Notables and Universal Suffrage under the French Second Republic : Logic of the Electoral Law of 31 May 1850

ODANAKA, Naoki (Tohoku University TERG Discussion Paper 144, 1998)

(c) ODANAKA, Naoki, All Rights Reserved.

I

The French ruling classes in the first half of the nineteenth-century are usually referred to as Notables, but their distinctive features are not yet sufficiently clear. For example, we know little of their social thought, that is to say, the vision of society which they preferred.(1) This article intends to contribute to clarifying that vision by analyzing the electoral law of 31 May 1850 (hereinafter the New Electoral Law). But why an electoral law ? According to Tudesq, the ruling power of the Notables, based upon their role as intermediaries between national politics and the local population, was heavily indebted to the system of restricted suffrage. We may thus consider the electoral system as a key to their vision of society. In February 1848, however, the third revolution broke out and the second republic was born. As this "February Revolution" was triggered by the electoral reform movement, the Provisional Government hastened to adopt universal suffrage which gave the vote to almost all male adults over twenty one years of age. This electoral system, while enjoying wide support at its beginning,(2) did not satisfy many Notables. Their sentiment was clearly shown in a decision of the National Assembly to adopt the New Electoral Law which tightened the residential qualification for enfranchisement.(3)

This article continues the research from the following three viewpoints : the logic on which this disenfranchisement was based, the justifications of that measure adopted by the Notables, and the degree to which their intentions were realized by the law. As for the object of analysis, we shall use speeches made in the National Assembly, making complementary use of Interior and Justice Ministry documents conserved in the Archives Nationales in order to discover more about intentions of the Notables and social state of affairs in the Hexagon.(4)

The New Electoral Law has not attracted much interest among historians, probably because it was only in force for one year. According to the common view, it was enacted by the Notables who, finding a crisis of social order in the victory of the Republicans in the National Assembly by-elections of March and April 1850, wished to disenfranchise Republican supporters.(5) This view, however, has two problems. First, it does not make clear the character of Republican supporters.(6) Second, it does not answer the question why the Notables adopted a tightening of residential qualification as the means of disenfranchisement.(7)

II

We begin by surveying the pre-history of the New Electoral Law. According to Raphael, everything began with the discussion over electoral reform among the leaders of the Party of Order (the political spokesman of the Notables), shocked by the results of the March 1850 by-elections.(8) This discussion resulted in two bills, which were presented the following month to the National Assembly. One of them asked for the tightening of the residential qualification for enfranchisement (two consecutive years of residence in a commune). Supported by the government, it was committed to an extra-parliamentary commission nominated by the government. The bill, partially revised by the commission, was then committed to a parliamentary commission as a government bill.(9) It had two major prescriptions. First, it adopted three consecutive years of residence in one canton as the qualification for enfranchisement (Article 2). Second, it required, as the proof of residence, registration upon the personal tax roll (Article 3 Clause 1) or an affirmation from the parents in the case of sons living with them or from the employers in the case of workers and domestics living with them(Article 3 Clause 2).

The government and the Party of Order presented this bill because of their judgment that universal suffrage, by realizing the participation of the poor in the legislative process, aided the cause of the Republicans.(10) It seemed to them that they were failing to integrate, into the social order of their preference, these new poor electors. It was a difficult task to conciliate universal suffrage and the social integration of the people. Of course there had been some attempts since the February Revolution to do this. Moderate Republicans, for example, had tried to provide political education for the people, but the Notables had opposing opinions amongst themselves over the effect of that education.(11) Probably influenced by this vacillation, the Notables could not reach a consensus about the possibility of integration by the provision (or not) of knowledge.(12) If they still hoped to integrate the people in order to maintain the existing social order, it was natural to question universal suffrage.

Here we analyze how the residential qualification was fixed. The former electoral law of 15 March 1849 had one weak point for the Notables : asking no more than six months of residence as the qualification, it enfranchised "nomadic" people.(13) Article 2 of the government bill intended to disenfranchise them by tightening the qualification. To be excluded were not the settled people, however poor they might be, but the nomadic electors who, although estranged from local sentiment and indifferent to local interest, controlled the result of elections.(14) This claim obtained the consensus among the Party of Order members. Reports of the commissions concerned were full of such phrases as "attachment to the order" which only the settled people had, or "nomad existence" which should be excluded from the electoral process.(15) Factions of the Party of Order kept pace with one another in criticizing nomadic electors. It seems difficult to find any difference among Bechard (Legitimist) judging that "vagabonds and nomads are not citizens," Thiers (Orleanist) saying that "generally the nomadic people ... do not have a moral value any more," Montalembert (Catholic Party) claiming that "settled citizens must ... replace nomad electors," or the Minister of Interior (Bonapartist) demanding that "electors must take root."(16)

According to the Notables, the fault of nomadism lay in its effect of thinning the day-by-day personal relations of neighbors and relatives, causing the autonomization of voting behavior. If nomads vote autonomously, there would be no guarantee of them considering the moral order. Results of elections would often be contrary, leading to "the destruction of all hierarchy and discipline in French society." Voting thus had to be done "surrounded by the family, under the noses of colleagues, or at the center of all the human relations."(17) As for the autonomous behavior feared by the Notables, a Party of Order leader, Broglie, gave an interesting interpretation.(18) He found two distinct types among the people, one of which was ignorant and politically indifferent, and another of which had political interest. But he was afraid of both. The first type was easily manipulated by the Republican propaganda, which was pitched toward it all around France. In the Burgundy region, for example, the Republicans recruited supporters mainly from "unintelligent spirits."(19) The second type would, in the end, go to the barricade. For example, weavers of Sedan (Ardennes), intelligent enough to act according to their interest, had begun to criticize the actual state of things.(20) Notables feared that, once allowed to act autonomously, the people could take a hostile attitude toward the existing social order, whether they were interested in politics or not. It was thus an urgent task to hinder the deracination of the people which would lead to their autonomization or, if that was impossible, to move in such a way that the people would not control politics.

Behind such a judgment lay the fact that the political behavior of people was autonomizing. What is called the autonomization of political behavior here does not only mean having concern over "le politique," but also understanding that political institutions such as the election are useful for pursuing self-interest. In certain communes, for example, inhabitants used the "spontaneous," that is to say, unofficial election of Communal Councilors in order to solve local problems.(21) Inhabitants of La Garde-Freinet (Var) proceeded as far as to try "an attack against the public moral" by admitting women to participate in politics.(22) As the February Revolution realized universal suffrage, candidates were forced to take into consideration the intentions of the people. Local problems such as the clearance of the commons turned to be electoral issues, and mayors seeking reelection had to "depend entirely upon their administered in fear of losing their influence or popularity."(23) What is more, the political awakening of the people was shaking the social order in certain areas. The situation of Brioude (Haute-Loire) was an example. On the occasion of the National Assembly election of May 1849, a pamphlet entitled "Peasants of Brioude to peasants of the Haute-Loire" was published and much talked about there. Written by five would-be vine cultivators, it invited the people to choose their representatives not among "our clerics, big Bourgeois of our village, nor city Gentlemen" but among themselves. As the people accounted for ten elevenths of all electors, they could control any election if only they united in voting.(24) This pamphlet clearly manifested an intention to break the chain of dependence upon the Notables by using the political participation. Hastened by this state of things, a fear spread among the Notables : could they still impose their will upon the people ?(25)

Article 2 of the election bill was elaborated and presented as a measure to cope with this alarming situation. The tightening of the residential qualification had two purposes : the exclusion of the nomadic people from the public sphere (cite), and an encouragement to settle down. This bill wished to "bring them back home."(26) The settlement of the people had the advantage of bringing their voting under the influence of certain individuals, weakening the autonomy of their political behavior.(27) As for the influence-holders, they were defined as social superiors, family and relatives, neighbors, and friends.(28) The first category exerted vertical influence, and the others horizontal one. Vertical influence over the people, rarely mentioned during the discussion over the residential qualification, will be analyzed in the next section. As for horizontal influence, it must be noticed that two distinct visions of society lay behind it. Legitimists had an organic vision of society where horizontal influence would be exerted. "Families and communes united with one another by duties and interests" formed a society, where common interests were superior to individual ones.(29) On the other hand, some Orleanist deputies regarded the society as a network of equal individuals. Once settled, the people would enlighten one another by discussion, acquiring good sense.(30) The two factions of the Party of Order, although achieving a consensus through their fear of the nomadic and poor electors, had different visions of society. This difference would become clear at the last moment of the National Assembly discussion.

III

The government bill made it necessary to prove oneself not a nomad in order to enjoy the electoral right. Article 3 Clause 1 demanded that heads of family prove their residence by the registration upon the personal tax roll.(31) This clause intended to disenfranchise two categories. First, paupers who were living on poor relief (bienfaisance), for the personal tax law of 21 April 1832 stated that all the male adult heads of family, unless paupers, had to be registered upon the personal tax roll. Paupers thus found themselves unable to exert the electoral right, even when they were settled. This measure was justified by a judgment that they did not have the autonomy nor the independence necessary for political participation.(32) Paupers had neither "dignity nor independence which the citizen must have in order to vote" nor "the liberty necessary for distinguishing the truth."(33) Second, it was not only the pauper who was to be excluded from the public sphere. According to a calculation by one deputy, only about 5,400,000 of 9,994,000 electors paid personal tax in these days. More than four million electors did not pay it and could be disenfranchised if the government bill was passed, but he asked the Chamber "do you believe that four million French men are nomads or vagabonds ?"(34) In reality, the poor could be exempted from paying that tax (thus leading to the disenfranchisement) even though they were not paupers. Communes were authorized to establish standards which were used for the calculation of tax liability and for exemption from personal tax.(35) What is more, claimed some Party of Order deputies, enfranchisement, not a natural right, needed conditions, one of which was wealth.(36) Not only paupers but also the poor people should be excluded from the public sphere.(37)

But what was wrong with poverty, and what kind of society could be realized by the disenfranchisement of the people ? As these problems were not discussed at the National Assembly, we make a brief analysis of a book written by Thiers, entitled "Of Property," as an example of the arguments which criticized poverty and emphasized the importance of wealth.(38) This pamphlet, written in order to refute "Socialist" arguments, found a large audience among the Notables. The Ministry of Education bought and distributed many copies among educational institutions.(39) It was a kind of Manifesto of the Notables, and so appropriate to be examined here. It began by adopting, as the first axiom, an argument that "property is a product of labor." This axiom led to a judgment that searching for property was a human instinct and that the difference in wealth was natural. Thiers then went on to say that it was necessary to distinguish between already constituted wealth and that to be constituted in the future, regarding the latter as valueless. Surely he affirmed that social climbing had to be allowed in a society which emerged after the destruction of the corporative society, but it was only those which had already arrived that he adopted as worthy of merit. As such a distinction could cause popular discontent, Thiers asked religion to take the task of soothing the poor.(40) Poverty, caused by personal idleness, was to be criticized. We suppose that Article 3 Clause 1 of the government bill was to realize a society with a hierarchy based upon the amount of wealth and a mechanism reinforcing the existing social order.(41)

According to the personal tax law of 21 April 1832, sons, workers, and domestics living with their fathers or employers were not registered upon the personal tax roll. They were thus in the danger of losing the electoral right even when they had lived in one canton for three consecutive years. From them, workers became the focus of the National Assembly discussion. The parliamentary commission adopted employer affirmation as their proof of residence.(42) This Article 3 Clause 2 was proposed, however, not only as a necessary remedy, but also as a measure to realize a society which the Notables preferred. They needed it because workers and other people were autonomizing under their nose. "The false equality which tends to destroy all hierarchy and discipline" was spreading between workers and employers, domestics and patrons, children and parents, or soldiers and officers.(43)

Article 3 Clause 2 of the government bill was made from the very first as a countermeasure to the autonomization of the people, that is to say, as a means to reinforce the personal bond of domination between the Notables and people. That is why this clause was heavily blamed by the Republicans, even before the National Assembly discussion began.(44) According to them, it would force workers to beg for their electoral right from employers.(45) Facing these criticisms, Thiers could not but assume a threatening attitude, saying that such a relation already existed and influenced the voting behavior of people.(46) He and the Party of Order could not deny the possibility that employer affirmation might reinforce the personal dependence, rather it was what they hoped. They preferred a social order which united individuals organically and paternally. They thus had to attack those unwilling to obey their paternal rule.(47) This paternalism, having worked as an important political factor under the Restricted Suffrage Monarchies, was not drastically weakened by the February Revolution.(48) On the occasion of the National Assembly election of April 1848, we find many cases of paternal vote-leading exercised toward the newly enfranchised people, especially in rural areas. At the polling place of Saint-Severe (Indre), for example, two Notables gave speeches in the presence of almost one thousand electors, ordering a vote for "their" candidates.(49) At Mircour (Vosges), certain Notables controlled 80 % of the vote, using their monopoly of wealth, land, and employment.(50) Notables accepted universal suffrage as long as paternalism worked.(51 Shaking of this relation caused by the political awakening of the people was a serious problem, because it could give a damaging blow to their position as the ruling class. The government bill was charged with the task of reinforcing paternalism as a basis of social order. We reach a conclusion here about the concrete image of vertical influence which the Notables wished to exercise : it was nothing but paternalism, regarded as contradictory to the autonomy of the people.(52)

The government bill intended to exclude people from the public sphere. What we call people here are those who were to be blamed for their poverty and nomadism. Behind such an intention lay the Notables' preference and fear. First, preference of a society with a ruling-mechanism based upon organic and paternal personal relations, and with a hierarchy based upon wealth. Second, fear of the autonomization of people which threatened that society.

But the Notables, merely united by the fear, disagreed among themselves about concrete policy. These disagreements became clear at the last stage of National Assembly discussion. Nomadic and poor people could be disenfranchised without problem, but how about those poor but settled or those nomadic but not poor ? Legitimists presented several amendments concerning Article 3, based upon an affirmative judgment on the poor but settled people. Discussion by article of Article 3 began with a long criticism from a Legitimist deputy against it. According to him, it supposed that "men who are not rich are to be suspected and excluded." Disenfranchisement of poor but settled people had no advantage, however, for they generally supported the Notables.(53) This article thus had to be amended. From the same viewpoint, an amendment was presented whereby those unregistered upon the personal tax roll (paupers included) could vote if only they had been settled for three years.(54) It was opposed by the parliamentary commission and withdrawn by the author himself, but a Legitimist deputy immediately presented another one, in vain, which was nothing but a slightly modified version.(55) As is clear in the rejection of these amendments, it was the Orleanist tendency who gained the majority in National Assembly.

At the basis of these disagreements lay certain differences in the vision of society between the Legitimists (except Berryer and some others) and the Orleanists (with Berryer and some Legitimists). What the Legitimists criticized was not poverty but nomadism. It was the ruling-mechanism based upon the organic and paternal personal relation, rather than the hierarchy based upon the amount of wealth, that was to be maintained. Wealth and paternalism did not necessarily coexist harmoniously, and the latter was preferred when they confronted each other. Of course the poor people were positioned at the lower stratum of hierarchy, but they had their own raison d'etre in the social order. Orleanists, on the contrary, feared the poverty of people rather than their nomadism. They were preoccupied with the problem of how to stabilize the preponderance of the rich over the poor (we may call it plutocracy) rather than that of how to maintain paternal rule. It was thus necessary to exclude all the poor people from the public sphere, whether they were nomadic or not. What is more, we suppose that they detested paternalism because it looked like a vestige of the Ancien Regime. A speech by Faucher, the reporter of the parliamentary commission and leading supporter of the government bill, is an evidence.(56) He stood up against an amendment that Article 3 Clause 2 should also be applied to workers living separately from employers in order to allow the poor but settled people to participate in politics as far as possible. According to him, this amendment would lead to the "reestablishment ... of feudal clans." In that case "we will have to allow an industrialist to say <my workers>, like certain large proprietors who pretend to the right to say <my peasants>." It was undesirable for Faucher that paternalism be reinforced too much. The government bill was based upon the subtle coexistence of plutocracy and paternalism.

IV

On 31 May 1850 the National Assembly passed the bill after ten days of discussion. Here we examines the enforcement process of the New Electoral Law from the following three viewpoints : the response of the Notables outside of the National Assembly, the response of the people, and the degree to which the law met the expectations of the Notables.

As for the first viewpoint, many Notables outside of the National Assembly were dissatisfied with the law. Their sentiment was very well expressed in the discussion of departmental General Councils just after the enforcement of the law. Among sixteen Councils who made their opinion clear, only five supported it entirely, while eleven asked for some modification.(57) Unfavorable opinion was found mainly in the South-East and the West regions. As these were strongholds of the Legitimists, we may suppose that the law displeased many of them.(58) More informative are the answers of the prefects to a circular issued by the Minister of Interior on 23 July, which asked for a report concerning the manner in which the law was put into practice in each department. Two facts are found from these answers. First, local administrators charged with making a new electors' list tended to disenfranchise as few people as possible, even ignoring the law in some cases. At Castelnaudary (Aude), for example, all the male adult citizens were authorized as electors.(59) This attitude of the Notables was attributed to the pressure of the Republicans, an intention of carrying a smooth transition from universal to restricted suffrage, and a fear of making an enemy of the people by disenfranchising them.(60) Second, heads of family and employers, charged with the affirmation in the case when they lived with their sons, workers, or domestics, were generally indifferent to their duty.(61) Only in the West region was found a rather strong interest, which was a result of the Legitimists' fear of losing their clients.(62) To sum up, the Notables outside of the National Assembly, except for some Legitimists, had little interest in the New Electoral Law.(63) Their dissatisfaction concerned the possibility of it igniting the people.

As for the second viewpoint, judging from the reports of the Procureurs Generaux and of the prefects, the people did not actively respond to it.(64) Petition movement against the law is proof of this. As soon as the government bill was brought before the National Assembly, the Republicans began collecting signatures on the petition against the passage of the bill. Signatures, amounting to 527,000, had some regional and socio-professional characteristics : they were collected mainly from urban "workers," and the movement had some difficulty in rural areas.(65) In the Franche-Comte region, it left no traces in the rural villages. It was only at Montbeliard (Doubs) that some signatures were collected. In the Brittany region, it was "coldly met" except at Vannes, departmental capital of Morbihan. In the Nord region, the movement was continued here and there, but made some success only at Saint-Quentin (Aisne).(66) What is more, many complaints of fraud were laid everywhere in the Hexagon : asking signatures on the false pretexts, or signing petitions under false names .... (67) Of course these reports were made with an intention of giving an insignificant air to the petition movement, but the indifference of the rural people to the New Electoral Law remains impressive.(68) This indifference can mainly be attributed to their indifference to politics in general.(69) Unlike some urban dwellers, they did not think that voting was an untransferable right.(70) In the rural West, the people avoided politics and elections, fearing that the exercise of a political right would lead to new taxation.(71) As for the urban people, two opposite estimations were given. In some cities such as Besancon (Doubs), Montbeliard, or Sedan (Ardennes), they expressed their discontent with the disenfranchisement caused by the law.(72) In some others, on the contrary, they were politically indifferent.(73) So what did elections mean for the people in general ? In the above-mentioned reports were found testimonies that the people regarded voting as a kind of duty. It was nothing but "a charge," "a subject of embarrassment," "a kind of corvee," or "a tax."(74) We suppose that such a mentality also contributed to the theoretical justification of the disenfranchisement.

But did the law come up to the expectations of the Notables ? We analyze its effect at quantitative, political, and social levels. First, at the quantitative level, it disenfranchised almost three million (about 30 %) electors.(75) The disenfranchisement rate was higher in urban areas than in rural ones. Although the latter saw almost 20 to 30 % of electors disenfranchised, as much as 75 % of urban electors were deprived of their electoral right in some cases.(76) Second, at the political level, it is clear that the electoral law functioned to the advantage of the Party of Order. Looking at the results of General Councils elections held under the law, we could say that it gave a selective blow to Republican supporters : sixty-one Party of Order members and only nine Republicans were elected.(77) In the Burgundy region, 90 % of disenfranchised electors were supporters of the Republican Party. In the Loire department, the disenfranchisement rate of Republican supporters was twice as high as that of Party of Order ones.(78) Some Republican supporters went on as far as to change their stance, finding out how the wind blew.(79) Of course the law also hit the Party of Order supporters to some degree, particularly in rural areas. In the Brittany region, for example, certain of them saw themselves disenfranchised, as the Legitimist deputies had worried during the National Assembly discussion.(80) Third, at the social level, we can not give clear answer to the question whether the law contributed to the reorganization of the social order in favor of the Notables. Some reports said that the law reinforced the personal bond of domination, judging for example that "(agricultural : author) workers have become less arrogant toward the proprietors."(81) In other cases, on the contrary, the law worked against the Notables' intentions. Some disenfranchised electors, discontent with the law and urged by the Republican propaganda, planed to vote by force.(82) Certain electors, not even disenfranchised by the law, abstained from voting as a protest.(83) What was most serious for the Notables, however, was the emergence of a discontent which encouraged the people to resent the existing social order itself. In the Franche-Comte region, for example, the popular discontent changed its character from political to social ("hate and jealousy of inferior classes against higher classes"), partly stimulated by the law.(84) The New Electoral Law functioned in favor of the Notables, but did not come up to all their expectations concerning the reinforcement of the existing social order. On the part of the people excluded from the public sphere, not all of them did or had to retire from all political action. There were some cases where the law carried local political affairs to be interpreted in a national political language, hastening the political awakening of the people.(85) At the social level, the law should not be overestimated.

Behind the enactment of the New Electoral Law lay the fact that, partly occasioned by the introduction of universal suffrage, the existing social order had begun to be shaken. The law, designed as a countermeasure to this, was intended to stabilize and reinforce the social order of plutocracy and paternalism, by excluding the nomadic and poor people from the public sphere.(86) The law, however, had a contradiction in it : two components of the Party of Order, the Legitimists and the Orleanists, had different and opposite (to some degree) visions of society. They barely reached compromise by making an enemy of the nomadic and poor people. Bolstering up the Party of Order but not totally realizing its social purpose, this law was abolished by the Coup d'Etat of 2 December 1851, on the pretext of restoring universal suffrage. It meant for the Notables that things returned to as they had been before. Now they had to find another way to make their rule and universal suffrage consistent with each other, but what could they resort to ?(87)

-->ENDNOTES