If Zola finds a place in the novel for some measure of sympathy for his murderers, he offers no such olive branch to the perverters and mishandlers of justice. The novel presents a sustained critique of judicial practice under the Second Empire. Here can distinctly be heard the voice that in 1898 was to speak out so courageously against the injustice done to Dreyfus.16

If the voice of justice is silenced, it is because those in power require it to be and provide the means of ensuring that it is. Zola’s critique of judicial practice extends by implication to a broader critique of the closed and repressive nature of Second Empire politics. The action of the novel takes place between mid-February 1869 and July 1870, a period which sounded the death knell of the Second Empire. From its inception in December 1852, the Second Empire had proved itself to be an autocratic regime. Even before being proclaimed Emperor, Louis Napoleon had made it clear that he was determined to exercise personal power. ‘I shall never submit to any attempt to influence me ... I respect those whose ability and experience enable them to give me good advice ... But I follow only the promptings of my mind and heart ... I shall march straight forward ... with conscience my only guide.’17 National policy was to be determined by the Emperor himself, ensconced in his palace at the Tuileries. The Emperor appointed (and dismissed) all ministers of state, who were obliged to swear an oath of loyalty to him and to attend an audience at the palace every week. The Assemblée legislative (Legislative Assembly), which was charged with converting national policy into law, was given only limited powers. Members of the upper house were appointed by the Emperor and met in secret. Members of the lower house, which could ratify or reject but not initiate or amend legislation, were elected by male suffrage. But the elections were carefully managed. Certain candidates were designated as ‘official’ candidates and it was the responsibility of Prefects in the various départements of France (again appointed directly by the Emperor) to ensure that these ’official’ candidates were elected. This was achieved by tight control of publicity and election propaganda, with the result that very few opposition candidates were elected to the Assembly during the whole period of the Second Empire.18 The Empire also took steps to ensure that discussion and criticism of public affairs in the press was similarly controlled. It promoted ‘official’ government newspapers (such as L’Opinion nationale) and exercised rigorous censorship over the opposition press. By 1869 opposition to such a ‘closed’ form of government had gained considerable momentum, and the 1869 elections to the Legislative Assembly provided it with a focal point. The Empire had been obliged to adopt a more liberal attitude towards the press a year earlier, and the run-up to the elections saw the creation of a number of new opposition newspapers. Zola himself contributed articles to three of them (La Tribune, Le Gaulois and La Cloche) between 1868 and 1872. Criticism of the regime certainly had the effect of rallying opposition from all sides (from Republicans on the left to Orleanists on the right). In Paris, attendance at electoral meetings averaged 20,000 nightly, and rioting was commonplace.19 In the event, opposition candidates polled 3.5million votes compared with 4.5million votes for the ‘official’ candidates. This represented the most serious challenge to its authority that the Second Empire had ever faced. The Emperor was forced to agree to demands for a more liberal form of government. On 8 May 1870 a new constitution was voted on by plebiscite and overwhelmingly approved. The so-called ‘Liberal Empire’, however, was to be a very short-lived affair. No sooner had the new constitution been approved than France was mobilizing for war against Prussia.