The rebound from the former electoral system, which placed all local authority ultimately in the hands of the voters, was emphasized by Article 75 of the constitution, which virtually raised officials beyond reach of prosecution.  It ran thus:  “The agents of the Government, other than the Ministers, cannot be prosecuted for facts relating to their duties except by a decision of the Council of State:  in that case the prosecution takes place before the ordinary tribunals.”  Now, as this decision rested with a body composed almost entirely of the higher officials, it will be seen that the chance of a public prosecution of an official became extremely small.  France was therefore in the first months of 1800 handed over to a hierarchy of officials closely bound together by interest and esprit de corps; and local administration, after ten years of democratic experiments, practically reverted to what it had been under the old monarchy.  In fact, the powers of the Prefects were, on the whole, much greater than those of the royal Intendants:  for while the latter were hampered by the provincial Parlements, the nominees of the First Consul had to deal with councils that retained scarce the shadow of power.  The real authority in local matters rested with the Prefects.  The old elective bodies survived, it is true, but their functions were now mainly advisory; and, lest their advice should be too copious, the sessions of the first two bodies were limited to a fortnight a year.  Except for a share in the assessment of taxation, their existence was merely a screen to hide the reality of the new central despotism.[150] Beneficent it may have been; and the choice of Prefects was certainly a proof of Bonaparte’s discernment of real merit among men of all shades of opinion; but for all that, it was a despotism, and one that has inextricably entwined itself with the whole life of France.[151]

It seems strange that this law should not have aroused fierce opposition; for it practically gagged democracy in its most appropriate and successful sphere of action, local self-government, and made popular election a mere shadow, except in the single act of the choice of the local juges de paix.  This was foreseen by the Liberals in the Tribunate:  but their power was small since the regulations passed in January:  and though Daunou, as “reporter,” sharply criticised this measure, yet he lamely concluded with the advice that it would be dangerous to reject it.  The Tribunes therefore passed the proposal by 71 votes to 25:  and the Corps Legislatif by 217 to 68.

The results of this new local government have often been considered so favourable as to prove that the genius of the French people requires central control rather than self-government.  But it should be noted that the conditions of France from 1790 to 1800 were altogether hostile to the development of free institutions.  The fierce feuds at home, the greed and the class jealousies awakened by confiscation,