The second empire on the road to disaster. Part of 2
Crisis development
The May 1863 elections brought significant success to the Republican opposition. The 35 opposition deputies, most of whom were bourgeois republicans, were elected to the Legislative Corps. The results of the municipal elections that took place in France in July 1865 also showed an increase in republican sentiment. The republican movement assumed the greatest dimensions in a large part of the departments of the center, in a number of departments in the west, southeast and especially in the south of France. The movement against the empire engulfed numerous masses of workers and citizens, as well as the peasantry. A significant part of the wealthy part of the population - the bourgeoisie - also opposed the empire.
The economic crisis of 1866 — 1867, which was part of the global crisis, contributed to the further growth of the opposition movement. In France, a political crisis was brewing steadily. The economic crisis in France was particularly difficult and manifested itself in a fall in production and consumption, a critical situation of trade, a decrease in entrepreneurial profits and wages. The industrial crisis was complicated by the poor harvest of 1867.
For example, cotton consumption in 1867 has decreased by 1866% compared to 25,3. This was due to a reduction in the production of textiles, due to the narrowing of the domestic and foreign markets, and the decline in the purchasing power of the population both in France and abroad. France's foreign trade in 1867 decreased by 1866 million francs compared to 161 (in 1866 its turnover was 8126 million francs, in 1867 - 7965 million francs). At the same time, imports of foreign goods in 1867 increased by 233 million francs compared to 1866, while exports of French goods abroad, by contrast, declined compared to 1866 by 355 million francs. The export of products of the French light industry fell particularly.
In heavy industry, the production of the mining and metallurgical industries decreased most noticeably. Iron ore production in 1867 decreased by almost 13% compared to 1866. The reduction in production in the French heavy industry was largely due to a slowdown in railway construction, both in France itself and beyond, in Portugal, Austria, Russia, Italy and in other countries. The French metallurgical industry actively served the construction of railway lines in other countries.
The World Industrial Fair, which opened in Paris 1 on April 1867, cost the government about 24 million francs and was organized mainly to splurge, cause at least an artificial revival of French industry and commerce and thereby weaken the growing discontent of the bourgeoisie. The government press claimed that the exhibition "will enrich trade and comprehensively increase the scope of the industry." Before closing the exhibition, Napoleon III, in a speech delivered during the distribution of prizes, tried to create the impression that the exhibition showed the power and flourishing of the French economy. “Let us congratulate ourselves, gentlemen, in order,” said the emperor, “that we received the majority of the sovereigns and princes of Europe and such a large number of diligent visitors. Let us be proud also of the fact that we showed them France as it is, great, prosperous and free. We must be deprived of any feeling of patriotism in order to doubt this ... The exhibition 1867, I hope, will mark a new era of harmony and progress. ” However, in reality, the World Exhibition did not justify the hopes placed on it by the authorities. As the republican press noted after its closure, the exhibition “left industry and commerce in a state of complete exhaustion and paid for the money spent on it with a multitude of bankruptcies”.
The industrial and commercial crisis was combined with money market disorder, falling stock prices, increasing bankruptcies (4600 bankruptcies in 1864, 5200 in 1866, 5600 in 1867). Shares of many large companies dropped two to three times. Catastrophically fell shares of "Movable Credit". Their September 1867 course crashed to 134 francs. In October, 1867, at the height of the magnificent court festivities in honor of the World's Fair, the Movable Credit Society and its affiliates stopped payments, causing panic on the Paris Stock Exchange. Thousands of small and medium holders of his shares went bankrupt. The collapse of this largest credit institution, whose multimillion speculative operations enjoyed the special patronage of the emperor, was regarded by the opposition as the beginning of the end of the reign of Napoleon III. It was ironically noted that not only the shares of the “Movable Credit”, but also the shares of the government cost two hundred francs after they were worth two thousand francs.
All this sharply worsened the attitude of the bourgeoisie to the regime of Napoleon III. Internal problems were superimposed on the complete collapse of foreign policy adventures. Paris hoped with the help of diplomatic maneuvers and colonial adventures to achieve territorial increments for France, to obtain new sales markets and raw materials, new areas of capital investment. This was supposed to enrich the French bourgeoisie. However, all hopes were dispelled, which led to an increase in opposition sentiment among the large commercial, industrial and financial bourgeoisie. It is no coincidence that it is in 1866 — 1867. finally formed the so-called. “The third party”, speaking platform: “progress through freedom without revolution”, that is, the conquest of political freedoms by the bourgeoisie through constitutional transformation of the empire.
The Italian policy of Napoleon III provoked the irritation of the Catholic clergy. Republicans and liberals condemned the emperor for conspiring with Austria behind the back of his ally. The French bourgeoisie was afraid of losing the Italian market. The new Italian state could become an opponent of France. The complete failure of the Mexican expedition led to great human, financial losses. This colonial adventure exacerbated French relations with the United States of America and England. In France, its failure strengthened the republican opposition and irritated Catholic circles. The bourgeois opposition in the Legislative Corps has fiercely criticized the unsuccessful government policies in Mexico. The republican and liberal press noted: “France completely uselessly sacrificed its soldiers and its millions.”
The opposition also criticized the government for its deeply erroneous policy during the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, which, as critics pointed out, played into the hands of Prussia, to the detriment of the interests of France. Bismarck outplayed Napoleon III, instilling in him that full confidence that Italy’s action would not ease the war for Prussia at all, that the Austro-Prussian war would be protracted, and therefore exhausting for Prussia. Thus, France will be able, at any favorable moment, standing with the army on the Rhine, to present any demands to Prussia (Paris wanted to annex Luxembourg and Belgium).
As a result, Napoleon III did not dare to intervene in the Austro-Prussian conflict because of the unavailability of the French army, much of which was also in Mexico, Italy and Algeria at that time. This allowed Prussia to defeat Austria in a short time (at the Battle of Sadow in 1866 in July) and from the end of 1866 to become the head of the North German Union. The territorial compensation promised by Bismarck Napoleon III (Luxembourg) for his neutrality was not received by France. Another unsuccessful attempt by Napoleon III in 1867 for the second time was to achieve the accession of Luxembourg to France. In addition, the defeat of Austria led to the fact that the Venetian region passed to Italy.
With his hesitant, controversial policy during the Polish uprising 1863, Napoleon III aggravated relations with Russia and did not gain the favor of the Poles. In this way, during the Second Empire, France quarreled with almost all the major powers - with Prussia, England, Italy, Russia, Austria, the United States of America and other states. This led to the emergence of a real threat of foreign policy isolation.
At the same time, the living conditions of ordinary people sharply deteriorated. As a result of the economic crisis and the poor harvest of 1867, unemployment and poverty have increased. The reduction in production in the French industry, the efforts of entrepreneurs to shift the "costs" of the crisis onto the shoulders of workers by lowering their wages, increasing indirect taxes, the high cost of bread and other food products exacerbated the already bleak situation of the working class. The unceasing increase in the price of bread caused constant discontent among the working population of the capital. The strike struggle of the working class intensified.
The representation of the First International (International Association of Workers, MTR) established in France increased the number of its sections and strengthened its position among the workers. Attempts by the authorities to destroy the French sections of the International have failed. Neither the confiscation at the border of the French delegates to the Charter of the International returning from the Geneva Congress (1866) and the congress materials, nor the prohibition of their publication and distribution in France, nor police raids, searches and arrests, nor prosecutions stopped the growth of sections France and the propaganda of its principles.
By the time of the Congress of Lausanne (1867), most of the Paris sections rejected the doctrine of conciliatory Proudhonism. This was evidenced by the wide scale of the strike movement, the growth of various unions of the working class, and the appearance of political speeches, in particular, in defense of the Polish and Italian patriots. The workers began to move away from the ideas of mutualism - the desire for a peaceful social revolution through the organization of production teams and a gratuitous mutual loan.
At the end of 1860's revolutionary radicalism, which dreamed of the ideals of Robespierre, began to be widely used, especially in the lower layers of the bourgeoisie. He did not set out a specific program, and the principles of "eternal justice" and "eternal fraternity" were understood by each speaker in their own way. In only one all the opposition elements converged - in hatred of the empire.
Along with the French branch of the MTR, a radical revolutionary faction of the “Blanquists” (named for its leader, Louis Blanca) was formed, which preached utopian communism and was distinguished by radicalism in the methods of struggle. Thus, in the autumn of 1867, the political situation in France became extremely aggravated due to the French corps being sent to Italy in late October to render military assistance to the papal throne because of a new attempt by Italian patriots led by Garibaldi to liberate Rome. The discontent of the French society was expressed by a group of Parisian students, among whom the Blanquists prevailed. Shouts of “Long live Garibaldi! Long live Italy! Down with intervention! ”They accompanied the carriage that drove through the streets of Paris, in which Napoleon III and Empress Eugene were. The participants of this action were arrested and thrown into prison.
3 November 1867 The French army inflicted a heavy defeat on the Garibaldians under Mentan when they, having broken the resistance of the papal army, were already approaching Rome. The Parisian population responded with a major rally held on November 4. In this way, both the broad strata of the common people and the bourgeoisie were displeased with the fact that the failed policy of Napoleon III undermined the international prestige of France, without bringing any material benefits.
Last years of the Second Empire
1868 year did not bring improvement in the economic and political situation in the Second Empire. The economy was still in crisis. The Russian ambassador to Paris, Baron Budberg, reported 8 March 1868 to Russian Foreign Minister Prince Gorchakov: “At the moment, the government is most worried about the difficult situation in which the country's economic life is. They are complaining that things are going badly, complaining of unemployment, high prices, which further aggravate all disasters. ” Further, the ambassador reported: "The last dividend of the French bank was 30% lower than the dividend of last year, and since this institution is the regulator of the situation, it is fair to conclude that production and consumption have declined." In addition, the government and the public were alarmed by the tension of France’s international position and the threat of a European war.
In January, 1868 adopted a new military law. From the end of 1866, he was trained by the Minister of War Marshal Niel. The initial draft of the reorganization of the French military system, whose weakness was already apparent during the Crimean and Italian campaigns, envisaged, among other changes, doubling the number of cadre army and creating along with it 400-thousandth mobile guard. In December, 1866 published a report of the military commission, which noted that France needed an 800-thousand-strong army to maintain its first place in Europe. In the French army at that time there were a little more than 600 thousand people on paper, actually less than 400 thousand were under arms, the rest were considered to be reservists. To create such an army, it was necessary to introduce universal military service with a six-year term of military service in the active army and a subsequent three-year stay in the ranks of the mobile guard.
It is clear that such a project has caused sharp discontent of almost all segments of the population. The French big bourgeoisie widely enjoyed the privilege of being a substitute, which was granted to it by the military law of 1855, which in fact exempted it from military service. The bourgeoisie did not intend to abandon this privilege. The project to create a trained national guard scared the bourgeoisie. The large landowners and the wealthy elite of the village also reacted to the reform. The masses of France, the workers and peasants, on whose shoulders lay the brunt of universal military service, also extremely hostile to the project of military reform. The military adventures of the Napoleon III regime and the fear of the proximity of new wars caused people to have a well-founded fear.
In March, 1867 was published the second version of the draft military reform, according to which the duration of military service in the regular army instead of the six years provided for in the original draft, was set at five years. This project also met a negative public reaction. As a result, when in January 1868, the Legislative Corps, after a long heated debate, approved the final text of the military law, it only remotely resembled the military reform project presented in 1866, the only radical innovation was the creation of a mobile guard. However, the duration of stay in its ranks in peacetime was limited to fifteen days instead of the originally intended three-year period. But in this form, this innovation was not enforced. The government of the Second Empire never decided in subsequent years to convene a mobile guard listed on paper. At the end of June 1870, shortly before the start of the Franco-Prussian war, Marshal Niel’s successor, War Minister Lebef, frankly stated in the Legislative Corps that the mobile guard, which was never organized, “exists only on paper.” Plans for a more rational mobilization, as well as the equipment and movement of French troops in the event of a war, were also not implemented.
Thus, the regime of Napoleon III failed to radically reform the French military system and double the number of the French army. The military reform of 1868 could not strengthen the fighting efficiency of France in the face of the threat of a collision with Prussia, which was particularly acute after the Austro-Prussian War of 1866.
Other reforms of the government of the Second Empire failed to justify themselves. Back in February, 1867, Napoleon III, in order to appease the opposition, which demanded “necessary freedoms”, said in a throne speech at the opening of the session of the Legislative Corps that “the time has come for liberal events”. In May-June 1868, the so-called liberal laws on the press and on public meetings were issued. The law of 12 in May 1868 allowed the creation of new press organs without prior governmental permission. The law of 6 June 1868 has formally legalized public meetings. However, in cases where they were political in nature, prior authorization was required, which was given only during periods of election campaigns. In addition, the presence of a police commissioner at public meetings, accompanied by a stenographer secretary who kept records of speeches, was obligatory. The commissioner had the right to disperse the meeting when the discussion deviated from the official agenda. Also, the authorities organized the first and second processes of the Paris Bureau of the International. However, this did not stabilize the internal political situation.
To be continued ...
The May 1863 elections brought significant success to the Republican opposition. The 35 opposition deputies, most of whom were bourgeois republicans, were elected to the Legislative Corps. The results of the municipal elections that took place in France in July 1865 also showed an increase in republican sentiment. The republican movement assumed the greatest dimensions in a large part of the departments of the center, in a number of departments in the west, southeast and especially in the south of France. The movement against the empire engulfed numerous masses of workers and citizens, as well as the peasantry. A significant part of the wealthy part of the population - the bourgeoisie - also opposed the empire.
The economic crisis of 1866 — 1867, which was part of the global crisis, contributed to the further growth of the opposition movement. In France, a political crisis was brewing steadily. The economic crisis in France was particularly difficult and manifested itself in a fall in production and consumption, a critical situation of trade, a decrease in entrepreneurial profits and wages. The industrial crisis was complicated by the poor harvest of 1867.
For example, cotton consumption in 1867 has decreased by 1866% compared to 25,3. This was due to a reduction in the production of textiles, due to the narrowing of the domestic and foreign markets, and the decline in the purchasing power of the population both in France and abroad. France's foreign trade in 1867 decreased by 1866 million francs compared to 161 (in 1866 its turnover was 8126 million francs, in 1867 - 7965 million francs). At the same time, imports of foreign goods in 1867 increased by 233 million francs compared to 1866, while exports of French goods abroad, by contrast, declined compared to 1866 by 355 million francs. The export of products of the French light industry fell particularly.
In heavy industry, the production of the mining and metallurgical industries decreased most noticeably. Iron ore production in 1867 decreased by almost 13% compared to 1866. The reduction in production in the French heavy industry was largely due to a slowdown in railway construction, both in France itself and beyond, in Portugal, Austria, Russia, Italy and in other countries. The French metallurgical industry actively served the construction of railway lines in other countries.
The World Industrial Fair, which opened in Paris 1 on April 1867, cost the government about 24 million francs and was organized mainly to splurge, cause at least an artificial revival of French industry and commerce and thereby weaken the growing discontent of the bourgeoisie. The government press claimed that the exhibition "will enrich trade and comprehensively increase the scope of the industry." Before closing the exhibition, Napoleon III, in a speech delivered during the distribution of prizes, tried to create the impression that the exhibition showed the power and flourishing of the French economy. “Let us congratulate ourselves, gentlemen, in order,” said the emperor, “that we received the majority of the sovereigns and princes of Europe and such a large number of diligent visitors. Let us be proud also of the fact that we showed them France as it is, great, prosperous and free. We must be deprived of any feeling of patriotism in order to doubt this ... The exhibition 1867, I hope, will mark a new era of harmony and progress. ” However, in reality, the World Exhibition did not justify the hopes placed on it by the authorities. As the republican press noted after its closure, the exhibition “left industry and commerce in a state of complete exhaustion and paid for the money spent on it with a multitude of bankruptcies”.
The industrial and commercial crisis was combined with money market disorder, falling stock prices, increasing bankruptcies (4600 bankruptcies in 1864, 5200 in 1866, 5600 in 1867). Shares of many large companies dropped two to three times. Catastrophically fell shares of "Movable Credit". Their September 1867 course crashed to 134 francs. In October, 1867, at the height of the magnificent court festivities in honor of the World's Fair, the Movable Credit Society and its affiliates stopped payments, causing panic on the Paris Stock Exchange. Thousands of small and medium holders of his shares went bankrupt. The collapse of this largest credit institution, whose multimillion speculative operations enjoyed the special patronage of the emperor, was regarded by the opposition as the beginning of the end of the reign of Napoleon III. It was ironically noted that not only the shares of the “Movable Credit”, but also the shares of the government cost two hundred francs after they were worth two thousand francs.
All this sharply worsened the attitude of the bourgeoisie to the regime of Napoleon III. Internal problems were superimposed on the complete collapse of foreign policy adventures. Paris hoped with the help of diplomatic maneuvers and colonial adventures to achieve territorial increments for France, to obtain new sales markets and raw materials, new areas of capital investment. This was supposed to enrich the French bourgeoisie. However, all hopes were dispelled, which led to an increase in opposition sentiment among the large commercial, industrial and financial bourgeoisie. It is no coincidence that it is in 1866 — 1867. finally formed the so-called. “The third party”, speaking platform: “progress through freedom without revolution”, that is, the conquest of political freedoms by the bourgeoisie through constitutional transformation of the empire.
The Italian policy of Napoleon III provoked the irritation of the Catholic clergy. Republicans and liberals condemned the emperor for conspiring with Austria behind the back of his ally. The French bourgeoisie was afraid of losing the Italian market. The new Italian state could become an opponent of France. The complete failure of the Mexican expedition led to great human, financial losses. This colonial adventure exacerbated French relations with the United States of America and England. In France, its failure strengthened the republican opposition and irritated Catholic circles. The bourgeois opposition in the Legislative Corps has fiercely criticized the unsuccessful government policies in Mexico. The republican and liberal press noted: “France completely uselessly sacrificed its soldiers and its millions.”
The opposition also criticized the government for its deeply erroneous policy during the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, which, as critics pointed out, played into the hands of Prussia, to the detriment of the interests of France. Bismarck outplayed Napoleon III, instilling in him that full confidence that Italy’s action would not ease the war for Prussia at all, that the Austro-Prussian war would be protracted, and therefore exhausting for Prussia. Thus, France will be able, at any favorable moment, standing with the army on the Rhine, to present any demands to Prussia (Paris wanted to annex Luxembourg and Belgium).
As a result, Napoleon III did not dare to intervene in the Austro-Prussian conflict because of the unavailability of the French army, much of which was also in Mexico, Italy and Algeria at that time. This allowed Prussia to defeat Austria in a short time (at the Battle of Sadow in 1866 in July) and from the end of 1866 to become the head of the North German Union. The territorial compensation promised by Bismarck Napoleon III (Luxembourg) for his neutrality was not received by France. Another unsuccessful attempt by Napoleon III in 1867 for the second time was to achieve the accession of Luxembourg to France. In addition, the defeat of Austria led to the fact that the Venetian region passed to Italy.
With his hesitant, controversial policy during the Polish uprising 1863, Napoleon III aggravated relations with Russia and did not gain the favor of the Poles. In this way, during the Second Empire, France quarreled with almost all the major powers - with Prussia, England, Italy, Russia, Austria, the United States of America and other states. This led to the emergence of a real threat of foreign policy isolation.
At the same time, the living conditions of ordinary people sharply deteriorated. As a result of the economic crisis and the poor harvest of 1867, unemployment and poverty have increased. The reduction in production in the French industry, the efforts of entrepreneurs to shift the "costs" of the crisis onto the shoulders of workers by lowering their wages, increasing indirect taxes, the high cost of bread and other food products exacerbated the already bleak situation of the working class. The unceasing increase in the price of bread caused constant discontent among the working population of the capital. The strike struggle of the working class intensified.
The representation of the First International (International Association of Workers, MTR) established in France increased the number of its sections and strengthened its position among the workers. Attempts by the authorities to destroy the French sections of the International have failed. Neither the confiscation at the border of the French delegates to the Charter of the International returning from the Geneva Congress (1866) and the congress materials, nor the prohibition of their publication and distribution in France, nor police raids, searches and arrests, nor prosecutions stopped the growth of sections France and the propaganda of its principles.
By the time of the Congress of Lausanne (1867), most of the Paris sections rejected the doctrine of conciliatory Proudhonism. This was evidenced by the wide scale of the strike movement, the growth of various unions of the working class, and the appearance of political speeches, in particular, in defense of the Polish and Italian patriots. The workers began to move away from the ideas of mutualism - the desire for a peaceful social revolution through the organization of production teams and a gratuitous mutual loan.
At the end of 1860's revolutionary radicalism, which dreamed of the ideals of Robespierre, began to be widely used, especially in the lower layers of the bourgeoisie. He did not set out a specific program, and the principles of "eternal justice" and "eternal fraternity" were understood by each speaker in their own way. In only one all the opposition elements converged - in hatred of the empire.
Along with the French branch of the MTR, a radical revolutionary faction of the “Blanquists” (named for its leader, Louis Blanca) was formed, which preached utopian communism and was distinguished by radicalism in the methods of struggle. Thus, in the autumn of 1867, the political situation in France became extremely aggravated due to the French corps being sent to Italy in late October to render military assistance to the papal throne because of a new attempt by Italian patriots led by Garibaldi to liberate Rome. The discontent of the French society was expressed by a group of Parisian students, among whom the Blanquists prevailed. Shouts of “Long live Garibaldi! Long live Italy! Down with intervention! ”They accompanied the carriage that drove through the streets of Paris, in which Napoleon III and Empress Eugene were. The participants of this action were arrested and thrown into prison.
3 November 1867 The French army inflicted a heavy defeat on the Garibaldians under Mentan when they, having broken the resistance of the papal army, were already approaching Rome. The Parisian population responded with a major rally held on November 4. In this way, both the broad strata of the common people and the bourgeoisie were displeased with the fact that the failed policy of Napoleon III undermined the international prestige of France, without bringing any material benefits.
Last years of the Second Empire
1868 year did not bring improvement in the economic and political situation in the Second Empire. The economy was still in crisis. The Russian ambassador to Paris, Baron Budberg, reported 8 March 1868 to Russian Foreign Minister Prince Gorchakov: “At the moment, the government is most worried about the difficult situation in which the country's economic life is. They are complaining that things are going badly, complaining of unemployment, high prices, which further aggravate all disasters. ” Further, the ambassador reported: "The last dividend of the French bank was 30% lower than the dividend of last year, and since this institution is the regulator of the situation, it is fair to conclude that production and consumption have declined." In addition, the government and the public were alarmed by the tension of France’s international position and the threat of a European war.
In January, 1868 adopted a new military law. From the end of 1866, he was trained by the Minister of War Marshal Niel. The initial draft of the reorganization of the French military system, whose weakness was already apparent during the Crimean and Italian campaigns, envisaged, among other changes, doubling the number of cadre army and creating along with it 400-thousandth mobile guard. In December, 1866 published a report of the military commission, which noted that France needed an 800-thousand-strong army to maintain its first place in Europe. In the French army at that time there were a little more than 600 thousand people on paper, actually less than 400 thousand were under arms, the rest were considered to be reservists. To create such an army, it was necessary to introduce universal military service with a six-year term of military service in the active army and a subsequent three-year stay in the ranks of the mobile guard.
It is clear that such a project has caused sharp discontent of almost all segments of the population. The French big bourgeoisie widely enjoyed the privilege of being a substitute, which was granted to it by the military law of 1855, which in fact exempted it from military service. The bourgeoisie did not intend to abandon this privilege. The project to create a trained national guard scared the bourgeoisie. The large landowners and the wealthy elite of the village also reacted to the reform. The masses of France, the workers and peasants, on whose shoulders lay the brunt of universal military service, also extremely hostile to the project of military reform. The military adventures of the Napoleon III regime and the fear of the proximity of new wars caused people to have a well-founded fear.
In March, 1867 was published the second version of the draft military reform, according to which the duration of military service in the regular army instead of the six years provided for in the original draft, was set at five years. This project also met a negative public reaction. As a result, when in January 1868, the Legislative Corps, after a long heated debate, approved the final text of the military law, it only remotely resembled the military reform project presented in 1866, the only radical innovation was the creation of a mobile guard. However, the duration of stay in its ranks in peacetime was limited to fifteen days instead of the originally intended three-year period. But in this form, this innovation was not enforced. The government of the Second Empire never decided in subsequent years to convene a mobile guard listed on paper. At the end of June 1870, shortly before the start of the Franco-Prussian war, Marshal Niel’s successor, War Minister Lebef, frankly stated in the Legislative Corps that the mobile guard, which was never organized, “exists only on paper.” Plans for a more rational mobilization, as well as the equipment and movement of French troops in the event of a war, were also not implemented.
Thus, the regime of Napoleon III failed to radically reform the French military system and double the number of the French army. The military reform of 1868 could not strengthen the fighting efficiency of France in the face of the threat of a collision with Prussia, which was particularly acute after the Austro-Prussian War of 1866.
Other reforms of the government of the Second Empire failed to justify themselves. Back in February, 1867, Napoleon III, in order to appease the opposition, which demanded “necessary freedoms”, said in a throne speech at the opening of the session of the Legislative Corps that “the time has come for liberal events”. In May-June 1868, the so-called liberal laws on the press and on public meetings were issued. The law of 12 in May 1868 allowed the creation of new press organs without prior governmental permission. The law of 6 June 1868 has formally legalized public meetings. However, in cases where they were political in nature, prior authorization was required, which was given only during periods of election campaigns. In addition, the presence of a police commissioner at public meetings, accompanied by a stenographer secretary who kept records of speeches, was obligatory. The commissioner had the right to disperse the meeting when the discussion deviated from the official agenda. Also, the authorities organized the first and second processes of the Paris Bureau of the International. However, this did not stabilize the internal political situation.
To be continued ...
Information