Search

During the period 1815–1848, both Britain and France were constitutional monarchies, based on heavily restricted parliamentary franchises. Yet this did not prevent those excluded from the suffrage from participating in regular elections, which lasted for a few days, sometimes longer. This essay undertakes a comparative analysis of the extent and nature of popular involvement on either side of the Channel, and argues that the two countries were home to a broadly similar culture of elections. This culture was highly public, focused on a number of prominent towns, and festive. Crucially, we find the same variety of participatory forms afforded to non-electors in Britain and France: as spectators; as abusive members of a crowd; as violent partisans; as recipients of largesse; and as agents of mockery, ‘rough music’, and symbolic protest. Ironically, the advent of a wider franchise, which was accompanied by closely regulated and more confined electoral procedures, brought about the decline of this colourful culture. Nonetheless, the strength of this kind of popular electoral agency, beyond the vote, should not be exaggerated, for while a role for ordinary people was acknowledged, elections were decided by those wealthier citizens who monopolized the suffrage at this point. Ultimately, established power relations, though they might be challenged and mocked, were left intact.

Precisely how votes were to be cast had a long-contested history in France, as elsewhere. A show of hands or voice-voting was the traditional way of reaching a decision in an electoral assembly, for public voting made sense in societies where illiteracy was widespread, though it inhibited individual expression. Immense problems were accordingly created when paper-balloting was imposed after the Revolution of 1789 and demanded a new technology. A pioneering proposal for a fully secure vote was actually made during the 1790s, but it was not adopted until 1914, when the French finally introduced both an envelope for the ballot paper and a polling booth where it was inserted in private. During the intervening century, though the ballot box was made more secure, the voter’s choice had largely remained an open secret, which suited those who sought to monitor the behaviour of the mass electorate. Yet, just as the ballot paper was becoming globally accepted, mechanical and then electronic voting was invented; it is employed in many countries today, but only to a very limited extent in France.

Measuring electoral turnout in the past was not a priority, but in France after 1789 it became quite apparent that awarding the franchise to a majority of adult males did not automatically lead to its employment. Voter fatigue soon took its toll, and exhortation usually fell on deaf ears, though electoral procedure was extremely long-winded, and the decade of Revolution was marked throughout by civil unrest and international war. When universal manhood suffrage was established in 1848, turnout was initially high, yet it was not sustained and mobilizing the electorate remained a huge challenge. It proved essential to enable and educate citizens to exercise their right to vote. As elsewhere, the electoral apprenticeship in France was thus a lengthy and uneven process, in geographical as well as chronological terms. Somewhat ironically, it was the authoritarian Second Empire that marked a vital turning point in this regard, when frequent and regular polling began to attract a consistently increasing degree of participation. By the turn of the twentieth century high levels of turnout had become the norm, not just in national elections, but also at the local level, where the habit of voting was deeply embedded.

Free and fair elections, on the basis of universal suffrage, are a relatively recent achievement, their development deeply controversial, and how ordinary people voted in the past, as opposed to who they elected, has become an important object of scholarly research of late. France represents an excellent case study for exploring the history of voting on account of the long, uneven, and contested process of experimentation that was undertaken there. The sovereignty of the people, enunciated in 1789, was expressed in the frequent election of numerous representatives, at local as well as national level, while an enduring tradition of direct democracy also encouraged the use of referendums. France became an influential electoral laboratory as a result and much was demanded of its citizens as they learned to vote in some challenging circumstances. Their ensuing apprenticeship seemed to have been completed in the twentieth century, with the belated advent of a female franchise and consistently high turnout in all elections, but declining participation over the last few decades has raised serious doubts. This fascinating subject is tackled here on a thematic basis, highlighting candidatures and campaigning, as well as who could vote, how they did so and to what extent, beginning in the Ancien Régime and ending in the present day.

Non-voting has become a major issue of late as electoral participation has declined in most liberal democracies, not just in France. However, the history of voting demonstrates that this is no new phenomenon and, indeed, the problem of abstention was attracting attention from the inception of mass voting. After 1848 it would become a major preoccupation for French politicians. Proposals were frequently tabled for the vote to be made compulsory, though this would remove the liberty of not voting, while there was always disagreement over how to enforce the obligation. By the turn of the twentieth century, in the light of turnout regularly exceeding 75 per cent of the electorate, in both legislative and municipal elections, such concern might appear exaggerated. Yet the principle of representation was perceived to be at risk when electors failed to vote and there were fears that militant minorities would take control. Despite these persistent demands for compulsion, voting has remained a voluntary act in France and the civic duty to vote has been emphasized instead.

Designated candidates seeking office play a central role in elections today, so it is a surprise to discover that in the past voters were free to name whom they wished on their ballot papers. In France, their choice was only restricted when declared candidatures were required for election to the Chamber of Deputies after 1889, though this liberty lasted much longer when it came to local elections. This raises the question of how individuals aspiring to office put themselves forward, in the absence of manifestos or publicity, when their talents were supposed to speak for themselves. Indeed, before the French Revolution, and even afterwards, to openly seek election was regarded as a disqualification, though this created confusion as votes were widely dispersed and those elected often declined to serve. Yet the reluctance to abandon this approach was not simply attachment to tradition, rather it constituted an assertion of the voters’ sovereign right to exercise an unfettered electoral choice, and to reject those offered to them as official candidates by the government or as the nominees of political parties.

How did French voters decide whom to elect to office, or which option to support in referendums? Just as declared candidatures were long resisted, so overt campaigning was condemned by custom. Yet electioneering had always been conducted, albeit in a discreet fashion, by word of mouth among family and friends, or at the electoral assemblies in which voting was conducted until 1848. The advent of a mass suffrage would ultimately change the rules of the game, but the promotion of particular individuals was long regarded unfavourably. As new practices developed, so the boundary between simply canvassing for votes and using corrupt means to secure them became more blurred. The French case suggests that there is no simple equation between democratization and a reduction in electoral fraud, for a bigger electorate offered more scope for bribery and intimidation. However, demands for electoral integrity, together with greater secrecy of the vote, gradually curbed malpractice towards the end of the nineteenth century, though new forms of fraud have emerged in the age of the Internet.

All adults are entitled to vote today, yet this principle was not established until relatively recently. Even in the case of men, who were invariably enfranchised before women, the recognition of universal male suffrage was far more problematic than is often realized, though much has been written about it. In fact, the belief that the franchise should be awarded on the basis of certain criteria, such as property ownership or tax payment, as opposed to constituting a right of citizenship, was widely accepted during the nineteenth century, in France as elsewhere. Universal manhood suffrage was proclaimed in the French Constitution of 1793, but not implemented, and its later foundation in 1848 was unanticipated. There were also periods of reversal as well as progress, with moments of disenfranchisement, notably under the restored monarchy after 1814, but also during the First and Second Republics. Even in the early 1870s, the principle of one man, one vote was still being challenged by conservatives and its consolidation under the Third Republic was by no means preordained; it had taken nearly a century to achieve.

Since the turn of the twenty-first century, electoral turnout has been in general decline, not least in France, where the process of electoral acculturation has been called into question by plummeting levels of participation in legislative and municipal elections. Presidential polls are still attracting huge numbers, but in 2017 over four million voters spoiled their papers in the second round. These disturbing trends require some explanation, and they have been ascribed to disillusionment with the democratic process and a growing belief that casting a ballot achieves rather little. However, while the habit of voting is being lost, this apparent crisis of citizenship must be set in perspective, because this study has demonstrated that high turnout was not automatically generated by a mass franchise in the past. Moreover, recent research has revealed that those who never vote, or fail to register to do so, have remained in a small minority. Instead, increasing numbers are voting intermittently, choosing to exercise their right not to vote, an expression of vitality perhaps, compared to the somewhat mechanical behaviour of their predecessors. The same might be said of blank voting or annotating the ballot paper, while alternative forms of political engagement have been encouraged by the Internet. Above all, the development of women’s apprenticeship in voting has benefited from gender parity in candidatures and the number of females in elected office has increased enormously. In short, learning to vote remains a work in progress.

Voting is a familiar civic activity today, yet few participants are probably aware of its long and controversial history, which was especially marked in the case of France, the country chosen for this study of how people learn to vote. Casting a ballot does not come naturally, and it also requires the technology to accomplish it, besides the legal framework to regulate it. Democratization and the development of citizenship are lengthy processes, like the achievement of free and fair elections involving a secret ballot for all adults. A great experiment with mass voting for men was initiated in France in 1789, only for recurrent upheaval to ensure that the question of who could vote, and how they did so, was frequently re-examined and revised. The entire electoral system was a constant source of partisan conflict, popular protest, and innovation, throwing the great issues around voting into particularly sharp focus. This is the first book to explore the contested and contingent practice of the vote in a comprehensive fashion, over a time span that begins before the French Revolution and concludes with the present, while according significant space to local as well as national elections. The thematic analysis will assist an understanding of those countries where democracy remains in its infancy, while also offering insight into widespread contemporary concerns about declining electoral turnout. In so far as the global adoption of voting is reflected in the context of a specific society, it will be of interest to political scientists as well as historians.

In the second round of the presidential elections of 2017, some four million French citizens went to the polls and spoiled their ballot papers, either by casting a blank vote, or adding comments which incur invalidation. This was an unprecedented example of a largely hidden, but entrenched aspect of voting in France which is now becoming more visible, not only on account of its increasing scale, but also because images of the practice are appearing on social media. It has been referred to as ‘civic abstention’, in so far as the voter visits the polling station, only to record negative verdict, since neither blank nor annotated ballots count towards the result. This behaviour has a long history, which indicates disaffection and represents a form of protest, not simply aimed at specific candidates, or the alternatives on offer in a referendum, but questioning the electoral process itself. The French have learned to subvert as well as support their culture of elections in order to express an opinion, or make an objection, which the system of representative democracy denies them.

The process of enfranchisement for women would prove still more protracted than for men. Historians highlight the fact that the female vote in France was obtained as late as 1944, almost a century after all males were enfranchised, but this surprising delay can be partly explained by the precocious arrival of universal manhood suffrage in 1848, often simply referred to as ‘universal suffrage’ by contemporaries. Almost everywhere, there was an interval between the award of votes to men and women, usually shorter where full male suffrage arrived later. This ‘gender gap’, which has been the subject of much discussion of late, was thus exaggerated in France, but women themselves were more active and inventive in demanding the franchise than is often supposed. They were standing for election and holding local office before their right to vote was finally recognized, despite the frustration of their demands, which stemmed from a gendered ideology of citizenship and the particular resistance of male politicians in parliament. In the period after the Second World War their apprenticeship in voting was rapidly accomplished and, of late, French women have achieved a high degree of parity in elected office.

Biographies of Napoleon abound. Indeed, a further spate in the unending flow was prompted by the recent bicentenary, which also stimulated some excellent work on the Napoleonic era as a whole, the ...

On a bien sur vote sous Napoleon, par un systeme electoral a deux degres, largement emprunte a la Revolution, qui est applique dans les departements reunis a l’Empire, comme dans la France de l’interieur. Un suffrage masculin quasi-universel existe dans les assemblees cantonales, mais son role se limite a la presentation de candidats, le choix final etant decide par le gouvernement. Fustigees comme une farce, ces elections jouent neanmoins un role important dans le fonctionnement politique et social du regime napoleonien, en meme temps qu’elles prolongent l’experience electorale revolutionnaire. Pourtant, leur deroulement reste meconnu et on ignore surtout les attitudes, et des votants et des administrateurs, devant l’invitation aux urnes. Une enquete prefectorale, commandee par le ministre de l’Interieur en 1813, permet un precieux regard sur le comportement electoral et sur la reponse de ceux qui s’en occupent. Cet observatoire unique suggere que les contradictions du systeme condamnent l’experience a l’echec, non sans laisser un heritage dans la pratique du vote et du bonapartisme.

The humble ballot paper is a defining technology of elections throughout the world. This article interrogates its contested past by demonstrating – over a long period and in the context of three contrasting countries – how and why it emerged in the early modern period and how it was then used, abused and regulated in the context of the expanded, and eventually mass, electoral arenas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Ironically, by the time that the ballot paper was firmly established, its monopoly was already being challenged by mechanical and then electronic media, which may eventually condemn it to extinction.

This article establishes the significance of elections held in the annexed departments of the Napoleonic Empire from 1802 to 1813. It thus represents an original, and perhaps surprising, contribution to recent debate on the nature of Napoleonic imperialism, in which attention has shifted from core to periphery, and away from purely military matters. The electoral process under this authoritarian regime has been alternately neglected or derided, especially where the newly created departments of the Low Countries and parts of Germany and Italy are concerned. However, extensive archival research demonstrates that it was taken extremely seriously by both regime and voters, especially outside metropolitan France. These ‘First European Elections', as they may be dubbed, took place in regular fashion right across the Empire and are studied here on a transnational basis, which also involves the metropolitan departments. Though open to all adult males at the primary level, they were not exercises in democracy, but they did create some rare political space which local people were not slow to exploit for their own purposes. Above all, they served as a means of integrating ‘new Frenchmen’, particularly members of indigenous elites, into the Napoleonic system.

The advent of mass, male suffrage in France in 1848 is usually regarded as a great success. There was a huge turnout in elections for a Constituent Assembly, but the outcome disappointed republicans, who failed to win a majority and blamed a backward peasantry. This paper suggests that the electoral system was at fault rather than the electorate. A hastily devised procedure, based on collective voting and the absence of declared candidatures, enabled notables to dominate the new regime. Radicals revised their tactics with some success in 1849, but soon succumbed to the plebiscitary democracy of Louis-Napoleon. Universal suffrage might well mean counter-revolution.

Obwohl die Geschichte von Kultur und Praxis des Wahlens jungst neue Aufmerksamkeit in Frankreich erfahren hat, bleiben das Erste und Zweite Kaiserreich in diesen Debatten ausgeklammert. Wahrend ihre Plebiszite wohlbekannt sind, wurden die in beiden Regimen eingesetzten Wahlen kaum untersucht. Gewiss ist es leicht nachvollziehbar, dass republikanische Historiker diesen Volksbefragungen wenig Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt haben, denn das semi-kompetetive, allgemeine Mannerwahlrecht unter Napoleon I. und Napoleon III. waren nicht frei oder geheim und boten nur eine beschrankte Auswahl an Kandidaten. Wie dieser Beitrag zeigt, boten regelmasige Wahlen dennoch Raum fur politische Aktivitaten und erweiterten die mit der Revolution 1789 einsetzenden franzosischen Erfahrungen mit Massenwahlen. Paradoxerweise leisteten die autoritaren Regime von Napoleon I. und Napoleon III. damit einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Entwicklung der Techniken, Verfahren und Praktiken demokratischen Wahlens.

Le vote secret est actuellement considere comme la seule methode qui puisse assurer la sincerite des elections. Tel n’a pas toujours ete le cas. Cet article se veut une contribution a une histoire critique et en devenir de l’acte de vote. Au cours du « long » dix-neuvieme siecle, l’adoption du vote secret provoqua un grand debat dans les pays occidentaux. Cette discussion devint globale a travers la comparaison entre les systemes electoraux. Cette approche transnationale de la reforme, fondee sur des reseaux internationaux de communication plus rapides, est cependant restee dans l’ombre, alors qu’elle est essentielle pour comprendre l’invention et la diffusion a travers le monde de l’« australian ballot », avec son bulletin officiel imprime et surtout son isoloir. Une innovation d’origine coloniale a ainsi inspire le renouveau des procedures electorales en Angleterre et aux Etats-Unis, puis en Belgique et en France. La diffusion du vote secret offre un excellent exemple de circulation des idees et des pratiques. Dans ce cas neanmoins, des specificites locales ont persiste, faisant ainsi obstacle a l’adoption d’un modele uniforme.

This is the author's accepted manuscript, post peer-review. The original published version can be found at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03071022.2011.538553

Histories of the Hundred Days, which followed Napoléon's bold and unexpected return from exile on Elba in 1815, have generally neglected the response of the French people, concentrating instead on the resurgent emperor himself and his definitive defeat at Waterloo. This study, part of a project exploring the elections of the Napoleonic period, aims to redress the balance by examining how French males voted in the plebiscite and parliamentary elections that accompanied this brief but vital period. It will not only map the lasting contours of Bonapartism but also suggest that the Hundred Days carried great significance, in terms of both forging the Napoleonic legend and entrenching a culture of voting in postrevolutionary France. L'histoire des Cent-Jours en 1815, la période qui suit le retour à la fois audacieux et inattendu de Napoléon de son exil sur l'île d'Elbe, néglige en général la réponse du peuple français pour concentrer sur le personnage de l'empereur et sa défaite militaire à Waterloo. Cette étude, qui fait partie d'un projet consacré aux élections de l'ère napoléonienne, cherche à rétablir l'équilibre en examinant comment les Français votaient dans le plébiscite et les élections législatives organisées au cours de cet événement bref, mais bien significatif. Elle dresse la carte des contours durables du bonapartisme et, en même temps, souligne la grande importance des Cent-Jours qui établit la légende napoléonienne et renforce la culture du vote dans la France postrévolutionnaire.

These days the secret ballot is taken for granted and it is often seen as the natural complement of universal, democratic suffrage. Its emergence, however, was just as contested and varied as the franchise and raised similar issues concerning the nature and practice of citizenship. This article focuses on the emergence of the secret ballot in Britain and France, two countries with a long history of parliamentary and local elections. In Britain, the secret ballot was introduced in 1872, while in France, which introduced universal male suffrage in 1848, it was as late as 1913 before envelope and polling booth rendered the vote completely secure. This study documents the varied polling practices employed in both countries prior to the onset of the secret ballot. It also highlights the contentious nature of polling reform. For some, the secret ballot was regarded as a means of safeguarding electoral independence and eliminating corruption. Others, including radicals, argued quite the opposite: that secret voting was an affront to honourable, public-spirited citizenship. In the end, full secrecy was achieved as part of the broader process of domesticating and disciplining the exercise of a mass franchise.

The latest version of Microsoft Visual Basic (2005) is built upon the Microsoft.NET Framework. It has finally become a fully-fledged Object Oriented Language with all the associated features one would come to expect. It allows Visual Basic programmers to tackle much larger applications, through improved scalability and reusability. This article discusses the new features using code examples to real applications in the Laboratory Automation environment.

Books reviewed in this article: Isser Woloch, Napoleon and his Collaborators. The Making of a Dictatorship Andy Martin, Napoleon the Novelist R. S. Alexander, Napoleon Desmond Gregory, Napoleon’s Italy

This chapter aims to establish the first years of the French Revolution as a radical experiment in the practice of democracy, and to overturn the ‘moderate’ or ‘liberal’ perspective that many historians have adopted. Following the wholesale destruction of the ancien régime and the principles laid down in 1789 for the creation of a replacement, a new political culture emerged. The administrative framework that was rapidly instituted was by no means decentralized, but it proved incapable of controlling the great explosion of political activity and discussion, which subverted rather than supported the foundation of representative government. The analysis of elections, clubs and newspapers that flourished nationwide demonstrates these unruly dynamics of revolutionary citizenship, which the constitutional monarchy struggled to circumscribe. Despite the concerted efforts made to close this period of upheaval with the inception of the Constitution in the autumn of 1791, the Revolution was far from over.

The enactment of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in 1790, which profoundly reformed the Catholic Church in France, has rightly been regarded as a major turning point in the French Revolution. Its implementation caused a substantial schism, not simply within the clergy, but also among the laity, with devastating consequences for the prevailing political consensus. Yet while a good deal of research has been devoted to an exploration of clerical responses to the crisis, rather less is known about lay reactions. By analysing turnout in the episcopal elections of 1790–1, which appointed new bishops to no less than eighty of the eighty-three departmental dioceses, this article illuminates the attitudes of wealthy notables who dominated the electoral assemblies. The study that follows also examines the operation of the electoral system and the characteristics of the priests who emerged victorious from the polls. On account of their modest social origins, and their endorsement of the unfolding revolutionary process, these prelates became known as ‘citizen bishops’.