years her political history has been uneventful, though she has
felt the weight of the great European crises in industrial and
social matters.
The position of Neuchâtel, as a member of the Confederation (as regards its government only) and as a principality ruled by the king of Prussia, whose rights had been expressly recognized by the congress of Vienna, was uncertain. She had not sent troops in 1847, and, though in 1848 there was a republican revolution there, the prince did not recognize the changes. Finally, a royalist conspiracy in September 1856 to undo the work of 1848 caused great excitement and anger in Switzerland, and it was only by the mediation of Napoleon III. and the other powers that the prince renounced (1857) all his rights, save his title, which his successor (the German emperor) has also dropped. Since that time Neuchâtel has been an ordinary member of the Confederation. In 1859–1860 the cession of Savoy (part of it neutralized in 1815) to France aroused considerable indignation, and in 1862 the long-standing question of frontiers in the Vallée des Dappes was finally arranged with France. In 1871 many French refugees, especially Bourbaki’s army, were most hospitably received and sheltered. The growth of the Old Catholics after the Vatican Council (1870) caused many disturbances in western Switzerland, especially in the Bernese Jura. The attack was led by Bishop Eugene Lachat (1819–1886) of Basel, whose see was suppressed by several cantons in 1873, but was set up again in 1884 though still not recognized by Bern. The appointment by the pope of the abbé Gaspard Mermillod (1824–1892) as “apostolic vicar” of Geneva, which was separated from the diocese of Fribourg, led to Monseigneur Mermillod’s banishment from Switzerland (1873), but in 1883 he was raised to the vacant see of Lausanne and Geneva and allowed by the Federal authorities to return, but Geneva refused to recognize him, though he was created a cardinal in 1890. An event of great importance to Switzerland was the opening of the St Gotthard tunnel, which was begun in 1871 and opened in 1882; by it the Forest cantons seem likely to regain the importance which was theirs in the early days of the Confederation.
From 1848 onwards the cantons continually revised their constitutions, always in a democratic sense, though after the Sonderbund War Schwyz and Zug abolished their “landsgemeinden” (1848). The chief point was the introduction of the referendum, by which laws made by the cantonal legislature may (facultative referendum) or must (obligatory referendum) be submitted to the people for their approval, and this has obtained such general acceptance that Fribourg alone does not possess the referendum in either of its two forms. It was therefore only natural that attempts should be made to revise the federal constitution of 1848 in a democratic and centralizing sense, for it had been provided that the Federal Assembly, on its own initiative or on the written request of 50,000 Swiss electors, could submit the question of revision to a. popular vote. In 1866 the restriction of certain rights (mentioned above) to Christians only was swept away; but the attempt at final revision in 1872 was defeated by a small majority, owing to the efforts of the anti-centralizing party. Finally, however, another draft was better liked, and on the 19th of April 1874 the Revised Constitution of 1874. new constitution was accepted by the people—1412 against 712 (those of 1848 without Tessin, but with Fribourg and Lucerne) and 340,199 votes as against 198,013. This constitution is still in force, and is mainly a revised edition of that of 1848, the Federal power being still further strengthened. Among the more important novelties three points may be mentioned. A system of free elementary education was set up, under the superintendence of the Confederation, but managed by the cantons. A man settling in another canton was, after a residence of three months only, given all cantonal and. communal rights, save a share in the common property (an arrangement which as far as possible kept up the old principle that the “commune” is the true unit out of which cantons and the Confederation are built), and the membership of the commune carries with it cantonal and federal rights. The “Referendum” was introduced in its “facultative” form; i.e. all federal laws must be submitted to popular vote on the demand of 30,000 Swiss citizens or of eight cantons. But the “Initiative” (i.e. the right of compelling the legislature to consider a certain subject or bill) was not introduced into the Federal Constitution till 1891 (when it was given to 50,000 Swiss citizens) and then only as to a partial (not a total) revision of that constitution. By the constitutions of 1848 and 1874 Switzerland has ceased to be a mere union of independent states jointed by a treaty, and has become a single state with a well-organized central government, to which have been given certain of the rights of the independent cantons, but increased centralization would destroy the whole character of the Confederation, in which the cantons are not administrative divisions but living political communities. Swiss history teaches us, all the way through, that Swiss liberty has been won by a close union of many small states, and we cannot doubt that it will be best preserved by the same means, and not by obliterating all local peculiarities, nowhere so striking and nowhere so historically important as in Switzerland.
M. Numa Droz (who was for seventeen years—1876 to 1892—a member of the Federal executive, and twice, in 1881 and in 1887, president of the Swiss Confederation) expressed the opinion shortly before his death in December 1899 (he was born in 1844) that while the dominant note of Swiss politics from 1848 to 1874 was the establishment of a Federal state, that of the period extending from 1874 to 1899 (and this is true of a later period) was the direct rule of the people, as distinguished from government by elected representatives. Whether this distinction be just or not, it is certain that this advance towards democracy in its true sense is due indirectly to the monopoly of political power in the Federal government enjoyed by the Radical party from 1848 onwards: many were willing to go with it some part of the way, but its success in maintaining its close monopoly has provoked a reaction against it on the part of those who desire to see the Confederation remain a Confederation, and not become a strongly centralized state, contrary to its past history and genius. Hence after 1874 we find that democratic measures are not advocated as we should expect by the Radicals, but by all the other political parties with a view of breaking down this Radical monopoly, for it is a strange fact that the people elect and retain Radical representatives, though they reject the measures laid before them for their approval by the said Radical representatives. For these reasons the struggle between Federalists and Centralists (the two permanent political parties in Switzerland), which up to 1874 resulted in favour of the Centralists, has been turning gradually in favour of the Federalists, and that because of the adoption of such democratic institutions as the Referendum and the Initiative.
The general lines on which Swiss politics have run since 1874 may be most conveniently summarized under three headings the working of the political machinery, the principal political events, and then the chief economical and financial features of the period. But it must be always borne in mind that all the following remarks relate only to Federal politics, those of the several cantons being much more intricate, and of course turning more on purely local differences of opinion.
1. Political Machinery.—The Federal Constitution of 1848 set up a permanent Federal executive, legislature and tribunal, each and all quite distinct from and independent of any cantonal government. This system was a modified revival of the state of things that had prevailed from 1798 to 1803, and was an imitation of the political changes that had taken place in the cantonal constitutions after 1830. Both were victories of the Centralist or Radical party, and it was therefore but natural that this party should be called upon to undertake the Federal government under the new constitution, a supremacy that it has kept ever since. To the Centralists the Council of States (two members from each canton, however large or small) has always been a stumbling-block, and they have mockingly nicknamed it “the fifth wheel of the coach.” In the other house of the Federal legislature, the National Council (one member per 20,000, or fraction of over 10,000 of the entire population), the
