On becoming First Consul, Napoleon caused no less sensation in the Council of State. He constantly presided at the sittings for drawing up the civil code. “Tronchet,” he said, “was the soul of this code, and he, Napoleon, was its demonstrator.” Tronchet was gifted with a singularly profound and correct understanding; but he could not descend to developments. He spoke badly, and could not defend what he proposed. “The whole council,” said the Emperor, “at first opposed his suggestions;” but Napoleon, with his shrewdness and facility of seizing and creating luminous and new relations, arose, and without any other knowledge of the subject than the correct basis furnished by Tronchet, developed his ideas, set aside objections, and brought every one over to his opinions.
The Minutes of the Council of State have transmitted to us the extempore speeches of the First Consul on most of the articles of the civil code. At every line, we are struck with the correctness of his observations, the depth of his views, and in particular the liberality of his sentiments.
Thus, in spite of the opposition that was set up to it, we are indebted to him for that article of the Code which enacts that every individual born in France is a Frenchman. “I should like to know,” said he, "what inconvenience can possibly arise from acknowledging every man born in France to be a Frenchman? The extension of the French civil laws can only be attended by advantageous consequences; thus instead of ordaining that individuals born in France of a foreign father shall obtain civil privileges only when they declare themselves willing to enjoy them, it may be decreed that they will be deprived of those privileges only when they formally renounce them.
"If individuals born in France of a foreign father were not to be considered as enjoying the full privileges of Frenchmen, we cannot subject to the conscription and other public duties the sons of those foreigners who have married in France through the events of the war.
“I am of opinion that the question should be considered only with reference to the interests of France. Though individuals born in France possess no property, they are at least animated by French spirit, and they follow French customs. They cherish that attachment which every one naturally feels for the country that gave him birth; finally, they help to maintain the public burthens.”
The First Consul distinguished himself no less by his support of the article which preserves the privileges of Frenchmen to children born of Frenchmen settled in foreign countries, and this law he extended in spite of powerful opposition. “The French people,” said he, "who are a numerous and industrious people, are scattered over every part of the world; and in course of time they will be scattered about in still greater numbers. But the French visit foreign countries only to make their fortunes. The acts by which they seem momentarily to attach themselves to foreign governments have for their object only to obtain the protection necessary for their various speculations. If they should intend to return to France, after realizing a fortune, would it be proper to exclude them?
“If it should happen that a country in the possession of France were to be invaded by the enemy, and afterwards ceded to him by a treaty, would it be just to say to those of the inhabitants who might come to settle on the territory of the republic, that they had forfeited their rights as Frenchmen, for not having quitted their former country at the moment it was ceded; and because they had sworn temporary allegiance to a new Sovereign, in order to gain time to dispose of their property and transfer their wealth to France?”
In another debate on the decease of soldiers, some difficulties having arisen relative to those who might die in a foreign country, the First Consul exclaimed with vivacity;—"The soldier is never abroad when he is under the national banner. The spot where the standard of France is unfurled becomes French ground!"
On the subject of divorce, the First Consul was for the adoption of the principle, and spoke at great length on the ground of incompatibility, which it was attempted to repel.
“It is pretended,” said he, "that divorce is contrary to the interests of women and children, and to the spirit of families; but nothing is more at variance with the interests of married persons, when their humours are incompatible, than to reduce them to the alternative of either living together, or of separating with publicity. Nothing is more opposite to domestic happiness than a divided family. Separation had formerly, with regard to the wife, the husband, and the children, nearly the same effect as divorce, and yet it was not so frequent as divorce now is. It was only attended with this additional inconvenience, that a woman of bad character might continue to dishonour her husband’s name because she was permitted to retain it."