Skip to main content

Full text of "The French Assembly of 1848 and American constitutional doctrines"

See other formats 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arcinive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/frenchassemblyofOOcurtuoft 


THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  AND 

AMERICAN  CONSTITUTIONAL 

DOCTRINES 


EUGENE  NEWTON  CURTIS,  M.  A. 

Assistant  Professor  of  Modern  European  History  at  Goucher  College 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 

FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

IN  THE 

Faculty  of  Poutical  Science 
Columbia  University 


NEW  YORK 
1917 


X53? 


Co 

ATHERTON     CURTIS 

IN  AFFECTIONATE  GRATITUDE 


PREFACE 

This  study  was  begun  at  Paris  in  191 3,  before  France 
and  the  United  States  were  allied  in  war  a  second  time.  In 
the  light  of  this  alliance,  it  becomes  peculiarly  gratifying  to 
find  that  a  close  friendship  existed  between  the  two  countries 
in  the  early  days  of  the  Second  Republic.  The  extent  to 
which  this  friendship  was  based  on  a  like  attitude  toward 
constitutional  problems  and  issued  in  an  endeavor  to  find 
similar  solutions  has  seemed  a  question  worthy  of  in- 
vestigation. 

I  wish  to  express  my  gratitude  to  M.  Emile  Bourgeois, 
professor  of  diplomatic  and  political  history  at  the  Sor- 
bonne,  to  M.  Georges  Renard,  professor  at  the  College  de 
France  and  editor  of  La  revolution  de  1848  for  helpful  sug- 
gestions at  an  early  stage  of  my  work  and  for  invaluable 
assistance  in  gaining  access  to  the  archives  of  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  and  to  the  archivists  of  the  Chamber  for  their 
unfailing  courtesy.  I  am  indebted  to  Professors  James 
Harvey  Robinson,  James  T.  Shotwell  and  Charles  A.  Beard 
of  Columbia  University  for  kindly  encouragement,  to  Pro- 
fessors Charles  D.  Hazen,  William  A.  Dunning  and  Wil- 
liam R.  Shepherd  for  useful  criticisms,  to  Professor  Hazen 
for  unstinted  aid  in  correcting  proof,  and  to  my  wife. 
Blanche  O.  Curtis,  for  faithful  cooperation  in  overcoming 
the  mechanical  difficulties  of  the  task  and  for  continued  in- 
spiration. 

185]  7 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 


Europe  and  America  in  1848:  A  Contrast 

Importance  of  1848 13 

Economic  and  political  situation  of  France  under  Louis  Philippe 17 

Crisis  of  1847 21 

Revolution  of  1848 24 

Territorial  expansion  of  the  United  States 26 

Military  spirit 25 

Economic  prosperity 29 

Social  enthusiasm 31 

French  interest  in  the  United  States  Constitution,  1 789-1 791 32 

«        «<            «<          «<          <«             ««              1830 35 

«*        «            «          ««          <«             «              1848 36 

CHAPTER  II 

Composition  of  the  Assembly 

"Work  of  the  French  provisional  government 37 

Growing  disaffection  of  the  working  class 38 

The  executive  commission 41 

Increased  discontent  of  radicals 42 

The  June  insurrection 43 

Contrast  in  spirit  of  February  and  June,  1848 47 

American  influence  in  campaign  addresses,  April,  1848  ..,.,..,.  47 

Elections  for  the  Constituent  Assembly 50 

Opening  of  Assembly 55 

Parties  in  Assembly 61 

Organization  of  Assembly 66 

Chronology  of  constitution 68 

187]  Q 


10  CONTENTS  [igg 

PAGB 

CHAPTER  HI 

What  France  Thought  About  America 

Official  recognition  of  French  Republic  by  United  States  minister 69 

Action  of  United  States  consul 76 

Action  of  American  colony 77 

President  Polk's  endorsement  of  minister's  action 78 

Action  of  Congress 81 

French  government's  reply 87 

American  offers  of  concrete  assistance 91 

Meetings  in  American  cities 93 

The  Democratic  National  Convention 96 

Effect  of  American  friendliness  on  French  thought 96 

Tocqueville's  Democracy  in  America , 97 

Chevalier's  letters  .   , 10 1 

Poussin's  works loi 

Collections  of  constitutions 102 

French  attitude  toward  the  American  ideal 103 

«'             "            ««         "   America  of  daily  life no 

CHAPTER  IV 
The  Representatives 

Biographical  compilations 116 

Test-votes 117 

Party  classification 122 

Liberals 123 

Radical  Republicans 1 27 

Socialists 129 

Conservatives J30 

Legitimists 136 

Unclassifiable  representatives 138 

Members  of  constitutional  commission 1 39 

Attitude  of  representatives  on  test-questions 143 

«         "             **               "   American  example 146 

CHAPTER  V 
The  Constitutional  Commission 

The  prods-verbal 149 

Subject-plan 150 

Debate  on  legislature 150 

"         «   executive 157 

"         "  judiciary 162 

Conclusion 163 


189]                                           CONTENTS  II 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  Assembly  Debates 

Preliminary  allusions  to  American  example 164 

Debate  on  preamble 165 

"         "   legislature 169 

**         *«   executive .    .    , 186 

«         "   judiciary 215 

«         «   government  ownership  of  railroads 215 

«         «            «'          control  of  press 223 

"        «             "          encouragement  of  agriculture 229 

Remarks  on  American  spirit  of  individualism 230 

«          "   paper-money 232 

Miscellaneous  allusions 233 

CHAPTER  VII 

Contemporary  Comment 

Classification  of  newspapers 241 

News-reports  .  .        244 

Report  of  bureaux'  discussions  of  the  constitution ...  247 

Editorials  on  general  value  of  American  example.    .   „ 258 

"         "   American  executive 269 

"         "          "          legislature 271 

"         "          **          judiciary 278 

"         "          "          preamble 278 

Miscellaneous  comment 279 

Newspaper  reprints  of  the  United  States  constitution 283 

Special  articles  on  the  United  States      286 

Pamphlet  literature 312 

Books  on  the  United  States 317 

CHAPTER  VIII 

Conclusions 

Influence  of  American  example  on  the  constitution  of  1848 324 

Summary  of  references  to  the  American  model 324 

Character  of  the  influence 326 

Attitude  of  French  parties  toward  the  American  system 326 

APPENDIX 

Constitution  of  1848 331 

Bibliography 347 


CHAPTER  I 

Europe  and  America  in  1848:  A  Contrast 

To  a  generation  like  our  own,  whose  emphasis  has  been 
increasingly  transferred  from  the  individual  to  society, 
whose  deepest  problems  lie  in  the  relations  of  employer  and 
wage-earner,  the  year  1848  stands  out  from  the  background 
of  its  insignificant  neighbors  with  a  special  meaning.  Down 
to  1848,  economics,  so  far  as  it  affected  politics,  had  been  pre- 
eminently the  science  of  the  production  of  wealth ;  from  then 
on  it  began  to  address  itself  seriously  to  the  problem  of  its 
distribution.  The  year  1848  marks  the  appearance  of  the 
wage-earner  as  a  serious  political  force;  it  is  the  starting- 
point  of  labor's  effort  to  make  for  itself  a  place  in  the  sun.  It 
is  distinctly  a  year  of  revolution!,  of  bloody  fighting,  mostly 
in  the  streets  of  great  capitals,  a  translation  of  the  industrial 
conflict  into  terms  of  barricades  and  bayonets.  But  it  would 
be  a  grave  error  if  one  were  to  think  of  1848  solely  or  even 
primarily  as  a  conscious  struggle  between  clearly  distinct, 
bitterly  hating  social  classes.  It  became  that  to  some  extent, 
but  never  entirely;  it  was  certainly  not  that  at  all  in  the  be- 
ginning. On  the  contrary,  1848  began  with  and  never  quite 
lost  a  certain  idyllic  charm  of  universal  brotherhood,  a  pas- 
sionate sense  of  human  equality.  To  some  extent  this  was 
a  hypocritical  pose ;  the  selfish  capitalist  of  Louis  Philippe's 
time  could  not  and  did  not  suddenly  change  his  skin,  as  was 
amply  proved  before  the  year  was  out.  But  the  mere  fact 
that  the  pose  was  necessar}-,  that  rich  candidates  for  of^ce 
gave  ouvrier  as  their  profession  in  order  to  have  a  chance 
for  victory  at  the  polls,  shows  how  general  the  enthusiasm 
191]  13 


14  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-j^2 

for  social  justice  had  become.  All  Europe,  catching  fire  from 
France,  burned  with  radical  fervor.  No  doubt  it  was  an 
impractical  time;  age-long  abuses  cannot  be  suddenly  solved 
by  a  burst  of  sentiment.  Uncalculating,  generous,  emotion 
formed  the  essential  atmosphere  of  the  moment,  but  the  vice 
of  impracticality  caused  its  failure.  The  year  1849  was 
an  equally  universal  time  of  reaction,  whose  edicts  of  ban- 
ishment gave  America  one  of  the  most  valuable  of  its  im- 
migrant strains. 

But  however  transitory  the  constructive  work  of  1848 
seems  tO'  have  been,  its  importance  is  undiminished  as  wit- 
nessing the  beginning  of  the  practical  study  of  the  social 
problem,  in  a  modern  way.  The  ideal  reconstructions  of  the 
Utopians,  of  St.  Simon  and  Fourier  began  now  to  yield  to 
definite  schemes  for  the  improvement  of  society  as  it  is.  This 
marks  the  first  aspect  in  which  1848  has  permanent  social 
meaning.  As  one  of  the  leading  French  authorities  on  the 
period,  M.  Renard,  said  to  the  writer,  "  For  me,  1848,  even 
more  than  1789,  is  the  mother  of  revolutions.  The  latter 
was  a  political  struggle  for  individual  rights,  the  former  a 
struggle  for  social  rights.  Many  of  the  concrete  schemes  for 
social  betterment  which  are  now  on  the  statute-books  of 
Europe,  were  suggested  then."  ^  The  French  Revolution  of 
1789  was  concerned  with  the  Rights  of  Man  in  the  singular, 
the  Revolution  of  1848,  in  the  intent  of  its  more  thorough 
exponents  at  least,  sought  to  realize  social  justice.  In  this 
respect  it  was  more,  not  less,  practical  than  its  great  prede- 
cessor, for  modern  man  has  moved  out  of  Rousseau's  Gar- 
den of  Eden  into-  the  cities.  And  there  was  hard  thinking 
on  concrete  problems,  though  it  was  too  confused  with 
visionary  schemes  to  get  much  of  a  hearing.  In  brief, 
1848  did  not  accomplish  as  much  as  its  reformers  expected 

1  For  a  detailed  statement  of  modern  labor  laws  traceable  to  the  in- 
spiration of  1848,  see  G.  Renard,  La  Repuhlique  de  1848,  pp.  383  et  seq. 


193]  EUROPE  AND  AMERICA  IN  1848  j  r- 

of  it;  their  enthusiasm  was  rudely  dealt  with  by  the  tri- 
umphant forces  of  reaction.  It  was,  however,  a  seed-time 
of  ideas,  whose  fruit  has  been  the  great  modern  body  of 
legislation  for  social  betterment.    Herein  lies  its  success. 

The  second  aspect  in  which  1848  has  permanent  historical 
meaning  is  in  its  failure.  Disillusionment  followed  hard  on 
rosy  dreams  of  a  millennium,  and  with  that  disappointment 
came  bitterness.  In  France,  the  new  order  of  things  was 
hardly  more  than  a  month  old,  when  such  posters  as  the 
following  were  affixed  to  the  walls  of  Paris : 

The  Committee  of  the  Democratic  Radical  Clubs 
TO  the 
Popular  Societies 
The  Republic,  quite  as  well  as  the  Monarchy,  may  harbor 
servitude  under  its  banner. 

Sparta,  Rome,  Venice  were  oppressive  and  corrupted 
Aristocracies.  In  North  America,  slavery  is  an  institution  of 
the  State. 

LIBERTY!  EQUALITY!  FRATERNITY! 

This  device  which  gleams  on  the  front  of  our  buildings 
must  not  be  a  mere  theatrical  adornment  [une  decoration 
d' Opera.]  Let  us  not  permit  it  to  become  a  lie  as  celebrated 
as  that  of  the  Charter :  "  All  Frenchmen  are  equal  before 
the  law." 

There  is  no  liberty  for  those  who  lack  bread! 

There  is  no  equality,  when  opulence  flourishes  at  the  side  of 
misery ! 

There  is  no  fraternity,  when  the  woman  of  the  people  drags 
herself,  famished,  with  her  children  to  the  doors  of  palaces. 

No  sterile  formulas!  It  is  not  enough  to  change  words, 
it  is  necessary  radically  to  change  conditions. 

The  Republic  for  us  is  the  complete  emancipation  of  the 
workers!  It  is  the  coming  of  a  new  order,  which  will  sweep 
away  the  last  form  of  slavery,  the  proletariat. 

The  tyranny  of  capital  is  more  pitiless  than  that  of  the 
sabre  and  the  censor.    It  must  be  broken. 


l5  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [j^^ 

The  February  Revolution  has  had  no  other  aim.  This  aim 
is  ours,  and  each  of  the  members  of  the  democratic  Committee 
engages  himself  to  pursue  it  without  relaxation,  until  it  be 
attained. 

Paris^  April,  1848/ 

This  dawning  despair  was  destined  to  increase,  not  to 
diminish.  When  the  fearful  insurrection  of  June  had  been 
quelled  with  equally  savage  ferocity,  Lamennais  exclaimed 
"  The  Republic  is  dead,"  while  George  Sand  wrote,  "  I  am 
horrified.  I  believe  no  longer  in  the  existence  of  a  republic 
which  commences  by  killing  its  proletarians."  ^ 

This  loss  of  faith  in  the  republic  as  the  outward  expres- 
sion of  universal  harmony  ushered  in  a  narrower,  but  in- 
tenser  loyalty,  that  to  one's  social  class  as  such.  Proudhon 
and  Blanqui  had  steadily  stood  for  that  idea  as  against 
Louis  Blanc  and  Pierre  Leroux.  But  the  classic  exponent 
of  the  doctrine  of  essential  antagonism  is  Karl  Marx,  whose 
star  begins  to  rise  at  this  time.  From  now  on  Marxian  so- 
cialism becomes  the  orthodox  form  of  radicalism,  whose 
leadership  passes  from  France  to  Germany.^  This  definite 
rise  of  class-consciousness  is  one  of  the  permanent  legacies 
of  the  failure  of  1848. 

No  doubt  can  exist  that  while  the  train  of  revolution 
throughout  Europe  was  already  laid  by  the  romantic,  liberty- 
loving  tendencies  which  had  dominated  thought  and  had 
found  expression  in  art,  literature,  music  and  political  aspira- 
tion through  the  whole  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  yet 
the  spark  was  ignited  by  the  February  revolution  in  France. 
The  specific  form  taken  by  the  movement  varied  everywhere 
according  to  local  conditions.     In  some  countries,  it  was  a 

1  Proclamation  of  Blanqui's  club,  just  before  April  16.  Printed  in 
Les  Afdches  Rouges. 

2  G.  Renard,  op.  cit.,  p.  86. 

3  Cf.  G.  Renard,  op.  cit.,  p.  380  et  seq. 


1^2]  EUROPE  AND  AMERICA  IN  1848  ly 

struggle  for  constitutionalism,  in  others  for  nationalism, 
whether  centripetal  as  in  Germany  or  centrifugal  as  in  Hun- 
gary. The  definite  impress  of  the  French  rising  is  to  be 
found  in  Baden  and  elsewhere.  But  the  line  was  not  yet 
sharply  drawn  between  political  and  economic  radicalism; 
it  could  not  be  until  the  failure  of  1848  brought  a  sharper 
classK:onsciousness  into  being.  Thus  it  happened  that  in 
most  of  these  revolutions,  the  more  advanced  economic  pro- 
gram of  the  Paris  movement  was  entirely  lacking,  while 
their  general  spirit  of  radicalism  was  manifestly  akin.  At 
that  time  all  men  looked  to  political  reform  as  the  panacea 
for  social  ills. 

Turning  from  the  general  causes  that  lay  back  of  the 
European  revolutions  of  1848  to  a  closer  analysis  of  the 
movement  in  France,  let  us  consider  briefly  the  economic 
and  political  situation  in  the  reign  of  Louis  Philippe. 
Speaking  generally,  the  social  and  economic  structure  of 
the  country  resembled  more  closely  the  France  of  the 
eighteenth  century  than  the  France  of  to-day.  Life  was 
still  relatively  simple.  As  late  as  1850,  more  than  three- 
fourths  of  the  population  lived  in  communities  of  less  than 
two  thousand  inhabitants.  Except  Paris,  which  had 
i»053>ooo  at  that  time,  only  Lyons,  Marseilles  and  Bordeaux 
exceeded  100,000;  Rouen  just  touched  that  number.  There 
were  no  great  industries  in  the  modem  sense ;  manufactur- 
ing was  carried  on  in  small  establishments,  often  in  a  family 
atelier.  The  country  was  essentially  agricultural.  Agri- 
culture itself  was  backward.  The  rotation  system  (assole- 
ments)  was  practised,  25,000,000  hectares  being  worked, 
while  5,000,000  were  kept  idle  to  rest  the  soil.  There  were 
few  means  of  locomotion.  Macadam  roads  were  just  be- 
ginning to  be  built,  the  majority  of  roads  were  still  paved. 
Railroads  were  rare;  the  diligence  transported  passengers, 
wagons  carried  articles  of  commerce  tO'  the  market.    Food 


l8  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  |-jq5 

crises  still  occurred,  especially  in  the  provinces,  as  in  the 
eighteenth  century.  There  was  little  popular  education. 
Newspapers  (subject  to  a  cautionnement,  or  bond  for  polit- 
ical good  behavior)  were  expensive  luxuries.  Public  life 
was  restricted  to  the  pays  legal,  which  meant  that  only  those 
voted  who  paid  200  francs  in  direct  taxes  (not  more  than 
200,000  were  so  qualified),  while  only  those  who  paid  500 
francs  in  taxes  were  eligible  to  sit  in  parliament.  There  were 
few  shares  listed  on  the  Bourse ;  mostly  Government  rentes, 
titres  of  the  Banque  de  France  and  canal-shares,  little  else. 
Limited  companies  were  almost  unknown.  France  was 
strongly  centralized,  but  very  slightly  unified.  Social  dis- 
tinctions, for  example,  were  strongly  marked.  The  blouse 
marked  the  workman,  the  habit  the  bourgeois;  the  former 
wore  a  bonnet^  the  latter  a  chapeau;  the  latter  was  a  mon- 
sieur, the  former  an  homme.^  Such  was  the  case  despite  the 
monarch's  supposed  democratic  tendencies.  The  old  heredi- 
tary aristocracy,  based  on  birth  and  land,  had,  it  is  true, 
lost  control  with  the  downfall  of  Charles  X,  but  it  had 
merely  been  replaced  by  the  new  aristocracy  of  wealth. 
Bourbon  legitimism  had  yielded  to  bourgeois  capitalism,  in- 
significant as  yet  if  measured  by  modern  standards,  but 
growing  ever  more  powerful  through  the  favor  of  the  Or- 
leanist  regime.^ 

1  P^ide  C.  Seignobos*  lectures,  "Histoire  politique  de  la  France  con- 
temporaine  depuis  1848,"  in  the  Revue  des  cours  et  conferences  for 
1907-08,  vol.  i,  esp.  pp.  175  and  176.  Cf.  E.  Levasseur,  Histoire  des 
classes  ouvrieres  et  de  Vindustrie  en  France  de  1789  a  1870,  vol.  ii,  bk.  iv. 

2  "  Posterity,  which  sees  only  striking  crimes  and  whose  notice,  ordi- 
narily, vices  escape,  will  perhaps  never  know  to  what  degree  the  gov- 
ernment of  that  time  had,  toward  the  end,  taken  on  the  features  of  an 
industrial  company,  where  all  the  operations  are  made  with  a  view  to 
the  profit  which  the  stockhold'ers  may  draw  from  them.  These  vices 
sprang  from  the  natural  instincts  of  the  ruling  class,  from  its  absolute 
power,  from  the  very  character  of  the  age.  King  Louis-Philippe  had 
perhaps  contributed  to  their  increase."  A.  de  Tocqueville,  Souvenirs, 
p.  7. 


jQ^]  EUROPE  AND  AMERICA  IN  1848  ^g 

It  is  this  great  and  sudden  growth  of  weahh  that  forms 
the  chief  significance  of  the  Orleanist  period  to  the  student 
of  1848,  for  without  it  the  revolution  in  the  form  which  it 
assumed  would  have  been  impossible.  It  is  interesting  to 
see  how  undeveloped  the  age  still  was,  in  contrast  to  the 
twentieth  century;  it  is  even  more  important,  however,  to 
note  the  new  tendency  which  had  gripped  and  mastered  it 
and  was  rushing  it  away  from  the  quiet  past  into  new  and 
complex  problems.  For  France  was  in  the  throes  of  a  vaster 
movement  than  that  of  1848;  she  was  in  the  full  tide  of  the 
Industrial  Revolution. 

The  political  philosophy  of  Louis  Philippe  was  essentially 
that  of  his  favorite  minister,  Guizot,  whose  power  lasted 
uninterruptedly  from  1840  to  1848.  It  was  a  policy  of  ex- 
ternal peace  and  internal  economic  development.  Having 
managed  to  go  through  the  Oriental  crisis  without  warfare, 
though  without  much  glory,  the  government's  caution  in  for- 
eign affairs  became  more  and  more  pronounced.  It  reached 
its  extreme  point  in  the  Pritchard  affair  (1844),  when 
France  humbled  herself  before  England.  This  was  so  much 
the  easier  to  do,  because  England's  constitutional  and  social 
structure  was  the  model  which  Orleanist  France  admired 
and  strove  to  emulate.  The  entente  cordiale  with  the  Eng- 
land of  Adam  Smith  was  as  fixed  an  article  of  political  faith 
with  Guizot  as  was  the  entente  cordiale  with  the  Austria  of 
Metternich.  These  two  ideals  furnish  the  key  to  the  last 
years  of  Orleanist  France.  "  Enrichissez-vous "  ^  cried 
Guizot  to  his  capitalist  friends,  while  turning  a  stony  im^ 
passivity  to  the  opposition  in  its  efforts  to  extend  the  pays 

^  Guizot  denied  ever  making  use  of  this  expression,  attributed  to  him 
by  a  hostile  newspaper  in  its  report  of  a  speech  made  by  him  to  his 
electors  in  1846.  It  became  famous,  however,  and  even  if  unhistorical, 
adequately  expresses  his  economic  philosophy.  Cf.  Hamel,  Histoire  de 
France  depuis  la  revolution,  vol.  8,  p.  573  and  note. 


20  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-j^g 

legal  ever  so  little.  The  glorification  of  property,  both  land 
and  fluid  capital,  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  his  Democratie  en 
France  was  written  from  Guizot's  heart.  To  this  official 
policy,  the  new  capitalist  aristocracy  responded  with  zest. 
Mechanical  inventions,  new  industrial  processes,  but  especi- 
ally railroads,  gave  opportunities  for  speculation  and  enrich- 
ment at  a  rate  previously  unknown.  Guizot  points  with 
justifiable  pride  to  the  fact  that  the  increase  in  the  ordinary 
revenues  of  1847  over  those  of  1829  amounted  to  349,413,- 
354  francs.  Of  this  increase,  a  part  was  indeed  due  to  new 
direct  taxes,  but  the  growth  in  revenue  from  indirect  taxa- 
tion, amounting  to  243,317,400  francs  or  nearly  three- 
fourths  of  the  whole,  was  "almost  solely  the  result  of  the  con- 
tinuous progress  of  general  well-being  and  national  wealth."  ^ 
As  early  as  1842,  a  proposed  trade  agreement  between 
France  and  Belgium  was  abandoned  by  the  government  at 
the  behest  of  the  great  manufacturers  and  mine-owners  of 
the  north.  On  February  7th,  1842,  Guizot  launched  his  vast 
railway  scheme.  Up  to  that  time,  little  had  been  done, 
though  much  had  been  said.  According  to  the  new  scheme, 
France,  then  far  behind  other  countries  in  railroad  con- 
struction, was  to  be  covered  with  a  network  connecting 
Paris  with  Lille,  the  Channel,  Bordeaux,  Marseilles,  Lyons, 
Strasburg,  in  fact  all  the  important  cities  of  the  kingdom. 
2500  kilometers  were  thus  to  be  built  by  joint  public  and 
private  effort;  the  roads  (which  were  owned  by  privaite 
capital)  were  to  furnish  the  equipment,  complete  the  con- 
struction and  operate  on  a  long  franchise.  There  were 
scandals  and  speculations,  but  the  roads  were  built,  in  part 
at  least.     At  the  end  of  1841,  France  had  only  877  kilo- 

1  Guizot,  Memoires  pour  servir  <i  Vhistoire  de  mon  temps,  1867  ed., 
vol.  8,  p.  609  et  seq. 


jgg-^  EUROPE  AND  AMERICA  IN  1848  2I 

meters  of  railroads,  of  which  566  were  in  operation.     In 
1847,  there  were  1832  kilometers/ 

The  era  of  speculation  and  prosperity  was  followed  by  the 
panic  of  1847,  which  started  in  England.  The  period  of 
expansion  began  there  about  1843.  ^^  1844,  the  deposits  of 
the  Bank  of  England  passed  fifteen  millions,  while  the  dis- 
count rate  fell  to  two  per  cent,  even  to  one  and  one-half  per 
cent.  Then  the  railroad-building  fever  came  there  too.  The 
Economist  calculates  that  the  new  lines,  receiving  conces- 
sions at  that  time,  called  for  £200,000,000.  There  was 
great  speculation  in  other  new  enterprises.  Such  was  the 
position  of  affairs  when,  in  1846,  a  potato  disease  and  a  bad 
wheat  crop  required  heavy  food  importations  which  necessi- 
tated considerable  exports  of  specie  in  the  spring  of  1847. 
Credit  was  violently  shaken  in  January,  but,  during  the  sum- 
mer, gold  began  to  return,  and  the  danger  was  considered 
past.  Towards  autumn,  the  drainage  of  gold  began  again 
and  the  Bank  of  England  was  compelled  to  raise  its  rate  of 
discount  abruptly.  Panic  ensued.  Bankruptcies  com- 
menced with  those  of  the  wheat  merchants.  The  quarter 
fell  from  102  shillings  in  January  to  49  shillings  in  Septem- 
ber. In  October,  the  crisis  was  at  its  height.  Discount  was 
then  at  eight  per  cent.  Factories  were  closed,  railroad 
workmen  discharged,  construction  ceased  for  lack  of  capital. 
Misery  was  universal.^  This  situation  was  not  without  a 
parallel  in  other  countries.    France  and  Germany  saw  their 

1  Articles  "  Chemin  de  fer"  and  "France  (Industrie)"  in  La  Grande 
Encydopedie.  Guizot  states,  however,  that  on  Dec.  31,  1847,  there  were 
2059  kilometers  in  full  operation  and  2144  under  construction.  {Mem- 
oir es,  vol.  8,  p.  626.)  That  this  is  an  overestimate  seems  probable 
from  a  comparison  of  the  figures  given  in  the  text  with  those  of  A.  de 
Foville  (in  La  Transformation  des  moyens  de  transport,  p.  18  et  seq.). 
Foville  gives  for  1841,  571  km.;  for  1847,  1829  km. 

2  Art.  "  Crise,"  by  Emile  de  Laveleye  in  La  Grande  Encydopedie, 
vol.  13,  p.  383. 


22  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["200 

unsubstantial  cloud-castles  come  crashing  to  the  ground  in 
turn.  In  France,  government  expenses  had  been  mounting 
steadily.  From  1840  to  1846,  in  spite  of  an  average  annual 
increase  in  receipts  of  40  millions,  the  total  excess  of  dis- 
bursements over  receipts  had  reached  433  millions.  The 
failure  of  the  wheat  crop  in  1846  affected  France  as  well  as 
England:  here,  too,  grain  had  to  be  purchased  abroad,  at 
the  cost  of  heavy  specie  exportations.  Floods  in  1846 
caused  much  damage.  The  railroad  project  drained  the  re- 
sources of  the  state  heavily  and,  as  the  defeated  partisans 
of  government  ownership  grumbled,  all  for  the  benefit  of 
private  corporations.  In  less  than  two  years  the  companies 
had  contracted  loans  to  the  amount  of  1300  millions,  and  the 
treasury  a  loan  of  200  millions,  or  1500  million  francs  for 
railroad  construction.  The  public  was  swept  away  by  the 
mad  fever  of  speculation  in  these  securities,  which  rose  to 
fabulous  quotations.  Meanwhile  the  Bank  of  France,  un- 
able to  cope  with  these  heavy  demands,  saw  its  balance 
diminish  by  172  millions  from  July  ist,  1846  to  January  ist, 
1847.  It  was  compelled  to  borrow  25  millions  in  bullion 
from  London.  Discount  commenced  to  rise.  Credit  was 
tightened  and  the  market  began  to  totter.  The  budget  for 
1848  foresaw  a  further  deficit  of  243  millions  in  the  national 
treasury.  To  cover  it,  a  new  loan  of  350  millions  was 
contracted  in  July,  which  added  its  weight  to  depress  the 
already  overburdened  market.  Wheat  continued  to  rise ;  in 
January,  it  was  already  up  to  29.92  francs  a  hectolitre,  by 
June  in  certain  places  it  touched  49.70.  Riots  broke  out, 
bands  of  armed  peasants  opposed  the  movement  of  crops, 
and  blood  was  shed,  before  the  mihtary  could  restore  order. 
Railroad  construction  was  suspended,  workmen  saw  them- 
selves discharged  or  their  wages  reduced,  industry  came  to 
a  halt,  it  was  a  time  of  panic  and  privation.^ 

1  Gamier- Pages,  La  Revolution  de  1848,  vol.  i,  ch.  i  and  ii.  , 


201  ]  EUROPE  AND  AMERICA  IN  1848  23 

Perhaps  if  the  economic  crisis  of  1847  had  stood  by  itself, 
there  would  have  been  no  revolution  in  France,  any  more 
than  in  England.  But  it  did  not  stand  by  itself.  It  was 
aggravated  by  a  political  crisis. 

To  begin  with,  the  two  causes  of  popular  discontent,  the 
economic  and  the  political,  were  unhappily  linked  by  the 
revelation  of  a  number  of  grave  scandals  affecting  men  in 
high  position.  Corruption  was  uncovered  in  the  supply 
departments  of  the  army  and  navy,  particularly  in  connection 
with  Algeria,  whereby  inferior  food  for  the  men  and 
horses  and  poor  coal  for  the  ships  had  been  accepted  by  the 
authorities. 

A  still  greater  sensation  was  caused  by  the  publication  of 
letters  which  had  passed  between  M.  de  Cubieres,  lieutenant- 
general,  and  a  mine-owner  at  Gouhenans,  whereby  the  for- 
mer demanded  and  obtained  45  shares,  worth  ioo,cxx)  francs, 
to  gain  for  the  latter  the  necessary  support  in  the  council  of 
ministers  for  certain  coal  and  salt-mine  concessions.  The 
man  higher  up  in  this  scandal  turned  out  to  be  M.  Teste,  a 
former  minister,  then  sitting  in  the  Chamber  of  Peers  and 
acting  as  president  de  chambre  at  the  Court  of  Cassation. 
In  July  the  trial  was  held  before  the  Chamber  of  Peers,  the 
defendants  found  guilty,  and  sentenced  to-  a  heavy  fine  and 
imprisonment 

These  sporadic  scandals,  however,  though  more  spectacu- 
lar, were  in  reality  of  far  less  importance  than  the  insidious 
and  thorough-going  corruption  of  the  parliamentary  major- 
ity by  the  government.  As  has  been  indicated  above,  the 
parliament  was  elected  on  an  extremely  restricted  franchise 
and  was  thus  already  the  choice  of  the  property-holding  and 
well-to-do  classes.  It  was  thus  almost  entirely  conservative 
in  its  composition,  as  a  result  of  such  an  election.  But  to 
make  its  control  absolutely  sure,  the  government  appointed 
no  fewer  than  200  out  of  a  chamber  of  459  to  posts  in  the 


24  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [202 

civil  service/  These  office-holders,  who  owed  their  places 
to  the  cabinet,  always  voted  for  it  solidly  and  constituted 
the  main  strength  of  the  government  party.  There  were 
hence  two  lines  of  action  on  the  part  of  the  opposition, 
electoral  reform  and  parliamentary  reform.  The  first  line 
was  taken  in  the  proposition  presented  by  Duvergier  de 
Hauranne  in  March  1847;  i^  called  for  a  lowering  of  the 
voter's  qualification  from  200  to  100  francs!,  the  addition 
of  the  ''  capacities  "  to  the  list  of  voters  (i.  e.  a  limited  num- 
ber of  intellectuals,  whose  education  would  be  a  sufficient 
safeguard  of  their  conservatism),  and  an  increase  in  the 
number  of  deputies  from  459  to  538.  The  other  line  was 
taken  in  M.  de  Remusat's  project  of  April,  which  would 
establish  the  ineligibility  to  the  chamber  of  all  officers  of  the 
army  and  members  of  the  military  and  civil  households  of 
the  king  and  the  princes.  Both  of  these  projects  were  de- 
feated, the  latter  by  a  smaller  majority  than  the  former. 

There  soon  followed  the  famous  campaign  of  the  ban- 
quets, which  began  at  Paris,  July  9th,  and  continued  through- 
out the  remainder  of  the  year  in  all  parts  of  France.  At 
these  banquets,  organized  by  the  opposition,  the  principles 
of  reform  were  patiently  propagated  among  the  people. 

It  was  this  campaign  which  led  directly  up  to  the  Revolu- 
tion of  1848.  The  prohibition  of  the  final  banquet,  planned 
for  February  22,  the  popular  uprising  on  that  and  the  suc- 
ceeding day,  the  dismissal  of  the  Guizot  ministry,  the  public 
rejoicing  interrupted  by  a  fresh  clash  with  the  troops,  the 
renewal  of  the  struggle  on  February  24  with  heightened 
bitterness,  the  abdication  and  flight  of  the  king  and  the  vain 
effort  to  establish  a  regency  are  too  well-known  to  need 
repetition  here. 

Republican  propaganda  had  been  going  on  all  through 

1  E.  Hamel,  Histoire  de  France  depuis  la  rSvoluHon,  vol,  8,  p.  499. 


203]  EUROPE  AND  AMERICA  IN  1848  25 

Louis  Philippe's  reign  in  the  clubs  and  secret  societies.  Of 
late  it  had  taken  a  distinctly  socialist  turn,  due  in  large  part 
to  the  economic  distress  traced  above,  and  to  the  miserable 
condition  of  the  working-classes  in  the  early  days  of  the 
Industrial  Revolution/  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  Revolu- 
tion of  1848  was  carried  through  in  the  cities;  the  country- 
districts,  still  strongly  agricultural,  followed  their  lead,  but 
with  lukewarm  interest,  and  later  formed  the  strength  of  the 
reaction  that  carried  Louis  Napoleon  into  power.  The  23rd 
of  February  was  the  day  when  the  political  interests  of  the 
lower  middle  class  were  uppermost  in  the  public  mind ;  the 
battle-cry  was  Vive  la  reforme;  that  night,  with  the  choice 
of  the  Barrot  ministry,  they  had  gained  their  cause.  The 
24th  of  February  was  the  day  when  the  economic  grievances 
of  the  wage-earning  class  held  the  stage ;  the  workers  won 
their  victory  that  afternoon  when  in  a  stormy  session,  in- 
vaded by  the  populace,  the  chamber  rejected  the  regency  and 
chose  a  Provisional  Government  consisting  of  Dupont 
(de  I'Eure),  Arago,  Lamartine,  Ledru-RoUin,  Gamier- 
Pages,  Marie  and  Cremieux,  the  majority  of  whom  were 

1  A  careful  study  shows  that  workmen  took  little  part  in  the  republican 
societies  and  propaganda  until  1834.  Both  during  the  Restoration  and  the 
first  four  years  of  the  July  monarchy,  the  membership  of  the  societies 
was  bourgeois,  students  and  journalists  playing  an  important  part.  The 
secret  societies  from  1834  to  1848  were,  however,  largely  composed  of 
workmen,  the  Saisons  being  entirely  so.  Workmen  were,  however,  rarely 
leaders  of  the  societies.  It  is  to  be  noted  also  that  the  workmen  interested 
in  politics  formed  only  a  small  minority  of  the  total  working  population, 
and  consisted  chiefly  of  those  living  in  Paris,  Lyons  and  a  few  large 
towns,  the  industrial  north  and  east  being  largely  indifferent.  The 
majority  preferred  the  strike  as  a  weapon  for  industrial  grievances, 
and  many  of  these  strikes  were  violent.  Cf.  G.  Weill,  Hist,  du  parti 
republican  en  France  de  1814  d  1870, 1.  Tchernoff,  Le  parti  repuhlicain  sous 
la  monarchie  de  juillet,  but  especially  the  contemporary  sources  referred 
to  in  the  latter's  excellent  bibliography,  particularly  the  Revue  retro- 
spective, no.  I  and  the  reports  of  the  various  political  proces  of  the 
time,  published  in  the  pamphlet  literature  of  the  period. 


26  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [204 

moderate  republicans.  Their  number  was  soon  after  in- 
creased at  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  which  became  the  new  seat 
of  government,  by  a  socialist  and  radical  group,  Louis 
Blanc,  Marrast,  Flocon,  and  Albert,  a  workman,  who  were 
first  accepted  only  as  secretaries,  but  presently  tacitly  ad- 
mitted as  full  members.  These  groups  represented,  roughly 
speaking,  the  more  moderate  National  and  the  more  radical 
ReformCy  the  two  chief  republican  newspapers  in  whose 
offices  the  preliminary  caucuses  on  names  had  been  held. 
Here  was  a  line  of  cleavage  destined  ultimately  to  destroy 
the  republic.  For  the  moment,  howeven,  all  was  harmony. 
Social  distinctions  were  forgotten,  political  oppression  had 
reached  its  close.  The  people  were  light-headed  with  the 
intoxication  of  their  painless  victory,  so  sudden,  and  so  in- 
credibly complete.  Tous  les  hommes  sont  freres  was  a 
phrase  repeated  again  and  again  in  official  and  unofficial 
proclamations.  The  atmosphere  men  breathed  was  sur- 
charged with  sentiment.  "  It  was  as  though  one  swam  in 
a  sea  of  milk,"  says  M.  Renard.  Lamartine,  the  poet,  was 
the  natural  head  of  such  a  movement.  "  We  are  making  to- 
day the  most  sublime  of  poems,"  he  cried  in  a  sort  of  Delphic 
ecstacy  to  the  enraptured  throngs  who  mistook  his  eloquence 
for  statesmanship.  Idealism,  radicalism,  brotherhood  were 
on  the  tongues,  if  not  in  the  hearts,  of  all. 

Such  was  France  in  1848.  America  presents  a  striking 
contrast.  In  the  first  place,  the  United  States  was  at  that 
time  in  the  full  swing  of  an  era  of  territorial  expansion. 
For  some  years  there  had  been  a  growing  sentiment,  especi- 
ally in  the  south,  in  favor  of  the  annexation  of  Texas.  In 
1844,  Andrew  Jackson  wrote  a  letter  of  introduction  for  the 
Texan  commissioner  to  the  United  States,  in  which  he  said 
that  "  the  present  golden  moment  to  obtain  Texas  must  not 


205]  EUROPE  AND  AMERICA  IN  1848  27 

be  lost,"  ^  though  Texas  was  still  claimed  by  Mexico,  a 
friendly  state.  The  annexation  fever  spread  like  wildfire 
and  the  election  of  1844  turned  on  it.  James  K.  Polk  was 
nominated  by  the  Democrats  on  a  platform  calling  for  an- 
nexation. President  Tyler,  the  original  annexation  man, 
was  renominated  by  a  faction  with  the  slogan  "  Tyler  and 
Texas,"  but  his  personal  unpopularity  was  too  great  to  be 
overcome  by  the  catchword  of  the  hour.  Van  Buren,  the 
favorite,  lost  his  chance  for  the  Democratic  nomination  by 
coming  out  against  annexation,  and  Clay,  the  Whig  nominee, 
hedged.  Mass  meetings  were  held  all  over  the  south  de- 
manding annexation;  at  many  of  them  there  were  threats 
to  secede  rather  than  abandon  Texas.  The  interests  of  the 
cotton-trader  and  the  desire  for  more  slave  territory  were  at 
the  bottom  of  this  Texas  enthusiasm,  but  the  spirit  of  im- 
perialism in  north  and  south  alike  kept  it  from  being  a  purely 
sectional  issue.  Polk,  though  relatively  obscure,  was  elected 
over  his  more  distinguished  opponents  and  on  March  ist, 
1845,  ^s  one  of  his  last  official  acts,  Tyler  signed  a  joint 
resolution  of  Congress  annexing  Texas. 

Meanwhile,  the  Oregon  claims  provided  an  opportunity 
to  restore  the  political  and  economic  equilibrium  of  north 
and  south.  Oregon  was  a  region  between  California,  which 
belonged  to  Mexico,  and  Alaska,  which  belonged  to  Russia. 
For  twenty  years,  the  delimitation  of  this  territory  had  been 
in  dispute  between  the  United  States  and  England.  The 
question  was  partly  one  of  discovery  and  partly  one  of  occu- 
pancy; the  crux  of  the  matter  was  who  was  to  control  the 
fur-trade  of  the  Columbia  River.  If  Texas  meant  cotton, 
Oregon  meant  fur,  and  both  meant  money  as  well  as  the 
satisfaction  of  national  pride  in  extended  boimdaries.  The 
latter  motive  was  perhaps  uppermost  in  the  popular  war-cry 

1  McMaster,  History  of  the  People  of  the  U.  S.,  vol.  vii,  p.  z^Z- 


28  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [206 

of  the  time,  "  Fifty-four  forty  or  fight,"  54°  40'  being  the 
southern  border  of  Alaska.  But  the  realization  of  the  fact 
that  the  Rockies  could  be  crossed  and  that  the  Far  West  was 
open,  country  to  such  settlers  as  chose  to  come,  lent  another 
economic  motive  to  the  patriotic  impulse.  The  Polk  plat- 
form declared  "  that  our  title  to  the  whole  of  the  Territory 
of  Oregon  is  clear  and  unquestionable ;  that  no  portion  of  the 
same  ought  to  be  ceded  to  England  or  any  other  power,  and 
that  the  re-occupation  of  Oregon  and  the  re-annexation  of 
Texas  at  the  earliest  practicable  period  are  great  American 
measures,  which  the  Convention  recommends  to  the  cordial 
support  of  the  Democracy  of  the  Union."  ^ 

If  war  with  England  over  Oregon  was  averted,  war  with 
Mexicoi  over  Texas  was  not.  In  consequence,  military  pride 
at  that  time  became  a  marked  characteristic  of  America  in 
our  period.  It  is  only  fair  to  say  that  there  was  a  strong  anti- 
war party  among  the  northern  Whigs  and  that  Congress  was 
flooded  with  petitions  to  stop  the  unrighteous  contest.  But 
the  dominant  sentiment  was  shown  by  the  Whig  nomination 
of  General  Zachary  Taylor  for  President  in  1847,  so  little 
a  politician  that  there  was  some  doubt  as  to  whether  he  was 
a  Whig  or  a  Democrat.  But  he  was  the  incarnation  of  the 
victorious  army  and  that  was  enough.  "All  parties,  and  all 
the  politicians  might  combine  against  Taylor ;  abolitionism, 
Fourierism,  and  radicalism  might  unite  to  cry  him  down; 
the  North  and  the  South  might  rally  as  they  pleased  on  the 
Wilmot  Proviso,  and  the  cry  of  '  slave-holder '  might  be 
uttered  by  every  Abolition  press  and  throat  in  the  land,  but 
it  would  not  avail.  A  great,  generous,  and  grateful  people 
would  unite,  and  with  one  accord  put  Zachary  Taylor  in 
the  seat  of  him  who  had  not  scrupled  to  plan  his  destruc- 
tion." ^     The  Democrats  could  do  no  better  than  put  up 

1  McMaster,  op.  cit.,  vol.  vii,  p.  355  et  seq. 

2  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer^  quoted  by  McMaster,  op.  cit.,  voU 
vii,  p.  541. 


2oy]  EUROPE  AND  AMERICA  IN  1848  29 

another  man  with  a  military  title,  General  Cass,  who,  how- 
ever, was  more  eminent  in  politics  than  in  war.  The  Lon- 
don Times  in  an  editorial  of  October  20,  1848,  says,  some- 
what exaggerating  the  General's  military  exploits :  "  Cass 
is  nothing  more  than  a  mihtary  rival.  Glory  just  now  is 
the  fashion  and  the  President  must  at  least  be  a  distin- 
guished General.  The  Whigs  have  set  up  one  and  the 
Democrats  another.  The  achievements  of  the  two  candi- 
dates are  compared  step  by  step,  their  killed  and  wounded 
reckoned  up,  their  marches  timed  and  measured,  and  the 
value  of  their  captures  reduced  to  hard  cash."  Taylor  was 
elected.  Van  Buren  polled  291,000  votes  as  the  candidate 
of  the  Free-soilers,  the  only  party  that  stood  definitely  for 
higher  things.  The  curious  circumstance  that  a  Whig  could 
be  elected  in  1848  as  the  exponent  of  a  war  policy  which 
sprang  directly  out  of  the  Democratic  triumph  four  years 
before  shows  how  little  theoretical  party  allegiance  signified 
when  contrasted  with  such  dominant  national  ambitions  as 
those  for  territorial  expansion  and  military  glory. 

A  third  factor  of  great  importance  in  the  general  situa- 
tion was  the  economic  prosperity  and  consequent  self-satis- 
faction of  the  time.  To  illustrate  both  points  it  is  hardly 
necessary  to  do  more  than  quote  a  portion  of  President 
Polk's  fourth  annual  message  to  Congress,  dated  December 
5,1848: 

Peace,  plenty,  and  contentment  reign  throughout  our 
borders,  and  our  beloved  country  presents  a  sublime  moral 
spectacle  to  the  world.  The  troubled  and  unsettled  condition 
of  some  of  the  principal  European  powers  has  had  a  necessary 
tendency  to  check  and  embarrass  trade  and  to  depress  prices 
throughout  all  commerical  nations,  but  notwithstanding  these 
causes,  the  United  States,  with  their  abundant  products,  have 
felt  their  effects  less  severely  than  any  other  country,  and  all 
our  great  interests  are  still  prosperous  and  successful. 

In  reviewing  the  great  events  of  the  past  years  and  con- 


30  T^HE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r^og 

trasting  the  agitated  and  disturbed  state  of  other  countries 
with  our  own  tranquil  and  happy  condition,  we  may  con- 
gratulate ourselves  that  we  are  the  most  favored  people  on 
the  face  of  the  earth.  While  the  people  of  other  countries 
are  struggling  to  establish  free  institutions  under  which  man 
may  govern  himself,  we  are  in  the  actual  enjoyment  of  them — > 
a  rich  inheritance  from  our  fathers.  While  enlightened  na- 
tions of  Europe  are  convulsed  and  distracted  by  civil  war  or 
intestine  strife,  we  settle  all  our  political  controversies  by  the 
peaceful  exercise  of  the  rights  of  freemen  at  the  ballot  box. 

The  great  republican  maxim,  so  deeply  engraven  on  the 
hearts  of  our  people,  that  the  will  of  the  majority,  consti- 
tutionally expressed,  shall  prevail,  is  our  sure  safeguard 
against  force  and  violence.  It  is  a  subject  of  just  pride  that 
our  fame  and  character  as  a  nation  continue  rapidly  to  advance 
in  the  estimation  of  the  civilized  world. 

To  our  wise  and  free  institutions  it  is  to  be  attributed  that 
while  other  nations  have  achieved  glory  at  the  price  of  the 
suffering,  distress,  and  impoverishment  of  their  people,  we 
have  won  our  honorable  position  in  the  midst  of  an  uninter- 
rupted prosperity  and  of  an  increasing  individual  comfort 
and  happiness.^ 

In  a  history  of  the  Polk  administration  published  two 
years  later,  one  reads  ''  There  is  something  so  just  and 
equitable  in  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States, 
that  no  one  can  have  cause  for  dissatisfaction.  .  .  .  Let  the 
boundaries  of  the  Union  then  be  extended;  let  contiguous 
territory  be  incorporated  with  our  own,  let  all  the  keys  to  our 
rivers  and  harbors  be  secured ;  let  the  model  republic  increase 
in  greatness  until  its  political,  moral,  and  physical  power 
shall  be  felt  and  acknowledged  throughout  the  civilized 
world."  ^ 

1  J.  D.  Richardson,  A  Compilation  of  the  Messages  and  Papers  of 
the  Presidents,  vol.  iv,  p.  629.  The  entire  message  was  translated  in 
the  Journal  des  debats  of  Dec.  23,  and  was  published  in  whole  or  in 
part,  in  most  of  the  leading  Paris  newspapers. 

2  Lucien  B.  Chase,  History  of  the  Polk  Administration,  pp.  109,  no. 


209]  EUROPE  AND  AMERICA  IN  1848  ^^ 

x^merica,  of  course,  was  unanimous  as  to  the  desirability 
of  political  liberty ;  it  was  hard  for  her  to  see  her  own  self- 
contradictions.  The  London  Times,  not  then  inclined  to  be 
gentle  with  us,  helped  us  to  see  them  in  a  leader  of  October 
26,  1848.  We  read:  *' Political  slavery  is  an  abomination  in 
the  eyes  of  our  friends  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic  .  .  . 
social  slavery  an  unobjectionable  condition  of  humanity. 
The  figure  of  a  spare,  yellow,  sinewy  man,  holding  in  one 
hand  a  red  banner,  inscribed  with  the  words,  '  Death  to 
Tyrants,'  and  in  the  other  a  cat-o'-nine  tails,  would  afford  a 
not  inapposite  image  of  the  present  condition  of  the  Amer- 
ican mind  as  reflected  in  the  press."  ^ 

To  ignore  the  social  enthusiasm  of  the  time  would  be  a 
gross  error.  The  Abolitionist  movement  was,  of  course,  in 
full  swing.  By  1840,  there  were  2,000  antislavery  societies 
with  a  membership  of  200,000.  Afterward,  though  they 
continued  to  be  of  great  importance,  the  unity  of  their 
counsels  suffered  from  a  split  on  the  advisability  of  political 
action.^ 

There  were  other  fine  efforts  to  better  human  conditions. 
The  Fourierists  were  never  more  active  than  in  the  40's. 
They  gained  the  interest  of  Horace  Greeley  and  the  use  of  a 
column  in  the  Tribune.  They  founded  nearly  forty 
phalanxes,  one  of  which,  at  Red  Bank,  N.  J.,  lived  thirteen 
years.  The  majority  lasted  two  or  three.  Brook  Farm,  with 
its  distinguished  group,  began  as  a  community  in  1841,  be- 
came a  phalanx  in  1844  and  died  in  1847.  One  cannot  say 
that  the  communistic  theories  of  Europe  failed  to  touch 
America  at  this  time.  On  the  other  hand,  they  were  more 
thoroughly  tried  out  here  than  anywhere  else.  One  can  only 
say  that  they  all  promptly  failed  and  that  the  overwhelming 

^  Cf,  J.  R.  Lowell,  Biglow  Papers,  ist  series,  nos.  5  and  6. 
2  Cf.  J.  F.  Rhodes,  Hist,  of  the  U.  S.,  vol.  i,  ch.  i,  esp.  p.  74. 


32  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["210 

majority  of  Americans  never  took  them  seriously.  There 
was  labor  reform,  educational  reform,  and  prison  reform. 
Dorothea  Dix  was  engaged  in  her  great  work  for  the  insane.^ 
But  these  were  the  few.  As  we  have  seen  the  main  interests 
of  American  life  lay  in  other  directions.  America  was  in 
the  full  exuberance  of  material  growth  with  all  the  vanity 
and  indifference  of  healthy  youth.  Let  older  civilizations 
wrestle  with  the  complex  issues  of  industrial  life;  America 
had  plenty  of  room  for  all  her  people;  if  they  were  not  satis- 
fied, they  could  move  elsewhere. 

Such  was  the  contrast  between  Europe  and  America  in 
1848;  the  old  continent  seething  from  end  to  end  with  revo- 
lutionary spirit,  the  new  continent  complacently  materialistic, 
wedded  to  political  immobility,  the  old  world  radical,  the 
new  world  conservative,  the  former  dissatisfied,  the  latter 
self-satisfied.  Given  this  contrast,  our  curiosity  can  hardly 
fail  to  be  aroused  when  we  discover  that  a  strong  interest  in 
American  institutions  and  particularly  in  American  constitu- 
tions existed  in  the  France  of  1848. 

There  had  been  such  interest  at  other  important  crises  in 
the  past,  it  is  true.  It  was  keen  from  1789  to  1791.  Jeffer- 
son, who  was  in  Paris  when  the  Estates-General  met  in  1 789, 
was  not  above  suggesting  helpful  ideas  out  of  the  fullness  of 
American  experience.^  He  was  most  optimistic  about  the 
proposed  French  constitution.  The  leading  members,  ac- 
cording to  his  information,  had  in  mind  a  federal  system, 
with  a  royal  executive,  a  House  and  Senate,  the  latter 
"  chosen  on  the  plan  of  our  senate  by  provincial  assemblies, 

^  For  a  comprehensive  account  of  social  reform  activity  at  this  time, 
see  McMaster,  op.  cit.,  vol.  vii,  ch.  Ixxiv. 

2  Jefferson's  Writings  (Ford  ed.),  vol.  v,  pp.  99-104  (Letters  of  June 
3  and  July  19). 


21 1  ]  EUROPE  AND  AMERICA  IN  1848  ^^ 

but  for  life,"  their  powers  limited  to  those  of  "  a  mere  coun- 
cil of  revision  like  that  of  New  York ;  "  there  was  to  be  an 
order  of  judges,  "  a  good  deal  like  ours  "  and  provincial  as- 
semblies analogous  to  the  American  state  governments. 
"  In  short  ours  has  been  professedly  their  model,  in  which 
such  changes  are  made  as  a  difference  of  circumstances  ren- 
dered necessary  and  some  others  neither  necessary  nor  ad- 
vantageous, but  into  which  men  will  ever  run  when  versed  in 
theory  and  new  in  the  practice  of  government,  when  ac- 
quainted with  man  only  as  they  see  him  in  their  books  &  not 
in  the  world.  ...  It  is  impossible  to  desire  better  disposi- 
tions towards  us,  than  prevail  in  this  assembly.  Our  pro- 
ceedings have  been  viewed  as  a  model  for  them  on  every 
occasion;  and  tho'  in  the  heat  of  debate  men  are  generally 
disposed  to  contradict  every  authority  urged  by  their  oppo- 
nents, ours  has  been  treated  like  that  of  the  Bible,  open  to 
explanation  but  not  to  question.''  Jefferson  goes  on  to  fear 
that  this  interest  in  us  will  be  checked  by  our  placing  them 
"  on  a  mere  footing  with  the  English."  ^ 

The  actual  position  of  affairs  has  been  summarized  as 
follows.^  In  1778,  the  state  constitutions  of  Pennsylvania, 
New  Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia  and  South  Caro- 
lina, the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  Articles  of  Con- 
federation and  certain  Acts  of  Congress  were  collected  in 
one  volume  and  published  in  French.  In  1783  a  more  com- 
plete collection  was  issued  at  Franklin's  request.  Demeunier, 
the  royal  censor,  made  a  still  better  collection  in  his 
Encyclopedie  Methodique,  1784-8.  He  published  them  also 
separately  with  comments.  These  constitutions  were  studied 
with  great  interest  by  French  statesmen.     Turgot  in  1778 

1  Letter  to  Madison,  Aug.  28,  1789,  Writings  (Ford  ed.),  vol.  S,  pp. 
108- 1 10. 

2H.  E.  Bourne,  "American  Precedents  in  the  National  Assembly," 
Am.  Hist.  Review,  vol.  8,  p.  486. 


34  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^212 

attacked  the  American  bicameral  system ;  John  Adams'  fam- 
ous Defence  was  read  at  Paris  in  its  EngUsh  version  even 
before  it  was  translated  in  1792,  while  William  Livingston's 
rejoinder  was  translated  at  once,  ( 1789) .  After  the  Ameri- 
can Revolution,  however,  the  weakness  of  the  Confederation 
caused  a  decline  in  America  influence;  the  early  collapse  of 
the  system  was  predicted.  The  new  constitution  of  the 
United  States  was  much  admired  by  philosophers,  according 
to  Lafayette.  But  Condorcet  wrote  to  Franklin,  "  I  see  with 
pain  that  the  aristocratic  spirit  seeks  to  introduce  itself 
among  you  in  spite  of  so  many  precautions"  (July  8,  1788). 
It  was  thought  that  the  English  constitution  had  been  too 
much  imitated.  The  abandonment  of  the  Declaration  of 
Rights  created  displeasure.  Jefferson  wrote :  "The  enlight- 
ened part  of  Europe  has  given  us  the  greatest  credit  for 
inventing  this  instrument  of  security  for  the  rights  of  the 
people  and  have  been  not  a  little  surprised  to  see  us  so  soon 
give  it  up."  The  strength  of  the  central  power  and  the 
division  of  Congress  into  two  houses  was  disliked.  In  the 
National  Assembly,  there  were  many  references  to  American 
example  in  the  discussions  on  the  Declaration  of  Rights 
(where  the  practice  of  state  constitutions  was  freely  cited), 
the  veto  power  of  the  king  and  the  bicameral  system, 
though  the  people  who  upheld  the  American  example  had  an 
even  greater  weakness  for  that  of  England  which  was  re- 
garded as  a  still  stronger  government.  This  conservative 
group,  represented  by  Mounier,  met  with  Barnave  and  the 
radicals  (who  opposed  two  chambers  and  an  absolute  veto) 
at  Jefferson's  house  in  a  conference,  August  27th,  1789.  It 
was  after  this  meeting  that  Jefferson  wrote  the  over-enthu- 
siastic letter  to  Madison  quoted  above.  In  September,  the 
matter  was.  brought  to  a  vote;  the  single  chamber  and  a 
suspensive  veto  triumphed,  the  enlargement  of  the  provin- 


213]  EUROPE  AND  AMERICA  IN  1848  ^5 

cial  assemblies  into  Americanized  state  governments  was  not 
seriously  discussed.^ 

Another  writer  dtaws  three  main  conclusions:  (a)  that 
the  influence  of  America  was  so  powerful  between  1776 
and  1789,  that  the  American  Revolution  may  be  called  a 
*'  proximate  cause  "  of  the  French  Revolution,  (b)  that  it 
was  distinctly  traceable,  though  to  a  less  degree  during  the 
latter  movement,  from  1789  to  1791,  (c)  that  during  the 
Legislative  Assembly  and  the  Convention  it  was  almost  im- 
perceptible.^ In  other  words  an  increasingly  radical  France 
found  American  precedents  less  and  less  to  its  liking. 

It  is  impossible  within  our  limits  to  trace  the  American 
influence  in  each  of  the  later  constitutional  changes  in 
France.  The  probabilities  are  that  it  was  very  slight. 
Most  of  the  changes  were  made  under  circumstances  of 
stress  and  urgency,  and  were  not  the  product  of  calm  deliber- 
ation. It  is  interesting  to  note,  however,  that  when  the 
Revolution  of  1830  had  placed  Lafayette  in  a  position  of 
authority,  he  came  to  the  Duke  of  Orleans  in  the  Palais- 
Royal,  being  instructed  by  the  republicans  to  procure  from 
him  a  guarantee  of  popular  rights.  During  the  conversa- 
tion, Lafayette  said,  ''You  know  that  I  am  a  republican  and 
consider  the  American  constitution  the  most  perfect."  To 
which  the  Duke  answered,  "  I  am  of  the  same  opinion:  no 
one  could  have  been  two  years  in  America  and  not  share 
that  view.  But  do  you  think  that  that  constitution  could  be 
adopted  in  France  in  its  present  condition  with  the  present 
state  of  popular  opinion?"  ''No,"  Lafayette  replied, 
"  what  France  needs  is  a  popular  monarchy  surrounded  by 

1  This  was  substantially  the  result  as  embodied  in  the  Constitution  of 
1791.  Cf.  C  H.  Rammelkamp,  "  French  Constitution-  of  1791  and  the 
U.  S.  Constitution :  a  comparison,"  South  Atlantic  Quarterly,  vol.  2,  p. 
56  et  seq. 

2  Lewis  Rosenthal,  America  and  France,  pp.  296-298. 


36  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^i^ 

republican— thoroughly  republican — institutions."  "  There 
I  quite  agree  with  you,"  said  Louis  Philippe.^  Thus  the 
head  of  the  House  of  Orleans  expressed  his  approval  of 
American  ideas.  It  has  been  shown  above  how  he  admired 
even  more  the  ways  of  England. 

But  independently  of  the  dramatic  contrast  between  the 
France  and  America  of  1848,  there  is  another  reason  which 
gives  French  interest  in  American  ways  at  that  time  peculiar 
importance.  For  this  was  the  first  time  in  history  that  the 
American  constitution  was  deliberately  studied  by  a  great 
European  country  since  it  had  become  a  practical  success. 
In  1 789,  it  was  at  best  a  hopeful  theory ;  sixty  years  of  trial 
had  now  given  an  opportunity  for  some  definite  appraisal  of 
it  as  a  working  institution.  What  judgment  did  the  critics 
across  the  sea  pass  upon  it?  How  did  it  impress  them? 
And  above  all,  who  were  the  men  chiefly  impressed  ?  Was 
it  those  who  were  anxious  to  set  up  a  bulwark  of  repul>- 
licanism  as  opposed  to  reaction  toward  monarchy,  or  those 
who  were  seeking  a  support  for  conservative  institutions 
as  opposed  to  radicalism?  For  both  of  these  groups  were 
desperately  in  earnest :  they  were  not  idle,  academic  theorists, 
and  if  they  praised  or  blamed  American  ways,  it  was  with  a 
very  sharp  eye  to  their  own  interests.  Who  praised,  who* 
blamed  American  example,  and  why  ? 

These  are  the  questions  which  this  study  attempts  to 
answer. 

1  W.  Miiller,  Political  History  of  Recent  Times,  sec.  7,  p.  109. 


CHAPTER  II 
Composition  of  the  Assembly 

The  Provisional  Government,  as  has  been  already  said, 
consisted  of  two  groups,  one  more  radical  than  the  other. 
Notwithstanding  this  divergence,  the  record  shows  an  honest 
effort  to  cooperate  in  thorough-going  reforms.  "At  what 
epoch  and  in  what  country,"  asks  Louis  Blanc,  "  will  one 
find  a  government  which  in  two  months, — in  two  months ! — 
has  issued  so  many  decrees  favorable  to  liberty  and  stamped 
with  respect  for  human  dignity  ?  In  two  months,  to  abolish 
the  death  penalty,  to  establish  universal  suffrage,  to  proclaim 
ithe  right  to  employment,  to  give  a  tribute  to  the  proletariat, 
to  decree  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves,  to  suppress  cor- 
poral punishment  in  the  maritime  code,  to  prepare  a  plan 
of  universal  and  free  education,  to  extend  the  jury  system, 
to  suppress  political  oathsi.  to  abolish  imprisonment  for 
debt,  to  assert  the  principle  of  judicial  suspension  and  recall » 
to  facilitate  the  naturalization  of  foreigners,  to  organize  the 
immediate  representation  of  the  working-class,  to  inaugu- 
rate the  great  principle  of  association,  and  to  denounce  the 
wage-system  as  the  last  form  of  slavery,  was  all  this  noth- 
ing?" ^ 

Nor  is  this  list  exhaustive.  As  instances  of  further 
social  legislation,  we  find  the  following  decrees:  that  of 
March  2,  reducing  the  hours  of  labor  for  all  workers  in 
Paris  to  ten  a  day,  in  the  provinces  to  eleven,  and  abolishing 
the  hated  system  of  sub-contracting  (marchandage) ;  that  of 

1  L.  Blanc,  Histoire  de  la  revolution  de  1848 ,  preface,  pp.  v  and  vi. 
215]  37 


38  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [215 

March  7,  establishing  national  discount  banks  (comptoirs 
nationaux  d'escompte)  for  the  extension  of  credit,  in  all  in- 
dustrial and  commercial  cities;  that  of  the  7th,  fixing  the 
rate  of  interest  to  be  paid  by  savings-banks  at  five  per  cent, 
this  being  the  rate  of  treasury-bonds ;  that  of  the  8th,  estab- 
lishing an  employment  bureau  in  every  mairie.^ 

In  spite  of  all  this  legislation  (some  oif  which  was  in- 
adequately carried  out),  a  sense  of  disappointment  began 
to  creep  over  the  working-class  as  time  went  on.  As 
early  as  the  25th  of  February,  the  republic  began  to  have 
its  journees  revolutionnaires.  On  that  morning,  a  crowd  of 
workmen  gathered  in  the  Place  de  I'Hotel  de  Ville,  demand- 
ing the  proclamation  of  the  droit  au  travail,  but  were  forced 
to  be  content  with  a  skilfully  worded  formula  by  which  the 
government  s'engage  a  garantir  du  travail  a  totis  les 
citoyens.^  In  the  afternoon,  a  still  more  alarming  demon- 
stration in  support  of  the  red  flag  was  discomfited  by  Lamar- 

1  A  complete  list  of  decrees  passed  by  the  Provisional  Government  is 
to  be  found!  in  E.  Carrey,  Recueil  des  actes  du  gouvemement  provisoire 
de  1848,  Paris,  1848. 

2  The  importance  of  this  formula  has  not  received  the  attention  it 
deserves.  Louis  Blanc  proved  himself  an  extremely  able  politician  by 
devising  and  carrying  through  this  compromise  and  thus  saving  the 
government.  A  complete  refusal  of  the  droit  au  travail,  such  as  Lamartine 
wished,  would  have  driven  the  working-class,  whose  barricades  were 
still  standing,  into  a  new  revolution :  a  complete  acceptance  of  the  prin- 
ciple, which  of  course  Louis  Blanc  would  have  preferred,  but  which 
he  was  clear-sighted  enough  not  to  insist  upon,  might  have  caused  the 
resignation  of  Lamartine  and  a  split  with  the  conservative  element  of 
the  government  and  the  community.  However,  the  compromise,  success- 
ful at  the  time,  proved  in  the  end  disastrous,  because  it  opened  the 
way  for  Marie's  national  workshops,  which  were  doomed  to  failure 
from  the  start,  while  Louis  Blanc's  ateHers,  if  accepted  in  their  en- 
tirety, might  have  succeeded.  The  Clichy  tailor  enterprise,  at  least,  car- 
ried out  on  his  lines,  had  sufficient  success  to  show  his  scheme  to  be 
not  impracticable.  The  inevitable  failure  of  Marie's  ateliers  dragged 
the  republic  down  with  them.  Thus,  from  one  point  of  view,  this  com- 
promise formula  holds  the  key  to  the  future  history  of  the  republic. 


217]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  39 

tine's  oratorical  glorification  of  the  tricolor.  The  28th  wit- 
nessed a  gathering,  which  in  concert  with  Louis  Blanc,  de- 
manded the  creation  of  a  ministry  of  progress,  instead  of 
which  the  government  organized  a  commission  to  sit  at  the 
Luxembourg  and  consider  plans  for  improving  social  con- 
ditions; of  this  commission,  Louis  Blanc  and  Albert  were 
made  the  heads.  Whether  or  not  this  was  a  clever  scheme 
to  shelve  the  two  socialists  by  putting  them  at  the  head  of 
a  debating  society,  is  perhaps  uncertain ;  at  all  events,  their 
duties  at  the  Luxembourg  kept  them  thereafter  from  taking 
much  part  in  the  councils  of  the  government.  The  substitu- 
tion of  a  commission  for  a  ministry  had  the  further  effect, 
as  Louis  Blanc  justly  complained/  of  giving  the  cause  of 
social  betterment  an  ineffective  parliament  instead  of  an 
executive  department  with  power  to  act ;  it  might  discuss  and 
recommend  as  much  as  it  pleased,  provided  it  did  nothing  to 
disturb  the  status  quo.  It  served  thus  as  a  safety-valve  for 
inconvenient  radical  energy. 

The  next  journee  revolutionnaire  was  March  17th.  Its 
object  was  to  secure  a  postponement  of  the  elections  for  the 
Constituent  Assembly,  in  order  that  more  time  might  be  al- 
lowed for  the  republicanization  of  the  country  districts.  It 
turned  into  a  sort  of  field  day  for  Louis  Blanc,  who  made  a 
speech  that  sent  the  crowd  away  satisfied.  The  result  was 
the  decree  of  March  26,  adjourning  the  elections  to  April 
23.  This  was  one  of  the  few  demonstrations  that  resulted 
in  a  radical  victory,  and  the  public  was  much  impressed. 
Afterward,  however,  the  radicals  complained  that  the  post- 
ponement then  made  was  for  too  short  a  time  really  to  effect 
any  considerable  change  in  the  popular  mind. 

A  month  later,  the  radicals  met  a  decisive  defeat  that  com- 
pleted the  alienation  of  their  sympathies  from  the  govern- 

1  Vide  L.  Blanc,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  pp.  134  et  seq. 


40  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  |-2ig 

ment.  The  real  purpose  of  the  manifestation  on  April  i6th 
remains  obscure;  whether  or  not  the  great  procession  that 
bore  banners  calling  for  the  "  abolition  of  the  exploitation 
of  man  by  man  "  intended  to  overturn  the  government  is  not 
clear/  The  facts  seem  to  be  that  there  imdoubtedly  was 
something  serious  in  the  air,  though  it  is  hard  to  trace  the 
responsibility  to  anyone,  as  all  the  leaders  made  haste  to 
exculpate  themselves  after  the  fiasco.  It  is  certain  that  for 
some  time  prior  to  the  i6th,  Ledru-Rollin  was  being  urged 
by  radicals  to  consent  to  a  coup  d'etat  by  them,  and  to  allow 
his  name  to  figure  in  the  composition  of  a  new  Provisional 
Government,  that  Flocon  and  others  were  urging  him  not  to, 
that  he  was  in  sore  doubt  and  perplexity,  and  that  it  was  not 
until  the  morning  of  the  i6th  that  he  went  to  Lamartine  and 
frankly  announced  his  intention  to  stand  with  the  govern- 
ment. Whatever  revolutionary  purposes  the  gathering 
might  have  had  were  frustrated  by  the  national  guard,  which 
occupied  all  the  square  before  the  demonstrators  appeared 
at  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  and  only  permitted  them  to  pass  in 
small  groups  through  narrow  lanes  in  the  ranks.  Thus  the 
effect  of  the  manifestation  was  totally  destroyed  and  it  broke 
up  without  accomplishing  anything.  The  sight  of  the  Place 
de  THotd  de  Ville  full  of  bayonets  and  the  angry  cries  of 
''  A  has  les  communistes  "  from  the  troops,  together  with  the 
very  cool  reception  of  their  delegates  by  the  government, 
strengthened  their  growing  conviction  that  the  republic  of 
February  was  to  be  in  no  sense  the  Repuhlique  democratique 
et  sociale  of  their  dreams.  It  is  easy  to  believe  Lamartine, 
furthermore,  when  he  says  that  from  this  time  on,  the  in- 

1  For  divergent  explanations,  vide  L.  Blanc,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  ch.  i6, 
Lamartine,  Hist,  de  la  revol.  de  1848,  vol.  i,  bk.  13,  sees.  14-21,  and  the 
conservative  historians,  Pierre  and  de  la  Gorce.  But  cf.  the  careful  study 
of  Suzanne  Wasserman  (Les  Clubs  de  Barhes  et  de  Blanqui  en  1848, 
Paris,  1913),  which  shows  clearly  the  relatively  minor  influence  of 
these  leaders  and  their  clubs  in  all  the  social  uprisings  of  the  time. 


219]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  41 

formal  confidence  that  had  ruled  within  the  government 
itself,  yielded  to  suspicion;  the  simple  friendly  atmosphere 
of  their  meetings  gave  way  to  a  strict  officialism. 

With  the  election  of  the  Assemhlee  C onstituante  the  term 
of  the  Provisional  Government  came  to  an  end.  It  had 
worked  hard  and  done  as  well  as  it  could  under  very  trying 
circumstances.  Its  lack  of  greater  success  was  partly  due, 
no  doubt,  to  the  administrative  inexperience  of  its  members, 
but  even  more  to  its  lack  of  a  unified  political  philosophy  and 
program,  which  merely  reflected  a  similar  lack  in  France  at 
large.  No  conceivable  platform  could  have  been  agreed  to 
by  the  socialist  workman  in  Paris,  the  capitalist  manufac- 
turer and  the  peasant  monarchist.  The  diversity  in  their 
ideals  could  not  but  be  reflected,  though  less  acutely,  in  any 
government  which  tried  to  please  everybody.  If  all  the 
members  had  represented  one  social  class,  they  might  have 
forced  through  a  strong  policy,  but  it  would  have  been  the 
success  of  1793;  lacking  sufficient  unity  and  energy  to  be 
tyrannical,  the  government  tried  to  be  fair  to  all  and  satis- 
fied nobody.  The  solitary  idea  that  held  it  together  was 
la  republique;  when  it  came  to  defining  the  content  of  that 
word,  chaos  entered.  It  is  on  the  whole  surprising  that  it 
accomplished  as  much  as  it  did  and  finished  its  term,  as 
Lamartine  earnestly  desired  that  it  should,  with  a  record 
unstained  by  bloodshed. 

On  the  tenth  of  May,  its  place  was  taken  by  an  Executive 
Commission  of  five  elected  by  the  new  Assembly.  The 
choice  fell  on  five  members  of  the  old  government.  Arago 
headed  the  list  with  725  votes,  Garnier- Pages  had  715,  Marie 
702,  Lamartine  643  and  Ledru-Rollin  458.  The  vote  shows 
in  part  the  loss  in  popularity  of  the  two  last  named  (Lamar- 
tine's  decline  being  to  some  extent  due  to  his  insistence  that 
Ledru-Rollin  be  included  in  any  government)  ;  it  also  shows 
the  relative  strength  of  the  parties  in  the  Assembly,  to  which 
reference  will  be  made  later. 


42  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [220 

The  executive  commission  was  no  more  successful  than 
its  predecessor  in  checking  the  rapidly  growing  cleavage  be- 
tween bourgeois  conservatism  and  working-class  radicalism. 
The  latter  class  was  growing  more  and  more  desperate  as  it 
saw  the  reins  of  power  slipping  completely  from  its  grasp. 
It  began  to  feel  that  the  control  was  getting  back  into  the 
same  hands  from  which  it  had  been  rescued  only  three 
months  before. 

Less  than  a  week  after  the  Executive  Commission  came 
into  office,  the  first  of  its  two  great  tests  took  place.  Poland 
was  at  that  time  just  losing  the  last  fragments  of  its  inde- 
pendence. France  had  always  been  interested  in  Poland  and 
there  were  many  Poles  in  Paris  whoi  endeavored  to  get  ma- 
terial aid  and  official  recognition.  The  Assembly  made  an 
interpellation  on  the  subject  an  order  of  the  day,  to  be  de- 
bated May  15.  The  clubs  arranged  a  demonstration  for  the 
same  day.  Barbes  and  Blanqui,  the  chief  club-leaders,  dis- 
approved of  it,  but  lesser  lights,  Sobrier,  Huber  and  Raspail, 
from  various  motives,  favored  it.  A  petition  demanding 
French  intervention  on  behalf  of  Poland  was  to  be  brought 
to  the  bar  of  the  Assembly  by  a  procession  of  the  clubs, — 
this  was  the  only  ordered  program;  whether  some  of  the 
more  violent  leaders  intended  to  carry  out  a  revolutionary 
design  under  cover  of  the  resulting  confusion,  is  uncertain, 
but  not  improbable.  The  result  of  the  elections  and  the 
military  repression  of  the  election  disorders  at  Rouen  had 
lately  revived  the  painful  memories  of  April  i6th.  The 
Assembly  was  already  unpopular  among  the  workmen;  it 
would  take  very  little  to  make  them  hostile.  The  military 
guard  and  its  leader,  General  Courtais,  proved  unable  to 
prevent  the  demonstrators  from  entering  the  Assembly. 
For  three  hours,  a  scene  of  utter  confusion  took  place,  in 
which  all  the  popular  orators  took  turns  in  trying  to  make 
themselves  heard  above  the  clamor  of  the  mob.     Finally  the 


22 1  ]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  43 

more  radical  betook  themselves  from  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies  where  the  Assembly  was  in  session,  to  the  Hotel 
de  Ville  and  there  constituted  a  new  Provisional  Government. 
Various  lists  were  drawn  up,  most  of  which  contained  the 
names  of  Louis  Blanc,  Albert,  Ledru-Rollin,  Barbes,  Raspail, 
Pierre  Leroux  and  Thore.^  The  Assembly,  however,  re- 
tained control  of  the  troops;  the  new  government  was  not 
supported  by  the  populace  and  fell  still-bom.  The  result 
was  disastrous  for  the  radicals.  Barbes,  Albert  and  Raspail 
were  imprisoned  in  the  dungeons  of  Vincennes.  Blanqui 
escaped  arrest  until  the  27th,  Huber  fled  to  England,  Sobrier 
was  seized.  The  Assembly  decided  that  Louis  Blanc  (who 
w^as  a  member)  had  not  been  seen  at  the  Hotel  de  Ville  on 
the  15th,  and  voted  against  his  prosecution  for  complicity, 
by  the  narrow  margin  of  369  to  337. 

From  this  time  on,  the  bitterness  between  the  classes  be- 
came pronounced.  The  government  was  openly  condemned 
by  the  radicals  as  reactionary,  who'  in  turn  were  called  les 
factieux  by  the  conservatives.  The  Executive  Commission 
satisfied  the  working-class  even  less  than  the  provisional  gov- 
ernment. "  Were  MM.  Arago,  Lamartine,  Garnier-Pages, 
Ledru-Rollin,  Marie  no  longer  the  same  men?  Ah,  the 
trouble  is  that  a  great  change  had  taken  place  around  them ; 
what  had  changed  was  the  air  they  breathed.  Once  subject 
to  the  rule  of  the  Assembly  majority,  they  saw  themselves 
condemned  to  live  in  the  atmosphere  of  a  bourgeois  coterie, 
while  the  Provisional  Government  had  lived  in  the  atmos- 
phere of  the  people."  ^  Making  allowance  for  personal 
pique,  this  judgment  of  Louis  Blanc  is  not  without 
foundation. 

It  was  six  weeks  later  that  all  these  journees  revolution- 

1  Pierre,  Hist,  de  la  Repuhlique  de  1848,  p.  296,  note. 
2L.  Blanc,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  113. 


44  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^222 

naires  and  the  mutual  hatred  they  had  gradually  engendered 
found  final  expression  in  an  outburst  of  such  horror  that  it 
ranks  with  1793  and  1871  in  sad  pre-eminence.  The  final 
decision  to  close  the  national  workshops  and  to  distribute 
their  members  among  the  army,  the  railroads  and  private 
factories  where  possible  was  to  the  populace  a  final,  definite 
surrender  of  the  droit  au  travail  even  in  the  attenuated  form 
in  which  it  had  been  attempted.  The  republic  had  plainly 
abandoned  any  thorough-going  social  reform  and  had  fallen 
completely  into  the  hands  of  the  bourgeoisie.  Industry  had 
not  been  able  to  recover  from  the  economic  crisis  of  the 
preceding  year ;  ^  constant  agitation  had  prevented  the  return 
of  confidence  and  Garnier- Pages'  addition  of  45  per  cent  to 
the  taxes,  while  it  saved  the  state  from  bankruptcy,  was  ex- 
tremely unpopular ;  ^  the  misery  caused  by  unemployment 
and  inadequate  employment  was  acute.  The  members  of 
the  national  workshops  had  formerly  furnished,  under 
Marie's  guidance,  a  sort  of  possible  counter-army  to  the 
delegates  of  the  Luxembourg;  now,  enraged  by  their  sum- 
mary dismissal,  they  made  common  cause  with  the  latter. 
The  workshops  had  indeed  become  a  sort  of  Frankenstein ; 
they  had  been  created,  they  could  no  longer  be  maintained ; 
the  question  was  how  they  could  be  peaceably  dissolved. 
The  government's  solution  was  a  complete  failure ;  it  was  a 
dangerous  thing  to  place  over  100,000  desperate,  hungry 

1  The  revenue  from  customs  in  the  first  six  months  of  1847  (a  year 
of  crisis)  was  65,000,000  francs;  for  the  same  period  in  1848  it  fell  to 
38,000,000  francs.  Using  these  two  periods  as  a  basis  of  contrast,  cotton 
imports  fell  from  220,000  metrical  quintals  to  182,000;  wool  from  57,00O 
to  34,000  quintals ;  raw  silk  from  3842  to  1662 ;  spim  silk  from  2824  to 
1279;  olive  oil  from  156,000  to  70,000;  sugar  from  433,ooo  to  200,000; 
cast  iron  from  512,000  to  234,000,  etc.  (Figures  from  the  Constitution- 
nel  of  July  26,  1848,  quoted  in  Niles*  Register,  vol.  74,  p.  229  et  seq.) 

2  Especially  among  the  peasants,  whose  consequent  disaffection  car- 
ried Louis  Napoleon  into  power. 


223]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  45 

men  between  serfdom  and  dismissal.  Their  absolute  refusal 
to  accept  the  plan  made  the  June  insurrection  a  matter  of 
hours. 

Those  three  frightful  days  of  street-fighting,  in  which 
the  whole  eastern  section  of  Paris  was  involved  from  the 
23rd  to  the  25th  of  June,  without  obvious  leadership  yet  with 
evidences  of  careful  preparation,  had  several  results  of  the 
first  magnitude.  In  the  first  place,  it  compelled  the  resigna- 
tion of  the  Executive  Commission,  as  inadequate  to  the  situ- 
ation, replacing  it  with  the  one-man  government  of  Gen- 
eral Cavaignac,  which  lasted  ( Paris  being  officially  in  a  state 
of  siege  for  a  major  part  of  the  time)  until  the  inauguration 
of  the  newly  elected  president,  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte, 
on  December  20,  1848.  Cavaignac's  authority  sprang  from 
the  Assembly,  by  which  he  was  chosen  as  president  of  the 
council  of  ministers  and  chief  of  the  executive  power.  In 
the  second  place,  the  brotherhood  in  arms  of  all  who  stood 
for  I'ordre,  the  popular  catchword  of  the  time,  minimized 
the  importance  of  all  previous  political  distinctions  between 
legitimist,  Orleanist  and  moderate  republican  in  comparison 
with  the  sharp  line  henceforth  drawn  between  conservative 
and  radical.  This  definite  adhesion  of  the  republican  gov- 
ernment to  the  side  of  conservatism  and  the  stamp  of  social 
approval  consequently  placed  on  it  by  the  west  half  of  Paris 
are  facts  of  prime  importance  for  our  study.  In  the  third 
place,  the  ten  thousand  dead  bodies  of  June  formed  an  im- 
passable barrier  between  conservative  and  radical.  The  June 
insurrection  is  the  dividing  line  between  the  two  phases  of 
the  Second  Republic,  the  phase  of  harmony  and  the  phase 
of  hatred.  Although,  as  we  have  seen,  the  harmony  began 
to  be  disturbed  more  and  more  from  the  very  first  days,  yet 
it  was  in  theory  le  peuple  which  had  triumphed  and  was  rul- 
ing, and  any  mistakes  on  the  part  of  the  authorities  (from 
the  radical  point  of  view)  were  mistakes  of  the  head  and  not 


46  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [224 

of  the  heart ;  there  was  always  hope  that  the  true  light  would 
be  more  clearly  seen  next  time.  In  May,  this  idea  became 
seriously  suspect ;  after  June  it  became  definitely  impossible. 
The  bloody  fighting  and  the  stern  reprisals  mark  a  change, 
not  only  in  French  politics,  but  in  the  history  of  economic 
radicalism.  Before,  socialism  had  been  Utopian  in  one 
form  or  another ;  its  key-note  was  brotherhood  expressed  in 
cooperation.  From  now  on,  socialism  becomes  Marxian; 
its  motto,  class-consciousness  embodying  itself  in  the  class- 
struggle.  Besides  these  far  reaching  results,  a  special  con- 
sequence important  for  us  is  the  control  of  the  Assembly  by 
a  terror-stricken  spirit  of  reaction.  Measures  of  repression 
were  taken  by  Cavaignac  with  its  approval,  whose  applica- 
tion lasted  from  the  end  of  June  to  the  end  of  August. 
Twelve  to  fifteen  thousand  arrests  were  made;  half  of  the 
prisoners  were  released  without  judgment,  most  oif  the  rest 
were  transported  to  Algeria  en  bloc.  A  decree  of  July  3rd 
closed  the  national  workshops.  Louis  Blanc  went  into*  exile ; 
Ledru-Rollin  was  isolated  on  the  extreme  left  of  the  Assem- 
bly. Those  legions  of  the  national  guard  which  had  not 
fought  against  the  revolt  were  disbanded;  the  bourgeoisie 
thus  acquired  complete  control  of  the  armed  forces.  The 
best-known  clubs  were  closed ;  the  rest  remained  under  police 
surveillance,  must  be  public,  open  at  certain  hours  only, 
free,  the  subjects  of  discussion  limited,  petitions  were 
forbidden;  henceforth  the  clubs  lost  all  influence.  Many 
newspapers  were  suppressed;  the  bond  for  the  rest  was 
fixed  at  24,000  francs  for  Paris,  6000  and  3600  for  the 
provinces),  thus  rendering  cheap,  popular  organs  impossible; 
attacks  on  property  or  the  family,  were  forbidden.  Thus 
of  all  the  new  freedom  of  '48,  only  the  republic  and  uni- 
versal suffrage  remained,  and  these  were  not  unmenaced.^ 

^  A  clear  summary  of  this   repressive  legislation  may  be  found  in 
Seignobos,  op.  cit.,  in  Revue  des  cours,  vol.  i,  pp.  801-4,  810. 


225]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  47 

Our  aim  in  recounting  this  preliminary  history  has  been 
to  show  the  gradual  cleavage  in  the  French  body  politic  be- 
'tween  the  radical  and  conservative  groups,  a  knowledge  of 
which  is  indispensable  to  a  correct  understanding  of  the 
Constituent  Assembly.  Without  such  knowledge,  one 
might  conceive  the  Assembly  as  working  in  that  atmosphere 
of  idealism  and  fraternity,  which  remains  for  us,  as  in- 
deed it  was  originally,  the  spirit  of  1848.  No  error  could 
be  more  capital;  between  February  and  June,  a  gulf  lies. 
In  feeling  they  are  decades,  not  months,  apart. 

In  sketching  the  character  and  composition  of  the  As- 
sembly, we  must  go  back  to  April,  when  the  electoral  cam- 
paign was  in  full  swing.  In  that  campaign  several  of  the 
electoral  addresses,  issued  by  candidates,  already  introduce 
the  thought  that  American  example  ought  to  be  considered. 
Thus  we  have  the  circular  of  Charles  de  Montalembert,  the 
Catholic,  whose  progressive  sentiments  had  involved  him 
with  Lacordaire  and  Lamennais  in  the  pre-Modernist  failure 
of  UAvenir.  The  circular,  dated  April  3,  contains  this  pas- 
sage: "If  this  republic,  in  improving  the  lot  of  the  workers, 
guarantees,  like  that  of  the  United  States,  to  religion,  to 
property,  and  to  the  family  their  supreme  benefits,  it  will 
have  no  partisan  more  sincere,  no  son  more  devoted  than  I. 
If,  on  the  contrary,  it  follows  the  steps  of  its  predecessor, 
if  it  proceeds  by  way  of  exclusion,  of  suspicion,  of  perse- 
cution; if  it  does  not  recoil  from  violence  and  confiscation, 
then  it  may  well  have  me  as  adversary  or  as  victim,  but  never 
at  least  as  instrument  or  as  accomplice."  ^ 

Lucien  Murat's  address  declared :  "  Banished  by  the 
enemies  of  France  I  bring  you  from  the  United  States 
twenty-two  years  of  experience  and  of  republican  opin- 
ions." ^     Ambert  wrote   from   Nantes  to  the  electors  of 

1  Vide  UUnivers,  April  6,  1848. 

2  Garnier- Pages,  op.  cit.,  vol.  2,  p.  312. 


^8  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^226 

Lot :  "  I  visited  the  republicans  of  the  United  States.  A 
conscientious  study  of  democratic  organization  taught  me 
that  true  Hberty  was  the  daughter  of  order.  It  is  then  or- 
der which  must  be  estabhshed,  in  order  to  arrive  at  Hberty, 
at  equality,  at  fraternity."  He  speaks  of  himself  as  "  ready 
to  protect  property,  the  family,  the  Church,  quite  as  much 
as  the  workshop,  the  house  of  the  rich  quite  as  much  as 
the  cottage  of  the  poor."  ^ 

K  Pacini,  a  naval  officer,  thus  addressed  the  electors  of 
the  Seine :  "  Commanding  a  steam  frigate  in  the  transatlantic 
service,  I  have  had  commercial  as  well  as  maritime  interests 
in  my  hands,  and  I  have  been  able  to  observe  in  the  United 
States  the  happy  results  of  a  government  truly  democratic 
and  liberal.  As  for  my  principles,  behold  them :  Liberty 
for  all !  I  will,  therefore,  combat  every  retrograde  tendency, 
but  I  will  likewise  struggle  against  violence  with  the  energy 
which  I  have  had  to  employ  against  ocean  tempests."  ^ 

Blanchet,  advocate  at  the  court  of  appeals,  wrote  to  the 
electors  of  the  Seine :  "  Soon  after,  my  republican  instincts 
led  me  to  America,  where  I  devoted  nearly  two  years  to  the 
study  of  the  different  democratic  constitutions  of  the  New 
World,  the  observation  of  their  governmental  mechanism 
and  the  drawing  up  of  a  body  of  legislation  for  the  Haytian 
republic."  ^ 

Eugene  Guillemot  of  Pont-Saint-Maxence,  first  deputy- 
mayor  of  the  first  Paris  arrondissement  and  an  editor  of  the 
Reforme,  gave  this  account  of  himself  to  the  electors  of  the 
Oise: 

I  was  quite  young  when  the  July  Revolution  broke  out  ,yet 
already  full  of  love  for  the  democratic  principle,  full  of  grief 

^  Dictionnaire  des  parlementaires  frangais,  s.  v.  "Ambert." 

^  Murailles  revolutionnaires,  vol.  i,  p.  441. 

^  Ibid.,  vol.  2,  p.  19.  ' 


227]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  49 

at  seeing  it  trampled  under  foot  by  royalty,  I  went  to  America 
to  study  republican  institutions.  There  I  remained  three  years, 
occupied  with  the  study  of  the  political  and  economic  problems 
solved  by  the  sagacity  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
I  returned,  thinking  only  of  making  my  country  profit  by 
these  studies.  The  spectacle  of  the  complete  well  being  I  had 
found  everywhere,  in  the  cities  as  in  the  newly  cleared  fields, 
had  impressed  me.  Convinced  already  of  the  greatness  and 
beauty  of  the  democratic  principle,  I  saw  and  touched  in  a  cer- 
tain sense  its  useful  side.  .  .  .  Profiting  by  what  my  travels 
and  my  experience  have  taught  me,  I  would  oppose  a  centime's 
leaving  the  coffers  of  the  republic  for  unproductive  works.  In 
the  Reforme  for  Sept.  i8th  and  23rd  last,  I  reminded  the 
government  that  for  a  sum  much  less  than  that  used  by  it  in 
scientific  labors  [travaux  d'art]  on  the  railroads,  the  United 
States  had  covered  their  vast  territory  with  rails.^ 

M.  Maillefer,  writing  March  18  to  the  electors  of  Seine- 
et-Oise,  announced :  ''  For  thirty  years  I  have  served  the 
cause  which  has  just  triumphed.  In  France,  in  both 
Americas,  [where  he  wrote  for  the  New  Orleans  Abeille], 
in  Ireland,  in  Italy,  in  Spain  and  in  Portugal,  I  have  written, 
fought  and  suffered  for  the  rights,  whose  full  possession 
you  have  at  last  acquired.  .  .  .  For  me,  the  republic  has 
nothing  new,  nothing  terrifying  or  intoxicating,  even  in 
practice,  for  I  have  taken  part  in  these  virile  exercises  in 
the  country  of  Washington  and  of  Bolivar;  travels  and 
experience  have  doubled  in  me  the  results  of  study  and 
meditation."  ^ 

A  bit  of  the  old  February  spirit  of  cosmopolitan  fraternity 
flares  up  in  the  radical  newspaper.  La  Commune  de  Paris, 
Avhich  is  quoted  with  approval  by  Le  Demo  crate  of  April 
19,  1848:  "  Not  only  should  Lamennais,  Cabet,  P.  Leroux, 

1  Murailles  revolutionnaires,  vol.  2,  p.  89  et  seq. 
'Ibid.,  vol.  2,  p.  422. 


^O  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^2% 

Proudhon,  Considerant,  Louis  Blanc  form  part  of  the  na- 
tional representation  but  Robert  Owen,  Emerson  and  various 
other  foreigners,  if  it  were  possible,  ought  to  figure  in  that 
council." 

The  election  took  place  on  Easter  Sunday,  April  23rd  and 
on  the  24th.  The  polls  were  established  at  the  chief  towns 
of  the  cantons.  In  the  country  districts,  in  many  cases  the 
whole  male  population  of  the  commune  attended  early  Mass, 
and  then  marched  in  a  body  to  the  voting-place,  the  cure  and 
the  maire  at  the  head.  Such  splendid  discipline  had  its  roots 
too  deep  to  be  shaken  by  a  few  carpet-bagger  commissaries 
from  Paris,  eminent  neither  for  ability  nor  character. 
Ledru-Rollin's  educational  propaganda  failed,  partly  because 
the  time  was  too  short  (it  might  well  have  taken  years!), 
but  also  because  it  was  not  well  carried  out.  Another  of  his 
pet  ideas  produced  a  more  successful  result.  The  election 
of  1848  was  the  first  real  application  of  the  principle  of  uni- 
versal suffrage.  It  had  been  provided  for  in  the  abortive 
Constitution  of  1793,  but  this  was  its  first  practical  test. 
The  vote  was  enormous ;  of  9,636,000  enrolled  on  the  regis- 
ters, 7,893,000  or  82  per  cent  voted.  Except  at  Rouen  and 
Limoges,  where  regrettable  disorders  occurred,  the  two  days 
passed  off  quietly,  without  disturbance. 

The  victory  went  to  the  moderate  republicans,  the  men 
who  dominated  the  Provisional  Government  and  the  Execu- 
tive Commission.  Of  the  900  new  members  of  the  As- 
sembly,^ the  majority  were  bourgeois,  principally  lawyers 
and  landlords.  The  vote  was  taken  by  scrutin  de  liste,  i.  e., 
each  elector  voted  for  the  total  number  of  representatives  to 
which  his  department  was  entitled  according  to  its  popula- 
tion (i  to  every  40,000),  and  there  was  neither  residence 
qualification  for  the  candidate  nor  limit  to  the  number  of 

1  There  were  really  885,  though  900  is  the  number  usually  given.    See 
complete  list  of  names  in  Lamartine,  op.  cit.,  vol.  2,  p.  230  et  seq. 


229]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  51 

departments  from  which  he  might  be  chosen.  As  there  were 
no  strict  party  organization  or  party  nominations  in  the 
modem  sense  (a  candidate's  name  being  suggested  either 
by  a  group  of  political  friends,  a  newspaper  or  even  by  him- 
self), it  is  very  hard  to  form  an  exact  idea  of  the  result. 
Almost  every  estimate  differs  in  its  classification.  Of  con- 
temporary historians,  for  example,  we  find  Odilon  Barrot 
saying :  "They  [the  radical  republicans]  represented  at  most 
a  quarter  of  the  Assembly;  the  legitimist  party,  about  the 
same  number ;  the  rest  were  divided  between  moderate  repub- 
licans and  former  constitutional  liberals.  There  was  the  true 
force  of  the  Assembly ;  to  these  last  especially  belonged  the 
principal  influence,  by  reason  of  their  experience  in  assem- 
blies and  of  their  already  established  political  notoriety. 
One  may  judge  of  this  by  the  fact  that  of  the  nineteen  presi- 
dents elected  for  the  first  time  in  the  bureaux,  seventeen 
were  former  members  of  parliament.  Although  beaten,  they 
were  naturally  called  to  direct  or  at  least  to  moderate  this 
revolution."  ^  As  an  ex-Orleanist  (under  the  late  regime 
he  had  been  a  leader  of  the  liberal  opposition),  Barrot  might 
be  expected  to  over-emphasize  the  influence  of  his  party  in 
the  new  Assembly.  But  we  find  Louis  Blanc  asserting  that 
"  there  was  something  not  very  reassuring  in  the  fact  that 
out  of  900  members,  the  legitimist  party  claimed  150,  and 
the  Orleanist  party  300."  ^ 

Without  presuming  to  give  figures,  the  Vraie  Repiihlique, 
Thore's  radical  newspaper,  indicates  its  bitter  disappoint- 
ment in  these  terms : 

Since  one  can  guess  the  composition  of  the  Constituante,  we 
have  the  right  and  the  duty  to  say  that  the  Republic  is  com- 
promised! 

1  Barrot,  Memoires  posthumes,  vol.  2,  p.  166. 

2  L.  Blanc,  HUtoire  de  la  revolution  de  1848,  vol  2,  p.  67. 


52  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-230 

Today,  the  party  which  seems  to  triumph  is  that  which 
often  made  a  coalition  under  Louis  Philippe,  and  which 
reached  a  cordial  understanding  toward  the  end  of  the  mon- 
archy. That  bourgeois  coalition  commenced  on  the  outskirts 
of  the  conservatives,  of  whom  several  even  passed  to  the  ranks 
of  the  opposition  and  became  almost  its  chiefs;  examples, 
MM.  Duvergier  de  Hauranne,  Lamartine  and  some  others. 
It  included  all  the  ambitious  or  disappointed  dynastiques,  aim- 
ing for  power,  or  even  having  concurred  in  all  the  tyrannies 
of  the  court;  examples,  MM.  Thiers,  de  Malleville  and 
others,  of  the  left  center.  It  was  allied  with  the  left  of  Barrot, 
Cremieux,  Bethmont  and  the  radical  left  of  ^  Carnot,  Marie 
and  Garnier-Pages,  who  contented  themselves  for  the  moment 
with  the  Constitutional  Charter.  It  fraternized  with ''the 
National  and  all  together  wanted  to  organize  the  parliamentary 
system,  that  is,  the  rule  of  the  bourgeois  class.  Their  common 
enemy  was  not  so  much  the  institution  of  monarchy,  as  the 
personal  system.  The  dynasty  removed,  one  and  all,  with 
only  a  few  differences  in  affections  and  regrets,  will  persist 
in  what  was  the  profound  conviction  of  their  whole  lives,  the 
government  of  the  country  by  the  privileged,  and  for  the  pro- 
fit of  the  privileged. 

It  means  little  that  the  name  of  the  political  form  is  changed 
and  that  the  Bourbon  personalities  are  replaced  by  lawyers 
or  bourgeois.  The  foundation  of  society  will  be  the  same. 
The  lot  of  the  laboring  classes  will  be  improved.  There  will 
be  much  talk  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people.  But  the  rich,  the 
capitalists,  the  skilful,  will  remain  the  sovereigns  in  fact,  and 
Equality  will  be  stricken  from  the  flag  as  in  1830.  Citizens 
of,  the  social  and  popular  republic,  do  you  think  that  the  can- 
didates of  the  Siecle,  the  Constitutionnel  and  the  National 
united,  who  are  going  to  represent  Paris  in  the  National  As- 
sembly, do  you  think  that  citizens  Lasteyrie,  Bethmont,  Vavin, 

1  These  designations  apply,  of  course,  to  the  parties  under  the  July 
monarchy.  The  radical  deputies  of  that  time  were  the  conservatives  of 
the  republic. 


231]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  33 

Cormenin,  Wolowski,  Berger,  Peupin,  Corbon,  Smith,  Garnon, 
Coquerel  and  others,  represent  the  young  French  Republic  ?  ^ 

Later  writers  confirm  the  impression  gained  from  Thore's 
editorial,  so  far  as  the  popular  disappointment  at  a  moder- 
ate republican  victory  is  concerned,  but  also  fail  to  agree  on 
details.  De  la  Gorce  says  that  the  legitimists  won  130  seats, 
that  all  the  ex-monarchists  together  amounted  to  about  a 
fourth  of  the  total,  that  the  rest  were  republican,  dominated 
by  the  moderate  wing.^  Pierre  maintains  that  the  legitimists 
secured  100  seats,  and  makes  no  effort  at  a  summary  of  the 
rest.^  Seignobos  declares  that  the  moderate  republicans 
were  the  best  represented,  having  elected  all  their  notables 
and  gained  more  than  300  seats;  about  100  belonged  to  the 
party  of  the  Reforme;  the  rest  were  legitimists  or  former 
partisans  of  the  gauche  dynastiqu£  (the  O.  Barrot  group) ; 
there  were  no  Orleanists,  even  Thiers  lost  (though  subse- 
quently chosen  at  a  by-election).*  Berton  gives  the  legiti- 
mists not  more  than  150.  As  for  the  strict  Orleanists,  he 
says  that  they,  like  the  legitimists,  were  not  numerous ;  they 
were,  however,  according  to  this  writer,  closely  united,  and 
succeeded  in  electing  the  ablest  of  their  party,  who  were 
determined  to  regain  the  leading  position.  The  greatest 
part  of  the  Assembly  called  themselves  republican  (he  in- 
cludes O.  Barrot,  Duvergier  de  Hauranne  and  others  in  this 
group  rather  than  among  the  Orleanists) .  The  pure  demo- 
crats of  the  Mountain  had  only  about  100  representatives. '^ 

Renard's  estimate  of  the  situation  is  probably  as  near  as 

^  Vraie  repuhlique,  April  29,  1848. 

2  P.  de  la  Gorce,  Hist,  de  la  seconde  repub.  frangaise,  vol.  i,  p.  214. 

3  V.  Pierre,  Hist,  de  la  repuhlique  de  1848,  vol.  i,  p.  239. 
*  Seignobos,  op.  cit.,  Revue  des  cours,  vol.  i,  pp.  749-752. 

5  Annales  de  Vecole  libre  des  sciences  politiques,  Nov.  1897.    H.  Ber- 
ton, "  La  Constitution  de  1848,"  pp.  683  et  seq. 


54  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  j-232 

we  can  get  to  the  facts :  "  Lamartine,  head  of  the  poll  at 
Paris,  was  named  ten  times,  and  the  republicans  of  his 
nuance  seemed  the  most  numerous,  so  far  as  one  could  dis- 
cover in  the  very  confused  results,  as  happens  when  the  vote 
has  been  cast  on  men  rather  than  on  measures.  But  the 
legitimists  were  numerous  (130  to  150),  the  Orleanists  of 
the  dynastic  opposition  were  returned  en  masse;  two  Bona- 
partes  were  sent  by  Corsica;  the  Catholics  had  Montalem- 
bert,  Lacordaire,  de  Falloux,  several  bishops,  without  count- 
ing hostages  in  all  the  parties;  the  radicals,  except  in  two 
or  three  cities,  were  beaten;  the  socialists  crushed."  ^ 

The  astonishing  divergence  in  the  estimates  of  the  number 
of  Orleanists  returned  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  number  of 
irreconcilables  was  very  small;  the  great  majority  accepted 
the  republic  nominally,  while  inwardly  preferring  a  constitu- 
tional monarchy ;  some  tried  to  pave  the  way  for  a  return  of 
the  Comte  de  Paris ;  the  greater  number  set  to  work  through 
alliance  with  the  moderate  republicans,  to  give  the  republic 
a  content  in  harmony  with  their  ideas.  Thus  it  becomes  dif- 
ficult to  distinguish  Orleanists  from  moderate  republicans; 
the  former  were  to  be  recognized  chiefly  by  a  heightened  con- 
servatism. The  different  estimates  appear  to  arise  from  the 
circumstance  that  some  historians  reckon  only  professed 
Orleanists  of  the  unreconstructed  type  while  others  include 
all  who  had  accepted  the  July  Monarchy  when  it  was  in 
power,  no  matter  what  they  called  themselves  in  the  new 
regime. 

The  first  reference  to  the  United  States  after  the  election 
occurs  in  a  shout  of  victory  from  the  moderate  Havre 
Courrier,  on  the  local  election  of  the  list  headed  by  Lamar- 
tine over  the  radicals,  headed  by  one  Deschamps.  "  The 
cause  of  order  is  won.  .  .  .  No  more  of  '93 ;  nothing  of  that 

1  G.  Renard,  La  Repuhlique  de  1848,  p.  40. 


233]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  55 

hideous  epoch.  One  may,  without  drenching  oneself  with 
blood,  pure  or  impure,  be  an  excellent  republican ;  there  are 
already  more  than  fifty  millions  of  that  kind  in  the  United 
States.  Let  the  French  rally  to  these.  In  New  Zealand 
and  in  other  savage  countries  of  the  world,  one  finds  enough 
republicans  like  those  of  citizen  Ledru-Rollin  and  his 
companions."  ^ 

Before  leaving  the  elections,  it  is  impossible  to  resist  quot- 
ing from  Lamartine's  account  oi  his  own  triumph.  Lamar- 
tine  did  in  fact  quite  overshadow  every  one  else  by  being 
returned  from  ten  departments.  This  moves  the  excellent 
poet  to  the  following  comment.  As  is  his  custom,  he  refers 
to  himself  in  the  third  person.  "  If  he  had  said  a  word, 
insinuated  a  desire,  made  a  sign,  he  would  have  been  named 
in  eighty  departments ;  his  popularity  was  boundless  at  Paris, 
in  France,  in  Germany,  in  Italy,  in  America.  For  Germany 
his  name  was  peace ;  for  France  it  was  the  guarantee  against 
the  Terror;  for  Italy  it  was  hope;  for  America  it  was  the 
republic.  He  had  really  at  this  moment  the  sovereignty  of 
the  European  conscience.  He  could  not  take  a  step  in  the 
street  without  arousing  acclamations.  They  followed  him 
to  his  house  and  interrupted  his  sleep,"  etc.^ 

Just  two  weeks  after  the  vote  was  counted,  Lamartine 
came  out  a  bad  fourth  in  the  election  of  the  Executive 
Commission. 

The  first  meeting  of  the  new  Assembly  witnessed  a  mo- 
mentary revival  of  the  February  spirit,  a  wave  of  emotional 
enthusiasm  for  the  republic  and  for  the  principles  of  equality 
and  fraternity.  The  members  of  the  retiring  Provisional 
Government  marched  arm  in  arm  through  the  thronged  and 
decorated  streets;  there  was  cheering,  drum-beating,  trum- 

1  Havre  Courrier,  Apr.  27,   1848. 

2  Lamartine,  Hist,  de  la  revol.  de  1848,  vol.  2,  p.  229. 


^6  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-234 

pets  and  cannon ;  then  when  the  Assembly  had  come  to  order 
in  the  huge  temporary  structure  erected  in  the  court  of  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies  to  seat  the  great  number  of  delegates, 
it  must  needs  adjourn  to  show  itself  on  the  peristyle  to  the 
people  in  the  streets  below.  Nor  was  this  enough;  intoxi- 
cated by  the  enthusiasm  of  the  moment,  the  deputies  rushed 
down  to  "  fraternize  "  with  the  populace,  and  all  spectators 
were  greatly  edified  at  the  view  of  Lacordaire,  the  monk- 
deputy,  in  his  Dominican  black  and  white  robe,  clasping 
hands  through  the  grille  with  blouse-clad  workingmen/ 

The  moderates  were  of  course  full  of  confident  expecta- 
tion in  the  Assembly's  success.  The  radicals  differed.  A 
few  were  temporarily  swept  away  by  the  current  of  popular 
enthusiasm,  but  not  for  long.  One  of  the  most  extreme 
newspapers  describes  the  occasion  in  the  following  terms : 

Good  people,  I  saw  you  day  before  yesterday,  and  on  the  faith 
of  Pere  Duchene,  I,  too,  nearly  forgot  myself  to  the  point  of 
breaking  out  in  frenzied  exclamations.  Yes,  your  intoxi- 
cation won  me;  I  already  felt  my  heart  beat  with  violence 
and  my  eyes  wet  with  tears.  .  .  .  Enthusiasm  is  almost  always 
dangerous.  It  has  caused  us  to  fail  in  all  our  revolutions.  With 
enthusiasm  one  converts  a  republic  into  a  monarchy  as  easily 
as  a  monarchy  into  a  republic.  .  .  .  What  is  the  new  Chamber? 
An  assemblage  of  heterogeneous  elements,  a  mosaic  whose 
badly  assorted  colors,  whose  thousand  pieces,  disposed  as  by 
the  hand  of  chance,  shock  the  eye  and  fatigue  the  spirit,  a 
chaos  where  the  shadows  absorb  the  light  until  the  hand  of 
the  people  comes  to  disentangle  it.  That  is  the  National 
Assembly.  I  ask  you,  can  a  fine,  regular  constitution  pro- 
ceed from  its  midst  ?    Will  great  and  generous  ideas  germinate 

1  Vide  Gamier- Pages,  Hist,  de  la  rev.  de  1848,  vol.  2,  p.  360  et  seq.; 
also  interesting  selections  from  a  contemporary  diary  of  the  provisional 
minister  of  education  published  under  the  title  of  Memorial  d'Hippo- 
lyte  Carnot,  as  vol.  viii  of  the  Bihliotheque  de  la  Soc.  d'histoire  de  la 
revolution  de  1848. 


235]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  57 

in  the  heart  of  a  majority  fashioned  according  to  the  royalty 
of  Orleans?  What  difference  do  you  find  between  the  Na- 
tional Assembly  of  today  and  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
of  former  times?  None.  There  are  the  same  usages,  the 
same  habits,  the  same  dispositions,  and,  mUle  diables!  there 
is  still  the  same  language.  How  many  imbeciles,  among 
these  canton-representatives  who  cannot  articulate  clearly  the 
word  citizen!  Be  assured,  ex-deputies,  you  will  have  to  pro- 
nounce and  to  hear  words  which  will  seem  to  you  much  harder 
than  that.  Great  struggles  are  about  to  begin,  burning 
dicussions  are  about  to  take  place  between  the  last  defenders 
of  tyranny  and  the  young  tribunes  of  the  Republic.  What 
will  be  the  final  word  ?  ^    You  will  know  before  a  month.- 

Victor  Considerant's  paper,  La  Democratic  paciUque,  was 
willing  tO'  give  the  Assembly  a  fair  trial.  "  Let  us  hope  to- 
day that  the  National  Assembly  has  accepted  the  Republic 
with  enthusiastic  unanimity;  we  are  through  with  the 
reservations  of  certain  papers,  which  were  pleased  tO'  sow 
irritation  betw^een  the  various  classes  of  citizens ;  let  us  hope 
too  that  the  Assembly  will  justify  by  its  frankly  democratic 
attitude  the  confidence  which  the  people  has  placed  in  it 
since  its  first  acts,  and  that  it  will  repair  by  prompt  and 
energetic  measures  the  time  unfortunately  lost  in  half- 
measures  by  the  Provisional  Government."  ^ 

The  majority  of  the  radicals,  however,  were  hostile  from 
the  start.  Thus  we  have  an  editorial  by  Proudhon  in  the 
Reprcscntant  du  pcuplc,  which  shows  a  keen  comprehension 
of  the  spirit  of  '48.  It  begins  in  this  wise :  "  The  National 
Assembly  has  formed  itself  to  the  soamd  of  the  cannon,  the 
drum,  fanfares,  surrounded  by  all  the  pomp  of  war.     In 

1  The  text  reads  ynois,  apparently  a  misprint  for  mot. 

^Pere  Duchene,  May  7.  The  last  sentence  has  a  sinister  sound,  in 
view  of  iMay  15  and  June  23,  and  raises  the  unanswered  question  of 
how  far  ahead  these  movements  were  planned  and  organized. 

^  Democratie  pacidque,  May  5. 


58  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [235 

these  days  when  the  imagination  is  seduced  by  the  senses, 
the  heart  drawn  on  by  the  imagination,  reason  absorbed  by 
sentiment,  when  the  mind  thinks  itself  infinite  because  it  is 
empty,  the  soul  has  no  more  attraction  except  for  the  un- 
folding of  sensibility,  for  the  illusions  of  hope.  Reflection 
seems  to  have  lost  its  rights,  judgment  to  have  laid  down  its 
authority.  It  is  the  wofk  of  Lamourette  kisses,  it  is  the 
moment  of  perfidious  reconciliations.  But  soon  enthusiasm 
wanes;  sentiment  vanishes  like  a  caress;  in  place  of  con- 
genial ideas,  reason  returns  to  put  its  redoubtable  ques- 
tions." ' 

The  Reforme,  somewhat  later,  says  that  nothing  vital  is 
being  accomplished,  "  because  the  chamber  elected  is  not  a 
serious  assembly ;  because  it  does  not  comprehend  the  severe 
duties  of  this  time ;  because,  in  talent  and  in  vigor,  it  is  in- 
ferior to  the  chambers  of  the  monarchy;  because  it  is  wast- 
ing its  hours  (last  hours  of  hope!)  in  personal  debates,  in 
useless  colloquies,  in  frivolous  prayers."  ^ 

Thore's  Vraie  republique  in  its  bitterness,  throws  an  inter- 
esting light  on  the  question  already  referred  to,  as  to  who 
are  to  be  classed  as  Orleanists. 

Do  you  believe  in  conversions  ?  The  whole  National  Assembly 
has  cried  together:  Vive  la  Republique!  We  watched  care- 
fully the  hands  which  have  for  so  long  weighed  down  upon 
us ;  all  were  raised  today  for  the  Republic.  Here  the  Domini- 
can Lacordaire  and  Monseigneur  the  Bishop  of  Langres ;  there 
M.  the  Marquis  de  La  Rochejacquelein  and  M.  Berryer;  then 
M.  de  Hauranne,  M.  de  Lasteyrie,  M.  de  Remusat,  M.  de  Malle- 
ville,  M.  Barrot,  M.  Dupin  and  all  the  friends  of  all  the  odious 
regimes  which  have  crushed  France  since  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  All  cried:  Vive  la  Republique.  Not  a 
single  man  was  met  who  had  sufficient  conscience  to  declare 

1  Representant  du  peuple,  May  5. 
'Re  for  me,  May  21. 


237]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  ^g 

that  he  was  not  and  that  he  never  had  been  a  republican.  .  .  . 
An  assembly  is  like  a  man.  One  may  judge  it  at  first  sight 
by  its  physiognomy.  The  social  and  popular  republic,  the 
republic  of  equality  and  justice,  how  many  adorers  does  it 
count  in  that  reunion  of  bourgeois  who  considered  it  yesterday 
a  crime  or  a  folly?  On  leaving  the  hall,  real  republicans 
thought  perhaps  of  that  fine  scene  in  Hamlet :  Words,  words, 
words.^ 

One  of  the  principal  ex-Orleanists  referred  to,  admits  the 
justice  of  There's  stricture.  "  In  all  political  bodies  there 
is  a  certain  dissimulation,  which  is  not  hypocrisy  nor  false- 
ness, but  a  concession  forced  by  this  or  that  circumstance  of 
the  moment.  Thus  to  judge  from  the  outside  demonstra- 
tions of  the  new  assembly  one  would  have  thought  that  it 
was  entirely  composed  of  profoundly  convinced  republicans, 
which  was  far  from  being  the  reality:  the  great  majority 
felt,  it  is  true,  the  necessity  of  rallying  to  the  republic  and 
lending  itself  with  a  good  grace  to  the  experiment  which  was 
about  to  be  made;  but  for  a  large  number,  this  was  only  a 
concession  made  to  circumstances,  a  pure  marriage  of  rea- 
son, as  one  spoke  of  it  at  the  time."  ^ 

The  legitimists  were  little  friendlier  than  the  radicals. 
"Those  who  regularly  attend  the  debates  of  the  Assembly, 
have  already  the  conviction  that  a  constitution  cannot  come 
out  of  this  Assembly  and  that  it  conceals  nothing  but  storms. 
Nothing  has  come  out  of  it  but  disputes,  in  place  of  dis- 
cussion, and  questions  of  personalities  in  place  of  questions 
of  principles."  ' 

To  complete  the  picture  of  the  first  meeting  of  the  As- 
sembly, we  have  the  impressions  of  two  outsiders.  One 
was  an  American.     "  Even  in  modern  maiden  parliamentary 

1  Vraie  repuhlique,  May  5. 

20.  Barrot,  Memoires  posthumes,  vol.  2,  p.  166  et  seq. 

3  Gazette  de  France,  May  la 


6o  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["233 

meetings,  be  it  by  accident  or  design,  some  place  consecrated 
by  the  occasion  will  be  visited  in  time  to  come ;  but  the  great, 
or  monstre  temporary  shed  in  which  the  National  Assembly 
of  France  first  met,  with  its  pasteboard  figures  without  and 
its  pasteboard  presidential  canopy  within,  its  endless  tri- 
colored  flags  in  faisceaux,  and  its  scenic  decorations,  par- 
taking partly  of  the  circus,  and  partly  of  the  Bal  Morel,  will 
disappear  like  a  mimic  stage  scene,  carrying  with  it  no  unapt 
commentary  on  the  no  less  fragile  performance  beneath 
its  roof."  ' 

We  have  also  the  remarkable  letters  of  Mme.  d'Agoult, 
who  wrote  under  the  pseudonym  of  Daniel  Stern.  Her 
History  of  the  Revolution  of  1848  is  one  of  the  best  accounts 
of  the  early  period  from  the  moderate  republican  angle. 
"  Let  us  enter  the  National  Assembly  together,  if  you  please. 
Our  first  impression  will  be  one  of  surprise.  Bald  heads, 
gray  hairs,  bent  backs,  heavy  steps,  broken  voices,  that  is 
what  one  sees  and  hears,  when  one  plunges,  from  the  height 
of  the  tribune,  into-  the  gathering  of  the  first  choices  of 
revolutionary  France.  Let  us  say  it  politely,  the  National 
Assembly  is  of  a  certain  age.  .  .  .  Everybody  agrees  to- 
day, if  the  National  Assembly  has  a  defect,  it  is  assuredly 
not  excess  of  revolutionary  ardor.  .  .  .  The  great  breath  of 
February  has  not  penetrated  that  enclosure."  ^ 

The  Assembly  contained  99  lawyers,  51  commissioners 
and  sub-commissioners  of  the  government,  47  magistrates 
(including  former  judges  and  those  still  on  the  bench), 
25  physicians,  21  workmen,  16  priests  (including  three  bish- 
ops and  a  Protestant  minister),  16  generals  of  brigade  and 
division  (including  two  admirals),  18  cultivators,  21  pub- 
licists and  editors,  1 1  present  or  former  notaries,  6  members 

1  J.  F.  Corkran,  History  of  the  National  Constituent  Assembly,  p.  14. 

2  Daniel    Stern,   Lettres   repuhlicaines,    "  Lettre   ii :    Physionomie    de 
I'Assemblee  Nationale.     A  Fanny  Lewald,  June  4,  1848." 


239]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  6l 

of  the  Institute,  4  dramatic  authors,  4  colonels,  3  sons  and 
nephews  of  an  emperor  and  of  kings,  i  pharmacist,  i  inn- 
keeper, I  confectioner,  i  chief  of  an  institution,  i  baker,  i 
street-porter.^ 

One  may  fairly  distinguish  four  main  parties  in  the  As- 
sembly, the  moderate  republicans,  the  radical  republicans, 
the  socialists  and  the  legitimists.  The  moderate  republicans 
should  again  be  divided  into  what  were  called  at  the  time 
republicains  de  la  veille  (republicans  of  the  eve)  and  repub- 
licains  du  lendemain  (republicans  of  the  morrow),  or  as  we 
should  say,  original  republicans  and  converts.  The  line  be- 
tween them  is  very  obscure,  but  the  existence  of  the  two 
elements  is  highly  important  for  our  study. 

The  former  element  was  the  majority  party  in  the  As- 
sembly, as  it  had  been  in  the  government  from  the  start. 
Lamartine,^  Marrast,  Gamier-Pages  and  the  other  heads  o:f 
the  provisional  regime  were  its  parliamentary  leaders; 
Cavaignac  soon  became  its  executive  representative.  Le 
National  was  its  official  organ.  This  party  represented  the 
capitalist  bourgeois  class  of  liberal  political  opinions.  It 
wanted  a  republican  form  of  government  as  a  greater  safe- 
guard of  the  reforms  won  in  1789  and  not  well  maintained 
under  subsequent  governments.  It  desired  freedom  of 
speech,  press  and  person,  a  wide  extension  of  the  suffrage, 

1  This  curious  and  somewhat  miscellaneous  list  is  taken  from  La 
Vraie  republique  for  May  16,  1848,  which  also  prints  the  names  of  the 
deputies  practising  the  professions  enumerated.  It  is  obviously  ex- 
tremely incomplete. 

2  While  acting  with  this  group  politically  in  1848,  Lamartine  had  pre- 
viously been  an  independent,  affiliating  with  no  party  during  the  Orlean- 
ist  regime,  willing  to  support  any  government  whose  spirit  was  demo- 
cratic. "  It  will  appear  that  in  Lamartine's  view,  the  question  as  to 
form  of  government  was  rather  one  of  circumstances  than  of  principles. 
.  .  .  While  his  conscience  forbade  him  to  excite  a  revolution,  yet 
should  circumstances  produce  one,  he  would  gladly  accept  it."  Lamar- 
tine, Hist,  of  the  revol.  of  1848,  bk.  i,  p.  46. 


62  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-240 

the  abolition  of  parliamentary  corruption.  Lamartine  and, 
to  a  somewhat  less  extent,  his  political  friends,  had  all  the 
virtues  and  vices  of  the  Girondins  whom  they  admired  so 
much. 

The  repuhlicains  du  lendemain  were  ex-monarchists; 
some  had  been  followers  of  Charles  X  and  then  of  the  Due 
de  Bordeaux,  more  had  been  adherents  of  Louis  Philippe. 
In  general,  the  legitimist  cause  had  deeper  roots  in  sentiment 
and  tradition  than  the  Orleanist,  and  its  supporters  were 
more  stubbornly  loyal  in  the  hour  of  defeat.  There  were 
some  legitimists,  indeed,  who  rallied  to  the  republic  (not  of 
course  as  an  ultimate  form  of  government,  but  as  a  tem- 
porary modus  vivendi)  with  savage  satisfaction  at  the  down- 
fall of  the  usurper's  throne;  better  a  republic  than  a  false 
royalty,  they  declared.  In  certain  legitimist  journals  ap- 
peared a  deadly  parallel,  illustrating  the  remarkable  coin- 
cidence in  the  external  episodes  of  the  revolutions  of  1830 
and  1848  as  an  instance  of  divine  retribution  upon  the 
traitorous  Duke  of  Orleans.  But  the  majority  preferred 
not  to  compromise  their  pure  devotion  to  their  king  merely 
to  gratify  their  spite.  The  Orleanists,  on  the  other  hand, 
being  attached  to  their  dynasty  by  a  past  of  eighteen  years 
instead  of  one  of  thirteen  centuries,  had  fewer  misgivings 
about  leaving  the  ship  when  it  was  manifestly  sinking.  It 
was  they,  therefore,  who  formed  the  bulk  of  the  repuhlicains 
du  lendemain,  some  no  doubt  with  the  secret  purpose  of 
working  for  the  return  of  the  constitutional  monarchy, 
others  content  with  any  form  of  government,  provided  its 
substance  guaranteed  the  safety  of  their  economic  interests. 
Like  the  repuhlicains  de  la  veille,  they  too  represented  the 
capitalist  bourgeois  class,  but  rather  that  portion  which  held 
conservative  political  opinions.  Barrot  was  their  most  dis- 
tinguished representative  in  the  Assembly,  until  Thiers  later 
joined  him.    Le  Constitutionnel  was  the  faithful  journalistic 


241  ]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  63 

exponent  of  this  type  of  mind.  Its  emphasis  was  on  a 
strong  executive,  whereas  the  other  wing  of  moderate  repub- 
licans would  prefer  to  see  the  power  in  the  hands  of  the 
legislative.  Being  essentially  cautious,  however,  it  sought 
for  the  preservation  of  peace  and  property  in  a  system  of 
checks  and  balances. 

The  radical  republicans  were  rather  a  group  apart.  They 
had  for  their  political  masters,  not  the  Girondins,  but  the 
Jacobins.  Ledru-Rollin  and  Flocon  stand  as  typical  of  this 
party :  La  Reforme  should  be  read  to  secure  their  political 
point  of  view.  A  concise  statement  of  their  platform  is  to 
be  found  in  one  of  Ledru-Rollin's  circulars  to  his  com- 
missaries, with  reference  to  the  approaching  elections. 
After  exalting  the  French  republican  trinity,  liberty,  equal- 
ity, fraternity,  he  continued,  "  From  them  are  deducible : 
the  abolition  of  every  privilege,  the  division  of  taxes  ac- 
cording to  fortune  [income-tax],  a  proportional  and  pro- 
gressive inheritance-tax,  a  freely  elected  judiciary  and  the 
most  complete  development  of  the  jury  system,  military  ser- 
vice weighing  equally  upon  all,  the  instrument  of  labor  as- 
sured to  all,  the  democratic  reconstitution  of  industry  and 
of  credit,  voluntary  association  everywhere  substituted  for 
the  disorganized  impulses  of  egoism."  ^  Despite  the  slightly 
socialistic  sound  of  a  few  of  these  phrases,  which  are  to  be 
attributed  to  the  atmosphere  of  the  times  and  the  desire  to 
catch  the  proletarian  vote,  the  radical  republicans  were  in  no 
sense  socialists.  They  were  made  up  of  the  small  shop- 
keeper class,  who  in  their  reverence  for  property  and  the 
wage-system,  were  as  firmly  bourgeois  as  the  large  capital- 
ists. They  already  had  their  feet  on  the  lower  rounds  of  the 
ladder  of  fortune  and  had  no  wish  to  overturn  the  ladder 
and  construct  a  new  one,  but  merely  to  be  assisted  to  mount 

1  Reprisentant  du  peuple,  April  8. 


64  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [242 

more  quickly.  They  believed  in  the  "  democratic,"  but  not 
in  the  "  social  "  republic,  in  Robespierre,  but  not  in  Babeuf.^ 

The  socialists,  then  as  always,  but  perhaps  even  more 
then  than  now,  were  united  only  in  dissent.  Louis  Blanc, 
Proudhon,  Cabet,  Leroux  were  among  their  chief  leaders; 
no  two  of  them  could  agree  on  a  constructive  system. 
Blanc's  system  of  cooperative  workshops  was  as  different 
from  Proudhon's  anarchism  as  Cabet's  community  on  the 
banks  of  the  Mississippi  was  from  either.  No  newspaper 
could  rank  as  "the"  socialist  organ  par  excellence;  most 
were  purely  personal ;  Cabet  spoke  through  Le  Populaire  as 
individually  as  Proudhon  through  Le  Representant  du 
peuple.  The  bulk  of  the  socialist  strength  lay  in  the  work- 
ingmen  of  Paris;  the  proletariat  of  other  large  industrial 
cities  contributed,  though  less  ardently. 

Finally  came  the  legitimists,  of  whom  we  have  already 
spoken.  Berryer  and  La  Roche jacquelein  were  two  of  their 
most  conspicuous  leaders  in  the  Assembly;  La  Gazette  de 
France,  strongly  Catholic  and  royalist,  was  their  chief  jour- 
nal. They  found  the  officers  of  their  army  in  the  Faubourg 
St.  Germain,  the  privates  in  the  peasantry  of  France. 

A  few  deputies  like  Barbes,  a  few  newspapers  like  Le 
Pere  Dtichene,  represented  the  clubs  of  Paris;  lacking  a 
definite  program,  they  sympathized  more  with  the  socialists 
than  with  any  other  party,  but  were  more  at  home  in  street- 
demonstrations  for  the  purpose  of  upsetting  abuses  than  in 
constructive  administration. 

A  few  others,  like  Lacordaire  and  Montalembert,  repre- 
sented the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  were  willing  to 
forward  its  interests  by  republicanism  or  monarchism  as 

1  Strictly  speaking,  this  party,  too,  shouldi  be  ranked  among  the  re- 
publicains  de  la  veille,  having  as  good  a  right  to  the  title  as  their  more 
moderate  brethren. 


243]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  65 

might  seem  most  convenient.  L'^re  Nouvelle,  Lacordaire's 
paper,  was  the  standard-bearer  of  these  devots. 

The  strong  parties  were,  however,  those  sketched  above, 
of  whom  the  legitimists  may  be  called  the  right,  the  repiib- 
licains  du  lendemain  the  right  center,  the  moderate  repvbli- 
cains  de  la  veille  the  left  center,  the  radical  republicans  the 
left  and  the  socialists  the  extreme  left.  These  parties  were 
rather  common  tendencies  of  political  thought  than  organi- 
zations as  we  understand  party  organizations.  Such  com- 
mon action  as  they  had  was  usually  for  some  temporary 
purpose. 

There  were,  however,  certain  "  groups  "  of  a  more  or  less 
permanent  character  into  which  the  Assembly  presently 
divided  itself.  These  groups  were  named  from  the  location 
of  their  meeting-places  and  were  each  composed  of  men  of 
similar  political  beliefs.  The  leading  ones  were  five  in 
number :  (a)  the  Reunion  du  Palais  National,  the  coterie  of 
moderate  republicains  de  la  veille,  with  more  than  300  mem- 
bers; (b)  the  Groupe  de  la  rue  de  Poitiers,  mostly  legitimists 
and  Catholics,  joined  after  June  by  the  old  dynastic  opposi- 
tion, the  Barrot  and  Thiers  ex-Orleanists,  who  made  up  the 
core  of  the  republicains  du  lendemain',  (c)  the  Reunion  de  la 
rue  de  Castiglione  and  (d)  the  Reunion  de  la  rue  des  Pyra- 
mides,  both  composed  of  deputies  of  the  left;  (e)  the  Re- 
union de  rinstitut,  made  up  of  the  members  of  the  Executive 
Commission  and  a  few  of  their  friends,  who  seceded  from 
the  Reunion  du  Palais  National  after  June,  the  larger  body 
supporting  Cavaignac.  The  latter  was  of  course  the  most 
powerful  group.  ^ 

Even  these  groups  were  not  in  the  least  political  party 
machines,  but  rather  rallying  points  for  common  counsel 

1  For  a  summary  of  the  various  combinations  attempted  by  these 
groups,  see  Seignobos,  op.  cit.,  Rezue  des  cotirs,  1907-08,  vol.  i,  pp. 
804-806. 


66  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["244 

outside  the  walls  of  the  Assembly.  There  was,  no  doubt, 
some  effort  at  common  action  as  well,  but  not  of  a  highly- 
organized  character. 

Such  was  the  party-system  in  the  new  Assembly.  It 
should  be  added  that  before  getting  down  to  work,  the 
Assembly  divided  itself  into  fifteen  permanent  committees 
of  sixty  members  each  for  the  study  of  such  bills  as 
might  appropriately  be  referred  to  them;  special  commis- 
sions of  reference  might  also  be  appointed.  The  Assembly 
was  also  divided  by  lot  into  fifteen  bureaux,  the  personnel 
of  which  was  changed  monthly.  The  bureaux  were  sim- 
ply so  many  subdivisions  of  the  Assembly  to  which  every 
important  bill  must  be  referred  for  discussion,  before  being 
voted  on  in  the  Assembly  as  a  whole;  a  vote  was  taken  in 
each  bureau,  (though  this  was  not  binding  on  the  Assembly) 
and  a  reporter  chosen  to  express  the  views  of  the  bureau  to 
the  Assembly.  This  was  merely  a  device  for  expediting  the 
consideration  of  a  measure  and  giving  everybody  a  chance 
to  express  himself  without  delaying  all  other  business  till 
each  in  turn  had  had  the  ear  of  the  whole  Assembly,  a  mani- 
fest impossibility  in  so  large  a  body.  Every  report  must  be 
distributed  twenty- four  hours  before  discussion.  Amend- 
ments must  be  voted  on  before  the  principal  question,  the 
articles  then  voted  separately,  finally  the  bill  as  a  whole.  The 
vote  was  taken  by  rising  or  by  a  public  division  (on  demand 
of  twenty  members),  or  par  appel  nominal  a  la  tribune  et  au 
scrutin  secret,  each  member  depositing  his  secret  ballot  be- 
fore the  presiding  ofificers,  (on  demand  of  forty).  Five 
hundred  were  necessary  for  a  quorum.  Every  motion  was 
submitted  to  a  preliminary  vote  of  prise  en  consideration; 
if  the  subject  was  deemed  worthy  of  discussion,  such  could 
not  take  place  until  ^we  days  after.  Every  amendment  pre- 
sented during  the  discussion  was  sent  to  the  committee  in 
charge  of  the  bill,  on  demand  of  its  reporter.      Matters 


245]  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  67 

could  always  be  expedited  by  a  vote  of  urgence,  which  re- 
quired only  a  simple  majority.  Each  committee  must  make 
a  weekly  report  of  petitions  addressed  to  it.  The  president 
had  the  right  to  requisition  an  armed  force  to  guard  the 
Assembly.  All  recommendations  and  requests  relative  to 
private  interests  were  forbidden  to  representatives. 

Such  were  the  Assembly's  chief  working-rules,  adopted 
May  20.^  The  presiding  officer  was  one  of  the  members, 
elected  monthly.  Buchez  was  chosen  May  5,  Senard 
June  5,  A.  Marrast  held  the  post  by  continued  re-election, 
July  19,  1848-May  26,  1849.  Finally,  a  few  words  must 
be  said  on  the  chronology  of  the  constitution.  The  first  step 
was  the  election  of  a  commission  de  constitution  of  eighteen 
members,  which  was  done  on  May  17  and  18.  On  the  first 
ballot,  Cormenin  received  657  votes,  Marrast  646,  Lamen- 
nais  552,  Vivien  517,  Tocqueville  490,  Dufaure  395  and 
were  declared  elected,  none  of  the  numerous  other  candi- 
dates having  an  absolute  majority  (393,  there  being  784 
present).^  The  next  day  on  the  second  ballot,  374  being 
necessary  to  a  choice,  Martin  (de  Strasbourg)  received  550 
votes,  Woirhaye  474,  Coquerel  453,  Corbon  459,  Tourret 
(de  I'Allier)  414,  G.  de  Beaumont  388  and  Dupin  388.  On 
the  third  ballot,  with  332  votes  necessary  to  elect,  Vaulabelle 
had  390,  O.  Barrot  368,  Pages  (de  TAriege)  353,  Domes 
352  and  V.  Considerant  339.^  Of  the  personalities  of  these 
men,  something  will  be  said  later. 

The  history  of  the  formation  of  the  constitution  may  now 
be  briefly  indicated  in  tabular  form : 

1  Vide  F.  Helie,  Les  Constitutions  de  la  France,  p.  11 13  et  seq. 

^  Moniteur,  May  18. 

^  Ibid.,  May  19.    Woirhaye  here  misspelled  Voirhaye. 


58  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^246 

Election  of  commission  May  17,  18 

Formation  of  constitution  in  commission May  i^June  19 

First  report  of  constitution  to  Assembly.^     Ordered 

printed,  distributed  and  sent  to  bureaux  June  19 

Discussion  in  bureaux July  1-22 

Conferences  between  delegates  of  bureaux,  reporting 

their  criticisms,  and  commission July  24-August  5 

Revision  by  commission  August  7-26 

Revised  text  read  to  Assembly  2 August  29 

Second  report  of  constitution August  30 

Beginning  of  public  debates  in  Assembly  ^ Sept.  4 

End  of  debates ;  third  reference  to  commission Oct.  23 

Final  revision  by  commission  Oct.  23-31 

Final  report  of  constitution  *  Oct.  31 

Commencement  of  final  revision  by  Assembly Nov.  2 

Adoption  of  constitution  Nov.  4 

Proclamation  to  people  Nov.  12 

1  This  first  draft  was  read  to  the  Assembly  by  Marrast.  Cf.  Moni- 
teur,  June  20. 

2  The  revised  text  of  the  constitution  was  read  by  Woirhaye,  Marrast 
being  indisposed.  The  following  day,  Marrast  formally  presented  the 
report  of  the  commission's  work,  but  did  not  read  it;  it  was  ordered 
printed,  together  with  the  text  of  the  constitution  and  furnished  the 
basis  for  the  Assembly  debates.    Cf.  Moniteur,  Aug.  30  and  31. 

3  Beginning  with  Sept.  4,  the  Assembly  held  two  sessions  daily,  from 
II  a.  m.  to  I  p.  m.,  for  the  discussion  of  ordinary  legislation,  and  from 
2  to  6  p.  m.  for  the  discussion  of  the  constitution.     Vide  Moniteur,  Aug.  31. 

*  It  was  not  read  as  a  whole,  but  printed  and  distributed  to  the  mem- 
bers at  their  homes,  on  the  evening  of  Oct.  31.     Cf.  Moniteur,  Oct.  31. 


?  CHAPTER  III 

What  France  Thought  About  America 

Having  considered  what  France  was  thinking  about  her- 
self at  the  time  she  started  constitution-making,  it  is  now 
time  to  find  out  what  France  thought  about  America.  That 
will  put  us  in  a  position  to  see  why  the  American  constitu- 
tion appealed  very  strongly  to  some  Frenchmen  and  not  at 
all  to  others. 

That  the  attention  of  France  was  early  directed  toward 
America  in  the  February  days  is  beyond  dispute.  The  offi- 
cial friendliness  of  the  two  governments  went  rather  beyond 
the  merely  formal  courtesies  of  diplomatic  recognition. 

The  interchanges  begin  with  an  act  of  the  American  min- 
ister, Richard  Rush,  so  unprecedented  in  its  nature  that  his 
official  report  of  it  to  the  Secretary  of  State  betrays  no  little 
anxiety.  It  is  addressed  to  the  Hon.  James  Buchanan,  Sec- 
cretary  of  State,  and  dated  ''  Legation  of  the  U.  S.,  Paris, 
March  4,  1848."  x\fter  describing  the  fall  of  the  monarchy 
and  the  establishment  of  the  republic,  the  dispatch  continues : 

Of  a  revolution  so  total  and  sudden,  I  am  not  now  to  speak. 
The  journals  of  the  world  are  still  teeming  with  it.  Nor  can 
I  yet  speak  of  the  acts  of  the  new  government,  except  to  say 
that  they  have  been  characterized  so  far  by  moderation  and 
magnanimity  in  the  midst  of  triumphs  of  a  nature  to  have 
intoxicated  minds  less  pure  and  firm  than  happily  are  believed 
to  be  possessed  by  its  leading  members. 

I  press  to  what,  foremost  of  all  at  present,  I  am  bound  to 
report  to  you — namely,  the  part  which,  as  representing  the 
247]  69 


yo  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  j-^^g 

United  States,  I  have  taken  under  the  new  duties  that  encom- 
passed me. 

On  Saturday,  the  26th,  I  received  an  intimation,  earnestly 
given,  that  my  personal  presence  at  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  to 
cheer  and  felicitate  the  provisional  government,  would  be 
acceptable.  The  information  was  not  officially  sent,  but  I 
believed  it  to  be  true. 

I  asked  a  short  interval  for  reflection. 

Before  the  day  was  out,  I  imparted  my  determination  to 
take  the  step.  Monday  morning,  the  28th,  was  the  time  ap- 
pointed for  it;  and  accordingly  I  repaired  to  the  Hotel  de 
Ville,  the  Secretary  of  the  Legation  accompanying  me.  To  the 
provisional  government  there  assembled,  I  delivered  the  ad- 
dress, a  copy  of  which  is  enclosed. 

It  was  cordially  received,  and  M.  Arago,  on  the  part  of  the 
members,  replied  to  it. 

He  remarked  that  they  heard  without  surprise,  but  with 
lively  pleasure  what  I  said;  France  expected  it  from  an  ally 
to  whom  she  now  drew  so  close  by  the  proclamation  of  the 
Republic.  He  thanked  me,  in  the  name  of  the  Provisional 
Government,  for  the  wishes  I  expressed  for  the  greatness 
and  prosperity  of  France;  and  in  alluding  to  the  words  it 
had  called  up  from  General  Washington's  address  in  1796 
on  receiving  the  French  colors,  he  expressed  a  confidence 
that  they  would  be  not  merely  a  desire,  but  a  reality.  M. 
Dupont  (de  TEure)  as  President  of  the  Provisional  Govern- 
ment, then  advanced,  and,  taking  me  by  the  hand,  said,  "  The 
French  people  grasps  that  of  the  American  nation."  Here  the 
ceremony  ended.  In  coming  away,  three  of  the  members  of 
the  Government  conducted  us  out  of  the  building;  the  guard 
presented  arms,  and  cries  went  up  of  ''  Vive  la  Republique 
des  Etats  Unis!"  Major  Poussin,  a  French  officer,  who 
accompanied  General  Bernard  to  the  United  States,  and  who, 
from  his  attachment  to  our  country,  was  naturalized  there, 
also  attended  me. 

On  Sunday,  the  27th,  I  received  the  note  of  that  day's 
date  from  M.  Lamartine,  as  Provisional  Minister  of  Foreiga 


249]      ^^^^  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  yi 

Affairs,  which  announced  to  me,  in  official  form,  the  existence 
of  the  new  government.  I  answered  it  on  Monday.  Copies 
of  the  note  and  answer  are  enclosed. 

The  Provisional  Government  published  my  answer  the 
morning  after  its  reception.  My  address  of  Monday  has  also 
appeared  in  the  newspapers — not,  however,  in  its  exact  form.^ 
I  had  written  it  out,  to  guard  against  inaccuracies  on  an 
occasion  so  grave,  and  left  the  paper  in  the  hands  of  the 
Provisional  Government ;  a  transcript  of  which  you  now  have. 

This  succinct  narrative  will  accurately  apprize  the  Presi- 
dent of  what  I  have  done.  I  shall  anxiously  await  his  judg- 
ment upon  it  all.  The  events  were  as  new  as  momentous. 
They  had  transcended  all  expectation.  In  recognizing  the 
new  state  of  things,  as  far  as  I  could  without  your  instruc- 
tions, and  in  doing  it  promptly  and  solemnly,  I  had  the  deep 
conviction  that  I  was  stepping  forth  in  aid  of  the  great  cause 
of  order  in  France  and  beyond  France,  and  that  I  was  acting 
in  the  spirit  of  my  Government  and  country,  the  interpreter 
of  whose  voice  it  fell  upon  me  suddenly  to  become.  If  I 
erred,  I  must  hope  that  the  motives  which  swayed  me  will 
be  my  shield.  The  Provisional  Government  needed  all  the 
moral  support  attainable,  after  a  revolutionary  hurricane 
which  shook  society  to  its  base,  and  left  everything  at  first 
portentous  and  trembling.  In  such  an  exigency,  hours,  mo- 
ments were  important;  and  the  United  States  are  felt  as  a 
power  in  the  world,  under  the  blow  that  has  been  struck. 

I  am  not  unaware  that  the  course  I  have  pursued  departs 
from  diplomatic  usage,  and  separates  me,  for  the  time  being, 
from  the  European  diplomatic  corps,  accredited,  like  myself, 

1  The  version  published  in  the  Moniteur  and  the  National,  which  was 
identical  in  both  papers,  seems  a  fairly  accurate  translation.  The  prin- 
cipal divergences  are  where  "this  early  opportunity"  is  translated 
"  la  premiere  occasion "  and  where  "  All  will  ardently  hope  that 
through  her  wisdom  the  results  may  be  beneficial  to  mankind,  of  which 
the  magnanimous  bearing,"  etc.,  is  rendered  "Tous  les  Americains 
auront  I'ardent  espoir  que,  grace  a  la  sagesse  de  la  France,  ces  institu- 
tions auront  pour  le  genre  humain  les  heureux  resultats  dont  la  conduite 
magnanime,"  etc.    See  issues  of  these  papers  for  Feb.  29. 


^2  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  T^co 

to  the  late  Government  of  France,  all  members  of  which  will 
probably  wait  instructions  before  adopting  any  steps  of  recog- 
nition. Having  acted  under  a  sense  of  independent  duty  in 
the  emergency,  I  am,  however,  not  the  less  aware  that  the 
diplomatic  corps  represents  countries  in  friendly  relationsi 
with  the  United  States,  and  that  it  will  hence  be  as  much  my 
duty  as  inclination  to  go  on  maintaining  that  amicable  footing 
with  its  members,  ever  dictated  by  reciprocal  good-will  among 
the  representatives  of  friendly  powers,  whatever  different 
forms  of  government  they  may  represent. 
I  have  the  honor,  etc. 

Richard  Rush. 
Hon.  James  Buchanan^  Secretary  of  State. 

The  address  which  Rush  had  made  to  the  members  of  the 
Provisional  Government  and  which  he  enclosed  in  his  letter 
to  Secretary  Buchanan  was  as  follows : 

To  the  Members  of  the  Provisional  Government  of  the  French 

Republic : 

Gentlemen:  As  the  representative  of  the  United  States, 
charged  with  the  interests  and  rights  of  my  country  and  of 
American  citizens  now  in  France,  and  too  far  off  to  await 
instructions,  I  seize  this  early  opportunity  of  tendering  to  you 
my  felicitations,  not  doubting  the  sanction  of  my  Government 
to  the  step  I  thus  take  in  advance.  Nor  can  I  avoid  the  oc- 
casion of  saying  that  the  memory  of  the  ancient  alliance  and 
friendship  between  France  and  the  United  States  is  ever  fresh 
and  grateful  with  us,  and  that  I  am  of  nothing  more  sure 
than  that  the  voice  of  my  country  will  be  universal  and  loud 
for  the  prosperity,  happiness,  and  glory  of  France  under  the 
institutions  she  has  announced,  subject  to  ratification  by  the 
national  will.  All  will  ardently  hope  that  through  her  wisdom 
the  results  may  be  beneficial  to  mankind,  of  which  the  mag- 
nanimous bearing  of  her  people  in  the  late  events  affords  so 
auspicious  a  promise.  It  is  under  such  institutions  that  the 
United  States  have  for  seventy  years  enjoyed  constant  pros- 


251]      WHAT  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  7^ 

parity,  with  a  Government  of  uniform  stability;  and  whilst 
they  invariably  leave  to  other  nations  the  choice  of  their  own 
forms,  without  interference  in  any  way,  they  would  naturally 
rejoice  in  beholding  this  great  nation  flourish  under  institu- 
tions which  have  secured  for  themselves  the  blessings  of  social 
order  and  public  liberty. 

Allow  me  then,  gentlemen,  using  the  words  of  the  great  and 
good  Washington,  the  immortal  founder  of  my  country,  on 
an  occasion  which  the  present  recalls,  to  signalize  this  address 
to  you,  by  mingling  my  felicitations  with  a  fervent  aspiration 
that  "  The  friendship  of  the  two  republics  may  be  commensur- 
ate with  their  existence." 

Rush  also  enclosed  Lamartine's  letter  of  February  2y,  an- 
nouncing his  succession  to  the  portfolio  of  foreign  affairs, 
and  his  own  answer  to  the  same,  dated  February  28.  After 
felicitating  France  on  the  choice  of  Lamartine  "  as  a  favor- 
able first  step  in  the  new  order  of  things,"  and  promising 
"  with  great  satisfaction  "  to  transmit  to  his  government 
a  copy  of  Lamartine's  communication,  ''  not  doubting  its 
cordial  reception,"  he  declares  his  readiness  in  the  meantime 
to  transact  with  him  any  business  affecting  America  or  its 
citizens. 

He  then  says :  "  The  United  States,  having  learned  from 
their  own  experience  the  value  of  free  institutions,  will 
naturally  anticipate  from  similar  institutions  in  France,  ad- 
ministered with  the  wisdom  and  moderation  of  which  the 
enlarged  and  beneficent  principles  announced  in  your  note 
are  the  auspicious  harbingers,  nothing  but  the  best  results 
to  the  interests  and  well-being  of  both  countries."  ^ 

An  interesting  comment  on  this  despatch  is  afforded  by 
the  diary  of  Lord  Normanby,  the  British  minister,  who  says 
that  on  February  27th,  he  received  a  visit  from  Mr.  Rush 

^Congressional  Globe,  vol.  17   (ist  session,  30th  Congress),  p.  $79 
et  seq. 


74  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [2^2 

and  Mr.  Martin,  the  secretary  of  legation.  Mr.  Rush 
denied  the  news  in  the  morning  papers,  that  he  had  already- 
gone  to  the  Hotel  de  Ville  and  acknowledged  the  republic, 
but  said  that,  because  of  his  distance  from  America  and  the 
sympathy  she  would  feel  for  the  new  government,  he  should 
probably  do  so  to-morrow.  Lord  Normanby,  receiving 
Mr.  Rush's  consent  to  express  his  opinion,  admitted  that 
the  latter  could  not  wait  for  instructions  before  giving  any 
expression  of  views,  but  thought  the  proposed  step  "  unusual 
and  premature."  This  was  only  a  provisional  government, 
itself  not  yet  ready  for  such  a  step,  as  no  notice  had  yet 
been  sent  from  the  new  minister  of  foreign  affairs ;  it  was 
"  quite  unheard-of  for  an  individual  without  credentials  to 
present  himself  officially  to  any  Government  which  had 
opened  no  communications  with  his  own ;  "  probably  after 
getting  Lamartine's  circular  the  diplomatic  corps  would 
meet  at  the  request  of  its  senior  member  and  decide  on  some 
course ;  waiting  for  that  customary  occasion  would  not  ham- 
per him. 

It  appeared  to  me  that  would  be  the  natural  moment  for 
him  to  take  his  own  line,  not  confining  his  answer  to  the  dry- 
acknowledgment  of  its  receipt,  which  the  others  without  in- 
structions would  probably  give,  but  putting  himself  personally 
upon  those  terms  with  the  Government  which  he  desired  to 
establish;  and  that,  as  he  was  only  accredited  to  King  Louis 
Philippe,  he  could  not  well  go  much  farther  than  this  in  the 
course  he  contemplated  till  he  received  fresh  letters.  Mr.  Rush 
listened  very  attentively  to  what  I  said,  admitted  there  was 
much  reason  in  it,  and  added  that  he  would  consider  it;  but 
I  am  convinced  he  will  still  do  as  he  announced,  a  course  to 
which,  in  fact,  he  is  probably  already  committed.^ 

Lord  Normanby  was  doubtless  right  on  the  point  of  diplo- 
1  Marquis  of  Normanby,  A  Year  of  Revolution,  vol.  i,  p.  130  et  seq. 


253]      WHAT  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  75 

matic  etiquette.  Yet  Mr.  Rush  was  himself  an  experienced 
statesman,  then  68  years  old.  The  son  of  Benjamin  Rush, 
signer  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  he  had  already 
occupied  the  posts  of  Attorney  General  under  Madison,  tem- 
porary Secretary  of  State,  Minister  to  England  for  seven 
years  under  Monroe,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  under  John 
Quincy  Adams  and  candidate  for  Vice-President  with  him 
in  1828.  He  was  neither  youthful  nor  ignorant,  but  he 
had  the  courage  to  feel  that  an  extraordinary  situation 
should  not  be  decided  by  looking  up  precedents.^ 

Recognition  of  so  conspicuous  a  sort  from  such  a  man 
greatly  flattered  republican  susceptibilities.  The  National 
announces  that  at  two  o'clock,  Mr.  Rush  "  recognized  the 
Provisional  Government.  It  was  fitting  that  the  representa- 
tive of  the  American  Union  should  be  the  first  to  come  and 
salute  our  young  republic;  there  is  no  more  powerful  bond 
between  peoples  than  community  of  sentiments.  The  step 
taken  by  the  Minister  of  the  United  States,  had,  in  the  pres- 
ent circumstances,  something  solemn  about  it:  although  it 
was  anticipated,  it  touched  the  members  of  the  government 
deeply;  and,  after  an  interview  in  which  the  noblest  words 
were  exchanged,  they  conducted  this  representative  of  a 
great  people,  in  a  body,  to  the  threshold  of  the  Hotel  de 
Ville,  to  testify  the  cordial  affection  which  must  forever 
exist  between  republican  America  and  republican  France."  ^ 
Allowing  for  the  sentimental  optimism  of  the  period,  it  is 
plain  that  this  unusual  act  made  an  impression. 

1  Mr.  Rush,  in  his  journal,  gives  an  account  of  the  Normanby  inter- 
view in  substantial  accord  with  the  above.  The  person  who  urged  him 
to  recognize  the  republic  was  Major  Poussin,  who  called  on  Mr.  Rush 
for  that  purpose  on  the  26th,  not  without  the  Provisional  Government's 
knowledge.  Rush  surmises.  A  full  account  of  the  matter,  including 
Poussin's  arguments  and  Rush's  gradual  determination  to  accede  to 
them,  is  contained  in  Richard'  Rush,  Occasional  Productions,  pp.  364-376. 

2  National,  Feb.  29.    Cf.  other  Paris  papers  of  same  date. 


^6  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r^c  . 

Immediately  after  the  action  of  the  minister,  the  Ameri- 
can consul,  who  had  lived  many  years  in  Paris  and  whose 
judgment  on  French  affairs  Rush  greatly  valued,  wrote  the 
following  letter  to  the  government,  which  was  not  published 
in  the  papers. 

Consulate  of  the  U.  S.  of  America,  Paris. 

1st  March,  1848. 
To  the  members  of  the  Provisional  Government  of  the  French 

Republic, 

Gentlemen:  In  the  year  1782,  the  City  of  Paris  offered  to 
Louis  XVI,  a  ship  of  war  to  aid  him  in  protecting  the  final 
independence  of  the  Americans.  The  generous  sympathy  of 
the  French  nation  may  be  exemplified  by  the  circumstance 
that  the  small  community  of  St.  Germain-en-Laye  contributed, 
for  the  same  purpose,  by  an  extraordinary  tax,  the  sum  of 
forty  thousand  francs. 

The  City  of  Paris  has  just  accomplished  a  work — the 
foundation  of  a  mighty  Republic — in  which  all  Americans 
must  feel  the  liveliest  satisfaction  and  deepest  interest.  In 
testimony  of  these  feelings,  I  beg  to  render,  for  the  Hotel  de 
ViUe — the  temple  of  power  and  wisdom  of  the  City  of  Paris — 
American  engravings  of  Washington,  of  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  present  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  Union. 
Your  recent  glorious  Revolution  was  begun  on  the  anniversary 
of  Washington's  birth.  May  it  prove  in  its  advances  to  perfect 
liberty  and  order,  such  as  shall  rejoice  the  spirit  of  that  illus- 
trious friend  of  France,  and  as  the  heroism,  moderation  and 
philanthropy  of  its  commencement  authorize  an  attentive  world 
to  expect !  j  ^^^.^  ^j^^  ^^^^^  ^^  ^^^ 

Gentlemen, 
with  the  highest  consideration, 
your  very  obedient,  humble  servant, 
Robert  Walsh  ^ 
Rue  de  Rivoli,  No.  30  bis.  U.  S.  Consul. 

1  Archives  Nationales  BB        300  No.  2292.    A  French  translaUon  is 
added  in  the  same  hand.  (^) 


255]      ^^^^  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  77 

If  this  seems  a  trivial  gift,  offered  in  bombastic  phrases, 
it  should  be  remembered  that  it  was  the  kind  of  thing  that 
appealed  to  the  people  of  1848,  who  were  unusually  sensitive 
to  romantic  idealism. 

The  American  colony  in  Paris  was  not  long  in  following 
the  example  of  its  official  chiefs.  From  February  2y  to 
April  28  nearly  300  deputations  of  various  kinds  were  re- 
ceived by  the  Provisional  Government.  The  American 
colony  came  eighth  in  this  list.  It  was  presented  March  6  ^ 
by  the  indefatigable  Major  Poussin  and  the  inevitable  con- 
gratulatory address  was  read  by  Mr.  Erving,  former  min- 
ister of  the  United  States  to  Spain.  In  the  course  of  his 
speech,  occurs  this  sentence :  ''  Recognizing  the  right  which 
each  nation  possesses  to  form  its  own  government,  we  think 
however  that  we  may  felicitate  France  on  the  choice  of  a 
system,  which  is  based  on  the  great  principles  of  enlight- 
ened liberty  and  political  equality."  M.  Arago  replied  for 
the  government,  after  which  an  emblem,  consisting  of  the 
united  flags  of  the  two  nations  was  presented  and  accepted 
by  Arago  with  the  adjuration  to  place  it  in  the  Hotel  de 
Ville  and  the  hope  that  despotism  would  never  come  to  tear 
It  down.^ 

1  See  the  list  in  Daniel  Stern,  Hist,  de  la  resolution  de  1848,  vol.  2,  p. 
371  et  seq.  The  only  foreigners  presenting  themselves  at  an  earlier 
date  were  some  English  Chartists,  who  were  received'  the  day  before, 
bearing  a  congratulatory  address  adopted  at  a  Chartist  meeting  in 
London  on  March  2d,  The  other  foreigners  received  were  Democrats 
of  London  and  the  English  colony  of  Paris  on  Mar.  12th;  2000  Swiss 
on  the  13th;  Greeks  on  the  15th;  Hungarians,  the  i6th;  Norwegians, 
the  i6th;  Irish,  the  i8th;  'Roumanians,  the  21st;  Portuguese,  the  23d; 
Poles,  the  27th;  ItaHan  Association,  the  28th;  Irish  citizens  of  Dublin. 
Manchester  and  Liverpool,  April  4th ;  the  Swiss  colony,  April  4th ;  the 
Spanish  colony,  April  13th. 

2  National,  Mar.  7.  The  Moniteur  for  the  same  date  gives  Mr.  Good- 
rich as  the  American  spokesman  instead  of  Mr.  Erving  and  omits  any 
mention  of  Major  Poussin,  whose  activity  is,  however,  proved  by  an 


78  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["256 

Not  to  be  outdone,  the  American  women  also  "  offer  for 
your  acceptance  the  Tricolored  Flag  and  the  Star  Spangled 
Banner,  now  united  together  by  the  ties  of  Liberty,  Equality 
and  Fraternity,"  as  a  "  slight  mark  of  the  Sympathy  which 
the  daughters  as  well  as  the  sons  of  America  feel  for  the 
success  and  stability  of  the  French  Republic/'  ^ 

The  effect  of  all  this  on  the  French  mind  is  attested  by  a 
letter  from  "  a  gentleman  residing  in  Paris  to  his  friend  in 
this  country,"  read  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
session  of  April  6.  The  letter,  dated  March  8,  says  in  part : 
"  Believe  me,  the  proclamation  of  the  republic  has  raised  you 
here  ten  ells.  You  already  know,  perhaps,  that  not  only  the 
American  minister,  but  all  the  Americans  now  in  Paris,  have 
waited  upon  and  congratulated  the  Provisional  Government. 
This  double  compliment  has  had  an  admirable  effect.  Never 
has  there  been  so  much  anxiety  to  draw  closer  the  alliance,  I 
should  rather  say  the  fraternity,  with  the  United  States."  ^ 

The  friendliness  of  the  United  States  toward  the  French 
Republic,  expressed  by  Mr.  Rush's  early  recognition,  re- 

30 

unpublished  letter  in  the  Archives  Nationales  (BB        300  No.  2206), 

dated  Mar.  S,  signed  by  Hawkes,  Richards  and  Levering  on  behalf  of 
the  colony,  and  addressed  to  Dupont  de  I'Eure,  agreeing  to  present  its 
felicitations  at  two  o'clock  on  the  6th,  "le  gouvernement  provisoire 
ayant  bien  voulu  accorder  aux  citoyens  des  Etats-Unis  par  I'entremise 
de  Monsieur  le  Major  Poussin,  ...  la  permission,"  etc.  If  Poussin 
was  acting  in  this  case,  as  Mr.  Rush  suspected  that  he  was  in  the  other, 
as  an  unofficial  agent  of  the  provisional  government,  his  efforts  to 
secure  American  recognition  are  peculiarly  interesting.  The  Erving 
here  mentioned  is  probably  G.  W.  Erving,  minister  to  Spain,  1814-18. 
Washington  Irving  was  in  New  York  in  1848. 

1  Letter  dated  Mar.  6,  signed  by  Josephine  Wickliffe,  Archives  Nat., 
30 

BB      317,  No.  214. 
(2) 

2  Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe  for  ist  Session,  30th  Cong.,  p.  459. 
For  a  less  favorable  view,  r/.  D.  G.  T^Iitchell.  The  Battle  Summer,  ch. 
xiv. 


257]      ^^^^  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  79 

ceived  the  endorsement  of  President  Polk.  James 
Buchanan,  Secretary  of  State,  wrote  a  long  letter  to  Rush, 
dated  Washington  March  31,  saying  that  the  President  ap- 
proved the  minister's  conduct,  the  policy  of  the  United 
States  being  to  recognize  de  facto  governments.  The 
United  States  is  not  indifferent  to  France's  help  in  the 
past.  "  It  is  therefore  with  one  universal  burst  of  en- 
thusiasm that  the  American  people  hailed  the  late  glorious 
revolution  in  France  in  favor  of  liberty  and  republican  gov- 
ernment." Then  follows  much  advice  to  France,  that  she 
take  care  not  to  become  involved  in  a  general  war  and  that 
she  create  a  federal  system,  combining  her  departments  to 
form  sufficiently  large  units.  "  I  have  ventured  upon  these 
speculations,  because  it  is  certain  that,  in  your  intercourse 
with  the  authorities  of  the  new  Republic,  you  will  be  often 
called  upon  in  conversation  for  information  respecting  our 
political  system.  State  and  national,  which  they  seem  to  have 
adopted  as  their  model ;  and  also  for  your  opinion  how  far 
this  system  ought  to  be  changed  or  modified,  so  as  best  to 
adapt  it  to  the  peculiar  position  of  the  French  Republic. 
Your  intimate  and  enlightened  knowledge  of  our  govern- 
ment, both  theoretical  and  practical,  will  enable  you  to  im- 
part much  valuable  information  and  advice  to  the  French 
authorities."  ^ 

On  April  26,  Mr.  Rush  presented  his  official  letters,  ac- 
crediting him  to  the  French  Republic.  In  his  remarks  on 
that  occasion,  he  expressed  the  hope  that  "  when  the  Repub- 
lic shall  have  passed  from  your  hands,  which  have  guided 
its  destinies,  into  those  of  the  National  Assembly  which  is 
soon  to  meet,  that  great  body  will  crown  its  labors  by  the 
establishment  of  institutions  which  will  assure  to  France  the 
greatest  prosperity  and  the  purest  glory." 

1  Niles'  National  Register,  vol.  74,  pp.  98,  99. 


8o  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  V2^^ 

Lamartine  replied  that  this  first  official  recognition  of  the 
French  Republic  was  a  fitting  return  for  the  similar  honor 
which  France  had  been  the  first  to  confer  upon  America. 
He  was  confident  that  the  republic,  despite  the  inevitable 
confusion  of  readjustment  would  leave  the  hands  of  the 
present  government,  strong  and  great.  His  confidence  was 
based  on  the  fact  that  France  was  now  ripe  for  such 
institutions. 

What,  fifty  years  ago,  was  only  the  idea  of  the  leading  men 
of  the  nation  has  passed  into  the  ideas  and  habits  of  the  whole 
people,  without  exception.  The  Republic  which  it  wants  today, 
is  that  which  you  have  founded  yourselves;  it  is  a  progressive 
republic,  but  conservative  of  the  rights,  of  the  property,  of 
the  industries,  of  the  commerce,  of  the  probity,  of  the  liberty, 
of  the  moral  and  religious  sentiment  of  the  citizens. 

It  was  a  republic  which  had  abjured  vengeance  in  favor  of 
fraternity.  These  principles,  adopted  by  the  Assembly  and 
strengthened  by  the  power  of  the  people, 

will  make  of  the  French  republic  the  glorious  sister  of  the 
American  republic,  and  one  will  be  able  to  say  of  the  French 
people  and  of  the  American  people,  what  was  once  said  of  a 
man  dear  to  our  two  countries,  the  republic  of  the  two  worlds. 
As  for  the  sentiments  which  the  French  people  transmits  with 
emotion  and  gratitude  to  the  citizens  and  to  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  I  will  express  them  to  you,  in  a  single 
word,  citizen  minister:  every  Frenchman  has  for  the  Ameri- 
cans, the  heart  of  Lafayette.^ 

1  Moniteur,  April  27.  A  socialist  newspaper,  La  Republique,  has  a 
remarkable  editorial  on  this  occurrence.  After  recounting  the  various 
evidences  of  American  enthusiasm  for  the  French  republic,  crowned  by 
its  official  recognition,  the  editorial  quotes  Lamartine's  words,  "The 
republic  which  it  wants  today  is  that  which  you  have  founded  your- 
selves," and  continues,  "These  last  words  will  obtain  general  assent. 
It  is  certain  that  the  Republic  of  the  United  States  is,  in  many  respects, 


259]      ^VHAT  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  gl 

Meanwhile  the  question  of  recognition  had  been  brought 
before  Congress  by  a  joint  resolution  offered  in  the  Senate, 
March  28,  by  Mr.  Allen,  a  Democrat  of  Ohio. 

Resolved,  That  in  the  name  and  behalf  of  the  American  people, 
the  congratulations  of  Congress  are  hereby  tendered  to  the 
people  of  France  upon  their  success  in  their  recent  efforts  to 
consolidate  liberty  by  imbodying  [sic]  its  principles  in  a  re- 
publican form  of  government.  Resolved,  That  the  President 
of  the  United  States  be,  and  he  is  hereby,  requested  to  trans- 
mit this  resolution  to  the  American  Minister  at  Paris,  with 
instructions  to  present  it  to  the  French  Government.^ 

The  second  reading  took  place,  March  30.^  Allen,  in  oppos- 
ing a  motion  to  refer  the  resolution  to  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations,  seems  to  have  some  sense  of  the  contrast 
between  Europe  and  America  in  1848,  set  forth  in  Chapter  I. 

It  was  remarked  by  a  distinguished  member  of  this  body  not 
long  since,  that  we,  now-a-days,  hear  but  little  said  upon  the 
great  elementary  truths  of  public  liberty;  that -the  subject 
seemed  to  be  forgotten.  Here,  sir,  is  an  occasion  for  reviving 
and  reviewing  the  elementary  principles  of  public  liberty :  and  I 

a  model  for  European  nations.  Its  constitution,  the  causes  of  its  pros- 
perity must  be  today  the  object  of  the  meditations  and  studies  of  all 
serious  men.  A  people  which  for  sixty  years  has  made  the  noblest  use 
of  its  sovereignty  and  which  without  disturbances,  without  commotion, 
has  reorganized  all  public  services  and  given  to  labor  the  most  precious 
guarantees,  that  is  a  striking,  decisive  fact,  which  should  close  the 
mouth  of  the  detractors  of  democracy."  La  Rcpublique,  April  28.  The 
same  article  was  reproduced,  accidentally  or  by  design,  in  the  issue  of 
the  29th.  This  radical  organ's  sympathy  with  the  United  States  de- 
serves notice.  The  key  to  it  is  apparently  in  the  last  sentence  of  the 
quotation,  though  the  reference  is  not  clear. 

1  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  17,  p.  549.  Some  of  the  speeches,  here 
summarized,  are  given  in  full  in  the  Appendix,  published  in  a  separate 
volume. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  567-570. 


S2  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^260 

desire,  for  one,  to  contribute  my  humble  efforts  to  remedy  this 
evil  of  which  we  have  heard  so  much  complaint — that  in  our 
discussions  here  the  public  mind  has  seldom  been  directed  to 
the  great  question  of  liberty — that  we  were  distracted  with 
ideas  of  conquest,  and  had  lost  sight  of  ideas  of  liberty. 

The  anti-slavery  men  caught  at  this  and  endeavored  to 
turn  the  matter  to  the  benefit  of  their  cause.  John  P.  Hale, 
of  New  Hampshire,  wished  to  add  after  the  word  "  govern- 
ment "  in  the  resolution,  "And  manifesting  the  sincerity  of 
their  purpose  by  instituting  measures  for  the  immediate 
emancipation  of  the  slaves  of  all  the  colonies  of  the  re- 
public." Calhoun  now  made  a  considerable  speech,  moving 
to  lay  the  Allen  resolution  on  the  table,  as  premature.  The 
French  have  decreed  a  republic,  it  remains  for  them  to  es- 
tablish it.  "If  they  shall  prove  themselves  to  be  as  wise  in 
constructing  a  proper  constitution,  as  they  have  proved 
themselves  to  be  skillful  in  demolishing  the  old  form  of 
government  ...  if  they  shall  really  form  a  constitution 
which  shall  on  one  hand  guard  against  violence  and  anarchy, 
and  on  the  other  against  oppression  of  the  people,  they  will 
have  achieved,  indeed,  a  great  work."  Failure,  however, 
might  result  in  a  military  despotism,  for  the  old  govern- 
ments could  not  be  reinstated.  In  that  case,  there  would  be 
no  ground  for  congratulation.  Let  us  wait  for  the  action 
of  the  French  convention,  called  for  April.  This  far- 
sighted  plan  was  defeated,  14  to  29.  The  yeas  and  nays  on 
Calhoun's  motion  show  that  7  Whigs  and  7  Democrats  voted 
for  the  motion,  8  Whigs  and  21  Democrats  against  it.  A 
discussion  nov/  arose  as  to  when  the  Allen  resolution  had 
best  be  considered.  In  the  course  of  it  Stephen  A.  Douglas 
of  Illinois  declared  that  he  regretted  any  postponement. 
This  was  the  glorious  beginning  of  a  revolution,  without 
bloodshed.  The  Provisional  Government's  decrees  were  very 
wise;  they  intend  a  radical  revolution;  never  except  the 


26l]      ^i^HAT  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  83 

Continental  Congress  has  a  body  shown  such  skill  and  wis- 
dom. Why  defer  congratulations?  Sympathy  is  needed 
now,  not  when  success  is  achieved.  Calhoun  was  wrong,  in 
saying  that  liberty  would  be  greatly  hurt  by  failure ;  this  is 
the  first  step,  which  will  generate  another  if  it  fails.  The 
dethronement  of  the  king  and  the  decree  founding  a  republic, 
the  abolition  of  titles  and  orders  of  nobility,  universal  suf- 
frage, the  moderation  that  has  combined  all  classes  and 
parties  in  a  bond  of  brotherhood,  inspire  confidence  in  their 
success.^  The  French  are  keen  to  know  what  America 
thinks,  the  only  real  republic  in  the  world.  "All  republicans 
throughout  the  world  have  their  eyes  fixed  upon  us.  Here 
is  their  model.  Our  success  is  the  foundation  of  all  their 
hopes."  Rush  should  be  supported;  delay  would  seem  to 
criticize  his  action,  whereas  he  expressed  the  sentiments  of 
the  American  people. 

The  question  dragged  along  on  that  and  the  following 
day,  without  decision.  On  April  3,  a  message  was  read 
from  President  Polk,  enclosing  the  despatch  from  Mr.  Rush, 
quoted  above.^  Mr.  Polk  shows  himself  an  ardent  champion 
of  the  new  regime.  "  The  world  has  seldom  witnessed  a 
more  interesting  and  sublime  spectacle  than  the  peaceful 
rising  of  the  French  people,  resolved  to  secure  for  them- 
selves enlarged  liberty,  and  to  assert  in  the  majesty  of  their 
strength  the  great  truth  that,  in  this  enlightened  age,  man 
is  capable  of  governing  himself."  Needless  to  say,  Mr. 
Rush's  prompt  recognition  of  the  new  government  "  meets 
my  full  and  unqualified  approbation.  ...  He  judged  rightly 
of  the  feelings  and  sentiments  of  his  Government  and  of  his 
countrymen,  when,  in  advance  of  the  diplomatic  represeiita- 

1  It  is  interesting  to  notice  the  difference  between  Douglas'  notion  of 
a  radical  revolution  and  that  of  the  French  socialists.  It  illustrates 
the  contrast  between  the  two  countries  in  1848. 

2  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  17,  pp.  579-581. 


84  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["262 

tives  of  ether  countries,  he  was  the  first  to  recognize,  so  far 
35  it  was  in  his  power,  the  free  Government  estabhshed 
by  the  French  people."  Our  poHcy  has  always  been  non- 
intervention, leaving  foreign  countries  to  establish  the  form 
of  government  of  their  choice.  While  continuing  this  policy 
toward  France,  we  cannot  help  feeling  great  sympathy  for 
her  people,  "  who,  imitating  our  example,  have  resolved  to 
be  free."  We  can  never  forget  France's  help  in  the  past. 
"  Our  ardent  and  sincere  congratulations  are  extended  to 
the  patriotic  people  of  France  upon  their  noble  and  thus  far 
successful  efforts  to  found  for  their  future  government  lib- 
eral institutions  similar  to  our  own."  The  message  con- 
cludes with  a  hope  that  France  will  cultivate  with  America 
*^  the  most  liberal  principles  of  international  intercourse  and 
commercial  reciprocity,  whereby  the  prosperity  and  happi- 
ness of  both  nations  will  be  promoted." 

Allen  then  moved  to  take  up  his  joint  resolutions.  After 
a  wrangle  over  parliamentary  procedure,  the  vote  was  taken, 
resulting  in  a  defeat  of  the  motion  by  21  to  22.  Of  the  21 
yeas,  19  were  Democratic  votes  and  2  Whig;  of  the  22  nays,, 
6  were  Democratic  and  16  Whig.  The  division  seems  to 
have  been  on  purely  partisan  lines ;  the  Democratic  support 
of  the  resolutions  being  due  to  a  desire  to  follow  the  lead 
of  Polk  and  his  minister,  the  Whig  opposition  having  a  pre- 
cisely contrary  motive.  A  few  votes  were  based  on  other 
considerations,  as  the  affirmative  vote  cast  by  the  Whig 
Hale,  who  approved  of  the  anti-slavery  stand  taken  by 
France,  and  the  negative  vote  cast  by  Calhoun  who  was  un- 
friendly to  the  Administration  ^  and  who  doubtless  drew 
some  Democrats  after  him.  Northern  and  southern  votes 
were  about  equally  divided.  This  vote  (which  was  not  on 
the  resolutions  themselves,  but  merely  on  their  immediate 

1  See  Von  Hoist,  John  C.  Calhoun,  passim. 


263]      ^H^T  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  85 

consideration)  was  explained  by  the  National  of  April  22  as 
an  instance  of  American  reserve,  which  must  not  be  held 
indicative  of  hostility  or  indifference  toward  France,  es- 
pecially in  view  of  the  President's  message,  which  it  repro- 
duced in  full. 

On  April  6,^  Hannegan,  Democrat  from  Ohio,  presented  a 
long  series  of  congratulatory  resolutions  from  the  Commit- 
tee on  Foreign  Relations,  which  did  not  differ  in  spirit  from 
Allen's.  The  French  are,  among  other  things,  felicitated 
on  ''  their  successful  efforts  thus  far  to  found  for  their 
country  institutions  similar  to  our  own." 

A  lengthy  discussion  ended  in  the  defeat  of  Hale's  amend- 
ment 28-1,  and  in  the  passage  of  Allen's  resolutions  as  sim- 
pler than  those  of  the  committee,  the  only  change  from  their 
original  form  being  one  of  improved  phraseology,  the  final 
draft  alluding  to  "  the  success  of  their  recent  efforts  to 
consolidate  the  principles  of  liberty  in  a  republican  form  of 
government."  The  vote  was  19-13;  it  was  immediately 
made  unanimous. 

Meanwhile,  on  March  28,  in  the  House,  Flaskell,  Whig 
from  Tennessee,  gave  notice  that  he  intended  to  present 
resolutions  concerning  France.  He  was  anticipated,  how- 
ever by  Cummins,  Democrat  from  Ohio,  who,  in  the  ses- 
sion of  April  3,-  offered  an  even  more  verbose  set  than  had 
Hannegan  in  the  Senate.  Two  anti-slavery  amendments 
were  offered  and  a  long,  bitter  debate  ensued,  which  began 
on  affairs  in  France,  but  ended  in  a  general  discussion  of 
the  slavery  question  and  became  intensely  personal.  Hil- 
liard,  Whig  from  Alabama,  had  some  misgivings  as  to  the 
droit  au  travail,  but  most  of  the  remarks  about  France  were 
sentimental  eulogies  like  that  of   McClemand,   Democrat 

1  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  17,  pp.  S90-592. 
^Ibid.,  pp.  572-579. 


^fj  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  1^264. 

from  Illinois,  who  "  wished  to  see  France  and  the  United 
States  as  the  two  great  repubhcs  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New 
World  soar  and  culminate  in  the  moral  grandeur  and  glory 
of  eternal  freedom  and  Christian  civilization."  The  same 
orator,  referring  to  the  late  king,  declared :  "  The  people 
bear  his  shattered  throne  along  the  streets,  hymning  the  song 
of  liberty,  and  calling  anon  for  a  republic  on  the  model  of 
the  United  States."  Ingersoll,  Democrat  from  Pennsyl- 
vania, thought  that  "  the  mere  expression  of  the  good  will  of 
the  American  people  and  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
and  now  (with  the  communication  of  the  President)  of  all 
the  branches  of  this  Government  "  would  be  so  potent  "  that 
everywhere,  not  merely  in  France,  but  in  Italy,  England, 
Germany,  everywhere,  the  consequence  must  be  the  peace- 
able establishment  of  something  at  least  approximating  to 
the  public  institutions  of  this  country." 

Haskell  now  introduced  his  resolutions,  drawn  up  so  as 
to  exclude  the  possibility  of  any  reference  to  slavery,  which 
Cummins'  frequent  references  to  "  all  forms  of  tyranny  and 
oppression  "  might  perhaps  admit.  "  It  was  from  this  coun- 
try that  they  [the  kingdoms  of  Europe]  had  caught  the 
flame.  It  was  by  looking  at  us  and  seeing  us  advancing  in 
greatness  and  harmony,  developing  our  resources,  accumu- 
lating wealth,  and  enjoying  all  the  benign  effects  of  civil 
and  religious  liberty  ...  it  was  this  view  of  our  condition 
which  animated  and  inspired  the  nations  of  the  world." 
Then  France  was  forgotten  in  an  angry  wrangle  over  slav- 
ery, closed  only  by  a  motion  to  adjourn,  which  required  the 
Speaker's  vote  to  cari-y  it,  81-80. 

On  April  7  and  8,  the  House  was  asked  to  take  up  the 
joint  resolutions  received  from  the  Senate,  but  objection  was 
made  each  time.     On  the  loth,^  the  discussion  was  begun, 

1  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  17,  PP.  S98-604. 


265]      IVHAT  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  Sy 

and  after  another  long  slavery  debate,  the  Senate  resolu- 
tions were  concurred  in  and  passed,  174-2,  two  northern 
Whigs  alone  voting  in  the  negative.  A  motion  to  reconsider 
was  made  in  the  anti-slavery  interest  on  the  next  day,  but 
was  defeated  123-46,  all  the  forty-six  being  Whigs.  Vot- 
ing in  favor  of  the  resolutions  as  they  stood  were  the  Demo- 
crat, Jefferson  Davis,  of  Mississippi  in  the  Senate  and  the 
Whig,  Abraham  Lincoln,  of  Illinois  in  the  House.  Every- 
body wanted  to  congratulate  France,  the  only  question  was 
as  to  the  form  of  the  congratulations,  as  to  which  the  radical 
anti-slavery  men  took  up  a  separate  position. 

This  action  by  Congress  was  officially  transmitted  to  the 
Executive  Commission  by  Mr.  Rush,  May  22,  accompanied 
by  an  address  of  his  own  dated  May  1 7,  conveying  the  feli- 
citations of  the  American  people,  as  wxll  as  its  government, 
declaring  that  the  President  hopes  for  France  that  it  will  en- 
joy internal  and  external  tranquillity  while  it  is  occupied  in 
giving  itself  new  institutions  and  that  these  institutions,  the 
fruit  of  calm  and  wisdom,  will  redound  to  the  happiness  of 
the  nation.  "  The  people  of  the  United  States,  free  by  right 
of  birth,  since  it  has  existed  in  the  Occident,  found  after  its 
own  revolution,  that  the  action  of  time  and  of  peace  was 
necessary  to  consolidate  its  system  of  government,  whose 
form  is  republican,  its  essence  popular,  and  which  finds 
stability  in  the  elements  of  order  which  compose  it."  He 
feels  honored  at  being  the  bearer  of  this  resolution,  "  so 
much  the  more  keenly  because  it  is  at  an  epoch  when  the 
whole  French  people,  represented  by  the  majesty  of  the 
National  Assembly,  is  to  deliberate  to  found  its  constitution, 

Lamartine  received  the  resolution  as  a  happy  confirmation 
of  the  fact  that  America  was  first  to  recognize  the  French 
republic.     He  continued 


88  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r265 

The  new  government  of  the  republic  would  regard  with  just 
sensitiveness  foreign  governments  mingling  advice  with  their 
good  wishes.  But  in  the  very  intimate  relations  of  the  French 
and  the  American  republics,  every  word  which  it  may  address 
to  us  will  be  received  in  token  of  perpetual  friendship.  The 
senate,  the  legislative  body  and  the  executive  power  of  the 
United  States  may  be  convinced  that  these  wise  counsels  are 
already  the  law  of  the  French  republic ;  not  only  will  it  follow 
its  course,  but  it  will  follow  its  examples  of  regular  institu- 
tions, (ses  exemples  d'ordre  df  institution  reguliere),  of  caution, 
with  its  neighbors,  of  solicitude  for  the  labor,  the  instruction, 
the  prosperity  of  the  people,  substance  and  goal  of  its  resolu- 
tion. The  names  of  Washington,  of  Jefferson,  of  Jakson  [sic} 
are  inscribed  on  the  banner  of  the  new  Republic,  and  if  France 
is  so  happy  as  to  find  in  its  future  names  worthy  of  these  great 
names,  liberty  will  assume  its  true  character  on  the  old  conti- 
nent as  it  has  found  it  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic.^ 

The  next  day,  M.  Bastide,  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  in- 
formed the  Assembly  of  the  resolution,  its  reception  and  his 
haste  to  have  the  transaction  recorded  at  once  in  the  Moni- 
teur,  that  it  might  be  brought  immediately  to  the  knowledge 
of  all  French  citizens. 

Now,  I  take  the  liberty  of  remarking  that  this  fact  is  entirely" 
new  in  the  democratic  history  of  the  republic  of  the  United 
States.  Up  to  the  present,  communications  of  this  kind  had 
always  been  made  by  the  executive  power  alone;  today  it  is 
the  whole  Congress,  the  representatives  of  the  American  re- 
public who  address  themselves  to  the  representatives  of  the 
French  republic,  to  felicitate  them  on  the  advent  of  their 
government.  You  will  feel,  citizens,  like  your  executive  com- 
mission in  the  name  of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  speak,  that 
this  act,  so  new,  so  honorable,  and  which  may  be  so  fruitful 
in  useful  consequences,  should  call  forth  from  our  side  an 

'^Moniteur,  May  23. 


26y]      WHAT  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  89 

act  of  the  same  nature.  I  will  propose,  then,  to  the  Assembly 
to  name  a  committee  to  draw  up  an  address  in  response  to 
the  resolution  of  the  United  States  Congress  and  this  address 
will  be  transmitted  as  quickly  as  possible  through  your  execu- 
tive commission  of  government  to  the  government  of  the 
United  States. 

The  committee  on  foreign  affairs  was  then  assigned  the  duty 
of  drawing  up  such  a  resolution.^ 

On  the  25th,  M.  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  reported  the  commit- 
tee's resolution  in  a  speech  which  reviewed  the  various  acts 
of  friendly  recognition  on  the  part  of  America  from  the 
28th  of  Februar}^,  when  "  the  barricades  opened  before  M. 
Richard  Rush."  In  addition  to  official  acts,  he  alluded  to 
the  numerous  addresses,  particularly  to  "  that  assembly  at 
Baltimore  where  thirty  thousand  citizens  gave  regular  and 
pacific  expression  to  their  good  wishes  for  a  friendly  people, 
as  if  a  single  heart  had  spoken  by  a  single  voice."  Finally 
he  reached  this  latest  step  of  the  nation  united  with  his  own 
"by  an  ancient  alliance  and  by  the  recent  confraternity  of 
an  identical  political  dogma."  As  to  this,  he  asserted  on  the 
part  of  the  committee  that  after  consulting  with  care  the 
annals  of  American  diplomacy,  they  were  convinced  that  at 
no  time,  wdth  reference  to  no  government  or  people,  had  the 
United  States  ever  taken  such  action  before.  It  had  always 
been  an  executive,  never  a  legislative  act.  France  should 
respond  to  this  flattering  exception  made  by  the  United 
States  by  an  equally  unusual  response.  They  proposed, 
therefore,  that  a  decree  be  drawn  up  by  the  Assembly  in  the 
name  of  the  French  people  and  transmitted  through  the 
regular  diplomatic  channels  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  to  be  brought  by  him  to  the  cognizance  of  the  people, 
the  Senate  and  the  House.      This  procedure  would  cor- 

1  Moniteur,  May  24. 


^O  ^^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [258 

respond  with  that  of  Congress  and  further,  "  the  solemn 
and  laconic  form  of  a  decree  "is  the  most  fitting  way  to 
express  "  the  virile  and  austere  friendship  of  two  great  re- 
publics."    They  proposed  the  following  decree : 

Art.  I.  The  National  Assembly,  profoundly  touched  by  the 
sentiments  which  have  dictated  to  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  the  decree  of  April  13th  last,  offers  to  the  American 
people  the  thanks  of  the  Republic  and  the  expression  of  its 
fraternal  friendship. 

Art.  2.  The  commission  of  executive  power  is  charged  with 
transmitting  the  present  decree  to  the  French  legation  at 
Washington,  with  orders  to  present  it  to  the  American 
government. 

No  remarks  being  made,  the  decree  was  passed  by  a  un- 
animous rising  vote.^ 

This  decree  was  borne  to  the  United  States  by  G.  L. 
Poussin,  who  had  been  so  prominent  in  bringing  about  the 
rapprochement  between  the  two  countries  at  the  time  of 
Rush's  recognition,  and  who,  though  a  naturalized  Ameri- 
can, was  now  appointed  French  minister  to  the  United 
States.  The  Washington  Union  called  attention  to  the 
striking  coincidence,  so  expressive  of  the  fraternal  relations 
of  the  two  nations  that  at  the  same  moment,  the  United 
States  was  choosing  M.  Vattemare  (a  rather  eccentric 
Frenchman,  who  originated  the  idea  of  each  nation  exchang- 
ing objects  of  art,  specimens  of  fauna  and  flora,  etc.  with 
the  other),  American  agent  at  Paris  for  international  ex- 
changes. These  reflections  of  the  Union,  together  with  an 
account  of  Major  Poussin's  reception  by  President  Polk  are 

1  Moniteur,  May  26.  The  reception  of  the  decree  is  acknowledged  in  a 
brief  message  of  the  President  to  Congress,  dated  August  8th;  vide 
Congressional  Globe,  pp.  1050,  1057, 


269]      IV^^AT  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  91 

recorded  at  length  in  Le  National  of  September  4,^  quoting 
from  Le  Courrier  des  Etats  Unis. 

In  addition  to  these  expressions  of  friendship,  which  after 
due  allowance  for  the  courtesies  of  diplomacy  and  for  1848 
sentimentalism,  remain  cordial  beyond  the  ordinary,  certain 
concrete  offers  of  help  were  proposed  in  Congress. 

Pierre  states  that  as  soon  as  the  constitution  began  to  be 
discussed,  the  United  States  proposed  to  send  to  France  their 
most  eminent  statesmen,  who  were  to  bring  the  experience 
of  a  half -century's  practice.  The  offer  was  not  received 
with  sufficient  cordiality,  and  was  dropped.^  The  same 
statement  is  also  made  by  Berton,  (following  Pierre?)  who 
speaks  of  a  consultative  commission,  offered  by  the  United 
States,  but  withdrawn  on  account  of  its  cold  reception.^  An 
examination  of  the  Moniteur  and  the  Congressional  Globe 
fails  to  reveal  any  trace  of  this  offer.  The  nearest  approach 
to  it  is  in  a  speech  in  the  Senate,  April  6  by  Hannegan,  who 
made  this  proposal : 

When  the  National  Assembly,  which  is  to  convene  on  the  20th 
of  April,  shall  have  closed  its  deliberations  by  giving  to  France 
a  constitution  after  our  own  model,  I  would  go  further:  I 
would  send  a  solemn  embassage — its  members  composed  of 
the  snow-crowned  and  most  honored  servants  of  our  Republic, 
those  who  have  given  the  energy  of  long  life  to  liberty  and 
their  country,  and  whose  mellow  but  all-radiant  light  still  rests 
upon  the  theatre  of  action.  I  would  send  such  an  embassy, 
in  the  name  and  with  the  spirit  of  our  people,  to  fraternize 
with  the  descendants  of  those  who  shed  their  blood  on  the 
battle-fields  of  our  Revolution.* 

1  Cf.  also  Moniteur,  Sept.  4. 

-V.  Pierre,  Hist,  de  la  repuhlique  de  1848,  p.  479. 
^H.  Berton,  "La  Const,  de  1848,"  Annales  de  I'ecole  libre  des  sciences 
politiques,  1897,  p.  685. 
''  Congressional  Globe,  App.,  p.  458. 


92  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-270 

This,  however,  is  a  congratulatory,  not  a  consuhative  com- 
mission; if  the  latter  was  really  offered,  it  must  have  been 
by  the  executive. 

A  more  practical  suggestion  was  made  in  the  House  on 
April  17,  by  C.  J.  Ingersoll,  Democrat  from  Pennsylvania, 
who  moved  this  resolution;^ 

That  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  ascertain,  by  con- 
sultation with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  otherwise, 
and  report  to  the  House,  whether  the  immediate  reduction  of 
fifteen  of  the  thirty  per  cent  ad  valorem  now  imposed  as  duties 
on  French  productions  imported  into  the  United  States  will 
not,  at  this  crisis  in  the  French  Government,  aiford  great  and 
seasonable  relief  to  the  distressed  industry  of  that  country,  to 
which  this  is  so  much  indebted,  and  also  be  without  disadvant- 
age, if  not  beneficial,  to  the  revenue,  commerce  and  general 
welfare  of  the  United  States. 

There  w^ere  several  amendments  and  some  discussion  by  a 
member  unfriendly  to  the  resolution,  of  the  relative  merits 
of  "  French  gewgaws  "  and  Pennsylvania  iron,  but  the  whole 
subject  was  finally  laid  on  the  table  by  a  vote  of  99  to  85." 
On  Jime  20th,  Mr.  Pearce,  from  the  Committee  on  the 

1  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  17,  p.  638  et  seq.;  cf.  p.  343. 

2  According  to  the  Paris  Union,  quoting  from  the  Courrier  des  Etats- 
Unis,  Mr.  George  Sumner,  a  Bostonian,  resident  for  some  years  in  Paris, 
had  on  Mar.  22  addressed  a  plan  to  Vice-President  Dallas  and  Secretary 
of  Treasury  Walker,  proposing  the  reduction  of  duties  on  a  large  num- 
ber of  French  products,  for  the  excellent  moral  effect  it  would  have  in 
France  and  the  ensuing  benefit  to  the  commerce  of  the  two  nations. 
The  Union  continues  on  its  own  account  that  Mr.  Dallas  was  believed 
to  have  studied  the  matter  and  to  have  been  preparing  a  set  of  resolu- 
tions when  the  Ingersoll  bill  was  defeated.  The  latter's  failure  was 
credited  to  insufficient  preparation,  and  the  belief  expressed  that  it 
would  be  brought  up  again  at  the  next  session,  especially  if  the  French 
government  showed  any  intention  of  "  replying  to  the  good  dispositions 
of  the  Americans."  Vide  Union,  July  29.  George  Sumner  was  Charles 
Sumner's  brother. 


271]      J'VHAT  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  93 

Library,  reported  a  joint  resolution  to  the  Senate,  authoriz- 
ing the  presentation  to  France  of  a  series  of  the  standard 
weights  and  measures  of  the  United  States,  which  was 
passed,  apparently  without  contest/ 

As  Drouyn  de  Lhuys  suggested  in  his  speech,  previously 
mentioned,  unofficial  enthusiasm  for  the  new  republic  had 
been  expressed  in  many  American  cities. 

An  open-air  meeting  was  held  April  3,  at  New  York  in 
what  the  American  correspondent  of  the  National  calls  "  the 
immense  park  opposite  the  City  Hall,"  where  according  to 
his  report,  30,000  people  were  gathered  about  various  tem- 
porary platforms,  from  which  speeches  lauding  liberty  and 
international  fraternity  v/ere  made  in  all  languages.^  A 
complete  account  of  the  meeting  with  extracts  from  the 
speeches  is  taken  by  the  Moniteur  from  the  Courrier  des 

1  Cong.  Globe,  vol.  17,  p.  857.  The  details  of  the  bill,  not  found  in 
the  Globe,  are  given  by  the  Paris  Union  of  Sept.  11,  quoting  from  ''  one 
of  the  recent  numbers  "  of  the  Washington  Union.  It  is  there  spoken 
of  as  the  bill  of  July  25th ;  since  the  Globe  contains  no  record  of  any 
action  relative  to  France  in  either  branch  of  Congress  at  that  time,  the 
Pearce  bill  is  probably  meant.  The  measure  provided  that  Vattemare, 
as  agent  for  international  exchanges,  should  receive  for  presentation  to 
France  seven  folio  volumes  of  American  archives,  a  new  edition  of 
United  States  laws,  legislative  documents  published  by  Congress,  the 
report  of  Wilkes'  voyage  around  the  world,  duplicate  copies  of  Amer- 
ican works  not  contained  in  the  American  library  in  Paris,  and  a  series 
of  weights  and  measures.  To  this  motley  collection  the  director  of  the 
Patent  Office  added  drawings  of  the  twenty-five  most  recent  inventions, 
and  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  drawings  of  a  new  warship  and  of  "  a 
machine  for  constructing  large  masts."  Various  maps  were  also  sent, 
including  a  chart  of  winds  and  currents.  Parchment  addresses,  signed 
by  senators  and  representatives,  were  added.  The  Paris  Union  was 
deeply  moved  by  this  transaction.  "  It  is  with  joy,  we  doubt  not,  that 
the  country  will  receive  this  double  expression  of  the  sentiments  of  the 
American  Congress.  Between  the  United  States  and'  France  there  has 
existed  for  so  long  a  time  a  close  bond,  glorious  and  touching  mem- 
ories !" 

'  National,  Apr.  22. 


94  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^272 

Etats-Unis.^  Another  detailed  report  is  furnished  by  the 
N.  Y.  Evening  Post,^  which  says  that  ''  at  dark  the  crowd 
was  so  immense  that  no  estimate  could  be  formed  of  its 
numbers."  The  mayor  presided,  many  spread-eagle 
speeches,  poems  and  resolutions  were  read  (one  calling  for 
reciprocal  citizenship,  without  probation,  between  the  people 
of  France  and  the  people  of  the  United  States),  and  then  the 
"  City  Hall  was  illuminated  on  all  sides  except  the  north, 
with  more  than  fifteen  hundred  sperm  candles — one  to  each 
pane  of  glass — and  produced  a  most  magnificent  appearance. 
Tammany  Hall  and  the  block  of  buildings  adjoining  were 
also  illuminated,  as  were  most  of  the  hotels,  and  especially 
the  residences  of  the  French."  Finally  came  fireworks  from 
the  balcony  of  the  City  Hall,  concluding  with  a  set  piece, 
the  letters  Vive  la  Republique,  flanked  on  either  side  by  two 
stars,  "  each  representing  the  star  of  America  enclosing  the 
newly  risen  star  of  the  French  republic.  The  shouts  which 
now  rent  the  air  were  truly  tremendous.  Cheer  upon  cheer, 
and  hurrah  after  hurrah,  were  given,  as  if  in  perfect  ecstacy 
of  enthusiastic  joy  at  sight  of  the  glorious  words."  ^ 

Three  weeks  later,  "  one  of  the  most  brilliant  and  im- 
posing pageants  that  has  ever  been  witnessed  in  this  metro- 
polis "  *  was  held  in  the  Park  Theatre,  presided  over  by  a 
prominent  lawyer,  Theodore  Sedgwick.  The  occasion  was 
a  military  ball,  at  which  a  velvet  and  gold  liberty  cap  was 
presented  by  the  city  of  New  York  to  the  city  of  Paris  and 

^  Moniteur,  Apr.  23, 

^  N.  Y.  Evening  Post,  Apr.  4. 

^Cf.  M.  Moses,  Full  Annals  of  the  Revolution  in  France,  for  an 
account  of  the  similar  celebration  in  1830,  when  ex-President  James 
Monroe  presided  over  the  meeting  and  when  "  the  students  of  Colum- 
bia College,  with  their  President  and  Professors"  participated  in  the 
parade. 

*  A^.  Y,  Evening  Post,  Apr.  26. 


273]      ^^^^^^  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  95 

received  by  the  French  vice-consul.  An  enthusiastic  letter 
was  read  from  Martin  Van  Buren,  the  purport  of  which  was 
that  in  spite  of  past  failures,  the  new  republic  had  a  good 
chance  to  last.  In  due  season,  the  bonnet  phrygien  was  sent 
to  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  together  with  a  manuscript 
book  containing  the  speeches  made,  and  a  long  letter  de- 
scribing the  ball.^ 

What  is  described  as  "  a  dignified  meeting  "  took  place  in 
the  Chinese  Museum,  Philadelphia,  at  which  speeches  were 
made  and  long  congratulatory  resolutions  read  by  William 
A.  Stokes.  One  clause  contained  these  words :  "And, 
whereas,  during  sixty  years  the  friends  of  liberty  in  France 
have  in  each  successive  struggle  invoked  their  countrymen's 
regard  to  our  political  institutions  as  models  for  their  own 
imitation  and  adoption."  ^ 

Another  gathering,  at  Boston,  strikes  a  somewhat  more 
radical  note  in  one  of  its  resolutions,  "  That  the  active  efforts 
of  the  Provisional  Government  of  France,  to  conciliate  the 
rights  of  property  with  the  still  more  sacred  right  to  live, 
merit  the  praises  of  all  those  who  esteem  both  life  and 
property."  ^ 

Both  houses  of  Congress  adjourned  their  sessions  on  April 
24,  to  attend  the  local  celebration  of  the  February  Revolution. 
Though  the  Marine  Band,  "  playing  the  Marseilles  Hymn," 
the  Washington  Light  Infantry,  the  mayor  and  aldermen 
and  other  dignitaries  marched  in  the  procession,  though 
speeches  were  made  before  the  east  front  of  the  Capitol  and 
salutes  were  fired  by  the  Columbia  Artillery,  the  glamour  of 
this  particular  occasion  seems  to  have  been  somewhat 
dimmed  by  ''  the  unfavorable  condition  of   Pennsylvania 

1  National,  July  12. 

^Phila.  Public  Ledger,  Mar.  23. 

3  Journal  des  debats,  May  12, 


g^  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^274. 

avenue,  which  was  literally  a  cloud  of  dust  all  the  morning 
and  at  the  time  when  the  procession  passed  along  it."  ^ 

Other  meetings  are  reported  ^  at  Richmond,  Baltimore 
and  Rochester,  and  doubtless  these  are  not  all  that  were  held. 

Special  addresses  were  voted  by  societies  of  various 
descriptions.  The  Boston  typographers  sent  one  to  the 
printers  and  compositors  of  France.^  A  group  of  New 
York  Fourierists  sent  another  to  their  brothers  across  the 
sea.* 

But  more  important  than  any  of  these,  the  Democratic 
national  convention  that  nominated  Cass,  inserted  in  its  plat- 
form long  resolutions  of  congratulation  to  the  French  As- 
sembly, expressing  wishes  for  the  "  consolidation  of  their 
liberties  ...  on  the  basis  of  a  Democratic  Constitution."  ^ 
The  Whigs  adopted  no  platform. 

The  importance  to  us  of  these  meetings  in  American 
cities  and  these  resolutions  of  the  American  Congress  does 
not  lie  in  their  revelation  of  America's  enthusiasm  for  re- 
publican France,  but  in  the  fact  that  they  v/ere  carefully  re- 
ported, often  at  length,  in  many  French  newspapers,  and 
thus  could  hardly  help  having  a  tendency  to  predispose  the 
French  mind  in  favor  of  the  United  States.  It  was  some- 
thing more  than  the  international  fraternity,  common  at  the 
time,  for  a  study  of  the  newspapers  fails  to  show  any  similar 
interchange  of  courtesies  with  any  other  country. 

The  more  detailed  knowledge  which  the  educated  part  of 
the  French  public  had  regarding  Amxcrica  was  based  essen- 
tially on  a  very  few  books.     Foremost  among  these  was  of 

^  Washington  Daily  National  Intelligencer,  Apr.  25.    Cf.  Cong.  Globe, 
vol.  17,  pp.  664,  665. 
^National,  May  20. 

*  Journal  des  dehats,  May  12. 

*  Democratie  paciHque,  "May  8. 
^  A^  Y.  Evening  Post,  May  29. 


275]      ^-^^^  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  gy 

course  A.  de  Tocqueville's  Democratic  en  Anieriqice.  He 
and  his  friend,  G.  de  Beaumont,  studied  the  prison  system 
of  the  United  States  from  May,  1831  to  May,  1832,  during 
which  time  they  travelled  from  Boston  to  New  Orleans. 
The  results  of  this  study  were  set  forth  in  a  book  by  the 
two  men,  entitled  Systeme  penitentiaire  aux  Etats  Unis  et 
de  son  application  en  France,  published  in  Paris  in  1832  and 
reaching  its  third  edition  in  1845.  This  work,  which  re- 
commended the  partial  adoption  of  what  was  known  as  the 
Auburn  system,  (modified  system  of  silence)  was  crowned 
by  the  French  Academy,  given  the  Prix  Monthyon  and 
translated  into  German,  English,  Portuguese  and  other  lan- 
guages. From  the  observations  made  on  that  journey,  com- 
bined with  his  own  reflections  ( for  he  was  essentially  a  de- 
ductive thinker)  Tocqueville  wrote  his  classic  on  Demo- 
cracy in  America,  which,  appearing  in  part  in  January,,  1835, 
was  the  first  reasoned  political  account  of  the  American  ex- 
periment. It  created  a  great  sensation.  Royer-Collard,  the 
old  statesman  of  Restoration  times,  said,  ^'  Since  Montes- 
quieu, nothing  like  it  has  appeared."  Four  thousand  copies 
of  the  first  part  were  sold  in  a  short  time,  an  extraordinary 
number  for  the  period.^  It  was  widely  translated.  In 
1836,  the  French  Academy  awarded  it  a  special  prize  of 
8000  francs,  the  ordinary  maximum  being  6000.^  The  au- 
thor, on  the  strength  of  it,  was  in  1838,  elected  a  member 
of  the  Academy  of  Moral  and  Political  Sciences  and  in  1841 
of  the  French  Academy.  By  1848,  the  book  had  reached 
its  tenth  edition,  and  was  generally  familiar  to  cultivated 
people.  Tocqueville's  attitude  was  that  of  the  early  nine- 
teenth century  aristocratic  liberal.     He  was  not  a  democrat, 

1  Eugene  d'Eichthal,  Alexis  de  Tocqueville  -et  la  democratie  liberale, 
p.  106. 

2  G.  de  Beaumont,  Correspondances  et  oeuvres  posthumes  de  Alexis 
de  Tocqueville  (vol.  5  of  Oeuvres  Completes),  p.  48. 


^  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^2^6 

though  not  violently  hostile  to  democracy ;  he  regarded  it  as 
inevitable,  and  sought  to  study  its  workings  where  they  had 
been  in  most  successful  operation.  Originally  a  legitimist, 
he  had  sat  in  the  liberal  opposition  during  the  July  Monarchy,, 
and  was  now  a  repuhlicain  du  lendemain.  His  attitude  to- 
ward the  republic  is  clearly  described  by  a  later  writer. 
Tocqueville,  he  says,  about  the  time  that  Beaumont's  elec- 
toral profession  of  faith  appeared,  produced  a  new  edition 
of  the  Democracy/  It  was  preceded  by  an  elaborate  preface, 
which  was  reproduced  in  a  great  number  of  newspapers  and 
"very  noisily  commented  upon."  Tocqueville  and  Beaumont 
began  to  be  considered  pronounced  republicans,  ''  while  the 
republic  had  never  been  more  than  an  object  of  study  for 
them,"  nor  had  they  voted  with  the  republicans  in  the  cham- 
ber of  deputies.  It  is  to  them,  the  writer  continues,  that  is 
to  be  traced  back  the  distinction  between  the  moderate  and 
the  violent  republic.  He  then  quotes  Tocqueville' s  own 
words  in  the  preface  of  the  1848  edition,  as  follows  : 

It  is  no  longer  the  question  whether  we  shall  have  in  France 
royalty  or  republic,  but  it  remains  for  us  to  learn  whether  we 
shall  have  an  agitated  or  a  tranquil  republic;  a  regular  or  an 
irregular  republic;  a  pacific  or  a  warlike  republic,  which 
threatens  the  sacred  rights  of  property  and  of  family,  or  a 
republic  which  recognizes  or  consecrates  them.  A  terrible 
problem,  whose  solution  concerns  not  France  only,  but  the 
whole  civilized  universe.  ...  If  we  save  ourselves,  we  save 
at  the  same  time  the  peoples  which  surround  us.  If  we  fail,, 
we  lose  them  all  with  us.  According  as  we  shall  have  demo- 
cratic liberty,  or  democratic  tyranny,  the  destiny  of  the  world 
will  be  different,  and  it  may  be  said  that  it  depends  on  us  today 
whether  the  republic  shall  end  by  being  established  cA^ery- 
where,  or  abolished  everywhere. 

1  This  1848  edition  is  unfortunately  not  to  be  found  in  the  Biblio- 
theque  Nationale. 


277]      ^^^^'^  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA  gg 

The  later  writer,  a  radical,  observes  somewhat  bitterly  that 
the  real  point  was  whether  '*  under  the  aegis  of  that  regular 
and  tranquil  republic,  of  which  one  spoke  with  so  much  en- 
thusiasm, it  w^as  not  desired  to  keep  things  practically  as  they 
were  under  the  government  of  Louis  Philippe.  ...  It  was 
on  the  14th  of  March  that  the  preface  of  M.  de  Tocqueville 
appeared  and  certainly  many  points  of  reform  remained  to 
be  noticed,  many  improvements  to  be  demanded."  ^ 

In  America,  Tocqueville  became  an  ardent  admirer  of  the 
system  of  checks  and  balances.  The  particular  points  of 
the  American  system,  outside  of  the  central  structure  itself, 
which  appealed  most  strongly  to  him  were  local  self-govern- 
ment, the  independence  and  authority  of  the  judiciary,  and 
the  federal  scheme  in  general.  "  Such  were  the  great  reme- 
dies which  Tocqueville  perceived  opposed  in  the  United 
States  to  democratic  excesses."  ^ 

Tocqueville  begins  his  constitutional  study  with  the  New 
England  township  as  the  best  expression  of  Anglo-American 
popular  sovereignty,  proceeding  outward  to  the  county  and 
the  state.  When  he  takes  up  the  federal  constitution,^  he 
finds  worthy  of  particular  attention  the  two  chamber  system 
in  the  legislative  branch,  the  President's  suspensory  veto  and 
indirect  election,  and  the  power  of  the  Supreme  Court.  He 
considers  the  greater  independence  in  the  federal  constitu- 
tion of  the  three  branches  of  government  over  against  the 
people,  as  proof  of  its  superiority  over  the  state  constitutions. 
It  is  in  fact  "the  most  perfect  federal  constitution  that  ever 
existed."  *  European  conditions,  however,  make  its  slavish 
imitation  undesirable ;  it  should  be  studied  and  the  best  parts 

1  F.  Rittiez,  Hist,  du  gouvernement  provisoire,  vol.  2,  pp.  78-80. 

2  E.  d'Eichthal,  op,  cit,  p.  88. 

^  Tocqueville,  op.  cit.,  pt.  i,  ch.  viii. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  210. 


lOO  T^I^E,  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^J^ 

of  it  adapted  to  European  conditions.^  In  fact,  one  of  the 
most  important  features  of  his  attitude  is  his  dictum  that 
of  the  three  vital  elements  in  American  prosperity,  "  the  laws 
contribute  more  to  the  maintenance  of  the  democratic  re- 
public in  the  United  States  than  the  physical  circumstances 
of  the  country,  and  the  manners  more  than  the  laws."  ^ 
'Nevertheless,  he  was  so  generally  recognized  as  an  admirer 
of  the  American  republic  that  he  was  dubbed  Vamericain  and 
laughingly  accepted  the  title.  "  I  have  already,"  he  writes 
in  a  letter  to  M.  de  Corcelle,  dated  Berne,  July  27,  1836, 
"  as  an  American  [<?n  ma  qiialitc  d'amcricain,]  conceived  a 
very  superb  disdain  for  the  federal  constitution  of  Switzer- 
land, which  without  ceremony  I  call  a  league  and  not  a 
federation.  A  government  of  that  nature  is  surely  the  soft- 
est, the  most  powerless,  the  most  awkward  and  the  most  in- 
capable of  leading  nations  anywhere  except  to  anarchy.  .  .  . 
Then  English  kingdom  is  a  hundred  times  more  republican 
than  that  republic.  .  .  .  Enough  of  politics.  If  Quincy 
Adams'  speech  is  still  in  your  hands,  I  beg  you  to  keep  it 
for  me."  ^ 

Tocqueville  was  not  alone  in  his  interest  in  America,  in 
the  early  days  of  the  July  monarchy.  "  The  idea,  further- 
more, that  a  republic,  somewhat  similar  to  that  of  the  x\meri- 
cans  would  be  one  day  founded  in  France,  preoccupied  many 
minds  at  that  time;  the  due  de  Broglie  was  thinking  of  it 
and  Armand  Carrel  in  disappointment  was  commencing  to 
rally  to  it."  * 

At  almost  the  same  time  appeared  another  book  on  which 

^  See  especially,  Preface  to  ed.  of  1850  (p.  liv  in  Century  ed.)  and 
close  of  ch.  xvii. 

2  Ch.  xvii,  esp.  p.  409;  by  "manners"  (moeurs)  he  meant  religion, 
morality,  the  tendency  toward  social  equality,  etc. 

3  Correspondances;  Oeuvres  completes,  vol.  6,  p.  62. 

*  R.  P.  Marcel,  Essai  politique  sur  A.  de  Tocqueville,  p.  289. 


279]      ^^^^  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA        loi 

the  educated  Frenchman  based  his  impressions  of  America, 
a  series  of  letters  written  by  Michel  Chevalier,  during  a 
visit  to  the  United  States  from  1834  to  1836/  The  author, 
a  St.  Simonien  in  youth,  afterward  settled  down  into  a  con- 
servative professor  of  economics  in  the  College  de  France ; 
he  was  of  the  Manchester  school,  a  great  believer  in  individ- 
ual liberty  and  free-trade.  The  letters  are  written  from  the 
standpoint  of  a  liberal  Catholic  royalist.  They  are  some- 
what rhetorical  in  style;  on  the  whole  they  are  laudatory. 
The  subject-matter  is  chiefly  concerned  with  banks  and  rail- 
roads, then  with  social  conditions;  little  is  said  on  purely 
constitutional  issues.  Chevalier  was  in  America  at  the  time 
of  Jackson's  conflict  with  the  Bank,  in  which  his  sympathies 
inclined  toward  the  latter  as  the  most  stable  financial  force 
in  the  country.  Like  Tocqueville,  Chevalier's  fortune  was 
made  by  his  book  on  America  (which  in  this  case,  included 
Cuba  and  Mexico) .  It  seems  to  have  been  widely  read  and 
Alexander  von  Humboldt  praised  it.  Chevalier  received  a 
government  commission  to  study  financial  conditions  in 
England  as  a  result  of  the  book's  success  and  later  was  made 
a  member  of  the  council  of  state. 

A  third  writer  on  America  at  this  time  was  Guillaume  Tell 
Poussin,  to  whom  reference  has  been  made.  In  1834,  he 
wrote  a  book  on  canals  and  railroads  in  the  United  States, 
a  subject  which  Chevalier  later  developed.^  In  1841, 
Poussin  published  his  Cofisideratioits  sur  le  principe  demo- 
cratique  qui  regit  Vunion  americaine,  et  de  la  possihilite  de 
son  application  a  d'autres  etats.  This  was  largely  a  review 
of  Tocqueville  and  highly  eulogistic  of  the  United  States. 

^  Lettres  stir  I'Amerique  du  Nord,  Paris,  1836;  2  vols.,  2d  ed.,  1837. 

2  Travaux  d' ameliorations  interieures,  projetes  .  .  .  par  le  gouverne- 
ment  general  des  Etats-Unis  d'Amerique  de  1824  a  1831,  Paris,  1834. 

^  Hist,  et  description  des  voies  de  £Ommunication  aux  Etats-Unis,  2 
vols.,  Paris,  1840-41. 


I02  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [280 

But  his  principal  work  was  De  la  puissance  americaine,  pub- 
lished in  1843  ^01"  the  first  time,  and  appearing  in  an  enlarged 
third  edition  in  1848.^  The  first  part  is  a  history  of  the 
colonial  period,  the  second  a  discussion  of  the  "  military, 
agricultural,  commercial,  and  industrial  resources  of  the 
United  States." 

Still  another  writer  on  the  United  States  was  Achille 
Murat,  son  of  the  marshal,  an  American  citizen  living  in 
Florida  and  a  strong  admirer  of  his  adopted  country.  He 
published  at  Paris  in  1832  his  Esquisses  morales  et  politi- 
ques  des  Etats-Unis  de  rAmerique  du  Nord,  which  told 
about  everything  except  the  constitution. 

There  was,  however,  another  class  of  publications,  which 
is  very  important  for  our  purpose.  As  the  meeting  of  the 
Assembly  approached,  collections  of  constitutions  began  to 
appear.  In  some  cases,  these  were  purely  former  French 
constitutions;  in  many  other  cases,  however,  the  American 
federal  and  sometimes,  various  state  constitutions  were 
added ;  rarely  were  those  of  any  other  country  included.^ 

Another  class  of  writings  is  made  up  of  ideal  constitu- 
tions ;  here  American  influence  is  often  perceptible.  One  of 
the  most  important  writers  in  this  class  is  E.  de  Laboulaye,  a 
professor  in  the  College  de  France  and  a  publicist  of  the  lib- 
eral school,  equally  hostile  to  socialism  and  to  reaction.  He 
was  a  strong  admirer  of  the  United  States  and  held  it  up  as 
an  example  in  many  books,  mostly  written  after  our  period. 
He  wrote  an  essay,  entitled  Cotisiderations  sur  la  Constitu- 
tion (Paris,  1848),  filled  with  quotations  from  American 
practice,  to  which  was  appended  a  plan  for  a  constitution, 
based  on  the  report  of  the  commission,   (then  before  the 

1  Published  in  English  in  1850  under  the  title  The  United  States,  its 
Power  and  Progress. 

2  Cf.  ch.  vii  and  bibliography. 


28l]      WHAT  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA,      103 

Assembly),  amended  largely  in  accordance  with  the  United 
States  constitution.  He  gave  a  lecture  December  4,  1849, 
at  the  opening  of  his  course  on  comparative  legislation,  en- 
titled Dc  la  constitution  americaine  et  de  Vutilite  de  son 
etude. ^  This,  of  course,  came  too  late  to  have  any  effect  on 
the  thought  of  the  Assembly,  but  it  shows  what  was  in  the 
minds  of  some  of  the  leaders  in  Parisian  intellectual  life  at 
the  time.  For  other  writings  of  this  nature  reference  must 
be  made  to  the  bibiliography.  There  was  also  no  little  in- 
formation about  the  political  and  constitutional  life  of 
America  in  the  newspapers,  as  will  be  seen  in  a  subsequent 
chapter.  If  now,  we  essay  to  determine  the  general  feeling 
about  America  in  the  France  of  1848,  we  must  distinguish 
between  the  American  ideal  and  the  American  fact. 

As  to  the  American  ideal,  there  was  general  adulation. 
Washington,  regarded  as  its  incarnation,  was  constantly  held 
up  by  all  parties  as  a  sort  of  republican  superman.  We  find 
Lamartine  replying  to  the  Italian  delegation,  who  had  come 
to  pay  their  respects  to  the  Provisional  Government,  March 
2y,  bidding  them  remove  from  their  pantheon  the  name  of 
Machiavelli  and  substitute  for  it  "  the  purer  name  of  Wash- 
ington ;  there  is  the  name  which  must  be  proclaimed  to-day, 
it  is  the  name  of  modern  liberty.  It  is  no  longer  the  name 
of  a  politician,  it  is  the  name  of  the  most  disinterested  man, 
the  one  most  devoted  to  the  people.  There  is  the  man 
whom  liberty  needs.  A  European  Washington,  that  is  the 
need  of  the  century :  the  people,  peace,  liberty !  "  ^  And 
again,  in  a  letter  to  the  electors,  defending  his  policies,  he 
predicted,  "  The  republic  inspired  by  Washington  will  tri- 
umph over  the  republic  of  Baboeuf,  of  Robespierre  and  of 

1  Revue  de  legislation  et  de  jurisprudence,  Dec.  1849.  Published  sep- 
arately in  1850. 

2  Lamartine,  Trois  mois  an  pouvoir,  p.  144. 


I04  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [282 

Danton."  ^  The  chief  radical  newspaper  printed  an  article 
on  Washington  a  propos  of  the  approaching  American  presi- 
dential election.  His  name  is  here  said  to  have  remained 
great  and  respected,  because  ''  that  name  is  a  synonym  for 
honor,  for  courage  and  for  devotion  to  the  country,  for  dis- 
interestedness. Never  did  ambition  trouble  the  severity 
of  that  conscience,  inaccessible  to  petty  calculations  and  to 
vanity;  so  the  errors  of  that  great  man  were  excused  by  his 
contemporaries,  who  honored  in  Washington  political  vir- 
tue, if  not  the  most  impetuous,  at  least  the  most  severe."  ^ 
The  same  article  praised  Jefferson's  ''  firmness  and  noble 
modesty "  which  marked  the  daw^n  of  a  new  era  for 
America,  the  triumph  of  democracy.  Of  him  might  be 
said,  what  he  had  said  of  Washington,  that  when  he  died, 
"  a  great  man  perished  that  day  in  Israel." 
The  royalist  organs  held  the  same  opinion. 

In  America,  Washington  reveals  himself.  Again  a  man  who 
directs  all  the  forces  of  the  revolution.  .  .  .  Those  who  follow 
him  have  confidence,  those  who  combat  him  esteem  him;  in 
the  councils,  his  opinion  is  followed,  because  his  opinions  are 
never  ambiguous ;  in  the  assemblies,  he  is  listened  to,  because 
his  character  gives  power  to  his  speech.  So  history  records 
one  more  great  man.  .  .  .  But  this  time,  in  your  second  re- 
public, where  is  the  man  who  directs  it?* 

And  again,  "  Meanwhile,  permit  us  to  deplore  that  absolute 
void,  that  profound  lack  of  leaders  commanding  respect, 
under  the  rule  of  a  revolution  which  ought  to  produce  the 
expansion  of  so  many  high  intelligences.  We  count  several 
candidates ;  but  where  is  Washington  ?"  * 

^  Le  Steele,  Sept.  2. 
^Reforme,  Oct.  25. 
3  Union,  May  22. 
*Ibid.,  Oct.  28. 


283]      WHAT  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA        105 

One  paper  seeks  partisan  advantage  from  Washington's 
relations  with  the  French  monarchy. 

And  who  then,  in  the  history  of  the  world,  would  pretend  to 
put  himself  above  Washington  and  all  those  illustrious 
founders  of  the  American  Union,  for  devotion  to  country  and 
for  jealous  care  given  to  her  honor?  And  yet  were  not 
Washington,  Franklin  and  all  their  glorious  friends  found  in 
accord  on  the  principle  of  asking  aid  in  men  and  money  from 
the  Versailles  cabinet  ?  This  aid  was  granted  and  accepted  and 
we  recall  it  in  passing,  to  the  eternal  glory  of  the  founder  of 
American  independence,  that  the  grateful  heart  of  Washington 
kept  to  its  last  beat,  homage  for  the  memory  of  Louis  XYI,  an 
instinctive  and  insurmountable  horror  for  his  executioners.^ 

Another  royalist  paper  remarked  that  the  Assembly  is  now 
discussing  presidential  candidates.  "  It  is  not  a  question  of 
designating  another  Washington,  named  already  by  the 
glorious  renown  of  his  services :  there  is  no  man  who,  hav- 
ing long  been  the  representative  of  the  republican  idea,  has 
so  to  speak  personified  it  in  himself,  and  who,  elected  presi- 
dent, would  be  the  worthiest  to  install  in  power  the  form 
of  an  elective  government.  No  such  man  exists  in 
France."  ^  Again  it  is  said  that  "  the  authority  which  this 
famous  chief  of  the  United  States  enjoyed  was  the  result 
of  the  freest  and  most  regular  choice,"  "  which  would  how- 
ever be  more  difficult  to  obtain  in  so  large  a  country  as 
France,  for  which  a  king  was  more  desirable  than  a 
president. 

Other  newspaper  references  might  be  given,  but  these 
must  suffice.  There  are  besides  such  statements  as  that  of 
Guizot,  who  said  of  him,  "  Washington  does  not  resemble 

1  Assemblee  tmtionale,  Oct.  4. 

2  Opinion  publique,  Oct.  22. 

3  Gazette  de  France,  Mar.  30. 


Io6  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [284 

Napoleon ;  the  former  was  no  despot.  He  founded  political 
liberty,  at  the  same  time  as  the  national  independence  of  his 
country.  .  .  .  He  is  the  model  for  the  chiefs  of  a  democratic 
republic.  .  .  .  He  was  of  those  who  know  that  in  a  repub- 
lic no  more  than  in  a  monarchy,  in  a  democratic  society  no 
more  than  in  any  other,  dees  one  govern  from  the  bottom 
up.'*  ^    The  historian  Baron  de  Barante  writes  of  Cavaignac, 

If  M.  Cavaignac  had  wanted  to  be  anything  except  a  factional 
republican,  he  would  have  had  a  fine  chance.  But  this  French 
soil  could  not  produce  a  Washington.  I  read  the  other 
day  his  farewell  to  the  American  people  on  leaving  the  Presi- 
dency; what  reason  and  simplicity!  Has  God  refused  the 
faculty  of  good  sense  to  our  poor  nation?  Shall  we  never 
know  other  liberal  opinions  than  those  of  journalists  and 
litterateurs  ?  - 

Others,  however,  had  a  better  opinion  of  Cavaignac,  as 
Tocqueville,  who  in  a  conversation  with  Nassau  Senior  on 
January  29,  1851,  said  "  Cavaignac  was  the  only  chance  of 
the  republic.  He  is  not  a  man  of  wide  views,  but  an  honest 
man  who  prefers  glory  to  power.  His  model  would  have 
been  Washington."  ^  The  same  role  was  assigned  to  La- 
martine  a  little  earlier.  *'A11  France  considered  him  as  a 
providential  mediator  between  parties  and  classes.  The 
name  and  the  role  of  Washington  were  assigned  to  him  by 
the  public  will."  * 

While  all  parties  joined  in  the  expression  of  esteem  for 
the  great  American  patriot's  memory,  it  is  easier  to  find  such 
references  from  royalist  than  from  radical  pens. 

1  Gnizot,  De  la  Democratie  en  France,  p.  28.  As  in  the  case  of  La- 
boulaye,  this  book,  published  in  1849,  is  cited  to  show  the  feeling  of 
prominent  men  of  the  time. 

2  "  Letter  to  Mme.  Anisson  du  Perron,"  dated  Nov.  9,  1848.  Revue 
de  Paris,  vol,  iii,  p.  562, 

3  E.  d'Eichthal,  A.  de  Tocqueville,  p.  282. 

*  Daniel  Stern,  Hist,  de  la  revolution  de  1848,  vol.  2,  p.  19. 


285]      ^VHAT  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA        107 

For  a  long  time  there  had  been  pubHcists  interested  in 
American  governmental  theory.  On  the  eve  of  the  revolu- 
tion of  1830,  Thiers  wrote  in  the  National,  "  We  shall  be 
content  to  seek  our  political  examples  and  our  models  of 
government  in  England,  across  the  Channel;  but  if  you  force 
us  to  it,  we  shall  cross  the  ocean  and  go  as  far  as  America."  ^ 

In  1839,  Guizot  wrote  of  the  American  system, 

In  its  own  interior  organization,  the  central  government  was 
well  conceived  and  well  weighed;  the  rights  and  the  relations 
of  the  different  powers  were  regulated  with  much  sense  and 
a  strong  appreciation  of  the  conditions  of  order  and  of  political 
vitality,  at  least  for  the  republican  form  and  the  society  to 
which  it  adapted  itself.  Comparing  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  to  the  anarchy  from  which  it  sprang,  one  does 
not  tire  of  admiring  the  wisdom  of  its  authors  and  of  the  gen- 
eration which  had  chosen  and  sustained  them.^ 

In  1848,  Kenri  Martin  in  his  course  on  modern  history  at 
the  Sorbonne  laid  stress  on  that 

imperishable  monument,  the  Declaration  of  Rights  [sic].  For 
the  first  time  in  modern  societies,  a  people  justified  theoretically 
the  assumption  of  its  liberty  by  philosophy  and  universal  right, 
and  no  longer  by  the  violation  of  some  special  pact,  of  some 
ancient  custom;  no  revolution,  not  even  the  glorious  revolt 
which  gave  birth  to  Holland,  had  laid  claim  to  that  august 
character.  Nothing  was  more  radically  opposed  to  the  genius 
of  old  England,  nothing  was  more  in  conformity  with  the 
genius  of  France  than  that  declaration  pronounced  in  the 
English  tongue  by  English  lips.  It  was  not  only  in  the  name 
of  liberty,  but  in  the  name  of  the  natural  equality  of  m.en,  that 
America  proclaimed  her  independence.  France  recognized  the 
echo  of  her  thought,  the  thought  which  others  were  realizing 
before  her,  and  she  arose  with  a  start.^ 

1  Spulkr,  Hist.  pari,  de  la  seconde  repub.,  p.  41. 

2  Washington,  Etude  historique,  p.  Ixiii. 
^  Moniteur,  June  i. 


I08  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["286 

But  it  was  not  only  intellectual  leaders  who  were  thinking 
of  America  at  this  time.  To  get  any  idea  of  the  mass  of 
material  on  the  subject,  reference  must  be  made  to  the  news- 
papers, many  of  which  published  long  articles  about  the 
American  constitution,  (not  all  friendly  by  any  means) 
which  will  be  discussed  in  another  chapter.  Among  the 
sample  constitutions,  which  were  produced  so  prolifically  at 
this  time,  it  is  interesting  to  find  suggestions  for  the  new 
government  by  Robert  Owen.^  The  letter  suggests  the  op- 
portunity France  has  for  making  a  new  experiment  on  true 
principles,  some  of  which  he  lays  down,  as  opportunity  for 
the  education  and  self -development  of  every  individual,  re- 
ligious freedom,  liberty  of  speech,  thought  and  action,  no 
taxes,  except  perhaps  a  graduated  property  tax,  "  reason- 
able ideas  of  unity  and  of  association,"  a  local  government 
based  on  small  divisions,  most  advantageous  to  secure  the 
well-being  of  all,  no  interference  by  foreign  powers,  and 
the  principle  of  being  armed  for  defence,  not  for  attack. 
His  nth  clause  reads:  "The  American  government,  in 
principle,  with  some  essential  modifications  in  their  practice, 
will  be  a  good  present  model  with  which  to  commence." 

The  notion  that  other  countries  and  particularly  the 
United  States  were  being  studied  by  the  constitution-makers 
at  this  time  and  for  several  years  after,  was  sufficiently 
popularized  to  give  birth  to  a  doggerel  reactionary  verse, 
containing  these  lines. 

Certain  reve  pourtant,  titre  de  liberal, 

N'en  doit  guere  a  celui  qui  se  dit  social ; 

Et  quand,  croyant  pour  nous  f aire  chose  qui  vaille, 

1  To  the  Men  and  Women  of  France.  An  English  copy,  dated  Lon- 
don, Feb.  27^  1848,  is  in  the  Archives  Nationales  (BB  so  299(1)  );  a 
French  translation  is  printed  as  an  appendix  to  E.  Dolleans,  Robert 
Owen  (Paris,  1907),  taken  by  him  from  a  newspaper,  La  Voix  des 
Femmes,  March  25,  1848. 


287]      IVHAT  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA        109 

A  nous  constituer  nuit  et  jour  il  travaille, 

Son  constituantisme  aura  cela  de  bon 

Qu'il  ne  se  mettra  guere  en  f  rais  d'invention ; 

Aux  Chartes,  en  effet,  qu'il  voulut  nous  prescrire, 

Les  Grecs  et  les  Romains  ne  pouvant  plus  suffire, 

Les  Anglais,  sur  leur  sol,  I'ont  vu  plus  d'une  fois 

Gueuser  stupidement  d'inapplicables  lois; 

Et  pretendant,  de  plus,  d'un  elan  heroique, 

A  defaut  de  la  Manche,  en j  amber  I'Atlantique, 

II  n'est  point  de  sottise,  il  n'est  point  de  travers, 

Qu'il  n'aille  mendier  aux  bouts  de  Tunivers.^ 

Another  rhyme  in  equally  bad  verse,  but  this  time  on  the  re- 
publican side,  is  equally  interesting  as  an  indication  of  popu- 
lar opinion.  It  is  fifteen  pages  long  and  is  based  on  Napo- 
leon's prophecy  that  in  fifty  years  Europe  would  be  Cossack 
or  republican.  It  sets  forth  the  exhaustion  of  the  mon- 
archies like  aged  men.  What  is  to  come  next?  Domina- 
tion by  Russian  tyranny  would  be  horrible.  America  is 
free.  The  star  of  empire  is  passing  to  her.  Then  comes  a 
disquisition  on  the  excellence  of  quadrennial  presidential 
elections.  There  is  no  party  spirit  in  America.  Her  future 
glory  is  sure ;  she  is  destined  to  conquer  Canada  and  Cuba. 

The  lines  which  follow  are  perhaps  the  only  ones  in  which 
James  K.  Polk  has  ever  been  regarded  as  a  poetical  subject. 

Et  I'homme  qu'il  erige  a  ce  point  de  hauteur, 

Tel  que  vous,  monsieur  Polk !  un  marchand  ou  planteur, 

Cet  homnie  sent  en  lui  la  royaute  plus  forte 

Que  si  vingt  regiments  paradaient  a  sa  porte; 

II  concentre  en  lui  seul  toutes  les  volontes, 

Fait  la  paix  ou  la  guerre,  affermit  les  traites, 

Soutient  par  sa  sagesse,  et  meme  developpe 

Un  Etat  aussi  grand  que  nul  Etat  d'Europe, 

1  Claude-Simplicien  Constitutionnelisky,  Considerations  plus  ou  moins 
poetiques,  etc.  {'48-' 52),  p.  27. 


no  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r^gg 

Regne  enfin  par  les  lois  mieux  qu'un  prince  absolu ; 
Puis  le  jour  le  peuple  appelle  un  autre  elu, 
II  vient  au  Capitole,  avec  un  front  austere, 
Resigner  le  pouvoir  dont  il  fut  mandataire, 
Et  rentre  dans  la  foule  en  simple  citoyen, 
Entoure  de  respects,  s'il  fut  homme  de  bien.^ 

This  is  as  important  as  a  treatise  by  Guizot,  because  it  shows 
that  the  American  constitution  had  become  a  subject  of 
popular  as  well  as  of  academic  interest. 

The  American  ideal  contemplated  across  the  Atlantic  was 
on  the  whole  regarded  with  favor,  though,  as  will  be  seen, 
there  was  strong  opposition  to  the  American  political  system, 
viewed  as  a  model  for  France.  When  one  comes  to  con- 
sider the  America  of  daily  life,  as  she  presented  herself  in 
her  acts,  the  balance  of  praise  and  blame  was  much  more 
nearly  divided. 

The  two  subjects  of  immediate  interest  in  American  af- 
fairs at  the  time  were  the  Mexican  war  and  the  presidential 
election.  As  to  these,  opinions  differed.  We  find  ardent 
defenders  of  the  war,  such  as  the  Reforme,  which  closed  a 
despatch  recounting  the  conclusion  of  peace,  by  saying :  *'A1I 
republican  France  will  applaud  with  joy  the  success  of  the 
Washington  republicans,  our  friends  and  our  brothers."  ^ 
Another  paper,  in  the  last  days  of  the  monarchy,  printed 
Polk's  message  of  December  7,  1847,  almost  complete,  with 
a  eulogistic  editorial,  the  whole  taking  up  nearly  ten  columns. 
The  message  recalls  unfavorably  the  king's  late  speech  at  the 
opening  of  the  Chamber,  "  what  a  contrast !  One  would 
think  he  was  really  leaving  Lilliput  and  entering  a  land  of 
giants."     The  year  has  been  "  as  fruitful  and  prosperous 

lA.   M.   Barthelemy,  A   M.  J.  K.  Polk,  President  des  Etats-Unis 
d'Amerique,  Paris,  1848. 
-Reforme,  March  14,  1848. 


289]      IVHAT  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA        1 1 1 

for  the  New  World  as  it  has  been  sad  for  the  old  continent, 
a  year  of  glory  for  the  Washington  government  and  of 
transition  for  the  United  States."  The  American  victories 
and  the  approaching  annexation  of  Mexican  territory  were 
received  with  complacency,  the  internal  prosperity  resumed 
in  the  words  "  tout  niarche,  tout  se  developpe,  tout 
s'ameliore  "  and  the  article  closed  with  the  comment,  "  The 
dignity  of  the  acts  has  elevated  the  words  which  have  natur- 
ally reflected  the  situation,  quite  as  naturally  as  the  speeches 
of  our  ministers  reflect  the  feebleness  of  their  character, 
the  poverty  of  their  ideas  and  all  the  miseries  of  their 
poHcy."  ^ 

Other  papers  took  a  gently  critical  attitude.  "  The  year 
which  is  just  closing  will  remain  a  glorious  date  in  the 
history  of  two  nations  friendly  to  France.  In  the  United 
States,  it  will  recall  brilliant  victories,  whose  glamour  lacks 
only  a  juster  cause."  ^  So  the  following :  "  The  war  against 
Mexico  was  not  a  just  war.  The  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  most  considerable  for  their  lights  and  their  political 
renown,  had  been  almost  unanimous  in  blaming  it.  .  .  .  The 
spirit  of  conquest  is  the  enemy  of  political  liberty ;  "  ^  the 
rest  of  the  article  praises  the  United  States  for  its  generosity 
in  purchasing  the  new  territory,  and  discusses  the  increased 
complexity  of  the  slavery  question. 

Still  others  blamed  the  Americans  sharply.  The  follow- 
ing are  typical :  "  The  United  States  will  not  stop  before 
counsels  of  moderation  nor  before  scruples  of  conscience; 
they  regard  all  North  America  as  their  domain  and  only  wait 
the  occasion  to  claim  their  rights.  Mr.  Polk  has  contributed 
no  little  to  push  thought  into  that  channel.     And  yet  all 

1  Presse,  Jan.  2,  1848. 

2  Constitutionnel,  Jan.  i. 
^Journal  des  dehats,  Aug.  15. 


112  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  |-2qo 

the  eminent  men  of  the  Union  have  signaHzed  the  peril."  ^ 
"  Mr.  Polk  is  at  much  pains  to  prove  that  Mexico  has  been 
the  aggressor,  and  that  the  United  States  have  only  used 
reprisals;  it  is  a  task  whose  least  defect  is  its  uselessness; 
the  North  Americans  would  do  better  to  cast  the  respon- 
sibility for  their  conquests,  as  they  have  already  done  more 
than  once,  on  Providence  or  on  fate."  ^  One  of  the  bitter- 
est enemies  of  the  United  States  was  F.  de  Courmont,  who 
wrote  a  pamphlet  on  the  war  in  1847,  which  contained  such 
sentences  as  these.  "A  meddlesome  spirit  [Polk],  a  few 
months  were  sufficient  for  him  to  cast  the  republic  into  a 
war  whose  avowed  object  is  an  infamy  and  whose  secret 
object,  a  ridiculous  project  if  it  is  not  one  of  the  most  Ma- 
chiavellian. .  .  .  Personal  interest  being  the  sole  motive 
which  acts  seriously  on  American  minds,  it  resulted  that 
every  citizen  has  examined  the  question  of  peace  and  war 
according  to  the  good  or  the  harm,  which  eventualities  might 
bring  to  his  business,"  ^  and  so  forth,  the  author  being  con- 
vinced that  underneath  this  infamous  war  lurks  a  secret 
polic}^,  whose  mysteries  it  is  highly  important  for  European 
diplomacy  to  penetrate. 

The  feature  of  the  presidential  campaign  which  chiefly 
impressed  French  observers  was  of  course  its  connection 
with  the  war.  The  Constitutionnel  was  astonished  that  the 
Whigs,  the  peace-party,  should  nominate  the  general  who 
led  the  campaign. 

But  the  Americans  are,  after  the  French,  the  people  who  show 
themselves  perhaps  the  most  sensitive  to  the  glory  of  arms. 
America  has  already  had  for  president  several  general  officers : 
Messers.  Jackson,  Harrison,  without  speaking  of  Washington. 

^  Univers,  July  10. 

2  Revue  des  deux  mondes,  Jan.  15. 

^Des  Etats-Unis,  de  la  guerre  du  Mexique  et  de  Vile  de  Cube,  p.  29. 


291]      WHAT  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA        113 

The  appeal  which  the  I>emocratic  party  has  the  habit  of  mak- 
ing to  the  warHke  sentiments  of  the  nation,  is  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal elements  of  its  success;  it  is  for  having  flattered  these 
sentiments  that  Mr.  Polk  has  arrived  at  presidential  power. 
Today  the  Democrats  have  chosen  for  candidate  a  general, 
Mr.  Cass.  .  .  .  This  party  dreams  of  the  establishment  of  the 
rule  of  the  United  States  over  the  whole  extent  of  the  American 
continent,  by  war  and  by  conquest ;  it  wishes  to  fortify  the  insti- 
tution of  slavery.  If  its  clamors  had  been  heeded,  the  United 
States  would  have  seized  Oregon  at  the  risk  of  war  with  Eng- 
land. It  is  the  party  which  required  the  annexation  of  Texas 
and  which  made  an  unjust  war  on  Mexico,  defending  the 
independence  of  its  territory.  General  Cass  is  a  man  to  enter 
into  all  its  views.  If  Mr.  Cass  is  elected,  he  will  be  the  repre- 
sentative of  an  arrogant  and  bold  policy;  and  besides  he  will 
contribute  to  binding  closer  the  chains  of  slavery,  for  slavery 
accords  perfectly  with  the  ideas  of  progress  of  the  Southern 
democrats,  who  are,  as  everyone  knows,  the  democrats  par 
excellence  in  the  United  States.^ 

Two  policies,  this  interesting  editorial  concluded,  are  face 
to  face ;  the  policy  of  peace,  moderation  and  liberty,  and  the 
policy  of  war,  turbulence  and  servitude;  the  victory  of  the 
latter  was  feared,  from  a  division  of  the  majority. 

UUnivers,  in  its  editorial  of  July  10,  saw  the  same  strik- 
ing fact,  that  both  candidates  were  generals  and  predicted  a 
warlike  future  with  no  limits  to  "  the  ambition  of  the  young 
republic."  The  other  Catholic  organ  asserted  that  it  seemed 
as  though  the  United  States  government  were  going  to  be- 
long to  "  a  military  president  for  life,  with  a  military  presi- 
dency and  a  military  ministry,"  ^  while  if  Cass  wins,  he 
wall  do  all  he  can  to  get  into  a  war  with  England.  The  same 
paper  remarked  later  in  the  campaign,  "  The  Americans  are 

1  Constitutionnel,  Sept.  27. 
^  tre  nouvelle,  July  9. 


114  ^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r^go 

decidedly  intoxicated  with  their  military  glory."  ^  There 
is  very  little  close  study  of  American  politics  in  the  radical 
papers.  Except  in  the  Reformer  there  are  few  allusions  to 
events  in  the  United  States.  The  Democratie  paciUque  did 
give  two  and  a  half  columns  to  a  reprint  of  part  of  Polk's 
message  of  December  7,  1847/  but  that  was  exceptional. 
In  spite  of  his  Icarian  colony  in  Texas  and  Illinois,  Cabet's 
paper  showed  such  astonishing  ignorance  of  American  poli- 
tics as  to  announce  that  "M.  Wuithrop  [sic'\  has  been  elected 
president  of  the  republic  of  the  United  States  in  place  of 
M.  Polk." ' 

Slavery  is  alluded  to,  when  at  all,  only  as  a  plague-spot 
in  the  American  system.  The  discovery  of  Calif  ornian  gold 
is  reported,  and  the  San  Francisco  newspaper  can  no  longer 
appear  for  lack  of  subscribers.* 

But  whether  the  writer  is  sympathetic  and  calls  it  magni- 
ficent progress  or  envious  and  calls  it  egoistic  materialism, 
the  dominant  note  of  all  these  various  comments  is  wonder 
at  America's  great  prosperity.  An  excellent  expression  of 
this  general  feeling  is  given  at  the  very  start  of  the  republi- 
can era  by  Cordier,  who  signs  himself  "  depute  du  Jura  " 
and  who  was  later  a  member  of  the  National  Assembly. 
He  holds  that  America  is  the  heir  to  the  power  of  England. 

Indeed,  the  United  States,  having  neither  indirect  taxes  nor 
public  debt  nor  a  large  regular  army,  nor  colonies,  nor  navy 
de  luxe,  nor  sinecures,  nor  office-holders  for  life  richly  paid, 
nor  any  monopolies  nor  class  divisions,  nor  germs  of  intestine 
wars,  etc. ;  the  United  States,  disposing  of  immense  forests, 
of  the  finest  rivers,  of  1500  steamboats,  3000  sailing-vessels, 

1  kre  nouvelle,  Sept.  6. 
^Democratie  paciHque,  Jan.  2. 
^Populaire,  Jan.  9. 
^  Assemhlee  nationale,  Oct.  12. 


293]      ^^^^  FRANCE  THOUGHT  ABOUT  AMERICA        115 

in  possession  already  of  numerous  and  large  manufactories 
of  stuffs,  of  steam-factories,  of  the  richest  mines  of  coal,  iron, 
copper,  lead,  the  United  States  are  advancing,  almost  miracu- 
lously, to  an  extraordinary  prosperity,  and  are  entering  with 
advantage  into  rivalry  with  the  English  in  all  the  markets  of 
the  globe.  .  .  .  The  American  Union  possesses  more  unculti- 
vated and  fertile  lands  than  still  more  numerous  emigrants 
from  Europe  could  cultivate,  a  greater  surplus  of  diverse 
agricultural  products  than  it  could  consume,^ 

and  so  on  at  considerable  length  and  with  heightened  em- 
phasis on  the  marvels  of  the  new  world.  All  of  which  ex- 
plains why  America  was  not  radical  in  1848;  she  was  too 
busy  and  had  too  much  room  to  be  discontented  with  pres- 
ent conditions. 

The  mention  of  this  deputy  suggests  that  before  discuss- 
ing the  speeches  in  the  Assembly,  bearing  on  American 
solutions,  it  becomes  necessary  to  classify  as  far  as  possible 
every  member  of  that  body  who  expressed  an  opinion  on  the 
American  system.  This  classification  is  undertaken  in  the 
next  chapter. 

^  Cordier  in  the  Gazette  de  France,  Feb.  29. 


CHAPTER  IV 

The  Representatives 

To  classify  the  members  of  the  Assembly  according  to 
party  affiliation  is  not  an  easy  task.  It  has  been  pointed  out 
in  a  previous  chapter  that  there  was  no  strict  party  system, 
and  that  the  labels  by  which  men  were  called  indicated  rather 
tendencies  of  thought  than  membership  in  an  organization. 
The  "  groups  "  were  somewhat  more  closely  bound  together 
and  might  have  been  of  service  for  our  purpose,  had  any 
available  lists  of  their  membership  remained  extant.  Un- 
der these  circumstances  it  becomes  necessary  to  work  out  the 
political  cast  of  mind  of  the  representatives  from  the  facts  of 
their  lives,  so  far  as  these  can  be  determined,  combined  with 
their  attitude  in  the  Assembly.  For  the  former  purpose, 
various  more  or  less  elaborate  directories  of  members  were 
drawn  up  at  the  time,  of  which  Alhoy's  Biographie  par- 
lementaire,  Lesaulnier's  Biographie  des  poo  deputes  and  an 
anonymous  Biographie  des  reprisentants  du  peuple,  pub- 
lished by  the  editors  of  Notre  Hist  aire,  a  weekly  magazine, 
(all  three  appearing  in  1848)  are  among  the  best.  The 
Biographie  parlementaire  was  compiled  by  "  a  society  of 
publicists  and  men  of  letters  under  the  direction  of  Maurice 
Alhoy";  there  were  eighteen  in  the  group,  each  of  whom 
signed  his  initials  to  the  article  for  which  he  was  responsible. 
There  is  much  valuable  information  in  the  book,  though  it 
is  somewhat  rhetorical  and  is  inclined  to  be  partisan,  in 
favor  of  the  radicals.  The  Biographie  des  poo  deputes  is 
similarly  the  work  of  "  a  society  of  literary  men  and  pub- 
116  [294 


295  ]  -^^^  REPRESENT  A  TIVES  ny 

licists  under  the  direction  of  C.  M.  Lesaulnier,"  published 
June  19.  It  was  apparently  Alhoy's  main  source;  some  of 
the  sketches  in  his  book  are  copied  verbatim  from  Lesaul- 
nier,  though  others  differ  entirely  in  their  judgments.  Gen- 
erally speaking,  the  books  are  written  from  the  same  demo- 
cratic point  of  view.  Some  strange  discrepancies  in  dates 
show  the  haste  with  which  they  were  compiled  and  the 
caution  with  which  they  should  be  used.  The  Biographic 
des  representants,  issued  by  Notre  Histoire  seems  to  have 
been  very  popular;  it  went  through  at  least  four  editions. 
It  is  much  shorter  than  the  others,  with  less  detail;  the 
sketches  are  brief  and  clever,  devoting  less  attention  to 
previous  biography,  more  to  a  summing-up  of  the  represen- 
tative's political  position.  The  authoritative  compilation 
to-day  is,  however,  the  Dictionnaire  des  parlementaires 
frangais,  published  in  1891,  in  fixo:  volumes,  which  is  a 
careful  study  of  the  members  of  all  the  Assemblies  from 
1789  to  1889,  based  on  many  more  sources  than  were  avail- 
able to  earlier  biographers,  whose  work  was  necessarily 
more  journalistic  and  hurried.  J.  F.  Corkran's  History  of 
the  Constituent  Assembly  is  of  interest  for  its  lively  por- 
traits of  the  principal  members  as  they  appeared  to  a  keen 
American  observer,  but  the  author  is  intensely  partisan  and 
unfair  to  all  the  advanced  groups. 

The  attitude  of  the  representatives  toward  political  ques- 
tions as  they  arose  in  the  Assembly  may  be  determined  by 
their  votes  on  a  few  test  issues.  Alhoy  selects  as  such 
issues  the  Grevy,  Leblond,  Deville  and  Goudchaux  amend- 
ments, and  the  final  vote  on  the  constitution.  His  record  is, 
however,  by  no  means  accurate,  and  is  especially  faulty  in 
the  vote  on  the  constitution,  when  compared  with  the  semi- 
official report  in  the  Moniteur.  While  retaining  his  test 
questions,  therefore,  we  shall  substitute  the  record  of  votes 
given  in  the  Moniteur  (often  itself  corrected  in  the  issue 


Il8  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  |-2q5 

succeeding  the  report  of  the  vote,  by  a  letter  from  some 
member  inaccurately  reported).  Where  the  Dictionnaire 
des  parlementaires  frangais  differs,  its  record  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred, as  based  on  the  proces-verbal  of  the  Assembly.  The 
unwieldy  size  of  the  Assembly  is  no  doubt  partly  account- 
able for  the  frequent  errors  in  the  record.  To  these  test 
questions,  suggested  by  Alhoy,  we  shall  add  two  others,  the 
Glais-Bizoin  and  Duvergier  de  Hauranne  amendments,  the 
latter  not  so  much  for  a  party-test,  as  for  convenience  in 
determining  the  member's  attitude  on  the  American  example. 
The  Glais-Bizoin  amendment  proposed  that  in  Article 
VIII  of  the  preamble  to  the  constitution,  which  as  re- 
ported from  the  commission  August  30,  then  read  in  part. 

La  republique  doit  proteger  le  citoyen  dans  sa  personne,  sa 
famille,  sa  religion,  sa  propriete,  son  travail,  et  mettre  a  la 
portee  de  chacun  Tinstruction  indispensable  a  tous  les  hommes ; 
elle  doit  I'assistance  aux  citoyens  necessiteux,  soit  en  leur  pro- 
curant  du  travail  dans  les  limites  de  ses  ressources,  soit  en 
donnant,  a  defaut  de  la  famille,  les  moyens  d'exister  a  ceux 
qui  sont  hors  d'etat  de  travailler, 

the  first  clause  be  allowed  to  stand  down  to  and  including 
the  words  "  son  travail,"  the  remainder  being  changed  to 
read: 

Elle  reconnaSt  le  droit  de  tous  les  citoyens  a  I'instruction,  le 
droit  a  I'assistance  par  le  travail,  et  a  I'assistance  dans  les 
formes  et  aux  conditions  reglees  par  les  lois. 

The  point  of  the  amendment  was  therefore  the  introduction 
of  the  droit  au  travail,  which  had  been  recognized  only  in  a 
very  imperfect  form  by  the  Provisional  Government  ^  and 
had  become  even  more  unpopular  since  the  fiasco  of  the 

1  Vide  supra,  p.  38. 


;297J  THE  REPRESENTATIVES  119 

national  workshops  and  the  June  insurrection.  The  amend- 
ment was  defeated,  September  14,  596  to  187.  The  final 
form  of  the  constitution  eHminated  even  the  droit  a 
V assistance  provided  for  in  the  project  of  August  30  in 
favor  of  a  still  more  shadowy  assistance  fraternelle  with  the 
dangerous  word  droit  quite  eliminated. 

The  Goudchaux  amendment  proposed  that  in  the  second 
clause  of  Chap.  II,  Art.  15,  which,  referring  to  taxes,  read 
in  the  project  of  August  30, 

Chaque  citoyen  y  contribue  en  raison  de  ses  facultes  et  de  sa 
fortune, 

the  words  en  raison  be  changed  to  en  proportion.  The  rea- 
son for  this  was  that  the  ambiguity  of  the  expression  en 
raison  was  held  to  leave  the  way  open  for  the  introduction 
of  the  progressive  tax,  a  favorite  scheme  of  the  radicals  for 
doing  away  with  large  fortunes.  The  amendment  ruled  out 
this  possibility  by  incorporating  the  alternative  plan  of  the 
moderates,  the  proportional  tax,  in  the  constitution.  The 
amendment  was  adopted,  September  25,  644  to  96. 

The  Duvergier  de  Hauranne  amendment  would  change 
the  proposed  draft  of  Chap.  IV,  Art.  20,  from 

Le  peuple  f  ran(;ais  delegue  le  pouvoir  legislatif  a  una  assemblee 
unique 

to 

Le  peuple  frangais  delegue  le  pouvoir  legislatif  a  deux 
assemblees. 

This  two-chamber  legislature  was  beaten,  530  to  289,  Sep- 
tember 27. 

The  Grevy  amendment  would  amend  Art.  41  in  Chap. 
V  from 


I20  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  v^g^ 

Le  peuple  fran^ais  delegue  le  pouvoir  executif  a  un  citoyen 
que  re^oit  le  titre  de  president  de  la  Republique 

to 

L'Assemblee  nationale  delegue  le  pouvoir  executif  a  un  citoyen 
qui  regoit  le  titre  de  president  du  conseil  des  ministres 

and  for  the  former  Arts.  42  to  45,  which  provided  among 
other  things  that  the  president  should  be  named  by  direct, 
universal  suffrage,  with  secret  ballot  and  absolute  majority 
of  the  votes,  and  that  the  election  should  be  for  four  years 
with  a  prohibition  of  re-election  until  four  other  years  had 
elapsed, — for  these  articles  would  substitute  an  Art.  42,  thus 
conceived, 

Le  president  du  conseil  des  ministres  est  nomme  par  I'Assem- 
blee  nationale  au  scrutin  secret  et  a  la  majorite  absolue  des 
suffrages.    Elu  pour  un  temps  illimite,  il  est  tou jours  revocable. 

The  design  was  thus  to  perpetuate  the  system  which  then 
existed,  according  to  which  General  Cavaignac  was  merely 
an  executive  head,  acting  during  the  pleasure  of  the  As- 
sembly. There  would  be  no  real  executive,  as  a  separate 
power ;  the  legislature  would  be  supreme.  The  amendment 
came  to  a  vote,  October  7  and  was  defeated,  643  to  1 58. 

Immediately  afterward,  a  somewhat  similar  amendment, 
proposed  by  Leblond,  was  discussed.  This  would  retain  the 
commission's  plan  of  a  president,  functioning  as  an  inde- 
pendent branch  of  the  government  for  a  fixed  term,  but  in- 
stead of  having  him  elected  by  universal,  direct  suft'rage,  it 
proposed  as  Art.  43  that 

Le  president  de  la  Republique  est  nomme  par  I'Assemblee 
nationale  au  scrutin  secret  et  a  la  majorite  absolue  des 
suffrages. 


299]  '^^^  REPRESENTATIVES  121 

Thus  the  legislature  retained  a  certain  superiority  by  its  con- 
trol over  the  executive,  who,  as  its  creature,  could  not  boast 
a  separate  mandate  from  the  people,  a  very  real  danger,  as 
subsequent  history  proved.  The  Leblond  amendment  was 
however  defeated,  also  on  October  7,  by  602  to  211. 

The  object  of  the  Deville  amendment  was  to  restore  to 
Art.  107  in  Chap.  IX,  which  dealt  with  military  service,  the 
words  "  en  personne,"  and  the  clause  "  Le  r emplacement  est 
interdit/'  both  in  the  August  30  draft,  but  later  withdrawn 
by  the  commission,  which  instead  proposed  to  refer  the 
decision  on  the  principle  they  embodied  to  the  organic  laws, 
on  account  of  the  angry  discussion  they  had  excited.  The 
amendment,  by  requiring  personal  service  of  every  French- 
man and  forbidding  paid  substitutes,  would  provide  a  na- 
tional army,  in  which  rich  and  poor  alike  would  be  com- 
pelled to  serve;  the  opponents  of  the  amendment  wanted  a 
professional  army,  with  the  right  to  hire  substitutes.  The 
amendment  was  rejected,  October  21,  by  663  to  140. 

It  will  be  seen,  then,  that  in  general  a  vote  for  the  Glais- 
Bizoin,  the  Grevy,  the  Leblond  and  the  Deville  amendments, 
and  against  the  Goudchaux  and  Duvergier  de  Hauranne 
amendments  would  be  a  radical  vote.  To  remove  any  doubt 
on  this  point,  there  have  been  added  to  the  table  on  pp.  144- 
146  in  which  are  to  be  found  the  votes  of  all  those  who  men- 
tioned the  example  of  America  on  any  constitutional  ques- 
tion, favorably  or  unfavorably,  the  names  and  votes  of  the 
leading  radicals  and  conservatives ;  their  attitude  on  the  test 
questions  will  be  a  further  aid  in  determining  the  political 
position  of  the  men  we  are  studying. 

Certain  reservations  as  to  the  perfect  accuracy  of  the 
standards  we  have  chosen,  must  now  be  made.  The  great  body 
of  moderate  republicans,  which  controlled  the  Assembly, 
furnished  the  bulk  of  the  majority  on  all  these  questions. 
It  was,  however,  by  definition,  a  center  party,  neither  radical 


122  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848 


[300 


nor  conservative  in  an  extreme  sense.  On  the  Duvergier 
de  Hauranne  amendment,  for  example,  it  voted  on  the  radi- 
cal side,  on  all  the  others,  it  voted  with  the  conservatives. 
Nor  did  it  ever  vote  as  a  unit.  Many  moderate  republicans, 
particularly  of  the  republicains  du  lendemain,  voted  with  the 
conservatives  on  the  Duvergier  de  Hauranne  amendment 
while  on  the  other  hand,  we  find  Dupont  de  I'Eure  voting 
with  the  radicals  on  the  Deville  amendment ;  F.  Arago  and 
Garnier-Pages,  both  republicans  of  the  National  nuance,  are 
on  opposite  sides  on  the  Leblond  amendment.  Again,  such 
a  pronounced  legitimist  as  De  la  Rochejacquelein  voted 
with  the  radicals  on  the  Grevy  amendment  by  the  side 
of  Greppo,  the  socialist.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  no 
one  of  these  amendments  can  be  taken  as  a  fair  test  by  itself. 
Party  discipline  was  too  loose  to  control  the  erratic  ex- 
pression of  individual  opinions.  But  it  may  fairly  be  said 
that  if  in  the  majority  of  these  seven  test  votes,  a  man's 
voice  be  given  pretty  steadily  for  one  side  or  the  other,  he 
can  be  classified  with  justice  as  holding  a  political  attitude  in 
general  symapthy  with  the  radical  or  the  conservative  posi- 
tion. In  many  cases,  the  man's  speeches  and  his  previous 
career  will  enable  us  to  fix  this  attitvide  with  greater 
precision. 

For  convenience,  we  shall  group  the  55  representatives 
who  referred  to  American  example,  favorably  or  unfavor- 
ably, into-  six  divisions,  three  of  which,  the  liberal,  radical 
republican  and  socialist,  express  various  shades  of  advanced 
opinion,  while  two  others,  the  conservative  and  legitimist, 
take  the  opposite  attitude.  A  few  neutral  individuals  will 
have  to  be  grouped  apart  as  unclassifiable.  Those  here  called 
liberals  are  in  general  moderate  republicans  of  the  Natiotial 
stamp,  the  men  who  controlled  the  provisional  government 
and  the  executive  commission  and  were  in  majority  in  the 
Assembly.     The  party  contained  the  moderate  republicains 


301  ]  THE  REPRESENTATIVES  123 

de  la  veilky  as  well  as  some  others  and  took  up  a  left  center 
position.  The  radicals  were  that  more  intransigeant  group 
of  repuhlicains  de  la  veille,  who  followed  the  leadership  of 
Ledru-Rollin  and  the  Reforme  newspaper/  The  conserva- 
tives were  usually  repuhlicains  du  lendemain  and  for  the 
most  part  ex-Orleanists,  often  men  who  had  held  office  un- 
der the  July  Monarchy,  though  the  majority  had  been  in 
opposition  to  the  Guizot  ministry.  Some  were  still  Orlean- 
ist  in  sentiment,  though  most  professed  republicanism,  be- 
ing practical  men.  This  was  the  right  center  party.  The 
extreme  groups,  socialists  and  legitimists,  require  no  special 
elucidation.  The  socialists  had  no  common  program  except 
one  of  criticism,  but  each  individual  leader  had  a  more  or 
less  definite  scheme  of  his  own ;  the  legitimists  on  the  other 
hand,  were  limited  to  one  simple  ideal, — the  return  of 
Charles  X's  grandson,  the  due  de  Bordeaux,  as  Henry  V. 

In  the  liberal  group,  we  may  fairly  place  16  members  who 
alluded  to  the  example  of  the  United  States  either  with  ap- 
proval or  disapproval. 

M.  Barth  was  the  son  of  a  workman  who  had  grown 
wealthy.  He  became  a  Fourierist,  but  in  the  Assembly 
grew  more  moderate,  attaching  himself  to  Cavaignac's  for- 
tunes. He  voted,  however,  against  the  interdiction  of  the 
clubs,  for  the  abolition  of  the  death  penalty,  and  against  a 
cautionnement  for  the  press.  Lesaulnier  says  that  he  was 
light  and  easily  open  to  influences. 

J.  B.  Brunet  was  a  soldier,  chiefly  interested  in  Algerian 
colonization. 

1  It  should  be  remarked  that  elsewhere  in  this  study  we  have  used 
the  term  "  radical "  in  the  looser  sense  to  cover  all  the  more  advanced 
groups,  rather  than  in  this  technical  sense,  which  we  have  en-deavored 
to  distinguish  by  the  term  "  radical  republican."  The  same  caution 
should  be  given  regarding  "  conservative,"  elsewhere  employed  less 
specifically. 


124  "^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^^2 

J.  L.  E.  Cordier,  as  deputy  for  many  years,  had  sat  on 
the  extreme  left,  voting  against  the  Pritchard  indemnity  and 
for  electoral  reform.  In  the  Assembly,  he  occupied  a  mod- 
erate democratic  position. 

Adolphe  Cremieux,  one  of  the  party  leaders,  was  a  strong 
Bonapartist  in  1815  and  always  opposed  the  Restoration. 
Though  an  office  holder  under  the  July  Monarchy,  as  deputy 
from  1842  to  1848  he  sat  with  the  dynastic  opposition.  He 
did,  however,  at  first  favor  a  regency  in  February,  and  was 
said,  according  to  Lesaulnier,  to  have  sat  beside  the  Duchess 
of  Orleans  in  the  Chamber  and  to  have  written  a  little  speech 
for  her,  which  she  did  not  deliver.  He  managed  to  change 
sides  quickly  enough  to  become  a  member  of  the  provisional 
government,  and  to  hold  the  portfoHo  of  justice.  He  was  a 
moderate  republican,  somewhat  vacillating. 

P.  N.  Gerdy,  a  physician,  sat  on  the  left  in  the  Assembly, 
holding  strongly  democratic  opinions.  He  did  not  remain 
long  in  politics,  and  after  one  session  returned  to  private  life. 

Jules  Grevy,  the  future  president  of  the  Third  Republic, 
was  commissioner  for  the  Jura  in  the  early  days  of  1848  and 
becoming  very  popular  there,  headed  the  delegation  from  the 
Jura  in  the  Assembly.  Here  he  sat  on  the  left  and  was  the 
author  of  the  celebrated  Grevy  amendment,  previously  re- 
ferred to.     Alhoy  speaks  of  his  clear  and  close  dialectic. 

Alphonse  de  Lamartine  was  the  principal  figure  in  the 
first  phase  of  the  republic  as  Cavaignac  was  in  the  second 
and  Louis  Napoleon  in  the  third.  He  was  still  a  power  in 
the  Assembly,  but  his  glory  was  on  the  wane.  Born  at 
Magon  in  1790  of  an  aristocratic  family,  he  was  brought  up 
in  a  strictly  religious,  legitimist  atmosphere.  He  hated  the 
Empire  and  devoted  himself  to  travel  and  poetry.  He  mar- 
ried an  Englishwoman  and  during  the  Restoration  held  vari- 
ous diplomatic  posts  in  Italy.  As  a  legitimist  he  opposed  the 
July  Monarchy,  but  he  gradually  became  more  and  more  in- 


303]  ^^^  REPRESENTATIVES  125 

dependent  in  politics  and  was  finally  given  up  by  his  old  party 
associates.  He  traveled  in  the  East,  entered  the  Chamber 
in  1833,  and  in  1847  wrote  that  Histoire  des  Girondins, 
which  flattered  the  moderate  republicans  and  gave  him  his 
prestige  at  the  outbreak  of  the  revolution.  Under  the  re- 
public, he  aimed  at  occupying  an  absolutely  central,  non- 
partisan position,  the  friend  of  all  parties.  This  doubtless 
accounts  for  his  admiration  of  Washington,  but  despite  his 
brilliant  oratory,  Lamartine  was  not  convincing  enough  to 
be  permanently  successful;  men  began  to  suspect  his  love 
of  dramatic  effects  and  his  vanity;  despite  his  undoubtedly 
pure  ideals,  he  lost  popularity  and  influence. 

Lavallee  had  been  a  member  of  the  society  Aide-toi,  le  del 
faidera,  Gamier-Pages  being  one  of  his  principal  friends. 
According  to  Notre  Histoire,  he  had  been  on  the  staff  of  the 
National  at  one  time,  and  represented  its  type  of  politics. 

Armand  Marrast  was  born  at  Saint-Gaudens  in  1801. 
He  struggled  out  of  a  poverty-stricken  home  and  became  a 
teacher  of  rhetoric  and  the  humanities,  ultimately  securing  a 
position  in  the  college  of  Louis-le-Grand  at  Paris.  While 
there  he  took  his  doctorate  at  the  Sorbonne.  In  1827,  he 
made  a  speech  at  the  tomb  of  the  republican,  Manuel,  which 
lost  him  his  academic  position.  He  turned  to  tutoring  and 
journalism,  writing  principally  for  the  Tribune,  the  republi- 
can paper.  After  1830,  he  vainly  sought  office  and  his  fail- 
ure drove  him  into  uncompromising  opposition.  Imprisoned 
for  his  writings,  he  escaped  to  England,  married  a  natural 
daughter  of  George  IV,  and  after  being  condemned  to  death 
in  Spain  for  a  song  insulting  the  queen-regent,  returned  to 
Paris  and  became  editor-in-chief  of  the  National.  He  had 
now  learned  prudence  from  experience  and  his  fiery  style 
was  refined  into  a  more  delicate,  mocking  wit,  sharp  rather 
than  profound.  Member  of  the  Provisional  Government, 
mayor  of  Paris  from  March  to  July,  representative  from 


126  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["204 

Haute-Garonne,  president  of  the  Assembly  from  July  1848 
until  May,  1849  and  reporter  of  the  constitution,  he  was 
one  of  the  most  important  figures  in  the  early  republic. 
Yet  his  vanity,  the  ostentatious  luxury  of  his  habits  and  his 
moderation  in  politics  made  him  unpopular,  especially  with 
the  radicals,  who  regarded  him  as  cynical  and  selfish  and  as 
the  real  adviser  of  the  government  from  June  to  December. 

J.  B.  Payer  attached  himself  to  Lamartine,  and  was  chef 
de  cabinet  when  the  latter  took  over  the  foreign  ministry. 

Charles  Rolland  was  another  follower  of  Lamartine.^ 

Sarrans  had  Bonapartist  sympathies  during  the  Restora- 
tion. It  was  in  his  Nouvelle  Minerve  that  Cormenin  pub- 
lished his  famous  Timon  articles.  He  was  Lafayette's  aide- 
de-camp  in  July,  1830,  but  presently  turned  against  the 
monarchy,  about  which  he  wrote  several  books.  He  opposed 
the  cautionnement  in  the  Assembly  and  usually  voted  with 
the  left. 

A.  M.  J.  Senard  was  made  procureur-general  by  the  re- 
public. His  repression  of  the  election  riots  at  Rouen  was 
not  received  with  favor  by  the  radicals.  Elected  for  the 
department  of  Seine-Inferieure,  he  became  president  of  the 

1  There  was  another  Rolland,  representing  the  department  of  Lot, 
whose  politics  are  unclassifiable ;  he  voted  for  the  Grevy  and  Goudchaux 
projects,  against  those  of  Glais-Bizoin,  Leblond  and  Deville,  and  was 
absent  at  the  vote  on  the  Duvergier  de  Hauranne  amendment.  He  was 
a  farmer,  a  member  of  the  committees  on  agriculture  and  on  the 
Credit  fonder.  One  of  these  two  men  alluded  to  the  American  example 
in  a  speech  on  May  30th,  as  reporter  of  the  special  commission  on  in- 
compatibilities. The  report  was  discussed  at  intervals  until  June  14, 
when  it  was  adopted,  but  from  first  to  last  the  reporter  is  alluded  to 
only  as  "  the  citizen  Rolland."  It  was  probably,  however,  the  Rolland 
mentioned  in  the  text,  as  Rolland  of  Lot  had  other  committee  designa- 
tions for  which  he  was  peculiarly  fitted,  and  is  said  to  have  taken  little 
interest  in  general  politics.  The  latter's  vote  on  the  Grevy  amendment 
shows  that  he  must  have  had  liberal  tendencies,  though  he  was  ob- 
viously not  an  extremist,  and  the  general  classification  would  be  un- 
affected whichever  man  is  taken. 


205]  ^^^  REPRESENTATIVES  127 

Assembly.  After  June,  he  grew  somewhat  more  conserva- 
tive. As  minister  of  the  interior,  he  proposed  the  decree 
estabHshing  a  cautionnement  or  bond,  required  of  all  news- 
papers. 

Antony  Thouret  (incorrectly  spelled  Tour  ret  in  the  Moni- 
teur)  voted  with  the  Cavaignac  group. 

L.  F.  Wolowski  was  a  Polish  revolutionist  who  had  be- 
come a  naturalized  French  citizen  in  1834.  He  practised 
law,  founded  the  Revue  de  legislation  et  de  jurisprudence 
and  finally  specialized  in  economics.  He  was  professor  at 
the  Conservatoire  des  Arts  et  Metiers;  in  his  writings  he 
opposed  Louis  Blanc's  scheme  for  organizing  labor,  but  in  a 
somewhat  less  conservative  vein  than  Chevalier.  Under  the 
Provisional  Government,  he  was  a  member  of  the  Luxem- 
bourg Commission  and  sat  in  the  Assembly  for  Seine.  Here 
he  attached  himself  to  Cavaignac  and  as  member  of  the 
committee  on  labor  tried  to  improve  factory  conditions  for 
women  and  children. 

Eight  others  may  be  classified  as  radical  republicans. 

H.  G.  Didier  sat  for  Algeria  in  the  Assembly,  and  was 
member  of  the  committee  on  the  colonies. 

Hippolyte  Detours,  originally  a  legitimist,  became  an  ex- 
treme radical.  In  the  Assembly,  he  represented  Tarn-et- 
Garonne,  sitting  on  the  extreme  left,  and  showed  his  radical- 
ism by  his  votes  against  the  cautionnement,  the  interdiction 
of  the  clubs,  the  prosecution  of  Louis  Blanc  and  Caussidiere, 
the  death  penalty,  imprisonment  for  debt,  and  so  on.  A  letter 
from  him  to  the  Moniteur,  October  10,  throws  light  on  the 
negative  vote  which  some  radicals  cast  on  the  Leblond 
amendment  the  greater  number  voting  in  favor  of  it  as  the 
next  best  thing  to  the  defeated  Grevy  amendment  and  from  a 
notion,  based  on  the  experience  of  1793,  that  it  would  be 
easier  to  control  a  Paris  Assembly  than  the  country  at  large. 
Detours,  however,  preferred  the  principle  of  universal  suf- 


128  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  '^^q^ 

frage.  He  said,  "  I  had  supported  the  Grevy  amendment; 
I  did  not  want  a  president  of  the  repubHc.  Reduced  by  the 
vote  of  the  majority  to  deciding  between  choice  by  the  As- 
sembly and  choice  by  the  people,  I  rejected  on  Saturday  the 
first  of  these  two  modes  of  election  [the  Leblond  amend- 
ment] and  without  opposing  the  second  to-day  [Article  43, 
adopted  627-130],  I  thought  I  ought  to  abstain  from  voting, 
in  order  to  remain  a  complete  stranger  to  the  establishment 
of  a  dangerous  and  anti-republican  magistracy." 

Deville  became  somewhat  conspicuous  by  applauding  the 
rioters  who  invaded  the  Assembly  on  May  15.  He  sat  on 
the  extreme  left  and  was  the  author  of  the  Deville  amend- 
ment, forbidding  the  hiring  of  paid  substitutes  for  military 
service.  He  wished  to  declare  members  of  former  reign- 
ing families  and  generals  ineligible  to  the  presidency  and 
was  interested  in  other  radical  measures. 

Ferdinand  Flocon,  born  at  Paris  in  1800,  began  life  as  a 
teacher,  but  learned  telegraphy  and  shorthand;  his  skill 
gave  him  an  opening  as  stenographer  for  the  Parisian  press. 
His  pamphlets  against  the  Jesuits  started  a  career  of  jour- 
nalism in  service  of  the  opposition.  He  became  editor  of 
the  Courrier  frangais  and  affiliated  with  the  secret  societies. 
The  year  1848  found  him  at  the  head  of  the  Re  forme,  the 
organ  of  Ledru-Rollin's  group.  He  was  a  member  of  the 
Provisional  Government  and  when  it  yielded  to  the  Execu- 
tive Commission,  became  minister  of  agriculture.  As  such, 
he  presented  a  plan  for  the  organization  of  the  prud'hommes. 
The  creation  of  agricultural  colonies  in  France  was  one  of 
his  pet  ideas.  He  was,  however,  not  a  socialist,  and  exerted 
rather  a  restraining  than  an  exciting  influence  on  his  friend, 
Ledru-Rollin. 

A.  A.  Ledru-Rollin,  another  of  the  important  men  of  the 
early  republic,  was  born  at  Paris  in  1807.  He  was  a  lawyer 
of  distinction,  wrote  works  of  jurisprudence  and  became 


I 


307]  THE  REPRESENTATIVES  1 29 

deputy  from  Mans  in  1841.  His  declaration  of  principles  was 
so  sensational  that  he  was  put  under  sentence  of  imprison- 
ment for  four  months,  though  he  escaped  on  technical 
grounds.  He  took  part  in  the  Lille  banquet,  where  the 
toast  to  the  king  was  excluded.  The  republic  made  him 
member  of  the  Provisional  Government  and  minister  of  the 
interior,  in  which  capacity  he  sent  out  the  commissioners, 
who  so  frightened  conservative  folk.  He  served  on  the 
Executive  Commission  and  as  representative  for  the  depart- 
ment of  the  Seine.  Always  on  the  suspect-list  as  a  danger- 
ous revolutionist,  he  respected  property  and  preferred  its 
extensive  subdivision  to  its  abolition.  In  this  vital  point, 
he  spoke  for  the  petty  bourgeoisie  rather  than  the  proletariat. 
He  was  a  remarkable  speaker  and  would  trace  his  political 
ancestry  back  to  Robespierre  minus  the  bloodshed,  rather 
than  to  Babeuf. 

A.  Martin-Bernard,  a  famous  republican  conspirator 
under  the  monarchy,  became  one  of  Ledru-Rollin's  commis- 
sioners ;  his  votes  were  consistently  radical. 

Felix  Pyat,  a  lawyer,  spent  most  of  his  days  in  militant 
journalism  and  was  the  author  of  several  social  dramas. 
Having  inherited  a  million  francs,  he  invested  part  in  the 
Revue  britannique,  of  which  he  was  editor  for  a  while. 
With  Hugo,  Balzac,  Georges  Sand  and  others,  he  founded 
the  Societe  des  gens  de  lettres.  Like  Barbes,  he  was  one  of 
those  rich  declasses,  whose  interest  in  humanity  outweighed 
personal  selfishness.  As  time  went  on,  he  became  more  and 
more  alienated  from  his  own  class,  was  known  as  a  leading 
socialist  after  1849,  spent  the  last  part  of  his  life  between 
prison  and  exile  and  in  1871  was  an  officer  of  the  Commune. 

Saint-Gaudens  had  refused  a  judgeship  in  1832,  because 
of  his  unwillingness  to  take  the  necessary  oath  of  allegiance 
to  the  king. 

Only  two  out-and-out  socialists  are  to  be  included  in  the 
list. 


130  ^^£  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["^og 

Philippe  Mathieu,  always  called  Mathieu  de  la  Drome^ 
from  the  department  he  represented  in  the  Assembly,  fav- 
ored state  ownership  of  railroads,  and  said  of  socialism  that 
"  far  from  being  an  enemy,  it  must  purify  the  sources  of 
property."  He  opposed  the  cautionnement,  imprisonment 
for  debt,  and  the  prosecutions  of  Blanc  and  Caussidiere. 

The  other  socialist,  Pierre  Leroux,  was  a  more  conspicu- 
ous character,  though  less  interested  in  constitutional  ques- 
tions than  Mathieu.  He  was  a  workingman  turned  philo- 
sopher. In  1839  he  wrote  his  chief  work,  UHumanite, 
whose  thesis  was  the  negation  of  human  personality  in  favor 
of  the  absorption  of  the  individual  in  the  whole.  This 
notion  of  absolute  equality  was  the  essence  of  his  socialism, 
of  which  he  was  regarded  as  the  prof oundest  thinker.  His 
erudition  was  great,  but  he  had  no  system,  properly  speak- 
ing; his  ideas  were  large,  vague  and  not  well  developed. 
Other  more  practical  spirits  borrowed  from  him,  and  his 
authority  among  radicals  was  very  great,  but  he  accom- 
plished little  positive  work  himself.  Alhoy  says  that  he 
passed  his  whole  life  in  unfinished  undertakings.  In  the 
Assembly  he  contended  for  the  freedom  of  the  press  and 
the  perpetuation  of  the  ten-hour  law,  which  was,  however, 
by  reactionary  legislation,  extended  to  twelve. 

The  conservative  group,  most'  of  whom  had  taken  active 
part  in  Orleanist  parliaments  and  would  have  been  contented 
enough  with  a  mere  change  of  ministry  in  February,  num- 
bered 23  members  who  alluded  to  American  example. 

Alcock,  a  judge  and  member  of  the  old  Chamber,  went 
over  to  the  moderate  opposition  with  Dupont  de  I'Eure.  In 
the  Assembly  he  usually  voted  with  the  right. 

J.  M.  Ambert  was  a  soldier  and  military  journalist; 
UAheille  de  la  Nouvelle-Orleans  published  articles  by  him 
on  American  politics,  which  he  studied  on  the  ground.  In 
the  Assembly,  he  reported  the  decree  creating  the  garde 


309]  THE  REPRESENTATIVES  131 

mobile,  which  did  most  effective  work  in  helping  to  repress 
the  June  insurrection.  His  votes  were  usually  with  the  right, 
against  the  banishment  of  the  Orleans  family,  for  the 
cautionnement,  and  for  the  interdiction  of  the  clubs/ 

R.  A.  Aylies,  counsel  at  the  royal  court,  was  elected  to 
the  Chamber  in  1842,  where  he  ranked  in  the  opposition  as 
a  constitutionnel.     In  the  Assembly,  he  sat  on  the  right. 

Odilon  Barrot,  one  of  the  chief  men  in  this  party,  was 
born  at  Villefort  in  179 1.  As  a  lawyer,  he  always  pre- 
ferred the  more  abstract,  theoretical  elements  of  his  pro- 
fession. In  18 1 5,  he  was  among  the  young  volunteers  who 
accompanied  Louis  XVIII  to  Ghent  on  his  second  brief 
exile.  The  White  Terror  alienated  him,  however,  and  in 
1830,  representing  the  new  monarchy,  he  conducted  Charles 
X  to  Cherbourg ;  on  his  return  he  was  made  prefect  of  the 
Seine.  He  sat  in  the  Chamber  from  1830  to  1848  and, 
while  a  faithful  Orleanist,  presently  found  himself  on  the 
left  as  leader  of  the  dynastic  opposition.  He  later  allied 
himself  with  Thiers,  but  was  one  of  the  prime  movers  of 
the  banquet  campaign.  When  the  Guizot  ministry  fell,  he 
was  named  with  Thiers  to  form  a  new  cabinet,  but  it  was 
already  too  late.  His  efforts  to  establish  the  Duchess  of 
Orleans  as  regent  failed.  In  the  Assembly  he  sat  for  Aisne 
among  the  conservatives. 

A.  A.  Billault  was  an  opposition  deputy  in  1837,  but  was 
given  charge  of  the  legal  affairs  of  the  due  d'Aumale,  being 
important  enough  to  be  worth  corrupting.  In  the  Assembly, 
he  was  a  conservative. 

Count  Louis  Combarel  de  Leyval  was  a  rich  land-owner, 
sitting  on  the  left  center  during  the  monarchy,  a  man  of  the 
Barrot  sort  politically.  Notre  Hist  one's  assertion  that 
nothing  but  scandals,  civil,  political  and  judiciary  have  been 

1  Cf.  supra,  V.  47  et  seq. 


.132  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^jq 

connected  with  him,  coupled  with  Lesaulnier's  condemna- 
tion, shows  how^  much  offence  he  seems  to  have  given  to  the 
advanced  groups. 

F.  Dabeaux  fought  the  project  to  increase  the  severity 
of  existing  laws  against  meetings,  but  was  considered  a  con- 
servative and  is  said  to  have  grown  increasingly  so,  despite 
his  earlier  liberal  views. 

Edmond  Drouyn  de  Luys  (or  Lhuys)  was  one  of  the 
younger  diplomats  of  the  July  Monarchy.  Elected  deputy 
in  1842,  he  went  over  to  the  dynastic  opposition,  being 
classed  as  a  conservative  in  the  Assembly.  He  was  presi- 
dent of  the  committee  of  foreign  affairs  and,  as  such,  re- 
ported the  message  of  thanks  to  the  American  Congress, 
though  Alhoy  remarks  that  this  was  a  strange  choice  on  the 
Assembly's  part,  the  member  *'  being  still  somewhat  too 
saturated  with  monarchical  opinions." 

J.  A.  Dufaure  was  a  seasoned  parliamentary  veteran, 
having  been  a  deputy  for  fourteen  years  when  the  Assembly 
began.  He  was  usually  considered  a  member  of  the  liberal 
constitutional  or  third  party  and  was  twice  vice-president  of 
the  Chamber.  He  was  minister  of  public  works  under  Soult 
and  was  regarded  as  a  good  administrator.  His  experience 
and  his  compact  logic  always  gave  him  a  hearing.  Being 
very  conservative,  he  opposed  the  banquets.  In  the  As- 
sembly, he  sat  for  Charente  and  became  Cavaignac's  min- 
ister of  the  interior  after  October  13,  1848.  His  election 
to  the  French  Academy  under  the  Empire  was  considered 
an  Orleanist  protest  against  the  imperialists. 

Pierre  Charles  Frangois,  Baron  Dupin  (usually  called 
Charles  Dupin)  was  a  mathematician  and  naval  engineer. 
Deputy  from  1827  to  1837,  he  grew  increasingly  conserva- 
tive, defended  the  clergy,  opposed  free  trade  and  in  1837 
was  raised  to  a  peerage.  In  the  upper  house,  he  continued 
his  industrious  support  of  the  government.     Elected  to  the 


3 1 1  ]  THE  REPRESENT  A  TIVES  133 

Assembly  in  June,  1848,  he  sat  there  (for  Seine-In ferieure) 
as  an  extreme  conservative. 

Prosper- Leon  Duvergier  de  Hauranne  was  born  at  Rouen 
in  1798,  of  Jansenist  stock.  A  doctrinnaire,  he  was  one  of 
the  editors  of  the  Globe  and  as  deputy  (1831-48)  lent  his 
support  to  Casimir-Perier's  repressive  measures,  to  Thiers' 
September  laws,  to  the  coalition  against  the  Mole  cabinet 
(believing  in  pure  parliamentary  government  on  the  Eng- 
lish model) .  With  Guizot  and  Rossi,  he  published  the  Revtce 
frangaise,  but  broke  with  Guizot  after  1840,  becoming  a  fol- 
lower of  Thiers.  He  was  a  leader  in  the  banquet  campaign. 
In  the  Assembly,  as  a  member  for  Cher,  he  sat  on  the  right. 
His  parliamentary  strategy  and  finesse  were  famous.  He 
supported  the  monarchist  majority  of  the  Assembly  against' 
Louis  Napoleon,  and  spent  the  period  of  the  Empire  in 
writing  a  ten-volume  history  of  parliamentary  government 
in  France.  He  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  J.  B.  Duver- 
gier, who  made  the  Collection  complete  des  lots.  Corkran 
speaks  of  him  as  not  only  well  versed  in  English  history, 
but  a  close  observer  of  English  politics  and  a  personal  ac- 
quaintance of  the  leading  English  statesmen. 

Leon  Faucher,  early  on  the  staff  of  such  conservative 
papers  as  the  Temps,  the  Constitutionnel  and  the  Courrier 
frangais,  later  turned  to  economics,  producing  in  1845  his 
Etudes  sur  VAngleterre.  He  was  a  free-trader  and  an  ad- 
mirer of  the  English  constitution.  As  deputy  from  1846  to 
'48,  he  sat  with  the  left  center,  opposing  Guizot,  but  concern-" 
ing  himself  chiefly  with  fiscal  problems.  He  took  part  in  the 
banquets  and  was  elected  to  the  Assembly  from  the  Marne.' 
A  bitter  opponent  of  socialism,  he  sat  on  the  right  and  be- 
longed to  the  group  of  the  rue  de  Poitiers.  He  reported 
the  famous  law  of  May  31,  1850,  limiting  the  suffrage. 

A.  Jobez,  a  wealthy  factory  owner,  belonged  to  the  liberal 
opposition  under  the  monarchy ;  in  the  Assembly  he  usually 


134  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  \^^^2 

voted  with  the  right.  He  wrote  studies  of  social  economy, 
such  as  a  Preface  au  Socialisme  in  1848  and  La  Democratie, 
c'est  rinconnu  in  1849. 

Bertrand  Theobald  Joseph,  baron  de  Lacrosse,  sat  in  the 
dynastic  opposition  under  the  July  Monarchy,  from  1836 
to  1848.  His  political  views  were  those  of  Barrot  and 
Thiers,  his  interest  principally  in  naval  matters  and  in  the 
slavery  question.  He  represented  Finistere  in  the  Assembly, 
became  a  secretary,  then  vice-president,  and  regularly  voted 
with  the  right,  thus  favoring  the  cautionnement,  imprison- 
ment for  debt,  the  death  penalty,  and  the  prosecution  of 
Louis  Blanc. 

Ferdinand  de  Lasteyrie,  a  count,  and  his  cousin  Jules  de 
Lasteyrie,  who  bore  the  title  of  marquis,  had  sat  with  the 
Barrot  party  in  the  dynastic  opposition  and  voted  as  con- 
servatives in  the  Assembly. 

N.  H.  Levet  belonged  to  a  rich,  influential  family.  He 
was  affiliated  with  the  rue  de  Poitiers  group,  and  his  con- 
servatism is  further  guaranteed  by  Alhoy's  assertion  that 
he  "  has  voted  for  all  rigorous  measures  "  and  that  "  the 
imfortunate  debtor  can  hope  for  nothing  from  him." 

A.  J.  Lherbette  was  a  deputy  from  1831  to  1848,  sitting 
in  the  dynastic  opposition,  like  so  many  other  future  con- 
servative members  of  the  Assembly  of  1848. 

Frangois  Marrast  did  not  speak  on  the  American  ex- 
ample; his  vote  will,  therefore,  not  here  be  counted,  as  we 
have  definitely  confined  ourselves  to  those  who  did.  His 
attitude  was  so  well-known  and  striking,  however,  that  he 
deserves  mention.  He  was  born  at  Bayonne  in  1799,  be- 
ing no  relation  to  his  more  conspicuous  namesake.  He  was 
in  Napoleon's  army,  on  whose  defeat  he  went  to  aid  the 
South  Americans  in  their  struggle  for  independence.  He 
spent  ten  years  traveling  in  the  western  hemisphere.  Alhoy's 
account  is  worth  quoting  textually  in  this  connection. 


^13]  THE  REPRESENTATIVES  135 

He  saw  several  republics  of  South  America  establish  them- 
selves, but  the  anarchy,  the  disorder,  which  violent  situations 
and  civil  wars  always  necessarily  produce,  made  him  prefer 
sojourning  in  North  America.  He  established  himself  in  the 
United  States,  whose  constitution  he  studied  assiduously 
[fortement] .  The  benefits  which  it  procures  to  those  it  rules, 
and  which  he  enjoyed  a  long  time  himself,  filled  him  with  ad- 
miration and  gratitude  for  the  work  of  Washington  and  of 
Franklin.  So  when,  several  years  later,  he  returned  to  his 
natal  land,  he  called  himself  openly  a  republican  of  the  Ameri- 
can school.^ 

Marrast  was  elected  to  the  Assembly  from  Landes  and 
placed  on  the  committee  of  the  interior.  He  voted  with 
the  right,  for  the  cautionnement,  imprisonment  for  debt,  and 
the  death  penalty.  Alhoy  in  an  instructive  passage  confirms 
Marrast's  conservatism  and  his  Americanism  and  at  the 
same  time  shows  what  the  more  radical  minds  of  the  time 
thought  about  the  American  system. 

He  has  shown  a  poor  understanding  of  the  French  spirit,  the 
popular  spirit,  in  wishing  to  cut  our  laws  and  decrees  according 
to  the  pattern  of  the  American  spirit.  Thus  he  voted  for  the 
decree  against  mob  gatherings,  without  thinking  that  violence 
will  never  be  able  to  accomplish  anything  against  ideas,  and 
that  hence  if  there  is  a  cause  impelling  men  to  assemble,  if  one 
wants  to  prevent  the  meeting,  one  should  remedy  the  cause 
and  not  disperse  the  meeting  by  force. 

E.  F.  Morin,  baron  de  Malsabrier,  usually  voted  con- 
servatively. 

Auguste  Joseph  Christoph  Jules,  marquis  de  Momay  was 
captain  of  the  royal  guard  under  the  Restoration.  He 
served  as  aide  to  Soult,  his  father-in-law.     Deputy  from 

1  Alhoy,  op.  cit.,  s.  v.  Marrast.  Similar  testimony  is  borne  by  Le- 
saulnier. 


136  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r^j^ 

1830  to  1848,  he  voted  with  the  opposition,  but  in  the  As- 
sembly (member  for  Oise),  sided  usually  with  the  right. 

Felix-Esquirou  de  Parieu  voted  for  the  cautionnement , 
the  death-penalty,  suppression  of  the  clubs,  etc.  Finance 
was  his  specialty;  his  works  on  that  subject  procured  him 
entrance  to  the  Institute. 

Saint-Priest,  bom  1801,  a  Toulouse  lawyer,  was  a  dynas- 
tic opposition  deputy  from  1842  to  1846.  Pie  sat  for  Lot 
in  the  Assembly,  on  the  conservative  benches.  He  was  a 
member  of  the  committee  of  finances,  and  belonged  to  the 
rue  de  Poitiers  group.  He  had  no  connection  with  the 
legitimist  family  of  the  same  name. 

Alexis  de  Tocqueville  was  born  at  Verneuil  in  1805. 
Gaining  his  licence  in  law  in  1826,  he  travelled  in  Italy  and 
Sicily.  As  juge  audit eur  at  Versailles  he  made  his  life-long 
friendship  with  Gustave  de  Beaumont.  He  opposed  the 
Polignac  ministry,  but  was  not  sympathetic  with  the  July 
regime.  His  travels  in  America,  in  the  interest  of  prison 
reform,  and  the  literary  fruits  of  this  journey  have  been 
previously  considered.  He  was  deputy  from  1839  to  '48,  in 
the  opposition ;  on  January  27,  in  a  speech  in  the  Chamber, 
he  predicted  the  revolution.  Alhoy  remarks  uneasily, 
"  Despite  the  just  consideration  which  M.  de  Tocqueville 
enjoys,  the  reproach  is  made  that  he  has  not  sufficiently 
studied  American  institutions,  that  he  has  seen  them  in  a 
false  light  and  that,  in  wishing  to  import  them  among  us, 
he  has  not  sufficiently  considered  the  difference  in  manners." 
He  represented  Manche  in  the  Assembly,  and  voted  with  the 
right,  for  the  cautionnement,  imprisonment  for  debt,  and 
other  conservative  measures. 

Four  others  may  be  counted  as  legitimists. 

The  abbe  Edmond  de  Cazales  was  superior  of  the  Mon- 
tauban  seminary.  A  royalist,  he  sat  on  the  right,  but  was 
well  thought  of  by  his  opponents. 


315]  THE  REPRESENTATIVES  137 

Pierre  Jouin,  born  at  Rennes  in  1818,  was  a  lawyer  at 
the  local  court  of  appeals.  He  is  said  by  the  Dictionnaire 
des  parlementaires  frangais  to  have  become  one  of  the 
chiefs  of  the  Rennes  democrats,  to  have  been  of  mod- 
erate opinions,  very  religious,  and  to  have  gone  toward 
the  left  on  the  election  of  Louis  Napoleon.  Lesaulnier 
says  he  is  a  liberal  spirit,  who  has  not  always  believed 
in  a  republic,  but  is  no  less  disposed  to  do  everything  to 
put  it  on  a  solid  and  durable  basis,  a  regular  phrase  for 
the  republicains  du  lendemain.  Notre  Hist  aire  informs  us 
that  it  is  said  this  young  man  has  more  merit  than  his  ex- 
terior indicates ;  he  was  elected  by  the  legitimists,  but  there 
is  hope  for  better  things.  Alhoy  declares  it  to  be  uncertain 
if  his  tendency  is  toward  democratic  constitutions.  There  is 
thus  some  doubt  as  to  Jouin's  proper  classification,  but  as  all 
his  votes  in  the  Assembly  were  conservative,  it  is  at  least 
certain  that  he  belongs  on  the  right;  his  classification  as  a 
legitimist  or  a  conservative  republican  does  not  affect  our 
conclusions. 

Audren  de  Kerdrel  was  editor  of  a  legitimist  paper  at 
Rennes  and  sat  with  that  party  in  the  Assembly,  represent- 
ing Ille-et-Vilaine.  He  belonged  to  the  rue  de  Poitiers 
group.  He  is  described  as  tall,  thin  and  dry  like  Don 
Quixote,  and  as  having  wealth  and  ability. 

Charles-Forbes,  comte  de  Montalembert,  was  born  at 
Stanmore,  England,  in  1810,  the  son  of  a  French  legitimist 
emigre  peer  of  the  old  noblesse  and  of  a  rigid  Scotch  Pres- 
byterian. Under  the  influence  of  Lamennais  and  Lacor- 
daire,  he  went  into  the  liberal  Catholic  movement  and  co- 
operated with  them  in  the  publication  of  UAvenir.  When 
the  Pope  condemned  the  movement,  the  men  separated, 
Lamennais  preferring  to  follow  his  vision  of  truth,  Mon- 
talembert and  Lacordaire  unwilling  to  leave  their  Church. 
Montalembert  now  devoted  himself  to  a  study  of  the  Middle 


138  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^^^ 

Ages,  and  wrote  a  pious,  but  unhistorical  life  of  St.  Eliza- 
beth of  Hungary.  He  sat  in  the  opposition  in  the  House  of 
Peers  from  1835  to  1848,  and  was  said  to  be  the  greatest 
orator  of  that  body.  His  chief  interest  was  to  break  down 
the  University  monopoly  over  education  in  the  interest  of 
religious  instruction;  to  accomplish  this,  he  even  opened 
schools  himself  in  defiance  of  law.  In  the  Assembly,  Mon- 
talembert  sat  for  Doubs,  on  the  extreme  right.  He  was 
really  more  Catholic  than  legitimist,  was  member  of  the 
committee  of  cults,  and  was  willing  enough  to  support  the 
republic,  if  it  was  sufficiently  conservative  and  better  suited 
to  the  interests  of  the  Church.  In  this  attitude,  Lacordaire 
sympathized,  during  the  latter's  short  membership  in  the 
Assembly,  and  in  the  conduct  of  his  paper,  UEre  nouvelle. 
It  was  a  minority's  brave  effort  to  free  the  Church  from 
past  entangling  alliances  and  to  set  its  face  toward  the 
future,  but  it  was  not  wholly  successful. 

Two  men  remain  unclassifiable. 

Amable  Dubois,  a  land-owner,  sat  in  the  dynastic  oppo- 
sition during  the  monarchy,  and  was  much  interested  in  the 
efforts  to  do  away  with  child-labor.  In  the  Assembly,  he 
sat  on  the  moderate  left  (according  to  the  Dictionnaire  des 
parlementaires  frangais)  as  member  for  Somme.  Here  he 
was  appointed  to  the  committee  of  labor.  His  votes  seem 
to  have  been  conservative,  and  in  1849  ^^  was  counted  with 
the  monarchist  majority  against  Louis  Napoleon.  Dubois 
seems  to  have  occupied  as  nearly  a  central  position  as  pos- 
sible and  it  would  be  unfair  to  base  any  conclusions  on  his 
political  action. 

Lubbert  was  born  at  Hamburg,  Germany,  in  1803.  He 
was  a  sailor  from  youth.  He  represented  Gironde  in  the 
Assembly.  His  votes  were  mainly  conservative,  but  the 
Dictionnaire  des  parlementaires  frangais  says  that  he  had 
liberal  opinions,  somewhat  exalted,  and  very  independent. 


317]  THE  REPRESENTATIVES  139 

Such  were  the  members  of  the  Assembly,  who  alluded  to 
America  in  their  speeches.  Considerations  of  space  forbid 
extending  the  list,  though  the  votes  of  a  few  leaders,  not 
here  included,  will  be  found  appended  in  the  table  on  page 
144  et  seq. 

It  now  becomes  necessary  to  review  the  eighteen  mem- 
bers of  the  constitutional  commission.  A.  Marrast,  Toc- 
queville,  Thouret,  Dufaure  and  Barrot  have  been  already 
treated  as  members  of  the  Assembly.  The  others  must  now 
be  briefly  considered. 

L.  M.  de  Lahage,  vicomte  de  Cormenin,  was  the  first 
president  of  the  commission.  He  was  born  at  Paris  in  1788 
of  an  excellent  "  family  of  the  robe,"  held  office  both  under 
the  first  Empire  and  the  Restoration  and  wrote  various 
works  on  administrative  law.  He  was  deputy  from  1828 
to  1848,  sitting  on  the  left.  His  pamphlets,  signed  Timon, 
directed  against  the  extravagance  of  the  civil  list,  were  in- 
cisive and  powerful.  In  1848  he  sat  for  Seine  in  the  As- 
sembly, and  is  to  be  ranked  with  the  liberals,  voting  among 
other  things  for  the  abolition  of  the  death  penalty,  for  the 
banishment  of  the  Orleans  family  and  against  the  prosecu- 
tion of  Louis  Blanc  and  Caussidiere.  He  was  forced  to 
resign  from  the  commission,  having  caricatured  it  in  a 
pamphlet. 

G.  de  Beaumont,  born  in  the  department  of  Sarthe,  1802, 
was  a  magistrate  under  the  Restoration,  journeyed  with 
Tocqueville  to  America,  writing  a  novel  on  the  slavery  ques- 
tion upon  his  return.  From  1839  to  1848  he  was  a  deputy 
sitting  in  the  dynastic  opposition.  In  1848  he  was  elected 
for  Somme  and,  like  Tocqueville,  ranks  as  a  conservative. 
He  voted  for  the  cautionnement,  but  was  absent  from  all  of 
our  test  votes,  representing  France  at  London  and  Vienna. 

Victor  Considerant  was  bom  in  the  Jura,  1808,  graduated 
from  the  Ex:ole  Polytechnique  and  became  captain  of  engi- 


I40  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^jg 

neers  in  the  army.  From  183 1  he  devoted  himself  exclu- 
sively to  the  Fourierist  propaganda,  edited  successively  the 
Phalange  and  the  Democratic  paciiique,  and  was  elected  as 
a  leading  socialist  to  the  Assembly  from  Loiret.  He  later 
attempted  a  Fourierist  colony  in  Texas,  without  great 
success. 

A.  L.  Coquerel,  born  at  Paris  in  1795,  became  a  leading 
Protestant  minister  in  that  city.  His  tendency  was  more 
liberal  than  that  of  the  rest  of  the  consistory,  of  which  he 
was  a  member  from  1833.  He  was  a  moderate  republican 
and  sat  in  the  center.  His  votes  were  usually  conservative, 
but  he  is  reckoned  by  some  with  the  liberals  of  the  National 
stripe.  It  would  be  difficult  to  classify  him,  since  he  tried 
not  to  classify  himself. 

C.  A.  Corbon,  bom  at  Arbigny  in  1808,  came  from  a 
family  of  working-people,  and  as  a  child  worked  for  a 
weaver.  In  Paris  he  learned  wood-carving  and  became  a 
compositor.  In  1848  he  founded  U Atelier,  a  liberal  Cath- 
olic paper  conducted  by  and  for  workingmen.  The  policy 
of  the  paper  and  its  editor  was  liberal  republicanism.  Cor- 
bon was  elected  to  the  Assembly  from  Seine. 

A.  Domes,  born  at  Lyons,  1799,  son  of  a  general,  was  an 
intimate  friend  of  A.  Marrast  and  became  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal editors  of  the  National.  He  represented  Moselle  in 
the  Assembly,  where  he  made  the  motion  that  created  the  ex- 
ecutive commission.  He  died  in  July,  1848,  of  wounds  re- 
ceived in  the  June  insurrection. 

Andre  Marie  Dupin,  called,  to  distinguish  him  from 
Charles  Dupin,  his  younger  brother,  Dupin  aine,  was  bom 
at  Varzy  in  Nievre,  1783.  He  was  a  lawyer  of  great  dis- 
tinction, and  had  an  extremely  long  parliamentary  career, 
being  deputy  from  1827  to  1848,  representative  (for 
Nievre)  in  1848  and  1849,  and  afterward  senator  of  the 
Second  Empire.    Having  been  a  bonapartist  in  the  last  days 


319]  THE  REPRESENTATIVES  141 

of  the  first  Napoleon,  he  was  known  as  a  moderate  liberal 
during  the  Restoration.  He  became  an  extremely  ardent 
and  very  conservative  Orleanist  and  was  regarded  as  the 
essence  and  mouthpiece  of  the  bourgeois  regime.  His  sar- 
castic, powerful  language  made  him  one  of  the  efficient  sup- 
porters of  the  government,  always  called  on  in  times  of 
stress.  His  epigram,  ^^Clmcun  chez  soij  chacun  son  droit,*' 
was  held  to  sum  up  the  spirit  of  the  existing  system.  He 
was  one  of  Louis  Philippe's  most  trusted  personal  counsel- 
lors and  retained  confidential  professional  relations  with 
the  Orleans  family  even  after  its  fall,  with  the  knowledge 
and  consent  of  the  republic,  which  he  continued  to  serve  as 
procureur-general  of  the  Cour  de  Cassation.  He  was  eight 
times  president  of  the  old  Chamber  of  Deputies,  became 
one  of  its  famous  presiding  officers.  He  was,  of  course, 
an  extreme  conservative  during  the  republic.  He  was  a 
member  both  of  the  French  Academy  and  of  the 
Academy  of  Moral  and  Political  Sciences.  Charles  Dupin 
followed  almost  exactly  the  same  political  evolution  in  his 
long  parliamentary  career  as  his  more  famous  brother. 

F.  R.  de  Lamennais,  born  at  St.  Malo,  1782,  had  already 
written  against  the  supremacy  of  the  civil  over  the  relig- 
ious power,  when  he  took  orders  in  181 6.  His  Essai  sur 
rindiiference  made  him  immensely  popular  with  Rome, 
where  he  was  offered  the  cardinal's  hat,  but  declined.  His 
struggle  against  Gallicanism,  however,  made  him  impopular 
with  the  French  episcopate,  which  began  to  undermine  his 
influence.  He  founded  UAvenir  to  preach  his  gospel  of 
religious  republicanism  and  demanded  separation  of  Church 
and  State,  administrative  decentralization,  extension  of  elec- 
toral rights,  freedom  of  association  and  of  the  press. 
His  enemies  brought  about  a  papal  condemnation  of  his 
theories  in  1832,  but  while  submitting  in  form,  he  reaffirmed 
his  principles  in  the  famous  Paroles  d'un  croyant  (1834). 


142  ^HE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^30 

This  brought  about  his  rupture  with  the  Church.  He  be- 
came greatly  interested  in  the  working-classes,  and  in  1837 
wrote  Le  Livre  du  peuple.  At  the  beginning  of  the  republic 
he  founded  Le  Peuple  constituant,  which  endured  till  the 
cautionnement  law  compelled  its  suspension  in  July.  In  the 
Assembly,  sitting  for  Seine,  Lamennais  worked  with  the 
radicals,  voting  against  the  cautionnement  and  imprison- 
ment for  debt,  the  prosecution  of  L.  Blanc  and  Caussidiere, 
the  death-penalty,  and  other  conservative  measures. 

Edouard  Martin,  known  as  Martin  de  Strasbourg,  born 
at  Mulhouse  in  1801,  established  himself  as  a  lawyer  at 
Strasburg.  He  was  deputy  from  1837  to  1842,  sitting 
with  Arago,  Dupont  de  I'Eure  and  others  on  the  extreme 
left.  After  the  revolution,  he  presided  over  the  commission 
which  reorganized  the  judiciary  and  was  sent  to  the  As- 
sembly from  Bas-Rhin;  in  this  body  he  voted  with  the  lib- 
erals, favoring  the  abolition  of  the  death-penalty,  and  op- 
posing the  interdiction  of  the  clubs,  but  also  opposing  the 
progressive  tax  and  the  Grevy  amendment.  He  moved  the 
resolution  conferring  the  executive  power  on  Cavaignac  in 
June,  and  constantly  opposed  Louis  Napoleon. 
^ean-Pierre  Pages,  called  Pages  de  I'Ariege,  was  born  in 
1784  at  Seix  and  became  a  lawyer  in  Toulouse.  Like  so 
many  others,  he  was  much  in  journalism  and  always  a  vio- 
lent opponent  of  the  Restoration  government.  As  deputy 
from  1 83 1  to  1842  and  from  1847  to  1848,  he  sat  on  the 
left,  and,  elected  for  Haute-Garonne  to  the  Assembly,  voted 
with  the  liberals. 

A.  Tenaille  de  Vaulabelle,  bom  in  1799  in  the  department 
of  Yonne,  began  as  a  journalist,  working  on  the  National 
for  a  while,  and  then  became  an  historian.  His  Histoire 
des  deux  Restorations  ( 1844)  was  long  the  standard  author- 
ity. In  1848  Lamartine  offered  him  the  embassies  of  Lon- 
don and  Berlin,  but  he  refused  both.     In  the  Assembly, 


32 1  ]  THE  REPRESENT  A  TIVES  1 43 

sitting  for  Yonne,  he  voted  generally  with  the  liberal  re- 
publicans. He  became  minister  of  public  instruction,  but 
only  served  a  short  time. 

A.  F.  A.  Vivien,  born  at  Paris,  1799,  was  a  lawyer  at  the 
Amiens  bar.  In  1831  he  became  prefect  of  police  in  Paris, 
served  as  deputy  from  1833  to  1848  and  in  the  council  of 
state,  where  his  administrative  abilities  were  of  great  value. 
He  sat  for  the  most  part  in  the  dynastic  opposition,  but  in 
the  Assembly,  a  member  for  Aisne,  he  voted  always  with 
the  conservatives.  From  October  to  December  he  was 
Cavaignac's  minister  of  public  works. 

Woirhaye  was  born  at  Metz  in  1798.  He  practised  law 
in  that  city,  defending  the  accused  in  several  political  trials, 
and  was  elected  to  the  Assembly  from  Moselle.  He  was  a 
liberal  republican,  a  partisan  of  Cavaignac. 

Having  thus  sketched  the  lives  and  general  political  atti- 
tude of  the  representatives  who  alluded  to  America  and  of 
the  members  of  the  constitutional  commission,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  show  the  position  taken  by  these  men  toward  the 
test-questions  selected.  As  has  been  explained  above,  these 
test-questions  serve  only  as  a  rough  index  of  general  polit- 
ical disposition  and  must  be  taken  in  connection  with  the 
biographies  of  the  members  to  gain  a  correct  view  of  a 
member's  position. 

To  aid  in  understanding  the  political  significance  of  the 
various  votes,  we  have  added  those  cast  by  a  few  typical 
leaders  of  each  party.  F.  Arago,  Dupont  de  TEure,  A.  P. 
Marie,  L.  E.  Cavaignac  and  Georges  Lafayette  (son  of 
Washington's  friend)  are  typical  liberals;  David  d' Angers, 
the  sculptor,  A.  O.  Glais-Bizoin,  C.  Pelletier  and  Edgar 
Quinet  will  rank  as  radicals ;  J.  L.  Greppo  and  P.  J.  Proud- 
hon  as  socialists;  Adolphe  Thiers  and  Charles  Francois, 
comte  de  Remusat,  as  conservatives;  A.  P.  Berryer  and  H. 
A.  G.  Duverger,  marquis  de  la  Roche jacquelein,  as  legiti- 


144  ^-^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["222 

mists.     Perfect  unanimity  even  among  the  leaders  is  not 
attainable. 

Libtrals               Du.  de  Hau.  Grivy  L*h.  Goud.  Dtv.  Glats-Biz.  Const. 

F.  Arago N  Y  Y  Ab  Ab  Ab  Y 

Barthe N  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Brunet Y  N  N  Y  Ab  N  Y 

Cavaignac  N  Ab  Y  Y  Ab  Ab  Y 

Corbon  N  N  N  Y  Y  N  Y 

Cordier   Y  N  N  Ab  N  N  Ab 

Cormenin N  Ab  N  Ab  Y  Y  Y 

Cremieux N  N  N  Y  N  Y  Y 

Dupont  (de  I'Eure)   N  N  N  Ab  Y  N  Y 

Gerdy Y  N  N  Y  N  Ab  Y 

Grevy  N  Y  Y  Y  Ab  Ab  Y 

G.  Lafayette N  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Lamartine Ab  N  N  Y  Ab  Ab  Ab 

Lavallee N  N  N  N  Y  N  Y 

Marie N  N  Y  Y  N  Ab  Y 

A.  Marrast N  Y  Y  Y  N  N  Y 

Martin 

(de    Strasbourg)  N  N  Y  Y  N  N  Y 

Pages ( del' Ariege)  Ab  N  N  Ab  Ab  Ab  Ab 

Payer  N  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

C.Rolland N  N  ,N  Y  N  Y  Ab 

Sarrans N  Y  Y  Ab  N  Ab  Y 

Senard  N  N  Y  Ab  Ab  N  Y 

Thouret N  N  Y  Y  N  N  Y 

Vaulabelle N  N  Y  Y  N  N  Y 

Woirhaye N  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Wolowski  Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Radicals 

David   (d' Angers).  N  Y  Y  Ab  Y  Y  Y 

Detours   N  Y  N  Ab  Y  Y  Ab 

Deville  N  Y  N  N  Y  Y  N 

Didier N  Y  Y  N  Y  Ab  Y 

Flocon N  N  Y  Y  Y  Y  Ab 

Glais-Bizoin N  Y  Y  Y  N  Y  Y 

Lamennais N  Y  N  N  Y  Y  Ab 

Ledru-Rollin N  Y  N  N  Y  Y  Ab 

Martin-Bernard    ..  N  Y  N  N  Y  Y  Ab 

Pelletier N  Y  .N  N  Y  Ab  N 

Pyat N  Y  N  N  Y  Y  N 

Quinet N  Y  Y           Y  Y  Y  Y 

Saint-Gaudens  ....  N  N  N            Y  Y  Y  Y 


I 


323]  THE  REPRESENTATIVES  145 

Sactalists 

Greppo N  Y  Ab  N  Y  Y  N 

Leroux    Ab  Ab  Ab    Not  given    Y    Not  given     N 

Mathieu 

(de  la  Drome)  ..  N  Y  N  N  Ab  Y  Ab 

Proudhon N  Y  Y  N  Y  Y  N 

Conservatives 

Alcock  Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Ambert Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Aylies Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Barrot  Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Ab 

Billault N  Ab  Ab  Y  Ab  Ab  Y 

CombareldeLeyval  Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Dabeaux N  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Drouyin  de  Lhuys.  Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Dufaure N  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Dupin  aine N  N  N  Ab  N  N  Y 

Ch.  Dupin Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Duvergier 

de  Hauranne  . . .  Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Ab 

Faucher  Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Jobez Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Lacrosse N  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

F.  de  Lasteyrie  . . . .  Y  N  N  Y  Y  N  Y 

J.  de  Lasteyrie  . . . .  Y  N  Ab  Y  N  N  Y 

Levet Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Lherbette Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

F.  Marrast Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Morin Y  Ab  N  Y  N  N  Ab 

Mornay  Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Parieu N  N  Y  Y  N  N  Y 

Remusat Y  N  N  Ab  N  N  Y 

Saint  Priest Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Thiers Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Tocqueville Y  N  N  Ab  N  N  Y 

Vivien Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Ltgitimists 

Berryer Ab  N  N  Ab  N  N  N 

Cazales  Not  given    N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Jouin Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Kerdrel Y  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Montalembert Y  N  N  Ab  N  N  N 

de  la 

Rochejacquelein  .  Y  Y  N  Y  N  N  N 


1^6  '^HE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  v^2^ 

Vnclassifiable 

Coquerel N  N  N  Y  N  N  Y 

Dubois   Ab  N  N  Ab  N    Not  given     Ab 

Lubbert Ab  N  N  Ab  N  Ab  N 

When  it  comes  to  re-classifying  these  men  according  to 
their  attitude  on  the  American  example,  two  tests  are  avail- 
able, speeches  and  votes.  The  latter  is  the  more  important 
test;  a  man  may  praise  or  blame  some  point  of  American 
practice  in  the  only  speech  in  which  he  happens  to  allude  to 
the  United  States,  while  adopting  a  directly  contrary  atti- 
tude on  the  two  constitutional  issues,  in  connection  with 
which  American  example  was  most  strongly  urged. 

Taking  the  less  accurate  test  first,  however,  we  find  allu- 
sions of  greater  or  less  length  favorable  to  American  ex- 
ample made  in  the  Assembly  (the  debates  in  the  constitu- 
tional commission  are  not  included)  by  seven  liberals,  Bru- 
net,  Cordier,  Gerdy,  Lamartine,  Lavallee,  Sarrans  and 
Senard;  five  radical  republicans,  Didier,  Flocon,  Ledru- 
Rollin,  Pyat  and  Saint-Gaudens ;  two  socialists,  Leroux  and 
Mathieu  (de  la  Drome) ;  twenty  conservatives,  Alcock,  Am- 
bert,  Aylies,  Barrot,  Combarel  de  Leyval,  Dabeaux,  Drouyin 
de  Lhuys,  Ch.  Dupin,  Dufaure,  Duvergier  de  Hauranne, 
Jobez,  Lacrosse,  F.  de  Lasteyrie,  J.  de  Lasteyrie,  Levet, 
Lherbette,  Morin,  Parieu,  Saint-Priest,  Tocqueville;  four 
legitimists,  Cazales,  Jouin,  Kerdrel,  Montalembert ;  one  un- 
classifiable,  Lubbert. 

Speeches  or  allusions  hostile  to  the  example  were  made 
by  nine  liberals,  Barthe,  Cremieux,  Grevy,  Lamartine,  A. 
Marrast,  Payer,  C.  Rolland,  Thouret,  Wolowski;  five  rad- 
icals. Detours,  Deville,  Flocon,  Martin-Bernard,  Pyat;  one 
socialist,  Mathieu  (de  la  Drome)  ;  four  conservatives,  Bill- 
ault,  Faucher,  Jobez,  Momay;  no  legitimists;  one  unclassi- 
fiable,  Dubois.  Eliminating  the  five  men  who  spoke  on  both 
sides  at  different  times  and  the  two  unclassifiables,   and 


^25]  T^i-^^  REPRESENTATIVES  147 

grouping  together  the  Hberals,  radicals  and  socialists  as 
parties  of  the  Left,  and  the  conservatives  and  legitimists  as 
parties  of  the  Right,  we  find  the  example  of  the  United  States 
favored  by  10  members  of  the  Left  and  23  of  the  Right; 
opposed  by  11  of  the  Left  and  3  of  the  Right.  At  least 
32  other  references  to  American  example  are  not  included 
in  the  above,  as  being  either  not  on  a  constitutional  subject 
or  merely  descriptive,  according  neither  praise  nor  blame. 

Proceeding  now  to  the  other  test,  it  is  convenient  and 
fair  to  use  for  this  purpose  the  votes  on  the  Duvergier  de 
Hauranne,  Grevy,  and  Leblond  amendments.  While  Amer- 
ican example  was  urged  on  other  clauses  of  the  constitution, 
as  we  shall  see,  it  was  nowhere  more  earnestly  discussed 
than  in  the  debates  on  the  legislative  and  executive  branches 
of  the  government.  The  American  two-chamber  system 
was  cited  with  great  frequency  in  support  of  the  Duvergier 
de  Hauranne  amendment;  the  American  president,  chosen 
as  a  separate  branch  of  government  rather  than  elected  by 
and  subordinate  to  Congress,  was  praised  by  those  who  op- 
posed the  Grevy  and  Leblond  amendments.  As  the  vote  of 
each  member  on  these  measures  has  already  been  given,  it 
is  only  needful  to  point  out  here  that  of  those  who  favored 
American  example  in  their  speeches,  Sarrans,  Senard, 
Didier,  Ledru-Rollin  and  Parieu  voted  against  it,  some  on 
two  out  of  the  three  votes,  some  on,  all.  To  this  list  are  to 
be  added  Flocon,  Mathieu  (de  la  Drome)  and  Pyat,  who 
spoke  on  both  sides,  but  voted  against  the  example.  Of 
those  who  opposed  American  practice  in  their  speeches  on 
the  other  hand,  Barthe,  Cremieux,  C.  Rolland,  Payer, 
Wolowski,  Faucher,  Mornay,  and  Dubois  voted  for  it.  To 
them  should  be  added  Lamartine  and  Jobez,  who  spoke  on 
both  sides  but  voted  for  the  example.  (Lamartine  was  an 
admirer  of  the  American  spirit,  but  in  most  of  his  speeches 
opposed  the  American  system,  as  applicable  only  to  a  fed- 


148  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^26 

eral  constitution.)  Thus  modified,  the  record  of  those  who 
voted  for  the  American  example  (using  only  the  members 
who  also  spoke  on  the  example  as  described  above)  becomes 
10  members  of  the  Left  and  25  of  the  Right;  those  who 
voted  against,  13  of  the  Left  and  2  of  the  Right.  Leroux 
was  absent  at  the  two  test  votes  and  cannot  be  counted. 
The  two  unclassifiables  voted  for  the  American  example. 

The  complete  vote  on  these  two  questions  has  been  given 
on  pp.  1 19-12 1.  It  is  obvious  that  the  American  example 
triumphed  in  the  votes  on  the  executive  and  failed  in  the 
vote  on  the  legislative.  It  would  be  impossible  to  attempt 
an  analysis  of  the  total  vote  according  to  parties,  on  account 
of  the  great  size  of  the  Assembly.  The  statistics  here  given, 
however,  suffice  to  show  that  in  general  the  Left  rejected 
and  the  Right  favored  the  American  example.  The  liberals, 
it  is  true,  were  nearly  evenly  divided  on  the  subject,  but  the 
more  advanced  groups  tended  to  oppose  American  practice 
decidedly.  This  will  become  apparent  when  the  discussion 
is  taken  up  in  detail.  To  that  task  it  is  now  time  to  turn, 
and  a  beginning  will  be  made  with  the  discussion  in  the 
constitutional  commission. 


CHAPTER  V 
The  Constitutional  Commission 

The  account  of  the  proceedings  of  the  commission  is  to 
be  found  in  the  unpublished  proces-verhal,  preserved  in  the 
archives  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies.  It  is  in  two  small 
volumes,  the  first  of  183  folio  pages,  containing  a  report  of 
the  sessions  from  May  19  to  June  17  inclusive,  and  the  first 
draft  of  the  constitution,  the  second  of  75  pages  covering 
the  sessions  from  July  24  to  August  17  inclusive/  Subse- 
quent meetings  are  unreported.  The  reports  are  all  signed 
by  Woirhaye  as  secretary,  though  most  of  them  are  not  in 
his  handwriting;  corrections  and  erasures,  however,  show 
that  he  carefully  revised  his  under-secretary's  version. 
There  is  no  attempt  at  a  stenographic  record  of  the  speeches; 
the  most  important  are  given  with  considerable  fullness,  the 
rest  briefly  summarized.  The  first  volume  is  much  more 
satisfactory  in  this  respect.  The  lack  of  a  more  detailed 
report  is  unfortunate  for  our  purpose;  allusions  to  Amer- 
ican example  may  very  easily  have  gone  unnoticed  by  the 
secretary.  The  fact  that  the  summarized  report  contains  as 
many  as  it  does  is  perhaps  significant. 

At  the  first  meeting,  May  19,  Cormenin,  the  president, 
was  requested  by  resolution  to  draw  up  a  subject  plan  to 
guide  the  commission's  work.  It  is,  therefore,  not  quite 
fair  to  say,  as  some  accounts  have  done,  that  Cormenin 
"  assumed  "  the  task  of  drawing  up  the  original  draft  of 
the  constitution,  though  he  doubtless  did  interpret  his  in- 

1  Cf.  chronological  table  at  end  of  chap.  ii. 
Z27]  149 


I^O  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^-^2'^ 

structions  somewhat  liberally,  by  submitting  detailed  arti- 
cles on  the  chief  points  as  they  came  under  discussion.  But 
some  one  had  to  take  the  lead,  as  there  was  no  further  effort 
at  organization.  At  the  first  meeting,  Domes  had  suggested 
that  the  commission  divide  itself  into  sub-commissions, 
each  of  which  should  make  a  preliminary  study  of  some 
part  of  the  field,  but  this  idea  was  not  adopted.  While 
Barrot,  Marrast,  Vivien,  Dupin,  Dufaure  and  others 
took  an  active  part  in  shaping  the  constitution,  the  general 
form,  because  of  his  initiative,  remains  Cormenin's. 

The  subject-plan  brought  in  by  the  president  on  May  22 
in  response  to  the  resolution  divided  the  work  into  five  parts, 
declaration  of  rights,  executive,  legislative,  judiciary  and 
revision.  Except  that  the  legislative  was  taken  up  before 
the  executive,  this  general  order  was  maintained.  The 
original  discussion,  lasting  from  one  to  four  days,  on  each 
subject,  the  general  review  of  the  whole,  the  conferences 
with  the  delegates  of  the  bureaux  and  the  revision  by  the 
commission  bring  up  each  of  these  heads  four  times,  though 
the  later  debates  are  extremely  summary.  Of  the  final  re- 
vision (Oct.  23-31)  there  is  no  record. 

The  earliest  allusion  to  American  example  occurs  in  the 
debate  on  the  legislative.^  Barrot  introduced  the  subject 
with  a  speech  in  defense  of  the  two-chamber  system.  The 
dangers  of  excessive  centralization  and  of  the  lively  French 
temperament  seemed  to  call  for  a  balance-wheel,  only  to  bs 
found  in  a  second  chamber.  He  referred  his  colleagues  to 
historical  precedents.  The  Convention  was  the  only  ex- 
ample of  a  single  chamber  ^  and  its  experience  was  such  that 
the  constitution  of  the  year  III  provided  for  two. 

1  Proces-verhal,  session  of  May  24. 

2  The  text  reads,  "  //  n'y  a  point  d'  autre  que  la  Convention."  The 
sentence  is  not  given  in  full,  however,  which  may  explain  Barrot's  ap- 
parent omission  of  the  Constituent  and  Legislative  Assemblies. 


329]  ^^^  CONSTITUTIONAL  COMMISSION  151 

America,  which  was  favorably  circumstanced  to  make  a 
good  constitution,  rejected  a  single  assembly  [un  pouvoir 
unique^  and  yet  there  are  many  differences  between  America 
and  us.^  America  had  before  it  an  entire  world,  a  new  world 
in  which  it  could  diffuse  its  activities.  With  us,  there  is  hardly 
any  activity  except  government;  by  our  habits,  and  education, 
the  government  is  the  center  of  general  activity. 

There  is  here  the  germ  of  a  grave  difficulty,  for  if  the 
government  of  a  single  assembly  is  not  accepted,  there  will 
be  conflict  and  then  civil  war.^ 

The  American  republic  found  happy  predispositions  in  its 
very  situation.  On  the  one  hand,  the  supreme  power  was 
decentralized  and  on  the  other,  it  found  in  its  English  origin 
traditional  habits  of  respect  for  law  which  led  it  to  resist 
the  government.^  Notwithstanding  these  checks,  which  were 
so  many  obstacles  to  the  impulse  of  a  single  assembly,  the 
legislative  authority  was  divided  into  two  branches  which 
balanced  one  another. 

In  France,  neither  of  the  natural  checks  existing,  a  double 
chamber  was  even  more  imperative.  A  choice  must  be 
made  between  the  system  of  equilibrium  and  the  system  of 
logical  unity. 

This  was  the  only  speech  on  the  legislative  question  that 
day.  The  following  afternoon,  the  subject  was  resumed  by 
Marrast.*  Public  opinion  and  logic  alike  condemned  the 
two-chamber  system.  The  notion  of  balance  was  illusory. 
In  England  there  are  supposed  to  be  three  forces,  but  in 
reality  the  aristocracy  has  absorbed  the  other  two,  com- 
pelling royalty  to  do  its  will  and  giving  only  a  semblance  of 

1  The  argument  a  fortiori. 

2  The  speaker  does  not  refer  to  disturbances  arising  from  disappoint- 
ment at  the  choice  of  a  dual  system,  but  to  the  lack  of  adequate  oppor- 
tunity for  legal  opposition  to  the  will  of  a  single  assembly. 

3  /.  e.,  when  embarked  on  an  unlawful  course. 
*  Proces-verhal,  session  of  May  25. 


1^2  I^HE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-^^q 

power  to  the  people.  "  In  America  it  is  the  democracy 
which  is  everything."  In  a  monarchy,  the  king  may  term- 
inate controversies  between  the  two  chambers,  but  who 
could  do  it  in  a  republic?  These  necessary  checks  to  im- 
pulsive action  must  be  sought  within  the  single  assembly, 
whether  by  the  English  system,  of  several  readings  or  by  a 
council  of  state  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  assembly's  de- 
bates by  a  public,  preliminary  discussion  of  proposed  meas- 
ures. The  single  chamber  is  necessary  to  maintain  na- 
tional unity. 

After  a  question  by  Vivien,  Tocqueville  -  was  recognized. 
He  admitted  that  the  bicameral  cause  was  lost,  but  felt  that 
the  republic  must  come  to  it  in  the  end,  if  it  would  endure. 

We  should  not  insist  too  much  on  historical  examples,  since 
we  ought  to  try  something  original,  appropriate  to  our 
particular  situation. 

Besides,  only  one  democratic  republic  has  existed  in  the 
world;  it  is  that  of  the  United  States;  it  has  two  chambers. 
I  do  not  support  myself  by  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  a  veritable  work  of  art,  of  which  we  can  hardly  borrow 
anything;  but  by  its  side,  there  are  in  North  America  30  re- 
publics which  are  in  a  position  similar  to  ours,  all  have  two 
chambers,  there  is  not  a  single  American  to  whom  it  ever  oc- 
curs that  one  could  do  otherwise. 

Let  it  not  be  said  that  that  two-chamber  establishment  is 
an  English  tradition,  for  the  Union  commenced  by  having 
only  one  chamber,  then  a  return  was  made  to  two. 

In  Massachusetts,  in  Pennsylvania,  a  single  chamber  was 
at  first  established;  after  13  years  of  experiment  and  a 
thorough  discussion,  public  judgment  returned  to  the  need  of 
two  chambers;  this  example  is  striking. 

There  was  a  mistaken  notion  in  France  that  the  bicameral 
1  Spelled  "  Toqueville  "  in  the  Proccs-verhal. 


33 1  ]  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  COMMISSION  153 

system  was  aristocratic;  in  our  democratic  society  a  single 
element  of  aristocracy  would  mean  ruin.  "  The  two  cham- 
bers must  represent,  as  in  America,  the  same  interests  and 
the  same  classes  of  the  people,  in  the  same  manner,  by  sim- 
ilar means." 

The  value  of  a  second  chamber  in  a  non-aristocratic  gov- 
ernment is  three-fold.  It  may  serve  to  control  the  execu- 
tive in  important  nominations,  treaties  of  alliance,  and  so 
forth,  a  small  body  taken  from  its  ranks  being  chosen  for 
this  purpose  as  an  executive  council;  secondly,  it  will  pre- 
vent the  dangerous  rivalry  between  the  executive  and  a 
single  chamber ;  thirdly,  it  will  prevent  legislative  intemper- 
ance and  tyranny.  The  remainder  of  the  speech  develops  the 
last  thought ;  several  readings  for  each  bill,  before  the  same 
men,  would  be  of  no  more  value  than  an  appeal  argued  be- 
fore the  court  which  pronounced  the  original  judgment. 

Coquerel  thought  the  two-chamber  system  preferable,  but 
impossible  for  the  present  because  of  public  opinion.  Martin 
held  that  public  opinion  was  on  the  right  side,  two  chambers 
being  a  compromise  between  aristocracy  and  democracy, 
containing  the  danger  of  revolution.  France  wants  unity. 
Vivien  renewed  the  argument  of  checks  and  balances  and 
did  not  believe  the  question  prejudged  by  public  opinion, 
except  in  the  clubs.  Martin  again  insisted  that  the  two- 
chamber  system  was  unrepublican,  supported  by  those  who 
before  February  did  not  want  a  republic.  Considerant,  the 
Fourierist,  felt  that  a  second  chamber  had  never  been  re- 
spected in  France,  because  not  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of 
the  people.  A  council  of  state  to  revise  laws  (Cormenin 
interrupted,  "  No,  to  prepare  laws  ")  would  be  necessary  as 
a  check  to  the  assembly. 

Dufaure  admitted  that  he  might  be  still  under  the  sway 
of  old  parliamentary  prejudices  brought  over  from  the  con- 
stitutional monarchy,   as   Martin   had  charged.     He   rec- 


1^4  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^^2 

ognized  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  as  uUimate  in  human 
legislation.  That  sovereignty  is  exercised  by  delegation, 
however;  whether  it  is  better  to  delegate  it  to  one  chamber 
or  two  is  not  a  question  of  logic,  but  of  prudence.  The 
authority  conferred  upon  the  executive  would  influence  his 
decision,  but  for  the  present,  he  must  make  a  choice.  He 
observed  that,  in  the  past,  public  opinion  had  been  so  little 
attached  to  a  second  chamber,  that  the  latter  was  almost 
useless,  a  danger  rather  than  an  advantage.  There  was  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  it  would  be  more  serviceable  in  future. 

The  example  taken  from  America  is  important,  but  I  think 
that  between  that  people  and  ours,  differences  exist  which 
diminish  considerably  the  value  of  this  precedent.  Among 
us,  public  opinion,  the  real  queen,  must  needs  concentrate  on 
a  single  point,  in  the  past  on  the  royal  power,  later  on  a  man. 
Napoleon,  then  on  a  single  chamber;  I  fear  that  a  second 
chamber  may  weaken  the  first  and  prevent  it  from,  resisting 
the  executive  power,  for  I  think  that  this  latter  will  have  more 
authority  than  we  suppose,  being  the  representative  of  all 
France  and  unexposed  to  the  ennuis  and  dangers  excited  by 
monarchies  with  their  long  reigns,  their  regencies,  etc. 

The  check  argument  seemed  to  him  illusory,  as  the  first 
chamber  will  always  dominate  the  second. 

Tocqueville,  who  followed,  "  re-established  the  authority 
of  the  precedent  which  may  be  found  in  America ;  there  is 
doubtless  a  host  of  institutions  there  which  could  not  be 
transported  to  France,  but  as  for  the  two  chambers,  the  ar- 
guments are  the  same  in  the  two  countries." 

Dupin,  in  a  long,  and  not  very  cogent  speech,  reviewed 
the  constitutional  history  of  France  since  1791,  concluding 
for  a  single  chamber  as  simpler  and  more  logical. 

Pages  believed  the  real  danger  of  tyranny  to  lie  in  the 
executive,  as  shown  by  the  Committee  of  Public  Safety  and 


333]  ^^^  CONSTITUTIONAL  COMMISSION  155 

by  Bonaparte;  he  wished  a  strong  single  chamber  to  resist 
the  executive.  "  America  has  sometimes  had  one  chamber, 
sometimes  two,  according  to  its  necessities;  we  too,  must 
act  according  to  the  times  and  the  age;  I  do  not  know  what 
we  shall  do  in  ten  years,  but  meanwhile  we  can  today  think 
only  of  establishing  a  single  chamber." 

Beaumont  ^  wanted  a  strong  executive  and  believed  in  the 
double-chamber  system  but  yielded  to  public  opinion. 

Barrot  said  a  last  word  for  his  cause,  after  which  the  vote 
was  taken,  the  single  chamber  winning,  fourteen  to  three. 
The  roll-call  of  the  votes  in  the  commission  is  never  given. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  of  the  fourteen  speeches,  six  referred 
to  the  American  precedent.  Of  these  Barrot  and  Tocque- 
ville  (speaking  twice)  favored  American  example,  Marrast 
and  Dufaure  opposed  it.  Pages,  while  not  unfriendly  in 
his  allusion,  was  against  the  bicameral  system. 

Referring  to  the  classification  previously  given,^  it  will 
be  seen  that  Barrot,  Tocqueville  and  Dufaure  were  conserv- 
atives, Marrast  and  Pages  liberals.  The  American  example 
was,  therefore,  favored  by  two  conservatives,  opposed  by 
one  conservative  and  two  liberals. 

When  the  subject  is  reached  in  the  review  of  the  whole 
constitution,  (June  12-17),  the  proces-verhal  dismisses  it 
with  the  laconic  note  "  Articles  15,  16  adopted."  ^ 

The  matter  came  up  again,  when  the  delegates  of  the 
Assembly's  fifteen  bureaux  met  with  the  commission 
to  report  their  criticisms.*  A  number  of  these  were 
prominent    men,    notably    Thiers    who    represented    the 

1  Spelled  "  de  Baumont "  in  the  proces-verhal. 

2  Vide  supra,  p.  144  et  seq. 

3  Ihid.,  June  13.  Art.  15  of  the  first  draft  reads :  "  The  French  people 
delegates  the  legislative  power  to  a  single  assembly."  Ibid.,  "  Projet  de 
constitution." 

*  For  the  discussion  in  the  bureaux,  vide  infra,  p.  247  et  seq. 


1^5  ^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [334 

3rd,  Parrieu  the  9th,  Cremieux  the  loth,  Duvergier  de 
Hauranne  the  14th,  and  Berryer  the  15th.  They  wanted  to 
have  the  constitution  thrown  open  to  general  discussion, 
leaving  the  decision  on  each  point  to  the  commission.  Cor- 
menin,  however,  supported  by  the  commission,  insisted  that 
the  strict  terms  of  the  assembly's  resolution  be  followed, 
according  to  which  each  delegate  was  limited  to  a  presenta- 
tion of  the  opinion  of  his  bureau  and  must  not  enter  into 
discussion  w4th  the  commission.  This  procedure  prevailed 
and  the  opinion  of  the  bureaux  was  asked  in  turn  on  each 
article  of  the  constitution.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  in 
most  cases  the  stronger  delegates  had  been  able  to  swing 
their  bureaux  into  line  with  their  own  views  and,  where  this 
was  not  the  case,  they  usually  devoted  more  time  to  ex- 
pounding their  minority  opinion  than  that  of  the  bureau. 

Three  of  the  delegates  are  reported  in  the  proces-verbal  ^ 
as  alluding  to  American  example  on  the  two-chamber  ques- 
tion. 

Girerd,  representing  the  ist  bureau,  which  voted  for  the 
single  chamber  22  to  15,  said,  "The  example  of  America 
proves  nothing  because  that  people  differs  from  us  in  cus- 
toms and  in  laws." 

Chauffour,  of  the  5th  bureau,  expounded  "  a  philosophical 
argument,  an  historical  argument  and  a  mechanical  argu- 
ment "  for  the  single  chamber.  His  historical  argument 
was  drawn  entirely  from  French  precedents,  but,  at  the  end 
of  his  remarks,  he  said :  "  In  speaking  of  the  past,  I  omitted 
to  say  that  in  the  United  States,  there  was  at  first  in  the 
period  of  the  republic's  formation,  only  a  single  chamber. 
We  can  do  as  America  did ;  if  experience  proves  the  necessity 
of  two  chambers,  we  can  return  to  it." 

Parrieu  reporting  the  9th  bureau's  vote  for  the  single 
chamber,  held  that  the  opposite  system  merely  represented 

1  Proces-verhal,  July  24. 


335]  ^^^  CONSTITUTIONAL  COMMISSION  157 

old  divisions,  specifically  the  aristocratic  and  the  democratic 
interest.  "  The  republic  of  America  also  commenced  by 
one  assembly  [une  diete]  and  the  establishment  of  two 
chambers  was  the  result  of  a  compromise  between  parties."  ^ 

The  subject  appears  for  the  last  time,  when  the  commis- 
sion revised  the  constitution  in  the  light  of  the  bureaux' 
criticisms.  The  proces-verbars  account  is  brief.  "  Art. 
20.  This  is  former  article  15.  A  member  observes  that 
this  article  was  adopted  by  a  large  majority  in  all  the  bur- 
eaux except  one,  and  that  it  is  therefore  useless  to  return  to 
the  grave  question  which  it  decides.     Adopted."  ^ 

Allusions  in  the  debate  on  the  executive  are  less  numer- 
ous, but  cover  a  wider  range.  This  is  perhaps  because  there 
was  even  greater  unanimity  of  opinion  on  the  main  issue. 
On  the  latter,  Cormenin  opened  the  subject  by  saying  that 
there  are  three  possible  systems,  (i)  the  assembly  itself 
exercising  the  executive  power  by  delegates,  (2)  three  to 
five  consuls  or  directors,  (3)  a  president  or  consul.  "  The 
commission  decides  unanimously  and  without  discussion 
that  unity  is  necessary  and  indispensable  and  that  the  ex- 
ecutive power  should  be  entrusted  to  a  single  person."  * 
The  discussion,  therefore,  centers  on  the  choice,  qualifica- 
tions and  powers  of  the  president. 

In  a  previous  consideration  of  possible  checks  to  the 
power  of  the  assembly,  that  same  day,  Beaumont  had  sug- 
gested that  ''  as  in  America,  we  might  accord  the  executive 
power,  not  a  right  of  veto,  but  permission  to  suspend  the 
promulgation  and  execution  of  the  law  for  a  certain  length 
of  time,  to  give  the  chamber  time  for  reflection." 

The  matter  was  not  acted  on  at  that  time,  but  was  later 
brought  up  in  exactly  the  same  form  and,  with  no  recorded 

^  Proch-verbaly  July  27. 

2  Ibid.,  Aug.  8. 

3  Ibid.,  May  27.    But  cf.  p.  186,  note. 


1^8  ^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [3^5 

Speeches,  '^  it  was  recognized  that  in  every  case  there  should 
be,  not  a  veto,  but  a  right  of  observation  and  of  recourse  to 
the  chamber  better  informed."  ^  The  brevity  of  the  account 
here,  as  elsewhere,  leaves  much  to  be  desired. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  presidential  term  of  office,^  three 
questions  were  united,  length  of  term,  re-election  and 
whether  or  not  the  assembly's  term  should  have  identical 
limits.  Cormenin  proposed  a  three-year  term  for  the  pres- 
ident and  a  right  to  one  re-election.  Beaumont  opposed 
re-election,  on  the  ground  of  its  evil  influence  on  the  pres- 
ident's first  term.  Woirhaye  thought  it  unwise  to  deprive 
the  nation  of  a  good  man's  services. 

Dufaure  brought  up  the  third  point :  "  In  America,  the 
legislative  and  the  executive  power  are  generally  elected 
and  renewed  at  the  same  time.  This  rule  seems  to  me  very 
wise;  it  avoids  conflicts  which  might  break  out,  if  the  two 
powers  do  not  have  a  contemporary  origin,  if  they  owe  their 
election  to  currents  of  opinion,  contrary  to  one  another." 

Marrast  sustained  the  opposite  opinion,  fearing  that  the 
complete  renewal  of  all  oflices  at  once  would  throw  the  gov- 
ernment into  disorder. 

TocqueAalle  held  that  this  problem  and  that  of  re-election 
aggravated  one  another.  He  did  not  believe  in  immediate 
re-election ;  Beaumont's  point  that  the  president  will  govern 
in  the  interest  of  a  party,  was  justified. 

That  inconvenience  makes  itself  felt  to  a  lively  degree  in 
America  and  it  is  constantly  increasing  and  appearing  more 
mischievous.  But  in  France,  the  evil  will  be  greater  still.  For 
in  America,  the  president  has  little  power,  he  only  nominates 
to  an  inconsiderable  number  of  oflices,  but  in  France,  where 
the  executive  power  will  dispose  of  a  great  many  places  and 
will  be  able  to  make  many  creatures,  the  excessive  influence 
of  the  president  will  be  an  immense  danger. 

1  Proces-verbal,  June  i. 

2  Ibid.,  May  27. 


237]  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  COMMISSION  159 

On  the  other  hand,  a  non-reeHgible  president,  being  unable 
to  prolong  his  term  and  carry  out  his  great  designs,  might 
in  ''  the  ambition  of  despair  "  be  inspired  with  the  idea  of 
destroying  the  constitution.  He  preferred  to  run  this  acci- 
dental passing  danger,  rather  than  subject  society  to  the 
perpetually  corrupting  influence  of  a  president,  employing 
his  power  with  a  view  to  its  prolongation.  He  wanted  a 
three-year  term  for  the  legislature  and  four  or  five  for  the 
executive.  Vaulabelle  suggested  identical  terms  of  two 
years,  Dupin  proposed  three,  Marrast  returned  to  his  pre- 
vious objection. 

The  commission  then  voted,  twelve  to  two  against  imme- 
diate re-eligibility.  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  Tocque- 
ville's  rejection  of  American  example  in  the  speech  that 
seemed  to  sway  the  vote,  if  any  one  speech  did,  put  into  the 
constitution  the  clause  that  destroyed  the  republic.  Terms 
of  three,  four  and  five  years  being  proposed,  the  commis- 
sion decided,  eight  to  six,  in  favor  of  a  four-year  term.^ 

The  question  of  an  identical  legislative  term  was  dropped. 
The  previous  decision  that  the  assembly's  term  should  be  for 
three  years, ^  remaining  in  force,  automatically  defeated  the 
idea. 

In  the  discussions  held "  on  ministers  of  state  (whether 
or  not  to  be  necessarily  members  of  the  assembly)  and  on 
the  vice-president  (who  was  to  be  chosen  by  the  assembly 
on  nomination  of  the  president,  for  four  years,  and  to  act  as 
president  of  the  council  of  state)  no  reference  to  American 
example  can  be   found;   a  somewhat  remarkable  circum- 

1  "  The  President  is  to  be  elected  every  four  years  .  .  .  that  is  to  say, 
the  very  worst  element  of  mischief  in  the  American  Constitution  is  to 
be  borrowed,  without  the  advantages  it  carries  of  a  strong  Executive." 
London  Times,  Nov.  7,  1848. 

^  Proces-verbal,  May  26. 

3  Ibid.,  May  30. 


l6o  '^HE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^^^ 

stance,  especially  in  view  of  the  striking  parallel  in  the  vice- 
presidential  office/  It  was  proposed  by  an  unnamed  mem- 
ber that  the  vice-president  be  chosen  by  the  nation,  together 
with  the  president,  but  Cormenin  thought  this  would  detract 
from  *'  the  majestic  unity "  of  the  latter's  election  and 
Vivien  added  that  the  vice-president  might  have  more  votes 
than  the  president,  which  would  be  an  evil  and  a  cause  of 
enfeeblement  for  the  latter.  Was  he  thinking  of  Aaron 
Burr?  However  tempting  speculation  is  here,  there  is  no 
direct  evidence  of  American  influence. 

In  the  first  general  review  of  the  whole  constitution, 
several  members  tried  to  have  the  president's  election  by 
universal  suffrage  reconsidered.^  Considerant  proposed 
that  he  be  chosen  by  the  assembly.  Tocqueville  wanted  the 
electoral  college.  He  brought  out  the  possible  danger  of  a 
president  chosen  by  the  minority  and  the  inadequacy  of  the 
candidature  system  {i.  e.  nomination  by  the  assembly  of 
several  candidates  for  popular  election)  as  a  remedy. 

I  propose  to  leave  the  people  the  right  of  election,  but  to  re- 
quire a  majority  for  election  and  if  there  is  no  majority  for  one 
or  the  other  of  the  candidates  to  leave  the  assembly  the  right  to 
choose  among  them.  Further,  as  it  is  desirable  that  a  majority 
be  obtained  by  one  of  the  candidates  and  as  it  is  easier  to  get 
a  majority  in  proportion  as  the  nominating  assembly  is  less 
numerous  and  more  intelligent,  I  would  like  something  an- 
alogous to  what  takes  place  in  America. 

There  every  state  names  a  certain  number  of  delegates,  who, 

1  But  cf.  Clarigny's  article  in  the  Constitutionnel  for  Oct.  ii:  "We 
see  in  the  vice-president  no  other  office  than  that  of  presiding  over  the 
council  of  state:  the  importance  of  these  functions  is  far  from  being 
in  accord  with  his  title :  we  think  that  the  constitutional  commission  has 
here  an  unhappy  fancy  for  imitation:  of  the  American  constitution,  it 
has  kept  only  the  names  and  the  external  forms,  it  has  carefully  re- 
jected the  spirit." 

-Ibid.,  June  15. 


339]  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  COMMISSION  i6i 

to  avoid  intrigues,  plots  and  violence,  do  not  meet  together. 
There  are  as  many  electoral  colleges  as  states.  Each  of  these 
states  meets  the  same  day  to  name  the  President. 

In  France  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  have  as  many  elec- 
toral colleges  as  there  are  departments,  that  would  be  too 
many ;  we  might  take  the  districts  of  the  courts  of  appeal. 

Marrast  and  Coquerel  returned  to  the  assembly-election 
plan,  Dupin  opposed  it.  Domes  seconded  Tocqueville's  ma- 
jority requirement,  with  assembly-choice  if  no  majority,  but 
opposed  the  electoral  college,  Barrot  indicated  assembly- 
election  as  his  first  choice,  the  electoral  college  as  his  second, 
Martin  spoke  for  universal  suffrage,  Beaumont  agreed  with 
Domes,  Vivien  wanted  a  two-thirds  majority,  Marrast 
thought  that  practically  difficult,  Dufaure  assented  to 
Domes'  proposition. 

The  votes  followed.  Election  by  the  assembly  received 
only  two  votes,  the  candidature  system  four,  the  electoral 
college  four;  the  majority  requirement  as  proposed  by 
Tocqueville  and  Domes  passed  by  a  large  vote. 

The  final  reference  to  American  example  on  the  executive 
was  made  during  the  conferences  with  the  bureaux'  dele- 
gates by  Thiers,  representing  the  3rd  bureau.  He  wanted 
the  president  elected  for  three  years  and  reeligible  once. 
"  In  free  states  like  America  and  England,  it  is  not  a  man 
who  prevails,  it  is  an  idea  represented  by  a  few  men,  that 
idea  must  be  given  the  time  necessary  to  become  known  and 
its  policy  tested."  Pitt  stood  for  opposition  to  the  French 
Revolution,  Peel  was  also  "  the  expression  of  an  arrested 
thought,"  that  is  why  they  were  kept  in  power. 

In  the  succeeding  revision,  however,  the  old  article  was 
maintained  without  discussion. 

Omitting  the  last-mentioned,  Thiers  not  being  a  member 
of  the  commission,  four  references  to  United  States  practice 
are  f  oimd  in  the  commission's  debates  on  the  executive.     All 


l62  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^^q 

of  these  are  favorable.  Those  who  made  them,  Beaumont, 
Dufaure,  Tocqueville  (twice)  were  all  conservatives. 

A  few  scattering  allusions  are  to  be  found  in  the  debates 
on  the  judiciary. 

Barrot  brought  out  the  dilemma  in  the  matter  of  appoint- 
ment :  either  the  people  elect  the  judges,  in  which  case  their 
ignorance  and  passions  may  lead  to  bad  selections,  or  the 
executive  power  names  them,  which  gives  him  a  dangerous 
authority.  His  solution  was  a  strict  separation  between 
those  who  decide  the  facts  (the  jury)  and  those  who  apply 
the  law  to  the  facts  (the  judge),  in  civil  as  well  as  in  crim- 
inal jurisprudence.  (The  original  plan  had  been  to  confine 
the  jury  to  the  latter  field) .  "  The  tardiness  of  English  and 
American  procedure  may  be  avoided  and  most  of  the  diffi- 
culties which  judicial  organization  offers  solved,  by  the 
introduction  of  the  jury  into  civil  matters."  ^ 

It  was  decided,  after  further  discussion,  that  the  extension 
of  the  jury  to  civil  matters  should  be  left  to  legislation. 

The  next  question  was  the  choice  of  judges  of  the  peace, 
whether  by  election  or  appointment,  on  which  there  was 
some  controversy.  Coquerel,  the  pastor  of  the  Oratoire, 
opposed  election.  "  He  cites  as  analogy  what  takes  place  in 
Switzerland  and  in  America  where  pastors  are  elected ;  the 
choices  are  generally  bad  and  those  elected  do  not  have  the 
authority  necessary  for  the  proper  exercise  of  their  min- 
istry." ^     The  question  was,  however,  decided  against  him. 

When  the  Court  of  Cassation,  the  highest  regular  court, 
was  reached,  the  question  lay  between  election  by  the  as- 
sembly and  appointment  by  the  president. 

Beaumont  spoke  for  the  latter.  "  In  America,  it  is  the 
president  or  the  governor  who  nominates,  after  having  con- 

1  Proces-verbal,  June  5. 

2  Ibid.,  June  6. 


341]  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  COMMISSION  163 

suited  the  senate,  this  example  should  be  followed."  ^  The 
majority,  however,  thought  otherwise. 

In  this  debate,  Barrot  spoke  of  the  power  of  the  court 
mentioned,  "the  power  to  pronounce  in  an  abstract  and  dog- 
matic manner  on  the  meaning  of  the  law,  which  approaches 
the  legislative  power  especially."  During  the  very  last 
session  of  the  commission,  this  matter  was  brought  up  again 
by  an  unnamed  member,  who  said  that  "  Experience  has 
proved  that  considerable  embarrassments  often  arise  from 
the  fact  that  the  courts,  considering  a  law  as  contrary  to  the 
constitution,  do  not  know  whether  they  ought  to  apply  it. 
It  would  be  proper  to  foresee  this  case  and  to  say  how  the 
difficulty  may  be  regulated."  ^  A  discussion  arose,  in  which 
Dufaure  and  Tocqueville  took  part.  The  commission  de- 
cided that  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  establish  proper  rules 
for  this  case  and  that  it  would  be  best  for  the  constitution 
to  be  silent  on  the  subject.  One  would  give  a  good  deal  to 
know  what  Dufaure  and  Tocqueville  said  ( the  proces-verhal 
is  mute  on  this  point)  and  whether  the  practice  of  the  Amer- 
ican Supreme  Court  was  mentioned. 

Cormenin's  two  remaining  heads,  the  preamble  with  its 
declaration  of  rights  and  the  matter  of  revision,  brought 
forth  no  remarks  on  America,  so  far  as  the  source  indicates. 

Enough  material  is  thus  extant  to  justify  the  conclusion 
that  on  several  important  subjects,  American  example  was 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  constitutional  commission, 
usually  by  the  more  conservative  of  its  members.  A  more 
satisfactory,  because  a  more  complete  view  of  the  extent  of 
American  influence  is  afforded  by  the  debates  in  the  As- 
sembly. 

1  Proces-verhal,  June  6. 
^  Ibid.,  Aug.  17. 


CHAPTER  VI 
The  Assembly  Debates 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  constitution  did  not  come 
fairly  before  the  Assembly  for  discussion  until  after  it  was 
reported  from  the  commission  on  August  30.  Prior  to  that 
time,  American  example  was  mentioned  in  the  Assembly  on 
various  questions  of  general  legislation,  but  only  twice  on  a 
constitutional  point.  May  11,^  Senard  proposed  the  separ- 
ate and  prior  settlement  of  the  executive  branch  by  the 
commission  about  to  be  appointed,  that  this  section  of  the 
constitution,  being  decided  as  soon  as  possible,  the  govern- 
ment might  receive  a  strong,  permanent  head  at  once. 
In  his  speech,  he  remarked,  "  In  all  the  constitutions  without 
exception,  in  that  of  '91,  in  that  of  '93,  in  our  constitutions 
or  rather  in  our  charters  of  1814  and  of  1830,  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  of  America,  the  executive 
power  is  considered  separately;"  the  proposition  was  op- 
posed, on  the  ground  that  it  would  be  unwise  to  put  part  of 
the  new  scheme  into  operation  without  the  counterpoised 
balances,  and  was  defeated.  May  30,  Rolland,  reporting 
from  committee  a  bill  on  the  vexed  question  of  incompati- 
bility between  the  functions  of  representative  and  of  other 
public  office,  denied  the  applicability  of  constitutional  pre- 
cedents drawn  from  aristocratic  England  or  federated 
America. 

Aside  from  these  two  cases,  there  are  no  other  instances 

1  The  reports  of  these  debates  are  to  be  found  in  the  Compte-rendu 
of  the  Assembly  or  in  the  succeeding  issues  of  the  Moniteur. 

164  [342 


243]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  165 

until  the  debates  on  the  constitution  began,  September  4. 
The  chapters  which  suggested  the  greatest  amount  of  in- 
terest in  America  were  those  on  the  preamble,  the  legislative 
and  the  executive  branches  and  these  must  be  considered  in 
order. 

Before  the  constitution  was  taken  up  seriously  and  fought 
out  article  by  article,  opportunity  was  given  for  a  general 
discussion  on  the  whole  project  before  the  Assembly.  On 
the  first  day  of  this  discussion,  Sept.  4,  Jobez  objected  to 
the  preamble. 

Why  this  declaration?  Is  it  not  an  anachronism,  a  plagi- 
arism from  another  epoch?  When  the  Americans  wrote  their 
famous  manifesto,  they  were  separating  from  their  mother- 
country,  and  appealing  to  the  judgment  of  the  world.  When 
our  fathers  in  1789  proclaimed  the  rights  of  men,  they  did  it 
in  face  of  the  chains  they  had  broken ;  at  sight  of  that  Bastille, 
which  they  had  conquered,  they  turned  their  backs  on  the  past 
and  marched  toward  the  future.  But  we,  what  need  have  we 
to  repeat  these  principles  incarnated  in  our  i.ature  ? 

The  general  discussion  was  ended  September  5  and  de- 
tailed consideration  began,  the  preamble  coming  first.  This 
part  of  the  constitution  was  especially  dear  to  the  advanced 
men  and  odious  to  the  conservatives.  It  was  too  reminis- 
cent of  the  great  Revolution  and  held  too  many  dangerous 
possibilities.  Radical  ideas  could  slip  in  more  easily 
tmder  the  guise  of  "  rights  of  man  "  than  of  cold  constitu- 
tional provisions,  but,  once  in,  might  furnish  the  occasion  of 
annoying  demands  for  their  conversion  into  undesirable 
legislation.  It  was  a  delicate  task  to  oppose  the  preamble, 
however,  without  appearing  to  break  completely  with  the 
rosy  illusions  of  February,  which  the  conservatives  were 
not  yet  quite  ready  openly  to  do.  A  good  example  of  nice 
balance  along  this  line  is  shown  in  Levefs  speech  on  Sep- 


1 66  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^^^ 

tember  6.  He  holds  that  the  essential  features  of  the  pre- 
amble have  been  incorporated  into  Chapter  II  of  the  con- 
stitution. As  for  the  remainder,  they  are  brilliant,  but  not 
always  possible  of  realization.  The  droit  au  travail  for 
instance,  even  as  modified  by  the  commission,  can  amount 
to  little  unless  the  resources  of  the  state  are  immensely  in- 
creased, perhaps  by  a  progressive  tax  or  some  other  anti- 
property,  communistic  legislation.  Better  be  less  dogmatic 
and  promise  no  more  than  one  can  realize. 

It  is  very  wrong,  according  to  me,  to  justify  the  necessity 
of  absolute  principles  and  of  declarations  of  rights  adopted 
in  a  constitution  by  the  example  of  our  preceding  constitu- 
tions, for,  and  that  has  already  been  told  you,  it  is  too  true 
that  the  brilliant  preambles,  those  pompous  theories  which 
decorate  the  frontispiece  of  our  constitutions,  have  not  pre- 
vented them  from  having  only  an  ephemeral  duration,  while 
we  see  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  which,  whatever 
has  been  said  of  it,  contains  nothing  similar,  nothing  which 
resembles  these  general  and  dogmatic  principles,  shining  in  all 
its  vigor,  although  its  existence  goes  back  several  years  before 
our  first  revolution.  Those  who  made  that  constitution,  the 
Franklins  and  the  Washingtons,  knew  as  well  as  French  legis- 
lators, that  principles  of  universal  morality  must  dominate 
all  positive  laws.  But  they  understood  the  danger  that  there 
was  in  copying  such  principles  into  a  constitution,  which  must 
be,  before  all,  a  practical  work,  and  which,  so  to  speak,  is  only 
the  putting  into  action  of  results  attained  by  experience  and 
theory.  Thus,  the  sole  concession  made  to  the  ardent  and 
systematic  spirits  who  expected  to  see  a  declaration  of  rights 
and  duties  in  the  constitution,  the  sole  concession  is  the  amend- 
ments which  you  may  see  at  the  end  of  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  amendments  in  which  you  remark  nothing  that 
resembles  the  dogmatic  and  absolute  principles  which  figure 
m  the  frontispiece  of  our  constitutions;  amendments  which 
contain  only  purely  legislative  dispositions  on  the  liberty  of 


245]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  iSy 

the  press  and  individual  liberty ;  amendments  in  a  word,  which 
present  nothing  similar  to  what  you  are  desired  to  adopt. 

An  important  speech  by  Cremieux  favoring  a  preamble, 
was  next  opposed  by  Cazales,  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
more  prudent  to  confine  the  work  of  the  Assembly  to  laws 
than  to  venture  into  philosophy.  He  would  call  their  at- 
tention to  the  lessons  of  history,  pointing  out  to  those  who 
say,  "  We  are  not  English,  we  are  not  Americans,"  the  fact 
that  there  are  certain  general  rules  which  have  proved  their 
universal  validity.  He  then  shows  briefly  that  the  English 
have  always  opposed  general  maxims  in  favor  of  immediate, 
definite,  clearly  applicable  truths. 

I  arrive  at  an  example  more  important  for  us,  it  is  that  of 
the  Americans.  Here  there  are  more  points  of  contact,  more 
analogies.  The  constitution  of  the  Americans  is  more  modern ; 
it  is  perfectly  republican,  no  one  will  deny  that.  Assuredly  if 
there  is  a  country  where  there  is  liberty,  that  individual  liberty 
which  was  just  being  discussed,  it  is  certainly  America.  I 
appeal  to  all  those  who  have  visited  that  country  or  who  know 
it  by  the  writings  to  which  it  has  given  occasion.  HI  look 
at  the  American  constitution,  what  do  I  see  there?  No  dec- 
laration, no  aphorisms,  no  political  maxims,  simply  rules; 
declarations,  without  doubt,  but  declarations  of  positive  things. 
I  do  not  wish  to  fatigue  the  attention  of  the  Assembly  by 
historical  details;  yet  this  is  a  considerable  example — a  re- 
publican constitution,  perfectly  republican,  made  by  a  people 
which  has  very  republican  manners,  which  has  lasted  for  sixty 
years,  and  which  has  to  its  account  a  long  duration,  and  a 
very  great  prosperity.    Now  I  come  to  the  French  constitutions, 

A  moment  later  he  remarked,  "A  republican  constitution, 
the  example  of  America  proves  it  to  us,  may  exist  without 
a  declaration  of  rights,"  to  which  response  was  made  by 
one  of  his  own  party,  "  a  voice  at  the  right,"  evidently  re- 


1 68  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^^5 

calling  the  amendments,  ''  That  is  a  mistake.  There  are 
twelve  preambles !  " 

Lamartine  then  delivered  one  of  his  brilHant  speeches 
which  swept  the  auditors  off  their  feet  by  stately  rhetoric 
rather  than  by  close  logic.  He  defended  the  preamble  on 
the  ground  that  if  it  were  not  inserted,  a  future  generation 
might  pervert  the  constitution  to  false  interpretations  for 
lack  of  knowledge  as  to  just  what  the  ideals  of  1848  really 
were.  He  felt  that  it  was  not  enough  to  cite  the  bare  letter 
of  the  American  constitution.  "  Did  the  American  Con- 
gress of  which  mention  was  also  made,  without  recalling  that 
admirable  germ  of  declarations  and  rights  which  Franklin 
wrote  at  the  very  side  of  the  code  of  its  constitutions, 
hesitate?"  ^ 

The  following  day.  Detours  offered  an  amendment  de^ 
signed  to  separate  the  "  anterior  and  superior  rights  "  from 
the  constitution,  that  they  might  not  be  subject  to  revision, 
holding  that  their  insertion  in  that  document  did  not  guar- 
antee their  inviolability.  M.  Cazales  might  feel  that  the 
English  and  American  constitutions  could  guarantee  all 
rights  sufficiently  without  a  preliminary  declaration.  Their 
case  was  different. 

Gentlemen,  the  English  constitution  is  a  compromise  between 
three  equal,  sovereign  and  independent  powers,  each  treating 
for  itself.  ...  It  is  the  same  in  the  United  States,  where 
the  thirteen  states  which  negotiated,  treated  one  with  another, 
in  such  fashion  that  nothing  can  be  changed  in  the  constitu- 
tion, without  unanimous  consent  of  all  the  states,  outside  of 
the  cases  stipulated  for  the  majority.^ 

^Referring  perhaps  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  translated 
into  French  by  Franklin's  efforts.  Cf.  H.  E.  Bourne,  "Am.  Const. 
Precedents  in  the  National  Assembly,"  Am.  Hist.  Review,  vol.  8,  p.  467. 

2  The  speaker  is  apparently  confusing  the  rule  of  the  Articles  of 
Confederation  with  that  of  the  constitution. 


347]  ^^-S  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  169 

Detours'  amendment  was  lost,  but  the  preamble  passed  with 
modifications. 

The  curious  elasticity  of  American  example  in  this  mat- 
ter of  the  preamble  is  striking.  Friends  and  foes  of  the 
scheme  used  it  with  equal  fluency  in  support  of  their  case, 
the  former  by  enlarging  their  view  to  include  the  amend- 
ments or  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  latter  by 
confining  themselves  strictly  to  the  body  of  the  constitution 
itself. 

The  first  reference  to  the  United  States  in  the  discussion 
on  the  legislative  branch  of  the  government,  was  made  in 
A.  Marrast's  report,  presented  together  with  the  text  of 
the  constitution  after  revision,  August  30.^  The  report 
concludes  for  a  single  chamber.  If  two  chambers  are 
created,  either  they  will  agree,  in  which  case  the  double  vote 
is  superfluous,  or  they  will  disagree,  which  will  bring  strife 
and  anarchy  into  the  system  of  government.  Each  cham- 
ber may  attract  partisans  to  its  point  of  view,  and  thus  the 
contest  spreads  discord  throughout  the  state.  Two  cham- 
bers furthermore  enfeeble  the  legislature's  power  of  resist- 
ance against  executive  usurpations ;  "  When  one  has  the 
Ancients  on  his  side,  he  makes  the  Five  Hundred  jump 
out  the  windows."  What  arguments  are  there  to  support 
the  other  opinion? 

We  are  given  only  two  motives :  one  is  serious,  the  other  is 
not.  The  latter  is  the  example  of  England  and  of  the  United 
States.  We  might  easily  show  that  two  chambers  in  England 
represent  two  different  interests,  sometimes  contrary,  which 
exist  in  the  parliament,  because  they  exist  in  the  country.  We 
might  show  that  in  the  United  States,  sovereignty  divides  and 
subdivides  itself,  that  it  is  partial,  local,  formed  of  indepen- 
dent groups,  and  that  it  reproduces  itself  in  the  government 

1  Moniteur,  Aug.  31. 


I^o  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^^g 

as  it  is  in  its  origin.  We  will  make  a  single  reply  which  will 
dispense  with  every  other.  We  are  in  France,  we  constitute 
the  French  republic,  we  are  acting  in  a  country,  which  has  its 
own  manners,  its  personal  character ;  we  do  not  have  to  clothe 
it  either  a,  V americaine  or  d  I'anglmse.  Full  of  respect  for 
other  nationalities;  full  of  admiration  for  the  great  and  lasting 
things  they  have  done,  we  would  abdicate,  if  we  copied  them. 
A  reason,  emigrating  from  London  or  from  Washington,  is 
bad  by  the  very  fact  that  it  comes  from  there.  To  transplant 
a  political  organization  to  a  foreign  soil,  is  to  will  that  it  shall 
develop  no  roots.  The  foreign  argument  would  prove,  then, 
rather  against  than  for ;  let  us  be  moderate,  it  proves  nothing. 

The  other,  more  serious  counter-argument,  is  the  pos- 
sibility that  a  single  chamber  may  be  swept  off  its  feet  and 
act  prematurely.  This  he  thinks  sufficiently  guarded  against 
by  the  provision  requiring  three  readings  of  every  measure 
at  ten-day  intervals,  by  a  council  of  state,  to  prepare  and 
develop  proposed  measures  and  by  the  executive's  right  to 
require  a  new  discussion  of  any  ill-advised  legislation. 

The  matter  next  came  up  on  September  4,  when  Jobez 
defended  the  bicameral  system  in  the  same  speech  in  which 
he  referred  to  the  preamble.  He  held  that  a  possible  con- 
test between  the  two  chambers  would  be  no  more  of  a  danger 
than  the  tyranny  of  a  single  popular  chamber,  and  that 
those  who  continually  asserted  the  unity  of  the  nation  forgot 
that  this  unity  veiled  two  interests,  inherent  in  human  nature, 
the  interest  of  continuity  and  the  interest  of  progress.  Ex- 
perience pronounces  for  two  chambers.  "  Pennsylvania, 
after  having  decreed  a  single  chamber,  returned  to  the 
creation  of  a  senate." 

The  following  day,  Alcock  made  a  very  long  speech,  in 
the  course  of  which  he  accepted  the  single  chamber,  but  to 
guard  against  the  dangers  of  its  tyranny,  proposed  a  strong 
executive,  elected  by  universal  vote.     This  power  he  would 


349]  T^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  171 

further  buttress  by  giving  it  the  function  of  appointing 
all  public  officials,  even  members  of  the  Court  of  Cassation 
(the  highest  court  in  the  land)  and  of  the  council  of  state. 
"  Instead  of  trying  to  diminish  the  old  prerogatives  of  gov- 
ernmental power,  we  should  try  to  extend  them.  The 
Americans  have  strongly  felt  that  necessity,  the  Romans 
thought  like  them;  with  them,  the  power  of  their  magis- 
trates was  of  short  duration,  but  it  was  almost  absolute." 
The  executive  should  not  vote  in  the  legislature,  but  he 
should  have  the  right  to  demand  a  new  deliberation.  "  The 
United  States,  with  the  eminently  practical  sense  which  dis- 
tinguishes them,  although  they  have  two  chambers,  require, 
in  case  of  conflict  with  the  president,  a  majority  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  votes  in  favor  of  the  law  which  he  rejects." 

The  serious  discussion  of  the  matter  did  not  commence, 
however,  until  September  25,  when  article  20  of  the  project 
("the  French  people  delegates  the  legislative  power  to  a 
single  assembly")  came  up  in  the  detailed  discussion. 

Duvergier  de  Hauranne  now  offered  his  two-chamber 
amendment.  He  opened  his  extremely  long  speech  against 
the  single  chamber  by  a  preliminary  remark  that  prior  to 
February,  the  bicameral  system  seemed  to  be  a  definitely 
accepted  principle  of  political  science.  He  spoke  not  only 
of  constitutional  monarchists,  but  also  of  republicans. 
They  had  said  to  him  that  he  must  not  think  them  so  in- 
fantile as  to  forget  the  lessons  of  experience  and  to  recom- 
mence the  errors  of  the  past.  They  recognized  that  abso- 
lute unity  of  the  directing  power  was  incompatible  with 
liberty.  "  What  we  want  is  not  the  republic  of  the  Con- 
vention, it  is  an  American  republic,  with  an  elective  presi- 
dent in  place  of  an  hereditary  king,  with  a  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives and  a  Senate  which  mutually  limit  one  another." 
This  system,  they  added,  has  all  the  advantages  without  any 
of  the  inconveniences  of  the  constitutional  monarchy.    Such 


Yy2  ^-^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^qo 

was  their  language.  It  seemed  to  him  a  most  astonishing 
thing  that  suddenly,  these  universally  admitted  ideas  seemed 
to  the  commission  outworn  prejudices,  unworthy  serious 
consideration.  He  recognized  two  sources  only,  whence  a 
just  determination  could  be  derived,  experience  and  logic. 
Not  so,  the  commission.  "  In  the  eyes  of  the  former  presi- 
dent of  the  commission,  *the  supporters  of  two  chambers 
have,  to  demonstrate  these  two  sources,  exhausted  history, 
dogmatics,  aesthetics  and  pathetics.  They  have  crossed  the 
seas;  they  have  rummaged  the  parchments  of  Albion  and 
dissected  the  Americas.'  "  The  speaker  then  quoted  Mar- 
rast's  phrase  that  a  reason  from  London  or  Washington,  is 
bad  from  the  mere  fact  that  it  comes  from  there. 

Thus  to  reasoning,  they  oppose  the  instinct  of  the  masses, 
and  nationality  to  experience ;  that,  it  must  be  confessed,  is  to 
disembarrass  oneself  easily,  quickly  of  all  serious  discussion. 
...  I  understand,  further,  the  rejection  of  England's  example ; 
it  would  be  easy  to  demonstrate  that  the  origin  of  the  division 
of  legislative  power  in  England  is  not  what  is  supposed  and 
that  the  rats  on  d'etre  of  the  two  chambers  is  not  because  they 
correspond  to  different  interests.  But,  finally,  England  is  a 
monarchical  country,  an  aristocratic  country;  it  is  rejected, 
nothing  simpler.  But,  I  ask  you,  is  it  not  strange  that  the 
example  of  the  American  republic,  that  example  so  often 
cited  by  republicans,  should  become  today,  because  it  bothers 
them,  the  object  of  their  sarcasms  and  their  disdain?  (Cries 
of  "  Good!  ").  Is  it  not  strange  that  we  are  hardly  permitted 
to  recall  modestly  that  in  America,  not  only  the  federal  re- 
public, the  great  republic,  but  each  of  the  little  republics  of 
which  the  Union  is  composed  has  thought  it  necessary,  indis- 
pensable, to  divide  the  legislative  power?  Is  it  not  strange 
that  the  authority  of  the  only  great  modern  state  which  has 
flourished,  increased,  prospered  under  the  republican  form, 
should  be  thus  brushed  aside  or  despised?  As  for  me,  with 
due  respect  to  the  former  president  of  the  commission  and 


35i]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  173 

to  its  honorable  reporter,  I  think  that  this  authority  is  very 
considerable,  and  I  take  the  liberty  to  avail  myself  of  it  before 
the  National  Assembly.  It  is  furthermore  totally  false  that 
it  was  a  pure  imitation  of  England  which  drew  America  after 
it;  on  the  contrary,  at  the  start,  the  federal  constitution  was 
unitary,  several  of  the  local  constitutions  were  unitary;  it  is 
experience  which  brought  all  the  good  minds  in  that  country 
to  the  duality  with  which  we  are  concerned.  So  much  for 
England  and  America. 

The  remainder  of  his  argument  was  taken  up  with  political 
reasoning,  the  necessity  of  checks  and  balances  to  protect 
the  minority  rights,  the  dangers  of  too  great  simplicity,  noth- 
ing being  simpler  than  despotism,  the  danger  of  conflict  be- 
tween an  all-powerful  chamber  and  an  equally  powerful 
executive  (either  have  no  president,  or  else  divide  your 
legislature) ,  and  the  necessity  to  provide  for  a  more  mature 
deliberation,  the  various  provisions  in  the  bill  to  that 
end  seeming  to  him  insufficient.  To  the  dilemma,  either 
two  chambers  are  useless  (being  in  accord)  or  breed  anarchy 
(being  in  disaccord)  he  opposed  the  alternative :  if  the  cham- 
bers are  in  accord,  the  law,  having  passed  a  double  test, 
will  have  greater  authority;  if  in  disaccord,  that  is  in  itself 
proof  that  the  national  will  is  not  yet  clear,  and  that  the 
question  requires  further  discussion.  The  council  of  state 
seemed  to  him  absurd,  a  mere  permanent  commission  of  the 
Assembly,  which  would  be  free  to  follow  or  reject  its  advice 
at  will.  He  then  put  forward  his  counter-plan,  two  cham- 
bers, distinguished  by  age,  number  and  length  of  term, 
but  to  avoid  any  suspicion  of  aristocracy,  both  elected  by 
universal  suffrage  (though  personally  he  would  have  pre- 
ferred a  difference  here  as  well).  The  two  chambers  were 
to  sit  and  vote  together  if  at  loggerheads  on  any  subject. 
He  concluded  his  long,  but  very  clear  speech  by  an  admission 
that  he  had  neither  desired  nor  foreseen  a  republic,  but 


174  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^^^2 

now  that  it  had  come,  the  important  thing  was  to  found  it 
soHdly,  setting  up  bulwarks  of  order  and  moderation. 

The  next  speaker,  Thouret,  less  able  and  less  distin- 
guished, was,  however,  a  member  of  the  commission,  and, 
as  such,  defended  its  plan.  This  speaker  regarded  the  single 
chamber  as  the  best  feasible  substitute  for  direct  popular 
government,  the  whole  people  meeting  in  one  body,  which 
would  be  the  ideal  exercise  of  sovereignty.  The  remainder 
of  his  speech  was  a  repetition  of  Marrast's  points  and  an 
endeavor  to  refute  Duvergier  de  Hauranne's  arguments. 

Is  it  necessary  to  stop  at  another  series  of  reasonings  which 
I  will  call  the  sophistry  of  comparisons ;  for  God  knows  what 
degree  of  intensity  the  malady  of  comparison  has  reached 
among  our  modern  publicists !  Formerly  they  used  to  compare 
France  to  all  monarchical  countries  to  prove  that  it  ought  not 
to  have  a  republic;  today  they  compare  it  to  all  republican 
countries  to  prove  that  it  ought  to  construct  a  bad  one. 

If  I  wished,  I  might  reply  by  a  final  refusal  to  accept  it, 
and  say  that  no  comparison  is  possible  here  below,  because 
in  nature  as  in  languages  there  are  no  synonyms.  Comparison 
has  always  seemed  to  me  the  ambush  laid  for  good  sense  by 
paradox.  However,  it  is  in  such  good  company,  in  such  good 
taste,  at  the  present  time,  to  speak  of  America  a  propos  of 
liberty  and  of  England  a  propos  of  everything,  that  one  must 
make  a  little  concession  to  the  taste  of  the  period,  but  I  do  not 
guarantee  the  correctness  of  my  pronunciation! 

After  showing  (humorously)  why  he  would  not  borrow 
from  woman-ruled  England,  he  continued. 

But  America!  Oh,  America,  I  more  than  esteem  her,  I  love 
her,  because  that  sublime  slave,  having  become  mistress,  pro- 
duced two  great  men,  of  whom  one  would  like  to  possess 
something  more  than  a  shadow;  two  great  men  who  live  in 
the  heart  of  the  two  republics,  separated  by  the  ocean,  reunited 


353]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  175 

by  history !  But  though  France  and  America  are  united  in 
their  love  of  popular  sovereignty,  must  they  be  united  in  the 
exercise  of  that  sovereignty,  composed  of  interests,  always 
different  and  sometimes  opposed?  America  is  too  much 
studied  in  perspective,  on  maps  and  in  magazines.  The  maga- 
zine increases  objects,  the  map  diminishes  them,  and  neither 
of  the  two  glasses  of  this  double  historic  telescope,  at  the 
service  of  our  sedentary  publicists,  succeeds  in  showing  them 
the  truth  in  its  just  proportions. 

Believe  me,  learned  travellers  in  Bibliotheques  Nationales, 
leave  America  her  instincts — what  shall  I  say? — her  neces- 
sity of  federalism,  which  lay  upon  her  a  law  to  unite,  on  the 
most  diverse  points,  interests  as  varied  and  as  numerous  as 
her  once  primitive  lakes,  her  once  virgin  forests,  and  her  half- 
conquered  rivers  where  crocodiles  are  pursued  by  steamboats. 
Let  us  leave  America  the  unity  of  her  patriotism  struggling 
against  the  division  of  her  soil,  and  let  us  give  France  the 
right  she  has  conquered  to  express  directly  that  will  which  has 
overturned  three  great  dynasties,  which  has  made  three  great 
revolutions,  and  which  will  not  content  itself  with  three  great 
words. 

Lherbette  next  took  up  the  cudgels  in  favor  of  two  cham- 
bers. He  considered  this  the  most  important  point  of  the 
constitution.  He  regarded  it  as  false  reasoning  to  hold  that 
because  popular  opinion  favored  a  single  chamber,  the  As- 
sembly must  so  enact.  Furthermore,  the  best  minds  fav- 
ored a  dual  system,  nor  was  the  opinion  of  the  masses  un- 
shakable. "  The  two-chamber  system  is  adopted  in  Eng- 
land and  in  the  United  States ;  it  was  recently  still  existing 
in  France."  Marrast's  point,  that  a  precedent  from  London 
or  Washington  should  be  ipso  facto  rejected,  he  considered 
not  well  taken.  There  was  no  reason  why  another  coun- 
try's institutions  should  not  be  adopted,  if  desirable. 

They  add  that  this  English  and  American  institution  of  two 


iy(y  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["^-^ 

chambers  should  be  rejected  because  of  differences  in  the  situ- 
ations; for  it  has  for  origin  in  England,  it  is  pretended,  the 
aristocratic  principle;  in  the  United  States,  servile  imitation 
of  the  mother-country  and  federalism ;  in  France,  the  constitu- 
tional monarchy  and  the  same  spirit  of  imitation.  In  these 
assertions,  there  is  no  exactitude.  No,  in  England,  it  is  not 
only  the  aristocratic  principle  which  established  the  two  cham- 
bers. No,  that  guarantee  was  not  in  the  United  States  and 
in  France  the  fruit  of  servile  imitation ;  for  the  United  States 
and  France  commenced  by  putting  in  practice  the  opposite 
system.  It  was  after  fifteen  years'  experience  in  the  United 
States,  after  several  years'  in  France,  that  the  system  of  a 
single  chamber  was  abandoned  and  so  completely  abandoned 
in  America,  in  the  several  states  as  in  the  Union,  that  the  op- 
posite system,  that  of  the  duality  of  chambers,  has  there  passed 
into  an  axiom  not  even  discussed  any  longer.  No,  it  is  not 
the  principle  of  constitutional  monarchy  nor  that  of  aristoc- 
racy which  serves  for  base  of  the  double  chamber;  for  it 
exists  in  the  United  States,  where  neither  constitutional 
monarchy  nor  aristocracy  have  been  met  with.  Neither  is  it 
federalism;  for  the  two  chambers  exist  in  England  and  have 
existed  in  France,  where  there  has  never  been  federalism. 
What  has  caused  its  admission,  is  the  wish  to  give  the  different 
real  forces  of  the  country  a  real  representation,  to  organize  a 
better  mode  of  deliberations  and  to  safeguard  the  independ- 
ence and  the  existence  of  the  different  powers. 

Unity  of  sovereignty  does  not  involve  a  single  chamber;  if 
division  of  delegated  authority  were  inconsistent  with  that 
of  unity,  all  power  would  have  logically  to  be  entrusted  to 
a  single  individual.  Three  vital  principles  must  be  re- 
spected in  all  free  governments :  political  rights  for  the  peo- 
ple (else  no  guarantee  of  liberty),  the  influence  of  intellec- 
tual superiority  and  experience  in  public  councils  (else  no 
guarantee  of  wisdom),  an  executive  of  force  and  inde- 
pendence  (else  no  guarantee  of  tranquillity).      Of  these 


352]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  177 

three,  the  commission  omits  the  two  latter.  A  single  cham- 
ber will  of  necessity  be  large,  but  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that 
the  larger  a  chamber  is,  the  more  it  is  swayed  by  passion 
and  the  less  by  reason.  The  commission's  various  readings 
will  constitute  no  barrier  to  hasty  legislation,  because  a 
majority,  under  the  empire  of  passion,  may  sweep  them 
away  by  declaring  the  proposed  law  "  urgent."  Under  the 
monarchy,  complicated  legislation,  such  as  the  civil  code  and 
the  military  code,  were  always  referred  to  the  Chamber  of 
Peers,  because  its  membership,  hereditary  or  appointed  by 
government,  had  special  qualifications  for  such  work;  a 
Chamber  of  Representatives  can  never  be  more  than  a  poli- 
tical chamber.  Aristocratic  governments  have  always  had 
more  continuity  in  policy ;  England  owes  it  to  its  House  of 
Lords,  Austria  to  its  Aulic  Council,  Russia  to  its  Councils. 
Rome  owed  its  perseverance  to  the  senate.  A  second  cham- 
ber with  a  longer  term  and  only  renewed  partially  is  needed 
for  this  purpose ;  it  is  required  also  to  guard  minority  rights 
and  to  prevent  a  struggle  between  the  sole  chamber  and  the 
executive.  "  Some  one  asks  who  will  decide  between  them, 
if  they  are  divided  ?  A  method  is  adopted  in  several  coun- 
tries, in  the  state  of  New  York,  for  example,  and  I  think 
that  it  is  proposed  to  you  in  several  amendments;  it  is  a 
joint  vote  in  grave  and  exceptional  cases  of  dissidence." 
The  commission's  council  of  state  is  an  admission  of  all 
these  arguments;  named  by  the  Assembly  itself  and  with 
meager  prerogatives,  it  will  be  no  real  check.  This  revolu- 
tion differed  from  that  of  1789  by  being  directed  against  a 
man  who  had  played  false,  while  its  predecessor  was  in- 
tended to  overturn  a  whole  governmental  system.  In  view 
of  this,  let  us  preserve  the  best  features  of  the  past.  Let  us 
reverse  the  mistake  which  in  a  former  day  concentrated  the 
legislature  into  one  body  and  divided  the  executive ;  by  such 
reversal,  we  shall  have  wisdom  in  the  laws,  forceful  rapidity 
in  their  execution. 


1^8  Tfi^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^^^ 

These  were  the  main  Hnes  of  Lherbette's  careful  argu- 
ment. It  is  impossible  to  give  an  outHne  of  all  the  speeches 
here,  but  these  will  show  the  general  trend  of  the  argument 
on  the  question. 

Marcel  Barthe,  the  next  speaker,  favoring  a  single  cham- 
ber, made  a  passing  reference  to  American  federalism. 
France,  in  the  time  of  which  M.  Lherbette  spoke,  was 
divided  into  a  multitude  of  little  provinces,  each  with  its 
own  laws  and  customs;  "  France  was  then,  to  some  extent, 
like  the  United  States,  composed  of  adjoining  states,'*  now, 
however,  the  country  is  completely  unified.  Later,  he  re- 
verted to  the  possible  collision  between  two  chambers,  both 
the  offspring  of  universal  suffrage,  to  which  he  thought 
Duvergier  de  Hauranne's  proposed  remedy  inadequate.  "  In 
America,  in  a  calm  country  of  easy  manners,  in  a  city  but 
little  agitated,  such  disagreement  might  have  no  conse- 
quences; but  in  France,  at  Paris,  in  the  midst  of  an  intelli- 
gent, passionate,  mobile  population,  such  antagonism  would 
be  very  dangerous,  as  is  well  understood." 

Another  speech  was  made  the  same  day  by  Charles  Dupin, 
upholding  the  bicameral  scheme  in  the  interest  of  the  de- 
fence of  the  present  social  order.  The  objection  had  been 
raised  that  one  of  the  two  chambers  might  favor  commun- 
ism, while  a  single  chamber  would  always  have  a  majority 
against  it.  Such,  however,  had  not  been  the  case  with  refer- 
ence to  the  theories  of  Babeuf  and  Saint  Simon. 

If  socialism,  if  communism  could  root  themselves  anywhere, 
would  it  not  be  in  America,  in  the  absolutely  levelling  republics 
founded  by  the  William  Penns?  Would  it  not  be  there  that 
antagonism  between  the  two  legislative  chambers  would  have 
to  be  born?  If  antagonism  were  possible  on  such  a  subject, 
would  it  not  have  taken  rise  at  least  in  one  of  these  twenty- 
seven  republics,  from  New  Orleans  to  New  York,  and  from 
Pennsylvania  to  the  Rocky  Mountains  ?    Well,  never  for  three- 


357]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  179 

quarters  of  a  century,  never  in  the  twenty- three  states  has 
there  appeared  the  insensate  antagonism  with  which  people 
wished  to  frighten  us,  to  turn  our  eyes  from  the  real  danger, 
internal  peace  compromised  and  soon  disappearing  in  the  ab- 
sence of  a  counter- weight,  the  incessant  revolution  returned 
to  the  order  of  the  day  and  France  forever  deprived  of  that 
security  so  necessary  if  a  revived  agriculture,  industry  and 
commerce  are  to  lift  themselves  from  the  ruins  which  they 
owe  to  only  six  months  of  a  state  of  revolution,  and  which 
are  already  immense. 

On  the  27th,  the  discussion  was  concluded.  Two  import- 
ant speeches  were  made  on  that  day,  one  for  the  single 
chamber  system  by  Lamartine,  the  other  by  Odilon  Barrot 
for  the  two  chambers.  Lamartine  admitted  that  his  de- 
cision was  purely  opportunistic;  were  the  republic  firmly 
established,  he  would  perhaps  favor  the  dual  system.  Noth- 
ing is  absolute  in  politics.  England's  dual  system  was  due 
to  aristocracy,  America's  to  federalism.  The  latter  point 
he  developed  at  some  length.  America's  bicameral  legis- 
lature, thus  considered,  represents  a  defect  in  democratic 
unity,  a  sort  of  anarchy  from  which  the  nation  has  not  yet 
evolved. 

And  if,  turning  your  attention  now  from  a  nation  which  has 
so  few  essential  points  of  contact,  so  little  analogy,  so  little 
conformity  of  origin  and  of  nature  with  the  French  nation, 
to  your  own  situation  .  .  .  you  ask  yourselves,  do  you  demand 
that  a  French  chamber  should  imitate  that  constitution,, 
adapted  to  another  people?  Should  it  represent  federal  ele- 
ments which  no  longer  exist  among  us?  You  will  answer,  a 
thousand  times  no!  You  would  be  imitating  a  defect!  You 
would  be  copying  a  vice !  You  would  be  introducing  a  federal 
imperfection  in  France's  unity  of  representation. 

The  new  democracy  would  view  with  alarm  the  restoration 


l8o  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^^58 

of  an  aristocratic  institution.  The  safety  of  the  repubUc 
against  plots  from  left  or  right  demanded  the  concentration 
of  its  strength  in  one  chamber.  Folly,  to  amuse  ourselves 
with  historic,  theoretic,  geographic  considerations,  variable 
with  periods  and  people,  while  reahties  confront  us.  Russia 
would  be  at  the  Rhine,  Italy  devoured  from  the  north,  anti- 
social factions  twenty  times  on  the  barricades,  attacking  the 
very  roots  of  society,  the  family,  property,  the  state,  while 
your  laboriously  balanced  legislative  bodies  tried  to  agree  on 
a  plan  to  save  the  fatherland,  society  and  civilization.  The 
bicameral  system  was  justified  in  the  past,  because  there  was 
a  strong  sovereign  ruler  in  the  center.  To-day  the  As- 
sembly is  sovereign.  No  president  will  be  strong  enough  to 
settle  a  conflict  between  two  chambers,  unless  he  has  the 
right  to  dissolve  the  Assembly.  Again,  how  shall  the  elec- 
tors determine  who  should  sit  in  the  upper,  who  in  the 
lower  chamber  ?  Wealth,  profession,  chance,  age  are  equally 
unsatisfactory.  The  lower  house  would  lose  all  authority 
and  majesty,  if  because  of  their  superior  age,  *'  you  should 
say  to  Franklin,  to  Royer-Collard,  *  Get  you  gone  into  the 
other  chamber,  I  exile  you  to  the  Luxembourg.'  "  In  so 
critical  a  time,  when  the  political  horizon  of  Europe  is 
covered  with  clouds,  a  national  dictatorship  is  necessary.  If 
you  do  not  confide  that  dictatorship  to  a  single  assembly,  it 
must  needs  be  confided  to  a  man.  But  there  are  two  names 
in  history,  which  should  forever  prevent  a  French  assembly 
from  confiding  the  dictatorship  of  its  republic,  its  revolution, 
to  a  man.  These  names  are  the  name  of  Monk  in  England, 
and  in  France,  the  name  of  Bonaparte. 

Odilon  Barrot  followed  Lamartine,  as  the  last  speaker 
for  the  dual  system.  The  field  was  now  cleared  for  the 
leaders,  and  in  Barrot,  the  chief  man  of  the  conservatives 
answers  the  chief  man  of  the  liberals.  Barrot's  speech  was 
somewhat  less  rhetorical  than  Lamartine's.     The  latter  was 


359]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  jgi 

a  remarkable  extemporiser ;  he  closed  his  speech  with  the 
statement  that  he  had  mounted  the  tribune  almost  undecided 
as  to  his  vote,  or  at  least  as  to  the  analysis  of  the  reasons 
for  his  choice,  and  that  he  had  been  questioning  himself 
aloud  rather  than  communicating  fixed  convictions,  but 
that  as  he  descended,  he  hesitated  no  more  to  vote  for  a 
single  assembly.  Odilon  Barrot,  learned  in  constitutional 
law,  was  much  more  ponderous  than  Lamartine ;  as  Corkran 
says,  "  not  a  man  of  ready  judgment."  ^  He  was,  however, 
quick  enough  to  see  and  to  seize  the  opening  given  him  by 
Lamartine  in  that  speaker's  figure  of  a  dictatorship.  It  is 
well,  said  Barrot,  that  the  veil  has  at  last  been  pulled  aside. 
The  question  could  not  have  been  better  stated ;  it  is  whether 
you  prefer  to  continue  a  dictatorship  under  constitutional 
forms,  thus  continuing  the  revolution,  or  to  found  a  normal, 
permanent  government.  The  single  chamber  necessarily 
involves  a  subordinate  executive;  it  will  be  all-powerful. 
There  is  no  real  danger  confronting  France,  either  extern- 
ally or  internally;  the  organization  of  a  dictatorship  would 
rather  tend  to  provoke  trouble,  being  a  notice  to  the  coun- 
try that  the  revolution  has  not  yet  given  way  to  a  settled 
state  of  peace.  It  is  natural  for  a  democracy  sprung  from 
revolution  to  want  to  concentrate  its  power.  But  unless 
it  provides  a  counter-weight,  by  dividing  its  power,  facts 
will  reassert  their  empire  over  theories  and  bring  intestine 
convulsions  to  pass,  which  will  force  the  division,  or  destroy 
the  state. 

We  are  told  that  it  is  obsolete,  it  is  a  reminiscence  of  aris- 
tocratic power,  or  it  is  borrowed  or  rather  plagiarized  at  the 
expense  of  England  and  of  America;  you  are  not  in  the  same 
circumstances:  there  aristocracy,  here  a  federal  power.  You 
are  right,  circumstances  are  not  the  same;  you  will  not  divide 

1  Op,  cit.,  p.  6s. 


l82  1'HE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  184S  [^50 

your  legislative  power  on  the  same  conditions  as  England  or 
the  federal  power  of  the  United  States  of  America.  It  is 
true;  your  second  chamber  or  your  moderating  power  will 
have  another  principle  of  authority  than  the  high  chamber  in 
England  or  the  senate  in  America.  The  upper  chamber  in 
England,  in  its  wealth,  in  its  origin,  in  its  traditions,  in  its 
real  pride  and  in  its  patriotism;  the  United  States  in  the 
federal  principle,  these,  it  is  true,  are  the  forces  which  come 
to  the  assistance  of  the  moderating  power,  which  aid  it  to 
function  efficiently ;  you  have  not  those  forces ;  I  will  not  ask 
you  to  create  them.  Does  it  result  that,  because  your  moder- 
ating authority  will  not  find  that  force  which  it  finds  accident- 
ally either  in  America,  or  in  England,  that  no  moderating 
authority  is  needed  ?    But  I  will  draw  an  opposite  conclusion. 

Democracy,  thus  left  more  powerful  than  elsewhere,  is  in 
even  greater  need  of  balancing,  moderating  agencies.  The 
presidency  and  the  council  of  state  are  both  inadequate  in 
this  respect.  Construct  a  constitution  according  to  the 
laws  of  experience  and  society,  and  do  not  prepare  for  your- 
selves eternal  regrets. 

Dupin  ami,  as  representing  the  majority  of  the  com- 
mission, made  a  final  argument  in  favor  of  its  conclusions. 
While  repudiating  Lamartine's  notion  of  a  dictatorship  (the 
division  of  powers  was  sufficient  to  obviate  that)  yet  they 
considered  it  necessary  to  have  one  chamber  in  view  of  the 
danger  still  to  be  apprehended  from  the  reds. 

The  vote,  being  taken  after  this  speech,  resulted  in  the 
defeat  of  the  amendment. 

When  the  vote  on  the  constitution  took  place,  November 
4,  one  of  the  negative  votes  was  cast  by  A.  Lubbert.  He 
explained  his  vote  in  a  letter  to  the  Moniteury  dated  Paris, 
November  4,  and  published  the  next  day,  in  which  he  said : 
**  I  voted  against  the  adoption  of  the  new  constitution.  I 
think  the  stability,  the  prosperity  of  the  republic  dependent 


36l]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  183 

Upon  the  establishment  of  two  chambers,  on  the  pattern  of 
the  United  States."  He  thought  also  that  in  case  of  dissi- 
dence,  the  president  should  have  the  right  to  consult  the 
country,  and  the  Assembly  to  recall  the  president.  Stability 
seemed  to  him  to  require  subordination  of  authority. 

Several  other  references  to  American  example  in  relation 
to  various  legislative  problems,  outside  of  the  two-chamber 
question,  were  also  made.  On  September  28,  Art.  21  was 
before  the  Assembly,  fixing  the  membership  of  the  forth- 
coming single  legislative  chamber  at  750,  including  repre- 
sentatives from  Algeria  and  the  colonies.  An  amendment 
was  offered  by  Point,  proposing  a  sliding  scale,  giving  one 
member  for  every  6o,ock)  of  population ;  each  fraction  above 
30,000  to  have  one  representative,  any  fraction  below  not 
to  count;  Algeria  and  the  colonies  to  be  regulated  by  a 
special  law.  This  would,  for  the  present,  give  an  Assembly 
of  586,  which  would  be  more  efficient  than  a  larger  number. 
The  article  Avas  further  inconsistent  with  Art.  23,  providing 
that  the  election  shall  be  based  on  population. 

The  amendment  was  opposed  by  Duf  aure,  in  the  name  of 
the  commission,  who  showed  that  750  had  been  taken  as  a 
fair  number,  by  comparison  with  the  745  fixed  by  the 
National  Assembly  of  1791  when  the  nation  had  25,000,000 
population  (in  1848  it  had  35,400,000),  and  with  the  668 
of  the  English  House  of  Commons,  representing  a  popula- 
tion of  26,000,000.  He  recalled  the  old  Chamber  of 
Deputies  with  its  450  members  and  maintained  that  the 
disorder  was  quite  as  great  as  in  the  present  Assembly.  The 
article  was  not  inconsistent  with  Art.  23,  whose  object  was 
merely  to  fix  population  as  the  base  instead  of  territory  or 
property.  Furthermore,  the  number  750  was  in  fact  based 
on  population. 

What  we  did  there  was  done  in  all  the  constitutions  of  the 


ig^  THE'  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1S48  ^^^^ 

United  States  of  America.  A  beginning  was  made  by  fixing 
the  number  of  representatives  on  the  basis  of  the  population^ 
which  was  feeble.  It  was  found  that  in  many  states  the  popu- 
lation gave  one  representative  for  30,000  souls.  The  popula- 
tion has  increased  there  in  the  proportions  which  you  know, 
which  have  been  considerable  for  several  states,  to  such  an 
extent  that  there  are  states  where  now,  the  number  of  repre- 
sentatives remaining  fixed,  one  representative  is  named  by 
123,000  souls  where  in  the  beginning  it  was  by  30,000.  I  dcK 
not  conclude  from  that  that  the  number  will  always  be  fixed; 
when  the  constitution  is  revised,  the  increase  which  has  taken 
place  in  the  population  will  be  seen. 

The  constant  tinkering  of  the  number  each  year  would  be 
attended  with  much  confusion. 

Neither  speaker  took  note  of  the  decennial  revision  re- 
quired by  the  American  constitution,  which  Point  might 
have  used  as  sanctioning  his  principle  of  a  sliding  scale  and 
Dufaure  in  opposition  to  an  annual  revision.  The  amend- 
ment was  defeated  and  the  commission's  article  passed. 

By  October  4,  Art.  36  had  been  reached,  providing  that 
each  representative  should  receive  a  salary,  which  he  may  not 
renounce.  Morin  (de  la  Drome)  opposed  the  article  in 
these  terms. 

I  encounter  this  provision  in  the  general  constitution  of 
the  United  States;  I  encounter  it  in  the  constitutions  of  the 
several  states  of  the  American  Union.  I  confess  that  I  should 
be  strongly  surprised  to  find  it  one  day  written  in  that  of  the 
nation  which  was  once  and  which  will  be  always,  I  hope,  the 
chivalrous  nation. 

He  continued  that  either  Art.  36  provided  for  poor  men,  un- 
usually numerous  at  that  time,  who  could  not  otherwise  af- 
ford to  hold  office  (in  which  case  it  was  allowable,  but 
should  be  a  matter  of  law,  not  constitution),  or  it  was  in- 


363]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  185 

tended  to  proclaim  a  great  democratic  principle,  (which 
it  failed  to  do).  "If  you  want  to  inscribe  a  great  demo- 
cratic principle,  follow  the  example  of  America.  In 
America,  in  the  United  States,  not  only  legislative,  but 
municipal  functions  are  paid.  If  you  want  to  set  forth  the 
principle,  proclaim  it  loudly ;  .  .  .  say  that  all  offices  will  be 
salaried,  those  of  mayor,  of  adjunct,  of  municipal  councils, 
of  general  councils;  without  that,  gentlemen,  you  are  in- 
consistent.'* 

Dufaure,  the  commission's  usual  spokesman,  defended  the 
article.  It  was  not  a  temporary  expedient,  but  a  constitu- 
tional principle  necessary  to  prevent  the  eligibility  of  all  the 
citizens,  already  recognized,  from  being  a  farce. 

And  the  honorable  M.  Morin  was  wrong  again  when  he 
said,  that  after  searching  well  he  had  been  able  to  find  a 
salary  given  to  legislators  only  in  the  American  constitutions. 
If  he  had  sought  a  little  better,  he  would  have  found  that  the 
members  of  the  Constituent  Assembly  had  a  salary ;  that  those 
of  the  Legislative  Assembly  had  one  and  that  the  principle  of 
salary,  as  we  write  it,  is  written  in  plain  words  in  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  year  III.  It  is  not  only  then  in  the  American  con- 
stitutions, but  among  us  that  this  has  been  written. 

The  article  was  then  adopted. 

A  few  moments  later.  Art.  39  came  up,  providing  for 
three  readings  of  every  bill  with  ten-day  intervals  between. 
To  this,  Saint-Priest  objected  that  this  delay  of  a  month, 
designed  to  prevent  undue  haste,  would  have  a  contrary  ef- 
fect, by  increasing  "  votes  of  urgency,"  the  special  danger 
of  one-chamber  assemblies.  "  In  the  United  States,  and 
permit  me  to  cite  the  American  republic,  this  delay  is  only 
three  days.  The  Constituent  Assembly  established  a  delay 
of  eight  days."  Even  that  proved  too  long  and  almost  all 
laws  were  declared  urgent.     He  considered  five  days  long 


l86  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-^^^ 

enough  between  each  of  the  three  readings.  This  change 
was  accepted  by  the  commission,  and  with  this  modification 
the  article  was  passed. 

The  debate  on  the  executive  was  somewhat  more  varied. 
The  appeal  to  or  from  American  example  was  made  not  only 
on  the  advisability  of  having  a  president,  (which  was  never 
very  seriously  opposed) ,  but  even  more  on  the  method  of  his 
election  and  the  extent  of  his  power.  It  is  a  little  curious 
that  there  should  be  so  much  more  talk  about  the  excellences 
of  the  American  senate  than  those  of  the  American  presi- 
dent, though  the  adoption  of  the  presidency  by  France  is 
usually  accredited  to  American  example^  and  the  former 
was  not  imitated.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  English  example, 
almost  constantly  coupled  with  the  American  in  the  discus- 
sion on  the  legislature,  now  drops  out  of  sight. 

The  first  mention  of  the  American  executive  was  made 
by  Mathieu  (de  la  Drome)  as  early  as  September  ii,  in  the 
development  of  his  droit  au  travail  amendment  to  Article 
VIII  of  the  preamble.  He  accused  the  statesmen  of  the 
past  of  showing  interest  in  the  manufacturers  only  and 
neglecting  agricultural  interests,  because  the  manufacturers 
sat  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  their  votes  were  needed. 
He  proposed  a  system  of  land  credits  to  repopulate  the 
country  districts. 

There  would  be  another  thing  to  do,  but  I  am  convinced 
that  you  would  not  accept  it,  and  yet  I  am  convinced  that  this 
thing  would  be  one  of  the  best  articles  of  your  constitution: 
it  would  be  to  write  in  your  constitution  that  the  chief  of  the 

^  Cf.  Ch.  Seignobos,  Histoire  Politique  de  t  Eur  ope  Contemporaine,  p. 
151  "...the  executive  [delegated]  to  a  citizen  named  president  of  the 
republic,  for  four  years,  probably  in  imitation  of  the  United  States, 
with  the  right  to  choose  his  ministers.  ...  It  was  the  American  mechan- 
ism transported  from  a  federal  government  without  army  and  without 
bureaucracy  (fonctionnaires)  into  a  centralized  government  providc<l 
with  an  irresistible  army  and  a  bureaucracy  accustomed  to  dominate." 


^65]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  jgy 

•executive  power  could  never  choose  a  minister  on  these 
benches.  That  is  what  takes  place  in  America.  You  know 
that  in  the  United  States,  the  president  cannot  take  a  minister 
from  the  parliament ;  if  it  is  not  so  with  us,  France  will  con- 
tinue to  assist  at  these  oratorical  struggles,  at  these  word- 
tournies  which  intoxicate  the  people,  instead  of  giving  them 
bread. 

The  question  of  the  executive  was  brought  definitely  be- 
fore the  Assembly  on  October  5,  when  Chapter  VIII  of  the 
constitution  was  reached.  Articles  41-45  inclusive  were  at 
first  thrown  open  for  general  discussion.  Felix  Pyat  started 
the  debate  by  declaring  that  he  opposed  having  a  president 
at  all.  In  his  view,  the  political  system  of  the  country 
should  follow  man's  physical  constitution;  a  single  legisla- 
tive chamber,  corresponding  to  man's  brain,  a  subordinate 
executive  to  carry  out  its  will,  corresponding  to  man's  arm. 
Absolute  monarchies  have  one  sovereign,  the  king ;  constitu- 
tional monarchies  two,  the  king  and  the  people ;  the  republic 
one,  the  people.  It  must  be  represented  by  one  dominant 
legislative  chamber.  A  president,  elected  by  universal  vote, 
would  be  a  great  peril;  he  might  easily  claim  to  represent 
the  people  more  truly  than  the  whole  legislature,  composed 
of  members  elected  by  relative  majorities,  while  he  was 
chosen  by  an  absolute  majority.  The  responsibility  of  the 
president  is  badly  defined ;  the  whole  office  is  a  mistake. 

The  partisans  of  presidents  quote  to  us,  like  the  partisans 
of  two  chambers,  the  example  of  the  United  States.  Citizens, 
that  example  again  turns  against  them.  What  is  the  republic 
of  the  United  States?  The  word  indicates  it:  a  federal  re- 
public, girondine  (excuse  the  word),  an  aggregation  of  dif- 
ferent states  or  bodies,  a  nation  of  alluvial  accretions  (d' allu- 
vions et  d' atterissement) ,  composed  successively  of  heterogen- 
eous parts,  without  solidarity  with  one  another.  A  hoop  was 
necessary  to  hold  together  all  these  staves,  ready  to  disjoin 


l88  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^(^^ 

and  separate.  A  single  executive  power  was  necessary,  pre- 
cisely because  the  legislative  power  was  divided,  because  there 
were  two  great  national  chambers  and  as  many  little  chambers 
as  states.  The  danger  for  America  is  dissolution;  the  federal 
republic  has  felt  the  need  of  unity. 

France,  however,  is  the  nation  of  unity  par  excellence;  a 
president  would  over-emphasize  that  tendency,  so  that  the 
republic  would  be  subject  to  the  danger  of  becoming  a  mon- 
archy. "  The  danger  in  France  is  in  the  opposite  direction 
from  that  in  the  United  States.  In  the  United  States,  it  is 
in  the  dispersion  of  the  provinces,  and  a  president  was 
necessary;  in  France,  it  is  in  concentration;  only  an  As- 
sembly is  necessary."  Pyat  concluded  by  expressing  his 
desire  for  a  simple  president  of  council,  the  object  of  the 
subsequent  Grevy  amendment. 

Tocqueville  next  addressed  the  Assembly.  He  held  that 
the  principle  of  division  of  powers,  already  accepted  by  that 
body,  would  be  destroyed  if  the  executive  were  practically 
absorbed  by  the  legislative.  He  further  felt  that  the  dan- 
gers of  executive  power  had  been  grossly  exaggerated ;  with- 
out popular  election,  they  would  be  nothing. 

"  In  the  legislative  sphere,  the  president,  as  the  constitu- 
tional project  establishes  him,  can  do  nothing;  he  has  neither 
the  absolute  veto  of  the  constitutional  king  nor  the  suspensive 
veto  of  the  president  of  the  United  States."  The  council  of 
state,  so  far  from  limiting  the  Assembly's  power,  furnishes 
it  (being  named  by  the  Assembly)  an  opening  to  share  in 
the  execution  of  laws,  the  naming  of  public  officials,  the 
judgment  of  accused  statesmen.  Even  more,  the  council 
of  ministers  gives  the  Assembly  a  chance  to  control  the 
executive.  There  are  two  constitutional  systems  in  this 
matter ;  one  makes  the  executive  irresponsible,  but  as  in  fact 
he  can  do  nothing  without  his  ministers,  who  are  chosea 


^ey]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  189 

from  the  Assembly,  the  latter' s  influence  on  the  govern- 
ment remains  very  great ;  that  is  the  system  of  constitutional 
monarchy.  There  is  a  second  system ;  in  this  the  executive 
is  directly  responsible,  but  at  the  same  time  has  no  need  of 
the  assistance  of  any  of  his  ministers  in  order  to  act;  his 
ministers  are  chosen  by  him  outside  the  Assembly. 

That  is  the  system,  which  has  been  practised  up  to  the  pres- 
ent in  all  the  republics,  which  have  not  confounded  the  powers ; 
it  is  to  be  found  not  only  in  the  United  States,  but  in  France, 
in  the  constitution  of  the  year  III.  The  chiefs  of  the  executive 
power  were  indeed  responsible,  but  they  could  act  freely;  the 
United  States  constitution  presents  the  same  character. 

By  the  new  constitution,  however,  an  unheard-of  hybrid 
scheme  has  been  created;  the  president  is  declared  respon- 
sible, yet  at  his  side  is  placed  an  equally  responsible  council 
of  ministers,  without  which  he  can  do  nothing  and  which 
may  reduce  him  to  powerlessness ;  thus  the  National  As- 
sembly remains  the  supreme  power  despite  M.  Pyat's  fears. 
Were  it  not  for  the  election  of  the  president  by  universal 
vote,  it  would  be  as  absolute  as  the  Convention.  It  will  not 
mean  the  Terror,  but  it  will  mean  tyranny  and  corruption. 
This  Assembly  has  no  right  to  name  the  president,  nor  has 
any  Assembly  whose  duration  will  not  be  equal  to  his  own, 
i.  e.  four  years.  Through  the  bureaux  you  have  already 
pronounced  for  universal  suffrage;  that  in  fact  is  the  cen- 
tral feature  of  the  republic;  you  cannot  defraud  France  of 
it  now,  just  because  certain  members  now  fear  that  a  name 
hostile  to  the  republic  may  be  the  choice  of  the  people. 
The  Assembly  is  the  sole  force  that  has  worked  for  stability 
in  these  late  troubled  times ;  the  reason  is,  that  its  strength 
is  drawn  from  universal  suffrage.  The  danger  of  France's 
throwing  itself  into  the  arms  of  the  first  phantom  whose 
name  is  a  guarantee  of  strength,  is  due  to  the  fear  of  social 


igo  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [268 

revolution;  the  remedy  for  that  real  danger  is,  however,  not 
legislative  tyranny,  but  such  complete  reprobation  of  that 
type  of  revolution,  that  you  will  stand  at  the  head  of  the 
orderly  majority.  Then  when  confidence  is  restored,  you 
have  nothing  to  fear  from  a  popular  presidential  election. 
Parieu,  the  following  speaker,  opposed  universal  suffrage, 
but  from  another  point  of  view  than  Pyat.  Though  a  con- 
servative, Parieu  too  feared  the  possibilities  of  too  strong  an 
executive.  Conservative  and  radical  alike  drew  back  at  the 
menace  of  Bonapartism,  which  had  already  begun  to  cast 
its  shadow  over  the  land.  It  is  curious  to  see  him  support- 
ing the  American  example  in  a  cause  directly  opposite  from 
Tocqueville's ;  the  latter  admired  its  executive's  independ- 
ence of  the  legislative;  the  former  praised  its  system  of  in- 
direct election  as  opposed  to  a  direct,  universal  vote.  Where 
Pyat  favored  the  Grevy  plan,  Parieu  supported  in  this  speech 
the  system  proposed  in  the  Leblond  amendment.  "There 
was  much  talk  of  history  in  the  two-chamber  question,  and 
especially  about  America,"  he  said. 

Indeed,  the  republic  was  such  a  sudden  thing  with  us,  to 
employ  the  expression  of  the  minister  of  finance,  so  little  ex- 
pected, that  it  was  natural  that  France  and  those  who  repre- 
sented her  should  cast  their  eyes  over  the  widest  possible 
horizon,  that  they  should  question  the  history  of  all  the  re- 
publics, and  that  with  some  timidity  perhaps,  some  humility 
for  the  lessons  of  experience,  they  should  question  all  the 
republics,  all  the  great  republics,  for  the  lessons  of  their  past 
and  of  history.  America  was  much,  even  exclusively  talked 
about  {on  a  beaucoup  parle,  uniquement  meme  parle  de 
I'Amerique),  a  propos  of  the  two  chambers.  Permit  me  to 
cite  her  a  propos  of  the  question  we  are  discussing  here,  not 
especially  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  president's  nomina- 
tion by  the  legislative  body,  but  from  the  point  of  view  of  a 
question  which  is  at  the  bottom  of  the  other,  that  of  the  direct 
or  indirect  election  of  the  president. 


369]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  191 

America  was  in  a  very  different  situation  from  ours,  it  was 
completely  republican;  it  had  not  the  least  reminiscence  of 
monarchy,  not  the  least  discord  on  the  subject  of  the  form  of 
its  government.  The  monarchy !  It  could  only  recall  for  her 
the  enemy,  whom  she  had  driven  away  after  such  long  com- 
bats. America  was  republican,  entirely  republican,  and 
further,  there  could  not  be  for  the  election  of  its  first  presi- 
dent, of  him  who  should  be  the  founder  of  that  republic,  an 
instant  of  indecision  and  hesitation;  it  had  a  man  who  had 
conducted  it  at  once  to  liberty  and  to  victory,  a  man  of  whom 
one  said  in  1787  at  the  moment  of  his  election,  what  one  said 
at  his  death,  those  three  words  which  were  his  funeral  oration, 
the  most  beautiful  which  can  be  pronounced  over  a  citizen's 
tomb,  to  wit :  that  he  was  first  in  peace,  first  in  war  and  first 
in  the  hearts  of  his  countrymen.  Those  words,  which  were 
pronounced  at  his  tomb,  were  in  every  mouth  in  1787,  and 
thus  the  president  of  the  American  republic  was  named,  so 
to  speak,  the  day  when  the  republic  was  founded.  However 
the  Americans  did  not  think  that  it  was  direct  universal  suf- 
frage which  should  normally  preside  at  the  nomination  of  the 
republic's  president;  they  looked  further,  and  it  was  by  in- 
direct election,  summoning  men  placed  at  high  points  of  view, 
discerning  the  political  necessities  of  the  country,  necessities 
often  so  delicate, — it  was  by  indirect  election  that  they  organ- 
ized the  naming  of  the  republic's  president. 

There,  gentlemen,  is  what  we  are  taught  by  the  past  of  the 
only  republic  whose  history  it  has  been  thought  proper  to  in- 
terrogate in  this  gathering.  Were  it  necessary  to  search  else- 
where, I  would  ask  of  you,  (but  they  would  be  examples  too 
restricted  to  be  compared  with  the  one  I  have  just  cited  and 
even  to  be  compared  with  our  situation),  I  would  ask  of  you 
permission  to  invoke  the  example  of  the  littlje  modern  Euro- 
pean republics. 

He  then  quoted   Switzerland,   whose  executive  power  is 
chosen  by  the  legislative,  and  Holland  where  the  States 


ig2  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^^ 

General  more  than  once  chose  the  stathouder.  Turning 
from  history  to  logic,  he  criticized  that  feature  of  the  con- 
stitution, which  in  case  of  no  absolute  majority,  provided 
a  reballot  by  the  Assembly,  among  the  five  leading  candi- 
dates; the  Assembly  might  elect  the  last  of  the  five  and 
that  by  a  slight  majority. 

I  think  the  idea  was  to  imitate  America,  for  I  find  all  there 
repeated.  It  is  the  same  number;  it  is  also  among  the  five 
candidates  who  have  obtained  the  most  votes,  that  in  America 
the  legislative  bodies  of  Congress  may  choose  in  default  of 
absolute  majority.  But  there  is  an  immense  difference.  In 
America,  the  electors  charged  with  choosing  the  president  are 
the  same  in  point  of  numbers  as  the  members  of  the  repre- 
sentation [in  Congress].  Then  I  understand  it,  when  there  is 
no  majority  among  the  electors,  that  another  assembly  equal 
in  numbers  should  proceed  to  an  election  and  settle  the  first 
one;  here  are  scores  of  votes  compensated  by  scores  of  votes. 
But  to  settle  millions  of  votes  perhaps  with  a  few  votes  of 
the  National  Assembly  when  one  has  commenced  by  denying 
the  National  Assembly  the  right  of  choosing  the  president  of 
the  republic,  this  is  to  do  an  inconsequential  thing,  something 
which  can  never  be  sustained. 

This  plan  seemed  to  him  to  combine  the  evils  of  the  two 
systems,  popular  and  Assembly  election.  "  Gentlemen,  I  per- 
mitted myself  to  say  a  word  concerning  the  situation  of  the 
country,  and  I  made  a  comparison  just  now  without  wishing 
it  in  speaking  of  America.  Well,  is  our  position  the  same 
as  that  of  America  ?"  He  proceeded  to  show  that  America 
of  the  past  century  was  very  differently  situated  from 
France,  a  people  of  royalist  traditions,  where  royalist  sym- 
pathies in  some  parts  still  exist.  An  appeal  to  the  suf- 
frages of  a  divided  nation  was  full  of  danger. 

What  is  the  executive  power  which  it  is  sought  to  make  for 


371  ]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  193 

us?  Is  it  a  kind  of  constitutional  king,  having  a  veto,  having 
his  part  in  the  legislative  branch,  able  like  the  American  presi- 
dent, to  say  to  the  legislative  body :  You  are  the  majority,  but 
that  is  not  enough ;  you  must  deliberate  anew,  and  make  your 
decision  by  a  two-thirds  majority ;  that  is  to  say,  that  my  voice 
alone  is  worth  a  sixth  of  the  national  representation  ? 

No,  the  proposed  executive  had  only  the  right  to  ask  the 
Assembly  to  vote  once  more.  "  Well,  he  who  has  only  the 
right  to  say  that,  who  must  execute  the  law,  and  perhaps 
obey  a  thought  contrary  to  his  own  conviction,  he  is  not  a 
semi-constitutional-king-president,  like  the  one  in  America. 
No,  he  is  a  first  magistrate  of  a  democracy,  a  chief  who 
executes  and  does  not  deliberate."  And  it  is  to  such  an 
officer  that  you  would  give  an  independent  source!  For  a 
president  of  the  American  type  who  has  to  be  strong  enough 
to  balance  a  majority  of  Congress  and  compel  its  submission 
to  his  veto,  such  a  popular  backing  might  be  important, 
but  it  is  folly  here.  He  would  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  if 
the  president  is  to  be  elected  by  universal  vote,  his  powers 
should  be  increased;  to  refuse  him  the  power  which  is  the 
natural  consequence  of  what  he  represents  is  to  threaten 
disaster.  If,  however,  the  executive  is  made  too  strong, 
his  responsibility  becomes  a  myth.  An  antagonism  without 
issue  arises  between  executive  and  legislative.  In  the  old 
days,  the  dissolution  of  the  chamber  provided  a  way  out. 
Now,  that  is  forbidden.  Nor  can  the  president  resign  and 
contest  the  matter  at  the  polls,  for  he  cannot  again  be  a 
candidate.  The  only  sensible  way  is  to  have  the  president 
chosen  by  the  Assembly.  There  is  no  foundation  for  the 
idea  that  this  violates  the  principle  of  division  of  powers. 
That  division  is  one  of  functions,  not  of  the  nomination  of 
individuals.  There  must  always  be  links  between  the 
powers.     The  naming  of  the  supreme  court  by  the  As- 


194  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^y^ 

sembly  does  not  violate  the  principle,  for  the  latter  never 
expects  to  interfere  with  its  decisions.  So  here,  Tocque- 
ville's  objection  of  corruption  (that  the  president  will  seek 
to  influence  the  Assembly  which  elects  him)  will  only  hold 
under  the  system  of  re-elections,  which  has  been  banished 
from  your  constitution.  "  But  re-election  by  the  country 
entails  also  all  those  evils  which  M.  de  Tocqueville  has  so 
well  described  in  America,  where  the  president,  as  he  ad- 
mits I  think,  has  in  view,  in  all  his  acts,  in  his  whole  ad- 
ministration, only  the  goal  of  his  re-election."  The  ob- 
jection that  election  of  the  executive  by  the  Assembly  is  to 
reproduce  the  Convention  is  an  error;  the  Convention  did 
not  create  a  definite  executive  with  a  fixed  term;  it  kept  all 
the  authority  to  itself.  It  is  well  to  have  a  strong  executive, 
but  if  you  make  him  too  strong,  it  will  be  impossible  to 
limit  his  term  of  office ;  he  will  dominate  the  legislative  and 
arrange  the  question  of  re-eligibility  to  suit  himself.  The 
remainder  of  this  long,  but  important  speech  was  taken  up 
with  a  demonstration  of  the  dangers  of  a  too  strong  execu- 
tive, the  impossibility  of  fettering  him  by  rules,  as  the  coup 
d'etat  against  the  constitution  of  the  year  III  proved,  and 
with  a  defence  of  his  system  against  the  charge  of  legis- 
lative usurpation.  He  closed  with  a  clever  adaptation  of 
Tocqueville's  statement  that  the  Assembly  had  recently  been 
the  one  stable  thing  in  France ;  as  such,  he  said,  dare  to  think 
and  plan  wisely  for  France,  do  not  abdicate  your  powers  in 
a  sort  of  scepticism,  saying  that  the  country  will  do  what 
it  pleases.  A  curious  echo  of  that  very  scepticism  was 
found  in  Lamartine's  famous  speech  the  next  day,  which 
turned  the  scale  against  M.  Parieu's  system. 

The  next  important  discussion  of  the  subject  was  by 
Jules  Grevy,  offering  his  amendment,^  at  the  following  ses- 

^  Vide  supra,  p.  119  et  seq. 


373]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  I95 

sion,  October  6.  The  point  of  difference  between  his  system 
and  legislative  choice  of  a  president,  as  desired  by  Parieu, 
was  that  Grevy  merely  wished  to  make  the  present  Cavaignac 
regime  permanent.  Instead  of  having  a  president  elected 
irrevocably  for  a  fixed  term,  he  would  have  the  choice  made 
for  an  indefinite  period,  always  subject  to  recall.  After 
refuting  the  objections  that  the  Assembly  had  no  authority 
to  deprive  the  people  of  the  right  of  directly  choosing  the 
president,  and  that  the  principle  of  separation  of  powers  was 
endangered  (to  which  two  points,  he  replied  much  as  his 
predecessors  had  done),  he  turned  to  criticism  of  the  com- 
mission's plan.  The  proposed  president,  having  the  dis- 
posal of  the  army,  the  nomination  to  civil  and  military  posi- 
tions and  the  tremendous  force  of  a  popular  election,  will  be 
really  more  powerful  than  the  late  king.  Bonaparte  based 
his  throne  on  the  elections  of  the  year  X.  And  you  say 
you  are  founding  a  democratic  republic!  How  else  would 
you  go  about  restoring  a  monarchy?  The  temporary  term 
of  ofifice  is  no  barrier ;  an  ambitious  man  will  brush  it  aside. 
Suppose  this  ambitious  man  has  known  how  to  make  him- 
self popular,  suppose  him  a  victorious  general  or  a  scion  of 
one  of  the  families  who  have  ruled  France  and  has  not 
expressly  renounced  his  pretended  rights,  suppose  an  econ- 
omic crisis,  can  you  answer  for  it  that  this  ambitious  man 
will  not  overturn  the  republic?  Despotism  has  destroyed 
every  republic  of  the  past,  yet  you  take  no  steps  to  avert 
that  danger.  The  Assembly's  choice  among  the  first  five, 
if  there  is  no  absolute  popular  majority,  is  a  delusion; 
either  it  will  always  choose  the  candidate  with  the  highest 
popular  vote,  in  which  case  it  is  a  formality,  or  it  will  choose 
another  and  thus  a  less  popular  man,  entailing  probable  civil 
discords  or  even  strife.  What  has  led  the  commission  to 
its    ill-starred    conception?      Historical    precedents?      No 


196  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^^^ 

French  constitution  has  provided  for  direct,  popular  elec- 
tion.    The  examples  of  neighboring  republics? 

There  is  not  one  of  them,  not  a  single  one  in  which  the  exe- 
cutive power  is  delegated  directly  by  the  people.  In  the  United 
States,  which  is  incessantly  proposed  to  us  as  a  model,  the 
president  of  the  republic  is  not  named  directly  by  the  people ; 
he  is  named  by  an  indirect  method,  by  a  delegation,  more  or 
less  complicated  according  to  circumstances.  Thus  this  pre- 
tended principle  of  direct  election  would  be  a  novelty  in  history, 
a  novelty  in  the  world. 

Constitutional  principles?  Not  the  doctrine  of  popular 
sovereignty,  for  the  judicial  power  is  a  constant  example  of 
indirect  delegation  and  this  Assembly  of  divided  delegation ; 
direct,  undivided  delegation  is  therefore  not  necessary.  The 
system  of  checks  and  balances,  perhaps.  He  would  boldly 
assert  his  belief  that  in  that  doctrine  the  publicists  of  the 
eighteenth  century  and  their  modern  successors  made  the 
greatest  political  error  of  the  times.  They  found  in  Eng- 
land a  state  in  process  of  transition,  no  longer  an  absolute 
monarchy  and  not  yet  a  republic ;  they  found  a  royalty,  aris- 
tocracy and  democracy  dividing  the  sovereignty  and  hence 
the  government;  their  error  was  to  suppose  that  an  equili- 
brium was  thus  formed,  guaranteeing  a  stable  government ; 
omitting  the  past  and  the  future,  they  failed  to  see  that  the 
popular  element  was  established  only  at  the  expense  of  the 
two  others,  that  it  was  slowly,  but  unceasingly  pushing  its 
conquest  and  that  an  obscure  struggle  was  going  on,  which 
would  inevitably  result  in  the  triumph  of  the  democratic 
element  over  the  two  others.  The  same  struggle  in  France 
was  shorter  and  more  terrible,  because  here  it  was  between 
the  people  and  royalty  over  the  corpse  of  aristocracy.  Aris- 
tocracy perished  here  in  1789  and  every  subsequent  effort 
to  galvanize  it  and  build  a  second  chamber  out  of  it,  has 


375]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  197 

been  a  failure.  Instead  of  equilibrium,  history  shows  on 
every  page  the  antagonisms  and  conflicts  organized  under 
that  lying  name,  the  inevitable  result  of  the  juxtaposition 
of  independent  powers.  The  so-called  system  of  balance  is 
correct  for  a  period  of  transition ;  all  one  can  do  is  to  give 
each  of  the  contending  forces  a  part  of  the  ground.  But 
when  monarchy  and  aristocracy,  defeated,  leave  democracy 
mistress  of  the  battle-field,  it  is  an  absurd  anachronism  to 
divide  the  field  according  to  the  old  forms,  thus  splitting 
democratic  unity  and  recurring  to  inevitable  antagonisms. 
You  felt  this  when  you  decided  for  a  single  chamber,  thus 
setting  aside  the  upper  house,  which  represents  aristocracy, 
an  element  now  dead  in  France.  Why  then  should  you 
maintain  the  other  power,  the  royal  power,  when  there  is  no 
longer  royalty?  You  had  to  choose  between  two  systems, 
that  of  the  past  which  divides  sovereignty  into  three 
branches  and  that  of  the  future,  which  unifies  it.  You  have 
already  pronounced  against  the  first,  by  cutting  out  one  of 
the  branches;  to  hesitate  now,  and  retain  the  two  others^ 
would  be  to  establish  a  mutilated,  bastard  government,  ag- 
gravating the  dangers  of  the  old  system  by  increasing  the 
antagonism  and  giving  it  no  issue.  To  be  consistent,  you 
must  go  on  to  the  acceptance  of  my  amendment.  Election 
of  a  president  for  a  fixed  term  by  the  Assembly,  though 
much  less  dangerous  than  choosing  him  by  popular  vote, 
is  to  be  rejected  as  still  creating  two  antagonistic  powers. 
The  only  forceful  government  is  one  in  which  Assembly  and 
president  are  united;  June  proves  that.  Parieu  has  suc- 
cessfully dispelled  the  fear  of  a  dictatorship  by  a  Convention. 
You  have  been  happy  enough  to  find  the  best  government, 
be  wise  enough  to  keep  it. 

This  beautiful  example  of  French  logic  in  its  most  un- 
compromising clarity,  was  followed  by  Jules  de  Lasteyrie's 
defence  of  the  older  theory  of  government.     Division  of 


ipg  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^y^ 

powers  alone  confers  responsibility,  without  which  despot- 
ism is  inevitable.  It  is  more  than  bold  to  treat  these  great 
constitutional  truths  held  by  all  humanity  with  such  supreme 
disdain.  It  is  an  error  to  identify  the  separation  of  govern- 
mental powers  with  the  elements  of  society,  represented  by 
democracy,  aristocracy  and  royalty.  The  distinction  be- 
tween the  various  systems  calling  for  election  of  the  execu- 
tive by  the  legislative  is  over-subtle;  one  and  all  they  vio- 
late the  foundation-rule  of  sound  government  and  decree 
a  permanent  revolution.  You  are  planning  to  give  the  As- 
sembly the  naming  of  the  council  of  state,  the  court  of 
cassation  and  the  president;  what  a  chance  for  corruption! 
The  reason  why  there  is  now  such  opposition  to  popular 
election  of  the  president,  is  because  the  state  of  the  coun- 
try has  changed  in  the  last  few  months ;  it  is  feared  that  the 
country  will  not  choose  rightly.  But  if  you  do  not  trust 
the  country,  you  are  not  republicans;  that  is  the  very  spirit 
of  monarchy.  If  you  engage  the  Assembly  in  a  struggle 
against  the  country's  will,  then  indeed  comes  disaster.  It  is 
then  desirable  to  have  the  country  elect  the  president.  But 
to  avoid  the  objections  to  that  system,  the  backing  of  the 
successful  candidate  by  millions  of  votes  and  the  difficulty 
of  the  masses'  distinguishing  between  good  and  poor  candi- 
dates, why  not  let  the  country  elect  indirectly  ?  "  There  is 
an  argument  for  this  opinion,  mon  Dieu,  I  know  it !  "  To 
which  "  a  voice  "  replied,  "An  American  argument."  The 
speaker  resuming, 

You  have  said  it.  Truly,  I  do  not  understand  why  this  should 
not  be  an  excellent  argument.  This  system  has  been  practised 
for  exactly  sixty  years  in  America,  and  by  a  singular  abuse 
of  argumentative  subtleties,  the  honorable  M.  Parieu  yester- 
day even  supported  himself  by  the  example  of  the  United 
States.    In  that  country  where,  however,  there  is  no  adminis- 


377]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  jgg, 

trative  centralization,  where  the  president  disposes  of  so  few 
positions,  there  is  such  a  fear  of  corruption,  which  as  Monsieur 
the  Federalist  Hamilton  says,  is  the  vice  destructive  of  free 
governments, — the  corruption  which  the  executive  power  might 
exercise  is  so  much  feared,  that  all  the  representatives,  all  the 
public  functionaries,  all  the  persons  having  political  or  admin- 
istrative relations  with  the  president,  are  excluded  from  the 
right  to  belong  to  the  nominating  electors!  And  it  is  thus 
that  for  sixty  years,  the  United  States  have  progressed,  in- 
creased, prospered. 

Thus  the  conservatives  made  clever  use  of  the  republican 
example,  even  posing  as  the  supporters  of  republicanism 
against  tyranny,  and  as  more  democratic  than  the  professed 
democrats.  Neither  side  was  perfectly  sincere  in  its  argu- 
ments, though  the  real  truth  was  more  than  once  hinted  at. 
The  fact  was  that  the  men  of  the  Left  opposed  election  by 
universal  suffrage,  because  they  were  convinced  that  the 
country  at  large  did  not  have  sufficiently  republican  senti- 
ments; the  men  of  the  Right  favored  it  for  precisely  the 
same  reason.  They  were  willing  enough  to  adopt  a  demo- 
cratic method  to  produce  an  anti-democratic  result,  thus 
hoisting  the  enemy  with  his  own  petard.  Both  sides  were 
ready  to  sacrifice  consistency  of  principle  to  secure  a  polit- 
ical victory.  Perhaps  they  were  right,  for  at  this  critical 
juncture,  the  very  constitutional  framework  of  the  country 
depended  on  holding  the  reins  of  political  power,  as  events 
soon  showed.  The  election  of  Louis  Napoleon  carried  with 
it  the  inevitability  of  Empire. 

Leblond  now  offered  his  amendment,  designed  as  a  middle- 
ground,  he  said,  between  the  Grevy  scheme,  which  would 
make  the  president  a  puppet  at  the  Assembly's  mercy,  in- 
triguing constantly  to  keep  his  place,  and  the  popular  suf- 
frage scheme,  creating  a  popular  king,  as  dangerously  strong 
as  the  other  would  be  dangerously  weak. 


200  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-^^g 

He  was  succeeded  by  Lamartine,  whose  speech  was  one 
of  the  most  famous  he  ever  made  and  carried  the  day  for 
the  commission's  plan.  The  speaker  first  discussed  briefly 
the  question  of  whether  a  president  should  be  chosen  at  all 
and  summarized  the  alternate  tyranny  and  feebleness  of 
the  committee-executive,  whose  irresponsibility  is  its  un- 
doing. Incidentally  he  rejected  the  phrase  "division  of 
powers,"  inapplicable  to  unitary  France  with  its  unitary  As- 
sembly expressing  the  national  sovereignty;  in  its  place  he 
would  prefer  to  say  "  distinction  of  functions."  He  now 
took  up  the  question  of  how  the  president  should  be  elected. 
He  had  heard,  with  the  liveliest  interest,  M.  Parieu  going 
over,  page  by  page,  the  lessons  of  history  and  politics  on  this 
matter.  These  considerations  were  not  new  to  him.  He, 
too,  had  studied  the  systems  of  the  United  States,  the  Ameri- 
can republics,  Venice,  Genoa,  even  the  conclaves  of  the 
Catholic  republic  and  the  French  constitutions  of  the  past. 
He  had  tried  to  understand  the  motives  of  all  these  com- 
binations. He  declared  frankly  that  he  found  nothing  ap- 
plicable to  the  present  French  situation  in  any  of  them. 
M.  Parieu  cited  yesterday  the  examples  of  the  United  States, 
Switzerland  and  Holland  in  favor  of  indirect  election,  but 
these  are  inapplicable. 

The  United  States  name  at  two  degrees,  [i.  e.  by  indirect 
election]  Holland  named  at  two  degrees,  Switzerland  named 
at  two  degrees,  why?  Because  these  three  countries  are 
federated  states;  because  before  the  federal  unit,  which  is 
the  only  one  represented  in  the  nomination  of  the  supreme 
ix>wer  which  corresponds  to  the  entire  federation,  before  these 
federal  unities  cast  their  vote  to  consecrate  the  presidential 
right  of  the  chief  of  the  republic,  they  must  come  to  an  un- 
derstanding with  themselves;  because  in  a  word,  they  do  not 
represent  an  individual  will,  but  the  will  of  each  member  of 
the  federation.     Here  is  the  secret  of  these  three  methods;. 


379]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  201 

these  republics  have  or  had  peculiarly  powerful  natures;  the 
United  States  had  made  alliance  with  the  ocean,  Switzerland 
with  the  mountains,  Holland  with  the  marshes ;  a  strong  power 
was  less  necessary  to  them.  But,  gentlemen,  it  does  not  es- 
cape you  that  France  has  nothing,  has  had  nothing,  will  have 
nothing  comparable,  in  its  social  and  national  constitution,  to 
these  federations  which  are  without  end  cited  to  us  as  ex- 
amples, without  having  understood  their  nature  and  their 
necessity. 

Leaving  these  secondary,  scientific  considerations  to  plunge 
into  the  merits  of  the  controversy,  one  thing  is  certain; 
power,  in  republics,  lies  in  popularity.  At  present  it  is  in 
this  Assembly.  But  should  it  gradually  leave  the  Assembly 
and  the  executive  whom  it  has  chosen,  the  power  of  the  gov- 
ernment would  crumble  in  all  its  parts.  Opposition  to  the 
system  of  popular  election  finds  one  of  its  motives  in  the 
fear  that  the  fallen  dynasties  will  seek  to  return  to  power  by 
means  of  the  popular  vote.  For  the  two  royalist  families, 
this  is  a  foolish  fear;  it  would  be  beneath  their  dignity  to 
make  such  an  effort.  As  for  the  third  dynasty,  which  per- 
haps you  have  in  your  mind,  the  representatives  of  France 
have  already  decided  to  respect  the  avowals  of  that  family 
and  to  restore  them  their  rights  of  citizenship.  The  fear 
which  preoccupies  the  Assembly's  thought,  that  a  posthum- 
ous fanaticism  will  lead  a  great  military  nation  to  confer 
dangerous  honors  on  the  heirs  of  a  great  name,  he  neither 
confessed  nor  denied  to  be  well-founded.  He  could  not 
read  the  future,  but  he  did  respect  the  honesty  of  the  repub- 
lican avowals  made  here  by  that  family.  And  as  for  the 
factions  of  that  party,  they  would  be  foiled  in  their  hopes; 
"  to  arrive  at  an  eighteenth  brumaire  in  our  time,  two  things 
are  necessary;  long  years  of  terror  behind  and  Marengos, 
victories  before !  "  The  dangers  of  a  counter-system  pre- 
sented as  an  ideal  come  after  years  of  political  discontent;: 


202  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^go 

the  present  peril  is  rather  that  of  a  certain  lukewarmness, 
a  loss  of  the  initial  February  enthusiasm,  due  to  misrepre- 
sentation of  the  republic  on  the  part  of  its  enemies  and  ex- 
cessive radicalism  on  the  part  of  its  friends.  In  such  a 
situation,  to  take  away  the  people's  share  in  its  own  sover- 
eignty, to  restore  its  old  exile,  endured  for  thirty-six  years 
under  past  constitutional  governments,  is  surely  a  poor 
way  to  restore  enthusiasm  for  the  republic.  Rather  let  the 
people  choose  its  own  head,  its  personification  and  its  chief. 
The  Assembly  remains  the  supreme  and  indivisible  repre- 
sentative of  sovereignty;  the  president  has  no  share  in  its 
power,  he  is  only  a  function  of  government.  The  deliberate 
vote  of  each  citizen  is  the  very  sacrament  of  authority. 
The  right  of  primogeniture  is  only  the  right  of  the  first 
comer,  the  right  of  conquest  defiles  the  people  with  its  brutal 
violence;  divine  right  is  but  the  priest's  blessing  on  royal 
races;  the  sacred  right  of  popular  vote  is  the  stripping  off 
of  the  people's  sovereignty  by  its  own  volition  to  clothe  a 
government,  if  possible  more  collective,  universal  and  popu- 
lar than  itself.  Election  by  the  few  votes  an  Assembly  has 
to  cast  suggests  always  the  possibility  of  favoritism  and  sel- 
fish purpose,  not  to  use  the  word,  corruption.  ''  One  poisons 
a  glass  of  water,  not  a  river ;  an  Assembly  is  suspect,  a  nation 
is  incorruptible  as  the  ocean."  The  objection  that  the  exe- 
cutive would  be  too  strong,  if  popularly  elected,  is  absurd; 
"  would  to  God  the  infant  republic  were  born  with  all  its 
energy,  like  the  god  in  the  ancient  fable  which  strangled 
the  serpents  in  his  cradle;  "  the  executive's  strength  would 
be  merely  that  of  the  country  itself.  To  put  the  vote  in 
the  hands  of  each  citizen  is  to  give  him  the  right  and  duty 
of  defending  the  republic  against  whomsoever  might  at- 
tack it. 

The  great  orator  concluded  his  speech  with  that  famous 
fatalistic  peroration,  which  swept  the  Assembly  off  its  feet. 


381]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  203 

I  know  well  that  there  are  grave  dangers  in  both  systems; 
that  there  are  moments  of  aberration  in  multitudes ;  that  there 
are  names  which  draw  the  crowd  as  the  mirage  draws  herds 
of  cattle,  as  the  red  rag  attracts  unreasoning  animals.  I  know 
it,  I  dread  it  more  than  anyone,  for  perhaps  no  citizen  has 
put  more  of  his  soul,  his  life,  his  sweat,  his  responsibility 
and  his  memory  in  the  republic's  success!  Should  it  become 
established,  I  have  won  my  human  gage  against  destiny! 
Should  it  fail,  either  in  anarchy  or  in  a  reminiscence  of  des- 
potism, my  name,  my  responsibility,  my  memory  fail  with  it 
and  are  forever  repudiated  by  my  contemporaries!  Well, 
despite  that  redoubtable  personal  responsibility  in  the  dangers 
our  problematic  institutions  may  run,  although  the  republic's 
dangers  are  my  dangers,  and  its  loss  my  ostracism  and  my 
eternal  grief,  should  I  survive,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  pronounce 
in  favor  of  what  seems  to  you  most  dangerous,  the  election 
of  the  president  by  the  people.  Yes,  even  though  the  people 
should  choose  him  whom  my  perhaps  badly  enlightened  fore- 
sight dreads  to  see  it  choose,  no  matter:  the  die  is  cast!  Let 
God  and  the  people  pronounce!  Something  must  be  left  to 
Providence!  He  is  the  light  of  those  who,  like  us,  cannot 
read  the  shadows  of  the  future!  Let  us  invoke  Him,  let  us 
pray  Him  to  enlighten  the  people  and  let  us  submit  ourselves 
to  His  decree.  Perhaps  we  may  perish  at  the  task?  No, 
surely,  and  yet  it  would  be  beautiful  to  die  initiating  one's 
country  into  liberty. 

Well,  if  the  people  deceives  itself,  if  it  allows  itself  to  be 
blinded  by  the  dazzling  reflection  of  its  own  past  glory;  if  it 
withdraws  from  its  own  sovereignty  after  the  first  step,  as 
though  frightened  by  the  grandeur  of  the  edifice  we  have 
opened  to  it  in  its  republic,  and  by  the  difficulties  of  its  institu- 
tions; if  it  wants  to  abdicate  its  safety,  its  dignity,  its  liberty 
into  the  hands  of  an  imperial  memory;  if  it  says,  take  me 
back  to  the  paths  of  the  old  monarchy;  if  it  disavows  us  and 
disavows  itself,  well,  so  much  the  worse  for  the  people!  It 
will  not  be  we,  but  they  who  shall  have  lacked  perseverance 
and  courage !    I  repeat  it,  we  may  perish  at  the  task  by  their 


204  ^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-^g^ 

fault,  but  the  ruin  of  the  republic  will  not  be  imputed  to  us  1 
Yes,  whatever  happens,  it  will  be  beautiful  through  history 
to  have  attempted  the  republic !  The  republic  as  we  have  pro- 
claimed, conceived,  outlined  it  for  four  months,  the  republic 
of  enthusiasm,  of  moderation,  of  fraternity,  of  peace,  of  pro- 
tection to  society,  to  property,  to  religion,  to  the  family,  the 
republic  of  Washington! 

A  dream,  if  you  will!  But  it  will  have  been  a  beautiful 
dream  for  France  and  for  the  human  race!  But  that  dream, 
let  us  not  forget,  was  the  act  of  the  people  of  February  during 
its  first  months !  We  will  restore  it !  But,  finally,  should  this 
people  abandon  itself;  should  it  gamble  with  the  fruit  of  its 
own  blood,  spent  so  generously  for  the  republic  in  February 
and  in  June ;  should  it  say  that  fatal  word,  should  it  wish  to 
desert  the  victorious  cause  of  liberty  and  human  progress  to 
run  after  some  meteor  that  would  burn  its  hands — let  it  so 
speak !  But  we,  citizens,  let  us  at  least  not  speak  for  it  in  ad- 
vance! Should  that  misfortune  arrive;  let  us  rather  speak 
the  word  of  the  vanquished  at  Pharsala;  the  victorious  cause 
pleased  the  gods,  but  the  lost  cause  pleased  Cato!  And  let 
this  protest  against  the  error  or  the  feebleness  of  this  people 
be  its  accusation  before  itself,  and  our  absolution  before 
posterity ! 

After  that  extraordinary  speech,  in  which  one  is  uncertain 
whether  to  marvel  most  at  the  eloquence,  the  clairvoyance, 
the  frankness  or  the  obstinacy,  nothing  remained  to  be  said. 
Two  insignificant  speeches  were  made  the  following  day, 
and  then  the  Assembly,  with  eyes  that  had  been  opened  to  the 
danger  ahead,  but  with  the  exalted  fanaticism,  which  a  poet 
had  kindled  in  its  heart,  deliberately  took  the  step  which 
was  to  destroy  it. 

The  next  allusion  to  the  American  executive  was  made 
in  the  short  debate  on  the  Leblond  amendment  which  took 
place  before  the  vote  on  that  plan,  but  after  the  Grevy 
amendment  had  been  defeated. 


383]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  205 

Flocon,  speaking  for  the  amendment,  disclaimed  Lamar- 
tine's  pessimism,  but  disclaimed  also  his  fatalistic  willing- 
ness to  stake  all  on  chance;  a  danger  should  be  guarded 
against.  He  would  have  the  president's  role  less  splendid, 
more  useful  than  his  opponent.  He  did  not  comprehend 
Lamartine's  statement  that  the  Assembly  alone  would  re- 
main sovereign;  if  named  by  the  people,  surely  the  president 
would  have  equal  claim  to  sovereignty.  An  Assembly  suffi- 
ciently republican  to  vote  one  chamber,  must  now  carry  out 
the  consequences  of  that  vote. 

M.  de  Lasteyrie  spoke  to  you  yesterday,  and  if  I  am  not 
mistaken,  he  will  make  of  it  the  object  of  a  proposition,  the 
president's  election  at  two  degrees,  in  the  American  fashion.  I 
ask  of  M.  de  Lasteyrie,  if  he  will  find  here  in  France  the 
elements  of  that  election.  Is  it  a  question,  in  America,  of  mak- 
ing the  people  vote,  gathered  in  its  electoral  assemblies,  or  on 
the  public  square,  to  make  it  vote  for  a  candidate  who  will 
have  more  or  less  votes,  through  these  united  electors?  Not 
at  all.  The  Americans  have  taken  more  precautions ;  and  they 
have  made  skillful  use  of  what  you,  happily  for  yourselves, 
do  not  possess,  I  mean  the  federation.  In  the  American  elec- 
tion, each  state  names  two  candidates ;  it  takes  one  from  itself 
and  one  from  outside.  Do  you  not  admire  the  mechanism 
which  brings  it  about  that,  outside  of  personal  relations  or  local 
influences,  must  of  necessity  emerge  the  name  which  best  sums 
up  the  general  opinion  ?  But  what  have  you  like  that  here 
and  can  you  think  of  it  for  an  instant  ?  Have  you  not  decided 
that  the  republic  was  one  and  indivisible  ?  .  .  .  You  see  in  what 
complete  anarchy  of  ideas  you  are  going  to  cast  yourself  if 
you  would  apply  to  our  country  institutions  that  are  not  made 
for  it. 

This  speech  is  typical  of  the  inaccurate  knowledge  of  the 
American  system  revealed  by  the  radical  wing,  no  account 
being  taken  of  its  modification  in  practice  by  party  de- 
velopment. 


2o6  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^84. 

Martin  (de  Strasbourg)  then  defended  the  same  cause 
in  the  name  of  the  minority  of  the  commission.  As  "  a 
republican  by  birth  "  he  opposed  the  "  English  school " 
which  for  the  past  eighteen  years  had  stood  in  France  for 
the  principle  of  checks  and  balances.  No  legislator,  no 
writer,  however,  had  even  dared  suggest  that  the  executive 
should  be  chosen  as  was  the  legislative  and  with  the  same 
authority.  "  You  have  no  example  of  it,  either  in  America, 
in  our  constitution  of  the  year  III,  or  in  that  of  1791." 

He  was  followed  by  Dufaure,  representing  the  majority 
of  the  commission.  He  showed  that  a  consistent  desire  for 
absolute  unity  would  have  entailed  a  vote  for  the  Grevy 
plan;  there  was  just  as  much  duality  in  character  and  attri- 
butes of  office  in  the  Leblond  plan  as  in  that  of  the  com- 
mission. "  So,  do  not  reproach  us,  when  you  are  really 
establishing  a  power  which  has  the  same  character  as  ours,, 
do  not  reproach  us  with  belonging  to  some  English  or 
American  school ;  I  do  not  know  that  the  system  which  we 
propose  to  adopt  has  ever  been  put  into  practice  either  in 
England  or  in  America." 

Shortly  after,  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  Leblond  amend- 
ment, which  was  defeated. 

On  the  9th,  another  amendment  was  proposed,  which 
had  for  its  object  the  adoption  of  indirect  election  and  was 
confessedly  influenced  by  the  American  system.  It  was 
offered  in  the  names  of  Mortimer  Ternaux  (an  ultra-con- 
servative historian)  and  Lacrosse  and  read  as  follows : 

The  president  is  elected  by  secret  ballot,  by  electoral  assemblies 
gathered  at  the  chief  towns  of  the  departments  and  composed 
of  cantonal  delegates,  in  the  proportion  of  one  delegate  to 
2000  inhabitants.  The  cantonal  delegates  are  named  in  the 
form  determined  by  art.  30  of  the  present  constitution.  They 
shall  receive  no  imperative  mandate.  They  shall  receive  the 
same  pay  as  jurors. 


385]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  207 

Lacrosse  in  developing  his  plan  asserted  his  belief  in  uni- 
versal suffrage  as  the  base  of  presidential  power,  but  felt 
that  a  more  deliberate,  careful  choice  would  be  made  by 
the  indirect  system. 

Let  us  only  search  the  example  and  experience  of  free 
states,  if  there  may  not  exist  wise  precautions  which,  intro- 
duced into  our  constitution,  would  give  it  a  new  force  by 
setting  aside  candidates  and  names  too  little  known,  and  names 
perhaps  too  dazzling. 

While  the  average  man  can  choose  an  acceptable  repre- 
sentative from  his  neighbors  of  distinction,  it  is  a  much  more 
difficult  task  to  pick  out  one  of  presidential  calibre. 

I  permit  myself  to  call  "  a  prejudice  "  that  antipathy  which 
is  manifested  against  a  system  to  which  the  United  States  of 
America  owe  for  sixty  years  so  magnificent  a  development. 
It  is  in  vain  that  in  the  solemn  discussions  which  have  filled 
the  last  week,  an  effort  has  been  made  to  repel  in  advance  all 
assimilation  between  the  executive  power  of  our  republic  and 
the  power  which  presides  over  the  action  of  the  American 
government.  The  internal  administration  of  the  states  of  the 
Union  is  doubtless  outside  the  attributions  of  the  president 
of  the  United  States.  But  the  federal  system  changes  in  no 
way  the  essence  of  the  executive  power.  Each  of  the  separate 
states  possesses  its  constitution,  its  legislature  and  its  admin- 
istrative personnel  independently  of  the  centrar  government ; 
that  is  known  and  did  not  perhaps  require  the  developments 
which  we  have  heard.  They  have  not  been  exempt  from  mis- 
takes; further,  it  has  not  been  denied  that  the  action  of  the 
executive  power  sitting  at  Washington  is  superior  to  all  local 
authorities.  The  executive  power  encounters  certain  obstacles 
born  of  that  organization  of  a  great  federal  state.  In  our  re- 
public, which  we  have  wished  one  and  indivisible,  the  action 
of  the  executive  power  will  have  analogies,  even  an  identity, 
which  can  escape  none  of  you;  the  identity  exists  at  least  in 


:2o8  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^^^ 

the  resistance  to  its  action.  The  president  of  the  United  States 
disposes  alone  of  the  land  and  naval  forces.  In  concert  with  a 
senate  composed  of  about  fifty  members,  he  treats  with  foreign 
powers,  but  it  is  by  means  of  an  indirect  system  that  America 
has  acquired  these  illustrious  chiefs  of  executive  power,  who 
by  their  disinterestedness,  by  their  personal  abnegation,  have 
given  the  world  the  most  majestic  example  of  public  virtues; 
it  is  also  to  this  mode  of  indirect  election  that  are  due  other 
magistrates  who  have  great  pages  in  the  history  of  their 
country.  When  the  flag  of  the  United  States  saw  itself  out- 
raged by  jealous  England  to  assure  its  own  maritime  omnipo- 
tence, it  was  then  that  the  United  States  had  to  commence  the 
struggle,  gloriously  sustained  and  ended  by  them  in  1814. 
Those  negotiations  which  have  extended  the  arms  of  America 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  the  diplomatic  conquest  of  Oregon,  were 
made  thanks  to  the  skill  of  a  president,  chosen  by  indirect 
election.  The  conquest  of  Mexico,  these  extensions  of  terri- 
tory subject  to  the  arms  of  the  Union,  probable  seed  of  en- 
feeblement,  but  at  present  a  subject  of  enthusiasm  in  the 
United  States,  these  sucesses  are  due  also  to  a  magistrate 
chosen  by  indirect  election.  And  this  indirect  election  is  con- 
densed further  than  what  has  been  proposed  to  you;  the 
number  of  electors  hardly  equals  that  of  the  members  of  our 
future  legislative  assemblies.  So  restricted  a  number  is  far 
from  giving  the  authority  which  the  president  of  the  French 
republic  would  receive  here  from  indirect  election.  The 
second  degree  electors  are  six  or  seven  hundred :  we  shall  pro- 
pose to  you  eighteen  thousand. 

Payer  next  took  the  floor  to  oppose  the  amendment,  on  the 
ground  that  it  merely  repeated  the  notion  of  choice  by  the 
Assembly,  already  discarded.  He  thought  also  that  minor- 
ity rights  were  less  secure,  being  less  able  to  register  them- 
selves in  a  vote;  the  electors,  named  by  a  majority,  would 
merely  represent  that  majority.  He  rather  adroitly  turned 
Lacrosse's  presidential  calibre  argument  against  him  by  de- 


387]  1'^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  209 

daring  that  a  man  not  well-known  to  all  France  was  cer- 
tainly not  big  enough  to  be  president. 

The  honorable  M.  Lacrosse  said  to  you :  What  we  propose 
is  practised  in  America:  the  president  is  named  by  indirect 
vote.  Yes,  assuredly;  but  the  representatives  are  also  named 
by  indirect  vote;  all  the  citizens  are  not  electors;  a  property 
qualification  is  exacted  and  if  one  once  admits  the  rule  of  ex- 
ceptions, it  makes  small  difference,  according  to  my  opinion, 
whether  one  extends  it  more  or  less.  Besides,  has  this  system 
produced  in  the  United  States  the  excellent  results  just  enum- 
erated? Either  I  am  much  mistaken,  or  it  seems  to  me  that 
often  in  the  history  of  the  republic,  I  have  read  that  the  best 
candidate  has  not  always  been  named.  The  country,  divided 
into  two  camps,  rejected  the  man  who  would  enter  neither 
one  nor  the  other,  whatever  his  other  merits.  To  obtain  that 
sovereign  magistracy,  the  presidency,  it  was  necessary  to  join 
a  party,  and  in  consequence  to  have  for  himself,  at  least  in  re- 
lation to  his  chiefs,  less  independence  when  he  was  raised  to 
power. 

Temaux  had  a  final  word,  recalling  Pyat's  original  fear 
of  too  strong  an  executive,  which  he  had  shared. 

The  amendment  thereupon  came  to  a  vote  and  was  de- 
feated. Valette  had  offered  a  similar  one,  which  he  now 
withdrew.  It  is  curious  that  in  the  whole  debate  on  the 
executive  and  particularly  in  this  final  phase,  no  one  seems 
to  have  recognized  the  complete  nullification  of  the  electoral 
college  idea  in  American  constitutional  practice.  Payer's 
speech  comes  nearest  to  an  appreciation  of  it,  but  does  not 
really  grasp  the  situation.  One  would  have  supposed  that 
some  supporter  of  universal  suffrage  would  have  made  tell- 
ing use  of  the  American  example  as  it  worked  itself  out  in 
this  regard.  If  this  indicates  anything  beyond  carelessness, 
it  would  point  toward  a  better  knowledge  of  the  written 
American  constitution  than  of  living  American  constitu- 


210  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^gg 

tional  history.  Other  amendments  were  proposed,  one  call- 
ing for  election  by  the  Assembly  from  a  list  of  ten  candi- 
dates chosen  by  universal  suffrage,  another  for  a  universal 
vote,  but  requiring  a  two- thirds  majority  in  order  to  elect, 
another  requiring  an  absolute  majority  of  all  registered  citi- 
zens (not  merely  of  votes  cast),  but  all  were  defeated  with- 
out general  discussion,  and  Art.  43  of  the  commission  plan 
then  adopted. 

After  Art.  44  had  been  disposed  of,  return  was  made  to 
Art.  42,  which  had  been  temporarily  passed  over.  An 
amendment  was  proposed  by  Deville,  "  the  presidency  shall 
never  be  conferred  upon  any  general  officer,"  which  was 
received  with  much  hilarity  and  general  disorder.  Deville, 
with  some  difficulty,  essayed  to  explain  his  idea.  He  held  it 
to  be  one  of  the  principal  lessons  of  history,  written  on  each 
of  its  pages.  (Several  members)  "And  Washington!" 
The  speaker  ignored  this  interruption.  He  recalled  the 
history  of  England,  France,  Sardinia,  Naples,  Spain,  the 
southern  part  of  North  America  and  all  South  America  to 
support  his  thesis  of  the  danger  of  military  ambition,  and 
then  passed  to  a  defence  of  the  republique  rouge  against 
what  he  called  the  republique  blanche.  The  amendment  was 
then  voted  on  and  defeated.  A  long  debate  on  the  proposed 
ineligibility  of  members  of  families  which  had  reigned  in 
France  was  followed  by  the  adoption  of  Art.  42  and  a  dis- 
cussion of  Art.  45,  fixing  the  term  of  office  at  four  years. 

This,  Kerdrel  would  amend  to  provide  for  a  right  to  re- 
election at  the  expiration  of  the  president's  term,  a  second 
re-election  to  be  permitted  only  after  four  years  had  elapsed. 
He  began  his  exposition  by  an  admission  that  all  present 
knew  the  republic  theoretically. 

We  have  all  without  exception,  lessons  to  take,  instruction 
to  demand  from  those  who  have  practised  the  republic  with 


389]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  211 

success  and  with  glory.  Let  your  eyes  turn  toward  America, 
toward  the  United  States.  There  the  republic  is  not  a  simple 
thought,  a  pure  theory;  it  is  a  glorious  practical  reality;  it 
is  a  fact.  Well,  in  the  United  States  you  know  the  president 
is  re-eligible.  In  law,  he  is  so  indefinitely;  in  fact,  he  is  so 
once  after  the  expiration  of  his  functions. 

This  "  anomaly  which  has  its  sublimity  "  he  explained  as 
a  result  of  practical  experience,  left  to  usage  rather  than 
law  to  avoid  the  danger  of  writing  into  the  constitution  any 
limitation  of  "  their  most  sacred  political  right,  the  liberty 
of  suffrage.'' 

We  had  thought  at  first,  the  honorable  M.  de  Montalembert 
and  I,  that  we  could  imitate  the  United  States  so  completely 
that  we  could  pass  in  complete  silence  the  right  of  re-election. 
Others  have  thought  otherwise;  .  .  .  have  seen  behind  our 
amendment  a  sort  of  cloud,  all  charged  with  monarchy. 

The  objections  to  immediate  re-eligibility  are  all  set  forth, 
he  continued,  in  the  very  remarkable  book  of  M.  de  Tocque- 
ville.  They  are,  the  president's  governing  with  an  eye  to 
his  re-election  rather  than  for  the  good  of  the  country,  the 
greater  danger  of  corruption,  the  growth  of  his  office  into 
a  disguised  constitutional  kingship.  The  true  remedy  to 
the  corruption-danger,  which  is  not  denied,  is  a  system  of 
decentralization.  But  aside  from  that,  a  president  who 
could  not  be  re-elected  at  all  until  four  years  passed,  would 
be  even  more  likely  to  use  corruption ;  knowing  that  his  time 
was  short,  he  would  try  to  leave  memories  of  his  adminis- 
tration in  the  minds  of  those  whom  he  could  corrupt  and 
would  try  to  be  popular  at  all  costs  and  to  make  his  suc- 
cessor unpopular.  The  Assembly,  which  had  been  grow- 
ing restless,  began  to  clamor  for  the  vote,  to  the  speaker's 
despair.  ^'  What,  you  are  between  an  article  of  the  com- 
mission and  an  article  of  the  American  constitution  and  you 
do  not  reflect!     Construct  a  democracy  like  that  of  the 


212  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^QO 

United  States,  and  then  you  can  say  that  you  are  satisfied." 
The  speaker  next  took  up  the  objection  of  a  disguised  king- 
ship; his  eight-year  maximum  Hmit  to  re-elections,  he  de- 
clared, would  remove  that  peril.  But  he  foresaw  a  very  real 
danger  if  no  re-election  were  permitted  and  an  ambitious 
president  in  control  of  the  army  found  it  impossible  to  pro- 
long his  term  by  legal  means.  The  Assembly  was  unwill- 
ing to  listen  further  to  this  Cassandra  prophecy,  and  after 
cutting  the  speech  short,  defeated  the  amendment,  then 
passing  Art.  45. 

On  the  1 2th,  Mathieu  (de  la  Drome)  presented  an  addi- 
tional article,  calling  for  the  suspension  of  the  president  by 
a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  Assembly.  This  was,  however,  op- 
posed by  the  commission  on  the  ground  that  it  was  the 
Grevy  amendment  in  disguise,  and  defeated. 

Art.  46  was  then  passed  ("  He  watches  over  and  assures 
the  execution  of  the  laws").  The  presiding  officer  then 
read  an  amendment  by  Saint-Priest,  offered  in  connection 
with  Art.  49  ("  He  presents  every  year,  by  message,  an  ex- 
pose of  the  general  state  of  the  republic's  affairs"),  but 
which  he  thought  more  appropriate  at  this  point.  The 
amendment  read,  "  He  presents  bills  to  the  National  As- 
sembly through  his  ministers,  who  explain  the  reasons  for 
them  and  defend  them  in  discussion."  Saint-Priest's  de- 
fence of  his  plan  opened  with  the  statement,  "  This  Art. 
49  is  taken  from  the  American  constitutions,  but  those  con- 
stitutions preserve  the  strictest  silence  regarding  the  presi- 
dent's initiative  and  this  silence  is  the  denial  of  the  right." 
In  republics,  he  continued,  the  president  does  not  have  the 
initiative,  which  belongs  exclusively  to  members  of  parlia- 
ment, and  if  ministers  exercise  it,  it  is  not  as  such,  but  as 
members  of  parliament.  He  did  not  argue  against  this  con- 
ception and  in  favor  of  the  executive's  right  to  initiate  legis- 
lation in  his  own  name,  as  to  which  he  assumed  all  present 


39 1 ]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  213 

were  agreed.  His  point  was  that  for  the  sake  of  clarity,  the 
right  should  be  inserted  in  the  constitution  and  not  left  to 
assumption.  "  Further,  please  notice  that  the  government's 
article  would  apply  as  well  in  the  American  republic,  and 
even  in  the  English  government,  as  in  your  republic." 

Vivien  in  the  name  of  the  commission,  suggested  that 
Art.  y2  contained  the  necessary  authorization,  but  was 
willing  to  allow  the  eld  Art.  46  to  become  the  second  para- 
graph of  a  nev/  Art.  46,  the  first  paragraph  to  read  "  He  has 
the  right  to  present  bills  to  the  National  Assembly  through 
his  ministers;"  that  portion  of  Saint-Priest's  amendment 
which  referred  to  the  exposition  and  defence  of  these  gov- 
ernment measures  by  the  ministers  on  the  floor  of  the  As- 
sembly, he  rejected.  Saint-Priest  agreed  to  the  change  and 
the  amendment,  thus  modified,  was  adopted. 

Arts.  47-51  inclusive  were  voted  at  once,  with  slight 
verbal  changes.  A  discussion  arose  over  Art.  52,  on  the 
president's  right  of  pardon,  the  chief  point  being  whether 
or  not  the  council  of  state  should  first  give  its  opinion,  as 
the  commission  required.  This  was  opposed  both  by  the 
conservative  Dabeaux  and  the  liberal  Cremieux,  but  was 
maintained. 

When  Art.  59  was  reached  Dabeaux  proposed  that  the 
salary,  fixed  by  the  commission  at  600,000  francs  a  year, 
be  left  undetermined,  except  that  it  must  be  settled  before 
the  president's  election  and  the  figure  mentioned  be  made  a 
minimum.  ''  What  I  propose  exists  in  the  United  States  " 
he  said,  meaning  as  he  later  showed,  that  "  in  the  United 
States,  the  salary,  by  a  wise  provision,  is  not  fixed  in  the 
constitution,  the  legislative  chambers  must  determine  its 
amount  at  each  nomination  of  the  president."  ^     He  quoted 

'^Vtre  nouvelle  of  Oct.  13,  quoting  this  speech,  which  it  wrongly 
ascribes  to  Saint-Priest,  remarked :  "  The  United  States  have  the  privi- 
lege of  furnishing  examples  to  all,  both  for  and  against." 


214  ^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [202 

Hayti  and  Santo  Domingo  as  instances  of  the  meagreness 
of  the  proposed  salary.  The  amendment  was  not  seconded 
and  finally  the  commission's  text  was  adopted. 

The  remainder  of  the  debate  on  the  executive  presents 
small  interest.  There  was  at  least  one  other  allusion  to 
the  relations  between  the  executive  and  legislative  branches 
in  America,  before  November  4. 

On  October  18,  Art.  100  was  imder  discussion,  providing 
that  the  Assembly  should  have  the  option  of  sending  an 
accused  minister  before  the  high  court  of  justice,  the  ordin- 
ary civil  tribunals  or  the  council  of  state.  Combarel  de 
Leyval  vigorously  opposed  mention  of  the  council  of  state, 
which  he  considered  a  mere  tool  of  the  Assembly  and  a 
clever  way  for  that  body  to  rid  itself  of  its  political  enemies. 

There  is  in  America,  whence  this  institution  has  been  im- 
ported, something  which  is  not  similar,  but  analogous:  it  is 
sufficient  to  remark  the  difference  which  separates  us  from 
the  customs  of  Oregon  and  the  laws  of  that  country,  for  you 
to  judge  the  proposed  innovation.  What  happens  in  America? 
The  House  of  Representatives  may  send  before  the  Senate, 
by  virtue  of  an  old  English  or  rather  Saxon  law,  all  the  public 
functionaries  and  ministers.  But  who  names  the  Senate?  Is 
it  the  House  of  Representatives?  Is  the  Senate  the  emanation 
of  the  House  of  Representatives?  No,  it  has  been  brought 
out  in  this  discussion,  the  Senate  is  made  by  a  special  mode 
of  election.  Then  it  is  understandable  that  the  Senate  may 
have  the  character  of  judges,  since  it  is  completely  independ- 
ent, both  by  origin,  by  sentiment  and  by  absence  of  passion, 
from  the  House  of  Representatives,  which  accuses.  Here  on 
the  contrary  what  do  you  do?  You  send  before  the  council 
of  state  whidh  you  have  named,  the  ministers  who  have  dis- 
pleased you.  Did  one  ever  see  such  a  judicial  enormity? 
Notice  especially  this  capital  difference.  You  have  created 
in  the  constitution  the  council  of  ministers;  in  consequence, 
you  have  created  a  struggle  in  the  Assembly ;  you  have  created, 


393  ]  ^^^  ASSEMBL  Y  DEB  A  TBS  2 1 5 

if  not  parties,  at  least  groups,  fractions  which  dispute  the 
power.  In  creating  these  elements  of  strife,  you  have  created 
adversaries  to  the  ruling  opinion.  Do  things  happen  so  in 
America  ?  In  the  United  States,  no  member  of  the  legislature 
is  admitted  to  form  part  of  the  executive  power.  It  is  evident 
that  the  House  of  Representatives  has  no  interest  in  accusing, 
nor  the  Senate  in  condemning.  Here,  on  the  contrary,  there 
is  an  enormous  interest  in  ridding  oneself  of  an  ancient  ad- 
versary; there  is  motive  for  a  party  to  rid  itself  from  public 
life  for  five  years,  of  a  man  who  may  have  superiority  of  tal- 
ent or  have  won  a  distinguished  popularity  or  a  personal  in- 
fluence in  the  National  Assembly. 

This  opinion  prevailed  and  the  offending  words  were  re- 
moved from  the  constitution. 

Aside  from  these  three  constitutional  questions  of  first 
importance,  the  question  of  a  preamble,  of  the  legislative 
and  the  executive  (the  American  doctrine  of  the  authority 
of  the  Supreme  Court  to  determine  the  constitutionality  of 
legislation  does  not  seem  to  have  been  discussed  at  all), 
there  were  two  other  debates  in  which  appeal  was  made 
several  times  to  our  example.  Though  not  on  strictly  con- 
stitutional issues,  they  are  included  for  the  sake  of 
completeness. 

The  first  of  these  was  on  government  purchase  of  rail- 
roads. On  the  17th  of  May,  Duclerc,  then  minister  of 
finance,  presented  a  government  bill,  having  as  object,  the 
authorization  of  the  state  to  purchase  the  railroads.  The 
bill  was  preceded  by  an  interesting  and  very  modem  report,^ 
which  called  attention  to  the  growth  of  fluid  capital  dur- 
ing the  Restoration  and  its  increasing  political  power,  the 
government  having  corrupted  its  supporters  by  the  organi- 
zation of  financial  companies,  the  danger  of  tying  up  gov- 

'^Moniteur,  May  19.     > 


2i6  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^94 

ernment  money  in  private  enterprises,  the  danger  of  private 
railroads  with  their  foreign  employes  in  time  of  war,  the 
power  of  railroads  over  commercial  enterprise  through  mani- 
pulation of  freight  charges,  which  the  most  ingenious  rate 
regulation  cannot  correct,  the  danger  of  these  great  powers 
becoming  stronger  than  the  state,  the  bad  financial  condi- 
tion and  unpopularity  of  the  railroads.  The  report  then 
points  out  the  advantages  of  government  ownership  engag- 
ing the  state  in  a  great  enterprise,  which  will  show  its 
strength  by  reviving  industry  and  thus  settling  the  danger- 
ous labor-problem,  by  reducing  rates  to  the  general  advant- 
age of  the  public  and  by  checking  the  excesses  of  speculation. 
It  shows  that  no  attack  is  made  on  the  principle  of  property, 
the  roads  being  paid  for  at  full  value  and  that  both  public 
and  commercial  credit  will  be  improved  by  the  transaction. 
It  mentions  the  railroads  which  should  be  acquired,  and 
others  whose  purchase  should  be  optional,  and  then  goes 
into  a  long  discussion  of  the  proper  basis  of  valuation, 
finally  deciding  that  the  original  cost,  the  present  value  and 
probable  expectation  of  the  roads  should  all  be  taken  into 
account  and  that  the  fairest  measure  for  all  three  was  the 
average  market  value  of  the  stock  on  the  Paris  Bourse  for 
the  six  months  which  preceded  the  February  Revolution. 
The  financial  crisis  had  been  so  acute  and  all  values  had  so 
shrunk  since  that  time,  that  it  would  not  be  fair  to  the  roads 
to  take  a  later  date.  The  value  thus  fixed  (which  would 
amount  to  518,052,690  fr.),  he  would  proceed  to  exchange 
railroad  stock  for  five  per  cent  government  rentes^  using 
the  same  six  months'  average  to  determine  their  market 
value.  The  rolling  stock  would  not  be  an  extra  charge,  its 
value  being  included  in  that  of  the  shares ;  the  financial  obli- 
gations of  the  roads  would,  however,  have  to  be  taken  over 
by  the  government.  These  amounted  to  90,698,750  f  r.  In 
buying  the  roads,  the  state  assumes  the  obligation  of  putting 


395  ]  THE  ASSEMBL  Y  DEB  A  TES  2 1 7 

them  all  in  complete  operation  (many  were  still  unfinished). 
But  the  state  was  already  heavily  obligated  in  the  matter,  to 
the  amount  of  about  one-third  the  total  necessary  expendi- 
ture; if  it  assumed  the  rest,  the  total  would  amount  to 
955,000,000  francs,  spread  out  over  a  series  of  years.  To 
the  report  was  appended  a  bill,  authorizing  the  various  pro- 
jects above  recommended. 

The  bill  was  referred  to  the  committee  of  finance,  which 
rendered  its  report  through  Bineau,  June  6.^  The  report 
decided  that  the  state  had  no  right  to  purchase  the  roads, 
according  to  previous  agreements  with  them,  until  1852. 
The  undoubted  right  of  expropriation  could  only  be  exer- 
cised under  imperious  necessity,  which  did  not  exist,  the 
companies  protested  that  the  suggested  scheme  of  purchase 
was  unjust  and  finally  the  state  of  the  treasury  did  not 
warrant  the  operation. 

The  matter  came  up  before  the  Assembly,  June  22.  The 
first  speaker  was  Morin,  who  opposed  the  purchase.  He  re- 
called the  fact  that  in  1838,  the  monarchy  had  requested  of 
the  legislature,  funds  wherewith  to  endow  France  with  this 
new  mode  of  communication;  it  was  the  chambers  which 
refused.  "  But  England,  North  America  were  already 
honey-combed  with  lines  of  iron;  Belgium,  Germany  even 
distanced  us  in  the  accomplishment  of  that  vast  enterprise. 
Was  it  necessary,  in  such  a  race,  to  let  oneself  be  distanced 
by  European  civilization?  No.  It  was  then  that  appeal 
was  made  to  the  great  financial  companies." 

Cordier,  another  speaker  in  the  same  debate,  took  a  simi- 
lar stand.  Pointing  to  the  huge  public  debt  which  would 
be  loaded  on  the  country,  he  showed  that  England,  though 
heavily  indebted,  has  an  enormous  commerce  and  the  labor 
of  150,000,000  subjects,  counting  the  colonies,  while  hap- 
pier still, 

^Moniteur,  June  9. 


2i8  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["^^ 

the  United  States  have  no  debts,  the  rural  districts  are  free 
from  taxes  and  prosperity  is  so  rapid,  that  in  a  short  period, 
they  are  destined  to  succeed  England. 

It  would  be  highly  imprudent  to  bring  the  Bank  of  France 
into  the  financial  operations  of  the  proposed  purchase. 
"  Let  us  recall  that  it  required  all  the  heroic  energy  of 
President  Jackson  to  deliver  the  republic  from  the  fatal 
domination  of  the  principal  bank  of  the  United  States." 
He  would  permit  those  who  developed  industry  to  profit 
by  it  to  the  utmost. 

It  is  to  such  perpetual  corporations  (associations  a  perpet- 
uite)  freed  from  governmental  arbitrariness  that  England 
owes,  in  the  mother-country  and  in  the  colonies,  enterprises 
without  number,  a  complete  network  of  railroads  and  canals, 
looo  steamboats  and  the  conquest  of  the  Indies.  It  is  by  such 
perpetual  corporations  that  North  America,  born  in  our  time, 
having  at  the  commencement  of  the  century,  neither  engineers, 
nor  capital,  nor  factories,  nor  extended  territory,  has  built 
canals,  railroads,  telegraphs  5000  leagues  long,  and  has  con- 
quered a  surface  as  large  as  Europe ;  yet  its  annual  budget  is 
only  125  millions  a  year,  or  6  fr.  per  inhabitant. 

Instead  of  this  whole  scheme,  he  recommends  other  meas- 
ures to  restore  prosperity,  after  which  the  workers  will  re- 
ceive "  no  longer  8  f  r.  a  week  as  an  alms  in  the  national 
workshops,  but  from  4  fr.  to  10  fr.  a  day  as  in  the  United 
States  and  in  England." 

Mathieu  (de  la  Drome)  next  spoke  for  government  pur- 
chase. He  brought  out  the  corruption  that  grew  up  in  con- 
nection with  the  railroads  under  the  old  regime,  when  the 
130  to  150  stockholders  who  sat  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
placed  the  interest  of  the  companies  above  that  of  the  state, 
secured  state  loans  whose  interest  was  not  payable  until 
after  the  stockholders  received  a  four  per  cent  dividend  and 


397]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  219 

passed  other  astonishing  legislation.      He  then  defended 
the  right  and  utility  of  the  proposed  transaction. 

Monsieur  the  minister  of  finances  had  said:  the  existence 
of  great  financial  companies  is  incompatible  with  our  repub- 
lican institutions.  And  everybody  has  hastened  to  oppose  to 
this  assertion,  the  example  of  the  United  States.  That  is  what 
the  honorable  M.  Cordier  did,  an  instant  ago.  There  is  here  a 
preliminary  remark  to  be  made :  the  United  States  form  a  fed- 
erated republic,  while  we  intend  to  form  a  military  republic. 
If  some  of  the  states  of  the  Union  were  in  a  position  to  build 
railroads  on  their  own  territory,  most  of  the  states  would  not 
have  been  capable  of  satisfying  the  necessary  expenditure. 
Hence  the  necessity  was  felt,  the  absolute  necessity,  of  con- 
ceding these  enterprises  to  companies.  But  in  all  the  con- 
tracts, great  care  was  taken  to  embody  the  right  of  purchase 
in  favor  of  the  states.  From  another  point  of  view,  there 
would  also  be  several  observations  to  make  on  the  pretended 
comparison  which  it  is  attempted  to  establish  between  France 
and  the  United  States.  The  United  States  have  not,  like  us, 
an  immense  stretch  of  frontiers  to  guard:  they  are  not  ex- 
posed to  sudden  invasions,  which,  with  the  railroads  that  cover 
Germany  today,  miglit  be  quick  as  lightning  against  us.  Add 
that  the  United  States  have  fertile  lands,  a  virgin  soil  which 
provides  abundantly  for  all  their  needs,  while  we  are  too  often 
obliged  to  look  for  a  portion  of  our  subsistence  in  foreign  lands. 

The  speaker  held  that  it  was  ridiculous  to  invoke  the  prin- 
ciple of  association,^  in  which  he  firmly  believed,  in  the  in- 

1  This  very  just  criticism  should  be  constantly  kept  in  mind  in  con- 
nection with  the  ambiguous  use  of  the  word  "  association."  It  is  used 
for  anything  from  Louis  Blanc's  syndicalist  cooperative  unions  to  th€ 
most  ultra-capitalistic  combination.  Great  confusion  of  thought  arose 
and  both  individualists  and  socialists  are  found  praising  "  the  principle 
of  association"  and  meaning  entirely  different  things  by  it.  It  seems 
best,  therefore,  to  translate  the  word  uniformly  by  its  English  equiva- 
lent and  thus  make  more  comprehensible  the  resulting  misunderstand- 
ings. 


220  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["^^g 

terest  of  the  workers,  but  which  should  consist  in  a  union  of 
labor  and  capital,  having  properly  nothing  in  common  with 
the  creation  of  great  combinations  of  capitalists.  His  chief 
reasons  for  desiring  government  ownership  were  the  greater 
facility  of  provisioning  France  in  case  of  famine  and  the 
transportation  of  troops  in  time  of  war.  He  concluded  with 
a  technical  analysis  of  the  financial  elements  in  the  situation. 
Montalembert  opposed  the  plan,  confining  himself  to  the 
political  and  social  side  of  the  question.  From  his  eco- 
nomic standpoint  of  laissez-faire  individualism,  he  held  the 
"  spirit  of  association "  to  be  the  fittest  formula  of  the 
liberal  spirit  and  showed  how  in  1838,  the  chief  republicans 
had  so  regarded  it.  To  the  minister's  thesis  that  great  cor- 
porations (associations)  and  even  the  spirit  of  association 
could  only  exist  with  monarchical  and  aristocratic  institu- 
tions, he  opposed  the  example  of  Russia,  which  was  apply- 
ing to  its  public  works  the  principle  supported  by  the  min- 
ister in  the  name  of  democracy. 

But  it  [the  minister's  thesis]  is  refuted  especially  by  that  ex- 
ample which  the  honorable  and  eloquent  gentleman  who  has 
just  spoken  seemed  to  make  of  so  little  account,  the  example 
of  the  United  States.  He  has  told  you  that  that  country  had 
no  frontiers  to  defend.  It  has,  however,  and  immense  ones, 
both  on  the  side  of  the  north  against  England,  and  on  the  side 
of  the  south.  But,  before  all,  permit  me  to  cite  it  to  you  as 
the  model  of  republics,  as  the  sole  republic  which  has  yet  suc- 
ceeded in  the  modern  world,  in  being  at  once  solid,  durable 
and  flourishing.  Well,  in  that  country  you  know,  everything 
is  given  up  to  association,  everything  flourishes,  everything  is 
made  fertile  by  association;  not  only  public  works,  but  also 
instruction,  charitable  establishments,  establishments  of  public 
aid,  all  the  branches  of  political  and  civil  fruitfulness  in  the 
country. 

Association,  which  has  made  America  one  of  the  greatest 


399]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  221 

powers  of  the  world,  is  neither  an  English  nor  an  American, 
but  a  liberal  principle. 

Let  us  learn  to  recognize  it,  the  struggle  is  not  between  aris- 
tocracy or  royalty  on  one  side  and  democracy  on  the  other; 
the  struggle  is  between  the  spirit  of  monopoly  and  the  spirit 
of  liberty,  between  exaggerated  centralization  and  the  free 
development  of  individual  forces,  the  free  development  of  the 
spirit  of  association. 

He  proceeded  to  develop  the  advantages  of  individualism  in 
the  best  vein  of  the  Manchester  school.  The  state  should 
not  interfere,  where  individuals  can  act  as  well  or  better; 
it  is  the  protector,  not  the  perpetual  tutor ;  the  state  should, 
where  possible,  make  those  who  profit  by  public  works,  pay 
for  them ;  it  should  not  enter  into  competition  with  citizens 
and  crush  them  by  superior  force  or  arbitrarily  suppress 
their  enterprises ;  it  should  not  extend  the  monopolies  it  pos- 
sesses by  confiscating  an  industry  as  soon  as  it  proves  profit- 
able; its  operation  is  costlier  than  that  of  private  citizens; 
the  ultimate  goal  of  this  plan  is  to  make  the  state  the  en- 
trepreneur of  every  industry  and  thus  to  destroy  the  liberty 
of  capital  and  of  labor ;  an  insupportable  weight  of  industrial 
centralization  would  be  added  to  the  burden  of  administra- 
tive centralization,  now  resting  on  the  shoulders  of  the  state; 
this  would  be  a  retrograde  step,  going  back  to  the  time  when 
labor  was  a  royal  right,  which  had  to  be  held  from  the  state, 
the  time  when  there  were  great  alienations  of  the  public 
domain.  Politically,  there  are  two  sorts  of  progress,  one 
towards  what  is  called  unity,  but  which  is  really  towards 
despotism,  where  the  state  does  everything,  and  of  which 
Egypt  is  a  type;  the  other  towards  liberty,  where  the  state 
is  as  restrained  in  its  action  as  possible,  where  the  citizens 
do  everything  for  themselves  that  they  can ;  that  is  the  true 
progress,  the  kind  which  exists  in  the  United  States.     Of 


222  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  j-^qo 

these  two,  the  system  toward  which  this  law  tends  is  not  that 
of  the  United  States.  And  yet  for  him,  the  system  of  the 
latter  represented  real  emancipation,  the  coming  of  a  people 
out  of  tutelage  into  its  self -directing  manhood.  A  citizen's 
dignity  is  greatest  when  the  number  of  public  officials  is 
as  small  as  possible.  Private  interest  is  the  greatest  motive 
of  human  effort.  Great  republics  have  risen  in  history  from 
commercial  association ;  Holland,  Venice,  the  United  States, 
the  English  East  India  Company  are  examples.  The  spirit 
of  association  is  the  greatest  barrier  to  political  despotism; 
the  principle  of  unity  leads,  on  the  contrary,  directly  to  it. 
You  must  hold  to  your  contract  with  the  roads  or  violate 
property  rights ;  you  have  surrendered  the  right  of  purchase 
for  the  present,  and  there  is  no  necessity  to  expropriate. 
The  proposed  bargain  is  unfair.  The  only  real  danger 
which  the  republic  has  to  fear,  is  the  terror  it  inspires  among 
property-holders.  The  peasant  esteems  political  theories 
highly,  but  even  dearer  to  him  is  his  little  patrimony,  the 
free  possession  of  the  field  he  received  from  his  fathers 
and  wants  to  leave  to  his  children.  Beware  lest  the  Revolu- 
tion of  1848  become  linked  in  his  mind  with  its  destruction. 
The  discussion  was  resumed  on  the  23rd,  but  the  great 
June  insurrection  had  now  begun  and  it  was  very  difficult 
for  the  Assembly  to  consider  calmly  anything  else.  A 
short  speech  by  Guerin  in  favor  of  the  purchase  was  fol- 
lowed by  a  longer  one  by  Jobez,  who  declared  himself  in 
favor  of  the  execution  of  public  works  by  the  state,  but 
opposed  to  the  present  plan  before  the  Assembly.  The 
general  question  has  nothing  to  do  with  monarchy  or  repub- 
licanism ;  "  it  is  the  state,  in  fact,  which  executes  all  the 
great  public  works  in  Belgium  or  in  Russia;  it  is,  on  the 
contrary,  the  companies  which  have  honeycombed  republi- 
can America  with  canals  and  railroads."  In  his  mind,  the 
real  motive  behind  the  present  plan,  however,  was  the  gov- 


401  ]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  223 

emment's  need  of  money  and  its  consequent  desire  to  get 
it  from  the  roads,  in  spite  of  all  previous  engagements  with 
the  companies. 

The  next  speaker,  Laurent  (de  I'Ardeche)  was  in  the 
midst  of  his  remarks  in  favor  of  the  purchase,  when  he  was 
interrupted  by  the  entrance  of  General  Cavaignac  with  news 
of  the  battle.  That  ended  all  thought  of  the  railroads  for 
the  day.  The  subject  was  not  resumed  until  July  3,  when 
the  new  cabinet  withdrew  it  from  further  consideration  as 
a  practical  project,  without,  however,  condemning  the 
principle. 

A  lesser  discussion  took  place  on  the  acquisition  by  the 
state  of  the  railroad  from  Paris  to  Lyons,  which  was  further 
complicated  by  the  need  of  urgent  relief-works  for  the  un- 
employed. In  this  debate  on  August  16,  Wolowski,  who 
opposed  the  larger  plan,  expressed  himself  in  favor  of  the 
smaller,  as  an  interesting  experiment  in  government  own- 
ership, and  as  devoid  of  some  of  the  previously  raised 
objections,  this  being  a  purchase,  freely  agreed  to,  and  in 
no  sense  an  expropriation.  Behind  this  particular  road  lay 
the  colony  of  Africa,  whose  immense  destiny  was  still  ob- 
scure, "  and  which  is  perhaps  for  France  what  the  vast 
possessions  of  the  west  are  for  the  United  States,  the  means 
of  solving  peacefully  most  of  the  great  problems  which 
torment  our  epoch."  After  complicated  financial  safe- 
guards had  been  added  in  the  interest  of  the  stockholders, 
the  bill  was  passed. 

Another  subject  on  which  American  example  was  quoted 
a  number  of  times  was  the  liberty  of  the  press.  The  ques- 
tion was  on  a  government  bill  of  July  11,  proposing  a  bond 
of  24,000  f  r.  to  be  deposited  in  cash  at  the  treasury  by  the 
owners  of  every  metropolitan  journal  appearing  more  than 
twice  a  week,  18,000  fr.  for  a  semi-weekly  issue,  12,000  fr. 
for  a  weekly,  6000  for  a  monthly ;  dailies  published  in  other 


224  ^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^q2 

departments  than  Seine,  Seine-et-Oise  and  Seine-et-Marne 
in  towns  of  50,000  inhabitants  and  upwards,  to  pay  6000  fr., 
3600  in  smaller  towns  and  half  of  these  respective  sums  for 
papers  appearing  less  frequently.  The  bill  was  presented 
by  Senard  as  minister  of  the  interior  and  was  defended  by 
him  as  far  milder  than  the  law  under  the  late  monarchy, 
whose  maximum  was  100,000  fr.  The  bill  was  the  result 
of  the  alarm  occasioned  by  the  June  insurrection  and  was 
part  of  the  restrictive  measures  taken  in  consequence.  The 
matter  came  before  the  Assembly,  August  7. 

Sarrans,  the  fifth  who  spoke  to  the  measure,  admitting 
that  certain  papers  had  exceeded  their  privileges  and  should 
be  repressed,  opposed  the  general  scheme  of  the  government, 
as  a  falling  away  from  the  principles  of  February  and  an 
instrument  of  prevention  rather  than  (as  was  claimed)  one 
of  repression.  Without  attempting  to  summarize  his  speech 
attention  must  be  called  to  a  passage  in  which  he  declared, 

Mon  Dieul  England  was  mentioned  to  you  a  short  time  ago,^ 
the  United  States  should  have  been  brought  up  as  well:  an 
authority  on  these  grave  press-questions  exists  which  you  all 
know  and  respect:  it  is  the  treatise  of  M.  Chassani,  published 
in  1837.  Its  influence  too  was  cast  in  favor  of  fiscal  hindrances 
to  be  opposed  to  the  press;  but  do  you  know  what  argument 
it  used  ?  It  said :  "  In  the  United  States,  in  a  country  where 
democracy  is  said  to  reign,  no  bond  is  necessary,  no  fiscal 
hindrances,  no  prevention  of  any  sort :  but  they  are  still  neces- 
sary in  a  monarchical  country  like  France,  where  equality  is 
daily  obliged  to  bow  before  political  necessities."  That  is  what  a 
monarchical  writer  said  in  1837;  but  today  in  1848,  are  you 
still  at  such  a  pass,  I  ask,  that  equality  must  give  way  before 
the  necessities  of  royalist  politics  ?    I  do  not  think  so. 

1  By  Thouret,  pointing  out  that  though  giving  no  bond,  English  papers 
were  under  an  equivalent  repression  through  fines,  damage  suits  and 
the  like. 


^03]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  225 

Sarrans  was  succeeded  by  Felix  Pyat,  who  of  course,  also 
opposed  the  cautionnement.  *' In  1848,"  he  cried,  "the 
French  republic,  the  democratic  republic  as  it  is  called,  would 
be  less  free,  I  do  not  say  than  the  federal  republic  of 
America,  but  than  the  old  English  monarchy  or  the  humble 
Belgian  royalty !  " 

August  8,  Laurent  (de'Ardeche),  speaking  against  the 
measure,  drew  a  distinction  between  "  journalists  of  the 
school  of  Franklin  "  and  "  those  of  the  school  of  Marat  and 
Pere  Duchesne.^' 

The  general  discussion  was  then  closed  and  the  project 
taken  up  by  articles.  To  Art.  i,  which  asserted  the  prin- 
ciple and  fixed  the  various  amounts  payable,  a  counter-pro- 
ject was  presented  by  the  minority  of  the  commission  as 
an  amendment.  It  provided  for  registration  of  the  name, 
profession  and  address  of  the  editor-in-chief  prior  to  the 
publication  of  any  journal,  signature  of  articles  by  the  au- 
thor responsible,  retention  of  manuscripts  by  the  printer  for 
a  fixed  period  and  their  surrender  to  the  courts  by  him  on 
demand,  prosecution  of  the  editor  for  anonymous  articles, 
deprivation  of  his  civic  rights  for  five  years  of  any  author 
hiding  under  the  name  of  another,  suppression  of  any  jour- 
nal condemned  three  times  for  omission  of  signature,  and 
several  minor  regulations.  If  conforming  to  these  require- 
ments every  Frenchman  had  the  right  to  publish  his  opin- 
ions freely  in  the  press. 

Duprat  began  the  defence  of  the  amendment,  Berville,  the 
reporter  of  the  original  decree,  assailed  it.  Ledru-Rollin 
then  spoke  for  the  amendment. 

The  24,000  fr.  of  the  decree  was  not  enough  to  deter  the 
rich,  but  too  much  to  expect  of  the  poor,  he  said.  The 
signature  provision  was  not  only  feasible,  but  would  be  a 
real  safeguard;  men  thought  twice  of  what  they  wrote,  if 
they  had  to  sign  it.     The  chief  objection  seems  to  be  its 


226  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^q^ 

novelty.  But  everything  is  new  here,  including  the  present 
government.  Switzerland  has  no  caufionnement,  but  its 
laws  are  so  strict  that  calumnies  there  are  few. 

Have  you  then  never  read  the  history  of  America  ?  You  speak 
to  me  of  England !  What  have  I  to  do  with  England  ?  She  is 
aristocratic.  As  for  England,  you  mistake,  you  said  that  there 
was  no  cautionnement,  there  is  one;  the  laws  of  1819,  of  1832 
require  a  bond  of  i200  sterling.  .  .  .  Further,  England  is  aris- 
tocratic. I  speak  to  you  of  America;  she  apparently  has  her 
growth  {sa  grandeur),  and  I  think  that  we  can  consult  her. 
In  America,  the  bond  is  unknown.  There,  liberty  is  absolute 
and  yet  authority  is  also  great.  Means  have  been  found  to 
conciliate  the  two  principles  and  no  recourse  has  been  had  to 
the  bond,  and  from  the  start,  there  has  been  no  trifling  with 
words  as  here;  no  one  has  said:  Let  us  make  a  temporary 
law,  in  imitation  of  England,  with  which  we  have  just  broken. 
Let  us  commence  the  republic  by  an  act  which  leaves  out  the 
sacred  principle  of  liberty.  No,  no,  that  was  not  said  in 
America;  on  the  morrow  of  the  rupture  with  England,  and 
when  a  law  of  cautionnement  and  a  stamp  act  were  agitated,  it 
was  declared  that  even  at  the  cost  of  a  break  with  the  mother- 
country  {pour  rompre  avec  la  metropole),  there  should  be 
neither  bond  nor  stamp,  and  that  it  was  not  with  old  expedients 
(avec  du  vieux),  in  enlightened  America,  {au  grand  soleil  de 
VAmerique)  that  a  young,  vigorous  and  invincible  republic 
could  be  founded.  In  America  then,  in  that  great  country 
which  surely  has  its  value  as  an  example,  no  stamp,  no- 
cautionnement,  absolute  liberty.  •  .  .  Yes,  yes,  you  wished  to 
give  us  a  lesson ;  we  want  no  cautionnement,  hence  we  are  men 
of  disorder  and  of  anarchy.  Well,  let  me  in  my  turn  present 
to  you  the  precepts  of  America's  great  statesmen,  who  under- 
stand their  republic  {se  connaissent  en  republique).  Do  you 
know  what  they  want  for  the  press?  The  opposite  of 
what  is  asked  of  you.  And  I  address  this  to  those  among 
you  who,  like  me,  find  that  the  press  is  too  great  a  power  when 
the  republic  exists.    Do  you  know  what  they  do?    They  multi- 


405]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  227 

ply  newspapers;  and  the  secret  of  their  statesmen,  of  a  presi- 
dent from  whose  mouth  I  had  the  honor  to  hear  it,  is  to  de- 
centralize the  press,  instead  of  centralizing,  fortifying  it;  it 
is  that  the  press  should  not  be  a  collective  power,  a  crenellated 
citadel  from  which  one  may  fire  mysteriously,  but  that  it 
should  be,  on  the  contrary,  an  individual  protest.  Those  are 
the  maxims  of  a  veritable  statesman;  that  man  was  no  agi- 
tator; for,  it  must  be  said,  he  had  governed  his  country  with 
glory,  and  all  those  who  in  that  country  attain  public 
office  {aux  affaires),  have  the  same  idea.  Let  journals  be 
published  and  multiplied,  that  they  may  neutralize  one  another, 
and  that  in  the  middle  of  that  ocean  of  indecisive,  tumultuous, 
but  floating  polemic,  something  stable,  immovable,  should 
rise :  the  love  of  order,  love  of  liberty,  love  of  country.  Well, 
in  acting  thus,  the  statesmen  of  Switzerland,  the  statesmen 
of  America,  are  consistent  with  the  principles  of  liberty  and 
at  the  same  time  they  are  skilful.  Skill  and  logic  are  almost 
always  the  same  thing.  Thus  they  conciliate  the  great  princi- 
ples :  respect  for  liberty,  safeguard  for  authority. 

Ledru-Rollin  spoke  for  the  liberty  of  the  press,  though  it 
had  called  him  a  thief  and  a  libertine.  "  I  could  not  reply 
to  these  attacks ;  but  with  Franklin,  the  master  of  them  all, 
I  said  to  myself :  *  If  these  are  vices  with  which  they  re- 
proach me,  their  censure  will  correct  me;  if  they  are  slan- 
ders, perhaps  one  day  history,  in  its  turn,  will  correct  them." 
Senard,  as  minister  of  the  interior,  then  returned  to  the 
defence  of  the  government  project. 

Just  now,  gentlemen,  citation  was  made  to  you  of  the  words 
of  statesmen  before  whom  I  bow,  and  the  example  of 
Switzerland  and  of  America  was  set  forth  at  length;  but 
it  was  forgotten,  and  that  is  perhaps  the  key  to  the  enigma 
which  holds  us  in  suspense,  that  the  freedom  of  the  press  is 
without  danger,  when  the  press  only  is  and  only  wants  to  be 
a  simple  instrument  of  discussion,  in  the  midst  of  a  free 
country;  then  indeed,  every  fear  is  vain,  every  precaution, 
every  repression  even,  useless. 


228  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  T^oS 

The  discussion  was  resumed  on  the  9th  by  Leon  Faucher, 
who  now  made  a  second  speech  for  the  bill.  In  the  course 
of  it,  he  said  : 

Gentlemen,  we  are  not  desired  to  explain  the  example  of 
England,  for  it  was  not  we  who  cited  it,  and  there  is  an  effort 
to  make  use  of  the  example  of  the  United  States.  Permit  me 
a  few  words  in  this  connection.  The  republic,  gentlemen,  has 
its  doctrinaires,  like  the  monarchy.  The  monarchy  had  recom- 
mended to  the  faithful,  the  imitation  of  England ;  it  sought  to 
construct  among  us,  what  cannot  be  constructed,  an  aristoc- 
racy ;  it  was  mistaken,  in  time  and  in  place.  The  doctrinaires 
of  the  republic  commit  a  mistake  of  the  same  nature;  they 
recommend  to  us  the  imitation  of  the  United  States.  They 
forget  that  the  United  States  are  a  federation,  they  forget  that 
if  there  is  a  country  where  the  federal  government  cannot 
establish  itself,  that  if  there  is  a  country  where  the  government 
is  strongly  centralized,  that  if  there  is  a  country  whose  work 
for  centuries  has  been  the  tendency  toward  unity,  that  country 
is  France.  I  say,  gentlemen,  that  if  one  wishes  to  take  ac- 
count of  the  difference  in  places  and  nations,  the  example  of 
the  United  States  will  prove  nothing  for  us.  A  few  words 
on  what  happens  in  the  United  States.  Yes,  in  the  American 
Union,  the  press  enjoys  a  liberty  without  limits,  a  liberty 
which  is  for  me  no  liberty;  for  I  know  no  serious  liberty, 
which  does  not  have  its  limits,  and  what  has  none  is  license, 
in  my  eyes. 

The  United  States,  then,  enjoy  that  liberty  which  is  recom- 
mended to  us.  What  is  the  result?  In  the  first  place,  the 
press  in  the  United  States  is  not  a  political  press ;  it  is  a  local 
press,  a  press  of  advertisements,  it  is  a  press  which  discusses 
affairs  but  little,  preferring  to  attack  persons;  it  is  a  press 
which,  too  often,  uses  and  abuses  defamation.  Do  you  know 
what  is  the  counter-balance  of  that  limitless  influence?  I 
will  tell  you.  The  counter-balance  is  in  the  customs.  It  hap- 
pens  that  if  by  chance  a  paper,  this  time  doing  a  praiseworthy 
act,  wishes  to  preach  the  abolition  of  slavery,  the  enraged 


407]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  229 

mob  demolishes  the  presses ;  it  happens  that  a  polemic  between 
papers  ends  too  often,  in  what?  In  a  rifle  duel.  It  happens 
that  a  person  attacked  in  a  paper  executes  justice  himself,  and 
in  what  manner,  gentlemen  ?  By  a  knife-thrust  or  by  a  pistol- 
shot.  In  a  word,  gentlemen,  the  counter-balance  of  that 
boundless  liberty  is,  in  the  Western  states,  principally  what  is 
called  lynch  law,  that  is  to  say,  the  custom  of  doing  justice 
oneself,  that  is  to  say  the  absence  of  all  law,  that  is  to  say  the 
return  to  a  savage  state.  This  is  what  I  am  not  ambitious  to 
bring  to  my  country. 

This  vicious  attack  on  American  journalism  in  the  '40s 
seems  to  have  put  a  quietus  on  any  possible  inclination  to 
quote  it  as  an  example,  for  throughout  the  remainder  of  the 
rather  long  debate,  it  was  never  referred  to  again.  Five 
other  speeches  were  heard,  most  of  them  briefly,  before  the 
minority  amendment  was  defeated ;  the  government  measure 
was  then  passed,  substantially  in  its  original  form. 

The  United  States  was  also  quoted  a  number  of  times  in 
connection  with  the  encouragement  of  agriculture.  Toupet 
des  Vignes,  Sept.  19,  set  forth  the  failure  of  communistic 
colonies  in  America  as  an  argument  against  giving  state  aid 
to  similar  enterprises  in  Algeria.  Amable  Dubois,  Sept.  23, 
opposed  an  elaborate  scheme  for  agricultural  instruction, 
reviewing  the  situation  in  Belgium,  England,  Normandy, 
Switzerland,  Germany  and  America,  in  some  of  which 
countries  there  were  no  such  schools  and  in  others  they 
were  of  doubtful  value.  In  America  there  were  private 
schools ;  "  the  state  does  not  mix  in  the  matter  at  all,"  but 
American  agriculture  owed  more  to  the  lessons  of  Belgium 
and  England.  De  Tillancourt  interrupted  with  the  asser- 
tion that  America  had  five  state  schools  for  agriculture,  but 
his  correction  was  unheeded.  Flocon  thought  that  the 
Swiss,  American  and  German  schools  had  been  of  such 


230  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^qS 

service  that  it  was  only  a  question  of  transporting  their 
lessons  into  France.     The  project  was  carried,  Oct.  2,  3.^ 

A  few  speeches  might  be  classified  as  remarks  on  the 
American  spirit  of  individualism. 

Thus,  on  Aug.  i,  Cordier,  speaking  against  a  financial 
measure  of  the  government  (adversely  reported  by  the 
committee  of  finance),  which  proposed  a  tax  on  mortgage- 
secured  loans  and  which  was  feared  by  the  conservatives  as 
a  start  toward  an  income-tax,  ridiculed  its  supposed  neces- 
sity, the  Assembly  having  in  the  space  of  a  month  authorized 
an  issue  of  rentes  and  two  loans  from  the  Banque  de  France, 
amounting  in  all  to  950  million  francs,  "  A  sum  equal  to 
eight  times  the  annual  budget  of  the  republic  of  the  United 
States,  which  has  an  area  six  times  greater  than  France 
and  a  prosperity  ten  times  more  rapid,  because  of  its  free- 
dom from  all  taxes  on  agricultural  properties."  By  a  close 
vote,  the  principle  of  the  project  was  carried  the  following 
day,  but  on  the  4th  an  amendment  being  made  which  dis- 
pleased the  finance  minister,  he  withdrew  the  whole  propo- 
sition. 

On  Sept.  12,  Mathieu  de  la  Drome's  proposal  to  insert 
the  droit  au  travail  in  Art.  VIII  of  the  preamble  was  under 
discussion;  Tocqueville,  opposing  the  amendment,  made  a 
vigorous  attack  on  socialism.  Its  adherents,  he  said,  pre- 
tend it  to  be  the  legitimate  development  of  democracy.  For 
himself,  he  refused  to  traverse  the  garden  of  Greek  roots, 
searching  for  the  true  etymology  of  the  word  "democracy," 
as  was  done  by  certain  colleagues  yesterday. 

I  shall  seek  democracy  where  I  have  seen  it,  living,  active, 

1  Cf.  also  the  annex  to  the  original  government  report  of  July  17, 
which  dealt  with  agricultural  instruction  in  several  countries,  a  number 
of  American  private  schools  being  described,  with  emphasis  on  their 
practical,  individualistic  character.  This  annex  is  not  printed  in  con- 
nection with  the  rest  of  the  report  in  the  Moniteur  of  July  22;  it  is, 
however,  to  be  found  in  the  Compte-rendu,  vol.  3,  p.  322  et  seq. 


409]  ^^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  23 1 

triumphant,  in  the  only  country  in  the  world  where  it  exists, 
where  it  has  been  able  to  found,  up  to  the  present  in  the 
modern  world,  something  great  and  durable,  in  America. 
There  you  will  see  a  people,  where  all  conditions  are  more 
equal  than  they  are  even  among  you,  where  the  social  state, 
the  manners,  the  laws,  everything  is  democratic,  where  every- 
thing comes  from  and  returns  to  the  people,  and  where,  how- 
ever, every  individual  enjoys  an  independence  more  entire,  a 
liberty  greater  than  at  any  other  time  or  in  any  other  country 
of  the  earth,  a  land  essentially  democratic,  I  repeat,  the  only 
democracy  which  exists  today  in  the  world,  the  only  truly 
democratic  republics  which  are  known  in  history  are  in  [sic] 
these  republics.  Not  only  have  the  theories  of  socialists  not 
gained  control  of  the  public  mind,  but  they  have  played  so 
small  a  role  in  the  discussions  and  in  the  affairs  of  that  great 
nation,  that  they  have  not  even  had  the  right  to  say  that  they 
were  feared  there.  Democratic  America  is  today  that  country 
in  all  the  world  where  democracy  is  practised  most  completely 
(le  plus  souverainement)  y  and  it  is  also  the  one  where  the 
socialist  doctrines  which  you  pretend  accord  so  well  with 
democracy,  have  the  least  circulation,  the  country  in  the  whole 
universe  where  the  men  who  support  these  doctrines  would 
certainly  have  the  least  advantage  in  presenting  themselves. 
For  my  part,  I  confess  I  should  not  see  a  very  great  inconven- 
ience in  their  going  to  America;  but  in  their  own  interest,  I 
do  not  advise  them  to  do  it. 

It  was  no  doubt  with  a  clear  perception  of  this  very  fact 
that,  on  the  14th,  Martin-Bernard,  speaking  for  the  amend- 
ment and  principally  for  the  idea  of  "  association,"  and  ex- 
horting his  hearers  not  to  attempt  to  put  society  back  in  the 
old  rut  by  juggling  with  words  whose  sense  disappeared 
with  200-f  ranc  electors,  continued : 

Nor  speak  to  us  further  about  America.  That  country,  as 
everybody  knows,  is  in  political,  philosophical  and  territorial 
conditions,  which  compel  it  to  be  what  it  is.     We  are  France, 


22^2,  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["^iq 

oldest  daughter  of  civilization,  who  will  know  well  how  to 
accomplish  her  task.  Especially  make  us  no  tirades  for  effect, 
about  liberty,  when  we  demand  bread,  an  honorable  bread  for 
the  people,  for  we  might  prove  to  you  that  we  more  than  you 
are  men  of  the  ideal;  we  might  tell  you  that  we  have  spent 
long  years  in  dungeons,  with  one  sole  sentiment  in  our  hearts, 
our  faith,  our  spiritual  faith  in  the  triumph  of  human  liberty. 

Two  men  alluded  to  American  financial  difficulties  (to 
say  nothing  of  Cordier's  speech,  referred  to  on  p.  230. 

Leon  Faucher  in  a  report  of  the  finance  committee,  Aug. 
29,^  on  a  paper-money  project,  adverted  to  troubles  pro- 
duced by  that  agency  in  Russia  and  Austria.  "  It  was  the 
same  in  the  United  States,  in  1837,  before  the  suspension 
of  specie  payments.  The  banks  of  the  Union,  by  disorgan- 
ized issues,  had  made  the  exchange  of  their  notes  for  specie, 
the  redemption  on  presentation,  so  difficult,  that  these  notes, 
in  certain  states,  lost  up  to  50%  of  their  value."  ^ 

Thiers,  the  same  day,  remarked  that  the  most  honorable 
men  sometimes  commit  execrable  errors.  Paper  may  legiti- 
mately serve  for  money,  when  it  is  bank-paper;  it  does  so 
in  France,  England  and  America.  It  may  be  very  gradually 
introduced  as  legal  tender,  where  there  is  no  silver,  as  in 
Russia  and  several  northern  countries.  But  suddenly  to 
create  two  or  three  billions  of  paper  in  a  time  of  financial 
stress  is  an  execrable  error.  Even  bank-notes  are  danger- 
ous; England  and  America  are  the  proof.  In  England 
they  had  risen  to  several  billions;  Peel,  in  reducing  this 
bank-paper  (which  is  not  true  paper  money)  to  900  mil- 
lions, rendered  a  great  service  to  his  country.  "  In  Amer- 
ica they  did  not  have  this  prudence,  and  America  has  been 
subject  to  terrifying  crises,  solely  because  the  bank-note  had 
been  abused,  which,  however,  is  always  placed  under  the 

1  Moniteur,  Sept.  2. 

2  Faucher  made  a  similar  reference  to  American  paper-money,  Oct.  11. 


41 1  ]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  233 

guarantee  of  conversion  into  gold  or  silver."  Thiers  later 
alluded  also  to  the  "  numerous  examples  of  accidental  in- 
sufficiency of  specie"  in  England  and  America,  as  the  result 
of  a  too  great  issue  of  bank-notes. 

There  were  a  number  of  miscellaneous  allusions  to 
America,  which  should  also  be  mentioned. 

June  15,  Pierre  Leroux,  speaking  on  the  plan  of  a  union 
between  France  and  Algeria,  which  he  favored,  held  that 
the  subject  had  been  treated  too  much  from  the  military 
point  of  view,  rather  than  from  the  present  advanced  state 
of  civilization  in  France,  which  should  be  extended  to  the 
colony.  One  of  the  preceding  speakers  had  been  too  much 
occupied  with  admiration  of  the  ancient  Romans. 

Yet  there  are  modern  colonies  which  he  should  have  examined, 
for  great  colonies  have  been  founded  since  the  Romans.  I 
see  the  whole  of  America  arising  from  the  revolution  against 
England,  and  I  do  not  at  all  know  that  there  was  not  given  to 
Penn,  bearing  civilization  to  the  United  States  and  founding 
the  Union,  and  to  his  descendants,  the  right  of  being  at  the 
most  advanced  point  of  civilization  at  that  epoch. 

In  any  case,  France  should  extend  the  widest  liberties  to  the 
new  colony,  not  place  it  imder  outworn  institutions.  To 
M.  Dupin,  who  praised  Roman  colonization,  he  would  op- 
pose "  the  manner  in  which  the  English,  bearing  Protes- 
tantism to  America,  colonized  the  United  States.  I  see  that 
it  is  religion  which  colonized  that  great  new  world  called 
the  Union;  it  is  religion  which  founded  it.  And  for  colo- 
nization, you  would  bring  us  worn-out  ideas,  from  one  of 
the  oldest  and  remotest  periods  of  inequality!" 

Later,  referring  to  the  troubles  of  the  Lyons  silkworks, 
dependent  on  America,  England,  Germany  and  France, 
especially  on  the  two  former,  he  said :  "  America,  every 
time  it  has  placed  considerable  orders,  has  failed  [a  fait 
faillite].     Several  times  fifty  millions  have  been  lost  on 


234  1'^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^^2 

American  orders  by  the  Lyons  works,  with  the  result  that 
the  Lyons  works  have  no  faith  in  America." 

On  the  17th,  the  same  speaker  used  the  United  States 
and  Prussia  as  illustrations  of  the  principle  of  Malthus, 
according  to  which,  he  said,  the  population  doubles  every 
twenty-five  years.  The  misery  produced  by  social  condi- 
tions prevents  it  in  France. 

July  12,  Drouyn  de  Lhuys,  in  the  name  of  the  committee 
on  foreign  affairs  made  a  report  on  the  situation  on  the 
Rio  de  la  Plata,  in  course  of  which  he  referred  to  the 
American  protest  against  the  Anglo-French  blockade  of 
Buenos  Ayres. 

July  28,  Emile  Leroux  in  the  name  of  the  committee  of 
justice  ^  reported  on  a  government  project  revising  the 
jury-system.  Having  shown  that  jurors  must  be  free  from 
government  influence,  he  pointed  out  that  they  should  also 
be  selected  with  some  reference  to  ability  and  character,  de- 
scribing the  English  law  to  that  end  and  continuing :  "  In 
the  United  States,  where  the  democratic  principle  dominates 
legislation,  the  jury  law  also  requires  conditions  of  prop- 
erty and  capacity,  and  the  jury  is  chosen  by  the  special 
council  of  the  town."  He  therefore  would  modify  the  gov- 
ernment plan,  which  provided  no  property  qualification,  and 
thus  "  has  not  followed  the  example  of  England  and  the 
United  States,"  by  adding  a  special  list  annually  selected, 
from  which  panel  the  jury  should  be  drawn  by  lot.  This 
arrangement  was  carried. 

July  29,  Ambert  reported  adversely  from  his  committee 
a  government  bill  appropriating  9,6oo,ocx)  fr.  for  the  Paris 
garde  mobile;  the  committee  would  reduce  this  figure  to 
5,500,000,  by  decreasing  the  number  of  men  in  each  com- 
pany, and  leaving  out  a  whole  battalion.     The  core  of  his 

1  Moniteur,  Aug.  i. 


413]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  235 

argument  was  that  the  closer  a  people  approaches  democ- 
racy, the  simpler  should  be  its  military  organization. 

Look  at  the  two  extremes  in  the  scale,  Russia  and  the  United 
States.  In  Russia,  you  have  extremely  complicated  corps: 
the  imperial  guard,  the  regular  Cossacks,  the  irregular  Cos- 
sacks :  it  is  an  offensive  army  in  the  hands  of  the  authorities. 
In  the  United  States,  you  have  an  extremely  simple  army: 
you  have  only  the  militia  and  a  small  army.  The  army  is 
always  employed  against  foreign  enemies,  in  Florida,  in  Texas, 
against  the  Mexicans,  but,  in  the  interior,  you  have  only  the 
militia.  And  what  is  the  militia?  It  is  the  shield  on  the 
people's  heart ;  it  is  the  people's  guarantee  against  the  authori- 
ties [le  pouvoir].  I  do  not  wish  to  tell  you,  however,  to  imi- 
tate the  United  States  completely,  to  suppress  the  standing 
army  in  order  to  make  a  militia.  But  I  ask  you  to  accept  the 
principle,  the  principle  which  brings  it  about  that  the  Ameri- 
cans have  been  willing  to  put  arms  in  the  hands  of  their 
brothers,  of  their  friends  and  not  to  leave  to  the  authorities 
the  choice  of  their  army. 

The  plan  of  the  committee  was  adopted. 

August  17,  Saint  Priest  made  a  report^  on  the  subject 
of  postal  reform,  in  which  he  mentioned  that  England, 
Austria,  Prussia,  Switzerland,  Spain  and  the  United  States 
had  all  lowered  their  postal  rates. 

On  the  24th,  Bastiat,  speaking  of  this  measure,  told  of 
reforms  in  England  and  Austria  and  of  how  "  in  the 
United  States  the  government  is  expending  enormous  sums 
to  save  money  to  those  who  want  to  correspond." 

August  25,  Ledru-Rollin,  defending  himself  against  the 
accusations  of  the  committee  of  inquiry  concerning  the 
events  of  May  and  June,  said : 

We  respect  property,  but  on  the  condition  that  ...  it  be- 
comes multiplied  to  infinity  and  in  so  saying,  we  represent  the 


Moniteur,  Aug.  19. 


236  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^j^ 

great  thought  of  the  Convention.  You  know  perfectly  well 
that  it  wanted  the  dissemination  of  property;  it  was  right, 
for  every  republic  (and  I  reply  here  to  certain  socialist  ideas), 
whether  in  antiquity,  or  in  the  Middle  Ages,  has  perished  by 
concentration  of  property.  At  the  present  moment,  that  mag- 
nificent, that  gigantic  country,  America,  is  decidedly  alarmed 
by  the  concentration  of  property.  (Expressions  of  dissent). 
It  would  be  hard  for  me,  you  understand,  to  reply  to  inter- 
ruptions which  I  do  not  comprehend;  I  have  said  and  I  re- 
peat, and  I  cannot  be  denied  by  those  who  are  well-informed, 
that  at  the  present  moment,  in  North  America,  property  is 
suffering  from  its  own  concentration,  and  that  they  are  asking, 
not  the  agrarian  law,  but  the  distribution  of  lands  belonging 
to  the  state ;  they  are  crying  from  one  pole  to  the  other  of  that 
country :  "  Land  is  liberty." 

August  1 6,  a  report  ^  was  made  by  the  committee  on 
legislation,  through  its  chairman,  Hippolyte  Durand,  call- 
ing for  the  restoration  of  imprisonment  for  debt.  In  it  the 
sentence  occurs :  "  In  Switzerland,  in  the  United  States, 
imprisonment  for  debt  is  authorized." 

Sept.  I,  Wolowski  started  the  debate  against  the  proposed 
decree. 

It  is  in  vain  that  the  report  invokes  the  memory  of  Athens 
and  of  Rome,  and  even  of  the  republic  of  the  United  States. 
...  In  the  French  republic,  there  will  be  no  recognition  of 
slavery.  ...  As  for  the  United  States,  we  know  it  only  too 
well,  they  still  maintain  in  a  part  of  their  territory,  the  slavery 
of  a  part  of  the  inhabitants ;  that  is  an  example  which  we  must 
repudiate.  Let  us  then  also  repudiate  imprisonment  for 
debt,  which  is  only  maintained  in  certain  states  of  the  American 
Union. 

The  decree  was,  however,  passed. 

Sept.  18,  the  discussion  being  on  Art.  7  of  the  constitu- 
tion, Lavallee  proposed  an  amendment,  thus  conceived : 

^Moniteur,  Aug.  20. 


415]  THE  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  237 

No  one  may  be  forced  to  contribute  to  the  expenses  of  any  cult. 
The  republic  gives  financial  support  to  none. 

He  said  in  part,  speaking  for  his  amendment : 

The  American  republic  has  not  supported  any  cult ;  are  churches 
then  less  prosperous  than  with  us?  Has  religion  disappeared 
in  the  United  States?  Quite  the  reverse.  Every  religion 
finds  in  voluntary  gifts  large  supplies  for  the  expense  of  the 
cult.  There,  each  builds  his  church,  his  seminary  and  the 
religious  establishments,  already  numerous,  increase  daily. 
A  state  salary  is  therefore  not  essential  to  the  existence  of 
religion.  On  the  contrary,  as  I  have  already  said,  it  can  only 
compromise  its  dignity  and  independence,  without  which  it 
has  only  a  quite  precarious  moral  existence. 

Sept.  20,  Pierre  Leroux  spoke  to  his  amendment,  "  the 
printing-press  [imprimerie]  shall  be  subject  to  no  monop- 
oly." He  declared  that  no  monopoly  of  the  sort  existed  in 
any  free  country,  neither  in  England,  Switzerland,  Belgium 
nor  the  United  States. 

Oct.  19,  chapter  VII  of  the  constitution,  which  dealt  with 
internal  administration,  was  the  subject  of  debate.  Jouin 
was  given  the  floor  to  defend  an  amendment  by  Bechard, 
in  the  interest  of  administrative  decentralization  and  local 
self-government.  Duprat,  the  preceding  speaker,  had 
quoted  Tocqueville.    Jouin  did  likewise,  to  this  effect : 

'*  If  it  should  ever  come  to  founding  a  democratic  republic, 
like  that  of  the  United  States,  in  a  country  where  the  power 
of  one  person  had  already  established  administrative  central- 
ization and  caused  it  to  pass  into  the  customs  as  into  the  laws, 
I  do  not  fear  to  say  it,  in  such  a  republic,  despotism  would 
become  more  intolerable  than  in  any  of  the  absolute  monar- 
chies of  Europe;  one  would  have  to  go  to  Asia  to  find 
anything  to  compare  with  it."  This  is  how  M.  de  Tocqueville 
expresses  himself  in  his  magnificent  work  on  "  Democracy 
in  ^\merica."    He  has  studied  democracy  in  the  country  where 


238  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^j_^ 

it  reigns,  in  the  country  where  Hberty  is  best  understood, 
where  one  sees  in  some  sort,  liberty  and  nothing  but  liberty. 
Well,  in  studying  the  manners  and  politics  of  America,  he  had 
his  eye  also  on  France. 

The  speaker  went  on  to  say  that  Tocqueville  foresaw  the 
February  Revolution  and  dreaded  the  tyrannical  adminis- 
trative centralization  that  would  be  likely  to  follow.  Cor- 
menin,  a  friend  of  centralization,  had  announced  that  its 
force  was  such  that  the  artisan  class,  whenever  it  wanted  to 
unite,  could  impose  any  form  of  government  it  pleased  on 
France,  even  though  the  agricultural  class  was  five  or  six 
times  more  numerous.  The  testimony  of  these  two  eminent 
men  on  centralization  terrified  him.  Later  he  pointed  out 
how  foolish  were  the  fears  of  some,  that  with  local  self- 
government,  the  roads,  the  churches,  the  town  halls  would 
all  go  to  rack  and  ruin. 

I  beg,  gentlemen,  those  among  you  who  are  frightened  at  the 
idea  of  that  administrative  decentralization,  to  which  we  are 
unfortunately  so  unaccustomed  since  the  empire,  I  beg  them 
to  cast  their  eyes  on  what  is  going  on  in  the  country  where 
liberty  reigns,  in  America.  There,  gentlemen,  the  community 
life  is  as  free  as  possible;  let  those  among  you  who  do  not 
know  the  mechanism  of  those  institutions  read  the  remarkable 
pages  which  M,  de  Tocqueville  has  written,  pages  from  which 
were  extracted  the  lines  that  the  honorable  M.  Pascal  Duprat 
read  to  you  just  now  from  the  tribune;  let  them  read  what  M. 
de  Tocqueville  has  written  on  town  liberties  {les  libertes 
communales)  in  the  state  {sic)  of  New  England;  let  them 
examine  town  liberty  in  the  state  of  Massachusetts,  in  that 
state  where  since  1774,  since  {sic)  a  republican  such  as  the 
world  rarely  sees,  Samuel  Adams,  founded  the  principles  of 
a  truly  liberal  constitution,  a  constitution  which  has  not  ceased 
to  rule  since  1774.  Well,  since  1774,  there  too  reigns  perfect 
town  liberty.  In  almost  all  these  states,  I  think  one  might  say 
in  all  the  states  of  the  two  Americas,  reigns  the  most  entire, 


417]  ^-^^  ASSEMBLY  DEBATES  239 

most  complete,  most  absolute  town  liberty.  Has  that  liberty 
compromised  the  general  interests  of  the  Union?  Have  the 
great  or  local  roads  suffered  from  it?  Have  communications 
become  impossible?  Has  nothing  more  great  and  fine  been 
done  in  that  country  ?  Are  there  then  no  railroads  in  America, 
are  there  then  no  long-distance  roads  (voies  de  grande  com- 
munication) ?  Then  villages  have  not  been  seen  there  be- 
coming in  a  short  time  cities  of  the  first  rank?  Then  they 
are  not  advancing  there  in  the  ways  of  progress  and  civiliza- 
tion? What!  In  that  country  where  liberty  is  so  great, 
where  one  enjoys  so  many  liberties,  the  general  interests  are 
sacrificed?  No,  gentlemen,  you  know  perfectly  that  if  liberty 
rules  in  that  great  and  glorious  republic,  order  rules  there  as 
well,  and  that  general  interests  are  carefully  conserved  there. 

With  this  speech,  the  record  of  allusions  to  America 
prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  on  Nov.  4,  comes 
to  an  end.  Were  the  limit  of  the  inquiry  prolonged  after 
the  constitution-making  period  to  the  final  adjournment  of 
the  Assembly,  May  26,  1849,  the  list  would  be  considerably 
increased.  At  least  thirty  further  references  were  made, 
the  majority  of  no  great  value,  to  be  sure,  but  some  show- 
ing continued  interest  in  the  American  constitution,  notably 
a  debate  on  Feb.  28,  1849,  ^^  the  principle  of  representa- 
tion, when  the  American  compromise  on  three-fifths  of  non- 
citizens  was  food  for  argument  and  Algeria  was  compared 
to  a  territory  of  the  United  States. 

The  focal  points  of  American  influence  and  the  party 
alignment  on  them  have,  however,  been  sufficiently  illus- 
trated by  the  foregoing  complete  account  of  the  period  up 
to  Nov.  4.  Before  commenting  on  the  facts  thus  presented, 
it  is  important  to  study  the  trend  of  public  opinion  outside 
the  Assembly.  This  is  most  easily  done  through  the  news- 
papers and  reviews,  and  will  be  the  task  of  the  following 
chapter. 


CHAPTER  VII 
Contemporary  Comment 

The  periodical  literature  of  1848  is  useful  to  our  study 
in  two  ways.  It  reflects  what  the  popular  mind  was  think- 
ing about,  and  the  trend  of  its  opinions ;  secondly,  it  shows 
what  influences  were  at  work  on  the  mind  of  the  Assembly. 
The  press  in  those  days  was  a  great  political  power.  In  the 
period  before  1848  journals  w^ere  comparatively  few  and 
were  usually  published  by  some  prominent  political  leader 
or  in  the  interest  of  some  political  group.  In  the  absence 
of  opportunity  for  wide  self-expression  at  the  polls  or  in 
parliament,  due  to  the  restricted  franchise,  party  organs 
came  to  have  undue  importance  in  public  life. 

It  has  been  shown  how  the  provisional  government  was  the 
result  of  deliberations  in  the  back-rooms  of  two  newspapers. 
In  spite  of  the  institution  of  universal  suffrage  and  a  free 
press  in  February,  with  the  resulting  flood  of  cheap,  ephe- 
meral papers,  the  tradition  persisted  to  some  degree,  partic- 
ularly when,  after  June,  police  laws  again  fettered  the  lib- 
erty of  publication  and  the  weaker  papers  were  eliminated. 
Granted  the  great  political  influence  of  the  press,  its  effect  on 
the  mind  of  the  Assembly  becomes  significant,  when  it  is  ob- 
served that  not  only  did  a  number  of  papers  publish  special 
articles  on  American  constitutional  practice,  but  that  these 
articles  were  in  some  cases  apparently  timed  to  coincide 
with  the  Assembly's  discussion  of  a  particular  point. 

For  an  intelligent  appreciation  of  the  meaning  of  this 
240  [418 


419]  '    CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  241 

press  comment,  a  preliminary  classificati(^  of  the  news- 
papers is  necessary.^ 

Beginning  at  the  extreme  right,  five  papers  represented 
the  legitimist  party  in  1848.  The  Gazette  de  France, 
founded  in  the  17th  century,  was  the  old  organ  of  the  ultras 
during  the  Restoration.  In  1848  it  advocated  a  hereditary 
president,  but  the  spirit  and  real  purpose  remained  royalist. 
The  paper  was  suspended  Aug.  24,  but  its  policy  was  con- 
tinued under  the  name  of  L^  Peuple  frangais  and  later 
UEtoile  de  la  France  until  the  Gazette  resumed  publication, 
Oct.  25.  U  Union  monarchique  started  in  1847  ^-s  a  fusion 
of  the  famous  Quotidienne  with  two  other  royalist  organs. 
UAssemhlee  nationale  was  published  from  March  i  to  June 
25,  when  it  was  suspended,  reappearing  Aug.  7.  UAssem- 
blee  constituante  was  founded  by  a  group  of  seceders  from 
UAssemhlee  nationale  with  similar  political  views;  it  was 
short-lived  and  unimportant.  UOpinion  publique  was  a 
boldly  legitimist  paper,  started  in  May,  1848. 

Five  papers  represented  conservative  republicanism,  four 
of  which  at  least  were  ex-Orleanist  and  retained  a  large 
measure  of  sympathy  for  the  fallen  cause.  The  Journal  des 
debats  had  been  the  semi-official  organ  of  the  late  monarchy. 
It  was  a  dignified  paper  of  the  highest  type,  and  of  great 
prestige.  Lamartine  says  it  supported  every  government  in 
turn  as  the  necessary  expression  of  the  most  essential  and 
permanent  interests  of  society  and  that  the  fullness  and 
impartiality  of  its  parliamentary  debates,  its  foreign  cor- 
respondence, its  accurate  and  complete  news  service  made  it 
the  manual  of  every  court  and  diplomatic  office  in  Europe." 

1  Cf.  E.  Hatin,  Bibl  hist,  et  crit.  de  la  presse  period,  frang.;  the  same 
author's  Hist,  polit.  et  lit.  de  la  presse  en  France,  vol.  8;  H.  Izambard, 
La  Presse  parisienne.  Most  of  the  information  here  given  is,  however, 
derived  from  a  study  of  the  newspaper  files  themselves. 

2  Lamartine,  Hist,  of  the  Revol.  of  1848,  bk.  i,  sees,  xi,  xii. 


242  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["420 

Always  solidly  conservative,  it  had  supported  Guizot  to  the 
end.  The  C onstitutionnel  had  been  the  great  royalist  op- 
position organ  during  the  Restoration;  under  the  July 
monarchy  and  in  1848,  it  represented  the  opinions  of  Thiers. 
It  had  at  one  time  an  immense  circulation  among  the  bour- 
geois class,  but  had  somewhat  lost  in  influence  since  the 
height  of  its  power  in  1830.  The  Siecle,  which  appealed 
to  the  rural  working-class,  is  said  to  have  occupied  a  posi- 
tion in  the  July  monarchy,  analogous  to  that  of  the  Con- 
stitutionnel  under  the  Restoration,^  with  the  difference  that 
the  former  was  friendly  to  the  ruling  dynasty  of  its  day, 
which  the  latter  had  not  been.  Both  were  thus  Orleanist 
papers,  the  Siecle  representing  the  constitutional  opposition 
opinions  of  Odilon  Barrot.  The  Courrier  frangais/  like  the 
C onstitutionnel,  was  a  Thiers  paper.  The  Patrie  was  less 
important,  but  was  likewise  of  conservative  tendencies. 

Of  the  moderate  republican  stripe,  that  of  the  dominant 
party  in  the  government,  which  we  have  called  the  liberal 
party,  three  papers  may  be  cited.  Most  important  was  the 
National,  the  semi-official  mouthpiece  of  the  government, 
supporter  of  General  Cavaignac.  There  was  also  the  Bien 
public,^  representing  the  Lamartine  interest  and  the  Journal 
(July  28-Nov.  i),  a  less  important  Cavaignac  paper. 

Three  may  be  classed  as  radical,  the  Reforme,  organ  of 
Ledru-Rollin  and  Flocon,  the  Peuple  constituent,  Lamen- 
nais*  paper,  which  was  forced  to  suspend  in  July  for  lack 
of  money  wherewith  to  pay  the  required  bond,  and  the 
comic  Charivari,  which  finally  supported  Cavaignac. 

Eight  belong  to  the  extreme  left  wing,  seven  of  them 
definitely  socialist.     The  Representant  du  peuple,   Proud- 

1  Hatin,  Hist.  .  .  .  de  la  presse,  vol.  8,  p.  590. 

2  No  file  preserved  in  Bibl.  Nat.,  Paris. 
8  File  in  Bibl.  Nat.  begins  May  24. 


42 1 ]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  243 

hon's  organ,  lasted  from  April  i  to  August  24  with  inter- 
missions; it  was  succeeded  by  the  Peuple,  which  ran  from 
Sept.  I  to  June  13,  1849.  Its  standpoint  was  anarchist. 
The  Ami  du  peuple  was  RaspaiFs  bi-weekly,  published  from 
Feb.  27  to  May  14.  The  Vraie  republiqiie  (Mar.  26- June 
24,  Aug.  8-21)  was  edited  by  Thore  with  the  collaboration 
of  Pierre  Leroux,  George  Sand,  Barbes  and  others;  it  be- 
lieved in  state  socialism.  The  Democratic  paciftquc  repre- 
sented the  Fourierist  views  of  Victor  Considerant.  The 
Populairc  was  the  organ  of  Cabet's  communism.  The  Re- 
puhlique  represented  Blanqui's  interests ;  it  occupied  a  mod- 
erate socialist  position.  The  Atelier,  a  workman's  paper  of 
the  Christian  socialist  type,  edited  by  Corbon,  preached 
voluntary  association.  Pere  Duchene,  a  violent,  coarse 
sheet  with  very  large  circulation,  was  said  to  have  been  one 
of  the  prime  agents  of  the  June  insurrection.  It  repre- 
sented the  club  interests  rather  than  any  reasoned  theory  of 
socialism.  Its  career  was  run  from  April  to  August,  but  it 
was  suspended  at  the  end  of  June  and  published  only  five 
numbers  in  August. 

These  were  the  chief  socialist  organs.  Two  other  work- 
ing-class papers  were  published  in  the  Bonapartist  interest : 
Napoleon  republicain  (only  six  issues,  all  during  June) 
and  Le  Petit  caporal  (June-Dec.,  with  a  suspension  during 
July). 

Of  much  greater  importance  and  stability  were  three  per- 
sonal organs,  whose  politics  are  hard  to  classify:  fimile 
Girardin's  Presse,  a  brilliant  eclectic  paper,  usually  friendly 
to  the  Mole  right-center  position  in  the  July  monarchy,  but 
really  a  clever  free  lance  at  all  times ;  Victor  Hugo's  Evene- 
mentj  begun  Aug.  i  with  the  motto  "  Vigorous  hatred  for 
anarchy,  tender  and  profound  love  of  the  people;"  A. 
Dumas'  Liherte  (Mar.  i-June  26,  Aug.  7-Sept.  2,  Nov.  8- 
Dec.  31).    The  Presse  and  the  Liherte  were  on  the  whole 


244  ^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^22 

of  conservative  republican  politics;  the  Evenement  had  no 
party  interests,  but  grew  friendlier  to  the  socialists  in  time. 

Two  others  were  devoted  to  the  interests  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church :  the  Univers,  edited  by  Louis  Veuillot,  of 
moderate  republican  tendency  (in  the  next  decade  becom- 
ing ultramontane) ,  and  the  Ere  nouvelle,  Lacordaire's  more 
liberal  enterprise,  endeavoring  to  show  a  community  of  in- 
terest between  the  Church  and  the  republic. 

The  official  mouthpiece  of  the  government  was,  as  always, 
the  Moniteur  universe!,  colorless  and  heavy  but  (theoreti- 
cally, at  least)  accurate. 

A  few  reviews  may  be  mentioned,  the  important  bi-weekly 
Revue  des  deux  mondes  (of  Guizot  sympathies  under  the 
monarchy,  afterward  conservative  republican),  the  quar- 
terly Revue  de  legislation  et  de  jurisprudence,  also  conserv- 
ative republican,  the  bi-monthly  Revue  britanniqice,  Dumas' 
Mois,  and  the  weekly  Revue  nationale  of  the  Atelier  nuance. 

The  foregoing  list  makes  no  pretence  of  being  exhaustive, 
but  it  contains  all  the  important  papers  and  is  believed  to  be 
representative  of  all  schools  of  political  thought. 

References  to  America  made  in  the  press  fall  naturally 
into  three  categories:  news  reports,  editorials  and  special 
articles.  It  will  be  convenient  to  add  to  these  an  account 
of  the  book  and  pamphlet  literature  dealing  with  the  sub- 
ject, so  far  as  this  has  not  been  already  treated. 

It  is  best  to  take  the  news  reports  first.  A  significant 
light  is  cast  on  the  Orleanist  attitude  toward  America  by 
contrasting  two  articles  in  the  Chronique  de  la  quinsaine  of 
the  Revue  des  deux  mondes,  just  before  and  just  after  the 
February  revolution. 

In  the  former  occurs  the  passage : 

There  are  instructive  lessons  in  the  latest  news  received  from 
the  United  States.  The  government  of  the  Union  is  often 
presented  to  us  as  the  type  of  free  and  constitutional  govern- 


423]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  245 

ments ;  it  is  well  to  see  which  of  the  two  systems,  that  of  the 
monarchy  or  that  of  the  republic,  offers  in  fact  the  most 
guarantees.^ 

The  article  reports  a  vote  by  the  Senate  to  the  effect  that  the 
President  had  begun  the  Mexican  war  needlessly  and  un- 
constitutionally. In  England  or  France  such  a  vote  would 
entail  either  an  appeal  to  the  country  or  a  change  of  min- 
istry; the  royal  power  being  irresponsible,  no  collision  was 
possible  between  it  and  the  elective  power.  The  President 
of  the  United  States  was  really  an  unremovable  prime  min- 
ister, who  could  continue  a  war  opposed  by  the  legislature, 
with  volunteers  if  necessary. 

In  the  very  next  Chronique,  the  work  of  republican  organ- 
ization in  France  is  discussed;  the  national  representation 
must  be  organized  on  large  bases,  making  it  the  real  ex- 
pression of  all  interests  and  rights,  industry  as  well  as  prop- 
erty, capital  as  well  as  labor.  "  For  that  necessary  work, 
neither  the  studies  and  attempts  of  our  fathers,  nor  the 
great  experiment,  of  which  we  have  had  the  spectacle  in 
another  hemisphere  for  more  than  half  a  century,  will  be 
lost."  ^  Within  a  fortnight  America  had  ceased  to  be  a 
menace  to  monarchy  and  had  become  a  bulwark  against 
socialism.  This  number  contains  also  an  account  of  Mr. 
Rush's  recognition  of  the  new  republic,  with  the  statement 
that  these  are  not  new  sympathies  and  that  while  the  min- 
ister recognized  the  republic  without  instructions,  he  found 
them  "  in  the  traditions  and  memories  left  by  the  most  illus- 
trious citizens  of  America."  ^ 

Early  references  in  radical  papers  were  equally  friendly.* 

1  Revue  des  deux  mondes,  Feb.  14. 
a  Ibid.,  Feb.  29. 

*  Cf.  ch.  iii  for  other  newspaper  accounts  of  American  recognition. 

*  Vide  supra,  pp.  80,  n.,  no. 


246  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^24 

Another  note  was,  however,  increasingly  sounded.  Proud- 
hon's  paper,  Le  Reprisentant  du  peuple,  describing  the  pre- 
sentation of  the  American  minister's  credentials  and  Lamar- 
tine's  speech  in  reply,  commented  : 

That  is  as  vague  as  possible.  M.  Lamartine,  further,  is  not 
ignorant  that  the  republic  of  the  United  States  is  a  federal 
government,  containing  two  chambers,  and  accommodating 
itself  to  slavery.  Assuredly,  what  we  want  is  not  [to  be 
found]  there.  For  the  rest,  all  the  political  systems  in  the 
world  are  powerless  to  solve  the  questions  raised  by  the  Feb- 
ruary Revolution.  Let  us  more  than  ever  keep  from  imitating 
the  old  errors  of  the  past.  The  social  edifice  cracks  in  every 
part.  If  we  do  not  want  to  be  crushed — instead  of  white- 
washing it,  let  us  busy  ourselves  in  constructing  it.^ 

Despatches  from  Germany  indicate  interest  in  America 
on  the  part  of  republicans  there.  A  despatch  from  Hesse- 
Darmstadt  gives  the  substance  of  a  manifesto  by  the  repub- 
licans of  Germany  to  the  new  parliament,  supporting  their 
governmental  theory  by  the  example  of  the  American  re- 
public, "  which  has  remained  calm  in  the  midst  of  the  great- 
est commotions.''  ^  The  United  States  federal  system 
should  be  established,  with  a  national  assembly  and  a  re- 
sponsible governing  committee,  according  to  the  views  of 
the  radical  democratic  party  at  Frankfort.^  A  despatch 
from  Cologne  tells  of  riots  at  Berlin  and  comments :  '*Cer- 
tain  individuals  still  want  a  United  States  republic,  but  they 
forget  the  recent  events  which  drenched  Paris  in  blood."  * 

The  London  letter  of  the  Revue  britannique,  speaking  of 
the  opening  of  the  London  season,  reminded  the  writer  that 

^  Le  Reprisentant  du  peuple,  Apr.  29. 

^Le  Peuple  constituant,  Mar.  28. 

3  L'kre  nouvelle,  June  9. 

*  L' Union,  July  4.  ' 


425]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  247 

he  was  addressing  republican  readers,  who  no  longer  had 
king,  queen,  court  or  nobility,  but  were  enjoying  at  the  cost 
of  some  disorder  *'  all  the  pleasures  of  the  classic  republics 
and  those  of  the  republic  of  the  United  States."  ^ 

Of  much  greater  importance  is  the  report  of  the  bureaux' 
discussions  of  the  first  draft  of  the  constitution,  which  fills 
a  lacuna  left  by  official  records.  The  Journal  des  debats 
gave  a  good  summary  of  the  speeches,  day  by  day.  In  its 
first  article  it  stated  that  discussions  had  begun  in  the  4th, 
5th  and  6th  bureaux.  The  first  chapter,  on  popular  sover- 
eignty, was  approved  almost  without  opposition,  especially 
the  article  on  the  separation  of  powers.  The  section  con- 
cerning the  legislature,  on  the  contrary,  was  long  discussed. 
"  Many  members,  notably  MM.  Ch.  Dupin,  Belhard,  Bon- 
jean,  Laussedat,^  Roux-Lavergne,  spoke  in  favor  of  the 
bicameral  system,  supporting  themselves  by  the  examples 
of  the  United  States,  England  and  of  France  itself."  Pages 
de  TAriege  and  Edgar  Quinet  opposed  them.  "  M.  de  Mon- 
talembert,  who  belongs  to  the  4th  bureau,  gave  a  remark- 
able opinion  on  the  necessity  of  having  two  chambers."  M. 
de  Montalembert  said  that  no  republic  had  ever  amounted 
to  anything,  had  even  survived,  without  a  second  chamber. 

In  this  connection,  the  example  of  the  United  States  is  of 
incomparable  authority.  At  first  governed  by  a  single  as- 
sembly, that  great  republic  promptly  recognized  that  its  dura- 
tion and  its  prosperity  required  the  creation  of  two  legisla- 
tive bodies.  One  sees  there  not  only  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  which  may  be  regarded  as  the  fruit  of  the  federal 
principle  that  does  not  exist  in  France;  but  also  and  more 
particularly  the  Senators  of  the  thirty  republics  which  com- 
pose  the   federation.     These   thirty   states,   all   unitary   like 

1  Letter  dated  May  23.    Revue  hritannique,  vol.  15,  p.  208. 
2 Error  corrected  in  next  issue;  this  deputy  favored'  one  chamber; 
Laussat  defended  the  dual  system. 


248  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-^5 

France,  all  democratic,  and  where  the  slightest  germ  of  a  polit- 
ical patriciate  has  never  appeared,  diifer  among  themselves  in 
their  various  constitutions,  but  all  these  constitutions,  without 
a  single  exception,  proclaim  the  necessity  of  two  assemblies. 
France  could  not,  without  inexcusable  temerity,  quit  the  path 
where  all  these  glorious  and  upright  [honnete]  republics  have 
preceded  her,  and  into  which  all  truly  politic  minds  have  striven 
to  make  her  enter.^ 

Three  days  later,  the  story  is  resumed. 

One  of  the  gravest  questions  raised  in  the  Assembly  bureaux 
concerning  the  projected  constitution  is  to  know  whether  there 
should  be  one  or  two  chambers.  The  defenders  of  the  two- 
chamber  system  appealed  especially  to  the  example  of  the 
United  States,  which  commenced  by  forming  a  single  assembly, 
and  did  not  delay  recognizing  the  necessity  of  a  second 
chamber. 

A  single  chamber  would  be  tyrannical  or  servile,  it  was  felt. 
Those  who  defended  the  dual  system  were  Victor  Hugo, 
Isambert,  Jules  de  Lasteyrie,  Raimbault,  Demesanges, 
Pigeon,  Oscar  Lafayette,  Abraham  Dubois  and  Etienne. 

The  partisans  of  a  single  assembly  tried  to  repel  the  example 
drawn  from  the  United  States,  because  those  states  form  a 
federal  republic.  The  principle  of  the  French  republic,  they 
said,  being  unity,  the  two  chambers  would  be  in  constant  con- 
flict and  would  offer  a  usurper  the  double  means  of  oppressing 
one  by  the  other.  In  this  sense  spoke  MM.  Marrast,  Cre- 
mieux,  Babaud-Laribiere,  Havier,  Donatien  Marquis,  Regnard. 
Gaudin,  Barthe,  G.  Sarrat,  Fleury,  Conti,  Grevy,  Brunet  and 
others.    M.  Thiers  spoke  in  favor  of  two  chambers. 

Cormenin,  in  contrast  to  his  political  friends,  General  Lafa- 
yette and  Armand  Carrel,  had  defended  the  single  chamber 

1  Journal  des  debats,  July  4. 


427]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  249 

in  1830  and  continued  this  policy  with  vigor.  A  resume  of 
his  opinion  and  those  of  Thiers  and  Tocqueville  was  then 
given. 

Thiers  said  among  other  things : 

You  see  how  many  services  the  Senate  renders  in  the  United 
States,  and  how  it  is  esteemed  for  its  reputation  of  wisdom. 
What  faults  it  has  anticipated!  What  imprudent  decisions  it 
has  delayed  or  prevented!  For  example,  the  danger  of  the 
United  States  is  in  the  spirit  of  enterprise,  for  they  are  large 
enough  to  have  no  need  of  making  conquests,  and  a  conquer- 
ing general  might  make  a  rude  assault  on  their  constitution. 
What  restrains  that  spirit  ?    It  is  the  Senate,  the  Senate  alone. 

Later  he  came  to  the  question  of  its  election.  Fortune,  cir- 
cumstances, political  relationships  carry  men  to  different 
destinies  in  every  republic,  even  in  the  United  States,  "  in 
the  midst  of  the  most  democratic  society  on  earth."  The 
electors  will  naturally  decide  whether  a  candidate  is  fitter 
for  the  Assembly  or  for  the  Senate,  the  men  of  action  or 
the  men  of  counsel.  There  are  so  many  ways  to  makei  a 
difference  in  the  method  of  election,  that  the  difficulty  is 
purely  imaginary. 

What!  In  that  country  of  the  whole  universe  where  the 
greatest,  the  most  extraordinary  equality  reigns,  in  the  United 
States,  a  way  has  been  found  to  elect  a  Senate  of  remarkable 
wisdom,  and  it  could  not  be  done  in  France,  where  the  level 
of  equality  has  exerted  far  less  pressure  [a  beaucoup  moins 
broye]  on  every  existence!  It  is  an  objection  with  no  founda- 
tion. Ah!  I  wish  that  the  North  Americans  could  hear  us 
and  reply  to  us  from  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic.  I  have 
the  honor  to  count  several  friends  among  the  eminent  citizens 
of  the  United  States.  All  those  who  are  at  this  moment  in 
Europe  have  strongly  advised  me  to  tell  you  and  to  tell  you 
with  the  greatest  warmth,  that  in  adopting  the  unicameral 
system,  you  would  be  committing  the  gravest  of  faults.    They 


250  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^2^ 

express  ardent  hopes  for  the  success  in  France  of  those  re- 
publican institutions  which  they  have  had  the  honor  of  inau- 
gurating on  a  large  scale  in  modern  times.  In  the  ardor  of 
their  good  wishes  for  us,  they  earnestly  desire  you  to  adopt 
that  bicameral  system,  to  which  they  returned  after  hard 
experiences. 

Cormenin  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  expressed  the  view, 

that  it  is  unnecessary  to  quote  eternally  the  example  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  an  English  colony  which  repro- 
duced quasi-mechanically  the  usages  and  forms  of  the  mother- 
country;  that  America  is  essentially  federal,  while  we  are 
essentially  unitary;  that  to  distinguish  the  Senate  from  the 
House  of  Representatives  it  was  necessary  to  attribute  to  the 
American  Senate  governmental  functions  which  we  would  not 
tolerate  in  France. 

Tocqueville  asked  if  the  bicameral  system  did  in  fact  of 
necessity  lead  to  aristocracy.  Nothing  was  easier  to  dis- 
prove. 

If  there  is  a  country  in  the  world  exempt  from  aristocracy, 
it  is  assuredly  North  America.  There  aristocracy  has  not 
been  destroyed,  it  has  never  existed.  The  manners,  ideas,  laws, 
spirit,  heart,  all  are  democratic.  Yet  the  Americans  have  es- 
tablished two  chambers  in  the  midst  of  each  of  their  thirty 
republics.  Have  they  made  of  one  an  aristocratic  body  and 
of  the  other  the  representative  of  democracy?  No,  without 
doubt.  In  most  of  these  republics,  the  two  chambers  differ 
only  in  the  number  of  the  members  who  compose  them ;  they 
are  elected  in  the  same  manner,  composed  of  those  equally 
eligible,  named  for  the  same  time.  Might  the  American 
democracies  have  been  led,  unknown  to  themselves,  toward 
that  system  by  imitation  of  aristocratic  England,  their  mother- 
country?  Another  error,  for  several  of  them  began  by  having 
a  single  assembly;  the  experiment  ended  in  making  them 
renounce  it.^ 

1  Journal  des  dehats,  July  7. 


429]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  25 1 

The  Constitutionnel  also  published  an  analysis  of  Thiers* 
speech,  commending  its  wisdom  and  patriotism  and  noting 
the  deep  impression  it  made  on  the  bureau.  "  The  experi- 
ence of  all  history  and  the  contemporary  experience  of  the 
United  States  added  to  the  authority  of  M.  Thiers'  coun- 
sels." ^ 

Three  days  later  it  reproduced  Cormenin's  arguments, 
refuting  them  point  by  point,  (a)  That  two  chambers  with 
the  same  origin,  electors,  authority  and  subjects  of  discus- 
sion were  incomprehensible.  But  special  attributes  might 
be  given  to  one  of  the  chambers,  as  in  the  United  States; 
special  conditions  of  origin  and  eligibility  required,  and  in 
any  case  a  double  discussion  would  be  useful,  (b)  That  a 
second  chamber  is  purely  aristocratic,  of  English  origin. 
But  while  the  House  of  Lords  has  in  fact  served  that  pur- 
pose in  England,  a  second  chamber  may  represent  something 
quite  different ;  "  there  is  no  aristocracy  in  the  United 
States,  and  a  second  chamber  exists  not  only  in  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  Union,  but  in  the  representations  of  the 
individual  states."  (c)  That  second  chambers  are  repug- 
nant to  the  genius  of  equality,  to  direct  and  universal  suf- 
frage, and  to  the  French  spirit  of  imity,  which  recognizes 
two  chambers  in  parliament  no  more  than  it  would  two 
nations  in  France.  "  The  example  of  the  United  States  is 
there  to  reply.  There  are  two  chambers,  which  does  not 
prevent  the  existence  of  complete  equality,  and  it  is  a  fact 
that  two  nations  do  not  exist  there  within  the  nation."  (d) 
That  the  example  of  the  United  States  should  not  be  eter- 
nally quoted,  an  English  colony,  reproducing  quasi-mechan- 
ically  the  forms  of  the  mother  country.  "  The  United 
States  have  to  so  slight  an  extent  mechanically  reproduced 
the  example  of  England,  that  they  commenced  by  estab- 
lishing a  single  chamber  and  that  experience  alone  brought 

1  Constitutionnel,  July  7. 


252  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["^^O 

them  later  to  the  two-chamber  system."  (e)  That  America 
is  essentially  federal,  while  we  are  essentially  unitary.  "The 
individual  states  of  the  Union  are  unitary,  and  they  almost 
all  have  two  chambers."  (f)  That  to  distinguish  the  two 
houses,  the  American  Senate  was  given  governmental  func- 
tions, intolerable  in  France.  But  he  does  not  say  why  they 
would  not  be  tolerated  here,  (g)  That  one  need  not  be  a 
great  prophet  to  foretell  that  the  Assembly  will  defeat  the 
two-chamber  system  by  a  large  majority,  for  these  reasons 
and  for  still  better  ones.  But  if  the  chamber  does  so,  it  will 
be  for  other  reasons  than  those  of  M.  de  Cormenin.^ 

The  Union  likewise  gave  long  accounts  of  Thiers'  and 
Cormenin's  speeches,  with  the  comment : 

The  partisans  of  the  two-chamber  system,  the  bicamerists,  did 
not  fail  to  cite  the  example  of  the  United  States,  but  it  seems 
to  us  that  they  did  not  draw  all  the  advantage  that  they  should 
from  the  attributes  of  the  American  Senate.  These  govern- 
mental functions  of  which  M.  Cormenin  spoke  too  disdain- 
fully in  our  opinion,  are,  however,  exercised  with  immense 
usefulness  for  the  regularity  of  action  of  the  central  power 
in  foreign  affairs  and  for  the  good  of  the  general  policy  of 
the  Union.  That  is  a  side  of  the  question  which  remains 
almost  untouched  and  to  which  it  will  be  necessary  to  call 
public  attention.- 

The  Siecle  reported  Odilon  Barrot's  opinion,  expressed  in 
the  9th  bureau.  He  thought  that  the  commission  would 
have  decided  for  the  dual  system,  had  it  not  been  for  pres- 
ent circumstances.  Since  the  experience  of  France,  the 
United  States,  England  and  even  Switzerland  had  all 
proved  favorable  to  the  dual  system,  care  was  necessary  to 
foresee  the  difficulties  which  might  hamper  the  future  prog- 
less  of  the  republic* 

1  Constitutionnel,  July  10.  2  Union,  July  8. 

3  Siecle,  July  8. 


43 1  ]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  253 

The  deliberations  of  the  14th  bureau  also  received  com- 
ment by  the  press.  In  this  bureau  the  two-chamber  system 
won,  26-10.  The  Journal  des  dehats  gives  the  speeches  of 
Victor  Hugo,  de  Remusat  and  Leon  Faucher.  M.  de  Re- 
musat  said  that  he  had  lived  with  members  of  the  original 
Constituent  Assembly,  who  felt  that  the  single  chamber  was 
one  of  its  greatest  errors,  and  if  he  might  quote  the  expla- 
nation of  an  authority  particularly  precious  to  him,  General 
Lafayette  attributed  the  pernicious  mistake  (as  he  also  re- 
garded it)  to  the  influence  on  the  one  hand  of  Rousseau's 
doctrines  in  the  Social  Contract,  and  on  the  other  hand  of 
the  school  of  Turgot,  who  had  borrowed  the  idea  from 
Franklin,  at  first  followed  in  this  respect  by  America,  then 
abandoned  by  her.  Later  the  Convention,  after  its  terrible 
experience,  put  two  chambers  in  the  constitution  of  the 
year  IIL  Ever  since,  this  idea,  professed  by  Daunou  and 
his  friends,  had  been  sustained  by  the  chiefs  of  the  liberal 
school. 

The  most  striking  example  in  the  direction  of  two  chambers 
is  that  of  the  United  States.  How  refrain  from  citing  it? 
It  is  the  glorious  and  unique  example  of  the  existence  of  a 
republic  in  a  great  country.  But  it  is  replied  in  objection  that 
the  United  States  are  a  federation.  The  argument  might  be 
employed  on  the  opposite  side.  The  federal  government,  hav- 
ing few  attributes,  not  having  to  legislate  on  those  internal 
questions  which  are  especially  exciting  to  opinion,  might  more 
than  another  dispense  with  those  guarantees,  those  disposi- 
tions, necessary  to  shield  the  government  from  hasty  impulses. 
Nothing  of  the  sort,  however.  Everyone  knows  how  great  a 
role  the  Senate  plays  in  the  federal  power,  and  every  state 
reproduces  faithfully  the  duality  of  the  center  in  each  local 
legislature.  Shall  one  say,  again,  that  the  two  chambers  are 
an  aristocratic  affair?  But  there  is  not  an  atom  of  aristocracy 
in  the  American  constitution;  it  is  pure  democracy,  it  is  at 
once  the  ideal  and  the  reality  of  democracy. 


254  ^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^^^ 

M.  Leon  Faucher  arose  to  confute  the  idea  that  to  estab- 
lish a  dual  system  involved  a  necessary  antagonism  between 
the  chambers.  There  is  only  one  element  to  be  represented 
in  every  country.  In  England  the  government  is  aristo- 
cratic and  the  two  chambers  represent  only  aristocracy. 
"  In  the  United  States,  democracy  is  equally  alive  in  the 
two  assemblies  which  form  the  American  Congress."  In 
France  there  is  no  thought  of  having  one  democratic  and 
one  aristocratic  chamber.  "  It  is  the  Senate  which  has 
made  the  force  of  the  United  States,  which  has  given  them 
a  policy,  which  has  made  them  rivals  of  England  and  of 
Russia." ' 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  reports  come  solely  from  con- 
servative papers,  and  that  the  only  defender  of  the  single 
chamber  quoted  is  Cormenin,  though  his  opinion  was  that 
of  a  very  large  majority  in  the  bureaux. 

The  discussion  concerning  the  executive  power  received 
scant  record  in  the  press.  The  only  account  of  the  use  of 
American  example  is  in  a  speech  by  Leon  Faucher.  Thiers, 
Berryer,  de  Remusat  are  mentioned  as  having  spoken  for 
the  direct,  universal  method  of  election,  as  did  the  majority 
in  the  bureaux.  Faucher  defended  election  by  the  Assem- 
bly, though  he  was  a  conservative  and  later  voted  against 
the  Grevy  and  Leblond  amendments.  He  said  that  the 
other  method  would  be  safe  only  if  the  two-chamber  system 
had  been  adopted.  Again,  it  should  be  remarked  that  in  the 
United  States,  notwithstanding  the  existence  of  the  two 
chambers  of  Congress,  the  naming  of  the  first  magistrate, 
being  left  to  electors,  springs  from  indirect  suffrage.  Yet 
even  that  modified  system  of  popular  choice  would  be  dan- 
gerous in  France. 

^  Journal  des  dehats,  July  9.  These  two  speeches  also  reported  in 
Le  Steele,  July  10. 


433]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  255 

Let  us  not  seek  to  imitate  the  United  States  completely;  we 
are  in  a  different  situation.  The  American  Union  was  founded 
by  descendants  of  Penn.  Even  before  having  conquered  their 
independence,  the  Americans  had  the  habit  of  governing  them- 
selves ;  the  exercise  of  the  suffrage  was  popular  among  them ; 
they  applied  it  to  everything,  to  the  government,  to  interests, 
to  beliefs.  That  people,  truly  republican,  might  elect  its  chief ; 
yet  it  does  so  only  in  an  indirect  way.  But  with  us,  the  rep- 
resentative system  has  not  thrust  its  roots  so  deeply.  The 
French  people  has  hardly  left  the  mould  of  monarchy.  .  .  . 
If  you  summon  the  whole  people  to  choose  the  president  of 
the  republic,  it  will  choose  under  the  name  of  president  the 
equivalent  of  a  king ;  it  will  perhaps  found  a  new  dynasty.  It 
will  allow  itself  to  be  seduced  by  the  power  of  the  sword  or 
by  the  eclat  of  an  historic  name.  It  will  do  what  it  did  under 
the  Consulate  and  the  Empire;  it  will  choose,  not  among 
illustrious  legislators,  but  among  the  pretenders.^ 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that  Faucher  became  one  of  Louis  Napo- 
leon's ministers. 

The  only  other  report  of  the  bureaux*  proceedings  in 
which  allusion  was  made  to  America  has  no  connection  with 
the  constitutional  plan.  After  the  June  riots,  a  bill  was 
brought  in  to  regulate  the  clubs  very  strictly,  and  was  duly 
referred  to  the  bureaux.  In  the  ist  bureau's  discussion,  F. 
de  Corcelles  said  that  he  discovered  and  considered  it  a  mis- 
fortune that  French  clubs  were  not  organized  as  in  Amer- 
ica, where  a  club  is  an  association  for  some  special  object, 
as  the  abolition  of  slavery ;  the  members  are  agreed  on  the 
purpose  and  can  attain  it  with  greater  ease.  In  France,, 
where  affairs  in  general  are  discussed,  passions  are  more 
easily  aroused.  He  proposed  assigning  each  club  a  special 
object. 

To  this  Xavier  Durrieu  replied  that  the  preceding  speaker 

1  Journal  des  debats,  July  16. 


256  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [424 

confused  liberty  of  association  with  liberty  of  discussion; 
the  latter  alone  concerned  them.  The  fact  that  American 
clubs  were  only  associations  proved  merely  that  American 
society  was  not  in  a  state  to  practise  publicly  liberty  of  dis- 
cussion. It  was  well  known  that  when  different  opinions 
arose  in  an  American  club,  the  discussion  degenerated  into 
a  violent  quarrel,  ending  in  a  fight.  Not  the  laws,  but  the 
manners,  forbid  clubs  there.  Thank  Heaven,  France  had 
not  reached  that  point !  ^ 

When  the  constitution  was  read  to  the  Assembly  for  the 
second  time,  the  Univers  published  an  editorial  criticism,  in 
which  it  was  noted  that  the  new  president  was  to  have 
600,000  francs,  though  in  America  the  salary  was  only 
125,000.  "  Every  constitution  has,  so  to  speak,  left  its 
mark  on  the  present  plan;  the  United  States  have  lent  us 
their  president ;  it  is  the  only  combination  that  we  have  not 
yet  tried."  Local  self-government  and  indirect  election 
limited  the  executive's  power  in  America,  however,  while 
the  new  French  constitution  made  him  a  sort  of  king.^ 

In  September  the  Bien  public  published  a  eulogy  of  La- 
martine,  delivered  by  Mr.  Winthrop,  Speaker  of  the  House, 
at  the  dedication  of  the  Washington  Monument.^ 

The  report  that  the  "  intelligent  American  democracy  " 
had  appointed  an  ambassador  to  the  Holy  See  was  greeted 
by  the  Univers  as  a  "  great  and  solemn  spectacle,"  and  com- 
ment made  on  Catholic  liberty  in  America  as  contrasted 
with  the  tactlessness  and  bad  faith  of  England."* 

The  report  of  the  customs  administration  for  the  fiscal 

1  Opinion  puhlique,  July  16. 

'  Univers,  Aug.  30.  Same  ideas  repeated,  Oct.  6.  "  If  authority  were 
centralized'  in  the  United  States  as  in  France,  that  country  would  still 
be  in  search  of  order  and  liberty." 

3  Bien  public,  Sept.  6. 

*  Univers,  Sept.  6. 


435]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  257 

year  of  1847-8  received  this  comment :  "  The  United  States 
continue  to  occupy  the  first  place  in  the  order  of  our  com- 
mercial relations.  Between  them  and  us,  the  worth  of  222,- 
000,000  was  exchanged  in  1847.  England  comes  next  with 
189,000,000."  The  figures  include  imports  and  exports 
combined.  In  imports,  the  United  States  led  with  110,000,- 
000,  Belgium  being  second;  in  exports,  the  United  States 
were  first  with  112,000,000,  England  second.^ 

Finally,  President  Polk's  last  message  was  published  in 
full  by  the  same  paper,  occupying  a  page  and  a  half  of  its 
issue,  with  the  comment :  "  Since  a  government  has  been 
cut  for  us  on  the  model  of  the  United  States,  and  we  too 
are  destined  to  have  our  annual  message,  we  engage  our 
president  and  his  ministers  to  read  attentively  what  we  pub- 
lish today."  Then  follows  a  eulogy  of  Polk,  who,  though 
unknown  when  chance  bore  him  to  the  head  of  affairs,  had 
conducted  the  most  complicated  matters  with  extraordinary 
tact,  energy  and  success. 

Those  men  are  not  rare  in  the  United  States,  which  proves 
why  each  administration  marks  its  passage  through  the  con- 
duct of  affairs  by  new  progress.  One  would  seek  vainly  in 
that  country  where  facts  and  good  sense  occupy  the  place 
which  we  give  here  to  phrases  and  discussions,  a  government 
which  has  not  added  something  to  the  glory,  the  power  and 
the  well-being  of  the  Union.  Which  proves,  be  it  said  in  pass- 
ing, that  the  republicans  who  have  governed  us  since  Feb- 
ruary 24,  were  not  raised  in  the  same  school. 

The  message  impressed  the  writer  by  the  brevity  of  its  gen- 
eralities as  compared  v/ith  the  fullness  of  the  portion  de- 
voted to  business  and  also  the  emphasis  on  non-intervention 
in  the  domestic  affairs  of  other  nations. 

1  Presse,  Oct.  5. 


258  1'HE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-^^G 

What  touches  us  closest  perhaps  in  the  message  of  Mr.  Polk, 
is  the  comparison  which  he  makes  between  Europe  shaken 
by  revolutions  and  whose  credit,  industry  and  commerce  are 
killed  by  civil  war,  and  the  Uni'^ed  States  where  public  and 
private  credit  make  new  progress.  The  situation  was  so  pros- 
perous and  the  interests  of  the  country  so  well  guarded,  that 
to  continue  the  war  against  Mexico,  the  Minister  of  Finance 
{sic)  negotiated  a  loan  above  par  and  thus  realized  a  large 
premium  in  favor  of  the  Treasury;  since  that  time  he  had  re- 
deemed consolidated  bonds  to  the  amount  of  half  a  million 
dollars,  reducing  the  public  debt  by  so  much,  and  Mr.  Polk 
announces  that  the  receipts  will  cover  the  expenses.^ 

The  article  indicates  that  to  the  conservative  Presse  the 
contrast  between  prosperous  America  and  revolutionary 
Europe  was  food  for  envy  rather  than  contempt." 

Passing  from  news  reports  to  editorials,  the  wealth  of 
material  is  such  here  that  only  excerpts  can  be  given,  to 
show  the  trend  of  comment.  A  considerable  number  deal 
with  the  general  value  of  the  American  example  for  France. 
The  showing  of  the  pro-American  papers  is  slight  here, 
their  heaviest  guns  being  reserved  for  special  articles. 

A  conservative  paper  points  out  quite  early  that  when  it 
comes  to  settling  the  constitutional  basis  of  the  republic, 
there  will  be  those  who  will  say  that  it  is  impossible  to 
accept  popular  government  "  in  the  large  measure  fixed  by 
America."  But  it  is  an  error  to  suppose  American  success 
along  this  line  determined  by  her  vast  territories.  That 
success  is  even  more  visible  in  crowded  states  like  New  York 
than  in  Texas.  '^  France  is  republican,  she  has  taught 
democracy  to  the  whole  world;  America  has  practised  be- 
fore us  the  philosophic  theories  with  which  we  have  covered 

1  Presse,  Dec.  22,. 

2  For  comment  on  the  Mexican  War  and  the  American  political  sit- 
uation, cf.  supra,  ch.  iii. 


437]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  259 

society ;  the  time  has  come  to  make  an  application  of  them 
to  our  profit."  Liberty  of  opinion,  of  conscience,  of  the 
press,  of  association  and  speech,  reduction  of  governmental 
functions  as  far  as  possible,  credit  and  public  works  left  to 
individual  control,  liberty  of  instruction,  free  economic 
competition,  a  reduced  tax-budget  make  up  the  program 
suggested  by  the  paper/ 

The  Journal  des  debats  found  that  "  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  of  America  is  good  because  under  that 
Constitution  America  has  grown  immeasurably  in  wealth, 
in  power,  in  consideration  in  the  world."  England  is  also 
eulogized,  "  in  spite  of  the  vices  which  theory  and  even  ex- 
perience easily  discover  there."  ^ 

Similarly  fimile  de  Girardin,  editor  of  the  Presse,  an- 
nounced his  candidacy  for  the  Assembly  in  these  terms : 

It  is  by  exaggeration,  terror,  war,  bankruptcy  and  misery  that 
the  republic  has  already  perished  once  in  France ;  it  is  by  good 
sense,  liberty,  peace,  credit  and  wealth  that  the  republic  was 
founded  in  the  United  States,  where  it  grows  each  year  in 
power.  I  understand  the  republic  like  Francklin  (sic),  I  do  not 
understand  it  without  Washington.  If  I  am  wrong  not  to 
understand  it  with  citizen  Robespierre  and  like  citizen  Ledru- 
Rollin,  let  me  not  be  nominated  and  let  me  be  left  to  the  labors 
of  the  journals  which  I  direct.^ 

He  was  taken  at  his  word  and  was  left  to  his  editorial  pur- 
suits. 

English  and  American  prudence  and  political  firmness 
were  commended  by  the  ConstittUionnel*  which  further  re- 

1  Courrier  frangais,  quoted  in  La  Riforme,  Mar.  3.  At  that  early- 
date  the  radical  organ  was  not  as  afraid  of  American  example  as  later, 
especially  as  the  Courrier  cleverly  asserted  that  opposition  to  American 
methods  would  be  used  by  the  reaction  to  destroy  the  fruits  of  the 
revolution.     And  again.  La  Reforme  was  never  socialistic. 

2  Journal  des  debats.  Mar.  7. 

3  Presse,  May  20.  *  Constituiionnel,  April  29. 


26o  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  j-^^g 

marked  on  Marrast's  disdain  of  foreign  example,  as  ex- 
pressed in  his  report  of  the  constitution,  "  we  had  thought 
that  history  was  the  lesson  of  kings  and  nations."  ^ 

A  large  proportion  of  the  anti-American  articles  are  to 
be  found  in  the  legitimist  papers,  notably  in  the  Gazette  de 
France.  Legitimate  royalty  is,  for  it,  the  true,  because  the 
ancient,  French  system.  "  Let  us  not  lower  to  the  level  of 
imitators  the  people  which  is  made  to  serve  as  model.  Let 
us  seek  in  France  and  not  in  America  or  in  England  the 
future  of  France."  ^  Nothing  in  the  past  fifty  years  is 
worth  copying.  "  As  for  the  future,  we  have  a  choice  be- 
tween the  English  constitution,  the  American  constitution, 
the  nameless  constitution,  and  perhaps  the  phalansterian 
constitution  of  Fourier.  One  will  permit  us  to  stick  to  the 
French  constitution."  ^ 

Two  journalists  of  the  English  school,  Messrs.  Thiers  and 
Guizot,  in  power  after  the  July  Revolution,  tried  to  establish 
the  parliamentary  government  of  which  they  had  dreamed 
under  the  Restoration,  in  the  Globe  and  the  Gonstitutionnel. 

Two  journalists  of  the  American  or  republican  school  are 
directing  the  march  of  the  new  government. 

We  shall  see  if  they  will  be  able  to  establish  their  theories 
or  if  we  shall  be  forced  to  return  to  ours,  those  of  the  French 
school,  so  well  characterized  by  those  words  of  M.  Lamartine : 
Republic  at  the  base,  heredity  at  the  summit.* 

The  American  republic  is  not  to  be  imitated,  because  there 
"  slavery  necessitates  the  federal  system."  ^ 

1  Constitutionnel,  Sept.  i. 

2  Gazette  de  France,  Mar.  6. 

3  Ihid.,  Mar.  20.  *  Ihid.,  Mar.  22,. 

5  Ihid.,  Apr.  15.  In  the  issue  of  Mar.  30,  however,  American  federal- 
ism is  cited  as  suggesting  a  way  by  which  "  the  duchy  of  Savoy,  the 
duchy  of  the  Rhine  and  Belgium  "  may  be  united  to  France  through  a 
system  of  autonomy. 


439]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  261 

The  Gazette's  views  were  given  their  fullest  expression 
in  a  long  article,  headed  "  The  American  System." 

After  having  been  constituted  a  T anglais e  by  M.  Guizot, 
we  are  to  be,  it  seems,  constituted  a  Vamericaine  by  M.  de 
Cormenin.  There  is  question  of  giving  us  a  single  chamber  of 
representatives,  with  a  council  of  government  or  senate,  and 
an  elective  president  for  three  years.  .  .  .  The  American 
fashion  is  still  more  remote  from  our  nature  and  our  tempera- 
ment than  the  English  fashion.  The  right  of  participating  in 
our  own  affairs  existed  among  us  many  centuries  before  there 
was  any  question  of  the  United  States.  Political  liberty  is 
essentially  French.  In  that  respect  we  owe  nothing  to  any 
one.  But  what  is  foreign  to  us,  what  we  cannot  be  made  to 
accept  without  effort  and  violence  are  forms  of  government 
.  .  .  contrary  to  our  customs  ...  to  our  situation  ...  to 
our  traditions,  finally  to  our  social  constitution. 

Were  France  composed  of  twenty-six  states,  independent 
of  one  another,  except  for  a  few  common  interests;  if  she 
had  a  vast  territory,  capable  of  holding  four  times  the  popu- 
lation; if  there  were  no  taxes,  no  fear  of  continental  war 
and  of  neighbors  with  military  organization;  if  everyone 
could  get  land  for  five  francs  an  acre;  if  the  standing  army 
had  only  12,500  men;  if  there  were  citizens  rich,  devoted 
and  moderate  enough  to  govern  and  represent  France  for 
125,000  francs  a  year,  to  be  ministers  for  30,000  and 
"presidents  of  states"  for  15,000;  if  we  could  be  feeble 
and  divided,  with  impunity;  if  without  danger  we  might 
exist  under  the  form  of  a  multitude  of  special  associations, 
independent  of  each  other  and  of  the  central  government,  if 
our  provinces  and  communes  were  left  to  themselves  for 
internal  administration,  except  for  a  few  points  of  general 
interest,  such  as  public  instruction,  navy  and  great  public 
works;  if  justice  were  almost  nil;  if  administration,  prop- 
erly so-called,  had  neither  cohesion  nor  imity,  "  we  should 


262  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r^Q 

then  say :  let  us  constitute  ourselves  a  Vamericaine,  with  an 
elective  president  for  three  years  or  even  for  one  year;  let 
us  form  a  federal  congress  with  a  council  of  government 
called  senate,  and  let  us  so  live  until  time  brings  other 
needs."  But  we  have  French  customs,  habits,  organiza- 
tions, interests,  etc. 

We  cannot  become  Americans  then,  without  peril  and  without 
damage.  If  the  English  system  could  not  last,  if  it  succumbed 
to  the  effort  of  public  spirit,  the  United  States  regime  would 
last  still  less.  In  mercy,  messieurs  constituants,  let  us  remain 
French  if  it  is  possible ;  experiments  with  foreign  constitutions 
cost  too  dearly,^ 

A  still  more  bitter  arraignment  appeared  two  months 
later.  "  Our  pretended  ^  republicans  de  la  veille  give  us  to- 
day as  model  of  government  the  United  States,  and  they  call 
the  cruellest  and  most  abominable  despotism,  democracy." 
Then  follow  statistics  of  the  number  of  slaves  (over  two 
million)  and  Indians  (over  three  hundred  thousand)  over 
whom  an  oligarchy  of  whites  exercises  the  most  execrable 
tyranny,  having  torn  the  negroes  from  their  homes  and 
their  homes  from  the  Indians.  "  And  that  is  the  people 
which  it  is  wished  to  give  as  example  to  the  land  of  the 
Franks,  which  it  sufficed  to  touch  in  order  to  be  free !"  The 
barons  of  the  Middle  Ages  were  equally  free,  and  if  the 
millions  of  serfs  were  uncounted,  feudal  democracy  might 
be  as  favorably  discussed.  "  O  democratic  charlatans,  the 
Satyre  Menippee  has  depicted  you !"  " 

Other  legitimist  papers  expressed  similar  views,  though 
less  persistently. 

1  Gazette  de  France,  June  i. 

2  The  adjective  is  well-advised.  The  real  repuhlicains  de  la  veille 
rarely  did  so. 

"  Ibid.,  Aug.  2. 


441  ]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  263 

"  No  one  wants  for  France  the  Greek  or  Roman  repub- 
lics, not  even  that  of  the  United  States,  which  contains 
slaves,  nor  that  of  Switzerland,  more  backward  in  some 
cantons  than  certain  European  monarchies."  ^ 

"  The  example  of  the  United  States  is  often  quoted  to  us, 
but  without  taking  the  trouble  to  reflect  on  the  enormous 
difference  which  exists  between  the  situation  of  the  United 
States  and  that  of  France."  The  former  is  federated,  the 
latter  centralized.  The  former  has  a  positive,  prosaic  spirit, 
no  poetical  imagination,  disdain  of  glory  and  honor,  an  ex- 
clusive cult  of  matter,  a  passion  for  money;  in  the  latter, 
ambition  for  honor  and  power  predominates;  everyone 
dreams  of  decorations,  epaulets  and  titles.  The  immense 
plains  of  the  former  contrast  with  the  crowded  ranks  of  the 
latter;  every  place  taken,  every  land  occupied  by  property- 
right.  Twenty  other  differences  might  be  named  between 
the  totally  dissimilar  situations  of  France  and  the  United 
States."  ^ 

An  ironical  review  of  an  article  in  L'Ere  nouvelle  quotes 
that  paper  as  saying  that  France  awaits  the  hand  which 
makes  moral  and  political  liberty  flourish  in  the  United 
States ;  ^  elsewhere  doubt  is  expressed  that  the  leaders  of 
the  republic  can  measure  up  to  the  standard  of  Washington 
and  Franklin,  and  the  work  of  the  local  "  political  alchem- 
ists "  is  contrasted  with  the  picture  of  young  America 
"  committing  to  the  wisest  and  most  illustrious  of  her  citi- 
zens the  task  of  drawing  up  her  constitution."  *  Though 
expressing  such  divergent  feelings  regarding  America,  the 
legitimist  journals  were  agreed  in  their  rejection  of  the 
American  example  as  a  general  model. 

1  Assemblee  nationale.  Mar.  i. 

"^  hide  pendant  de  I'Ouest  (legitimist),  quoted  in  the  National,  May  4. 

3  Union,  July  14. 

*  Opinion  puhlique,  June  21. 


264  ^^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r^^^ 

Dumas'  organ  published  an  article  "Concerning  the 
French  republic  and  its  comparison  with  republics  which 
have  existed  or  which  still  exist."  From  antiquity,  the  only 
thing  worth  taking  was  love  of  country ;  from  the  medieval 
republics,  love  of  art. 

As  for  the  republic  of  the  United  States,  where  our  law- 
makers are  eternally  seeking  their  inspirations,  our  Utopians 
their  models ;  as  for  the  republic  of  the  United  States,  we  say, 
with  its  federal  constitution,  its  senate  and  its  chamber,  its 
Quakers  and  its  slaves;  as  for  the  republic  of  the  United 
States  finally,  placed  between  two  immensities,  the  immensity 
of  the  sea  which  it  ploughs  with  its  vessels,  the  immensity  of 
the  desert  which  it  furrows  with  its  colonists,  it  has  surely 
little  to  offer  us,  unless  it  be  its  example,  its  perseverance  and 
its  union.  ^ 

The  rest  of  the  article  was  a  long,  rhetorical  disquisition  on 
the  vastness  of  America  as  compared  with  France. 

The  papers  of  the  left  wing  had  little  to  say  on  America 
in  general.     Thore  was  the  chief  spokesman. 

Shall  the  French  republic  be  the  sister  of  the  American  re- 
public, as  M.  Lamartine  said  to  the  minister  plenipotentiary 
of  the  United  States?  Shall  we  have  a  president  with  the 
attributes  of  a  king,  and  will  this  president  govern  France? 
Shall  we  have  a  non-permanent  assembly,  to  leave  the  full 
power  to  the  president-king,  in  the  interval  between  the  ses- 
sions ?  ...  If  this  system  has  the  majority,  we  are  falling  back 
into  monarchy.  We  have  already  tried,  with  Philippe,  the 
best  of  republics.  Shall  we  allow  ourselves  to  make  another 
essay  of  a  false  republic  ?  Let  us  at  least  have  the  form  pure  ; 
the  essence  will  perhaps  be  found  in  the  flagon,  and  we  shall 
be  there  to  fill  it.^ 

A  somewhat  ominous  conclusion. 

1  Liberie,  May  12. 

2  Vraie  republique,  April  30. 


443]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  265 

Lamennais'  constitutional  project  combined  with  the  de- 
cree of  Mar.  5,  calling  for  election  of  the  Assembly  by  de- 
partments, seemed  to  form  "  a  federal  establishment  very 
similar  to  that  of  the  United  States  of  America  "  and  de- 
structive of  French  unity/  So,  too,  the  divisions  in  the 
ranks  of  the  Assembly  seemed  to  make  it  hopeless  that  the 
commission  would  report  anything  better  than  "  a  program 
of  representative  or  federalist  monarchy,  after  the  fashion 
of  England  or  the  United  States."  ^ 

Proudhon  published  the  most  philosophic  systematized 
exposition  of  the  radical  view  under  the  title,  "  France  has 
nothing  to  imitate."  There  are  those,  he  said,  who  seem 
unable  to  reason  except  by  perpetual  comparisons  and  more 
or  less  exact  analogies;  instead  of  studying  the  conditions 
of  their  own  country,  they  quote  the  customs  of  another, 
which  has  purely  external  likenesses  with  their  own.  Such 
has  been  the  fate  of  France. 

England  in  particular  has  been  for  more  than  two  centuries 
the  political  mirage  of  almost  all  our  publicists,  we  dare  not 
say  our  thinkers.  .  .  .  Now  that  France  has  emerged  from  the 
paths  of  constitutionalism,  the  publicists  have  felt  the  conve- 
nience of  abandoning  or  rather  changing  their  warhorse,  they 
have  perceived  that  the  republic  has  buried  anglomania.  But 
in  so  doing,  they  have  made  no  pretense  of  despoiling  them- 
selves completely  of  their  rage  for  imitation;  they  have  thus 
had  to  offer  another  type,  appropriate  to  the  new  state  of 
things,  and  it  is  America  which  has  offered  them  this  new 
theme  for  hyperboles  and  commonplaces.  America,  then,  is 
destined,  in  the  mind  of  our  comparative  legislators,  to  play 
the  same  role  in  regard  to  republican  France  as  England  in 
regard  to  constitutional  France.  It  is  from  this  new  arsenal 
that  innumerable  arguments  are  to  be  drawn  in  favor  of  all  the 

1  Vraie  republique.  May  6. 
^Ibid.,  May  21. 


266  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^^ 

superfluities,  useless  at  least,  which  it  is  desired  to  introduce 
into  the  constitution  of  our  young  republic.  Partisans  of  in- 
direct election,  partisans  of  two  chambers,  partisans  of  the 
independence  of  the  executive  and  the  legislative  power,  par- 
tisans of  the  presidency,  all  these  adepts  of  a  modified  republic 
are  going  to  throw  the  American  republic  at  our  heads,  as  the 
liberals  ^  used  to  overwhelm  us  with  their  Britannic  constitu- 
tionalism. 

The  American  example  proved  nothing  for  France.  The 
American  presidency  was  a  needed  symbol  of  unity  because 
of  the  federal  system,  but  the  centralization  of  France  was 
so  complete  that  she  needed  the  opposite  treatment,  a  demo- 
cratic organization  to  preserve  her  from  despotism.  Consti- 
tutional monarchy  and  a  presidency  were  thus  alike  imprac- 
ticable in  France  as  half -measures;  an  absolute  system  was 
inevitable  because  of  the  concentration  of  political  forces, 
anything  else  was  a  fiction  and  a  cheat.  As  constitutional 
monarchy  in  a  centralized  country  must  turn  into  an  abso- 
lute monarchy,  so  presidency  would  become  dictatorship. 
Of  the  two  only  possible  alternatives,  absolute  democracy 
must  be  the  choice  to  save  the  country  from  absolute  despot- 
ism. The  United  States  presidency  would  be  a  sword  of 
Damocles,  suspended  over  the  republic's  head. 

The  United  States  have  desired  the  symbol  of  unity,  not  being 
able  to  have  the  thing  itself;  France  must  reject  the  personi- 
fication of  this  unity  because  she  possesses  the  unity  in  fact, 
and  because  she  must  take  care  lest  this  great  principle  be  ex- 
ploited to  the  profit  of  a  more  or  less  disguised  tyranny. 

Hence  all  imitation  should  be  avoided;  France,  having  to 
take  the  initiative,  has  need  of  all  its  originality.^ 

1  The  liberal  party  of  Orleanist  times,  not  the  government  party  of 
1848,  to  which  the  name  was  not  applied  contemporaneously. 

2  Representant  du  pen  pie.  May  i. 


445]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  267 

Pere  Duchene  described  the  newly-reported  constitution 
as  "  this  America-Anglo-French  piece  of  work,"  and  took 
especial  umbrage  at  the  creation  of  a  president,  instead  of 
confiding  the  executive  as  well  as  the  legislative  power  to 
the  Assembly.^ 

Charivari  declared  that  of  the  three  former  presiding 
officers  of  the  Assembly,  M.  Buchez  had  presided  like  a 
school-master,  M.  Senard  like  a  police-court  judge,  M. 
Marie  like  a  master  of  ceremonies,  and  now  came  M.  Mar- 
rast,  the  first  gentleman  who  had  sat  in  the  chair,  always  a 
republican  of  distinction,  who  presented  himself  today  like 
a  president  of  the  United  States.  "  One  would  have  taken 
him  for  the  veritable  M.  Polk.  The  Americans  of  Paris 
might  be  deceived."  As  for  the  "  rights  of  capacity  "  of 
which  he  made  mention  in  his  speech,  the  writer  was  in 
accord  with  the  speaker  "  provided  he  meant  to  speak  of 
honest  folk  without  intrigue  and  not  to  make  an  advance  to 
M.  Thiers,  who  visibly  took  the  matter  for  himself,  as  if  we 
were  already  at  New  York."  ^ 

The  Bonapartist  paper,  with  its  ultra-radical  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Napoleonic  legend,  quoted  Thiers'  famous  say- 
ing of  1830,'^  with  the  comment,  "  You  are  neither  Amer- 
icans nor  English.  Stay  at  home.  Do  not  question  M. 
Thiers,  abortive  missionary  of  a  narrow,  bourgeois  doctrine. 
You  need  a  constitution  of  your  own  make,  Avhich  smacks 
of  the  Terror,  which  is  the  chaste  fruit  of  your  own  en- 
trails." * 

When  it  came  to  the  economic  aspect  of  the  American 
system,  the  conservative  papers  praised  American  individ- 
ualism, the  radicals  were  silent.     Gamier-Pages'  report  of 

1  Pere  Duchene,  June  22. 

-  Charivari,  July  25. 

3  Vide  supra,  p.  107. 

*  Napoleon  republicain,  June  16. 


268  TH^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  v^^^ 

certain  plans  of  the  executive  commission,  which  involved 
government  loans  to  voluntary  associations  of  workmen, 
called  forth  an  editorial  contrasting  those  nations  in  which 
the  government  reserved  to  itself  the  direction  of  industry 
with  those  in  which  it  abstained  altogether  from  such  enter- 
prises. The  former  were  undeveloped  or  servile  nations, 
the  latter  those  invested  with  the  fullness  of  the  rights  of 
man.  On  the  one  hand  were  Mehemet-Ali's  fellahin,  gov- 
erned like  cattle,  and  the  Jesuit-controlled  Indians  of  Para- 
guay ;  on  the  other  the  English  in  Europe,  the  United  States 
in  America.  In  those  enlightened  free  nations  the  govern- 
ment abstained  from  all  manufacture,  even  that  of  muni- 
tions of  war.  Any  individual  could  order  cannons  at  Pitts- 
burg or  in  Scotland.  The  largest  American  powder  factory 
was  founded  by  a  Frenchman,  M.  Dupont,  in  whose  family 
it  remained.  A  Frenchman  who  felt  a  particular  drawing 
to  that  business  had  to  exile  himself  to  the  banks  of  the 
Brandyw^ine.  Thus  the  monopoly  system  exercised  the 
same  effect  on  national  prosperity  and  the  development  of 
the  arts  as  the  Edict  of  Nantes.  Only  the  postal  service 
was  in  government  hands  there  and  in  America,  contrary  to 
the  English  and  French  theories  which  considered  it  as  a 
source  of  revenue,  the  principle  ruled  that  the  receipts  should 
merely  cover  expenses.^ 

In  a  similar  spirit,  the  failures  of  communistic  colonies  in 
America  were  cited  as  justifying  the  refusal  of  a  later 
French  administration  to  recognize  certain  associations  in 
their  corporate  capacity.^  Dumas  reminded  the  working- 
classes  that  the  word  "  equality  "  must  not  be  taken  too 
literally.  Equality  before  the  law  and  before  God  were 
praiseworthy,  but  inequality  must  continue  in  expenditure. 
"  The  workmen  of  New  York  are  busy  only  because  the 

1  Journal  des  debats,  May  20. 

2  Ibid.,  Oct.  9. 


447]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  269 

rich  are  free  and  tranquil/'  Those  who  dream  of  the  hap- 
piness of  the  poor  without  the  liberty  of  the  rich  are  mad. 
The  rich  must  continue  to  give  good  dinners  and  beautiful 
balls  in  all  joy,  quiet  and  liberty  for  the  welfare  of  the 
poor.  ''  No  liberty  without  order,  no  wealth  without  order 
and  without  liberty ;  those  are  the  key-words  of  the  problem 
of  civilization."  ^ 

As  a  set-off  to  this  crass  individualism,  however,  occurs 
the  sentence :  "  In  comparing  the  history  of  the  republic  of 
the  United  States  with  ours,  it  is  impossible  not  to  recognize 
that  if  our  materials  are  less  republican,  our  ideas  are  more 
democratic."  ^ 

The  same  cleavage  was  maintained  in  the  discussion  of 
the  various  parts  of  the  political  system.  Turning  from 
general  comment  on  America  as  a  model  to  the  discussion 
that  arose  over  her  specific  institutions,  one  notes  that  the 
same  singular  silence,  previously  mentioned,  regarding  the 
advantages  of  the  American  presidency,  continued.  Minor 
points  were,  however,  commended. 

The  modest  establishment  of  the  American  executive  "  in 
a  little,  unfrequented  city"  was  praised.  The  American 
government  does  nothing  either  to  encourage  or  restrain 
luxury;  it  limits  itself  to  the  proper  task  of  a  democratic 
government,  the  due  administration  of  the  country  with 
conscientiousness,  order,  simplicity,  vigilance  and  economy.^ 

The  American  system  of  pardons,  whereby  the  President 
or  the  Governor  submitted  them  to  the  Senate  of  the  Union 
or  state  was  noted.  It  was  believed  that  the  executive  in 
France  should  also  have  the  preliminary  advice  of  a  council.* 

Somewhat  grudging  use  was  made  of  American  example 

1  Liberie,  Mar.  22. 
^Ibid.,  May  i. 
^Presse,  Oct.  26. 
"^  kre  nouvelle,  June  5. 


2^0  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r  .  .g 

in  connection  with  the  electoral  college  by  a  paper  that  ordi- 
narily found  little  value  in  American  methods.  It  was 
pointed  out  that  the  House  elected  the  President  only  in  ex- 
ceptional cases.  Further,  no  one  holding  a  place  of  profit  in 
government  service  could  be  an  elector.^  This  was  used  in 
an  editorial  against  Assembly  election  of  the  executive. 

It  was  admitted  that  the  United  States  proved  that  prop- 
erty could  be  safe  in  a  republic,  but  it  was  felt  that  popular 
sovereignty  was  a  less  secure  guardian  of  its  safety  than  the 
principle  of  heredity.^ 

Another  legitimist  paper  commented  on  the  new  consti- 
tution : 

Numerous  loans  from  the  American  constitution  were  ex- 
pected, tested  as  it  is  by  a  happy  experience  of  more  than 
sixty  years.  We  have  sought  in  vain  for  a  single  point  of 
contact.  The  essential  differences  between  a  federal  and  a 
unitary  republic  have  without  doubt  caused  the  rejection  of 
any  sort  of  assimilation  in  the  least  details.^ 

But,  curiously  enough,  the  next  editorial  on  the  same 
page  contradicts  this  view :  "  The  new  constitution  organ- 
izes the  democratic  republic  with  a  president  like  the  United 
States.     We  ask,  where  is  Washington?"^ 

The  socialist  papers  left  no  doubt  as  to  their  position. 
The  presidential  system  was  branded  as  a  dangerous  heresy. 
Ministers  named  by  the  Assembly  should  control  the  exec- 
utive power,  for  action  follows  will,  and  the  arm  is  agent 
of  the  head. 

But  we  are  admitting  a  president,  elected  by  the  people,  in  the 
fashion  of  the  President  of  the  United  States.    This,  it  is  said, 

^  Assemblee  nafionale,  Sept.  25. 

2  Opinion  publique,  Oct.  22. 

3  Union,  June  20. 
*  Ibid.,  June  20. 


449]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  271 

is  the  doctrine  of  the  Nationaly  of  the  ministry  of  public  in- 
struction and  its  adherents  and  of  various  republicans,  versed 
in  political  science.  Carrel/  as  will  be  recalled,  strongly  sus- 
tained the  two-chamber  theory,  having  studied  the  American 
constitution  without  sufficiently  considering  the  French  spirit. 

This  president  or  king,  if  not  in  accord  with  the  Assembly, 
will  engage  in  struggle  with  it,  and  you  have  revolution  in 
permanence  or  at  least  in  expectation.^ 

Proudhon  had  another  word  on  the  office  of  president : 

It  is  the  idea  of  M.  de  Lamennais,  supported  by  the  opinion 
of  M.  de  Lamartine.  The  decisive  argument  is  the  example 
of  the  Americans.  We  have  received  feudalism  from  the 
barbarians,  constitutional  monarchy  from  the  English ;  now  we 
are  to  take  presidential  democracy  from  America.  Would  that 
we  could  do  something  French !  ^ 

As  in  the  commission  and  the  Assembly,  the  legislative 
problem  called  forth  a  much  greater  discussion  of  American 
precedent.  All  conservative  papers,  legitimist,  Orleanist, 
conservative  republican  alike,  supported  the  bicameral  sys- 
tem. 

One,  commonly  anti-American,  said :  "  We  likewise 
think  that  the  national  congress  should  be  composed  of  two 
elective  assemblies  like  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
and  not  of  two  assemblies  formed  by  monopoly  and  privi- 
lege as  in  England.* 

And  again,  when  published  imder  another  name :  "  We 
have,  further,  the  example  of  two  great  peoples,  whom  we 
consider  as  our  elders  in  liberty,  England  and  the  United 
States."  ' 

1. Republican  leader  under  the  monarchy;  killed  in  duel,  1836. 

2  Vraie  republique,  Apr,  4. 

^  Representant  du  peiiple.  May  11. 

*  Gazette  de  France,  Apr.  18. 

5  £toile  de  la  France,  Sept.  26. 


272  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r  . -q 

The  Union  made  a  serious  study  of  the  value  of  the  Sen- 
ate as  a  check  on  the  executive.  "  In  practice,  the  bicamer- 
ists  alone  can  quote  examples  which  have  real  authority; 
and  the  most  powerful  of  all,  the  example  of  the  United 
States."  No  politician  of  any  reputation  from  the  St.  Law- 
rence River  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  felt  that  the  republic 
could  have  survived  without  the  dual  system.  But  to  un- 
derstand the  full  value  of  its  meaning,  it  must  be  recalled 
that  the  Senate  has  governmental  as  well  as  legislative  func- 
tions. It  controls  and  regulates  the  central  executive.  The 
president  can  conclude  treaties  only  with  its  advice  and  con- 
sent; it  confirms  his  nominations  of  federal  officials,  is  the 
depository  of  national  traditions,  guards  the  principles  of 
foreign  policy  which  have  made  the  prosperity  and  power  of 
the  United  States.  Further,  it  is  renewed  by  thirds,  so  that 
if  its  spirit  is  modified  by  the  progress  of  ideas,  it  is  at  least 
never  wiped  out.  In  a  way,  it  is  the  sole  permanent  power, 
organized  by  the  American  constitution.  Without  it,  every 
presidential  election  might  be  a  revolutionary  break  of  con- 
tinuity. Nor  should  the  Senate's  meaning  be  sought  in  the 
federal  system.  It  has  the  same  functions  in  every  state. 
Everywhere  it  controls  the  executive  and  is  the  guardian  of 
permanent  traditions.  Reduced  as  the  executive's  powers 
are,  the  Americans  realized  that  to  leave  all  important  nomi- 
nations to  him  alone  would  be  a  danger  for  public  liberty. 
At  the  same  time,  they  felt  that  control  of  the  executive 
could  be  lodged  only  in  a  chamber  at  once  elective  and  per- 
manent, since  all  authority  proceeds  from  election  and  con- 
tinuity must  be  safeguarded.  The  two-chamber  question 
concerns  the  executive  even  more  than  the  legislative.  So 
considered,  "  it  borrows  from  the  United  States'  example 
an  argument  whose  power  is  increased  by  all  the  interest 
which  attaches  to  guarantees  of  liberty."  The  value  of  a 
double  deliberation  might  be  contested,  but  not  so  necessary 
a  means  of  defence  against  executive  usurpation.^ 

1  Union,  July  10. 


45 1  ]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  273 

A  certain  M.  Fabas,  spoken  of  as  a  repuhlicain  de  la  veille 
and  mmtre  des  requites  of  the  council  of  state,  proposed  a 
system  which  would  obviate  the  dangers  of  tyranny  in  case 
a  single  chamber  were  adopted  and  of  conflict  between  the 
two  chambers  of  a  dual  system.  **  The  solution  which  M. 
Fabas  proposes,  a  solution  which  should  prevent  a  struggle 
between  two  legislative  assemblies,  is  borrowed  from  the 
United  States  of  America."  In  the  State  of  New  York, 
when  the  Senate  and  Assembly  do  not  agree,  they  unite  for 
a  joint  vote,  the  majority  of  the  total  vote  being  decisive. 
The  plan  of  M.  Fabas  called  for  a  democratic  assembly, 
elected  without  eligibility  restrictions,  a  senate  of  a  third  or 
a  quarter  of  the  assembly's  numbers,  a  joint  vote  in  case  of 
disagreement,  regular  and  constant  intervention  of  the  sen- 
ate in  the  exercises  of  the  executive  power. ^ 

The  same  paper  in  a  later  article  dwelt  on  the  capital  im- 
portance of  this  legislative  question,  as  indicated  by  the  fact 
that  the  United  States  placed  it  in  the  first  article  of  their 
constitution.  Pennsylvania,  the  only  state  which  had  a  single 
chamber  at  first,  soon  changed  to  the  dual  system.  Opposed 
to  the  American  example  stand  the  unfortunate  memories 
of  the  senate  of  the  empire  and  the  peers  of  the  recent  mon- 
archy. But  the  correct  deduction  is  "that  it  is  important  to 
make  our  senate  after  the  pattern  of  republican  senates  and 
not  after  the  pattern  of  monarchical  senates."  For  nomi- 
nations by  the  head  of  the  government,  substitute  popular 
elections ;  for  eligibility  conditions  of  birth  and  wealth,  sub- 
stitute experience.  It  would  be  puerile  to  condemn  a  good 
institution  out  of  hatred  of  a  bad  one  with  the  same  name." 

When  the  cause  was  all  but  lost,  direct  appeal  was  made 
to  the  Assembly. 

1  Siecle,  Aug.  i. 

-Ibid.,  Sept.  4. 


274  ^^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r  .  ^2 

It  is  for  you  to  choose.  You  may  treat  history  and  experience 
loftily  today,  you  may  mock  England  and  its  hundred  and 
fifty  years  of  prosperity,  despise  even  the  example  of  the 
greatest  republic  in  the  world,  of  the  American  republic!  Be 
tranquil,  in  their  turn  history  and  experience  will  have  their 
revenge  and  you  will  no  more  change  the  necessary  laws  of 
politics  than  the  laws  of  the  stars. ^ 

La  Patrie  testily  declared  that  if  it  should  show  that  the 
dual  system  had  been  unanimously  adopted  by  all  the  demo- 
cratic peoples  of  antiquity,  and  that  the  United  States  had 
been  forced  to  it  after  an  unhappy  experiment  with  the 
single  chamber,  the  Bien  public  would  say  as  it  did  of 
Thiers :  "  You  emerge  all  dusty  from  the  depths  of  his- 
tory." Better  so  than  fresh  from  one's  own  notions.  It 
remains  for  the  Bien  public  to  prove  that  the  French  are  in- 
fiinitely  better  poised,  calmer  and  wiser  than  the  Americans, 
and  that  safeguards  necessary  to  other  nations  are  perfectly 
useless  here,  due  to  the  infinite  superiority  of  our  modera- 
tion, patience  and  respect  for  the  law.^ 

Commenting  on  the  Duvergier  de  Hauranne  amendment, 
it  pointed  out  that  the  bicameral  system  had  behind  it  the 
authority  of  the  best  publicists  of  the  last  fifty  years,  the 
witness  of  the  Constituante  and  the  Convention  itself,  "  fin- 
ally the  experience  of  the  most  flourishing  republic  that  has 
ever  existed,  the  United  States."  Whether  the  arguments 
for  it  would  outweigh  the  parti-pris,  the  native  love  of  sim- 
plicity and  adventure,  the  desire  not  to  be  taken  for  a  re- 
publicain  du  lendemain,  "  the  fear  of  resembling  America 
in  something,"  and  a  false  notion  of  what  the  republican 
form  required,  remained  to  be  seen.  It  was  a  doubtful 
conversion.     But  the  conviction  remained  that  in  the  end 

1  Journal  des  dehats,  Sept.  26. 
^Patrie,  July  10. 


423]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  275 

reason  and  experience  would  get  their  rights  "  and  that  if 
France  commences  Hke  the  United  States  with  a  single 
chamber  as  more  popular,  it  will  finish  like  them  by  adopt- 
ing duality  as  more  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  poli- 
tics." ^ 

Lamartine's  rejection  of  American  example  as  based  on 
federalism  was  given  the  usual  answer  that  the  states  also 
had  the  dual  system ;  the  point  was  further  made  that  there 
are  institutions  common  to  all  free  countries.  Dupin  pro- 
posed the  dictatorship,  unity  and  sovereignty  of  the  Assem- 
bly, as  the  base  of  the  republic.  "  Was  it  so  that  the  re- 
public of  the  United  States  was  founded  ?"  ^ 

This  paper  chronicled  the  adoption  of  an  integral  re- 
election of  the  Assembly  every  three  years,  with  the  com- 
ment :  "  In  the  United  States,  the  election  of  representatives 
takes  place  every  two  years.  France  is  not  America,  and 
the  wisdom  of  M.  Marrast  is  not  that  of  Washington."  " 

If  all  the  conservative  papers  united  in  favor  of  the  dual 
system,  there  was  a  similar  coalition  of  government  and 
radical  papers  against  it. 

It  was  asserted  that, 

just  as  England  was  quoted  to  us  when  it  was  desirable  to 
prove  the  excellence  of  the  constitutional  monarchy,  now  the 
United  States  are  cited,  where  in  some  respects  the  spirit  of 
the  mother-country  lives  again  in  republican  institutions  and 
where  the  two-chamber  system  is  in  vogue.  Does  it  not  seem 
that  one  would  thus  indirectly  renew  imitation  of  the  English, 
proscribed  by  the  February  revolution,  by  placing  that  imi- 
tation under  the  authority  of  the  name  and  the  example  of 
the  American  republic  ? 

1  Patrie,  Sept.  27. 
^  Univers,  Sept.  28. 
'  Ibid.,  Sept.  30. 


2^6  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^.^ 

The  English  heritage  and  the  federal  system,  requiring 
equal  representation  of  each  of  the  states  in  at  least  one 
chamber,  explained  the  dual  system  in  America;  its  exist- 
ence in  state  legislatures  was  due  to  historic  tradition  and 
the  example  of  the  central  government.  The  system  might 
suit  America  without  being  in  the  least  fitting  for  France.^ 
.  The  federal  explanation  was  also  given  by  the  Journal, 
in  an  article  headed  "  The  two  chambers  in  the  United 
States,"  prefaced  by  the  statement  that  "  in  the  bureaux,  at 
the  tribune  of  the  National  Assembly,  the  adversaries  of  the 
constitution's  article  relative  to  the  creation  of  a  single 
chamber,  to  defend  their  opinion  and  to  demand  the  estab- 
lishment of  two  chambers,  are  continually  supporting  them- 
selves by  the  example  of  the  United  States.''  - 

The  Lamartine  organ  was  annoyed  because  Le  Steele  ob- 
jected to  its  citation  of  Prussia  in  support  of  the  single 
chamber  and  opposed  to  it  the  example  of  America.  The 
latter  was  a  worse  choice.  "  Is  it  not  indeed  a  strange 
thing  to  want  to  copy  our  own  new  republican  constitution 
from  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  under  the  pre- 
text that  the  United  States  are  a  republic?"  The  republic, 
like  the  monarchy,  is  a  form  of  government  with  infinite 
combinations.  Venice,  Sparta,  Athens  and  Rome  were  re- 
publics, but  who  thinks  of  taking  them  for  models?  The 
Prussian  example  is  worth  while,  because  it  is  an  affair  of 
today  and  close  at  hand.  The  American  constitution  goes 
back  more  than  sixty  years,  and  was  made  under  totally 
different  conditions.^ 

To  the  radicals,  the  English  and  American  examples  were 
inconclusive,  the  former  because  of  aristocracy,  the  latter 
because  of  federalism,  freedom  from  armed  neighbors,  lack 

1  National,  July  lo. 
-  Journal,  Sept.  28. 
^  Bien  public,  July  14. 


455]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  277 

of  pretenders  supported  by  rich  clienteles,  and  because  his- 
torically ''  the  American  institution  was  the  product  of  the 
old  world  and  bears  in  itself  the  social  vices  of  its  mother, 
the  monarchy."  To  give  such  a  constitution  to  the  demo- 
cratic republic  would  be  an  act  of  folly,  if  not  treason/ 
A  socialist  paper  wrote : 

The  partisans  of  the  Britannic  tradition  of  two  chambers 
make,  to  the  profit  of  their  argument,  such  an  abuse  of  the  ex- 
ample of  the  United  States,  that  it  is  important  to  place  before 
the  eyes  of  our  fellow-citizens  an  expose  of  the  motives  which 
caused  the  institution  of  a  senate  to  be  adopted  by  the  repub- 
licans of  the  New  World. 

The  federal  argument  was  then  employed,  after  which  came 
a  two-column  quotation  from  an  essay  by  M.  L.  P.  Conseil 
on  the  Memoirs  of  Jefferson,  quoting  his  Augean-stable 
letter  of  1794  to  Madison  and  asserting  that  the  real  pur- 
pose of  a  second  chamber  in  France  was  to  protect  the  in- 
terests of  the  great  proprietors,  which  meant  the  perpetua- 
tion of  privilege,  avarice  and  ambition.- 

Dumas'  opinions  were  alike  inaccurate,  eccentric  and  con- 
tradictory. He  wrote :  ''  The  law  of  the  United  States 
gives  the  direct  vote  to  but  two  chambers,  of  which  one 
names  the  other.  We  behold  its  effects.  Who  would  desire 
them  for  France?"  ® 

This  remarkable  piece  of  information  was  followed  by  an 
equally  unusual  suggestion.  Starting  with  the  customary 
statement  that  "  the  partisans  of  two  chambers  support 
themselves  on  the  example  of  the  United  States,  whose 
prosperity  is  notorious,"  he  held  that  social  conditions  were 

^  Re  forme,  Sept.  27. 

2  Democratie  paciUque,  July  17. 

8  Liberie,  Mar.  2. 


278  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^^^(y 

entirely  different  in  the  two  countries,  and  then  proposed  a 
double  executive,  copying  the  consuls  of  Rome/ 

A  month  later  he  made  a  complete  volte- face,  condemn- 
ing Cormenin  for  rejecting  the  bicameral  system ;  "  in 
order  not  to  appear  an  adept  of  the  English  school,  he  re- 
jects one  of  the  essential  elements  of  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States."  So  enlightened  a  man  as  he  must  be  aware 
that  an  omnipotent  assembly  without  counter-weight  might 
go  to  any  extreme  of  anger  or  passion.^ 

On  the  judiciary  clause,  this  paper  commented  at  length, 
praising  the  American  jury  system,  urging  its  application  to 
civil  cases,  and  quoting  from  Tocqueville,  vol.  II,  ch.  VIII, 
on  the  point.^ 

In  a  directly  opposite  interest,  it  was  urged  that  Supreme 
Court  judges  in  America  were  appointed  by  the  President 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  permanency  of 
judicial  tenure  being  recognized  by  the  American  republic* 

The  preamble  to  the  American  constitution  was  strongly 
commended  to  the  Assembly  as  preferable  to  the  long,  con- 
troversial declaration  adopted  by  the  commission.  "  It  is 
simple,  but  it  is  clear,  plain,  precise.  There  is  no  intellect 
so  dense  that  it  cannot  comprehend  it ;  and  there  is  no  imag- 
ination so  perverse  that  it  can  logically  draw  from  it  dan- 
gerous deductions."  Good  political  philosophy  consisted  in 
precise  demarcation  of  the  goal  and  in  eliminating  meta- 
physical formulas.^ 

If  space  permitted,  a  mass  of  references  to  American  ex- 
ample on  other  than  strictly  constitutional  questions  might 
be  added.     They  can  be  only  summarized. 

1  Liherte,  Mar.  5. 
^  Ibid.,  Apr.  14. 
^  Ibid.,  Apr.  12. 
^Sidcle,  May  11. 
5  Union,  Sept.  7. 


457]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  279 

It  was  recognized  that  an  intelligent  use  of  the  suffrage 
required  a  great  extension  of  elementary  education,  that  the 
intellectual  average  might  be  brought  up  to  the  high  level  it 
had  long  held  in  America ;  ^  printed  ballots  on  the  American 
model  were  commended.^  The  division  of  the  population 
into  equal  election  districts,  practised  in  America,  sprang 
from  a  state  of  society  which  had  only  towns  and  planta- 
tions, no  rural  communes.  The  latter  furnished  the  true 
political  unit  for  France.  Municipal  spirit  was  the  germ  of 
public  spirit.'  This  occurred  in  an  article  favoring  indirect 
election  to  the  Assembly.  But  further,  local  self-govern- 
ment found  advocates  for  its  own  sake.  The  American  and 
English  type  of  municipal  organization  was  commended.* 
Lamennais*  scheme,  based  on  the  communal  unit,  was 
praised,  publicists  having  ''  long  recognized  that  the  demo- 
cratic liberty  of  the  United  States  was  founded  on  the 
organization  of  the  commune."  ^  A  week  later,  however, 
this  paper  changed  its  tone  and  Lamennais'  prohibition  of 
central  interference  in  departmental  affairs  was  condemned 
as  an  institution  of  Swiss  cantons  or  American  states.^ 

The  reading  of  the  first  draft  of  the  constitution  disap- 
pointed many  of  both  wings;  in  fact,  only  the  government 
party  (whom  we  have  called  liberals)  professed  satisfaction. 
One  conservative  paper  declared  that  a  far  more  rigid  mon- 
archy had  really  been  established  than  under  Louis  XIV  or 
Napoleon.  Liberty  of  instruction  and  of  conscience  had 
ceased  to  exist.  Other  liberties  were  no  better  treated. 
"  The  citizen  of  the  United   States  is   free,  because  the 

1  National,  Mar.  13. 

2  Gazette  de  France,  Mar.  9. 

3  Ihid.,  Mar.  i. 

^  Revue  britanniquc,  vol.  14,  p.  393;  vol.  16,  p.  238. 

5  National,  May  5. 

6  Ibid.,  May  12. 


28o  'THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  j-^^g 

whole  power  of  the  state  can  do  nothing  against  his  right. 
.  .  .  CentraHzation  and  Hberty  are  mutually  exclusive."  In 
the  new  plan,  the  provinces  were  under  the  complete  control 
of  Paris.  The  strong  executive  will  almost  certainly  revive 
the  empire.  This  would  be  impossible  in  the  United  States, 
where  the  force  of  the  central  power  is  nothing  in  compar- 
ison with  that  of  the  thirty  states.  Mr.  Polk  has  no  more 
idea  of  crowning  himself  than  would  a  simple  citizen  under 
our  late  dynasty.^ 

The  American  railroad  policy,  by  which  great  lines  had 
been  built  by  private  capital  and  the  management  left  in  the 
hands  of  private  corporations,  was  defended  against  govern- 
ment construction.^  A  strict  limitation  of  governmental 
functions  in  the  interest  of  individual  liberty  was  repeatedly 
urged.  On  the  other  hand,  government-ownership  advo- 
cates found  that  American  example  was  not  wholly  against 
them.     It  will  be  said  that 

the  United  States,  that  classic  land  of  liberty,  that  refuge  if 
it  is  not  the  cradle  of  all  democracy,  the  United  States  have 
comprehended  that  it  was  necessary  to  favor,  to  second  great 
enterprises;  America  is  furrowed  with  railroads,  not  one  of 
them  belongs  to  that  republic.  All  belong  to  companies  which 
have  obtained  the  exploitation  of  them  in  perpetuity.  This  is 
true  only  within  certain  limits,  for  the  politicians  of  the  United 
States  have  imposed  on  the  companies  the  privilege  of  repur- 
chase.^ 

Ledru-Rollin,  opposing  the  system  of  a  bond  required 
from  each  newspaper  as  a  guarantee  of  good  behavior, 
praised  the  American  free  press,  where  the  very  number  of 

1  Univers,  June  20. 

"^Journal  des  dehats,  May  22;  Constitutionnel,  Univers,  May  22;  ibid., 
June  9 ;  Opinion  publique,  June  22. 
^National,  May  30. 


459]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  281 

conflicting  newspapers  and  the  excesses  to  which  they  were 
permitted  to  run  annulled  all  their  power  for  evil.  His  view 
was  regarded  as  ill-founded,  because  France's  centralization 
would  greatly  increase  the  possibility  of  their  harmful  influ- 
ence/ The  excesses  of  the  American  press  were  reprinted 
from  Capt.  Marryatt's  diary,  in  the  interest  of  the  financial 
bond  plan.^  The  free-press  party  drew  a  very  different  pic- 
ture of  the  American  situation  from  A.  Murat's  Esquisses 
morales  et  politiques  des  Etats-Unis  de  VAmeriqiie,  Tocque- 
ville's  Democratie,  and  Chassan's  Traites  des  delits  et  con- 
traventions de  la  parole,  de  Fecriture  et  de  la  presse.^ 

The  Journal  des  dehats  published  an  article  against  the 
clubs  which  called  forth  from  the  government  organ  in  reply 
an  unusually  clear  statement  of  the  liberal  feeling  toward 
the  conservatives. 

There  is  much  talk  there  about  America,  about  England,  about 
Washington,  about  Quincy  Adams,  and  in  fact  it  is  France, 
it  is  the  February  revolution,  it  is  the  sacred  right  of  meeting, 
of  association,  of  political  discussion,  which  there  has  been 
very  evident  desire  to  place  in  question.  Tomorrow,  with 
the  same  arms,  with  the  same  sophistries,  the  same  skill  in 
misrepresenting  facts,  either  the  freedom  of  the  press  will  be 
attacked  or  some  other  element  of  republican  organization, 
and  we  shall  be  altogether  astonished,  thinking  to  model  our- 
selves on  America,  to  find  ourselves  again  under  the  empire 
of  those  laws  so  well  exploited  by  the  former  patrons  of  the 
journal  to  which  we  refer. 

The  statement  had  been  made  that  no  clubs  existed  in 
America,  that  in  England  they  meant  something  quite  dif- 
ferent and  that  no  free  government  could  co-exist  with  them. 

1  Univers,  Aug.  9. 

2  Revue  britannique,  vol.  16,  p.  408. 

3  Repuhlique,  Aug  9. 


282  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^^q 

The  doctrine  is  certainly  not  novel.  It  is  the  same  which 
Messrs.  Guizot  and  Duchatel  professed  when  before  the 
Chamber  of  1848,  they  attacked  the  reformist  banquets  with 
which  the  left  menaced  them.  Only  it  presents  itself  better 
disguised  than  it  was  then,  with  a  republican  apparatus  and 
under  the  unexpected  patronage  of  Washington. 

Then  followed  a  long  discussion  of  the  freedom  of  assembly 
allowed  in  the  American  constitution,  of  Washington's 
treatment  of  his  political  enemies,  by  appeal  to  American 
good  sense  rather  than  by  force,  of  the  ease  with  which  a 
newspaper  advertisement  could  call  a  public  meeting,  of  the 
party  organization  and  political  conventions  which  took  the 
place  of  the  clubs.  The  Whigs,  Loco-focos,  Barnburners 
and  Hunkers  were  to  the  Paris  clubs  as  the  giant  to  the 
dwarf,  the  block  of  granite  to  the  dust  of  the  streets.^ 
To  which  the  sharp  retort  was  made : 

W^e  published  yesterday  {sic)  an  article  on  the  role  that  the 
clubs  played  in  America,  and  how  they  no  longer  play  it, 
thanks  to  Gbd  and  thanks  to  the  good  sense  of  the  country. 
The  National  would  see  in  that  article  a  disguised  attack  on 
the  absolute  liberty  of  the  clubs  in  France.  The  National  is 
deceived  in  only  one  point:  our  attack  is  not  disguised.  We 
did  not  cite  America  to  conceal  our  thought;  we  cited  it  as 
an  example  in  support  of  what  we  think.^ 

The  American  system  of  taxation  was  expounded  with 
approval.^ 

American  religious  liberty  was  loudly  praised  by  the 
Catholic  papers. 

Decimated  by  Muscovite  despotism,  vilified  by  Austrian  des- 
potism, oppressed  by  the  false  liberalism  of  the  so-called  con- 

1  National,  July  5. 

2  Journal  des  debats,  July  6. 

3  Ibid.,  July  9. 


46l]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  283 

stitutional  princes  of  Germany,  she  (the  Church)  hardly 
breathed  in  France  and  in  England  where  it  was  sought  to 
make  of  her  an  instrument  of  government.  She  is  entirely 
free  only  in  the  great  and  glorious  republic  of  the  United 
States.^ 

Catholic  success  in  the  United  States  was  considered  strik- 
ing; ^  it  was  due  to  the  separation  of  Church  and  State. '^ 
It  remained  for  the  radical  Charivari  to  fling  a  gibe  at  the 
Puritanical  American  Sunday,  and  to  sound  the  warning: 
"  Let  us  beware  of  making  our  republic  as  boresome  as  the 
republic  of  the  United  States."  * 

In  addition  to  editorial  references,  special  articles  were 
published  on  America,  usually  but  not  always  in  a  favorable 
sense. 

The  text  of  the  United  States  constitution  was  printed  in 
various  newspapers.  The  Presse  devoted  a  page  and  a  third 
to  it,  prefacing  its  article  with  the  significant  note :  "At  the 
moment  when  the  National  Assembly  is  about  to  meet,  we 
have  thought  that  the  following  document,  translated  by 
two  Americans,  would  be  read  with  interest,  in  spite  of  its 
length."  Then  followed  a  history  of  the  formation  and 
ratification  of  the  constitution,  concluding  with  the  state- 
ment : 

The  United  States  alone  present  the  example  of  republican, 
democratic  institutions  applied  with  success  on  a  large  scale: 
they  alone  have  put  beyond  controversy  the  fact,  continually 
denied,  that  a  nation  placed  politically  and  commercially  in 
the  first  rank  among  the  powers  of  the  world,  with  a  large 
population,  a  great  area,  including  a  great  variety  of  climates, 

1  Univers,  Feb.  27.  Cf.  ibid.,  May  7,  May  29;  tre  nouvelle,  Pros- 
pectus, July  29. 

^  Ere  nouvelle,  Sept.  14. 
^Liberie,  June  14. 
*  Charivari,  May  7. 


284  ^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r  .53 

of  products  and  local  interests,  may  be  frankly,  truly  repub- 
lican, democratic;  they  alone  have  proved  that  a  great  people 
may  govern  itself !  ...  At  this  moment,  when  France  is  in 
agitation,  when  thrones  are  falling,  when  all  Europe  is  in  re- 
bellion, and  when  old  populations  are  preparing  to  adopt  new 
and  better  forms  of  government,  it  may  be  useful  to  know 
the  political  and  civil  institutions  which  the  republic  of  the 
United  States  possesses. 

This  was  signed  "  W.  W.  M."  Then  came  a  brief  account 
of  the  nature  of  the  federal  government,  and  finally  the  con- 
stitution in  full,  with  short,  explanatory  notes. ^ 

The  Siecle  printed  a  history  and  analysis  of  the  constitu- 
tion, without  comment.^ 

Three  months  later  another  summary  of  the  provisions 
of  the  federal  constitution  was  given  as  the  first  of  three 
articles  entitled  ''  Etats-Unis  d'Amerique.  —  Constitutions 
Americaines."  A  prefatory  note  described  the  great  growth 
of  the  country.  The  four  states,  whose  constitutions  would 
be  omitted  in  these  articles,  Florida,  Arkansas,  Michigan 
and  Texas,  seemed  to  have  copied  Missouri.^  Three  of  the 
four  retained  the  plague  of  slavery.  In  all  the  state  consti- 
tutions the  system  of  checks  and  balances  was  maintained, 
the  executive  confided  to  an  elective,  temporary  ofiicer,  the 
bicameral  system  universal  except  in  Vermont,  judges  of 
high  rank  irremovable,  justices  of  the  peace  chosen  for  only 
a  few  years.*  In  the  second  article,  the  constitutions  of 
Maine  and  New  Hampshire  were  summarized ;  ^  in  the  third, 
Vermont,   Massachusetts,   Rhode  Island,  Connecticut  and 

1  Presse,  May  i. 
^Siecle,  May  15. 

3  This  statement  indicates  an  original  intention  to  publish  a  greater 
number  of  articles. 
*  Siecle,  Aug.  28. 
^  Ibid.,  Sept.  II- 


463]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  285 

New  York.^  This  third  article  commenced :  *'  A  vast  re- 
public, which  for  sixty  years  has  given  the  world  a  brilliant 
proof  of  the  energy  and  value  of  democratic  institutions,  is 
the  most  useful  subject  of  study  which  one  could  offer  at 
this  moment  to  the  statesmen  of  France."  The  source  of 
its  information  was  given  as  an  Essai  statistique  et  politiqice 
published  by  A.  de  Morineau. 

A  summary  of  the  federal  constitution  was  published  as 
a  quotation  from  the  journal  Droits  without  comment.^ 

Another  summary,  though  incomplete,  was  printed  in 
La  Liherte,  which  announced  its  intention  of  publishing  the 
three  French  republican  constitutions  and  that  of  the  United 
States,  believing  that  the  Assembly  would  find  *'  precious 
materials  "  in  them.  To  this  was  appended  an  historical 
and  an  analytical  comment.  The  latter  emphasized  federal- 
ism as  the  dominant  principle,  dwelt  on  the  dual  legislative 
system,  the  mode  of  election  and  triple  function  of  the  Sen- 
ate (legislative,  judicial  in  connection  with  impeachment, 
administrative  in  its  surveillance  of  treaties  and  nomina- 
tions) ,  the  mode  of  election  and  purely  legislative  function 
of  the  House,  the  prohibition  of  members  holding  other  re- 
munerative public  offices,  the  duties  and  powers  of  the  exec- 
utive. In  conclusion  it  was  said :  "  There  may  be  excellent 
things  to  take  from  that  constitution,  but  it  should  be  said 
that  in  great  part  it  would  not  be  appropriate  to  a  unitary 
republic,  as  the  French  republic  must  be."  ^ 

x\  history  and  analysis  of  the  American  constitution  ap- 
peared as  the  fourth  of  a  group  of  articles,  "  Des  constitu- 
tions de  la  France  depuis  1791  et  de  quelques  constitutions 
etrangeres."  * 

1  Siccle,  Sept.  17. 

~  Gaz-ctte  de  France,  Mar.  26, 

^Liberie,  May  3. 

4  Constitutionnel,  Apr.  29. 


286  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r  .5. 

But  in  addition  to  these  reprints  of  the  constitution,  with 
or  without  comment,  some  of  the  papers  published  special 
series  of  articles  on  a  much  more  elaborate  scale. 

The  most  important  of  these  were  the  studies  united 
under  the  title  "  Etudes  sur  la  Constitution  des  Etats-Unis  " 
by  Michel  Chevalier  ^  in  the  Journal  des  dehats.  They  ap- 
peared on  May  25,  June  6,  15,  22,  July  4,  11,  22,  Oct.  9,  20, 
Dec.  7,  12,  occupying  ordinarily  about  four  columns  on  the 
front  page. 

Chevalier's  eulogy  of  America  was  quite  unbounded,  re- 
markable even  in  that  day  of  extravagant  expressions.  In 
his  introductory  article,  he  said : 

At  this  moment  when  France  ...  is  occupied  in  making  a 
republican  constitution,  all  eyes  turn  toward  the  United  States. 
This  association  of  flourishing  and  already  populous  republics, 
important  for  the  space  they  occupy  on  the  map,  remarkable 
for  the  diffusion  they  have  given  to  knowledge  among  them, 
for  the  extent  of  their  commerce,  the  advance  of  all  their 
industries,  the  abundance  of  their  capital,  is  indeed  a  natural 
example  {point  de  mire)  for  a  great  people  which  is  under- 
taking to  constitute  itself  as  a  republic. 

Its  similar  civilization,  lively  sympathy,  admirable  solution 
of  the  problem  of  welfare,  civil  and  political  equality,  were 
all  powerful  claims  to  their  attention  and  respect.  Its  future 
greatness  and  importance  were  incalculable.  His  most 
ardent  wish  for  France  was  that  her  people  might  rapidly 
cover  the  really  great  distance  between  their  manner  of  ex- 
istence and  that  of  the  Americans.  "  The  political  mechan- 
ism of  North  America  is,  of  its  kind,  the  most  reasonable 
that  men  have  conceived  and  applied  up  to  this  day.  ...  It 
is,  then,  not  I  who  will  dissuade  my  compatriots  from  select- 
ing the  United  States  as  model."    He  only  wished  to  point 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  loi. 


465]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  287 

out  how  much  they  would  have  to  do  for  themselves  before 
"  the  magnificent  instrument  of  the  constitution  of  the 
American  Union  "  or  one  of  the  states  could  be  really  of 
service  to  them.  They  must  study  how  far  a  constitution 
a  Vamericaine  was  permitted  to  them,  "  whatever  desire  we 
may  have  to  possess  one  in  such  conformity  with  pure 
reason."  ^ 

Similar  expressions  can  be  found  on  almost  any  page  of 
Chevalier's  articles.  "  In  regard  to  law,  up  to  the  present 
we  have  had  a  very  different  attitude  from  that  of  the 
Americans.  There  is,  however,  no  middle  ground:  either 
we  must  renounce  ours  to  take  theirs,  or  we  shall  have  to 
renounce  liberty."  ^  "  The  struggle  now  in  France  is  be- 
tween those  who  want  a  republic  on  the  model  of  the  United 
States,  except  for  the  differences  which  the  diversity  of 
national  genius  requires,  and  those  who  consider  the  terror- 
ist policy  of  the  Convention  as  the  expression  of  the  most 
elevated,  noblest  and  purest  republican  policy."  If  history 
was  to  show  that  this  French  republic  justified  what  wise 
men  expected  of  her,  she  must  have  abjured  the  traditions 
of  1793  and  '*  demanded  her  inspiration,  not  from  that  un- 
happy epoch,  but  from  the  glorious  republic  which  is  grow- 
ing every  day  on  the  other  shore  of  the  Atlantic ;  .  .  .  the 
only  patrons  in  the  skies  for  a  modern  republic  are  the 
Washingtons,  the  Franklins  and  the  patriotic  phalanx  who 
surrounded  them."  * 

These  are  only  typical  utterances. 

Chevalier's  interest  was  social,  as  well  as  constitutional, 
as  the  following  outline  of  his  articles  shows. 

1  Journal  des  dehats,  May  25. 
^Ihid.,  June  6. 
^Ihid.,  Oct.  10. 


288  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  |-^^55 

I 

1.  Introduction:  America  as  model. 

2.  Difference  of  religion  in  America  and  France. 

a.  The  fact :  former  Protestant,  latter  Catholic. 

b.  The  results :  ( i )  Protestantism  conduces  to  self- 
government;  Catholicism,  monarchical  and  central- 
izing. (2)  Americans  more  zealous  in  religion. 
(3)  Resultant  purer  morals.  (4)  Good  morals 
produce  strong  political  convictions,  e.  g.,  Amer- 
ican confidence  in  republicanism  and  Anglo-Saxon 
supremacy.     ( 5 )  Legal  oath  religiously  binding. 

3.  Religion  superior  to  philosophy  as  creative  force. 

4.  Relative  decline  of  Catholic  powers. 

5.  Will  1848  prove  a  Catholic  renaissance? 

II 

RESPECT  FOR  LAW 

1.  An  Anglo-Saxon  trait. 

2.  Exceptions:  (a)  Western  America;  (b)  Aaron  Burr; 
(c)  lynch  law;  (d)  waves  of  crime  in  cities;  (e)  polit- 
ical demagogues.     But  general  rule  holds. 

3.  Law-abiding  character  of  pre-revolutionary  protests  to 
George  III. 

4.  Resultant  respect  for  new  constitution. 

5.  Careful  provisions  for  amendment. 

6.  Difference  between  "  the  people  "  and  "  the  mob." 

7.  Federal  power  aids  states,  but  respects  their  liberty. 

8.  Supreme  Court  as  guardian  of  constitution. 

9.  Dorr  rebellion  sole  example  of  violence  against  a  con- 
stitution. 

10.  Absence  of  armed  force. 

1 1 .  How  Americans  would  have  handled  French  crises  of 
1814,  1830  and  1848. 


467]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  289 

III 
Washington's  attitude  toward  the  law 

1.  Need  of  just,  strong  men  to  preserve  respect  for  law. 

2.  Washington's  life  as  a  continual  homage  to  law. 

3.  As  commander,  sustained  unpopular  laws  of  Congress. 

4.  His  action  at  time  of  Lancaster  troops'  mutiny. 

5.  His  action  in  whiskey  rebellion. 

6.  His  action  in  Andre  question. 

7.  Contrast  with  men  of  1848. 


IV 


RESPECT  FOR  CONTRACTS 

1.  Plan  of  French  government  to  purchase  railroads. 

2.  American  constitution's  prohibition  of  state  laws  impair- 
ing obligation  of  contracts. 

3.  Violation  of  contracts  under  Confederation;  attitude  of 
Federalist. 

4.  Power  of  Supreme  Court  to  compel  observance  of  con- 
stitution. 

5.  Development  of  principle   (cases  cited  from  Kent  and 
Story)  : 

(a)  Fletcher  vs.  Peck,  1795.  (b)  Delaware  Indian 
reservation's  sale  by  New  Jersey,  1804.  (c)  Dart- 
mouth College  case. 

6.  How  America  would  deal  with  French  railroad  situation. 

7.  Repudiation  of  interest  on  debts  by  certain  states  in  1837 
an  exception. 

8.  America  moves  toward  individual  prosperity  more  hon- 
orably and  surely  than  does  communism. 


290  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r  .53 

V 

THE   CLUBS 

1.  Right  of  free  speech  and  press  guaranteed  in  constitu- 
tion ;  right  to  bear  arms  in  additional  articles. 

2.  Temperate  use  of  these  privileges. 

3.  Political  meetings  and  banquets;  no  permanent  clubs; 
possible  exception  of  Tammany  Hall. 

4.  Former  menace  of  political  societies : 

(a)  Introduced  by  Genet  after  Jacobin  model,  (b) 
Genet's  dismissal,  but  spread  of  societies,  (c)  Wash- 
ington's struggle  against  them,  (d)  Adams'  Alien 
and  Sedition  laws,  (e)  Died  out  under  Jefferson, 
from  public  disapproval  rather  than  legal  pressure,  (f ) 
No  political  clubs  on  French  model  in  England,  (g) 
Self-restraint  of  Americans,  (h)  Danger  of  clubs  for 
France. 

VI 

TWO  CHAMBERS  IN  CONGRESS 

1.  The  American  regime: 

(a)  Adams'  refutation,  (b)  Action  of  Convention  of 
1787.  (c)  Adoption  of  dual  system  by  states,  (d) 
Axiomatic  in  America  today. 

2.  Prestige  of  single  chamber : 

(a)  Turgot;  (b)  Pennsylvania;  (c)  fear  of  EngHsh 
example;  (d)  dual  system  adopted  in  spite  of,  not  be- 
cause of  English  example;  (e)  loose  federal  authority 
later  changed,  on  proof  of  inadequacy. 

3.  Fact  that  France  is  not  federal,  really  an  argument  for 
dual  system,  because  of  greater  mass  of  legislation  re- 
quired. 

4.  Equal  representation  of  states,  not  original  cause  for 
dual  system  in  America. 


469]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  29I 

5.  Authorities  for  dual  system: 

(a)  Adams;  (b)  Memoirs  of  members  of  Convention 
(esp.  Madison)  ;   (c)  Federalist, 

6.  Arguments  of  Federalist: 

(a)  Eminence  of  Senate  guaranteed  by  (i)  smaller 
number,  (2)  longer  tenure,  (3)  mode  of  election ;  (b) 
increased  security  against  plots;  (c)  passions  calmed; 
(d)  deeper  knowledge  of  politics;  (e)  greater  stability 
and  sense  of  responsibility. 

7.  Method  of  electing  Senate. 

8.  Bicameral  system  in  larger  cities  for  municipal  govern- 
ment. 

9.  Corner-stone  of  American  system;  England;  constitu- 
tion of  year  III. 

VII 

HOW  THIS  CONSTITUTION  WAS  MADE 

1.  Differences  among  colonies. 

2.  Union  against  France  and  later  against  England. 

3.  Loose  character  of  Confederation  due  to  dread  of  tyr- 
anny. 

4.  Financial  failure  of  Confederation  after  war. 

5.  Constitution  estabHshed. 

(a)  Its  work:  it  made  a  nation,  though  still  federal. 

(b)  Its  success :  due  to  the  character  of  the  people. 

VIII 

paper-money;  financial  system  of  FRENCH  CONVENTION 

1 .  Prohibition  by  Congress  of  emission  of  paper  by  states ; 
joy  of  Madison  expressed  in  Federalist. 

2.  Depreciation  of  Continental  paper-money  during  war. 

3.  Further  emission  of  paper  after  war;  its  depreciation. 

4.  Supreme  Court  holds  Missouri  certificates  unconstitu- 
tional. 


292  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  v.y^ 

5.  Opposition  to  paper-money  extends  even  to  banknotes, 
though  these  are  not  real  paper-money,  being  (a)  im- 
mediately redeemable,  (b)  taken  at  will. 

6.  Jackson  tried  to  establish  metal  money  alone. 

7.  Bank-notes  (a)  useful  in  advancing  civilization,  (b) 
failing  to  provide  due  guarantees  for  specie  redemption 
became  true  paper-money,  causing  crisis  of  1837. 

8.  Paper-money  proposed  in  France  now,  but  system  of 
assignats  and  maximum,  tried  under  Revolution,  failed. 

9.  Men  of  Terror  idealized  today;  in  reality,  scoundrels. 

10.  Cambon  did  not  invent  assignats,  merely  used  them  less 
disastrously  than  others ;  real  basis  of  paper-money  the 
Mens  nationally,  acquired  by  laws  of  death  and  confis- 
cation. 

11.  Misery  under  tyranny  of  Convention. 

12.  True  model  not  Convention,  but  American  republic; 
secret  of  its  success,  "  Love  of  labor  and  respect  for 
the  laws." 


IX 


HOW   LIBERTY   IS   UNDERSTOOD  AND   PRACTISED  IN   THE 
UNITED    STATES 

1.  Perverted  notions  of  liberty  elsewhere. 

2.  American  freedom  of  person  by  habeas-corpus : 

(a)  English  foundation  of  principle;  (b)  general 
statement  in  constitution;  (c)  development  in  state 
laws;  (d)  truth  of  facts  examined,  statement  of  de- 
taining authority  not  accepted  at  face-value;  (e)  par- 
allelism between  English  and  American  legislation; 
(f)  partial  lack  of  these  guarantees  in  France,  total 
lack  in  Turkey;  (g)  possible  suspension  of  writ  in  case 
of  public  need,  so  far  unused;  cases  of  Burr  and 
J         Jackson. 


47 1  ]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  293 

3.  American  customs  laws  do  not  permit  visites  a  corps 
[personal  examination  of  suspected  smugglers]. 

4.  Imprisonment  for  debt  abolished,  even  in  refusal  to 
honor  commercial  paper ;  such  refusal  would  ruin  a  busi- 
ness man. 

5.  No  domiciliary  visits  permitted  except  with  much  for- 
mality. 

6.  No  lodging  of  troops  among  citizens  required. 

X 

ELECTION  OF  THE  PRESIDENT 

1.  Multiple  head  under  Confederation;  Congress  while  in 
session,  committee  at  other  times. 

2.  President  adopted  under  constitution;  fitness  of  Wash- 
ington for  this  post. 

3.  Constitutional  provisions  as  to  President's  function. 

4.  Votes  in  convention  which  framed  constitution : 

(a)  defeat  of  president's  council  and  of  life  tenure; 

(b)  adoption  of  seven-year  term,  election  by  Congress, 
no  re-eligibility;  (c)  revision  adopts  electoral  college, 
chosen  by  legislatures;  (d)  election  restored  to  Con- 
gress; (e)  present  system  adopted. 

5.  Modifying  considerations  and  subsequent  developments : 

(a)  four-year  term  thought  too  short,  re-election  ex- 
pected to  be  the  rule;  illusion;  (b)  election  by  Con- 
gress thought  to  open  way  for  intrigue  and  executive 
dependence  on  legislature;  (c)  despite  quiet  and  small 
size  of  towns,  popular  suffrage  not  considered;  man- 
ner of  choosing  electors  left  to  each  state;  (d)  South 
Carolina  only  state  in  which  people  do  not  now  choose 
electors ;  some  states  elect  by  districts,  giving  minority 
representation ;  usually  local  pride  forces  general  vote, 
to  make  state  vote  a  vinit;  (e)  electors  expected  to  be 


294  ^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-4^2 

calmly  independent ;  now  mere  party  machines ;  people 
really  decide;  (f)  inclusion  of  Senators  in  estimate  of 
due  number  of  electors,  and  vote  by  states  when  House 
must  decide,  concessions  to  small  states. 

6.  House  has  decided  election  twice. 

7.  Vice-President's  function:  (a)  his  deciding  vote  a  con- 
cession to  states'  jealousy  of  one  another;  (b)  change  in 
election  since  1804. 

8.  Inferior  foresight,  but  superior  stability  of  Americans 
in  constitutional  matters. 

XI 

ELECTION   OF  THE  PRESIDENT. PREPARATORY  DISCUSSIONS. 

CONVENTIONS. FAVOR  ENJOYED  BY  MILITARY  CAN- 
DIDATES.  SINCERITY   OF   ELECTIONS 

1 .  Change  of  electoral  college  in  practice. 

2.  Designation  of  candidates : 

(a)  by  caucus,  (b)  by  convention. 

3.  The  convention : 

(a)  rapidity  of  its  action  and  lack  of  acquaintance  of 
members  a  guarantee  against  cabals;  (b)  party  dis- 
cipline accepts  choice;  (c)  contrasting  party  disorgan- 
ization in  France;  (d)  general  excellence  of  conven- 
tion's choice. 

4.  The  mihtary  presidents : 

(a)  due  to  unequal  education  in  different  states  and 
dazzling  nature  of  militarism  for  uneducated;  (b)  due 
to  jealousy  and  calumny  of  real  leaders  {e.  g.  Clay). 

5.  Electoral  frauds: 

(a)  growth  of  cities;  (b)  immigration  of  inferior  for- 
eign stocks;  (c)  allegations  of  fraud  in  Clay- Polk 
election;  (d)  inadequate  safeguards  of  purity  of  bal- 
lot; (e)  a  real  danger  for  America  and  even  more  for 


473]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  295 

European  imitators,  Europe's  vices  being  more  deeply 
rooted. 

This  series  of  articles  by  Chevalier  attracted  wide  atten- 
tion. Its  progress  was  noted  and  discussed.  One  paper 
presented  an  analysis  of  the  article  on  the  bicameral  system.^ 
Another  remarked : 

The  Journal  des  dehats  is  still  at  its  studies  on  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States.  Revolutions  do  not  change  it,  street- 
battles  do  not  make  it  interrupt  an  article  once  commenced. 
What  we  read  in  its  columns  in  the  month  of  May,  we  find 
there  at  the  end  of  July.  M.  Michel  Chevalier  is  informing 
us  today  how  the  Yankee  constitution  was  made.  The  article 
has  four  full  columns." 

A  satirical  article  appeared,  entitled  Le  Sabbat  du  Frere 
Michel,  ridiculing  Chevalier's  philosophizing  on  religious 
conditions,  and  concluding : 

You  should  not  have  condemned  the  constitutional  monarchy 
after  only  thirty  years  of  experiment.  That  "  only  "  is  ador- 
able! That  "only"  betrays  you,  brother  Michel;  believe, us, 
leave  your  homilies  about  Sunday  and  cease  disguising  your- 
self as  an  Anglo-Saxon  to  preach  in  the  Journal  des  debats. 
You  are  not  and  you  never  will  be  anything  but  a  constitu- 
tional royalist,  brother  Michel  Chevalier.^ 

The  same  paper  published  a  burlesque  Chevalier  article 
with  the  same  title  as  the  original,  in  which  the  cup-and- 
saucer  story  was  given  as  the  real  origin  of  the  bicameral 
system  and  a  political  evolution  represented  as  taking  place 
in  the  northern  and  western  states 

1  Siecle,  July  17. 

2  tre  nouvelle,  July  2^. 

3  Charivari,  May  26. 


296  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r^^.^ 

toward  the  ideas  of  order  and  conservatism  represented  by 
the  monarchical  formula.  ...  It  is  useless  to  dissimulate^ 
the  Americans  have  long  understood  the  inconveniences  of 
democracy.  Quite  a  powerful  party  has  even  been  formed  at 
New  Yorck  {sic)  to  offer  the  crown  to  Prince  Louis  Napoleon. 
By  a  lingering  amour-propre  the  Yankees  do  not  yet  dare  to 
raise  openly  the  standard  of  constitutional  monarchy,  but  the 
moment  is  not  distant  when  these  last  scruples  will  disappear. 
Et  nunc  intelligife,  you  who  would  found  a  republic  in  France.^ 

Chevalier's  chair  in  the  College  de  France  was  suppressed 
(though  before  the  articles  began),  and  the  antipathy  of 
the  radicals  was  so  well  known  that  their  chief  organ  felt  it 
necessary  to  deny  as  an  unworthy  calumny  the  rumors  that 
his  dismissal  was  the  reply  of  Louis  Blanc  to  Chevalier's 
attacks  on  his  doctrines.^ 

Another  series  of  articles  was  that  by  Clarigny  in  the 
Constitutionnel  of  June  5,  10,  24,  July  3,  Sept.  5,  11,  Oct. 
1 1,  under  the  title  "  Des  Institutions  republicaines  en  France 
et  aux  Etats-Unis." 

His  general  point  of  view  is  made  sufficiently  clear  by  an 
extract  from  his  first  article  in  which  he  expresses  his  wish 
to  discuss  how  far  this  American  constitution, 

one  of  the  least  imperfect  works  that  has  proceeded  from 
human  hands,  is  applicable  to  our  state  of  society  with  our 
political  customs.  .  .  .  What  pleases  us  especially  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  is  the  minute  care,  the  scrupu- 
lous attention  that  American  legislators  have  employed  not 
to  touch  human  liberty  needlessly  and  to  respect  as  far  as  pos- 
sible the  fullness  of  the  rights  of  the  citizen.  This  is  the 
example  which  our  legislators  should  have  perpetually  before 
their  eyes.  Without  speaking  indeed  of  communism  and  of 
socialism,  which,  leading  to  absolute  centralization,  are  the 

^  Charivari,  July  12. 
^Reforme,  Apr.  16. 


475]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  297 

very  negation  of  liberty,  one  cannot  disguise  the  fact  that 
ideas  of  an  exaggerated  centralization  prevail  among  the  men 
in  power  today,  and  are  the  dearest  dreams  of  the  school 
which  pretends  to  govern.^ 

The  first  of  the  articles  was  "  On  the  rights  of  the  state." 
It  discussed  from  the  standpoint  of  political  theory  the  true 
function  of  the  state,  the  two  opposite  dangers,  excess  of 
liberty  and  excess  of  centralization,  the  American  emphasis 
on  the  former,  the  French  on  the  latter. 

The  second  article,  "  On  the  division  of  powers,"  ex- 
pounded autocracy  and  demagogy  (direct  popular  govern- 
ment) as  alike  failures,  being  hostile  to  the  true  principle  of 
delegated  authority;  the  centralist  school  secures  equality, 
but  not  liberty ;  power  must  be  divided  as  well  as  delegated, 
the  judiciary  being  co-ordinate  with  the  other  two  branches ; 
exaggeration  of  executive  power,  as  in  Lamennais'  scheme, 
easily  leads  to  the  tyranny  of  a  Jackson,  pretending  to  rep- 
resent the  people  against  the  bourgeoisie,  with  possible  power 
greater  than  a  king;  if  the  legislative  elects  the  executive,  it 
in  turn  becomes  too  powerful ;  the  American  constitution  is  a 
good  example  of  Montesquieu's  sound  philosophy ;  the  state 
constitutions  also  illustrate  it,  as  Maryland,  the  Carolinas, 
Georgia,  Virginia,  Massachusetts;  thus  American  practice 
supports  the  contention  of  the  liberal  school. 

The  third  article,  "  On  the  legislative  power,"  expounded 
the  advantages  of  the  dual  system  in  preventing  the  tyranny 
of  a  single  assembly,  delaying  hasty  legislation,  preventing 
plots  and  providing  stability,  closing  with  Washington's 
position  on  the  matter. 

The  fourth  article,  also  "  On  the  legislative  power,"  re- 
futed objections  to  the  dual  system  (that  it  had  no  meaning 
except  in  a  federal  system,  being  a  mere  reunion  of  ambas- 

1  Constitutionnel,  June  5. 


298  I'^E,  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^y^ 

sadors,  and  that  if  the  two  chambers  are  composed  of  the 
same  elements,  one  will  be  useless,  if  of  different  elements, 
one  will  be  aristocratic),  replying  to  the  former  that  the 
Senate  has  power  of  initiating  legislation,  to  the  latter,  that 
the  dilemma  is  purely  theoretical.  The  remainder  of  the 
article  described  the  organization  of  American  Senates  and 
suggested  a  possible  French  arrangement  along  similar  lines 
(the  department  being  the  unit  and  election  made  by  muni- 
cipal councils  or  by  representatives  of  manufacture,  agri- 
culture and  commerce) ;  the  dual  system  retained  eminent 
men  in  public  life  and  was  well  adapted  to  try  impeach- 
ments ;  the  council  of  state  was  no  proper  substitute. 

The  fifth  article,  "  On  the  executive  power,"  pointed  out 
that  the  executive  must  be  strong  enough  to  maintain  order, 
yet  powerless  against  liberty,  which  made  its  proper  organ- 
ization the  greatest  difficulty  in  a  constitution;  that  in 
Athens  the  executive  perished  under  demagogy,  in  Rome 
it  became  all-powerful ;  that  the  Consulate  and  the  Directory 
proved  the  necessity  of  unity ;  that  an  executive  council  has 
all  the  faults  of  a  multiple  executive  and  was  eliminated  by 
New  York  at  its  first  revision;  that  the  American  solution 
of  the  appointment  problem,  whereby  the  President  chooses 
his  ministers  and  personal  agents  freely,  while  the  Senate 
confirms  judges,  diplomats  and  others  having  more  personal 
initiative,  is  a  happy  one;  that  a  single  chamber  is  not 
adapted  for  such  confirmation. 

The  sixth  article,  continuing  the  same  subject,  held  that, 
as  in  America,  the  President  should  command  the  army  and 
navy,  prohibition  of  such  command  being  no  safeguard 
against  usurpation ;  that  except  in  amnesties  he  should  have 
power  of  pardon  without  intervention  of  minister  of  jus- 
tice or  council  of  state,  which  brought  the  case  into  politics ; 
should  have  right  of  receiving  ambassadors  and  negotiating 
treaties  with  aid  of  Senate,  right  of  promulgating  laws  and 


477]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  299 

of  suspensive  veto ;  should  be  empowered  to  summon  extra- 
ordinary sessions  of  the  legislature,  rather  than  leaving  it 
in  the  hands  of  a  committee  of  the  latter,  as  in  the  French 
project. 

The  seventh  article,  concluding  the  study  of  this  office 
and  ending  the  series,  praised  the  American  executive  as  an 
independent,  effective  power,  having  unity  of  person,  direct 
and  universal  election,  a  four-year  term  with  indefinite  pos- 
sibility of  re-election  and  a  veto  against  all  legislation  passed 
by  a  bare  majority;  considered  the  new  French  office  indefi- 
nite, despite  universal  election  and  the  four-year  term,  his 
only  clear  function  being  promulgation  of  laws,  with  a 
futile  right  of  demanding  a  new  deliberation ;  held  that  the 
very  vagueness  of  his  functions  added  to  the  single  chamber 
and  centralization  might  easily  lead  to  usurpation;  hence 
came  demand  for  his  election  by  the  Assembly;  the  argu- 
ments in  support  were  the  agitation  of  popular  elections, 
evil  effects  of  party  spirit,  possible  opposition  between  inde- 
pendent President  and  Assembly  or  his  tyranny  over  latter ; 
arguments  against  were  destruction  of  executive  power, 
separation  of  powers  ignored,  inevitable  legislative  tyranny, 
these  being  conclusive;  that  the  four-year  interval  before 
re-election  in  the  new  project  was  bad,  for  mobility  of 
events  would  preclude  re-elections  and  it  was  not  fitting  that 
the  President  hold  minor  offices  in  the  interim;  the  Amer- 
ican four-year  term  was  a  mean  between  that  of  the  House, 
whose  entire  renewal  gave  chance  for  protest,  and  that  of 
the  Senate,  whose  permanence  meant  stability;  that  re-elec- 
tion was  a  stimulus  to  excellence  and  reward  of  merit,  the 
tendency  of  democracies  being  to  shorten  terms;  repeated 
arguments  against  election  by  the  Assembly,  pointing  out 
the  nominal  character  of  the  American  electoral  college; 
and  ended  by  showing  the  importance  of  the  Vice-President 
in  America  and  his  futility  under  the  French  project,  which 
debarred  him  from  succession. 


300  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  j-^^g 

Regis  de  Trobriand  had  a  short  series  in  the  Presse, 
called  "  Etude  sur  la  constitution  generale  des  Etats-Unis 
d'Amerique,"  appearing  May  12,  13. 

The  first  study  was  on  the  legislative  power,  the  second 
on  the  executive,  both  being  resumes  of  the  American  sys- 
tem rather  than  elaborate  discussions  of  the  Chevalier  and 
Clarigny  type. 

Trobriand  was  also  an  enthusiast  and  commenced  his 
article  thus : 

All  that  concerns  the  United  States  is  today  of  high  interest. 
.  .  .  The  United  States  of  America  are  without  contradiction 
the  glorious,  pure  cradle  of  modern  democracy.  .  .  .  What 
is  the  secret  of  this  unexampled  progress?  ...  It  is  the  con- 
stitution of  the  state,  a  magnificent  work  which  has  developed 
all  instincts,  encouraged  all  enterprises,  safeguarded  all  rights 
and  given  scope  to  genius  of  every  sort. 

Study  of  this  great  nation,  known  here  so  little  because  of 
English  jealousy,  is  of  peculiar  value  at  the  present;  Toc- 
queville  and  Chevalier  have  written  on  it.  The  federal  sys- 
tem forbids  complete  application  of  its  constitution  here; 
we  shall  study  only  institutions  capable  of  adaptation  to 
our  purpose.^ 

A  series  appeared  in  Ui:re  nouvelle,  July  17,  23,  30,  31, 
Sept.  5,^  under  the  caption,  "  Etudes  sur  la  constitution. — 
Pouvoir  executif  et  legislatif."  While  a  study  of  the 
French  constitution,  references  to  the  American  document 
are  numerous  and  the  second  article  is  practically  a  com- 
parison of  the  two.  This  article  contained  the  interesting 
passage : 

We  are  hardly  out  of  monarchy;  and  as  if  we  were  slaves, 

1  Presse,  May  12. 

2  This  was  the  sixth  article ;  the  fifth  is  missing. 


479]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  301 

freshly  emancipated,  we  pretend  that  there  is  not  on  the  earth 
a  people  which  can  equal  us  in  popular  doctrines  and  institu- 
tions. Up  to  the  present,  the  example  of  North  America  re- 
mained for  the  boldest  thinkers,  a  sort  of  ideal  beyond  which 
vague  dreams  of  our  liberty  hardly  strayed.  The  success  of 
the  United  States  and  their  growing  prosperity  since  the  war 
of  independence,  were  the  favorite  argument  and  privileged 
example,  which  the  greatest  liberals  of  Europe  placed  com- 
placently before  the  adoration  of  their  thinking.  One  could 
not  even  make  them  concede  what  seemed  evident  to  sensible 
minds,  that  the  republican  forms  of  the  Union,  because  of 
profound  differences  of  history,  customs,  territory  and  national 
temperament,  might  be  beyond  the  strength  and  needs  of 
France.  But  on  the  23rd  of  February,  1848,  all  the  least 
anticipated  desires  of  our  republicans  de  la  veille  would  have 
certainly  been  contented,  by  permitting  them  to  apply  the 
political  forms  of  North  America  immediately  on  French 
ground.  Today  their  improvised  application  seems  no  longer 
to  content  anyone  among  us.  What  still  suffices  for  the  growth 
and  liberty  of  the  United  States,  long  since  republican,  already 
suffices  no  longer  for  the  destinies  of  France,  recently  mon- 
archical, which  has  not  yet  written  the  first  formula  of  its 
new  republicanism. 

Examples  follow  at  considerable  length,  the  American  sys- 
tem of  indirect  presidential  election  being  contrasted  with 
the  new  French  essay  at  universal  suffrage,  "  under  the 
radical  inspiration  of  M.  Louis  Blanc,"  the  age-limit,  resi- 
dence qualification,  suspensive  veto,  constitutional  amend- 
ment clauses,  executive  command  of  army  and  navy,  and 
two-chamber  provisions  of  the  American  document  com- 
pared to  their  advantage  with  the  corresponding  arrange- 
ments of  the  proposed  French  constitution.  "  What  we 
have  just  said  suffices  to  show  with  what  systematic  and 
quite  French  preoccupation  our  legislators  have  determined 
to  differentiate  themselves  from  America."  ^ 

1  tre  nouvelle,  July  23. 


302  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^gQ 

In  addition  to  studies  already  mentioned/  the  Siecle 
printed  an  "  Essai  sur  les  principes  democratiques  qui  peu- 
vent  regir  la  France  republicaine  "  by  Major  Poussin.  The 
burden  of  this  essay,  as  may  be  supposed,  was : 

Adopt  first  the  great  principles  of  the  American  constitution ; 
they  have  been  tested  for  more  than  three  quarters  of  a 
century,  in  the  midst  of  the  most  critical  as  well  the  most 
varied  circumstances,  through  which  that  great  nation  has 
been  called  to  pass :  they  have  perfectly  responded  to  the  exi- 
gencies of  war  and  of  peace,  to  grave  party  differences,  to 
commercial  crises,  to  territorial  jealousies,  finally  to  the  radical 
division  of  opinion  which  separates  free  from  slave  labor. 

These  and  other  considerations  commended  the  adoption  of 
the  great  American  principles,  which  he  proceeded  to  enu- 
merate as  follows:  equal  rights  of  all  to  liberty,  security, 
property,  education;  popular  sovereignty;  universal,  direct 
suffrage;  the  right  of  bearing  arms;  universal  eligibility  to 
office;  incompatibility  of  legislative  and  other  office;  liberty 
of  conscience,  separation  of  Church  and  State;  liberty  of 
teaching ;  free  instruction  in  all  grades ;  liberty  of  press  and 
of  public  meeting ;  local  self-government,  the  central  author- 
ity providing  for  all  national  services;  gradual  reduction 
of  the  army,  but  increase  of  the  navy;  encouragement  of 
art,  industry,  agriculture  and  commerce  by  periodical  re- 
ports and  national  aid;  the  executive,  legislative  and  judicial 
departments  as  provided  for  in  the  constitution;  trial  by 
jury;  no  council  of  state;  taxation  on  uniform,  not  progres- 
sive basis.  Then  followed  a  discussion  of  how  far  these 
principles  are  adaptable  to  French  conditions,  in  the  course 
of  which  he  refuted  the  aristocracy  argument  against  the 
Senate;  showed  the  similarity  of  customs  and  character  in 
the  two  countries,  from  their  common  base  of  popular  sov- 

1  Supra,  p.  284  et  seq. 


48i]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  303 

ereignty  assured  by  universal  suffrage,  their  common  con- 
trol of  public  force  through  the  militia  idea  and  their  com- 
mon social  equality,  based  on  testamentary  laws;  indicated 
that  the  inferior  condition  of  French  labor  might  be  im- 
proved by  reducing  taxes  on  food-stuffs;  suggested  that 
African  conquests  may  be  to  France  what  Texas  is  to 
America,  by  giving  room  for  expansion  and  furnishing  new 
products ;  insisted  that  popular  education  in  France  must  be 
brought  up  to  the  American  standard ;  and  concluded :  "  I 
maintain  that  France  may  receive  a  democratic  organiza- 
tion almost  similar  to  that  of  the  United  States,  while  pre- 
serving for  the  republic  the  unitary  character  which  consti- 
tutes the  glory,  the  power,  the  prosperity  of  our  country  and 
the  fairest  title  of  our  nationality !"  ^ 

Three  papers  appeared  in  the  Journal  for  Aug.  14,  17,  27, 
entitled  "  Les  Etats-Unis  et  la  France  democratique,"  bear- 
ing the  signature,  L.  Xavier  Eyma.  The  first  two  were 
social  rather  than  constitutional.  The  opening  article  stated 
as  a  general  premise  that  "  at  this  moment  many  people  in 
France  are  turning  their  attention  to  the  New  World/' 
some  hoping  to  borrow  illumination  from  the  hearth  of 
liberty,  others  wondering  in  terror  if  a  republic  is  a  safe 
form  of  government.  ''  I  do  not  wish  to  say  that  human 
perfection  has  sought  refuge  in  the  United  States,  concen- 
trating there  on  a  few  million  individuals,  to  the  detriment 
of  the  rest  of  the  universe."  But  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
calmness  of  reason,  love  of  material  and  mental  order,  a 
patriotism  which  sacrifices  personal  to  general  interests  and 
an  ardent  national  amour-propre  are  characteristic  of  Amer- 
icans and  form  part  of  the  secret  of  their  national  greatness, 
which  deserves  careful  scrutiny  by  French  students.  With 
this  introduction,  he  discussed  the  facts  of  American  pros- 

1  Steele,  May  26. 


304  ^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-^g2 

perity,  its  immense  energy,  the  happy  relations  of  social 
classes,  and  adduced  as  cause  the  immense  opportunity  for 
labor  and  the  high  esteem  in  which  it  was  held. 

The  second  paper  was  a  glowing  description  of  elections 
in  the  United  States,  their  calmness,  lack  of  serious  party 
conflict,  acceptance  of  the  verdict,  etc. 

The  third  discussed  presidential  elections,  the  electoral 
college  and  its  evolution  into  a  machine  for  registering  the 
popular  will,  re-elections,  requirements  for  office  and  the 
convention  system,  ending  with  the  statement  that  the  in- 
terest of  the  masses  was  more  attached  to  the  state,  its  con- 
stitution being  more  democratic  than  that  of  the  Union, 
which  came  into  little  contact  with  daily  life;  the  educated 
classes  and  the  press  were  more  interested  in  federal 
matters. 

Several  months  later  an  unsigned  article,  but  apparently 
by  the  same  author,  called  "  Les  Etats-Unis  et  la  France 
democratique ;  Quelques  lignes  d'histoire'*  came  out,  en- 
couraging France  by  an  account  of  the  severe  trials  through 
which  America  passed,  her  troubles  with  the  Tories  and 
with  her  first  inadequate  form  of  government,  before  she 
received  "  that  great  and  fair  constitution  which  today 
protects  the  American  Union,"  and  how  Washington  and 
Congress  never  lost  hope  in  Providence  or  in  republican 
principles.^ 

A  study  "  Du  Pouvoir  Executif  "  was  made  by  G.  Du- 
four,  "  Avocat  au  Conseil  d'Etat''  in  a  legal  review,  in 
which  much  use  was  made  of  Tocqueville's  Democratie.' 

Not  all  of  the  series  of  articles  so  published  were  friendly 
to  America,  however.  The  most  conspicuously  hostile  was 
that  written  by  Felix  de  Courmont,  called  "  Esquisse  d'une 

1  Journal,  Oct.  23. 

^  Revue  de  legislation  et  de  jurisprudence,  Nouv.  Serie,  vol,  10,  pp. 
141,  142,  330;  vol.  II,  pp.  40,  41,  59,  60  n. 


483]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  305 

republique,"  in  U Opinion  piiblique  for  July  3,  9/  12,  29, 
Aug.  5,  10.  If  certain  writers  were  prejudiced  in  favor  of 
America,  Courmont  was  no  less  extravagant  in  his  opposi- 
tion. He  was  not  only  bitterly  hostile,  but  his  statements 
were  often  absurdly  inaccurate,  or  grossly  exaggerated.  He 
mistranslated  his  English  quotations,  whether  by  accident 
or  wilfully.  So  a  passage  from  Marshall's  "  Life  of  Wash- 
ington," asserting  that  the  constitution  was  ratified  largely 
on  the  character  of  its  makers,  he  twisted  to  mean  by  dint 
of  personal  pressure.  A  sentence  from  Harriet  Martineau, 
reading,  "  My  book  comes  to  an  end,  but  I  offer  no  conclu- 
sion of  my  subject;  American  society  itself  constitutes  but 
the  first  pages  of  a  great  book  of  events,  into  whose  progress 
we  can  see  but  a  little  way,  and  that  but  dimly,"  he  trans- 
lated, "  Mon  oeuvre  touche  a  sa  fin,  mais  je  ne  pretendrai 
aucune  conclusion;  la  societe  americaine  forme  les  pre- 
mieres pages  d'un  livre  gros  d'evenemens,  ces  pages  sont 
obscures  et  je  n'y  vois  qu'une  faible  trace  destinee  au 
pr ogres."  ^ 

There  is  no  special  sequence  of  thought  in  his  rambling 
articles,  which  deal  with  social  even  more  than  constitu- 
tional conditions. 

In  the  first  article,  Courmont  stated  his  problem  as  a 
study  of  the  question:  Is  the  United  States  a  model  of 
social  progress  ?  Its  answer  required  an  examination  of  the 
purity  of  its  political  customs  and  of  its  family  life.  Toc- 
queville  gives  a  false  picture,  fitting  facts  to  his  theories. 
Government  spies  abound  in  ordinary  life,  there  is  the 
utmost  ease  of  arrest. 

The  article  of  July  9  portrayed  the  disillusionment  of 
immigrants,  their  plunder  by  swindlers,  corruption  of  magis- 

1  Numbered  iii  in  the  Opinion  puhlique;  the  issues  for  July  S,  6,  8 
are  missing  from  the  file  in  the  Bibl.  Nat.,  Paris. 

2  Opinion  puhlique,  July  29. 


3o6  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^^^ 

trates,  horrors  of  prisons,  legislation  favoring  the  rich,  pity 
and  justice  being  nothing  against  gold,  and  the  contrasting 
splendor  of  Nature. 

The  next  article  dealt  with  the  lack  of  artistic  apprecia- 
tion, the  amount  of  suffering  in  the  United  States,  Con- 
gress' denunciation  of  the  Mexican  War,  an  alleged  re- 
quirement of  American  laws  that  children  be  sent  from 
home  at  the  age  of  nine  to  make  their  fortunes,^  asserted 
that  moral  conditions  were  equal  to  the  most  dissolute 
epochs  of  antiquity,  that  debts  were  commonly  repudiated 
(citing  the  case  of  Mississippi  and  the  general  bankruptcy 
law  of  1841),  that  Mexico  was  invaded  from  greed,  that 
the  financial  situation  was  perilous  and  electoral  conditions 
corrupt. 

The  letter  of  July  29  reviewed  the  evil  social  conditions 
thus  presented,  and  questioned  whether  the  form  of  gov- 
ernment could  be  as  perfect  as  supposed ;  the  root  difficulty 
was  a  conflict  between  the  aristocratic  and  democratic  ele- 
ments ;  a  good  spirit  existed  at  the  time  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  but  Americans  could  not  get  rid  of  the 
English  taint ;  the  revolution  was  political  not  social ;  liberty 
insulted  by  continuance  of  slavery ;  the  constitution  adopted 
by  frauds,  the  debts  of  the  Confederation  so  great  that  tea 
was  taxed  and  discontent  universal  until  Washington,  a 
pure  and  great  man,  presided  over  the  "  congres  de  Cin- 
cinnatus,"  which  adopted  the  constitution;  after  his  death, 
the  banks  became  headquarters  for  intrigues  of  privilege, 
then  came  bankruptcy  and  political  corruption ;  uneven  rep- 
resentation in  the  House  shows  an  inequality,  which  makes 

1 "  Les  lois  de  rOhio  font  un  devoir  aux  peres  de  f amille  de  renvoyer 
de  chez  eux  leurs  en f ants  quand  ils  ont  atteint  I'age  de  neuf  ans,  a 
moins  qu'ils  n'aient  une  fortune  a  leur  donner.  L'etat  de  TOhio  n'est 
pas  le  seul  ou  cette  loi  existe."  This  extraordinary  statement  was  re- 
peated in  the  Aug.  10  article. 


485]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  307 

impossible  the  fraternal  spirit  and  other  conditions  named 
by  Washington  as  necessary  to  the  country's  existence;  the 
Senate  is  useless;  the  dual  system  came  from  England, 
where  it  arose  as  a  conflict  between  Saxons  and  Normans. 

On  Aug.  5,  Courmont  depicted  the  conflict  between  the 
ideas  of  Washington  and  Adams,  representing  the  English 
system  of  money  aristocracy;  Adams'  "Defence"  held  it 
a  vain  idea  to  base  liberty  on  virtue ;  "  who  then  can  be 
astonished  that  in  the  United  States  the  poor  is  an  object  of 
contempt,  virtue  a  proof  of  feebleness,  and  Christian  moral- 
ity the  dream  of  a  sick  imagination;"  America  is  perhaps 
good  for  the  Irish,  who  thus  escape  the  severer  English 
yoke,  but  ridiculous  as  a  model  for  France;  Aristotle's 
middle  class  and  the  necessary  belief  in  human  perfectibility 
are  not  found  in  the  United  States;  there  is  no  universal 
suffrage;  the  Senate,  chosen  by  indirect  election,  does  not 
represent  the  people;  the  two  chambers  were  in  Adams' 
view  a  palliative  to  liberal  ideas,  till  the  time  when  nomina- 
tions to  the  principal  posts  should  be  for  life  and  finally 
hereditary. 

The  concluding  article  renewed  the  discussion  of  political 
corruption,  supported  here  as  elsewhere  by  concrete  illus- 
trations; stated  that  the  egoist  Adams  by  his  maxim  that 
love  of  democracy  and  frugality  were  non-existent  in  a  re- 
public had  sown  on  American  soil  cupidity,  hypocrisy  and 
sacrilegious  forgetfulness  of  family  bonds;  charged  that 
family  affections  were  replaced  by  coldness  and  avarice, 
that  America  was  a  land  of  perjury  and  that  the  jury  in 
civil  matters  was  a  farce. 

A  series  of  three  letters  by  Aug.  Billiard,  addressed  "Aux 
auteurs  du  projet  de  constitution,"  was  published  in  the 
Reforme,  in  which  various  uncomplimentary  references  to 
America  were  made.  "The  first  condition  of  making  a  re- 
publican constitution,  is  to  be  oneself  republican."    Is  there 


3o8  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-^g5 

anything  truly  republican  in  the  American  system,  which 
unites  a  people's  force  and  intelligence  for  one  or  two  ob- 
jects and  divides  them  for  the  rest,  a  system  productive  of 
egoism  rather  than  fraternity  and  recalling  the  "  chacun 
chez  soi  et  pour  soi  "  of  a  so-called  republican  member  of 
the  commission  ?  ^ 

In  the  third  letter,  he  made  the  statement :  "  The  delega- 
tion of  its  powers  which  it  [Congress]  makes  to  the  Presi- 
dent, while  it  is  not  in  session,  is  one  of  the  capital  vices  of 
the  American  constitution."  ^ 

Two  letters  signed  Duverne,  avocat,  appeared  in  the  Bien 
public  for  July  15  and  Aug.  8,  directed  against  the  Amer- 
ican bicameral  system.  The  first  explained  it  as  an  imita- 
tion of  English  colonial  charters  and  as  due  to  the  jealousy 
of  the  small  states;  the  second  quoted  Jefferson's  Augean- 
stable  letter  and  refuted  the  arguments  for  the  dual  system, 
much  as  had  been  done  elsewhere. 

The  Constitutionnel,  despite  its  strongly  pro-x\merican 
position,  printed  a  series  of  six  articles  entitled  "  Les  Re- 
publicaines  "  by  Alexandre  Weill,  in  which  he  visited  re- 
publics, ancient  and  modern,  with  unsparing  condemnation. 
In  the  last  of  the  series  he  admitted  that  "  the  American 
republic,  founded  to  safeguard  national  independence,  is  the 
only  one  which,  the  day  after  its  victory,  thanks  to  Wash- 
ington, gave  thought  to  liberty."  Its  conservative  admin- 
istrative system  and  its  great  territories  have  preserved  it 
so  far,  but  democratic  elements  are  entering  and  trouble  is 
at  hand.* 

In  the  AssemhUe  nationale  appeared  an  "  Examination 
of  the  constitutional  project,"  opposing  the  presidential  sys- 

1  Refornte,  Sept.  22. 

2  Ibid.,  Oct.  10. 

^  Constitutionnel,  Aug.  6. 


487]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  309 

tern  as  dangerous  in  view  of  the  absence  of  checks  and  bal- 
ances. 

The  watchword  had  been  given  after  Feb.  24th  by  the  friends 
of  the  men  who  dreamed  of  presidency  and  dictatorship,  per- 
haps; this  watchword  was  imitation  of  the  United  States  re- 
pubHc ;  but  in  the  United  States  (besides  historical,  geographic, 
social  differences,  which  make  any  comparison  with  France  so 
impossible),  there  is  a  president  confronting  two  chambers, 
that  is  to  say  there  is  that  trinity  of  guarantees,  which  assures 
a  true,  useful,  pacific  discussion.  Have  you  transported  these 
guarantees  into  your  constitutional  project?    Not  in  the  least. 

A  single  assembly,  a  useless  council  of  state,  mean  a  duel  to 
the  death  and  the  despotism  of  legislative  or  executive. 

The  comparison  between  the  French  republic  and  that  of  the 
United  States  is  then  as  false  as  was  that  of  the  representative 
monarchy  of  the  Bourbons  of  the  older  or  younger  branch 
with  the  constitutional  aristocracy  of  Great  Britain.  The 
Bourbons  of  the  two  branches  were  lost  by  a  false  imitation 
of  English  institutions,  inapplicable  to  French  civil  society, 
as  the  present  republic  would  compromise  itself  by  the  copy 
of  American  institutions,  which  do  not  agree  with  the  national 
character.  So  much  the  more,  if  in  copying  them,  one  should 
leave  out  the  few  guarantees  they  would  build  up  against  the 
excesses  of  French  democracy.  .  .  .  Imitations  make  revolu- 
tions.   True  institutions  must  be  indigenous.^ 

Besides  these  series  of  articles,  there  were  many  single 
letters  on  various  phases  of  the  American  system. 

Lamennais  praised  the  presidential  system.  For  sixty 
years  there  had  been  no  attempt  at  usurpation  in  America, 
whose  democracy  had  developed  strength  daily.  "  It  seems 
to  us  that  this  example  has  some  weight."  ^ 

1  Assemble e  nationale,  June  21. 
^  Peuple  constituant,  May  24. 


3IO  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-^gg 

The  ''  Comite  Central  du  Droit  National,"  representing 
legitimist  interests,  proposed  that  the  nation  be  polled  on 
the  two-chamber  and  the  executive  questions,  the  latter 
being  phrased  thus :  "  Is  it  desirable  that  the  president  of 
the  republic  be  named  like  the  President  of  the  United 
States  by  the  totality  of  Frenchmen,  who  should  declare  in 
their  vote,  if  it  should  be  for  a  term,  for  life  or  by 
heredity?"^ 

F.  Saint-Priest,  member  of  the  Assembly,  defended  the 
validity  of  American  example  on  the  bicameral  question, 
showing  that  the  states  and  cities  employed  it  as  well  as  the 
federal  government,  and  quoting  from  "Adam"  and  "Lev- 
ington  "  {sic)  as  typical  American  publicists.^ 

Universal  suffrage  in  America  was  said  by  one  Ferrari 
to  *'  lay  hold  of  the  boldest  projects,  to  realize  them  with 
the  suddenness  of  thought."  ^ 

A  long  report  on  the  American  public  school  system  by 
Xavier  E3^ma  was  reprinted  in  the  Atelier  of  Apr.  12. 

A  "  former  magistrate,"  writing  on  the  judiciary,  called 
attention  "  in  the  interest  of  liberty  "  to  the  fact  that  "  in 
Turkey  the  judges  are  removable;  in  the  United  States 
they  are  not."  * 

The  history  of  American  land  speculation  was  given  at 
considerable  length  by  the  Liberie  of  Aug.  27. 

American  prosperity  w^as  traced  in  part  to  the  non-inter- 
ference of  the  state  in  individual  matters  and  in  the  un- 
trammelled liberty  to  work,  by  Wolowski,^  J.  Magne,®  and 

1  Gazette  de  France,  Apr.  5. 

2  Union,  Sept.  25. 

3  Peuple  constituant,  Mar.  i. 
*  Univers,  July  10. 
^Steele,  Mar.  20. 

^  Revue  britannique,  vol.  16,  p.  131. 


489]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  311 

Chevalier/  The  latter  also  showed  how  the  United  States, 
free  from  the  demon  of  militarism,  was  able  to  devote  vast 
sums  to  material  development,"  while  the  statistical  account 
of  this  progress  was  depicted  by  Cordier,  member  of  the 
Assembly,  in  glowing  terms;  "  already  the  American  Union 
may  be  proclaimed  heir  presumptive  of  Britannic  power."  ^ 

"  An  American,"  in  a  four-column  letter,  dated  New 
York,  Apr.  29,  entitled  "  La  liberte  en  Amerique,"  laid 
great  stress  on  local  self-government  and  the  development 
of  business  corporations,  commending  also  French  interest 
in  the  American  constitution.* 

Leon  Faucher  criticized  unfavorably  the  absence  of  direct 
legislative  initiative  on  the  part  of  the  American  adminis- 
tration.^ 

The  religious  liberty  prevalent  in  America  was  praised  by 
Cardinal  Bonald,  Archbishop  of  Lyons,  in  a  pastoral  cir- 
cular to  the  clergy  of  his  diocese,^  and  by  Montalembert,^ 
while  Chevalier's  first  article  in  the  Journal  des  dehats 
started  a  controversy  between  the  Protestant  Semeiir,  claim- 
ing American  success  as  the  fruit  of  Protestant  tolerance, 
and  the  Catholic  Ere  nouvelle,  which  in  two  four-column 
articles  contrasted  Bancroft's  account  of  the  intolerance  of 
colonial  Virginia,  Massachusetts  and  New  York  ^  with  the 
religious  freedom  of  Catholic  Maryland,  ascribing  the  pres- 
ent-day liberty  of  worship  throughout  the  country  to  the 
isolation  of  the  original  colonies,  the  influx  of  settlers  from 

1  Journal  des  dehats,  June  2. 

^  Revue  des  deux  mondes,  vol.  21,  pp.  1083,  1085. 

3  Gazette  de  France,  Feb.  29. 

*  Univers,  June  10. 

5  Siecle,  Oct.  9. 

^  Univers,  Mar.  4. 

Uhid.,  Feb.  28. 

s  kre  nouvelle,  Oct.  23. 


312  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^qq 

all  parts  of  Europe,  the  necessity  of  common  defense  against 
the  French  and  Indians  and  later  against  the  English.^ 

Such  were  the  chief  special  articles  in  the  Paris  press  on 
American  example.  Mention  might  also  be  made  of  a  pos- 
ter, placed  on  the  walls  by  the  "Association  pour  la  liberte 
des  echanges,"  with  the  heading  "  Subsistances  publiques. 
La  vie  a  bon  marche,"  in  which  it  was  stated  that  the  aver- 
age ration  of  an  Englishman  was  double  that  of  a  French- 
man, and  that  of  "  a  free  citizen  of  the  United  States  " 
double  that  of  an  Englishman ;  that  the  governments  which 
love  their  people  have  abolished  all  food  taxes  and  that  the 
hand  of  a  United  States  legislator  would  wither  before  it 
would  sign  a  law  which  would  increase  the  price  of  meat  or 
bread.^  The  identity  of  the  last  clause  with  language  used 
by  Chevalier  ^  suggests  that  the  affiche  was  from  his  pen. 

And  at  the  other  end  of  the  scale,  the  members  of  the 
Institute  listened  to  Tocqueville  reading  a  paper  on  a  book 
about  Swiss  democracy,  in  which  his  mode  of  treatment 
was  to  compare  the  American  and  Swiss  constitutions,  to 
the  detriment  of  the  latter.* 

The  most  important  books  on  America  have  already  been 
mentioned.^  A  complete  list  will  be  found  in  the  bibliog- 
raphy. But  some  reference  should  be  made  here  to  the 
motives  inspiring  the  publication  of  a  part  of  this  literature 
and  to  any  fresh  contribution  of  theory  it  may  have  made 
to  the  subject. 

At  least  a  dozen  pamphlets  were  published  during  1848 
containing  the  text  of  the  United  States  constitution,  either 

"^  kre  nouvelle,  Oct,  30. 

^  Murailles  revolutionnaires,  vol.  i,  p.  352. 

^  Revue  des  deux  mondes,  vol.  21,  p.  1085. 

^Moniteur,  Apr.  14,  18. 

'^  Supra,  ch.  iii. 


49 1  ]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  313 

alone  or  bound  with  past  French  constitutions  or,  very 
rarely,  with  those  of  other  countries.  The  spirit  of  auch 
publications  may  be  gauged  by  reference  to  the  preface  of 
several  of  these  collections. 

France  is  about  to  be  called  to  give  itself  a  republican  con- 
stitution. It  is  by  study  and  meditation  that  preparation 
should  be  made  for  so  great  and  useful  a  work.  .  .  .  Under 
these  circumstances,  I  have  thought  it  fitting  to  reunite  in 
one  volume  all  the  constitutions  which  have  ruled  France  since 
1789;  the  declaration  of  the  rights  and  duties  of  man  and  the 
citizen;  the  ordinances,  decrees,  proclamations  of  the  pro- 
visional government  of  1848  and  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  of  America.  By  means  of  the  comparison  of  their 
articles,  it  will  be  seen  what  are  the  great  principles  which 
have  successively  passed  through  all  our  constitutions.^ 

But  I  perceive  that  I  have  implicitly  settled  an  important 
question,  that  of  the  adoption  by  France  and  its  representatives, 
of  the  United  States  form  of  government;  as  to  that,  I  have 
a  complete,  well  settled  conviction  that  we  shall  be  forever 
happy  from  such  a  decision.  Therefore  I  humbly,  but  with 
firmness,  supplicate  my  fellow-citizens  to  make  the  candidates 
for  the  deputation  or  the  national  representation  explain  them- 
selves clearly,  and  to  find  out  from  them  if  they  have  fixed 
ideas  on  the  subject  of  the  constitution  to  adopt,  and  of  the 
legislative  and  executive  government  which  must  be  founded.^ 

The  republic  alone  is  henceforth  possible.  It  exists,  it  is 
accepted.  It  needs  only  to  be  founded  on  rational  and  durable 
bases,  a  great  and  laborious  task  which  demands  experience 
and  foresight,  knowledge  of  ancient  and  contemporary  insti- 
tutions, especially  of  national  customs  and  tendencies.^ 

Sometimes  the  motive  was  more  special,  as  in  the  case  of 

^  Louis  Tripier,  Les  Constitutions  frangaises,  pref. 

^Fabius  Jalaber,  Constitution  des  Etats-Unis  d'Am^ique,  p.  24, 

3  J.  B.  J.  Pailliet,  Constitutions  americaines  e.t  frangaises,  p.  xxxix. 


314  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [^q^ 

the  anonymous  individual  who  produced  his  version  of  the 
American  constitution  for  twenty-five  centimes,  with  the 
declaration : 

In  publishing  this  translation,  which  the  moderation  of  its 
price  places  within  the  reach  of  all  readers,  our  object  has  been 
to  show  that  American  society,  the  most  democratic  of  all 
societies  which  have  ever  existed,  has  recognized  the  necessity 
of  two  chambers :  a  Senate  and  a  House  of  Representatives.^ 

Another  anonymous  translator,  in  publishing  "  the  im- 
mortal work  of  the  Franklins,  the  Adamses,  the  Washing- 
tons,  which  for  sixty  years  has  assured  the  prosperity  and 
well-being  of  an  immense  country,"  notes  that  "what  domi- 
nates in  this  constitution  is  the  existence  of  three  powers, 
which  sustain  and  fortify  one  another,  but  cannot  act  sep- 
arately." ^  •  '    ::^:|; 

Occasionally  the  motive  was  less  friendly. 

We  have  joined  to  this  constitution  [of  1848]  those  which 
have  preceded  it,  and  under  the  rule  of  which  we  have  already 
lived,  God  knows  how,  and  that  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  which  has  long  been  given  us  as  the  ne  plus  ultra 
of  this  species.  It  goes  without  saying  that  we  do  not  intend 
to  judge  the  merit  of  the  work  of  the  legislators  who  produced 
them.^ 

"If  we  have  added  to  the  collection  of  French  constitu- 
tions the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  it  is  to  diminish, 
so  far  as  possible,  the  number  of  those  who  talk  on  every 
occasion  of  institutions  about  which  they  know  nothing."  * 

Other  pamphlets  made  use  of  American  example,  with- 

1  Const,  des  Etats-Unis  d'Amerique,  p.  ii. 

2  La  Republique  des  Etats-Unis,  p.  3. 

*G.  de  Champeaux,  Constitution  repuhlicaine  de  1848,  p.  ii. 
*  M.,  Constitutions  de  la  republique  frangaise,  p.  iii. 


493]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  315 

out  reprinting  the  entire  text,  in  support  of  some  constitu- 
tional point  or  some  ideal  reconstruction,  borrowing  from 
it  as  they  saw  fit. 

So  Pitray  thought  it  the  part  of  wisdom  to  take  America 
as  model  in  three  matters :  the  organization  of  the  legisla- 
tive and  executive  power,  their  election  by  the  people,  the 
short  duration  of  their  term  of  office.^ 

Magne  laid  stress  on  the  threefold  division  of  powers 
and  would  have  a  senate  of  240  members  elected  indirectly 
by  departments  for  a  six-year  term,  one-third  renewed  every 
two  years ;  a  house  of  480  elected  directly  every  two  years 
by  small  districts ;  a  president  elected  directly  for  five  years ; 
a  judiciary  for  life;  proper  provision  for  amendments.^ 

Gamier  criticized  the  American  Senate's  mode  of  elec- 
tion and  mobility  as  deficient  in  guarantees  of  capacity  and 
continuous  policy;  the  lack  of  legislative  membership  for 
ministers  of  state;  the  inversion  of  the  initiative  and  veto, 
the  first  of  which  should  belong  to  the  government  ordinar- 
ily, the  second  to  the  assembly.  He  applauded,  however, 
the  single  executive,  the  bicameral  system,  legislators'  in- 
eligibility to  other  office,  removal  of  the  judiciary  from 
politics  by  releasing  it  from  all  penalty  except  dismissal  and 
by  the  principle  of  permanency  of  tenure,  which  should  be 
extended  by  the  formation  of  a  real  Civil  Service.^ 

Chambrun  wanted  the  president  to  be  a  neutral  power, 
above  parties,  holding  the  balance  between  the  chambers; 
in  this  respect  the  iVmerican  system  was  faulty.* 

America's  financial  system  seemed  to  one  writer  to  have 
been  conclusive  for  France. 

1  Pitray,  Que  preferer,  p.  7. 

2 J.  Magne,  "lEsquisse  d'une  constitution"  in  Revue  hritannique,  vol. 
15  (6th  series),  p.  153;  published  also  separately. 
3  A.  Gamier,  De  V organization  du  pouvoir,  p.  19. 
*  A.  de  Chambrun,  La  republique  reformiste,  p.  16,  note. 


3i6  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  r  .g. 

The  English  race  presents  the  world  the  striking  example  of 
two  nations,  equally  prosperous  and  powerful,  under  two 
totally  opposite  regimes.  ...  In  one,  in  fact,  no  common  debt, 
and  in  consequence,  absolute  liberty  and  independence  of  the 
citizen  with  respect  to  the  authorities.  In  the  other,  a  crush- 
ing debt  which  rallies  around  the  throne  all  the  interests  and 
vital  forces  of  the  country.  ...  Of  these  two  examples, 
France  has  chosen  that  of  the  young  American  republic.^ 

More  often  the  interest  was  purely  constitutional. 

The  single  executive  and  dual  legislature  as  known  in 
America  appealed  to  many.^  One  enthusiast  insisted :  "The 
senate  of  the  French  republic  must  be  the  reproduction  of 
the  American  Senate.  Like  the  latter,  it  must  participate 
at  once  in  the  legislative,  the  executive  and  the  judicial 
power."  ^ 

By  others,  the  American  practice  in  these  matters  was 
condemned.*  A  peculiarly  bitter  attack  on  America,  chiefly 
from  the  social  viewpoint,  was  made  by  an  unreconstructed 
legitimist,  who  borrowed  the  style  and  even  the  stories  of 
Felix  de  Courmont,  not  always  giving  due  credit  to  his 
source.  The  republic  as  a  form  of  government  was  a  retro- 
grade step;  "'But  that  of  the  United  States,'  some  one 
will  say,  '  has  been  maintained  and  strengthened  ?'  That  is 
true  up  to  now.  *  It  is  a  model  government,'  is  added. 
That  is  much  more  contestable."  The  constitution  was 
established  by  parliamentary  trickery;  it  would  never  have 
been  sanctioned  by  the  people,  for  it  hurt  too  many  inter- 

1  F.  A.  Fournier  Saint- Auge,  Du  rachat  de  la  dette  consolide  par 

30 
I'impot  foncier.    Archives  Nationales,  BB      320 

B. 
2£.  g.,  H.  Colombel,  Quelques  reflexions,  pp.  7,  11 ;  Ate  Nougarede  de 
Fayet,  De  la  constitution  republicaine,  pp.  5,  9. 
3  P.  M.  Le  Mesl.  Considerations,  p.  8. 

^E.  g.,  L.  Cormenin,  Petit  Pamphlet,  pp.  15,  30;  F.  Berrlat  Saint- 
Prix,  Plan  de  constitution,  p.  19. 


495]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  317 

ests.  Federalism,  inequality,  worship  of  the  golden  calf, 
corruption,  lack  of  art,  absence  of  liberty  were  among 
American  characteristics. 

And  one  would  counsel  us  to  implant  the  American  republic 
on  the  soil  of  the  French  monarchy?  But  it  would  first  be 
necessary  to  transform  French  character  entirely,  to  extin- 
guish its  spirit,  chill  its  imagination  and  break  its  memories. 
That  would  be  to  forbid  its  glory.  Could  you  grow  an 
Egyptian  palm  on  the  coasts  of  Norway?  Could  you  make 
a  Spanish  gipsy  out  of  an  English  Methodist?  Could  you 
build  the  famous  ice  palace  from  the  banks  of  the  Neva  on 
the  border  of  the  Hellespont?  No.  All  these  ideas  are 
absurd,  all  these  chimeras  are  mad;  and  we  shall  be  no  more 
American  citizens  than  we  could  become  Persian  dervishes.^ 

Courmont,  besides  the  series  of  newspaper  articles,  had 
already  written  a  book  in  1847,  savagely  denouncing  Amer- 
ica, "  that  young  graybeard  which  the  worm  of  demagogy 
is  devouring  under  its  purple  mantle,"  yet  which  was  un- 
happily placed  by  certain  people  "  not  only  on  an  equality 
with  France,  but  even  above  our  beautiful  country."  ^  It  is 
interesting  that  these  two  unusually  vicious  attacks  came 
from  the  extreme  right  wing  rather  than  the  left. 

Mention  might  also  be  made  of  one  or  two  other  books, 
written  before  the  February  Revolution.  One  published  in 
1842  has  the  double  interest  of  showing  that  America  was 
even  then  suggested  as  an  object  of  study  and  that  the  Or- 
leanists  felt  very  differently  about  its  validity,  so  long  as 
their  own  system  was  in  operation.^  The  author  wished  to 
prove  "  that  France  is  at  least  the  equal  of  nations  which 
are  proposed  to  it  as  models  by  publicists  more  skillful  in 
the  art  of  speech  than  in  knowledge  of  facts,"  nations  built 

1  vte  D'Arlincourt,  Dieu  le  veut,  pp.  47-53. 

2  Courmont,  Des  Etats-Unis,  de  la  guerre  de  Mexique,  p.  29  et  seq. 

3  On  this  point,  cf.  supra,  p.  244. 


3i8  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ^^g^ 

on  crushing  aristocracy  or  vulgar  democracy,  and  that  "  to 
judge  by  the  avidity  with  which  eulogy  of  the  English  par- 
liamentary government  or  the  American  popular  govern- 
ment are  received,  one  would  think  a  great  contempt  existed 
for  our  own  institutions;  but  it  is  more  reasonable  to  be- 
lieve in  a  great  ignorance  of  those  same  institutions."  ^ 

On  the  other  hand,  in  1832,  Murat  had  already  written 
that  practical  liberty  was  obtainable  only  in  the  United 
States.  "  It  is  not  the  constitution  and  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  that  I  admire  and  love  so  much,  as  the  reason 
that  brings  it  about  that  the  United  States  have  this  consti- 
ution  and  these  laws.  .  .  .  This  principle  ...  is  that  which 
they  call  in  America  self-government.'''  The  July  revolu- 
tion had  made  only  a  small  advance.  Lafayette  understood 
republican  institutions  as  he  did,  a  Vamericaine.  To  Murat 
these  institutions  meant  destruction  of  political  police,  free 
movement  on  the  part  of  any  citizen,  election  of  represen- 
tatives by  the  people,  not  by  a  bourgeois  aristocracy,  an  elec- 
tive senate  in  place  of  the  Chamber  of  Peers,  initiative  of 
legislators  the  ordinary  method  of  presenting  laws,  a  real 
right  of  petition,  responsibility  of  ministers  and  inferior 
employes  established,  plural  office-holding  forbidden,  com- 
merce freed  by  abolition  of  monopolies  and  octrois,  a  system 
of  customs  duties,  protecting  industry  without  forcing  it  in 
unnatural  routes,  a  detailed  budget,  abolition  of  sinecures 
and  useless  expense,  cessation  of  efforts  to  influence  the 
courts  in  political  cases,  something  analogous  to  habeas 
corpus,  mandamus  and  quo  warranto  for  the  protection  of 
liberty,  assurance  of  execution  of  laws  and  prevention  of 
usurpation,  decentralization  of  communes,  cities  and  even 
departments,  giving  them  the  right  to  elect  magistrates,  dis- 
pose revenues,  and  tax  themselves  if  not  interfering  with 
interior  commerce,  the  replacing  of  the  pleasure  of  gover- 

1  Charles  Farcy,  Etudes  politiques,  ^.  11  et  seq. 


497]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  319 

nors  by  the  will  of  the  governed,  the  adoption  of  a  foreign 
policy  worthy  of  France,  not  meddling  in  the  plots  of  kings, 
not  tying  its  hands  with  dogmas  of  intervention  or  the 
opposite,  but  following  its  own  interests  and  glory.  These 
hopes  were  all  deceived.  "  But  at  present  it  is  the  American 
Union  which  gives  us  the  best  model  of  government."  ^ 

This  lengthy  bill  of  particulars  is  interesting  as  showing 
that  the  republicans  of  Orleanist  days  gave  other  reasons 
for  admiring  America  than  those  put  forth  by  the  repuhli- 
cains  du  lendemain  in  1848. 

The  economic  individualism  of  America  and  the  political 
self-sufficiency  of  local  communities  had  always  found  ad- 
mirers among  French  disciples  of  the  Manchester  school, 
however,  and  were  frequently  stressed  in  the  later  period. 

So  Laboulaye  wrote : 

In  that  country  where  liberty  has  given  such  fine  fruits,  they 
are  far  from  charging  the  government  with  acting,  foreseeing 
and  almost  thinking  for  the  citizens;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  to 
the  individual,  to  the  family,  to  corporations,  to  communities, 
to  free  association  that  the  state  commits  the  greatest  part  of 
the  social  movement,  remaining  for  its  part  in  the  higher 
sphere  of  general  interests,  and  never  descending  into  those 
of  private  interests.  Help  yourself,  such  is  the  political  and 
social  device  of  the  American.  Liberty  suffices  for  everything 
in  that  state,  where  the  national  workshop,  the  association  sub- 
sidized by  the  government,  monopolies,  the  progressive  tax, 
war  on  capital,  have  not  yet  been  invented  and  where  not- 
withstanding, work  is  more  abundant  and  the  workman  better 
paid,  better  instructed,  more  influential  than  anywhere  else; 
an  example  doubtless  of  small  value,  since  socialism  has  not 
yet  crossed  the  Atlantic  to  regenerate  the  New  World  on  the 
pattern  of  ours,  and  to  pour  there  the  torrents  of  prosperity, 
with  which  we  are  inundated — in  the  future;  but,  an  example 
good  for  meditation  nevertheless,  by  all  those  alchemists  who 

1  A.  Murat,  Esquisse  morale  et  politique  des  Etats-Unis,  pp.  vi-xi,  xxv. 


320  'THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-^gg 

think  to  regenerate  France,  by  exhausting  for  the  last  four 
months,  the  generous  blood  from  her  veins,  substituting  for 
it  the  clear  water  of  their  theories.^ 

Such  was  also  the  whole  burden  of  Dunoyer's  treatment ; 
France  placed  betw^een  two  republics,  toward  one  or  the 
other  of  which  she  must  move, 

the  American  republic,  and  that  which  February  socialism 
dreamed  in  France;  a  republic  supremely  liberal  and  another 
to  which  liberty  is  fundamentally  repugnant ;  a  republic  where 
everyone  is  fully  his  own  master  and  another  where  the  indi- 
vidual is  essentially  dependent  on  the  community;  a  republic 
which  leaves  as  much  as  possible  to  private  zeal  for  the  initia- 
tive in  ever3rthing  and  another  which  affects  to  leave  it  the 
initiative  in  nothing;  etc.^ 

Several  collections  of  letters  and  memoirs  of  a  later  date 
are  also  of  interest. 

The  Baron  de  Barante,  Orleanist  diplomat  and  historian, 
writing  to  his  eldest  son,  Prosper  de  Barante,  then  traveling 
in  America,  under  date  of  Paris,  July  17,  1848,  said: 
"  Work,  liberty,  prosperity,  that  is  what  you  see  in  America, 
and  that  is  what  our  revolutionists  have  destroyed  in  France. 
The  conditions  of  a  good  republic  are,  morally  speaking,  the 
same  as  those  of  a  constitutional  monarchy.  The  English 
race  has  these  conditions,  we  perhaps  not."  ^ 

Another  Orleanist  statesman  and  historian,  deputy  in 
1848,  the  Comte  de  Remusat,  felt  that  all  liberal  statecraft 
must  pattern  after  American  and  English  example,  prefer- 
ably the  latter.  "  '  No  America,'  a  crowd,  which  bordered 
the  hedge  in  front  of  the  grille  of  the  legislative  body,  cried 
to  us,  I  remember,  one  day  when  we  were  going  into  the 

1  Laboulaye,  Considerations,  pp.  43,  44. 

2  B.  Dunoyer,  La  revolution  du  24  fevrier,  p.  226. 

^' "  Apres  la  revolution  de  fevrier  "  in  Revue  de  Paris,  vol.  iii,  p.  544. 


499]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  321 

Constituent  Assembly  of  1848.  That  was  to  cry :  *  Long 
live  the  unknown !'  "  ^ 

A  conversation  between  provincials  of  Nantes,  whether 
an  individual  or  a  typical  occurrence  it  is  hard  to  tell  from 
the  author's  account,  opened  by  the  assertion  of  one  that 
everybody  is  becoming  a  republican.  "  Isn't  France  as 
capable  of  governing  itself  as  America?"  To  which  came 
the  reply,  "  Indeed,  we  must  not  be  more  stupid  than  the 
Americans,  who  have  no  king  and  conduct  so  large  a 
trade."  ^ 

Quentin-Bauchart,  a  conservative  and  later  an  eminent 
imperialist,  declared  that  there  was  no  pretence  of  making 
the  republic  of  1848  after  the  pattern  of  the  United  States. 
There  the  ministers  are  the  exclusive  servants  of  the  Presi- 
dent. Not  only  do  they  form  no  part  of  the  assemblies, 
they  do  not  have  the  entree  even.  The  Americans,  an  emi- 
nently practical  race,  have  a  system  of  parliamentary  gov- 
ernment inconsistent  with  real  republican  principles;  their 
government  communicates  with  Congress  only  by  messages, 
the  executive  power  being  completely  independent  of  the 
other,  within  its  sphere.  In  1848  there  was  nothing  of  this 
sort  in  France.^ 

True  as  that  was  of  the  government  party's  attitude  in 
1848,  it  was  not  without  important  exceptions.  Louis  Blanc, 
who  certainly  should  have  known  the  real  feeling  of  the 
Assembly,  tells  how  he  suggested  abolishing  the  presidency, 
which  would  have  cut  short  all  Bonapartist  pretensions. 
This  idea  met  with  small  favor  in  the  Assembly, 

many  of  whose  members  regarded  the  presidency  as  a  bridge 
thrown  over  between  the  republic  and  royalty.  Shall  I  say 
it?    Even  among  those  who  did  not  have  that  arriere-pensee, 

1  Charles  de  Remusat,  Politique  Uherale,  p.  305. 

2  Ch.  L.  Chassin,  Felicien,  p.  46. 

3  Quentin-Bauchart,  Etudes  et  Souvenirs,  p.  217. 


322  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  Vr-^Q 

the  majority  found  difficulty  in  conceiving  a  republic  without 
a  president!  So  much  did  the  example  of  the  United  States 
of  America  blind  them!  So  little  did  they  comprehend  the 
necessity  of  entirely  subordinating  the  executive  to  the  legis- 
lative power,  everywhere  that  an  immense  standing  army 
exists.^ 

To  conclude  this  account  of  the  impression  made  by 
America  on  the  French  mind  of  1848,  as  revealed  in  litera- 
ture, it  is  impossible  not  to  cite  the  preface  to  Laboulaye's 
later  history  of  the  United  States,  largely  the  reproduction 
of  his  lectures  of  1849-50  at  the  College  de  France.  In 
Tocqueville,  Chevalier  and  Laboulaye,  more  perhaps  than 
in  any  other  three  intellectual  leaders,  enthusiasm  for  Amer- 
ica became  an  absorbing  passion. 

As  for  me,  in  1848,  it  was  from  the  history  of  the  United 
States  that  I  had  sought  instruction.  What  had  led  me  to  that 
study  was  what  I  knew  in  general  of  the  American  constitu- 
tion, and  of  the  difficulties  which  liberty  had  had  to  conquer 
in  the  New  World  before  performing  its  miracles  there;  and 
the  more  closely  I  viewed  that  great  spectacle,  the  more  I  was 
struck  by  it  as  by  a  revelation.  These  were  our  faults  and 
our  sufferings,  but  with  what  courage  and  what  wisdom  the 
Americans  had  extricated  themselves  from  the  peril,  and  what 
a  difference  in  their  fashion  of  understanding  and  establish- 
ing liberty !  One  would  have  said  that  in  the  French  constitu- 
tional project,  our  modern  Lycurguses  had  expressly  taken 
the  opposite  of  American  ideas  and  that  their  work  was  a 
denial  of  Washington's  wisdom,  a  defiance  hurled  at  the  ex- 
perience of  ages.  It  was  then  that  in  a  profound  disquietude 
and  sadness,  I  wrote,  in  July,  1848,  the  Considerations  sur  la 
Constitution,  and  that  the  feeling  of  danger  drove  me  to  join 

1  L.  Blanc,  Hist,  de  la  rev.  de  1848,  vol.  2,  p.  124.  Cf.  p.  326  et  seq. 
for  further  remarks  on  the  American  executive,  which  he  expected  to 
make  the  substance  of  a  speech  during  the  constitutional  debate,  had  he 
not  been  earlier  proscribed. 


501]  CONTEMPORARY  COMMENT  323 

to  that  publication  the  following  letter,  addressed  to  General 
Cavaignac  by  a  man  unfortunately  too  little  known  for  him 
to  listen  to  me  in  the  midst  of  party  cries  and  fury.  .  .  . 
Named  professor/  my  duty  was  marked  out  [ccrit].  It  was 
to  make  America  known  to  France,  and  to  demand  of  it  ex- 
amples and  assistance  for  the  approaching  storm.  I  began 
that  study,  therefore,  with  ardor  and  I  neglected  nothing  to 
make  a  complete  expose  of  the  events  which  had  so  direct  an 
interest  for  us.  Bancroft  gave  me  the  history  of  the  colonies, 
which  is  the  subject  of  this  first  volume;  Story  gave  me  the 
history  of  the  constitution,  but  to  these  two  authors,  my  con- 
stant guides,  to  whom  I  owe  whatever  value  there  is  in  this 
work,  I  added  everything  I  could  find  from  original  docu- 
ments and  biographies.  ...  As  for  me,  I  attached  myself  to 
it  with  passion  and  I  do  not  know  which  instructed  me  more, 
the  history  of  the  colonies  or  that  of  the  Revolution  or  the 
fasliion  in  which  that  admirable  constitution  was  made,  that 
has  given  the  United  States  an  unexampled  prosperity,  and 
which  after  sixty  years  is  younger  and  more  popular  than 
ever.  .  .  .  Such  was  the  object  of  my  course;  such  was  the 
picture  that  I  tried  to  fill  in.  More  than  once  it  seemed  to 
me  that  the  audience  shared  my  ideas ;  but  as  for  me,  I  lived 
in  them,  and  it  seemed  to  me  that  no  publication  could  be 
more  useful  than  a  book  in  which  America  should  speak  to 
France,  and  communicate  to  it  its  own  experience.  Of  small 
import  was  the  author's  merit,  provided  his  work  contained 
the  substance  of  American  ideas,  and  on  this  point  which  re- 
quired only  labor,  I  thought  myself  in  position  to  satisfy  the 
reader.^ 

1  Of  Comparative  Legislation  at  the  College  de  France,  1849. 

2  E.  Laboulaye,  Histoire  politique  des  Etats-Unis,  vol.  i,  pp.  iii-vi, 
xvii.  The  book  was  about  to  be  published  early  in  185 1,  when  the  ques- 
tion of  constitutional  revision  came  up  and  the  author  wrote  his  Re- 
vision de  la  constitution,  proposing  a  solution  borrowed  from  the  Amer- 
ican system.  The  ensuing  political  upheavals  postponed  the  larger 
work  until  1855,  when  it  was  published  without  change  from  the  orig- 
inal version. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

CONCLUSIONS 

It  remains  to  sum  up  briefly  the  extent  and  trend  of  the 
influence  exerted  by  American  precedent  on  the  French  As- 
sembly of  1848.  In  general,  it  is  clear  that  the  influence  on 
the  government  party,  the  liberal  republicans  who  controlled 
the  Assembly,  was  slight.  It  was  accordingly  slight  on  the 
constitution  which  they  framed. 

A  comparison  of  the  two  documents  suggests  analogies 
between  the  French  Articles  26,  28,  36,  43,  44,  45,  48,  50, 
52,  53y  54.  55»  58.  60,  64,  y2,  87,  109,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
and  corresponding  provisions  in  the  American  constitution. 
But  in  many  cases  this  resemblance  is  no  doubt  accidental. 
Unless  there  is  direct  evidence  in  the  arguments  used  in  the 
commission  or  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  influence  can- 
not safel}^  be  predicated. 

The  incomplete  record  of  the  commission's  discussions 
shows  American  example  to  have  been  urged  on  the  sus- 
pensive veto  ^  and  the  executive's  appointment  of  the  high- 
est judicial  court.^  Of  these,  the  first  was  modified,  the 
second  rejected.  On  the  latter  point,  however,  the  Assem- 
bly reversed  the  commission's  decision.  Negatively,  the 
alleged  failure  of  the  American  system  of  immediate  re- 
eligibility  to  the  presidential  oflice  seems  to  have  been  de- 
cisive in  causing  the  defeat  of  that  plan  in  the  commission.' 

"^  Supra,  p.  157. 
^  Supra,  p.  162. 
3  Supra,  p.  158. 

324  [S02 


^03]  CONCLUSIONS  325 

In  the  Assembly,  it  was  asserted  by  a  member  of  the 
commission  that  American  precedent  had  been  considered  in 
fixing  the  basis  of  legislative  representation.'  A  belief  that 
such  had  been  the  case  in  regard  to  the  Assembly's  duty  to 
choose  among  the  five  highest  candidates  for  president,  in 
case  of  no  popular  choice,"  and  in  regard  to  the  president's 
message,^  was  also  asserted  without  contradiction. 

It  may  almost  certainly  be  added  that  the  presidential 
office  and  the  four-year  term  were  due  to  American  example. 
For  this  there  is  the  evidence  of  the  debate  in  the  Assembly  ^ 
and  of  contemporary  discussion  outside. 

Beyond  this,  little  can  be  said  with  assurance.  American 
precedent  may  have  been  a  factor  in  determining  other 
issues,  but  there  is  no  direct  evidence  that  such  was  the  case. 

This  meager  result  by  no  means  indicates  the  amount  of 
reference  to  American  example,  however,  as  is  abundantly 
evident  from  the  foregoing  study.  Without  attempting  to 
enumerate  all  the  points  on  which  that  example  was  vainly 
urged,  it  is  plain  that  the  bicameral  legislative  system  called 
forth  by  far  the  greatest  number  of  references.  The  chief 
arguments  against  its  use  in  this  connection  were  the  fed- 
eral system  and  the  assertion  that  it  was  itself  an  imitation 
of  the  aristocratic  English  model.  The  favorite  reply  to 
the  former  was  that  each  American  state  used  the  dual  sys- 
tem and  that  Pennsylvania  had  adopted  it  on  discovering  its 
necessity,  while  the  greater  volume  of  business  and  the 
greater  need  of  checks  and  balances  made  it  even  more 
essential  in  a  centralized  government;  to  the  latter,  that 
America  adopted  it  in  spite  of,  rather  than  because  of  Eng- 
land, and  that  it  could  be  so  organized  as  to  eliminate  the 

'^  Supra,  p.  183. 
^  Supra,  p.  192. 
^  Supra,  p.  212. 
"^  Supra,  pp.  187  et  seq. 


326  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  Vcq^. 

danger  of  aristocracy.  Indirect  election,  as  illustrated  in 
the  American  electoral  college,  was  one  of  the  alternatives 
suggested  to  a  direct  popular  choice  of  the  executive.  This 
received  less  attention  than  the  other  alternative,  election  by 
the  Assembly. 

The  absence  of  a  bill  of  rights  in  the  preamble  to  the 
American  constitution  was  regarded  with  favor  by  a  minor- 
ity, though  a  counter-argument  was  found  in  the  amend- 
ments by  those  who  favored  such  a  declaration.  The  ex- 
ample thus  neutralized  itself.^ 

The  nature  of  the  features  most  admired  in  the  American 
system,  the  arguments  used  in  their  support  and,  above  all, 
the  known  political  attitude  of  those  most  interested  in 
their  adoption  show  unmistakably  the  character  of  the  in- 
fluence. With  hardly  any  exception,  it  was  conservative  in 
politics,  individualistic  in  economics.  The  liberals  were 
cold,  the  radical  republicans  and  socialists  actively  hostile. 
The  former  derived  their  strength  from  their  majority  in 
the  Assembly  and  were  anxious  to  maintain  its  power  un- 
impaired by  the  addition  of  a  second  chamber;  their  great 
inconsistency  was  their  defeat  of  the  Grevy  and  Leblond 
amendments  and  their  fatuous  confidence  that  they  would 
dominate  future  Assemblies,  both  errors  arising  from  a 
mistaken  judgment  of  the  political  temper  of  France  at 
large.  Whatever  misgivings  they  had  on  this  point  found 
utterance  in  Lamartine's  fatalistic  Alea  jacta  est.  Their 
adoption  of  the  American  executive  sprang  from  the  neces- 
sities of  their  position  midway  between  monarchists  and 
radicals.  To  avoid  a  reaction,  they  must  not  stir  up  un- 
happy memories  of  Convention  and  Directory;  to  avoid 
dominance  by  the  Paris  mob,  they  must  establish  universal 
suffrage.     As  republicans  de  la  veille,  who  had  come  into 

1  Supra,  pp.  165  et  seq. 


505]  CONCLUSIONS  327 

power  through  popular  disgust  at  the  restricted  franchise, 
the  doctrine  of  universal  suffrage  appealed  to  them  for  its 
own  sake  as  a  symbol  of  pure  republican  theory.  Whether 
or  not  they  felt  assured  that  their  confidence  in  the  people 
would  be  practically  justified,  political  conditions  required 
them  to  make  the  venture. 

The  radical  republicans  opposed  the  American  executive 
as  well  as  the  legislative  example,  because  their  political 
model  was  Jacobinism  and  their  strength  lay  among  the 
small  shopkeepers  of  Paris.  Ledru-Rollin's  despatch  of 
commissioners  into  the  provinces  in  a  hopeless  endeavor  to 
educate  the  peasantry  in  republican  principles  is  evidence  of 
his  perfectly  correct  judgment  of  the  situation.  As  matters 
stood,  the  provinces  would  never  support  Paris  radicalism; 
the  only  chance  for  radical  success  lay  in  an  all-powerful 
Assembly  on  the  model  of  the  Convention. 

The  socialists,  desiring  a  complete  reconstruction  of  soci- 
ety, could  have  no  interest  in  a  political  system,  which  his- 
tory had  linked  so  closely  with  economic  individualism. 

But  whatever  slight  hope  of  success  the  radical  elements 
might  have  had  was  destroyed  by  the  June  insurrection. 
Just  as  Shays'  rebellion  in  Massachusetts,  embodying  the 
vague  discontent  of  the  debtor  class,  helped  to  convert  the 
stabler  interests  to  the  necessity  of  a  strong  national  con- 
stitution, so  this  last  upheaval  of  February  idealism,  im- 
practical but  dangerous,  immeasurably  strengthened  the 
forces  of  conservatism.  The  full  extent  of  the  reaction  was 
destined  to  destroy  the  republic;  it  was  only  partially  em- 
bodied in  the  constitution  of  1848.  The  short  life 
of  this  unhappy  document  was  due  in  part  to  its 
compromise  character;  it  was  not  the  product  of  a  strong, 
consistent  policy ;  the  rival  impulses  of  February  and  June, 
struggling  for  the  mastery,  each  left  their  mark  upon  it. 
The  drift  after  June  was  steadily  conservative;  the  only 


328  THE  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  ["^06 

question  was  how  far  it  would  go  before  the  constitution 
received  its  final  form.  Not  that  new  elections  had  returned 
the  conservatives  to  power.  The  liberals  were  still  in  con- 
trol, but  they  were  under  the  shadow  of  a  great  fear.  It 
may  be  fairly  said  that  the  constitution  was  framed  by 
timidity.  Fear  of  a  possible  Bonaparte  despotism  bore  its 
part  in  the  creation  of  a  single  chamber ;  fear  of  a  socialist 
Convention  brought  forth  a  powerful  executive  in  counter- 
poise. Thus  two  strong  powers  were  placed  vis-a-vis,  but 
both  annoyingly  robbed  of  free  action.  The  chamber  had 
no  control  over  the  army  nor  the  civil  service ;  the  president 
was  not  immediately  re-eligible.  The  juxtaposition  of  two 
strong,  dissatisfied  powers  produced  an  unstable  equilib- 
rium; the  attempted  checks  (a  council  of  state  in  one  case,, 
impeachment  in  the  other)  were  illusory.  Revolution  be- 
came probable  from  whichever  side  happened  to  develop  a 
strong,  unscrupulous  leader;  it  chanced  that  a  Bonaparte 
appeared  rather  than  a  Robespierre.  Had  the  president 
been  given  the  right  of  re-election  or  had  the  chamber  been 
given  control  of  the  army  (in  other  words,  had  timidity 
not  tried  unduly  to  shackle  strong  men  with  petty  bonds 
which  they  could  and  would  break),  the  republic  might 
have  lived. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  constitution,  like  most  political 
documents,  was  the  product  of  circumstances  rather  than  of 
dispassionate  reflection,  and  that  the  liberals,  even  had  they 
been  more  inclined  to  the  American  system  than  they  were, 
would  have  felt  themselves  practically  estopped  from  intro- 
ducing it.  Its  friends,  then,  must  come  from  the  conserva- 
tives, who  had  no  interest  in  the  favor  of  Paris  and  no  fear 
of  a  strong  executive. 

An  interesting  cleavage  among  the  conservatives  is,  how- 
ever, apparent.  The  legitimists  were  almost  as  opposed  to 
American  example  as  their  opponents  of  the  Left.     Their 


507]  CONCLUSIONS  329 

royalist  principles  were  too  deeply  rooted  to  allow  any  re- 
publican admirations,  though  they  might  and  did  make  use 
of  republican  institutions,  once  founded,  for  their  own  ad- 
vantage. Since  their  dynasty  had  not  been  in  power  imme- 
diately before  the  February  Revolution,  they  escaped  some 
of  the  odium  attaching  to  the  unfortunate  Orleanists  and 
could  seek  popularity  by  joining  in  the  reprobation  of  the 
fallen  system  without  discarding  their  own  tenets.  Realiz- 
ing the  conservative  temper  of  the  provinces,  they  could 
hope  for  an  eventual  restoration  without  adopting  more 
than  the  thinnest  republican  disguise,  when,  indeed,  they 
were  willing  to  do  even  that.  Their  attachment  to  the  Cath- 
olic establishment  caused  them  to  detest  the  American  free 
church  system,  despite  Lacordaire's  propaganda. 

The  foregoing  analysis  leaves  the  ex-Orleanists  as  the 
pro-American  party  par  excellence.  Voltairean  in  religion, 
the  absence  of  a  state  Church  harmonized  with  their  philo- 
sophic convictions.  Having  no  loyalty  to  Henri  V,  and  no 
hope  of  immediately  restoring  their  own  line,  they  were 
willing  to  try  republicanism.  The  Orleanist  dynasty  had 
had  too  accidental  a  beginning  and  too  brief  a  career  to  in- 
spire sentimental  affections,  nor  was  its  history  adapted  to 
develop  them.  The  constitutional  monarchy  had  been  itself 
the  adaptation  of  an  alien  form  of  government,  as  the  legiti- 
mists never  tired  of  pointing  out,  and  could  readily  yield  to 
a  similar  experiment.  Anglo-Saxon  models  had  always  ap- 
pealed to  this  party ;  they  might  hope  to  preserve  the  essen- 
tials of  their  system,  by  merely  exchanging  an  English  king 
for  an  American  president.  The  bicameral  system,  indirect 
election,  the  suspensive  veto  were  all  part  and  parcel  of  the 
system  of  checks  and  balances  to  which  they  were  deeply 
committed.  Equally  hostile  to  an  absolute  king  and  an 
absolute  democracy,  they  sought  support  for  their  pluto- 
cratic interests  in  an  upper  chamber,   of  non-hereditary 


330  ^^^  FRENCH  ASSEMBLY  OF  1848  [-^08 

character.  Their  strength  lay  in  the  upper  middle  class, 
the  great  financial  interests  which  had  dominated  the  late 
regime;  they  had  prospered  by  economic  individualism  and 
were  willing  to  show  enthusiasm  for  any  political  system 
that  would  protect  and  leave  them  alone.  Such  a  system 
they  believed'they  had  found  in  America.  Its  strength,  too, 
lay  in  the  free,  vigorous  development  of  material  resources ; 
its  government  fostered  the  growth  of  industry  and  com- 
merce. The  Orleanists  had  two  ideals  of  statecraft,  order 
and  liberty.  Since  their  wealth  lay  in  fluid  capital,  rather 
than  in  land  as  did  that  of  the  legitimists,  public  security 
and  confidence  were  of  even  greater  importance  for  them; 
their  paper  fortunes  might  be  shattered  by  a  turn  of  the 
Bourse.  Liberty  to  carry  on  their  undertakings  without 
being  hampered  by  government  interference  was  only  less 
essential.  They,  therefore,  desired  a  strong  government, 
but  not  too  strong  in  any  part ;  a  system  able  to  protect  the 
country's  peace  from  external  and  internal  foes,  but  so  ad- 
justed by  checks  and  balances  that  neither  despot  nor  demo- 
crat could  use  it  as  an  instrument  of  oppression.  Jefferson- 
ianism,  as  time  had  developed  it,  was  a  system  made  to 
their  hand.  From  interest  and  conviction,  the  former  sup- 
porters of  the  Orleanist  monarchy  welcomed  American  con- 
stitutional example;  its  theory  and  observed  practice 
accorded  so  well  with  their  views  that  they  urged  it  un- 
ceasingly as  a  model  for  France.  They  failed  because  the 
February  wave  had  not  yet  spent  itself.  If  they  had  suc- 
ceeded, there  would  have  been  no  Second  Empire. 


APPENDIX 

CONSTITUTION  OF  1848 

Preambule 
En    Presence  de  Dieu  et  au  Nom  du   Peuple   Fran^ais 

L'ASSEMBLEE   NaTIONALE   PrOCLAME! 

I.  La  France  s'est  constituee  en  Republique.  En  adoptant 
cette  forme  definitive  de  gouvernement,  elle  s'est  propose  pour 
but  de  marcher  plus  librement  dans  la  voie  du  progres  et  de 
la  civilisation,  d'assurer  une  repartition  de  plus  en  plus  equit- 
able des  charges  et  des  avantages  de  la  societe,  d'augmenter 
Taisance  de  chacun  par  la  reduction  graduee  des  depenses 
publiques  et  des  impots,  et  de  f  aire  parvenir  tous  les  citoyens, 
sans  nouvelle  commotion,  par  Taction  successive  et  constante 
des  institutions  et  des  lois,  a  un  degre  toujours  plus  eleve  de 
moralite,  de  lumieres  et  de  bien-etre. 

II.  La  Republique  frauQaise  est  democratique,  une  et 
indivisible. 

III.  Elle  reconnait  des  droits  et  des  devoirs  anterieurs  et 
superieurs  aux  lois  positives. 

IV.  Elle  a  pour  principe  la  liberte,  I'egalite  et  la  f  rater - 
nite.  Elle  a  pour  base  la  f amille,  le  travail,  la  propriete,  Tordre 
public. 

V.  Elle  respecte  les  nationalites  etrangeres,  comme  elle 
entend  faire  respecter  la  sienne,  n'entreprend  aucune  guerre 
dans  des  vues  de  conquete,  et  n'emploie  jamais  ses  forces  contre 
la  liberte  d'aucun  peuple. 

VI.  Des  devoirs  reciproques  obligent  les  citoyens  envers  la 
Republique  et  la  Republique  envers  les  citoyens. 

VII.  Les  citoyens  doivent  aimer  la  patrie,  servir  la  Repub- 
lique, la  defendre  au  prix  de  leur  vie,  participer  aux  charges 

509]  331 


332  APPENDIX  [510 

de  r£tat  en  proportion  de  leur  fortune;  ils  doivent  s'assurer^ 
par  le  travail,  des  moyens  d'existence,  et,  par  la  prevoyance, 
des  ressources  pour  I'avenir;  ils  doivent  concourir  au  bien- 
etre  commun  en  s'entr'aidant  fraternellement  les  uns  les 
autres,  et  a  I'ordre  general  en  observant  les  lois  morales  et  les 
lois  ecrites  qui  regissent  la  societe,  la  f  amille  et  I'individu. 

VIII.  La  Republique  doit  proteger  le  citoyen  dans  sa  per- 
sonne,  sa  famille,  sa  religion,  sa  propriete,  son  travail,  et 
mettre  a  la  portee  de  chacun  I'instruction  indispensable  a  tous 
les  hommes;  elle  doit,  par  une  assistance  fraternelle,  assurer 
I'existence  des  citoyens  necessiteux,  soit  en  leur  procurant  du 
travail  dans  les  limites  de  ses  ressources,  soit  en  donnant,  a 
defaut  de  la  famille,  des  secours  a  ceux  qui  sont  hors  d'etat 
de  travailler. 

En  vue  de  I'accomplissement  de  tous  ces  devoirs,  et  pour 
la  garantie  de  tous  ces  droits,  I'Assemblee  nationale,  fidele 
aux  traditions  des  grandes  assemblees  qui  ont  inaugure  la 
Revolution  franqaise,  decrete,  ainsi  qu'il  suit,  la  Constitution 
de  la  Republique. 

CONSTITUTION 

Chapitre  Premier 

de  la  souverainete 

Article  premier.  La  souverainete  reside  dans  I'universalite 
des  citoyens  frangais. 

Elle  est  inalienable  et  imprescriptible. 

Aucun  individu,  aucune  fraction  du  peuple  ne  pent  s'en 
attribuer  I'exercice. 

Chapitre  II 

DROITS  DES  CITOYENS  GARANTIS  PAR  LA  CONSTITUTION 

2.  Nul  ne  pent  etre  arrete  ou  detenu  que  suivant  les  pre- 
scriptions de  la  loi. 

3.  La  demeure  de  toute  personne  habitant  le  territoire 
franqais  est  inviolable;  il  n'est  permis  d'y  penetrer  que  selon 
les  formes  et  dans  les  cas  prevus  par  la  loi. 


511]  APPENDIX  333 

4.  Nul  ne  sera  distrait  de  ses  juges  naturels. — II  ne  pourra 
etre  cree  de  commissions  ni  de  tribunaux  extraordinaires,  a 
quelque  titre  et  sous  quelque  denomination  que  ce  soit. 

5.  La  peine  de  mort  est  abolie  en  matiere  politique. 

6.  L'esclavage  ne  pent  exister  sur  aucune  terre  frangaise. 

7.  Chacun  professe  librement  sa  religion,  et  regoit  de  I'fitat, 
pour  rexer(;ice  de  son  culte,  une  egale  protection.  Les  min- 
istres,  soit  des  cultes  actuellement  reconnus  par  la  loi,  soit 
de  ceux  qui  seraient  reconnus  a  Tavenir,  ont  le  droit  de  re9evoir 
un  traitement  de  I'fitat. 

8.  Les  citoyens  ont  le  droit  de  s'associer,  de  s'assembler 
paisiblement  et  sans  armes,  de  petitionner,  de  manifester  leurs 
pensees  par  la  voie  de  la  presse  ou  autrement. — L'exercice  de 
ces  droits  n'a  pour  limites  que  les  droits  ou  la  liberte  d'autrui 
et  la  securite  publique. — La  presse  ne  pent,  dans  aucun  cas, 
etre  soumise  a  la  censure. 

9.  L'enseignement  est  libre. — La  liberte  d'enseignement 
s'exerce  selon  les  conditions  de  capacite  et  de  moralite  deter- 
minees  par  les  lois,  et  sous  la  surveillance  de  I'Etat. — Cette 
surveillance  s'etend  a  tous  les  etablissements  d'education  et 
d'enseignement,  sans  aucune  exception. 

10.  Tous  les  citoyens  sont  egalement  admissibles  a  tous  les 
emplois  publics,  sans  autre  motif  de  preference  que  leur 
merite,  et  suivant  les  conditions  qui  seront  fixees  par  les  lois. 
Sont  abolis  a  toujours  tout  titre  nobiliaire,  toute  distinction 
de  naissance,  de  classe  ou  de  caste. 

11.  Toutes  les  proprietes  sont  inviolables.  Neanmoins  I'Etat 
pent  exiger  le  sacrifice  d'une  propriete  pour  cause  d'utilite 
publique  legalement  constatee,  et  moyennant  une  juste  et  pre- 
alable  indemnite. 

12.  La  confiscation  des  biens  ne  pourra  jamais  etre  retablie. 

13.  La  Constitution  garantit  aux  citoyens  la  liberte  du 
travail  et  de  I'industrie. 

La  societe  favorise  et  encourage  le  developpement  du  travail 
par  l'enseignement  primaire  gratuit,  I'education  professionnelle. 
I'egalite  de  rapports  entre  le  patron  et  I'ouvrier,  les  institu- 
tions de  prevoyance  et  de  credit,  les  institutions  agricoles,  les 


k 


334  APPENDIX  f5i2. 

associations  volontaires,  et  retablissement,  par  I'Etat,  les  de- 
partements  et  les  communes,  de  travaux  publics  propres  a  em- 
ployer les  bras  inoccupes ;  elle  f  ournit  I'assistance  aux  enf ants 
abandonnes,  aux  infirmes  et  aux  vieillards  sans  ressources,  et 
que  leurs  families  ne  peuvent  secourir. 

14.  La  dette  publique  est  garantie. — Toute  espece  d' engage- 
ment pris  par  I'Etat  avec  ses  creanciers  est  inviolable. 

15.  Tout  impot  est  etabli  pour  I'utilite  commune. — Chacun 
y  contribue  en  proportion  de  ses  f acultes  et  de  sa  fortune. 

16.  Aucun  impot  ne  pent  etre  etabli  ni  perqu  qu'en  vertu 
de  la  loi. 

17.  L'impot  direct  n'est  consenti  que  pour  un  an. — Les  im- 
positions indirectes  peuvent  etre  consenties  pour  plusieurs 
annees. 

Chapitre  III 

DES   POUVOIRS   PUBLICS 

18.  Tous  les  pouvoirs  publics,  quels  qu'ils  soient,  emanent 
du  peuple.    lis  ne  peuvent  etre  delegues  hereditairement. 

19.  La  separation  des  pouvoirs  est  la  premiere  condition 
d'un  gouvernement  libre. 

Chapitre  IV 

DU    POUVOIR   LEGISLATIF 

20.  Le  peuple  franqais  delegue  le  pouvoir  legislatif  a  une 
Assemblee  unique. 

21.  Le  nombre  total  des  representants  du  peuple  sera  de  sept 
cent  cinquante,  y  compris  les  representants  de  I'Algerie  et  des 
colonies  frangaises. 

22.  Ce  nombre  s'elevera  a  neuf  cents  pour  les  assemblies 
qui  seront  appelees  a  reviser  la  Constitution. 

23.  L' election  a  pour  base  la  population. 

24.  Le  suffrage  est  direct  et  universel.    Le  scrutin  est  secret. 

25.  Sont  electeurs,  sans  condition  de  cens,  tous  les  Fran^ais 


513]  APPENDIX  335 

ages  de  vingt  et  un  aiis,  et  jouissant  de  leurs  droits  civils  et 
politiques. 

26.  Sont  eligibles,  sans  condition  de  domicile,  tous  les 
electeurs  ages  de  vingt-cinq  ans. 

27.  La  loi  electorale  determinera  les  causes  qui  peuvent 
priver  un  citoyen  fran^ais  du  droit  d'elire  et  d'etre  elu. — EUe 
designera  les  citoyens  qui,  exerQant  ou  ayant  exerce  des  fonc- 
tions  dans  un  departement  ou  un  ressort  territorial,  ne 
pourront  y  etre  elus. 

2%.  Toute  fonction  publique  retribuee  est  incompatible  avec 
le  mandat  de  representant  du  peuple.  Aucun  membre  de 
I'Assemblee  nationale  ne  peut,  pendant  la  duree  de  la  legisla- 
ture, etre  nomme  ou  promu  a  des  fonctions  publiques  salar- 
iees  dont  les  titulaires  sont  choisis  a  volonte  par  le  pouvoir 
executif. — Les  exceptions  aux  deux  paragraphes  precedents 
seront  determinees  par  la  loi  electorale  organique. 

29.  Les  dispositions  de  I'article  precedent  ne  sont  pas  ap- 
pliquables  aux  assemblees  elues  pour  la  revision  de  la  Consti- 
tution. 

30.  L'election  des  representants  se  fera  par  departement,. 
et  au  scrutin  de  liste. — Les  electeurs  voteront  au  chef-lieu  de 
canton;  neanmoins,  en  raison  des  circonstances  locales,  le 
canton  pourra  etre  divise  en  plusieurs  circonscriptions,  dans 
la  forme  et  aux  conditions  qui  seront  determinees  par  la  loi 
electorale. 

31.  L'Assemblee  nationale  est  elue  pour  trois  ans,  et  se 
renouvelle  integralement. — Quarante-cinq  jours  au  plus  tard 
avant  la  fin  de  la  legislature,  une  loi  determine  I'epoque  des 
nouvelles  elections.  Si  aucune  loi  n'est  intervenue  dans  le 
delai  fixe  par  le  paragraphe  precedent,  les  electeurs  se  reunis- 
sent  de  plein  droit  le  trentieme  jour  qui  precede  la  fin  de  la 
legislature. 

La  nouvelle  Assemblee  est  convoquee  de  plein  droit  pour  le 
lendemain  du  jour  ou  finit  le  mandat  de  TAssemblee  precedente. 

32.  EUe  est  permanente.  Neanmoins,  elle  peut  s'ajoumer 
a  un  terme  qu'elle  fixe. 

Pendant  la  duree  de  la  prorogation,  une  commission,  com- 


336  APPENDIX  [^I^ 

posee  des  membres  du  bureau  et  de  vingt-cinq  representants 
nommes  par  I'Assemblee  au  scrutin  secret  et  a  la  majorite 
absolue,  a  le  droit  de  la  convoquer  en  cas  d'urgence. 

Le  President  de  la  Republique  a  aussi  le  droit  de  convoquer 
TAssemblee.  L'Assemblee  nationale  determine  le  lieu  de  ses 
seances.  Elle  fixe  Timportance  des  forces  militaires  etablies 
pour  sa  surete,  et  elle  en  dispose. 

33.  Les  representants  sont  toujours  reeligibles. 

34.  Les  membres  de  I'Assemblee  nationale  sont  les  repre- 
sentants, non  du  departement  qui  les  nomme,  mais  de  la 
France  entiere. 

35.  lis  ne  peuvent  regevoir  de  mandat  imperatif. 

36.  Les  representants  du  peuple  sont  inviolables. — lis  ne 
pourront  etre  recherches,  accuses,  ni  juges,  en  aucun  temps, 
pour  les  opinions  qu'ils  auront  emises  dans  le  sein  de  I'As- 
semblee nationale. 

37.  lis  ne  peuvent  etre  arretes  en  matiere  criminelle,  sauf 
le  cas  de  flagrant  delit,  ni  poursuivis  qu'apres  que  I'Assemblee 
a  permis  la  poursuite. — En  cas  d'arrestation  pour  flagrant 
delit,  il  en  sera  immediatement  refere  a  I'Assemblee,  qui 
autorisera  ou  refusera  la  continuation  des  poursuites.  Cette 
disposition  s'applique  au  cas  ou  un  citoyen  detenu  est  nomme 
representant. 

38.  Chaque  representant  du  peuple  re(;oit  une  indemnite  a 
laquelle  il  ne  pent  renoncer. 

39.  Les  seances  de  I'Assemblee  sont  publiques. — Neanmoins 
I'Assemblee  pent  se  former  en  comite  secret,  sur  la  demande 
du  nombre  de  representants  fixe  par  le  reglement. — Chaque 
representant  a  le  droit  d'initiative  parlementaire ;  il  I'exercera 
selon  les  formes  determinees  par  le  reglement. 

40.  La  presence  de  la  moitie  plus  un  des  membres  de  TAs- 
semblee  est  necessaire  pour  la  validite  du  vote  des  lois. 

41.  Aucun  projet  de  loi,  sauf  les  cas  d'urgence,  ne  sera  vote 
definitivement  qu'apres  trois  deliberations,  a  des  intervalles 
qui  ne  peuvent  pas  etre  moindres  de  cinq  jours. 

42.  Toute  proposition  ayant  pour  objet  de  declarer  I'urgence 
est   precedee    d'un   expose    des    motifs. — Si    I'Assemblee    est 


515]  APPENDIX  337 

d'avis  de  donner  suite  a  la  proposition  d'urgence,  elle  en  or- 
donne  le  renvoi  dans  les  bureaux  et  fixe  le  moment  ou  le  rap- 
port sur  Turgence  lui  sera  presente. — Sur  le  rapport,  si  I'As- 
semblee  reconnait  I'urgence,  elle  le  declare  et  fixe  le  moment 
de  la  discussion. — Si  elle  decide  qu'il  n'y  a  pas  urgence,  le 
ptioiet  suit  le  cours  des  propositions  ordinaires. 

Chapitre  V 

DU   POUVOIR   EXECUTIF 

43.  Le  peuple  fran^ais  delegue  le  pouvoir  executif  a  un 
citoyen  qui  re<;oit  le  titre  de  President  de  la  Republique. 

44.  Le  President  doit  etre  ne  Fran^ais,  age  de  trente  ans 
au  moins,  et  n'avoir  jamais  perdu  la  qualite  de  Fran^ais. 

45.  Le  President  de  la  Republique  est  elu  pour  quatre  ans, 
et  n'est  reeligible  qu'apres  un  intervalle  de  quatre  annees. 

Ne  peuvent,  non  plus,  etre  elus  apres  lui,  dans  le  meme  in- 
tervalle, ni  le  vice-president,  ni  aucun  des  parents  ou  allies  du 
President  jusqu'au  sixieme  degre  inclusivement. 

46.  L'election  a  lieu  de  plein  droit  le  deuxieme  dimanche  du 
mois  de  mai. — Dans  le  cas  ou,  par  suite  de  deces,  de  demission 
ou  de  toute  autre  cause,  le  President  serait  elu  a  une  autre 
epoque,  ses  pouvoirs  expireront  le  deuxieme  dimanche  du  mois 
de  mai  de  la  quatrieme  annee  qui  suivra  son  election. 

Le  President  est  nomme  au  scrutin  secret  et  a  la  majorite 
absolue  des  votants,  par  le  suffrage  direct  de  tous  les  electeurs 
des  departements  f ranqais  et  de  I'Algerie. 

47.  Les  proces-verbaux  des  operations  electorales  sont 
transmis  immediatement  a  TAssemblee  nationale,  qui  statue 
sans  delai  sur  la  validite  de  Telection  et  proclame  le  President 
de  la  Republique. 

Si  aucun  candidat  n'a  obtenu  plus  de  la  moitie  des  suffrages 
exprimes,  et  au  moins  deux  millions  de  voix,  ou  si  les  condi- 
tions exigees  par  I'article  44  ne  sont  pas  remplies,  I'Assemblee 
nationale  elit  le  President  de  la  Republique,  a  la  majorite  abso- 
lue et  au  scrutin  secret,  parmi  les  cinq  candidats  eligibles  qui 
ont  obtenu  le  plus  de  voix. 


338  APPENDIX  [516 

48.  Avant  d'entrer  en  fonctions,  le  President  de  la  Repub- 
lique  prete  au  sein  de  I'x^ssemblee  nationale  le  serment  dont 
la  teneur  suit : 

En  presence  de  Dieu  et  devant  le  peuple  franfais,  representc 
par  VAssemhlee  nationale,  je  jure  de  rester  fidele  a  la  Repub- 
lique  democratique,  une  et  indivisible,  et  de  remplir  tous  les 
devoirs  que  m'impose  la  Constitution. 

49.  II  a  le  droit  de  faire  presenter  des  projets  de  loi  a  I'As- 
semblee  nationale  par  les  ministres. — II  surveille  et  assure 
Texecution  des  lois. 

50.  II  dispose  de  la  force  armee,  sans  pouvoir  jamais  la  com- 
mander en  personne. 

51.  II  ne  pent  ceder  aucune  portion  du  territoire,  ni  dis- 
soudre,  ni  proroger  TAssemblee  nationale,  ni  suspendre  en 
aucune  maniere  I'empire  de  la  Constitution  et  des  lois. 

52.  II  presente  chaque  annee,  par  un  message,  a  I'Assemblee 
nationale  I'expose  de  I'etat  general  des  affaires  de  la  Republique. 

53.  II  negocie  et  ratifie  les  traites. — Aucun  traite  n'est  de- 
finitif  qu'apres  avoir  ete  approuvee  par  I'Assemblee  nationale. 

54.  II  veille  a  la  defense  de  I'fitat,  mais  il  ne  peut  entre- 
prendre  aucune  guerre  sans  le  consentement  de  TAssemblee 
nationale. 

55.  II  a  le  droit  de  faire  grace,  mais  il  ne  peut  exercer  ce  droit 
qu'apres  avoir  pris  I'avis  du  Conseil  d':6tat. — Les  amnisties  ne 
peuvent  etre  accordees  que  par  une  loi.  Le  President  de  la 
Republique,  les  ministres,  ainsi  que  toutes  autres  personnes 
condamnees  par  la  Haute  Cour  de  justice,  ne  peuvent  etre 
graciees  que  par  I'Assemblee  nationale. 

56.  Le  President  de  la  Republique  promulgue  les  lois  au  nom 
du  peuple  frangais. 

57.  Les  lois  d'urgence  sont  promulguees  dans  le  delai  de 
trois  jours,  et  les  autres  lois  dans  le  delai  d'un  mois,  a  partir 
du  jour  ou  elles  auront  ete  adoptees  par  I'Assemblee  nationale. 

58.  Dans  le  delai  fixe  pour  la  promulgation,  le  President  de 
la  Republique  peut,  par  un  message  motive,  demander  une 
nouvelle  deliberation. 


517]  APPENDIX  339 

L'Assemblee  delibere :  sa  resolution  devient  definitive ;  elle  est 
transmise  au  President  de  la  Republique. 

En  ce  cas,  la  promulgation  a  lieu  dans  le  delai  fixe  pour  les 
lois  d'urgence. 

59.  A  defaut  de  promulgation  par  le  President  de  la  Re- 
publique, dans  les  delais  determines  par  les  articles  preced- 
ents, il  y  serait  pourvu  par  le  president  de  I'Assemblee 
nationale. 

60.  Les  envoyes  et  les  ambassadeurs  des  puissances  etran- 
geres  sont  accredites  aupres  du  President  de  la  Republique. 

61.  II  preside  aux  solennites  nationales. 

62.  II  est  loge  aux  frais  de  la  Republique,  et  re^oit  un 
traitement  de  six  cent  mille  francs  par  an. 

63.  II  reside  au  lieu  ou  siege  I'Assemblee  nationale,  et  ne 
peut  sortir  du  territoire  continental  de  la  Republique  sans  y 
etre  autorise  par  une  loi. 

64.  Le  President  de  la  Republique  nomme  et  revoque  les 
ministres. 

II  nomme  et  revoque,  en  conseil  des  ministres,  les  agents 
diplomatiques,  les  commandants  en  chef  des  armees  de  terre 
et  de  mer,  les  prefets,  le  commandant  superieur  des  gardes 
nationales  de  la  Seine,  les  gouvemeurs  de  I'Algerie  et  des 
colonies,  les  procureurs  generaux  et  autres  fonctionnaires 
d'un  ordre  superieur. 

II  nomme  et  revoque,  sur  la  proposition  du  ministre  com- 
petent, dans  les  conditions  reglementaires  determinees  par  la 
loi,  les  agents  secondaires  du  gouvernment. 

65.  II  a  le  droit  de  suspendre,  pour  un  terme  qui  ne  pourra 
exceder  trois  mois,  les  agents  du  pouvoir  executif  elus  par  les 
citoyens.  '    - 

II  ne  peut  les  revoquer  que  de  Tavis  du  Conseil  d'Etat. 

La  loi  determine  les  cas  ou  les  agents  revoques  peuvent  etre 
declares  ineligibles  aux  memes  fonctions. 

Cette  declaration  d'ineligibilite  ne  pourra  etre  prononcee 
que  par  un  jugement. 

66.  Le  nombre  des  ministres  et  leurs  attributions  sont  fixes 
par  le  pouvoir  legislatif. 


340  APPENDIX  [^jg 

67.  Les  actes  du  President  de  la  Republique,  autres  que 
ceux  par  lesquels  il  nomme  et  revoque  les  ministres,  n'ont 
d'effet  que  s'ils  sont  contresignes  par  un  ministre. 

68.  Le  President  de  la  Republique,  les  ministres,  les  agents 
et  depositaires  de  I'autorite  publique,  sont  responsables,  chacun 
en  ce  qui  le  concerne,  de  tous  les  actes  du  gouvernement  et  de 
Tadministration.  Toute  mesure  par  laquelle  le  President  de 
la  Republique  dissout  I'Assemblee  nationale,  la  proroge  ou 
met  obstacle  a  Texercice  de  son  mandat,  est  un  crime  de  haute- 
trahison. — Par  ce  seul  fait,  le  President  est  dechu  de  ses  fonc- 
tions;  les  citoyens  sont  tenus  de  lui  refuser  obeissance;  le 
pouvoir  executif  passe  de  plein  droit  a  TAssemblee  nationale. 
Les  juges  de  la  Haute  Cour  de  justice  se  reunissent  immediate- 
ment,  a  peine  de  forfaiture;  ils  convoquent  les  jures  dans  le 
lieu  qu'ils  designent,  pour  proceder  au  jugement  du  President 
et  de  ses  complices;  ils  nomment  eux-memes  les  magistrats 
charges  de  remplir  les  fonctions  du  ministere  public. — Une  loi 
determinera  les  autres  cas  de  responsabilite,  ainsi  que  les 
formes  et  les  conditions  de  la  poursuite. 

69.  Les  ministres  ont  entree  dans  le  sein  de  I'Assemblee 
nationale ;  ils  sont  entendus  toutes  les  fois  qu'ils  le  demandent, 
et  peuvent  se  faire  assister  par  des  commissaires  nommes  par 
un  decret  du  President  de  la  Republique. 

70.  II  y  a  un  vice-president  de  la  Republique  nomme  par 
I'Assemblee  nationale,  sur  la  presentation  de  trois  candidats 
faite  par  le  President  dans  le  mois  qui  suit  son  election. — Le 
vice-president  prete  le  meme  serment  que  le  president. — Le 
vice-president  ne  pourra  etre  choisi  parmi  les  parents  et  allies 
du  president  jusqu'au  sixieme  degre  inclusivement. — En  cas 
d'empechement  du  president,  le  vice-president  le  remplace. — 
Si  la  presidence  devient  vacante  par  deces,  demission  du  presi- 
dent, ou  autrement,  il  est  procede  dans  le  mois  a  I'election  d'un 
president. 


519].  APPENDIX  341 

Chapitre  VI 

DU   CONSEIL  d'etat 

71.  II  y  aura  un  Conseil  d'etat,  dont  le  vice-president  de 
la  Republique  sera  de  droit  president. 

72.  Les  membres  de  ce  Conseil  sont  nommes  pour  six  ans 
par  TAssemblee  nationale.  lis  sont  renouveles  par  moitie,  dans 
les  deux  premiers  mois  de  chaque  legislature,  au  scrutin  secret 
et  a  la  majorite  absolue. — lis  sont  indefiniment  reeligibles. 

73.  Ceux  des  membres  du  Conseil  d'fitat  qui  auront  ete 
pris  dans  le  sein  de  I'Assemblee  nationale  seront  immediate- 
ment  remplaces  comme  representants  du  peuple. 

74.  Les  membres  du  Conseil  d'etat  ne  peuvent  etre  revoques 
que  par  I'Assemblee,  et  sur  la  proposition  du  president  de  la 
Republique. 

75.  Le  Conseil  d'etat  est  consulte  sur  les  projets  de  loi  du 
gouvernement  qui,  d'apres  la  loi,  devront  etre  soumis  a  son  ex- 
amen  prealable,  et  sur  les  projets  d'initiative  parlementaire  que 
I'Assemblee  lui  aura  renvoyes. — II  prepare  les  reglements  d'ad- 
ministration  publique:  il  fait  seul  ceux  de  ces  reglements  a 
regard  desquels  I'Assemblee  nationale  lui  a  donne  une  delega- 
tion speciale. — II  exerce,  a  I'egard  des  administrations  publiques, 
tous  les  pouvoirs  de  controle  et  de  surveillance  qui  lui  sont 
deferes  par  la  loi. 

La  loi  reglera  ses  autres  attributions. 

Chapitre  VII 

DE  l" ADMINISTRATION    INTERIEURE 

'j6.  La  division  du  territoire  en  departements,  arrondisse- 
ments,  cantons  et  communes  est  maintenue.  Les  circonscrip- 
tions  actuelles  ne  pourront  etre  changees  que  par  une  loi. 

yy.  II  y  a:  i°  dans  chaque  departement,  une  administration 
composee  d'un  prefet,  d'un  conseil  general,  d'un  conseil  de 
prefecture ; 

2°  Dans  chaque  arrondissement,  un  sous-prefet; 

3°  Dans  chaque  canton,  un  conseil  cantonal;  neanmoins,  un 


342  APPENDIX  [520 

seul  conseil  cantonal  sera  etabli  dans  les  villes  divisees  en 
plusieurs  cantons ; 

4°  Dans  chaque  commune,  une  administration  composee 
d'un  maire,  d'adjoints  et  d'un  conseil  municipal. 

78.  Une  loi  determinera  la  composition  et  les  attributions 
des  conseils  generaux,  des  conseils  cantonaux,  des  conseils 
municipaux  et  le  mode  de  nomination  des  maires  et  des  adjoints. 

79.  Les  conseils  generaux  et  les  conseils  municipaux  sont 
elus  par  le  suffrage  direct  de  tous  les  citoyens  domicilies  dans 
le  departement  ou  dans  la  commune.  Chaque  canton  el  it  un 
membre  du  conseil  general. — Une  loi  speciale  reglera  le  mode 
d'election  dans  le  departement  de  la  Seine,  dans  la  ville  de 
Paris  et  dans  les  villes  de  plus  de  vingt  mille  ames. 

80.  Les  conseils  generaux,  les  conseils  cantonaux  et  les 
conseils  municipaux  peuvent  etre  dissous  par  le  president  de  la 
Republique,  de  I'avis  du  Conseil  d'Etat.  La  loi  fixera  le  delai 
dans  lequel  il  sera  procede  a  la  reelection. 

Chapitre  VIII 

DU   POUVOIR  JUDICIAIRE 

81.  La  justice  est  rendue  gratuitement  au  nom  du  peuple 
fraiigais. 

Les  debats  sont  publics,  a  moins  que  la  publicite  ne  soit 
dangereuse  pour  I'ordre  ou  les  moeurs;  et,  dans  ce  cas,  le 
tribunal  le  declare  par  un  jugement. 

82.  Le  jury  continuera  d'etre  applique  en  matiere  criminelle. 

83.  La  connaissance  de  tous  les  del  its  politiques  et  de  tous 
les  delits  commis  par  la  voie  de  la  presse  appartient  exclusive- 
ment  au  jury. — Les  lois  organiques  determineront  la  compe- 
tence en  matiere  de  delits  d' injures  et  de  diffamation  contre 
les  particuliers. 

84.  Le  jury  statue  seul  sur  les  dommages-interets  reclames 
pour  faits  ou  delits  de  presse. 

85.  Les  juges  de  paix  et  leurs  suppleants,  les  juges  de  pre- 
miere instance  et  d'appel,  les  membres  de  la  Cour  de  Cassation 
et  de  la  Cour  des  Comptes,  sont  nommes  par  le  president  de  la 


I 


521]  APPENDIX  343 

Republique,  d'apres  un  ordre  de  candidature  ou  d'apres  les 
conditions  qui  seront  reglees  par  les  lois  organiques. 

86.  Les  magistrats  du  ministere  public  sont  nommes  par  le 
president  de  la  Republique. 

d>y,  Les  juges  de  premiere  instance  et  d'appel,  les  membres 
de  la  Cour  de  Cassation  et  de  la  Cour  des  Comptes,  sont 
nommes  a  vie. — ^Ils  ne  peuvent  etre  revoques  ou  suspendus  que 
par  un  jugement,  ni  mis  a  la  retraite  que  pour  les  causes  et 
dans  les  formes  determinees  par  les  lois. 

88.  Les  conseils  de  guerre  et  de  revision  des  armees  de 
terre  et  de  mer,  les  tribunaux  maritimes,  les  tribunaux  de  com- 
merce, les  prud'hommes  et  autres  tribunaux  speciaux,  con- 
servent  leur  organisation  et  leurs  attributions  actuelles  jusqu'a 
ce  qu'il  y  ait  ete  deroge  par  une  loi. 

89.  Les  conflits  d'attribution  entre  I'autorite  administrative 
et  Tautorite  judiciaire  seront  regies  par  un  tribunal  special  de 
membres  de  la  Cour  de  Cassation  et  de  conseillers  d'etat, 
designes  tous  les  trois  ans  en  nombre  egal  par  leurs  corps 
respectif . — Ce  tribunal  sera  preside  par  le  ministre  de  la  justice. 

90.  Les  recours  pour  incompetence  et  exces  de  pouvoirs 
contre  les  arrets  de  la  Cour  des  Comptes  seront  portes  devant 
la  juridiction  des  conflits. 

91.  Une  Haute  Cour  de  justice  juge,  sans  appel  ni  recours 
en  cassation,  les  accusations  portees  par  TAssemblee  nationale 
contre  le  president  de  la  Republique  ou  les  ministres. 

Elle  juge  egalement  toutes  personnes  prevenues  de  crimes, 
attentats  ou  complots  contre  la  surete  interieure  ou  exterieure 
de  I'lfetat,  que  I'Assemblee  nationale  aura  renvoyees  devant 
elle. — Sauf  le  cas  prevu  par  Farticle  68,  elle  ne  pent  etre  saisie 
qu'en  vertu  d'un  decret  de  I'Assemblee  nationale,  qui  designe 
la  ville  oil  la  Cour  tiendra  ses  seances. 

92.  La  Haute  Cour  est  composee  de  cinq  juges  et  de  trente- 
six  jures. — Chaque  annee,  dans  les  quinze  premiers  jours  du 
mois  de  novembre,  la  Cour  de  Cassation  nomme,  parmi  ses 
membres,  au  scrutin  secret  et  a  la  majorite  absolue,  les'  juges 
de  la  Haute  Cour,  au  nombre  de  cinq,  et  deux  suppleants.  Les 
cinq  juges  appeles  a  sieger  feront  choix  de  leur  president. 


344  APPENDIX  [^22 

Les  magistrats  remplissant  les  fonctions  du  ministere  public 
sent  designes  par  le  president  de  la  Republique,  et,  en  cas  d'ac- 
cusation  du  president  ou  des  ministres,  par  rAssemblee 
nationale. 

Les  jures,  au  nombre  de  trente-six,  et  quatre  jures  supple- 
ants,  sont  pris  parmi  les  membres  des  conseils  generaux  des 
departements. 

Les  representants  du  peuple  n'en  peuvent  f  aire  partie. 

93.  Lorsqu'un  decret  de  I'Assemblee  nationale  a  ordonne 
la  formation  de  la  Haute  Cour  de  justice,  et,  dans  le  cas  prevu 
par  Tarticle  68,  sur  la  requisition  du  president  ou  de  I'un  des 
juges,  le  president  de  la  Cour  d'Appel,  et,  a  defaut  de  Cour 
d'Appel,  le  president  du  tribunal  de  premiere  instance  du  chef 
lieu  judiciare  du  departement,  tire  au  sort,  en  audience  pub- 
lique,  le  nom  d'un  membre  du  conseil  general. 

94.  Au  jour  indique  pour  le  jugement,  s'il  y  a  moins  de 
soixante  jures  presents,  ce  nombre  sera  complete  par  des  jures 
supplementaires  tires  au  sort,  par  le  president  de  la  Haute 
Cour,  parmi  les  membres  du  conseil  general  du  departement 
ou  siegera  la  Cour. 

95.  Les  jures  qui  n'auront  pas  produit  d'excuse  valable 
seront  condamnes  a  une  amende  de  mille  a  dix  mille  francs, 
et  a  la  privation  des  droits  politiques  pendant  cinq  ans  au  plus. 

96.  L'accuse  et  le  ministere  public  exercent  le  droit  de 
recusation  comme  en  matiere  ordinaire. 

97.  La  declaration  du  jury  portant  que  I'accuse  est  coupable 
ne  pent  etre  rendue  qu'a  la  majorite  des  deux  tiers  des  voix. 

98.  Dans  tons  les  cas  de  responsabilite  des  ministres,  I'As- 
semblee nationale  pent,  selon  les  circonstances,  renvoyer  le 
ministre  inculpe,  soit  devant  la  Haute  Cour  de  justice,  soit 
devant  les  tribunaux  ordinaires,  pour  les  reparations  civiles. 

99.  L'Assemblee  nationale  et  le  president  de  la  Republique 
peuvent,  dans  tons  les  cas,  deferer  Texamen  des  actes  de  tout 
fonctionnaire,  autre  que  le  president  de  la  Republique,  au 
Conseil  d'etat,  dont  le  rapport  est  rendu  public. 

100.  Le  president  de  la  Republique  n'est  justiciable  que  de 
la  Haute  Cour  de  justice. — II  ne  pent,  a  I'exception  du  cas 


523]  APPENDIX  34J 

prevu  par  Tarticle  68,  etre  poursuivi  que  sur  racciisation  portee 
par  TAssemblee  nationale,  et  pour  crimes  et  delits  qui  seront 
determines  par  la  loi. 

Chapitre  IX 

DE   LA   FORCE   PUBLIQUE 

Id.  La  force  publique  est  instituee  pour  defendre  I'^tat 
contre  les  ennemis  du  dehors,  et  pour  assurer  au  dedans  le  main- 
tien  de  I'ordre  et  I'execution  des  lois. — Elle  se  compose  de  la 
garde  nationale  et  de  I'armee  de  terre  et  de  mer. 

102.  Tout  Fran^ais,  sauf  les  exceptions  fixees  par  la  loi, 
doit  le  service  militaire  et  celui  de  la  garde  nationale. — La 
faculte  pour  chaque  citoyen  de  se  liberer  du  service  militaire 
personnel  sera  reglee  par  la  loi  du  recrutement. 

103.  L'organisation  de  la  garde  nationale  et  la  constitution, 
de  Tarmee  seront  reglees  par  la  loi. 

104.  La  force  publique  est  essentiellement  obeissante.  Nul 
corps  arme  ne  peut  deliberer. 

105.  La  force  publique,  employee  pour  maintenir  Tordre  a 
rinterieure  n'agit  que  sur  la  requisition  des  autorites  consti- 
tuees,  suivant  les  regies  determinees  par  le  pouvoir  legislatif . 

106.  Une  loi  determinera  les  cas  dans  lesquels  Tetat  de  siege 
pourra  etre  declare,  et  reglera  les  formes  et  les  effets  de  cette 
mesure. 

107.  Aucune  troupe  etrangere  ne  peut  etre  introduite  sur  le 
territoire  franqais  sans  le  consentement  prealable  de  I'As- 
semblee  nationale. 

Chapitre  X 

DISPOSITIONS   PARTICULIERES 

108.  La  Legion  d'honneur  est  maintenue;  ses  statuts  seront 
revises  et  mis  en  harmonic  avec  la  Constitution. 

109.  Le  territoire  de  I'Algerie  et  des  colonies  est  declare 
territoire  frangais,  et  sera  regi  par  des  lois  particulieres  jusqu'a 
ce  qu'une  loi  speciale  les  place  sous  le  regime  de  la  presente 
Constitution. 

no.  L'Assemblee  nationale  confie  le  depot  de  la  presente 


346  APPENDIX  [-^24 

Constitution  et  des  droits  qu'elle  consacre,  a  la  garde  et  an 
patriotisme  de  tous  les  Frangais. 

Chapitre  XI 

DE  LA   REVISION   DE  LA    CONSTITUTION 

111.  Lorsque,  dans  la  derniere  annee  d'une  legislature,  TAs- 
semblee  nationale  aura  emis  le  voeu  que  la  Constitution  soit 
modifiee  en  tout  ou  en  partie,  il  sera  procede  a  cette  revision 
de  la  maniere  suivante. 

Le  voeu  exprime  par  TAssemblee  ne  sera  converti  en  resolu- 
tion definitive  qu'apres  trois  deliberations  consecutives,  prises 
chacune  a  un  mois  d'intervalle  et  aux  trois  quarts  des  suffrages 
exprimes.  Le  nombre  des  votants  devra  etre  de  cinq  cents 
au  moins. 

L'Assemblee  de  revision  ne  sera  nommee  que  pour  trois  mois. 

EUe  ne  devra  s'occuper  que  de  la  revision  pour  laquelle 
elle  aura  ete  convoquee. 

Neanmoins,  elle  pourra,  en  cas  d'urgence,  pourvoir  aux 
necessites  legislatives. 

Chapitre  XII 

DISPOSITIONS   TRANSITOIRES 

112.  Les  dispositions  des  Codes,  lois  et  reglements  existants, 
qui  ne  sont  pas  contraires  a  la  presente  Constitution  restent 
en  vigueur  jusqu'a  ce  qu'il  y  soit  legalement  deroge. 

113.  Toutes  les  autorites  constitutes  par  les  lois  actuelles 
demeurent  en  exercice  jusqu'a  la  promulgation  des  lois  organi- 
ques  qui  les  concernent. 

114.  La  loi  d'organisation  judiciare  determinera  le  mode 
special  de  nomination  pour  la  premiere  composition  des  nouve- 
aux  tribunaux. 

115.  Apres  le  vote  de  la  Constitution,  il  sera  procede,  par 
I'Assemblee  nationale  constituante,  a  la  redaction  des  lois 
organiques  dont  Tenumeration  sera  determinee  par  une  loi 
speciale. 

116.  II  sera  procede  a  la  premiere  election  du  president  de 
la  Republique  conformement  a  la  loi  speciale  rendue  par  TAs- 
semblee  nationale  le  28  octobre  1848. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 
A. — Contemporary  Works 

1.  Reports  of  debates 

a.  Constitutional  Commission: 

Proces-verhal.    Ms.  in  archives  of  Chamber  of  Deputies,  Paris. 
2  vols. 

b.  Assembly: 

Compte-rendu   des   seances   de    I'Assemblee   Nationale.     Paris, 

1849.    10  vols,  in  4°. 
Table  analytique  du  compte  rendu.    Paris,  1850. 
Le  Moniteur  universel.    May-Nov.,  1848. 

c  U.  S.  Congress : 

Congressional  Globe,  vol.  17  (ist  session,  30th  Congress). 

2.  Newspapers 

a.  Legitimist: 

L'Assemblee  nationale.   Mar.  i-June25  (suspended)  ;  Aug.  7-Dec. 
La  Gazette  de  Fratice.    Suspended  Aug.  24;  issued  as  Le  Peuplc 

frangais,  Aug.  30-Sept.  6;  as  L'Etoile  de  la  France,  Sept.  14- 

Oct.  24;  reappears  in  original  form,  Oct.  25. 
L'Opinion  publique.    May-Dec. 
L' Union  monarchique.^ 

b.  Conservative  republican : 
Le  Constitutionnel. 

Le  Journal  des  debats. 
La  Patrie. 

c.  Liberal  republican: 

Le  Bien  public.     May  24-Dec. 
Le  Journal.    July  28-Nov.  i. 
Le  National. 

^Unless  otherwise  indicated,  file  in  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Paris, 
runs  unbroken  throughout  the  year.  In  other  cases,  months  here  given 
refer  to  1848  only.    Cf.  ch.  vii  for  further  details. 

525]  347 


348  BIBLIOGRAPHY  |^226 

d.  Radical  republican: 
Le  Charivari. 

Le  Peuple  constituant.    Feb.- July  ii. 
La  Reforme. 

e.  Socialist: 

L'Ami  du  peuple.    Feb.  27-May  14. 

U Atelier.  Published  irregularly;  sometimes  weekly,  usually 
monthly. 

La  Democratie  paciHque. 

Le  Pere  Duchene.  April- June;  suspended  June  25;  resumed  for 
five  numbers  in  August. 

Le  Populaire. 

Le  Representant  du  peuple.  Apr.  i-Aug.  24  with  occasional  in- 
termissions ;  continued  from  Sept.  i  as  Le  Peuple. 

La  Republique. 

La  Vraie  republique.    Mar.  26- June  24;  Aug.  8-21. 

f.  Bonapartist: 

Le  Napoleon  repuhlicain.    June  11-25. 

Le  Petit  Caporal.  June-Dec. ;  suspended  during  July.  This  and 
preceding,  radical  in  sentiment. 

g.  Catholic: 

L'i:re  nouvelle.    April-Dec. 
L'Univers. 

h.  Personal  organs: 

UEvenement.    Aug.-Dec. 

La  Liberie.    Mar.  i-June  26;  Aug.  7-Sept.  2;  Nov.  8-Dec.  31- 
La  Presse.    Suspended  from  June  25  to  Aug.  7. 

i.  Reviews : 

Le  Mois.    March-Dec. 

Revue  britannique.  Feb.  number  contains  an  article  from  the 
Edinburgh  Review,  "  Des  progres  de  la  civilisation  commer- 
ciale  en  Amerique  depuis  la  decouverte  de  Ch.  Colomb  jusqu'en 
1846,"  treating  largely  of  the  tariff,  agriculture  and  immigra- 
tion, eulogistic  of  American  liberty.  July  number  has  article, 
"Des  causes  de  la  prosperite  des  Etats-Unis  d* Amerique"  by 
J.  Magne  (for  his  sketch  of  constitution,  see  below).  Other 
articles  on  advantages  of  a  transcontinental  railroad  over  a 
Panama  canal,  on  life  in  the  Far  West,  negro  slavery,  Emer- 
son, a  pacifist  book  by  Charles  Sumner,  etc. 

Revue  des  deux  mondes.  Articles  on  America  are  chiefly  liter- 
ary criticisms. 


527]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  ^^g 

Revue  de  legislation  et  de  jurisprudence,  Laboulaye's  Consider- 
ations first  published  in  Aug.  number. 

Revue  nationale.  .Suspended  in  July  for  lack  of  bond.  Several 
uncomplimentary  allusions  to  American  slavery. 

j.  Foreign  publications: 
London  Times. 
New  York  Evening  Post. 
Phila.  Public  Ledger. 
Washington  Daily  National  Intelligencer. 
Niks'  Register,  vol.  Ixxiv. 

.3.  Collections  of  constitutions 

Anonymous.  Constitution  des  Etats-Unis  d'Amerique.  i6mo.  Imp. 
de  Crapelet.  Paris,  1848.  The  preface  praises  the  bicameral 
system,  indirect  election  to  the  senate,  the  president  with  his 
four  year  term,  suspensive  veto,  executive  nomination  rather 
than  election  to  posts  in  the  civil  service,  the  system  of  checks 
and  balances,  the  property  quahfication  for  suffrage  in  most 
American  States ;  in  lieu  of  the  latter,  however,  it  demands  only 
an  ability  to  read'  and  write. 

Anonymous.  Repuhlique  des  Etats-Unis  d'Amerique.  Sa  constitu- 
tion avec  les  divers  amendments  depuis  son  origine.  8vo.  Paris, 
April,  1848.    Incomplete  paraphrase  chiefly  of  legislative  sections. 

Balbo,  I.  P.  Constitutions  republicaines  du  globe.  Contains  those 
of  France,  United  States,  Delaware,  St.  Domingo,  Italy,  Venice, 
Genoa,  San  Marino,  Germany,  Bavaria,  Switzerland,  canton  of 
Vaud.     Paris,  1848. 

Champeaux,  G.  de.  Constitution  republicaine  de  1848  precedes  des 
Constitutions  frangaises  .  .  .  et  suivie  de  la  constitution  ameri- 
caine.    Paris,  1848. 

Jalaber,  Fabius.  Constitution  des  Etats-Unis  d'Amerique,  traduite 
sur  I'ouvrage  original  et  suivie  d' observations  tirees  en  majeure 
partie  de  I'ouvrage  de  M.  Destutt  de  Tracy.  Nantes,  1848. 
Tracy  was  a  friend  of  Jefferson ;  the  work  referred  to  is  a  com- 
mentary on  Montesquieu,  which  he  wrote  in  1807  in  the  United 
States  and  published  there  in  181 1. 

M. .    Constitutions  de  la  republique  frangaise  annotees  et 

suivies  de  la  constitution  des  Etats-Unis  d'Amerique.    Paris,  1848. 

Pailliet,  J.  B.  J.    Constitutions  americaines  et  frangaises.    Paris,  1848. 

Tripi^r,  Louis.  Les  Constitutions  frangaises  depuis  1789  et  y  com- 
pris  les  decrets  du  gouvernement  provisoire  de  1848,  suivies  de 
la  constitution  des  Etats-Unis  d'Amerique.    Paris,  1848. 

Dupin,  Andre  Marie  J.  J.  (Dupin  aine).  Constitution  de  la  repub- 
lique frangaise  arcompagnee  de  notes  sommaires.   Paris,  Jan.  1849 


350  BIBLIOGRAPHY  ^^28. 

Author  a  member  of  the  constitutional  commission.  He  com- 
ments favorably  on  the  American  presidential  message  and  the 
permanent  tenure  of  the  judiciary. 
Teulet,  A.  F.  Recueil  de  constitutions  frangaises  depuis  1791,  et 
constitutions  des  Etats-Unis  d'Amerique  avec  table  methodique. 
Paris,  185 1. 

Apparently  reprint  of  an'  earlier  edition.  Table  of  contents  men- 
tions federal  constitution  and  state  constitutions  of  Mass.,  Penn., 
Del.,  Md.,  Vt,  and  S.  C. 

Pages  allotted  to  state  constitutions  are  taken  up  in  tliis  edition 
by  const,  of  1848. 

4.  Political  books  and  pamphlets 

Anonymous.    Catechisme  republicain  par  le  Pere  Andre,  suivi  des 

conseils  pour  faire  fortune  et  de  la  science  du  Bonhomme  Richard 

par  Franklin.    4th  edition,  91st  thousand.    Paris,  1833-48. 

In  French  Revolutionary  Pamphlets,  vol.  2,  Columbia  Univ.  Lib. 

Republican  pamphlet;  alludes  to  American  example. 
Anonymous.    Projet  d'une  constitution  de  la  republique,  en  sept 

articles,  par  un  citoyen  qui  s'est  donne  la  peine  de  lire  et  de 

comparer  toutes  les  constitutions  de  la  France  et  des  pays  etrangers 

depuis  1/88.    Paris,  1848. 

Calls  for  a  lower  house  elected  by  general  vote  for  three  years 

on  basis  of  population,  a  senate  chosen  from  a  Hst  of  notabilities 

by  general  vote  for  nine  years,  renewed  by  thirds,  a  president  for 

three  years  popularly  elected,  a  council  of  ministers  named  and 

revocable  by  the  president,  a  council  of  state  named  and  revocable 

by  him  acting  in  conjunction  with  the  ministers. 
d'Arlincourt,  Vte.    Dieu  le  veut.    Paris,  1848. 

Legitimist  plea  for  Henry  V;  went  to  64  editions  by  1850;  bitterly 

hostile  to  U.  S. 
Barthelemy,  A.   M.     A  M.  J.  K.  Polk,  president  des  £tats-Unis 

d'Amerique.    Paris,  1848. 
Berriat  Saint-Prix,  F.    Plan  de  constitution,  a-jec  indication  des 

sources  et  des  motifs.     Paris,  1848. 

Democratic  standpoint;  U.  S.  example  rejected  because  of  feder- 

ahsm  and  bicameral  system. 
Bonis,   Amed.     Les   Queues   de   chevaux    ou   lettre   de   la   jcune 

Amerique  a  la  France  republicaine.    Paris,  1848. 

Trivial  eulogy  of  republicanism. 
Brougham,  Lord.    Letter  to  the  Marquess  of  Lansdowne  on  the 

late  revolution  in  France.    London,  1848. 

Argues   for  two   chambers,   alluding  to  American   and   English 

example. 


529]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  3^ 

Chambrun,  Adelbert  de.  La  Repuhlique  reformiste  et  la  repub- 
lique  revolutionnaire.    Paris,  1848. 

Ex-monarchist,  who  hopes  that  American-  and  English  experi- 
ence will  not  be  unheeded  by  France. 

Colombel,  H.  Quelques  reiiexions  concernant  la  constitution. 
Nantes,  185 1. 

Appeared  first  in  the  Courrier  de  Nantes,  May  14,  1848.  Quotes 
American  example  four  times  in  an  essay  of  16  pages ;  no  other 
country  quoted. 

Cormenin,  L.  M.  Petit  pamphlet  sur  le  projet  de  constitution,  par 
Timon.    Paris,  1848. 

Emar,   Louis.    La   Constitution   comme  je   la  voudrais  avec   des 
debats  imaginaires.    Paris,  1848. 
Praise  of  the  high  standard  of  American  diplomats. 

Garnier,  Adolphe.  De  I' organisation  du  pouvoir.  Paris,  1848. 
Appeared  first  in  La  Liberte  du  penser,  June  15,  1848.  To  be 
found  in  French  PoHtical  Pamphlets,  Zi,  Columbia  Univ.  Library. 
Author  a  professor  of  philosophy  at  the  Sorbonne;  ch.  iii,  De  la 
constitution  americaine,  examines  American  methods  from  a  con- 
servative, generally  favorable  standpoint ;  no  other  foreign  system 
studied. 

Laboulaye,  E.    Considerations  sur  la  constitution.    Paris,  1848. 
Appeared  first  as  article  in  Revue  de  legislation  et  de  juris- 
prudence, Aug.  1848. 

Lamartine.    Trots  mois  au  pouvoir.    Paris,  1848. 

Le  Mesl,  P.  M.  Considerations  sur  la  partie  du  projet  de  con- 
stitution qui  concerne  V organisation  du  pouvoir  executif  et  du 
pouvoir  legislatif.    Paris,  1848. 

Asserts  that  there  are  only  two  parties,  that  of  order  and 
stability,  that  of  disorder  and  anarchy;  France  must  study  the 
example  of  the  United  States. 

Magne,  J.    Esquisse  d'une  constitution.    Ce  que  la  France  repub- 
licaine  pourrait,  avec  avantage,  emprunter  aux  institutions  des 
£tats-Unis.    Paris,  1848. 
Appeared  first  in  La  Revue  britannique,  May,  1848. 

Morton,  Georges.    Lettre  d'un  citoyen  des  £tats-Unis  d'Amerique 
sur  la  presidence  de  la  republique  frangaise.    Paris,  Nov.  1848. 
In  Cavaignac  interest. 

Nougarede  de  Fayet,  Ate.  De  la  constitution  republicaine  a  donner 
d  la  France  et  du  danger  d'une  assemblee  unique.    Paris,  1848. 

Pitray.    Que  preferer?    une  assemblee  unique  omnipotente  ou  une 
legislature  composee  d'une  chambre  des  representants,  d'un  sJnat 
et  d'un  president F    Bordeaux,  1848. 
Author  a  refugee  from  St.  Domingo  to  tlie  U.  S.;  citizen  there 


352  BIBLIOGRAPHY  ^^^,0 

for  22  years ;  French  citizen  again  for  28  years.   Adds  as  appendix 

Washington's  opinion,  found  in  his  letter  as  Pres.  of  the  Const. 

Convention  to  the  Pres.  of  Congress,  Sept.  17,  1787. 
■Regnon,  H.  d€.    A  M.  de  Cormenin,  pres.  de  la  commission  de  la 

constitution.    Nantes,  1848. 

Open  letter,  in  Catholic  interest,  advocating  "  la  liberte  d'une  re- 

publique  plutot   federative  qu'unitaire,   comme  celle   des  Etats- 

Unis." 
Saint-Auge,  F.  A.  Fournier.    Du  rachat  de  la  dette  £onsolide  par 

I'impot  fancier.    Paris,  1848. 

Pamphlet  in  Archives  Nationales. 
Saint-John,  P.  B.    French  Revolution  in  184S.    New  York,  1848. 

Sympathy  with  republic,  but  dislike  of  socialism. 
5aint-Priest,  F.    Question  des  deux  cJiambres.    Paris,  1848. 

Author  a  member  of  Assembly.    American  example  invoked  in 

favor  of  bicameral  system. 
Stern,  Daniel.    Lettres  repuhlicaines.    Paris,  1848. 
Constitutionnelisky,    C.    S.    Considerations . . .  sur    la    mesure    de 

liberte  . . .  que  nous  devons  au  . . .  siecle  des  cofistitutions  {^48-52). 

Montauban,  1854. 
Dunoyer,   Barthelemy   C.   P.  Jos.     La  Revolution  du  24  fevrier. 

Paris,  1849. 
Guizot.    De  la  democratic  efi  France.    Paris,  1849. 
Laboulaye,  E.    De  la  constitution  americaine  et  de  Vutilite  de  son 

etude.    Discours  prononce  le  4  dec.  1849,  a  Vouverture  du  cours 

de  legislation  comparee. 

Appeared  first  in  Revue  de  legislation  et  de  jurisprudence,  Dec. 

1849. 
'Rendu,    A.      Les    Deux    republiques    ou    Btats-Unis    et    France. 

Paris,  1850. 

Shows  continuance  of  interest  in  American  example  after  con- 
stitution-making period. 

5.  Works  on  the  United  States 

Beaumont,  G.  de  and  Tocqueville,  A.  de.    Systeme  penitentiare  aux 

£tats-Unis  et  de  son  application  en  France.     Paris,  1831;  3rd 

ed.  1845. 
Chevalier,  Michel.    Lettres  sur  I'Amerique  du  Nord.    Paris,  1836; 

2ndi  ed.  1837. 

Histoire  et  description  des  voies  de  commmiication  aux  £tats- 

Unis.    Paris,  1840-41.    2  vols. 
Courmont,  F.  de.    Des  £tats-Unis,  de  la  guerre  du  Mexique  et  de 

Vile  de  Cube.    Paris,  1847. 
Farcy,  Charles.     Etudes  politiques.     De  I'aristocratie  anglaise,  de 


531  ]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  353 

la   democratie   americaine,   et   de    la   liheralite   des   institutions 

franqaises.    Paris,  1842. 

Violent  disapproval  from  standpoint  of  Guizot  Orleanist  before 

the  revolution. 
Guizot.     Washington,  Etude  historique.     Paris,  1839. 
Murat,   Achille.     Esquisses  morales  et  politiques  des  £tats-Unis 

de  VAmerique  du  Nord.     Paris,  1832. 
Poussin,  G.  T.    Considerations  sur  le  principe   democratique   qui 

regit  I' union  americaine.     Paris,  1841. 

De  la  puissance  americaine.    3rd  ed.,  enlarged.     Paris,  1848. 

Travaux  d' ameliorations  interieures,  projetes  . . .  par  le  gouverne- 

ment  general  des  &tats-Unis  d'Amerique  de  1824  a  183 1.    Paris, 

1834. 
Tocqueville,  A.  de.     La  Democratie   en  Amerique.     Paris,    1835, 
3  vols. 
A  tenth  edition  published  in  1848. 

6.  Collections  of  documents 

Archives  Nationales.  Cartons  6620299-320  contain  a  mass  of 
printed  and  unprinted  matter  relative  to  1848,  including  reports, 
petitions,  addresses,  letters,  etc.,  mostly  of  little  value. 

Anonymous.    Les  Affiches  rouges.    Paris,  1851. 
Les  Murailles  revolutionnaires  de  1848.     Paris,  1867. 
Two  collections  of  revolutionary  posters. 

7.  Miscellaneous 

Jefferson,   Thomas.     Writings.     (Ford   ed.)     New  York,    1892-99. 

10  vols. 
Lowell,  J.  R.    Biglow  Papers,  First  Series.    Many  editions. 
Moses,  Myer.    Full  Annals  of  the  Revolution  in  France,  1830.     To 

which  is  added,  A  Full  Account  of  the  Celebration  of  said  Revo- 

lution  in  the  City  of  New  York,  on  the  25th  November,  1830; 

Being  the  Forty-seventh  Anniversary  of  an  event  that  restored 

our  citisens  to  their  homes,  and  to  the  enjoyment  of  their  rights 

and  liberties.    New  York,  1830. 
Thomas,  Emile.    Histoire  des  ateliers  nationaux.     Paris,  1848. 

(Marriot  ed.  Oxford,  1913). 
Tocqueville,  A.  de.    Correspondance.    Vols.  5-7  of  Oeuvres  com' 

pletes.     Paris,    1866. 

B. — Secondary  Works 

I.  Memoirs  and  histories  by  contemporaries 

Babaud-Laribiere,  L.  Histoire  de  VAssemblee  nationale  consti- 
tuante.    Paris,  1850.    2  vols. 


354  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [^22 

Barante,  Baron  de.     "Apres  la  revolution  de  fevrier."     In  La  Revue 

de  Paris,  vol.  iii,  pp.  30^335,  539-568.    Paris,  1899. 
Barrot,  Odilon.    Mimoires  posthu'mes.    Paris,  1875.    4  vols. 
Beaumont-Vassy,   Vicomte   de.     Histoire  de   mon   temps,  1830-51. 

1st  series,  vol.  4.     Paris,  1858. 
Blanc,   Louis.     Histoire   de   la  revolution   de    1848.     Paris,    1870. 

2  vols. 
Carnot,     Hippolyte.     Memorial    d\     Bibliothdque    de    la    society 

d'histoire  de  la  revolution  de  1848,  vol.  viii. 
Castille,  H.    Histoire  de  la  seconde  republique  frangaise.     Paris, 

1855.    4  vols. 
Chase,    Lucien    B.     History    of   the   Polk    Administration.     New- 
York,  1850. 
Chassin,  Ch,  L.    Felicien.    Souvenirs  d'un  etudiant  de  '48.     Paris, 

1904. 
Corkran,   J.    F.     History   of   the   National   Constituent   Assembly. 

New  York,  1849. 
Gamier-Pages.    Histoire   de   la   revolution   de   1848.     Paris,    1866. 

8  vols. 
Guizot.    Memoires  pour  servir  d  I'histoire  de  mon  temps.    Paris, 

1875.    9  vols. 
Laboulaye,    E.     Histoire    politique    des    £tats-Unis    (1620- 1789). 

Paris,  1855-66.    3  vols. 
Lamartine.     Histoire  de   la   revolution   de   1848.     Brussels,    1849. 

2  vols. 
Marx,    Karl.     Der   Achtzehnte    Brumaire    des   Louis   Bonaparte. 

Hamburg,  1869. 

Published  originally  in  Die  Revolution,  a  New  York  monthly, 

in  1852. 

The  history  of  the  second  republic,  viewed  as  a  contest  of  classes. 
Mitchell,  Donald  G.     The  Battle  Summer.    New  York,  1850. 
Normanby,  Marquis  of.    A   Year  of  Revolution;  from  a  journal 

kept  in  Paris  in  1848.    London,  1857.    2  vols. 
Quentin-Bauchart.    Etudes  et  souvenirs  sur  la  deuxihne  republique 

et  le  second  empire.     Paris,  1901. 
Remusat,  Charles  de.    Politique  liberale.     Paris,  i860. 
Rush,  iRichard.     Occasional  Productions,  Political,  Diplomatic  and 

Miscellaneous.    Including  among  others,  a  glance  at  the  court 

and  government  of  Louis  Philippe  and  the  French  Revolution 

of  1848.    Philadelphia,  i860. 
Stein,  Lorenz.     Geschichte  der  sozialen  Bewegung  in  Frankreich. 

Leipzig,  1850.    3  vols. 
Stern,   Daniel.     Histoire   de   la  revolution   de   1848.      Paris,    1878. 

2  vols. 
Tocqueville,  A.  de.    Souvenirs.     Paris,  1893. 


5-33]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  355 

2.  Later  works 

Berton,  H.     ''La  constitution  de  1848"  in  Annales  de  fecole  libre 

des  sciences  politiques,  vol.  12,  pp.  673-712;  vol.  13,  pp.  343-374. 
Bourne,  H.  E.    "American  constitutional  precedents  in  the  French 

National   Assembly"    in    American    Historical   Review,    vol.    8, 

pp.  466-486. 
Chaboseau,  A.    *'  Les  constituants  de  1848 "  in  La  Revolution  de 

1848,  vol.  7,  pp.  287-305,  413-425 ;  vol.  8,  pp.  67-80. 
I>odd,  W.  E.    Expansion  and  Conflict  (Riverside  Hist,  of  U.  S., 

vol.  3).    Boston,   1915. 
Dolleans,  E.    Robert  Owen.    Paris,  1907. 
d'Eichthal,  Eugene.    Alexis  de  Tocqueville,  et  la  democratie  liberale. 

Etude  siiivi  de  fragments  dcs  entretiens  de   Tocqueville  avec 

Nassau  William  Senior  (1848- 1858).     Paris,  1897. 
Foville,    A.    de.     La    Transformation    des    moyens   de    transport. 

Paris,   1880. 
Ham  el,  E.    Histoire  de  France  depuis  la  revolution  jusqu'  a  la 

chute  du  Second  Empire.     Paris,  1883-93.     10  vols. 
Helie,  F.  A.    Les  Constitutions  de  la  France.     Paris,  1875. 
La   Gorce,   P.   de.    Histoire   de   la   seconde   republique  fran^aise. 

Paris,  1898.    2  vols. 
Levasseur,  E.    Histoire  des  classes  ouvrieres  et  de  findustrie  en 

France  de  1789  a  i860  (ist  ed.  1867).     Paris,  1903.    2  vols. 
McMaster,  J.  B.    History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States  from 

the  Revolution  to  the  Civil  War.  New  York,  1885- 1913.  8  vols. 
Marcel,  R.  P.  Essai  politique  sur  Alexis  de  Tocqueville.  Paris,  1910. 
Michel,  H.    "Note  sur  la  constitution  de  1848"  in  La  Revolution 

de  1848,  vol.  I,  pp.  41-56. 
Miiller,  Wilhelm.  Political  History  of  Recent  Times.  New  York,  1882. 

Translation  of  Politische  GescJiichte  der  neuesten  Zeit. 
Pierre,  V.    Histoire  de   la  republique  de  1848.     Paris,    1873-1878. 

2  vols. 
Rammelkamp,  C.  H.    "  The  French  Constitution  of   1791  and  the 

United  States  Constitution;   a  Comparison"  in  South  Atlantic 

Quarterly.    Vol.  2,  p.  56,  et  seq. 
Renard,  Georges.    La  Republique  de  1848.     Paris,  1906. 

Vol.  ix  of  L'Histoire  socialiste,  Jean  Jaures  ed. 
Rhodes,  J.  F.    History  of  the  United  States  from  the  compromise 

of  1850  to  the  fttml  restoration  of  home  rule  at  the  South  in 

1877.    New  York,  1893- 1906.    7  vols. 
Richardson,  James  D.    A  Compilation  of  the  Messages  and  Papers 

of  the  Presidents.    Washington,  1897.     10  vols. 
Rittiez,  F.    Histoire  du  gouvernement  provisoire  de  1848.    Paris, 

1866.    2  vols. 


356  BIBLIOGRAPHY  [c^. 

Rosenthal,  Lewis.    America  and  France:  influence  of  the  United 

States  on  France  in  the  i8th  century.    New  York,  1882. 
Seignobos,   Ch.    "  Histoire  politique   de  la  France  contemporainc 

depuis   1848"  in  Revue  des  cours  et  conferences,   Nov.   1907- 

July,  1908. 
Histoire  politique  de  I'Europe  contemporaine.     Paris,  1897. 
iSpuller,    E.     Histoire   parlementaire    de    la    second e    republique. 

Paris,  1891. 
Tchernoff,  J.    Le  parti  republicain  sous  la  monarchie  de  juillet. 

Paris,  1901. 
Von  Hoist,  H.    John  C.  Calhoun.    Boston,  1884. 
Wassermann,  Suzanne.    Les  Clubs  de  Barbes  et  de  Blanqui  en  1848. 

{Bibliotheque  d'histoire  moderne,  fascicule  jrn).     Paris,  1913. 
Weill,  G.    Histoire  du  parti  republicain  en  France  de  1814  a  18/0. 

Paris,  1900. 

C. — Bibliographies  and  Works  of  Reference 

I.  Bibliographies 

Bibliographie  de  la  France;  journal  general  de  Vimprimerie  et  de 
la  librairie:  ist  series,  1811-1856;  2nd  series,  1857-present. 

Briere  et  Caron.  Repertoire  de  I'histoire  moderne  de  la  France. 
Paris,  1898- 1903  incl. 

Hiatus  till  1910,  being  covered  by  two  volumes  in  preparation. 
Continued  by  Caron  et  Burnand,  Repertoire,  1910-1912.  For 
subsequently  published  works,  cf.  Revue  d'histoire  moderne,  and 
its  annual  Repertoire  methodique.  Cf.  also  La  Revolution  de 
1848,  published  every  two  months  since  1904  by  the  Societe  de 
la  Revolution  de  1848,  under  editorship  of  G.  Renard. 

Caron,  P.  Bibliographie  des  travaux  publics  de  1866  d,  i8gy  sur 
I'histoire  de  la  France  depuis  1789.     Paris,  19 12. 

Caron,  P.  "  Les  sources  manuscrites  parisiennes  de  I'histoire  de 
la  revolution  de  1848  et  de  la  deuxieme  republique"  in  Revue 
d'histoire  moderne  et  contemporaine,  vol.  6,  pp.  85-119. 

Catalogue  de  I'histoire  de  France.  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Paris. 
Vols.  4,  7  and  11   (suppl.). 

Larned,  J.  N.  The  Literature  of  American  History  (Am.  Lib. 
Assoc.  Annotated  Lists).     Boston,  1902. 

Le  Soudier.  Bibliographie  fran^aise.  ist  series,  catalogues  of 
French  pubhshers  to  1900;  2nd  series,  1900-1909. 

Lorenz,  O.  Catalogue  general  de  la  librarie  frangaise,  esp.  vol.  7. 
1840-1912;  monthly  supplements,  1912-1915. 

Poole's  Index  to  Periodical  Literature,  esp.  vol.  i. 


535]  BIBLIOGRAPHY  357 

2.  Lists  of  newspapers 

Hatin,    E.     Bibliographie    historique    et    critique    de    la    presse 

periodique  frangaise.    Paris,  1866, 
Histoire  politique   et  litteraire  de  la  presse  en  France.     8  vols. 

Paris,  1859- 1861. 
Izambard,  H.    La  presse  parisienne.    Paris,  1853, 

3.  Biographies  of  representatives 

Alhoy,  M.  Biographic  parlementaire  des  representants  du  peuple 
a  I'assemhlee  nationale  constituante  de  1848.    Paris,  1848. 

Dictionnaire   des    partem entaires   frangais,    comprenant    tous    les 
membres  des  assemhlees  frangaises  et  tous  les  ministres  frangais 
depuis  le  i^^  mai  lySg  jusqu'au  i^  mai  1889. 
Adolphe   'Robert,    Edgar    Bourloton,    Gaston    Cougny,    editors. 
Paris,  1891.    5  vols. 

Lesaulnier,  C.  M.  Biographie  des  900  deputes  a  I'assemhlee  na- 
tionale par  ordre  alphabetique  de  dipartements.    Paris,  1848. 

Biographie  des  representants  du  peuple  a  I'assemhlee  nationale  con- 
stituante, avec  un  tableau  des  deputations  par  dipartements.  Par 
les  redacteurs  de  Notre  Histoire.     Paris,  1848. 

4.  Miscellaneous. 

Almanach  nationale.    Paris,  1848. 

Assemblee  nationale   constituante.    Impressions.    Projets  de   lots, 

propositions,  rapports,  etc.     Paris,    1849.     16  vols,  in  8vo,   and 

5  vols,  in  4°. 
Carrey,  E.    Recueil  des  actes  du  gouvernement  provisoire  de  1848. 

Paris,  1848. 
La  Grande  Encyclopedic.    Paris,  1886-1903.    31  vols. 


VITA 

Eugene  Newton  Curtis  was  born  at  White  Plains, 
New  York,  June  23,  1880.  He  graduated  at  Phillips  Acad- 
emy, Andover,  in  1897,  and  received  the  degrees  of  B.A.  at 
Yale  in  1901,  M.A.  at  Harvard  1904,  and  B.D.  at  the  Epis- 
copal Theological  School,  Cambridge,  in  the  same  year. 
From  the  fall  of  191 2  to  the  spring  of  19 14  he  studied  at 
the  Sorbonne,  and  from  April  to  July,  1914,  at  the  Uuni- 
versity  of  Munich.  During  1914-15  he  studied  at  Columbia, 
attending  the  lectures  of  Professors  Robinson,  Shotwell, 
Beard  and  Seager  and  the  seminar  of  Professor  Shotwell. 
He  was  Instructor  in  History  at  the  University  of  Wis- 
consin, 191 5-1 7.  He  is  now  Assistant  Professor  of  History 
at  Goucher  College. 

359 


JN  Curtis,   Eugene  Newton 

2539  The  French  Assembly  of 

C8  18ii8 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY