Initially Napoleon did bring immense benefit to France; however it proved to be mainly for his own self-benefit instead of trying to get financial stability for France for generations to come. Many of the things Napoleon did in his financial reforms went against the ideas of the previous revolutionaries, and so this is evidence for the term "heir to the revolution" not being suitable as a title for Napoleon. His motives were in fact completely different to those of his predecessors.
Napoleon's second reform was in religion. In the summer of 1800 Napoleon had been making proposals for the restoration of the Catholic Church in France. His motive was one of expediency, in that he wanted to have a rapprochement with the Pope and gain his support. Although Napoleon was himself agnostic he believed religion was a social band, so therefore if people were brought together through the church then government power would be cemented- ‘The people must have a religion and that religion must be in the hands of the government’. This would obviously be advantageous for Napoleon, and so he needed to get a Concordat signed with the pope. It was signed on 15th July 1801 and published in April 1802. It proved to be controversial. It reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church as the major religion of France and restored some of its civil status-- the very things the revolution was against. The historian Mathews said “If Napoleon could win papal endorsement of his regime then the link between Catholicism and royalist unrest would be broken and the vast majority of the French people would have one less reason for opposition”. It brought to an end the separation of the church and the state which went against the main principle of the revolution. It stipulated that clergy were fully paid civil servants, police controlled public worship, and there was toleration of other faiths. There was also no attempt to win back Church land after the National Assembly had confiscated all Church properties. Ultimately the Church was made a department of the State, removing it from the authority of the Pope. From this it is clear that Napoleon’s religious reforms went against the ideas of the revolution. The revolution ha wanted to break the powers of the Church and seize its lands. Now Napoleon had made the church a department of the state. Therefore one can see that there is evidence that suggests that Napoleon cannot be seen as heir to the revolution.
Another of Napoleon’s domestic reforms was his reform of the legal system. When Napoleon came to power he inherited a chaotic legal system with no single set of laws. For example southern France had Roman law, but northern France had Teutonic Customary Law. All laws were basically down to the discretion of the absolute ruler at the time- “It is legal because I wish it”. Napoleon brought about a change to the system with his publication of the Civil Code- Code of Napoleon in 1804. As well as this he drew up a criminal procedure and penal code. Napoleon’s reform of the legal system did create a single code of law for the country and ultimately created a stronger power base for him. However the code did preserve the fundamental beliefs of the revolutionaries and this shows that he could have been considered heir to the revolution in this sense. But, there is also a case to be made that some of his other ideas in the code go against the ideas of the revolution. For example, Napoleon introduced the livre which was needed by people to get a job and would also hold your past employment details on it, similar to a work permit nowadays. It gave the employer much more power because he could refuse to return the document to the employee.
There were also changes to the way the legal system operated. Judges were not elected, but appointed by government, therefore firmly putting the power with the government rather than the people. This meant that the judiciary had no more independence which was hugely illiberal and counter revolutionary. He also set up new courts to try political dissidents, and had a number of extra prisons built to cope with the increase in prisoners. This increase was due to house and arbitrary arrest being brought into the system to monitor lesser criminals. These aspects of the reform all show Napoleon to be anti- revolutionary. He severely curtailed the independence of the judiciary by making them reliant for their jobs on the government.
Napoleon’s final domestic reform was in education. Napoleon wanted many more highly educated people in government and wanted to restructure the education system in France. Primary schools were left in the hands of the local authorities as they were less important in Napoleon’s plans. Younger children were not his focus as they were not old enough to form their own views and beliefs, so he would be able to deal with them later. Instead, Napoleon targeted secondary schools. If he could instil his belief systems into young adults, the future, then government would be massively strengthened with loyal, highly educated civil servants. So, Napoleon set up a system where all secondary schools, “lycees” ran through central government. The government dictated what the syllabus would be and also who would teach it. Teachers had to be government approved before they were allowed to teach. Napoleon also reserved one third of the places for the sons of soldiers and notables to try and preserve loyalty.
Although figures show that Napoleon’s education system was beneficial for France, it still wasn’t the reason why he reformed education. It was more coincidental that one eighth of children were in primary schools and that literacy rose dramatically. This is illustrated with the fact that Napoleon was not even in control of the primary schools. Napoleon simply wanted to build a stronger power base for himself, and used education to do it. The revolution would have wanted universal education as a right of all citizens. Napoleon used education as a means to his own ends, although education was still increased as a result.
So, to conclude one can see that many aspects of Napoleon’s reforms did benefit France and followed the same direction as the revolutionaries that preceded him, so in that sense he can be seen as the heir to the revolution to an extent. However, the number of his ideas that are against the revolution outweigh those that are for it. This coupled with him turning France into a mild “police state”, where spies and secret police were always around, and where propaganda and censorship was very tight, all lead us to draw one conclusion that he was in fact not heir to the revolution. Therefore he can be seen as a unique ruler of France, but a ruler that only brought about reforms for self-interest and to create a strong power base for himself.
