Purge of the French Civil Service (1879–1884)

Ultimately, ultramontane demonstrations in favor of the restoration of Pope Pius IX's temporal power led to a rupture between the Jules Simon government [fr] and the Duke of Magenta.

With the full legislative power at their disposal, they initiated a campaign of civil service purges to ensure the loyalty of the state apparatus to the newly adopted political orientations.

These reports identified some high-ranking officials and military personnel who were deemed suitable for removal from their posts,[15] thereby foreshadowing other instances of collusion between Republicans and Freemasons, such as the "Affair of the Cards" at the beginning of the 20th century.

The motion, proposed by Jules Ferry, declared: "The Chamber of Deputies, relying on the government's assertions and persuaded that the Cabinet, now unencumbered by constraints, will not hesitate, following the significant national event of January 5, to provide the Republican majority with the justifications it has long sought on behalf of the country, particularly concerning the administrative and judicial personnel, proceeds to the subsequent item on the agenda," a text that effectively constitutes a vote of confidence.

[18] This purge, requested by Minister of War Henri Gresley,[19] targeted military leaders identified as hostile to the Republic in files compiled by Léon Gambetta between 1876 and 1878 with the assistance of Freemason networks.

Jules Grévy even presented it as one of the government's primary objectives, stating, "While duly considering acquired rights and services rendered, now that the two great powers are animated by the same spirit, that of France, it will ensure that the Republic is served by officials who are neither its enemies nor its detractors.

Monarchists seek to preclude the appointment of radical jurists to the Council, while Republicans acquiesce, perceiving the potential benefit of this renewal method for their future purge.

This was evidenced by his decision to disregard the recommendations of those advocating for the purge and to reward technical expertise by retaining five of the seven councilors drawn by lot, promoting a monarchist master of requests, and replacing one military officer with another.

[50] Those with religious affiliations contested the legality of the prefectural orders, taking the matter to the courts to have the abuse of power recognized and to obtain reinstatement in communal schools.

[48] In a move that has been met with concern by the Catholic community, Minister of Justice Philippe Le Royer has stated in the Senate that the issue of communal schools is of sufficient importance to justify the dismissal of the Council's most conservative members.

[54] While the Senate is reluctant to align with the government's position, the Chamber of Deputies resists and, on the advice of its commission, demands the outright dissolution of the Council of State to appoint an entirely regenerated staff where Republicans could hold a majority in each section.

Subsequent to the issuance of the decrees, a number of State Councilors, including Aucoc, Camus du Martroy, Groualle [fr], Goussard, Silvy, Montesquiou-Fézensac, Tranchant, and Perret, tendered their resignations in a public declaration.

Notably, Montesquiou-Fézensac articulated his stance in his resignation letter, stating: "I am unwilling to accept any degree of responsibility for an act that is without precedent in the history of the body to which I have been honored to belong.

To remove the most undesirable judges, monarchical regimes employed diverse strategies, including forced retirements, reorganizations of the judiciary, and oaths of loyalty, to discourage their most determined opponents.

In consequence, the Second Republic, in its decree of April 17, 1848, pronounced the principle of immovability to be incompatible with the republican form of government[N 11] and proceeded to suspend fourteen sitting judges,[67] including the president of the Lille tribunal[68] and three counselors at the Court of cassation.

Charles de Freycinet then intimated a potential relaxation with the religious, yet the intransigence of his Interior Minister Ernest Constans compelled his resignation, and he was supplanted as President of the Council [fr] by Jules Ferry.

[8] This episode served to reinforce the Republican Party's perception of the judiciary as a crucial bastion of opposition, and as a domain where the tenets of caste and the animosity towards liberal ideologies are particularly prevalent.

While some Republicans sought to reduce the workforce and temporarily suspend the principle of immovability to achieve this goal, more radical members of the party were more ambitious and wanted to abolish the current judiciary and replace it with a new body elected from scratch.

This proposal prompted a wave of protests from numerous jurists, including the legitimist Adrien Robinet de Cléry, who was dismissed from his position as Attorney general at the Court of cassation by Cazot on January 13, 1880.

The measure was perceived as a means of removing "meritorious, talented, and honorable" magistrates in favor of individuals who were "dried-up fruits of the Bar and the intrigants of the day, the complacent and the hypocrites," who had opportunistically supported the Republicans.

In his article La Réforme judiciaire,[N 13] Georges Picot denounced the project as one that aimed to "destroy root and branch men and institutions to create a new system with a wave of the wand," preferring instead limited individual measures and "a wise spirit of reform" that maintained immovability.

However, it was not the criticisms from the legal world that prompted the Republicans to withdraw the project; rather, the bill fostered divisions between opportunists and radicals due to the proximity of the August 1881 elections.

[77] The Freycinet cabinet, having failed to resolve the issue of the March 1880 decrees, was succeeded by the Jules Ferry government [fr], which prioritized legislation concerning education despite the objections of the parliamentary majority.

In early 1882, the Minister of Justice, Gustave Humbert [fr], presented a revised bill on judicial organization, which proposed a provisional suspension of immovability and stipulated the abolition of select courts of appeal based on statistical evidence.

It engaged in disruptive behavior, including heckling the public prosecution and mobilizing local institutions—including the bar association, the city council, and the departmental council—to support its demands.

Some opportunist parliamentarians also expressed regret that the government had renounced modifying judicial boundaries and abolishing immovability for certain positions in favor of focusing on reducing personnel.

[83] Notwithstanding these constants, the selection of magistrates to be removed appeared to be more influenced by a multitude of denunciations from local Republican actors—such as unscrupulous rivals, unsuccessful opponents of appointments, disgruntled litigants, and so forth—than by a comprehensive and coherent plan for evaluating judges.

[81] This "large-scale exclusion movement" was followed by a series of resignations from magistrates, which demonstrated their solidarity with the purged officials, protested against the government, or expressed their refusal to collaborate with the newcomers, whom they considered unworthy of holding these positions.

[53] In 1883, during the initial phase of the First Textbook War, the administration spearheaded the government's response, with numerous reports from prefects of several thousand clerics who opposed Émile Flourens' directives.

[92] Similarly, on June 2, 1892, the Council of State issued a declaration of abuse in the Gouthe-Soulard [fr] case—on which the purged Paris Court of Appeal also had to rule in 1891—with considerably less reluctance than in May 1879.