FRANCE UNDER LOUIS XVI. (1774–1789).
When the necessity of reform had been demonstrated by a band of
powerful and brilliant writers, whose works were the popular reading of
the day, it was inevitable that desire for change should grow, as the
new ideas spread over wider circles, and sufferers from abuses became
more and more alive to their wrongs. Undermined by public opinion,
the existing order could not endure for long, and the vital question
before France was, by what means change should be accomplished. The
Voltairians called on the King to take the work in hand, and on the
death of Louis XV. in 1774, it appeared possible that the young Louis
XVI. would endeavour to regain the path that his predecessors had
abandoned, and, by relieving the people from their burdens, seek the
welfare of the entire nation. ♦Turgot’s Ministry.♦ Turgot, the new
Controller-General, who exercised the functions both of Minister of
Finance and Minister of the Interior, represented the party of reform,
and was in all his actions inspired by a strong love of knowledge and
by a passionate desire to benefit his fellow-men. He was not, like
the writers of his time, a mere theorist, but also a practised and
successful administrator, who for thirteen years had been Intendant of
the poor province of Limousin. Now that he was invested with higher
authority, it was Turgot’s aim to ameliorate the condition of the
people throughout France, by the introduction of reforms based on
those principles of equality and individual liberty which Voltairians
and Economists proclaimed. His chief reforms were the abolition of
restrictions on the internal trade in corn and wine; the abolition of
the _corvée_, or forced unpaid labour of the peasants for repair of
roads, for which he substituted a land-tax payable by all proprietors
whether privileged or not; and finally, the abolition of guilds, giving
liberty to every one, however poor, to exercise what trade he pleased
and to raise his condition according to his capacity. Besides these,
his most important measures, Turgot carried out many lesser reforms
tending to set labour and industry free, to cheapen food and clothing,
and to lessen the burdens of the poor by the equalisation of taxation,
and by the abolition of the fiscal abuses and sinecure offices which
enriched the monied aristocracy of Paris and the court nobility. The
reforms, however, which Turgot accomplished were but a small portion
of those which he had in contemplation. He aimed at the remodelling
of the whole system of taxation, the removal of all custom-houses to
the frontier, the abolition of the _gabelle_, and the substitution for
the _taille_ of a new tax to be imposed on the land of all proprietors
without exception, the gradual abolition of feudal dues, the grant
of civil rights to Protestants, and, finally, the decentralisation
of administration by the establishment of provincial assemblies, to
be elected by all landed proprietors without distinction of rank.
His work was no sooner begun than it was prematurely cut short. A
violent opposition party was at once formed, which comprised the court
nobility, the upper clergy, the nobility of office, farmers of the
_gabelle_ and other indirect taxes, judges in Parliament, masters of
guilds and state officials--in a word, all those who made profit out of
existing abuses, and whose special privileges were assailed. ‘Everybody
fears,’ a friend of Turgot wrote to him, ‘either for himself, or for
his brother, or for his friend.’
♦Louis XVI.♦
Whether Turgot was to stand or fall depended entirely on the resolution
of the King. Louis XVI. was well-intentioned, conscientious, and
sincerely desirous of ruling for the good of his subjects, but he
lacked the qualities which are requisite to a prince called on to
govern at a great national crisis. He was without self-confidence,
irresolute in action, and incapable of judging the real value of men,
or of grasping the real bearing of events and measures. He could not
even rule his own court. Simple in his tastes, and shy and reserved by
disposition, his happiest hours were spent in the hunting field, or
in the company of a blacksmith, mastering the art of making locks. It
was no wonder that such a King should be driven to and fro between
conflicting opinions, when those who surrounded his throne, and with
whom he came in daily contact, accused his Minister of violence and
injustice, and of entertaining projects destructive to monarchical
government. ‘The King,’ said Turgot, ‘is above all, for the good of
all.’ Louis could never rise to this conception of his position.
Turgot would have made him ruler of men equal before the law, and in
possession of equal rights as citizens. Desirous as Louis was to ease
the lower classes of their burdens, he was never able to conceive
of the noble as being on the same footing as the common man. ♦Marie
Antoinette.♦ The only person in whom he reposed confidence was his
wife, Marie Antoinette, a daughter of the Empress Maria Theresa, and
with fatal weakness he often yielded to her desires in opposition
to his own better judgment. She had been married to him while still
a child, and left to grow up uninstructed and without guides in the
corrupt atmosphere of the court of Versailles. At the age of nineteen,
when she became Queen, she was a bright and vivacious, but ignorant
and thoughtless woman, whose days were spent in a never ceasing round
of formalities and dissipation. She employed her influence over her
husband to obtain for her friends pensions and offices, without any
sense of what was due to her position as Queen in the midst of a
frivolous and intriguing court, or of what she owed to the starving
and suffering masses who were deprived of their hard-won earnings for
the enrichment of an idle and spendthrift nobility. When ministers
sought to put a check on her extravagance, or in any way thwarted her
inclinations, they provoked her resentment, dangerous in proportion to
the power that she was able to exercise over the King. Her aversion
to Turgot was the cause which finally produced his dismissal from
office. The Austrian ambassador, Mercy, informing Maria Theresa of the
event, used words of more pregnant meaning than he was himself aware.
‘The Controller-General,’ he said, ‘is of high repute for integrity,
and is loved by the people; and it is therefore a misfortune that his
dismissal should be in part the Queen’s work. Such use of her influence
may one day bring upon her the just reproaches both of her husband and
of the entire nation.’
Turgot was the greatest statesman that France had seen since Richelieu.
He had a clear comprehension of the economical and social evils under
which the country suffered, and of the remedies to be applied to them.
The best ideas of the age found room in his capacious mind, and all
that he attempted to do had ultimately to be accomplished, though by
other means than those which he contemplated. Louis had shown his
incapacity to see that it was his first duty to make himself the
repairer of wrong and injustice, and truly a representative king, who
could say, ‘I am the nation.’ After Turgot’s failure, revolution,
that is to say change accompanied by violence and convulsion, became
inevitable.
♦Reforming movement a European one.♦
The reforming movement, of which in France Turgot was the
representative, was not confined to that country, but was, in fact, an
European movement, of which the influence was felt, however faintly,
even in the most backward States. Kings and statesmen, under the
influence of Voltairian ideas, held sceptical opinions, and took
interest in the material condition of their subjects. It was perceived
that if monopolies enriched individuals they prevented the development
of commerce and industry; that if duties were levied between the
provinces of the same kingdom, exchange of commodities could only
with difficulty be effected; that if nobles did not pay their fair
share of taxation, the revenue of the State suffered, and the working
classes were overburdened. Jealous eyes were cast upon the territorial
wealth of the Catholic Church, and protests were raised against the
multiplication of monasteries, and the idle lives led by their inmates.
In many States efforts were made to increase the authority of the king
by the destruction of provincial and class privileges. The idea that
the sovereign reigned for the good of the nation was accepted, at
least in theory, by the most autocratic of European princes. In Russia
Catherine II., in Prussia Frederick II., invited to their courts and
patronised French philosophers. In Spain Aranda, in Tuscany Manfredini,
in Portugal Pombal endeavoured to lessen the privileges of nobles
and clergy, and to loosen the bonds in which industry and commerce
were held. In Savoy feudal charges were abolished, compensation being
given to the proprietors. In Parma, in Brunswick, and in other Italian
and German states, similar tendencies were manifested. But although
the reforming movement, on the lines laid down by Voltaire and the
Economists, was not confined to France, nowhere else was there to be
found amongst the people any strong desire for reform. In Germany,
in Spain, in Italy, the new views were confined to a few theorists
and statesmen, and did not penetrate beneath the surface of society.
The cause lay in the difference of social conditions. Outside France,
nobles, as a rule, lived at home on their estates, still administering
justice to peasants and serfs. The middle class took no interest in
matters of government, but devoted its energies to scientific and
literary pursuits. The lower classes, being still in dependence on the
upper, entertained no lively resentment of their privileges. Hence
reforming princes could never accomplish more than a few isolated
changes without danger of rousing rebellion. Nobles and clergy, the
moment their privileges were threatened, offered opposition; the
middle class did not care to render support; the lower classes were
more ready to follow the lead of nobles and clergy than the lead of
the government. Of all the princes of his time the Emperor Joseph II.
was the boldest innovator. In his hereditary dominions he offended the
nobles by the abolition of provincial states, the clergy by closing
monasteries and upholding principles of toleration, the people by
alterations in their religious services. An insurrection broke out
in Belgium under the leadership of nobles and clergy (1789). Both in
Galicia and Hungary the nobles threatened to take up arms, and for a
time it seemed as if the Austrian dominion would fall to pieces.
♦England.♦
In England the same ideas prevailed as on the Continent, but the social
and political condition of the country was such as to enable reforms
to be accomplished more gradually and with far less violent change
than was possible either in France or Austria. The English people had
for centuries formed an united nation. No sharp lines of division
divided one class from another. The laws were the same for all: younger
sons of noblemen ranked as commoners, and country gentlemen sat in
Parliament by the side of merchants and traders. A free press prepared
the way for change by allowing the discussion of questions of general
interest, and free institutions gave political experience, and taught
the governing classes the necessity of yielding in time to public
opinion. Parliament, which represented only the landed and commercial
interests, legislated selfishly, and was slow to admit or redress wrong
done to the unrepresented classes; but gross oppression of the lower
orders, such as existed in France, was unknown in England. Country
gentlemen looked after the affairs of parish and county. The body of
the rural population consisted of agricultural labourers maintained
by poor-rates when wages fell short. Charges on land due to the lord
of the manor, though far from being extinct, existed mainly in the
form of money payments, affecting only a comparatively small number of
persons. Although the same protective principles which prevailed on
the Continent prevailed also in England, whatever restraints were laid
either on persons in the selection of their calling, or on industry,
commerce and agriculture, there was to be found far more liberty than
elsewhere. The country was the most flourishing in Europe, and wealth
was being rapidly accumulated. Special advance was made in the system
of farming by the introduction of the rotation of crops and artificial
manures. Wages rose, and bread was cheap, and all classes for a time
shared in the general prosperity.
In England a large body of eminent men, philosophers, statesmen, and
philanthropists, entertained the new ideas and sought to bring them
into practice. In 1776, Adam Smith published the ‘Wealth of Nations,’
in which the principles of free trade were promulgated. The younger
Pitt, who took office in 1783, was his disciple. He proposed to abolish
restrictions on the trade of Ireland with England, and intended to
lessen the power of the aristocracy by a reform of the electoral
system. In 1787 a Treaty of Commerce was concluded between England and
France, designed to increase trade between the two countries. The most
important measures brought forward by Pitt were not, however, carried
through Parliament. This was in part owing to the factious opposition
of the Whigs, in part to the strong Conservative instincts of the
governing classes, but in part also because little discontent or desire
for change existed among the people at large.
♦Ministry of Necker.♦
If, however, England was slow to move, reforms once made rested on a
sure foundation. Such was not the case with those made in the name of
absolute princes on the Continent. After Turgot’s dismissal, fifty
out of seventy of the guilds which he had abolished were revived,
and the peasants were compelled by blows to resume their labours
on the roads. Necker, a Genevese banker, was Turgot’s successor
(October 1776). He was not a statesman, like Turgot, with definite
aims in view, but he was an able financier and a humane man, holding
the philanthropic sentiments of the day, and eager to relieve the
condition of the masses. A war with England increased the difficulties
of the government. In 1778 Louis, reluctantly following public
opinion, assisted the English colonies in America in their struggle
for independence. There were only three means of meeting the expenses
of the war: increased taxation, economy, and loans. The first was
impossible; the second only possible to a limited extent; and Necker,
therefore, was compelled to borrow. The loans that he opened were
quickly filled up, because men of the middle class, who were the chief
lenders, believed that their interests were safe while he directed the
finances. But the public debt was greatly increased, and the prospect
of the future, with reforms uneffected in the system of taxation,
rendered them more dark. Although Necker did not attempt to introduce
radical measures such as had excited opposition against Turgot, his
abolition of sinecures and other administrative changes gave offence
to the same classes. The Parliament of Paris, whose lead was followed
by the twelve provincial Parliaments, formed the chief organ of
resistance. These Parliaments or law-courts were, in fact, powerful
legal corporations to which many hundred persons were attached. The
judges belonged to the nobility of office, and were independent of the
government, since they held their offices in right of purchase, and
might not be dispossessed without proof of misconduct. They exercised,
besides judicial, a certain political function, since edicts of the
King’s council did not have the force of law until they had been
registered by the Parliaments. This right of registration in the
time of Louis XIV. had been a mere form. If the Parliament of Paris
hesitated to carry out his wishes, he held a so-called bed of justice
when he came to the court in person, and on his command registration
was compulsory. But now that the royal authority had fallen into
contempt, the Parliaments offered prolonged resistance, and before
the Government could obtain registration of its edicts, intimidation
and even the use of military force were resorted to. Necker, when he
sought to effect reform, necessarily became involved in quarrels with
the Parliaments, and, finding that the King gave but a half-hearted
support, he resigned office (1781).
♦Desire for political liberty.♦
Louis could relieve himself from momentary inconvenience by abandoning
a Minister of whom he was weary, but had no power to stay the course
of events. Those who had lent money to the government deeply resented
Necker’s fall, because they believed him able to secure regular payment
of the interest on the national debt. Desire for social change was
accompanied by desire for political change also. Rousseau had said
that the people was sovereign, and as the incompetency of the crown to
carry out the national will became with each successive ministry more
manifest, ideas long since vaguely floating in men’s minds gathered
strength and consistency. The cause of the American colonies was taken
up with immense enthusiasm. The Declaration of Independence (July
4, 1776), which, in accordance with the principles laid down in the
‘Social Contract,’ asserted that all men were created equal and endowed
with the natural right of overthrowing an unjust government, was hailed
as the enunciation of an universal truth, of which Frenchmen as well as
the colonists might reap the benefit. Meanwhile government in France
grew yearly more utterly weak and helpless. The war with England ended
in 1783, but financial embarrassments increased. ♦Calonne.♦ Calonne,
who became Controller-General the same year, pursued Necker’s system of
borrowing without his justification, and retained office by abstaining
from acts calculated to offend the privileged classes. The demands
of the Queen and the Court were complied with, and abuses destroyed
by Necker again called into existence. ‘If it is possible, madam,’
said the obsequious Minister, on an occasion when the Queen pressed
him for money, ‘it shall be done; if it is impossible, it shall be
done.’ But such squandering of the revenue could not last for ever.
Calonne’s credit broke down, and he was driven as a last resource to
propose the reform of the entire system of administration and taxation.
By publicity he hoped to overcome resistance. He called together an
extraordinary council or assembly of notables, nominated by the King
(February 1787), and laid his propositions before them, thinking that
in the existing state of opinion they would not venture to refuse
support. But this assembly, composed almost entirely of privileged
persons, proved recalcitrant. The majority were against the reforms
proposed, while the few who approved them were determined that they
should be made by an assembly representative of the nation.
♦Brienne.♦
Calonne gave place (1787) to Brienne, Archbishop of Toulouse, the
candidate of the Queen; but the new Minister had no choice except
to take up the plans of his predecessor, and the government became
involved in incessant strife with the Parliaments. The Parliaments
concealed their aversion to the principle of equality of taxation, by
denying the right of the King to impose new taxes without the consent
of the nation, and by demanding the meeting of the States-General.
The government, on its side, sought popularity by coupling edicts
for raising loans and taxes with reforming measures. But it could
obtain no support. The shifting policy which it had so long pursued,
the attempts at reform, made, abandoned, and then made again, had
destroyed confidence alike in its power and its good-will. Hence,
although the Parliaments defended the privileges of nobles and
clergy, their resistance was applauded, because it offered the surest
means of forcing the King’s hand, and leaving him no alternative
but to summon the nation to his aid. Along with equality, the word
‘liberty’ was on every man’s lips. The very nobles, who had so long
opposed administrative and economical change, had themselves become
vehement advocates of political change. More afraid of the crown than
of the classes beneath them, and blind to the complete isolation of
their own order, they looked forward to being at once leaders of a
political revolution and guardians of their own interests. In fact,
the privileged orders had no choice but either to submit at discretion
to the King, or to join in the popular cry for the meeting of the
States-General. Arbitrary attempts made by Brienne to free the crown
of dependence on the Parliaments failed, in the face of resistance
offered by all classes, and brought the country to the verge of actual
insurrection. Disaffection was rife in the army. Peasants and artisans,
excited by expectation of better days, were more ready than before to
rise in insurrection against local authorities, and were less easily
quelled. State bankruptcy impended. There was a deficit in the revenue
of more than 2,000,000_l._, and money was wanting with which to pay
the interest of the national debt. Under such circumstances Louis
reluctantly yielded to the demand made on every side. He declared his
intention of summoning the States-General and in order to regain
confidence restored to the head of the finances his former and still
popular minister, Necker (Aug. 1788).
♦Necker recalled to office.♦
Necker’s return to office was greeted with a burst of applause from
one end of France to the other. His financial ability was relied on to
stave off bankruptcy, and it was known that he had always opposed the
court, and that he now desired the meeting of the States-General. But
his popularity was due to those causes alone; not to any proof that he
had given or could give of his fitness to direct the royal policy. As
he failed to comprehend the real causes of the impending revolution, he
would be unable to moderate its violence.
♦Pamphlets and cahiers.♦
The hopes and desires of every class found expression first in
pamphlets, and subsequently in the _cahiers_ or petitions of grievances
drawn up by electoral assemblies to be laid before the States. The
importance and necessity of reform was generally admitted, except
where special interests or class prejudices made men averse to change.
Thus nobles combated the conservative tendencies of ecclesiastics,
ecclesiastics the conservative tendencies of nobles. Induced by
pressure of public opinion the nobles mostly declared their willingness
to admit the principle of equality of taxation. But agreement went no
further. Between the two privileged orders and the body of the nation
a gulf was fixed, of bridging which no hope existed. That which the
nobles had in view by the meeting of the States was the establishment
of constitutional monarchy, based on aristocratical institutions
and insuring political and social predominance to their own order.
The aim of the middle and working classes was absolutely to destroy
every distinction which gave to nobles and ecclesiastics a position
apart in the State. The members of the upper orders were not only to
bear their fair share of taxation, but to submit to the same law,
and to stand in all respects on exactly the same level as the mass
of their fellow-citizens. A pamphlet written by the Abbé Siéyès,
which gave clear articulation to the thought in men’s minds, acquired
for its author European celebrity. What, he asked, is the Third
Estate?--Everything. What hitherto has it been in the State?--Nothing.
He then proceeded to argue that the Third Estate, in other words the
people of France with the exception of the nobles, formed a complete
nation by themselves; that by them all useful work was done; and that
the nobility was merely an excrescence, preventing the growth and
development of national life. The Third Estate is, he said, a nation
fettered and oppressed. What would it be without the nobility?--A free
and flourishing nation.
Siéyès’ nation was a nation of twenty-five millions. The first two
orders numbered together about 1,500,000 persons. That they were
a minority was in itself no ground for crushing them. Reason and
justice might as well lie on the side of the minority as on that of
the majority. But Siéyès’ arguments were in existing circumstances
perfectly sound and unanswerable. The nobles represented no national
interests, and had long ceased to be the organs through which the
nation expressed its wants. To the exercise of political powers they
had no claim whatever. Their privileges and prejudices had for years
stood in the way of the common good. They were without experience
in political life, and as a rule without experience even in matters
of government and administration. Their position amongst their
fellow-citizens was that of an isolated caste; in short, all the bonds
of connection were wanting which cause men to place reliance in others,
and to accept them as leaders.
The privileges of the clergy and their claims to exercise power as
a special order met with as little favour as those of the nobles.
Clergy and laity were to stand on exactly the same footing with regard
to civil and political rights. The combined influence of sceptical
and liberal ideas made men desire to withdraw from the Church all
coercive means of maintaining authority. The press was to be free,
worship was also to be free, and nonconformists were to enjoy full
civil and political rights. Equality was to prevail within the Church
as well as within the State. The government of the Church was to be
reorganised on a democratic basis, and the Pope’s authority, as head
of the Church, to be confined to matters purely spiritual. Although
the provincial nobles were jealous of the great lords, and desired to
deprive them of whatever advantages they possessed above themselves,
yet the nobility as a body still formed a caste, of which all members,
except a small minority, were united in asserting rights and claiming
privileges in opposition to the rest of the nation. The clergy, on the
contrary, though held together by common interests as ecclesiastics,
were torn asunder by the same class divisions that prevailed amongst
laymen. The upper clergy, who were all of noble birth, proposed to
maintain authority in their own hands and to effect ecclesiastical
reform from inside; while the curés, who came from the ranks of the
people, demanded State interference, as the only means of securing for
themselves a full representation in Church councils, and a just share
in the distribution of Church property.
♦Double representation of the Third Estate.♦
The question round which for the time discussion centred was the form
to be taken by the States-General, as its solution would decide whether
political supremacy should rest with the first two orders or with the
Third Estate. Nobles and clergy demanded, in the first place, that they
should each be represented by as many deputies as the Third Estate; in
the second, that the deputies of each order should sit by themselves
in a separate chamber, and that each chamber should vote apart. The
bourgeoisie, backed by the people, on their side denied the right of
the two first orders to a separate representation, and demanded that
in any case the deputies of the Third Estate should equal in number
the deputies of nobles and clergy combined, and that the three orders
should sit together, forming a single chamber. The dispute engendered
strong displays of party feeling, leading to riot and bloodshed. The
Parliaments, formerly popular for contesting the royal authority, were
now hooted and mobbed for supporting the demands of nobles and clergy.
If at the present juncture Louis had taken clearly and unreservedly the
side of the nation, it might have been possible for the crown to gain
immense popularity and influence. The bourgeoisie, however democratic
its theories of government, was warmly attached to the monarchy, and
thoroughly loyal to the person of the King. But Louis, who had rejected
Turgot, was again incapable of making himself the leader of the nation.
In summoning the States he had acted, not through policy, but under
stress of circumstances which he was unable to control. He expected the
deputies of the Third Estate to aid him in subjecting the nobles to
taxation, and in carrying out administrative reforms; but he could not
understand that they expected him to join with them in destroying every
vestige of the old feudal system, and in establishing a completely
democratic rule. In relation to the point immediately at issue, the
King went so far as it seemed to suit his own purpose, and no further.
Accepting Necker’s advice, he consented that the deputies of the Third
Estate should equal in number the deputies of both clergy and nobles.
Whether after meeting the deputies were to sit as three chambers or as
one was left undecided.