erit 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, the
blasts of war and the blight of bankruptcy, would have severely tested
the firmest of local institutions; they were certain to wither so
delicate an organism as an absolute democracy, which requires peace,
prosperity, and infinite patience for its development. Because France
then came to despair of her local self-government, it did not follow
that she would fail after Bonaparte's return had restored her prestige
and prosperity. But the national _elan_ forbade any postponement or
compromise; and France forthwith accepted the rule of an able official
hierarchy as a welcome alternative to the haphazard acts of local
busybodies. By many able men the change has been hailed as a proof of
Bonaparte's marvellous discernment of the national character, which,
as they aver, longs for brilliance, order, and strong government,
rather than for the steep and thorny paths of liberty. Certainly there
is much in the modern history of France which supports this opinion.
Yet perhaps these characteristics are due very largely to the master
craftsman, who fashioned France anew when in a state of receptivity,
and thus was able to subject democracy to that force which alone has
been able to tame it--the mighty force of mil