naoki (Tohoku University TERG Discussion Paper 139, 1997)

(c) ODANAKA, Naoki, All Rights Reserved.

I

France in the first half of the nineteenth-century is often characterized as a "restricted suffrage monarchy." The electoral system was then a symbol of the political and social structure. This article carries out research into this system, in the hope of answering three questions. (1) First, what were the franchise qualifications necessary to be a member of the ruling class ? Second, what principle justified each qualification ? Third, what kind of political and social structure was pursued by the adoption of each electoral system ? Specifically, we analyze the debates over the electoral system after the July Revolution of 1830. (2) At that time when the demand for universal (male) suffrage was not yet strong, various arguments were presented concerning restricted suffrage. Examining these arguments comparatively, we hope to come up with the logic behind that electoral system.

Two questions face this investigation. First, can our analysis of restricted suffrage contribute to deepening our knowledge about French history in general ? Second, is that analysis still necessary now ? As for the first question, we hope that this research will contribute to the clarification of characteristics of the French ruling class in the first half of the nineteenth century. As is well known, the French Revolution saw a new ruling class, usually called "bourgeoisie" or "notables," create a political and social structure that suited its needs. (3) But what kind of structure did this new ruling class prefer ? Historians' arguments concerning this question have recently been greatly influenced by Tudesq. (4) Analyzing the various means utilized by the ruling class in order to justify its position to the people, Tudesq emphasizes the importance of patronage between the two. This relationship, however, is only concerned with the social dimension of the ruling class' preferences. What if we look at a more political dimension ?

As to the second question, restricted suffrage monarchies adopted the following electoral system for the Chamber of Deputies. The Charter compiled in 1814 set forth the qualification in Article 40, that the right to vote was given to men who were thirty years' old and above and who paid 300 francs or more of direct taxes (which were called cens). The law of 19 April 1831 lowered the minimum amount of cens to 200 francs, but a fixed payment of direct tax remained the only condition for the franchise. Must we still consider the franchise qualification and the justification of this system ? We begin with analyzing the argument of the father of French restricted suffrage, Sieyes, in the hope of making clear the problem at issue.

He published a pamphlet entitled "What is the Third Estate ?" (5) just before the heat of the French Revolution. There he affirmed the equality and inequality among French citizens at one and the same time. Considering this contradiction, Lefebvre (6) dubbed Sieyes as the "incarnation of the bourgeoisie." Sieyes and the bourgeoisie emphasized equality, demanding that the privileges of the nobles be removed. But they also wanted the adoption of an inequality, restricted suffrage, in the hope of preventing the people from taking part in politics. They regarded wealth as the basis for the franchise. However, the designation "incarnation of the bourgeoisie" does not explain all the statements of Sieyes. "Some Ideas concerning Constitution Applicable to the City of Paris", (7) published almost at the same time as the former pamphlet, is an example. Here he advocated "voluntary tribute," a system in which the qualification is given to those voluntarily paying three livres. In this case, those without the will to pay could not vote, however rich they may be. It is only recently that this proposition has caught the attention of historians. According to one, Sewell, (8) Sieyes acknowledged that wealth did not necessarily result in having the knowledge necessary to take part in politics. Various qualifications and justifications, including knowledge, could be preferred. (9)

This diversity lasted even after the French Revolutionary era. Consider the process of enactment of the Charter in 1814 and we could find a conflict over franchise qualification and justification. Many opinions were presented to a commission entrusted with making the bill of the Charter. One of them declared that 300 francs was too much for the minimum amount of cens. A commissioner of the king refuted this, declaring that even remarkable individuals should be excluded from the Chamber of Deputies by their poverty. (10) How should the electoral system be constituted ?

II

July 1830, Paris was caught in a revolution. Did this July Revolution have any impact on the political and social structure ? We begin with an observation of a leading Legitimist, Bonald. (11) According to him, the greatest fruit of the Revolution was to sweep out hereditary systems by abolishing the hereditary peerage system in 1831. A new political and social structure emerged, where "a man is free to vote, but on condition of cens, and where he is free to get any job, but on condition of education, knowledge, and ability." The position of the ruling class fell into the hands of those with wealth or knowledge. Bonald did not see any conflict between the two, which coexisted harmoniously, or at least without contradiction. (12)

There were some contemporaries, on the other hand, who recognized the existence of conflict between the two and chose one of them. As examples, we could take two famous statesmen, Remusat and Constant. Distinguishing himself as a young and brilliant Doctrinaire during the revolutionary chaos, Remusat was requested by Broglie and Guizot to draft a revised charter. The essence of this draft, which would be abandoned later, was clear in Article 13 : Profession, education and knowledge could be adopted by the law as signs of electoral capacity, independent of cens. (13) For, Remusat claimed, profession and education were better guarantees of political capacity than an amount of taxes which just symbolized wealth. (14) For Constant, (15) on the contrary, political capacity and knowledge were totally different from each other. The knowledge necessary for participation in politics is no more than that automatically acquired with the coming of maturity. As for political capacity, only landlords had it. Not knowledge but wealth should be the basis for the franchise. Regarding the relation between wealth and knowledge, diverse arguments existed even among supporters of restricted suffrage. Since one cause of the July Revolution was an attempt by Charles X to revise the electoral system, the victors of the Revolution had the responsibility of solving the problem of electoral reform. Revisions to the electoral system were already under discussion in the midst of the Revolution. For example, Lafayette and other revolutionaries published a Program at the City Hall on 31 July, which demanded that the minimum amount of cens be lowered from 300 to 50 francs ; that every male adult be eligible ; and that the electoral system be introduced into local councils. (16) The initiative did not belong to them, however, but to some deputies (such as Guizot and Perier) and journalists (such as Thiers). In succeeding in putting Louis Philippe into the position of Lieutenant General of the Kingdom, these deputies and journalists proceeded to examine the Charter in order to demand its revision by him. This revision was a condition for the Lieutenant General to be recognized as king. Needless to say, the electoral system was one of the revisions to be made. The examination of the Charter resulted in a bill, which Berard introduced to the Chamber of Deputies on 6 August. It demanded that some articles of the present Charter be revised and that Louis Philippe be enthroned as long as he agreed to the revisions. At the same time, the bill proposed that nine important problems be solved with special laws to avoid hasty decisions. Among them were the franchise qualification for national elections and the introduction of an electoral system for local councils. This meant that electoral reform was postponed. The parliamentary commission in-charge of examining the bill gave a report in support of the bill, which passed in both Chambers without discussion. When Louis Philippe accepted the revised Charter, he marked the beginning of the July Monarchy.

After the Revolution, however, many Legitimist deputies began to resign. This made by-elections necessary. Unable to wait for a Reform Act, the government proposed a special bill for these elections. The discussion began in the Chamber of Deputies on 30 August. The government bill did not touch on the franchise qualification, leaving the minimum amount of cens at 300 francs. This provided an occasion to begin discussion over the electoral system. A supporter of the bill declared that restricted suffrage was better than universal, for the franchise was not a natural right. (17) As the franchise qualifications, he chose wealth and education. Both are needed to prevent the people from using their "force of numbers" in elections to pursue their self-interest. In response to this, some deputies proposed amendments. (18) The most noticeable of them was that by Podenas, a member of the Tiers-parti, which not only lowered the minimum amount of cens to 200 francs but also gave the qualification to those on the second list of candidates of jurors (hereinafter the second list). (19) At first he adopted wealth as the franchise qualification, for the possession of wealth could lead to a presumption that there exist the conditions of political participation, that is to say, independence and knowledge. The possession of wealth, however, does not necessarily guarantee political capacity. Podenas thus advocated that the right to vote also be based on the second list, demanding the participation of intellectuals. This amendment was instantly rejected, though. After this rejection, the bill on by-elections was passed in its entity. This did not mean, however, a complete defeat for those supporting knowledge as the basis for the franchise. The law maintained the status quo. The reform was once more postponed.

III

On 30 December, five months after the July Revolution, the Minister of the Interior presented the long-awaited Reform Bill for the Chamber of Deputies. Before reading out the articles, he gave a long explanation on the position of the government over the electoral system. (20) The right to vote, for the government, should be given to those "who make up the force of society," that is to say, those with wealth or knowledge. Both wealth and knowledge were declared as the franchise qualification. As for the standard used to judge whether these qualifications were possessed, the government adopted cens for wealth, and the second list for knowledge. As the condition of cens did not apply to those on the second list, wealth and knowledge were thought to be independent of each other but to coexist harmoniously.

The bill was sent to a parliamentary commission for examination, which took as long as two months. On 22 February 1831 the Chamber received an examination report, which increased electors by adopting 240 francs as the minimum amount of cens (this would enfranchise about 190,000 men in total) and by giving the franchise to those on a little modified second list (this would enfranchise 30,000 men). The commission needed a long time to pass the bill, because its members were divided into two almost equal factions. This division had made it difficult to come up with a majority decision. The issue was to what extent the minimum amount of cens should be lowered. The majority decided on 240 francs, while the minority on 200 francs. Was the difference of 40 francs so significant ? The minority argued that the participation in politics was a natural right and that all male adults should be qualified to vote. Since it was impossible to realize universal suffrage immediately, they were satisfied to set the cens at 200 francs. The majority judged, on the contrary, that 200 francs was going too far. Believing that increasing voters to twice those of the old electoral system was sufficient, the majority calculated that 240 francs was appropriate for the minimum amount of cens. As for the necessity of adjonction, that is to say, the qualification of intellectuals without condition of cens, there was no disagreement. The French Revolution adopted wealth as the franchise qualification, which has become "the symbol of privilege." Considering this situation undesirable, the commission judged it necessary to introduce other factors and adopted knowledge qualifying liberal professionals or the "intellectual notables." (21) The commission took wealth and knowledge to be coexistent, but not always consistent. The conflict between wealth and knowledge seemed to heat up in the upcoming Chamber meetings.

After receiving the report from the commission, the Chamber of Deputies began general discussion on 24 February. There were only two deputies present at the rostrum. One of them, Bernard, belonging to the opposition camp, gave a remarkable speech. (22) Acknowledging that certain qualities were necessary for participation in politics, he chose wealth as the evidence of political capacity. Wealth as the franchise qualification is justified, however, by knowledge : Wealth results in education, education results in knowledge, and knowledge results in political capacity. A reliable guarantee of political capacity is education, and wealth could be a franchise qualification as long as it brought in knowledge. Immediately after this speech, the Chamber proceeded to discuss the articles. Bernard's argument emphasizing knowledge was widely shared among deputies who were later called the Movement party. (23) They were not the majority, but often delivered long speeches on electoral system. For them, "nothing shows that the rich has a better capacity than the poor." (24) A future prime minister, Barrot, lamented the tendency of the present society to respect only wealth and money, saying that cens showed no more than the "possibility" of political capacity. (25) But is there any other alternative for judging that capacity ? Cens was the only possible means. For deputies of the Movement, wealth did not guarantee political capacity. However, between wealth and capacity exists knowledge, and this is necessary for taking part in politics.

Their arguments had a certain influence on the discussion over the Reform Bill. The amendment presented by the minority of the commission, demanding that the minimum amount of cens be 200 francs, was adopted with a large majority. But all the other amendments were denied. The revision of the adjonction was a good example. It began by an amendment which obliged voters by adjonction to pay cens of at least 100 francs. The Movement refuted it, in vain, by claiming that the qualification should be given to intellectuals because education made men distinguished. The amendment was adopted, after all, with angry roars coming from the left of the chamber. The Chamber then proceeded to decide what status or professions should be included in the adjonction. Propositions contained in the commission report, adopting the second list almost entirely, were rejected one after another. Judges, professors, lawyers, doctors of medicine, notaries, bachelors, and so on were excluded. There were left only members of the Institut and retired military officers. This course of discussion showed that knowledge as franchise qualification or justification was almost denied. It was natural for the Movement to protest furiously. (26)

Most deputies who stood against the adjonction belonged to the so-called Resistance party. To our regret, however, they did not develop their own argument clearly in the discussion of the Reform Bill. The only exception was Cunin-Gridaine, future Minister of Commerce under the Guizot ministry, who said that "these professions (objects of adjonction : author) include those without capacity.... We should appeal to the true elite. Their success could be judged from their wealth." (27) It is not knowledge but wealth that guarantees political capacity. Surely Cunin-Gridaine recognized the existence of poor men with knowledge. They were rare, however, and should not be entrusted with politics. For, having talent, they could not make themselves rich. Adopting wealth as the qualification and denying knowledge, Cunin-Gridaine was clearly opposed to the Movement. We could not find here, however, how this franchise qualification would be justified. With the Resistance not developing their argument, the Chamber of Deputies adopted the bill (by 290 against 62) on 9 March. The debate now shifted to the Chamber of Peers.

On 16 March the bill was sent to a parliamentary commission. A former prime minister, Decazes, published a commission report on the twenty-eighth. (28) He supported the bill to the end, on the argument that sufficient income made possible education and independence. The qualification should be wealth, and its justification knowledge. But he also said on another occasion that the political capacity could exist independent of the education. What did he mean by knowledge ? He and other members of the Resistance do not seem to have thought that it was acquired by education and embodied by intellectuals.

The discussion began on 30 March. Noticeable here was the active participation of the Legitimists. They claimed that qualification be given to all payers of the land tax, thus coming close to the universal suffrage. (29) Behind such an argument lay a recognition that wealth and knowledge had already spread throughout the country. What is called knowledge here was, however, the ability to acknowledge "one's will, the influence of one's true needs, and one's interests," which could be summarized in a word "interest." One of them, Fitz-James, formerly Ultra-royalist close to Charles X, defined political capacity as an ability to choose the defenders of one's interest. (30) So even mechanics had political capacity. With these words, he criticized the adjonction giving the qualification to the intellectuals. What Legitimists called knowledge was the ability to recognize one's own interest. Of the generally understood meaning of knowledge, they were rather critical. As for the Resistance, its members did not take an active part in the debate, but were not the minority. After revising the bill a little, the Chamber passed it (by 95 against 12) and sent it back to the Chamber of Deputies on 31 March. This was after only two days of discussion.

On 9 April the Chamber of Deputies examined the points where the two Chambers had disagreed. Making use of this opportunity, the Movement made a last try, claiming that the income should not be regarded as the measure of political capacity. (31) The qualification must be knowledge and an interest in public affairs, which do not require any wealth. It was too late, however. The bill was passed (by 301 against 52) on 12 April and enacted on the nineteenth.

In the course of the discussion over the Reform Bill of 1831, three factions stood one against another, presenting their arguments on the electoral system. Sharing the theory that voting was a public function, the majority members of the two Chambers were in agreement as to the adoption of restricted suffrage. Legitimists and some others demanded a quasi-universal suffrage, in vain, based on the fact that everyone has his own interest. If the restricted suffrage was to be adopted, what should be the franchise qualification ? Finding wealth and knowledge as possible qualifications, supporters of the restricted suffrage were divided into two factions around this issue. At first both emphasized that the two qualifications coexisted harmoniously, driven by the necessity to fight the demand for universal suffrage. Once this necessity was gone, they began to argue about which of the two was more important. The most important point at issue was, however, not the qualification but its justification. The Movement accepted wealth as the qualification, but it was no more than a means to acquire knowledge. The justification guaranteeing political capacity is knowledge. The Resistance criticized and rejected almost all the propositions by the Movement, but did not present an argument on the electoral system.

Why didn't the Resistance, the majority in both Chambers, take an active part in the debate ? The answer lies in the social situation which surrounded the Chamber of Deputies. Deputies were elected before the Revolution, so they were against any opinions which doubted their legitimacy. It was necessary to enact a Reform Act as soon as possible so that the government could dissolve the Chamber. (32) Most deputies and peers wanted to end the discussion as soon as possible. How should we approach the argument of the Resistance then ? Fortunately, another debate concerning the election was going on in the Chambers at that time : Should an electoral system be introduced to municipal councils ? We proceed to analyze this debate in the next section.

IV

Introducing the electoral system in the nomination of municipal councilors had been a long pending problem. (33) In 1828 the Restoration government set up a commission in order to solve this problem. The commission wrote and presented a bill to the Chamber of Deputies after a year of examination. The bill was withdrawn, however, because of strong opposition from deputies. In the midst of the July Revolution, this problem interested many revolutionaries. For example, ninety-five deputies published a declaration on 1 August, demanding the participation of citizens in the formation of local governments. (34) This atmosphere encouraged the enactment of an additional clause 7 (concerning the necessity of a law on the formation of local governments, hereinafter the law on municipal organization) in Berard's bill. The Chamber of Deputies adopted this clause without opposition, pressuring the government to draft a bill quickly.

There was a deputy, however, who could not wait for the government bill. On 6 September a member of the former commission, Humblot-Comte, presented a bill which was a slightly revised version of that of 1829. It demanded that the qualification for voting in municipal elections be given to the one hundred twenty highest tax payers of cens and certain intellectuals in each municipality. (35) Most deputies decided to take it into consideration, sending it to a parliamentary commission. The Chamber was suddenly forced to tackle the problem of municipal councils. In a report presented on 29 December, the commission justified restricted suffrage on the basis that political right was a public function, and adopted the payment of cens and the adjonction as the franchise qualification. Cens guarantees the independence that comes with wealth, and the adjonction education. The commission adopted both wealth and knowledge, but what justified them ?

The Chamber began discussion on 27 January 1831. In this section we pay special attention to the argument of the Resistance. The general discussion began with a long speech by Marchal, the future republican mayor of Nancy in 1848. From the viewpoint that the security of the individual required participation in politics, he proposed an amendment that the qualification be given to all male adults living in the community. A voter does not have to have wealth or knowledge, because everyone has an interest. Supposing that a person knew his interest best, his argument was similar to that of Legitimists. Marchal's amendment was rejected by a large majority, however, and both Resistance and Movement began presenting their opinions. First we briefly analyze the argument of the latter. According to this, the people's rights would be denied if wealth was the only basis for authority. (36) Various interests other than wealth should be represented in the municipal councils. (37) One of its members, Isambert, reiterated that political rights should not be entrusted exclusively to the rich, going on to insist on the disenfranchisement of illiterates. He clearly preferred knowledge to wealth as the franchise qualification.

For the Resistance, on the contrary, wealth is necessary to acquire qualification, as it presumes the existence of "natural instincts of conservatism, knowledge, and pre-conditions of order." (38) The justification could be knowledge, but what did the word "knowledge" mean ? For the party, knowledge should be used for "the administration of general interests and .... decisions concerning secondary (that is to say, private : author) interests." Was this knowledge, related to interest, the same as that to which we have referred so far ? What the Resistance understood by knowledge seems to have been no more than a capacity of discerning one's own interest.

The Chamber proceeded to the discussion by articles on 2 February, where cens and the adjonction were at issue. As for cens, the Movement proposed an amendment that qualification be given to all the payers of personal tax. Coming very close to universal suffrage, it was supported for two reasons. First, some deputies demanded the qualification be given to all male adults because they had their interests. For them, it was difficult to admit that "the more wealth one has, the more (political : author) capacity he has." They also denied that participation in politics needed much knowledge, saying that "private interests are clear. Common sense is sufficient to know those interests. Farmers without education do know their interests." (39) Neither wealth nor knowledge was not necessary for participation in politics. It was sufficient to acknowledge "instinct," that is to say, one's own interest. Second, the amendment was supported by those who emphasized knowledge. Based on the expectation that education would spread, especially in urban areas, they demanded the vote for the people who would soon acquire knowledge. (40)

This amendment, on the other hand, was criticized by the Resistance. Duvergier de Hauranne, who would later become a leader of the electoral reform movement, was among these critics. (41) He asserted that the political right should be entrusted to those with the greatest interest in good administration. Having the greatest burden are "landlords and merchants." Wealth is justified as the franchise qualification because it makes possible the acknowledgment of one's own interest, leaving no room for knowledge. Faced with this resolute attitude, the amendment was instantly rejected. The argument of the Resistance concerning the electoral system can be found in this speech. It emphasized wealth as the franchise qualification and preferred interest to knowledge as justification. Even when knowledge was adopted as the qualification, it meant no more than the capacity of discerning one's own interest. Not putting importance on knowledge, the party stood against the Movement who thought much of it. We find a conflict between wealth and knowledge here, which would explode during the discussion over the second point at issue, the adjonction.

As soon as the discussion proceeded to Clause two of Article 11, about the adjonction, Delessert stood up. (42) A future vice-president of the Chamber, he demanded the total elimination of the clause, opposing the principle of adjonction in itself. He presented two reasons. First, it was nothing but a grant of privilege to certain classes. Second, the foundation of political capacity was wealth. Why couldn't a person with certain capacity or talent establish a minimum amount of cens ? Paying taxes was a better guarantee of qualification than some uncertain "knowledge." After his speech, many deputies of the Resistance criticized knowledge. The most systematic argument was developed by Humblot-Comte, who had introduced the bill himself. (43) According to him, intellectuals and the political interest were not related to each other. Some intellectuals, equipped with knowledge and academic career, do not enjoy general respect. Knowledge is thus of no use to society. He criticized "the new nobility" whose right and privilege were based on knowledge, demanding that the qualification be given only to the rich. The adjonction contained in his original bill seems nothing more than a concession to the Movement.

Now the very principle of adjonction seemed unacceptable. This panicked the Movement deputies, who made every effort to save it. According to them, as knowledge is a guarantee of political capacity, those capable of voting would increase if only knowledge and civilization spread among the people. (44) Famous deputies from the party gave speech after speech, and the principle of adjonction was saved. What is more, its scope was extended from the commission report. Judges, lawyers, graduates of the Ecole Polytechnique, and others were enfranchised. On 17 February 1831 the bill was passed (by 252 votes against 86) and sent to the Chamber of Peers.

The peers sent it to a parliamentary commission, who made a report in support on 1st March. The discussion began on the third, but there was no substantial argument. The next day the Chamber proceeded to vote and passed the bill (by 95 votes against 4). The law on municipal organization was enacted on 21 March.

After the July Revolution, it became necessary to reform the national electoral system and to introduce the electoral system into municipal councils. There were various opinions among the ruling class, leading to agreements and disagreements concerning the two bills. We summarize the conclusions of sections three and four here. Three factions coexisted among the ruling class : Those emphasizing the possession of knowledge, those claiming the importance of wealth, and those demanding quasi-universal suffrage. First, the Movement adopted both knowledge and wealth as the franchise qualification, and knowledge and interest as its justification. Wealth is not denied totally, but affirmed as far as it facilitates the acquisition of knowledge through education. Second, the Resistance adopted both wealth and knowledge as the franchise qualifications. As the justification of the former, knowledge and interest were adopted. As for the latter, it justified itself. The strongest emphasis among this, however, was a combination of wealth as the qualification and interest as its justification. Third, Legitimists and other supporters of the quasi-universal suffrage demanded no limitation. The universality of the franchise is justified by the fact that everyone has his own interest.

What image of the political and social structure lies behind each argument ? As for the case where knowledge is chosen as justification, an argument by Bodin, (45) a close friend of Thiers, is interesting. As society contains various interests, it is undesirable that only certain interests be represented in politics. Politics, whose purpose is to fulfill the public interest, should not work only for certain interests, nor should it be led by incapable persons just because they are rich. Those engaged in politics must be capable, like intellectuals with knowledge. As particular interests are neglected, politics becomes elitist. (46) The image of society deduced here has a hierarchy based on the amount of knowledge. Needless to say, the structure of such a society is rather flexible, making possible social climbing of the people through education (this characteristic also applies to the image of society advocated by the Resistance).

What about the case wherein wealth is taken to be the justification ? According to Duvergier de Hauranne, the purposes of society include the control of the public interest, the maintenance of order, and the security of person and property. Who should participate in politics from this viewpoint ? It is those with the greatest interest, or more concretely, "landlords and merchants." It seems that the rich could maneuver politics for their own interest. (47) The Resistance pointed out the importance of interest, but respected only the interest of the rich. Here emerges an image of politics which serves the interest of certain social classes, in other words, class politics. (48) But this concept of politics is contradictory, we must add, to a theory which the Resistance also held concerning politics. According to this theory, called that of "national sovereignty," deputies represent, not such and such a section, but the nation as a whole. (49) The party tried to solve this contradiction by emphasizing the capacity which the rich have to represent all social interests. As the course of things shows, it was not convincing. (50) Behind such an image of politics, then, lies an image of a society hierarchized by wealth.

In the case wherein quasi-universal suffrage is claimed, the people must be taken into consideration. How will they act ? Legitimists argued that the people would obey "their proper will, the influence of their true needs, and their true interests." (51) Everyone could demand the vote because he had his own particular interest. Standing against Legitimists politically, Marchal also advocated the universal suffrage, as the poor had the strongest interest of all. (52) They shared an image of politics in which all social classes participate to actualize their interests. It is a politics where various interests are coordinated, that is to say, interest politics. Behind this lies an image of society where social classes with various socio-economic conditions coexist. But should they coexist horizontally ? As for Legitimists, they did not think so. Political capacity was nothing but an "ability to choose the defenders of one's interest." Universal suffrage will make the people political actors, but they should not be autonomous nor independent. The position of the ruling class will be secured by the social relation of domination and obedience, patronage for example. (53) Legitimists wished a society wherein coexisted a broad participation in politics and a hierarchically compartmentalized structure. There the people would rarely realize social climbing, but easily demand certain special consideration.

The debate over the electoral system went on with these three images of the political and social structure behind it. Sharing certain points, they confronted each other in order to realize themselves. The ruling class did not only have recourse to patronage, but also presented various arguments, in order to justify their position on the political and social dimension.

V

In 1830 and 1831 France saw a conflict between supporters of restricted and universal suffrages. Among the former was also a conflict between supporters of knowledge and wealth. These conflicts did not disappear even when the revolutionary era was over. As early as seven years after the enactment of the Reform Act, the movement for electoral reform began again, resulting in a bill calling for the qualification to be given to those covered by the second list. (54) Causing a fervent debate, the bill was introduced to the Chamber of Deputies in February 1842. This debate was not exclusively centered on whether the qualification should be widened or not, as is clear in the distance between two supporters of this movement. Duvergier de Hauranne (55) advocated that the qualification be given to the intellectuals. He did not, however, prefer knowledge. His argument was based on the assumption that intellectuals possessed wealth. On the other hand, Carne (56) (in these days, at least) advocated that not wealth but knowledge be emphasized as the principle behind political and social hierarchy. Here we again find a conflict between wealth and knowledge. (57)

This conflict did not end among supporters of restricted suffrage, until the universal suffrage was suddenly introduced in 1848. (58) It meant the emergence of the people in the political arena, who did not necessarily have the political capacity. How should they be treated ? Among the supporters of universal suffrage, who won the February Revolution, existed two arguments. One of them acknowledged that "it was all right to put up with the delay, sometimes even to go back with them (the people : author)." (59) This means lowering the level of politics. In this case voters do not have to possess knowledge, for having an interest is sufficient. Their political participation will realize a coordination of various interests, that is to say, interest politics. (60) Another argument claimed that education of the people was necessary. Just after the February Revolution, a famous revolutionary, Blanqui, (61) demanded (whether strategically or not) the postponement of the election by universal suffrage, because the people did not possess the necessary knowledge. He demanded that knowledge be supplied to the people in order that everyone possess it. It did not mean lowering the level of politics, but ameliorating the quality of voters. Everyone will have a reasonable knowledge of politics, enough to judge general public interest.(62)

What about countermeasures adopted by supporters of restricted suffrage ? Various measures were possible and tried. Emphasizing knowledge, the Movement could accept the universal suffrage if education spread among the people. Adopting wealth as the franchise qualification, the Resistance had points of contact with universal suffrage, in that both preferred politics whose purpose was to fulfill (some) interests. (63) Needless to say, the countermeasures did not have to be limited to those concerning the election. According to Senior, (64) there were three means of governing the people : Restricted suffrage, patronage, and military repression. Which of them would be chosen after the February Revolution ? (65)

-->ENDNOTES