CHAPTER I.

THE CONSULATE, 1799-1804.

The law of 19 Brumaire served as a Constitution from November 11 to December 25, 1799. The “Consuls of the French Republic, Sieyès, Roger Ducos, and Bonaparte, formed an “executive Consular Commission invested with the full powers of the Directory.” They governed collectively; all three enjoyed equal powers, Bonaparte ranking no higher than his colleagues; and they were to assume the presidency in turn and in alphabetical order. Thus the Provisional Consulate was nothing else, to employ Aulard’s expression, than a “Directory reduced to three members”. The Consuls reorganised the Ministry; they retained Cambacérès as Minister of Justice, and Fouché as Minister of Police; they appointed Gaudin to the Ministry of Finance, Beithier to that of War, and Talleyrand to that of Foreign Affairs. Maret acted as Secretary to the Consulate. It devolved on the two intermediate Commissions, those of the Council of Five Hundred and the Council of the Ancients, to embody in laws “the resolutions laid before them definitely and obligatorily by the executive Consular Commission for dealing with all urgent matters of police, legislation, and finance.” These bodies met in the former meeting-places of the two assemblies and held regular sittings, to which the public were not admitted. Such was the organisation of the provisional consular government.

The Consuls aimed solely at avoiding disturbances; and, as they were most careful not to offend anyone, and at the same time to remain independent, their policy wore the appearance of liberalism. By their proclamation of November 12, in which the Consuls swore “to be faithful to the Republic, one and indivisible, founded on equality, liberty, and the representative system”, they reassured the republicans. On the other hand they procured (November 13) the repeal of the revolutionary Law of Hostages (of 24 Messidor, year VII, or July 12, 1799) which threatened the relatives of émigrés, ci-devant nobles, and persons notoriously opposed to the Revolution. Moreover, the coup d’état having been organised with a view to thwarting the plans of the Jacobins, some sixty citizens, conspicuous for their advanced views, were condemned on November 17, some to transportation to French Guiana, and some to detention in the Charente Inférieure under the observation of the police. In the end, however, no one was punished; for the sentence of transportation was commuted for detention on November 25 and the sentence of detention was annulled on December 26. In order to “enlighten citizens in all parts of the Republic as to the causes and the true object of the transactions of 18 and 19 Brumaire”, the Consuls sent delegates into the departments, one for each of the 24 military districts. These delegates displaced such officials as were hostile or undeserving, but otherwise exercised no executive authority. Finally, on the day of their last sitting (December 24), the Commissioners passed a law empowering the Government to authorise the return to France of “every proscribed person who had been condemned by name to deportation without trial and by a simple act of the Legislature.”

But it was not enough to keep public opinion quiet; the Government was confronted by want of funds. It is said that, when Gaudin took over the Ministry of Finance, not more than 167,000 francs (£6680) in cash remained in the treasury. Gaudin, however, had worked in the Finance Department since his nineteenth year (he was born in 1756); and his skill, experience, honesty, industry, and adaptability secured him the possession of his portfolio until 1814. He contrived in the first place to provide for immediate necessities. In conjunction with Bonaparte he obtained (November 24) an advance from the Paris bankers, and supplemented it by an extraordinary lottery; at the same time he reorganised with a master-hand the administration of the direct taxes, which then formed the principal resource of the State. The law of November 24 created in each department an office for the collection of the direct taxes, under the control of the Ministry of Finance. The administration thus created speedily wiped out the enormous arrears left by the local officials of the Revolution in regard to the drawing-up of tax-rolls. The current price of government annuities (tiers consolidé à 5 per cent ) marks the improvement effected. It had fallen to 7 francs in 1799; but the price rose steadily after Brumaire, and reached 44 francs in 1800.

In the west the work of pacification had begun before 18 Brumaire, and proceeded, at first, independently of the political changes which had occurred in Paris. The Chouans had again taken up arms in 1799. The royalist forces were divided into six principal bodies. Suzannet and d’Autichamp were in Lower Poitou and the Vendée; Châtillon and d’Andigné commanded in Anjou against Nantes; Bourmont in Maine kept watch on Le Mans; La Prévalaye lay in Upper Britanny round Fougères; in the Morbihan, Georges Cadoudal lay near Vannes; while in Normandy Frotté and Bruslart had carried on the campaign without any great success, though without disaster. With a view to resisting the royalists, the Directory had given the command of the “Army of England” (as the forces operating in the western departments were still called) to General d’Hédouville. The choice was an excellent one. D’Hédouville had been the friend and the chief assistant of Hoche during the first pacification of the west, and had a thorough knowledge of the men and conditions to be dealt with, and the best way of dealing with them. He fixed his headquarters at Angers on November 3,1799, and, instead of fighting, opened negotiations. Hostilities were suspended; and the existing armistice was confirmed by a proclamation of d’Hédouville on November 24. The royalist chiefs, satisfied as to the pacific intentions of the General, met for consultation at Pouancé on December 9. The tidings which were received of the general course of the war were far from encouraging; and Monsieur (the Comte d’Artois, brother of the King), whose presence was expected, did not appear. The meeting therefore almost unanimously declared for peace. The armistice was regulated and extended to January 21, 1800; a plan for a general pacification was submitted to d’Hédouville on December 23; and d’Andigné was deputed to discuss its terms with the authorities in Paris.

It was now necessary to determine the form of government. The law of 19 Brumaire had not abolished the Directorial Constitution. The Legislative Body merely stood adjourned to February 20, 1800, and was legally bound to “reassemble at Paris on that date in the buildings allotted to it”. It is true that the two intermediate legislative commissions were “charged with the task of formulating the necessary organic changes in the Constitution”; and in this matter the initiative rested with them. The Executive Consular Commission might “lay before them its views on the matter”; but there was no question of “a definite and obligatory proposal”. Thus the men of Brumaire themselves admitted that the Legislative Body, immediately on its reassembling, should, of its own authority, carry through the revision of the Directorial Constitution : this was the very end for which it had been purged. But things fell out otherwise; and the most important work of the Provisional Consulate was the framing of a new Constitution.

Each of the intermediate Commissions appointed a “section” to examine proposals relating to the Constitution; and the sections consulted Siéyès. Nothing could be more natural, since from the beginning of the Revolution Siéyès had enjoyed the reputation of a philosopher and a political thinker. Many of his phrases had lived; he was, even more than Bonaparte, the leader of the men of Brumaire, who had appointed him to the Provisional Consulate. Both his past and his present marked him out as the oracle to be consulted.

So early as November 11 he had begun to disclose his opinions on the subject of a Constitution, his confidant being Boulay de la Meurthe, a member of the constitutional section of the Intermediate Commission of the Five Hundred. Sieyès began with aphorisms : “Crude democracy is an absurdity.” It was necessary therefore to organise it. From this followed a twofold principle. “No one should hold office except with the confidence of the governed; and no one should be appointed to office by those he has to govern.” In other words : “Confidence should come from below, authority from above”. Little by little, in fragmentary fashion, Siéyès gave shape to his ideas. The nation was to prepare lists of Notables, out of whom the members of the Assemblies and the officials of the State should be chosen. At the head of the official hierarchy, a Grand Elector, enjoying an annual grant of 5,000,000 francs, was to personify France. The Grand Elector was to appoint the two chiefs of the executive, the Consul for Home Affairs and the Consul for Foreign Affairs; and they in their turn were to appoint their respective agents. The legislative authority was to be entrusted to two bodies, the Tribunate, whose business it was to discuss laws, and the Legislative Body, which voted on them. Behind both these assemblies was the Senate, a body conservative in character, co-opting its own members, and generally supervising the work of the state machinery. The Senate was to appoint the Tribunes, the members of the Legislative Body, and the Grand Elector; if he or any other person seemed likely to become a danger to the Constitution, the Senate was to efface him by absorption, that is to say, by appointing him a senator.

Boulay de la Meurthe, Roederer, and Talleyrand had arranged interviews between Bonaparte and Sieyes; but the two Consuls could not agree. Bonaparte thereupon took to receiving each evening in his rooms at the Luxembourg his two colleagues, the constitutional sections (December 2), and subsequently the members of the Intermediate Commissions. These meetings were in no sense official. There was general discussion; Sieyes propounded his ideas; Bonaparte examined them. “The Grand Elector”, said he, “will be a shadow, the colourless shadow, of a roi fainéant”; and he went on, in a familiar tone, “How can you imagine that a man of any talent or activity would consent to settle down like a pig fattening on so many millions?” This provoked a retort. Roederer pictured a “First Consul” overriding the other two. The destiny of France was bandied about in easy repartee.

After a few days, Daunou, who belonged to the section of the Five Hundred, was requested to draw up, in a series of articles, a résumé which would serve as the basis of a formal discussion. Then the work began again. Bonaparte alternately opposed and approved the respective plans of Sieyes and Daunou, selecting from each what was most in accordance with his own views. His influence grew; he began to speak with authority. On the evening of December 10 the discussion of the clauses relating to the legislative and the executive authorities had been completed; there remained the detailed study of the organisation of the judiciary and the departments, and finally the submission of the whole to the regular deliberations of the two Commissions. But Bonaparte chafed at the delay; it almost made him ill, and he determined to put an end to it. On the evening of December 13 the usual meeting was held in his apartments. He suggested to the members of the commissions that they should affix their signatures to the articles as drawn up; and they consented. It was a drawing-room coup d’état. Bonaparte, Cambacérès, and Lebrun were named Consuls; Sieyès and Roger Ducos were placed at the head of the list of future senators. The Constitution was complete (22 Frimaire, year VIII: December 13, 1799).

The 95 articles of which the Constitution was composed fall under three principal heads: the electoral system, the Assemblies, and the executive. The electoral system was simply that devised by Sieyes under the name of Listes de notabilité. Universal suffrage formed its base. In each “communal district” the electors chose a tenth of their number, this tenth forming the “communal list”; those named on the “communal list” chose in each department a tenth of their own number, who formed the “departmental list”; those again named on the “departmental list” chose a tenth part of their number, who formed the “national list.” From these three lists respectively were selected the public officials of the districts (arrondissements) and the departments, and those destined for the service of the State. As a matter of fact, the lists were not completed till the year IX (September, 1801); and in the interval the composition of the various Assemblies and of the official hierarchy had been settled in its entirety, so that the lists were only useful for the purpose of filling up vacancies. Under this system popular suffrage was rendered completely ineffective.

The Assemblies were four in number; the Conservative Senate, the Legislative Body, the Tribunate, and the Council of State. The Senate chose the Legislators, the Tribunes, and the Consuls from the “national list”; it confirmed or annulled as unconstitutional the measures referred to it by the Tribunate or the Government. The senators were appointed for life, and were irremovable; each received an annual salary of 25,000 francs. They were sixty in number, to begin with ; and two were to be added yearly during ten years, when the maximum number of eighty would be reached. The first two senators nominated (Sieyes and Roger Ducos), in conjunction with the Second and Third Consuls (Cambacérès and Lebrun), were to appoint a majority of the Senate; after which the Senate was to add to its own numbers by cooptation from lists of three candidates, the Legislative Body, the Tribunate, and the First Consul presenting one apiece.

The Government alone could initiate legislation. Treaties, whether of peace, alliance, or commerce, were to be proposed, discussed, passed, and proclaimed in the same manner as legislative enactments. The Budget, in the shape of a yearly financial law, went through the same process. Proposals for legislation and ordinances regulating the public administration were drawn up by the Council of State; but the organisation of the Council of State was left indefinite in the Constitution.

The Tribunate was to discuss projects of law; it could pass or reject them, but it could not amend them; it could state its opinion on laws passed, or to be passed, but the Government was not obliged to take it into account. The Tribunate numbered one hundred; each Tribune received a yearly salary of 15,000 francs. The Legislative Body “made the law”; it heard the three Tribunes and the three Councillors of State, who appeared before it as delegates of their respective bodies, and then gave a secret vote without previous discussion. The Legislators numbered 300, and each of them received 10,000 francs. Both Tribunes and Legislators were nominated by the Senate from the national list; and a fifth part of their body was to be renewed every year.

To sum up, the power of the legislature was very slight, not only because it was divided between two Chambers, neither of which possessed initiative, while both were hemmed in by the Council of State and the Conservative Senate, but still more because neither legislative body had any popular foundation. The Senate created itself; the Tribunate and the Legislative Body were merely creations of the Senate. On the other hand, the executive power was strongly organised; and all real authority was concentrated in one man.

The executive was entrusted to three Consuls appointed by the Senate for ten years, and always re-eligible. For the first time the Consuls were mentioned by name in the Constitution. The First Consul, Bonaparte, was alone to promulgate laws, and to appoint and dismiss at pleasure all functionaries, whether civil or military; even in regard to other acts of the Government the Second and Third Consuls possessed merely “a consultative voice.” The First Consul received 500,000 francs a year; the Second and Third Consuls received 125,000 francs each; either of these might, if occasion arose, temporarily supply the place of the First Consul; but in point of fact the First Consul alone possessed authority. It is true that no measure of the Government could become effective unless it were signed by a minister, and that the ministers, being responsible, might be prosecuted by order of the Legislative Body on a charge laid by the Tribunate. The Consuls, however, were irresponsible; and no servant of the Government, other than the ministers, could be prosecuted with respect to transactions relating to his office except on the decision of the Council of State. The irresponsibility of the Consuls and the quasi­ irresponsibility of the various functionaries nullified ministerial responsibility both from above and from below. The checks imposed by the Constitution on the First Consul were purely illusory.

That the Constitution was drawn up in great haste is plain from the irregular order of the concluding clauses and from certain remarkable omissions. The communal district (arrondissement) is not defined; the organisation of the judiciary is barely outlined; and the organisation of the departments is not indicated at all. A clause framed with dangerous vagueness places “local administration” under the control of the ministers.

No machinery is provided for filling vacancies in the Legislative Body and the Tribunate. True, the Constitution guaranteed the rights of those persons who had acquired national property, and confirmed existing legislation against the émigrés, but, contrary to the custom of the Revolution, it made no declaration of principles, and it was silent as to liberty of the press, liberty of meeting, liberty of association, and liberty of conscience. By its omissions no less than by its positive enactments the Constitution tended towards an undivided despotism.

The last clause of that document stated that the Constitution should forthwith be offered for acceptance by the French people. The law of December 14, supplemented by the Consular decree of December 15, regulated the arrangements for the plébiscite. The voting was not secret. The poll in each commune was to continue for three days from the date of arrival of the necessary instrument at the chief town of the canton. In consequence of this provision, the taking of the plébiscite lasted, in the departments, till nearly the end of January.

The period of waiting seemed long to politicians in the capital. Only five men were actually in office: those, namely, who had been mentioned by name in the Constitution—the three former provisional Consuls and the two new Consuls. Bonaparte had shown great judgment in his choice of the two latter. Cambacérès was a native of the South; cautious and subtle, he had been a member of the Convention, and was rightly regarded as an able lawyer. He justified the confidence which Bonaparte placed in him, and proved himself a skilful, cool­headed, and sound adviser. If he did nothing to prevent Bonaparte from becoming a despot, if he even aided him to become one, he succeeded in sometimes tempering the eccentricities and harshness of his master, at any rate in matters of detail. Lebrun was thirty years older than Bonaparte; he was a Norman, phlegmatic and cunning, and was believed to be still at heart a royalist. It was possibly for this very reason that Bonaparte chose him, in the hope that his example would win over the waverers; for Lebrun was by no means a well-known man, and had played no prominent part during the Revolution. His name was the first on the list of the Intermediate Commission of the Council of Ancients, and he was said to possess literary talent and some knowledge of finance; but he never showed any disposition to take the lead.

Thus, while a few of the men of Brumaire had made their fortunes, the rest were still kept waiting. Once again Bonaparte resolved to force the pace; and he was the more inclined to this, since the information received as to the result of the plébiscite was encouraging. A law passed by the Intermediate Commissions on December 23 provided that the new Constitution should come into force two days later (4 Nivôse, year VIII), in other words, on Christmas Day. Bonaparte intentionally chose the date of a great Christian festival for the inauguration of his government.

Siéyès and Roger Ducos, in conjunction with Cambacérès and Lebrun, had already drafted the list of the first senators; they settled it definitely on the evening of December 24. The Senate filled up its own number on the following day, and proceeded forthwith to nominate the members of the Tribunate and the Legislative Body. Bonaparte interfered little in these appointments, which were made chiefly under the influence of Sieyès and in a sufficiently liberal spirit. The Senate was reserved for distinguished men, and included several men of science and philosophers who had served the Revolution as members of public bodies or by their works, and several former ministers and members of the various revolutionary assemblies. Similarly, 65 former members of the Councils of Five Hundred and of the Ancients were included in the Tribunate, and 230 in the Legislative Body. As was fitting, orators and men of letters, speakers and writers, were appointed to the Tribunate; less well-known deputies, with some miscellaneous celebrities, composed the Legislative Body. The appointments were made with a view to the task which the Constitution assigned to each body. The Senate, the Legislative Body, and the Tribunate were fairly representative of the surviving politicians of the Revolution. By this time, however, the men of the Revolution no longer formed the only party in France ; they were confronted by the group encircling Bonaparte—the Councillors of State and the heads of the bureaucracy.

The ordinance of 5 Nivôse, year VIII (December 26,1799), defined the powers and the composition of the Council of State, as to which the Constitution had been silent. Two days before (December 24) the councillors had been appointed by the First Consul, and they had been installed on the day when the Constitution was inaugurated (December 25). Their maximum number was forty, which was raised to fifty by the Senatus Consultum of 16 Thermidor, year X (August 4, 1802); but in point of fact it never exceeded forty-five. It included former revolu­tionaries of every section, generals, admirals, lawyers, administrators who had held office before the Revolution, former exiles and former nobles—all men of high attainments, energy, and ability.

They were divided into five sections—those of finance, civil and criminal legislation, war, admiralty, and home affairs—with a president at the head of each. Locre acted as General Secretary. Questions were first discussed in “sections,” afterwards in a general meeting under the presidency of the First Consul. Each councillor received a yearly salary of 25,000 francs. The ministers, who at the outset could only attend the Council for the purpose of consultation, had, after 1802, the right to scats in the Council according to their rank, and took part in its deliberations. Certain high functionaries, such as Frochot, Prefect of the Seine, and Dubois, Prefect of Police, enjoyed the same rights.

The activity of the Council of State, which at the outset was considerable, went on increasing from year to year. The number of subjects discussed in general meetings rose from 911 in 1800 to 3,365 in 1804. In short, the control exercised by the Council was all-embracing. To be more precise, the subjects coming under the purview of the Council may be classified under six principal heads; the drafting of codes, laws, and Consular decrees; the drawing-up of ordinances relating to the public administration; the interpretation of statutes by means of opinions given on points stated by the Government; the settlement of administrative disputes; the consideration of demands for the prosecution of functionaries other than ministers, for acts done in their official capacity ; and finally an appellate jurisdiction as a “Court of Redress” (appel comme d’abus) in pursuance of the articles organiques of 18 Germinal, year X (April 8, 1802). In short, the Council of State was at once an administrative body comprising the heads of all the great departments, a quasi-legislative body, and a judicial body with special powers. It filled the place of a tribunal, a Chamber, and a council of ministers, and was responsible to the First Consul alone.

The Council or its sections met daily. At certain times Bonaparte summoned general meetings at the Tuileries almost every evening. On these occasions Bonaparte was, as it were, en famille. When the discussion turned on questions which related neither to the personal aims of the First Consul nor to his secret schemes for a dictatorship, everyone spoke his mind freely. Bonaparte himself set the example; and his “opinions in council” are amongst the most striking testimonies of his astonishing genius for organisation.

Simultaneously with the installation of the Council of State, Bonaparte was occupied with the reconstruction of the ministry. Cambacérès, who had become Second Consul, was replaced by Abrial as Minister of Justice; while Lucien Bonaparte became Minister of the Interior. Of those who had held office before 18 Brumaire, Fouché alone retained his place, as Minister of Police. Important ministerial changes followed shortly after. The chemist Chaptal succeeded Lucien Bonaparte (January 21, 1801); Decrès became Minister of the Navy (October 3, 1801); Barbé-Marbois became the first Minister of the Public Treasury (September 21, 1801), and Dejean the first Minister of Military Affairs ( administration de la guerre) March 21, 1802. Finally, Régnier replaced Abrial with the title of “Chief Judge and Minister of Justice” (September 14, 1802). The list of portfolios and of their holders under the Consulate was now complete. There were in all ten ministerial departments: foreign affairs, war, military affairs, navy and colonies, finance, the treasury, justice, home affairs, police, and the office of Secretary of State.

The fear that his ministers might grow too important was ever present in Bonaparte’s mind. He never summoned them to deliberate in common, but communicated his orders to them or worked with one of them apart from the rest. We have seen that originally the ministers had merely a consultative voice in the Council of State, and that, under the Constitution, they alone of all functionaries were responsible for their acts. These precautions were, however, insufficient to satisfy Bonaparte. Owing to the nature of their duties, five of the ministers might have gradually assumed a dominant position, viz. the Ministers of War, Finance, the Interior, and Police, and the Secretary of State. It is unnecessary to dwell on the importance that might have attached to the Ministers of War and Finance in the France of that period. The Minister of the Interior wielded a very wide authority; matters relating to public order, local administration, public works, education, relief of the poor, religion, agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, fell within his province. Still less definite and more formidable were the powers of the Minister of Police. Ubiquitous and irresponsible, his eye was everywhere; if a plot were to be denounced, he denounced it; if, as sometimes happened, one were to be invented, he invented it. Finally, every document emanating from the First Consul and all reports addressed to the First Consul passed through the hands of the Secretary of State. He moved about with Bonaparte, received directly from him his curt commands, put them into official language, and countersigned them. His office raised him above the rest; but Bonaparte would not hear of a prime minister, and took his measures accordingly.

In the first place, he was most careful in his choice of men. Berthier, an admirable minister and in the field an excellent Chief of the Staff, was helpless without a leader. “If you leave him to himself”, said Bonaparte, “he is not capable of commanding a battalion”. Maret was, as someone said, “a civilian Berthier”; and he only used his influence to secure the most lucrative places for his relations and friends. Gaudin’s subserviency we have already had occasion to notice. Two men alone eluded their master’s domination—the mysterious Fouché, and, in another department, Talleyrand.

In the second place, Bonaparte lessened the importance of the principal ministries by dividing their functions between two holders, a measure analogous to that which weakened the legislative authority by distributing it amongst several bodies. It was not only with a view to improving the administration, but also for a political purpose, that, by the side of the Ministry of Finance, a Ministry of the Public Treasury was created: the first to deal with income—“foresight without action”; the second with expenditure—“action without foresight”—a plan which resulted in incessant disputes between the two departments. In like manner, by the side of the Ministry of War was placed the Ministry of Military Affairs; beside the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of the General Police (created on January 2, 1796); beside the Ministry of General Police, the Prefecture of Police in Paris (March 8 and July 1, 1800). The last-named magistrate controlled the police of Paris and of the department of the Seine, and at the same time, in conjunction with the Prefect of the Seine, took an active part in the municipal administration. He was subordinate to the Minister of General Police, but only in his capacity as a police official; and his semi-independence, the importance of his distinct, and the personal rivalry between Dubois and Fouché, rendered the Prefecture a counterpoise to the Ministry of Police.

Finally Bonaparte established, within the principal ministries them­selves and with the view of still further diminishing their importance, independent bodies, temporary or permanent according to their functions, which, under the name of General Boards (Directions Générales), were almost always entrusted to Councillors of State. The system of General Boards was one of the original features of the Napoleonic system. It often contributed to the rapid transaction of business; from a political point of view, it in a manner legalised the assumption of executive power by the Council of State to the detriment of ministerial authority.

While the appointments to the various political and governmental offices were thus being completed, the work of the plébiscite was proceeding but slowly. In a proclamation issued in view of this event (December 15), Bonaparte had formulated in remarkable language the principles of the new Constitution. “The authorities which the Constitution creates are strong and stable, competent in all respects to guarantee the rights of the citizen and the interests of the State. Citizens! the Revolution has remained faithful to the principles from which it sprang. It is now at an end”. Bonaparte moreover, when he became First Consul, took care to mark his accession to power by a series of measures calculated to prove, in a striking fashion, that a new era of harmony and peace had dawned for France. On December 26, 1799, he despatched a letter to the King of England advocating peace; and, by an application of the law of December 24, he authorised the return to France of forty proscribed persons belonging to the Moderate party or to the Mountain. On December 27 the Council of State, pronouncing for the first time a formal “opinion,” declared that the Constitution had revoked by implication the enactments which excluded the ci-devant nobility and relations of emigres from public office. On December 28 a consular decree substituted for the oath hitherto imposed on functionaries and ministers of religion a simple declaration of fidelity to the Constitution. New Year’s Day, 1800, was, with revived respect for the Christian calendar, fixed for the opening of the legislative session. The plebiscite closed with a general sense of reconciliation, of weariness, and of peace. The result was proclaimed on February 18; the Constitution was adopted by 3,011,007 votes against 1,526.

Local administration had still to be organised. The law of 28 Pluviôse, year VIII (February 17, 1800), was the last of the series of great organic enactments which marked the beginning of the Consulate and supplied what was lacking in the Constitution. It forms the basis of the French administrative system to the present day.

As we remember, the Constitution omitted to define the communal arrondissements. It was a question whether the cantonal municipalities of the Directory should be retained under this name. The law in question decided the matter by grouping the 6000 or 7000 cantons of the Republic in 398 communal arrondissements. At one end of the scale, the system of division into departments was preserved; at the other, there reappeared the 36,000 to 40,000 communes (cities, towns, and villages) of former days. Had these communes been grouped together in cantonal municipalities, the spirit of local self-government might have been developed; divided amongst 40,000 petty units it could not fail to die out. This was precisely the end in view ; the administration was destined to pass altogether from the inhabitants themselves to the central authority. When introducing the law of 28 Pluviôse before the Legislative Body, Roederer pointed out three distinct activities which it was intended to direct: (1) the administration properly so-called; (2) official decisions on points relating to taxation, involving the distribution of assessments as between groups and individuals; (3) the decision of litigated points in dispute in all departments of administration. According to him, “to administer is the business of one man, to judge is the business of several”.

The duty, then, of administration was “confided to a single magistrate in each administrative division,” viz. to the prefect in the department, to the sub-prefect in the district (arrondissement), and to the mayor and his assistants in the commune. The assessment of the direct taxes was to be adjusted as between the districts by the council of that department, and as between the communes by the council of the district. The General Councils and the District Councils could initiate proposals; they voted the additions to the direct taxation necessary to meet the special needs of their respective areas; and they supervised the expenditure of these funds by the local officials. In the cities, towns, and villages, Municipal Councils were to assist the mayor and his coadjutors in “settling the domestic affairs of the community”, to audit and criticise the municipal accounts, to "consider questions relating to the administration of the property and estates of the commune, loans, octrois, and additional taxes. The mayor and his coadjutors kept the public registers and supervised the local police, in conjunction with commissioners of police in towns of more than 5000 inhabitants, and with commissioners general of police in towns of more than 100,000 inhabitants. Finally, the power of deciding matters in litigation throughout the department was entrusted to the council of the prefecture, the prefect acting as president and having a casting vote.

All the appointments to posts in the administration and in the judiciary were made by the First Consul or by the prefect from the Lists of Notability. All autonomy disappeared. Popular election was a thing of the past. The “administration and the administered were brought together”—such was the phrase; but the administration was, in fact, nothing else than the central power, which pressed heavily on the local government. Monarchical centralisation was now more thorough and more burdensome than before 1789.

The first prefects were appointed on March 2; and Bonaparte, as his manner was, chose well. The first generation of his administrative officials consisted, as a rule, of men of a superior type. Bonaparte did not trouble himself to enquire to which party a man had belonged or what was his origin; he appointed former members of revolutionary assemblies, men who had filled posts during the Revolution or even under the monarchy, generals, and (later) members of the nobility; all he required was industry, experience, and obedience. Under the energetic impulse of a picked body of functionaries the local administration worked with an apparent smoothness which hid its defects, with a rapidity often excessive, but with admirable regularity throughout.

On February 19, 1800, two days after the promulgation of the law which completed the equipment of his government, Bonaparte established himself at the Tuileries, the former palace of the Kings of France. On that day Bonaparte took visible possession of power. His political methods were now very different from those he had adopted during the Provisional Consulate. His object was the maintenance of order rather than pacification; and the distinction is important. According to circumstances, he employed in turn repression and indulgence.

In his dealings with the Chouans in the west, Bonaparte had just shown that he was quite ready to employ repression. His patience had been tried by d’Hédouville’s attempts at negotiation; and when (December 27) d’Andigné, accompanied by Hyde de Neuville, one of the leading royalist agents in Paris, came to discuss with Bonaparte the question of peace, the interview ended in acute disagreement. On the following day (December 28) an ordinance and consular proclamation announced that all Chouans who failed to surrender within ten days would be treated as rebels, but it granted an amnesty to those who laid down their arms. Subsequently, on January 8, 1800, at the expiration of the days of grace, still severer measures were decided on. The Army of England became the Army of the West: General Brune was to replace d’Hédouville, and was to quarter his army of 60,000 men in the disaffected districts, and subject the inhabitants to all the miseries of war. On January 16 the Constitution was suspended for three months in the departments of the west; and Brune received powers to make regulations, even to the extent of inflicting the death penalty. Bonaparte’s strong methods took the place of the mild and sagacious treatment of d’Hédouville; and the intention of the Government was to strike hard and quickly, so as to make an end of the matter before beginning the campaign of 1S00 against the Coalition.

D’Hédouville had not despaired of the success of his policy, and was continuing his negotiations: while the Abbé Bernier, the parish priest of St Laud d’Angers, was secretly urging the cause of peace upon the royalist leaders. The amnesty was to expire on January 21. D’Autichamp and Suzannet submitted on the 8th; Châtillon and the royalists of Anjou on the 20th. The process of disarmament began forthwith:, and d’Hédouville conducted it with his habitual prudence and moderation. He had disinterestedly accepted the post of Chief of the Staff to his successor, and he remained at Angers while Brune marched into Britanny in order to commence operations. Brune’s task was an easy one. La Prévalaye surrendered without a blow (January 22): and after some fighting, Bourmont (January 26) and Georges Cadoudal (February 14) submitted in their turn. Organised Chouannerie was at an end

Normandy was within the military authority of General Lefebvre in Paris, whence Generals Gardanne and Chambarlhac, at the head of 10.000 men. were despatched against Frotté (January 291 The latter became aware that the struggle was hopeless, and restrained his adherents from any military movement after February 4. He sent representatives to Alençon to treat with Guidal, the general in command there, who was soon after joined by Chambarlhac. On February 1, Bonaparte declared that Frotté “should surrender at discretion, and that he might count on the generosity of the Government, which was anxious to forget the past and to unite all Frenchmen”. It is not known whether the order and the promise of the First Consul were transmitted to Frotté, or, if they were, in what circumstances: what is certain is, that he surrendered without suspicion at Alençon. There he was arrested with some of his officers and sent forthwith to Paris (February 15). On the way he was met at Verneuil by an order from Lefebvre that he should be tried by court-martial: sentence was pronounced on the 17th; and on the 18th Frotté and his companions were executed.

Several of the royalist leaders came to Paris, some of their number hoping to find in Bonaparte the long-expected restorer of monarchy. Bourmont became the intimate of Fouché, with whom he had natural affinities. Cadoudal obtained an interview with the First Consul (March 5). He was prepared, after a certain delay, and on condition that he should be paid for it, to give his support to the Government. Moreover, while the European war lasted, there was always a possibility that a disaster to the French arms might retrieve the royalist cause. The agents at Paris were already planning fresh schemes, when Fouché got wind of the matter and seized their papers, which were laid before the Council of State (Mav 3). Those members of the party who thought they were compromised sought safety in flight: Cadoudal and Hyde de Neuville escaped to England.

The First Consul dealt with republican opponents as he had dealt with the Chouans—by repression. Immediately upon its assembly, the Tribunate took upon itself to play the part assigned to it by the Constitution. On January 3 Duveyrier, and on January 5 Benjamin Constant, made open allusion to the autocratic tendencies of Bonaparte. A newspaper war followed. Bonaparte, much annoyed, at first took part in it, and attacked his adversaries through the inspired press; then suddenly he cut the matter short. There were 73 political newspapers in circulation at that time in Paris; an ordinance of January 17, 1800, suppressed 60 and forbade the publication of any fresh ones. But more was to follow. On April 5, 1800, Fouché was informed that the Consuls intended to suppress three of the existing journals “unless the proprietors could show their editors to be men of such character and patriotic principles as to be proof against corruption.” One paper only succeeded in furnishing the necessary guarantees; the other two disappeared. In the following month yet another newspaper was suppressed for misbehaviour, so that not more than 11 political journals were left, in addition to the Moniteur, which had become the official organ. A press bureau was in operation at the Ministry of the General Police; and by an order of the First Consul, dated April 5,1800, a theatrical censorship was established at the Ministry of the Interior.

On the other hand, Bonaparte treated with indulgence those who had taken the losing side in the Revolution. The measures passed on November 13, and on December 24, 26, and 27, 1799, restored some peace of mind to the two or three hundred thousand Frenchmen—ci-devant nobles or relations of émigrés—who, under the revolutionary laws, had suffered a species of proscription while still remaining in France; and a few of the proscribed were allowed to return from abroad. But there still remained outside France about 145,000 émigrés, against whom the Constitution maintained in its full force the severity of the Revolution. There could as yet be no question of recalling these exiles; but the law of March 3, 1800, fixed December 25, 1799, as the date for closing the list of émigrés.

The second Italian campaign interrupted Bonaparte’s domestic activity. He set out to join the army on May 6, 1800; Cambacérès took his place during his absence. The victory of Marengo (June 14) was important, not merely from a military point of view, but because it was, in the words of Hyde de Neuville, “the consecration of Napoleon’s personal authority.” It added to his glory and popularity, and, while not raising his ambition, brought it into greater prominence. A pamphlet written by someone in his confidence, probably Fontanes, already compared Napoleon, not to the “villain” Cromwell, or to the “turncoat” Monk, but to Caesar. Bonaparte made haste to return to Paris, and was there at the beginning of July. He feared that, during his absence, both royalists and republicans would reassert themselves, and he wished to make an end of party strife.

Louis XVIII himself had long cherished the hope that Bonaparte would restore the monarchy; and he went so far as to write to him on February 20, 1800. Bonaparte waited till after Marengo, and then sent a plain answer: “Your return is not a thing to be wished for; it could only be made over 100,000 corpses” (September 7). Cadoudal had returned from London to Britanny (June 3); but Chouannerie had degenerated into a form of brigandage similar to that which disturbed the South and certain districts of Central France. A law of February 7, 1801, empowered the Government to establish in the departments, wherever it thought necessary, special tribunals, half civil, half military: these courts were subject to no appeal, and were empowered to inflict every degree of punishment, including capital, in cases of brigandage, incendiarism, seditious assemblage, and attacks on the purchasers of nationalised property. These exceptional courts were of much use in the suppression of brigands and Chouans. Cadoudal returned to England at the close of 1801; the last shot was fired on January 3, 1802. The Army of the West was disbanded on May 21; and the maintenance of order was handed over to the gendarmerie. In Paris the royalists had renounced all thought of action; and their agency confined itself to correspondence and the collection of intelligence. The party seemed to have suffered final defeat.

The republicans were relatively numerous in the Senate, in the Tribunate, and in the Legislative Body; but they had no leaders, no organisation, and no genuine support in the country. “They accepted,” said Fauriel, “the Constitution of the year VIII, as safeguarding the greatest extent of liberty which it was possible to enjoy after the evils and the excesses of the Revolution.” They said, however, that the Republic was doomed. Bonaparte called them idéologues, and they in turn called him an idéophobe. The advanced republicans—“Jacobins”, “enthusiasts”, “anarchists”, “exclusives, and others”—looked back with regret on the democratic institutions of the Revolution; they were few in number, but were reported to be resolute. Bonaparte held them up as a warning to the constitutional republicans. “Do you want me to hand you over to the Jacobins?” he asked. They protested loudly against the idea of any understanding with those “enthusiasts”. Less even than the royalists did the republicans seem to be in a position to offer any serious resistance to Bonaparte.

In keeping watch on both parties alike, the police played an important part, and soon developed into one of the fundamental supports of Bonaparte’s government. Fouché and his agents, Dubois and the Prefecture of Police, were not sufficient. The chief staff of the Paris garrison, the gendarmerie and the agents of the Home Office in the departments, the Post Office officials who opened letters, the innumerable spies and informers in Bonaparte’s pay, all became part of his police. His informers denounced each other and the public. By Bonaparte’s orders everyone was kept under observation except himself; spying and denunciation were universal. This system contributed not a little to lower the tone of public life and of individual character. Constitutional opposition became impossible; Chouannerie had been stamped out; conspiracy offered the only means of contending with Bonaparte. “They conspire in the street; they conspire in the salon” said the ex-deputy Arena; and the remark (adds Desmarest) is characteristic of the time. The police were prepared, on occasion, to organise plots in order to gain credit by denouncing them, and by supplying the Government with opportunities for employing harsh measures with a greater appearance of justice. There can be no doubt that the pretended conspiracy of the Jacobins, Demerville, Arena, Topino-Lebrun, and Ceracchi, who were arrested on October 10, 1800, on the charge of plotting the assassination of the First Consul at the Opera, had been organised by agents of the police. Nevertheless, much was made of it; the parliamentary bodies formally congratulated the First Consul on his happy escape; and the Jacobins were forthwith put on their trial.

On the other hand the royalists conspired, and conspired seriously. On June 19 Cadoudal wrote that the “indispensable blow” was about to be struck at Paris. Of the five or six Chouans despatched to Paris, two only—Limoelan and Saint-Rejant—persisted in the attempt. They were joined by Jean Carbon, who happened to be in the capital. They hid themselves so skilfully that the police lost sight of them, but on December 24 they made their presence felt. On the evening of that day, when Bonaparte was on his way from the Tuileries to the Opera, the conspirators exploded an infernal machine. Many were killed and injured, but Bonaparte himself escaped unhurt.

There was violent indignation. Bonaparte himself, the police who had been taken unawares, the best instructed royalists then at Paris (Bourmont and Hyde de Neuville), vied with each other in accusing the Jacobins. Fouché drew up a list of suspects (January 1, 1801); and the Government framed a decree condemning them to deportation. The Council of State gave its opinion that this decree was in the nature of a formal “order of the State Police”, and that “it was unnecessary to embody it in statutory form”. The Senate was then called upon to rule, by a Senatus Consultum, that this “Order of the Government” was a “measure tending to preserve the Constitution” (January 5). There was some show of resistance; but Sieyes met it by alleging that the welfare of the country was at stake; and the constitutional republicans in the Senate shrank from making common cause with the Jacobins. It was thus, by means of more than doubtful legality, that the first Senatus Consultum was forced through. A hundred and thirty anarchists, Jacobins, and “Septembrists” were, by a precautionary act of government, condemned to deportation. They were forthwith despatched to Nantes, but not more than fifty were deported to the colonies; the rest were allowed to remain under the supervision of the police. The persons implicated in the pretended Opera conspiracy were sent to the guillotine (January 31). The Jacobin party, so far as it can be called a party at all, was disposed of; and the constitutional republicans, who had supported the Consuls in their policy of terror, were reduced to compulsory silence. The police in the end discovered the true authors of the explosion in the Rue St Nicaise. Limoelan succeeded in escaping to America, where he became a Catholic priest; Saint-Réjant and Carbon were taken, condemned (April 6), and executed forthwith (April 21).

Bonaparte’s popularity was increased through the general horror excited by the attempt on his life. It was increased still more by the glory derived from the conclusion of the Treaty of Luneville (February 9, 1801). The main lines of his policy now became clear; his aim was to reconcile the old France with the new, those who had suffered by the Revolution with the Government which had sprung from it. The first steps taken in this direction were the negotiations relating to the Concordat, to be discussed in a later chapter. The treaty with the Pope was signed on July 15, 1801; and the ratifications were exchanged on December 10. A statutory enactment was, however, necessary to render the arrangement binding; and in spite of every effort the measure seemed likely to encounter strenuous opposition in the Tribunate and the Legislative Body. The time had come for the partial renewal of those two bodies; and the method of renewal was not defined by the Constitution, except that twenty Tribunes and sixty Legislators were to retire. Instead of determining the selection by lot, the Senate decided, on January 18, 1802, that it would name by vote the 80 Tribunes and the 240 Legislators who were to continue in office. This was a mere contrivance, designed to facilitate the exclusion of some under pretence of retaining others. The result was that no leader of the Opposition remained a member of the Tribunate. The bodies, thus purged, were convoked in extraordinary session; and the Concordat, together with the Articles Organiques, became the law of 18 Germinal, year X (April 8, 1802). Meanwhile the Peace of Amiens (March 25) had still further enhanced the prestige of the First Consul. A Te Deum was sung at Notre Dame on Easter Day, April 18, 1802, and was attended by the Consular court, in all the pomp of the bygone monarchy. This act appeared to sanction what had occurred, and to reconcile France with the Church.

In order also to reconcile the new France with the old, the Senatus Consultum of April 26, 1802, granted an amnesty in respect of the crime of emigration to all persons “who may be guilty thereof”. The exceptions were not numerous. The decree of October 20, 1800, had authorised the first general exemption in favour of the plebeian émigrés, with their wives and children. The individual exemptions of the ci-devant nobility had been largely added to by reason of the tolerance of the Government and the venality of the police. The Senatus Consultum of April 26 put an end to bargains in detail; it specified the various classes of emigres who were not to profit by the amnesty—recalcitrant leaders of risings against the Republic, persons who had taken office abroad, and a few others; but the total number of those excepted was not to exceed a thousand. The émigrés were required to return before 1 Vendémiaire, year XI (September 23, 1802), and to swear fidelity to the Constitution. Having fulfilled these requirements, they were at once to resume possession of so much of their property as had not been alienated; but they were declared incapable of reclaiming, under any pretext, estates which had been nationalised or sold. The rights of those who had purchased such property were thus again implicitly guaranteed by the senatorial decree.

Successes such as these deserved their reward; and Bonaparte had already made up his mind that this reward should take the shape of the Consulate for Life; but this he was not to obtain without further manipulation of the Constitution. On May 6, 1802, a message from the Consuls announced the Treaty of Amiens to the Tribunate and the Legislative Body. It was received with enthusiasm in both bodies; and the Tribunate unanimously adopted a resolution, proposed by Chabot de l’Allier, that there should be given to General Bonaparte, First Consul of the Republic, “a signal pledge of the gratitude of the nation.” This resolution was communicated to the Senate. So far the proceedings were quite regular; but the question then arose what the pledge should be. The republicans expected that it would be merely titular; but Bonaparte’s supporters, secretly incited by Cambacérès, proposed the Consulate for Life. The Senate adopted a middle course, and resolved by a Senatus Consultum (May 8) to re-elect Bonaparte for the ten years immediately following the ten years for which he had originally been appointed.

Bonaparte expected more than this; but, yielding to the advice of Cambacérès, he concealed his dissatisfaction. He thanked the Senate, adding: “You deem that I owe a fresh sacrifice to the nation; I am ready to perform it, if the commands of the people confirm what your vote allows” (May 9). It was thus that he referred the question from the Senate to the people. But he did more than this. The Council of State, when consulted (May 10) on the wording of the question to be put to the nation, formulated it thus: “Is Napoleon Bonaparte to be made Consul for Life?” For the first time the sonorous Christian name accompanied the surname Bonaparte, and it took its place in history by an illegal act; for there was nothing to justify the Council of State in thus framing the question to be solved by a new plebiscite. A Consular edict published the same day (May 10) arranged for the taking of the ballot. The Assemblies yielded, Carnot being the only Tribune who opposed the Consulate for Life.

It was not enough for Bonaparte to receive rewards; he desired also to be in a position to bestow them. The Constitution had decided that soldiers should receive a recompense from the State, in the shape (it would appear) of grants from the national property. But the Consular decree of December 25, 1799, gave general application to a custom instituted by Bonaparte in the armies which he commanded, of presenting “arms of honour” to soldiers who had distinguished themselves. The law of May 19, 1802, created a “Legion of Honour”, with the view of rewarding merit and services both military and civil.

A “Grand Council”, presided over by the First Consul as Chief of the Legion, was to appoint the legionaries. These were divided into 15 “cohorts,” each composed of 7 Grand Officers, 20 Commanders, 30 officers, and 350 legionaries; each Grand Officer received 5000 francs a year, each Commander 2000 francs, each officer 1000, and each legionary 250 francs. At the headquarters of each “cohort” there was to be a hospital for the reception of sick, infirm, and needy legionaries, the expense of which was to be defrayed out of the State domains. Soldiers who had received “arms of honour” became legionaries as a matter of course. The details of the organisation were to be the subject of future regulations. In 1805 the rank of Grand Eagle was created, and made superior to that of Grand Officer. The number of members largely exceeded the figure originally fixed. In 1806 Napoleon had already made 14,560 appointments. The number of legionaries averaged during his reign 30,000, of whom 1200 were civilians.

In expounding the motives of the law, Roederer remarked that the creation of the Legion of Honour “resembled the issue of a new coinage; but that, unlike money issued from the Treasury, this new coinage, drawn from the mint of French honour, was unvarying in value and inexhaustible in amount”. Bonaparte held that men’s actions are guided, not by a sense of duty, but by a desire for honour, if not for honours; and this belief has ever since exerted a detrimental influence on the French people. The republicans strenuously opposed the measure; it passed the Council of State by only 14 votes to 10, the Tribunate by 56 to 38, and the Legislative Body by 166 to 110. The Legion of Honour attained great prestige, and became a valuable aid to government; but, at the outset, it was so repugnant to public opinion that Bonaparte did not venture to hold formal distributions of the first decorations till after the establishment of the Empire.

It now became more and more evident that Bonaparte aimed at personal rule. After the proscription of the Jacobins and the rout of the royalists, the opposition consisted of the republican party alone; they were very weak, but the peace brought them substantial reinforcements. The army was still deeply imbued with republicanism and free thought; and Napoleon was aware of this. He had therefore got rid of the regiments most attached to the spirit of the Revolution, by sending them to San Domingo. They had embarked on December 21, 1801, shortly after the signature of the preliminaries of the peace with England. On the conclusion of peace, the generals, now released from service, flocked to Paris; and even those who had supported Bonaparte on 18 Brumaire were now—whether owing to a spirit of republicanism, or to jealousy of the First Consul, it is difficult to say—in opposition. Augereau, Brune, Delmas, Gouvion St Cyr, Jourdan, Lannes, Lecourbe, Oudinot, Macdonald, Richepance, Souham, Massena, Bernadotte, Moreau—all, especially the three last, were hostile to Bonaparte.

The details are obscure, but it seems probable that the most serious danger which threatened Bonaparte in his progress to supreme power was to be found in this quarter. From April to June, 1802, the generals met frequently to discuss in secret conclave their grievances against “Sultan” Bonaparte. What was still more serious, the military opposition was joined by the civilians; by Sieyes and the republican senators, by Madame de Stael and her following, and by the ideologues who met at Auteuil in the house of Cabanis.

Bernadotte, rather than Moreau, appears to have been the pivot of the military conspiracy. But on principle, as he said, and also, no doubt, to protect himself in case of failure, Bernadotte was disposed to act by legal means only, after obtaining a vote of the Senate. Various plans of government were proposed, one being the division of France into military districts which should be assigned to various generals, the district of Paris being given to Bonaparte. Bonaparte suspected what was in the wind, and hastened to discredit militarism. “Never will military government take root in France”, he declared at the Council of State on May 4, 1802, “unless the nation has first been brutalised by fifty years of ignorance. The army is the nation.”  The police thereupon set to work. They first attempted to repeat the coup which had succeeded so well against the Jacobins; they trumped up a conspiracy of assassination, and two officers, Donnadieu and Fournier, were arrested on the charge of compassing the death of the First Consul (May 7). The actual conspirators were to be sought elsewhere. On May 20 General Simon, Bernadotte’s Chief of the Staff, began secretly to despatch from Rennes into every corner of France pamphlets violently attacking Bonaparte. “Soldiers” (such was their language), “you have no longer a country; the Republic has ceased to exist. A tyrant has seized upon power; and that tyrant is Bonaparte.”

Dubois, the Prefect of Police, was the first to draw Bonaparte’s attention to this “libel plot”. Fouché started the theory of a royalist conspiracy; but before long General Simon, with some other officers, was arrested at Rennes (June 23). Bonaparte wisely hushed the matter up; nothing became known; Simon was dismissed without trial, and Bernadotte was sent to take the waters at Plombières. Fouché was appointed a senator (September 14, 1802); and the General Police Office was again attached to the Department of Justice (September 15, 1802). One by one, the opposition generals were sent away from Paris on distant embassies. Madame de Stael, who had returned to Coppet in May, 1802, was forbidden to re-enter Paris; and when, in the following year, she ventured into France, she was actually expelled (October 15, 1803). The steps taken to suppress the plot were as obscure as the plot itself; but for Bonaparte there was still a lion in the path—Moreau.

While Bernadotte’s conspiracy had thus come to nothing, the plebiscite sanctioned anew the position taken by Bonaparte. The result of the count, which was made public on August 2, 1802, was 3,568,885 “ayes” against 8,374 “noes”. It would seem that, speaking generally, the ideologues had abstained; and it will be noticed that the number of those who voted “no” had sensibly increased. Nevertheless, this plebiscite marks, without doubt, the political abdication of the French nation in favour of Bonaparte and the system of Caesarism.

Now that Bonaparte was master of the situation, he drew up, of his own authority, a fresh Constitution, which he first laid before his two colleagues and certain confidential friends. He then sent it to the Council of State, which approved it forthwith, and later on the same day to the Senate (August 4, 1802). As if by accident, the approaches, the court, and the ante-rooms of the Luxembourg were filled with grenadiers. The Senate accepted the measure, voting on it without discussion; and it was henceforth known as the “Organic Senatus Consultum of the Constitution, of 16 Thermidor, year X.”

Under it the Consuls were appointed for life, the Second and Third Consuls being appointed by the Senate on the presentation of the First. The First Consul had the right to nominate his successor; if his candidate were rejected by the Senate, the right of nomination re verted to the two other Consuls. The First Consul retained all the power given him by the Constitution of the year VIII; and, in addition, he was to enjoy the sole right of ratifying treaties of peace and alliance, which were no longer looked upon as matters for legislation. On these subjects, he had only to confer with his Privy Council, whose members he nominated before each sitting. A Privy Council was to draft the Senatus Consulta.

The Consuls were to preside in the Senate, which, at the time, consisted of 66 members. The number was raised to 120; and the appointment of senators was thenceforth left to the First Consul, who had the right of presentation in case of a senatorship created by the Constitution of the year VIII, and of absolute appointment to the senatorships created since that date. In this fashion Bonaparte disposed of 54 seats and could easily obtain a majority. The Senate was to settle by organic Senatus Consulta any point not provided for by the Constitution; it could dissolve the Legislative Body and the Tribunate, and if necessary suspend the Constitution. Its powers were enlarged in proportion as it became more subordinate to the First Consul, and it was henceforward his servile instrument. The creation of senatoreries (January 4, 1803) completed its subjugation. In each of the districts into which the country was divided for the purpose of legal appeals, a senator whom Bonaparte wished to reward received a life-grant from the national lands, yielding an income about equivalent to a senatorial salary. The only conditions imposed on the grantee were a three months’ residence in the locality during each year, and the furnishing of a report on the state of public opinion in the district.

The Lists of Notability were replaced by a fresh system. The cantonal assemblies, composed of all citizens domiciled in the canton, were to be summoned by the Government; and their presidents were to be appointed by the First Consul. They were to nominate, under certain conditions, the candidates for the municipal councils, and also, from among the 600 most highly taxed citizens of the department, the members of the electoral colleges of the districts, and of the electoral college of the department. The latter were chosen for life; and their presidents were appointed by the First Consul. Two candidates for each vacancy in the district and departmental councils, also for each vacancy in the Tribunate, the Legis­lative Body, and the Senate, were to be nominated by the duly qualified colleges, whether district or departmental, respectively. In fact, in spite of the democratic air of the cantonal assemblies, the scheme created a system of nomination of those pecuniarily qualified, combined with a power of actual appointment reserved to the First Consul. The Tribunate was to be reduced to fifty members from the beginning of the year XIII (1804-5). The organic Senatus Consultum of 28 Frimaire, year XII (December 20, 1803), placed the appointment of the President of the Legislative Body in the hands of the First Consul.

It is not without reason that the Senatus Consultum of 16 Thermidor, year X, is generally known as the Constitution of the year X. The Constitution of the year VIII was still in existence, but it was so changed as to be hardly recognisable. The First Consul had become an autocrat; and no constitutional limit to his authority remained.

Apart from the establishment of the Consulate for Life, so fraught with evil for the future, the year 1802 might be reckoned one of the most splendid in the history of France. The restoration of peace, the victories won, the conquests achieved, the memories of revolutionary enthusiasm, the personal fame of Bonaparte, the return of order and the revival of trade—all combined to make existence brilliant and enjoyable.

A new Court had by degrees been formed at the Tuileries. A Governor of the Palace (Duroc), four Prefects of the Palace, and four ladies (of whom Madame de Rémusat was one) in waiting on Madame Bonaparte, had been appointed by Bonaparte. Josephine, who was accustomed to the ways of good society, and Bonaparte, who was anxious to insist on them, were agreed in requiring a certain amount of decorum from the crowds attending their receptions; and royal usages and etiquette reappeared by degrees at the consular Court.

Bonaparte soon wearied of all this grandeur, and gladly resumed a simpler life during the days which he passed in the company of his intimates at St Cloud or at Malmaison, the estate acquired by Josephine in 1799.

In Paris, the salons, those centres of conversation in the days before the Revolution, were once more formed. The idéologues met at Auteuil at the house of Cabanis. Madame de Stäel had a circle composed of Camille Jordan, de Gérando, Benjamin Constant, Fauriel, and others. Two intimate friends of Madame de Stäel, the melancholy and pathetic Madame de Beaumont and the lovely Madame Récamier, the wife of a rich Paris banker, also held their salons. In the aristocratic Faubourg St Germain a few royalist houses already half opened their doors. The politeness of old France reasserted itself, and elegance in dress again prevailed. Whenever a new office was created, a minute description was given of the uniform of the new officials ; Paris fashions again ruled; the practice of tutoiement ceased; a lady was no longer addressed as “Citoyenne” but as “Madame”; and “Citoyen” was not heard after 1804.

The consular Court and the refined society of the salons had thrust into the background the nouveaux riches—the stock-jobbers, financiers, bankers, speculators in national property, army contractors, gorged officers, gamblers and adventurers, who had been in the ascendant under the Directory, and whose misconduct had discredited the system which allowed them the foremost place. The shopkeeping classes lived as they had done during the Directory, much out of doors. They frequented the cafes on the boulevards, and filled the well-known restaurants of the Palais Royal; thence they betook themselves to the public gardens, to dancing saloons, to gaming-houses, or to the theatres. Paris was very gay during the winter of 1802-3. Never before had so many foreigners been seen. Miss Helen Williams entertained at her tea-table, at one and the same time, Carnot, a Neapolitan bishop, Kosciuszko, and Fox. Twenty-two accounts are extant of journeys to Paris or other parts of France undertaken by Englishmen between 1801 and 1803; and in September, 1802, there were said to be 10,000 English tourists in Paris.

In the departments, to be sure, the aspect of things was less brilliant. During 1801 certain Councillors of State had been sent on a tour of inspection through the military divisions; and their reports, published by Rocquain, show how much still remained to be done. The evil plight of the communal finances, the destruction of property, the dilapidated state of bridges, ports, canals, public buildings, and roads, the continued insecurity, the prevalence of brigandage, the poverty of hospitals and public charities, the almost complete interruption of public works during long years, often lent to the districts inspected the appearance of ruin and distress. It was, however, an appearance only. In the country districts, the 1,200,000 purchasers of national domains had had their titles guaranteed by the Constitution; and Bonaparte was careful to allay their fears whenever an opportunity occurred. The populace of the towns were far from sharing the republican regrets of the middle classes; they were enthusiastic for Bonaparte, for his military glory, and for the blessings of peace. Work was plentiful and wages were high; and the two industrial exhibitions, which Chap tai, the Minister of the Interior, had organised in Paris in 1801 and 1802, gave brilliant proof of the progress that had been achieved. One more fact will help us to understand the amazing rapidity with which the Consular administration reorganised the public services, and the deep-seated optimism of which successive plébiscites gave so signal a proof. In 1789, according to Levasseur, France contained not more than 26,000,000 inhabitants. The census of the year IX showed 27,347,800 or, including the newly-annexed territories, 33,111,962. This implies, even during the Revolution, a remarkable increase of the population.

We shall consider, in a later chapter, the reforms and undertakings which, begun under the Consulate, were continued under the Empire. We propose to deal in the same way with agriculture, manufactures, trade, literature, science and art, and to confine ourselves for the present to the finances. The first thing necessary was to clear off existing obligations. The market was still loaded with paper of all sorts, requisition vouchers, assignments, warrants for arrears of interest, exchequer bills of former issues, etc. There were securities of more than sixty descriptions; all were more or less depreciated; their total amount it is impossible to estimate. In order to relieve the money market and restore healthy conditions, Gaudin took steps to buy up these various securities; that is, he called them in, and, on their being returned to the Treasury, gave in exchange for them consols of an amount proportionate to their nominal value. The operation was carried through rapidly and on the strictest lines, sometimes so strictly that it had almost the appearance of partial repudiation. What was done, however, was justified by the needs of the moment and by the shameless jobbery which had prevailed under the Directory. Steps were also taken to consolidate various portions of the Public Debt outstanding. This operation was not complete at the close of the Consulate, and was continued under the Empire.

The combined result of all these operations was an increase in the Public Debt. In the year XII (1803-4) it showed a total of about 45,000,000 francs in perpetual annuities (without counting life annuities), being an increase of 9,000,000 francs on the amount existing after the last budget of the Directory. But, if the Public Debt was thus increased, it was done for the purpose of discharging existing obligations. Bonaparte issued no annuities to cover loans; in this respect, he adhered to older systems of finance. He found the necessary resources in the extraordinary receipts; these were of two sorts, external and internal. The extraordinary external receipts consisted of the war contributions, subsidies, and payments of every sort made by conquered countries or by foreign Powers. An estimate of their total value, even approximate, is unfortunately impossible. They reached by far their highest point under the Consulate in the year XII (1803-4), when they amounted to 122,000.000 francs, of which 50,000,000 francs represent what was paid by the United States for Louisiana. The extraordinary internal receipts were the result, in the first place, of the special measures adopted at the beginning of the Provisional Consulate. In the second place, the sale of the national domains, wisely conducted, provided yearly an appreciable sum. According to Stourm, the Consulate received in all nearly 300,000,000 francs from the extraordinary internal receipts.

The ordinary receipts under the Revolution consisted almost entirely of direct taxes; and we have seen with what care Gaudin, so soon as he was appointed, proceeded to reorganise them. The finance law of February 25, 1804, provided that “all collectors of direct taxes should be appointed by the First Consul”, and that there should be, “so far as possible, one collector in each city, town, and village.” The administrative hierarchy was thenceforward complete and fully centralised under the State. By its wise management the taxes were got in with far greater facility and- produced better results.

Under the Revolution the indirect taxes had been reduced to a minimum. Besides the customs and the postal revenue, there only remained the registration and stamp duties, with certain miscellaneous taxes on public conveyances, articles of gold and silver, playing-cards, and tobacco. Contrary to Gaudin’s advice, Bonaparte refused for a long time to impose any new indirect taxation, not because he condemned it in principle, but because he called to mind the dangerous unpopularity of the aides and gabelles of the ancien régime. Eventually he consented; but he proceeded at first with the greatest caution. Even under the Directory, town dues (octrois) were again levied in Paris and certain other cities, in respect of articles intended for local consumption; and the law of February 24, 1800, made the levying of town dues obligatory “in towns where the public hospitals had not revenues sufficient for their wants.” Thus the new indirect taxation was at first devoted to local purposes. Subsequently, Bonaparte decided to avail himself of it for State purposes also; and a law of February 25, 1804, imposed a tax on liquors, and provided for concentrating the management of all indirect taxes, old and new, in the hands of a single General Board, the combined Octroi and Excise Office (droits reunis).

The two first budgets of the Consulate (years VIII and IX, 1799­1801) were still loaded with arrears which were in process of liquidation. But the typical budget, and the one which exemplifies best the happy results of Bonaparte’s financial policy, was that of the year X (1801-2). According to the corrected figures, the payments (701,241,518 francs) and the receipts (701,466,299 francs) practically balanced each other. According to the figures given by Nicolas, 46 per cent, of the receipts were derived from direct taxation, 22 per cent, from the forests and national domains (including the amount produced by sales), 27 per cent, from indirect taxation, 5 per cent, from various sources and extraordinary receipts. Of the payments, the charges in connexion with the finances and the public debt absorbed 47 per cent., the army and navy 45 per cent., and the expenses of administration 8 per cent. An exact balance was secured by strictly adjusting expenses to receipts; and the taxes were collected easily because they were relatively very light. In 1789, according to Taine, of every 100 francs of net income, the peasant paid 14 francs to his seigneur, 14 to the Church, 53 to the King, and kept only 19 for himself. After 1800 he paid nothing to the seigneur or to the Church; he paid 21 francs in all to the State, the department, and the commune; and he kept 79 francs for himself. “These figures,” as Taine remarks, “are all-important”. Further, on August 11, 1800, the State was able to announce that the government annuities would be paid punctually and in cash as they fell due. This promise was strictly kept.

From a financial point of view, as well as in other respects, the year 1801-2 marked the zenith of success. After the year XI, the expenses entailed by the renewal of war and the reappearance of extraordinary sources of income lowered the character of the budget. On the other hand, Bonaparte was perpetually tampering with the legitimate control of the Assemblies. On no single occasion were his financial proposals presented in a strictly legal and candid fashion. The consequence was that, in spite of the results achieved, complete confidence was never felt. The average price of the 5 per cent, annuities did not exceed 60 francs. This was, to use Stourm’s forcible expression, “a masked affront offered daily to Bonaparte by an irreconcilable Bourse.”

It was a sounder policy which prompted the creation of the Bank of France. There were several houses at Paris which carried on a discount business, collected debts, received deposits, opened current accounts, and issued notes payable to bearer and at sight. The oldest of these was the Bank of Current Accounts (Caisse des comptes courants), founded June 29, 1796, with a capital of 5,000,000 francs. Its condition was very prosperous; and Bonaparte decided that, under a fresh name, it should extend its field of operations. On January 18, 1800, a general meeting of the shareholders voted the dissolution of the company; and on the same day an ordinance decreed the establishment of the Bank of France. Its capital amounted to 30,000,000 francs.

The operations of the Bank of France resembled those of the Bank of Current Accounts; and its managers and directors, known as regents and censors, were elected by the shareholders. What distinguished the Bank of France from the company which it replaced was its intimate relation with the Government. The First Consul, the members of his family, and the high officers of state took shares in it. It was over the counter of the Bank that during several years the holders of government annuities received their arrears. The Bank was moreover entrusted with other financial duties; for instance, with the custody of the funds subscribed to the national lotteries. The law of April 14, 1803, increased the capital of the Bank to 45,000,000 francs, and granted it for fifteen years the exclusive privilege of issuing bank-notes. The other banks which enjoyed a right of issue either went into liquidation or were bought up by the Bank of France.

Bonaparte meanwhile pursued his ambitious designs. Through the medium of Prussia he proposed to Louis XVIII, who was then at Warsaw, that he should renounce his right to the Crown in return for an indemnity. Louis declined the offer, and in a decisive reply, published on March 3,1803, he reaffirmed all his rights. A crushing victory was required to reduce him to impotence. Bonaparte’s famous outbreak against the English ambassador, Lord Whitworth, at the diplomatic reception on March 13, 1803, was intended to be at once a reply to the declarations of Louis XVIII and to the reluctance of the British Government to carry out the terms of the Peace of Amiens. War with Great Britain broke out afresh in May, 1803. Public opinion was not in favour of war; but, of all the members of the former Coalition, England was the most detested in France. Bonaparte’s popularity was not affected. With much parade he organised the camp at Boulogne for an invasion of England. Some historians have doubted whether invasion was his real design; but in any case all his available troops remained till 1805 concentrated at Boulogne and in the neighbourhood, practising the same manoeuvres and inspired by a common enthusiasm. The camp at Boulogne was a crucible in which the various divisions of the republican forces were fused together, and from which emerged, homo­geneous and trained to his hand, the “ Grand Army ” of the Emperor.

Like Bonaparte, the royalists hailed with joy the resumption of hostilities. They persuaded themselves, and their correspondents at Paris stated, that “no one believed in the permanence of the new régime”. The exiles in London were much excited. They hoped that the British Government would once more lend them its support; and, as a matter of fact, the proceedings of certain British agents—of Drake at Munich, and of Spencer Smith at Stuttgart—were of a nature to encourage the conspirators. In February, 1803, a certain Méhée de la Touche arrived in London with the information that the Jacobins and republicans still formed a powerful party, which was ready to associate itself with the royalists in overthrowing the tyrant. The idea was attractive. A plan of operations was devised: it embraced an insurrection at Paris, risings in the west and south, assistance to be sent by England, and the landing in France of the Comte d’Artois or some other member of the royal House. Success seemed to be assured.

Now Méhée de la Touche was probably a secret agent of Fouché. The former Minister of the General Police had obtained a subvention from Bonaparte; and his personal agents acted independently of the official police, who were now attached to the Ministry of Justice. Fouché, with consummate skill, took advantage of the situation thus created. The conspiracy of 1803-4 was in part his work. His ambition was to become a minister once more; and he saw the advantages which Bonaparte might reap by the discovery of a fresh plot.

On August 21,1803, Cadoudal left London with a few trusted friends, of whom one, by name Quérel, seems also to have been a police agent in disguise. Cadoudal crossed the Channel on a cutter from the British fleet commanded by Captain Wright, landed at night at Biville, near Dieppe, and proceeded to Paris. He was furnished by the British Government with drafts for a million francs to enable him to organise the insurrection in the capital. Meanwhile General Lajolais, an old friend of Pichegru, had seen General Moreau at Paris, and had talked to him of Pichegru; and, as Moreau seemed to preserve the friendliest recollection of him, Lajolais thought himself justified in announcing that Moreau was inclined to follow Pichegru’s example and make common cause with the royalists. On January 16,1804, Pichegru, Lajolais, Rivière, and the Polignacs landed, and secretly entered Paris.

It only remained for the royalists to come to an understanding with Moreau, the leader of the republican party, with a view to common action. Lajolais arranged an interview between Pichegru and Moreau on January 24; and an appointment was made for 7 p.m. on January 27 in the Boulevard de la Madeleine. Moreau proceeded thither with Lajolais; but Pichegru also brought a companion whom Lajolais introduced: it was Cadoudal. Moreau at once withdrew. During the following days (February 2 and 8) Pichegru called on Moreau; but his visits were vain; Moreau had never been willing, and was at this moment less willing than ever, to associate himself with the royalists.

The official police were at a loss. They had arrested some con­spirators, of whom Quérel was one; but the whole affair remained a puzzle. They suspected a plot of some sort, but they were ignorant of its nature; and Bonaparte taunted them with their ignorance. At the end of January, however, when the conspiracy was ripe, and Moreau appeared to be sufficiently compromised, Bonaparte and Fouché resolved to act. Orders were given to place on their trial certain of the royalists who had been arrested by the police. Quérel was one of these; and he made haste to confess (January 25) all he knew,—the nature of the conspiracy, the presence of Georges Cadoudal at Paris, and the expected arrival of a prince. There was great excitement. On February 1 a General Board of Public Safety was opened at the Ministry of Justice; at the head of it was Real, a friend of Fouché. Action was delayed for a few days in the hope of obtaining fresh evidence against Moreau. When it became clear that he would not move, he was arrested (February 15).

A general uproar suddenly succeeded the mysterious silence of the previous weeks; and the public excitement reached its height when the police discovered and arrested Pichegru (February 29), Georges Cadoudal (March 9), and soon afterwards most of the other conspirators.

The whole performance had been arranged with the greatest skill; but what rendered the conspiracy of 1804 a model of police perversity, was the fact that a real conspiracy existed, and that Fouché himself did not know everything. The conspirators were expecting a prince. The question was, which prince, and where was he? Savary, chief of the gendarmerie d'élite, betook himself to Biville to keep an eye on Monsieur, the Comte d'Artois. But it was not Monsieur’s way to run any risks; he remained where he was. Enquiries were hastily made as to the residence of the other princes; and on May 8 there came from Strassburg some astonishing information.

The Duc d’Enghien, son of the Due de Bourbon, and grandson of the Prince de Conde, was living at Ettenheim, less than two leagues from the Rhine. He came now and then secretly into Strassburg. With him were supposed to be Dumouriez and an English agent, Colonel Smith, who had just come from London and was clearly in correspondence with Drake. The expected prince could be no other than the Due d’Enghien. On March 10 Bonaparte summoned his colleagues, the two Consuls, with Talleyrand, Fouché, and Regnier, to a privy council, at which it was decided to arrest the Duke, in spite of the fact that Ettenheim was in the territory of Baden. Generals Ordener, Caulaincourt, and Fririon were sent at the head of a small force; and during the night of March 14 they arrested the Duke at Ettenheim. He was at once sent on to Paris. Meanwhile, the papers seized at Ettenheim, and the reports of the officer commanding the expedition, had reached Bonaparte. Everything pointed to a mistake. The Duke was not conspiring; he was living quietly at Ettenheim. With him was, not Dumouriez, but the old Marquis de Thumery, whose name, disguised by German pronunciation, had occasioned the blunder; Schmidt (not Smith), came from Freiburg, not from London; the Duke had never been at Strasburg; and, if it was true that he had wished to take service in England against France, and that he was in receipt of a pension from the British Cabinet, there was in all this nothing that was not natural in the case of an emigre of royal blood.

Bonaparte, however, paid no attention to these facts. Was he under the influence of one of those fits of rage, genuine or simulated, to which he was subject? Was his object to make a terrible example, to avenge himself in the person of the Duke on the prince who had not arrived to take command of the “assassins”? Was it to prove to the republican party that the blood which was about to flow would render reconciliation between himself and the Bourbons impossible; or was it to bind to himself, by making them his accomplices, those of his followers whom he suspected of sympathy with the fallen dynasty? At all events, Bonaparte was resolved that the Duke should die.

On the morning of March 20, a meeting of the privy council decided to summon immediately a military commission of seven members, to be named by Murat, as Governor of Paris. At 11 o’clock Murat made his nominations, appointing as president General Hulin, who commanded the Consular Guard. At half-past five the Duke arrived at the castle of Vincennes, where two hours before his grave had been dug. At nine in the evening the members of the commission met at the castle. A detachment of troops commanded by Savary was also present. At 11 o’clock the Duke was subjected to a preliminary examination in his room. At 1 a.m. on the 21st he appeared before his judges, Savary standing immediately behind Hulin. The examination was short, and revealed nothing. At half-past two the Due d’Enghien was shot.

By midday on the 21st the news-boys were shouting the news in the streets of Paris. An immense sensation was created; and Bonaparte strove to profit by it at once with a view to carrying out his grand design. On March 22 he caused Regnier to send in a report on the intrigues of Drake; and on March 23 he laid this report before the Senate. The result, however, did not answer the expectations of the First Consul. Not till four days later did the Senate draw up an address, in which, while reprehending the recent plots, they urged that, with a view to punishing similar attempts, a “High Court or National Jury” should be established, in order to safeguard the existing system of government. They further besought the First Consul “to complete his work, by rendering it, like his glory, immortal.”

The wish thus expressed was exceedingly vague; and the most determined supporters of Bonaparte dared not as yet pronounce the word “hereditary.” A series of intrigues, of which very little is known, occupied the following weeks. On the surface a great movement of opinion, partly genuine, partly manufactured by the Government, swayed the country in favour of Bonaparte, by whose death the English and the conspirators had meant to compass the destruction of France. The columns of the Moniteur were filled with addresses breathing devotion and enthusiasm. The Opposition was finally overcome. When Bonaparte at last, on April 25, replied to the address of the Senate, he put the question in plain terms: “You have resolved that it is necessary that the supreme magistracy should be hereditary. I now ask you to explain fully what is passing in your minds.”

Already, on April 23, Curée, a member of the Tribunate, had brought forward a resolution that Bonaparte “should be declared Emperor”, and “that the Imperial dignity should be declared hereditary in his family.” The debate began on April 30. Carnot alone spoke and voted against the proposal. The decision of the Tribunate, given on May 3, was communicated on May 4 to the Senate, which replied to the message of April 25 as follows : “Glory, gratitude, devotion, reason, the interests of the State, all unite to proclaim Napoleon hereditary Emperor”.

For some days Bonaparte was engaged in drawing up, with the aid of his privy council, a new constitutional instrument, which was approved by the Council of State on May 13, and laid before the Senate three days later. After a short debate, the Senate passed the measure, which thus became the “Organic Senatus Consultum of 28 Floreal, year XII” (May 18, 1804). By Clause 1: the “government of the Republic is entrusted to an Emperor, who takes the title of Emperor of the French”. By Clause 2: “Napoleon Bonaparte, now First Consul of the Republic, is Emperor of the French.” By Clause 3: “the Imperial dignity is declared hereditary.” So soon as the vote had been given, the Senate went in a body to St Cloud; and there Cambacérès, Second Consul and President of the Senate, hailed Napoleon by the title of “ Imperial Majesty.”

A fresh plebiscite, ordered by a decree of May 19, was to give its sanction to the Imperial Constitution. Meanwhile the trial of the conspirators went on. There is no doubt that many of them were put to the torture in prison. Pichegru died there on April 16; whether he was murdered, after being tortured to no purpose, or committed suicide, we cannot say. During the trial Moreau retained his quiet self-possession; and his replies were repeatedly applauded. Cadoudal showed courage and firmness. The judges were at first, by seven votes to five, in favour of acquitting Moreau ; but Sa vary and Real, who watched the proceedings from an adjoining room, induced them to reconsider their decision. In the end, the court sentenced Cadoudal and nineteen of his companions to death; Moreau, Jules de Polignac, and three others, were condemned to two years imprisonment; the rest were acquitted or sent before another tribunal. Bonaparte eventually agreed to pardon Moreau. Yielding to Josephine’s entreaties, he commuted, for imprisonment, the death sentence passed on eight of the accused, viz. Lajolais, Rivière, Armand de Polignac, and the other members of the nobility who were implicated with Cadoudal. The conspirators of meaner birth were executed, with their leader, on June 24; and on the following day Moreau sailed for America. The result of the plebiscite was not published till November 26, when the corrected figures gave 3,572,329 “ayes” against 2,569 “noes.” “We have done more than we hoped to do,” Cadoudal had said in prison; “we meant to give France a King, and we have given her an Emperor”.

Such was in fact the final outcome of the Consulate. From 18 Brumaire onwards Bonaparte had toiled without ceasing at the reorganisation of France, but always with a view to his own interest. Hence the double aspect of the whole history of the Consulate. On the one hand, there is Bonaparte’s continuous ascent to supreme power. Profiting as much by the general feeling of weariness as by the popular enthusiasm which he aroused, he forced his way, by a series of small coups d’état, by slight breaches of the Constitution, by misstatements, by the greed and the fears which he excited, and by the ever-increasing personal influence which he exercised on those around him. His policy was at once very simple and highly diversified. He persisted in holding himself aloof from party; he belonged “neither to the Red Heels nor to the Red Caps”, to quote the picturesque phrase of a contemporary writer; he was “neither royalist, nor republican”; he meant that there should be but one party in France—his own. But in the rapid development of his policy he showed marvellous versatility. During the Provisional Consulate he maintained a waiting attitude. Afterwards, down to Marengo, his aim was to bring about pacification, either by repression or by milder methods. Between Marengo and the Peace he maintained order and laboured systematically to reconcile the old France and the new. After the Peace and the Consulate for Life there was a halt in his triumphal progress, which gave him time to prepare for the Empire.

On the other hand, it was Bonaparte who directed the reorganisation of France; and never perhaps in history was a work so formidable accomplished so quickly. Order and regularity were established in every branch of the administration. The greater part of the institutions founded during the Consulate have survived to the present day; and it is no exaggeration to state that it was Bonaparte who created contemporary France. For this very reason, however, the Consular system weighed heavily on France during the nineteenth century. Devised by one man for his own ends, concentrating everything at Paris, leaving to the nation at large neither liberty nor initiative, and affecting a democratic guise the better to crush democracy itself, it deranged the political balance of the country and for a long time paralysed the national spirit. From the civil and economic point of view, Bonaparte confirmed the work of the Revolution: all Frenchmen retained their equality before the law; and those who had become owners of national property were secured in their possessions. But, from the political point of view, Bonaparte revived the arbitrary traditions of the old monarchy; and often his institutions were mere replicas of the past. The Council of State and the King’s Council, prefects and intendants, sub-prefects and subdelegates, the Prefect of Police and the Lieutenant-General of Police, the droits réunis and the aides, are but brothers and sisters, the children of one father—who is no other than absolutism. And the consequence is that, although starting from the Consulate, the history of France during the nineteenth century has been, in many respects, nothing but a long and toilsome reaction against the system created by Bonaparte.

THE ARMED NEUTRALITY.