John Leopold’s Legacy of Empire: The Big Three of 1832-1848
After the Campobosso Peace there were three men who largely influenced Domestic and Continental Affairs in the years leading up to 1848. These three individuals managed to intentionally or unintentionally bring about great change within Continental Europe under Napoleon II’s benevolent yoke.
The before-mentioned leader of the right-wing nationalist factions in France, Elie Decazes, engineered through careful political maneuvering and arousing discontent over Napoleon II’s European Unity policies. The Bonapartist Party lost its’ majority and Duke Louis resigned his public post after having to hand over the office of Prime Minister. Count d’Hautpoul became the next party leader in opposition to Decazes, though few saw him as more than a puppet of the emperor and Duke Louis. Decazes, on the other hand, attempted to push through ‘reforms’ aimed at tying the hands of the emperor and sending a clear message to the Bonaparte Regime. The immediate result of Decazes’ attempts were the Imperial Control Laws; a series of laws that clearly defined the power of the emperor and the power of the Imperial Senate. There was no definite document outlining these responsibilities, and so Decazes attempted to stack the deck in the Senate’s favor. The legislative ability of the Senate was from thereon unquestioned*. Decazes only served a term of 1834-1836, but the impact of the Imperial Control Laws was felt throughout Europe. The Control Laws themselves, however, were only the precursor for the Imperial Constitution of 1835. Napoleon I had been working on a new constitution before his death that later fell into the hands of Beauharnais during the Regency whom added his own to it before passing. Finally the document was edited by Napoleon II and presented to the Imperial Senate for ratification. The new constitution widened the voting franchise, added new democratically-elected local positions, and strengthened the lower house, the Corps legaslatif (renamed the Assembly). No longer could the Senate propose and pass laws of its own volition, though it maintained prestige and certain degrees of power the lower house did not. The Imperial Senate was renamed the Imperial Parliament in an effort to recognize the power of both houses and to remind both houses of where there power derived. The Constitution barely dented the Emperor’s explicit powers, but could potentially threaten his puppet-control through the Bonapartist Party. It was a calculated risk however, and one that Napoleon II knew would return control to his men in the short run. Decazes influence throughout this unexpected constitutional fervor has led him to be dubbed ‘The Father of the Constitution’ by his protégés, who would succeed him as leaders of the Bourbon-Republican Party after his retirement in 1845.
The second of the three during the period, though his legacy is mixed, is the Count d’Hautpoul. The reorganization of the French Legislative body triggered a round of elections that ousted Decazes’ conservative nationalists from control. In the Senate d’Hautpoul regained control and assumed the mantel of Prime Minister. In the Assembly the Bonapartists also won a majority, and Etienne Gerlache- a somewhat student of King Louis II of Holland- became the President. Though d’Hautpoul truly was an instrument of Duke Louis-Napoleon the count managed to foster the great divide within the Bonapartist Party. Two strands of thought had developed within the party during the reorganization of the Legislative Body: those with a more right-wing/militant leaning, and those of a more liberal/consolidative bent. Napoleon II, being of the latter group, saw the temporary confusion as a prime moment to divorce the Lichisme that had propagated the Franco-Ottoman War and that had infected his political vehicle. He personally saw to it that some members of the Senate entered into early retirements through incentives, but his attention was forced elsewhere before his gentle purge was complete. However, D’Hautpoul’s lax control over the party and his desire to win the majority in both houses had left him at the mercy of the few hawkish kingmakers in the party. D’Hautpoul had allowed Gerlache to fall under the sway of the Party de l’Ordre. The ‘Party of Order’ were the remnants of Napoleon II’s purge who remained loyal to the throne, but had differing views, itself not being a true political party, but rather a group within the Bonapartists. The Count d’Hautpol, on one hand delivered the emperor back his majority, but on the other allowed for a fractious political relationship that would soon grapple with each other for control.
The final of the trio was an economist/politician, Leon Faucher. Originally impressed by the economic fertility brought on by the nonexistent tariffs between the Imperial Continental states and the unified currency, Faucher became interested in Customs Unions. He wrote an essay on the benefits of forming a Customs Union with the United States but did not receive much attention or praise for the work. Faucher, after gaining a post in the Finance Ministry of France, began to develop a new theory based off his customs essay. His first hand exposure in the ministry to the messy tax revenue system between the satellite kingdoms and France was unpredictable, and often times a source of consternation. Faucher submitted a proposal to Count Hautban, a proposal which would turn an almost feudal tribute system into a well-oiled, mutually beneficial tax machine. The European Economic System (EES) was proposed as a method of collecting taxes to be used for the benefit of all the states paying the tax. The EES would be additional tax on top of pre-existing land and sales taxes throughout each country to be paid to a central agency that would then use the tax income for the Emperor to use at his leisure^. At first this measure may seem ineffectual, but the EES made it unnecessary to pay a tribute to Paris that was determined arbitrarily by the monarch of a state, thereby lowering national tax levels. For example, in a hypothetical situation, there is a national property tax in Spain, say set at 30% before the EES. The King of Spain would probably save 20% for himself and Spain, while sending the other chunk to Paris. Now, after the formation of the EES the king would no longer need to send revenue to Paris, and so the property tax could easily drop to 20%. However the EES would collect an additional 5% on top of the national tax that would be sent to the EES headquarters to be then partially used to benefit Spain. Critics may point out that such a system is itself not necessary when Paris was already collecting tax revenue at a higher rate from Lisbon to Warsaw- however that was not the case. Monarchs would send random amounts depending on conditions. The EES taxes were a uniform set-rate throughout the empire regardless of relative conditions. The EES gained Napoleon II’s support due to its efficiency and its ability to simultaneously satisfy nationalists and bind Europe together. Faucher became the first Chancellor of the EES, and inhabited part of Versailles as his headquarters. In the first year the payoff was apparent- the EES provided stable income for Continental Europe while national tax rates lowered across the board. Also, the EES provided enough revenue for the Revitalization Program that massively overhauled transportation in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean, and for the future industrialization. Importantly, the EES was considered outside of any nation’s influence- even France- answering only to the Emperor.
* The emperor still remained the supreme judicial and martial ruler.
^ The EES revenues were largely used to maintain European Unity. Infrastructure, army pay, etc.