THE DEBATE IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES: NAPOLEON AS ANTONINUS?

On December 2, 1801, the project was presented to the Corps Iegislatifby the con- seiller d'Etat Boulay. The Napoleonic constitution of 1799 had weakened legisla­tive power. The Council of State, as we have seen, drafted the laws^[523], while the Tribunat discussed the drafts presented by the Premier Consul.

The third level concerned the son of a Frenchman who had forfeited his citizen­ship, but had French blood flowing in his veins.

The project dealt with the status of foreigner as well, finally achieving a com­promise between two “extremes.” Boulay mentioned that Roman law offered a model for the exclusion of foreigners from political and civil rights. The Constitu­ent Assembly had unconditionally abolished the droit d'aubaine in the philan­thropic belief that other nations would do the same. The Civil Code, for its part, would establish a point of equilibrium and follow the principle of reciprocity.^[526] At the same time, it was impossible, Boulay observed, to imagine a system that al­lowed foreigners to become Frenchmen without conditions and some form of con­trol by the government. The foreigner would therefore have to have resided for ten years in France prior to asking for citizenship, but could enjoy civil rights in the meantime.^[527] A pessimistic anthropology prevailed, one predicated upon egoism and national interest.^[528]

On 2 December, 1801, the Corps Iegislatif submitted the draft to the Tribunat, that is, the Assembly with the right and duty to discuss it. A special Committee of the Tribunat was to report on the project.^[529] The tribun Simeon reported on the first chapter of the first title, that is De la Jouissance des droits civils, tribun Thiesse on the second title, De la privation des droits civils. It is important to stress that during the discussion of the first titles of the project, many tribuns voiced critical objec­tions. Napoleon was none too pleased, and the following year, in 1802, when one fifth of the Tribunafs one hundred members were up for renewal, he seized his opportunity, excluding Benjamin Constant and some of his former “friends” and colleagues, the ideologues.

Joseph Simeon^[530] began his report by saying, “Ils ont loin de nous, ces temps ou des peuples peu nombreux et demi-sauvages recevaient des lois d’un homme de genie.

The draft would be widely discussed, Simeon said, and there would be severe criticism. The first rapporteur anticipated that the Committee would be opposed to the adoption of the second title, which was concerned with depriving citizens of civil rights and, in particular, with the reintroduction of the so-called “civil death.”^[532]

Simeon raised questions regarding some of these topics. Can the sons of emi­gres retrieve rights that their fathers have lost? Can the government curb the rights of foreigners wishing to set up in France without infringing Article 3 of the Consti­tution? How beneficial will it be to reintroduce the principle of reciprocity towards foreigners and therefore the droit d'aubained⁵ Simeon criticized the reintroduc­tion of what Montesquieu had called a foolish right introduced by the barbarian peoples.^{[533] [534] Portalis in his Discours preliminaire had likewise cited Montesquieu’s views on the status of the foreigner and the progres de la civilisation. The develop­ment of trade had trumped venerable prejudices, as people understood all too well.[535]}

The Constituent Assembly had abolished this right unconditionally, but now the draft reintroduced it. The speaker also considered bizarre the principle vaunted by Napoleon (art. 2 of the draft) “Tout individu ne en France est Francais.” The remark is paradoxical: “Le fils d’un Anglais peut devenir Francais; mais le serait-il par cela seul que sa mere, traversant la France, l’aura mis au jour sur cette terre etrangere a elle, a son mari, a ses parens? Si chaque nation fait une telle declaration, nous perdrons autant des Francais que nous en gagnerons.

It is interesting to note that one of the central issues in the discussion concerned the comparison between the ancient and the modern world. According to the tribun Delpierre, the ancient republics rarely accorded citizenship to foreigners. Isolation and war were their hallmarks. But today trade had changed the face of the world, heralding the advent of commercial society. France was a commercial nation, and as such it required close relationships with other peoples and nations. Philanthropic ideas, however, had to have their limits: l’interet politique doit guider l’interet

commercial; prodiguer aux externes. L’habilite du legislateur consiste a etablir un juste equilibre entre les calculs que nous devons faire pour accroitre nos richesses, et les precautions que nous devons prendre pour maintenir notre vigueur.”^[537] The reintroduction of the principle of reciprocity should be seen in this light. This sys­tem was favorable to France and to foreigners; other nations would follow it, since it protected and harmonized political and commercial interests at the same time.

Do not forget, another tribun in sympathy with the draft said, “L’acte qui con- fere la qualite de Francais au nom du peuple est fonde sur le droit de souverainete, dont l’exercice s’etend a tous les individus dissemines sur le territoire soumis a la domination du souverain. Il est encore fonde sur le droit des gens qui permet a un gouvernement d’adopter et de compter au nombre des gouvernes tout individu qui se trouve porte sur son territoire.”^[538] After the Revolution and a long war against most of the other European nations, France had to be cautious; its natural propensity for philanthropy had to be adapted to the new situation.

Conversely, those tribuns speaking against the draft deemed the principle of reciprocity to be a regression because it revived the droit d’aubaine. It was not an excess of philanthropy that had driven the monarchy in the course of the eighteenth century and, above all, the Constituent Assembly to abolish the droit d’aubaine. Indeed, they took that step because they were convinced that abolition would render France more prosperous. The speaker Boissy d’Anglas cited Jacques Necker, who had said that the abolition of the droit d’aubaine should not be regarded as an act of compliance but as the expression of a political vision.^[540]

Members of the Tribunate opposed to the draft also observed that the project marked a break with the policies of the revolutionary assemblies. Charles Ganilh observed: “Ces principes admettaient les etrangers a la participation de nos droits civils, sans restriction ni reserve, et leur ouvraient une route facile pour parvenir a la jouissance des droits politiques. Le projet de loi renverse ce systeme liberal, re- tablit le systeme de reciprocity des derniers temps de la monarchie, fait revivre le droit d’aubaine, et les lettres de naturalization.”^[541] It is easy - tribun Malherbe added - to imagine what Adam Smith would have said about the reintroduction of this feudal right.^[542]

An economist who subscribed to mercantilist doctrines, Ganilh evaluated the draft from the point of view of political economy.

For these reasons, Ganilh continued, any reference to the Romans was wholly inappropriate: “Les Romains, sans industrie, sans commerce, tiraient leurs rich- esses du travail des esclaves et des contributions des peuples vaincus [...] Il etait dans Tinteret des Romains d’eloigner les etrangers [...].”^[545] But it was also an error to suppose that the principle of reciprocity could strengthen civic patriotism. Here too the references to the Romans were mistaken. “L’amour de la patrie chez les peuples anciens se nourissait de la haine des autres peuples; cette haine derivait de l’etat de guerre dans lequel etaient constamment les peuples anciens, et du besoin qu’ils avaient de la guerre pour subsister [...].”^[546] The logic of trade prevailed in modern societies, as the liberal system introduced by the Constituent Assembly had recognized. The tribun Saint-Aubin thus described the Romans as a people whose great civilization had been founded upon ferocity and inhumanity. It had been a society based on war and slavery.^[547] “En general, avec ce respect aveugle pour Tantiquite et pour les anciennes lois, on justifierait toutes les absurdites du monde.”^[548]

What the tribun Malherbe had to say about the reference to the Romans is par­ticularly interesting. He could not subscribe to the view of the rapporteur Boulay; the draft was not, Malherbe insisted, a sort of midpoint between the Roman system, which excluded foreigners, and the liberal system of the revolutionary assemblies.

By contrast with many of the other speakers, Malherbe was at odds with the following claim by Portalis, the father of the Civil Code: “La plupart des auteurs qui censurent le droit romain avec autant d’amertume que de legerete, blasphement ce qu’ils ignorent.” It was necessary to distinguish between those Roman laws that really were the raison ecrite from those “qui ne teneaient qu’a des institutions par- ticulieres, etrangeres a notre situation et a nos usages [...].”^[549]

But the problem was that the Romans, Malherbe added, had been a conquering people from the beginning. “Les etrangers n’etaient a leurs yeux que des barbares, qu’ils consideraient a peine comme des hommes, et il fallait, pour qu’ils pussent obtenir les droits de l’humanite, que la tache originelle fut efface par Tadmission au droit de cite; mais cette rigueur cessa avec les causes qui en etaient la source.”^[550] Malherbe thus reckoned that the Antonine Constitution was the final result of a sort of anthropological turn. “Ce retour aux droits sacres de l’humanite etait digne d’un prince qui merita le titre de pere de la patrie, et, suivant Pausanias, eut du etre ap- pele le pere des hommes.”^[551] The magistrate cited the law in toto orbe, ff. de statu hominum and the chapter 5 in the Novella 88. “Omnes peregrini - following the Authenticum - est advenae libere hospitentur ubi voluerint, et hospitati si testari voluerint de rebus suis, liberam ordinandi habeant facultatem, quorum ordinatio inconcussa servetur.” Malherbe recalled the experience of the Languedoc, a region in which this Roman principle had always been observed.^[552] The speaker wondered how one could reconcile the art. 10 and the art.13 of the draft, that is, combine the principle that said that every person born in France is a Frenchman with the princi­ple of reciprocity for foreigners who wished to establish themselves in France. “Comment peut-on reconnaitre qu’il faut adopter la premiere pour attirer les etrang- ers, et detruire, par la seconde, un attrait bien plus fecond en resultats avantageux pour Taccroissement de la population?.”^[553] The principles of reciprocity could not be based on a handful of examples drawn from the legislation of the Greeks or Ro­mans.

In any case, the development of the nation was something dynamic, changing over time. France was the result of a series of transformations. The territory and population of post-revolutionary France were double that of the ancient France. “Dans le moment actuel,” observed the tribun Saint-Aubin, “plus de huit millions d’ames, c’est-a-dire pres du quart de la population entiere de la France, sont com­poses de ci-devant Belges, Flamands et Allemands, naguere tous etrangers, parlant une langue absolument differente du Prancais. ayant des moeurs, des usages, des habitudes differentes, eleves sous une forme de gouvernement, et regis jusqu’ici par des lois differentes. Tous ces ci-devant etrangers sont devenus, le jour meme de leur reunion, citoyens francais, jouissant de tous nos droits civils et politiques. Peut-on croire qu’il en resulte le moindre inconvenient pour le caractere national? La nation francaise n’y a-t-elle gagne tout ce qu’elle peut desirer sous le rapport de Findustrie, du commerce, de la puissance et de toutes les sources de la richesse et de la pros- perite nationale? Peuple sur terre a-t-il une plus brillante perspective?.”^[554] The Bel­gians, the Flemish and the Germans were not “French”, yet “imperial” France had to see in the Napoleonic peace the idea of a great nation that turned foreigners into Frenchmen.

Simeon’s warnings at the beginning of the discussion of the first title of the Civil Code draft were not empty. We must say that on 14 December 1801 the Corps Iegislatif had, following the Tribunat, already rejected the project of law on the publication and application of the laws. The speakers in favor of the text approved by the Council of State could not prevail over the fierce opposition on the part of the Tribunat. At the end of a long, animated debate, the Assembly voted to reject the project and appointed a committee composed of Thiesse, Faure and Boissy to pre­sent and defend in front of the Corps Iegislatif the reasons behind the vote. The following day Napoleon delivered a message to the Tribunat preventing its vote from being transmitted to the Corps Iegislatif. The discussion was interrupted. Then Cambaceres persuaded Napoleon to bring forward the elections to renew the first fifth of the Tribunat. But the Senate instead drew lots to designate outgoing and incoming members. The Assembly was thus purged of the draft’s main oppo­nents.^[555] On June 26 1802 the government referred the rejected draft back to the Tribunat (legislative section) without any further discussion in the Council of State. The legislative section of the Tribunat appointed a committee to draw up a report on the draft. In July the section scrutinized the report and penned some observations for the Conseil d’Etat.^[556] These observations reiterated some of the earlier critical insights, but this time the Tribunat accepted the basic character, general drift, and overall structure of the project. The government sought agreement between the Tribunat and Conseil d’Etat. Finally a joint conference of the legislation sections was held under the chairmanship of Cambaceres. A new text emerged from this conference, to be presented to the Council of State for final approval. On October 28 1802 Bigot de Preameneu presented the new draft to the Conseil d’Etat. He said that at long last, full agreement had been reached on the first chapter De la Jouis- sance des droits civils. Only a point on the effects of civil death remained at issue, but here the solution presented by the Tribunat was accepted. On November 25 the Council of State approved the project.^[557]

At this point the government decided that the draft would be presented to the Corps legislatif. Napoleon appointed a committee composed of Treilhard, Regnaud de Saint-Jean-d’Angely and Petiet. On February 25 1803 the conseiller d’etat Treil- hard was able to justify the project to the Assembly. First of all, its great importance was due to the fact that “...l’eclat de la victoire, la preponderance d’un gou- vernement fort et sage, donnent sans doute un grand prix a la qualite de citoyen franςais [...].”^[558] The text, Treilhard observed, had taken the jus sanguinis as its guiding principle. Thus, the wife, according to a right limited to men, follows eve­rywhere the condition of her husband. The children follow the condition of their father. But if the father has lost the qualite de Franςais, what happens to the chil­dren? Should they have to pay the consequences? France could not be like a step­mother: “Non, sans doute: c’est toujours du sang Prancais qui coule dans ses veines; Tinconstance ou Tinconduite du pere n’en ont pas tari la source [...] et peut-etre encore les remords du pere ont-ils mieux fait sentir au fils le prix de la qualite per­due [...].”^[559]

The jus soli allows a child born in France to a foreigner to become a Frenchman when he reached the age of majority by declaring his intention to be domiciled there. He was French because “[...] ses premiers regards ont vu le sol Prancais. c’est sur cette terre hospitaliere qui a souri pour la premiere fois aux caresses maternelles [.] les impressions de Fenfance ne s’effacent jamais [...].”^[560] Threilhard said that the most contested issue had been whether a foreigner in France should enjoy civil rights. After an impressive. even exhaustive debate. it had been decided that the Constitution should determine the conditions for becoming a citoyen franςais. When. however. a foreigner decided to settle in France. he relinquished his original citizenship. “[...] la patrie ancienne est abdiquee. la nouvelle n’est pas encore ac- quise; il ne peut exercer des droits politiques ni dans l’une ni dans l’autre.”^[561] For this reason the draft granted the exercise of civil rights to the foreigner. but this concession had to be authorized by the Government.

During the long debate. Treilhard said. two positions had emerged. We could call the first one the “philanthropic position” inasmuch as it sought to grant a total and absolute exercise of civil rights. It condemned every kind of barrier and thought that in this fashion the hateful droit d'aubaine could be reintroduced. The second one. the one supported by the rapporteur. was the “realistic position.” A world to­tally open and without barriers is an utopia. Once again. jettison grand theories and trust experience instead! “Une institution peut n’etre pas bonne. et cependant sa suppression absolue peut etre dangereuse; et c’est ici le cas de rappeler cette max­ime triviale. que le mieux est souvent un grand ennemi du bien."^[562] The principle of reciprocity had to be seen as the first step on a long journey.

The draft was finally adopted by the Tribunat on March 3. 1803 and by the Corps Iegislatif on March 17. The law was enacted on the following day.

Guillaume Locre in his Esprit du Code Napoleon states that “La France ne prodiguera plus inutilement la faveur des droits civils a des nations qui la lui re- fusent; elle l’offre encore a tous les peuples. mais sous la condition si juste de la reciprocite.”^[563]

5.