and the Empire, it was never carried into effect. It was first suspended by the establishment of the revolutionary government strictly so called, and after Thermidor, under the pretext of completing it, the Convention put it aside and made a new one, being taught by experience. As long as it existed it was the sovereign assembly of the Convention itself which really exercised the executive power, governing chiefly by means of its great committees.
The constitution of 1791 was without doubt monarchical, in so far as it preserved royalty. The constitution of the year III. was, on the contrary, republican. The horror of monarchy was still so strong at that time that an executive college was created, a Directory of five members, one of whom retired every year; they were elected by a complicated and curious procedure, in which each of the two legislative councils played a distinct part. But this difference, though apparently essential, was not in reality very profound; this is proved, for example, by the fact that the Directory had distinctly more extensive powers than those conferred on Louis XVI. by the Constituent Assembly. On almost all points of importance the two constitutions were similar. They were both preceded by a statement of principles, a “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.” They were both based on two principles which they construed alike: the sovereignty of the people and the separation of powers. Both of them (with the exception of what has been said with regard to the ratification of constitutions after 1793) recognized only representative government. From the principle of the sovereignty of the people they had not deduced universal suffrage; though, short of this, they had extended the suffrage as far as possible. According to the constitution of 1791, in addition to the conditions of age and residence, an elector was bound to pay a direct contribution equivalent to three days’ work; the constitution of the year III. recognized the payment of any direct contribution as sufficient; it even conferred on every citizen the right of having himself enrolled, without any other qualification than a payment equivalent to three days’ work, and thus to become an elector. Further, neither of the two constitutions admitted of a direct suffrage; the elections were carried out in two stages, and only those who paid at a higher rating could be chosen as electors for the second stage. The executive power, which was in the case of both constitutions clearly separated from the legislative, could not initiate legislation. The Directory had no veto; Louis XVI. had with difficulty obtained a merely suspensive veto, which was overridden in the event of three legislatures successively voting against it. The right of dissolution was possessed by neither the king nor the Directory. Neither the king’s ministers nor those of the Directory could be members of the legislative body, nor could they even be chosen from among its ranks. The ministers of Louis XVI. had, however, thanks to an unfortunate inspiration of the Constituent Assembly of 1791, the right of entry to, and, to a certain extent, of speaking in the Legislative Assembly; the constitution of the year III. showed greater wisdom in not bringing them in any way into contact with the legislative power. The greatest and most notable difference between the two constitutions was that that of 1791 established a single chamber which was entirely renewed every two years; that of the year III., on the contrary, profiting by the lessons of the past, established two chambers, one-third of the members of which were renewed every year. Moreover, the two chambers, the Council of Five Hundred and the Council of Ancients, were appointed by the same electors, and almost the only difference between their members was that of age.
The Revolution entirely abolished the ancien régime, and in the first instance whatever remained of feudalism. The Constituent Assembly, in the course of its immense work of settlement, wished to draw distinctions, abolishing absolutely, without indemnity, all rights which had Abolition of the “ancien régime.” amounted in the beginning to a usurpation and could not be justified, e.g. serfdom and seigniorial courts of justice. On the other hand, it declared subject to redemption such feudal charges as had been the subject of contract or of a concession of lands. But as it was almost impossible to discover the exact origin of various feudal rights, the Assembly had proceeded to do this by means of certain legal assumptions which sometimes admitted of a proof to the contrary. It carefully regulated the conditions and rate of repurchase, and forbade the creation in the future of any perpetual charge which could not be redeemed: a principle that has remained permanent in French law. This was a rational and equitable solution; but in a period of such violent excitement it could not be maintained. The Legislative Assembly declared the abolishment without indemnity of all feudal rights for which the original deed of concession could not be produced; and to produce this was, of course, in most cases impossible. Finally, the Convention entirely abolished all feudal rights, and commanded that the old deeds should be destroyed; it maintained on the contrary, though subject to redemption, those tenures and charges which were solely connected with landed property and not feudal.
With feudalism had been abolished serfdom. Further, the Constituent Assembly suppressed nobility; it even forbade any one to assume and bear the titles, emblems and arms of nobility. Thus was established the equality of citizens before the law. The Assembly also proclaimed the liberty of labour and industry, and suppressed the corporations of artisans and workmen, the jurandes and maîtrises, as Turgot had done. But, in order to maintain this liberty of the individual, it forbade all associations between workers, or employers, fearing that such contracts would again lead to the formation of corporations similar to the old ones. It even forbade and declared punishable, as being contrary to the declaration of the rights of man and the citizen, combinations or strikes, or an agreement between workmen or employers to refuse to work or to give work except on given conditions. Such, for a long time, was French legislation on this point.
The Constituent Assembly gave to France a new administrative division, that into departments, districts, cantons and communes; and this division, which was intended to make the old provincial distinctions disappear, had to serve all purposes, the department being the unit for all public Administrative reorganization. services. This settlement was definitive, with the exception of certain modifications in detail, and exists to the present day. But there was a peculiar administrative organism depending on this arrangement. The constitution of 1791, it is true, made the king the titulary head of the executive power; but the internal administration of the kingdom was not actually in his hands. It was deputed, under his orders, to bodies elected in each department, district and commune. The municipal bodies were directly elected by citizens duly qualified; other bodies were chosen by the method of double election. Each body consisted of two parts: a council, for deliberative purposes, and a bureau or directoire chosen by the council from among its numbers to form the executive. These were the only instruments for the general administration and for that of the direct taxes. The king could, it is true, annul the illegal acts of these bodies, but not dismiss their members; he could merely suspend them from exercising their functions, but the matter then went before the Legislative Assembly, which could maintain or remit the suspension as it thought fit. The king had not a single agent chosen by himself for general administrative purposes. This was a reaction, though a very exaggerated one, against the excessive centralization of the ancien régime, and resulted in an absolute administrative anarchy. The organization of the revolutionary government partly restored the central authority; the councils of the departments were suppressed; the Committee of Public Safety and the “representatives of the people on mission” were able to remove and replace the members of the elected bodies; and also, by an ingenious arrangement, national agents were established in the districts. The constitution of the year III. continued in this course, simplifying the organization established by the Constituent Assembly, while maintaining its principle. The department had an administration of five members, elected as in the past, but having executive as well as deliberative functions. The district was suppressed. The communes retained only a
