AN ELECTION IN FRANCE.

'Blackwood's Magazine,' July, 1860.

Haud facilè libertas et domini miscentur.—TACITUS.

AN article has very recently appeared in which a narrative was given of the mode in which the provinces of Savoy and Nice were torn from Italy and annexed to France, under the pretence of an appeal to the populations by means of universal suffrage. It was there shown, by the evidence of facts which came under the cognisance of an eyewitness, that the whole process was a gigantic swindle, and that the result obtained by the ballot-box no more represented the real opinions and wishes of the inhabitants, than if they had been marched up to the poll under an escort of military, and compelled to vote at the point of the bayonet, according to the dictates of the French Emperor, whose subjects they have now become. The lesson was an instructive one, and it has, we hope, opened the eyes of all who are not too blind to see, to the intense mockery of universal suffrage as a test of the national will, under circumstances of pressure such as was exercised in the case of Nice and Savoy. We propose now to show the way in which the same instrument is worked in France, and to put our readers in possession of some facts which will enable them to judge of the worth, or rather worthlessness, of an appeal to the people under such conditions.

At present we see in France a state of things which it is difficult to comprehend. We can understand the existence of simple despotism, like that of Russia; or limited monarchy, like that of England; or pure democracy, like that of America; or any of these, with certain modifications not destructive of

1 Although the Empire has passed away and a Republic now (1874) exists in France, this article may be not without

interest as showing how popular elections were managed under the Imperial régime.

the main idea and central principle of the particular form of government. But despotism and democracy are contradictory opposites, which seem to be no more capable of amalgamating than fire and water. Each is, in theory at least, the absolute negative of the other. And yet France exhibits the spectacle of a despotic Government based on the most democratic of all principles-universal suffrage. Under it the Republic was set aside, and a single hereditary ruler was voluntarily chosen by the people, by an overwhelming majority of votes; and under it the Emperor has to deal with a representative Chamber periodically chosen by the masses of the people, who, it seems to be paradoxical to assert, are perpetually conspiring against their own liberties. However carefully, in the constitution framed for France by the Emperor, are traced the limits within which the Chamber must confine itself, it is impossible to deny that, unless the Imperial Government were popular in France, unmistakable symptoms of general disaffection would show themselves within its walls under a system of universal suffrage, provided the suffrages were fairly taken, and the members chosen truly represented the opinions of their constituents. We see no answer but one to such an argument as the following, which might be used by Napoleon III. in defence of his government :

You complain that France is despotically ruled, and that her liberties are crushed by military force; that she has no free press; and servilely obeys the dictates of the head of the State. But observe, she does all this with her own free will. She herself, after a solemn appeal made by me to the whole population, chose me as her ruler; and she possesses in the Corps Législatif an organ through which her voice may be heard with less chance of being mistaken than even the public voice in the Parliament of England; for there the right of suffrage is restricted to a few, whereas in France it belongs to the whole adult male population. If, then, you admit that the voice of the nation is fairly represented by the deputies elected by universal suffrage, and admit also, as you cannot deny, that opposition to Government in the Chamber is feeble and insignificant, I ask you, in logical fairness and consistency, to admit that France and I are perfectly at one, and that in the policy which I pursue I act merely as the interpreter of her will. You tell me that my power rests on the bayonet, but I appeal to the testimony of the ballot-box.

To this we would reply by asking the question, 'Is the ballot-box a true witness? Is the testimony it gives a reality or a sham?' Certain facts have come to our knowledge which make us doubt the integrity of the appeal; and we believe that the solution of the enigma of the existence of so

called free institutions in France, side by side with a military despotism, is to be found in the influence which the French executive is able to exercise over the elections, and thus from the dangerous nettle of liberty to pluck the flower of safety for itself. We dare say our readers have seen the ingenious trick of legerdemain called 'forcing a card,' which consists in offering to a bystander his choice out of all the cards of the pack as they are rapidly shuffled before his eyes, but in reality compelling him to take the particular card the conjuror wishes. This is in fact very much like the modus operandi of the great French Conjuror. He makes the people believe that they are exercising a free choice in voting by ballot for a representative, but he takes very good care to secure as far as possible the return of a candidate nominated by himself.

It is not easy for us in this country to realise the extent to which Government action is carried in France. The distinctive feature of the freedom which is the boast of the Anglo-Saxon race is self-government. Parish vestries, boards of health, boards of guardians, municipal corporations, and local committees, manage a vast number of public affairs amongst us, with as little interference on the part of the executive as if that executive did not exist. But in France the very reverse of this is the fact. To quote the words of a writer which seem apposite to our purpose :

The Government there, under whatever form, whether that of Directory, Consulship, Empire, Restoration, Monarchy of the Barricades, Republic, or the Army, which is its present phase, has always been essentially despotic in its character. It has ruled by a system of paid employés in immediate dependence upon itself, The provincial functionaries, such as prefects and sub-prefects, and mayors of arrondissements, are mere puppets, whose strings are pulled by the executive in Paris. In no country is the system of police surveillance and espionage more thoroughly understood or constantly practised. No public meetings are convened, as in England, to take into consideration the measures of Government, and, if necessary, organise a peaceful opposition to them. The people are not, except in the solitary instance of dropping their individual votes into the ballot-box when the period of an election comes round, made parties to the management of their own interests. Hence there is, properly speaking, no public opinion in France the influence of which can be felt by statesmen, and enable them to forecast the measures which will be best suited for the wants, and most in accordance with the real wishes of the nation. Hence also results the startling paradox, that the French, of all people in the world, are the most impatient of constitutional control, and the most servilely submissive to despotic power.'

1 FORSYTH'S History of Trial by Jury, pp. 421, 422.

We will now, by way of example, give the history of a French election, which took place in the electoral district of Fougères and Vitré, in the department of Ille-et-Vilaine in Brittany, on December 18 and 19, 1859. It will serve as a good illustration of the mode in which universal suffrage works -or rather is worked-across the Channel, and may throw some light upon the machinery by which the existence of a representative Chamber is made compatible with that of a despotic Empire. And the lesson it affords will not be without its use at a time when the process is applied not merely to determine the result of particular elections, but to annex whole provinces, and reconstruct nationalities, under the pretence of an appeal to the people.

We take the facts from a Protestation, or, as we should say, Election Petition, presented by M. le Beschu de Champsavin, one of the defeated candidates, to the Corps Législatif, praying that a commission of inquiry might issue to verify his allegations, and that the election might be declared null and void, on account of the illegal practices of which he complained.

M. le Beschu is a gentleman of high position and unimpeachable honour. He is Conseiller—that is, one of the judges of the Cour Impériale at Rennes in Brittany-a chevalier of the Legion of Honour, and possesses considerable estates, one of which, Champsavin, is situated in the commune of Louvigné, and gives its name to his family. The rest of his property lies within the electoral district of Ille-et-Vilaine, which was the scene of the contest we are about to narrate. He therefore had strong local claims upon the inhabitants—at all events, as compared with a stranger-and had been frequently returned by them as member of the Conseil Général of the department. A general election being about to take place in the month of December last year, M. le Beschu determined to present himself as a candidate to the electors of the arrondissements of Fougères and Vitré, and solicit their votes for the honour of a seat in the Corps Législatif. His first step, in conformity with the provisions of the law of July 16, 1850, was to send, on November 26, to the procureurs impériaux of Fougères and Vitré a declaration of his intention to be a candidate, and also a copy of the card or ticket which he pro

posed to distribute in the two arrondissements. He next took the oath required by the Senatus Consultum of December 25, 1852, and sent the announcement of his intention to stand to the three newspapers which are published at Rennes. One of these was used by the prefect as his official organ, and the appearance of M. le Beschu's address in its columns was headed by a sort of cautious apology on the part of the editor:

We have received from the Honourable M. le Beschu the following letter, the insertion of which, we believe, we have not the power to refuse.

'Have not the power to refuse,' Mr. Editor? what does that mean? What possible objection could you have to inserting the letter, even if you were at liberty to decline to do so? The fact was, that the prefect, or rather the Government, had already a candidate of its own in the field, in the person of a certain M. de Dalmas, who filled the high and important office of Sous-chef du Cabinet de l'Empereur; and the prefect, in obedience to orders from head-quarters, had previously, on November 22, addressed a circular to the mayors of the different communes of the two arrondissements, strongly insisting upon the duty of electing M. de Dalmas. We ought to state that several other candidates besides M. le Beschu, locally known to the electors, had declared themselves; but it is only necessary to mention the name of one of them, M. Dréo, who alone of the others went to the poll, and of whom we shall have something to say by-and-by.

M. le Préfet said in his circular that the government of the Emperor had charged him to recommend, in its name, to the electors as the candidate of its choice, M. de Dalmas, Sous-chef du Cabinet de l'Empereur; and he expressed his hope that the electors would receive with favour the name ' of one of the first functionaries of the household of the Emperor,' and thus secure for their interests a patron in a better position than any of the other candidates 'to assist us in the accomplishment of works of public utility which we have commenced, or which we propose to undertake, in the interest of the population of Ille-et-Vilaine.' And he added, that the motives which had determined the Government to recommend M. de Dalmas to the electors were, first, the necessity of preventing unhappy divisions which would take place if the con

Q